Revised Ranger rule - balanced or not?

[CrusaderX]

I tend to dislike the Ranger's Combat Style feats. If the Ranger would lose these feats, but instead simply gain a To Hit bonus against their Favored Enemies (in addition to thier damage and skill bonuses), would this make the Ranger weaker, stronger, or would he be appropriately balanced?

Assume the DM will provide a fair amount of actual Favored Enemy foes in the campaign.

 

[GrolloStoutfoam]

This would make the Ranger weaker. Those Combat Style feats work against whomever the Ranger is battling. Two-Weapon fighting gives extra attacks, some defense and and overall how cool does this look wielding longword/shortsword, etc. The Archery path gives attack bonuses within certain distances (30'), options to use a bow in melee (don't), etc.

Without these feats you've got a fighter limited to light/medium armor, extra skill points, nowhere near the amount of feats, but against some situational opponents can hit more often. Just not good enough IMO. I like Rangers but in this campaign I would take a fighter with the Track feat and suffer the lack of skills. (edit: or better yet a Rogue with Track)

My big problem with Rangers is that they cast spells, but that would be a threadjack

I tend to dislike the Ranger's Combat Style feats. If the Ranger would lose these feats, but instead simply gain a To Hit bonus against their Favored Enemies (in addition to thier damage and skill bonuses), would this make the Ranger weaker, stronger, or would he be appropriately balanced?

Assume the DM will provide a fair amount of actual Favored Enemy foes in the campaign.

 

[szilard]

You could just give them Fighter bonus feats instead. I don't think that would be horribly unbalanced. They'd get more choice, but the combat style gives them access to feats without the prereqs.... so... it is more or less balanced.

-Stuart

 

[smootrk]

Interesting. I was always in the camp that wanted to give more combat styles to choose from rather than limiting or eliminating them.

I guess granting fighter feats would be roughly balanced (as suggested by szilard), and would allow expanded customization to suit individuals' tastes on Rangers.

As to Ranger Enemies, at one time I was going to change the mechanic for this ability to be a scaling set of bonus dice (like bane or sneak attack dice) that only apply to the Ranger's Foe. I never got around to doing this, but I still think it is a good idea.

 

[GreatLemur]

I'm with GrolloStoutfoam and smootrk: I'd rather see Rangers with more Combat Style abilities, and no spellcasting.

But back on the actual topic, I think I ought to point out that it's the Combat Styles that really enforce the whole light armor thing for Rangers. If they don't have those usable-only--in-light-or-no-armor bonus feats, they don't have any reason not to take a level of Fighter and run around the forest in plate mail (well, except for the fact that they won't be running very fast). If that's cool with you, then no worries.

 

[Nifft]

Yeah, I'm with them too. Combat Style is cool, more options is the way to go IMHO.

Option 1: +1d6 Sneak Attack at 2nd, 6th and 11th.

Option 2: +1 use of Smite Enemy (as Smite Evil, but works against any Favored Enemy) at 2nd, 6th and 11th..

Option 3: Fighter bonus feat (for which you qualify) at 2nd, 6th and 11th..

Cheers, -- N

 

[Argus Decimus Mokira]

I dropped the Combat Styles and Favored Opponent and tacked on the Scout's Skirmish ability. My camoaigns don't need two lightly armed/armored, semi-sneaky outdoorsmen. Favored Opponent is now a feat (honestly, if Paladin's can't have Favored Opponent: Undead/Demons/Dragons/Teletubbies, the world is an unhappy place).

-Matt