Beastmaster: Best for concept rangers.

[Alabast]

I had a 3.5 character that I loved but translated poorly to 4e. In short, he was a halfling ranger who hunted outlaws, but he was part of a noble tradition of gentleman (gentle-halfling) hunters, and as such, had higher than ranger-optimum intelligence and charisma. Doing him properly in 4e would have gimped him him his "important" stats.

However, the Beastmaster build lets me create him as I like, and when the killing starts, he says: OK, I may not be the best swordsman or archer, but I've got a BEAR.

4e makes it a bit tough to make characters with points in non-classy stats, but having your primary damage come from another source definitely helps alleviate that.

 

[fba827]

very true

 

[Gort]

I don't get how raising a ranger's intelligence and charisma doesn't gimp him in 3e, but does gimp him in 4e.

 

[Baumi]

Using non-optimized Stats doesn't make a character unplayable, in fact it opens often some feats and multiplayer options that were not possible otherwise which should balance you out a bit and it's definitively more fun (isn't having fun the reason that we play? ).

With Int & Cha high you could take the "Jack of all Trades" and/or "Linguist" for rounding up the gentleman hunter. And you certainly rock with any skill that uses these Attributes (just use Skill Training or Multiclassing). And with multiclassing you could get a few cha or int maneuvers that you got through wit or bargaining with certain powers in the forests...

 

[Alabast]

Using non-optimized Stats doesn't make a character unplayable, in fact it opens often some feats and multiplayer options that were not possible otherwise which should balance you out a bit and it's definitively more fun (isn't having fun the reason that we play? ).

With Int & Cha high you could take the "Jack of all Trades" and/or "Linguist" for rounding up the gentleman hunter. And you certainly rock with any skill that uses these Attributes (just use Skill Training or Multiclassing). And with multiclassing you could get a few cha or int maneuvers that you got through wit or bargaining with certain powers in the forests...

All true, and I'm not saying doing that wouldn't be fun, and skills are great, but when it comes down to it, D&D (especially 4e) is geared towards optimizing what your character is supposed to be good at, as determined by his class. I could certainly make this character as an archer ranger, but I envisioned him as a combination swordsman/archer. If I put points into his INT and CHA, I couldn't help but feel that by doing so, I am making him worse at what he is supposed to be doing, which is hitting things for massive amounts of damage in both melee and ranged combat (STR & DEX), and noticing stuff and nature-knowledge (WIS).

As a beastmaster, I can have him be only a fair swordsman/archer, which is fine, becasue the bear makes up for that.

As to Gort's question, in 3.5e, all characters benefitted from a high INT thanks to skill points, and Rangers could find CHA useful because of the animal handling skill and Animal Empathy class feature.

 

[DDogwood]

I had a 3.5 character that I loved but translated poorly to 4e. In short, he was a halfling ranger who hunted outlaws, but he was part of a noble tradition of gentleman (gentle-halfling) hunters, and as such, had higher than ranger-optimum intelligence and charisma. Doing him properly in 4e would have gimped him him his "important" stats.

Another option, in 4e, would be to make him into a Rogue instead of a Ranger (possibly with a Ranger multiclass for access to some more hunting skills and archery powers).

4e classes definitely focus more on effects than on flavor, for better or for worse, and the Rogue class fits the bill for a noble swordsman with high Int and Cha - and, in fact, gains substantial benefits for it.

 

[Klaus]

Another option, in 4e, would be to make him into a Rogue instead of a Ranger (possibly with a Ranger multiclass for access to some more hunting skills and archery powers).

4e classes definitely focus more on effects than on flavor, for better or for worse, and the Rogue class fits the bill for a noble swordsman with high Int and Cha - and, in fact, gains substantial benefits for it.

That'd be my suggestion as well. An "outlaw hunter" could very well be a Rogue with Decent Dex, Int and Cha (my current PC is such a Rogue, with 18, 13 and 16). Tracking is now a function of Perception, not Survival/Nature. Plus, as a hunter of outlaws, he'd benefit from Streetwise.

Add in Jack-of-All-Trades, Linguist, Skill Focus (Perception) and you're set.

 

[Alabast]

Yeah, it's one of those "no right answer" scenarios. I'd want him to have Nature, so if I made him a rogue, I'd multiclass to ranger anyway.

As a ranger, I'd multiclass him to Warlord to get training in Diplomacy, and to get him some leader-y goodness, since the character's concept is that of a natural leader (both fluff-wise and game-wise). Plus, I'd like him to have a good WIS, too, since he'd use almost all of the WIS skills, and Rogues don't really use WIS as a primary ability.

There are advantages and disadvantages to both ways. Other choices, such as what types of weapons I envision him using, would affect my decision as well.

Right now, I'd make him a ranger, multi-ed to Warlord (Diplomacy), with training in Streetwise, give him a Scimitar and Short Bow, and of course, the BEAR.

STR 13, CON 12, DEX 16, INT 13, WIS 14, CHA 14

Hardly optimal, but as always, the bear is a great equalizer.

Bear is a funny word.

Heh. Bear.

 

[Gruns]

Me too...

I don't get how raising a ranger's intelligence and charisma doesn't gimp him in 3e, but does gimp him in 4e.

I wonder the same thing... I guess that's because I'm a 4E fanboy, though.
But really, I can't think of any way at all this ranger:

11 STR
8 CON
12 DEX
16 INT
12 WIS
16 CHA

...sucks in 4E but DOESN'T suck equally as much in 3.5... Explain? 4E haters in the house?

Later!
Gruns

 

[Alabast]

That ranger sucks equally in both systems. But that is an extreme example. The stats from my last post are more like what I was talking about.

I actually think 4e is WAY better than 3e, but I don't think anyone can argue that 3e wasn't more flexible in what options you could take for your character...That was the primary goal for the system, to do away with 2e's rigid structure. 4e is more rigid than 3e, but makes up for it by being balanced and playable.

Whatever, I'm not here to start an edition war.