[3.5] Rangers lose medium armor!

[heimdall]

I remember the first edition days when if you were playing as part of a good party, there wasn't too much reason to play a fighter versus the ranger. After all, the ranger got the bonus against giants and started with 2D8 + Con at 1st level. Granted, over time the fighter and ranger pull even on HP, but at 1st level walking around with a bit of "extra" HP meant rangers seemed more prone to survive. So fighters got the shaft. Unearthed Arcana forced rangers into some weapons choices, but all in all, most of the folks I gamed with still prefered the ranger to the fighter.

Then comes 2nd edition. Heavy armor is gone, but 2-weapon fighting comes in. A few more people drop playing rangers than choose to pick up the class for the first time, but in reality, rangers were still immensely popular. I remember several campaigns where every fighter type except mine was a ranger. I was playing the paladin which meant no straight fighter.

Seems to me 1st and 2nd Edition rangers were unbalanced when compared to fighters.

Now in 3rd edition, and with changes on the way to 3.5, you have about as many people arguing about how great the ranger class is as are arguing against. In other words, fighters are being compared favorably to rangers, but some are still of the opinion that rangers, when properly utilized, can be overpowered. Hrm. Seems like that's an indicator that the ranger class is more in balance than in previous editions.

If you don't like the ranger class, sub it out. No one's forcing you to play it or use it in your campaign. After all, that's why there are so many variants. Me, I think I'll stick to my "weak" bard, but not because I don't like the ranger but because I like the enormous flexibility I have. I don't have to be the brutish offense lineman or the thick-necked running back to make my point. Sometimes it's better to sit back and play quarterback with the option play called...

 

[Drakron]

2nd ed rangers were "broken" because 2 weapon fighting itself was broken in 2nd ed.

Also remenber that rangers in 2nd ed had aligment restriction and lets not forget that XP tables were diferent for each class.

Problem we have with this is that it does not makes the ranger a viable choise besides high dex dual wielding or a archer so it does not "fix" the problem of 3rd ed ranger, that was the being pushed into a certain fighting style ... as a matter of fact it makes it worst since with this there is no alternative.

So they did not "fix" anything, someone -that we can take a not verywild guess who he is- decided he wanted rangers to be like that (unlike Monte that did bother to check the background of the ranger concept over the diferent editions and created the 3rd ed ranger with that in mind), the rogues of the wild.

And I dont like that and in fact is that behavior that turn me off from this "revision".

 

[hong]

Re: re

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!

Do you even know what "frontloaded" means?

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.

Ah, that explains the squillions of rgr20s running around the place, then. Clearly all those rgr1/rog19's are just a figment of a deranged imagination.

 

[Steverooo]

If you don't like the ranger class, sub it out. No one's forcing you to play it or use it in your campaign. After all, that's why there are so many variants.

If you're a player, there surely is someone forcing you to play the WotC version - especially if you're in a Living Greyhawk campaign! Remember: Only the GM has the option to create his own classes, not the players!

I play a Ranger because I want to play a character who can do anything I see in any survival manual I pick up. I have no interest in other classes, and quit playing 2e (and buying TSR products) after trying the second edition Ranger... Sure, I can play a Wiz, and be the only surviving PC in the party (been there, done that, in a competition module), but I frankly have no interest in it.

If it aint fun, why play?

Nope, I want a Ranger who's a survivor. I try hard to be... I work at it... I want to set snares and tripwires around the camp. Nope, most GMs tell me; setting snares is a Rogue ability, or requires Trapmaking (and the rules in the DMG says it takes at least a week, and beaucoup GP... 1,000, I think?) Grrr! And I can't detect a lot of traps, either. "That's stepping on the Rogue's toes!"

Oh REALLY?!? When is someone going to complain about that stinkin' Rogue stompin' all over MY toes?!?

Like I said before; just give the blasted Rogue access to Heal, Ride and Wilderness Lore/Survival, and he'll be a better Ranger than the Ranger is! He won't fall off cliffs or out of trees (Balance), is a superior scout (Uncanny Dodge: DEX Bonus to AC is never lost), and a far superior ambusher to not only the Ranger, but also the Fighter, as well (not to mention Barbarian, Paladin...)

I'm tired of hearing "Well, multiclass...". I don' WANNA multiclass (although I do, to try to get something like what I want). I don't feel that I should HAVE TO multiclass, to get a stealthy, perceptive survivalist who is a world-class traveller.

According to the class calculator programs (ALL of them that I have ever seen), the 3e Ranger was the WEAKEST core class (although more people seemed concerned with the front-loading). So how did they "fix" him?

They took away Medium Armor Proficiency. They took away Two-Weapon Fighting at first level. They reduced hit dice from D10 to D8. They removed Animal Empathy as a skill, and made it a CHA-based class ability, which gives a +1 bonus @ level one, plus the "addition" of the dump-stat modifier... At least they boosted skill points to six/level, got rid of Intuit Direction, and added Knowledge (Geography) - a glaring ommission in 3e! - and added Knowledge (Dungeoneering). They gave him better Reflex saves, and some new Feats/abilities that he doesn't get until long after... That's SOMETHING.

The stuff folks are complaining about - HiPS and Camouflage - aren't even gained until levels 13+, and THAT's if you're single-classed!

Nope, the 3e (and 3.5e) Ranger doesn't fit the bill, for me... I have my own version; I just can't play him anywhere else!

 

[hong]

yadda yadda rangers are cool, and by cool I mean totally sweet yadda yadda rangers are mammals yadda yadda the purpose of the ranger is to flip out and kill people yadda

I think we should give rangers Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Shuriken. Who's with me?

 

[Celtavian]

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.

You shot down one argument and you misquote and misinterpret the rest of what I said, then talk about me using double talk?

Let me make it even more simple for you:

3.0 Ranger:

Level 1

+1 Base Attack
+2 Fort Save
Track Feat
One favored enemy at +1 bonus that does not work against creatrures immune to crit.
Two-wewapon Fighting and Ambidexterity in Light Armor
2d10 Hit Die
16 base starting skill points
Proficiency with Medium and Light Armor and all martial weapons.

3.5 Ranger
+1 Base Attack
+2 Fort Save
+2 Reflex Save
24 starting skill points
Track Feat
One Favored enemy at +2 bonus that works against creatures immune to crits.
2d8 Hit Die
Proficiency with Light armor and all martial weapons.

3.5 Ranger is better, while still maintaining many of the original benefits except for gaining TWF at first level. Yet. it isn't a better melee class than the 3.0 Ranger due to the light armor restriction and d8 hit points.

Level 2

3.0 Ranger
+1 Base Attack
+1 Fort Save
4 skill points
d10 hit die

3.5 Ranger
+1 Base Attack
+1 Fort Save
+1 Reflex Save
6 Skill points
d8 Hit Die
Virtual Feat: TWF

In both instances, the 3.5 Ranger is better whether taking it for one or two levels. Thus, it is a more attractive multiclass option than before.

I have kept it very simple. I hope you can understand this better.
You are wrong. The above example proves my point in a simple, straightforward manner. Let's see if you are man enough to admit that you are wrong. I don't think you are, but we'll see.

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

Hmm. I buy mostly WotC products. I use the FR Campaign setting. I enjoy a great many of their products. Yet, because I think some of the new design teams ideas are bad, I am raging at Andy Collins and WotC. I don't really get this statement.

I have proven my point. The original reason for changing the Ranger is questionable at best. The new version of the Ranger does not accomplish what the design team set out to do: Reduce the attractiveness of multiclassing as a Ranger compared to playing it as a single class.

I hope this is simple and straightforward enough for you to understand.

 

[Celtavian]

Re: Re: re

Do you even know what "frontloaded" means?

Yes, I do. This Ranger is not as "front-loaded" as the previous version, but it still gives alot of special abilities for relatively few levels. In fact, gives exactly what the 3.0 Ranger and then some for 2 levels instead of 1.

Ah, that explains the squillions of rgr20s running around the place, then. Clearly all those rgr1/rog19's are just a figment of a deranged imagination.

So it will be squillion's of Ranger 2/Rogue 18. Tell me Hong, what is the difference between and 18th and a 19th level Rogue? I'll answer that for you, nothing but a few skill points and one level of sneak attack. The benefits of 2 levels of Ranger will more than make up for that.

 

[hong]

You shot down one argument and you misquote and misinterpret the rest of what I said, then talk about me using double talk?

Mind you, that would have to require malice on your part, as opposed to simple ignorance.

Let me make it even more simple for you:

...

In both instances, the 3.5 Ranger is better whether taking it for one or two levels. Thus, it is a more attractive multiclass option than before.

And at 3rd level, the 3.5E ranger is better than the 3E ranger. And at 4th level, the 3.5E ranger is better than the 3E ranger. And at 5th level....

Tell me Celtavain, you REALLY don't know what this "frontloaded" thing is, do you?

I have kept it very simple.

Was anyone expecting anything else?

I hope you can understand this better.
You are wrong. The above example proves my point in a simple, straightforward manner.

For certain values of "proves", "simple" and "straightforward" anyway.

Let's see if you are man enough to admit that you are wrong. I don't think you are, but we'll see.

PKB.

I have proven my point.

Just like this guy has, obviously.

 

[hong]

Re: Re: Re: re

Yes, I do.

I believe you. Millions wouldn't.

This Ranger is not as "front-loaded" as the previous version, but it still gives alot of special abilities for relatively few levels. In fact, gives exactly what the 3.0 Ranger and then some for 2 levels instead of 1.

See, you need to realise that it's possible for people to take MORE THAN TWO LEVELS OF RANGER before you start making cack-handed pronouncements like this. Not that I'm expecting this any time soon.

So it will be squillion's of Ranger 2/Rogue 18. Tell me Hong, what is the difference between and 18th and a 19th level Rogue? I'll answer that for you, nothing but a few skill points and one level of sneak attack. The benefits of 2 levels of Ranger will more than make up for that.

Keep thinking along those lines, and soon you'll have rgr3/rog17s, rgr4/rog16s, rgr5/rog15s.... I await another pronouncement from you that you understand "frontloading".

 

[Celtavian]

re

And at 3rd level, the 3.5E ranger is better than the 3E ranger. And at 4th level, the 3.5E ranger is better than the 3E ranger. And at 5th level....

Tell me Celtavain, you REALLY don't know what this "frontloaded" thing is, do you?

Why are you caught up in the 2 levels of Ranger when I am using that as an example? All you are doing is extrapolating the obvious and further proving my argument.

Which is the following:

1. The new Ranger is a more attractive multiclass option than before.

2. It is not a viable stand alone class in a group that does not already have a Fighter, Barbarian or Paladin.

Hong,

Did you not state that WotC wanted to make the change because too many folks were taking 1 level of Ranger to gain TWF? Now they take two and gain more benefits as well as TWF. Did they not also want to reduce the attractiveness of multiclassing the Ranger? What was the point of the change if it does not accomplish what they set out to?

Also, my argument has not changed. Why are you helping me prove it?

Disprove my argument. You are the one who needs to buy a clue. I don't even know what you are arguing about anymore.

I cannot help but think that you are posting rebuttals to be an annoying little twit whose only goal is to raise my ire. Is that the case? Are you just a person who goes out of their way to annoy people? I'm done with you.

My argument is proven.