Any hints on the essentials ranger?

[Tony Vargas]

Remember, classes aren't being tethered so tightly to roles so much going forward. So, yes, if the Hunter has powers, the Ranger will get to pick them up - and the Hunter will get to pick up strikery (and a few controllery) powers from the Ranger.

I can easily see the TWF ranger going the basic-attack-spamming way of the Fighter and Rogue. I just can't see an archer-controller working without powers, tough. I could envision a pole-arm-wielding basica-attack-spamming controller, but not an archer. Just giving an rba a burst or major status effects would be over the top. Not having bursts or serious status effects makes it hard to be a controller. Something has to give, I'm curious to see whether the Hunter will be able to both fit the new martial paradigm and deliver on the controller role. It's possible that it may just be a very marginal, strikery controller, not strongly mapped to the usual controller blueprint.

 

[Aegeri]

Yeah I don't see the Hunter Working well without powers, on the other hand they might just front load their abilities into class features (and therefore the normal ranger has zero chance of picking up their control functions. They could also be stance based like a knight, with immediate interrupt or even free action class features that allow them to insert control effects onto a ranged basic attack (potentially). Given they aren't afraid to insert new class features as a classes core mechanics, they can do this in a lot of different ways. I would prefer powers myself.

 

[Tony Vargas]

There's never really been a strongly 'Controller' class feature though, so that too would be interesting to see.

 

[Aegeri]

There's never really been a strongly 'Controller' class feature though, so that too would be interesting to see.

If they do that successfully the book will be worth the price of admission for that alone. Hopefully such a mechanic will then "infiltrate" other classes.

 

[RangerWickett]

Maybe something like:

Hunter
The hunter harries foes from afar with arrows and with a specially trained beast companion. If you choose the hunter build for your ranger, you gain the following class traits.

Beast Companion
Choose raptor or wolf. (This is the Essentials, so only two basic options.) This works like the Martial Power beast ranger, except that instead of normal beast powers, you get at-will beast commands, sort of like fighter stances or rogue tricks.

Normally you just use your standard action to have your beast attack from afar, but you can also use a beast command as a minor action, and the command lasts until you give it another command. Some examples:

* Distracting Frenzy. Enemies adjacent to your beast companion take a -2 penalty to attack rolls.

* Herd the Flock. Once per round when your beast companion hits with an attack, you can slide the target squares equal to the beast companion's speed, then have the beast companion shift to a square adjacent to the target.

* Root Out. Enemies your beast companion can see, hear, or smell take a -5 penalty to Stealth checks.

* Sic Em! If your beast companion hits with an attack, you can have it grab the target. As long as the creature remains grabbed, at the beginning of its turn it takes 5 damage. (10 at paragon, 15 at epic.)


Archery
The same way knights get shield powers, we'd probably give the hunter a few archery powers. Stuff like "Shoot Him in the Leg" to slow a target, or "Interrupting Shot," an immediate interrupt that just does Dex damage on a hit, but imposes a penalty to the target's attack roll.

 

[Howndawg]

One thing I would like to see is a ranger build that gets mileage out of Intelligence. Back in 1e, rangers were smart! Perhaps make the Hunter Dex + Int. That would fit a traps + archery ranger quite nicely.

 

[ourchair]

Remember, classes aren't being tethered so tightly to roles so much going forward. So, yes, if the Hunter has powers, the Ranger will get to pick them up - and the Hunter will get to pick up strikery (and a few controllery) powers from the Ranger.

I agree with this.

I think moving forward we'll see the changes wrought by Essentials work both ways: we'll be able to build characters with a clear and easy to grasp advancement path -- where one does not worry about which powers to pick to remain true to a character concept and avoid diluting their optimality (new word!) -- while at the same time able to create a lot role complexity in one's class if one chooses to do so. (I'm a controllery-leadery defender!)

 

[Saracenus]

Can we blame him for more than just this? I'd like to see him be the Canada of D&D.

Canada != Drizzt

Merle's = Drizzt

They have both ruined D&D in general and rangers specifically .

Now the real question is, if Merle's ruins Drizzt does it collapse the fabric of the universe and bring on the end times?

 

[Garthanos]

I also don't get the loathing for 2-weapon fighting. I mean, I understand not wanting all the Drizz't clones, but it is true that shields are a bad option in the woods - and wielding a single weapon one-handed and doing nothing with your free hand is just...dumb.

Use a shield, use a 2-handed weapon, or use two weapons. It's really that simple.

I mostly agree though....
A brawling fighter build, may have quite a bit of real life heritage to it perhaps because weapons were expensive and that other hand itself is still a weapon and Oh and the ofhand is used as instrument of balance or so I have heard. My training is two handed ;p