Who makes a better Ranger? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Who makes a better Ranger? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
pghgamer
05-24-07, 03:48 PM Elf or Human? Why?
Silverthumb128
05-24-07, 03:58 PM Humans, for the feat and skill. Elves are ok, but the +2 Dex isn't everything. The -2 Con hurts a bit more, IMO. And the racial weapon proficiency is completely unnecessary since Ranger gets free MWP.
Dyrcona
05-24-07, 04:04 PM Humans, for the feat and skill. Elves are ok, but the +2 Dex isn't everything. The -2 Con hurts a bit more, IMO. And the racial weapon proficiency is completely unnecessary since Ranger gets free MWP.

Seconded.
BW0222
05-24-07, 04:40 PM pghgamer,

Who makes a better Ranger?

Elf or Human? Why?

The better player would always win.

Personally, I think they are pretty close. IMO, the elven ranger would likely make the better archer and the human the better TWF.

Rangers need fairly flat scores, about the only thing you can short change is perhaps charisma. Using a 28-point buy, you get S 12, D 16, C 14, I 10, W 14, and Ch 8 for say ranged or S 16, D 14, D 12, I 10, W 14, Ch 8 for a TWF build.

The elf is certainly a better archer -- dex really counts, and possibly a weapon finese-type TWF. Personally, I dislike rangers as melee combatants because their flat scores don't work well. Trying to gain a decent str, dex, con, int, and wis is mighty hard. Few folks want to short-change any of these. A higher dex on the archer also equates to a better hide and move silently. I also like the low-light and racial spot and listen bonuses.

For TWF, I would tend to go human. It make it easier to justify a higher strength when you don't need dex points for con and int (since you get bonus skill points anyway). The bonus feat is almost necessary to get dodge, toughness, weapon focus, or something to help you out in melee.

Humans also have any favored class, so it allows dipping into a level of fighter, rogue, or barbarian for their bonuses without an XP hit. Useful for p-classes or in the case of melee rangers which might need some help.

pghgamer,

>Humans, for the feat and skill. Elves are ok, but the +2 Dex isn't everything.
>The -2 Con hurts a bit more, IMO.

Dex is pretty important and any +/- bonuses are big. If you are using a point-buy, the difference in a human archer buying a 16 strength vs. an elf, is equal to the elf adding +2 to con and +2 to int (both assuming in the 8 to 14 range). For getting an 18 dex, an elf could raise three other (mid-range) scores by 2. This tends to make up for the elves lower-con and the human's bonus skill points (since the elf can have the same dex and con as a human archer, and likely enough points to purchase a higher intelligence).

In melee, since the ranger won't likely be able to afford a high dex anyway and a reasonable con is now important, IMO, the elven scores aren't worth it -- except in a finese build, which I don't like due to their low damage. i.e. it costs so much for either to buy a S 16, that dex and con are likely to be within the 12 to 14 range anyway. The elf can just buy more con with dex and the scores turn out the same. However, the human has those extra skill points and the elf (now not having those extra point-buy points saved on a high dex buy) won't get a higher int also.

That tends to leave the bonus feat vs. all the other elven bonuses. The low-light, spot and listen bonuses, immunity to sleep, bonuses vs. enchantments, etc. are all, IMO, pretty minor. I'd want the extra feat in melee. I'd accept not having it for ranged -- where a higher dex build would likely lead to stealth anyway.

>And the racial weapon proficiency is completely unnecessary since Ranger
>gets free MWP.

Agreed. Just exclude them.
AMGriffin
05-24-07, 04:56 PM High Elf and Human?

The Human is overall going to be a more well-rounded ranger with the feat and sklil points and ability to have good CON and DEX scores, but a ranger heavily focused on archery would be better off as an elf I guess.
pghgamer
05-24-07, 05:04 PM But wouldn't the added Feat of a Human Ranger be better for an Archer because you can 1stly get Point Blank, then with bonus buy get Precise Shot?
SilverFoxKnows
05-24-07, 05:13 PM One con the human has, that nobody has mentioned, is vision. Low light vision is a good thing. Something to keep in mind.

P.S. Ooops, BWO222 did mention low light vision.
AMGriffin
05-24-07, 05:58 PM Low-light vision isn't HUGE though. It's nice, but not exceedingly useful.

But wouldn't the added Feat of a Human Ranger be better for an Archer because you can 1stly get Point Blank, then with bonus buy get Precise Shot?

It's nice, but I'd rather have a higher overall attack bonus and wait a few levels to get precise shot.
Silverthumb128
05-24-07, 06:02 PM It's nice, but I'd rather have a higher overall attack bonus and wait a few levels to get precise shot.

True, but you could just as easily spend the Human feat on Weapon Focus.
Jaxgaret
05-24-07, 06:09 PM If Races of the Wild is allowed in the campaign, Human vs. PHB Elf is just about even. The Elven Ranger racial substitution levels in RotW are excellent.

And, of course, any of the swiss army knife of Elven races can bring the equation over to the Elves' favor.

Core (and no MM PC races allowed), Human gets the nod.
AMGriffin
05-24-07, 06:14 PM True, but you could just as easily spend the Human feat on Weapon Focus.

And waste my feat? No thank you.
Silverthumb128
05-24-07, 06:17 PM And waste my feat? No thank you.

Or play an Elf and don't get the feat at all.
SilverFoxKnows
05-24-07, 06:37 PM Low-light vision isn't HUGE though. It's nice, but not exceedingly useful.

Vision has played a large part in our campaings. In order for our human Fighter to see we have to give away our location, more than once. With our DM, low light and darkviison might be worth a feat. YMMV
MikeN
05-24-07, 09:55 PM Human. If using subraces and doing a very specific build, sometimes Wood Elf, but on the whole, Human is tougher, has one more feat, and better skills...
El_Machinae
05-25-07, 07:18 AM Later on, your animal companion can substitute the low-light vision. It will never be as good as having it yourself, but the human DID get the feat and skills to compensate already.
boogyman
05-25-07, 10:47 AM wild elves/wood elves. they're pretty good because they get a dex or str bonus respectively without a con penalty. for that matter wood elves are better than half orcs. +2 str, -2 int and thats it. broken?
Treymordin
05-25-07, 12:18 PM Kender!
Peregrine_Wolf
05-25-07, 01:19 PM If you have access to Races of the Wild, Elf wins. Elf Ranger substitution levels rock. If not, go with human.
Nifft
05-25-07, 01:22 PM Elves see twice as far in low-light conditions. That's nice for an archer.

Elves auto-Search for secret doors. Rangers don't have Trapfinding, so that's all he can reasonably search for anyway.

On the other hand, having two feats at 1st level is very nice. Rangers have the skill list to exploit extra skill points, and they don't otherwise benefit much from Intelligence, so the Human bonus is very useful there, too.

I'd say it's a tie. :)

-- N
The_Shaman
05-25-07, 06:14 PM I would vote for wood elf with the 1st substitution level from RotW - or even without it. The human isn't much worse, as the feat, skills, and extra con can help, but hopefully the party can help with the skills, and a ranger isn't supposed to be a "tank" anyway.
snakeman830
05-26-07, 10:39 AM I would personally choose Improved toughness for my human bonus feat :P

I'm in agreement that the elf makes the better archer (though humans don't make bad ones), but the human is better in melee.

Overall, I'd have to say humans make the better rangers because they are better in more situations.
Dictum Mortuum
05-26-07, 12:21 PM i would say that humans are superior to nearly any race printed without level adjustment.

23 bonus skill points and a feat.
also favored class (any)

to good from the optimization side.
Bopple
05-26-07, 12:34 PM Well, even for archer, human is better.
Look. human get one more feat and that 3 lvl ealier.
Now let's look at the archery-related ranger feats.
Weapon Focus
Point Blank Shot
Precise Shot
Improved Precise Shot or Sharp-shooting
Improved Rapid Shot
Greater Manyshot
Woodland Archer
Improved Favored Enemy
Swift Hunter
Improved Skirmish

Most of these feats are better than +2 Dex for an archer.
Or you can take something totally different(like Steadfast Determination).
While low-light vision is cool, it is obtainable with a couple lvls of a PrC or a magic item.
snakeman830
05-27-07, 02:26 PM Low-light vision is also available from a 1st level ranger spell called Low-light vision (such an original name). The spell is in Savage Species.

Note: I do not have Savage species, so if this spell is actually a different level, please correct me. I do know it is a ranger spell, however.
Prominence
05-27-07, 02:46 PM I would say Elf outside of core simply because of the substitution levels and prestige class options.

Wood Elf would be stronger for a Scout/Ranger archer with RotW, but human is comparable so it'd be rough to decide.
Elf would be a stronger TWF with Revenant Blade
+1 skill pt a level might even out Low-light vision and auto-search.
ninjarabbit
05-27-07, 03:27 PM I'll say it's about even.
Nathreet
05-27-07, 04:32 PM Elf is always worse, regardless of the class :P.

Though seriously, that -2 con really hurts. Especially since people tend to play rangers like fighters, when fighters do that job much better. But if you play a ranger really smart, use some stealth, other skills, etc., then elves make better rangers. Especially wood elves.
CygnusDarius
05-27-07, 04:52 PM Bugbears.
archerpwr
05-28-07, 06:46 PM strongheart halfling> human> wood elf> halfling> elf
for archers anyway. Humans and dragonborn wood elves are both really awesome at TWF
Eldariel
05-28-07, 07:12 PM For TWF, Champion of Corellon Larethian for two levels to get the extra Dexterity damage makes having more attacks actually useful, which has to be a point for Elf (since Human doesn't have access to CoCL). The requirements are rather steep and it's a PrC so it's not directly applicable, but still, it's worth consideration.
1DHandful
05-28-07, 08:28 PM CoCL is definitely a balancing point in favor of the Elves, but d8 + a CON penalty for a melee type is, for my play style and that of those I game with, too much of a hurdle to overcome. The other thing about CoCL is, as you hinted at, its feat requirements are such that Fighter 2/Ranger X is a more common preface for the PrC than straight Ranger X, at which point we're discussing which race is a better multiclasser, not Ranger. Oh, BTW, Favored Class: Any (as Dictum Mortuum points out) makes Human a likely winner here, too.
Eldariel
05-29-07, 12:10 AM Mmm, but Wood Elves still have favoured class: Ranger, which is as good for the purposes of this thread as Favoured Class: Any, and replaces the Con penalty with Int penalty. But I digress, the feat is still nice, and yea, I guess PrC essentially doesn't fit the purpose of this thread.
OologahQ
05-29-07, 09:55 AM My opinion has always been that the wood elf is best. Especially now with the elven sub level and using the trapfinding ranger from Dungeonscape. Then you've got more skill points, perception bonuses, dex and strength for archery and better favored enemy against orcs and undead (very common enemies). Sure you're slower getting the archery feats but I still think you're better overall.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
pghgamer 05-24-07, 03:48 PM	Elf or Human? Why?
Silverthumb128 05-24-07, 03:58 PM	Humans, for the feat and skill. Elves are ok, but the +2 Dex isn't everything. The -2 Con hurts a bit more, IMO. And the racial weapon proficiency is completely unnecessary since Ranger gets free MWP.
Dyrcona 05-24-07, 04:04 PM	Humans, for the feat and skill. Elves are ok, but the +2 Dex isn't everything. The -2 Con hurts a bit more, IMO. And the racial weapon proficiency is completely unnecessary since Ranger gets free MWP. Seconded.
BW0222 05-24-07, 04:40 PM	pghgamer, Who makes a better Ranger? Elf or Human? Why? The better player would always win. Personally, I think they are pretty close. IMO, the elven ranger would likely make the better archer and the human the better TWF. Rangers need fairly flat scores, about the only thing you can short change is perhaps charisma. Using a 28-point buy, you get S 12, D 16, C 14, I 10, W 14, and Ch 8 for say ranged or S 16, D 14, D 12, I 10, W 14, Ch 8 for a TWF build. The elf is certainly a better archer -- dex really counts, and possibly a weapon finese-type TWF. Personally, I dislike rangers as melee combatants because their flat scores don't work well. Trying to gain a decent str, dex, con, int, and wis is mighty hard. Few folks want to short-change any of these. A higher dex on the archer also equates to a better hide and move silently. I also like the low-light and racial spot and listen bonuses. For TWF, I would tend to go human. It make it easier to justify a higher strength when you don't need dex points for con and int (since you get bonus skill points anyway). The bonus feat is almost necessary to get dodge, toughness, weapon focus, or something to help you out in melee. Humans also have any favored class, so it allows dipping into a level of fighter, rogue, or barbarian for their bonuses without an XP hit. Useful for p-classes or in the case of melee rangers which might need some help. pghgamer, >Humans, for the feat and skill. Elves are ok, but the +2 Dex isn't everything. >The -2 Con hurts a bit more, IMO. Dex is pretty important and any +/- bonuses are big. If you are using a point-buy, the difference in a human archer buying a 16 strength vs. an elf, is equal to the elf adding +2 to con and +2 to int (both assuming in the 8 to 14 range). For getting an 18 dex, an elf could raise three other (mid-range) scores by 2. This tends to make up for the elves lower-con and the human's bonus skill points (since the elf can have the same dex and con as a human archer, and likely enough points to purchase a higher intelligence). In melee, since the ranger won't likely be able to afford a high dex anyway and a reasonable con is now important, IMO, the elven scores aren't worth it -- except in a finese build, which I don't like due to their low damage. i.e. it costs so much for either to buy a S 16, that dex and con are likely to be within the 12 to 14 range anyway. The elf can just buy more con with dex and the scores turn out the same. However, the human has those extra skill points and the elf (now not having those extra point-buy points saved on a high dex buy) won't get a higher int also. That tends to leave the bonus feat vs. all the other elven bonuses. The low-light, spot and listen bonuses, immunity to sleep, bonuses vs. enchantments, etc. are all, IMO, pretty minor. I'd want the extra feat in melee. I'd accept not having it for ranged -- where a higher dex build would likely lead to stealth anyway. >And the racial weapon proficiency is completely unnecessary since Ranger >gets free MWP. Agreed. Just exclude them.
AMGriffin 05-24-07, 04:56 PM	High Elf and Human? The Human is overall going to be a more well-rounded ranger with the feat and sklil points and ability to have good CON and DEX scores, but a ranger heavily focused on archery would be better off as an elf I guess.
pghgamer 05-24-07, 05:04 PM	But wouldn't the added Feat of a Human Ranger be better for an Archer because you can 1stly get Point Blank, then with bonus buy get Precise Shot?
SilverFoxKnows 05-24-07, 05:13 PM	One con the human has, that nobody has mentioned, is vision. Low light vision is a good thing. Something to keep in mind. P.S. Ooops, BWO222 did mention low light vision.
AMGriffin 05-24-07, 05:58 PM	Low-light vision isn't HUGE though. It's nice, but not exceedingly useful. But wouldn't the added Feat of a Human Ranger be better for an Archer because you can 1stly get Point Blank, then with bonus buy get Precise Shot? It's nice, but I'd rather have a higher overall attack bonus and wait a few levels to get precise shot.
Silverthumb128 05-24-07, 06:02 PM	It's nice, but I'd rather have a higher overall attack bonus and wait a few levels to get precise shot. True, but you could just as easily spend the Human feat on Weapon Focus.
Jaxgaret 05-24-07, 06:09 PM	If Races of the Wild is allowed in the campaign, Human vs. PHB Elf is just about even. The Elven Ranger racial substitution levels in RotW are excellent. And, of course, any of the swiss army knife of Elven races can bring the equation over to the Elves' favor. Core (and no MM PC races allowed), Human gets the nod.
AMGriffin 05-24-07, 06:14 PM	True, but you could just as easily spend the Human feat on Weapon Focus. And waste my feat? No thank you.
Silverthumb128 05-24-07, 06:17 PM	And waste my feat? No thank you. Or play an Elf and don't get the feat at all.
SilverFoxKnows 05-24-07, 06:37 PM	Low-light vision isn't HUGE though. It's nice, but not exceedingly useful. Vision has played a large part in our campaings. In order for our human Fighter to see we have to give away our location, more than once. With our DM, low light and darkviison might be worth a feat. YMMV
MikeN 05-24-07, 09:55 PM	Human. If using subraces and doing a very specific build, sometimes Wood Elf, but on the whole, Human is tougher, has one more feat, and better skills...
El_Machinae 05-25-07, 07:18 AM	Later on, your animal companion can substitute the low-light vision. It will never be as good as having it yourself, but the human DID get the feat and skills to compensate already.
boogyman 05-25-07, 10:47 AM	wild elves/wood elves. they're pretty good because they get a dex or str bonus respectively without a con penalty. for that matter wood elves are better than half orcs. +2 str, -2 int and thats it. broken?
Treymordin 05-25-07, 12:18 PM	Kender!
Peregrine_Wolf 05-25-07, 01:19 PM	If you have access to Races of the Wild, Elf wins. Elf Ranger substitution levels rock. If not, go with human.
Nifft 05-25-07, 01:22 PM	Elves see twice as far in low-light conditions. That's nice for an archer. Elves auto-Search for secret doors. Rangers don't have Trapfinding, so that's all he can reasonably search for anyway. On the other hand, having two feats at 1st level is very nice. Rangers have the skill list to exploit extra skill points, and they don't otherwise benefit much from Intelligence, so the Human bonus is very useful there, too. I'd say it's a tie. :) -- N
The_Shaman 05-25-07, 06:14 PM	I would vote for wood elf with the 1st substitution level from RotW - or even without it. The human isn't much worse, as the feat, skills, and extra con can help, but hopefully the party can help with the skills, and a ranger isn't supposed to be a "tank" anyway.
snakeman830 05-26-07, 10:39 AM	I would personally choose Improved toughness for my human bonus feat :P I'm in agreement that the elf makes the better archer (though humans don't make bad ones), but the human is better in melee. Overall, I'd have to say humans make the better rangers because they are better in more situations.
Dictum Mortuum 05-26-07, 12:21 PM	i would say that humans are superior to nearly any race printed without level adjustment. 23 bonus skill points and a feat. also favored class (any) to good from the optimization side.
Bopple 05-26-07, 12:34 PM	Well, even for archer, human is better. Look. human get one more feat and that 3 lvl ealier. Now let's look at the archery-related ranger feats. Weapon Focus Point Blank Shot Precise Shot Improved Precise Shot or Sharp-shooting Improved Rapid Shot Greater Manyshot Woodland Archer Improved Favored Enemy Swift Hunter Improved Skirmish Most of these feats are better than +2 Dex for an archer. Or you can take something totally different(like Steadfast Determination). While low-light vision is cool, it is obtainable with a couple lvls of a PrC or a magic item.
snakeman830 05-27-07, 02:26 PM	Low-light vision is also available from a 1st level ranger spell called Low-light vision (such an original name). The spell is in Savage Species. Note: I do not have Savage species, so if this spell is actually a different level, please correct me. I do know it is a ranger spell, however.
Prominence 05-27-07, 02:46 PM	I would say Elf outside of core simply because of the substitution levels and prestige class options. Wood Elf would be stronger for a Scout/Ranger archer with RotW, but human is comparable so it'd be rough to decide. Elf would be a stronger TWF with Revenant Blade +1 skill pt a level might even out Low-light vision and auto-search.
ninjarabbit 05-27-07, 03:27 PM	I'll say it's about even.
Nathreet 05-27-07, 04:32 PM	Elf is always worse, regardless of the class :P. Though seriously, that -2 con really hurts. Especially since people tend to play rangers like fighters, when fighters do that job much better. But if you play a ranger really smart, use some stealth, other skills, etc., then elves make better rangers. Especially wood elves.
CygnusDarius 05-27-07, 04:52 PM	Bugbears.
archerpwr 05-28-07, 06:46 PM	strongheart halfling> human> wood elf> halfling> elf for archers anyway. Humans and dragonborn wood elves are both really awesome at TWF
Eldariel 05-28-07, 07:12 PM	For TWF, Champion of Corellon Larethian for two levels to get the extra Dexterity damage makes having more attacks actually useful, which has to be a point for Elf (since Human doesn't have access to CoCL). The requirements are rather steep and it's a PrC so it's not directly applicable, but still, it's worth consideration.
1DHandful 05-28-07, 08:28 PM	CoCL is definitely a balancing point in favor of the Elves, but d8 + a CON penalty for a melee type is, for my play style and that of those I game with, too much of a hurdle to overcome. The other thing about CoCL is, as you hinted at, its feat requirements are such that Fighter 2/Ranger X is a more common preface for the PrC than straight Ranger X, at which point we're discussing which race is a better multiclasser, not Ranger. Oh, BTW, Favored Class: Any (as Dictum Mortuum points out) makes Human a likely winner here, too.
Eldariel 05-29-07, 12:10 AM	Mmm, but Wood Elves still have favoured class: Ranger, which is as good for the purposes of this thread as Favoured Class: Any, and replaces the Con penalty with Int penalty. But I digress, the feat is still nice, and yea, I guess PrC essentially doesn't fit the purpose of this thread.
OologahQ 05-29-07, 09:55 AM	My opinion has always been that the wood elf is best. Especially now with the elven sub level and using the trapfinding ranger from Dungeonscape. Then you've got more skill points, perception bonuses, dex and strength for archery and better favored enemy against orcs and undead (very common enemies). Sure you're slower getting the archery feats but I still think you're better overall.