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

[JRRNeiklot]

So create your own for play.

That's my point. why should I buy 3.5 or even download the srd if I have to modify every damn thing? And a lot of dms will tell you to play the ranger as is or play some other class.

The ranger is dead. He was sneak attacked by WOTC's new fighter/rogue/druid/barbarian/ad-infinitum. May he rest in peace.

 

[kingpaul]

That's my point. why should I buy 3.5 or even download the srd if I have to modify every damn thing?

You don't have house rules in your game(s)?

And a lot of dms will tell you to play the ranger as is or play some other class.

That's unfortunate.

The ranger is dead. He was sneak attacked by WOTC's new fighter/rogue/druid/barbarian/ad-infinitum. May he rest in peace.

If the ranger were dead, why are there so many variants? It appears to me that proves the concept is desired. So WotC didn't publish every possible incarnation of the class...so what? I'm having trouble understanding people's vehemence for a product that has yet to hit the shelves.

 

[Henry]

The problem with the above approach is that you are not playing a ranger. You are playing a fighter with the track feat.

Here is a point of disagreement for me. I don't abide by a necessity of class labelling in order to play a "real" ranger. Any time someone has told me in the past that their concept of a character class includes abilities X,Y, and Z, I have come to the supposition that what's wrong is not necessarily that the class is incorrectly designed, but that the class does not meet the person's exact expectations for the class.

Piratecat's player Blackjack once said of his Paladin Malachite that (paraphrased) "I don't see Malachite as a Paladin/Undead Slayer - I see him as a Paladin of the God Aeos, and a knight of the Emerald Chapel. The class combo just happens to best fit my vision of Malachite right now." This is the best way I've ever seen to look at D&D classes - what proportion of Ranger to Fighter, or Fighter to Druid, or Rogue to Wizard to Fighter, best fits the image I have of my character?

For your game, if multiclassing will not fit the bill of what a ranger should be, then of course rearranging of the character class will be required.

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.

Actually, I take it as a sign that your vision of a ranger and the existing ranger character class are incompatible. However, the vision of the Ranger is not necessarily out of sync with the majority of the gamers who play it - it just means that if you want one single by-the-book character class to give you all the features that a ranger will have, it's not available. I don't mean to make this sound like I'm stating the obvious, only that from your perspective, it's flawed. From mine, it's a nice change.

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.

Ironically, the main complaint UNILATERALLY on these message Boards two years ago was that Rangers should be given a choice between Archer Feats or Two-Weapon Feats. This wish has been granted, but didn't solve the problem for all people. At the least, it will please more people than the previous version.

From my perspective, WotC has satisfied me with their presentation of a Ranger. For my homebrew campaigns, I'll still use the Alyxian Ranger, with his Path of the Serpent, Path of the Feather, Path of the Claw, or Path of the Mount (four virtual feat combos that a ranger can choose in my game), but for the core rules, they satisfy me quite well for "general D&D rules.

 

[Gailedon]

Ranger broken?

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.

The only problem I see with the view that people will play a ranger two levels to get those two feats is that there are plenty of other classes that give you two feats in the first two levels. Fighter for instance. If you are going for TWF and have to take two levels in ranger to get it, why bother? You can get two feat slots in the first two levels of Fighter. Rangers are appealing for skills and flavor.
If what was reported earlier is true, then TWF is only one feat now, easy to get why bother with two ranger levels? How would that be catering to power gamers? I can understand feeling a little shoe-horned, but honestly when I think of ranger I think bows. Aragorn, Legolas, Robin Hood, Lellandor, even Perrin Aybarra from the Wheel of Time. Tracking, wood savvy and bows define what a classic ranger is.
In this situation since we are looking at feats directly, I find it hard to believe that any gamemaster will not let you trade any two combat focused virtual feats for any two other combat focused weapon feats.
Will D&D (or any other role-playing game) ever NOT have house rules? I doubt it. Is 3.5 a good step in the right direction? Yes. With the SRD being updated the same day, is there any true reason to pick up the new books if you have the old? No. In my household we currently have 3 copies of each of the core rulebooks. With 3.5e there will probably be one copy of each in the house. <shrug>

 

[The Little Raven]

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.

First off, it'd have to be at 2nd level, since that's when the combat trees begin. Secondly, you don't get all the benefits immediately. You get a SINGLE feat, then have to take MORE levels to get the rest of the feats.

So, you want that Improved Two-Weapon Fighting for free, you need to take 9 levels of Ranger. In 3.0, you only had to take a single level of it, because your BAB is what allowed you to gain that virtual feat, not he class levels. They are tying the abilities to the class levels more directly, to avoid this very problem.

And I've got a question for you... did you actually READ the listed changes? Increased skill points, showing rangers to have more proficiency with various skills. Improved favored enemy bonuses, which allow rangers to fight and hunt particular enemies more easily. Track while running... do I really need to detail why THIS is a good benefit for rangers? Wild Empathy... no clue, but I figure it will allow rangers to deal with wild creatures more easily.

There you have several abilities, either new or improved, that fit the archetype perfectly.

On a side note... as a wilderness scout/hunter, the archery style is perfect for a ranger. How many medieval/fantasy era hunters did not use a bow (unless they were hunting boars, of course)?

And remember... the ranger isn't described as merely a wilderness scout... but a FOREST hunter and stalker...

"The forests are home to fierce and cunning creatures, such as bloodthirsty owlbears and malicious displacer beasts. But more cunning and powerful than these monsters is the ranger, a skilled hunter and stalker. He knows the woods as if they were his home (as indeed they are), and he knows his prey in deadly detail."

That's the PHB description of the ranger... so, by the core rules, the ranger should focus on the forest, thus mounted combat and such isn't considered...

And as for your greatsword wielding fighter complaint... that fighter should be a FIGHTER not a ranger. If he wants to hunt, track, and know his prey, then he should be a ranger. If he wants to own all with his +12 assbeating greatsword, then he should stick to fighter.

 

[Zarrock God of Evil]

No. It is not too powerful. It even can't be too powerful. It's absolutely impossible for magic missile to be too powerful.

Why ?

Because it's the benchmark. The standard. Magic missile's definition in the D&D designer bible is "most powerful 1st-level attack spell for wizards". Saying magic missile is too powerful is like saying one meter is too long.

Add to that, Magic Missile is easily disabled. A simple shield spell, dropping out of sight (which may not work well against area-effect spells) and brooches of shielding (hardly in limited supply) all put and end to the effectiveness of Magic Missile.

-Zarrock

 

[Olive]

From what has been said about the ranger alone, it appears they have listened to no ones comments. Look back at this thread. At least half tose who have posted disagree with the fighting styles approach. Any company that alienates 50% of their business is producing crap. It would have been all too easy to satisfy both camps. Bonus feats from a specific list, for example. And weapon focus, twf, pbs, etc, shouldn't be on that list. As it stands, a raner could have twf at first level anyway. Give them a list of non-combat feats - alertness, etc.

or perhaps those who agree with the changes are looking at the info and going "hmmm... sounds good to me".

It's also possible that they couldn't redo the ranger so that it used feats from a list. why? because that's been done by monte cook, and wizards doesn't seem to like using OGC in their products.

 

[Henry]

It's also possible that they couldn't redo the ranger so that it used feats from a list. why? because that's been done by monte cook, and wizards doesn't seem to like using OGC in their products.

This triggered one last thought.

Not to slam anyone's opinion, but tacking bonus open feats onto new classes has always seemed like poor design work to me. Most anyone can make a class and simply add a short feat list to allow customization - it really serves to make the class no different from a fighter, who is the KING of bonus feat lists.

However, the truly original work is to come up with brand new abilities that fit well with the character concept, and make a player say, "That's COOL! I can't wait to get to X level in that class!" It takes far more work in the long run, and pays off better than sub-lists do, IMO.

It's why I view Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed book with interest, because he has defined his classes through abilities that have rarely or never been seen before.

 

[Spatula]

Power gamers pick a level of ranger for twf. Now they'll get to choose between twf and archery.

And they'll have to take two levels of ranger instead of only needing one. That's hardly catering to power gamers.

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?

No, because that's not how it works. The rogue that spends a feat on a martial weapon has one less feat than the the ranger.

 

[A'koss]

I personally like the d6, Save for half idea but it has nothing to do with game balance.

I simply hate having to roll that damn d4. And I use the term "roll" loosely, as it doesn't really roll at all, it just... flops.

"Roll 5d4"

Flop.Flop.Flop.Flop.Flop.


The only thing those dies are good for are makeshift caltrops to use against annoying chip-hogging players.


/rant off


A'koss!