Mortality Radio # 30: Ed Stark interview available...

[Kae'Yoss]

Thank you for calling me stupid.

Let's see, two levels of ranger, gets you twf or pbs/rs,

I don't think they get both feats at 2nd level. TWF is one feat, and they get that. So unless they combine pbs and rs into one feat, the ranger will get only one at 2nd, AFAIK

track, 5 ranks of spot, search, listen, hide, survival, a favored enemy, and the ability to use any magic item allowed to rangers. Wands of cure light wounds, etc.

Advancing as a ranger will give me even more skill points.

Two levels of fighter gives you what? Two feats? Suppose you want to be an archer - you take pbs/rs. Compare that to the two levels of ranger. Or you want to fight with two weapons. The fighter has twf and weapon focus, compare that to two levels of ranger. Remember the skills? Every fighter skill is also on the ranger list.

Why take two levels of ranger?

As I said, I doubt that you will get two archery feats.

I'll say it again, the ranger will kick ass (at least for a level or two, maybe for 20 if you like the archetype) if you intend on being an archer, or fighting with two weapons, otherwise, they'll sit on the shelf and gather dust.

I'd stick with the ranger and get better at sneaking, spotting and listening then the fighter.


As a sidenote: Monks aren't proficient with the katana, and it certainly isn't a "monk" weapon, either.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I want them to get rid of the free feats archery/twf feats they are giving him. .... Straightjacketing him into certain combat styles sucks.

The way I see it the problem is not with the Ranger being not versatile enough (for he's really a very versatile class, and the additional skill points and a choice of fighting styles - be they only to or two hundred), but the mentality of some people. They want to weaken the ranger by not giving him the feats, when all they have to do is not use them. It's practically the same: he won't use those feats and will be a good choice of class nonetheless. But there's the powergamer's instinct in people who want to have their character every single power they have to be as powerful as possible.

If I don't want to use some thing, I don't do it. I'll choose a class for what useful stuff it will give me, for what will fit in my character concept, and not for what stuff it will have but I won't use.

I've played lots of characters with armor proficiency (heavy) who only use light armor (or maybe medium). I never had the urge to put that character in heavy armor, just because I don't want to "waste" that feat. (It's funny, though, that people are complaining that the armor proficiencies have to be bought with feats, in d20M. You can't satisfy everyone.)

In fourth edition, I hope they remove the ranger class. No one agrees on what it should have, no one agrees what it should be, and no one agrees on how it should be implemented.

Do away with it, and bard, paladin, barbarian, druid sorcerer and monk.

Sorry, but it just seems one man's folly is another man's wife around here...

You are aware that this action will upset other people, and is therefor just another of those ways that won't please everyone (and actually, it is a choice that will upset more than any other).

Nope, get rid of the two "Combat Paths", and give Bonus Feats from a selected list, instead.

I don't really like that. Either every single class gets bonus feats with a special list (as in d20m), or the ranger stays with his Paths. They're an improvement over the single style they got. I won't disagree, however, with additional paths, if they aren't to much and don't cover every fighting style there is (for this is fighter territory). Put in another for polearms, maybe (I don't see a ranger with a shield, it doesn't really fit), and some that give him other powers (maybe one with spells, one with survival-type abilities).

Yes, Intuit Direction is a 3e Ranger skill, but that's not the point. Rumour has it that 3.5e's Survival skill will incorporate direction-finding, just as 3e's Wilderness Lore includes not getting lost. This rumour may or may not be true.

d20M Survival states DC 18 to avoid getting lost. I think that means ID (since it's not in the skill list). I'm almost positive they will do this in 3.5, too (ID was probably the single most useless skill and had no right to be a separate skill)

::Sigh!:: Again, with missing the point, (P)SH... A Ranger SHOULD be able to set various sorts of traps (snares, pits, spiked pits, deadfalls, (spiked) limb traps, etc).

Hm... I think he will get the appropriate craft skill.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

but the mentality of some people. They want to weaken the ranger by not giving him the feats, when all they have to do is not use them. It's practically the same: he won't use those feats and will be a good choice of class nonetheless.

That's a good one. Did you know that a combat style can be related to someone's personality?

For instance, a character who takes Expertise and heavy armor might be a tactical defensive fighter, whereas someone who takes TWF is cocky and aggressive.

Congrats, all the rangers are cocky, aggressive, and went to Mielikki's secret fighting school

 

[Kae'Yoss]

No. Some rangers are (if their Fighting Style is related to their personality). The rest (who don't use the fighting style) aren't (and those whose personality doesn't dictate their fighting style. Or vice versa).

 

[seankreynolds]

Re: Re: OT: Awesome disgusting barf picture

You mean THIS pic, Sean?

That's the one, thanks.

 

[Green Knight]

No problem.

I've played lots of characters with armor proficiency (heavy) who only use light armor (or maybe medium). I never had the urge to put that character in heavy armor, just because I don't want to "waste" that feat. (It's funny, though, that people are complaining that the armor proficiencies have to be bought with feats, in d20M. You can't satisfy everyone.)

Right now I'm considering playing a Fighter who wears at best Studded Leather. But it's true. Just because a class has an ability doesn't mean you have to constantly use it. How many Barbarians use their Medium Armor Proficiency? How many Monks actually use a Quarterstaff when they can do an equal amount of damage with nunchaku, with a better BAB?

::Sigh!:: Again, with missing the point, (P)SH... A Ranger SHOULD be able to set various sorts of traps (snares, pits, spiked pits, deadfalls, (spiked) limb traps, etc).

Hm... I think he will get the appropriate craft skill.

Thanks for pointing that out. I hadn't noticed. But yeah, you're right. Rangers have the Craft skill, and one of the Craft skill subdivisions is Trapmaking. So a Ranger can already make traps.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

The way I see it the problem is not with the Ranger being not versatile enough (for he's really a very versatile class, and the additional skill points and a choice of fighting styles - be they only to or two hundred), but the mentality of some people. They want to weaken the ranger by not giving him the feats, when all they have to do is not use them. It's practically the same: he won't use those feats and will be a good choice of class nonetheless. But there's the powergamer's instinct in people who want to have their character every single power they have to be as powerful as possible.

B]So why not give the fighter fireballs? After all, he doesn't HAVE to use them.

If I don't want to use some thing, I don't do it. I'll choose a class for what useful stuff it will give me, for what will fit in my character concept, and not for what stuff it will have but I won't use.



I've played lots of characters with armor proficiency (heavy) who only use light armor (or maybe medium). I never had the urge to put that character in heavy armor, just because I don't want to "waste" that feat. (It's funny, though, that people are complaining that the armor proficiencies have to be bought with feats, in d20M. You can't satisfy everyone.)
[/B]

Armor proficiency is not comparable to twf or archery. I have yet to see anyone take an armor proficiency feat. They will always multiclass for the feats. Like my dm told me when I considered olaying a ranger: "you're not going to fight with two weapons? Then why play a ranger?" I'll say it again (for the umpteenth time) No one wants feats they'll never use. That's why fighters never choose spell focus. And forcing these feats on a ranger who will never use them is tantamount to making a fighter choose spell focus and extra spell as feats. He can always ignore those, can't he?

[

 

[Steverooo]

Either every single class gets bonus feats with a special list (as in d20m), or...

That's what I've been saying, if you've read the whole thread. Bonus Feats at 1rst, 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th levels (as the Wizard, now) which deal with their Profession. Special Class Abilities or Class-Only Feats every level (just like the Druid & Monk, now).

 

[Steverooo]

Thanks for pointing that out. I hadn't noticed. But yeah, you're right. Rangers have the Craft skill, and one of the Craft skill subdivisions is Trapmaking. So a Ranger can already make traps.

And if a Ranger wants to make a living by building bear traps and selling them, he should! On the other hand, if he wants to set out snares to catch a few snipes and squirrels, it should fall under Wilderness Lore/Survival. (Check the context of the original quote.)

Above, in response to Henry, I pointed out that Rangers have no class abilities to make them better Scouts or Survivalists than a Cosmopolitan Fighter with Survival/WL skill. This is one of those areas. WL DC:10 allows him to find food & drink in the wild. A quick look at any survival manual will show you that one of the ways this is done with is snares, pits, traps, etc. I pointed out that the WL skill (and the Ranger's description) do not specify that he has this ability, and that spending a paragraph to specifically STATE that would be an improvement for the Ranger/WL skill. The fact that two people here jump in and say ''He already has access to Craft (Trapmaking)'' pretty well proves that point.

 

[Steverooo]

Armor proficiency is not comparable to twf or archery. I have yet to see anyone take an armor proficiency feat. They will always multiclass for the feats. Like my dm told me when I considered olaying a ranger: "you're not going to fight with two weapons? Then why play a ranger?" I'll say it again (for the umpteenth time) No one wants feats they'll never use. That's why fighters never choose spell focus. And forcing these feats on a ranger who will never use them is tantamount to making a fighter choose spell focus and extra spell as feats. He can always ignore those, can't he?

I agree with you, that allowing Feat selection is a better method. I disagree that TWF is so bad, though. You want to use a spear? You can (provided the GM agrees with Monte Cook's ruling) allow him to bop the opponent on the head with the other end, as a quarterstaff.

You want sword and shield? You have the added option of shield bash, when you don't need the extra AC.

You like two-handed weapons? See spear, and/or make the off-hand attack with armor spikes, or spiked gauntlets...

And not all TWF are cocky and aggressive. Mine happens to use claws, and fights with both hands. Someone who fights unarmed might also.

I can't see too many Rangers who won't benefit from TWF OR Archery! I just wish they had the power to choose for themselves.