It seems to me that many of the Ranger concepts being thrown around would be better portrayed game mechanically with a Scout or Wilderness Rogue chassis.
The Ranger:
- Casts spells similar to that of a Druid or Wizard.
- Has wilderness skills.
- Is an expert at monster hunting.
- Fights with two weapons or a bow.
You can add to that and retain backwards compatibility, but you can't take any of that away. For example the two weapon fighting path is kind of a joke - giving people insufficient bonuses with offhand weaponry to make it a competitive fighting style with not having any abilities at all and using a great sword. You could improve that fighting skill greatly and the game would not suffer. You could add additional fighting styles to choose from. You could jack the spellcasting up so that it was on par with what other people are capable of.
-Frank
|
Frank, you are constantly talking with game mechanics in mind - and that's great, but to large number of players, flavor is more important than mechanics. They don't want to think about it that much. A player who wants a ranger as a pc - in my experience - wants to have a cool animal companion(s) and to be able to deal some serious damage, preferably with two weapons. Ranger's spells are a joke. In my 12 years of DM-ing, I haven't had a single ranger bothering with spellcasting. Most of them simply forgot that they can do that at all. But, to all of them a new animal companion was a big deal. My point is, sometimes it doesn't matter what is best in game terms. Sometimes it matters much more what is more fun for both GM and players.
I will agree with you that the primary use the spellcasting has is that people with even a single Ranger level are allowed to activate wands of cure light wounds. While you get some amazing spells (entangle and polymorph, for example), you get too few of them to make it a major part of your character, and you get them too late to base your character concept on. It's like a mandatory Prestige Class if you stay Ranger.
Meanwhile, the animal companion doesn't even have much of a use in the basic rules. Since it advances at half your level, it falls behind something that actually makes much difference really fast. And while having a pet wolf or a pet hawk is conceptually awesome, it's never been mechanically a major part of the class.
Back in the old days, you used to get a literal army of random forest creatures joining up when you hit 10th level. You rolled on a chart, and got some panthers and badgers and stuff. But the important stuff was that you got actually decent forest creatures as followers: unicorns, pixies, and so on. The Ranger Companion revision for D&D3 really nerfed it into unusability. As is, the class wouldn't particularly suffer if you just gave them a bonus to Handle Animal and left it at that - the hunting hounds you can get as your bonus animal companion don't exceed the regular beasts that you can purchase and train in utility or survivability.
-Frank
to large number of players, flavor is more important than mechanics.
Here here!
In my 12 years of DM-ing, I haven't had a single ranger bothering with spellcasting. Most of them simply forgot that they can do that at all.
I actively like the ranger's spells. Okay, they do arrive later in the game, be they are fun and exciting. To me, as a ranger player (the only one in our group, although not too often as I DM mostly), the problem is not with the power of the spells but with the limited spell lists. However, this problem goes away once you add spells from various supplements. The few ranger spells (collected) in Ghostwalk have been more than enough to keep me happy with my spell list. I don't play as a ranger and expect BIG, POWERFUL spells. What I expect is small charms that make my life, as a ranger, easier. Like you said, flavor is more important than mechanics.
But, to all of them a new animal companion was a big deal. My point is, sometimes it doesn't matter what is best in game terms. Sometimes it matters much more what is more fun for both GM and players.
Yeah, companions are a lot of fun. Whilst I love the old ranger followers table, you could roll awesome e.g. Unicorn, or you could roll stupid e.g. squirrel. It wasn't exactly fair or predictable. I think that 3.0 had it right - you had a spell that let the ranger summon an animal companion(s). It doesn't need to be a class feature when it's one of the first spells you get and you acquire the two at the same time. It also meant that you didn't have to have one, and I'm sure there are ranger players out there who don't.
Put it as a spell and use it's space for something else awesome class feature-wise. E.g. Favored terrain.Peace,
tfad
|
|
I'm considering several ways to improve animal companion: 1) instead of one, ranger gets 3 companions, at levels 4, 8 and 12, chosen from equivalent druid companion tables; 2) modified Leadership feat as a bonus at level 6, that allows more powerful animal and nature-world cohorts, like unicorns, pseudodragons, and such; loose the spells or favorite enemy and add more powerful single companion at level 4. Modify animal companion to be different than druids in game mechanic terms.
Very roughly, a D&D3 Level 6 character is the equivalent of an AD&D Level 9 character in terms of bad assery and comparison to normal humans. So giving the 6th or 7th level Ranger a unicorn to ride and some pixie assistants would be entirely historically reasonable.
-Frank
|
I find ranger's spellcasting to be a joke as well. The spells come late and people don't really feel like using them anyways. However removing them could hurt its backwards compatibility somehow. It seems too much that it's hurt all the time by even the tiniest change.
Anyway...
* No Combat Styles. Instead introduce a larger variety of concepts, such as Stalker, Hunter, Scout etc.
* No type cast! A ranger is currently only a forest hippie. I've seen many urban rangers, and they have their nice flavor too. An urban ranger would probably be a bounty hunter, ambusher, etc.
* Nifty abilities! A ranger already has all kinds of small, nice features. Including more in the later game would be nice.
As for the other aspect, Rangers are immensely popular according to my experience. Before 3.5 they were loathed and laughed at, but then it changed. People *like* characters that are good in practically all sorts of stuff, but no masters.
First, Keldarth, these are some good arguments you're raising. I don't always agree with you, but I do respect how you're arguing this one.
Perhaps I'm too old fashioned, but I tend to play campaigns and adventures created by me, or by other DMs, and only ocasionally we do play adventure paths or pre-fab modules. They're fine and plenty of fun, but they suffer from being necessarily "standarized". They need to accomodate every possible party and every possible combination of skills, spells and whatever. We do play in more "free-will" or "sandbox" campaigns, where players drive the course of the plot and decide where to go and what to do....
You're not going to make me feel like I'm a bad player because for you, DnD only minimally draws on printed adventure material while POSTING ON PAIZO'S BOARDS.
When I DM my one PC campaign, it's a sandbox campaign as well. But I'm not going to apologize for making arguments based on a class's utility in adventure paths on the Paizo message boards. And, as you know, that style of DMing is enormously labor-intensive. I'm not going to apologize for the fact that my DM has a time-sucking job and has another campaign to run (which is time-sucking because he created it.) If a class ONLY works when the DM designs the campaign, I'd argue that that's a sign of bad class design.
And it's not just these printed adventures. It's the way that parties are designed by the underlying assumptions of the game itself.
You write:
If the ranger can't ambush, is not able to evade dangerous encounters that could perhaps wipe out the entire party, and is not able to infiltrate or guide or hunt their enemies, then the DM is doing a disservice to the class and to the player that choosed it.
I very much agree: the ranger is horribly maimed by such a scenario. But that's a TYPICAL situation, not an exceptional one. When you tell the assumed party of the game designers that you want to stealth a place, here's what they'll say:
Rogue: "I'm in."
Tank: "You want me to take off my armor, -10 or more from my AC, and sneak into a heavily guarded place, which I can't do anyway because I have no ranks in those skills?"
Warmage: "I make things blow up. I can't do anything else."
Warlock: "I make people scream in pain."
Cleric: "Well, I guess I could cast silence. Anyone have 4 potions of invisibility? No? Drat."
Ranger: "Well, Rogue, it looks like it's just you and me on this mission! Exciting stuff, huh?"
Rogue: "Yeah, about that..."
Most DMs and players aren't willing to let rangers and rogues do what you describe: to watch as one person at the table climbs the wizard's tower, do a fight or two, explore and then open the gates. That's called being a spotlight hog if it happens twice in a year at my tables.
Essentially, in order for the Ranger to be versatile all the other party members have to be versatile too or be left behind. And what fun is that for everyone else at the table? And most DMs aren't going to encourage such lone wolf behavior for the table-level reason that it's fun for you to play, but it's not fun for the rest of the players to watch. Your whole stealth and versatility and ambush thing is great if the ENTIRE party is designed for it.
So, if you've got a party of a druid, a ranger, a beguiler, and a monk, the ranger's a great choice. But if you're in a party with a tank and an arcane artillery, you're asking two players to do nothing so that you can do something. There's only so many times that you'll be able to get them to go along with your tactics.
As to the other areas on ranger:
Multiple Ability Score Dependency: You don't address this one specifically. I think it's central: the TWF needs 5 abilities to function, and even the archer build needs 4.
Good at Fighting: I don't see it. -2 to all attacks is not a powerful fighting class, it's a second-string fighter. It also is one more disincentive to Power Attacking. Requiring that two weapons be enchanted doubles your weapon costs, meaning that you lag behind in other equipment areas. Bow and arrow enhancements don't stack and neither do keen and Improved Critical in 3.5. Rangers typically have trouble bypassing DR. They wear light armor and have no shields, meaning their AC is painfully low. And they have d8 hit points.
Favored Enemies: We agree that this power depends heavily on the DM. You argue that good DMs will account for it. I argue that if there's the slightest miscommunication or if the party goes somewhere unexpected in your sandbox, you get to wait 4 levels for another crack at making this ability work for you. That can mean a year or more of table time spent being ineffectual in combat. Fireballs, wild shapes, rage... none of these depend on perfect DM-player communication to work. Your central power shouldn't either.
Animal companion: We agree: a familiar by any other name still doesn't work.
Spells: I stand by my assessment of the utility of 2 first level spells at 7th level. The advantage is that you have access to wands and scrolls off your spell list, but then, your doubled weapon costs and frantic attempts to achieve adequacy in AC make it difficult to buy wands or scrolls.
Track: I'll grant you that humans track better than dogs, but I won't back of the broader point on that feat. It's duplicated by Find the Path, Locate Object, and other divinations. And if the information's mission-critical the DM will virtually always let a search roll substitute for a tracking roll, if the ranger's unconscious or the player's absent. I'll grant you that the ranger is the best at tracking, but I won't grant that it's an especially notable class ability.
Summary: The ranger is ineffective without compatible PCs or players willing to watch for 30 minutes while he does his thing, active DM management through the provision of items to cover his combat weaknesses, and favored enemies assigned just for him.
That's not a sign of a well-designed class.
|
Most DMs and players aren't willing to let rangers and rogues do what you describe: to watch as one person at the table climbs the wizard's tower, do a fight or two, explore and then open the gates. That's called being a spotlight hog if it happens twice in a year at my tables.Essentially, in order for the Ranger to be versatile all the other party members have to be versatile too or be left behind. And what fun is that for everyone else at the table? And most DMs aren't going to encourage such lone wolf behavior for the table-level reason that it's fun for you to play, but it's not fun for the rest of the players to watch. Your whole stealth and versatility and ambush thing is great if the ENTIRE party is designed for it.
So, if you've got a party of a druid, a ranger, a beguiler, and a monk, the ranger's a great choice. But if you're in a party with a tank and an arcane artillery, you're asking two players to do nothing so that you can do something. There's only so many times that you'll be able to get them to go along with your tactics.
Again, this is playstyle. For Living/MMRPG play and for home games I have seen this particular type of encounter work well. I have written spotlight moments into episodes played by literally hundreds of players and not had this complaint brought to me once.
You assume other players cannot enjoy watching their colleagues develop and explore their role. Likewise, you do not accomodate a design that allows players to split off to solve separate problems.
That is: I hand Cleric and Arcane Caster a list of supplies and materials available to help the villagers secure their perimeter and then spend a half hour with the rogue and ranger doing recon. Mature adults should be able to respect some private DM time, and also recognize that they will also get it with their character too.
I then have the group communicate what they each did in character to give them the feeling of parallel narrative arcs. This works very well.
Do not discount generalists because they do not translate easily into your play style.
Mature adults should be able to respect some private DM time, and also recognize that they will also get it with their character too.
Nice ad hominem attack. I make an argument that a class that requires consistent solo time to function is not a well-designed class and now I'm a child? Not that I should have to make this argument, but at my gaming table is a vice president of a major company, three other people with masters' degrees, and two people who run their own businesses. I'd definitely label them mature adults.
The player of the tank and the player of the warmage are perfectly in their rights to question why the game mechanics should assume that they should periodically give up or radically decrease their abilities for an entire mission so that we can accomplish the mission the ranger's way. Similarly, they'd have every right to argue state that they carved out precious time in their schedules to play a game with the player of the ranger, not to watch the ranger on yet another a solo mission.
In addition, Paizo adventures are well known for their lethal qualities. Going off on solo missions or missions with the rogue is simply asking for trouble in the event of actual combat due to a blown MS roll or an enemy's made spot check.
|
Just a quick note about Favoured Terrain, as it has come up; in 2e I found that Favoured Terrain meant "depressing inability to use pile of cool skills during most adventure time".
Any use of Favoured Terrain should deal with that problem - players feeling massively disillusioned is not good.
The same thing happens with Favored Enemy. If you happen to play an adventure that, say, doesn't include many goblinoids, one of your primary abilities is effectively useless for the entire adventure.
This is why I advocate replacing it (and Favored Terrain) with something like Dark Knowledge. How about this:
Tactical Knowledge (Ex): Once per encounter, you may make a D20 Survival check to, as a free action, notice or recall a feature of a humanoid, monstrous humanoid, vermin, animal, or magical beast, which you use to your advantage. For the duration of the encounter, you gain +2 to hit and +1d6 damage for against that creature. This bonus increases by +2 to hit and +1d6 to damage at 4th level and every 4 levels thereafter.
Exotic Tactical Knowledge (Ex): Choose one of the following types: undead, construct, aberration, giant, dragon, plant, or ooze, or select the swarm or incorporeal subtypes If you chose a base type, you may use Tactical Knowledge against creatures of this type. If you chose a subtype, you may use Tactical Knowledge against creatures of that subtype regardless of their base type.
Extraplanar Tactical Knowledge (Ex): Choose one of the following types: outside or elemental. In addition, choose one subtype of the chosen type. For elemental, these are: Air, Fire, Water, or Earth. For outside, these are: Lawful, Chaotic, Good, or Evil. You may use your Tactical Knowledge against creatures of this type and subtype.
While not classic D&D, rangers in fantasy tend to have a number of similar abilities.
- Skilled with bows (and occasionally two weapon fighting)
- Stealth
- Tracking and hiding trails
- Snares and Traps
- Animal skills
- Healing skills (magic or medical)
- Herb lore (including poisons)
- Knowledge of the land
I could see a ranger falling into a number of roles, including the scout, the border guard, and the bounty hunter.
Playing up the ranger's herb lore (for poison and healing) would open up a cuple of areas for the ranger. Giving them some decent healing abilities would take pressure off of the need for a dedicated healer (cleric). Trapfinding would make them a decent option to the rogue (even with fewer skill poionts) and would work well for someone playing an infiltrator-style ranger.
Flavor is mutable; mechanics are not. Flavor can be changed without disrupting the fundamentals of gameplay; mechanics are the fundamentals of gameplay.
|
It's not about what you bring to the party, it's about playing a concept of a character you WANT to play.I disagree. You should make your selection of character based upon what you want to play. But the game mechanics should be written such that whatever that happens to be brings something unique and effective to the party.
And I disagree with you - to use the analogy of everquest- this is exactly what they were trying to do when creating everquest 2 (EQ2) and tradeskills required you to use additional abilities to try to create masterwork items.... and quite frankly that is what drew me away from EQ2 - it made my favorite part of everquest very boring. I've played a character who at the end of 2 months of adventuring had his highest skill as a 7. It was difficult, but it was something that I wanted to play, and I wasn't going to retire him because of a few bad fumbles/crits - he became one of the best characters in our groups history.
|
|
That is: I hand Cleric and Arcane Caster a list of supplies and materials available to help the villagers secure their perimeter and then spend a half hour with the rogue and ranger doing recon. Mature adults should be able to respect some private DM time, and also recognize that they will also get it with their character too.I then have the group communicate what they each did in character to give them the feeling of parallel narrative arcs. This works very well.
Knowing that the stealthy people are scouting in dangerous terrain is a good reason for the rest of the group to make traps on the way back... as a DM - Kobolds do it all the time - and it works
First, Keldarth, these are some good arguments you're raising. I don't always agree with you, but I do respect how you're arguing this one.
You're not going to make me feel like I'm a bad player because for you, DnD only minimally draws on printed adventure material while POSTING ON PAIZO'S BOARDS.
When I DM my one PC campaign, it's a sandbox campaign as well. But I'm not going to apologize for making arguments based on a class's utility in adventure paths on the Paizo message boards. And, as you know, that style of DMing is enormously labor-intensive. I'm not going to apologize for the fact that my DM has a time-sucking job and has another campaign to run (which is time-sucking because he created it.) If a class ONLY works when the DM designs the campaign, I'd argue that that's a sign of bad class design.
And it's not just these printed adventures. It's the way that parties are designed by the underlying assumptions of the game itself.
In first place, I want to apologize... English is not my native language, and it's kind of hard trying to explain my points of view or defend my positions, and I think it's possible I don't always find the right tone when doing so, and make me sound harsher than I intended... (Believe me, it's hard to maintain a serious debate in a foreign tongue). So, if I have offended you or anyone else in these boards, my sincere apologies. Believe me, I'm absolutely not trying to imply that you are a bad player or yours is a bad DM, it has never my intention to say such a thing. So again, my fault, and my apologies to you. I do know there are different playing styles, not better, not worse. D&D is such a great game because it accomodates for a huge variety of people and it lends itself to be played in a lot of different styles.
I do like Paizo's adventure paths, immensely. We've played through Shackled City, Age of Worms and are currently playing Savage Tide. I know, having job and family myself, that DM is a time-intensive job, and pre-made adventures are a real boon for us players. If I have made the impression of the contrary, that could be an example of myself utterly failing in my attempts to explain my own experiences with the game.
On a side note, I really think an "open" campaign is able to support a wider variety of parties with different compositions, as the players adjust the tactics based on what there's in the party. This would fit better in a thread of its own, however...
I very much agree: the ranger is horribly maimed by such a scenario. But that's a TYPICAL situation, not an exceptional one. When you tell the assumed party of the game designers that you want to stealth a place, here's what they'll...
I agree with some of your points. My own experiences with the class are very different, however, and I guess it all boils down to playing style. In our games, if once in a while some character really shines while doing their specialization , it's fine with all the rest, we don't think of him/her as a spotlight hog. It would be if this happened a lot, every game session, however, but once in a while is really gratifying, and we enjoy that character's romp nearly as much as himself. Again, I guess it's a matter of personal tastes, nothing more.
Multiple Ability Score Dependency...
I agree with you in that. It seems a remnant of AD&D ability score requirements, when ranger and paladin where the hardest classes to roll up.
Good at Fighting...
I also agree with you in this, at least partially. Two-Weapon Fighting is good conceptually, but suffers from a huge feat requirement and other problems you comment. But, IMHO, a Ranger can more than make up for it with his spells, that so many people tend to ignore or dismiss as useless, and if choosing his fights and faced with their favored enemy, they are amazing. Again in my own experience, my own ranger character is seen as an astonishing 2-weapon wielder, and is not behind the rest of characters. Your mileage may vary, though.
Favored Enemies...
More than basing it on DM-player communication, I see this feature as requiring a careful choice by the part of the player. If the current campaign features heavily some type of creature or enemy, then the choice is obvious. If not, there are plenty of enemy categories that are very broad, and very common too at almost all levels. I do not see this as the ranger's central power, just one more of the abilities that help a ranger do his job, but not the most important of them. I agree in that spells, wild shapes etc... don't need DM's cooperation, but I think that if the ranger's player choose wisely, neither will this. It will help, certainly, but won't be required.
Animal companion...
Yes, we agree. Cool concept, heir of the older editions animal followers, but nearly useless in actual game
Spells...
I am of the opinion that the ranger spells are more useful than they appear to be to some people... specially if the campaign allows Spell Compendium and some of the splatbooks. But even when they don't, you have some really nice effects that are almost universally useful (energy resistances, freedom of movement, barkskin, and others). Also, a ranger with some skill at tumbling and the two-weapon defense feats can ramp up AC enormously. For me, ranger's spells are one more tool, not a central power of the class.
Track...
This one is too heavily dependent on playing style, so different strokes for different folks. Not every party has access to the magic you said (and by the way, Find the Path is a spell that IMHO should go the way of the do-do, but again that's off-topic). At the end, this can range from very useful to moderately so, depending on the campaign and the DM/players.
Well, I hope to have clarified my points of view (and my struggle with english language). Again, if someone was offended, my apologies.
Keldarth
In first place, I want to apologize... English is not my native language, and it's kind of hard trying to explain my points of view or defend my positions, and I think it's possible I don't always find the right tone when doing so, and make me sound harsher than I intended... (Believe me, it's hard to maintain a serious debate in a foreign tongue). So, if I have offended you or anyone else in these boards, my sincere apologies. Believe me, I'm absolutely not trying to imply that you are a bad player or yours is a bad DM, it has never my intention to say such a thing. So again, my fault, and my apologies to you.
Not a problem, Keldarth. It was perhaps more a reaction to things like Tadkil's post and the fact that I burned out self-creating a sandbox world than what you actually wrote. Sorry about the over-reaction.
Not a problem, Keldarth. It was perhaps more a reaction to things like Tadkil's post and the fact that I burned out self-creating a sandbox world than what you actually wrote. Sorry about the over-reaction.
Thanks, and no problem. I wholly understand the burnout that creating such a thing can bring out!
|
|
Mature adults should be able to respect some private DM time, and also recognize that they will also get it with their character too.Nice ad hominem attack. I make an argument that a class that requires consistent solo time to function is not a well-designed class and now I'm a child? Not that I should have to make this argument, but at my gaming table is a vice president of a major company, three other people with masters' degrees, and two people who run their own businesses. I'd definitely label them mature adults.
The player of the tank and the player of the warmage are perfectly in their rights to question why the game mechanics should assume that they should periodically give up or radically decrease their abilities for an entire mission so that we can accomplish the mission the ranger's way. Similarly, they'd have every right to argue state that they carved out precious time in their schedules to play a game with the player of the ranger, not to watch the ranger on yet another a solo mission.
But they do not, of necessity have to do so, nor should they be assumed to do so. Your experience with a specific sample should not be generalized across all playing groups and styles. The basic flaw of your entire analysis stems from this. It is just not always relevant.
In specific, our play groups are actually drawn from similar demographic pools. My home game is populated with professionals with terminal degrees, executives, and senior managers. I am an executive with a terminal degree. Your experience does not tie back to mine even though we are DMing the same demographic group.
My ad hominem attack was unintentional. I apologize. I have just had radically different experiences than you.
|
|
Not a problem, Keldarth. It was perhaps more a reaction to things like Tadkil's post and the fact that I burned out self-creating a sandbox world than what you actually wrote. Sorry about the over-reaction.
In first place, I want to apologize... English is not my native language, and it's kind of hard trying to explain my points of view or defend my positions, and I think it's possible I don't always find the right tone when doing so, and make me sound harsher than I intended... (Believe me, it's hard to maintain a serious debate in a foreign tongue). So, if I have offended you or anyone else in these boards, my sincere apologies. Believe me, I'm absolutely not trying to imply that you are a bad player or yours is a bad DM, it has never my intention to say such a thing. So again, my fault, and my apologies to you.
Let me take a knee here. Not my intention to antagonize you.
We are in the scrum of a discussion, and sometimes we get a cleat.
Not a problem. No harm, no foul.
It's possible that I am over-reacting to my experience playing an under-powered TWF ranger and watching an under-powered TWF ranger in an 8 year campaign.
I still think that the low AC, medium HP and requirement to full attack with two weapons make that class horribly vulnerable in every combat. I'm still of the opinion that the Multiple Ability Score Dependency, increased magic weapon costs, poor spells and companions make it such that anything the ranger is SUPPOSED TO DO, the druid, scout and rogue can do it better.
Perhaps the archer build is the ranger build that actually works, as their low AC matters less and STR drops off their list of necessary abilities. Perhaps that's the dividing line in our experiences.
My experience with a TWF ranger is the polar opposite, but this is a character imported from AD&D 2E and I'm better not taking him as the average TWF ranger... My character is now level 15, and we adapted the whole party when they're were about 12... So perhaps if I had played that same ranger since 1st level in 3/3.5, my experiences would be more similar to those of roguerouge.
I agree in that TWF is too much feat-intensive, given the benefits: being generally able to do almost as good as someone with other fighting styles that don't need even one feat.
Pathfinder is giving some tender love to dual-wielders with the addition of some useful feats, but that doesn't change the feat-intensiveness of it.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
I like the idea of having a non-casting variant for the Ranger Class.
This would seperate the Class into two primary Roles:
1. The Casting Ranger.
This Ranger is more like the "Druidic Knight" that somone else mentioned earlier on. They are closely linked with the Druid Class the same way that a Paladin is linked with the Cleric Class. They have an Animal Companion and Cast Spells similar to a Druid, but with a more martial bent.
2. The Non-Casting Ranger.
This Ranger is more along the lines of the Scout Class. They have the wilderness skills, but forgo the Spellcasting for an even more martial and/or sneaky role. This Ranger would be more linked to Military Organisations as a forward scout/reconnaissance specialist. This variant would work best without an Animal Companion, but wouldn't suffer too much if one were included.
Considering the amount of space devoted to some of the classes, there could also be room for a third option, the Urban ranger.
3. The Urban Ranger.
This Ranger replaces alot of wilderness skills for more city based skills (Diplomacy, Bluff, etc...). The need not have spells, but this won't matter either way and if they do they should be more civilisation oriented than a typical Ranger's. Their Animal Companion, which the variant should have to differentiate them from a Rogue, should also be more city based (Rats, Dogs, Cats, City Birds, etc...).
Just my 2cp about an old favoutite class of mine, that I haven't played in a while. (And by the way, I really liked what 3.5 did to remove the "good" alignment restriction from the Ranger Class, it was something that always bugged me).
EDIT: Now if only they would remove the "Lawful Good" requirement from the Paladin and just make them a "Holy Warrior" whose alignment has to match exactly their Deity's. It would remove the need for the Blackguard PrC and open the way for alot more playability as a Class (imho). This is another one of my bugbears that I would like to see changed. I really like the Paladin Class, but just plain don't want to play one because every Paladin I have played with has been stuffingly annoying to the point where players in my group have actually gotten angry at each other, not just their characters.
|
|
Here's a thought for Rangers in Pathfinder...first let's call them Pathfinders...heh
Change the ranger to have casting as a Ranger power similar to rogue abilities. It's backwards compatible and allows players who don't want to deal with rangers casting, they don't select the ranger spells.
Similar for The fighting styles, perhaps a ranger is good at both styles...2 separate ranger powers....
Numerous other ranger powers could be built in creating a backwards compatibility if you select A,B and C powers...but allowing more options for the ranger...if they chose X,Y and Z powers.
Trapfinding could be one of those new powers...
Whatcha think?
|
|
How about this as a ranger talent list?
Ranger Talents:
Two Weapon Combat Style (two-weapon fighting)
Improved Two Weapon Combat Style (imp two-weapon fighting)
Two Weapon Combat Style Mastery (greater two-weapon fighting)
Archery (rapid shot)
Improved Archery (manyshot)
Archery Mastery (imp precise shot)
Woodland Spellcasting (min 4th level)
Animal Companion
Improved Animal companion
Tracker
Trapsense
Skirmisher d6 skirmish damage (may be taken multiple times)
Medium armor use
1) Remember that Pathfinder rangers are getting d10s for hit dice because of their BAB.
2) Remember that Pathfinder is switching to Stealth and Perception, so the traditional Move Silently/Hide/Listen/Spot ranger is effectively getting 2 free skills.
What would I change with the ranger beyond that?
1) Restore his 3.0 proficiency with medium armor.
2) Allow the combat styles to work with medium armor.
3) Give him both combat styles; a ranger can flip from shooting your eye out with a bow to kicking your ass with a quarterstaff.
4) Give him a sneak attack progression of +1d6 at 2nd/6th/10th/14th/18th.
More combat styles. That's my biggest gripe about the 3.5e ranger, is that there are only two. What if I have an elf ranger who worships Freyr, for example, and wants to use a greatsword? A two-handed style would sure be nice. A mounted style would be cool; then I could take an elk or something as my animal companion (which, for a ranger, is otherwise totally useless) and actually get some mileage out of it.
And, yes, now that I've already blurted it out, I'll repeat: ranger's animal companion: cool flavor, but massive liability in actual game play if you're good-aligned, because then you spend all your time trying to keep the thing alive, and finally you just give up and leave it at home (and if you're going to do that, why even have one?).
Ooh! Yeah! Maybe the animal companion could be a "fighting style." You could choose to get an animal companion at 2nd level instead of taking a fighting style, and the critter would improve as a druid's of 1/2 your level, but would also get substantial bumps at 6th and 11th levels (when you'd normally improve your combat style).
More combat styles. That's my biggest gripe about the 3.5e ranger, is that there are only two. What if I have an elf ranger who worships Freyr, for example, and wants to use a greatsword? A two-handed style would sure be nice. A mounted style would be cool; then I could take an elk or something as my animal companion (which, for a ranger, is otherwise totally useless) and actually get some mileage out of it.
And, yes, now that I've already blurted it out, I'll repeat: ranger's animal companion: cool flavor, but massive liability in actual game play if you're good-aligned, because then you spend all your time trying to keep the thing alive, and finally you just give up and leave it at home (and if you're going to do that, why even have one?).
Ooh! Yeah! Maybe the animal companion could be a "fighting style." You could choose to get an animal companion at 2nd level instead of taking a fighting style, and the critter would improve as a druid's of 1/2 your level, but would also get substantial bumps at 6th and 11th levels (when you'd normally improve your combat style).
Third fighting style: Riding combat feats and the animal advances as a druid's animal companion.
What would I change with the ranger beyond that?
1) Restore his 3.0 proficiency with medium armor.
2) Allow the combat styles to work with medium armor.
3) Give him both combat styles; a ranger can flip from shooting your eye out with a bow to kicking your ass with a quarterstaff.
4) Give him a sneak attack progression of +1d6 at 2nd/6th/10th/14th/18th.
Agreed, although you set the combat styles at different levels to fight dead level syndrome. And maybe not the fourth and you let the !#!%!%# scout have his precise !#$!$%!#$ strike.
The Ranger's one of the places where I as a DM am willing to remake all characters in a setting because they fail so badly as PCs. Wizards and druids? Not so much.
What would I change with the ranger beyond that?1) Restore his 3.0 proficiency with medium armor.
2) Allow the combat styles to work with medium armor.
3) Give him both combat styles; a ranger can flip from shooting your eye out with a bow to kicking your ass with a quarterstaff.
4) Give him a sneak attack progression of +1d6 at 2nd/6th/10th/14th/18th.
I really, really like these suggestion.
Doug
|
When designing the Ranger please keep in mind a role for the class. The existing 3.5 Ranger is a poor striker, an even more poor defender, and a poor controller. Clarify what the class is supposed to be good at, what use it should be to a party, before designing class features for it.
If anything, I move for variants. Let a player choose and have options for how the ranger will serve in the party. Sort of like taking the combat training and expanding it.
Agreed, although you set the combat styles at different levels to fight dead level syndrome.
Or at least to avoid overloading any one level (none of the 1-11 levels are entirely dead for a ranger). Let the player choose which mastery to progress in first, and which second.
|
|
We were discussing the ranger class on another thread. Here are some things we have "brainstormed":
First of all, maybe rangers should get to choose their 'Favoured Terrain', or perhaps even choose between 'Favored Enemy' and 'Favored Terrain'? The benefits from this new class ability would be bonuses to skill checks (at least Stealth and Knowledge (Nature)) and *attacks* (instead of damage) whenever you're in your Favored Terrain (e.g. in a forest). The bonuses would increase just like the bonuses against your Favored Enemy/Enemies in 3E.
Dracodruid’s suggestions:
Trackless step
Woodland stride
Wild empathie
Hide in plain sight
Camouflage
Gray’s suggestions:
Level Special Ability
1 Track, Animal Companion, Favored XXX
2 Trapfinding, Woodland Stride
3 Favored XXX, Trackless Step
4 2 Weapon Fighting, Archer Bonus Feat, or Combat Feat
5 Favored XXX
6 Flawless Stride, Trackless Aura
7 Favored XXX
I'm especially fond of Gray's suggestion that the barbarian's Elemental Spirit would better fit the rangers (i.e. you would choose between Elemental Spirt and Animal Companion). Maybe it could work with your missile weapons, too?
Camoulage, Woodland Stride, certain combat feats, Track-related abilities -- IMO *those* are the ranger's stuff.
I'm not very comfortable with the two-weapon fighting -- it's always felt odd from a more "realistic" point of view. A ranger should be a warrior who is a peerless tracker and hunter, merciless towards his enemies and most comfortable (and dangeous) in the wilderness.
And Skirmish ability (from the Scout class) is *not* what I'd personally like the Ranger to have.
What would I change with the ranger beyond that?1) Restore his 3.0 proficiency with medium armor.
2) Allow the combat styles to work with medium armor.
3) Give him both combat styles; a ranger can flip from shooting your eye out with a bow to kicking your ass with a quarterstaff.
4) Give him a sneak attack progression of +1d6 at 2nd/6th/10th/14th/18th.I really, really like these suggestion.
Doug
Me too... Well, I'm still in doubt with #4. Giving rangers sneak attack feels to me like stealing the rogue's trademark ability.
Also, I'm not very moved by favored terrains, but if they make it to the Alpha 3, it's fine by me as long as they are an option and not a substitution for favored enemies.
For what it is worth, this is what I proposed to my player for this weekend's game. We only needed a 7th level ranger so that is all I built out, but I think one could easily build it out from here.
Level Special Ability
1 Tracking Bonus, Animal Companion, Favored Advantage
2 Trapfinding, Woodland Stride
3 Favored Advantage 2, Trackless Step
4 Ranger Path
5 Favored Advantage 3
6 Trackless Aura
7 Favored Advantage 4
Some of these abilities are taken straight from the druid or scout classes.
Favored Advantage = This is the same as Favored Enemy, but the PC can pick between one of the following; Favored Enemy, Favored Terrain, or Favored Organization. Favored Enemy = +1 to attack and damage, +2 to checks on Bluff, Perception, and Survival for tracking. Favored Terrain = +1 to AC in the environment, +2 to checks on Perception, Stealth, and Survival. Favored Organization = Same as Enemy but broadens the category to include specific organizations.
Trackless Aura = The same as Trackless Step, but gives the ranger the ability to do the same for his party (# of people equal to his level).
Ranger Path = The PC has a choice to basically pick a feat, whether that be 2WF, Archery, or a combat feat.
I was going to propose for the Ranger Path that an option be included like the Paladin's Spirit Bond ability. This "Elemental Bond" would be manifest as an energy source applied to the ranger's weapon. However, we wanted to stick to the PCs original concept.
I also want to say thanks for all the great ideas. I think this will be fun to play. Too bad my game is this Saturday, and Release 3 is supposed to be out next week.
I take it by leaving the bonuses of favored enemy and terrain unnamed, you intend for them to stack?
I like playing rengers as a jack of all trades character - not specialists. (i'd play a fighter or rogue for that)
so i'd like to see an extension of the combat styles, more options (sword 'n' board, mounted, arboreal etc) and being able to take multiple styles. the rogue style talents seem a nice option to balance up more animal companions, spellcasting (druidic/arcane) and maybe build in the urban ranger as a set of options
as others have said, add options rather than re-design.
as a thought - terrain mastery could be the rangers niche?
A long time ago (maybe 4 years now) I remade the Ranger class for one of my players who didn't want spellcasting or druidic influence. Just a guerrilla fighter that played on the "knowledge about your enemy and terrain" feature.
So I took away spellcasting and gave him Favored feats at the same rate as the Fighter (1st, 2nd, and every 2 levels thereafter).
Then made a bunch of ranger feats (or talents, whatever you want to call them) that increased the bonuses and usage from it.
There were four ways of getting bonuses, basically an attempt to give as many options as possible:
- Favored Enemy: Gain a bonus that scales with level towards the standard "pick a broad enemy type". Feats involved with this allowed adding the bonus towards attack, improving damage (adding d6s), improving criticals, dodge bonus vs that enemy, etc.
The point was that you picked the type, and your bonus would be based on Ranger levels... so you could repick the feat over and over getting more types and apply your bonus equally across the board.
- Favored Terrain: In the same manner as Favored Enemy, pick terrains that you'll get bonuses in. Bonuses included Knowledge skill, survival, perception, stealth, etc. More feats (talents) gave more function, like speed increases, unhampered by non-magical and then later magical impediments in that terrain, giving these bonuses to others in the group through direction.
A nice feat to help with that last thing was silent communication (hand signals, etc). As long as your friends can see you, you can direct them in moving faster, more stealthily, etc. Which would help GREATLY for situations where you need everyone to be quiet or move quickly, etc.
Also, another ability would allow never being surprised in your terrain, etc.
- Hunter's Guile: Add specific creatures to a list with which you gain your bonus. Gold Dragon and Green Dragon would be separate entries for example. You have to observe them in combat for a couple rounds (you don't have to participate). From that point on, you gain your standard bonus from Favored Enemy with all feats associated.
This allowed someone to add only what he was fighting, as opposed to having to guess what the DM was going to throw at him, or forcing the DM to make specific things show up.
I think I required a skill check like Sense Motive for this one to work.
- Hunter's Prey: The Bounty Hunter or Assassin ability. Basically you use Gather Information or Survival to gather detailed info on a specific unique creature or target. You can only have one target at a time (more added with feats). This can take time to gain, but gives double bonuses associated with Favored Enemy (well, double the + anyways, not double crit range or anything).
This is one that my player focused on a lot. He spent time before or even during the adventure finding out who the major players were, and then went after them during combat.
This is the kind of "I know he has a bad knee from an old war wound, and drank too much last night" so you gain a bunch of bonuses.
The mechanic works in campaigns where you can talk to locals or observe tactics done by the enemy, or the aftermath of his combats... it also requires knowing that you have an enemy.
With 11 "talents" to put towards these abilities, the Ranger character got really good at knowing his enemies and terrains. Sort of the skilled fighter. It was nice having those bonuses for knowledge checks too, so the group would turn to the Ranger more than the Cleric, Druid or Wizard when they came across a particular enemy or creature. I found this rather fitting.
1) Remember that Pathfinder rangers are getting d10s for hit dice because of their BAB.
2) Remember that Pathfinder is switching to Stealth and Perception, so the traditional Move Silently/Hide/Listen/Spot ranger is effectively getting 2 free skills.
What would I change with the ranger beyond that?
1) Restore his 3.0 proficiency with medium armor.
2) Allow the combat styles to work with medium armor.
3) Give him both combat styles; a ranger can flip from shooting your eye out with a bow to kicking your ass with a quarterstaff.
4) Give him a sneak attack progression of +1d6 at 2nd/6th/10th/14th/18th.
i have to agree. first response was YAY sneak attack. but really it's a little too much. i think you really have to add trapfinding though. what good is a ranger who cant find and set traps in his territory. as far as animal companion, all the other classes now get a choice so in anticipation i would like to suggest the ranger getting the ability to take on animal traits due to his often interaction with animals. not wild shape the like druid but some natural armor from tougher skin, maybe a slam attack or claw or fang or keen eye sight...etc. i also liked the modified leadership so that you had a small community of animals off in the background at your disposal. very beastmastery