The Relative Ranger: kids love it! (TM)
- Thread starter Jack Daniel
- Start date
Jack Daniel
Legend
I've got two PCs running this class, and a guy on the WotC boards is playtesting it as well. As for the rest of my classes, they might go up when I'm finished. I've got an alt.druid in my campaign (I think I mentioned the vicar above) and a technologist that I'll post when I finally finish drafting the rules for gadgets and mechanology.
Darklone
Registered User
Ranger
Hey JD!
I like your ranger very much. There's just one thing I wanna ramble about ... Not that it's worse than the PHB ranger...
This ranger screams for multiclassing with barbarian and rogue (each one level perhaps). Start as rogue, get skillpoints as hell and sneak attack, get barbarian for hitpoints, faster movement and rage, then ranger... for more skillpoints, uncanny dodge, and all the other stuff.
I like to play multimulticlassed chars, but they are usually balanced. (stronger at lower levels, getting weaker at higher levels)
This one... I don't see many disadvantages
Ok he loses two levels for spells that way... but considering the rangerspells... that's not much
Enough rambling. It's by far the best ranger I've ever seen.
Hey JD!
I like your ranger very much. There's just one thing I wanna ramble about ... Not that it's worse than the PHB ranger...
This ranger screams for multiclassing with barbarian and rogue (each one level perhaps). Start as rogue, get skillpoints as hell and sneak attack, get barbarian for hitpoints, faster movement and rage, then ranger... for more skillpoints, uncanny dodge, and all the other stuff.
I like to play multimulticlassed chars, but they are usually balanced. (stronger at lower levels, getting weaker at higher levels)
This one... I don't see many disadvantages
Ok he loses two levels for spells that way... but considering the rangerspells... that's not much Enough rambling. It's by far the best ranger I've ever seen.
Jack Daniel
Legend
Multiclassing does always have inherent disadvantages... XP penalties are hard to get around with a single level in two classes. Still, thanks for the input.
Tarin Greenflame
First Post
The quarry bonus is really nice, as is the more 2E styled favored enemy. The rogue abilities are very well done, too, imo. Might add sneak attack to my 'special ability' pool for my ranger revision.
Very nice, if a bit on the powerful side. 267 points on the class generator, with 250 being the standard.
Very nice, if a bit on the powerful side. 267 points on the class generator, with 250 being the standard.
Last edited:
Jack Daniel
Legend
Hmm... any way to tone it down, if it proves to be a bit too powerful? I'm open to suggestions.
Tarin Greenflame
First Post
Hmm, not sure. Could removed TWF/ambidex as virtual feats, so that that fighting style will not be imposed upon all players using the class (just a personal preference there, though) or could removed favored enemy, since the quarry bonus really finely replaces it, though the favored enemy in addition to the quarry is a nice flavor addition. Or, you could just do D8 HD instead of D10. Or, impose a heavier alignment or multiclassing restriction, or a more strict honor code, whatever works.
Really, each of the above has their drawbacks, but those are all I can think of; the other abilities are too prominent to remove from this class imo.
That is, of course, if it proves to be a little too strong. There is always playtesting
However, as is, it's a roughly 2/3 fighter, 1/3 rogue, 1/5 druid. Eh somethin like that. What I mean is, is rougly 1/2 rogue sneak attack/evasive abilities/skills, fighter HP and BAB, 2 (or 3, depending on if you give ITWF at 9th) bonus feats, with limited druid spells and a few unique abilities. Really good combo. The cost being having to be good, and lacking heavy armor, and not quite getting all of the perks of the parent classes, such as the bonus feats and higher sneak attack and evasion/dodge/special abilities, etc. This version probably wouldn't stop a person from picking a rogue, or a fighter, or a barbarian for that matter in favor of the ranger (in other words it probably wouldn't steal from the other classes too much). Hard to say if it is too much, but it is at least not inadequate. The class gen doesn't lie, though it IS still just a guideline tool. It can be inaccurate with certain combos and such.
Still, kudos to ya for solving the favored enemy problem by putting in the more flexible, player controled quarry bonus. Also sneak attack gives the ranger a real incentive to be stealthy, though I prefer my own little method
Really, each of the above has their drawbacks, but those are all I can think of; the other abilities are too prominent to remove from this class imo.
That is, of course, if it proves to be a little too strong. There is always playtesting
However, as is, it's a roughly 2/3 fighter, 1/3 rogue, 1/5 druid. Eh somethin like that. What I mean is, is rougly 1/2 rogue sneak attack/evasive abilities/skills, fighter HP and BAB, 2 (or 3, depending on if you give ITWF at 9th) bonus feats, with limited druid spells and a few unique abilities. Really good combo. The cost being having to be good, and lacking heavy armor, and not quite getting all of the perks of the parent classes, such as the bonus feats and higher sneak attack and evasion/dodge/special abilities, etc. This version probably wouldn't stop a person from picking a rogue, or a fighter, or a barbarian for that matter in favor of the ranger (in other words it probably wouldn't steal from the other classes too much). Hard to say if it is too much, but it is at least not inadequate. The class gen doesn't lie, though it IS still just a guideline tool. It can be inaccurate with certain combos and such.
Still, kudos to ya for solving the favored enemy problem by putting in the more flexible, player controled quarry bonus. Also sneak attack gives the ranger a real incentive to be stealthy, though I prefer my own little method
DispelAkimbo
Explorer
> Hmm... any way to tone it down, if it proves to
> be a bit too powerful? I'm open to suggestions.
*virgin poster, go easy on me*
I've never been a fan of ranger spell casting. If it needs toning down, how about removing the spell casting (as someone else pointed out, wisdom is often a 3 or 4 th priority stat).
If there are some spells that a ranger really cant do without (such as animal companion), why not add these spells as supernatural abilities at various levels?
> be a bit too powerful? I'm open to suggestions.
*virgin poster, go easy on me*
I've never been a fan of ranger spell casting. If it needs toning down, how about removing the spell casting (as someone else pointed out, wisdom is often a 3 or 4 th priority stat).
If there are some spells that a ranger really cant do without (such as animal companion), why not add these spells as supernatural abilities at various levels?
Jack Daniel
Legend
No can do...
Things like the d10 hit die, two-weapon fighting, and ranger spells are sort of sacred cows here. They're among the things that can't go -- one of the reasons I'm having trouble toning the ranger down. One thing I'm considering is the removal of Uncanny Dodge -- it's unneccessary and doesn't stack very well when multiclassed (you could, for example, take one level of rogue and acquire the bonus to dodge traps all of the sudden).
Things like the d10 hit die, two-weapon fighting, and ranger spells are sort of sacred cows here. They're among the things that can't go -- one of the reasons I'm having trouble toning the ranger down. One thing I'm considering is the removal of Uncanny Dodge -- it's unneccessary and doesn't stack very well when multiclassed (you could, for example, take one level of rogue and acquire the bonus to dodge traps all of the sudden).
Tarin Greenflame
First Post
Dunno, technically dual wield is not a true rangerly ability. It was alllll started with Drizzt =p and Drizzt started as a fighter! Besides, not all rangers wish to DW, ya know. D10 hp is also not an original ranger trait...
But hey, this is your revision, so do what you want with it. Uncanny dodge being removed seems like the best choice, and like ya said multiclassing can easily cover it.
But hey, this is your revision, so do what you want with it. Uncanny dodge being removed seems like the best choice, and like ya said multiclassing can easily cover it.
Similar Threads
