Class revisions

[Spatzimaus]

I wish people could get it into their heads that RANGERS ARE NO MORE FRONT LOADED THAN ANY OTHER CLASS!

I'm with Pax here: they definitely ARE front-loaded. They're the definition of front-loaded. Look up "front-loaded" in a dictionary, and there's Drizzt. Front-loaded isn't the same as overpowered, though; the PHB Ranger is front-loaded, the Monte Cook Ranger is overpowered.

It's not only that the class gives way too many abilities up front. Many other classes give substantial power up front. Here's the biggest problem, IMO: If you're a melee character, there's NO downside to taking one level of Ranger, as long as you can avoid an XP penalty.

Every other class has some downside to splashing in a level. Let's look at the classes you mentioned, from the point of view of a Fighter wanting to add a level of something:

Cleric: lose 1 BAB and 1 HP. Also, you now have to follow a code of conduct, since your god has to be happy with your actions to give you spells. And, to top it off, your skill points are still lousy.

Barbarian: alignment limitation. Raging once per day isn't that incredible. You can't move fast in heavy armor.

Monk: -1 BAB, -2 HP, and you can't wear armor. You get Evasion, but your Reflex save will still suck so it won't kick in nearly as often as a Rogue or Monk does. Oh, and you have to be Lawful. Plus, with the multiclassing restrictions, you can't come back later for a second level.

Sorcerer: -1 BAB, -3 HP, and you can't wear armor while you're casting without a high failure rate. Like Clerics, your skill points still suck, so forget about Concentration checks.

Paladin: Lawful Good. Code of Conduct. Can't go back later for more levels.

Rogue: -1 BAB, -2 HP. This one's pretty attractive, but the difference here is you have motivation to take a second level, then a third, and so on.

Now, look at Ranger. No alignment or multiclassing limits. No drop in BAB or HP. A Fighter who takes a level of Ranger ONLY sacrifices half a bonus Feat to do so, nothing else.
But, you get two extra skill points (and a much better class skill list), one Feat (Track), two pseudoFeats (2weap/Ambi) that can only be used in light armor, and a Favored Enemy point.
It's a no-brainer to take a level of Ranger, IF you can get around the XP penalty. Even if you don't want to do 2-weapon fighting or if you wear heavy armor, it's still worth it for the skill points and Track. And, as others have pointed out, you have no reason to take a second level of Ranger.

So, move the 2-weapon/Ambi to levels 2 and 5 (and give more options), drop the hit die to a d8, increase skill points to 6, make the Reflex save the good one, and add more class skills. There, now it's something you want to take more levels of, but one level isn't that great. Monte Cook did this, many of us did this, and now 3.5E is doing this.

 

[Pickaxe]

Just another comment about the ranger, which I'm sure has come up before in the many threads on this topic.

I'm all for being able to design your ranger as an archer/hunter, or even to model him after Driz'zt. But why are these the only two models anyone ever talks about, especially when they have nothing to do with what is, for me, the archetype of the ranger, Strider/Aragorn?

Aragorn is never protrayed as Mr. Bow, nor does he do the two-weapon thing. In fact, I would recommend either dropping the two-weapon thing or (what I do in my campaign) making it one of a selection of virtual feats. How about Alertness, Endurance, or Toughness? Strider and the Rangers of the North are expert trackers, super alert, have incredible stamina, and are adept at survival in the wilderness. There is almost nothing in the current ranger profile to promote this version, at least beyond what a lot of other classes can do. They get Spot as a class skill, which is significant. They get good Fort saves and d10 hit die, but so do fighters and paladins. They get Wilderness Lore, just as druids and (I believe) barbarians. Not that those other classes should not, but nothing distinguishes the ranger as a survivalist.

In 1e, I recall that one of the ranger's prime abilities was Con; in fact, it may have been the highest requirement (14, I think). Con is largely an afterthought for rangers. Yes, it helps hit points, and I certainly wouldn't put a 9 in Con, but I wouldn't do that for any character. Con is not of any special value to rangers, above that of other characters.

It's not that I want to see Con become the most important ability for rangers, but I would like to see rangers be able to follow a path that emphasizes survival, stamina, and perhaps Con. In my campaign, I give rangers access to certain special abilities at high levels, such as Resilient Body. Unfortunately, RB is probably the only one that has real impact on the normally combat-oriented life of a ranger character, but at least they are there for when a ranger has exhausted his options in other areas.

Anyway, I'm also a little concerned about why elves would be rangers (or fighters for that matter). PHB makes it sound like elves love to be rangers, but an elven character essentially gives up the benefits of elven weapon proficiencies by becoming a ranger. But I'll leave that for another post.

--Axe

 

[Pickaxe]

Okay, another comment, this time on the rumored proposal to give some classes 6 skill points per level:

Doesn't this cut into the attractiveness of rogues? A friend suggested that if they did this, they should increase the rogue to 10 per level.

--Axe

 

[Plane Sailing]

BULL.

Right back atcha!

I find you arguments entirely unconvincing, and arena combat is such an artificial digression from standard D&D it isn't even funny.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Okay, another comment, this time on the rumored proposal to give some classes 6 skill points per level:

Doesn't this cut into the attractiveness of rogues? A friend suggested that if they did this, they should increase the rogue to 10 per level.

--Axe

ROgues still have the best skill list by far, not to mention sneak attack and other advantages. I think they will still remain attractive for all those reasons.

 

[Marshall]

Barbarian: alignment limitation. Raging once per day isn't that incredible. You can't move fast in heavy armor.

Huh?!?

Who cares about the Barbs alignment restriction?!
+1 Hp, +2 sp(w/good list), Rage as permanent bennies add Fast Move in light/med armor
Compare that to Ranger
+2 sp(w/good list), Track permanent add Ambi/TWF in light/no armor.

I'd take BRB every time, especially if they actually combine the ambi/TWF into one feat.

Move the 2-weapon/Ambi to levels 2 and 5 (and give more options), drop the hit die to a d8, increase skill points to 6, make the Reflex save the good one, and add more class skills. There, now it's something you want to take more levels of, but one level isn't that great. Monte Cook did this, many of us did this, and now 3.5E is doing this.

OK, so now you have a Ranger that no-one takes and that usually dies before getting to 2nd.

 

[Andion Isurand]

RANGERS ARE NOT THE ONLY FRONTLOADED CLASS

what about the " Paladin 1 / Sorcerer x " builds ?

what about the " Monk 1 / Wizard x " builds ?

the " Monk 1 / Sorcerer x " builds ?

the " Cleric 1 / Fighter x " or " Cleric 4 / Fighter x " builds ?

**for those domain granted feats (especially for cleric archers)

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Rangers are actually a lesser evil.

 

[Pielorinho]

I would like to see the druidic weapon restrictions tweaked, but not dropped. Specifically, I'd like to see druids proficient in simple weapons but restricted from using any weapon made from worked metal.

Greatclubs would be allowed, in other words. Claw/claw/bite routines would be allowed (technically, they're currently forbidden ). Stone-tipped arrows would be allowed. But scimitars, sickles, steel daggers, and the like would be forbidden.

I doubt they'll make this change exactly like this, because of the howls of protest from folks who play druids with +2 flaming keen scimitars or whatever. But I think it would make the class more plausible.

And I think PlaneSailing's suggested changes to trackless step and nature sense are great. nature sense in particular is poorly defined; this would fix it quite well.

I play a druid, and I don't see any problem with their power level. I do kinda wish they were more suitable for PrCs, but oh well. My main complaints about druids are their inconsistencies.

Daniel

 

[bret]

ROgues still have the best skill list by far, not to mention sneak attack and other advantages. I think they will still remain attractive for all those reasons.

I disagree.

Rogues have more skills that they are expected to take. The sneak attack damage becomes weak to non-existant at high levels with Fortification on armour and all the elemental, undead and other types immune to sneak attack.

The rogue is built to have twice as many skill points as the other classes. Putting another class within easy Int Mod range (difference of 2) of them does weaken the class, especially when the Bard has nearly as many class skills in their list as the rogue.

I am waiting to see what they did, but I believe it does weaken the class if you give other classes more skill points and leave the rogues with bad hit points, moderate BAB, etc.

 

[Duke Frinn]

Monks ki strike

With the new DR, Ki Strike isn't an issue any more:

There will no longer be a difference between +1, +2, +3, +4, and +5 weapons with regard to DR.

Instead, DR will be listed, for example, DR 5 / magic. All magic weapons pass the DR, regardless of enhancement bonus.

Ki Strike 3.5 might read: "...as if the the blow were made with a weapon made of a special material (Silver, Cold Iron etc.). At x level, the monk's blows deal damage to a creature with DR as if with a magic weapon. At y level the monk's attacks act as a Sure Striking weapon, ignoring any damage reduction."

Duke Frinn