Core Classes that IMO are lame

[Jack Daniel]

Boy, are you ever put off by the whole "character class" concept...

D&D is an RPG, a game, and to be sure it's the most popular RPG because instead of dolling out points and fine-tuning quirks and perks, you can just jump into a class and play that class. But sometimes people want a class to represent too many archetypes, or to fit their version and their version alone. The ranger is a case of people wanting it to be too broad. It's a very focused niche: a warrior charged by the divine force of nature to slay monsters. Not a woodsman or a tracker or a scout or anything like that; ANY class with the Track feat can cover that concept. Rangers happen to represent a specialized variety.

Barbarians, rangers, druids, bards, and paladins are specialized archetypes that have very little connection to real history precisely because they are the result of longstanding traditions in the 25-year history of RPGs. Barbarians present a mechanic for the berserker rage, and that's all they need to do. Druids and bards certainly aren't historical, Celtic priests and poets. They just fill gaps in the class system. Paladins and rangers flesh out the fighter archetype. That's all; don't read too much into it.

As for assassins, they've got spells because the class sort of descended from a coagulation of the 1st edition assassin and the 2nd edition ninja. And the class is well designed to cover either concept. I personally use the spellcasting assassin to represent an elite, fanatical killer (it is a PRESTIGE class, after all) while the rogue suffices for your run-of-the-mill hitmen.

 

[shivamuffin]

I understand the RPG thing, the class thing, etc...

The Ranger does not make sense. The other classes do, as far as fantasy making sense goes. This is NOT A DEBATE ON WETHER THE RANGER IS A COOL CLASS...I hate it, it's my opinion. agree or disagree, but that's not the focus.

THE FOCUS ISSSSSS:

WhY, and if I do A, what can be done to resolve b...Once again the questions.

MY QUESTIONS:

Is there a decent alternative to the ranger? ( This was Kind of answered, and the answer seems to be...IT DEPENDS.... )

Can a campaign survive without them?

Can we just take away the animal crap and spellcasting and keep the rest?

What would be a good replacement for what was taken away?


Simple, straight forward questions. I know people might get teary eyed that there is another MEANY out there that hates the ranger, but suck it up and FOCUS if you're going to respond. questions 2,3, and 4 have yet to be answered.

The previous response was close, but a bit snooty...I don't need to have RPG, Game, and other gaming concepts explained to me...Thankyou anyway though...

 

[Crothian]

Is there a decent alternative to the ranger? ( This was Kind of answered, and the answer seems to be...IT DEPENDS.... )

Yes, they are out there. It does depend on what you as a player wants from the Ranger though.

Can a campaign survive without them?

Of course it can. Not ever campaing features or even uses Rangers.

Can we just take away the animal crap and spellcasting and keep the rest?

Well, the animal campanion is part of the spellcasting. I say if you remove the spellcasting you should give them something to compinsate like a few feats or greater skill points.

 

[shivamuffin]

YES! Progress!

What campaigns don't use rangers? I'm intrigued...Any published settings?

Now, What feats would replace the critters?

Do the lame thing and give bonus feats?....or....

Assign some feats as special class abilities as they level....or

create new abilities...?

This is fun, when brain matter gets thrown around.....

 

[Crothian]

Rokugen, Slaine, Wheel of Time has a woodsmen class instead of Ranger, there might be some others I'm not familar with all the settings.

Bonus feats all lame, I'd suggest looking at some of the other rangers people have mentioned and either use one of them or steal ideas from it.

Personally, I'd boost their skill points to 6, give them good reflex saves, get rid of the two weapon stuff and spells, fix favored enemy, and then give them some cool abilities at higher levels.

 

[shivamuffin]

Agreed.

Where do you think the 2 weapon thing comes from?

I can't believe I'm trying to figure out the logic of a rpg!

 

[Crothian]

My guess, they thought it sounded cool at the time.

 

[gamecat]

Strider in LotR with the sword and torch. JRR owns your and my game.

What's that noise?
Not wind, but tolkien walking on the world.

 

[Gez]

Re: Assassins and spells, where's da problem ?

The assassin PrC is not a generic, will-kill-for-food class. There aren't. Or all are. You can kill with sword or spells, or even with an angry mob you have excited with carefully chosen words.

Nah, the assassin PrC describe a cabal of fanatical killers that use occult means to reach and slay their target. That fits quite well the real world hashishims (from whose the word assassin comes), who used drugs to fanatize themselves. They would sure have used spells if there was real-world magic. Same comment to the thugs. The ninja mystic certainly goes that way too. (This also explains why they have to be evil. People tend to think that one cannot be a hitman without having levels in the assassin PrC, so you see hundred of threads about how good-aligned assassins could theoretically be possible and it's unfair they have to be evil and stuff like that. That's just wrong.)

Now, tough outdoorsmen that happen to have neither TWF, nor spells, nor animal buddies, nor rage, what are them ? You could probably take the barbarian, remove rage, and compensate by good reflex saves. And, let say, Evasion at level 8 instead of 3 rage/day, Improved Evasion at level 15 instead of greater rage, and finally Mettle* at level 20 instead of the no-longer-tired thing. That seems OK.

*Mettle is found in the Sohei in OA and the Templar (IIRC) in Sword & Fist, basically, it's like Evasion, but for Fort & Will saves.

 

[Technik4]

Take Away Animal Companions: Compensate with 2 bonus feats, 1 at 6th, 1 at 12th.

Take Away Spellcasting: Compensate with 4 bonus feats, one at each level a new spell level would be obtained.

Take Away Favored Enemy: Compensate with 5 bonus feats, one at each +1 favored enemy interval.

Take Away 2WF and Ambidexterity: Compensate with 2 bonus feats, 1 at 1st level, 1 at 2nd level.

End result (With some slight adjusting of bonus feats)?

TABLE: The Bland Ranger
Base Fort Ref Will
Level Attack Bonus Save Save Save Special
----- ------------ ---- ---- ---- -------
1 +1 +2 +0 +0 Track, Bonus Feat
2 +2 +3 +0 +0 Bonus Feat
3 +3 +3 +1 +1
4 +4 +4 +1 +1 Bonus Feat
5 +5 +4 +1 +1 Bonus Feat
6 +6/+1 +5 +2 +2 Bonus Feat
7 +7/+2 +5 +2 +2
8 +8/+3 +6 +2 +2 Bonus Feat
9 +9/+4 +6 +3 +3
10 +10/+5 +7 +3 +3 Bonus Feat
11 +11/+6/+1 +7 +3 +3
12 +12/+7/+2 +8 +4 +4 Bonus Feat
13 +13/+8/+3 +8 +4 +4
14 +14/+9/+4 +9 +4 +4 Bonus Feat
15 +15/+10/+5 +9 +5 +5 Bonus Feat
16 +16/+11/+6/+1 +10 +5 +5 Bonus Feat
17 +17/+12/+7/+2 +10 +5 +5
18 +18/+13/+8/+3 +11 +6 +6 Bonus Feat
19 +19/+14/+9/+4 +11 +6 +6
20 +20/+15/+10/+5 +12 +6 +6 Bonus Feat

Now tailor your bonus feat list so that its different than a fighter's. Rangers get more skills per level and more feats (but not as related to combat), fighters get fighter feats, heavy armor, and Weapon Spec. Whee, its more of a variant fighter than anything else.

The whole point of the class system is to mix and match to create characters. My 5th level fighter could act like a ranger, and with a high intelligence could have most of the skills of a ranger. The fact that I built him without ranger levels is irrelevant, if I call myself a ranger, dress like a ranger, then I am one. What is the effect of not putting rangers in your campaign? 0.

Personally I dont like either of the classes "balanced" with taking animal companions. Especially as it seems like anyone could have an animal companion, all it requires is some empathy and time spent with an animal, just look at our pets. I think animal companions should be a feat you take, and you incur an experience penalty based on your level and how many HD you take. Balance the classes with themselves, not with animals on the side.

Technik