Rangers: By Core, The Dumbest Class?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 120 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

First of all, Rangers don't have an Aragorn weapon style.. Aragorn uses a single sword, or his bow.. except in the case of Weathertop but in that situation it was worth the penalties to dual-wield with an improvised weapon.
Second, who only looks at the core rules when rolling a character? just go on the d20pfsrd.com, they gots the ranger variations you are looking for... or work with your gm and make your own.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Berselius wrote:
Quote:

*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.

No it doesn't.. It's got dogs... if your dog is more closer to a wolf, use the wolf. Unless you're planning on making your companion a chiwawa or S**+zsu, it shouldn't be an issue.


LazarX wrote:
No it doesn't.. It's got dogs... if your dog is more closer to a wolf, use the wolf. Unless you're planning on making your companion a chiwawa or S$~+zsu, it shouldn't be an issue.

You can also always build your own animal companion and ignore the rules as written if your the GM, to an extent.

dhsensenbaugh wrote:
who only looks at the core rules when rolling a character?

I have many a horror story.


MrSin wrote:
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?

The whole alignment restriction thing can make a Rageaholic and in fact the whole rage mechanic as presented is something I strongly dislike, I wish they it more general like say "great resolve" or some such, something a bit more abstract then "Me mad, Me brush PUNY monster." but that is netiehr here nor there. Let us just say I agree with this.

MrSin wrote:


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?

I suppose it is backward compatible to a degree, or maybe it is more like it is easier for people to grasp the major new leaps when small stuff like that are maintained.


Umbral Reaver wrote:

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.

That rings a bell, I heard of that before, but wasn't the AD&D 2e days and the rules said that it had to be a small off hand weapon such as a dagger or short sword? (sorry I don't even know where my AD&D 2e books are any more so can't look it up).

As for Drow they are also an abomination onto nuggan ;) just kidding.

MrSin wrote:


dhsensenbaugh wrote:
who only looks at the core rules when rolling a character?
I have many a horror story.

I don't need horror for that, yesterday I had one of my players tell me that he thought that using things from the APG was a bit too exotic and implied that the main reason for using such material was to powergame :/


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is actually a pretty complicated story. First edition saw the birth of Drizzt wielding two scimitars because drow. Second edition came around, the Avatar vortex with it, and drow no longer got two weapons. Remained problem of what to do about Drizzt, their biggest selling character. Hmmm, he needed to still fight with two scimitars, soooo, he got it because ranger instead. Which has held up since.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Crystal Shard (Drizzt's first appearance) was released in 1988, AD&D 2nd edition (the first incarnation of the two-weapon figbting ranger) was released in 1989.

In my opinion Drizzt uses two-weapons as that was a schtick of drow back then, and I don't think he influenced the 2nd edition ranger.

But then again where DID the idea come from? As said before the classic ranger is Aragorn.


Fake Healer wrote:
Umbral Reaver wrote:
Zouron wrote:
No a Drizzt class is an abomination unto nuggan! :p
You do know the ranger was based on Drizzt, right? :P
Please tell me you don't really believe that.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/04/10


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I love me some rangers! But that's only because if I get fewer than 8 skill points per level, I cry myself to sleep at night. Because I end up using skills more than I do attacks, half the time.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
So, is the ranger the most pointlessly restrained class in Pathfinder?

No.

The ranger has a choice of two styles, arguably the worst combat method (although VERY effective vs favoured enemy) and arguably the best. OK, not a great choice, but...

An Archery ranger can pick up a two-handed weapon and be a switch hitter, he has as many feats to burn on his 2-hander as a barbarian or paladin. So if the ranger is restricted, those two are MORE restricted.

Then he has the options to use skills, and he has a lot of them. With favoured terrain he makes a great scout, and does it nearly as well as the rogue or the bard.

Oh, and he has spell-casting too. That means easy use of wands, scrolls, etc. He easily works as a second-healer, and his spells dovetail nicely with his other abilities.

Then there's the animal companion, which while not awesome gives him better scope to effectively be in two places at once. You rmount can "guard the horses" or more likely "guard the caster" - not brilliantly but buying them time if an enemy gets around the hitters. He can guard the ranger himself if he's an archer (wolf-trip is so nice).

A ranger is not restricted, he's a genuine jack-of-all-trades and not-quite-master-of-most, and that actually works. A ranger always has something to offer a party, no matter what it consists of, as long as it doesn't have another ranger.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:


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.

The two-weapon fighting may be a hold-over from 2e AD&D (where it was first a ranger focus) but this isn't that big a deal. Fighters have enough feats to invest in a couple of fighting styles and the flexibility to make it their choice, Barbarians and Paladins have the feats to pursue maybe one style each and have a fair amount of flexibility in the choice although both are best suited to melee styles, Rangers get the ability to pursue a style further than either Barbarians or Paladins, but are restricted to two options, one of which is extremely thematic for a hunter. That seems a reasonable balance to me plus the ranger's pre-configured choices tend to set him apart from either Barbarians or Paladins. That's a nice touch.

The Exchange

LazarX wrote:
Berselius wrote:
Quote:

*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.

No it doesn't.. It's got dogs... if your dog is more closer to a wolf, use the wolf. Unless you're planning on making your companion a chiwawa or S*$$zsu, it shouldn't be an issue.

From the d20pfsrd.com bestiary section under Dog:

Dog, Common
Dog Breed: Apollo[3PP-4WFG]
Dog Breed: Badger Hound[3PP-4WFG]
Dog Breed: Blonde Mastiff[3PP-4WFG]
Dog Breed: Bull Mastiff[3PP-4WFG]
Dog Breed: Fiendish Giant Bull Mastiff[3PP-4WFG]
Dog Breed: Bulldog[3PP-4WFG]
Dog, Elven (Cooshee)[3PP-FGG]
Dog, Elven (Cooshee)[3PP-TO]
Dog, Riding

There are some decent options there and rules for animal companionizing them. (yes, I said companionizing)


He can cast spells, how is he worse than other classes?


Fake Healer wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Berselius wrote:
Quote:

*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.

No it doesn't.. It's got dogs... if your dog is more closer to a wolf, use the wolf. Unless you're planning on making your companion a chiwawa or S*$$zsu, it shouldn't be an issue.

From the d20pfsrd.com bestiary section under Dog:

Dog, Common
Dog Breed: Apollo[3PP-4WFG]
Dog Breed: Badger Hound[3PP-4WFG]
Dog Breed: Blonde Mastiff[3PP-4WFG]
Dog Breed: Bull Mastiff[3PP-4WFG]
Dog Breed: Fiendish Giant Bull Mastiff[3PP-4WFG]
Dog Breed: Bulldog[3PP-4WFG]
Dog, Elven (Cooshee)[3PP-FGG]
Dog, Elven (Cooshee)[3PP-TO]
Dog, Riding

There are some decent options there and rules for animal companionizing them. (yes, I said companionizing)

Notice that only two of those are from Paizo material (the others, per the tags, are from a 3rd party publisher, specifically 4 Winds Fantasy Gaming).

Therefore the answer to his question (are there multiple dog breeds in the Animal Archive) is still no.

But it doesn't matter since "Dog, Common" covers every breed of dog you could probably think of.


Well, even the most melee-intensive characters should have options to fight at range. So, you want a Ranger using just the CRB that is not specialized in dual-wielding or range? Simple, choose the Ranged style, get some range feats for your bonus feats, then concentrate on you preferred style everywhere else. When you need to go ranged, or when you have yet to close into melee, those range feats will come in handy, while the Barbarian min-maxed for melee combat will be struggling.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fake Healer wrote:


Dog, Common
Dog Breed: Apollo[3PP-4WFG]
Dog Breed: Badger Hound[3PP-4WFG]
Dog Breed: Blonde Mastiff[3PP-4WFG]
Dog Breed: Bull Mastiff[3PP-4WFG]
Dog Breed: Fiendish Giant Bull Mastiff[3PP-4WFG]
Dog Breed: Bulldog[3PP-4WFG]
Dog, Elven (Cooshee)[3PP-FGG]
Dog, Elven (Cooshee)[3PP-TO]
Dog, Riding

Dog, Bad

Dog, Corn
Dog, Hot
Dog, Snoop
Dog, Yo


Umbral Reaver wrote:
Most of the classes have major flaws in their design.

Wait, most? Which core classes (since obviously this is about core-only, for some weird reason) don't have major flaws in their design?

And IMHO, ranger is one of my favorite (possibly my absolute favorite) of the core classes.


The problem is for some people, having a combat style makes them feel like they must spend all other feats on it. However, the ranger gets as many feats from gaining levels as any other class, some of which are pretty good melee combatants themselves. The bonus style feats are only creating the illusion of restriction, not the reality of it. I have seen several rangers where the bonus feats were spent on one style and the standard feats were all spent on something else.


I've seen it mentioned once already but rogue is core.

You could always be a rogue... generally you shouldn't but you can.

Besides as has already been mentioned you can go switch hitter and be a mighty fine ranger.


As several people pointed out..if you use your free feats on your style, you can devote your normally gained feats to get bonuses with the weapon of your choice.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
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.

It's not that there's confusion. It's that you only want to discuss the merits or lack of same, of the class based on your own criteria of what makes a class good.

Problem is, there are lots of different playing styles and lots of different players, and plenty of them are going to say that they think the ranger is great because it matches what they are looking for in a class.

You will not like that answer (as you have demonstrated) because you have chosen only a narrow criteria for what makes a class good.

Discussing the matter with you, is therefore moot, because you just are not ever going to like what you read/hear. And if people do not try to "prove" to you that the class is great based on the very same criteria by which you have already demonstrated a condemnation for the class, you cry foul. Again, making discussing the matter with you rather pointless.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:

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?

To reply to the questions posed by the OP.

That.
Because you might get hit in the head.
All my moods are unfashionable.
I'm not sure what you're trying to find out about the umbrella.
No.

Sczarni

Durinor wrote:

The Crystal Shard (Drizzt's first appearance) was released in 1988, AD&D 2nd edition (the first incarnation of the two-weapon figbting ranger) was released in 1989.

In my opinion Drizzt uses two-weapons as that was a schtick of drow back then, and I don't think he influenced the 2nd edition ranger.

But then again where DID the idea come from? As said before the classic ranger is Aragorn.

The ranger is supposed to be the wilderness survivalist, right?

Archery comes from hunting wild game, and TWF comes from hacking through the underbrush with machetes.


I've never seen someone hack through underbrush by dual wielding machetes.


Silent Saturn wrote:
Archery comes from hunting wild game, and TWF comes from hacking through the underbrush with machetes.

Wait, why does that require 2 machetes?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

In case two shrubberies ambush you at the same time.


Quandary wrote:
In case two shrubberies ambush you at the same time.

Well that's when you need cleave and a +1 tree-bane greataxe. On the upside, I have not just one shrubbery, but another shrubbery! I'll place this one slightly higher so I get a 2 layer effect running...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MrSin wrote:


Well that's when you need cleave and a +1 tree-bane greataxe. On the upside, I have not just one shrubbery, but another shrubbery! I'll place this one slightly higher so I get a 2 layer effect running...

Or one of these babies.


Bill Dunn wrote:


Barbarians and Paladins have the feats to pursue maybe one style each and have a fair amount of flexibility in the choice although both are best suited to melee styles

As I understand it, Archer Paladins are pretty effective.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

How exactly are bonus feats restrictive?


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
How exactly are bonus feats restrictive?

they aren't

it's just

some players see the combat styles and think that because they get combat style feats for free, that they have to waste other feats on their combat style to further specialize, often taking unneccassary options

you only need two feats to be a viable secondary archer

deadly aim
precise shot

you only need ONE of the following 2 feats to be a viable melee damage dealer

power attack

or

pirahna strike

power attack is generally the better option of the two with the exception of houserules and dual agile wakazashi wielding ninja


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rangers are designed quite like generalists, and of the core classes is together with the bard and a martial-focused druid probably the best to pull it off.

And I think the combat styles should be seen in light of that. In core there's mainly five ways to fight:
TWF, feat intensive
Two-handed weapon, feat light
Archery, works with a few feats, can benefit from loads
Sword and board (without TWF), feat light
Combat maneuvers, feat and stat intensive

Combat maneuvers aren't the rangers deal, sure, but other than that? Together with the standard feats the ranger can:
pick light archery + defensive sword & board
pick light archery + two-handed weapon
pick archery + focus on archery
pick TWF which will eat all feats

So while it's possible to specialize, it also opens up a way to be very effective while being more generalist.


Ilja wrote:

Rangers are designed quite like generalists, and of the core classes is together with the bard and a martial-focused druid probably the best to pull it off.

And I think the combat styles should be seen in light of that. In core there's mainly five ways to fight:
TWF, feat intensive
Two-handed weapon, feat light
Archery, works with a few feats, can benefit from loads
Sword and board (without TWF), feat light
Combat maneuvers, feat and stat intensive

Combat maneuvers aren't the rangers deal, sure, but other than that? Together with the standard feats the ranger can:
pick light archery + defensive sword & board
pick light archery + two-handed weapon
pick archery + focus on archery
pick TWF which will eat all feats

So while it's possible to specialize, it also opens up a way to be very effective while being more generalist.

true, once you see that bonus feat lists open options, not restrict them

but your typical experience light player, or minmaxer, is going to want to minmax their primary combat style. and many who focus on their main style, ignore the fact that they can combine styles

the only feat you need to be nasty with a 2hander is power attack

meaning power attack + archery style, = effective switch hitter fairly easily as long as you keep up both strength and dexterity. which is easier to do with access to either a high point buy or the race builder, than without.


With rangers high BAB, you don't even need to get dexterity that high. A 14-16 should be enough by far during the lower levels, and since you're not meant to stay in melee for long you don't need that high AC or hit points.

Of course, it's also dependent on sometimes getting your favored enemy bonus. If you don't then well you will feel like a suboptimal fighter/rogue.

Scarab Sages

Zouron wrote:
The whole alignment restriction thing can make a Rageaholic and in fact the whole rage mechanic as presented is something I strongly dislike, I wish they it more general like say "great resolve" or some such, something a bit more abstract then "Me mad, Me brush PUNY monster." but that is neither here nor there. Let us just say I agree with this.

The Lawful Barbarian:

"I will defend this mountain pass, to my dying breath, as this is where my ancestors are buried, and their spirits are with me today. I shall not fall while they are watching.
You have no place here. Leave now, while you still can."

Liberty's Edge

Limited? No.

Archery or Two-weapon doesn't mean that is all they can do. That is the area they get specialization in.

Arguably the most effective Ranger build is the Two-handed switch hitter Archer.

Liberty's Edge

Snorter wrote:
Zouron wrote:
The whole alignment restriction thing can make a Rageaholic and in fact the whole rage mechanic as presented is something I strongly dislike, I wish they it more general like say "great resolve" or some such, something a bit more abstract then "Me mad, Me brush PUNY monster." but that is neither here nor there. Let us just say I agree with this.

The Lawful Barbarian:

"I will defend this mountain pass, to my dying breath, as this is where my ancestors are buried, and their spirits are with me today. I shall not fall while they are watching.
You have no place here. Leave now, while you still can."

"Your property rights and needs of civilization to build a road here mean nothing to me!"


Here's the issue I have with the concept of a switch hitter - it depends on dropping your bow on the ground when an enemy closes to melee.

Is this something anyone would do in an actual game? I sounds to me like a very easy way to lose an expensive composite bow.

Liberty's Edge

Durinor wrote:

Here's the issue I have with the concept of a switch hitter - it depends on dropping your bow on the ground when an enemy closes to melee.

Is this something anyone would do in an actual game? I sounds to me like a very easy way to lose an expensive composite bow.

I play an archer and not a switch hitter. But if the enemy comes too close and I cannot retreat, I will drop my +1 holy adaptive composite longbow and attack with my +1 longsword. If I kill the enemy, I get my bow back after the fight. If I have to flee, well my PC does value his life more than his bow.

Of course, now that we have weapon cords, this is not such a risk anyway.


The whole idea of the ranger class seems silly when I stop and think about it...

The entire favored enemy and terrain mechanics could be worked into a Fighter Archetype, realistically.


The black raven wrote:
Durinor wrote:

Here's the issue I have with the concept of a switch hitter - it depends on dropping your bow on the ground when an enemy closes to melee.

Is this something anyone would do in an actual game? I sounds to me like a very easy way to lose an expensive composite bow.

I play an archer and not a switch hitter. But if the enemy comes too close and I cannot retreat, I will drop my +1 holy adaptive composite longbow and attack with my +1 longsword. If I kill the enemy, I get my bow back after the fight. If I have to flee, well my PC does value his life more than his bow.

Of course, now that we have weapon cords, this is not such a risk anyway.

Why drop the bow? My ranger holds his bow in his off hand while he attacks with a weapon in his primary hand. A one-handed weapon does not deal as much damage as a two-handed weapon, but the convenience is worth the reduced damage. Besides, his usual melee style indoors was sword and shield.

Sczarni

To the OP: The answer is no. By Core, the Ranger is neither the worst, or most restrained class. Here's looking at you Rogue.
/thread.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

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.

Gotta dissect this:

TWO weapon styles: The most feat intensive combat styles he gets as bonus feats, and doesn't need pre-reqs.
Wow, that's freaking awesome.

TWF? A warrior needs Power Attack and he's good to go for a 2h weapon. What this does is make him good at using two weapons IF HE WANTS TO. He can use a longsword with two hands on the charge, whip out a hand axe for the full attack, or use a Sword and Board and bash away.
And he doesn't need a crazy 19 Dex req to do it! NOR is he penalized for not having his favorite weapon, like a fighter is.
So, unlike the fighter, that Ranger can be situationally good at everything.
The idealized Ranger build is a switch hitter...using 2h for melee, and the Archery Ranger for ranged. Why? because Power Attack makes you a good 2h'er. There's no NEED for a 2h Weapon style.

==Aelryinth


I have to disagree with the OP. While the bonus feats that rangers get in the core book are 2 types, they are useful in enabling or boosting several builds.

Two-handed weapons? You don´t need that many feats for this (and the core book doesn´t have that many to begin with), so archery serves as backup for combat at range - and possibly for a few niche builds, like spear-throwers. TWF works for a brawling style where you wield armor spikes or the like as an "off weapon".
Sword and shield? TWF for an offensive shield build, especially with a spiked shield. Even now at least half the shield feats are TWF-based. Look at the shield combat style - it gets TWF as a bonus feat.
Single weapon? There´s not much support for that anywhere yet, but again you can use the ranged style as a backup option, or TWF for a style where you use your off hand defensively (essentially dual-wielding unarmed strikes, gauntlets etc).

The only combat types I can imagine that are not well supported are maneuver mastery, but that is generally best left to fighters, and an unarmed "bear rassling" build. Even though the class did get some finetuning later on, the core ranger was already quite decent.

Liberty's Edge

Mathmuse wrote:
Why drop the bow? My ranger holds his bow in his off hand while he attacks with a weapon in his primary hand. A one-handed weapon does not deal as much damage as a two-handed weapon, but the convenience is worth the reduced damage. Besides, his usual melee style indoors was sword and shield.

You are right. I forgot to mention the enchanted buckler that comes out in melee mode ;-)

The Exchange

Zouron wrote:


The whole alignment restriction thing can make a Rageaholic and in fact the whole rage mechanic as presented is something I strongly dislike, I wish they it more general like say "great resolve" or some such, something a bit more abstract then "Me mad, Me brush PUNY monster." but that is netiehr here nor there. Let us just say I agree with this.

The Samurai can fill this role in more than just name. Challenge could be fluffed as a targeted rage.

hmm archetype idea forming.


GeneticDrift wrote:
Zouron wrote:
The whole alignment restriction thing can make a Rageaholic and in fact the whole rage mechanic as presented is something I strongly dislike, I wish they it more general like say "great resolve" or some such, something a bit more abstract then "Me mad, Me brush PUNY monster." but that is netiehr here nor there. Let us just say I agree with this.

The Samurai can fill this role in more than just name. Challenge could be fluffed as a targeted rage.

hmm archetype idea forming.

I had better luck doing the unbreakable resolve thing with a barbarian myself. Superstitious rage power + invulnerable rager, and a +4 con that goes up as you level(+2 with raging vitality, +1/2 with courageous weapon).

Wasn't this thread about rangers?


It is a thematically "dumb" class, but I think it's still less "dumb" than the barbarian.

You have
Fighter: versatile chassis for building soldiers (it's flawed, but it's well designed and versatile apart from the foolishness of no skills and a weak will save on a soldier)

Sorcerer: a born mage with the blood of {insert bloodline here} running through her veins

Wizard: phenomenal cosmic power through hard work and self discipline

Monk: slightly more mundane power through hard work and self discipline

Cleric: a conduit for divine power

Rogue: the low class everyman getting by on his wits alone (again, doesn't live up to the promise, but it's role and theme versatile)

Bard: The class of present or future princes and statesmen and generals

Druid: an avatar of nature's wrath.

And then you have

Barbarian: a guy defined by his temper

Ranger: a guy defined by his racism

Paladin: a guy defined by his alignment

Those last three are some of the best designed mechanically, but if anything in the game besides the mute oracle curse can be described as dumb it's their fluff.


Atarlost wrote:
Fighter: (snip) well designed

You put those words in the same sentence...

51 to 100 of 120 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Rangers: By Core, The Dumbest Class? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.