Who else thinks that Belkar fails as a ranger?

[Tal9922]

I mean, don't take me the wrong way, i think he's fantastic as a character and hilarious and all, but i mean, am i the only one who thinks he sucks at his class? He has crappy wisdom, which is supposed to be a pretty important stat for rangers, no track skill, and never uses class abilities! Seriously, all he ever does is stab people! hopefully him multiclassing to barbarian will fix that a bit, but still, i understand he's put quite a few levels into ranger.

What do you guys think?

[LM TR]

he of course has the track FEAT, but lacks the survival SKILL
and we didn´t see him use barbarian rage (explicitely mentioned) either, maybe he used it in the "sexy shoeless god of war" scene

[Regneva]

No. With thog's help, we know that when you rage, your clothes rip off and your pants change color (as well as your skin)

Belkar is a terrible choice for a party ranger. That needs no discussion. But where he fails as a ranger he excels as a warrior.

[Kurald Galain]

As explained in OTOOPC, he's better than having a monk in there...

[John Campbell]

Oh, yeah. Belkar is the typical ranger who took the class only for the two-weapon cheese. He doesn't know or care what his other class features are.

And as we saw in the strip, he took the dip into Barbarian for the fast movement. Rage is a bonus, but I don't think he's ever used it.

[Spiryt]

I think he used it at least few times.

You know, rage don't have to be the same worn out "RHAAAAAAAA!!!!!" :smallamused:

Belkar is constantly angry, so his rage has more genuine forms. I think that certainly he was in rage during hobgoblins masacre.

And about he's ranger abilities:

It's funny comic, and also makes jokes from D&D, but isn't about some campaing characters.
It's about guys who are supposed to be real (even if it's all parody). So they aren't some builds - Belkar is a ranger cause he likes it. He indeed doesn't use all his class abilities, but he doesn't seem to care about it. Even a little.

[Alysar]

Blaspheme not against the Sexy Shoeless God of War!

[Morty]

Whoa. You're right, I never noticed that the running gag about Belkar's character is that he doesn't use his ranger abilities.:smallsigh:

[boomwolf]

wait...
you wonna tell me some people DONT think he is a lame ranger?

[Squark]

His wisdom score is his main failing. If it where higher, he'd remember his other class features existed.

[TheAlmightyOne]

How do you not understand it. Belkar is not a good ranger. Jokes are made on the subject. Its a running theme that hes not a good ranger. It is funny. I think I got my point across.

[daggaz]

Not to mention, he has _Never_ cast a spell in his life.

I always thought he was more of an evil assassin rogue type... Backstabbing and all, right out of the good old days.

[Kaelaroth]

He has used scrolls. In my book, that counts as a form of spellcasting.

The joke is, he is a terrible ranger, and yet still incredible. His barbarianism makes his even better.

[NerfTW]

In other news, did anyone notice Vaarsuvius's gender is never given? I just noticed that

/sarcasm :smalltongue:

[PirateMonk]

As above, that's kind of the point, but when you think about it, Rangers are alternative meatshields, and Belkar takes and deals damage fairly well. The extra bits are just bonuses or to help with their secondary skill monkey role.

[Morty]

In other news, did anyone notice Vaarsuvius's gender is never given? I just noticed that

/sarcasm :smalltongue:

Yeah, or that we have no clue what MiTD really is!

[RAGE KING!]

he actually specifically uses rage at one point "halfling rage jumping attack!" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0176.html)

[mockingbyrd7]

How IS he such an effective fighter as a low-wisdom halfling ranger with daggers, anyways? He's an awesome character but a sucky ranger in most respects, except he's probably more devastating in a battle than Roy, Haley or Elan(duh). (See strip 439)

[arkol]

I'm pretty sure he uses his favoured enemys (whatever they are; from a rules point of view he probably has goblinoids) ALL the time.

And let's not forget his use of a ranger class feature here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0469.html).

[Chronos]

Oh, yeah. Belkar is the typical ranger who took the class only for the two-weapon cheese. He doesn't know or care what his other class features are.Belkar has intentionallly used at least four of his ranger class features (plus more accidentally, like the Evasion). He uses the two-weapon fighting, the favored enemy, and the access to class skills he likes such as hide and move silently (and enough points per level to get good use out of them). He's also attempted Animal Empathy several times, though he's never succeeded at it (due, no doubt, to his poor charisma). If you want to play a sneaky warrior type, your choices in core rules are basically either ranger or monk, which means that Belkar actually made the best choice he could.

[Morty]

How IS he such an effective fighter as a low-wisdom halfling ranger with daggers, anyways?

Because noone ever said this comic's got to stick to D&D rules in all aspects?

[mockingbyrd7]

Because noone ever said this comic's got to stick to D&D rules in all aspects?

Heretic! Burn! Die! Rot in the seventh layer of hell! :smalltongue:

[Mordokai]

One thing that I always(well, for some time, at least) wondered is why Belkar stays with daggers? Wouldn't it be better to get, I don't know, long sword for main hand, short sword for off hand? Hw would deal more damage, which does seem to be somewhat of main priority to him.

[Kish]

One thing that I always(well, for some time, at least) wondered is why Belkar stays with daggers? Wouldn't it be better to get, I don't know, long sword for main hand, short sword for off hand? Hw would deal more damage, which does seem to be somewhat of main priority to him.
He probably has quite a few dagger-oriented feats (Weapon Focus, Improved Critical, etc.) left over from 3.0 days when a short sword wasn't a light weapon to him, and a long sword would have taken both hands to use. So now, even though dual short swords would be better, he's kind of stuck.

[Elandegenerate]

because belkar uses daggers.

Drizzit didnt use scimitars cus they have a keen edge (this is only a guess i havent read it) he used em cus they where his style (and possible reasons if any relating to his aquisition of them). Indeed the 4th wall in this comic is lying in a corner muttering to itself, but that doesnt mean that the OotS needs to be twinked out. Obviously he is good enough killing as it is. *points at OotS graveyard*

[Elandegenerate]

He probably has quite a few dagger-oriented feats (Weapon Focus, Improved Critical, etc.) left over from 3.0 days when a short sword wasn't a light weapon to him, and a long sword would have taken both hands to use. So now, even though dual short swords would be better, he's kind of stuck.

feh, that makes perfect sense to me

[Mordokai]

He probably has quite a few dagger-oriented feats (Weapon Focus, Improved Critical, etc.) left over from 3.0 days when a short sword wasn't a light weapon to him, and a long sword would have taken both hands to use. So now, even though dual short swords would be better, he's kind of stuck.

Fair enought, I didn't think of that.

[Arameus]

Four-hundred, eighty-three strips and you're just now realizing that Belkar is just about the worst Ranger on the face of the Earth? It's a running gag. They talk about or allude to it all the time.

Does Rich have to have someone specifically say "Belkar's not good at being a Ranger?"

[Ecalsneerg]

Four-hundred, eighty-three strips and you're just now realizing that Belkar is just about the worst Ranger on the face of the Earth? It's a running gag. They talk about or allude to it all the time.

Does Rich have to have someone specifically say "Belkar's not good at being a Ranger?"

He had to state he was Evil...

[Castamir]

You're forgetting that Belkar is a ROLEPLAYER. It's a rare brand of players in D&D, but they happen. When he took his barbarian level, it wasn't for fast movement or any other class ability, it was solely due to barbarian flavour fitting him.

[the_tick_rules]

he is an ineffective ranger build, but he's gotten along just fine so far. besides i think everyone here is a bit too caught up in build optimization, just let them be.

[Arameus]

Whether or not he's a 'roleplayer' (which is not technically true, as he is Belkar, and is not merely playing Belkar, realistically or otherwise), and whether or not he's an optimal build has very little bearing on the matter at hand.

Good roleplaying does realistically preclude doing absolutlely every last little thing to be the perfect incarnation of your class, unless of course you are a character like Kain Highwind who is obsessed with this. And not optimizing your build fully is different from playing it very badly.

Belkar is not just a mediocre Ranger, he is a terrible Ranger. His continual failure to execute or even have the capacity for performing actions that he as a Ranger should be able to perform and would be a great boon to the party is not only a constant source of amusement but is even a plot element on occasion. This is not the same as merely not optimizing your build, or 'roleplaying' to pursue other interests that may fail to add or even detract from your character's effectiveness.

To put it simply, some of you suggest that Belkar is not a bad Ranger, but that he is merely a realistic character. You, however, have entirely missed the point and I'd not be surprised if you had to touch the stovelid twice before realizing it was hot. Belkar is both realistic and vastly incompetent, as is entirely meet since these two elements do not preclude each other.

And that is why circles are round.

[Setra]

As explained in OTOOPC, he's better than having a monk in there...
A well optimized Monk > Belkar.

Also, the Monk might have been less likely to stab them in their sleep.

[Firestar27]

Belkar has intentionallly used at least four of his ranger class features (plus more accidentally, like the Evasion). He uses the two-weapon fighting, the favored enemy, and the access to class skills he likes such as hide and move silently (and enough points per level to get good use out of them). He's also attempted Animal Empathy several times, though he's never succeeded at it (due, no doubt, to his poor charisma). If you want to play a sneaky warrior type, your choices in core rules are basically either ranger or monk, which means that Belkar actually made the best choice he could.
You can play a sneak attacking rogue.

[JasonDoomsblade]

Belkar sucks as a ranger. If you recall, he has NO ranks in Survival. How did he even pass Ranger Camp/School?

[MrAdventure]

I always thought he was an assassin, pretending to be a ranger.

Does D&D even have assassins anymore?

[Khanderas]

I always thought he was an assassin, pretending to be a ranger.

Does D&D even have assassins anymore?

This actually makes some sense.
If you were an Assassin (has to be evil) it is hard to join a Good aligned group. Not to mention that it can get you executed / imprisoned in civilized lands on those grounds alone.
Would explain his lack of Survival skill and how the "favored enemy" seems to be whatever humanoid he wants to kill (being most kinds he ever met).

[MrAdventure]

If you were an Assassin (has to be evil) it is hard to join a Good aligned group. Not to mention that it can get you executed / imprisoned in civilized lands on those grounds alone.



Haven't there been a few times where they tried to detect his alignment and couldn't?

[MReav]

I think that in addition to his TWF abilities, he's probably gotten good mileage out of his favoured enemy feature, and he's made use of evasion twice (vs the EoF&F fireball and the black dragon's breath), and he's tried using Wild Empathy on a charmed muskrat, instead of indiscriminately killing it.

He's a craptastic ranger, but that's part of his character.

[The Hop Goblin]

Yet another nit-picking thread. *Sigh*

Who here has played D&D, hands? *counts*

Okay, who here has ran a game, hands? *counts*

Fine. Now who here has ran for or played with a gamer who ran his/her character with a bad build?

My most recent game had a Ranger with no Wilderness Lore, No Spot, No Hide - but maxed out ranks in Ride (to which, he added "Rohan" infront of the skill name, just to be clever). In a game I played in we had a cleric/wizard who lept infront of the battle line to melee, and chose never to take a 5' step before casting. Its simply another aspect of D&D that is being parodied.

[Charles Phipps]

I wish I could find the comics where Belkar's crappy ranger status is illustrated.

[Behold_the_Void]

For the amount of stuff Belkar one-shots, I'd say he's doing reasonably well at what he's trying to be: a stealthy character who can also dish out damage and frontline, depending on what suits his purposes.

[John Campbell]

Oh, yeah, he's a highly effective stealthy two-weaponing killing machine. He's just a lousy ranger.

I'm not judging him. My next PC is looking likely to be a ranger, too... a chaotic neutral half-orc who's taking the class for the mount that gets better as he levels and qualifies him for Wild Plains Outrider without forcing him to be lawful stupid, the free archery feats, and the character-appropriate class skills (in roughly that order), not because I want to go around hugging the cute animals and trees. My character doesn't fit the ranger fluff much better than Belkar does, but, by focusing on the class features I want and neglecting the ones I don't care about, and totally ignoring the fluff except when it intrudes into the rules, I'm getting something that works pretty well for what I want to play. (Basically, a Mongol orc. On a dire wolf.) I'm in no position to nitpick about which class features Belkar does and doesn't care about. I'm doing the same thing with a slightly different choice of features. It's a flaw of the class system, not the character.

And I'm taking a level or two of Barbarian at some point, mainly for the fast movement and Uncanny Dodge, though the rage is also nice to have. (And it's my preferred class, so why not? It's not like I'm going the full 20 with Ranger, anyway. Not only do I have prestige classes to fit in, but Ranger levels kinda suck after 11th or so, when the weapon style boosts run out. Coincidentally, that's also when Belkar decided to multiclass into Barbarian.) I thought there was a strip where Belkar said the fast movement was his motivation for going Barbarian, too, but I can't find it. The closest thing I found hints that it was the rage that interested him. I may have just been projecting my own motives on him. (And you've gotta admit, the +10' bonus is particularly nice when you're Small.)

[boiled bones]

It's funny comic, and also makes jokes from D&D, but isn't about some campaing characters.

Um... yeah it is. Each of the PCs (heck, they're called PCs) has two distinct personalities, one for the player, and one for the character. When they act in character, they are roleplaying. I'm fully convinced that we're intended to view the entire narrative as that of a campaign, and, indeed, that's a big part of what make it so interesting.


I always thought he was an assassin, pretending to be a ranger.


Oh, man, that's the next great conspiracy. Perfect. I totally buy it. Prove it wrong.

[Spiryt]

Um... yeah it is. Each of the PCs (heck, they're called PCs) has two distinct personalities, one for the player, and one for the character. When they act in character, they are roleplaying. I'm fully convinced that we're intended to view the entire narrative as that of a campaign, and, indeed, that's a big part of what make it so interesting.



Geeez, I'm not in the mood to search other links, so I will give you this one:
I always thought of OOTS as "What if the world really worked in accordance with the D&D rules (and fantasy cliches)?" So yeah, I never think there are actually players behind the characters, but it's a common assumption, given the gaming point of view. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=856766&highlight=players+characters#post856766)

There are NO players behind characters. OotS isn't a record of some session.

[NerfTW]

You're wasting your time. Everyone knows that if you disagree with the author, it's because the author is lying to you. :smalleek:

I'd love to see examples of these "seperate personalities", since they don't exist.

[Roderick_BR]

Yes, Belkar is a bad ranger. Actually, it's pretty obvious.
Roy only found out that Belkar was a bad tracker through halfway the story, and he often forgets class features, like the Track feat itself, and Evasion.

[Chronos]

It's funny comic, and also makes jokes from D&D, but isn't about some campaing characters.Of course it is... They're all characters (as are you and I and Rich Berlew and everyone else), and they're on a campaign to rid the world of an evil lich plotting global domination. In what sense are they not campaigning characters?

[John Campbell]

If there are actual players behind the PCs, it doesn't matter because we never see them.

However, the PCs are aware that they're in a comic based on an RPG, and understand the rules of the RPG, so they're not immune to the temptation to minmax and metagame.

[psychoticbarber]

Somebody said something about his lack of Wisdom being his greatest weakness: It's also his greatest strength. If he was wiser, he'd never hurt anyone again (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0058.html). Then he'd be far less entertaining and a weaker character in this parody.

[Zephra]

but he makes a truly wonderfull barbarion.

...shouldn't he get an animal companion?

[Squark]

Somebody said something about his lack of Wisdom being his greatest weakness: It's also his greatest strength. If he was wiser, he'd never hurt anyone again (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0058.html). Then he'd be far less entertaining and a weaker character in this parody.

Ah, but what if it was only 1 or 2 points, as opposed to four.
Also, Belkar, heck, the whole Order are some of the worst RP examples I've ever seen. If any of my players make a metagame comment in charecter, I will personally dispatch the tarrsque on them. Also, RP and Powergaming are not exclusives, Some of the best D&D Roleplayers are D&D CO (Charecter Optimization) board regulars. I REALLY need to get a link to the stormwind fallacy*.

Also, Belkar probably would have stayed with daggers even if he could have changed his charecter, because Daggers can be thrown. You can't throw a short sword without a non-core feat.

Lastly, Belkar is a ranger because he is a stealth TWFing charecter who wants to be able to stand on the front line. We've also noticed the Order's (At least, Elan's, but probably most of them) ignorance of the Stormwind fallacy (Not the name, but the concept), So a PRC is pretty much out.


*The Stormwind Fallacy was created by Tempest Stormwind of the WOTC forums, and basicly sums up to Well optimized≠Poorly RPed, and intentionally handicapped≠Well RPed**

**I suspect the origon of the problem origanated when the older additions warned against abandoning charecters who hadn't gotten good rolls, and to use those flaws as an opportunity to enhance your roleplaying. It did not mean that intentionally handicapping a charecter makes it better roleplayed.

[Squark]

but he makes a truly wonderfull barbarion.

...shouldn't he get an animal companion?

No. As mentioned to the upteenth time, he'd kill it before he realised it was his animal companion.

[Closet_Skeleton]

but he makes a truly wonderfull barbarion.

...shouldn't he get an animal companion?

In 3.0 animal companions were created by the Animal Friends spell. Without the 11 wisdom required to cast it Belkar could not get an animal companion in 3.0 no matter his level.

It's likely that he never realised that he got an animal companion as a class feature rather than a spell since he didn't know about some of the other parts of the 3.5 ranger.

[explanetpluto]

Belkar sucks as a ranger. If you recall, he has NO ranks in Survival. How did he even pass Ranger Camp/School?

Cheating.

I think the only reason for Ranger is two-handed fighting, other than that he only needs barbarian levels.