I don't think the animal companion will be much of a hindrance to the fighter at any level.
Its a full 3 levels lower than a druid's animal companion, so at 5th level you are talking about a creature with 3d8 hit dice and probably around 20 hitpoints, a +2 BAB, probably around a total +5 to hit, and an AC of around 15. Verse your typical high AC, high damage fighter type at 5th level, the animal companion will be lucky to still be standing after one hit.
The disparities in power between the fighter and animal companion get larger at higher levels. At 10th lvl, the rangers animal companion will be a 6 HD creature, and some animal companions may at that point be large and have a decent AC, but nowhere near high enough to be good defense against a 10th level fighters attacks. It might have an AC of around 20-24, but the fighter is probably power attacking for a +20 to hit with his first attack. If lucky, the animal companion might last a round and might occupy the fighters attacks for that long, but a single critical hit would probably drop it. Note that 10th level would be the most optimal level for the animal companion to compare, as the larger forms just got their size increase, and the fighter hasn't gotten his 3rd attack yet.
At later levels it will just be a quick slaughter.
The arena setting definitely favors the fighter vs Ranger and animal companion, as it negates many of the Ranger's abilities--his ability to stealth, to make use of terrain, to take advantage of his generally better maneuverability, etc. Its basically putting a fighter in his most optimal combat setting (face to face with nowhere to hide) and putting the ranger in his least favorable combat setting. But if placed in a more neutral setting with ample opportunities for the Ranger to use his class features, the Ranger who employs smart tactics against an equal level fighter will probably pull ahead, even without relying on favored enemy bonuses. The fighter must generally rely on his AC and Damage output to overcome enemies, and the Ranger will try to make use of the terrain and setting combined with his skills, spells, and class features to win a fight.
So to answer what your getting at, the animal companion probably wont' help an optimized Ranger beat an optimized equal level fighter in an arena setting. But place the same combatants in a forest, at night, and the Ranger will likely be victorious.
It's just the like that TV show that pits a Spartan Warrior against a Japanese Ninja. It's a neat show but really pointless. I just caught the American Green Beret vs Soviet Spetnaz. It was interesting and more relevant however.
Rangers are fine. Spells, better general scouting abilities, and greater mobility virtually ensure that the Ranger will get to choose when and where the fight takes place.
Featureless coliseum-style "arena combats" are silly, and are useless for class comparisons.
Ranger animal companions can be very useful outside of combat, but are typically little more than a speed bump or mobile flanking bonus once initiative is rolled. If that was the point of this topic, you probably won't find much argument for that around here.
An archery focused ranger who has a mount as his companion as well as investing in the mounted combat feats is nasty, though.
It's just the like that TV show that pits a Spartan Warrior against a Japanese Ninja. It's a neat show but really pointless. I just caught the American Green Beret vs Soviet Spetnaz. It was interesting and more relevant however.
Deadliest Warrior.
I much prefer the ancient "battles". Cool ideas for weapons when you see things like Aztec Jaguar Warrior vs. African Zande Warrior. The Zande weapons were especially fascinating
A ranger and animal companion might be able to hold their own against a fighter, even in an arena.
The build I'm thinking of involves an archery ranger who rides his companion. On his turn, the ranger makes a full attack with a bow, while the companion moves away from the fighter. A melee fighter then needs to move and attack, and is denied a full attack.
If the ranger has Mounted Combat and a maxed Ride skill, he can get cover from his mount (getting only a single attack on his next turn) or make a Ride check to improve his mounts AC if the fighter attacks the mount.
Its a shame that a lot of people focus on combat only.
Its a shame that a lot of people focus on combat only.
Is it? As long as they're having fun, who cares what their focus is?
I know that , but the game has more to offer than bashing up anything you can find.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Not that it represents anything really, but here is a pretty decent way to win the fight mellee v mellee (at higher levels).
Give the ranger two kukris, Imp Crit, crit Focus and Staggering Critical. Then take the wolf and pump its strength.
You have a better than even chance of critting and thus staggering for at least one round, dropping him to single action. He can either stand up and try again the next turn...or attack once with penalties.
I know that , but the game has more to offer than bashing up anything you can find.
Yeah, I know sometimes you have to talk to things to find out why you are supposed to be bashing them....
|
It's just the like that TV show that pits a Spartan Warrior against a Japanese Ninja. It's a neat show but really pointless. I just caught the American Green Beret vs Soviet Spetnaz. It was interesting and more relevant however.
Yeah, I know, right? A ninja would never do a stand up fight. They undersold their deadliness on that very basic fact. If you are having a combat between two foes, at least take into account their fight styles.
Hi,
Hypothetical Here (mostly on the value of the animal companion)
While being good melee'rs a straight ranger won't beat a fighter 1 on 1 (arena setting) unless the ranger has nearly completely pumped the fighter's race as a favored enemy. Given that rangers only get 5 favored enemies over thier career it's highly likely that a ranger will only take favored enemy:human, preferreing giants, outsiders, dragons etc. It's reasonable to assume human is one favored enemy as it is the most common race, so fairly likely to be encountered.
Assume ranger vs human fighter at 1,5,10,15. arena style the fighter wins.how much of a difference can the animal companion make?
Cheers.
Why an arena? In an arena the fighter wins.
Now put them both in a forest, or mountains, or other wilderness terrain with plenty of room.
Yeah, dead fighter.
It's just the like that TV show that pits a Spartan Warrior against a Japanese Ninja. It's a neat show but really pointless. I just caught the American Green Beret vs Soviet Spetnaz. It was interesting and more relevant however.
Yes, it's JUST like that show - pointless, ignorant, and, in the end, bad.
;p
|
|
Hi,
Hypothetical Here (mostly on the value of the animal companion)
While being good melee'rs a straight ranger won't beat a fighter 1 on 1 (arena setting) unless the ranger has nearly completely pumped the fighter's race as a favored enemy. Given that rangers only get 5 favored enemies over thier career it's highly likely that a ranger will only take favored enemy:human, preferreing giants, outsiders, dragons etc. It's reasonable to assume human is one favored enemy as it is the most common race, so fairly likely to be encountered.
Assume ranger vs human fighter at 1,5,10,15. arena style the fighter wins.how much of a difference can the animal companion make?
Cheers.
Why an arena? In an arena the fighter wins.
Now put them both in a forest, or mountains, or other wilderness terrain with plenty of room.
Yeah, dead fighter.
Or a ranger who chose the terrain of "gladiator arena" and a favored enemy of "human".
I statted up a lvl 14 Ranger NPC for a part of the Curse of the Crimson Throne AP which takes place on the storval plateau. He is an archery ranger with mounted archery and rides a horse animal companion. He uses a crossbow rather than a bow due to the story, but he seems rather effective even so.
You can see him at this link.
It's just the like that TV show that pits a Spartan Warrior against a Japanese Ninja. It's a neat show but really pointless. I just caught the American Green Beret vs Soviet Spetnaz. It was interesting and more relevant however.Yes, it's JUST like that show - pointless, ignorant, and, in the end, bad.
;p
??Was that a thinly veiled shot??
I asked about arena style because most of my combats (note this thread was about games i play in) are either dungeon crawls with either narrow corridors or large rooms. Maybe i didn't give enough info or phrase it right.
Our DM tends to use large creatures (particularly giants) besides large buildings and wide open spaces (this particular game is on storval plateau and surrounds) we haven't started yet, and i'd like to go with a highly effective ranger rather than fighter. I asked about the companion because i like the feature but would like it to be useful/survivable. I figured a large wolf can trip huge creatures so could be nice. the vs comparison was to compare abilities.
Probably should have been "Fighter OR ranger vs CR opponent"
Cheers.
I just think arena fights in big blank areas don't really solve or show much.
Likewise, I think the show is terrible :p
Or a ranger who chose the terrain of "gladiator arena" and a favored enemy of "human".
True, but that's not very likely.
The fighter is a straight-up better fighter than the ranger if you place them toe-to-toe. But the ranger has better skills and abilities that in theory should allow him to use terrain to his advantage and make it more likely he will get the drop on his foe.
If you want a melee specialist with an animal side-kick, why not play a fighter with a maxed (and skill focused) handle animal? Have him/her spend off-camera time training the animal to do combat tricks. It might not have the fancy abilities of a full Animal Companion but there is nothing stopping any character with Handle Animal from bringing along a pet.
|
|
Pure Pathfinder, the Fighter wins.
Compare a Fighter to any other class and have them fight, the Fighter always wins. Compare a Fighter to any other class and have them do any of the thousands of possible non-fighting things and the Fighter always loses.
All Fighters do is Fight, so they will always be better at it than any other class.
There's no point in debating it; this truth of the pathfinder system should really be pinned or something.
Now, all of that said, a Ranger can beat a Fighter by 'fighting', as long as the Ranger uses his non-fighting abilities to control when, where, and for how long he fights. Use stealth to escape, ranged ability to snipe and disengage, athletics/knowledge(nature) etc to evade, etc. Guerrilla warfare.
But in a straight up fight versus any other class, the Fighter wins. Always.
Compare a Fighter to any other class and have them fight, the Fighter always wins. Compare a Fighter to any other class and have them do any of the thousands of possible non-fighting things and the Fighter always loses.
All Fighters do is Fight, so they will always be better at it than any other class.
There's no point in debating it; this truth of the pathfinder system should really be pinned or something.
But in a straight up fight versus any other class, the Fighter wins. Always.
Fighter: Does exactly what it says on the tin!