Customizing the ranger

[Desdichado]

I did use the CCP to build this class from scratch, and I came very close to what I had proposed with 230 points. The author actually suggests 240 points, and even so says that that should give you a slightly below average power level for your custom class. Average CP for a core class is 250: the ranger as constitued comes out as 237, the Rogue as 251. My class is actually weaker than either of those two by a small margin.

• HD: d10
• Weapon proficiencies: simple and martial
• Armor proficiencies: light and medium
• Skill points per level: 4
• Class skills: Animal Empathy, Bluff, Climb, Craft, Handle Animal, Heal, Hide, Intuit direction, Jump, Knowledge (nature), Listen, Move silently, Profession, Ride, Search, Spot, Swim, Use Rope, Wilderness Lore.
• Alignment: any
• Attack Bonus: good (as per ranger)
• Saves: "durable" (as per ranger)
• Acquired feat: Track
• Acquired feat: Ambidexterity
• Acquired feat: Two weapon fighting
• Sneak attack with rogue-like progression.

So, I don't feel bad about recommending this class as constituted to my DM. Looks like I did lose both spell-casting and favored enemy, but I was able to add Bluff as a class skill and the sneak attack and still actually keep it under-powered relative to the ranger.

Of course, the "value" given by the CPP to each of those abilities is subjective, but my gut instinct was already that the class was pretty balanced, maybe slightly over the top. This numerical analysis confirmed it, and by removing favored enemy (which my gut-feel indicated might be necessary) brought me down to where I want to be. In theory, I could add another two feats and still be at the recommended price! However, since I added Ambidexterity and two-weapon fighting as less strictured virtual feats (as written in the feat section, without the armor and double-weapon exclusions that belong to the ranger) then I'll suck up the lost 10 points and not complain too much about it.

 

[Codragon]

CCP?

I did use the CCP to build this class from scratch, and I came very close to what I had proposed with 230 points.

What is this CCP you speak of and where can I find it?

 

[Darklone]

Easy

Google for Character Generator Engine or something like that... Easy to find.

What I don't like about it: It's too tough. You can easily build a class that's lots stronger than any of the core classes with it. Even considering that the bards spellcasting ability has the same price as the sorcerers... (Sorry: Spelllist and spells known as far as I remember).

Don't go by that engine. Most DMs will think it's overpowered.

A big problem about your thingy: you combine the rogues mightiest weapon (sneak attack) with the fighters mightiest weapon (Bab bonus and probably weapon specialisation). That's what comes to my mind. Add in that twoweaponfighting is only competitive or spuerior to other fighting styles with: (SURPRISE!) sneak attack. (or similar extra damage abilities or weapon enchantments)

Some proposals:
I like that bluff thing though it's not that useful for you ... you have several attacks and give them up for a bluff, then one sneak attack... plus a few normal attacks. Try to drag your DM to giving you a kinda improved feint (bluff as ME action) like the gladiator or so from S&F.

As for your questions: Your character concept does not look unbalanced to me. But I would still stick to the multiclassing.

 

[kenjib]

Darklone makes a good point. Not only are you combining sneak attack with fighter BaB, but you are also combining it with free ambi/twf feats. The synergy between these three seems to be a lot more powerful than the sum of it's parts.

 

[Klaus]

Why not be a ranger, but multi-class into Duelist before getting the spells? IIRC, you can get all the way up to Ranger3, then get 2 levels of Rogue, then go Duelist all the way. The result would be basically the same.

Take a look at the Sneak career path proposed by the Hero Builder's Guidebook.

BTW, I think Uncanny Dodge and good Reflex saves go really well with your archetype. Specially the Can't Be Flanked part of Uncanny Dodge.

As for feats, I'd higly recommend Weapon Finesse and Focus with the Rapier (goes greatly with Duelist), and possibly Weapon Specialization (if you opt for fighter). Also, Off-Hand Parry is a must for light-armored dual wielders (from S&F).

 

[Sodalis]

Munchkin....

A player learns that no character is perfectly what he wants to make out of it.

There are always points in the character that you would like to improve, or change. But the character you proposed is the ultimate fighter.

he has high BAB progression, feat progression, HD, and has sneak attack. Expanded skill list and more skill points.


I think you already had these feaures picked out even before you posted. What you should have done was post your character concept and have the board members pick and choose- that way, there is most balance (without playtesting) because we are unbiased.

I personally would give you:
monk's BAB
sneak attack (every odd lvl)
HD d6
simple and martial weapon prof
light armor
rangers skill list (4 per lvl)
align (non lawful)
saves (fighter)
feat progression (as psy warrior- 1,2,5,8,11,14,17,20)

most classes have two major features that distinguish them from others. Fighters have the bonus feats, barb has DR and rage, rogue has special abil (evasion) and sneak attack, ranger has favor enemy and spells, druids have animal and spells...

And you have feats and sneak attack. Actually, I would limit the sneak attack to the lvl right after the feat so 1,3,6,9,12,15,18,20.

That seems more balancing than what you have proposed.

actually, I kinda like this- I will have to use it....

 

[Desdichado]

Well, I still disagree. We're not playing a really long campaign (I don't think) so I won't get into really high levels of BAB. I've played rogues with BAB in the +5-6 range , weapon finesee and extremely high dex bonus already, and I certainly did not think that it was a powerful combat tool. I would't get above that, certainly, and my sneak attack damage would be lower anyway at that level of BAB with this class.

Now, as to Gargoyle's objections:

1. It removes the hard strategic choices that you have to make when creating your character. Part of the fun of the game is agonizing over things like "Should I multiclass to rogue to get sneak attack?" or "Should I spend some extra skill points to get Bluff, or max out Jump?"

Fine, but having those hard strategic choices isn't necessarily a bonus to the game. Classless games don't have them, for instance. I prefer that kind of game anyway. I guess that all depends on the DM. When I DMed the first thing I rule 0ed was the experience penalty to multiclassing for just this reason.

2. Some of the above "sacrifices" aren't really penalties at all. If I don't plan on wearing armor, armor restrictions are pointless. If I can customize my class skills to be whatever I want, why would I ever need to spend points on cross-class skills? If you almost always have a rapier, the restriction on sneak attack is meaningless...

Yeah, so which would you rather see? A min-maxer who stereotypes his class, probably sacrificing roleplaying and playing the class to it's full potential, or someone with a different concept who tweaks a class to allow a compromise between min-maxing (by developing a class that gives only bonuses he's interested in) yet is a slightly underpowered class to begin with? It's certainly not unbalanced relative to a core class playing to it's strength. Or, at least I don't think it is, and to me, that's what balance is. Just because it may be more powerful than core classes who have had to make sacrifices to get the concept out doesn't make it more unbalanced.

3. Also, most importantly this type of customizing butchers the teamwork aspect of the game. If you can sneak attack very well AND fight very well then that diminishes the role of the party's rogue and any single-class fighters. You're filling the roles of two different classes without the penalties of multiclassing.

IMO, that's a holdover from Ancient D&D where you really only had four classes, fighter, thief, magic-user and cleric. We don't operate under that paradigm anymore, that D&D is about tactically using teamwork to solve a series of puzzles with "characters" that are extreme specialists. We now operate under a paradigm that characters should be realistic, they can be specialist, but they can have generalist tendencies (more than half of the core classes are generalists to some extent or another.) Not only that, the sneak attack is not core to the theif archetype of the old D&D anyway: it's more of an attempt to give him a little more combat punch. So, not only do I disagree that giving this guy sneak attack makes him fill two roles, but I disagree that that remains important.

 

[Desdichado]

Munchkin....

A player learns that no character is perfectly what he wants to make out of it.

There are always points in the character that you would like to improve, or change. But the character you proposed is the ultimate fighter.

he has high BAB progression, feat progression, HD, and has sneak attack. Expanded skill list and more skill points.


I think you already had these feaures picked out even before you posted. What you should have done was post your character concept and have the board members pick and choose- that way, there is most balance (without playtesting) because we are unbiased.

I personally would give you:
monk's BAB
sneak attack (every odd lvl)
HD d6
simple and martial weapon prof
light armor
rangers skill list (4 per lvl)
align (non lawful)
saves (fighter)
feat progression (as psy warrior- 1,2,5,8,11,14,17,20)

most classes have two major features that distinguish them from others. Fighters have the bonus feats, barb has DR and rage, rogue has special abil (evasion) and sneak attack, ranger has favor enemy and spells, druids have animal and spells...

And you have feats and sneak attack. Actually, I would limit the sneak attack to the lvl right after the feat so 1,3,6,9,12,15,18,20.

That seems more balancing than what you have proposed.

actually, I kinda like this- I will have to use it....

Hardly the ultimate fighter. Can't use heavy armor and --and I don't know where you got this-- doesn't have any feat progression beyond what everyone gets as they level. Comparing what you listed with what I proposed:

I personally would give you:
monk's BAB I have fighter BAB
sneak attack (every odd lvl) I have this now, but I also proposed a slowed sneak attack progression, which nobody bit on.
HD d6 I have d10
simple and martial weapon prof I have this
light armor My final proposal also has medium armor, but that's not something really important to me
rangers skill list (4 per lvl) I have this also, except I added Bluff as a class skill
align (non lawful) I'm not sure why this would be a requirement, or what it adds to the concept.
saves (fighter) I have this
feat progression (as psy warrior- 1,2,5,8,11,14,17,20) I have no feat progression

Your concept is little more than a less-skilled rogue with fighter's save instead of rogue's saves (which are not better nor worse, just a different emphasis) and fighter-like progression of feats in exchange for all rogue abilities except sneak attack. I think that's a fair trade-off. However, mine is basically a ranger except that I traded in both favored enemy and the entire spell-casting ability of the class for a sneak attack bonus. That's closer to my concept, and doesn't seem any less fair.

To put it another way, since you're wanting to add fighter and rogue, in a way, what if I tweaked the fighter instead? Swap out heavy weapon proficiency for ambidexterity, and take two-weapon fighting as my first feat. Trade out all of the fighter's bonus feats in exchange for the rogue's sneak attack. This gives me exactly the same thing I proposed, except that I now have a shield proficiency which I won't use instead of Track, which I probably won't use much, but at least it fits my concept.

And as to your first point, it's a fallacy that a character can't get the full benefit of everything in the class. I'd venture to say that most players probably utilize their classes to the maximum, and only players who (like me, typically) want to play a slightly different concept are weakened because they have feats or abilities that they don't ever use and nothing with which to replace them. Therefore, it's hardly unbalancing or munchkin to create a class that is, on paper, the same power level as a core class, but which perfectly matches my concept so I can use every ability in that class. It's only the artificiallity of classes that make this seem munchkin. Any class-less game takes this as a given: you only give characters stuff that you want to use, instead of being saddled with strictly defined archetypes that you have to play. I disagree fundamentally with D&D's basic premise that the only acceptable way to deviate from a D&D archetype is to multiclass, thus weakening your character by giving up access to abilities to could use to pick up abilities you wont. It shouldn't be a penalty to deviate from the D&D archetypes: I should be able to create a character that is balanced against the core classes, yet conveys my own concept. That's what I'm trying to do here.

 

[Sodalis]

I am sorry- i thought you had a feat progression...

so if i am getting it right, you have :

sneak attack (either 10d6 or 8d6 by lvl 20)
ranger skill list+ bluff,
rogue saves
high BAB and HD10
simple/ martial weapon
light/ medium armor


if that is it- then I would say that is a fair guy. A lil underpower if you ask me...

He needs one more feature that would give him a punch in feel...

eh- you basically have a ranger with sneak attack... without the spells and virtual feats. I would even let you keep favored enemy at every 5 lvl.

but i seriously think that you should have posted your concept first, so that WE know that you are not just trying to pick and choose all the best combination of features that makes your guy a killing machine.
Instead, you have a concept (valid one- not just killing machine) of just combo of cool things...

 

[Gargoyle]

Now, as to Gargoyle's objections:
(Objection #1 About hard strategic choices)
Fine, but having those hard strategic choices isn't necessarily a bonus to the game. Classless games don't have them, for instance. I prefer that kind of game anyway. I guess that all depends on the DM. When I DMed the first thing I rule 0ed was the experience penalty to multiclassing for just this reason.

Ok. If you don't see that part of the game as fun, I can't argue with that.

(Objection #2 )
Yeah, so which would you rather see? A min-maxer who stereotypes his class, probably sacrificing roleplaying and playing the class to it's full potential, or someone with a different concept who tweaks a class to allow a compromise between min-maxing (by developing a class that gives only bonuses he's interested in) yet is a slightly underpowered class to begin with? It's certainly not unbalanced relative to a core class playing to it's strength. Or, at least I don't think it is, and to me, that's what balance is. Just because it may be more powerful than core classes who have had to make sacrifices to get the concept out doesn't make it more unbalanced.

It's clear to me that you put more emphasis on roleplaying than power gaming, and that's fine. I have no problem with this. To be fair to the min/maxers, some of them roleplay just fine with their tweaked characters and have a great time. Also, tweaking a class is different from a major redesign, which is what I feel you're doing. Whether it's balanced or not is subjective until playtested, wouldn't you agree?

(Objection #3 - teamwork issue)
IMO, that's a holdover from Ancient D&D where you really only had four classes, fighter, thief, magic-user and cleric. We don't operate under that paradigm anymore, that D&D is about tactically using teamwork to solve a series of puzzles with "characters" that are extreme specialists. We now operate under a paradigm that characters should be realistic, they can be specialist, but they can have generalist tendencies (more than half of the core classes are generalists to some extent or another.) Not only that, the sneak attack is not core to the theif archetype of the old D&D anyway: it's more of an attempt to give him a little more combat punch. So, not only do I disagree that giving this guy sneak attack makes him fill two roles, but I disagree that that remains important.

I see your point, but respectively disagree. For many groups, D&D is exactly about tactically using teamwork to solve a series of puzzles. (I'm dropping off the extreme specialist part of your quote, because that's not what I meant - I don't think everyone has to be an extreme specialist; I'm not against multiclassing for example, and even recommended it.) Again, if you and your group don't find the teamwork concept to be very important, I can't convince you otherwise, just bringing it up.

All of my above advice was just that: advice, and not really firm objections. You seem to have made up your mind about what you want, and I wish you luck. If you think about it, post your alternate class after you've playtested it for a while. I'm not against warping the rules to get a desired effect, I'm just advocating caution.

(Edit - fixed grammar mistake)