Guide: Getting started

Ok, I made this that may actually show up the situation:
(see the zip file to see my excel tab)
Fighter 4th/rogue 6th:
attack 8
HP 45,5
Saving throws:Thougness Reflexes Will: 6 6 3
Total Feats 7
Skill Points 80
Class.Feats: sneak attack +4d6, uncanny dodge, evasion.

Ranger
attack 10
HP 48,5
Saving throws:Thougness Reflexes Will: 7 7 3
Total Feats 6
Skill Points 78
Class.Feats: I Favored Enemy, track, Combat Style, Phisical Strenght, Animal Companion, II Favored Enemy, Improved Combat Style, Walking In Wilderness, Rapid Hound, Evasion
Nice spells: 1st:Slow Poison, Resist Elements, Entangle, Fast Walking, Magic Fang, Resist Energy; 2nd: Barkskin, Bear Endurance, Cat Grace, Owl Wisdom, "Spiked Entangle", Wind Wall.
(some names may not mach english version for my poor english skills)

As it is possible to see, Ranger is better than Fighter/rogue in everything except that he has only 1 less feat (including fighter bonus feats and ranger combat style) and only 2 less skill points. Now, I often sucesfully used many of the spells listed above: they are nice and they may be used to effectively boost ranger's performances.
More, there are the following facts:
being a fighter/rogue allows to do effectively more damage than a ranger but the possibilities to hit enemies are less than with a ranger. If you are playing with a rogue, you may want to spend feats in other ways than with 2 weapon fighting, there is the cap remover, so that the XP penality may be effectively a problem, even a human thief with INT 18 can't cover all rogue class abilities and it is really hard to have a character that is proficient both as intruder and as dungeon explorer and diplomat: many classes gains benefits with some rogue or fighter levels, but a party needs a rogue specifically oriented to dungeon crawling (even better diplomacy too). So, spending skills point in stealth skills means to have a weaker rogue in non-combat times (traps, chests, diplomacy).
more, like p&p D&D, ToEE allows senak attacks with a bow only in the round when the rogue wins initiative, then he has to flank an opponent with melee weapon.
Another backdraw is that fighter needs mainly strenght and constitution, a ranger instead dexterity and intelligence (and charisma). Using medium scores (15,14,13,12,10,8) means to have a very unbalanced character that can't be good in everything. Affter those considerations, IMHO, a party is penalized if he goes adventuring with a rogue with more than 1 fighter level, except if he is able to cover (it is difficult) the lack of skill points that I analized above. So a Fighter 4/rogue6 would be a melee-oriented character that fills a vacant 5th place so that, ath the end, it is better to take a ranger (or a monk or a bard) that offers more variety to the game and is more balanced than the multiclass.

PS: note that I didn't calculate the -2 2-weapon fighting penality to the ranger attack because:
1 - even if this brings his base attack bonus to be equal to the F/r with no 2-weapon fighting feats, he still hasl good chances to hit enemies thanks to the increased attack number. If the F/r takes the same feats, he suffer a total -4 penality that is really havy to overcome.
2 - The ranger may fight with bow and he is not forced to use many shots & co: they are tactical options.

 

I appreciate the effort that went into this analysis... but frankly, it's full of errors, faulty reasonsing, and selective data. From a combat perspective, the actual differences between the Rogue/Fighter and Ranger were already summed up accurately (and concisely) a few posts up. I'll repeat it here -- and I'll add Ranger spells:

Rogue/Fighter
*Additional Feat
*Access to Weapon Specialization
*Sneak Attack
*Uncanny Dodge
*Tumble & Use Magic Device as class skills

Ranger
*Favored Enemy
*Slightly more HP (+4), BAB (+2), and Fortitute & Reflex saves (+1)
*Animal Companion
*Ranger Spells (with 11 or 12 Wisdom)

That's pretty much the difference, and it's up to everybody to judge for themselves what is of higher value. For me, the most important things are the Rogue/Fighter's superior damage output (Sneak Attack + Weapon Specialization) and class skill access to Tumble.

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

As for your post, I'll point out some of the parts I disagreed with:
1. A 6th level Rogue actually offers +3d6 Sneak Attack.
2. You list every possible Ranger ability, no matter how minor, and yet leave out many of the key Rogue/Fighter abilities like Tumble, Weapon Specialization, and Use Magic Device. This is extremely misleading.
3. You list some Ranger spells but fail to mention that the Rogue can use an even wider range of spells via Use Magic Device.
4. You list non-combat Ranger abilities, but none of the non-combat Rogue/Fighter abilities.
5. You then claim the Ranger is better in nearly every area! Well, of course. Anything is possible when you use selective data.
6. You point out that a Rogue may want to use his feats on other things rather than TWF. How is this a criticism? If anything this flexibility is an advantage over the Ranger. At worst, this point isn't even relevant to the discussion.
7. You point out XP penalties, which can be a reality with any multiclass, but you neglect to mention how easy this problem is to avoid -- and how rarely any player will actually encounter it.
8. You point out that a Rogue has so many class skills that it is hard to get enough skill points for all of them. Again, how is this a criticism? This is an advantage.
9. You suggest that it is very hard to create a Rogue to be an "intruder", "dungeon explorer" and a "diplomat". This is simply untrue. With a decent INT score I have no problem covering every necessary skill. You also fail to mention that a Ranger can never be a "diplomat" or "dugeon explorer" at all because of their limited skill list.
10. It is true that Sneak Attack is limited with ranged weapons, but Weapon Specialization (which you never mention anywhere in your post) works just fine.
11. Your judgements of what ability scores a given class needs are very suspect. Just because a Rogue takes some Fighter levels doesn't mean they have to have traditional Fighter ability scores (STR & CON). They can still have a high Dexterity. And I'm not sure why you claim Intelligence and Charisma are important for a Ranger. The reality is that the Ranger has a more demanding ability distribution. A Ranger needs good STR, DEX, and CON scores, while a Rogue can neglect STR because he gets his damage from Sneak Attack. A Ranger also needs 12 Wisdom in order to access his spells, while a Rogue can spend those points elsewhere.
12. You claim that a Ranger makes a better 5th character than a Rogue/Fighter because of "balance" and "variety". I'm not sure I completely know what you mean, but my argument has never been about aesthetics, it has always been about power-gaming.
13. I'm not sure what your #2 footnote was trying to say. Certainly a Ranger can always pick up a bow and use it, but they aren't going to be very effective without Precise Shot and Rapid Shot. In any case, this is no different than it is for a Rogue/Fighter, so the point seemed irrelevant.

 

As an experiment, I'm running through the game again with a Fighter/Rogue. So far I'm 4th level and 2/2. I'm going to stick with Rogue for at least one or two more levels because he's desperately hurting for skillpoints to use in Search, Disable Device, Open Lock, Tumble and Use Magic Device, and this is with a human and 16 Intelligence. If I didn't have a bard to be my party spokesman, I'd be even more desperate for skill points as I'd be having to spend them on social skills as well. Meanwhile, the stealth and awareness skills are lying by the wayside because I just don't have any points to spend on them. I'm just not seeing where having a Fighter/Rogue as your only Rogue is a viable option as you claimed. (FYI, I started as Rogue at 1st level for maximum skill points)

 

I went straight to 6th level with Rogue... and I had 18 Intelligence. At that point I felt my skills were adequately loaded so I started on the Fighter levels to give myself more combat options. Perhaps I'll hit a wall with the skills and regret taking the Fighter levels, but it hasn't happened yet.

EDIT: I'm using a Halfling though. So a Halfling with 18 INT should get the same skill points as a Human with 16 INT.

 

"the actual differences between the Rogue/Fighter and Ranger were already summed up accurately (and concisely) a few posts up. "

I didn't think so. If I did, I never had the need to make an Excell data for them.

"1. A 6th level Rogue actually offers +3d6 Sneak Attack."
ok, my mistake.

"2. You list every possible Ranger ability, no matter how minor, and yet leave out many of the key Rogue/Fighter abilities like Tumble, Weapon Specialization, and Use Magic Device. This is extremely misleading."
No, because I mentioned that a rogue has better abilities, but it is hard to have a good Hint together with a god STR, DEX, CON, CAR! I already told that the ranger deals more damage and it is obvious that any player that takes 4 fighter levels will take weapon specialization too. But still you MUST choose about wich skills you want to improve.

"3. You list some Ranger spells but fail to mention that the Rogue can use an even wider range of spells via Use Magic Device." Sure, I tried and my rogue must be nearly a genius to spend points in that, plus in diplomatic abilities and in dungeon crawling ones and in stealthy ones too. You can't have the top in everything and, honestly, except that if you have a sorcerer that doesn't need scrolls, what do you want to do? Cast a 1st level magic missile instead of attacking? Oh, yeah! 1d4+1 is really a deal! And what if you fail the skill check in a critical moment? Hm, no, I don't like that choice, but is a personal idea.

"5. You then claim the Ranger is better in nearly every area! Well, of course. Anything is possible when you use selective data." No, I just say that they both have their good and bad sides. of course the rogue/fighter has a greater range of skills and deals more damage, the ranger is more balanced by itslef and have more characteristics that make him at least at the same level and certainly better for my gamestyle.

"6. You point out that a Rogue may want to use his feats on other things rather than TWF. How is this a criticism? If anything this flexibility is an advantage over the Ranger. At worst, this point isn't even relevant to the discussion." Wich flexibility? For me he has too many maluses and he is not really a flesxible character.

"7. You point out XP penalties, which can be a reality with any multiclass, but you neglect to mention how easy this problem is to avoid -- and how rarely any player will actually encounter it." Why? Except human and half elf, I would never reccomand a Dwarf because of the charisma penality that infulences diplomatical skills and halflings suck as melee fighter because, to use weapon finesse, they myst just use ultra-light weapons like dagger.

"8. You point out that a Rogue has so many class skills that it is hard to get enough skill points for all of them. Again, how is this a criticism? This is an advantage." :s How? I can't have a balanced character but I must choose how to spend my few skill points and I can't have a fac-totum like a thief is supposed to be.

"9. You suggest that it is very hard to create a Rogue to be an "intruder", "dungeon explorer" and a "diplomat". This is simply untrue. With a decent INT score I have no problem covering every necessary skill."
please, show me how you could do that with the following average scores:
15,14,13,12,10,8(or another 10). Of course if you roll the dices as long you get 18 for Int and all scores with bonuses, it is easy, but then it is not an ordinary character.

"You also fail to mention that a Ranger can never be a "diplomat" or "dugeon explorer" at all because of their limited skill list." Why should he be? If I want a diplomat, I probably have my cleric, paladin or bard or druid to be, or warrior if I need intimidate.
"10. It is true that Sneak Attack is limited with ranged weapons, but Weapon Specialization (which you never mention anywhere in your post) works just fine." Never spoke against that. Infact I suggested to take multiclass a ranger with 4 fighter levels, so that he gets weapon specialization on a kind of weapon that he may wear in both hands.
"11. Your judgements of what ability scores a given class needs are very suspect. Just because a Rogue takes some Fighter levels doesn't mean they have to have traditional Fighter ability scores (STR & CON). They can still have a high Dexterity." Sure, but then you won't have a realy frontman. He will get his ass kicked very quikly. Really, an high DEX is not enough to grant him a good AC and if you choose to take a shield, you'll suffer heavy penalities to weapon if using weapon finesse, except if it is a masterwork bucker.
"And I'm not sure why you claim Intelligence and Charisma are important for a Ranger."
I never did, only for rogue.
"The reality is that the Ranger has a more demanding ability distribution. A Ranger needs good STR, DEX, and CON scores, while a Rogue can neglect STR because he gets his damage from Sneak Attack. A Ranger also needs 12 Wisdom in order to access his spells, while a Rogue can spend those points elsewhere." Never mind. I Always loved to make rangers with 2 light weapons and weapon finesse, so that I may avoid to spend strenght in it.
Using medium scores, a ranger will have:
STR12 DEX15 CON14 INT10 WIS13 and CHA8. It works fine. Of course, other solutions are possible and trust me that we will still work.
"12. You claim that a Ranger makes a better 5th character than a Rogue/Fighter because of "balance" and "variety". I'm not sure I completely know what you mean, but my argument has never been about aesthetics, it has always been about power-gaming." This is clear, infact I prefer to have a character with better saving throws, hit points and attack rolls than the one that you claim to be the best. For me is strategically more efficient.
"13. I'm not sure what your #2 footnote was trying to say. Certainly a Ranger can always pick up a bow and use it, but they aren't going to be very effective without Precise Shot and Rapid Shot. In any case, this is no different than it is for a Rogue/Fighter, so the point seemed irrelevant"
It was just to add some minor consideration about attack rolls & penalities.

 

Well... thanks for making the case for the Ranger. I'm gonna start working myself out of this argument now. I started to reply extensively but found I was spending most of my time pointing out contradictions and lecturing about logical fallacies. You apply double standards to both classes, and more and more it seems like you are just saying anything in an attempt to win the argument. And it's extremely frustrating when you claim you said things that you didn't say -- and you claim you didn't say things that you did say.

That last statement is pretty serious, so I want to show you exactly what I'm talking about:

Where? You didn't mention that anywhere.

Simply untrue. Here's your actual quote:
"As it is possible to see, Ranger is better than Fighter/rogue in everything except that he has only 1 less feat (including fighter bonus feats and ranger combat style) and only 2 less skill points."

Here's what you said:
"Another backdraw is that fighter needs mainly strenght and constitution, a ranger instead dexterity and intelligence (and charisma)."

Here you twist the statement around to get off the hook. I didn't claim that you "spoke against" Weapon Specialization. I claimed that you didn't mention it in your exhaustive Ranger vs. Rogue/Fighter analysis. And you didn't mention it.


A few more points I'd like to make:

1. You keep hammering on this 'Rogue won't have enough skill points' angle, and I'm not sure how it's related at all to the discussion at hand. We're talking about the Ranger vs. Rogue/Fighter in combat situations, particularly as the 5th character. Some supposed skill point failing in the Rogue class is not really relevant -- and even with low INT, it's still far better than the Ranger.

2. I'm sorry you can't come up with any more imaginative uses for Use Magic Device. Judging by your example, you should probably stick with a more point-and-click type of character. However, most people won't find themselves as mentally restricted.

3. While a Dwarf is probably not the ideal choice for this type of character, the -2 Charisma is hardly a deal breaker. That's basically -1 to all CHA-based skills. Not a big deal. And your criticism of the Halfling lacked a similar sense of proper proportion. Using a dagger instead of short sword is only an average difference -1 damage. Now for a low-damage class like the Ranger, this is probably a big concern, but this is completely negligible for the Rogue and his Sneak Attack. The Halfling is a great choice for the Rogue/Fighter.

4. I'm not sure where you are coming from where power-gamers will settle for "15,14,13,12,10,8" ability scores. That's absurd. Even still, the Rogue/Fighter will accomplish more with those numbers than the Ranger.

5. There are few ideas worse than multiclassing your Ranger to become a Fighter. You casually suggest the idea to demonstrate that a Ranger can get Weapon Specialization but avoid mentioning the extensive damage it will cause. Your animal companion will stop improving, making it particularly worthless. You also forfeit Woodland Stride, Swift Tracker, Evasion, and your 10th level Favored Enemy boost. You lose 2nd level Ranger spells. What's the point in starting on this class if you are going to cripple or surrender so many class-specific abilities?

6. A Ranger does need a decent Strength score to be effective. And this ties into the main problem with the Ranger -- it's a low damage class. Because of the Combat Style feature, he's pretty much restricted to being a TWF or an archer. Both are low damage styles. The best way a Ranger can minimize this problem is by having a high Strength score. You can certainly run around with a 12 Strength Ranger, but he's not going to be doing much for damage. In contrast, the Rogue is fine with a low Strength score because he gets his damage from Sneak Attack.