Customizing the ranger

[nharwell]

You can't just say "I like this this and this, but I don't like this so I'll get rid of it" and bam, you have a new class. That's not the way it should work, that's why the classes are set up the way they are.

Actually the DMG suggests just that as an option, under "customizing classes" (I don't have the exact page number, unforfunately). The example given in the DMG, I believe, is that of a fighter who gives up heavy and medium armor proficiency for access to some Rogue skills. As long as the player and DM can agree to the changes, I don't see any problem with altering core classes. In fact, I prefer that to creating hundreds of prestige classes.

 

[Desdichado]

gariig:
You might want to check out Monte Cook's new Ranger...it seems a much better attempt at the ranger. I don't like how EVERY ranger is running around with a long sword and short sword plus whatever they want to do, even if they want to be lets say..a deepwoods sniper(from MoTW) which is all bow.

I agree with you 100% but in this concept, the two-weapon fighting actually fits my character. Normally, what I'd like a ranger to be is about what it is in the PHB but swapping out the two-weapon fighting pair of virtual feats with two virtual feats like point blank shot, or far shot or something along those lines. But, like I said, I'm not trying to create a "better" ranger, I'm trying to create a unique concept using the ranger as a base.

Don21584:
You can't just say "I like this this and this, but I don't like this so I'll get rid of it" and bam, you have a new class. That's not the way it should work, that's why the classes are set up the way they are.

Why the heck not? Especially if I'm concerned (which obviously I am, or I wouldn't have brought it up in the first place) with making sure that the new combination doesn't make it overpowered? If your only objection is that "it's not done that way" because of some sacrosanctity of the core classes, then that's no objection at all.

nharwell:
Actually the DMG suggests just that as an option, under "customizing classes" (I don't have the exact page number, unforfunately). The example given in the DMG, I believe, is that of a fighter who gives up heavy and medium armor proficiency for access to some Rogue skills. As long as the player and DM can agree to the changes, I don't see any problem with altering core classes. In fact, I prefer that to creating hundreds of prestige classes.

OK, I was going to look in the PHB when I got home to my books. Is it in the DMG then? I'll probably have to go on a text hunt!

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I hope you are aware that the Ranger`s Virtual Ambidexterity/ Two Weapon Fighting only work when in light armor (no great problem) and when using two weapons, not Double Weapons? I am not sure what kind of weapon you had in mind.

Basically, a good thing to get some skills and the neccessary feats is multiclassing Rogue & Fighter. I don`t know how good you may fulfill your character concept with that, but you will have many skills and many feats.
For Min-Maxing Purpose (or to benefit at all from this) Rogue must be taken at first level, so you gain the 4 x 8 skill points, but this will reduce your Hit Points.

When Multiclassing as an Elf you will have the problem that you have to raise both classes to avoid XP Penalties. So, due to the fact that you seem to be more combat focussed and don`t want all those special abilities it probably won`t be the best solution for your concept...

 

[Desdichado]

Mustrum_Ridcully:
I hope you are aware that the Ranger`s Virtual Ambidexterity/ Two Weapon Fighting only work when in light armor (no great problem) and when using two weapons, not Double Weapons? I am not sure what kind of weapon you had in mind.

Yeah, armor I had planned on (another reason why taking fighter feats like heavy armor proficiency was going to be overkill) but I don't recall any stipulation against double weapons. I thought, that as far as the those rules were concerned, a double weapon was two weapons. I'll reread the ranger description to verify.

Basically, a good thing to get some skills and the neccessary feats is multiclassing Rogue & Fighter. I don`t know how good you may fulfill your character concept with that, but you will have many skills and many feats.
For Min-Maxing Purpose (or to benefit at all from this) Rogue must be taken at first level, so you gain the 4 x 8 skill points, but this will reduce your Hit Points.

That's a possibility, and I can shoehorn my concept into that framework, but even without taking into account a min-maxing perspective (which I usually don't: I'm not interested in mathematical analysis of rules to get the most combat bang for my buck.) Still, I'd like to try my hand at a more radical class modification than I've done so far so I can better fit my concept. I'll also look at the CCE that I just heard about in another thread and see what kind of results that gives me.

When Multiclassing as an Elf you will have the problem that you have to raise both classes to avoid XP Penalties. So, due to the fact that you seem to be more combat focussed and don`t want all those special abilities it probably won`t be the best solution for your concept...

That experience point penalty is one of the biggest problems I have with multiclassing. Without it, you can almost use multiclassing as a mechanic to create custom classe, or even as a classless-like system. With it, though, you are much more constrained than I like.

 

[Gargoyle]

Actually the DMG suggests just that as an option, under "customizing classes" (I don't have the exact page number, unforfunately). The example given in the DMG, I believe, is that of a fighter who gives up heavy and medium armor proficiency for access to some Rogue skills. As long as the player and DM can agree to the changes, I don't see any problem with altering core classes. In fact, I prefer that to creating hundreds of prestige classes.

It's in the PHB actually, page 94.

 

[Desdichado]

Gargoyle:
It's in the PHB actually, page 94.

Is it in the SRD too so I can look it up online, or not? I guess I could always wait until I get home tonight, but I rarely have time to read much anymore in the evenings. Especially with the women's figure skating finals on tonight!

 

[Troll]

Personally, I agree with the fighter / Rogue multi class idea. I am playing a dwarven Urogosh wirlding forghter / rogue with a similar philosophy. Since your not human, you can't aquire all the feats till level 3, but one level of longsword / swordsword wielding isn't so bad.

That being said, if you really want to customoze the class, think about these options:

Give up the track feat and make the two weapon and ambidexterity "real" feats.

Change your skill list (like with the Urban ranger variant in MotW): remove animal empathy, wildeness lore, knowledge nature and replace them with bluff, gather information, and an appropriate knowledge skill.

Give up medium armor proficiency and spell list for a sneak attack progression. I'd suggest +1d6 at level 2,5,8,11,14,17,20.

Troll

 

[Gargoyle]

My opinion is that you're going about this the hard way. You're making major modifications to the ranger class to get to somewhere that would only require a couple of small modifications to the fighter class.

I would propose a variant fighter: (you can call the class whatever you want, ranger, etc, but modify the fighter instead)

- Add Bluff as a class skill, remove two class skills of your choice.
- No medium or heavy armor proficiency, or shield proficiency.
- Instead of a bonus feat at 1st and 2nd levels, you get Two-Weapon Fighting and Ambidexterity as virtual feats at 1st level, only when wearing light or no armor.
- Sneak attack +1d6 can be gained with a weapon you have the Weapon Specialization feat with, instead of a bonus feat (but not one of your regular feat slots)

Now, I think the above is fairly balanced, though of course it hasn't been playtested and may be horrible, but here are my problems with it as a DM:

1. It removes the hard strategic choices that you have to make when creating your character. Part of the fun of the game is agonizing over things like "Should I multiclass to rogue to get sneak attack?" or "Should I spend some extra skill points to get Bluff, or max out Jump?"

2. Some of the above "sacrifices" aren't really penalties at all. If I don't plan on wearing armor, armor restrictions are pointless. If I can customize my class skills to be whatever I want, why would I ever need to spend points on cross-class skills? If you almost always have a rapier, the restriction on sneak attack is meaningless...

3. Also, most importantly this type of customizing butchers the teamwork aspect of the game. If you can sneak attack very well AND fight very well then that diminishes the role of the party's rogue and any single-class fighters. You're filling the roles of two different classes without the penalties of multiclassing.

Note that the rules on page 94 of the PHB are for very minor changes, not completely modified classes.

I would recommend that you consider the above implications before adding any custom core classes. (or prestige classes that duplicate core class abilities from more than one core class for that matter) I would also consider multiclassing, even if you get some abilities you don't want. A ranger 3/rogue 3/fighter 14 doesn't cast spells and is still a ranger, and the rogue's Uncanny Dodge and Evasion aren't really going to make your character play any differently, like the way a ranger's spells would.

 

[Gargoyle]

Is it in the SRD too so I can look it up online, or not? I guess I could always wait until I get home tonight, but I rarely have time to read much anymore in the evenings. Especially with the women's figure skating finals on tonight!

Sorry, couldn't find it.

 

[Plane Sailing]

The PHB rules for the slightly modified fighter (thanks for looking that up, whoever did) are interesting, but there is a more comprehensive modification to a ranger class in the DMG - near the page with the fighter troll, down at the bottom of a page.

IIRC the example has a ranger who never gets more than their first favoured enemy, but gets a paladin-style mount at the appropriate later level. There were probably some other twists to it, but its a long time since I read it. Not in the SRD unfortunately. Definitely worth reading though.

Cheers