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

[bushido11]

First of all, w/o magic missile and/or sleep, the wizard or sorcerer in the party is probably only good for holding the other party member's equipment. "It's not balanced with the other 1st level spells!" At 1st level, you can at most cast two magic missiles per day. Sure it's got a lot of quirks, but it's not like he can shoot a barrage of them either, so don't worry your pretty little heads.

About some classes being favored and more powered than others, that's what you get when you play a class-based game like D&D. Try as you might, nothing is absolutely balanced. I play it because it's fun and the class system works best for a fantasy setting. If you want things balanced or you want to create your character in the very image YOU want (not the company's version), D&D is not the answer. For that, I suggest Mutants & Masterminds. Even though it's a superhero game, it is adaptable to any genre. It's probably the d20 equivalent of HERO (or close to it). The price is the same as the 3.5e PHB, and you get a lot more for your money than mere revisions.

Speaking of 3.5e, I see it as nothing more than a market ploy to milk D&D gamers out of their money. Sure, the people in WoTC may have love for the game, but selling the revised core rulebooks is nothing more than a chance to make money. For that, just come up with more products for FR or something. Or come out with Dragonlance 3rd edition; I'd love to see that.

Another thing they SHOULD DEFINITELY DO is replace AC with Defense and allow all classes to gain a Defense bonus, like in The Wheel of Time or d20 Modern. I HATE the idea that a high-level fighter NEVER learns to evade attacks better without the use of feats and always has to rely on good magical armor to save his hide. Also, monsters have insane attack bonuses and it gets even more insane with the arm swipe/arm swipe/bite combos they pull off. Another variant they should add is the Wound Point system Star Wars utilizes. Some people just aren't satisfied with hit points and the "I can take a bunch of arrow shots because I have 60+ hit points" syndrome.

What would really kick major butt is if WoTC came up with a classless system so that you can customize your character level by level. The basic idea is that everybody starts off as the commoner NPC class but has a point allotment to make improvements. The real challenge would be assigning point values to class features and spellcasting. I've created such a system and if you want to check it out, e-mail me at humphrey_lepant@yahoo.com.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

The problem with the above approach is that you are not playing a ranger. You are playing a fighter with the track feat. That's part of what I'm screaming about. Everyone tells me to play a fighter and take track or play a druid, blah blah blah. That should be a sign that something is wrong with the ranger class. The 3.5 version - at least the rumored version - is catering to the power gamers yet again. I never claimed the ranger was underpowered. Just that all rangers had the twf feats. Now its either twf or archery. They have fixed nothing.

 

[Acmite]

In response to Bayne: Overpowered or not, MM is the best spell in the game. Ask any sorceror.

Our party had a gnome sorceror who focused on illusions. He chose spells like Silent Image, Ventriloquism, Color Spray. He used to always come up with clever plans and whatnot.

Then, at 5th level he picked up magic missile. Now, pretty much all he does in combat is roll 3d4. Many, many times. Last night, half the party was caught in a water elemental's whirlpool. The other half could not swim fast enough to reach the elemental. Who killed the monster? The sorceror--all by himself, thanks to MM.
-z

Wow, we have vastly different experiences. I have been playing 3E since its release, weekly, and I played Living Greyhawk for quite some time. In all that time, maybe 50% of the Wizards and Sorcerors used Magic Missile. About 90% of them were effective characters both in and out of combat. By no means did they "suffer" for lack of Magic Missile.

IMO, Colour Spray is a better spell, anyway. It affects more creatures, and has a defensive effect built in. Wre you playing with the correct stun effect, ie: a stunned creature drops all held objects? This can stop high level warriors from getting off a full-round attack with their prefered weapon, a wizard from casting a spell by forcing spell components to be dropped, an enemy from healing via a wand or potion, etc. And this is all at high levels. At low levels, this spell (like sleep) is much more devasting to enemies that Magic Missile.

Plus, being creative with spells like Grease, Silent Image, etc can be much more fun than playing a walking Wand of Magic Missiles. And last I checked, there are much fewer anti-stun magics than anti-magic missile ones (Shield, Brooch of Shielding, frex)

 

[JRRNeiklot]

The same reason rogues are given limited weapon selections, sorcerers are given limited spell lists, and monks are given a limited and pre-chosen list of abilities, I'd guess.
Get a DM that agrees and put in your own alt.ranger if its important to you personally.

-Skaros

Yet rogues can pick any style they want. If a rogue uses a feat to use a greatsword, he burns one feat. A ranger who uses a greatsword burns two without even trying. Does that make sense?

Not all of us can get a dm that caters to our every whim. Most 3e dms I know refuse to change rules for fear of balance problems.

 

[Acmite]

The problem with the above approach is that you are not playing a ranger. You are playing a fighter with the track feat. That's part of what I'm screaming about. Everyone tells me to play a fighter and take track or play a druid, blah blah blah. That should be a sign that something is wrong with the ranger class. The 3.5 version - at least the rumored version - is catering to the power gamers yet again. I never claimed the ranger was underpowered. Just that all rangers had the twf feats. Now its either twf or archery. They have fixed nothing.

How does that appeal to power-gamers?

I can see how that would appeal to players who want to play wilderness archers (like Robin Hood or Aragorn), or to players that want to play TWF melee types (Aragorn with Sword and Flaming Brand, Sword and dagger, etc).

TWF is a much less effective way of fighting than Two-handed weapons, mathematically. It seems to me that power-gamers would go more the Greatsword route. Players that choose TWF seem to be choosing style over substance to me, a purely Role-Playing choice.

I like the idea of rangers having to choose a primary fighting style. I just don't like the idea of there only being 2 choices in the PHB. I would have liked to seen at least 5, including spear, hand axes, sword and shield, etc.

 

[Ron]

Hey guy,

you know -if you were happy playing a 3.0 ranger that way - you'd probably be able to convert the same character concept over to the fighter class with better results. Just boost up you DEX, wear light armor, take the track feat. All your missing from your old character is the favored enemy, but you get more feats to tailor your spear use. If you need more skills, mix in a few levels of rogue.


The great thing about the four basic classes: cleric, fighter, rogue, and wizard - is that they don't have any predetermined background - so you can make them as "woodsy" as you like.

You're not wrong, but I have being playing rangers (and sometimes wizards) since AD&D 1st ed, so it's hard to change. The point is, I am not trying to max/min my character to obtain the best combat combination. I like the concept of rangers and I think that 3ed doesn't captures it very well. The fighter will never give me the number of skill points I need to create my scout like ranger. Also, I enjoy having the druid spells -- despite the fact that they are near useless. A rogue will give something near what I want, but it will still missing something. Truth is, I could create my version of ranger multiclassing Rogue with a few levels of Druid, but then the result would be one more silly combination that explain why I am not so happy about 3ed less restrictive multiclassing.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

How does that appeal to power-gamers?


TWF is a much less effective way of fighting than Two-handed weapons, mathematically. It seems to me that power-gamers would go more the Greatsword route. Players that choose TWF seem to be choosing style over substance to me, a purely Role-Playing choice.

Power gamers pick a level of ranger for twf. Now they'll get to choose between twf and archery. I'm not saying power gaming is a bad thing, just that those of us who want to play a ranger for the appeal of the archetype get forced into a certain combat style.

 

[Stalker0]

No mention of if they changed the cost to scribe spells in a wizards spellbook?

The changes to Bard and Ranger make me wonder how many rogues we will see.

Both the Ranger and Bard have a good selection of skills available. They both have spells. The ranger gets full BAB. Now they are going to get almost as many skill points as a rogue, certainly more than a Rogue/Fighter multiclass would average.

I'm wondering how this will affect the rogue.

Rogue: "Excuse me mr. ranger, did you need that lock picked?"
Rogue: "Um... mr. bard, I think you dropped your coin purse." "What, some of its missing? I guess some of it must have fallen out."
Rogue: "Ouch, I hope that extra 5d6 didn't hurt too badly"
Rogue: Looking at the burnt party. "Did you guys not see that fireball coming?"
Rogue: "What is flatfooted to me, really?"
Rogue: "I'm dead!!" rolls a d20. "Oh wait, I rolled out of the wya, I'm fine"

I think rogues will be just fine

 

[kingpaul]

just that those of us who want to play a ranger for the appeal of the archetype get forced into a certain combat style.

So create your own for play. There's nothing stopping you from doing that in your own campaigns if you're the DM or if you can convince your DM. I've known many DMs, and while they love throwing "interesting" things at the players, they are pretty amiable when it comes to how you want to develop your character.

Further, since 3.5 is going to be SRD'd, I'm betting the combat styles are going to be as well. Therefore, you can publish your own (print, PDF, web, etc).

 

[Acmite]

Power gamers pick a level of ranger for twf. Now they'll get to choose between twf and archery. I'm not saying power gaming is a bad thing, just that those of us who want to play a ranger for the appeal of the archetype get forced into a certain combat style.

Power gamers in a game where character background and role-playing matter little, maybe. How does that character justify taking a level in Ranger? Who taught him those virtual feats? Why did he/she suudenly switch career paths only to return to their former profession immediately afterwards?

It seems to me you have a problem with a certain type of gamer, a certain type of DM, and a certain type of campaign and not necessarily with the rules themselves. If DMs let players make inconceivable or illogical advancement choices (like a 10th level paladin in a military campaign suddenly take a level of Wizards despite not having even seen an arcane caster in years, or urban rogues who have never left the city take a level in Ranger) then that seems to be a problem with the campaign and/or DM, not the rules.

'Sides, the new Ranger seems to lessen the effectiveness of that cheesy multi-class--now you only get one feat (TWF instead of TWF and Ambi-dex, albeit there is no Ambi-dex anymore) and at 2nd level to boot.

I agree about the shoe-horning for actual Ranger players, though. Personally, I'm still waiting for TWF with Hand-axes or daggers to become a viable combat option. I think more official combat style options would go a long way to making people happy with the new ranger.