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.
My apologies as well then. I didn't mean for my OP to come off as telling people how to play, just trying to figure out why some poeple want to go out of their way to remake an existing, viable class. The reference of the "don't play X just be a Druid" thing, it looks like we agree on as well. Always drove me nuts.
I'm all for multiclassing like crazy and experimenting to best fit a concept. But, I think I'm old-fashioned in the sense that if an already existing class already fits the concept well, I just don't see the point in shoe-horning a different class to mimic it(i.e. reworking a Fighter to imitate a Ranger). But, again, it's nobody else's business but the player and their DM with how they choose to create their character. Maybe it's the challenge to see if it can be done at all.
Basically, I think we're saying the same thing lol!
|
Ok I'm just really tired of hearing about the DPR Olympics. There are two very important things to remember. 1 ) Level cut off at 10 removes Improved Critical from the Rogue that he can get in one level. this increase the damage by quite allot. Every one knows this moves the results toward the full BAB classes. 2) Level cut off at 10 removes Greater Two Weapon Fighting from any Two Weapon fighting. This moves the results toward the two handed weapon. I'm sure there are more then enough People out there to argue with me about it. And allot will say the DPR Olympics proves that a Two Handed Weapon will do more damage then Two Weapon Fighting. Simply put the DPR Olympic prove a level 10 Fighter can do more damage then a level 10 Rogue or Ranger. It dose not prove that that can survive the fighting with out help.
Basically, I think we're saying the same thing lol!
LOL, indeed it appears so.
I don't agree at all with Ogre's assessment of my "sub-optimal" build but I understand some people game differently. When you are always facing encounters above your group level, every spell is treasure ESPECIALLY at higher levels.
|
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.
That's why I was asking him why he wanted to essentially turn a fighter into a ranger. For example if he were just trying to build a fighter that had some interesting magic tricks he could do then the UMD fighter might very well make more sense. It seems to me like the idea was to make a fighter more or less comparable to a ranger in every way because that was the 'optimal' thing to do which personally I don't think is the case.
I'm not exactly sure where this discussion deteriorated but it most certainly did at some point. I would like to repost my original and point out a few things.
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?
My original post was not meant to discuss the various benefits of being a Ranger or Fighter. I just wanted to know if my own estimation that if a person were ONLY concerned with damage output, would building an archer or two-weapon wielder be better suited to the Fighter class. I wasn't sure if some of the specific benefits of a Ranger gave them things I wasn't seeing which put them into an equal, if not greater, damage arena. If I want to play a Ranger I will (in fact I have), and if I want to play a Fighter I will (in fact I have). I was just trying to get other people's experienced opinions on the level progressions, and possible outcomes. At no point was I trying to say a Fighter would make a better Ranger than a Ranger would. That would just be counter-intuitive. I mean if a Fighter would make a better Ranger why would they have the Ranger class at all? Or any other for that matter. Why not just use the one generic build and say, "Have at it. Use the parameters to build the kind of hero you want."? Of course a Ranger makes a better Ranger than a Fighter. Just like a Monk makes a better Monk than a Cleric, etc. etc. ad nauseum
|
|
I'm not exactly sure where this discussion deteriorated but it most certainly did at some point. I would like to repost my original and point out a few things.
I would suggest that it has mutated rather than deteriorated. It did get a little back and forth for a bit but I think has pivoted back to more simple curiosity, can you really make get a fighter to be roughly as good at rangery stuff as the ranger?
My original post was not meant to discuss the various benefits of being a Ranger or Fighter. I just wanted to know if my own estimation that if a person were ONLY concerned with damage output, would building an archer or two-weapon wielder be better suited to the Fighter class.
I think the overwhelming majority agree that if raw combat effectiveness is your goal then the fighter is going to win out every time (as it should). The ranger has a few edges on defense and reaction time but in terms of pure damage output it's no contest.
If you can reliably predict what sort of favored enemies you will encounter the ranger might edge the fighter out. For example if you know you have a highly urban campaign Favored Enemy (human) and Favored Terrain (Urban) are likely going to give the Ranger a huge advantage.
The other possible advantage the ranger has is if you want to pull a switch hitter (uses both melee and ranged weapons) or if you want to take a feat and bypass the prereqs. The ranger's combat styles can work to your advantage.
All that said, in most cases if pure damage is the goal the fighter is king.
My apologies as well then. I didn't mean for my OP to come off as telling people how to play, just trying to figure out why some poeple want to go out of their way to remake an existing, viable class. The reference of the "don't play X just be a Druid" thing, it looks like we agree on as well. Always drove me nuts.
I'm all for multiclassing like crazy and experimenting to best fit a concept. But, I think I'm old-fashioned in the sense that if an already existing class already fits the concept well, I just don't see the point in shoe-horning a different class to mimic it(i.e. reworking a Fighter to imitate a Ranger). But, again, it's nobody else's business but the player and their DM with how they choose to create their character. Maybe it's the challenge to see if it can be done at all.
Basically, I think we're saying the same thing lol!
I can see why. I am doing it right now with a scout/archer concept. I don't want an animal companion, nor do I want to guess which creatures my PC hates the most. What I want is a stealthy woodsman with a decent BAB and the ability to shoot lots of arrows and sneak through the brush at good speed.
Generally speaking, a Fighter will outdamage any other Pathfinder core class. Against specific targets, Rangers and Paladins may outdo them, but if you can't count on lots of evil outsiders/evil dragons/undead, and you don't have any expectation that a single creature type will dominate the campaign, the Fighter is what you're looking for.
As for Archery vs Dual Wield, if you're using only Pathfinder-compatible material, Archery will do more damage over time than Dual Wield will, thanks to always being able to full attack. That said, Archer Fighters will have distinct weaknesses that Dual Wield Fighters don't have (their primary attack method provokes AoOs, getting a bow with just the right Strength modifier can be a pain, etc), and DW Fighters can easily use thrown weapons to make up at least part of their one combat weakness (no ranged attack).
If all you're concerned about is damage, go Archer Fighter. It's the most damaging character against any arbitrary enemy in the game. If you want extremely high damage against all enemies but your party needs their Fighter to be a front-line character, a Dual Wield Sword and Board Fighter (using a light shield as their off-hand weapon) is what you're looking for.
I'm not exactly sure where this discussion deteriorated but it most certainly did at some point. I would like to repost my original and point out a few things...
I would suggest that it has mutated rather than deteriorated. It did get a little back and forth for a bit but I think has pivoted back to more simple curiosity...
I"m 100% with Ogre
The discussion didn't deteriorate at all, and I would even go past mutate to say it simply evolved. We are now discussing the merits of a fighter who could be built to have a useful skill set through high int, traits etc. If that is somehow a problem we can easily establish a new thread.
Otherwise, I actually wanted Ogre's reasons for saying the UMD fighter build I posted was suboptimal. Just for some outside analysis.
|
|
I'm not exactly sure where this discussion deteriorated but it most certainly did at some point. I would like to repost my original and point out a few things...I would suggest that it has mutated rather than deteriorated. It did get a little back and forth for a bit but I think has pivoted back to more simple curiosity...
I"m 100% with Ogre
The discussion didn't deteriorate at all, and I would even go past mutate to say it simply evolved. We are now discussing the merits of a fighter who could be built to have a useful skill set through high int, traits etc. If that is somehow a problem we can easily establish a new thread.
Otherwise, I actually wanted Ogre's reasons for saying the UMD fighter build I posted was suboptimal. Just for some outside analysis.
I just think there are better ways to get there that offer some nice flavor choices and a lot of benefits. A few levels of bard or rogue (4 max to avoid taking a second hit to your BAB) would get you a lot of skill points and a ton of other abilities. Bard is particularly attractive for that and you could pick up a ton of skill points. Your INT can stay average and you can keep your CHA at 12 which gives a nice bump to your UMD without seriously hurting your combat effectiveness. Being able to use all the cure wands and quite a few others reliably is also a nice benefit. Also bumps your weak saving throws, bardic song... lots of nice synergies. But even just a single level dip into Rogue or Bard would bag you far more than 2 feats worth of benefits towards your UMD fighter.
Of course if you go that route you might actually consider just going whole hog martially focused bard, they can be pretty kick *ss with Inspire Courage going and can UMD up a storm.
I can see why. I am doing it right now with a scout/archer concept. I don't want an animal companion, nor do I want to guess which creatures my PC hates the most. What I want is a stealthy woodsman with a decent BAB and the ability to shoot lots of arrows and sneak through the brush at good speed.My apologies as well then. I didn't mean for my OP to come off as telling people how to play, just trying to figure out why some poeple want to go out of their way to remake an existing, viable class. The reference of the "don't play X just be a Druid" thing, it looks like we agree on as well. Always drove me nuts.
I'm all for multiclassing like crazy and experimenting to best fit a concept. But, I think I'm old-fashioned in the sense that if an already existing class already fits the concept well, I just don't see the point in shoe-horning a different class to mimic it(i.e. reworking a Fighter to imitate a Ranger). But, again, it's nobody else's business but the player and their DM with how they choose to create their character. Maybe it's the challenge to see if it can be done at all.
Basically, I think we're saying the same thing lol!
A ranger with Hunter's Bond and favored enemy: magical beast then ;).
]I just think there are better ways to get there that offer some nice flavor choices and a lot of benefits. A few levels of bard or rogue (4 max to avoid taking a second hit to your BAB) would get you a lot of skill points and a ton of other abilities. Bard is particularly attractive for that and you could pick up a ton of skill points. Your INT can stay average and you can keep your CHA at 12 which gives a nice bump to your UMD without seriously hurting your combat effectiveness. Being able to use all the cure wands and quite a few others reliably is also a nice benefit. Also bumps your weak saving throws, bardic song... lots of nice synergies. But even just a single level dip into Rogue or Bard would bag you far more than 2 feats worth of benefits towards your UMD fighter.
Of course if you go that route you might actually consider just going whole hog martially focused bard, they can be pretty kick *ss with Inspire Courage going and can UMD up a storm.
I certainly understand your suggestions but I dismissed them on my character for several reasons. I didn't want to be restricted to light armor to get evasion and I also didn't want to lose any BAB. The Save bonuses were very tempting, but I had feats to spare for Iron Will and Lightning Reflexes.
I've always liked Bards but they shine best at archery and assisting from the rear. That wasn't really the character concept I was going after.
|
I am tired of all this archery . The answer for a damage-heavy ranged warrior lies with the Barbarian, no? I mean with a halfling slingstaff. (either as a halfling build or as a human with exotic weapon proficiency - I like the halfling in this case). They get good skills.
1d8 (x3) bludgeoning damage at medium size. That rivals the longbow.
Now apply the strength bonus plus the extrea 4 raging bonus and BLAM! (compare that to the "mighty" composite toothpick shooter!) Use the Strong Arm Supple Wrist Trait to increase the range to 100' (10' runup + 10' extra range) - not shabby. And it doubles as a handy club if you are slinging at point blank range and have no time to switch hit. Also, if the sling is loaded ahead of time, your other hand is freed for a buckler or shield and you still get to shoot with no AoO.
The sling staff can be used to sling all kinds of things other than just bullets too.
I haven't done the math or anything. It just strikes me as a good concept. Has anybody here explored that idea?
Now the Barbarian can use his speed or the speed of his mount to whisk into range and back out - while still getting strenghth bonuses on damage...at less risk to himself than melee combat in light armour.
|
Ugh.
Why do people still do this? Do they not read the forums and check for similar topics beforehand?
Sorry if I seem somewhat annoyed here, but comparing ANYTHING to the Fighter is utterly pointless.
The Fighter class is designed to be better at two-weapon fighting than a Ranger, better at archery than a Ranger, better at sword and shield than a Paladin, better at mounted combat than a Paladin, and better at two-handed fighting than a Barbarian.
The Fighter class is purposely designed to be flat out better at dealing damage than every other class in the game because all Fighters do is fight.
They have no skills, no spells, no support abilities, no tricks, no nothing. So of course Fighters are better; it's a pointless comparison. Maybe pathfinder should not have made that design decision; it's certainly worth discussing. But what's not worth discussing is how X class is less good at fightering than the Fighter.
|
|
Well, Bobchuck. I am sorry for being such an ill-informed ignoramous. I do not have the time to research a thousand forums before I care to comment on any given topic I happen upon. I'm just too busy playing the game and living my life, right?
But I know you are not REALLY annoyed because if you were you wouldn't have wasted your time responding to the posts in this forum in the first place. I appreciate that you care.
Besides, I think that comparing the warrior capabilities of FIGHTERS vs. NON-FIGHTERS (ie. Rangers) is the whole point of this thread in the first place. I guess I am just mixing it up and prolonging your agony by throwing halfling Barbarians and Slingstaves into the mix! lol
It seems to me that from the point of view of combat proficiency - the Barbarian slinger has some potential to out-damage even the vaunted Fighter in ranged combat. Adding the huge rage bonus to strength makes the sling more powerful than the composite bow ....and its range allows the mobile Barbarian to utilize her strength while at a safe 80' distance ...before charging in as a mighty switch hitter - for example. It also allows the player to allocate some points in the build to Dexterity rather than to Strength - for better accuracy.
And you get a few goodies as a Barbarian like Ranger-style skills.
I did look at some forums regarding whether or not a Rapid Fire -like feat can be made to work for the sling staff. It all seemed up in the air. But, Bobchuck, you have read them all - maybe you can enlighten us?
Ogre, I'll apologize in advance for not rising to the occasion and putting together a character for you to take a look at. I was laid off yesterday and my hearts not really in it right now.
I am tired of all this archery . The answer for a damage-heavy ranged warrior lies with the Barbarian, no? I mean with a halfling slingstaff...
I actually thought about a half orc druid using one while wild shaped into a great ape. Completely ridiculous I know, but it amused me at the time.
It seems to me that from the point of view of combat proficiency - the Barbarian slinger has some potential to out-damage even the vaunted Fighter in ranged combat. Adding the huge rage bonus to strength makes the sling more powerful than the composite bow ....and its range allows the mobile Barbarian to utilize her strength while at a safe 80' distance ...before charging in as a mighty switch hitter - for example. It also allows the player to allocate some points in the build to Dexterity rather than to Strength - for better accuracy.
First off The Barbarian with a sling can't come close to touching the fighter with a composite long bow for damage. It's not that it's difficult, it's that it can't be done. It won't happen it isn't in the rules. Simply stated the fighter cannot be outdone for damage per round.
Now does the barbarian have some neat tricks? Sure, but that's not damage per round.
The fighter's combination of Weapon Spec, and Weapon training means he'll have a +8 damage boost and +6 to hit boost just from 4 feats and his class features. The barbarian is going to have +4 bonus to damage from his greater rage, if somehow you allow him to two hand with a ranged weapon he's still only going to get +6 damage. Please note the complete lack of bonus to hit which means he's not even going to hit as often as the fighter.
If everything else is equal (and it's still not the fighter has many more feats to burn into being awesome with a weapon) the barbarian loses just from not having as big of a bonus.
Does this mean the barbarian is useless? No. But it does mean he can't out damage the fighter.
I get it now. Thanks for the good explanation. So a fighter with a slingstaff would kick ass then? Big time?
He could, however the bow does have several bonuses going for it over the slingstaff, including better range and the ability to use multishot (which many people believe only works with a bow).
I get it now. Thanks for the good explanation. So a fighter with a slingstaff would kick ass then? Big time?
Only if you can figure out how to fire it more than once around. Rapid reload (RAW) only appears to work with crossbows.
|
|
I kind of pictured the sling staff as a kind of cross between a Jai Alai scoop and Lacrosse wicket....you could even catch things in it or pick stones up off the ground with it and throw them....but that is probably not at all how designers envisioned it in the rules...and it's off-topic anyway. Thanks for the responses.
|
|
Ogre, I'll apologize in advance for not rising to the occasion and putting together a character for you to take a look at. I was laid off yesterday and my hearts not really in it right now.
Oh man that seriously sucks. I got laid off last year so I can sympathize. Hopefully you will get lucky like I did and land in a better job. Good luck bro!
|
|
I get it now. Thanks for the good explanation. So a fighter with a slingstaff would kick ass then? Big time?Only if you can figure out how to fire it more than once around. Rapid reload (RAW) only appears to work with crossbows.
Quick draw should do it or your GM should let you use rapid reload. I asked James on chat and he didn't have a problem with quick draw, not really any sort of official guidance but good enough for me.
|
|
I get it now. Thanks for the good explanation. So a fighter with a slingstaff would kick ass then? Big time?Only if you can figure out how to fire it more than once around. Rapid reload (RAW) only appears to work with crossbows.
Rapid Shot? Only two feats required for this, so you can get it at first level either as a Fighter or a Human.
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 but it works great with sneak attack. It's perfectly viable but if you want to max out the damage output it looks to me like two handed fighter is the way to go.
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.
Unless of course you are a Lefty (don't forget we southpaws play too :P )
One thing REALLY worth noting in a fighter vs ranger dpr comparison is when the ranger gets access to 3rd level spells. With a swift casting of Instant Enemy (or from a wand as a stealthy rangers prebuff), rangers can equal/outdamage a fighter vs anything. Taking Bonded Companion also makes your auto tripping wolf buddy a worthy addition to your DPR. Ranger wins.
Even some of the lower level spells can add some value here. The 1st level spell Lead Blades from the APG jumps your weapon damage by one size. When you're talking about 4 attackes with a d8 double weapon that can start to add up.
Further, the Guide variant is a decent DPS option. The Ranger's focus (+2 to hit / +2 damage at 1st and additional +2/+2 per 5 levels) against a single target is fantastic against single big targets. It allows you to do some serious damage against non-favored enemies.
So before level 11: Fighter
After level 11: Ranger + instant enemy (at least +6 FE) FTW?The key is the surprise round. A ranger can only cast it 3/day. If the wants to own every combat he'll need a standard action for a wand. The fighter buddy who acts first gets a 1rd headstart.
Or - the guide option from the APG. There you're at +6/+6 vs. a single enemy 4/day without a wand or spell at 11th level. You also have the chance to use that capability earlier at a lower bonus.