craftable rings for Nature spells

[twidget658]

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.

[Falonthas]

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

[Falonthas]

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

[Black Cat]

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*.

[Desicardo]

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.

[ycleption]

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.

[Black Cat]

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.

[Desicardo]

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.

[Drizzlin]

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.

[Drizzlin]

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.

[twidget658]

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.

[Gulnyr]

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:

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:

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 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.

[Desicardo]

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.

[Gulnyr]

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.

[Weeblie]

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...

[Nehetsrev]

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.

[Crunch]

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.

[Gulnyr]

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.

[aragwen]

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.

[Gulnyr]

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.