Broken Ranger problem solved by Kalamar PG?

[Kaptain_Kantrip]

The Infiltrator core class in the new Kalamar Player's Guide present alternate (non-magical) options to the PHB ranger. They It's a pretty cool variant. I was wondering what those of you who have seen them think? Has the Broken Ranger problem finally been solved?

 

[Mistwell]

I liked the Monte Cook solution, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Kalimar PHB does it even better. Kenzer and Company make fantastic products! I'm looking forward to picking this one up.

Can you give us some kind of vague summary of the infiltrator class they present?

 

[Regdar]

Bah, not this crap again

Bah, Ranger isn't broken.

 

[Acmite]

Re: Bah, not this crap again

Bah, Ranger isn't broken.

Sigh. I couldn't agree more. I don't know what's worse, people misusing the term "broken", or people still looking for a "fix" to the class. There are about a thousand different Alt. Rangers out there. Surely you don't need another?

"Broken" definition (as I understand it, anyway): A rule/class/spell/etc that, by the virtue of its very existance, renders the system (d20 in this case, obviously) unusable.

I hardly think the Ranger qualifies as broken by the above definition. If you said the Ranger got the "shaft" then I'd disagree with you, but I'd at least understand your POV.

This pains me to say it, but Regdar is, IMHO, right.

**Edit Log: corrected spelling mistake**

 

[Reprisal]

Misuse of Term?

I suppose what he was trying to say is that it presents a Ranger-esque class that feels more like what some may subjectively believe to be more fitting than the dual weilding, one-level-wonder we now know as the PHB Ranger...

I'm inclined to agree with KK, but of course, as a DM, I've had the experience of seeing far too many Ranger 1/ Something Else X characters out there... Of course, it's my subjective taste, and I'm not going to try to argue in any objective sense because that's just pointless. It just so happens that I think that the Ranger as presented is just not worth a whole class, it should just have one level, it would pretty much have the same effect that it does on my side of things.

As for the Infiltrator, it's more of a Rogue with some Druid, Monk, and special abilities (Fast Movement, Woodland Stride, Trackless Step, Evasion, Uncanny Dodge, and Sneak Attack...). The biggest positive, IMO? No spell casting abilties. The biggest detriment for a Ranger comparison? D6 hit dice.

 

[Acmite]

Re: Misuse of Term?

I suppose what he was trying to say is that it presents a Ranger-esque class that feels more like what some may subjectively believe to be more fitting than the dual weilding, one-level-wonder we now know as the PHB Ranger...

And how exactly would that be broken ?

I think I know what he meant--I was just objecting to his use of "broken".

Having said all that, I don't particularly think the Ranger got the shaft either. If I had designed it, I probably would have given them two good saves (I flip back and forth on whether the added good save should've been Reflex or Will, though), but I don't see the class as disadvantaged in any way. Is it frontloaded? Maybe. Any more frontloaded than any other class? Not really. I don't want to get into an argument whether or not the Ranger got the shaft, but if you take all the feats and abilities granted by each class at first level into account, the ranger doesn't really stand out from the pack.

You want to pick on Bards? I'll be right there beside you! There's a class that got the shaft!

 

[Reprisal]

You want to pick on Bards? I'll be right there beside you! There's a class that got the shaft!

I wholeheartedly agree with you there!

But still, it seemed, perhaps through the "virtue" of Regdar's grating personality alone, that you were discounting what he was trying to say through his misuse of a single term. Which seemed like BS to me, so I thought I'd speak up...

Personally, as long as you understand the message, what's the point in nitpicking the semantics? I've seen far too many discussions, electronic or not, fall into the semantics game and crash and burn. Argue the problem, not the question, especially when the point of that question should be plain to see...

Of course, this is all my subjective view. What I see as an obvious question of "Doesn't the KoK Infiltrator variant class seem more Ranger-esque than the PHB Ranger?" could just as easily be seen as "Finally, the Infiltrator fixed that bloody PHB Ranger!"

Of course, to me, the former seemed, and seems more likely than the latter.

 

[Kaptain_Kantrip]

Shafted, broken posters don't get the point...

Semantics, schemantics, LOL. Thanks to everybody who understood what I was driving at in my original post.

I wasn't trying to start another "Ranger is Broken!" thread, but rather initiate a dialogue between those of us who aren't happy with the PHB version, or the various alt.versions, to see what we think of the KoK Infiltrator class, which is very rangeresque without the two-weapon fighting, ambidexterity and nature spells. So, what's the consensus? Is the Infiltrator too good, too weak, or just right? I like it, but worry the HD are too low at d6 and should be bumped up to d8's. It does pretty much resolve all my PHB/alt variant complaints, however.

 

[Rashak Mani]

I would love some more details about the Infiltrator Class... the very little that was presented did make it seem very interesting...

 

[mmadsen]

The Infiltrator core class in the new Kalamar Player's Guide present alternate (non-magical) options to the PHB ranger.

From what I've heard, it sounds like what I've been suggesting, a variant Rogue with the wilderness Special Abilities of the Barbarian, Druid, and Ranger.

Has the Broken Ranger problem finally been solved?

I don't think I'd call it the "Broken Ranger Problem"; it's just the "Ranger Problem". The Ranger's fine for some narrowly defined group of "rangers"; it's just not a generic woodsman/scout class.