Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder: Fixing the TWF Ranger

[JRRNeiklot]

Every dm is a game designer. The combat styles are just stupid, period. No other class gets shoehorned into a combat style, why the ranger? A ranger (or any other class ) should pick his feats like any other and fight however the hell he pleases. TWf is a legacy from 2e that should go away. Being good at woodcraft does not make one suddenly good at twf or archery or tiddleywinks. Combat paths are bad design, and it doesn't take a game designer to figure that out. The suggestion on the boards is always add a sword and board style and a skirmish style and a two handed cleave style and a spoon and fork style, when a much simpler mechanic would be to just remove the damned combat paths altogether. There's been quite a few people to suggest that, but I guess Paizo is afraid to scrap it and annoy their 4e overlords.

I know it sounds like I complain a lot, but it's only because I desperately want Pathfinder to be a game I can play without scrapping half the system. Sadly, that doesn't appear to be the case.

 

[Treebore]

I know I have seen a fair number of posts indicating they have seen changes between each version that they didn't think they will see. Plus they still have time. About a year, I believe, until the final version comes out.

So there is still hope.

Plus I have just spent a fair amount of time reading the Alpha 3 comments, Of the ones I read I have seen a Paizo employee respond and give the reason why they were doing what they do. Of the 3 such situations I saw I felt their reasons were sound.

Plus they do need to make Pathfinder backwards compatible. Considering what I have seen "Game designer DM's" claim would make Pathfinder backwards compatibility impossible, I would say a fair number of these "experts" would claim that taking away the Ranger fighting styles would be one of these "compatibility breakers".

I, as a 22+ year game design DM expert, don't see many such claims as being legitimate, but there have been a lot of such experts making such claims.

So we'll just have to wait and see. I have faith in Paizo's "expert" abilities, so they will improve what they can.

 

[Aus_Snow]

So, what is a Ranger anyway? I don't mean, what has it been throughout the editions of D&D, and neither do I mean, what is it right now (or in the process of becoming, even.)

I guess what I mean is, what should a Ranger be? What must they be, or can they be, and what should they be able to do that is different from any other class's abilities? Also, should they be able to do anything that is pretty much or exactly the same as another class's abilities, and if so, what and why?

On the higher/abstract level, particularly - but not only that. More thought out rules suggestions can only help this thread, of course.

 

[Treebore]

To me a Ranger should just be a fighter exceptionally strong on woodland skills, setting up ambushes, excel at hunting, etc... The "racial enemy" thing is just a gimmick. I do think they should be exceptional with a bow, though. That is one thing I can't get over. I was thinking giving them an extra step in the crit range and an extra 1 on their crit multiplier with a bow would be a good start. I do believe there are feats that do this in 3E, right?

Of course I have been falling in love with the way True20 builds character concepts, so...

 

[JRRNeiklot]

A ranger should be just slightly less effective in combat than a fighter, and more effective when fighting evil humanoids who attack towns, merchant trains, and farms. He should also be able to function when he has to ditch his griffin in the middle of the Canadian Forest or the Amazon. He should have track, a lot of wilderness skills and abilities. He's the defender of borderland towns and feared more by a tribe of orcs than the entire king's garrison. The first edition ranger is the best one yet. I would like to see it ported straight over and a nice skill set added. If the one point of damage per level is too much, make it one per two levels or one per three. He should be good at stealth, able to disappear into the shadows at a moments notice, able to surprise his foe with nary a sound. He is the original jack of all trades. Some people complain that a ranger doesn't need spells. I disagree, spells like sleep, invisibility, comprehend languages, animal friendship, entangle, complement the ranger style well, and let us not forget the original ranger was based on Aragorn and Faramir who had been trained by Gandalf. For those who want a less magical ranger, provide that option. Make spell levels feats. Each feat provides one level of spells. Capped at 2nd or 3rd level, of course. I personally would like to see the ranger and paladin spell lists just go away and just retain the cleric, druid, and magic user lists. It would simplify things a lot and not hurt a ranger (or paladin) who wants the odd spell that didn't make it on their list. I'm not suggesting rangers get fireballs, but animal trance would be nice. Again AD&D can be a guide, 2nd level in mu spells, 3rd in druid for the ranger 4th level cleric spells for the paladin. If a 10th level ranger really wants a 3 dice magic missile, while the mage is casting cone of cold is that really unbalancing?

I haven't had much sleep, so my post is probably incoherent, but maybe it's legible to some.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I do think they should be exceptional with a bow, though. That is one thing I can't get over.

And he can be. He can take the proper feats. But hard wiring them into the class - any class - is just wrong. There's never been a ranger who was just adequate with a bow?

 

[Treebore]

And he can be. He can take the proper feats. But hard wiring them into the class - any class - is just wrong. There's never been a ranger who was just adequate with a bow?

Not any that I bothered remembering. Plus I love the Green Arrow character, and Hawkeye, and Robin Hood. So I know I am biased in favor of great archers, and the Ranger fits that for me. Maybe if they had Hawkeye, Green Arrow, and Robin Hood wear plate mail.

 

[Treebore]

A ranger should be just slightly less effective in combat than a fighter, and more effective when fighting evil humanoids who attack towns, merchant trains, and farms. He should also be able to function when he has to ditch his griffin in the middle of the Canadian Forest or the Amazon. He should have track, a lot of wilderness skills and abilities. He's the defender of borderland towns and feared more by a tribe of orcs than the entire king's garrison. The first edition ranger is the best one yet. I would like to see it ported straight over and a nice skill set added. If the one point of damage per level is too much, make it one per two levels or one per three. He should be good at stealth, able to disappear into the shadows at a moments notice, able to surprise his foe with nary a sound. He is the original jack of all trades. Some people complain that a ranger doesn't need spells. I disagree, spells like sleep, invisibility, comprehend languages, animal friendship, entangle, complement the ranger style well, and let us not forget the original ranger was based on Aragorn and Faramir who had been trained by Gandalf. For those who want a less magical ranger, provide that option. Make spell levels feats. Each feat provides one level of spells. Capped at 2nd or 3rd level, of course. I personally would like to see the ranger and paladin spell lists just go away and just retain the cleric, druid, and magic user lists. It would simplify things a lot and not hurt a ranger (or paladin) who wants the odd spell that didn't make it on their list. I'm not suggesting rangers get fireballs, but animal trance would be nice. Again AD&D can be a guide, 2nd level in mu spells, 3rd in druid for the ranger 4th level cleric spells for the paladin. If a 10th level ranger really wants a 3 dice magic missile, while the mage is casting cone of cold is that really unbalancing?

I haven't had much sleep, so my post is probably incoherent, but maybe it's legible to some.

Hmm, I could definitely get into this concept. Not so much on the spells part, but that is also why I wish the game had more magics, like Herbal magic. I can see a Ranger using herbs and such to create sleep effects, entangles, etc...

Maybe the Rangers "racial enemy" abilities should be situational instead of racial?

IE when they are fighting to protect or save a farm/town/etc... from a tribe of "X", or swarm of "X" their enemy ability kicks in. When they are in a dungeon to clear it out for the miners, or to recover a long lost relic, they don't get their bonus'.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

The problem there is explaining the mechanic in game terms. I get plus five slaughtering these orcs, but not those orcs? A dm can explain it away as attitude, but then you're forcing a mindset on a pc, his attitude should be up to him. You could call it a holy bonus, but then that makes a ranger a bit more religous than I envision. I wouldn't mind seeing the favored enemy thing go away, either, but it would need to be replaced by something that sets the ranger apart from other warrior types. There's the favored terrain thing, but it's really the same thing, and both depend on the dm catering to the ranger's abilities.

 

[Treebore]

The problem there is explaining the mechanic in game terms. I get plus five slaughtering these orcs, but not those orcs? A dm can explain it away as attitude, but then you're forcing a mindset on a pc, his attitude should be up to him. You could call it a holy bonus, but then that makes a ranger a bit more religous than I envision. I wouldn't mind seeing the favored enemy thing go away, either, but it would need to be replaced by something that sets the ranger apart from other warrior types. There's the favored terrain thing, but it's really the same thing, and both depend on the dm catering to the ranger's abilities.

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?
So in certain situations the Ranger is able to call on some mysterious reserve to enable him to fight at his absolute peak. Hmmm, maybe have the Ranger be a fighter, but "two steps" behind the fighter, but in these specific situations he is able to function two steps ahead of a fighter? A bit of "Rage", a bit of "clarity", a bit of spiritual magic?

I think it could be workable. Besides, it isn't like we could come up with the perfect Ranger concept for everyone.