(PF) Ranger Vs. Rogue

[Stormageddon]

So I'm going to be starting a new 2 person campaign, and I can't decide to be either a ranger or a rogue. The other person will probably end up being some sort of spell caster as that's usually what she goes in for.

Any suggestions?

[Eonir]

Go Ranger and take the wildshaping variant. It's one of the more fun classes I have ever played and will give you party a solid melee base while still retaining the skill points your spellcaster is most likely lacking.

A rogue is nice, but you are going to need someone with more than d6 HD and light armor.

[Vemynal]

He's asking about a Pathfinder game, so the rogue has d8 hp.

Considering how much the wildshape ability took a nerf in pathfinder a "wildshape varient Ranger" even if home allowed wouldn't be that much better than the Rogue.

The main difference is that a Ranger can be a d10 hp, full BAB combatant and the wildshape ability still does give slight boosts to Con and Str depending on the form you take.

Vs.

The Rogue is going to be a skills/stealth based character.



So do you want to play melee or sneaky?

[jmelesky]

If you're going to be in melee, go with Ranger. Rogues still suffer from the lack of BAB and the limitations on sneak attack damage. Not the creature-specific limitations (which have been relaxed -- you can sneak attack undead), but the situational ones: flanking, which is hard if you're in the fight solo, or stealthing, which is hard to do more than once a fight unless you're getting a Hide in Plain Sight ability somewhere along the line.

Rangers are somewhat situational, too (favored enemies), but have a much stronger melee base to fall back on. And with 6+Int skill ranks, they're not too bad in the skill monkey department, either.

[Bhaakon]

I love rogues, but in a 2-person party the benefit of an animal companion is huge (just be sure to take boon companion). Your rogue is going to struggle to get flanking in such a small group, so it's big bonus ability, sneak attack, is going to be much less useful. The ranger can even get trap finding with a trapper or (preferably) urban ranger archetype.

If the other player is taking a class with an Eidolon or animal companion, then I'd probably go rogue.

[Grendus]

Do note that in PF, your partner being a spellcaster doesn't mean they're going to be hiding behind you. In fact, with the exceptions of the Witch, Wizard, and Sorcerer most of the spellcasters in PF are more gish-like than squishy. Magi, Clerics, and Oracles have the armor and weapon proficiencies for melee; Alchemists, and Bards can be built for melee fairly easily; and Summoners either bring along a free fighter or wear one, depending on the AT.

That aside, I'd go with Ranger of the two classes given. Aside from what's been mentioned, the rangers' animal companion got an upgrade in PF to a more reasonable level-3 rather than the absurd level/2 from 3.5. Still not great, but it won't be quite as badly outclassed (I presume you'll take an Animal Companion over giving 1/2 your favored enemy bonus to your only teammate). They also have better weapon styles (Two-Handed and Mounted are both promising) and crappy-but-functional spellcasting. Overall, it's a more solid chassis and probably a better choice since you may not have a flanking buddy if you're a rogue.

[Engine]

Considering how much the wildshape ability took a nerf in pathfinder a "wildshape varient Ranger" even if home allowed wouldn't be that much better than the Rogue.

Well, there's still some kind of "wildshape Ranger" in PF:

Link

[Stormageddon]

What about the Scout AFC? Does that help or is waiting until level 8 for what the 3.5 Scout gives at level 1 worth it??

[Vemynal]

I stand very happily corrected

[jmelesky]

What about the Scout AFC? Does that help or is waiting until level 8 for what the 3.5 Scout gives at level 1 worth it??

I've seen Spring Attack work well with the Scout Archetype (though it's a questionable combination, RAW), but it takes a while to get there. And, once there, you're still at the mercy of your enemies' ability to move around (i.e. it sucks if you're stuck in a corner). Moreover, you don't get your +2 to hit from flanking, which doesn't sound like a big deal, but rogues start out in a rough spot there, compared to full-BABers.

I'm not familiar with the 3.5 Scout AFC, but i seem to recall it reduces your sneak attack dice, which is also tough (especially since you're deciding to never, or very rarely, full-attack).

So, my advice stands: if you're one of two, and the other is squishy, Ranger is better than Rogue.

Some more general advice: since you seem to be leaning towards rogue, and it's just going to be the two of you, just play a rogue and let the GM sort it out. Be wary of stand-up fights, and try to batman your opponents before you get there, but go ahead and play the character you want to play.

[Curious]

Personally, I think it comes pretty close between the two, especially once you factor in archetypes and alternate classes. For instance-

A Wild Stalker Ranger is essentially a Barbarian with more skills, spells, and some other class features tacked on. Pretty much a straight upgrade over the standard Ranger, and quite powerful.

A Kitsune Scout Ninja with Vulpine Pounce has great out of combat utility, and solid power as well.

Both are quite good, but the Ninja build doesn't really come online power-wise until 10th level.

[Stormageddon]

Personally, I think it comes pretty close between the two, especially once you factor in archetypes and alternate classes. For instance-

A Wild Stalker Ranger is essentially a Barbarian with more skills, spells, and some other class features tacked on. Pretty much a straight upgrade over the standard Ranger, and quite powerful.

A Kitsune Scout Ninja with Vulpine Pounce has great out of combat utility, and solid power as well.

Both are quite good, but the Ninja build doesn't really come online power-wise until 10th level.

I have never seen the Pathfinder Ninja before. It's looks awesome, Ninja FTW.

[Mystify]

Pathfinder ninjas are indeed quite awesome, and probably superior for a small team. Their end-game is great(for melee, they still aren't casters) Their capstone is amazing if you get to it.

[Ashiel]

So I'm going to be starting a new 2 person campaign, and I can't decide to be either a ranger or a rogue. The other person will probably end up being some sort of spell caster as that's usually what she goes in for.

Any suggestions?

Go Ranger all the way.

You will have plenty of skill points, especially since Intelligence increases lasting 24 hours or more (such as enhancement or inherent) retroactively increase your skill points in Pathfinder. Starting with a 7 Intelligence, you would begin with 4/level skills, and be able to hit 10/level skills by high levels (7 + 5 inherent +6 enhancement = 18 Int). Additionally, you can place up to 20 ranks in any skill and you have all the major ones.

Rangers are just all around better than rogues. d10 HD, perfect BAB, good Fort and Ref, 6 + Int mod (oh 2 less than rogue, meh), spellcasting (oh nevermind, just made up for those skill points in spades), an animal companion, free bonus combat feats you don't have to qualify for, several nice stealthy-boosts including hide in plain sight when in natural environments, etc. There's even a ranger archtype (I forget which) that lets you replace Track with Trapfinding if you want to be able to disarm magic traps.

Rangers beat rogues in raw damage because rangers don't rely on sneak attack to be effective. You can stop sneak attack by just dropping a smokestick, as a rogue can never sneak attack something with cover or concealment, and it's unlikely that you'll have a dedicated flanking buddy anyway. This is further pressed because Rogues have less to-hit modifiers, which means even with Sneak Attack they struggle to keep up with a ranger wielding a 2 handed weapon and using Pathfinder Power Attack (an 8th level ranger hits at +5/+0 plus mods with each hit landing +9 extra damage, while an 8th level rogue just does have +6/+1 and an average +14 extra damage, but only when sneak attacking, and likely has a lower base weapon damage; and rangers get lead blade which is really nice when they start stacking damage mods).

Rangers have better AC than rogues. They begin with medium armor proficiency and get endurance automatically as they level, allowing them to never be caught without their armor. Beginning with a 14 Dex, you can hit +8 (14 base, +1 from levels, +5 inherent, +6 enhancement), which is enough to capitalize on +5 celestial armor which has +11 AC with a +8 maximum Dexterity bonus.

Ranger spells are surprisingly useful, because they get a lot of things that don't allow saving throws, don't care about saving throws, or don't need saving throws. Spells like resist energy which is a 1st level spell for Rangers allows them to adapt to hard tanking situations. Entangle, spike growth and stone spikes are very large AoEs that can cripple land-bound enemies even if their saves are good. Rangers can use pearls of power, which allow you to comfortably support multiple castings of spells. And I don't care what anyone says, having access to spells like delay poison, neutralize poison, and freedom of movement is good stuff. Rangers also come pre-equipped to use happy sticks (aka wands of cure light wounds) to heal your party.

At 7th level, Rangers can pick up Craft Wondrous Item, and unlike with Master Craftsman (the feat), they are not limited to crafting an exceptionally small subset of items. At 9th level, they can pick up Craft Magic Arms & Armor and make their own weapons and armor as well. That still leaves you with 8/10 feats left for whatever else you want over 20 levels.

Did I mention Rangers also get Evasion, and if you want, a 2 level dip into Barbarian gets you fast movement (allowing you to move at full speed in medium armor, increasing your Stealth speed, etc), several rounds of rage, a rage power, and uncanny dodge? Nice.

Rogues have less Hp, less BAB, poorer AC, poorer saves, barely an advantage on skill points, worse offense, worse situational defense, and most of their class features don't compare in general usefulness to those of the Ranger's plus his spell selection, and rogues can never be decent item crafters because they have to rely on the trap-feat Master Craftsman, which is terrible.

[Coidzor]

So do you want to play melee or sneaky?

False dichotomy. Rangers can be perfectly sneaky, Rogues can be melee.

Well, there's still some kind of "wildshape Ranger" in PF:

Link

Yeah, at 20th level, long after melee is basically redundant.

[Beowulf DW]

I have never seen the Pathfinder Ninja before. It's looks awesome, Ninja FTW.

Well, Ninja is an alternate class of rogue so your DM shouldn't really mind. Kind of depends on the setting and the DM, I guess.

But as far as I can tell, Ninjas out-class rogues in just about every way. Better weapon selection (Katana proficiency is bitchin' good!), Ki pool, and the capstone ability may be one of the best in the game.

[ericgrau]

Go fighter . J/k

You need someone tough to stay in front so I'd go melee ranger so you can both be tough and also get some skills. Rogues are too fragile and their damage is a bit too situational even with the Pathfinder boosts to sneak attack. Even the ranger only has light armor so it'll be tough to pull off, but with the right use of skills, spells and clever tactics I think you could make it work. Encourage the caster to get spells like invisibility for the both of you and you scout ahead so your party is the one ambushing. Rather than charging in headlong as if you were someone who could handle the pain. In fact smart tactics work even better in smaller parties because it's easier to coordinate.

[Rodimal]

hhhmm
How about both? My current character is a Half-Elf Ranger4/Rogue4 with two wpn fighting and its working out great. Im only one point behind on BAB and I have every skill except fly and a couple of knowledges (18 int unmodified, I've been putting skill points into knowledges at each level). I hit for around 50 points of damage per round without combat advantage on a full attack. While its not as much as the barbarian or the fighter, it woeks for me.

out

[Engine]

Yeah, at 20th level, long after melee is basically redundant.

Well, never said it's good.

[Laniius]

In one of the Kobold Quaterly magazines, 11 I think, there's a ranger variant that doesn't get spells but does get a version of sneak attack and ranger talents. Not sure how it stacks up against either the ranger or rogue howerver. Also, if you want a stealthy ranger, the trapper ranger archetype gives up spells for traps, kind of like the WoW hunter. It also gets trapfinding as rogue. Again, probably weaker than the base ranger, but worth a look.

[CTrees]

Ranger with Boon Companion. Boom, you have two strong melee types and a caster for your party of two PCs.

Edit: the Trapper archetype Ranger gets trapfinding, limiting one of the key draws of the rogue. Just sayin'

[CheshireCatAW]

It depends on what kind of campaign your DM is running. If the campaign will be balanced between the two of you then it likely does not matter. Choose the one you would want to play the most.

Having said that, the strongest choice would be Ranger. Sneak attacking in a full party is not terribly difficult but when your flank-buddy is a caster, it might be a bit more difficult.

It might be easier to get a better picture of what would work if we knew what kind of caster the other character will be and what they will focus in. That aside, Ranger is stronger. It kinda hurts saying it as a Rogue player, but it is the truth.

In the end, play what you want to.