Michael Tree
First Post
In D20 Modern, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting has a prerequisite BAB of +6, and Advanced Two-Weapon Fighting has a prerequisite BAB of +11. Now why do those numbers look familiar...kenjib said:
Dragon #308 previews new ranger and barbarian!
- Thread starter thalmin
- Start date
Simplicity
Explorer
Michael Tree said:
In D20 Modern, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting has a prerequisite BAB of +6, and Advanced Two-Weapon Fighting has a prerequisite BAB of +11. Now why do those numbers look familiar...
Somehow, it's not surprising. You normally get a second attack at +6 BAB. So, if you left the TWFer with no option to add another attack, the two weapon fighting loses a great deal of its effectiveness right at +6 BAB.
At +11 BAB, you'd get that third attack (making your attacks +11/+6/+1) and it seems reasonable to bump up TWF right
there too. The question is, why do they stop at +11... Why
not have something at +16 as well?
Valiantheart
First Post
Nebuchadnezzar said:Holy cow, I thought the barbarian and the fighter were even in 3.0! My first impression of the new changes is that the barbarian kicks the fighter's arse, unless Greater Weapon Specialization adds A LOT of damage.
Aww, I really liked the fighter
Exactly. Its just +4 to Damage. A Fighter is going to be completely smoked by a Barbarian now. 80 extra hipoints, +4 to hit and dam, and damage reduction 5...well at least the fighter is "versatile" at losing to the barb.
They need to add another level (i.e. feat) of improved critical or automatic critical for the fighter I think. Oh well, Im sure the first extra special fighter splat book will prolly try to even things out again. Of couse then the extra special barb splat book will come out after that....
Jack Daniel
Legend
CLICK HERE for the first major alt.ranger campain of revised D&D!
They came close -- darn close -- to doing the ranger justice. The bard will be great, the barbarian "r0x0rs" is I believe the term, but the ranger is too thiefy. So click above if you miss rangers who are fightery!
They came close -- darn close -- to doing the ranger justice. The bard will be great, the barbarian "r0x0rs" is I believe the term, but the ranger is too thiefy. So click above if you miss rangers who are fightery!
Kobold Avenger
Legend
Barbarians were able to use Mighty Rage at level 21 at the minimum, as it was in the Epic Level Handbook. I don't really see the reasoning for allowing this in non-epic play other than encouraging players to be a barbarian for all 20 levels.
Valiantheart
First Post
Well that and the fact that the Epic Splat Book is largely reviled.....
Stalker0 said:
Here we go again
In 3e (and likely in 3.5e too) proficiency with heavy armor is not some huge perk, especially in comparison to the ranger. For anyone who hasn't got the memo: heavy armor is basically just a crutch for warriors with mediocre Dex and that's not likely to be a subset that many rangers fall into.
Don't get me wrong, I like the look of the new ranger, but if the other warrior classes are getting a new feature every level (and sometimes multiple features), that will go a long way towards diminishing the attractiveness of the fighter class since it's only getting one feat every every other level. Especially considering that many if not most class features are better than what you can get out of a feat anyway. The lower hit-die does balance things a bit more.
The article does say that they wanted the fighter to be a strong choice past mid-levels, but looking over the list of new feats I don't see much to back up that statement other than Greater Weapon Specialization.
Last edited:
Valiantheart said:
Right, the fighter will have even greater "flexibility" once the barbarian breaks every bone in his body, LMAO.
"But the fighter gets more customizability"....pretty lame counter-arguement IMO. Customization is not a substitute for raw numerical bonuses. They're both nice but one's got nothing to do with the other.
And now the barb gets his Will and Reflex saves buffed-up. And still keeps the larger hit die and 4 skill points/level too. Geez.
Last edited:
Yeah, the fighter's effectiveness will now depend heavily on what type of synergies are possible between different feat chains. By the way, the test of balance is not one of 'can one class beat the other in a single fight', but rather how useful is such a class to the average adventuring party. Weapon specialization has the advantage of being persistent and can be downright deadly when combined with certain mounted combat feats. I Fighter will also be able to switch more effectivly between melee and ranged combat, a form of versatility which does have a real combat effect not easily caught by looking at a stat sheet.
Simplicity said:
I'll bite. How does the ranger lose a great deal of effectiveness there? He's still getting an extra attack. A second attack at a lower BAB doesn't affect that.
To make it mult-classing friendly, I'd wager. I don't know for sure, but it reads like the ranger gets a bonus feat list (similar to a fighter), rather giving the ranger "Feat X" at any given level (which is what seems to be the general presumption in this thread). That makes multi-classing into a ranger less of a hosejob if you'd already taken Feat X. That's also why the class would receive fewer bonus feats than actually comprise the pool.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
