Ravenloft: Prisoners of the Mist

Suggestions, Feedback & Bug Reports (OOC) => Module Feedback and Suggestions => Topic started by: Telkar on July 29, 2011, 08:31:07 PM

Title: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Telkar on July 29, 2011, 08:31:07 PM
I've been looking at the ranger class some, pondering a build, and came across this. I see this has been mentioned before here (http://www.nwnravenloft.com/forum/index.php?topic=12099.0) too. Essentially, compared to Greater Magic Weapon that is of the same spell level, Blade Thirst lasts for 2 rounds / lvl, and never gets better than +3 and only works on slashing weapons, while Greater Magic Weapon lasts 1 turn + 1 turn / lvl 'and' has potential to become +5 and works on all weapons.

Could you give rangers some luv there?  <3

It'd be great if it'd at least last as long as Greater Magic Weapon.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: WildPirate13 on July 29, 2011, 11:57:39 PM
Agreed.. rangers have it rough sometimes. You can always buy a +5 varnish! *chuckles*
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Budly on July 30, 2011, 05:55:03 AM
Rangers are Rangers, not casters. I say they do not need spells since they can be built as pretty good warriors no? :)
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: respawnaholic on July 30, 2011, 07:14:41 AM
Rangers are Rangers, not casters. I say they do not need spells since they can be built as pretty good warriors no? :)

They can be built as warriors with poor AC since their limited to light armors and need to get the bulk of their AC bonus from Dex. They trade dual wielding for -2 to AB, but since their using finesse based weapons their crits tend to do about the same ammount of damage as a a tank firgter using a halberd rolling average damage, and their weapons tend to bounce off anything with any form of damage resistance or immunity. Also dual wielding tends to use things like varnishes at twice the normal rate. Their animal companions die quickly since they have saves in the low single digits and AC in the teens, and the spell selection they have access to has one marginally useful spell per level up to level 4.

In truth its much easier to make a good ranger by making a fighter with a few thief levels.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Springer on July 30, 2011, 07:25:16 AM
Ranger is the weakist class in here in my opinion. It has no roles in the game whatsoever. Rogues can stealth slightly worse but they have sneak attacks which make stealth more deadly, they can also open locks, also due to sneak attacks they are better with dual wielding. Druids have stronger nature spells and animal companions, fighters and barbarians are more powerfull in frontline and better tanks and even damage dealers.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: HellsPanda on July 30, 2011, 07:42:34 AM
you really dont take into account favoured enemy either....
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Telkar on July 30, 2011, 08:48:27 AM
Aside from whether the ranger class itself is underpowered....this certain spell obviously is, in light of my above comparison.

And Budly, in this game rangers happen to be casters in a small way, just like paladins, that's just a fact.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Winter83 on July 30, 2011, 09:07:55 AM
One of the most powerful feat that makes a ranger a powerhouse is the Bane of enemies that comes in the epic level, which is taken away here. So favored enemy bonus is maxed out at +4 AB, which only applies to a handful of foes, while weap specialization of a fighter gives the same.

Do not forget one important thing about rangers: They are strikers. They are not intended to be in the fray of battle. Equally skilled with bows and dual weapons, they can devastate foes before they reach them. Guerillas. Strike and run. (Useful to get the spring attack feat here!!! ) They can also apply traps, and skilled spotting lurkers. Though there are so many skills and so few skill points hard to find a good balance.
An often neglected skill is animal emphaty which I find very useful. My lone ranger won a battle against three grizzlies at lvl 5 by turning them against each other  :twisted:

Playing a ranger needs a lot of planning. Make every single encounter a hunt. Evolve the surroundings, find good ambush spots, spy the weaknesses of your foes, strike and run to plan a new ambush every time. If played well they can be quite effective. Their creed: Survival and hunt. Make a ranger you enemy and you'll never sleep well at nights, as they can find you and slowly hunt you down, much like an assasin would.

What I really-really miss is only some mechanic to track down people, mobs. This would give them a serious boon and would emphasize their hunting role more.

They fit in very well into the setting as the wilderness is huge! (Would be awesome if the mountains are tagged as wilderness areas too, yet rangers lose their trackless step bonus)
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Indriya on July 30, 2011, 09:28:11 AM
I believe Ranger get's a lot of class skills that make them adept at sneaking about and spotting things, along with some spells to help this (camouflage, mass camouflage, One with the Land) - add that to Trackless Step and they should be the best sneakers on the server to go with that sweet AB and melee ability, especially if they are Shadowdancers. They also get the spell Aid for a bonus to AB and can cast Greater Magic Fang on the pet. Dual wield with parry - isn't that any good? I heard good things about it on this server, and with the high attack tables like Fighters, they should be pretty good with it By the way, they also get elemental protection, freedom and invisibility purge. Ever tried using grease, or entangle to slow down things chasing you? It's pretty effective if they aren't immune.

I guess my point is, they get access to a number of decent spells (unlike other melee classes) can sneak and spot/listen very well (unlike other melee classes) while still keeping a high AB and free dual wield (which for others, costs about 3 feats). If your that concerned about losing a few DEX points when your flatfooted, cross class to a class that has uncanny dodge, or go sword and board. I used to play rangers a lot on my old server and they were one of the more powerful melee types, especially when they had access to items they could buff themselves with. If AC was an issue, they just wouldn't dual wield, as dual wielding in its very nature means no shield - lower AC, so you can't expect to play frontliner while dual wielding.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Telkar on July 30, 2011, 09:45:20 AM
Well, I don't think rangers are useless as is, they have their pluses just like other classes and it needn't be pointed out, and I would still play the class if this spell weren't changed.

It just strikes me as odd that this spell of theirs is so useless compared to Greater Magic Weapon, since they're on the same spell level and have a similar purpose. As the spell is now, it would make more sense being a level 2 spell.

One other thing. I know the Greater Magic Weapon spell is being planned on also giving enchantment to ranged weapons. It somehow feels right, since the route of a ranger should be able to produce a skilled archer (they're like one of the most archery type classes out there), that they could use this spell on their bows. Doesn't fit with the name of the spell, I know, but it's my opinion they should get that ability if a paladin does.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Ercvadasz on July 30, 2011, 10:10:24 AM
I believe Ranger get's a lot of class skills that make them adept at sneaking about and spotting things, along with some spells to help this (camouflage, mass camouflage, One with the Land) - add that to Trackless Step and they should be the best sneakers on the server to go with that sweet AB and melee ability, especially if they are Shadowdancers. They also get the spell Aid for a bonus to AB and can cast Greater Magic Fang on the pet. Dual wield with parry - isn't that any good? I heard good things about it on this server, and with the high attack tables like Fighters, they should be pretty good with it By the way, they also get elemental protection, freedom and invisibility purge. Ever tried using grease, or entangle to slow down things chasing you? It's pretty effective if they aren't immune.

I guess my point is, they get access to a number of decent spells (unlike other melee classes) can sneak and spot/listen very well (unlike other melee classes) while still keeping a high AB and free dual wield (which for others, costs about 3 feats). If your that concerned about losing a few DEX points when your flatfooted, cross class to a class that has uncanny dodge, or go sword and board. I used to play rangers a lot on my old server and they were one of the more powerful melee types, especially when they had access to items they could buff themselves with. If AC was an issue, they just wouldn't dual wield, as dual wielding in its very nature means no shield - lower AC, so you can't expect to play frontliner while dual wielding.

first of all.
Grease and engtangle are useless spells since the DC is somewhere like 12 or 13 maybe fourteen. Not to mention that ranger caster level is only half of the actual caster level.
(so even your buffs wont last long! cats grace on level 10 is considered a level 5 lasting cats grace.)
Grease and entangle are awesome for a druid, since they can easily get it up to 20+dc. But a rangers grease or even entangle hell even a zombie can save it with 50% chance! unless you take transmu focuses which than wil give you like +4 to dc, still very limited effect, and you wasted two feats you could have used better ( you can know entangle and knockoff skeletons and juju zombies, congrats!).
I doubt any ranger will take the Aid spell up since they get blade thirst on the same level, which is a bit more effective(+3 enchantment vs +2 ab and 8 hp?:). Greater magic fang to use on the animal companion, well no sense. Since the animal companion is weak. VERY weak. You cannot buff it up beside wasting a shitload of potions or items on it, and even than not even half as good as any familiar, nor a druids companion. GMF is useless, MF is sometimes okay but that is all.
Secondly that few dex points really hurt, because it lowers a lot of your skills and beside your ac your reflex saves. And your only save focuse is fort. You get your reflex from the startup dex bonus and addon dex points, and the cats grace spell.

They only have 4 skills points per level, not 6 like in 3.5
Whereas they have at least 7 or more skills they would require, and are all class skills.  Discipline, parry, ms, hide, spot, search, listen, concentration, heal, animal empathy, not to mention set traps rocks for them. Of course they cannot remove their own traps thereafter.  i made my ranger with 14 int and i still have to sacrifice 2-3 skills per level as of not putting any point in it. Animal empathy is one of them. It is better to SNEAK around as a ranger than to fight most of the stuff you meet. Their high attack table is not as good as fighters, since they require more abilities, than fighters or barbs, and receive less feats than ftgs. In 3.0 they do not receive extra AB against Favoured enemies, just damage 1 point /5 levels. So you get +3 damage on level 10, which is not even magical, or bypassing and is easily reduced or soaked. (At bow you dont need mighty for this to apply, that is a good thing though.) They cant enhance their str, their will, nor their endurance with spells. (which they should but that is nwns fault.)
They are skill(int) and spell(wis) dependant. Dex, str, con, wis, int these are all their main abilities...The decent spells, laughable.
The usefull spells on the server :
level 1: camouflage, cure light wounds, magic fang(actually lasts for at best 2 battle turns when your animal comp dies...), ultravision(limited useage), resist elements
level 2: cats grace, one with the land, and prot from elements
level 3: blade thirst and maybe cmw
level 4: polymorph self, csw and fom.
That is it. Not to mention as a ranger you get a lot less spell slots, even with the caliban bracers, which is good that it gives 1/1 spell slots, but the reflex save reduction is a damn hit.
(compare it with justaurocorps, or whatever that armors name is.)
You only get favoured enemy as bonus feat, dual wield while wearing light armor(for medium you have to take the feats up, waste 2 feats...), you get itwf for free, no armor or any restriction.

Usefull is the tempest rebuttal, i strongly discourage anyone to make a dex based ranger, starting with more dex than 15(!) at start since it is not worth it. Tempest rebuttal is how you can max out your damage dealing capabilities in melee. (Or any double blade you find and can keep:P) finesse is a bad road for a ranger to take. The rapier rule that got applied in 3.5 does not work here, that if you wield two rapiers one is considered medium and the other one a small one.

On the traps, yes they are usefull, but here is a little something, setting them up breaks stealth, breaks invisibility, and the best buyable traps are average traps. Crafting traps require skillpoints again which you lack.

I am talking about pure rangers, i dont cross class. You can make every class good with cross classing. Because than it is not a class, but x-classed.
SD is prestige, and i dont think that for any good alligned ranger SD is a good idea, or assasin for the matter.

On winters post, about stalking, hunting and such. Try it, half the monsters have such SERIOUS listen and spot skills, that you best go with invisibility and sneak, and even than they notice you. The sneak nerf really hits the rangers badly, not to mention all those listen and spot bonus items. I especially loved when i picked up a body that slightly encumbered me (with bulls potion 20 str i had 266 carry weight with corpse i got to 278 ) i got -50 to ms and hide. Setting up traps applies, if you have room to fallback, set your traps up, and than lure them in. Enter a cave, and most times this is not an option.
As i was told once by someone who plays a ranger longer than i have: If you have sneak, you cannot sneak past the things you should avoid, but you can sneak past the things you can defeat with ease. I aggree with this sentence in 60%...there are exceptions, but most times, everyone notices you, even if you dont slam a door, dont go close, are not glowing, and have maxed out your sneaking skills.

about their ranging capabilities, a druid is the best archer. seriously:(
Zen archery and high wisdom and best wisdom bonus giving spell that stacks with owls....(30 wisdom means +10 ab with bow.)
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Indriya on July 30, 2011, 10:29:16 AM
I'm not sure if you understand this, or not - but Grease and Entangle still slow people down, even if they make the save. The DC is great and all if they fall the save, but it still serves an important purpose and I used to use it to great effect on things pursuing my ranger. Just as speeding yourself up via things like haste and expeditious retreat, so is slowing others down valuable.

Rangers have their niche, trading some things for other things. I just don't think Ranger is suffering for want of a GMW type spell they can apparently get via other means (like other melee do).
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Winter83 on July 30, 2011, 10:29:48 AM
Very very very discouraging  what you say Ercvadasz. I am fond of playing rangers, and I did on the previous server, where they were quite strong when played well. Here since I'm fairly new I am yet to pass lvl 6. The class offered great rp options so far, and was expecting it to grow in combat provess too, but if half what you said is true that's pretty discouraging.

'Nuff said, I will hang onto my toon anyway since I invested much time in him already and see where it goes.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Ercvadasz on July 30, 2011, 11:29:03 AM
I'm not sure if you understand this, or not - but Grease and Entangle still slow people down, even if they make the save. The DC is great and all if they fall the save, but it still serves an important purpose and I used to use it to great effect on things pursuing my ranger. Just as speeding yourself up via things like haste and expeditious retreat, so is slowing others down valuable.

Rangers have their niche, trading some things for other things. I just don't think Ranger is suffering for want of a GMW type spell they can apparently get via other means (like other melee do).

I understand what you mean, but it keeps them halved only till they stay inside the spells effect territory. Which sadly is quite small. Only the druid spell spike growth has that permanent effect.
All i can encourage you to do, is than play a ranger on this server, and go out there and see for yourself. 
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Telkar on July 30, 2011, 11:35:11 AM
Very very very discouraging  what you say Ercvadasz. I am fond of playing rangers, and I did on the previous server, where they were quite strong when played well. Here since I'm fairly new I am yet to pass lvl 6. The class offered great rp options so far, and was expecting it to grow in combat provess too, but if half what you said is true that's pretty discouraging.

'Nuff said, I will hang onto my toon anyway since I invested much time in him already and see where it goes.

I wouldn't worry about it. If there's anything to blame for serious lack of effectiveness, then it's the build(skills, feats, abilities) rather than the class, trust me. =) I've also seen a lvl 18 ranger here. You have to possess some form of effectiveness to get there.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Ercvadasz on July 30, 2011, 11:40:04 AM
Very very very discouraging  what you say Ercvadasz. I am fond of playing rangers, and I did on the previous server, where they were quite strong when played well. Here since I'm fairly new I am yet to pass lvl 6. The class offered great rp options so far, and was expecting it to grow in combat provess too, but if half what you said is true that's pretty discouraging.

'Nuff said, I will hang onto my toon anyway since I invested much time in him already and see where it goes.

I wouldn't worry about it. If there's anything to blame for serious lack of effectiveness, then it's the build(skills, feats, abilities) rather than the class, trust me. =) I've also seen a lvl 18 ranger here. You have to possess some form of effectiveness to get there.

companions. i would say companions:P A ranger is a very companion dependant class.

and your referring to Mariska right?:)
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Winter83 on July 30, 2011, 11:45:21 AM
Very very very discouraging  what you say Ercvadasz. I am fond of playing rangers, and I did on the previous server, where they were quite strong when played well. Here since I'm fairly new I am yet to pass lvl 6. The class offered great rp options so far, and was expecting it to grow in combat provess too, but if half what you said is true that's pretty discouraging.

'Nuff said, I will hang onto my toon anyway since I invested much time in him already and see where it goes.

I wouldn't worry about it. If there's anything to blame for serious lack of effectiveness, then it's the build(skills, feats, abilities) rather than the class, trust me. =) I've also seen a lvl 18 ranger here. You have to possess some form of effectiveness to get there.

You are right. Thought I don't really like the idea myself, that i need to focus on powerbuilding to have get an acceptable ranger. Not only because I'm not so good in that, but emphasizing the build too much to gain combat effectiveness, will make me lose many other rp options. (like animal empathy, favored animals like vermin, some skills in trapping etc).
Not so good that a mundane class not powerbuilded is lacking normal effectiveness. Especially that we are talking about an old and favored D&D class.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Telkar on July 30, 2011, 12:08:16 PM
Note that when I talk about effectiveness, it's not powerbuilding or how effective a character is in combat specifically. What one finds effective is subjective, and it really just depends on your goal. You want the ranger to be good at this and bad at that, you build him accordingly so he's an effective representation of the concept you're trying to embody.

In the end, this is a server that holds RP above everything, so you needn't really worry about being powerful that much. I don't think powerful characters get any better RP than others. In my experience weaker characters usually get better RP here. :p

But that's going too off topic. This topic is about spell balance. If you want to discuss powerbuilding, here (http://www.nwnravenloft.com/forum/index.php?topic=22525.0) is the place.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: KoopaFanatic on July 30, 2011, 02:57:26 PM
I wouldn't worry about it. If there's anything to blame for serious lack of effectiveness, then it's the build(skills, feats, abilities) rather than the class, trust me. =) I've also seen a lvl 18 ranger here. You have to possess some form of effectiveness to get there.

companions. i would say companions:P A ranger is a very companion dependant class.

and your referring to Mariska right?:)

I imagine he is, and I actually got Mariska to level 19 before taking advantage of enchanting ;)
That's a bad example, though -- Mariska was the first ranger I ever made, and I designed her mostly with an eye toward the lower levels.  I got her to that level largely through interesting RP, partying up with more effective PCs, and a lot of luck.  Unfortunately except in certain unusual situations she's usually more of a liability than an asset in combat.  There's a reason why high-level single-class rangers are so rare.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Winter83 on July 30, 2011, 03:28:11 PM
Aww.... so sad that a class that fits into the setting so well and more then many others is this ineffective. :( :cry:
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Dhark on July 30, 2011, 03:33:34 PM
The ranger class is a jack of all trades , master of none .  They get decent sneak skills , good AB , dual wield for free , spells & a companion.

 As Telkar has said, focus on one aspect of this superb choice & you will have a very effective toon.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: respawnaholic on July 30, 2011, 06:49:47 PM
you really dont take into account favoured enemy either....

Mostly useless. +1 AB and damage against things like undead tends to be worthless since most times these enemies have serious damage resistances and reductions you have to bypass before the damage can find a home. Ditto anything worth taking the feat for or against. I suppose if you made vermin a favored enemy youd rule up until you hit level 4 or so.

Best build for a ranger is a finessed based fighter with some rouge levels. Heap the obligatory WM on it on the tail end like everyone else. Sad but true.

Be that as it may I keep playing my ranger because I like the character, and hes fun. I dont kid myself tho that he brings anything useful to a party.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Emomina on July 30, 2011, 07:04:30 PM
Rangers are the very best stealthers, and they get just enough skillpoints to be a detect build too. Its the strength of the class (if there is any) because you maintain the max AB and fighter like hps.

In the 3.5 revision they realized the Ranger sucked and took it even more toward the skillful fighter with even more skill points and dropped them to d8 hit die, and gave them bonus feats that had two paths that you had to choose. (archery and dual wiedling)

In NWN you can make a good ranger, at the end of the day they have the best AB and the same HPS as fighters. On PotM you get enough feats to really make a decent ranger by boosting their skills, saves or taking a higher armor proficiency etc. Is it the strongest? no, it may even be the weakest base class on our server, but it doesn't mean a full Ranger is not a viable character. I maintain that if a Rogue with crap (bare minimum) saves and the minimum hit points is a viable character then the Ranger is doable and has a leg up on both stealth and survivability.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Telkar on July 30, 2011, 07:07:44 PM
Lol, none of you guys comment on the spell alteration proposal.  :sob:
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: respawnaholic on July 30, 2011, 11:05:33 PM
Lol, none of you guys comment on the spell alteration proposal.  :sob:

Id like to see it more powerful but it opens a door best left closed. If rangers start getting better spells their not normally allowed then whose to say that druids shouldnt get PFE for example, or wizards with access to healing spells. Theres a difference between nerfing spells and outright giving spells to classes that shouldnt be allowed.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Sharauvyn on July 31, 2011, 09:08:08 AM
I looooooove my ranger. :) But the thing is, rangers aren't primarily caster characters. I just started a thread complaining about wizards taking over on the melee role of warriors with their spells. I'm not going to turn around and talk about how I think a primarily melee class should be able to compete at magic with a caster. That's about all I have to say about this subject.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: HellsPanda on July 31, 2011, 09:13:14 AM
Rangers are flankers. And yes this spell is underpowered compared to most but not all other weapon buffing spells.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Telkar on July 31, 2011, 09:39:17 AM
Lol, none of you guys comment on the spell alteration proposal.  :sob:

Id like to see it more powerful but it opens a door best left closed. If rangers start getting better spells their not normally allowed then whose to say that druids shouldnt get PFE for example, or wizards with access to healing spells. Theres a difference between nerfing spells and outright giving spells to classes that shouldnt be allowed.

That door you're describing is much too exaggerated in my opinion. Giving new spells to classes is a whole other thing than modifying existing spells. So far, spells have been modified here but never did that warrant adding spells.

I looooooove my ranger. :) But the thing is, rangers aren't primarily caster characters. I just started a thread complaining about wizards taking over on the melee role of warriors with their spells. I'm not going to turn around and talk about how I think a primarily melee class should be able to compete at magic with a caster. That's about all I have to say about this subject.

How do you explain paladins then? They have Greater Magic Weapon that has much greater potential than the changes I suggested here. Ranger is pretty much to paladins as druids are to clerics. They take away most of the magic and boost up the melee (and Blade Thirst only helps the melee).
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Springer on July 31, 2011, 09:44:40 AM
Perhaps extending it to piercing weapons would help? Because rangers mostly use piercing weapons not slashing.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Winter83 on July 31, 2011, 11:08:42 AM
Now that would make rangers deadly archers! :D
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: KoopaFanatic on July 31, 2011, 11:25:10 AM
Now that would make rangers deadly archers! :D

I'm sure it would still be melee only.  No reason we should actually go and make archers effective  :roll:

I'd love to see an extended-duration blade thirst that works on piercing weapons, though.  That'd be a dream come true.  Actually being effective with finesse weapons in melee combat without hoping somebody remembered a couple extra GMWs?  [sighs wistfully]

Considering how little rangers have to look forward to at the highest levels, a version of blade thirst that was worth the spell slots would be an excellent reward for sticking it out to the end.  Of course, I may be a little biased... :)
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: herkles on July 31, 2011, 11:27:58 AM
 I wonders if pathfinder stuff can be imported for rangers, such as favored terrain. Though not sure if it is scriptable or not.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Ercvadasz on July 31, 2011, 01:44:59 PM
you really dont take into account favoured enemy either....

Mostly useless. +1 AB and damage against things like undead tends to be worthless since most times these enemies have serious damage resistances and reductions you have to bypass before the damage can find a home. Ditto anything worth taking the feat for or against. I suppose if you made vermin a favored enemy youd rule up until you hit level 4 or so.

Best build for a ranger is a finessed based fighter with some rouge levels. Heap the obligatory WM on it on the tail end like everyone else. Sad but true.

Be that as it may I keep playing my ranger because I like the character, and hes fun. I dont kid myself tho that he brings anything useful to a party.

you dont get bonus AB against favoure enemy.

Type of feat: class
Prerequisite: ranger, Harper scout 1

Specifics: The character gains a +1 bonus to any damage delivered to his favored enemy. He also receives a +1 bonus on listen, spot, and taunt checks against the favored enemy.

That is why this is basicly such a nerfed feat here. In 3.5 you do.

And personally i think 3.5 rangers are better than the ones here. They have barkskin too:P
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Indriya on July 31, 2011, 02:10:50 PM
Perhaps Druids should get a GMW like spell, since they are better casters. 8)
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: KoopaFanatic on July 31, 2011, 02:22:28 PM
That is why this is basicly such a nerfed feat here. In 3.5 you do.

And personally i think 3.5 rangers are better than the ones here. They have barkskin too:P

They also get bull's strength.  *sigh*  If only...

The D&D 3.0, 3.5, and NWN favored enemy abilities are all slightly different:
3.0:  +1 to bluff, listen, sense motive, spot, and wilderness lore, +1 damage, each favored enemy increments when you gain another, and it doesn't work against crit-immune creatures.  So at level 20 you have FE bonuses of +5/+4/+3/+2/+1 (total +15 for what it's worth).
3.5:  +2 to bluff, listen, sense motive, spot, and survival, +2 damage, +2 to bonus to any single enemy when you gain another, and it still doesn't work against crit-immune creatures.
So at level 20 you have FE bonuses of +2/+2/+2/+2/+2 and +8 more to be distribute among them as you want (+18 total).
NWN:  +1 to listen, spot and taunt, +1 damage, ALL enemies increment together (at the same rate), and the bonus works against all creatures regardless of type.  So at level 20 you have FE bonuses of +5/+5/+5/+5/+5 (total 25).  

I can't find anything that says any version gives a bonus to attack.

All told, I'd say the NWN version is pretty good compared to the others.  By level 20 a dual-wielding ranger gets 6 attacks a round, so that's potentially +30 damage each round.  Provided you can get through DR with that.  

And that's what really frustrates me about blade thirst -- most people paint rangers as the champions of self-sufficiency, and in reality they're one of the most item- and support-caster-dependent classes unless you luck out and find just the right weapons or can stock up on so many potions and varnishes that the rattling of jars should negate every move silently roll you make ;)
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: KoopaFanatic on July 31, 2011, 02:25:49 PM
Perhaps Druids should get a GMW like spell, since they are better casters. 8)

They get GMFang for their companions (admittedly rangers do too) and if they have stoneskin/greater stoneskin/premonition up when they wild shape, their natural attacks count as +5 for purposes of bypassing DR.  Considering they get bull's strength, blood frenzy and aura of glory, they really don't need GMW to boost their attack bonus.  (Though it would be awesome if they could straight-up cast GMF on themselves...)
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Telkar on July 31, 2011, 02:42:33 PM
Perhaps Druids should get a GMW like spell, since they are better casters. 8)

Nooo. That'd be weird. I just looked at the spells in the PnP and seems GMW is 1 hour / lvl, while Blade Thirst is 1 round / lvl.  :doh:

Why they make Blade Thirst lvl 3 is beyond me... anyway, the spell actually lasts 2 rounds / lvl in NWN although it says otherwise. For a lvl 12 ranger that's 2 minutes and 24 seconds, lvl 20 4 minutes...That could last for at least one important battle so it's not entirely useless.

Not sure of my stance now. Don't understand why so similar spells on same spell lvl would differ so in usefulness.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Indriya on July 31, 2011, 02:43:33 PM
Eh well, its kind of weird giving Rangers GMW too, imo.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Telkar on July 31, 2011, 02:46:56 PM
Eh well, its kind of weird giving Rangers GMW too, imo.

Rangers already got this similar spell we're talking about, not druids, so it's not the same thing.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Indriya on July 31, 2011, 02:49:43 PM
Greater Magic Fang isn't like Greater Magic Weapon..? Why can't Druids cast it on themselves again?
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: HellsPanda on July 31, 2011, 02:50:48 PM
because they dont have the weapon equipped, since they cant cast while in animal form
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: KoopaFanatic on July 31, 2011, 02:56:15 PM
Eh well, its kind of weird giving Rangers GMW too, imo.

Personally I wouldn't be in favor of just adding GMW to their spell list.  Blade thirst is just poorly implemented in the source material given its spell level in comparison to GMW -- bumping it up in duration or applicability would just add some teeth to a class that's already pretty challenged here.  Making it level 1 would at least be a good fit for the duration.  

Now in an ideal world I'd write blade thirst as "just like GMW but it only works against the ranger's favored enemies."  Unfortunately nobody asked me when they were drafting the spell. ;)

And as for druids, it's only an NWN convention that it only applies to the druid's companion.  The standard version's target is "one living creature," which means a druid could cast it on another druid (or maybe even himself before shifting).  I always wondered if it might be possible mechanically to give druids an inventory widget they could cast GMF on which would then "transfer" the effect to them once they've shape-shifted.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Ercvadasz on July 31, 2011, 08:13:48 PM
That is why this is basicly such a nerfed feat here. In 3.5 you do.

And personally i think 3.5 rangers are better than the ones here. They have barkskin too:P

They also get bull's strength.  *sigh*  If only...

I can't find anything that says any version gives a bonus to attack.


And that's what really frustrates me about blade thirst -- most people paint rangers as the champions of self-sufficiency, and in reality they're one of the most item- and support-caster-dependent classes unless you luck out and find just the right weapons or can stock up on so many potions and varnishes that the rattling of jars should negate every move silently roll you make ;)

not to mention evasion, and reflex+fort as main saves. And if i remember well they even get endurance too.
not to mention those extra feats....so it is much more usefull in 3.5....

bonus to attack is in DDO.

And about the survivalism? yeah...VERY consumable reliant...
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Uranos on September 19, 2011, 08:21:52 AM
*digs up an old thread*

A ranger thread has been brought up more times then the wizard vs fighter thread on most servers.

In my history I have played a mixed ranger on 3 different servers (all 40 lv cap), some had minor spell changes (like bull str and barkskin), but so far it is one the least used class ever. I tried different combinations using an epic ranger (21, 25, 26 levels, etc) but so far I did not manage to create a char that would be in any ways useful and I doubt anyone has. I talked to a lot of people that used to play on HnS servers and a ranger class was just not worth it.

Also one thing worth noticing - if this class would be useful, there wouldn't be any problems, and this topic exists on almost EVERY server that I have played, and since it does, there must be something to it. This class has nothing unique to offer that would somehow encourage to play it.

Stealh - a multiclassed druid will do way better since they have the same feats and spells.
Dmg - fighter, weapon master, arcane archer - all of them will do way better
rolls - no comment required

This class even sucks as a support class :P. What kind of support can it give? Spells? Damage? High attack? Skills? Saving rolls? Every other combination will be much more useful then a ranger in any form.

Almost every class has something unique that makes them worth noticing, rangers have nothing. The only thing that they "kinda" have is RP. Tracking is fun but thats it. NWN is based on limited locations so finding anything and anyone comes down to scouting the entire map. In PnP you can get lost, die of hunger or freeze to death. In NWN almost all RP ideas are unaccessable - making a fire, a camp or even a bear trap.. thats all useless here.

A full 3.5 ranger could give some thoughts of usefullness and a full I mean full:

-Spell list includes bull str and barkskin
-6 skills
-reflex a base saving throw
-additional feats (toughness, evasion, hide in plain sight (natural terain), camuflage (no speed penalty when hiding))
etc.

With this a ranger might be more combat useful (lets state a fact, if a class is weak, noone will use it, no matter the RP).

One thing of thought on the "Blade thirst". On one server they changed it to work as a vampiric weapon +1 for every 5 lv and worked.. turn per level or something like that. On an other server it gave a + to enhancment against the rangers favored enemies equal to the rangers FE bonus (1 + 1/5 lv). Perhaps worth concidering?

Uranos
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Knas on September 19, 2011, 08:44:37 AM
It's a pretty well rounded fighter-stealth-druid-hybrid class, of course it won't go beyond the druid as a caster. It does however get very good bonuses to stealth and has stealth skills as a class skill. The only class with high attack bonus that gets this. It also gets a very good hp and the only place I'd say it's really lacking is the feat department.

I don't think the ranger class is trash and if you insist it is I can only say that you haven't tried ranger enough on Ravenloft.

HOWEVER I do think blade thirst could use a boost in either duration or effect.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: KoopaFanatic on September 19, 2011, 08:55:10 AM
I think my views on this are pretty well known, since I weigh in on every ranger-related thread here with pretty much the same comments: I would <3 to see some mechanical improvements to rangers that brought them more in line with the 3.5 version of the class, mostly because it sucks feeling like the dead weight in a party except in very specific situations.  That said, this comment...

With this a ranger might be more combat useful (lets state a fact, if a class is weak, noone will use it, no matter the RP).

...is pretty far off from the reality of things.  I've played here for years, and in the time before classes and levels were blocked from view I'm fairly certain I saw more single-classed rangers than I ever did rogues or fighters.  They offer a lot of fun and really make sense for a lot of character concepts, it would just be nice if the mechanics of the class backed up the RP potential instead of actively worked against it.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Winter83 on September 19, 2011, 09:20:08 AM
Been playing a ranger for month now, and he's pure class, no multiclass, don't think I'll ever do. So far he's been useful in roleplay, and in party too. Heck he lacks the AC but compensates in damage + stealth. Ranger is like a commando, spec-ops. I was in a dungeon alone could take out a boss without much loss of blood, whilst a similar level fighter with high AC bled to death, knocked down, burnt, beaten up etc. What makes the difference? --> Traps. Stealth. Spells. Combat skills of a fighter. All you need is some tactical sense.

We are discussing a spell here that comes so late in levels, that players by then abandon their ranger or multiclass into something else. I still wish ranger class get some love, but can imagine it in some other kind of mechanical boon, like extra resources, or bonus to certain crafts etc, etc.

And about survival.... yeah, the main strength of a ranger is gone. Survival and tracking. Was in a DM plot with other class chars that required tracking and my ranger was the worst tracker in team. Why? Because other classes get spot / listen /search as well, which are the base of tracking. IMHO between spot and spot there's a big difference. Even if a ranger rolls a lower spot he still has some knowledge about where to find signs of the prey he knows where to look for. Another similar thing comes when one need to determine certain things about a prey, like movement speed, species, etc. According to handbooks the 'wilderness lore' is like that. Now if you have a bard in your party he'll be better roll-wise to distinguish a badger from a jackal than a ranger who might have around a lore of 6 but he has it in -wilderness lore- Not religions, arts, history, etc, etc.

There has been a topic on wilderness features as well, and many other threads about ranger. It's an exciting discussion but I don't know if the developers see it as a problem, or have any intentions to do anything to the class.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Uranos on September 19, 2011, 09:33:11 AM
Quote
I don't think the ranger class is trash and if you insist it is I can only say that you haven't tried ranger enough on Ravenloft.

If I'd get a copper every time I heard it I would be a second Bill Gates. No offence, but I heard it all before "Here is different, play and you will see". Well I did so, couple of times, every time the same conclusion - they are fun and entertaining to play, but still, to weak (not trash) to be feared or atleast respected and I have witnessed it myself many times. It didn't matter if I was a city guard, or even on the kings scouting team - there was no respect. My favorite quote on this would be "They will either fear you, or laugh at you", and a ranger is not the one to be feared. It is sad, very sad even but still true.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Ercvadasz on September 19, 2011, 10:59:16 AM
another thing is, they do not lose their twf feats if they equip medium armor in 3.5, just the evasion. On most places where you can achieve a mithral or darkleaf armor (both are considered as light armor, so light armor chain shirts:P or chainmails:)\m/) this would not be a problem. But here this makes them a great hindrance as well, they have to retake all those feats, if they would go for chain shirts or chainmails. So they are weak on the feat side, and if they want to have a bit of decent AC and decent to hit, aka balance, than they have to waste 2-3 feats...(and they allready have not enough feats.)
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Emomina on September 19, 2011, 11:23:47 PM
The additional spells added from 3.5 would only be patchwork. Rangers in 3.0 sucked so hard they got the most revision and they ended up a different type of class altogether.  They are the most skillful martial class, its their niche.  Rangers may never get the bonus combat feats but as they are now they are just a terrible meleer in need of fighter levels or a good sneak needing rogue or assassin levels to do something with it. They are not even as good of archers as fighters who go that route or rogues that go that route.  These three changes would give them a place on PotM and emphasize their differences from a fighter or rogue, and bulls strength and barkskin to the spell list would be awesome too.  Rangers are the single underpowered class on PotM, that does not mean you can not play one and survive, but they are not as good as any other class.

d8 hit die instead d10
6 skill points/ level instead of 4/level
Good reflex saving throw progression and gain evasion as class skill at level 9
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Uranos on September 20, 2011, 03:59:52 AM
Emomina and Ercvadasz - my thoughts exactly. The part with a high skill martial class isn't also that superb. A fighter gets 2 skills, ranger 4, but a true ranger must take hide and move silently, so in a way - its back to 2 skills as for a fighter :-).

The change to a 3.5 ranger would alter this class greatly and made it finally playable (in a mechanical way). Hide in plain sight on 12 (only in natural, If needed I can find a way how our scripter pulled it off on our old server) would give a great alternative for the shadow dancer.

The topic spell - imo a vampiric property would suit this char best - plus it would be something unique and worth having. The duration suggested the same as greater magic weapon, bonus the same (+1 +2 +3 +4 +5 on 4 8 12 16 20).

As for the cats grace and one with the land - what changes where done for that?
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: DM Tarokka on September 20, 2011, 06:22:49 AM
My biclassed ranger/bard (8-6 ratio right now) Arden made me really satisfied in any circumstance he was on, he was mostly an archer, and a multicrafter. That is, mostly it has been time draining, because he made himself his varnishes, arrows, potions and most gear he wore, but it made an excellent RP story until I played him. I even think as ranger 14 instead of multiclass, with the similar build (high dex, high const, archer mostly) he could have been useful in many circumstances more: he mostly played ranged, but that gave him the chance to heal people, or to replace the tanker (given his high HP amount) to give him the chance to recover some. Not a big damage dealer, but pragmatic. Then if you want a pure sneaker, go for rogue, if a pure tanker, fighter and barbarian. For me, as it is now, the ranger is quite pragmatic, and it needs some more tactical sense to be played.

I've played also NWN2 with a ranger, and it follows 3.5 rules: admittedly I felt more powerful.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Ercvadasz on September 20, 2011, 07:15:56 AM
My biclassed ranger/bard (8-6 ratio right now) Arden made me really satisfied in any circumstance he was on, he was mostly an archer, and a multicrafter. That is, mostly it has been time draining, because he made himself his varnishes, arrows, potions and most gear he wore, but it made an excellent RP story until I played him. I even think as ranger 14 instead of multiclass, with the similar build (high dex, high const, archer mostly) he could have been useful in many circumstances more: he mostly played ranged, but that gave him the chance to heal people, or to replace the tanker (given his high HP amount) to give him the chance to recover some. Not a big damage dealer, but pragmatic. Then if you want a pure sneaker, go for rogue, if a pure tanker, fighter and barbarian. For me, as it is now, the ranger is quite pragmatic, and it needs some more tactical sense to be played.

I've played also NWN2 with a ranger, and it follows 3.5 rules: admittedly I felt more powerful.

Tarokka, we are talking about pure rangers only.
It was mentioned in the previous posts quite on a lot of occasions, that a multiclass ranger is quite powerfull, since the additions it gives to other classes is good(8 free feats, to rogues or bards!), or the other classes one takes make those hindrances the ranger suffers neglected.

The problem is if you want to stay pure, as a ranger than you have major problems.
A ranger/rogue a ranger/bard is a very good AC tank because they get tumble, not to mention the extra useage of magical items, since they get umd with the taken non ranger classes. (ofc not everyone does it.)
What you say with the varnishes, potions, arrows and such, is basicly allready in effect for allmost all other classes, even casters, clerics whatnot take several potions with them.
That is why the potion market is dwindling because it is not worth to sell it, because nobody knows when you will ever need one. (And half these guys regularly hunt on herbs to resupply them!)
The ranger could be pragmatic, but sadly it does not have enough things for it.
Its spellcasting abilities are quite limited. Usefull spells of the list on the server are 2-3/per level.
CLW, elemental resist, cats grace, and the sneak bonus giving ones. It is not worht to take offensive spells since your DC will be very low to be of much use.
To have a decent AC you have to sacrifice either feats or con/str/wisdom/int. Beside the charisma all abilities are needed for a ranger. Int for skills, wisdom for spells, dex for AC and range bonus, str, to hit and damage not to mention carry capacity!(heavy consumeable reliance!) Con, well they need hp...
The skill points they gain is not enough, 2 allready go for sneak.
They gain their spells quite late, especially the one that is the most usefull to them, and even that one is considered quite weak opposed to the other same effect giving spells.
Cant remove his own traps! His search is limited to the 30-s range (if i recall well) from which only a rogue is able to notice the traps (even if he cant removeing them spotting them is quite allright!)
A ranger is usually the scout guy of the wilds, a survivalist, for which he would need skill points, a decent ranger in my oppinion needs the following skills on this server:
Ms, hide, heal, parry, discipline/concentration, spot/listen, lore, set traps...even with the optional take one of the two i suggest with /, you will need to be a human ranger with 14 int or any other with 16 to have all these! (On an RP server the skills are quite important!)
Going for metal armor needs 2-3 feats to be able to still dualwield, not to mention the ACP which gives a reduction to your skills. Hard to find a chain shirt that actually gives some back of the reductions.
The animal companion is a joke at most times. It is a true meat shield to cover your escape.
Its so called GMW, the blade thirst only effects slash weapons, makeing pierce specced dual wielders (AKA finesse based), have their only weapon buffing spell effectless on them.
(yeah they should go with dual kukris...) Not to mention it comes to them at a very late time! on level 12!
Not to mention the penalties that will not be eliminated from the dual wielding, the ability to heighten your ab is quite a limited case too.

We all know what the situation is with the multiclassed rangers(they rock), but we are talking about the normal ones. Which is utterly underpowered considering every  other class.

It is the problem that the ranger is very ability resiliant which was partially taken away from 3.5, making it a much more usefull and balanced class.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Bodhidharma on October 21, 2011, 09:54:14 AM
[edit out, stupid new user are stupid]
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Purist on October 21, 2011, 01:51:21 PM
I've always dreamed to make a wildness survivalist, skilled, self reliant. The only way to do it is multiclassing. 4 skills points per level is simply madness. The bard also gets the same 4 I think.... Rangers and Bards should be getting 6(+int) each to make them truly skilled as they are supposed to be.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Winter83 on October 22, 2011, 05:08:24 AM
Hey folks, leave the rangers be already. They are meant to be seriously gimped on this server, so despite the vaste wilderness areas discourage anyone picking more than 3 ranger levels, and then have those cry for remake.

Ranger's mechanic wise ought to suck in tracking (spot/search/lore combination of skills which makes the very few ranger skill points more streched out), spells are nerfed, have a terribly weak meatshield pet that would last for 1 round in battle, sneaking is nerfed, even the sneaking spells are, you won't survive any longer in wilderness areas than the rest, neither will you get a faster pace, traps are nerfed, best trap one can make is a minor one, the rest cost insane amount of money.

So yeah, let's just drop the topic, and get used to the extra weaknesses of the class and talk about something else, something more fruitfull. Pick rangers only if you want one only for the sake rp and no dungeons or PVPs. 8)

[Secretly plotting to be the highest level ranger on the server]
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Ryltar/ Robert Archer on October 22, 2011, 09:42:36 AM
[Secretly plotting to be the highest level ranger on the server]

 :lol: Has a level 18 pure ranger  :lol: honestly even blade thirst i find useful course my guy usually had a cleric or wizard tagging along with a rogue to balance things
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: KoopaFanatic on October 22, 2011, 10:05:08 AM
[Secretly plotting to be the highest level ranger on the server]

 :lol: Has a level 18 pure ranger  :lol: honestly even blade thirst i find useful course my guy usually had a cleric or wizard tagging along with a rogue to balance things

Only 18?  n00b.   8)
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Ryltar/ Robert Archer on October 22, 2011, 09:57:58 PM
[Secretly plotting to be the highest level ranger on the server]

 :lol: Has a level 18 pure ranger  :lol: honestly even blade thirst i find useful course my guy usually had a cleric or wizard tagging along with a rogue to balance things

Only 18?  n00b.   8)

eh well that was where he got permaed :P if i recall your higher but i was simply making a point that its possible was all
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: LackofCertainty on December 05, 2011, 08:33:37 AM
To have a decent AC you have to sacrifice either feats or con/str/wisdom/int. Beside the charisma all abilities are needed for a ranger. Int for skills, wisdom for spells, dex for AC and range bonus, str, to hit and damage not to mention carry capacity!(heavy consumeable reliance!) Con, well they need hp...

I think rangers are a little weak, but right here, you're pointing out a flaw in your building strat.

You want to make a ranger who is best at everything, but that's silly.  No character is best at everything.  If you make a jack of all trades you have to be a master of none. You have to specialize if you want to be the best in any one category.

Do you want to make a good archer-ranger? High dex and skimp some on con.  Rangers have very high base health so they're not as squishy with low con as other archers.

18 dex +full ab + cat's grace.  Highest AB archer in the game and most attacks per round.  No other pure class can match that as far as I know without using consumables.



It's like a monk.  Monks use Str, Dex, Con, and Wis heavily, but if you don't specialize a bit then your monk ends up being a mediocre mess.  If you want a monk that does damage you need to sacrifice survivability.  If you want a monk with godly ac, then you have to give up some damage.


One final bit: You keep chanting "We're only talking about pure classes here, because multiclassing is a whole different beast" but then whenever someone says how pure rangers are good at what they do you say, "But a Fighter/Rogue is better"    Which is it? Are we talking about pure classes or are we talking about the class in general?  (also you're skipping over the fact that fighter/rogues have less ab and less attacks per round than a pure ranger  and that a ranger/rogue is just as viable as a fighter/rogue)


Edit: Got so caught up in that rant that I forgot the subject! XD

You mentioned that ranger's get 1/2 caster levels.  Is that true in nwn?   That would mean that GMW would be effing useless for them on this server?   GMW doesn't hit +2 until caster level 8, and +3 at caster 12.  That means a ranger would get +2 from gmw at lvl 16, and would never hit +3...

Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Ercvadasz on December 05, 2011, 04:09:08 PM

I think rangers are a little weak, but right here, you're pointing out a flaw in your building strat.

You want to make a ranger who is best at everything, but that's silly.  No character is best at everything.  If you make a jack of all trades you have to be a master of none. You have to specialize if you want to be the best in any one category.

Do you want to make a good archer-ranger? High dex and skimp some on con.  Rangers have very high base health so they're not as squishy with low con as other archers.
18 dex +full ab + cat's grace.  Highest AB archer in the game and most attacks per round.  No other pure class can match that as far as I know without using consumables.

Actually this is halfly true. I allready stated previously that sadly a druid is mostly the better archer. They have owls insight, which stacks with owls wisdom potions makeing them reach the 30 wisdom cap fairly easy. With zen archery this would mean +10 bonus just alone from their abilities.(I had a build like this!) Add to this they can cast empowered bulls, and they can even max out their damage with bows. Hitting more and doing more damage.

It's like a monk.  Monks use Str, Dex, Con, and Wis heavily, but if you don't specialize a bit then your monk ends up being a mediocre mess.  If you want a monk that does damage you need to sacrifice survivability.  If you want a monk with godly ac, then you have to give up some damage.

Yes i had this build with my ranger, but it was not working, i deleveled him, than releveled him(from level3) took up different skills/feats and spent abilitiy points differently, he actually is much more usefull than he was previously. And he is still a mediocre char at best considering his stats. Not to mention that the monk gets built in compensation of ki attack which gives extra AB and damage, as he progresses.

One final bit: You keep chanting "We're only talking about pure classes here, because multiclassing is a whole different beast" but then whenever someone says how pure rangers are good at what they do you say, "But a Fighter/Rogue is better"    Which is it? Are we talking about pure classes or are we talking about the class in general?  (also you're skipping over the fact that fighter/rogues have less ab and less attacks per round than a pure ranger  and that a ranger/rogue is just as viable as a fighter/rogue)

Well if we are talking about pure classes, and someone else drops in a multiclass that directs the whole talk of the subject away. Secondly maybe fighter rogue has less ab, and less attacks per round, but he has feats that are available only to him, and he likely has extra ac, has sneak attack, and can use such items via umd, that most of the classes cannot. I know this because i have a seriously mutliclassed character, he is a totally crappy build, because i made him skillfocused, yet with a few chosen levels i obtained freely about 10(!) feats, serious boost to certain skills, while i can even perform damage, and i would say he is far more powerfull than my ranger, if the same equipment would be provided to both of them. (I gathered a lot of things for my ranger and about half or more of his capabilities come from these items and consumables)

Edit: Got so caught up in that rant that I forgot the subject! XD

You mentioned that ranger's get 1/2 caster levels.  Is that true in nwn?   That would mean that GMW would be effing useless for them on this server?   GMW doesn't hit +2 until caster level 8, and +3 at caster 12.  That means a ranger would get +2 from gmw at lvl 16, and would never hit +3...

Yes, this may have been a mistake by me, because i cant find the page i used to check it upon, and apparantly it seems this only applies in nwn 2.
//Though i know that one with the land has actually only the quarter of the duration of my chars actual level, but this may be because of altered spells, not sure.//
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: KoopaFanatic on December 05, 2011, 04:28:52 PM
18 dex +full ab + cat's grace.  Highest AB archer in the game and most attacks per round.  No other pure class can match that as far as I know without using consumables.

Nope!  A cleric could do it easily.  Full wis + owl's wisdom + bull's strength + zen archery + weapon focus: bow + divine power + divine might + divine favor is going to have an equal or better AB with the bow, as many attacks, take full (or at least better) advantage of a mighty +6 bow, and deliver all of the additional divine and magic damage at range.  It's only for the duration of the divine power (and other) spells, but by the time it becomes possible that cleric would be a mighty artillery piece of doom for a couple minutes at a time, more than enough for most battles.  Get a friendly druid to toss owl's insight into the mix and you're looking at the best possible ranged AB possible.  Add in a few more archery-related feats and that cleric is seriously kicking butt.  And that's not even counting haste potions and varnishes for the arrows...

Now, you could say that the cleric specialized in all this stuff and therefore deserves to be the battle-beast that it is because it suffers in other areas.  The problem is, that's just not so -- with just the non-domain spell selection even a suboptimal cleric is a melee master as well.

The thing is, this isn't an argument for nerfing clerics.  This is an argument for strengthening rangers.  Nobody in here is proposing anything that would turn the ranger into some sort of god-class that trumps everything on the server, just tweaks that would make rangers actually able to fulfill their combat- and RP-roles in a competent manner.

Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Ercvadasz on December 06, 2011, 05:53:29 AM
18 dex +full ab + cat's grace.  Highest AB archer in the game and most attacks per round.  No other pure class can match that as far as I know without using consumables.

Nope!  A cleric could do it easily.  Full wis + owl's wisdom + bull's strength + zen archery + weapon focus: bow + divine power + divine might + divine favor is going to have an equal or better AB with the bow, as many attacks, take full (or at least better) advantage of a mighty +6 bow, and deliver all of the additional divine and magic damage at range.  It's only for the duration of the divine power (and other) spells, but by the time it becomes possible that cleric would be a mighty artillery piece of doom for a couple minutes at a time, more than enough for most battles.  Get a friendly druid to toss owl's insight into the mix and you're looking at the best possible ranged AB possible.  Add in a few more archery-related feats and that cleric is seriously kicking butt.  And that's not even counting haste potions and varnishes for the arrows...

Now, you could say that the cleric specialized in all this stuff and therefore deserves to be the battle-beast that it is because it suffers in other areas.  The problem is, that's just not so -- with just the non-domain spell selection even a suboptimal cleric is a melee master as well.

The thing is, this isn't an argument for nerfing clerics.  This is an argument for strengthening rangers.  Nobody in here is proposing anything that would turn the ranger into some sort of god-class that trumps everything on the server, just tweaks that would make rangers actually able to fulfill their combat- and RP-roles in a competent manner.


Well i did not even know that clerics are capable of this. (I dont really played them in nwn, nor am i good with powerbuilding.)

About the rangers, basicly in a party usually everyone is better at anything the ranger could be in. Even a dual wielder fighter is better at dual wielding than a ranger.
They have most likely higher ab, and more damage (less abilities required, more feats available.) (That is why usually greater twf or superior twf is only available for rangers to give them that extra bonus with dual wield, however this is not the situation in nwn.)
The rangers favoured enemy is sadly more of a joke, especially with the new lore system a ranger cannot even identify their favoured enemies anymore.
Rangers greatest milestone is basicly when they get blade thirst, on level 12. Sadly they do not have the chance of aquiring sad scrolls before. I havent met any npc
that sells these, nor have i found it in a loot drop ever. this is strange since GMF is available to buy.

The rangers caliban bracers give minus to your reflex, whereas i checked, the other classes extra spell slot giving items somehow do not have such negative or reductive effects.(Rangers caliban bracers give -3 influence and -1 reflex, i can understand the influence but why the reflex??? Just think on the ring that gives clerics a level 8 or 9 bonus slot!)
Basicly as a ranger you may choose to go on the fighters path, at which most likely whatever weapon you choose a fighter will be more capable with it (makes sense).
You can go sneaker, in which again a rogue will be better. You can go dex build based, and shoot arrows, in which mentioned two examples beat you, you can go finesse
way, a rogue or a fighter will likely be better at it. Or you can make a jack of all trades, not being able to be especially good in anything but allowing you to have slight advantage at certain circumstances, because you have a minor chance of handling every situation. (I forgot to add the caster ranger, but well, even a paladin gets his or her higher leveled spells sooner than a ranger!, not to mention you should roll a druid than.)

I think adding a bonus to their stamina (vs exhaustion) or adding a bonus to their stabilizing rolls would help them.
Because rangers are survival specialist it would make sense to give them a bonus point or two for every level of ranger they take to their stabilizing rolls.
eg. level 10 ranger with 12 con, will have +11 to his stabilizing roll, meaning he only needs to roll a 79 to stabilize. (It is not that much of a bonus, but at least some
bonus, and rewarding for those that go pure ranger level.)
For stamina bonus: the ranger gets points equal to half of his actual levels to his exhaustion treshold.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: aprogressivist on December 06, 2011, 06:49:11 AM
The Paladin bracers give -3 will...
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Ryltar/ Robert Archer on December 06, 2011, 07:10:28 AM
The Paladin bracers give -3 will...

there's a 'upgraded' pair i have seen that dont...
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Springer on December 06, 2011, 07:42:22 AM
Cleric ring with bonus spell of 8 or 9 lvl is ridicullous of course.
About other penalties... -3 will to paladins isnt something significant because they have protection from evil and add charisma bonus to their saves.
-1 Reflex also not noticeable because rangers dont have evasion in nwn anyway and they have Cat's  grace which nulifies that penalty.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: KoopaFanatic on December 06, 2011, 08:30:09 AM
Plus... just throwing this out there... if you arrange your spell slots appropriately, it's fairly easy to make the caliban bracers an item that you put on to rest, and take off once you've buffed yourself and you're ready to get serious.  -1 reflex isn't a huge deal to be carrying around till that point.

Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Ercvadasz on December 06, 2011, 01:33:03 PM
Cleric ring with bonus spell of 8 or 9 lvl is ridicullous of course.
About other penalties... -3 will to paladins isnt something significant because they have protection from evil and add charisma bonus to their saves.
-1 Reflex also not noticeable because rangers dont have evasion in nwn anyway and they have Cat's  grace which nulifies that penalty.

so many times it was just that -1 reflex that was missing to save against the spell. And sadly taking up half or full damage from a spell does matter, protection, dr and other
stuff wise.
Koopa whereas i know waht you mean,  if you only have 2 level 2 spell slots, and take both cats grace, it may happen that you cast, than remove bracers and cannot recast:(

about the paladin bracers i only found the one that had no negative effects only, seems i was lucky.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: LackofCertainty on December 06, 2011, 02:11:22 PM
You guys didn't read my message, so I'll try saying it again.

Rangers have Full base ab.  (Most attacks per round)
Of full base ab peeps, they have the best total ab. (Barbarians and fighters don't get cat's grace as a spell)

Clerics and druids and god knows what else could beat them in certain categories, yes, but the ranger still has more attacks per round than either of them. (Divine power doesn't work as intended. It gives the ab but not the attacks)  It is a small niche that archer-rangers fill, but it is all theirs.



Edit: Actually maybe a pally could beat a ranger for full attacks and ab and damage? Wis based and all that.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Ercvadasz on December 06, 2011, 02:39:46 PM
You guys didn't read my message, so I'll try saying it again.

Rangers have Full base ab.  (Most attacks per round)
Of full base ab peeps, they have the best total ab. (Barbarians and fighters don't get cat's grace as a spell)

Clerics and druids and god knows what else could beat them in certain categories, yes, but the ranger still has more attacks per round than either of them. (Divine power doesn't work as intended. It gives the ab but not the attacks)  It is a small niche that archer-rangers fill, but it is all theirs.

actually we did read.
Rangers get full base ab, but they get reduction to it when dual wielding. -2/-2 if offhand is small weapon or -2/-4 if offhand is not small weapon.
Even the dual wield supporting two handed weapons like double blade and double axe give -2/-2 to attacks.
The offhand weapon allways gets half damage bonus(rounded down).
A barbarian and a fighter will allways deal more damage. Because a fighter has enough feats to lower the ab reduction of power attacks.
A barbarian has rage. (Not to mention again they do not need to focus on so many abilities as a ranger does.)
If you say that clerics, and druids can beat rangers in the ranged league, than comeing up with cats grace, well it seems a bit ....meh...(all 3 use spells to get better ranged ab.)
Not to mention a fighter or a barbarian can reach the same amount with throwing weapons, or fighters with feats nearly the same ranged effectiveness.
(Empowering or maximising cats grace for rangers is not really an options, whereas fighter extra feats.)
The druid or the cleric maximising their ab can easily get a bonus attack just by taking up the rapid shot feat, which if the ranger takes it up further reduces their ab, and
it is allready lower than the other two classes.

So a ranger can have more attacks than most classes, but they get serious hit to their AB for it. And since there are not that many options for them to raise their AB
that -2 will basicly allways stay with them, which is 10% less chance to hit. //A fighter hits with 100% chance the ranger tries twice with 90% chance, and so forth with every attack//
//A dual wielding fighter will likely have more ab, and deal more damage than a ranger, because he has enough free feats to support his focus on this fighting style//

If you do not believe us, than all i can do is suggest you to try and play a ranger.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Springer on December 06, 2011, 03:07:58 PM
ALso if char is not an Arcane archer then ranged build is never as effective as melee here. THere are few reasons for it. First and foremost its inability to cast GMW on ranged weapon in NWN, also arrows no matter what stats they have cant pierce through DR if bow cant. Also archers less needed in the parties overall. Caster-buffer, healer, tank, lockpickers and trap detector are almost mandatory while archer is always a luxury.

Of course it is possible to reach lvl 20 with pure ranger here like with any other class, of course if you have pocket wizard with you you can clear whole dungeons, but its true for any other class aswell. What ranger lacks in nwn is a role in the party. A purpose. On paper yes its survivalist, tracker, scout and pathfinder, but most of it isnt in nwn and other classes play the same roles and most of them do it better.  Except maybe scouting, rangers are best sneakers amongst all classes.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: LackofCertainty on December 06, 2011, 03:50:34 PM
What ability does a fighter have access to that is going to give him more ab than a ranger ever?  Nothing.  In nwn, they never get access to any ability (from 1-20) that would give them more ab than a ranger.  They get more feats, but there's only 1 feat in the game (as far as I know) that directly improves ab and that is available to everyone.  Also, rangers don't get quite as many feats as a fighter on this server, but they do get a few free feats for dual wielding.  AND they get double the skill points.   AND they get spells.  AND they get an animal companion.  AND they get bonuses to stealth.  Pure Ranger vs Pure Fighter and I'd take the Ranger any day.

The only place where fighters have a big advantage (imo) is in the realms of multiclassing, because fighters get a lot of feats early, and get one of their biggest draws (weapon spec.) at level 4.

A (dex based) dual wielding or archer ranger will have more ab than a fighter before consumables, because rangers get access to a spell that buffs their dex.  So no.  It's not going to be "Fighter has 100% chance to hit and ranger has 90%" it'd be something like Dual wielding fighter hits on a 12+ and dual wielding ranger hits on a 9-11+ depending on the roll from cat's grace.  You might even have more ac than a dual wielding fighter, because the extra skill points make it easier to take tumble and parry. (it's changed on the server)

If you're comparing to a fighter that's using sword and board or something, then yes, you have less ab, but getting one to two extra attacks a round in your off hand does a lot to bring your dps up.  Are you going to be as tanky as a fighter? Well, no, but a dual wielder is never as tanky as a sword and board, that wouldn't make sense.



A barbarian and a fighter will allways deal more damage. Because a fighter has enough feats to lower the ab reduction of power attacks.

What feat reduces the ab reduction from power attack?
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Springer on December 06, 2011, 04:51:53 PM
Quote
because rangers get access to a spell that buffs their dex
That assuming they wield liught weapons. If they do then they deal less damage with it then fighter wielding two handed weapon (which also has 1,5 str multiplier)
If they dont have light weapons Cat's grace wont do anything to their ab.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: LackofCertainty on December 08, 2011, 03:14:30 AM
Quote
because rangers get access to a spell that buffs their dex
That assuming they wield liught weapons. If they do then they deal less damage with it then fighter wielding two handed weapon (which also has 1,5 str multiplier)
If they dont have light weapons Cat's grace wont do anything to their ab.

Yes, a two handed fighter will do more damage per hit and have slightly more ab, but dual wielders gets extra attacks to compensate for that.  Not to mention that the whole focus of this thread is about how rangers have a spell that makes a melee weapon +3 for a short while.  (that goes a long way to closing the damage gap)

I feel like a ranger choosing not to use dex based weapons would be a little silly.  (about as silly as someone making an arcane archer that uses a greatsword)  They don't get access to bull's str, and they can't dual wield unless they're using light armor.  Not to mention that a dual wielding dex based ranger also gets the choice to switch to being a very very solid archer at any time they choose.    This means that a ranger can quickly switch from being a melee dps (dual wield) a tank (sword and board) or a ranged dps (archer)  Most likely they'll specialize into being better at one than the other, but they still have the option to switch around.

The two handed weapon fighter doesn't get that sort of flexibility. Their only choices are two handed for melee damage, or sword and board for tank.  (and melee heavy parties can be a bit annoying to deal with in dungeons)


Back to the OP again: I think I'd support changing Blood thirst to work on any melee weapon, or at least expand it out to include piercing.  Then again, maybe rangers just need to start coming to their senses and start dual wielding hand-axes and kukris so that their spells work. : P
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: HellsPanda on December 08, 2011, 03:51:26 AM
Actually with how the Parry system works, they will always be better of dual wielding, over sword/boarding
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Springer on December 08, 2011, 04:35:50 AM
Quote
...Not to mention that the whole focus of this thread is about how rangers have a spell that makes a melee weapon +3 for a short while.  (that goes a long way to closing the damage gap)...  Then again, maybe rangers just need to start coming to their senses and start dual wielding hand-axes and kukris so that their spells work. : P
This spell works only on slashing weapons. And there is a lack of handaxes and especially kukris on the server with +1 atribute (while there are tons of shortswords). And that spell itself lasts for too short to compensate for it (actually that was the whole point of the thread to tweak that spell).
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Lockleed on December 08, 2011, 09:18:34 AM
Yup.  Blade Thirst, for its level, is a pretty poor short term buff.   Duration is too short for more than a single fight or two, and while it can be a big help, it doesn't have the staying power of most equivalent level spells.  And the restriction to slashing only weapons is kind of limiting, and irritating.

On that brief topic about best archer, a pure ranger dedicated solely to archery would in base AB and number of attacks beat out a lot of other builds.  But it could not compare in damage potential to a paladin or cleric using divine favor + divine might.  Their damage output is much heavier, and also the divine and magical damage punches through DR.  On a server where DR matters as much as PotM, thats significant.

Still, topic wise, Blade Thirst is a woeful spell.  By the time a ranger gets high enough to use it, you'd expect something with more kick.  Like paladins, who at later levels wind up getting GMW and Holy Sword.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: HellsPanda on December 08, 2011, 10:56:35 AM
Rangers are the best stealthers except for SDers. They have one of the best abilities to increase damage vs specific enemies. But the thing is they are a support hybrid class, and they are good at it. You can't compare them to other classes and expect them to shine
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Uranos on December 08, 2011, 11:22:35 AM
Quote
Rangers are the best stealthers except for SDers. They have one of the best abilities to increase damage vs specific enemies. But the thing is they are a support hybrid class, and they are good at it. You can't compare them to other classes and expect them to shine

I'm sorry, but why not? There is nothing that ranger can shine on and be something.. well.. useful.

Range attack? AA better
Melee? Almost everything better.
Stealh? I can make a better druid with stealh.
Spells? Nah..

So what is the point of them if they can't be good at anything?

Dmg vs enemies? Its a joke without the epic feat bane of enemies. Up till 20 lv its +5 i believe - still a joke.\

Regards,

Uranos
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Lockleed on December 08, 2011, 12:33:22 PM
Rangers are the best stealthers except for SDers. They have one of the best abilities to increase damage vs specific enemies.

Their stealth is decent, boosted by spells.  Can't argue that.  But they lack the combat ability to make any solid use of their stealth, as a single class ranger.  As a RP device, eluding or spying, its great.  As a combat ability, pure rangers can at best use it to get in good in a flanking position, flee if they know the tricks, or scout.  Thats about it.

They have one of the best abilities to increase damage vs specific enemies.

Favored enemy is of moderate use at best.  As a support role, rogues sneak attack surpass it in many ways, given that its damage scales up far better with leveling, and it is versus all enemies with a discernable anatomy.  Favored enemies biggest benefit is it is a constant boost and has skill benefits vs the chosen race; but given its very specific nature, it just isn't that universally useful.  Pointless having favored enemy : goblinoid at a +3 when every dungeon at your level range has none.  Best thing you can do with Favored Enemy on PotM is take Favored Enemy : Undead, since they're so prevalent in the setting.

But the thing is they are a support hybrid class, and they are good at it. You can't compare them to other classes and expect them to shine.

If they are a support hybrid class, then they are the worst one in the game.  Any spellcaster will be of greater benefit to a group through buffs and even melee at higher levels, any melee class will be better as a frontliner and comparable as ranged support when needed.  A rogue is superior as a flanker against any foes with a discernable anatomy, and has the benefit of specialty skills like open locks and disarm traps.  A druid is better at providing animal companion / summons support, as well as mild buffs / debuffs, attack spells and healing.  Bards are superior as support due to universal short term benefits of bard song for a party, and their spell options.  Overall almost any other class outshines them almost across the board, in most support roles.

Best thing they've got going is a tendency toward high AB / low damage archery, high number of attacks from dual-wield (which is available to them in light armor only), and the unique class skillset they've got.  I'm not saying they are a bad class, there are a number of abilities in PnP that help make them shine more, like tracking and wilderness lore.  But NWN doesn't have those mechanics, so... they're left pretty lackluster.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: HellsPanda on December 08, 2011, 01:42:04 PM
the 3.0 version of Rangers, that NWN uses, is a truly terrible incarnation of the ranger.

But yes, its support damage is lower than a rogue over all, but this is balanced by a higher AB and more HPs
But the thing with the ranger, is it was never supposed to be a class that could do anything GREAT, but alot of things well.

Favoured enemy stacks with most things. So it should never be unervalued, but it often is. +5 doesn't sound like much, but thats +5 to both hands, on a full base attack class, that when wearing light armour gets free two weapon fighting feats, thats a potential of 5*6=60 damage a round before crits
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Uranos on December 08, 2011, 02:42:57 PM
Quote
the 3.0 version of Rangers, that NWN uses, is a truly terrible incarnation of the ranger.

Agree. In 3.5 (as in nwn2) a ranger is starting to finally look like it should.

Quote
But yes, its support damage is lower than a rogue over all, but this is balanced by a higher AB and more HPs

Its support damage is ridiculous. The only boost it posses is for Favored enemy, which as stated - is a joke in comparison with everything else.

Quote
But the thing with the ranger, is it was never supposed to be a class that could do anything GREAT, but alot of things well.

If something is for everything then it is in reality of no use. In this kind of a game you have to specialize - tank, dps, cc, spells, etc (in any way it is in nwn done). Which exactly does this class go in to? Being everything is equal to being nothing.

Quote
Favoured enemy stacks with most things. So it should never be unervalued, but it often is. +5 doesn't sound like much, but thats +5 to both hands, on a full base attack class, that when wearing light armour gets free two weapon fighting feats, thats a potential of 5*6=60 damage a round before crits

As a fighter I take weapon specialization, i get +4.. vs EVERYTHING and I only need 4 lvs of a fighter. So whats the point? 5*6 is 30 :P. If for e.g. you have 4 attacks (one hand), you can count on max 2 first to hit a target on high levels. The 3rd and 4th attack usually hit on natural 20, and thats it. For the second hand - perhaps, but still very little in comparison to boosting spells and other classes.

-----------------------------

Don't give me wrong, I love this class. Is the best thing for RP besides the rogue. But its mechanics suck so bad that its just not worth it. I played it on 2 servers, hoping to find some potential.. haven't found any. After that I started using wizards, bards, pale masters, etc. Got WAY better results. If you want to make a ranger a playable class, change it to dnd 3.5.

As for the on topic spell - it was always worthless on all servers that I played. It sucks in comparison to GMW or any other spells (in both duration and effects). If you want it to be useful, make it unique, for instance add vampiric regeneration to the flow (a +1 on 4 lv, +2 on 8 lv, etc). Make it equal in some way to GMW. And add both slashing and piercing type. As for duration - same as GWM.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: HellsPanda on December 08, 2011, 04:28:50 PM
god my math skills are slipping... anyway.. its potential 60 [I know how unlikely it is]

but the point I was trying to make,, having a free medium strength varnish [it lasts around the same time, possibly abit shorter]sn't bad.

I feel more that Paladins are overpowered for a hybrid class, rather than rangers being underpowered.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Telkar on December 08, 2011, 04:49:02 PM
If you want it to be useful, make it unique, for instance add vampiric regeneration to the flow (a +1 on 4 lv, +2 on 8 lv, etc). Make it equal in some way to GMW. And add both slashing and piercing type. As for duration - same as GWM.

I like that idea, customizing the spell in a way that fits its level. Maybe make it last as long as GMW, be +2 and give vampiric regeneration. Now that's a Blade Thirst. =)
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Ercvadasz on December 08, 2011, 11:06:26 PM
Whoever asked me about the feat i confused it with a skill that fighters do not get, but most of them on this server take up. Antagonize/Taunt.
That can reduce enemies ab by 6, makeing it effectively a +6 skill. (2 ring of the mouths +10 to skill allready -4 wisdom for fighter in a fight not that much of a loss,
whereas for ranger....) It can easily reach a good damn decent amount too, because there are soo many items that give antagonize bonus.
//Sorry did not really had much time to react, will once i get more time and sleep//
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: HellsPanda on December 09, 2011, 02:23:57 AM
its AC isnt it?
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: aprogressivist on December 09, 2011, 03:07:16 AM
I feel more that Paladins are overpowered for a hybrid class, rather than rangers being underpowered.

Oh, you did not go there. :P
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: LackofCertainty on December 09, 2011, 05:26:46 AM
Quote
...Not to mention that the whole focus of this thread is about how rangers have a spell that makes a melee weapon +3 for a short while.  (that goes a long way to closing the damage gap)...  Then again, maybe rangers just need to start coming to their senses and start dual wielding hand-axes and kukris so that their spells work. : P
This spell works only on slashing weapons. And there is a lack of handaxes and especially kukris on the server with +1 atribute (while there are tons of shortswords). And that spell itself lasts for too short to compensate for it (actually that was the whole point of the thread to tweak that spell).

You snipped out the bit of my message that said exactly what you're saying in this post.  Please don't "Creatively" quote to make people appear to say things they aren't. (really frickin annoying)

Original quote:
Back to the OP again: I think I'd support changing Blood thirst to work on any melee weapon, or at least expand it out to include piercing.  Then again, maybe rangers just need to start coming to their senses and start dual wielding hand-axes and kukris so that their spells work. : P



Paladins are silly for multiclassing (19 sorc 1 pally, etc)   but that doesn't really matter, because paladins have severe multi-class restrictions on this server.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Bato on December 09, 2011, 08:26:14 AM
I had a Ranger named Boris once. Was all excited for blade thirst but alas,
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/21846180/lul/truffle.jpg)

Zero Truffles.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Threefold on December 11, 2011, 09:57:43 AM
The Paladin bracers give -3 will...

They can also be used to memorise spells that will be cast far before battle, such as Bulls Strength or Aura of Glory, then removed, rather than kept on when you're going to be wading into fights.

Two cents on the subject: Make it hour/level and give +1/4 and Keen. That's a massive buff, but damned if Rangers don't need it.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: aprogressivist on December 11, 2011, 10:00:48 AM
The Paladin bracers give -3 will...

They can also be used to memorise spells that will be cast far before battle, such as Bulls Strength or Aura of Glory, then removed, rather than kept on when you're going to be wading into fights.

Two cents on the subject: Make it hour/level and give +1/4 and Keen. That's a massive buff, but damned if Rangers don't need it.

The same is true of the Calban bracers, however.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Jay on December 11, 2011, 10:22:18 AM
The Paladin bracers give -3 will...

They can also be used to memorise spells that will be cast far before battle, such as Bulls Strength or Aura of Glory, then removed, rather than kept on when you're going to be wading into fights.

Two cents on the subject: Make it hour/level and give +1/4 and Keen. That's a massive buff, but damned if Rangers don't need it.

The same is true of the Calban bracers, however.

Paladins can cast Protection from Evil, effectively making any will penalties a moot point.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: aprogressivist on December 11, 2011, 10:47:05 AM
Paladins can cast Protection from Evil, effectively making any will penalties a moot point.

Against most spawns, true (though Trillochs' Will Save vs Death doesn't seem to be tagged mind-affecting from what I've seen). But it can be a big factor in PvP against Neutral PCs -- who can attack a paladin before he's buffed and thus before he's swapped out bracers. It does create a weakness that can be exploited.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Jay on December 11, 2011, 11:01:59 AM
Paladins can cast Protection from Evil, effectively making any will penalties a moot point.

Against most spawns, true (though Trillochs' Will Save vs Death doesn't seem to be tagged mind-affecting from what I've seen). But it can be a big factor in PvP against Neutral PCs -- who can attack a paladin before he's buffed and thus before he's swapped out bracers. It does create a weakness that can be exploited.

Trillochs are Neutral that's why
http://www.nwnravenloft.com/forum/index.php?topic=24591.0

But rather then de-rail the thread further, i'll just say in my opinion, compared to a undiluted Fighter/Barb(And to an extent a Ranger) Class, Paladins have it easy.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Springer on December 11, 2011, 11:14:07 AM
In PvP if you are attacked unprepared by prepared opponent you ll lose no matter the bracers you wear.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Sidhel on December 11, 2011, 11:35:48 AM
The Paladin bracers give -3 will...

They can also be used to memorise spells that will be cast far before battle, such as Bulls Strength or Aura of Glory, then removed, rather than kept on when you're going to be wading into fights.

Two cents on the subject: Make it hour/level and give +1/4 and Keen. That's a massive buff, but damned if Rangers don't need it.

I'd never suggest that it be made an hour/level, thats extremely long in comparison to GMW, which is only 1 turn + turn/level,

I'd keep it at its currently 2rounds/level. The spell wasn't ment to 'replace' what GMW can offer, but allow the ranger to temporarily do what they can when they aren't present.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: aprogressivist on December 11, 2011, 12:07:21 PM
But rather then de-rail the thread further, i'll just say in my opinion, compared to a undiluted Fighter/Barb(And to an extent a Ranger) Class, Paladins have it easy.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but this goes back to the original comment upthread about how Paladin are an "overpowered" hybrid class when compared to Rangers. If one is going to make such comparisons, it invites questions like why we're using Paladins as a base metric of balance, instead of, say, the Cleric -- especially given that Clerics or even Fighter/Clerics have a great deal more flexibility than the ultra-specialised Paladins do...

In other words, if people are going to open up the whole can of worms that is a balance discussion (and note that I'm not the one who did so), then I don't think it's fair to just compare Rangers to Paladins.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Kagetora on December 11, 2011, 05:55:48 PM
Just feel I have to throw in my $0.02 here.

Having played games like this a long time, I am here to tell you there is NO such thing as "balance" bewteen the choices you have available to you.  Its like trying to claim that there is balance between army choices in a game like WFB or WH40K.  It simply doesn't exist.

And, more to the point...it never will.

Balance only exists when everyone has the exact same options.  For example, if you started a game where everyone pulled from the exact same list of abilities, points, etc. to create their characters, you might claim to have some form of "balance."  Even then, those who make "better" choices will have an advantage over those who take less useful skills or abilities.  AD&D does not even have THIS level of "balance," unlike, say GURPS or something similar.  The very nature of the class system, and the unbelieveable amount of combinations of basic abilities, stats, spells, feats, skills, special abilties, etc. makes it literally impossible to "balance" anything.  Even attempting to usually causesmoreproblems than it is worth.  Again, I fall back on the examples of WFB and 40K, where each new army book or codex is bumped up a little in power, to make it attractive to new players (who then spend their money).  The never-ending arms race begins.

AD&D is no different.  Due to the nature of the server itself (crappy magic items, lots of undead), those who can bring their own magic to the table are the most powerful characters on the server, i.e. Clerics and Wizards.  Those who are reliant upon items, or aren't good against the undead (Rogues, Rangers, Druids, for example) are automatically at a disadvantage.  In order to "remedy" this and achieve some sort of "balance," its now possible for a fighter or ranger (or anyone else) to run around with literally hundreds of potions, varnishes, items, etc.  I know one character who claims to have over 700 potions on them.  I have a character who have over 300.

Thats CRAZY.  But, thats what you get for attempts to provide "balance."

I've played a ranger in every game where the class exists.  Including Everquest, from a month after it went live.  Rangers are NEVER as good as the other fighter classes.  NEVER.  Its just one of those sad facts of life.  A fighter, with bonus feats, can easily get the same fighting abilities as a Ranger, and do it while wearing full plate, and being specialized in his weapons.  Boom.  Ranger loses.  Especially when you consider that the fighter can ALSO be versatile in the ability to go Two-Handed or with a Shield as well, at which they will be better agian than the ranger due to the armor and total AC.  Especially at low levels.  And the Paladin, while not as versatile, has vastly better special abilities and spells.  Thats life, because thats the game.

Rangers are a class designed for PNP, where your DM caters to you and the party.  Not for a no-holds-barred cutthroat online game where someone creates a world, pushes start, and lets it run.  That said, there is nothing actually WRONG with playing a ranger.  Not everything has to be balanced.  Somethings should be a challenge.  People I know with rangers derive a deal of personal satisfaction for HAVING the cards sort of stacked against them.  Not everyone has to be equal.

I mean, geez.  If you want complaints, how about the fact that my druid can't even enchant her own weapon to fight the undead?  Or modify any stat except her STR?  Or cast any spell that imrpoves her AB or AC except Barkskin and Bull's?  Seriously.  I just consider it more of a challenge.  If I don't want to be challenged that day, I log in my Cleric or Wizard.   :lol:

Stop complaining and BE PROUD that you are playing a class that is a bit harder, and doesn't have everything handed to them on a platter.  Isn't that the point of the ranger anyway?   ;)
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Uranos on December 12, 2011, 02:37:20 AM
In other words - don't be suprised if you will see only casters and sneakers, because that is what it leads to if the generaly weak classes have nothing to offer. It is no fun then.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: HellsPanda on December 12, 2011, 02:44:52 AM
The non casters, with good caster support will be more effective in the long run than the caster without the non casters
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: aprogressivist on December 12, 2011, 04:00:09 AM
In other words - don't be suprised if you will see only casters and sneakers, because that is what it leads to if the generaly weak classes have nothing to offer. It is no fun then.
The non casters, with good caster support will be more effective in the long run than the caster without the non casters

The problem with these discussions is the excluded middle that gets overlooked...
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Emomina on December 12, 2011, 04:50:57 AM
Like I alluded to before Ranger suffers mainly due to being dexterity based without uncanny dodge. Or strength based without being as good as a fighter.
They don't suck, but because other classes' niche get brought to the fore more aptly in NWN, they appear to suck.

It won't happen but if a really ambitious dev wanted to convert the Ranger to 3.5 it would require at the most basic, the following:

-high reflex save progression
-class feature Evasion gained at level 9
-change their skill points to (6 + Int modifier per level, ×4 at 1st level)
-drop their hit die to d8

add the following spells to their list

2:
Barkskin
Endurance

Since that requires nothing new, and just uses existing scripts

Because if you did that, at level 9, a Ranger would now have enough skill point to be good at hide/move silent, discipline/parry, some or all of the detection skills, and their animal empathy.  As well, they would have the +4 version of barkskin which goes a bit of a way toward making up for their lack of uncanny dodge, and endurance which somewhat mitigates their loss of 2hp/level. Their really high reflex would make them immune to most reflex based save attacks and as well, they still have their improved two weapon fighting and two favoured enemies. Now that would be a balanced Ranger able to stand up to all the other classes.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Uranos on December 12, 2011, 07:09:01 AM
Quote
Quote
Quote
the 3.0 version of Rangers, that NWN uses, is a truly terrible incarnation of the ranger.

Agree. In 3.5 (as in nwn2) a ranger is starting to finally look like it should.

Quote
Because if you did that, at level 9, a Ranger would now have enough skill point to be good at hide/move silent, discipline/parry, some or all of the detection skills, and their animal empathy.  As well, they would have the +4 version of barkskin which goes a bit of a way toward making up for their lack of uncanny dodge, and endurance which somewhat mitigates their loss of 2hp/level. Their really high reflex would make them immune to most reflex based save attacks and as well, they still have their improved two weapon fighting and two favoured enemies. Now that would be a balanced Ranger able to stand up to all the other classes.

Quote
Since that requires nothing new, and just uses existing scripts

Here you go:

http://nwvault.ign.com/View.php?view=Hakpaks.Detail&id=5646

Source: http://nwn.wikia.com/wiki/Ranger


Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Kagetora on December 12, 2011, 09:20:42 AM
2:
 Now that would be a balanced Ranger able to stand up to all the other classes.

Would it?  Or would it just make them "not the worst," and cause someone else to start complaining about their class?  Thats the point of my post...in a system like AD&D, with the near-unbelieveable amount of choices and variables, someone will always be perceived as being at the bottom.  Even if it isn't true, or is only true situationally.  And you start this "arms race" to "balance" things.  Trust me...that never ends.  It certainly never ends well.  All that happens is you go through the process with another class, and the general power level goes up another notch, leading to having to change the world to match, and so on, ad nauseum.

I mean, look at how this has already gone from the change of one spell's duration (blade thirst) to you asking for more feats, skills, spells, coding changes, etc.

Seriously...someone will always be perceived as being at "the bottom."  Fewer people will always play these classes.  Those that do often find a rewarding experience at hand.  And the majority will still gravitate to the "power classes," as they perceive them.  All you are asking to do is shuffle the list, basically, so your class can be better.  

There is an endless list of shortcomings for a variety of classes that COULD be addressed.  It will never actually fix the problem that some classes will always be more popular than others.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: KoopaFanatic on December 12, 2011, 01:36:19 PM
I'm not really keen on focusing on the "balance" question, personally, and I regret even bringing up a cross-class comparison earlier.  That said, I don't think it's wrongheaded to take a serious look at whether the mechanics of a class really satisfy their intended RP and combat niche.

The fact that rangers got a fairly strong improvement from some relatively minor changes between 3.0 and 3.5 is worth considering.  Adding barkskin, endurance, and expeditious retreat (to emulate the longstrider spell) would help rangers with their "swift, stealthy hunter" shtick, and give them a small but worthwhile boost to survivability in combat.  Sure, these are all things you can get through potions, but it goes a long way toward setting rangers apart mechanically and RP-wise to give them same "natural magic" that doesn't come in a bottle.

What I think would be almost as much, if not more fun would be to give rangers some small advantages in some of the custom scripts to reflect their "I spend a lot of time outside" nature.  Just a couple that come to mind:

Won't lie -- in my ideal world, there'd be a way to replace the NWN ranger whole cloth with the 3.5 ranger, complete with fighting styles, HIPS at level 17, improved spell list, d8 hit die, everything.  I don't mind the fact that my ranger gets her butt kicked by most anything she tries to fight -- sure, it's frustrating, but I wasn't going for an uber-optimal character anyway.  It would just be more fun if she could do some of the things that it seems to me she should be able to do.

And for what it's worth, my thoughts on blade thirst are the same as last time this came up:  I don't think it should be as completely good as greater magic weapon, I'd just like having a spell that's actually worth putting in a level-3 spell slot.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Emomina on December 12, 2011, 11:21:21 PM
Would it?  Or would it just make them "not the worst,"

IMHO I think Ranger is the only class that is not attractive as a single class currently. Sure its playable especially with good parties, but unless you are fighting your favored enemy you don't shine and can not offer much to a party.  You imply other classes would then need work, sure other would benefit a bit of work on them because any aspect of the game could be improved  The other classes are all good to great in current incarnation and it really should be compared only to Paladin, Fighter, and Barbarian anyway.   

-Barbs have uncanny dodge, Fighters and Pallys wear heavy armor.  Ranger light armor and no dex retained.
-Paladin have smite, divine might etc that can be used anywhere against everything. Barbarian rage, same thing. Fighter specialization same.  Ranger has specific use favored enemy. This is one of the reasons I think adding barkskin would help so much. Druids are sparse, parties rarely get natural armor boosts, Rangers could offer that.
-But the major thing Rangers offer as a choice is high skill points and maximum AB progression if their skill points were adjusted. That would be their niche. Their is no other option for max AB skillful class.

The Ranger argument is larger than NWN anyway, its suckage was one of the big reasons for a 3.5 revision in the first place.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Badelaire on December 13, 2011, 07:25:18 AM
Each class has a niche. For me, ranger was an excellent support melee class because you had fighter ab and HP progression, stealth and detection skills, limited spell use, a companion and what I considered their biggest advantage: divine wand useage. Sadly that option isn't available here and it did make a huge  difference for the class' role in a party.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: LackofCertainty on December 13, 2011, 03:49:57 PM
It kinda bugs me how most of the naysayers seem to dismiss favored enemy, by saying "well yeah it adds damage but that only helps against a few enemy types."    Isn't that the point of the ranger? They specialize in hunting a few specific types of enemies?  Granted the fighter (for example) gets perma +2 damage to a weapon of their choice, but at level 5 the ranger has +2 damage (and some other skills) vs two types of enenmies with all weapons.  Meaning that, unlike a fighter, they can swap between ranged and melee without an issue, and, if they dual wield they can optimize slightly by using different weapons in the main and off hand without losing the bonus damage.  Granted a fighter can quickly spare the extra feats on another weapon type, but then that argument goes out the window at lvl 10.  

But then again no one even plays pure fighters, so that makes this whole argument moot.  When is that last time anyone saw a non-multiclassed fighter?  Hell, I'd say there are waaaay more pure rangers than pure fighters on this server. Whelp, that means that fighters suck. Better give them a bunch of new feat support from 3.5.  Kagetora has a point with the balance wheel.



This topic is getting waaay off topic.  So to bring it back, what's the community consensus on Blade Thirst being buffed to include slashing -and- piercing weapons?
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Springer on December 13, 2011, 04:49:28 PM
I am playing a pure fighter (lvl 13) and a pure ranger (lvl 8 ) right now. And fighter is much more easier to play and more useful in the party from my experience.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: HellsPanda on December 13, 2011, 04:52:43 PM
In a party a specialist, will always shine more than someone less specialised
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Kagetora on December 13, 2011, 08:23:20 PM
But then again no one even plays pure fighters, so that makes this whole argument moot.  When is that last time anyone saw a non-multiclassed fighter?  Hell, I'd say there are waaaay more pure rangers than pure fighters on this server. Whelp, that means that fighters suck. Better give them a bunch of new feat support from 3.5.  Kagetora has a point with the balance wheel.

Kagetora also has 6 pure-class toons, including a L9 fighter.  As well as a Wizard, Druid, 2 Clerics, and a Rogue.  And only one multi-class...a fighter/wizard.  None of which is relevant to the argument, other than to say that, of all of those, Rogue and Druid are by far the hardest to play.  If we are going to start a bunch of threads detailing how certain classes suck, and how they need to be improved, I'll spin off the Druid discussion.  We can start with absurdly stupid spell lists missing a variety of very basic abilities (such as the ability to enchant a weapon, or modify a stat other than STR or WIS, or improve your movement speed, improve your AB, etc.), a general lack of spells to begin with (1-2 less per level than any other caster class at any level), generally useless special abilties (Woodland Stride?  Venom Immunity?  Trackless Step, with Hide and Move Silently cross-class skills?  Really?), etc., etc., etc.  All traded off for the ability to take animal forms and have a companion half as useful as a Familiar.

Perhaps super-high level Druids are uber or something, but trust me, Rangers aren't the only class getting the shaft.  Which is the point.  This is a never-ending process or complaining, getting a power-level increase, then a new round of complaining about a new class from other people, another increase, and so on ad nauseum.  The game ends up in the toilet.  And the bottom line is this:

This is SUPPOSED to be an RP server, not a competition to create uber-toons.  If you want to actually play and RP a Ranger, the fact that they are more of a challenge or  aren't as "good" as other classes will not stop you.  If it does, you are not interesting in RPing a Ranger.

And as for favored enemy?  Pick Undead, Humans, and Constructs.  Add Outsiders at high level.  Boom.  Done on this server.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Emomina on December 13, 2011, 10:11:14 PM
That's a personal opinion. I happen to think Druids rock, and offer tons to parties.  Aura of Vitality alone at level 13 and their +5 natural armor buff at the same level make Druids amazing companions in a dungeon. They also debuff as good or better than any class.

The conversation started about Blade Thirst, which may actually be underpowered, but its not the reason that pure Rangers suck.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Kagetora on December 13, 2011, 10:41:24 PM
That's a personal opinion. I happen to think Druids rock, and offer tons to parties.  Aura of Vitality alone at level 13 and their +5 natural armor buff at the same level make Druids amazing companions in a dungeon. They also debuff as good or better than any class.

The conversation started about Blade Thirst, which may actually be underpowered, but its not the reason that pure Rangers suck.

Some of it is opinion, some is not.  It is a glaring oversight that Druids don't get the other stat-altering spells, or any way to enchant a weapon.  Facts.  Shall we start a thread about how that should be changed?  How the only thing a Druid offers to a party actually doesn't show up until level 7 (Stoneskin)?  How you can duplicate Barkskin with a 76gp potion from Deg?  Remember...until level 13, Barkskin is either the same as the potion or only +1 AC better (level 7-12).

All of which deftly avoids the points, as you seem to be attempting to.  PotM is an RP server, and will presumeably remain so, making the entire power/balance discussion moot in the first place.  Rangers DO NOT suck, they just aren't as uber as some other classes in the environment.  And if everything that supposedly sucks needs to be fixed, its going to be a very, very long (neverending, in fact) list.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Emomina on December 13, 2011, 10:57:05 PM
That's silly, PotM is much different than even when I showed up 3 years ago.  Gates locked at night, mist travel at all, the whole domain list we have other than Barovia, raise and resurrection requiring spell components, enemies chasing through transitions,  Magic vestment changing from 1/3 to 1/4,  spell effects being removed that should not have been visible, the whole varnish system, alchemy fire being removed, varnishes and other effects stacking being removed, the enemies detecting invisible magic casting, the OCR system being added back in,  the list goes on and on.

Its gone on for like 6+ years with Ranger being the way it is, so no one is saying its a dire need. But, ask any player that has played many different classes, the Ranger is under par. Its all relative. Oh and one more AC increases margin of error by 5%, its important. If its wasn't, all the cries about Cleric AC advantage would not have become the Magic Vestment nerf. Things happen for a reason. You are thinking it would spiral into other things, but as I was attempting to convey with the paragraph above, the spiraling into other things left the station a looooong time ago. All that stuff is after the server was already up 3 years and more and I could not even make a list complete enough, there is tons more. If there is one constant on PotM is change, many of what gets proposed never makes it in, everyone knows that, but some of it does.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: LackofCertainty on December 13, 2011, 11:30:43 PM
Also, if peeps are still stuck on the "Pure rangers don't do enough damage, because they're dex based" then make a str based ranger.  You can't argue to me that a pure str based fighter is going to be stronger than a pure str based ranger.  Fighters get a lot of feats, but so do ranger, and feats only take you so far.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Kagetora on December 14, 2011, 12:56:10 AM
That's silly, PotM is much different than even when I showed up 3 years ago.  Gates locked at night, mist travel at all, the whole domain list we have other than Barovia, raise and resurrection requiring spell components, enemies chasing through transitions,  Magic vestment changing from 1/3 to 1/4,  spell effects being removed that should not have been visible, the whole varnish system, alchemy fire being removed, varnishes and other effects stacking being removed, the enemies detecting invisible magic casting, the OCR system being added back in,  the list goes on and on.
 

Server change, server change, server change, minor nerf to a class (diamonds are ridiculously easy to get), server change, nerf to a class, server change, server change, server change, server change, server change, server change.  Anything else?  The point being, except for the two nerfs you mentioned to Clerics, all of these affect EVERYONE.  Not just one class.

Quote
Its gone on for like 6+ years with Ranger being the way it is, so no one is saying its a dire need. But, ask any player that has played many different classes, the Ranger is under par. Its all relative. Oh and one more AC increases margin of error by 5%, its important. If its wasn't, all the cries about Cleric AC advantage would not have become the Magic Vestment nerf. Things happen for a reason. You are thinking it would spiral into other things, but as I was attempting to convey with the paragraph above, the spiraling into other things left the station a looooong time ago. All that stuff is after the server was already up 3 years and more and I could not even make a list complete enough, there is tons more. If there is one constant on PotM is change, many of what gets proposed never makes it in, everyone knows that, but some of it does.

Again, see above.  Server changes and rule changes and the like affect EVERYONE.  Nerfing a class because its overpowered in an environment does not, and I don't necessarily agree with that any more than I do increasing the power of another.  There is a world of difference between the slippery slope of "balancing classes" and the server-wide changes you speak of.  A WORLD of difference.  One changes the environment EVERYONE plays in.  One just gives a specific subset of players an advantage, leading to others demanding similar advantages.  See the difference?
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Emomina on December 14, 2011, 02:49:26 AM
I am not taking this conversation nearly as serious as it appears you are. Anyway, we are beating a dead horse to life! ~jumps back in game~

I leave the thread with a final thought though; compare the changes to all the classes before and after third editions revision. No class was altered more than Ranger and there was a reason for that.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Ercvadasz on December 15, 2011, 04:49:07 PM
Also, if peeps are still stuck on the "Pure rangers don't do enough damage, because they're dex based" then make a str based ranger.  You can't argue to me that a pure str based fighter is going to be stronger than a pure str based ranger.  Fighters get a lot of feats, but so do ranger, and feats only take you so far.

if you make an str based ranger one thing to remember, you will need the medium armor and therefore 2 feats to take up the twf feats, which will likely result in the situation where you cannot pick up a second favoured enemy for quite a while!
I play a balanced ranger, slightly str favoured, and i put so far all points in str.
I have not been able to pick up a second favoured enemy, and i will not be likely till level 12?
I had to take up ambidex, twf feat manually, because since i use medium armor i loose the feats. I needed to take up spring attack, since rangers dont get tumble, that is
+3 feats again. Mechanics wise rangers are best to wield a two bladed sword, you need exotic weapon feat. Cleave is yet to be achieved, as is thoughness. If all goes well on level 11 i might be able to take up an FE feat again.(If i receive any that is.)

Favoured enemy gives some bonuses yes...That is why my ranger spends more times in crypts than in the nature(joke) because i took up FE undead. It can really help, but
only if you have weapons to hut them.

I like Koopas idea about the slight scripting help for rangers.

I have suggested in a different post once as well, that they could get a slight bonus to their exhau treshold, or to their bleeding treshold rolls(stabilize)
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: LackofCertainty on December 16, 2011, 03:48:55 PM
Also, if peeps are still stuck on the "Pure rangers don't do enough damage, because they're dex based" then make a str based ranger.  You can't argue to me that a pure str based fighter is going to be stronger than a pure str based ranger.  Fighters get a lot of feats, but so do ranger, and feats only take you so far.

if you make an str based ranger one thing to remember, you will need the medium armor and therefore 2 feats to take up the twf feats, which will likely result in the situation where you cannot pick up a second favoured enemy for quite a while!
I play a balanced ranger, slightly str favoured, and i put so far all points in str.
I have not been able to pick up a second favoured enemy, and i will not be likely till level 12?
I had to take up ambidex, twf feat manually, because since i use medium armor i loose the feats. I needed to take up spring attack, since rangers dont get tumble, that is
+3 feats again. Mechanics wise rangers are best to wield a two bladed sword, you need exotic weapon feat. Cleave is yet to be achieved, as is thoughness. If all goes well on level 11 i might be able to take up an FE feat again.(If i receive any that is.)

Favoured enemy gives some bonuses yes...That is why my ranger spends more times in crypts than in the nature(joke) because i took up FE undead. It can really help, but
only if you have weapons to hut them.

I like Koopas idea about the slight scripting help for rangers.

I have suggested in a different post once as well, that they could get a slight bonus to their exhau treshold, or to their bleeding treshold rolls(stabilize)

Or you could just play a low dex str based two hander/sword and board.   Then the only feat you'd need to snag would be Heavy armor prof. : P

Not every ranger needs to dual wield.  They do get medium armor prof and shield prof for a reason. So yeah, to everyone complaining about the superiority of a 2h fighter.... play a 2h ranger. 


I like your idea about exhaustion, that fits.  I do feel a bit leery about stabilize checks, because well... it'd either be too small to be noticeable, or you end up with 20 con dwarf/gnome rangers who are unkillable because they have such a high chance to stand back up.  (I'm exaggerating for effect, but it is a possibility)
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: respawnaholic on December 17, 2011, 09:27:26 PM
I simple tweak for rangers would be to give them tumble as a class feat. That and maybe sneak attack every 5 levels or so instead of favored enemy. Theres a reason they synergy so well with rougue levels. The way their designed their really more of a rougue type class instead of a stand up fighter. A big problem of the class (not just here but in NWN in general) is their a fighter class designed to use low damage output weapons wearing below average armor. if you decide to go 2-hander or sword and board your cheating yourself of the one advantage they have: 2 weapon fighting.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: LackofCertainty on December 18, 2011, 12:21:35 AM
I simple tweak for rangers would be to give them tumble as a class feat. That and maybe sneak attack every 5 levels or so instead of favored enemy. Theres a reason they synergy so well with rougue levels. The way their designed their really more of a rougue type class instead of a stand up fighter. A big problem of the class (not just here but in NWN in general) is their a fighter class designed to use low damage output weapons wearing below average armor. if you decide to go 2-hander or sword and board your cheating yourself of the one advantage they have: 2 weapon fighting.

Not every ranger was meant to dual wield.  If that were the case, they wouldn't get shield prof or medium armor, and they'd get ranger specific weapon profs for only dual wield-able weapons instead of all simple and martial.   If you go with a pure str based, full-plate wearing ranger I maintain that you'll be more effective than a pure str based fighter of equal level. (unless you are exactly level 4. :P)  Spells, especially on a low magic server like this one, more than compensate for the few fighter specific feats.  Not to mention the addition of the animal companion, or the extra skill points.  I also don't get how you can say they're not a "stand up and fight" class when they get equal hp per level to a fighter.

Taking away Favored enemy and replacing it with sneak attack would be stupid, in my opinion.  If you're going to do that you might as well rename the class "Rogue Jr."  Hell, while we're at it, why don't we give them barbarian rage, and defensive stance from the dwarven defender.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Kagetora on December 18, 2011, 01:37:14 AM
I tend to agree that dual-wielding is not the end-all and be-all, particularly on this server.  Considering how many extra feats characters get, ANYONE can end up dual-wielding if they want to.  In addition to that, it really doesn't give you much over another style of fighting, if anything, damage-wise.  Consider a character with, say, an 18 STR who either dual-wields a steel longsword/shortsword combo, or has a steel two-handed sword.  With the dual-wielding, they will get, essentially, an extra attack at -2 to hit that does D6 (short sword) + 2 (steel) +2 (half-strength for off-hand).  This is NEVER going to make up for the extra base damage of a steel two-handed sword (2d6+d8+1.5 STR bonus), even considering the longsword does d8+d4.  Lets play with some numbers.  Assume 3 base attacks per round (level 11 fighter or ranger).  Assume all hit.  We'll even give the two-weapon fighter Improved Two Weapon Fighting for an EXTRA off-hand attack.  We'll ignore Specialization, Favored Enemy, etc...this is just pure base damage output.

Two-handed sword = 6d6+3d8+18 = 27 (min) to 78 (max), avg = 51.5
Two-weapons = 3d8+3d4+12 (longsword) + 2d6+8 (shortsword) = 28 (min) to 68 (max), avg = 48

Even with Exotic Weapon Proficiency and a two-bladed sword (offhand damage goes to d8+d4) you STILL BARELY beat the two-handed damage. 5d8+5d4+20 is 30 (min), 80 (max), 55 (avg).  Almost no difference in damage, and, in fact, the two-bladed sword will do LESS damage, as we are considering every swing a hit, when, in actuality, the two-bladed sword will be at -2 to hit compared to the two-handed sword (-10%).

So, is dual-wielding better?  Perhaps, for AC purposes...the character would have to take Improved Parry to get their full Parry Bonus with the two-handed sword, and they wouldn't benefit from Two-Weapon Defense or Imp. TWD.  Theoretically, the dual-wielder could get nearly the same damage output AND a +2 AC bonus, but has to spend 3 extra Feats to do it (Exotic, TWD, Imp TWD, and Imp TWF vs just buying Improved Parry).

But the real meat of it comes when you consider armor...unless you wear Padded and have a 28+ DEX (i.e. no one on THIS server), you are limited to a combined Armor + DEX bonus AC of 9.  Doesn't matter if it is Studded Leather (AC3 with max DEX bonus of 6) or Full Plate (AC8 with max +1), you top out at 9 points, period.  So, in order to use the "free" dual-wield Rangers get, and still get your 9 AC, you'd have to wear Studded and have a 22 DEX (either naturally or with Cat's Grace).  At that point, your AC would equal a Fighter or Clerics, for the most part.  Obviously no one is going to do this...your other stats would suffer so much you would be screwwed.

So why not actually play a ranger INTELLIGENTLY?  Take a good DEX (say, a 16) and a good STR (ditto) as oppose to just maxxing out STR like the fighter would?  At creation, you could spend points to get a 15 DEX and 15 STR (Ranger, 16 points spent) and have both be 16 by level 8, or you could buy a 16 STR and 12 DEX and have an 18 STR at level 8 (Fighter, 14 points spent).  The Ranger could wear Banded Mail and use a two-handed sword when fighting (AC6 +3 DEX =9) and carry a spare set of darkened leathers in a bag, along with his dual-wielding weapons, for when he wanted to go stealthy.  And probably still only be carrying as much as the Fighter in full plate.  With the Studded Leather, you would still end up at a net -1 AC over the banded mail if you had the Feats.  And you get versatility, Stealth, Animal Companion, Spells...I really fail to see the problem.  Yes...the pure Fighter will always do slightly more damage (1 extra from the STR difference, another couple from Specialization).  Yes, they don't have to manage their inventory as much (one set of armor, one good weapon).

But in the end, the differences are SO minor that I don't really understand the complaints.

L20 Fighter.  Full Plate (AC9 with DEX), + 3 or 5 (Varnish or Vestment), +4 (Brooch) +3 (Barkskin) +4 (Parry) +2 (Tumble) +2 (Boots) +4 (Potion of Speed) = AC 41-43
L20 Ranger.  Banded (AC9 with DEX), + all the same stuff.  = The same.
L20 Ranger.  Studded (AC 6 with DEX), + all the same stuff, +TWD and Imp. TWD, = The same.  One less, actually.  With Cat's Grace, probably one MORE.

Either can give up a huge chunk of their damage potential and pick up a shield, so thats a wash.

Yes.  The fighter has 2 points more STR, and Specialization.  At level 20, he should be churning out a whopping 20 or so more points of damage than you per round, with any given weapon combo and 4-7 attacks (depends on weapon type, Haste, etc....and might vanish entirely vs. a Favored Enemy, against which the Ranger should do MORE).  If thats REALLY that important, then go play a fighter instead, and give up entirely on your Spells, Animal Companion, Stealth, Favored Enemies, and RP.

Ranger.  Medium-Heavy armor, good DEX and STR, two-handed sword.  Stealth armor and weapons in a bag.  Improved Parry, TWD, Imp. TWD, Imp TWF.  Undead, Humans, Shapeshifters, Constructs, Outsiders as Favored Enemies.  As good as a fighter any day, and more fun to play.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Kagetora on December 18, 2011, 11:41:00 AM
Oops.  My bad.  The two-bladed sword math is off...it should have been 5d8+5d4+16, giving 26/76/51...and also giving even LESS reason to dual-wield.  Another advantage of the two-hander?  Goes through DR better, should you find yourself in a situation where you can't normally hurt your opponent, or they have some form of protection you aren't ignoring.

The gap widens even further the more attacks you have, since every +1 attack (5 more levels, Haste, whatever) makes the two-handed sword swing again (more damage than the one-hander) and the off-hand weapon never gets any more swings...

So, to recap briefly, lets look at the three fighting styles, the AC you could expect (ignoring the stuff all three can have, i.e. Barkskin, Brooch, etc.), and your damage output:

Weapon and Shield:  AC 9 (armor+DEX), AC 3 (shield), +two Vestments/Varnishes = up to +22;  Lowest damage output (#of Att times D8+D4+STR bonus)
Two-handed:  AC 9 (armor+DEX), AC 4 (Parry + Imp. Parry Feat), + Vest/Varnish = up to +18;  Highest damage output (# of Att times 2d6+d8+1.5 STR bonus)
Two-weapon:  AC 9 (armor+DEX), AC 4 (Parry), AC 2 (TWD, Imp TWD), + Vest/Varnish = up to +20;  With even more Feats (Exotic, Two-Weapon, Ambi, Imp. Two-Weapon) can almost equal the damage output of the two-handed weapon, roughly (less per strike, more strikes, all at -10% to hit)

So, for any melee class (Fighter, Ranger, Barb, Pally, Cleric), Weapon and Shield requires zero extra feats.  Two-handed requires one (Imp. Parry).  Two-weapon requires SIX.  SIX.  Rangers essentially get three of them for free if limiting themselves to light armor...

And you are still telling me two-weapon fighting is a major advantage of the Ranger class?  As far as I can tell, its a major advantage for NO ONE.  Especially considering the AC you have to give up as a Ranger to do it without spending as many Feats as the Fighter.  This is why you almost never see a Fighter, Cleric, Paladin, or Barbarian with anything except sword-and-board or a greatsword (max AC vs max DMG).  Its just not worth the effort, unless you are doing it for RP purposes, or get it almost for free (i.e. Rangers).  Its not really an advantage.

Play your Ranger SMART.  Remember...every so often even Aragorn strapped on the heavy armor or brought out the two-handed stance.  Make a Ranger, bring two suits of armor and two weapons.  Spend the three Feats on Exotic, TWD, and Imp. TWD.  Pick up Imp. Parry.  Rangers get plenty of extra Feats on this server too.  18 total, plus one extra if you are Human.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: respawnaholic on December 18, 2011, 01:14:30 PM
Oops.  My bad.  The two-bladed sword math is off...it should have been 5d8+5d4+16, giving 26/76/51...and also giving even LESS reason to dual-wield.  Another advantage of the two-hander?  Goes through DR better, should you find yourself in a situation where you can't normally hurt your opponent, or they have some form of protection you aren't ignoring.

The gap widens even further the more attacks you have, since every +1 attack (5 more levels, Haste, whatever) makes the two-handed sword swing again (more damage than the one-hander) and the off-hand weapon never gets any more swings...

So, to recap briefly, lets look at the three fighting styles, the AC you could expect (ignoring the stuff all three can have, i.e. Barkskin, Brooch, etc.), and your damage output:

Weapon and Shield:  AC 9 (armor+DEX), AC 3 (shield), +two Vestments/Varnishes = up to +22;  Lowest damage output (#of Att times D8+D4+STR bonus)
Two-handed:  AC 9 (armor+DEX), AC 4 (Parry + Imp. Parry Feat), + Vest/Varnish = up to +18;  Highest damage output (# of Att times 2d6+d8+1.5 STR bonus)
Two-weapon:  AC 9 (armor+DEX), AC 4 (Parry), AC 2 (TWD, Imp TWD), + Vest/Varnish = up to +20;  With even more Feats (Exotic, Two-Weapon, Ambi, Imp. Two-Weapon) can almost equal the damage output of the two-handed weapon, roughly (less per strike, more strikes, all at -10% to hit)

So, for any melee class (Fighter, Ranger, Barb, Pally, Cleric), Weapon and Shield requires zero extra feats.  Two-handed requires one (Imp. Parry).  Two-weapon requires SIX.  SIX.  Rangers essentially get three of them for free if limiting themselves to light armor...

And you are still telling me two-weapon fighting is a major advantage of the Ranger class?  As far as I can tell, its a major advantage for NO ONE.  Especially considering the AC you have to give up as a Ranger to do it without spending as many Feats as the Fighter.  This is why you almost never see a Fighter, Cleric, Paladin, or Barbarian with anything except sword-and-board or a greatsword (max AC vs max DMG).  Its just not worth the effort, unless you are doing it for RP purposes, or get it almost for free (i.e. Rangers).  Its not really an advantage.

Play your Ranger SMART.  Remember...every so often even Aragorn strapped on the heavy armor or brought out the two-handed stance.  Make a Ranger, bring two suits of armor and two weapons.  Spend the three Feats on Exotic, TWD, and Imp. TWD.  Pick up Imp. Parry.  Rangers get plenty of extra Feats on this server too.  18 total, plus one extra if you are Human.

Im actually not saying two weapon fighting is better. im saying that its the only feat rangers get that is marginally useful. Your kinda helping us nay sayers prove our point by pointing out that their BEST feat is of dubious value. If your going to put that much work into getting his two handed fighting skills up or giving them the benefit of heavier armor you might as well make a fighter anyway and do what every one else with a fighter does. Make a WM. Its not like theres any such thing as a pure fighter anyway anymore with WM available.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: HellsPanda on December 18, 2011, 01:27:48 PM
Two weapon fighting chars have about as much damage as a great weapon user, only its DR penetration is lesser
It has the best AC of any class except cleric/paladin.


Also when you bring in Varnishes, the math greatly gets skewed in favour of the Two weapon fighter
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Kagetora on December 18, 2011, 02:15:51 PM
Im actually not saying two weapon fighting is better. im saying that its the only feat rangers get that is marginally useful. Your kinda helping us nay sayers prove our point by pointing out that their BEST feat is of dubious value. If your going to put that much work into getting his two handed fighting skills up or giving them the benefit of heavier armor you might as well make a fighter anyway and do what every one else with a fighter does. Make a WM. Its not like theres any such thing as a pure fighter anyway anymore with WM available.

See...you are just wrong.  In so many ways.  Its not their BEST Feat.  And it doesn't require "that much work" to get your two-handed fighting skills up.  It requires ONE (1) Feat.  Improved Parry.  At that point you do more damage than the two-weapon fighting, and only have slightly less AC IF you have TWD and/or Imp TWD...and that is made up for by the fact you can wear heavier armor while using the two-handed weapon.

But, show me a Fighter, OR Weapon Master, who can summon an Animal Companion, cast Cure Light/Moderate/Serious Wounds, Ultravision, Blade Thirst (even with its short duration), Aid, Polymorph himself, Summon creatures, Charm a Dire Bear to follow him around (with a SKILL, nonetheless), or has massive Stealth.  Oh, and gets up to +5 damage against up to 5 different creature phenotypes.

And for ALL of that you give up, what?  Specialization and a few extra Feats?  PLEASE.

If I didn't already have 8 neglected characters, INCLUDING a pure Fighter and a pure Rogue, I'd make a Ranger and show you how to do it.   ;)  Needless to say, I am not crying a river over the state of Rangers.

Honestly?  I have never even seen the attraction of Weapon Master.   Especially on this server where 75% of everything you fight ignores half their special abilities because its Immune to Crits.  Besides...with a 13 DEX and 13 INT requirement, and free Feats as a server bonus, a Ranger makes as good a WM anyway.  Again, you'd miss out on +2 damage for Specialization.  So what.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Badelaire on December 18, 2011, 02:27:12 PM
Let's try and keep the nerd rages down and maintain a healthy debate on the ifiner details of varying classes eh? mechanics is a moot point when you have to survive the low levels to get the benefits of it first. Developing rapport with other players and their characters and focusing more on RP and less worry on who's class is better than who's does wonders.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Kagetora on December 18, 2011, 02:35:16 PM
Two weapon fighting chars have about as much damage as a great weapon user, only its DR penetration is lesser
It has the best AC of any class except cleric/paladin.


Also when you bring in Varnishes, the math greatly gets skewed in favour of the Two weapon fighter

ABOUT as much.  And the AC is the same unless you pick up the extra Feats.  Shield is still a better AC, due to the fact that you can use an extra Vestment/Varnish on it.  At the cost of damage, of course.

As far as "greatly gets skewed," arguable.  The Varnishes do d8 or d12, IIRC, so, lets add that into the equations.

Two-handed:  2d6+d8+1.5 STR+D8(D12) times the number of attacks.  Lets go big and say 5...L16 + Haste.  Max: 34/38 per attack at 18 STR. x5 = 170/190  With minimum of 50, and average of 110/120.

Two-Weapon:  d8+d4+STR+d8(d12) per attack.  7 attacks per round now, since you get 2 offhand (1/2 STR bonus).  Max  24/28 per attack, 22/26 for offhand.  x5 = 120/140 + 44/52 = 164/192.  Minimum of 45, average 104.5/118.5.

Show me now how that is greatly skewed in favor of two-weapon fighting?  Still looks the same to me.  Basically, the two-hander does up to 10 extra points of damage every swing.  That 50 points more than compensates for the 2 off-hand attacks, who do a maximum of 52 points of damage, even WITH the best varnishes out there.

And remember, the two-weapon fighter hits 10% less often, and you better be sure you are fighting something that the varnish damage actually hurts, as opposed to using, say, a +3 or +5 varnish on the weapon to make it hit better (which the spell-less Fighter will be doing).  Oh, and the two-weapon fighter uses twice as many varnishes to get the same effect.

Math is awesome.   :lol:
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Kagetora on December 18, 2011, 02:37:03 PM
Let's try and keep the nerd rages down and maintain a healthy debate on the ifiner details of varying classes eh? mechanics is a moot point when you have to survive the low levels to get the benefits of it first. Developing rapport with other players and their characters and focusing more on RP and less worry on who's class is better than who's does wonders.

YES.  Play what you WANT TO PLAY, and stop whining about it.  Rangers are FINE.

Sorry about the nerdrage.  When people start posting completely unsupported arguments like "X is better than Y," I like to show them how its not true.  My apologies.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: HellsPanda on December 18, 2011, 02:40:47 PM
Actually in the ideal situation, you use exactly as many varnishes dual fighting as great weapon fighting. Since double swords only use 1 varnish to coat both sides
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: LackofCertainty on December 18, 2011, 03:43:25 PM
I heart you Kagetora. ^.^


The point of this whole massive tangent is that people are building a dex based, dual wielding ranger, and then complaining that it's such a weak class and needs to be buffed.  Well, on this server I consider that about the same as if I build a Cha based wizard, and then complain that I need buffs because I can't cast anything.  With the amount of dr on this server you need to recognise that dex based classes don't work, unless you have a large source of free damage. (sneak attack, etc)  If you want to talk about the issue of dex based characters that lack sneak attack, i think that's a whole 'nother thread.  (Why can't my dex based fighter do anything? because he's dex based.)

And for emphasis, I want to bring it up one more time. The only advantage a fighter gets over a ranger is +2 damage to a weapon, and some extra feats, which are nice, but we get plenty of feats on this server to grab pretty much every combat oriented feat and still have room for rp feats.     So, in exchange for that 2 damage, a ranger gets +1-5 damage and a few skill boost against 1-5 different enemy types, an animal companion, 2 extra skill points per level, a broader selection of class skills, and a limited set of spells.  Poor, poor ranger. : P



One last sidenote.  Barbarians start with the exact same weapon and armor proficiencies as rangers.  A 2-handed axe ranger is just as fitting as a 2-handed axe barbarian, imo, and you don't see anyone complaining about how rough barbarians have it, because you can snag all the feats required to setup a 2-handed heavy armor user from character creation. (aka level 1 feat is heavy armor prof, level 2 feat is imp parry or if you're that feat starved, then just use a halberd or be a human)
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: HellsPanda on December 18, 2011, 03:52:14 PM
I actually like the ranger class. But I still feel if your going to do math, you need to do every aspect to reflect the proper difference between the two builds being compared. Including AC and AB. Might even do the math opposed to each other.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Telkar on December 18, 2011, 04:26:36 PM
I sort of don't care about the whole issue with class balance which is a much broader topic. I know the Blade Thirst spell affects that though so can't help the thread moving in that direction. But looking at 'just' the spell system itself (which I did to begin with) and the spell's place in it, it seems a bit off. I thought spell levels were supposed to represent the usefulness/power of a spell in the overall game, but here I just saw these two similar spells of the same level, GMW and Blade Thirst and thought...imbalance? How come BT is not a level 2 spell if it's so inferior? Or why isn't it better for its level?
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Kagetora on December 18, 2011, 07:33:54 PM
I actually like the ranger class. But I still feel if your going to do math, you need to do every aspect to reflect the proper difference between the two builds being compared. Including AC and AB. Might even do the math opposed to each other.

 :roll:  Feel free, I guess, but...is there a point?  You're just going to find out dual-wielding still isn't as good due to the -2 AB penalty.  Of course, I'd love to see your spreadsheet of every AB vs every AC with STR, DEX, Varnishes, etc. all incorporated into the mix.  Should be about twenty pages.   :lol:

Actually, scratch that...if you DO waste your time working it up, I'd rather not waste mine poring over it.   ;)
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Springer on December 19, 2011, 02:58:21 AM
Quote
See...you are just wrong.  In so many ways.  Its not their BEST Feat.  And it doesn't require "that much work" to get your two-handed fighting skills up.  It requires ONE (1) Feat.  Improved Parry.  At that point you do more damage than the two-weapon fighting, and only have slightly less AC IF you have TWD and/or Imp TWD...and that is made up for by the fact you can wear heavier armor while using the two-handed weapon.

But, show me a Fighter, OR Weapon Master, who can summon an Animal Companion, cast Cure Light/Moderate/Serious Wounds, Ultravision, Blade Thirst (even with its short duration), Aid, Polymorph himself, Summon creatures, Charm a Dire Bear to follow him around (with a SKILL, nonetheless), or has massive Stealth.  Oh, and gets up to +5 damage against up to 5 different creature phenotypes.

And for ALL of that you give up, what?  Specialization and a few extra Feats?  PLEASE.

Its my opinion, but favoured enemy is actually better on this server then weapon specialisation. Because by picking undead, shapechangers, constructs and outsiders you have bonuses against most of the mobs and better then mundane +2. In 3.5 fighters continue their specialisation, but its not 3.5.

As for why people make dex rangers, its because when people want to play tank with 2h claymore and heavy armour they pick fighter (in nwn also barb cause he wears  heavy armour without penalties here). When people play ranger they want to play stealthy woodsman with a bow and shortswords. (trackless step, extra two weapon feats also reinforce that). Besides they have Cats grace so starting with 16 dex, giving it 2 more points on lvls you can wear sstudded leather just fine.
Even with advantages you described rangers with sword and door or claymores make no sense to me lorewise (yes I know its a cliche), I guess thats the reason they were reworked in 3.5 aswell.

Oh and dont bring animal companion as an advatage, the only use they have is for RP, they also bugged in that buffs may dissapear from them during transitions.

Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: LackofCertainty on December 19, 2011, 03:05:44 AM
I sort of don't care about the whole issue with class balance which is a much broader topic. I know the Blade Thirst spell affects that though so can't help the thread moving in that direction. But looking at 'just' the spell system itself (which I did to begin with) and the spell's place in it, it seems a bit off. I thought spell levels were supposed to represent the usefulness/power of a spell in the overall game, but here I just saw these two similar spells of the same level, GMW and Blade Thirst and thought...imbalance? How come BT is not a level 2 spell if it's so inferior? Or why isn't it better for its level?

Different classes are better at casting than others.  A prime example of this exact thing is that Clerics get hold person as a level 2 spell, whereas wizards/sorcs get it as a level 3.  Paladins/clerics/wizards etc are all better at casting weapon buffage spells, which is why they get gmw at lower/equal levels, whereas the ranger only gets blade thirst.  Rangers are supposed to be mediocre casters, imo.  They get a tiny dabbling of magic in addition to all their other kits.


Animal companions are a instant sack of hp.  Infact I just went through a low level dungeon where we only lived because we had 2x animal companions soaking up damage.  Sure they died, but if those fat sacks of hp weren't there we'd have lost some people.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Telkar on December 19, 2011, 06:51:49 AM
Meh, makes sense I guess. A lot of spells seem to be strewn about 1-3 different levels. By the way, I didn't know Favored Enemy was so effective. Seriously, + 4 dmg against 4 different types of creatures on lvl 15, that's awesome.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Knas on December 20, 2011, 11:34:49 PM
A lot of people seem to be forgetting that rangers are a high AB character with a HP to match a fighter and a HIGH AB progression matched only by fighter, monk, paladin and barbarian.

With the right build and gear it's quite possible to get a very strong AB, AC and skill bonuses on a ranger. The only real area I feel is lacking on my ranger is saving throws with the only bonus from the class are the spells aid (+1 saves) and the freedom of movement which makes you immune to hold, slow etc.

At first sight the ranger might look very expensive to play statwise - when I made mine I had the following reasoning:

Str: Medium to high Going for pure ranger I had already decided I'd rely on STR for my attack bonus because I wanted to use slashing weapons to be able to use the blade thirst spell. (Sure weapons finesse allows you to use handaxe, sickle or kukri. But the first two are generally weak and the kukri is exotic very limited on our server, besides it relies on crits and with so many constructs and undead I simply don't like that!)

dex: Medium to high To take advantage of the free two weapon fighting feats I decided to go with light armor, the heaviest one requiring a dex score of 18 in order to get full bonus from it. Rangers however do get cats grace giving you 1+1d4 dex. It's a powerful bonus that saves you some stat points better spent elsewhere since I had already decided not to be using DEX for attack bonus. Anyway with the cats grace bonus 14-17 in dex is enough, the higher if you're hoping to take advantage of the imp./two weapon defense feats. requiring 15/17 dex.

con: Optional / dump stat like in most cases. More important early on than later to me since rangers get a high fort save progression and with the d10 HP die they already get a very good hp pool. 

int: Optional, on my ranger I wanted to get parry & tumble (even though it's cross class I think the AC and combat mobility it offers is well worth it for a melee character, since light armor will allow me to take advantage of it w/o just getting a bunch of failed tumble rolls) However rangers also get a lot of good class skills, animal empathy, discipline, hide, listen, move silently, search, set trap, spot - giving them a lot of potential roles in a party if you're willing to sacrifice the int points to pay the price. Also int gives you access to imp./experise which can be very valuable for a melee fighter when getting a lot of focus.

wis: 13+ The ranger spell casting is goodness. Especially important for a stealther ranger who with a few spells can save themselves the trouble of getting skill focuses in hide / ms, especially since they already get a +4 bonus to stealth while in the outdoors. But the extra healing, blade thirst, aid and freedom of movement offer spells on each level that are useful for most rangers, especially pure fighters.

cha: Optional / dump stat like in most cases, only really a valuable stat for clerics/paladins/sorcerers. Sure it effects animal empathy but with no other social skills at their disposal the ranger isn't very likely to become a known speaker anyway.


In the end ranger is one of those classes where you'd like to get all the stats boosted, it's not as easy to build as the more arch-typical classes like fighter / wizard where you can max out one stat and be just fine whatever you spent the rest of the points on, but with a thoughtful build the ranger is a very rewarding class with a lot of broadth. A very useful tip is to start off well rounded and then use the points recieved on every 4 levels to buy those otherwise expensive final stat boosts, because the ranger is a class that really shines when you open all doors. (fighting, spellcasting & skills)

My ranger wasn't much on lower levels, having to rely on using ranged weapons / shield and medium armor, but now (level 16) he has 6 attacks per round and can when needed dishing out good extra dmg with his blade thirst especially against his favorites enemies (+4), an AC equal to a fighter with a towershield (+3 from parry & +2 from imp. 2 weapon defense) and with imp expertise at his disposal. I could also afford getting him some points into hide / ms making him a capable stealther. Another nice bonus is the combination of a good STR & Dex score makes him a very capable archer whos able to get good AB and take advantage of the mighty bonus on bows.

Last but not least he has his animal companion which can be very nice extra damage. I would recommend against the normal "use them as tanks" talk and rather have them for flanking, the strong hp may hint to something else but animal companions have such sucky AC they aren't fit for tanking. They do usually get a pretty good STR / AB score though making them capable dmg dealers.

Hopefully this will have been a useful read for some.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Kagetora on December 21, 2011, 12:40:34 AM
Even with advantages you described rangers with sword and door or claymores make no sense to me lorewise (yes I know its a cliche), I guess thats the reason they were reworked in 3.5 aswell.

Oh and dont bring animal companion as an advatage, the only use they have is for RP, they also bugged in that buffs may dissapear from them during transitions.

You are right...your version/vision of a ranger IS a cliche.  And you are wrong about Animal Companions.  There is a very, VERY good reason that the AC is not as good as a Familiar...because Wizards can't fight.  My druid, OTOH, stands up front in heavy chitin armor with a nice shield and some buffs on, takes the hit, and her panther averages 24 damage on a sneak attack, twice a round right now.  Yes, its only good against living targets (hers, anyway...a bear is good against anything), and, yes, a Ranger's panther would be a few levels lower (IIRC), but its still useful.  Very much so, in fact.  Its just not a tank.  The RANGER has to play tank.  You know...with some good armor, DEX, Parry, Tumble, and a choice of weapons.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Springer on December 21, 2011, 01:39:21 AM
Thats asuming they you picked bear, dire wolf or panther, which I didnt. But even these dont have spring attack and AI isnt helping either. They stop working at mid levels ( and I am, even talking about a druid panther for example). Not to mention they are an annoyance in the parties screwing the pathing of a fighters and other frontline warriors.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Telkar on December 21, 2011, 08:02:04 AM
Yep...I think I suggested somewhere to make it possible to toggle stealth on animal companions, that way they could attack to begin with at least, without invoking all those AoOs.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Ercvadasz on January 17, 2013, 07:12:39 PM
Blade thirst is not a bad spell...but the duration of it...is FAR TOO low.
It would be nice if it would be doubled or trippled. If i am remembering right, at level 12 the GMW is allready giving +3 bonus as well, but lasts 3 IC hours (that is 18 minutes)
whereas the blade thirst remains for 4-5 minutes? (less than an ingame hour!)
Even if the bonus stays, and everything at least its duration should be lengthened. Is it possible? Or is it hard-coded again, and no chance? Asking cuz i really do not know.
If it is hard coded, then some gear that would grant rangers a bonus spell slot, in which they can only memorise this spell would be just as good.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: BahamutZ3RO on January 18, 2013, 03:51:32 PM
Concerning Rangers, though not necessarily Blade Thirst... give them more feats. They're the dual-wield class, but they don't have the extra feats to support everything that they'll need to do it effectively. Either that or give them things like Two-Weapon Defense and ITWD automatically as they level.
Title: Re: Ranger's Blade Thirst spell - seriously underpowered?
Post by: Ercvadasz on January 18, 2013, 04:41:02 PM
Concerning Rangers, though not necessarily Blade Thirst... give them more feats. They're the dual-wield class, but they don't have the extra feats to support everything that they'll need to do it effectively. Either that or give them things like Two-Weapon Defense and ITWD automatically as they level.

I think this would require a lot of codeing, and likely a hak update. Not sure though.

The thing is that you would need to find the balance with these two bonus feats. On which level do they gain it? Since ranger is allready one of the classes, that  most folks x-class. (Rogues mostly like them since a lot of free feats, i think at least 6 on first level, and the skill point loss is not that great, like when choosing a fighter.)
(Pure rangers are VERY rare, i think there are less than 10 pure ranger characters.)
Not to mention i have seen not one ranger use a double handed weapon, because it is easier and much more worth it to use.
Dual wielding if you walk along the path and reach the level of 9, will still be -2/-2 or -2/-4 and sadly that 10/20% miss chance is huge, on and above that level.
It is why most rangers use thw-s.(Not to mention that the damage output may equal or be higher than with dual wielding. More chances to hit with thd weapons *1.5 str bonus. And depending what weapon you use)

TWD and ITWD are those feats that are actualy the feats, you will most likely not want to waste a feat on.
As a ranger your saves will be fairly low. You will need to take all the feats that boost saves. The parry feats (both twd, thd and single weapon). Then thougness, since your constitution will be around 14 at best. That is allready at least 7 feats, and you were not even able to focus, or take up other favoured enemies.(You can switch out favoured enemy for other feats.)

Considering feats. A ranger gets if i made my math right 19-20 feats. A wizard gains 24. A fighter even more. Yes many say a fighter does not need that many feats, and i do not wish to debate about it, since i am not very well familiar with fighter builds. (But most cross class it usually.)

A ranger is supposed to be someone who can use stealth, can notice enemies and even know a few things about them, shoudl be able to calm animals, ask their aid, be a fairly decent "fighter" himself.
Sadly this is not the case here. They lack equipment, skill points, and feats to do so.

One thing though, an item for which i am really glad that was added to the loot table is the Axes of Hurling. They are meant for rangers, who have a semidecent str.
Blade thirst works on it, and you can rapidly throw the axes at your enemies dealing 2d6+3+str bonus+varnish. So if you play a ranger, take some str, and leave finesse alone, unless you can hoard up a serious amount of varnish, or can get a permanent cleric/caster friend to cast GMW on your weapons.
However...they weigh you down. Majorly. 50 of these axes is fifty pounds. Which will let you carry on your best days just that much.