|
Double Weapons:
Am I missing something?This is what the damage section says (that's relevant):
...
Just a note on the double weapons---
From the PRD-"Double Weapons: Dire flails, dwarven urgroshes, gnome hooked hammers, orc double axes, quarterstaves, and two-bladed swords are double weapons. A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.
The character can also choose to use a double weapon two-handed, attacking with only one end of it. A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.
"
You can use it 2-handed, fight with both ends like a TWFer, or you can wield it in one hand using only one end of it in any round.
You just lost me on this one, since it's quite clear in the Animal Companion portion of the Ranger description in the Main book that Rangers most certainly DO NOT simply count as a Druid in regards to AC selection. They have a more limited list, and that is worded to be a set restricted list.
I can see how you see that, per the Core RAW the Druid is restricted to essentially the same Companions only when they start (i.e. 1st level) while that seems to be exhaustive for the Ranger (Bears are also not on Ranger list)
I'm just coming at this from the angle of all of Paizo's posts on the topic, which never went out of the way to bar Rangers from other Companions, and the fact that we know the Core Rules haven't been run thru with a fine-toothed comb for perfectly worded rules: In that light, the Ranger list may just be a helpful list to Ranger players. The Paladin actually doesn't have the wording like Ranger so should have full Companion access no matter what (which seems slightly dubious, flavor-wise).I don't think it matters that much, since I'm sure you'll cover the Bestiary companions when you review the Druid and any Ranger players can check that out if they want to and can use it in their games, most of the same recommendations would apply, bar specific Shared Spells the Ranger doesn't get.
@Fake Healer: I just don't think that sentence really supports what you think it does.
The main purpose is clearly to say if you can't wield a (2-Handed Weapon) Double Weapon in two hands, you can still attack with one end of it, one-handed. The fact it says you CAN use Double Weapons as a SINGLE 2-Handed Weapon doesn't counter the fact you're wielding it in two hands when using it as a Double Weapon (they're listed as "2-Handed Weapons" in Equipment), but is simply a nice option for those who don't like the -2 penalties... i.e. if only one end has ghosttouch or something especially useful, why take the 2WF penalties when you can maximize your chances with the effective end?
If you are attacking with it as a double weapon, you MUST be wielding it with two hands, which is THE requirement for the 2-Handed damage bonus. There simply is NO penalty which supersedes the fact you're wielding it two hands. There is nothing suggesting the main-hand counts as a 1-Handed weapon that isn't stemming from the subject marker: "the (2WF) penalties apply as if..." (which don't themselves speak to STR dmg bonus).
If you WANT to read it as counting as a 1 Handed + Light Weapon for ALL purposes (even though it's not introduced that way) that also bars Power Attacking with the off-hand, since it then "is" a Light Weapon, which makes the build EVEN less viable. Given that this came up in context of 2WF not being effective even when ignoring DEX req to focus on STR, I'm not sure what the big deal is about spending another Feat (Exotic) to make a fairly big Feat investment (2WF) effective in one melee context (Full Attack).
So basically, I'm unconvinced that "To Hit" is as important a concern as damage at range.And the reason why it does that is because stat bonuses and feats and magic items and buffs aren't generally included in the to-hit/AC CR balancing. Since the switch-hitting ranger doesn't benefit from magic items in a level-appropriate way, and cannot rely on buffs for an early-combat secondary schtick, and only has 14 dex base, it needs to rely on feats to make up the accuracy difference, especially if he wants to use damage feats that involve to-hit penalties.
OK. So Items/Buffs aren't included in to-hit:AC CR balancing. Meaning investing in more than one weapon/stat may put "Switchy" NOT AS FAR ahead of CR balancing as single-weapon specialist. But if single-weapon specialist isn't in fact putting all their enhancements into straight pluses, matching them weapon-enhance-wise isn't a problem. And given exponential costing, trailing behind STAT-enhancement-wise by a limited amount (~ -3 modifier) shouldn't overly impact hit chances either: how different is this from a party with/without a Bard?
At higher levels, he focuses on raising his dexterity and picks up the Vital Strike chain, picking up Finesse and switching to a curve blade when his dex pulls ahead of his str and finishing off with crit feats. (Which should be soon.) Once he's using the curve blade, Ozzie's got an advantage over Mick and his falchion, losing a total of about three damage from each 2h crit weapon over the course of their 20-level career. (Ozzie also loses Cleave, but you could probably lose Quick Draw to take that.) Vital Strike is used here to kite and to enter melee.
So you're showing that there's another Switch-build, focusing more on DEX (eventually) but using a Finesse Weapon (spending a Feat) whether Elven Curveblade or other 1-Handed+ Finesse Weapon, that's better at Ranged to-hit but less STR for dmg: I agree there's probably some space for trade-off there.
I don't think that proves that an ~ -3 hit penalty on ranged attacks makes a Ranged Full Attack futile for a more STR-focused "Switchy". I don't think it's 'black & white' here, focussing 80/20 STR/DEX, 60/40 STR/DEX or 40/60 STR/DEX (etc) are all probably viable, with different ultimate 'specialties'....When are we going to get to the Barbarian Archer :-)..
|
|
@Fake Healer: I just don't think that sentence really supports what you think it does.
The main purpose is clearly to say if you can't wield a (2-Handed Weapon) Double Weapon in two hands, you can still attack with one end of it, one-handed. The fact it says you CAN use Double Weapons as a SINGLE 2-Handed Weapon doesn't counter the fact you're wielding it in two hands when using it as a Double Weapon (they're listed as "2-Handed Weapons" in Equipment), but is simply a nice option for those who don't like the -2 penalties... i.e. if only one end has ghosttouch or something especially useful, why take the 2WF penalties when you can maximize your chances with the effective end?If you are attacking with it as a double weapon, you MUST be wielding it with two hands, which is THE requirement for the 2-Handed damage bonus. There simply is NO penalty which supersedes the fact you're wielding it two hands. There is nothing suggesting the main-hand counts as a 1-Handed weapon that isn't stemming from the subject marker: "the (2WF) penalties apply as if..." (which don't themselves speak to STR dmg bonus).
If you WANT to read it as counting as a 1 Handed + Light Weapon for ALL purposes (even though it's not introduced that way) that also bars Power Attacking with the off-hand, since it then "is" a Light Weapon, which makes the build EVEN less viable. Given that this came up in context of 2WF not being effective even when ignoring DEX req to focus on STR, I'm not sure what the big deal is about spending another Feat (Exotic) to make a fairly big Feat investment (2WF) effective in one melee context (Full Attack).
Ummm... just FYI, I wasn't debating about the damage output of the double weapons if used in different ways. I was only pointing out that you can use it 1 handed, 2 handed, or for TWFing. I actually agree that you should get the 1.5 str bonus for each side, but I can see an argument for not having it also. It could seem pretty powerful and makes a regular TWFer seem a bit weaker.
I wonder if you could get a mixed double weapon, like a flail/sword, or make some different mixed weapons like a morningstar/battle axe or a mace/sword? I guess you could but then your DM will probably go all "well Real Life works like..." and not allow it.
Ummm... just FYI, I wasn't debating about the damage output of the double weapons if used in different ways. I was only pointing out that you can use it 1 handed, 2 handed, or for TWFing. I actually agree that you should get the 1.5 str bonus for each side, but I can see an argument for not having it also. It could seem pretty powerful and makes a regular TWFer seem a bit...
I wonder if you could get a mixed double weapon, like a flail/sword, or make some different mixed weapons like a morningstar/battle axe or a mace/sword? I guess you could but then your DM will probably go all "well Real Life works like..." and not allow it.
"Regular TWFers" don't have nightmares of never-ending Grapples (or lucky disarms/sunders) :-)
Dwarven Urgrosh and Gnome Hooked Hammer are in Core for such 'different attack type' Double Weapons,
and I'm sure you could scare up some more given enough Splat material...
This is getting away from Rangers :-), but Fighters have a "Double Weapon" Weapon Training Group, so you will get the same bonus from that even if you switch tactically from Double-Bladed Sword to Dire Flail (for example).
I have limited time tonight, I'll give better responses tomorrow.
insaneogeddon: I am really not a fan of vital strike. The damage bonus is really not that great since only the die rolls are doubled, and you only get one attack. I could see using Vital strike against a single opponent if you are moving and making a standard action attack, but if you can, a Cleave is mechanically superior for melee.
At Ranged, I suppose it gives a small bonus if you move and fire in the same round. However, ranged really isn't very good unless you can full attack.
A man in black: I don't have the time to respond to everything right now...but a couple points:
Since the switch-hitting ranger doesn't benefit from magic items in a level-appropriate way, and cannot rely on buffs for an early-combat secondary schtick, and only has 14 dex base
His magic items are every bit as good as a TWF. Two - the same.
He can occassionally rely on buffs, just as anyone else can - it really depends on situation. Cat's Grace is on the Ranger spell list.
The 14 Base Dex is lower than your suggested 16. You are overplaying that difference though...
If you are unconvinced, make a scratch character, break out the MM, and see what he does at what level. But I'm telling you, +9 to hit and level-appropriate foes with AC 19 means Rapid Shot and Deadly Aim are dead weight
Fair nuff - I'll do so and post back tomorrow.
I can say fairly certainly that giving up Deadly Aim is a non-starter. Rapid Shot will really depend on what it adds vs what it takes away.
He can stand at range on the ettin until the ettin presses him, using his wolf to harry. Manyshot is friendly to his +10 to hit, but he can afford to Deadly Shot foes on the lower end of the AC spectrum. When he's finally pressed, he only loses 1.5 damage out to Mick in melee.
Looks to me like he's not going to see a damage increase on average at range, and gives up damage in melee - where's the advantage?
This is a non-Ranger example, but this past week I was playing my Bard (4th level) and in combat vs. AC 20. My base Ranged attack bonus is +7. However, +5/+5 was my attack of choice, as although my rate of hitting was lower, my overall hits were higher.
I can see why you don't think -3 is a big deal, but it's not just -3; it's -7 a good chunk of the time.
Our whole disagreement stems down to this.
I keep saying that a Switch Hitter doesn't avoid melee. The Bow is what he does when he isn't in melee yet, but when melee starts, the Greatsword is out and the bow is on the ground.
I'm not sure why I'm not getting through with this.
The Switch Hitter is NOT an archer who can melee at need. He is a meleer who can shoot a bow at need.
Therefore, when you say "a good chunk of the time" he'll be firing into melee, it's clear for some reason I can't get this point across - not sure why.
If you want a Ranger that doesn't want to enter melee, then look at the Archer Ranger build - you will see Precise Shot as one of the early recommended feats. The Archer Ranger shoots into melee, but if melee has started, the Switch Hitter can't fire into melee, because he's probably the one in melee.
|
In City of Heroes, there are two kinds of front-line fighter, the Tanker (sucks up a lot of damage, doesn't do a lot of damage, defensive powers at 100% strength, offensive powers at 75% strength) and Scrappers (pumps out a lot of damage, not as durable, offensive powers at 100% strength, defensive powers at 75% strength).
In my mind, that's what the Ranger is *attempting* to do, but with less damaging power than the Fighter or Barbarian, and less defensive power than either as well (same armor as a Barb, but less HD, same HD as a Fighter, but less armor). Depending on what sort of numbers the pet ends up contibuting, perhaps they catch up, but perhaps not, in which case the Ranger still suffers from not really making a place for itself, and ending up being a Fighter with less offense and defense, but a bunch more skills. Perhaps that's intentional, since being the equal of a Fighter, *and* having more skills, begs the question of why not just give the Fighter more skills and take the Ranger out behind the woodshed...
|
|
I don't get the 'low AC' talk. Eventually a mithral fullplate and full use of max-dex for it makes him very close to a THfighter in full plate. He's gonna have the same access to AC boosting items like rings and Natural Armor. I would like to see a level 10 ranger and fighter compared with comparable equipment and see what the actual AC, ranged hit and damage, and melee hit and damage would look like. If I get time today I will slap them together to see, but I'm uber-busy.
I wouldn't count on him soloing the ettin any time soon.
I think it would be close, but the Switch Hitter, assuming 6th level and average equipment for the level, following my advice for AC and Spells should be able to beat the Ettin solo more than 50% of the time. Assuming 1 round of ranged attack and a couple rounds of melee.
If I can show you how, will you concede the argument?
Further (related?) thought:
If your switch hitter is not a front-line fighter able to soak up constant heavy damage
Well, no class can soak up consistant heavy damage. Standing toe to toe with an Ettin is a challenge for any 6th level front liner. The Ranger does it as well as any.
In my mind, that's what the Ranger is *attempting* to do, but with less damaging power than the Fighter or Barbarian, and less defensive power than either as well (same armor as a Barb, but less HD, same HD as a Fighter, but less armor).
We're talking minor differences. A 6th level fighter using the same weapon on average should have 1 AC higher than the Ranger, and HP are going to be roughly equivalent.
A Barbarian will have roughly equivalent AC, and will have more HP, though HP increase is probably roughly 10-20%, not that much.
A defensively oriented fighter of course can have more, just as a defensively oriented Ranger can (see sword and shield TWF posted above)
Overall - I'll put the Ranger behind a fighter for melee, but not so significantly so that he can't fill the role.
Though generally in D&D, offense is better to concentrate on, optimization wise.
The Switch hitter is a viable front-liner. Of course he will flank at every opportunity, and probably is more geared towards skirmish, but he can stand up front with the big boys.
|
Re: Manyshot
It doesn't work on standard attacks anymore. Its utility has almost entirely been replaced by Deadly Aim/Vital Strike.
I'm not sure I would relate Manyshot and Deadly Aim.
Sorry, should have been more clear: your guide still mentions being able to get two arrows in the air with a standard action, which Manyshot doesn't do anymore. That's the only correction I was trying to make. (Ditto the "utility" bit - I meant "its utility in that context," i.e., if you are limited to a standard action, either because you have to move and shoot or during a surprise round, you're gonna be using Deadly Aim/Vital Strike [if you've picked it up] and not Manyshot.)
You just lost me on this one, since it's quite clear in the Animal Companion portion of the Ranger description in the Main book that Rangers most certainly DO NOT simply count as a Druid in regards to AC selection. They have a more limited list, and that is worded to be a set restricted list.I can see how you see that, per the Core RAW the Druid is restricted to essentially the same Companions only when they start (i.e. 1st level) while that seems to be exhaustive for the Ranger (Bears are also not on Ranger list)
I'm just coming at this from the angle of all of Paizo's posts on the topic, which never went out of the way to bar Rangers from other Companions,
Edit
yes they did. Jason or (James) said they didn't want the ranger to get as powerful animals as the druid.Ranger = no bear, no Big Cat, no Dinosaur, etc.
You just lost me on this one, since it's quite clear in the Animal Companion portion of the Ranger description in the Main book that Rangers most certainly DO NOT simply count as a Druid in regards to AC selection. They have a more limited list, and that is worded to be a set restricted list.I can see how you see that, per the Core RAW the Druid is restricted to essentially the same Companions only when they start (i.e. 1st level) while that seems to be exhaustive for the Ranger (Bears are also not on Ranger list)
I'm just coming at this from the angle of all of Paizo's posts on the topic, which never went out of the way to bar Rangers from other Companions,yes they did. Jason or James James) said they didn't want the ranger to get as powerful animals as the druid.
Ranger = no bear, no Big Cat, no Dinosaur, etc.
Here's one thread where James weighed in:
I like this guide- in ways I wasn't expecting, the concept of the switch hitter is enticing- its 3.5 heresy, splitting your feats among two fighting styles, but it could work. Oh it could so work.
That said for the switch hitter, you refer to the character as a skirmisher, and to me that means spring attack- avoiding full attacks is great for lower AC fighters. But by taking spring attack you change your focus to standard action attacks rather than full attacks. So I still consider the vital strike chain viable- it's inferior to full attack but doing extra damage to one foe is preferable to less damage to two foes (even if the combined damage is more. Now, my reasoning for this is that concentrated damage is more likely to affect the battlefield. As I know you now an enemy with full HP fights as well as one with one HP, so I feel getting a given enemy as low as possible per turn is preferable to damaging a group. I could be wrong.
I'm sure everyone thought of this but combat maneuvers work well too- I like trip. Combining spring attack with greater trip isn't a bad plan.
No if lunge can be combined with that, I have a character that I'd love to play (can a combat maneuver be used with lunge?)
|
|
You just lost me on this one, since it's quite clear in the Animal Companion portion of the Ranger description in the Main book that Rangers most certainly DO NOT simply count as a Druid in regards to AC selection. They have a more limited list, and that is worded to be a set restricted list.I can see how you see that, per the Core RAW the Druid is restricted to essentially the same Companions only when they start (i.e. 1st level) while that seems to be exhaustive for the Ranger (Bears are also not on Ranger list)
I'm just coming at this from the angle of all of Paizo's posts on the topic, which never went out of the way to bar Rangers from other Companions,yes they did. Jason or James James) said they didn't want the ranger to get as powerful animals as the druid.
Ranger = no bear, no Big Cat, no Dinosaur, etc.
Here's one thread where James weighed in:
I made this comment over on the other thread as well, but ...
It was in part because of this more limited animal companion list for rangers that I removed the Druid level -3 rule from the Spell-less Ranger class variant in KQ. I really think letting the ranger use his actual level as his equivilent druid level is not a problem at all and helps keep his animal companion alive as well as more fun and interesting to play.
I like this guide- in ways I wasn't expecting, the concept of the switch hitter is enticing- its 3.5 heresy, splitting your feats among two fighting styles, but it could work. Oh it could so work.
Interestingly enough, I came up with a similar idea, although in my case it's a grappling ranger (using Agile Maneuvers) who functions as an archer when grappling isn't possible or desirable.
Dunno if it's already been mentioned, but you'll be wanting to revise any information regarding Manyshot in your write-up. You only get the extra arrow on a full-attack in Pathfinder, rather than during a standard action single attack, as in 3.5. It's just an extra die of damage when you full attack now, rather than being a really useful way to avoid full-attacking like it used to be. Bit of a downer, IMHO, but mostly for its theoretical impact on Greater Manyshot.
Interestingly enough, I came up with a similar idea, although in my case it's a grappling ranger (using Agile Maneuvers) who functions as an archer when grappling isn't possible or desirable.
Awesome! A bear wrestler! I'm thinking dwarf or half orc...yeah that could work
Dunno if it's already been mentioned, but you'll be wanting to revise any information regarding Manyshot in your write-up. You only get the extra arrow on a full-attack in Pathfinder, rather than during a standard action single attack, as in 3.5. It's just an extra die of damage when you full attack now, rather than being a really useful way to avoid full-attacking like it used to be. Bit of a downer, IMHO, but mostly for its theoretical impact on Greater Manyshot.
This may not be what you meant, but the extra arrow is more than just another die - it's another die, any energy damage, strength, PBS, favored Enemy, prayer, bardsong, and bane, all added to your primary attack.
I agree with what another said - Vital Strike replaces Manyshot, particularly with Deadly Aim to stack some extra damage for a penalty to hit. It's not as strong as before, but then, it seemed rather too good back then.
Creative Director
|
The list of animal companions for rangers given in the Core rules is intended to be the complete list available for rangers. I could see us eventually doing a ranger feat that allows them to take ANY animal companion, but since rangers are themselves combat characters (more than druids, who are spellcasters more than they are melee/ranged characters), we wanted to set it up so their animal companions aren't exactly equal to druid animal companions.
As for double weapons... you don't get your full strength bonus on the off-hand part of a double weapon unless you take the Double Slice feat. The rules for resolving attacks with two weapons work identically no matter if you have two different weapons or one single double weapon.
And as for crossbow wielding rangers... I just finished playing in a campaign where I did just that; got up to 13th level with a light crossbow wielding ranger and she was doing some INSANE damage against her favored enemies. Not so much against non-favored enemies, but that's what bane bolts are for. There are a few archery feats you can't use if you're doing crossbows, of course (like Manyshot), and you pretty much HAVE to pick up Rapid Reload, but otherwise it works pretty well. Would she have done more damage with a strength bow? Not really; her strength was only 12. AKA: Crossbow rangers are a great way to build a tough ranger and sort of use Strength as a dump stat. The high score I would have put in STR ended up her CON, and as a result she had a LOT of hit points. Which, combined with the fact that she was usually out of melee, made for a pretty tough character. Our last two battles resulted in two near TPKs and she survived both of them...
The list of animal companions for rangers given in the Core rules is intended to be the complete list available for rangers. I could see us eventually doing a ranger feat that allows them to take ANY animal companion, but since rangers are themselves combat characters (more than druids, who are spellcasters more than they are melee/ranged characters), we wanted to set it up so their animal companions aren't exactly equal to druid animal companions.
Wouldn't the fact that Ranger companions are always effectively 3 levels behind the Druid companions be enough of a balancing mechanic? The Druid's pet is always going to be much better than the Ranger's simply as a result of the level difference.
As for double weapons... you don't get your full strength bonus on the off-hand part of a double weapon unless you take the Double Slice feat. The rules for resolving attacks with two weapons work identically no matter if you have two different weapons or one single double weapon.
James, if you could re-read my posts on this topic here, that's not exactly/completely the issue...
From your above post, I'm not sure if the off-hand STR penalty is meant to be exclusive or 'stacks' with wielding the weapon 2-handed (resulting in either 1/2 STR Bonus or 3/4 STR Bonus (before Double Slice): not THAT big a deal either way), but it would seem the main-hand indeed benefits from the 2-handed STR bonus: the 2WF rules themselves never mention "1-Handed" and this isn't mentioned in Double Weapon description either, which doesn't even refer to the main-hand.The issue is also whether the "virtual category" for 2WF (re: off-hand @ Light Weapon) counts for all other purposes, i.e. if off-hand attacks would Power Attack at the 1:1 Light Weapon Ratio or not. This may be a candidate for Errata/Clarification.
|
Creative Director
|
Wouldn't the fact that Ranger companions are always effectively 3 levels behind the Druid companions be enough of a balancing mechanic? The Druid's pet is always going to be much better than the Ranger's simply as a result of the level difference.The list of animal companions for rangers given in the Core rules is intended to be the complete list available for rangers. I could see us eventually doing a ranger feat that allows them to take ANY animal companion, but since rangers are themselves combat characters (more than druids, who are spellcasters more than they are melee/ranged characters), we wanted to set it up so their animal companions aren't exactly equal to druid animal companions.
Personally... I think probably so. Jason did not think so, and he knows the rules better than I.
|
|
Wouldn't the fact that Ranger companions are always effectively 3 levels behind the Druid companions be enough of a balancing mechanic? The Druid's pet is always going to be much better than the Ranger's simply as a result of the level difference.The list of animal companions for rangers given in the Core rules is intended to be the complete list available for rangers. I could see us eventually doing a ranger feat that allows them to take ANY animal companion, but since rangers are themselves combat characters (more than druids, who are spellcasters more than they are melee/ranged characters), we wanted to set it up so their animal companions aren't exactly equal to druid animal companions.
Exactly. That's what I was getting at a little bit upsteam with my previous post ... it is why I removed the Druid level -3 rule from the Spell-less Ranger class variant in Kobold Quarterly. I really don't see any problem with letting the ranger use his actual level as his equivilent druid level. Even if you are not using my Spell-less variant, I would still house rule away the Ranger level -3 and go with Ranger level equals Druid level - it helps keep his animal companion alive as well as more fun and interesting to play.
|
Creative Director
|
As for double weapons... you don't get your full strength bonus on the off-hand part of a double weapon unless you take the Double Slice feat. The rules for resolving attacks with two weapons work identically no matter if you have two different weapons or one single double weapon.James, if you could re-read my posts on this topic here, that's not exactly/completely the issue...
From your above post, I'm not sure if the off-hand STR penalty is meant to be exclusive or 'stacks' with wielding the weapon 2-handed (resulting in either 1/2 STR Bonus or 3/4 STR Bonus (before Double Slice): not THAT big a deal either way), but it would seem the main-hand indeed benefits from the 2-handed STR bonus: the 2WF rules themselves never mention "1-Handed" and this isn't mentioned in Double Weapon description either, which doesn't even refer to the main-hand.The issue is also whether the "virtual category" for 2WF (re: off-hand @ Light Weapon) counts for all other purposes, i.e. if off-hand attacks would Power Attack at the 1:1 Light Weapon Ratio or not. This may be a candidate for Errata/Clarification.
Ah... yeah; while you wield a double weapon two-handed... the rules treat it as if you were wielding two weapons one-handed.
Frankly, had I my druthers, the double weapons would have been cut from the game. I blame Darth Maul.
Ah... yeah; while you wield a double weapon two-handed...
the rules treat it as if you were wielding two weapons one-handed.
Great, I take it you see why that should probably be clarified,
given the main-hand isn't even mentioned in the Double Weapon rules, and the term "1-Handed" isn't mentioned either there or in 2WF. Going with your interpretation, I assume the off-hand would indeed Power Attack at the 1:1 Light Weapon ratio.If this IS looked at for Errata, I have to say: letting at least the main-hand apply 2-Handed STR Bonus makes it at least a worthwhile Feat to take (i.e. "work"), otherwise why bother using one, even if it's a free Racial weapon? The whole Feat investment in 2WF is lost when you can't Full Attack, so actually being decent in that one area after spending an EXTRA Feat seems pretty reasonable to me.
Frankly, had I my druthers,
the double weapons would have been cut from the game. I blame Darth Maul.
:-)
I think everybody knows George Lucas went over to the Dark Side.
Personally... I think probably so. Jason did not think so, and he knows the rules better than I.Wouldn't the fact that Ranger companions are always effectively 3 levels behind the Druid companions be enough of a balancing mechanic? The Druid's pet is always going to be much better than the Ranger's simply as a result of the level difference.The list of animal companions for rangers given in the Core rules is intended to be the complete list available for rangers. I could see us eventually doing a ranger feat that allows them to take ANY animal companion, but since rangers are themselves combat characters (more than druids, who are spellcasters more than they are melee/ranged characters), we wanted to set it up so their animal companions aren't exactly equal to druid animal companions.
I see. I'm not sure about your experiences with your Ranger, but I just hit level 10 with mine in our RotRL game, and I have to say that my companion has had quite a few issues as far as staying alive as well as with connecting with ttacks on CR appropriate ACs.
I understand that the companion is not supposed to be a focus of the Ranger class, as that is the domain of the Druid, but in my opinion either the list of choices needs to be expanded a bit, or the -3 level restriction needs to go in order for a Ranger companion to be anything more than a squishy figure on the board that gives the Rogues and Fighters a Flanking bonus, almost as if it were an unlimited duration Summon Monster V spell.
James Jacobs
Thank you for the rules clarifications! I was pretty sure about the Animal Companions, but the double weapons I was less certain.
Personally I don't think the reduced AC list is that big a deal, yes, the most "tank like" AC's are not on the Ranger list, however, a Druid needs the tank options, the Ranger needs a flanker and scouting partner, which the current AC list provides nicely.
Of course, more options means more power, so hopefully if the Druid list continues to expand, some extra options will be given to Rangers as well...lest they be left completely behind.
Quandary The advantage to double weapons would be that the weapons tend to have slightly higher base damage for the "off hand" than a light weapon - eg. vs a longsword/shortsword combo - a double sword will average 1 extra damage on the off hand.
Also, you can take feats like "weapon focus" which will apply to both sides, for which a regular TWF would need to use 2 light weapons to take advantage of (or take the feat twice), increasing the damage by another 1 on average.
Pretty small bonuses, but we are talking about one feat (EWP) - a feat that can be circumvented by a number of racial choices.
A man in black:
Well, she would have had Manyshot instead of Rapid Reload, so she would have been doing about 10-ish more damage a turn when that first shot hit, and that's at level 5.
I agree that a crossbow is less optimized than a bow pretty much universally. However, note that it is a simple weapon, not a martial one, so should technically have some disadvantage to make up for that.
I think if ranged combat is a part-time pursuit, Rapid Reload, Vital Strike, and Deadly Aim can certainly make the crossbow a fairly viable option, if not as optimal.
Not unless it's something an equally-geared warrior couldn't do.
So I must actually prove the Switch Hitter Ranger superior in combat in general to an all out fighter or Barbarian build? Obviously, I can't do that, and wouldn't try.
I would have thought that proving the Switch Hitter is viable in melee and ranged combat would have been enough.
The Switch hitter build was never intended to imply it was superior in combat overall to a dedicated Fighter. If you got that impression, I apologize.
It's in the same league, but likely inferior combat-wise to a dedicated fighting build. (Whether it be a full class fighter, Barbarian, Paladin or a mix of them)
Disciple of Sakura
Dunno if it's already been mentioned, but you'll be wanting to revise any information regarding Manyshot in your write-up.
Thanks! Fixed.
insaneogeddon:
I don't know if you are still following this thread, but I've been considering Vital Strike since you reminded me that it worked for both ranged and melee combat...
The more I think about it, the more I agree it is a good choice for both the Archery and Switch Hitter build. If you want to shoot and move, Vital Strike will add 1d8 damage with no real drawback. If you are entering melee with the Switch Hitter - Cleave may be the better option if you have 2 enemies adjacent, but Vital Strike is going to be more versatile overall.
The damage bonuses may not be HUGE, but 1d8 averages 4.5, that's as good a better bonus as Deadly Aim up to 8th level (with no minus to hit - of course you should STACK them). A single ranged attack with Deadly Aim and Vital Strike at 7th level is doing 2d8+4 plus strength and enchancement bonuses - that's a decent sting.
The Switch Hitter is actually adding 2d6 to his damage with a Greatsword, which is 7 extra damage on average. Pretty substantial damage bonus.
As such I've added it as a 3 star recommendation for both builds. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
everyone
I've added the following to the guide, I'm hoping it clears up when to use feats like Rapid Shot, and when it's not worth it:
Archery Basics:
As a Ranger, expect that using a Bow is very often going to be part of your character. It may be your main focus, or it may be just one aspect of the whole. However, some changes have occurred to archery in Pathfinder (mainly for the good), but sometimes it's hard to know which feats you should be applying to which shots.
Vital Strike: If you want to play hit and run, this is really your only archery option to increase your damage. Make a full move, fire with Vital shot, do more damage. Period. Vital Shot is NOT for full attacks, and when you can get a full attack, it is almost always better to take it then to use this feat.
Rapid Shot: Rapid shot is available right at level 2 with an Archery style, and level 2 is when you get the biggest bang for your buck. Essentially you double your arrow output for a -2 on each arrow. When do you want to use Rapid Shot? If Rapid Shot or firing a single arrow are your choices - then the only time that the single arrow is better is if you need to roll an 18 to hit before adding Rapid Shot (so RS brings you to an even 20 to hit). Any other time, rapid shot is the better choice.
Manyshot: Absolutely a must have for Rangers, gives you an extra arrow without any minus like Manyshot. Always better than firing a single arrow. If you have Manyshot and Rapid shot, always use manyshot on a full attack, and use Rapid Shot as well whenever your target number "To Hit" is 15 or less, if you need more than a 15 to hit before adjusting for Rapid Shot, then don't bother with it. Once you get a 2nd attack at level 6, reduce that number to 13. 14 or higher to hit, don't use Rapid Shot, 13 or lower, use it.
Deadly Aim: No hard and fast rules for when to use this because it changes based on the pre-existing damage bonuses you have. Suffice it to say that Deadly Aim is USUALLY going to be a good choice. If you need extra damage to punch through DR, it's going to universally be a good choice. If you find you are doing lots of damage without (because of Favored Enemy for example), or you find that your to hit number is really high (18 or so - though this can vary based on arrow damage), then it MAY not be the best option in those cases. However, if in doubt, my suggestion is to use Deadly Aim.
Thanks everyone for all the responses! Really impressed that the Ranger Handbook seems to be gaining as much attention as the Bard Handbook. Keep giving me your feedback, I appreciate even the skeptical responses!
I agree Vital Strike is very useful - especially it's 'weapon-neutrality' in the Switch hitter case.
Taking all 3 levels of it may well be similar to taking all 3 levels of 2WF (not necessarily so optimal), but the first level at least is a great thing to pick up at some point.
So, several comments on the much maligned TWF ranger, based on points you/others have made:
1: A fighter, rogue, or fighter/rogue makes a better TWF than a ranger.
Response; If by "better" you mean "Does more damage", than yes. However, if you're looking for a class that does all the 'rangerish' things in addition to fighting....that's effectively the cost/benefit trade-off you have. Do less damage, but get ranger abilities. (Track, animal companion, woodland stride,spells, all that fun stuff).
You do give up some Ranger abilities, which is why I didn't really flesh out the build.
You can however, be a "Ranger" as far as party-role goes. A Ranger/Rogue will likely be every bit as good a scout/hunter as a full Ranger. (And maybe better in some ways, I for one would like to be able to find and disarm traps when scouting!)
I think it's important to bring forth at this time that D&D (and subsequently Pathfinder - to me, Pathfinder IS D&D, moreso than 4e is) is a mix of combat and non-combat situations.
It is nice for every character to have a vital role in the non-combat stuff. If you have some skills, spells or class abilities that help you fill out such a role, all the better.
However, from an optimization standpoint (and this is an Optimization thread - I label it specifically in case there is any doubt), you NEED an effective role in combat. If you can't fufill a role in combat effectively, your character simply isn't optimized, furthermore, you endanger the lives of not only your character, but those of your allies, since combat is normally a team-effort.
Giving up the ability to do effective damage to retain abilities that are largely "flavor-based", simply isn't a good optimization strategy.
2: A two handed melee ranger is strictly superior to a TWF ranger.Did I say that? If so, I need to change that to "A Two handed melee Ranger has comparible effectiveness to a TWF Ranger, with less feat requirements.
A: I understand this is an 'optimization' thread, and therefore pure damage output is often the main metric for a melee combatant....but lets posit thematic/character personality/imagery as a consideration. Someone wants to play a woodlands tracker type who fights in with two swords, knowing it does less damage, but it fits his concept better. Isn't it worthwhile to spend a bit of time offering a build for this, rather than dismissing it offhand?
I guess the first thing I need to make clear is that I don't think fighting with 2 weapons is especially thematic for iconic Rangers in my view.
I think giving Rangers TWF is a product of Drizzt in specific, and not a product of Ranger imagery being especially geared towards TWF.
That said, certainly an individual player may decide that his Ranger fights with 2 weapons. This is his mental imagery of his character, and if that's what he wants to do - I say go for it.
However, if certain individual player decides that his Ranger fights with a whip, and that is his imagery of his character, and that's what he wants to do - I say go for that too.
I would consider neither option inherently "iconic" for Rangers, but pigeonholing themes makes me sick, so although neither option is optimal, if they want advice, they can post here, and I'll try to help them make it work to the best of my meager ability.
However, that does not mean I'm going to post every conceivable build, optimized or not in the guide. The Guide represents the builds I consider mechanically optimized. They are flexible in theme, personality, and even specifics of the build. 10 "switch hitter" builds may be almost unrecognizable from each other, except that they are all mixed melee/ranged builds. I like it that way, I don't think optimization should make your character for you, only give you ideas to make your own.
B: Hit/Damage buffs. This is very party mechanic oriented, but the more hit/damage buffs your party is stacking, the better multiple individual attacks fare in comparison to less big attacks. The obvious ones that pop to mind are Prayer and (The biggie) Bard's inspire courage, though if the party has other things they're doing to buff every attack hit/damage, the TWF is getting a greater benefit.
yes, the more damage bonuses in which you get "full" bonus on the off hand you have, the better you will do with TWF.
My point regarding TWF, specifically for Rangers, is a generality. I'm not saying a TWF Ranger can't work, just that IMO, it's not as optimal generally speaking, and I don't see a big advantage in TWF for a Ranger considering all the feats you put into it.
Hopefully that makes my position, and reason for not recommending TWF Rangers, more clear.
I know you don't have the Bestiary yet, TM, but take a look at the PRD...
This has nothing to do with Rangers, but now I got it today. (YAY!)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Weapon Focus **: If you have a weakness in archery, it's all the to hit penalties, so even a +1 is handy
...
Improved Precise Shot ***: Cover bonuses come up all the time in archery (often by the positioning of your own allies), so eliminating them is terrific
Great guide! My experience with archery reflects what you say about Weapon Focus: you take a lot of penalties due to cover/concealment. Which is precisely (ha) why Imp. Precise Shot at lvl 6 is so awesome. It's the reason IMO ranger archers win over fighter archers for 5 whole levels until the fighters can get it. IPS means "never having to say you're sorry" for taking hit penalties for nearly anything. I'd have given it 4 stars for that reason. Ignoring those penalties offsets the to-hit penalties of Deadly Aim and Rapid Shot, making those extra Deadly Aim'ed attacks more likely to hit-which, after all, is the point of a machine gun archer: landing as many Deadly Aim'ed arrows as you can every round. Plus it is very ranger-y to be able to run around in the underbrush with Woodland Stride, shooting badguys who can't charge through the terrain to get to you, ignoring all their concealment and cover, all the while being able to claim cover/concealment yourself.
Absolutely no love for the deceiver =(.