Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Uller" data-source="post: 12967" data-attributes="member: 413">I think the ranger is fine as is for what it seeks to be: A mystical-wilderness-warrior type.  He is compitant with martial weapons, skilled in tracking and stealth, has keen sight and hearing, and at one with nature.   There is no class combination that can uniquely acheive this.  (Edit: if I had my way...he'd be purely a wilderness fighter/tracker/hunter...no spells...but that's not what this class seeks to be).I'd like to see him have a bit more skill points(maybe a "free" Wilderness Lore point or something), and a bit more flexibility in his quasi-feats(but not too much or they would be overly useful or spread them out over other levels).As for the ranger being too front loaded...that's totally bogus, IMO.What does a ranger get?Feats:  Two melee combat feats with the caveat that he you can't wear any thing heavier than light armor and light encumberance(people forget the encumberance part, methinks).   This is not really that useful except for Rogues who generally travel lightly anyway...most other lightly armored character types tend to shy away from melee combat and even rogues are best off not wading right in too much.  Track is a skill that is useful on in specific circumstances and unless you are doing a lot of following/tracking in your campaign, it doesn't come up THAT often...in my experience, about once every 4 games or so...how useful is a feat that only gets used once every 4 games or so?Compare that to the fighter who gets a TRUE feat at first level and another at second.  If you want to dual wield, you are far better off taking two levels of fighter than one of ranger, IMO because you can then wear some armor.+1 BAB and +2 to one save and d10 hp...about average with most other combat classes.Favored Enemy...big deal...only really useful in games where you are facing a specific enemy all the time.  Most games, in my experience have a variety of enemies because players and DMs get bored fighting the same bad guys all the time.So where is the front loading...just because it is useful for flushing out a VERY specific arch-type(a stealthy dual-wielding fighter-types who wear little armor and carry little gear) does not make it overly front loaded...lots of classes do that...Fighters: If your character concept is a non-fighter who is competant in combat, take two levels of fighter...Rogues: You wanna be able to search for traps?  Rogue.  Who wouldn't like to deal an extra 1d6 damage when you've got an enemy flanked?Clerics:  Who doesn't want to be able to cast three CLWs per day and use any cleric wand?Wizards: If you don't wear armor...Scrolls of SHIELD!  All Wizard wands!  For just one level!Barbarian: RAGE!  Sure it's only once per day...but sometimes once is all you need. (Edit: and +10ft to your move!  for just one level)Bard: Bestow +1 to attack, damage and saves to the whole party! +2 to TWO saves! Monks: If you don't wear armor and you have a good Wisdom...this is the class for you.  One level can increase your AC by +2 or more depending on you wisdom. (Edit: and +2 to ALL your saves...That's a deal!)My point is...just because a class helps fill some character concept does not make it front loaded or unbalanced.</blockquote>

Verification