Monte's "The Ranger Revisited" question

[rom90125]

There is a player in our group that wants to create a ranger and he would like to use Monte Cook's variant class (http://www.montecook.com/images/Ranger3.pdf). The player and I have gotten into a bit-o-disagreement regarding Monte's variant. The player wants to augment the 3.5 ranger with this variant and feels that this was Monte's intent. Basically, the 3.5 ranger + Monte's variant ranger. I disagree and just so I can say I asked for an outsider's opinion, can I ask for your take on this? I am in near shock that the player would make such an assumption. Sometimes being the DM and just saying 'no' doesn't cut it for this guy.

Thanks.

 

[Crothian]

What do you mean when you say "augment"? These are two different classes and while they are based on basically the same idea they are still different.

 

[rom90125]

By augment I mean the player wants to merge the core 3.5 Ranger and Monte's variant into one class...with the class features from both. For example: Monte's variant states a Ranger gets a bonus feat at 4th level, while the core 3.5 class grants an Animal Companion at the same level. So player X feels this implies that his PC should get both at 4th level..a bonus feat and the Animal Companion. The other players in the group have agree with me on this and stated as much, but the guy thinks there is an agenda against him now. As I read this reply, I can see how asinine this really is. Time for the guy to accept the DM's answer of 'NO'.

 

[RigaMortus]

The fact that you (the DM, right?) are even allowing him to use a 3rd party class (monte's ranger variant) isn't good enough for this guy?

 

[Crothian]

By augment I mean the player wants to merge the core 3.5 Ranger and Monte's variant into one class...with the class features from both. For example: Monte's variant states a Ranger gets a bonus feat at 4th level, while the core 3.5 class grants an Animal Companion at the same level. So player X feels this implies that his PC should get both at 4th level..a bonus feat and the Animal Companion. The other players in the group have agree with me on this and stated as much, but the guy thinks there is an agenda against him now. As I read this reply, I can see how asinine this really is. Time for the guy to accept the DM's answer of 'NO'.

Ya, he'd be getting the benifits of two classes for the price of one, no way should you lket this fly. Tell him to take the PHB Ranger. It is fair, it is betyter then Monte's and it is the one you allow.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Just say NO.

The player's argument is essentially that he can divine what Monte really meant better than you can by reading what Monte actually wrote, that Monte wrote a single set of changes that amazingly enough apply to both the 3.0 and 3.5 Ranger without amendment-- even before 3.5 existed, and that the correct changes are everything the player likes most about Monte's 3.0 Ranger and the PHB's 3.5 Ranger.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

First off, the revised ranger was built as an alternative for the 3.0 ranger, not the 3.5 ranger. So any comparison between it and the 3.5 ranger is spurious. The 3.5 ranger was designed to address problems with the 3.0 ranger...problems which Monte's ranger was also addressing. So they're two different ways to handle "the ranger problem." Two different ways.

Second, Monte's ranger was never updated for 3.5, right? You're playing in a 3.5 game, right? He's either playing the 3.0 ranger or the 3.5 ranger, but not both. Tell him that he can play the updated Monte Cook ranger, once Monte updates it, but until then he can play the 3.0 revised ranger or the 3.5 standard.

Really, they're two different classes with the same name and some similar abilities. It's like asking to play a 3.0 barbarian gestalted to a 3.5 barbarian so you get twice the damage reduction and more rages per day.

 

[Arbiter of Wyrms]

. . . and just so I can say I asked for an outsider's opinion, can I ask for your take on this? I am in near shock that the player would make such an assumption. Sometimes being the DM and just saying 'no' doesn't cut it for this guy.

I don't personally have access to commune or contact other plane, but I do remember that Monte's variant ranger was my first introduction to montecook.com, and that was well before 3.5. It was Monte's homebrew solution to the pathetically underpowered 3.0 ranger.

3.5 is WotC's answer to the same pathetically underpowered ranger and, for the most part, ignores Monte's version. I switched from the 3.0 version to the MC version to the 3.5 version. Like Crothian pointed out, the 3.5 version is the best, and the one the character should be encouraged to take if you decide not to ride him out on a rail for failing to comprehend rule 0.

Monte Cook's ranger was never intended as a patch to the 3.5 ranger. It was published before the 3.5 ranger.

I'd keep the new spells and feats, but the idea that your player should be entitled to play a gestalt MC Ranger/3.5 Ranger while the rest of the group plays regular classes is rediculous.

I give players a lot of latitude, but if I one with whom 'just saying "no" wouldn't cut it,' I'd cut that player from my game and be happier for their abscence.

 

[TheLostSoul]

When Monte Cook updated his webpage design he released an update to the Ranger. It can be found here . This variant is appended to the PHB 3.5 Ranger, while his old version was a stand-alone class.

You are the DM. If he cannot accept your decision, then do not let him play. Although if he wanted to use the new 3.5 options I would probably let him

 

[Tetsubo]

Will Monte be updating the Ranger info in Arcana Evolved?