[3.5] Rangers lose medium armor!
- Thread starter Olgar Shiverstone
- Start date
- Status
Tom Cashel
First Post
Oh, boo hoo. Rangers aren't the freakin' UBERCLASS anymore. They were a sub-class (of Fighter) from day one, and it's about time they were modified so that the sub-class no longer outclasses the class. Fighters rock. Losers walk.
Hell, it's been six years since Rangers were any good. I should know.
Hell, it's been six years since Rangers were any good. I should know.
Attachments
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re
Yes. Post proof or retract, W33NIE!
Who loses out on 2 skill points, uncanny dodge progression, and sneak attack.
And loses out on a bonus feat.
Thus the ranger is a more attractive _class_, period, which is not a bad thing, despite certain persons' attempts to show otherwise.
That's like saying that paying twenty bucks for an hour with a hooker is equally as attractive as paying ten bucks. Which, I admit, may be true for some hookers.
One of us is clearly confused.
No, it used to be that a fighter would take one level of ranger to gain TWF and Ambidex. I can count the number of people who played rangers for more than 1 level on... well, actually, no hands.
Now you really are burbling.
You seem to have missed the main drawback of virtual feats. But never mind, you seem to be missing a lot of things.
You are terminally confused. On the one hand, you claim that the ranger is so good that everyone will pick up a bunch of ranger levels. On the other hand, you claim that ranger levels will make for a nerfed character. So make up your mind. Are rangers a munchkin class, or not?
If the DM can't devise encounters to challenge a party without a tank fighter, that's a DM who should hang up his hat immediately.
So?
By that measure, half the classes in the PHB should be junked immediately. This is a plainly stupid criterion for assessing the worthiness of a character class. Please stop, or I will be forced to resort to R00D W0RDS.
You have completely misunderstood how monk/paladin multiclassing restrictions work, but never mind. Not to mention the limits on monk abilities, in particular inability to function in armour, but again, never mind.
Your point is...?
Are you trolling AGAIN?
Well, DUH. Wouldn't it be remarkably stupid for a fighter to get better by taking ranger levels?
If that's the sort of ranger you have in mind, fine.
Celtavian said:
Yes. Post proof or retract, W33NIE!
Who loses out on 2 skill points, uncanny dodge progression, and sneak attack.
And loses out on a bonus feat.
Thus the ranger is a more attractive _class_, period, which is not a bad thing, despite certain persons' attempts to show otherwise.
That's like saying that paying twenty bucks for an hour with a hooker is equally as attractive as paying ten bucks. Which, I admit, may be true for some hookers.
One of us is clearly confused.
No, it used to be that a fighter would take one level of ranger to gain TWF and Ambidex. I can count the number of people who played rangers for more than 1 level on... well, actually, no hands.
Now you really are burbling.
You seem to have missed the main drawback of virtual feats. But never mind, you seem to be missing a lot of things.
You are terminally confused. On the one hand, you claim that the ranger is so good that everyone will pick up a bunch of ranger levels. On the other hand, you claim that ranger levels will make for a nerfed character. So make up your mind. Are rangers a munchkin class, or not?
If the DM can't devise encounters to challenge a party without a tank fighter, that's a DM who should hang up his hat immediately.
So?
By that measure, half the classes in the PHB should be junked immediately. This is a plainly stupid criterion for assessing the worthiness of a character class. Please stop, or I will be forced to resort to R00D W0RDS.
You have completely misunderstood how monk/paladin multiclassing restrictions work, but never mind. Not to mention the limits on monk abilities, in particular inability to function in armour, but again, never mind.
Your point is...?
Are you trolling AGAIN?
Well, DUH. Wouldn't it be remarkably stupid for a fighter to get better by taking ranger levels?
If that's the sort of ranger you have in mind, fine.
Last edited:
rangerjohn said:
Because it apparently resembles a home-brew class he's been desperately pimping a while back, and throwing tantrums when some people didn't like it. Now that a class like it showed up in the official rules, he's feeling all warm and fuzzy and validated as a... something or other... and will just troll anyone who doesn't like it and doesn't appreciate how special hong is. (No, the other kind of special.)
Either that, or he's just posting his usual tired crap for no reason at all - it's hard to tell sometimes.
BryonD
Hero
Re: Re
Actually, the +3 bonus on his ref save is only a +2 bonus on 2 out of every 3 levels.
BAB is a wash, not a pro.
Track with 2 levels = 5 ranks max (which would suck down just over half his bonus skill points) plus that reknowned fighter WIS bonus. "Lookit me, mom!!! I'm a hunter." And yes, he can cross cross his fighter points, but that certainly shoots down the whole favorable skill points position.
So only 2 out of your 5 pros are not overstated. He does get a +2 Fort save and he can benefit from either the track feat or the skill points.
Cons (that you missed):
Loses -1 to his already weak Will save on 2 out of 3 rounds. And if I am a fighter, I want that +1 Will more than I want the +2 fort. Because my fort is already ok and my enemies tend to know that, so they will throw the will stuff at me.
Has access to Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Specialization delayed for 2 levels each. If I am playing a min/maxed fighter, I will avoided dashing Ranger just for this one thing alone.
Faces multiclassing XP issues unless he is human, half-elf (see lots of those) or dwarf (will see more of these in 3.5, but their racial perks are not a great mesh with ranger).
BAB +2? Hmm, lets "do an analysis"
Ranger2/Rogue1 BAB=+2 Rogue 3 BAB = +2. Hey, that's not a gain of +2!!!! It is no gain at all.
Ranger2/Rogue2 BAB=+3 Rogue 4 BAB = +3. Hey, that's not a gain of +2!!!! It is no gain at all.
Ranger2/Rogue3 BAB=+4 Rogue 5 BAB = +3. Hey, that's not a gain of +2!!!! It is only a gain of +1.
Wash Rinse Repeat.
Up to Ranger2/Rogue18 the ranger splash will get +1 BAB on 8 levels and +0 BAB on 10.
Ever so slight misrepresentation on your part.
Gains track - See fighter rebuttal above.
The fort save bonus is the same, actually only +2 on 2 out of 3 levels.
Other Cons:
Loses -1 to his already weak Will save on 2 out of 3 rounds.
Delays access to Evasion for 2 levels
Delays access to Uncanny dodge for 2 levels
Delays and reduces trap sense by 2 levels
Delays access to improved uncanny dodge for 2 levels
Delays access to special abilities by 2 levels
Delays access to each additional special ability by 2 levels
Loses one special ability permanently (without going epic)
Faces multiclassing XP issues unless he is human, half-elf (see lots of those) or halfling (those halfing fighter were a problem anyway, ha).
Actually, it is more or less the same as it was in its own attractiveness. But tyhey also made staying a single class character much more attractive.
I believe that. We can add it to the list of things you forgot.
Celtavian said:
Actually, the +3 bonus on his ref save is only a +2 bonus on 2 out of every 3 levels.
BAB is a wash, not a pro.
Track with 2 levels = 5 ranks max (which would suck down just over half his bonus skill points) plus that reknowned fighter WIS bonus. "Lookit me, mom!!! I'm a hunter." And yes, he can cross cross his fighter points, but that certainly shoots down the whole favorable skill points position.
So only 2 out of your 5 pros are not overstated. He does get a +2 Fort save and he can benefit from either the track feat or the skill points.
Cons (that you missed):
Loses -1 to his already weak Will save on 2 out of 3 rounds. And if I am a fighter, I want that +1 Will more than I want the +2 fort. Because my fort is already ok and my enemies tend to know that, so they will throw the will stuff at me.
Has access to Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Specialization delayed for 2 levels each. If I am playing a min/maxed fighter, I will avoided dashing Ranger just for this one thing alone.
Faces multiclassing XP issues unless he is human, half-elf (see lots of those) or dwarf (will see more of these in 3.5, but their racial perks are not a great mesh with ranger).
BAB +2? Hmm, lets "do an analysis"
Ranger2/Rogue1 BAB=+2 Rogue 3 BAB = +2. Hey, that's not a gain of +2!!!! It is no gain at all.
Ranger2/Rogue2 BAB=+3 Rogue 4 BAB = +3. Hey, that's not a gain of +2!!!! It is no gain at all.
Ranger2/Rogue3 BAB=+4 Rogue 5 BAB = +3. Hey, that's not a gain of +2!!!! It is only a gain of +1.
Wash Rinse Repeat.
Up to Ranger2/Rogue18 the ranger splash will get +1 BAB on 8 levels and +0 BAB on 10.
Ever so slight misrepresentation on your part.
Gains track - See fighter rebuttal above.
The fort save bonus is the same, actually only +2 on 2 out of 3 levels.
Other Cons:
Loses -1 to his already weak Will save on 2 out of 3 rounds.
Delays access to Evasion for 2 levels
Delays access to Uncanny dodge for 2 levels
Delays and reduces trap sense by 2 levels
Delays access to improved uncanny dodge for 2 levels
Delays access to special abilities by 2 levels
Delays access to each additional special ability by 2 levels
Loses one special ability permanently (without going epic)
Faces multiclassing XP issues unless he is human, half-elf (see lots of those) or halfling (those halfing fighter were a problem anyway, ha).
Actually, it is more or less the same as it was in its own attractiveness. But tyhey also made staying a single class character much more attractive.
I believe that. We can add it to the list of things you forgot.
Last edited:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re
Pink WANGER? How festive of you.
So, WANGER see how quickly we can get this thread closed?
hong said:
Goldurn it, mmu2 has figured out my SEKR1T TECHNIQUE!
But he has the words, but not the music. Oh well, that's what happens to poseurs everywhere.
Pink WANGER? How festive of you.
So, WANGER see how quickly we can get this thread closed?
- Status
Similar Threads
