What? Why am I wearing a helmet? I dunno, seemed like a good day to wear a helmet. You've never had unfashionable mood swings?
And the umbrella? Gee, not sure. Tut tut, it looks like rain.
So, is the ranger the most pointlessly restrained class in Pathfinder?
...
Okay, before my meager defenses are overwhelmed, let me elaborate. The ranger class is a simple entity: He's a hunter. A protector of nature. A survivalist.
But, by core, he is limited to two weapon styles. Want to be a ranger with a greataxe, or a longspear? You're taking a hefty disadvantage for it. Sucks to be you.
Why? Why the limitation? My theory is it's just a holdover from AD&D. A holdover that, for whatever reason, never got cut. There is no good reason to keep the limited weapon styles, but they did. And unless you get the APG, you're stuck with 'em.
Keep in mind I enjoy the class. The title is hyperbole--everyone knows wizards/rogues/druids/gunslingers/summoners/paladins/fourth editions/global warmings/YOUR RELIGIONS/bards (okay, bards get a free pass) are the worst class, not ranger. I just think, compared to the rest, rangers are the most pointlessly restrained.
Please don't bring up the APG. It is not relevant, because we are not discussing whether the ranger class is good overall. I am asking if the ranger class is stylistically lame if you just use the Core.
Several edits to this post (such as the title) have been made to make things clearer. People have been missing the point of the thread, so hopefully this will help matters.
He is? News to me.
I mean, there are all these new combat styles right here.
Oh, and I'm sorry if a thread's already brought this up. The search engine didn't seem to show anything.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, the Drizzt class is fine!
He is? News to me.
And now you know! Okay, everyone, thread closed. We have clearly reached a consensus. Dunno why everyone says these threads are so hard to resolve!
Restrained, sure.
Worst? Nah.
Archery is probably the best combat style in the game, and Rangers make the best TWFers, so it's all good there.
They also still get a good number of skills, some useful spells, situational damage boosts that enter "Lol. Your dead bruh." levels around about 10 for those two fighting styles (since they're both based around number of attacks per round...and now each of those attacks is getting a massive boost to-hit AND damage), and either a party buff or an Animal Companion to putz around.
All in all the core Ranger is in good shape.
Now let's talk about that Rogue...
I'm not so much saying they're underpowered. I'm saying they have too few options for a class that should be given plenty of versatility. They're the druid/fighter/rogue class, so why limit them to the two Aragorn fighting techniques?
He is? News to me.
I mean, there are all these new combat styles right here.
And unless you get the APG, you're stuck with 'em.
By Core
A class should not depend on supplements to work.
You're arguing a point that this thread ruled out in the first three words. By Core. Again, a class should not depend on additional materials to work. It should have been made a good class at the get-go.
The class works. You just don't like the way it works.
Again, I do. I like the ranger class. I just don't like a way it works--as in, a part of the class. Sure, it literally works, but that's not what I'm talking about. The class has a major flaw in its design, and it shouldn't depend on supplements to remedy that flaw.
I was wondering what people's thoughts were on this, but you're too critical of my "condemnation" to focus on the thing I actually wanted to discuss.
Most of the classes have major flaws in their design.
To repeat, this thread asks a simple question: Is the ranger by Core the worst class?
So far, you've done nothing to dispute that point. You're too focused on the "worst class" part. I want to see if people agree that the limitation is a problem, but the only thing you've said is "Just use the APG". Or, "That's your opinion," which is true, but not really constructive.
That said, in the current environment, rangers are one of the most deadly. A full-attack by an archer ranger with instant enemy and/or named bullet will kill just about anything.
Again, I'm not trying to damn the class. I apologize for the clear lack of clarity in my original post. I am wondering what people think of the ranger's very strangely limited ability, and thought I'd have some fun.
|
If your criteria for 'good class' is 'has many different weapon style options' then maybe. You should maybe have been more focused in your rambling about the class if that was your question.
Again, I'm not trying to damn the class. I apologize for the clear lack of clarity in my original post. I am wondering what people think of the ranger's very strangely limited ability, and thought I'd have some fun.
I know that feel. I make a silly comment and get crucified for it all the time.
So yes, I would support moving all the combat styles into the core rules. But then, I'm a supporter of Kirthfinder after all...
I already apologized for what was apparently unclear (it's not unclear to me, but it wouldn't be, would it? :P). You don't need to keep criticizing me over it. An edit has been made so there will be no further confusion.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Class A has massive problem X. Now I know Book Y has fixed massive problem X but lets ignore that...
Do you think Class a is broken because of Massive problem X. Again. Ignore the fact that problem X has been fixed.
Comments?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But, by core, he is limited to two weapon styles. Want to be a ranger with a greataxe, or a longspear? You're taking a hefty disadvantage for it. Sucks to be you.
Well, to be fair its only 3 feats and it doesn't take much to use a two handed weapon effectively. You really just need power attack and your done, unlike archery which has a lot of feats attached to it and two weapon fighting which requires at least 3 over its career(and for less oomph too!)
I still love core ranger more than fighter or monk or even the paladin. Barbarian is up for debate though, APG has a lot of his cool things. Rogue of course sucks still, not that outside of the CRB he does much better.
CRB only is pretty strict imo, means you lose out of half the classes. Its like saying 'no houserules', it makes me weep inside.
The class works. You just don't like the way it works.Again, I do. I like the ranger class. I just don't like a way it works--as in, a part of the class. Sure, it literally works, but that's not what I'm talking about. The class has a major flaw in its design, and it shouldn't depend on supplements to remedy that flaw.
I was wondering what people's thoughts were on this, but you're too critical of my "condemnation" to focus on the thing I actually wanted to discuss.
The main rule book came out in 2009 so it's too late to complain about it. It was obviously an oversight and a correction made in the APG by adding more styles. I don't see much point in complaining about something you can't do anything about unless you have a time machine.
Now if you want to debate why additional style came out in the APG but not the core rule book that's valid. My guess is they didn't have space for 1/3 of page of additional combat styles and so the shelved the idea for the book they would release in 10 months which had more room.
Its like saying 'no houserules', it makes me weep inside.
And I'll cry with you every single time, MrSin.
In a CRB only game ranger is certainly the class I'm least likely to play.
Not because of combat styles though.
For me it's the favored enemy mechanic that I can't stand.
- Torger
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thinmk Kobold Cleaver is regarding Worst in terms of "most restricted" in terms of customization options
I just think, compared to the rest, rangers are the most pointlessly restrained.
Also he/she/it clearly doesn't mean mechanically. Also it seems only to be a semi serious inquiry:
Again, I'm not trying to damn the class. I apologize for the clear lack of clarity in my original post. I am wondering what people think of the ranger's very strangely limited ability, and thought I'd have some fun.
Here is my thoughts:
I don't find him to be the worst class that has been strangely limited in terms of customization, honestly I always scratched my head at the whole two-weapon style since it clashes with my inner vision of what a ranger is. Honestly I have a much much harder time with classes restricted to certain alignments.
It should have been made a good class at the get-go.You're arguing a subjective topic like it is objective fact.
The topic is subjective, but I think Kobold Cleaver is trying for a bit of debate/discussion to gain a feel for what people thing in regards to the whole weapon style mechanic.
Class A has massive problem X. Now I know Book Y has fixed massive problem X but lets ignore that...
Do you think Class a is broken because of Massive problem X. Again. Ignore the fact that problem X has been fixed.
Comments?
Actually yes, try to consider the inquiry as a regard to the design philosophy behind then original class and in that regard I think that the weapon style thing is a hold over from older editions.
Well, to be fair its only 3 feats and it doesn't take much to use a two handed weapon effectively. You really just need power attack and your done, unlike archery which has a lot of feats attached to it and two weapon fighting which requires at least 3 over its career(and for less oomph too!)
Well to me the point of running around with power attack is to gain cleave, cleave and greater cleave to me are to a power attack what improved and greater two-weapon fighting are to two-weapon fighting, the extra "oomph" that makes it all worth it.
Hey, the Drizzt class is fine!
No a Drizzt class is an abomination unto nuggan! :p
Well, to be fair its only 3 feats and it doesn't take much to use a two handed weapon effectively. You really just need power attack and your done, unlike archery which has a lot of feats attached to it and two weapon fighting which requires at least 3 over its career(and for less oomphWell to me the point of running around with power attack is to gain cleave, cleave and greater cleave to me are to a power attack what improved and greater two-weapon fighting are to two-weapon fighting, the extra "oomph" that makes it all worth it.
Cleave and greater cleave? Gross. Those are highly optional, and situational. There isn't really an oomph in your attack routine either, unlike two weapon fighting or power attack or rapid shot or precise shot or... yeah, you get the idea.
No a Drizzt class is an abomination unto nuggan! :p
You do know the ranger was based on Drizzt, right? :P
|
The ranger is a "beginner user" class. Unlike the Fighter who actually does need a measure of system mastery, a ranger using core only is usable immediately out of the box. It comes with a choice of two feat-chains. Some choice in regards to a bond and favored enemies. It even has in built Role Playing hooks by playing up on the favoured enemy angle.
I don't think it fails at all in its design goals.
Personally I think there should be a feat that allows a Ranger's Animal Companion to progress like a Druid's, Cavalier's, or a Paladin's. The whole "equal to the Ranger's level -3" seems a bit, er, LIMITING, if you catch my drift (especially considering the Paladin or Cavalier does not share the same drawback).
I guess we won't tell him about "Boon Companion".
(curiously looks at that feat on OGC)
...EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
Personally I think there should be a feat that allows a Ranger's Animal Companion to progress like a Druid's, Cavalier's, or a Paladin's. The whole "equal to the Ranger's level -3" seems a bit, er, LIMITING, if you catch my drift (especially considering the Paladin or Cavalier does not share the same drawback).
Personally, I think they should've given the ranger the full companion to begin with and a full selection of animals. Apparently druids are the underpowered ones who need a full companion though...
|
No a Drizzt class is an abomination unto nuggan! :pYou do know the ranger was based on Drizzt, right? :P
Please tell me you don't really believe that.
My thought on the Ranger is this....
They are really cool. If confined to core you can take the archery feats and use your regular feats to be the 2-handed weapon guy or the reach weapon dude or some combat maneuver weapon dude....and then WoW!! You have versatility! Too many people play this game focusing on only one weapon and how to make that focus do the mostest damage per nanosecond possible and forget that having some versatile abilities is really nice. I love playing rangers and find that they are very adaptable and easy to make unique.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please tell me you don't really believe that.
Heh.
Hahaha.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
*sweeps up the exploded bits of Berselius*
Another satisfied customer!
Heh, yeah, VERY satisfied! One of my players wanted to be a Rogue (Burgler)/Ranger (based loosely off of Shadow from Final Fantasy VI) and as a long time fan of that game it broke my heart to say he'd have to wait until 16th level in order for his precious Interceptor to become medium in size (and thus able to "eat people")!
I don't suppose Animal Archive has rules on types of dog breeds does it? I'm curious cause I'm a HUGE lover of rough collies and unfortunately I don't have the book.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You do know the ranger was based on Drizzt, right? :P
Please tell me you don't really believe that.
I always thought the Ranger was based on Aragorn to be honest.
Cleave and greater cleave? Gross. Those are highly optional, and situational. There isn't really an oomph in your attack routine either, unlike two weapon fighting or power attack or rapid shot or precise shot or... yeah, you get the idea.Well, to be fair its only 3 feats and it doesn't take much to use a two handed weapon effectively. You really just need power attack and your done, unlike archery which has a lot of feats attached to it and two weapon fighting which requires at least 3 over its career(and for less oomphWell to me the point of running around with power attack is to gain cleave, cleave and greater cleave to me are to a power attack what improved and greater two-weapon fighting are to two-weapon fighting, the extra "oomph" that makes it all worth it.
I suppose in a manner they are, I have personally just found them highly useful quite a bit more often then not and quite a bit easier to obtain then Greater "You need Dex 19 sucker" Two-Weapon Fighting. That being said there is no denying that two-weapon fighting is awesome mechanically and thematically.
No a Drizzt class is an abomination unto nuggan! :pYou do know the ranger was based on Drizzt, right? :P
*shivers* It is sad to see how the poor ranger class have been abused by the vile and abominable R.A.Salvatore.
A quick research revealed the Ranger class first appeared in Strategic Review in 1975 at least according to wiki (I haven't read it so I wouldn't know) but I seem to remember it was also a first edition AD&D class (fighter subclass), so it might pre-date Drizztzy a bit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, I don't know. I can remember when half-elf clerics were limited to 5th level and blunt weapons, and when wizards could only use dagger, dart, and staff.
I feel like the Paizo core rules REMOVED so many pointless restrictions, that it's a time for celebration. Sure, they missed one, but I wouldn't have done any better.
Personally I think there should be a feat that allows a Ranger's Animal Companion to progress like a Druid's, Cavalier's, or a Paladin's. The whole "equal to the Ranger's level -3" seems a bit, er, LIMITING, if you catch my drift (especially considering the Paladin or Cavalier does not share the same drawback).Personally, I think they should've given the ranger the full companion to begin with and a full selection of animals.
I agree with you 100% my fine fellow.
That being said there is no denying that two-weapon fighting is awesome mechanically and thematically.
Debatable, but probably best not to argue about that on this thread.
Oh, I don't know. I can remember when half-elf clerics were limited to 5th level and blunt weapons, and when wizards could only use dagger, dart, and staff.
I feel like the Paizo core rules REMOVED so many pointless restrictions, that it's a time for celebration. Sure, they missed one, but I wouldn't have done any better.
They removed things like Barbarians needing to be ragaholics who can't be lawful, and monks all being lawful guys from monestaries right? Or how about how they removed rangers having a specific list of pets to choose from, or druids needing to be neutral no matter what?
They didn't remove too much. They removed bard's alignment restriction, barbarian's illiteracy, and they gave wizards less restriction on their schools. 3.0 and 3.5 which they are based on might be the ones that removed those restrictions(they sure don't have them!), but I don't have any 2nd or 1st edition material(or memory) to go off of. Its important to remember pathfinder still has plenty of pointless restrictions.
Edit: I should add that archery and two weapon fighting and the animal companion list are all from 3.5 core. You can blame the not entirely successful attempt at backwards compatibility I guess?
The old tale is that ranger was given TWF because Drizzt used a pair of scimitars. The authors refute that, but who knows?
Also, due to poor rules wording, drow maybe had a racial ability to wield two weapons.