Sick of the ranger

[Flipguarder]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.