Absolutely no love for the deceiver =(.
LOL.
I think that's an overstatement, but I have been considering it, and even specifically brought it with a friend who is also an optimizer to get his specific impression of the deciever. Truth be said, I wanted to like it, if that's of any consolation at all.
Unfortunately, I must say that although some extra AC is always nice to have, I think there is an offensive-deficiency to the deciever that is going to hurt badly.
Every way I look at it, that deficiency remains...
I'm trying to remember whether Aragorn ever used 2 weapons in the movie (I know Legolas did very briefly at the battle of Helm's Deep).
In the book he certainly didn't. Elessar was a one sword kinda Ranger.
I agree 13th warrior was a great movie! Great soundtrack too. King Arthur...not as big a fan. It was OK.
Anyways, good examples of iconic Rangers.
Personally, I have no problem with Drizzt as a book character, I just don't consider him an iconic Ranger. (and Entreri was soooo much more interesting - Drizzt is not a dynamic character at all.)
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.
If this is the official word, so be it, but p. 316 of the Bestiary states:
The Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook presents druids and rangers with a wide selection of animal companion choices, but this selection by no means covers the entirety of animals available as companions. Numerous additional animals are presented in this book, and in each case, rules for using them as companions are included. The follow list indexes all additional animal companions found in this book, along with the page numbers on which they can be located.
Personally, I'd interpret that to mean that those animals are available to the ranger as well.
I'm trying to remember whether Aragorn ever used 2 weapons in the movie (I know Legolas did very briefly at the battle of Helm's Deep).Didn't he drive off the ring wraiths with a sword in one hand and a flaming club... er torch in the other when frodo got the chunk of metal lodged in his chest?
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
I would have to say the 2 most iconic rangers many younger gamers who get into the game think of (pre-aragons fairy prince shenanagans) were from "13th warrior" and "king arthur" both AWESOME films and both showed believable groups of warriors.
Really though in movies archers are always like Latinas. Unless you're Legolas or Robin Hood, you're going to buy the farm halfway through.
If this is the official word, so be it, but p. 316 of the Bestiary states:
OK, I give up, the rules mean whatever you want them to, good luck with Organized Play...
If this is the official word, so be it, but p. 316 of the Bestiary states:OK, I give up, the rules mean whatever you want them to, good luck with Organized Play...
Good thing I don't take part in organized play, innit? ;)
Warrior. As in the NPC class. At this point, the switch-hitting ranger has the extra damage on his one bow full attack from Deadly Aim, and nothing else.
I don't get this. Beyond early entry to certain Feats, which eventually disappears, and being able to ignore stats (DEX in this case, which you advocate against doing), how is ANY Ranger possibly going to be better than a Fighter Archer on a damage output basis, except vs. Favored Enemies and Quarry? Am I missing something?
Absolutely no love for the deceiver =(.LOL.
I think that's an overstatement, but I have been considering it, and even specifically brought it with a friend who is also an optimizer to get his specific impression of the deciever. Truth be said, I wanted to like it, if that's of any consolation at all.
Unfortunately, I must say that although some extra AC is always nice to have, I think there is an offensive-deficiency to the deciever that is going to hurt badly.
Every way I look at it, that deficiency remains...
Thank you for trying.
Anyhow, as I already post, its not ment to be the main damage dealer at all. It works better with reach weapon barbarian or archer bard behind. It works far better at in 5-man groups, but his sin is not being a relaible damage dealer.
Humbly,
Yawar
LOTR doesn't have fire giants. And the one time they had to face a monster nastier than CR 5 the wizard solo it. ¬_¬
Just clarifying.
The strategy can be tweaked in order to find some archery/melee synergy, but making a guy who only shoots enemies who are inaccessible is not a good use of ranger.
All the situational bonuses (F.E./Quarry) apply equally or more to melee (given extra AoO attacks). Being decent at 2-Handed melee combat isn't that hard (PA + Cleave + Vital which applies to ranged/melee). In other words, give up 2 Ranged Feats to pick up 2 Feats to be good at Melee. Where is the drop-off in Ranger effectiveness that means you should always avoid Melee if you CAN use Ranged? What is wrong with Full Attacking until they come to you, and then Full Attack in Melee? I don't see an argument here specific to Rangers, unless EVERY Warrior/Fighter/Paladin should also be Ranged Specialists no matter what. In any case, it doesn't seem that onerous to pick up PA + Cleave along WITH PrecShot and this issue seems to go away... /shrug
Warrior. As in the NPC class. At this point, the switch-hitting ranger has the extra damage on his one bow full attack from Deadly Aim, and nothing else.
Alright, I'm not sure how a Warrior is going to solo an Ettin though, so isn't soloing the Ettin someting an NPC warrior couldn't do?
I was picking away the numbers using your formula (determine average damage by multiplying average weapon damage by chance to hit), then assumed every attack as an average attack.
I gave the Ranger average equipment for his level, stuff I thought a Ranger of his level might have (16,000 gp average for his level):
Cloak, elvenkind +5: 2,500
Amulet, Nat AC +1: 1,000
Belt, Str+2: 2,000
Ring, Prot +1: 2,000
Add, Enhancement +1, Armor: 1,000
Pearl of Power level 1: 1,000
Weapon Enhancement, +1 : 2,000
Wands Lvl 1 x2: 1,500 (Cure light wounds, Animal Messenger)
Giving 3,000 gp remaining for the base costs of:
Composite Longbow, Masterwork, Mighty +4
Greatsword, Masterwork
Breastplate, Masterwork
Other adventuring gear, and some base gold and gems
Nothing there too outrageous I think, (and most of it irrelevant to the combat. The Ranger does not use the wands or the pearl of power)
Gave the Ranger every disadvantage I could think of. Made sure his spells were not relevant to the combat, that he lost initiative, that his missed his stealth roll, that the opponent was not favored, and neither was the terrain. As has been pointed out, the Ranger performs better with a reach weapon in this scenario, but he doesn't have one. Vital Strike would be better against a single opponent, but he keeps the Cleave feat.
This battle isn't one where the Ranger has any special advantage, and has almost every disadvantage.
I did give him one round of ranged combat to fire his bow.
I had the Ranger make a tactical error on the second round (which does make the battle much closer)
and the Ranger still wins...(barely) on round 3.
Could a warrior win under those circumstances?
If not, will you concede if the Ranger can?
Of course the Ranger DOES have favored enemy, favored terrains, spells, etc. In this scenario I assumed none applied, in a situation where they do, he performs better yet.
What wizard? Everyone knows Gandalf is a 19th level warrior with 2 weapon fighting, a sweet sword and a ring of animal friendship (or his a ranger) with a one level wizard dip so he can use his +5 staff that can cast daylight once per day !!
Elrond: "The Ring must be destroyed in the forges of Mount Doom where it was forged."
Frodo: "Sure, Gandalf?"
Gandalf: "Sure, just let me memorize a couple greater teleports. We should have that all done in, about 18 seconds?"
Boromir: "But we should take the ring to Minas Tir..."*turns into newt*
Gandalf: "I did have a baleful polymorph..."
Um. The character sheet was nice, but could we see the fight? Or some description of the fight other than vague generalities? Were you rolling or taking averages?
Without actually knowing what you did, there's nothing to criticize or comment upon. You didn't even say what the ranger was fighting. :S
I used the averages - rounded off to nearest HP.
I was also mistaken - 4 rounds, not 3.
Also: Disclaimer: I'm not using this as a suggestion that Rangers should be taking on opponents by themselves - or that a 6th level Ranger should be taking on an Ettin, just because the averages are slightly in his favor.
Switch Hitter – Level 6
Human Ranger 6
Str: 18
Dex: 14
Con: 13
Int: 10
Wis: 13
Cha: 7
Feats: Power attack, Cleave, Quick Draw, Deadly Aim, Manyshot, Rapid Shot
Skills: Handle Animal, Knowledge (Nature), Ride, Perception, Stealth, Survival
Starting Equipment: 16,000
Cloak, elvenkind +5: 2,500
Amulet, Nat AC +1: 1,000
Belt, Str+2: 2,000
Ring, Prot +1: 2,000
Add, Enhancement +1, Armor: 1,000
Pearl of Power level 1: 1,000
Weapons, +1 : 2,000
Wands Lvl 1 x2: 1,500 (Cure light wounds, Animal Messenger)
Thats 13,000 of magical enhancement, provides 2,500 for mundane/base equipment (Including the base Breastplate, bow and greatsword) and 500 gp in coin and gems.
Spells: Longstrider, Entangle
Animal Companion: Cheetah, Weapon Finesse/Power attack HP 19, To hit +8/+3/+3 (when power attacking), damage 1d4+4/1d2+1/1d2+1, AC 19 (13 flat footed)
Scouting alone for the party through the forest, Mr Chuckles notices some tracks, quite large. Tracking stealthfully (+12+d20), he sees (+6+d20) an Ettin (Big Fred) wandering through the trees in the distance (about 100 ft).
He considers heading back towards the party, when Big Fred spots him (+12 stealth vs. +12 perception – cover and distance give Strider the advantage, but this isn’t his lucky day) he decides that retreat is not an option.
Round 1:
Initiative is rolled and Big Fred wins – Mr. Chuckles can’t get a break. Big Fred closes with a double move – and is now only 20ft away. Mr Chuckles can’t get away, he needs to fight.
Bow in hand, Mr Chuckles takes his shots for 16 damage to the Ettin. Speedy McFast, his faithful Cheetah, waits for a command. (Ettin HP from 65 to 49)
Round 2:
Big Fred closes and attacks. +12 to hit vs. An AC of 21 – hits 55% of the time, for 13 damage. Average damage 7. (Strider HP from 49 to 42)
Mr Chuckles uses a free action to command Speedy to attack. Speedy moves in to bite and does 4 points of damage to the Ettin. Big Fred takes an attack of opportunity on Speedy as he comes in, wounding Speedy for 9 hp. (Ettin HP from 49 to 45, Mib HP from 19 to 10)
Poor Mr Chuckles has never taken on an Ettin before, and thinks, "How bad can standing toe to toe with this guy be?", so poor Mr Chuckles makes a tactical error and moves into flanking postion and quickdraws his greatsword. He makes a power attack at total bonus to hit (6 bab, 1 magic, 5 str, -2 PA, +2 flank) of +12 – he hits 70% for damage 2d6+ (6 PA, 1 magic, 7 str)+14. Damage 15 (Ettin HP: 30)
Round 3:
Big Fred's heads agree that it's time to end this and makes a full attack. Total damage average: 22. (Strider HP 42 to 20). Mr Chuckles realizes his mistake – this ettin has 4 attacks per round – Mr Chuckles adjusts his strategy to compensate.
Mr Chuckles attacks again for 15 damage, Speedy attacks again for 4 damage (Ettin HP down to 11). Mr Chuckles uses his move action to back up. Big Fred takes an attack of opportunity, damage 7 (Strider HP to 13)
Round 4:
Ettin charges, Damage up to 8 (Strider HP 5)
Speedy moves in to attack from behnd, Big Fred gets an attack of opportunity (Speedy's in bad shape, Ettin down to 7 HP). Mr Chuckles finishes off the Ettin...whew.
I think that's all legit...
Double post
Round 4, the ettin makes cheetahburgers because he's still in melee with an angry cat, then the ranger's in trouble because he can't get a flank and can't soak javelins and left his bow laying on the ground.
I did recommend a second ranged weapon under equipment in the guide, but didn't put it on the equipment list (my bad)
If it was a recommended switch hitter - he throws a backup weapon and kills the ettin (As always - precise shot is not required since Big Fred ended melee when he killed Speedy - your own strategy for the Ettin keeps precise shot a useless feat in this example)
Of course I did not mention a backup weapon, so Mr Chuckles will take the attack of opportunity as he comes in and finishes the Ettin off. The Attack of opportunity won't hurt Mr Chuckles anymore than if the Ettin had charged.
Switch Hitter STILL wins, Precise shot remains a non-factor.
Unfortunately, if the Ettin follows your strategy, Mr Chuckles needs to summon Speedy II.
The only reason the ranger wins this example is because the ettin politely plays the kiting game with him, instead of perforating him with javelins since he's left his (very expensive) bow laying around somewhere.
Soon as Mr Chuckles plays smart (which he should have done on Round 2) and prevents full attacks from the Ettin, then it's over.
The Ettin can't win a skirmish fight with Mr Chuckles.
However, yes if Mr Chuckles had a backup bow handy (which he should have - my bad), then they can trade ranged attacks - which Mr Chuckles is superior with.
That's of course the strength of the Switch hitter - he can do melee and ranged. So can the Ettin, but the Ettin's Ranged attack does significantly inferior damage to his melee attack, so he can't match the Switch Hitter at range either.
Now, try doing the math with a ranger with Precise Shot, able to riddle the ettin with arrows while the ettin plays kissyface with the cat. Either way, the cat dies, but the Precise-Shooting switch hitter doesn't get beaten within an inch of his life.
In your example, Speedy dies in one round of melee, then the Ettin Charges - then you are in melee.
You end up using the same strategy, with the same result - except there is no chance of speedy surviving the combat.
The Switch Hitter doesn't need precise shot. He does however benifit from a backup ranged weapon.
You've lost this one. Or are you going to show me how the Warrior wins in the same situation with the same gear?
|
I'm trying to remember whether Aragorn ever used 2 weapons in the movie (I know Legolas did very briefly at the battle of Helm's Deep).
I've heard that the scene at Weathertop where he's flailing away with sword in one hand and torch in the other was part of the two-weapon ranger inspiration, but it's hardly 'iconic two-weapon fighting.'
I get that some people like it, but it's kinda not relevant to a post about optimization, just as a crossbow build or optimizing-the-pet build or focused Ranger spellcaster build probably isn't really appropriate here.
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.
Ironically I think that vital strike(IMO a sub par feat) is best combined with a heavy crossbow (IMO a sub par weapon) to do long distance sniping while prone. A ranger in his favored terrain using this combination from 100 ft or so may be able to kill his enemy just by rolling one attack for 4d10 every round and staying hidden. This is less valuable when trolls are full attacking your friends, as you want to kill them quickly, but for a solo campaign or when scouting ahead of your group, this could be a good way to cause some problems for the enemy besides setting their tents and supplies on fire with flaming bolts.
Let's pit the deceiver against the Ettin:
Being more item dependant this section was mandatory.
4250 +2 Breastplate
4175 +1 Bashing Spikes Light Metal Sheild
2330 +1 Darwen Waraxe
2000 +1 Ring of Deflection
2000 +1 Amulet of NA
1000 +1 Cloack of Resistance
100 Msw Stealth item (Cloack)
15825
145 A couple Javelins and Adventurng Gear
PD: If you want a wand of CLW remove the msw cloack, the wand is collective item so it should be bought by the party as a collective.
HP 55 (10+5d10+12+6)
AC 23 (10; +1 Dex; +8 Armor; +2 Sheild; +1 Deflection; +1 Natural Armor)
Init: +1 / Perception: +10
Attack: Darwen Waraxe +10 (1d10+4/X3)
Full Attack: Darwen Waraxe +8/+3 (1d10+4/X3) and Bashing Sheild +8/+3 (1d6+4/3)
AC: Tiberius(Hawk) HP 19 AC 18 Attacks +7/+7/+7 bite and talons(1d4)
Most likely escenario you'll Spot the Ettin at 140 feet and the Ettin would spot you at a distance of 60ft. I am gonna use previous example as a baseline so the Ettin spots you at 100 feets.
I am gonig to use 0 risk aversion expected damage because the fight is going to be long.
Round 1
Like the previous example lets asume the Ettin wins initiative and double moves to 20 of you. Meaty order Tiberius tointo flanking position when the Ettin aproches, as practiced in the boot camp, ready an action hit him when he charges.
Round 2
The Ettin charges Meaty activates Expertise, and for now on, attacks and deals 9.5*.65 = 6.175, the Ettin deals 13*.50 = 6.5.
Ettin=77.825 Meaty=48.5
Round 3
Tiberius moves 5ft and flanks, compensating Meaty's expertise, then attacks 3 times dealing 2.5*.60*3= 4.5, you attack 4 times dealing 9.5*(.55+.30)+ 7.5*(.55+.30)= 13.6, total 18.1. Ettin attack meaty (12vs25) 13*(.40+.40+.15+.15)= 14.3
Ettin=59.725 Meaty=34.2
Round 4
Meaty realizes that the beast is much more pwerful than he expected and so he starts fighting defensivly(-4 to attack and +3 to AC, acrobatics). Tiberius deals 4.5, Meaty deals 16*(.35+.10)=7.2 for total of 11.7. Ettin deals 13(.20+.20+.05+.05)=6.5.
Ettin=48.025 Meaty=27.7
Round 5 (ditto)
Ettin=36.425 Meaty=21.2
Ettin=24.825 Meaty=14.7
Ettin=13.225 Meaty=8.2
Round 8
Meaty its at the edge of his life it to risky to take another a blow from the beast, but he sees the weaknes of his enemy he knows boh are at their limits. Now its the time of the truth, with a great shout he unleashes all his might agaisnt the beast kwoning thats its do or die. Tiberius attacks for 4.5 and Meaty attacks for 16*(.65+.45)=17. With an agonic roar the beast collapse to the feets of Meaty.
Ettin=-4 Meaty=8
Humbly,
Yawar
PD:That wasn't counting the +4 dodge bonus of dwarfs against giants, neither the use of entangle to delay the ettin and weakening him with javelins.
It's kind of disheartening, but the more I read here, the more I wonder why you'd play a ranger over a fighter.
Ranger Tracking? Fighter takes Survival
Yeah the fighter won't do it as well, but if the success of the adventure hinges on the fighter making a tracking role, it's not that well designed and given the disparate range of parties available no adventure should critically rely on a check only one class can feasibly make.
An Animal companion? Fighter takes Leadership
Sure the Animal Companion comes 3 levels ealier but at level 7 I'll pit your level 3 cheetah against my level 5 NPC cleric or specially trained animal and probably come out on par or ahead.
Favored enemy?
Wpn specialization and Wpn training and that applies to everyone not just a select group. Sure you get some skill bonuses against the favored enemy, but in truth how likely is it that the ranger is ever going to be the face of the party when there's a bard, sorceror or paladin in the party?
There's more comparisons, like this and there is no real match for things like favored terrain, but it really feels like the ranger comes out a little short in the long run. There's no niche in the party that can't be filled by another class just as effectively... and so many of those other classes are better at those things than the ranger.
So yeah while the ranger gets some neat abilities, a lot of them really feel like they're intended for solo use... which is great if you're playing by yourself... but that kind of defeats the whole purpose of having a party of adventurers.
Maybe I'm just having a bad day, but it kind of sucks to read a thread on character optimization and realize that another class is just as good if not better than the class you're reading about.
It's kind of disheartening, but the more I read here, the more I wonder why you'd play a ranger over a fighter.
Ranger Tracking? Fighter takes Survival
Yeah the fighter won't do it as well, but if the success of the adventure hinges on the fighter making a tracking role, it's not that well designed and given the disparate range of parties available no adventure should critically rely on a check only one class can feasibly make.An Animal companion? Fighter takes Leadership
Sure the Animal Companion comes 3 levels ealier but at level 7 I'll pit your level 3 cheetah against my level 5 NPC cleric or specially trained animal and probably come out on par or ahead.Favored enemy?
Wpn specialization and Wpn training and that applies to everyone not just a select group. Sure you get some skill bonuses against the favored enemy, but in truth how likely is it that the ranger is ever going to be the face of the party when there's a bard, sorceror or paladin in the party?There's more comparisons, like this and there is no real match for things like favored terrain, but it really feels like the ranger comes out a little short in the long run. There's no niche in the party that can't be filled by another class just as effectively... and so many of those other classes are better at those things than the ranger.
So yeah while the ranger gets some neat abilities, a lot of them really feel like they're intended for solo use... which is great if you're playing by yourself... but that kind of defeats the whole purpose of having a party of adventurers.
Maybe I'm just having a bad day, but it kind of sucks to read a thread on character optimization and realize that another class is just as good if not better than the class you're reading about.
I don't know.. cause they're awesome? Ranger isn't as much raw power as the fighter, but the Ranger has some really nice perks, like hide in plain sight, camo (great in urban environments), favored terrain > favored enemy in my book, 6+int skill points. If you wanna be the total master of combat fighter is the way to go, If you wanna be useful and a good party member ranger is very nice. An archer ranger flying around on a dire bat can obliterate and take full move actions and full attack actions each round.
Man what's really disheartening is the fact that we got some obvious haters in this thread.
Treantmonk never said these were the best builds on the planet nor did he say these builds would outdamage the fighter/paladin every time. He simply made a post showing best uses of various builds. If you don't agree that's fine but the negativity isn't really necessary.
The thread is titled "Guide to RANGER optimization" not melee
Man what's really disheartening is the fact that we got some obvious haters in this thread.
Treantmonk never said these were the best builds on the planet nor did he say these builds would outdamage the fighter/paladin every time. He simply made a post showing best uses of various builds. If you don't agree that's fine but the negativity isn't really necessary.
The thread is titled "Guide to RANGER optimization" not melee
It's not so much that I'm a hater, but rather a wilderness oriented fighter or fighter rogue out-ranger's the ranger in a lot of ways.
TM's work here is great, but I'm finding myself less enthused about playing a ranger in an upcoming game given the class's limitations. That's all.
Man what's really disheartening is the fact that we got some obvious haters in this thread.
Treantmonk never said these were the best builds on the planet nor did he say these builds would outdamage the fighter/paladin every time. He simply made a post showing best uses of various builds. If you don't agree that's fine but the negativity isn't really necessary.
The thread is titled "Guide to RANGER optimization" not melee
It's not so much that I'm a hater, but rather a wilderness oriented fighter or fighter rogue out-ranger's the ranger in a lot of ways.
TM's work here is great, but I'm finding myself less enthused about playing a ranger in an upcoming game given the class's limitations. That's all.
The ranger is a great class. Full BAB + 6 skill points a level in itself is awesome. They can now use medium armor and still keep their combat style, they get improved precise shot at level 6, way before the fighter, they get spells, I don't know about you but evasion + resist energy = win to me, the animal companion is a joke compared to giving bonuses to your team if you're going to be fighting a lot of the same enemies, say drow, or gnolls. An elven bow ranger picking up an elven curved blade and power attack is deadly no matter what's going on. If you don't like them play something else but there's a lot of reasons to play a ranger, one of them is that they're stinkin cool and chicks wanna ride on your hippogriff.
It's not so much that I'm a hater, but rather a wilderness oriented fighter or fighter rogue out-ranger's the ranger in a lot of ways.
TM's work here is great, but I'm finding myself less enthused about playing a ranger in an upcoming game given the class's limitations. That's all.
I actually wasn't really referencing you per se. There are some here who post argument after argument trying to disprove other people's ideas, I was speaking of them not you.
Generally I would agree Fighters are better than rangers, but a fighter is like the most basic class of all fantasy RPGs. At least rangers get some skills and extra abilities to differentiate them from the norm. A fighter just....fights...
I would say.. the point of being a ranger, over a fighter, is that the ranger really has alot more options.
I mean, he has spells, an animal companion, the ability to (fairly well) do two roles at once. (ranged and melee).
Sure, the fighter can do a good job at either one but most other classes really have to pick a role. And they don't get magic, as a topper.
Also do not forget skills. While class skills aren't really a "big thing" anymore skill POINTS are still awesome. the ranger gets /three times/ as many skill points as does the Fighter. (6 compared to 2). That is really a rather big deal, in my opinion.
Sure the fighter can keep Survival topped off.. but at what cost?
The ranger can do that, and the same with perception and 4 other skills. That isn't some minor benefit.
-S
It's not so much that I'm a hater, but rather a wilderness oriented fighter or fighter rogue out-ranger's the ranger in a lot of ways.
TM's work here is great, but I'm finding myself less enthused about playing a ranger in an upcoming game given the class's limitations. That's all.
If you want to laser focus on combat only the fighter is going to be stronger (and should be). Ranger has a lot of non-combat abilities that are great though. Part of the problem is that many of the rangers abilities are situational which makes it difficult to compare to other effects. Using the example Ettin encounter, FE (Giant) is fairly common and that would have significantly swayed the combat.
Rangers class features favor long running campaigns where the player can somewhat tune their character to the environment. For example rangers are quite strong in Urban campaigns with FE(Human) and FT(Urban) and FT(Dungeon). In forested areas Woodland stride lets rangers seriously tear up enemies tactically. Generally moving at 40' (longstrider) through the undergrowth...
How do you evaluate all that situational stuff? I don't see an easy answer, you have apparently valued it at zero but I know that's not right.
I mean, he has spells, an animal companion, the ability to (fairly well) do two roles at once. (ranged and melee).
I'm not really convinced of that, a ranger can either do archery well, or TWF, only he doesn't get the heavy armor to stand face to face with the enemy has a high dex requirement and expensive costs for upgrading his weapons. As to the animal companion, the more I think about it, the more it looks like Leadership would be a better choice.
And they don't get magic, as a topper.
Ranks of UMD and skill focus UMD or a level of rogue do that better than the ranger does. (Wand of fire ball vs magic fang or a round or two spent buffing as opposed to fighting.)
Also do not forget skills. While class skills aren't really a "big thing" anymore skill POINTS are still awesome. the ranger gets /three times/ as many skill points as does the Fighter. (6 compared to 2). That is really a rather big deal, in my opinion.
Sure the fighter can keep Survival topped off.. but at what cost?
I agree that the rangers bonuses to skills are better from favored enemy and terrain but they're so conditional; in a single adventure in a place you're not familiar with against enemy's you haven't studied for years you're a sub par fighter.
Also number of skill points isn't really relevant in a lot of ways. Take a human fighter with favored class fighter and 12 or 13 Int. That's 5 SP for maxed survival, perception, and UMD, plus two other skills. Dip a level of rogue here and there and suddenly the skill points aren't so relevant any more.
How do you evaluate all that situational stuff? I don't see an easy answer, you have apparently valued it at zero but I know that's not right.
I haven't valued it at zero, but because it's situational it's of particularily less value than it can/should be.
For example rangers are quite strong in Urban campaigns with FE(Human) and FT(Urban) and FT(Dungeon).
True enough... until you need to hunt hobgoblins in the woods. All of a sudden the fighter's wpn focus, wpn training and weapon specialization which apply all the time to all opponents are looking a lot better.
In forested areas Woodland stride lets rangers seriously tear up enemies tactically. Generally moving at 40' (longstrider) through the undergrowth...
But keep in mind you don't want to get too far away from the other party members like your cleric or fighter who due to race or armor aren't moving that fast.
Don't get me wrong, I see your point about the situational modifiers being awesome in some circumstances, but in others? You may as well be a 3.5 rogue fighting 3.5 undead and constructs. The other party members are glad you're there, but they're wishing you could contribute a little more even though it's not really your fault that you can't.
How do you evaluate all that situational stuff? I don't see an easy answer, you have apparently valued it at zero but I know that's not right.I haven't valued it at zero, but because it's situational it's of particularily less value than it can/should be.
For example rangers are quite strong in Urban campaigns with FE(Human) and FT(Urban) and FT(Dungeon).True enough... until you need to hunt hobgoblins in the woods. All of a sudden the fighter's wpn focus, wpn training and weapon specialization which apply all the time to all opponents are looking a lot better.
In forested areas Woodland stride lets rangers seriously tear up enemies tactically. Generally moving at 40' (longstrider) through the undergrowth...But keep in mind you don't want to get too far away from the other party members like your cleric or fighter who due to race or armor aren't moving that fast.
Don't get me wrong, I see your point about the situational modifiers being awesome in some circumstances, but in others? You may as well be a 3.5 rogue fighting 3.5 undead and constructs. The other party members are glad you're there, but they're wishing you could contribute a little more even though it's not really your fault that you can't.
I'm currently playing in legacy of fire. A pathfinder ranger would be stupid not to have desert terrain, since it takes place in the desert, and favored enemy gnoll, since 75% of what we've fought past level 2 been gnolls.
If you're doing your tour the world campaign a ranger may fall behind, but a lot of campaigns take place in 1-3 different terrains.Also, having 6-8 skills maxed is better than taking a few levels of rogue to even out your weak skill areas as a fighter, as far as skills are concerned. Rangers are just fine at what they do. They also qualify for item creation feats. With magical knack and an ioun stone they become full casters, and can enchant at the same pace a cleric/wizard would.
Rangers are just fine at what they do.
I guess my point is other classes are so close to being just as good (if not better) that their extra benefits make the choice of ranger questionable.
They also qualify for item creation feats. With magical knack and an ioun stone they become full casters, and can enchant at the same pace a...
So does anyone who takes master craftsman... and to be blunt, do you really want the ranger casting in combat when he could be shooting or stabbing?
Rangers are just fine at what they do.I guess my point is other classes are so close to being just as good (if not better) that their extra benefits make the choice of ranger questionable.
They also qualify for item creation feats. With magical knack and an ioun stone they become full casters, and can enchant at the same pace a...So does anyone who takes master craftsman... and to be blunt, do you really want the ranger casting in combat when he could be shooting or stabbing?
Well see, now that all depends. If the ranger spots the enemies 120 feet away and entangles them and proceeds to kill them all before they ever get a chance to attack, then yes. If he's fighting a red dragon, he might want to use that resist energy. Anyone can take master craftsman, they also have to take a craft or profession skill. Our fighter's now down to 1 skill point per level. The fact that anyone can do it doesn't make it a good idea. The points you're making are simply your personal preferences. If you don't like the ranger then play a stealthy fighter rogue, but others think the ranger is fine.
Also, rangers can make scrolls, wands, etc. where fighters can only make wonderous items/magical arms and armor
|
As for the round-by-round, there are lots of nitpicks to pick. Why does the ettin blow its AoO on the cat when the guy has a giant greatsword, why does the ettin keep splitting its attacks, why doesn't the ettin trip the guy when he tries to run away (CMB +14 versus CMD 22, and the ranger is 10' away so he can't reach to AoO back), etc.But that's nitpicking. The real question is, "Why does the ranger go into melee at all when you describe it as a mistake from the beginning?"
A few other "nitpicks" are that the numbers seem a little off. The Ettin has a 60% chance to hit the ranger, not a 55%. Also, TM appears to have rounded the Ranger and Pet numbers up, while rounding the Ettin's down (though this might just be the difference of the incorrect hit chance.) I'd suggest not rounding the numbers at all given the relatively low values of hit points compared to incoming damage.
Second, is the Ettin really not using Power Attack? I'll accept that the Ettin is rather stupid. It's doing the one thing that the single line of strategy says it won't do, so I'm fine with the Ranger happening upon a less clever Ettin. But let's not try to stack all of the decks in the Ranger's favor, eh?
I'm amused at the assertion that this is the worst possible case for the Ranger as well. He's caught a nocturnal hunter with an exceptional perception out in an open field during the day at an exceptionally convenient range. Also, given he has a lower initiative than the Ettin he can't really complain about losing that. But that's mostly all "nitpicking".
The problem is that there's no really good response to someone claiming that a particular build is "viable" or "fine". These are generic and vague claims made with no basis or frame of reference. If you set up a situation in which the switch hitter can do the one thing that most people agree he's alright at (that is, taking a full ranged attack at a target out in the open and not involved in melee combat) then he's "fine". If you calculate the fight correctly the Ranger ends up dead, but that's sort of "fine". Especially since we have nothing to compare it to in this thread.
As for the round-by-round, there are lots of nitpicks to pick. Why does the ettin blow its AoO on the cat when the guy has a giant greatsword, why does the ettin keep splitting its attacks, why doesn't the ettin trip the guy when he tries to run away (CMB +14 versus CMD 22, and the ranger is 10' away so he can't reach to AoO back), etc.But that's nitpicking. The real question is, "Why does the ranger go into melee at all when you describe it as a mistake from the beginning?"
A few other "nitpicks" are that the numbers seem a little off. The Ettin has a 60% chance to hit the ranger, not a 55%. Also, TM appears to have rounded the Ranger and Pet numbers up, while rounding the Ettin's down (though this might just be the difference of the incorrect hit chance.) I'd suggest not rounding the numbers at all given the relatively low values of hit points compared to incoming damage.
Second, is the Ettin really not using Power Attack? I'll accept that the Ettin is rather stupid. It's doing the one thing that the single line of strategy says it won't do, so I'm fine with the Ranger happening upon a less clever Ettin. But let's not try to stack all of the decks in the Ranger's favor, eh?
I'm amused at the assertion that this is the worst possible case for the Ranger as well. He's caught a nocturnal hunter with an exceptional perception out in an open field during the day at an exceptionally convenient range. Also, given he has a lower initiative than the Ettin he can't really complain about losing that. But that's mostly all "nitpicking".
The problem is that there's no really good response to someone claiming that a particular build is "viable" or "fine". These are generic and vague claims made with no basis or frame of reference. If you set up a situation in which the switch hitter can do the one thing that most people agree he's alright at (that is, taking a full ranged attack at a target out in the open and not involved in melee combat) then he's "fine". If you calculate...
Not to mention an ettin is a CR 6 with bad reflex saves. A clever ranger would just entangle the sucker and full attack it from range. a level 6 ranger should have 3-4 attacks with a bow. 65 HPs won't last too long against a decent archer. Anyone in melee with an ettin when it's level appropriate should probably prepare to feel some pain.