Alternate Ranger Combat Style [Archive] - Wizards Community

Alternate Ranger Combat Style [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
deganawida
03-15-04, 07:47 PM Now, let me preface this by saying that although I believe that the 3.5 Ranger is a step in the right direction, I feel that it makes the Ranger too much like a Rogue, and not enough of a warrior. However, it is fairly easy to alter without becoming unbalanced, in order to give the flavor that I, at least, seek when I play a Ranger. To that end, I have developed the Rapid Strike Ranger Combat Style. When developing this style, I took an objective look at what the two official styles give the Ranger, and what special abilities other warrior classes have. By doing so, I reached two conclusions. First, I discovered that the common factor in the two official styles is that both grant extra attacks to a Ranger under certain circumstances. This is consistent with the 3.5 conception of the Ranger, which is lightly armored and not as tough as the other warrior classes. As a result, a Ranger would need to strike more swiftly than other warriors, so that his foe would fall before having a chance to do massive damage to the Ranger. Second, I noticed that each of the other warrior classes has its own unique method of doing more damage in combat; the Fighter has WS and GWS, the Barbarian has Rage, and the Paladin has Smite Evil. Thus, I concluded that a Ranger's combat style should be something slightly unique to a Ranger, in that it is not something that other classes should be able to pick up with a couple of feats; the benefit of this is that it differentiates the Ranger from other melee classes, helping to define their role with in the world. From these discoveries, I developed this Combat Style, which is influenced strongly by the Monk's Flurry of Blows ability.

Rapid Strike Combat Style

Lvl 2: Rapid Strike
When wielding a single light, one-handed, or two-handed melee weapon and when wearing light or no armor, a Ranger may make an additional attack at his highest Base Attack Bonus, but that attack and all other attacks suffer a -2 penalty.

Lvl 6: Improved Rapid Strike
In addition to the standard extra attack you get for using Rapid Strike, you may make a second additional attack at a -5 penalty.

Lvl 11: Greater Rapid Strike
You may take a third additional attack with your weapon when using Rapid Strike, albeit at a -10 penalty.

Thus, an 11th level Ranger who chose the Rapid Strike style can make a total of 6 attacks, with the following bonuses:
+9
+9
+4
+4
-1
-1

This leaves it relatively balanced with TWF and the Archery style.

Thoughts?
Jaerom Darkwind
03-15-04, 10:01 PM I'd drop the third attack, make the GCS a second attack, and make the ICS something else. Remember that the difference between this and two-weapon fighters is that off-handed attacks take a penalty to damage, and require you to enchant two weapons. I'd say the ICS should be either Quick Draw or a second attack during Standard actions. The second option is the one I give my rangers when they choose this style, and it's worked well.
Tony Vargas
03-15-04, 10:39 PM If useable with two-handed weapons, this'd just be sick - combining the advantages of TWF (extra attacks) and THF (high damage from weapon damage dice, STR & power attack).

I'd switch it to: when using a light or one-handed weapon in one hand, leaving the other hand free...

or something like that.
deganawida
03-15-04, 10:52 PM Removing two-handed weapons might be a possibility. However, I included it as some spears (which are traditionally associated with Rangers) are two-handed, and this would still allow quarterstaff-wielding fans to compete with TWF Rangers. Also, bastard sword users could use the weapon either way and gain the advantage of flexibility. I am open to the possibilty of removing it, however; I would just like some more detailed reasons for doing so.
Tony Vargas
03-15-04, 11:05 PM Mainly the balance issue: a ranger being able to get 1.5x STR bonus and 2-for-1 Power attack damage with extra attacks comparable to those from TWF, with a greatsword, being the obvious example. Even if, for example. you disallowed PA, and the 1.5xSTR bonus, it'd still be decidedly superior to TWF (with the reduced STR bonus on the secondary attacks, and the lower damage dice compared to a two-hander) - which, I don't think is what you have in mind, since you're trying to further differentiate the ranger, rather than just beef it up.

If you wanted to restrict it to a tight group of 'rangery' weapons - longsword, hand axe, spear, etc - that might work better. Though, any weapon you could use two-handed could allow for some pretty massive damage-multiplication effects: (1.5x STR + PA) * Extra Attacks.

And, that could be on top of the Ranger's FEB.

Another possibility might be to allow a ranger to treat regular weapons as if they were double weapons with the ability - that is, the extra attacks from the 'rapid strike' are delivered in an unconventional way - such as with the haft of a spear or pommel of the sword. Such attacks could be limmitted to relatively low damage 1d6 20/x2 bludgeoning, for instance (with no possibility of enchantments), take the usual reduced STR bonus, and not be eligible for power attack. If done with a THW, the STR bonus on the regular attacks could also be reduced to x1 and/or be inelligable for PA. This would give the ranger an ability very close to TWF (slightly superior, because of the potentially higher damage die from the primary weapon, slightly inferior, because the 'unconvential use' clause precludes enchanting the weapon for such use), that would synergize well with his FEB, and give him a different flavor or style from a TWF rogue or fighter.
deganawida
03-15-04, 11:20 PM Hmm, I see what you mean. I did not anticipate using PA with RS, as the tightly controlled movements that I associated with Rapid Strike would have precluded Power Attack (which sacrifices accuracy for damage). I do like your suggestion about using the hilt for attacks (very much like the Justicar, and very much like actual European sword techniques), though I am not sure if by not allowing the extra attack to have enchantments you mean that it cannot overcome DR (essentially not having a single plus). What if I were to remove weapons that can only be wielded two-handed, but were to allow weapons that can be wielded either in one hand or two (which, though they typically do more damage than one-handed weapons, also do less damage than two-handed weapons)? In other words, would it be unbalancing to allow it for a bastard sword in whatever manner the character wields it, but not allow it for a greatsword or falchion?
Tony Vargas
03-15-04, 11:25 PM Flavor text for the above idea:

Rangers most often opperate alone, unsupported, against unexpected, difficult odds, becoming masters of improvisation and desperate gambits. Many rangers develop an unorthodox combat style in response to the vaugeries of thier chosen proffesion, learning to lash out with improvised weapons, use thier chosen weapons in unexpected and unconventional ways, and even take advantage of momentary openings with sudden unarmed strikes.

elaborating on the mechanics of the idea:

A ranger choosing this fighting style can make an extra unconventional attack each round, at a -4 penalty to his attack roll (his regular attacks that round, suffer a -2 penalty). At 6th and 11th level, the Ranger gains the ability to make itterative unconventional attacks, as well. The unconventional attack can be combined with the use of a weapon and shield, or a single weapon - be it light, one-handed, or two-handed. It cannot be combined with Two-Weapon Fighting, nor with a Flurry of Blows (should the Ranger have Monk levels). The unconventional attack recieves half the Ranger's STR bonus. The ranger's regular attacks recieve his full STR bonus (even if delivered with a weapon used in two hands). The ranger cannot use the Power Attack feat on a round he makes unconventional attacks.

The ranger's unconventional attacks can be delivered with an improvised weapon (if he has a hand free), an unarmed strike (even if the ranger does not have IUS), or with whatever weapon the ranger is holding, just used in an unconventional way (such thrusting with a greatsword or bludgeoning with the haft of a spear). The unconventional attack delivers d3 20/x2 lethal bludgeoning damage if it is made unarmed (with or without IUS - a Ranger/Monk still only does a d3, since the attack must be unconventional, not a normal monkish unarmed strike), d4 or d6 20/x2 damage (of a type determined by the DM) if made with an improvised weapon, or half the damage die of the weapon the ranger is using unconventionally (crit still 20/x2, damage type determined by the DM). An unconventional attack never recieves enhancement or weapon enchantement bonuses to attack or damage (though it can bypass DR based on the material or enchantement of the weapon being used) - any use for which a weapon is enchanted is considered a 'conventional' use of that weapon.
Tony Vargas
03-15-04, 11:29 PM Originally posted by deganawida
though I am not sure if by not allowing the extra attack to have enchantments you mean that it cannot overcome DR (essentially not having a single plus).

What I had in mind was not recieving extra damage from elemental, bane and similar enchantments. I elaborated on the idea considerably, above - I started out to just sort of give it some flavor, but some mechanics ideas occured to me, check it out if you want.

What if I were to remove weapons that can only be wielded two-handed, but were to allow weapons that can be wielded either in one hand or two (which, though they typically do more damage than one-handed weapons, also do less damage than two-handed weapons)? In other words, would it be unbalancing to allow it for a bastard sword in whatever manner the character wields it, but not allow it for a greatsword or falchion?

That could work, it'd be similar to getting a EWP: bastard sword, for instance, for 'free' in a limitted sense. The thing to watch out for is extra damage from too many sources multiplied by an increased number of attacks/round. Rangers can do rather a lot of bonus damage with each attack from FEB, adding in high damage dice, STR bonuses, power attack, elemental/aligned/bane enchantments, or whatever, could become problematic.
deganawida
03-16-04, 12:45 AM Originally posted by Tony Vargas
Flavor text for the above idea...

I like it. Might have to use that in conjunction with the Rapid Strike.

Oh, about my idea to allow bastards swords with Rapid Strike, it would still require the EWP for bastard swords. It would just allow someone who has the proficiency the ability to use it rapidly.
Tony Vargas
03-16-04, 03:15 AM What I meant was it (being able to get in an extra attack with a bastard sword) would be comparable to having TWF and EWP: B.Sword... only, possibly better depending on exactly how you have it work...

...

Oh, maybe I missed this earlier, but are you thinking of replacing the ranger's combat style with this, replacing the TWF option but keeping archery, or adding it as a third option for the Ranger's combat style. I actually like the last option - adding another option means players who like TWF rangers can still go that way, archer-rangers remain a possibility, and you can have these new more warrior rangers. It also helps with the idea that it should be comparable in power to ranger-TWF or ranger-Archery, rather than any sort of power-up.
deganawida
03-16-04, 09:25 AM Ah, I see. That's pretty much the point. The other two styles give the advantage of extra attacks, and I wanted to develop a style that did the same for Rangers who don't like TWF or Archery but still needed to attack quickly and more often due to their lack of good armor and relatively low HP. I intended it to be a third style, rather than a replacement. That way there is room for TWF and Archer Rangers, and room for a bit more traditional Ranger (pre-2e).
SmiloDan
03-16-04, 09:43 AM Second, I noticed that each of the other warrior classes has its own unique method of doing more damage in combat; the Fighter has WS and GWS, the Barbarian has Rage, and the Paladin has Smite Evil.

The ranger does have a way to do this. It's the Favored Enemy bonuses. In certain campaigns, it is far superior to weapon specialization, since it applies to all weapons, and is available at 1st level. It is better than Rage and Smite, since it is usable all the time. All the ranger has to do seek out his favored enemy. If the campaign features the ranger's favored enemy, he will me much more effective, on a blow to blow basis, than the other melee classes.
deganawida
03-16-04, 10:13 AM True, but the introduction of combat styles relegated FEB to a second-tier status. The choice which now most affects how a Ranger develops is his choice of combat style, not his choice of FE. I would actually like to see FE become "the Ranger's rage", with the Ranger just getting some bonus feats, but with WotC's desire to placate Drizzt and Robin Hood fans, the combat style has become paramount in importance when dealing with the Ranger.
SmiloDan
03-16-04, 10:19 AM I find the 3.5 favored enemy bonuses a lot more useful now. It's double 3.0!
deganawida
03-16-04, 11:18 AM Originally posted by SmiloDan
I find the 3.5 favored enemy bonuses a lot more useful now. It's double 3.0!

True, but it is still less important than the combat style. One does not fight every enemy the same way one fight's one's first favored enemy, but when one is relegated to a particular combat style, one while use said style in virtually every fight. As a result, the combat style has been elevated above the FE as far as special Ranger combat abilities go.
Tony Vargas
03-16-04, 12:20 PM The FEB does synergize with the combat styles, though. Both the TWF and the Archery styles (and, for that matter, any Rapid Strike or 'Unconventional' style one might want to add ;) ) grant extra attacks. Extra attacks are most potent when you have damage bonuses that can aply to each attack - like FEB.

So, while the choice of style does strongly affect whether the ranger is a melee type or a ranged type, it still enhances his effectiveness against Favored Enemies.

I suppose you could introduce a Combat Style that gave the ranger extra attacks against his favored enemy, only (but in any form of combat) - but that would make his effectiveness even more situational than it already is.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
deganawida 03-15-04, 07:47 PM	Now, let me preface this by saying that although I believe that the 3.5 Ranger is a step in the right direction, I feel that it makes the Ranger too much like a Rogue, and not enough of a warrior. However, it is fairly easy to alter without becoming unbalanced, in order to give the flavor that I, at least, seek when I play a Ranger. To that end, I have developed the Rapid Strike Ranger Combat Style. When developing this style, I took an objective look at what the two official styles give the Ranger, and what special abilities other warrior classes have. By doing so, I reached two conclusions. First, I discovered that the common factor in the two official styles is that both grant extra attacks to a Ranger under certain circumstances. This is consistent with the 3.5 conception of the Ranger, which is lightly armored and not as tough as the other warrior classes. As a result, a Ranger would need to strike more swiftly than other warriors, so that his foe would fall before having a chance to do massive damage to the Ranger. Second, I noticed that each of the other warrior classes has its own unique method of doing more damage in combat; the Fighter has WS and GWS, the Barbarian has Rage, and the Paladin has Smite Evil. Thus, I concluded that a Ranger's combat style should be something slightly unique to a Ranger, in that it is not something that other classes should be able to pick up with a couple of feats; the benefit of this is that it differentiates the Ranger from other melee classes, helping to define their role with in the world. From these discoveries, I developed this Combat Style, which is influenced strongly by the Monk's Flurry of Blows ability. Rapid Strike Combat Style Lvl 2: Rapid Strike When wielding a single light, one-handed, or two-handed melee weapon and when wearing light or no armor, a Ranger may make an additional attack at his highest Base Attack Bonus, but that attack and all other attacks suffer a -2 penalty. Lvl 6: Improved Rapid Strike In addition to the standard extra attack you get for using Rapid Strike, you may make a second additional attack at a -5 penalty. Lvl 11: Greater Rapid Strike You may take a third additional attack with your weapon when using Rapid Strike, albeit at a -10 penalty. Thus, an 11th level Ranger who chose the Rapid Strike style can make a total of 6 attacks, with the following bonuses: +9 +9 +4 +4 -1 -1 This leaves it relatively balanced with TWF and the Archery style. Thoughts?
Jaerom Darkwind 03-15-04, 10:01 PM	I'd drop the third attack, make the GCS a second attack, and make the ICS something else. Remember that the difference between this and two-weapon fighters is that off-handed attacks take a penalty to damage, and require you to enchant two weapons. I'd say the ICS should be either Quick Draw or a second attack during Standard actions. The second option is the one I give my rangers when they choose this style, and it's worked well.
Tony Vargas 03-15-04, 10:39 PM	If useable with two-handed weapons, this'd just be sick - combining the advantages of TWF (extra attacks) and THF (high damage from weapon damage dice, STR & power attack). I'd switch it to: when using a light or one-handed weapon in one hand, leaving the other hand free... or something like that.
deganawida 03-15-04, 10:52 PM	Removing two-handed weapons might be a possibility. However, I included it as some spears (which are traditionally associated with Rangers) are two-handed, and this would still allow quarterstaff-wielding fans to compete with TWF Rangers. Also, bastard sword users could use the weapon either way and gain the advantage of flexibility. I am open to the possibilty of removing it, however; I would just like some more detailed reasons for doing so.
Tony Vargas 03-15-04, 11:05 PM	Mainly the balance issue: a ranger being able to get 1.5x STR bonus and 2-for-1 Power attack damage with extra attacks comparable to those from TWF, with a greatsword, being the obvious example. Even if, for example. you disallowed PA, and the 1.5xSTR bonus, it'd still be decidedly superior to TWF (with the reduced STR bonus on the secondary attacks, and the lower damage dice compared to a two-hander) - which, I don't think is what you have in mind, since you're trying to further differentiate the ranger, rather than just beef it up. If you wanted to restrict it to a tight group of 'rangery' weapons - longsword, hand axe, spear, etc - that might work better. Though, any weapon you could use two-handed could allow for some pretty massive damage-multiplication effects: (1.5x STR + PA) * Extra Attacks. And, that could be on top of the Ranger's FEB. Another possibility might be to allow a ranger to treat regular weapons as if they were double weapons with the ability - that is, the extra attacks from the 'rapid strike' are delivered in an unconventional way - such as with the haft of a spear or pommel of the sword. Such attacks could be limmitted to relatively low damage 1d6 20/x2 bludgeoning, for instance (with no possibility of enchantments), take the usual reduced STR bonus, and not be eligible for power attack. If done with a THW, the STR bonus on the regular attacks could also be reduced to x1 and/or be inelligable for PA. This would give the ranger an ability very close to TWF (slightly superior, because of the potentially higher damage die from the primary weapon, slightly inferior, because the 'unconvential use' clause precludes enchanting the weapon for such use), that would synergize well with his FEB, and give him a different flavor or style from a TWF rogue or fighter.
deganawida 03-15-04, 11:20 PM	Hmm, I see what you mean. I did not anticipate using PA with RS, as the tightly controlled movements that I associated with Rapid Strike would have precluded Power Attack (which sacrifices accuracy for damage). I do like your suggestion about using the hilt for attacks (very much like the Justicar, and very much like actual European sword techniques), though I am not sure if by not allowing the extra attack to have enchantments you mean that it cannot overcome DR (essentially not having a single plus). What if I were to remove weapons that can only be wielded two-handed, but were to allow weapons that can be wielded either in one hand or two (which, though they typically do more damage than one-handed weapons, also do less damage than two-handed weapons)? In other words, would it be unbalancing to allow it for a bastard sword in whatever manner the character wields it, but not allow it for a greatsword or falchion?
Tony Vargas 03-15-04, 11:25 PM	Flavor text for the above idea: Rangers most often opperate alone, unsupported, against unexpected, difficult odds, becoming masters of improvisation and desperate gambits. Many rangers develop an unorthodox combat style in response to the vaugeries of thier chosen proffesion, learning to lash out with improvised weapons, use thier chosen weapons in unexpected and unconventional ways, and even take advantage of momentary openings with sudden unarmed strikes. elaborating on the mechanics of the idea: A ranger choosing this fighting style can make an extra unconventional attack each round, at a -4 penalty to his attack roll (his regular attacks that round, suffer a -2 penalty). At 6th and 11th level, the Ranger gains the ability to make itterative unconventional attacks, as well. The unconventional attack can be combined with the use of a weapon and shield, or a single weapon - be it light, one-handed, or two-handed. It cannot be combined with Two-Weapon Fighting, nor with a Flurry of Blows (should the Ranger have Monk levels). The unconventional attack recieves half the Ranger's STR bonus. The ranger's regular attacks recieve his full STR bonus (even if delivered with a weapon used in two hands). The ranger cannot use the Power Attack feat on a round he makes unconventional attacks. The ranger's unconventional attacks can be delivered with an improvised weapon (if he has a hand free), an unarmed strike (even if the ranger does not have IUS), or with whatever weapon the ranger is holding, just used in an unconventional way (such thrusting with a greatsword or bludgeoning with the haft of a spear). The unconventional attack delivers d3 20/x2 lethal bludgeoning damage if it is made unarmed (with or without IUS - a Ranger/Monk still only does a d3, since the attack must be unconventional, not a normal monkish unarmed strike), d4 or d6 20/x2 damage (of a type determined by the DM) if made with an improvised weapon, or half the damage die of the weapon the ranger is using unconventionally (crit still 20/x2, damage type determined by the DM). An unconventional attack never recieves enhancement or weapon enchantement bonuses to attack or damage (though it can bypass DR based on the material or enchantement of the weapon being used) - any use for which a weapon is enchanted is considered a 'conventional' use of that weapon.
Tony Vargas 03-15-04, 11:29 PM	Originally posted by deganawida though I am not sure if by not allowing the extra attack to have enchantments you mean that it cannot overcome DR (essentially not having a single plus). What I had in mind was not recieving extra damage from elemental, bane and similar enchantments. I elaborated on the idea considerably, above - I started out to just sort of give it some flavor, but some mechanics ideas occured to me, check it out if you want. What if I were to remove weapons that can only be wielded two-handed, but were to allow weapons that can be wielded either in one hand or two (which, though they typically do more damage than one-handed weapons, also do less damage than two-handed weapons)? In other words, would it be unbalancing to allow it for a bastard sword in whatever manner the character wields it, but not allow it for a greatsword or falchion? That could work, it'd be similar to getting a EWP: bastard sword, for instance, for 'free' in a limitted sense. The thing to watch out for is extra damage from too many sources multiplied by an increased number of attacks/round. Rangers can do rather a lot of bonus damage with each attack from FEB, adding in high damage dice, STR bonuses, power attack, elemental/aligned/bane enchantments, or whatever, could become problematic.
deganawida 03-16-04, 12:45 AM	Originally posted by Tony Vargas Flavor text for the above idea... I like it. Might have to use that in conjunction with the Rapid Strike. Oh, about my idea to allow bastards swords with Rapid Strike, it would still require the EWP for bastard swords. It would just allow someone who has the proficiency the ability to use it rapidly.
Tony Vargas 03-16-04, 03:15 AM	What I meant was it (being able to get in an extra attack with a bastard sword) would be comparable to having TWF and EWP: B.Sword... only, possibly better depending on exactly how you have it work... ... Oh, maybe I missed this earlier, but are you thinking of replacing the ranger's combat style with this, replacing the TWF option but keeping archery, or adding it as a third option for the Ranger's combat style. I actually like the last option - adding another option means players who like TWF rangers can still go that way, archer-rangers remain a possibility, and you can have these new more warrior rangers. It also helps with the idea that it should be comparable in power to ranger-TWF or ranger-Archery, rather than any sort of power-up.
deganawida 03-16-04, 09:25 AM	Ah, I see. That's pretty much the point. The other two styles give the advantage of extra attacks, and I wanted to develop a style that did the same for Rangers who don't like TWF or Archery but still needed to attack quickly and more often due to their lack of good armor and relatively low HP. I intended it to be a third style, rather than a replacement. That way there is room for TWF and Archer Rangers, and room for a bit more traditional Ranger (pre-2e).
SmiloDan 03-16-04, 09:43 AM	Second, I noticed that each of the other warrior classes has its own unique method of doing more damage in combat; the Fighter has WS and GWS, the Barbarian has Rage, and the Paladin has Smite Evil. The ranger does have a way to do this. It's the Favored Enemy bonuses. In certain campaigns, it is far superior to weapon specialization, since it applies to all weapons, and is available at 1st level. It is better than Rage and Smite, since it is usable all the time. All the ranger has to do seek out his favored enemy. If the campaign features the ranger's favored enemy, he will me much more effective, on a blow to blow basis, than the other melee classes.
deganawida 03-16-04, 10:13 AM	True, but the introduction of combat styles relegated FEB to a second-tier status. The choice which now most affects how a Ranger develops is his choice of combat style, not his choice of FE. I would actually like to see FE become "the Ranger's rage", with the Ranger just getting some bonus feats, but with WotC's desire to placate Drizzt and Robin Hood fans, the combat style has become paramount in importance when dealing with the Ranger.
SmiloDan 03-16-04, 10:19 AM	I find the 3.5 favored enemy bonuses a lot more useful now. It's double 3.0!
deganawida 03-16-04, 11:18 AM	Originally posted by SmiloDan I find the 3.5 favored enemy bonuses a lot more useful now. It's double 3.0! True, but it is still less important than the combat style. One does not fight every enemy the same way one fight's one's first favored enemy, but when one is relegated to a particular combat style, one while use said style in virtually every fight. As a result, the combat style has been elevated above the FE as far as special Ranger combat abilities go.
Tony Vargas 03-16-04, 12:20 PM	The FEB does synergize with the combat styles, though. Both the TWF and the Archery styles (and, for that matter, any Rapid Strike or 'Unconventional' style one might want to add ;) ) grant extra attacks. Extra attacks are most potent when you have damage bonuses that can aply to each attack - like FEB. So, while the choice of style does strongly affect whether the ranger is a melee type or a ranged type, it still enhances his effectiveness against Favored Enemies. I suppose you could introduce a Combat Style that gave the ranger extra attacks against his favored enemy, only (but in any form of combat) - but that would make his effectiveness even more situational than it already is.