Still Don't Like the Ranger...

[billbo]

Well, okay. How about a d6 damage bonus to surprise attacks, NOT sneak attacks, adding another d6 every time the Ranger would be due to get another +2 favored enemy bonus?

 

[Daiymo]

I personally think the hybrid classes are just cursed. The bard, the ranger, the monk, heck maybe even paldin reflect the legacy from 1e. The four archetypical classes fighter, cleric,wiz, and rogue are stronger numerically and more focused as a type. This sint surprising since they have been with us since the beginning and fit certain specific roles.

The other classes are an outgrowth from those. No one is happy with them, and IMHO no one ever will be. If its not favored enemy, its some other class skill or lack of magic, or lack of combat bonuses,, or something else. It almost makes one wish for a return to four basic classes, with the others being speciality/prestige classes a PC gains at higher levels.

This isnt an attack on Billbo. He makes valid points. The favored enemy could be considered artificial. I think the original concept grew out as he said the old idea of living in an area and gaining a bonus from 1e. Over time its been fleshed out more and more until we have the compromise of a ranger we have today.

Personally I wouldnt mind seeing basic "types" for low level characters, with the ability to pick a speciality track for yourself as you progress-sort of like the speciality classes touted in this months Dragon and similar to the old 1e idea. Maybe in 4e.

 

[Crothian]

Well, okay. How about a d6 damage bonus to surprise attacks, NOT sneak attacks, adding another d6 every time the Ranger would be due to get another +2 favored enemy bonus?

How do you define suprise attack? Is the bonus only gained during the suprise round? If so then that would be fine.

 

[Steverooo]

How powerful do you think each power-up is? Not nearly as powerful as a feat, correct? Perhaps half a feat? What?

I think the stacking plusses to Bluff, Listen, Spot, Survival, etc., up to +10, as well as the damage bonus, are much more powqerful than you think, WHEN THEY CAN BE USED, and are thus about as handy as SEVERAL Feats, WHEN THEY CAN BE USED.

Alertness, for instance, gives +2 to Listen and Spot. It works all the time. Weapon Focus gives a bonus to hit and damage, and always works with any example of the selected weapon type. Favored Enemy (FE) does similar to both, AND MORE, but only works once in a while (when facing the FE).

Thus, it is both better and worse than a small set of Feats.

On the low end (above), it is worth about three Feats. On the high end, however, a Ranger with +2 vs. four FEs and +10 against the fifth receives a +10 bonus to all these skills, AND damage bonus?

So, FE is worth AT LEAST more than three Feats. How much more? Me no know!

Incidentally, however, I do not particularly like the FE mechanic, either. YMMV.

 

[Ranger REG]

But I am still offended by the annoying "Favored Enemy" schtick. This isn't a cool ability, like most character's abilities. Most characters have abilities that allow them to do cool . The Ranger just gets some plusses to his attacks against certain enemies, as if he's the only character class capable of holding a grudge and/or studying his opponents.

It would be helpful to know what is your concept of a ranger.

As for the favored enemy class feature, feh. I'm an old-school D&D gamer, who played 1e ranger classes and its damage bonus vs "giant class" opponents. It was a long list of monsters that I do not have to choose. I meet them, I'll slice them.

I see the favored enemy feature as a more conservative version of the 1e version, but offers more useful as it applies to certain skills make a ranger hunt his prey more effectively. So yeah, I accepted that part of the ranger is that of a hunter.

 

[Dash Dannigan]

The 3.5 Rangers, now as a skilled "hunter" the Favored Enemy makes more sense more than ever. A hunter receiving bonuses to all related skills & damage for a creature type, who can also choose to focus more on one type or several types.

Why does the Favored Enemy class ability of the ranger annoy you so much? This is the question to be asking. Do you think it not useful? Or do you want a different ranger? (i.e. not a skill using hunter) If so there are loads of variants all over the place.

Really I think you just need to get over FE man. It's just as cool as other class abilities and also SUITS the hunter archetype 3.5 is taking the ranger into. Otherwise, just get another ranger class someplace else. Oi.

 

[DonAdam]

IMC I'll be offering the option of either favored enemy or favored terrain (and a high level ranger may have a mix of both).

Favored terrain would just be the same bonus, but to all class skills and wild empathy in that terrain, in addition to a +1 AC and +1 Ref saves (I thought +2 AC sounded a little too powerful. Opinions?)

 

[KnowTheToe]

IMC I'll be offering the option of either favored enemy or favored terrain (and a high level ranger may have a mix of both).

Favored terrain would just be the same bonus, but to all class skills and wild empathy in that terrain, in addition to a +1 AC and +1 Ref saves (I thought +2 AC sounded a little too powerful. Opinions?)

Yep, I agree. The choice would help define two types or ideas of rangers. I really don't understand why favored terrain is not part of the class anyway. The ranger could gain a modifier to Survival, tracking, hiding, animal empathy, knowledge, initiative etc. I think with a little work you could define both a flavorful and useful path using favored terrain. the ranger could choose either terrain or enemy when the appropriate level gain comes and if they continue to choose the same terrain, the ranger could get more special abilities in the same terrain. This would also allow for an Urban Ranger which some people like.

 

[Will]

One of the central problems with rangers, beyond just about every other class, is that opinion diverges the most about what a ranger _is_.

Some people think 'special forces,' in terms of quick strikes and horribly dangerous people.

Some people think 'special forces,' in terms of espionage and various ops.

Some people think woodsman/hunters.

Some people think 'cleric : paladin, druid : ranger.'

And so on.

This basically means any version of the ranger will be unacceptible to the majority.

Personally, I see rangers as hunter/trackers, and would favor something akin to a fighter/rogue, but with mobility like a druid and barbarian, and no magic.

But, well, that's me.

 

[Tom Cashel]

Let's wait until the season starts before making any decisions.