Why so much attention on the Ranger?

[Steverooo]

Overall, I think the Ranger class should be stripped of spells because it isn't important to the archetype.

And I disagree... This subject has been hashed back and forth MANY times! That's why I say that the Ranger class must have options for Spell-slinging and Spell-less versions included. It is the only mechanic that will please both camps!

 

[Steverooo]

And then there were the rangers. They stood out to me as a class which had a lot of stuff removed and almost no exciting new unique class features to make it an exciting class like the others.

That was my beef. Even just compared to 2e he lost his merry band of exotic followers and his ability to calm animals (unless he spent skill points on empathy, shared with druids). It gets worse when compared with earlier editions.

The 3.5e Ranger has something called "Wild Empathy", too... We wonders what, we does...

 

[Mercule]

And I disagree... This subject has been hashed back and forth MANY times! That's why I say that the Ranger class must have options for Spell-slinging and Spell-less versions included. It is the only mechanic that will please both camps!

Unfortunately, that's just not possible. It essentially turns one class into two, each of which has its own balance points.

That's actually some of my problem with the combat paths. It ends up fastening some sort of "kit" onto the class.

 

[Steverooo]

Unfortunately, that's just not possible. It essentially turns one class into two, each of which has its own balance points.

Actually, I think it's infinitely possible (but that's the great thing about America; we're all free to disagree)! Here how I so it:

Rangers get X Y-level spell slots per day at level Z. I allow them to trade in a slot (which can normally be used to power any Y-level spell) for certain of the abilities normally granted by a spell, and allow it to be usable dependent upon power. Usually, this is limited to Divination and some protection spells (here's where the balance gets tricky).

For example, a fourth-level Ranger with 12+ Wisdom gets one bonus 1rst-level spell/day. He trades this in for Speak with Animals, and now has a Spell-like ability, usable at will.

Yes, the SwA is now much more powerful, but the Ranger has traded in the use of any other spell in return for that option. Balanced (IMO).

At 7th level, he picks up another 1rst-level spell. He can trade that away for Endure Elements: Cold, gaining five points of resistance to cold, but never allowing him to use other spells. Once again, he has traded in versatility for constant use (and gained nothing, in this case, since the spell ordinarily lasts 24 hours). (Yes, I know 3e Rangers can't cast Endure Elements - I gave it to them, in my version, as well as Orisons and other spells).

Now some spell-like effects (Cure Light Wounds and other healing spells, Protection from Elements, etc.), have to be limited to once per day use (making it a bit odd to remove them as spells in the first place), but with some balancing on how often spells are usable, it can (and does!) work.

But that's not the only way! There's also another method that also works!

The other method is to allow Rangers Bonus Feats, and have one or more of those grant spell use! Those who think Rangers shouldn't cast can take other forms of abilities which are mundane.

Either of these two methods should work. In my version, I put the two together, granting spell use automatically, but granting individual Ranger-Only Feats which traded a spell slot for a supernatural ability (thus requiring a loss of flexibility & utility, as well as "burning" a Ranger-Only Feat).

Ymmv. It works for me. Don't want a Ranger who tosses spells? Try one who can Pass Without Trace, at will, instead.

 

[Droogie]

Re: the combat styles---its really starting to bug me the more I think about it. I think most of the posters on this thread agree that its a bad idea.

Are we just the vocal minority here, or do most D&D players feel the same way about this?

More importantly, if we felt stongly enough about it, would WotC listen to us? And is there time for WotC to change things before 3.5 went to press?

 

[Azzy]

Re: the combat styles---its really starting to bug me the more I think about it. I think most of the posters on this thread agree that its a bad idea.

Are we just the vocal minority here, or do most D&D players feel the same way about this?

Can't answer that, but it's generally looked on favourably over on the WotC boards.

Personally, I like the idea, but would like to see a few more than just two paths. This way, the TWF fans can have their fun, and so can the archery fans. Which would I choose--depends on the character concept, but I like the option.

Now, if only they'd boost favoured enemy so that the bonus is same for each enemy instead of being screwed on the later FEs you choose. Oh, and allow that damage bonus to be applied to undead, et all. It's not like it has to be like a critical hit in that it's a well-placed shot, I've always seen it as that little extra "umph" you give to the very special something you hate.

 

[Merlion]

I think they are going to make the bonuses even from what I've been hearing