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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Henry@home" data-source="post: 12176" data-attributes="member: 159">I agree totally - your ranger should and shall be different and stand out from mine. However, I hope we can agree that the basic design goal behind 3E was to provide an internally balanced and consistent system, where no one path was clearly superior to all other choices. The goal was to have all class choices equally appealing for different reasons.The ranger suffers from only one game design problem, and it is this: Unlike the Rogue, the Fighter, the Barbarian, the Paladin, and the Monk, it does not behoove a player any game advantage to stick with the Ranger for more than one level - 1 level is plenty to get over half of the advantages of the Ranger. Also, unlike the fighter, the sorcerer, the wizard, and the bard, sticking with ranger for the length of your career does not give you dramatic advantages that could not be gotten by choosing another class. In summary, he is "front-loaded". From this standpoint, he does not succeed in the test of balance that is passed for all the other classes. Even picking rogue for only your first level of experience, a choice that was once thought by some to be a glaring loophole in the rules, is not an attractive option - that plethora of skills you get are all low-level!From a role-play standpoint, you can make almost any kind of character you desire in these rules, and they are all just as fun. From a game design standpoint, it fails the test succeeded by all the other character classes - not enough desirability to stake a career in Ranger, other than for roleplaying reasons - you get all the most important benefits at first level. It has nothing to do with having the most powerful combo - rather, the Ranger as he stands now is a little TOO favorable to multiclassing, if you follow me.</blockquote>

Verification