Y.A.A.R! (Yet Another Alternate Ranger)

[Kannik]

I know, we should all stop... especially with 3.5e coming out. Still, I thought I'd jump ahead and put these out before 3.5e steals the spotlight, and also since I think this takes a slightly different tact because there are _2_ ranger classes here!

Essentially, to me it seemed that there was a core disagreement over what a ranger should _be_, let alone what powers they had. So, I split the ranger into two different classes: A wilderness warrior/scout/uncannyfighter, and a wilderness (or druidic) paladin.

I tried to balance the two out vis-a-vis existing classes and abilities. Please have a look-see and let me know what you think about, well, everything about them!

Find them here!

Let the fun begin, }

Kannik

 

[Stalker0]

Starting with the wilderness ranger.

Things I like:

1) The progression of favored enemy and the bonus feat gives something to the ranger about every level.

2) Giving bonus to attack and damage makes the skill more useful, even against "poor" favored enemies.

3) I like the new save progression, and I also don't like it. See below.

Things I didn't like:

1) I think overland movement is an extraneous ability. For one, as a player I don't having to consult tables constantly for my players abiliies. You have to do that for track now, and doing it for overland movement is a pain, and not really a game defining ability.

2) The saves are not standard, and that makes backwards compatability a problem. While as a player I probably wouldn't mind the change at all, from a game mechanics standpoint I don't like it.

3) There is no real reason to give wisdom to this ranger. Obviously, wisdom is good for saves and certain skills, but overall its not as required like it was for the phb ranger. Reducing the required stats a ranger needs can significantly increase its power.

Overall, I think its an excellent, and well thought out concept.

Now, to the next one.

Things I like:

1) Making the animal companion more like the paladin's mount allows it to live longer at higher levels, which is the main problem with them now. Also, it allows it to constantly upgrade. I'm assuming that this version only allows one companion correct?

2) I like nature's peril, I think it makes sense with one change...see below.

3) Again favored enemy/terrain a good concept.

Things I don't like:

1) Nature's peril seems it should be more a wisdom bonus than a charisma bonus. The paladin's charisma represents his blessing by his god to avoid peril. For the ranger, it makes more sense that his experience in the wild saves him more than a higher being. Also, by using charimsa you are forcing the ranger to take on another key stat, which can be a problem.

2) The concept steps on the druid's toes. For one, your animal companion is stronger than the druid's. Also, they get trackless step. I would rather see unique abilities for the ranger that doesn't copy the druid.

Again, another excellent idea. Overall, I like your first concept bettter, but I've always liked a spellless ranger.

 

[Kannik]

Starting with the wilderness ranger.

1) -nodnoddies- That was a good part of what I was aiming for. Making it more flexible, but also making the progression smoother so that there wasn't these big blank areas where all you were gaining were HP, Saves and Spot increases.

3) I'll admit, I didn't give much thought at all to backwards compatibility with this class. I gave thought to keeping the abilities in line, and the power in line, but not much in ensuring a pre-genned character could be easily ported over. (Hmm, I wonder if 3.5e will use the 'average' save progression, given how many other of the systems do now ) But I do like that you agree with the new progression overall }

Things I didn't like:

1) That is true--table looking is a pain. Making a ranger character sheet (or cheat sheet separatly) with both tracking, wilderness lore et al tables/rules/etc on them is probably necessary; a disadvantage when you are a skill class.

I also can forsee a problem in that the GM has to already know the capabilities of the PCs in travelling overland, so the extra time saved by having the Ranger do his thing, unless the GM is generous and says 'you get there 3 days early! you can now plan before what you know will come to pass comes to pass', the only advantage would be money saved on provisions. Hmmm.

Removing it or leaving it in doesn't really change the power balance of the class much. Though if it were to be removed, it would be nice to replace it with a similar 'neat' ability that helps set the ranger apart.

3) true... though if you are planning on playing the ambush-spotting, uber-trackin' ranger, wis is still important. Not as important as when one had spells of course, but unless some new ability pops in that uses wisdom to a great extent (favoured bonus limited by wisdom bonus??)...

Overall, I think its an excellent, and well thought out concept.

Woowoo! }

Now, to the next one.

Things I like:

1) Correct -- only one companion. It always seemed strange to me you'd choose an animal companion... then later send it away and get a different one, lest your companion be more of a dependant than a companion. So you gain one, and it can stay with you for a long time, a longtime companion.

Things I don't like:

1) I struggled a bit with this one. I was trying to make the ranger about on par with the paladin overall, and making wisdom govern his spells, his many skills AND his nature's peril seemed a bit much. It could be argued that the Ranger needs Dex unlike a paladin, who may be in heavy armour, so it balances out to an extent. Hmm. I'll have to think about this more...

2) Well, it could be argued the paladin steps on the clerics toes, what with all that curing and that undead turning } The companion was on purpose (being stronger, though not by an uber-amount), as it will more often be put in harm's way than a druids (or so it can be argued). I was trying to balance the druid/ranger commonality with their differences; I'd certainly be open, though, to any suggestions about alternate powers }:>

Again, another excellent idea. Overall, I like your first concept bettter, but I've always liked a spellless ranger.

-grin- Which was exactly my goal--two rangers for two different styles. }

Thanks a tonne for the comments! I'm glad you liked... if you ever get a chance to use one in a campaign, let me know how they turn out }:>

Kannik

 

[Kannik]

One bump. Just one. }

Kannik

 

[seasong]

Good stuff. I'll leave balance issues to others, but the idea of the ranger as representing a druidic paladin really gives me a thrill - this is the first good excuse for the ranger class working how it works that I've heard.

 

[Kannik]

Good stuff. I'll leave balance issues to others, but the idea of the ranger as representing a druidic paladin really gives me a thrill - this is the first good excuse for the ranger class working how it works that I've heard.

Woo! As a longtime pre-FTV-subtitled-ktsf26-sf-before-I-even-moved-to-the-bay-area Iron Chef fan, to have the current Iron DM champ like the class is high praise indeed! }:>

I thought I'd throw in my balance stuff/reasonings since it seemed that many of the alt.rangers out there often elicited comments of either 'oy!' or 'huh?', ie, either too powerful or even worse off than before. Of course, others might very well disagree with my reasonings...

Thanks a tonne!

Kannik