Which Build is Better?

[roguerouge]

I'm facing a choice right now, playing an Urban ranger with TWF style in an Age of Worms campaign. I have to start building towards a viable prestige class, but I'm facing a tough choice. I can go towards Dervish via the Scout class or I can take a DM-designed prestige class geared towards fighting undead, but which I only know some of the attributes.

I'm looking to you to help me decide. For comparison, I've built stat blocks for the two builds through 13th level, which is when I'd max out the DM's prestige class:

Ranger 7/PrC 6…
Saves: Fort +10 Reflex +7 Will +7 (+15/15/15 vs. undead due to Unquenchable Flame of Life feat, "some immunities")
HP: 13d8+13
AC: +2 alternative Two Weapon Defense feat, Combat Expertise
BAB: +11
Attacks:
Axe Wielded 2-handed: +11/+6/+1 (1d8+3) average 7.5 per hit
TWF Attack: +9/+4/-1 (1d8+2) and +9/+4 (1d8+1) average 7.5/6.5 per hit
FE: Undead TWF Attack: +9/+4/-1 (1d8+17) and +9/+4 (1d8+16) average 22.5/21.5 per hit
FE: Outsider/Cultist Organization TWF Attack: +9/+4/-1 (1d8+7) and +9/+4 (1d8+6) average 11.5/10.5 per hit
Special: Turn Undead 3/day +0 (2d6+6) as 6th level cleric
Special: Detect Undead at will
Special: Cure spells maximized when cast on me
Special: Can use turn undead attempts to crit undead
Special: Go under cover as Undead as they think I am undead
Special: Distracting Attack means any sneak attacks work against targets I hit in melee
Skills: ??

Ranger 2/Scout 4/Fighter 1/Dervish 6...
Saves: Fort +8 Reflex +11 Will +5
HP: 6d8+7d10+13
AC: +1 Shield, +1 Dodge, +2 (Ex.), +1/+3 Skirmish, +4 vs. AoO, +5 Combat Expertise, Fight Defensively: -4/+3
Best AC: +15 (-9 attacks)
When have Elaborate Parry at Dervish 7: Fight defensively -4/+7 for –9/+19
BAB: +12
Attacks:
Axe Wielded 2-handed: +12/+7/+2 (1d8+3) average 7.5 per hit
Skirmish Spring Attack: +12 (1d8+3+2d6) average 14.5
Improved Skirmish Spring Attack: +12 (1d8+3+4d6) average 21.5
Static Full Attack: +10/+5/+0 (1d8+2) and +10 (1d8+1) average 7.5/6.5 per hit
Improved Skirmish Dervish Full Attack (8 rd., 3/day): +13/+8/+3 (1d8+5+4d6) and +13 (1d8+4+4d6) average 23.5/22.5 per hit
Skills: 70
Specials: Improved Skirmish means skirmish damage works vs. undead, Favored Enemy +4 (undead)/+2 (cultists), Elusive Target, Cleave while Dancing, +3 Initiative, Spring Attack, Move +15, Really keen orc clogging dancer (+16!), Blind Fight

Let me know if you need additional information...

 

[blargney the second]

If there are undead involved, I'd take a page from Darklone's book and go Swift Hunter Greater Manyshot archer. Meleeing with undead is generally a losing proposition...

 

[roguerouge]

I'd love to, but I can't. In a party of 7, we have a cloistered cleric, a scout-archer, a rogue, a warlock, and a war mage. There's a knight for the front line, but they really need me on the front lines.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Any particular reason for Urban Ranger (I know nothing of AoW, if this is why)? It's just plain worse than normal Ranger. From the same book, "Planar" Ranger is much better, usually. I used quotes around Planar because it really isn't the kind of stuff you'd associate with such a name

As for the builds, go #1 if you expect alot of Undead foes, otherwise #2. Unless you can't muster Tumble +14 by then, making Dervish Dance dangerous.

Side note: Play a (Wood) Elf, use the Races of the Wild substitution levels, specifically the first one. Lets you pick undead at +3 instead of +2, and as you raise it, it climbs accordingly (+6 instead of +4, etc...).

 

[moritheil]

Yeah, I also prefer Planar Ranger to Ranger. Elf Ranger 1 is also sweet for the extra skills at the cost of 2 hp and 150% effectiveness on FE undead (which Stream mentioned.)

Any reason Hunter of the Dead isn't an option?

 

[roguerouge]

I chose Urban Ranger for flavor reasons: it was a noir campaign with a heavy urban flavor and I had a good character history for that one. The GM hates elves, albeit in a humorous manner, so they are rare in his campaign world.

The character is currently a Ranger 4, but we're allowed to use retraining to shift one level or feat as we go.

As far as Hunter of the Dead, there's two reasons. One, this character's died twice, but neither time was due to undead. Two, he's not able to turn undead currently, so it would require a dip into cleric or a longer dip into paladin. He's also got a wisdom of 10, as I never planned to make spell casting a big deal with this character.

Honestly, I don't understand why Hunter of the Dead is all that good. Would it be a better option than these builds?

 

[roguerouge]

As a skirmishing dervish, his tumble skill would be +18 (+/- armor penalty) at level 13, with the ability to take 10 on all tumble checks.

 

[serow]

Honestly, I don't understand why Hunter of the Dead is all that good. Would it be a better option than these builds?

You're right, in general, HotD isn't much of a powerhouse. It's got thematic abilities, but it's only average at best. If you want to be an undead hunter, try going with the DM's class. It makes 'em happy too, that someone took it

 

[moritheil]

You're right, in general, HotD isn't much of a powerhouse. It's got thematic abilities, but it's only average at best.

HotD can do something that no other class, feat, or even spell can achieve. If you're a strong believer in putting things to rest for good as soon as you kill something, then it's likely to appeal to you.

Mostly I find it appeals to those who are sick of having their old foes brought back. And it is, aside from that, quite good in undead-heavy campaigns (which I believe this is.)