Rangers are to Druids what Paladins are to Clerics IMO. Why pick Paladin? Smite and some minor heals?
At the end of the day it's flavor. You may as well just have a Barbarian, Cleric, and Wizard. Cleric has spells for traps, wizard can have spells for unlocking and scouting, making Rogue useless. Cleric/Wizard can use spells for being a face, Barbarian can tank and deal stupid-amounts of damage by himself. etc etc. You get the point.
You forgot to add Master Summoner
You forgot to add Master SummonerRangers are to Druids what Paladins are to Clerics IMO. Why pick Paladin? Smite and some minor heals?
At the end of the day it's flavor. You may as well just have a Barbarian, Cleric, and Wizard. Cleric has spells for traps, wizard can have spells for unlocking and scouting, making Rogue useless. Cleric/Wizard can use spells for being a face, Barbarian can tank and deal stupid-amounts of damage by himself. etc etc. You get the point.
But... But... I would play a Paladin over a Cleric absolutely any day.
Unless I wanted to play a Cleric of an Evil deity.
On topic: I think Rangers are a powerful class...
Full BAB and 6+Int skills and d10 HD is amazing, feats that don't need prerequisites are fantastic and the Instant Enemy spell makes Favored Enemy incredible.... etc etc...
But I just don't like them.
I almost never find them as a class I want to play.
But that's me, to each their own.
But... But... I would play a Paladin over a Cleric absolutely any day.
Unless I wanted to play a Cleric of an Evil deity.
Then why not pick up an Anti-Paladin? ;P
Simply put, skills are awesome. Full BAB is awesome. The ranger gets both plus divine spells. Your post was a big deal to me because it shows the ranger is able to throw his weight around in combat scenarios, dungeoneering scenarios, wilderness scenarios, and even possibly have a skill point left over for social scenarios. Being able to participate in every single part of the game (without sacrificing efficiency in the part of the game in which you want to specialize) is something that should be noticed and shouted from rooftops.Rangers are full-BAB skillmonkeys that usually specialize in wilderness travel.This caught my eye. You guys, rangers are Full-BAB skill-monkeys. Omigod.
Seriously, you know how many skills the expert gets? Int + 6. Rangers are 'mazing.
I... don't get what the big deal is? That's just what I think rangers are. You're welcome to disagree, of course; maybe we use the term skillmonkey differently. But I don't really understand your tone here at all, or why it was necessary to pull that out of context.
Anyway, all I wanted to say to the OP was build your concept, but don't try to shoehorn a class into it that might not be the best fit.
Okay! Your first post was very hard to read in tone--I couldn't tell if you were being sarcastic with the "omigod". Sorry.
Yes, if you always want to have something to do in the party, no matter what's happening, ranger is an excellent class choice.
What's a Ranger do?
The Ranger is a Replacement for the rogue class. I'm not saying you should always go ranger over rogue here just that you can effectively replace the rogue with a ranger. The Ranger can be your primary melee but rangers don't tank well. They can sure dish out the DRP with Favored Enemy and when they get 3rd level spells everyone is their primary favored enemy with the spell instant enemy.
Removed a post. Calling people trolls is generally frowned upon in polite company.
|
Don't forget the divine spells and the animal companion. And a ranger can tank fine if you build him right. Medium armour, a healthy dexterity (healthy meaning 14-16), and a big shield. Weapon and shield combat style will give him some controlling power in the form of Shield Slam, while, the Two-Weapon-Fighting style means he's still a damage machine, especially when fighting his favoured enemies. Heavy shield and kukri for some very effective full attacking.
Then why not pick up an Anti-Paladin? ;PBut... But... I would play a Paladin over a Cleric absolutely any day.
Unless I wanted to play a Cleric of an Evil deity.
Anti Paladin's are pretty ridiculous. What that shop keeper just gave that orphan a free apple!? NOT ON MY WATCH BYAAAAGFGGHAHGAGHAHG!!! Stab
Combat effective SkillMonkeys....what more can you want?
Summon Nature's Ally is also pretty nice to replicate the Druid's abilities.
I had a ranger back in 2e that was an excellent tank. I've never played a tank ranger in 3.5 or PF. Just a ranged ranger...
I think I could make a viable tank ranger though. All those melee feats... sure, I could do it.
Yeah I have a current one that uses a 2 hander and bow, insane amounts of skills, a wolf that knocks everyone down (thank you boon companion) and thats WITH foolishly taking trapper (lvl 8 and no traps to be found anywhere!!)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've always seen the ranger as the switch-hitter. Not as powerful as the party fighter in that specific role, but in an area where the fighter falls short (ranged or melee, depending), the the ranger can flip over and do the other thing, all the better if it's against his favored enemy.
If you need a spot of healing, the ranger can provide, in a pinch, like if your cleric is unconscious or MIA. He can make the occasional skill check for whatever purpose, as has been discussed, if your rogue is down or MIA.
And the animal companion can be made equivalent to the druid for a single feat. Sometimes that alone can be worth more than its cost, depending on your build.
Someone already said it, but it bears repeating: you get out what you put it. Build your character to perform and it will do so. If you gauge a ranger on how it functions next to any other class, you are doing it wrong - they're apples and oranges. The ranger must be viewed as a whole, not in aspects.
|
I think it is funny that I am playing in a newbie campaign right now [thank the gods I am not running it, just there to keep everyone on track] and we have not one....not two....but three freaking rangers. One ranged, one TWF, and one Sword & Board.
New players tend to gravitate towards classes like the ranger. They can relate to them because they are well represented in fantasy fiction.
Us jaded minmax players tend to think more of the numbers and potential instead of what the character really is.
Ranger makes a great 5th party member, but then they also do well in their primary roles if that's all you have. IMO I think the ranger and the paladin are two of the best designed classes Paizo has put out.
|
|
I had a ranger back in 2e that was an excellent tank. I've never played a tank ranger in 3.5 or PF. Just a ranged ranger...
I think I could make a viable tank ranger though. All those melee feats... sure, I could do it.
Using the elite array (15-point buy):
Human Ranger (Combat Style: Two-Weapon Fighting)
Str 16, Dex 15, Con 13, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 8
1 Improved Shield Bash, Two-Weapon Fighting
2 Double Slice
3 Power Attack
4
5 Boon Companion
6 Improved Two-Weapon Fighting
7 Shield Slam
8
9 Vital Strike
10 Two-Weapon Rend
11 Shield Master
etc.
A tank and a damage machine made with I believe all core. 7 skill points/level and a sick full attack; if limited to one attack it's a vital strike with his bashing shield. I believe that stacks with lead blades as well. As for AC, at level 1 with a heavy shield and a breastplate he pulls off a sweet 20, and it's only 2000gp to get him up to 22. That's not to mention the full hit die animal companion he gets to help him flank, or if he goes wolf, trips for him.
|
|
No the rangers are actually doing pretty well. The Sword and Board has become the group tank. The THF the melee damage machine. The archer is really good at over watch. She tends to sit back with me [evocation wizard] and just pick off stragglers. We have a bard and a cleric to round out the support of those three.
We kinda built the group around them so it works out well.
I love rangers because they can take care of themselves - and the party with wands/scrolls if there aren't any of the typical healers. Taking care of themselves = survivability in my books. Although that could just be really important with those I play with only, death is always at our heels.
Mostly it's like others said, look at the class as a whole, not it's parts. And just go with what works for you.
:)
I think it is funny that I am playing in a newbie campaign right now [thank the gods I am not running it, just there to keep everyone on track] and we have not one....not two....but three freaking rangers. One ranged, one TWF, and one Sword & Board.Do those 3 ranger cause problems? More or less than similar 3 fighters would be?
This may very well be a nice illustration of the what a ranger can be (provided they didn't mess up their builds). The 3 ranger can probably have enough combat support to make a fighter/barbarian obsolete, have enough skills to make a rogue/bard obsolete and provided they have enough wands, they can make a cleric/witch obsolete.
Don't think many other classes can say that.
druid... what they lack in skills, they make up in wildshaping...
Not to burst your bubble, but all archery builds do that.
Well, all FULL BAB archery builds anyway.
The 3/4 BAB archer has to try a little harder...
At the end of the day it's flavor. You may as well just have a Barbarian, Cleric, and Wizard. Cleric has spells for traps, wizard can have spells for unlocking and scouting, making Rogue useless. Cleric/Wizard can use spells for being a face, Barbarian can tank and deal stupid-amounts of damage by himself. etc etc. You get the point.So you want to spend precious resources on something a rogues/bard does for free?
Think of what you could have casted when you don't need to waste spells to find traps, remove traps, find hidden door, be the face...
Or what you could have casted when you prepared the spells but ended up not needing them that day?Spells cannot replace skills. They can be a useful addition though are resource driven, something skills are not.
Doesn't really matter because the caster spending those resource has replaced the rogue. If you go with rogue you lose casting all together. So 6 one half dozen the other.
Any comments on the draft of a ranger tank I posted? I think he would get the job done quite well personally.
I agree. A solid tank indeed. I'd play him. Or her. More or less what I had in mind, but you took the effort to put it on paper. :)
|
|
Doesn't really matter because the caster spending those resource has replaced the rogue. If you go with rogue you lose casting all together. So 6 one half dozen the other.If you let a caster take the place of a rogue, you end up with a caster*X where X is smaller than 1. The caster is only partially as strong as caster who does not have to focus on skills aspects.
Depending on the campaign, your X can be so small you end up with a character that only takes the skills part of the rogue when it has spells left and can not contribute to combat effectively (as all spells are reserved to mimic skills).
Compared to a rogue when can continue all day long (on atleast 8 different skills) and still bring decent damage to party, again all day long.
The can very well be favoured.
Define 'decent'.
|
|
Any comments on the draft of a ranger tank I posted? I think he would get the job done quite well personally.I dig it. Looks like it would be quite effective.
Heres a question though. Which is the more effective fighting style for this type of Ranger, TWF, or Weapon and Shield? TWF gives you access to the TWF line for free as well as Double Slice for full damage on your off-hand and Two Weapon Rend. Weapon and Shield gives you Shield Slam, Shield Master to eliminate the penalties when attacking with your shield and Bashing Finish.
My answer depends on how long your campaign is running. The Two-Weapon Fighting chain is eventually superior in damage, and similar in utility, because any character with the prerequisites can grab Shield Slam at BAB +6 and Shield Master at BAB +11, while only the Two-Weapon style ranger can grab Two-Weapon Rend without needing a 17 dexterity (and I wouldn't want to put it higher than 15; I would emphasize both strength and constitution before that). If you're playing PFS it's a toss-up; do you want more damage eventually, so TWF, or do you want Shield Master much sooner, so Weapon and Shield?
My final vote is the TWF style, but I would say it's relatively even; one TWF for more damage, Weapon and Shield for more bull rushing.
Define 'decent'.Doesn't really matter because the caster spending those resource has replaced the rogue. If you go with rogue you lose casting all together. So 6 one half dozen the other.If you let a caster take the place of a rogue, you end up with a caster*X where X is smaller than 1. The caster is only partially as strong as caster who does not have to focus on skills aspects.
Depending on the campaign, your X can be so small you end up with a character that only takes the skills part of the rogue when it has spells left and can not contribute to combat effectively (as all spells are reserved to mimic skills).
Compared to a rogue when can continue all day long (on atleast 8 different skills) and still bring decent damage to party, again all day long.
The can very well be favoured.
de·cent/ˈdēsənt/
Adjective:Conforming with generally accepted standards of respectable or moral behavior.
Appropriate; fitting: "they would meet again after a decent interval".
|
|
Define 'decent'.Doesn't really matter because the caster spending those resource has replaced the rogue. If you go with rogue you lose casting all together. So 6 one half dozen the other.If you let a caster take the place of a rogue, you end up with a caster*X where X is smaller than 1. The caster is only partially as strong as caster who does not have to focus on skills aspects.
Depending on the campaign, your X can be so small you end up with a character that only takes the skills part of the rogue when it has spells left and can not contribute to combat effectively (as all spells are reserved to mimic skills).
Compared to a rogue when can continue all day long (on atleast 8 different skills) and still bring decent damage to party, again all day long.
The can very well be favoured.de·cent/ˈdēsənt/
Adjective:Conforming with generally accepted standards of respectable or moral behavior.
Appropriate; fitting: "they would meet again after a decent interval".
Touché.
Ok first of all the ranger is way superior archer than any 3/4 BAB archer (except zen archer which i think equals a ranger archer) IF your DM knows and uses the cover rules, if he doesn't then the 3/4 BAB archers gain a lot of ground.
Rangers make the best switch hitters.
Rangers are awesome (though not the best) sword and board users. (be sure to check the errata on that)
Rangers are happy sticks users.
The favoured enemy is a very good ability assuming your DM doesn't work against you (i am not saying leave you in blind, then you can do something, i am saying working against favored enemy), if your DM does work against you then settle for the less powerful guide archetype.
They have skills.
True they don't make that good two handers as other classes.
They make good two weapon users but you have to build them correctly, and one of the more important things to do is to NOT play them with two weapons, give them a double weapon instead.
They have quite a few good and handy spells.
To what errata do you refer?
Sword and shield style allows you to pick the (wonderful) shield master feat at 6th+ level bonus feat, in the first printing this feat wasn't in the list.
I've mentioned it on the boards before, but I'm playing an Archer Ranger in a campaign perfectly suited to it.
1. We are playing the old Against the Giants modules, so about 70% of what we encounter are giants. There's quite a number of Drow thrown in, and they are usually the bosses, so I've dropped everything into FE drow, and have a +2 vs giants. Anything else I instant enemy.
2. Because we're always fighting giants and drow, we're always underground, which means I can put all my points into one Favoured Terrain, and consistently get to use it (+14 Initiative with no feat/traits to support it? Thankyou!).
3. Because We're up against giants, the environments are suitable for large creatures, which means I can ride my wolf around and turn into a turret of doom. As a bonus, Boon Companion and a bit of cash spent on the wolf gives it one of the best ACs in the party, so he is a very useful tank if I end up a little too close and get charged. With Greater Magic Fang he also has decent attack/damage for when it comes up.
4. Skills. I have a well-rounded set of skills, and great perception/stealth/survival in particular (especially since I'm always in a +6 favoured terrain). With camouflage (One level away from HiPS) I'm also the only member of the party who can scout without relying on invisibility, and we're at a level where enemies consistently have see invisibility or trueseeing up, so this is invaluable.
I'm aware that my experience in this is not typical of most campaigns, but in the right campaign where you're consistently fighting similar enemies in similar settings, they can be extremely powerful.
My 14th level ranger is a conversion from 2e through 3.5 and has only been played in one single session PF adventure, so I'm sure he's not "legit" according to strict RAW.
His companion is a hippogriff. He is an archer specialist whose main favored enemy is dragon. He's got the most important archer feats and a couple of riding feats thrown in for good measure.
He simply rains doom from the sky. But he's just as dangerous on the ground. From maximum range he can do enough damage to make most level-appropriate dragons decide that running away is their best strategy. If they get the chance to.
He's a lot of fun to play. I wish I got more chance to do so. There may be more effective archer builds out there, but if so, I'm not sure I want to know about them. He's pretty near game-breaking already.
Sometimes I just prefer themes over utility, but still rangers do some things nicely. if you want to do those things, then there ya go
Rangers are the Hufflepuffs of the DnD world. They're excellent finders.