PDA

View Full Version : 3.5 Ranger still weak?



Skjaldbakka
2007-09-28, 02:28 AM
At the desire of not de-railing the quarterstaff thread, here is the conversation from there:



OK, how about comparing a Rogue to a Ranger. Rangers are core, and they're generally considered a weak class. Compared to a Rogue, the Ranger gets full BAB, slightly more hit points, an animal companion, spells, some helpful bonus feats, and comparable special abilities.

I have yet to hear this come up in conversation (at least, not since 3.5).

Personally, I see rogue and ranger as the only two 'good' classes out there. 'Good' in this case being defined as 'does everything the class advertises without overshadowing the other party members'. Barbarian is close to this standard as well, but conversations about barbarians seem to quickly turn into conversations about uber power attack stacking combos.

Monk, fighter, and paladin fail on the first count, while the spellcasting classes fail on the second. Bard comes close to that standard as well.


Maybe I'm just biased. I did play a level 20 ranger in 3.0, after all.

Obviously, a ranger is no caster, but this is not a caster vs. non-caster thread.

Here is why I think rangers are not one of the weaker classes:

-They have some spellcasting. Specifically, the ability to use wands of cure light wounds is significant. Also, some spells is better than no spells, and rangers get some good spells for fighter types. As well as a few battlefield control and mobility spells.

-Combat Style.

a)My typical ranger takes the 2WF style, and then spends feats on archery. Combined with quickdraw, this means I always get to full attack.
Effectively, I get to be an archer that isn't hosed in melee. This also lets me set up a battlefield, and then force the enemy to come to me. 2WF generally isn't worth spending feats on, but when you get it for free, I think it is worthwhile.

b)You could also take the archery style, and then focus your feats on either being a dedicated archer, or on being good with a 2H weapon. In the first case, you are a good archer, in the second, you can force your enemy to come to you. And also don't have to get in melee with things that are particulary nasty or difficult to reach. Although you could also do both since 'being good with a 2HW is power attack, and 'being good with a ranged weapon' pretty much means PBS/Precise shot.

-Skill points. 6+int is really nice, and is enough skill points for the ranger to be able to do everything that a ranger should be able to do, even if you dump int. Not all classes accomplish this (I'm looking at you, monk).

-Diehard. Diehard isn't worth taking two feats for, but rangers get Endurance for free, which makes Diehard almost worthwhile. This is only generally the case with Core games. I believe there are several feats now that are just strictly better in every way.

-Small amount of dead levels. Rangers get something most levels.

-Track. In my experience, having someone in the party with Track means that the party gets more loot, and sometimes more XP. You get track those random encounters back to their lair, and you don't miss out on side-quests. The second is more true with modules, which often reward the party for having track.

-Rogue's best friend. A ranger can easily match the rogue's stealth, and thus a ranger can accompany the rogue on scouting missions, which really helps if things go to dreck. Also, scouting is pretty much the only thing a ranger's animal companion is good for, and the hawk has a really good spot check. HIPS and camouflage is also really nice if you are going straight ranger, and not PrCing.

-Two Good Saves. Good Fort/Reflex, plus evasion.

serow
2007-09-28, 02:30 AM
I like rangers too :smallsmile:

Dhavaer
2007-09-28, 02:32 AM
I agree that Rangers are one of the better balanced classes, along with Rogue, Barbarian and Bard. Personally I'd prefer some Sudden Strike dice instead of the animal companion, but that's just me.

Skjaldbakka
2007-09-28, 02:33 AM
Sudden Strike dice instead of the animal companion

I like this idea. What kind of progression would you give?

Leon
2007-09-28, 02:35 AM
with the advent of Spell compedium rangers get access to some very nice spells



-Rogue's best friend. A ranger can easily match the rogue's stealth, and thus a ranger can accompany the rogue on scouting missions, which really helps if things go to dreck. Also, scouting is pretty much the only thing a ranger's animal companion is good for, and the hawk has a really good spot check. HIPS and camouflage is also really nice if you are going straight ranger, and not PrCing.

With the PH2 Alternate feature even more rogue friendly

I like the class a lot but my griviance with them is the fixed prgession of feat trees - i normally go Archery but its still a nigling thing

the Alt feature in Complete Champion is good for some feat varity (except for TWF bonus's) at the cost of spells

the "Scout" Ranger from IK is one i like a fair bit - loses the spellcasting and companion along with fixed feat progression for Favoured terrain and bonus feats, Endruance is moved back a bit and they pick up alertness

Dhavaer
2007-09-28, 02:47 AM
I like this idea. What kind of progression would you give?

1d6 every 4 levels.

KIDS
2007-09-28, 03:03 AM
Rangers are a fine example of 3.0 to 3.5 conversion done right. In 3.0 it was a one-level class, and now it has many features, is customizeable, gives you a lot of options - not terribly strong but quite useful and most importanly, useful against your supposed CRs. We said this is not a caster vs. non caster so let's not go into it.

Overall, a ranger all up to 20 is a solid class with great potential for skirmish fighting, guerilla tactics and general versatility. Not too shabby, but I wouldn't complain if I played a ranger 20 compared to, oh, fighter 20 or something. You get the point.
Since addition of swift hunter and scout, ranger has finally become a very good and worthwhile class and something like the swift hunter is being done for the core 4E's ranger, which I like. I really wouldn't consider rangers weak. It's a great example of proper class rebalance.

Nu
2007-09-28, 03:31 AM
Personally I'd prefer some Sudden Strike dice instead of the animal companion, but that's just me.

Eh, I'd rather just have full animal companion advancement, like a druid, and get the companion at the 1st level.

And make Favored Enemy not suck, or replace it with some sort of precision damage.

Saph
2007-09-28, 05:36 AM
I've made several rangers for other players in my games (for some reason new players seem to like playing elf rangers) and I've found they're very effective archers if built well. They have all the archery feats they'll need, and get the stealth and perception skills to go along with it. And they can use Wands of CLW, never a bad thing.

The Spell Compendium gives them a major power boost - some of the Ranger spells in there are awesome, like Arrow Mind (use your bow in melee as an immediate action!). Their spells per day allowance is pretty poor, but a few 1st-level Pearls of Power fixes that. Overall I'd say the Ranger's a very nicely balanced class, and customiseable with all the alternate class features.

The one big problem I have with them is the animal companion. Past 5th-level or so, it's just too weak to be able to do anything in combat. It would make much more sense if the ranger's level for animal companion was (druid-3), instead of (druid/2). Sure, you can trade it in for something, but you shouldn't have to.

- Saph

AtomicKitKat
2007-09-28, 06:08 AM
Swap Ranger and Druid companion progressions. Or give Druids more "familiar" sized companions.

bugsysservant
2007-09-28, 06:13 AM
Overall, I do love rangers, though I would prefer a full sudden strike progression in exchange for animal companions and favored enemy. Would that be balanced? Not the most powerful class, but definitely one of the best.

Spiryt
2007-09-28, 06:27 AM
Well, I usually choose hawk or eagle as an animal companion. Beacuse the whole idea of something big like dog wandering around me everywhere is laughable. Eagle is much more portable and useful to scouting and guarding since it of course can fly. And have very potent spot modifier. And ranger stalking trough the woods, with eagle high above him looks fine. Ranger with badger walkig around - not so much :smallyuk:

Anyway what is this sudden strike variant everybody keep talking about? Probably some book I don't have, but I never heard about it.

Neon Knight
2007-09-28, 06:33 AM
-Combat Style.

a)My typical ranger takes the 2WF style, and then spends feats on archery. Combined with quickdraw, this means I always get to full attack.
Effectively, I get to be an archer that isn't hosed in melee. This also lets me set up a battlefield, and then force the enemy to come to me. 2WF generally isn't worth spending feats on, but when you get it for free, I think it is worthwhile.

b)You could also take the archery style, and then focus your feats on either being a dedicated archer, or on being good with a 2H weapon. In the first case, you are a good archer, in the second, you can force your enemy to come to you. And also don't have to get in melee with things that are particulary nasty or difficult to reach. Although you could also do both since 'being good with a 2HW is power attack, and 'being good with a ranged weapon' pretty much means PBS/Precise shot.

-Track. In my experience, having someone in the party with Track means that the party gets more loot, and sometimes more XP. You get track those random encounters back to their lair, and you don't miss out on side-quests. The second is more true with modules, which often reward the party for having track.


I disagree with the above three points. Firstly, TWF is absolute worthless without some source of bonus damage dice. Secondly, anything that moves away from you 10 feet or more will avoid your full attack. The enemy making a 10 foot movement negating one of your class features is the hallmark of a pathetic class (see Monk's Flurry, Fighter.)

Secondly, unless the enemy is a melee fighter, he never has to come to you. Never. Archers will just plink arrows into your waiting rear, and spellcasters... I don't even need to say it.

As for archery.... Gee, archery also kinda sucks unless you have source of bonus damage dice. And even then it is not fan-dabby-tastic. Still the better of the two choices thanks to greater manyshot.

Track's usefulness is entirely dependent on the DM.
My retort to this point are DM of the Ring strips:
http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=835
http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=887

Giving the Ranger a source of bonus damage dice solves most of his problems, although I personally don't like skirmish. The ranger does get some awesome spells, and with a source of bonus damage dice becomes vastly better.

Core though? I feel he is right next to the fighter in weakness. Alright, not quite that low, but not much higher. Somewhat above fighter level because of the spell casting. But still pretty weak.

Dhavaer
2007-09-28, 06:39 AM
Anyway what is this sudden strike variant everybody keep talking about? Probably some book I don't have, but I never heard about it.

Here's one of them. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11686) I'm fairly sure there's more.

Dullyanna
2007-09-28, 08:11 AM
@Dhavaer: Wasn't there a ranger kit like that called Stalker, back in 2nd edition? It could only wear up to studded leather, and it got either some arcane spells, or spell-lke abilities. Personally, I'd take that over a mostly useless animal companion every time. The problem as I see it is that the arcane aspect doesn't make any sense. Sudden Strike is nifty, though, and it fits the idea of a hunter (As opposed to a spellcasting park ranger) pretty damn well.

Kioran
2007-09-28, 08:40 AM
Giving the Ranger a source of bonus damage dice solves most of his problems, although I personally don't like skirmish. The ranger does get some awesome spells, and with a source of bonus damage dice becomes vastly better.

Core though? I feel he is right next to the fighter in weakness. Alright, not quite that low, but not much higher. Somewhat above fighter level because of the spell casting. But still pretty weak.

You´re thinking too much about combat - a 4th Ed flaw as well, but hey......As a Ranger, you actually have skills, which counts for a lot. Inside combat you´re weaker than a Fighter, even a good reflex save can´t compensate for that. Core only, you´re okay as long as Codzilla or the Wizard don´t ramp it up - if they do, well, you suck. But then, so does almost anything not cheesed out to the wazoo........

I´d like to think of rangers as playable, very much so, even into the higher levels.

Person_Man
2007-09-28, 09:35 AM
Anywho, I'm the one who made the initial comment that Rangers are considered a weaker class, though still stronger then Rogues, so I feel the need to defend my statement.

My argument is premised upon 3.5 D&D as a whole. If you're playing in a smaller party that only uses just a few choice supplements (i.e., just the Spell Compendium and a few Completes) then Rangers are a far more useful and powerful choice, towards the top of the pack for non-full casters. But my argument is based on all of the rules available out there, not the particulars of any gaming group.


This is my argument:

1) Compared to full casters, non-full-casters are less flexible and less powerful. This is pretty much an established fact of 3.5 which everyone expects to be fixed in 4th ed. Seriously, what can a Ranger do that compares to Polymorph, Solid Fog, Time Stop, or similar spells?

2) A Ranger is usually weaker then more recently published classes (Crusader, Swordsage, Warblade, Duskblade, Knight, Dragonfire Adept, Factotum, Totemist, Psions, Psychic Warrior, etc), which have no dead levels and a lot more powers and abilities at their disposal.

3) Their Combat Styles (TWF and Archery) are not conducive to battlefield control, which generally require the use of reach weapons and special abilities geared toward this tactic. Battlefield control makes a "meatshield" a lot better at defending the more squishy members of his party, and can usually generate extra attacks every round, making it a superior tactic for a melee build to use in many (though not all) cases. This means that a Ranger generally need to focus on just dealing damage in combat.

4) Thanks to Power Attack math, TWF isn't particularly as good at dealing damage compared to Two Handed Fighting. And archery generally lags way behind melee combat in dealing damage at mid-high levels, mostly because there's nothing comparable to Power Attack for it. So compared to other melee builds, Rangers have a hard time with battlefield control, and they do a poorer job of dealing damage.

5) Out of combat, I love the Ranger. At low levels, I wish every party I played in had one. But as you reach mid-high levels, many of their Skills can be replaced by various spells. So having someone with Skills isn't really necessary for your party to function well, its just somewhat more efficient. And if you really want a specific Skill or Track, you can just use a feat or dip 1 level into a Skill Monkey class, and then take the other 19 levels in something else. Alternatively, many animals have Track as a feat and the Scent ability, so you can just buy a pack of dogs and use Handle Animal. Druid Animal Companions can also sometimes cover various Skill and Track duties for the party, as can some familiars and some Paladin Mounts.

6) In a larger party you're going to have Skill duplication. You only need one person with high ranks in Knowledge (Nature), for example. So having a large number of Skill points becomes even less important, unless EVERYONE in the party wants to play as a commando team and use a lot of Hide/Move Silently/etc. (In which case an all Ranger/Scout/Rogue/Beguiler group would rock).

7) In 4th ed, the Ranger "killed the scout and took his stuff." So WotC has basically admitted that the Ranger needs more power to be balanced against other classes, and they've done so by giving him Scout abilities (most likely Skirmish and Fast Movement).

Skjaldbakka
2007-09-28, 09:42 AM
I disagree with the above three points. Firstly, TWF is absolute worthless without some source of bonus damage dice. Secondly, anything that moves away from you 10 feet or more will avoid your full attack. The enemy making a 10 foot movement negating one of your class features is the hallmark of a pathetic class (see Monk's Flurry, Fighter.)

1) TWF isn't absolutely worthless, it is suboptimal. Saying this isn't disagreeing with my point either. I already said you are probably better off taking the archery style and using a two-handed sword (as backup). Getting 2WF for free makes it almost worth doing as a ranger. Be an archer most of the time, and then whip out the two-weapon fighting whenever (insert favored enemy here) shows up.

2) Anything that moves more than 10 ft. away from me eats my full attack with a bow. If it closes to melee it eats my full attack with 2WF. Win/Win.
Getting 2WF for free leaves me more than enough feats to focus on archery while still having 2WF as a back-up.

3)There are lots of reasons to want to do archery. Flying monsters, not having to move to full attack, superior range, not having to move to full attack, magic arrows that overlap with bow enchantments (a dragon, eh? I happen to have 10 dragon bane arrows). Also, not having to move to make a full attack. Not to mention there are monsters that you don't really want to be in melee with. Like that Damned Crab. A dedicated archer that can freely move over hindered terrain? How is that not a good thing?



My argument is premised upon 3.5 D&D as a whole. If you're playing in a smaller party that only uses just a few choice supplements (i.e., just the Spell Compendium and a few Completes) then Rangers are a far more useful and powerful choice, towards the top of the pack for non-full casters. But my argument is based on all of the rules available out there, not the particulars of any gaming group.

I will concede that ranger is not as good as all the new stuff that has come out after it. I generally compare a class to other classes released in the same book, when making a statement like 'this class is weak' though. In terms of PHB, ranger is one of the best designed classes. Mostly because they horribly screwed it up in 3.0.

Pretty much what you are saying is not that Ranger is weak (which is patently false), but that it isn't a spellcaster (true), and other classes (released later) are more powerful. Which they should be, because WotC began to realize that they had made spellcasters to powerful. There solution- make everyone more powerful. The right solution would have been to weaken spellcasters, but that wouldn't have sold well.

And the whole 'skills are obsolete because of spells' is an argument for another thread. It is an issue that tends to explode.

leperkhaun
2007-09-28, 10:00 AM
i forgot what the varient is called and where it is, but with rangers i like the varient that allows you to wildshape as a ranger.

OverdrivePrime
2007-09-28, 10:21 AM
I love rangers with a near-unholy passion. Unfortunately this is mostly just the *idea* of rangers, and not the execution of ranger character classes in most games. D&D catches a lot of my ire as it's turned the ranger into a weak poke-class that fights with two weapons. At least in 3.5, they gave the option of taking some sorta-interesting bow feats, but still, the insult remains. Let roving scoundrels and duelists be the two-weapon fighters. I wanna take a spear or sword and shove it through the bellies of giants and unnatural beasts with both hands!

And then there's the animal companion. Thanks to the Complete books, you can spend a feat to make your animal companion suck less than it normally does, but it still sucks.

In my group we've fixed some of the problem by greatly expanding the ranger's available combat styles. 2 handed weapon style, mass combat (cleave) style, unarmed style (tarzan), etc. However, due to limitations of the class, I usually wind up going Ranger 1 / Barbarian x, and the hope for a PRC later on that can get me swift tracker or favored creature hunting abilities. I don't want a bunch of feats that I won't use, and I don't want an animal companion dragging me down. Evasion is nice, the spells are very nice now that the Spell Compendium is available, and I'm certainly not mad at the skills. But I just wanna play a guy who could survive on Dune for six months -nekkid, totes around a 2 handed blade, and beats the snot out of his favored enemies.

Thinker
2007-09-28, 10:29 AM
One of my favorite ranger non-variant builds looks something like this:

Scout 3/Ranger 2/Stalker of Kharash 2/Lion of Talisid 10/Ranger 3

You take Swift Ambusher to get skirmish as an 8th level scout. You get pounce, casting as a 17th level ranger, wildshape (up to large/tiny), Favored Enemy (Evil), scent, BAB +19, haste 10 rds/day spread as out as you wish, and a host of other abilities. You can also take OTWF and Favored PA and get 2:1 for both weapons when you TWF. This build really gets a lot of versatility, but is best suited if you're facing a lot of evil opponents.

de-trick
2007-09-28, 11:18 AM
who doesn't like rangers, hide move silently and full BAB

Dr. Weasel
2007-09-28, 01:29 PM
1) Compared to full casters, non-full-casters are less flexible and less powerful.

This applies to Rangers far less than it does mos other 'Fighter-types'


2) A Ranger is usually weaker then more recently published classes (Crusader, Swordsage, Warblade, Duskblade, Knight, Dragonfire Adept, Factotum, Totemist, Psions, Psychic Warrior, etc), which have no dead levels and a lot more powers and abilities at their disposal.

The dead levels are horrible; without the Spell Compendium there realy is no reason to take the class for more than four levels before going Rogue (enough to kick you up one attack if you plan on designing a twenty-level build). With SpC, they're on par with most of the examples (beside the Psion which though in the bottom of the Full Spellcasting group is still in it).


3) Their Combat Styles (TWF and Archery) are not conducive to battlefield control, which generally require the use of reach weapons and special abilities geared toward this tactic.

You're dead on. These abilities need to be replaced unless somebody feels like overhauling the entire combat system to make handaxes viable weaponry. I just don't see how being a hunter-type makes you better at fighting with two weapons; they'd be better off concept-wise making it spear/bow.

(Yes, I can see the game-design reason for two weapon fighting, it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense fluff-wise)


4): Extension of the last point


5) Out of combat, I love the Ranger. At low levels, I wish every party I played in had one. But as you reach mid-high levels, many of their Skills can be replaced by various spells.

Their abilities are generally less replacable than the signature abilities of the other Core skillmonkey classes (Trapsense/Speak Language). That said, the current spellcasting system does a good job to replace everyone's primary roles.


6) In a larger party you're going to have Skill duplication. You only need one person with high ranks in Knowledge (Nature), for example.

I would think this is something of a benefit for the Ranger. The class gains a definite benefit when it allows other characters to buff their Spot/Listen (essentially their initiative). He can spare the ranks for the Survival/Knowledge-Nature/Handle Animal skills that other characters can't always justify.


7) In 4th ed, the Ranger "killed the scout and took his stuff." So WotC has basically admitted that the Ranger needs more power to be balanced against other classes, and they've done so by giving him Scout abilities (most likely Skirmish and Fast Movement).

The Scout does a far better job at acting like a generalist Outdoor Hunter-guy than the Ranger Class (Fighting styles, Favored Enemies and half-level Animal Companions are all weak design-wise). The Ranger does do a good job for one specific character (that guy with two swords whose family was killed by [Insert Monster-Type Here] before his very eyes), but it really shouldn't be a Core base class in its current form.

Person_Man
2007-09-28, 02:59 PM
I've suddenly felt the need to re-post my homebrew Ranger Scout (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3262781#post3262781). Feel free to critique it.

Wolfwood2
2007-09-28, 03:38 PM
Rangers are all right, but their animal companion is pretty useless.

I'm mystified by the folks insisting that an AC is good for "scouting". Animal companions don't get any intelligence boost. They're just dumb beasts, and the Seek trick isn't much help. You can't tell them, "Fly out there and then come back and tell me how many goblins are in that ruined keep and where they have guards posted." Even with Speak with Animals, the info attainable is highly limited.

A ranger is much better off scouting/tracking himself than asking his AC to try it.

Snapdragon
2007-09-28, 03:43 PM
But my argument is based on all of the rules available out there, not the particulars of any gaming group.


This is my argument:

1) Compared to full casters, non-full-casters are less flexible and less powerful. This is pretty much an established fact of 3.5 which everyone expects to be fixed in 4th ed. Seriously, what can a Ranger do that compares to Polymorph, Solid Fog, Time Stop, or similar spells?

Where are you playing (in the basic 5 (stats, wealth, exp., terrain and preperation))? Rangers can hide in plain sight (in natural surroundings). No pure caster can spot well (and the ranger should have a decent chance to snipe them), particularly at significant range (-1 per 10 feet). But hey, I never understood the whole 'casters are more powerful' argument. Rangers can control the terms of engagement. So while casters can retreat, they have a hard time winning. What else can a ranger do? Hide, wait for the spell to end, then continue. Noe effective in every situation, but the ranger will win their share.



3) Their Combat Styles (TWF and Archery) are not conducive to battlefield control, which generally require the use of reach weapons and special abilities geared toward this tactic. Battlefield control makes a "meatshield" a lot better at defending the more squishy members of his party, and can usually generate extra attacks every round, making it a superior tactic for a melee build to use in many (though not all) cases. This means that a Ranger generally need to focus on just dealing damage in combat.

Only if the battlefield stops at the edge of the map. Why would the ranger let someone get close? If the Spot differential is 7, the ranger averages 70' of unsuspecting opponent. At a walking pace, that's a spell and a move, then a move and a shot. Combat begins with the enemy unaware of the ranger's position. Hit and run, whittle them down. At least give the rest of the party 1 round of prep before the fight starts (and that's an edge comparable to inspire courage).


4) Thanks to Power Attack math, TWF isn't particularly as good at dealing damage compared to Two Handed Fighting. And archery generally lags way behind melee combat in dealing damage at mid-high levels, mostly because there's nothing comparable to Power Attack for it. So compared to other melee builds, Rangers have a hard time with battlefield control, and they do a poorer job of dealing damage.

Rangers are bad at mass melee, is that you point here? Or was that the previous point? Either way, I agree. The tracking, scouting, mobility guy is generally not the best line combatant. But if they were, why have the other classes?


5) Out of combat, I love the Ranger. At low levels, I wish every party I played in had one. But as you reach mid-high levels, many of their Skills can be replaced by various spells. So having someone with Skills isn't really necessary for your party to function well, its just somewhat more efficient. And if you really want a specific Skill or Track, you can just use a feat or dip 1 level into a Skill Monkey class, and then take the other 19 levels in something else. Alternatively, many animals have Track as a feat and the Scent ability, so you can just buy a pack of dogs and use Handle Animal. Druid Animal Companions can also sometimes cover various Skill and Track duties for the party, as can some familiars and some Paladin Mounts.

Spot/hide can't ever get replaced. Knowledge (geography) doesn't go out of style either. Animals are only effective until the other side has a ranger/scout/druid. But the main reason I question this point is 'function well' is unclear to me. A skill doesn't run out of charges, and doesn't need to be re-memorized after 8 hours of rest (or at a specific time of day, for divine casters), and doesn't get used in the middle of the night (and concurrent ~32 hr. refresh).


6) In a larger party you're going to have Skill duplication. You only need one person with high ranks in Knowledge (Nature), for example. So having a large number of Skill points becomes even less important, unless EVERYONE in the party wants to play as a commando team and use a lot of Hide/Move Silently/etc. (In which case an all Ranger/Scout/Rogue/Beguiler group would rock).

Despite the high number of skill points, I've found rangers don't usually have skills that are unusefully duplicated. It's not bad to have the sneaking duplicated, nor the spotting. Survival, for non-tracking purposes, meh (you've got a larger party, so need more food). This leaves 1+Int per. This doesn't seem like a serious flaw.


7) In 4th ed, the Ranger "killed the scout and took his stuff." So WotC has basically admitted that the Ranger needs more power to be balanced against other classes, and they've done so by giving him Scout abilities (most likely Skirmish and Fast Movement).

WotC has adapted the class to sell better based upon how it is being used. Not on how it can be used. That is, changes are made based on the archetypes and icons of rangerness that inspire people to play the game (and thus buy the books).

Incidently, for the ranger players, does the urgrosh seem like the most ranger thing ever or what? A spear and an axe? This could challenge the knife for best survival tool. Can be used two handed or as a double weapon, having different obscure metal heads, wow.

Neon Knight
2007-09-28, 04:29 PM
1) TWF isn't absolutely worthless, it is suboptimal. Saying this isn't disagreeing with my point either. I already said you are probably better off taking the archery style and using a two-handed sword (as backup). Getting 2WF for free makes it almost worth doing as a ranger. Be an archer most of the time, and then whip out the two-weapon fighting whenever (insert favored enemy here) shows up.


No, I'd say TWF is very near worthless, as all its real benefits are tied to the full attack and the possession of a source of bonus damage dice. And 2 hander plus bow is scarcely better. You won't be able to match the Fighter's melee combat, due to a lack of feats, and archery is just plain sub optimal without a source of bonus damage dice and greater manyshot. And I see no source of bonus damage in the Ranger class.



2) Anything that moves more than 10 ft. away from me eats my full attack with a bow. If it closes to melee it eats my full attack with 2WF. Win/Win.
Getting 2WF for free leaves me more than enough feats to focus on archery while still having 2WF as a back-up.


And your full attack with a bow will be hideously unimpressive, and in general not worth the arrows. Unless you have bonus damage dice, in which case you've multiclassed.

In addition, the two types of enemies that want to avoid melee are generally spellcasters, who have so many ways of either negating you completely (Protection from Arrows, Wind Wall) or transforming you into a corpse I need not elaborate further, or an enemy archer. In which case you have a cute little archery duel.

And closing to melee does not equal eating a full attack. One can make a strike and then move away ten feet to above the counterattack. Sure, AOO, but taking an AOO beats taking a full attack anyday.



3)There are lots of reasons to want to do archery. Flying monsters, not having to move to full attack, superior range, not having to move to full attack, magic arrows that overlap with bow enchantments (a dragon, eh? I happen to have 10 dragon bane arrows). Also, not having to move to make a full attack. Not to mention there are monsters that you don't really want to be in melee with. Like that Damned Crab. A dedicated archer that can freely move over hindered terrain? How is that not a good thing?


But unless you have source of bonus damage dice, you will be doing piddly amounts of damage. And if you have bonus damage dice, you'll have multiclassed.

So, basically you sidestep some weaknesses of melee characters, the range, the full attack, and can avoid watery death. That still doesn't negate the fact that archery will not be dealing notable damage. And a spellcaster blows you away.

In addition, keep in mind these advantages are situational. You're better off in those situations, but every fight in a campaign will not be composed of those situations, unless you have a really sadistic DM who hates melee characters.

Having a bag full of different arrows can be handy, but it is no saving grace.



I will concede that ranger is not as good as all the new stuff that has come out after it. I generally compare a class to other classes released in the same book, when making a statement like 'this class is weak' though. In terms of PHB, ranger is one of the best designed classes. Mostly because they horribly screwed it up in 3.0.

The Ranger class is weak because its two combat abilities are TWF with no bonus damage dice, which is hideously suboptimal, and archery with no bonus damage dice, which is weaker than melee combat in damage, but better in terms of mobility.

Its spellcasting, with supplements, can become nice, but that does not save it from being subpar. The Fighter, Rogue, and Barbarian will out damage it, and the Rogue will out skill it. Spellcasters need not be elaborated upon.

It benefits from being mobile. Yeah. So is the Monk. does not save him from being quite near worthless.



Pretty much what you are saying is not that Ranger is weak (which is patently false), but that it isn't a spellcaster (true), and other classes (released later) are more powerful. Which they should be, because WotC began to realize that they had made spellcasters to powerful. There solution- make everyone more powerful. The right solution would have been to weaken spellcasters, but that wouldn't have sold well.

And the whole 'skills are obsolete because of spells' is an argument for another thread. It is an issue that tends to explode.[/QUOTE]

No, I'm saying it is weak.

Also, I feel that "it has skills" is not a magical saving grace. The Rogue already fills the skill monkey roll nicely. We need no more skill monkeys, and in general I don't see the point of any other classes based around skills, save the Truenamer. If a class's function is good skills, then I don't see why it shouldn't be a Rogue.

Saph
2007-09-28, 07:47 PM
And your full attack with a bow will be hideously unimpressive, and in general not worth the arrows. Unless you have bonus damage dice, in which case you've multiclassed.

What's your basis of comparison here? A full attack with a bow does comparable damage to a full attack with a longsword. Hardly 'hideously unimpressive'. There are straight-classed rangers in both the parties I currently play in and they do their job fine - putting out a steady, reliable amount of ranged damage.

If you're comparing an archery ranger to the 20th-level steroidal mutants on the CharOp boards, then of course it's going to look weak. Just about anything will. I think you've missed Skjald's point - if a class can routinely kill equal-CR enemies in one round, that is a bad thing. Being overpowered is the sign of a badly-balanced class, not a well-balanced one. I'd say it's fairly obvious that the Ranger is a much better model for class balance than, say, the Druid.

- Saph

PinkysBrain
2007-09-28, 08:12 PM
Effectively, I get to be an archer that isn't hosed in melee. This also lets me set up a battlefield, and then force the enemy to come to me. 2WF generally isn't worth spending feats on, but when you get it for free, I think it is worthwhile.
Except you are still giving up feats because you are taking archery on the side. Clearly your second option of using the archery style with THF is by far superior.

-Rogue's best friend. A ranger can easily match the rogue's stealth, and thus a ranger can accompany the rogue on scouting missions, which really helps if things go to dreck.
Scouting missions like casters make part of the team stand on the sidelines being useless ...

Also, scouting is pretty much the only thing a ranger's animal companion is good for
It's too dumb to scout on it's own and too poor at stealth accompany you. Like TWF there is just no rescueing the ranger's animal companion (other than houserules).

All that said, core only a THF+archery style ranger is very playable. Although personally I'd houserule the effective druid level to be level-4 and allow the natural bond feat ... because as it is the animal companion is just a monster appetizer.

Neon Knight
2007-09-28, 08:51 PM
What's your basis of comparison here? A full attack with a bow does comparable damage to a full attack with a longsword. Hardly 'hideously unimpressive'. There are straight-classed rangers in both the parties I currently play in and they do their job fine - putting out a steady, reliable amount of ranged damage.

If you're comparing an archery ranger to the 20th-level steroidal mutants on the CharOp boards, then of course it's going to look weak. Just about anything will. I think you've missed Skjald's point - if a class can routinely kill equal-CR enemies in one round, that is a bad thing. Being overpowered is the sign of a badly-balanced class, not a well-balanced one. I'd say it's fairly obvious that the Ranger is a much better model for class balance than, say, the Druid.

- Saph

I have three base lines for comparison (unless I'm using ToB):

A 2H Power Attacking Fighter. (If you do less than he does on single strikes and full attacks, you're not up to scratch.)

A 2H Raging Power Attacking Barbarian. (If you do more than he does on single strikes and full attacks, you're nearing overpowered/possibly overpowered.)

A 2H Leaping Shock Trooper Power Attacker of Doom. (If you do anywhere near this type of damage, you're cheesier than an 80's after school special.)

The primary problem with the ranged attacker is that he has nothing like Power Attack. Power Attack scales with level and is my basis for minimum melee effectiveness (Unless ToB is in play.)

I am, I admit, underselling archery by quite a bit. An archer without the much vaunted, oft repeated bonus damage dice (I'm sick of that phrase) will not do as much damage as on a full attack as a 2H melee guy, he will get to full attack more often.

So the comparison is hardly against one shotting type damage output. It is against somewhat optimized damage output, but not the transforms-the-enemy-into-paste-with-a-single-blow output you imply.

I think both Ranger and Druid are poor examples of class balance, as is the Fighter and Wizard, and the Monk and Cleric. The only good example I can think of is the Rogue, which does almost exactly what it was intended to do and does so without stepping on other people's toes.

Skjaldbakka
2007-09-28, 09:01 PM
Except you are still giving up feats because you are taking archery on the side.

It takes three feats to be competent at archery and powerful in melee: Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, and Power Attack. You get all of them by 6th level, 3rd if you are human. (and power attack doesn't come into its own until then, anyway. you need your to-hit more at low level).



Clearly your second option of using the archery style with THF is by far superior.
I agree:


I already said you are probably better off taking the archery style and using a two-handed sword (as backup). Getting 2WF for free makes it almost worth doing as a ranger.

Neon Knight
2007-09-28, 09:05 PM
It takes three feats to be competent at archery and powerful in melee: Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, and Power Attack. You get all of them by 6th level, 3rd if you are human.


I disagree. That gets you competent at melee and poor at archery in my book. Competent at archery comes with manyshot. Powerful comes with the (you guessed it) bonus damage dice and greater manyshot.

Powerful at melee? That comes with either some shock trooping (and truthfully, if done right, shock trooping becomes cheese) or some ToB.

Skjaldbakka
2007-09-28, 09:17 PM
Competent at archery comes with manyshot

Ranger.


Powerful at melee? That comes with either some shock trooping (and truthfully, if done right, shock trooping becomes cheese) or some ToB.

We clearly have different concepts of powerful. I still say all you really need is power attack, a 2HW, and a good to-hit.


Powerful comes with the (you guessed it) bonus damage dice and greater manyshot.

Bonus damage dice is equipment-based, not feat based. The only other source of bonus damage I can think of is precision-based, which is unreliable. A rogue archer can do better than a ranger archer, but a rogue archer is more pwned in melee than an archer ranger with power attack and a 2HW.


And there is a lot of to be said for ignoring the #1 problem fighters have. A ranger can always make a full attack w/o having to move. A ranger also doens't have to get in melee with enemies you don't want to be in melee with. Like That Damn Crab.

Shatteredtower
2007-09-28, 09:38 PM
No, I'd say TWF is very near worthless, as all its real benefits are tied to the full attack...Which is very easy to get if you stick to melee weapons with a ranged increment. Trident and throwing axe make for a good combination.

There is no sensible reason for prohibiting a character from making both ranged and melee attacks in the same round, and no rules-based one either.

The load can get a bit heavy if you're preparing for a minute-long shoot-em-up, but it's not like most combats go beyond round three. Quick Draw is a must, however.


...and the possession of a source of bonus damage dice.Half-orc favouring Strength over Dexterity all the way. Quick Draw and Two-Weapon Fighting. Brutal Throw boosts your chances of hitting at range. Take Power Attack, and follow it up with Power Throw -- no benefit to your second weapon, but that second weapon is your bonus die of damage.

You have the option of using the trident as a two-handed weapon, which makes the most of your Power Attack option. That won't beat a greatsword, except that you can throw it -- and boost its damage at 12th level with Power Throw.

If you're really in a rush, you can always take the poor man's Power Attack: Monkey Grip.

Wait! Wait, no, hear me out. I know it's a bad feat. I know the arguments and I don't dispute them. Unless there are retraining rules, take Power Attack with this setup instead and wait for your Power Throw.

But it does let you wield a weapon doing 2d6 + Str bonus in one hand while wielding a second doing 1d6 + 1/2 Str bonus in the other. It will let you do this damage at range, and, unlike Power Attack/Power Throw, it only affects your chance to hit with attacks from the weapon doing extra damage.

Yes, I know that Monkey Grip only works with melee weapons. However, the rules say that some melee weapons, such as tridents, can be thrown, and Monkey Grip's is limited to melee weapons, not melee attacks. (No, really. You can't use Monkey Grip with a double weapon or one wielded in your off hand, but there is no prohibition on throwing an oversized melee weapon with this feat.)

It's a bloody expensive build, one that begs for a fighter level or two (especially if you want to throw in Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting and wield tridents with each hand). Its AC is poor, but the objective is to hit hard and fast. This is why the half-orc favouring Str over Dex is suggested: Str offsets the oversized or PA penalty by 1 point and increases damage as well. The Monkey Grip gives -3/-1 on the effective attack rolls for +3.5/+0.5 extra damage. Focusing on Strength beyond that doesn't help the attack rolls, but it does boost the damage.

Neutralize charging opportunities and it's not that badly off against melee fighters or barbarians. Of course, it's hardly the best ranger build. Truth be told, this is the sort of build you'd only give to an NPC (especially with Monkey Grip -- Ugh!). The design merely exists to refute people's assumptions about what you can and can't do with Two-Weapon Fighting.

And half-orc rangers. And Monkey Grip, for that matter -- not that it redeems the feat. Bleah.

Neon Knight
2007-09-28, 09:46 PM
Ranger.

An error on my part, then. The feats granted by the Combat style are sort of bizarre from a power perspective. Rapid Shot, which is generally considered poor, the Manyshot, which is useful until overshadowed by its greater brethren, and then Improved Precise Shot, which is... well... quite poor.

As such, I tend to forget that Manyshot is in that group. Quite frankly, I'm so used to throwing the whole thing aside as not worth my time form a mechanics perspective that I forgot the specifics of the mechanics.

I'd like to note that the sole benefit of using Ranger to get Manyshot is really not needing 17 DEX. All the other requirements can easily be met by a fighter. Nott hat a fighter archer is any better off than a ranger archer.




We clearly have different concepts of powerful. I still say all you really need is power attack, a 2HW, and a good to-hit.

To be fair, ToB classes just do the damage fighters do with full attacks using standard actions. Its more of a "can apply their power more often" thing, rather than being outright more powerful.

Shocktroopers do the same thing, except with a charge action.




Bonus damage dice is equipment-based, not feat based. The only other source of bonus damage I can think of is precision-based, which is unreliable. A rogue archer can do better than a ranger archer, but a rogue archer is more pwned in melee than an archer ranger with power attack and a 2HW.

Sneak attack and skirmish damage are the two holy grails of bonus damage dice. Precision based damage isn't actually all that hard to get. Just deny the enemy their DEX bonus to AC. You can do that in a vast amount of ways.

Also, a rogue archer is not more pwned in melee. Why? Because he can have weapon finesse, TWF, and actually benefit from it thanks to his bonus damage dice. TWF becomes viable with that sneak attack.

Both the Ranger and the Rogue will have comparable ACs, being limited to light armor and focusing on DEX. You advantage over the rogue in melee will be... 1.5 HP on average per level. You can see why I am not convinced.



And there is a lot of to be said for ignoring the #1 problem fighters have. A ranger can always make a full attack w/o having to move. A ranger also doens't have to get in melee with enemies you don't want to be in melee with. Like That Damn Crab.

You're scared of that crab, aren't you? Yes, removing the full attack weakness is a great boon. That's why ToB classes rock so hard. you do have a point here, but I don't think its quite enough to save it form being in the lower tier of DnD classes.

Fax Celestis
2007-09-28, 09:54 PM
You're scared of that crab, aren't you? Yes, removing the full attack weakness is a great boon. That's why ToB classes rock so hard. you do have a point here, but I don't think its quite enough to save it form being in the lower tier of DnD classes.

Apparently you've never fought that crab, or anything like it. Without range, you are so much dead meat.

Skjaldbakka
2007-09-28, 10:00 PM
Precision damage isn't hard to get, it is unreliable. Lots of things are immune to it.

And ranger is most definitely not low-tier. It is rather solidly middle-tier.

Low tier is monk and CW samurai. Truenamer used to low tier, but it fell off.:smallwink:

Ranger is better than fighter (class features are better than bonus feats). It is about even with the rogue. Sure, the rogue sometimes does better damage, but the ranger doesn't have to spend feats to get 2WF (if he really wants to go there), and has a full BAB to power attack with (if he doesn't).

Ranger isn't quite up to par with barbarian, though, IMO.

But then maybe my scale is off. I put casters floating above the dock, with ToB classes and Barbarian on the top tier.

Kaelik
2007-09-28, 10:31 PM
Ranger is better than fighter (class features are better than bonus feats).

Class features like:
1)Favored Enemy (Not that great)
2)Animal Companion (Chomped down in the first fight of the day)
3)Bonus Feats?? Oh wait.
4)Spells-we all know that spells kick ass.

Dullyanna
2007-09-28, 10:42 PM
Class features like:
1)Favored Enemy (Not that great)
2)Animal Companion (Chomped down in the first fight of the day)
3)Bonus Feats?? Oh wait.
4)Spells-we all know that spells kick ass.

Don't forget that
5)Skill points/selection:you get to sneak around and crap like that.
6)You don't get medium/heavy armor.
7)Hide in plain sight:Sorta nifty, but not at level 17, where a lot of enemies can pull some variation of Detect:You out of their asses.

Neon Knight
2007-09-28, 10:43 PM
Which is very easy to get if you stick to melee weapons with a ranged increment. Trident and throwing axe make for a good combination.

There is no sensible reason for prohibiting a character from making both ranged and melee attacks in the same round, and no rules-based one either.

The load can get a bit heavy if you're preparing for a minute-long shoot-em-up, but it's not like most combats go beyond round three. Quick Draw is a must, however.

Half-orc favouring Strength over Dexterity all the way. Quick Draw and Two-Weapon Fighting. Brutal Throw boosts your chances of hitting at range. Take Power Attack, and follow it up with Power Throw -- no benefit to your second weapon, but that second weapon is your bonus die of damage.

You have the option of using the trident as a two-handed weapon, which makes the most of your Power Attack option. That won't beat a greatsword, except that you can throw it -- and boost its damage at 12th level with Power Throw.

If you're really in a rush, you can always take the poor man's Power Attack: Monkey Grip.

Wait! Wait, no, hear me out. I know it's a bad feat. I know the arguments and I don't dispute them. Unless there are retraining rules, take Power Attack with this setup instead and wait for your Power Throw.

But it does let you wield a weapon doing 2d6 + Str bonus in one hand while wielding a second doing 1d6 + 1/2 Str bonus in the other. It will let you do this damage at range, and, unlike Power Attack/Power Throw, it only affects your chance to hit with attacks from the weapon doing extra damage.

Yes, I know that Monkey Grip only works with melee weapons. However, the rules say that some melee weapons, such as tridents, can be thrown, and Monkey Grip's is limited to melee weapons, not melee attacks. (No, really. You can't use Monkey Grip with a double weapon or one wielded in your off hand, but there is no prohibition on throwing an oversized melee weapon with this feat.)

It's a bloody expensive build, one that begs for a fighter level or two (especially if you want to throw in Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting and wield tridents with each hand). Its AC is poor, but the objective is to hit hard and fast. This is why the half-orc favouring Str over Dex is suggested: Str offsets the oversized or PA penalty by 1 point and increases damage as well. The Monkey Grip gives -3/-1 on the effective attack rolls for +3.5/+0.5 extra damage. Focusing on Strength beyond that doesn't help the attack rolls, but it does boost the damage.

Neutralize charging opportunities and it's not that badly off against melee fighters or barbarians. Of course, it's hardly the best ranger build. Truth be told, this is the sort of build you'd only give to an NPC (especially with Monkey Grip -- Ugh!). The design merely exists to refute people's assumptions about what you can and can't do with Two-Weapon Fighting.

And half-orc rangers. And Monkey Grip, for that matter -- not that it redeems the feat. Bleah.

Interesting.

Personally, though, I feel it doesn't make TWF worthwhile for either a ranger or a fighter. What does is (le sigh) bonus damage dice. A single damage dice at a to-hit cost? Not worth it when a rogue can get damage dice essentially free. And the rogue's damage dice scale, unlike this build.

So, overall? In my opinion, this proposal has some merit at low levels, but is rapidly out scaled by competitors (Although as noted below, those competitors have situations where their advantage is negated.) Not only are the bonus damage dice presented not sufficient to make TWF worthwhile, but Power attacking while TWF is strictly worse than power attacking while THF. Hm...

Unless you can use a weapon two handed when you throw it. For that matter, can you charge with a throw weapon? That'd be funny. Shock trooper using thrown weapons. Heh.


Precision damage isn't hard to get, it is unreliable. Lots of things are immune to it.

And ranger is most definitely not low-tier. It is rather solidly middle-tier.

Low tier is monk and CW samurai. Truenamer used to low tier, but it fell off.:smallwink:

Ranger is better than fighter (class features are better than bonus feats). It is about even with the rogue. Sure, the rogue sometimes does better damage, but the ranger doesn't have to spend feats to get 2WF (if he really wants to go there), and has a full BAB to power attack with (if he doesn't).

Ranger isn't quite up to par with barbarian, though, IMO.

But then maybe my scale is off. I put casters floating above the dock, with ToB classes and Barbarian on the top tier.

Touché. Every rogue secretly cries inside whenever a golem, plant, or undead lurches into view.

Perhaps low tier was bad choice. The Ranger does have spellcasting, spellcasting that is rather good with supplements. Fine, I can agree on middle tier.

For reference, on my scale, the big three have bested the gods in a fish slapping contest and have ascended to the heavens. ToB classes are in a sort of void between middle tier and top tier. Top tier is held by all those partial spellcasting classes like Duskblades. And some forms of Bard.

Middle Tier is everyone without spellcasting who isn't a Fighter, Monk, Truenamer, or Samurai. (Note: The Paladin and Ranger do have spellcasting progressions, but not terribly strong ones. Supplements help this, but still, their primary power is normal cobmat abilities.)

Hawriel
2007-09-29, 12:06 AM
I really do like the ranger as a class. All of your suggestions for changing are ones Ive thought of as well.

up to 5d6 sneak attack is nice. The scout version of sneak attack thats just bad consept. You move 10 feat thus mutliplying the damage of your one arrow by 5. right, because running adds momentum to the shot.

A better animal combanion progretion. 1/2 level is to low but 3 or 4 levels behind a druid is just right. Unless Im playing a real Mogli / Tarzan style character a dog, wolf, falcon, hawk, eagle, and horse are my picks. No one els mentioned horse? very useful. yes it's a large critter but it fits. I buy a horse any way so by the time Im high enough level to have a horse for a companion I have it.

weapon styles. Ive really thought that the fighter should have that class ability. But sence its the ranger why stop at two weapon and archery? why not a two handed progretion or sword and shield, and mounted?

Sence this came off a staff using rogue thread. I think a staff using ranger would be great. Very fitting. the ranger would be armed with a bow, quarterstaff, hatchet and dagger. There you go. Sence a ranger needs to be practical all his weapons are for fighting and have utilitarian uses.

as for favored enemy eh take it or leave it. If leave it maybe trade in for sneak attack or bonus feats.

Rockphed
2007-09-29, 12:51 AM
As a note, a Ranger who gets Level - 3 Animal companion progression and uses it as a mount has a mount that has comparable durability to a Paladin's at level 20. One that uses Level/2 progression has a mount that cannot stand up in combat or has something to provide flanking for 1 round or has something flavorful that really shouldn't be counted as a class feature.

Saph
2007-09-29, 05:57 AM
I disagree. That gets you competent at melee and poor at archery in my book. Competent at archery comes with manyshot. Powerful comes with the (you guessed it) bonus damage dice and greater manyshot.

Man, you're absolutely obsessed with bonus damage dice. How many times now have you repeated it? Five? Six? :smalltongue:

Anyway, it's not that hard to get with a pure Ranger. Buy an energy augment crystal, and energy enhancements for your bow as well. Since you can full attack with Rapid Shot pretty much every round, you get much more use out of those +1d6 enhancements than a melee charger does. When you're hitting three times a round, it adds up fast.

Of course, some things are immune to energy, but hey, some things are immune to precision damage too.

- Saph

Neon Knight
2007-09-29, 06:17 AM
Man, you're absolutely obsessed with bonus damage dice. How many times now have you repeated it? Five? Six? :smalltongue:

Anyway, it's not that hard to get with a pure Ranger. Buy an energy augment crystal, and energy enhancements for your bow as well. Since you can full attack with Rapid Shot pretty much every round, you get much more use out of those +1d6 enhancements than a melee charger does. When you're hitting three times a round, it adds up fast.

Of course, some things are immune to energy, but hey, some things are immune to precision damage too.

- Saph

Well, when speaking of the aforementioned thing, one usually discounts equipment based sources of this thing, because equipment is usable by anyone. When I refer to this thing, I'm usually talking about precision based damage.

At any rate, the rogue gets 2d6 for free, (unless he is in a circumstance that negates this) and that 2d6 improves naturally a she gains class levels. To tell you the truth, I am not 100% certain what the minimum extra amount of bonus damage dice is to become effective, not having done the math myself.

The impression I get, however, is that equipment based BDD is not enough on its own. After all, CRs assume you have a certain amount of wealth per level, and it also assumes you have magic items. Thus, I think monsters are designed with enough HP to take an extra +2d6 regularly and still keep ticking. +4d6 or +5d6, not so much. But, again, I haven't done any math or actual crunch to support this. I may actually peruse this further and do the math.

Saph
2007-09-29, 06:44 AM
The impression I get, however, is that equipment based BDD is not enough on its own. After all, CRs assume you have a certain amount of wealth per level, and it also assumes you have magic items. Thus, I think monsters are designed with enough HP to take an extra +2d6 regularly and still keep ticking. +4d6 or +5d6, not so much. But, again, I haven't done any math or actual crunch to support this. I may actually peruse this further and do the math.

Probably - but it's quite hard for a rogue to consistently do full sneak attack damage with full attacks. Tumble into position and get off one sneak attack? Sure. Stand there flanking an opponent and TWF for 2-3 turns running? Much riskier, unless the rogue has a friendly spellcaster casting Greater Invisibility or something on her.

That's one of the big advantages of archery - you get to full attack pretty much every turn, and you don't have to get within reach of the monster.

- Saph

Lycurgus
2007-09-29, 07:25 AM
Rangers are great because they fill their roles from a roleplaying perspective. Just like every other class. I don't understand why it's so important to do everything with one character. I don't understand all the need to do all these huge amounts of damage or overpower everything. It's like some of you guys are playing table-top computer games. Not that all these kooky classes and what-not being released constantly makes things any better. If I get the urge to run around randomly killing things, I have a Playstation. I think I'm going to burn all these books and go back to my Big Red Box.

Merlin the Tuna
2007-09-29, 02:00 PM
The feats granted by the Combat style are sort of bizarre from a power perspective. Rapid Shot, which is generally considered poor, the Manyshot, which is useful until overshadowed by its greater brethren, and then Improved Precise Shot, which is... well... quite poor.I have absolutely never heard this suggested at all. I mean, I've seen Monte Cook (who absolutely designs for high-powered games) say it's overpowered and shouldn't exist. And I've seen every archery-centric character ever created use Rapid Shot as often as possible. Lacking Power Attack and able to focus near-exclusively on dexterity, I've never seen a dedicated archer that had trouble hitting things, and as a result the penalty isn't too bad. In exchange for accepting it, you're increasing damage dealt for the archer (which while good in the long terms isn't necessarily good now) as well as increasing the flexibility you have in terms of who you're dealing damage to, which is an archer's primary strength.

And again, I've never witnessed a ranged build that didn't take Rapid Shot (and I include the considerable amount of builds I've seen at CharOp in that), and Rapid Shot is pretty much always Plan A for said builds.

Neon Knight
2007-09-29, 02:49 PM
I have absolutely never heard this suggested at all. I mean, I've seen Monte Cook (who absolutely designs for high-powered games) say it's overpowered and shouldn't exist. And I've seen every archery-centric character ever created use Rapid Shot as often as possible. Lacking Power Attack and able to focus near-exclusively on dexterity, I've never seen a dedicated archer that had trouble hitting things, and as a result the penalty isn't too bad. In exchange for accepting it, you're increasing damage dealt for the archer (which while good in the long terms isn't necessarily good now) as well as increasing the flexibility you have in terms of who you're dealing damage to, which is an archer's primary strength.

And again, I've never witnessed a ranged build that didn't take Rapid Shot (and I include the considerable amount of builds I've seen at CharOp in that), and Rapid Shot is pretty much always Plan A for said builds.

Rapid Shot is a prerequisite for Manyshot, which is a prerequisite for Greater Manyshot. The reason Greater Manyshot rocks is because it lets you fire a bunch of arrows at once and precision damage applies to each arrow, and each arrow can crit. Most importantly, this attack is a standard action.

Rapidshot just gives you an extra attack on a full attack.

Perhaps poor was a, well, poor choice of words. Hopelessly outclassed, then. Greater Manyshot is such a better option, it's just a no-duh to use it over Rapidshot.

BardicDuelist
2007-09-29, 04:08 PM
The scout version of sneak attack thats just bad consept. You move 10 feat thus mutliplying the damage of your one arrow by 5. right, because running adds momentum to the shot.


I always described it as moving distracting your opponent so that you got a better shot. Or moving to get a better angle. It does make more sense for melee though.

As far as rangers go, I prefer to go archery and take power attack to help with melee. If I go TWF, I still take power attack and use a quarterstaff, since full melee attacks are hard to come by. I also prefer the trapfinding variant in Dungeonscape so that I can be a skill monkey and a warrior pretty well.

Taking the wildshape variant is also somthing I considered, since the weapon styles seem silly to me sometimes, but then I feel a lot like a druid.

Animal companions are usually a hawk or somthing that I use to help scout.

Merlin the Tuna
2007-09-29, 05:26 PM
Perhaps poor was a, well, poor choice of words. Hopelessly outclassed, then.Rapid Shot vs. Manyshot Rapid Shot is available at 1st level with 13 Dex and 1 other feat. Manyshot is available at 6th level with 17 Dex and 2 other feats. Point: Rapid Shot
Rapid Shot gives an additional attack, applying a -2 penalty to all attacks. Manyshot grants no additional attacks, applying a -4 (eventually -6 and -8) penalty to all attacks. Point: Rapid Shot.
Rapid Shot is usable at all ranges. Manyshot must be used within 30 feet. Point: Rapid Shot.
Rapid Shot can be used on weapons which are not bows, whereas Manyshot cannot. Point: Rapid Shot.
Manyshot is a standard action. Rapid Shot requires a full attack. Point: Manyshot.
Manyshot applies precision damage and critical hits once. Rapid Shot resolves these per-shot. Point: Rapid Shot.
Manyshot involves a single attack roll, making it all or nothing. Rapid Shot uses individual attack rolls, making it more reliable in being at least somewhat effective. Personal preference goes to Rapid Shot on this one, though admittedly this is a job for statistics.
Manyshot mandates that all arrows be fired at the same target. Rapid Shot allows attacks to be spread as necessary. Point: Rapid Shot.
Discounting point number 7, the current score is Rapid Shot: 6 to Manyshot: 1. Further, from a qualitative standpoint, the advantages of using ranged combat are being far from the threat (accentuating Rapid Shot's advantage in point 3) and not needing to move to be able to attack the threat (diminishing Manyshot's advantage in point 5). Manyshot just got pasted.

With that done, what does Greater Manyshot actually change?

Point 1 shifts further in Rapid Shot's favor as the feat requirements rise on the other side. Not only that, Greater Manyshot is a non-core feat, another black - or I guess we can say gray - mark against it.

Points 2, 3, and 4 are not affected by upgrading to Greater Manyshot, remaining in Rapid Shot's favor. Point 5 is not affected by the upgrade either, remaining Greater Manyshot's favor, dubious as the honor may be.

Points 6, 7, and 8 are affected by the change, but only insofar as to bring them to exactly the same point that Rapid Shot was already at, making these points a wash. We can effectively erase these from the board, putting us at this.

Rapid Shot v. Greater Manyshot Rapid Shot is available at 1st level with 13 Dex and 1 other feat. Manyshot is available at 6th level with 17 Dex and 3 other feats. Greater Manyshot is non-core. Point: Rapid Shot
Rapid Shot gives an additional attack, applying a -2 penalty to all attacks. Greater Manyshot grants no additional attacks, applying a -4 (eventually -6 and -8) penalty to all attacks. Point: Rapid Shot.
Rapid Shot is usable at all ranges. Greater Manyshot must be used within 30 feet. Point: Rapid Shot.
Rapid Shot can be used on weapons which are not bows, whereas Greater Manyshot cannot. Point: Rapid Shot.
Greater Manyshot is a standard action. Rapid Shot requires a full attack. Point: Greater Manyshot.Rapid shot is more available, more powerful, safer, and more versatile. Greater Manyshot is more mobile, on an archetype for whom mobility is typically not an advantage.

To me, that does not say that Greater Manyshot hopelessly outclasses Rapid Shot. Rather, it suggests that grabbing Greater Manyshot makes you look like a sucker more often than not. In most situations, I'd skip both Manyshots entirely, opting for feats with some synergy with my existing abilities -- Improved Critical, for example -- instead. I could also see grabbing Manyshot and Complete Warrior's Improved Rapid Shot (which requires Manyshot) as well to eliminate the attack roll penalty on Rapid Shot. But I'd hesitate to say that the Manyshot tree is even worth half a damn, much less good.

Kaelik
2007-09-29, 05:54 PM
*Long post ignoring benefits of Greater Manyshot*

A) What is better? 2 Arrows with lots of Sneak Attack on it? Or 4 Arrows with lots of SA on it?

B) Are manyshot and rapid shot actually mutually exclusive? What's to stop you from taking a Full Attack to fire out a Manyshot, followed by iterative attacks (including the second one from Rapid shot)? Does Manyshot specify that it must be a standard action?

Spiryt
2007-09-29, 05:57 PM
Well, I will add just my two cents:

Rapid shot basically allow you to shot 3 arrow (levels 6 -10) at enemy 330ft away with - 6 penalty. Nice stuff like flight arrows from Rades of Faerun will change it to 405 ft. Very few monster can do it within less than 3 rounds. And land ones would have to run to make it = no Dex bonus to AC.

And Manyshot stays at 30'.

It is obvious reason for using ranged weapons - their range.

My players finished quite a lot ecounters with bows only, even though they are melee types, just beacuse enemies were shooting from large distance, and there were a lot of them.

But, yes, in stereotypical "hey there are next monsters" dungeon rapid shot and ranged weapon in general have much less sense.

Merlin the Tuna
2007-09-29, 05:59 PM
A) What is better? 2 Arrows with lots of Sneak Attack on it? Or 4 Arrows with lots of SA on it?

B) Are manyshot and rapid shot actually mutually exclusive? What's to stop you from taking a Full Attack to fire out a Manyshot, followed by iterative attacks (including the second one from Rapid shot)? Does Manyshot specify that it must be a standard action?
Manyshot is a standard action. Rapid Shot requires a full attack. Point: Manyshot.In short, "The Rules" are what's keeping you from firing of a Manyshot followed by the rest of a full attack. I imagine you made A) assuming that that was possible for some reason, but as it isn't, I'll steer you back to this.
Rapid Shot gives an additional attack, applying a -2 penalty to all attacks. Manyshot grants no additional attacks, applying a -4 (eventually -6 and -8) penalty to all attacks. Point: Rapid Shot.

Fax Celestis
2007-09-29, 06:02 PM
A) What is better? 2 Arrows with lots of Sneak Attack on it? Or 4 Arrows with lots of SA on it?
We're talking about rangers, last I checked. They do not get SA.


B) Are manyshot and rapid shot actually mutually exclusive? What's to stop you from taking a Full Attack to fire out a Manyshot, followed by iterative attacks (including the second one from Rapid shot)? Does Manyshot specify that it must be a standard action?
Yes, they are. Manyshot specifically says "as a standard action."

Kaelik
2007-09-29, 06:56 PM
We're talking about rangers, last I checked. They do not get SA.

Well actually we were talking about how rangers aren't competent at archery compared to rouges. But whatever. Also, Scout/Ranger Swift Hunter. Added bonus of only getting that damage with Many Shot.


Yes, they are. Manyshot specifically says "as a standard action."

Okay, thank you.

@Merlin:
I was asking if the description actually forced that interpretation. I didn't see a description anywhere in your post. Only a few "summaries."

Fax Celestis
2007-09-29, 07:55 PM
Well actually we were talking about how rangers aren't competent at archery compared to rouges. But whatever. Also, Scout/Ranger Swift Hunter. Added bonus of only getting that damage with Many Shot.

Only getting that damage with Manyshot? How do you figure? A ranger using Rapid Shot that qualifies for Sneak Attack still gets that bonus damage on all his arrows fired--and doesn't get it on Manyshot but for the first arrow. He gets it on Greater Manyshot--which he actually has to spend a feat on, since he doesn't get it as a bonus feat.

Another problem inherent with this is that Sneak Attack dice are notoriously hard to qualify for without either melee or spells. There are very few spells the Ranger has access to (without cross-classing UMD) that allow him to set up the ability to target multiple enemies with Sneak Attacking ranged attacks, and those that he does have access to are at a lower caster level than other spellcasters. As a halfcaster, his caster level is weak and his save DCs are going to be subpar, which means that even those spells he does have access to that will help him obtain Sneak Attack (such as entangle (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/entangle.htm)) are not going to be very effective--if they are effective at all.

Furthermore--and yes, I am aware of the Favored Enemy/Sneak Attack alterations due to Swift Hunter--you can't Sneak Attack any target you like. Many are immune to critical hits, others are unable to be flanked or flat-footed. Even with Swift Hunter, you only get so many Favored Enemies.

Certainly, it's nice to be able to put down on your sheet +8d6 Sneak Attack, but how often, really, are you going to qualify for it with ranged attacks?

Azerian Kelimon
2007-09-29, 08:03 PM
Yep, most mods don't think about high or epic levels. If you gonna make a special ability that adds die for attacking a special place or in a special way, add "This X is not affected by immunity to critical hits or sneak attacks".

Neon Knight
2007-09-29, 09:55 PM
Rapid Shot vs. Manyshot Rapid Shot is available at 1st level with 13 Dex and 1 other feat. Manyshot is available at 6th level with 17 Dex and 2 other feats. Point: Rapid Shot
Rapid Shot gives an additional attack, applying a -2 penalty to all attacks. Manyshot grants no additional attacks, applying a -4 (eventually -6 and -8) penalty to all attacks. Point: Rapid Shot.
Rapid Shot is usable at all ranges. Manyshot must be used within 30 feet. Point: Rapid Shot.
Rapid Shot can be used on weapons which are not bows, whereas Manyshot cannot. Point: Rapid Shot.
Manyshot is a standard action. Rapid Shot requires a full attack. Point: Manyshot.
Manyshot applies precision damage and critical hits once. Rapid Shot resolves these per-shot. Point: Rapid Shot.
Manyshot involves a single attack roll, making it all or nothing. Rapid Shot uses individual attack rolls, making it more reliable in being at least somewhat effective. Personal preference goes to Rapid Shot on this one, though admittedly this is a job for statistics.
Manyshot mandates that all arrows be fired at the same target. Rapid Shot allows attacks to be spread as necessary. Point: Rapid Shot.
Discounting point number 7, the current score is Rapid Shot: 6 to Manyshot: 1. Further, from a qualitative standpoint, the advantages of using ranged combat are being far from the threat (accentuating Rapid Shot's advantage in point 3) and not needing to move to be able to attack the threat (diminishing Manyshot's advantage in point 5). Manyshot just got pasted.

With that done, what does Greater Manyshot actually change?

Point 1 shifts further in Rapid Shot's favor as the feat requirements rise on the other side. Not only that, Greater Manyshot is a non-core feat, another black - or I guess we can say gray - mark against it.

Points 2, 3, and 4 are not affected by upgrading to Greater Manyshot, remaining in Rapid Shot's favor. Point 5 is not affected by the upgrade either, remaining Greater Manyshot's favor, dubious as the honor may be.

Points 6, 7, and 8 are affected by the change, but only insofar as to bring them to exactly the same point that Rapid Shot was already at, making these points a wash. We can effectively erase these from the board, putting us at this.

Rapid Shot v. Greater Manyshot Rapid Shot is available at 1st level with 13 Dex and 1 other feat. Manyshot is available at 6th level with 17 Dex and 3 other feats. Greater Manyshot is non-core. Point: Rapid Shot
Rapid Shot gives an additional attack, applying a -2 penalty to all attacks. Greater Manyshot grants no additional attacks, applying a -4 (eventually -6 and -8) penalty to all attacks. Point: Rapid Shot.
Rapid Shot is usable at all ranges. Greater Manyshot must be used within 30 feet. Point: Rapid Shot.
Rapid Shot can be used on weapons which are not bows, whereas Greater Manyshot cannot. Point: Rapid Shot.
Greater Manyshot is a standard action. Rapid Shot requires a full attack. Point: Greater Manyshot.Rapid shot is more available, more powerful, safer, and more versatile. Greater Manyshot is more mobile, on an archetype for whom mobility is typically not an advantage.

To me, that does not say that Greater Manyshot hopelessly outclasses Rapid Shot. Rather, it suggests that grabbing Greater Manyshot makes you look like a sucker more often than not. In most situations, I'd skip both Manyshots entirely, opting for feats with some synergy with my existing abilities -- Improved Critical, for example -- instead. I could also see grabbing Manyshot and Complete Warrior's Improved Rapid Shot (which requires Manyshot) as well to eliminate the attack roll penalty on Rapid Shot. But I'd hesitate to say that the Manyshot tree is even worth half a damn, much less good.

A Rogue or Scout must be within 30ft for his precision damage to work anyway. In that scenario, Greater Many Shot is vastly superior to Rapuid shot.

And those precision damage archer builds are the only archer builds "even worth half a damn", aside from archer cleric.

Hawriel
2007-09-29, 09:58 PM
As a note, a Ranger who gets Level - 3 Animal companion progression and uses it as a mount has a mount that has comparable durability to a Paladin's at level 20. One that uses Level/2 progression has a mount that cannot stand up in combat or has something to provide flanking for 1 round or has something flavorful that really shouldn't be counted as a class feature.

To be quite honest I really dont care about the palandin. In that I mean if your going to desine a class whare half the value of the class is in its mount, that class is messed up. I would note that a rangers animal companion does not hide in an extra dementional pocket like the paladins. Well lets take a look at a paladins horse. by 20th level it would get empathic link, imp evasion, share spell, share saves, imp speed, command creartures of its kind (oh that one steps on ranger toes :smallamused: ) oh and the big one at 20 spell resistance.

under the ranger class, it sais that a ranger can have a horse. that would be at 14th level. lets just compare a 20th rangers horse. it is as a druid 1/2 level. Link, share spells, evasion, devotion, multiattack.

so the rangers or duids horse cant command other horses but the paladins can. the paladins horse gets imp evasion at 5th level. no SR for the druid/ranger eather. the link is weaker for them as well. yeah your right a ranger with an animal companion set at -3 I would changed it to -5 will definitely over shadow the paladins. Well paladins are a very self-consciuse class to beggin with. :smallwink: Honsetly there is no threat to the paladin here.

FAX:

why do you need majer mojo to gain sneak attack? What is your fixation on hunter style class shooting arrows like Rambo? A ranger gets sneak attack attemps just like a rogue. With the hide skill. Any good ranger would have it.
The ranger is a hunter if he wanted somthing dead, make a trap lure it in or stalk it with bow or spear. If a bow, one shot to the heart from hiding. If a spear well you can set up an ambush with that to. Again why does a ranger have to shoot at multipal enemies needing to sneak attack every one? A rogue doesnt jump into a hord of orcs looking to sneak attack. If the ranger was on his own he wouldnt just start shooting a large number of orcs. If he was in a group he wouldnt need to shoot all of the orcs at once. Rangers are hunters well placed shot for best effect. Or gorilla fighters they attack the flanks killing a hanful at best. Luring them into traps, destroying supplies, cutting comunications all that fun nasty stuff. Doing all that the rangers biggest weapon is fear.

Skjaldbakka
2007-09-29, 10:02 PM
Precision-based damage wants lots of attacks, right? Rapid Shot gives you more attacks/round than Greater Manyshot does anyway. Which makes G. Manyshot only really worthwhile with scouts, and then only because they have to move to get skirmish damage.


The ranger is a hunter if he wanted somthing dead, make a trap lure it in or stalk it with bow or spear. If a bow, one shot to the heart from hiding. If a spear well you can set up an ambush with that to. Again why does a ranger have to shoot at mustlipal enemies? A rogue doesnt jump into a hord of orcs looking to sneak attack. If the ranger was on his own he wouldnt just start shooting a large number of orcs. If he was in a group he wouldnt need to shoot all of the orcs at once. Rangers are hunters well placed shot for best effect. Or gorilla fighters they attack the flanks killing a hanful at best. Luring them into traps, destroying supplies, cutting comunications all that fun nasty stuff. Doing all that the rangers biggest weapon is fear.

What does any of that have to do with game mechanics or class balance?

Hawriel
2007-09-29, 10:10 PM
Well I would say if your going to make a class like the ranger you should have the mechanics to support the concept.

Neon Knight
2007-09-29, 10:16 PM
Precision-based damage wants lots of attacks, right? Rapid Shot gives you more attacks/round than Greater Manyshot does anyway. Which makes G. Manyshot only really worthwhile with scouts, and then only because they have to move to get skirmish damage.



No, Greater Manyshot is better for rogues too. Mainly because the ability to, say start 30ft form your enemy, hit him for a load of sneak attack dice, and then move 30ft away is golden.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-09-29, 10:20 PM
On paper. Name 5 monsters of high levels that don't have enough HP to take the damage or are immune to sneaks. And also, name monsters that don't move at more than 60 at high levels. Even the sloooow Tarrasque can rush.

Neon Knight
2007-09-29, 10:23 PM
On paper. Name 5 monsters of high levels that don't have enough HP to take the damage or are immune to sneaks. And also, name monsters that don't move at more than 60 at high levels. Even the sloooow Tarrasque can rush.

And then you realize that the above applies to everyone except full casters. Welcome to high level DnD. You're screwed.

Kaelik
2007-09-29, 10:41 PM
Only getting that damage with Manyshot? How do you figure? A ranger using Rapid Shot that qualifies for Sneak Attack still gets that bonus damage on all his arrows fired--and doesn't get it on Manyshot but for the first arrow. He gets it on Greater Manyshot--which he actually has to spend a feat on, since he doesn't get it as a bonus feat.

Another problem inherent with this is that Sneak Attack dice are notoriously hard to qualify for without either melee or spells. There are very few spells the Ranger has access to (without cross-classing UMD) that allow him to set up the ability to target multiple enemies with Sneak Attacking ranged attacks, and those that he does have access to are at a lower caster level than other spellcasters. As a halfcaster, his caster level is weak and his save DCs are going to be subpar, which means that even those spells he does have access to that will help him obtain Sneak Attack (such as entangle (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/entangle.htm)) are not going to be very effective--if they are effective at all.

Furthermore--and yes, I am aware of the Favored Enemy/Sneak Attack alterations due to Swift Hunter--you can't Sneak Attack any target you like. Many are immune to critical hits, others are unable to be flanked or flat-footed. Even with Swift Hunter, you only get so many Favored Enemies.

Certainly, it's nice to be able to put down on your sheet +8d6 Sneak Attack, but how often, really, are you going to qualify for it with ranged attacks?

That's all well and good. But isn't Scout/Ranger with Swift Hunter getting Skirmish instead of SA? Thus he would never benefit from Rapid Shot but would from Greater Many Shot? Cause that's what I mentioned in the post you quoted.