As someone who plays rangers to the exclusion of most other classes there is already one cause for alarm that I can see in the Alpha Release. Mainly in that the Track feat has been eliminated. Now it does make sense to shove the effects of tracking into Survival but what, if anything does a 1st level ranger get to replace that lost ability? Does he get a bonus to tracking? The ability to track has always been the one thing a ranger is supposed to be able to do better than anyone else.
Next is combat styles, personally I prefer the archery style to the melee style but I still end up wanting my rangers to have this ability. Mainly because I give my rangers a quarterstaff and a pair of light slashing weapons as back up weapons to the bow. With the elimination of Improved Precise Shot this means the last feat has changed. What is going on with this? I really want to know.
Finally we come to the subject of magic. I should hope with the fact the Ranger gets access to Spellcraft as a skill that his spell casting ability, small as it may be, has been retained. This is one of the reasons I like the class. He doesn't get much in the way of spell casting but he does get enough to justify his needing the spellcraft skill and most of his spells were designed to help out with the niche he has in a given campaign world. I partially hope he gets better access to healing spells but I see him as a rescuer among other things and spells like that will help him save lives out in the wilderness.
But this is part of my vision of what a ranger is.
I myself would like to see a track bones . and maybe a skirmish ability and more chores on combat styles other then just 2 . wouldnt mind seeing magic go away or more focused . adding some heal would be nice as would more outdoors druid type spells.
I look at ranger as the druid's answer to the paladin. But I'm a Druid/Witch in real life. I see the ranger's path as potentially as more martial druid in the way a paladin can be a more martial cleric. Which is why I don't want the spell casting ability to go away.
hey man I'm pagan myself. so I understand your connection to the class . i have used them as warrior druids myself . be nice for a more druid like spell focus and as i said a skirmish like ability be nice .
that or a sniper ability for those of us that like to ape Robin Hood.
oh yes should be more then one choice say make it tied into your chosen combat style.
More choices of combat styles would be nice as well. There were some alternative styles in Dragon. If anything could be retained and reused from that, I would love to see it.
Rangers have been a favored class for me as well. I particularly like the archer path and feel that the current changes to the feats nerfs them as skirmish archers. The existing manyshot makes that more than static archers.
I am not as tied to them as spellcasters, but I would like them to have some form of mystical connection to nature. I would also like them to have an animal companion that does not become a liability at higher levels.
I liked the mystic ranger variant that Dragon put out, but with some more spell options. I'm definitely agreeing on the variant weapon styles (since my rangers usually use spears). I'd also like to see them get the trapfinding ability, because it helps keep them up front (where they belong IMO). The animal compainion ends up being more of a liablity, but is nice for flavor.
I guess I see rangers as individuals who love the wilds, but still have some desire for "civilization", whereas the druid sees no need for civilization.
Personally, I'd prefer to see the trapfinding class feature go away, or translate into something other than "This person can succeed at certain types of search checks where others can't." Perhaps an ability to use Perception on traps if moving at half-speed (instead of full-on searching).
Rangers have always been wilderness wise warrior types that can track and get a bonus against the monsters the haunt their chosen territory. That's all got to stay. Weapons styles . . . I get them, but (and I'm a FR fan here) I can't get over the fact that rangers only got two weapon fighting because of Drizzt (seriously, and he only had it in 1st edition because drow had ambidexterity).
Its been around since 2nd edition, so I guess it should stay, but I agree that the combat style should be opened up more. Beyond archer and two weapon fighting, perhaps a crossbow focused ranger, a two handed weapon fighter, and a weapon and shield fighter, and perhaps even an unarmed fighting style. I know, we don't want it getting out of hand.
First off, there was a class acts that expanded on these. Secondly, Monte Cook had a variant ranger in the Book of Hallowed Might that got bonus feats, the list of which included the components of the combat styles, but also had other ranger interest feats as well. I liked that version of the ranger (and hey, it had a d10 for hit points too).
I guess I'm not married to rangers getting spells. I do think they should get nature related spell like abilities, however, just as paladins should have supernatural holy abilities.
As far as trapfinding goes, it might not be a bad fit. I've also been thinking that perhaps trapfinding should work as, "if the DC of the trap is 20 or higher, classes without trapfinding add +10 to the DC of the search check."
It would still make trapfinding worthwhile, but might allow people a chance to find a trap or two without a rogue around.
|
And the funny part about Drizzt is Drizzt gets his Two weapon fighting technically from being a fighter, not a Ranger, but the older multiclassing rules were so inflexible it was easier for them to just worry about him being a ranger.
Like others I like Archer Rangers with a Melee option.. preferably two handed in the form of a bastard sword. While the loss of the feat doesn't bother me, I would love to see the Ranger become a master of tracking and detection and quickness (in terms of being initiative) then anything else.
I did have a list of several ranger styles at one point. One of them simply added a die of sneak attack every time you got a combat style increase. Another was directed around Mounted Combat, and included bonus Natures Bond feats (to make your animal companion a worthy mount). I think another was directed around mobility, or some other thing.
It's been a while since I used them.
|
I personnally would just rather have the Scout. I think it comes with more skills points with better skills selection. There really isn't a part of it I don't like. If you really have to nit-pic about something It's base attack isn't as good as the rangers. I guess if you want a Warrior druid(Ranger) or a military tracker (Scout) these are up to the style of play you are looking for.
In my game the ranger killed the scout and took his stuff.
|
|
In my game the ranger killed the scout and took his stuff.
Was it him and his animal companion? Just kidding. I just like the play ability of scout over the ranger.
I'm not trying to start a flame war but from the posts above it was starting to sound more and more like they were try to create a scout. No spells, trap detection, more damage, more skills, no limitation on weapon styles etc...
Actually, the weapon styles never bothered me, but I'd actually like to see the spellcasting go the way of the dodo. I feel the same way about paladins, though. I just prefer the "warrior" classes to rely on supernatural/spell-like abilities rather than actual spellcasting.
As far as the feats being changed on the archery path, I think that's a problem for everyone. Some of these feat changes are really not necessary.
As far as trapfinding goes, it might not be a bad fit. I've also been thinking that perhaps trapfinding should work as, "if the DC of the trap is 20 or higher, classes without trapfinding add +10 to the DC of the search check."
It would still make trapfinding worthwhile, but might allow people a chance to find a trap or two without a rogue around.
I am of a similar mind on this. this would also allow traps to be expanded to cover snare (which they more or less already do) and natural dangers (rockfalls and such). The trap mechanics could be unified and expanded beyond a simple static trap in this way.
that or a sniper ability for those of us that like to ape Robin Hood.
I play a Ranger very much inspired by Robin Hood and Strider and the Anla'Shok of Babylon 5 (“Live for the One, Die for the One”). What I end up with is, frankly, Rambo (First Blood, not the later two-assault-weapon-at-one-time-firing Rambo). I don’t even use the spells just on principle. Nor do I have an “animal companion.”
If you go back and read the first edition ranger class, you will see that it was intended to model Aragorn, right down to the name of the class. Little bit of clerical magic to model his healing abilities, a little bit of wizardry to model his Dunedain and elven heritage (his line was descended from Elrond's brother) and probably his long association with Gandalf. Then there's the specific bonus to crystal balls to model Aragorn's ability to master the Palantir. Etc.
Then came second edition and Drizz't which generated the next generation model of a ranger.
Much of 2nd carried over to 3rd with the magical abilities for formalized as divine, with some druid class abilities tacked on, and the combat abilities formalized as a series of feat-like choices. Basically, a conversion of the old versions of the ranger to the new rules.
The question is, I guess, is there a new archetype that fits the idealized ranger (1st edition), or will it inform a new archetype (2nd).
On a serious note, I would actually prefer to see the spellcasting disappear in favor of giving Rangers access to a Domain in the same way as a Druid. This allows them to keep their magic-y nature without giving them actual spellcasting powers, which have always been kind of gimp.
I like this ideal a lot.And lets see. yes I took the scouts stuff he was really a variant ranger anyhow.and I love the b5 ranger feel and use that in my game as well I have often used rangers as warrior branch of a druidic order. heavy influenced by b5 rangers I can so see working domains into the ranger would work a lot better then spells i would think.
On a serious note, I would actually prefer to see the spellcasting disappear in favor of giving Rangers access to a Domain in the same way as a Druid. This allows them to keep their magic-y nature without giving them actual spellcasting powers, which have always been kind of gimp.
I like this ideal a lot.And lets see. yes I took the scouts stuff he was really a variant ranger anyhow.and I love the b5 ranger feel and use that in my game as well I have often used rangers as warrior branch of a druidic order. heavy influenced by b5 rangers I can so see working domains into the ranger would work a lot better then spells i would think.
I for have liked using spells, and for an animal companion, as long as I got to play a humanoid wolf, I chose to have a hawk or an eagle or some sort of flier. But I use my companion more as a spy than an extra attack option. The only way I considered other wise was some tricks in Dragon where you could train a hawk or eagle companion to bomb an enemy. Keep the birdie flying and out of reach and stock up on Alchemist's Fire and tanglefoot bags in case I need to bomb the enemy. The PS2 game Mark of Kri had an option I might like for Rangers in the Spirit Guide. The main character had a kind of ravenhawk that he would send ahead to scout around, you could even look through the bird's eyes, this I would love to see emulated in the game.
Ok now the choice between Ranger and Scout was and is still a thing concerning me.
I myself really like BOTH classes. But they are just to similar to exist simultaneously.
(I guess and fear the ranger would feed the scout to his companion...)
One solution would be to make the scout the core class, with trapfinding, swift tracking (a good 1st level sub for tracking) and the skirmish ability.
(I also never understood this ranger-two-weapon-fighting thing. It's just rubbish and only riding on this "Two-Weapons-is-so-cooooool-wave" - Be honest, wherever you look there is always a dork who uses two weapons. It just sucks! Where and when did the good ol' Shield Fighter gone?)
Well, never mind. Next, making the Ranger a Prestige Class (with a strong mystic touch to nature, with spell-like or supernatural abilities or spells).
Easy to get through any Barbarian/Druid/Fighter/Scout combination (and perhaps Rogue/Cleric too).
But that would be a clear break to all editions before.
Man, it's a rough decision...
Oh. Another approach would be to give the rogue some skill and feat options to get the Scout class into it (like the Wilderness Rogue from UA). Wether making the Ranger a PrC or not would still linger on...
Oh I forgot that:
I would like to see Favored Enemy not as a fixed feat every 5 levels, but as an option including several others, especially:
Favored Terrain. I always LOVED this feat! It might need some reworking, but the idea is great!
You could even make this feat a general one (Actually so could Favored Enemy)
One note about Favored Enemies:
I really would like to see this feat replace those stupid +1 on attack racial ability. If not get rid of them all the way!
Just a side note...
Does the Ranger need spells?
Or more woodland abilities?
As someone who plays rangers to the exclusion of most other classes there is already one cause for alarm that I can see in the Alpha Release. Mainly in that the Track feat has been eliminated. Now it does make sense to shove the effects of tracking into Survival but what, if anything does a 1st level ranger get to replace that lost ability? Does he get a bonus to tracking? The ability to track has always been the one thing a ranger is supposed to be able to do better than anyone else.
I am very happy to see the Track feat gone. In my own games I dumped it, rolled it all into the Survival skill, and gave the ranger the option of either Skill Focus: Survival or Skill Focus: Knowledge (nature) at first level.
Next is combat styles, personally I prefer the archery style to the melee style but I still end up wanting my rangers to have this ability. Mainly because I give my rangers a quarterstaff and a pair of light slashing weapons as back up weapons to the bow. With the elimination of Improved Precise Shot this means the last feat has changed. What is going on with this? I really want to know.
I don't like the combat styles at all, or forcing all rangers to be two-weapon fighters. This can go away.
Finally we come to the subject of magic. I should hope with the fact the Ranger gets access to Spellcraft as a skill that his spell casting ability, small as it may be, has been retained. This is one of the reasons I like the class. He doesn't get much in the way of spell casting but he does get enough to justify his needing the spellcraft skill and most of his spells were designed to help out with the niche he has in a given campaign world. I partially hope he gets better access to healing spells but I see him as a rescuer among other things and spells like that will help him save lives out in the wilderness.
I can live with or without rangers having spells, but since they've always been a part of the class, I say keep them.
Randy
Paizo can't keep the scout as a core class; it's not Open Game Content. So the ranger is all they have to play with, leading me to expect some sort of a ranger/scout hybrid.
|
I could live without the combat styles and maybe spells, I always though the combat styles were silly and the limited spellcasting is too similar to the Paladin. I'd like for Rangers to get something similar to the Rogue's talents, stuff related to what it's like being a Ranger and surviving in harsh climates, living everyday in the outdoors off of what you can provide for food and shelter. The talents would involve bonuses when dealing with difficult terrain, resistance to heat and cold and maybe even certain poisons, making traps, camouflage, maybe even a quicker movement rate, etc.
|
|
I've said it in other threads (even created one all about it :) but I am DEFINITELY for eliminating spells for Rangers (and Paladins). Give them some spell like abilities instead. Pick the few Ranger specific spells that are the coolest and morph them into abilities for instance.
As for the Scout, I also like them a lot. In fact, I love the idea of a multi class Ranger/Scout - if Jason and company can come up with some kind of Ranger / Scout hybrid class for their new Ranger, I think it would have a great deal of potential.
In fact, I read somewhere that this is more or less what WOTC did with the Ranger ("the Ranger kills the Scout and takes his stuff' was the way it was worded I believe)
|
|
I've said it in other threads (even created one all about it :) but I am DEFINITELY for eliminating spells for Rangers (and Paladins). Give them some spell like abilities instead. Pick the few Ranger specific spells that are the coolest and morph them into abilities for instance.
As for the Scout, I also like them a lot. In fact, I love the idea of a multi class Ranger/Scout - if Jason and company can come up with some kind of Ranger / Scout hybrid class for their new Ranger, I think it would have a great deal of potential.
In fact, I read somewhere that this is more or less what WOTC did with the Ranger ("the Ranger kills the Scout and takes his stuff' was the way it was worded I believe)
I guess I'm in a distinct minority who likes rangers and paladins with spells. I look at them less like spells than like a wide catalgue of optional 1/day abilities, and I'm a guy who likes options. Ditching the spells lists and replacing them with mandatory class abilities is, to me, a way of removing options.
|
I'm not a huge fan of Rangers with spells, and wouldn't mind seeing a viable spell-less Paladin option, but in both cases, they should be *options.*
1) Backwards compatibility demands it.
2) Some people like them, and shouldn't be denied the class *they* love to play.
3) Whatever options presented need to be *meaty* and significant, as the spellcasting abilities are pretty sweet, especially with splat book spells like Arrow Mind or whatever. A spell-less Ranger or Paladin should be less versatile and less 'mystical' than one with spells, but have some significant advantages of their own, to make the sacrifice of spellcasting (and it's many advantages, not the least of which is being able to use CLW wands!) a credible choice. The spell-less options currently offered, in Unearthed Arcana, IIRC, are completely weak, and not even remotely worth the loss of spellcasting ability.
I can't get over the fact that rangers only got two weapon fighting because of Drizzt (seriously, and he only had it in 1st edition because drow had ambidexterity).
I always thought it came from that scene where Aragorn is trying to fight off the Nazgul using his longsword and torch up on the hill.
I'm not a huge fan of Rangers with spells, and wouldn't mind seeing a viable spell-less Paladin option, but in both cases, they should be *options.*
You just might be my new hero. Thanks!
The spell-less options currently offered, in Unearthed Arcana, IIRC, are completely weak, and not even remotely worth the loss of spellcasting ability.
You're not lying. Trade all 1st level spells for... the ability to cast one 1st level spell once per day? Ooh! Sign me up!
I am not in favor of getting rid of the spells a ranger gets. Doing that would force me to multiclass to get spells I want, and then probably into the druid class but this would dilute what I want a ranger to be. Heck there was a variant I liked in Dragon that gave the ranger more spells and made him almost a divine (and nature oriented) bard.