Complete? ... The basic classes are still best.

[ivocaliban]

To those calling the ranger a D&D-ism: I always felt it was a Tolkien-ism. The 3.0 version was a straight Aragorn copy. In 3.5 you have the choice of either an Aragorn copy or a Legolas copy.

This is actually how I described the Ranger to a first-time D&D player a couple of days ago.

 

[der_kluge]

I like the variations in the Unearthed Arcana as well - specifically the cloistered cleric, since I'm playing one right now. It's a nice addition to the game, IMHO.

All in all, I like the Complete books, lots of good options, and they seem to be more or less balanced from what I can tell.

 

[Squire James]

Actually, the TWF Ranger is more a Drizzt-ism than an Aragorn-ism. While Strider was certainly very competent in combat, I don't recall any instances of him being described as using two weapons. There might be an odd instance that I do not recall, but it was certainly not memorable enough that a class ability would be based on it.

 

[Desdichado]

Nor does he cast any spells, or have anything like wild empathy that I can see. Sure, he's good with his horse, but then again, it's his horse.

Also no compelling evidence against a favored enemy; he's just good against everybody, orc or not.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Nor does he cast any spells, or have anything like wild empathy that I can see. Sure, he's good with his horse, but then again, it's his horse.

Also no compelling evidence against a favored enemy; he's just good against everybody, orc or not.

The spells is debatable...as he does 'heal' Eowyn in the Houses of Healing. But still, the Ranger doesn't really fit Aragorn as much as it does Drizzt.

 

[ivocaliban]

How did I know there was going to be someone to come along and argue this point? *laughs* It's just a general way of thinking of the combat oriented portion of the Ranger and the basic idea. As for whether or not he used Two-Weapon Fighting I would point to Weathertop in the film version. Albeit he weilds the torch to keep the Nazgul at bay, I'd handle it as an off-hand weapon. Oh, and I guess he needs the "Throw Anything" feat, as well. Picky picky.

PS: I couldn't tell a new D&D player that the melee path of the Ranger was "Drizzt-like" because they had no idea who Drizzt was. Peter Jackson's films have made more folks open to the idea of roleplaying, however, so it was a convenient example...if not perfect in every detail.

 

[icedrake]

The spells is debatable...as he does 'heal' Eowyn in the Houses of Healing. But still, the Ranger doesn't really fit Aragorn as much as it does Drizzt.

A Ranger from LotR IS NOT the ranger from dnd. They are the people scattered to the winds ranging across Middle-Earth in exile. No matter how much I'd like not to say it, the characters of LotR cannot be done any justice in using the dnd system.

But, back on topic.

I find that if I was to run or be a part of a game using only the core rules, I would require my DM or myself to limit players to just the base classes and ignore the prcs present in the DMG. It would be unfair to some players to allow them a PrC and not allow another player access to a PrC he wishes to play in the Complete books simply b/c its not core. Yes the DM as the right to issue rulings to balance the game, but he must weigh fairness of his ruling denying a player the option to multiclass into a prc. Should one player recieve access to prcs, all should have the chance to look at them. I'm not saying allow every prc b/c its in the books and balanced, just that you have to allow everyone an equal chance for finding something to customize themselves.

I like the options of the Complete books, I'm a fan of many of the classes they present in them. I like most of the base classes, for all but the CW samurai, CD Favored Soul (I'd never play one but a player could), CArc Warmage and CAdv Ninja (Something about it rubs me wrong, but again, players can have access to it). PrCs, feats and spells I want to look over before admitting them. I'm normally not too hard on my papers in terms of they're options, I like a lot of them, so I give them mostly an open field so long as we're all having fun.

 

[Desdichado]

How did I know there was going to be someone to come along and argue this point? *laughs* It's just a general way of thinking of the combat oriented portion of the Ranger and the basic idea. As for whether or not he used Two-Weapon Fighting I would point to Weathertop in the film version. Albeit he weilds the torch to keep the Nazgul at bay, I'd handle it as an off-hand weapon. Oh, and I guess he needs the "Throw Anything" feat, as well. Picky picky.

So... you're trying to say that the D&D ranger was modelled after the movie version of Aragorn?

 

[ivocaliban]

So... you're trying to say that the D&D ranger was modelled after the movie version of Aragorn?

I am saying it is a quick and convenient way to explain the different paths of the Ranger to an individual who isn't necessarily a fantasy/gaming dork like myself (and I imagine most of us here). Instead of spending ten minutes explaining each class in detail, it helps to use something with which they are already familiar. I'm not saying I think it should be carved into a stone tablet and forced upon the non-believers.

 

[Particle_Man]

I luv the Warlock. And I have a friend who said that the Warlock was the first Arcane caster he would seriously consider playing. That pretty much indicates that the core rules are not enough in my neck of the woods.

I also think that the Scout is good for those who like Rangers without the magic. And Swashbuckler is a trope that some players have tried and failed to pull off with ranger, so that goes in as a "l33t" class as well.

Finally, there are the "multi-class" prestige classes, which are needed to fill certain holes (as otherwise those multi-classes fall so far behind the other characters in power as to actually be a drain on party resources).

And it was GREAT to see the "first edition bard" prestige class, at least for this old-timer.

That said, I focus ont he class books, but not the race/environment/item books. Only so much $$$ to go around, y'know.