Dragon #308 previews new ranger and barbarian!

[Plane Sailing]

It seems rather strange to me that there are a few people who are already considering banning this class or that class ability without actually seeing the book in print yet.

We're at a good point to start weighing up changes on information revealed compared to 3e, but we've got even less of a whole picture than the SRD will (eventually) have, let alone the actual books!

Cheers

edited for clarity of expression

 

[Mercule]

It seems rather strange to me that there are a few people who are already considering banning this class or that class ability without actually seeing the book in print yet.

Eh, I guess I'm one of those. PirateCat was right, though. The whole package (assuming what we're getting is in fact that) is a lot nicer than the rumors that were coming out.

For a casual/Greyhawk game, I think I've decided to let the class be. It's a well designed class and, even if it does not exactly match my image of a Ranger, it does make a variant Ranger someone unneeded.

When we move to my homebrew, which I consider to be much more flavor-intensive, I'll almost certainly replace the class with something else. Of course, I'm making Paladin a PrC; and I'm looking for a way to remove fire-and-forget spells, which means I'll almost certainly be changing any class that casts spells; so I don't see that me using an alt.Ranger is much of an insult.

Edit: Forgetting a "not" can completely change a post's meaning.

 

[Fenes 2]

Based on the information in this thread - which I have no reason to doubt, since if it were wrong someone would have corrected it by now - I can easily conclude that this ranger is overpowered in my campaigns. I can even more easily decide that I don't want such a "wilderninja" in my game.

 

[Jhamin]

I can easily conclude that this ranger is overpowered in my campaigns. I can even more easily decide that I don't want such a "wilderninja" in my game.

Do you allow Rouges? Do you allow Barbarians? Do you allow Multiclassing?

If so, you already allow "wilderninjas". This is just a class that gives some aspects of both while limiting the character in other ways. You get there in one rather than balancing two.

It will probably be wise to see the changes to all the other classes before you decide which ones are overpowered. It sounds about half the classes are better now.

 

[Fenes 2]

Do you allow Rouges? Do you allow Barbarians? Do you allow Multiclassing?

If so, you already allow "wilderninjas". This is just a class that gives some aspects of both while limiting the character in other ways. You get there in one rather than balancing two.

It will probably be wise to see the changes to all the other classes before you decide which ones are overpowered. It sounds about half the classes are better now.

Hey, I review any single PC before allowing it - a barbarian/rogue would have to be approved just as a single-classed rogue, and just as our single-classed barbarian was. Besides, you would need some druid as well to account for the spells.

And, again, I don't want a spellcasting, full BAB 6 skill points bonus combat styles favored enemy evasion hide in plain sight "thing" IMC. I don't need to see the other classes - I don't want this IMC.

I am not even sure what about the new barbarian I will let into my current campaign - I consider our current barbarian balanced with our two other fighters, and great rage at 11 and other goodies might be overpowered. My base is the fighter - and the fighter class will not be significantly altered in 3.5E. Anything that is that much better than the fighter IMC - and the ranger would be that much better IMC, which is not standard D&D - will probably be banned.

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

hehe.. "Wilderninja"

I like it!

 

[Storm Raven]

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.

I'm not sure why d10 hit dice are considered integral to the Ranger. When the class was first put together decades ago, it had d8 hit dice.

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

1d10, 1d8, - On average, the only difference is 1 hit point.

It makes very little difference.

IMHO, this is the quintissential "ranger". I mean, looked at our own special forces. The US Army Rangers are trained in combat, stealth, and survival.

Sounds pretty dead on to me. If you don't like the Two Weapon Fighting or Archery Combat Styles, just add bonus feats in their place.

Personally, I'm really loving this revision.

 

[Xeriar]

1d10, 1d8, - On average, the only difference is 1 hit point.

It makes very little difference.

IMHO, this is the quintissential "ranger". I mean, looked at our own special forces. The US Army Rangers are trained in combat, stealth, and survival.

Sounds pretty dead on to me. If you don't like the Two Weapon Fighting or Archery Combat Styles, just add bonus feats in their place.

Personally, I'm really loving this revision.

And as for Hide in Plain Sight, take a -REAL- good look at pictures of the White House.

It looks so open and friendly...

 

[Lela]

Based on the information in this thread - which I have no reason to doubt, since if it were wrong someone would have corrected it by now - I can easily conclude that this ranger is overpowered in my campaigns. I can even more easily decide that I don't want such a "wilderninja" in my game.

Could you be a little more specific? What makes him overpowered? Compare with the Monk in terms of abilities and realize that some of these Ranger abilities are going to be useless most of the time (Ex. Woodland Stride). I just don't see it.