Monte's alt.ranger: Revision

[Kaptain_Kantrip]

My co-DM and I thought that Monte's version was a big improvement over the PHB version, but kept the d10 HD and added a single clerical domain and domain spells (at 4th level), with the domain limited to one offered by the ranger's patron deity.

We're thinking about cutting the skill points back down to 4/level to "compensate." Ideas?

 

[Crothian]

Personally, I think the monte Ranger is overpowered as it is. So, when you add to it, I think you really need to scale back. I'd decrease the feats greatly and the skill points. Possible even cut back the saves.

 

[Tarin Greenflame]

Remove 2 of the bonus feats (scale the bonus feat progression accordingly), and yeah maybe cut the skills down to 4 per level.

However, the 6 skills per level is something that helps out the ranger tremendously, in terms of stat point constrictions. With those 6 skills/lv, the ranger doesn't need as high an INT score, thus allowing them to spend points in all of their other abilitiy scores (str, dex, con, and wis...few other classes have 4 main stats other than the paladin). If the ranger only had 4 skills/lv, that would be 5 main stats! Think of how screw'd the ranger is in a point buy system or low-stat campaign compared to classes that only have 2-3 main stats to focus on. In addition, the 6 skills makes the ranger somewhat proportionate with the other classes in terms of the ratio of skills learnable to skills gained per level.

But hey, I'm just a proponent to rangers having 6 skills per level

You can also remove shield and/or medium armor proficiency from the ranger, or introduce an alignment restriction, multiclass restriction, or honor code. Whatever works for ya.

 

[Kaptain_Kantrip]

Personally, I think the monte Ranger is overpowered as it is. So, when you add to it, I think you really need to scale back. I'd decrease the feats greatly and the skill points. Possible even cut back the saves.

Really? We thought it was still a little weak, and still front-loaded.

 

[John Quixote]

Scrap it like the junkheap it is. Monte's ranger is total garbage. He says favored enemy's too DM-controlled, and what does he do? He leaves it alone, save for adding spells and feats that work with favored enemies! The only things you could do worse to the ranger are forcing them to make Wilderness Lore checks at the beginning of a combat to see if their enemy that battle is favored (it's been suggested... ugh...) and totally killing the ranger archetype by removing the melee monster masher motif in favor of a woodsman/bowman knockoff.

 

[Kaptain_Kantrip]

Scrap it like the junkheap it is. Monte's ranger is total garbage. He says favored enemy's too DM-controlled, and what does he do? He leaves it alone, save for adding spells and feats that work with favored enemies! The only things you could do worse to the ranger are forcing them to make Wilderness Lore checks at the beginning of a combat to see if their enemy that battle is favored (it's been suggested... ugh...) and totally killing the ranger archetype by removing the melee monster masher motif in favor of a woodsman/bowman knockoff.

So, you're saying you don't like Monte's version?

I do see your point about the favored enemy thing; that is strange for him not to alter it after criticizing it as the chief weakness of the class. I am in favor of a ranger that the player wants to create rather than a standard predetermined archetype as in the PHB. I still don't know why rangers should be able to cast spells, however. Paladins I can understand but there is no logical reason for the ranger to have them, IMO.

I think a character is still better off multiclassing as a druid/fighter/rogue or fighter/rogue or druid/rogue or fighter/druid than as a ranger, regardless of using the PHB or Monte's version. I think the class should have been cut as core classes, along with the barbarian (making rage and fast movement feats), monk and paladin, and used as examples of good multiclassing, but a bunch of people would probably have screamed about that.

 

[John Quixote]

Yeah, well we don't want any sacred bovine-blood on the hands of WotC, do we? I frankly like paladins and rangers as core classes, but they would have been just as well as prestige classes. Rangers, however, must be divine casters because a) they always have been and b) they're not just woodsmen and trackers. They've always been on the same prestige-level, so to speak, as paladins. Anyone who thinks they're just Robin Hoods and whatre-they-called-warders from Wheel of Time and other not-so-special types isn't using much in the way of imagination, and would be better served with an expert than any core class.

 

[Kaptain_Kantrip]

Anyone who thinks they're just Robin Hoods and whatre-they-called-warders from Wheel of Time and other not-so-special types isn't using much in the way of imagination, and would be better served with an expert than any core class.

Um, Jack, I think those of us who aren't "using much in the way of imagination" envision the ranger as a tough wilderness survivalist/scout. We are thinking of Robin Hood and Aragorn/Strider from Lord of the Rings, Gygax's obvious inspirations for the ranger class in 1e, or possibly the Woodsman class from Wheel of Time.

 

[John Quixote]

My point exactly. Aragorn was a ranger. He could kick ass and take names, and he knew enough about killing Orcs to be considered a genuine goblinslayer. On the other side, Robin Hood was a rogue who could shoot a bow, and a woodsman is not a ranger, because he's not even a fighter-type. Being a good fighter is paramount to the class, before rubbing two sticks together and tracking trackless druids.

 

[Kaptain_Kantrip]

My point exactly. Aragorn was a ranger. He could kick ass and take names, and he knew enough about killing Orcs to be considered a genuine goblinslayer. On the other side, Robin Hood was a rogue who could shoot a bow, and a woodsman is not a ranger, because he's not even a fighter-type. Being a good fighter is paramount to the class, before rubbing two sticks together and tracking trackless druids.

The Wheel of Time woodsman (from memory) was a ranger type, wasn't he? I think an argument could be made for Robin Hood having some ranger levels, but he seems more rogue in hindsight. No argument on Aragorn, though he wasn't always a ranger and should have a level or two of aristocrat or fighter.

IMO, a ranger should be a survivalist first, fighter/rogue second. If the guy can't survive in the woods, then he won't be much use to himself or anyone else. Rubbing two sticks together, not getting lost, finding food and water, stalking game, these are the primary things I think of when I think ranger. Once he's got these down, he can start to do everything else, like concentrating on fighting (other than hunting wild game) within his home turf. That's where he becomes a truly formidable opponent.

Also, I think the ranger should get a bonus to attack, Move Silently and Hide against anything in his home terrain, maybe replacing favored enemy.

BTW: You still have not made an argument why a ranger should have spells, other than "it's always been that way."