Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
The author of this topic has marked a post as the answer to their question.
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
In general, the more specialized classes tend to do better than generalist classes, paradoxically. Let's look at the Ranger.
He has a few martial abilities, an animal companion, a few divine spells, and stealth capabilities. That sounds like a lot... BUT it means that a fighter can beat him in a straight fight, a rogue is better at sneaking, a druid can use their animal companion to better effect, and both druids and clerics are better choices for divine casters.
So the ranger isn't meant to replace any of those classes, instead his toolset means he's able to be fairly self sufficient in most scenarios and to play back up to each of the above. He's a more mobile fighter, since he has to wear light armor at the cost of longevity. That means he's able to flank for the fighter much more easily than other classes while not sacrificing combat effectiveness. He's a higher damage rogue, and a ranger is one of the best pairings for being a rogue's muscle in case things go south. He can take a few pressures off the druid with things like Speak to Animals or Bull's Strength so the druid can take more useful spells while the party still has access to those spells.
Ranger isn't meant to stand on his own, it's designed to be for a party, and is mostly used as either a newbie friendly class with the above or as member six to the party (frontliner, mage, dps/trapfinder, healer, bard/buffer, ranger).
You could also argue that with the change to 3.x, the Paladin and Ranger should have become Prestige Classes, the Warpriest would essentially be the Paladin and the Champion of the Wild would be the Ranger.
That said, Shiroi Ren is correct, a lack of identity is the class' main problem. Or perhaps a lack of focus, in a game of specialists. Maybe it's because the class doesn't have a clear archetype? In 1 and 2e, the archetypal Ranger was Aragorn from LotR. It worked as a class in those editions. Going forward it got blurry, it forgot about Aragorn and tried to decide between being Drizzt or Robin Hood, and by trying to walk a line between the two it ended up being neither.
If you look at the class' spell list it's a mess. The only buffs it has to support its martial side are: Cat's Grace, Aid and Blade Thirst (It doesn't even get GMW, instead it gets this cheap knock-off). If it had Bull's Strength and maybe Flame Weapon or Darkfire, the spells would help it. But really Greater Magic Fang (for it's animal companion) and Freedom of Movement are probably the only spells worth casting. It's no real surprise that fans petitioned OEI to let them make Rangers with less than an 11 starting wisdom so they wouldn't waste attribute points getting those spells in NWN2. If you look at the equivalent classes in Pathfinder and the Dark Eye system, they get spells that increase their AB and damage with ranged combat. The spell lists in those systems compliment the function of the Ranger unlike in D&D.
It gets the dual wield feats with the ability to ignore ability requirements, but then it loses them if it wears anything heavier than light armor. Since you only need a 15 dex to pick up all the feats in 3.0 and someone wearing light armor will want at least a 14 dex. Seriously, why?!? I guess free feats are free feats, but it doesn't even make a better strength based dual wielder than the other martials.
Favored enemy is okay, if you know what you're facing and it's a limited set of enemies. The damage bonus is quite good, and Bane of Enemies gives you an additional +2 to hit and an additional +2d6 to damage. However, in something like the official campaigns where they really like to throw everything at you, you don't have enough favored enemies for everything. Sure the Fighter with WS and EWS is only getting a +6 to damage, but he only has to take 4 Fighter levels to qualify and it applies to everything.
It gets a lot of class skills but, other than Concentration and Discipline, not the ones that have combat utility (Taunt, Tumble, Spellcraft, UMD). Favored Enemy even provides a bonus to Taunt, but it's not a class skill. It's somewhat hampered by having only 4 skillpoints per level to purchase those class skills. It gets bonuses to hide with the camouflage spell but, other than Flat-Footed bonuses, it doesn't get anything from stealth (like say a rogue with Sneak Attack). True Seeing sees through stealth in this game (it shouldn't but it does), so even stealth loses it's appeal at higher levels as more and more monsters get that ability.
It's just a class with a bunch of random stuff that doesn't work together with the other random stuff it gets.
Ranger almost always benefits from multiclasssing into an odd number of rogue levels to add sneak attack and/or crippling strike to high base attack bonus dual weapons. Ranger's spells and trackless step give it a distinct advantage in stealth skills when compared to other stealth classes, especially in wilderness areas.
(One with the land) +4 hide/ms (Trackless step) +4 hide/ms (Cat's grace) +1-2 dex skills (roll dependent) (Camouflage) +10 hide results in +9 move silently and +19 hide on a minimum cat's grace roll with only an investment of 14 wisdom.
In general most players don't take more than 9 or 10 ranger levels for the free dual wielding and boost to base attack bonus which can eventually result in 6 attacks per round (without haste) along with the stealth bonuses. This makes a stealth character that swings more often and has more accurate attacks but less total sneak attack damage than a pure rogue.
However, in high level settings the bane of enemies feat adds 2d6 damage on top of +6 damage from favored enemy at level 25 and if you add just 9-10 levels of rogue you're doing 6+2d6+5d6 bonus damage on every sneak attack with the ability to choose all 7 base playable races as favored enemies for pvp. The favored enemy +6 to bonus and spot and listen can even give you the extra numbers needed to track and kill other stealth classes depending on how you build. If you have knowledge of what enemies are faced at a server's highest levels, this can be applied to pve as well, but it's likely you would only want 21 ranger levels for 5 favored enemies if you go that route. I personally have only taken more than 9 ranger levels on a purely pvp server.
A pure rogue would have more sneak attack damage but a lower base attack bonus means a pure rogue caps out at 5 attacks per round without haste, has a lower base attack bonus, and has to eat three feats to dual wield. Not to mention they miss out on the spells and feats that beef their stealth scores. All of your bonus damage goes out the window vs crit immune enemies like a palemaster.
Ranger's favored enemy can be substituted for a greater spell focus.
In short, pure ranger doesn't seem to be the most useful thing in the world but its bonuses to stealth, damage, increased base attack bonus, and free dual wielding compliments the rogue and shadowdancer classes extremely well.
Seem more then one server that gave rangers HIPS.
Yeah, but a lot of the points you made rely on house rules and game modifications. E.g. if True Seeing isn't modified so it doesn't automatically detect sneakers, then all those Ranger stealth bonuses are effectively worth nothing. The OP didn't state a particular server or setting, so we have to assume vanilla rules.
The FE+Bane bonus is considerable, but 21 levels is a lot to pay for it. You have to ask yourself, what else could you get with those levels? My opinion is you could always get more from using other classes.
For example, say I add 8 cleric levels to my Rogue build, I can cast Darkfire for 1D6+4 points of bonus damage on both my weapons and with Strength domain get a few extended casts of Divine Power on my Rogue for an AB boost and an extra attack at my full BAB bonus. Sure I could be dispelled with a caster level that low but, by default, dispel won't touch my Darkfire and it takes me just as long to recast Divine Power as it takes my enemy to dispel it. That's just 8 levels, I could make something like a Rogue 31/Cleric 8/Shadowdancer 1 and get 16D6 sneak attack, instead of 5D6. What if I went for Bard 16 instead of Ranger 21 and picked up the level 16 Bard Song and Curse Song? What if I went for Fighter 12 instead of Ranger 21? Yeah, I'm only getting a +6 to damage instead of +6+2d6, but I can get a lot more Rogue levels and a lot more bonus feats (maybe I want to try for Epic Dodge and Self Concealment V).
Let's forget about rogue levels. In vanilla rules, how does that Ranger/Rogue compare to a Cleric/Monk? A Bard/RDD/Barbarian? A Bard/RDD/PM? A level 40 Wizard? A Dragon shape build?
I won't say Ranger's entirely useless, and you can certainly make one that can demolish the official campaigns, but it's not one of the stronger classes by a wide margin.
How about them? Are you fighting them past level 10? PC race enemies, yeah, they tend to scale all the way to epic levels but monstrous humanoids? Animals? Don't get mad at me, get mad at WotC if you don't like how they designed their monsters.
Personally, I just prefer a fighter or a paladin specced to be like a knight because I find it interesting to play as but I definitely think rangers and rogues have their uses.
Rangers aren't useless and neither are rogues. No argument. They aren't even my fav classes but they're still not badm their skill line up is phenomenal especially rogues
You can disagree with me - that is totally fine and that's why there are tons of classes and characters that you can create in dungeons and dragons so it can fit a variety of play styles and ideas.
Nice ad hominem attack, although I preferred your pre-edit post. It was pithier. It gets the point across, but it's subtle enough that the moderators will ignore it. At least you weren't as crass as machinech suggesting I'm a prostitute.
I don't dislike the Rogue, I just think that with medium BAB progression and the number of Sneak attack immune enemies in the campaigns, it's not one of the stronger classes. I think the 3.x Rogue is probably the strongest version of the Thief/Rogue of all the editions. If NWN had the class feature that let you trade trapfinding to deal 1/2 sneak attack damage against the sneak attack immune (or NWN2's epic precision feat) I would rate it higher. Ironically, part of the reason I rate the Ranger so low is because the Rogue ends up being a better skill monkey and martial.
I do dislike the Ranger, and I'm not really alone in that. If you've played as many hours as you claim to have, you know its a class maligned for its mechanics by the D&D community, particularly the 3.0 version in NWN. I have my issues with it in 3.5 as well (HiPS only working outdoors, lower hitdice, 1/2 caster level..) but the Ranger seems to be the class WotC has the hardest time with. The Pathfinder version is a lot better.
Out of curiosity, how do you rank the classes from strongest to weakest?
This is not the only feature of the class. It is a full base attack bonus class with fighter hit point progression, 4 + int skill point progression, stealth, trapping and spotting skills, free dual wielding and utility spells that enhance stealth further as well as providing those damage bonuses. However, I agree that in general there is not a lot of benefit from taking more than 9-10 ranger levels unless you -really- want those spot bonuses from favored enemy or the utility spells of a level 15 ranger, which could be acquired from Use Magic Device.
You don't have infinite casts of divine power and could eventually run out if continuously dispelled or engaged in a long fight, which will harm your ab as cleric is not a full BAB progression class. It also has an extremely short duration and can't be cast from stealth. For a minor investment in Use magic device, a rogue skill, you can use Darkfire from scrolls/wands and just take levels in a full bab class. Cleric also has low skill progression (2 + int) and no access to stealth, spotting, trapping, or even discipline. I don't think the hit to skill points is worth it if darkfire can be applied via scroll without risk of dispel
Bard does not have full BAB progression and you would rely on divine power for max attacks per round or need to throw in 4 levels on a max bab class before 20. It would also cost 3 feats for dual wielding if you wanted it. You'd have no access to search or set trap on bard levels. You would be down about 4 points of ab but regain it when bard song is up and fighting enemies under the influence of curse song. Your base hp would be lower but bard song would make up for it when it's available. If you like supporting your team and don't care for search or set trap bard might be the way to go as long as you can hit that 30 perform for lvl 16 song without too much hardship.
You would be unable to progress stealth/trap/spotting skills on the fighter levels and lose out on some utility spells as well as skill points and a little damage in favor of a lot more bonus feats and armor proficiency. Self concealment V is on par with improved invisibility, which can be used from a scroll with about 10 or so points in use magic device. If scrolls and wands are very accessible and being dispelled is highly unlikely, IMO the fighter levels could be more beneficial than ranger in this instance. If dispels are a frequent threat self conceal might be worth keeping. 21+ ranger levels is generally a gimmick reserved for high pvp settings and rulesets.
Compare how? Are you wanting to know which of these wins in pvp or what's most optimal for pve? Which is easiest for low or high level gameplay? Which is most accessible to new players? Which is most survivable? Which is less gimped by dispels?
Never said it was powerful. It's a class that's highly survivable given that it has little reliance on spells and combines fighter hitpoint and bab progression with stealth skills, trap skills, spotting skills, and 4 + int skillpoint progression. It's also an extremely easy class for new players to survive with. Being a 4 + int skill point class also helps it to compliment rogue builds without costing too many skill points and still allowing them to invest in stealth, awareness, and traps on non rogue levels.