Trapper Ranger worth it?


Advice


Okay, so I've got a group consisting of an Old Human Wizard (Universalist, Arcanamirium Crafter), a Human Necromancer, a Dwarf Cleric of Angradd (Smoke and Tactics domains, battle cleric) and a Catfolk Ranger for an upcoming Kingmaker campaign with me as the DM.

The Ranger's stats are all excellent (lucky rolls for the new guy) and he's kinda going for a switch-hitter build as a result. However, the one thing is that we lack a person who can disarm magical traps (the Trapfinding ability), so I considered letting him pick the Trapper archetype for the character. However, is it worth the trade-off of losing all spellcasting abilities? I'm also worried that it might not fit a former mercenary to be only good at laying traps either way.

So yeah, either Trapper archetype or he takes a few levels of Rogue. In terms of optimizing, which one is the better idea?

If both ideas are not good, anyone got a third option?

My last option is to just to set down the house-rule that Wizards and Rangers can disarm magical traps as well.


So, I have a gestalt character, and even with the other half of my character being a full-caster (witch), I am missing the spells my Ranger side would have given me.
The traps are fun, but very limited. A few are great (sleet storm, for example), but most are lack luster, in my opinion.

That said, consider the Urban Ranger variant, it will give you trapfinding and disable device as a class skill.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Since your are the DM, you may want to consider this revision of the Trapper archetype for your player. It doesn't sacrifice spellcasting ; instead trading combat style feats, effectively using versatile traps/trapfiding and appropriate spells as his combat focus.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Icyshadow wrote:

Okay, so I've got a group consisting of an Old Human Wizard (Universalist, Arcanamirium Crafter), a Human Necromancer, a Dwarf Cleric of Angradd (Smoke and Tactics domains, battle cleric) and a Catfolk Ranger for an upcoming Kingmaker campaign with me as the DM.

The Ranger's stats are all excellent (lucky rolls for the new guy) and he's kinda going for a switch-hitter build as a result. However, the one thing is that we lack a person who can disarm magical traps (the Trapfinding ability), so I considered letting him pick the Trapper archetype for the character. However, is it worth the trade-off of losing all spellcasting abilities?

I remember the days when 3.5 and early Pathfinder Alpha players would have sold thier souls to make that trade. Stealth, trapsetting AND TRAPFINDING...with all the combat and stealth abilities of the Ranger? Yes please!

Especially in a party that's already caster heavy, the hobby casting of the Ranger won't be missed.


Well, IMHO, you could give him the trapper archetype and let him eep spellcasting without any fear of making him anything close to broken. And, IMHO, trapfinding/disarming is something rangers should be good at, anyway.

If that is not an option, why not let him take Trapfinding as a feat?

If you want to stick to RAW, I guess taking a single rogue level would be the best way to go.

Then again, you don't really need to disarm traps, there are quite a few ways to avoid traps without disarming them. Send a few summons first and trigger them, find a different path or simply avoid stepping on the plate with the arcane rune inscribed on it.


I have a PbP trapper character that I'm very fond of -- but the more I look at what I gave up (starting with gravity bow) and what I'll get instead, the more I think that it wasn't a balanced trade. The only reason that I don't regret it is because it works so well for my character from an RP perspective.

For your new guy, I would recommend some other alternative. To him, I would also recommend the Boon Companion feat and no more than one level of dipping into another class; to you, I would say that my DM disallowed that feat as overpowered. ;)

You see, there's a druid in my trapper's party. I've seen some of what nature spells and animal companions can do, and I like it. So, I made sure with my PFS ranger to not take any archetypes that would compromise either of those class features. I would've taken the urban ranger archetype in a location-based campaign, but I doubted that it would be a good fit for PFS.

Now you have me considering a one-level dip into rogue for the PFS ranger. Maybe later, after he's actually encountered a magical trap... but no. It would be giving up too much. Rangers get quite a lot of goodies, and if you want them enough to pick the class, then hardly anything would be worth delaying progression toward them.


I forgot about Boon Companion (and I almost never disallow feats, as I'd even allow Leadership out of the fact that I trust the players to not abuse the gifts I give them) but thanks for the reminder. Might have him take that feat with the Rogue level, since it fits the tactics the character employs better IMO (said character is a former member of the Bloodstone Swords). As for Urban Ranger, the archetype is terrible for the mostly wildland-exploring Kingmaker campaign. He also already gets Disable Device from a trait, but we might change that since it seems that the Rogue level won't really sting.


Icyshadow wrote:


So yeah, either Trapper archetype or he takes a few levels of Rogue. In terms of optimizing, which one is the better idea?

First, which suits the player?

Second, a former merc makes PERFECT sense to be specialized in handling and setting snares/traps. Far more sense than spellcasting.

Third, ranger spellcasting is fairly limited. A fairly cheap ioun stone, a wand or two, and someone with a little CHA taking a rank in UMD can replace ranger casting for many levels.

Fourth, I've mainly made trappers where the ranger levels were a dip rather than the focus. Take a look at horizon walker for example.

Lastly, if the party elects to go without someone that can disarm magic traps then let them. If they elected not to have healing would you not deal damage to them?

-James


james maissen wrote:

First, which suits the player?

Second, a former merc makes PERFECT sense to be specialized in handling and setting snares/traps. Far more sense than spellcasting.

Third, ranger spellcasting is fairly limited. A fairly cheap ioun stone, a wand or two, and someone with a little CHA taking a rank in UMD can replace ranger casting for many levels.

Fourth, I've mainly made trappers where the ranger levels were a dip rather than the focus. Take a look at horizon walker for example.

Lastly, if the party elects to go without someone that can disarm magic traps then let them. If they elected not to have healing would you not deal damage to them?

-James

1. He's pretty much okay with anything. I actually talk with my players unlike some aloof DMs, so I've kinda debated with all my players on their ideas and such.

2. The Bloodstone Mercenaries are mostly multi-class or single-class Fighters, Rangers and Rogues, mixing two of those or even all three.
The faction bonuses include extra stuff to those three.

3. I've heard it has its uses, so that's debatable.

4. Horizon Walker might be a good PrC, but it stops his animal companion's progress.

5. They did not want to go without one (and neither did I), and you need not be condescending with your opinions. And really, not having a healer would probably lead them to just getting a wand of healing and improve on their tactics so they'd kill before they get killed (or if they're dumb, which they are not, they'd just die).


Icyshadow wrote:
I forgot about Boon Companion (and I almost never disallow feats, as I'd even allow Leadership out of the fact that I trust the players to not abuse the gifts I give them) but thanks for the reminder. Might have him take that feat with the Rogue level, since it fits the tactics the character employs better IMO (said character is a former member of the Bloodstone Swords). As for Urban Ranger, the archetype is terrible for the mostly wildland-exploring Kingmaker campaign. He also already gets Disable Device from a trait, but we might change that since it seems that the Rogue level won't really sting.

I'm thinking, maybe recommend the rogue dip right away, for level two? I really agonized over the choice of combat style for my halfling ranger, and ended up asking my DM for a rebuild (while still 2nd-level) after learning more about the game and seeing how my character actually played. It's a permanent decision that you only make once, and taking a level of rogue will presumably have an effect on how it feels to play the character, both mechanically and RP-wise. I think that he could make a better-informed decision that way. Then Boon Companion at level five when he gets Hunter's Bond, and it should all be spiffy.


Ranger spells are not that good and the fact that every other person can cast makes losing them harmless. Keep the trapper/ranger and get full BAB, Boon Companion (if you like your companion), and maybe even take Dangerously Curious trait for Use Magic Device.

I wouldn't dip into Rogue.

Shadow Lodge

ranger/rogue is a nasty combo, so i would go that route after hitting 4th, you maintain your caster status for using wands and scrolls, then rogue to gain sneak attack + rogue talents.

the traper archetype for rangers is worthless. you can just take feats to set traps if you want to. learn ranger trap is better then the archetype imo.


TheSideKick wrote:
Ranger/rogue is a nasty combo, so I would go that route after hitting 4th, you maintain your caster status for using wands and scrolls, and gain sneak attack + rogue talents.

Do elaborate. How many levels of Ranger and how many levels of Rogue should said character take if the player decided to go for this route?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

it depends on how you wanted your character to play out. as a solid archer i would go 16 ranger 4 rogue for ki pool and invisibility. as a melee character i would go 10/10 for flanking and medium armor profeciency + sneak attack + bleed damage + any ninja tricks you like.

i played a rogue ranger to 11 and i liked it alot. he TWF with short swords with human and undead favored enemies. it was nasty, since my gm threw mainly humans and dragons at us. i cant say it would play the same in every campaign but it did well in that one.


Aside from the ki pool, that sounds excellent. The player wants an archery focused character, but I'm not sure if the ki pool would break the concept too much. Then again, it's a catfolk with ties to Tian Xia, so he might be okay with it. Thanks for the advice. Now to just wait for the weekend to relay this all to him. As for the favored enemies, we have all of that taken care of.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Trapper Ranger worth it? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.