Dragon #308 previews new ranger and barbarian!

[Christian]

Originally posted by Fenes 2 (in two different posts)
That is why I always said that this ranger is overpowered IMC. I never said it was overpowered in a standard D&D game (whatever that is) - but I don't need to see the book to ban it IMC.

I banned wish, timestop and miracle, and I currently have no wizard or cleric imc (as long as you don't count the fighter/duelist who multiclassed into one cleric level due to roleplaying reasons, and with wisdom 10 at the time to boot).

I run a rather low-magic campaign, and any cleric or wizard entering it would have to be carefully balanced, with several spells banned or restricted. I don't encourage either high-level wizards or clerics, and have gutted the party sorcerer accordingly.

Well, I'm not sure what a 'standard D&D game' is either. But I'm pretty darn sure that that isn't it ... I am perfectly willing to concede that the 3.5E ranger is overpowered in a campaign world in which the spellcasters have been heavily nerfed. In fact, I'd have to say that it sounds like the 3.0 ranger is overpowered in such a campaign. It might be a good idea to include these kinds of details when you pronounce judgment, to give some context. Eg. rather than:

I have got two words for the 3.5 ranger: Banned IMC. There it would be overpowered, no doubt.

(I don't care how balanced/cool it is in other campaigns, it is overpowered in my low-magic item campaign for sure.)

Expand that paranthetical quote to something like:
(It may be balanced in many or most campaigns, but I run an extremely low-magic campaign in which every class's spellcasting and/or supernatural abilities have been removed or sharply limited, so I'd need to do something comparable to this ranger class before I could include it.)

Just saying that you run a 'low magic-item' campaign doesn't make it clear how far off the beaten track yours is, and (I think) led people to the conclusion that you were saying something much stronger than you were.

 

[Henry]

Given the alterations, I can see why the Revised Ranger is undesirable in Fenes' campaign. As for the existing core rules, I don't see the Ranger as being bad, and in fact solves the main gripe I had about him (the front-loaded aspect).

I'm not too worried about players in my campaigns preferring him over fighters - because the humongous number of feats for fighters still make fighters top dog in combat specialization.

 

[Lela]

Nope; see the Update Spotlight on Multishot (quoted several times in this thread). Rangers of level 6+ can use it ONLY WHEN IN LIGHT OR NO ARMOR. Lame, lame, lame!

Which was not in the Dragon issue. In fact, it doesn't mention virtual feats at all. It just says they gain feats.

As for Multishot, have you ever seen that used? Putting them in light armor is not going to be a deterent at all. Especially when you consider that the archers using it will have a high Dex anyway.

 

[fba827]

Regarding Hide in Plain Sight ...

Just thought I would add that it is a little more clarified in the article than just giving the name of the ability.

"Hide in natural terrain with no concealment even while being observed"

-- so (as per the article in print at this time) it isn't just hide in plain sight anywhere.. it does have the qualifier of being "in natural terrain"


(just wanted to mention it in case people were making their opinions of it based soley on the name of the ability).

 

[Merlion]

Thank you for pointing that out.
Although I dont really see how anyone could have not more or less known thats how it would work for Rangers, given their nature and inclinations. Its basicaly an improvement on the Camoflauge ability they get at 13th.

 

[MerricB]

It was pre 1E, but everybody brings up at some point, that rangers originally had a d8. If you go back far enough, so did fighters.

The Fighter (or Fighting-Man) was one of the original 3 classes in Dungeons and Dragons. It had d6 hit dice, as did the Magic-User and Cleric. The difference was that it had more hit dice than the MU and Cleric.

For 1st through 5th levels the comparative dice were:
1st - Ftr 1+1; MU 1; Clr 1
2nd - Ftr 2; MU 1+1; Clr 2
3rd - Ftr 3; MU 2; Clr 3
4th - Ftr 4; MU 2+1; Clr 4
5th - Ftr 5+1; MU 3; Clr 4+1

With the release of the Greyhawk supplement, the idea of different hit dice for each class was introduced, along with the thief class:
Fighter: d8
Magic-User: d4
Cleric: d6
Thief: d4

The Ranger class was introduced in The Strategic Review, issue #2 (the precursor to Dragon Magazine). It had 2d8 hit Dice at first level, and gained one per level thereafter. (If you used the original system, it was 2d6 then 3d6, 4d6, etc.)

Spells were first gained at ninth level and progressed as follows:
9th: Cleric: 1
10th: Cleric 1; MU 1
11th: Cleric 2/1; MU 1
12th: Cleric 2/1; MU 2/1
13th: Cleric 3/2/1; MU 2/1
14th: Cleric 3/2/1; MU 3/2/1

The originator of the Ranger class was Joe Fischer.

Cheers!

 

[Pickaxe]

A few comments on the new ranger, as far as we know it:

1) First, I just don't like this version; I like my rangers more "fightery" and less "roguey". This revision definitely shifts the ranger toward the rogue, and, personally, I just don't want to go in that direction.

2) Considering that the biggest complaint about the ranger was not its power or even its abilities, but its "front-loadedness", I'm surprised that WotC made such a sweeping revision. Really, all that I thought was needed was a redistribution of existing abilities to give more reasons to stick with ranger past a certain level.

3) A number of people have mentioned the concern that this revision makes fighter less attractive, but I'm surprised nobody has mentioned how this impacts perception of the rogue. In particular, giving 6 skill points per level to a class (at least two, in fact) diminishes the distinction of the rogue's 8 per level. A friend of mine suggested that, if some classes get 6, then rogues should be upped to 10. (This would actually help rogues customize a bit more.)

4) Last, there's one ability missing from the new (and for that matter from the old) ranger that I can't believe has been overlooked still. How about Alertness? This seems like one feat common to all of the various ranger concepts.

 

[Endur]

Your Tank Dwarf has expertise and mobility? I guess somebody skimped on the wisdom and charisma. My dwarf skimped on the int, and put a decent amount into charisma and wisdom.

My "unhittable" Tank Dwarf has an AC that reaches the same level, but I only have +1 ac items (+1 ring, +1 shield, +1 Mithril Full Plate). Of course, Endur is married to a Dwarven Cleric who has a bead of Karma and can cast +4 Magic Vestment spells, +5 Barkskin, and other protective spells.

I've never been a big fan of the expertise feat. Having a high BAB means I'm more likely to hit on an AOO when a Big Bad Monster tries to grapple Endur (and Geoff has no shortage of Big Bad Grappling Monsters).

I don't know, my 11th level "tank armor" dwarf is nearly unhittible in most combats. His AC starts at 28, and can reach 50 when I need it to. +1 full plat, +2 shield, +2 ring of protection, +1 amulet of natural armor, +1 Dex bonus, +1 dwarven defender bonus, +1 dodge, mobility, +5 expertise, +4 boots of speed, and +7 for casting shield off a scroll when needed (not very often).

Heavy armor isn't the only thing you need, but it's a major part of the equation for a low-dex fighter. He has a lower damage output than a barbarian or a fighter who focused on strength and damage feats, but he can stand toe to toe with creatures that force them to retreat after a few rounds. The "living wall" concept functions very well at higher levels, as it can give the rest of the party the time they need to get their mojo working.

 

[hong]

(and Geoff has no shortage of Big Bad Grappling Monsters).

Tell me about it. YOU LISTENING, GEOFF?

 

[Will]

Wow. I think the essential problem with the Ranger (as has been pointed out already) is that nobody agrees on what it should be.

Given that, damn... I feel for WotC. Set up for being reviled... well, more so than the usual 'we're a game company.'

Some see rangers as super commando deadly people, some see them as woodland trackers, some as scouts, some as nature warriors, ....

Personally, I think I'll stick to my idea, and treat all rangers as multiclass of ... well, nearly any other combo of classes. (Fighter/bard, sorcerer/rogue, fighter/druid, with bits of Expert tossed in here and there)

I think that's the only way to keep on track with wildly varying goals. While Favored Enemy, the one thing really unique about rangers, is interesting, I don't consider it particularly important enough for a separate class.