I am about to start a new campaign as a player in Mongoose's drow war mega campaign. I want to play an archetypal Elven archer, but I need some convincing that my build is ok. Knowledge of the campaign isn't necessary.
I plan to play an Elven ranger who is all longbow, eventually taking the snap shot line to threaten with a bow, and definitely taking point blank master. My thinking is that I will always get a full attack, can have lots of different types of arrows to deal with damage reduction, and can eventually have clustered shots.
Ranger compared to the archer archetype for fighter loses 5 feats in twenty levels, plus a couple of virtual feats and the nice CMB with a bow tricks. For that, I get a cool pet, probably a dog, and I'll likely take boon companion to make it a full powered dog. Favored terrain, favored enemy, evasion, extra skill points to be sneaky, tracking, and perceptive, all make for a more versatile character, plus secondary healing in a party that probably won't have a full divine caster. All of this sounds great, but I keep having this feeling that I'm making the wrong choice. I don't need for the character to be optimal, just fun and with some options so I don't get bored if we play all 30 levels of this thing.
Help me believe that I'm making the right choice. Or convince me I'm wrong. But don't try to convince me to play a wizard.
Ranger compared to the archer archetype for fighter loses 5 feats in twenty levels, plus a couple of virtual feats and the nice CMB with a bow tricks. For that, I get a cool pet, probably a dog, and I'll likely take boon companion to make it a full powered dog.Boon companion is of no use to you unless you multi-class. What it does it raises your effective CLASS level, not your effective "druid" level to the limit of your character level in terms of Animal companion.
Archer Ranger and Archer Fighter are equally valid choices, they are suited for different aims.
Not actually true LazarX. A ranger can take it just fine.
Yeah. I don't know hw much the opponent is actually drow. I'm guessing it isn't that easy. I probably won't max out that enemy, because that could get kind of stupid, but I'll put quite a few into humanoid (elf)
I think they are both going to be very effective in combat. The last time I picked an archer ranger over a archer fighter, the decision really came down to: what else do I want to be able to do? Things like casting spells and having skill points to spare make all difference when it comes to between combat things. I find I get really bored when playing a fighter. Even if I have a great background story and roleplaying opportunities, I still struggle to be useful out of combat. The ranger also has more flexibility in combat, just due to things like spells and an animal companion, which in the end make him more effective.
You probably won't notice the slight extra damage that a fighter may sometimes be able to beat a ranger on. But you will notice when you have to sit on your hands as a fighter because, for whatever reason, shooting a bow isn't the appropriate thing at the moment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ZEN ARCHER~~~~
Why zen archer, SF? I've played lots of monks, but never tried to build a zen archer.
Why zen archer, SF? I've played lots of monks, but never tried to build a zen archer.
Zen archer is a wonderful monk archtype that lets you not only deal wonderful damage but stay highly mobile.
|
I don't know much about the fighter archer but my main character is a gnome ranger and he has become the go to guy for damage. Assuming everything hits I do 4d6+18 damage add another 4d6 electric and if it is a human (favored enemy) add another 16 points of damage. If I remember the gravity bow spell (the only spell I use) it becomes 4d8. He is a lvl 7 with str of 12 and dex of 16 so I almost always hit with something. My companion is a riding dog (I took boon companion) and while he doesn't do much damage the trip has help end many a fight. I always care a cure light wounds wand, because you always need a extra healer. Plus with the high number of skill points it is easy to work in disable device and slight of hand in case you don't have a rogue.
Of course, this is with a gnome, since you are going with the taller cousin you will have higher str and some other options like arcane archer. All in all I like the ranger as I don't have to dip into another class to get what I want out of it.
Flurry of blows but with a ki-focus composite longbow. These magic lawful adamantine arrows use the Unarmed Strike damage (2d10 at level 20) at 160 feet. Free weapon foc and spec and perfect strike. you may choose to have your wisdom affect your attack rather than dexterity, so whichever is higher. You're basically the sniper with a machine-gun of the group.
Flurry of blows but with a ki-focus composite longbow. These magic lawful adamantine arrows use the Unarmed Strike damage (2d10 at level 20) at 160 feet. Free weapon foc and spec and perfect strike. you may choose to have your wisdom affect your attack rather than dexterity, so whichever is higher. You're basically the sniper with a machine-gun of the group.
and you can have the pet via eldritch heritage sylvan.
zen archer lets you flurry with bow, for a maximum of +18/+18/+13/+13/+8/+8/+3 . you can add an arrow for haste, and another with Ki.
using a mount will make it easier to get full round attack every round.
I saw Reynolds post, and if you look at the TEXT of the feat as quoted below, he's clearly wrong.
The abilities of your animal companion or familiar are calculated as though your class were four levels higher, to a maximum bonus equal to your character level.
A Ranger who takes this feat is treated as if his RANGER class were four levels higher up to the maximum of his character level. so a single class 15th level Ranger is treated as if he was a 15th level Ranger.
Don't nitpick the wording of this feat. That way lies madness.[1]
Because, the text of the feat says the maximum bonus equals your character level. So, a 1st-level ranger with this feat would count as a 2nd-level ranger, and a 10th-level ranger would count as a 14th-level ranger.
That's almost certainly not what was intended, but it's what the feat actually says to do.
[1] OK; madness was an exaggeration.
Not actually true LazarX. A ranger can take it just fine.Ranger compared to the archer archetype for fighter loses 5 feats in twenty levels, plus a couple of virtual feats and the nice CMB with a bow tricks. For that, I get a cool pet, probably a dog, and I'll likely take boon companion to make it a full powered dog.Boon companion is of no use to you unless you multi-class. What it does it raises your effective CLASS level, not your effective "druid" level to the limit of your character level in terms of Animal companion.
Archer Ranger and Archer Fighter are equally valid choices, they are suited for different aims.
I saw Reynolds post, and if you look at the TEXT of the feat as quoted below, he's clearly wrong.
The abilities of your animal companion or familiar are calculated as though your class were four levels higher, to a maximum bonus equal to your character level.
A Ranger who takes this feat is treated as if his RANGER class were four levels higher up to the maximum of his character level. so a single class 15th level Ranger is treated as if he was a 15th level Ranger.
When SKR says its an offical ruling its hard to get more offical than that man.
Not actually true LazarX. A ranger can take it just fine.Ranger compared to the archer archetype for fighter loses 5 feats in twenty levels, plus a couple of virtual feats and the nice CMB with a bow tricks. For that, I get a cool pet, probably a dog, and I'll likely take boon companion to make it a full powered dog.Boon companion is of no use to you unless you multi-class. What it does it raises your effective CLASS level, not your effective "druid" level to the limit of your character level in terms of Animal companion.
Archer Ranger and Archer Fighter are equally valid choices, they are suited for different aims.
I saw Reynolds post, and if you look at the TEXT of the feat as quoted below, he's clearly wrong.
The abilities of your animal companion or familiar are calculated as though your class were four levels higher, to a maximum bonus equal to your character level.
A Ranger who takes this feat is treated as if his RANGER class were four levels higher up to the maximum of his character level. so a single class 15th level Ranger is treated as if he was a 15th level Ranger.
Do you often ignore the intent of official errata, or just when it supports you?
As James Jacobs himself as said, messageboard postings are not official erratta.
Read the post. It says that due to the lack of space for official errata for non hardcover books, that post is official errata. Until a better solution is had.
SKR even said it was a good deal for rangers.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As James Jacobs himself as said, messageboard postings are not official erratta. The Boon Companion feat was intended for multi-class characters, I'm fairly sure it was not meant so that the Ranger would have a druid-level powered companion.
James message board post > your fairly sure opinion.
To the OP:
This is one way to play an archer ranger. I feel the ranger is a better archer because of spells, tough mount and FE/FT bonuses. The biggest reason in my mind is the early entry feats. Ignoring cover penalties at level 6 vs level 10 is great.
I'm currently playing an ranger9 archer and I'm totally satisfied with my choice.
I'm using the Guide archetype, so no animal companion and a few other differences, especially in regards of favored enemies: normally I deal a bit less damage compared to a fighter, but two times per day when it really matters I'm about as effective as the fighter since the archetype uses a smite-like favored enemy (actually level 9 comparison for the ranger). From level 10 onward a standard ranger would be as good as the guide archetype thanks to the spell Instant enemy.
I'd give the crown to the fighter as for damage dealing but mostly for combats with a lot of enemies: in the BBEG fights the ranger is at least as powerful as the fighter. This is even more so in a group with stingy spell casters, since you can nova a bit using dedicated spells.
Aside from minor differences in combat, out of combat is where the ranger is simply way ahead: I've got a more than decent amount of skills, good saves, some nifty ability and more importantly spells. Scouting and tracking are what the ranger do best, but even the casual knowledge nature, heal or sense motive checks are useful to the group and they are not something I could have pulled off with a fighter.
Personally I'd play a fighter over a ranger only for flavor reason (i.e. if I had a druid in my group) or if I was only interested in combat, which does not seems what you are looking for.
Striaght out of the box fighter is better. No frills, no magic, no extra paperwork. Fighters win. But that's ok. Becauseo in many more ways rangers conquer.
Why?
Mainly because spells.
Instant enemy, gravity bow, entangle, and others are great spells they have on their list. Add that they can also use wands of cure light wounds and you have a secondary outlet for healing there.
Then there's skills which rangers have tons of.
|
Am I really reading yet another people arguing that a developer's final take on a rule - and not as a simple opinion about how the rule should work - isn't enough in itself ?
Seriously ?
It's like saying to god "no u wrong" because he personnally appears to you, moves some mountains to prove who he is, but says something that differs from your interpretation of the bible.
Striaght out of the box fighter is better. No frills, no magic, no extra paperwork. Fighters win. But that's ok. Becauseo in many more ways rangers conquer.
Why?
Mainly because spells.
Instant enemy, gravity bow, entangle, and others are great spells they have on their list. Add that they can also use wands of cure light wounds and you have a secondary outlet for healing there.
Then there's skills which rangers have tons of.
Plus, you have insies with those hot dryads.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's get this post back on track.
We can ignore the whole boon companion thing if you realize that by taking the Beastmaster Archtype from APG, you lose one feat (which you were gonna blow on boon companion anyway) and gain access to all the druid animal companions (including vermin - giant wasp!) and that as you level up, your ranger level boosts up to full comparative druid level (at 11th level).
My elven ranger feat selection has been this so far
1st Weapon Focus
2nd Precise Shot
3rd Endurance (free)
3rd Rapid Shot
5th Deadly Aim
7th Manyshot
9th Improved Initiative
10th Point Blank Master
11th Improved Precise Shot
.............that's as far as I've gotten
Just remember to wear a spiked mithril breastplate so that you gain the benefits of threating in melee as well as always having a weapon at hand that you don't have to switch to. Then upgrade to celestial armor when your dex bonus climbs past +5
Avoid Point Blank Shot, it's a trap!
Your short range is 110 ft with a composite longbow, no reason to get within 30ft so the monsters can walk up and hammer on you.
Always buy:
A Whetstone
Cold Iron Arrows (they cost a whole 2 gp for 20)
Blunt arrows
Grappling Arrows (silk or spider silk knotted rope)
Smoke Arrows
Whistling Arrows
Thistle Arrows
Silver, Adamantine, and Ghost Salt Weapon Blanch (Have it already melted on some arrows so it's ready to go)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ranger is fine for this. I prefer Guide, since it's less hassle IMO. Grab Improved Precise Shot at level 6, since it's the main benefit of a ranger archer.
But I can't fully recommend that, or the fighter.
Here's what I'd recommend.
Bard Archer. Inquisitor Archer. Or Cleric Arche--oh no wizards, ok. Scratch that one.
The reason for this is simple. The base archer is exceedingly powerful, into the overpowered stage because it marginalizes the contributions of the rest of your party's martial types.
One of your goals is to be always able to full-attack. This means that before your melee buddies get into position, you'll probably have taken out anywhere from 2 to 4 enemies, diminishing the fun that your friends are having. You'll be having a lot of fun, but at the expense of your friends. This has almost always been the case with archers at tables I've sat at, so just a word of the warning.
So why do I recommend the above two?
Having your party chip in to help cover the cost of a rod of quicken, lesser at level 7 will let you case Haste, Inspire Courage, and Good Hope in one round. That's +5 to hit, +4 damage, +1 AC, +30 move speed, +2 or 3 reflex (not sure if the Haste and GH ones stack), +4 vs fear / charm, and an extra attack at full BAB. In one round. That's wonderful.
And the PF bard is vastly different from the 3.5 one, so you just start your performance (you could even fluff it as firing off a warning arrow, intentionally missing), and letting the free action / magic maintain it.
So, you spend your 1st round making yourself and everyone else awesome, and the melee types have a chance to get into position, so they can do their thing next round when you're full attacking as well. It's the best of both worlds. You get to do amazing things, they get to do amazing things (mostly due to you ;) Remember, every hit-that-would've-missed is your DPR. Every extra attack is your DPR as well.)
Or...
Plus, they have a really cool flavor potential, and their spell list is full of interesting spells.
This game isn't a competition, let everyone have fun :)
I personally think that a standard fighter who uses a bow to be that best option with armor training to get a massive dex bonus in breastplate and a back-up weapon training also having access to weapon focus and specs. a feat at every level. i really do think that paizo overvalues combat maneuvers.
That being said i cannot build ranger, whenever i try i just think i could make a better fighter. THAT IS JUST ME! i just don't get it ya know.
If starting at 11th level or higher a mobile fighter or dervish archer could be awesome to play because you still get some armor training and you get mobile attack which you can still use rapid and many shot with to get two attacks at -2 one at -7 and one at -12 off your normal attack bonus and still move. Also becoming slowed as an archer sucks. You could also do this with the dawnflower dervish archtype but some gms may not think it was intended to do that and still get weapon training.
One interesting thing rangers can do is take improved precise shot at 6th manyshot at 7th level and take point blank master at 10th. Haven't gotten to play that build all the way up to that level though.
|
As a few others have said, standard fighter is better than archer fighter. Especially if you're going to be fighting in the underdark. One of the benefits of AF is getting more distance, which will do nothing most of the time in the darklands.
Though, my vote would be zen archer monk myself. I checked it out for pfs, and over the first 12 lvls, the ZA gets 1 more bonus feat than the fighter does, and with a ki point can bump the damage up to his unarmed damage. Not to mention the flurry of arrows. Go high WIS & less higher DEX STR CON and you'll be golden.
Avoid Point Blank Shot, it's a trap!It's not a trap, it's a pre-req to getting Precise Shot unless you've got a class/race/other gimmick which allows you to bypass it. Even so, at close range it's like an extra helping of weapon focus and an added bit of damage, which pays off since you're going to be doing a lot of your shooting in close quarters if you run dungeons.
I think he was talking in context of a ranger build. You can get more mileage out of your base feats by skipping Point Blank Shot, and your combat style feats ignore it as a requirement.
I agree with you on it not being a trap feat, however. An extra +1/+1 to close-quarters shooting is nice and worth a feat for most archers. Pure ranger is probably the only archer build where it can be easily ignored.
I play rangers almost exclusively.
In my last game another member of the party played a ranged fighter.
in combat he was game breathtakingly powerful. between weapon focus and weapon specialization high dex/str, deadly aim, many shot, rapid shot etc etc he did disgusting amounts of damage.
outside of combat... he dozed off waiting for combat to start.
in combat I was balance with the rest of the party, but could shine when the enemy was undead (maxed favorite enemy) and using a few spells could become even more powerful in the correct battle.
outside of combat my character was able to back up the stealther instead of sending her out alone, had high knowledge skills in order to gain information on monsters, high perception and most fun was tracking enemies using my tracking skills and then tracking down their treasure by skinning them and using the treasure map ranger spell ^_^.
In other words playing a ranged fighter can easily lead to a powerful, even overpowered character in combat. but if your game allows any out of combat activities you will likely want to play the ranger.
On a side note... ranger pets suck... other than being cute and maybe using them to suck up attacks of opportunity or gain flanking bonus they are weak no matter what you do.
this time around I am playing a spirit ranger, more spell utility and I will simply take leadership at level 7 to gain an intelligent cohort (hopefully a pseudodragon)
Avoid Point Blank Shot, it's a trap!
As an archer I find every bonus to damage useful, and bonus to attack is even better.
Especially at levels 6-9, where you have a huge number of attacks and not so many bonuses to hit/damage, I usually choose to be 10-20 feet behind the tank and take the bonus (I'd also hate to loose an haste spell cast on the group because I'm too far away).Besides, open environments are not so common in my experience, so more often than not being close to the enemy or not is not something you choose (of course this depends on the style of the adventure).
Even in the open I often prefer to stick close to the bulk of the group for potential unseen enemies nearby.
Moreover, enemies are often as fast as PCs (always faster actually, unless everyone is hasted), so going really far 1) takes time, which I like to use killing enemies 2) make you vulnerable if they decide to attack you and the tank struggle to pursue them.
All in all, imho PBS it's not mandatory for a ranger but still a strong asset (in my game I'd rather have access to another PBS than to another weapon focus or to weapon specialization)
On a side note... ranger pets suck... other than being cute and maybe using them to suck up attacks of opportunity or gain flanking bonus they are weak no matter what you do.Companion boon.
You can also use them as mounts. Carry your crap. If you ahve a druid in the group they can benefit from the types of buffs that make "weak" seem rather relative when your Enlarged Advanced Magic Fanged Stonskinned Barkskinned wolf is ripping someone to pieces.
On a side note... ranger pets suck... other than being cute and maybe using them to suck up attacks of opportunity or gain flanking bonus they are weak no matter what you do.Companion boon.
personally, (and this is just my oppinion) I would rather simply wait till level 7 and take leadership in order to get an intelligent companion rather than fiddle with a feat from an obscure book that my GM may not allow and which still leaves me with a limited pet.
.... even druid pets kind of suck... well... if they are done right.
many people play pets as an extension of self they go where and do exactly what the character wants the pet to do with telepathic perfection which is not how they should be played in my opinion. A properly played pet should probably be played as an NPC by the GM and react poorly to things like repeated injury or unusual conditions.
also... even the druid pet at full level is not a GREAT benefit to battle as you have to spend round buffing them and then they can still be a bit squishy. If it dies and your GM basically allows a fully trained clone of your pet to wander up to the camp fire the next time you camp thats kind of poor play in my opinion.
I think the telepathic communication bit is just an extension of how easy it is to get them to do things. And they are loyal to you, unlike most animals. So you can't just assume that since an animal would do something, they'd do it as well.
I think the telepathic communication bit is just an extension of how easy it is to get them to do things. And they are loyal to you, unlike most animals. So you can't just assume that since an animal would do something, they'd do it as well.
have you ever worked with a trained animal? I mean a fully trained professional animal such as the dogs used in a K9 unit.
they are highly intelligent, suicidal loyal, even able to improvise beyond their training to a limited degree.
however... i would be hard pressed to find any animal in the world that without very specific training can be told to run behind that specific guy out of a group of 6 and stand behind him at an exact angle relative to another of my friends in order to assist him in battle.
or to tell a dog that has been trained to fight and subdue humanoids and other animals to charge something the size of an elephant with wings that spits fire.
a properly played animal companion should be limited to its training and a small margin to improvise based on its limited intelligence.
far from making the game more complicated I have always found this to be more fun when the pet does something unexpected or even annoying... like constantly retrieving the bow that i used for a few levels then handed down to an ally or walking boldly down the middle of a hallway when I am trying to stealth because I never trained it to stealth and I forgot to tell it to stay.
having said that.... an intelligent cohort is also fun uses the same feat slot, comes with other benefits (other followers) and does not require specific training
|
|
personally, (and this is just my oppinion) I would rather simply wait till level 7 and take leadership in order to get an intelligent companion rather than fiddle with a feat from an obscure book that my GM may not allow and which still leaves me with a limited pet.
If your DM is letting you take Leadership, over a feat from an obscure (Paizo) book that he could simply take two seconds to read to see it simply improves a companion up to a not-sucking-too-much level, then the problem isn't the ranger's pet.
Also, just sayin', this feat is pretty much the equivalent for a ranger of totally-clean-and-shiny Ultimate Combat's Horse Master for a cavalier.
On a side note... ranger pets suck... other than being cute and maybe using them to suck up attacks of opportunity or gain flanking bonus they are weak no matter what you do.Companion boon.personally, (and this is just my oppinion) I would rather simply wait till level 7 and take leadership in order to get an intelligent companion rather than fiddle with a feat from an obscure book that my GM may not allow and which still leaves me with a limited pet.
.... even druid pets kind of suck... well... if they are done right.
many people play pets as an extension of self they go where and do exactly what the character wants the pet to do with telepathic perfection which is not how they should be played in my opinion. A properly played pet should probably be played as an NPC by the GM and react poorly to things like repeated injury or unusual conditions.
also... even the druid pet at full level is not a GREAT benefit to battle as you have to spend round buffing them and then they can still be a bit squishy. If it dies and your GM basically allows a fully trained clone of your pet to wander up to the camp fire the next time you camp thats kind of poor play in my opinion.
"Right" is relative to the desires of the GM and players. as a GM I don't want to be playing other peoples characters, especially in combat.
Generally I might pipe in when things don't seem "right" .
Often times how they "should" be played turns into an exercise in wasting precious gaming time.
I think the telepathic communication bit is just an extension of how easy it is to get them to do things. And they are loyal to you, unlike most animals. So you can't just assume that since an animal would do something, they'd do it as well.have you ever worked with a trained animal? I mean a fully trained professional animal such as the dogs used in a K9 unit.
they are highly intelligent, suicidal loyal, even able to improvise beyond their training to a limited degree.
however... i would be hard pressed to find any animal in the world that without very specific training can be told to run behind that specific guy out of a group of 6 and stand behind him at an exact angle relative to another of my friends in order to assist him in battle.
or to tell a dog that has been trained to fight and subdue humanoids and other animals to charge something the size of an elephant with wings that spits fire.
a properly played animal companion should be limited to its training and a small margin to improvise based on its limited intelligence.
far from making the game more complicated I have always found this to be more fun when the pet does something unexpected or even annoying... like constantly retrieving the bow that i used for a few levels then handed down to an ally or walking boldly down the middle of a hallway when I am trying to stealth because I never trained it to stealth and I forgot to tell it to stay.
having said that.... an intelligent cohort is also fun uses the same feat slot, comes with other benefits (other followers) and does not require specific training
Polic officers, even the best ones, don't have the ability to cast speak with animals and communicate directly to their dogs.
Consider: Animal companions can be seen as manifestation of Nature's Will. And in many ways, make a lot more sense that way.
Consider: Animal companions can be seen as manifestation of Nature's Will. And in many ways, make a lot more sense that way.
so your saying that an animal companion should be some kind of divine magical construct? that's fine. I mean I am not going to knock you for it. and it does make them a much better tool as they are essentially a permanent summon with the full knowledge and intelligence of the character and an immunity to permanent death.
thats not how the animal companion was intended but if the GM does it that way that's totally fine... mine dont and I wouldt really like that on a personal level.
note Tarx. most characters do not have a magical means to speak with their companion unless they take the time to cast the spell. also... i never said the GM should play the character. I said the GM should play the NPC that the character has chosen as an animal companion or cohort. remember... the whole point of my comment was that animal companions are not some kind of magical extension of the player in the same way a familiar or magical mount is. And thus when played correctly are still rather limited even with the boon companion feat which I think is inferior to taking a non companion variant (such as spirit ranger) and the leadership feat.
just my opinion on the matter. If you play in a game where animal companions are perfectly controlled immortal automations and you want to take one and bring it up to your level using a feat your entirely entitled to do so and i am sure your game will progress in a fun and rewarding way.... I simply post an alternative viewpoint.
Consider: Animal companions can be seen as manifestation of Nature's Will. And in many ways, make a lot more sense that way.so your saying that an animal companion should be some kind of divine magical construct? that's fine. I mean I am not going to knock you for it. and it does make them a much better tool as they are essentially a permanent summon with the full knowledge and intelligence of the character and an immunity to permanent death.
thats not how the animal companion was intended but if the GM does it that way that's totally fine... mine dont and I wouldt really like that on a personal level.
See, I would say it makes more sense for them to be manifestations of nature than otherwise. Why? Because they aren't normal animals.
They get better as the druid's connection to nature gets stronger (as in, when they gain levels).
What do you do to get a new one? Pray uninterrupted for 24 hours in a spot. And an animal just magically appears to you.
They can dismiss animal companions whenever, and just do this ceremony again to get a new one, so clearly there's something not completely normal going on.
What do you do to get a new one? Pray uninterrupted for 24 hours in a spot. And an animal just magically appears to you.They can dismiss animal companions whenever, and just do this ceremony again to get a new one, so clearly there's something not completely normal going on.
good points.
never really thought of it that way.
I still feel that animal companions are generally weak and if I am going to waste a feat on the companion I would rather just take leadership than take boon companion. I just think its more versatile. I can get an intelligent cohort, other followers (like informants in the thieves guild or a merchant that can find me cool things... even a petty crafter that will make arrows and potions for cheap/free), and my cohort does not necessarily have to be humanoid. I am working on a pseudodragon in my current game but a Worg, blink dog, or some other intelligent animal can be just as viable.
Okay, I know the original options are fighter vs ranger, and restricted to only those two I push ranger everyday of the week and here's why: as someone said above you are useful outside of combat and thus nota one trick pony. Your party will thank you for this. But if your party is a more hack and slash party and the DM caters to that, go fighter.
Now branching out, I know the monk was brought up, but frankly I'm surprised the divine hunter paladin archetype has not. You get a free precise and improved precise shot feat plus the ability to buff your weapon AND smite evil. You get spells and three great saves thanks to the charisma bonus. You get some skills that can help the party out of combat too, diplomacy and knowledge nobility (situational on the campaign, I know, but it has save my parties butts in SoCal encounters too many times for me to ignore).
Another one to consider is the elf bard/arcane archer build. Arcane archers are just brutal, and the bard give you use multiple role options in the party with your massive skill list and buffing abilities. And outside of combat you become one of the most usefull party members if not the most.
Food for thought.
Thanks for the help, all. The monk and paladin options look interesting, though it would be toug to play a monk who gives up evasion. All of the play experience anecdotes are
Helpful. I usually GM for our group, and I haven't played a ranger since early 3.0. I think the ability to participate reasonably well in combat combined with the skills is going to be good. Healing is a great bonus, and some of the pathfinder ranger spells seem like a lot of fun. I'll post a build here for critique.
Thanks for the help, all. The monk and paladin options look interesting, though it would be toug to play a monk who gives up evasion. All of the play experience anecdotes are
Helpful. I usually GM for our group, and I haven't played a ranger since early 3.0. I think the ability to participate reasonably well in combat combined with the skills is going to be good. Healing is a great bonus, and some of the pathfinder ranger spells seem like a lot of fun. I'll post a build here for critique.
The Divine Hunter Paladin has become one of my favorites. What I like best is that my aura gives any ally within ten feet of me free use of the precise shot and improved precise shot feat. This helps any and all other ranged folks immensely and even helps the casters shooting into combat :) It has the feel of the teamwork feats, but doesn't require anyone else to take the feats :P
Anyways - I look forward to seeing your Ranger build.
those abilities seem a little useless... the only time I can see it being useful is when your stacked up in a dungeon of some sort and only the first 1 or two people in the stack are able to melee.
sure there are a few bonuses like the mercy arrow or something... but other than that the class seems week.... then again I play rangers almost exclusively so i may try some other ranged classes in order to shake things up.