Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder: Fixing the TWF Ranger

[JRRNeiklot]

Well, they have done a lot of these "mental mindset" powers in 4E, so it should be a concept that can work in 3E. Besides, what is the barbarians rage ability other than a mind set?

But rage kicks in when the player wants it to (within limits). And emulating the 4e "It works, just because" crap is a slippery slope I would not like Pathfinder to plummet down.

 

[Shazman]

Another thing to consider is that ranger's get their combat styles for free. If they don't want to use them, they can always use their regular feats for other combat styles. If you want to use a greatsword, pick the archery path for free archery feats you can use when you can't close with your opponent. Then, use your regular feats to get power attack, etc. If you want to go sword and board, get your twf feats for free and get improved shield bash and a spiked shield. It's not like it forces you to use your regualr feats for any certain combat style. They are free. Quit complaining.

 

[RangerWickett]

Ranger should be a feat. It would give you . . . well hell, I don't even know the terminology anymore, but skill training or class skill use, of Nature and Survival, and give you the ability to track.

And maybe a second feat could give you specific benefits for going through wild terrain even better.

Aragorn was a paladin with the ranger feat.

Drizzt was a fighter with the ranger feat.

Tanis was also a fighter with the ranger feat (but he spent his fighter feats on different stuff).

Kate on LOST is a rogue with the ranger feat.

 

[Treebore]

Probably the best thing to do is get rid of the Ranger as a class, as well as the Paladin, and just create feats that allow players to build a fighter into such concepts.

I know a lot of people will choke at such a notion, but I do think it would work, and work well. So hopefully they'll try it out after they get done choking and find it works well enough.

Assuming PF even did such a thing, which I doubt they will. Doing such a thing would give the people crying "its not backwards compatible" ammunition. Personally I would still see it as backwards compatible because you can still build such classes, just using a different approach.

 

[Volaran]

While building a paladin or ranger with another class and appropriate feats has its own appeal, it would likely stray to far from what the Paizo folks want to do here: Make it easy to convert characters from 3.5 to Pathfinder. (If this falls into Treebore's definition of crying, then I accept that.)

There are 10 character level feats over 20 levels instead of 7, so it is reasonable to substitute the Ranger fighting styles with something else. Those extra feats can be used for this conversion.

If we get to the point where we're discussing Ranger as a series of feats, or a prestige class, etc. I think we would be venturing more into homebrew changes, rather than what Paizo can reasonably accept as feedback, given their stated goals.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Another thing to consider is that ranger's get their combat styles for free. If they don't want to use them, they can always use their regular feats for other combat styles. If you want to use a greatsword, pick the archery path for free archery feats you can use when you can't close with your opponent. Then, use your regular feats to get power attack, etc. If you want to go sword and board, get your twf feats for free and get improved shield bash and a spiked shield. It's not like it forces you to use your regualr feats for any certain combat style. They are free. Quit complaining.

Wizards get there spells for free, I could ignore those if I wanted to play a smart, non magical guy. Rogues get tons of skills, I could play a really good skill guy and ignore sneak attack, too. But it ain't gonna happen. Bottom line is when a class gets something for free, that is part of the balance of the class. If you ignore it, you have a weaker character than you should have had. It's nice if you role wanna play a 4 hit die guy with no spells, , but when the dice come to hand, it gets you and possibly youre entire party wacked.

 

[Volaran]

Wizards get there spells for free, I could ignore those if I wanted to play a smart, non magical guy. Rogues get tons of skills, I could play a really good skill guy and ignore sneak attack, too. But it ain't gonna happen. Bottom line is when a class gets something for free, that is part of the balance of the class. If you ignore it, you have a weaker character than you should have had. It's nice if you role wanna play a 4 hit die guy with no spells, , but when the dice come to hand, it gets you and possibly youre entire party wacked.

In both of those examples, you are taking a primary focus of the class (spells for Wizards, Sneak attack for rogues) and comparing them to a secondary (though important) benefit of the Ranger class.

I can see Shazam's point, even if I advocate something different. I've played rangers with a combat path (archery), and found myself in situations where ranged abilities come in very handy, even if I choose to devote most of my focus elsewhere.

A more accurate comparison might be a specialist wizard who ends up not taking many spells of his specialty, or a rogue who has trapfinding, but choses not to put any ranks in disable device or perception.