3.5 Ranger Combat Styles

[Merlion]

I don't think that paths are appropriate for any class. I'm opposed to the mechanic in general.

"Double plus good" is from "1984" and means "very good".

8 skill points would be absurd for a ranger, I agree. 6 is about right and is a better balance than TWF or some other combat path.




My main disagreement with TWF is "What does being a woodsman have to do with ambidexterity?". It doesn't seem to have any relation to the core archetype and even seems a bit out of place. I'm under the impression that the 2E developers have even openly stated that it was added to the ranger to give them an extra "balance" kick. I don't have a problem with a ranger or two having it, and the normal feat mechanic works fine for that. It's when it's a core of the class that it bugs me.

I have often wondered myself where the assocation between rangers and two handed fighting came from. Nothing wrong with it, but having it as the only option for rangers is just silly
I can see where your coming from about the virtual feats. My only guess is like I said they do it instead of just bonus feats so people wont complain about infringing on the Fighters territory(not something I agree with personaly) and to impose the armor restriction(which I can kind of see but which probably also mostly stems from not wanting to "step on the fighters toes".
And, just for the record I knew that double plus good didnt mean you wanted 8 skill points for rangers I dont think anyones that crazy

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

WotC said that the ranger will be more "wildernessy" - a "natural feat chain" perhaps eg Alertness, etc?

That would let you play Aragorn

 

[Merlion]

Ooo ooo where did you see that about the natural feat chain?

 

[Vrylakos]

No problem with you Vrylakos...you've sticked to completely civil conversation. that statement was aimed mainly at noretoc who started throwing acusations at people. I prefer very direct responses to my posts but my main thing is I dont want a thread I start to turn into nothing but an arguement...and their is no reason to start slinging mud on thease boards. Sorry Vry if you thought that one bit was aimed at you

Sorry if I thought that. It's all cool.

I am somewhat worried that the 3.5 Ranger won't be all that different from the 3E Ranger. I'd like it to be a class with REAL options. Like the fighter, the wizard, the cleric, the rogue.

The feel of those characters is directly connected to player choice.

The one's who DON'T seem to have much flavor based on player choices:

Monk, Paladin, Ranger, and less so the Druid, Sorcerer and Bard.

Fighter: What you fight with, how you fight, and so on, all chosen by you based on the feats you want to pick up.

Wizard: Your spellbook is totally up to you. What magic-related feats you choose are totally up to you. Battle Mage or Crafter? Master of Metamagic? A Familiar? You choose.

Cleric: Domains are up to you (and to an extent the DM). A bit straightjackety in that most clerics seem to be heavy armor wearers, but still plenty of choice, especially with your spell choices for the day.

Rogue: All about choice. Skills and so on. The higher level choices for special abilities could use some non-combat options, and the Sneak Attack would be nice to have an option for non-combat oriented Rogues (like the "Faceman" rogues, or the trickster types) but overall all about choices.

The Low Choice Ones:

Paladin: A fighter with some holy power. You're Lawful Good. Period. I'd liked to have seem some rules for something like Domain Powers, or "Orders" you could create.

Druid: Plants and Shapechanging. Fairly flexible, but what does the player choose besides daily spells, animal companions (if any) and what shape to change into? All good, but I see players wanting to feel unique, perhaps self-made, like their character concept is theirs alone, or at least tailor made. What makes one druid different from another? Not much.

Bard: A bit of diversity due to skill points, but real difference in this class comes from performance style if it's even addressed, and multiclassing. Oft called a weak class, they are usually party support.

Monk: Hope you like those special abilities, because that's what you're getting. Where's the Monkey Style monks vs the Mantis Style monks? Where's something more brawler-style, or more wrestler-style martial arts?

Ranger: If you want to be anything other than a two weapon guy, you're sunk.

Sorcerer: Spell choice, yes. Familiar choice, yes. But little else. Not a big enough skill list. No additional powers. I made a bloodline-based system on my website to compensate for this sort of dry class that had lots of potential.

Compare the High Choice classes with the Low Choice. The best of the bunch are REALLY wide open, with Feats to choose from via the class. I think most classes should have some extra feats that make sense for wider class-concepts.

I don't think some more skill points and an Archer/DualWielder toggle switch is enough to make the Ranger appeal to more than Robin Hood and Drizzt/Darth Maul fans.

But that may just be me.

Vrylakos

 

[noretoc]

Just wanted to note that your quoted bit above was not from me, though you did attribute it to me...

Vrylakos

Very sorry vry! I don't usuallu break down a post like that and got a bit confused with the names.

 

[Angcuru]

It was originally a balancing factor, as stated earlier. However, there's a certain overglorified Drow Ranger who's style is so engrained with the Ranger image that it became a permanent part of the class. Just another one of those things that pisses me off. I want a bonus feat list, not a path list. still, if they want to put in an archer progression thingy, I'm all for it.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Compare the High Choice classes with the Low Choice. The best of the bunch are REALLY wide open, with Feats to choose from via the class. I think most classes should have some extra feats that make sense for wider class-concepts.

V --

I think one could argue that you don't need any of the "specialized classes" at all. With a little ability tweaking, you can fulfill most of your roles with properly chosen skill and feats from the four bases classes.

Personally, I think a strength of the system is the choice of options. You can be a more generic class with greater flexibility, or a class with higher power in certain areas, at the expense of flexibility.

Anyone remember the days when rangers and paladins were "sub-classes" of fighters?

 

[noretoc]

I don't think that paths are appropriate for any class. I'm opposed to the mechanic in general.

Normally I also like choices, but I think that is why there is a general fighter. As it seems the idea of giving a ranger a benefit (the virtual feats) for sticking with a concept' helps keep the character as a ranger, and not just another class combo.

I'm not really opposed to the idea of rangers having spells, per se. I've just seen enough concepts that are great for ranger, but the spells basically detract from it that my solution is to dump spells from the ranger and encourage multi-classing to get the spells.

That works nicely whether you see the ranger "archetype" as divine caster (as you apparently do), arcane caster (as I do), or non-caster (as a couple people I've talked to do).

True, but the limited spells let you keep pace with the other melee classes. Multiclassing is a great feature of 3E, but in truth the multiclassed can be out of balance. Sometime way to powerful in some areas and too weak in other. I think the spell casting for the ranger, while keeping his BAB allows a balanced way of having both worlds.

I'm _definitely_ not advocating giving them d12, although I could see where it would come across that way. I think d10 is perfect. My point really is that d8 is a bad idea for the ranger.

If someone was going to change the hit die, I would be less opposed to changing to d12 than to d8, but it still wouldn't be my first choice.

srry, sounded like you were when you mentioned the barbarian. I would like to see them with a d10, but when you give them more, you have to take away from somewhere. Being range fighters (path of bow) of dex fighter (two weapons, light armor) they should be able to get out of combat effectively enough that the lower hit points won't hurt them much.

"Double plus good" is from "1984" and means "very good".

8 skill points would be absurd for a ranger, I agree. 6 is about right and is a better balance than TWF or some other combat path.

Oh! Sorry again. Never heard that phrase. I thought you meant it literally. Like 8+

I_don't_ want to see ranger be a superman. I think that impression came from a misunderstanding.

My main disagreement with TWF is "What does being a woodsman have to do with ambidexterity?". It doesn't seem to have any relation to the core archetype and even seems a bit out of place. I'm under the impression that the 2E developers have even openly stated that it was added to the ranger to give them an extra "balance" kick. I don't have a problem with a ranger or two having it, and the normal feat mechanic works fine for that. It's when it's a core of the class that it bugs me.

And, as I said above, I have a problem with the virtual feats and path mechanic in general, regardless of what the paths are. I'd much prefer to see a few real bonus feats that aren't hemmed in by a decision at 2nd level and weren't exclusively combat oriented. The list used by the Woodsman class in WoT is quite along the lines I'd like to see (in fact, the Woodsman is what I use as a substitute for the ranger in my game). [/B]

I haven't seen the woodsman, but I can tell you the two weapon reason as far as I have come to understand it. Since most of the ranger's skills are dex based, the character should have a high dex. Now, with only so many points to spend (as point-buy is almost the standard now) that leaves a good dex, and wis (for spells and skills) it dosen't leave much for Strength. Having a low strength will hurt the ranger as it really is a fighting class. In combat, his job it to hit with the weapons. To keep him in line, and not have him rely on abilities that he does not have the points to spend, they give him an extra attack. By limiting the armor it is even more motive to go the dex route. This also work with a bow path.
Also another reason for virtual feats, is something that a lot of people tend to forget. Ambidexterity is used for more than just combat. There are many things that people can only do with one hand well. A ambidextrous character dosen't have these limitations. That is a big feat to give for free even as a bonus.
Also thanks for the great reply. It did clear up a misunderstanding, and helped me understand your position and also let me explain how I feel about the paths. The intent of the original poster.

 

[noretoc]

No problem with you Vrylakos...you've sticked to completely civil conversation. that statement was aimed mainly at noretoc who started throwing acusations at people. I prefer very direct responses to my posts but my main thing is I dont want a thread I start to turn into nothing but an arguement...and their is no reason to start slinging mud on thease boards. Sorry Vry if you thought that one bit was aimed at you

No accusation, besides yours. I responded to a post.

 

[Merlion]

It sounds like you are looking not for a ranger, but a "superman" class. The ranger has some faults..

Thats what I was talking about. thats basicaly an accusation and could have turned this thread into a flame war which I really dont like. things seem to have gotten nicely back on track however.
Vrylakos: I agree just the TWF/Archery paths would not be enough...I am going to be a tad peeved if theres less than 4 paths. However on the bright side it looks as tho the 3.5 ranger is going to be essentialy Monte Cooks ranger with virtual feats instead of bonus feats. so its probable many may just continue using Monte's ranger.