|
I'm currently playing a ranger in a campaign and was wondering if anyone else felt some spells seemed strangely absent from a rangers list? I found it odd that water breathing and some form of a bane weapon or favored enemy spell wasn't thrown into a 4th level spell for flavor / variety. Thoughts? Do you think more should have been done or do you feel there's to much of an advantage there anyway?
Honestly I feel that non-casters as a whole weren't given enough by PF
It's funny, isn't it: On one side, you have people who think the non-casting classes need more gravy, and on the other side, you have people calling Pathfinder "D&D: Melee Edition".
To me, that makes it pretty much balanced, as balance has only been achieved when both sides complain equally loudly ;-)
If you think rangers and paladins are too weak as spellcasters, consider making their spellcasting quicker: Standard-action spells (which should be most of them) become swift actions, full-round spells become standard actions (everything else - if there even is anything - remains the same).
I do think that the classes could use a couple of extra spells, but I'd have to look into things before I could say exactly what. All I know is that I did think that some things are not quite there on the lists when I looked them over.
The ranger spells have always been very weak which is why the non-spell casting variant is so popular.
That and rangers really shouldn't have spells. The traditional rangers like Aragon are forest warriors/trackers. Favored Enemy yes. Animal companion, absolutely. But to me, spells for ranger always seemed against the theme
That and rangers really shouldn't have spells. The traditional rangers like Aragon are forest warriors/trackers. Favored Enemy yes. Animal companion, absolutely. But to me, spells for ranger always seemed against the theme
D&D Rangers have no relation whatsoever to Aragorn aside from both being called "rangers" at some point in time. Aragorn is a Fighter with high Intelligence (high stats overall, actually, due to his race) and points in Survival, Profession: Herbalist, Heal, etc. He doesn't exhibit any kind of favored enemy, he doesn't have an animal companion, he doesn't have a favored terrain ... in fact, he does nothing but shoot a bow (and not especially well either compared to others in the books), swing a sword, apply some herb poultices, and make a few inspiring speeches.
Rangers do have several good spells on their spell lists:
1st level spells: Resist Energy, Longstrider, delay poison
2nd level spells: Barkskin, Wind Wall, cure light wounds, Protection from Energy, Speak with Plants, Spike Growth.
3rd level spells: darkvision, greater magic fang, Neutralize Poison, Remove Disease, Water Walk, and Tree Shape.
4th level spells: Freedom of Movement, Nondetection, Tree Stride.
D&D Rangers have no relation whatsoever to Aragorn aside from both being called "rangers" at some point in time. Aragorn is a Fighter with high Intelligence (high stats overall, actually, due to his race) and points in Survival, Profession: Herbalist, Heal, etc. He doesn't exhibit any kind of favored enemy, he doesn't have an animal companion, he doesn't have a favored terrain ... in fact, he does nothing but shoot a bow (and not especially well either compared to others in the books), swing a sword, apply some herb poultices, and make a few inspiring speeches.
all tru, but he's the inspiration of the D&D ranger. At least this one has its own list. 1st edition rangers were able to cast a few spells from the druid list and a few for some unknown reason from the magic-user list
But look at the most well-known ranger, Drizzt. In the books, he never uses spells
Never occurred to you that Drizz't (who isn't exactly the best example to bring up around here, most people seem to dislike him for one reason or other. I'm neutral personally) might either A: Be a non-spellcasting variant Ranger, or B: Not be a 'ranger' at all? It's not all that uncommon for somebody to call themselves something based on what they do, rather than a specific subset of training they have.Oh, and about the Ranger's spells, 90% of them are so subtle that unless you succeeded on a spellcraft check you'd never really notice he was casting a spell. Those 'verbal combponents' may as well be something along the lines of a whispered oath on his bow or a promise or a good luck phrase.
You get what I'm saying? Ranger's spellcasting doesn't even need to 'be' spellcasting in the fluff, there are lots of ways to detail it.
Drizzt was a Frt10/Bbn1/Rgr5 in the 3.0 FR book.
The author just wasn't into writing him as heavy on spells. He was a concept (didn't carry a bow!). As a player, I can't imagine a ranger without a bow, but it made Drizz't more what he was; a really good TW fighter.
Rangers Spells are one of the few things that I LIKE about Spell Compendium. There are lots of decent ranger spells in there to supplement to core book.
I also like the idea of just using the core ranger spells as swift. Since most of the spells are either buffing, non-combat, or healing, I think it would work (I've never tried it myself).
But look at the most well-known ranger, Drizzt. In the books, he never uses spells
Characters in books aren't bound by class rules.
Wasn't my quote Dennis, I was quoting somebody else at that time. I said that the character in question was either a non-spellcasting ranger variant, not a RANGER but a two-weapon fighter that calling himself a ranger, or a ranger with a wisdom score below 11.
And yeah, Spell Compendium has some really sweet ranger spells, as does Champions of Ruin.
That's what I get for editing down a quote withing a quote. I thought it didn't match with your previous comments. Fixed it.
I'm currently playing a ranger in a campaign and was wondering if anyone else felt some spells seemed strangely absent from a rangers list? I found it odd that water breathing and some form of a bane weapon or favored enemy spell wasn't thrown into a 4th level spell for flavor / variety. Thoughts? Do you think more should have been done or do you feel there's to much of an advantage there anyway?
The Book of Divine Magic from 4 Winds Fantasy Gaming actually has 22 new Ranger spells, you might find something among them that you like.
Never occurred to you that Drizz't (who isn't exactly the best example to bring up around here, most people seem to dislike him for one reason or other. I'm neutral personally) might either A: Be a non-spellcasting variant Ranger, or B: Not be a 'ranger' at all? It's not all that uncommon for somebody to call themselves something based on what they do, rather than a specific subset of training they have.
No that never did occur to me since these are D&D characters and he was statted several times
The problem is, ranger spells are based mostly off of the druid list, and druids get the worst list of all the primary spellcasters. Worse, rangers get them later and weaker (compared to the CR challenges they are facing) than druids.
So, getting a watered down version of the weakest spell list at levels when it's too late to really care about them puts rangers in the position of being by far the weakest hybrid casters in the game.
It's a good thing they don't have to rely on their spells, and that they can do decent damage and also contribute in other ways, because if the party were to rely too heavily on ranger spells, everyone would be disappointed.
Some of the houserule fixes here seem quite interesting, but I'm not entirely sure the ranger needs fixing. Since rangers seem to be quite viable, even with their weak spells, fixing the spellcasting might kinda push rangers over the top, depending on just how much "fixing" is done.
all tru, but he's the inspiration of the D&D ranger. At least this one has its own list. 1st edition rangers were able to cast a few spells from the druid list and a few for some unknown reason from the magic-user listBut look at the most well-known ranger, Drizzt. In the books, he never uses spells
True, but that's not the only example which goes astray. Conan was appaerently the main inspiration for the barbarian class, yet he doesn't "Rage", nor do I see him running around in medium armour (granted, I've only seen the movies and not the book).
As for Drizzt...well the idea was that he was supposed to be something different (A good Drow) so being a ranger who doesn't cast doesn't strike me as odd, since it's different (though granted, this is before the idea became so common that it became it's own cliche, and before WOTC loved him so much that they marketted him like crazy).
The problem is, ranger spells are based mostly off of the druid list, and druids get the worst list of all the primary spellcasters.
Mmmm, depends on what you're looking for. They've got a much better offensive list (and not just damage-dealing) than Clerics do, for example.
all tru, but he's the inspiration of the D&D ranger. At least this one has its own list. 1st edition rangers were able to cast a few spells from the druid list and a few for some unknown reason from the magic-user listBut look at the most well-known ranger, Drizzt. In the books, he never uses spells
True, but that's not the only example which goes astray. Conan was appaerently the main inspiration for the barbarian class, yet he doesn't "Rage", nor do I see him running around in medium armour (granted, I've only seen the movies and not the book).
...
He did these things and much more even in the original books by R. E. Howard... I've never read the books written after his death, so he may have done even more things ;)
That and rangers really shouldn't have spells. The traditional rangers like Aragon are forest warriors/trackers. Favored Enemy yes. Animal companion, absolutely. But to me, spells for ranger always seemed against the theme
Spells that help you be a better hunter and stalker and the like - that sounds a lot like something a ranger would do.
In fact, I'd say it's at least as good as "I know how to fight these guys better than other creatures - even though we're talking about a type of creature that is not at all connected to my theme."
The animal companion can work, but not that much better than forging a bond with nature itself to give you a bit of mystical support.
Then there's that thing where they learn using either two weapons at once or a bow. Sure, works, especially the bow. But the rules let him use the bow even better than a bow-using fighter (who does nothing but focus on his archery), which cannot really be explained by the ranger class. And by being better I mean the ranger getting access to neat feats before the fighter, and without the high prerequisites.
All in all, a lot of things can work for the ranger if you want them to work, and a lot of things could be called unsuitable for rangers depending on what your picture of a ranger is, or what character you use to base your rangeryness on.
It's important to make the standard class suitable for many, many images out there. If your picture differs from that standard, change the frame to fit your picture!
For example, do away with spells, but give them a full-powered animal companion, or maybe stronger favoured enemies (when you get a new one, all the old ones get +2).
all tru, but he's the inspiration of the D&D ranger.
Inspiration. Not blue print.
Gandalf is one of the big inspirations for the wizard. Does that mean that D&D/Pathfinder should get rid of fireballs? Because Gandalf never used stuff like that.
Of course not.
But look at the most well-known ranger, Drizzt. In the books, he never uses spells
Again, I could probably drag out dozens of very famous examples of any class and find hundreds of things those celebrities didn't do, but D&D versions very much do do.
That right there, is a pretty good solution as well. In 3.5 there was a feat that did that for Paladins, Battle Blessing. It worked out pretty well and made Pali's a better contributor.
I know, that's where I stole the idea from. I did that for paladins and rangers prior to Pathfinder (nowadays, Paladins are strong enough without - we're still testing the rangers, but he doesn't seem too bad, either)
My problem with the ranger is his designed obsolescence -- his main "schtick" is guiding the party safely through the wilderness, but after 10th level or so, full casters' spells do that better than a ranger ever will -- and the ranger will never receive high enough level spells to compare.
What I did is provide a scaling "master tracker" class feature:
2nd -- Add 1/2 level to track checks
4th -- Ranger cannot become lost. Always knows which way north is, and can unerringly retrace own route.
8th -- Swift tracker.
12th -- Planar tracker. Ranger can follow people who teleport of plane shift by going "the long way around," using a variant of the shadow walk spell.
16th -- Find the path (as the 3.5e spell, not the nerfed version), and discern location 1/week.
Drizzt was a Frt10/Bbn1/Rgr5 in the 3.0 FR book.
He was not statted up at all in the novels.
It wasn't an attempt to take a character class from an RPG, stat out a character from that class, and write a book about that character, looking at the sheet every couple of lines to check that it's all proper D&D novelization.
I mean, I could probably use all this "it's not in book XYZ so it shouldn't be in the game" to make a strong case against spellcasting clerics, or Vancian spellcasting, or rogues who do not stab people in the back, or, well, probably every single class feature in the whole core rules.
My problem with the ranger is his designed obsolescence -- his main "schtick" is guiding the party safely through the wilderness
For a class that gets d10 HD, strong BAB, and a lot of class features that directly improve combat prowess, I'd say that's absolutely not the case.
It's a secondary role - an important one for many players, sure, but not the single defining feature.
For a class that gets d10 HD, strong BAB, and a lot of class features that directly improve combat prowess, I'd say that's absolutely not the case.
Meh. He can't keep up with the fighter or barbarian as a front-line combatant, and can't ambush/flank anywhere near as well as a rogue. Then again, I'm still stuck in 1e-space, in which the ranger got his class level as a damage bonus against all humanoids, giants, and an assortment of others; was the only character who could track; got 2d8 HD at 1st level and got max 11 HD compared to the fighter's max 9 HD, etc.
Meh. He can't keep up with the fighter or barbarian as a front-line combatant
Against his favored enemies he can.
Against his favored enemies he can.
Not so well as he used to.
In 1e a 15th level ranger did +15 damage to all humanoids, all giants, and assorted others. A cloud giant might have had 60 hp (1:4 ratio).
In PF a 15th level ranger can do +8 damage to giants specifically, by neglecting his other favored enemies. A cloud giant might have 178 hp (1:22 ratio).
By those standards, a 1e ranger was over 5 times more effective against favored enemies, and he got more of them. Fighters and barbarians suffered similarly in the transition between editions, but they typically have less MAD than the ranger -- and the paladin's smite does the kind of bonus damage the ranger used to, and sometimes it even gets doubled.
Against his favored enemies he can.Not so well as he used to.
But he still does currently hold his own in front line combat against his favored enemies.
But he still does currently hold his own in front line combat against his favored enemies.
Hopefully we don't need to do the whole "find a combat-oriented favored enemy of the same CR as the ranger and watch it paste him all over the battlemat" thing again. Hit point inflations means that he doesn't hold his own in combat against favored enemies, or anyone else. Nor do any of the warrior classes. That's a basic reality of 3.0/3.5/3.PF.
But he still does currently hold his own in front line combat against his favored enemies.Hopefully we don't need to do the whole "find a combat-oriented favored enemy of the same CR as the ranger and watch it paste him all over the battlemat" thing again. Hit point inflations means that he doesn't hold his own in combat against favored enemies, or anyone else. Nor do any of the warrior classes. That's a basic reality of 3.0/3.5/3.PF.
Stop moving the goalposts. You said, and I quote, "The ranger can't keep up with the fighter or barbarian as a front-line combatant". I said "He can against his favored enemies"; 'can', in this case, clearly referring to the phrase "keep up with the fighter or barbarian".
I repeat: The first edition ranger has no bearing on the fact that the Pathfinder ranger can and does "keep up with the fighter and barbarian as a front-line combatant" against his favored enemies.
Meh. He can't keep up with the fighter or barbarian as a front-line combatant
I second the "against favoured enemies he can" argument here.
And warrior does not have to be "front-line fighter".
Try an archer ranger. At 6th-level (5 levels sooner than a fighter), a ranger can ignore all kinds of cover and concealment, which means he can fire into melee with impunity, probably with rapid shot, and a level later with manyshot.
And at level 10 (6 levels sooner than a fighter), he gets to make a single shot that is basically a touch attack. (And that attack will probably be charged with deadly aim, and depending on interpretations, with vital strike)
Not bad, not bad at all.
Sure, he's not consistently better than a fighter (not so sure about barbarians), but he's not supposed to be. He can be better, though.
and can't ambush/flank anywhere near as well as a rogue.
And rogues aren't warriors. Which is fine, because ambush isn't really something that is generally looked for in warrior characters.
Then again, I'm still stuck in 1e-space, in which the ranger got his class level as a damage bonus against all humanoids, giants, and an assortment of others
Tell me, what did other classes get back then? And what was the general consensus about balance?
was the only character who could track
Aren't you as happy as I am that this kind of nonsense has been banned from the rules forever?
got 2d8 HD at 1st level and got max 11 HD compared to the fighter's max 9 HD, etc.
Does etc. refer to more nonsense rules that luckily got shot to hell?
Stop moving the goalposts.
Stop ordering people what to do. Disagreement is part and parcel of the boards, but issuing direct commands to other members is always inappropriate. No matter what goalposts we're using, I've provided enough examples to be clear, I think.
Hit point inflations means that he doesn't hold his own in combat against favored enemies, or anyone else. Nor do any of the warrior classes. That's a basic reality of 3.0/3.5/3.PF.
No, it's not. It's an opinion. One I don't share.
Stop moving the goalposts.Stop ordering people what to do. Disagreement is part and parcel of the boards, but issuing direct commands to other members is always inappropriate.
But not when you do it, eh?
But not when you do it, eh?Stop moving the goalposts.Stop ordering people what to do. Disagreement is part and parcel of the boards, but issuing direct commands to other members is always inappropriate.
That was an illustration, phrased the same way you phrased the command in question, in case you missed that point.
That was an illustration, phrased the same way you phrased the command in question, in case you missed that point.
No, that wasn't an illustration, it was hypocrisy. Nice backpedal, though.
As to the topic at hand: No, you were not perfectly clear, because the two different statements had two different conclusions.
Your first statement, "rangers aren't as good as fighters and barbarians" (paraphrased) clearly was comparing the ranger against the fighter and barbarian classes and coming to the conclusion "the ranger cannot compare".
Your second statement, "even fighters can't stand toe-to-toe with giants" (paraphrased again) clearly had nothing whatsoever to do with the first statement and made the conclusion "no class can fight monsters in melee".
Note how the two conclusions have nothing in common?
I repeat, for a second time, that rangers are just as able as fighters and barbarians at fighting on the front line against their favored enemies. Note that statement doesn't say one way or the other whether any class can fight toe-to-toe with whatever monster you dream up, just that rangers are as able (whether that's "highly able" or "completely unable") as the other melee classes are.
No, that wasn't an illustration, it was hypocrisy. Nice backpedal, though.
ESP fail.
Regarding the ranger, I seem to recall pointing out his MAD problems at some point... if you disagree that he has them, vis-a-vis the fighter or barbarian, or if you feel it has no bearing on combat, that's fine. Or possibly you missed the post in your haste to attack; I don't know.
Regarding the ranger, I seem to recall pointing out his MAD problems at some point.
I'm confused. Perhaps you can explain to me how Multiple Attribute Dependency has any bearing on the ranger's ability to compete with the fighter and barbarian as a front-line combatant?
Especially since Fighters require just as many stats as Rangers in Pathfinder (Strength, Dex, Con vs Strength-or-Dex, Con, Wis).
I'm confused. Perhaps you can explain to me how Multiple Attribute Dependency has any bearing on the ranger's ability to compete with the fighter and barbarian as a front-line combatant?
As I already said, if you feel that that has no bearing on combat, that's fine.
Tell me, what did other classes get back then? And what was the general consensus about balance?
It sure wasn't that the fighter was better than the ranger. The ranger was almost always a more coveted class unless you were really holding out for the followers upon establishing a stronghold. The ranger was just a lot more difficult to qualify for.
The ranger did have a somewhat longer XP track to make up, but in practice the difference wasn't that big. Fighters could also get multiple attacks a little earlier than the ranger (but I think matched by the paladin, so again, it's not like the fighter subclasses didn't overshadow the fighter substantially).
As I already said, if you feel that that has no bearing on combat, that's fine.
It certainly has no bearing when one of the classes you're comparing to has just as much of a MAD.
It certainly has no bearing when one of the classes you're comparing to has just as much of a MAD.
Personally I disagree, inasfar as a fighter can use heavy armor and a tower shield, then buff Str and Con at the expense of all other scores, wheeras the ranger is restricted to lighter armor (needing higher Dex to compensate), and if he neglects Wis he loses a major class feature (spells) and gets less adept at his "secondary" thing of tracking. You can probably construct these characters in other ways -- or at least have different valuations on the usefulness of armor vs. spells, etc. -- so that if, in your opinion, the MAD come out even for you, that's OK. It doesn't for me.
It certainly has no bearing when one of the classes you're comparing to has just as much of a MAD.Personally I disagree, inasfar as a fighter can use heavy armor and a tower shield, then buff Str and Con at the expense of all other scores, wheeras the ranger is restricted to lighter armor (needing higher Dex to compensate), and if he neglects Wis he loses a major class feature (spells) and gets less adept at his "secondary" thing of tracking.
Ah, but if a Pathfinder Fighter neglects Dex, he's also essentially losing a major class feature (armor training).
As for tracking, Pathfinder rangers get so many bonuses to their tracking checks (half their class level, favored enemy, favored terrain, swift tracker) that Wisdom is really not even relevant to the success of a ranger tracking past the first few levels.