TheWarden89's page

Sounds like you've got an excellent character figured out. I might personally worry about the 10 con for a character that wants to spend a lot of its time in melee and won't have the feats to spare to get tougness, but you can probably make do. You could also consider getting it to 12 or 13 by lowering your wis to 13 or 12. If you ever make it to level 10/13 to get your third/fourth level spells I'm sure you can spare 4k for a +2 headband by then.

As a true ranger type with stealthing ability (because of my high dex and light armor, non of this heavier BS), I'll be able to see what's coming and then it's all about that Bear's Endurance baby. If I have a 14 Wis, does that mean I can cast said spell at 7th level? Rangers get "0" (as opposed to just "-") 2nd level spells at level 7.

In the end, the big question is simply: what kind of character do you really want to play?

* Optimized or not (how optimized are the others going to be?)
* Do you want to be the main melee guy or are you backup?
* Primarily ranged, melee, or both?
* Do you want to be good at other rangery stuff like perception, survival and spellcasting?
* And at what level do you want to hit your stride?
* How dependent do you want to be on magic items? (And how much control do you have over the items you're going to get?)

Str 14 is of course perfectly playable, but you're not going to be the primary damage dealer.
If everybody is unoptimized and the campaign takes that into account, Str 14 is great. But the extra damage from Str 18 is going to be very noticeable, and if someone else has a high Str 2H fighter, he's going to steal the show damage-wise.

Also, with Str 14, the 2H weapon only gets you an extra +1 damage, while it gets you +2 at Str 18. So you could also with sword and shield, or even just keep using that bow. And hey, now you're not a switch-hitter anymore. Also, a shield is no good for a switch-hitter because when you drop that bow, you now need to draw two items instead of only one, and that takes time. So while Str 14 is definitely possible, it does draw you away from the typical switch-hitter strengths, and makes you more an archer who happens to also have a sword.

Any build with the Point Blank Shot feat is assuming that you'll be using your bow in melee. The real switch-hitter doesn't shoot point-blank, he hits people with his sword point-blank.

The Str 18, Dex 18 switch-hitter with Rapid Shot, Many Shot, Deadly Aim and Power Attack does terrifying amounts of damage at range and in melee. And the advantage of being a Ranger is that you get to skip feats like Point Blank Shot, which a switch-hitter isn't going to need.

If you drop your Str, you will do significantly less damage in melee. Also at range (once you've got that composite bow), but that difference isn't quite a big.

The...

Excellent post. My goal is to be as optimized as possible while still avoiding 1) dump stats (ie. taking any 7s), which I can't stand and 2) a silly low Dex, because it goes against every fiber of my ranger-since-I-played-Baldur's-Gate-as-a-kid being.

That said, I think you give good advice on the magic item. For one, a 16 STR ranger will be fine for archery at a low level, and much-better-than-a-bard for melee. But you point out how I can get a Strength boosting item relatively easily, not long after I'd get 18 strength with added points... I don't see how getting a belt at level 5 is drastically worse from getting to 18 at level 4 or even starting at 18, and the difference is, I'm not a slow, hulking moron that is totally against the ranger archetype I so highly value. So starting with a 16 STR and aiming for items will be relatively close to what master_marshmallow suggested.

Here, I think, is my plan. After racial bonuses/penalties:

STR 16
DEX 17
CON 10
INT 10
WIS 14
CHA 8

Sure I could get a higher CON or STR by dumping stats, but as I've pointed out, I ain't doing that. This guy needs to be a good all-arounder! Going for Strength bonuses in items when I can and upgrading DEX at each level, I figure I'll be doing mucho damage from afar, and decent damage in melee while being pretty hard to hit without paying too much for armor that would only make me less stealthy anyway.

@calagnar
There is a chance I pick up a few Rogue levels for the Baldur's Gate Stalker nostalgia and I think your point buy would work quite well for that. In that scenario I switch my combat style/normal feat options, taking TWF as my style as a finesse fighter with sneak attack in melee, and picking up archery feats for pre-close-quarters destruction.

I find it strange that everyone in this thread is advising you to forget about your idea of having dex as a main stat and not dumping your other stats too much, but play a high strength build anyway. Unless you play with a bunch of rabid optimizers, you can make a perfectly good character who switches from archery to finessing an elven curve blade. Yes, you wont be as good in melee as an 18 str character. So if your group consists of the kind of people who feel that a frontliner with less than 18 str to start off is impossible and a waste of their time maybe don't do it. But otherwise, 14 strength and power attack while wielding a curve blade gives you perfectly good damage (early on it's better than most of the dervish dance builds people seem to love so much, for one thing, and later on you can get an agile weapon). At the same time, you can be great at the rangery things you love and enjoy playing the concept you envisioned, rather than the cookie cutter optimization guide build.

edit: I realize I may sound a bit rude to the other posters. But all I want to say is: if your question is whether an elf switch hitter ranger with dex as his main stat can be a viable character, the answer is definitely yes. Finesse + 14 str puts you 3 damage per hit and one feat behind an optimized build. That's not very far to be behind at all, especially considering that a switch hitter ranger is quite a powerful concept to begin with. And assuming the same equipment, you won't fall any further behind so that 3 damage will become an ever lower percentage. Also, your archery is probably better (maybe not at low levels, but definitely at higher levels) because you hit more often.

Generally speaking, this seems to happen a lot. Threads like "help me optimize my classic human sword and board fighter" become "you should take the dervish class and dual-wield khopeshes."

Still, while I don't intend to go for a 20 STR, master_marshmallow has been pretty helpful with numbers and advice. But I think what you said about it being dependent on party needs rings true. Still trying to figure out if I'm feeling the curve blade. And if I have a STR of 16 or higher, there really isn't a need for finesse and it gets to 18 pretty easily with a STR item.

TheWarden89 wrote:

master_marshmallow wrote:

Rylar wrote:

Every 4 points of str is 3 points melee damage and 2 points range. Average bow shot is 4.5 damage. 14 str means 6.5 damage per hit, 18 = 8.5. That's 30% more damage

This % gets lower later in the game but it's always going to be there.

Now let's look at a melee weapon. 1 does 2d8 damage. This is 5 ave. 14 str = 8, 18 str = 11 or 37.5% more damage. Not to mention either better chance to hit or saving a feat.

so in other words, yes, a 14-15 STR will not do

if you want a high DEX i would want 17's in both STR and DEX, less you get a 25 point buy

Thanks for the number crunch Rylar. What about Strength boosting items from a STR of 15-16? I'm thinking my spellcasting will basically be out the window if I raise STR too high?

core rangers dont get any STR boosting spells, you dont even get bull's strength

planning a character getting a belt of +x STR just to function is kinda meh

im trying to find a way to satisfy your desire to NOT dump CHA and INT but i always end up dumping one of them, that one being CHA
best stat array i can come up with for you:

STR 17
DEX 15 +2
CON 13 -2
INT 8 +2
WIS 13
CHA 7

you still dump that CHA, but you retain the 17's for STR and DEX so you can get them both to 18 by level 8

magic items on top of that are candy, but dont count on candy for sustenance

The Pathfinder Point Buy system seems very balanced, but sometimes it is so in a sick, maddening way. Anyway, the whole concept of "dump stats" goes against my roots.

How about
STR 16
DEX 15 (+2)
CON 12 (-2)
INT 8 (+2)
WIS 14
CHA 8

Using one of the similar feat trees you or Damocles Guile posted.

Is 16 STR too low to swing the sword? I don't think I'm "relying on a belt to function" unless you really think 16 STR is too low; at the same time, if I do get any STR items, which doesn't seem like it's much of a stretch, they mean more to me at 16 STR than they do to someone at 18.

PS. Everyone here seems to think that sword and board is a horrible strategy compared to anything two-handed. Is this the opinion of the commenters in this thread as well?

Rylar wrote:

Every 4 points of str is 3 points melee damage and 2 points range. Average bow shot is 4.5 damage. 14 str means 6.5 damage per hit, 18 = 8.5. That's 30% more damage

This % gets lower later in the game but it's always going to be there.

Now let's look at a melee weapon. 1 does 2d8 damage. This is 5 ave. 14 str = 8, 18 str = 11 or 37.5% more damage. Not to mention either better chance to hit or saving a feat.

so in other words, yes, a 14-15 STR will not do

if you want a high DEX i would want 17's in both STR and DEX, less you get a 25 point buy

Thanks for the number crunch Rylar. What about Strength boosting items from a STR of 15-16? I'm thinking my spellcasting will basically be out the window if I raise STR too high?

Would a 14-15 strength just suck? I understand that the difference between 16 and 18 is greater than the difference between 14 and 16. Is it worth it to go for 16 STR? Strength enhancements taking me to 18? What about a 10 con? Not talking about ideal situations, I'm just talking is a kobold going to kill me on the first quest. To be honest, I'm not dropping the INT below 10 (after bonus) or the CHA below 8. I can only be so dumb and ugly for the sake of optimization.

(After elf bonuses/penalties):

STR 15
DEX 17
CON 12
INT 10
WIS 14
CHA 8

TheWarden89 wrote:

The intent is switch-hitting though--the only difference from Treantmonk's guide is that I'm going to up my dex as well as my strength, because I'm not just taking ranger for the free combat feats... I actually like to flavor of the class and it's other abilities too (I may sound like an OG for enjoying RP elements over powergaming but w/e). But full ranged attacks (after stealthily gathering info about the enemy) and then fighting in melee, rather than wussing out/using a bow in close quarters which I find ridiculous and cheap, is what I'm going for.

@Damocles Guile
Would TWF + Finesse be better than a single weapon or no? Yo mention it at the end of the post, but that build you provided to start with looks great to me.

@master_marshmallow
To the above poster on race, elf is the choice. Think Elladan and Elrohir (or an elven version of the Rangers of the North/South) if you're a LOTR fan.
Quickdraw seems good for sure.

Role Playing(TM) and Optimization aren't mutually exclusive concepts. A high Strength ranger with the archery feat chain can totally exist as a "ranger" and not just a "Guy With A Greatsword And Bow With Extra Skills And Scary Animal" DPR machine.

You're right for sure--I have just seen too many ranger builds with terrible Dex which is just antithetical to my Dex-Prerequisited AD&D ranger roots, which rely on agility to boost stealth etc.

I also plan to have high STR; I just think BOTH should be high. The point buy Damocles Guile posted looks pretty solid.

I think the OP's intent wasn't to be a 'switch-hitter' per se, but rather an archer who would still be competent in melee.

Honestly, I rather like the idea of someone who can make full attacks at range, get off some AoO shots as the enemy closes and then use Quickdraw to whip out his high-crit two-handed blade and slice them to ribbons.

The intent is switch-hitting though--the only difference from Treantmonk's guide is that I'm going to up my dex as well as my strength, because I'm not just taking ranger for the free combat feats... I actually like to flavor of the class and it's other abilities too (I may sound like an OG for enjoying RP elements over powergaming but w/e). But full ranged attacks (after stealthily gathering info about the enemy) and then fighting in melee, rather than wussing out/using a bow in close quarters which I find ridiculous and cheap, is what I'm going for.

@Damocles Guile
Would TWF + Finesse be better than a single weapon or no? Yo mention it at the end of the post, but that build you provided to start with looks great to me.

@master_marshmallow
To the above poster on race, elf is the choice. Think Elladan and Elrohir (or an elven version of the Rangers of the North/South) if you're a LOTR fan.
Quickdraw seems good for sure.

Hi all. I posted a while back trying to build a switch hitter that incorporated TWF and archery for a Core-rules PF game. Had to step away for a while, but further discussion and introspection made me realize that my priorities were a little different than I initially envisioned them to be.

I now realize I don't care how many weapons my ranger is wielding in melee, as long as he's decent at it when the going gets tough and he needs to put the bow away. What I do care about is this: I want to build an elf ranger with high Dex who is good at stealth and gets the AC boost to offset his not-great armor. A low Dex ranger (which is suggested around here sometimes) seems like blasphemy to me, but so does some wuss archery specialist who can't swing a sword. I'd like to be okay in melee if necessary, rather than solely being a Legolas type. I don't need to be tank-material, but I want to be better than a bard at killing from up close.

Can I be at least decent at both archery and melee using core rules? If so, how?

Apologies for the necro-post but I had to abandon my plans for rather a while and am only now returning to the possibility.

Going back through what's been said, I realize I should have been more clear about what I am looking to do. The title makes it seem like TWF is non-negotiable, but responses have made me realize that the only non negotiable parts are as follows, if anyone is still reading, here's the starting point:

I want to be an elf ranger who is at least good (doesn't need to be great) at archery and has a high Dex for AC/stealth/etc. This seems pretty standard. However, I'd also like to be good in melee if necessary, rather than solely being a Legolas type. I don't need to be tank-material, but I want to be better than a bard at killing from up close.

That said, with core rules, will I achieve my goal of balance with both forms of combat by:

Taking the Archery combat style for those free feats, and take my normal (3rd level, 6th level, 9th level, etc.) feats to improve melee combat NOT as a TWFer

OR

Taking the TWF combat style and complementing it with archery feats from my normal feat progression?

In either case, since I plan on having a high Dex, should I look for finesse weapons? Or should I only do that if I'm TWFing?

TL;DR: I want to be a high dex elf ranger. Can I be at least decent at both archery and melee using core rules? If so, how? Is the classic "switch-hitter" style doable as a high-dex elf?

I would suggest using a composite longbow for range and two kukris for your melee weapons. Utilize your normal feats to support twf and your combat style feats to support your archery. If allowed I also suggest the Agile weapon property (from Pathfinder Society Field Guide) and 12-13 STR with max DEX. If Agile is not allowed then I would suggest a balanced approach to DEX and STR with at least positive modifiers in CON and WIS.

The balanced approach will do more dmg with your bow, but the max dex approach gets higher AC, Reflex saves, melee dmg, and doesn't need to worry about whether to get a belt of STR/DEX, just DEX, or just STR.

.
Elf(Fleet-Footed if allowed)
Ranger
** spoiler omitted **** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **

This build will do more damage with melee weapons until later levels, but will have good to hit bonuses with your bow. I would suggest packing a variety of arrow types to bypass various DRs. This build also never picks up Point Blank Shot and therefore can not get the vast majority of the archery feats except through combat feats.

At later levels, I would suggest picking up Improved Critical/Improved Initiative/Weapon Focus with your standard feats and Clustered Shots(for DR/- and DR/alignment) with your combat style feat.

PS - I intended to stop the build at 13 where...

I can dig this too. First thing though is that I'll be doing Core only so no Agile weapons and therefore, a balanced build. That said, I'm going short swords if anything. Or axes. Kukris... not really my style. Would short swords cut it if I feat up on them instead? Could those crits overcome DR at high levels enough to make me a viable option as the number one warrior in the group?

What's the downside of switching combat styles to TWF, and picking up the archery feats as my regular feats instead?

I've gotten a lot of good info outta this thread. Thanks for all the help everyone. Some of the numbers crunching (martryn), etc. has gone above and beyond what I'd hoped for!

Quote:

There was one in the Complete Adventure which allows to strike with both weapons as a standard action. Downside: you will get -2 on this rolls and have to roll both attacks and take the lower roll for both attacks.

The Two-Weapon Warrior Archtype permits this as a class feature. At 9th Level they get Doublestrike(Ex) and each attack is calculated separately. The upside also being that Improved Balance and Perfect Balance can offset the penalty entirely.

With GMs permission this ability can easily be translated into a Feat.

Maybe I'm not following--what's the relevance to Stealthy fighting here?

If you have a wolf animal companion to flank with, then you really shouldn't have any trouble getting your sneak attacks. Very few enemies will choose to attack the wolf instead of the PCs, and your wolf can trip enemies as well-- that'll be a major help.

Stealth will be helpful for getting in the first attack and making it a good one, but you typically only get one shot in the surprise round, so it wont be "whirling dervish of blades" so much as "one shot out of nowhere and he's down".

Once the enemies see you, you can't use stealth to make them lose track of you-- you can only make a Stealth check when you're unobserved and have either cover or concealment (usually-- your GM should help you get a feel for any exceptions).

Re-stealthing once combat has started isn't impossible. If you've got your bow out, you can "snipe"-- make one shot and immediately duck back down into hiding-- but you're at a -20 penalty for your new Stealth check. In melee, you can make a Bluff check, and if successful, you can move and make a new Stealth check. This still requires you to have something to hide behind, though. For the most part, once the enemy knows you're there, the jig is up.

On the other hand, if your party-mates are all spellcasters, then you should be able to convince them to cast Grease, Invisibility, or some other spell that could help you catch opponents flat-footed. Talk to your party memebers and GM and they might have some other ideas for you.

Right--though as I said, I'm not trying to re-stealth or anything, I was just trying to gauge the possibility of getting a [surprise round + winning initiative and therefore 1 round of normal combat] in on melee attacks.

My advice is to let go of the class name: Ranger.

The way I would build the character you propose is Fighter 10/Rogue 10. Concentrate on Dex with weapons in every way possible. I would go either shortsword/shortsword, kukri/kukri (fluff the kukri as "longknives" a la Legolas), or rapier/kukri (fluffing the rapier as an "Elven lightblade"). You will also want to pursue ranged sneak attack enhancements. Mostly staying hidden.

Now this build gives up rangery things like favored enemy (your best attacks work vs. nearly everything), track (easily made up with skill focus, mastery, and skill points), animal companion (more trouble than they are worth), spells (not much to miss), and of course, wild empathy (when was the last time you saw a ranger use this?). If you can do that, I think you can kick some butt with a well RP'd "Elven Ranger" whose.....not a ranger.

A pity it's core only, as there are many tools to build this character more effectively in After Core.

-Cheers

Probably also good advice, although I'm getting the sense that sneak attack is really not as useful as it was when it was "Click Hide in Shadows for invisibility" + backstab. Having perused a number of other threads it seems like questions about how Stealth actually works are quite popular because... it's not clear. All that said, I'm not sure I need to go Rogueish really, and I think I'll be happy to take some of the less rogue-oriented paths that people have suggested here. The whole dual kukris thing isn't really what I was going for--somebody pretty succinctly said two short swords just kinda sucks, and that's about as far as I was willing to go away from my original goal of 2 weapons as 2e suggested (only a dagger in the offhand, regular one-hander in the main hand).

Hartbaine, glad you feel my pain. It's rough. I really wish Wiz. made the 3rd edition Ranger based on the Stalker kit from Baldur's Gate II, as it would give him a viable role as scout/infiltrating-warrior instead of some three-class in-betweener who isn't even as good at his "combat styles" as other classes are.

Rory, this makes a lot of sense. Well put. And even if I don't go rogue I'll still be able bring enemies to me, flank when they attack my bros, and then get some bonuses there to attack, which is always good coupled with 2 weapons, or with a single weapon and Vital Strike, which is flavorful enough for me.

Keep in mind that all the information about stealth, except the addition of sneak attack dice, apply to Rangers, too. Stealth is a class skill for Rangers . . ..

Right, I get that--I'm trying to conceive a Ranger/Rogue that has success with stealth-based sneak attacks for when I'm not using my bow. This is hard for me, though, because I simply don't understand how stealth works... the rules aren't really clear. It's probably a question for a new thread, but I was wondering if it were possible for me to use Stealth in a standard, daylight, open area to do anything other than scout from afar.

Yes. It's not too hard to stealth to get in the first shot. You'll need to get within 30 feet (only) to be able to sneak attack with your bow. Not every encounter will allow it (e.g. you are the one surprised), but if the party let's you scout (= high Stealth + Perception) you can pull it off fairly often. Having a high initiative score (high Dex and possibly the Improved Initiative feat) will give you more chances to sneak attack against foes before they first move in combat as well.

If you won't have any flanking buddies (besides your wolf), then I'd recommend not going sneak attack at all. In fact, as you might be the only one in melee combat...? Ow... I'd recommend wielding a heavy shield, and dropping it only when you can safely do so. Alternatively, go human over elf and pick Shield Bash as your human feat. Attack with your heavy shield as your main weapon and a hand axe in the off hand.

Rory, sorry I wasn't clear, that was dumb of me--I'm talking melee sneak attacks, not ranged.

I understand that if the opponent is unaware of my existence, he is flat-footed until he gets to act, theoretically, as late as his first turn in regular combat, and possibly after I've taken a surprise round and a first regular round worth of combat to swing my ranger blades at him. The question is--is it likely that he is unaware of my existence at the beginning of combat given PF rules? I can't just "ask the GM" because... we are all pretty new and I'm as versed in the rules as everyone else.

Scenario:
I'm X, bad guy is Y. Lots of ...... is distance. Not in a dark dungeon or anything.

If I'm stealthed from the moment I scout my enemy's position and he's still unaware of me at the moment, can I go from here:

X........................Y

to here:

X.Y

while unnoticed thanks to high rolls in stealth, thereby initiating combat while the opponent is unaware of me? Or do I basically need to have a whole lot of trees, corners, darkness, etc. to make that happen?

TheWarden89 wrote:

Like I said, in the games of my youth, "Hide in Shadows" was basically an invisibility button--you enter stealth mode when out of sight, and as long as you pass your rolls, you can then walk right up and pwn. If this were the case, a Ranger with your suggested build and a few levels of Rogue might be awesome, but it doesn't seem like this is the case in PF.

It's not that like that in PF, no.

Stealth can apply, often, but it is not invisibility. You have to apply it somewhat logically (using cover, etc.) and not walk straight up to the victim. Using stealth twice in combat is really hard. It takes fairly extraordinary circumstances. There are means to make this happen more easily, but that is a topic for a different conversation.

That's where flanking comes in. In times you can't stealth, and there will be those times, you manuever to get a flank attack on the victim. You will want to master this with your group even if you have no sneak attack damage. The +2 to hit from flanking is fabulous!

You've got 6ish levels of ranger to play thru to get a feel for how your GM handles stealth. If at level 7ish, you feel you wanted extra damage, you could then pick barbarian if stealth has not been working out for you.

One last question about Stealth and then I guess I'm quite satisfied with the wealth of advice/info here. Ok so, can't walk straight up to a victim... Is it conceivable that one could consistently have the first rounds of combat be sneak attacking via stealthing into any sort of open environment (woods)? I'm concerned about my ability to flank when my group will be largely (this is the way my friends are) sorcerers/etc., hanging back, so stealth may be my only option.

I'm not even trying to get stealth twice in combat... is it feasible for a high dex ranger to expect to get sneak attacks in even once in broad daylight, in outdoor environments under the PF stealth system? I recognize that this may be a question for a whole new thread but since you seem to know what you're talking about, if I see a far-off campfire in the woods during the daytime, am I going to be able to stealth my way in and sneak attack most of the time (barring low rolled Stealth checks) or is that just not going happen? Your barbarian idea sounds like an excellent alternative, but I guess so does the standard THF switch-hitter if stealth won't serve my character all that well unless it's the dead of night in thick cover.

TheWarden89 wrote:

Would sneak attacks only be viable in PF if I'm flanking with my wolf? Do the mechanics of the surprise round mean that I'm basically only going to get one attack even if I do sneak up on someone, thereby nerfing the a-bunch-of-whirling-sneak-attack-blades-out-of-nowhere that I may have initially conceived?

Sneak Attack damage is applied whenever you are flanking or whenever the opponent is denied its DEX mod.

Flanking with your animal companion is one way to get sneak attacks. However, a ranger's animal companion is squishy. Counting on it for flanking is difficult due to its low survivability. You also can flank with your fellow party members, which hopefully not all of them will be squishy. This will typically be a better way to seek a flanking opportunities. It does require a bit of coordination by the group.

Beating someone on initiative, or catching them in a surprise round, means they are flat footed (in which case they do not get their DEX mod). Surprise rounds are only a standard action = 1 attack, yes. Winning initiative and attacking them before they act in combat can lead to a full round attack with them losing their DEX mod to AC.

You can in theory attack them 1 time (1 attack) in the surprise round, and then attack them again (with all of your attacks) in the next round before they go. This is "a-bunch-of-whirling-sneak-attack-blades-out-of-nowhere". Sneak attacks ahoy!

As for stashing the idea until future books are allowed... everyone is limited to varying degrees by going core only. I'm not so certain your theme will benefit relatively by waiting.

Thanks for the explanation. Helps a lot. As far as stealth goes, the rules I'm reading seem a little difficult to decipher. Help? If I grab a few levels of rogue for sneak attack, will I be able to stealthily sneak up on most of my enemies now that: 1. "If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth. Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth," and 2. it seems to me that there is no such thing as a character "facing the other direction" for combat purposes? Like I said, in the games of my youth, "Hide in Shadows" was basically an invisibility button--you enter stealth mode when out of sight, and as long as you pass your rolls, you can then walk right up and pwn. If this were the case, a Ranger with your suggested build and a few levels of Rogue might be awesome, but it doesn't seem like this is the case in PF.

For perspective on the "feat tax" involved in a solid TWF build . . ..

I've got a human Two-Weapon Warrior Archetype Fighter I'm playing who is dual-wielding wakizashi.

Through level 15 every feat was accounted for except 1 (and since I didn't originally PLAN to go dual wakizashi, it got spent on Exotic Weapon Proficiency Katana before play started). He carries a bow, and pulls it out fo ruse every now and again, but I've spent ZERO feat slots making that happen. So, that's 16 feats dedicated to TWFing and the wakizashi specifically . . ..

Quickdraw is useful, but over-rated unless the enemy is always in melee range before you get to act/swap to melee. That expectations is pretty unrealistic.

Just so I'm clear, are you making the point that going dex-based two-weapon ranger is not really feasible given the amount of feats required to make him a strong warrior? That seems to be the point Spacelard is making.

Just recognize your strengths and weaknesses.

You are going to be adaptable and skilled. That's your strengths. You are going to be able to be an excellent scout and able to overcome many skill challenges.

You are not optimized for damage and only damage. Against foes with damage reduction, you are going to be hurting. That's your weakness.

You can squirm your way around this by quick drawing a silver light hammer (silver and blunt), a cold iron short sword (cold iron and piercing), or an adamantium hand axe (adamantium and slashing). That will cover the most basic DR at low levels. At middle levels, or when alignment DR comes about, you'll be able to push thru it best by having Power Attack, wielding your long sword in two hands, and hitting as hard as you can.

You'll be able to do decent damage. Will it be enough is largely dependent on the campaign and your fellow party members.

After level 6 ranger, if you are feeling you are falling behind in damage too much, you can multiclass to pick up some damage.

- barbarian rage is a nice quick melee burst (as well as +10 ft move)
- rogue 3 gives you +2d6 Sneak Attack as well as an extra feat (or Rogue Talent), evasion, and excellent scouting (trap) skills

If you can swing being able to learn the spell "Instant Enemy" (3rd level non-core spell), then going straight ranger can be exceptionally fruitful.

BTW, as an elf, you are going to have a lower CON and a lesser amount of hitpoints. You won't have as much staying power in melee combat, so be mindful of that as well. You won't want to be the first into the fray, but the second or third should work fine.

Makes sense. And good tips to get around DR... Expecting to slay dragons with a bunch of extra cuts from small blade is pretty unrealistic, so I'm fine with it being discouraged by the rules. As far as picking up extra classes, maybe someone can help me better understand the Sneak Attack thing. It seems the Stealth is now for scouting, not really for having free invisibility to guarantee starting off the fight with a "backstab," ie. Baldur's Gate II. Would sneak attacks only be viable in PF if I'm flanking with my wolf? Do the mechanics of the surprise round mean that I'm basically only going to get one attack even if I do sneak up on someone, thereby nerfing the a-bunch-of-whirling-sneak-attack-blades-out-of-nowhere that I may have initially conceived? It won't be "admitting defeat" if I end up maybe realizing that under PF rules I'm better just going THF switch-hitter and getting Vital Strike for the surprise round rather than going ranger/rogue to achieve that stealthy warrior type.

Also, in response to things lots of people have said, it looks like this could be considerably more viable with other resources outside the core. Maybe stash this for the future? Instant Enemy looks really legit.

TheWarden89 wrote:

Will I feel inadequate if I focus a little more on the TWF Rory?

How about...

S: 16 D: 15 (+2 elf) C: 12 (-2 elf) I: 12 (+2 elf) W: 12 Ch: 10 (20 pt build)

level 1 - Two Weapon Fighting
level 2 - Quick Draw

At this point, you have two attacks in melee (your focus). Pick a hand axe to wield in the off hand as you can throw it in combat if necessary. Your skill with a both is very basic, but you can wield it. And, if you drop an opponent on your first attack in melee, you can throw your hand axe at an opponent that is not adjacent to you.

Quick Draw lets you toss your hand axes as an option as well as making it faster to switch from bow to melee and back again.

level 3 - Point Blank Shot (good for bow and throwing the hand axe)
level 5 - Rapid Shot

You now have two shots with a bow or two attacks in melee. You should be able to pick up a strength bow to do okay damage at a distance. Your 4th level stat bump into DEX will help your melee AC and your ranged damage.

Option: Power Attack at level 5 can really boost your melee damage if you wanted to concentrate on it a touch more. You'll lose one arrow attack, but pick up +4 damage on your main hand melee attack.

level 6 - Improved Two Weapon Fighting

You are now sitting on 4 melee attacks (and throwing axes) and either 2 or 3 bow attacks.

Does something like that fit your goal?

It absolutely fits the goal, pretty much right on target--the question is... is this a good build (maybe not OPTIMAL but at least good)? Throwing a handaxe when given the opportunity fits exactly with the kind of adaptive, improvisational, "let-me-pick-up-these-two-flaming-brands-to-fight-the-Nazgul" warrior I like. Will it actually be able to compete with more difficult foes at higher levels (assuming, say, the best possible outcome that they are favored enemies)? It seems like a way to not necessarily be a Weapon Finesse fighter, which is cool if viable.

Numerically it looks something like this as far as damage potential:

Elven Curve Blade/Naginata/Greatsword > matching light TWF with finesse > matching TWF without finesse > disparate TWF weapons

The fewer feats you can dedicate to it, the worse it gets as you go to the right.

As a TWF advances, non-core rulebook stuff that jumps out as being hard NOT to include are things like: Hammer the Gap (+1 damage with each hit for each previous hit you made during the same round against the same target) and Two Weapon Rend (bonus damage for hitting the same target with each weapon at least once in the same attack action).

Alternatively I could be down with light TWF and finesse. Are dex-based rangers a good build? Or do they just fail to compete?

Also, this is generally and in response to the later posts, in case y'all didn't notice from the first post, I'm coming to this from a Baldur's Gate/Icewind Dale youth, just getting back into things and therefore my initial ideas of taking a rogue level seem... not good because it looks to me like stealth combat has been really, really nerfed from what I'm used to in the olden days (Hide in Shadows -> Backstab! -> Win). Sneak attacking seems way harder than I thought it was, true?

EDIT: So many responses! This is such an awesome community--thanks for all the input so far and thanks in advance for more!

1. Improved Shield Bash H- Quickdraw

2. Two Weapon Fighting (Combat Style bonus Feat)
3. Power Attack
4. N/A
5. Deadly Aim
6. Improved Two Weapon Fighting (Combat Style bonus Feat)
7. Shield Slam
8. N/A
9. Shield Focus or Misc Archery feat
10. Two Weapon Rend (Combat Style bonus Feat)
11. Shield Master
12. N/A
13. Misc. Archery feat or Boon Companion
14. GTWF (Combat Style)
15. Dazing Assault

Makes a decent TWF who can plug a few arrows into whatever is closing...
But this is a melee focussed build which may not what you are looking for.

I am looking for melee, but if you'll read the above (where I wouldn't blame anyone for finding my RPing goals highly nitpicky) I don't want to use a shield. Core rules too. Too much to ask?

Doing something similar in a Jade Regent campaign... TWF with Scimitar and shield... TWF bonus feats so I can focus on strength over DEX (don't need it for requirements)and pick up archery or shield bashing feats normally. IMO if you are switch-hitting you don't need many archery feats such as rapid/precise/multi shot etc. because its secondary as critters close to you and then you full attack in melee.

Basically do you want an archer which can fight hand to hand or a melee build which can be an archer?

I'd kind of prefer the latter, melee build with archery capabilities. Possible? Will I feel inadequate if I focus a little more on the TWF Rory?

KenderKin wrote:

The problem is TWF is a feat intensive path....

Whereas THF is not so much so...
if you go dex over strength finesse and dervish dance is a less intensive path,

Most (I did not say all) TWF have some feats in common.

The main problem is you will not have enough feats to pull off a TWF switch-hitter.

If anyone wants to make some suggestions on this I am up to see it.
This is not going to be a one level dip into rogue!

The problem with twf is if you don't have extra damage from sneak attack, smite or challenge you will not be able to keep up with the curve, plus it is super expensive. If you want to do it for flavor go for it, but it is going to suck when you hit up against DR X because you won't have the bonuses to overcome it.

I might be okay taking a few levels of rogue if that makes it optimal. I wouldn't want to go Ranger 10/Rogue 10; would I be able to get away with Ranger 17/Rogue 3 or Ranger 15/Rogue 5?

PFS Guide - Agile Enhancement. Works wonders. Drives equipment prices up. Again, from a number-crunching standpoint, TWF is a sub-optimal choice.

I play gams to relax, not crunch numbers and look for the optimal answer. That's more what I'm supposed to do at work . . ..

1. Your progression of feats looks good--is Double Slice my feat of choice as a longsword/shortsword type of ranger? Does that feat actually make it a decent build?

2. The Agile Enhancement thing is tight but it's not Core enough

3. Agreed about the work thing! But I'm also not trying to build a completely terrible character.

Of course it is viable! You won't be the giant damage dealer, but you can be effective with both options.

2/6/10 Combat Style Feats will probably end up being just the basics: Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting

Archery feats will probably be
1 Point Blank
3 Precise Shot
5 Rapid Shot
7 Many Shot
9 Far Shot/Weapon Finesse (for melee)/Weapon Focus (bow, probably)
11 Improved Precise Shot

Using just the core rulebook.

This makes the two-weapon fighting melee a distant second capability (and requires a 19 Dex by Level 11).

Whether you dual-wield matching light weapons or an unbalanced pair is a matter of personal taste, really.

Number crunching says that a focused two-handed combatant build can be counted on to do more damage than a TWF combatant. They are also cheaper to outfit. <shrug> Nobody needs to play the character builds that the heavy number crunchers demand are the only bulds worth choosing.

Thanks to you and Kenderkin and Hartbaine for real, direct responses! Was kinda worried my thread would get jacked by what I see a lot of around here: "Just be a fighter, wielding a double dwarven urgrosh."

Kenderkin, if I'm going to be a high DEX/stealth guy, why not 1 level of rogue? Full attacking with sneak attacks for the first round I'm swinging seems pretty useful, no? Obv. in a pure dungeon campaign... maybe not, but in a place where I can use my stealth?

Huston, if I want to balance a little more towards melee, what do you think? Is the best way to increase my DPR on that kind of fighter to improve my criticals on weapon finesse weapons? Any good (maybe even unorthodox) way to build a warrior wielding a longsword and a dagger, or is that just vastly underpowered compared to a greatsword? I'm open to using combat maneuvers, but I don't have much experience with them.

First read this ranger guide

Second realize it was written before advanced guides came out, before UC came out etc.

I've read it, and the THF switch hitter would be my fallback if what I'm trying to be accomplished isn't realistic, but Treamtmonk's switch hitter does not utilize two-weapon fighting. He uses a bow and a two-handed weapon. I like that Treantmonk suggests switch-hitting in general, but my switch-hitting is really trying to combo TWF and archery.

Hi all. I need some help. RPing is important to me, with that in mind I'd like to build a character within the following constraints:

Elf
Ranger
Utilizes both two-weapon fighting and a bow
Using Pathfinder Core Rules

Basically, I really enjoyed the ranger I played back in the days of the CRPG Icewind Dale 1. Bow for long range combat, "two weapons" for close range combat. Long before 3.0 and later rules that allowed the ridiculous stuff like fighting with oversized weapons in both hands, I kind of liked the idea of fighting with a small weapon in the offhand. Essentially, in the original IWD, there was no mechanic to allow to you arm two weapons. Instead if you equipped a single handed weapon, you got an extra attack for free. Even if that was the implementation because the developers were too lazy to put in real two-weapon fighting, flavor-wise, I think that's perfect for the ranger--adaptability, using a single-handed weapon (not trying to use any Renaissance BS like a rapier either) in your main hand because shields and two-handers are pretty darn unwieldy, using your off-hand to maybe get in there with a hunting knife or other small weapon, or even a fist.

A lot of the advice on builds for rangers have focused on "switch-hitting" with a bow and two-hander by using combat-style feats for archery and a few regular feats for the melee style. Any advice on how I can build a character using combat-style feats for two-weapon fighting, and 1-3 regular feats for archery when I want that as well? Again--for this campaign, I want to build an elf ranger who is decent with both bow and two-weapons using the core rules (not feats from Ultimate Combat). RPing as an adaptive elf ranger, ready for anything, is really important to me, but I don't want him to be weak. Help me optimize my RPing goals? I don't want my DEX to be too shoddy because I'm using a bow (and lighter armors) so is it best to take a level of rogue for sneak attack and use Weapon Finesse on two light weapons? Should I go longsword/shortsword in melee? Is it impossible to make a viable warrior within these constraints?

Where exactly in the time line are we? Whose dead so far and all that? Is Jeoffry king? Tommin?

We'd have to nail that down first before deciding how to stat them out. Heck, Jamie would have to change his whole fighting style from what point you work on, or Arya for that matter.

Jeez like I said I'm just watchin the show so... beginning. Pre spoilers heh.

I am new to the series and the HBO adaptation is my first exposure to it... Is Stark ranger-ish at all?

Someone suggested that I take this discussion over here rather than having it in the Game of Thrones thread...

Thoughts as to what Pathfinder classes the characters from Game of Thrones would be? Eddard Stark, etc.?

Tyrion most def. a rogue. I didn't read the books ever and am basically just new to the whole world but really enjoyed the first episode so... yeah. If there were any sort of morally questionable paladin class that seems to def. be Jaime's style.

Any trace of ranger in Stark in the books? He seems somewhat rugged/hunter-ish

Fun question: this may have been asked already but I didn't see it...
What core class would Eddard Stark be in Pathfinder? Jaime?