Defend the ranger as a class...I'll wait

Fighters better at ranged damage.
Druids better at nature / support
Rogues better at sneak

>>52716737
Defend classes without proving also that your IQ is under 90.

Depending on game system, their ability to guide others through rough terrain and forage will seriously reduce the amount of discomfort the PCs have to deal with in unfamiliar territory.

The spells might help relieve the burden from other casters. I found in 5e D&D, the ranger being able to cast healing word really helped out in tough fights. You only need a single HP to fight, after all.

They might have unique traits no one else can bring to the table, i.e., 5e ranger's multiattack defense. Great for higher CR monsters, who often have bonus effects for hitting multiple times.

>>52716737
Aragorn and Faramir.

They also apparently make for good entertainment when a paladin and noble are involved.

>>52716764
They allow multiple players to participate in something and still get the feeling that its 'theirs'. They're 'the paladin', so they can get cool shit no-one else can.
Classless systems have this horrible grey feeling for me, where whenever I find some cool ability to pick up everyone else in the party can just jump on the bandwagon whenever they fancy it.
That being said, I play both kinds of systems so you're not going to get a huge argument out of me about it.

>>52716737
Sneaky in-the-woods/desert/tundra fighter is potentially a nice archetype, but it needs a GM who's prepared to make them useful (which most aren't). The GM would have to enforce rules on rations, not give out shit like infinite water flasks and make sure there were plenty of navigation and tracking challenges in the campaign.

Rolled 18 (1d20)

Got a nice title and track target pretty well. Never got lost.

>>52716897
One day I would like to play an adventure where being good at adventuring is actually important

>>52716977
I've always contemplated trying to run it, but I always worry that people will just find it dull. Getting lost and wandering around the forest for two weeks doesn't sound as entertaining as wacky-sword-dungeon-funtimes

File: Cyborg Grandpa G.jpg (31KB, 639x424px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 639x424px

>>52716737

>Defend the ranger as a class...I'll wait

Don't worry friend for I am FIGHTER and I have you covered with my Tower Shield!

File: DungeonMeshi what does halfling taste like.png (378KB, 955x448px) Image search: [Google]

378KB, 955x448px

>>52717001
I don't understand why it has to be a dichotomy. You can have wacky-sword-dungeon-funtimes and have to engage in basic survival. One would think needing to figure out how you'll stay alive would enhance the wackiness

>>52717001
Wilderness adventures can be fun, but it depends on what your party enjoys.

If they like resource management, be sure to enforce loss of fatigue points with three meals a day, clean water, broken equipment and injury from failed skill rolls and inclement weather, etc.

Failed Navigation rolls don't necessarily mean getting lost for two weeks with. It could just be time spent lost (important if you're on a time limit, or tracking resources, or both), or you could wander into a monster's lair, stumble across a banditry operation, intrude upon a druidic cult's grove, etc. Getting lost could be an adventure itself, such as managing to intrude upon some forgotten valley teeming with undead for no apparent reason, or ancient, living, and hostile ruins that wait until they seek shelter from the elements to ensnare them.

And there's always the chance they stumble into an ambush or traps set by local denizens, or get caught in some sort of natural disaster, like a mudslide or a flood.

Guard duty for a caravan means that they don't have to bother with resource management, unless they fail to protect their charge from bandits or monsters. If your players just like combats, this or a random encounter are probably the way to go.

In the end, though, it's up to you as a GM to be able to make anything fun.

>>52717198

Is he storing carrots in his collar?

File: Eat the armor Laius.jpg (88KB, 600x514px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 600x514px

>>52717295
Yes. Yes he is.

>>52716737

Someone with survivalist skills. Isn't that kind of important for an adventurer to have?

>>52716737
Guerilla warfare. Done.

>>52716737
Ranger suffers from the same hyperspecialization problem as the Rogue. He's there to make checks for navigation/detect traps, and if he flubs the roll the party is out of luck. Other players cannot contribute to his field of specialty which leaves them sitting it out while he does his thing. What exacerbates the problem is that there is a specialist in the party then the GM feels need to put in encounters where he can shine in his field so these non-contributing events are tacked on to the other players' dismay.

>>52716737
Needs no defense. It's great.

Keep waiting. You might learn something.

>>52717382
>three classes gain some kind of immunity to poison/disease
>casters can create pocket dimensions to avoid any kind of danger from the environment
>world has bags of holding/flasks of infinite water/jugs of mayonnaise/just random shit that says you don't even need to breath

No actually, it isn't

>>52716737
Their animals make great tanks in gw2

>>52717474
Still waiting

>>52717480
1. So all the other classes should be allowed to die horribly?
2. What if your caster doesn't have that spell? Or you don't have a caster? Sounds like a ranger would make a nice replacement
3. Aren't magic items optional in 5e? Can't imagine you'd run into much of that stuff, especially if there's a ranger in the party so you wouldn't need to try and buy one.

>>52716737
Any good DM makes it important to have someone with actual survival skills in the party.

On a purely mechanical level, maybe you could just stop playing 3.5 and accept that 4th and 5th are better? Both editions give rangers a good niche.

>>52717198
Laius is going to go nuclear soon.

He's going to eat the whole fucking dungeon.

>>52716737
>>52716759
But can they do ALL OF THOSE THINGS AT ONCE?
>>52717088
I enjoy your post.
>>52717446
My nigga, and that's not even mentioning while you're going Viet Cong you also get Cure for a spell, so you can double as field medic.

>>52716737
>More versatile than Fighters
>Not ludicrously broken like Tier 1 casters
>Fluffy enough to get teeth into but not too much to limit ideas
>Muh tactical operations operating tactically
>Barbarian a shit
>If the DM actually uses spotting distance rules you get a couple (or several) rounds of shooting before dumbass orcs engage in melee.

>>52717537
>So all the other classes should be allowed to die horribly?
They're allowed to have lesser restoration cast on them
>What if your caster doesn't have that spell? Or you don't have a caster?
Then it would be wiser to get a full caster than to get a ranger
>Aren't magic items optional in 5e?
So are feats, though I've yet to find a game that doesn't play with either

>>52716897
>Me retard
>Me has to be snuflake
>Me not know how to make point buy
>Me has iq of 70
Thanks proving you have a microscopy brain anon.

Try not to drown with your own tongue.

>>52717686
Why are make believe games of childhood heroes a topic that causes you to act with such aggressive, extreme contempt towards their people?

You need to re-evaluate how you handle social situations, there's something wrong with you.

File: 1471930086314.png (58KB, 553x759px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 553x759px

>>52716863
Aragorn and Faramir are very clearly fighters under the guise of the term "rangers". Obviously neither of them are throwing nature magic or have animal companions.

>>52717776
ACFs bruh

>>52717776
>urrr D&D started in 3rd edition
Also Aragorn had magic proportional to the degree the elves or gandalf did. Namely he could cast cure light wounds at best.

>>52716737
Which edition? 1e rangers are awesome.

They feel like a pre made multiclass of all 3.

>>52717891
5e
Is there an edition you would recommend?

>>52717916
Fourth

>>52717916
4e

>>52717652
>DM not using spotting rules
Yeah, no thanks, famalam. I want to play d&d, not a board game.

>>52717845
Aragorn could cast cure light wounds? I must have missed that in the books.
>coughbullshitcough
Don't try to say he cast spells in the book because he didn't. Not even once.

>>52716764
Point-buy is impossible to balance, due to the fact that synergies exist.
Point-buy systems are just class based systems with A LOT of trap options.

>>52716737
I recall that in 4th Ed ranger could be melee/shooting dervishes that demolished foes in a single blow.

>>52717916
1e, 2e or 4e.

>>52717916
4th.

Defend the wizard as a class and why it should be as powerful as it is.

I'll wait

>>52717730

Silly goose, he's only pretending to be retarded.

>>52717999
>he knows salves and shit

>>52718019
I studied magic for 18 to 24 years while you were practicing with your first lock pick set. BOOL the end

>>52718000
>Point-buy is impossible to balance
GMs exist.
>Point-buy systems are just class based systems with A LOT of trap options.
What? What system are you talking about? A system being point-buy has nothing to do with the existence of trap options.

>>52718028
>Salves are spells
I can see salves being under the purview of a ranger but it's still not a spell, even in 3.x e.

File: sharp, pointy rain.png (11KB, 559x198px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 559x198px

>>52718001
>demolished foes in a single blow
Rangers never hit you just once. That's why they could demolish foes.

>>52716886
Kek, just read the thread. That guy never realizes he is That guy.

>>52718041
They were pretty goddamn magical salves, but salves all the same.

A druid fighter hybrid without having to multiclass, also with tracking, foraging and sometimes enemies they are really REALLY good at killing.
Not as fighty as a fighter, nor as magic as a druid, but sits in the middle.

>>52717956
What? What the fuck does this even mean?

>>52718041
Well most magic in Tolkien was creation based, so maybe

>>52718058
Exactly. I'd maybe let the rangers and druids craft them with the right ingredients but king's foil isn't a spell.

>>52718041
It's not a spell in 3.x because 3.x decided to add crafting skills with actual rules.

You could argue NWP in 2e did that too but it's an optional rule.

>>52718048
Rangers in 2e were the first version that had dual wielding (as did rogues and bards); ironically until Complete Ranger added kits for it, theyr were garbage as archers compared to Fighters.

>>52718063
No spotting rules, you might as well play a board game where you can see your enemies as soon as they hit the board. Senpai.

>>52718066
Still doesn't make Aragon a caster in any way, shape, form or fashion. He never cast a spell in the book. He never even came close.

>>52718081
I'm aware of what 3x did but still, the point stands. Skills aren't spells. They don't even act like spells in any way.

>>52718126
Literally the only magic character who does cast something D&D fags would think of as obviously a spell in the books is Galadriel and in the actual LOTR rpgs she's the blastiest of blasters imaginable.

>>52718109
Ah, I think I see that.
I more meant that most DMs I've met tend to have engagements at 30-70ft, instead of 200+ like the rules frequently state.

>>52718033
>GMs exist.
A system should be somewhat balanced by itself.
That's why 3.5e DnD get a lot of flak (and rightfully so).
>What? What system are you talking about? A system being point-buy has nothing to do with the existence of trap options.
Any one. In point-buy system there will always be a few archetypes made of skills/perks/whatever that just work well together that function as pseudo classes. Meanwhile everything else will just be a weak aimless mishap of dissonant abilities.
What would be needed to solve the problem is to tax synergies, but good luck with that.

>>52717999

Go read the scene where he heals Faramir.

Rangers are garbage, just like Hobbits in any setting but the Lord of the Rings. Aragorn served a thematic purpose in Lord of the Rings. He is the disgraced heir to the throne that is also kind of a loner and thus not the best candidate. He has to grow out of his ranger ways to become an actually useful human being. Outside of that framework, rangers are superfluous and should never have been included in D&D as anything except a novelty joke for avid fantasy readers.

What does a ranger bring to the table that a fighter doesn't? I can't think of a single thing!

>>52717226
You're going to make the murderhobo morons cry.

>>52717226
>failed navigation
I keep a bunch of vignette encounters just for those, nothing particularly punishing and some of them are of the sidequest village variety anyway.

>>52718000
>>52718193
>A system should be somewhat balanced by itself.
>Point-buy is impossible to balance, due to the fact that synergies exist.
You say that as if class based systems are any easier to balance or that class based synergies don't exist. Besides, point buys are easier to balance because a) the GM can limit how many points you have to spend on abilities and b) abilities that are more powerful tend to be exponentially more expensive to own than weaker ones.

Granted, it's not always a perfect system but when you allow the players to build any character they want, of course some abilities are going to be more expensive than other. The only way to prevent imbalance issues is to offer so little character choice that it basically boils down to choosing between A, B, and C.

>>52717480
>I've only played Monty Haul D&D with kid gloves.

>>52718193
In point-buy games, it's up to the player to come up with their own character concept. If someone wants to play a social outdoorsy nobleman who fences at an expert level, that's fine and dandy, but they'll need the points to be able to do all of that. If your GM isn't giving that many points for character creation, you might have to change your concept to make them fit on the budget.

However, a concept like "Outdoorsy noble" would work, because you're only splitting your attention two ways - outdoorsman abilities and the wealth, status, and knowledge that comes with nobility. You know how to run your area of rule, and you know how to hunt, fish, and survive. That's a character that can help both in town and in the wilderness.

I love the freedom pointbuy allows for off-the-wall concepts. I'm not terribly concerned about balance, as long as everyone's competent at what they do and has chances to do so.

>>52718224
>>52718251
If they want to miss out on all the fun, that's fine with me.

File: TheEndMGS3.png (446KB, 845x443px) Image search: [Google]

446KB, 845x443px

>>52716737
This is the only defense it needs.
At least before the retcon that is

>>52718297
It's almost like having so many options to play that way encourages it or something

>>52718297

That actually is standard 3.PF shit, to be fair.

>>52718276
>a) the GM can limit how many points you have to spend on abilities and b) abilities that are more powerful tend to be exponentially more expensive to own than weaker ones.
You still don't get it.
It's not about the individual abilities, but the surplus in value from combining certain specific abilities.

>>52718193
>A system should be somewhat balanced by itself.

The mass Munchkining of tabletop ruined everything.

>>52718344
To take this a step further.

Min Maxers are a cancer on the game.

>>52718360

At one time that was true. Today though, min-maxing is the core of the game and the game is built around it.

>>52718336
The Gm can cap derived abilities/values if so desired, and simply audit/veto sheets and XP purchases. That's what I did running a campaign in Unisystem and I got by just fine with a light hand.
Just knowing that the optimization level was going to be enforced made my players police themselves.

>>52718344
>le roleplay and not having a character who selected color spray means a system is exempt from all criticisms, and that developers should publish a shitty product
>le its okay guise, we don't need to balance our games, and should not be held zccountable or have to make reasonable errata to rectify our mistakes
>Ivory Tower design is fine you guise!
>How dare you complain about us serving you a plate of shit instead of the rigatoni you ordered!
Fuck off Paizo!

So what I'm getting from this is that if Warriors were actually allowed to have skills there would be no reason for rangers to exist.
Because all a ranger fucking is is some dork trained in nature.

>>52717999
http://middle-earth.xenite.org/did-aragorn-use-any-magic/
A pretty good article on the matter, but simply put: It's indistinct whether or not he is using magic or simply has (often unique) access to magic effects.
Of course, it's obviously foolish to say he had control or use of magic comparable to Gandalf or the Elves. Dunno what the fuck that guy was on about.

>>52716737
This whole thread's full of you making very obviously duplicitous arguments. If you can't accept your opinion is an opinion, then maybe you should go take a nap or find some other excuse to fuck off while and everyone can busy themselves with actually enjoying our hobbies.

>>52718444
>The Gm can cap derived abilities/values if so desired, and simply audit/veto sheets and XP purchases.
Which require a lot of system mastery from the GM and a lot of mother-may-I from the player.
>Just knowing that the optimization level was going to be enforced made my players police themselves.
FUN!!!!!

>>52718409
Role Playing Games are dead.

Now you play WoW on the tabletop and believe that you "get" it.

>>52718504
>Which require a lot of system mastery from the GM and a lot of mother-may-I from the player.
Not a bad thing.
>FUN!!!!!
Yes, it was. They helped keep to an even tone, where nobody brought a disbelief-inducing cyborg ninja recluse lonewolf type. The combat monster was a titanic challenge for any fencer, but couldn't defeat an infantry unit. The social butterfly was charming, but not Loki. The doctor was clever but didn't try to invent the automatic rifle. I think we had more fun doing the game justice than by going off on the hackneyed powertrip plot most DM threads complain about.

File: 1490842897546.jpg (77KB, 774x1032px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 774x1032px

4e did it right by making them a potent class for damage and skirmishing, while fighters used more defensive and marking mechanics, as well as giving them utility options that enhanced their survival skills.
5e's revised ranger is also good.
The "Why is muh wilderness fighter a class" thing is a question of how granular you need the class differences to be, based on how many mechanics one class can cover. Paladin, Ranger, Monk, and Barbarian are all fighter-y...but some have half casting, unarmed attacks, nature bond, holy blessings, and supernatural rages that present unique mechanics and make them not just fighter flavors. Likewise for various casters.
If you want to argue that the system itself is at fault for having a class with a too-similar concept by its own standards, that's one thing. If you just stop by to say "I don't like it and think it should be closer to fightan man and magic user only" then don't argue about it like that preference is fact.

>>52718000
>brainlets

>>52716737

Highly effective switch-hitter archer with utility magic and a decent array of skills. Has some pretty decent durability depending on build as well.

Dual wielding focus is a trap though.

>>52718566
>he still doesn't get it

>>52718409
>Today though, min-maxing is the core of the game and the game is built around it
If you're talking about playing DnD idk, but players at my table are here to have fun, not to be expert at mastering crunch.
I don't know about others because I've never observed another GM at work, but I always "patch" some stuff in the systems that I play for various reasons, when I'm not homebrewing entire parts of it

>>52718575
In 3.pf, it's still the best way to dual wield since you completely ignore all the dex requurements, and just focus on str.

File: 39d3b99fa7b329989374f6a031bb62aa-d9mbwht.jpg (445KB, 756x1000px) Image search: [Google]

445KB, 756x1000px

>>52716737
They make the best husbandos.

>>52718336
>It's not about the individual abilities, but the surplus in value from combining certain specific abilities.
Unless you can somehow combine three level 1 abilities in order to end the world as we know it, it's probably not as big of a deal as you're making it out to be.

Like give me an example of how this would come up during play.

>>52718504
>Which require a lot of system mastery from the GM and a lot of mother-may-I from the player.
How is this an issue and how is this any different from the way tabletop games used to be way back in the day?

>>52718504
So just to restate what this post is to make sure I have a grasp on what your position is supposed to be: a guy says that players had an idea of fairness that didn't need reinforcement from the rules.
This allowed them to focus more on what made the campaign fun for them.
And you think that's bad?

I know this will sound derisive or like an insult, but I promise you I say this in earnest: maybe RPGs aren't for you.

>Rangers originally developed as a kit for Fighter, giving them a unique skillset and magic.
>Hurr durr why do they exist, aren't they just a fighter?

Yes, they were. Fuck you retard.

>>52718665
You just need to google "[insert point-buy system] broken builds"
e.g.
d3mm2..it/2013/01/broken-tactics.html

>end the world as we know it
You just need to make the other players obsolete.

>>52718712
How is is a good thing?

>>52718714
>a guy says that players had an idea of fairness that didn't need reinforcement from the rules.
He didn't say that. He said that he imposed "fairness" by threatening the players with mechanical punishments otherwise. It doesn't sound fun to me.

Also you guys are still missing my initial point.

>>52718947
>You just need to google "[insert point-buy system] broken builds"
Ah, that's what YOU need to do since YOU'RE the one making the claim.
>You just need to make the other players obsolete.
How would that be possible? Again, I need examples.
>How is is a good thing?
Because a GM should know how the system works before he decides to run a campaign with it and the players should be asking questions before they do a thing.
>He said that he imposed "fairness" by threatening the players with mechanical punishments otherwise.
That isn't what he said and you know it.
>>52718444
>The Gm can cap derived abilities/values if so desired, and simply audit/veto sheets and XP purchases.
What he said boiled down to "limit how much they can buy and double check to make sure everything is kosher," which is, again, what you're supposed to do before you start the campaign in order to prevent the broken builds that you're complaining about.

>>52718562
>"Why is muh wilderness fighter a class"

God now I'm getting flashbacks to the cretins that infested the 4e official forums back when they existed.

>I want to play a Fighter, but focused on damage instead of being tanky, and dual wielding.
>"Oh hey, the class you probably want for that is Ranger, they're literally built for 2-weapon damage dealing."
>I don't want to be a woodlands character.
>"You can take dungeoneering instead of Nature, and you can reflavor your abilities to not have the woodland elements."
>But then he'll be a Ranger. I want to play a Fighter.
>"We,, you can cross out Ranger and write Fighter on your character sheet. Your PC doesn't have his class floating over his head like WoW."
>BUT I WANT TO PLAY A FIGHTER!

I think we got those at least 2-3 times a week at one point.

>>52719018
>Ah, that's what YOU need to do since YOU'RE the one making the claim.
Which is what I did:

>d3mm2..it/2013/01/broken-tactics.html

the link is mangled because of the shoddy anti-spam filter, but if you google that it should be the first link.

Also the fact that the GM must veto potential builds, is just more proof of the veracity of my initial point, that is POINT BUY SYSTEMS ARE INHERENTLY UNBALANCED.

>>52719172
>Hey we are playing (insert imagined perfect system here)
>My guy is good at (non-combat stuff)
>My guy is also good at (non-combat stuff
>My character can do (non-combat thing) pretty great
>My character is the best in his region at (combat thing)
>Campaign proceeds to be mostly combat making player characters 1-3 worthless
Your point?

>>52719172
>Which is what I did:
Having read through the blogpost that you "linked," each and every broken build that's referenced is also easily countered by several relatively simple abilities or tactics. Even then, your example is shoddy at best because M&M is a game where almost every power is broken and the game also goes out of its way to point out which powers are OP, unlike 3.PF where it pretends that the Fighter is equal to the Wizard.
>Also the fact that the GM must veto potential builds, is just more proof of the veracity of my initial point, that is POINT BUY SYSTEMS ARE INHERENTLY UNBALANCED.
Point buy systems are no more imbalanced than any other game and the GM can veto any potential build in any class based game as well. If you don't believe me, look up "D&D 3e tiers" and how some GM's limit your class options based on those parameters.

>>52719172
>POINT BUY SYSTEMS ARE INHERENTLY UNBALANCED.
Okay. And?

File: 1489180938625.png (395KB, 600x556px) Image search: [Google]

395KB, 600x556px

>>52716737
>hide
>shoot at flat-footed, unguarded opponents always
>prosper
Rangers are fine. They have a super narrow niche, but they fill it completely. If one of the other three isn't covered at all, they blob out to handle it.

That's classy.

>>52717776
Aragorn is a Paladin, archetypally speaking.

But Faramir. Faramir is a glorious, glorious Ranger with bow and macho.

>>52717916
4e

>>52719317
3e is a badly made game. 4e would be a better example of a balanced class based game

>>52719317
All point buy are unbalanced != all class-based system are balanced.
3.PF are shitty systems mostly because they are unbalanced
>Point buy systems are no more imbalanced than any other game
Care to post a point buy system that is more balanced that 4e?

>>52719320
It means that point buy systems are fatally flawed.
>Defend classes without proving also that your IQ is under 90.
Classes systems have the potential to be balanced.
Balance == Good.

>>52719460
What system do you want to recommend or are you just endlessly bitching that no systems meet your standards?

>>52716737
But rangers are perfectly able to defend themselves, why would they need defense?

>>52716764
Provide easily understood and theme'd packages of abilities for people to draw from. It's an ease of use thing for people, especially those new to the system. This is why 5e excels as it takes out most of the need for large lists of feats early in the game.

>>52719538
Inferior to having pointbuy with templates you can apply if you can't think how to make a character.

>>52719460
>Balance == Good.
Why?

>>52719440
The point was to show that class based systems can still require a GM to veto character builds in order to avoid an imbalanced party.
>>52719460
>Care to post a point buy system that is more balanced that 4e?
Ahem
>http://d3mm2.blogspot.com/2013/01/broken-tactics.html
In M&M, every ability can be countered by another set of abilities and every PC has access to the same amount of points to spend on owning these particular powers. So a dude who has regeneration can still be entombed or drowned or grappled/ensnared, a dude who can teleport can have his abilities nullified or tracked, a dude who can move fast is able to be tripped, tackled, dodged, or glued by an enemy.

When everything can be countered by everything else, it means that nothing is so broken that it becomes an auto-win button.

>>52719460
4e is balanced only in regards to character's combat effectiveness though, when there are also other views what balance means. For example in GURPS skill costs are valued by how hard they would be learn in real life no by how useful they would be for an adventurer - investing into theoretical physics is much costlier than gun skill even though the latter comes up far more often in action adventures. Still, in a vacuum the skills are balanced, hard to learn skills are costlier than easy to pick up skills.

>>52718057
May I have a link to the thread, good sir?

>>52719586
>The point was to show that class based systems can still require a GM to veto character builds in order to avoid an imbalanced party.
That is a problem inherent in 3e, but not in class based systems as a whole, as shown by 4e.

Hybrid Class/Point Buy the best. Examples include Derp Hurresy, Earthdawn, and Legend of Five Weeaboos.

>>52719514
4e?
Regardless the discussion was in the first place simply theoretical.

>>52719585
If not being balanced is ok, why do you need the GM to veto unbalanced builds?
CHECK AND MATE GG

>>52719615
>For example in GURPS skill costs are valued by how hard they would be learn in real life
That's fucking retarded.

>>52719586
>In M&M, every ability can be countered by another set of abilities
Doesn't stop the players being unbalanced between each other.
Also forcing encounters to constantly counter specific players can become obnoxious pretty fast.

>>52719688
And so are you, you'd be perfect for each other.

>>52719688
>That's fucking retarded
How come? Don't you care for realism?

>>52719688
>Doesn't stop the players being unbalanced between each other.
Actually it does, because every power is countered by another set abilities. Hell, in the blog it mentions how a good portion of abilities can be dealt with using something as simple as readied actions or combat maneuvers like grappling or tripping.
>Also forcing encounters to constantly counter specific players can become obnoxious pretty fast.
Who said anything about that? Also, if you're playing in a campaign and you have a rogue's gallery who knows your weaknesses, why wouldn't Lex Luthor keep a chunk of kryptonite in his back pocket?

>>52719688
>If not being balanced is ok, why do you need the GM to veto unbalanced builds?
Balanced can mean many things. As long as everyone's characters are fun for them to play, the other players to play with, and the GM to run for, there's no issue. Just because a lawyer and a soldier aren't balanced against each other in combat or social encounters doesn't suddenly make them something you should ban from your game.

>>52719783
You didn't really answer the question

>>52716737
Like all classes, the Ranger is simply a fusion and guise of one of the Prime Three: in this case, a Ranger is a Fighter/Thief hybrid, and thus useful when you'd like a little of both in a hero. The end.

>>52719832
So why can he do magic? Also, what merits fusions when multiclassing is an option?

>>52719822
I did answer the question, though. The GM vetoes unfun characters, everyone has fun, everything's copacetic.

I find it funny how apparently /tg/ only care if the game is unbalanced if it is 3.PF.

>>52719725
>>52719783
The core problem of unbalanced system is that players might end up making characters that have similar roles, BUT one of the two is quite better making the other obsolete, and being obsolete is not fun.


>if you're playing in a campaign and you have a rogue's gallery who knows your weaknesses, why wouldn't Lex Luthor keep a chunk of kryptonite in his back pocket?
Yes, that's fun once in a while, but if it were to happen every single encounters, it would get old.

>>52719822
Yes he did
>>52719783
>As long as everyone's characters are fun for them to play, the other players to play with, and the GM to run for, there's no issue.
Put it another way, as long as you're not going out of your way to step on everyone else's toes and your presence doesn't warp the campaign around yourself like a black hole, there's no issue.

>>52719849
Multiclassing IS the fusion. All classes, every single one, is some hybrid of Fighter/Thief/Mage. Punch/Skill/Magic. And they can use spells because they're in the woods, everyone uses magic there, next question.

>>52719863
>one of the two is quite better making the other obsolete, and being obsolete is not fun.
So the GM talks to the players about niches, and figures out what they want to do, like an adult, before the game happens. If two people wnat to play a social character, see what sort of social encounters they want to be good at. If both want to be good at the same sort of social encounters, then you could either ask them to discuss whether they're open to changing concepts, or you could build social encounters that require two faces to overcome.

>>52719865
>as long as you're not going out of your way to step on everyone else's toes and your presence doesn't warp the campaign around yourself like a black hole
So basically if you don't make an unbalanced character.

>>52719688
>If not being balanced is ok, why do you need the GM to veto unbalanced builds?
All systems are unbalanced or can become so for a given implementation. The GM is the best solution to balance problems, appealing to some rulebook as a supreme arbiter instead of a person who is hopefully your friend and competent at the game is retarded. And if your GM is not your friend or not competent, don't play with them anyway.

>>52719863
>I find it funny how apparently /tg/ only care if the game is unbalanced if it is 3.PF.
Generally because imbalance in 3.PF boils down to one class who can only do one thing well (I hit things and hit things harder sometimes) vs. another class who can do practically everything better than the class whose whose niche was doing that thing (want to beat the dragon? There's a spell for that!).
>The core problem of unbalanced system is that players might end up making characters that have similar roles, BUT one of the two is quite better making the other obsolete, and being obsolete is not fun.
Wouldn't that be considerably harder to find in point buy systems considering how many different ways there are to build a character under a similarly basic premise? Also, shouldn't the GM be smart enough to go "listen fellas, you both are too similar to one another, you need to talk and figure out how to make yourself distinct before game starts" or something to that effect?

>>52720023
>Wouldn't that be considerably harder to find in point buy systems considering how many different ways there are to build a character under a similarly basic premise?
In a point buy system you would be able to pick an option simply because it's good, regardless of the basic premise of your character. In a class based system you're given a package of options based on the basic premise of your character, which hopefully does not step on the toes of other character premise options by design.

>>52719908
>>52720023
It's not just about being in the same archetype, but being in the same archetype while one of the player is better than the other.

>>52719917
>So basically if you don't make an unbalanced character.
Basically, if you don't make a character whose somehow better at doing everything better than the niche characters and is strong enough to offset the curve for designing encounters.

The reason why CoDzilla was so bad was because they could easily dip into everything from tank, DPS, healer, support, debuff, etc. at the cost of a single spell, while they themselves had the power to defend themselves without the aid of their spells if needed.

With that being said, it's much harder to do that in a point buy system since most abilties are specialized by default and, again, most abilities are countered by other abilities that players can potentially have access to.

>>52720104
Okay. So the GM talks to the players. That was the whole point of my post.

Talk to your players.

Horizonwalker

>>52720100
If your character knows sword maneuvers, some spells, and some stealth abilities, they'd be good at a little of everything but would still fall flat when compared to the people who invested heavily into sword fighting, spell casting, or subterfuge.
>>52720104
>It's not just about being in the same archetype, but being in the same archetype while one of the player is better than the other.
Okay, then talk with the GM and find out why that is or, failing that, ask if you can redistribute your points to invest in another niche that doesn't overlap quite as heavily as the other guy.

>>52718654

It's not, though. You two-hand a sword and get 1.5x str modifier with no feat investment, and better power attack return.

You're half strength with offhand swords so only really getting 1.5x that way, and while you get another damage die, your total attack bonus is lower and your weapon investment is twice as high.

You already need a bow, you can't afford two melee weapons too.

>>52716737
>defending class based systems
y tho

File: Middle_earth_Shadow_of_Mordor_Concept_Art_DM_07_Ranger.jpg (332KB, 969x1206px) Image search: [Google]

332KB, 969x1206px

>>52716737
replace his magic with alchemy and make him a witcher

also a ranger is just a woods paladin

>>52716737

Robin Hood.

A necessary archetype for fantasy, at least as much as the paladin.

>>52716737
yeah I hear you
>>52716759
they're basically fighter/druid/rogues

but in the same vein you have paladins which are just fighter/clerics

bards are kinda like this too, but they get some unique stuff

File: bard vs ranger.jpg (152KB, 500x1310px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 500x1310px

>>52720227
This isn't saying dual wielding is optimal, or even good; just that the ranger does the most optimal execution of a sub optimal style.

Sometimes, even in 3.pf, a nigga just wants to have two swords, and ranger does the job best.

>>52717891
2nd were fine as well. Even 3.5 for all it's flaws, gave you a good customized charc.

Everything beyond 3.5 is just trash, and only played by idiots who want 1 charc that can do everything. No point in classes .

>>52720023
>want to beat the dragon? There's a spell for that!

>What is Spell Resistance

Just throw a few golems at the Wizard and watch him go from smug munchkin to autist shrieking about how unfair the game is in record time.

>>52718199
That's so arguable but being the last of that line I'm just gonna say ok. It's a precedent at least, not that Numenoreans needed precedence ever in their history. They had plenty but at that time I don't think he was near as strong with magic as his ancestors. That scene did more along the lines of look, this proves he is the true King because boom healing hands. Or maybe the king's foil evokes some latent properties (the Undying Lands heal) of Valinor and Aragon can bring that out of plants?

>>52716737
Ranger has the same major flaw as every single other class - the autismo playing him who thinks game mechanics could ever possibly trump creative problem-solving and roleplaying. dnd aint a vidya

>>52722525
"A clay golem is immune to any spell or spell-like ability that allows spell resistance."

Spell Resistance: No
Acid Fog
Acid Splash
Cloudkill
Evard's Black Tentacles
Flame Arrow
Glitterdust
Grease
Melf's Acid Arrow
Sepia Snake Sigil
Sleet Storm
Solid Fog
Summon Monster I-IX
Time Stop
Wall of Force/Iron/Stone
Web

>>52722525
One thing fags like you always forget is that SR doesn't matter if the effect isn't directly targeting something.

Stone to Mud and Mud to Stone will bury those golems in no time flat and Gate will pull that dragon into the negative energy drain before you can say "XP please xD"

>>52722703
Ah yes..and every wizard always has the exact needed spell, every moment of every day.

>>52722815
>playing a wizard
>above level 5
>not having the necessary spells prepared
haha you probably like playing an inferior caster class

>>52722815
Because spells like glitterdust, grease, and wall of stone are such niche spells that never ever see use. I sure can't think of a single reason why someone would want to prepare battlefield control or amazing debuffs every day as an adventurer. You got us.

>>52722654
So your plan is to ask the GM to win the fight for you? Genius.

>>52722861
Always prepared. Wizards always know if they'll face traps, golems, or drow.....

And they ALWAYS have the exactly needed spell ready!

Also: wizards always have UNLIMITED spells

>>52722895
>Wizards always know if they'll face traps, golems, or drow.....
Rogue takes care of the first, glitterdust/grease/wall of stone take care of the rest. Or Summon Monster could take care of it.

>And they ALWAYS have the exactly needed spell ready!
What people like you don't realize is that there are a select number of spells that are so broadly applicable that the wizard can just stock up on them, maybe make some scrolls if it isn't worth preparing but good to have on hand.

>Also: wizards always have UNLIMITED spells
Wizards have a lot of spell slots, they have wands, staves, scrolls, and very cheap magical items like Pearl of Power. And if the wizard does run out of spells, the party stops to recover because they are nothing without a full caster by their side.

>>52722877
are you a literal retard who plays dnd like its some kind of 40k lite?

>>52722895
They do effectively have unlimited lower level spells via item creation feats...

>>52722895
>>52722815
Why are you fags always so butthurt that the wizard has the ability to have an answer to most threats? We've been over this for the past few years, it's not like grease and glitterdust are so situational that you wouldn't want to spend a low level spell slot on them.

If you're going to assume that the wizard is not playing to win, there's no point in even continuing this argument.

>>52722955
Autist.
The term is autist, and he THEORETICALLY plays D&D like it's 40k lite.

>>52722654
Game mechanics describe the method by which the DM converts the players creative problem-solving into outcomes.

If the game is "DM unilaterally decides if the players answer would work based on their personal imagination" then whether a class is good or not depends on whether the DM imagines your class is cool enough. If the DM can't understand your ideas or imagines they wouldn't work then you either argue with them or lose.

If you want to play a game that isn't about arguing with people about what would or wouldn't work in fantasy-physics then maybe don't use that system.

>>52723011
I believe this started with a transmute mud spell.

Not fucking glitterdust. Of course wizards play to win. They're also very squishy. If they spend their spells buffing their defenses, so as to be NOT squishy, then they're going to be left casting glitterdust at those two golems bearing down on them...and at that point, it's a dead wizard.

>>52722948
And thats when you get booted for being a no-fun gotta win dat raid boss munchkin

>>52723104
Yes, but to understand this you would have to PLAY Dungeons and Dragons, and not just argue about it on /tg/.

>>52723136
I've played for years m8.

And wizards take the trophy, in charc deaths.

>>52723112
D&D is basically an MMO sim, yeah. I mean, it's so MMO-y it even got turned into one. Not sure why you'd ban people from playing the game the way it encourages to be played. Maybe you should use a different system that fits your playstyle?

>>52723104
>If they spend their spells buffing their defenses, so as to be NOT squishy, then they're going to be left casting glitterdust at those two golems bearing down on them...and at that point, it's a dead wizard.
Or, y'know, they cast one of the other spells mentioned here >>52722699 to deal with the golems without bothering to buff defense.

Also, just an aside, HP doesn't really matter past level 5 since you get so much of it.

File: mottom.png (196KB, 254x378px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 254x378px

>>52723104
>playing wizard
>dm keeps telling you not to optimize your character
>you decide to go super soft
>he kills you first session

File: mort987987897897970.jpg (389KB, 800x861px) Image search: [Google]

389KB, 800x861px

>>52717550
that is a lie. rangers have no place in 5E, specially because they are really useless compared to the turbo magical new classes where everyone can archetype on magic

>>52718212
Non-punching/yelling/lifting skills

>>52723233
>Play literally any caster
>DM goes out of his way to gimp you and you spellcasting while throwing out magic items for the other party members
>When brought up he says "You're not doing enough to get magic items"
It's 5e so I would just play a fighter or something if I actually wanted to be broken but this cunt doesn't ever believe I want to do anything but power game

>>52723168
>D&D is basically an MMO sim,
If you're a stupid 4rry, sure

>>52723409
D&D has been a MMO sim since 3.PF hit the scene.

>>52721789

Oh, right. Well, Unchained rogue has a decent time, what with getting dex to damage and sneak attacks.

Still, feat investment.

>>52723438
>thisisbait.jpg

D&D's been fine since WotC got hold of it, aside from that one time where they tried to kill the brand for no reason by turning it into World of Warcraft, which they quickly ditched.

File: 1466137351141.png (792KB, 709x524px) Image search: [Google]

792KB, 709x524px

i always preferred the idea of Spear wielding ranger to the dual-wielder.

>>52723789
Very nice.

Spears are masterclass.

>>52723727
>D&D's been fine since WotC got hold of it

>3.PF turned an entire generation of RPers into powergaming munchkins.
>4e is reviled for turning D&D into WoW
>5e is so bland and safe that it doesn't generate emotions one way or the other.

>D&D's been fine since WotC got hold of it
Now THIS is some fucking bait right here.

>>52723396

>play a caster
>instead of optimizing try to stick to a character theme, take spells that fit the character but might be mediocre or situational
>3/4 fights spam cantrips and try to hide from enemies to stay alive while my teammates do most of the work
>finally a fight where the enemy happens to be extremely vulnerable to my spell selection
>unleash combo that completely incapacitates them almost without a fight
>"wow anon way to cheese this one with bullshit spells"

>>52723104
What is contingency, what is chain contingency

>>52724261
A mistake

>>52724571
and not something low level wizards cast........

>>52724571
What is Mordenkainken's Transformation what is Otiluke's diamond screen

>>52725477
They wouldn't be fighting stone golems were they low level so not taking them into account.

>>52716737
Some players might play a class for the theme, rather than trying to optimize?

Minmaxing is fine too if you're into that stuff, but it just depends on the kind of group you're playing with, and what challenge leval of campaign you're running.

>>52725852
You can fluff ranger themes onto three different classes that do the ranger's mechanical aspects better

Honestly you can flavor anything however you like. Having a distinct class just for flavor never seemed a wise idea to me

>>52717776
Read the books, Aragorn knew and used magic

>>52718157
If you're willing to extend to include the Hobbit, Gandalf casts one lightning bolt spell, and I think I remember him making the tip of his staff glow ... sometime.

But the point remains, magic in LotR &Co I'd much less obviously magical than in D&D.

>>52716737
As an archetype, the nature-loving (weakest part of the character, yet sadly usually the most focused on) noble everyman and hunter works. Mechanically, it's an absolute mess, but I can get behind the idea.

>>52717652
>More versatile than Fighters
At this point they're definitely less versatile than Fighters, and specialize in being more niche.

>>52716737
It's a fun class to play.

Don't worry, I'll crucify myself.

>>52717956
No shit.

>>52726797
>Pathfinder (i know)
>Choose Divine Marksman archetype
>Give up almost all of the hippie bullshit
>Drop the shitty spell list
>Still keep the animal companion
>Get way better at marksmanship for it
>Get the ability to apply half your favored enemy bonus to attacks against anything else

The best way to play Ranger is to play just a really pissed-off archer.

>>52729648
>ranger spell list
>shitty
>ever giving up caster levels

ISHYGDDT

>>52729681
I didn't sign up to play a Ranger just to be yet another shitty hybrid caster. If I wanted to be decent at that, I'd play the class designed for it.

>>52729755
Ranger spell list is great though, with battlefield control, exclusive buffs, divinations, staple buffs (including freedom of movement, which is great if you hate dying) and general problem solving. It's a great accent to the otherwise serviceable base chassis

Also, no caster level means you can't be the cool dude who makes his own weapons and armor. That's something iconic enough to warrant keeping your caster level alone. And in a system that demands having at least a caster level in order to play above 8th level, that's a really valuable thing to just trade away for some damage

>>52718165
>I more meant that most DMs I've met tend to have engagements at 30-70ft

this pisses me off, if I'm a wizard or something I have to win initiative to not get knocked out round 1

They are the jack of all trades class, what's wrong with that? With class flavor of being scouts/woodsmen/explorers etc. They provide some of the utility of other utility classes like rogues and bards, they provide some of the fighting capability of fighters, and they have some of the spellcasting ability of spellcasters.


Honestly though I always hated the druid-y and magical undertones. And the option to build ranger for melee and have no ranged skill feels a bit weird. My ideal ranger would be a Fighter subclass or something that specializes in scouting and ranged combat. So more realistically you would be like a hunter or a military scout. Get that pussy magic shit and tree hugging shit out of here. Honestly I don't even understand the difference between druids and rangers in the lore, they both are dudes with some kind of magical connection to the land and beasts as far as I know.

File: IMG_4135.jpg (108KB, 625x940px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 625x940px

Skeleton>ranger

Reason:provides spooks for the family

>>52717635
>But can they do ALL OF THOSE THINGS AT ONCE?
Druids can, yes.

>>52719398
Aragorn is a Ranger. If the Ranger class no longer fits him as well, and the Paladin class fits better, it is because the classes have changed over the years.

Heck, almost all of the magic stuff that Aragorn does in the books is just fluffed magic done right.

>>52730983
Aragorn was never a Ranger, though.

He HAD Rangers. But he, himself, was destined to be king. Ergo cogito he was either a Fighter or a Paladin. You decide which is more boring.

>guy who never uses a bow is the Ranger archetype
whew

>>52731005
You realize the ranger character class is older than pathfinder right?

Like I said, if the ranger class no longer fits Aragorn it is because the class has changed over the years.

And being king has nothing to do with it.

>>52716759
>Rogues better at sneak

And offensive output not based on the target being alive.

>>52731005

Are you retarded?

>>52725766
Reasons why FR should be walled off.
Also ain't it's Tensers Transformation and Mordenkainen's Sword?

>>52731248
Yes it is. My bad. Those were Greyhawk wizards, btw, not fr.

>>52731465
Ah, so many by now hard to keep track, kinda wish they'd make the named signature spells into like a feat tree or something.

>>52716737
versatility. the can suck equally at ranged combat, melee combat, stealth, and spellcasting.

>>52719061
Is that why we got tempest fighter build?

>>52719712
>How come? Don't you care for realism?
The cost is to allow people to be as different as they want and still be balanced.

Also the cost grounded in reality is to make easier to people convert real life stuff and ideas to the game.
Obviously the second one falls appart because of the fact the system dont use a linear dice, making hard to work your ideas (or real life) probabilities into 3d6

>>52716737
If you insist on using classes, they effectively exist because those retards what make class-focused RPGs refuse to allow fighters access to even moderate skills.

Because a wandering mercenary or other fighting man having a walkabout is apparently unable to fend for himself on the road without GM fiat.

Give fighters the ability to hunt for food or track without the GM feeding him a favor, and there'd be next to no reason for the ranger to exist.

>>52731219
I'd say Aaragorn multiclassed. He starts as a Ranger with his tracking abilities and reliance on stealth then becomes a paladin somewhere around when he got his sword back and started using lay on hands and smite

>>52716737
>think Ranger is a cool class concept
>never play in because in almost every d20 iteration it's weak/lame
I feel sad.

>>52717999
>coughbullshitcough

Has /tg/ truly fallen so far?

>>52734307
>multiclassed
>in 1e
THE OD&D AND AD&D RANGER IS ARAGORN

Also literally until 2e came out with kits like the archer and the elven warden, fighters and thieves made better archers.

>>52718031
>BOOL
That was a good book.

File: The crownless again shall be king.jpg (101KB, 476x750px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 476x750px

>>52716737

>>52734454
Are you a sorry faggot? Both questions answer themselves. For example, your question and my question, respectively:WTF are you talking about and yes, yes you are.

>>52720227
Don't forget that 3.X screws pretty much everyone but two-handed weapon wielders over with gear price in the name of "simplicity."

+2 "Sword"&Board with armor set? 16.9k
+2 dual weapons/double weapon with armor set? 20.9k
+2 two handed weapon with armor set? 12.6k

>>52733606
Possibly. Not that I mind because Tempest Fighter is a fun build.

I miss the 4e forums. Some fun people on there once you got past the BUT MUH STRIKER FIGHTER people.

>>52731219
>guy who LITERALLY NEVER USES A BOW IN THE NOVELS
>archetypal Ranger
I'm not sure how much wronger you could be, but indulge me.

>>52717999
Dunedain had some old magic left in their bloodlines

pleb

>>52718212
>bushcraft
>healing

>>52716737
Half of the modern classes started of as sub-classes you could spec into half way up your level chart.
D&D's rooted in archaic tradition, trying to fix what isn't broken and polish the turds that remain.

File: 316.png (571KB, 600x900px) Image search: [Google]

571KB, 600x900px

>>52724253
when I die I want this post on my fucking tombstone

>>52735190
Because Aragorns title before he becomes king is that of Ranger, the class was based on him, his knowledge of varied terrain and his hate for orcs, and his swordsmanship, Fighter was based on a combination of both Gimli and Legolas, less proficient swordsmen, but arguably just as competent fighters.

>>52735436
Wrong!

Aragorn's title is Dunedain, which just means "man of the north." He's not a Ranger. Explicitly so in Tolkien's notes.

>>52730819
>They are the jack of all trades class, what's wrong with that?
Bards do that way better.

>>52735190
The OD&D AND AD&D ranger is not an archer class.

>>52735725
Bards are the urban version of the ranger.

>>52735620
And yet he is referred to as a Ranger of the North, and Dunedain means Man of the West or Man of Numenor, not man of the north.

>>52722525
Doesn't that get back to the problem you were talking about in point buy games of constantly needing to bring in things to counter a player?

>>52735808
Wrong!

He's the Chieftain of the Dunedain, who commands the Rangers, but isn't a Ranger himself.

>>52718504
I'm confused. If those are your problems with point buy systems, then you must realize class based systems contain all the same issues right? GM's still have to be VERY careful about what they do and don't allow in 3.P otherwise there is massive party imbalance.

>>52736011
I'm not wrong, to be the Chieftain of the Rangers, you must be a Ranger yourself, otherwise, why would your men follow you? You are an idiot, and you do not know what you're talking about. take your shitty trump meme and go elsewhere.

>>52736067
>I'm not wrong
Wrong!

>and I can't prove it
Sad!

>>52736018
His point is that in a class based system, the game usually takes those synergies and chooses them for you. The GM doesn't have to learn the entire game inside and out and constantly be worried about broken combos or weird rules interactions or loopholes, they can actually trust the system not to be broken and have already taken care of those things.

>>52736154
Go back to /pol/ please.

>>52736159
And I should note that point-buy systems aren't inherently inferior or anything because of this: if a GM does know the system inside and out and wants players to have more freedom with only themselves as the limiter, that's fine. But a lot of GM's don't, because that is a SHITTON of work that doesn't always pay off.

>>52736164
>wrong
Wrong!

>>52736244
>wrong
>Wrong!
WRONG

>>52735221
Yeah, a point I addressed.

>Do you even Silmarillion bro

>>52736695
>sad
Sad!

>>52736011

> but isn't a Ranger himself.
Have you actually read the books?

http://www.angelfire.com/rings/theroaddownloads/fotr.pdf Page 184 of the PDF

>"Then we must be more careful' said Gandalf. 'If you bring a Ranger with you, it is well to pay attention to him, especially if the Ranger is Aragorn. We must stop talking aloud, rest quietly, and set the watch.'

>>52730376
No...according to /tg/, wizards are indestructible forces of nature. They can't be harmed, ever. They always have unlimited spells, and always have the exactly needed spell ready.

They also seem to always have contingencies set up to cover EVERY threat.

You're just doing a wizard wrong it seems.

>>52737717

they are if they get a turn. If they lose initiative and get KO'd in 1 turn they aren't.

Ranger is good because its fun to be an autist who spent too much time in the woods sometimes.

Also starting every fight with "I assume my guardian form" is humorous if your DM allows UA.

>>52723112
This shows just how mad people get when casters are played competently

>>52736723
>sad
>Sad!
SAD

>>52738132
I like seeing casters played competently. I like seeing creative uses for spells, and unique thinking that leads to great things.

I despise DM's that allow a lot of liberty with spells, and allow casters to 'phone it in', and just blast everything.

>>52737717
Depends on the level of the wizard and the edition for the validity of that opinion

File: nikolai-valuev2.jpg (177KB, 565x700px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 565x700px

>>52737717
Agreed. I've been coming to /tg/ for many years, and I have yet to learn how to play a wizard to /tg/ standards, having every spell ready for every imaginable situation and always winning initiative and making every save. I think I'm just doing it wrong.

As for rangers, they're indispensable for wilderness adventures. I ran Crimson Throne, and the chapter that takes place in the Cinderlands (History of Ashes) was a great place for the ranger to shine.
>make wilderness travel compelling with the same mystery and tension you'd use on an urban setting or a dungeon
>make obstacles and challenges understandable and surmountable
>provide opportunities for rangers and other survivalists to shine
>keep encounters ranged when possible -- if native enemies have long-range weapons, they know how to use them at range for an advantage. You can really surprise spellcasters with how unprepared they can be in these circumstances
>make use of long sight-lines (to horizon) for potential encounters. i.e. "You see smoke and a strange caravan off in the distance." or "An enormous creature with bat wings casts a shadow over your group".

I made up an encounter where the group had to deal with wyverns in a canyon. Many of the group could fly by some means or another, so it made for an interesting challenge. Players said it was cool.

>Use local natives and culture as powerful forces. i.e. THEY know the land and the flora and fauna, and aren't going to buy any bullshit from smarmy adventurers.
>and stick to classic adventure pacing -- setup, hook, guardian, challenge, twist, resolution, etc. So things don't get bogged down with "we wander around some more."

>>52738385
>I've been coming to /tg/ for many years, and I have yet to learn how to play a wizard to /tg/ standards, having every spell ready for every imaginable situation and always winning initiative and making every save. I think I'm just doing it wrong.

I think everyone that actually PLAYS, is doing it wrong. Funny that, ya?

File: 250px-Sniperarrowstabtauntkill.PNG.png (93KB, 250x323px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 250x323px

>>52716737
Stab! Stab! Stab!

>>52723104
>then they're going to be left casting glitterdust at those two golems bearing down on them...and at that point, it's a dead wizard.
No? Golems have absolute shit saves across the board. A greater stone golem with 42 fucking HD has massively lower saves than monsters with under half of that do and that's the golem with the best chance of actually saving.

Shit, at least TRY to not be a tard.

>>52718654
Wrong. That belongs to Aptitude Lightning Mace Warblades.

>>52738968
>Golem attacking
>"I cast color sprayz!!"
>Die a squishy death
>WTF?? DM SUX!

*yawn*

Wizardfags are the worst

>>52739055
Yeah, because a golem that's blinded literally 95% of the time someone throws Glitterdust at it is apparently highly dangerous to a Wizard that has Glitterdust.

>>52738197
That's not 'allowing a lot of liberty with spells', that is LITERALLY how those spells function. Stop shitting up this thread and get back on the handicap bus already.

>>52723266
Rangerscan get some really good damage without having to bend the game too hard, collusses slayer, hunters mark, it all adds up.

>>52730942
Yea, fair point. However nobody builds a physical combat druid except as a shapeshifter.

If you want to be a range combat fighter with nature magic and utility in the wild, you are best off as a ranger.

>>52739124
>Says that's "LITERALLY HOW THOSE SPELLS FUNCTION"
>no spells named.

^^Wizardfag logic. Everything is assumed. Nothing can fail.

>>52723266
Revised Ranger is pretty decent for combat if optimized and it has a few flavor abilities that make for decent travel roleplay.

>>52718616
Wish I could say the same, my group (pc myself) roll up our characters on chat with our dm but the dm can't see... Which is awful imo... So there is one fella who always has 2 18's (4d6 drop lowest) and at one point didn't have a score below 15 on one character @ lvl 1....
Meanwhile Bitching and complaining when their fighter can't do anything beyond attack things in a 5ft radius...

>>52739278
>glitterdust, grease, wall of stone
>not spells

>>52717956
Where in the book would I find those?

>>52723092
>then whether a class is good or not depends on whether the DM imagines your class is cool

a ridiculously reductive interpretation of what was said. aint enough mechanics for a DM to not have to make rulings absent the dmg or phb. fair, reasonable rulings > strict, one-size-fits all rules

>>52739536
DMG under encounter distance
At least in the real books.

Not sure if 4fag and 5fag editions have them.

>>52739104
1) Glitterdust isn't a real spell
2) Golems have advantage on saving throws vs magic

>>52739104
I
>>52739717
was assuming 5e, I have no clue about 4e and it's been years since I've looked at the 3.5 spellbook

>>52739775
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/glitterdust.htm

>>52739590
agreed.

>>52716737
Rangers are fun

>Must be good
>some thief abilities
>a few helpful spells later on
>2 weapon fighting for free, (with light armor)
>surprised only on a 1 in 6.
>Tracking for free
>able to use any fighter weapon/armor (but bonuses for lighter armor)
A few other perks as well.

A good solid class for wilderness adventures.

Unless you're talking about 4&5th edition rangers, which will be shit, like everything involved in those editions.

>>52739632
Oh, I probably should have specified edition

>>52739932
So it's 3.5. 3.5 Casters clearly are OP anyway so it seems the argument is moot

>>52716737
Why should we?

>>52739632
Still shitting on 4e in 2017? Do you play 5e? 4e will be the last hurrah, mark my words friendo.

>>52739536
What that anon said, 1e ad&d DMG. Spotting rules are important in your standard fantasy world simulator 3000 games or should be imo. Makes a spell like fog more useful tho in a wider sense, not so much.

>>52739218
>need ranged fire support
>cast Call Lightning using your highest spell slot
>turn into a bird or squirrel or something and get a good vantage point
>use handfuls of d10s every round dropping the Hammer of God onto anything that gets into your way
>this lasts for 10 minutes
Setting up Druid artillery before an encounter makes most things piss-easy.

>>52741810
>play 5e? 4e will be the last hurra
5e? oh hell no.

2nd normally. Hey, we paid 20 bucks a pop for those fucking 'complete (x)' books. We're not wasting them.

>>52741932
I love those but some are broken af. The complete Celtic springs to mind. You could level up as a wizard for no xp. Lol yep.

>>52742010
Celtic? I've never seen that one m8.

>>52742039
It's awesome. You get a certain Celtic elf background you can level up as a wizard when you level as your normal class for no xp, effectively allowing your character to multiclass as a wizard for free. That book belongs to the historical references series and almost all of those are good to great reading. Use? Not so much. Some broken things need to be left behind.

>>52742143
>Some broken things need to be left behind.
That's why I avoid 4&5 and most 3.5 sups

>>52740346
>calls one of the best 4e classes shit

>>52742480

sorry. that wasn't meant to be specific towards any one class.

I meant that 4 & 5th, are SHIT in their entirety. Forgive me if you thought I singled out rangers in 4th.

>>52742537
>calls 4th shit

>>52742548
Yes, because it's shit.

>"Hurr.......i r a warrior, i do healing surge!!"

GTFO 4thfags

File: de2a125b8385ba4f23158f511461d712.jpg (25KB, 348x426px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 348x426px

>>52742537
Why does 4e bother you so much? Genuinely curious, let loose your hounds on it for all I care. I feel like you have the most epic of trolls on 4e and I wanna hear it.

>>52742164
>4&5 editions broken
Yeah, nahhh. This war is over, man, wake up. 4e was great and ok balanced. The only damn thing 5e did right was try to maintain some semblance of balance too and I don't mean balance between the classes necessarily.

>>52742664
lol.....I seriously hated it. I was pissed that I wasted 29 dollars on the book the day it came out...only to find that they had made an entirely new game that held no interest to me.

I didn't like the races, the skills, or anything about it.

However, I don't care that others enjoy it. It's just not for me, because it's shit. Not trolling, but it's not an rpg for me, (because it's shit).

>>52742802
nothing about 4e was great.
Nothing.

>Hurr, my dragonborn fighter does another healing surge!!

WTF kind of shitty D&D is that?

Call it WOTC new RPG game "Dragon Somethings", and I'd be indifferent to it.

Call it d and d.......and it offends me on some primal level.

>>52742803
It's so generic that it allows for more rping imo but generic in a good way, if that makes any sense whatsoever. Certain things were codified that didn't need to be and some things that needed it weren't. That's every single edition of d&d. These games need coaxing from us the players to achieve that game state /style you adore or whatever. I feel like I'm preaching to the choir tho so what's your favorite edition? I like em all, for different reasons so I'm not going to tear it down. I have to remind younger players system mastery is a thing but I don't do it in overt ways. I think that takes away some of the discovery, ah ha gotcha moments some players live for in charop moments. This is especially true for young players so I just suggest options for characters they're really interested in so I don't steer them into either optimal or sub optimal choices, period.

>>52742986
Fav ed? I gotta go with 2nd.
Pros:
>good amount of sups that didn't get crazy
>Pretty balanced overall
>As RP-y as you wanted it.
>What I consider a 'core' rpg system
>2e Psionics (enough said)

Cons:
>Thac0 turned off some players
>more old school style, which also turned off some players
>Not enough customization on thieves IMO

I also got a lot of fun out of 3.5. Without the crazy sups, it was a great system, with an almost endless supply of customizing options.

Just my take.

>>52742828
>nothing about 4e was great.
What a solid and well formulated argument.

>>52719018
I feel like you're wrong in this argument but you're covering it up by being a better debater

>>52743619
So are you actually going to point out where I'm wrong or are we just going to angrily agree to disagree with one another?

>>52744625
He or possibly she said feel, not think, did you actually think they have any real kind of point?

File: 2011-03-31-50th.gif (62KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 600x600px

>>52744625
You're the one saying point buy systems are inherently unbalanced right?

>>52745771
No, I'm the one arguing against the guy who thinks that point buy systems are inherently unbalanced.

>>52716737
Legolas and Eragon are cool characters.

>>52746581
Aragorn is the only Ranger in the Fellowship, Legolas is a Fighter focused on archery and dagger wielding for close range.

File: dyTf1T8.jpg (98KB, 498x722px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 498x722px

I saved (what was left of) the party using my ranger because pass without trace is actually a pretty damn good spell.
>2 of the party members are dead
>the rest are unconscious
>DM allows the unconscious players to roll a 2d6 to see if they wake up
>I roll well enough
>sneeki breeki my way over to the others still alive
>pull them out
Everything went to shit and then went better than expected.
extra bit
>Villain wages psychological warfare against us by standing outside our safe areas and telling us to kill ourselves

>>52742586
>>52742828

This is a really weird thing to get hung up on. What's your issue with healing surges?

No thanks. I dislike it only slightly less than I do the paladin.

>>52738515
I had a DM who once told me casters were overrated. PF.

I rolled a Paragon Surge Sorcerer. He doesn't let me play casters anymore.

>>52718212
>What does a ranger bring to the table that a fighter doesn't? I can't think of a single thing!
Being a wilderness man, with skills in survival, trapping, move silently, pathfinding, animal handling etc. People get hung up on Aragorn, but a wilderness guide warrior archetype does not end with him.

File: 11f934ee87be9964e09afe0a74534633b6e8b598ec16507f99b31b6d5117b719.gif (949KB, 400x215px) Image search: [Google]

949KB, 400x215px

>>52717999
Peter Jackson cuck spotted.

>>52723789
>>52723831
Why not both?
Spear and dagger is GOAT combo.

>>52750200
Fuck off. We are talking about the books, faggot. Can you fucking read?

>>52746889
Nothing if I'm playing wow, or ff

>>52747421

I'm sorry your dm is shit?