[3.5] Rangers lose medium armor!

[mmu1]

Uh no. He is high precision because it is not optimal to use power attack and thus the TWF dex fighter would only attack at his full bonus. The high AC comes from the dodge and expertise feat chains which allow for high AC bonuses. But of course, you couldn't take the time to actually look at feats before launching your rant, so.....

Oh, my...

Precision, because he doesn't use Power Attack? Unless you're fighting against novelty creatures, with extremely low AC for their CR, it's almost always not optimal to use Power Attack, especially if you have multiple attacks and want those to hit.

High AC from Expertise? I thought he was a precision character, which is why he didn't Power Attack? He's going to start subtracting points from his BAB now? How accurate is he going to be, with enough Expertise to make up for the lack of a shield? Oh, wait, my bad, the +1 AC against one enemy from Dodge is going to make up the difference.

I bow to your superior understanding...

 

[Celtavian]

The bard can replace the rogue or the wizard IMO. They have different ways of doing things, but they can do it with their spells and skills.

The druid can replace the cleric or the wizard. I would imagine the new version even moreso for the wizard.

The monk is also a red-headed step child. The new monk might be able to handle themselves better than previously, but we will see.

I don't see the ranger stepping in for the fighter or the rogue. I guess it is a class like a monk. Just there if you happen to already have a big melee in a group that exceeds 4 people.

I have always felt the Ranger should be able to fill the shoes of the main fighter. This version can't. Light armor and d8 hit points is far too weak to deal with powerful monsters.

I guess what really bothers me is they wanted to discourage people from multi-classing the ranger, but the ranger will most likely only be viable when multi-classed as a fighter, just like before. So the change really didn't change much for the Ranger save that people may take a few more levels of Ranger than previously to get decent Reflex saves and track.

Basically, the reason for changing the ranger is moot, so why did they bother? The previous version of the Ranger was a more viable character than the new version, and could easily replace a fighter. The big reason for the change seemed to be that the Ranger was boring and abuseable as a multi-class character because it was an easy to get TWF for rogues. Now it is an easy to pick up good Reflex saves and track. This change is worthless.


P.S. The Ranger class is still worthless. It does nothing to discourage multiclassing. I will be House Ruling my Ranger once again to create one that can fill a role in a small group without the necessity of a big frontline fighter.

This is the most hit and miss design team I have ever seen. They have some great ideas coupled with some absolutely worthless ideas. I'm out.

 

[hong]

The bard can replace the rogue or the wizard IMO. They have different ways of doing things, but they can do it with their spells and skills.

The druid can replace the cleric or the wizard. I would imagine the new version even moreso for the wizard.

The monk is also a red-headed step child. The new monk might be able to handle themselves better than previously, but we will see.

I don't see the ranger stepping in for the fighter or the rogue. I guess it is a class like a monk. Just there if you happen to already have a big melee in a group that exceeds 4 people.

I have always felt the Ranger should be able to fill the shoes of the main fighter. This version can't. Light armor and d8 hit points is far too weak to deal with powerful monsters.

I guess what really bothers me is they wanted to discourage people from multi-classing the ranger, but the ranger will most likely only be viable when multi-classed as a fighter, just like before. So the change really didn't change much for the Ranger save that people may take a few more levels of Ranger than previously to get decent Reflex saves and track.

Basically, the reason for changing the ranger is moot, so why did they bother? The previous version of the Ranger was a more viable character than the new version, and could easily replace a fighter. The big reason for the change seemed to be that the Ranger was boring and abuseable as a multi-class character because it was an easy to get TWF for rogues. Now it is an easy to pick up good Reflex saves and track. This change is worthless.

Dear Celtavain,

Please to repeat this argument on all those people who insisted that my martial artist class was munchkin. ThaADVANCEnks!

 

[BryonD]

Hong,

You have missed the fundamental truth here.

A ranger with these abilities is burnt toast and useless.

Anyone who would give a martial artist these abilities is clearly a munchkin.

I'm certain you simply overlooked this truism. Mistakes happen, just look to the future and move on.

 

[coyote6]

my martial artist class

When will we see the 3.5e version of Hong's Martial Artist?

 

[sithramir]

Except that the nature of two weapon fighting is itself changing, thanks to the feats added, as the 3.5 changes are telling us. By high levels, they will lose the penalties entirely, about the time that two-handed fighters are getting pretty good with their damage. It has been shown through a couple of math-heavy theads in the Rules Forum that average damage will work out close to the same.

I myself am eager to see how the end result plays.

EDIT - I stand corrected on the part about them losing penalties. I got confused between that and the monk's ability. Even so, the ability to perform massive numbers of attacks will end up compensating for the two-handers' adventage in the long run.

Except to any monster with Damage reduction. Then the 2 weapon fighters damage goes potentially to 0 while a 2 handed weapon is only reduced and he is still able to defeat the monster. Considering how many higher level monsters have this it brings a big problem into the equation.

But I think they're quite even in damage besides that aspect.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Except that the nature of two weapon fighting is itself changing, thanks to the feats added, as the 3.5 changes are telling us. By high levels, they will lose the penalties entirely, about the time that two-handed fighters are getting pretty good with their damage. It has been shown through a couple of math-heavy theads in the Rules Forum that average damage will work out close to the same.

I myself am eager to see how the end result plays.

EDIT - I stand corrected on the part about them losing penalties. I got confused between that and the monk's ability. Even so, the ability to perform massive numbers of attacks will end up compensating for the two-handers' adventage in the long run.

The numbers where I saw TWS mathcing up well with two handed style was with the assumption of a fighter with WF, WS, and GWF, and GWS. With a flat bonus to damage it help those with multiple attacks more, and with the +2 to hit and +4 to damage on 6 attacks at 11th level TWS worked out really well. I'd be curious to see how it matches up without GWS. An urgosh dwarven fighter or ranger may kick some serious booty. The d8/d6 considered light so only -2 penalties, not an exotic so no extra feat might make this a really good style.

 

[jasamcarl]

Oh, my...

Precision, because he doesn't use Power Attack? Unless you're fighting against novelty creatures, with extremely low AC for their CR, it's almost always not optimal to use Power Attack, especially if you have multiple attacks and want those to hit.

High AC from Expertise? I thought he was a precision character, which is why he didn't Power Attack? He's going to start subtracting points from his BAB now? How accurate is he going to be, with enough Expertise to make up for the lack of a shield? Oh, wait, my bad, the +1 AC against one enemy from Dodge is going to make up the difference.

I bow to your superior understanding...

Have you even looked at the new feat list? Or the old for that matter. Take note of mobility. Take note of Two-weapon defense. Take note of the fact that you can use TWF with shields. Not to mention the crit range for most finesse weapons. I accept your bow.

 

[jasamcarl]

Except to any monster with Damage reduction. Then the 2 weapon fighters damage goes potentially to 0 while a 2 handed weapon is only reduced and he is still able to defeat the monster. Considering how many higher level monsters have this it brings a big problem into the equation.

But I think they're quite even in damage besides that aspect.

Given the availability of spells such as the new align weapon, and the cheap nature of silvered, etc, properties at high levels, i seriously doubt this will be much of an issue.

 

[DrSpunj]

You know...

I think rangers should get medium armor. I realize that it does nothing for 99/100 rangers, but the problem is with medium armor, not with rangers having it. It is always the worst choice. I much prefer cutting running speed with medium armor, and not cutting movement until heavy armor. When we made that switch, people actually started wearing medium armor in my games.

House Rules Sidetrack:

I've thought about doing this for my group. Any problems with it?

It always seemed stupid to me that you gave up 1/4 to 1/3 of your Base Speed for a maximum gain of +1 AC between Light & Medium Armors (and that comes with a loss of -1 MaxDex and an additional -2 ACP!). That's a meager gain and I thought it would be better balanced with a meager loss, like dropping to x3 Running but keep Base Speed the same in Medium armor. Jumping from Medium Armor to Heavy nets you a huge +3 AC (and only drops your MaxDex by 2 with the same additional -2 ACP, plus your AC bonus totals a potential +9, where it's only +8 with Light & Medium) and that seems like it may be worth the drop in Base Speed.

/End House Rules Sidetrack

I'm fine with Rangers losing Medium armor, but I think they should get real feats instead of virtual ones. That way if they choose to gain Medium or Heavy armor proficiency they don't hamstring themselves. The Class Ability still allows them to obtain the feats without meeting the prereqs (as someone stated above), but then they are free to multi & develop as they want (breaking the "typical" mold).

DrSpunj