Well, frankly, a scout who is supposed to go ahead and make sure the area is safe *should* have at least a few trap disarming skills. Roleplay-wise. I'm not complaining, just saying it makes perfect sense to me. Maybe as a scout kit that gets trap finding skills automatically like a bard gets pickpocket.
@jcdenton11 - I'd take Minsc to front line. I assume you'll go for a good party as a ranger, so killing or stealing from Drizzt wouldn't be easy to justify, roleplay-wise.
You do know that Archers can achieve Grand Mastery in bows, yes?
If you want to make arguments about the value of plate and being more than proficient in other weapons, go ahead. But a Fighter is NOT better with a bow than an Archer. That's just silly.
Archers get Grand Mastery in ranged weapons. I know others have said this before but I want to show the level 9 stats. I just made a Fighter Elf and a Elf Archer, both with 19 dex. (In the Black Pits so I can get to level 9)
With a normal longbow (No composite, no enchantment) and normal arrows here are their stats.
Ah, yeah wasn't thinking about divine spells. I'd like that spell more if it would remove them.
Yeah. It's pretty awesome for Cleric/Thieves, but otherwise...
-----
Seriously though, that idea of a "Scout" kit sounds awesome. A Ranger with Find/Disarm Traps? Cool stuff. I wonder what the drawback would be though. "Studded leather" drawback is way overused, hah!
Take their charm animal and divine spells away, and claim they focused more on strategic advantage in nature (hiding behind rocks, trees, setting traps between trees, since they have experience setting traps they can utilize this to find and remove traps, etc...) then on getting along with nature.
Give them a bonus to stealth, find/remove traps, set traps. Keeping it like it is now I believe, they wouldn't be able to stealth, find/remove traps, or set traps in armor that is too heavy.
I think the penalty I gave might be too harsh, and at that point they might as well play a F/T. Plus as you pointed out with the C/T being able to cast the divine spell Find Traps and then remove them is a neat combination you only currently get with a C/T.
I'm going to try to compare and contrast this idea with a Stalker that has other thief benefits(backstab).
Let's give them the +20% to Move Silently and Hide in Shadows - Stalker already gets this
Backstab progression that the Stalker gets.
Do not give them the arcane spells Stalker's get.
Take away their charm animal and 1 spell per level of divine casting as long as their current casts are greater than 1.
So if they can cast 0 normally they get 0. If they can cast 1 normally they get 1. If they can cast 2 normally they get 1. If they can cast 3 normally they get 2. Etc... (For RPing reasons listed in previous post)
Find Traps, Set Traps, Remove Traps +20% and from there on out give the same progression as their default stealth.
One trap to set per day every 3 levels, starting with 1 at level 1.
Also limit them to studded leather or lighter. As you said, this is played out, but it makes sense with this idea.
Given the only penalty a Stalker gets is having to use light armor and the fact that they get Arcane Spells + Backstab and I just want Find/Set/Remove traps +Backstab with harsher penalties, I think this is balanced.
"Rangers are skilled woodsmen and hunters" hunters track, bait, and trap. they dont run around with 2 swords flailing. most people in the woods carry axes or a machete. Im just pointing out that the BG ranger really doesen't know what it is, its not really very good at anything, and nowhere near as versatile as it should be. I would call robinhood a fighter/thief, not a ranger, not according to BG anyways. And he is the ultimate woodsman/hunter.
Uhm you just mentioned ROBIN HOOD, one of the most well known THIEFS in Western folklore as the ultimate woodsman/hunter to prove your point.
Remember the story? He would STEAL from the rich and give it to the poor, he didn't lay a trap, catch a deer, bake it and hand out free steaks in town.
But Robin Hood was a warrior by trade, who later took up banditry...
Even so, I think Robin Hood is a poor example of a Ranger. I'd call him a fighter-thief.
Aragorn is the archetype. Even the current US Ranger service is a better example than Robin Hood. They are woodsman and law enforcement officers. NOT thieves.
Actually, the BG cleric is the most versatile one. It's literally the generic cleric. In Faerun there aren't any generic clerics as one of it's setting rules is that all divine casters must have a patron god, and cannot worship an ideal or philosophy.
This means, that their spell sphere access would be altered from what it current is, as well as armor and weapon usage restrictions.
@IlMarc You can be a thief without any levels of thief at all. Anyone can kick in a door and steal a bunch of stuff of a table, or mug someone at sword-point. That's really all Robin Hood did. He and his group ambushed the caravans and wagons of the rich, robbed them at sword/arrow point (which doesn't require any thief skills at all) and then left. And then trickled down the gold and goods amongst those in need.
Of course...in PnP, there's nothing to stop him from being a Dual-classed Ranger/thief if he damn well wants to be one, as long as he has the stats for it.
When he stole from the "rich" and gave it to the poor. He wasn't redistributing it from people who rightfully earned it to people who didn't. He was taking money that was being taken from them in taxes (most of them illegially high due to tax collector and the Sheriff of Nottingham being corrupt) and returning it to them what they had rightfully earned.
Not trying to nitpick, but without giving the details the character sounds like a Socialist, and he isn't.
"Rangers are skilled woodsmen and hunters" hunters track, bait, and trap. they dont run around with 2 swords flailing. most people in the woods carry axes or a machete. Im just pointing out that the BG ranger really doesen't know what it is, its not really very good at anything, and nowhere near as versatile as it should be. I would call robinhood a fighter/thief, not a ranger, not according to BG anyways. And he is the ultimate woodsman/hunter.
Uhm you just mentioned ROBIN HOOD, one of the most well known THIEFS in Western folklore as the ultimate woodsman/hunter to prove your point.
Remember the story? He would STEAL from the rich and give it to the poor, he didn't lay a trap, catch a deer, bake it and hand out free steaks in town.
Read up on Robin Hood, he didn't start out as a thief that's a more recent revision, almost ever story I've read he was a poacher and an outlaw, and I don't know too many people skilled with a bow that wouldn't hunt with it, especially considering.... It's pretty hard with a sword, and groceries didn't exist back then.
Rangers definitely don't get a lot to make them worthwhile.
That said I always found the few benefits and the rp value to be more than enough to make them more appealing than a straight fighter.
Kits definitely change things though, but it mostly makes fighter more appealing. Rangers at least have the market on archery
I think the paladin gets way more benefit than rangers to differentiate from fighter. Fighter/thief is superior to rangers in nearly every way for a sneaky melee fighter
This thread makes me want to roll an archer char. Would anyone recommend a good/neutral party composition that would balance well? I'm used to doing melee characters, so I usually go with a cleric and Kivan for marital warriors/ranged, Imoen for thief, and Neera and Dynaheir. Would forgoing Kivan for a pure melee fighter be a better idea, and if so, who's a decent fit? Thanks in advance.
I'm currently playing an elf archer in a no reload game with Jahiera, Khalid, Branwen, Imoen, and Xan.
I scout with my ranger and can often one shot lower level enemies if I uncover one at a time or bring the group up for bigger groups. When traps are an issue I have the ranger forward stealthed and Imoen a few feet behind finding traps with AI off on everyone. We did this on the trapped level of Nashkel mines and the ranger one-shotted (or occasionally 2) each kobold or other enemy she uncovered and when a trap showed up Imoen disarmed it - we finished the entire level without taking a single hit and disarmed every trap.
It took a little patience to move the two short distances at a time and make sure any traps were detected before moving on but it worked very well.
"Clerics are a member of the clergy, especially one who is a priest, preacher, pastor, or other religious professional." They don't run around with a warhammer flailing, most people in the church wear a bible. Im just pointing out that the BG cleric really doesn't know what it is, its not really very good at anything, and nowhere as versatile as it should be. I would call pope Benedictus an annoying old man, not a cleric, not according to BG anyways. And he is the ultimate priest/preacher.
In the Middle Ages (which most people would agree is the basis for Western fantasy), priests would preach and pray, yes, but also tend to the sick and dying (i.e. heal) and fight in battle.
For both rangers and clerics, I'm sure you can come up with dozens of reasons why the D&D class doesn't fit what you want it to be, but to act like it's objectively wrong based on one very specific modern example doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
It's hard to implement rangers from pnp to a video game. Tracking isn't implemented, nor is terrain advantages or survival skills, all non-combat skills. Sure rangers CAN fight, but that isn't what makes the class. What makes them a class is their total awesomeness in their particular habitat. also in pnp you could set traps, just not thief traps... you could tell the dm that you were going to set up snares or trips lines to alert you to danger or even dig pit traps and cover them. All a part of being a ranger.
In fact, if Rangers could Multiclass with anything other than Clerics, they'd always be flat out superior to the Fighter as well.
As it stands though, Rangers exist to do naturey stuff, dual-wield and cast spells. Stalkers pull a mean backstab, Archers are flat out superior to Fighters in all archery related practises, and Beast Masters can spam one of the most valuable things in the game: Summoning. Meanwhile Fighters can.... Berserk, fight naked, or be the worst kit in the game. Seems legit.
You talk about scouting for their foes being impractical because traps, but honestly, how many outdoor locations are trapped, really? Three maps, all spider webs, and all nonsensical attempts to apply actual non-magical spider webs to a system which cannot account for them.
Are Fighters better?
Well, Fighters are specialists, they can't hide, they can't sneak past enemies or fight their opponents on their own terms, and they can't cast spells. D&D always, always rewards specialisation over generalisation (in terms of classes themselves, rather than multiclassing).
Compare the Archer with the Fighter, compare the Kensai with the Fighter, compare the Bard with a Mage, or a Thief, or a Mage/Thief. If you don't care about the things they get, then you will consider them weaker, because they're not as good at the thing you want. If you don't care about the things that they give up, then you'll consider them stronger, because they're better at the things you want.
In fact, if Rangers could Multiclass with anything other than Clerics, they'd always be flat out superior to the Fighter as well.
As it stands though, Rangers exist to do naturey stuff, dual-wield and cast spells. Stalkers pull a mean backstab, Archers are flat out superior to Fighters in all archery related practises, and Beast Masters can spam one of the most valuable things in the game: Summoning. Meanwhile Fighters can.... Berserk, fight naked, or be the worst kit in the game. Seems legit.
You talk about scouting for their foes being impractical because traps, but honestly, how many outdoor locations are trapped, really? Three maps, all spider webs, and all nonsensical attempts to apply actual non-magical spider webs to a system which cannot account for them.
Are Fighters better?
Well, Fighters are specialists, they can't hide, they can't sneak past enemies or fight their opponents on their own terms, and they can't cast spells. D&D always, always rewards specialisation over generalisation (in terms of classes themselves, rather than multiclassing).
Compare the Archer with the Fighter, compare the Kensai with the Fighter, compare the Bard with a Mage, or a Thief, or a Mage/Thief. If you don't care about the things they get, then you will consider them weaker, because they're not as good at the thing you want. If you don't care about the things that they give up, then you'll consider them stronger, because they're better at the things you want.
The more I think of the more I think it's strange that multi classes exist. You say Rangers would be superior in multi class situations, but Rangers are a hybrid warrior/caster already. Paladins and Rangers existed as multiclass fighter/cleric and fighter/druid since the beginning of D&D I believe. I think it's the multi and dual classes that cheapen the importance of certain classes in groups. Personally I think everyone in the group would have an important role if multi/dual classes didn't exist. It would also have made the game more challenging.
Actually...the Kensai is the best ranged weapon user in the game, 4 more PASSIVE damage per hit then an archer can get (Archer's cap at +9, vs +13 for kensai and Kensai level about 20% faster and end up with 6 more levels at the end, while the archer's bonus slows down after 18), +2 if you count called shot which has limited uses, but also kensai get Kai for max damage, thrown hammers and axes, and some daggers get a strength bonus which negates the minor number of attacks bonus using a bow would grant....and as it turns out, that's not a bug, the PnP Kensai can indeed use thrown axes, hammers, and daggers (turns out i owe the original developers a bit of an apology for that part for accusing them of lazy implementation of cavaliers/kensai, though they still F'd up the berserker big time), just not darts, bows ,slings, or X-bows.
OK...first off..Rangers and Paladins aren't implemented properly. They get a very finite number of spells and don't get spell casting until 8 or 9 respectively, at which point their effective caster level should be 1....they're also supposed to have a max caster level of 9. BG currently ignores both of these, giving them a caster level equal to their level, and not capping as it should.
Also there's that whole mess with with R/C not being implemented properly.
If it was, the ranger and cleric spellbooks would be separate, and the ranger would only get the few druid spells he was entitled to, but with the proper caster level restrictions, making them more icing on the cake then actual power, while the cleric would perform as current (well...within the limits of their chosen mythos).
Even the Ranger/Druid Multiclass maintains separate spellbooks and caster levels, despite using the exact same spells.
And if you really want to get down to brass tacks, no fighter kit should be able to go above specialization, and no paladin or ranger kit should be able to specialize at all.
The Mastery and above proficieny rule is for a single class, non-kitted fighter only. KItted fighters can still specialize, but their kit bonuses cost them grand-mastery, in addition to any other disadvantages, since their kit is also a form of specialization.
Paladins and rangers shouldn't be able to specialize at all by the core books, but the tactics handbook gave them the ability to get basic specialization, but their kits, in addition to other restrictions, give that ability up, since again, the kits are a form of specialization.
In short, pretty much all the apparent problems are due to shoddy and inconsistent implementation of the rules.
Actually...the Kensai is the best ranged weapon user in the game, 4 more PASSIVE damage per hit then an archer can get (Archer's cap at +9, vs +13 for kensai and Kensai level about 20% faster and end up with 6 more levels at the end, while the archer's bonus slows down after 18), +2 if you count called shot which has limited uses, but also kensai get Kai for max damage, thrown hammers and axes, and some daggers get a strength bonus which negates the minor number of attacks bonus using a bow would grant....and as it turns out, that's not a bug, the PnP Kensai can indeed use thrown axes, hammers, and daggers (turns out i owe the original developers a bit of an apology for that part for accusing them of lazy implementation of cavaliers/kensai, though they still F'd up the berserker big time), just not darts, bows ,slings, or X-bows.
OK...first off..Rangers and Paladins aren't implemented properly. They get a very finite number of spells and don't get spell casting until 8 or 9 respectively, at which point their effective caster level should be 1....they're also supposed to have a max caster level of 9. BG currently ignores both of these, giving them a caster level equal to their level, and not capping as it should.
Also there's that whole mess with with R/C not being implemented properly.
If it was, the ranger and cleric spellbooks would be separate, and the ranger would only get the few druid spells he was entitled to, but with the proper caster level restrictions, making them more icing on the cake then actual power, while the cleric would perform as current (well...within the limits of their chosen mythos).
Even the Ranger/Druid Multiclass maintains separate spellbooks and caster levels, despite using the exact same spells.
And if you really want to get down to brass tacks, no fighter kit should be able to go above specialization, and no paladin or ranger kit should be able to specialize at all.
The Mastery and above proficieny rule is for a single class, non-kitted fighter only. KItted fighters can still specialize, but their kit bonuses cost them grand-mastery, in addition to any other disadvantages, since their kit is also a form of specialization.
Paladins and rangers shouldn't be able to specialize at all by the core books, but the tactics handbook gave them the ability to get basic specialization, but their kits, in addition to other restrictions, give that ability up, since again, the kits are a form of specialization.
In short, pretty much all the apparent problems are due to shoddy and inconsistent implementation of the rules.
I don't see how making Paladins/Rangers weaker would help things. The multi and dual class fighter/cleric and fighter/druid are already a lot better and being both a fighter and druid. The only advantage they have is that they can use bladed weapons. In BG thats not a huge advantage as there are lots of good blunt weapons and scimitars.
Comments
If you want to make arguments about the value of plate and being more than proficient in other weapons, go ahead. But a Fighter is NOT better with a bow than an Archer. That's just silly.
Archers get Grand Mastery in ranged weapons. I know others have said this before but I want to show the level 9 stats. I just made a Fighter Elf and a Elf Archer, both with 19 dex. (In the Black Pits so I can get to level 9)
With a normal longbow (No composite, no enchantment) and normal arrows here are their stats.
Elf Fighter:
4 THAC0, 6-11 damage, 7/2 attacks.
Elf Archer:
1 THAC0, 9-14 damage, 7/2 attacks.
Plus Archer gets Called Shot.
Are you sure?
I know monks can, but my Ranger at the start of BG2:ToB doesn't have a trap detection button.
-----
Seriously though, that idea of a "Scout" kit sounds awesome. A Ranger with Find/Disarm Traps? Cool stuff. I wonder what the drawback would be though. "Studded leather" drawback is way overused, hah!
Take their charm animal and divine spells away, and claim they focused more on strategic advantage in nature (hiding behind rocks, trees, setting traps between trees, since they have experience setting traps they can utilize this to find and remove traps, etc...) then on getting along with nature.
Give them a bonus to stealth, find/remove traps, set traps. Keeping it like it is now I believe, they wouldn't be able to stealth, find/remove traps, or set traps in armor that is too heavy.
I think the penalty I gave might be too harsh, and at that point they might as well play a F/T. Plus as you pointed out with the C/T being able to cast the divine spell Find Traps and then remove them is a neat combination you only currently get with a C/T.
I'm going to try to compare and contrast this idea with a Stalker that has other thief benefits(backstab).
Let's give them the +20% to Move Silently and Hide in Shadows - Stalker already gets this
Backstab progression that the Stalker gets.
Do not give them the arcane spells Stalker's get.
Take away their charm animal and 1 spell per level of divine casting as long as their current casts are greater than 1.
So if they can cast 0 normally they get 0. If they can cast 1 normally they get 1. If they can cast 2 normally they get 1. If they can cast 3 normally they get 2. Etc... (For RPing reasons listed in previous post)
Find Traps, Set Traps, Remove Traps +20% and from there on out give the same progression as their default stealth.
One trap to set per day every 3 levels, starting with 1 at level 1.
Also limit them to studded leather or lighter. As you said, this is played out, but it makes sense with this idea.
Given the only penalty a Stalker gets is having to use light armor and the fact that they get Arcane Spells + Backstab and I just want Find/Set/Remove traps +Backstab with harsher penalties, I think this is balanced.
@TJ_Hooker
@hammernanvil
http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/14488/scout-kit-for-ranger#latest
Remember the story? He would STEAL from the rich and give it to the poor, he didn't lay a trap, catch a deer, bake it and hand out free steaks in town.
Even so, I think Robin Hood is a poor example of a Ranger. I'd call him a fighter-thief.
Aragorn is the archetype. Even the current US Ranger service is a better example than Robin Hood. They are woodsman and law enforcement officers. NOT thieves.
This means, that their spell sphere access would be altered from what it current is, as well as armor and weapon usage restrictions.
@IlMarc You can be a thief without any levels of thief at all. Anyone can kick in a door and steal a bunch of stuff of a table, or mug someone at sword-point. That's really all Robin Hood did. He and his group ambushed the caravans and wagons of the rich, robbed them at sword/arrow point (which doesn't require any thief skills at all) and then left. And then trickled down the gold and goods amongst those in need.
Of course...in PnP, there's nothing to stop him from being a Dual-classed Ranger/thief if he damn well wants to be one, as long as he has the stats for it.
When he stole from the "rich" and gave it to the poor. He wasn't redistributing it from people who rightfully earned it to people who didn't. He was taking money that was being taken from them in taxes (most of them illegially high due to tax collector and the Sheriff of Nottingham being corrupt) and returning it to them what they had rightfully earned.
Not trying to nitpick, but without giving the details the character sounds like a Socialist, and he isn't.
In a roleplaying view : You're Aragorn, man! He was no bloody thief!
That said I always found the few benefits and the rp value to be more than enough to make them more appealing than a straight fighter.
Kits definitely change things though, but it mostly makes fighter more appealing. Rangers at least have the market on archery
I think the paladin gets way more benefit than rangers to differentiate from fighter. Fighter/thief is superior to rangers in nearly every way for a sneaky melee fighter
I scout with my ranger and can often one shot lower level enemies if I uncover one at a time or bring the group up for bigger groups. When traps are an issue I have the ranger forward stealthed and Imoen a few feet behind finding traps with AI off on everyone. We did this on the trapped level of Nashkel mines and the ranger one-shotted (or occasionally 2) each kobold or other enemy she uncovered and when a trap showed up Imoen disarmed it - we finished the entire level without taking a single hit and disarmed every trap.
It took a little patience to move the two short distances at a time and make sure any traps were detected before moving on but it worked very well.
For both rangers and clerics, I'm sure you can come up with dozens of reasons why the D&D class doesn't fit what you want it to be, but to act like it's objectively wrong based on one very specific modern example doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
In fact, if Rangers could Multiclass with anything other than Clerics, they'd always be flat out superior to the Fighter as well.
As it stands though, Rangers exist to do naturey stuff, dual-wield and cast spells. Stalkers pull a mean backstab, Archers are flat out superior to Fighters in all archery related practises, and Beast Masters can spam one of the most valuable things in the game: Summoning. Meanwhile Fighters can.... Berserk, fight naked, or be the worst kit in the game. Seems legit.
You talk about scouting for their foes being impractical because traps, but honestly, how many outdoor locations are trapped, really? Three maps, all spider webs, and all nonsensical attempts to apply actual non-magical spider webs to a system which cannot account for them.
Are Fighters better?
Well, Fighters are specialists, they can't hide, they can't sneak past enemies or fight their opponents on their own terms, and they can't cast spells. D&D always, always rewards specialisation over generalisation (in terms of classes themselves, rather than multiclassing).
Compare the Archer with the Fighter, compare the Kensai with the Fighter, compare the Bard with a Mage, or a Thief, or a Mage/Thief. If you don't care about the things they get, then you will consider them weaker, because they're not as good at the thing you want. If you don't care about the things that they give up, then you'll consider them stronger, because they're better at the things you want.
OK...first off..Rangers and Paladins aren't implemented properly. They get a very finite number of spells and don't get spell casting until 8 or 9 respectively, at which point their effective caster level should be 1....they're also supposed to have a max caster level of 9. BG currently ignores both of these, giving them a caster level equal to their level, and not capping as it should.
Also there's that whole mess with with R/C not being implemented properly.
If it was, the ranger and cleric spellbooks would be separate, and the ranger would only get the few druid spells he was entitled to, but with the proper caster level restrictions, making them more icing on the cake then actual power, while the cleric would perform as current (well...within the limits of their chosen mythos).
Even the Ranger/Druid Multiclass maintains separate spellbooks and caster levels, despite using the exact same spells.
And if you really want to get down to brass tacks, no fighter kit should be able to go above specialization, and no paladin or ranger kit should be able to specialize at all.
The Mastery and above proficieny rule is for a single class, non-kitted fighter only. KItted fighters can still specialize, but their kit bonuses cost them grand-mastery, in addition to any other disadvantages, since their kit is also a form of specialization.
Paladins and rangers shouldn't be able to specialize at all by the core books, but the tactics handbook gave them the ability to get basic specialization, but their kits, in addition to other restrictions, give that ability up, since again, the kits are a form of specialization.
In short, pretty much all the apparent problems are due to shoddy and inconsistent implementation of the rules.