Print Page - craftable rings for Nature spells

NWN Discussions and Suggestions => NWN Ideas, Suggestions, Requests => Topic started by: Hellblazer on May 27, 2007, 03:53:50 AM

Title: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: Hellblazer on May 27, 2007, 03:53:50 AM

I was thinking that since druids and rangers are the only one that do not have anything to extend their spell casting attribute, that it would be great to make a ring that would be suitable for them two that would be the equivalent of the wizards and sorcerers rings. The difference being that it could be used by both druids and rangers by the same rings.

Wizards and sorcerers and clerics got their rings, the Bards got their instruments. maybe it's time the rangers and druids get the same things.

I was also considering the option of being able to make amulets that could be could be specific to each class (except druids and ranger which would be a combined class amulet or ring) like rings for all of the above but the bards since they need the instruments.

I may be wrong here, but it would be as simple as taking the already existing ring, making a copy and changing the attribute to who is able to use them. As for the amulet that it would need to be created i guess.

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: Stephen_Zuckerman on May 27, 2007, 04:23:38 AM

Actually, a new ring would need to be made for both the Druid and the Ranger... And the Ranger's ring at second and third level would be VERY VERY powerful items.

The Ring of Wizardry I has the following properties:

Bonus Spellslot: Wizard 1
Bonus Spellslot: Wizard 1
Bonus Spellslot: Wizard 1

The Ring of Sorcery I has the following properties:

Bonus Spellslot: Sorcerer 1
Bonus Spellslot: Sorcerer 1
Bonus Spellslot: Sorcerer 1

The ring of Druidry (or whatever) I would have the following properties:

Bonus Spellslot: Druid 1... etc.

---

As you can see, these rings are class-specific, not because they're Only Usable By, but because they only offer benefits for one class.

For the Ranger... The highest level spell a Ranger can get is 4th level. To give you an idea, giving a Ranger a bonus 3rd level slot would be like giving a Wizard a 6th or 7th level slot.

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: Hellblazer on May 27, 2007, 04:40:11 AM

Quote from: Stephen_Zuckerman

Actually, a new ring would need to be made for both the Druid and the Ranger... And the Ranger's ring at second and third level would be VERY VERY powerful items.

Actually thats not so very true. A ranger can have his third spell slot for the first level spell only at level 18.

Ranger Spells per day

Base Spells per Day

[table=]

Lvl | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4|
1 | - | - | - | -|
2 | - | - | - | -|
3 | - | - | - | -|
4 | 0 | - | - | -|
5 | 0 | - | - | -|
6 | 1 | - | - | -|
7 | 1 | - | - | -|
8 | 1 | 0 | - | -|
9 | 1 | 0 | - | -|
10 | 1 | 1 | - | -|
11 | 1 | 1 | 0 | -|
12 | 1 | 1 | 1 | -|
13 | 1 | 1 | 1 | -|
14 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0|
15 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1|
16 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1|
17 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1|
18 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1|
19 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2|
20 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3|

[/table]

Level 1

Camouflage (http://nwn.layonara.com/Camouflage)
Cure Light Wounds (http://nwn.layonara.com/Cure%20Light%20Wounds)
Entangle (http://nwn.layonara.com/Entangle)
Grease (http://nwn.layonara.com/Grease)
Magic Fang (http://nwn.layonara.com/Magic%20Fang)
Resist Elements (http://nwn.layonara.com/Resist%20Elements)
Summon Creature I (http://nwn.layonara.com/Summon%20Creature%20I)
Ultravision (http://nwn.layonara.com/Ultravision)

Level 2

Cat's Grace (http://nwn.layonara.com/Cat%27s%20Grace)
Hold Animal (http://nwn.layonara.com/Hold%20Animal)
One With the Land (http://nwn.layonara.com/One%20With%20the%20Land)
Protection from Elements (http://nwn.layonara.com/Protection%20from%20Elements)
Sleep (http://nwn.layonara.com/Sleep)
Summon Creature II (http://nwn.layonara.com/Summon%20Creature%20II)

Level 3

Ranger's Valor (http://nwn.layonara.com/Ranger%27s%20Valor)
Blade Thirst (http://nwn.layonara.com/Blade%20Thirst)
Cure Moderate Wounds (http://nwn.layonara.com/Cure%20Moderate%20Wounds)
Greater Magic Fang (http://nwn.layonara.com/Greater%20Magic%20Fang)
Invisibility Purge (http://nwn.layonara.com/Invisibility%20Purge)
Neutralize Poison (http://nwn.layonara.com/Neutralize%20Poison)
Remove Disease (http://nwn.layonara.com/Remove%20Disease)
Summon Creature III (http://nwn.layonara.com/Summon%20Creature%20III)

Level 4

Cure Serious Wounds (http://nwn.layonara.com/Cure%20Serious%20Wounds)
Freedom of Movement (http://nwn.layonara.com/Freedom%20of%20Movement)
Mass Camouflage (http://nwn.layonara.com/Mass%20Camouflage)
Polymorph Self (http://nwn.layonara.com/Polymorph%20Self)
Summon Creature IV (http://nwn.layonara.com/Summon%20Creature%20IV)

And when you see the type of spell they have you really see that they are not on the same level of casting field at all with the Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers and Wizards, which for most of them have items that will extend their casting abilities. By the time a Wizard gets to level 18 and he/she has the right amount of int points will have;

Level

[/table]The type of spells that Wizards and sorcerers have are a lot more combat oriented than rangers, and also compared to ranger they can go into spell casting craft specifics starting at level 1 if they had the badge at that moment. Adding a rings that could be rangers and druid would only level the field for the rangers compared to all the others spell casters.

What you may be thinking that it wouldn't be to good for, are the druids, which have more spells than rangers, are more on the line with Wizards; bards, clerics and sorcerers.

Oh and yes I do know what wizardry and sorcery rings does, I do have those rings already. As Rain is a Ranger/Wizard/AA, so I have had the time to think about this and see that it would be good for the rangers.

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: Weeblie on May 27, 2007, 04:48:28 AM

The reasoning for why no such ring is available for Rangers and Paladins is pretty much what Stephen wrote: It would increase their total number of spell slots with a huge factor.

But... as for druids? Hm... That's a good question. Their spell slots progression is like the other "pure" casters... sooo... Why not? :)

Oh... and don't forget about the impact the said rings will have for crafting purpose. Right now, not every ranger can make camoflague gems due to the lack of spell slots.

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: Hellblazer on May 27, 2007, 04:56:15 AM

I'm stating here that the rangers (and why not) paladins are way off factor to be concerned with as being unbalancing when yo take a look at what they have and can cast in amount to vs the rest of casters.

The only difference truly lies in Hp which rangers do have more than wizards and sorcerers, but still is not comparable to what Clerics can do. This would add maximum of 6 spells slot. to a level 1 through 3 castings levels.

If you think about it, take a sorcerer or a wizard at the same level of a rangers let say level 12, give the sorcerer and wizard two rings of level 3, then tell me which is more powerful. Now you may be thinking "oh but the rangers has more Hp he can fight in the front" So do druids, and with the summons that a Wizard/Sorcerer can summon, if they do not take the wrong schooling, that has absolutely no relevance.

I am on the line of thought that this would only be leveling a bit more the casting field between the casters.

And yes i did think of the impact it can have, even so it would there again level the field as giving them the opportunity to be able to craft earlier as to where the other classes can already do from the start. Then again a Ranger could not craft until he is level 6 and gets his first spell slot as to where the others can from level 1.

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: hawklen on May 27, 2007, 05:04:56 AM

For Rangers at least. Wisdom. Any wisdom item will increase spell slots. Think its the same for druids.

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: Hellblazer on May 27, 2007, 05:07:05 AM

No it doesn't. Rain already has the wisdom to be able to have the four level spells, and I have equipped him once with as many wisdom items I could lay my hand on and it did not affect the number of spell slot they have. On the other hand it does affect the wizards if you give him enough INT items, the wizard will get more spell slots.

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: Weeblie on May 27, 2007, 05:29:22 AM

You cannot compare the power of Ranger/Paladin spells against the other classes.

Neither Rangers nor Paladins are supposed to be as powerful spellcasters as Clerics/Druids/Wizards/Sorcerers/Bards. The first two are melee classes with some capability of self-spell support, not classes who are intended to be self-sufficient with spells. Comparision of Rangers/Paladins with others should be against Fighters, Rogues, Barbarians and their like, which do have (almost) the same purpose.

While I might support a series of Ring of Rangery/Paladinity with 1, 2 and 3 extra level 1 spell slots (Which would be classified on par with Ring of Divinity I/II/III), I certainly do not support (as of now) increased spells slots for the higher spell levels, as that would be like giving Wizards extra high level spell slots.

The reason of why Wisdom modifiers (or any other ability) do not give the huge increase of spells slots as for the other caster classes is simply because Rangers/Paladins are not, and has never supposed to be, casters. Melee classes with spells, yes. Not the other way around.

Edit: A hint of how the Ranger spells are perceived compared to the other pure caster classes is to check the summons received. Summon Creature II for Rangers give a Dire Bear, which is the same as Summon Creature IV for Druids. And, if we move to Summon Creature III for Rangers, we notice that the creature summoned is a Ancient Dire Wolf, a level 6 summon for Druids!

Edit 2: And... to face it... the rings are utterly useless for the pure caster classes when they do have reached a formidable level (not sure about the level reqs for the items, but if I recall correctly, you cannot use the rings on the same levels as you first receive the ability to cast the spells). Unless they want to play buff-monkies... ;)

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: Hellblazer on May 27, 2007, 06:15:58 AM

Rangers are not so much a meele class but falls into the support class more than meele, a bit more like the Rogues. First they do not have the same Ab as Clerics, Fighter or Paladins. And their AC is dext base not forgetting that A ranger can not wear more than light armors without affecting their dext, making them lose also they ability to dual wield. And as stated by many more people, they are indeed a lot more spell casters that what Bioware has left us to play with. Not as much as Druids as their connection to nature is not as strong, but a lot more that what you see in game right now.

As to keep it to a low level ring, I can see that as being maybe a little better than having rings of nature 2 and 3, but in no way do I see how they would end up on par with the Cleric, Sorcerer, Wizards ring, just based on the power of the spell those gets even if they had rings of the 2nd and 3rd circle. Yes the summons are somewhat more powerful than the Druids, but overall, they are still very far behind all the others out there. Simply because once you have reached the level 4 spells, there is no more to get while the others keeps getting more powerful spells with each level and at a astronomical faster pace than the Rangers.

Now utterly useless I can not agree with that at all. When you can have a total of 7 and more fireball (taking into account that the Int or Cha modifier will affect the numbers and strength of spells of the Wizard and Sorcerers), plus all the other and higher spells, that is not useless at all:)

You are right that you can not use the rings at the same level as you receive the spells, unless you dual class. I think the rings are on general levels and not class specific levels. But it doesn't change the fact that even then, it would not imbalance the game or affect the crafting. First they still could not craft more than their first level spell if they had a level 1 ring that gives 3 extra spell slot, before they reach level 10 at minimum and that is if they had rings of nature 2 that would then enable them to craft level 2 spells items. And lets face it, even if they had level 2 and 3 rings, they would never be as much spell casters as the others simply due to what i stated above, the astronomical rate at which the other classes gain their spells. To be able to cast 3 level 3 spells as a ranger you need to be level 19. And the only true useful spells of that level are

Ranger's Valor (http://nwn.layonara.com/Ranger%27s%20Valor)
Blade Thirst (http://nwn.layonara.com/Blade%20Thirst)
Cure Moderate Wounds (http://nwn.layonara.com/Cure%20Moderate%20Wounds)
(http://nwn.layonara.com/Greater%20Magic%20Fang)Summon Creature III (http://nwn.layonara.com/Summon%20Creature%20III)

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: Weeblie on May 27, 2007, 06:54:46 AM

You have some few factual errors.

Check the lore pages:

LORE: Ranger (http://nwn.layonara.com/Ranger)
LORE: Fighter (http://nwn.layonara.com/Fighter)
LORE: Cleric (http://nwn.layonara.com/Cleric)
LORE: Paladin (http://nwn.layonara.com/Paladin)
LORE: Rogue (http://nwn.layonara.com/Rogue)

You will notice that Rangers, Paladins and Fighters all have the same BAB progression and the same d10 in hit die.

Clerics, on the other hand, have the secondary (i.e. lower) BAB progression and d8 in hit die. Rogues have also the secondary BAB progression and only d6 in hit die.

In other words, Rangers have as good AB/HP as fighters, which is better than what clerics and rogues have (not counting in spells).

This clearly shows that Rangers are, without argument, a true melee class.

Pure mechanically, rangers are better than fighters in almost all ways. More skill points, more class skills, some self-supporting spells and summons, favored enemy. The only parts where fighters have an upper hand are the unique fighter feats and the amount of them (which of course do matters, making fighters and rangers "about equally good").

As for AC... It's rather well known that dex-builds with normal clothing have higher AC than a full plate wearing build. A dexterity of 28 (+9) is easily reachable with items/spells and already equally good as a full plate. The downside is of course that a dex build deals less damage than a str one.

Besides, due to the fact that most rangers tend to use the Dual-Wield feat (i.e. using two weapons), they are more focused on dealing damage on others (preferable their favored enemy!) than to survive themselves.

Of course, the AC/AB/Damage depends on how one wants one's character. The sneaky forest rangers lurking among the trees? Or the brute-looking rangers, hardened by numerous of battles in the shady parts of the city?

As for fireballs... heh... that's probably one of the worst spells at around level 17+ (or so). The damage from it is insiginifcant, if the damage is present at all due to a lot of creatures with high reflex saves and sometimes improved evasion (fireball is a low level spell, so even with a high int/cha, the DC is never getting extremly high). Even the high level evocation spells tend to be useless (Meteor Swarm, Chain Lightning, etc).

Besides... using rings that increases the number of spell slots/day has a few serious effects for a mage:

It decreases DC because, usually, it's difficult to max out int/cha without the use of ability rings. And worst, it decreases the number of high level spell slots. Having an extra +2 in int/cha usually means an extra level 7, 8, 9 (or whatever) spell slot. I bet most usually prefer that before 3 extra level 1, 2 or 3 slots.

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: Hellblazer on May 27, 2007, 07:08:36 AM

:)Yep I admit my ab error here for the ranger that is.

To better phrase what I wanted to say, A ranger can only be considered a meele class if they decide to put everything in str and forgo the dext. If he choses to be a marks man (high scores on hit with a bow nothing to do with the feats and skills point assignation attributes), then it falls into the support class, as they need all the dext they can have. The ab will only determine, your chances of hits, but is worse for a ranger that has no str when using a bow. As the fighter will still hit stronger with a bow than a dext out ranger even if the ranger hit more often.

There for even if you put all the dext into a Dext based Ranger and you get hit by an opponent, you do not have the additional protection that the Heavier armors and shields will offer, bonuses to slashing etc (ever wondered why rangers permanently died quicker than a fighter?). In this aspect I can not and I do not think I am the only one (mainly from speaking to other rangers in game and from P&P) that they can be considered as a true meele class only for one aspect of what they can be from start up.

A plus one bonus for Favored enemy is nothing really to be boasting about as it does not stack and doesn't change the outcome of a fight if you are not the fronter type of ranger and have a lot of points into str. Also as you put every thing into dext, you still do not get a great advantage on the damage you deal vs the fighter as the str bonus still affects the damage the bow and sword will dish out (as told by Talan for the damage calculation for the bow). When a fighter regularly hits 20's and up without critical vs 10 or 12 with a bow with might even if you hit more often, there is significant difference.

Also skills points has nothing to do with an actual meele fight, but rather what you search spot or hear, which is more used as a rp basis or on quest than actual fighting.

For all these reasons, even with a HD and ab equal to a fighter, Rangers can not be considered as meele.

I'll give you an example with my char rain here. With my dext +2 ring, my belt of acquisition and my blue suede shoes; one ring of strength, gloves of fury and exceptional amulet of strength, I get a dext of 19 and str of 15 (could be bosted as much as 18 with the spell that is in my amulet). I still get hit more often and harder than a fighter of equal value that is wearing a full armor and shields. There for in no sense is he a meele class since i die quicker in a meele fight than a fighter. While the fighter may get hit a bit more often, the protection he gets for his armor and shield and the damage he deals will end up a fight faster, hence a greater survivability rate than if a dext based ranger gets propped into a meele fight.

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: Weeblie on May 27, 2007, 08:14:43 AM

That's not something specific for just rangers. I mean, the fighter class can only be classified as a melee class if the character use close-combat weapons...

Despite common misunderstanding, primary comming from the word "Ranger" itself, Rangers (or "Hunters" as they rather should be called) are not about bows. Actually, there is no reason to make a Ranger to use bows if you consider the pure game mechanical points. They receive no feats, abilites or anything else that increases their ranged weapon combat capabilities...

Therefore, this is more about build than the class itself. Ranger is no less and no more melee class than fighter. A fighter with a bow has also a lower AC than a fighter with a shield (and dies quicker). A fighter can also choose either to focus on str or dex, leading to the same conclusions as with a ranger choosing either.

In D&D (and therefore, NWN and Layo), neither Heavy Armor nor Shield provide more protection than the extra AC. They might have some damage reduction as magical property, but normal clothes can have that also.

Because of Heavy Armor restricting to a +1 dex bonus as maximum, the total amount of extra AC (if we disregard the magical properties) is +9. A dex-based character with a higher dex modifier than +9 (i.e. above 28 in dex) receive a higher AC than that!

The highest AC characters in the game are in fact dex-based ones.

Shield does not limit dex-AC-bonus and can be used for both sort of people.

So... conclusion is that str is about damage and dex is about AC. The ranger class itself do not (unlike, say, the rogue class, which cannot survive on the front line due to lack of HP) limit one's own creativity in this area. Melee or ranged combat... Str or dex... All those choices are completely fine and doable.

Edit: 19 dex... is... low... very low for a dex build. To the point that I would not consider that as a dex build at all. With a dex build, I mean to start with 16+ dex and reach 28+ with items/spells (it's not something difficult to do).

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: Hellblazer on May 27, 2007, 08:23:37 AM

Armor receive slashing, bulgedoing (gah never remember the spelling of that one) and piercing bonuses that normal clothing does not receive at least from what I saw up 'til now. The only type of armors that does give those advantages, without affecting the dext, are reinforce clothing, which are not normal clothing.

and he was created with a tree multi class in mind, which limited his dext attribute i could give him. As rules on Layo, you need a minimum of 5 class of wizard or sorcerer to be able to take AA. (My creation mistake here was to go with a mid cha instead while building a R/W/AA, was still thinking of a sorcerer as my first bio stated, instead of wiz)

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: Weeblie on May 27, 2007, 08:37:02 AM

That's not completely true.

The armor by itself do not give any such bonus (buy a copper one and you will see). It's the better material that does help in two ways:

1. Bonus AC
2. Damage Soaking (5/+1 for addy, 5/+2 for cobalt I think, 5/+3 for Mithril)

There are clothes (for example reinforced as you wrote) that gives the same amount of extra bonus AC. Good thing with them is that they give resistance also (5/- against slashing, meaning that 5 points of slashing damage is remove on every hit).

As for damage soaking... There are also clothing giving that (together with the same amount of extra bonus AC). But, after speaking with others, the conclusion is that damage soaking is not all that useful. It doesn't stack with Stoneskin, which resistance does, and the soaking is usually only good against lower level creatures, as higher level ones (say, the creatures you fight when you can even use a mithril full plate) do tend to have an enchantment bonus that bypasses the DR.

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: Weeblie on May 27, 2007, 08:48:59 AM

With all what I've written so far, I just wanted to say that Rangers are already a rather capable class, not being fully as good as fighters in combat due to the smaller amount of feats, but that being offset by the extra abilities of the class (more skills, a small array of self supporting spells, summons, etc).

They do not, in my opinion, need a sudden 100% to 300% increase of their high level spell slots (high level for themselves, that is...).

Instead, I would definitely prefer more to give them a few extra spells (Barkskin for example), just the topic being discuseed in another thread in this forum.

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: Hellblazer on May 27, 2007, 08:51:44 AM

After checking in game a iron bronze platy and addy will give either 5% slashing or bludgeoning or soaking (addy) depending on what type it is, as in splint, scale mail or full (iron slashing).

Barkskin is not needed when you have a armor 2 helms. I guess it comes down to either three line of thoughts; do nothing, hand them some items that extend their spells (either full items like the others or the one you mentioned above) or change the progression rate (which is also highly debated on).

small edit: he is 12/15 without any items, with what i have for him at the moment, he comes out to dext 19 + maxed out at 24 (usually with one or two spells). And i just tested it out he gets to 20 strength with his amy spell and one lucky bull's roll. Still nothing in comparison to the typical full fledge fighter.

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: Weeblie on May 27, 2007, 08:59:52 AM

Barkskin from a Helmet of Armor II gives +3 Natural AC compared to +5 AC from a mid-level druid. Up to oneself to decide whether that's something useful or not. But that's of course up to discussion in another thread...

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: Hellblazer on May 27, 2007, 09:08:10 AM

Would be fun to be able to view that info from the item, you can't at the moment.

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: Stephen_Zuckerman on May 27, 2007, 11:17:09 AM

Weeblie has said it well: Rangers are a very competent class in combat when build correctly. The stats listed for the ranger you provided are more or less worthless, above level 12.

The first 2nd level spell a Ranger gets is as level 11 (if they have a high WIS). Primary casters get 6th level spells at level 11.

Rangers are NOT primary casters - they are primary fighters.

Rangers are NOT primary support - they are primary fighters.

Rangers are COMBATANTS. They live to hunt their favored enemies, and they do it well.

I see too many people, these days, complaining about how weak the Ranger class is, when it seems (forgive me if this seems harsh) that they just don't know how to play one optimally. It takes a lot of experience with, and understanding of, the system to make an effective build with a Ranger... But even with a truly worthless build, staying alive just isn't that hard.

Take it from a melee Rogue.

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: Gulnyr on May 27, 2007, 11:40:41 AM

This isn't exactly on topic, but I think it's something important to consider.

Quote from: Hellblazer

Also as you put every thing into dext, you still do not get a great advantage on the damage you deal vs the fighter as the str bonus still affects the damage the bow and sword will dish out (as told by Talan for the damage calculation for the bow). When a fighter regularly hits 20's and up without critical vs 10 or 12 with a bow with might even if you hit more often, there is significant difference.

Every class and every character has limitations. There are choices to be made when building a character that determine how that character will perform and interact with the world. Characters can't have all the good things and none of the bad things. It truly would not be any fun to have perfect, unbeatable supermen for characters, so these limitations and choices are important, and they are built into D&D on purpose.

Bow damage is supposed to be lower than melee damage. A Fighter in melee is in much greater danger than a Fighter hanging in the back firing a bow. A bow-equipped character can attack a melee-type target without being attacked in return (at least until the range closes). There is a balance achieved by the choice of melee or ranged weapon. By using a bow, you trade damage for safety, just like choosing Dexterity over Strength trades damage for safety.

To add an opinion on the Ranger vs. Fighter comparison, I think trying to compare them solely based on mechanics is not entirely fair. Besides all the other arguments that have been made in various posts and threads, there are valuable, built-in RP benefits to being a Ranger that Fighters totally lack. The ties to nature and "tracker" stuff can really come in extra-handy on quests and shouldn't be overlooked when calculating the "power" of the class.

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: LynnJuniper on May 27, 2007, 02:22:03 PM

Ring of Nature's Splendor offers bonus Druid slots...

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: Hellblazer on May 27, 2007, 03:01:30 PM

Quote from: Gulnyr

To add an opinion on the Ranger vs. Fighter comparison, I think trying to compare them solely based on mechanics is not entirely fair. Besides all the other arguments that have been made in various posts and threads, there are valuable, built-in RP benefits to being a Ranger that Fighters totally lack. The ties to nature and "tracker" stuff can really come in extra-handy on quests and shouldn't be overlooked when calculating the "power" of the class.

That I do agree totally with:)

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: aragwen on May 27, 2007, 05:43:52 PM

Just to bring this back on topic.

There are craftable rings for druids that gives them extra spell slots, similiar to the other rings.

In my opinion it makes sense for druids, cause they can be classified as a spell casting class. Does not make sense for rangers, who I do not classify as a spell casting class.

As for the strength of rangers, well that is debatable but each class has its benefits, strengths and weaknesses. So really one should not try compare classes on only one aspect.

As an example, a stealth build ranger could explore the whole of Belinara which a fighter could never do. But then again a fighter could probably face more fights than a ranger and survive.

Each class has it own strengths.

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: Drizzlin on May 27, 2007, 06:29:11 PM

Druids have rings.

If you made a paladin or ranger ring, they should not be higher than level 1 spell splot bonuses for them. This is due to Rangers and druids only haveing 4 levels of spells. Giving a Ranger or Paladin bonus 2nd and 3rd level spells, would be like giving a wizard bonus 6th and 8th level spells.

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: pejsaboy on May 27, 2007, 07:33:28 PM

Since the discussion between each class having its own benefits and rangers not being spellcasters has been gone over [and I agree], I've got one opinion on the ring idea:

Since they are not spellcasters, I think a ring for rangers [or paladins] should be restricted to level one spells due to the aforementiond reasons. On top of that, I think it should only grant 1 or at most 2 extra spell slots, also for the reason that they are not primary spellcasters and should not get as many slots as a wizard/cleric/sorcerer

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: Lynn1020 on May 27, 2007, 10:18:26 PM

Quote from: Stephen_Zuckerman

I see too many people, these days, complaining about how weak the Ranger class is, when it seems (forgive me if this seems harsh) that they just don't know how to play one optimally. It takes a lot of experience with, and understanding of, the system to make an effective build with a Ranger... But even with a truly worthless build, staying alive just isn't that hard.

Take it from a melee Rogue.

Wow! This is the first time I have heard this. O.o

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: Falonthas on March 05, 2008, 04:19:56 PM

me too druids have druid rings? hmm somebody better start sharin

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: Drizzlin on March 05, 2008, 05:08:13 PM

Quote from: Falonthas

me too druids have druid rings? hmm somebody better start sharin

They have been in the game for a very long time. I would say around 3 years at least. As far as sharing, only Druid jewel crafters can make them. Just like only Wizards can make Rings of Wizardy. Clerics are the only ones who can make their rings of Divine and lastly only Sorcerors can make their rings of Sorcery.

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: ShiffDrgnhrt on March 05, 2008, 05:11:29 PM

//However, you forget all those rings require the Base ingredient which ANY jeweler can make. Bronze with Feldspar/Gold Rings with Garnets/Platinum with Alexandrites

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: Desicardo on March 05, 2008, 06:38:50 PM

Ok, so Druids have rings.. how bout something for rangers.. nothing major, maybe 1 or at most 2 spell slots of first level and a greater ring for spells of second level??

On the question of druid rings.. are they made of a metal? Does the druid no metal code apply to jewelry as well?

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: Drizzlin on March 05, 2008, 06:42:52 PM

Quote from: Desicardo

Ok, so Druids have rings.. how bout something for rangers.. nothing major, maybe 1 or at most 2 spell slots of first level and a greater ring for spells of second level??

On the question of druid rings.. are they made of a metal? Does the druid no metal code apply to jewelry as well?

You need to read this post completely. Rangers/Paladins can have rings as soon as they receive the BAB of a druid/wizard/cleric and have their hit dice brought down to a d8 or d6. That should just about make it balanced enough to start focusing on making a Ranger a spell caster rather than the melee that they are now.

EDIT: I didn't mean to not sound civil. I guess after reading it again it might sound mean, but in truth I was being a tad sarcastic and trying to run out the door to take Bakee to her birthday dinner! Sorry.

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: ShiffDrgnhrt on March 05, 2008, 07:44:35 PM

Sure, everyone wants Rangers to have more spells, but you dont need more spells! Yer a Melee Class! Same with Paladins! What the heck do you need spells for? Thats why there are Classes called Druid and Cleric. Team up with your respective Countpart and Kick some Butt!

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: twidget658 on March 05, 2008, 07:50:25 PM

Shiff...*sighs* nevermind.

Edit: All right, I have to say it...how many clerics are 'melee' or 'fighting' clerics?

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: Dorganath on March 05, 2008, 08:00:55 PM

Guys, keep it civil please.

*goes through his box of thread locks*

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: ShiffDrgnhrt on March 05, 2008, 08:13:59 PM

Quote from: twidget658

Shiff...*sighs* nevermind.

Edit: All right, I have to say it...how many clerics are 'melee' or 'fighting' clerics?

Lots, and the same is true for most Druids... So... Whats the problem ;)

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: Drizzlin on March 05, 2008, 09:31:02 PM

Quote from: Dorganath

Guys, keep it civil please.

*goes through his box of thread locks*

I didn't mean to not sound civil. I guess after reading it again it might sound mean, but in truth I was being a tad sarcastic and trying to run out the door to take Bakee to her birthday dinner! Sorry.

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: Drizzlin on March 05, 2008, 09:33:46 PM

Quote from: twidget658

Shiff...*sighs* nevermind.

Edit: All right, I have to say it...how many clerics are 'melee' or 'fighting' clerics?

Clerics get to wear plate, carry a shield, and have buffs out the wazoo. They receive the best Fort and Will save bonuses possible, and they have d8 hps. Clerics are very viable melee/fighting classes. Now they fail to compare to a Ranger/Warrior without their spells, but with them they are a force to reckon with, especially if you are undead.

EDIT: one of the reasons you don't see more direct melee from clerics, is due to the overpowered summons of NWN. Most melee clerics use summons while they follow them around. Layo has done a great deal to tone down the power of summons by limiting the durations.

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: twidget658 on March 05, 2008, 09:51:07 PM

I was responding to Shiff's comment about rangers being a melee class and why they should not have rings. I brought up the cleric class because they are some of the strongest fighters. They can wear and use everything a fighter class can. Having less hps is nearly a mute point.

Quote from: Drizzlin

Clerics get to wear plate, carry a shield, and have buffs out the wazoo. They receive the best Fort and Will save bonuses possible, and they have d8 hps. Clerics are very viable melee/fighting classes. Now they fail to compare to a Ranger/Warrior without their spells, but with them they are a force to reckon with, especially if you are undead.

You say they fail to compare to a Ranger/Warrior without their spells, I have to disagree. You just pointed out that they can do nearly everything a fighter can do...with the clerics having more benefits.

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: Hellblazer on March 06, 2008, 03:09:18 AM

There is one difference that is major between the Ranger and the Cleric. The bab. Ranger is main which means at level 20 he gets 5 attacks, the cleric only 3

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: Desicardo on March 06, 2008, 10:03:58 AM

If you look at the bab and hp only, I agree, rangers make a fantastic melee class especially when coupled with duel wield. But lets look at the whole picture. To use Dual wield, it is done at the expense of the shield. Couple this with light to medium armor, and there is no way a ranger can stand beside a fighter in melee combat and have a chance of keeping up. If a fighter disagrees, I would suggest putting on some padded or leather armor and going against even 2 giants on Dregar with his sword only and see how long he lasts. My ranger at level 15 can't take 2 giants at a time and survive cause while he is doing great with the one he is hitting, the other giant is smashing him to a pulp because he doesn't have the ac of a fighter. Ranger advantage comes with the range of his bow, but take a shot at a mage in a small group and the whole group targets you at once.. again.. likely leading to death. You can't just look at stats alone and say that a ranger is everything a fighter is because in reality it simply doesn't work that way. Now in all honesty, I haven't been to Dregar since the update to see how the new spells effect things but I strongly suspect it will be a strong benefit so it may even out. The problem is, in order to use the new barkskin, with only 2 spell slots, I have to bump out elemental protection, or cats grace, so either I am going to get fireballed in the desert, or my ab with my bow will be lowered.
I have been in parties and seen wizards, sorcerers, and even clerics of the same level as I am walk into a whole crowd of giants and walk away with little damage which is something I can't even think of doing. I really doubt that one extra spell slot is going to make a ranger an overwhelming powerhouse in combat especially since few of the spell options are offensive in nature. All I am looking for is an even chance for surviving with some of the other classes.

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: twidget658 on March 06, 2008, 10:17:10 AM

Quote from: Hellblazer

There is one difference that is major between the Ranger and the Cleric. The bab. Ranger is main which means at level 20 he gets 5 attacks, the cleric only 3

With all the reasons stated above, bab at level 20 (ninth level spells, summons, spells/buffs, and everything) is very minor. I know it is hard to believe, but clerics are not 'fighters' even though that is what they have become here.

The rings are for the weaker, lower level casters if you think about it. The rings give extra 1st, 2nd and 3rd level spells. So once the spell caster gets a little higher, better spells and survivability, the rings are hardly worn anymore.

Rangers have four spell levels. The impact of giving extra third level spells to the ranger would be more significant then it would be for giving a wizard more third level spells. If anything, just ring l spells, maybe ring ll, would be appropriate.

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: Falonthas on March 06, 2008, 10:17:48 AM

thats why you only shoot the ones already engaged with a bow

actually the way some people play battle mages and sorcs arent exactly how they were intended

i dont think there was an example of any mage going head to head with a mass of invaders that didnt fry them while they still were a ways away

even elminster used his spells to defeat foes from a distance, even though he could use a sword why would he bother to sweat

sounds as if you need a simple wisdom boost to get a slot not really a ring
get a belt of cunning or something similar desi

since you dont shift form you wont have to worry about bonuses vanishing

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: Falonthas on March 06, 2008, 10:20:48 AM

im going to look into the ring crafting though , but ill have to steal the ring themselves from shiff since druids cant mine ore

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: Black Cat on March 06, 2008, 11:27:42 AM

Quote from: twidget658

Shiff...*sighs* nevermind.

Edit: All right, I have to say it...how many clerics are 'melee' or 'fighting' clerics?

I know of at least one *winks*. He is not a cleric... he is a Battlepriest, short, red beard and hair... wields an axe and proudly display Vorax's axe on his shield... most of the time he is not even counted as a cleric at all when tallying forces *grins*.

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: Desicardo on March 06, 2008, 11:30:33 AM

I have wisdom boosting jewlery but it has to be balanced with dex jewelry as well. Anyway, Wisdom boosts as high as I can achieve with full jewelry and Owls spell doesn't grant any more slots in lvl 1 or 2, but I do gain a slot in lvl 4 with a maxed out wisdom. The lvl requirement I am thinking would be fairly high and would only effect level 1 and 2 spells, perhaps a lvl 3 ring given as a high level cdq or part of a wlcdq reward and then only granting 1 extra slot for the third level. As to level requiremment I am thinking lvl 10 for a first circle ring, lvl 15 for a second circle and minimum lvl 20 for a cdq reward.

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: ycleption on March 06, 2008, 11:46:07 AM

Quote from: Desicardo

My ranger at level 15 can't take 2 giants at a time and survive [. . .] I really doubt that one extra spell slot is going to make a ranger an overwhelming powerhouse in combat especially since few of the spell options are offensive in nature. All I am looking for is an even chance for surviving with some of the other classes.

Drexia had a very difficult time at level 15 against a couple giants...not due to AC, but just because she couldn't deal enough damage to kill one before getting pounded a few times... and she doesn't have a ton of hit points.

But neither monks nor rangers are supposed to be tanks.

Rangers are supposed to scout out the land, find the best point of attack, strike at range from the shadows, then lead foe over a mess of traps while harassing them with hit and runs, and finally, when the enemy is weakened, charge in with a fierce animal at their side...

Now, I know that's considerably more difficult in practice, for all sorts of reasons, but rangers get skills and abilities that in theory should make up for their lacks in other areas.

And if other classes are stronger, well, then, they're stronger.... breathe deeply, enjoy your character, show off when you calm animals and use rangery skills, and don't be afraid to sit back and use your bow, (or use that "s" key any time something targets you and let it target someone else) and let the fighter types take the damage.

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: Black Cat on March 06, 2008, 12:03:47 PM

Quote from: ycleption

Rangers are supposed to scout out the land, find the best point of attack, strike at range from the shadows, then lead foe over a mess of traps while harassing them with hit and runs, and finally, when the enemy is weakened, charge in with a fierce animal at their side...

That is but one vision of what a ranger can be...

Now think about Aragorn (not the one in the film, but the one in the books). He is a Ranger too, No? He as far as I can remember from the top of my head, don't really use a bow at all. But he is a fierce fighter in melee... hand to hand, holding a sword (okay, he got a big advantage, he got a powerful magical blade *grins* )... but he does also knows his way around the land, how to not be seen, etc...

The ranger class is very versatile, and can come in every shape and style as there is player for it.

And to say something on topic for once... what need there is for a few more spells? There are magick enough around *grins* (Voraxian speaking here). Well, ranger got a few 'new' spells since the update and that is already a big thing. And afterall, isn't this game all about groups and RP... why would a ranger, if he has been built to be an archer, or pure scout without real fighting powers, go alone against a bunch of giant? Would a few more spell really make that much of a difference to the outcome of the battle? I don't think so.

There are choices to be made when you create (and develop) your characters. Errors can occurs of course... flaws? But isn't a flawed character much more fun in a way than the perfect build?

I'm sure there are items out there that can cover up for some of the innerent or otherwise flaws of some character/class/etc... but I personally don't think a ring with bonus spell be any good. None of my characters feels the need for one... not my Battlepriest, nor my Witch. I much prefer to have bonus to WIS / CHA (or other bonus to skills/stat/AC/etc.. ) and the associated bonus spell from that (which goes all through the spell levels if you can make WIS / CHA high enough) than just three lvl 1,2 or 3. Not even talking of the fact that (if I'm not wrong) a higher WIS / CHA will also help in the way of beating the spell resistance or uping the DC needed to resist one's spell.

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: Desicardo on March 06, 2008, 12:41:51 PM

I am not talking about running about the land as a 'lone' ranger *snickers*. But hypothetical case 1... that I have seen happen in game.. a party of 4 attacks a group of 6 giants. If more than one happens to attack the ranger (which in my experience usually happens for some reason) everyone else is busy with their own battles to come help and the ranger ends up dead.
I am not talking about walking away from a group of giants without a scratch, just being able to walk away without a bindstone teleport would be nice.

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: Drizzlin on March 06, 2008, 05:47:30 PM

Quote from: twidget658

I was responding to Shiff's comment about rangers being a melee class and why they should not have rings. I brought up the cleric class because they are some of the strongest fighters. They can wear and use everything a fighter class can. Having less hps is nearly a mute point.

You say they fail to compare to a Ranger/Warrior without their spells, I have to disagree. You just pointed out that they can do nearly everything a fighter can do...with the clerics having more benefits.

The feats are where it is at for a fighter. That and the BAB. Then at higher levels fighters/rangers get 4 attacks around, while a cleric will never have more than 3. So no, clerics can NOT do everything a fighter can do when it comes to melee. Not to mention you put points for a cleric into wisdom, rather than str or con like a fighter. A cleric vs a fighter, straight up without spells would equal a dead cleric, as would a ranger vs a cleric.

Now of course this is forgetting the very importance of D&D/Layo and the unique classes, the RP behind them, and simply talking about fighting prowess.

Edit: go build a level 17 fighter and 17 cleric. The fighter's BAB, HPs, Feats for combat (weapon specilization) and the extra attack (4 a round). Again, while the cleric is viable as a melee, it will pale in comparison to the fighter without using spells.

Edit: Oh and lets not forget Discipline being an inclass skill for fighters. The fighter will be impossible for you to knockdown, mean while the fighter will keep you laying on your back the entire fight if they choose.

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: Drizzlin on March 06, 2008, 05:54:38 PM

Quote from: Desicardo

If you look at the bab and hp only, I agree, rangers make a fantastic melee class especially when coupled with duel wield. But lets look at the whole picture. To use Dual wield, it is done at the expense of the shield. Couple this with light to medium armor, and there is no way a ranger can stand beside a fighter in melee combat and have a chance of keeping up. If a fighter disagrees, I would suggest putting on some padded or leather armor and going against even 2 giants on Dregar with his sword only and see how long he lasts. My ranger at level 15 can't take 2 giants at a time and survive cause while he is doing great with the one he is hitting, the other giant is smashing him to a pulp because he doesn't have the ac of a fighter. Ranger advantage comes with the range of his bow, but take a shot at a mage in a small group and the whole group targets you at once.. again.. likely leading to death. You can't just look at stats alone and say that a ranger is everything a fighter is because in reality it simply doesn't work that way. Now in all honesty, I haven't been to Dregar since the update to see how the new spells effect things but I strongly suspect it will be a strong benefit so it may even out. The problem is, in order to use the new barkskin, with only 2 spell slots, I have to bump out elemental protection, or cats grace, so either I am going to get fireballed in the desert, or my ab with my bow will be lowered.
I have been in parties and seen wizards, sorcerers, and even clerics of the same level as I am walk into a whole crowd of giants and walk away with little damage which is something I can't even think of doing. I really doubt that one extra spell slot is going to make a ranger an overwhelming powerhouse in combat especially since few of the spell options are offensive in nature. All I am looking for is an even chance for surviving with some of the other classes.

You are not correct here. The mechanics of NWN and the restrictions of magic items on layo make it so that a dex build has a HIGHER AC than is possible for a plate wearing class. Search through the forums and read what others have said. A dex built PC, with cloth will have a higher AC than a warrior in full plate with a shiled.

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: twidget658 on March 06, 2008, 06:24:56 PM

Check server status and run with different groups, then we can discuss all the 'theoreticals', 'hypotheticals', rp/what a class REALLY does and stats.

This thread is about rings for rangers. Although I don't particularly favor the idea because I have to juggle too many rings as it is; Dex for AC and to hit, Str for damage and Wis if I need an extra spell, it is just a thought and suggestion.

The spells that the rangers received are pretty much spot on and a true blessing. They help with survivability tremendously.

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: Gulnyr on March 06, 2008, 07:07:53 PM

I'm reluctant to post here, but a couple of posts have confused me and my curiosity has won out.

I don't think anyone would argue that a Ranger's place in a party is as a caster. Certainly a Ranger can cast some spells that can be very helpful, but that is not the Ranger's primary task during a battle.

I read this:

Quote from: Desicardo

The lvl requirement I am thinking would be fairly high and would only effect level 1 and 2 spells, perhaps a lvl 3 ring given as a high level cdq or part of a wlcdq reward and then only granting 1 extra slot for the third level.

And then this:

Quote from: Desicardo

But hypothetical case 1... that I have seen happen in game.. a party of 4 attacks a group of 6 giants. If more than one happens to attack the ranger (which in my experience usually happens for some reason) everyone else is busy with their own battles to come help and the ranger ends up dead.
I am not talking about walking away from a group of giants without a scratch, just being able to walk away without a bindstone teleport would be nice.

And then I checked the Ranger spell list (http://lore.layonara.com/Ranger%20Spells) on LORE, specifically the level 1 and 2 spells.

I'm sure more spells available would be better in some way, but Ranger spells seem to be focused on improving the Ranger's martial abilities, the sorts of things cast before combat starts or maybe early on for crowd control, and not at all the sort of direct-damage spells that primary casters have. Without expanding out into whether Rangers are underpowered or Clerics are overpowered or any of that, can you explain how a few extra low-level Ranger spells can change the scenario in the second quote above to the degree indicated? I'm not sure I see the connection.

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: Desicardo on March 07, 2008, 02:04:14 AM

I'm sure more spells available would be better in some way, but Ranger spells seem to be focused on improving the Ranger's martial abilities, the sorts of things cast before combat starts or maybe early on for crowd control, and not at all the sort of direct-damage spells that primary casters have. Without expanding out into whether Rangers are underpowered or Clerics are overpowered or any of that, can you explain how a few extra low-level Ranger spells can change the scenario in the second quote above to the degree indicated? I'm not sure I see the connection.[/QUOTE]

Ok, and this is my experience so others may vary, but generally, the casters tend to buff the frontliners, then themselves and a good part of the time miss the guy in the back with the bow or run low on buffs before they get to him. I am not saying this is wrong, the frontliners take the most damage and need the most buffing.. and it would be foolish for a caster not to take precautions themself so this is not the issue. More often than not in a party however, I have been left to whatever buffs I can do myself unless I am there specificly with a close friend or two that casts some things my way. So, at lvl 2 I have 2 spell slots and 3 much needed buffs to put in them, elemental protection, barkskin, and cats grace. Elemental for magic attacks as most enemy mages target the one with the bow cause they are the ones that can hurt them the most. Barkskin for close combat because invariably, something gets through the frontline eventually and I end up going to blades to defend myself. And lastly, cats grace, 1, to boost my attack with the bow, and 2 to give a couple extra AC points. Which do I drop off? Going through the desert on Dregar, I am going to take fire damage, and most likely going to end up in close combat at some point too. So the cats grace drops off and I end up with lower ac and not able to get the hits with the bow. That one extra spell slot would make all the difference in being able to take down an enemy at range before they can hit me, and not doing damage, switching to sword at close range and having to face multiple attackers up close and personal like.

As for dex ac, yes, if I went for a strictly dex build, I could max out ac above that of plate. But at what expense? Melee attacks are based on strength so if I didn't put points to that when things go close, I would not be able to do the damage there either. Take them from Con? Loose hit points and die quick there too. Take them from Wisdom? Rob spell slots and spell levels. I already don't have much in the way of Int and Cha so I can't really pull from there either.

I am sorry if this comes across in the wrong way, but with the new spells, it would be nice to be able to use them rather than having to choose which area is going to be left as the achilles heal. Death by elemental magic or death by axe/sword/club is still death.

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: Gulnyr on March 07, 2008, 02:47:22 AM

Thanks. I'm not convinced more spell slots is the best solution or that having one more buff will make all the difference, but I better understand what you are saying.

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: Weeblie on March 07, 2008, 03:52:32 AM

Please, please... dispel the illusion that rangers are about bows. Fighters are equally capable as rangers with using bows, the later actually having no bonuses at all when it comes to being an archer. If they are incorrectly buffed (i.e. if they actually have to waste their own spell slots on cat's grace, elemental protections, etc), then it should be taken up with the casters' in one's party...

Something that one hasn't considered here is the effect of rings when it comes to crafting...

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: Nehetsrev on March 07, 2008, 08:38:08 AM

I believe there are craftable items called Elemental Resistances that can be placed on wearable items (ie - armor, gauntlets/gloves, helms, rings, and amulets) that reduce the damage one takes from elemental sources. So if you know you're going to be fighting a lot of foes who cast fire spells you simply slip on your piece of equipment that happens to have said Fire resistence permanently placed upon it and then you don't really need that Elemental resistance spell. I'm pretty sure that's what most of the fighters and other types who frequent those areas do to get by. *shrugs*

Personally I try to keep a resistance of each type (excepting acid resistance since emeralds are a bit hard to come by) on each piece of the jewelry I wear so I'm covered at all times from Elemental damage from cold, fire, and electrical sources. Granted, placing an Elemental Resistance on an item does cause it's level requirement to increase, so it's not the best solution for lower level characters, but then most lower level characters shouldn't be frequenting those kinds of areas all that often either.

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: Crunch on March 07, 2008, 03:32:43 PM

I believe the problem that dex based ranger has when facing multiple foes is being flat footed against the opponent with whom he is not "engaged." A rogue or a barbarian gets Uncanny Dodge, which preserves dex based AC when flat footed. Thus a ranger/rogue would only lose Dodge AC while flat footed, while a pure ranger with a dex buffed to 32 will lose 11 points of dex based ac when facing the second foe.

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: Gulnyr on March 07, 2008, 05:03:55 PM

Flatfooted is a condition that exists before your character first acts in combat (or when he stops fighting and stands there like an idiot for some silly NWN reason). It disappears once you have made an attack. A character is always either flatfooted or not; it isn't something that can be on for one opponent and off for another at the same time. The Ranger in your example would either be flatfooted and lose all his Dex AC against every opponent or would not be flatfooted and would have his Dex AC against every opponent.

Also, Uncanny Dodge prevents the loss of Dex AC when flatfooted. A Ranger/Rogue that had Uncanny Dodge would never lose Dex AC when flatfooted.

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: aragwen on March 08, 2008, 04:05:32 AM

I dont think nature rings are really justified for rangers. These type of rings are meant for spellcasting classes which I dont classify rangers as.

In any case a lvl 20 ranger with a wisdom of 14 gets
- 4 lvl 1 & 2 spells
- 3 lvl 3 & 4 spells
which I think is sufficient to protect himself.

Now I know this is not in topic but really it is not rangers that are weak in NWN but rather any kind of archer that is weak, purely due to the fact that their damage ability is limited and they dont get the benefit of additional attack bonusses from spells.

To illustrate my point.

Let us take a lvl 20 melee ranger and a level 20 fighter. The ranger could actually be more powerful than the fighter. We assume mundane gear and no assistance from a mage or cleric.

Melee Ranger would have an attack bonus of 32 and armor class of 26 and potential damage of 18 and some dr.
Fighter would have an attack bonus of 26 and armor class of 23 and potential damage of 15.

And assuming the ranger would want to get to above he only needs to use 3 spell slots on lvl 2 and 1 on level 3.

Obviosuly the picture changes for a archer ranger, but that is another dicussion.

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: Gulnyr on March 08, 2008, 11:09:19 AM

Quote from: aragwen

Now I know this is not in topic but really it is not rangers that are weak in NWN but rather any kind of archer that is weak, purely due to the fact that their damage ability is limited and they dont get the benefit of additional attack bonusses from spells.

So fist-fighter Monks are weak? hehe. They don't get any extra attack goodies from spells, either. Maybe we need to define what 'weak' means...

I think the lower bow damage compared to melee damage [post=483502]was covered[/post] on page 1, though admittedly ten months ago.

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: Weeblie on March 08, 2008, 11:25:28 AM

Monks get their extra AC bonus, the monk speed and also their special monk attacks (which in practice can as well be classified as "spells"). The only archers which are competive with others are those with AA levels.

Having a cleric with Zen Archery, it's about as good as one can be as an archer without AA levels. Alleina has one of the best bows in game (+4 AB and +4 mighty) and as a cleric, access to the best AB and damage increasing spells in game (self buffs only, though). With everything cast, she do have a very impressive AB for her level... But the damage can simply not keep up compared to melee (missing GMW, darkfire and acid enchantment damage is really noticeable). And this is even discarding the fact of losing a full 7 points in AC by not using a shield...

However one twists and turns, ranged characters are weaker than others. But then, they do take a smaller risk also, if they are able to stay way back from the frontline and avoid pulling agro...

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: aragwen on March 08, 2008, 11:31:34 AM

What I meant with no benefit from spells were when you compare a bow (1d8) with a sword (1d8).

- Greater Magic Weapon does not work on a bow, so where the sword would get the benefit of +5 enchantment, bows dont.

- Darkfire or flame weapon would add damage to a sword, does not work on a bow

- Strength spells would add damage to a sword, does not to a bow. A bow is limited to mighty damage, a sword not.

- Keen edge would work on a sword not on a bow.

So my point was that a ranger, one using a bow and one using a sword, the sword would do way more damage just due to spells. And over and above that the bow user has less of a benefit of holding a shield also. And then to top it off it seems an archer for some reason always gets more attention than someone with a sword.

But dont really need a huge debate about. The point was just that archers are actually weak in damage and not necesary rangers.

Title: Re: craftable rings for Nature spells
Post by: Gulnyr on March 08, 2008, 11:46:30 AM

I understood the point and wasn't really trying to debate anything. Having played Jennara so long, it's just weird to see someone say archers are weak because four spells don't make them do any more damage or help them beat DR, when those same archers are often out-damaging Jennara, who also can't benefit from three of the four spells and actually has a higher base damage (2-12 vs 1-8).

My point in the post that I linked to was that an archer trades damage for the safety of range. That isn't weakness, it's balance. No, a character isn't always safer by being farther behind, but neither is a character always more damaging by being in melee.

The World of Layonara

NWN Discussions and Suggestions => NWN Ideas, Suggestions, Requests => Topic started by: Hellblazer on May 27, 2007, 03:53:50 AM