The ranger to me is the arrow that flies out of the forest, the eyes watching you from the dark, or the tall cloaked stranger who follows you down a deserted street at night. Less of a general swordsman, more of a sly, ruthless hunter. Worse in a straight fight, better on his own terms. Less Aragorn, more Legolas.
This version of the ranger relies on wisdom; not quite to the degree that the paladin requires charisma, but close to it. This creates a dichotomy where the paladin and the ranger are the “mystical/mental fighters” (one with divine sexiness, the other with primal instinct), as opposed to the “brute force fighters”, namely the fighter and the barbarian (who just needs physical scores and that’s it). When judging the balance here, keep in mind that to really exploit Instinct the ranger needs a solid WIS, which will reduce his physical attributes accordingly. Of course, a ranger could just get off with a 12 WIS and max out STR or DEX as always; that’s just as viable an option (this is why I didn’t want Instinct to apply to everything all the time).
Likewise, many of his class features (Instinct and, at higher levels, Hunter’s Strike) reward him for hitting-and-running or using 1 hit/round tactics. This isn’t meant to completely discourage rangers from standing and fighting, mind you: a dash of sneak-attack is a strong incentive to haul out the matching shortswords and tear it up in melee as well. Instinct is merely a counterbalance to that, an attempt to make snipe-and-hide tactics (or precise strike, or spring-attack) equally viable. His class features work at cross-purposes, but this was by design, and hopefully he’ll be able to slice some throats no matter what the circumstances of a given battle.
All this new stuff didn’t take long to hedge existing ranger trappings almost completely out of the class. This ranger can choose between spells and an animal companion (but can’t have both), while favored enemy, favored terrain, and combat style have all been swept into the “ranger’s lore” list and off of the main class feature chart.
After writing this I’m itching to see one in play at mid-levels. My goal was to make a class that doesn’t have the constant bonuses to beat a fighter in a fair fight; but which, conversely, will beat the puss out of the fighter in a dense forest where he can ambush and flee, or perhaps in a running battle across the rooftops of a city. I don’t know if I’ve hit the mark; part of me wants to drop the hit dice to d8’s. Let me know what you think.
p.s.: If the infuse-with-living-plants path confuses you: It’s a Ptolus thing.
THE CUT-THROAT RANGER
1.) Ranger’s Lore, Track
2.) Instinct +1, Wild Empathy
3.) Sneak Attack +1d6
4.) Hunter’s Strike, Wild Path
5.) Ranger’s Lore
6.) Instinct +2
7.) Sneak Attack +2d6
8.) Improved Hunter’s Strike
9.) Ranger’s Lore
10.) Instinct +3
11.) Sneak Attack +3d6
12.) Quarry
13.) Ranger’s Lore
14.) Instinct +4
15.) Sneak Attack +4d6
16.) Greater Hunter’s Strike
17.) Ranger’s Lore
18.) Instinct +5
19.) Sneak Attack +5d6
20.) Prey
Hit Dice, Skills, Proficiencies, BAB, Saves:
As the Pathfinder RPG ranger.
Ranger’s Lore:
Rangers are an eclectic lot, and while all are cunning and ruthless in combat their exact skills and techniques vary, often by tradition or homeland.
A ranger may choose one of the following abilities every time the class feature comes up. They do not stack (a ranger can’t have a favored enemy bonus higher than +2), but you may select one multiple times in order to gain different favored terrains, favored enemies, or feats.
Arrows from the Trees (ex): A ranger using a ranged weapon may sneak-attack foes up to one range increment (rather than 30 feet) away. She suffers only a -10 penalty to stealth checks made to hide after attacking (rather than the usual -20).
Combat Style: The ranger gains a bonus combat feat.
Beastmaster (ex): A ranger must be 9th level and have the “animal companion” class feature to select this ability. She gains an additional animal companion. Her effective level for determining the abilities of this companion is equal to that of her primary companion -2.
Favored Enemy (ex):
Favored Terrain: A ranger may select a type of terrain from the Favored Terrains table. When in her favored terrain, a ranger gains a +2 bonus on initiative checks and Perception, Stealth, and Survival skill checks when he is in this terrain, as well as knowledge checks pertaining to that area (knowledge(nature) in a forest, for instance). Any time she has cover, she gains an additional +2 dodge bonus to armor class.
Add +10 to the DC to track a ranger in her favored terrain. A ranger who is dressed to blend into her favored terrain may use the stealth skill even if she does not have cover or concealment.
Guardian (ex): A ranger must be 5th level to select this ability. If the party is attacked, one ally adjacent to the ranger gains the ranger’s instinct bonus as a circumstance bonus to armor class. That ally is not considered flat-footed unless the ranger is also flat-footed. These benefits only apply during the surprise round.
Hunter’s Eyes (ex): A ranger must be 5th level to select this ability. The ranger applies her instinct bonus to all Perception checks.
Killer Instinct (ex): A ranger must be 13th level to select this ability. A ranger who acts in the surprise round may make a Hunter’s Strike even if she has not had a chance to study an opponent.
Ruggedness (ex): The ranger enjoys a +1 bonus to fortitude and will save. She gains Endurance as a bonus feat.
Wolfpack Tactics (ex): The ranger gains a +2 dodge bonus to armor class against any opponent that she flanks.
Woodland Stride (ex):
Track (ex):
(Unchanged)
Instinct (ex):
At second level a ranger gains an instinct bonus, equal to her wisdom modifier (at least 0) +1, which she adds to all initiative checks and applies as a dodge bonus to armor class during all surprise rounds. As she gains levels, a ranger’s instinct bonus increases and she may benefit from it in a number of different ways. Instinct is not a constant bonus born of repetitive training, but instead represents an active cunning, situational thinking, intuition and improvisation.
At 6th level, a ranger may add her instinct bonus to a single damage roll as a swift action, or she may add it to her armor class (or CMB) against a single attack as an immediate action. .
At 10th level, a ranger may add her instinct bonus to a single attack roll as a swift action, or she may add it to a single saving throw as an immediate action.
At 14th level, whenever a ranger spends a swift or immediate action to apply her instinct bonus to a roll, one ally of her choice within speaking distance may also spend a swift or immediate action to gain her (the ranger’s) instinct bonus on a roll of the same type, provided that the ally uses it in the same way (attack, damage, or armor class against the same enemy, or saving throws against the same ability). This ally must use this ability before the start of the ranger’s next turn.
Finally, at 18th level a ranger may apply her instinct bonus once per round as a free action. This is in addition to her swift or immediate action use of the ability.
A ranger’s instinct bonus never stacks with itself.
Wild Empathy (ex):
(Unchanged)
Sneak Attack (ex):
The ranger's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 3rd level, and increases by 1d6 every 4 ranger levels thereafter. Should the ranger score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied. Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.
With a weapon that deals nonlethal damage (like a sap, whip, or an unarmed strike), a ranger can make a sneak attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage. She cannot use a weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage in a sneak attack, not even with the usual –4 penalty.
The ranger must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment.
Hunter’s Strike (ex):
The ranger excels when she can stalk her prey from the shadows, taking her time to plan and execute an attack. By studying the appearance, baring, and mannerisms of her prey she picks out weakness that others overlook, and by the time her victims are shown their faults the damage has already been done.
At fourth level, a ranger who spends at least three rounds (as a standard action each round) studying a foe adds her instinct bonus to her next attack against him and deals bonus damage equal to her weapon’s base damage (1d8 for a longbow, 2d6 for a greatsword, etc). The attack must be made within one round after the ranger stops studying (in general, that means during the surprise round or the first round of combat). To make a hunter’s strike with a ranged weapon, the target must be no more than 60 feet or 1 range increment away (whichever is greater).
The ranger normally remains hidden until this point, as a careless ranger’s foes might flee or attack her before she has had time to study them, but note that this ability does not actually require that her foes be caught unaware. A ranger could be staring you in the face while she sizes you up, taking note of exposed vitals.
At 8th level, a ranger need only study her prey for two rounds, and deals double damage on a hunter’s stroke (rather than merely adding her base damage). If this attack is also a critical hit, increase the multiplier by 1.
At 16th level, a ranger need only study her prey for one round (as a full-round action), and any critical threats made on a hunter’s strike automatically confirm.
Wild Path:
All experienced rangers achieve a spiritual bond with nature. This path may take one of three forms: a supernatural bond that allows the ranger to cast divine spells, a spiritual bond with a natural creature, or a physical bond with the natural world.
Mysticism: The ranger gains the ability to cast a small number of divine spells drawn from the ranger spell list, as laid out on the ranger spells per day table. These spells are wisdom-based, and his caster level equals his ranger level -3.
(Note that this version of the ranger does not have a spell list and cannot use spell-trigger or spell completion items unless and until he chooses the “mysticism” class feature).
Animal Companion: The ranger gains an animal companion, exactly as the druid class feature. A ranger’s effective druid level for this class feature starts out at his ranger level -3. It improves to his ranger level -2 at 8th level, his ranger level -1 at 12th, and finally equals his ranger level at 16th level.
Viridian Bond: In a lengthy ritual, you allow nature to physically infuse your flesh: green vines weave in and out of your skin and leaves dangle amid your hair. You gain a +1 natural armor bonus to armor class, a +4 bonus to saving throws against plant-related spells (such as entangle) and the abilities of plant creatures, and a +2 bonus to stealth checks made in a verdant environment.
At 8th level you gain fast healing 2 for a number of rounds per day equal to your ranger level. Activating or deactivating this ability is a free action.
At 12th level your natural armor bonus increases to +2 and you may cast speak with plants at-will as a spell-like ability by touching the plants in question.
At 16th level your fast healing improves to 5.
Quarry (ex):
At 12th level, a ranger who observes a foe for three rounds (as a free action each round, inside or outside of combat) may designate that creature as her quarry.
Prey (su):
A 20th level ranger always knows whether or not her quarry is alive, what plane of existence he is on, and his exact direction and distance if he is on the same plane. She automatically gains her instinct bonus to all attacks against him and to defense against all his attacks, and her attacks always deal sneak-attack damage to him whether or not he is denied his dexterity bonus.
Some of the repeat abilities (i.e. those I haven't changed at all from 3.P) are spoilered. Some aren't written at all and are just links to the PRD. I guess that's not very consistent, come to think of it.
Very impressive work! I like that fact that you've included Sneak Attack (judging by the FE thread, it appears we were of a similar mind on that). The Viridian Bond in its current form seems like a neat idea, but I'm not wild about the implementation. I think it would be far cooler if the character took some of the traits of the plant type, or gained some resistances like Poison Ivy from Batman.
One question I do have is on how often the CTRanger gets to use their Instinct abilities. For instance, at 6th level you note that they can use it on or against a single attack, but with what frequency? Is this something they can use at will so long as they have swift actions, or is it a trick they can pull out only once per encounter, etc?
BTW, good call on noting that Favored Terrain should include a relevant knowledge check — again a sentiment we both share. FWIW, I've also been wondering if a ranger who is familiar with a particular terrain type should also gain their FT bonus on Wild Empathy checks against animals native to that sort of terrain — even if found outside their typical habitat. That last qualifier could be a bit messy to adjudicate though, so I would have some reservations about suggesting it.
Again, good job. Makes me feel like rolling up a new Ranger right now. :)
The natural armor bonus and "speak with plants" power were rough translations of Veridian Lord (a powerful ranger organization) feats from the Ptolus setting. I added fast healing because I pictured the plant fiber knitting itself (and his flesh) back together, and because I was somehow under the impression that regeneration was a common plant trait (rather than just a tendriculos thing).
I think that you're right; that was hastily written (that was one of the last parts I did) and could use a rewrite. At a glance, "Doesn't need to sleep" looks like a cool plant quality to borrow. Poison immunity is another.
Instinct is indeed at will and has no restrictions other than the swift/immediate action cost (which, of course, is actually a stiff restriction at times- if he uses it to cover his ass against a disintegrate spell he doesn't get to add it to attack or damage on the following round. But yes, he does get it once per round, whatever he may decide to do with it).
Makes me feel like rolling up a new Ranger right now.
That's probably the best response one can hope for. ^_^
Ugh, I'm noticing tense/pronoun errors that I overlooked earlier, but it's too late to edit.
Ugh, I'm noticing tense/pronoun errors that I overlooked earlier, but it's too late to edit.
I like it. The only thing that scares me is Sneak Attack, but that's only because I've watched the rogue in one of my games really struggle at getting it off with regularity. Still the ranger here has more then the rogue does so he should be able to find a way to pull off doing reasonable damage even without getting sneak attacks all the time.
I'm wondering if the CTRanger needs to be front-loaded a bit more. Losing 1 level from Wild Empathy just makes for an annoyance when trying to remember your modifier and it may as well go back to 1st.
That leaves 2nd level with an ability that is quite limited until 6th level. Granted, Sneak Attack is more powerful than Favored Enemy (IMO), but I'm really wondering if the CTR needs either another Lore choice or a feat at 2nd to keep them on par with the 3.P ranger.
What do you think?
I'm wondering if the CTRanger needs to be front-loaded a bit more. Losing 1 level from Wild Empathy just makes for an annoyance when trying to remember your modifier and it may as well go back to 1st.
That leaves 2nd level with an ability that is quite limited until 6th level. Granted, Sneak Attack is more powerful than Favored Enemy (IMO), but I'm really wondering if the CTR needs either another Lore choice or a feat at 2nd to keep them on par with the 3.P ranger.
What do you think?
Wild empathy uses his whole ranger level; it doesn't matter what ability it comes at.
As for frontload, I tried to avoid giving any hard-power combat boosts at level 2 because SA comes at level 3. Three levels of full BAB with a die of sneak attack at the end is pretty powerful. He already gets one combat feat (or equivalent power) at level 1, and if he got another at level 2 then the first few rangers levels would be better than fighter levels in just about every way imaginable.
And instinct (to initiative and surprise-round AC) isn't that much of a lull. I think it's probably fine.
Arrows from the Trees (ex): A ranger using a ranged weapon may sneak-attack foes up to one range increment (rather than 30 feet) away. She suffers only a -10 penalty to stealth checks made to hide after attacking (rather than the usual -20)
Sorry if this is a foolish question, but specifically what is meant by "one range increment"?
I like your ideas and will probably use them or incorporate some of your ideas into my build I'm working on. I also quite like "ruggedness".
Do you mean extending the sneak attack range with a ranged weapon, (which I think is a good idea especially if you are going the ranged specialist route) or are you simply rewording it?
Yes, this (potentially) increases the range at which you may sneak-attack someone. "One range increment" means the range increment of your weapon: for instance, a ranger with a heavy crossbow could deal sneak-attack damage to someone up to 120 feet away.
(Meanwhile a ranger throwing a spear still gets to SA 30 feet away even though the spear's range increment is less than that)
"Yes, this (potentially) increases the range at which you may sneak-attack someone. "One range increment" means the range increment of your weapon: for instance, a ranger with a heavy crossbow could deal sneak-attack damage to someone up to 120 feet away."
Thank you for this clarification. Like I already stated, I believe that this general idea is long overdue and applies especially well to the ranged specialist ranger.
Good job!!
No prob, and thanks! :)
Hey Hydro, not to derail your thread seeing as you've done a fantastic
job with your vision of rangerdom... but I've made a variant of the
class for my militant campaign and wonder if you could gauge it up for
me. My goal is to make a roguish ranger military scout. The class has
no magic and is built around stealth and combat feats. I've taken out
the animal kinship abilities and extreme familiarization to specific
regions (terrains) because the character will be moving around a lot to
wherever he/ she would be needed. . If the archer path is taken, I
would add in your sneak attack benefit for it. I would also allow for
the 2 hd. weapon fighting specializations which I believe have been
listed elsewhere previously. Without as much description as you've done
it is currently as follows:
1st level- sneak attack +1d6, track, fast movement
2nd level- combat style feat
3rd level- sneak attack +2d6, ruggedness
4th level- bleeding attack
5th level- sneak attack +3d6, uncanny dodge
6th level- combat style feat
7th level- sneak attack +4d6, woodland stride
8th level- fast stealth, swift tracker
9th level- sneak attack +5d6
10th level- combat style feat, evasion
11th level- sneak attack +6d6, improved uncanny dodge
12th level- camouflage
13th level- sneak attack +7d6
14th level- combat style feat
15th level- sneak attack +8d6
16th level- improved evasion
17th level- sneak attack +9d6, hide in plain sight
18th level- combat style feat
19th level- sneak attack +10d6
20th level- master strike
1st level- sneak attack +1d6, track, fast movement2nd level- combat style feat
3rd level- sneak attack +2d6, ruggedness
4th level- bleeding attack
5th level- sneak attack +3d6, uncanny dodge
6th level- combat style feat
7th level- sneak attack +4d6, woodland stride
8th level- fast stealth, swift tracker
9th level- sneak attack +5d6
10th level- combat style feat, evasion
11th level- sneak attack +6d6, improved uncanny dodge
12th level- camouflage
13th level- sneak attack +7d6
14th level- combat style feat
15th level- sneak attack +8d6
16th level- improved evasion
17th level- sneak attack +9d6, hide in plain sight
18th level- combat style feat
19th level- sneak attack +10d6
20th level- master strike
Full sneak-attack? Looks intense. I assume that this is 3/4ths BAB and d8 for hitpoints?
If so, it looks a lot like a wilderness-flavored rogue, and the class features match up fairly evenly with the rogues. Your scout-ranger comes out perhaps a little behind in the latter half of the progression (for lack of advanced rogue talents). I would consider Quarry at 12th and Improved Quarry at 16th.
If this is full BAB and HP then it's clearly too good, I think.
Interesting ideas so far guys!
I mentioned this in another thread, but given what you are messing around with here, I think you will definitely want to check out the next issue of Kobold Quarterly (issue 11)... :)
Oh, KQ 11? That's not far away at all. I look forward to it!
It's supposed to be a mostly rogue/ ranger mix. I threw in the fast mvmt because the military scout types are always running all over the place far out beyond everyone else. I was hoping it wasn't too overpowered, it's just so difficult to make this concept without making a fighter thief at 10/10 max.
I left out the favoured enemies, wild empathy, favoured terrains,magic, and quarries. Bah!! How many sneak attacks should I leave out to not be too overpowered in your opinion?
It's also only 2 special abilities better than a ranger with spell progression and the above listed discrepancies. The 11- 20 levels are a little light on abilities but they're not necessary there. I tried to spread the abilities out and/ or line them up with ranger and rogue respectively.
BTW thanks for your opinion HYDRO. Are you going to do a version of cleric because I would look forward to your interpretation. That's going to be my next project.
Secondly, are there any classless system rules or updated guidelines for making your own classes? I know I had something a decade ago or so but I don't even remember what it was. (I haven't really been playing since 2E). Thanks and keep up the good work!!
I left out the favoured enemies, wild empathy, favoured terrains,magic, and quarries. Bah!! How many sneak attacks should I leave out to not be too overpowered in your opinion?
Hmm, let's see, what else do you have...
Feats:
5 combat style feats
"Hard power" abilities:
Fast movement, bleeding strike, (improved) uncanny dodge, (improved) evasion.
"Moderate power" (useful in combat, but circumstantial):
Woodland stride, hide in plain sight
"Soft power" or skill abilities:
Ruggedness, fast stealth/tracking, camouflage
I would say six die. That's 1d6 at 3rd level, +1d6 per three levels. Seven die (i.e. 1d6 at 2nd or 1st- preferably 2nd- +1d6/3 levels) would be pushing it, but perhaps with a reduction to skills or hit die. Maybe both. I could throw together a layout for that if you want.
"But Hydro", you may be asking, "that's not much less than what I have now! Why did you act like it was totally broken as-is?"
To which I answer, "+3d6 sneak-attack is +10 damage per hit."
As Monte Cook said (when explaining why no one in AE had full SA progression), sneak attack at every other level is so powerful that if you try to make a class with it, you wind up remaking the rogue. There just isn't room to do much else.
(this is less true in Pathfinder, where the rogue effectively gets a bonus feat at every level that he doesn't get SA, but the point stands that full SA is a big fat deal)
It doesn't look like it, but structurally our rangers are pretty similar: the majority of their power actually comes form full BAB + SA, augmented by combat feats.
BTW thanks for your opinion HYDRO. Are you going to do a version of cleric because I would look forward to your interpretation. That's going to be my next project.
Secondly, are there any classless system rules or updated guidelines for making your own classes? I know I had something a decade ago or so but I don't even remember what it was. (I haven't really been playing since 2E). Thanks and keep up the good work!!
And thank you. :)
The bard needed an overhaul, I felt. The ranger didn't need one, presuming that your DM humors your favored enemy, but he wasn't what I wanted a ranger to be. However, I'm pretty happy with the other 9 classes as they are in Pathfinder.
Right now I'm turning my attention towards converting races to 3.P, writing some new feats, and otherwise gearing up for a char-gen session for my Ptolus game. :)
I have ever intention of writing two more Pathfinder classes, a runemage and song-mage, but I can't say if/when they'll show up on the paizo boards.
I really, really like both versions of the Ranger I see here, although Verminaard's is more in keeping with what I had in mind for the ranger for my own campaign setting. A quick question, Hydro- does your version of the ranger cast spells?
A quick question, Hydro- does your version of the ranger cast spells?
Sometimes.
Check out the "wild bond" class feature: spellcasting is one of his options. He can't do this and also gain an animal companion, though.
Because CTrangers don't cast spells by default (they only gain the ability if they choose it later), a 1st level ranger can't use wands or scrolls the way a normal ranger can.
I really, really like both versions of the Ranger I see here, although Verminaard's is more in keeping with what I had in mind for the ranger for my own campaign setting. A quick question, Hydro- does your version of the ranger cast spells?Were you looking for a ranger that does not cast spells?
Well..yes and no.
In my campaign setting(which is currently using the SRD), Druids are champions of the Yggdrasil(a gigantic forest primeval that spans most of the center of the continent), chosen by the forest itself to act as its representative to the outside world. Of course, not all are chosen to act in such a capacity, and this is where rangers enter. They are something akin to a warrior society found in certain native american cultures(which is what I based the elves of the campaign setting on), that prefers to serve the forest in a less esoteric fashion- mainly through violent action. I have struggled to figure out what to do with the spellcasting ability of the ranger as described in the SRD. At first I was going to separate the ranger into two classes- the ranger and the reaver(rangers that had nothing to do with the Great Forest/Yggdrasil, as there are other forests in the world as well as people who use ranger-like skills in other enviornments), the first having spellcasting ability and the second not, but that proved unpopular. Then I considered having the spellcasting ability be feat based, but that presents problems of its own. Right now I'm more thinking of making the ranger and the reaver flip sides of the same coin by making the reaver an alternate class ability-based ranger, and I think this is the best idea. Still, I am currently grappling with the monk right now, and so I have put the ranger on the back burner. I believe the link to my website is on my profile, just keep in mind that the things there are based on SRD and have not been(and in fact, may never be) updated to include 3.Pathfinder sensibilities.
Truth be told, I've been waiting a while for a thread like this. The ranger has never been a very well-explained class, particularly with the fighter and the druid standing on opposite poles of the idea. I liked the idea put forth in 3.0/3.5 that the ranger could be a highly specialized duelist/tracker, but then when the scout came out, things got even more squiffy. So wither the ranger now, with 3.Pathfinder, the scout, the fighter and the druid surrounding him?
I guess I could cut it down to 6 SA and change the 20 lvl power...(sad). And I know it is similar to your build, which is why I asked for your input, we're on a similar page, just different flavors of rangerdom.
Are you gonna hit up orc for your race redux? The guys in my campaign are all special forces type orcs who want to covertly but aggressively kick all the elves and dwarves in the teeth. They'll do the aggressive stealth and assassination type and the army will come clean up the mess after.
I'm trying to make everyone single class only which is why I'm aggressively mixing classes a bit so my players will still have what
they want in characters. Two are currently fighters, one will be the
ranger/ sniper and one is a cleric. They will all be stealthy to an
extent. The cleric trickery domain powers and spells fit ideally,
whereas the death domain would make more sense if it had the command
undead feat as it's power (IMO). They all have 2hd morningstars as
melee weapons (clan thing) and shortbows. (They also like to cut off
their enemies faces and use them as masks). I may get more players at a
later date.
Like I said, it's been 14 years since I DM'd or played. Since then
I've had the opportunity to experience combat and conflict first hand.
So I try to apply ideas and tactics I have learned to enhance the game and add to it's realism/ physics factor.
I like making classes to suit my campaigns anyways. Cheerio.
Is the editing tool/ paragraph script a bit off on this forum? My paragraphs keep resizing when they post?!
I guess I could cut it down to 6 SA and change the 20 lvl power...(sad). And I know it is similar to your build, which is why I asked for your input, we're on a similar page, just different flavors of rangerdom.
Are you gonna hit up orc for your race redux? The guys in my campaign are all special forces type orcs who want to covertly but aggressively kick all the elves and dwarves in the teeth. They'll do the aggressive stealth and assassination type and the army will come clean up the mess after.
I'm trying to make everyone single class only which is why I'm aggressively mixing classes a bit so my players will still have what
they want in characters. Two are currently fighters, one will be the
ranger/ sniper and one is a cleric. They will all be stealthy to an
extent. The cleric trickery domain powers and spells fit ideally,
whereas the death domain would make more sense if it had the command
undead feat as it's power (IMO). They all have 2hd morningstars as
melee weapons (clan thing) and shortbows. (They also like to cut off
their enemies faces and use them as masks). I may get more players at a
later date.Like I said, it's been 14 years since I DM'd or played. Since then
I've had the opportunity to experience combat and conflict first hand.
So I try to apply ideas and tactics I have learned to enhance the game and add to it's realism/ physics factor.I like making classes to suit my campaigns anyways. Cheerio.
Sounds like a cool game. ^^
In one of my upcoming games, I'm going to use half-orc stats for orcs (as per the Beta "noble savages"). Ages ago, an evil warlord learned to modify the orcs to make them stronger but stupider and more vulnerable to sunlight; orcs can still be warped in this way, and can even choose to do so to themselves. There are savage rivalries between those who embrace this path vs. those who adhere to the (even) older ways and live naturally.
In Ptolus, on the other hand, orcs don't feature that prominently and I'll probably just use the monster stats for all of them.
Is the editing tool/ paragraph script a bit off on this forum? My paragraphs keep resizing when they post?!
The boards recently changes and there are probably all sorts of glitches running amuck.
|
I really, really like both versions of the Ranger I see here, although Verminaard's is more in keeping with what I had in mind for the ranger for my own campaign setting. A quick question, Hydro- does your version of the ranger cast spells?Were you looking for a ranger that does not cast spells?Well..yes and no.
Well then, at the risk of repeating myself, the variant pathfinder ranger class in Kobold Quarterly 11 (comes out in October) will probably be something you will want to check out. It might be just what you are looking for.
"In one of my upcoming games, I'm going to use half-orc stats for orcs (as per the Beta "noble savages"). Ages ago, an evil warlord learned to modify the orcs to make them stronger but stupider and more vulnerable to sunlight; orcs can still be warped in this way, and can even choose to do so to themselves. There are savage rivalries between those who embrace this path vs. those who adhere to the (even) older ways and live naturally".
-Thanks Hydro!!
As is for now, I basically have to use the 1/2 orc stats for PF for my orcs. I'm giving them +2 str +2 con & -2 int. They're N/E. I left orc ferocity as is and darkvision 60' with +2 intimidate and proficiency with 2 weapons as per clan (2hd morningstar and ranseur for their clan). There are no 1/2 races in my game (except for the hobbit/ halfling). I'm waiting for the monster book to see what else... I don't have the "Noble Savages" thingie. The elves and dwarves (and everyone else)are always out to kill all the orcs so I figured I'd turn the age old table on them for the underdogs. My orcs are not without all cunning and thoughts of retribution for their eternal persecution and their belief that they are the sentient race that should rule their planet. Ha elves and dwarves!!
Hey Hydro I really like this ranger.
I am certian I have heard of or seen something similar called the stalker?
Anyway I really like the idea of instinct and my first question was already answered above.
The only question I have is how powerful do you think instinct is?
The reason I ask is everything looks good execpt levels two and three I am just wondering would it be more prudent to put sneak attack with level two and instinct with level three.
The reason I ask is because I do play low level game play and I am kinda suprised to hear alot of people don't.
But anyway to the point players love to see there tatical advantage rewarded and at low level play this where it really counts an extra D6 of damage is almost universally more welcome than extra AC.
Also if I was a second level ranger with instinct as a player I would just get as much armour as I could and tank.
Which seems against the theme but with sneak attack there they still want to move about and then they can't wait to get instintic so they can surprise there foes and sneak attack all over the place.
Other than that I really like it.
(also That plant bond is really killer I like it)
Well then, at the risk of repeating myself, the variant pathfinder ranger class in Kobold Quarterly 11 (comes out in October) will probably be something you will want to check out. It might be just what you are looking for.I really, really like both versions of the Ranger I see here, although Verminaard's is more in keeping with what I had in mind for the ranger for my own campaign setting. A quick question, Hydro- does your version of the ranger cast spells?Were you looking for a ranger that does not cast spells?Well..yes and no.
I have been eagerly looking forward to that for a while. I would also like to get more ideas on what a non-spellcasting ranger would be like. Anyone else want to chime in, or should I start another thread?
|
|
I have been eagerly looking forward to that for a while. I would also like to get more ideas on what a non-spellcasting ranger would be like. Anyone else want to chime in, or should I start another thread?Well then, at the risk of repeating myself, the variant pathfinder ranger class in Kobold Quarterly 11 (comes out in October) will probably be something you will want to check out. It might be just what you are looking for.I really, really like both versions of the Ranger I see here, although Verminaard's is more in keeping with what I had in mind for the ranger for my own campaign setting. A quick question, Hydro- does your version of the ranger cast spells?Were you looking for a ranger that does not cast spells?Well..yes and no.
That's actually what this ranger variant in KQ 11 is ... a non spellcasting ranger. I'll be anxious to hear what everyone thinks of it!
Hey Freehold DM, Hydro's CT ranger can easily be used to be non spell casting and he has some real good ideas. I've always wanted to make a ranger/ thief mix without the ability sets of either (like the trap stuff for rogues or the favored enemies/ terrains/ (I'm using a military campaign and my characters will constantly be sent to different terrains to deal with different enemies, so they probably wouldn't have this specialization anyways, although I of course could use these) and animal stuff, but orc rangers probably aren't going to be cuddling too much with kittens and such...boars are good steeds for them but do you think they would be friends? To make my ideal type of classes (for my campaign) is just like mixing up any other classes. Rules are just guidelines to follow and bend as you need to fit to your campaign. It's a game you need to make sure you and your players are going to enjoy their characters and have fun, hopefully without bending the rules too much or writing a book yourself. What version of the class are you looking to achieve?
Hey Hydro I really like this ranger.
I am certian I have heard of or seen something similar called the stalker?
Anyway I really like the idea of instinct and my first question was already answered above.The only question I have is how powerful do you think instinct is?
The reason I ask is everything looks good execpt levels two and three I am just wondering would it be more prudent to put sneak attack with level two and instinct with level three.The reason I ask is because I do play low level game play and I am kinda suprised to hear alot of people don't.
But anyway to the point players love to see there tatical advantage rewarded and at low level play this where it really counts an extra D6 of damage is almost universally more welcome than extra AC.Also if I was a second level ranger with instinct as a player I would just get as much armour as I could and tank.
Which seems against the theme but with sneak attack there they still want to move about and then they can't wait to get instintic so they can surprise there foes and sneak attack all over the place.Other than that I really like it.
(also That plant bond is really killer I like it)
I made a point of waiting 'til third because that's when the rogue gets his second die, and I never wanted the ranger to have as much SA as the rogue does. This is important at all character levels (at least for multiclassed characters) because sneak-attack is worth dipping for.
At the same level that the fighter has two feats, the ranger has one feat + three times the skillpoints + better reflex save + track + wild empathy + instinct. I don't feel he needs more frontloading. Besides, 2nd level will be over before you know it. ;)
I do get what you're saying about "setting the feel" early on. I came close to using a slightly different progression which would have given Hunter's Strike at 1st level, but ended up making way for Ranger Lore at level 1 instead, on the assumption that many character will want lore abilities for background reasons (esp. favored terrain).
Hey Freehold DM, Hydro's CT ranger can easily be used to be non spell casting and he has some real good ideas. I've always wanted to make a ranger/ thief mix without the ability sets of either (like the trap stuff for rogues or the favored enemies/ terrains/ (I'm using a military campaign and my characters will constantly be sent to different terrains to deal with different enemies, so they probably wouldn't have this specialization anyways, although I of course could use these) and animal stuff, but orc rangers probably aren't going to be cuddling too much with kittens and such...boars are good steeds for them but do you think they would be friends? To make my ideal type of classes (for my campaign) is just like mixing up any other classes. Rules are just guidelines to follow and bend as you need to fit to your campaign. It's a game you need to make sure you and your players are going to enjoy their characters and have fun, hopefully without bending the rules too much or writing a book yourself. What version of the class are you looking to achieve?
It wouldn't be hard to write other, campaign-specific paths for Wild Bond either (really I just threw in the Veridian Lord stuff on a whim, because I knew I'd be gaming in Ptolus).
As for game-specific class variants, it's sad that this isn't done more. The DMG actively encouraged class tweaking but for some reason it doesn't seem to happen often.
That said, though, I don't follow you on the animal companion. If an orc is going to have a friend, it is definitely going to be a boar. Or a wolf, or a velociraptor. Animal companions are not "kittens and such". =p
Hey Freehold DM, Hydro's CT ranger can easily be used to be non spell casting and he has some real good ideas. I've always wanted to make a ranger/ thief mix without the ability sets of either (like the trap stuff for rogues or the favored enemies/ terrains/ (I'm using a military campaign and my characters will constantly be sent to different terrains to deal with different enemies, so they probably wouldn't have this specialization anyways, although I of course could use these) and animal stuff, but orc rangers probably aren't going to be cuddling too much with kittens and such...boars are good steeds for them but do you think they would be friends? To make my ideal type of classes (for my campaign) is just like mixing up any other classes. Rules are just guidelines to follow and bend as you need to fit to your campaign. It's a game you need to make sure you and your players are going to enjoy their characters and have fun, hopefully without bending the rules too much or writing a book yourself. What version of the class are you looking to achieve?
Okay, here's the idea: I basically need either two rangers or a base ranger class with spellcasting as an alternate class ability(similar to two weapon fighting, archery, or my own addition to that idea, companion-based fighting styles). The first ranger would be the "original" one, the warrior lodge/society created by the elves to defend themselves from the predation of the Interloper's spawn(the elves in this campaign setting are devout atheists with respect to stereotypical d&d cosmology). The second ranger would be the "nouveau" one, the one that would be created by people who simply needed to get along in the wild(or any particular setting) and have learned a few tricks to turn the enviornment against their foes. A little vague, yes, but keep in mind- I've been focusing on the Monk for a few months now.
I was just trying to be humorous about the kittens. I just see orcs as more coping with nature and destroying it if it gets in their way than trying to be at one with it. Such as with animals or plants. Your ideas are great and I'm not one upping you at all. And I mentioned boars because they are the perfect mount for orcs. As I stated, I just see them treating them as slaves more than as friends... that doen't mean I'm right and you're wrong, it's campaign specific to how I view their interaction as a race to animals, plants and the outside world. I was specifically speaking of my campaign and encouraging OP to consider his/ her own campaign to work as a guide to decide what is wanted to be achieved in their class generation.
Okay, here's the idea: I basically need either two rangers or a base ranger class with spellcasting as an alternate class ability(similar to two weapon fighting, archery, or my own addition to that idea, companion-based fighting styles).
Not to pimp my own ideas too hard, but that's exactly what mine does.
I mean, exactly.
My advice would be to say that your atheist elven rangers take animal companions while your new-age hippy rangers get spells. Or the elves could bond with plants (that seems like an elfy thing to me). Or even something else entirely.
As I stated, I just see them treating them as slaves more than as friends...
Don't humans do the same thing?
Just say'in.Anyway, my comments about class tweaking were meant as compliments- I think it's cool that you're making the system suit your game.
"I just see orcs as more coping with nature and destroying it if it gets in their way than trying to be at one with it. Such as with animals or plants"
Humans completely do the same thing. (sad) I'd assume they try a little harder than my idea of an orc though, or pretend better at least.
I'm still trying to make the orc a bit more primal than them.
And Hydro, any more ideas on what I should do to my ranger?
I'll change the SA down to 6.
And what do you think about giving the cleric death domain command undead feats instead of their given powers?
And thanks again.
...And by the way, I love kittens...
Okay, here's the idea: I basically need either two rangers or a base ranger class with spellcasting as an alternate class ability(similar to two weapon fighting, archery, or my own addition to that idea, companion-based fighting styles).Not to pimp my own ideas too hard, but that's exactly what mine does.
I mean, exactly.
My advice would be to say that your atheist elven rangers take animal companions while your new-age hippy rangers get spells. Or the elves could bond with plants (that seems like an elfy thing to me). Or even something else entirely.
Actually when my boss isn't breathing down my neck demanding I do my job(the nerve!) and I take a better look at your class, it is VERY much what I had in mind. I will have to dissect it on my own time and see what works where. Maybe certain class features have have certain requirements where applicable to the campaign setting.
Actually when my boss isn't breathing down my neck demanding I do my job(the nerve!) and I take a better look at your class, it is VERY much what I had in mind. I will have to dissect it on my own time and see what works where. Maybe certain class features have have certain requirements where applicable to the campaign setting.Okay, here's the idea: I basically need either two rangers or a base ranger class with spellcasting as an alternate class ability(similar to two weapon fighting, archery, or my own addition to that idea, companion-based fighting styles).Not to pimp my own ideas too hard, but that's exactly what mine does.
I mean, exactly.
My advice would be to say that your atheist elven rangers take animal companions while your new-age hippy rangers get spells. Or the elves could bond with plants (that seems like an elfy thing to me). Or even something else entirely.
Look we all know Rangers are just bigoted serial killers who get better at thier "craft" as time progresses.
True dat!!
The cleric trickery domain powers and spells fit ideally,
whereas the death domain would make more sense if it had the command
undead feat as it's power (IMO).
Sorry, I never got back to you on this.
Technically, I think that most 1st level domain powers aren't supposed to be as good as feats, but some of them are (I'd certainly pay a feat for freedom of movements 1 round/level/day). I don't think it would cause any real problems if you allowed this.
Hydro, I made another thread for this since I figure I've derailed this thread for you quite enough. I have to go for much of the day myself, again would like to hear your ideas regarding the variant scout ranger class though. Will try to keep this thread ranger strong. Not a regular forumite type myself, so apologies for the tangents.
BTW, I like much of your houserule stuff as well Hydro. Keep it up!! Good stuff.
I really like this class. But maybe it will seem too strong to the eyes of my dm. Tell you the truth it seems to be equal to the paladin in terms of power.
What would you remove to make it seem weaker?
Hydro, I love your rendition here. I'm kind of waiting for the kobold quarterly to come out that Marc Radle 81 mentioned before I finalize my make. When is it coming out?
As far as bleeding attack from thieves' abilities to sneak attack with this ranger rebuild, I'd imagine it could also grant a bonus to track if you hit someone with it. Perhaps it could go under your ranger lore, along with the evasion or uncanny dodge skills. The viridian bond ability is great, but I was thinking that in place of the fast healing progression that perhaps your natural armor and stealth could progress. Perhaps as a choice of either when undertaking the ritual. Have you thought any more on this? Thanks
So I'm finally gearing up to start a game and I think I'm ready to send this to the wiki for my players' reference. Here are the changes I'm making to the final version (several of them being responses to feedback).
-Hit dice reduced to d8’s.
-You must be 5th level to take Arrows from the Trees
-Quarry doesn’t correspond to a specific favored enemy type (this was an oversight- my ranger doesn't have to take FE).
-Animal Companion uses his full ranger level (it’s just as good as a druid’s companion). I gave this a fair bit of thought, but ranger spellcasting (which is what this replaces) is probably better than people realize, especially since the PRPG improved their progression. The level adjustment for extra companions (via Beastmaster) was increased to cancel this out and keep it in line with the rest of ranger lore.
Viridian Bond is rewritten as follows (the new levels mirror the PRPG ranger’s improved spell progression, which I’d overlooked before):
Viridian Bond: In a lengthy ritual, you allow nature to physically infuse your flesh: green vines weave in and out of your skin and leaves dangle amid your hair. You gain a +1 natural armor bonus to armor class, a +4 bonus to saving throws against plant-related spells (such as entangle) and the abilities of plant creatures, and a +2 bonus to stealth checks made in a verdant environment.
At 7th level you become immune to sleep effects. You no longer need to sleep, as long as you spend at least 8 hours of each day exposed to sunlight (including indirect, cloud-filtered or tree-filtered light). A ranger who spends an entire day indoors or underground suffers no special penalties but must sleep normally.
At 10th level you become immune to poison and stunning.
At 13th level your natural armor bonus improves to +2 and you become immune to paralysis.
After comparing him more extensively to the fighter I think that this ranger measures up fairly well. The HD reduction has a very small affect on net power and is more erring on the safe side than anything else (though it does reinforce the ranger as more of a skirmisher). A change I considered- but stopped short of- was dropping Instinct by one (i.e, having it start at WIS+0 and scale up to WIS+4). Hopefully I'll get a chance to playtest this and find out how right or wrong I was.
Any thoughts? Anything you feel I missed?
look pretty soild, I stand by my comments on two and three.
Sneak attack is not broken but the average D&D player prefers to be hitting the enemy not, not being hit by the enemy.
Still loving it. Am not working on ranger for my homebrew yet(still grappling with the monk. Get it? Grappling? HAHAHAHAHA), but when I do, I will go over this stuff again with the new stuff you just posted and see what we can make.
Thanks again!