Class Sick of the ranger

[Flipguarder]

Originally Posted by Garthanos

A feat I just was inspired to
Perceptive Targeting : you may use Wisdom in place of Dex for ranged attacks (could be fun for my Strength Wisdom Paladin - or at least nice for any divine). --- when your god is a sun god being squeamish about ranged or having problems with a bow when your god is the moon doesnt make any sense).

More archery not less ;-0

Yeah.... why should rangers have to put points in two attributes. That's total MAD. Now they can just put all their points in wisdom, and then..... ummm... intelligence for the skills and ac bonus. Or even better, they can go str/wis so they can be equally effective at range and with two weapons.

Good idea, man. I've recently felt like rangers needed a huge boost in power.

[Garthanos]

Originally Posted by Flipguarder

Yeah.... why should rangers have to put points in two attributes. That's total MAD. Now they can just put all their points in wisdom, and then..... ummm... intelligence for the skills and ac bonus. Or even better, they can go str/wis so they can be equally effective at range and with two weapons.

Good idea, man. I've recently felt like rangers needed a huge boost in power.

So exactly were does your hypothetical ... WIS only ranger get there armor class?... if not the same attribute they are currently getting there DEX attacks from? and they get Initiative from that same pool... too.

Do rangers actually have much reason to put points in wisdom? as opposed to constitution?

Of course like melee training (I was actually thinking ONLY for basic ranged attacks ) ... snicker -- Its actually less versatile than melee training... should probably be collapsed in to something called Ranged Training.

[Flipguarder]

Yeah there's a huge difference between "ranged attacks" and "ranged basic attacks". I see no problem with that idea if it's for basica attacks only.

[Garthanos]

I even thought of having different names for different flavors of the feat
Perceptive Targeting.(WIS), Analytical Targeting (INT). Tricky/Creative Targeting. (CHA)
Targetting by Gut Instinct (CON)
Then I realized ... that CHA could be inspired targeting or Fey guided arrows for some Warlocks so why ruin it with too much flavor... let the PC skin his abilities in ways that fit how he sees them working.

Adapted Targeting: You may pick an attribute for basic ranged attacks other than the two normally used (Strength or Dex).

[Eric Finley]

Garthanos - I'm sure there are some funky Arcane Initiate (Magic Missile, Wizard's Fury) builds one could do with that.

To readdress the OP...

It sounds to me (reading charitably) like you're primarily trying to change the Ranger to be more interesting to you, rather than worrying strictly about power level. The problem is that they are, to many [and you do not wish to discuss this lemma, a reasonable request], both (a) very powerful and (b) not very interesting or challenging to play.

The power comes from multiattacks. So, first step, adopt one of the many proposed fixes for this. The one I just thought of would be pretty straightforward: any melee or ranged attack which makes multiple attack rolls, each doing damage, uses only half static mods for damage. (You do use power cards or some equivalent, don't you?) That includes stat (where applicable), enhancement, temporary boosts, and the rest of the parcel all rolled together.

[Some other tweaks may help reduce some of the other problematic aspects as well. In my game I allow the Beast to be enchanted as a magic "weapon" much like Monk Unarmed Strike. This helps boost up the Beastmaster builds to competitiveness. And double weapons are just a cosmetic tweak of two statistical weapons of the appropriate kinds; they have no special weapon entries of their own. An Urugosh is a battleaxe/spear. The feat Double Weapon Fighter grants the Defensive property to such a union of two weapons.]

Then, rather than simply removing the Archer Ranger and TWF Ranger class features altogether, give them more interesting ones instead. For example:

Archer Ranger - When using magical ammunition, after the battle you recover half of the spent ammunition, and can restore them to their normal enchanted (and functional) status after a short rest. You need not track nonmagical ammunition even if your campaign normally does so. (And we encourage DMs to track nonmagical ammunition for characters other than this one, if one is in play.)

TWF Ranger (using my proposed multiattack nerf above) - While wielding two melee weapons, you may make an opportunity attack against an enemy which shifts out of a square you threaten and into another square which you also threaten.

The archer one encourages them to play with an item type which otherwise may not see much play, and which will introduce strategic complexity as they look for interesting combos there. The TWF one introduces a defender-y side to the TWFer, and makes them care a fair bit more about tactical positioning. (Not having to care as much about positioning being one of the reasons why some consider them unfun to play compared to, say, a rogue.)

[CrimsonHawk]

Originally Posted by Kzach

It's not necessary to explain anything to you.

No, it's not *necessary* to explain anything to him, but doing so would have helped him address the concerns you wanted us all to address, since you did indeed seem to contradict yourself in your initial post. Just because a request sounds simple to you doesn't mean it's going to be simple to everyone else.

Your sort of hostility, profanity or not, is unwelcome here. If you hate the ranger so much, just don't play one. We have the seeker now, anyway.

In the end, D&D is just a game. Treat it like a game, not like a religion.

[Saeviomagy]

Is it that hard for people to just answer the question? Is it hard for people to avoid talking about whether the ranger is balanced or not? Apparently so.

Witness as I answer the question! And avoid the topic that we are trying to avoid! And even supply some extra feedback!

1. Taking out two-weapon whateveritis will have the following extremely minor effect:
rangers will lose 1-2 points of damage on their off-hand attack (2 is if they choose bastard sword proficiency or something similar) per [w] die. Most ranger powers that require 2 weapons DO require you to use the damage roll of the off-hand weapon for some attacks (which interestingly enough makes allowing a ranger to dual wield a maul and his unarmed attack pretty much balanced...).

2. Making the ranger class choice be between beast mastery and point blank shot does make that class choice more interesting.

3. I don't think that prime shot is good enough to compete with beast mastery. I expect that the only people who would choose prime shot would be those who specifically want to avoid controlling an extra miniature. I would suggest finding something to sweeten the deal for those taking prime shot. Perhaps up it to +2? That brings it in line with flanking, and also encourages the archer to engage in tactical movement more.

[CrimsonHawk]

Originally Posted by Saeviomagy

Witness as I answer the question! And avoid the topic that we are trying to avoid! And even supply some extra feedback!

And if that indeed addresses the OP's concerns, dear sir, than you have done a spectacularly wonderful thing. Thank you.

My concern was that when someone asked him to clarify his question, the OP became violently confrontational and eventually unnecessarily vulgar without even clarifying his question as asked. Your ability to decipher his desires despite his contradictory presentation is a boon to this community.

[Saeviomagy]

Originally Posted by CrimsonHawk

And if that indeed addresses the OP's concerns, dear sir, than you have done a spectacularly wonderful thing. Thank you.

My concern was that when someone asked him to clarify his question, the OP became violently confrontational and eventually unnecessarily vulgar without even clarifying his question as asked. Your ability to decipher his desires despite his contradictory presentation is a boon to this community.

His requirements are pretty clear.

Don't turn the thread into an argument about whether the ranger is overpowered or not.

Do examine the effect that the proposed rule changes will have on the ranger.

There is no contradiction in his presentation. He's asking what effect some simple mechanical changes will have upon the game.

[RyvenCedrylle]

Thanks, Saeviomagy.

FWIW - I actually know KZach fairly well as a gamer and DM - eh.. as well as you can know a guy across the international date line, I suppose - and despite some less than kosher comments in this thread, he's good people.

Now to the point - Saeviomagy is correct. From previous discussions and games I've played in with him, I believe the OP finds the two-weapon ranger to be boring as a character concept and an unnecessary build choice precisely due to the fact that the damage is built into the class, not the fact that they can wield a one-handed weapon in their offhand. The question is then if you could remove the build option and not gimp the TWF ranger - hence the "this is not a question about whether the ranger is broken" intro.

I tend to agree with him. I don't think I would miss the official TWF build if it mysteriously disappeared. Then again, I want to create a feat that lets you use "Beast" keyword powers while in Beast Form so that I can be my own wolfpack. Clearly I have some ideas for Ranger tinkering as well.

[Saeviomagy]

Originally Posted by RyvenCedrylle

and despite some less than kosher comments in this thread, he's good people.

I can even forgive him those. ONE POST IN and someone puts up a wall of text doing exactly what he asked people not to do...

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, the thread did wander a bit off topic... lol.

As for getting rid of the TBF ranger style option. It won't have a big impact. Twin Strike with a bastard sword and a short sword for example isn't THAT much less potent than using 2 bastard swords. The second damage die drops down to 1d6 obviously, which will cut into his DPR by about 1 point. At level 1 it will be a modest decrease but most of the damage these guys are doing is more based on static damage bonuses anyway once they get some items and a few feats under their belt. Plus the other source of increase from TS is the doubled probability of getting quarry damage, and that won't be affected at all.

I think my main comment thus would be that eliminating TBF style won't really have a lot of impact. Players will probably just select beast master since essentially its just about the same thing but with the benefit of having a beast companion. BM style is already a good option, maybe even arguably better than TBF. It does also make Archer style a bit more tempting though IMHO it was always a decent option (yes there are arguments to the contrary, it really just depends on what you want to do with the character later on and how much you like Defensive Mobility).

[CrimsonHawk]

Originally Posted by Saeviomagy

His requirements are pretty clear.

Don't turn the thread into an argument about whether the ranger is overpowered or not.

Do examine the effect that the proposed rule changes will have on the ranger.

There is no contradiction in his presentation. He's asking what effect some simple mechanical changes will have upon the game.

So, what you are saying is that the second poster is preternaturally stupid and, by virtue of his rampant stupidity, fully deserved to have hate messages and vulgarity slung at him, rather than having his confusion (which he admitted to having at the beginning of his post) addressed in a polite and friendly manner?

Consider yourself reported, good sir. Intellectual superiority will not be tolerated here while I am a welcome member of this board. I put up with too much of it when I was in the Camarilla.

[Umbran]

Both of you, cut it out.

Did someone misunderstand the thread's purpose? Yes, clearly missed the point.

Does that deserve profanity being thrown around? No. "Keep it civil" is the #1 rule around here.

Once the owner of the boards has spoken on the matter, should the two of you continue to publicly wrangle over it? Definitely not.

That aspect of the thread ends now. I hope that is clear.

[eamon]

I don't understand the purpose of the OP's request. If he finds the two-weapon build boring - well, there are 100 other builds you can play, including two other quite different ranger builds. Why remove a D&D staple just because you don't find it interesting?

If you're a player, there's no problem with just picking something else - and if you're a DM, well, what about the build is problematic? Without knowing what's problematic, it's not easy to come up with a fix.

[Saeviomagy]

Originally Posted by eamon

I don't understand the purpose of the OP's request. If he finds the two-weapon build boring - well, there are 100 other builds you can play, including two other quite different ranger builds. Why remove a D&D staple just because you don't find it interesting?

If one option is percieved to be mechanically superior to others, then people may feel like they don't have a choice. I daresay that a lot of people who read forums would feel like the beastmaster option right now is not worth taking. I personally don't believe that's true, but it's what the online community in general seem to think.

[AbdulAlhazred]

Originally Posted by Saeviomagy

If one option is percieved to be mechanically superior to others, then people may feel like they don't have a choice. I daresay that a lot of people who read forums would feel like the beastmaster option right now is not worth taking. I personally don't believe that's true, but it's what the online community in general seem to think.

Yeah, and I find that very puzzling. I think people haven't thought about it much. You give up Toughness feat and reduce off-hand damage from d10 to d6 by going beast master. The feat is pretty good, but not vital. The loss of about 1 from your DPR is not that big a deal and will be almost unnoticed at higher levels where its all about stacking static damage mods on top of 2 attacks a round.

In return you get a beast. Even assuming you do zilch with your beast it is still a freebie blocker that can have a pretty decent amount of hit points, etc. It requires no extra actions to move it around and you can make your OA with it as well. There are all kinds of other possible uses for thing, setting off traps, scouting, etc. If it dies, it costs 50gp to replace and a 4 hour ritual, not that big a deal. This is all not even factoring in some very nice powers you get access to, especially the minor action attacks at high levels.

Frankly anyone who thinks TBF rangers are overpowered pretty much logically must say the same about BM melee rangers as well.

[eamon]

Originally Posted by AbdulAlhazred

Frankly anyone who thinks TBF rangers are overpowered pretty much logically must say the same about BM melee rangers as well.

Yeah, that's my conclusion too. And in any case, it's not exactly rare for various build options in classes to be not perfectly balanced. Any difference is going to be pretty small.

For that matter, though I think the ranger archer looks boring, it's certainly not underpowered - esp. once stuff like prime quarry get included.

[Saeviomagy]

Originally Posted by AbdulAlhazred

Frankly anyone who thinks TBF rangers are overpowered pretty much logically must say the same about BM melee rangers as well.

But the thing is that plenty of players will follow the common wisdom without questioning it.

And if the two options are equal then banning that option has no effect on game balance at all. At that point banning an option for being boring or overly popular is fine.

[Skallgrim]

Originally Posted by Kzach

The question I'm asking is, if one does away with the Archer Fighting Style and Two-weapon Fighting Styles completely, and simply makes a ranger player choose between gaining Prime Shot or Beast Mastery, just how much of an impact will that ultimately have on the ranger's ability to do damage?

I don't think the impact on doing damage would be very much, but it would be kind of a lousy choice for some rangers.

If you wanted to play an archery ranger, then you are relatively fine. You have lost Defensive Mobility, but that's it.

If you want to play a beastmaster ranger, you know what you are picking.

If you want to play a melee ranger without a beast companion, you now have a feature which provides no benefit to you in your preferred combat arena. You CAN pick up feats which allow it to help you, but now you are one feat down on the other rangers.

I would think about giving Prime Shot and one choice of, say, Prime Punisher (if that's the feat where you can use prime shot benefits in combat) OR something useful to archery rangers (Defensive Mobility, whatever).

It would be very minor in terms of damage output, though. You'd lose some weapons as off-hand (many of which you could simply use Double Weapons (yuck) for instead).