The Ranger: A bit undervalued?

[Rossebay]

So, I was skimming classes, looking for a decent build, and I decided I'd finally really read into the ranger.

Man, was I surprised. Really nice base attack bonus, a large number of skills, Divine Spells for healing and such, an Animal Companion, good combat choices, and a decent hit die.

To sum it up, 100% BAB, 6+ skills, spot-heals, free cohort, guaranteed TWF, 4.5 HP per level.

The way I see it, Ranger is a fantastic solo class, but is also a great front-line warrior and expert that can really support a party. Sure, Ranger isn't overpowered or anything, but it's still a fantastic class. You have many options, and while I know it doesn't quite measure up to Wizard by any means, you can still get a lot out of it.

Thoughts? I've never played a ranger, but I'm sure there are many ways you can take them. Suggest Prestige Classes for a ranger, maybe strong variants one could use?
I'm really looking to use Ranger as my next character, so any help would be appreciated.

[Flickerdart]

Ranger gets no bonus damage sources, but is stuck with the two combat styles that require bonus damage to be effective. Look into alternate Ranger features to replace these with better styles.

The Ranger companion progresses too slowly to be of any use. Look into ways of replacing it.

A very strong Ranger build uses Mystic Ranger, Sword of the Arcane Order and Wildshape Ranger to make a mini-Druid - a character with 5th level Wizard spells and Wildshape. You could also see if your DM is willing to let a Wildshape Ranger take the Druid Shapeshift variant from PHBII.

[Zaq]

Without moderate to heavy ACF usage (specifically Wildshape Ranger and Mystic Ranger), Ranger is pretty much useless except as a springboard to get into PrCs. It suffers from hardcore "that's very nice, but what does it DO?" syndrome. Fantastic chassis (full BAB, 6 skills from a decent list, 2 good saves? I'll take it), but the class features themselves aren't actually enough to make a character.

tl;dr: Unmodified, the Ranger is a nice dip but a bad class. It's a step above Fighter, but only a step.

(WITH heavy ACFs, that's another story. I'm not going to deny the power of a Wildshape Ranger or a Mystic Ranger, especially with SotAO.)

[Orsen]

I agree with the Wildshape Ranger comments. I'd also add that a great prestige class to aim for if you take that ACF is Warshaper (CW IIRC). However I've seen some people calls Warshaper OP and have never seen or used one before so I don't know if that's true. Guess it probably depends on the rest of the parties optimization.
Also, I like the Elf ranger favoured enemy ACF from Races of the Wild. I would take it with undead since they seem to be a creature that likes to avoid taking damage, and the +2 goes to +3.

[Seharvepernfan]

Is there a "daring" feat that allows you to mix with rogue for sneak attack progression?

[Coidzor]

Only Swift Hunter, really that gets the bonus damagey dice, which is skirmish with scout. There's Ascetic Hunter for getting monk unarmed strike if one wants to TWF with a two-handed weapon though.

[Engine]

So, I was skimming classes, looking for a decent build, and I decided I'd finally really read into the ranger.

Man, was I surprised. Really nice base attack bonus, a large number of skills, Divine Spells for healing and such, an Animal Companion, good combat choices, and a decent hit die.

To sum it up, 100% BAB, 6+ skills, spot-heals, free cohort, guaranteed TWF, 4.5 HP per level.

Well, let's see.

Full BAB: overvalued. Having full BAB is useful, but not so useful compared to the loss of 5 spell levels.

Skill points: well, they're nice. Unfortunately a big chunk of them is devoted to Survival, Hide, Move Silently, Spot, Listen.

Spells: the time you get them, they're not so useful. Healing spells, Cure Serious Wound at 14th level is nearly useless especially when you have really few spell slots.

Animal Companion: more of a liability than a real support. It gains HD really slowly and you're stuck for a lot of levels with the starting animals.

TWF for free: nice, if only the Ranger had a reliable source of damage. TWF is worthy only if you can pile a lot of damage onto every attack, unfortunately the Ranger can't do that.

D8 HD: Pathfinder has increased it, and I approve. For a dedicated combatant the D8 is nothing great.

I support Flickerdart's suggestion, anyway.

[Divide by Zero]

However I've seen some people calls Warshaper OP and have never seen or used one before so I don't know if that's true. Guess it probably depends on the rest of the parties optimization.

Immunity to crits and stuns, extra natural weapons, +4 Str/Con, +5' reach, fast healing, and the ability to change form without burning more wildshape uses. Only the reach I could see being argued as overpowered, and even then only using the "melee shouldn't have nice things" argument.

[Saintheart]

IMHO it's actually more effective to build a "ranger without being a ranger", which comes down to duplicating either TWF or archery, a certain bent towards nature, the Track feat, some Wild Empathy, animal companion, and some spells.

Druid at least synergises with Zen Archery, and grants animal companion, Wild Empathy, thematically similar spells. Elven race or a level in a martial class gives you bow proficiency, and that's before you get to the lovely thematic stuff in Races of Destiny. A single expenditure of a feat gives you Track if that's your thing. You could lose two levels of druid spellcasting and still be ahead of the ranger on effectiveness given the available spells.

Other alternatives are scout skirmishers, upgunned archer builds, or rogues fluffed as rural types. Fluff 'em as you see fit.

[Draz74]

A well-built Ranger can be a strong Tier 4 archer, even without multiclassing or "heavy" ACFs. If the DM is kind enough to give you a bit of a hint about which Favored Enemies you should pick for a given campaign, and if you're not playing with a bunch of Tier 1 optimizers, this means that the Ranger can fit into many games just fine.

Non-Core spells are key to this effort. The Ranger gets a lot of good new spells in Spell Compendium and PHB2, especially for supporting its archery. Like Paladins, Rangers should certainly make up for their low spells-per-day by buying large piles of dirt-cheap low-level Pearls of Power.

With these archery-boosting spells and the right non-Core Feats (e.g. Woodland Archer, maybe Knowledge Devotion) and Items (e.g. Force Bow, Splitting or Raptor Arrows), archery can be a very serviceable style.

If your team complains that you don't have a real "role" in the party, use the Dungeonscape ACF to trade Tracking for real trapmonkey abilities (assuming it's a campaign with traps). All you really give up is the Swift Tracker ability, since you can still get Track by other means (a feat, a Mask of the Tiger, or by picking a canine animal companion).

The Animal Companion is admittedly pretty much a liability, except at low levels with the Natural Bond feat. If you're too feat-starved or if the campaign is going into higher levels, you're better off trading out the Animal Companion. If the party has a Rogue (or, I shudder to say it, a Ninja), or even a Swordsage, then trading out the Animal Companion for the Distracting Shot feature (PHB2) is a great deal. If you miss the flavor of the animal companion, take Wild Cohort.

Of course like any proper skillmonkey, take Darkstalker.

With the right support from all this stuff (which includes two minor ACFs, but nothing on the scale of Wildshape or Mystic Ranger), the Ranger can be a powerhouse in most parties. If you still don't believe me, read Saph's Seven Kingdoms journal. The Ranger was one of the less-"optimized" party members (behind the Sorcerer, Druid, and Archivist, ahead of the Assassin and Arcane Heirophant), but it was the party's top damage dealer. (Of course, a few friendly buff spells helped a lot.)

[Zaq]

Interestingly, my first two Iron Chef characters both had a single level in Ranger, and both of them got some good mileage out of the ACF that trades Wild Empathy for Speak with Animals or Plants a few times per day.

Basically, Ranger is bad on its own, but has nice things to offer those willing to engage in a bit of cherry-picking.

[The_Snark]

Immunity to crits and stuns, extra natural weapons, +4 Str/Con, +5' reach, fast healing, and the ability to change form without burning more wildshape uses. Only the reach I could see being argued as overpowered, and even then only using the "melee shouldn't have nice things" argument.

The ability that grants extra natural weapons is not very well worded, though; it doesn't give a limit on how many you can have. That's rather open to abuse (though easily shut down by a DM imposing common-sense limits).

Anyway. I don't think the standard ranger is as hopeless as some of the people here seem to think, but it definitely lags behind in optimized groups. I have a soft spot for archer rangers nonetheless, and at low and mid-levels they're decent. The Spell Compendium adds a few good spells to the ranger list, the animal companion and skills are handy if used properly, and there are a few feats and magic items that can help keep you from lagging too badly in the damage department.

I'm not too enthusiastic about the two-weapon fighting ranger, though; if I were to play a melee ranger, I'd be tempted to ignore that class feature and use two-handed weapons, Power Attack, and Favored Power Attack. A fighter who traded bonus feats for better skills and a few miscellaneous tricks, essentially.

[Soranar]

The ranger's problem is you can't help but compare him to a druid, after all they feel very similar.

d8 hit die
Wis based spellcasting

animal companion feature
similar skill access

But you're comparing a tier 1 class with a tier 4 (or tier 3 when very optimized).

[Curious]

The ranger's problem is you can't help but compare him to a druid, after all they feel very similar.

d8 hit die
Wis based spellcasting

animal companion feature
similar skill access

But you're comparing a tier 1 class with a tier 4 (or tier 3 when very optimized).

Yes; comparing the Ranger to the Druid and the Paladin to the cleric shows you how valuable WotC thought full BAB was. Mistakenly, as it turned out. :smallsigh:

[Zonugal]

I think with a proper application of some very nice alternate class features & the right selection of feats the Ranger can be a one-man adventuring party onto himself.

[Rossebay]

Alright, well, thanks guys! I'll definitely use this as a guide to making my ranger when I get around to it.

[Killer Angel]

Ranger is pretty much useless except as a springboard to get into PrCs.


In a Core campaign, a ranger / horizon walker is indeed very nice (even without using the horizon tripper)


the Ranger is a nice dip but a bad class. It's a step above Fighter, but only a step.


Skill points: well, they're nice. Unfortunately a big chunk of them is devoted to Survival, Hide, Move Silently, Spot, Listen.

It's better than a fighter 'cause it's useful also out of combat. And those skills are a part of it's usefulness, 'specially at low-mid levels.



Spells: the time you get them, they're not so useful. Healing spells, Cure Serious Wound at 14th level is nearly useless especially when you have really few spell slots.

Agree. But obviously, the nice part is that you have those spells on the class list, so you can have your wand of CLW as soon as you like it.

[Leon]

Its not so Undervalued, its more other classes are overrated.


Alright, well, thanks guys! I'll definitely use this as a guide to making my ranger when I get around to it.

Take it with a grain of salt.


The ranger is a very good second line class, very combat capable but shouldn't try to be the center of attention. Has some nice options and variants, some are touted more than others but take them all into consideration.

In regards to Combat Styles, if the two that are given with the class are not your interest then work with your DM to come up with alternatives or just use another style and accept them as some free feats (Say you are going to use a 2 hander then having the ranged feats is a nice bonus for the times that you need to use a bow).

[yugi24862]

I think with a proper application of some very nice alternate class features & the right selection of feats the Ranger can be a one-man adventuring party onto himself.

Trapfinding Mystic Ranger with SotAO and using staffs. One-man party/Gish, with up to 5th level wiz/ranger spells and trapfinding by level 10. One-Man party indeed.

[Saph]

TWF rangers are on the weak side, true, but Archery Rangers definitely aren't.

As Draz mentioned, the Ranger in the Seven Kingdoms campaign in my sig was the highest damage-dealer in the party, ahead of the optimised Druid. Sure, the Druid could do more damage once he got off a pouncing charge, but the Ranger could make a full attack first round, every round, without needing to get into position or put up buffs, meaning that in practice she got about three times as many attacks as the Druid did. There were combats where the Ranger killed every enemy target before the rest of the party even saw them.

As mentioned, the Ranger is also useful out of combat, with its good skill list and number of skill points, and even its limited spellcasting can be very useful if you put some work into it. The high Reflex save and Evasion also helps a lot for preventing them from being blasted to death from a distance, and they can use a Wand of CLW, the standard Core healing item.

I think the Ranger is actually one of the most well balanced and well designed classes in 3.5 - almost always useful, very rarely overpowered. The people who insist that it's useless are too hung up on theorycrafting IMO. You don't need to do 500 damage per round to be effective in a fight. In practice, most uber-damage builds tend to be far less effective in practice than they are on paper, because most of their damage gets wasted on massively overkilling their target. This was what kept happening with the Druid in our campaign. He'd cast 10 buff spells to transmute his character into Godzilla, charge-pounce the target, and it'd die on the 2nd of his 7 attacks. Meanwhile the Ranger would have killed three monsters in the time it took him to kill one, by starting earlier and by switching targets.

[Soranar]

A straight ranger's efficiency is directly linked to what the DM allows.

In ranged builds, did he get a Force Bow? Do you often face creatures with DR without access to the right ammo? Is your pointbuy (or rolls) so low that you don't have the stats to really pull it off? Finally, did you pick the right type of favored enemy?

TWF is a pointless build with ranger, most of the time.But if you somehow gain pounce and have access to ToB that can be a very different story. And again, depends on what kind of magic items you get and what you face. A nice dex based TWF build gets pwned by the first grapple monster it meets.

DMs tend to be nice with weak characters because, if they're not, they're useless.

[FMArthur]

The only times I've seen a standard ranger not lag behind was in groups where nobody built their characters to do anything other than simply be the classes they picked - meaning that they were alongside fighters and barbarians who simply did their weapon damage, sorcerers/wizards who picked Fireball and some random spells, clerics who only whacked things unbuffed and healed, and rogues whose defining traits were ranks in the Hide skill. The moment that people start making characters with a particular strategy in mind and giving them genuine strengths, the standard ranger has almost nowhere to go to do the same.

I think rangers' greatest strength lies in the customizability of the class. With the massive variety of ACFs they get, the ranger becomes more modular and customizable than the fighter (those poor bastards...) with enough books, and becomes much more open to optimization. Standard rangers are far too unfocused to be good at much. Fine-tuned ACF rangers rock.

[Telonius]

Ranger is terrific for dipping. Most melee builds are starved for skillpoints. One or two levels of Ranger to start off can really help with meeting feat or PrC prerequisites.

The fact that it has a spell list is another nice thing that many people overlook. Ranger can use wands of Cure Light to Serious without needing Use Magic Device. So if the party Cleric is incapacitated, as long as you have a wand, you still have an emergency backup healer (even if he can't cast the spells on his own yet). This is particularly useful at lower levels, before the Rogue can automatically hit 20 on his UMD check. (Bard and Paladin also have this benefit, but not every group is going to have one of those).

[FMArthur]

Ranger is terrific for dipping. Most melee builds are starved for skillpoints. One or two levels of Ranger to start off can really help with meeting feat or PrC prerequisites.

The fact that it has a spell list is another nice thing that many people overlook. Ranger can use wands of Cure Light to Serious without needing Use Magic Device. So if the party Cleric is incapacitated, as long as you have a wand, you still have an emergency backup healer (even if he can't cast the spells on his own yet). This is particularly useful at lower levels, before the Rogue can automatically hit 20 on his UMD check. (Bard and Paladin also have this benefit, but not every group is going to have one of those).

So the ranger is the backup healer after clerics, druids, bards and paladins in core. Nice. :smalltongue:

[Telonius]

So the ranger is the backup healer after clerics, druids, bards and paladins in core. Nice. :smalltongue:

In a typical four-person group that has either a Cleric or a Druid (not both), no fifth-wheel Bard, and nobody wants to deal with Paladin headaches? Yes, very nice.

[subject42]

The 3.5 Ranger is a little underwhelming, but I remember from the days of my 2e youth that that the Ranger was an unstoppable hurricane of whirling blades.

Was it just that nobody knew the ins and outs of the system back then, or did the Ranger take a big knock during the conversion to 3.5?

[Eldariel]

Was it just that nobody knew the ins and outs of the system back then, or did the Ranger take a big knock during the conversion to 3.5?

All characters under the Warrior-archetype got demolished in the transition. Everything they had was given to everyone (extra attacks, full HP from Con, saves; Weapon Specialization-line was also demolished and restricted to only Fighter) and their saves actually got demolished and the combat turn system suddenly made it pretty impossible for melee threat to truly protect allies or disrupt enemy spellcasters.

Overall, while there was probably a lack of system mastery in like 70% of the AD&D 2e groups out there, yes, Warrior-types including Ranger (and Paladin) also got completely demolished in the transition.

[FMArthur]

In a typical four-person group that has either a Cleric or a Druid (not both), no fifth-wheel Bard, and nobody wants to deal with Paladin headaches? Yes, very nice.

The Ranger is more of a fifth-wheel than the bard, really, but I can see that CLW wand use would probably be highly appreciated in a group with no healers. Out of core, after the first couple levels Healing Belts and Eternal Wands of Lesser Vigor obviate the need for UMD/healing spell lists used for items fairly cheaply, though. In-core a rogue can reliably UMD not much later than that. There's a fairly small window of usefulness there.

[Talya]

In a typical four-person group that has either a Cleric or a Druid (not both), no fifth-wheel Bard, and nobody wants to deal with Paladin headaches? Yes, very nice.

"Fifth Wheel Bard?" Best designed class in the game that can do anything without being overpowered about it, and a "Fifth Wheel?" Even in a high-Op game, i'd argue that cleric/druid/wizard/bard is the ideal group...

[Leon]

The Ideal group is the one that works for the players involved, no matter what classes actually are involved.

[Eldariel]

The Ideal group is the one that works for the players involved, no matter what classes actually are involved.

Ideal group is one that places as few restrictions on the DM as possible while keeping all the players engaged in the game mechanically as well as immersion-wise, and offers something to all the players.

[Person_Man]

The biggest drawbacks of the Ranger:

1) Lack of resources: Compared to a Totemist, Druid, or Spirit Shaman, or nature themed Cleric, the Ranger just gets far less stuff to use. His only real advantages are full BAB and good Skills. But BAB is meaningless if you have access to buffs and you're not using Power Attack, and Skills can largely be replaced by magic and magic items by mid levels.

2) Highly situational: Wild Empathy, Endurance, Woodland Stride, Swift Tracker, Camouflage, and Favored Enemy all rely on very specific circumstances in order to be useful. So basically you get 3 very limited bonus feats with an armor restriction, a weak Animal Companion, weak spells which can be replaced by wands, and late progression Evasion and HiPS.

[Engine]

It's better than a fighter 'cause it's useful also out of combat. And those skills are a part of it's usefulness, 'specially at low-mid levels.

As I said, they're nice. I surely do not deny that. It's just that you need to invest a lot of your skill points to do little. This is why I love Pathfinder's skill amalgamation.


Agree. But obviously, the nice part is that you have those spells on the class list, so you can have your wand of CLW as soon as you like it.

A wand of CLW is an out-of-combat healing, so it doesn't really matter who's the one using it unless you have no Bard or divine casters in the party. Yes, it's nice to have spells, but at the same time you could do little with them.

I could summarize my gaming experience with Rangers with: too little, too late. Ranger is a nice class, but nice doesn't mean good. It's not useless, but at the same time I always struggled to find a proper place in the party playing it.

[subject42]

As I said, they're nice. I surely do not deny that. It's just that you need to invest a lot of your skill points to do little. This is why I love Pathfinder's skill amalgamation.

The skill amalgamation really helps. I had a player with a social Ranger in one of my games that everyone in the party thought was a rogue. It got to point where every third session she would have to yell "NO! I AM NOT A TRAPMONKEY".

[Piggy Knowles]

The ranger: beautiful chassis, underwhelming class features that don't scale appropriately for the later levels of the game.

Unfortunately, no matter how good the chassis, it doesn't make up for the lack of scale-able and effective class features.

Seriously, let's take a class with...

1. Full BAB.
2. All good saves.
3. 8 skill points/level.
4. All skills as class skills.

Hell, let's go ahead and give it a bonus feat at every level while we're at it.

What do you end up with? A character that is still heavily outstripped by, say, a sorcerer, who rocks it out with no bonus feats and the chassis of a commoner. It would be passable, don't get me wrong - but I'd rather play a Psychic Warrior or a Bard or a Swordsage or a Factotum or, you know, something that maybe has an inferior chassis but actually has decent class features that can influence the game.

[FMArthur]

To be fair, the ranger is one of the better-equipped classes to fill a scouting role because of their awareness-focused spells and their minor but functional class features for moving through the wilderness. Sadly, this isn't actually a necessary party role and sometimes only serves to slow the game down with an overly-cautious group.

[Zonugal]

Still though, if I had to join a game without knowing exactly what the party needed I might start with a ranger as to create nice versatility in whatever path I might end up having to lean towards.

[Piggy Knowles]

A ranger is decently equipped to fill a scouting role....... except that it doesn't get Trapfinding without use of ACFs, and past level 10, spells do a better job than most scouts ever can.

Seriously, I love scout-style characters. They're about my favorite archetype to play in D&D. But after a while I realized that by level 11, my party's cleric or druid could cast one spell (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/findThePath.htm), and do a better job at my supposed "specialty" than I ever had been.

(And that's without taking into account the very obvious two (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/scrying.htm) spells (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/teleport.htm) that most wizards can cast by level 9, which have been making rangers feel useless and DMs tear their hair out for over a decade!)

[Zonugal]

A ranger is decently equipped to fill a scouting role....... except that it doesn't get Trapfinding without use of ACFs, and past level 10, spells do a better job than most scouts ever can.

Seriously, I love scout-style characters. They're about my favorite archetype to play in D&D. But after a while I realized that by level 11, my party's cleric or druid could cast one spell (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/findThePath.htm), and do a better job at my supposed "specialty" than I ever had been.

(And that's without taking into account the very obvious two (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/scrying.htm) spells (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/teleport.htm) that most wizards can cast by level 9, which have been making rangers feel useless and DMs tear their hair out for over a decade!)

That is a legitimate concern but only for games/campaigns which reach past level 10.

How does the Ranger fair at lower-level campaigns though?

[Piggy Knowles]

That is a legitimate concern but only for games/campaigns which reach past level 10.

How does the Ranger fair at lower-level campaigns though?

Solid? You know, not mind-blowing, but OK. Lack of trapfinding definitely hurts, and you're not going to be pulling out any crazy tricks. Still, if you're playing in an outdoors campaign, composite longbow proficiency + decent BAB + a max'd out Spot check will remain a passable trick throughout the low levels.

Also, please note that all of my comments are referring to your basic ranger. The Mystic Ranger or wildshape variant both get powerful (and scale-able) class features that bump it up a notch or two. They both make it better at its "intended" role, and make sure it's not totally useless when that role isn't valid.

[Arbane]

TWF is a pointless build with ranger,

I'm starting to get the impression you can take "with ranger" out of there and it stays true. It seems like the designers really REALLY didn't want anyone getting an extra attack per round.

[Lans]

Trapfinding Mystic Ranger with SotAO and using staffs. One-man party/Gish, with up to 5th level wiz/ranger spells and trapfinding by level 10. One-Man party indeed.

Does this ranger have arcane caster level?

If so, you can add obtain familiar and improved familiar


I'm starting to get the impression you can take "with ranger" out of there and it stays true. It seems like the designers really REALLY didn't want anyone getting an extra attack per round.

In pre 3rd duel longsword wielding rangers were pretty powerful

[Piggy Knowles]

Does this ranger have arcane caster level?

If so, you can add obtain familiar and improved familiar

Sadly, no. Sword of the Arcane Order just lets the Ranger prepare Sor/Wiz spells as Ranger spells. They still remain divine spells. It's a shame, because otherwise I'd love to play a Mystic Ranger/Abjurant Champion/Arcane Archer.

[FMArthur]

They can still take Wild Cohort though.

[Engine]

I'm starting to get the impression you can take "with ranger" out of there and it stays true. It seems like the designers really REALLY didn't want anyone getting an extra attack per round.

Well, a TWF Rogue is not that bad.

[Flickerdart]

Well, a TWF Rogue it's not that bad.
Anything with bonus damage makes TWF nicer - Rogue, Scout, Knowledge Devotion. It's just a lot easier to grab Power Attack and lay in with a two-hander.

[Zaq]

That is a legitimate concern but only for games/campaigns which reach past level 10.

How does the Ranger fair at lower-level campaigns though?

The last Ranger I saw in play started at level 3. He couldn't really do anything at all, and it chafed. The character wasn't very optimized, but he also hadn't really made any bad choices . . . the class is just weak and boring, at least out of the box.

[Zonugal]

I think through proper optimization and the right niche pre-selected the Ranger can shine very well.

[Quietus]

I think through proper optimization and the right niche pre-selected the Ranger can shine very well.

Sure, but that's really the problem. The Ranger is one of those classes that, played straight, you need to have the DM working with you to make it work out well. Can it be decent, sure - but it also has the potential to be absolutely painful. If you pick favored enemies, and your DM is running modules that don't contain any of the ones you picked, that feature is useless. Since your TWF or Archery relies on that bonus damage, that severely impacts your combat abilities, as well, reducing you there. And for the trifecta, if the game happens to take place in a constructed dungeon or in a city, many of your class features go up in smoke.

If your DM uses a lot of outdoors settings, however, and works with you on favored enemy selection, or you work hard to pick the correct combination of ACF's, feats, and PrC's, then the Ranger is a solid chassis.

[kardar233]

D'you think that by giving Ranger/Paladin a 6-level casting progression like the Bard, and maybe a domain for the Paladin, they would be more viable, especially when compared to, say ToB classes?

[FMArthur]

They would be more viable, but not as good as ToB classes. Typically combat spells from either list are about what you'd expect from a martial maneuver, except that you have a limited number of uses.

[Zaq]

D'you think that by giving Ranger/Paladin a 6-level casting progression like the Bard, and maybe a domain for the Paladin, they would be more viable, especially when compared to, say ToB classes?

So . . . basically Mystic Ranger, then?

[ericgrau]

Basically he's a warrior, an NPC class, with a bunch of skills, wilderness utility spells and other such class features. Perhaps worse than warrior due to light armor. Only a couple such bonus feats have to do with martial combat. A warrior with a couple fighter levels could keep up and be less squishy too. It's a great class and I wish skills and wilderness-based rather than monster-based encounters got more use in campaigns, but unfortunately they don't. And without splatbooks rangers tend to be behind in combat.

[Othniel Edden]

Anything with bonus damage makes TWF nicer - Rogue, Scout, Knowledge Devotion. It's just a lot easier to grab Power Attack and lay in with a two-hander.

I made a pretty nice quarterstaff ranger that filled both roles, of course they had to multiclass into either rogue or barbarian at level 3 to get full effect, but it was a solid build.

[Optimator]

I love Rangers. I think they're great. Obviously they're not full casters, but for what they do, they do it fine. Swift Hunter is a huge upgrade. I think that if the Spell Compendium and perhaps Champions of Ruin are in play Ranger spells are fantastic. Sure, you get them a bit late but it's really nice to be self-sufficient. Auto-critting with a x3 multiplier bow (or more with Deepwood SNiper!) is a good feeling. I feel that, with proper optimization, Rangers can be very valuable members of a party, early or late-game.

[Fitz10019]

My problem with rangers is that many of their features work against each other.

Get 2WF or archery feats without the Dex to qualify for them. That sounds great until you combine it with the fact that they can only where light armor so they need Dex to survive even if they don’t need it for feats. Wait, wait, don’t worry, they have shield proficiency. Oh, no, that shield will prevent both archery and 2WF. :smallfurious:

In my opinion, rangers should be re-designed with a Wis-replaces-Dex theme. Wis for Initiative, Wis for ranged attacks, Wis for AC, Wis for Refex, the whole shebang. Not all at first level, but a bit at a time and all in by level 10. I would want this theme to encourage long-haul rangers, not dippers.

But, as said, in a party that is not heavily optimized, you’ll have fun as a ranger.

[Talya]

Another problem with Archery rangers, is the feats that get skipped in the combat style.

Yes, sure, you get the combat style feats without needing their prerequisites, but unless you go back and take their prerequisites like Point Blank Shot, you will never qualify for another archery feat.

[Saph]

My problem with rangers is that many of their features work against each other.

Get 2WF or archery feats without the Dex to qualify for them. That sounds great until you combine it with the fact that they can only where light armor so they need Dex to survive even if they don’t need it for feats. Wait, wait, don’t worry, they have shield proficiency. Oh, no, that shield will prevent both archery and 2WF. :smallfurious:

Who cares? That's two very minor class features, and it's not as if you take a penalty for not using them. Oh, and archery rangers DO use a shield. You know, the one that specifically says in its description that you can use a bow without penalty while wielding one. :)

Archers actually have it pretty good when it comes to stats. Your Dexterity powers your attack bonus, your AC, your Reflex, your Initiative, and your agility skills. A melee class usually has to make Strength their primary stat, which gives attack bonus and damage but not much else.


Another problem with Archery rangers, is the feats that get skipped in the combat style.

Yes, sure, you get the combat style feats without needing their prerequisites, but unless you go back and take their prerequisites like Point Blank Shot, you will never qualify for another archery feat.

The reason the free feats are good isn't because you get to ignore the prerequisites, it's because they're free. In practice archery rangers just take every archery feat anyway, so it's not like you're really losing anything.

[SITB]

How do you actually get reasonable amount of damage with an archer build anyway?

[Leon]

Ideal group is one that places as few restrictions on the DM as possible while keeping all the players engaged in the game mechanically as well as immersion-wise, and offers something to all the players.

Which is a fancy version of what i said - the DM is a player aswell.

[Saph]

How do you actually get reasonable amount of damage with an archer build anyway?

Depends what you mean by "reasonable". You're never going to do as much damage at melee range as a melee build, but then you're not supposed to. The advantages of archery are 1) range 2) not having to move to full attack and 3) not having to get within 5' of giant horrible monsters that want to eat your face.

[Amphetryon]

My problem with rangers is that many of their features work against each other.

Get 2WF or archery feats without the Dex to qualify for them. That sounds great until you combine it with the fact that they can only where light armor so they need Dex to survive even if they don’t need it for feats. Wait, wait, don’t worry, they have shield proficiency. Oh, no, that shield will prevent both archery and 2WF. :smallfurious:


Use a shield as your off-hand weapon and the various shield-bashing feats, and you'll be marginally less worried about this at low levels if you find turtling useful in your group. At least the choices won't seem mutually exclusive. Also, I usually find the HP from a higher CON aids survival more than a marginally higher AC, but I suppose YMMV.

If, at higher levels, you want to be an archer, animate your shield.

If, on the other hand, you want to hit harder, snag a 2HW and Spiked/Razored Armor, and TWF with full Power Attack benefits.

[SITB]

Depends what you mean by "reasonable". You're never going to do as much damage at melee range as a melee build, but then you're not supposed to. The advantages of archery are 1) range 2) not having to move to full attack and 3) not having to get within 5' of giant horrible monsters that want to eat your face.

I mean, more than "weapon properties+limited amount of strength". Enough to be respectable in a Tier 3 party or the like.

[Amphetryon]

I mean, more than "weapon properties+limited amount of strength". Enough to be respectable in a Tier 3 party or the like.

If you're not allowed to consider WBL - which helps govern both weapon properties and STR bonus - as part of how the damage is increased, it's impossible. It could also be seen as an arbitrary limiter, since the game assumes you have a certain amount of swag as you level up.

[Saph]

I mean, more than "weapon properties+limited amount of strength".

Extra sources of damage. There have been several suggested in the thread already IIRC.


Enough to be respectable in a Tier 3 party or the like.

The Tier system is a measurement of versatility and options. It's got very little to do with damage output.

[Talya]

The reason the free feats are good isn't because you get to ignore the prerequisites, it's because they're free. In practice archery rangers just take every archery feat anyway, so it's not like you're really losing anything.

They're not really free. They're class features. It represents three out of your 7 legitimate class features in the first 11 levels. They're ultimately the ranger's only offensive class feature usable against any enemy, for a class who's only purpose in combat is to do damage. Compared to a barbarian, it represents Rage. Compared to a wizard, they represent two+ spell slots per spell level. They'd be free if they were bonus feats in addition to whatever defines the ranger, but they really ultimately define the ranger.

[SITB]

If you're not allowed to consider WBL - which helps govern both weapon properties and STR bonus - as part of how the damage is increased, it's impossible. It could also be seen as an arbitrary limiter, since the game assumes you have a certain amount of swag as you level up.

I didn't mean no WBL, I meant what other sources beside WBL.

@ Saph: What other sources beside Swift Hunter and the Scout's skirmish? Because I already heard of those, I was interested in other ways.

RE: You are correct, what I meant to say is middle of the road optimization, neither excessive nor lacking. I used Tier 3 as a shorthand for average which is silly in retroprospect.

[Piggy Knowles]

Archers actually have it pretty good when it comes to stats. Your Dexterity powers your attack bonus, your AC, your Reflex, your Initiative, and your agility skills. A melee class usually has to make Strength their primary stat, which gives attack bonus and damage but not much else.

You're right, archers aren't MAD at all! After all, they only need Dex to hit, which powers other aspects of their character as well. Heck, we can max out Dex and have tons of points left over on point buy!

...wait, wait, you want to deal DAMAGE, too? OK, fine, we'll add in some strength as well. We can afford to help out a second stat in point buy, since all the others are dump stats. Good thing all of our skills are Dex-based! And good thing our ranger spells are such a huge help to us.

...hang on, what? What do you mean you want to be able to track? And what's that about Spot being the single most important skill for an archer, and one that needs to be boosted more than most other skills, because of distance penalties to Spot checks? And wait, don't you need at least a Wisdom of 14 if you want to be able to cast those spells at all, or more if you expect bonus spells?

Well, that still leaves us three dump stats. Although I keep hearing people talk about how you can't dump Constitution, for some reason (heck if I know why). Oh yeah, you may also not want to totally dump Intelligence, at least not if you're planning on using Knowledge Devotion or Sword of the Arcane Order, two of the most commonly recommended feats for rangers.

/rant

Sorry for the smarm - still waiting for the morning coffee to kick in. My point is, archers are awesome, but they are more MAD than a typical melee character, not less.

[Amphetryon]

I didn't mean no WBL, I meant what other sources beside WBL.

Right, but there's likely to be precious little difference between "without WBL" and "besides WBL" in practical terms for answers.

In addition to requiring the benefits to come from outside WBL, you limited it in 2 other significant ways: you were interested only in damage output, and you wanted it to not seem inferior to Tier 3.

Rangers have several nice - not great, but nice - benefits to out-of-combat game play. They get a solid amount of skill points, Wild Empathy, they are the only innate trackers, etc. All of that versatility is part of why they aren't considered low Tier 5 or Tier 6, but that's not to be considered for the purposes you asked about. Damage output isn't the primary indicator of a higher Tiered class listing (Beguilers, for instance, typically do limited actual damage because their spell selection isn't set up that way, but they're Tier 3, often cited as low-balled by being "only" Tier 3), but it's the only one you're asking to consider, and you're asking that the responses be limited to only those sources besides WBL.

Rangers aren't listed as Tier 3 to begin with, and would take some pretty serious op-fu to reach that level. . . at which you could potentially argue that the native Tier 3s could use similar tricks to again outshine the Ranger.

So, you're asking for tricks that increase a Ranger's output above its normal Tier, aside from WBL, and only considering damage output in the equation. The request is structured in such a way as to all but disqualify any attempt to satisfy the criteria.

[SITB]

That's why I acknowledged my mistake when Saph pointed it out to me, I meant more optimization then simply picking up a good weapon and not excessive enough to get a book thrown at you.

I know of the Swift Hunter spell, and the Scout's skirmish damage, but I wondered if there are more ways to boost the Ranger's ranged damage potential. I was under the impression that Normal archery feats and WBL bought bow was underwhelming.

[Saph]

(snip rant)

Strength gives very little bang for your buck. Put it at 14 at the most, 12 more likely. You need less Con than a frontline fighter, but hit points are good, so go for 12-14 again.

16-18 in Dex, it's your primary.

You don't need more than 12 Wisdom because by the time you can cast higher-level spells, you can afford a Wisdom-boosting item. 14 is nice but not essential.

Int is optional, Cha is your dump stat.

Works fine on 28-32 point buy.


I know of the Swift Hunter spell, and the Scout's skirmish damage, but I wondered if there are more ways to boost the Ranger's ranged damage potential. I was under the impression that Normal archery feats and WBL bought bow was underwhelming.

Well, the first thing to take advantage of is that you get to stack two sources of weapon enchantments: one set on your bow and one set on your arrows. Spells like Flame Arrow will give you some free extra damage.

The next and most obvious one, but one that a lot of people miss, is to use your range. If you start shooting at 500' then you can usually get several rounds of free attacks. Not always possible, but when it is you can end an encounter before it starts.

Get a Force bow from the Magic Item Compendium. It boosts your damage slightly, but more importantly lets you automatically overcome DR, which is an absolute killer at higher levels.

Use Boots of Speed if there isn't a Haste-caster in the party already. Since you get to full attack nearly every turn, you get more value out of Haste than most melee characters.

Choice of favoured enemies helps, obviously.

The Hunter's Mercy spell from the Spell Compendium is excellent for ambushes. Starting combat with an automatic x3 crit goes a long way, and if you buy a bunch of 1st-level Pearls of Power you can keep casting it.

Finally there's a Splitting bow, which basically doubles your number of attacks. Note that this is on the top end of commonly accepted optimisation and you shouldn't be surprised if the DM bans this.

[Amphetryon]

Swift Hunter is a feat, not a spell. :smallwink:

Greater Manyshot + Splitting enhancement = damage galore, when combined with Collision and another damage enhancement of your choice.

@Saph: I tend to find my rangers with a 14 - 16 STR, 14 - 16 CON and a 12ish DEX, actually. One of the benefits of rangers' bonus feats is "even if they do not meet the prerequisites," so I'll take my marginal damage increase over a marginal increase in AC. If I want a ranged ranger, I'm as likely as not to go the route of the thrower, and nab Brutal Throw. If your DM only allows Splitting to work on things that are explicitly ammunition, you can even use shuriken.

[Thespianus]

The Hunter's Mercy spell from the Spell Compendium is excellent for ambushes. Starting combat with an automatic x3 crit goes a long way, and if you buy a bunch of 1st-level Pearls of Power you can keep casting it.

Also, to add to the fun of this trick: Grab a level of Rogue (or similar Sneak Attack class) and take the Craven feat. If you later start out an encounter with Hunter's Mercy for a x3 crit AND cast Hunter's Eye in the round you launch the Hunter's Mercy-arrow AND add the Craven static damage (should be 3x too on a crit) you can do pretty decent damage on that one first arrow, granted that the target is unaware due to a surprise round or having lost his DEX_bonus some other way.

Granted, there's the anoying distance limitation on sneak attacks, but the Arrow Mind spell from SpC will help with wading into Melee using your bow for sneak attacks too. ;)

[Eldariel]

Granted, there's the anoying distance limitation on sneak attacks, but the Arrow Mind spell from SpC will help with wading into Melee using your bow for sneak attacks too. ;)

Or you could just use your Swift Action to cast Sniper's Shot and remove said range limitation for the turn... You could also use Hunter's Eye to gain the Sneak Attack dice without dipping levels in anything.

[FMArthur]

Can you get Bloodfeeding (+1, MIC) on bows? You would get a large damage boost for that critical with little cost.

[Piggy Knowles]

Strength gives very little bang for your buck. Put it at 14 at the most, 12 more likely. You need less Con than a frontline fighter, but hit points are good, so go for 12-14 again.

16-18 in Dex, it's your primary.

You don't need more than 12 Wisdom because by the time you can cast higher-level spells, you can afford a Wisdom-boosting item. 14 is nice but not essential.

Int is optional, Cha is your dump stat.

Works fine on 28-32 point buy.

That's cool, as long as you're happy pinging away for 1d8+1 damage.

Spells can help mitigate that - Flame Arrow, Greater Magic Weapon, etc. Too bad none of them are ranger spells. Suddenly that "optional" Intelligence becomes a lot less optional, since you really need Sword of the Arcane Order there.

Also, that 12 in Wisdom really is going to bite you in the rear end, because...

(A) Spot checks get a -1 penalty for every 10' of distance, meaning that you're going to want to max it out as much as possible,
(B) Rangers get almost no spells, and so they REALLY need some bonus spells (seriously... without a 14 in Wisdom, they can't even cast second level spells until level 10).

You can get a very decent Ranger archer via Mystic Ranger + SotAO, but a Dex-centric one just lacks oomph.

(On the other hand, a Fighter with the Targeteer variant CAN make a pretty solid Dex-centric archer, and Fighters get enough feats to make a passable crossbow archer as well, with Crossbow Sniper to help reduce MAD.)

[Sception]

While the ranger's not a great package overall, certainly not above mid levels, I do find them to be excellant in one role - providing a good class for new players to learn the system. Especially the archer ranger, which has a pretty iconic image for new players to latch onto.

You have enough toughness not to lose your toon to a single stray hit, you've got the BAB and proficiencies to do a little fighting, you've got a decent skill list and the points to put into it so you get to learn about skills. You get some bonus feats to learn the feat system, but they're targeted to be useful to your chosen style, rather then wide open to a massive list like the fighter, which can be a bit daunting to a new player. Once you've had the time to get all that down, you get a few spells and can start learning the magic system, and you get a companion to manage.

By the time you've hit about 10th level, and most campaigns I've played in that either included new players or started at first level were generally wrapping up by then, you've had the chance to dip your toes into most of the various subsystems of the game, and you've probably got a good idea of what type of gameplay experience you'd like to focus on for your next character.

Of course, when a DM's helping a new player into the game you also get situations deliberately targeted to making their wilderness skills relevant, and you get helpful suggestions of what favored enemies will be most useful, so features that might not be so hot in a regular game get a little better.


Ranger isn't necessarily a class I'd recommend to an experienced player unless there's something specific they're trying to pull off (and I have seen relatively effective archery builds using some ACFs and spells from the compendium), but as a way to introduce a new player to multiple subsystems and play styles without burying them under a mountain of confusing, mostly bad options or introducing too many different mechanics all at once.

[Thespianus]

Or you could just use your Swift Action to cast Sniper's Shot and remove said range limitation for the turn... You could also use Hunter's Eye to gain the Sneak Attack dice without dipping levels in anything.
Both spells are swift action spells with 1 turn duration, so you can cast one or the other (unless you Extend one or the other, quite reasonable to do in this scenario)

The reason for the Rogue dip is that you need the Sneak Attack class feature in order to take the Craven feat, and the Craven damage gets multiplied on a critical hit.

[Saph]

Also, that 12 in Wisdom really is going to bite you in the rear end, because...

(A) Spot checks get a -1 penalty for every 10' of distance, meaning that you're going to want to max it out as much as possible,
(B) Rangers get almost no spells, and so they REALLY need some bonus spells (seriously... without a 14 in Wisdom, they can't even cast second level spells until level 10).

12 Wisdom gives you a bonus spell at level 4. You can't cast level 2 Ranger spells until level 8, by which time you have more than enough WBL to buy a +2 Periapt of Wisdom (or more likely, an additional enchantment on an existing item). As for Spot checks, a +1 from 12 compared to a +2 from 14 is trivial compared to your skill ranks and items.

Have you ever actually tried playing an archer Ranger, rather than automatically dismissing them? Because you seem to be missing a lot of very basic things (claiming that archer rangers don't use shields, assuming no stat boosting items, etc).

[Draz74]

Oh, no, that shield will prevent both archery and 2WF.


Oh, and archery rangers DO use a shield. You know, the one that specifically says in its description that you can use a bow without penalty while wielding one. :)
TWF Rangers use shields too. Spiked shields, specifically. :smallamused:


Well, the first thing to take advantage of is that you get to stack two sources of weapon enchantments: one set on your bow and one set on your arrows. Spells like Flame Arrow will give you some free extra damage.
Even more importantly (at higher levels), magic arrows are dirt cheap, so you can pick and choose them to make them deal higher damage to whatever you're currently facing. It's not crazy to carry around a nice selection of Bane arrows keyed to various creature types. And dealing a negative level each round with a Stygian arrow can be pretty amazing, too.


Get a Force bow from the Magic Item Compendium. It boosts your damage slightly, but more importantly lets you automatically overcome DR, which is an absolute killer at higher levels.
It doesn't actually boost your damage at all, but it's still very worthwhile. Overcoming all DR is elsewhere statted as a +3 weapon enhancement (Shadow Striking, ToM), and you get that and Ghost Touch (+1 enhancement) for a +2-enhancement cost. Amazing.


The Hunter's Mercy spell from the Spell Compendium is excellent for ambushes. Starting combat with an automatic x3 crit goes a long way, and if you buy a bunch of 1st-level Pearls of Power you can keep casting it.
And comb the Spell Compendium and PHB2 for other new Ranger spells that increase damage, too.


Finally there's a Splitting bow, which basically doubles your number of attacks. Note that this is on the top end of commonly accepted optimisation and you shouldn't be surprised if the DM bans this.
If your DM bans this, then an alternative is to take the True Believer feat (or at high levels, just give up a Level 4 spell slot), worship Ehlonna, and buy some Raptor Arrows (MIC). Infinite ammo and Bane (everything).


You could also use Hunter's Eye to gain the Sneak Attack dice without dipping levels in anything.
Technically doesn't work for Craven, which has the weird "sneak attack as a class feature" prerequisite. Even if Craven didn't have that line, I wouldn't allow a short-duration spell like Hunter's Eye to qualify, if I were DM.

The Craven angle for getting extra damage is still intriguing, though, even if it does end up requiring a dip in Rogue or a Sneak Attacking PrC.

[Amphetryon]

Ranger isn't necessarily a class I'd recommend to an experienced player unless there's something specific they're trying to pull off (and I have seen relatively effective archery builds using some ACFs and spells from the compendium), but as a way to introduce a new player to multiple subsystems and play styles without burying them under a mountain of confusing, mostly bad options or introducing too many different mechanics all at once.My experience is that ranger's really good for a more experienced and optimization-focused player to take when s/he's going to a new group or one that admits to inexperience. The experienced player can optimize the ranger more than well enough to keep pace with most inexperienced players, contribute meaningfully, and not overshadow anyone.

[Saph]

TWF Rangers use shields too. Spiked shields, specifically. :smallamused:

Hehe, yeah. I have to admit that I've never seen someone pull off an effective TWF ranger, so that's something I don't know so much about. As Malisteen noted, though, archery rangers make a really good newbie class as they're so simple to build - just choose the Archery style and put your highest score into Dex and it's hard to go far wrong.

If I was going the sneak attack route, then rather than Rogue, I'd be most tempted to try and mix Ranger with a level or two of Swordsage. Assassin's Stance gets you 2d6 sneak attack, and the Shadow Hand maneuvers are great for a stealth/mobility character.

[Coidzor]

TWF is a trap combat style, really, because the feat investment necessary to get any useful returns out of it without houseruled fixes is far too high in comparison to the 3, far too spaced out feats the ranger gets.

Dipping monk and the Ascetic Hunter feat would at least give one a potentially interesting offhand weapon, though is really a bit too expensive in terms of additional feat burden and still require far too much gold to get it up to spec to make it more economical than an enchanted offhand weapon.

THF + spiked armor/UAS is ok for TWF...ish... but at that point why one isn't just a normal charging build and going with Fighter and Barbarian becomes an issue.

[Talya]

If I was going the sneak attack route, then rather than Rogue, I'd be most tempted to try and mix Ranger with a level or two of Swordsage. Assassin's Stance gets you 2d6 sneak attack, and the Shadow Hand maneuvers are great for a stealth/mobility character.


I played a very effective Goliath Ranger/Swordsage (pretty much even split of levels, too) with the Zen Archery feat. However, it used your "Falling Star" homebrew archery discipline to make it work.

[Thespianus]

The Craven angle for getting extra damage is still intriguing, though, even if it does end up requiring a dip in Rogue or a Sneak Attacking PrC.

I haven't played with it very much, to be honest, but it seems it could synergize fairly well. Also, it would give you UMD as a class skill which greatly can benefit a Ranger.

[Piggy Knowles]

12 Wisdom gives you a bonus spell at level 4. You can't cast level 2 Ranger spells until level 8, by which time you have more than enough WBL to buy a +2 Periapt of Wisdom (or more likely, an additional enchantment on an existing item). As for Spot checks, a +1 from 12 compared to a +2 from 14 is trivial compared to your skill ranks and items.

Have you ever actually tried playing an archer Ranger, rather than automatically dismissing them? Because you seem to be missing a lot of very basic things (claiming that archer rangers don't use shields, assuming no stat boosting items, etc).

Yes, actually. More than one. I played a Ranger/Shadowdancer/Dread Commando in a fairly long-running campaign that started at first level and ended in the teens, and a Mystic Ranger from levels 9 through 12.

Also, I've never claimed that archers don't use shields - that was someone else. And I'm well aware of stat-boosting items. But that goes right into what my point was in the first place. Archer rangers are NOT more SAD than melee characters. That's like saying that using Weapon Finesse means your rogue is suddenly SAD. It just ain't true. The fact that you need to devote your WBL to stat-boosters on off-stats supports that.

[Thespianus]

If I was going the sneak attack route, then rather than Rogue, I'd be most tempted to try and mix Ranger with a level or two of Swordsage. Assassin's Stance gets you 2d6 sneak attack, and the Shadow Hand maneuvers are great for a stealth/mobility character.
I agree that the other maneuvers available would benefit the Ranger too, but Assassin's Stance doesn't give you the class feature Sneak Attack needed for Craven. Still, a DM might allow it, ofcourse.

[Saph]

Archer rangers are NOT more SAD than melee characters.

Dex for an archer boosts attack bonus, AC, Reflex, Initiative, and some useful skills that you'll probably use, like Hide, Move Silently, and Tumble.

Str for a melee fighter boosts attack bonus, damage, and some situational skills like Climb or Swim.

Out of the other stats, both classes are going to want a 12-14 in the mirror stat and as much Wisdom as they can get. Both want Con, but the melee fighter needs it more since he's going to be taking more damage.

So yes, I'd say that archer rangers have less MAD issues than melee fighters.

More importantly, you can put an 18 into Strength and make an effective melee fighter. But you can't do anything else, whereas a Ranger with 18 Dex can. This is why I prefer ranger builds to melee fighters in general.

[Piggy Knowles]

What you're leaving out of the equation is the fact that, for the melee fighter's investment into Strength, they get significantly more damage in return. Also, the fact that strength doesn't boost AC is mitigated by the fact that they can use heavier armors.


More importantly, you can put an 18 into Strength and make an effective melee fighter. But you can't do anything else, whereas a Ranger with 18 Dex can. This is why I prefer ranger builds to melee fighters in general.

I agree! You seem to be under some odd assumption that I'm arguing against rangers. I'm not. I'm just saying that you need to pay attention to their abilities and what they excel at. I'm also suggesting that the best way to play to their strengths is to NOT overvalue your attack bonus and dump everything into Dexterity.

[Draz74]

I haven't played with it very much, to be honest, but it seems it could synergize fairly well. Also, it would give you UMD as a class skill which greatly can benefit a Ranger.

Indeed. I've played around a fair amount with Rogue/Rangers, which was the source of my Spiked Shield/TWF comment, and UMD is definitely nice. However, most of these exercises were in a Core-Only environment, so the Craven addition is a new thought for me.

[Saph]

What you're leaving out of the equation is the fact that, for the melee fighter'I agree! You seem to be under some odd assumption that I'm arguing against rangers. I'm not. I'm just saying that you need to pay attention to their abilities and what they excel at. I'm also suggesting that the best way to play to their strengths is to NOT overvalue your attack bonus and dump everything into Dexterity.

Fair enough.

Rangers aren't anywhere near the strongest class out there - there's no way I'd have played a single-class Ranger for my runs in the Test of Spite or the Neverending Dungeon. But I think they're fine for reasonably challenging campaigns, like the Seven Kingdoms campaign in my sig. You don't HAVE to use Wildshape Ranger or Mystic Ranger or Sword of the Arcane Order or Swift Hunter to make a Ranger playable. There are some classes like the Truenamer that absolutely require heavy optimisation to be effective, but the Ranger isn't one of them.

[FMArthur]

Honestly it's just easier to use the Power Attack/Improved Sunder/Great Cleave or the Ride-By Attack/Spirited Charge/Trample alternate Combat Styles than worry about squeezing everything you can out of two difficult styles that demand and struggle to get bonus damage.

[Thespianus]

Honestly it's just easier to use the Power Attack/Improved Sunder/Great Cleave or the Ride-By Attack/Spirited Charge/Trample alternate Combat Styles than worry about squeezing everything you can out of two difficult styles that demand and struggle to get bonus damage.
True, but not all DMs allow Dragon material.

Then again, the Mystic Ranger is Dragon material too, right?

[Dsurion]

I hear Mystic Ranger and Sword of the Arcane Order talked about a lot. What exactly do they do that's so awesome?

If it's Dragon material, it'd explain why I've never seen it...

[olentu]

I hear Mystic Ranger and Sword of the Arcane Order talked about a lot. What exactly do they do that's so awesome?

If it's Dragon material, it'd explain why I've never seen it...

As I recall mystic ranger is from dragon and boosts casting to 5th level I think adding some additional spells and stuff. Sword of the arcane order is from champions of valor I think and lets one prep sorc/wiz spells in their slots as I recall.

It has been a while since I looked at them but that is the general deal if I remember correctly.

[137beth]

It's damage is sub-par with either combat style. For archers this is because your damage and attack come from different attributes, and you need to use a ton of feats to be effective. For TWF, you need to spend even more feats to be even remotely worth the time to build the character.
Spells are not obtained until higher levels, at which point they have only minor effectiveness.

As for the animal companion, it is far too weak to matter. I suggest replacing the PHB animal companion with my reworked version (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=202532).

[Piggy Knowles]

Yeah, that's the general gist of it. Mystic Ranger gives the Ranger casting more akin to the Bard (starting at 0 level spells at first level, going up to 5th level). You lose the animal companion, melee weapon and shield proficiencies. Your favored enemies and combat styles get bumped back a level, too. It is from Dragon, but I'll be darned if I remember which issue.

SotAO is a Paladin or Ranger-specific feat from Champions of Valor. It lets you prepare Wiz/Sor spells in your Ranger/Paladin spell slots. You need a spellbook and a minimum Intelligence to cast them, instead of Wisdom.

[Groverfield]

Ranger: Just fall short of awesome in all regards.

As a skill monkey; good at everything you'd need except needing Trapfinding, but dipping your first level as Rogue wouldn't hurt your BaB too much and you'd get a bit more damage out of some hits.

Heals; more or less good enough to take care of himself, and that's about it.

Animal Companion; the reduction on this is disappointingly bad, ask if at level 6 it can progress at [Ranger level minus 3] instead of half, maybe at the cost of feats, and use it to get sneak on your target, either by using it as your own flanking partner or to put the enemy flatfooted via trip or grapple.
"In most cases, the animal companion functions as a mount, sentry, scout, or hunting animal, rather than as a protector."

All in all, Ranger is a decent class to solo, it does everything you'll need in a party, but nothing well enough to be an asset to a full party. Also, ask your DM if he can give you tips on what you'll be fighting before you choose your favored enemy. Most DMs don't want to see their players flail around uselessly.

[Lans]

I hear Mystic Ranger and Sword of the Arcane Order talked about a lot. What exactly do they do that's so awesome?

If it's Dragon material, it'd explain why I've never seen it...

They turn the ranger into a wizard with d8 hd, 6 sp/lvl, 2 good saves, and full BAB for the first 10 levels, but it doesn't get a familiar so its kind of weak

[Optimator]

There wouldn't be much point in melee if archery hands-down beat it in damage. As for adding damage, I like Deadeye from the Dragon Compendium, elemental (or holy) arrows, bane arrows, the Collision and Wounding enhancements, and smart favored enemy choices (know your campaign, or undead, Evil Outsiders, Aberrations, Humans, and Magical Beasts are good long-term choices). Greater Manyshot with skirmish works well in later levels, when one's attack bonuses are astronomical. Power Shot, be it from a Peerless Archer dip or homebrewed feat does well at high levels also. I was about to suggest the Fell the Greatest Foe spell but RAW it's melee attacks only and my DM houseruled that it works with ranged attacks too. Um... Greater Bracers of Archery add a bit. For a custom item, quadruple the price and double the effectiveness of them.

Preparing an action to shoot a caster as they cast is pretty handy.

Edit: The Foebane spell is good for bonus damage, especially if you have a +10 bow with +9 in abilities. Arrowstorm is good, find the gap is good (use normal Manyshot with Find the Gap for the volley!). Freedom of Movement never goes out of style. Just realized that Rangers get Venomfire. Arrowsplit is worth casting. Camouflage and Forest Fold are fun too. Lay of the Land and Commune with Nature can help immensely.

Obviously the Ranger is no Druid, but they get some decent spells that are most-decidedly not useless.

[ericgrau]

Agreed the advantage of archery is tactical. And, ignoring uberchargers, the damage isn't actually that bad. You get number of attacks and extra attack bonus boosts to help, plus more full attacks, so you land more hits.

To be more specific on what I said before, in core a warrior 16 / fighter 4 could keep up with a ranger 20 in most fights. Probably exceed the ranger due to heavy armor. In hack-n-slash campaigns this makes for unhappy players posting what-went-wrong-in-this-fight threads. But in the right campaigns with other encounters besides pure open-area monsters, the skills and wilderness magic are beautiful. For example in the rule-books survival gets an extreme amount of attention, probably more than spot. I kinda resent the combat spells added in later books. (a) They're not actually that strong, though they help, but (b) more importantly I really wish they'd stick to nature instead of pushing ranger into a clone of a subset of fighter. That's just boring to me, whether that leaves the class better or worse than fighter.

[Fitz10019]

Oh, and archery rangers DO use a shield. You know, the one that specifically says in its description that you can use a bow without penalty while wielding one. :)

Hold on, there's no attack penalty when an archer wears a buckler, granted. But a bow is a two-handed weapon, so the buckler does not grant you AC if you have fired your bow in your last turn. Or, am I getting that wrong? [citing the "In any case..." sentence]

[Divide by Zero]

They turn the ranger into a wizard with d8 hd, 6 sp/lvl, 2 good saves, and full BAB for the first 10 levels, but it doesn't get a familiar so its kind of weak

Can't specialize either :smalltongue: