Ranger/Druid handbook

Remove all ads!

Yes, well of course roleplaying is a good reason to stay with a class. I never denied that in my argument, and in fact I should have mentioned it. But you see, I wouldn't have taken the class in the first place to roleplay. And I really like the idea of the ranger myself. Hence why I've taken the time to completely overhaul the class into somthing different for my campaign. Roleplaying is an important, critical part of the game. In fact, roleplaying a weak class can be fun. I just feel the class in the PHB should not be as weak as it is. Yes, the ranger's skills are very nice indeed. One good reason why alot of people want one level of ranger at first level(please note I would not allow this in my game...I am a stong advocate of roleplaying myself, thanks Azardu). Skills are important, but that doesn't change the fact that the overall class is bland and weak compared to where it should be I feel. It should be on par with the other fighting classes, just as good but in different ways. I personally don't see the ranger being on par with the rest. I see the others as clearly superior.

I think Monte, as before, didn't know what to do with the favored enemy system. His solution was not to revamp it, but to add a few feats to the class to put it better on par with the other fighters. Now I don't necessarily think this is the way to go either, but it's better than the offering in the PHB.

And for dualwielding, you want to go with a light weapon in the offhand. With Ambidexterity and Two Weapon Fighting, you only have -2 bab to both hands, wich I feel is a good trade off for an extra attack (two extra attack with Improved Two Weapons). And if you're lucky enough to take twin sword style, you can get a +2 bonus to AC. I know, not at good as a shield, but then at higher levels, dual wielding can be very rewarding as a fighiting style.

[This message has been edited by Crawl (edited December 20, 2001).]

 

First some numbers:
Average damage
Dagger: 2.5
Shortsword: 3.5
Longsword: 4.5
Greatsword: 7

Notice that using the longsword and the dagger makes him deal the same amount on average as one using just the greatsword would. Using longsword and shortsword instead, would make him do an average of 1 damage more, at the cost of -2 BAB on both weapons. However, often you only get to make a standard attack, then we see the person using the greatsword doing an average of 2.5 damage more than the dual-wielder, usually more because here the one with the greatsword would still get a str*1.5 bonus, while the dual-wielder would only get his normal str bonus and not the str*0.5 he gets on his offhand attack. Assuming they both get their full attack, the dual-wielder also has to make two attack rolls, at 10% less chance to hit than that of the one with the greatsword. Now, I should also mention that the dual-wielder, getting to use both attacks, has a better chance of scoring a critical hit, somewhat making up for this. But not enough, in my opinion.
Now, I'm not saying that two weapon fighting is totally useless, in fact, a ranger/rogue combo is capable of dealing lots of damage, through dual sneak attacks. But other than that, I fail to see the great advantage of it.

A possible way to deal with this would be to give the ranger the ability to strike with both weapons at the same time as a standard action, when he gets to 5th level or so, possibly even a bit higher. This would also help motivate some players to keep advancing in the class, at least for some levels.

By the way, have you seen Fellowship of the Ring? When Aragorn comes leaping into the fight at the tower ruins, wielding a sword and a torch. Now THAT is two weapon fighting!

 

Heh, I've seen almost every preview thus far, so I've seen some of that. Hopefully I can go see it early tomorrow afternoon.

Well the character I'm playing now dual wields with a bastard sword and a short sword, so his damage is somewhat more on par with the big oaf using the greatsword. I find alot of the time that we are getting the full attack option, so I'm finding the extra attacks very useful myself. And those extra attacks are also important for classes that dual with weaker BaB classes, such as, as you stated, the ranger/rouge or the fighter/wizard. And I was talking with someone the other day who used a great axe. Had had, thus far, no criticals, while I've had quite a few. Coincidence? Probably, but just food for thought.

 

Yes, definately food for thought, and here's some more.

I wanted to compare swordstyles, therefore I didn't include axes. Also, axes only have threats on 20 (with triple damage on a hit), while swords have it on 19-20 (with double damage on a hit). You have twice the chance of scoring a critical with each of your attacks, compared to the axewielder.

The feat you had to spend to be able to wield the bastard sword in one hand, could have been spent by the person using a greataxe or greatsword to get the Improved Critical feat (assuming they meet the requirements), giving him a 19-20/x3 or 17-20/x2, depending on which of the weapons said person is using.

A fighter/wizard would need one hand free to cast spells, so how could he benefit from two-weapon fighting? Unless that person also has the Quick draw feat of course...

 

Quick Draw is nice, of course, and I would have had to take it would it not have been for the graciousness of our DM. He allows drawing weapons as free actions. So I can dual wield and cast a spell on the next round if I choose. Besides, dual wiedling is also a useful attack style for the fighter/wizard since using a shield would likely be too much of a burden on ones spell failure rate. Dual wielding with a bastard sword and short sword gives me the extra attacks I need, while twin sword style will give me that extra AC bonus I need (hey, I'm a firm beleiver in a good defense).

 

You are lucky to have such a DM then, for the books says it is a move equivalent action. I hope he doesn't let you put away the weapon, cast a spell, then retrieve the weapon again in the same round to maintain your +2 bonus to AC the same round...

 

The other thing is, the crit threat range of rapiers (also compatible with Twin Sword Style) is 18-20. With Improved crit, you start making crits on 15-20. Need I even mention Keen Edge. True, a rapier does a wimpy 1d6 damage, but there is a relatively high chance for Instant death hits. Someone dualwielding rapiers can do a heckuvalot damage. Also, there is also an off hand parry feat in the fighters expansion which gives another +2 to ac, at the expense of your off attack (for those situation where you have to have that little bit more of armor.) Pin shield and Combat reflexes lets you do an unholy amout of damage (pin shield grants an attack of oppurtunity, and combat reflexes gives amount of AoO = to dex mod)Granted, these strategies are more suited to finnesse fighters with their huge feat allowance. (that is a char I am experimenting with in RC right now, actually)

Todoloo,
Calin

 

No of course not Azardu. I myself also plan on DMing that way. Ah but I know, the books say something differnt. Tisk, tisk on me to be sure I just prefer doing away with that. Seems to make combat somewhat easier to deal with.

 

You just make sure then that someone doesn't get the idea of multiclassing ranger/rogue. If that one gets invisiblity or some other way of sneak attacking, he will be throwing a lot of daggers... Feats: Point blank shot, Rapid shot, possibly Precise shot, in addition to ranger virtual feats. He will at 3rd level (assuming it is a human) be able to throw 3 daggers in one round, each dealing 1d4+1d6, an average of 2.5+3.5=6. If all of them hits, he deals a very respectable damage of 18 in one round, and imagine the horror when he gets more attacks, better sneak attack, and possibly improved two-weapon fighting. At least the need for Quick Draw feat would set him back 3 levels

[This message has been edited by Azardu (edited December 24, 2001).]

 

Calin,
Your trick with buffing up the rapier's critical range should in no way buff up your chances of instant kill. p64, DMG states that instant kill rule should apply only to natural 20 rolls, to specifically avoid owerpowering weapons with increased crit ranges and giving advantages to certain battle tactics, such as what you've described.

Azardu, what about taking throw anything feat to hurl um... longswords in such manner?

[This message has been edited by Skedaddle (edited December 24, 2001).]

 

Skedaddle:
Actually, it does. Just do the math:
Chance of instant kill on threat range 18-20: 0.15*0.05=0.0075
Chance of instant kill on threat range 15-20: 0.30*0.05=0.015

With the doubling of chritical threat range, the chance of getting to the point where you can make a instant kill effectively doubles. I assume that's what Calin meant.

Edited a typo

[This message has been edited by Azardu (edited December 25, 2001).]

 

Azardu,
Since instant kill rule applies only to natural 20s (regardless of the weapons critical threat range), the chance of instant kill is always a constant.

 

Actually, what I meant was more along the lines of such: When you do two 20's in a row, you make a death threat. the next roll must only be a hit. Now, say the opponent in question has a high armor class (assuming creature is vulnerable to crits), it makes landing that final hit that much easier. It seems making the clincher hit is always hard. (at least when I am DM )
Nonetheless, though the Instant Death may be minimally or not at all influenced by the huge threat range, the range has other, more obvious uses.

 

Skedaddle: If you first make a critical threat, then roll a 20, you get a chance to do an instant kill. Both of these factors apply when figuring out the chances of accomplishing it. Since the person with the biggest threat range has the highest chance to accomplish the first half of it, he must also have a higher chance of accomplishing it as a whole, as the next part of it is equal for both of them, don't you agree? Of course, this is assuming they have the same BAB in the last part of the procedure, which could further complicate things if unequal

Word: A roll in the critical threat range is not an automatic hit, only 20s are. Perhaps that's not what you meant, but I thought I should mention it just in case.

 

Azardu, so be it if you wish; I have always considered instant kill possibility at both 20's only. That's up to the DM of course.

 

Skedaddle: And you were right, too. Damn, and here I thought I knew the rules. I'll go sit in a corner for a while

 

With the release of MotW this month, has anyone seen a pre-view of it yet? In the past (for the other source books) WotC has released the table of contents or other fact in advance. Anyone have a link to this info. Thanks.

 

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/dx20020202ex
http://www.d20reviews.com/dndrumours.htm

 

Well the final class handbook is out and it's good one. I think MotW is the best since T&B. Lots of good new rules, new feats, spells and some great Prestige Classes. The Geomancer, Exotic weapons master, and the deep woods sniper are all excellent. The new rule for the druid wild shape are weel throught out.

Have you seen the book yet? What do you think?

 

Well since this is the first post I've seen which talks about this book, I'll use it. I think it's an excellent book. It's well thought out, well done, and without the wasted space some of the other books have. It's done more to really add onto the core classes than the other books have, and like I said a long time back, the ranger/druic needed the additional help. Some of the pretige classes are somewhat overpowering, but all in all, they are well done and each adds a differnt flavor to some otherwise possibly straightforward/overloooked classes. The new spells add some interest, and some of the variants on the old class rules are nice. The new weapons aren't great, but the new magical items are, expecially the ideas for worthwhile natural armor a druid can wear. I'd say WoTC saved their best material for their last classbook IMO. I'd say they did a really good job all around from the two times I read through it at the bookstore. A worthwhile investment.