I've spent a great deal of time looking over the class progression for Ranger and Fighter, trying to decide which is the best one to use as a build for either an Archer or Two-Weapon build. As I look at it, I think if you were building a PC for maximum damage, you'd be better off building that two-weapon fighter, or archer from the confines of the Fighter class. I think using the armor training to focus on maximum AC from lighter armor, and weapon training to focus on bows or your favored one-handed weapon, all the while taking appropriate feats for either design put you at a decided advantage in the Fighter class. I realize Ranger's are good for a lot more than just damage, and as a class they are designed to be hunters, trackers, animal handlers, and at higher levels even quality wielders of magic. I'm just wondering, from a strictly damage viewpoint, wouldn't it really be better to build that two-weapon "fighter," or archer from the Fighter class? Or are there things I'm missing in the level progression that make a Ranger more suited to those two damage arenas?
|
yes, the Fighter is the king of damage potential, as many people will attest to. The ranger has some neat tricks, and might be able to pull ahead in damage when fighting a favored enemy, but against everything else the fighter will do more damage.
That said, the ranger can cast spells, gets an animal friend, gets more skills, and gets other varied fun toys that the fighter doesn't get. Namely, the ranger has something to do out of combat other than "stand around looking tough"
For a discussion on total damage potential of various classes, you may want to look at the DPR Olympics thread in the Archives.
Note that the ranger does have one edge for two-weapon fighting: the ranger does not have to meet the normal prerequisites on his Combat Training feats. A ranger can be effective at two-weapon fighting without needing to invest as much in Dex.
For straight damage output in ideal conditions, the fighter will beat the ranger hands down, except against a target with lots of favored enemy bonuses for the ranger. Even then, the fighters weapon training plus potentially the weapon spec tree will even that out. And the fighter should normally have better AC than a ranger. Even a Dex based fighter can make use of heavier armors at higher levels due to his armor training. (A 15th lvl Fighter can wear Mithral Full Plate and have a +7 max dex to AC).
However, most fights don't take place in ideal conditions. And thats where the ranger can pull ahead. The rangers skills, spells, animal companion, and class features give him many more options for making fights take place in more favorable conditions.
And as Dragonchess points out, Rangers don't have to meet the prereqs for his Combat Training feats. Not only does this allow him to avoid having to have certain ability scores, but he can also avoid feat trees that are less optimal, such as taking Shot on the Run without taking Dodge and Mobility. And he has access to some feats earlier than other classes can get them, noticeably Imp Precise Shot as early as lvl 6 as opposed to lvl 11 for everyone else.
The Ranger will also fare better as far as defending against attacks other than weapon attacks. He'll have better saving throws, Evasion (eventually Imp Evasion), and spells that can help his defenses (e.g. resist energy, freedom of movement).
So all in all, the Ranger will have far more tricks up his sleeve, but the fighter will generally do more damage and have a better AC. For an archer, I'd prefer Ranger since AC and hps won't be quite as important, and the Ranger's skills, spells, and class features, plus earlier access to good archery feats will probably outweigh the fighters slight advantage in damage. For a TWFer I'd probably go with Fighter, or a mix of Fighter/Rogue, or a mix of Fighter/Ranger, or even a mix of all three, since damage output per swing will be far more important, and AC will be more important as well.
Two weapon fighting is terrible unless you have a method of alternate damage, such as sneak attack.
In fact, pretty much just sneak attack, since that's the only for of alternate/precision damage.
In other words, if you aren't a rogue, your left hand is for holding a shield or helping your right hand hold your weapon.
|
Two weapon fighting is terrible unless you have a method of alternate damage, such as sneak attack.
In fact, pretty much just sneak attack, since that's the only for of alternate/precision damage.
In other words, if you aren't a rogue, your left hand is for holding a shield or helping your right hand hold your weapon.
Actually, left has main weapon and right has shield or off hand weapon for some people.
The out right odds on doing more damage with two weaker weapons both attacking at a penalty could be worth research. Use a two-handed weapon and go for vital damage. You can have more than one weapon.
You do get the chance to do any form of damage at all twice, but with a penalty to both. And yoou can do one feat with one hand and another with the other. Whatever it is you are doing in that round making one attack with a higher damage weapon with a higher chance of landing than the first attack out of two, with the second being worse is really a good question. True, you MIGHT land two awesome hit rolls, but the chance of hitting once is better.
can should be "can not" sorry...
Two weapon fighting is terrible unless you have a method of alternate damage, such as sneak attack.
In fact, pretty much just sneak attack, since that's the only for of alternate/precision damage.
This isn't true at all. Fighters, Rogues, Paladins, and Rangers can all be competitive at TWF. Rogues' larger damage bonus is more than outweighed by their much lower to-hit chance. Paladins are actually the kings of TWF now.
This isn't true at all. Fighters, Rogues, Paladins, and Rangers can all be competitive at TWF. Rogues' larger damage bonus is more than outweighed by their much lower to-hit chance. Paladins are actually the kings of TWF now.Two weapon fighting is terrible unless you have a method of alternate damage, such as sneak attack.
In fact, pretty much just sneak attack, since that's the only for of alternate/precision damage.
It's true, TWF is a totally different animal in PF and so is Power Attack.
TWF Paladin with shield bash is sweet for the record.
Back to the issue at hand though. Truth is, if all you're worried about is dealing physical damage the Fighter is more or less king. Outside of combat they're not worth a whole lot though. I know, I know, you can build a fighter to be good out of combat and certain other classes are better than fighter in a bevy of specific situation blah blah, nonetheless the fighter holds its own at all power levels (against other physical damage dealers) and is very fun to play.
Archer Fighter, in particular, is a beast. TWF with a kukri is also pretty spectacular.
Depends what you want though, because rangers are going to be a lot more fun to play when you're not actually killing stuff. Tracking yes, animal companion, stealth, scouting, backup healer with wands, some very decent spells like entangle, two good saves, evasion, hide in plain sight. It's a grab bag of awesome that, sadly, lags behind in damage. IF you can get your DM to give you a hint as to what sort of creature will be popping up most often then you might even beat out a fighter. Also, DCP's point is very important. If you want to be a TWF ranger build for STR and rely on your bonus feats.
+1 to pretty much everything meatrace said. Fighters are pretty much the king of all-situations damage dealing (especially archer fighters, but you can build an excellent TWF fighter too with great AC using a shield as his off-hand), while Paladins are the king of maximum damage dealing. Rangers and Paladins are both good for all-round utility too, but the Fighter generally comes up lacking outside of combat.
|
Treantmonk has an awesome take on ranger's that i think everyone who wants to play one should read. As far as the whole more damage thing, if you look at the big picture, more damage will come endgame from more attacks, so if you have a massively high str and can still use all the dual wield feats, i still think you will come out on top as a ranger, assuming you forego some of the things in abilities, like having an int or cha score worth mentioning, and a not insane dex score. Plus, you have to consider that the animal companion is a part of the damage dealt from a ranger. Its there for a reason, and a sufficiently high level ranger with a good animal companion will be a great damage dealer. The only real downside i can find is the slightly less hp, which is the only reason i lean more towards the 2 handed as opposed to the 2 weaps. Oh, and did I mention that you can cast spells that buff/debuff for that extra little boost? I am a huge ranger fan, though, so this may be a little biased. So you get a few less feats, but not enough where its gamebreaking, and that super animal is more than making up for it, IMO.
Might be a tad pedantic but a weakness in the ranged school is that it replies upon ammunition. Not that this is a bad thing, but eventually your ranged PC, be they the more adaptable Ranger or the 'shoot-tiamat-out-of-the-sky' Fighter will need to invest in a few of those 'wasteful' feats like Dodge and Spring-attack, just so they buy some time in melee for the other party members to kill the baddie whacking away at them.
For my money, the Ranger makes the best 'Ranged Physical' class simply because of the skill set and for two other, separate reasons. If the Ranger goes with the Animal Companion, one set of Barding sized for the companion and the Ranger and possibly the fragile Sorcerer/Wizard/Witch can have a bodyguard while the melee get up close and personal with the enemy, or if the Ranger instead goes for the Companion Bond, allowing the Ranger to give the rest of the party a boost towards his favoured enemies, which increases the Party's Damage Output immensely, and all he has to spend is a Move Action, meaning he can still move or attack after doing this.
"It's a giant, aim for knees and bring it down!", telling the party where to hit can be a better strategy than being the only one doing heavy damage.
On the other hand, if you use the Golarion Fighter Variant, you get more skill-points for the meager cost of your first bonus feat. I mean, come ON the Class is built on Feats, one less will not suck overmuch! A Fighter using this variant and the Archery Build (or if you wish to be a true bastard, go for the Two Weapon Fighting Tree, Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Firearms) and grab yourself a pair of enchanted Pistols for 'close combat' and a Rifle for sniping. Slap Point-Blank Shot, Precise Shot, TwF, Imp TwF, Greater TwF, Imp Precise Shot and if you wish to be truly evil to the DM, take Penetrating Strike and Greater Penetrating Strike and the Weapon Focus/Specialisation tree for the Pistols.
The Fighter alone has the sheer number of feats to pull this off, and when you stack the Weapon Training:Firearms bonus, at higher levels you will be doing an additional +4 attack and damage rolls for the Weapons training, +2 to attack rolls from Weapon Focus, +4 to damage rolls from Weapon Specialisation. For a Pistol, that's 1d6 bludgeoning and piercing damage. That's your dexterity + 6 from weapon training and weapon focus chain for attack rolls, not including any magical enchantments on them (personally I would go for Speed and Explosive and after ramping up the actual enhancement bonus as high as it will go, I know Speed is a +3 but I believe Explosive was +2 for Melee weapons and +3 for Ranged Weapons) and then you've got 1d6 Pierce/Bludge damage + your dexterity + 8 from Weapon Training and Weapon Specialisation.
Further, if you wish to truly cement yourself as a potent ranged-based threat, see if the DM will allow you to use some feats from the old Players Handbook II (3.5), Take Weapon Mastery (Bludgeoning) and once you hit level 14 or higher, take Crushing Strike. No where in the wording does it mention you must take it for a melee weapon. This grants you a cumulative +1 bonus on attack rolls for every hit that lands.This means that every hit you land will increase the chance of your next hit landing, and with the TwF tree that can ensure that almost every shot you fire has a much improved chance on landing, something the Bow and the Crossbow cannot give you. So assuming you're at level 15, you've taken this with your +4 Speed Concussive Pistols with the above feats and you let rip at an enemy (for the purposes of this we'll assume you've got a dexterity of 18) a BAB of 15, so you're actual attack roll is D20+15+4+6 for a whopping D20+25 on the attack roll. With Speed, that's a BAB of 40-40-35-30-25 for the Mainhand Pistol and 40-40-35-30 for the Offhand Pistol, Not including your attack-roll, each shot doing 1d6+4 Pierce/Bludge damage +2d4 from the Explosive, which affects all targets within a 5 foot burst of the target. You're almost guaranteed to hit all the time against nearly every target and the splash damage can be useful for tightly-packed mobs or, if the party is getting too close, can be turned off. So with Explosive on, you're dealing on average 37+20 damage for the mainhand and 30+16 for the offhand when taking a full-attack action.
A variation which would allow you to shoot through targets would be the Exit Wound for +2 which allows you to hit a target behind your target, albeit with a +4 to their AC for each target the bullet has penetrated, or the Disarming Enchantment, allowing you to attempt to shoot the weapons out of your enemies hands, making them much less effective against your meleeing friends.
Edited: Fixed up a FUBAR in the calculations. Bah. My Maths-fu is weak when I am hungry. Brb, getting a Sammich.
..... okay my post got eaten, what the hell?
Alright, and by the Gods did I go off on a tangent there, sorry. Uhm, where were we, oh yeah, Ranger vs Fighter.
Now, you mentioned you were also looking at Two Weapon Fighting for melee as well, correct? I sort of covered that somewhat in the above post, but Two Weapon Fighting in melee is perhaps not the best it could be.
Now if you are going TwF and are not planning on using throwable weapons, Double Weapons are your best bet. Not only can you turn around and use two identical weapons for normal TwF penalties (-2/-2, both hands tied up etc etc) and bonuses, but in a pinch you can attack with one end like it was a two-handed weapon.
Weapons you should be looking at are the Dwarven Urgosh (can be set to recieve a charge, weapon is useful both in tight situations being able to poke with the pointy end or in large areas being able to sweep about with the axe-head), Two-Bladed Sword for an exotic appeal, as a hint enchant one end to deal with magic-users and the other to with True-Bane from one of the D&D magazines, +3 enchantment but after a single hit it adopts the Bane quality for that specific type/subtype, which can be great for getting your damage up against a tough foe, there is the Orc Double Axe, which is in the same vein as the Two-Bladed Sword, but there is also the weapon with a Sword at one end and a Flail at the other, I'm trying to remember the name but it's just not coming. With that, as a Fighter, you can disarm and trip and still dual-wield without worrying about having to take Improved Unarmed Attack or wielding two one-handed weapons and the greater penalities.
In Short, Ranger makes the best 'Skilled Martial' PC, because of the larger skill-pool, Class-Skills related to wilderness (or with a little bit of Feat-help, city-orientated) skills and the ability to deal greater damage against a small selection of enemies, while Fighter makes the best 'Damage-from-hell Martial' PC, because of the Weapon Training, High AC and speed-retention from Heavy Armor and Armor Training and the ability to deal excellent damage against a wide variety of foes at all times.
Just wanted to thank everybody for some really great damage potential, and role-playing outside of combat discussion. I've got a lot to think about, and I'll definitely be looking at all the advice listed here.
Thanks
Just wanted to thank everybody for some really great damage potential, and role-playing outside of combat discussion. I've got a lot to think about, and I'll definitely be looking at all the advice listed here.
Thanks
Another thought to consider: If you play a human fighter with 12 or 14 int, and take skill points for favored class (vs the extra HP) that typically makes up for the greater skillpoints the ranger has. Add in an animal companion via leadership around 7, and UMD in lieu of spells, and to be blunt I think the fighter is a better choice in the vast majority of situations. Call him a ranger if you want, but the fighter mechanics end up being a better way to build it in a lot of ways. The big advanatage the ranger has is that he gets access to a couple of higher end feats earlier than the fighter can, but depending on the level you're playing at, that may not actually be that much of an advantage.
Another thought to consider: If you play a human fighter with 12 or 14 int, and take skill points for favored class (vs the extra HP) that typically makes up for the greater skillpoints the ranger has. Add in an animal companion via leadership around 7, and UMD in lieu of spells, and to be blunt I think the fighter is a better choice in the vast majority of situations. Call him a ranger if you want, but the fighter mechanics end up being a better way to build it in a lot of ways. The big advanatage the ranger has is that he gets access to a couple of higher end feats earlier than the fighter can, but depending on the level you're playing at, that may not actually be that much of an advantage.Just wanted to thank everybody for some really great damage potential, and role-playing outside of combat discussion. I've got a lot to think about, and I'll definitely be looking at all the advice listed here.
Thanks
Great points! I hadn't thought about the UMD skill as a replacement for wielding magic, but that is a great call. I'll have to do some checking into the Leadership feat, I don't have a lot of experience with it, but having an animal companion would definitely fill in one of the gaps between fighter and ranger class.
Another thought to consider: If you play a human fighter with 12 or 14 int, and take skill points for favored class (vs the extra HP) that typically makes up for the greater skillpoints the ranger has. Add in an animal companion via leadership around 7, and UMD in lieu of spells, and to be blunt I think the fighter is a better choice in the vast majority of situations. Call him a ranger if you want, but the fighter mechanics end up being a better way to build it in a lot of ways. The big advanatage the ranger has is that he gets access to a couple of higher end feats earlier than the fighter can, but depending on the level you're playing at, that may not actually be that much of an advantage.Just wanted to thank everybody for some really great damage potential, and role-playing outside of combat discussion. I've got a lot to think about, and I'll definitely be looking at all the advice listed here.
Thanks
Even if the fighter goes out of his way to get skill points, the ranger does it a lot better as he needs to invest a lot less to do so and has a far superior class skill list. A ranger with 10 intelligence gets 6 skill points per level and can put his favored class bonus in HP. A fighter with 14 intelligence and a favored class bonus gets five, and his class skills are worse. He spent 5 valuable points in his point buy and is getting less hit points than the ranger each level. Not a good idea.
Leadership is a moot point since anyone can get it. If the fighter gets it and takes a companion, the ranger can as well and get a companion in addition to his animal companion.
UMD is good as well, but needs a hefty investment, and like Leadership, the ranger can do it just as well, only he has more skill points to spare.
Trying to emulate a ranger as a fighter is really not worth it.
Even if the fighter outdamages the ranger, I prefer the ranger because with a little thinking you can use your skills, spells and class abilities to get the best of the fighter.
Ellington: Thank you for the concise but complete rebuttal about a Fighter in Ranger drag. The Fighter is excellent at what it does and only suffers at trying to be a pseudo-Ranger.
MendedWall12: I've seen some awesome Fighter archer builds, not sure about the 2 weapon schtick though. For Rangers, see Treantmonk's guide, which was linked above, that inspired me to play a "switch hitter Ranger," ie takes archery option but mainly wades into melee, that carries her weight in battle and out. Try here if I got the link right for his take on PF Rangers.
Even if the fighter goes out of his way to get skill points, the ranger does it a lot better as he needs to invest a lot less to do so and has a far superior class skill list....
Actually build a ranger and a "Wilderness warrior" fighter and compare the two. I think you might be surprised. Keep in mind the limiting effects of the favored enemy as compared to wpn specialization and wpn training, GWF and GWS as well as the advanatages of being able to wear heavier armor.
Even if the fighter outdamages the ranger, I prefer the ranger because with a little thinking you can use your skills, spells and class abilities to get the best of the fighter.
There's two flaws in this line of thought:
1. You're not trying to best the fighter; you're besting the party's enemies, and of them it's unlikely that most of them are going to be favored ones.2. If the ranger can be played intelligently why exactly can't the fighter?
In the end, you're still just an archer who does nothing but full attack every round, while trying to pretend you're relevant with your 4 skill points.
You're putting way, way too much emphasis on pure damage. Yes, the fighter will outdamage the ranger. No, that's not what it's all about.
In the end, you're still just an archer who does nothing but full attack every round, while trying to pretend you're relevant with your 4 skill points.
So what exactly is that archer ranger doing every round that's so wildly different?
You're putting way, way too much emphasis on pure damage. Yes, the fighter will outdamage the ranger. No, that's not what it's all about.
If that arguement holds up, then it's equally valid to say that yes the ranger will be better at tracking and moving throught the underbursh than the fighter, but that's not what it's all about.
You and a bunch of other people don't like my suggestion, I get it. But actually try mocking up the builds, you might just be surprised.
Even if the fighter goes out of his way to get skill points, the ranger does it a lot better as he needs to invest a lot less to do so and has a far superior class skill list....Actually build a ranger and a "Wilderness warrior" fighter and compare the two. I think you might be surprised. Keep in mind the limiting effects of the favored enemy as compared to wpn specialization and wpn training, GWF and GWS as well as the advanatages of being able to wear heavier armor.
Even if the fighter outdamages the ranger, I prefer the ranger because with a little thinking you can use your skills, spells and class abilities to get the best of the fighter.There's two flaws in this line of thought:
1. You're not trying to best the fighter; you're besting the party's enemies, and of them it's unlikely that most of them are going to be favored ones.
2. If the ranger can be played intelligently why exactly can't the fighter?
I worded that badly, sorry. I didn't mean it as if they were going toe to toe, but in overall effectiveness. I do think the ranger has a wider niche than the fighter and offers more to the party, including spells, wilderness abilities, stealth, the animal companion and his multiple skill points while also being a reliable combatant. The fighter is still better at, well, fighting, but he doesn't have much (read, anything) to offer outside of combat that other classes can't do as well or better. Both classes can be played intelligently, the ranger just has more to work with.
A fighter spending his resources trying to be a ranger will end up being worse than the ranger and a regular fighter.
In the end, you're still just an archer who does nothing but full attack every round, while trying to pretend you're relevant with your 4 skill points.So what exactly is that archer ranger doing every round that's so wildly different?
You're missing the point. The fighter and the ranger might not play too differently in combat, but the entire game isn't measured in rounds. You'll have non-combat stuff to do and the ranger performs better than the fighter in most of those.
In the end, you're still just an archer who does nothing but full attack every round, while trying to pretend you're relevant with your 4 skill points.So what exactly is that archer ranger doing every round that's so wildly different?
Well, I rather prefer the switch hitter, so he's doing both archery and melee. He also has his animal companion and his spells.
You're putting way, way too much emphasis on pure damage. Yes, the fighter will outdamage the ranger. No, that's not what it's all about.If that arguement holds up, then it's equally valid to say that yes the ranger will be better at tracking and moving throught the underbursh than the fighter, but that's not what it's all about.
You and a bunch of other people don't like my suggestion, I get it. But actually try mocking up the builds, you might just be surprised.
I'm not mocking your build, I'm mocking your suggestion that the fighter is flat out better then the ranger. You're comparing two different beasts then trying to proclaim that one is unobjectively better then the other. Let the ranger be a ranger and the fighter a fighter. When you try to make the fighter into a ranger, you get a fighter that isn't as good of a fighter but still isn't a ranger.
I'm not mocking your build, I'm mocking your suggestion that the fighter is flat out better then the ranger. You're comparing two different beasts then trying to proclaim that one is unobjectively better then the other.
You misundertood what I meant by mocking. Regardless, step back from this for a second. When you're building your switch hitter what are you optimizing on him? His combat ability or his non-combat abilities? Likely the former unless you're planning on taking feats like skill focus and if I recall correctly the switch hitter doesn't.
So, if you're optimizing a combat (vs arcane/divne) character based on feat selection whcih is essentially what the ranger does, then it begs the question why aren't you doing that with the class that gets more feats?
Next point, because we're talking about a party as opposed to playing solo, how likely is it that you're going to have a rogue or another skill monkey in the party? In my experience, pretty likely. Outside of a few select situations, said skill monkey is going to be better than your ranger at nearly everything other than tracking. So while yes it is nice to have those abilities more often than not, your ranger is likely to be either the 2nd or 3rd person making the check or aiding someone else.
When you try to make the fighter into a ranger, you get a fighter that isn't as good of a fighter but still isn't a ranger.
Like I said mock up the builds. The wilderness warrior is still a fighter with pretty much the same feat selections, the only real difference is that he takes leadership and throws some points into UMD. Otherwise the role he plays in the party is pretty close to that of a ranger and it goes back to role-playing as opposed to roll-playing.
|
A Str based ranger with Two Weapon Fighting will out damage almost every thing. Being a Ranger can by passes your Dex requirement for Two Weapon Fighting. My best suggestion wold be to Multiclassing. Ranger 18 Monk 2 or Ranger 14 Monk 6. Using the Ranger for Two Weapon Fighting and Monk for AC and early evasion. This build will come close to the damage out put of a Two Weapon Fighting Fighter because you don't need to put allot of points in to Dex. Using Monk for the Wis mod AC and casting bark skin will get you close to the same AC as a heavy armor fighter with out using any armor.
My suggestion for stats on a 20 point build
(7) STR 15 ( + 1 at levels 4,8,12,16,&20 )
(5) DEX 14 + 2 Human
(5) CON 14
(0) INT 10
(5) WIS 14
(-2) CHA 8
You misundertood what I meant by mocking. Regardless, step back from this for a second. When you're building your switch hitter what are you optimizing on him? His combat ability or his non-combat abilities? Likely the former unless you're planning on taking feats like skill focus and if I recall correctly the switch hitter doesn't.
Both :U
You can't optimize non-combat abilities unless you mean taking those atrocious +3 to a single skill feats, and those are just flat out terrible. Instead, you choose what skills you have and go from there. Fighters have 2 skill points, rangers have 6. Fighters are also far more specialized then rangers are. An archer fighter needs high dex to get feats - a switch hitter ranger doesn't.
So, if you're optimizing a combat (vs arcane/divne) character based on feat selection whcih is essentially what the ranger does, then it begs the question why aren't you doing that with the class that gets more feats?
Because it's not based solely on feat selection. You mentioned giving the fighter better int to increase his skills - those are stat points the fighter loses compared to the ranger. The ranger also gets an animal companion. The ranger also gets spells. The ranger also gains bonuses to his skills.
Next point, because we're talking about a party as opposed to playing solo, how likely is it that you're going to have a rogue or another skill monkey in the party? In my experience, pretty likely. Outside of a few select situations, said skill monkey is going to be better than your ranger at nearly everything other than tracking. So while yes it is nice to have those abilities more often than not, your ranger is likely to be either the 2nd or 3rd person making the check or aiding someone else.
Why? Why is the rogue better at sneaking then the ranger? The rogue doesn't receive any bonuses to stealth that the ranger doesn't get. The rogue also doesn't have any bonus to handle animal, or heal, or knowledge: nature or geography, or etc etc.
Like I said mock up the builds. The wilderness warrior is still a fighter with pretty much the same feat selections, the only real difference is that he takes leadership and throws some points into UMD. Otherwise the role he plays in the party is pretty close to that of a ranger and it goes back to role-playing as opposed to roll-playing
That you're trying to throw the "role-playing vs roll-playing" arguement out, all while your entire point is "lol screw rangers, just be a fighter they have better numbers," is hilarious and absurd. Your entire argument in this thread has been purely about the fighter's ability to do damage, and now you claim it's about role-playing? if you're going to lie, at least try to lie in a believable fashion.
Again, I'm mocking your idea that the fighter is a better ranger then the ranger. Just drop it. Christ.
Just drop it. Christ.
The Son of God was posting about Fighters vs. Rangers? He really is everywhere...
Another thought to consider: If you play a human fighter with 12 or 14 int, and take skill points for favored class (vs the extra HP) that typically makes up for the greater skillpoints the ranger has. Add in an animal companion via leadership around 7, and UMD in lieu of spells, and to be blunt I think the fighter is a better choice in the vast majority of situations. Call him a ranger if you want, but the fighter mechanics end up being a better way to build it in a lot of ways. The big advanatage the ranger has is that he gets access to a couple of higher end feats earlier than the fighter can, but depending on the level you're playing at, that may not actually be that much of an advantage.
I actually agree with you 100%. I've played a human fighter with 14 int. If you use Traits you can get "Dangerously Curious" for UMD So now you can have
Climb
Knowledge (Dungeoneering)
Survival
Swim
Use Magic Device
Still with a HP or skill to attain through favored class. That's a fighter with some decent skills, especially if he skill focuses in UMD and takes Magical Aptitude. At LVL 10 he is at least +20 on UMD. Now you have a fighter throwing fireballs and dispelling magic. Best combo in the game IMHO.
Just drop it. Christ.The Son of God was posting about Fighters vs. Rangers? He really is everywhere...
He's wily like that.
Call me old-fashioned, but I remember when you played a Ranger when you felt like playing a Ranger, and the same goes for Fighter.
I really hate the "Why play X, when you can just play Y and pretend it's X..." discussions. The WotC boards are notorious for those, with every other one being "Don't play X, just be a Druid", where X is any other class in the game. A Ranger is a Ranger, a Fighter is a Fighter. They both have enough unique characteristics, that the lines shouldn't be too blurred. I've always looked at the two for what they iconically represent; to me, the Ranger was always the wilderness warrior, the tracker, the hunter, favoring mobility and stealth, and using his knowledge of the wild and terrain. For me, the Fighter always represented the catch-all soldier, warrior, "gimme a weapon and some armor and I'll show you some blood" kind of class. Sure, they can be similar, but I've never had a problem separating the two. I've never, in my years of gaming, figured I'd make a fighter instead of a ranger, just because of some numbers.
But back to the OP, The Ranger gets the obvious advantage of getting access to certain feats for both TWF and archery before a Fighter would, but the Fighter compensates with simply getting more feats, period. If you are ignoring all the background, fluff, and flavor of the classes(which is what it sounds like tbh), the thing to consider is the game you are playing; what level are you starting at? How high of level do you think you'll be when it ends? Is there even an end in sight? If getting good feats earlier isn't a problem(starting high level or just long campaign) then the Fighter will serve well. If you want to get to the good stuff sooner, and like having some nifty tricks up your sleeve to compliment, then I suggest Ranger.
|
I actually agree with you 100%. I've played a human fighter with 14 int. If you use Traits you can get "Dangerously Curious" for UMD So now you can have
Climb
Knowledge (Dungeoneering)
Survival
Swim
Use Magic DeviceStill with a HP or skill to attain through favored class. That's a fighter with some decent skills, especially if he skill focuses in UMD and takes Magical Aptitude. At LVL 10 he is at least +20 on UMD. Now you have a fighter throwing fireballs and dispelling magic. Best combo in the game IMHO.
I'd be curious to see what kind of point buy/ rolling you guys are using if this is viable. You are burning 2 feats, a trait, and have made Intelligence a secondary attribute and can't dump CHA on a class that typically dumps it.
The pay off is tossing 5th level fireballs that cost 225gp each. Dishing out 17.5 points of damage against a few opponents is not a good use of a round for a 10th level fighter. The same character is almost certainly doing more damage than that, in particular since most creatures will be nailing that DC 15 save by then. If you spend the 2 feats you spent on boosting UMD on archery you can even do it at range. The non-UMD fighter is also going to have a higher DEX and STR because he doesn't have to have a high INT and can dump CHA.
Dispel magic? Your caster level 5 wand has a 25% chance of dispelling anything cast by a 10th level caster. Burning a round and 225 gp for a 25% chance to dispel a level appropriate effect is hardly best anything in the game.
I guess I'm a little biased against 3-4th level wands in general but those two particular choices are not good wand spells.
If I were going to build a UMD fighter I would probably just dip rogue or bard which nets you a lot more. More likely I would just create a bard who is going to be much better filling that niche.
Call me old-fashioned, but I remember when you played a Ranger when you felt like playing a Ranger, and the same goes for Fighter.
I really hate the "Why play X, when you can just play Y and pretend it's X..." discussions. The WotC boards are notorious for those, with every other one being "Don't play X, just be a Druid", where X is any other class in the game. A Ranger is a Ranger, a Fighter is a Fighter. They both have enough unique characteristics, that the lines shouldn't be too blurred. I've always looked at the two for what they iconically represent; to me, the Ranger was always the wilderness warrior, the tracker, the hunter, favoring mobility and stealth, and using his knowledge of the wild and terrain. For me, the Fighter always represented the catch-all soldier, warrior, "gimme a weapon and some armor and I'll show you some blood" kind of class. Sure, they can be similar, but I've never had a problem separating the two. I've never, in my years of gaming, figured I'd make a fighter instead of a ranger, just because of some numbers....
LOL, I got a guy just like you in my gaming group. HE thinks taking two levels of fighter for feats is munchkin, but he made a monk cleric and thought it was ok. He also thought another guy creating a summoner was weak but he is cool with taking the leadership feat himself.
The bottom line is there is no way everyone can create the character they want using the base templates provided; therefore, it is easier for some players to use the mechanics to create the player they want rather than conforming to the same basic classes that have bee rehashed repeatedly over the years.
In other words, live and let live....Back to the music....
I'd be curious to see what kind of point buy/ rolling you guys are using if this is viable. You are burning 2 feats, a trait, and have made Intelligence a secondary attribute and can't dump CHA on a class that typically dumps it.The pay off is tossing 5th level fireballs that cost 225gp each. Dishing out 17.5 points of damage against a few opponents is not a good use of a round for a 10th level fighter. The same character is almost certainly doing more damage than that, in particular since most creatures will be nailing that DC 15 save by then. If you spend the 2 feats you spent on boosting UMD on archery you can even do it at range. The non-UMD fighter is also going to have a higher DEX and STR because he doesn't have to have a high INT and can dump CHA.
Dispel magic? Your caster level 5 wand has a 25% chance of dispelling anything cast by a 10th level caster. Burning a round and 225 gp for a 25% chance to dispel a level appropriate effect is hardly best anything in the game.
I guess I'm a little biased against 3-4th level wands in general but those two particular choices are not good wand spells.
If I were going to build a UMD fighter I would probably just dip rogue or bard which nets you a lot more. More likely I would just create a bard who is going to be much better filling that niche.
My gaming group goes with 25 point buy. In the eyes of our group if we going to make-up characters and play in a fantasy world, we ought to at least be epic heroes. We get high stats but our GM throws monsters far above group level. In the last year alone there have been 2 TPKs, and hence we never reset lvl. If our groop TPKs at 6 we make-up new characters at 6. We are currently at LVL12.
Also, though I specifically described dispel magic and fireballs, there exist the possibility to cast any spell from scroll. I.E. Greater Dispel Magic, Heal, Freedom of Movement Etc. Sure the fighter is not going to spend all his rounds casting, but it's nice to know if your Healer get's feebleminded or paralyzed you aren't screwed...
|
|
My gaming group goes with 25 point buy. In the eyes of our group if we going to make-up characters and play in a fantasy world, we ought to at least be epic heroes. We get high stats but our GM throws monsters far above group level. In the last year alone there have been 2 TPKs, and hence we never reset lvl. If our groop TPKs at 6 we make-up new characters at 6. We are currently at LVL12.
Also, though I specifically described dispel magic and fireballs, there exist the possibility to cast any spell from scroll. I.E. Greater Dispel Magic, Heal, Freedom of Movement Etc. Sure the fighter is not going to spend all his rounds casting, but it's nice to know if your...
If you'd said this originally I wouldn't have commented. Instead you said "Best Combo in the game" and I have to disagree with that.
With a 25 point buy you are sacrificing CON or DEX in order to be the UMD guy. I don't see that as a great pay off for what is essentially an emergency only ability.
]
If you'd said this originally I wouldn't have commented. Instead you said "Best Combo in the game" and I have to disagree with that.With a 25 point buy you are sacrificing CON or DEX in order to be the UMD guy. I don't see that as a great pay off for what is essentially an emergency only ability.
Completely understood, and I am well aware that "Best combo in the Game" is extremely subjective.
I just enjoyed the character so much it was my all time favorite. I had fighter abilities with a decent skill set and always had a scroll up my sleeve to handle tough scenarios.
I'd be curious to see what kind of point buy/ rolling you guys are using if this is viable.
20-25 depending on who's running the game in my group. (or 4d6 drop the lowest.) Admittedly my group does tend to run a higher powered game though which has both good and bad sides to it.
You are burning 2 feats, a trait, and have made Intelligence a secondary attribute and can't dump CHA on a class that typically dumps it.
Valid points, but that's not that different than adding wisdom as a secondary attribute like rangers do, Int 13 is a prereq for several feats including nice control ones like improved disarm and imp trip and Chr also improves your leadership score which means his "pet" is likely tougher than the rangers animal companion.
Dishing out 17.5 points of damage against a few opponents is not a good use of a round for a 10th level fighter. The same character is almost certainly doing more damage than that, in particular since most creatures will be nailing that DC 15 save by then.
Conversely do you really want your ranger casting spells in combat as opposed to full attacking? When I've done this, it's usually with 1st and second level buffs and heals cast out of combat... which is strangely similar to alot of the ranger spell list. (Also keep in mind that unlike the ranger's spells, the UMD user's scrolls and wands can also be used by other casters in the party and can come from any spell list. Consider a Two wpn fighter with a quarterstaff and access to the druid spell shilleagh at lower levels.)
If you spend the 2 feats you spent on boosting UMD on archery you can even do it at range. The non-UMD fighter is also going to have a higher DEX and STR because he doesn't have to have a high INT and can dump CHA.
Personally I wouldn't spend anything more than one feat on UMD but obviously it really depends on how you want to play your character.
|
|
Valid points, but that's not that different than adding wisdom as a secondary attribute like rangers do, Int 13 is a prereq for several feats including nice control ones like improved disarm and imp trip and Chr also improves your leadership score which means his "pet" is likely tougher than the rangers animal companion.
I wasn't really comparing the fighter to a ranger, rather just in general commenting that the poster was investing a lot into what the he listed as a great combo which is actually fairly mediocre. As you suggested you can get many of the benefits for less investment. But since you seem determined to compare them...
WHY?
I'm failing to see the point in this. You can go to great lengths to make the fighter something like a ranger but generally not as good and a weaker combatant to boot. Is there some reason you prefer the UMD/ leadership fighter to the ranger? Because you are making a poor case for why this being any sort of optimizing effort.
Edit: If it is some kind of optimizing effort I'm curious to see a 10th level build with a 20 point buy because thus far it sounds not too exciting.
|
|
I think that this discussion has pretty much played itself out.
We've got people angling for the fighter and others for the ranger. The best arguments of both pretty much prove one thing.
They both represent good solid paths. Both of which can lead to a variety of very interesting and fun characters. The way you walk those paths is up to you.
Ultimately yes, the choice in which class is best in this case is primarily (as it should be) driven by flavor.
You can go to great lengths to make the fighter something like a ranger but generally not as good and a weaker combatant to boot.
The problem really stems from how one defines "good". What started it for me was Treantmonks original ranger guide in which the optimization focuses nearly entirely on combat and feat selection which really begs the question, if that's what's important then a fighter clearly does it better. Or to put it another way, why rent when I can buy cheaper? (From a flavor standpoint, it's not like the ranger gets an exotic mechanic like smiting evil or raging... it's choose from this list of feats.)
The typical response (as seen in this thread) is then "but the ranger can do stuff out of combat or can be played more cleverly". Re the OOC arguement, I don't really think it's that much better and as to playing more cleverly, the counter arguement is why do I need to play a fighter poorly?
Edit: If it is some kind of optimizing effort I'm curious to see a 10th level build with a 20 point buy because thus far it sounds not too exciting.
If i get some time tomorrow I'll try and post something. Against favored enemy the ranger wins (mostly anyways) but if the GM or module isn't cooperating, then the ranger is less useful to the party than a similarly built fighter.
|
|
You can go to great lengths to make the fighter something like a ranger but generally not as good and a weaker combatant to boot.The problem really stems from how one defines "good". What started it for me was Treantmonks original ranger guide in which the optimization focuses nearly entirely on combat and feat selection which really begs the question, if that's what's important then a fighter clearly does it better. Or to put it another way, why rent when I can buy cheaper? (From a flavor standpoint, it's not like the ranger gets an exotic mechanic like smiting evil or raging... it's choose from this list of feats.)
The typical response (as seen in this thread) is then "but the ranger can do stuff out of combat or can be played more cleverly". Re the OOC arguement, I don't really think it's that much better and as to playing more cleverly, the counter arguement is why do I need to play a fighter poorly?
Edit: If it is some kind of optimizing effort I'm curious to see a 10th level build with a 20 point buy because thus far it sounds not too exciting.If i get some time tomorrow I'll try and post something. Against favored enemy the ranger wins (mostly anyways) but if the GM or module isn't cooperating, then the ranger is less useful to the party than a similarly built fighter.
In a pure "DPR" sense I have no doubt that the fighter is better in combat, I just don't think you can put together something that resembles the usefulness of the ranger with a fighter base. The fighter is the specialist, geared towards one task and doing that task exceptionally well. The ranger is specialized against specific foes but otherwise has a nice package more general abilities, better defenses, better skills choices and more points.
I'll staple together a 10th level ranger for comparison. I'm not even very good at optimizing, mostly I'm just curious how they would compare with the fighter trying to play in the ranger's roundhouse. So don't feel like you need to super optimize it because I won't be.
FWIW, My suspicion is that you missed the point with Treantmonk's guide to rangers. Consider that the bard guide is very much geared towards optimizing the bard for combat and it is hardly a combat oriented class.
The problem really stems from how one defines "good". What started it for me was Treantmonks original ranger guide in which the optimization focuses nearly entirely on combat and feat selection which really begs the question, if that's what's important then a fighter clearly does it better. Or to put it another way, why rent when I can buy cheaper? (From a flavor standpoint, it's not like the ranger gets an exotic mechanic like smiting evil or raging... it's choose from this list of feats.)
Well, when 'optimizing' a character, combat utility tends to be a big focus, because thats where the numbers are. Also, when doing this, you look at what 'resources' the character has (and by this I mean, feats, skills, spells, class abilities, racial abilities, etc.) and how best to employ them, whether to shore up weaknesses or to enhance their strengths. Its quite economic in a sense--what can I do with this resource that will get me the most return, the most bang for the buck?
Generally, the most flexible resource a character gets is his feat selections. These can be used to improve almost any aspect of a character, from his skills to saving throws to attack to damage to AC to spellcasting etc..
Thus, when looking at optimizing a class like the ranger, we see that we have a lot of resources available in skill points. And due to this abundance of this resource, our other resources (feats primarily) aren't needed to supplement this area. Further, several of his class features already supplement the skills department (favored enemy, track, favored terrain, camo/HIPS). We also see that the Ranger has good resources in the saving throw department, getting two good saves plus the 3 save attributes fall into his top 4 attribute concerns. So that really leaves the Ranger with having to use his resources primarily for attack/damage issues and defense issues. And thats why almost any Ranger guide will focus on that. (Plus, a lot of his other resources are necessarily geared to combat--his Combat Style feats in particular.)
Similar results happen with a class like the Rogue or Bard. They have an abundance of skill points, so thats really not a concern for them (although how best to employ those skills is a big concern). The Rogue and Bard have limited feat selections though, so these almost always get employed for combat purposes.
On the other hand, we have the fighter, whose only real resource is his feat selection, which he has in abundance. So he can freely use these feats to supplement his lack of skill points and good saving throws and spellcasting abilities and still have plenty of feats to apply for combat purposes.
So, for example, taking Iron Will, Skill Focus (UMD), Skill Focus (Perception), and Master Craftsman might not be a bad idea for certain Fighters, it would probably be crippling for a Rogue to take all those feats, since it represents a huge chunk of his feat resources and would seriously hamper his combat ability. The fighter can indulge in feats like this and still have substantial combat abilities.
Thus, my point is that when it comes to optimizing a class like the Ranger, you are generally going to be looking at how best to optimize him for combat purpose primarily, since he naturally will be quite effective in various non-combat matters due to his abundance in skills and skill-related class abilities.
I'll staple together a 10th level ranger for comparison. I'm not even very good at optimizing, mostly I'm just curious how they would compare with the fighter trying to play in the ranger's roundhouse. So...
I started on this to see what the results would be. I basically have the 10th lvl Ranger statted up, just toying with his item selection, which takes a lot longer than putting him together. I've about got the Fighter statted up, but haven't started on his items yet. Basically making both of them human archers to see how they stack up against each other.
What I'm seeing so far though, is that in order for the Fighter to duplicate the Ranger as best he can, he has to make significant investment of his resources to do this, and it really does affect other aspects of the Character.
For instance, I gave the Fighter Lightning Reflexes to help make up for his much lower Reflex save (4 pt difference at lvl 10). I felt this is really necessary to help to best duplicate the Ranger's ability. Also, Skill Focus UMD is absolutely necessary for the Fighter to have any reliable chance of making use of wands and scrolls. And then Leadership is necessary to duplicate the Animal Companion. Just with those choices, the Fighter has already invested a large chunk of his 11 feats.
Another resource the Fighter is going to have to burn is his character wealth. Its going to cost a signficant chunk of his cash to have the wands and scrolls available to duplicate a lot of the Ranger abilities.
The Fighter also has to bump his Int up, and this drives down his Wis and Cha, hurting some of his important skills here (Perception and Survival) and also making UMD more difficult and seriously impacting the effectiveness of his Cohort.
Already its shaping up to what I expected. The Fighter still has a generally better attack and damage (but not by a whole lot). The Ranger still vastly outclasses the Fighter in skills and saving throws. And the Ranger is coming out with better/more equipment overall.
I have to get to work now, but I'll try to finish these guys up and put them up so we can all see how it works out.
LOL, I got a guy just like you in my gaming group. HE thinks taking two levels of fighter for feats is munchkin, but he made a monk cleric and thought it was ok. He also thought another guy creating a summoner was weak but he is cool with taking the leadership feat himself.
I'm afraid I'm missing the comparison here. I was simply saying, in my opinion, that a Ranger and a Fighter aren't really interchangeable, not calling anyone munchkins while doing the same thing myself. I was just saying, if you want to be make a Ranger, then make a Ranger. I don't understand where you're coming from.
The bottom line is there is no way everyone can create the character they want using the base templates provided; therefore, it is easier for some players to use the mechanics to create the player they want rather than conforming to the same basic classes that have bee rehashed repeatedly over the years.
In other words, live and let live....Back to the music....
This we can agree on at least.
I'm afraid I'm missing the comparison here. I was simply saying, in my opinion, that a Ranger and a Fighter aren't really interchangeable, not calling anyone munchkins while doing the same thing myself. I was just saying, if you want to be make a Ranger, then make a Ranger. I don't understand where you're coming from.
Well maybe that's my bad. It's just when I see someone referencing "old school" and telling how the game "should be" played. I think of the guy in my group.
My point was that often times while we are judging others and telling them how to do things, we overlook our own hypocrisies.
It was totally unfair to assume you are the same type of person and for that I apologize.