PDA

View Full Version : Ranger Toughness?



Cannon
09-12-2007, 05:20 PM
In my mind, I always pictured rangers as the hardy, tough, outdoor type that can wander the far reaches of the map.

Could rangers also get the toughness line? Seems odd that those sissy little pallies get it but the tough rangers do not :)

(In the interest of self-disclosure, i have 1 fighter,2 pallies, 2 rangers, 1 sorc, and 1 cleric)


If this is a game-play issue in that you do not want to inflate the ranger hps, that is fine. Just wanted to point out that it seemed odd that they did not get the line.

Cannon

Bromm
09-12-2007, 05:40 PM
Rangers are supposed to have a Free Endurance Feat at level 3 but since the game dosnt have endurance maybe toughness should be it's replacement? Or at least the toughness enhancement line.

Rangers get very little in useful enhancements this would be a nice bonus.

Cheers

bobbryan2
09-12-2007, 05:41 PM
I definately would concur that Rangers should get the toughness enhancements to make up for the loss of the Endurance feat.

aurus33
09-12-2007, 06:11 PM
Agree!!!!

Show us sum ranger luuuuuv!!!

Twerpp
09-12-2007, 06:49 PM
In my mind, I always pictured rangers as the hardy, tough, outdoor type that can wander the far reaches of the map.

Could rangers also get the toughness line? Seems odd that those sissy little pallies get it but the tough rangers do not :)

(In the interest of self-disclosure, i have 1 fighter,2 pallies, 2 rangers, 1 sorc, and 1 cleric)


If this is a game-play issue in that you do not want to inflate the ranger hps, that is fine. Just wanted to point out that it seemed odd that they did not get the line.

Cannon

I always pictured them as the superhuman speed and cat-like agility types, not the tough meat-shields though. Unfortunately the AC is lower than the other types too in many cases due to light armor. I definitely agree, rangers are a 1/1 BAB class and should stay balanced with the other 1/1 BAB classes for the most part.

Huebacca
09-12-2007, 10:21 PM
I definately would concur that Rangers should get the toughness enhancements to make up for the loss of the Endurance feat.

I think having both combat styles more than makes up for not having the endurance feat that is mostly useless in this game.

But I do think of rangers as a class that is as capable at melee as a paladin and think they should have toughness enhancements.

QuantumFX
09-13-2007, 12:41 AM
I'd rather see a generic enhancement. None of the current classes that get toughness enhancements have any innate attachment to the feat. (No freebies, Not a fighter bonus feat, etc.) Rogues, Battle Clerics and Bards need HP too. In fact you could make a good argument that low HP classes are more likely to take a toughness feat in tabletop D&D than a high HP class.

Also Rangers do get a tradeoff for the missing Track/Fast Tracking/Endurance/Camoflage feats. They get access to both fighting style chains and are the only class that gets Bow Strength.

Bizbag
09-13-2007, 12:55 AM
I'd rather see a generic enhancement. None of the current classes that get toughness enhancements have any innate attachment to the feat. (No freebies, Not a fighter bonus feat, etc.) Rogues, Battle Clerics and Bards need HP too. In fact you could make a good argument that low HP classes are more likely to take a toughness feat in tabletop D&D than a high HP class.

Also Rangers do get a tradeoff for the missing Track/Fast Tracking/Endurance/Camoflage feats. They get access to both fighting style chains and are the only class that gets Bow Strength.

I'm pretty sure nobody ever took Tougness in PnP unless they were using it to qualify for a PrC. It granted all of 3 HP.

Okita
09-13-2007, 01:10 AM
I'd rather see a generic enhancement. None of the current classes that get toughness enhancements have any innate attachment to the feat. (No freebies, Not a fighter bonus feat, etc.) Rogues, Battle Clerics and Bards need HP too. In fact you could make a good argument that low HP classes are more likely to take a toughness feat in tabletop D&D than a high HP class.

Also Rangers do get a tradeoff for the missing Track/Fast Tracking/Endurance/Camoflage feats. They get access to both fighting style chains and are the only class that gets Bow Strength.

to which everyone knows that ranged fighting is gimped.

Maldini
09-13-2007, 02:00 AM
Rangers are secondary melee like rogues. They're hybrids of sorts. As such they don't have toughness enhancements. If they did, then rogue's should get them too.

Fighter's, Paladin's and Barbs are the primary melee classes so that's why they were given that enhancement line.

lostinjapan
09-13-2007, 02:36 AM
I always pictured them as the superhuman speed and cat-like agility types, not the tough meat-shields though. Unfortunately the AC is lower than the other types too in many cases due to light armor. I definitely agree, rangers are a 1/1 BAB class and should stay balanced with the other 1/1 BAB classes for the most part.

Someone certainly never read/watched LotR. I would definitely place Aragorn in the 'tough meat-shield' class instead of the 'superhuman speed and cat-like agility' class. Perhaps you are confusing "elf" for "ranger"?


Rangers are secondary melee like rogues. They're hybrids of sorts. As such they don't have toughness enhancements. If they did, then rogue's should get them too.

Fighter's, Paladin's and Barbs are the primary melee classes so that's why they were given that enhancement line.

And someone else has definitely never run with my rogue (or any of the other many rogues and rangers out there who can out-damage and stay alive longer than the majority of those so-called "melee classes").

Dingo123
09-13-2007, 03:08 AM
Aragorn wasn't a meatshield. Boromir was.

Rangers should not get the toughness enhancement line.

Lifespawn
09-13-2007, 03:53 AM
ya dingo thx for chiming in your opinion means alot hows the free cleric spell points thing comming?

Rangers should get the toughness line they are a full bab class but get less hp per lvl than all the other 1 bab classes.

Dingo123
09-13-2007, 07:39 AM
ya dingo thx for chiming in your opinion means alot hows the free cleric spell points thing comming?

Rangers should get the toughness line they are a full bab class but get less hp per lvl than all the other 1 bab classes.



Look at that statement.

Go on.

Look at it.

They get FEWER HITPOINTS for a reason, They also wear lighter armor.

The logic of your statement is apparently that because Rangers have fewer hitpoints... they should get MORE hitpoints.

Why bother giving them d8 hp to begin with? Why not give them d10? why not give fighters d12?


Rangers aren't meant to be frontline tanks. They would come with DR, better HP, and better armor if they were. They don't.

Base attack bonus has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether or not you should get the toughness enhancement.

VonBek
09-13-2007, 08:18 AM
I think having both combat styles more than makes up for not having the endurance feat that is mostly useless in this game.

But I do think of rangers as a class that is as capable at melee as a paladin and think they should have toughness enhancements.

(First part: How many focus on Str or Dex rather than play balanced Rangers? NOT taunting, btw - just curious.)

Second part: I feel sympathy, yet my view resembles Maldini's. My perspective: A Ranger resembles a Fighter/Rogue (avg d10 & d6) with a splash of Divine Caster (d8). That's quite a combo. Something has to give - it seems like it was HP relative to the other melees. Since toughness centers on boosting HP it seems inconsistent with the rest of the Hybrid.

Turial
09-13-2007, 08:20 AM
If they were to give rangers a toughness enhancement I think it would follow the item defense line coming in mod 5. It would be one enhancement short of the "Traditional tank or meat shield" toughness. I wouldn't mind having a toughness line available to me but personally I would be less likely to take it. Giving an untyped and non-feat requiring enhancement line to rangers and other classes would be a bit unbalancing and unfair to the meat shields.

So in the end I'm in favor of a toughness line for rangers if it is tied into having the feat and is 1 level below what the meat shields can pick up.

bobbryan2
09-13-2007, 08:21 AM
(First part: How many focus on Str or Dex rather than play balanced Rangers? NOT taunting, btw - just curious.)

Second part: I feel sympathy, yet my view resembles Maldini's. My perspective: A Ranger resembles a Fighter/Rogue (avg d10 & d6) with a splash of Divine Caster (d8). That's quite a combo. Something has to give - it seems like it was HP relative to the other melees. Since toughness centers on boosting HP it seems inconsistent with the rest of the Hybrid.

But, at the same time. The endurance feat centers around swimming, running and climbing for longer periods of time, Sleeping in heavy and medium armors without penalty, and it opens the way for the Die Hard feat.

Without any kind of real fatigue bars, the only measure of endurance we have IG is HP. No one was asking for Rangers to get an automatic toughness feat... just to have access to the toughness line of enhancements. Well, I was just asking for the enhancements if nothing else.

Cannon
09-13-2007, 08:27 AM
(First part: How many focus on Str or Dex rather than play balanced Rangers? NOT taunting, btw - just curious.)

.

My first ranger is a dex/finesse ranger. The second ranger I made was a str based front-line ranger. Both are effective at what they do within the limitations of the class.

This request was not to start an argument about what is a ranger but to see if rangers could get toughness. I understand Maldini's point and if that is the reasoning behind the decision, no problem :) However, I view the toughness line of enhancements as a break from AD&D in order to accommodate the changes that were put in place to make this a dynamic computer game. In my feeling that break should also apply to the rangers.

As a compromise to the higher hp classes, what about giving rangers ONLY the first 3 lvls of toughness. That would mean they get the 5/10/15 but not the 20. That would continue to place the higher hps front-line (fighters,barbs, pallies) individuals ahead of rangers but it would give the rangers a bit of a boost.

Cannon

Gornin
09-13-2007, 08:33 AM
I think rangers could have access to the toughness feat, then access to the toughness line enhancements. It depends on how you want to build your ranger. If you take these feats/enhancements, you are giving up other choices. It is the players choice. I think rangers can be like both descriptions in previous posts.

Ringlord
09-13-2007, 08:57 AM
If they can't do something like that then come up with an enhancement to replace the missing endurance feat or give Rangers a better fire rate with bows than others get or something. I know most people would like to see ROF for bows increased all around

Roguewiz
09-13-2007, 09:12 AM
All classes should have access to toughness enhancements, just not the same ones "primary" melee get.

Fighters/Paladins/Barbarians
5
10
15
20

Rogues/Bards/Rangers
4
8
12
16

Clerics/Sorcerers/Wizards
3
6
9
12

Something like this would be reasonable. They would still have lower HP than "Primary" melee, but their survivability will go up.

IMO at least.

bobbryan2
09-13-2007, 09:14 AM
All classes should have access to toughness enhancements, just not the same ones "primary" melee get.

Fighters/Paladins/Barbarians
5
10
15
20

Rogues/Bards/Rangers
4
8
12
16

Clerics/Sorcerers/Wizards
3
6
9
12

Something like this would be reasonable. They would still have lower HP than "Primary" melee, but their survivability will go up.

IMO at least.

It's not a bad idea... but Rangers aren'te exactly in the same league as bards and rogues.

Roguewiz
09-13-2007, 09:18 AM
It's not a bad idea... but Rangers aren'te exactly in the same league as bards and rogues.

I can conceed that point. In PnP, Rangers can make great "tanks". However, that isn't the route DDO went. You could also argue that Clerics shouldn't be coupled with the arcanes ;)

Dingo123
09-13-2007, 09:30 AM
If anything it should be based on your hitpoints per level. Clerics and Rangers roll the same for their level. Bards and Rogues the same for theirs, Wizards and Sorcs the same for theirs.

bobbryan2
09-13-2007, 09:35 AM
I can conceed that point. In PnP, Rangers can make great "tanks". However, that isn't the route DDO went. You could also argue that Clerics shouldn't be coupled with the arcanes ;)

Rangers make amazing tanks in DDO. 26 str, 28 dex, 26 con... can rage up to 410 HP, and has done over 200 points of damage on crits with a +5 greataxe of righteousness.

Now.. just because players make dinky rangers doesn't mean DDO went a different route.

llevenbaxx
09-13-2007, 09:41 AM
I dont see why they wouldnt give rangers a toughness enhancement line. They are a melee class just like the others. Bottom line is they made the other melee classes "tougher" than what they were, why wouldnt the ranger class follow suit? Maybe like another poster said make it a little lesser than the others.

Never mind everyone just make dwarf rangers, problem solved.:rolleyes:

Roguewiz
09-13-2007, 09:45 AM
If anything it should be based on your hitpoints per level. Clerics and Rangers roll the same for their level. Bards and Rogues the same for theirs, Wizards and Sorcs the same for theirs.

That works too, but they would have to increase the Barbarian toughness because they are a d12. Perhaps, something like this

Barbarian
6
12
18
24
=60 more hp (10 higher than before)

Fighter/Paladin
5
10
15
20
=50 more hp

Cleric/Ranger
4
8
12
16
=40 more hp

Bard/Rogue
3
6
9
12
=30 more hp

Wizard/Sorcerer
2
4
6
8
=20 more hp

Maldini
09-13-2007, 11:52 AM
Someone certainly never read/watched LotR. I would definitely place Aragorn in the 'tough meat-shield' class instead of the 'superhuman speed and cat-like agility' class. Perhaps you are confusing "elf" for "ranger"?



And someone else has definitely never run with my rogue (or any of the other many rogues and rangers out there who can out-damage and stay alive longer than the majority of those so-called "melee classes").


I've run with more rogues that you shake a stick at. I don't have to run with someone's character who thinks they're stronger than any other rogue in the history of the game. I've run with uber damage rogues before. They're damage is situational because they have to not have aggro. They have to leave aggro in the hands of the Primary melee who can maintain higher DR's and higher AC's, then the rogue.

Oswald_Gobblesnot
09-13-2007, 03:17 PM
Never mind everyone just make dwarf rangers, problem solved.:rolleyes:

I was about to say the same thing. If you're so worried about hit points, make a dwarven ranger. You'll get +2 CON base and access to Dwarven Toughness. Need more hit points, you can take Dwarven Constitution for another +2 CON. Overall you're getting at level 14 another 28 hp just from the constitution boosts. If you take the toughness feat and enhancement line you get another 66 hit points at level 14 (I think).

I'm sure that the ones that are really raising a stink about this are playing elven rangers. They're the ones most affected by the -2 CON. When you compare them to the dwarf, they're actually four points lower since dwarves get +2 added to their base con score. Total difference with the same starting base con means the elf has 56 fewer hit points at level 14. It's a balance or choice, do you want higher hit points or a higher dexterity which usually translates into higher AC and attack scores. The dwarf can soak more damage, but the elf may not get hit as much, though I think most of know that unless your AC is insanely high, mobs tend to hit you at will on elite. You may want it all, but sadly you can't have everything you want.

Elthbert
09-13-2007, 03:46 PM
I'm pretty sure nobody ever took Tougness in PnP unless they were using it to qualify for a PrC. It granted all of 3 HP.

No I had a player in my campain just recently--- shocked me to know end, but he wanted his bard to have 11 Hp at first level so he took it. Still that was the first time I had ever seen anyone do it.

Lifespawn
09-13-2007, 04:01 PM
except dwarfs won't have lower ac or hit as they can take the axe enhancments for to hit and damage and dwarven armor mastery to add more dex bonus to things like the kds.

Dwarfs for the win on any class just asking for a Full bab class access to toughness if they take the feat.

Seneca_Windforge
09-13-2007, 04:35 PM
I was about to say the same thing. If you're so worried about hit points, make a dwarven ranger. You'll get +2 CON base and access to Dwarven Toughness. Need more hit points, you can take Dwarven Constitution for another +2 CON. Overall you're getting at level 14 another 28 hp just from the constitution boosts. If you take the toughness feat and enhancement line you get another 66 hit points at level 14 (I think).

I'm sure that the ones that are really raising a stink about this are playing elven rangers. They're the ones most affected by the -2 CON. When you compare them to the dwarf, they're actually four points lower since dwarves get +2 added to their base con score. Total difference with the same starting base con means the elf has 56 fewer hit points at level 14. It's a balance or choice, do you want higher hit points or a higher dexterity which usually translates into higher AC and attack scores. The dwarf can soak more damage, but the elf may not get hit as much, though I think most of know that unless your AC is insanely high, mobs tend to hit you at will on elite. You may want it all, but sadly you can't have everything you want.

You've pointed out the primary reason why I think that everyone who has Toughness should have the same Toughness enhancement.

Dwarves should have an advantage in the hit point department, but between their Con bonus and their access to racial toughness enhancements, it is literally night and day if you aren't a Paladin/Fighter/Barbarian. My dwarven strength rogue, when compared to a friend's (12 base Con I think) elven rogue (level 9) had DOUBLE the hit points -- 70-ish as compared to 140-ish, and I now have even more from the third level Toughness enhancement! Just because you aren't a Dwarf doesn't mean that you should have a pitiful hit point total. The gap between Dwarves (or Warforged, I guess) and everyone else is way too big.

I'd like it if it were possible to play a non-dwarven ranger/rogue/bard/cleric that wasn't a relative wimp in the hit point department.

Symar-FangofLloth
09-13-2007, 04:46 PM
I'm of the opinion that dwarven toughness should be a nice thing for dwarven multiclassers to have, like how human versatility is nice if you're a multiclassed rogue and can't get your rogue skill boost maxed.
Therefore, dwarven toughness should not stack with class toughness.
Yes, it means dwarves of classes that don't normally get the toughness line will have it, but it'll lower the gap in then melee department.

QuantumFX
09-14-2007, 01:24 AM
Just some food for thought - Humans and warforged don't have racial toughness enhancements because they have enhancement chains to be healed more efficently by clerics. (Yes I understand WF'ed are making up for a deficit but they also have multiple sources of healing.)


I'm of the opinion that dwarven toughness should be a nice thing for dwarven multiclassers to have, like how human versatility is nice if you're a multiclassed rogue and can't get your rogue skill boost maxed.
Therefore, dwarven toughness should not stack with class toughness.

Unless there is a major change in Mod 5 to how HV scales you can get a benefit from maxing out a class action boost chain and HV. Currently <Class> Extra Action boost adds to the pool of HV uses as well. Also the saves/ac bonus will stack with uncanny dodge. So there is synergy it just isn't as prevalant as it is with dwarves.

Dingo123
09-14-2007, 01:26 AM
Just some food for thought - Humans and warforged don't have racial toughness enhancements because they have enhancement chains to be healed more efficently by clerics. (Yes I understand WF'ed are making up for a deficit but they also have multiple sources of healing.)

Tell us who your source is? You know, the Developer telling you how they balance the enhancements... rather than just say, pulling it out of your ass and acting like it's fact?

Maldini
09-14-2007, 01:42 AM
Actually I didn't even think about it, but rangers do get toughness enhancements...if they're a dwarf.

There's your equalizer. A Dwarf Ranger can get the same benfit of a Human/Halfling/Drow/Elf/Warforged Fighter/Barbarian/Paladin.

lostinjapan
09-14-2007, 01:52 AM
I've run with more rogues that you shake a stick at. I don't have to run with someone's character who thinks they're stronger than any other rogue in the history of the game. I've run with uber damage rogues before. They're damage is situational because they have to not have aggro. They have to leave aggro in the hands of the Primary melee who can maintain higher DR's and higher AC's, then the rogue.

I never said my rogue was "stronger than any other rogue in the history of the game." I said you had never run with my rogue before or any other rogue or ranger (mc or pure) who could out-perform most so-called 'melee tanks' in both damage output and damage resistance.

You avoid twisting my words and I promise to avoid trying to teach you anything new.

Aeyr
09-14-2007, 09:29 AM
As a big fan of Rangers, I was always saddened by how DDO, and arguably WoTC began "softening" the Ranger into its current role. I've always been more of an Aragorn fan than a Legolas fan, and as such prefer the more STR-based (or arguably balanced) Ranger builds, but Rangers nowadays seem to be largely encouraged to go the Drizzt or Legolas route and be ultra quick and dexterous, but fairly soft and fragile in comparison with the "tanks". This is almost as if the developers really saw and implemented Rangers as more of a Rogue with slightly better aim and some survival skills, but with none of the rogue's sneak attack dps bonuses.

As for HPs, the d8 thing (3+ ed) suggests that Rangers were changed to not handle as much punishment as the tanks. This online game exacerbates the issue by applying additional toughness enhancements that can further widen the gap between rangers and tanks on average. This is very clearly a deliberate action on the part of the developers, and though I'd support Rangers being not pushed further away from their old fighterish role and into their new "less tough" role, I sincerely doubt the developers will alter their perception of how Rangers should be and so expect them not to give them any toughness bonuses as it would conflict with their apparent philosophy on the class. I'm not saying its wrong, just defined too specifically and restrictively for my own taste.

In summary, I'd vote for giving Rangers the same toughness options as other tanks, but I don't expect that to happen. Sadly imo, 4th edition will probably continue the trend with Rangers getting even less tough, but I think their attack prowess will stay strong.

Jaysensen
09-14-2007, 12:26 PM
Any of you who think Rangers cant "tank" are sorely misinformed.

Maldini
09-14-2007, 12:29 PM
I never said my rogue was "stronger than any other rogue in the history of the game." I said you had never run with my rogue before or any other rogue or ranger (mc or pure) who could out-perform most so-called 'melee tanks' in both damage output and damage resistance.

You avoid twisting my words and I promise to avoid trying to teach you anything new.


I've run with extreme damage rogues that still couldn't keep aggro from me or that had the DR of my barb, so I'm still not getting your point.

llevenbaxx
09-14-2007, 12:47 PM
I'm of the opinion that dwarven toughness should be a nice thing for dwarven multiclassers to have, like how human versatility is nice if you're a multiclassed rogue and can't get your rogue skill boost maxed.
Therefore, dwarven toughness should not stack with class toughness.
Yes, it means dwarves of classes that don't normally get the toughness line will have it, but it'll lower the gap in then melee department.

Agree with this 100%

Though they would also have to start looking at things like energy of the zealot and dwarven faith and same for elven arcanum.

I guess it just stands out on dwarves more because they have so many strong enhancement lines that are generally more helpful for any build compared to the other races.

QuantumFX
09-14-2007, 12:49 PM
Tell us who your source is? You know, the Developer telling you how they balance the enhancements... rather than just say, pulling it out of your ass and acting like it's fact?

Um.. Dingo I don't know what your problem is but you can stop with the childish comments right now.

My source for the Human: Improved Recovery and Warforged: Healer's Friend enhancements is the compendium that you can find on the DDO.com front page. The enhancement developer has already overstated the power of Human Improved Recovery in the forums. I'm quoting from memory here "It effectively turns everyone else into warforged". This suggests that the devs consider it balanced out because Humans and Warforged have enhancements that allow them to be healed more efficently.

Olaff
09-20-2007, 10:26 AM
/shrug

Anyone who thinks Rangers can't be frontline meleers has only run with sub-par or Dex-based Rangers - you know, the Legolas model.

Try finding an Aragorn model Ranger - and a non-Dwarf one at that. You'll be surprised at how capable they (we) are.

Roguewiz
09-20-2007, 10:31 AM
/shrug

Anyone who thinks Rangers can't be frontline meleers has only run with sub-par or Dex-based Rangers - you know, the Legolas model.

Try finding an Aragorn model Ranger - and a non-Dwarf one at that. You'll be surprised at how capable they (we) are.

Rangers as a class can tank just fine.

Players who build Rangers can't tank because most of them don't build for it.