Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="comrade raoul" data-source="post: 846991" data-attributes="member: 554">This one was inspired by seasong's thread below, which discusses whether or not rangers are necessary. I think they are, in the sense that they can be made to fill a worthwhile niche of the scout or skirmisher, aided by instinct, skill, and a bit of magic. You'll notice that this ranger tries to avoid any specific archetype: he's not married to archery, dual-wielding, or even specifically "wilderness" skills (although wilderness lore is still a class skill ambush and uncanny dodge are especially useful in wilderness settings, and many of the spells in the ranger's [expanded] spell list are nature-oriented).I think of this version as a kind of "utility infielder" -- a bit of fighter, rogue, and druid blended together in a coherent whole that differs from existing multiclass combinations in important ways. My ranger can fight reasonably well (but the d8 hit die and reliance on Dexterity and Wisdom makes him a bit more frail than, say, fighters, paladins, or barbarians), has lots of skills (but not so much as the rogue), and limited druidical magic -- that is, he's got versatility at the cost of specialization. He's especially good at quick surprise attacks -- a ranger might detect a group of enemies without being seen, cast a buff spell or three, deliver a surprise attack and fight for a couple of rounds before escaping. I think it's a unique and worthwhile role, and I'd appreciate feedback.</blockquote>

Verification