Dragon #308 previews new ranger and barbarian!

[Olgar Shiverstone]

*Scratches head*

After a night to think about it ... why evasion and not uncanny dodge? UD seems a bit closer to the "wilderness hunter" flavor for me -- too much in common with the barbarian, maybe? How will this work with the rogue's evasion (will rogue evasion + ranger evasion = improved evasion? If so, look out for the Rgr9/Rog2)?

Otherwise, I still think it's good -- I'm not as hung up on the d8 HD as others are -- what's 21 hp difference over 20 levels? Put two more points in Con, take Toughness -- lots of ways to make that up if you want. (Though I'd still prefer real feats to "virtual" ones, or at least make them usable in medium armor so the ranger's armor proficiencies make sense. Maybe this will be the case.)

 

[krunchyfrogg]

RE: Ranger changes

Gain a 2-weapon OR archery feat at levels 2, 6 and 11

Does the article say whether or not these will be virtual feats? Everyone assumes they are, but I'm wondering if the article says so.

 

[thalmin]

Re: RE: Ranger changes

Does the article say whether or not these will be virtual feats? Everyone assumes they are, but I'm wondering if the article says so.

Doesn't say exactly. The wording in the table is

"Combat Style ........ Choose either archery or two-weapon combat; gain a bonus feat"

The article makes no mention of armor.

 

[MadBlue]

*Scratches head*

After a night to think about it ... why evasion and not uncanny dodge? UD seems a bit closer to the "wilderness hunter" flavor for me -- too much in common with the barbarian, maybe? How will this work with the rogue's evasion (will rogue evasion + ranger evasion = improved evasion? If so, look out for the Rgr9/Rog2)?

Evasion doesn't stack (same thing with Monk and Rogue Evasion).

I agree with you about Uncanny Dodge. My only concern about the 3.5 Ranger is that the drop in HD and the special abilities it gets make Archery a more attractive combat style path to follow than TWF is - and since the player has to pick between the two, they should be equal in value to the Ranger.

Uncanny Dodge is more in line with the concept of the Ranger as being hard to surprise (at least in 1e) and directly aids a Ranger in melee combat against multiple opponents, making TWF a more attractive choice than it is in the 3.5 build. Evasion pretty much sweetens the pot for the Archery Ranger, since most spells that call for a Reflex save aren't cast on a character in melee.

MadBlue

 

[MadBlue]

Re: Re: RE: Ranger changes

Doesn't say exactly. The wording in the table is

"Combat Style ........ Choose either archery or two-weapon combat; gain a bonus feat"

The article makes no mention of armor.

The writeup of Manyshot on the WotC site (from 2/25) says "A 6th-level ranger who has chosen the archery combat style is treated as having Manyshot even if he does not have the prerequisites for it, but only when he is wearing light or no armor", but it's possible that it's been changed since then.

MadBlue

 

[Ferret]

Why did they change the barbarian? I had no qualms and i haven't seen anyones, the rage needs to be tones down, it might have seemed nesscessary to lower it, however if they thought that other things had to be added after lowering the final level ability... It should have been something else.

 

[TroyXavier]

They made the changes(according to themselves) so that Barbarians could get use out of them early on when they could really use the abilities.

 

[Mercule]

Bah. What a piece of crap.

Let me elaborate. The new ranger is a VERY nice class, and I'd play one, but it IS NOT a ranger. Lose the combat feats and evasion and bring back the d10 and you've got yourself a ranger.

I agree almost completely. The new "Ranger" class fills a nice niche, and I'd gladly play one. It shouldn't be called "Ranger", though.

Funny. I know Jack Daniels threw out the term as a (derogatory) joke in a poll, but the term that keeps coming to mind is "Wilderninja". So, how about it, Jack, is that term OGC? Would you consider just releasing it to WotC? The books haven't gone to press yet, there's still time for them to edit the name.

 

[theoremtank]

The 3.5 ranger definitely does not look underpowered.

The changes I like:
- The d8 hit die
- Woodland stride
- 6 skill points per level
- Endurance (Nice, but should be available as a bonus feat.)
- Camouflage


What I don't like:
- Evasion -- Too redundant with other classes. One should have to multiclass to either Bbn, Mnk, or Rog to get this. This should possibly be replaced with a new unique class feature such as "ambush" or "surprise awareness" (these are made up names).
- Combat Style -- The virtual feat thing disappoints many people including myself. They should just give a small list of actual bonus feats to choose from. Most people would agree to a limited feat list over the combat style concept. This will probably be the most house ruled class feature.
- Favored Enemy -- I'm still impartial to this one. It is definitely more powerful now but I believe it is still to DM dependent on what monsters he chooses to throw at you.
- Hide in plain site -- Camouflage seems good enough without getting too magical. Perhaps another new unique class feature could go here.

Overall this current 3.5 ranger is more uniquely interesting and powerfull than the 3.0 version. It definitly makes the choice to multiclass more difficult.

 

[Wormwood]

edit: I'll withdraw my comment. Kinda petty and lame, and liable to **** someone off.

For the record, the 3.5 Ranger looks like a really cool, playable class.

Considering that nobody can agree what what a freakin' Ranger even *is*, I think this new approach is better than most I've seen.