I was just messing around on Hero Labs, when i noticed that since a Ranger's combat style allows him to take a feat without Prerequisites. He could just skip Cleave, for "Two-Handed Weapon", to Great Cleave or the same with Vital Strike. The House Rule/RAI is obvious i just wondered what other people thought.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I was just messing around on Hero Labs, when i noticed that since a Ranger's combat style allows him to take a feat without Prerequisites. He could just skip Cleave, for "Two-Handed Weapon", to Great Cleave or the same with Vital Strike. The House Rule/RAI is obvious i just wondered what other people thought.
Think you should go read the combat style part of the ranger again... that's not house rule -- that is RAW.
And one of my single only and biggest beef against the ranger.
I found it to be a wonky rule as well, I do not allow the ability to ignore feat requirements, but ignore other prerequistes to take the feats.
I was just messing around on Hero Labs, when i noticed that since a Ranger's combat style allows him to take a feat without Prerequisites. He could just skip Cleave, for "Two-Handed Weapon", to Great Cleave or the same with Vital Strike. The House Rule/RAI is obvious i just wondered what other people thought.Think you should go read the combat style part of the ranger again... that's not house rule -- that is RAW.
And one of my single only and biggest beef against the ranger.
Don't need to meet feat prerequisites though.
you guys here on the paizo form are fast (3 minute response time)
I found it to be a wonky rule as well, I do not allow the ability to ignore feat requirements, but ignore other prerequistes to take the feats.More reason to ignore Ranger and go fighter! Awesome.
I do not think it was intended to shortcut feats like that, also it doesnt make sense from a balance perspective. Great Cleave is worth two feats, but costs only one, while other chain feats do have the usual advantages to give that does not go for the cleave feat which gets to be completely redundant. That is just poor game design.
There is plenty of reasons to play a ranger even without being able to 'cheat' the system out off an extra feat. Also I am not bothered with people going fighter instead if they consider that too harsh.
That is a big part of the reason to go ranger over fighter. They are not classically trained like most "Fighters" and they develop their own style out in the wild that works for them but not others. Just like they develop their own hunting techniques vs their favorite prey.
Rangers can do things other fighter type characters cannot.. just like the Barbarian and Paladin can do things fighters cannot. Pets, spells, and unique combat feat access is what rangers are all about IMHO.
Don't need to meet feat prerequisites though.I was just messing around on Hero Labs, when i noticed that since a Ranger's combat style allows him to take a feat without Prerequisites. He could just skip Cleave, for "Two-Handed Weapon", to Great Cleave or the same with Vital Strike. The House Rule/RAI is obvious i just wondered what other people thought.Think you should go read the combat style part of the ranger again... that's not house rule -- that is RAW.
And one of my single only and biggest beef against the ranger.
Yeah exactly -- the ranger gets 5 bonus feats he doesn't need to meet the prerequisites for -- and spells, two good saves, more skill points, same BAB, plus a boatload of abilities.
Fighters get 11 bonus feats, can move faster in armor and invest more heavily in Dex, and gets a bonus with certain weapons.
So to sum up the ranger gets almost half as many bonus feats as the fighter and doesn't have to meet the prerequisites for them and gets everything else he gets.
Each combat style just makes it worse for the fighter too since that's one more way the ranger can be like the fighter and still have everything else.
Don't need to meet feat prerequisites though.I was just messing around on Hero Labs, when i noticed that since a Ranger's combat style allows him to take a feat without Prerequisites. He could just skip Cleave, for "Two-Handed Weapon", to Great Cleave or the same with Vital Strike. The House Rule/RAI is obvious i just wondered what other people thought.Think you should go read the combat style part of the ranger again... that's not house rule -- that is RAW.
And one of my single only and biggest beef against the ranger.
Yeah exactly -- the ranger gets 5 bonus feats he doesn't need to meet the prerequisites for -- and spells, two good saves, more skill points, same BAB, plus a boatload of abilities.
Fighters get 11 bonus feats, can move faster in armor and invest more heavily in Dex, and gets a bonus with certain weapons.
So to sum up the ranger gets almost half as many bonus feats as the fighter and doesn't have to meet the prerequisites for them and gets everything else he gets.
Each combat style just makes it worse for the fighter too since that's one more way the ranger can be like the fighter and still have everything else.
the point was not for me to ever use this, nor is the reason i posted this talk about fighter V.S. ranger conversation. merely was curious what the paizo community thought.
I think it is completely legal and will continue to allow it as such at my tables. I don't like it on a game system design level -- but I'm not about to change it myself for a variety of reasons.
No,
I wouldnt allow it.
You cannot take great cleave at say, 11th level without having taking cleave at 6th (or whatever) feat chains are still feat chains. they just dont require the stat prerequisites. (IMO)
I won't go into the specifics because this thread is not for it, but this is a terrible breakdown of fighter vs ranger. Saying ranger gets everything a fighter has is silly.
If you think that is what I said you are just as silly.
I stated:
1. Rangers get 1/2 the bonus feats fighters do and I'll add endurance which is there too. That's 6 bonus feats versus 11.
2. Rangers get more skill points.
3. Rangers get two good saves versus the fighters 1.
4. Rangers get spells, fighters do not.
5. Rangers get favored enemies, favored environments, evasion, movement abilities, hiding abilities, and an animal companion. Fighters get bravery, armor training (which can partially be matched with mithril armor) and weapon training.
6. Rangers do not have to meet prerequisites to take their bonus feats -- fighters do.
7. They both have the same BAB and Hit dice.
I would suggest (strongly) that total package rangers come out better.
Then on the side of fighters:1) Fighters get nearly (or is it) half a dozen strong feats made specifically for them that Rangers don't get access to.
2) Armor Training applies to mithril armor just as much as it does regular armor. Or adamantine.
3) Rangers bonus feats come from an extremely restricted list, fighters come from a very large list. (Admittedly, this is partially made up for by the fact that there are several lists. . .) Also, endurance as a bonus feat isn't something I'd really brag about.
1. Actually not so much -- rangers get access to a couple of these feats through their combat styles. The others amount to: Weapon specialization, greater weapon focus, greater weapon specialization, penetrating strike, greater penetrating strike, critical mastery, deadly stroke.
2. Armor Training does apply with mithril -- however that isn't fully the point. Armor training has the biggest benefit in increasing movement rate -- mithril does the same for medium armors. The ability to use more Dex is nice -- but requires more investment as well. This causes its second benefit to be less useful than it could be. Also once ACP reaches zero reducing it more doesn't really matter.
3. The ranger's bonus list is restricted... but it is restricted to the feats you are going to take anyways. Meaning it isn't really a restriction now is it? Also I would brag about endurance -- there are many times it can and should come into play (garrote attacks, holding your breath, running long distances quickly, endurance trials of various types), and the ability to sleep in mithril full plate without getting fatigued is be a huge benefit -- especially when you have an attack in the middle of the night -- being in a chain shirt doesn't hold a candle to being in a breastplate or mithril full plate.
A Ranger can lose access to all of his bonus feats if he is hit with Ray of Enfeeblement and it puts him into a heavy load.
A Fighter still has access to all of his class abilities when hit with a Ray of Enfeeblement.
Also, any feat the Ranger has, you would have to assume the Fighter has too (since he has more feats). If the feat is going to be used to compare one versus the other and both have access to it, you must therefore assume that both have it. Unless the feat has no use what so ever, in which it can be ignored.
Honestly, I already house-ruled that all characters can ignor feat pre-reqs if it isn't an ability score or the feats are not mechanically linked.
In 3.5, Power Attack helped you cleave. In Pathfinder, Power Attack diminishes your ability to cleave effectively, and yet it is still a pre-req. Ug.
Ignoring feat pre-reqs on feats doesn't bother me one bit, no sir.
To return to the original question - a core ranger with the TWF fighting style can take greater TWF at 10th level, without having ever taken TWF or Imp TWF. I have no idea what that means mechanically, but it's probably more problematic than letting a ranger have great cleave without having power attack.
A Ranger can lose access to all of his bonus feats if he is hit with Ray of Enfeeblement and it puts him into a heavy load.
Not correct:
The benefits of the ranger's chosen style feats apply only when he wears light, medium, or no armor. He loses all benefits of his combat style feats when wearing heavy armor. Once a ranger selects a combat style, it cannot be changed.
Heavy loads don't bother him at all.
Of course the fighter is going to have the same feats -- but while the ranger has dex 14 and greater two weapon fighting the fighter actually has to meet the prerequisites, including level, previous feats, and stat score.
So the ranger will have a better strength (and be attacking with strength) at level 10 getting 5 attacks, while the fighter has a 19 dex and has to wait until level 11 to get his final feat for two weapon fighting.
That's simply wrong. The ranger has everything else half as many bonus feats doesn't have to worry about prerequisites.
So in addition to more skills, spells, better saves, more class abilities he also has 3/4 the feats of a fighter of his same level (instead of 1/2) and can ignore the prerequisites for them.
by Raw a ranger doesnt need /any/ prereqs for the feats on his chosen style. Sure people can dislike it but thats a house rule if they change it.
I can make a 10 str 18 dex Ranger with an elven Courtblade, take Weapon finesse as my lvl 1 feat, power attack as my lvl 2 combat feat and at lvl 6 take great cleave.
Why id want to do it this way im not sure :P but the game lets me.
The thing i noticed on my Monk is it doesnt work well to 'jump ahead' always with a higher level prereq. like Geting a Higher level version of Ki throw without the lower level one Doesnt do anything because It modifies an ability you cant actually do.
Great Cleave as worded though doesnt need cleave.
I discard all prerequisites except for BAB, skill ranks, and caster level, so the ranger thing is meaningless to me. I always thought it was a nice perk that made the ranger different.
I would hope that you also discard one of Cleave and Great Cleave as well, then.
You can take the one at low level, or you can take the other at higher level, if you're that patient. Without any prereqs. If both Cleave and Great Cleave were available at the start, I'd also call foul. But they are spread out. I don't see the problem at all.
I discard all prerequisites except for BAB, skill ranks, and caster level, so the ranger thing is meaningless to me. I always thought it was a nice perk that made the ranger different.
Here I thought I was the only one!
If you can convince your GM to loosen feat pre-reqs, I think the game becomes a lot more fun without creating too many problems. That's something I would love to see considered for far-flung later editions.
You can take the one at low level, or you can take the other at higher level, if you're that patient. Without any prereqs. If both Cleave and Great Cleave were available at the start, I'd also call foul. But they are spread out. I don't see the problem at all.
+1
This is pretty much how I feel about the Ranger. They're good I'll admit and scare me sometimes, but so do two-handed fighters. :p
If you make the ranger take prequistes then the archery style ranger only get one new feat at 6th level. FAce it with an archery ranger you will want point blank and precise shot right away and rapid shot. Improved precise shot has really high dex requirment and +11 base attack bonus. So what are you left with only getting manyshot or far shot at 6th level for an archery ranger?
So what if a 10th level ranger can take Greater TWF without the prerequisites. That gives him, if wielding at least one light weapon (or using a double weapon):
1 attack at BAB -2
1 attack at BAB -7
1 attack at BAB -12
The way I read it is that the Ranger would get a second attack with their offhand weapon at -10, but they also would still have the negatives for TWF w/o the feat i.e. -4 PH -8 OH if off-hand weapon is light. So they would have +6/+1 with main hand and +2/-8 with off-hand (+Sta)
You could argue that they would not get the second off-hand attack (at -18) until they get their third attack at lvl 11.
Main Hand +7/+1/-3
Off Hand +3/-8
As far as a Ranger being better than a fighter, they may not have prerequs but they have level limitations. A Fighter would take TW Defense fairly early; you may get Greater TWF at lvl 10, but can't get TW Rend (a fantastic feat) until level 14, a full two levels later than your fighter buddy. What about Double Slice? you really need to take that as early as possible but if you take TWF at 2 and ImpTWF at 6, you can't take Double slice until 10. If you skip ImpTWF until 10 and take Double Slice at 6, you are loosing additional off-hand attacks for a full 4 levels. Ranger good, but Fighter more than holds his own, weapon training is really great(it's a free WF and WS for a whole class of weapons), Fighter can move at his Base speed in Full plate, So the Fighter runs 30' per round in full Plate +9 AC, get a +3 Dex bonus and only a -2 ACP (+2 from armor training and +1 MW or better) where the Ranger only has +6 AC from Breastplate, same +3 Dex and a worse -4 ACP and only go 20' OR have a max +4AC and still go 30'.
As Far as Greater Cleave, yeah you can take it at lvl 6 w/o cleave and it still works, but the Fighter takes it at lvl 4. The Ranger has to wait till lvl 2 to get Power attack, 6 for Furious Focus and 10 for your next feat, where a Fighter can take many of these Feats at level 1. A 2nd lvl Human Fighter can have Power Attack, Cleave, Furious Focus, and Improved Sunder(or pushing assault or shield of swings) where as a Ranger would have to wait till level 14 to have the same benefits.
Your other choice for Ranger, since most of these prereques you meet easily anyways, is to hamstring yourself by taking feats off your bonus feat list as normal advancement feats. This same fighter by lvl 14 gets a +3 Attack/Damage from Weapon Training, has likely WF and ImpWF and WS and ImpWS PLUS 5 more feats.
As Far as Greater Cleave, yeah you can take it at lvl 6 w/o cleave and it still works, but the Fighter takes it at lvl 4. The Ranger has to wait till lvl 2 to get Power attack, 6 for Furious Focus and 10 for your next feat, where a Fighter can take many of these Feats at level 1. A 2nd lvl Human Fighter can have Power Attack, Cleave, Furious Focus, and Improved Sunder(or pushing assault or shield of swings) where as a Ranger would have to wait till level 14 to have the same benefits.
Your other choice for Ranger, since most of these prereques you meet easily anyways, is to hamstring yourself by taking feats off your bonus feat list as normal advancement feats. This same fighter by lvl 14 gets a +3 Attack/Damage from Weapon Training, has likely WF and ImpWF and WS and ImpWS PLUS 5 more feats.
Where as the ranger has favored enemy, spells and a companion as well as evasion, more skill points, two good saves, camouflage, and terrain bonuses.
I did say ALL prereqs. Meaning BAB, skill ranks, and caster level are the only prereqs on anything. :)
I would hope that you also discard one of Cleave and Great Cleave as well, then.
No -- I mean, why do you need two feats in the first place if you're changing things that much?
The thing is, though, that some of those prerequisite feats are feats that some characters still want to take for one reason or another (to get the specific benefits those feats provide, or as prerequisites for later feats in the chain).
The ranger combat styles allow you to ignore those feat prerequisites for the specific feats, but not for other feats that also require the same ones.
Perfectly balanced, IMO. There needs to be some perks to being a Ranger, after all. In 3.5, the Ranger combat styles were so limited that you could virtually always make a better "Ranger" by simply making a Fighter. I like that there are incentives to actually use the Ranger class.
The thing is, though, that some of those prerequisite feats are feats that some characters still want to take for one reason or another (to get the specific benefits those feats provide, or as prerequisites for later feats in the chain).
The ranger combat styles allow you to ignore those feat prerequisites for the specific feats, but not for other feats that also require the same ones.
Perfectly balanced, IMO. There needs to be some perks to being a Ranger, after all. In 3.5, the Ranger combat styles were so limited that you could virtually always make a better "Ranger" by simply making a Fighter. I like that there are incentives to actually use the Ranger class.
There are already other perks:
1. More skill points.
2. More class abilities.
3. Animal companion.
4. Spells
5. Evasion in medium armor.
6. Favored enemy/terrain
Plenty of perks already on that list.
Greater TWF gives a "third attack with your off-hand weapon, albeit at -10". It does NOT give you a first or second attack with your off-hand weapon.
+5 Vorpal! Bravo!
There are already other perks:1. More skill points.
2. More class abilities.
3. Animal companion.
4. Spells
5. Evasion in medium armor.
6. Favored enemy/terrainPlenty of perks already on that list.
I wasn't saying that the Fighter is 100 times better than a Ranger at everything. I was saying that getting the bonus feats w/o prereques does not break the game or make a Fighter completely useless.
The thread had devolved into a flame war about how the Ranger is so fantastic and that no one should ever play a Fighter because Rangers are just better. So I wanted to point out that the Combat Style Feats aren't THAT great. You don't pick Ranger because you want to be the best at Combat, you pick Ranger because they are good fighters but they also get other class features that add different flavor to the class.
Fighter not = Better
Fighter just = Ranger and vise-versa
There are already other perks:
1. More skill points.
2. More class abilities.
3. Animal companion.
4. Spells
5. Evasion in medium armor.
6. Favored enemy/terrainPlenty of perks already on that list.
You've made this list multiple times.
You've made this list multiple times.
There are already other perks:
1. More skill points.
2. More class abilities.
3. Animal companion.
4. Spells
5. Evasion in medium armor.
6. Favored enemy/terrainPlenty of perks already on that list.
It should be read multiple times because people are not getting it.
It should be read multiple times because people are not getting it.You've made this list multiple times.
There are already other perks:
1. More skill points.
2. More class abilities.
3. Animal companion.
4. Spells
5. Evasion in medium armor.
6. Favored enemy/terrainPlenty of perks already on that list.
Hmm, I read the list multiple times and I don't see anything to get worked up about.
Both classes seem to be played a great deal in my observations. Fighters might get some feats later (I guess), but they definitely get the most feats, and for some players that is worth more than everything on that Ranger perk list. For the other players, they choose Rangers.
Or is there some new skew toward rangers now? I've seen them equally lambasted as a horrible class across the forums. This is the first thread I have read praising them, actually.
Fighter owns the Ranger.
Fighter only feats.
Weapon Specialization then greater. Better than favored enemy.
Weapon Training better than Favored enemy.
Penetrating strike then greater better than AC, if it is a fighting AC,
Disruptive and Spell breaker perhaps better than Spells.
Skills rely on party rogue or bard.
Fighter Armor wins, fighter in full plate is almost like a fighter in mithril full plate with Armor Training.
Ranger in mithiril full plate, using a feat.Slower speed. Max dex 3 ac penalty 3. Fighter in same armor dex 7 ac pen 0 full speed.
Two abilities that are great evasion and hide in plain sight.
Spells require a stat, as well as an action.
Ranger gets some good bonus feats that dont require prereqs to help them stay viable as a combatant. Some are decent mid chain feats this usually allows them to do something. Fighters get more feats to do something and usually they will complete the chain ending up doing something better.
Fighter has a couple clear cut roles. Full plate and tower shield. 2 handed power attack.
A Ranger as a more shifting roles. Of the 2 I probably would have more fun playing a Ranger. In a 4 person group in a +3 ecl. I would prefer to have a fighter.
It should be read multiple times because people are not getting it.You've made this list multiple times.
There are already other perks:
1. More skill points.
2. More class abilities.
3. Animal companion.
4. Spells
5. Evasion in medium armor.
6. Favored enemy/terrainPlenty of perks already on that list.
Fighter gets:
1. Armor Training (higher potential AC)
2. Weapon Training (higher attack/damage, CMB/CMD)
3. Feat Retraining
4. Access to Fighter only feats
5. Capstone ability can be extremely brutal
I agree, Fighter's need a little love, but I don't think the solution is to take it away from the Ranger. I'd rather see their skill points bumped to 4/level and give them some ability that grants some non-combat ability, replacing Bravery.
this thread grew quite a bit while i wasn't looking. I don't know what to say with the Fighter V.S. Ranger thing. I haven't played either long enough to have a firm opinion.