Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="GamerMan12" data-source="post: 890272" data-attributes="member: 1384">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&amp;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&nbsp; 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 2cGamerMan12</blockquote>

[QUOTE="GamerMan12, post: 890272, member: 1384"] 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 [/QUOTE]

Verification