What's wrong with the single-classed Ranger?

[hong]

(as efficiently as a rogue, but has no incentive to get closer).

Obviously then the d00d in your example must have been a rogue.

 

[Kai Lord]

For the rogue? Hunting down a wand of forestfold.

It's either very easy, or impossible.

And yet you still didn't answer the question. I'm shocked. Later hong.

 

[hong]

And yet you still didn't answer the question.

What part of "for the rogue, hunting down a wand of forestfold" do you have trouble understanding?

I'm shocked. Later hong.

Haw haw!!!1 Kai Lord wants the last word!1!!

 

[Kai Lord]

What part of "for the rogue, hunting down a wand of forestfold" do you have trouble understanding?

You didn't answer the question because the question was not "which is easier for the Rogue," but "which is easier, a Ranger preparing spells or a Rogue finding an unbelievably obscure wand crafted by a class that rarely makes wands at all." You would have recognized this if you had paid attention to the context of where the discussion was at that point.

Haw haw!!!1 Kai Lord wants the last word!1!!

I'm adding you to my Ignore List, hong, and I'm not telling you that as a petty "I'm not listening to you, na na na na!" though you and others might very well take it that way. I'm telling you because this is not the first or the second time I've seen you come onto a thread where people were enjoying a discussion and poison it with negativity and blind obtuseness that has no basis whatsoever in the context of the discussion, and when someone does that I think they should know.

I have no problem with the many people who disagreed with me here. But jumping in without any clue whatsoever of what's even being discussed (Elven cloak and boots are better than Forestfold! I don't even know what Forestfold is! I can't answer a direct question!) just saps the entertainment value out of the discussion. Whether its intentional or not, its old.

I'm surprised you haven't assaulted the thread with your signature wanger spam.

To everyone else, sorry for the derailment. You won't have to endure another exchange between myself and hong again. We now return you to your regularly scheduled Ranger pimping.

 

[hong]

You didn't answer the question because the question was not "which is easier for the Rogue,"

From the point of view of the rogue, it's irrelevant what spells the ranger can cast. The only relevant thing is whether it's possible to duplicate the effects of those spells. And yes, it is indeed possible.

but "which is easier, a Ranger preparing spells or a Rogue finding an unbelievably obscure wand

Point me to a rules reference that says forestfold (if it exists in the game world in the first place) must be obscure. And if it is so obscure, how come your ranger just happens to know it?

crafted by a class that rarely makes wands at all."

Point me to a rules reference that says rangers rarely participate in item creation.

You would have recognized this if you had paid attention to the context of where the discussion was at that point.

D00d, you can do better.

I'm adding you to my Ignore List, hong, and I'm not telling you that as a petty "I'm not listening to you, na na na na!" though you and others might very well take it that way.

D00d, you can do MUCH better.

I'm telling you because this is not the first or the second time I've seen you come onto a thread

Sorry, let me wipe you off.

where people were enjoying a discussion and poison it with negativity and blind obtuseness

You say this like it's a negative thing.

Hmmm.

that has no basis whatsoever in the context of the discussion, and when someone does that I think they should know.

Why do you believe I give a damn what you think?

I have no problem with the many people who disagreed with me here. But jumping in without any clue whatsoever of what's even being discussed (Elven cloak and boots are better than Forestfold!

Point me to where I said elven cloak and boots are better than forestfold.

I don't even know what Forestfold is!

Point me to where this makes a whit of difference to anything I've said.

I can't answer a direct question!)

D00d, you have yet to ask me a direct question.

just saps the entertainment value out of the discussion. Whether its intentional or not, its old.

I'm still HIGHLY entertained.

I'm surprised you haven't assaulted the thread with your signature wanger spam.

I have many signatures. Speaking of which....

 

[Kibo]

I'm adding you to my Ignore List, hong

I did that, and it's been sweet. Now instead of giant chunks of what might as well be a stream of random characters that I had to scroll past, I just get a little tiny line that I rarely even notice. It's more convienent than you'd think. I was certainly surprised.

Once more, I've never even seen someone quote something of Hong's that made me reconsider. I mean just by luck alone you'd think with his volume of posts he'd eventually just stumble on to something interesting and get it quoted. Oddly enough, not so.

But I'm not posting this to bust on Hong. I'm sure he has his fans. After all some people consider Jerry Lewis and Steve-O comic geniuses, but they'd be on my ignore list too.

 

[hong]

But I'm not posting this to bust on Hong.

Your slip is showing, not-Kibo.

 

[kibbitz]

a) The TWF Chain. Not in 1E, was brought in for 2E. Now we have it in 3E. Not a huge problem, but why is it an essential part of being a Ranger? Why do all Rangers get to have this chain?

Kai Lord
They simple have a talent for it, presumably as a by-product for being so in touch with their surroundings.

Sorry, I don't see how all Rangers would have a talent for this, nor how being in touch with surroundings endow Rangers with such abilities.

Please. A Ranger not fighting with two weapons is akin to a Wizard not bothering with a familiar. An ignored perk yes, but hardly the signature ability of the class. They're feats for crying out loud.

They're virtual feats that EVERY Ranger has. That is plenty signature, IMO.

Psyduck
Did I mention the twf/ambi feats? No, and because they really aren't necessities. They are just extras. If your Ranger archer is cornered, he'll probably be glad he can duel wield.

So why can ALL rangers dual-wield?

b) Why have the feats as virtual? These are not things which you lose the ability to use just by donning heavier armour.

c) A common argument used when commenting about Rangers NOT using TWF is that they are immaterial, see quotes above for examples. If so, you should have no argument if the TWF feats were to be spread out? Say TWF at Lvl 1, Ambidexterity at 5 or so?

d) Since the TWF isn't really a necessity, how unbalancing would it be to allow players to swap this virtual feat chain for another? Say one of those 3-feat Archery chains?

e) Regarding spells, and that bit about out-Stealthing rogues, when do you actually get Forestfold as a spell? And Hunter's Mercy?

Kai Lord
Nevertheless, I believe there is a section in the PHB that states that new spells can be added to the core spell lists, and gives rules/guidelines for doing so. So Hunter's Mercy is supported by the PHB. Heh heh. One of the perks of being a spellcaster....

Using examples with material drawn from supplements isn't very useful because not everyone will be using them in a standard D&D game, whether it's because they lack the supplements or whether because they prefer not to use those specific spells. Better to consider things in terms of core, namely the PHB, DMG and MM, IMO.

Anyway, unless Forestfold is extremely low-level and works everywhere, you won't be getting that as an advantage for a while, so that is useful for a look at higher level Rangers vs Rogues. BTW, would Forestfold stack with Boots and Cloaks of Elvenkind? Would definitely be fearsome

Kai Lord:
So? What kind of campaign doesn't have humans in it? Or dragons, demons, undead, or aberrations? Boom, there's your five. And those are just some catch-all enemies to choose in case your DM was a complete jerk. Classes aren't designed to be jerk-proof, just cool and functional.

Kai Lord, With regards to Favoured Enemy, you're gaining them at the rate of what? +1 every four levels? In time, yes, you'll cover most usual enemies. However, you must admit that it won't be as reliable as WS unless you're facing a lot of those opponents for which it applies to (which would require extreme foresight on your part, or extreme cooperation from your DM). It's not as bad as it sounds (unless the DM is out to get you, or unless you pick a relatively rare monster group) but it's certainly not as great as you make it out to be, IMO.

I certainly don't think Rangers are weak, but I do think some tweaks would be good.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Um, no. At 4th level, a Ranger has a caster level of 2. The Animal Friendship spell only lets you befriend your HD worth of animals unless you remain in one place for an extended period of time (i.e. unless you stop adventuring). If you give up adventuring, then you can have twice your spell casting level worth of HD in animal companions, but unless you do that, you just have your caster level, and a ranger's caster level is half his level.



Since an adventuring ranger has to be 24th level to be able to have a dire bear animal companion, no, he doesn't look better. A 15th level adventuring ranger can have a 6 HD animal companion at most, a creature that would be toast in less than a round against almost any CR 15 encounter.

A ranger's animal companion is pretty useless most of the time. [/B]

May I make a small correction/addendum?

While it is true that the Animal Friendship spell is useless to the ranger, don't overlook the benefits of skill points placed in Animal Empathy and Animal Handling. A 4th level ranger with 10 CHA and AE5, AH7 gets +9 on his check to drain animals (and dire animals). A 4HD dire bat is DC24 to train or DC19 to rear from young. So a ranger could take 10 over a year to unfailing raise a Dire Bat which he can train to do specific tasks. (of course, your DM might not give you a year, but the chance is there).

A dire bear is 12HD, so DC27 to rear, or DC32 to train a wild one. A 15th level ranger could easily have AE5, AH18, get +20 on his roll and an excellent chance to train his own personal Dire Bear circus. If he has a decent CHA, AE9 and skill focus(animal handling) he should have little trouble training Tyrannosaurs to fight for him.

You are right that caster level makes animal friendship almost useless for rangers - but if the DM allows him time to put his skills to use, a high level ranger can use non-magic means to get some very powerful trained allies.

Cheers

 

[Plane Sailing]

The reason why the ranger is VERY balanced with any other class and arguably even more powerful is because of the +1BAB, +4skill points, +d10 HP per level. That combination can be found in no other Core Class.

Well, um, Barbarians get +1 BAB, +4 skill points and +1d12hp per level. Does that count?