Gray's 1st Question(s)

[Dandu]

A pure Ranger provides lot of utility and can poentially be much more rewarding than some optimised build.

A well built ranger will be more fun than a poorly built one.

Mainly in that the well built one will accomplish things while the poorly built one will flounder.

Unless your definition of fun is flailing around ineffectively.

Which, I guess, is possible but I am given to understand you fellow players generally disapprove of taking liabilities with them on missions.

 

[Arrowhawk]

A well built ranger will be more fun than a poorly built one.

And a 2 Ranger/4 Fighter/1 Rogue etc...isn't a Ranger. It's a build optimized to do ...something.

Part of the problem is people exaggerating the importance of the build. Look, I totally get people like that aspect of RPG's. People like to spend hours and hours thinking of all the ways to accomplish.....something. More power to them.

But there's a big gap between a "well built ranger" and a "poorly built one." In fact the gap is so big you can drive 90% of the builds people make through it. Taking Dodge instead of Power Attack is hardly going to be the difference between accomplishing things and floundering. As I said above, any DM with a clue will create obstacles that the characters are equipped to handle.

 

[Dandu]

And a 2 Ranger/4 Fighter/1 Rogue etc...isn't a Ranger. It's a build optimized to do ...something.

Exchange quips with Sir Guy of Gisbourne.

But there's a big gap between a "well built ranger" and a "poorly built one." In fact the gap is so big you can drive 90% of the builds people make through it. Taking Dodge instead of Power Attack is hardly going to be the difference between accomplishing things and floundering.

The gap is not so great as you imagine. Perhaps you would care to play a poorly built ranger in a same campaign as one of my well built ones and we could compare notes?

As I said above, any DM with a clue will create obstacles that the characters are equipped to handle.

The DM has the responsibility to create appropriate challenges for the player. However, this is not a one way street, for the player should not create undue work for the DM, and if you're character just can't handle himself then you're increasing the workload on an already tough job.

 

[Arrowhawk]

Exchange quips with Sir Guy of Gisbourne.

The gap is not so great as you imagine. Perhaps you would care to play a poorly built ranger in a same campaign as one of my well built ones and we could compare notes?

If you believe the way to disprove my point is to put two Ranger's side by side in a party then you haven't been paying attention. No. The point is that as the only Ranger in a group, a pure build will enjoy the game as much as some frankenbuild. Nobody compares DPS in PnP.

... and if you're character just can't handle himself then you're increasing the workload on an already tough job.

The problem with this discussion...and your argument...is that it assumes some ridiculous built character. You think I'm advocating a Ranger take Eschew Materials at 1st level and Rapid Reload at 3rd?

 

[Dandu]

No. The point is that as the only Ranger in a group, a pure build will enjoy the game as much as some frankenbuild.

Does the enjoyment come from being a pure build?

Nobody compares DPS in PnP.

Not unless they plan on engaging in combat.

The problem with this discussion...and your argument...is that it assumes some ridiculous built character. You think I'm advocating a Ranger take Eschew Materials at 1st level and Rapid Reload at 3rd?

Essentially yes.

You use the example of taking Eschew Materials and Rapid Reload as being ridiculous because they are waste of a feat for Rangers. However, feats like Dodge and Whirlwind Attack fall into the exact same category.

 

[Arrowhawk]

However, feats like Dodge and Whirlwind Attack fall into the exact same category.

No...they don't. And you're saying it so doesn't make it true. Your focus is "powergaming." More specifically, your narrow view of powergaming. There's a small army of people out there who know that there's a lot more to RPG's than how fast you kill something. The Ranger was never meant to be the main damage dealer. If that's how you want to build it...good for you. But the OP talked about skills...not DPS.

 

[Dandu]

Being good at skill is not exclusive to being good at DPS, is it? Even if the Ranger is not the best melee combatant, it still doesn't hurt to tack on a few combat feats since that is what D&D is built around.

Incidentally, are you sure Greylensman was talking about skills and not DPS? I recall him seeking to "become VERY proficient at 3.5 character design" and asking "How would you rate the feat selection giving that I am trying to give her every melee advantage (not concerned with ranged weapon skills)?"

I'm pretty sure that last one is talking about DPS.

As an aside, I find your characterisation of me as someone who focuses entirely on DPS horribly amusing, as I am a noted proponent of battlefield control and skilful characters.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

It's true, Dandu does like using seduction, which qualifies as both battlefield control and skillful typically.

 

[Arrowhawk]

Being good at skill is not exclusive to being good at DPS, is it? Even if the Ranger is not the best melee combatant, it still doesn't hurt to tack on a few combat feats since that is what D&D is built around.

That's not even in debate, why are you suggesting that it is?

Incidentally, are you sure Greylensman was talking about skills and not DPS?

He said this:

I love this system (and no, I have not tried and will not be buying 4e), the ability to use feats and skills and dipping into other classes to create unique characters has really got me going.
​

Emphasis added.

He did say he wanted every melee advantage. Maybe he is only thinking DPS. If he was, that's a mistake for a Ranger.

As an aside, I find your characterisation of me as someone who focuses entirely on DPS horribly amusing, as I am a noted proponent of battlefield control and skilful characters.

You have a penchant for making strawman arguments. Nowhere did I say you focus entirely on DPS. In this thread, you're making statements that seem to focus on the combat aspect of a Ranger, like claiming Dodge is in the same category as Eschew Materials when compared to Power Attack. You also specifically used the term "powergaming."

To the OP. There's more to PnP combat than just DPS (damage per second). I'll repeat something for you to think about: If your goal is to be the most efficient killer, then you should really consider a class other than Ranger. While there is no "wrong" way to play a Ranger, the class was designed...and then redisigned several times...and in none of those iterations was the intent to make the Ranger the main damage dealer. The Ranger's main advantage comes outside of melee combat. I'm not saying Ranger's can't be good at combat.

 

[Dandu]

You have a penchant for making strawman arguments. Nowhere did I say you focus entirely on DPS.

"No...they don't. And you're saying it so doesn't make it true. Your focus is "powergaming." More specifically, your narrow view of powergaming. There's a small army of people out there who know that there's a lot more to RPG's than how fast you kill something."

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your statements?