Playing a Ranger

[The Souljourner]

I agree with Olgar... having three negative adustments is pretty harsh. Sure, -2 charisma is mostly negligible, but -2 to int and con is kinda annoying. Rangers need all the skillpoints they can get. Compared to a human, wood elves get two fewer skillpoints. That's rough.

So, while the benefits are nice, I think they're well balanced. I've been wavering back and forth between Wood Elf and human, and indecision is the best indication of balance in my experience. If Wood Elves truly deserved +1 ECL, it should be a no brainer.

I suppose if I were playing a straight fighter, it probably would be a no brainer, but then the skill bonuses wouldn't be that much help, and besides, it's a no brainer for half orcs to be fighter types too, and no one complains about them being too powerful.

....yeah, anyway... I wish I had spare skillpoints... a level of blade dancer from OA would be pretty sweet too. double your movement at first level? Damn!

-The Souljourner

 

[FlimFlam]

Would you consider playing one of the Ranger variants (like the Urban Ranger or Monte Cook's Ranger) or are you going for the standard PHB Ranger?

Reason I ask is because you can make an Archer-type ranger (easier to do with Monte's Ranger) and take advantange of Entangle. Entangle your enemies then fire from afar. By the time they break out and get to you, well hopefully they will be dead.

Another idea (that I may use myself) is go Ranger/Druid and use spells like Flameblade with your Two-Weapon fighting. That is a 1d8 flaming weapon that is wielded as a scimitar (so no Weapon Finesse, but high crit range) and is made as a melee touch-attack. Of course, it would probably work best if you went full Druid and just took Ambidex and TWF as starting feats. Flameblade is a level 2 spell also, but you also have Shilligh (sp) at first level to fall back on. Use that with a Quarterstaff.

 

[The Souljourner]

Maybe Urban Ranger, definitely not Monte Cook's. MC's is too powerful, and too much of a house rule. We try to stick to official D&D stuff as much as possible. Besides, I want to try out the ranger to see how balanced it is, that's the point And not druid... I want to be as close to single class ranger as possible (though it's looking like I may take shadow scout, since it's so cool).

-The Souljourner

 

[Ysgarran]

SKILLS
Definitely max out spot. Other important skills are wild lore, listen, search, hide, and move. Consider at least one rank in handle animal and animal empathy so you can attempt these skills. Get knowledge: nature (your other party members will look to you for this kind of info, and you'll be embarrassed if you don't have the answer). Consider spending skill points on Craft skills, so you can fashion yourself a bow, arrows, leather or hide armor, flint axe, and spears if you ever find yourself in the wild with only a knife. Don't overlook the value of Climb and Jump.

Nice post Zaruthustran but I think this paragraph points out one of the difficulties in creating a ranger. It is really hard to put enough points into intelligence to really take advantage of all of the skills that rangers have available especially when you take into account that you need a decent wisdom score for spells and you are usually expected to be a decent fighter also (decent Str, Dex and/or Con). Now Souljourner escapes many of these issues because he has a wonderfull set of scores (43 points in the point buy system). Build a Ranger with a 25 point buy and I think you will see my point.

Rangers have a wonderfull spread of skills but I think you need to decide what you want to be good at. If you spread those skill points around too much and you will be mediocre at everything.

later,
Ysgarran.

p.s.
I posted a similiar question a few weeks back, perhaps someone would be nice enough to post that link.

 

[The Souljourner]

Exactly, Ysgarran... it's difficult to make a well rounded ranger, because you need good stats in everything except Charisma. And skills... good lord. You almost have to max out hide/MS/listen/spot/wilderness lore.... that's one more skill than you get points already... now if you want to teach your animal tricks you need handle animal... you should probably have a decent search check...

Even with my great stats, I'm still stymied... I'm tempted to go human and put a 16 in int, just so I can get all the skills I want.

In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think maybe I shouldn't take wood elf. -2 int sucks a lot... yeah, +2 strength and dex is great, but only if you don't care about the mental stats. I don't really feel the need for 18s in strength and dex if it means 13s in all my other stats...

Anyone else ever notice that like 2/3s of all parties are human? Or is that just in my groups?

-Nate, aka The Souljourner

 

[Stalker0]

Anyone else ever notice that like 2/3s of all parties are human? Or is that just in my groups?

-Nate, aka The Souljourner

In my group it tends to vary. Sometimes we have like all humans. Right now we have none.

 

[Shin Okada]

Anyone else ever notice that like 2/3s of all parties are human? Or is that just in my groups?

-Nate, aka The Souljourner

Oh really? Parties around me tend to have, say 1 or 2 humans at best. One of my current PC party have, 2 Elves (Rogue/Wizard & Cleric), 1 Half-Orc (Rogue/Barbarian/Fighter), 1 Halfling (Wizard), and a Human (Paladin).

 

[Dr. Zoom]

Even with my great stats, I'm still stymied... I'm tempted to go human and put a 16 in int, just so I can get all the skills I want.

That is why I have given rangers in my game 6 skill points rather than 4. Bards, too. Seemed the way to go with these classes rather than create an overpowered variant. I wonder if the Revised core books will change the ranger much?

 

[Witness]

Originally posted by Dr. Zoom:

That is why I have given rangers in my game 6 skill points rather than 4. Bards, too. Seemed the way to go with these classes rather than create an overpowered variant. I wonder if the Revised core books will change the ranger much?

I disagree with this. Even a Ranger with mediocre Int can and should have better skills than anyone except a Rogue. I always play characters with decent Intelligence and as much diversity as possible in skills. My experience has been that acharacter is more useful overall if he is good at alot of things instead of being the best at just a few.

 

[wallshot]

ranger ideas

ok, seriously consider having yor DM look into the alternate ranger that monte cook put out (its avaliable under the Stuff section of his website). U sacrafice the TWF and AMBIDEX upfront for more bonus feats down the road. U also take a hit on HD type,...from a D10 down to a D8, but U get 6 skill points per level, a better spell list and good Fort/Ref saves.

i almost always take my ranger into the Archer arch-type, with three levels of peerless archer (cant remember where from) and then a few mixed btwn Order of the bow and deepwoods sniper (they all have the same feat requirements).

makes U very deadly from afar and still able to hold yor own in melee