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

[dead_radish]

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.

Exactly - now you take 2 levels for a feat. Sounds like something that could easily be done w/a fighter's every 2nd level feat.

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.

Fyi, this isn't how it works. If you look carefully, you'll note that the only thing a ranger with +9 bab gets is the ability to take ITWF without meeting the pre-reqs. They don't get it for free. I made that mistake as well. But yes, TWF is a worse style for a beat-down fighter type than THF. TWF is good for roguey types (sneak damage) or fighters that like to focus on getting many bonuses to damage on a weapon (elemental, spec, etc) or that like to use techniques over attacks (trip, disarm, etc), which requires a number of feats to do effectively.

 

[jeffh]

Totally agree. The only class who needs a "fighting style" is the monk.

Wouldn't it have been easier to just give the ranger a few extra feats and leave it at that?

I'll prolly buy the books anyway, tho. *sigh*

I don't get it.

How do FREE feats in ADDITION to your normal selection "shohorn" you into a style? It's not like they're forcing you to use normal feats for them. You can still do anything you could if you didn't have them - they give you ADDITIONAL abilities, not limitations!

You're like the people at my work who complain about getting a discount at Subway because they prefer a different sub place, as if a discount were a bad thing or were somehow forcing them to go to Subway!

 

[bwgwl]

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.

i so agree. i'd love to find some d8's numbered 1-4,1-4. that'd be a d4 you could really roll.

 

[dougdinneen]

Re: 3.5e tidbits from the Ed Stark chat.

20. SRD updated the same day books hit the stores.

No, really....when will they be updated?

 

[bret]

If you want some bonus feats for you sword-n-board or greatsword ranger, take a few levels of fighter and use the bonus feats. You can even get weapon specialization out of the deal.

How soon we forget the flexibility of multi-classing when breaking class stereotypes.

That can work for half-elves and humans, but other races have a lot of problems.

The 'flexibility' of multiclassing is messed up any time you want uneven levels and none of the classes is favored. In your example, the only races that could could have an uneven mix of ranger with fighter are dwarf, half-elf or human. With any other race, you've got to keep the two classes at close to the same level which really interferes.

The 20% XP penalty prevents many from making what would otherwise be sensible multiclassing decisions.

 

[CrusaderX]

The new Ranger sounds great to me.

Bring on 3.5!

 

[kingpaul]

The 20% XP penalty prevents many from making what would otherwise be sensible multiclassing decisions.

Then Rule 0 it out of the game if the group is amenable to such a thing.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Why are people saying that a ranger having point blank shot and rapid shot would force them to use a bow.

Don't those feats work with any thrown weapon as well?

And TWF... works with shield + <one-handed weapon> too. Not to mention all the spiked stuff.

And how is a two-dagger fighter not viable? with TWF and rapid shot, you can stab a couple of people and throw the dagger at a third. A dagger's a lot smaller than a spear... there's a lot of benefits there.

Add that to the fact that the base damage of a weapon rapidly becomes inconsequential, unless you're a low-strength combatant without access to additional damage (sneak attack etc), and there's not really any problems with daggers.

 

[Stalker0]

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.

Alright, forget the twf. Look at the new ranger class without it. You get 6 skill points and great skills, an animal companion, great BAB, spells (including some healing), and favored enemies. Would you play this class with just that?

If the answer is yes, then put a nice piece of ducktape over the twf fighting bit, and have fun. If the answer is no, then you have other problems with the ranger then the twf.

 

[Wormwood]

And TWF... works with shield + <one-handed weapon> too. Not to mention all the spiked stuff.

Good point. TWF feats actually enhance a Sword & Shield fighter quite a bit.