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

[Malin Genie]

For the record, I play a ranger using a longspear. Took Combat Reflexes as my first Feat.

Do I feel that the Ranger should have been given a 'spear-fighting' option? Not particularly. If I wanted to be the best spear-fighter ever I'd have taken some fighter levels.

Are the bonus Feats 'wasted'? No - they still provide options. When fighting Thoqqua my spear was badly burnt - one more hit and it would have fallen to cinders. Pulled out a couple of daggers - voila*, effective again. In a bare-knuckle brawl; double the attacks (plus the Combat Reflexes were delightful with all those AoOs going on...)

I think it's already been pointed out, but it's very likely the 'archery' path will involve generic ranged Feats (such as PBS/PS) which are equally applicable to thrown weapons.

Just bear in mind - even if your primary style is not one for which you gain bonus Feats; they still provide versatility and a back-up style.


*To the Francophones on the board - how do you get accents to appear in your posts?

 

[JRRNeiklot]

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.

I would have problems with any class that was shoe horned into a fighting style. Suppose the barbarian got the twf chain (or single feat as it may be in 3.5). 99% of the people playing barbarians would fight with two weapons. You'd feel cheated if you didn't. That's my entire point. When they attach those free feats to a class, you feel cheated not using them. The first 3e campaign I played in, I begged the dm to pick two feats to replace twf with. ANY two feats, I said. Hell, I would have been happy with toughness and skill focus:back scratching. At least those I would have gotten some use out of. But since he wouldn't, I didn't play a ranger. Nor has anyone played one past level one in any of the five campaigns I've played in. Now maybe it'll get played to level 2. Anyways, I've vented enough on this thread. Carry on.

 

[MadBlue]

I would have problems with any class that was shoe horned into a fighting style.

You could make that argument for most of the combat-related classes:

• Rogues get Sneak Attack
• Paladins get an intelligent mount
• Barbarians get Rage
• Monks get unarmed attacks
• Rangers get TWF or Archery
• Samurai get their Daisho and bonus Feats by clan
• Sohei get Ki-Frenzy

Fighters get a choice. That's what makes the Fighter the class to take if you want to pick and choose your own combat style, especially if it's an unorthodox one.

I find it odd that someone who claims he wants "to play a ranger for the appeal of the archetype" is arguing that the Ranger is being "shoehorned" into taking archery.

MadBlue

 

[I'm A Banana]

There is no room for a ranger who fights with a single weapon only, or a two handed weapon.

I'm sure there are those who would say there is no reason why a ranger can't choose that style, but you'd as soon play a mage with a 10 intelligence as a ranger with feats he doesn't use. I.E., it ain't gonna happen

Well, first and foremost, I don't think it'll be hard to add new fighting styles (I'm going to add an unarmed one toot suite).

I guess I would mostly ask you why the heck you're playing a Ranger, then. I mean, a ranger is basically a Wilderness Fighter, ne? If this shoehorn takes you away from the fighting style you want, why would you play a ranger? They get pretty much jack that other classes don't get already.

You want fighting prowess? Go with a Figher (no limit on what style to choose then). If you want to add some skills to it, be a Fighter/Rogue (perfect stealthy assassin type). If you want to add some nature magic, be a Fighter/Druid.

Why would you be so attatched to the title of 'ranger' to play it when it's useless to you, and when the concept can be replicated NEARLY EXACTLY with the other classes? I mean, obviously if Ranger means "Wilderness Fighter Trained in One of Two Fighting Styles," and you're character isn't that, then your character ain't a ranger.

There is room for a ranger who fights with one weapon, a sword and sheild, or a two-handed weapon. They're called Fighter/Druids, or Fighter/Rogues, mechanically, and they may very well call themselves 'rangers.'

This is, of course, provisional to the advent of a million and one new ranger Fighting Styles, which are undoubtedly gonna crop up. The negative, I think, is that means that the Ranger becomes the main instrument for Fighting Styles, when, in all actuality, anything trained in a Fighting Style should be a Fighter, and the rest of the mooks should be swinging around whatever they can without the focus on style.

 

[Olive]

I'm sure there are those who would say there is no reason why a ranger can't choose that style, but you'd as soon play a mage with a 10 intelligence as a ranger with feats he doesn't use. I.E., it ain't gonna happen. So, even though my piddly little dollar doesn't amount to crap, WOTC will not see any more of them.

Of course, for a mage with int 10 it ain't going to happen because a mage with 10 int can't use his primary abilities (i.e. spellcasting). A ranger using a spear of course can use his fighting abilities, etc. So the analogy doesn't quite hold up.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

You could make that argument for most of the combat-related classes:

• Rogues get Sneak Attack
• Paladins get an intelligent mount
• Barbarians get Rage
• Monks get unarmed attacks
• Rangers get TWF or Archery
• Samurai get their Daisho and bonus Feats by clan
• Sohei get Ki-Frenzy

Fighters get a choice. That's what makes the Fighter the class to take if you want to pick and choose your own combat style, especially if it's an unorthodox one.

I find it odd that someone who claims he wants "to play a ranger for the appeal of the archetype" is arguing that the Ranger is being "shoehorned" into taking archery.

MadBlue

Since when is a ranger an archer? The original ranger was based upon Arragorn from LOTR. While Arragorn may have used a bow occassionally, he was hardly an archer. He was a stealthy ranger. A warrior who could disappear into the wilderness and subsist on what nature alone had to offer. Yet, he was still the epitome of the warrior. With any weapon or with none. I.E., he had no special feats besides maybe weapon focus in sword.

Making Arragorn an archer would have left little room for Legolas in LOTR. While I realize that's a pretty shaky analogy, it's close enough. Rangers need no fighting styles. Sure, you can ignore them, but I stand by the fact that you are in effect "wasting" the feats.

I fail to see why many people associate archery with rangers. Is it Robin Hood? Legolas? Either seem to fit the rogue or fighter archetype better than ranger. Is it hunting? Sure, hunting was done with a bow, but why extend this to combat? A ranger should get up close and personal. He should not equal the fighter in sheer combat ability, but he should be close. And still be able to fill a niche. That niche, as some have said is better filled by a fighter/rogue or fighter druid. That's just wrong.

 

[ehurtley]

No Cleric mods?

No Cleric mods? To me, that's a shame. As the only class that gets nothing new after 1st level (except more spells) the Cleric just cries out for Prestige classes, and there aren't all too many great ones. Yeah, there are a couple 'good' ones, but not great. At least give the Cleric occasional fighter or wizard-style bonus feats.

I started playing a Cleric when 3E first came out, and of course played for a few levels before any of the books with prestige classes were out. My group just finished that campaign, so we are just about to start a new one. For fun, we decided to randomly determine our characters (every detail... Race, sex, class, everything.) And I ended up with another Cleric. In the old campaign, I was a Human LG Cleric, this time it's a Gnome NG Cleric, but still, a class with no major benefits after first level.

And yes, I realize how powerful Clerics already are, but it would still be nice to have SOMETHING in the 'Special' column... (Actually, now that I look, I guess the Bard and Sorcerer are in a similar predicament. And the new campaign has both of them, when the old campaign had neither. So I guess they'll be in the same boat, too. )

 

[Olive]

Re: No Cleric mods?

And yes, I realize how powerful Clerics already are, but it would still be nice to have SOMETHING in the 'Special' column...

and so you also realise why it ain't never gonna happen!!!

 

[William Ronald]

Overall, I like the changes.

I think the bard has not been handled too well in previous editions. (I don't think many people who played 1st edition realized that bards should have gotten hit dice after their last level of thief. This avoids the "beserker with a banjo" syndrome I have seen in a few games.)

I think what Henry said about Piratecat's player Malachite should guide players. When I design a character, I try to focus on concept not classes. Such questions as who is the character, what does he do, what are his goals, and the reasons why he pursues those goals should be paramount.

If someone thinks that 3.5 is just a plot to gather money, then why will we be able to download a new SRD document when it is released?

I am looking forward to Sean K. Reynolds and a few playtesters commenting on how the finished version differs from the play test version. Sean, any thoughts on where WotC is going now that we are several months from the last round of layoffs? (I have heard that the sky is falling so many times that I don't even look up anymore. )

 

[Saeviomagy]

Since when is a ranger an archer? The original ranger was based upon Arragorn from LOTR.

He was? I was pretty sure that the original 1st ed ranger I read was a giant-slayer. I didn't think Aragorn was a giant-slayer.

'course maybe I'm wrong. Even so, I didn't think that magic missile was a spell that Aragorn ever cast.

While Arragorn may have used a bow occassionally, he was hardly an archer. He was a stealthy ranger. A warrior who could disappear into the wilderness and subsist on what nature alone had to offer. Yet, he was still the epitome of the warrior. With any weapon or with none. I.E., he had no special feats besides maybe weapon focus in sword.

You mean like a ranger who chooses not to use TWF or archery, right? Or spellcasting. Or favoured enemies.

I fail to see why many people associate archery with rangers. Is it Robin Hood? Legolas? Either seem to fit the rogue or fighter archetype better than ranger. Is it hunting? Sure, hunting was done with a bow, but why extend this to combat? A ranger should get up close and personal. He should not equal the fighter in sheer combat ability, but he should be close. And still be able to fill a niche. That niche, as some have said is better filled by a fighter/rogue or fighter druid. That's just wrong.

Sez you. I personally think that the classes could do with some loosening up, including the abolishment of the specialised classes which can easily be duplicated by multiclassing (ie - the ranger and the paladin). I don't think it's going to happen, but I don't go around complaining that my own personal vision of my character cannot be represented under D&D rules as a single classed character.