3.5 Ranger Combat Styles

[Jeph]

Nah. He's a Rogue/Outlaw of the Crimson Rogue.

 

[Vrylakos]

Personally I wish they would have dropped the spellcasting.

When is the last time you saw Aragorn or Robin Hood cast a spell? If you want woodland spellcasting, multiclass with druid.

Trying to make the class fit these archetypes doesn't work, despite the name. There's not enough similarity to between the D&D class and these fictional characters to assign one to the other.

The ranger is basically a nature-oriented paladin, IMO.

Vrylakos

 

[Mercule]

Trying to make the class fit these archetypes doesn't work, despite the name. There's not enough similarity to between the D&D class and these fictional characters to assign one to the other.

There was in 1E. The 1E ranger _was_ Aragorn. And Robin Hood had as much in common with the ranger as the rogue (even now, that's probably true).

Honestly, any ranger variant that you can't build Aragorn with would immediately get the boot in my game (as the 3E version did).

Also, any ranger with less than a d10 hit die won't even be considered in my game. d12 makes more sense to me. Sure, they had d8 in 1E, but 1E was set up such that characters rarely made it above 7th or 8th level. The 2d8 the ranger got at 1st level took at least that long to be balanced by the fighter's d10, IME.

He are my thoughts:
-combat paths: bad in any form, especially TWF (bow I can at least fathom). Bonus feats are fine, but I _hate_ the virtual feat idea or the forced path.
-spell casting: not too bad, but 3E hoses it up. I've always thought of rangers as "arcane paladins" of a sort. Significantly fewer spells than a paladin, but not divine. I say cut the casting and let 'em multi-class.
-d8: crack-addled. Rangers are tougher than anyone save the barbarian.
-more skill points: double plus good.
-favored enemy: haven't heard any changes, which is too bad. This is an area sorely in need of change.

Overall opinion, based on the hints and whispers that I've heard is that the 3.5 ranger will be a significant improvement over the 3.0 ranger. It sounds like it's still gonna blow, but it won't be an abysmal failure. Pretty much, my gut reaction is that it'll move from "ban regardless of having something to replace it with" to "allow until you find something to replace it with, then ban ASAP".

 

[Vrylakos]

There was in 1E. The 1E ranger _was_ Aragorn. And Robin Hood had as much in common with the ranger as the rogue (even now, that's probably true).

Honestly, any ranger variant that you can't build Aragorn with would immediately get the boot in my game (as the 3E version did).

Also, any ranger with less than a d10 hit die won'

Yeah, but you can make Aragorn via other classes now. Times have changed. So, the ranger class has shifted to something else. Likewise, you didn't see any of Charlemagne's Knights casting Detect Magic, yet we have Paladins.

D&D is an imperfect fit for a lot of genre emulation if you only look at the labels and not at what these archetypes actually do.

IMO, of course...

Vrylakos

 

[Mercule]

D&D is an imperfect fit for a lot of genre emulation if you only look at the labels and not at what these archetypes actually do.

I _am_ looking at the archetypes. I just don't think that the 2E or, especially, the 3E ranger fit the archetype they were supposed to fit.

The ranger archetype is _easily_ my favorite archetype in the game. Hands down, the coolest hero type or villain type and that oppinion hasn't changed in 20 years. And _that_ is why I hate the 3E ranger so much.

Trying to make the 3E ranger into a wilderness warrior/foe hunter/border guard/skirmisher/survivalist is a bit like telling me scrambled eggs are quiche. I'm afraid that all that 3.5 is going to do is add some American cheese to the eggs, so to speak.

I don't want the ranger to be more powerful than the other classes. It should be balanced. It should be more than a handful of odd powers thrown together in the name of "game balance", though. And that's all the TWF/combat paths and the spell casting are.

Edit: I'm not opposed to some spell casting by rangers. It just seems odd in its current form -- and unnecessary for the core concept.

 

[Vrylakos]

I _am_ looking at the archetypes. I just don't think that the 2E or, especially, the 3E ranger fit the archetype they were supposed to fit.

The ranger archetype is _easily_ my favorite archetype in the game. Hands down, the coolest hero type or villain type and that oppinion hasn't changed in 20 years. And _that_ is why I hate the 3E ranger so much.

Trying to make the 3E ranger into a wilderness warrior/foe hunter/border guard/skirmisher/survivalist is a bit like telling me scrambled eggs are quiche. I'm afraid that all that 3.5 is going to do is add some American cheese to the eggs, so to speak.

I don't want the ranger to be more powerful than the other classes. It should be balanced. It should be more than a handful of odd powers thrown together in the name of "game balance", though. And that's all the TWF/combat paths and the spell casting are.

Edit: I'm not opposed to some spell casting by rangers. It just seems odd in its current form -- and unnecessary for the core concept.

Oh, I agree with you.
What I'm saying is that to get that archetype, you've got to go elsewhere. The Ranger basically fills the "druid-warrior" slot in the rules set. Part fight, part spells. I don't think it has much anymore to do with its origins.

Vrylakos

 

[Merlion]

Not to be bossy or anything here, but I dont really want this thread to become not but an arguement about ranger archtypes...I know that this is a loaded subjected and I also believe as with so many things that their is no way they can please all, and maybe not even most, players as far as this goes. I also want to keep this thread on my original questions...what do you think about what we know they are doing with the ranger in 3.5?(combat styles/virtual feat paths, more skills points etc) and what other combat styles do people think we will see or would like to see.

 

[noretoc]

There was in 1E. The 1E ranger _was_ Aragorn. And Robin Hood had as much in common with the ranger as the rogue (even now, that's probably true).

Honestly, any ranger variant that you can't build Aragorn with would immediately get the boot in my game (as the 3E version did).

Also, any ranger with less than a d10 hit die won't even be considered in my game. d12 makes more sense to me. Sure, they had d8 in 1E, but 1E was set up such that characters rarely made it above 7th or 8th level. The 2d8 the ranger got at 1st level took at least that long to be balanced by the fighter's d10, IME.
He are my thoughts:
-combat paths: bad in any form, especially TWF (bow I can at least fathom). Bonus feats are fine, but I _hate_ the virtual feat idea or the forced path.

If you want choices, play a fighter. paths are perfect for a ranger.

-spell casting: not too bad, but 3E hoses it up. I've always thought of rangers as "arcane paladins" of a sort. Significantly fewer spells than a paladin, but not divine. I say cut the casting and let 'em multi-class.

Aragorn was a healer. Last time I checked , healing was definatley divine. Also the spells that help the ranger best are woodland spells. The ranger has a great spell list in my opinion. Though it would be nice to see just a few more

-d8: crack-addled. Rangers are tougher than anyone save the barbarian.

Rangers are hardy, not tough. Good fortitude saves. But not uber-hitpoints.

-more skill points: double plus good.

double?? The rogue has 8. I love rangers, but come on. Rogues should have the most points. 6 is a good number for ranger, not 8 or above!

-favored enemy: haven't heard any changes, which is too bad. This is an area sorely in need of change.

Overall opinion, based on the hints and whispers that I've heard is that the 3.5 ranger will be a significant improvement over the 3.0 ranger. It sounds like it's still gonna blow, but it won't be an abysmal failure. Pretty much, my gut reaction is that it'll move from "ban regardless of having something to replace it with" to "allow until you find something to replace it with, then ban ASAP". [/B]

It sounds like you are looking not for a ranger, but a "superman" class. The ranger has some faults. True. being front loaded, etc. The two weapon fighting is perfect for a ranger. His skills are dex based. A smart ranger will have a higher dex than strength. That extra attack makes up for the lack of damage bonus. Also that is why bow is a great path also. You seem to want a fighter with d12 hitpoints who dosen't use heavy armor. Lots of feats, skills, hit points, magic, but very little balance.

 

[Zephyrus]

One thing I would like to see with favored Enemy be that you go more bonuses more often but you have control over where you put the Plus. Ie Over 20 levels you could get a +8 bonus to one creature or +1 to eight different creatures for example. Thats kinda what bugs me about current favored enemy . if you want it to be worth anything or to 'make sense' you have to start choosing favored enemy dragons or demons or whatever early one in order to get any respectable bonus. But... with these creatures its unlikly you'll have ever faced anything of that kind. something more flexable would allow for more realistic evolving abilities. that and come on. how often does a ranger realy get to use his favored enemy bonus? if the bonus is often then the extra damage makes sense. they fight it often. if its rare the ability is practically worthless. its kinda sad to run for a ranger and the play gets all excited cause he 'finaly' gets to fight his favored enemy he's been building up to for the last 4-8 levels and has been yet to meet.

 

[Merlion]

Thats kind of what I mean...I didnt start this thread for people to argue at extreme length about their opnions of the ranger as a class, or to tear each other down for said opnions. try posting again and actualy giving your opnion on the things I asked for opnions on.