Discussion on my Survey prompted by Plane Sailing's questions

[Ravellion]

Planesailing, I know what you mean. Something about favoured enemies and favored terrrain and special abilities would have been nice to ask, but hindsight is 20/20. I wanted to keep this mostly game mechanical, so the surveyees would have to make their own decision on how the game mechaninc would fit their idea of the ranger.

I could have asked:
The ranger, being more of a light armoured fighter as opposed to being a melee machine, should have definitely had d8 HD and good fort & ref saves, with a +0.75 BAB/Level.

But that would be putting words in my respondents mouths, which is something you generally should try to avoid for the most part (I did a course on market research).

Rav

 

[Plane Sailing]

Sorry it's taken me so long to respond, I don't get as much time online as I used to.

Is it OK if I take some of your initial questions as jumping off points for my personal views? I hope so!

1. Tracking. I'd actually argue that Track *shouldn't* be a feat, it should be a class ability for Rangers... just like detecting traps is a class ability for Rogues. i.e. Anyone can search for tracks with a DC of less than 20, but if the DC is any higher than only someone with class levels of Ranger can find it and follow it.

2. I'd agree
3. I'd agree
4. I think it is too easy to zoom in on feats as a mechanism for adding to classes... what makes most classes unique is the class features, and I think a unique ranger class should have sufficient unique features. It may be that one of these should be combat related (like favoured enemy).
5. Not really relevant if my answer to 4 is a valid one. What I'd really like as a question here though is "what cool ability should rangers get at 2nd level?" Almost all classes get a cool ability at 2nd level, what should it be for rangers?
6. It might be better to ask whether they need to cast any kind of spells at all... or to decide whether they get divine or arcane spells. I think it would have been interesting if the rangers had been "arcane fighters" in contrast to the paladins "divine fighters". Thus rangers use arcane magic (whether in wizardly or sorcerous form), giving them distinct and useful spells plus a good reason to stay in light armour
7. Agree
8. Inclined to agree - a ranger is almost as jack-of-all-trades as the Bard. As the bard is the only one to get strong Ref and Wil saves, I'd make the Ranger the only one to get strong Fort and Ref saves.
9. I think animal companions are a waste of time, and certainly not necessarily core to the class... although all previous editions *did* allow special followers, now vanished, alas.
10. I don't think *any* class should have multiclass restrictions
11. I'd agree
12. Encouraged, probably. Carrot would be better than the current stick though.

So maybe I'm not a million miles from your original questions after all My main thoughts are that rangers should be distinguished by additional class features rather than stuck on feats, and those class features should identify the rangers unique role.

Cheers!

 

[Ravellion]

Is it OK if I take some of your initial questions as jumping off points for my personal views? I hope so!

Ah. The thing is, these questions do not actually have my own personal views inbedded in them. they are extreme and absolute statements so I as a researcher can expect people to be able to rate on a sliding scale.

I should have included a few more statements, I know now. My Ranger can select from a group of special abilities for instance. Sinnce I know the 3.5E ranger will have spellcasting, that is one thing of the 3.5E rules I will not be incorporating. Many of my ranger players deliberately would not cast their spells because it clashed with their concept. If they wanted to cast spells anyway, multiclassing (with druid/Cleric with Animal and Plant domains) would have been a lot easier.

Rav