Dragon #308 previews new ranger and barbarian!

[Felon]

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).

OK, out of all of that, he only got 4 more points of AC than if he'd been wearing a chain shirt with equivalent qualities.

Heavy armor isn't the only thing you need, but it's a major part of the equation for a low-dex fighter.

Sure, it's a +4 part of the equation, assuming your dwarf's Dex is 13 or lower. And for that you trade off a big chunk of mobility and take some penalties to dex-based skills (which matters to fighters little, but rangers a lot). I see some fighters take it, and I see some fighters pass on it. Done it myself. It's an option that has benefits and penalties.

Originally posted by SaeviomagyEither way, that dex you need to use to make up for your light or medium armour is taking away from your strength and con. Dex is no more free than enhancement bonuses.

Never said it was, but a ranger doesn't assign a decent number to Dex just to "make up for" light armor. Dex is a prime place for a ranger to put a decent number (14+) regardless of the armor he wears.

Rage benefits and penalties tend to even out, and rage is (IMHO) at best worth a feat.

*does a quick double-take*

Maybe I misread. +4 STR, CON, and +2 to Will saves in exchange for a -2 AC is a break-even deal? Think I'll just post the eyes-rolling emoticon and be done with my response lol

 

[Caliban]

OK, out of all of that, he only got 4 more points of AC than if he'd been wearing a chain shirt with equivalent qualities.

And if you don't think that extra 4 points is important, then you haven't played enough mid-level combats. Having your opponent need a 20 to hit you instead of a 16 makes a huge difference in the amount of damage you take, especially when fighting opponents with an increased crit range.

Sure, it's a +4 part of the equation, assuming your dwarf's Dex is 13 or lower. And for that you trade off a big chunk of mobility and take some penalties to dex-based skills (which matters to fighters little, but rangers a lot). I see some fighters take it, and I see some fighters pass on it. Done it myself. It's an option that has benefits and penalties.

Where did I say it doesn't have benefits and penalties? For a dwarf with a 13 Dex, it's benefits far outweigh the penalties, especially in 3.5, when it won't reduce my speed.

Heavy Armor is very useful for certain types of fighters, and less useful for others. It's by no means a "fallacy", it's an effective portion of one type of viable fighting style.

 

[Caliban]

Re: Druid Info PLEASE!!!

Does anyone have the info on the 3.5 Druid?

PLEASE!!! I AM DYING TO KNOW!!!!

I'm sorry, I signed an NDA that prevents me from sharing specific details.

I will say that their animal companion ability is substantially revamped, and their spell list, a few spells, and some of the class abilities get tweaked.

I don't remember anything about their weapon/armor limitations, so I don't know if they have been tweaked or not.

The changes looked pretty good to me, but I don't primarily play druids, so I may not be the best judge.

 

[Sejs]

Yep. Wonder if you can pick your own race as your favored enemy now?

*points at 3.5 ranger*

Let me introduce you to the new uber-assassin!

Rangers in 3e can do it already, but you have to be Evil. Something I personally remove in my games - if I'm playing a ranger as a Bounty Hunter type character.. a wandering lawman, going to places most normal law enforcers can't go to, to bring criminals to justice - I should be able to choose my own race as a favored enemy, and not be evil.

And as for the 3.5e revision to how Fav. Enemy works, I'm happy as a clam. In my oppinion I'd much rather see a Ranger5 (fav enemy: humans)/Rogue 5/Assassin 10 than just a Rogue10/Assassin10. Part of being an assassin would be the Hunting Down and Fighting parts of the job. Something to which the Ranger/Rogue seems to fit much better than just the straight Rogue.

In the Wheel of Time books, there are these guys called Grey Men. They are used as assassins. They have a supernatural abiltiy to simply go unnoticed. You might see them, but they don't really register in your mind.

You ignore them. This is how I explain Hide in Plain Sight. You are visible, it's just that people don't take notice of you.

Discworld has something similar - Social Invisibility. You're still visible.. it's just that people don't note you're there. You stand in a blindspot in their mind's eye. If you're in a crowd of people, or someone points you out or interacts with you, but the Social Invis thing is still working against the person trying to look for you, you're just totally unmemorable. Sure, you know the barmaid was talking to some person over by the stairs, but you didn't notice anything special about the person at all. Just some faceless nobody. Pay it no mind.

After a night to think about it ... why evasion and not uncanny dodge?

Call me a nut here, but from all the revisions that I've seen, I haven't seen any mention of any class having uncanny dodge. I see Trap Sense mentioned now and again, but no Uncanny Dodge.

Maybe UD was taken out entirely.

 

[Felon]

And if you don't think that extra 4 points is important, then you haven't played enough mid-level combats. Having your opponent need a 20 to hit you instead of a 16 makes a huge difference in the amount of damage you take, especially when fighting opponents with an increased crit range.

I've played plenty of combats at all levels of play; my gaming-geek resume is as solid as anyone's here, thank you very much. Relying on heavy plate is a good option for certain types of fighters, in that it helps them get a decent AC when they haven't assigned a high number in Dex. That's pretty much what I said from the get-go. Some of the folks were trying to argue that if a ranger got d10 hit dice, plus fighter feats, plus its other considerable class benefits, that heavy armor alone would preserve the fighter's appeal. I was pointing out that the difference between the fighter in full plate isn't that much greater than the ranger in chain mail shirt, and if it's a little better then it's at a cost.

For a dwarf with a 13 Dex, it's benefits far outweigh the penalties, especially in 3.5, when it won't reduce my speed.

Come again there? Armor won't reduce your character's speed? Is that specifically because the character's a dwarf? Please don't tell me dwarves just received another perk lol...

Heavy Armor is very useful for certain types of fighters, and less useful for others....it's an effective portion of one type of viable fighting style.

That pretty much sums up my position as well. The notion that wearing heavy armor is as it was in pre-3e editions--a total no-brainer choice--is the fallacy I was speaking of.

 

[Caliban]

I've played plenty of combats at all levels of play; my gaming-geek resume is as solid as anyone's here, thank you very much. Relying on heavy plate is a good option for certain types of fighters, in that it helps them get a decent AC when they haven't assigned a high number in Dex. That's pretty much what I said from the get-go. Some of the folks were trying to argue that if a ranger got d10 hit dice, plus fighter feats, plus it's other considerable class benefits, that heavy armor alone would preserve the fighter's appeal. I was pointing out that the difference between the fighter in full plate isn't that much greater than the ranger in chain mail shirt, and if it's a little better then it's at a cost.

At low levels, I think it's a signficant difference. A higher levels, the bonus from the armor isn't as signficant, especially if the ranger keeps increasing his Dex.

There is still a balance though, as the cost of the Dex increasing item for the ranger is much more than the cost of plate mail as compared to chain mail, and to take full advantage of his increased Dex, the ranger will probably need to invest in mithril armor, or switch over to Bracers of Armor, which are more expensive than an enchanced chain shirt with equivalent AC.

And the fighter in full plate can use that same amount of money for a Str or Con increasing item.

Plate armor definitely has it's drawbacks though.

Come again there? Armor won't reduce your character's speed? Is that specifically because the character's a dwarf? Please don't tell me dwarves just received another perk lol...

...

That pretty much sums up my position as well. The notion that wearing heavy armor is as it was in pre-3e editions--a total no-brainer choice--is the fallacy I was speaking of.

Ah, sorry then. I misunderstood. You're right, in 3e full plate makes no sense for high dex characters.

 

[MadBlue]

Call me a nut here, but from all the revisions that I've seen, I haven't seen any mention of any class having uncanny dodge. I see Trap Sense mentioned now and again, but no Uncanny Dodge.

Maybe UD was taken out entirely.

It's still there. There are characters with UD in the Shackled City adventure path in Dungeon. The abilities from the first two levels of UD are listed under UD and Trap Sense is listed separately.

Hmm. That makes me wonder if UD and Trap Sense stack in 3.5 or if they're treated as separate abilities.

MadBlue

 

[Mucknuggle]

I've seen a couple of people make reference to the BOHM. Can someone plz tell me what it is?

 

[Olive]

I've seen a couple of people make reference to the BOHM. Can someone plz tell me what it is?

the Book of Hallowed Might, by Monte Cook, Malhavoc Press.

Cool book with new PrCs, spells, magic items etc. and it also presents new interpretations of the ranger and paladin classes. the ranger has, instead of combat paths or two weapon fighting, has a list of bonus feats that the character can take every few levels, tailored to ranger type stuff.

i'm of the opinion that even if they thought it was a good idea, WotC wouldn't have used it because it would have meant using other peoples OGC, which they have seemed loathe to do.

 

[GamerMan12]

From the polls that have been conducted to date, most people, thought that the ranger class was the one that was most need changing from the D&D 3e version.

As a DM I would agree with this, although the Ranger player in my campaign seemed happy enough, the discrepancy in character and combat skills at 12th level compared to a fighter or barbarian in a high magic campaign was just enormous.

Several posts in this thread have said that the new ranger is overpowered, perhaps compared to the old ranger. The new ranger now looks very playable, as it was a niche class before.

I believe that WoTC have tried to balance the classes in 3e and again in 3.5e and that they have suceeded, in that are classes all in the same ballpark, but there is in 3e and will be in 3.5e an ordering of power and campaign usefulness.

If (and I am not saying the following is the gospel) the pecking order for classes was cleric, fighter, barbarian and somewhere near the bottom, ranger and it is now cleric, ranger, barbarian then fighter - that does not invalidate the new ranger, nor is it a cause to ban it from one's campaign, nor does it make the fighter class somehow less just because the barbarian class has tipped some mythical balance to be ahead on the (subjective) scale of power.

Please note, that I think a DM has the right to ban anything they like from their campaign. It's just that, if a standard character class was banned from a campaign, I would prefer a better reason than 'I think WoTC made the class too uber'. If campaign play shows it to be too uber than that is a different argument.

Just my 2c

GamerMan12