Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercule" data-source="post: 889198" data-attributes="member: 5100">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 thereSo, 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.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 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.)I have.  <a href="http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=47443" target="_blank">Right here.</a> 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 <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown    :("  data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" /> ), 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: Is that specific enough for you?</blockquote>

Verification