Think about what the specific character wants to do instead of just the class.
And I am thinking what descision of "what to do" would lead to the conclusion "I should take ranger as class".
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"I want to fight nearly as well as the Fighter, be as skillful as the Rogue, have a fuzzy buddy, cast spells, and generally be an all-around badass."
I find it laughable that you hold up the Fighter and Rogue as pinnacles of martial prowess and skilled shenanigans, when the Ranger can do both of those things nearly as well as they can, while having tons of abilities besides.
I do not. Because at no point in this thread I ever cared for martial prowess, and I think at several times mentioned exactly that.
But if I decide I want to have access to lots of weapons and armor and learn tricks to make special attacks, then fighter is the right class for the job.
And if I want to play a character who is good at stealth, silent killing, and dealing with traps and locks, then rogue is the right class for that character.
And if I want to play a warrior with lots of strength and endurance, who fights enemies and destroys things with brute force, then barbarian is the class that enables me to do that.
And if I would want to play a character who does XYZ, then ranger would be the optimal class choice for the character.
But I still have not found out what XYZ might be.
At this point I think the OP is trolling for laughs and giggles. We've all given great examples of why someone would want to be a ranger, how to role-play them in a party, what skills/abilities they get, how well they synergize with ANY party, and other discussions on their viability in regards to do with them as a GM. I'm at the point where I'm just throwing my hands up and giving up because obviously the OP just doesn't get it no matter what angle the rest of us put it out there to them. I'm off to other threads.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An Alchemist, Ranger or even a Bard could be far better at those things than a Rogue. There are whole archetypes dedicated to doing the Rogue's job better than the Rogue. The problem remains that a Rogue has absolutely no bonuses to being sneaky or silent killing, and a decent bonus to dealing with traps and locks that many other classes can get.
I'll admit that a Barbarian is absolutely fantastic as the brute-force destroyer-type. A Ranger is no slouch, though. There's even the Wild Stalker archetype that is a Ranger with Rage. With better saves, better skill points per level, spellcasting and an animal companion.
A Ranger is the optimal choice when you want to do ALL of X, Y and Z on the same character, at a very decent level of competency.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A Ranger is the optimal choice when you want to do ALL of X, Y and Z on the same character, at a very decent level of competency.
I was just about to write a post saying the same, Seranov. I have rangers active in 4 games right now - an Urban Ranger, and Infiltrator, a Guide and a vanilla. And they're great. I sneak with the rogue, and often end up as the first in the fight as a result. I can hold my own when the fight starts, and if it's a favored enemy or in favored terrain, I can really shine. I can cast a few useful spells, some of which on one else in the party has.
My answer to the OP's question is this: when the party decides that a particular task is a job for party member X (the rogue, the cleric, the fighter, whatever), it's very often also a job for the ranger. In my current tabletop game, the ranger's skills are often so useful that the rest of the party has taken to calling him the "main character" in the story. (I have mixed feelings about this, but it speaks to the ranger's multi-faceted value.)
How about setting traps and preparing ambushes?
That would be something that thematically fits the ranger very well and to my knowledge is not a common aspect of any of the other classes.
Are there any rules in any kinds of sources, that adress setting up tripwires, slings, nets and the like? Usually it's the PCs intruding into the territory of stationary enemies, but in a campaign where things happen out in the open and PCs are encouraged to not just rush in through the main door setting traps to ambush enemies returning to their base or aproaching a village, and taking out patroling guards would be both useful and likely to happen on a reasonably regular basis.
There is an archetype of the ranger called the Trapper, which gets some interesting trap-making abilities but gives up spellcasting for it. I've never seen one in play, and I have generally heard that the trapmaking mechanics in PF don't work very well.
While there are occasional opportunities in PF to ambush opponents, I don't find it happens very often, and the opportunity to lay a trap for someone and have it actually come into play seems like it would happen far less often. So I probably would choose to go with a different archetype - and I'm sure I'd find plenty to do.
