Sibling rivalry

[boolean]

I'd agree that it's worth considering a couple of levels of Ranger. Compared with two levels of fighter, you lose a bonus feat, but gain Rapid Shot as a bonus feat, so that's a wash. A couple less HP are offset by the increased skill points, especially if the Ranger level is taken at level 1. Everything else is a bonus: Track feat, better reflex save, favored enemy (undead would probably fit the character's theme), ability to use wands of Cure Light Wounds and other spells from the Ranger list.

The only drawback is that access to feats which require fighter levels is reduced: Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Specialization etc.

 

[Felix]

The only drawback is that access to feats which require fighter levels is reduced: Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Specialization etc.

Wheras you gain the ability to use Favored Enemy feats to stack the hurt on to Undead.

I'd say go for 2 levels of Ranger and the rest Fighter.

 

[kenobi65]

Wheras you gain the ability to use Favored Enemy feats to stack the hurt on to Undead.

I'd say go for 2 levels of Ranger and the rest Fighter.

If undead are known to be a major campaign theme, then yes, that might make some sense.

Goldmoon noted earlier that her PC is from Ravenloft, for flavor...but that the campaign isn't based there.

 

[Felix]

Then if she's from Ravenloft, it would be flavorful to have Favored Enemy (Undead) feats. Not to mention you'll be right next to the cleric in undead-kickery.

In a no-Undead campaign, it's not the mechanical choice, but a darn good flavor choice that will be good mechanics as soon as the zombies show up.

 

[moritheil]

Undead usually show up in most campaigns, sooner or later. And it does seem to be a logical choice.

 

[Goldmoon]

Two levels of Ranger does sound like a good idea. Would you suggest the first two levels I take be Ranger or does it matter?

 

[Thanee]

The first two won't matter, but the first one will, because of the skill points. You will lose 1 hp (on average), though.

Also, if you take the second level of ranger a bit later, you can dump your skill points into two or so skills and raise them to maximum level that way. You won't have a lot of good skills, obviously, if you are primarily a fighter, so this might be worthy of consideration.

Bye
Thanee

 

[AuraSeer]

Two levels of Ranger does sound like a good idea. Would you suggest the first two levels I take be Ranger or does it matter?

Take your first level in Ranger. You'll have a bunch more skill points from the x4 multiplier.

In theory, the downside is that you'll average 2 fewer hit points, because your first (maxed) hit die will be a d8 instead of d10. But in practice, those two points are lost in the random noise of rolling for hit points each level, so there's no real downside at all.

 

[Goldmoon]

The DM who will be running the game has made a lame rule that there can not be two of the same class now. Also, only core classes and races allowed. I suppose I can go ranger all the way but I think the Ranger got screwed in the ranged bonus feat department compared to the TWF department.