A ranger revamp(3.5, PEACH)

[bobthe6th]

ok, after descution, things have changed. Now I will remake the ranger three times over.

the first shall be a sneaky woodsman, a rogue focused on sneaking more then door opening.

the secound will be a more standard re make to bring it up to ToB speed in melee.

the third shall be a fully brewed version in which I fix things that annoy me as I go (like TWF and other such anoyances).

wish me luck!

the first




Custom
{table=head]Level|BAB|Fort|Ref|Will|Special

1st|+0|+0|+2|+0|Poison Use, Hunters strike +1d6

2nd|+1|+0|+3|+0|1 Stealth

3rd|+2|+1|+3|+1|Hunters strike +2d6

4th|+3|+1|+4|+1|

5th|+3|+1|+4|+1|Hunters strike +3d6

6th|+4|+2|+5|+2|2 Stealth

7th|+5|+2|+5|+2|Hunters strike +4d6

8th|+6/+1|+2|+6|+2|

9th|+6/+1|+3|+6|+3|Hunters strike +5d6

10th|+7/+2|+3|+7|+3|3 Stealth

11th|+8/+3|+3|+7|+3|Hunters strike +6d6

12th|+9/+4|+4|+8|+4|

13th|+9/+4|+4|+8|+4|Hunters strike +7d6

14th|+10/+5|+4|+9|+4|4 Stealth

15th|+11/+6/+1|+5|+9|+5|Hunters strike +8d6

16th|+12/+7/+2|+5|+10|+5|

17th|+12/+7/+2|+5|+10|+5|Hunters strike +9d6

18th|+13/+8/+3|+6|+11|+6|5 Stealth

19th|+14/+9/+4|+6|+11|+6|Hunters strike +10d6

20th|+15/+10/+5|+6|+12|+6|

[/table]
Alignment: Any
Hit Die: 1d8

Class Skills:
Class Skills
Skill Points at 1st Level: (8 + Int modifier) × 4
Skill Points at Each Additional Level: 8 + Int modifier



the second
so the changes
removed:favored enamy(all of it), animal companion, spell casting, wild empathy,
gained:sneak attack, improved evasion, uncanny dodge
chainged: evasion comes at 4, improved at 9, hide in plain sight and camo moved down a level. two more combat style feats at 14 and 18, add a capstone

1:track, sneak attack +1d6
2:combat style
3:Endurance, Sneak attack +2d6
4:evasion
5:Uncanny dodge,+3d6 sneak attack
6:improved combat style
7:Woodland stride, +4d6 sneak attack
8:swift tracker
9:improved evasion, +5d6 sneak attack
10:Improved uncanny dodge
11:Combat style mastery, +6d6 sneak attack
12:Camouflage
13:+7d6 sneak attack
14:Combat style
15:+8d6 sneak attack
16:Hide in plain sight
17:+9d6 sneak attack
18:Combat style
19:+10d6 sneak attack
20:some cap stone I can't think of


the third
1: sneak attack +1d6
2:combat style
3:
4:evasion
5:Uncanny dodge,+2d6 sneak attack
6:combat style
7:
8:
9:improved evasion, +3d6 sneak attack
10:combat style, Improved uncanny dodge
11:
12:
13:+4d6 sneak attack
14:Combat style
15:
16:
17:+5d6 sneak attack
18:Combat style
19:
20:some cap stone I can't think of

remake the combat styles.

TWF:
combat style: two weapon flury: When you attack with your main hand weapon you can chose to attack with your any off hand weapons you are wielding. This imposes a -4 penalty to the attack(-2 if the off hand weapon is light). They use the same attack roll, but roll separately for damage and apply bonus damage separately. this ability cannot be used in conjunction with the two weapon fighting special attack.
at sixth level and every four levels thereafter, you can make an additional attack with your main hand weapon when you charge.

improved combat style: parrying knife: when wielding a weapon in your off hand, you get a +1 shield bonus to armor class, +1 per 4 ranger levels. additionaly, the penalty for using two weapon flury is reduced to -2 (-1 if the off hand weapon is light)
combat style mastery:

[JetThomasBoat]

As far as balancing issues, I don't think a class that has highest BA progression, a d8 HD, and a series of combat style feats should get sneak attack at every other level. I would say town that down some. Other than that, I would also say it shouldn't get Improved Evasion before a rogue can.

At this point, unless they really need the rogue skill set or the rogue special abilities, no one is going to pick a rogue over this class.

[toapat]

Now i just imagine a bush with a knife sneaking up on someone.

also, Table generator goodness (http://pifro.com/dnd/NEW/)

pretty good, although i think you could mix in a bit from the spellless ranger from Complete Warrior. Its difficult to judge though without the combat styles

[bobthe6th]

just a note for PEACHing, I am trying to bring both the rogue and ranger to T3 with this, which both lack separately. also trying to make them in line with the ToB classes.

this is to replace the rogue to a degree, as it is kinda weak much like the ranger.

it gets improved evasion on level with monk... and only 1 level before rogue. It is really placed as it is because I am trying to kill the dead levels, which are a pain. also, the sneak attack is meant to be a way to add damage to stuff, which is missing other wise... though perhapce making it every 4, but adding pounce+a way to deal SA to immune foes would fill it out...


And I am a lazy person doing a quick varient, so I was avoiding making a full table.

[toapat]

this is to replace the rogue to a degree, as it is kinda weak much like the ranger.

And I am a lazy person doing a quick varient, so I was avoiding making a full table.

It would help to note in the first post for people not coming here from the homerules thread.

all the better that that website exists, it autobuilds the table and lets you see where the problems are

[bobthe6th]

wow... ok that is not what I thought it was(he thought it was a link to the table guide...)

thatis really cool, I will definatly use it.

also... brew urge rising... must remake TWF to not be so terrible...

[JetThomasBoat]

just a note for PEACHing, I am trying to bring both the rogue and ranger to T3 with this, which both lack separately. also trying to make them in line with the ToB classes.

And I am a lazy person doing a quick varient, so I was avoiding making a full table.

Oh, okay, I didn't know you were going for outright replace the rogue. I don't have many suggestions then because I to am a lazy person and have never bothered to look in the ToB much or figure out this tier stuff.

Also, I can't help but think the flavor would suffer. And I'm a sucker for that.

[bobthe6th]

well, I would try to increase the flavor built into both classes. the ranger... had funny flavor, and the rogue had to much "politically correct thief" flavor. With this I would shoot for a more swashbuckler or smart fighter flavor.

[JetThomasBoat]

well, I would try to increase the flavor built into both classes. the ranger... had funny flavor, and the rogue had to much "politically correct thief" flavor. With this I would shoot for a more swashbuckler or smart fighter flavor.

I dunno, I never saw much problem with ranger flavor. To me it seemed like the second biggest fantasy staple. But to each his own.

[Yitzi]

I would agree that "mix in some rogue and excise the druid" is the right approach, but not with sneak attack. (Maybe allow a far harder can-only-be-used-in-a-surprise-round sneak attack, but that's it.) Instead, don't give him any combat boosts (maybe even depower him to a 3/4 BAB and a d6 hit die), but give him 8+INT skillpoints (like a rogue) and bonus abilities with both using and avoiding natural traps (e.g. snares, pits, even avalanches at high levels) and poisons. Give him good and earlier hide boosts (as you did, but consider giving him something to help him avoid blindsense/blindsight now that he now longer can cast Hide from Animals), give him a barbarian's fast movement, and you should have a proper outdoorsman. (Naturally, he's next to useless in a fair fight, but if you get into a fair fight with those abilities you're probably doing it wrong.)

[bobthe6th]

trying... to keep... down... the brew urge... so want... to... remake... whole... system...

also, yitzi... I kind of want to make the ranger idiot proof, and give a way to help in combat...

ok, three versions shall be made. a normal version, in line with rogue but more outdoorsy and less SA. unbrewed ToB version with fair combat abilities. and a full brewed version that remakes the whole twf and archery system.

[JetThomasBoat]

(Maybe allow a far harder can-only-be-used-in-a-surprise-round sneak attack, but that's it.)

So like the Ninja's sudden strike ability?

[bobthe6th]

prehapce a death attack style thing? spend a full round studying your foe from hiding, get +1/2 level d6 damage and other good things?

[toapat]

wow... ok that is not what I thought it was(he thought it was a link to the table guide...)

did i forget to mention it has a GitP setting?

[bobthe6th]

...gods teeth that is... I can't speak any more... or type k a alksd;vj;nam.cxmvnsadvjalv.xmv*brain starts to hemorage*
*dies of sheer awsome*

edit:ghost sees the inline formula system... and is reincarnated by the sheer usefulness of the thing.

edit edit: and of course I get told about this after I get some mastery over the html code...

[toapat]

...gods teeth that is... I can't speak any more... or type k a alksd;vj;nam.cxmvnsadvjalv.xmv*brain starts to hemorage*
*dies of sheer awsome*

edit:ghost sees the inline formula system... and is reincarnated by the sheer usefulness of the thing.

edit edit: and of course I get told about this after I get some mastery over the html code...

ya, i didnt start homebrewing on this forum till i learned that website, way too convenient.

*Quests for a Scroll of True Ressurection*

[bobthe6th]

all those days of mindnumbing tidium making and remaking tables... dear god, the days I spent on it...

[toapat]

all those days of mindnumbing tidium making and remaking tables... dear god, the days I spent on it...

i know, its horrible editing tables, even with that greatness

[Yitzi]

trying... to keep... down... the brew urge... so want... to... remake... whole... system...

I'm working on a remake myself. It is not a minor project, to put it mildly.


also, yitzi... I kind of want to make the ranger idiot proof, and give a way to help in combat...

To me, that really conflicts with the essence of what the ranger is (a cunning and knowledgeable outdoorsman; that concept isn't really idiot-proof. Poisons do help in combat, though.). But it's your revamp, so your decision.


So like the Ninja's sudden strike ability?

No; sudden strike is still usable when you're hidden or invisible or the target is stunned, etc. This would be more similar to the conditions for death attack.


prehapce a death attack style thing? spend a full round studying your foe from hiding, get +1/2 level d6 damage and other good things?

That's pretty much the sort of thing I was thinking of. Although rather than bonus damage, how does an automatic critical (if you hit), possibly with a bonus to the crit multiplier, sound?

[bobthe6th]

like you will end up using x4 crit modifire weapons... all the time. perhapce a flat bonus to crit range? so as a build thing you can chose to gamble a little for a huge crit, or have a huge chance at a flat x2?

heck, how about a progresion of +1d6 at first and every 4 levels, and +2 to your critical range at third and every 4th? end with +5d6 and +10 to your crit range? this is activated after taking a full round action to study a foe, reduced to a standard at 6th, and a move at 12th?

edit: hell, your spending a round to kill a thing, which you should in one round... how about +10 damage that multiplies on a crit, the crit range, and at 10 it forces a DC 10+dex modifire+1/2 ranger level or death by massive damage. at level 4 it deals half damage to crit imune foes, at 8th full damage.


that sound good?

[Yitzi]

like you will end up using x4 crit modifire weapons... all the time.

Not really, as X4 modifier weapons tend to be melee, and that makes it nearly impossible to set up a death attack type scenario with a ranger's skills (which do not include Bluff; I'd actually go further and require that the ranger not be detected at all.) Better just to use a bow for a X3 modifier, which is really what the ranger would be using anyway.


perhapce a flat bonus to crit range? so as a build thing you can chose to gamble a little for a huge crit, or have a huge chance at a flat x2?

Nah, as I don't really see a ranger as being better able to crit except in cases where he can get it nearly guaranteed. The ranger surprise attack should have automatic crits (essentially, threat range becomes 2-20 and all crits confirm automatically), and I'd say add 1/5 the class level (rounded down) to the multiplier. It'll be an extremely powerful attack (perhaps roughly twice the power of a sneak attack), but is really usable only once per fight.


edit: hell, your spending a round to kill a thing, which you should in one round

Keep in mind, you're spending a round before the fight begins. Maybe I wasn't clear; I'm not just thinking of hiding during the fight, I mean an attack when he doesn't even know you exist. So yes, it should be a close to guaranteed insta-kill against mooks (quite useful if the mook you just killed was a guard who was supposed to warn the enemy of your approach) and a serious attack against major enemies; an automatic crit with a bow should do that at lower levels, and at higher levels you can get a bonus to the multiplier.

And yes, this still makes the ranger into very much a non-DPR class...but there are other classes for those who want to play a more conventional combatant.

[bobthe6th]

oh yeah... bows...
so how about +1 to critical multiplier and +10 multiplying damage at fourth and every four levels there after, maxing at +5 crit and +50 damage?
that would be the special, full minute of study without being spotted death attack.
then in combat you can spend a full round action studying a target and get the boosted crit range? so in combat they have a shtic, but not a ridicules one.

[toapat]

oh yeah... bows...
so how about +1 to critical multiplier and +10 multiplying damage at fourth and every four levels there after, maxing at +5 crit and +50 damage?
that would be the special, full minute of study without being spotted death attack.
then in combat you can spend a full round action studying a target and get the boosted crit range? so in combat they have a shtic, but not a ridicules one.

with that kind of study time, i think +100 damage per rank would be within reason, considering that physical combatants are expected to be dealing 1 trillion damage in a round at lvl 20

[Yitzi]

oh yeah... bows...
so how about +1 to critical multiplier and +10 multiplying damage at fourth and every four levels there after, maxing at +5 crit and +50 damage?

With a bow, that's 400 damage at level 20 just from the bonus (multiplied by the crit); that's enough for the ranger to possibly one-shot a major boss. I would make it somewhat weaker and allow it to require only one round of study (so long as the ranger isn't detected, which for a ranger is quite plausible), but it's up to you for your homebrew.


then in combat you can spend a full round action studying a target and get the boosted crit range? so in combat they have a shtic, but not a ridicules one.

It should still only work against enemies flat-footed against their attack, though; the whole point is that it is meant to synergize with their skills.

[Seerow]

1) Off topic, but I don't get the complaints about changing tables. I didn't even know that there was a site that did that. Tables on this site are incredibly easy. Especially compared to the practically html layout a lot of forums use.

I honestly use gitp table formatting code even for just organizing my own thoughts in note pad, because it's easier than writing in word and making actual tables instead.

2) On topic, all three of the fixes here seem to me to miss the mark of what makes a tier3 tier3. The first one is just a rogue with full BAB more or less (still tier 4). The second one is more or less the same as standard ranger, but with a couple extra feats and sneak attack instead of favored enemy. The third has even less.

Like you seem to have the power down, but lack a lot of the flexibility. Skills alone are not enough unless you are also rewriting the skill system.

[Greyfeld85]

Personally, I think you can bring the Ranger up to T3 by giving him a full progression AC and giving him a few more spells per day.

[Seerow]

Personally, I think you can bring the Ranger up to T3 by giving him a full progression AC and giving him a few more spells per day.

I do agree with this. Giving a spell progression similar to the one I gave my Paladin, or maybe bumping up as high as Duskblade progression, along with swapping the Ranger and Druid ACs, and the Ranger's in a much better place. Maybe also make the casting Warmage style (ie spontaneous casting from full list) for some extra versatility.

[bobthe6th]

1) Off topic, but I don't get the complaints about changing tables. I didn't even know that there was a site that did that. Tables on this site are incredibly easy. Especially compared to the practically html layout a lot of forums use.

I honestly use gitp table formatting code even for just organizing my own thoughts in note pad, because it's easier than writing in word and making actual tables instead.


UMV, but I have spent at least w hours on every class just making the table. With the websight I spent 5-10 minutes.



2) On topic, all three of the fixes here seem to me to miss the mark of what makes a tier3 tier3. The first one is just a rogue with full BAB more or less (still tier 4). The second one is more or less the same as standard ranger, but with a couple extra feats and sneak attack instead of favored enemy. The third has even less.

Like you seem to have the power down, but lack a lot of the flexibility. Skills alone are not enough unless you are also rewriting the skill system.

Well... non of them are truly done... at this point the third will be a lot more then it is, with some manuver like stuff and special abilaties.
Version one needs to be actualy made at this point, as I have the concept down to a degree.
Version two... I need to add somthing,

[Seerow]

UMV, but I have spent at least w hours on every class just making the table. With the websight I spent 5-10 minutes.

Meh, I just find the table really easy to do. Put a | between each entry. Your text even looks like a table before you make the post!

But maybe Im just weird.




As for the Rangers I guess I'll wait to see the actually complete thing.

[Yitzi]

Like you seem to have the power down, but lack a lot of the flexibility. Skills alone are not enough unless you are also rewriting the skill system.

Why not? Skills have very high flexibility; pretty much anything that isn't direct combat and isn't physically impossible is probably going to be done with a skill.

[Seerow]

Why not? Skills have very high flexibility; pretty much anything that isn't direct combat and isn't physically impossible is probably going to be done with a skill.

Because skills as they are written are too limited in capability, and require too much investment. With 8 skill points per level you still only have access to about 20% of the skills out there, not even accounting for craft/profession and that is pretty horrible. Then of course there's the point where doing things that are physically impossible is what higher level characters are supposed to be doing. The fact that skills only grant that should be enough of a reason in of itself to say they can't bring a class up to tier 3.

[Greyfeld85]

Because skills as they are written are too limited in capability, and require too much investment. With 8 skill points per level you still only have access to about 20% of the skills out there, not even accounting for craft/profession and that is pretty horrible. Then of course there's the point where doing things that are physically impossible is what higher level characters are supposed to be doing. The fact that skills only grant that should be enough of a reason in of itself to say they can't bring a class up to tier 3.

Yeah, more skill points are only worth something like half a tier, IMO. And it's not just the breadth of skills either, it's the various depths you need to take them to make them useful.

UMD, one of the best skills on the entire list, needs to be able to hit 20 when you roll a 1 to really be worth the investment. Which means being level 17, or wasting ability points and equipment slots on CHA and +skill items. You literally can't get your skill high enough to reliably cast a 3rd-level (or lower) level spell until you're almost epic level, unless you waste other resources to increase your modifier.

This is the problem with the skill system. To be consistently useful, the wide majority of skills require obscenely high levels to reliably complete the most mundane of tasks, or wasting other resources to achieve that level early. This goes for Tumble, Disable Device, and any other skill you often can't take 10 on... and double for any skill that normally requires an opposed roll.

[toapat]

what if, instead of a roll of 1d20 on skill checks, the roll was 3d6+1? this means that on average, you would be rolling an 11.5 on any skill check.

[Yitzi]

Because skills as they are written are too limited in capability

How so?


and require too much investment. With 8 skill points per level you still only have access to about 20% of the skills out there, not even accounting for craft/profession and that is pretty horrible.

Why only 8? With a +3 INT score, you can get up to 11.

And while that's not a huge percentage of the skills out there (although even that can be helped with Pathfinder), it's enough for a few major roles.


Then of course there's the point where doing things that are physically impossible is what higher level characters are supposed to be doing.

Why do you think higher level characters are supposed to be able to do things like fly without magic items or being spellcasters themselves?


UMD, one of the best skills on the entire list

Nonsense. It's quite nice, to be sure, but is nowhere near as useful as a properly used Bluff or Diplomacy; even Hide/Move Silently can be devastating if used intelligently.


needs to be able to hit 20 when you roll a 1 to really be worth the investment.

Why? Even if you need a 10 to cast a spell, it's still useful for situations where time is not a factor (since unlike a caster level check to cast a scroll above your level, there is no downside to failing a UMD check to use a scroll unless you roll a natural 1. "Activate Blindly" has mishaps, other uses do not).

But yes, the serious UMDer will want to get some sort of +skill item; a +5 item is quite affordable by mid-levels and will help quite a bit. But with Hide, Move Silently, Spot, and Listen, the ranger makes an excellent scout. Survival (amazingly forgettable until you need it) and K: Geography make him quite good at living in the wild, and together with Hide/Move Silently that makes him into an excellent ambusher. And that's before adding in new stuff.

In contrast, let's look at what he doesn't do well:
-Combat. There are tons of classes that do that well, and the ideas here will mean he's not completely useless. (And if he can take out guards before being detected and thereby allow the party to catch the enemy unprepared, he's probably done more than his share.)
-Heavy-duty transportation (e.g. teleport, overland flight). Pretty much every sub-tier-2 class shares his problem here, so I don't think you can really count it.
-Social stuff. For a more social-oriented game, you'd probably want a rogue instead (or in addition if it has substantial wilderness parts too.)

Really, a properly used ranger has more versatility than some tier 3 classes such as dread necromancer, psionic warrior, or duskblade. (Well, unless you're weighting combat extremely heavily, but that's not the sort of game where a ranger excels. Although even there ranger is the most important, and most build-defining, class in at least one very nice build (http://community.wizards.com/coco/wiki/Bilgly)...)

[Greyfeld85]

Why do you think higher level characters are supposed to be able to do things like fly without magic items or being spellcasters themselves?

It's not a matter of "supposed to," it's a matter of comparative cost and reward. Comparatively, skills do far less for far more investment than magic does for any spellcaster, in or out of combat. Taken in a bubble, skills are useful and varied... but if you're playing in a bubble, then you're not really playing D&D as-written either, which is a different discussion altogether.



Nonsense. It's quite nice, to be sure, but is nowhere near as useful as a properly used Bluff or Diplomacy; even Hide/Move Silently can be devastating if used intelligently.

Please note my usage of the qualifier "one of." Without risk of outright breaking the game, UMD is one of the most powerful skills in D&D 3.5.



Why? Even if you need a 10 to cast a spell, it's still useful for situations where time is not a factor (since unlike a caster level check to cast a scroll above your level, there is no downside to failing a UMD check to use a scroll unless you roll a natural 1. "Activate Blindly" has mishaps, other uses do not).

Because wands require a 20 to activate, and as the most consistent and reliable source of low-level magic for non-spellcasters, we have to take that into account, especially for combat situations.


But yes, the serious UMDer will want to get some sort of +skill item; a +5 item is quite affordable by mid-levels and will help quite a bit. But with Hide, Move Silently, Spot, and Listen, the ranger makes an excellent scout. Survival (amazingly forgettable until you need it) and K: Geography make him quite good at living in the wild, and together with Hide/Move Silently that makes him into an excellent ambusher. And that's before adding in new stuff.

Yes... right until the wizard learns clairvoyance/clairaudience and completely usurps that role. The fact is, magic can do anything skills can do, and can usually do it better, and safer. When you get right down to it, skill-centric classes get use because the tier 1/2 casters in the party are being nice enough to let them play with their toys, not because they're actually necessary.

[Yitzi]

It's not a matter of "supposed to," it's a matter of comparative cost and reward. Comparatively, skills do far less for far more investment than magic does for any spellcaster, in or out of combat.

Well yeah, if you're comparing it to magic then it comes out poorly. But so does everything tier 3 or lower. So unless he's trying to make it tier 2, that's not a problem. Since our discussion is whether it has enough versatility to be tier 3, comparison to tier 2 is not really appropriate.


Please note my usage of the qualifier "one of." Without risk of outright breaking the game, UMD is one of the most powerful skills in D&D 3.5.

Ok, I'll accept that.



Because wands require a 20 to activate, and as the most consistent and reliable source of low-level magic for non-spellcasters, we have to take that into account, especially for combat situations.

But why do you need to be able to activate it every try? (Well, unless you're going up against tier 1 or 2, but inability to do that doesn't mean you can't be tier 3.)


Yes... right until the wizard learns clairvoyance/clairaudience and completely usurps that role. The fact is, magic can do anything skills can do, and can usually do it better, and safer. When you get right down to it, skill-centric classes get use because the tier 1/2 casters in the party are being nice enough to let them play with their toys, not because they're actually necessary.

The same is true of combat-centric classes; basically, your argument boils down not to "skills are underpowered" but rather "magic is overpowered". Which we already knew, and is irrelevant to the question of whether a redone ranger is tier 3 or tier 4.

[Seerow]

Well yeah, if you're comparing it to magic then it comes out poorly. But so does everything tier 3 or lower. So unless he's trying to make it tier 2, that's not a problem. Since our discussion is whether it has enough versatility to be tier 3, comparison to tier 2 is not really appropriate.

Um most of Tier3 is magical in some way as well.

Tier 3 classes: Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Crusader, Bard, Swordsage, Binder (without access to the summon monster vestige), Wildshape Varient Ranger, Duskblade, Factotum, Warblade, Psionic Warrior


Note that none of these classes rely on their skill points to attain tier3 status. Also note that the Rogue who gets the most skills does not get tier3, despite getting those and also getting being decent enough at combat.

Even the Factotum whose big thing is being Rogue+ gets a few spells each day.

[Yitzi]

Um most of Tier3 is magical in some way as well.

But not in the way that makes skills useless or is useful in the presence of wizards, so Greyfeld's argument still doesn't work.


Tier 3 classes: Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Crusader, Bard, Swordsage, Binder (without access to the summon monster vestige), Wildshape Varient Ranger, Duskblade, Factotum, Warblade, Psionic Warrior


Note that none of these classes rely on their skill points to attain tier3 status.

But some of them, such as Beguiler, rely on stuff that isn't all that different than what can be done with skills.

Perhaps you can explain why a Beguiler is so much more flexible than a diplomacy-oriented rogue, because I can't see why.

[Seerow]

But not in the way that makes skills useless or is useful in the presence of wizards, so Greyfeld's argument still doesn't work.



But some of them, such as Beguiler, rely on stuff that isn't all that different than what can be done with skills.

Perhaps you can explain why a Beguiler is so much more flexible than a diplomacy-oriented rogue, because I can't see why.

Really? A beguiler is so much more than a diplomacy bot it's not even funny. But first, let's dispel this notion that a Rogue with a focus on diplomacy is even actually all that good at it. He gets little to no charisma synergy, no special abilities that feed into charisma or diplomacy. A high level rogue can pull off a DC30-35 check reliably, not the level of shenanigans diplomacy is famous for. For that, you need a mix of other classes that provide massive bonuses to it, and some custom magic items. Neither of which comes from the rogue. When operating within the bounds of skill points themselves, skills are almost universally pretty bad, and only a couple actually get to the point of being good when invested with lots of other resources.

Now that said, Diplomacy at that level barely competes with Charm. Dominate it has no answer to. Dominate Monster even less, because Dominate is something that can work even on unintelligent creatures.

But even when you ignore that, the Beguiler has much more going for it than just making the diplomacy skill obsolete. It has divination. It has dispelling. It has illusion. It has encounter ending status effects. It has true seeing, mind blank, etc. It has magical defenses like mirror image. It has extremely fast out of combat transportation (not quite teleport, but close), and can communicate with people at long distances.

None of these are things that skills replicate. If you think the entirety of a beguiler's versatility comes from diplomacy, then you haven't looked closely at all a beguiler can do.

[Greyfeld85]

Keep in mind, we're not saying skills are useless, or don't have their place within the system. We're simply saying that additional skill points per level aren't worth all that much, tier-wise. And this is due largely to a combination of the presence of magic within the system, and the sheer amount of resources required to make most skills worth taking.

[Yitzi]

But first, let's dispel this notion that a Rogue with a focus on diplomacy is even actually all that good at it. He gets little to no charisma synergy, no special abilities that feed into charisma or diplomacy.

Of course he gets special abilities (albeit not unique ones) that feed into charisma. There's diplomacy, bluff, UMD, Disguise...a social-based rogue isn't just diplomacy, you know.


A high level rogue can pull off a DC30-35 check reliably, not the level of shenanigans diplomacy is famous for.

So he can't do shinanegans. Shinanegans are the realm of tier 1 and 2 anyway. 30-35, or even 25-30 is quite sufficient to give a large advantage if used intelligently.


For that, you need a mix of other classes that provide massive bonuses to it, and some custom magic items.

You can get 25-30 relatively easy. With 20 skill ranks (and that's only level 17), 25-30 requires only 5-10 from CHA (and skill focus if you're really serious), which is quite doable by those levels for a CHA-focused or even CHA-and-something-else focused rogue.


Neither of which comes from the rogue.

So he's not self-sufficient. Very few classes are, and those cases are generally design mistakes.


When operating within the bounds of skill points themselves, skills are almost universally pretty bad, and only a couple actually get to the point of being good when invested with lots of other resources.

Let's examine all the Core skills...

-Appraise. Absolutely essential (and quite useful even with a +6 bonus such as might be found in low levels) if you can't rely on your buyer to offer what the item's actually worth, pretty much ignorable otherwise.
-Balance. If there are never any narrow areas around when it's time to fight, and the enemy doesn't use Grease, it's pretty ignorable. Otherwise, quite useful to have even if you never take it past level 2. (A rogue with a good balance score standing in the middle of a narrow ledge over a chasm is an absolute nightmare to take on with melee unless you also have a high balance score.) Does decrease in use somewhat once flying becomes popular, but all flight spells have their drawbacks; Air Walk hurts your speed substantially, Overland Flight is only for wizards and sorcerers (which are tier 2+ and therefore really don't belong in this discussion), and Flight is a short enough duration that it can't be cast before the fight unless you have forewarning, and casting it every fight can get quite expensive.
-Bluff. Even at low to middle levels, it can give you a decent chance of getting out of some very sticky situations, simply because most enemies don't take Sense Motive. Not the sort of performance that tier 2+ tends to expect, but we're not discussing tier 2+. At high levels (or with Glibness, arguably the most broken spell in the game)...I'll let Mr. Burlew speak for me. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0767.html)
-Climb. Before mobility spells come into play, it can let you get where other people can't (quite useful for ambushes or simply preventing melee), although unless STR is your main ability score you really need more ranks than is possible at low levels to make it safe. After mobility spells become available (which is actually pretty early on), this becomes substantially less useful, so this isn't such a great skill except in games where many spells are unavailable.
-Concentration. Absolutely essential for casters who might be hit while casting (and with readied actions, any non-broken caster can be hit while casting.) Pretty much nobody else will take it.
-Craft. This one is pretty useless unless there's a lot of downtime. Leave it for the commoners.
-Decipher Script. Except for the bonus to UMD and prestige class entrance, this one is pretty useless at low levels; at high levels it can be essential or useless depending on the campaign.
-Diplomacy. Even at low levels, you stand a decent chance of turning an unfriendly character (quite a serious obstacle if the character is influential) to indifferent, or getting an indifferent character to be friendly. At high levels, you can get such feats as a decent (75-95%) chance of winning nearly any encounter with a single full round action (the only exceptions are those with some special reason to want you dead and those you can't communicate with.) So in order to be pushing tier 2 you need a heavy investment, but for a good chance at more subtle advantages you don't.
-Disable Device. Absolutely essential for dungeoneering with a clever DM (sending summons ahead sounds nice, but slows your progress to a crawl and won't work for instantly resetting traps).
-Disguise. Bluff's little brother, and useful in many similar situations, or when you want to go somewhere you're likely to get killed/imprisoned if recognized. Does suffer substantially from the availability of Disguise Self, but the bonuses stack so bards and trickery-domain clerics will actually find Disguise more useful because of it. Not one of the top ones, but useful to have in your repitoire.
-Escape Artist. Not all that useful, though it does help a lot against grapplers at low to mid levels.
-Forgery. Bluff's other little brother. Remember, it's often easier to trick your way into a place than to fight your way in.
-Gather Info. At low levels, it can be a good way to find the next adventure. At mid to high levels, it can be absolutely essential to progress in your adventure, or pretty useless; it all depends on the DM.
-Handle Animal. If you have an animal ally, or want an animal ally, it's quite useful. Otherwise, forget it. So it's another hit-or-miss. Note that at a DC of 10 to handle, you don't need a lot of ranks to make it useful.
-Heal. Except in a very-low-magic (or no-magic) game, it's pretty useless.
-Hide. Not quite as powerful as Bluff, but with the right support it can almost single-handedly win you a lot of fights. Remember, you can't hit what you can't see or even determine the square of, at least not with any degree of reliability. Needs a significant level (if playing with psionics, a tattoo of Chameleon is a great help, and if you're really serious you probably want to play a goblin for the small size without sacrificing speed) to be an encounter-winner, but even before that it can be good for keeping yourself alive when injured or when scouting.
-Intimidate. Not quite as useful as Diplomacy for the long term, but it can provide a viable alternative if you just need something now. Tends to be pretty risky, but still often a useful option.
-Jump. Similarly to climb, this is useful at low levels, but mobility spells make it useless relatively quickly.
-Knowledge. Depending on the campaign and the DM's rules about applying OOC knowledge (such as monster stats), this can range from useless to extremely useful.
-Listen. Can help detect sneaks, and of course is useful for knowing what's behind that door before you open it. Useful at any level.
-Move Silently. Any time you want Hide, Move Silently is a good supporting skill.
-Open Lock. Before Knock, this is absolutely essential for dungeoneering. After Knock becomes available, it drops substantially, unless the dungeon designer (DM) is clever. Remember, each casting of the spell only removes two locks, so by putting a lot of cheap locks on your stuff a Knock-reliant party can end up being unpleasantly surprised. (A trap that slams another locked door behind them can turn "unpleasantly surprised" into "sitting ducks".)
-Perform. Pretty useless unless you need it for class features or are using epic rules.
-Profession. Like craft, leave it for the commoners.
-Ride. Either you need it (even small amounts are useful), or it's useless.
-Search. Like Disable Device, essential for dungeoneering. Also good for finding hidden treasure.
-Sense Motive. Remember how broken Bluff can be? This is the defense against it. Obviously, quite important.
-Sleight of Hand. It's often easier to pickpocket the key than to kill the guy who has it and prevent it from being known. And of course when you want to sneak a weapon in to somewhere you're not supposed to have a weapon, it's essential. It's usually not an encounter-winner, but can be useful in many cases, even at low levels (though it's risky unless you're substantially better than the opposing person; still, a risky option is still useful to have).
-Speak Language. Depending on the circumstances, it can be very useful (know what someone is saying when they don't want you to, or have an obscure language as a code for your party), or totally useless.
-Spellcraft. Several important uses for wizards. Not a rogue skill, obviously.
-Spot. The one good way to beat a sniping-based build. Also useful for scouts or guards.
-Survival. Essential for long wilderness adventures, but if you're staying in civilization it can probably be ignored. Useful even at low levels.
-Swim. If most of the campaign is on a ship, can be the difference between life and death. Otherwise, not that useful.
-Tumble. Great for ignoring enemy formations without expending resources on flight. As a bonus, if you take 5 ranks then fighting defensively and total defense (which, especially combined with combat expertise, can give a nasty surprise to anyone who thinks touch spells will take you down quickly) gets a 50% bonus. Useful at any level, but never really awesome.
-UMD. You need a moderate level for it to really be useful, but at that point it can be a substantial advantage.
-Use Rope. Occasionally useful for things such as climbing or prisoners, but often useless.

So overall we have a number of useless skills (which ones depends on the campaign), a bunch of useful skills, and several which are potential encounter-winners on their own. High levels of skills are almost never needed, unless you can't tolerate risk (and really, if you can't tolerate risk why are you playing a game where you might lose?)


Now that said, Diplomacy at that level barely competes with Charm.

Really? I can name a number of significant advantages that Diplomacy has over Charm:
1. It does not allow a save or SR.
2. It is not blocked by Protection from Evil or similar spells.
3. It lasts a long time. When you just want the monster to stop attacking you, Charm is fine, but when you're trying to get an influential person at court to stop trying to get in your way, 1 hour/level (or even 1 day/level) isn't enough.
4. It's not illegal to use on townspeople, while I would suspect that in most societies, Charm is.


Dominate it has no answer to.

Dominate is completely unsuitable for any situation where you want the target to actually treat you as a friend rather than just obey your explicit instructions. It barely competes with Diplomacy at all.


But even when you ignore that, the Beguiler has much more going for it than just making the diplomacy skill obsolete. It has divination. It has dispelling. It has illusion. It has encounter ending status effects. It has true seeing, mind blank, etc. It has magical defenses like mirror image. It has extremely fast out of combat transportation (not quite teleport, but close), and can communicate with people at long distances.

Ah, I was not aware of that. Yeah, that is pretty substantial.

Still, skills are useful in a very wide variety of cases, so I find it difficult to believe that they can't make the versatility of a tier 3. They're certainly more versatile than a psychic warrior.

[Seerow]

Still, skills are useful in a very wide variety of cases, so I find it difficult to believe that they can't make the versatility of a tier 3. They're certainly more versatile than a psychic warrior.

Once again, if what you are stating was true, Rogues would have made tier 3 instantly for having 8 skill points per level.

Psychic Warriors may not be as versatile as beguilers, but they get plenty of magical effects that add to their versatility and utility. They can walk on walls/cielings, teleport, have special personal defenses (including defenses against casters), can dispel magic/psionics, gain extra actions, shrink/grow themselves, steal other peoples' feats, and more.


You can list all of the things skills can do, but they are all firmly grounded in reality. That's fine up until level 6 or so, but past that you absolutely need more than what skills provide. If you gave a single character max ranks in every skill in the game simultaneously they might scratch low tier 3, but even then it's pretty iffy. But any class that's ever been printed? Nope, skills don't give enough.

[Yitzi]

Once again, if what you are stating was true, Rogues would have made tier 3 instantly for having 8 skill points per level.

So you've proven (if we assume that tier 3 is purely an issue of versatility, which I don't think is quite that clear) that JaronK (the originator of the tier system) was of the opinion that rogues aren't versatile enough. Now do you want to defend that opinion?


Psychic Warriors may not be as versatile as beguilers, but they get plenty of magical effects that add to their versatility and utility. They can walk on walls/cielings, teleport, have special personal defenses (including defenses against casters), can dispel magic/psionics, gain extra actions, shrink/grow themselves, steal other peoples' feats, and more.

So basically we're looking at combat, minor utility (through dispelling), and mobility. A rogue gets (in addition to minor combat ability) moderate utility abilities (through UMD), social interaction, mobility, stealth and anti-stealth, and dungeoneering.


You can list all of the things skills can do, but they are all firmly grounded in reality. That's fine up until level 6 or so, but past that you absolutely need more than what skills provide.

Often you do*, but that's why you have a party. You also (if the DM is good and throwing a good variety of capable enemies at you) need the skills.

Tier 3 doesn't always mean "can play every role the party needs", it also covers those with decent versatility as well as decent power in their area of expertise.

*It is possible to play a campaign purely with skills with no magic, but it's extremely difficult. Normally you need at least enough magic to counter the magic used against you.

[Seerow]

So you've proven (if we assume that tier 3 is purely an issue of versatility, which I don't think is quite that clear) that JaronK (the originator of the tier system) was of the opinion that rogues aren't versatile enough. Now do you want to defend that opinion?

It's more than JaronK, and you're well aware of that. The only reason the Rogue even got an argument for being close to tier3 was because of UMD and giant acid bomb shenanigans. In the end the decision was tier4.

If you want to try to argue skills are worth more, go over to Minmax boards and make your case.




So basically we're looking at combat, minor utility (through dispelling), and mobility. A rogue gets (in addition to minor combat ability) moderate utility abilities (through UMD), social interaction, mobility, stealth and anti-stealth, and dungeoneering.

Defenses like "Divinations don't work on me", or abilities like "I can steal feats from that guy over there" are way more versatile than you give credit for. Similarly mobility like "I can teleport and walk on the roof" are way better than mobility like "I can make a skill check to climb half my speed".

You're going out of your way to downplay the utility granted by magic/psionics/SLAs, and up-play the benefit granted by skills. The only one that's even in the running is UMD, which is basically just letting a rogue pretend to be a spellcaster anyway.




Often you do*, but that's why you have a party. You also (if the DM is good and throwing a good variety of capable enemies at you) need the skills.

Tier 3 doesn't always mean "can play every role the party needs", it also covers those with decent versatility as well as decent power in their area of expertise.

This is the kind of bull**** that people use to argue that Fighters are a balanced class as written. Yes, you have a Party, and everyone should be doing different things. But that doesn't mean that any character should be doing only mundane things while other characters are doing supernatural things. Mundane just doesn't keep up. You may have 10 different things you can do, but if none of them are relevant to a high level adventure it's the same as having nothing at all.

[toapat]

*snip*

The Tier system itself was/is poorly defined by JaronK outside of Tier 1 (Godlike), 2 (Needs preparation, but still godlike), and 6 (Steaming Pile of Poo), as Tier 3 is defined as Extremely good at one thing, Great at one thing and comparable at a few others, or Decent at everything.

To compare: Ranger vs Rogue:

SRD only

Ranger:
middle health and good BaB
Gets a few bonus feats or becomes an Animal, a marginal combat mechanic, some great hiding, tracking. They get spells to boost all of this. Their skillpool is near useless. Useless if it doesnt require tracking or killing

Rogue:
low health and Average BAB
Powerful attack booster, a few bonus feats that boost class abilities, precision damage and reflex save protection. great skill selection and skillpoints. Later can Scrollcast alot of spells. good at combat, decent at what they choose to be. Absolutely necessary to unlock doors and disable traps at high level.

[Yitzi]

It's more than JaronK, and you're well aware of that.

Ok, so it's a lot of people. That still isn't a proof; if you want to defend the popular belief, then do so with facts.


If you want to try to argue skills are worth more, go over to Minmax boards and make your case.

Not worth the bother. If you want to try to argue they're worth less, then you can provide your own arguments.


Defenses like "Divinations don't work on me", or abilities like "I can steal feats from that guy over there" are way more versatile than you give credit for.

The former isn't versatile at all. It is very useful to support your other abilities, to be sure, but will actually win you exactly 0% of challenges.
Stealing feats is definitely more useful, but still is very unlikely to be more than a minor boost outside of combat.


Similarly mobility like "I can teleport and walk on the roof" are way better than mobility like "I can make a skill check to climb half my speed".

Not exactly, when the former is only a limited number of times per day while the latter is at-will. The psychic warrior's mobility methods are still superior for combat, but for other purposes the ability to do it at will is probably worth more than the extra speed.


You're going out of your way to downplay the utility granted by magic/psionics/SLAs, and up-play the benefit granted by skills.

Not at all. The only magic/psionics I've discussed other than to say "it's tier 2+ and therefore not really relevant here" is the psywar's stuff, which is actually pretty weak on the utility aspect (what do you expect, it's a combat class.)

As for the benefit granted by skills, I challenge you to find a single place where I made a false statement or otherwise went out of my way to up-play the benefit. The fact is, skills can be extremely powerful if used intelligently; the only weakness (which is probably why they get shafted in minmaxing discussions) is that the vast majority of making skills effective is not mechanical in nature.


This is the kind of bull**** that people use to argue that Fighters are a balanced class as written.

And if Fighters didn't have other problems to which that argument does not apply (namely the fact that they're not so great at combat either), those arguments would be right.

Fighters aren't unbalanced because they can't do anything except for combat, they're unbalanced because they can't do anything except for combat and don't make up for it by being incredibly powerful in combat.


Yes, you have a Party, and everyone should be doing different things. But that doesn't mean that any character should be doing only mundane things while other characters are doing supernatural things.

Why not? The only intrinsic difference between "mundane" and "supernatural" (other than how they interact with antimagic fields and the like, which certainly doesn't make supernatural stuff superior) is that one is possible in our universe and one isn't. And why should our universe affect what the party members should be capable of in the fictional universe of D&D?

Now, it is true to say that you shouldn't have one character doing not-awesome things while other characters are doing awesome things, but there's no reason something can't be awesome without being supernatural. (In fact, many of the most awesome characters in fiction, from Havelock Vetinari to Bugs Bunny, use mainly non-supernatural methods for their awesomeness.)


Mundane just doesn't keep up. You may have 10 different things you can do, but if none of them are relevant to a high level adventure it's the same as having nothing at all.

So tell me...why is persuading an enemy to be an ally or at least neutral not relevant to a high level adventure?
Why isn't sneaking around and glorying in the invulnerability of undetectability relevant to a high level adventure?
Bluff clearly is relevant to a high level adventure, as shown in the OOTS comic I linked.

Or, to leave aside the rogue and ranger for a minute and take the case of a fighter what a fighter should be IMO:

Why isn't it relevant to a high level adventure to throw off a wizard's spell through sheer force of will, and then fill him with arrows?


Their skillpool is near useless. Useless if it doesnt require tracking or killing

Really? Hide has uses other than killing people, and Survival has uses other than tracking.

[toapat]

Really? Hide has uses other than killing people, and Survival has uses other than tracking.

I understood that, they are good at Tracking, Scouting/sneaking, and Killing things. and Survival is itself not going to be too strong of a skill when the DM doesnt want to torture the players with extreme difficulty survival and travel

and the point was that Rangers have minimal value to the group if it doesnt require killing something, or finding something to kill.

[Seerow]

Not exactly, when the former is only a limited number of times per day while the latter is at-will. The psychic warrior's mobility methods are still superior for combat, but for other purposes the ability to do it at will is probably worth more than the extra speed.


Hey now we have the "At will powers make up for being significantly weaker" argument. We're 2 for 2 for "Mundanes can't have nice things" arguments here.



Seriously I'm not even going to bother refuting the rest of your post. Everything I say is clearly going in one ear and out the other. If you want to believe skills are great because they can be used at will and provide a few minor benefits then sure, whatever makes you happy. Just recognize that common sentiment says you are very wrong. This discussion got started by me saying that the rangers presented in the OP were not tier 3 by the definition of the tier system, because they all hover around the power level of the rogue who is tier 4. That point has long since been made and continuing to try to convince you that you are overvaluing a crappy ability is a waste of everyone's time.

[Greyfeld85]

Hey now we have the "At will powers make up for being significantly weaker" argument. We're 2 for 2 for "Mundanes can't have nice things" arguments here.



Seriously I'm not even going to bother refuting the rest of your post. Everything I say is clearly going in one ear and out the other. If you want to believe skills are great because they can be used at will and provide a few minor benefits then sure, whatever makes you happy. Just recognize that common sentiment says you are very wrong. This discussion got started by me saying that the rangers presented in the OP were not tier 3 by the definition of the tier system, because they all hover around the power level of the rogue who is tier 4. That point has long since been made and continuing to try to convince you that you are overvaluing a crappy ability is a waste of everyone's time.

awwww but I was enjoying watching you rip apart his posts :P

[Yitzi]

I understood that, they are good at Tracking, Scouting/sneaking, and Killing things. and Survival is itself not going to be too strong of a skill when the DM doesnt want to torture the players with extreme difficulty survival and travel

Unless the players want to go out in the wilderness (perhaps they feel it's easier to fight the Evil Empire if they don't have to visit towns at all.)


and the point was that Rangers have minimal value to the group if it doesnt require killing something, or finding something to kill.

Add "doing without other people", and that's probably correct.

But then, those three things cover a substantial portion of the potential encounters for a party that wants to take that approach.


Hey now we have the "At will powers make up for being significantly weaker" argument. We're 2 for 2 for "Mundanes can't have nice things" arguments here.

Yes, I'm aware that my arguments have been made before. That doesn't make them wrong.


Seriously I'm not even going to bother refuting the rest of your post. Everything I say is clearly going in one ear and out the other.

What "everything"? You have not refuted a single one of my points; you've merely proven that a lot of people think as you do.


Just recognize that common sentiment says you are very wrong.

Oh, I recognize that. And I say that, as far as I can tell, common sentiment is very wrong on that point. If you'd like to show that common sentiment is right, I'm happy to listen.


This discussion got started by me saying that the rangers presented in the OP were not tier 3 by the definition of the tier system, because they all hover around the power level of the rogue who is tier 4.

Ok, since the tier system explicitly mentions rogues as tier 4, I'll concede that point and simply maintain that the tier system has flaws (although its distinction between tier 2+ and 3- is still clearly valid.)

[toapat]

Unless the players want to go out in the wilderness (perhaps they feel it's easier to fight the Evil Empire if they don't have to visit towns at all.)

Add "doing without other people", and that's probably correct.

But then, those three things cover a substantial portion of the potential encounters for a party that wants to take that approach.

Ok, since the tier system explicitly mentions rogues as tier 4, I'll concede that point and simply maintain that the tier system has flaws (although its distinction between tier 2+ and 3- is still clearly valid.)


1: for a Tier 3 class? That is not being useful outside of Combat, that is being useful in completing the manhunt, but not when you need to threaten someone, or negotiate, or make friends, or figure out who is lieing.

2: That is part of the problem of the Tier system, it is fuzzy on T3-5, and classes who can do more are ranked lower then classes that can do less.

[Greyfeld85]

1: for a Tier 3 class? That is not being useful outside of Combat, that is being useful in completing the manhunt, but not when you need to threaten someone, or negotiate, or make friends, or figure out who is lieing.

2: That is part of the problem of the Tier system, it is fuzzy on T3-5, and classes who can do more are ranked lower then classes that can do less.

I'd argue that it's fuzzy on T3-4, and that T5 is pretty solidly defined. Afterall, "good at one thing and not much else" is pretty cut and dry.

[Ashtagon]

For me, the biggest problem with this class is a lack of niche. It's not terribly different from the rogue.

[Yitzi]

1: for a Tier 3 class? That is not being useful outside of Combat, that is being useful in completing the manhunt, but not when you need to threaten someone, or negotiate, or make friends, or figure out who is lieing.

Yeah, rangers are not for when there's a lot of social interaction; in such cases you'd want a rogue. On the flip side, rogues aren't that useful in survival situations, whereas rangers are great there. It really depends on the game; rangers don't belong in every game.

If you're trying to overthrow the Evil Empire from within, ranger is the wrong choice. If you're trying to help a province successfully rebel against the Evil Empire, ranger (especially with modifications such as I suggested) has all sorts of fun possibilities.


2: That is part of the problem of the Tier system, it is fuzzy on T3-5, and classes who can do more are ranked lower then classes that can do less.

Yeah.


For me, the biggest problem with this class is a lack of niche. It's not terribly different from the rogue.

It does focus far less on social and far more on survival.

[Ashtagon]

It does focus far less on social and far more on survival.

So, out of combat your ranger is a tracker? IN combat, he is identical to a rogue.

Track and its related disciplines has to be the #1 useless feat in core btw

[Yitzi]

So, out of combat your ranger is a tracker?

Survival is used for more than tracking. Among other things, it means you can go indefinitely without visiting town, making it a lot easier to survive as outlaws. K:Geography is great for setting up ambushes.

There's an entire style of war that relies heavily on the sorts of things that rangers can be very good at. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerrilla_warfare) Don't think of tracking an enemy and then killing them, think of attacking an enemy supply depot or war machines (you know where they are because rangers make good scouts, and unlike scrying or clairvoyance you can search a bit rather than just picking one location or creature and being stuck with it) with fire arrows (rangers make pretty good archers), then disappearing into the woods (because of K: Geography, you know where to disappear to) before they can get organized to respond.

[toapat]

Id like to both see some movement on this, and to see it moved into Bob's siggy

[bobthe6th]

I've been letting this have a free rane, as I would like to skim for ideas...
also, with the mind bender and calc I am a might busy.

so, movment comes when that is done, so a little more then a week...