What's wrong with the single-classed Ranger?

[Crothian]

LOL Fair enough. I still got plenty of those questions to ask too.

But still, getting lumped in with the Transporter is not something you should be happy with.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Huge misconception that these classes need high stats. My Rangers stats from highest to lowest are Charisma, Wisdom, Dexterity, Intelligence, Constitution, Strength. Highest score is a 16, lowest is a 10. You don't need go scores to play any class, let alone the ranger.

While I disagree about your generalization, I think monks & paladins have stat "issues", I concur with respect to the ranger.

A ranger is an excellent choice for a character with some moderate stats -- 12's and 14's spread around. This is a very attractive class for a low point buy campaign.

You only need great stats if you foolishly try to compete head to head with either the fighter/barbarian or the rogue. Stick to what you are good at and stats shouldn't be a problem.

 

[Crothian]

While I disagree about your generalization, I think monks & paladins have stat "issues", I concur with respect to the ranger.

I think the problem is these classes can take advantage of higher attributes more then the other classes. A high wisdom means more to a monk then a fighter, just a high charisma means more to a paladin then a Wizard. However, just becasue these classes can take advantage of the higher attributes does not mean one needs high attributes for the classes to work. I've seen a monk that had a high Dex (16), but nothing else higher then a 12 work really well. Again, I think it's from people reading the class but not actually trying it out and seeing how it really works.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Edit: And the Transporter stunk, why is this thread sponsored by them?

It didn't stink. It wasn't great by any stretch of the imagination, but they beat people up, shot people, blew things up fun was had by all. The transporters character was mildly interesting, though virtually every other character I didn't like.

Main problems I saw was poor use of music to enhance fight scenes, and fight scenes were too jackie chan esq from the kicking butt of many goons with a capitol G, to using objects in wierd ways to fight. Nothing wrong with jackie chan style fighting in a jackie chan movie, but I'm not sure it fit the feel of this movie or at elast how the movie was portrayed in commercials.

 

[Crothian]

Movie Tangent!!!

It didn't stink. It wasn't great by any stretch of the imagination, but they beat people up, shot people, blew things up fun was had by all. The transporters character was mildly interesting, though virtually every other character I didn't like.

Main problems I saw was poor use of music to enhance fight scenes, and fight scenes were too jackie chan esq from the kicking butt of many goons with a capitol G, to using objects in wierd ways to fight. Nothing wrong with jackie chan style fighting in a jackie chan movie, but I'm not sure it fit the feel of this movie or at elast how the movie was portrayed in commercials.

First, I saw this movie for free and I still didn't like it. THe camera angels at during the first chase scene where too close and really ruined the scene. The main character was a little interesting but it seemed there was some history important to the character they didn't tell us. The action scenes where okay, but to much of bad guys attacing one at a time. THe bullets all seemed like tracers, it was rather annoying. Then there was the ending, I'm not going to spoil it for people. However, I was left with more question and confusion then I like.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

My only beef is I think perhaps a little too much is given to the ranger at level one.(same can be said for other classes as well) Other than that they work fairly well, though I do think their two weapon fighting should of been 1 or 2 bonus bow feats, and or at least effect double weapons But that is more of a style thing than balance.

I really think people undervalue skills way too much. Maybe it is a campaign dependent thing, but fighters have a much harder time in my game than rangers all because of 2 skill points and crap class skills. Be able to kill things is a worthy and noble goal, but if that is all you do you're going to suck in large portions of my games.

 

[Corlon]

munchkins...grrrr

If anyone takes one level of ranger in my campaign, I make them explaing to me why.
If they say, "to get the feats of course, DUH," or any other unsatifiing answer, no ranger for them this level, this usually stops munchkins in their tracks

I'd probably never play a ranger unless it was a rogue/ranger, because I don't really like rangers, but they're still a perfectly good class. Straight rangers aren't too great, whereas after 10th level (third favored enemy) I usually find it good to get windrider, foe hunter, tempest, or other class.

 

[Stalker0]

an alternative I tried was giving a ranger "favored enemy specialization".

basically if you choose to specially you got a +2 bonus to your favored enemy instead of +1 everytime you gained a new bonus, but you could never have more than one favored enemy.

Nobody played him though

I would think that have multiple types of rangers would be nice, like the mounted ranger, archery ranger, sword ranger, but the problem with that would again be the front loaded which is very common with the class.

Also, I think rangers should get some special skills at higher levels, like rogues.

Btw, could someone please post the monte alt. ranger or where I can see it, I've never gotten a chance to look at it.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Re: Movie Tangent!!!

Then there was the ending, I'm not going to spoil it for people. However, I was left with more question and confusion then I like.

Other than your ability to count to two, and the wonders of teleportation.

 

[Crothian]

Re: Re: Movie Tangent!!!

Other than your ability to count to two, and the wonders of teleportation.

Huh?