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

[Kae'Yoss]

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.

There's d20M and Call of Cthulu for games with more general classes (I haven't seen Mutands and Masterminds, so I don't know whether it's similar).

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.

You can get most of the changes in the SRD, at the cost of NULL. And the changes they make are massive: they change the monster layout, change the monsters, add a tactics part. They're qualifying many things in combat, seriously change a lot of spells, change many classes, change some races, change several game mechanics (most notable DR). I'll get the new books, if only to have all the changes since the first printing of the core rules (which I have) written down nicely.

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.

They keep on spilling out accessories and FR stuff. And enworld has the Dragonlance Campaign Setting on the release schedule for some time now.

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.

Some people aren't. But most are, I think. AC is a better term than Defense, and it's classical D&D. d20M has class bonuses to defense because it doesn't use magic per default, and you have to come up with something. Since magic is an integral part of D&D, I don't see class bonuses to AC for it.

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

I don't like classless systems. Classes are D&D! More generalized classes are OK for d20 M, but I still like my archetypes, combined with the mix-and-match system that is multiclassing, and I think classes are here to stay. If I want to play a classless system, I go play GURPS or WoD (which I don't, or rather do only seldomly).

No Cleric mods? To me, that's a shame. As the only class that gets nothing new after 1st level (except more spells)

Well, that's something, don't you think? Spells are pretty good (and he has domains, so there are different spells for different clerics, plus many spells are alignment-based).

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

Clerics are on the verge of being to powerful as it is, so I don't see that happening, except at the cost of either BAB, saves, or HD

And you can customize your cleric with feats, including Divine feats which give you new options to use your turning.

Cries for a house rule, then.
If I wanted to use house rules, I wouldn't need 3.5.

If you don't want to use house rules, quit playing RPG's. It's one of RPG's strong points: you don't like some rules, you change it. It's done in card and board games, too. It's what I really like in games.

Close their doors, no. But as I said, I'll let MY vote show. That's how capitalism works.

If you're saying you won't buy the book just because you don't like the new ranger, they surely can do without you money. I'm sure amongst those who don't like the ranger either, there are enough who won't make their decision whether to buy the book just on that little fact, cause it's only a very small part of the changes.

If rims are important enough to you, you'll buy something else. Again, voting with your dollar.

I won't stick to my old car just because I don't like some small detail.

Again, when 3.5 hits the shelves, show me one ranger that uses a fighting style other than the free ones.

You know what? I play a ranger, which is an archer. And he was that even before there was an option to get free ranged feats. I took him because he had more skill points than a fighter, because he had spot, listen, move silently and hide on his class list and still got the big BAB, and because it fittet the character concept.

If I plan to play a wilderness warrior, I'll stick to the ranger, even if he'll fight with a polearm, or a big big club. It's not just about fighting prowess, or I'd take fighter.

That's because unarmed fighting defines a monk. Bruce Lee didn't go around shooting people full of arrows.

So you're saying that Bruce Lee the barehands fighter defines the monk, but Robin Hood the Woodlands Archer doesn't define the ranger? What about those Martial Artists that combine their unarmed attacks with attacks from the Katana? Or ninja's, fighting with nunchaku, shuriken and ninjato, and with their bare hands if they must? Why isn't it possible to portray those with the use of the monk class, AND retain all the benefits of the class?

But I might still play them AND play a monk (or monk/rogue) for the OTHER benefits of the class: good AC even without armor, good saving throws, evasion, high speed.... It's not munchkinism, where every single class feature must make me more powerful, but I'll still enjoy the character...

When they are hard wired into the class, you HAVe to take them.

No, just tell the DM you don't want them. He can hardly argue with that, and the rules aren't set in stone. You might even convince him to get something else in exchange.

To use your automobile analogy, it's like a deaf person buying a car with the latest $5,000.00 stereo and speakers.

Then don't buy the special model with $5000 worth of car hi-fi equipment! Get the the standard model. Of course, you'll have to pay extra for the leather seats, the air conditioning, the moonroof and the power windows. And the special model costs only $5000 extra, while you have to pay for your optional choices an additional $6000, even without the car stereo (values not in proportion).
Sure, if you don't want the other extra stuff, you'll get the standard model.

And that's how it works in D&D: You don't want to have those archery feats, but you'll take the ranger anyway, because he has good skills, good saves, good BAB, and gets some spells. If you don't need the BAB and the spells, you'll be better off with, or fighter/rogue, and if you don't want skills you'll be straight fighter, and a better warrior than the ranger.

It irks me to pay for something I won't use.

You mean those feats in the paths? Well, none of my characters uses heavy weapons or a shield, and most of them got the proficiencies. And I never feel cheated.

Or do you mean the ranger class in the new PHB? Say it takes up 10 pages, than that will be 3% of the book, or a little less than 1$.

Considering I still have to play a druid, or a halfling, or a half-elf, and probalby there are some races and classes won't play in the next couple of years, I have "wated" more, and I don't regret it.

I'm not talking about the new books here. I'm talking about the ranger class.

What about "I won't buy the books, I'll vote with my wallet"? Was that a quote from your last ranger character?

Why be a ranger?

To get a good BAB, to get masses of skill points, to get spells, to get favored enemies, and, to get some bonus feats. I probably won't use all of it, but some of that really make a difference (I won't use the medium armor proficiency, either).

I have yet to see ANYONE take more than one level of ranger, now they'll take two, big improvement there.

I'd send you a photograph of me, since I have taken more than one level of ranger (but I have none scanned).
And the idea of taking two levels of ranger to get one feat is the supidest thing I have heard today. (But then, I haven't met many people so far today).

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

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.

This, I like.

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.

This one is always controversial - I don't know if a PrC could be used to satisfy everyone.

They may be able to find direction in 3.5e (or that may just be rumour).

Isn't Intuit Direction a ranger class skill?

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.

Except for the weather forecasting, everything else is covered by Wilderness Lore.

 

[Merlion]

Actualy I think the weather forecasting IS included in Wilderness Lore...I seem to remember that Predict Weather or whatever the old 2e proficeincy for it was, was folded into wilderness lore. I think

 

[drnuncheon]

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?

He doesn't "burn" anything - hell, even if you ignore the Ambi & TWF he's got just as many feats as the first level fighter (although one is fixed on Track - but you wanted that anyway!), the same hit points, and three times the skill points. Oh, and a favored enemy bonus.

If you gave him free choice of two more feats, or even free choice of one more feat, there would be no point at all in starting as a fighter.

J

 

[JRRNeiklot]

[

If you're saying you won't buy the book just because you don't like the new ranger, they surely can do without you money. I'm sure amongst those who don't like the ranger either, there are enough who won't make their decision whether to buy the book just on that little fact, cause it's only a very small part of the changes.


I will do just that.


I won't stick to my old car just because I don't like some small detail.

I would.



You know what? I play a ranger, which is an archer. And he was that even before there was an option to get free ranged feats. I took him because he had more skill points than a fighter, because he had spot, listen, move silently and hide on his class list and still got the big BAB, and because it fittet the character concept.

If I plan to play a wilderness warrior, I'll stick to the ranger, even if he'll fight with a polearm, or a big big club. It's not just about fighting prowess, or I'd take fighter.



So you're saying that Bruce Lee the barehands fighter defines the monk, but Robin Hood the Woodlands Archer doesn't define the ranger?


Yes, I am. Robin Hood was an archer and a rogue. A fighter, but not a ranger. What did he do besides hide in the woods and shoot at people? He used rogue skills.

What about those Martial Artists that combine their unarmed attacks with attacks from the Katana? Or ninja's, fighting with nunchaku, shuriken and ninjato, and with their bare hands if they must? Why isn't it possible to portray those with the use of the monk class, AND retain all the benefits of the class?

It is. Monks are proficient with all those weapons.

No, just tell the DM you don't want them. He can hardly argue with that, and the rules aren't set in stone. You might even convince him to get something else in exchange.

He's the dm, he can argue with anything. Bottom line is what he says goes.


And that's how it works in D&D: You don't want to have those archery feats, but you'll take the ranger anyway, because he has good skills, good saves, good BAB, and gets some spells. If you don't need the BAB and the spells, you'll be better off with, or fighter/rogue, and if you don't want skills you'll be straight fighter, and a better warrior than the ranger.

No, I won't. I'll play something else and whine about there not being a ranger worth a crap, so I have to play some crappy multiclass wannabe.



What about "I won't buy the books, I'll vote with my wallet"? Was that a quote from your last ranger character?

That was a tangental comment.


To get a good BAB, to get masses of skill points, to get spells, to get favored enemies, and, to get some bonus feats. I probably won't use all of it, but some of that really make a difference (I won't use the medium armor proficiency, either).

Favored enemies suck.

I'd send you a photograph of me, since I have taken more than one level of ranger (but I have none scanned).
And the idea of taking two levels of ranger to get one feat is the supidest thing I have heard today. (But then, I haven't met many people so far today).

Thank you for calling me stupid.

Let's see, two levels of ranger, gets you twf or pbs/rs, track, 5 ranks of spot, search, listen, hide, survival, a favored enemy, and the ability to use any magic item allowed to rangers. Wands of cure light wounds, etc.

Two levels of fighter gives you what? Two feats? Suppose you want to be an archer - you take pbs/rs. Compare that to the two levels of ranger. Or you want to fight with two weapons. The fighter has twf and weapon focus, compare that to two levels of ranger. Remember the skills? Every fighter skill is also on the ranger list.

Why take two levels of ranger?


I'll say it again, the ranger will kick ass (at least for a level or two, maybe for 20 if you like the archetype) if you intend on being an archer, or fighting with two weapons, otherwise, they'll sit on the shelf and gather dust.

There will be tons of ranger/2fighter4/Order of the bow/deepwood snipers around, though.

 

[Spatula]

Let's see, two levels of ranger, gets you twf or pbs/rs

Remember that not all of the details have been released. Since Ambi/2WF is being folded into a single feat, the ranger will get one feat at 2nd level - probably either the new 2WF feat or PBS.

So, 2 levels of ranger - Track, one restricted combat feat (that will only be usable in light armor), good skills.
2 levels of fighter - any 2 combat feats (usable in any armor), and you're 2 levels closer to Weapon Specialization.

 

[Remathilis]

In fourth edition, I hope they remove the ranger class. No one agrees on what it should have, no one agrees what it should be, and no one agrees on how it should be implemented.

Do away with it, and bard, paladin, barbarian, druid sorcerer and monk.

Sorry, but it just seems one man's folly is another man's wife around here...

 

[Merlion]

Well one little problem...if you do away with the Ranger, Bard(!?), Monk, Paladin, Sorcerer(!?), Druid(!?), and Barbarian, its no longer DnD. You might as well just go for a classless system. DnD is a class based system...its also a heavily class based system. An Archtypal class system. Not a three or four base classes that lead you into various advanced classes game. Several of the classes you mention, particularly Bard Ranger and Druid are very standard fantasy archtypes and have always been part of DnD.
Now granted it would be interesting for WOTC to do a base classes leading to advanced classes game...and even a classeless system of some kind. but those things would not be Dungeons and Dragons.
Now, I am all for the core classes being made more and more generic and getting away from certain restrictive sterotypes held over from the early days of DnD(such as alignment restrictions) just for the record.
However as to your saying that the ranger needs to be removed because no one can agree on what it is what it should have etc etc...well for the most part I say the solution to that is that people need to understand that the game designers CAN NOT PLEASE EVERYONE. Wether you want to believe that they are trying to do the best they can or not is your own choice but that fact...that they cant please everyone...is indisputable. Some times that have to try to either please as many people as they can, or avoid displeasing as many as they can. And some times they may fail even at that. But nothing's perfect.
Now I have complained about things they have done myself, frequently. but I still love a good 80% of the stuff. and most of what I dont like is easily changeable. I agree, their should have been a couple more combat styles(and perhaps a line of non combat feats) for the ranger. but such a thing is hardly hard to come up with. And it is DEFINTILY an improvement over the 3.0 ranger...that to is beyond denial as far as I am concenred.

 

[Henry]

Let's see, two levels of ranger, gets you twf or pbs/rs, track, 5 ranks of spot, search, listen, hide, survival, a favored enemy, and the ability to use any magic item allowed to rangers. Wands of cure light wounds, etc.

Two levels of fighter gives you what? Two feats? Suppose you want to be an archer - you take pbs/rs. Compare that to the two levels of ranger. Or you want to fight with two weapons. The fighter has twf and weapon focus, compare that to two levels of ranger. Remember the skills? Every fighter skill is also on the ranger list.

Why take two levels of ranger?

If I were to modify the question, why would I take, say 8 levels of ranger or fighter?

If I take 8 levels of fighter, I am a whirlwind of destruction. I can pummel my enemies with melee weapon or sword (my choice), I can survive most fights of my equal, and that's about it. I am good for my purpose.

If I take 8 levels of Ranger, I am a master of independent survival and scouting. I can survive, unaided, on my own, in any hazardous setting, without magical aid or the aid of my companions. I can recon, follow, evade, and be warned, and even have companionship without the assistance of others. I can self-heal, and I can endure hostile elements. I cannot be the melee master of all I survey, because my talents are not in that direction. I am a survivalist, but I am not a master of survival at combat. That is the job of another.

The role that 3E designers envisioned for the Ranger is that of a survivalist and scout. His spells and skills and hefty hit dice and BAB ensure that he is not weak on his own, and his role is that of recon, not master combatant.

From what I gather in your post, you seem to see the Ranger as a lightly armed and armored version of the fighter. You apparently see him as supposed to be the equal of the fighter, just more versatile in combat that he currently is, but essentially the same. Am I incorrect here? If so, then the view that most players have of the Ranger is quite different from the role you want him to fulfill.

I'll say it again, the ranger will kick ass (at least for a level or two, maybe for 20 if you like the archetype) if you intend on being an archer, or fighting with two weapons, otherwise, they'll sit on the shelf and gather dust.[/B]

About the only fighting style I don't see the Ranger in now is two-handed weapon style, because as one poster pointed out, even weapon and shield can be of benefit to an existing Ranger. But the point remains that a Rogue will excel at skill use, but will be little use if you want to be a caster. A Wizard will stink at disarming traps and bluffing guards consistently. A Cleric will be of little good if you want to sneak and pick pockets. And a Fighter will do little good if you want to do ANYTHING besides fight. The Ranger fits the role that WotC designers cast him in - its just doesn't happen to be the role you think he should be. I'm still not seeing the difference between the Ranger and trying to use any other class in the role it wasn't meant for.

 

[MadBlue]

Actualy I think the weather forecasting IS included in Wilderness Lore...I seem to remember that Predict Weather or whatever the old 2e proficeincy for it was, was folded into wilderness lore. I think

Weather forecasting is part of Knowledge (Nature) in 3e. Of course Rangers have access to that too.

I think the main reason why "Wilderness Lore" is being renamed "Survival" in 3.5 is because it's a bit of a misnomer. Much of what amounts to "lore" is pretty much covered by Knowledge (Nature) - IMHO they should synergize, though, as there is quite a bit of overlap. For example, when you're foraging for food, both Knowledge (Nature) and Survival would help you to identify which mushrooms are poisonous.

MadBlue