I know the bestiary says that it has new options of animal companions for the druid and ranger, but does that mean that all of the new companions can be chosen like the ranger? They don't have a different list like the Core rulebook so I was wondering if the new animal companions are available to the ranger. If so, are they legal for pathfinder society play too?
The Bestiary animals are not legal ranger choices for Pathfinder Society play, according to this post from Joshua Frost.
But certainly there is mention of rangers taking some of the Bestiary creatures as companions. For instance, in the Roc entry, it says:
"Rocs taken as animal companions by druids or rangers are typically newly hatched birds—a baby roc is the size of a person and ready for flight and hunting within minutes of hatching. Unfortunately for druids seeking animal companions of legendary size, an animal companion roc is limited to Large size—still large enough for a Medium druid or ranger to use the flying beast as a mount."
|
The Bestiary animals are not legal ranger choices for Pathfinder Society play, according to this post from Joshua Frost.
But certainly there is mention of rangers taking some of the Bestiary creatures as companions. For instance, in the Roc entry, it says:
"Rocs taken as animal companions by druids or rangers are typically newly hatched birds—a baby roc is the size of a person and ready for flight and hunting within minutes of hatching. Unfortunately for druids seeking animal companions of legendary size, an animal companion roc is limited to Large size—still large enough for a Medium druid or ranger to use the flying beast as a mount."
Thanks! Yeah, I figured there was something posted about this on the forums somewhere but couldn't find it. As for the Roc entry, I read that too but found the beastiary too confusing because it doesn't specifically say which animal companions are allowed for a ranger. I wish they would have just included a seperate list rather than leave it up to the GM's discretion.
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before, but I couldn't find anything in Treantmonk's answering posts, so I'll just post my 5 cents...
In my opinion, the wolf is not only more iconic than the cheetah/leapoard, but also he'll be going to do more damage. Don't forget that at level 10, he gets an increase in size (better atk and dmg PLUS better chance at tripping an opponent) and at level 12, he'll get that sweet multiattack goody. This feature will do the cheetah no good (as all it's attacks will already be done at it's full attack bonus), but the wolf gains a second attack with his bite. Granted, it will be at -5 to hit, but it'll be like swinging a two-handed weapon for him. Add in "Improved Natural Attack (bite)" for additional pain and chuckle a little.
As another hint, a lvl 12 Ranger's wolf animal companion with Mithral Chain Shirt Barding will have an AC of 26 (10 +10 natural +3 Dex +4 Armor -1 size) and a few hit points (8d8+32 or 68 on average) to give him more staying power in a fight. That's BEFORE you add feats and ability score increases from advancement other than the ones he gains just for being your animal companion.
And you probably don't even need to give him any armor proficiency, as the chain shirt barding has no ACP when made from mithral.
As I said, just my 5 cents.
Thanks a lot for your diligence with the guides.
Love the ideas creeping up in my brain...
Pardon me...while I digress to take another look at the two-weapon fighting ranger.
** spoiler omitted **
To my knowledge, Double Slice does not help your off hand damage in regards to Power Attack, so the off hand damage would be less...
Likewise, I'm pretty sure this wasn't covered yet, but apologies if so.
I've always been a big fan of the "switch-hitter" ranger, myself, but my preferred armament for melee is sword/buckler. You can use the buckler while armed with a bow without penalty, and when you need to switch to melee you simply draw your sword. No muss, no fuss. No expensive magical bow lost and trampled in the dust. No need for a backup ranged weapon. Sure, this ranger's not as big a damage dealer in melee (perhaps making him lean a little more on his archery skills,) but he's got a better AC, especially once that buckler gets enchanted. The damage deficiency can be slightly mitigated by upgrading to a bastard sword, I guess.
Likewise, I'm pretty sure this wasn't covered yet, but apologies if so.
I've always been a big fan of the "switch-hitter" ranger, myself, but my preferred armament for melee is sword/buckler. You can use the buckler while armed with a bow without penalty, and when you need to switch to melee you simply draw your sword. No muss, no fuss. No expensive magical bow lost and trampled in the dust. No need for a backup ranged weapon. Sure, this ranger's not as big a damage dealer in melee (perhaps making him lean a little more on his archery skills,) but he's got a better AC, especially once that buckler gets enchanted. The damage deficiency can be slightly mitigated by upgrading to a bastard sword, I guess.
You don't want to be using feats on exotic weapon proficiency for 1 point of damage on average!
I certainly see the AC issue. A switch hitter doesn't have a stellar Dex, and is wearing lighter armor. However, I would be wondering if a single handed weapon is doing significant enough damage in melee (when not fighting a favored enemy) to warrant entering melee at all?
You don't want to be using feats on exotic weapon proficiency for 1 point of damage on average!
I agree! Especially for a non-fighter. Just spitballing, there.
I certainly see the AC issue. A switch hitter doesn't have a stellar Dex, and is wearing lighter armor. However, I would be wondering if a single handed weapon is doing significant enough damage in melee (when not fighting a favored enemy) to warrant entering melee at all?
As I said, for that reason this build might lean more heavily on the archery, maybe making it an "Archer with a splash of Switch-Hitter". On the other hand, I kind of think that not having to drop your bow actually helps the "switch-hitter" role/concept. Sure, you might subsequently have to ditch your sword into the dirt or waste a move action sheathing it, but being able to switch back to ranged without using a less effective backup weapon bears consideration at least.
Otherwise, yeah, the single-handed switch-hit ranger lags a bit in the melee damage department. But with the better AC he can serve as a decent tank or line-holder when the party needs it. Also, he can switch to melee against weaker foes as an ammunition-saving tactic.
For me, there's also just a style issue in wielding the classic broadsword. Sure, there's nothing un-Rangerey about packing a big, two-handed woodsman's axe (greataxe,) and I realize that your guide is meant mostly to optimize mechanics anyway. However, if you go straight to the iconic source, Aragorn (who never actually used a bow in the books as I recall) was pretty clearly a broadsword kind of guy.
For me, there's also just a style issue in wielding the classic broadsword. Sure, there's nothing un-Rangerey about packing a big, two-handed woodsman's axe (greataxe,) and I realize that your guide is meant mostly to optimize mechanics anyway. However, if you go straight to the iconic source, Aragorn (who never actually used a bow in the books as I recall) was pretty clearly a broadsword kind of guy.
Did Aragorn not use a bow in the mines of moria? Perhaps I'm thinking of the movie.
I am pretty sure that Anduril was not specified as one or two handed in the books, though in the movie it is used both one or two handed (Bastard sword or longsword would do the trick there).
To my knowledge, Double Slice does not help your off hand damage in regards to Power Attack, so the off hand damage would be less...Really? Because that's what I *assumed*, but every build I saw on the boards *looked* like it was saying the opposite. Hell, even a strict RAW interpretation of Flurry of Blows would have the same problem. Double Slice is use with TWF, FoB is "as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat"; Double Slice says "Add your Strength bonus to damage rolls made with your off-hand weapon", FoB says "monk applies his full Strength bonus to his damage rolls for all successful attacks made with flurry of blows". No mention in either of Power Attack.
Regardless, so 3 less damage on the off-hand attacks. It still looks perfectly viable to me. And you do NOT want to be this guy's favored enemy, I daresay even more so than if he were an archer. I'm simply asking, is there some hidden disadvantage I'm not seeing that puts this TWFighter significantly behind the archer and switch-hitter? 1 star is kinda harsh.
I agree that Double Slice "should" increase power attack damage with your off-hand, because Power Attack seems to follow a pattern based on Str damage (1/2 str for 1 to 1, 1x str for 2 to 1, 1.5 str for 3 to 1) which falls apart with the double slice feat.
However, the designers needed to specify in the double slice feat if it did increase power attack damage with your off hand, and they didn't, so unless they errata it, a houserule would be required.
I expect many DM`s would houserule this if asked (I would), but I don`t like giving advice based on houserules....(An ill-fated fighter-guide on these boards comes to mind where Con was listed as a dump stat. When the shocked replies came, the response was, ``in our group, we get max HP`` - OK, but bad advice for the rest of us!!)
As for TWF against favored enemies - I agree that more attacks is better, even if they are normally lighter attacks. However, I would suggest most battles will not be against a favored enemy except in very focused campaigns.
Against non-favored enemies, your build will do damage comparable to a Ranger with a single +3 two handed weapon (less if "Haste" or punching through DR is involved), despite an investment of 4 feats on TWF.
If you took that same build, switched it to "archery" style, took Point Blank Shot, Deadly Aim, Rapid shot and Manyshot, then replaced Shield Focus with Quick Draw, and Shield Slam with Iron Will (Will save NEEDS attention - currently at a dismal +3), then switched the Sword +2/shield spikes +2 for Greatsword +2/Mighty Composite Longbow +1 - you would find that your offensive capacity in melee would not significantly drop, but you would add some versatility when melee full attack is not an option.
Use the money saved from the shield +2 and the weapon enhancement drop on the second weapon to beef up some of the other magic item needs. For Example - Headband of Wis +2, CLOAK OF RESISTANCE!!! (+2 I would think Saves now at +9, +10, +8 - which are workable numbers at 8th level), CLW wand, Special material arrows...
IMO.
Did Aragorn not use a bow in the mines of moria? Perhaps I'm thinking of the movie.
I am pretty sure that Anduril was not specified as one or two handed in the books, though in the movie it is used both one or two handed (Bastard sword or longsword would do the trick there).
I'm pretty sure you're thinking of the movie. I can't remember an instance in the books where Aragorn is even described as having touched a bow. Anduril in the movies (WHEN he finally gets it, grumblegrumble...) as well as his previous sidearm are both pretty clearly bastard swords. In the books, however, I think Anduril is just described as "sword", which usually refers to your typical longsword/broadsword.
Sorry. Strayed a little off-topic, there.
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before, but I couldn't find anything in Treantmonk's answering posts, so I'll just post my 5 cents...
In my opinion, the wolf is not only more iconic than the cheetah/leapoard, but also he'll be going to do more damage. Don't forget that at level 10, he gets an increase in size (better atk and dmg PLUS better chance at tripping an opponent) and at level 12, he'll get that sweet multiattack goody. This feature will do the cheetah no good (as all it's attacks will already be done at it's full attack bonus), but the wolf gains a second attack with his bite. Granted, it will be at -5 to hit, but it'll be like swinging a two-handed weapon for him. Add in "Improved Natural Attack (bite)" for additional pain and chuckle a little.
As another hint, a lvl 12 Ranger's wolf animal companion with Mithral Chain Shirt Barding will have an AC of 26 (10 +10 natural +3 Dex +4 Armor -1 size) and a few hit points (8d8+32 or 68 on average) to give him more staying power in a fight. That's BEFORE you add feats and ability score increases from advancement other than the ones he gains just for being your animal companion.
And you probably don't even need to give him any armor proficiency, as the chain shirt barding has no ACP when made from mithral.As I said, just my 5 cents.
Thanks a lot for your diligence with the guides.
Love the ideas creeping up in my brain...
Sorry for late reply. I agree the Wolf gets pretty nasty at level 12, though I'm less impressed before that time. (I don't think the wolf is a bad choice at any point)
I do think the -5 is pretty painful considering your Wolf's "to-hit" is not going to be stellar on the first attack (true of any Ranger companion).
As for Improved Natural Attack - not worth it! You're looking at 1 extra point of damage on average. Surely you can find better use of a feat. (Weapon Focus (bite), Toughness, and Iron Will all come to mind)
One thing you could do with a switch hitter is take Mounted combat, Ride by attack, and Spirited Charge then use the wolf as a mount.
No problemo. ;-)
My usual tactic is to order my animal companion into a flanking position (or take that position myself if a GM tells me the beast isn't intelligent enough for that), so that more of 'our' attacks hit. And as soon as one of the attacks hits, the auto-trip triggers, making it that much easier to hit (assuming the enemy will be tripped, that is). Also, when eating dirt, both my companion and I will be gaining AoOs from the sad villain trying to stand up from the prone position. Not to mention that any attack will again be a trip attack...
I also wasn't planning on taking Improved Natural Attack anytime soon - as you have pointed out, there are feats one just gets more out of before that. WHEN I do, however, I think it should be more than simply +1 to damage. After all, the wolf's base damage after the size increase is 1d8 (average: 4.5) with his bite. Improving on that would lead me to 2d6 base damage (average: 7).
Thanks anyway for the suggestions, I'll keep them in mind when designing the next enemy for my gaming group. ;-) *cackles evilly*
Apart from that, have a nice weekend.
^^
I want to build a human switch hitter Ranger. We are using the epic fantasy 25 pt build option. What starting stats and feat do you all suggest?
I want to build a human switch hitter Ranger. We are using the epic fantasy 25 pt build option. What starting stats and feat do you all suggest?Str - 18 (16 + racial)
Dex - 16
Con - 14
Int - 11
Wis - 13
Cha - 7
+1
Looks good to me.
I would start with Quick Draw and Power Attack for feats.
MystarrI'm not getting why the need for Quckdraw so early either. On page 183,Table 8–2: Actions in Combat, it shows that drawing a weapon doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity and can be combined with a move action if BAB is at least +1. On that same chart it shows dropping an item, say one's longbow, is a free action that does not provoke AoO as well.
I'd love to be proved wrong [hint, hint]. What am I missing??
Treantmonk,
Any thoughts on my questions above? (2 posts on May 13th)
- Ranger: Archer Build > Switch Hitter Build?
- Attack of Opportunity with bow as improvised weapon?
- What I am missing about Quick Draw?
Any insight is appreciated
Sorry, somehow I missed your original post. I'll address your points individually:
I have to wonder why you consider the switch hitter build better than the archer build.
The reason I rated the switch hitter better was improved versatility over the archer build, although in retrospect, I wonder if I should have rated them equally.
They are both pretty strong builds IMO. To some extent, I'm getting tired of recommending archery for everything. I'm expecting to get some responses "Archery is good in Pathfinder...we get it"
Even on a full attack the archer build's ranged attacks will slightly out damage the switch hitter's melee attacks
This is not surprising. Archery builds for any martial class tend to outdamage melee builds.
Why would I want to go for a build where I drop my bow and run into melee so... I can do less damage? I can see the advantage of bringing out a sword if I am fighting an opponent that prevents me from using the 5ft step to avoid AoO. (step up feat or 10ft+ reach) The rest of the time why would I ever want to drop my bow?
Because combat is more than just seeing which side does more damage on average. A melee character draws attacks, flanks, blocks movement, disrupts casting and gets attacks of opportunity (there's more I'm not thinking of I'm sure).
None of these advantages can be qualified through a mathematical calculation. The value is subjective.
As a side questions. Does an archer threaten adjacent squares for purposes of getting AoO? (Do the bow or arrows count allow him to threaten improvised melee attacks? Whack with the bow or stab with an arrow etc?)
By the rules, ranged weapons do not threaten. There was a bow in one of the 3.5 supplements that threatened adjacent squares if I remember correctly, but nothing in Pathfinder that I'm aware of.
There are no specific rules on what the requirements for an improvised weapon are. I would imagine that wielding a Bow as an improvised club or an arrow as an improvised dagger would prevent you from using them as intended as long as you were using them as melee weapons.
Thanks for the reply Treantmonk.
I like your take on not using a bow/arrow as an improvised weapon AND a ranged weapon at the same time.
Can you clarify the advantage of taking quickdraw before lvl 6?
Hmmm....I had been thinking since Rapid Shot requires a full attack, you wouldn't get a move action, and therefore would want fast draw.
However, since you won't be full attacking with your melee weapon, perhaps the need for quick draw is pretty circumstantial.
I can see use for it for example if you rapid fire at an enemy that you expect to close with you on its round. Then you can have your melee weapon out at the end of your round and are threatening adjacent squares (or with a reach weapon, hit him as he comes in).
That's pretty circumstantial though. I'll think about it, if I come up with anything else I'll post it here.
|
For a PFS Switch hitter, how does this look for stats?
Str 18 (+2 racial)
Dex 16
Con 13
Int 8
Wis 13
Cha 7
Should I put two of my three bumps into Str or Dex? Will I be ok waiting until 12 to even my Con?
I could also do:
Str 18 (+2 racial)
Dex 15
Con 14
Int 10
Wis 12
Cha 7
This would require me to have a Wis head slot for level 3 spells, but perhaps the better HP and skills is worth waiting 3 levels for an even Dex.
For as long as they are still legal, I was considering using an Heirloom Fauchard as my primary melee weapon with an Earthbreaker (cuz I like it) for my secondary melee. This will give me (with the bow) an option for P/B/S damage depending on the situation. I can also take advantage of those nice crit feats cuz of the 18-20.
Let me know.
Personally I would go with the first set. I think I would get that Con up to 14 at level 4.
I'd just like to say that the switch-hitter is an awesome build that really fulfills the versatility that the ranger should embody. I've had to stay at range for most of the time just because our GM has been pretty vicious with opponents, but the switch-hitter is working great for me!
Thanks for writing the guide!
Just bumping this to get other folks' opinions on the new ranger variants in the APG. I kind of like the Infiltrator (trade favored terrain for one from a menu of semi-useful abilities, like a climb speed or +2 natural armor) and the Skirmisher has some neat swift/immediate/free action abilities he can use instead of spells. The others I'm a bit lukewarm on, I guess.
Some of the Skirmisher's abilities can add some extra damage, like Sic 'Em (extra attack from animal companion), Second Chance Strike (reroll a missed attack) and Vengeance Strike (extra attack when an adjacent enemy attacks your ally).
Some of the Skirmisher's abilities can add some extra damage, like Sic 'Em (extra attack from animal companion), Second Chance Strike (reroll a missed attack) and Vengeance Strike (extra attack when an adjacent enemy attacks your ally).
Compared to the awesomeness of the new spells put onto the Ranger list, I can't ever see myself taking the Skirmisher archetype. The Infiltrator tradeoff looks to be a good one, though, depending on how much you like Favored Terrain.
Compared to the awesomeness of the new spells put onto the Ranger list, I can't ever see myself taking the Skirmisher archetype.
I think it depends on the campaign. I almost never play in games past level 8 (say), so trading in a maximum of 2 1st and 2 2nd level spell slots for 6 tricks a day sounds reasonable to me.
Guide seems interesting as it replaces favored enemy with ranger's focus. He locks on an enemy 1-7 times per day to gain +2-8 in attack and damage rolls.
Guide seems interesting as it replaces favored enemy with ranger's focus. He locks on an enemy 1-7 times per day to gain +2-8 in attack and damage rolls.And it would rock awesome if you didn't have to lose your pet.
And if it weren't once per day from levels 1-3. It's like a paladin's smite, but mostly worse.
FE is good IF it comes up alot- sucks if it doesn't. Even when it does your still behind a fighter,paladin, barbarian and rogue.
Grab a wand of "Instant Enemy" and you're golden.
Fun fact: The spell can't target your favored enemies, so if you stack all the bonuses on one of your favored enemies the rest of them will never be attacked with a greater than +2 modifier. In short the rest of your favored enemies will be your worst enemies:P.
Maybe a solution would be grabbing a very common favored enemy (undead, evil outsiders) to stack your bonuses and then choosing uncommon ones (gnolls, halfings).
Still even if you are spreading out your favored enemy bonus this spell is very good.
Can you cast the spell as a swift action from wands?
Treantmonk, if ever you feel like you have the time, I'm sure there are loads of folks who would love to see your Ranger guide updated with all the APG info added (I for one am dying to here your thoughts on the skirmisher).
And if you can't / don't want to, your guide is still a great reference. Thanks for all the hard work :)
By this do you mean you can get any wild animal you encounter your animal companion as per the the hunter's bond ability or will it only last until the charm animal spell duration runs out? If you can make the wild animal your companion, how would this work exactly?
The idea is that Charm sets the creature's (temporary) attitude to Friendly and then you use empathy to increase that to set its (permanent) attitude to Helpful.
That's not how it works when I GM a game, however; in my opinion, Charm sets the attitude to Friendly, and there's nothing you can do to improve or worsen that attitude until the charm is finished. (Yes, that means that charming your best friend makes him slightly less friendly.) So check with your GM first.
Can you cast the spell as a swift action from wands?
The only way you can use metamagic from wands is for the wand to have the metamagic built-in raising the effective level of the spell for crafting purposes. i.e. Wand of silent Invisibility. or wand of empowered scorching ray, which would be third and fourth level spell equivalents respectively.
Unfortunately the level increase of quicken spell puts it out of wand range for everything save cantrips.
You can not use a metamagic rod with wands.
He wasn't asking about using metamagic with the wand, he was asking if the spell could be cast as a swift action from the wand, because the spell itself has a casting time of "1 Swift Action."
Wands of spells that have casting times of a standard action or less take a standard action to activate, so no, you cannot cast Instant Enemy from a wand as a swift action.
However the duration is awesome so still so worth it.
My ranger build is a TWF with the craft wand feat. Carry a dozen or so wands with animal comanion buffs and utility spells. Keep your 3 odd 3rd level slots for swift instant enemy. A wand of instant enemy for when you get prep time.
So many utility spells..../drool
I've been building a ranger for a new campaign one of my friend's is starting and I'm having a hard time picking which build to go with. Due to role-play reasons I'm playing an elf which would imply the archer build, but the DM has given us very high stats.
18, 18, 14, 14, 13, 12
I'm leaning toward wanting to play the switch hitter, but unless I use an 18 into my constitution I'll be stuck with a +1 con modifier probably the whole game. This will make being involved in melee more difficult.
Now if I go strictly with the bow specialty it wouldn't be as much of a problem, and I'd be able to pick up the Point-Black Master feat for my longbow in case I ever got stuck in melee.
I wanted to ask what you all thought about which would work better overall. Also for reference the rest of the party is...
Dwarf Two-Handed Weapon Fighter
Dwarf Cleric
Human Summoner
Elf Bard
Also on a side note, with the combat scabbard it only requires a swift action to draw a weapon, so would it be nearly as necessary to pick up the quick draw feat for the switch hitter build?