Rangers: Leave them alone!?

[Azure Trance]

Someone once posted a link to a website that had content full of alternate ranger classes; does anyone have it?

EDIT

Nevermind. http://www.ottenhoff.org/rpgs/dnd/rangerproject

 

[Spatula]

Re: Slow Armor

Small shields (masterwork or otherwise) prevent you from using Two-weapon Fighting

Unless the ranger has the Shield Expert feat, as I stated in my first post.

Have you seen the ranger class that was made for the Dark Sun 3E conversion? There's not really much of anything about it that is specific to Dark Sun, it's more of a re-working of the spellcasting, lack-of-special abilities, boring PHB ranger into a flexible wilderness warrior that is very capable in his chosen specialties.

http://www.athas.org/releases/ds3/

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

Re: Re: CB's Ranger

Sorry, CB, but this seems a step down for both the Barbarian and Ranger, IMHO.

I disagree. I'll defend each point below. (Also, I think it's amusing that other people think that my version is too powerful. *grin*)

One thing you could do to improve it, IMHO, would be to make ALL the given abilities special, and allow the player to select one/level.

The problem with doing this (and I had toyed with the idea), is that each class needs to have a number of permanent abilities that define its place. (Hence the whole point of a class-based system.) The ranger is no exception.

With that in mind, I attempted to take those abilities that fit the archtype of a "ranger" and make those abilities a permanent part of the class. Only afterwards did I take the other "rangerish" special abilities and make them available to the ranger at specific points to balance the class with the other basic classes.
.
.
.
Permanent abilities of my RRanger that define the flavor of the class (and I believe fit the archtype of the lightly armored skirmisher/wilderness guide/scout:

Track (This is a no brainer. If a ranger cannot track, that is not a ranger, but a fighter with some wilderness lore ranks.)
Fast Movement (Aragorn, anyone?)
Uncanny Dodge (Fits a lightly armored fighter concept perfectly)
Woodland Stride & Trackless Step (The only supernatural abilities the class receives. These are also good flavor that fit the tracker archtype.)
Damage Reduction (Rangers are tough and can endure hardships that others would perish under.)
.
.
.
"Rangerish" abilities that could apply to a ranger:
Rage
Favored Enemies
Favored Terrain
TWF
Archery
Various feats from MotW

From the above list, I made decisions based on game-balance, flavor, and how the class interacts with the other 9 classes. I crossed out Favored Terrain for reasons discussed above (plus, it doesn't appear in the PHB). I also got rid of spells because a melee class cannot have the best BAB AND skill points AND hit dice AND special abilities AND spells. Something had to go. A paladin has horrible skills. A ranger can lose spells. (If he misses them so badly, he could always play a ranger/druid or ranger/wizard.)

From that point, I balanced my revised ranger against the PHB fighter, barbarian and ranger at every level. This was done to make sure that the class was effective, but not perfect.

This version certainly solves the front-loading problem, but it also weakens the characters at lower levels.

Well, in order to solve the front-loading problem, you have to weaken the class at lower levels. (Front loading = powerful at low levels, afterall.)

Besides, my rranger is balanced at L1 versus the fighter, not the PHB ranger or barbarian (although I did compare them out of thoroughness). The ranger gets better class skills, more skill points and Track, the fighter gets one feat. I think that's balanced. If you'd like, I could compare them at each level between 1 and 5.

I think asking Rangers to permanently give up spells, medium armor, two pseudo-feats, shield use, and wait for favored enemies (all at first level),

And gain UD, damage reduction, fast movement, trackless step and woodland stride. (Something has got to give.)

Also:

*Who ever uses medium armor as a ranger? It's all about the mithral chain shirt and breastplate.
*My RRanger doesn't get proficiency with shields. That doesn't mean he can't use them. A MW small shield or a mithral large shield are still open to the character.
*The two pseudo-feats are a major sticking point to the PHB ranger (hence why every munchkin on the planet takes one level of the class.)
*My version of favored enemies is more powerful than the PHB version because it is a flat +3 bonus. At level 4, the ranger can take a favored enemy and gain a +3 to a bunch of stuff. Can't really give that at level 1.

or asking the Barbarian to sacrifice Fast Movement, Rage, and medium armor and shield use (permanetly) is a bit much.

And gain additional class skills, track, woodland stride, and trackless step. (Something has got to give.)

*they gain fast movement back at 6th level. I moved it from 1st to 6th because the rranger was slightly too powerful compared to a low-level fighter.
*Rage they can gain back easily. To make a PHB barbarian using my class, you'd take Rage, Extra Rage x2, Greater Rage and Tireless Rage as special abilities. They lose the d12 HD (+20 hps at L20) and gain trackless step, track, woodland stride and better class skills.
*Granted, losing mithral full plate is annoying (but not horrible, since mithral breastplates and chain shirts are still allowable.)
*See the shield point above.

Just my two cents (American, 37 Canadian). YMMV.

My mileage is that my players all love this class. (PHB barbarians are boring. PHB rangers are nothing like the archtypical ranger.)

Anyway, thanks for the input!

Thank you for your input. Defending my class to people while receiving constructive criticism is the best way to make changes to the game.

 

[Azure Trance]

Because there's only two replies in that thread, and it has some innovative class features, give it a look over.

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34817

I want more opinion on it actually, and so therefore am spamming appropriately.

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

Re: Re: Slow Armor

Have you seen the ranger class that was made for the Dark Sun 3E conversion?

It's not bad. The munchkin in me was having a field day, though. Favored terrain, land and beast are silly. I can't see a player ever actually taking these. (A DM: yes, a player: no.)

I'd most likely see a ranger take favored enemies at every odd level, then take Opportunistic Attack, the six favored enemy feats, TWF, AMB, and Improved TWF.

Aberrations, magical beasts, outsiders, giants, undead, beasts, elementals, constructs, humans and shapechangers would be the FE inside Dark Sun, probably drop something and add dragons outside of Athas.

This ranger gains twelve feats (with Imp. Crit and Track) and +1 damage with any weapon, and +1 to certain skill checks (not great, but worth noting), against ten of the best FEs around. This is not to mention their better class skills or skill points or good Fort and Ref saves.



The fighter, on the other hand, has crappy skill points, class skills and reflex saves. (True, they get to wear heavy armor and have martial weapon prof, but heavy armor and metal weapons are loaded guns on Athas.) They also have 11 feats from a specific list. Granted, they work vs. every creature, but who cares? So what if you will shine against plants... *grin*

 

[Steverooo]

 

 

[Steverooo]

 

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

Re: Re: CB's Pseudo-Ranger

Well, we certainly do do that! ;p

Luckily we don't disagree about everything. (The worthlessness of Favored terrains is something we agree on.)

But necessarily in a certain order? Besides, if this class is supposed to be for both Barbarian and Ranger, then I don't see why EVERYBODY who lives in the woods should have Supernatural Trackless Step!

They don't. Since most woodsmen are actually experts with wilderness lore as a class skill. Also, if your woods are crawling with L7 rangers, their ability to leave no tracks is probably the least of your worries.

In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think Rangers shouldn't have it! (Druids are okay, but certainly not for a non-spell-user!)

The ability to not leave tracks? But casting spells is okay?

Huh? Aragorn covered 20 miles/day "with great weariness". You basing this on something in the movie, or what?

Well, since he is running the whole way without sleep or rest, I think maybe it had more to do with the fact that DnD speeds are out of whack.

Oh, I don't know... A Druid doesn't have the best BAB, but does have skill points AND hit dice AND loads of special abilities AND much better spells (not to mention many more of them!) AND two good saves! What did they give up? Most of the Medium armors, and some weapons. In other words, you coulda cut somewhere else.

So you are comparing a good BAB class with a caster? That is kinda silly. I'm not comparing paladins to clerics now am I?

Squankrot! Squankrot! In order to fix frontloading, you have to weaken the class at FIRST level! Ballista-bullets!

LOL!

Average level one Fighter with scale-mail, large shield, and longbow vs. CB's Pseudo-Ranger *snip numbers*

That is how you determine game balance? By dueling classes and seeing who does the most damage? By your determination of game balance, a fighter is the best class at level 1 out of all classes. Your comparison would also defeat rogues and bards and clerics and wizards and sorcerers and monks and paladins. (Not druids, though, because they tend to have a wolf.)

I look at it more like how effective the PC in question would be in a party fighting an equivalent CR (and helping in non-combat situations as well).

L1 fighter:
one feat
medium armor
shields
equipment: (150 gp)
7 l. wood shield
40 scale mail
15 long sword
75 long bow

L1 rranger:
better skills
better skill points
track
equipment: (150 gp)
10 leather
75 longbow
5 longspear (or 50 greatsword)

So in a party, the rranger would be able to do one thing that you failed to mention: Spot. That is something that the fighter is sorely lacking. The ranger will rarely be surprised, he can sneak good enough past goblins and orcs (this is L1 afterall.) And he can use his tracking to follow trails and notice potential ambushes.

The fighter, on the other hand, is a tin can. 20 ft move. Woopee. I'm sorry, but since orcs have 4 hps, the ranger is going to deal enough damage in the surprise round to drop at least one of them.

This you call balanced?

Yes, I do.

I don't think it will matter... We obviously define "balanced" differently!

Yes. I define balanced as how effective the PC in question would be in a party fighting an equivalent CR (and helping in non-combat situations as well).

How do you define it?

Try quoting a whole sentence, next time. They get NONE of that at first level (which is where they give up everything but spells)! Making someone weak in the beginning so that you can tank them up, later, isn't balance, by my definitions. It's too weak early on, and too powerful later.

Well, your point wasn't valid, because you mentioned spells, which a ranger doesn't get at first level, last time I checked.

And as for the power level at later levels, it's quite good (but not too good.) If you'd like, I can compare it to the PHB Ranger and Barbarian for you.

Low-level Rangers do (the one facing your Fighter had better!), as do any who don't take stealth right away, because they don't want to get stuck with leather armor!

That is silly. I have never seen a ranger with heavier than a MW chain shirt. (Mithral breastplate exempted.)

As for mithril shirts, who has one at first level? My PC's 7th, and aint seed one, yet! He started in leather, moved up to masterwork studded leather at second, +1 at third, held that until seventh, and finally got some +2 glamered studded leather. Y'can't buy Mithril for love or money!

DM problem, not the game system's fault. At 7th level, you should have 19,000 gp. A mithral chain shirt costs 1,250 gp. Your DM is being stingy.

I noticed. "Aragorn, anyone?"

Read the whole paragraph next time...

*My RRanger doesn't get proficiency with shields. That doesn't mean he can't use them. A MW small shield or a mithral large shield are still open to the character.

...before you accuse me of this:

Try quoting a whole sentence, next time.

Solved easily enough by giving one feat at first level, and another at second, making the class like Monks and Paladins (once you leave, you get no more levels), or a host of other ways...

The first is a handwave to keep an already lame PHB ranger from being a munchkin's wet dream. (Besides the idea that virtual feats are stupid to begin with.) The second is not consistent with the idea of a ranger. (Whereas it fits the focused paladin and monk rather well.)

Sure you could. It wouldn't help him survive the Fighter, either!

Your jab at the fighter has zero to do with game balance. The PHB ranger doesn't get the first +3 bonus to FE until L10. This bonus at L1 would be overpowering.

And again, only Track is gotten at the first level, and it doesn't help in the fight with the Fighter!

Nothing to do with game balance.

I doubt it. At least with Rage at first level (and D12) the Barbarian stand a chance against the Fighter. With Fast Movement, he could run away, too! ;p

Nothing to do with game balance.

So by 20th level they catch up? (Shrug)

Catch up? No. They are on par the whole way.

Does the Barbarian even NEED Trackless Step or Woodland Stride? Would he WANT them?

Why would a druid for that matter? What the heck! Let's get rid of everything because barbarians are too stupid to see the benefit of never being tracked or being able to pass through overgrown areas!

Maybe where you live they are... I'm in an "economically disadvantaged area". That Glamered +2 studded leather was a major find!

Your DM is a miser. Not the game system's fault.

Well, now you've "heard" from one who doesn't, and thinks it doesn't fit the archetype very well, at all. Opinions are like noses: Most people have one, and most of'em smell!

What is the archtype then, please? Your giant post at the beginning of this thread had this to say:

To range, however, means to travel. Thus, Rangers are folks who travel about, and should have skills reflecting this.

"Rangers are a sub-class of fighter who are adept at woodcraft, tracking, scouting, and infiltration and spying." Thus, we have skills relating to tracking, hunting (fighting/Base Attack Bonuses, weapons proficiencies), finding food/water, finding/making shelter, making (mechanically) simple weapons and equipment, moving about from place to place (especially in the wild), escape and evasion, perceiving things, setting and disarming traps, and skills which permit or enhance the ability to infiltrate and spy upon the enemy.

So, I've got track, fast movement (the ranging part), woodland stride (range), trackless step (range), the good skills and skill points (wilderness lore, spot, listen and craft, search), good BAB (hunting), uncanny dodge (the escape and evasion part and the dodge bonus vs. traps), DR (because rangers are rugged *grin*), and a bunch of versatile special abilities that a player can use to mold to his own specific version of a ranger.

So how does this class not "fit the archetype very well, at all"? I think now you are just being stubborn...

Thanks for sharing. Happy Holidays!

You, too. And a happy New Year!

 

[Stalker0]

Well here's my take on what's going on, which is quite a lot, I'm seeing ideas flowing all OVER the place.

1) Favored Terrain is a good idea, but not a replacement to Favored Enemy. Together, you create a situation where the ranger gets some bonuses in whole lot of situations now, considering terrains AND enemies, and sometimes a large increase (when fighting both)

2) For skills, I'm a fan of classes getting bonus ranks in certain skills, probably not every level, but on occasion. It allows them to cover their bases, but since their ranks and not points, there skill checks don't go through the roof. Of course, I never liked the crossclass system, I think all skills except for exclusive ones should be class skills, and have the number of skill points balance things. But I digress.

3) The ranger needs one of two things. Either 1) They get some small bonuses in a whole lot of situations. 2) They get some really strong bonuses in limited situations. RIght now the ranger is a bad blend of both getting small bonuses in limited situations. I think most people are looking at the 2nd route, that when in the wilderness or in ambushes, scouting, etc. that the ranger should have some real concrete bonuses compared to other classes. Right now, they don't.

4) Giving Rangers trackless step is a bad idea, imho. Rangers already copy the druid too much with animal companions and spells. Look at the paladin and cleric. The paladin is very very different from the cleric, with saves, bonuses against evil, and special abilities all their own. Paladins also have some good spells that are unique to them. Rangers should be urged away from druids, especially since rangers and druids are situationally MUCH more different than paladins and rangers.

5) So what should be done? I think bonus feats could be the answer, as long as a good list of ranger only feats is presented. We don't need a fighter wannabe. I think special abilities is another option, you could create special powers in wilderness situations or against favored enemies. I don't think just beefing the skills is the answer. The ranger doesn't have the skill dependence of the rogue, and while skills are a help to the ranger they shouldn't be the defining characteristic.

 

[Wanderlust]

I just thought that I throw one thing out there that bugs me about the Ranger as is: I HATE FAVORED ENEMY.

Now, let me explain myself... I don't actually hate the favored enemy ability, I just hate the fact that it's a Ranger ability. I see it as an ability of some class more aptly labeled as "Monster Slayer" or some other BS. I think this is also furthered by the proliferation of feats affecting only favored enemies.

I think that a Ranger should seem like a ghost to intruders in his territory, but the idea that he's some "Monster Slayer" (insert B movie theme song here) just doesn't sit right with me.





Wanderlust