[3.5] Rangers lose medium armor!

[hong]

Re: Re

When they decided to change the Ranger, I was hoping for a class that could be the main fighting component of a group for folks who would rather play a Ranger than a Fighter or Paladin.

Well, doesn't it just suck to be you?

2. They claimed the change was made to discourage multi-classing.

Twaddle. The changes were to make the ranger 1) more attractive _as a single-classing option_; and 2) get rid of the one-level TWF cheese. Neither of these rule out making the class more attractive as a limited dip for those who want to be primarily something else. Similarly, giving the fighter more high-level feats like Greater WF and Greater WS doesn't mean it suddenly becomes suboptimal to take a couple of fighter levels to round out a cleric, rogue, barb or whatnot. Every class in D&D is front-loaded to some extent; these changes make the ranger _less_ front-loaded than before.

Do an analysis. The Ranger is now an even better multi-class character than previously.

What a silly way of analysing things.

 

[Darklone]

Two levels of ranger won't help a rogue much BAB wise... yet alone those +2 you wrote.

 

[Celtavian]

Re: Re: Re

waddle. The changes were to make the ranger 1) more attractive _as a single-classing option_; and 2) get rid of the one-level TWF cheese. Neither of these rule out making the class more attractive as a limited dip for those who want to be primarily something else. Similarly, giving the fighter more high-level feats like Greater WF and Greater WS doesn't mean it suddenly becomes suboptimal to take a couple of fighter levels to round out a cleric, rogue, barb or whatnot. Every class in D&D is front-loaded to some extent; these changes make the ranger _less_ front-loaded than before.

So they made it into two-level TWF cheese. Mmmmm. Tastes much better this way. Thanks for the change.

What a silly way of analysing things.

Analyzing the pros and cons of taking two levels of Ranger for a Fighter and a Rogue. Hmm. You just reworded the two reasons I stated for the change, my analysis showed why the Ranger is still a more attractive multi-class option. So what am I missing?

I ask: Is the Ranger more attractive as single class character with light armor and d8 hit dice? Is taking two-levels of Ranger going to hurt a class that does so? Do your own analysis, a non-silly one I hope. Tell if the two reasons you listed for the change were accomplished. I don't think they were. If you can show me the error of my analysis, I would be happy to read your opinion.

 

[hong]

Re: Re: Re: Re

So they made it into two-level TWF cheese. Mmmmm. Tastes much better this way. Thanks for the change.

The lights are on, but it would seem no one's home. I will 'splain it in words of one syllable, so you will be sure to get it. You see, there is this thing the fighter gets at 1st, called a "bonus feat". One of the feats they can take is this one called "Two-Weapon Fighting". A feat from one level is more good than a feat from two levels.

OOPS! I USED WORDS OF TWO SYLLABLES IN THERE! I MUST APOLOGISE IF NOT IMMEDIATELY COMMIT SEPPUKU.

Analyzing the pros and cons of taking two levels of Ranger for a Fighter and a Rogue. Hmm. You just reworded the two reasons I stated for the change, my analysis showed why the Ranger is still a more attractive multi-class option. So what am I missing?

You are missing, dear Celtavain, the extra benefits that a ranger gets over the whole range going from 1st to 20th level. You know, itty bitty stuff like two good saves, good BAB, 6 skill points/level, Endurance, evasion, feats, pumped-up favoured enemy, woodland stride, spells....

If a character ignores all this because they want to advance primarily in another class, that's fine. If a character ignores all this because they think the ranger got the shaft, they are stupid.

I ask: Is the Ranger more attractive as single class character with light armor and d8 hit dice?

Are you trolling?

Is taking two-levels of Ranger going to hurt a class that does so?

No, nor is taking three levels of ranger, four levels of ranger, five levels of ranger.... Of course, at some point you're no longer whatever you started out to be, you're a ranger; but that's by-the-by.

Do your own analysis, a non-silly one I hope. Tell if the two reasons you listed for the change were accomplished. I don't think they were. If you can show me the error of my analysis, I would be happy to read your opinion.

There are plenty of reasons to stick with the ranger for 20 levels. There are plenty of reasons to play a ranger, lack of medium armour and d8 HD notwithstanding. These reasons may not apply to those who insist on confusing rangers with fighters, but these people are eminently ignorable.

 

[rangerjohn]

Why Hong? Because you say so? A ranger was a fighter from day one. Whether we are talking about the the arch-type or the game. Even as far back when it was introduced in original D&D it was a choice FIGHTERS had, along with knight and avenger.

 

[hong]

Why Hong? Because you say so?

Exactly. Because I'M JUST THAT DAMN GOOD.

A ranger was a fighter from day one.

Not anymore, bucko!

Whether we are talking about the the arch-type or the game. Even as far back when it was introduced in original D&D it was a choice FIGHTERS had, along with knight and avenger.

Ah, you are so right. Because, y'know, ONE LESS HIT POINT PER LEVEL is just such a crippling drawback that those poor rangers will now fall in droves before the orc hordes. And besides: multiclassing. Learn it, use it, love it.

 

[Numion]

A ranger was a fighter from day one.

Why don't you then play a fighter if you like that equation? Let those who actually play a ranger play ranger.

PS If you ask nicely, your DM may let you actually write "Ranger" on your character sheet, even though you really use fighters stats and advancement

 

[hong]

Why don't you then play a fighter if you like that equation? Let those who actually play a ranger play ranger.

Rangerjohn is just pissed that noone wants to talk about wizards getting teh shaft anymore, so he's moving on to how rangers got teh shaft.

 

[Celtavian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re

The lights are on, but it would seem no one's home. I will 'splain it in words of one syllable, so you will be sure to get it. You see, there is this thing the fighter gets at 1st, called a "bonus feat". One of the feats they can take is this one called "Two-Weapon Fighting". A feat from one level is more good than a feat from two levels.

Do I have to be that specific? Are your lights on? Better for Rogue. The fighter takes two levels of Ranger for better skill points and a good Reflex save.

You are missing, dear Celtavain, the extra benefits that a ranger gets over the whole range going from 1st to 20th level. You know, itty bitty stuff like two good saves, good BAB, 6 skill points/level, Endurance, evasion, feats, pumped-up favoured enemy, woodland stride, spells....

If a character ignores all this because they want to advance primarily in another class, that's fine. If a character ignores all this because they think the ranger got the shaft, they are stupid.

I don't think the Ranger got the shaft. I think the Ranger is still not a viable class save as an "extra". It is not strong enough to stand alone in a party that lacks either a Rogue or a Strong Fighter, just like the Monk.

Try it.

Are you trolling?

No.

No, nor is taking three levels of ranger, four levels of ranger, five levels of ranger.... Of course, at some point you're no longer whatever you started out to be, you're a ranger; but that's by-the-by.

You're right. The new Ranger blends extraordinarily well with any other class at many levels. Any analysis will show that combining levels of Ranger with almost any other class will greatly strengthen your overall character. Thus, the Ranger is a more attractive multiclass, as I stated numerous times.

My immediate analysis was to point out that two levels of Ranger is equally as attractive as taking one level of Ranger was previously. Am I incorrect? See above if you again confuse the Fighter taking ranger for two-weapon fighting.

It used to be that a Ranger would multiclass with Fighter to gain a few bonus feats. Rogues were the primary culprits taking a level of Ranger to gain TWF. Now, a Rogue can do the same thing by taking two levels of Ranger. A fighter or Paladin or Bard can take two levels of Ranger to enhance their Reflex Save, obtain favorable skills and skill points, while not losing Base Attack and still being a more viable character due to their more potent spells, special abilities, more hit points, and ability to wear heavier armor. I'm sure you can figure which class fits each example.

Can the Ranger stand alone in a party without a Fighter or a Rogue in the same way a Paladin, Barbarian, or Bard can? I don't think it can, but we'll see.

There are plenty of reasons to stick with the ranger for 20 levels. There are plenty of reasons to play a ranger, lack of medium armour and d8 HD notwithstanding. These reasons may not apply to those who insist on confusing rangers with fighters, but these people are eminently ignorable.

Yes, there are, as long as the group has a "real" fighter (Barbarian, Paladin, or Fighter) and a rogue (or bard) to fill certain roles.

The Ranger is an "extra" like the monk. It does not stand alone. It could be fun for a party that already has the roles filled it needs or an unconventional campaign that doesn't throw really tough encounters at the party that require a strong, heavily armored fighter type. Not many modules put out by WotC fit this criteria, and I don't think many modules period fit this criteria.

Once again, the Ranger did not get the shaft. It just isn't a stand alone class. It is like the monk, save the monk doesn't allow multiclassing. If the monk did allow multiclassing, then people would be playing multiclass monks like gangbusters.

The Ranger doesn't have a multi-classing limitation. Thus, it will be a very attractive class for multiclassing for more than just Rogues. Previously a Ranger was a stand alone character that could be made better with 2 to 4 levels of Fighter. Now I think the pendulum has swung the other way, the Fighter is better off taking two levels of Ranger and advancing as a fighter.

That is my take on it. We'll see how it plays out. LIke I said, I was hoping for a version of a Ranger that was interchangeable with the Fighter. It didn't happen. I'll probably stick with my houseruled Ranger.

 

[diaglo]

Why Hong? Because you say so? A ranger was a fighter from day one. Whether we are talking about the the arch-type or the game. Even as far back when it was introduced in original D&D it was a choice FIGHTERS had, along with knight and avenger.

actually they weren't fighters. they were fighting men