PDA

View Full Version : Quick Ranger Variant.



Falrin
2007-04-14, 07:30 PM
Just a very simple balance question.

I don't like the rangers 'favorite Enemy' ability. Gives to much trouble with CR or never meeting that ooze you got +6 against (+bane weapon).

So simple thoughts:

Switch with sneak attack. This fits the 'hunter' concept. Both handy with ranged and double weapons. But is 5d6 sneak damage enough to compensate the loss?

What about skirmish? Or Sudden Strike? More Spells (bard-like)? Both Feat-trees? A better animal companion (druid) ?

Are there any similar ideas around? (books or board)


So basically: What to give for dropping favorite enemy?

Innis Cabal
2007-04-14, 07:33 PM
favored enemy is fine IMO, dont pick things you wont meet alot. Know your in an undead heavy game.....pick undead. Its not like you dont get 4 of them....

Matthew
2007-04-15, 02:39 PM
Sneak Attack might be too powerful. Consider making it +1 DB per Ranger Level when Flanking or Flat Footing an opponent.

Vhaidara
2007-04-15, 11:18 PM
I say that the ability is okay, but needs to be loosened. Maybe fewer humanoid sub-races, because those get pretty specific (I mean, human, orc, elf, dwarf, gnome, and halfling are 6 different subraces, meaning that a lvl20 ranger couldn't have all of the common Phb races as favored enemies). You can't go wrong choosing undead, outsider (opposite of you on good-evil axis, or dragon (espacially if your DM uses MM2-4, because there are about 30 new dragons of almost every CR). I think that Rangers are underpowered (A fighter that focuses on archery or 2-weapon fighting is fastly supierior to a ranger). The ranger class needs more powerful abilities (Yes, I like using parenthesis).

Falrin
2007-04-16, 05:41 AM
1) Yes I know some people like the rangers favorite enemy, But I don't otherwise I wouldn't have bothered posting.


2) Is Sneak attack that overpowered?
at LvL 20 a ranger can get +10 Vs a type& +2 at 4 others. Now he gets 5d6 at LvL 20 Vs lots of types but only in specific circumstances.
As the ranger is already underpowered this might not be a problem. But as I told, balance isn't my cup of tea so maybe we'll have to change it to sudden strike.?


3) Loosening the abilitiy has it's advantages, but you still keep favorite enemies. I played with a changeble Focus for the ability, (Week study and training), but dropped it because fluffwise it wouldn't make any sense.

jlousivy
2007-04-16, 11:10 AM
sneak attack?-- if you just repalce the favoured enemies with it(so 5d6 at lvl 20) i can't see that as overpowered in anyway

but if you give him the 1d6/2 levels... i'd say it'd be too much
why?-- full-base attack bonus, alot of 'extras', a better HD, and 2 good saves, better armour (than a rogue)

TempusCCK
2007-04-16, 01:03 PM
Drop the subtypes and the ranger is fine, if they choose humanoids, then they've got it against all the base classes, making it a much better skill.

ArmorArmadillo
2007-04-16, 01:09 PM
Choosing humanoids without subtypes covers way too much (as you said, ALL the base classes)

Frankly, saying that don't encounter the things you chose as your FE is a problematic statement, because you have a DM, who knows your character, choosing what you fight.

5d6 sneak attack by level 20 is a decent variant, but it makes the class feel something like a second-string rogue;
I feel like FE is what Ranger is about; you're a hunter, a specialist, you know how to hunt certain things.

Legoman
2007-04-16, 01:10 PM
Scouter! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-32772.html)

One of the best ranger-types I've seen - beefs up two low-powered classes by slamming them together.

ArmorArmadillo
2007-04-16, 01:36 PM
Scouter! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-32772.html)

One of the best ranger-types I've seen - beefs up two low-powered classes by slamming them together.
Which does not a balanced character make;
Scouter is an oversimplified gestalt class masquerading that overpowers both classes by slamming them together.

Fax Celestis
2007-04-16, 01:40 PM
You could replace Favored Enemy with Wild Shape (Small/Medium Animals only).

Legoman
2007-04-16, 03:35 PM
Which does not a balanced character make;
Scouter is an oversimplified gestalt class masquerading that overpowers both classes by slamming them together.

They both suck to begin with.

What do you get as a scouter/ranger? Full BaB, crap hitpoints, and tops, +10d6 and +5 ac against something you've been fighting for 20 levels?

What do you get as a warblade? Full BaB, great hitpoints, and +20d6, (or +100 damage) Where you can re-roll any save as a Concentration Check (+23) and overcome any foe's damage reduction.

I'll take the Warblade - but if I'm going to play the Ranger-type, I want to have some degree of versatility.

Falrin
2007-04-16, 04:49 PM
Oh, and on the sneak attack:


1) It fits the hunter-type. Hiding and striking from an ambush to kill the animal (or whatever).


2) It goes nicely with TWF. Ranged combat also benefits some.

ArmorArmadillo
2007-04-16, 05:00 PM
They both suck to begin with.

What do you get as a scouter/ranger? Full BaB, crap hitpoints, and tops, +10d6 and +5 ac against something you've been fighting for 20 levels?

What do you get as a warblade? Full BaB, great hitpoints, and +20d6, (or +100 damage) Where you can re-roll any save as a Concentration Check (+23) and overcome any foe's damage reduction.

I'll take the Warblade - but if I'm going to play the Ranger-type, I want to have some degree of versatility.

Okay fine! Everything sucks except Wizards, Clerics, and Druids! DnD is horribly unbalanced and everything about it is awful and poorly designed! ToB are the only good classes ever made other than Wizards, Clerics, and Druids, but even they suck in comparison! Everything else needs to be doubled in power or it can't ever possibly compare! Homebrewing things that are subtle, or balanced to the SRD is pointless because everything has to be as powerful as an optimized Wizard or it's worthless and nobody will play it!

I'm very sorry, I shouldn't snap like that; it's nothing against you.

But we've got to accept that in the DnD system casters will have far greater potential than other classes; in a good party, however, everyone can still contribute in their own way.
The solution is not to try and up every melee class to the same dominating level as a Wizard, that's just power creep and then everyone will lose when every encounter is routed by an extremely amazing party.

Homebrewing melee classes should be done in comparison to the other melee classes, and not under the impression that they're some horrible mistake that needs to be corrected.

(As for Tome of Battle, it's goal of "making melee classes comparable to casters" failed when it released a bunch of new casting classes "flavored" as melee combatants and made fighters/barbarians/monks/rangers even worse.)

Fax Celestis
2007-04-16, 05:14 PM
(As for Tome of Battle, it's goal of "making melee classes comparable to casters" failed when it released a bunch of new casting classes "flavored" as melee combatants and made fighters/barbarians/monks/rangers even worse.)

Oh, it succeeded on the goal, it just couldn't do it within the bounds of existing mechanics. The failure lies in the inability to redesign what was already existent, instead of creating something new. But, that's neither here not there, and is a discussion for another thread.

Zagreen
2007-04-16, 06:13 PM
Homebrewing melee classes should be done in comparison to the other melee classes, and not under the impression that they're some horrible mistake that needs to be corrected.

That's your opinion and you're free to play that way if you want to. Other people have other opinions and are free to play that way if they want to. And of course everyone's free to rant about why everyone else's opinions are wrong. That's what the Internets are for! :smallwink:

Honestly, it really isn't an attack on you and everything you believe in every time one player you don't even play together with suggests that part of the SRD may be underpowered and creates a slightly more powerful variant for their group's own use. If I was playing a ranger in a core only game and was given the option of playing a "ScoutEr" instead I'd probably decline, unless perhaps it very was a short campaign starting at level 1. Unless you're digging up an ability from splatbooks that would let you move 10' and full attack, that's really the only time where skirmish actually does anything impressive or even especially useful. All things considered I'd rather have the animal companion and spells.

Matthew
2007-04-17, 10:57 PM
1) Yes I know some people like the rangers favorite enemy, But I don't otherwise I wouldn't have bothered posting.
Heh.

2) Is Sneak attack that overpowered?
at LvL 20 a ranger can get +10 Vs a type& +2 at 4 others. Now he gets 5d6 at LvL 20 Vs lots of types but only in specific circumstances.
As the ranger is already underpowered this might not be a problem. But as I told, balance isn't my cup of tea so maybe we'll have to change it to sudden strike.?
Oh right, I thought you meant the normal Sneak Attack progression, which would have meant +10D6 or +35 DB Average. If you're going to use 5D6, I would just make it +1 DB per Ranger Level (i.e. +20 DB at Level 20).

KingGolem
2007-04-18, 08:47 PM
Ok, I'm going go out on a limb here, and suggest that we remodel the ranger in honor of it's title; the RANGEr. :smallsmile: Yes, a class that focuses on ranged attacks. Now I am not very familiar with the scout class, but from what I've heard, it sounds like a mix between ranger and rogue. I think it would be cool to replace the favored enemy progression with several trick shots, both mundane and magical (perhaps coinciding with the removal of the arcane archer prestige class) and with diminishing of melee abilities.

Innis Cabal
2007-04-18, 08:51 PM
well lets look at the word ranger shall we?

a soldier specially trained in the techniques of guerrilla warfare, esp. in jungle terrain.

i think the class is perfect as is, next question?

Matthew
2007-04-18, 09:01 PM
Veh? I don't. I think the Base Class is thematically fine (i.e. very similar to the Rangers in The Lord of the Rings), but mechanically the Ranger Base Class is a dud, but that's just my opinion... I don't think it should be even more 'Ranged' focused, that's for sure.

Vhaidara
2007-04-21, 09:04 PM
Choosing humanoids without subtypes covers way too much (as you said, ALL the base classes)

Frankly, saying that don't encounter the things you chose as your FE is a problematic statement, because you have a DM, who knows your character, choosing what you fight.

5d6 sneak attack by level 20 is a decent variant, but it makes the class feel something like a second-string rogue;
I feel like FE is what Ranger is about; you're a hunter, a specialist, you know how to hunt certain things.

I didn't mean remove all humanoid subtypes. I meant fuse them so that there are 2 or 3 broad ones, rather than about 10 really specific ones.

ArmorArmadillo
2007-04-21, 09:14 PM
I didn't mean remove all humanoid subtypes. I meant fuse them so that there are 2 or 3 broad ones, rather than about 10 really specific ones.
Into what groups per se?

Necromas
2007-04-22, 08:46 AM
Just take a scout level, and the swift hunter feat, and forget you even have favored enemy.

Fax Celestis
2007-04-22, 03:57 PM
Just take a scout level, and the swift hunter feat, and forget you even have favored enemy.

...except you need 3 levels of Scout to meet the prereqs for Swift Hunter.