Opinion on Ranger Build? (And other thoughts ... )

[Jeff Wilder]

Okay, we're starting a shake-down test of 4E this weekend. Ironically, it's me and another anti-4E guy that have pushed for this to happen, because we want to be certain that our dislike is grounded in reality, not neo-gronardism. We've both played 4E before, but for a short time and with a craptacular DM. This time will be a real test.

I honestly don't hate much about 4E, but what I do hate I hate with the fire of a million suns. Diagonal movement, for instance. Seriously, people that can figure out the dsitinctions between line-of-sight, line-of-effect, cover, and superior cover are, what, just too stupid to figure out 1-2-1 movement? Schroedinger's wounding, for another. The lack of long term injury.

I know a lot of anti-4E folks hate powers, for instance, but (aside from the sheer obvious money-making aspect to their introduction), I just think of them as class features in "menu selection" form, and they don't bother me.

Anyway, from memory, here's what I built:

Razorclaw shifter ranger (archer) 1

Str 13, Con 14, Dex 18, Int 10, Wis 16, Cha 8

Feat: Wild Senses

Skills: Perception, Stealth, Acrobatics, Athletics, Nature

Powers: (At Will) Twin Strike; Nimble Strike; (Encounter) Forgotten the name, shift 1+Wis squares before or after attack; (Daily) Hunter's Bear Trap

Does this look fun and playable, both from an individual and group perspective? (Other PCs are a halfling rogue, a gnome bard, a warlock (probably tiefling), and a controller (details unknown).) I'm allowed to use all official sources, BTW.

 

[Infiniti2000]

That's very close to every other 1st-level archer ranger out there, including mine. The answer is yes, it's playable and fun. I had a little more fun by taking quick draw instead, which also helps get to a higher ground position more quickly: quick draw grappling hook as you toss it to the top of a building (minor action?), climb up using your training athletics skill (move action), quick draw your bow and take a twin strike! A good second level feat is to multiclass to warlord so that you get at least one more healing on your own (besides a second wind), which will help if you "camp" up high a lot. Still, with your encounter choice (mine, too) you can still get into melee and get out at least once, no problem. Btw, that's a reason why elf is extremely good at this is because when you're in difficult terrain that shift 4 squares rocks.

 

[Flipguarder]

That's about as cookie cutter as you get. And I mean that as a complement. Good work.

 

[Nifft]

Looks fine. I'd play that.

 

[Pickles JG]

I honestly don't hate much about 4E, but what I do hate I hate with the fire of a million suns. Diagonal movement, for instance. Seriously, people that can figure out the dsitinctions between line-of-sight, line-of-effect, cover, and superior cover are, what, just too stupid to figure out 1-2-1 movement? Schroedinger's wounding, for another. The lack of long term injury.

<....>

Anyway, from memory, here's what I built:

Razorclaw shifter ranger (archer) 1

Str 13, Con 14, Dex 18, Int 10, Wis 16, Cha 8

Feat: Wild Senses

Skills: Perception, Stealth, Acrobatics, Athletics, Nature

Powers: (At Will) Twin Strike; Nimble Strike; (Encounter) Forgotten the name, shift 1+Wis squares before or after attack; (Daily) Hunter's Bear Trap

Does this look fun and playable, both from an individual and group perspective? (Other PCs are a halfling rogue, a gnome bard, a warlock (probably tiefling), and a controller (details unknown).) I'm allowed to use all official sources, BTW.

I like diagonals but 20 years of Bloodbowl acclimatised me I expect & the lack of long term injury seems like every D&D but then they are your foibles not mine

The ranger looks fine - one caveat is that archer rangers are about the simplest class to play they pretty much just twin strike every round so if you like complexity they may not work for you. They do get a bunch of options as they level for out of turn movement & attacks &c but out of the box they are twin strike bots. I did find a ranger at levels 1-6 more fun than a 3e archer fighter at 1-4 as you do at least move, but I was melee/range mixed.

The other thing I can see is that your party lacks much in the way of a front line. Rogues are about the most fragile melee striker & he is all you have got he also lacks a flank buddy so may be trying to hide & shoot - which leaves NO front line at all, & less reliable sneak attacking too.

I think you would be better off overall with slight twists - if you were a hybrid ranger (anathema to most but you can live with 16 str dex & wis), if the bard was a con build (maybe not a gnome) & if the warlock is infernal with high con. You then have people who while not optimised for melee can at least survive there.

Anyway that's just an alert - my view of a balanced party in 4e is 3-4 melee & 2 ranged with the roles being secondary (& all rounders carrying some slack).

So good luck & I hope you have fun even if you decide it's not for you.

 

[Juris]

Ranger Build

I agree that Elves make superior rangers because of their ability to shift over difficult terrain. The Elf archer ranger build is definitely one of the most lethal (and simple) designs in 4E.

I also agree that Twin Strike is an amazing at-will power that is better than most other encounter powers. Taking Weapon Prof (Greatbow) and Wpn Focus(bow) increases this damage even more.