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.
Like I said, different valuations. Personally, I'd much rather have spells than armor training.
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.Like I said, different valuations. Personally, I'd much rather have spells than armor training.
Fair enough. I would too, but we use the Spell Compendium which has quite a few excellent ranger spells. The core spell list for rangers is basically only useful for using wands, which doesn't require any wisdom at all. I could see making a wisdom-less ranger and not really suffering for it.
I still say that rangers can compare to a fighter when they're fighting the ranger's favored enemies, though ;)
I still say that rangers can compare to a fighter when they're fighting the ranger's favored enemies, though ;)
That's where I was headed before getting sidetracked ;-D . I don't think that any of the warrior classes really contribute equally to the casters at higher levels: not the ranger, not the fighter, not the barbarian. Most people on these boards violently disagree with that position, which is fine -- they need make no adjustments for their games, and can ignore everything I post in almost any thread. For the few people who do agree with me, however, the fighter can't really do his job, and the Pathfinder additions, while nice, are hardly a patch for that... so saying that the ranger does just as well as someone who can't do his job at all, gets us nowhere -- although most people are on board with you. My ranger "fix," to give him a useful niche that scales with level, assumes that, in an ideal game, the fighter and barbarian will also get level-appropriate abilities at the upper levels. They could be made into good front-line classes, then, especially the barbarian, so giving the ranger a different distinguishing niche -- that of the "I can track anyone and anything, and find my way to or from anywhere" guy, is an attractive possibility.
Again, to anyone who thinks they're all just fine, it's safe to assume that you'll disagree with the above as well. And I'm OK with that, however much I might enjoy viewing myself as the guy blurting out "but the emperor has no clothes!"
I still say that rangers can compare to a fighter when they're fighting the ranger's favored enemies, though ;)That's where I was headed before getting sidetracked ;-D . I don't think that any of the warrior classes really contribute equally to the casters at higher levels: not the ranger, not the fighter, not the barbarian.
Again, to anyone who thinks they're all just fine, it's safe to assume that you'll disagree with the above as well. And I'm OK with that, however much I might enjoy viewing myself as the guy blurting out "but the emperor has no clothes!"
Nah, I agree that full-casters are still the kings of the hill in high-level combat. Fighters and so on can contribute a lot more than they could (relatively speaking, both through improvements to the full-BAB classes and nerfs to the best spells), but they still havn't achieved parity at high levels. I think that fighters and rangers are about equal to each other, and would actually say that the order of full-BAB classes goes paladin > fighter = ranger > barbarian (barbarian would probably have been equal to fighter and ranger if they'd kept the beta versions of the rage powers). All of which are < full casters, at least at high levels, although again the margin is slimmer than it used to be.
whereas the ranger is restricted to lighter armor (needing higher Dex to compensate),
Just to point out a change, Rangers can now use Medium armor.
whereas the ranger is restricted to light armor (needing higher Dex to compensate),Just to point out a change, Rangers can now use Medium armor.
Right; see the comparative. Then again, after all the holocaust about clerics and armor, maybe it's best to avoid even mentioning which classes can use which armor... (sneaks out of thread before Holy Warrior cleric brigade appears in full plate and starts swinging maces...)
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.
I always thought the ranger strategy with WIS was to put it at 12 and by the time you need the 14 WIS for spells buy a fairly inexpensive headband. As a bonus the headband helps their class skills and gives them a Will save boost which stacks with most everything. I guess a 12 is MAD? I really don't see that.
I find your comments about not being as good as fighters even against their favored enemies rather amusing since in another thread that the FE bonus could be too powerful (or useless) in certain types of campaigns (APs in particular).
Edit: Actually that's not exactly what you said above, you said not as good as 1e. But I see a definite change in attitude here.
I find your comments about not being as good as fighters even against their favored enemies rather amusing since in another thread that the FE bonus could be too powerful in certain types of campaigns (APs in particular).
Context is everything. "Certain" campaigns is a far cry from usual, and "too powerful" in terms of 3.5 melee guys is "still nowhere near good enough" in terms of full casters.
I find your comments about not being as good as fighters even against their favored enemies rather amusing since in another thread that the FE bonus could be too powerful in certain types of campaigns (APs in particular).Context is everything. "Certain" campaigns is a far cry from usual, and "too powerful" in terms of 3.5 melee guys is "still nowhere near good enough" in terms of full casters.
Hahaha... I was referencing your comments above about it not being great even with the FE bonus not the general case. Don't try and back pedal on me now, I didn't say it was "too powerful", those were your words ;)
"all too often either too good" - Kirth
As for relative to casters.... sort of goes without saying doesn't it?
|
In order for a spellcaster to keep up with a ranger,fighter,barbarian, paladin or rogue they have to be able to target 3+ targets and they can not keep it up forever.
On single targets any one of the noncaster melee types will beat a 10th level caster and it only gets progressively worse as it continues.
Your play experience how ever will vary.
In order for a spellcaster to keep up with a ranger,fighter,barbarian, paladin or rogue they have to be able to target 3+ targets and they can not keep it up forever.
On single targets any one of the noncaster melee types will beat a 10th level caster and it only gets progressively worse as it continues.
Your play experience how ever will vary.
Save or die.
Save or die.
Which consequently works both ways: If they save, the wizard is in a sore spot having wasted a spell to no effect leaving an angry something/someone coming after him. If they don't save then they are in a sore spot.
Balance
Save or die.Which consequently works both ways: If they save, the wizard is in a sore spot having wasted a spell to no effect leaving an angry something/someone coming after him. If they don't save then they are in a sore spot.
Balance
What's that got to do with the discussion? It's not like fighters auto-hit.
|
|
If a nonspell caster does more then 50% of a creature's hp in a single blow they have to make a fort save or die.
Honestly have you looked at the saving throws of high level monsters.
Stone giant vrs Circle of death Fort save it needs to roll a 9 or better to save vrs dc of 22
Young adult blue dragon needs all of a 7...
Insta kill spells aren't particularly effective...
Which discussion? I'm merely pointing out that save or die isn't an answer for just one end.
If a nonspell caster does more then 50% of a creature's hp in a single blow they have to make a fort save or die.
Honestly have you looked at the saving throws of high level monsters.
Stone giant vrs Circle of death Fort save it needs to roll a 9 or better to save vrs dc of 22
You do realize what you just said, right?
"If you do more than 50% of the monster's huge hit point pool in a single attack, it has to make a fortitude save or die"
"Monsters have really huge fortitude saves"
........
I can't even find massive damage in the Pathfinder rules, but in 3.5 it was a static, and very low, Fortitude save DC. IIRC, it was DC 15.
Personally I think wizards and fighters both shine best when they work together. The wizard debuffs/ slows/ hastes/ alters the battlefield/ entagles/ walls off/ blinds/ whatever and lets the martial characters do what they do best. A wizard can generally eliminate delay or disable 1/2 the enemy combatants for a few rounds which means the fighters can essentially fight 2 easy encounters instead of one challenging one. It's a vastly better use of resources and makes everyone at the table effective.
This whole animosity between the two is just silly.
He does a lot more than that, he can match the rogue for stealth making him an ideal asset on covert search and destroy. He brings something the fighter can never have... utility. And in his element he's virtually umatchable at the skirmish/sniper role. And if you're looking to find someone these qualities also make him the tracker you can't shake off easily.
Unless you just teleport away from him. Like I said, after 10th level or so, his usefulness as a tracker/scout vanishes -- because as written, his class features do not allow him to cope with the types of magical challenges that exist at those levels. Which is why I wrote them in: if he can track a teleport or a plane shift, and maybe find the path, he remains a useful guide/tracker for his entire career, instead of only for the first half of it.
Unless you just teleport away from him. Like I said, after 10th level or so, his usefulness as a tracker/scout vanishes -- because as written, his class features do not allow him to cope with the types of magical challenges that exist at those levels. Which is why I wrote them in: if he can track a teleport or a plane shift, and maybe find the path, he remains a useful guide/tracker for his entire career, instead of only for the first half of it.
It's a cool idea. Even if you don't give him the teleport ability, giving the ranger the ability to deduct or intuit where the teleport destination was would be cool. It would certainly make rangers the ultimate bounty hunters.
full-casters are still the kings of the hill in high-level combat.
This one of those (unending, it seems) cases where it's not the destination, but the journey. If all you're concerned with is that number in the level box of your character sheet, you shouldn't be playing a "Role Playing Game." Levels, lives and kills are of utmost importance in FPS arcades, not here. If anything, let your character nurture a two-dimensional obsession for notches on his scabbard.
Zurai's quote is technically correct. It makes complete sense that 20th level spell casters are going to have an advantage over their non-spell-dependent counterparts. You might have a fighter that can best any creature on the planet in physical combat, while shrugging off magic-based physical harm (fire, lightning, acid, etc.) But unless he's got friends in mystical places, when said melee master is flung into another dimension by a 100 pound nerd with a wand, he ain't coming back. Poof. Gone.
But, wait, Mr. Uber-Mage. How exactly did you reach such heights of power? Get any help along the way? Did a friendly paladin keep you from getting devoured by hell-spawn when that celestial summoning went wrong? Barbarian hold up the granite block trap from crushing you in that ancient tomb? When your quest for that absolutely essential lost book of incantations for planar movement had you traversing dangerous, creature-infested terrain, didn't the ranger save the entire party's butts time and again?
A good GM knows how to run a game according to PCs' strengths and dispositions. Do the new bards really need to be slapped around quite so much as I've seen on the boards? No. The real ultimate power a player should concern him or herself with is the GM. If you feel your character is letting you down, that is the person you should be talking to.
The ranger was almost always a more coveted class unless you were really holding out for the followers upon establishing a stronghold.Good that was changed, then.
The ranger was just a lot more difficult to qualify for.So not everyone could play the class because of restrictions?
Good they changed that as well.
So we see now that the 1e version was not good for the game and was luckily changed. Of course, fighters are now better than before, compared to the ranger, but that doesn't make the ranger useless - unless you only want to play the most overpowered class.
But, wait, Mr. Uber-Mage. How exactly did you reach such heights of power? Get any help along the way?
That's the problem, though. It's fun to start off wimpy and become powerful. That's what levels are for. It's why you start off at 1st and work your way up to 18th or 20th or whatever. But for the non-casters, you start off comparatively powerful, and as you gain levels, you get weaker and weaker in comparison to your teammates and the opposition. No one wants to work their way towards mediocrity.
As far as the argument of "just roleplay!" goes, what fun is it to roleplay someone's caddy in a heroic type game? No DM on earth can fix that, unless he rewrites the classes from the ground up.
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)
On the other hand, a fighter with a low dex wastes his armour training, because he gets to use more dex for his AC.
and if he neglects Wis he loses a major class feature (spells)
I wouldn't call it major.
and gets less adept at his "secondary" thing of tracking.
Thanks to the new track he gets to be good at tracking even without high dex, thanks to half his level as a bonus.
Thank you for repeating Zurai's points from upthread, although I read them yesterday.
I don't think that any of the warrior classes really contribute equally to the casters at higher levels: not the ranger, not the fighter, not the barbarian. Most people on these boards violently disagree with that position
I'm one of those most people.
And I'm OK with that, however much I might enjoy viewing myself as the guy blurting out "but the emperor has no clothes!"
Well, I'm the guy telling you: "This is a roleplaying game on a nudist beach. Don't ruin everyone's day."
Well, I'm the guy telling you: "This is a roleplaying game on a nudist beach. Don't ruin everyone's day."
I personally would rethink any position I myself held, if it "ruined my day" simply to have someone disagree with it.
Incidentally, Gandalf did indeed use fire off screen; the hobbits and Strider come across aftermath of one of his fights early in the Fellowship of the Ring (the book), and the surrounding rock is scorched.
Yeah! He totally did that off screen. That's why I keep asking for a new category of abilities: "off screen". It has precedent, after all. I want it in the game now or I stop playing!!!
Which discussion? I'm merely pointing out that save or die isn't an answer for just one end.
Save or die is pretty rare these days. Save-or-massive-damage, sure. Save-or-suck, of course. Save-or-save-or-die, maybe. But save-or-die? You need to become pretty powerful before you can start with that stuff.
I personally would rethink any position I myself held, if it "ruined my day" simply to have someone disagree with it.Well, I'm the guy telling you: "This is a roleplaying game on a nudist beach. Don't ruin everyone's day."
Sorry for forgetting the smiley faces. I forgot that jokes have to be pointed out.
|
|
But, wait, Mr. Uber-Mage. How exactly did you reach such heights of power? Get any help along the way?That's the problem, though. It's fun to start off wimpy and become powerful. That's what levels are for. It's why you start off at 1st and work your way up to 18th or 20th or whatever. But for the non-casters, you start off comparatively powerful, and as you gain levels, you get weaker and weaker in comparison to your teammates and the opposition. No one wants to work their way towards mediocrity.
As far as the argument of "just roleplay!" goes, what fun is it to roleplay someone's caddy in a heroic type game? No DM on earth can fix that, unless he rewrites the classes from the ground up.
I'd have to disagree.
1. Non Spellcasters do not become weaker.
2. Non Spellcasters are not casters caddies.
I'm not sure what your play experience is, but mine typically follows this pattern.
Step 1:
Casters buff the party
Step 2: The non spellcasters enter combat and devestate thier targets.
Step 3: The Priest keeps the party alive.
Step 4: The casters debuff the opponents.
Step 5: The casters try and cast offensive spells, but either it turns out to be a waste of the spell, will catch other party members or very rarely will be an effective use of the spell.
People make the mistake of thinking that its the nonspell casters that are the support, when in reality its the reverse.
Step 1: Casters buff the party
Step 2: The non spellcasters enter combat and devestate thier targets.
Step 3: The Priest keeps the party alive.
Step 4: The casters debuff the opponents.
Step 5: The casters try and cast offensive spells, but either it turns out to be a waste of the spell, will catch other party members or very rarely will be an effective use of the spell.
People make the mistake of thinking that its the nonspell casters that are the support, when in reality its the reverse.
We tried that model, but at high levels, when the DM allowed intelligent opponents to actually use their brains, it worked out like this:
Step 1: Casters buff the party.Step 2: Enemies kill the party.
So we changed our tactics to:
Step 1: Casters shut down enemies.
Step 2: Noncasters perform coup de grace on any enemies still alive, but helpless.
Noncasters realized they got to participate in combat only when the casters intentionally followed less-effective tactics, ones that often got everyone killed.
Sorry for forgetting the smiley faces. I forgot that jokes have to be pointed out.
Aha! Yeah, tone doesn't come across well on message threads, unfortunately. I thought you sounded uncharacteristically sarcastic, but didn't make the jump to "sarcastic-amused" vs. "sarcastic-unpleasant." Sorry.
|
|
Step 1: Casters buff the party
Step 2: The non spellcasters enter combat and devestate thier targets.
Step 3: The Priest keeps the party alive.
Step 4: The casters debuff the opponents.
Step 5: The casters try and cast offensive spells, but either it turns out to be a waste of the spell, will catch other party members or very rarely will be an effective use of the spell.
People make the mistake of thinking that its the nonspell casters that are the support, when in reality its the reverse.
We tried that model, but at high levels, when the DM allowed intelligent opponents to actually use their brains, it worked out like this:
Step 1: Casters buff the party.
Step 2: Enemies kill the party.So we changed our tactics to:
Step 1: Casters shut down enemies.
Step 2: Noncasters perform coup de grace on any enemies still alive, but helpless.Noncasters realized they got to participate in combat only when the casters intentionally followed less-effective tactics, ones that often got everyone killed.
Sounds like yours is the GM that isn't using his creatures intelligently if your steam rolling over and over again using the same simple tactic.
Sounds like yours is the GM that isn't using his creatures intelligently if your steam rolling over and over again using the same simple tactic.
Hardly steam-rollering; it's more like rocket tag. We killed them or they killed us. Quickly and brutally. Monsters didn't stand around and wait for us to buff and get into position; they didn't play by Queensbury Rules. We used the same simple tactic ("take them down quick") because anything else got us killed 100% of the time, instead of only 25% of the time.
Again, that's for challenging encounters. For mooks, you can afford to have the wizard spend time buffing people, and you can afford to have the cleric heal during combat, etc. Those tactics are well-suited to a fun game in which you're not facing any major threats.
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).
Honestly, I've always disliked Rangers because they always seemed, to me, like a giant furball class. Furball as in, take a bunch of different ideas and put them all together, spray them with tuna sauce, and let a bunch of feral cats fight over them. Whatever is left at the end, mush it up into a big ball (along with all the left over cat hair) and call it a class.
I've always thought the Scout made a much better Ranger than the ranger (for the classic Aragon and Legolis types). I'd rather they either broke the ranger up into 2-3 classes (scout, hunter, blademaster) and gave them specific builds, or else, stop calling it a ranger and let Ranger be a specific kit build of the class.
As long as I have to have the Ranger though, I'd like to see other build options than just TWF and Ranged (unarmed, etc). Then I can use it as a kit class and call each option a specific sub-class (Hunter, Blademaster, etc).
Sorry for forgetting the smiley faces. I forgot that jokes have to be pointed out.Aha! Yeah, tone doesn't come across well on message threads, unfortunately. I thought you sounded uncharacteristically sarcastic, but didn't make the jump to "sarcastic-amused" vs. "sarcastic-unpleasant." Sorry.
Yeah, I think I got charged up, too, in the last couple of days. Is it just me or is there a bad aura going around?
It was a playful jibe, but a jibe nonetheless, because one great way to explain roleplaying is that we all run around naked and complement each other on our fine clothing.
Now that is a game I'd want to play - but only with a very strict screening process on who gets to play...
I don't want that one scene in the retirement home to repeat, where the old lady was streaking:
Old man 1: "Was that miss Johnson in a new dress?"
Old man 2: "I think it was."
Old man 1: "She should have ironed it"
Honestly, I've always disliked Rangers because they always seemed, to me, like a giant furball class.
I love furballs like that!
You can pull certain pieces out of it and give them a spit-shine and you have something really nice. Just ignore the pieces you don't want.
Is it just me or is there a bad aura going around?
It's not just you. I've thought more than once during the last week or so about quitting posting. There's definitely some kind of weird negative vibe going around.
P.S. You should post that joke in the "really bad jokes" thread. It's an old classic!
Honestly, I've always disliked Rangers because they always seemed, to me, like a giant furball class.I love furballs like that!
You can pull certain pieces out of it and give them a spit-shine and you have something really nice. Just ignore the pieces you don't want.
LOL,
Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with the Ranger class as a Kit Class (maybe called 'Specialist'), I have a problem with it as a class that's supposed to be a ranger.
Just curious MDT, what do you classify as 'a ranger' what is it that the present ranger class lacks, and what do they have that doesn't fit the theme of a backwoods hunter/tracker/killer/skirmisher?Interestingly, I just thought up a character that represents the ranger class pretty well in a demi-modern capacity, and that would be Mel Gibson's character in The Patriot.
Very good modern one. Notice that his character used a close up weapon (hatchet) only when he had to, he preferred a rifle. Another one would be the classic 'Buffalo Scout' with the train builders back in the old west, he had a pistol and knife, but his iconic weapon was his 50 caliber buffalo rifle. He was land smart, knew the terrain, knew the animals, etc. Crocodile Dundee in the outback is another good example of a ranger, someone who's land smart, animal smart, and prefers traps and long range. Robin Hood would be another good Ranger, for obvious reasons. Grizzly Adams is another good one, complete with animal companion.
The things I don't like about Ranger class for ranger is, the two weapon fighting mechanic, it feels bolted on. That's honestly my biggest complaint, with the spells seeming like a wishwashy attempt to make them partial druids. Leave the magic to the druids and give the ranger some more things to make him more rangery.
I love the favored terrain PF added, it's something I've wanted. I'd like them to have a boost in movement, or at least the option for it. Bonus's to craft(trapmaking) would be very good too.
Let them use a hth weapon up close, but it should be a backup weapon, their ranged attacks (ranged, Ranger) should be the primary thing, that and stealth in their favored environments should be the main thing for such a class to me. If you want to give them some magic, give them some supernatural abilities at higher levels, like 'Hide In Plain Sight' within a favored terrain (back to Crocodile Dundee, remember the aborigine hunter who disappeared in front of everyone).
I'm fine with a dual bladed whirling death machine (Honestly, I've played a dual mighty dagger whip build in the past, load of fun), but, make it a different class, that's not a ranger to me.
EDIT : Left it off, but the favored enemy I'm fine with, makes sense. The Patriot's favored enemy was British Officers, the Buffalo Scouts was 'Injuns', Dundee's was 'City Folk', Robin Hood's was 'Sheriff's Men', and Grizzly Adams' was 'Hunters'.
To me, its not saying that every ranger is good with two weapons (That's why it's a combat style choice, unlike 3.0 where Rangers got two weapon fighting AND archery shoved down their throats) but rather that two weapon combat is one option a ranger might pursue.
Can't believe you guys left out Michael Mann's Last of the Mohicans (1992) -- Nathaniel uses his long rifle ("Killdeer") preferentially, and melees with tomahawk and knife (what used to be termed "Indian Style" along the frontier west of the Hudson).
I admit I'm very strongly in favor of additional fighting styles for Rangers. Mounted combat and two-handed weapons are both easy to find literary/mythological/pop culture examples for and should be fairly easy to work up. Then, of course, you can go into more exotic things like unarmed combat or spellweaving, etc etc. I really, really hope that Paizo's Advanced PHB has a couple more Ranger Combat Styles.
I admit I'm very strongly in favor of additional fighting styles for Rangers. Mounted combat and two-handed weapons are both easy to find literary/mythological/pop culture examples for and should be fairly easy to work up. Then, of course, you can go into more exotic things like unarmed combat or spellweaving, etc etc. I really, really hope that Paizo's Advanced PHB has a couple more Ranger Combat Styles.
I do too, actually. I've been posting that in several threads. As I said, I'm not opposed to the ranger class as a kit class, just don't like the ranger except as a build of the class. :)
As a matter of fact, Aragorn actually primarily used a bastard sword two-handed. He never fought with a shield and although he was proficient with his bow he generally fought with his sword (course, when you have a Named Sword, that's a given...). I don't agree with Aragorn being a Ranger in D&D terms, but if he is, neither the Archery nor the Two-Weapon styles fit him at all. He'd need stuff like Power Attack, Vital Strike, and so on in his combat style tree.