[3.5] Rangers lose medium armor!

[Winterthorn]

Animal Companion...

There's something I don't understand with respect to combat concerns over the 3.5 Ranger vs the 3.5 Fighter:

Why haven't ppl taken into account the ALL the class features when making comparisons? In melee, the ranger isn't alone--the class is calculated by design to operate with an animal companion by default! Look at the class' features, 1st level benefits... A Ranger is weak without his "pet"--this is deliberate. The onus is on the player to select an animal companion suitable for the adventures he wishes his Ranger to engage in. (Of course, IMNSHO, the DM has the obligation to be fair to the player(s) too...)

Later on at higher levels, while the Fighter is enjoying piles of new feats, the Ranger has his Animal Companion, some Divine Spells, a good Reflex save, etc... Not that bad vs a Fighter, really

In fact, when calculating the Ranger's combat effectiveness vs a Fighter, is the Ranger really expected to be an even match without his animal companion?

As far as I know mechanical balance has to account for all permutations... Or simply:

3.5 Fighter (all class features) vs 3.5 Ranger (all features + animal companion) vs 3.5 Barbarian (all features) vs 3.5 Paladin (all features + mount (at 6th?)).

If one foregoes the inclusion of the Ranger's "pet" in one's calculations, one has to make a deletion of equal value in the Fighter, Paladin, and Barbarian--to be fair...

So far, I would agree with the general consensus that the 3.5 Ranger is an improvement over 3.0's. As a DM, I don't get too upset about mechanics issues that I can adjust as needed--in fact I tweak everything all the time anyways. I would speculate that those who are most concerned about the Ranger, let alone anything in the PH, are the players with little desire, interest or experience in DMing. Knowing this, I try to keep a healthy balance between what I want to do with the game and ensuring the players have fun. If no one has fun, what's the point?

-W.

 

[mmu1]

The precision comes from the fact that you can use weapons with a high crit range with expertise, mobility, dodge, etc. Sorry i had to spell that out. I might also note the face that TWF and Finesse are not mutually exclusive, while TWF is with the double-wielding power attack, so it is perfectly relevant.

jeez....

Right, high-STR characters can't use weapons with an 18-20 threat range, and Expertise now has a DEX requirement, does it?

Of course, every single character with Weapon Finesse apparently gets Dodge and Mobility for free (when the high-STR oaf will never be able to have the enormous DEX of 13 needed to take them) and those AC boosting feats are the example of how precisely the high-DEX character strikes with his weapon.

Even assuming for the sake of argument that 13 is a high Dex score (seen the standard array lately?), the fact that you think two fighting styles (one of which requires a feat) are balanced not in and of themselves but because one of them allows you to take a couple of feats that are hardly everyone's first choice speaks volumes about your understanding of the situation.

 

[Psion]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Subtle change we've overlooked?

I wish you'd stop it with this "3.11Ed for Workgroups" nonsense.

Click his "profile".
In the line right after the occupation line, click the right link.

It works for me.

 

[Hardhead]

Gandalf was very human except for his age in the books. And if its easily fixed with a feat, so are your plate rangers.

A wizard can take Martial Weapon Prof and use a sword.

A ranger that takes Medium Armor Prof looses his main class abilities.

Very different situations

 

[coyote6]

Dodge is +2 AC in 3.5, and I'm not positive but I think there's no Str penalty for your off hand.

I thought Andy Collins had said that the Dodge feat hadn't changed. Same for the reduced Str bonus for off-hand attacks.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I thought Andy Collins had said that the Dodge feat hadn't changed. Same for the reduced Str bonus for off-hand attacks.

He did. No change from 3.0.

Dodge: +1 AC, 1 target.
Off-hand attack: +0.5 str.

 

[MerricB]

That's a good question, and one worth considering. I don't have all the prereqs in front of me, but the only sticking point seems to be TWF, which has a dex 15+ requirement.

In fact, Improved Precise Shot (the third and final of the Archery path feats) has a Dex 19+ requirement.

That the "virtual" feats for the ranger are all combat-related does have something to do with the combat-related nature of D&D, of course.

Doesn't anyone else see a mounted scout type ranger with mounted feats? Or a footman type ranger with run and endurance?

It's also worth noting that all 3.5E Rangers gain the Endurance feat at level 3, and Swift tracker at level 8... to a certain extent that latter choice is already there.

Mind you, I'm having trouble with the first. A mounted tracker peering down at the tracks from above?

Cheers!

 

[Ysgarran]

Might be getting my feats mixed up but doesn't he need
'Shield Expert' to get this to work correctly? Or can he forgoe
the bonus to AC and still use the shield as an off hand weapon?

Sorry for drifting into rules here.

Ysgarran.

Wow, I don't understand the anger at all. Losing medium armor is just not a big deal-- 1 or 2 AC is nothing, especially at medium or high level.

Here's a Half Orc ranger build for you. 28 point buy.

S 18 D 14 C 12 I 10 Wis 12 Ch 6

Feats and bumps
1. Dodge, (track)
2. (TWF)
3. Power Attack
4. (+1 Wis)
6. Cleave

Edit: Clarified AC

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Mind you, I'm having trouble with the first. A mounted tracker peering down at the tracks from above?

There's a long martial tradition of mounted scouts; they're called light cavalry.

Pre-firearms, they tended to be armed with bows and light slashing weapons, and use hit-and-run style attacks (compared to the lance/sword mace, heavily armored, charge en masse with shock effect heavy cavalry).

Once firearms became common, light cavalry tended to dismount if they had to fight (which diverges in to a long discussion of cavalry vs. dragoons vs. mounted infantry which we don't want to go into). Modern cavalry of course looks a bit different.

Anyway, the 3.5 ranger would make a pretty good light cavalryman. Take Mounted Combat and Mounted Archery with your regular feats; take the archery feat path; put ranks in Ride and you're set.

Olgar (A Modern Cavalryman not quite to Fiddler's Green)

 

[coyote6]

Mind you, I'm having trouble with the first. A mounted tracker peering down at the tracks from above?

I take it you haven't seen a lot of Westerns?