Treantmonk's Guide to Rangers (Optimization)


Advice

201 to 250 of 488 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Treantmonk wrote:


Point 1) As far as consistant damage output, we're talking averages here...lets consider a 10 round combat at fairly low levels. The enemy has an AC of 20. The Two Handed Ranger has a +10 to strike once (for 2d6+9 damage, average 16). The TWF Ranger has a +8 to strike twice per round (1d6+6/1d6+3, average 9.5 and 6.5).

In that combat, the TWF Ranger should hit an average of 8 times. 1/2 the primary hand, 1/2 the secondary hand. Total damage should average 64

The Two handed weapon Ranger should hit an average of 5 times. Total damage should average 80.

No, you're talking total damage here. This analysis fails to take into account the Law of Diminishing Returns, that is to say, it's better to hit more often then less often. Using this analyis, a guy that hits once in ten rounds for 101 damage is better against a guy that can hit every round for 10 damage each time.

If you weight the damage using a standard weighting method used in economics to factor reliablity into the equation(i.e. taking the natural log of the damage), and using the same assumptions of your above example, the greatsword ranger will deal a weighted damage of approximately 3.47 (per round) where as the dual shortsword ranger will deal a weighted damage of 4.29 (per round).

QED


Byron Zibeck wrote:
Treantmonk wrote:


Point 1) As far as consistant damage output, we're talking averages here...lets consider a 10 round combat at fairly low levels. The enemy has an AC of 20. The Two Handed Ranger has a +10 to strike once (for 2d6+9 damage, average 16). The TWF Ranger has a +8 to strike twice per round (1d6+6/1d6+3, average 9.5 and 6.5).

In that combat, the TWF Ranger should hit an average of 8 times. 1/2 the primary hand, 1/2 the secondary hand. Total damage should average 64

The Two handed weapon Ranger should hit an average of 5 times. Total damage should average 80.

No, you're talking total damage here. This analysis fails to take into account the Law of Diminishing Returns, that is to say, it's better to hit more often then less often. Using this analyis, a guy that hits once in ten rounds for 101 damage is better against a guy that can hit every round for 10 damage each time.

If you weight the damage using a standard weighting method used in economics to factor reliablity into the equation(i.e. taking the natural log of the damage), and using the same assumptions of your above example, the greatsword ranger will deal a weighted damage of approximately 3.47 (per round) where as the dual shortsword ranger will deal a weighted damage of 4.29 (per round).

QED

That only applies when Nature(the die roll) acts a few times and/or the consecuences of the Nature turning against the Agent (you) are relatively dire. In a ten round combat the risk aversion tends to zero (as per insurance companies giving insurance to multiple people). So the Expected Utility (U(damage)) nearly equals your expected damage.

This is simple Econmy of Information theory.

Humbly,
Yawar


Ummm...yeah. I totally understood all of that and everything, but, I'm like thinking about it, yeah.

Here's a question for ya: I understand the idea that you would rather hit 10 times for 5 damage than once for 50 damage, because the opponent may have less than 50 hp, so there is less wasted.

Is that what you are referring to? (Assume that I don't have an economics degree)

If so, what does the law of diminishing returns have to say about that same opponent with DR 5/-? Are all those 5 hp hits still better?


Treantmonk wrote:


Legolas would not have been a Ranger. Pure fighter.

Didn't he do some tracking?

Either way, he sucks. At least no one has mentioned OotBI and that stupid, I want to be like melee dudes with a bow, level 2 ability that I can't bring myself to mention!


stuart haffenden wrote:
Treantmonk wrote:


Legolas would not have been a Ranger. Pure fighter.
Didn't he do some tracking?

Nope, Aragorn tracked the orcs, while Legolas and Gimli tried to keep up.

stuart haffenden wrote:
Either way, he sucks. At least no one has mentioned OotBI and that stupid, I want to be like melee dudes with a bow, level 2 ability that I can't bring myself to mention!

Yeah, elves in Tolkien were basically perfect. Tolkien was extremely religious, and Elves were supposed to be a representation of what humans would have been without original sin or something to that effect.

Me, I like sin :)


Treantmonk wrote:

Ummm...yeah. I totally understood all of that and everything, but, I'm like thinking about it, yeah.

Here's a question for ya: I understand the idea that you would rather hit 10 times for 5 damage than once for 50 damage, because the opponent may have less than 50 hp, so there is less wasted.

Is that what you are referring to? (Assume that I don't have an economics degree)

If so, what does the law of diminishing returns have to say about that same opponent with DR 5/-? Are all those 5 hp hits still better?

Normal people under normal circumstances dislike taking risk and are willing to pay to avoid them (insurance policies are the most common example), the measurement of this is called Risk Aversion. Zero risk aversion means indiference, will never take and insurance, and negative risk aversion means risk adiction, Viva Las Vegas!!

The people who take the risk and make decision of payments are called 'Agents'. 'Nature' referce to random factor that can't be predicted by agents (the die rolls, weather, accidents, Murphy, etc). To sumarize, the takes a decision based on probabilities and his own risk aversion, Nature 'plays', results are generated.

To put an example, you own a Coffe Shop wich is your only source of income and produces 100 a year. There is 1% chance a year that a fire destroy reduces your income to 0. So your expected income is: 100*99% + 0*1% = 99. Hear the chance of fire only reduces your expected income by 1.

You are offered a full cover insurance for 2 a year, any mostly reasanble person would take it even if it reduces his expected income:(100-2)*99% + (100-2)*1% = 98. You´re willing to reduce your expected income by one in exchenge of nullifying the risk.

But lets asume you didn't own a Coffe Shop but a rather athousnad Coffe Shops, now the payment of insurance doesn't seem so attractive and you would rather negciate a lower price for the insurance since the indidual risk of each store having a fire becomes less and less significant.

In D&D something similar happens for a short standar combat its better to hit reliably than heavily, beacuse a few misses can turn the tide against you. But in a long combat its indiferent, because your hits will eventually conect.

Humbly,
Yawar


OK, I think I get it.


Treantmonk wrote:
When enemies are at range, the ranger can take his normal move and fire 2 arrows, each at +9 to hit (1 attack roll, both hit or miss), or take a 5 foot step and attack 3 times, each at +7 to hit. Damage with each is 1d8+8. This is without any magical bonuses. Not bad eh?

I haven't real the whole thread here, but for the Switch Hitter, how do you figure this? If I understand this correctly, you are basing the 2 shots from the first part of that statement on the Manyshot feat. However, PF says Manyshot works "when you take a full-action". How can you take your normal move under a full attack action? I see a 5-foot step at the most.

Also, I don't understand how you are figuring your to-hit and damage modifiers.

Given a level 6 ranger (BAB +6/+1) with 18 STR (+4) and 14 Dex (+2):

Full-attack w/Mighty composite bow:
+6+2/+1+2 = +8/+3 ranged. 1d8+4 damage

w/Deadly aim:
+8-2/+3-2 = +6/+1 ranged. 1d8+4+4 = 1d8+8 damage

w/Deadly aim + Manyshot:
+6(x2)/+1 ranged. 1d8+8 damage

w/Deadly aim + rapid shot + manyshot:
+4(x2)/+4/-1. 1d8+8 damage

How are you figuring +9 and +7 to-hit? In your Ettin example earlier in the thread, how do you figure +5(x2)/+5/+1? I come up with +4(x2)/+4/-1. What am I missing here?

Other than that, I want to say "thanks!" for the guide. I've based my very first PF character on the tips given here!


EvilXenu wrote:

What am I missing here?

Masterwork bonus?


Treantmonk wrote:
stuart haffenden wrote:
Either way, he sucks. At least no one has mentioned OotBI and that stupid, I want to be like melee dudes with a bow, level 2 ability that I can't bring myself to mention!

Yeah, elves in Tolkien were basically perfect. Tolkien was extremely religious, and Elves were supposed to be a representation of what humans would have been without original sin or something to that effect.

Me, I like sin :)

You haven't read The Silmarillion have you? I have four words for you: Fëanor and his sons.

Wrath, greed, pride, lust, envy. They have those in spades. Maybe not gluttony and sloth, but they have all the other classic 'seven deadly sins'. Those are bad elves.

Sorry about the nerdy threadjack; please resume your ranger discussions. :)


Charles Evans 25 wrote:

You haven't read The Silmarillion have you? I have four words for you: Fëanor and his sons.

Wrath, greed, pride, lust, envy. They have those in spades. Maybe not gluttony and sloth, but they have all the other classic 'seven deadly sins'. Those are bad elves.

Sorry about the nerdy threadjack; please resume your ranger discussions. :)

Yeah, I'm a bigger LotR geek than a roleplaying geek. Hmmm...maybe tied.

Elves were based on what humans would have been without original sin, though I don't think that made them immune to sin. It's all loosely Bible based at best.

It's more of just Tolkien using random biblical references, like Valar = Archangels, Maiar = Angels, Melkor = Lucifer, Morgoth = Satan, Eru = God, Aman = Eden (to which Elves may go by the "straight path", but men can't) etc.

We are off topic.


Tolkien was also pretty racist and cast his races as indicative of certain racial stereotypes.

Elves were divinely perfect in many ways and the númenóreans were blonde haired blue eyed long lived super men destined to rule.

He had some historical views that are played down due to contempary popularity. Such, hopefully out dated, thoughts are pretty standard in unelightened tradions to this day that all recon some group or other has some mandate to rule.

Its popular in fiction tho... even in modern harry potter it all comes down to his blessed genetic power and be others muggles or mages their of no real relevance just replaceble support slaves.


insaneogeddon wrote:


Elves were divinely perfect in many ways and the númenóreans were blonde haired blue eyed long lived super men destined to rule.

Who told you that?

Wikipedia entry on the Edain:

1.The House of Bëor: they were dark-haired and stoutly built

2.The Second House, later known as the Haladin or the House of Haleth. They were a reclusive folk, dark-haired but smaller in stature than the Bëorians.

3.The House of Marach, later best known as the House of Hador. They were tall and golden-haired

The Dunedain, which were the decendants of Numenor were tall, dark haired, and grey eyed. Including Aragorn.

Those of the House of Hador never made it to Numenor, most were imprisoned by the Easterlings.


My Guides are now available at "Treantmonk's Lab" at the PFSRD.

Please click HERE to access.

This will be a single location where you can view all my Pathfinder stuff. I'll be linking future handbooks directly here.


Treant--

Any chance you could answer my questions above? How can you perform Manyshot when you do a normal move? Can you break down the modifier calculations to show how you came up with +9 and +7 to hit? I think YawarFiesta might be correct in that I didn't include the Masterwork bonus - is that implied when it comes to a "Mighty Composite Longbow"?

Also, where are strength ratings for composite bows defined? The article mentions a Mighty Composite Longbow has a +4 strength rating. I searched the PF SRD but don't see how the strength rating is defined.

Sorry if these are basic questions. I haven't played D&D since 3E first came out so I am really rusty on a lot of this.

Thanks!

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 16

First...very cool I like the guide. Second I admit I have not read the entire thread so I may have missed the answer to my question.

Has anyone seen anything about doing an URBAN RANGER using the PFRPG?


EvilXenu wrote:

Treant--

Any chance you could answer my questions above? How can you perform Manyshot when you do a normal move? Can you break down the modifier calculations to show how you came up with +9 and +7 to hit? I think YawarFiesta might be correct in that I didn't include the Masterwork bonus - is that implied when it comes to a "Mighty Composite Longbow"?

Also, where are strength ratings for composite bows defined? The article mentions a Mighty Composite Longbow has a +4 strength rating. I searched the PF SRD but don't see how the strength rating is defined.

You cannot use Manyshot in addition to a normal move, a mistake on TM's part that I think he has already admitted and corrected in the google docs version of his guide. These forums won't allow him to Edit his original post here after a certain amount of time, so you'll need to go check out the offsite version for any updates and edits.

MythrilDragon wrote:


Has anyone seen anything about doing an URBAN RANGER using the PFRPG?

I believe you can do an Urban ranger simply by taking the right set of Favored Enemies along with the Urban Favored Terrain, and spending your skill points a little differently from a non-Urban Ranger.


EvilXenu wrote:

Treant--

Any chance you could answer my questions above? How can you perform Manyshot when you do a normal move? Can you break down the modifier calculations to show how you came up with +9 and +7 to hit? I think YawarFiesta might be correct in that I didn't include the Masterwork bonus - is that implied when it comes to a "Mighty Composite Longbow"?

Also, where are strength ratings for composite bows defined? The article mentions a Mighty Composite Longbow has a +4 strength rating. I searched the PF SRD but don't see how the strength rating is defined.

Sorry if these are basic questions. I haven't played D&D since 3E first came out so I am really rusty on a lot of this.

Thanks!

As Moro mentioned, please reference the Google Doc version of this guide. If I could go back and edit the changes to the original post I would, but I can't do that, which is why I recommend always using the Google Doc instead. Besides, with better formatting, you will find it a much more pleasant read IMO.

As for the +9 to Hit - let's see if I remember:

6 BAB
+2 Dex bonus (dex raised to 14 at level 4)
+1 MW bonus...

Yep, there is a MW weapon bonus included. However, I think I included a deadly Aim damage bonus in the example, but didn't apply the penalty to hit (or I'm missing something), So I've adjusted the example to fit that.

As for The +4 strength rating - if you check the SRD under "composite longbow" it describes how to increase the strength of your longbow - and the price (a reasonable 100 gp per +1)

Hopefully that helps...


Treantmonk wrote:

As Moro mentioned, please reference the Google Doc version of this guide. If I could go back and edit the changes to the original post I would, but I can't do that, which is why I recommend always using the Google Doc instead. Besides, with better formatting, you will find it a much more pleasant read IMO.

Yep, I've been using that for a reference. It still says, however:

Quote:


Level 6: Add feats: Quick Draw, Deadly Aim, Manyshot, Rapid Shot Dex has been increased to 14 at level 4: Equipment: Now the character is using a Greatsword and a Mighty Composite Longbow (+4 str). When enemies are at range, the ranger can take his normal move and fire 2 arrows, each at +7 to hit (1 attack roll, both hit or miss), or take a 5 foot step and attack 3 times, each at +5 to hit. Damage with each is 1d8+8. This is without any magical bonuses. Not bad eh?

Looks like the bonuses etc. jive with what I was calculating. Thanks for clarifying. ... and thanks for the guide!


Treantmonk wrote:
insaneogeddon wrote:


Elves were divinely perfect in many ways and the númenóreans were blonde haired blue eyed long lived super men destined to rule.

Who told you that?

Wikipedia entry on the Edain:

1.The House of Bëor: they were dark-haired and stoutly built

2.The Second House, later known as the Haladin or the House of Haleth. They were a reclusive folk, dark-haired but smaller in stature than the Bëorians.

3.The House of Marach, later best known as the House of Hador. They were tall and golden-haired

The Dunedain, which were the decendants of Numenor were tall, dark haired, and grey eyed. Including Aragorn.

Those of the House of Hador never made it to Numenor, most were imprisoned by the Easterlings.

I also accessed wiki:

Númenor
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The inhabitants of Númenor, usually called the Númenóreans or Men of the West, were descended from the Edain, a group of Men that dwelt in the north-west of Middle-earth and became the most advanced mortal culture. After their settlement in the isle, their knowledge and skills were further developed through the teaching of the Valar and of the Elves of Tol Eressëa.

The majority of the Númenóreans, descended from the original Folk of Hador, were fair-haired and blue-eyed. The settlers of the western regions, especially of the Andustar, came mostly from the Folk of Bëor, resulting in their darker hair and grey eyes.[12] It is also recorded that a few remnants of the Folk of Haleth had journeyed to Númenor, and that they were accompanied by several families of the Drúedain. The latter, though at first increased in number, departed back to Middle-earth over time

.House of Hador basically was the majority, being lonlived and able to breed between what might be considered species there are variations thru time. From what I have read about him he was a bit inclined to that line of thinking. But a good stories a good story.


We're so off topic ;)

Note that the "Dark haired and Grey eyed" Numenorians are the ancestors of the "Dunedain" (the ones who Tolkien makes very clear SHOULD have been in charge the whole time). The rest were corrupted by Evil and either sank into the ocean or became the ancestors of the evil Black Numenorians.

If "Fair haired and blue eyed" had anything purposely to do with being Aryan, it's no compliment because they were the "Bad guys"


Treantmonk wrote:

We're so off topic ;)

Note that the "Dark haired and Grey eyed" Numenorians are the ancestors of the "Dunedain" (the ones who Tolkien makes very clear SHOULD have been in charge the whole time). The rest were corrupted by Evil and either sank into the ocean or became the ancestors of the evil Black Numenorians.

If "Fair haired and blue eyed" had anything purposely to do with being Aryan, it's no compliment because they were the "Bad guys"

I think the real question here is whether or not Balrogs have wings. (*ducks for cover*). :)


This isn't a question. :)

I only want to thank treantmonk for his incredible job.

These handbooks are an incredibly useful tool for both players and DMs, and its reading confirms the awesomeness of Jason's job too.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

Treantmonk wrote:
the evil Black Numenorians

...who were not, in fact, black. It can be so confusing to talk about race in Tolkien.


Treantmonk wrote:
insaneogeddon wrote:


Elves were divinely perfect in many ways and the númenóreans were blonde haired blue eyed long lived super men destined to rule.

Who told you that?

Wikipedia entry on the Edain:

1.The House of Bëor: they were dark-haired and stoutly built

2.The Second House, later known as the Haladin or the House of Haleth. They were a reclusive folk, dark-haired but smaller in stature than the Bëorians.

3.The House of Marach, later best known as the House of Hador. They were tall and golden-haired

The Dunedain, which were the decendants of Numenor were tall, dark haired, and grey eyed. Including Aragorn.

Those of the House of Hador never made it to Numenor, most were imprisoned by the Easterlings.

Totally agree. Numenoreans were not superman, they were the faithful who had fought beside the elves and the valar against Morgoth. Thus they were bless for their faithfulness with longer life spans. But as time went on many lost their faith and eventually for that they lost their homeland of Numenor when they attacked the Valar. Those who remained faithful who lives on the main land were called the Dunedain. Both Gondor and Arnor were founded as Dunedain kingdoms, with Arnor being the seat of the High King. Correctly speaking Aragorn doesn't have a claim to be King of Gondor, that line died out, but rather has a claim on the Throne of Arnor (A kingdom long gone) and then by default he would also rule Gondor.

The dunedain in the south had much shorter life spans then the ones in the north because they had become pride ful. A slight fall from grace but still. However the prince of Dol Amroth had a much longer life span but not wholly because of his Dunedain blood line(which he did have) but hecause he also had some elven blood as well.

The Black Numenoreans were mostly gone by the time of the War of the Ring, but those few who still existed were in the deep south. They had been unfaithful and supported the attack against the Valar, but had been on the mainland and thus survived it's destruction.

Remember that this was heavily influenced by the Bible and Norse traditions. The elves were not mortal in anyway, they could not die even if killed like a man could. They actually worked much like the Miai did, and could be sent back at the need of the Valar, even if killed by a Balrog. This is exactly what happened with Glorfindel, who killed a Balrog but died while doing so in the first age. He like Gandolf though was sent back by the Valar. I do not think this can happen with anything but an immortal, a man who died could not be sent back by the Valar.


Hayden wrote:

This isn't a question. :)

I only want to thank treantmonk for his incredible job.

These handbooks are an incredibly useful tool for both players and DMs, and its reading confirms the awesomeness of Jason's job too.

Thank you! Much appreciated! (I'm sure Jason appreciates the compliment as well.)

P.S.: Balrogs: IMO, the "wings of shadow" refers to the "wing shaped" tendrils of shadow surrounding the approximately human-sized Balrog. However, all LotR geeks have their own opinion on this matter. The most famously debated LotR topic ;)


Treantmonk wrote:
Hayden wrote:

This isn't a question. :)

I only want to thank treantmonk for his incredible job.

These handbooks are an incredibly useful tool for both players and DMs, and its reading confirms the awesomeness of Jason's job too.

Thank you! Much appreciated! (I'm sure Jason appreciates the compliment as well.)

P.S.: Balrogs: IMO, the "wings of shadow" refers to the "wing shaped" tendrils of shadow surrounding the approximately human-sized Balrog. However, all LotR geeks have their own opinion on this matter. The most famously debated LotR topic ;)

I love your various optimization threads, the ranger switch hitter though is very sweet.

One thing that many people don't get with these threads that I have noticed is that you are giving them the best builds, not the only builds or even the only effective builds. Surely a TWF ranger build could be made that works to a degree, it simply isn't the best build you could do and the effort made to make it effective would be better spent elsewhere if you were seeking optimization. That doesn't mean in you own game you can't build a dwarven ranger with two dwarven axes and if you really want to make it work you can't.

My veiw is simply that if you enjoy your character your good to go, but it's nice to know if you look over your build a few small changes can make for a more effective build, or at least know going into a build that while it fits your goal it is less optimal and here is why.

Balrogs were Miai, fallen ones but still. They were Fire Miai, Gandolf was an Air one, Sauron was a crafter. But either way they would be the same size as a man, more or less, but could appear much larger if they desired to. They were also powerful in the first age and all but nowhere near as powerful as Durin's Bane in the third age, he slew literally armies of dwarves. But then again magic as a whole was much diminished in the third age, so prehaps the magic to takes to harm one simply did not exist amoung the dwarves.


I've started my Switch Hitter yesterday evening in the Council of Thieves first adventure ... and found it to be VERY amusing and versatile.

Thanks a bunch for this guide Treant Monk :)
It really helped me create the Ranger that I wanted to play. Can't wait until I can really utilize my greatsword, animal companion and spells :D

I'm looking forward to more evenings of Switch Hitter play.

Thanks again.

-TDL


TDLofCC wrote:

I've started my Switch Hitter yesterday evening in the Council of Thieves first adventure ... and found it to be VERY amusing and versatile.

Thanks a bunch for this guide Treant Monk :)
It really helped me create the Ranger that I wanted to play. Can't wait until I can really utilize my greatsword, animal companion and spells :D

I'm looking forward to more evenings of Switch Hitter play.

Thanks again.

-TDL

Thanks! Let us know how it turns out.


Any sign of those Summon Monsters?

What's the next Class on your list??


stuart haffenden wrote:

Any sign of those Summon Monsters?

What's the next Class on your list??

Not working on anything right now (break time!)

My next project is re-linking all the spells on the Wizard guide to the PFSRD rather than the PRD since that's where my stuff is hosted.

Then I'll be adding an equipment section to the Bard Handbook.

I think some errata may come for Summon Monster - my errata sense is tingling. So I'll probably wait on Summon Monster evaluation for now.

Not sure what my next guide will be. Not going to be starting anything until after Christmas I don't think. Got a pretty busy schedule.


Treantmonk wrote:


I think some errata may come for Summon Monster - my errata sense is tingling. So I'll probably wait on Summon Monster evaluation for now.

Really? In what form do you think it will be? The full round action seems unlikely to change.


stuart haffenden wrote:
Treantmonk wrote:


I think some errata may come for Summon Monster - my errata sense is tingling. So I'll probably wait on Summon Monster evaluation for now.

Really? In what form do you think it will be? The full round action seems unlikely to change.

Well, from what James Jacobs said on another thread - it looks like Riding Dog on SM I may change to the regular dog.

Got to think that Ant Drone is going to move from SM II. It is seriously out of place.

Beyond that, I'm not sure.


Minor nitpick from the google doc version.

Treantmonk wrote:
Manyshot: Absolutely a must have for Rangers, gives you an extra arrow without any minus like Manyshot

I'm guessing you meant to write Rapidshot, but also seems plausible you meant to contrast it with the 3.5 version. Either way you should probably fix/clarify that.

Far as I got right now, but good stuff so far. Any chance you're planning on writing one of these for the monk?


Treantmonk--

Your guides are an awesome source of information. I'd like to "PDF-ify" some of your guides on Google-docs and upload them to a Pathfinder / RPG fansite (rpg.geekdo.com). Is that ok? I'd PM ya about this, but these message boards apparently lack that capability. :P

Thanks!


EvilXenu wrote:

Treantmonk--

Your guides are an awesome source of information. I'd like to "PDF-ify" some of your guides on Google-docs and upload them to a Pathfinder / RPG fansite (rpg.geekdo.com). Is that ok? I'd PM ya about this, but these message boards apparently lack that capability. :P

Thanks!

Sounds great! Yes - that would be fine.

I do update the guides occassionally - so those PDF's may eventually be different than the Google Docs - but that's OK.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
insaneogeddon wrote:

Tolkien was also pretty racist and cast his races as indicative of certain racial stereotypes.

Elves were divinely perfect in many ways and the númenóreans were blonde haired blue eyed long lived super men destined to rule.

He had some historical views that are played down due to contempary popularity. Such, hopefully out dated, thoughts are pretty standard in unelightened tradions to this day that all recon some group or other has some mandate to rule.

Its popular in fiction tho... even in modern harry potter it all comes down to his blessed genetic power and be others muggles or mages their of no real relevance just replaceble support slaves.

Tolkien was British... and old school Brit even for his time which is good to remember that most of the work we know was written in the late '30s. The blonde haired trope was subverted given that his Numenoreans were all so susceptible to the same corruption as other Men. And there were a lot of Elves who did thier own Heel Face turns as they developed.

Then again to be fair... there were folks who took it as a pro-Irish and anti-Brit work so go figure.


I've read over this thread with a lot of interest. I just started my first-ever Pathfinder game (and never played 3.0/3.5) and rolled up a Half-Orc Ranger. He's a switch-hitter, but not quite as optimized as the ones above.

We rolled stats (4d6, drop the lowest, assign where you like) and I got rather good stats...

Str: 17
Dex: 17 (15+2 Racial)
Con: 13
Int: 12
Wis: 13
Cha: 10

I'm maxing Stealth, Perception, and Survival.

First level, chose Humans as favored enemy, Point Blank Shot as my feat.
Second Level, chose Rapid Shot
Third Level, took Favored Terrain (urban) and Power Attack
At fourth level, I plan to bump strength and grab a Wolf.

I'm using a Greataxe, a Composite Longbow with the strength mod. Armor is a +1 Breastplate.

The campaign will not make it to level 20... it is more likely we'll wrap up around 12-13? I'm wondering if a dip into Fighter for one level would be worthwhile... I'd get a bonus feat, keep by BAB and hit points, and pick up Heavy Armor proficiency. This seems very worthwhile for me at some point, as I 'wasted' a feat with Point Blank shot. It seems to me that the dip into fighter could rectify that by getting me the combat feat and 'save' a feat on heavy armor, at the cost of putting off my other abilities for a level.


Marshall Jansen wrote:

I've read over this thread with a lot of interest. I just started my first-ever Pathfinder game (and never played 3.0/3.5) and rolled up a Half-Orc Ranger. He's a switch-hitter, but not quite as optimized as the ones above.

We rolled stats (4d6, drop the lowest, assign where you like) and I got rather good stats...

Str: 17
Dex: 17 (15+2 Racial)
Con: 13
Int: 12
Wis: 13
Cha: 10

I'm maxing Stealth, Perception, and Survival.

First level, chose Humans as favored enemy, Point Blank Shot as my feat.
Second Level, chose Rapid Shot
Third Level, took Favored Terrain (urban) and Power Attack
At fourth level, I plan to bump strength and grab a Wolf.

I'm using a Greataxe, a Composite Longbow with the strength mod. Armor is a +1 Breastplate.

The campaign will not make it to level 20... it is more likely we'll wrap up around 12-13? I'm wondering if a dip into Fighter for one level would be worthwhile... I'd get a bonus feat, keep by BAB and hit points, and pick up Heavy Armor proficiency. This seems very worthwhile for me at some point, as I 'wasted' a feat with Point Blank shot. It seems to me that the dip into fighter could rectify that by getting me the combat feat and 'save' a feat on heavy armor, at the cost of putting off my other abilities for a level.

I wouldn't dip into fighter. If you've read through the guide for the Switch Hitter, you're on track. Point Blank shot is not needed indeed, but not a real waste I would say.

I've made human ranger with a greatsword/longbow according to Treantmonks guide, and he's working wonders now. I would however invest a feat in Quickdraw. Then you'll be able to drop the bow and quickdraw the greataxe when you're suddenly in melee :)

Like the guide says, use the Ranger Combat Styles to upgrade archery and normal feats to upgrade melee with the greataxe.

At level 9 or 11 I would try to get enough money to buy a mithral full plate. And just take the feat for heavy armors.

Here's my feat list, perhaps you can use it for your own Ranger :)

Feats:
1- improved initiative
1- quickdraw

2- Precise Shot (Ranger bonus)

3- Power Attack

5- Deadly Aim

6- Manyshot (Ranger bonus)

7- Cleave

9- Critical Focus (Here I'd start using a Keen Falchion)

10- Improved Precise Shot (Ranger Bonus)

11 - Heavy Armor Proficiency

Hope it helps :)

-TDL


So, I'm building a switch-hitter right now. I have 20 buy points rather than 15, so I'm dithering over what to do with the extra 5. Or more, if I choose to buy down int. The character is human, so I can suck up the skill point loss of an 8 int and still have 6 skill points per level.

Should I drop int to 8, pour my 7 extra points into Dex, and leave Con and Wis at 13s? Or even Dex, Wis, and Con all out at 14, leaving int at a 9?

The other question I have is how people reconcile wearing bulkier armor like a breastplate with the ranger's skill set. Stealth is absolutely crushed by the -4 penalty at level one. I'm considering grabbing Acrobatics as a class skill with a trait -- should I not even bother? Or should I just suck it up until I can get Mithril armor and enhancements like Shadowed?


Rokku wrote:

So, I'm building a switch-hitter right now. I have 20 buy points rather than 15, so I'm dithering over what to do with the extra 5. Or more, if I choose to buy down int. The character is human, so I can suck up the skill point loss of an 8 int and still have 6 skill points per level.

Should I drop int to 8, pour my 7 extra points into Dex, and leave Con and Wis at 13s? Or even Dex, Wis, and Con all out at 14, leaving int at a 9?

The other question I have is how people reconcile wearing bulkier armor like a breastplate with the ranger's skill set. Stealth is absolutely crushed by the -4 penalty at level one. I'm considering grabbing Acrobatics as a class skill with a trait -- should I not even bother? Or should I just suck it up until I can get Mithril armor and enhancements like Shadowed?

I would go for the Dex.

The breastplate ACP certainly hurts - but the protection is probably worth it. At low levels, if you need to sneak, you will need to take it off (I guess you could buy some backup leather armor - pretty cheap, although it will add to your encumbrance). Later on, the ACP becomes a smaller problem as other modifiers will dilute the Breastplate modifier, nevermind if your Dex gets high enough you may want to switch to the chain shirt anyways.


Dear Treatmonk:

Its to my consideration that your help would be extremely productive in this thread.

Thanking your help in advance,
Yawar


YawarFiesta wrote:

Dear Treatmonk:

Its to my consideration that your help would be extremely productive in this thread.

Thanking your help in advance,
Yawar

Probably not. I'm not a Zelda player, so I don't really have a view on Link.

From the thread it appears he is a Fighter/Ranger/Spellthief/Paladin/Bard... ;)

Now Mario...Monk right? Pac-Man appears to be some kind of gluttony demon with a vulnerability to the Undead.

Shadow Lodge

*EDIT* Scrubbed because I cannot read properly. Love the guides!


Hey treantmonk!

I have read most of your guides, I am even playing a sorcerer in 3,5 with your spell selection, and I had to say good work.

Would you care to add to your guides any 3,5 golarion material? For example the feat dervish dance from Qadira would fit the swift hunter really well(or not?). I noticed it from this thread .and I think most people would allow it in their games.


John John wrote:

Hey treantmonk!

I have read most of your guides, I am even playing a sorcerer in 3,5 with your spell selection, and I had to say good work.

Would you care to add to your guides any 3,5 golarion material? For example the feat dervish dance from Qadira would fit the swift hunter really well(or not?). I noticed it from this thread .and I think most people would allow it in their games.

Probably not. You've done the right thing here to mention it in the responses - but I'm keeping the guides 100% Pathfinder RPG.

Scarab Sages

Treantmonk - is there a way to download the guides from PFSRD site or do you just have to copy & paste them into a word document ?

I love the guides & they have given me new ideas to use with my characters

thanks for the hard work


Ceefood wrote:

Treantmonk - is there a way to download the guides from PFSRD site or do you just have to copy & paste them into a word document ?

I love the guides & they have given me new ideas to use with my characters

thanks for the hard work

Hmmm...not sure...


I'm always leery of optimization becoming min/maxing and overshadowing the role playing aspects of the game, but I have really enjoyed how your guides serve to open up possibilities for these classes, and this installment is no exception. Playing the iconic ("switch hitter") ranger is on my to do list now.

Thanks!


Doug OBrien wrote:

I'm always leery of optimization becoming min/maxing and overshadowing the role playing aspects of the game, but I have really enjoyed how your guides serve to open up possibilities for these classes, and this installment is no exception. Playing the iconic ("switch hitter") ranger is on my to do list now.

Thanks!

I'm also quite leery of how my delicious buttery popcorn may overshadow a good movie.

However, time and time again - the deliciousness of the popcorn and the quality of the movie seem completely independent.

Some people may go to the movie just for the popcorn, and munch it so loud it can disrupt the movie for others - but most people just like popcorn at a movie because they go together nicely.

Optimization and the role playing aspects of the game share a similar relationship.

Glad you've found use of the guides. I appreciate the compliment.

201 to 250 of 488 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Treantmonk's Guide to Rangers (Optimization) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.