The Aragorn Ranger Variant (You'll like! Promise!)

[Laman Stahros]

I don't see why people have a problem with the 3.5e ranger. It harkens back to the 1e ranger (without the arcane spells).

 

[UltimaGabe]

No. With some tinkering, the MT would work just as well as a base class.

Only if you either took away half of the spells, or stretched it out over 20 levels. Another factor of why PrCs are balanced (yet more powerful than base classes) is that they have PREREQUISITES. As in, generally, you have to give up something in order to take it. With a Base Class, you don't give up anything- well, I suppose you could be taking a different class, but that's not giving up something. But you don't see everybody taking Mystic theurge because you have to give up three levels of Spellcasting in your main class in order to even qualify for it, and the Eldritch Knight makes you lose two caster levels, and so on. You have to give up something good before you get your bonus. With a Base Class, though, what are you giving up? If the Mystic Theurge were a Base Class, unless you took away half of what it got every level, it would be a terrible move because, again, you're not giving up anything first.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Is this based on the 3.5 ranger? (Eg when you say "skills as in the PH, which PH do you mean?)

In any event, I think it's a little overpowered, compared to the Iron Kingdoms 3.5 ranger. (I would suggest cutting out the Hunter's Stealth - leave the rogue something.)

 

[Felon]

Compared to the cleric, druid, wizard, and even the fighter, I hardly think this variant is excessive. Heck, a plain-Jane 3.5 fighter would go to town on this guy in a duel. But hey, to each his own!

It is poor design to think that one class beating up another in a straight-up fight is the best way to determine balance. In addition to the fact that your ranger will have as many hit points as the fighter, the same attack progression, as well as many bonus feats, he will have a better refelx save and more skill points, which won't show up in a fight between the two. Terrain mastery and favorite enemy probably won't matter either. But during adventures, he will quantifiably outshine the fighter.

Don't know what your basis for comparison to clerics, druids, and wizards are.

EDIT: Forgot to mention--we didn't make these bonuses up; we yoinked them from the Horizon Walker PrC in the DMG. So, um, your beef is with WotC, not our ranger variant.

So, stack up the horizon walker's hit dice, saving throws, and skill points against the horizon walker, and who comes out on top every time? Compare the bounty of other class features showered on this class to those that the horizon walker gets--oh wait, the walker doesn't get anything else.

Ah, but well-designed prestige classes are not more powerful than base classes--only different. The Mystic Theurge you mention, for instance, gives up a lot to be what he is: on the cleric side, he gives up armor, d8 hit dice, good Fort saves, and the turn undead progression; while on the wizard side, he gives up access to most knowledge skills, advancement for his familiar, and wizard bonus feats. He also gives up 6 whole spell levels over the life of the character (3 from each class). I'd say the MT, then, is no more powerful than either of the cleric or the wizard. He's just a lot more versatile in his spell selection.

And by that logic, your variant ranger--which exceeds the horizon walker in every way--is over-the-top. In fact, it really doesn't matter what warrior class you compare it to--the 3.5e ranger, the fighter, or another PrC, he gives up way less than he gains.

Bah. I stand by my earlier comment--standard clerics, druids and wizards are all more powerful than this variant ranger. Anyway, I love the class, and I'm sharing the love.

This statement indicates that you're so in love with the class, you are unabashedly blinding yourself to even the possibility that it has design flaws.

And in the end, this class doesn't have a single new or interesting ability to give it any identity. Nothing about it is any more "rangery" than the PHB ranger or the CV scout. Except that it's just better.

 

[CRGreathouse]

This statement indicates that you're so in love with the class, you are unabashedly blinding yourself to its design flaws.

And in the end, this class doesn't have a single new or interesting ability to give it any identity. Nothing about it is any more "rangery" than the PHB ranger or the CV scout. Except that it's just better.

It's only a design flaw if ForceUser thinks it's equal in power to the other classes. It's it's more powerful by design, then that's OK (for ForceUser's game, anyway).

 

[Cheiromancer]

If a character is "second best" at a lot of things, they won't necessarily come across as unbalanced. I think this is the case with this class.

For example, the fact that it has fewer feats than a fighter and that they are mostly virtual mean that the fighter will outshine him in straight combat. The rogue or bard will be more of a "skill monkey" than this ranger will be. The druid will likely do better than he does in the woods, or other natural setting. This ranger has no spellcasting, so there is no danger of its magical abilities outshining anyone; and frankly it's high level spellcasting that can make non-spellcasters feel useless; wizards are more unbalanced in this respect than this class is.

So it may be unbalanced in terms of just adding up the abilities, but it doesn't seem to step on the toes of the other character classes, and that's definitely something in its favor.

 

[Felon]

It's only a design flaw if ForceUser thinks it's equal in power to the other classes. It's it's more powerful by design, then that's OK (for ForceUser's game, anyway).

Fine, whatever, I accede to your notions of design relativism. If he comes out and says it's intended to be OTT, then it can be as ridiculous as he wants.

But of course, the implication from his comments is that he does not think it is excessive. Somehow, he thinks the relative power of classes that cast spells somehow justifies a class that outshines other warrior classes. He refers to this build as the way rangers were "supposed-to-be". His early comments about Aragorn basically just sound like a fighter with Survival as a class skill.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Fine, whatever, I accede to your notions of design relativism. If he comes out and says it's intended to be OTT, then it can be as ridiculous as he wants.

Most people think that clerics are overly powerful, but there's often a party dynamic reason to want at least one, so I have no problm with it. Is the cleric powerful? Yes, but that's by design (and matches my needs) so I think it's fine.

If I wanted to play a journey through the wilderness campaign and wanted to encourage rangers over wizards (and their teleport), this would be a viable way.

I don't want to be too relativistic, and I love balance for its own sake, but occasionally there's an overriding need, at least IMO.

 

[Felon]

Fair enough.

 

[ForceUser]

I think Felon is being unnecessarily vitriolic ("mean," in plain English). In any event, use it, don't use, like it, don't like it, rant about the class, rave about the class--whatever. Just don't be a jerk. Felon.