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'm literally of two minds on giving Rangers other combat styles to choose from:
On the one hand I like it. This would make it easier to do more character types without having to fall back on various prestige classes, class variants, multi-classing or various other dodges to simply make a character that should work just fine as a ranger.
On the other hand the more variety offered to the ranger via more combat styles the more they intrude on the fighters thing due to the added variety. In addition rangers can typically waive the requirements for the feats they choose already which is a huge perk, and could be difficult to follow with other combat styles.
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.
True. Hmmm. Sounds like an opportunity for a THW Ranger kit.
On the other hand the more variety offered to the ranger via more combat styles the more they intrude on the fighters thing due to the added variety.
It doesn't tread on Fighters at all, because Fighters have enough bonus feats to take two full Combat Styles worth of feats (or, more likely, just the good ones from three or four or five Styles). Rangers have to choose just one style and they generally end up taking pretty lackluster feats by the end of it because there's not 5 good feats in most chains.
More styles means more versatility for the ranger.
The ranger is already getting:
More skill points,
1/2 as many bonus feats plus endurance (can sleep in medium armor without penalty) (for which he doesn't have to met prerequisites for)
Same BAB and HD
2 Good saves
Spells (not all are great but there are several good ones on that list)
Animal Companion (free meat shield if nothing else)
Favored Enemy/terrain
Evasion
Various movement/hiding abilities
and a few other choices to boot.
He's getting half of the feats a fighter would get and more stuff in addition already. What makes up for this (supposedly) is the fact that he as to wait a bit longer to get them and they are off of a much more limited list. Once the ranger has more lists to choose from he can do what the fighter can do easier (have more than one or two combat styles) and still have everything else he has.
The rangers combat style lists so far have read to me as an list of easy choices:
Two weapon fighting, improved, greater, double slice, rend
Point blank shot, precise shot, rapid shot, manyshot, deadly aim
If this tread continues then we could reasonably see the following for the next several combat style choices:
Power attack, vital strike, cleave, great cleave, improved vital strike
Unarmed Strike, stunning fist, scorpion style, Medusa's breath, Gorgon Fist
mounted combat, ride by attack, spirited charge, Trample, Mounted Archery
These are by no means bad choices for feats in those styles and still leave all your other feats open for another combat style (or two).
**********************************************
It could be the problem is the fighter simply still isn't where he needs to be as a class yet. However it wouldn't help him any to have rangers all around him able to choose of seven or eight combat styles.
And as I said I can see good, compelling and valid arguments for more combat styles... I just worry about the BMX bandi... I mean the fighter. ;D
The point was that regardless of how many styles the ranger can pick from, he still only gets one. A fighter has enough feats to take both of them and do them better while wearing full plate.
However that point is exactly what I'm questioning.
The fighter gets 21 feats.
The ranger gets 16 feats.
The fighter could grab 4 combat styles of 5 feats each, the ranger can grab 3 combat styles of 5 feats each (that last feat is endurance which allows him to always be armored, where as the fighter has to take his armor off to sleep or burn one on endurance and stay in medium armor... which he could do with the full plate if he uses mithral of course).
If more styles are opened to the ranger the fighters ability to be more versatile than the ranger shrinks as the ranger has more options (up front) take his feats from. Yes once he chooses that combat style he's locked in for those feats, but lets be honest, the fighter following the same combat type is going to choose those feats to, so that is not exactly a huge loss for the ranger.
I'm saying that not only does the ranger get that choice but he gets everything else from his class on top of that. The fighter merely gets some more feats.
Again I imagine this is more a problem with the fighter, however giving the ranger more choice is still giving the ranger more power, and reducing the differences between him and the fighter.
I'm literally of two minds on giving Rangers other combat styles to choose from:
I like it. Spear wielder and mounted would be nice among others
For my homebrew campaign, I've got combat styles for mounted combat, THW, skirmish (as the scout), sneak attacking, and wild shaping, in addition to the standard archery and TWF. I've also put a note in that new styles can be designed with player and GM approval.
My homebrew fighter has access to "fighter talents" that the ranger can't touch, so there's very little toe-stepping there.
Robin Hood would be another good Ranger, for obvious reasons.
What obvious reasons? Was he a good tracker? Did he live off the land? Did he explore and scout? Did he defend wilderness against the encroachment of man?
No, no, no, and no.
He had nothing of the qualities of a ranger.
Grizzly Adams is another good one, complete with animal companion.
You must mean the TV version then? Because the historical Grizzly Adams was a nut job who liked to prove how manly he was by emptying his six-shooter into a grizzly (those tiny bullets in that big old grizzly pissed it off more than anything) and then he fought it with a big old knife, one-on-one melee with a pissed off berserk grizzly bear.
Killed quite a few of them this way, and it's how he got his name.
He also died this way when one of the bears decided enough was enough and made a snack out of him.
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,
Not true, not true.
"Ranger" does not mean "ranged weapon user". Nobody called the English Longbowmen at Agincourt "rangers" - they called them bowmen. No army in history has referred to their slingers, javelineers, archers, bowmen, crossbowmen, musketeers, snipers, etc., "rangers".
That's not what the word means.
Dictionary.com:
Ranger:
1. forest ranger.
2. one of a body of armed guards who patrol a region.
3. (initial capital letter) a U.S. soldier in World War II specially trained for making surprise raids and attacks in small groups. Compare commando (def. 1).
4. a soldier specially trained in the techniques of guerrilla warfare, esp. in jungle terrain.
5. a person who ranges or roves.
6. (esp. in Texas) a member of the state police.
7. British. a keeper of a royal forest or park.
I don't think any forest rangers I've ever seen carried any kind of weapon, ranged or melee, other than maybe a buck knife. Armed guards who patrol a region use the best weapons available at their historical technology levels. U.S. Rangers are trained in all kinds of firearms, since firearms are the most effective way to kill armed soldiers in modern times, but also trained in hand-to-hand combat with knifes and empty hands. Guerilla soldiers use whatever is at hand, including melee combat when stealth is called for (which it usually is in guerilla warfare). Cowbows range or rove, so do foresters, aborigines, nomads, explorers, etc. - and they all use the weapons available to them in their geographic and historical time frame, including melee weapons. I'm quite sure that British park-keepers do so unarmed.
Just because the terms "ranged combat" and "ranger" have the first 5 letters in common doesn't mean that they are or must be interrelated in any way.
While it's true that someone in a medieval setting, like D&D (et. al.), who ranges or roves far from home, far from settled lands, exploring, on his own, would need a means to procure food, and the best means available is hunting (with fishing and trapping and foraging being decent alternatives), so it's likely that such a person would become proficient, even good at using a bow.
But, many commoners have developed similar skill just by stepping out their back door and walking a mile or two into the woodlands hunting for their family's next meal, so I don't believe rangers should necessarily be entitled to any more expertise at ranged combat than your average commoner.
Me, I would much rather see the Ranger class lose its weapon bonuses entirely, both the ranged and the two-weapon fighting, enhance their favored enemy/terrain bonuses to be more useful, and then give them something to compensate for their lost feats.
Then I would make an archer class (maybe not call it that exactly, since they might want to be a spearman, slinger, dartsman, or whatever), and give these guys some real expertise in ranged combat.
If it were up to me.
mdt wrote:
Robin Hood would be another good Ranger, for obvious reasons.
What obvious reasons? Was he a good tracker? Did he live off the land? Did he explore and scout? Did he defend wilderness against the encroachment of man?
No, no, no, and no.
He had nothing of the qualities of a ranger.
First DM, woah, someone asked what my idea of a ranger was. If it doesn't agree with yours, that's fine, but please try to tone down the responses, I feel like a duck in a shooting gallery and you're loaded with double ought buckshot.
Second, let me see.
1) Expert in stealth in a wooded environment (Check)
2) Expert at laying traps and ambushes (Check)
3) Expert with a bow in the forest (Check)
4) Expert at tracking in the woods (Check)
Those sound like four really good things a ranger does, and Robin Hood did them. Does it also fit a Rogue? Yes. Both classes would work for him. Why did I pick Ranger over Rogue? A personal preference in this case, and the fact both classes overlap a great deal.
mdt wrote:Grizzly Adams is another good one, complete with animal companion.
You must mean the TV version then?
Yes, I was referring to the TV show, not the historical personage. I thought that was implicit by specifying 'complete with an animal companion'?
mdt wrote: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,
Not true, not true.
"Ranger" does not mean "ranged weapon user". Nobody called the English Longbowmen at Agincourt "rangers" - they called them bowmen. No army in history has referred to their slingers, javelineers, archers, bowmen, crossbowmen, musketeers, snipers, etc., "rangers".
That's not what the word means.
I don't need a definition DM, don't take all this stuff as so literal. That was me pointing out the similarity as a joke, sorry I didn't put smiley faces all over it. I was pointing out the play on words.
I don't think any forest rangers I've ever seen carried any kind of weapon, ranged or melee, other than maybe a buck knife. Armed guards who patrol a region use the best weapons available at their historical technology levels. U.S. Rangers are trained in all kinds of firearms, since firearms are the most effective way to kill armed soldiers in modern times, but also trained in hand-to-hand combat with knifes and empty hands. Guerilla soldiers use whatever is at hand, including melee combat when stealth is called for (which it usually is in guerilla warfare). Cowbows range or rove, so do foresters, aborigines, nomads, explorers, etc. - and they all use the weapons available to them in their geographic and historical time frame, including melee weapons. I'm quite sure that British park-keepers do so unarmed.
This is just completely off topic DM, I expect better of you. We are not discussing real forest rangers in Yosemite Park. We're talking about the fantasy Ranger, as displayed in multiple movies. Yes, we did list a few examples of Rangerish types, some of whom were in the real world, but at no time did I or anyone else make a comment about Forest Rangers (or Marine Rangers, or any other modern Rangers).
Me, I would much rather see the Ranger class lose its weapon bonuses entirely, both the ranged and the two-weapon fighting, enhance their favored enemy/terrain bonuses to be more useful, and then give them something to compensate for their lost feats.Then I would make an archer class (maybe not call it that exactly, since they might want to be a spearman, slinger, dartsman, or whatever), and give these guys some real expertise in ranged combat.
If it were up to me.
Those would be good changes too. That was my main complaint up above with the Ranger, was that it felt like it had too many things tacked onto it. What I'd really like to see is a Zen Archer build for the Monk, but I'm not holding my breath.
