What's a Monte Ranger?
- Thread starter malichai
- Start date
Tsyr said:
Yeah, you're right. That would work well. Anyway, my point wasn't to say that Aragorn is an example of why rangers would cast spells. It was just the slight nitpick that Aragorn does -- although it doesn't detract from the validity of the original argument. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
I dont consider Aragorn the quinessential roleplaying ranger. I consider the Gary Gygax's 1st edition version of the ranger as the quinessential ranger. Aragorn became a king, which most rangers would not want to do, so I dont think of Aragorn as a serious ranger.
A warrior who is adept in the forest, and casts the occasional spell is my definition of a ranger. That sounds like a 1st edition ranger.
A warrior who is adept in the forest, and casts the occasional spell is my definition of a ranger. That sounds like a 1st edition ranger.
The PHB ranger is so very bad I can't even believe they put it in the book, 3 feats and loads of goodies for just 1 level....
The Monte Ranger is way overpowerd, every ability is better except its hit-points and even that is still high.
The WoT ranger is very balanced but some people will mis the few spells they are used to have. Still in abilities its awesome.
But I did nobody jet mention the Infiltrator of KoKpg. It got very good abilities and sneak attack instead of favored enemy. No spell casting but who needs it
Lai
The Monte Ranger is way overpowerd, every ability is better except its hit-points and even that is still high.
The WoT ranger is very balanced but some people will mis the few spells they are used to have. Still in abilities its awesome.
But I did nobody jet mention the Infiltrator of KoKpg. It got very good abilities and sneak attack instead of favored enemy. No spell casting but who needs it
Lai
Chun-tzu
First Post
laiyna said:
Monte's Ranger probably is overpowered (that seems to be the most common response), but I think it's still preferrable to the PHB Ranger. Because even with the various power boosts, Monte's Ranger is still more a utility character than anything.
He's still no competition for the fighter or barbarian in ability to deal damage or take damage. A lot of people would rather take Monte's Ranger over Fighter; okay. But I bet a good number of players would still rather have the extra hit points, heavy armor, and weapon specialization.
Does Monte's Ranger have too many feats? Maybe. For one, at least this gives a Ranger a chance to be _almost_ as good an archer as the Fighter, and when we go back to the archetypes, many of us want the Ranger to be as good an archer or better than the Fighter. If your campaign uses prestige classes, and players take them early (level 5 or 6), then Monte's Ranger nets you exactly zero extra feats over the PHB Ranger. It's clearly a benefit, but I wouldn't call it unbalancing.
So for all it's supposed munchiness, I don't see Monte's Ranger as necessarily more attractive than the Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric, or Rogue, nor are Fighters and Barbarians going to lose their jobs.
fett527
First Post
In our campaign we have actually accepted both the Woodsman and the Ranger. We look at the Woodsman as just that-a WOODsman. A person living off the woods in harmony. This is usually people's perception of the Ranger, but it is not necessarily so. The Ranger we look at as more of a protector, not always in the woods, could be any terrain. A Woodsman does not need to be a protector. Mind you I have only read the description for the Woodsman once and can't remember all the specifics, this is just how we've adopted things. In our Small Beginnings story hour the character Ander is a Woodsman if you want to see how we've approached it. Link is in the sig.
Isawa Sideshow
First Post
The Rokugani ranger variant is interesting; instead of spells, they get bonus Fighter feats (except for Weapon Specialization) whenever they would gain a new spell level. You could easily replace the Two Weapon and Imp Two Weapon feats with other bonus feats from that list as well.
Just curious
Now that the woodsman has come up a few times.
I really liked the look at it, but I got the impression that, despite it's lack of spells, it might still have a feel that's slightly "off" for the average d&d setting.
good bab, skills, skill selection, ability to take weapon specialisation.
seemed a bit much at times.
I'd love to hear arguments to the opposite on this, and more stories as to how the woodsman has worked in your games.
Might help me convince my DM's, at one point in time....
Now that the woodsman has come up a few times.
I really liked the look at it, but I got the impression that, despite it's lack of spells, it might still have a feel that's slightly "off" for the average d&d setting.
good bab, skills, skill selection, ability to take weapon specialisation.
seemed a bit much at times.
I'd love to hear arguments to the opposite on this, and more stories as to how the woodsman has worked in your games.
Might help me convince my DM's, at one point in time....
Like I said, Bendrig, the woodsman needs a bit of tweaking to be acceptable for a D&D game.
For example, the saves SUCK. That's because WoT uses the intermediate save mechanic, starting at +1 and ending up at +9 at level 20 (which I think D&D should have had, BTW).
Also, all classes in WoT have more skill points. The Armsman has the least with 4. So the Woodsman's 6 (IIRC) is maybe a bit much (YMMV).
The Nature's Warrior ability is VASTLY superior to favoured enemy, which I never really liked anyway. A ranger should be able to fight better in the land which he guards, not against a specific enemy. That makes him more of a specialty hunter or assassin than anything else.
And the woodsman is not limited to forests, either, since you get many terrain choices, and more later on. It's easier to make a Dwarven underground ranger using that system.
Partial Improved Initiative is good, but doesn't make the class as top-heavy as the two-weapon fighting feats. All in all, the class just seems better balanced.
As for FFG's book, does anyone know what it's called?
For example, the saves SUCK. That's because WoT uses the intermediate save mechanic, starting at +1 and ending up at +9 at level 20 (which I think D&D should have had, BTW).
Also, all classes in WoT have more skill points. The Armsman has the least with 4. So the Woodsman's 6 (IIRC) is maybe a bit much (YMMV).
The Nature's Warrior ability is VASTLY superior to favoured enemy, which I never really liked anyway. A ranger should be able to fight better in the land which he guards, not against a specific enemy. That makes him more of a specialty hunter or assassin than anything else.
And the woodsman is not limited to forests, either, since you get many terrain choices, and more later on. It's easier to make a Dwarven underground ranger using that system.
Partial Improved Initiative is good, but doesn't make the class as top-heavy as the two-weapon fighting feats. All in all, the class just seems better balanced.
As for FFG's book, does anyone know what it's called?
Similar Threads
