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

[Frostmarrow]

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

You hit the ´-button before you hit the a. Producing á!

 

[Celtavian]

Re

The ranger changes are no good. My group has already decided we will be sticking with our house-ruled ranger with bonus feats. The ranger with limited fighting-styles just doesn't seem like a ranger to us.

I am going to have to write up some house rule for the sorcerer to use the quicken spell feat without having to waste a feat slot now as well. I don't quite understand why Stark and the design team would on the one hand take away the extra spell-casting action because it was too powerful and on the other hand assume the sorcerer is already powerful enough that they wouldn't need to use the quicken spell feat. Just doesn't make sense, and certainly doesn't fit in with the "players should have fun" theme. Does he not have a clue how many people make "blaster" sorcerer's?

Kind of have mixed feelings after hearing this interview. I am getting the feeling that I would rather take the time to write up my own game than pay for another edition that does not have what I want.

 

[Gez]

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.

Possible. Still, the definitive SRD of the psionic prestige class is Bruce Cordell's redo of them. And of course, section 15 of the d20 SRD OGL don't mention ITCK as the section 15 of these two PDF documents do. IMO, this just mean that WotC would not hesitate to make a deal with authors of rule material they want to reprint, especially if said authors are former employee...

Does he not have a clue how many people make "blaster" sorcerer's?

Actually, considering the sorcerer is balanced assuming people play blasters (talk about shoehorning) but somewhat suck with another concept (utility sorcerer ? ain't possible; planeshifter sorcerer ? outside of a planescape campaign, not useful often enough; divination- or enchantment- centered sorcerer ? talk about getting oneself the shaft); I think he knows.

But there was so much people ranting that being depleted of spells twice as fast as normal was evil and sinful and dirty and unnatural, they've decided to make sure that would not going to happen again.

 

[Gez]

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.

Better yet, a d12 numbered 1-4 thrice. That way, these polyhedrons will actually see use outside of greataxes and barbarians !

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).

Unarmed, Stealth (alertness and similar feat bonuses to hide & move silently rather than combat feat, maybe something to disarm snares and a use rope bonus as well to compensate), and maybe one involving teamwork (inside a hunting party, or later with animal companions to help). That's what I plan to do.

Since when is a ranger an archer? The original ranger was based upon Aragorn from LOTR. While Aragorn may have used a bow occassionally, he was hardly an archer.

Since Robin Hood, who predates both JRRT and EGG.

Aragorn is called a ranger, but in the world of D&D, he would be a paladin primarily. Maybe multiclassed ranger, for the track feat and wilderness lore skill, but he's definitely the noble paladin. He even gets a crown and a kingdom !

Legolas, on the other hand, is very rangerish. Scout, spot, fare well in nature, and a splendid archer on top of that.

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

Just fill it with "+1 caster level, +1 turner level" at each line. That's what they get, don't they ?

More seriously, I could imagine modifying the cleric so that he gets his first domain at level 2, his second at level 5, and why not a third at leve 10.

 

[Gez]

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

We have a keyboard for that. On my AZERTY, the "à" key is the same as the 0.

Without it, you may use Windows's charmap software. It's there, hidden in C:\Windows|System32. Adding it to the accessories in the start menu is one of the first thing I do when I install windows. This way you can copy/paste strange characters, and you also get a key combo for it. "à" is Alt-0224 (type 0224 with the numeric pad while holding the Alt key).

You hit the ´-button before you hit the a. Producing á!

Except the proper accent is à, not á. Yours actually don't exist in French. àéè. Plus the circonflexes âêîôû and the trémas ëï. Plus the cédille ç and the compound letter œ, and you have all the funny French letters. German uses ß and the ümlauts äöü but no other accents IIRC. Spanish has its tilde (ñ). In eastern European languages, you may find cedillas on t and z, and carons (inverted circs). In yet other funny languages, you also have bars (like ħ), double accents (like ő), and other wacky things like ŋ.

(I'm going to add an unarmed one toot suite)

While we're on that language topic, lol at toot suite. Phonetically, "toot sweet" would be better, although that sure looks weid. The proper writing is "tout de suite". And it means ASAP.

 

[bushido11]

I agree that the ranger is a biased class in the sense of the fighting styles and whatnot. What I don't get is this: why are rangers able to cast spells? Since when have you seen a ranger in any fantasy novel cast a spell, unless he had some training in the art of magic? I've never seen Aragorn cast spells, or Robin Hood, or Drizzt Do'Urden (and I've read all of the Drizzt books except for The Thousand Orcs). The only spells Drizzt does cast are those granted to him by his drow heritage. I say take away the spells and put some additional feats instead. Or if you want a spellcasting ranger in-tuned with the forest, multiclass him with a druid. You'll only be increasing his magic potential rather than reaching 4th level and going up from there. Or give him Skill Mastery at certain levels that apply to Nature related skills. Or better yet, use the Woodsman class from The Wheel of Time RPG, which fits the ranger concept better than the D&D ranger.

 

[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.

Well, you don't have to convince me that Aragorn is the original Ranger archetype, but the archetype has broadened a bit since then, a lot of it having to do with the way the Ranger has been portrayed in novels, and in other RPGs and computer games, not just D&D.

In any case, the ultimate archer is still going to be a Fighter who has dedicated bonus Feat slots to ranged weapon Feats, as it should be.

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.

So take TWF then. It doesn't make a character better at fighting with two weapons than they are with one, it mean they don't have the penalties those without TWF have when fighting with two weapons. Basically, it makes them the "epitome of the warrior", with any weapon, or with none - or with two.

I fail to see why many people associate archery with rangers. Is it hunting? Sure, hunting was done with a bow, but why extend this to combat?

That argument is so weak that it doesn't even merit a rebuttal.

A ranger should get up close and personal. He should not equal the fighter in sheer combat ability, but he should be close.

Best BAB - check
d10 HD - check
Proficiency with all martial weapons - check
Proficiency with light and medium armors - check

Sounds pretty close to me. And that's not even counting the Ranger's specials.

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.

Pardon me if I'm not so easily swayed by what "some" say.

MadBlue

 

[Steverooo]

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?

Rangers DO NOT get animal companions!!! They get the Animal Friendship spell at 7th level (4th, with high Wisodm). Only Druids get animal companions.

 

[LuYangShih]

The Ranger just needs a shockingly high 11 Wisdom to cast his first level spells. And the Animal Friendship spell is what grants Animal Companions for both Rangers and Druids. Rangers are going to be practically untouchable in 3.5, unless they are buffing the other classes as well. I swear, the Ranger class was just fine the way it was, now I might have to house rule them, unless 3.5 buffs the other classes as well.

Still, I'm not even sure I'm buying this anymore. We'll see how it turns out.

 

[Steverooo]

I agree that the ranger is a biased class in the sense of the fighting styles and whatnot. What I don't get is this: why are rangers able to cast spells? Since when have you seen a ranger in any fantasy novel cast a spell, unless he had some training in the art of magic? I've never seen Aragorn cast spells, or Robin Hood, or Drizzt Do'Urden (and I've read all of the Drizzt books except for The Thousand Orcs). The only spells Drizzt does cast are those granted to him by his drow heritage. I say take away the spells and put some additional feats instead. Or if you want a spellcasting ranger in-tuned with the forest, multiclass him with a druid. You'll only be increasing his magic potential rather than reaching 4th level and going up from there. Or give him Skill Mastery at certain levels that apply to Nature related skills. Or better yet, use the Woodsman class from The Wheel of Time RPG, which fits the ranger concept better than the D&D ranger.

Or, on yet another hand, you could simply fix the Ranger!

Give the Ranger some "Combat Path" Bonus Feats, but make them selectable. Include TWF, Point Blank Shot, limited Weapon Specialization, Improved Unarmed Strike, a spell path (Spell Penetration), and some Ranger-only Feats. Then let the player chose which path the Ranger takes. TWF, Missile, Sword&Board, Two-handed, Spellslinger, Mounted, AND OTHER paths (such as Spell-less or Saves) could all be included.

People disagree over whether or not the Ranger should have spells or not. I have always seen him as someone so good in the wilderness that his abilities seemed almost magical. Thus, he could do things like Pass Without Trace, and Speak with Animals.

One way to do that is spells. Another is supernatural or spell-like abilities. The easiest way, IMO, is to assume they have spells, and then allow those who don't want them to trade them away for a more limited, always-usable magical ability... For instance, Pass Without Trace at will, in return for a first-level spell slot (making them no more powerful than a Druid with Trackless Step). Another way to do that is to allow the Ranger to subtract their Ranger level from all attempts to track them.

In any case, in order to make the Ranger Class fit the various Archetypes (Aragorn, Robinhood, et al), flexibility will be required. The current Ranger, the 3.5 version, Monte Cook's, the 2e, and even the 1e versions all fail at this.

Rangers need outdoors skills. They can take Survival, get tracking, and can find food/water, dangerous ground, and simple traps IF they take enough of the right skills. They may be able to find direction in 3.5e (or that may just be rumour).

They cannot forecast the weather, are not specifically noted as being able to identify plants, animals, nor fresh water (which makes me wonder how they find food), aren't noted as being able to find or make traps (see finding food, again - any survival manual covers snares, deadfalls, etc), build shelters, start fires without equipment such as flint & steel (see the bonuses to saves vs. weather effects), etc.

Feats/Abilities which allow all of these would be good, and generally not too powerful. Combined with a few Bonus Feats from a list, I think it's a fix.

In my Ranger, I gave two types of Feats. "Ranger-Only" Feats, which were almost all either Non-Combat-Related, or required "Favoured Enemies", which I made a General Feat.

I gave the Ranger a "Ranger-Only" Feat at 1rst level (which would have to be spent on Favoured Enemies, if you wanted to be backwards-compatible), then Bonus Feats at 2nd & 3rd, 6th, 11th, and 16th. These could include any of the Ranger-Only Feats, or the "Combat Path" Feats, from above. (This was based on the Wizard's one Class Feat/5 levels).

Along with that, I gave the Ranger some movement abilities which increased his movement rate in the wild (obviating the need for a mount, in most cases), and allowed him to travel with a Medium or lighter load better (or with only a light one, at the highest level). I kept the spells (but allowed the trade-it-away) option, provided almost 40 special abilities to choose 10 or so from, gave some new Class abilities, some old ones, and added a lot of flexibility.

Then again, I favor one Class Feat/5 Class Levels for ALL classes, and special class abilities at every level, just like the Druid and Monk (or D20 Modern, I hear).

Anyway, I think that would work better than two combat paths. My version can handle a spear wielder, or a Trident-bearer, or a sword-swinger, or a Tarzan/Beastmaster, or a wave-rider pulled by a pair of trained dolphins, or a Sword & Board woods-fighter, or a desert-tracker, or a Rhino-rider, without needing levels of Fighter, Druid, or Paladin. It would handle the old man of the woods, but also Arctic/Desert/Swamp Special Forces, trained with Bows/Martial Arts/Tridents/Spears, or whatever.

That's what I think Rangers should be. Wilderness- (not just Woods-) Wise, able to fit multiple archetypes, either spellcasting or not (at the player's option), and extraordinarily adaptable.

The 3.5e Ranger won't be most of that.