I'm making some changes to the Ranger for one of my players. He doesn't want to cast spells , but he wants both the hunter's tricks from the Skirmisher archetypes and traps from the Trapper archetype. I think I can accommodate this by reducing the BAB down to that of a Rogue's, but I feel doing this will make the Ranger too weak. Suggestions on balancing?
I think you can combine those two archetypes without much issue. They are generally seen as weak anyways.
Or you could grant a trick and a trap at 5th level, then at 7th level and every two thereafter, they can choose either a trap or a trick (not both, as it would be if you combined them).
Or you use the very well received Spell-less Ranger by Open Design.
Also, you are right that giving it rogue BAB would make it too weak.
Note that the spell-less ranger I linked to doesn't get the traps.
Thank you for the feedback, but my question hasn't really been answered. Let me rephrase.
What would I have to do to balance the Ranger if I dropped it's current BAB to the Rogue's and removed spells, as it is my intention to do so?
I apologize for not being clear in my early post about the nature of my inquiry.
Lowering BAB on Ranger would seriously mess with that class (especially that HD is generally tied to BAB). The only counterweight to that I can think is one you are not interested in the first place: improving spellcasting to Bard/Magus progression *and* giving full druidic Animal Companion. Without spellcasting there is little that can be done to counterbalance reduction in BAB - I am afraid that a medium BAB progression ranger-like class would have to be build from ground up to make it decent and playable.
That's what I was afraid of... Thank you for the input
Just out of curiosity, why would you do that to the Ranger?
I have the solution for you.
And you're done.
If replacing combat style feats is no good for you, either have each trap replace other features like favoured enemies or terrains, or give him a skirmisher with trapfinding and tell him to take the feat the normal way.
Just out of curiosity, why would you do that to the Ranger?
Well, it has a lot to do with the player. He feels that the Ranger is too much like the Paladin. With the 1st-4th level spells, d10 hit die, and full BAB, his argument does hold some (albeit only a little) water. He wants the Ranger to be more scoundrel-like, which is why he prefers the idea of traps to tricks, as he feels that is just a poor attempt to turn the Ranger into a Rogue hybrid. However, he would prefer a Ranger which has more in common with the Rogue than the Paladin. Thus, I divided the class in two. The full BAB, 1st-4th spells, and d10 hit die Paladin-like Ranger becomes the "Shaman" (with other modifications), while a 3/4 BAB, spell-free, d8 hit die Rogue-like Ranger becomes the "Hunter". Taxing, yes. But I am resolved to see it through.
Sounds like your player would be better suited with a homebrew variant of rogue than a complete rebuild of the ranger, which is essentially what you're doing. In fact, by the time you're done, it sounds like you really don't have a ranger at all. Not to insult your abilities as a DM or anything, it just doesn't make sense.
The rogue HAS a 3/4 BAB, no spells, and a d8 hit die already, AND has the skills and talents to deal with traps and potentially trapsetting. Add a few options to the rogue talent pool from the ranger's features and archetypes and slow the sneak attack progression to 1/3 levels, swapping those extra levels out for elements of the ranger. Saves you a TON of hassle and achieves a very similar, if not the exact same effect.
Also, I find the concept of a "shaman" having a higher BAB than a "hunter" a bit vexing.
|
Sounds like your player would be better suited with a homebrew variant of rogue than a complete rebuild of the ranger, which is essentially what you're doing. In fact, by the time you're done, it sounds like you really don't have a ranger at all. Not to insult your abilities as a DM or anything, it just doesn't make sense.
The rogue HAS a 3/4 BAB, no spells, and a d8 hit die already, AND has the skills and talents to deal with traps and potentially trapsetting. Add a few options to the rogue talent pool from the ranger's features and archetypes and slow the sneak attack progression to 1/3 levels, swapping those extra levels out for elements of the ranger. Saves you a TON of hassle and achieves a very similar, if not the exact same effect.
Also, I find the concept of a "shaman" having a higher BAB than a "hunter" a bit vexing.
I agree with Foghammer here. You seem to be looking more for a Rogue variant than a Ranger variant. Why not use the Scout Archetype?
Sounds like your player would be better suited with a homebrew variant of rogue than a complete rebuild of the ranger, which is essentially what you're doing.
Also, I find the concept of a "shaman" having a higher BAB than a "hunter" a bit vexing.
I agree, however he likes everything else about the Ranger. He wants animal companions, favored enemies/ terrain, quarry, hide in plain sight, etc. So either I'm left with the headache of turning the Rogue into a Ranger or the headache of turning the Ranger into a Rogue. Either way, its proving to be a headache.
The concepts for the two homebrewed classes are based on the World of Warcraft Enhancement Shaman and Hunter classes.
Your player can't have the best of both worlds. He's putting too much on you.
He's going to have to make some concessions or you're going to have a headache, either building this class or dealing with the monster that will come out of it.
Thanks for the input, everyone. I will most likely suggest the trapper ranger or the scout rogue archetype for him.
I'd say tell him to multiclass. Take the Trapper Ranger and then simply take Rogue.
I forbid multiclassing and prestige classes as a house rule.