Ranger - likes and dislikes?

[Question]

I dislike the fact that....well if i want to go 2WF or archery a straight fighter is usually much better, with more HPs.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I dislike the fact that....well if i want to go 2WF or archery a straight fighter is usually much better, with more HPs.

It depends... not having to meet the Dex requirements for the TWF chain makes it possible to make a much higher Str TWF ranger than you could make as a fighter, especially in moderate to low point buy campaigns.

Not to mention that your TWF fighter has only a few rubbish skills and no spell capability, no evasion, probably no tracking... get the picture?

Cheers

 

[Felon]

It depends... not having to meet the Dex requirements for the TWF chain makes it possible to make a much higher Str TWF ranger than you could make as a fighter, especially in moderate to low point buy campaigns.

Definitely true, especially if we're talking about sticking with the ranger until 11th level.

 

[Felon]

To give Tolkien a spin, I'd bet Boromir gets a better Hit Die than Aragorn, even though Aragorn is of the royal house of the Dunedain and a (pretty direct) descendant of Elros; principally because Boromir was a hale-and-hearty, upfront fighter-type, whereas Aragorn had da mad skilz and a host of other abilities that made him an excellent runner, tracker, and woodsman (I'm leaving out the "hands of a king" and other qualities that are probably more about ol'Aragorn being a Numenorean and of royal blood).

Sure. Heck, I could easily imagine Aragorn dipping into some fighter levels.

 

[Hussar]

Something I don't understand about these recent spate of threads.

Everyone compares these classes to fighters and then complains about how they don't stack up in a fight.

The ONLY thing a fighter does well is fight. He has no spells, no special abilities, nothing. The only thing a fighter does better than anyone else is hit things. Why does everyone feel that classes that don't fight as well as fighters are somehow weaker? Doesn't matter if it's barbarians, monks or even rangers. The fighter's schtick is ultimate damage dealer. He might get crowded a bit on that from the Barbie, but, not always. It would be much better to compare a ranger to a rogue or, well, monk to see if his roll as light skirmisher is filled or not.

Why does everyone want to take away the one thing that fighters do best?

 

[glass]

Never try to quantify what hit points respresent. Down that path lay only madness. They are "How Long I Should Be Able To Fight" points, and that's pretty much as specific as you can get.

The way with the least amount of madness is to say that they represent multiple different things: A little bit of dodging, which turns major injuries into minor, or causes strains elsewhere; a little bit of luck; a little bit of endurance/fatigue; and a little bit of sheer toughness. With the exact mix varying from character to character.

It's not the perfect rationalisation, because (for example) it doesn't explain how CLW restores used up luck, but its the best I have been able to come up with.


glass.

 

[JVisgaitis]

Why does everyone want to take away the one thing that fighters do best?

I was thinking the same thing...

 

[Plane Sailing]

The fighter's schtick is ultimate damage dealer.

May I disagree with you? I think the fighters schtick is 'most versatile combatant'.

All the other fighting classes can specialise in one thing, the fighter can specialise in more than one thing because of his plethora of feats.

The paladin out damages the fighter when making a spirited charge on his mount and smites evil. The barbarian out damages the fighter when he rages with his two handed sword. It is fine for other fighting classes to out-damage the fighter when within their narrow field of specialty.

But it is the fighter who is able to fight in all kinds of situations and all kinds of ways (spirited charge on the mount? fine! Whirlwind attack? Fine! Rapid shot with my composite longbow? Fine! Improved Disarm? Fine!)

The fighter is not and shouldn't necessarily be the ultimate damage dealer. He is the most versatile combatant, and able to use many different tactics to handle different situations.

Cheers

 

[The_Gneech]

Why does everyone want to take away the one thing that fighters do best?

'cause everybody wants to be able to fight, but fighting by itself is boring.

Personally, I'm more than fine with the fighter having more HP and feats than the ranger; as far as I'm concerned, the fighter should have a few more skill points and class skills, too.

-The Gneech

 

[Psychic Warrior]

May I disagree with you? I think the fighters schtick is 'most versatile combatant'.

All the other fighting classes can specialise in one thing, the fighter can specialise in more than one thing because of his plethora of feats.

The paladin out damages the fighter when making a spirited charge on his mount and smites evil. The barbarian out damages the fighter when he rages with his two handed sword. It is fine for other fighting classes to out-damage the fighter when within their narrow field of specialty.

But it is the fighter who is able to fight in all kinds of situations and all kinds of ways (spirited charge on the mount? fine! Whirlwind attack? Fine! Rapid shot with my composite longbow? Fine! Improved Disarm? Fine!)

The fighter is not and shouldn't necessarily be the ultimate damage dealer. He is the most versatile combatant, and able to use many different tactics to handle different situations.

Cheers

Dang! Just about a perfect representation of my opinion of the fighter's role.