[PF] Sneak Attack Ranger

[Drelua]

Ever since I first looked at the Ranger in 3.5, I thought it should have some way to get Sneak Attack, but I looked into it and found that none of the many ACFs out there give even a partial progression of SA. Recently, after I started playing Pathfinder, I talked to my DM about what class features would be a fair trade for a full progression, and we decided Favored Enemy and Favored Terrain would be enough, of course meaning we had to replace their capstone with the Rogue's. This works great for me, since I never liked Favoured Enemy mechanically or fluff-wise.

We haven't really talked about what to do with Camouflage or Hide in Plain Sight, as I just realized they're keyed off of FT. :smallredface: Any ideas on that would be appreciated, but I'm mostly wondering if the Playground thinks this is a fair trade. Sorry if this belongs in the Homebrew section, but I didn't think this was a big enough change to be out of place here.

TL;DR - Is dropping Favoured Enemy and Favoured Terrain for a Rogue's Sneak Attack progression a fair trade?

[grarrrg]

TL;DR - Is dropping Favoured Enemy and Favoured Terrain for a Rogue's Sneak Attack progression a fair trade?

Lets see

Favored Enemy is a class feature that lets you do extra damage, provided you meet certain conditions (that being, certain opponents. And also gives a To-Hit boost).

Sneak Attack is a class feature that lets you do extra damage, provided you meed certain conditions (that being, flanking and/or denied Dex to AC).

If its good enough for your DM, then it looks fine to me.

[Drelua]

Good to know. I guess it's the difference between a small bonus to a lot of things (attack, damage, skills...) and a big bonus to one thing (damage).

Would it be fair to make Camouflage and Hide in Pain Sight work in any natural terrain like in 3.5? I'm not really sure if that's a buff or a nerf, I guess that's mostly campaign dependent. It'd probably be a buff in a campaign that takes place in a wide variety of natural environments, and a nerf in a purely urban and dungeon based game, so I guess it's about even?

This should be perfect for a Catfolk Claw Pouncer, with some Rogue mixed in...

[gorfnab]

Bounty Hunter (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-classes/tripod-machine/bounty-hunter) - basically a rogue ranger like mix

[grarrrg]

Bounty Hunter (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-classes/tripod-machine/bounty-hunter) - basically a rogue ranger like mix

That's pretty much exactly what he wants to do.
It _IS_ third party though. Make of that what you will.

[deuxhero]

If 3.5 stuff is open, you could do Swift Hunter, which gives the, very similar to Sneak Attack, Skirmish AND it has a built in method of avoiding enemies that ignore precision damage.

[Drelua]

Bounty Hunter (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-classes/tripod-machine/bounty-hunter) - basically a rogue ranger like mix

I actually have that PDF; I had completely forgotten about that class. Hmm... Uncanny dodge and some rogue talents would be nice, but I don't like all the, well, bounty hunting abilities. I guess that could work, but I like having access to archetypes.


If 3.5 stuff is open, you could do Swift Hunter, which gives the, very similar to Sneak Attack, Skirmish AND it has a built in method of avoiding enemies that ignore precision damage.

3.5 is open, but I was actually planning on using this for a pouncing Catfolk, so that would block a few options I had in mind, like a 4-level dip into the Scout Rogue archetype and the Vicious Claws talent. Sneak Attack would apply in a lot more situations, since it'll be triggered by charging, as well as the normal stuff. There are few things more satisfying than rolling a fistful of d6s, but rolling a fistful of d8s is one of them. :smallwink: Now I just have to buy a half-dozen more d8s... :smallamused:

I guess I just really love the flavour of the Ranger, but FE and FT don't really fit in with my image of it, and Sneak Attack does.

[Ravens_cry]

I don't see why you can't make a Rogue with Ranger flavour, especially given how many traits give you more class skills.
What exactly is the Ranger 'flavour' that appeals to you so?

[grarrrg]

I don't see why you can't make a Rogue with Ranger flavour, especially given how many traits give you more class skills.
What exactly is the Ranger 'flavour' that appeals to you so?

Spells?
Bab?
Req-less Bonus Feats?
Animal Companion?
People mistake you for Aragorn?

[Ravens_cry]

Spells?
Bab?
Req-less Bonus Feats?
Animal Companion?
People mistake you for Aragorn?
Fair enough. To me is a man of the forest. Not as attuned to nature in a spiritual sense as, say, a druid, but certainly aware.
A Rogue with the right skills can fill that role just fine in my opinion.

[deuxhero]

3.5 is open, but I was actually planning on using this for a pouncing Catfolk, so that would block a few options I had in mind, like a 4-level dip into the Scout Rogue archetype and the Vicious Claws talent. Sneak Attack would apply in a lot more situations, since it'll be triggered by charging, as well as the normal stuff. There are few things more satisfying than rolling a fistful of d6s, but rolling a fistful of d8s is one of them. :smallwink: Now I just have to buy a half-dozen more d8s... :smallamused:


Skirmish activates off having moved. Unless you are charging 10 feet, Swift Hunter is actually purrect perfect for you

Additionally on the Vicious Claws, Skirmish qualifies for stuff as if it were sneak attack and I think it is modifyed by the same stuff, so that also works.

Scout is so very similar to the Rogue in 3.5 anyways, ask your GM if it can get rogue talents in the upgrade.

[Psyren]

If you want a RAW way to get Sneak Attack onto your 3.5 Ranger, get PHB2 for the Hunter's Eye spell.

[Drelua]

Spells?
Bab?
Req-less Bonus Feats?
Animal Companion?
People mistake you for Aragorn?

Pretty much the middle three, although that last one can be pretty fun. :smallwink: A ranger is basically exactly the type of character I like to play; sneaky, but not at all out of their element in a straight up fight. Two-weapon fighting with low DEX is also pretty sweet, letting me focus on STR and CON instead. I've always loved the idea of having an animal companion, too. Ever since I was a little kid I've always had at least one dog and one cat, usually more, and I spent a lot of time living with horses; just two when I was little, then a whole farm later on. Honestly, I'm more comfortable with my dogs than I am with people.

I did think of playing a naturey (shut up, spell check, it is too a word) Rogue instead, but that doesn't really capture any the stuff I love about Rangers, especially since their animal companion is actually useful in Pathfinder. Besides, a Rogue wearing red plaid and singing about how he's a lumberjack and he's okay would just be silly.

I know Scout could fill the same fluff, but it's honestly probably easier to make this change than to Scouts to Pathfinder. My group has no problem house ruling, so that's really not an issue; we're fully aware that the rules are quite capable of being really stupid, and stupid things should be changed or ignored. :smallbiggrin:

Edit: Crap, I forgot. Psyren, I appreciate the suggestion, but honestly this is as much about dropping FE as it is about picking up SA. I really, really hate having favoured enemies. I don't really like the idea of an adventurer focusing on one specific type of enemies, I don't like how rarely it actually comes into play, and I don't like how it can cause metagaming. Whenever someone in my group plays a ranger, they either ask the DM what their FE should be and cram it into their character concept, or the DM includes their FE just for the sake of including it, resulting in encounters that feel forced, although the latter's a lot less common.