Neverwinter Nights Reloaded

[Jamski]

I'm beginning to wish that I'd started as a ranger so that I'd get ambidexterity for free and be able to dual wield...

Ranger Dualwield is a little broken. You see, to really dualwield properly you'll want to pick up Improved Dualwielding at around 9th level (2 attacks with Off Hand) However, the prereqs for that are Dual Wielding and Ambidex. Not Ranger Dualwield which gives you the advantages of those feats without the actual feat.

However if you don't care about maxing your character to the limits

-Jam

[Dis]

yes the only reason to play a ranger is for role play. I chose a ranger for the dungeon of apolyton.

a fighter is superior because they get more feats. By level 7 I believe they can already exceed the ranger at everything they do. except for the spells and enemy. .

I think the 3.5 rules should have some other bonus for rangers. Namely a bonus to their bow abilities. This would further distinguish them apart from fighters.

[Jamski]

3.5 rules nerf rangers. D8 instead of D10 for HP... Ranger feats gained at higher levels... weaker animal companions...

Bleh.

-Jam

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Jamski
3.5 rules nerf rangers. D8 instead of D10 for HP... Ranger feats gained at higher levels... weaker animal companions...

Bleh.

-Jam

In 1st Edition they were D8 for HP also, no animal companion.

However, at first level there starting HP were determined by 2D8, and an additional D8 thereafter.

ACK!

[Dis]

don't you mean 2D4?

Rangers should have the same hit points as fighters. Like I said, fighters get more feats, and can easily choose 2 weapon fighting and ambidexterity and still have many more feats than the ranger does. They just lower out on the animal companion, racial enemy, and the low level priest spells.

[DrSpike]

That was my thought too, though someone did link not that long ago to a powerful ranger build. Read back and see if you can find it.

[Snotty]

I realy liked the ranger spells. they get that decent endure elements type spell early on. Mostly useful if I am running round on me own PW style. I went ranger/sd once and the spells went quite well with that.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Dissident
don't you mean 2D4?

Rangers should have the same hit points as fighters. Like I said, fighters get more feats, and can easily choose 2 weapon fighting and ambidexterity and still have many more feats than the ranger does. They just lower out on the animal companion, racial enemy, and the low level priest spells.

No, I mean 2d8.

ACK!

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Jamski
3.5 rules nerf rangers. D8 instead of D10 for HP... Ranger feats gained at higher levels... weaker animal companions...

Bleh.

-Jam

no, much better for rangers

because there were the two options (so could go bow)

skills are worse though (but that is because druids get all the ranger skills, and so the ranger is less worth while)

Jon Miller

[Snotty]

Rangers get hide and sneak in nwn

[Jamski]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


no, much better for rangers

because there were the two options (so could go bow)

skills are worse though (but that is because druids get all the ranger skills, and so the ranger is less worth while)

Jon Miller

Yes, but because fighters get 150% more feats (wow) they can take the bow feats AND the dual wield feats AND even more feats and get more HP and get weapon specialisation and only lose out on favoured enemy (nerfed in 3.5), a handful of weak spells, and a pet doggie.

Rangers

-Jam

[Snotty]

And search and listen and spot. They are great self sufficient characters. Weapon spec is overrated IMO, and as favoured enemy gives you at least +1 damage (and more!) and by 5th level youve got weapon spec vs undead + er...humans?

Extra fighter feats are great and all, but its easy enough to get all the feats you need with a ranger, surely? especially with the 3 free dual weapon feat they get by 9th

And whats this HP hit?

Im not arguing that rangers are underpowered, but I still think they are great

[Dis]

rangers are great, esp. for role playing. I just think they should have d10 hit points.

[Vlad Antlerkov]

Originally posted by DrSpike
That was my thought too, though someone did link not that long ago to a powerful ranger build. Read back and see if you can find it.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=3485976#post3485976

I never formally wrote out how to put together that build, actually.

Also, here's my attempt to add WM levels to a ranger build, which is formally written out:

http://nwn.bioware.com/guilds_registry/viewtopic.html?forum=13423&topic=176438&gid=8061

[Jon Miller]

the problem with rangers is when you compare them to druids

rangers are suppose to be three things:
mini clerics (spell casting and animal companion)
mini fighters (fighter BAB and special feats)
outdoor rogues (skills)

the problem is that druids also have the skills

you aren't losing rangers to fighters (for the most part), you are losing rangers to druids

Jon Miller