PDA

View Full Version : A leave from the wild....



Thunder_Ranger
2007-04-27, 09:31 PM
It's been a while since I've seen the tomes of D+D (since thrid e, really) and I've finally found a gaming group to get back together with, along with giantitp. So I'm wondering how to build a good ranger in 3.5 (preferably two-weapon) any suggestions? (starting at 4rth level) Our campain is set in Eberron by the way, in case that helps in some way.

Oh, I've got the 3.5 PHB, and access to most of the Complete Series, as well as the Ebberon campain setting.

Tellah
2007-04-28, 02:25 AM
TWF rangers are pretty gimpy. Good TWF builds can be made from the Totemist (Magic of Incarnum), Rogue, Psychic Warrior, Warblade, Swordsage, and probably a few others. Rangers simply lack the bonus damage necessary to make TWF work for them. To make TWF effective, you must have an ability you can add to every attack in a full attack progression reliably--sneak attack is the classic use. Additionally, it's very useful to have some ability to move and make a full attack in the same turn, which is what gives Tome of Battle classes and Psychic Warriors such a boost.

Rangers are best played as archers, and even then are outstripped by fighters, scouts, soulbows and clerics. Is there something more to the character concept, beyond TWF ranger?

JaronK
2007-04-28, 02:28 AM
If you want to go for "mobile two weapon fighter" I'd go with something like Scout 1/Swashbuckler 3/Feat Rogue 1/Dervish 10/Tempest 5. If you're not using fractional BAB, swap out Feat Rogue for Fighter.

That will actually be pretty darn useful.

JaronK

Annarrkkii
2007-04-28, 10:53 AM
The Spell Compendium gives the Ranger Lion's Charge, but he can only use it once or twice per day, at best, in the early/mid levels, and, as a swift actions, 1 round spell, it can't be taken in wand, potion, or scroll form, making it tough to utilize. Dual Strike may look good at first glance, but it actually is a fairly bad feat—it just doesn't help out that much. It helps to add Two-Weapon Rend into the equation, and that almost makes Dual Strike worthwhile, but it isn't available until 12th level, and burns a feat slot you could do better things with. You could theoretically go ranger while burning feats to take Martial Study, to get things like Sudden Leap, but then you're just better off going straight Warblade.

Rangers are generally better of ranging. Hence the name, you might say.

EDIT: @ JaronK, Tempest is a trap. It's really not worth it. Especially not for a Dervish, whose abilities negate just about all the virtues of the Tempest. Better off taking 5 levels of Duelist, or some Blade Bravo if you're gnomish.

Thunder_Ranger
2007-04-28, 02:38 PM
Rangers are best played as archers, and even then are outstripped by fighters, scouts, soulbows and clerics. Is there something more to the character concept, beyond TWF ranger?

:smalleek: Not too much honestly...Our campain is set in Karrnath and I've never really liked classes with too much spellcasting, but at the same time fighters are just a little useless. So I guess I should be asking; what's a fun martial class to play?

Jalil
2007-04-28, 02:46 PM
Buy ToB, and you will never ask that question again. Guarenteed.

JaronK
2007-04-28, 04:50 PM
EDIT: @ JaronK, Tempest is a trap. It's really not worth it. Especially not for a Dervish, whose abilities negate just about all the virtues of the Tempest. Better off taking 5 levels of Duelist, or some Blade Bravo if you're gnomish.

Hardly. Remember, as a Dervish you either already have or gain as a bonus feat all but one of the Tempest Prerequisits. Certainly without Dervish Tempest is a trap, since the requirements are simply to much for a class that doesn't give all that much, but with Dervish it's relatively cheap to get into, and thus viable.

Besides... did you really just suggest Duelist for a dual weilding build?

JaronK

Matthew
2007-04-29, 01:00 PM
If you choose to go Two Weapon Fighting with a Ranger, make sure you take Quick Draw at some point and use it so that you switch from Two Handed to Two Weapon Fighting when you can make a Full Attack - this means using a Long Sword (or whatever) as a Two Handed Weapon until the opportunity arises to draw your Second Weapon and make a Full Attack.

Human: Quick Draw
Ranger 1: Power Attack
Ranger 2: Combat Style (Two Weapon Fighting)
Ranger 3: Oversized Two Weapon Fighting

That might let you just about get away with being a Two Weapon Fighting Ranger. You could always take Weapon Focus (Long Sword) instead of Power Attack, but you may regret it later. Of course, if you happen to be using the Retraining Rules, this won't be a problem.

Annarrkkii
2007-04-29, 01:46 PM
Oi, what's wrong with Duelist for a Dual-wielder?

Tempest is 5 levels of a class for +2 to-hit and +3 to AC. Not awful, admittedly, but it could be allocated better. Two-Weapon Spring Attack serves no purpose when Dervish Dancing, unless I'm mistaken, and most dervishes are already using the same weapon in both hands—scimitars. Admittedly, different flavors of Dervish could take advantage of Two-weapon Versatility, but only to a point.

And there is nothing wrong with a Duelist TWFer. The only ability they lose when TWFing is Precise Strike. A notable sacrifice, true, but they still get Canny Defense, Elaborate Parry, Enhanced Mobility, Improved Reaction, Grace, and Deflect Arrows over the course of their advancement... and Duelist shares almost the exact same feat prereqs as Tempest, only with Weapon Finesse instead of the TWFing tree. And you'll probably be finessing anyway, with a Dervish.

Amphimir Míriel
2007-04-29, 06:42 PM
man alive! Isn't it a bad sign that the ranger, one of the classes with an iconic two weapon style (something which dates from as long as I can remember), can't even do right the thing it is supposed to be famous for?

This calls for a complete reworking of the ranger... or at least the two weapon style...

Matthew
2007-04-29, 06:49 PM
Oh yeah, Two Weapon Fighting needs considerable readjustment, though it's worth noting that it was the incredibleness of (A)D&D 2.x Two Weapon Fighting Rangers that drew the ire of the D&D Nerf Bat of Doom +5 in the first place...

Draz74
2007-04-29, 06:59 PM
Rangers are best played as archers, and even then are outstripped by fighters, scouts, soulbows and clerics.

Actually, a recent thread on archery concluded that Rangers were indeed pretty decent archers (with Spell Compendium spells to help them) -- better than Fighters or Scouts. (Unfortunately not better than Clerics or Soulbows.)

... Anyway, I still think a TWF Ranger can be a workable idea, if you don't need your character to be super-optimized. And IF you will be able to make good use of your FAVORED ENEMY ability! If 2/3 of your encounters in a campaign will be with Undead, Goblinoids, and Aberrations, then you can use Favored Enemy to get a decent boost to damage.

Amphimir Míriel
2007-04-29, 09:58 PM
Oh yeah, Two Weapon Fighting needs considerable readjustment, though it's worth noting that it was the incredibleness of (A)D&D 2.x Two Weapon Fighting Rangers that drew the ire of the D&D Nerf Bat of Doom +5 in the first place...

True enough... I remember an AD&D all-elf party of Rangers, Spellsingers and Wizards

JaronK
2007-04-29, 11:13 PM
Oi, what's wrong with Duelist for a Dual-wielder?

Loss of one of their main abilities, in an already weak class.


Tempest is 5 levels of a class for +2 to-hit and +3 to AC. Not awful, admittedly, but it could be allocated better. Two-Weapon Spring Attack serves no purpose when Dervish Dancing, unless I'm mistaken, and most dervishes are already using the same weapon in both hands—scimitars. Admittedly, different flavors of Dervish could take advantage of Two-weapon Versatility, but only to a point.

Two Weapon Spring Attack is handy when not dancing... and a dervish has a limited number of dances per day. They can't always be dancing. It's not great, but it's nearly free, and that's something.


And there is nothing wrong with a Duelist TWFer. The only ability they lose when TWFing is Precise Strike. A notable sacrifice, true, but they still get Canny Defense, Elaborate Parry, Enhanced Mobility, Improved Reaction, Grace, and Deflect Arrows over the course of their advancement... and Duelist shares almost the exact same feat prereqs as Tempest, only with Weapon Finesse instead of the TWFing tree. And you'll probably be finessing anyway, with a Dervish.

They lose one of their only useful abilities... Elaborite Parry being the other one. Int to AC isn't great, as Light Armour is probably more helpful (Suslian Chainweave +5 Heavy Fortified Mithral Chain Shirt is nothing to sneeze at, and can be combined with +1 Adamantium Dastanas with a host of enchantments for even more fun). And doesn't deflect arrows require a hand free too?

JaronK

Starbuck_II
2007-04-30, 08:41 AM
It's been a while since I've seen the tomes of D+D (since thrid e, really) and I've finally found a gaming group to get back together with, along with giantitp. So I'm wondering how to build a good ranger in 3.5 (preferably two-weapon) any suggestions? (starting at 4rth level) Our campain is set in Eberron by the way, in case that helps in some way.

Oh, I've got the 3.5 PHB, and access to most of the Complete Series, as well as the Ebberon campain setting.
What you want to do decent damage when TWF is:
Two handed weapon + Armor spikes.
The Armor spikes are your offhand weapon (yes, you can dual weild them with a 2 hander).

Really, um, as you get the feats without dex yoiu don't need to build that too high (though you'll need some for AC). Put a decent amount in Con and Str. With a little in Wis (at most 12 because you can boost it with wisdom amulet if need be).
Assuming Point buy.
If rolling: depends on rolls.

This is all I can give.
Otherwise, Rangers make better archer builds in my opinion.

Annarrkkii
2007-04-30, 07:06 PM
@ JaronK.

Point taken. However, for one, Elaborate Parry stacks with light armor. Deflect Arrows doesn't require a hand free, just a light weapon. I believe. I may be misreading. Canny Defense, the Int to AC, I have realized, is useless.

However, Elaborate Parry's -4 to attack in exchange for +9 to AC and +1d6 damage is nothing to scoff at, which is totally plausible with Duelist 5 and Deadly Defense. Particularly for a TWFer. And it does stack with light armor. So get the chainweave armor and stack another +9 on it isn't a bad deal. Especially if you can work out a flanking deal.

But I concede that Duelist isn't the greatest choice, perhaps.

Jewish_Joke
2007-05-01, 04:07 AM
Actually, a recent thread on archery concluded that Rangers were indeed pretty decent archers (with Spell Compendium spells to help them) -- better than Fighters or Scouts. (Unfortunately not better than Clerics or Soulbows.)

... Anyway, I still think a TWF Ranger can be a workable idea, if you don't need your character to be super-optimized. And IF you will be able to make good use of your FAVORED ENEMY ability! If 2/3 of your encounters in a campaign will be with Undead, Goblinoids, and Aberrations, then you can use Favored Enemy to get a decent boost to damage.

I could be wrong, but as I recall, rangers do not gain a damage bonus to monsters immune to bonus damage (i.e. criticals) like undead, plants, and constructs... And I play a lot of rangers.

Which of course just reinforces the fact that the ranger is utterly useless.

Ikkitosen
2007-05-01, 04:25 AM
I could be wrong, but as I recall, rangers do not gain a damage bonus to monsters immune to bonus damage (i.e. criticals) like undead, plants, and constructs... And I play a lot of rangers.

Which of course just reinforces the fact that the ranger is utterly useless.

No, that was 3.0. In 3.5 there's no such caveat.

Also, ranger/scouts with the combo feat from CompScoundrel rock, since they can skirmish normally immune targets provided they're also a favored enemy.

Skjaldbakka
2007-05-01, 04:57 AM
I don't buy the "rangers are better archers than TWF" It implies a disparity that doesn't have to exist. The way I see it is, you get one set of feats for free, and then take the other set. I actually prefer to take two-weapon style, that way there is no temptation to put off precise shot because I get Improved Precise Shot for free. I do agree with the Quickdraw feat though.

My general strategy with my rangers is not to move much. Pepper the foe with arrows, and if they get into melee, QD, and two-weapon fight them. Either way, your important weapon enhancements are energy damage.

Of course the build I use is quiver of bane arrows, two bane short swords, and a + energy damage bow. Between that and my favored enemy bonuses, I don't care WHAT you are, you're taking extra damage.

EDIT-

Another strategy I use with TWFs is to go for crits on energy burst weapons.

Amphimir Míriel
2007-05-01, 04:01 PM
I don't buy the "rangers are better archers than TWF" It implies a disparity that doesn't have to exist. The way I see it is, you get one set of feats for free, and then take the other set. I actually prefer to take two-weapon style, that way there is no temptation to put off precise shot because I get Improved Precise Shot for free. I do agree with the Quickdraw feat though.

My general strategy with my rangers is not to move much. Pepper the foe with arrows, and if they get into melee, QD, and two-weapon fight them. Either way, your important weapon enhancements are energy damage.

Of course the build I use is quiver of bane arrows, two bane short swords, and a + energy damage bow. Between that and my favored enemy bonuses, I don't care WHAT you are, you're taking extra damage.

EDIT-

Another strategy I use with TWFs is to go for crits on energy burst weapons.

Thank you, Skjaldbakka for a decent tip that actually answers the original poster's (and mine) questions.