Felon said:
Please don't be obtuse. Class abilities are, in many cases, very specialized skillsets. As in "a wizard is skilled at casting spells". I'm taking a comprehensive look at the total class package--skills, class features, hit dice, saves, etc--over the course of 20 levels, and possibly more, whereas you're commited to looking at a very narrow conception of what a ranger should be, which sounds like a character that would never advance beyond maybe 5th level. Case in point...
Is he suppose to retire at 5th-level? No, I don't think so.
This hypothetical ranger probably doesn't know anything about magic, because he's too low level. Now what do you think a 15th-level ranger spends his time doing? The same thing he was doing at 3rd-level, using the same skillset? In D&D, not likely.
He would be doing the same thing as the other non-spellcasting classes.
He's OK, but in what capacity does a ranger currently excel based purely on his martial prowess? The brute strength niche is covered by the barbarian, the versatility niche is covered by the fighter, and the rogue's sneak attack outdamages them all.
He doesn't. He's not outright better than any of the other fighting classes, but he does have more skills than anyone but the rogue (and he's tougher than the rogue - a few more hit points
and a good Fort save).
Maybe I'm not getting the thrust of your arguement here, but trading in an inadequate feature for a more effective one doesn't automatically unbalance a class. He's not giving up much, and he's not really getting much. He lost a little versatility, and he's getting a decent defensive ability.
Isn't that like taking a powerful class (the cleric) and trading in Turn Undead for something more powerful? A cleric can do that, but it will cost him feat slots. (Or he can take a busted PrC.)
You seem determined not to get the other guy's point, but I'll try to put it more plainly: what class features do you think a mid-to-high-level ranger should possess?
Anytime a new ranger thread comes up, there's usually a list of class features people look at, not all of which are stolen from the barbarian
The general purpose is to take the ranger's
skills and make them more useful - for instance, Camouflage is a great example. It takes an existing skill (Hide) and makes it a lot more useful (you can hide without cover). I think Hide in Plain Sight went a bit too far, however.
What should the ranger be capable of doing at the level that a priest is learning to cast heal? Whether it's a supernatural or extraordinary ability, it should be something that other classes don't already have covered.
]
Fair enough, but a few abilities (mainly fast movement and uncanny dodge) come up over and over again. I'm not too fond of uncanny dodge (you already have Listen and Spot as class skills) but I do think it's more flavorful than Evasion.
You mean like the same good explanation for how a bard's music can grant a similar immunity?
Bardic music is supernatural.
Just curious, do you have similar beefs about other classes? How about bards casting spells? Should they just be magicless guys who hang out in bars and strum their mandolins? Perhaps so, but this would make a bard unplayable.
That would be an NPC expert with lots of ranks in Perform (storytelling). Of course, if he had a great BAB and some other cool features, he would be a PC class.
(D20 Modern has a very similar Charismatic Hero class that can do something similar to the bard without magic.)
Ssquirrel said:
Heh you should look back to last month in House Rules. DrSpunj has a thread about a balance sheet which is an excel spread sheet that tweaks D&D and AU into a point buy system. To make Fighters equal out in the balancing with teh otehr classes ( as well as to make each level more "fun") they gain a bonus feat at EACH level not every other.
Perhaps that is so (I think the fighter needs more powerful high BAB feats, rather than more feats) but Weapon Specialization is still the "classic" fighter feature. No one is proposing giving a ranger rage, for instance.
