What's a Monte Ranger?

[jester47]

Well... Generaly, I guess, it's assumed if a class doesn't list a feature, it doesn't have it. I mean, it doesn't specificly state that Rangers don't get sneek attack, but...

That is a very good point. And under a normal situation where it was a new class that did not share an name with another I think that would be the way to look at it. However I would say that since it is a redo of a whole class that it needs to say if the class gets the virtual feats or not. That is a change and it needs to be documented, simply for clarity.

Aaron.

 

[dagger]

I disagree, that class has been out for a while and this has never come up. Besides the two feats are in the bonus feat list.....

 

[dagger]

I took this off the pdf, make it pretty darn clear:



Bonus Feats: At 1st level, the ranger gets a bonus
feat in addition to the feat that any 1st-level character
gets or the bonus feat granted to humans.The
ranger gains an additional bonus feat at 4th level and
every three levels thereafter (7th 10th, 13th, 16th,
and 19th).

These bonus feats must be drawn from the following
list: Ambidexterity, Blind-Fight, Combat
Reflexes, Dodge (Mobility, Spring Attack), Exotic
Weapon Proficiency, Expertise (Improved Disarm,
Improved Trip,Whirlwind Attack), Favored Enemy
Critical Strike, Favored Enemy Strike,Mounted
Combat (Mounted Archery, Trample, Ride-By
Attack, Spirited Charge), Point Blank Shot (Far
Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Shot on the Run),
Quick Draw, Two-Weapon Fighting (Improved
Two-Weapon Fighting),Weapon Finesse*, and
Weapon Focus*.

 

[Tsyr]

I'm not disagreeing with you, Tsyr, but wouldn't that be a bit much, even though it's a very circumstantial bonus?

No, I don't think so.


First, as you said... it's a pretty circumstantial bonus. IOW, like favored enemy, it's up to the DM to allow a player to use it. And there is a better than even chance that the player will not get to use it in any given adventure.

Second, none of those skills, esp. with the small bonus, are probably going to break a game. It won't mean he can forrage a feast for a king in the desert, for example, or hide from an entire army behind a nearby tree. It just gives him a slight edge, nothing more.

Third, but related to second, is that except for track, none of these features are likely to help out a group as a whole terribly much. The extra +2 to wilderness lore probably won't let the ranger keep them alive in much worse conditions than they normaly could, for example. And hide and move silently are mostly for the rangers survival, not the party... sure, it lets him be a better scout (for the party), but really the skills keep him alive, not aid the party. If you follow the difference.

This is all IMO, of course.

 

[Enforcer]

In my upcoming campaign, only elves will use the standard Ranger class, while everyone else will use the Woodsman (with fighter saves and only 4 skill points). I really don't like the two-weapon fighting and spells given to the standard ranger, but I do think that such a class represents elven guardians/scouts quite well.

Shrug, that's my take on it...at least we've had no preaching from the zealots (of either side, PHB or alt.ranger) in this thread, thank you one and all.

 

[jester47]

I would not say that is "pretty darn clear." Here is why: Under the normal ranger if you want to use Two Weapon Fighting and Ambidexterity with medium and heavy armor, you still have to take the feats using the regular feats you get from character advancement. The question comes up, "What if I am wearing light armor? Do I still ge the virtual feats?" All it says is that I can use the bonus feats to buy from a specific set of feats, not if the virtual feats are present or not. I mean it is pretty much set theory here. Writing a rule that includes one set does not exclude another unless that rule excludes that other set.

Aaron.

 

[Tsyr]

I would not say that is "pretty darn clear." Here is why: Under the normal ranger if you want to use Two Weapon Fighting and Ambidexterity with medium and heavy armor, you still have to take the feats using the regular feats you get from character advancement. The question comes up, "What if I am wearing light armor? Do I still ge the virtual feats?" All it says is that I can use the bonus feats to buy from a specific set of feats, not if the virtual feats are present or not. I mean it is pretty much set theory here. Writing a rule that includes one set does not exclude another unless that rule excludes that other set.

Aaron.

I don't think it's really that confusing.

The class is FULLY wrote out. It's not a list of suggested changes. It's not a half-arsed job that just gave a new BAB and nothing else. It's not a re-mapping of the spell lists. It is a class as fully fleshed out as any core class you will find anywhere, in any book. Everything from the ground up is listed... class skills, skill points, BAB progression, saves, spells, feats, abilities. Everything. No where in it does it say that it has the feats mentioned at first level free. No where. When it says every single other thing it has. Including 'track' and the favored enemy progression at the same levels that they occour in the PHB. So it seems pretty clear that Monte wasn't going to assume that players would add things that he didn't put in there just because it happened to be in the PHB. Thus, he did not intend for the ranger to get these feats.

 

[jester47]

I'm not confused at all. I just like things to be expicit.

Granted the PDF is not an errata, and the class probably does not get the virtual feats, (I would like to hear from monte on this) but wouldn't it be nice to know for sure? I am inclined to agree that they are not included because giving the virtual feats would definately make it a little too powerful.

Aaron.

 

[MerricB]

Jester, Monte's ranger is a self-contained class. You don't need to refer to the PH at all to use it (except for the spell descriptions).

Notice that it keep the description of how the favoured enemy ability works (it doesn't tell you to refer to the PH).

It does not say anything about the virtual feats; it doesn't have them.

Cheers!

 

[Tsyr]

I'm not confused at all. I just like things to be expicit.

1) If you aren't confused, what is the arguement about in the first place?

2) Should he go back in the BOEM2 and EXPLICITLY state that his new Bard class doesn't get the original spellcasting? Or that his new Sorc doesn't get the old spell list in addition to the new one? I mean... when a class is fully wrote up, not just a list of changes, I guess it's assumed that nothing that isn't listed is part of it.


Gah.

I'm sorry. It's late, I shouldn't even be posting right now. And for the record, I'm not a big fan of Monte's ranger either... still has one of the two intrinsic problems I have with the PHB ranger (reliance on spells). But from where I sit, and I don't mean this to be insulting though it probably will sound that way, it almost seems like you are TRYING to find... points of contention, I guess, on this issue. That's sorta why I flew off the handle last time. I'm gonna go back and edit it to be not quite so... edgy.