3.5e Ranger... Little Improvement But Still...

[Vurt]

Just my 2 cents, I just don't like the idea of virtual feats because it seems weird to me flavor-wise, since I see TWF as being present or not. If armor ruins ones' ability to use TWF, shouldn't it be in the armor proficiency rules, Ranger or no Ranger? That's my main beef vs TWF.

A reasonable arguement.

And I would answer "possibly". But if you've never trained to fight with the TWF style in heavy armour, is it also reasonable to expect that as soon you don a set of full plate you'll be able to do all the things you were able to do previously? The question then becomes: does the medium or heavy armour proficiency confer the ability to do anything you would be able to do otherwise?

If you think it does, then you're set.

If it doesn't, to address your mechanics concerns, should there be a graduated set of feats "light armour TWF", "medium armour TWF", "heavy armour TWF" with the requirements that you are proficient in the armour in question? Or would that be more clutter than it's worth for a set of arguably weak feats?

And if you think this is all too confusing or maybe just too much work for too little benefit, then maybe that's exactly why it's not in the PHB.

The way I see it, the Ranger CAN use TWF in medium and heavy armour, it just costs him one of his regular feats just like it costs the fighter and, indeed, everyone else. To add some gravy, now it only costs one feat instead of two.

Why am I not complaining about the other classes? Well, you want me to?

This is the internet, go for it! Complaints are mandatory! I think it's written somewhere in your ISP's terms of service agreement.

Vurt

 

[MadScientist]

Re: complainers

A ranger at 9th level gets evasion now? One of the most powerful things in the game btw. Being able to take 0 damage with those "very high now" reflex saves is incredible.

Ugh, I had forgotten that they get evasion now too! The unbalancedness of the new Ranger is mind bogling.......

 

[NewJeffCT]

At least they toned down the ranger to give him a more realistic amount of hit points. If they kept the ranger at d10, it would have been way overpowered. As it is, the ranger is still quite powerful.

In our last campaign, a lot of people complained that the ranger was overpowered – we had one guy play a ranger from levels 1-9 (then, his PC died. But, for him, it was great, as most of his PCs usually do not make it past level 4 or 5). We had another guy switch from fighter to ranger around level 12 or so, and he stuck with ranger until the end of the campaign, which was in the mid 20s. My PC was a straight human ranger, level 25. And, we are all veteran gamers, many with a good 20 years of gaming under our belts.

By the way – in 1E and 2E, the classes were nowhere near as balanced as they are now. So, why all the whining and complaining that 3E is not perfectly balanced?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I have the impression that some people will not be content until the ranger has d12 hit dice, 8 skill points per level, 11 bonus feats, druid spellcasting, animal companion, favored enemy, evasion, trap sense, hide in plain sight, uncanny dodge, animal companions and access to the rogue special abilities.

For the record, I didn't ask for anything like that. In fact, I don't think anybody asked for that.

 

[Fenes 2]

For the record, I didn't ask for anything like that. In fact, I don't think anybody asked for that.

I know. But IMHO, complaining that combat styles only offer "virtual feats" with all the other goodies the 3.5 ranger gets goes in the direction I indicated.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Cool. another thread for me to whine about the wilderogue.

My complaints:

1. The lowered hit die. Not cool. Ranger's have always been warriors. Now they have the hit die of the priest, but not the benefit of flame strikes and harm spells. Raise it back to d10. Drop something else to balance. I don't care what. Anything. Evasion and the high ref save would be a start.

2. Combat styles. These needlesly shoehorn the ranger into either a two-weapon fighter or an archer. No other class gets this forced upon him. Why the ranger? Lose them.

3. Evasion. This is a rogue ability. Lose it. Replace it with uncanny dodge or nothing at all. It adds nothing to the flavor of a ranger.

4. High reflex save. Again, lose it. Rangers are tough. They shrug off damage, not avoid it.

5. Hide in plain sight. This, I could live with, but it's un-necessary. Especially if the rogue doesn't get it, or at least an option as his 10th level ability. The rogue shouldn't be restricted by the environment either.

6. Skill points. This I like, but if it means a lowered hit die, lose it.




They made a good start by adding woodsy abilities, but somewhere along the way, they dropped the ball, kicked it out in the street, and it was hit by a steam roller.

My solution? I'm not sure yet. I'd start by retaining the d10, losing evasion, the high ref save, and the combat styles. I think it would play fine then without adding anything to replace those abilities. I might give free feats to replace the combat styles, I dunno.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

But IMHO, complaining that combat styles only offer "virtual feats" with all the other goodies the 3.5 ranger gets goes in the direction I indicated.

OK, let me try again.

Whether the feats are virtual or not don't bother me. I would prefer no feats there.

I might use house rules, but people prefer the core rules to suit the class first.

 

[shadow]

IMHO the two thing that I don't like about the 3.5e ranger are virtual feats (combat styles) and lack of wilderness abilities (although they have more than the 3.0 ranger had).

1. Although the ranger is a warrior, I see the ranger defined more by the his stealth in the wilderness and tracking abilities, not his fighting styles. A fighter can be customized to excel in any number of combat styles. He can easily be a two weapon fighter, an archer, a pole-arm fighter, a sword and shield fighter, etc. Why should the ranger be shoehorned into one of two combat styles?

2. The 3.5 ranger is an improvement in the wilderness department, but still I don't think they went far enough. Fast tracking is good, but what about the trailblazing and favored terrain-like abilities that I've seen in many of the alt rangers? Also why does the ranger get hide in plain sight? The ability makes sense with the shadowdancer PrC, but why should the ranger get it?

IMO part of the problem started in way back in 1e Wilderness Survival guide. There track was made a general profiency, robbing the ranger of his uniqueness. Sure rangers were vastly superior trackers than non-rangers but it paved the way for the downfall of the ranger class. In 2e all classes could track just as well as a ranger by spending a non weapon proficiency (although the ranger got a token +2 bonus to track if I recall). In 3e any class can become proficient in tracking by spending a feat. I've seen druids who were better trackers in 3e than rangers. That's why I house rule making track a class ability exclusive to rangers. I would have liked to see 3.5e restore track as a ranger specific class ability.

 

[Ranger REG]

1. Although the ranger is a warrior, I see the ranger defined more by the his stealth in the wilderness and tracking abilities, not his fighting styles. A fighter can be customized to excel in any number of combat styles. He can easily be a two weapon fighter, an archer, a pole-arm fighter, a sword and shield fighter, etc. Why should the ranger be shoehorned into one of two combat styles?

Because we ask for them, mainly the archer type since he's a hunter. You don't find too many boar-hunting with boar spears, nor do you find gamers wanting one. But at least they can use a spear and acquire boar as their favored enemy to gain bonus when attacking them.

2. The 3.5 ranger is an improvement in the wilderness department, but still I don't think they went far enough. Fast tracking is good, but what about the trailblazing and favored terrain-like abilities that I've seen in many of the alt rangers? Also why does the ranger get hide in plain sight? The ability makes sense with the shadowdancer PrC, but why should the ranger get it?

To be honest with you, to make favored terrain is like making a specialist ranger, and I have my dislike for Wizards' version of specialist core classes. [To this day, I still don't know why a specialist wizard would want to give up two schools of magic to specialize in one school while retaining the others as would a normal wizard. Maybe it's the school's spell list that needs to be balanced, especially when you can count one at least one spell for the right occasion, whether it be combat or noncombat.)

IMO part of the problem started in way back in 1e Wilderness Survival guide. There track was made a general profiency, robbing the ranger of his uniqueness. Sure rangers were vastly superior trackers than non-rangers but it paved the way for the downfall of the ranger class. In 2e all classes could track just as well as a ranger by spending a non weapon proficiency (although the ranger got a token +2 bonus to track if I recall). In 3e any class can become proficient in tracking by spending a feat. I've seen druids who were better trackers in 3e than rangers. That's why I house rule making track a class ability exclusive to rangers. I would have liked to see 3.5e restore track as a ranger specific class ability.

Um, I thought it is a clas feature that is dependent on the now 3.5e Survival skill. No other class can track as well as a ranger, except for the most blatant trail in plain sight.

 

[LGodamus]

Hey look I found this poor old dead horse...I know I shall kick the immortal crap out of him till he gets up and runs away...yeah thats the ticket