Why is PF ranger tier 4, and how to improve it to tier 3?

[gadren]

So, Pathfinder's version of the ranger is typically rated at tier 4. Would you say this accurate, why, and how would you improve it if you wanted it to be a tier 3 class?
A lot of homebrewed improvements I've seen just list ways to improve its damage output, but I didn't think that was its weakness?

[Florian]

So, Pathfinder's version of the ranger is typically rated at tier 4. Would you say this accurate, why, and how would you improve it if you wanted it to be a tier 3 class?
A lot of homebrewed improvements I've seen just list ways to improve its damage output, but I didn't think that was its weakness?

The Rangers main strength (or weakness) is based on FE and FT. If the player is informed and prepared, that is a killer combo. If not, you´re playing a dumbed-down fighter.
If you´re playing a very focused campaign and the Ranger player is informed, this class will go thru the roof.
Yes, no spells above 4th level, but this kind of "freedom" tends to get overrated in forum discussions, as it is only given on certain tables.

I´ve GMed most Paizo APs so far, being very focused campaigns, and the Ranger did very well most of the time.

[Gnaeus]

Why is it tier 4?

It is basically a fighter which trades heavy armor for more skills and minor casting. Skills mean it isn't totally useless outside combat, but utility wise it is still basically a wilderness encounter specialist. Fighting style means it may be able to do fighterish damage, but some styles are traps (a TWF ranger is not great at its chosen role, melee)
Favored enemy and terrain are both highly situational. If you are fortunate enough that they are ever present in your campaign, ranger is a solid mundane. But again, situational, and even solid mundanes rarely break T4.

T3? It needs more both in and out of combat. Giving it bard spell progression and filling out 5 and 6 spells from Druid list would probably do it. A full ranger//scout gestalt is tier 3. Giving it an initiator progression or Akashic progression might do it.

[gadren]

Why is it tier 4?

It is basically a fighter which trades heavy armor for more skills and minor casting. Skills mean it isn't totally useless outside combat, but utility wise it is still basically a wilderness encounter specialist. Fighting style means it may be able to do fighterish damage, but some styles are traps (a TWF ranger is not great at its chosen role, melee)
Favored enemy and terrain are both highly situational. If you are fortunate enough that they are ever present in your campaign, ranger is a solid mundane. But again, situational, and even solid mundanes rarely break T4.

T3? It needs more both in and out of combat. Giving it bard spell progression and filling out 5 and 6 spells from Druid list would probably do it. A full ranger//scout gestalt is tier 3. Giving it an initiator progression or Akashic progression might do it.
Akashic progression?

[Gnaeus]

Akashic progression?

Pathfinder version of magic of Incarnum. Unlock chakras and get at will magic abilities powered by "essence"

[LTwerewolf]

They perform better in practice than they do in TO because generally speaking, you know what you're getting into before you get into it and can build towards that. That's not to say they're t3 at all, since they're still having to build a certain way to be useful, but they at least have more tools to do that when they know about it. Taking them out of their element hurts them more than most others though.

[Yanisa]

Tier 3 ranger? That's called a Hunter (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/hybrid-classes/hunter). :smalltongue: They even have a wildshape ranger (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/hybrid-classes/hunter/archetypes/paizo---hunter-archetypes/feral-hunter) archetype just like 3.5.

But seriously, hunter is generally considered tier 3, so contrast and compare it with ranger. Probably stealing the spell progression and adding it to ranger is enough, because spells.

[Gnaeus]

Tier 3 ranger? That's called a Hunter (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/hybrid-classes/hunter).
But seriously, hunter is generally considered tier 3, so contrast and compare it with ranger. Probably stealing the spell progression and adding it to ranger is enough, because spells.

Note that this is basically the same thing as bard spell progression with druid spells through level 6, just called a different thing.

[gadren]

Tier 3 ranger? That's called a Hunter (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/hybrid-classes/hunter). :smalltongue: They even have a wildshape ranger (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/hybrid-classes/hunter/archetypes/paizo---hunter-archetypes/feral-hunter) archetype just like 3.5.

But seriously, hunter is generally considered tier 3, so contrast and compare it with ranger. Probably stealing the spell progression and adding it to ranger is enough, because spells.
Yeah, I was trying to figure out a way of doing it that didn't involve just giving them more spells. Probably going to improve Hunter's bond.

[Psyren]

Agreed with above, giving it full CL and Hunter spells/progression gets it to T3 quickly.

But to respond to the OP a bit more directly, why is T4 bad? Barbarians, Brawlers and Warlocks are all perfectly serviceable classes too.

[gadren]

Agreed with above, giving it full CL and Hunter spells/progression gets it to T3 quickly.

But to respond to the OP a bit more directly, why is T4 bad? Barbarians, Brawlers and Warlocks are all perfectly serviceable classes too.
I've been designing a campaign where all the classes are modified towards tier 3. I already allow hunters, so giving rangers more spells seems redundant. I have a few ideas that are basically the same as what I did to fighter or rogue, but was trying to think of a different Thing that could be the ranger's.

[Yanisa]

Yeah, I was trying to figure out a way of doing it that didn't involve just giving them more spells. Probably going to improve Hunter's bond.

I am not the best with tiers, but I suspect that if you give a ranger everything a hunter has except spells, it still would barely break into tier 3. Spells make the tiers. Although Animal Focus both has the in and out combat aspects and the extra teamwork feats might allow you to do a bit more tactics in combat. It's not super impressive on a tier scale.

[Psyren]

I've been designing a campaign where all the classes are modified towards tier 3. I already allow hunters, so giving rangers more spells seems redundant. I have a few ideas that are basically the same as what I did to fighter or rogue, but was trying to think of a different Thing that could be the ranger's.

If you want all T3s then it seems to me that having both Ranger and Hunter would be redundant, both thematically and mechanically. Just combine them.

[Florian]

Just combine them.

Sorry for asking, but: Why?

[Psyren]

Sorry for asking, but: Why?

Because being different tiers is right now the only meaningful difference between them, and that difference stems wholly from one being more magical than the other. If you're going to remove that, they don't need to be separate classes anymore.

Thematically they are both warriors that fight alongside a devoted pet and gain access to a limited amount of nature magic. The only difference is how limited. To me it's like bumping a Warpriest up to 9th level spells, why have Cleric at that point?

[gadren]

Well I'd like there to be a solid option for those players that don't want to be spell casting focused.

[LTwerewolf]

Well I'd like there to be a solid option for those players that don't want to be spell casting focused.

What about slayer?

[Psyren]

I would argue that 6th-level spells are not "spell-casting focused" but we may be operating off of different definitions of that phrase.


What about slayer?

Still T4.

Getting out of T4 without magic is very difficult. I would suggest Path of War, but that wouldn't exactly be a "ranger" either.

Note that I do however consider T4 to be a "solid option" myself.

[Gnaeus]

Getting out of T4 without magic is very difficult. I would suggest Path of War, but that wouldn't exactly be a "ranger" either.

Note that I do however consider T4 to be a "solid option" myself.

I thought Swift Hunter hit T3. So just gestalt with Scout?

[Psyren]

I thought Swift Hunter hit T3. So just gestalt with Scout?

Swift Hunter just seems to add more damage, which isn't the issue with T4 (even a Fighter can dish out tons of damage). OP seems to be playing PF though which renders this moot.

[gadren]

So far, what I'm leaning towards is adding various buffs to Hunters Bond. Making its animal companion actually stronger and more versatile (like being able to learn various feats and skills) than the druid version, and making the leadery version of hunters bond that doesn't have the companion not terrible by doing more than just sharing favored enemy with your allies.

[Gnaeus]

Swift Hunter just seems to add more damage, which isn't the issue with T4 (even a Fighter can dish out tons of damage). OP seems to be playing PF though which renders this moot.

Disagree. Swift hunter adds a range of solutions to common fighter problems. Fast movement helps with kiting. Skirmish helps if you can't full attack. Blind sense and sight and free blind fight feat and uncanny dodge help in ambushes and against invisible attackers. Battle fortitude + free improved initiative should help you go first. Trap finding and extra skills give out of combat utility. I think that package will compete well for overall utility in and out of combat with dusk blade or the ToB classes.

[Snowbluff]

Tier 3 ranger? That's called a Hunter (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/hybrid-classes/hunter). :smalltongue: They even have a wildshape ranger (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/hybrid-classes/hunter/archetypes/paizo---hunter-archetypes/feral-hunter) archetype just like 3.5.

But seriously, hunter is generally considered tier 3, so contrast and compare it with ranger. Probably stealing the spell progression and adding it to ranger is enough, because spells.


Note that this is basically the same thing as bard spell progression with druid spells through level 6, just called a different thing.

That's how it was. Ranger is just a crummy druid.

Also, HI YANISA! :D

[Psyren]

Disagree. Swift hunter adds a range of solutions to common fighter problems. Fast movement helps with kiting. Skirmish helps if you can't full attack. Blind sense and sight and free blind fight feat and uncanny dodge help in ambushes and against invisible attackers. Battle fortitude + free improved initiative should help you go first. Trap finding and extra skills give out of combat utility. I think that package will compete well for overall utility in and out of combat with dusk blade or the ToB classes.

Unless OP amends to 3.P, nothing listed above is relevant. Even if we assume 3.P, all you're doing is listing Scout class features, because all Swift Hunter does is add Favored Enemy to them, i.e. more damage (like I said.) To get there, you're giving up the ranger's companion and spellcasting, which I would argue loses DPR and utility as you give up on things like Sniper's Eye, Arrow Storm, Swift Haste, Instant Enemy, Bloodsworn Retribution, teamwork feats etc. (Also, Trapfinding is more or less irrelevant in PF.)

Now compared to a fighter or spell-less ranger I agree, Swift Hunter is clearly superior.

[ngilop]

Here is one thing I feel where the ranger fails in both D&D and Pathfinder.

It does not go far enough.

Combat styles just....stop

Animal companion should most definitely be full level.

and they should get more spells per day to make up for the fact that their spells are really underpfoming at times. due to slow progression and a lowered caster level.

also Favored enemy should do more.

I support giving the ranger the skirmisher archetype to the ranger free of charge and toss in the trapper' archetype as well again free of charge!

[Psyren]

Combat styles just....stop

Animal companion should most definitely be full level.

To be fair, 5 bonus feats is nothing to sneeze at (especially ones where you can ignore the prereqs) and upgrading the companion to full progression is a single feat away (at least in PF.)



and they should get more spells per day to make up for the fact that their spells are really underpfoming at times. due to slow progression and a lowered caster level.

also Favored enemy should do more.

I agree, they have too few spells/day. Pearls help with that though, and they are cheap for rangers since their casting tops out at 4.

FE is fine - it adds to attack (and by extension CMB) now as well as damage, and a feat lets you add it to AC and CMD as well.



I support giving the ranger the skirmisher archetype to the ranger free of charge and toss in the trapper' archetype as well again free of charge!

By "free of charge," do you mean the ranger gets them without replacing their spellcasting? That's a pretty good idea actually - I think those two becoming ranger class features instead of archetypes should get it to T3.

[Milo v3]

My current idea for upgrading the ranger is enhancing the terrain bond to give actual abilities sorta like a better version of horizon walker, and give the favoured enemy abilities in a similar fashion. In the past I did things like give rangers the ability to take on monster abilities by ritual.

[Platymus Pus]

If you allow the Ranger access to all of his spells in 3.5 and PF it gets interesting.
For example, you can have anything be considered a favored enemy for your highest bonus.

[gadren]

If you allow the Ranger access to all of his spells in 3.5 and PF it gets interesting.
For example, you can have anything be considered a favored enemy for your highest bonus. what 3.5 spell does that?

[Grod_The_Giant]

Disagree. Swift hunter adds a range of solutions to common fighter problems. Fast movement helps with kiting. Skirmish helps if you can't full attack. Blind sense and sight and free blind fight feat and uncanny dodge help in ambushes and against invisible attackers. Battle fortitude + free improved initiative should help you go first. Trap finding and extra skills give out of combat utility. I think that package will compete well for overall utility in and out of combat with dusk blade or the ToB classes.
You, uh, usually go Scout 3/Ranger 17 or thereabouts. You bump your Ranger class features back a bit to get a hefty chunk of always-usable bonus damage, but usually not the scout class features. (Which, while nice for a mundane, come well after you can pick them up with magic items)

I'd make Ranger a Hunter ACF. Trade Animal Focus for Favored Enemy, and cut down the spells a bit (-1 spell/spell level, maybe also - 1 spell known) for full BAB. But giving Skirmish and Trapping for free isn't bad either.

[Gnaeus]

Unless OP amends to 3.P, nothing listed above is relevant. Even if we assume 3.P, all you're doing is listing Scout class features, because all Swift Hunter does is add Favored Enemy to them, i.e. more damage (like I said.) To get there, you're giving up the ranger's companion and spellcasting, which I would argue loses DPR and utility as you give up on things like Sniper's Eye, Arrow Storm, Swift Haste, Instant Enemy, Bloodsworn Retribution, teamwork feats etc. (Also, Trapfinding is more or less irrelevant in PF.)

Now compared to a fighter or spell-less ranger I agree, Swift Hunter is clearly superior.

Well, when people say "how do I fix paladin?" or "how do I house rule polymorph?" you don't have to want to be playing PF to look at how PF fixes it. If you want to T3 ranger, thematically, without changing the casting, gestalting with scout works. Note that my suggestion was just to gestalt to scout, not specifically to add Swift Hunter feat. I maybe was not clear enough, since the two concepts are pretty similar.

Just because trapfinding the class feature is less critical in PF, doesn't mean that having a trap finder (the party role) in your party isn't still very important , and 8 skill points+ trap finding + a set of bonus feats many of which add perception bonuses means that ranger//scout is very good at it.

[Psyren]

what 3.5 spell does that?

That's a PF spell, Instant Enemy (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/i/instant-enemy). (Then choose your highest FE.) He was saying it would be cool if you had both PF and 3.5 ranger spells. Instant Enemy + Sniper's Eye + PF Archery = boatloads of damage.


Well, when people say "how do I fix paladin?" or "how do I house rule polymorph?" you don't have to want to be playing PF to look at how PF fixes it. If you want to T3 ranger, thematically, without changing the casting, gestalting with scout works. Note that my suggestion was just to gestalt to scout, not specifically to add Swift Hunter feat. I maybe was not clear enough, since the two concepts are pretty similar.

I'm all for looking in either edition for fixes, I was just pointing out that Swift Hunter on its own is not going to get you out of T4. As Grod pointed out, the class features aren't bad, but for most rangers they aren't worth losing casting or the companion. (Particularly once you add in SotAO or Mystic Ranger.)

Gestalt is another matter though, I agree there.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Gestalt is another matter though, I agree there.
It's actually a pretty bad gestalt, all things considered. Bonus damage for the Ranger is nice, I'll admit, but the class features and chassis are almost entirely overlapping. (Unless you just call it one class-http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?260804-Ranger-Scout-recombination-(3-5-PEACH))

[Psyren]

It's actually a pretty bad gestalt, all things considered. Bonus damage for the Ranger is nice, I'll admit, but the class features and chassis are almost entirely overlapping. (Unless you just call it one class-http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?260804-Ranger-Scout-recombination-(3-5-PEACH))

Yeah, sorry I wasn't clear - by "gestalt" I meant "combining the class features into one chassis for a non-gestalt game." In other words, the finished product could then be gestalted legally with something else.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Yeah, sorry I wasn't clear - by "gestalt" I meant "combining the class features into one chassis for a non-gestalt game." In other words, the finished product could then be gestalted legally with something else.
Fair enough. <Tips hat respectfully>

[ngilop]

To be fair, 5 bonus feats is nothing to sneeze at (especially ones where you can ignore the prereqs) and upgrading the companion to full progression is a single feat away (at least in PF.)

A fighter gets a ton of bonus feats and most think that weak sauce, I just think they should have netted something akin to maybe martial disciplines where instead of bonus feats you get a special attack

I agree, they have too few spells/day. Pearls help with that though, and they are cheap for rangers since their casting tops out at 4.

FE is fine - it adds to attack (and by extension CMB) now as well as damage, and a feat lets you add it to AC and CMD as well.

Yeah its decent as is, but its just bigger numbers and I do not feel that slapping big numbers on classes fixes much. They should have some kind of passive that goes along allowing them as a free action to initmiate FE damaged maybe free dirty tricks idk just more than +4 to stuffs.


By "free of charge," do you mean the ranger gets them without replacing their spellcasting? That's a pretty good idea actually - I think those two becoming ranger class features instead of archetypes should get it to T3.

Yes that is exactly what I mean, if I ever run a PF game that is what I will do. The skirmisher stuff gives you some combat utility as does the traps, though ive always found the summon nature ally trap a bit weird.. but oh well.

my replies in bold. I have no idea how to do that cool split quote things you guys do :(

[Grod_The_Giant]

my replies in bold. I have no idea how to do that cool split quote things you guys do :(
You manually add in [QUOTE] blocks around each piece.

[gadren]

So based on input here and my own ideas, here is a summary of changes I decided to make:


gain weapon finesse as a bonus feat at 1st level
favored enemy adds appropriate knowledge skill as class skill.
move 1st favored terrain up to 1st level

also, improve favored terrain (ranger can take a "10-foot step action" instead of a 5-foot step action while in favored terrain.)

improve hunter's bond, and move it to 1st level

animal companion: as a druid
party companions bond: free action instead of a move action, may share benefits of favored enemy, favored terrain, terrain adaptation, enemy preparation, or woodland stride (may only share one benefit at a time, can only share a feature the ranger has)

double the track bonus
improve combat styles (static features per chosen style in addition to bonus feats)

2nd level: +1 to attack rolls when using chosen combat style
6th level: Archery - gain mechanical benefit of 3.5's manyshot, except penalty decreased by 2 (may still take PF's manyshot); Crossbow - may make a single attack as a full-round action that is automatically considered a critical threat if it hits; Mounted combat - treat all mounts you ride as having combat training, and you may still make a full attack if your mount moves move than 5 feet; Natural weapon - gain choice of bite or slam natural attack, deals 1d6 damage, all other natural attacks have dice improved 1 step; Thrown weapon - treat any magic weapon used as possessing the returning quality. Any weapon used that already has returning quality returns immediately after attack, allowing for full attacks with that weapon; Two-handed weapon - gain whirlwind attack as a bonus feat; Two-weapon combat - gain benefits of 3.5's dual strike and double hit feats. Reduce dual strike's penalty by 2; Weapon and shield - when hit by a melee attack but before damage is rolled, may spend an attack of opportunity to increase AC by 4 against that attack.
10th level: Archery - at will, may shoot 4 arrows into a 5-foot radius arrow to duplicate 3.5's hail of stone spell as an extraordinary ability. If bow or all four arrows are magical (must be identical), apply their enhancements to the damage; Crossbow - ranged attacks within 30 feet are against touch AC; Mounted combat - +30 ft speed of any mount ridden, +2 dodge AC to both rider and mount; Natural weapon - gain +2 natural armor bonus, pounce ability with natural weapons, and DR 5/cold iron; Thrown weapon - if attack with a thrown weapon hits, and the attack roll exceeds target's CMD, may push as if bull rush; Two-handed weapon - reach weapons may attack adjacent, non-reach 2h weapons gain reach; Two-weapon combat - two weapon fighting penalties reduced by 1, gain modified version of dervish dance as per 3.5's dervish prestige class; Weapon and shield - gain stunning fist, but with shield bash attacks
14th level: Archery, crossbow, thrown weapon - may perform dirty trick, disarm, and sunder maneuvers with arrows/bolts in place of one ranged attack, add 1/2 level to the attack vs CMD; Mounted combat - +30 ft speed of any mount ridden, +2 dodge AC to both rider and mount; Natural weapon - gain choice of bite or slam natural attack, deals 1d8 damage, all other natural attacks have dice improved 1 step; Two-handed weapon - may whirlwind attack as a standard action, and may attempt trip or sunder with each attack in a whirlwind attack; Two-weapon combat - two weapon fighting penalties reduced by 2, may make four attacks with two weapons (two with each weapon) as a standard action at highest attack bonus -2; Weapon and shield - you and adjacent allies gain +2 AC while you use a shield, +2 to DC of stunning shield bash
18th level: As a standard action, may perform a devastating blow while using weapon style. Make a single attack at your highest attack bonus (may use dual strike if twf). On a hit, this attack does 1d6 extra damage per ranger level. In addition, the target must make saving throw or be dazed (fortitude), panicked (will), or staggered (reflex). You choose which one of the three conditions you try to inflict on the target before it makes the save. The save DC is 20 + your wisdom modifier. There is no limit to how many devastating blows you can perform in a day, but you can only perform one devastating blow in a round and cannot perform a devastating blow two rounds in a row.

2nd level: gain "organic armor affinity" (treat armor made of organic material such as hide or leaves as one category lighter, improve max dex and armor check of such armors by 1)
move evasion up to 3rd level
3rd level: gain "terrain adaptation" (if the ranger has been in a type of terrain for at least 24 hours, and it isn't one of his favored terrains, gains favored terrain bonus [though less than standard]. Gains "10-foot step" ability for that terrain, but this provokes attacks of opportunity unlike the "true" version. Loses bonuses after 24 hours without being in said terrain)
4th level: gain "improved hunter's bond"

animal companion: int improves to 2, +1 skill rank per hit die, may learn any combat feat it can physically use, may learn combat challenge (as a 1st level fighter) or trapfinding (as a 1st level rogue) in place of a feat, may put ranks into bluff (typically can only feign harmlessness or feint in combat), disable device (ape, baboon, treant, and octopus only), handle animal (handle and push only, penalty for different types), sense motive (hunch only), sleight of hand (ape, baboon, bird, raven, shrike, weasel, and octopus only)
party companions: range increases to 50 feet, may share two features at a time

4th level: gain "perceptive" (add half level to perception)
5th level: gain "enemy preparation" (at start of each day, ranger may prepare to face one type of enemy that isn't one of his favored enemies. Receives favored enemy bonus for that type of enemy [though less than full bonus])
improve woodland stride (add ability to move speed as a swift action but take 10 nonlethal damage for doing so)
move quarry up to 6th level
9th level: gain "greater hunter's bond"

animal companion: choose one of two options: gain 2nd animal companion at -2 hd, or permanently apply benefits of haste as an extraordinary ability to your one companion (DOES stack with haste spell)
ally companion bond: as long as you and any ally threaten the same enemy, you are considered flanking. Also, 1/day as a free action, you may haste yourself and your allies within 50 feet as an extraordinary ability that does NOT stack with the haste spell. 2/day at 12th, 3/day at 15th, 4/day at 18th

move improved quarry up to 11th level
at 19th level, gain "greater quarry" (+5 attack, +10 damage, +1 threat range [stacks with keen, etc], ignore crit immunity, critical hit forces save or die/destroyed)

[Platymus Pus]

That's a PF spell, Instant Enemy (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/i/instant-enemy). (Then choose your highest FE.) He was saying it would be cool if you had both PF and 3.5 ranger spells. Instant Enemy + Sniper's Eye + PF Archery = boatloads of damage.


There are also quite a few other spells like 100% crit chance and spells that allow you to have a scaling sneak attack feature. Hunter's eye plus sniper goggles= unlimited sneak attack range.
Arrow of Vengeance maybe if the thing ever hurt you. Burst of speed is a great spell if you have a character that is fast and you get pinned down.
Bow Spirit is great for getting off another extra attack or two in exchange for a swift action.
Throw in splitting for a bow.
Exacting shot+ Instant Enemy, you could make a crit build based around it properly done.
Instant Enemy also allows you to force anything in the game to have a save or die with Master Hunter(ex) with a fairly high DC if you pumped wis enough.

Damage is something a Ranger can do, so I don't understand complaints about that is particular.

[Psyren]

Damage is something a Ranger can do, so I don't understand complaints about that is particular.

Oh yeah, definitely. Even T5s can dish out damage with a little op-fu. I wouldn't mind them getting full CL though (like the Bloodrager did) and the Tricks + Traps ideas sound fun.

[Florian]

@gadren:

That will come over as rude, but your "fix" just exemplifies that looking at the basic class framework without taking into account that feats, spells and items (WBL!) are an equally integral part of it is pretty much an typical beginners error.
You need not (and should not) cram anything into the basic class framework that is already covered by other means and readily available unless you also take into account what this kind of shift will have as consequences.
Especially true for Pathfinder, you have a semi-ton of items that work on your rangers class features, beginning with Boots of Friendly Terrain, Hunter´s Band, Enmity Fetish and Vest of the Vengeful Tracker. As WBL is a major thing, you do have access to all of that. Why include it into the basic class framework?
The opposite holds true for RCSs: The main attraction here is de-MAD-ing the class by allowing it to disregard prereqs, actually making the Ranger class a very good choice in low-PB games.

[gadren]

@gadren:

That will come over as rude, but your "fix" just exemplifies that looking at the basic class framework without taking into account that feats, spells and items (WBL!) are an equally integral part of it is pretty much an typical beginners error.
You need not (and should not) cram anything into the basic class framework that is already covered by other means and readily available unless you also take into account what this kind of shift will have as consequences.
Especially true for Pathfinder, you have a semi-ton of items that work on your rangers class features, beginning with Boots of Friendly Terrain, Hunter´s Band, Enmity Fetish and Vest of the Vengeful Tracker. As WBL is a major thing, you do have access to all of that. Why include it into the basic class framework? Because I don't like "fixing" a class via magic items? Because that's not actually a fix? (Also the game I'm prepping this for has significantly lower WBL, but I know didn't mention that before)

The opposite holds true for RCSs: The main attraction here is de-MAD-ing the class by allowing it to disregard prereqs, actually making the Ranger class a very good choice in low-PB games. ok, what's your point here?

[Grod_The_Giant]

Why include it into the basic class framework?
Because it raises the floor of the class, making it more newbie-friendly. Because it's poor design for any class to have essential feats/items/etc without which it doesn't function.

[Platymus Pus]

Especially true for Pathfinder, you have a semi-ton of items that work on your rangers class features, beginning with Boots of Friendly Terrain, Hunter´s Band, Enmity Fetish and Vest of the Vengeful Tracker. As WBL is a major thing, you do have access to all of that. Why include it into the basic class framework?

Those items are terrible, why would anyone waste GP on those?

[Florian]

Because I don't like "fixing" a class via magic items? Because that's not actually a fix? (Also the game I'm prepping this for has significantly lower WBL, but I know didn't mention that before)

You know what the best class is for stopping time and gateing in solars? Its the Commoner, as this class has nothing else to focus resources on.

If you do not understand that, you should not meddle with WBL.

[Psyren]

WBL-mancy isn't really relevant to this thread though. A fighter can use WBL to summon solars too, that doesn't make them T1. OP wants to boost the Ranger itself to T3. The difficulty presented is doing this without more spellcasting.

The solution posed in this thread that I preferred was giving them Skirmisher Tricks and Ranger Traps for free, along with a full-progression companion. It's fast, it's elegant, it's thematic, and it gives you more options/versatility without making them any more magical than they already are.

[Grod_The_Giant]

You know what the best class is for stopping time and gateing in solars? Its the Commoner, as this class has nothing else to focus resources on.

If you do not understand that, you should not meddle with WBL.
Everyone can break the game using WBL. It's a class-independent source of power, and thus is meaningless when considering relative class power and balance. If you don't understand that, you shouldn't meddle with class design.

[Florian]

Everyone can break the game using WBL. It's a class-independent source of power, and thus is meaningless when considering relative class power and balance. If you don't understand that, you shouldn't meddle with class design.

"Breaking the game" is not a thing here. WBL and its usage is what keeps all classes on equal footing, though, as that levels the playing field in terms of power and flexibility. That´s why I wrote earlier that the class framework and WBL are tied together and you lose out by not using both of them.

Now that changes when you reduce WBL. The OP post did´t mention anything in this regard, though.

[gadren]

The solution posed in this thread that I preferred was giving them Skirmisher Tricks and Ranger Traps for free, along with a full-progression companion. It's fast, it's elegant, it's thematic, and it gives you more options/versatility without making them any more magical than they already are.

I wasn't ignoring this solution, by the way, it is just that I had already planned on giving these abilities to the spell-less ranger archetypes (for those players who don't want to mess with magic at all).

[Platymus Pus]

"Breaking the game" is not a thing here. WBL and its usage is what keeps all classes on equal footing, though, as that levels the playing field in terms of power and flexibility. That´s why I wrote earlier that the class framework and WBL are tied together and you lose out by not using both of them.

Now that changes when you reduce WBL. The OP post did´t mention anything in this regard, though.

You can break WBL which breaks the game if you feel like it.

[Florian]

You can break WBL which breaks the game if you feel like it.

This is a wrong approach if you´re honest about it.
If we talk WBL by the book, any class can reach any goal at any point. The only difference we talk about is "breaking the game" six or three times in a row.
As we talk Pathfinder here, the difference in UMD between class and non-class skill is a mere "+3" and thats it. Now the difference between a "good" +10 weapon and armor and two "named" items are 20 Candles of Invocation, 20 Scrolls of Time Stop, 20 Scrolls of Miracle and 20 Scrolls of Greater Planar Ally, all of which a character that want to use them can use them.

Again: Be honest about it. Most players of "mundane" classes just don`t want to deal with that level, even when they can.

[Psyren]

I wasn't ignoring this solution, by the way, it is just that I had already planned on giving these abilities to the spell-less ranger archetypes (for those players who don't want to mess with magic at all).

For someone who wants to be a T3 spell-less ranger I would instead recommend Slayer, along with the choice of either a full animal companion, or Debilitating Injuries and full sneak progression from the unRogue.


"Breaking the game" is not a thing here. WBL and its usage is what keeps all classes on equal footing, though, as that levels the playing field in terms of power and flexibility. That´s why I wrote earlier that the class framework and WBL are tied together and you lose out by not using both of them.

They're indeed tied together when it comes to the game as a whole. But tiers and class balance rightfully set WBL aside, because it skews the results. Furthermore, WBL is a guideline - the GM is not at all required to give you the suggested WBL amounts, or even to give them to you evenly (you can go several encounters or even sessions without any treasure, before getting a big windfall).

[Florian]

They're indeed tied together when it comes to the game as a whole. But tiers and class balance rightfully set WBL aside, because it skews the results. Furthermore, WBL is a guideline - the GM is not at all required to give you the suggested WBL amounts, or even to give them to you evenly (you can go several encounters or even sessions without any treasure, before getting a big windfall).

Please, Psyren, you´re experience enough to know where this particular discussion will lead to.
- With full WBL in effect, there is no difference in power between the classes.
- Any change in WBL will favor the full caster classes.

[Psyren]

Please, Psyren, you´re experience enough to know where this particular discussion will lead to.
- With full WBL in effect, there is no difference in power between the classes.
- Any change in WBL will favor the full caster classes.

Your first statement is also not true - class features do make a difference in WBL. To use the extreme example, it is far more expensive for your commoner to gate in a Solar than it is for a Wizard, who can learn the spell for free. And that is at end-game; it doesn't account for the low and mid-levels where the majority of the game is actually played.

Your second statement is true, but that only proves the larger point, that tiers are indeed independent of WBL (since higher tier classes need it less, changing WBL therefore has less of an impact on them in either direction.)

[Ssalarn]

So far, what I'm leaning towards is adding various buffs to Hunters Bond. Making its animal companion actually stronger and more versatile (like being able to learn various feats and skills) than the druid version, and making the leadery version of hunters bond that doesn't have the companion not terrible by doing more than just sharing favored enemy with your allies.

Ranger pets actually get pretty nasty pretty quickly. A ranger's pet benefits just as much from spells like instant enemy as the ranger himself does, which is a pretty big deal.

I, personally, think the PF Ranger is actually really close to Tier 3 already when you factor in the spells from the extended core product line; a few small shifts, maybe giving his AnC full progression and opening up the whole druid list, maybe making the Monstrous Mount feats free bonus feats for the ranger, probably actually closes the gap. The team-oriented version of Hunter's Bond would probably have to be rewritten entirely though, since it's pretty terrible.

[avr]

Personally I think the hunter is the animal companion class, the ranger should be something else. Maybe just give the ranger skirmisher archetype tricks and/or trapper archetype traps for free on top of their casting? That would open up options without treading on the hunter's toes.

Edit: the early favored terrain & improved track bonuses would be fine, and I can see the point in giving late game options to the combat styles, but I really think the AnC shouldn't be a major part of the ranger's shtick. The ranger concept is usually self-reliant.

[gadren]

Personally I think the hunter is the animal companion class, the ranger should be something else. Maybe just give the ranger skirmisher archetype tricks and/or trapper archetype traps for free on top of their casting? That would open up options without treading on the hunter's toes.

Hunter is the "wardruid" class (As in, it is to druid what warpriest is to cleric). It casts spells of up to 6th level (from both the ranger and druid lists), has the same animal companion as a druid, and can pick up wildshape via archetype.

[avr]

Hunter is the "wardruid" class (As in, it is to druid what warpriest is to cleric). It casts spells of up to 6th level (from both the ranger and druid lists), has the same animal companion as a druid, and can pick up wildshape via archetype.
A warpriest gets free quicken spell (more or less), extra combat feats and improved weapon damage, a hunter gets mostly bonuses to their animal companion plus the animal focus bit. There's only a few early spells via ranger that matter. The hunter's emphasis is obviously on their animal companion, which is why I'm suggesting a different emphasis for the improved ranger - a different look.

[Sayt]

I think for a better go at hunter's bond, I'd go one of two ways, either I'd:

1) Make it a swift action to activate and grant the Ranger's full Favored enemy bonus for wis mod rounds, or;
2) Spar for 10~ minutes in the morning with your allies, while they are within 30ft of you, they gain a bonus equal to half for up to 24 hours.

[ngilop]

WBL-mancy isn't really relevant to this thread though. A fighter can use WBL to summon solars too, that doesn't make them T1. OP wants to boost the Ranger itself to T3. The difficulty presented is doing this without more spellcasting.

The solution posed in this thread that I preferred was giving them Skirmisher Tricks and Ranger Traps for free, along with a full-progression companion. It's fast, it's elegant, it's thematic, and it gives you more options/versatility without making them any more magical than they already are.

Underlined for emphasis.

That is one of the nicest things anybody has said about me or anything Ive ever suggested on these forums, You actually brought a tear of joy to my eye.

To have such a well respected and cornerstone member of the GiTP community say something like this really warms my heart:smallsmile: than you so much Psyren.

to garden: id keep them with spells, the versatility and utility the traps and skirmisher tricks can give his (full)companion, with the addition awesome of the ranger spells is too cool for school! that why he left school and spends all his time in the woods with his pet cougar!

I am currently in a PF group with a skirmisher ranger and I explained to him the biggest thing you giveup being spell less is not the spells themselves, as you never get enough and they are not really powerful enough (caster level wise) to really be a tide tuner.. but giving up the ability to use a wand or a scroll to me is literally 1/3 of your characters total usefulness ( I could be a bit exaggerated here)

[Psyren]

Underlined for emphasis.

That is one of the nicest things anybody has said about me or anything Ive ever suggested on these forums, You actually brought a tear of joy to my eye.

To have such a well respected and cornerstone member of the GiTP community say something like this really warms my heart:smallsmile: than you so much Psyren.

Ha! I think I'm more of a nuisance than a cornerstone, but thank you :smallredface:

But seriously though, it was a good suggestion; I had in fact forgotten all about the Skirmisher archetype, and combined with traps and spells I think it gets the Ranger's chassis the rest of the way to T3.

[avr]

But seriously though, it was a good suggestion; I had in fact forgotten all about the Skirmisher archetype, and combined with traps and spells I think it gets the Ranger's chassis the rest of the way to T3.
Someone else suggested it before me; I really should've read the thread better before posting.

[Florian]

Your first statement is also not true - class features do make a difference in WBL. To use the extreme example, it is far more expensive for your commoner to gate in a Solar than it is for a Wizard, who can learn the spell for free. And that is at end-game; it doesn't account for the low and mid-levels where the majority of the game is actually played.

Your second statement is true, but that only proves the larger point, that tiers are indeed independent of WBL (since higher tier classes need it less, changing WBL therefore has less of an impact on them in either direction.)

Shifting goal posts around a bit, Psyren?

You know that WBL is a thing and you find it on p.399 of the CRB, so stick with it i you want to talk RAW.
Below a certain point, its personal preference and sticking to your chosen role if you want to cast, fight or gish. Beyond that? It´s up to you and you alone how you want to handle things. No class, not even the humble Commoner, is excluded from handling the "high magic" stuff.

No class is excluded from playing the "high magic" game at any time and everyone can participate here. Where you are insofar right is that the "full caster" classes have a leg up as they have their spell slots and don´t need to pay WBL to access them. Where you are in error is that it makes total sense for "mundane" classes to invest WBL in "mundane" stuff beyond a certain point. That only holds true if the particular player doesn´t want to engage with the "high magic" gameplay at all.

[Psyren]

Shifting goal posts around a bit, Psyren?

You know that WBL is a thing and you find it on p.399 of the CRB, so stick with it i you want to talk RAW.


WBL is indeed a thing, but WBL != Magic-Mart. Having the listed wealth does not mean you can buy every item you can afford; the GM still has to make such items available for sale. This is especially true for the items you cite that would cause a commoner's tier to increase.

[gadren]

Shifting goal posts around a bit, Psyren?
(Etc)
Ok, Florian, you haven't really added anything useful to this discussion about rangers, and you've been knowingly rude from the beginning.

Perhaps you could go start your own thread about WBL or whatever it is you want to condescend to people about, and leave my thread alone?

Thanks.

[Florian]

Ok, Florian, you haven't really added anything useful to this discussion about rangers, and you've been knowingly rude from the beginning.

Perhaps you could go start your own thread about WBL or whatever it is you want to condescend to people about, and leave my thread alone?

Thanks.

Yes, I´m rude here because I do directly talk about the underlying framework and disregard the RP-part completely, because that has no part in any sort of RAW-discussion and should be a thing for any individual table.

Now if you have anything in mind RP-wise, like the "no magic mart" Psyren mentioned out of the blue that is not based on RAW, do mention it and it can be discussed and I´ll gladly contribute to it.

[Psyren]

Agreed with gadren, Florian you're just baiting and derailing at this point. If you want to start a thread about how level 20 commoners are T1 because they have wealth, feel free to do so, but I won't be responding to it any further here.

[gadren]

Yes, I´m rude here because I do directly talk about the underlying framework and disregard the RP-part completely, because that has no part in any sort of RAW-discussion and should be a thing for any individual table.

Now if you have anything in mind RP-wise, like the "no magic mart" Psyren mentioned out of the blue that is not based on RAW, do mention it and it can be discussed and I´ll gladly contribute to it.

You're rude because you've peppered ALL of your posts with insults and/or sarcasm. You even started one post with "this will come across as rude, but", so your play of ignorance about it now is transparent.

Please. Go away and let the rest of us discuss the ranger in peace.

[Florian]

Agreed with gadren, Florian you're just baiting and derailing at this point. If you want to start a thread about how level 20 commoners are T1 because they have wealth, feel free to do so, but I won't be responding to it any further here.

Am I saying that Commoners are T1? That I´m not.
What I´m saying is that you should not focus on one part of the framework and disregard the other parts completely, especially not because of some nebulous "RP" reasons.

[squiggit]

I'm not sure what WBL has to do with anything here. Everyone gets WBL. WBL exists. You can do things with WBL. It has literally nothing to do with the subject of the ranger's chassis.


because that has no part in any sort of RAW-discussion
Have you not noticed that this is a thread about homebrewing improvements for the Ranger? That's literally the exact opposite of RAW, so why are you talking about that?


and should be a thing for any individual table.
And the OP specifically mentions that he's making changes for a campaign. So this is a thing for an individual table.

[Florian]

I'm not sure what WBL has to do with anything here. Everyone gets WBL. WBL exists. You can do things with WBL. It has literally nothing to do with the subject of the ranger's chassis.


Have you not noticed that this is a thread about homebrewing improvements for the Ranger? That's literally the exact opposite of RAW, so why are you talking about that?


And the OP specifically mentions that he's making changes for a campaign. So this is a thing for an individual table.

The basic class framework and Feats and/or WBL are tied together. You are expected to enhance what you´re good at with good choices and close "holes" in the class framework with other choices, too.
Most of the "fixes" named in this very thread (Beyond adding the traps) could be done with very basic items or available feats that are already there, no problem at any time.

Now what not has been named so far are any cuts to WBL or feat choices so far at all, meaning anything is still open and it must not be made integral to the basic class framework at any point.

Maybe it tock the time to look beyond the obvious and rather look at the synergies and found them game breaking?