Customizing the ranger

[Desdichado]

so far- for everything we have said, you haev responded with "i have a character i want to play, it has this and this and this, and no matter what you say about it, I don't care because I like the way I combined the non magic classes into one really cool one..."

Nobody has addressed my question, really. My question is, is this class balanced against a fully utilized fighter (for example). Questions about issues like "well, making sacrifices to the potential of the class is what D&D is all about, because you have to weaken your character to play a concept that differs from the core archetype" which is what I've heard a number of times, have nothing whatsoever to do with what I asked, and to me, reflect a narrow D&D-ish paradigm that doesn't even seem to realise that in many other games you can essentially create your own class in this way, and it doesn't make it any more powerful than a D&D core class.

Based on all the replies and such, you could have guessed that most people are against the fact that you are swapping out all the features that you dont' want/ need and picking and choosing from what you do want/ need.

but you have brushed off every concern and responded with "my cool fighter is balanced cause I think so."

Based on that- nobody can change your mind, and obviously you have no intention to.

Of course not, nobody has responded with a post that really addressed balance against core classes, they've only addressed balance against multiclassed characters. That's not really my question. And the issue of making sacrifices in order to create a custom concept I've already responded to. Of course I'm not going to agree with those posts, because I fundamentally don't agree with that archaism in D&D.

the reason why your rogue (BAB 5 and weap finesse) wasn't that great was because it had to use dex and dex cannot translate into damage. Now that you have a fighter BAB and sneak attack in the same guy, you can load up on str, take feats to boost melee fighting, and sneak attack to punch in extra damage...

Yes, but in your last quote you thought I was still taking a fighter's feat progression. I don't know what to make of your evaluation because you haven't yet evaluated the concept as presented. I'm also not convinced that I can actually do that much more damage. In order to use bluff/sneak attack, I have to give up an attack. I don't really do mathematical analysis of my character's killing potential, but I'd be willing to wager that the extra damage I'd get from sneak attack wouldn't be as high as what I could get from an extra attack. A point that all the munchkin-criers have yet to address.

whereas before- either you can give up BAB for sneak attack, or high BAB and minimal damage... now you have both.

So what? It's not like I didn't give up anything. The favored enemy and spell-casting are significant abilities from the ranger that I did not retain. The uncanny dodge and other rogue abilities are significant advantages that I did not retain.

But you have not listened to any of the concerns posted (mainly balance) but also RPing balance, where every class fills a particular niche, and if you want to be a generalist, you have to give up the goodies of one class to get another from the other class. Now- you have all the goodies from every class- and you sacrificed nothing- except for teh stuff that youdidnt need from each class....

I've already posted my thoughts on the fallacy that I find role-playing balance to be in any game I've played in years, recognizing that for some its still an important aspect of the game. And so what if I get rid of goodies I don't want in favor of goodies I do? What does that have to do with anything? If I play a fighter to his full potential, I use all of his goodies and don't miss out on what I don't have. Is a fighter in all his glory still weak compared to my character concept? I don't think so. Nobody has really shown me that it is otherwise. Nobody has even addressed it except to say things like "in D&D you have to give something up to get something else." That's BS. And, it's only true if you want to play outside of the core archetypes anyway. My point is that I wanted to create a character that was also fully utilized, unlike multiclassed characters, but who wasn't more powerful than a fully utilized fighter, rogue, cleric, etc. Nobody has even addressed this yet, so of course I disagree with much of what has been posted here regarding my concept.

 

[Desdichado]

*grumble, grumble* Can't type the replies fast enough. By the time my posts come out, they're already out of date!

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...

Just a quicky: I did retain the ranger virtual feats. Would that be the punch you're talking about?

As to the concept, I thought I had described it in the first post, but if not, here it is: a character that is a two-bladed sword duelist: uses two-bladed swords with fancy technique (thus bluff and sneak attack: I didn't mention this before, but I might probably also limit sneak attack to only work when used in conjunction with bluff) from an elven kingdom. I retained track and the ranger skill set because it's at least believable that an elf should automatically have access to a few woodland features if he so chooses: that's part of the racial concept.

 

[Klaus]

JD,

I'll mention this because it looks like Bluff is really important to your character concept.

Feinting (Bluffing in combat) is a move-equivalent action. attempting it only allows you a single attack at your highest attack bonus. That means you will only be able to use one blade of your dual-weapon (using both would require a full-attack action).

Think of adding a class feature (maybe at 5th level) that allows you to feint in combat as a free action.

As for tweaking a class, try this:

Take the Fighter.
Take away Shield Proficiency, Medium Armor Proficiency and Heavy Armor Proficiency (3 feats he gets for free).
Give him Ambidexterity, Two-Weapon Fighting and Improved Two-Weapon Fighting (at BAB +8 or +9, I don't remember).
Take away his Bonus Feat Progression.
Give him Sneak Attack, at the same rate as the rogue, but beginning at 2nd level.
Give him the Ranger's skill list, but remove Animal Empathy. Include Bluff.
Give him 4 skill points per level, instead of two.
As a Fighter, he can still specialize at 4th level.

If the two-bladed sword is so central to the archetype, Give him proficiency is all simple weapons plus in one Exotic Weapon.

Just a thought.

 

[kenjib]

Nobody has addressed my question, really. My question is, is this class balanced against a fully utilized fighter (for example).

I addressed it directly twice. Sneak attack is one of the most powerful non-spell abilities in the game and I think that combined with BaB and ambi/twf it creates a combined effect that seems far more powerful than just those three traits alone. Adding hide/move silently is another multiplier effect since it helps gain surprise. I think that slowing down the sneak attack progression or watering it down in some other way (my version only goes up to 7d6 and does not get the bonus when flanking) is a good idea. Otherwise I think that you've got a good class concept.

> I didn't mention this before, but I might probably also limit sneak attack to only work when used in conjunction with bluff

That's a good idea, but it might be going too far to weaken the class. I'd give it to him for all flatfooted opponents and just take away the flanking sneak attack. Taking advantage of flanking does not seem to fit your character concept, but nailing someone hard before they know what was coming seems to fit just fine and it's very similar to what you would accomplish by feinting anyway.

Perhaps if this post was in House Rules you might have gotten more responses of the type that you were seeking. I think that since this is the General Forum people have their "let's debate the broad issues" hat on. I dunno.

In any case, I agree with you that it's perfectly fine to create a new class that matches what you want instead of getting straightjacketted into one of the pre-existing classes. I hope your DM is flexible enough to let you play the kind of character that you want to play. It sounds like a fun concept.

 

[Victim]

JD,

I'll mention this because it looks like Bluff is really important to your character concept.

Feinting (Bluffing in combat) is a move-equivalent action. attempting it only allows you a single attack at your highest attack bonus. That means you will only be able to use one blade of your dual-weapon (using both would require a full-attack action).

Think of adding a class feature (maybe at 5th level) that allows you to feint in combat as a free action.

Just a thought.

Feinting in combat is a standard action, not a MEA. It only becomes in MEA if you use the Quicker than the Eye feat or the Gladiator's Improved feint.

Feinting in combat as free action would be pretty hideous.

 

[Desdichado]

Sorry, kenjib. In the initial rush of posts that, while interesting, didn't answer the question in exactly the same sense I asked it, you got a bit overlooked. Those are good suggestions. I'll reformulate and repost this class concept in House Rules to see what kind of response I get there.

 

[LostSoul]

Comparing him to the Fighter/Rogue:

Fighter/Rogue
-lower hit points
-better saves
-better skills
-sneak attack +5d6
heavy armour
-uncanny dodge
-evasion
-1 special ability
-6 bonus feats
-attack +17

new class
-d10 hit points
-good skills
-sneak attack 7d6
light armour
-virtual feats
-attack +20

lower hit points + better saves = d10 hit points
better skills + sneak attack 5d6 = sneak attack 7d6
1 special ability + uncanny dodge + evasion + attack +17 = attack +20
6 bonus feats = good skills + virtual feats

Everything seems balanced (to me) save the light armour restriction that you're taking. Maybe 8d6 sneak attack would balance that out?

 

[Darklone]

Hmmmm

He's highly specialised and shines over a fighter since he has the ability to do A LOT more damage, can use bluff for peaceful interaction with NPCS, wears only light armours (that's not a penalty for me, I always do this and my ACs aren't that much worse... especially if you give him Expertise and use the BAB which is HIGH to boost the AC).

He's a lot more versatile than a so called light fighter but has less feats... makes up for that one with sneak attacks. Probably combined with Expertise and Power Attack. Can bluff... that's not really important in combat if you ask me (at least not for that char!) but VERY useful in non combat situations. And gives synergy boni to many other skills...

He MAY be balanced, but as with every specialist, it depends on the campaign. If the DM plays in a way that allows you to use your abilities fine, you rock more than anyone. If not, you get bored. That's the fate of a specialist.

Go on with it, ask your DM.