Revised Ranger: Yup, time for a poll

[boschdevil]

I voted no because the 3r ranger, while clearly superior to the 3e version, falls well short of the AD&D versions. Hence, my variant:

Link

Comments:

1) Ditch the "Ranger Styles" and just call them bonus feats: in essence that it what they are.

2) It looks like all you did was switch the ranger from d8 hit die/6 skill points to d10 hit die/4 skill points and make all of the combat path feats bonus feats.

3) As I've noted before, Monte Cook has already released a d10/4 ranger variant in the Book of Hallowed Might ...

 

[Jack Daniel]

Comments:

1) Ditch the "Ranger Styles" and just call them bonus feats: in essence that it what they are.

2) It looks like all you did was switch the ranger from d8 hit die/6 skill points to d10 hit die/4 skill points and make all of the combat path feats bonus feats.

3) As I've noted before, Monte Cook has already released a d10/4 ranger variant in the Book of Hallowed Might ...

1) Not quite... they're bonus feats, but with the honorific capacity to let rangers ignore the Dexterity prerequisite for the higher-end two-weapon fighting feats. Not that there are many rangers with a DEX below 15, mind you, but it deserves honorable mention just the same.

2) YUP!

3) The very class I'll be using until 3.5 comes out.

 

[Michael Tree]

Re: My $0.02:

This is backwards thinking! (The class may be stronger at higher levels, but is weakened at first, certainly!)

At first level, yes, but then again the 3.0 ranger was ludicrously frontloaded.

This is a step back to 2e. I wonder how the ability works? I betcha it's based on CHA! If so, ALL STATS are now important to a Ranger, and there is no longer any "throw-away" stat to sink bad rolls into.

You do yourself and the game a disservice by vehemently complaining about something you know nothing about aside from the name.

It works essentially the same as it does now, except that it uses the Handle Animal skill. It's a new use of an old skill that rangers and druids get, in the same way that tracking is a new use of the wilderness lore/survival skill that rangers and others with the tracking feat get.

Unless they have changed something, this IS NOT A Ranger-CLASS ABILITY! It is a DRUID Class Ability! Rangers have to cast Animal Friendship to get one, and (again), unless something was changed, they may not be able to (at all, or until 7th level).

That's a pretty big 'unless'. They have changed the ability significantly, though we don't know all the details yet. We do know that it's no longer a spell though. It's probably a unique progression, like a familiar's.

Huh? Did they revamp the Reflex saves? If not, then this isn't as much use to a Ranger as a Rogue. His good saves are Fortitude, not Reflex!

We don't know if they've changed the Reflex save. If they havn't, then you're quite right, it isn't as useful as it is for Rogues. That doesn't make it useless though.

I suspect they didn't give Rangers uncanny dodge because the more classes that have it, the less useful a Rogue's sneak attack becomes. Besides, with high listen and spot skills, uncanny dodge isn't all that neccessary to not be surprised.

Camo has been part of Hide since 1e, and I have always assumed that Rangers/Rogues took full advantage of it. Seems now, Rangers will hafta wait until 13th level to do this!

You're quibbling about a name. Just because the ranger ability is called Camouflage, doesn't mean that no one else can use mundane camouflage. After all, you you need the Dodge feat to dodge attacks? Do you need the Flurry of Blows ability to attack quickly? Do you need the Wilderness Stride ability to walk through forests? Are only barbarians capable of being really angry and rageful?

As for the rest of your arguments, need I point out that we havn't seen the Ranger's skill and spell lists yet? Don't make assumptions and then rant that you don't like the assumptions you've made.

 

[boschdevil]

1) Not quite... they're bonus feats, but with the honorific capacity to let rangers ignore the Dexterity prerequisite for the higher-end two-weapon fighting feats. Not that there are many rangers with a DEX below 15, mind you, but it deserves honorable mention just the same.

2) YUP!

3) The very class I'll be using until 3.5 comes out.

1) This is the problem. The virtual feat still leave that bad aftertaste in your mouth since they allowed you to bypass ability requirements. In fact, Monte got this one right. If you're going to fix the virtual feats so that they don't require light armor, go all the way to getting rid of the ridiculous ability requirement bypass.

2) and 3) I think that we are in agreement here. Personally, if I want to play a d10 ranger, I'm just going to play the ranger variant from the BoHM. This is part due to that I think Monte did a good job and part that my group doesn't allow class variations unless they're from WotC or Malhavoc Press.

 

[maddman75]

This ranger's a step in the right direction, but I'll be using my own alt.ranger. essentially

- No spellcasting
- d8 hit dice
- 1:1 BAB
- Good fort and ref
- Bonus abilities at first and every even levels. There are several paths the ranger can take. There's a list of feats, both TWF and archery, as well as some others that Rangers would find handy.
- Roguish abilities the ranger can take as Special Abilities. Sneak Attack, Evasion, Uncanny dodge
- Ability trees both for favored enemy and favored terrain

This makes his flexible, as a class should be. He's a general wilderness warrior. Build him to be an expert hunter, a survivalist, a skirmish fighter,
and archer, whatever. Or even multiclass for a couple druid levels to get that 'nature warrior' vibe.

 

[Knight Otu]

Re: Animal Companions

Rangers have to cast Animal Friendship to get one, and (again), unless something was changed, they may not be able to (at all, or until 7th level).

The same is true for 3E Druids. It is just assumed that they have cast the spell before going on adventure.

From the SRD:

Animal Companion: A 1st-level druid may begin play with an animal companion. This animal is one that the druid has befriended with the spell animal friendship.

 

[Jack Daniel]

1) This is the problem. The virtual feat still leave that bad aftertaste in your mouth since they allowed you to bypass ability requirements. In fact, Monte got this one right. If you're going to fix the virtual feats so that they don't require light armor, go all the way to getting rid of the ridiculous ability requirement bypass.

Nah. Virtual feats are specifically that relic of 2e whereby the feats disappear in heavier armor. Bonus feats without prereqs exist in 3e (the monk) and bonus feats that deafult to a core choice but which can be swapped out for a wide variety of combat feats also exist (the OA monk).

 

[boschdevil]

Nah. Virtual feats are specifically that relic of 2e whereby the feats disappear in heavier armor. Bonus feats without prereqs exist in 3e (the monk) and bonus feats that deafult to a core choice but which can be swapped out for a wide variety of combat feats also exist (the OA monk).

I didn't mean to insinuate that since they don't have to meet ability requirements that they are virtual feat due to this alone. I meant that the feats that bypassed the ability requirements just happen to be the virtual feats for the ranger.

As for monks being able to bypass ability requirements for feats, that doesn't make the practice right. Let's just say that I agree with Monte Cook on this one and you agree with Andy Collins on this one and thus, agree to disagree.

 

[Mercule]

Well, if I get the gist of this presentation, instead of making the ranger into a class that co-opts the fighter class features, you'd have him co-opt the barbarian’s? I don’t understand your statement that rage “sounds more like a PrC” ability. Seems like a barbarian is as much of a basic brute as they come (indeed, I’ve known a DM or two who thinks altogether illogical to let anyone pick up a level of barbarian if they didn’t start their career as one).

The idea of a basic class built around raging doesn't really seem to have a place in _my_ setting, so I was willing to pass on the the Barbarian class. Also, as I thought about what a Ranger should be, I discovered that the Barbarian class infringed a bit on his niche (notice which class gets first rigts). Between the two, I decided the Barbarian just didn't have a place, so I dumped it.

I could see where someone might want to keep the Barbarian class. Or where my Ranger might be too martial. I'd be _very_ surprised if my Ranger were ever held up by many as the ideal. I'm not sure that even I think it's "just right", but it comes close enough that people who look at it can get a good idea of what I see when someone says "Ranger".

The historical and fictional references are certainly not the best way to go, as they are all pretty subjective interpretations. As for your ranger variant, I was hoping your personal vision of a ranger would be a class that carves its own niche within a party without an emphasis on siphoning any other class’s abilities. How satisfying can that be?

Nah. Nothing new or radical in my Ranger. A fair amount of that, I'm sure, is that people don't seem to think anything is new and radical if it isn't supernatural, and I think a Ranger should emphasize the mundane over the supernatural.

As far as siphoning off other class abilities, I don't really think that charge holds much weight. I didn't siphon the Barbarian's skills any more than the current Ranger siphonned the Monk's. I created a rather tough, stealthy, extraordinarily difficult to surprise wilderness warrior. The Barbarian is an amazingly tough, battle-crazed, extraordinarily difficult to surprise wild warrior. There are bound to be similarities.

If I were to do it over, I'd probably give Woodland Stride instead of +10 movement. I'd also add the Fast Tracking that the 3.5 Ranger has.

I got Uncanny Dodge because, IMHO, that's a no-brainer for a Ranger. I don't really see it for the Barbarian. Regardless, it wasn't a swipe, just a coinsidence.

That leaves DR as something the two share. To be honest, I wasn't sure I should add it. I've been saying, though, that I thought the Ranger should be slightly tougher than the Fighter, but not in terms of a higher HD type. I don't like the idea of two PC classes having DR, but once I realized I was pitching the Barbarian, it seemed a reasonable addition. Still, if I had to drop one feature of the class, DR would easily be the one.

 

[boschdevil]

Nah. Virtual feats are specifically that relic of 2e whereby the feats disappear in heavier armor. Bonus feats without prereqs exist in 3e (the monk) and bonus feats that deafult to a core choice but which can be swapped out for a wide variety of combat feats also exist (the OA monk).

Actually, Jack, you may want to check out the Ranger (Redux) thread over on the WotC boards. I think that Aldarc did a good job on handling the elimination of the combat feats by replacing them with Uncanny Dodge. (he also took out some other things to balance it out) FYI.