As I'm retooling to shift my game to PF, a couple of players have asked for a less 'combat proficient' Ranger. The feature they are dissatisfied with is the full Base Attack Bonus, both thinking that a 3/4 Ranger would be more appropriate. The challenge then switches to 'How to fill out the Ranger as a more skill/less wack Class'.
The brainstorming yielded the following:
1) more Favored Enemy goodness (AC bonuses, saves, etc.)
2) more Favored Enemies
3) more/all Combat Styles
4) Much expanded spell capacity (add Druid spells to list)
5) Animal companion
(I left out a couple that were stupid)
I am agreeable to the possibility of an Archetype, but want to run this past some other GMs.
What is it that the player wants out of it? Just more skills and less whack? Does druid work? If not, why not?
Wait What!? Seems more like they want a Druid or maybe an Inquisitor...
Perhaps they gain their animal companion at level 2 instead of 4 and the companion is at a -1 instead a -3. Also add 1 or 2 skill points a level.
But I have to say this is a very strange request. I've never had anyone say that they are dissatisfied with their BAB being just too damn high.
Hmm maybe make it +2 Skill Points per level. Companion and Favoured Terrain progress faster.
Maybe give them a 6 level spell progression with spells drawn from the Current Ranger Spell List and the Druid Spell List.
I recommend making a nature themed inquisitor archetype with an adjusted spell list instead. It seems like MUCH less change will be needed to get what you're looking for.
Actually, I think on Pathfinder DB there is a Nature based Inquisitor Archetype.
Oh wait... That might have been one of the things I was planning on Submitting...
Actually, I think on Pathfinder DB there is a Nature based Inquisitor Archetype.
Oh wait... That might have been one of the things I was planning on Submitting...
oh you tease ;)
oh you tease ;)Actually, I think on Pathfinder DB there is a Nature based Inquisitor Archetype.
Oh wait... That might have been one of the things I was planning on Submitting...
What do you mean?
What do you mean?oh you tease ;)Actually, I think on Pathfinder DB there is a Nature based Inquisitor Archetype.
Oh wait... That might have been one of the things I was planning on Submitting...
i actually clicked on the link and looked for it before i finished reading the post. i felt pretty foolish. btw obviously now there is a convenient thread to post said idea if you flesh it out. wait didn't Smilodan make something called a Warden in his build a class thread a while back? will try to link it later.
I too made a Warden class that is based on the Inquisitor.
> the Domain selection is restricted to what the Druid can take
> Stern Gaze is replaced with Wild Empathy
> Detect Alignment is replaced with Woodland Stride
> all Teamwork feats and Solo Tactics are replaced with the Ranger's Combat Style bonus feat chain (at 2nd, 6th, 10th level and so on)
Also, he uses the Inquitor and Ranger spell list, and all Inquisitor spells that have alignment or religion stuff in them or do not fit the flavor are out.
It's homebrew, so I don't know if it's fully balanced, but I have lot's of fun with him.
Mine I made it limited to the Domains and Inquisitions that fit in with Nature.
Detect Alignment was replaced by Wild Empathy.
Solo Tactics was replaced b Wild Empathy.
The Teamwork feats were replaced by Favoured Enemy and Favoured Terrain.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been playing DND for years and started running Pathfinder a little less tan a year ago. I have seen a number of players make non-standard requests of their GM, whether myself or someone else, with regards to custom abilities, magic items, and unusual builds.
Making their character less effective in combat has never been one of them.
I would say just decrease their BAB and HD to 3/4 BAB & d8 HD with +2 Skill Points per level.
As I'm retooling to shift my game to PF, a couple of players have asked for a less 'combat proficient' Ranger. The feature they are dissatisfied with is the full Base Attack Bonus, both thinking that a 3/4 Ranger would be more appropriate. The challenge then switches to 'How to fill out the Ranger as a more skill/less wack Class'.
Why do they want this? Was Aragorn a mediocre fighter? Could Robin Hood not hit the broad side of a barn with his bow? Most the famous ranger-types were pretty good with their weapon of choice.
If you do want him to be less combatty, can't you simply take lower Str and Dex, and increase Int for the extra skills? Or maybe multiclass to some other classes?
To me, the Ranger is the primary high-skill warrior. Turning him into a nature rogue reduces choice for no discernible good reason. If your players have some idea for a character they want to play that isn't properly covered by any class, ask them what they do want, instead of what they don't want.
Is there a nature themed rogue Archetype?
Have you asked the players why they are "dissatisfied with the full Base Attack Bonus"? Why don't you ask them what they want instead.
Is there a nature themed rogue Archetype?
Have you asked the players why they are "dissatisfied with the full Base Attack Bonus"? Why don't you ask them what they want instead.
There isn't one per se, but a Scout archetype with lots of Rogue Talents blown on Favored Terrain could work for the kind of character these guys have in mind.
|
i second the vote for standard ranger, just with:
ST 10
DX 14
CON 10
INT 14
WIS 14
CHA 14
allowing full BAB and d10 HD to compensate for average combat stats, this results in a character with 8 skill points who is stealthy, good with animals, ranger spells, and very knowledgeable. you could get more mileage out of Favored Enemies if you chose the 'friends' option of Hunter's Bond too.
off-topic:
come to think of it, the second Hunter's Bond option ought to additionally grant the Favored Terrain bonuses as well continuously to allies within the same radius. it'd make it a more enticing option and allow the "whole party stealth" idea to have more practical teeth...
Hunter's Bond is thematically you calling out the enemies weak spots and such. Doesn't work as well with terrain.
The gist of the discussion was that Rangers are too good at combat to ever use their other talents. Both wanted a class that 'role plays' better. These are both players that emphasize maximum RP in the game, and I realize that they are pushing my GM skills with this. One wants a more versatile 'Ranger' with real Druid flavor: Terrain, Animal Companion, mo'betta' spells...
The other bounced through my tonnage of 3.0 and 3.5 stuff and suggested the stepping down the BAB and pumping up the Favored Enemy benefits. The list includes bonuses to AC against the FE, bonuses to saves from SA abilities and poisons, increases to damage or critical rolls (I like the last bit, by the way), basically a greater focus on being able to fight the FE foes. Both liked the suggestions of the other and they came up with the sacrifice of the BAB (I was reloading a tumbler of Bailey's). It was the one thing both cheerfully agreed could be trimmed.
I might do better to start from another Class and graft on Ranger parts.
Um, does your player believe that combat efficacy and role play are incompatible?
That's...odd. It sounds like he wants a Druid with Favored enemy TBH. Maybe give him the Druid class, but limit him to half-casting (6th level spells max, using Summoner/Alchemist/Other Half-caster progressions) and then to compensate give him Favored Enemy and Terrain.
Or if he really wants the Ranger as a base, drop him to 3/4 BaB, give him more skill points, and half-casting with the Druid spell list, and maybe replace Endurance and Evasion/Improved Evasion with a scaling Poison Resistance (culminating in immunity) and probably Disease Resistance (same) as well.
|
|
ok.
the ranger gains spell levels at 4/7/10/13
the bard gains spell levels at 1/4/7/10/13/16
so, upgrading or downgrading the 4-level or 6-level caster can be pretty clean with respect to class feature distribution. (i had never noticed this before...)
it therefore seems consistent to simply port over all ranger class features onto a 6-level caster chassis.
so yeah, 3/4 BAB, d8 HD, 6 skill points, 6-level druid spells, full ported ranger class skills and features, full animal companion.
the Combat Style feats seem suddenly out of place. maybe instead these become Teamwork feats that you and the animal companion share? or just bonus feats for the animal companion herself?
also, if the full Animal Companion comes at first level, i would move Track to fourth level to ease up the frontloading.
Beast Bond?
also, since this is basically a druid with different abilities, same combat skill, but weaker spell progression, i don't think amping up the Favored Enemy and Favored Terrain abilites is asking too much:
(some ideas)
Favored Enemy:
-both the character and his companion gain the skill bonuses
-the animal companion gains the bonuses to attack and damage
-the caster gains half the bonuses to dodge to AC, saves, and spell DCs!
Favored Terrain:
-bonuses apply both to the character and his companion
-spells function at twice their duration within
-spells may be cast less one 'component' within (per Still, Silent, Eschew... but without raising it's effective level)
I'd say earlier (and higher) spells already compensates for the reduced BAB, at least at low levels, so I'm hesitant to add lots of bonuses on top of that without taking something away as well. Maybe reduce weapon and armor options, since it's clearly less of a warrior?
Combat Style is also an obvious thing to take out. I like the idea of replacing them with teamwork feats that the animal companion also gets. Nobody ever takes those things otherwise, and this seems like an interesting fit.
One problem with extra spell levels is that there are no level 5 and 6 ranger spells. A selection will have to be made, and the selection will have a big impact on how good these extra spell levels are going to be.
But for the most part, I like the comparison with the Bard.
Give them the Magus Spell Progression using Druid Spell List and 3/4 BAB with +2 Skills.
The last three characters for one were Paladin, Fighter and Wizard, the other a Ftr/Rogue, Druid and Cleric. Both understand combat effective and roleplay. Both are lethal combatants, the Paladin working awesomely on flanking, sneak attacks and Smites with the FTR/Rogue in our last game. Both have serious RP mind sets and wanted more RP capabilities, particularly in the areas of expanded Favored Enemy tweeks on one hand and improved spell casting on the other. (Strange, neither mentioned Favored Terrain...) They were casting about for something integral to the Class that could be 'traded in' and fell upon the full BAB.
I'm looking at either the Magus or Bard spell progression with a few more druid spells, 3/4 BAB, + 2 skills and better FE bonuses (maybe add the bonus to AC and saves from SA of that creature.)
Magus is the Prepared Half-Caster. Bard and Inquisitor are the Spontaneous Half-Caster.