Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="billd91" data-source="post: 1780034" data-attributes="member: 3400">But we don't really know what character class any of these characters, or any of the rangers in LotR actually were. Other rangers were probably a mix of classes and it's not like we ever see any of them long enough to tell that they CAN'T do some minor healing, speaking with animals and whatnot. Similarly with Robin Hood. A ranger? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe just a fighter with a rogue level or two. There are plenty of valid interpretations of these characters, not all being the same. To my eyes, it looks like Aragorn has some minor magical abilities.The ranger class in 1st edition is clearly modeled on Aragorn (it even includes the use of scrying devices) and that has been translated down to 3.5. In all versions, spells have been a component. I'm content that the spell list has become one that seems to fit well with the ranger's adventuring out in the wilds.I find the ranger the best revision in 3.5.My complaint about 3.5 is the large scope of minor changes that seem to have little real point to them. This is mostly in spells and monsters. I can see how you'd have to change a bunch of the spell-like abilities of monsters to match the changes in spells, I can understand regularizing the number of feats and skill points they get, and I can understand carefully going over named bonuses in spells to prevent crazy and unbalanced combinations. But why change celestials to angels? Why change the ettin's darkvision to low-light vision? Was there a compelling reason for the change? If not, why bother changing it? Why would you make niggling little changes if the originals aren't grossly broken or confusing?Same with many spells which, I think, are adjusted too far with combat in mind and not other applications. I agree that the buff spells needed some nerfing, but at 1 minute/level, you might not even be able to use any of the mental buff spells to get you through a useful task like having an audience with the duke. Same with invisibility. One minute/level makes scouting out an enemy position a mile or more away impossible.Now, I've heard people argue, mainly with invisibility, that no spell should completely be able to horn in on the niche of the sneaky character types like rogues and rangers. Well I think that's bunk. I don't believe in any character archetype having a necessary role in an adventuring party. I believe that other methods, including magic, should be available that can compensate for missing expertise.</blockquote>

Verification