[3.5] Rangers lose medium armor!

[Tom Cashel]

Silly, silly, silly.

 

[Tom Cashel]

Oh, boo hoo. Rangers aren't the freakin' UBERCLASS anymore. They were a sub-class (of Fighter) from day one, and it's about time they were modified so that the sub-class no longer outclasses the class. Fighters rock. Losers walk.

Hell, it's been six years since Rangers were any good. I should know.

 

[hong]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re

Do I have to be that specific?

Yes. Post proof or retract, W33NIE!

Are your lights on? Better for Rogue.

Who loses out on 2 skill points, uncanny dodge progression, and sneak attack.

The fighter takes two levels of Ranger for better skill points and a good Reflex save.

And loses out on a bonus feat.

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.

Thus the ranger is a more attractive _class_, period, which is not a bad thing, despite certain persons' attempts to show otherwise.

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?

That's like saying that paying twenty bucks for an hour with a hooker is equally as attractive as paying ten bucks. Which, I admit, may be true for some hookers.

See above if you again confuse the Fighter taking ranger for two-weapon fighting.

One of us is clearly confused.

It used to be that a Ranger would multiclass with Fighter to gain a few bonus feats.

No, it used to be that a fighter would take one level of ranger to gain TWF and Ambidex. I can count the number of people who played rangers for more than 1 level on... well, actually, no hands.

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.

Now you really are burbling.

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 and ability, more hit points, and ability to wear heavier armor. I'm sure you can figure which class fits each example.

You seem to have missed the main drawback of virtual feats. But never mind, you seem to be missing a lot of things.

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.

You are terminally confused. On the one hand, you claim that the ranger is so good that everyone will pick up a bunch of ranger levels. On the other hand, you claim that ranger levels will make for a nerfed character. So make up your mind. Are rangers a munchkin class, or not?

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.

If the DM can't devise encounters to challenge a party without a tank fighter, that's a DM who should hang up his hat immediately.

The Ranger is an "extra" like the monk. It does not stand alone.

So?

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.

By that measure, half the classes in the PHB should be junked immediately. This is a plainly stupid criterion for assessing the worthiness of a character class. Please stop, or I will be forced to resort to R00D W0RDS.

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.

You have completely misunderstood how monk/paladin multiclassing restrictions work, but never mind. Not to mention the limits on monk abilities, in particular inability to function in armour, but again, never mind.

The Ranger doesn't have a multi-classing limitation. Thus, it will be a very attractive class for multiclassing for more than just Rogues.

Your point is...?

Previously a Ranger was a stand alone character that could be made better with 2 to 4 levels of Fighter.

Are you trolling AGAIN?

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.

Well, DUH. Wouldn't it be remarkably stupid for a fighter to get better by taking ranger levels?

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.

If that's the sort of ranger you have in mind, fine.

 

[diaglo]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re

And loses out on a bonus feat.

actually, he loses out on a choice of feats. the bonus feat he ends up taking by taking 2 lvls of Ranger vs. Fighter for the Reflex save is equal to Lightning Reflexes.

 

[mmu1]

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.

Because it apparently resembles a home-brew class he's been desperately pimping a while back, and throwing tantrums when some people didn't like it. Now that a class like it showed up in the official rules, he's feeling all warm and fuzzy and validated as a... something or other... and will just troll anyone who doesn't like it and doesn't appreciate how special hong is. (No, the other kind of special.)

Either that, or he's just posting his usual tired crap for no reason at all - it's hard to tell sometimes.

 

[hong]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re

actually, he loses out on a choice of feats. the bonus feat he ends up taking by taking 2 lvls of Ranger vs. Fighter for the Reflex save is equal to Lightning Reflexes.

True, to a point; Lightning Ref isn't on the list of fighter bonus feats, which complicates things a bit.

 

[mmu1]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re

Who cares what you WANG?

Yes. Post proof or retract, W33NIE!

That's like saying that paying twenty bucks for an hour with a hooker is equally as attractive as paying ten bucks. Which, I admit, may be true for some hookers.

One of us is clearly confused.

Now you really are burbling.

So? What color is the WANG in your world?

Your point is...?

Are you trolling AGAIN?

Here, I made you a template... Now you no longer need to actually write out responses, just copy and paste! Trust me, no one will be able to tell the difference!

 

[hong]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re

Here, I made you a WANGER... Now you no longer WANGER to actually WANGER out WANGERS, just WANGER and WANGER! Trust me, no one will be able to tell the WANGER!

Goldurn it, mmu2 has figured out my SEKR1T TECHNIQUE!

But he has the words, but not the music. Oh well, that's what happens to poseurs everywhere.

 

[BryonD]

Re: Re

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

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

Fighter takes two levels of Ranger:

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.

Actually, the +3 bonus on his ref save is only a +2 bonus on 2 out of every 3 levels.
BAB is a wash, not a pro.
Track with 2 levels = 5 ranks max (which would suck down just over half his bonus skill points) plus that reknowned fighter WIS bonus. "Lookit me, mom!!! I'm a hunter." And yes, he can cross cross his fighter points, but that certainly shoots down the whole favorable skill points position.

So only 2 out of your 5 pros are not overstated. He does get a +2 Fort save and he can benefit from either the track feat or the skill points.

Cons (that you missed):
Loses -1 to his already weak Will save on 2 out of 3 rounds. And if I am a fighter, I want that +1 Will more than I want the +2 fort. Because my fort is already ok and my enemies tend to know that, so they will throw the will stuff at me.

Has access to Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Specialization delayed for 2 levels each. If I am playing a min/maxed fighter, I will avoided dashing Ranger just for this one thing alone.

Faces multiclassing XP issues unless he is human, half-elf (see lots of those) or dwarf (will see more of these in 3.5, but their racial perks are not a great mesh with ranger).

Rogue takes two levels of Ranger:

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

BAB +2? Hmm, lets "do an analysis"
Ranger2/Rogue1 BAB=+2 Rogue 3 BAB = +2. Hey, that's not a gain of +2!!!! It is no gain at all.

Ranger2/Rogue2 BAB=+3 Rogue 4 BAB = +3. Hey, that's not a gain of +2!!!! It is no gain at all.

Ranger2/Rogue3 BAB=+4 Rogue 5 BAB = +3. Hey, that's not a gain of +2!!!! It is only a gain of +1.

Wash Rinse Repeat.
Up to Ranger2/Rogue18 the ranger splash will get +1 BAB on 8 levels and +0 BAB on 10.
Ever so slight misrepresentation on your part.

Gains track - See fighter rebuttal above.

The fort save bonus is the same, actually only +2 on 2 out of 3 levels.

Other Cons:

Loses -1 to his already weak Will save on 2 out of 3 rounds.
Delays access to Evasion for 2 levels
Delays access to Uncanny dodge for 2 levels
Delays and reduces trap sense by 2 levels
Delays access to improved uncanny dodge for 2 levels
Delays access to special abilities by 2 levels
Delays access to each additional special ability by 2 levels
Loses one special ability permanently (without going epic)

Faces multiclassing XP issues unless he is human, half-elf (see lots of those) or halfling (those halfing fighter were a problem anyway, ha).

They made multi-classing a Ranger even more attractive.

Actually, it is more or less the same as it was in its own attractiveness. But tyhey also made staying a single class character much more attractive.

Andy Collins, Ed Stark, and the rest of the design team,

What was the reason for changing the Ranger again? I can't seem to remember looking at this version of the Ranger.

I believe that. We can add it to the list of things you forgot.

 

[mmu1]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re

Goldurn it, mmu2 has figured out my SEKR1T TECHNIQUE!

But he has the words, but not the music. Oh well, that's what happens to poseurs everywhere.

Pink WANGER? How festive of you.

So, WANGER see how quickly we can get this thread closed?