Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercule" data-source="post: 769277" data-attributes="member: 5100">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".</blockquote>

Verification