Ranger Variant and Unarmed fighting feats

[Plane Sailing]

Balanced around 1d8? Erm... you're off by a die-type there mate. Bow rangers are 1d10 as are broad sword wielders. And with a feat, both can up that to 1d12.

I disagree - standard for melee rangers is +3/1d8 so that is what it should be based around.

If melee rangers can use a feat to gain bastard sword for +3/1d10 then this variant could be allowed a feat for the same thing.

Allowing mega-weapons from adventurers vault into the game would then throw an additional spanner into the works (why does WotC do that?).

Anyway, my point is this - balance it around the base PHB class. Work out any add-ons depending upon what add-ons you use in the game after that.

Cheers

 

[Kzach]

I disagree - standard for melee rangers is +3/1d8 so that is what it should be based around.

Disagree all you like, it's a free world.

But a broad sword is +2/1d10 and a longbow is +2/1d10 so the standard is +2/1dfreaking10.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Disagree all you like, it's a free world.

But a broad sword is +2/1d10 and a longbow is +2/1d10 so the standard is +2/1dfreaking10.

Keep your hair on! I can't find a broad sword in my PHB. Where are you getting that from?

I could understand battleaxe/flail/warhammer as +2/1d10 weapons, although they seem quite a lot less common than longswords for +3/1d8 since hitting at all is that bit more important to most people.

Regards,

 

[Smeelbo]

I have to wonder why I am seeing alternate Ranger builds that are essentially better than the base builds? Basing an unarmed attack around the damage output of a longsword? Why would anyone ever use a longsword, then?

The advantages of unarmed combat are that your "weapon" is always "at-hand," but basic unarmed attacks are obviously inferior to basic armed attacks. That is why people use weapons: to gain advantage in a fight. Never bring a knife to a gun fight, and all.

In order to have a viable unarmed combatant class, it is not necessary to keep DPS on par with TBFS Rangers, but instead add "moves," powers that do interesting things like shift your opponent, or lay them prone, and so on.

Two Blade Fighting Style Rangers are the epitome of melee damage output. To balance other ranger builds by starting with the assumption of comparable damage output is to guarantee winding up with a broken class. If it is better than TBFS, then it is almost certainly too good.

Smeelbo

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

The point is to make a monk like character that doesn't suck. Basing it on a ranger was WotC's idea. Having a character that is basically a ranger, but can't fill the role of a ranger would make it an inferior ranger.

Why do we need to try to inject realism in a fantasy game? Just because in real life it is always better to have a weapon doesn't mean that our fantasy has to duplicate it. Making a weaponless fighter that performs as well as a armed fighter is good design, if that is his shtic. Many people like swords. There are classes for them. Many people like the pugilist. There shoud be a class for them. No, it should not suck compared to a sword fighter.

Make the monk as effective as a ranger. You can do this by altering the ranger to allow him to fight unarmed as well as he fights armed. Don't look at the longsword. Look at the ranger. That is the goal. Normal folks can't fight unarmed as well as they fight with a sword. Monks can. Why is that so unbeivable in a system that contains fireball chucking wizards and clerics that benefit from divine intervention?