Revised Ranger: Yup, time for a poll

[Ravellion]

Yes, but I am still not going to use it over my Tholestian Ranger, because I hate spellcasting for Rangers (yes, I know each D&D ranger so far had spellcasting. I don't care, I don't like it).

Rav

 

[CrusaderX]

Yes, the 3.5 Ranger seems to be the best one yet. And yes, I'm "old-school", and have been playing since first edition.

 

[Mercule]

Other than Evasion, how else does the 3.5e ranger resemble a rogue?

It actually never occurred to me the the Ranger was becoming more Rogue-like until someone pro-new Ranger raved about how great it was in another thread.

I assumed (apparently incorrectly) that such sentiment was shared by many in favor of the new Ranger -- i.e. that it was good because it looked more Roguish. My "Ranger != Rogue" quip was intended as a statement that I did not agree that was a good thing.

Specific Roguelike aspects I dislike:
-Evasion (although I wouldn't object to Uncanny Dodge)
-Reduction in Hit Dice
-Maybe HiPS, but I'm withholding judgement until I see the full write-up there

So, you're right, there isn't that much that's specifically Roguelike that I directly object to. I'm big enough to acknowledge that I overblew a statement made somewhere else.

Except that we can quantify how a paladin or barbarian is different from a fighter. If you reduce the role of the rogue elements (which amounts to lots of skill points and some camouflage abilities), and trim off any supernatural or spell abilities (which you've also stated are unrangerly) then what class features are left to differentiate him from the fighter?

Leave the skills and camo. That's the short of it. The Ranger should be a stealthy, survival-capable (I hate to say survival oriented, because I think fighting is the biggest focus for the Ranger), tough warrior type.

I agree; virtual feats are lame. Now, where did you get the idea that virtual feats were being used in 3.5e? Where did you hear that they weren't receiving bonus feats?

I have seen it mentioned several times in discussions about the 3.5 Ranger on these boards. It was also, IIRC, hinted at in the WotC "3.5 Spotlight" of the new Manyshot feat (something like "Rangers who chose archery as their combat path receive Manyshot even if they don't qualify so long as they are wearing light armor."). Normally, I include the caveat that "this is according to rumor" or some such when I disparage virtual feats.

Until such time as I see one way or the other, I'll continue to include it as something I dislike, because like everything else, we have only conjecture to go on at this point. (And, since it seems like those of us who are unhappy with what the rumor mill is churning out seem to be the only ones who get told "wait 'til you see the final version before judging", I'll throw out that it's no sillier to be unhappy with the rumored changes than it is to support them.)

While we're on the subject of bonus feats, if you're going to keep bringing up paladins and barbarians as some sort of justification as to why a ranger should be a distinct class from the fighter, then point out how to design a ranger as a warrior that doesn't rely on any kinds of bonus feats, because that's how the pal and barb are distinguished from the fighter.

I have. Right here.

And take and leave it, take it and leave it, take and leave it.... Merc, you keep saying the same things in thread after thread. Then people issue counter-arguements or ask for specifics instead of vague rhetoric, and you basically evade or ignore them while dogmatically insisting "this isn't a ranger" until it wears the thread thin.

So, besides posting my own alt.Ranger, listing a dozen examples of historical and fictional personages I think make the Ranger archetype, and pointing out specific abilities that I dislike or would like to see added, what would you have me do?

Honestly, from my point of view, the pattern is more this: Someone starts a thread to discuss the Ranger. I pop in and drop my $.02 worth, and get told how backwards my thinking is and that I should just accept what WotC does or how the Ranger _must_ have X (d8 HD, TWF, etc.) to be a playable/flavorful/distinguishable class, but uses mostly rhetoric (must be a point of view thing) to back up why the new Ranger is a good change. I throw out some changes I'd like to see, or give an indication as to what my vision is, and get blasted for it.

Take this thread as an example. It's a poll -- obviously looking for opinions. I made my vote (obviously a "no"), clarified a bit (nice class, but doesn't fit my vision of a Ranger) and moved on, coming back to see what others had to say. Kai called me on something, I clarified why I said what I said, and added the "take it or leave it" to indicate that I really didn't want another knock-down drag-out brawl about it. (I'll gant that it may have sounded snarky, but Kai's smiley indicates that he took it as intended.) And now you come along and attack me while accusing _me_ of being disruptive.

Seriously. If you've seen me post in other threads, you've certainly seen me say that I understand I'm in the minority (Kai's poll is showing that it's even moreso than I thought ), and that I don't really expect to change anyone's mind. I have a strong opinion on the Ranger (not that that isn't obvious), as do many others. If a thread is started to discuss the new Ranger and whether it is good or not, why shouldn't I throw in my say? And why should I have to do a point-by-point analysis everytime?

Here's pretty much the way I view the new Ranger: A good, solid class. Doesn't fit my image of Ranger, though it does mean that my version would have too narrow of a niche to be of value along side it and the Barbarian. I don't like the reduction in HD (I see Rangers as slightly tougher than Fighters, but not enough to justify a d12). I don't like the continued inclusion of TWF as a class feature. I don't like that only combat feats are included in the paths (Alertness and Stealthy are two that I'd add), and I don't like that you're (apparently) forced to choose one path at the beginning of your career rather than mix and match. I also don't like so many classes having spells or supernatural abilities; and, although I don't mind the Ranger having a spell or two up his sleeve, I see it mostly as a mundane archetype so I'd like to see the spells scaled back rather than adding Woodland Stride and HiPS. I don't think that Evasion fits the archetype well, but Uncanny Dodge would be a great match.

It is far and away better as a class than the 2E or 3.0 Rangers. Since I banned both of those as being worthless, though, that isn't saying much. It's good enough that I'll probably leave it when I run Greyhawk (my beer and pretzels setting), but I'll swap it out for my homebrew (of course, I'm changing around every class besides the Rogue and Fighter, so that isn't saying much, either). It may grow on me over time, but I think I'll always view it as too magic intensive, and the d8 will always chaffe, as will the TWF (even as an optional class ability).

Or, since I've said all of the above in other threads:

Yes, I like it, but it isn't a Ranger.

Is that specific enough for you?

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

You know what really annoys me? WotC did what people were annoying them to do, and then we turn around and complain about that EXACT thing!
Too Rogue like? YES. I hate that, but I've noticed that nearly every person who's proposed what the changes to the Ranger should be, before this Dragon Mag issue that is, has said the Ranger SHOULD be a Wilderness Rogue. ARGH. A large number push for one thing, they get it...then decide it isn't what they wanted and whine about it.
Not saying those that don't like this Wildnerness Rogue were all pushing for it before, I certainly wasn't, but it was a large majority doing that...

/rant

 

[PhaedrusXY]

Here's a line from my sig on the WotC boards:

Save the Core Ranger Foundation member 0000041

I have argued for months that the 3.0 ranger was fine, and I still think it fits my idea of what a ranger is better than this new one. I think I'm done posting here. The people posting in this thread seem to want everyone to come in and pat WotC on the back, and if you're not willing to do that, you get set on fire and burned in effigy.

You guys can have this rogue-wannabe 3.5 ranger, I will be using the variant I re-posted earlier in this thread. May you all choke on all those new skill points and die due to your lower hit points and lowered int due to min-maxing this thing.

 

[Pants]

I have argued for months that the 3.0 ranger was fine, and I still think it fits my idea of what a ranger is better than this new one.

This seems to be the problem with the ranger, no one can come to a general census as to what it's supposed to be.

The people posting in this thread seem to want everyone to come in and pat WotC on the back, and if you're not willing to do that, you get set on fire and burned in effigy.

Well, considering that they've been listening to the fans, I think they deserve a pat on the back.

You guys can have this rogue-wannabe 3.5 ranger, I will be using the variant I re-posted earlier in this thread. May you all choke on all those new skill points and die due to your lower hit points and lowered int due to min-maxing this thing.

 

[boschdevil]

You guys can have this rogue-wannabe 3.5 ranger, I will be using the variant I re-posted earlier in this thread. May you all choke on all those new skill points and die due to your lower hit points and lowered int due to min-maxing this thing.

Technically, we shouldn't choke, since with a d8/6 ranger we'll be min-maxing our constitution/intelligence scores such that (a) we'll have the same average hit points, (b) have a better fortitude save for min/maxing constitution, and (c) still have an additional skill point per level when compared to a d10/4 ranger.

 

[boschdevil]

The people posting in this thread seem to want everyone to come in and pat WotC on the back, and if you're not willing to do that, you get set on fire and burned in effigy.

Well, if you plan to come into a thread and yell "You guys are too stupid to realize you're being suckered by a 3.5 wilderogue!", then I wouldn't be surprised that such individual is figuratively "being set on fire and burned in effigy." Did you really expect after you recited your pearls of wisdom for all of us to say in unison , "Wow! We were wrong and you are right! Curse you WotC!"? I'm thinking that is a little naive.

 

[Aaron L]

If I can't have my 1E ranger, then I'll take this one. Looks great to me.

 

[boschdevil]

*bumper to continue the poll*

(Just in case there are those who haven't seen it yet.)