craftable rings for Nature spells

[Hellblazer]

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.

[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.

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.

[Hellblazer]

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
Cure Light Wounds
Entangle
Grease
Magic Fang
Resist Elements
Summon Creature I
Ultravision
 
Level 2


Cat's Grace
Hold Animal
One With the Land
Protection from Elements
Sleep
Summon Creature II
 
Level 3


Ranger's Valor
Blade Thirst
Cure Moderate Wounds
Greater Magic Fang
Invisibility Purge
Neutralize Poison
Remove Disease
Summon Creature III
 
Level 4


Cure Serious Wounds
Freedom of Movement
Mass Camouflage
Polymorph Self
Summon Creature IV

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

|

0

|

1

|

2

|

3

|

4

|

5

|

6

|

7

|

8

|

9

|

1  

|

 3  

|

 1  

|

 -  

|

 -  

|

 -  

|

 -  

|

 -  

|

 -  

|

 -  

|

 -

|

2  

|

 4  

|

 2  

|

 -  

|

 -  

|

 -  

|

 -  

|

 -  

|

 -  

|

 -  

|

 -

|

3  

|

 4  

|

 2  

|

 1  

|

 -  

|

 -  

|

 -  

|

 -  

|

 -  

|

 -  

|

 -

|

4  

|

 4  

|

 3  

|

 2  

|

 -  

|

 -  

|

 -  

|

 -  

|

 -  

|

 -  

|

 -

|

5  

|

 4  

|

 3  

|

 2  

|

 1  

|

 -  

|

 -  

|

 -  

|

 -  

|

 -  

|

 -

|

6  

|

 4  

|

 3  

|

 3  

|

 2  

|

 -  

|

 -  

|

 -  

|

 -  

|

 -  

|

 -

|

7  

|

 4  

|

 4  

|

 3  

|

 2  

|

 1  

|

 -  

|

 -  

|

 -  

|

 -  

|

 -

|

8  

|

 4  

|

 4  

|

 3  

|

 3  

|

 2  

|

 -  

|

 -  

|

 -  

|

 -  

|

 -

|

9  

|

 4  

|

 4  

|

 4  

|

 3  

|

 2  

|

 1  

|

 -  

|

 -  

|

 -  

|

 -

|

10  

|

 4  

|

 4  

|

 4  

|

 3  

|

 3  

|

 2  

|

 -  

|

 -  

|

 -  

|

 -

|

11  

|

 4  

|

 4  

|

 4  

|

 4  

|

 3  

|

 2  

|

 1  

|

 -  

|

 -  

|

 -

|

12  

|

 4  

|

 4  

|

 4  

|

 4  

|

 3  

|

 3  

|

 2  

|

 -  

|

 -  

|

 -

|

13  

|

 4  

|

 4  

|

 4  

|

 4  

|

 4  

|

 3  

|

 2  

|

 1  

|

 -  

|

 -

|

14  

|

 4  

|

 4  

|

 4  

|

 4  

|

 4  

|

 3  

|

 3  

|

 2  

|

 -  

|

 -

|

15  

|

 4  

|

 4  

|

 4  

|

 4  

|

 4  

|

 4  

|

 3  

|

 2  

|

 1  

|

 -

|

16  

|

 4  

|

 4  

|

 4  

|

 4  

|

 4  

|

 4  

|

 3  

|

 3  

|

 2  

|

 -

|

17  

|

 4  

|

 4  

|

 4  

|

 4  

|

 4  

|

 4  

|

 4  

|

 3  

|

 2  

|

 1

|

18  

|

 4  

|

 4  

|

 4  

|

 4  

|

 4  

|

 4  

|

 4  

|

 3  

|

 3  

|

 2

|

19  

|

 4  

|

 4  

|

 4  

|

 4  

|

 4  

|

 4  

|

 4  

|

 4  

|

 3  

|

 3

|

20  

|

 4  

|

 4  

|

 4  

|

 4  

|

 4  

|

 4  

|

 4  

|

 4  

|

 4  

|

 4

|

[/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.

[Weeblie]

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.

[Hellblazer]

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.

[hawklen]

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

[Hellblazer]

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.

[Weeblie]

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...

[Hellblazer]

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
 Blade Thirst
 Cure Moderate Wounds
 Summon Creature III

[Weeblie]

You have some few factual errors.

Check the lore pages:

LORE: Ranger
LORE: Fighter
LORE: Cleric
LORE: Paladin
LORE: 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.

[Hellblazer]

:)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.

[Weeblie]

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).

[Hellblazer]

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)

[Weeblie]

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.

[Weeblie]

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.

[Hellblazer]

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.

[Weeblie]

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...

[Hellblazer]

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

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

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.

[Gulnyr]

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

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.