Boo ya! Ranger's Favored Enemy bonus now works at any range!

[Kai Lord]

http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45270&perpage=30&pagenumber=26

Andy just confirmed this over on the WOTC boards, and also that Rangers can choose Outsiders by one of the four alignment types, one of the four elements, or "native".

Up to +10 damage to a species at any range? Yeah we've got a new bad boy archer on the block.

To say nothing of the fact that since the FE bonus is no longer precision based, it works against undead and constructs and with all arrows in Manyshot.

 

[MerricB]

Very nice.

I just allowed a 3.5 Ranger to start in my game, and the favoured enemy was "undead". Not precision-based? Excellent!

Cheers!

 

[Angcuru]

I've always said that rangers make the best archers. Especially Monte Cook Rangers. Feats are good.... Elven archers have a bit one-up, since they can take favored enemy: human without being evil, according to the rules.

 

[Gossamerblade]

Cool puppies! That sure would've come in handy the other night when my ranger was shooting at a FE who was on 60 ft. cliff!

I'm looking forward to converting this character to 3.5. There're some things about 3.5 that I'm not sure about, but the changes to the ranger seem to be all for the better (well, mostly; I can live with the lower HD)

 

[Celtavian]

re

That is a very helpful change. The Ranger has definitely become the ultimate Archer class now. It could practically be named Archer it is so good for bow users.

With your avatar Kai Lord, I bet you love this new Ranger.

 

[Fenes 2]

I had already decided to ban the new ranger, so this is nothing for me to worry about anymore.

 

[Celtavian]

re

I am going to use the new Ranger as a test for what I would like the common fighting person to become. I'll probably give them medium armor proficient and replace combat paths with bonus feats.

In the future, I would like a fighting class that relies on skills as much as arms. I personally want fighting classes to better fit literary archetypes. I think a larger selection of skills and higher skill points would do well to make the fighter more alike to the fighting persons that exist in literature.

I don't know how many times I have read the story of the fighter with the hawklike eyesight and ears as a keen as an animals, yet the fighter does not get Listen or Spot. Many fighters in literature also know how to live off the land and track. In the old medieval days, those were not exclusive skills, they were survival skills.

Any soldier or knight worth anything knew the basics for living off the land. They didn't have a great system of roads or travel, and I still don't understand why common skills such as Ride, Listen, Spot, Survival and similar skills aren't available as general skills to all classes.

 

[Number47]

I had already decided to ban the new ranger, so this is nothing for me to worry about anymore.

I have nothing to say, and I wanted you all to know that.

 

[LuYangShih]

Rangers were a viable class choice that was balanced well with the other classes in 3.0. The only problem they really had was a lack of flavor. Giving them greater abilities like this makes them stronger than they should be, and added into all the other bonuses the new Ranger gets, is yet another reason I have decided 3.5E is just not going to be worth it.

 

[Fenes 2]

Rangers have the problem that everyone and their dog has their own idea what they should be - and apparently no one is able to multiclass Fighter, Rogues and maybe Druid and call the result a ranger. Naw, there has to be a class named ranger, and it has to be "the ranger" everyone envisions.

I won't have the - for my campaign clearly and vastly - overpowered new ranger class, and I am glad that means I don't have to deal with FE damage bonuses that apply in situations where even Weeapon Specialisation and Point blank shot are ineffective.