Ranger Variant (updated)

[drowdude]

The first post has been updated with the revised spell-list.

 

[Tarin Greenflame]

The spell progression makes alot more sense, in terms of caster level to maximum spell level. The spells known list is huge now compared to the old ranger list =p gonna have to check up on all those spells from those sources for sure.

Is the slightly more generous spell progression (in terms of max spells per spell level) necessary? I can see how it is good in that it lessens the pain of progressing at 1/2 caster level, but it doesn't coordinate with other spell caster's progressions (a 10th level caster would have 6 0th, 4 1st, 4 2nd, 3 3rd, and 3 4th lv spells). Or, are the extra spells per day in, since the ranger doesn't ever get access to 5th lv spells? Just curious, and a bit of nitpicking.

 

[Dr. Zoom]

Enhanced Wilderness Lore: Nice idea. I think it may be too much of a bonus, especially with 6 skill points per level and the opportunity for skill mastery at 13th level. Perhaps make the bonus equal to 1/4 the character's class level (rounded down).

Spells: Wow, look at that list! And I thought it would be tough to pick my spells before.

Seriously, nice job in compiling all the different ranger spells from all of those sources. I have not really considered giving rangers and paladins 0-level spells, but perhaps now I will.

 

[drowdude]

The spell progression makes alot more sense, in terms of caster level to maximum spell level. The spells known list is huge now compared to the old ranger list =p gonna have to check up on all those spells from those sources for sure.

Is the slightly more generous spell progression (in terms of max spells per spell level) necessary? I can see how it is good in that it lessens the pain of progressing at 1/2 caster level, but it doesn't coordinate with other spell caster's progressions (a 10th level caster would have 6 0th, 4 1st, 4 2nd, 3 3rd, and 3 4th lv spells). Or, are the extra spells per day in, since the ranger doesn't ever get access to 5th lv spells? Just curious, and a bit of nitpicking.

Basically I wanted a 20th level ranger to be roughly equivalent to a 10th level druid in spell power, minus the 5th level spells (and all the nifty granted powers) of course.
The progression seemed to flow nicely, and I really didnt see a problem balance wise with the ranger getting 5 first level spells towards the end since they dont get the 5th level spells at all, and the majority of their spells are utilitarian/buffing in nature rather than directly offensive, as many of the druids spells are (especially in some of the newer supplements).

 

[drowdude]

Enhanced Wilderness Lore: Nice idea. I think it may be too much of a bonus, especially with 6 skill points per level and the opportunity for skill mastery at 13th level. Perhaps make the bonus equal to 1/4 the character's class level (rounded down).

Spells: Wow, look at that list! And I thought it would be tough to pick my spells before.

Seriously, nice job in compiling all the different ranger spells from all of those sources. I have not really considered giving rangers and paladins 0-level spells, but perhaps now I will.

I think the bonus works out well. It ensures that the ranger is naturally more adept at tracking than say, a druid or barbarian with the track feat

In my mind it represents the ranger's tracking instinct. The other bonuses for ranks and such represent actual training. This bonus reflects that gut instinct the the ranger trusts more than what his eyes are telling him.
At higher levels I envison the ranger as following his instinct more than any actual trail a creature is leaving behind.


This was actually how I had the ability set up for a long time (a year or so actually) before I posted the version with the Way of the Land stuff. Whenever it came up in play the ranger would have usually made the track DC even without the bonus.
So in the end it's just to make the PC ranger feel all kewl and stuff when he can call out those big numbers when rolling wilderness lore checks


The no 0-level spells for rangers, paladins, and most PrCs is a pet-peeve of mine. Those can be really useful in the hands of a creative player and I hate getting shorted on them.
Not to mention it just isnt kewl to have to cast most of them in first level slots. I mean seriously, what Paladin in his right mind is gonna memmorize Virtue as a 1st level spell when they have access to Cure Light Wounds or Bless Weapon?

 

[Kaptain_Kantrip]

Hey, I like the new improved version you posted tonight. The paths add a nice flavorful touch to character creation! I wish all the classes had this variety. I may have to go back and tinker my anti-paladin now to work "paths" in, LOL...

I am tempted to agree with Dr.Zoom re: too high of a bonus to track and wilderness lore, but I can see your point as well. But with six points+int/level, they should be able to make those rolls without the big bonus. I shudder to think what a rogue with a similar bonus to Hide and Move Silently would be like!!! Then again, track and wilderness lore are the defining skills of the class and is pretty much what rangers do every day out in the woods, hunting game, stalking enemies, trailblazing, etc. Hmmm. I hate to be wishy-washy and not say one way or the other whether to keep it or revise it, so I'll say keep it and see how it works. If it's too good, scale it back later after playtesting.

As to ranger, paladin and many prestige classes not getting zero level spells, I totally agree with you. It is stupid and weird. Perhaps a space-saving measure in the books (LOL) or an attempt to make sure the "lesser caster type" spell lists sucked? I think I will have to change this in my anti-paladin as well...

Anyway, nice job and thanks for the reciprocal feedback on my various alt.class posts!

 

[drowdude]

Hey, I like the new improved version you posted tonight. The paths add a nice flavorful touch to character creation! I wish all the classes had this variety. I may have to go back and tinker my anti-paladin now to work "paths" in, LOL...

Anyway, nice job and thanks for the reciprocal feedback on my various alt.class posts!

Thanks for the reply KapnK. Glad you like the revision.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I'm a little worried about front-loading. Many people see the current ranger as too powerful on level 1 now, but let's compare a Ftr1 with a Rgr1 (archer path).

The ranger gets:
* 16 more skill points
* Better class skills
* One more fighting feat
* Track
* +2 to Reflex saves
* Trailblazing
* Favored enemy

The fighter gets:
* Heavy armor proficiency
* 2 more hit points

 

[drowdude]

I'm a little worried about front-loading. Many people see the current ranger as too powerful on level 1 now, but let's compare a Ftr1 with a Rgr1 (archer path).

The ranger gets:
* 16 more skill points
* Better class skills
* One more fighting feat
* Track
* +2 to Reflex saves
* Trailblazing
* Favored enemy

The fighter gets:
* Heavy armor proficiency
* 2 more hit points

Yes I realize that is a concern for many people.

Everything hinges on your individual campaign. My players rarely ever take a single level in a class just to get some bonuses. And if they do, it is justified within their character concept. So front loading is less of an issue in my mind.


On another note.... I know it is contrived to use variants to justify other variants, but we *are* talking about my campaign here so bear with me on this...

The balance between level 1 rangers and level 1 fighters is also a great deal less delicate IMC. Fighters recieve 4 skill points per level, and have a more generous selection of class skills to work with.
Additionally, anyone who has seen the version of heavy armor that I use, will realize that it has a much greater value than in a more standardized D&D campaign.
Fighters IMC also have greater flexibility in that I allow them to trade their armor & shield proficiencies 1-for-1 for defense-oriented feats (like expertise or dodge), and 2-for-1 on more potent fighting feats (like power attack).

 

[CRGreathouse]

Everything hinges on your individual campaign. My players rarely ever take a single level in a class just to get some bonuses. And if they do, it is justified within their character concept. So front loading is less of an issue in my mind.

Even if single-level abuse doesn't happen much in your campaign, how do you explain to the first-level fighter that the ranger is better at fighting than he is?

The ranger at first level has 2 more feats; if the ranger chooses the overly-weak Toughness feat, he's better in all ways than the fighter. He has the same number of basic combat feats (2, or 3 if human), Track, more skill points, more hit points, etc.; what's more, the fighter isn't using his heavy armor proficiency until he can afford heavy armor, usually by 2nd or 3rd level.