Ranger/Paladin CL

[Valhalla]

Looked around to see if I could find anything on this and couldn't, so please forgive me if this is a dead horse or some such thing.

Since a lot of the classes have been Pathfinderized, specifically Rangers and Paladins, I found it odd that my Ranger alt only has a 7 CL at level 15.


In Pathfinder, both Rangers and Paladins have a CL equal to their current level - 3.

I'm not sure if Paladins have been brought to Pathfinder standard or not, but if not it'd be nice to see Ranger and Paladin casting brought up to match.

[Kitsunestume]

Looked around to see if I could find anything on this and couldn't, so please forgive me if this is a dead horse or some such thing.

Since a lot of the classes have been Pathfinderized, specifically Rangers and Paladins, I found it odd that my Ranger alt only has a 7 CL at level 15.


In Pathfinder, both Rangers and Paladins have a CL equal to their current level - 3.

I'm not sure if Paladins have been brought to Pathfinder standard or not, but if not it'd be nice to see Ranger and Paladin casting brought up to match.

A curious idea of how to implement: What if warrior-casters had full CL (with their own spell-table, of course), but a modification of the Practiced Spell-caster feat that gave them negative CL instead of positive? Anyone know if that might be a possible solution?

[Lotus]

It wouldn't be an issue, as Ranger and Paladin aren't prestige classes and thus wouldn't bug their spell casting beyond their character level.

[Farmboy2003]

This was one of my main biggies in ranger suggestions not a month ago, just before the ranger changes. Im sure Lotus thinks its a dead horse :-) Thaelis suggested it too, before that. The search function is fickle misstress ;-)

It is simply a toggle in .2da somewhere. And it could be brought to full CL with a free application of the relevant Practised Caster feat. Ranger don't have spellcraft as a class skill, so it's somewhat of an investment to take. Depending on your build.

but it'd do the world of change to rangers spellcasting. Dunno about paladins

[thaelis]

It would be nice as it would give a little more diversity in memorisation...two 17 minute spells instead of three 10 minute ones would mean you'd have an extra slot of each level

Also, dispelling would be slightly less of a bitch.

The horrible thing about an exponential in a linear-based game is that things get out of proportion rather quickly. At high levels Ranger/Pallies have a 95% chance be dispelled, even by enemies of their level -5.

[Valhalla]

Yeah for me personally it's less that dispels are a problem - you can always try to avoid those with clever use of HiPS or invis. It's the minute/level duration and the fact that rangers will never get the top tier of barkskin.

[Farmboy2003]

Yeah for me personally it's less that dispels are a problem - you can always try to avoid those with clever use of HiPS or invis. It's the minute/level duration and the fact that rangers will never get the top tier of barkskin.

precisilamente.

[nezzerscape]

I would agree on the duration CL. Not worried about the DC. If you want high DC then play a full caster.

Question does Ranger get "Burning Sword" (1d6 @ min/level) or do they still get "Blades of Fire" (1d8 @ 2 rounds/level)? If "Blades of Fire" can that get bummed up for @ level 20 you only get 2min

Nez

[Kitsunestume]

Question does Ranger get "Burning Sword" (1d6 @ min/level) or do they still get "Blades of Fire" (1d8 @ 2 rounds/level)? If "Blades of Fire" can that get bummed up for @ level 20 you only get 2min

Nez

Blades of Fire has a duration of two rounds. Not even 2 rounds/level. :-/ And the first round is effectively spent casting the spell.

[Valhalla]

It's actually considerably longer than that - I suspect a change went through some time ago and was never really publicized. It's either 1 round/2 levels or round/level, now, subject to the same Ranger/Paladin CL stuff mentioned above.

[Lotus]

Don't remember when exactly I changed that spell, and yeah, looks like it missed the update notes of whenever that was.

[nezzerscape]

So @ round/level it is 1 min @ level 20. Any change on them getting Burning Sword (Wizard) of Flaming Sword (druid)?

[thaelis]

Heh, round/level is strangely fitting since there is a Ranger spell in Pathfinder that is very similar!

I don't think they need blade of fire/flame blade. Enough classes already have that spell. What they need is a custom spell of 4th level. I usually end the day never having touched my 4th level spells.

Sun Metal
School transmutation [fire]; Level cleric/oracle 1, paladin 1, ranger 1

CASTING
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S

EFFECT
Range touch
Target one melee weapon
Duration 1 round/level (see text)
Saving Throw Fort negates (object); Spell Resistance yes (object)

DESCRIPTION
The target weapon ignites into flame that does not hurt the weapon or the wielder, but damages those hit by the weapon. When the weapon’s wielder hits with this weapon, it deals an additional 1d4 points of fire damage. This damage is not multiplied in the case of a critical hit. This effect immediately ends if the weapon is submerged in water. This effect does not stack with the flaming or flaming burst weapon special ability or any other effect that grants the weapon extra fire damage. It does not function on weapons with the frost or icy burst weapon special ability or any other effect that grants a weapon extra cold damage.

[Lotus]

No, we're not giving Rangers spells from other classes' lists. The PnP version of the spell is level 2, lasts 1 round, and does 1d6 damage. The Sundren version is level 1, lasts 1 round/level, and does 1d8 damage. A single casting of the spell affects both weapons (if two are equipped). The spell is fine as is, as are Rangers.