Warden Spells for Ranger

[Sporkedup]

Pirate Rob wrote:

Sporkedup wrote:

A dual-wielding ranger can make more attacks per turn than a dual-wielding fighter, and while fighter is more accurate on the first hit, they are equal on the second and ranger better on the rest.

Fighter significantly wins out on the second attack still.

Remember a fighter is +2 to hit on all attacks.

So assuming agile weapons the double slicing fighter is +2/+2/-6
and the marking+twin takedown Ranger is +0/-2/-4. Not catching up until the 3rd attack.

With no prior setup and only 1 action to attack, the fighter is +2 and the ranger is +0.

If you have 2 actions to attack Double Slice vs Mark + Twin Takedown is +2/+2 vs 0/-2

Any round where the ranger starts with the target marked looks quite good though.

1 action F vs R

+2 vs +0/-2

2 actions

+2/+2 vs +0/-2/-4

3 actions

+2/+2/-6 vs +0/-2/-4/-4

You're right, my math was a bit off. Thanks!

Still, rangers can definitely hit the third and fourth hits more accurately. Add in haste and an animal companion, and that's a fifth and sixth attack at still excellent odds! Especially considering potentially built-in flanking.

[rnphillips]

Sporkedup wrote:

rnphillips wrote:

2-weapon Ranger feels like a strictly inferior 2-weapon Fighter. Part of the problem is that Fighters get that better weapon proficiency and there's nothing that even matches that huge advantage. I guess Rangers get 2 more skills than Fighters but lets be honest, non-combat skills play a very minor role. Before the APG one could argue that only Rangers could get an animal companion but that's been gutted with the addition of the Beastmaster archetype.

If you want to play a "Ranger", just make a Fighter and get Nature and Survival skills. Then intentionally wear medium armor rather than full plate.

I also wouldn't be surprised if you did the math that a Precision Ranger would be inferior in almost all circumstances than some boring old 2H weapon fighter.

Ranger would have been better as an archetype.

By that logic, barbarians and monks should have been archetypes for fighters too.

Barbarians differ more from Fighters than Rangers do thanks to rage adding a significant amount of extra damage (at the expense of accuracy) and having a significantly lower AC during rage. Barbarian feats also add far more flavor than Ranger feats to differentiate them from Fighters.

Monks are nothing like Fighters. Unarmed attacks, huge movement, Flurry of Blows, Ki Spells, unarmed defense, lots of stances.

Ranger feats are bleh. They have no "cool" factor and the good ones just leverage the Hunter's Edge mechanic that is an action tax.

Quote:

A dual-wielding ranger can make more attacks per turn than a dual-wielding fighter, and while fighter is more accurate on the first hit, they are equal on the second and ranger better on the rest.

In edge cases that might be true but most of the time a Fighter will have better accuracy on both the 1st and 2nd attack. Those additional attacks would require that the Ranger already have Hunt Prey up on the target. Also, it's pretty unlikely that either Fighter or Hunter is just sitting there doing 3 attack actions. Are they beating on a brick wall?

Quote:

Animal companion on a ranger gets both the hunter's edge benefit as well as a free action taken against a hunted target, if you wish. I don't think Beastmaster offers you the same thing at all.

Beastmaster companions get a free attack/move action but it doesn't require a hunted target. The hunter's edge benefit is a fair point though.

Quote:

Precision rangers look solid for crossbow builds, eldritch archers, and more rogue-like concepts, though the latter probably aren't better at it than rogues are, admittedly. If you're just here to compare DPR, why? That serves no purpose to discuss, really.

DPR comparison serves no purpose only if the classes offer something else besides DPR. What does Ranger offer other than that, exactly?

[PossibleCabbage]

I think the difference is that if you decide "I want to use two agile weapons and make a lot of attacks" is your thing, then being a ranger is going to leave a lot more feats open for other things you might want to do than being a fighter. Particularly because the ranger gets things free from flurry that the fighter has to spend feats on.

So the ranger is a good choice if you want to twf and also use a bow, or have an animal companion, or know some focus spells, or do snares.

The fighter is a better choice if you just want DPR.

[Sporkedup]

rnphillips wrote:

Barbarians differ more from Fighters than Rangers do thanks to rage adding a significant amount of extra damage (at the expense of accuracy) and having a significantly lower AC during rage. Barbarian feats also add far more flavor than Ranger feats to differentiate them from Fighters.

Monks are nothing like Fighters. Unarmed attacks, huge movement, Flurry of Blows, Ki Spells, unarmed defense, lots of stances.

Ranger feats are bleh. They have no "cool" factor and the good ones just leverage the Hunter's Edge mechanic that is an action tax.

Look. If you're going to be reductionist to the point that Hunt Prey is just an action tax for something that a fighter could do, just understand that Rage is an action tax for something that a fighter could do. All you are doing is entering a stance that lowers your AC, gives you some bonus HP, and increases your damage.

Personally, I find ranger feats a lot more flavorful and interesting than fighter feats. But similar to everything you wrote, what I just wrote is also very much just opinion.

I'm sorry the ranger doesn't appeal to you as is. If their perception, snares, warden spells, hunt prey and all its variations, monster warden and all its variations, skills related to tracking and difficult terrains, and significant stealth skills don't differentiate them enough from fighters for you, I don't know what to say. They exist as they are, are very unlikely to change in any significant detail, and actually have a very high degree of player satisfaction, if my table and general comments on the internet provide any window into that.

In fact, you're the first person I've run across in the first year of the game that questions their relevance, quality, or purpose for existence--and I've spent a lot of time in discussions about this game with random internet strangers. Anyways. I don't think you or I are accomplishing anything here.

[Squiggit]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

So the ranger is a good choice if you want to twf and also use a bow, or have an animal companion, or know some focus spells, or do snares.

I think this is kind of pointing to one of the main problems with the Ranger, the class is a bit of a mess.

It's good if you want to access the specific combination of class features and abilities the class gives you access to as you're suggesting, but it doesn't always feel particularly cohesive about it.

Having the class be specifically built for TWF and not, say, two handed weapons or one handed weapons or any other fighting style is pretty arbitrary (especially since the iconic PF1 ranger didn't even TWF). The selection of warden spells and other options are kind of in the same boat. Then you have stuff like Snares which were pretty much just made as a ranger-only mechanic (though Kobolds can get access to it), but also have to be bought in and wedged into the build and the end result is... a little bit awkward.

So then you get people who have these very specific visions of what a ranger can and should be and get really frustrated when the very specific vision PF2 presents doesn't line up with what they're used to and it can end up feeling like you're fighting against the system to build the character you want to build (which is sort of just a perennial PF2 problem, but it stands out here the most).

[Dargath]

Most annoying of all is that the same row - level 1 feats - gives either the animal companion OR the ability to heal it but not both at the same time -_-

[oholoko]

Dargath wrote:

Most annoying of all is that the same row - level 1 feats - gives either the animal companion OR the ability to heal it but not both at the same time -_-

You know you can pick both being a human or when you reatch level 2 right?

[BluLion]

I'll be completely honest, I looked at the rangers feats, and then the fighter's, and I don't really see anything wrong with the ranger, aside from maybe the hunt target action economy. But even then, a lot of classes have something like that, whether it be rage, stances, trying to make skill checks for panache depending on the swashbuckler style, and certain methods of getting flatfooted for rogue. Plus I'm usually in the mindset that once you get just enough combat feats, or the right ones you want, getting anymore just feels redundant, so I grab utility stuff. The fighter feats, being almost entirely combat related, feels a bit much to me, though many are quite nice. Then again, I guess that's why I hardly ever run fighter equivalents anymore in tabletop rpgs.

[PossibleCabbage]

It's mostly that the fighter is the only class that can really spend almost all of their feats trying to be great at one thing.

[RCJak]

AnimatedPaper wrote:

RCJak wrote:

a lot of the counter points amount to relatively little.

RCJak wrote:

Is your role merely a matter of meeting a DC in rather exotic circumstances? If so, I suppose I can say no more to you, as you're enjoying the game and it is working for you.

RCJak wrote:

I did have to point a few fingers. They are not pointed with malice or in some effort to incur wrath. If all you want from the ranger is a relatively standard set of scaling modifiers, or a relatively effective role in combat, you can have as much in 2e.

Yeah, after reading these parts, I can't really say the same.

My questions about the class were meant as invitations. I do see how they might be taken as adversarial, but I really don't mean them as much. Ranger occupies essentially a "class slot", that is to say, a space in design that contributes to playing the game we all love. I'm pointed in an effort to ask the wider community why we bother retaining a ranger in the same way we retain a rogue. A rogue disarms traps, he deceives our otherwise milquetoast foes, he thieves the mcguffin when we least expect it.

If ranger deserves the space of an entire class, as it has been for an entire edition, I'm probing. I'm probing to see why we feel the ranger deserves a meme, or whether he/she deserves a TikTok video, or whether any particular situation demands a ranger -in the particular-. These are the directions my questions orient.

I do not endeavor to close the thread. Far from it. I think the OP has opened something of an inquiry into a much deeper question that the class, and even perhaps the system as a whole must ask itself. Does the Ranger even deserve to be a class? If it does, and I believe it does, I invite others to engage this seemingly growing problem, why? Why would you desire a ranger as a part of your party? Why does ranger warrant the same consideration as a wizard, sorcerer, swashbuckler or even shadowdancer?

We intuit why certain roles participate in a campaign, we understand where arcs are leading when our party-make-up is of a certain sort. Where does the ranger fit into that? Because Paizo seems inclined to reserve Ranger to the effectiveness of an archetype. And that is perfectly fine, if Ranger is to be merely an archetype. But it is not. So why does it warrant the slot of a class?

[First World Bard]

In the CRB, Rangers have the role of martial characters in tune with nature. They are the ones you can expect to be able to blaze a trail through the wilderness, be knowledgeable about wild creatures, and be handy in a fight. They can optionally also travel alongside an animal companion. To me, that last part is important, since I agree that a Fighter with the right skills and skill feats (and perhaps even the Druid dedication) can emulate those things. But the Druid dedication is insufficient to bring an animal companion to the table, because of the half level restriction of multi-class dedications.

With the advent of the APG, a Beastmaster Fighter can handle that just fine. In fact, in my Extinction Curse game, we had a ranger with animal convert to beastmaster fighter, because it was a better fit. (Our other ranger with animal companion stayed a ranger, because they were an archer and the precision edge worked well for them). Now, the ranger did get warden spells in the APG, and that was a welcome addition; rangers can now get focus spells without needing to rely on the Druid dedication. So the Beastmaster hasn't obsoleted the Ranger class since Martial + Full progression Animal Companion + (focus) spellcasting not dedicated to the animal would require two archetypes.

I played a flurry ranger in Plaguestone. I've got a low-level Precision Ranger in PFS, and I have plans for an Outwit Ranger as well (modeled after a Witcher-like character). I've also played rangers in editions past. If someone played a 3.5 or PF1 ranger (mostly core, let's not dive too heavily into archetypes), I believe the PF2 ranger can give the same sort of class "feel". And sure, some of those characters could have been made as Fighters, maybe with an archetype slapped on. But not all of them, and not with just the Core Rulebook. So I think the Ranger being in the CRB as a class serves an important purpose.

[First World Bard]

To dovetail on my last point: My favorite character in 3.5 was a gnome druid/bard. When 4e came out, Gnomes, Druids, and Bards weren't in the initial PHB, and I was unhappy as a result. I understand the rationale behind that decision: Gnomes needed to be differentiated better from Dwarves/Elves/Halfings; Bards needed have a strong niche/role (Remember, 4e was a very role-oriented system), and WotC needed to pick a role for Druids, since traditionally they could both heal and lay down AoE. But it was still unfun to not be able to re-imagine my character, and may have contributed to my coming over to Pathfinder. (As an aside, that favorite character worked pretty well as a Summoner in PF1, and works great as a Druid / MC Bard in PF2. Though likely a Bard/Beastmaster would also have been an acceptable re-imagining).

[N N 959]

First World Bard wrote:

I played a flurry ranger in Plaguestone. I've got a low-level Precision Ranger in PFS...

Any comments on the difference between them?

[First World Bard]

N N 959 wrote:

First World Bard wrote:

I played a flurry ranger in Plaguestone. I've got a low-level Precision Ranger in PFS...

Any comments on the difference between them?

Sure. In Plaguestone, I played a half-orc two-weapon Flurry ranger through third level. He fought with an Orc Necksplitter an an Orc Knuckle Dagger. The most common round was move into melee, hunt prey, twin takedown. Often, individual enemies would die before my turn came up again, so I very rarely got the dream turn of 4 attacks at 0/-2/-4/-4. Sometimes when I was facing a large group in melee and I knew my target was nearly down, it'd start with a regular attack, hoping to bring it down, and then hunt and twin takedown the next target if my first attack was successful. The Necksplitter's sweep trait helped in these instances.

My PFS ranger is still only 2nd level. He's a traditional Elven archer, with an animal companion. As a precision ranger, I get most of my damage from my first shot; the longbow's Deadly property helps here. I had picked up Hunters Aim since my level 1 class feat was the companion. However, I've come to realize that it's more a niche choice than a break and butter option, so I plan to retrain that into something else; likely Hunted Shot, though the APG focus spells are also appealing. PFS has a "free" rebuild through the end of the month, so I might potentially change to a Half-Elf so I can grab Natural Ambition; especially after the APG, Rangers have a lot of good 1st level class feat choices.

I guess to sum up: when fighting large groups, they both often Hunt, Move, Attack. But for the TWF flurry ranger, there's no reason to stop attacking if there's still a target in front. For the Precision ranger, barring Hunted shot, often a second attack will only come if the first one missed, and I'll find something else to do with my actions.

The outwit ranger I have planned is still just theorycraft, but I'd like to take both the Monster Warden feat line as well as some choice Warden spells: Gravity Weapon, Hunter's Luck, Hunter's Vision. IME, focus spells are the right sort of magic for a "witcher-like" character to employ.

[Falco271]

Nice discussion. I was looking at a martial setup and i'm probably going for ranger (conversion of an existing char) due to dual weapon (flurry) but more because of the hunt prey. I don't mind the added action, and the lvl 10 feat master monster hunter, for a whole lot of recall knowledges on nature.

As for ranger or beastmaster AC: for precision, having the edge seems to matter. For flurry, i don't see much use. Attack for the AC is behind anyway. So either have a bear/bird for lots of support on attacks, or let something like a wolf with max dex do it's thing (one attack action, provide flanking if needed, have a good AC to stay alive. So I've chosen the beastmaster option. Gets stronger at lower levels.

[N N 959]

Thanks, FWB. As an FYI, I've been told the "free rebuild" actually comes at a cost of 15% of your total wealth. So not exactly free.

FWB wrote:

especially after the APG, Rangers have a lot of good 1st level class feat choices.

Are you referring to the Warden spells, or are there are other feats/skills that were added?

[First World Bard]

N N 959 wrote:

Thanks, FWB. As an FYI, I've been told the "free rebuild" actually comes at a cost of 15% of your total wealth. So not exactly free.

FWB wrote:

especially after the APG, Rangers have a lot of good 1st level class feat choices.

Are you referring to the Warden spells, or are there are other feats/skills that were added?

Yeah, hence why I put "free" in scare quotes. That said, he's only second level, and the curve of wealth by level means it'll just be a drop in the bucket shortly. It'll be a bigger hit for my evoker wizard who just hit 6th level, but c'est la vie. (Had to Google the spelling on that one)

Warden spells, in additon to Hunted Shot and Animal Companion from the CRB. I have a 7th level Animal Order druid in PFS, so I know that Heal Companion has the potential to be a rather strong pick. Also, this character has a somewhat unique cat as a companion, and if said cat died I'm not convinced I'd be able to find a new one.

[rainzax]

One more thing.

Fighter + Beastmaster vs Ranger w/ Animal Companion.

The Ranger shares it's Edge with it's Companion - which is something Unique to it as well.

[Temperans]

Honestly, its kind of amazing that people see Rangers as mostly a ranged class.

I remember quite well that some of the best Sword and Board characters where Rangers since they got access to Shield Master before even Fighters. They were great 2-handed weapon user. Had a great leverage for Switch Strike and Thrown weapons. Etc.

As for Ranger Snares/Traps. That is nothing new, but it was so lack luster that most people dont even bother to remember it existed since 2015.

[Grankless]

Part of it is definitely that it has "range" in the name. Honestly I'm not really sure why they specifically have a dual-wielding bent to them all the time. It's fine that it's part of their niche, but it's still strange.

[First World Bard]

rainzax wrote:

One more thing.

Fighter + Beastmaster vs Ranger w/ Animal Companion.

The Ranger shares it's Edge with it's Companion - which is something Unique to it as well.

Also, as I contemplate the rebuild of my Ranger: there are advantages to being both a Ranger AND a Beastmaster: I can take Animal Companion at 1st level, and then Beastmaster at 2nd level would give me a second companion I could switch with a minute in Exploration mode. Adding a bird to the cat seems interesting. If I can take Natural Ambition, I could also pick up the Heal Companion warden spell, which is stronger but more restrictive than Heal Animal, and save those higher level class feats for Mature/Incredible Companion, and other things besides.

Edit: this plan would leave my character without Hunted Shot; it is certainly a trade-off to consider. I'll be playing him in a quest on Sunday as-is, and then go in for the rebuild after that.

[First World Bard]

Grankless wrote:

Part of it is definitely that it has "range" in the name. Honestly I'm not really sure why they specifically have a dual-wielding bent to them all the time. It's fine that it's part of their niche, but it's still strange.

Pretty sure that's all Drizz't's fault. Iirc, in D&D 1E, Drow were ambidextrous and that's why he fought with two scimitars. Then that was no longer true, and in D&D 2E it became a Ranger thing instead of a Drow thing. At least that's an explanation I read somewhere.

[Sporkedup]

Grankless wrote:

Part of it is definitely that it has "range" in the name. Honestly I'm not really sure why they specifically have a dual-wielding bent to them all the time. It's fine that it's part of their niche, but it's still strange.

I always thought their name had nothing to do with attacking at range. More "ranger" as a synonym for "rover" or "wanderer" or "drifter." The Aragorn legacy.

[PossibleCabbage]

First World Bard wrote:

Grankless wrote:

Part of it is definitely that it has "range" in the name. Honestly I'm not really sure why they specifically have a dual-wielding bent to them all the time. It's fine that it's part of their niche, but it's still strange.

Pretty sure that's all Drizz't's fault. Iirc, in D&D 1E, Drow were ambidextrous and that's why he fought with two scimitars. Then that was no longer true, and in D&D 2E it became a Ranger thing instead of a Drow thing. At least that's an explanation I read somewhere.

This probably harkens back to how in AD&D times "ambidextrous" was just a strictly beneficial thing your character could have with a lucky roll for handedness (similar to psionics kind of). So people wanted to accumulate as many (free) beneficial traits as possible.

[Temperans]

Sporkedup wrote:

Grankless wrote:

Part of it is definitely that it has "range" in the name. Honestly I'm not really sure why they specifically have a dual-wielding bent to them all the time. It's fine that it's part of their niche, but it's still strange.

I always thought their name had nothing to do with attacking at range. More "ranger" as a synonym for "rover" or "wanderer" or "drifter." The Aragorn legacy.

Ranger also comes from the IRL job of "Park Ranger" whose job is to patrol/range over parks/areas. Its also why Rangers got Favored Enemy, Favored Terrain, Wild Stride, and Tracking. All important tools to better patrol an area.

[Grankless]

Sporkedup wrote:

Grankless wrote:

Part of it is definitely that it has "range" in the name. Honestly I'm not really sure why they specifically have a dual-wielding bent to them all the time. It's fine that it's part of their niche, but it's still strange.

I always thought their name had nothing to do with attacking at range. More "ranger" as a synonym for "rover" or "wanderer" or "drifter." The Aragorn legacy.

Oh yeah, that's definitely the intent (but I always think "park ranger", mostly because I invaded a lot in Dark Souls 1). But it's still in the name!

[Squiggit]

Dual wielding is cool, but it's kind of a bummer those are the only two directions the Ranger gets internal support. IMO two handed weapon or a one handed weapon by itself for the flexibility seem really thematically appropriate to me. You can eat mauler dedication (even though it's kind of a dead feat for you) to get some support for the former, but the latter basically doesn't have any support anywhere in the game (most of the one-handed combat style feats stop working if you put ANYTHING in your off hand, which kind of kills the image of a ranger exploring some dark place with a torch in one hand and their sword in the other).

[Captain Morgan]

Squiggit wrote:

Dual wielding is cool, but it's kind of a bummer those are the only two directions the Ranger gets internal support. IMO two handed weapon or a one handed weapon by itself for the flexibility seem really thematically appropriate to me. You can eat mauler dedication (even though it's kind of a dead feat for you) to get some support for the former, but the latter basically doesn't have any support anywhere in the game (most of the one-handed combat style feats stop working if you put ANYTHING in your off hand, which kind of kills the image of a ranger exploring some dark place with a torch in one hand and their sword in the other).

While the ranger doesn't get combat feats directly oriented with those combat styles, that actually opens up a lot of build options. Rather than spend a bunch of feats to get a subomtimpal fighting style up to speed, a ranger can just grab a greatsword and precision edge and use their feats to get animal companions, snares, or what have you. Such a build is really the only way I can imagine fitting things like Favored Enemy in, for example.

Also, not relying on one of the first level flourish feats opens up doors for other flourishes, like Skirmish Strike, which would actually be a pretty sweet feat if it didn't compete with Twin Takedown and Hunted Shot.

[Eraden]

I understand the need to trim down all of the features and abilities that rangers had in PF1, but I honestly think they went a bit too far in PF2. Rangers appear to have become effectively second class fighters that can nearly approach what fighters achieve IF they (rangers) devote nearly ALL of their feats towards "catching up". For this, they give up a number of features like use of heavy armor, high accuracy and such. It just doesn't feel right.

What I would like to propose is that you take features such as Tracking, Animal Companion, Traps, Spell Casting and Favored Terrain and have rangers select ONE bonus first level feat from ONE of these categories, at first level. This would go together with whatever combat style feat they would choose at first level. From there on, the class would function as per PF2 rules. If you want to boost that additional ability, it will come at the cost of improving your core combat functions. This way rangers would get some introductory level competency in another function for having given up functions that fighters get.

[Ventnor]

Captain Morgan wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

Dual wielding is cool, but it's kind of a bummer those are the only two directions the Ranger gets internal support. IMO two handed weapon or a one handed weapon by itself for the flexibility seem really thematically appropriate to me. You can eat mauler dedication (even though it's kind of a dead feat for you) to get some support for the former, but the latter basically doesn't have any support anywhere in the game (most of the one-handed combat style feats stop working if you put ANYTHING in your off hand, which kind of kills the image of a ranger exploring some dark place with a torch in one hand and their sword in the other).

While the ranger doesn't get combat feats directly oriented with those combat styles, that actually opens up a lot of build options. Rather than spend a bunch of feats to get a subomtimpal fighting style up to speed, a ranger can just grab a greatsword and precision edge and use their feats to get animal companions, snares, or what have you. Such a build is really the only way I can imagine fitting things like Favored Enemy in, for example.

Also, not relying on one of the first level flourish feats opens up doors for other flourishes, like Skirmish Strike, which would actually be a pretty sweet feat if it didn't compete with Twin Takedown and Hunted Shot.

Plus there are now archetypes that let you lean into certain fighting styles. Ranger Maulers are perfectly viable characters.

[Schreckstoff]

Sporkedup wrote:

Grankless wrote:

Part of it is definitely that it has "range" in the name. Honestly I'm not really sure why they specifically have a dual-wielding bent to them all the time. It's fine that it's part of their niche, but it's still strange.

I always thought their name had nothing to do with attacking at range. More "ranger" as a synonym for "rover" or "wanderer" or "drifter." The Aragorn legacy.

it's drizzt's fault I'd love to build a ranger that does running ranged attacks then drops them for close combat but it's kinda hard to fit mixed ranged and melee combat into a build with the available number of feats.

[shroudb]

Temperans wrote:

Sporkedup wrote:

Grankless wrote:

Part of it is definitely that it has "range" in the name. Honestly I'm not really sure why they specifically have a dual-wielding bent to them all the time. It's fine that it's part of their niche, but it's still strange.

I always thought their name had nothing to do with attacking at range. More "ranger" as a synonym for "rover" or "wanderer" or "drifter." The Aragorn legacy.

Ranger also comes from the IRL job of "Park Ranger" whose job is to patrol/range over parks/areas. Its also why Rangers got Favored Enemy, Favored Terrain, Wild Stride, and Tracking. All important tools to better patrol an area.

Wasn't the original class inspired by the Rangers of the North (also known as simply Rangers) and more specifically, Aragorn?

Warriors trained in both bow and blade, guarding and scouting the wilderness they roamed. Good with tracking, hating the Orcs, and etc.

Most of OG dnd was insired by Tolkien's work to begin with.

[pauljathome]

shroudb wrote:

Most of OG dnd was insired by Tolkien's work to begin with.

Uh, no. The druid was inspired by Celtic myths.

Gygax did once make an utterly absurd claim that Gandalf was a fairly low level druid (7th IIRC). But that is about the only link between a druid and Tolkein

[shroudb]

pauljathome wrote:

shroudb wrote:

Most of OG dnd was insired by Tolkien's work to begin with.

Uh, no. The druid was inspired by Celtic myths.

Gygax did once make an utterly absurd claim that Gandalf was a fairly low level druid (7th IIRC). But that is about the only link between a druid and Tolkein

yes, that's why i said most and not all.

apart from Tolkien, dnd did take a ton of stuff from mythologies all around the world to make complete settings and rules (especially the monsters, since tolien didn't have a lot of different types of adversaries in his books). But the impact that tolkien did impact dnd in a major way.

halflings, rangers, orcs, and others (i;m not sure elves and dwarves existed before tolkien), are mostly tolkien stuff.

edit: in retrospect, maybe "most" was not the appropriate word, and i should have used "a lot" instead. I agree on that.

[Temperans]

shroudb wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Sporkedup wrote:

Grankless wrote:

Part of it is definitely that it has "range" in the name. Honestly I'm not really sure why they specifically have a dual-wielding bent to them all the time. It's fine that it's part of their niche, but it's still strange.

I always thought their name had nothing to do with attacking at range. More "ranger" as a synonym for "rover" or "wanderer" or "drifter." The Aragorn legacy.

Ranger also comes from the IRL job of "Park Ranger" whose job is to patrol/range over parks/areas. Its also why Rangers got Favored Enemy, Favored Terrain, Wild Stride, and Tracking. All important tools to better patrol an area.

Wasn't the original class inspired by the Rangers of the North (also known as simply Rangers) and more specifically, Aragorn?

Warriors trained in both bow and blade, guarding and scouting the wilderness they roamed. Good with tracking, hating the Orcs, and etc.

Most of OG dnd was insired by Tolkien's work to begin with.

"Rangers of the North", aka a group who ranged over the north, protecting it.

Tolkien based his Rangers on the IRL job of being a Ranger.

All the martial classes were based on IRL jobs. The magic classes were based both on IRL jobs and myths with an extra a mount of magic to make them interesting (at least thats what supposed to be).

[shroudb]

Temperans wrote:

shroudb wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Sporkedup wrote:

Grankless wrote:

Part of it is definitely that it has "range" in the name. Honestly I'm not really sure why they specifically have a dual-wielding bent to them all the time. It's fine that it's part of their niche, but it's still strange.

I always thought their name had nothing to do with attacking at range. More "ranger" as a synonym for "rover" or "wanderer" or "drifter." The Aragorn legacy.

Ranger also comes from the IRL job of "Park Ranger" whose job is to patrol/range over parks/areas. Its also why Rangers got Favored Enemy, Favored Terrain, Wild Stride, and Tracking. All important tools to better patrol an area.

Wasn't the original class inspired by the Rangers of the North (also known as simply Rangers) and more specifically, Aragorn?

Warriors trained in both bow and blade, guarding and scouting the wilderness they roamed. Good with tracking, hating the Orcs, and etc.

Most of OG dnd was insired by Tolkien's work to begin with.

"Rangers of the North", aka a group who ranged over the north, protecting it.

Tolkien based his Rangers on the IRL job of being a Ranger.

All the martial classes were based on IRL jobs. The magic classes were based both on IRL jobs and myths with an extra a mount of magic to make them interesting (at least thats what supposed to be).

Well, sure, DnD based the Ranger on the works of Tolkien who in turn has based Aragorn on an actual ranger who got the name of his job from what he was looking for which got its name from how far you can look who etcetcetc

Everything starts somewhere. But the direct insiration of Gygax and co, given the other amount of stuff taken, points out to Aragorn and not park rangers.

I mean, when you think of someone that can track, is good with bow and blade, is sneaky, who hates specific types of creatures, and roams the wilderness, you don't immediately think "park ranger" while on the other hand those are the exact things Aragorn did.

[Temperans]

When I think of a Ranger I think of a person and his dog going hunting in the wilderness. Or a bounty hunter tracking his pray with his allies.

[shroudb]

rangers didnt have animal companions in the beginning if memeory serves me right. that's 3rd edition thing. (i vaguely remember that on 2nd edition they could befriend animals or something like that)

initially rangers were just a subtype of fighter that gave up some martial prowess for a few late game spells and their tracking abilities.

oh, actually, it's even in the wikipedia entry of dnd:

Quote:

The ranger was primarily based on the character Aragorn, and the Rangers of the North of J. R. R. Tolkien's Middle-earth mythos, as warriors who use tracking and other wilderness skills to hunt down their enemies. The AD&D second edition handbook mentions several other inspirations from myth and legend, such as Robin Hood, Jack the Giant Killer, the huntress Diana, and the Greek hero Orion.[2] Other notable rangers in the literature of Dungeons & Dragons include Hank from the cartoon series, King Tristan Kendrick from Forgotten Realms, and Ren from Pool of Radiance.[citation needed]

p.s. i lol when i realise that "Drizzt" is not mentioned as "notable ranger from Dungeon and Dragon literature"

[Temperans]

If you read what I typed I did say "a bounty hunter and his allies". Which is what bonded companion ability was in PF1.

It let you choose an animal companion, or sharing your favored enemy bonus with allies.

In any case. My favorite version of the Ranger is still the PF1 version. Which did hamstring you for choosing a to use something besides a bow, two weapons, or crossbow. While also giving you very flavorful abilities that made sense. And overall giving you a lot of choices.

Really sad that PF2 didnt bring over a lot of those options, and that Ranger spells was only added later. Almost as an after though.

[shroudb]

I was talking more about where the class originated rather than where i liked it best.

imo, maybe because when i started playing they were as such, i viewed rangers mostly as "wilderness warriors", flexible in what they attack with, can hide in trees and can sneak behind you, you cant track them but they can track you, and etc.

the spells and the animal companions and such were mostly secondary to me, i mean, even though the spells were there from the beginning, they were mostly support stuff that made you even better in wilderness.

Pf1 rangers didn't really click with me (i didn't like AT ALL the favored enemy/terrain mechanics), but then again before pf2 druid also wasn't clicking for me either.

i do enjoy the "hunt prey" mechanic of pf2 though, it makes them seem more like boundy hunters and fill a different niche than "fighters but with nature" that they always had.

[AnimatedPaper]

shroudb wrote:

halflings, rangers, orcs, and others (i;m not sure elves and dwarves existed before tolkien), are mostly tolkien stuff.

Both elves and dwarves come from the same Germanic/Norse mythologies that Tolkien was inspired by. Dwarves have been relatively consistent in their depictions, while Elves have been a mix of various depictions ranging from the tall, ethereal, semi-divine beings Tolkien wrote about and the shorter, more mortal-like versions we have in dnd.

[AnimatedPaper]

Temperans wrote:

When I think of a Ranger I think of a person and his dog going hunting in the wilderness. Or a bounty hunter tracking his pray with his allies.

I think of a park ranger, which is what happens when you grow up just outside a national park.

[Captain Morgan]

Eraden wrote:

I understand the need to trim down all of the features and abilities that rangers had in PF1, but I honestly think they went a bit too far in PF2. Rangers appear to have become effectively second class fighters that can nearly approach what fighters achieve IF they (rangers) devote nearly ALL of their feats towards "catching up". For this, they give up a number of features like use of heavy armor, high accuracy and such. It just doesn't feel right.

What I would like to propose is that you take features such as Tracking, Animal Companion, Traps, Spell Casting and Favored Terrain and have rangers select ONE bonus first level feat from ONE of these categories, at first level. This would go together with whatever combat style feat they would choose at first level. From there on, the class would function as per PF2 rules. If you want to boost that additional ability, it will come at the cost of improving your core combat functions. This way rangers would get some introductory level competency in another function for having given up functions that fighters get.

Honestly, just doubling class feats is simpler. You can do this for fighters too, but so many fighter feats are mutually exclusive in execution that it only really matters is they take an archetype. A ranger can actually utilize doubled feats because of how many different areas their feats impact.

Also, last I checked Rangers did pretty similar DPR to fighters and got better saves, perception, and more skills trained to boot. I really wouldn't call them lacking, even if they can feel stretched thin to do a all the things one wants them to do with their feat budget.

[pauljathome]

shroudb wrote:

pauljathome wrote:

shroudb wrote:

Most of OG dnd was insired by Tolkien's work to begin with.

Uh, no. The druid was inspired by Celtic myths.

Gygax did once make an utterly absurd claim that Gandalf was a fairly low level druid (7th IIRC). But that is about the only link between a druid and Tolkein

yes, that's why i said most and not all.

I'm sorry, I had a complete brain fart. I somehow read your words as "most of OG druid was inspired by Tolkein's work". So I was disagreeing with something you didn't say :-(.

Yeah, despite his claims to the contrary, clearly lots and lots of D&D was inspired by Tolkein. Tolkein, of course, was himself inspired by lots of myths and legends, especially northern European ones (something that he happily admitted)

[PossibleCabbage]

People need to stop comparing things to the fighter in terms of "how good am I fighting in the way I prefer". Fighters being the best at this is what the fighter class is about. If other classes were able to match the fighter at the fighter's schtick there would be little reason to play a fighter (c.f. PF1).

We made a version of this game where the fighter is good, and fun and that's something to appreciate, not something to chip away at.

[PossibleCabbage]

If all you care about is "I want to be good at hitting stuff and subsequently damaging it" then you should just play fighters.

The draw for other classes are the other things that those classes do that fighters do not. Play a Barbarian because you want to get huge or breath fire and hit things really hard when you do. Play a Rogue when you want to be the best at skills and have big damage spikes. Play a Monk or Swashbuckler when you want to be really good at moving around, with monks being great at landing debuffs and action economy with Swashbucklers being good at a "one big hit" and "I dare you to swing at me" style. Play a Champion if you want to be hard as nails and protect others.

Arguably the problem with the Ranger is that it's unfocused- but that's also kind of its strength. You can pick a couple of the things that the Ranger's feats enable and do those two things really well.

If you want to play fighters, just do that.

[Eraden]

Wow, it's fascinating to see how people completely misinterpret a post. I NEVER said that rangers should be EQUAL to fighters in terms of combat capability. What I DID say was that even if a ranger devotes ALL of his feats towards catching up to a fighter, he is still behind and on top of that also has additional restrictions such as lack of heavy armor use, etc. What I had proposed was that rangers should be allowed to have one free class utility feat from the list I presented so as to make these disadvantages less pronounced AND give them more of a unique flavor. I don't want rangers to be fighters. Let fighters be fighters. Rangers should be more versatile but at the cost of combat prowess. I would argue that right now, that the cost in combat prowess in order to have versatility is a bit too extreme.