Rangers: Leave them alone!?
- Thread starter Steverooo
- Start date
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
Re: D6s and RFCs
I'll try to make some comments on the tracking-specific thread later. I was really disappointed that Masters of the Wild didn't expand tracking in much the same way that you are doing. I've had plans to do something like this for a long time (but put them on one side when the parties tracker died...).
Cheers
Steverooo said:
I'll try to make some comments on the tracking-specific thread later. I was really disappointed that Masters of the Wild didn't expand tracking in much the same way that you are doing. I've had plans to do something like this for a long time (but put them on one side when the parties tracker died...).
Cheers
Wow, great thread. Plane Sailing, I defiantly think you should expand your "history of the Ranger" into some kind of article or something, it is very good. And Steverooo, I really like your system for gleaning extra information from a track check. Thats something that I've always had hanging around in the back of my head and never really got around to hammering out some rules for. Good Work.
There are a lot of topics beign introduced here so rather than responding to any specific one I think that I shall just share some of my general views about the ranger class. The way I see it the core of the ranger archtype is the marriage between fighting ability and skills all tied up with a wilderness "flavor". The personality of an individual ranger cold vary from "loner" to "hunter" to "globe trotter" to "guardian" or "guide" or "scout/spy" or something else entierly, that is for the player to decide. When I say this it seems that perhaps I place a much greater value on skill use than most other people do. But I think that it is important not to underestimate just how powerful skills can be in 3e. The problem, of course, is that most skills don't apply in combat and too often when people discuss class balance they tend to think only in terms of a class' smackdown potential. Steverooo, I agree with Concrete Buddha's assertion that you cannot simply declare a class unbalanced based on the fact that when matched up against a L1 Fighter in some formeless void of an arena the ranger or whomever looses. I see the ranger as being one of those "fifth man" classes. The one who complements the rest of the party and makes it more than the sum of its parts. A lot of people react by saying that such a role isn't "glamarous" enough to make a good character but I think that that is more about the player and what his idea of a good time is than an actual failing of the class.
Now granted, this depends a lot on who your DM is and what kind of campagin he is running. Personally I like a game that is about 33% role playing, 33% kicking the snot out of things and taking their treasure, and 33% "other challenges"/"puzzles" and where your character sees the sun as often as not. But I still think that the ranger, as a class, should lean heavily on being a well rounded character who is as capable out of combat as in it.
Oh, and because I have absouetly no shame whatsoever, here is the link to my own take on the ranger (though I think most of you have seen it already)
http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34943
There are a lot of topics beign introduced here so rather than responding to any specific one I think that I shall just share some of my general views about the ranger class. The way I see it the core of the ranger archtype is the marriage between fighting ability and skills all tied up with a wilderness "flavor". The personality of an individual ranger cold vary from "loner" to "hunter" to "globe trotter" to "guardian" or "guide" or "scout/spy" or something else entierly, that is for the player to decide. When I say this it seems that perhaps I place a much greater value on skill use than most other people do. But I think that it is important not to underestimate just how powerful skills can be in 3e. The problem, of course, is that most skills don't apply in combat and too often when people discuss class balance they tend to think only in terms of a class' smackdown potential. Steverooo, I agree with Concrete Buddha's assertion that you cannot simply declare a class unbalanced based on the fact that when matched up against a L1 Fighter in some formeless void of an arena the ranger or whomever looses. I see the ranger as being one of those "fifth man" classes. The one who complements the rest of the party and makes it more than the sum of its parts. A lot of people react by saying that such a role isn't "glamarous" enough to make a good character but I think that that is more about the player and what his idea of a good time is than an actual failing of the class.
Now granted, this depends a lot on who your DM is and what kind of campagin he is running. Personally I like a game that is about 33% role playing, 33% kicking the snot out of things and taking their treasure, and 33% "other challenges"/"puzzles" and where your character sees the sun as often as not. But I still think that the ranger, as a class, should lean heavily on being a well rounded character who is as capable out of combat as in it.
Oh, and because I have absouetly no shame whatsoever, here is the link to my own take on the ranger (though I think most of you have seen it already)
http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34943Rangers in combat
We agree, totally!
Nor did I. The arguement was about what Ranger would use Medium armor, and whether or not they should have it. Both the Ranger and Rogue, at first level, will be prone to take Hide & Move Silently, maxed out. If the Ranger takes light armor, he will be weaker than BOTH the Fighter, AND the Rogue... The Fighter has better AC (and probably a better CON bonus), and while the Ranger is as lightly armored, the Rogue has backstab. So the first level Ranger can't go toe-to-toe with the Fighter. He may or may not be able to go toe-to-roe with the Rogue, depending upon skills chosen and the armor the Ranger selects.
Combat IS an important part of the game, and it does make a difference in the power level of PC classes. If a class is less survivable in combat than another, it is unbalanced, at least in that respect.
Now a first level Fighter (F1) against a Rogue with backstab is fairly even... The Rogue will sneak and hide, try to backstab, and do 1D6+1D8 if he succeeds in sneaking and getting a hit against the Fighter's armor. If hr misses, he had better use that faster movement to run!
A Cleric is a good match against the Fighter, probably haveing the same AC. His weapons are limited, but the heavy mace does as much as a sword, and he also has spells.
The Mage (Sorcerer/Wizard) is weak, compared to a Fighter, in combat, but with spells thrown in, might or might not be, depending upon which they chose. She is at least potentially as strong, if only for a few rounds. After that, they'd better use their faster movement (unarmored) to run, or be a Human with Ambi/TWF, a staff, and have damaged the Fighter.
A Druid will be weaker, and their spells generally won't be as much help. They have a better weapon than the mage (Scimitar), poor AC, but probably a wolf to help out.
Barbarians have as good weapons, and worse AC, but can Rage. If that fails, they run away at 40 movement.
Paladins are on a par with F1s. Same armor, weapons, BAB, etc.
Monks I don't know about... Never played a 3e Monk. They are unarmored, but get an AC bonus, and poorer weapons (all 1D6, IIRC). They also get a possible stunning attack, which might or might not help... They also have Hide & Move Silently, though, so... I dunno.
Rangers, though, if in Medium Armor, are on par with the Fighter; same AC, same weapons, same BAB. If he gives that up for Light armor (so as to not lose his plusses to Armor Check Penalties), then he can sneak as well as the Rogue, but when he gets up close enough to the Fighter, will only WOUND him, then have to roll for Initiative in the non-surprise round. Oh well... at least the Fighter's armor will slow him, if the Ranger needs to run.
The 3e Ranger, at least, would get an extra 1D6 attack (IF it hits, with -2 BAB to both attacks, making him weaker than the Rogue)! CB's Barbarian/Ranger doesn't even get that, Argo.
So is there another class that is as weak as the Ranger? Yep, sure enough! It is the OTHER class that folks complain is too under-powered: The Bard. If he chooses light armor to sneak and hide, he will probably have one good weapon (longsword), but his only "spells" are a few cantrips. If he chooses longsword and Medium Armor, he will be only slightly weaker than the Fighter (worse BAB and probably CON).
Soya see, comparing the classes in combat isn't all that ridiculous. The Ranger needs Medium armor use, and something to increase damage potential, early on. Otherwise, he had better stay out of melee, and just be a sniper. That, to me, doesn't fit the archetype.
(PS: In LotR, Aragorn used mail and a large shield - and it obviously wasn't mithril, either. Even if it was masterwork, its Armor Check Penalty was still -1!)
argo said:
We agree, totally!
Nor did I. The arguement was about what Ranger would use Medium armor, and whether or not they should have it. Both the Ranger and Rogue, at first level, will be prone to take Hide & Move Silently, maxed out. If the Ranger takes light armor, he will be weaker than BOTH the Fighter, AND the Rogue... The Fighter has better AC (and probably a better CON bonus), and while the Ranger is as lightly armored, the Rogue has backstab. So the first level Ranger can't go toe-to-toe with the Fighter. He may or may not be able to go toe-to-roe with the Rogue, depending upon skills chosen and the armor the Ranger selects.
Combat IS an important part of the game, and it does make a difference in the power level of PC classes. If a class is less survivable in combat than another, it is unbalanced, at least in that respect.
Now a first level Fighter (F1) against a Rogue with backstab is fairly even... The Rogue will sneak and hide, try to backstab, and do 1D6+1D8 if he succeeds in sneaking and getting a hit against the Fighter's armor. If hr misses, he had better use that faster movement to run!
A Cleric is a good match against the Fighter, probably haveing the same AC. His weapons are limited, but the heavy mace does as much as a sword, and he also has spells.
The Mage (Sorcerer/Wizard) is weak, compared to a Fighter, in combat, but with spells thrown in, might or might not be, depending upon which they chose. She is at least potentially as strong, if only for a few rounds. After that, they'd better use their faster movement (unarmored) to run, or be a Human with Ambi/TWF, a staff, and have damaged the Fighter.
A Druid will be weaker, and their spells generally won't be as much help. They have a better weapon than the mage (Scimitar), poor AC, but probably a wolf to help out.
Barbarians have as good weapons, and worse AC, but can Rage. If that fails, they run away at 40 movement.
Paladins are on a par with F1s. Same armor, weapons, BAB, etc.
Monks I don't know about... Never played a 3e Monk. They are unarmored, but get an AC bonus, and poorer weapons (all 1D6, IIRC). They also get a possible stunning attack, which might or might not help... They also have Hide & Move Silently, though, so... I dunno.
Rangers, though, if in Medium Armor, are on par with the Fighter; same AC, same weapons, same BAB. If he gives that up for Light armor (so as to not lose his plusses to Armor Check Penalties), then he can sneak as well as the Rogue, but when he gets up close enough to the Fighter, will only WOUND him, then have to roll for Initiative in the non-surprise round. Oh well... at least the Fighter's armor will slow him, if the Ranger needs to run.
The 3e Ranger, at least, would get an extra 1D6 attack (IF it hits, with -2 BAB to both attacks, making him weaker than the Rogue)! CB's Barbarian/Ranger doesn't even get that, Argo.
So is there another class that is as weak as the Ranger? Yep, sure enough! It is the OTHER class that folks complain is too under-powered: The Bard. If he chooses light armor to sneak and hide, he will probably have one good weapon (longsword), but his only "spells" are a few cantrips. If he chooses longsword and Medium Armor, he will be only slightly weaker than the Fighter (worse BAB and probably CON).
Soya see, comparing the classes in combat isn't all that ridiculous. The Ranger needs Medium armor use, and something to increase damage potential, early on. Otherwise, he had better stay out of melee, and just be a sniper. That, to me, doesn't fit the archetype.
(PS: In LotR, Aragorn used mail and a large shield - and it obviously wasn't mithril, either. Even if it was masterwork, its Armor Check Penalty was still -1!)
Khorod
First Post
Well, who's to say what Aragorn is? I can see him as a Ranger/Paladin... particularly toward the end.
Also, swap out two-weapon fighting for Point Blank and Far Shot, and the armor becomes moot. I played a rogue with a sling and a throwing axe, he may as well have had his feet nailed to the floor for all the good his armor did him. (did that make sense?)
Give the ranger light armor and he is still within the bounds of what other classes can do in an arena. I wouldn't take the prof away without giving something in return though.
They move fast, attack more, and have all those other special abilities. A monk with the right skills has very little to fear from your heavily armed fighter in an open area. The monk has low damage, but his combat style is about stunning & attrition. If the monk so chooses, his AC on a Total Defense action is 10 + Wis + Dex + 4. Then there's the tripping. Add to the mix his mage-friend's Haste and you've got danger. A low level monk might not be able to significantly harm the fighter, but the fighter will only harm the monk if he is given a gift. The monk needs more creativity & patience to beat that fighter than most other classes, but he's not left behind.
Spatzimaus
First Post
Yet another Alt.Ranger thread. The big problems for me:
1> The Ranger isn't distinctive. Other than Track and Favored Enemy, he doesn't really have anything unique, and both of those have other problems. It's yet another class with d10 HP, 4+INT skill points, +1 BAB, and good Fortitude save.
2> The 2-weapon thing is dumb.
3> Favored Enemy progresses backwards; at low level your best bonuses should be against things you fight at low level, but at high level this makes the ability worthless against the rarer and more dangerous monsters.
So, here's what I did.
> d8 HD, 6+INT skill points
> Reflex save is good instead of Fortitude
> No TWF or Ambidexterity
> No Medium Armor or Shield Proficiencies
> At levels 2, 6, and 10 they pick bonus Feats from a small list (including many Ranger-only things like Favored Enemy Strike, or a Feat that lets them take a few spells from the Druid list, or Improved Track, etc.), all of which only work in light armor or less with no shield. If any of these Feats have prerequisites (for example, DEX 13) you must still meet those.
> At levels 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11-20, you get a Favored Enemy "point" that can be placed in a category, with two limitations: One, the maximum number of points in a category scales with level (2 for low levels, increasing to 5 by 20); two, the number of categories you have points in can't be more than (your WIS minus 10).
1> The Ranger isn't distinctive. Other than Track and Favored Enemy, he doesn't really have anything unique, and both of those have other problems. It's yet another class with d10 HP, 4+INT skill points, +1 BAB, and good Fortitude save.
2> The 2-weapon thing is dumb.
3> Favored Enemy progresses backwards; at low level your best bonuses should be against things you fight at low level, but at high level this makes the ability worthless against the rarer and more dangerous monsters.
So, here's what I did.
> d8 HD, 6+INT skill points
> Reflex save is good instead of Fortitude
> No TWF or Ambidexterity
> No Medium Armor or Shield Proficiencies
> At levels 2, 6, and 10 they pick bonus Feats from a small list (including many Ranger-only things like Favored Enemy Strike, or a Feat that lets them take a few spells from the Druid list, or Improved Track, etc.), all of which only work in light armor or less with no shield. If any of these Feats have prerequisites (for example, DEX 13) you must still meet those.
> At levels 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11-20, you get a Favored Enemy "point" that can be placed in a category, with two limitations: One, the maximum number of points in a category scales with level (2 for low levels, increasing to 5 by 20); two, the number of categories you have points in can't be more than (your WIS minus 10).
