RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
|
Scanning through the character options, I noticed there was no Ranger class. Has the Ranger been omitted or just hasn't been added yet? Or am I extremely blonde and missed it all together?
Look for Rangers Bards and Monks to show up in a later release.
I'd like the Ranger to get more choices for Combat Styles like: two-handed fighting, shield fighting, mounted fighting, unarmed fighting, one-handed fighting, ect. They should be able to pick favored terrains as well. They should get Ranger Talents based on they're Combat Style, Favored Enemies and Favored Terrains. These talents would have wide latitude, so for example if you pick a talent based on Favored Enemy Aberration that gives bonuses to avoiding an Ilithid's grapple (yes I know it's not in the SRD and so isn't in Pathfinder, it's just an example) it'll also give some bonuses to avoiding other grapples.
When designing the Ranger please keep in mind a reason for the class to exist, and a job the class is suited to perform for the party. The existing 3.5 Ranger doesn't do well at taking down single enemies with precision, doesn't do anything to protect his party from attacks, and does very little to limit/effect enemies' movement/effectiveness. When looking at the 3.5 Ranger I'm left wondering - what does my party gain from having a Ranger on board?
I would argue that opinion. The ranger in my Planescape campign was one of the highest damaging characters, occasionally outclassing the rogue. The character had Rapid Shot, Manyshot, and Improved Manyshot. Combined with a Strength bow, this allowed them to stand and deliver a barage of arrows or move and still get multiple shots. The ranger's role was that of artillery support. The Precise Shot feat allow the character to assist the front line fighters. If an opponent closed on the ranger, the rogue maneuvered for a sneak attack.
Would personally like to see options that tied the ranger more closely to the druid class. Fulfilling a role to the druidic religions similar to what the Paladin provides to good churches. Have always liked the "druidic knight" concept for rangers. I dont however want it inherently linked to druids since military scouts would also often fall under ranger. A non-casting option would be nice.
-Weylin STormcrowe
|
4th Edition ... they focused the Ranger on being exactly what you outlined above. A damage dealer that doles it out in large, precise amounts. This is fine idea, but I'm sure there are other concepts that can be used for the Ranger.
If favored enemy stays in the game as a Ranger class feature, it should change to +2 to hit and +1d6 damage. Subsequent applications of favored enemy increase the to hit by +2 and the damage by another +1d6. By level 20, the Ranger will get +10 attack and +5d6 against his first favored enemy selection.
-Skeld
When designing the Ranger please keep in mind a reason for the class to exist, and a job the class is suited to perform for the party. The existing 3.5 Ranger doesn't do well at taking down single enemies with precision, doesn't do anything to protect his party from attacks, and does very little to limit/effect enemies' movement/effectiveness. When looking at the 3.5 Ranger I'm left wondering - what does my party gain from having a Ranger on board?
I'm with Thraxus in this. My Half-Elf Ranger PC is the most damaging character in the whole party, in addition to being almost untouchable with a high AC. He's the responsible of more wooooow! moments at the table than any other character, and he's also useful outside combat as well. He's a better scout and advanced explorer than the resident rogue/shadowdancer, and the two of them often do the front-line exploration side by side, with the rogue super-happy of having such a great fighter with him if (or when) trouble is met.
I'm totally perplexed when some people complains about the ranger and say things like he's a poor striker (I prefer leaving those 4E terms outside the Pathfinder RPG: I dislike them intensely and I think they narrow unnecesarily character concepts and styles of playing them).
I got a ranger in my STAP group that is death incarnate it seems so yeah rangers can be deadly.
A ranger in an Unapproachable East campaign my roommate ran managed to down a Drow matron mother in one round when he was 6th level. You catch someone unprepared when you are specifically prepared for them and rangers are very deadly. And rangers can be methodical type of person once they know their target.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
We have a female halfling ranger in our RotR-campaign that is a real "killer queen" (maxed out favored enemy "giants" and giant bane longbow).
I don't think the 3.5 ranger needs a large power up. Especially the archery combat style is extremely powerful since a D&D-archer is more versatile than melee-combatants (just keep a few bane-arrows of the most common creature types in your quiver).
What I did for may rangers was add more combat styles , skimish and favored terrain.
Of course. You're right. No class is actually supposed to be good at anything. Why can't people just take the concept of the terms being used by 4E and apply them to anything else? Roles ARE NOT NEW. Every class has unique abilities to bring to a party, and uses these abilities in unique ways. You might call this each class' role. If classes did not have unique abilities there would be no point in playing with a class system. To simplify this, I'm just going to use different words to say the same thing.
But the 4e roles have little or nothing to do with actual 3.5 character roles. Heck, they are a poor fit for table top roleplaying in general. The "defender" is a particular offender, because that "role" doesn't even make sense.
Characters in D&D can:
- Kill Enemies (you can call this a "striker" if you want)
- Buff allies (you can call this a "leader" if you want)
- Penalize enemies (you can call this a "controller" if you want)
- Negate enemy actions (you can call this a "healer" if you want)
There is nothing special about closing to close combat with a good AC while hoping to draw fire that makes it a different role from casting entangle on your enemies and hoping to prevent them from getting attacks. You are penalizing your opponents and hoping to prevent them from landing killing blows on your allies in either case, and so both are "controller" actions (or whatever you feel like calling that role).
The 4e provided roles are based on a terrible misunderstanding of D&D combat and a deliberate attempt to shoehorn in WoW and Final Fantasy XI concepts. They have no place in a discussion about 3.P D&D. A 3.5 D&D "Controller" is short for "Battlefield Controller" and is equivalent to a City of Heroes Controller. It is not short for "Crowd Controller" and is in no way equivalent to an Everquest Controller.
-Frank
I could imagine a ranger as a kind of outdoor and ranged specialist.
As in Rogue = indoor/dungeon skills, melee dmg dealer
Ranger = outdoor skills, ranged damage dealer.
In that respect he may have the ranged d6 bonus to dmg from the scout class from DD35 as a bonus, though in return I'd reduce his HD to d8 as the rogue. He would not be the one set to endure frontal assault on an ongoing basis, wears light armor generally, so the d8 is a fair option in my opinion.
Aside from that I do not see too many changes needed on the ranger, which was already one of the most amended class between DD3 and DD3.5.
I would be interested to know though, how many rangers make substantial use of their animal companion. I would rather give the ranger an alternative ability, such as a limited wild shape ability (as goes for the turn undead ability of the paladin vs the cleric), rather than what appear to be moderately useful companions at best.
With regard to the ranger I think they better either go long or stay home.
It needs something to majorly overhaul it similar to the barbarian, otherwise why not play a fighter that can track stuff?
It might even be wise to give them a grab bag of abilities to choose similar to the rogue, except the spell abilities would be druid/wild shape based, and the fighter abilities would need to be something cooler than what you get from the rogue talents.
The ranger in 3.5 always struck me as a 2nd edition character that was hand waved at because the developers were afraid to mess it up.
|
Upcoming Releases
In the coming weeks, we will post Alpha release 3 of the
Pathfinder RPG. Here is just a taste of what you can expect
to see.
*3 PC Classes: Bard, Monk, and Ranger, rounding out the base classes
*Nonplayter Characters: Revisions to the NPC classes and simple rules for designing NPCs on the fly in your game
*Magic Items: More revisions and a redesign of cursed items
*Monsters: A complete guide to creating and converting monster for the Pathfinder RPG.
- Tracking Skills: No one tracks like a ranger, with his focus on survival and class features like swift tracker, etc... He doesn't even need to expend extra resources like feats because it's ingrained in the class.
- Woodcraft Skills: Not merely survival (that is indeed valuable if you keep a strict record of rations/water/places where is possible to rest and if playing wilderness campaigns, knowledge about foretelling weather), but also knowledge:nature to identify beasts and plants and their weak spots, and geography (used along survival, can speed up overland travel time)
-Stealth and Perception: almost every ranger keeps this at maximum ranks, since 1st Edition it has been very difficult to surprise a ranger or caught him off guard. Stealth also is an asset, specially outdoors, with camouflage and hide in plain sight turns him into the perfect ambusher and guerrilla-like fighter.
-Favored Enemies: A ranger can be immensely powerful against his choice of enemies, with bonuses applying not only to skills, but also to damage per hit
-Spells: A ranger can use his or her spells as utility non-combat related spells, buff spells to make him even more dangerous in combat or as healing.
All this while retaining the fighting skill of a full-BAB fighting class and a couple of nice features that improve durability (high reflex saves, evasion) makes the ranger, imho, one of the most independent classes out there, best able to survive by himself than other characters.
The ranger is the guy who you absolutely don't want to have to fight in a forest or in the wilderness. He can be anywhere, strike any time and vanish again swiftly, lead you to an ambush or a natural hazard if you pursue him or chasing you relentlessly (with swift tracker and endurance) if you escape from him. Have you seen the movie called The Hunted, with Benicio del Toro? Exactly that.
This is what ranger offers, if that's enough for you is only up to you to decide.
This, I think I'd argue, is a function of the feats however, and not a function of the Ranger itself. A Fighter could do the same thing. I agree however, that Archery is VERY effective in 3.5. It might actually be too effective (or rather melee can certainly stand to be MORE effective).
Fair enough, but the Ranger gains a great deal of the effective feats through class abilities, just as the Fighter's bonus feats.
In the campaign I ran, the ranger's skills and favored enemies factored a lot into the character's usefulness as well. The main villans were Aberations (Far Realm creatures), so Favored Enemy (aberations) and the Knowledge (dungeoneering) skill were a big help in identifying threats. As the only character with Survival, the ranger's knowledge also helped to avoid a number of "natural" planar dangers and find safe shelter.
While I have always seen the ranger fill the scout/guide role, I will admit the combat role will likely be a defining point. Personally, I would not mind seeing them grant a bonus to overland speed when guiding a group.
I actually think rangers are one of the best done classes in 3.5. Our rangers always seem to do well. I'm getting tired of people wanting to screw too much with the ranger and the bard because they aren't as 'good' as a warrior or a spellcaster. Of course they aren't as good. They give up power for versatility. A ranger shouldn't be a combatant on par with the figher because they have all those rogue skills and a few druid spells to fall back on.
As for the 'striker' thing, I get where you're going, but I don't personally agree. I think a well-made class can fit any of those roles, and it would be hard to make a ranger more of a 'striker' without robbing other classes of their flavor.
|
|
- Tracking Skills: No one tracks like a ranger, with his focus on survival and class features like swift tracker, etc... He doesn't even need to expend extra resources like feats because it's ingrained in the class.- Woodcraft Skills: Not merely survival (that is indeed valuable if you keep a strict record of rations/water/places where is possible to rest and if playing wilderness campaigns, knowledge about foretelling weather), but also knowledge:nature to identify beasts and plants and their weak spots, and geography (used along survival, can speed up overland travel time)
-Stealth and Perception: almost every ranger keeps this at maximum ranks, since 1st Edition it has been very difficult to surprise a ranger or caught him off guard. Stealth also is an asset, specially outdoors, with camouflage and hide in plain sight turns him into the perfect ambusher and guerrilla-like fighter.
-Favored Enemies: A ranger can be immensely powerful against his choice of enemies, with bonuses applying not only to skills, but also to damage per hit
-Spells: A ranger can use his or her spells as utility non-combat related spells, buff spells to make him even more dangerous in combat or as healing.
All this while retaining the fighting skill of a full-BAB fighting class and a couple of nice features that improve durability (high reflex saves, evasion) makes the ranger, imho, one of the most independent classes out there, best able to survive by himself than other characters.
The ranger is the guy who you absolutely don't want to have to fight in a forest or in the wilderness. He can be anywhere, strike any time and vanish again swiftly, lead you to an ambush or a natural hazard if you pursue him or chasing you relentlessly (with swift tracker and endurance) if you escape from him. Have you seen the movie called The Hunted, with Benicio del Toro? Exactly that.
This is what ranger offers, if that's enough for you is only up to you to decide.
Very little has changed since the 1981 Ranger Which was why I put my Ranger (in 1987) in Plate Mail, and then having been "challenged" by a fellow Ranger of superior Social class, slapped him with a backhand in return, The blow almost killed the swine.
Again, simplicity of design and backwards compatibility matter. Make as few changes necessary to fix ONLY glaring problems with the class.
Unfortunately, as I've stated elsewhere, my personal experience with the class is very, very disappointing. I don't know if there is a simple fix.
Everything he does, someone else can do better: he's a poor spell caster, his animal companion is weak, rogues and bards do as well or better at skills, his combat suffers from lagging in BAB due to the TWF or bow paths, and the enemies who he can hit regularly are the low AC brute monsters who can best take advantage of his poor AC and mediocre HP. The favored enemies schtick is incredibly dependent on DM fiat and favor. Choose poorly and you get to wait a long, long time to use that ability. And don't even get me started on what the Scout's done to this class.
He's a bard with better marketing.
|
|
A good point is made about the Scout - I always thought a Ranger/Scout multi class character would be cool to play. In fact, I think I read that 4E is more or less merging the Scout's abilities (or at least, some of them) into the ranger. I think that is a good way to go actually and would love to see what Paizo does with the Ranger.
For the record, I'm pretty firmly in the camp that says take away spell casting from the Ranger and give him more abilities ... take the handful of decent spells that are Ranger specific and make 'em spell like abilities for instance. I'd also like to see him with more natural healing abilities ... maybe a class specific way to use the Heal skill to greater effect, due to his great knowledge of herbs, plants etc (very much like Aragorn did throughout the LOTR)
I also would like to see the animal companion improved as well as an option or two in place of the animal companion if the Ranger chooses to go that route. Keep the archery path and the two weapon path (I'm much more a fan of the archer ranger arch type, but I don't mind the two weapon fighting thing much).
I'd also give the class an even more direct link to the wilderness so he becomes more of the woodsman etc. To me, the Ranger has always been, at its' heart, a scout, tracker, nature's warrior and protector kind of class. My hope is that Paizo really locks in on that role and enhances it!
Look, Keldarth, I'm glad that the ranger's worked out for you. But in my experience, it's a class that's second best at a lot of things and needs a lot to go right to be viable, one of which is DM fiat.
- Tracking Skills: No one tracks like a ranger, with his focus on survival and class features like swift tracker, etc... He doesn't even need to expend extra resources like feats because it's ingrained in the class.
True, but there's two problems with this one. First, all adventure paths and modules assume that parties don't necessarily have a tracker in the party, so it provides extra information, but not essential information. And it does so maybe once or twice a story.
Plus, Find the Path? Heck, the druid's dog can track. Do you want to play a class with a signature feat duplicated by a @$%@! dog?
- Woodcraft Skills: Not merely survival (that is indeed valuable if you keep a strict record of rations/water/places where is possible to rest and if playing wilderness campaigns, knowledge about foretelling weather), but also knowledge:nature to identify beasts and plants and their weak spots, and geography (used along survival, can speed up overland travel time)
Speaking as someone playing a ranger, this is yet another skill heavily dependent on DM fiat/play style. If your DM hand waves this stuff or does the requisite "one wandering monster encounter" satirized by Order of the Stick, then this is much ado about nothing. And, again, barbarians and druids do this just as well as the ranger.
-Stealth and Perception: almost every ranger keeps this at maximum ranks, since 1st Edition it has been very difficult to surprise a ranger or caught him off guard. Stealth also is an asset, specially outdoors, with camouflage and hide in plain sight turns him into the perfect ambusher and guerrilla-like fighter.
Okay: we've hit five skills you want to keep maxed out as a 3.x ranger: survival, spot, listen, hide, move silently. (And, maxing out those five skills lets you do three things, not five.) You've got 1 point plus the points from INT and race left. And we haven't even dealt with the Handle Animal skill. That undermines the "rangers are versatile" argument. It also means that you lag behind the rogue with their 10-12 skill ranks a level.
And, in my experience, ambushes and scouting are over-rated. In standard array party, only the rogue can help you on extended missions. The rest of the party can't do it (cleric, wizard, heavy armored melee guy). So you end up doing the frontal assault. Because most players and most DMs don't want to split the party for 20 minutes, even if it's the best way to handle the situation. Because, if you're a ranger, using your stealth skills is unfun for them, so you don't do it, even if it nerfs you.
-Favored Enemies: A ranger can be immensely powerful against his choice of enemies, with bonuses applying not only to skills, but also to damage per hit.
Or, alternatively, it's worthless. And you can't change your mind for four more levels. If the game goes in a different direction than the DM intends, if communication's less than perfect, then this ability goes right down the drain.
With favored enemy, either the entire campaign's about your favored enemies, or you get tossed a pity monster every couple of sessions. What fun.
-Spells: A ranger can use his or her spells as utility non-combat related spells, buff spells to make him even more dangerous in combat or as healing.
Ah, right, the spells, of which you get a mighty 2 first level spells at 7th level. Don't forget to add Wisdom to your list of abilities that you need to function properly then. If you go the TWF route, guess what? You require FIVE ability scores to function, 'cause that adds strength to Dexterity, Constitution, Wisdom, and Intelligence. And people thought the Monk was the poster child for MAD.
All this while retaining the fighting skill of a full-BAB fighting class and a couple of nice features that improve durability (high reflex saves, evasion) makes the ranger, imho, one of the most independent classes out there, best able to survive by himself than other characters.
So, like the bard, he's an excellent fifth wheel or option for a single PC campaign.
And, please, stop with the full BAB stuff. His primary schtick is to -2 from all his attacks. Until high levels, his attack rolls are comparable to a cleric's. And, when he hits high levels, his short swords and arrows suddenly get the joy of Damage Reduction.
This is what ranger offers, if that's enough for you is only up to you to decide.
And then WotC put out the scout class.
It's not about what you bring to the party, it's about playing a concept of a character you WANT to play.
I disagree. You should make your selection of character based upon what you want to play. But the game mechanics should be written such that whatever that happens to be brings something unique and effective to the party.
If we presented a Restaurant Connoisseur class for people to play, they'd have to totally Popeye out when eating different kinds of food. Anything that is presented as a playable option should bring genuine utility to the team in addition to genuine enjoyment to the player.
Right now, Rangers (especially TWF Rangers) are on the razor's edge of that. They are presented with some cool character types and some nice role playing hooks, but after a couple of levels being woodsy, stealthy, and good enough with a bow isn't.
-Frank
|
Essentially it seems that Frank and I agree. I'm sorry if I got a little peeved earlier. I just can't believe the reaction of people on these boards when I talk about anything that's being used in 4E. Class role, per encounter mechanics, etc - people act like these things didn't and shouldn't exist in 3.5 when they did and/or should.
Each class should have a role, it may not need to be unique, but each class should have a role. While Frank and I disagree on what roles may be appropriate for 3.5, it is clear that the Fighter has a different role than the Wizard.
As I've said earlier, the Ranger's thematic role is wilderness leader. This however can either be entirely unimportant to campaigns, or can be wholly duplicated by other classes - classes which also cover other tasks. This wouldn't be a bad thing if the Ranger brought other skills to the party, but this is very suspect.
Some suggestions for ways a Ranger can bring more coolness to the table.
The Archivist class from Heroes of Horror has an ability called Dark Knowledge, many of you may be aware of this. Essentially it allows the Archivist to point out weaknesses of foes to his party. I see a Ranger as being a very experienced guy with monsters. He may not have fought them all, but he knows enough about them. Give the Ranger some ability to give his whole party bonuses against monsters and not just 3 or 4 types over his 20 levels. Let him be very knowledgeable about all sorts of monsters.
This one has probably been suggested in many forms: Terrain mastery. The Ranger should also be very familiar with terrain. The survival skill lets him find natural food and shelter, but he should be able to do more than just that. What about something like the Terrain Masteries of the Horizon Walker PrC found in the 3.5 DMG. Beyond that even he should maybe be able to ignore difficult terrain and help his party to ignore it as well.
The problem is that the wounds from 4e are still too new and deep to useanything in reference to 4e...defining classes specifically by role...that's what MMORPGs do...let's just leave the pre-defined roles out of the Pathfinder discussions perhaps?
|
|
When designing the Ranger please keep in mind a reason for the class to exist, and a job the class is suited to perform for the party. The existing 3.5 Ranger doesn't do well at taking down single enemies with precision, doesn't do anything to protect his party from attacks, and does very little to limit/effect enemies' movement/effectiveness. When looking at the 3.5 Ranger I'm left wondering - what does my party gain from having a Ranger on board?
Part of this devolves to play style. My home game, and a large part of the Blackmoor and Greyhawk episodes I have written, focus on the party's ability to collect information about a foe and pick the time and place that they fight.
Ranger's are the best single class at providing tactical choice in wilderness or outdoor settings. Their pallette of skills makes them excellent at hunting targets and picking the ground that those targets fight on.
Now, if your game is about equations and narrative as video style cut scene, then the ranger is not as valuable. If it is about player driven causality, then the ranger is much more valuable. A good player running a ranger in an outdoors environment, can be as good at getting information as a diviner.
|
|
When designing the Ranger please keep in mind a role for the class. The existing 3.5 Ranger is a poor striker, an even more poor defender, and a poor controller.The existing 3.5 ranger can't be a striker, a defender, or a controller, since those don't exist in 3.5.
Random Harasser? Rangers are very much oriented to harassment of a foe. One shot-one kill, withdraw, one shot-one kill, withdraw...
Give the Ranger some ability to give his whole party bonuses against monsters and not just 3 or 4 types over his 20 levels.
Good call! Paizo - please take note of the good ideas bouncing around on these boards!
I'd like to see organizations added to the options for favored enemies, favored terrains and the option to pass the lion's share of these bonuses on the other party members!
Peace,
tfad
|
|
The problem is that the wounds from 4e are still too new and deep to useanything in reference to 4e...defining classes specifically by role...that's what MMORPGs do...let's just leave the pre-defined roles out of the Pathfinder discussions perhaps?No, giving classes roles is what CLASS BASED SYSTEMS do. Dungeons and Dragons has always shared this with computer games, in fact MMOs took the idea FROM Dungeons and Dragons.
Classes SHOULD be defined by their role in the party. Characters NEVER SHOULD. Characters and Classes ARE NOT the same thing. When a player is creating a character they should be able to do whatever they want with it, and shouldn't feel limited to being a "Striker" just because the Rogue class is designed for that (Which it IS). However when a game designer designs a class within a class based system he should design it so that it brings a unique slate of abilities to the table which are useful in any given situation, and any given campaign.
Saying things like, "Rangers are great if you play like this," or "Rangers are awesome in a pure wilderness low-magic campaign" makes me think, well that's great - it should be a campaign specific class for a campaign meant to be played like that, if that's how it's going to be designed.
Class defines a basic mind-set. Fighters take feats, Arcane casters choose spells, Rogues use their wide array of skills.
Do you want to make a character who is a light weapon fighter? That is a master of the rapier? That character will have a vastly different array of feats than a Halberdier or a Dwarven Axe Fighter. They are both still fighters, but can they both be called a "tank"? I think not. An arcane caster who chooses an array of buffing spells is not the same as a caster who chooses destructive spells, are they both strikers? Not hardly. Same with clerics. Don't define a class by a role. A battle cleric might not be as skilled a tank as the fighter, but he's more of a tank than a duellist. This is what I don't like about 4e...defined roles, where ALL the abilities revolve around that role.
True, but there's two problems with this one. First, all adventure paths and modules assume that parties don't necessarily have a tracker in the party, so it provides extra information, but not essential information. And it does so maybe once or twice a story.
Plus, Find the Path? Heck, the druid's dog can track. Do you want to play a class with a signature feat duplicated by a @$%@! dog?
In first place, a dog/wolf/whatever needs the smell of his quarry to even remotely be able to try, and have you looked at the survival bonuses of dogs and wolves? A ranger is simply a better tracker, able to track faster and farther, and able to gain ground towards its prey by not sleeping and relying on his endurance and swift tracking abilites. A dog or wolf is able to aid in the tracking, but if you really think they can track as well as a ranger do, and inform the party of the knowledge they have gained examining the tracks, you have never tried it. By the way, I have always thought that the tracking by smell of animals is not well represented by the current rules, as it gets too diminished.
Speaking as someone playing a ranger, this is yet another skill heavily dependent on DM fiat/play style. If your DM hand waves this stuff or does the requisite "one wandering monster encounter" satirized by Order of the Stick, then this is much ado about nothing. And, again, barbarians and druids do this just as well as the ranger.
Perhaps I'm too old fashioned, but I tend to play campaigns and adventures created by me, or by other DMs, and only ocasionally we do play adventure paths or pre-fab modules. They're fine and plenty of fun, but they suffer from being necessarily "standarized". They need to accomodate every possible party and every possible combination of skills, spells and whatever. We do play in more "free-will" or "sandbox" campaigns, where players drive the course of the plot and decide where to go and what to do. If the ranger don't ambush, is not able to evade dangerous encounters that could perhaps wipe out the entire party, and is not able to infiltrate or guide or hunt their enemies, then the DM is doing a disservice to the class and to the player that choosed it. In a role-playing game, there is a DM for a reason. We could not reasonably expect that the book will do all the work for us. For that reason, it will always be classes that are perceived as weak or failing, because the style of the DM will tend to favor some classes above other. Plenty of people scream the uber-advantage of wizards, for example, but they tend to be the same people that conveniently forget about spellbooks that can be lost or destroyed, or spell components that have to be in hand, or that sometimes, you don't have time in the morning for the wizard to sit reading his tome for about an hour...
When I play a rogue, I don't want to play a "striker". I want to play the guy that will climb the wizard's tower and infiltrate it in order to open the magical gates from the inside for the rest of the party. And if this leads me to fight alone some gargoyle defenders while climbing, hand crossbow at hand, hanging 200 feet high, so be it... That's why I play a rogue in the first time, entering and breaking places no one else can, slip stealthily in the villain's headquarters and eavesdrop his evil plan, steal the heavily guarded gem and stab the monster when he has its sights on the fighter. And the same could be said about the ranger. It has a powerful concept, and a potent mix of skills, magic and fighting. Other classes excel at one of those things, but the ranger does it all, and then also have its own area of expertise (favored enemies).
Okay: we've hit five skills you want to keep maxed out as a 3.x ranger: survival, spot, listen, hide, move silently... (And, maxing out those five skills lets you do three things, not five.) You've got 1 point plus the points from INT and race left. And we haven't even dealt with the Handle Animal skill. That undermines the "rangers are versatile" argument. It also means that you lag behind the rogue with their 10-12 skill ranks a level.And, in my experience, ambushes and scouting are over-rated. In standard array party, only the rogue can help you on extended missions. The rest of the party can't do it (cleric, wizard, heavy armored melee guy). So you end up doing the frontal assault. Because most players and most DMs don't want to split the party for 20 minutes, even if it's the best way to handle the situation. Because, if you're a ranger, using your stealth skills is unfun for them, so you don't do it, even if it nerfs you.
I never said anything about versatility. I simply recounted the ranger's assets. They are good at stealth and survival, they are good fighting, excellent versus their enemies. Their magic gives an extra edge. That's it. What I did say, and I stand by it, is that the ranger is one the classes best fit to survive by themselves, without a party backing them up. They are perfect for solo adventures, or when separated from the party.
As a DM, I'm not afraid to split the party if they decide so or the situation calls for it. The rest of my buddies likewise are not. If it's the best way to handle a situation, and you don't do it, you are nerfing yourselves, and you deserve whatever happens to you. In our games, DM are fair, but strict. If you make a mistake and you are in dire straits, you better hope have luck with your die rolls. I think a problem of rigid-plot adventures is that some DMs are afraid to play fair and nudges things in favor of the PCs so they can continue the adventure path and so keep playing through the rest of adventures he had purchased with his own money. This also lead to the perceived failings of some classes that, when played for what they are, are perfectly fine. This leads to overlook certain aspects of the game (ambushes, for example, as you said) that are favored tactics for some classes. Strip those classes of their modus operandi, and you make them weak. A good DM will design adventures and campaigns where every character class have spots to really shine. When a player selects a class, he's sending a message to the DM: "That's what I want to play, those are the things I want to do". If the adventure is an endless series of combats, one after another, four per day so spellcasters don't get bored, never giving importance to anything else (from food and water necessity, weight carried, where is possible to set up a camp, etc...), the PCs leaded by the nose by the DM's almighty over-arching plot, I would stop playing at once. This is not D&D for me.
Sure, some things about the rangers can be improved (animal companion, I'm looking at you), and the Pathfinder crew are doing such a good job with the rest of the classes that my expectatives are really high, but I don't want the ranger changed to something he is not, I don't want to see some crazed ranger-scout hybrid or whatever. Improved, yes, sure, but changed, no. My experience tells me that rangers are not weak (my single-class ranger PC is the most powerful character in the party, even the full spellcasters, and he's a dual wielder), are a fun character class to play and they stand for a powerful archetype of all-time fantasy.
|
|
I think that the concept of roles does have a place, just that it grossly misused in 4e. In a combat setting (out-of-combat is a whole other story), classes can typically be boiled down to a few viable strategies. Where I think 4e gets it wrong is in the assumption that each class can fulfill one and only one role. Here are some examples of what I'd consider fundamental strategies, and how different classes implement them. Note that these are not hard-and-fast classifications as 4e presents them, more fuzzy analyses of viable strategies for a class.
Striker - Deal high damage to single targets. Typically focus on taking out particularly dangerous enemies early in the fight, or on "one shot, one kill" fighting. Well implemented by rogue and barbarian. Can be done by certain fighter builds, depending on feat availability (the core feats don't support it very well). Can be done poorly (or at least not as well as others) by arcanists.
Blaster - Deals heavy damage to multiple targets from a safe distance. Also called "the artillery." Goal is to eliminate multiple weak to medium strength opponents with a single blast. Best done by arcanists, though clerics can do it too.
Linebacker - Deals moderate damage consistantly, combined with moderate to high survivability. Goal is to hold the front line, killing off weaker opponents while keeping them away from "squishier" party members. Generally done by fighters and paladins, though barbarians and clerics can do it to.
Healer - Keeps other characters (particularly linebackers) from dying. The purview of clerics and, to a less extent, druids.
Buffer - Enhances the other party members ability to fight. Goal is obviously to make the other characters more effective, typically by supplying support/buff spells that are relevant to the situation at hand. Can be done by most divine casters and the bard.
Antibuffer - Weakens the abilities of the enemies, either through direct penalties or battlefield control. Goal is to make the enemy vulnerable so other characters can kill them more easily. Typically done by arcanists and druids.
------------
So, where is the ranger? While I don't think it needs to have one defined role, I do think it is important for it to have at least one or two viable strategies that one has in mind when designing it.
For example, we could make a "striker" strategy viable by buffing its archery abilities beyond what a typical fighter could pull off. We could also make it a viable "buffer" if we play off the earlier suggestions about adding terrain-bonus and/or Dark Knowledge-like abilities.
Here's a fairly radical suggestion for what to do with the TWF side: why not make it a melee "blaster"? If we provide mechanics to encourage mobility, multiple attacks (via TWF), and hitting multiple opponents (something like, though not necessary equivalent to, Whirlwind Strike), you could create the melee-equivalent of a miniature Fireball each turn. Admittedly not as effective, but much more repeatable, and without some of the aim-related downside.
So that would be my proposal: Make the archery path about a "striker" strategy, and the TWF path about a "blaster" strategy. Add a Dark Knowledge-like ability for a "buffer" backup strategy, and you're set.
------------
As an aside, I really like the Dark Knowledge idea. It seems very in-character for the ranger to either recall or notice weaknesses in his opponents, like:
"Duelists from Riddleport always drop their guard for an instant after their off-hand flourish. That's when you've got to attack!"
"I noticed that Smaug has an unprotected patch on his left breast! Aim for it!"
------------
As another aside, it seems to me that my concept ranger above might not require spellcasting abilities anymore. Hrm, that's probably bad for backwards compatibility.
Combat styles need to go. No other class gets shoehorned into a particular style, or like 3.5, a choice of two styles. A ranger should be able to fight two handed if he likes, or with a greatsword, or with sword and shield, or with a long sword and nothing in the other hand. Even a wizard can do this, a ranger has to ignore certain class abilities to do so.
I agree with you in this. A lot of ranger concepts are flushed away because of this (the tribal spear-wielding hunter, the classic Aragorn-like ranger, the rugged axe-and-shield mountaineer, etc etc)
Well, I don't know. I mean, fighting with two weapons was ranger's iconic ability - alongside companions - since 1st Ed. It should be modified, I agree, but thrown away.
Fighting with two weapons has been a ranger's iconic ability since Drizzt.
I have grown fond of it after all those years, and my own ranger character uses it (I had no choice, it was made under AD&D 2nd Ed rules), but this is a somewhat artificial iconic ability.
Combat Styles perhaps should not be thrown away, but at the very least offer some more variety than just dual or archer.