[3.5] Rangers lose medium armor!

[Celtavian]

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 [/B]

Any min/maxer who was originally taking 1 level of Ranger to gain TWF will tell you that they did the following when they saw this new Ranger:

Min/Maxer looking at the new Ranger: *blinks twice in disbelief* "Wow, this new Ranger is even better than the old one. I can't believe it. This is awsome. My character just became that much better. Hell yeah."

And most players who loved playing the Ranger for the concept and to be a tough woodland fighter just went:

"Hmm, I lost quite a few hit points. I have to spend a feat to wear my mithril BP. But I do get alot of cool special abilities such as a better Reflex Save, more fighting feats, evasion, more skill points, and HiPS."

So both groups will be happy. Those with already established high level Rangers will see a definite boost. Those just starting out will take some time to grow as survivability at low levels will be more difficult.

 

[Chasmodai]

Originally quoted by Celtavian

...and scout/trap finder (Rogue or Bard).

I would argue that the Ranger is a better scout than the Bard (having played full-fledged Rangers before) and that he is as good as a scout as the master thief himself. With a better BAB, the Ranger is a better ambusher than the Bard as well, who has little to help him out.

Perhaps the Ranger might not survive a really tough encounter at low levels, with his lowered hp. Perhaps he might. But have you ever seen a Ranger with Favored Enemy (Orcs) take on a bunch of them? They get completely obliterated. Trust me, I've seen it happen (and done the same) plenty of times.

Is he a cherry-picked class? Not more so than Fighter I say (take the first 2 levels of Fighter for 2 free feats. I wouldn't mind. And I get more hp. And I get to wear heavy armor. And I can pick a combat style other than TWF.)

The Ranger is a class that needs to be understood to be played. He isn't a frontline tank like the Fighter, the Paladin or the Barbarian. And he has more flavor, which is more than I can say for the d10 hp classes.

But its a matter of opinion. Like you say, Celtavian, only time will tell.


EDIT - spelling.

 

[Technik4]

Assuming 2 levels

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.

(emphasis mine)

Assuming we are talking about actual cherrypicking, I find the new ranger to be a no worse offender than any other class (save spellcasters) in terms of utility gained for levels spent when referring to other melee classes.

Assuming I am trying to build one of the basic melee achetypes (as represented by base classes):

For a fighter, there is now plenty of reasons to stay a fighter. The old jump-to-the-ranger for a level to grab TWF is gone, why would I want to waste *2* levels for some busted up TWF that doesnt even work in heavy armor? Nah, I'll spend the *1* feat it costs and get it myself, especially since I'm worried about access to GWF and GWS. I want to get that as quick as I can, to compete with the barbarian's improved rage which is coming around that time.

For a barbarian, its tempting but no thank you. I've got to get my improved rage abilities, DR, and keep improving my uncanny dodge (damn rogues!) as fast as possible. The loss of HD hurts, and while there are some nifty wilderness abilties, I lose too much multiclassing (or perhaps gain too little). What good is TWF or rapid shot to a barbarian? If I want TWF, I spend one feat to get it...

For a paladin, its not much of a contest. Ill keep my heavy armor thank you (as a fighter does). Taking ranger levels dilutes many of my paladin features (lay on hands, smite damage/progression, mount progression) while giving me abilties like improved wilderness skill points, reflex save, TWF or Rapid Shot (again, who wants to downgrade from full plate to fight with 2 weapons? Maybe some interesting custom builds). The paladin is better served by multiclassing with straight fighter, easy equation: multiclassing + fighter = feats, multiclassing + ranger = myriad of abilities (most hand-picked for you).

All the spellcasters have just as much reason to multi into ranger as they do anywhere else (with the druid possibly being a leg-up. I wish there was a rule for stacking druid and ranger spellcasting, as there already is for stacking animal companions). Rogue is still better for straight up skill points, fighter or barbarian are better if you are going after weapons, mobility, or uncanny dodge. Remember, all of the above is with a single-class archetype in mind (an archetype does not mean no multiclassing; a Ftr2/Rog18 is as much a rogue as a Rog20 - the difficulty is convincing people when you are a Ftr2/Rog2...).

If we talk actual multiclassing, for the long haul, then the ranger can certainly create some interesting mixes for a Rog10/Rgr10 or a Brb10/Rgr10, even a Ftr10/Rgr10. I will concede that in a prc-less world you may see as much ranger multiclassing as the other "favorites" (fighter, rogue, barbarian). In a world with prcs, give me something else for my multiclassing needs, the ranger is too general; it isn't focused on the things I really need.

Which is not to say that the ranger himself is not a viable archteype. Personally, the monk was my favorite of the melee classes (if you consider him in their ranks, most dont) in 3.0e. I too multiclassed the heck out of the ranger, mostly taking 5 levels because I love the favored enemy mechanic (so easy to see why a character would pursue something for the smiting of ones enemies). Now that he is a lightly-armored "guerilla" fighter, I like it even more and may try to go the long haul at some point.

[rant]
For those whining about "less options" with the new ranger, what about being able to dual-wield anything, including shields, quarterstaffs, and other double weapons - as opposed to the "good ol" 3.0e where it wasn't possible. How about being able to pick undead as a favored enemy and having it mean something? In 3.5 you pick whatever you want and you get raw damage and skill bonuses against them, and the bonuses are twice as high as in 3.0e (at lower levels). I also think their spell list has been rounded out better, a bigger skill pool to draw from, the animal companion working better, and oh wait...speaking of options you can now choose archery OR two-weapon fighting. So please, don't sit there and try and tell me 3.0 ranger had more options because it gave you medium armor and a better HD - the only option I ever saw used in 3.0 was the ranger as a multiclassed advantage, usually for 1 level. Oh, the options.
[/rant]

Technik

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Are all the mods on vacation?

 

[Henry]

I think it's time for a break from this topic.