Ranger - likes and dislikes?

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Right, and one of the things that having lots of hp is supposed to represent is not getting hit a lot. Slightly breaks down with poison attacks and falling, but you can't have everything.


glass.

That's why I prefer D20 Modern. Swashbuckler-style characters dodge! Tough characters take hits. The difference is obvious and flavorful. (Besides, how does healing magic fix a "near miss"?)

 

[kenobi65]

Most of that should be doable with the Animal Companion's Empathic Link ability.

I think you may be confusing what Animal Companions get with what Familiars get. Animal Companions do not have Empathic Link (as Familiars do). They have link, but all that that does is lets the ranger (or druid) control the AC's actions more easily.

ACs have no way to communicate with their "masters", unless the master has a spell going.

 

[rowport]

Back in 3e my conception of the ranger was the tough, fast, lone wilderness warrior, while Barbarian was a cultural type, thus my 3.0 ranger looked like this:

d12 HD
Fast movement as per Bbn
Uncanny dodge as per Bbn
Favoured enemy +1 per odd level (add it wherever you want on new or existing enemies)
6 skill points.

No spells, No 2WF, No rage.

He worked quite well as a character class. Ranged a lot

This is nearly identical to the 'Barbarian Archer' variant class from Unearthed Arcana (p58). It trades Rage progression for Archery Combat Style and Favored enemy. I have seriously considered playing that class variant.

 

[Klaus]

That's why I prefer D20 Modern. Swashbuckler-style characters dodge! Tough characters take hits. The difference is obvious and flavorful. (Besides, how does healing magic fix a "near miss"?)

By healing a 'sprained ankle' that would keep you from dodging effectively an attack, or a numb shoulder that would prevent you from raising your shield at full speed.

 

[JoeGKushner]

[imager]http://www.thele.com/TheLeGames/images/tn/NeoRangers_TheSpiderKing_tn200w.jpg[/imager]All this talk of the Ranger makes me want to write another Neo Ranger book!

LOL

It does seem kind of odd to me that the Ranger got a full BAB while the monk got the gimped BAB.

~Le

Dont' forget Psychic Warrior!

I think part of it is that the monk can be pretty bad ass without any equipment if his ability scores are solid. While two weapon fighting/archery can be useful, you have to have magical weaponry to really take advantage of that.

The increased movement, good saving throws on all fields, multiple spots to get AC bonuses etc... make the monk very deadly if the player has the ability scores to handle it. (Kinda like the Paladin in that sense.)

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

By healing a 'sprained ankle' that would keep you from dodging effectively an attack, or a numb shoulder that would prevent you from raising your shield at full speed.

Your opponent, who does 1d8+1 damage, swings at you. He barely misses, because you dodged. You take five damage, representing some slight strain.

Your opponent, who does 1d12+9 damage, swings at you. He barely misses, because you dodged. You put the same amount of effort into dodging the previous attack, but you suffer 1d12+9 points of heel sprain damage.

I think something with wrong with that scenario. HP as dodging doesn't just break down when it comes to poison, it breaks down when it comes to taking damage. Why does dodging more damageing attacks result in ... more damage?

I can buy the "rolling with the blow" scenario, which is something I would associate with being tough, anyway, but not "taking damage when dodging".

 

[Mercule]

"I'm a fighter. The ranger has the same BAB, gets 4 more skill points than me, co-opts bonus feats without having to meet prerequisites, and has a good Reflex save to boot, yet people would begrudge me having a slightly better hit die. WTF? Balance..." (makes tossing motion towards the window).

I'll trade you the combat style (esp. the TWF option) for the hit die. Both are stupid as they exist in the current Ranger. IMO, I think the ranger would end up a bit under-powered compared to fighter, but at least it'd make more sense.

 

[Mercule]

3.5e made the 'ranger' a more interesting class, and although it still doesn't fit my view of a ranger it was something worth having and playing now.

I'll agree with that. The 3.5 ranger is quite functional and a balanced class. It's about as good of a representation of the archetype I associate with the word "Ranger" as the cleric class is for "Priest". At least with cleric, they use a different word.

 

[Psychic Warrior]

Dont' forget Psychic Warrior!

Yeah - don't forget me!



What?

 

[buzz]

rowport pointed me to this thread, and thus I must post, if only to spite him.

Like: The name.
Dislike: Pretty much everything else.

I'd much prefer to see something more like the hunter class from IH.* I'd also like to divorce the class' concept from specific weapon expertise. That's pretty much what Wildscape did, and if you're going to do that, just freakin' give 'em access to fighter bonus feats. I mean, it's solely becasue of Driz'zt that the 3.0 ranger was TWF guy, and the only reason the 3.5 ranger is TWF/Archer guy is because people asked for the 3.0 ranger to be more than just TWF guy.

I'd also like to replace the ranger's spells with either concept-focused spell-like or extraordinary abilities, or else follow the (IMO excellent) lead of the warmage and beguiler classes: here's your list of spells, cast any of them you want as long as you have spell slots left.

And favored enemy... favored enemy needs to go away. If the ranger is such a badass hunter, give them bonuses against any foe as long as they do hunter-like things, i.e., stalk their "prey", succeed on Knowledge or Survival checks, etc. E.g., just like the scout (Mearls: "What the ranger should have been"), give them a bonus for using idiomatic tactics.

And while you're at it... bump that hit die back up to d10.


* IH is the solution to pretty much any D&D problem.