Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mercule" data-source="post: 848982" data-attributes="member: 5100">Well, without pulling up the list of rumored changes:1)&nbsp; The HD. (included for completeness)&nbsp; This is especially bad considering the Ranger is still partially defined by a fighting style -- potentially how good he is at melee.2)&nbsp; TWF is _still_ a potential _class_ ability.&nbsp; I don't mind the concept of a woodsman/skirmisher using TWF, but it has nothing to do with the class.&nbsp; Rangers get feats every three levels like everyone else.&nbsp; If a Ranger PC wants TWF, let them use their normal feats.3)&nbsp; The continued use of &quot;virtual feats&quot;.&nbsp; Either give 'em the feat or don't.&nbsp; Conditional feats are just bad design, IMHO.4)&nbsp; &quot;Combat Paths&quot; are another bad mechanic.&nbsp; I'm not at all keen about a choice made at 2nd level _directly_ impacting choices at later levels.&nbsp; Prereqs are fine, but a swappable slot at 6th (or whatever) level shouldn't be arbitrarily limited based on a choice at 2nd level.&nbsp; Sure, most people who pick Point Blank at 2nd are going to continue with archery choices as they gain levels, but they shouldn't be limited.&nbsp; It violates the &quot;options not restrictions&quot; mantra unnecessarily.&nbsp; Bonus feats would be a much better mechanic.5)&nbsp; The fact that the Ranger is still defined by his fighting style (the above was &quot;paths are a bad mechanic&quot; this is &quot;paths are bad flavor&quot;).&nbsp; In adding the &quot;paths&quot;, the Ranger is still required to be a pseudo-weapon specialist.&nbsp; That meets some of the archetypes tagged to Ranger, but what about the &quot;ultimate scout&quot; or &quot;ultimate survivor&quot; archetypes.&nbsp; A bonus feat progression that included Alertness, Inproved Initiative, Great Fortitude, etc. would make those archetypes possible with the Ranger, but the 3.5 Ranger is no better at filling those than the Rogue.6)&nbsp; Spells are too important to the Ranger.&nbsp; Yup, I'm in the &quot;mundane&quot; Ranger camp.&nbsp; I didn't mind the 1E Ranger because the spells seemed more like &quot;little tricks&quot; that anyone bent on survival would potentially learn.&nbsp; I didn't really see them as being core to the class, but 1E really didn't scale much to the levels at which Ranger received spells.&nbsp; In 3E, the Ranger is pretty dependant on spells as a balancing factor, and they are critical to the functioning of the class.&nbsp; They should only get about half the spells they do and shouldn't get them until later.&nbsp; Better yet, a Ranger who wants Druid spells should use the really nice multiclass rules in 3E to pick up a few Druid tricks.&nbsp; This point is really an issue with 3E, though and my only beef with 3.5 is that it maintains the spells.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mercule, post: 848982, member: 5100"] Well, without pulling up the list of rumored changes: 1) The HD. (included for completeness) This is especially bad considering the Ranger is still partially defined by a fighting style -- potentially how good he is at melee. 2) TWF is _still_ a potential _class_ ability. I don't mind the concept of a woodsman/skirmisher using TWF, but it has nothing to do with the class. Rangers get feats every three levels like everyone else. If a Ranger PC wants TWF, let them use their normal feats. 3) The continued use of "virtual feats". Either give 'em the feat or don't. Conditional feats are just bad design, IMHO. 4) "Combat Paths" are another bad mechanic. I'm not at all keen about a choice made at 2nd level _directly_ impacting choices at later levels. Prereqs are fine, but a swappable slot at 6th (or whatever) level shouldn't be arbitrarily limited based on a choice at 2nd level. Sure, most people who pick Point Blank at 2nd are going to continue with archery choices as they gain levels, but they shouldn't be limited. It violates the "options not restrictions" mantra unnecessarily. Bonus feats would be a much better mechanic. 5) The fact that the Ranger is still defined by his fighting style (the above was "paths are a bad mechanic" this is "paths are bad flavor"). In adding the "paths", the Ranger is still required to be a pseudo-weapon specialist. That meets some of the archetypes tagged to Ranger, but what about the "ultimate scout" or "ultimate survivor" archetypes. A bonus feat progression that included Alertness, Inproved Initiative, Great Fortitude, etc. would make those archetypes possible with the Ranger, but the 3.5 Ranger is no better at filling those than the Rogue. 6) Spells are too important to the Ranger. Yup, I'm in the "mundane" Ranger camp. I didn't mind the 1E Ranger because the spells seemed more like "little tricks" that anyone bent on survival would potentially learn. I didn't really see them as being core to the class, but 1E really didn't scale much to the levels at which Ranger received spells. In 3E, the Ranger is pretty dependant on spells as a balancing factor, and they are critical to the functioning of the class. They should only get about half the spells they do and shouldn't get them until later. Better yet, a Ranger who wants Druid spells should use the really nice multiclass rules in 3E to pick up a few Druid tricks. This point is really an issue with 3E, though and my only beef with 3.5 is that it maintains the spells. [/QUOTE]

Verification