Ranger: Scout Preview up!

[MerricB]

In the case of the OD&D and AD&D ranger, it pretty much was just stuck together. I don't remember who invented the class - it was in The Strategic Review if I remember correctly - but it was "fighter" + some minor spellcasting to make it like Aragorn...

Cheers!

 

[Markn]

So, do we get something at 5k posts? Like a badge saying: get a life!

Personally, I hope you get an upgrade to your avatar - you know, maybe a little less clothing or something...

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Pity the person who can't see the avatars.

In the case of the OD&D and AD&D ranger, it pretty much was just stuck together.

They might want to fix that, since it's a new century and all.

 

[Plane Sailing]

In the case of the OD&D and AD&D ranger, it pretty much was just stuck together. I don't remember who invented the class - it was in The Strategic Review if I remember correctly - but it was "fighter" + some minor spellcasting to make it like Aragorn...

Cheers!

It was in Strategic Review, but they got amazing spellcasting (gaining cleric and wizard spells, and if you reached higher than 14th level it really started to pile up - I don't think there was a level cap on the level of spell they could eventually cast.

In addition they got tracking ability, surprised less often, surprised others more often, +1 per level damage against pretty much all humanoid bad guys and giants (collectively called 'giant class'), plus gained a number of extremely cool followers (in the strategic review you could even get a young gold dragon follower!)

They also got the ability to use any magic items connected with clairvoyance or healing (a real 'Aragorn' connection there).

Oh yes, and they started with 2HD rather than just 1HD, but you could never have more than a few (3?) working together.

So... much more than just a fighter with minor spellcasting! The spellcasting was toned down for AD&D hugely, toned down again for 2e, toned up slightly for 3e, toned down again for 3.5e and eliminated in 4e. I'm happy to see it make a return again.

Cheers

Cheers

 

[Nikosandros]

In the case of the OD&D and AD&D ranger, it pretty much was just stuck together. I don't remember who invented the class - it was in The Strategic Review if I remember correctly - but it was "fighter" + some minor spellcasting to make it like Aragorn...

Yes, it appeared in the second issue of SR. The author was Joe Fischer.

 

[tentfox]

Going back to the topic of Power Strike and Dual Weapon Attack not being able to be used on the same turn. I would argue that power strike is not an attack in its own right as it does not require an attack roll and the effect says "the triggering attack deals X damage". It seems it is just an effect of making a previous attack deal more damage rather than being an attack in its own right.

The only thing which makes me think it is an attack is it is listed as "Ranger Attack", but really it is a "Ranger Feature" by virtue.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[garyh]

Thinking beyond the article directly, the picture is of a half-orc, and the scout is Dex/Wis. I wonder if this means half-orcs might get Dex and a choice of Str/Wis in Essentials. While not so bad by itself, it'd be kinda redundant since the only other fully PC-written Str/Dex race (thri-kreen) has the exact same choice...

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I'm having trouble picturing half-orcs with a Dex bonus. (The race already exists, and I'm pretty sure it's Str/Con.)

Not that half-orc rogues aren't popular, but they're not ideal for it. You could just go with a brutal rogue.

 

[garyh]

Nope, half-orcs as introduced in PHB2 are Str/Dex. So that has to still be a valid combo in Essentials. It's just a matter of which is the fixed stat and what the other choice is.

Goliaths are the PHB2 Str/Con race.

 

[Reaper Steve]

Going back to the topic of Power Strike and Dual Weapon Attack not being able to be used on the same turn. I would argue that power strike is not an attack in its own right as it does not require an attack roll and the effect says "the triggering attack deals X damage". It seems it is just an effect of making a previous attack deal more damage rather than being an attack in its own right.

The only thing which makes me think it is an attack is it is listed as "Ranger Attack", but really it is a "Ranger Feature" by virtue.

Just my 2 cents.

I've been thinking about this at work today (sad, I know... but it also means 'all is well' if I have time to think about D&D at work) and I think that it is intentionally an either/or choice to use power strike or dual attack.

Do I do just 1[W] more damage automatically, or do I chance a second attack roll with dual strike to get the off-hand [W] + all associated damage bonuses?

I'm fine with that, and I like the decision point.
I fear that the 'only one free action per turn can be an attack action' is a subtle rule that will be missed by most... I know I missed it until this thread. Granted, the RC does lay it out in plain English, but--up until the Scout previewed--it has gone largely unnoticed.