NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="takyris" data-source="post: 836321" data-attributes="member: 5171">No, it doesn't suck.  It suffers mainly by not having interesting signature abilities at higher levels, but it certainly doesn't suck.Most rangers that I've seen played badly:1) Tried to two-weapon fight even when it wasn't the best option.  It's not powergaming for your character to go "Hm, two weak attacks aren't hurting this tough monster.  I'll switch over to one powerful attack instead."  That's how your character would react in real life.2) Were playing in a bad game for rangers.  If your DM tells you it's gonna be an urban campaign big on social interest and low on monsters, pick a rogue or bard.  If your DM tells you that you're gonna be dungeon-hacking, pick a fighter.  Only play a ranger in a game where there's gonna be a decent outdoorsy section.3) Overconcentrated their skills.  This might be just me, but I've made this argument time and time again and never seen it successfully refuted:The relatively low amount of skill points that a class gets does not make it broken.  It simply means that you should make the choice to either concentrate or be a jack of all trades.Too many players level up in ranger and go, "Oh, shoot, I only have an Int of 11, and I'm elven.  Well, I'll put a rank in Hide, Spot, Move Silently, and Listen, and then... I'm OUT!!  Great Hera!  The ranger is BROKEN!!!!!"I don't believe (and don't DM while assuming) that a character of a given level should have to have a given skill max'd out for that level in order for that skill to be useful.  A sixth level nonhuman ranger with an average intelligence could have 9 ranks in 4 different skills (36 total points).  That would mean that for those four skills, he is at the top of his class.  He is the best and the brightest, right there.  That's what he's great at.  OR he could have 6 ranks in 6 different skills.  In each of THOSE skills, he'd be much better than the average Joe, definitely making use of his abilities, but a bit behind an absolute specialist.Let's say that I'm DMing a game with three different 6th level rangers:One guy fancies himself the master of stealth and observation, and could really care less about everything else.   Also, he wants to be an archer, not a TWF.One guy wants to be pretty good at a bunch of different things.One guy really just wants to have a shot at everything.For the first guy, I look in the DMG at the place where it explains how to customize characters.  I take out the TWF stuff and put in Point Blank Shot and Rapid Shot.  He has 9 ranks in Hide, Spot, Move Silently, and Listen.The second guy has 6 ranks apiece in Hide, Spot, Move Silently, Listen, Wilderness Lore, and Climb.The third guy has 4 ranks apiece in Hide, Spot, Move Silently, Listen, Wilderness Lore, Climb, Swim, Jump, and Animal Empathy.  Or at least, that's where he starts.As the DM, I know all of this.I plot my game accordingly.I put up numerous opportunities for stealth.  In some of these locations, the third guy really ought to hang back.  In one or two places, even the second guy should hang back and let the first guy go it alone.  On the other hand, I also have enough places where climbing could be important that the second and third guy get to show off their more varied skills.  Finally, I'll have one or two areas where a few ranks in Animal Empathy lets the party avoid a fight.I believe that these worries about not having enough skill points come from a) DMs who inflate skill DCs in every scenario so that only someone with max'd out ranks has a chance and b) Players who believe that a character is entitled to have max'd out ranks in any skill that player thinks is cool.-Tacky</blockquote>

Verification