[3.5] Rangers lose medium armor!

[Technik4]

Formerly why did players multiclass into Ranger?

Because they gained 3 feats worth of power, a hit die that was 2 points higher, a favored enemy (at +1), medium armor proficiency, and martial weapon proficiency.

WotC has attempted to rectify this by reducing the Ranger's frontloadedness.

Now they gain 1 feats worth of power, a hit die that is 1 point higher, a better reflex save, a favored enemy (at +2), and martial weapon proficiency.

The primary reason for multiclassing is gone, as 1 level of Ranger no longer grants TWF for free. In general it is a good multiclassing choice, but so is the fighter, barbarian, rogue - essentially all the non-spellcasters. Its a moot point to argue whether or not the Ranger is a good multiclass choice, it should be a good choice, every class should be.

As other people have pointed out since TWF is only 1 feat now (instead of 2) the reduction of people who multiclassed into Ranger is immenent. Mechanically a ranger is still a good choice for multiclassing, but the *reason* is different. It is now the same reason as multiclassing into any other class.

I also find the argument that multiclassing Rog16/Rgr4 is an "obviously" overpowered arrangement. 4 levels of fighter will give you more feats (and weapon spec). Additionally giving up those 4 levels allows a rogue of your level (20) to sneak attack you, never a wise thing imo. You also lose out on a special ability at 18 and 2d6 of sneak attack dice, not to mention some skill points. It has its pros, but it is not "clearly" better.

Another question for a rogue considering to multiclass 4 levels is "when"? At low levels those lost ranks in trap detection and such is painful, not to mention delayed access to high level special abilities and uncanny dodge (flanking).

My final question is how do you keep yourself from taking another level of ranger? I mean, pumping that Favored Enemy bonus to +4, improving your Animal Companion, a little more spellcasting, higher BAB...it all seems so tempting. Hence the nature of multiclassing.

Technik

 

[Wyckedemus]

good lord

Wow. This is Hilarious. Spouting opinions as undeniable proof. Celtavian, you make me smile.

The ranger is not the undeniably BEST cherry-picked class in the game. That is not truth or proof. It is your NSHO. They have to take TWO levels to get these bennies you think are better than everything else.

Barbarians get 12 hp at first level (the only level you get max hp automatically). They get Rage which is undeniably helpful at many levels. You don't even need class levels for it to be helpful. It boosts your hp based on Con for all character levels. They get Fast Movement at 1st as well. They also have decent SP's along with the bennies they do get. If you take 2nd like your Ranger has to you get the awesome Uncanny Frogs!

Clerics get Healing and Buff spells, Turn Undead to take out small threats at low level, And Domain abilites which are as good as Feats if not better at times. Clerics get all armors too, but you usually don't take cleric for armor.

Fighters get their bonus feat, d10 hp, and ALL armor feats, including the Tower Shield feat for free. They get another feat at 2nd. A contender for best cherry-picked class for full customization of a combatant

Monks give wisdom to Dex. They get a good unarmed attack. I think they still get evasion. And they get improved trip or the now impressive deflect arrows. Decent starting SP's too. all by 2nd level.

Paladins give you good armor skills, Laying on of Hands, Cha to Saves. D10 HD (better hp than Ranger) among other things.

Rogues give the best SP's at first level. they give sneak attack and they can find difficult traps. If they go second level, they get Evasion... and they can get their 5th rank in Jump, Balance, and Tumble at non cross-class prices. This is nice for those synergy bonuses on the very important tumble skill for Fast Fighters.

All have decent reasons for cherry picking. You know why? Because ALL classes need cool abilities at low levels to define themselves and their place in the party. The MAIN reason the Ranger was altered was because it was a class that had very little "cool" stuff at higher levels. People cherry-picked it because they has little to lose. Now with the revised Ranger, you have to make the harder choice. Get 2 levels (instead of just 1) now and give up the (ubercool) higher level abilities? Or get those cool abilites?

2 levels in a class means alot. Not everyone's game goes up to 20th level. So if you want to play a half-orc Barbarian that uses an Orcish Double-Axe, you can choose to take 2 levels of ranger to get your TWF feat, and hope you play long enough that your two levels of ranger don't preclude you from getting the higher level Barbarian abilites you want to get so badly before the campaign ends. OR you buy the two feats (prof and TWF) and not lose out on the higher level abilites.


AND. The class isn't a valuable main combatant in a party? Jiminy Xmas! You haven't even played the thing . He's going to have comparable AC's to all but the sword and boarders due to chain shirt and Dex. He can choose to have more attacks in a round at 2nd level OR use a bow to good effect. He has an average of 1 hp per level less than Pals or Ftrs. No too big of a deal. He'll have a better touch AC than the Heavily armored combatants and will survive spells better (good Fort and Ref.. and a decnt wisdom gives him spells, so his Will won't be too sucky either). I fail to see why he CANNOT succeed as the main tank if there was no other main combatant.

He should NOT be better or as good a fighter as the Fighter. But he can hold his own for a good long while.


Thank you for listening

 

[WattsHumphrey]

Wow, y'all argue about the ranger as if you really care about it. I don't tknow I know more than one person whose ever wanted to play a ranger. I certainly don't.

Strange, how different my local world is from that of these boards.

 

[Winterthorn]

Re: Re: Re: re

*polite snip*
Is the new Ranger the ripest cherry picking class in the game? Yes, it is. The new version is the ripest, sweetest cherry picking class in the game. I can think of not one better for a melee.

Ripest class for "cherry-picking" re melee? Hmm, depends what you want to accomplish... Picking 1 to 2 levels of Barbarian looks rather ripe to me!

As in it is a more attractive multiclass character than previously.

Than the Ranger 3.0? This is a possibility, but until I see the final text with my own eyes (since context can still be undermined when quoting on a message board), I cannot agree or disagree without speculating.

Is the class viable in a group without a Paladin, Fighter or Barbarian? No, it isn't using the core rules.

Okay. Now you've run your thesis off the rails! *crunch* Absolutely, unequivocally, there is no specification within the D&D 3rd edition core rules regarding classes needed for viable party composition. In no way do the core rules require, assert, or support what you just said. There's plenty advice and default assumptions--advice and assumptions are not rules! As a DM, I can run a party of any 4 classes through the Sunless Citadel (a respectable official basic module to get things started). The Clr+Fgtr+Rog+Wiz may be an optimal spread of classes and abilities for beginners, but the core rules do not require it. In fact I would happily DM a party composed thusly: Rgr+Mnk+Sor+Drd, and my experience tells me such a party would do quite well.

(SPOILER: Even better in the case of TSC )

Sure, any DM can take the time to come up with suitable challenges for a lightly armored group. The core rules just don't take it into account.

Could you substantiate this claim on the core rules not supporting challenges for a lightly armored group with specifics please? (Btw: quoting from the 3 core rules will have give more weight to what you're saying than all that tedious number crunching!)

Is it a more attractive class to play overall as an "extra", like the monk? Yes, it is. I have stated it many times that it is now more akin to a monk.

*blink* *blink* "Extra"? I think I know what you mean--but please elaborate... Do you mean "extra" as in just a flavour? Ignorable option? The proverbial "fifth wheel"?

Thank you very much Hong. You show me again what kind a person you are. I had almost forgotten our previous dealings. I firmly remember them now. I now remember why I had forgotten about you.

Man, I don't get this acrimony going on... *shakes head*

Celtavian, I've read most of this thread, and while my memory is not perfect, I do see plenty of opinions expressed as facts (I find many people are guilt of this--I have to check myself too in those more emotional debates)...

I understand you are trying to point a few things out, that's cool, I'm "listening" But, like others, I cannot agree and would like some substance to your claims that actually refer to relevant text in all 3 core rulebooks--a more holistic argument if you will. (Limited number crunching doesn't prove very much to me.) For example: what material in the MM and the DMG, in addition to the PH, support your statement that the core rules do not take lightly armored groups into account? The nature of the monsters? The encounter rules in the DMG? What?

-W.

 

[Steverooo]

So why are we complaining about the loss of Medium armor again?

Because it adds restrictions while limiting options?

Because it weakens the character, especially at lower levels, when it was already the weakest PHB class?

 

[Chasmodai]

Originally quoted by Steveroo

Because it weakens the character, especially at lower levels, when it was already the weakest PHB class?

To be honest man, AC wise, I really don't think so. Let's take a 1st level Ranger with a modest Dex score - 16. That's a +3 modifier. Let's say he wears a chain shirt. That's another +4. Let's say he take Off-Hand Parry for a 1st level feat. That's another +2 if and when you need it.

That's a total of AC 17/!9.

Let's now assume the role of a 1st level Fighter with the usual 10 Dex. That's a +0. Let's assume the Fighter has actually enough cash to get himself a... halfplate at these low levels. That's a +7 (+6? I'm not too sure about this. I hardly ever wear heavy armor ). Now let's say he gets a large stel shield. Another +2.

That's a total of AC 19 but without the option of attacking twice in a round.

Plus medium and heavy armor slow you down, which you don't want to happen when you're a Ranger and you lose TWF and Ambidexterity anyway, one of your biggest advantages at lower levels.

Weak? I don't think so.

 

[Destil]

If you want meidum armor (and unless it's mithril full plate I just have to ask: why?) take the feat. Where's the big deal?

 

[Dinkeldog]

Wow, y'all argue about the ranger as if you really care about it. I don't tknow I know more than one person whose ever wanted to play a ranger. I certainly don't.

Strange, how different my local world is from that of these boards.

I agree. I think the designers did stop the urge of people to take the single level of ranger for the benefits, but from what I've seen, there's still not much of a reason to play it for say 10 levels, when 10 levels of anything else seems so much more likely to survive to 11th level.

 

[Celtavian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: re

Ripest class for "cherry-picking" re melee? Hmm, depends what you want to accomplish... Picking 1 to 2 levels of Barbarian looks rather ripe to me!

Yes, taking two levels of other classes can be attractive as well. I've seen the Barbarian multiclassed many times.

Okay. Now you've run your thesis off the rails! *crunch* Absolutely, unequivocally, there is no specification within the D&D 3rd edition core rules regarding classes needed for viable party composition. In no way do the core rules require, assert, or support what you just said. There's plenty advice and default assumptions--advice and assumptions are not rules! As a DM, I can run a party of any 4 classes through the Sunless Citadel (a respectable official basic module to get things started). The Clr+Fgtr+Rog+Wiz may be an optimal spread of classes and abilities for beginners, but the core rules do not require it. In fact I would happily DM a party composed thusly: Rgr+Mnk+Sor+Drd, and my experience tells me such a party would do quite well.

(SPOILER: Even better in the case of TSC )

My experience tells me that party would die if a DM did not modify the module accordingly. We have different game experiences though, so that will affect how our assessments.

My experience tells me the following:

1. A monk cannot serve as the primary combat element of a group, just as I feel the new Ranger will not be able to fill the primary combat element in a group.

2. The original Ranger was a more viable main "combat" element than the new Ranger will be.

Could you substantiate this claim on the core rules not supporting challenges for a lightly armored group with specifics please? (Btw: quoting from the 3 core rules will have give more weight to what you're saying than all that tedious number crunching!)

I can only substantiate my claim based on my experience running games using the core rules:

1. At low levels, lightly armored main fighters that require a good spread of statistics with an emphasis on Dexterity and only d8 hit points (aka the Monk) tend to die to creatures with large attack and damage bonuses such as Ogres or to groups of creatures with decent attack bonuses that will swing multiple times such as orcs or gnolls.

2. A Fighter, Paladin, or Barbarian can spend their best stats in Strength and Constitution (The Paladin will also require a good Charisma) as well as wear medium (Barbarian) or heavy Armor that will inherently give them a better Armor Class if they happen to have a low Dex or be caught flat-footed due to lost initiative.

3. The d10 Hit Points of a Paladin and Fighter and the d12 of a Barbarian along with the ability to emphasize Constitution over Dex usualy gives them a higher hit point total.

4. These three factors indiciate that the survival rates of low level Barbarians, Fighters and Paladins will be higher as the primary combat element of a standard adventuring group when compared to a Monk or revised Ranger (The old Ranger wasn't much better, but could be made better. We house ruled the Ranger long ago giving them bonus feats so that armor wasn't a limiting factor. It worked perfectly to make them a more viable combat class comparable to the Barbarian, Fighter and Paladin.).

I have watched this many, many times in my games when players have played low level Monks. It takes quite a while for a monk to come into its own, while Fighters, Barbarians and Paladins are standing on their own from level 1.

The new Ranger will have the same problem as the monk will probably still have. That is my experience.

*blink* *blink* "Extra"? I think I know what you mean--but please elaborate... Do you mean "extra" as in just a flavour? Ignorable option? The proverbial "fifth wheel"?

No, not the fifth wheel. I think they will be a very potent and fun class if you have room for that extra specialized light fighter. They will fill a role similar to a monk, becoming more effective and interesting as they gain levels, but needing that big hit point, heavily armored tank to absorb the hits from big creatures like Ogres, Giants, Dragons, NPC big heavily armored fighters, Paladins, and Barbarians and other big powerful creatures.

Man, I don't get this acrimony going on... *shakes head*

Celtavian, I've read most of this thread, and while my memory is not perfect, I do see plenty of opinions expressed as facts (I find many people are guilt of this--I have to check myself too in those more emotional debates)...

I understand you are trying to point a few things out, that's cool, I'm "listening" But, like others, I cannot agree and would like some substance to your claims that actually refer to relevant text in all 3 core rulebooks--a more holistic argument if you will. (Limited number crunching doesn't prove very much to me.) For example: what material in the MM and the DMG, in addition to the PH, support your statement that the core rules do not take lightly armored groups into account? The nature of the monsters? The encounter rules in the DMG? What?

-W.

Hong and I have a history that I just remembered. I let him suck me in this time because I had forgotten. Hopefully it won't happen again. Some folks just bring out the worst in you, and Hong and BryonD are those folks for me.

I should have just stated my opinion and let it stand. Time will prove or disprove it.

The Ranger is a more attractive class to play up, I don't argue that. In doing so, they have also made it a more attractive multiclass without giving it a vital role like the Fighter, Paladin or Barbarian can fill in a group. I would have liked to see the Ranger made into a class interchangeable with the Fighter, Paladin or Barbarian.

That is why I am disappointed and feel the change did not do much to make the Ranger more playable for those who enjoy them. Most of the folks in my gaming group who want to play a Ranger want to do so instead of playing one of the other archetypal Fighter types. That is not possible with this new Ranger.

The main complaint I kept hearing about the Ranger is that it is a boring class that can be "cherry picked" for TWF. This new version can still be "cherry-picked" for two-weapon fighting and a whole lot more now. They did make it less boring to play up, but they didn't make it into a viable subclass of the fighter like the Barbarian and Paladin , which is what I and I think many others would have preferred.

I hope that better sums up what I was trying to say. It takes a while at times to reach a point of perfect clarity, but only through debate do is it reached. At least debate with folks who aren't trying to bring out the worst in you.

 

[Celtavian]

Re: good lord

Wow. This is Hilarious. Spouting opinions as undeniable proof. Celtavian, you make me smile.

The ranger is not the undeniably BEST cherry-picked class in the game. That is not truth or proof. It is your NSHO. They have to take TWO levels to get these bennies you think are better than everything else.

It will be. It is my opinion that only time will prove.

Barbarians get 12 hp at first level (the only level you get max hp automatically). They get Rage which is undeniably helpful at many levels. You don't even need class levels for it to be helpful. It boosts your hp based on Con for all character levels. They get Fast Movement at 1st as well. They also have decent SP's along with the bennies they do get. If you take 2nd like your Ranger has to you get the awesome Uncanny Frogs!

Clerics get Healing and Buff spells, Turn Undead to take out small threats at low level, And Domain abilites which are as good as Feats if not better at times. Clerics get all armors too, but you usually don't take cleric for armor.

Fighters get their bonus feat, d10 hp, and ALL armor feats, including the Tower Shield feat for free. They get another feat at 2nd. A contender for best cherry-picked class for full customization of a combatant

Monks give wisdom to Dex. They get a good unarmed attack. I think they still get evasion. And they get improved trip or the now impressive deflect arrows. Decent starting SP's too. all by 2nd level.

Paladins give you good armor skills, Laying on of Hands, Cha to Saves. D10 HD (better hp than Ranger) among other things.

Rogues give the best SP's at first level. they give sneak attack and they can find difficult traps. If they go second level, they get Evasion... and they can get their 5th rank in Jump, Balance, and Tumble at non cross-class prices. This is nice for those synergy bonuses on the very important tumble skill for Fast Fighters.

All have decent reasons for cherry picking. You know why? Because ALL classes need cool abilities at low levels to define themselves and their place in the party. The MAIN reason the Ranger was altered was because it was a class that had very little "cool" stuff at higher levels. People cherry-picked it because they has little to lose. Now with the revised Ranger, you have to make the harder choice. Get 2 levels (instead of just 1) now and give up the (ubercool) higher level abilities? Or get those cool abilites?

I agree, but they also offer very compelling reasons to play them up to high levels and fill vital roles in a standard adventuring group. There are only two classes (some would argue three) that cannot fill a vital role in a standard adventuring group, the monk and the Revised Ranger (some would argue the Bard). Though both of these classes offer compelling reasons to play them to high level, they are only viable in a group where the vital roles are already present.

D&D core rules are very combat oriented. Gaining levels is centered around a certain number of combat encounters balanced for a core group of adventurers that fill certain roles such as main combat element (fighter types), arcane caster (versatile magic support), divine caster (healer) and scout/trap finder (Rogue or Bard). These are my simplistic versions of the roles, if you have other names, feel free to interchange them.

In general, it is difficult to play a game without these four core roles present in an adventuring group. I'm not going to tell you it isn't possible, only that it isn't probable using most modules and the standard rules for creating characters.

2 levels in a class means alot. Not everyone's game goes up to 20th level. So if you want to play a half-orc Barbarian that uses an Orcish Double-Axe, you can choose to take 2 levels of ranger to get your TWF feat, and hope you play long enough that your two levels of ranger don't preclude you from getting the higher level Barbarian abilites you want to get so badly before the campaign ends. OR you buy the two feats (prof and TWF) and not lose out on the higher level abilites.

For those who don't play long, high level games, you are right, two levels makes a big difference. For those of us who play or plan out high level games, two levels is not that big of a deal save for casters and there are sufficient prestige classes to choose from to enhance casters.

In my group, I look at this Ranger and think "Damn, that is a good multiclass character, yet no one will want to play it up because of the weak hit points, armor and limited feats." In our game, we have given the Ranger straight bonus feats not limited by armor. Since doing this one change, I have increased the number of people taking more Ranger levels in our campaign.

Some folks want to make Greatsword wielding Rangers. Some want Archers. Some want TWF. Some want to make spear wielders. Some want Sword and Shield Rangers. Some want to make Underdark deep gnome Rangers in light armor and some want dwarf giant hunting Rangers in Heavy armor. The revised Ranger is still too limiting while being an even better multiclass, so they will continue to take some levels of Ranger. At least that is what I feel my group will do.

I know looking at this new Ranger the only thing I that really seemd fitting about it was the change to favored enemy and increased skill points (already a house rule in our campaign). I thought that was a very well thought out and good change. As far as the other changes such as the d8 hit points, increased skill points and favorable reflex save, its not that I don't like them, I just think they encourage multiclassing. Take a few levels of Ranger, lose a few hit points, gain more skill points and access to better skills like Listen and Spot, and a better Reflex save.

It truly is the most attractive class for multiclassing for a melee IMO. I have mapped out a few multiclass combinations and 10 Ranger/10 Rogue and 10 Ranger/10 Fighter never looked better, yet a level 20 Ranger still doesn't look very interesting to me.

AND. The class isn't a valuable main combatant in a party? Jiminy Xmas! You haven't even played the thing . He's going to have comparable AC's to all but the sword and boarders due to chain shirt and Dex. He can choose to have more attacks in a round at 2nd level OR use a bow to good effect. He has an average of 1 hp per level less than Pals or Ftrs. No too big of a deal. He'll have a better touch AC than the Heavily armored combatants and will survive spells better (good Fort and Ref.. and a decnt wisdom gives him spells, so his Will won't be too sucky either). I fail to see why he CANNOT succeed as the main tank if there was no other main combatant.

He should NOT be better or as good a fighter as the Fighter. But he can hold his own for a good long while.

See the reasons I posted for Winterthorn. That is why I don't feel they can be a viable main combat element for a party.

They can still be a valuable combatant. As in I think they will still be a strong combat element, they just won't be interchangeable with the Fighter in the way the Paladin and Barabarian are.

Thank you for listening [/B]

Thanks for responding politely. I don't normally proclaim my opinion as fact, but as I said to Winterthorn, some people bring out the worst in you. Hong has a knack for doing just that.