Gameplayhelp/hints/discussions

I disagree. They don't break even. The Fighter feats are more valuable than the Ranger class abilities. Sneak Attack and better skills are more valuable for this type of character than the marginal bonuses in HP and BAB. The Ranger will do significantly less damage and not provide the same skill set. No amount of "magic weapons and gear" will make up for this.

But... I have no new points to add. I've made my case. I've never gotten a Ranger fanatic to recant, and I don't expect to start now.

I'm not too sold on the "play style" argument. It can be used to justify just about anything and make conversations such as this pointless. I could go around claiming that since my "play style" is not to cast any spells that my Druid's pet goat is more valuable than a Wizard or Sorcerer. Certainly we can formulate some basic expectations of how most people will play the game and debate the merits of each class without hiding behind the "play style" argument?

 

I am new to the game and to the forum. I have been reading through the posts and I have to hand it to you folks, there is some great stuff in here! Already planning a new campaign with your party creation tips. Thanks! :clap:

 

"This type of character" is part of where we disagree, as well as your pre-conceptions about the skill set. The Rogue/Ranger gets more skill points overall, and can keep up in core Rogue skills (the ones actually useful in ToEE) just fine. The Ranger Class abilities are useful enough, and beating the dead horse that they are less useful than synergistic fighter feats is a strawman. "Less damage" is a real issue, but then that's a case for using the Rogue/Ranger as a talker, scout or lockpicker with fighting and blocking skills rather than as a primary attacker.

EDIT: Non-confrontationally, every player should play around with enchanting and see just how much you can boost up any character with magic weapons and gear. Opening a fight with four or five fireballs in a five man party is an interesting thing, and an AC of 25-30+ for every character is good for the power-gamer in all of us.

I don't use Rangers. I'm looking at the math.
However, I've never gotten a "my way is the only way" fanatic to recant, and I don't expect to start now.

Conversations like this are mainly pointless, except where they point out interesting facets of character and party design. You can complete games like ToEE with almost any party line-up if you want to figure out how (it's sometimes posted that you can do it with a solo Rogue, though I haven't tried that). Given that, I'd say that play style counts.

Yes, we can (though "hiding" is another bit of silly word-play). Our main disagreement is that I think most people will do fine with almost any class or multiclass that allows the party talker, scout or trap and lock specialist (not necessarily the same character) to maintain his skill set, while you are insisting that only a pure rogue or Rogue-Fighter can fill those roles.

 

For what it's worth, (iirc) Liv has mentioned plans to increase the use of Survival in her 2.0 mod. You could glance at the thread.

 

More skill points, but spending points on cross-class skills cuts the value of points in half. These Rogue skills include: Appraise, Bluff, Diplomacy, Disable Device, Gather Information, Intimidate, Open Lock, Sense Motive, Sleight of Hand, Tumble, and Use Magic Device. That's 11 skills. Sure you can pick out two from this list and claim they're the only ones that matter -- but most players will find themselves using many more.

A strawman? A strawman implies some sort of irrelevancy. This is not a distraction... this is a central issue. When choosing between a Rogue/Fighter and a Ranger, most people are going to want to know which build has the upper hand in combat related abilities.

Two things:

1. It's revealing that you say talker, scout, OR lockpicker. Your build doesn't have the skill points to do it all. The Rogue/Fighter does.

2. You also concede that the Ranger/Rogue won't be highly useful in combat. The Rogue/Fighter can provide all the skill AND be effective in combat.

Assuming a typical "play style"... which character will be more productive?

That's hardly fair. You've argued for your side just as completely as I have mine.

I've always laid down clear reasons why I favor one class over another. My support is based on those reasons... not some personal dedication to the class or "it's my play-style" nonsense. Make a good point and I'll change my mind. You have no grounds to accuse me of being narrow-minded or of not listening.

I'm sorry you think so... And I'm sorry you dragged me into a conversation you felt to be ultimately pointless. Thanks a lot.

Not true. I'm insisting that a Rogue/Fighter can fill the role best. I've never disagreed with the other big picture comments you made in that paragraph.

I'm trying to help beginners who want to narrow down their choices to a reliable party that will make the game as manageable as possible. I'm trying to help more experienced players who are looking for an optimum party by offering tips to help them build it. Do you really think that the people who seek out these forums for character advice are looking for someone to tell them, "Whatever. All classes will work and are roughly the same. It really doesn't matter that much."

 

So what? You have five characters. A human Rogue/Ranger gets 6+INT modifier +1 skill points per level, and can keep three of those cross-class skills maxed out (say Open Locks, Disarm Device, and one other cross class) plus Search, and that's with an INT of 10. Split the talking skills off onto another character, or go for an INT of 16+ and watch the numbers get better. He won't be a master of all the Rogue-Only skills, but he only needs to be if that's the role you've chosen him for in the party. What he can do is max out any 3-5 Rogue only skills you need, or keep most of them at a reasonable level through the game.

That's not the choice under discussion. We're looking at a Rogue/Fighter versus a Rogue/Ranger, in which case most people will want to know which offers the best mix of skills and combat.

The Rogue/Ranger has more skill point than the Rogue/Fighter, if you're interested in developing the aspects of the character common to both classes. As to doing it all, one character doesn't need to. If he did, the Rogue/Ranger can do it all well enough for the needs of ToEE.

No, I conceed that when he does hit, the Rogue/Fighter will do more damage. The Rogue/Ranger on the other hand will hit a bit more often, have a few more hit points, and be a bit more dependant on items and buffs.
EDIT:Yes, both characters will gain from good use of items and buffs.

They'll be about the same. ToEE is not a hard game.

You have launched every personal attack in this thread, and only received personal attacks that were variations on your own comments. It's a bit late to whine about "fair".

Now that is funny.

It's a gaming conversation. It's not going to change our lives.

They are looking for ideas on what will work, how, and why. If nothing else, this series of exchanges will give them an idea of what trade-offs they'll make by taking a given Rogue based multiclass. That's usefull.
EDIT: I doubt you really see "Any party can work" as being identical to "All classes will work and are roughly the same".

 

Oh my god, again?? Are u arguing again about what's more powerful and what's not? It is a RPG, it is completely wrong! Even accepting the fact that one combo is more proficient than another, thing that is NOT always true accordingly with circumstances, they are just different.
Math is not an opinion and, for sure, multiclassing a rogue with another class make that PC worst than a pure rogue in lockpicking, diplomacy or stealth activities. A multiclass would always work worst than a pure rogue and fighter or ranger and they will take different benefits from rogue levels accordingly from how you're playing.
There may be different choiches accordingly with ability scores (STR, DEX etc...) and different benefits and looses. A fighter, for example, may want to avoid heavy armors and shields because of the severe skill penality and to keep uncanny dodge and evasion, or sacrfice all of them for a greater defense. Instead a ranger may get more benefits from evasion and rogue's special abilities but may not want to use the 2-weapons fighting style because the to-hit bonus has been lowered from rogue levels and that -2 penality is too much or choosing to be vulnerable (because of the crappy 1d6 x level HPs comming from rogue) and join the others into the first line, flanking enemies and fighting with 2 weapons to maximize the bonuses comming from sneak attacks. There are always many thinks to think about but generally it is true that both the ranger, single class or multiclassed with rogue, and the rogue/fighter are still a good choiche and I doubt that everybody of you plays the game always with the same party and allignment. There are 9 possible endings and allignments: switch them, use them all and stop thinking only about power playing, who deals more damage and try to make a party imagining a storyline, a plot and be coerent with that decision. You'll enjoy much more the game, even if ToEE is not among the ones that better exalt those kind of things.

 

No bickering people, opinions shouldn't come into this thread. It's about making the game work for you however you want to play it. Long speals about BS are a pain to read and not really helpful to newbies.

 

Yeah. My apologies. I should have cut this one off a few posts ago.

I just want to echo that the opposition is correct when it emphasizes that differences are slight. Most classes are more similar than different and any five character party will have plenty enough power to complete the game. I wish we could get some fair-minded discussion about that 5% of difference... but it will be left to everyone to decipher for themselves.

I think these are the three difference makers for those that don't want to sort through all the nitpicking above:

1. The suite of Fighter feats is generally more valuable than the various class abilities the Ranger receives.
2. The Rogue's Sneak Attack is a much more potent damage source than anything the Ranger can muster.
3. Any claims that the Ranger receives more skill points is deceptive as having to spend those skill points on cross-class skills cuts their value in half.

 

In short, everything is true BUT...
1 - In Your Humble Opinion. I think that they are equial even if ToEE does not exalt some of the ranger's abilities that are in verity more useful in p&p game.
2 - it is a great thing but it doesn't work with elementals, golems, undeads, animated items, plants and with creatures with uncanny dodge, while fighter's weapon specialization and ranger's bonus damage always work against every kind of enemy, including the ones mentioned above.
4 - all depends from what you want to do, this is a matter of situations, opportunities and so on. Certainly a ranger is not made to cover the role of a rogue, but I could say the same when a rogue is multiclassed to fighter: he will eventually loose skill points for the same reason.
ToEE is a game created with D&D license and one of the greatest things comming with D&D is the variety about customizing PCs. I don't understand why you are focusing on this debate, try do demonstrate that your favorite combo is universally the best, instead of enjoying such variety.

 

Every post you guys make is filled with deceptions, errors, and selective information.

It's my nature to correct these things -- for your benefit and that of any readers. But it's become obvious you won't quit and that you are perfectly willing to repeat your fallacies endlessly in order to get the last word. So I'll let you have it. I'll leave your ridiculous propoganda piece as is.

 

1. Is true, and was never contested. However, those class abilities are useful, and the difference is narrow, especially when buffs and equipment are figured in.
2. Is mainly true, but again is moderated by gear and buffs. It also must be balanced against the BAB and HP advantage that the Rogue/Ranger will gain; again, the difference is not all that significant.
3. He does not have to spend all of those points on cross class skills unless you choose that path, the Rogue/Fighter will also be spending 4 levels worth of skill points cross-class, and in a five person party there is no need to load all of the skills on to one character.

In the end, the Rogue/Ranger will fill his role at least as well as the Rogue/Fighter, ending up with a slight HP and BAB advantage over the R/F and maxing out 3-5 Rogue only skills, or keeping up fairly well in all of them. Some players will prefer the higher and slightly less frequent damage done by the Rogue/Fighter, some the more reliable but slightly lower damage done by the Rogue/Ranger, some the spell potential of the Rogue/Wizard or the massive skill advantage of the pure Rogue. It's all good, and in the end it's a case of what the player likes. Or, you, know, play style.

 

Funny, I'd say it looked more like your nature was to go for personal attacks when faced with disagreement.

EDIT: Since an originally nice thread is now in flame war territory, I'd ask any mod who feels like it to delete this post and AS' personal shot at Orion in post 74. No reason to fan the flames more.