Class balance changes in revised PHB?

[Mercule]

Rangers

As long as TWF is considered a base ability of the class, there's not much WotC could do to improve the class. I don't mind a few rangers having TWF, but it makes about as much sense as a core ability for rangers as it would for wizards.

Here's what rangers need, IMHO: d10 HD (these guys are second only to the barbarian in toughness), good BAB (otherwise, kill the class and add WL to the rogue list), stealth, tracking, wilderness lore, and animal handling.

I could see an arguement for animal empathy, but I don't think it needs to be a core concept. I probably would include it, but I can't say it's a requirement.

Favored enemy has always been a ranger ability, but I don't think it's necessary to the class concept. A lot of the same effectiveness could be accomplished by good tactics. Given the choice, I'd leave this one in, but modify it a bit, so rangers aren't always +5 vs. orcs and +1 vs. dragons.

Spells seem to be something a lot of people think important to the character, but I've run into quite a few who don't see the correlation. Even in the spells are good camp some like the Druid-like spells, but others (like me) favor the Aragorn mold and see any spells a ranger would have as arcane. I say yank the spells and let 'em multiclass if they feel the need.

Now, do I think that'll all happen? Not hardly! It'd kill backward compatibility.

The two changes I could see are:

1) Make favored enemy a +1 to foe of choice at 1st level and every even level. Max of +5 to any single enemy. Maybe add a ranger-only feat that would allow additional plusses.

2) Remove TWF/Ambidexterity as core abilities. Replace with bonus feats at 1, 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20. Include as bonus feat options TWF and related, point blank and related, toughness, alertness, and others.

Balance and compatability would be served. It would be more customizable. The TWF crowd would be appeased, as would the no-TWF crowd, and the archery crowd, too. The class would be no more front-loaded than the fighter, and would have abilities to twiddle almost every level.

 

[Henry]

...how do you define "related" in game-mechanic terms?

Four words: "Subject to DM Approval."


---------------------


Steveroo, I thought I'd point out a minor nitpick: Fighters only get TWO bonus feats to pick at first level, not three. A Ranger gets one. If the fighter and ranger were both human, the fighter then gets three to pick, and the ranger gets two to pick. Not too unbalanced, considering the greater class skill selection, and the skill points.

I myself have never had a beef with the number of skill points for a 1st level ranger - it is indeed a fallacy in my opinion to assume that all skills MUST be maxxed out. Even putting 3 points in each instead of four nets an entirely extra skill to add to the ranger's repertoire, with a minor loss in power. And the supposition that a ranger is not a "real" ranger without maxxed out wilderness lore is truly personal perception, rather than an obvious truth. I caould agree if said 'ranger' only had, say, ONE rank in it...


...but the real problem of the ranger is the lack of interest in it past about 5th level. With the only thing to be gained being higher levels of weak yet utilitarian spells, and a rather small favored enemy bonus, there is very little "sex appeal" to the class at high levels, compared to wizards/clerics/rogues with their power spells, fighters with their feats, monks with their abilities, or bard with their song enhancements.

 

[KnowTheToe]

I think they will implement a classless system usping VP/WP, defense bonuses with level progression and updated Etools with every book.

 

[el-remmen]

One thing I would expect NOT to see. I don't think we'll see any mention of multi-classing restrictions for Paladins and Monks. I believe (hope?) that this rule will quietly disappear.

While I am fully in favor of such restrictions - I wouldn't mind their getting rid of them as long as they included some role-playing guidelines for DMs to handle multi-classing in their games so people don't multi-class willy-nilly and only for the KEWL stuff - but because it makes sense in the story.

 

[Sanackranib]

rangers

another fix would be to make tracking its own skill rather then a feat and have rangers gain a +1 bonus every 3 levels. I have always felt it was a stupid feat because you have to take it then use wilderness lore to track anyway. that hasn't made sence since the 1st time I read it.

 

[Henry]

Actually, I'd like to see more of it, myself. They carried the Track/Wild. Lore idea over to the Driving skills in d20 Modern. I'd like to see more ways in which a Feat can expand upon the use of a skill into something the average person could not do.

 

[Stalker0]

how do you define "related" in game-mechanic terms?

Say two skills that have teh same key stat are related.

I think bards could use a few more bardic musics- I always thought an ability similar to the emotion spell would be good. Or perhaps some more bard only spells.

Maybe if the sorc got just a few more spells learned that would fix it up. Nothing major just a few.

For the ranger, I could see a change to favored enemy. I could also see bonus feats, since monte already advocates them. Although bonus feats every 3 levels is too much, every 4 is fine.

And finally take out the multiplayer restrictions, and I think you've got it covered. Nothing major needs to be done, a little here and a little there.

 

[drnuncheon]

Say two skills that have teh same key stat are related.

Hmm. By that guideline, Ride and Hide are related but Ride and Handle Animal aren't. You could mix Profession: Sailor and Sense Motive but not Profession: Sailor and Use Rope.

I'm not sure I like that.

J

 

[Xilo]

just to add my 2 cents.

the bard needs a few more skill points. not as many as the rogue but a couple. I mean they are primarily skill based characters!

 

[Droogie]

Re: rangers

another fix would be to make tracking its own skill rather then a feat and have rangers gain a +1 bonus every 3 levels. I have always felt it was a stupid feat because you have to take it then use wilderness lore to track anyway. that hasn't made sence since the 1st time I read it.

I felt that way when I first read it too, but I actually warmed up to the idea and now I would actually like to see more of this like Henry mentioned.

Its hard to invest your hard-earned skill points on such a focused skill(rope use, anyone?). Only rangers would sink skill points into track, and they already have so many better skills to choose from, and only 4 precious points.