"Ouch! My toes!" - Rangers & Druids

[emanresu]

Hmm. Haven't thought about that variant, and I must say, it sounds good. I'll propose this to the player.

after several pc's tried ranger and being "less than happy" then after reading this "favored terriian" varient, it was a slap to the forehead, what a great idea, makes since that the Ranger instead of focusing a hatred towards a race (racist!) he studies and knows all of a terrian, its what the Ranger should have been.

 

[Ragmon]

Here are my 2 cooper pieces:

- Druid progression animal companion

-Bonus Feats instead of combat styles, or make up different combat styles (something involving trowing, maybe some spear mastery with pole-arms).

- Something unique instead of Endurance.

- Try some of the variants out there.

 

[Niccodaemus]

To me the most obvious answer is that the Druid's abilities are magical and limited, while the Ranger's are innate.

If something in the environment interfered with the Druid's ability to cast spells, or a series of events used those spells rapidly, then there would be no doubt of the Ranger's merit.

Don't forget the Ranger's ability to surprise.

Also, I don't know how Druid's fit into your campaign, but if they are anything like Celtic Druids, they would likely have a lot of responsibility to their "people" that a ranger wouldn't have to deal with.

Create situations which allow each of the characters to have their moments of glory.

 

[gourdcaptain]

1)
3) Invent new combat styles for ranger: two-handed which grants power attack line of feats instead dual wield/archery, which reflects old-school AD&D rangers (Minsc FTW) or any other that comes to mind.
4) As you said, up the companion to that of a druid. IMHO, ranger should've always had more powerful companion than druid or, at least, on par.

Yeah, I'm strongly in favor of these two. I'm currently playing a PF Ranger, and I never would have if it wasn't for the option in the APG to take the Mounted Combat style (and it also offers a Two-Handed, Crossbow, and Sword and Shield styles). That, and some featery to make my Animal Companion a full-Druid LV viable mount has been the basis of the character's combat uniqueness in the party.

 

[Empirate]

I've spoken to the other players, they think full animal companion progression will go a long way.

BTW, combat style is already chosen (archery), and the player is quite happy with that, having never played an archer type before.

 

[Herzog]

I'm not sure how spellcasting works in E6, but the no-spellcasting variant (from complete champion) gives additional bonus feats for weapon style if I'm not mistaken.
Might be more appropriate than spellcasting after lvl 4 in an E6 campaign.

 

[Empirate]

Umm... in E6, it's not really a problem to get all the feats you ever wanted, and more. Because after level 6, you stop leveling regularly, and just accumulate bonus feats instead of new levels: every 5,000 XP, you get a new feat.
So the spell-less variety is less appealing in E6 even than in regular play.

 

[Duke Arioch]

Umm... in E6, it's not really a problem to get all the feats you ever wanted, and more. Because after level 6, you stop leveling regularly, and just accumulate bonus feats instead of new levels: every 5,000 XP, you get a new feat.
So the spell-less variety is less appealing in E6 even than in regular play.

Spell-less variety is less appealing in ANY game. As with paladin.

 

[emanresu]

To me the most obvious answer is that the Druid's abilities are magical and limited, while the Ranger's are innate.

If something in the environment interfered with the Druid's ability to cast spells, or a series of events used those spells rapidly, then there would be no doubt of the Ranger's merit.

Don't forget the Ranger's ability to surprise.

Also, I don't know how Druid's fit into your campaign, but if they are anything like Celtic Druids, they would likely have a lot of responsibility to their "people" that a ranger wouldn't have to deal with.

Create situations which allow each of the characters to have their moments of glory.

well this is the point of ?ing the Rangers point to exist...you have to create situations for him to shine, err a dull illumination. The favored terrian vs favored enemy makes him viable. In his territory he will shine.
The two wep style of the Ranger has never made sense to any of us (any group I have played with) it is basically a nod to J.R. Tolkein. two wep style = toe to toe combat. Toe to toe combat with A) light armor B) MAD attributes C) 1d8/level. The archer based version makes more sense but still leaves you causing little damage / ineffectual. The Scout is what the Ranger should of been.

 

[Tamlyn]

Hopefully, you're already doing this, but keep the Warlock's player involved in the conversations. The last thing you need is for the Druid's and Ranger's players to be happy then have the Warlock's player feeling left behind. You're balancing all three characters in the party, not just two.