[3.5] Rangers lose medium armor!

[Tom Cashel]

You idiot, Tom. That was Jesse Ventura's election campaign motto in 1996, and you know it.

Of course I'm an idiot. I'm the last person you need to tell.

Did he win?

 

[BryonD]

His Max saves at 20th level will be +14 Fort/+8 Reflex/+5 Will compared to +12 Fort/+6 Reflex/+6 Will. Which would you rather have? Fort saves are often more deadly than will. At higher level you can obtain a Ring of Free Action or Freedom of Movement to deal with holds. You can get a Protection from Evil spell to deal with domination by evil casters.

Ummm, you said: “Gains +3 on his Reflex Save.”
I called that an “overstatement”. Now you show me an example, where it is a +2. I said it was +2. So you give an example that proves that A) my statement was correct and B) your statement was an overstatement (which makes another of my statements correct. At least you made a weak attempt at smoke screening with some specific magic items to deal with narrow circumstances. By the rules, characters of the same level get the same magic gear. A ranger2/fighter18 gains not magic gear advantage over a fighter20.

True. Didn't feel like putting a neutral.

So you just slipped it in under the pros? Oops.

Yep, not too big a deal. More of a benefit for the Barbarian class. At best, a fighter would probably use Track to enhance someone elses roll.

OK, so again you agree with me. The barbarian gets his own list of perks that fall away if he picks up ranger levels.

Overstated? How do you overstate something that is simple fact. For those two levels, I listed beneficial changes. Period. There is no way to understate nor overstate their impact. That is you get for two levels of Ranger.

Calling a +2 bonus a +3 bonus is not an overstatement to you? (Heck you didn’t even state a fact. You were wrong.)

You listed BAB as a pro. You have stated that it is actually neutral. Are you saying that calling a neutral a “pro” is not an overstatement?

The skill point thing and the track thing run at odds with each other. But you gave them both full credit. You even agreed, assuming that track would be marginalized to assist other status.

There are 3 things out of your 5 that you overstated. Not in an opinion way, but factually overstated.

See above for why a -1 on Will save can be given up for 2 extra on Fort and Reflex save.

What, the ranger will have magic items argument? Unless you are claiming that the pure fighter will not have the same value in magic items then your argument dissolves.

Plus, I simply listed a factual con that you omitted. Are you disputing that?

You will, but I would gladly make the exchange for a higher Spot and Listen skill, no loss of Base Attack, and a better Reflex and Fort save immediately felt at lower level. I can wait two extra levels for the other feats.

Right, they are a decent trade off. You are the one claiming that one choice is better than the other. I’ll note that you list the lion’s share of perks just to off-set this single con. Hmmm. Interesting. So perhaps that choice with all factors considered isn’t so lopsided as you claim.

Or Halfling. Most multi-class Rangers previously were human or half-elf depnding on how they multi-classed. Heck, from what I understand most people play Humans followed by elves and half-elves.

Or halfling? You claim a halflings fighter with 2 levels ranger will not have XP problems? Interesting.

Again, I simply list a FACT, a con that you omitted from your assessment.

How so? A leve 18 Rogue/level 2 Ranger will get their BAB faster and gain an extra iterative attack at the highest level. Or did you forget?

Are you saying I am wrong? So much for your assessment.
Rogue 18 BAB = +13 Ranger 2 BAB = +2 Total = +15.
Rogue 20 BAB =+15.

Total impact = +0. Oops for you.

Please, show me a single Ranger2/Rogue X where the Ranger BAB = the Rogue X+2 BAB +2. It shouldn’t take but a moments time. I’ll be waiting.

Now, because we have established that a Ranger2/Rogue X really does NOT have a notably better BAB than a Rogue X+2, can we agree that iterative attacks are a non-issue? (I’ll save you the time. A Ranger2/Rogue gets his second attack at level 8, A straight rogue gets his second attack at level 8. No change. A Ranger2/Rogue gets his third attack at level 14. A straight rogue gets his third attack at level 15. Neither gets a 4th attack. So at exactly one level over the entire career the ranger gets a one attack bonus.)

I'll admit, the track feat will have diminishing returns for two levels of Ranger. A rogue could easily add more and greatly improve their class.

Ok, we agree. No big gain.

Once again, at 20th level a rogues saves will be +8 Fort/+14 Reflex/+5 Will.

Right, a +2 bonus again. I never claimed there was no bonus. I claimed you overstated it. Which is a fact.

Not at all overstated, a definite benefit all the way to 20th.

+3 is “not at all an overtstatment”? Check your own example.

I think all these concerns are vastly overstated. Many people would delay such special abilities to gain the benefits and have done so.

Um, now *I* am the one simply stating facts. Funny, where your facts are factually overstated, they are not overstatements, but when my facts are facts they are overstated. Interesting.

So if they are not overstated, they CERTAINLY can not be "vastly" overstated.

So basically, your position boils down to claiming that the small perks a multiclass ranger gets are the cat’s meow. And the laundry list of things they lose are trivialities.

Yes. So what again was the reason for the change? It is equally as, and I would say more, attractive to multiclass a Ranger compared to before.

What was I saying? I think is you who are missing the point.

I completely get your point.

If you think ranger MC is the way to go, then have at it. It is the so called facts that back up your point that I am disputing.

No, you really can't.

You seem to be misinterpreting my conclusion. It is simply the following:

1. The Ranger has neither become a more viable single class character nor a less attractive multiclass character. So what was the reason for the change again?

Get it yet Bryon.

ACTUALLY, you said “The Ranger is now an even better multi-class character than previously.” Now you just say it is no less attractive.

So ONE of us did not get your point.

The ranger used to be the single level class. In the extreme (which I don’t agree is accurate) it is now a two level class. So that is less attractive.

I don't know what you think I am saying, but you probably aren't right judging from the way you critiqued my analysis.

Wrong facts are wrong facts.

All the cons you listed are the cons any multiclass character has to deal with from the beginning of 3rd edition. I didn't list them because you have to put things in terms of tangible benefits and losses that will exist throughout the life of the character.

So you now claim that everything you listed is new to 3.5? On you fighter list the only thing that was not true in 3E was the REF save. Same with the Rogue. And under the rogue example your 2d8 HD should be a CON if you are simply comparing to 3E because it used to be a more attractive 2d10.
You were presenting your case as a straight up comparison. But your attempt was so littered with factual mistakes and blatant bias that now you are trying to change the context. Unfortunately, if I believe you now, that just makes your analysis even worse.

 

[Chasmodai]

I started reading this thread at page 1 but by page 5, I was completely lost. I couldn't figure out what most of you were trying to get at. As far as I could figure, there are two groups that are arguing between going Ranger 20 and going Ranger 2/Something Else 18.

I'm a big fan of the Ranger. They are my second favorite class, right behind Rogues. I wouldn't mind going Ranger (3.5) 20. I wouldn't mind multiclassing either. The fact that the Ranger is such a versatile class only adds to the appeal of playing it.

Ranger not as good as a sneaker as a Rogue? His ambushes are not as deadly as a Rogues, since he doesn't have sneak attacks? If the Ranger was as deadly as the Rogue, then there wouldn't be a need for Rogues, would there?

Ranger not as good a fighter as a Fighter? That's why he's called a Ranger and not a Fighter.

Ranger not a stand-alone class? Dude, you often play alone?

Sure Ranger is not a specialist. He's more of a back-up/support/generalist class. Hey, we could use some of that. Nothng wrong with not being able to wear fullplate and stand toe-to-toe against an ogre. (Though with favored enemy bonuses, ogres run away from the Ranger). othing wrong with not being able to sneak attack. The Ranger fulfills a role in DnD, just like every other class.

Sure you say he's virtually useless in the four person party. Maybe it's because you don't know how to play a Ranger properly? Perhaps because you've confused the Ranger with the Fighter so much that you think that the Ranger should play like the Fighter, which he shouldn't.

Anyway, two copper pieces worth. All I can say is if you don't like what you've been given, you can always reject it. That's what houserules are for.

 

[coyote6]

Exactly. Because I'M JUST THAT DAMN GOOD.

Not anymore, bucko!

You know, the automatic quote function doesn't do subquotes, which can do interesting things to quotes. Not that we want to take anyone out of context, and beat them with a stick, or anything.

Ah, you are so right. Because, y'know, ONE LESS HIT POINT PER LEVEL

Two per level, if your dice are properly loaded.

(I think the actual complaint is that light armor only => lower AC + less hp == die faster. But then, I've not been paying careful attention. )

<shrug> Houserule medium armor or d10 HD back in. Change Ref save to SW's average, increase HD? who knows. Heck, everyone can Choose Their Own Ranger -- there's enough variants [whether they're called "ranger", "wildlander", "scout", or whatever] out now that anybody's bias can be catered to.

 

[Fedifensor]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [3.5] Rangers lose medium armor!

Aragorn and Legolas took the feat.

Or they multiclassed.

An old writeup of Aragorn in White Dwarf had him as a Ranger/Paladin, which makes sense to me. Good saves (think Palantir), immune to fear, healing skill (and perhaps a bit of Lay on Hands)...

Legolas is a Ranger/Fighter (to get Weapon Specialization: Bow), perhaps with a bit of Peerless Archer or Order of the Bow thrown in.

 

[coyote6]

Re: Re: Re: Re

His Max saves at 20th level will be +14 Fort/+8 Reflex/+5 Will compared to +12 Fort/+6 Reflex/+6 Will.

Wait, y'all are talking about a Ftr18/Rgr2, right? Unless they've changed the poor save progression (level/3), that character would have Fort +14, Ref +9, Will +6

(Fort: +11 Ftr, +3 Rgr; Ref: +6 Ftr, +3 Rgr; Will: +6 Ftr, +0 Rgr).

Just nitpicking the math. Carry on.

 

[Celtavian]

re

Ummm, you said: “Gains +3 on his Reflex Save.”
I called that an “overstatement”. Now you show me an example, where it is a +2. I said it was +2. So you give an example that proves that A) my statement was correct and B) your statement was an overstatement (which makes another of my statements correct. At least you made a weak attempt at smoke screening with some specific magic items to deal with narrow circumstances. By the rules, characters of the same level get the same magic gear. A ranger2/fighter18 gains not magic gear advantage over a fighter20.

What you did was not read correctly. I stated what 2 levels of Ranger would give you when compared to what you would lose for giving up 2 levels of the class in question. The overall effect was a +2 net gain. I did not compute the net gain.

Read again what I listed. It is exactly what is gain or lost, not a net effect. I like to let people do that on their own like you have done. It shows them the proper picture.

OK, so again you agree with me. The barbarian gets his own list of perks that fall away if he picks up ranger levels.

Yes, and a few levels of Ranger gives him the Track feat, a favorable set of skills, a better Reflex save, and a better Fort.

Quite the nice exchange for not losing any Base Attack, delaying a few levels to max out special abilities, and losing 1 on the will save.

Calling a +2 bonus a +3 bonus is not an overstatement to you? (Heck you didn’t even state a fact. You were wrong.)

Once again, you misread. I stated exactly what you receive and what you give up. As in you lose 1 on your favorable save and gain +2 Reflex and Fort.

You listed BAB as a pro. You have stated that it is actually neutral. Are you saying that calling a neutral a “pro” is not an overstatement?

Just saying I was too lazy to add neutral. The simple fact of the matter is you like to use the word overstatement like it is going out of style.

The skill point thing and the track thing run at odds with each other. But you gave them both full credit. You even agreed, assuming that track would be marginalized to assist other status.

There are other skills besides survival that are very beneficial to have. Spot, Search, Listen, not on the figher list. Very beneficial to the Fighter. The rogue can pretty much keep his search skill up for traps and get Survival to improve tracking ability.

There are 3 things out of your 5 that you overstated. Not in an opinion way, but factually overstated.

Once again, you misread what I said. I did not calculate cumulative effect until later. As with the last argument where I clearly stated several times that I supported the change to Disintegrate you continued to put forth an argument that assumed I didn't support the change to Disintegrate. I believe it is because you have trouble comprehending. You are looking for reasons to disagree with people who don't like the change to the Ranger.

What, the ranger will have magic items argument? Unless you are claiming that the pure fighter will not have the same value in magic items then your argument dissolves.

Once again, I question your ability to comprehend. Where did I say this? Or are you reading more into my comments concerning another class taking magic items to compensate for the lower will save if they are concerned with holds and the like? Reading comprehension, very important.

No where did I once state nor imply that the Ranger will have less access to magic. That is you putting words in my mouth as usual.

Plus, I simply listed a factual con that you omitted. Are you disputing that?

A con that every single character who multiclasses must deal with. Thanks for pointing out the obvious.

Right, they are a decent trade off. You are the one claiming that one choice is better than the other. I’ll note that you list the lion’s share of perks just to off-set this single con. Hmmm. Interesting. So perhaps that choice with all factors considered isn’t so lopsided as you claim.

No, as I have stated numerous times, please reread my original comments.

What I said was that the Ranger class is still not a viable stand alone class save as an "extra" class (Like the monk) and is now more attractive for multiclassing. Do you disagree? If so, then I simply ask is it any less attractive than previous for multiclassing?

Go ahead and playtest a single class Ranger with no Barbarian, Paladin or Fighter in the group. See how well you last as the main combat element of a group if you think the Ranger is a viable stand alone class.

Or halfling? You claim a halflings fighter with 2 levels ranger will not have XP problems? Interesting.

I meant Rogue.

Again, I simply list a FACT, a con that you omitted from your assessment.

Thank you for pointing out the obvious. I will remember to cut and paste your list every single time multiclass characters are discussed.

Are you saying I am wrong? So much for your assessment.
Rogue 18 BAB = +13 Ranger 2 BAB = +2 Total = +15.
Rogue 20 BAB =+15.

Total impact = +0. Oops for you.

My mistake. The optimal build is 4 levels of Ranger and 16 levels of Rogue for the extra iterative attack and total Base Attack bonus. Still not much to give up for a rogue to gain a superior base attack, better saves for giving up minimal skill points and two levels of sneak attack which can be gained back post 20. Not to mention probably a few extra hit points and TWF for free.

Please, show me a single Ranger2/Rogue X where the Ranger BAB = the Rogue X+2 BAB +2. It shouldn’t take but a moments time. I’ll be waiting.

Once again, though my example was wrong, you misread what I was listing. I was listing exactly what a 2 levels of Ranger gives a rogue. The optimal build requires 4 levels. My mistake. I didn't lookt at my PHB.

Now, because we have established that a Ranger2/Rogue X really does NOT have a notably better BAB than a Rogue X+2, can we agree that iterative attacks are a non-issue? (I’ll save you the time. A Ranger2/Rogue gets his second attack at level 8, A straight rogue gets his second attack at level 8. No change. A Ranger2/Rogue gets his third attack at level 14. A straight rogue gets his third attack at level 15. Neither gets a 4th attack. So at exactly one level over the entire career the ranger gets a one attack bonus.)

No, see above. You can still gain an extra iterative attack and +1 better base attack for four levels. I never stated that the net effect was +2 Base Attack Bonus. Not once.

I once again question your ability to read considering that I did not list cumulative effect of taking 2 levels of Ranger, only the absolute effect of taking those two levels.

Right, a +2 bonus again. I never claimed there was no bonus. I claimed you overstated it. Which is a fact.

I am harping on your lack of comprehension so that you read exactly what I am stating next time rather than "read into" what I am stating. I listed exactly what is gained for two levels of Ranger compared to what is lost for not taking 2 levels of the given class.

Read my post properly next time. I freely admit when I have made a mistake. I do not like being misquoted and misinterpreted. This is the second time you have started doing this to me during a debate.

+3 is “not at all an overtstatment”? Check your own example.

Reading comprehension.

Um, now *I* am the one simply stating facts. Funny, where your facts are factually overstated, they are not overstatements, but when my facts are facts they are overstated. Interesting.

So if they are not overstated, they CERTAINLY can not be "vastly" overstated.

So basically, your position boils down to claiming that the small perks a multiclass ranger gets are the cat’s meow. And the laundry list of things they lose are trivialities.

Your word not mine. Since you stated that my simple list of facts was overstated. I felt that your use of the word overstatement was an overstatement.

You really like that word don't you?

I completely get your point.

If you think ranger MC is the way to go, then have at it. It is the so called facts that back up your point that I am disputing.

Only one of your disputes withstood the litmus test, though by changing the build to Ranger 4/Rogue 16, you gain the extra iterative attack and one point higher BAB. I was at work and didn't have my books with me.

All the other attempts to misrepresent what I said were your own inability to comprehend what I was stating. I listed exactly what you received for taking 2 levels of Ranger. All you did was extrapolate out what I said to show the net benefit/loss of taking 2 levels of Ranger.

I did not take it that far.

Read below. I state only what is gained for taking two levels of Ranger and what is lost for not taking two levels in either Fighter or Rogue. Only for those two levels, not over the course of many levels.

Pros:

Gains Track.
Still keeps his Base Attack as a Fighter.
Gains two levels of favorable skill points and access to a better skill set.
Gains +3 on his Reflex Save.
Gains +3 on Fort Save rather than +1

Cons:
Loses one bonus feat.
Loses up to 4 hit points.


Read this again. There is not an overall calculation of the net loss/benefit. It is only a statement of what you gain for 2 levels of Ranger compared to what you lose for not taking 2 levels of fighter.

Please, read it closely. I would really appreciate it. Do the same with the following:

Pros:
Gains +2 Base Attack
Gains Track
Gains Two Weapon Fighting or Point Blank Shot free
Gains +3 on Reflex save rather than +1.
Gains +3 on Fortitude Save
Gains 2 d8 Hit Dice.

Cons:
Loses 4 skills points.
Loses 1 level of Sneak Attack

Especially read the part about the saves that italicised to prove my point. I was speaking in terms of exactly what you gain or lose by taking 2 levels of Ranger and not taking 2 levesl of the given class, either Fighter or Rogue.

Please Bryon, read and comprehend.

ACTUALLY, you said “The Ranger is now an even better multi-class character than previously.” Now you just say it is no less attractive.

I think it is a more attractive option for a multiclass. Even you have to admit that it is no less attractive as a multiclass option. I can accept that you disagree that it is a better option. The pros and cons are different for each player. I know the min/maxers are salivating over the new Ranger.

I stated the reasons why I think it is a better multiclass option now with the two favorable saves, more skill points, better favored enemy bonus that works against undead and constructs and is stackable. I think the new Ranger will make for awsome multiclassing.

I have already stated why I think it still can't stand on its own. The d8 hit points and the limit on armor. It is now very much like the monk in 3rd edition, an extra when you don't have any other class needs.

What more can I say? I wanted a Ranger that was interchangeable with a Fighter like the Barbarian and Paladin. I'm sure alot of folks will love the new Ranger, and I am sure quite a few won't.

So ONE of us did not get your point.

The ranger used to be the single level class. In the extreme (which I don’t agree is accurate) it is now a two level class. So that is less attractive.

No, not really. Two levels is more attractive. You undervalue 2 favorable saves, TWF for free for a Rogue who will never need heavier than light armor, the extra skill points for the fighter and the favored enemy bonus to damage that now works against undead and constructs and is +2 at its first rank. Think again Bryon.

Really take some time to do some character creation with this new Ranger. Really do it. Map some characters and see how much the benfits give you as a Fighter, Rogue, Barbarian, or just about any other melee type class. Very nice bonuses indeed.

Wrong facts are wrong facts.

There are three ways they can be wrong:
1. They are simply wrong like my 18 Rogue/2 ranger example. I was wrong, I can admit it.

2. They can be misinterpreted like your inability to comprehend exactly what my pro/con list was stating.

3. Or they can be improperly written. If you feel that is the case, then I apologize. I should have written the list more clearly. My mistake. I hope this post clarifies the original post you were debating.

So you now claim that everything you listed is new to 3.5? On you fighter list the only thing that was not true in 3E was the REF save. Same with the Rogue. And under the rogue example your 2d8 HD should be a CON if you are simply comparing to 3E because it used to be a more attractive 2d10.
You were presenting your case as a straight up comparison. But your attempt was so littered with factual mistakes and blatant bias that now you are trying to change the context. Unfortunately, if I believe you now, that just makes your analysis even worse.

Yes. You just answered the million dollar question. Thank you Bryon.

Everything is exactly the same as 3rd edition except you gain 2 more skill points per level (A min/maxer will make his first level Ranger to take full advantage of the greater skill points), the favored enemy is better, better Reflex save.

All this for taking 2 levels rather than 1 level of Ranger. Thank you for pointin gout so clearly how much better the 3.5 Ranger is for multiclassing. It is more frontloaded than the previous Ranger and you only need to take one extra level of Ranger. Hurrah!

Think about how viable making a single class Ranger is with d8 hit points and no ability to wear any kind of medium or heavy armor. The previous Ranger was actually a more viable single class because d10 hit points and medium armor are that much better than d8 hit points and light armor.

 

[Celtavian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re

Wait, y'all are talking about a Ftr18/Rgr2, right? Unless they've changed the poor save progression (level/3), that character would have Fort +14, Ref +9, Will +6

(Fort: +11 Ftr, +3 Rgr; Ref: +6 Ftr, +3 Rgr; Will: +6 Ftr, +0 Rgr).

Just nitpicking the math. Carry on.

Thanks, my mistake. The saves are even better than I thought. What was that about losing a point on the Will save Bryon?

 

[BryonD]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re

Thanks, my mistake. The saves are even better than I thought. What was that about losing a point on the Will save Bryon?

It was "Loses -1 to his already weak Will save on 2 out of 3 rounds." (I said rounds before, obviously I meant levels)

See that 2 out of 3, that is important.

 

[BryonD]

Celtavian,

You are starting to look REALLY desparate.

If you present an honest comparision of the true gains and loses for multiclassing your absurb initial claim that it is now BETTER explodes.

Responding with another 1000 word tome on your vast list of errors and misrepresentations (which you have done nothing but compound in your most recent comedy) is pointless.

Your whole arguement has been based on getting your facts completely wrong, getting your math completely wrong, stating opinion as fact, and using wild double standards for what is worth a lot and what is trivial.

It is obvious to me that you set out with the agenda of slamming WotC here. I don't know why. But you clearly set out to show that they did a bad job with rangers and then starting gathering "facts" to support that preordained conclusion.

So when I shoot down 75% of your statements you just shoot back with double talk and desparate attempts to change the context of your prior mistakes.

It is obvious that you are way off and not worth further bother. If you just want to seethe and rage against Andy and company, then knock yourself out.