I think your initial question was, if its cool to skip a feat what would normally be necessary. In this case its a special ability of the ranger.
Monks for example can get feats they don´t meet prerequisites for too.
Why not?
In my opinion there are some feet chains that are not so cool.
Like if you want to play a awesome whip wielder:
Like Combat Expertise - Improved Trip - Fury´s Fall - Fury´s Snare.
Then you need Weapon Finesse and Serpent´s Lash.
So now you can pull of some decent Combat maneuver, but you don´t do a lot of damage.
For that you would need TWF and the followers too, what makes this build nearly only viable for fighters, since it takes so many feats.
In my imagination this is a rogue thing, because its cool, but you still don´t do much damage with TWF probably.
What i am trying to say is, that there are some feat chains that could be shortened somehow sometimes.
So my question would be at this point, what steps need to be taken to fix fighter if it is a underpowered class?
I have played both classes and while enjoy the skill perks of a Ranger, I never assumed the 2 classes had a large gap between them.
So my question would be at this point, what steps need to be taken to fix barbarian if it is a underpowered class?.
Change and emphasis mine.
Also paladin, rogue, monk, bard...
If the fighter needs fixing, the rest of those classes are pretty pathetic!
No I think the fighter is just fine.
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.
The only area I take issue at with the Ranger is the two good saves. I think the fighter should have two as well.
Skills I find aren't a problem but then I use the option in the old Glorian Campaign Guide that swaps out the 1st level bonus feat for 2 skill point a level and more class skills.
Favored enemey comes off about the same as the Weapon Training but weaker with Favored terrain balancing that out.
Spells are fine as the Ranger has to build their stats to use them and sacrifices something some where be it lower Str, Dex, or Con.
The other class feature are minor for the most part or circumstantial and balance well with Armor Training and the extra bonus feats. Like the animal companion while useful is not great unless you blow a feat for Boon Companion. That reduces you feats.
I just can't find anything though that balance out the two good saves compared the fighters 1 good save. Bravery just doesn't cut it. I think I'm going to house rule fighter can pick Reflex or Wil for a good save.
Why should a fighter be underpowered?
If you take a viable feat combination and specialize you can dish out tons of damage without ever going "empty".
And you can still pump up weak saves with items or a feat too.
I really don´t understand this lamenting about classes being underpowered. Compared to what?
As a fighter with weapon training you are very versatile too, even if you are stripped of your specialized weapon.
Just get used to it, there is no class that is cool in every situation, thats why you play in a group with different classes and then you still need some challenge.
The only point is that some feat chains could be shortened somehow, especially for classes that don´t have as many feats.
And the point, that if you are going Dex, you are gonna stuck with armor at some point because of Dex penalties.
What makes STR fighter types often more viable, but is a surely right thing.
Why should a fighter be underpowered?
Personally I do not find them underpowered. I also find that playing a twf build can be as effective as a thf build.
Though throughout this post people have been saying that fighter is underpowered, so if that is the case. Propose fix's rather than just argue about it.
So my question would be at this point, what steps need to be taken to fix barbarian if it is a underpowered class?.Change and emphasis mine.
Also paladin, rogue, monk, bard...
If the fighter needs fixing, the rest of those classes are pretty pathetic!
No I think the fighter is just fine.
Since the APG I do not have the impression the barbarian is at all underpowered. Some people will say fighters, barbarians and other non-spellcasters are underpowered no matter what really. The important thing is wether they function well in a party more than anything else.
The ranger is more versatile than a fighter, but in straight combat the fighter is better allround. Not a huge gap there, some people will say the ranger is better, some will say the fighter is, in my opinion it is just about the same.
Right, its a matter of cooperation.
The group i master has a barbarian, a cleric with freedom domain, a psion, and a ranger. The ranger is new to the game so he doesn´t really know what he can do, but if he does something, he is good at it mostly.
Then the barbarian is surely horrific, getting buffed by the casters, enlarged, then rage and some rounds later there is nothing left.
Even tore nearly tore down a whole tower made of magical enhanced thistle in a certain adventure playing in a fey realm partly.
So my question would be at this point, what steps need to be taken to fix barbarian if it is a underpowered class?.Change and emphasis mine.
Also paladin, rogue, monk, bard...
If the fighter needs fixing, the rest of those classes are pretty pathetic!
No I think the fighter is just fine.
I agree partially, I think in combat, the Fighter has a clearly defined role and does it pretty well. Pick a weapon, hit stuff with it. My only complaint about the fighter is he doesn't have anything to really do out of combat. Every class that gets spells, plus rogues, have some non-combat ability that is useful in some sort of non-combat situation.
Right now my thought is giving the Fighter a selection of skill groups and then allowing him to always use the aid another action with those skills and increasing the bonus when doing so.
To be clear I do not think the fighter is completely helpless -- I also do not think the ranger is hugely more powerful (in combat) than the fighter.
However the ranger clearly steps all over the fighter with the way he achieves his bonus feats, and steps on the fighters toes a bit with the number he gets -- in addition to his other perks.
I don't mind the ranger getting bonus feats -- I don't mind him having the other stuff. I do mind when the limited list becomes much broader, and when he has so much other things he can do in addition to the combat he can already do.
I don't think the ranger is "broke" or that fighter is a schmuck or anything.
This is simply a place in the rules that irks me. The rangers receive enough benefits already -- you want to fight and have bonus combat feats and ignore some prerequisites then that should be part of what the fighter does.
After all the fighter is supposed to be the one training in combat constantly. The fighter should get the benefit of ignoring some prerequisites -- not the nature boy with everything else on top of it.
the inability of fighters to do things out of combat is due to how players choose to design them. you can make a fighter who gets 6 sp a level and all the extra feats leave room to diversify. but ALOT of players choose not to.
So my question would be at this point, what steps need to be taken to fix barbarian if it is a underpowered class?.Change and emphasis mine.
Also paladin, rogue, monk, bard...
If the fighter needs fixing, the rest of those classes are pretty pathetic!
No I think the fighter is just fine.
I agree partially, I think in combat, the Fighter has a clearly defined role and does it pretty well. Pick a weapon, hit stuff with it. My only complaint about the fighter is he doesn't have anything to really do out of combat. Every class that gets spells, plus rogues, have some non-combat ability that is useful in some sort of non-combat situation.
Right now my thought is giving the Fighter a selection of skill groups and then allowing him to always use the aid another action with those skills and increasing the bonus when doing so.
I think the non-combat ability of characters can be compensated largely with taking specific skills, since a fighter can virtually take any skill and at least be moderately good at it.
You can just allow every class one or two extra skillpoints, personally I'd not do much more with the fighter, it is a bit of a blank slate that has some appeal for creative players, just because he doesn't have any particular special ability to be used outside of combat doesn't mean he is completely useless. They can for one be quite stealthy in armor, as well as jumping, climbing and riding among others. Otherwise multi-classing is an option, some feats might offer a solution as well.
the inability of fighters to do things out of combat is due to how players choose to design them. you can make a fighter who gets 6 sp a level and all the extra feats leave room to diversify. but ALOT of players choose not to.
But you can't get that and get everything else a fighter has.
A ranger gets it and the extra feats, spells, etc etc and has the added bonus of not having to have stats to allow him to get the feats he wants.
He can take twf, itwf, and gtwf with a dex of 14 and a str of 20 and never bother with weapon finesse. That is a huge advantage.
It allows him even more skill points, more hit points, and more attack and damage as he chooses.
If the fighter wants the same twf feats he must have the dex -- which means he cannot have more of the other things.
Why should the ranger -- with all his focus in other areas, and other abilities be more capable of taking combat feats than the fighter -- who's only thing is combat.
I've allowed it. Not only is it RAW, but Rangers are fundamentally supposed to be awesome. To deny them that is a crime against the fantasy genre itself.
+1
Why should the ranger -- with all his focus in other areas, and other abilities be more capable of taking combat feats than the fighter -- who's only thing is combat.
Very much, this.
Most of the time you start talking about fighters who are good at other things besides combat, you're also talking about fighters who have sacrificed a significant amount of their combat ability to do those other things. But since "combat ability" means different things to different people, rarely can you get naysayers to admit this.
Rangers are not more capable of taking combat feats. They are more capable of taking a few specific combat feats.
With a nice large choice of what those few specific combat feats are.
Only what 7 styles to choose from? With about 9 feats per style? of which you'll get 5?
And still not have to meet the prerequisites for?
(and cause I can't leave this part alone) While still doing everything else that makes you a ranger.
Because that doesn't eat up any of the "training time" you are using during down time when leveling, and the fighter whose sole focus as a class is combat somehow still can't figure out how to two weapon fight without a high dex when that is the only thing he is focusing on.
|
Yep. The fighter has his generalist focus of being able to learn anything, while the ranger has his specialist ability of being able to learn one thing really well.
And look, the fighter gets all those bonus feats, with an ability to swap out obsolete choices as he goes. While still doing everything else that makes him a fighter.
But what makes him a fighter isn't much (comparatively speaking).
5 more bonus feats, a small bonus on one type of save, the ability to move in armor better (something that can be mimicked with equipment choices), and the ability to swing increasingly better with some specific weapons.
Armor training however is useless in and of itself pass the second (and possibly first) stage of it unless you highly invest in dexterity.
The ability to swing better is nice -- but even here the ranger can match against certain foes (indeed his favored enemy bonus matches exactly with weapon training+the weapon focus/specialization feats) and with spells (like lead blades and gravity bow among others).
So the ranger who is spending all his time with spells, skills, saves, animal companions, focused bonuses against enemies, focused bonuses in environments, evasion, and camouflage is also able to out learn the fighter in the single area the fighter is supposed to be best at.
That's simply not right. It would be like letting the fighter have everything he has, and then giving the fighter the favored enemy and terrain bonuses too and then saying "you don't actually have to pick just one favored enemy or terrain you can just do this in any situation".
So my question would be at this point, what steps need to be taken to fix fighter if it is a underpowered class?
I have played both classes and while enjoy the skill perks of a Ranger, I never assumed the 2 classes had a large gap between them.
The fighter doesnt need to be fixed, it was fine. Game designers need to keep stealing fighter stuff for other classes.
Armor training was way better in Beta, not such a reliance in dex. I don't remember why they changed it now, it was years ago, but i recall some people crying about the whole dex thing.
Some of the beat stuff for fighter should have stayed.
We have a dwarf ranger in our group who fights two weapon style, he's got a 10 dex and went ranger specifically to get twf. The rest of the ranger stuff is merely "along with the package".
I think it's neat there is a way to TWF without the major investment in dex. I can envision dwarves with TWF style but not with really high dex's for some reason. Just seems strange.
Has repeating the same thing over and over worked for anyone who has ever posted here?
Once I kept on posting about how I thought people who repeated themselves over and over should be perma-banned from the Paizo forum, and I found a quarter on the street. Can't stop the magic.
Seriously, I think if you're going to use APG Ranger styles as a basis for comparison, you should also bring in APG Fighter variants... Which let Fighter 'Style Specialists' truly rock out at their Styles in ways not achievable via Feats. 2WF Fighter is hands down more awesome at 2WF than a 2WF Ranger. Archery Fighter is nicer at Archery than an Archery Ranger. 2Handed Fighter smacks down harder than a 2Handed Ranger. Probably the only area where Fighter Archetypes fall short vs. Ranger Style is Mounted Combat, since Fighters don't get a Companion Mount, and since Rangers kind-of had the 'Nature Boy' schtick first, I'm OK with that. Natural Weapons mostly sucks for both of them, though Ranger Spells can make it better (again, Original Nature Boy can keep his schtick). MAYBE Shield Style Rangers have an advantage in some sense by bypassing 2WF if they choose to do so, but that has been brought up as potential Errata for Shielded Fighter... and they don't get the actually unique abilities that the Fighter Variant gets, they just can bypass stat pre-reqs, i.e. min-max their numbers more.
Just wait until the 'Halfing Auto-Cannon' Ranger Style comes out in the Alkenstar Guide...
And no, that's not a style FOR Halfling Rangers...
|
After all the fighter is supposed to be the one training in combat constantly. The fighter should get the benefit of ignoring some prerequisites -- not the nature boy with everything else on top of it.
If totally ignoring prerequisites is a step too far for some people, how about a 'Versatile' scaling class ability, that let a Fighter count any of his stats as +1/+2/+3 higher, for the purposes of qualifying for feats?
(If there already is such an ability, ignore me)
|
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.
Weapon Specialization. Greater Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus, the rest of the fighter only feats...
Not to mention Weapon Training and Armor Training.
After all the fighter is supposed to be the one training in combat constantly. The fighter should get the benefit of ignoring some prerequisites -- not the nature boy with everything else on top of it.If totally ignoring prerequisites is a step too far for some people, how about a 'Versatile' scaling class ability, that let a Fighter count any of his stats as +1/+2/+3 higher, for the purposes of qualifying for feats?
(If there already is such an ability, ignore me)
Yeah I think it's a fair option.
I'm not saying that fighters are useless -- I'm just very irked that at the one thing they are supposed to be the best at, getting bonus feats for combat, the ranger steps all over their toes, and gets a better benefit on -- and then the ranger got new combat styles too which opened even more abilities for him.
@ Ciretose -- Catch up man, I mentioned those already and why I don't feel the really compare well.
I do not think the ranger is over powered, I don't think the fighter is useless. I do think that it is crap that the ranger is better at taking combat feats than the fighter is, and he gets everything else he does on top of that too.
We have a dwarf ranger in our group who fights two weapon style, he's got a 10 dex and went ranger specifically to get twf. The rest of the ranger stuff is merely "along with the package".
I think it's neat there is a way to TWF without the major investment in dex. I can envision dwarves with TWF style but not with really high dex's for some reason. Just seems strange.
I do to -- I think it should be something a fighter who specializes in combat should be able to do.
Not a ranger that specializes in everything else.
I have thought of an idea of a mobile fighter archer in my head that also works well and can do things the archery ranger cannot. The benefit of moving and shooting can be really useful if terrain is added into the equation or other things that block line of sight or someone casts a fog cloud near where the ranger is. The mobile fighter can choose to lose one arrow and fire multiple arrows. Or if you still wanted weapon training you could get the dervish archetype on an archer and still get rapid attack. You also can rapid shot and manyshot on rapid attack by RAW since it is a full attack.
The one benefit the archer ranger has is it get improved precise shot earlier. The other thing with the ranger is you may have to wait to get those feats like someone earlier mentioned furious focus until level 6. Also human archery ranger may really want precise shot at level 1 so that is two feats from their list. Having a minus four penalty shooting into melee is bad. Far shot sort of sucks. I am less than excited about shot on the run or pinpoint targeting. The only other thing is if you pick up weapon focus you can get point blank master which is better than any of the other feats. The fighter has the added ability of beign able to take feats in an order he chooses.
There is no dobut rangers are better in skills. Sometimes those skills like surival or tracking actually help the entire party. Or perception spotting an ambush. Rangers are better trackers.
|
|
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.Mithril plate is horrifically expensive (a huge deal in Society organized play), and weapon-trailing is "always there" while ranger bennies are situational and unpredictable.
6. Rangers do not have to meet prerequisites to take their bonus feats -- fighters do.Most prerequisite feats are better than the end-of-tree feat. I'll bet on a glaive-fighter with Power Attack any day over a TWF.
7. They both have the same BAB and Hit dice.
I would suggest (strongly) that total package rangers come out better.
Show me one ranger in twenty with a will-save that isn't ass, and I'll agree they're getting more than they should.
Most rangers are not WIS+ races, often CON- races, and they tend to multiclass with other no-will-save base classes such as rogue. Meanwhile, many fighters are cleric or wizard multiclasses, and are frequently dwarves.
Most rangers are not WIS+ races, often CON- races, and they tend to multiclass with other no-will-save base classes such as rogue. Meanwhile, many fighters are cleric or wizard multiclasses, and are frequently dwarves.
This is a point I won't give you -- saying "Fighters multi-class and therefore don't have tanked saves" is well a self defeating argument especially when you call for a level 20 ranger in the same sentence.
I've seen more rangers multi-class to arcane classes which give better (not worse) will saves, and a ranger that goes to 20 will have the same save as a fighter for a base, and more reason to have a wisdom of 14 than the fighter.
In addition since the ranger doesn't have to worry about stat prerequisites he has more points to throw at things like having a good will save. Plus most of the rangers I tend to see around here are dwarven meaning they have an even better save throw.
As this argument devolves down to "well at my table" and multiclassing I'm going to have to say it's a complete wash.
******
The problem with ignoring prerequisites isn't that it just applies to feats -- it applies to everything including stats -- problem the biggest issue with it in my mind.
I will agree that some of the ranger benefits are situational and easily lost, but I wouldn't say most. The animal companion isn't situational, neither is the camouflage, evasion, hide in plain sight, or spells.
*******
Again -- I'm not complaining that the fighter is useless -- I'm just saying that this is one perk I would think that the fighter would have over a generalist like the ranger.
The fighter doesnt need to be fixed, it was fine. Game designers need to keep stealing fighter stuff for other classes.So my question would be at this point, what steps need to be taken to fix fighter if it is a underpowered class?
I have played both classes and while enjoy the skill perks of a Ranger, I never assumed the 2 classes had a large gap between them.
Yes and no. Fighters lack in the defense department.
Armor training is nice, but it's all they get. Damage reduction kicks in very late Evasion, Uncanny Dodge, Stalwart, Charisma to Saves, Superstition.. there is nothing like this. One good save. Need int 13+ for half of the maneuvers (this kicks will saves). Few skill points (so, is more forced to be straightforward than, say, using a combination of skills).
I'm not saying of course they are underpowered, but for sure all these things make them more vulnerable than most people could think.
@About barbarians: say barbarians are underpowered after APG, just makes no sense. Sorry of being rude, but that is.
I think the non-combat ability of characters can be compensated largely with taking specific skills, since a fighter can virtually take any skill and at least be moderately good at it.You can just allow every class one or two extra skillpoints, personally I'd not do much more with the fighter, it is a bit of a blank slate that has some appeal for creative players, just because he doesn't have any particular special ability to be used outside of combat doesn't mean he is completely useless. They can for one be quite stealthy in armor, as well as jumping, climbing and riding among others. Otherwise multi-classing is an option, some feats might offer a solution as well.
Your solution is available to every class. That's not what I'm looking for.
The Fighter and Wizard both get 2 skill points per level, yet the Wizard is typically going to have a much higher utility value. I'm not looking to erase the gap, merely close it slightly.
|
|
This is a point I won't give you -- saying "Fighters multi-class and therefore don't have tanked saves" is well a self defeating argument especially when you call for a level 20 ranger in the same sentence.Where did I call for a level 20 ranger?
I will agree that some of the ranger benefits are situational and easily lost, but I wouldn't say most. The animal companion isn't situational, neither is the camouflage, evasion, hide in plain sight, or spells.
Personally, I've always considered ranger a kludge in concept, and haven't never been satisfied playing one even when tweaked to my tastes.
|
|
@ Ciretose -- Catch up man, I mentioned those already and why I don't feel the really compare well.
I do not think the ranger is over powered, I don't think the fighter is useless. I do think that it is crap that the ranger is better at taking combat feats than the fighter is, and he gets everything else he does on top of that too.
And I disagree.
At 4th Level the fighter gets a +2 to damage the ranger can't get on all attacks. At 5th it becomes a +3 to damage with a group of weapons and a +1 BAB bonus. Add another +1 to BAB at 8th, another at 9th for BAB and damage...
As you go level by level the advantages become substantial. Throw in the Armor training, and the fact they get twice as many feats and it balances nicely.
Armor training just plain rocks,
When I dm, armor check is still a game mechanic.
Some mods have low acrobatics checks. 0 can be difficult with someone with a bad ac pen like a tower sheild.
Think of it as an extra skill point to every physical skill.
Think of this as at least one feat for a plus 2 in two physical skills.
For people that want skilled fighters skill focus and traits can be good way to go as well as favored class options.
The 10 extra feet of movement in medium and then heavy armor, 5 if you are small.
Consider this equal to 1-3 feats in itself.
For instance I cant see how a ranger could move 30 feat in any heavy armor without the longstrider spell or magic.
Fleet doesnt apply, heavy and medium armor penalties apply.
Mithiril full plate would require the feat heavy armor profieceny and still movement would be lowered.
Longstrider still suffers from dispell attempts, which are getting more and more common, as well as an action to cast.
Dex while a 15th level fighter would need a dex of 24 to get the full dex bonus from mithril plate and armor training. This really isn't to hard at those levels.
Consider this 2-4 feats, it is conditional based on dex but a feat of plus one ac is almost the norm, dodge shield focus..
Armor Training is a great class ability simply amazing this is one of the reasons allot of the APG class options loose some power compared to the core class.
Comparing the 2 classes I would only think of one class ability the ranger has that compares to Armor training and that may be improved evasion.
Considering combat styles and other abilities equal to a fighters bonus feats.
The extra 10 ft of movement the +4 ac at 15th levl if realized with dex.
The reduction of Ac Penalty allowing a mithril full plate warrior ac pen 0 at level 11.
Mithiril breast plate would give the ranger ac pen -1.
Mithiril breast plate Ac bonus 6 dex 5 = 11
Mithiril full plate Ac 9 dex 3 armor training 4 = 16
Ranger getting a feat or an ability to wear heavy armor
Mithiril full plate Ac 9 max dex 3 ac = 12 speed 20 if medium size ar pen 3.
So what is 4 Ac, the difference of plate ranger and fighter in mithiril.
32k Ring of Protection, or amulet of nat armor.
16k in magic +4 armor or shield bonus.
Tower Shield which of course takes a feat.
To reach the same Ac a ranger would need 2 feats or Allot of money
36k cost for a +6 belt of Dexterity giving 3 int 3 cmd 3 ac/touch 3 reflex save.
Mithiril Armor expensive? Or more so in society play? I have a level 6 character that has mithiril full plate, I have a fourth level with mithiril medium armor, both in society. I guess it is how you decide how you want to build your characters growth. Both my characters priority was to get mithiril armor one for speed and the other for a later tiered ability that only works in medium armor.
The true cost of mithiril heavy armor is the difference between a +4/+5
Since it can't be applied later you have to consider the worth up front.
But in the end, I would be happy with a peice of armor that cost
+3 19.5 k that gives me the equal dex bonus of a +5 25k armor.
Or even a +2 14.5 k armor that is one ac worse than a +5 25k armor, and realizing the decrease of armor pen. I think that is a fair value for my intentions.
Both these characters will have a great advantage in anti magic zones.
The character that has the mithiril medium armor(elven chain) is infact a rogue. Last time I played him I rolled an acrobatics jump in the mid 30's +12 for speed bonus and -2 ar pen +10 for skills. The ability for my rogue to move 60 (expeditious retreat) flank almost anyone is great, jump over some traps tumble through an opponents square is why I love this rogue.
Don't dismiss armor training class feature or the increase of AC in any character it is pretty signifigant, at least 50percent of combat will target some ones ac. Touch ac as well.
Why all the arguments about how hard a 2 weapon fighter is to get a dex of 15 or 17? Its a stat like every other one. Check out Valeros the paizo premade that rocks 2 weapon fighting.
@ Ciretose -- Catch up man, I mentioned those already and why I don't feel the really compare well.
I do not think the ranger is over powered, I don't think the fighter is useless. I do think that it is crap that the ranger is better at taking combat feats than the fighter is, and he gets everything else he does on top of that too.
And I disagree.
At 4th Level the fighter gets a +2 to damage the ranger can't get on all attacks. At 5th it becomes a +3 to damage with a group of weapons and a +1 BAB bonus. Add another +1 to BAB at 8th, another at 9th for BAB and damage...
As you go level by level the advantages become substantial. Throw in the Armor training, and the fact they get twice as many feats and it balances nicely.
It is not a +1 on BAB (which would get them extra attacks faster and increase damage from power attack faster).
And it's not like the ranger is lacking for means to increase his damage either -- they are just a bit more limited than the fighters.
While the fighter does get 5 more feats than the ranger the ranger isn't lacking for nice things either.