Below is a copy of our group's complete Alpha playtest report, regarding races and classes. Obviously the new A3 stuff hasn't seen as much in game testing as the A1/A2 stuff, as it only came out yesterday. ;op Also don't ask why I've added a nose to all the smilies.
Thanks to Paizo for letting us take part in the play test and thanks to my group for redesigning their characters with each new release and giving their opinions/notes to me upon request!
Game on!
Peace,
tfad
Just to start by thanking the artist responsible for the picture of the Gnome woman, we’ve had to endure all sorts of nasty mental images after one of our players took a liking to her. Thanks. ;op
Dwarf p8 Happy with the Dwarf. When I don’t DM, I play a Dwarf, always a Dwarf, so if I wasn’t happy with the changes then you’d know about it. They’ve been my favorite playable race since Golden Axe and the first supplement I bought for D&D was the old dwarven race book. The wisdom bonus makes sense and it’s nice to see some of their ‘classic’ abilities get explained by some creative re-titling (e.g. greed etc.).
Elf p9 Interesting write up for them – making them nearly eternal is a great choice and I can’t wait to see the age ranges for them. Also, as mentioned in our Alpha 2 report, we’d like to see the ‘does not need to sleep’ thing clarified. There was quite a lot of discussion on it HERE.
Gnome p9 Gnome! The re-write and new flavor for the Gnome has generated a lot of interest in our group. Previously the race struggled to ‘have a place’, they were half dwarf and half halfling. Now, they’re unique. We can’t wait to find out more about the first world too!
Half-Elf p10 Much like the gnomish re-write, the Pathfinder version has generated interest in a race, where there was none previously (interest). It’s great too, that they pop up several generations later, not having to be ‘my mom was an Elf and my dad was a soldier’ etc.
Half-Orc p10 Ditto. The Half-Orc is now an interesting and more balanced choice.
Halfling p11 Again the flavor re-write was most welcome, but the ability score adjustments are too similar to the gnomish ones. Although we’re not a group who loves Halflings, we felt that they could benefit from switching the charisma bonus to an intelligence bonus. They're supposed to smart and adaptable, which would fit, but we can’t see them gaining a charisma bonus when so many of them can’t be trusted not to wander off (often with your stuff), are enslaved etc. etc. The crunch doesn’t quite match the fluff here.
Human p11 Humans will probably remain the most popular racial choice and nothing they’ve gained causes any problems in our test games. The bonus proficiency is quite welcome, although if their class offers full martial proficiencies then they really should get Weapon Focus as a bonus feat instead. We think it’d be the final little ‘boost’ the martial classes need. Of course, this should apply to the Elven-weapon familiarity racial feature also.
Favored Class p9- (All races) It’s great the way this now works. Giving a choice means a greater variety in the culture that the races have and doubles the chance of the races getting that nice bonus HP. Choosing one for the flexible races is a nice way to tone down the crazy multiclassing also. Well done!
Barbarian p12 Very nice with the rage points p 12 and the rage powers p 14. This generated some interest in the class, which has never wowed us previously. Surprise Accuracy p 15 is awesome and just the sort of thing that jumps the class up out of the ‘martial rut’. In our playtest this power was used by some fire-giant barbarians to deadly effect. It was a good job that they had run out of rocks by the time that they spotted the PCs! We wanted to make two points about the barbarian, both repeated from our Alpha 2 playtest report as our concerns were not addressed.
There should be more rage powers to choose from. In line with Conan, as the stereotypical barbarian, there should be a power that grants a move action (as he's always pouncing like a panther on ape-beasts etc.) and one that eliminates the improvised weapon penalties (as he's always squashing things with giant rocks, fully loaded treasure chests etc.).
There should also be a way of spending more rage points than you have. Barbarians are all about exploding until their heart explodes and a way of trading HP or ability burn for extra instant-use rage points when you have spent all of your rage point pool is an absolute must. We thought a rate of about 5HP per RP was a fair one, although the rules would have to explicitly state that these rage points could not be spent on the Renewed Vigor power.
Starting Hit Points Sidebar p14 Interesting series of options here, any of which would be a good choice if you were concerned about starting h-pees. Racial and Constitution strike us as the best options, focusing more on who the character is to define that bonus. Although we’ve yet to playtest these as we’re in the middle of several on-going campaigns and we’ve never had a problem with starting HP. If we do use them, we’ll post our thoughts.
Bard p15- Okay. First off, it’s great to see the alignment restriction lifted. Bardic Knowledge p 16 is now much more useful. It lets the bard specialize in the areas they want to, without taking away from their ‘jack of all knowledge’ thing. Also, using the standard skills, the Bard might actually know something tangible now! Well done. Their spell choices p 17-18 are also nice, being a little more complete and cantrips at will is, as always, a welcome touch. As mentioned in our Alpha 1 playtest report, we’d like to have seen this go a tiny step further and give Bards prestidigitation as a free action also. The spell doesn’t ‘do’ anything specific (thus would not ‘break’ anything) and this would be great way for the Bard to do everything they do with a flourish. Trails of light following their sword, notes dancing out of their instruments, dramatic trumpets accompanying their tapestry-swinging etc. It would rock. Maidens would swoon. Need we say more? ;op
Jason, I know you’ve already answered this on the boards, but put us down for changing Deadly Performance p 20 also. It’s too powerful and needs to closer in scope, both DC and number of uses, to the Ranger’s Master Hunter ability p 38.
One final point is not so much a suggestion for the Beta, but a general observation/request for the finished product in 2009. Please get a picture of a bard that rocks hard to accompany the class. Like a big Nordic dude with a huge drum and a huge axe. Or some Half-Orc that’s totally metal with massive shoulder pads a skull codpiece and loads of hair (waxed and dyed?). All of the bard pictures we see are never as awesome as the other class pictures and certainly never look ‘showman’ enough. We want KISS not 3’ Morris dancers....
Cleric p20- Not a great deal to say here. We like the Cleric class and there haven’t been any huge changes.
Druid p22- Again, there’s not much to say here that we didn’t report in our Alpha 2 feedback. The class looks much better balanced and has generated some interest where there wasn’t any before. Unlike the Bard though, the artwork is spot on – love the grass hair, reminds me of the old Skullcap Ivy which, if it’s not restricted IP in someway, should make a return in 3P. Well done with the Druid!
Fighter p27- Bravery p 27! w00t! What a great addition – something we never considered, but addresses one of the common most complaints about the class. It would be nice to see what kind of bonus this is though, so we can figure what it stacks with and doesn’t etc. Again, the changes have got some of the group interested in a class they’ve not considered before.
I’ve put this section slightly separate from the other classes as the 3P Monk has divided the group. I’ve typed two lots of feedback; read them both then choose one to go with (roll a die?) or pick the most relevant comments from each. We’re aware that you can’t please everyone all of the time and, for a class that we don’t use very often, we’ve got a disproportionate amount of feedback!
Monk Feedback One or Not gone far enough with the changes
Some of our group doesn’t like the 3P Monk as the changes have not gone far enough from the 3.X Monk, which they didn’t like to begin with. The class remains too similar to other members, with 2 Monks only having their own feats to really differentiate them from each other. The bonus feats p29 are a good start but don’t really mean much in the way of difference. What is nice, are the Ki Powers p 30-31, but as all Monks gain all powers, it’s just another ‘oh you can do that too’ power. Opinion in this category divides again, with half this group wanting more Ki Powers a la the Barbarian rage powers, the other half disliking the Ki Powers as they are too similar to the Barbarian rage powers – the Monk and the Barbarian need to feel different as classes. The suggestion from that camp is to replace them uses per day of their class abilities. Everyone agrees not to touch ‘per encounter’ abilities with a barge pole though. ;op
Monk Feedback Two or Done the best possible with the shoddy tools were handed
The second half of our group, including me, votes that you’ve really done the best you can with the Monk class. It was never well designed, although it always has been reasonably well balanced (we’ve seen a Monk keep up with the party a few levels ahead of them and not dominate the show when the party is a few levels behind). You can’t change too much, because that would conflict with the goal of backward compatibility, which limits you from making the type of drastic changes that you may want to. As it stands, the 3P Monk is better than the 3.X Monk, but remains a class we’re not really interested in. Again, primarily, it’s the lack of class options, with all Monks strongly resembling each other.
This is okay because we have the excellent Dragon Compendium Battle Dancer class available if we want to Kung Fu it up. ;op
However, all of our group agrees on two changes that need to made to the 3P Monk. Wholeness of Body p31 is way too steep in terms of Ki cost. Either it should heal twice as much or cost half as much. It doesn’t matter too much which way this goes, but we’d prefer to go high, i.e. heals twice as much. Secondly the Monk needs more Ki points overall p30. They are going to be burning through their points for the dodge bonus every round. They’re only getting half of what the Barbarians get and yet are going to be spending them at approximately 2/3 the rate. We vote to give them a pool of, at least, their monk level plus their wisdom modifier.
We have a few further comments based on things we’ve read on the Paizo boards. The loss of Diplomacy as a class skill is not a problem for us p28. The new cross class skill rules means it is still an option for the Monk, but it is in no way an essential part of the class. As pointed out by Gailbraithe, there is a slight ‘hiccup’ with the low-level Monk being easier to trip etc. than to hit. The following fix was suggested and we liked the look of it because it addresses one of our above concerns, fixes the hiccup and, best of all, is very simple.
Perhaps a scaling ability called "favored maneuver" similar to the Ranger's favored enemies, where a Monk receives bonuses to complete and resist specific CMB-related maneuvers over time, would work nicely. You know: "Stay clear from that one; you don't want to be caught up in his arms and legs!" Or: "She can plow through foes as if they're scarecrows."That might add a little fighting flair to the monk and allow them to differentiate themselves from one another. That was always my concern with the class--it didn't feel like its own, but instead a Fighter with a more shallow pool of extra feats who punched and kicked instead of Power Attacking with a big weapon or tripping with a spiked chain.
I’ve put it in quotes as I can’t take the credit for this one. Well done Golbez57! If I may quote your response from further into the thread, Jason, we come to another issue that caused a hoo-har the day after the release of Alpha 3.
I think we are starting to see what I felt has been the problem with the monk all along, the fact that they cannot really gain the same kind of bonuses to their unarmed strikes as others can with their weapons without paying a ridiculous cost.
And:
What about allowing the monk to use his 'unarmed strike' damage when using 'special monk weapons'?
We’ve never seen any problems with the Monk’s ability to cause damage and have always read the rules as being able to enchant the Monk’s fist (or anyone’s fist, foot etc. if they have improved unarmed strike) as a weapon. A simple line stating that a Monk can have their hands etc. enchanted as a weapon would not be game breaker (or at least wasn’t for us) and would fix this problem. We (ages ago, in 3.0) even had a Monk with a different element on each limb (with sonic energy being enchanted last, to the forehead!). Very cool. Dealing the improved damage with enchanted monk weapons, although that could lead to all sorts of problems if shuriken can still be thrown 3 per attack, could work. Also, the monk weapons are not all that ‘Monkey’, if you know what I mean. Where are the swords, spears, butterfly knives etc. Perhaps the best solution here would be a longer list of monk weapons which could be used with Flurry of Blows, but requiring a feat to claim the extra damage (noting the shuriken problem with this).
PeteZero pointed out that the monk cannot qualify for the Improved Vital Strike feat p71. This is wrong, it’s a Monk-feat, no doubt about it. It should either be on the Monk list of bonus feats or have the prerequisites lowered so the Monk can qualify without mulitclassing.Quivering Palm p31 is too limited in it’s use. If it remains only useable once per week then the DC should increase, but we’re in favor of increasing the number of times a Monk can do it to once per day but only able to effect a number of creatures equal to his wisdom (or charisma) modifier. So he could set up several deaths within a government, coinciding them to all die at the same, vital moment. That’d be really cool.
Finally, Perfect Self 31 also needs a re-think. At that level, most everything the Monk faces will bite straight through his DR with magic. 5/- would be much more welcome and more of a reward for sticking with Monk. Although it wouldn’t break the game to go a step or two further as suggested by Quijenoth.
my mind leans towards more definitive immunities, perhaps immunity to critical hits, does not provoke Attacks of Opportunity while moving, cannot be flanked or the like.
Paladin p31- Ah! Our group’s favorite class! In case anyone wants to check our long (positive) rant about Paladins made after we playtested the Alpha 2 Paladin, the link is HERE. We certainly weren’t expecting such a huge change in Alpha 3. As it turns out, it’s a pleasant surprise!
Alignment Requirement & Detect Evil at Will p31 These were a real deal breaker for us and would’ve been very upset if these had gone from our favorite class. It’s great to see they’re still there. We had to post a thank you for this as, with some other drastic changes to the class being made, they could’ve gone and (just to be clear, I’ll use bold) we’re glad they’ve not been changed.Lay on Hands & Additional uses for p31- Nice. Sort of. The overall healing works out to be a little more, but in smaller chunks until level 18. This does mean that (one of) our Paladin is somewhat hosed for being a front liner, currently at level 17. She’s used to using Lay on Hands whilst fighting away and is capable of filling her HP back up in one go. However, at 17 level, 17 extra HP is not enough to keep her in the fight and most nasty monsters are going to be dealing a lot more damage than this per strike. The change has halved the amount of time she can spend on the front line – not a good thing. The suggested fix (from our player) is to allow you to use up multiple uses of the ability in a single action. The other uses are quite nice, but don’t balance this drop in ability – channel positive energy is likely to heal more per go than Lay- currently.
Charisma Spell casting p32 Big surprise! But a pleasant one – it makes sense and more closely balances the class along side the Ranger. Good move. It could be interesting here, to add spontaneous cure casting so that the other Paladin spells actually see some regular use. It’d not break the class as their spell list is too limited for this to have a massive in-game impact, but it would ensure that some of those spells become a little more frequently used whilst freeing up some options, in the heat of battle, for the Paladin.
Divine Bond p 32-33 Let me just quote myself, from our Alpha 2 report.
[...] it is important that if the chosen weapon can be used more than once a day then the Paladin's mount can also be summoned more than once a day. Don't forget the trusty mount in favor of the new, shiny toys.
The shiny new toy that is the celestial spirit enhanced weapon got an increase in the number of uses per day, but did the ever-loyal, trusty old mount, with us for numerous editions? Did it cr*p. I should’ve put money on this happening. Can we please have this ability also increase in usage. We know that by level 12, the mount is available for the whole day, but there will be times when you will want to, no scratch that, need to summon it more than once per day. If this is not going to happen for whatever reason, please can we find out why the ability is only usable once per day?
Also, regarding the shiny new weapon, again repeated from our Alpha 2 report.
[...] for ease of reference the rules need a table with the weapon properties and their equivalent enhancement bonus a la the Soul Knife class in the XPH. We do not want to have to flip through pages of the DMG to get this info, it should be there with the other class information.
Ranger p35- Ooh! When I’m not DM, I always play a Dwarf and have just recently (i.e. my last character) discovered the joy that is the Ranger class. I like the changes and am quite happy with it as is, although I do have a suggestion.
Combat Style p 36-37 I like that the shield has made it’s way into the 2 weapon list (as that’s where my Dwarf went with it) but Paizo has a great chance with the Ranger, they need more than 2 combat styles. There’s no reason not to add more options and it would certainly be a smaller change than some we’ve seen. With a companion and the appropriate animal/ride skills, they should, at the very least, have a mounted option too. It’s an often forgotten Ranger archetype, the man alone against the wilderness with his trusty beast (okay, that sounds, wrong). Drinking the blood from your horse, sharing water with your camel etc. A skirmish style option would also be welcome a la Robin Hood and his Merry Men, with the feats following the mobility/spring attack path. It certainly would not harm back compatibility. I was surprised that this was not in there....Favored Terrain & Evasion p37 Awesome! Well done!
Quarry & Improved Quarry p38 Again, awesome! Although how much cooler would it be to mark your quarry from the back of your animal companion, with a butt load of mounted combat feats? /not so subtle hint
Rogue p38- Again, there have been no major changes and the class remains only a peripheral choice in our group. Every thing looks okay and our play testing didn’t uncover any mechanical problems.
Sorcerer p41- Again a real favorite with our group and the only serious contender for the Paladin’s ‘most used class’ crown. There have been no major changes, but we had a little feedback on some of the minor changes made.
Class Skills p41 Still no Diplomacy? *sigh* I guess that you guys are not going to budge on that one. Still, at least you can gain it with the infernal bloodline p47 and the cross class skill restrictions are a lot less severe. Can we call it a moral victory? ;op
Eschew Materials p42 He11 Yeah! It’s about time someone got this right! Thank you so much for this!
Bloodlines p42- We like the changes, adding the skill and extra spells is a nice addition and brings the class ability more in line with the excellent bloodline feats that you wonderful people filled the Dragon Compendium with. This really is what we were expecting from the start and are very happy with this change. And thank you for the shout out on page 42. ;op
Wizard p48- Much like the Cleric, nothing new to say here. It’s great, well done!
As a final point, originally suggested by KaeYoss, there really needs to be feats that grant extra uses of the new class features Paizo has added e.g. feat for extra rage points, Ki Points, Lay on Hands etc. This could also be extended to include feats with additional uses for said points e.g. extra rage power feat etc. This is the best way to bring all the new features fully into the system and give us, the players, more chance to play with all of the wonderful new toys you provided.
|
Just some quick notes: I agree with you on giving the barbarian a rage ability which would grant an extra move action. Also something like Scent or Spring Attack would work, too.
I definitely disagree with you about giving rangers more combat styles... I feel that it would step on the fighter's toes, and besides, if my players want to have more melee options/feats for their rangers, they can always multiclass into fighter.
As for the bonus types, I believe that unless the type is listed, it is a general bonus which stacks with everything.
I definitely disagree with you about giving rangers more combat styles... I feel that it would step on the fighter's toes, and besides, if my players want to have more melee options/feats for their rangers, they can always multiclass into fighter.
It's not about making the Ranger a more credible fighter, it's about not forcing the Ranger to choose one of two weapon options. As it stands, if a Ranger finds an awesome Magical great axe, he can't use it without sacrificing the use of some of his class features. No other class (except, arguably the Monk) is limited in this way and more combat styles would remove the pressure of having to wield either 2 weapons or a bow. For example, Paladins are not limited in their weapon choice to sword and shield, Sorcerer's are not limited to spear. Also Fighters get so many feats that no one is going to be able to out Fighter them, that's what they do.
For example, my last character was an Ex-military Dwarf Ranger. I wanted him to have a spear and shield, which involved 'wasting' some of my class features. I took the shield bash feat to get something out of it, but that wasn't where I wanted to go with him and there should be some acknowledgment that not all Rangers use a bow or play Drizzt.
At the very least, I think a mounted style should be in there as it's another Ranger archetype and the Ranger has all the skills and a companion to back it up.
Thank you! God, nobody has ever bothered giving that some crunch. I hated fighting players on it as well.
Yeah, it needs to be put in the rules. :)
Peace,
tfad
Oh, and using Monk hand damage when using Monk weapons is a rule my group has been using for 2+ years. So, I totally agree with that one.
I'm curious to know how this works with shuriken. I can see some serious abuse there, with 2 weapon fighting etc. throwing 3 shuriken per attack. Did this ever come up? Was it balanced?
Thanks for the comments about the Ranger. I hope that the powers that be are listening... ;O)
Peace,
tfad
Chiming in as one of the players in tfad's game - I approve this playtest report!
For the record, I'm the one who is worried about the sudden drop in the Paladin's ability to heal per round (though I'm also ECSTATIC that they are now charisma-based casters), but I've left my thoughts on that in more detail in the think-tank.
I also come down on the side of, "Did what you could while keeping back-compatibility," regarding the Monk.
As to the Ranger, just to wave a hand as also thinking other options would be great. It wouldn't step on the fighter's toes as the Ranger still has less than half their number of feats and the Ranger is also required to "theme" their fighting style. So even if we included skirmishers, mounted combat, etc., the Ranger would still be limited to taking a certain "chain" of feats while the fighter can customise.
So the fighter not only wins in terms of sheer numbers of feats, but also in terms of flexibility.
Also, no one is currently arguing that a Ranger steps on the fighter's toes because they are able to use two-weapon fighting or specialise in bow-use - both of which are skills that a fighter might choose to specialise in. Because a fighter would be better at it, or could be as good as the ranger and have a whole other bunch of abilities.
|
|
]there should be some acknowledgment that not all Rangers use a bow or play Drizzt.
Ding! Another thank you! I like the idea of the ranger who specializes in two-handed weapons, sans Minsc (and Boo!) and the multi-weapon ranger (Aragorn)and the undead hunter uses blunt weapons ranger, and a ranger who uses thrown weapons, and maybe a non-combat directly thing like battle cries (Diablo II Barbarian)
(and Boo!)
Go for the eyes Boo!
|
|
It's not about making the Ranger a more credible fighter, it's about not forcing the Ranger to choose one of two weapon options. As it stands, if a Ranger finds an awesome Magical great axe, he can't use it without sacrificing the use of some of his class features. No other class (except, arguably the Monk) is limited in this way and more combat styles would remove the pressure of having to wield either 2 weapons or a bow. For example, Paladins are not limited in their weapon choice to sword and shield, Sorcerer's are not limited to spear. Also Fighters get so many feats that no one is going to be able to out Fighter them, that's what they do.
For example, my last character was an Ex-military Dwarf Ranger. I wanted him to have a spear and shield, which involved 'wasting' some of my class features. I took the shield bash feat to get something out of it, but that wasn't where I wanted to go with him and there should be some acknowledgment that not all Rangers use a bow or play Drizzt.
At the very least, I think a mounted style should be in there as it's another Ranger archetype and the Ranger has all the skills and a companion to back it up.
How is that any different from your rogue, paladin, barbarian, or even fighter finding that same awesome Magical axe and having to consider taking Feats to get any bonuses/benefits from using it? Assuming, of course, that the character is, at most, just proficient with it.
You see, you can always take Weapon Focus or some Combat Feats to complement your class features and weapon skills -- or even multiclass into fighter to get more "combat goodness" for a more "melee-oriented" ranger build.
And since the ranger, paladin and barbarian already seem to have pretty impressive class features that they can use *with* Combat Feats (e.g. Accurate Attack with Power Attack), I fear that giving any of those classes any more "combat builds" or options would invalidate multiclassing (into fighter) *and* steal the fighter's "thunder" (I already suspect that the barbarian outranks the fighter in every aspect).
Your dwarf ranger could have -- why should I create a ranger or a druid or a rogue, pick a weapon (say, Heavy Pick), and demand that I get some "combat options" to go with it, because I don't want to "break my concept" by multiclassing? Doesn't make any sense to me. I agree that the TWF is a bit odd and exists only to appease those Drizzt-maniacs -- I wouldn't mind if it were gone from the game. But if you give rangers 2-handed abilities, or weapon-and-shield style, you realize that he is probably better at using them than the fighter? Again, he can freely use his class features with the combat feats, so at most he should get some bonus feats and even then I'm afraid that the only thing making him stand apart from the fighter in an "average" combat is a few bonus points to damage.
You have a point about mounted rangers, but I've seen a mounted "ex-militiaman" *druid* who used spear on horseback in 3.0 -- and it worked surprisingly well, even with the all-too few feats he had ('Militia', 'Mounted Combat', 'Ride-By Attack').
|
The Dragon issue where these variant styles were included was 326 (currently available as a download from the Paizo store for the very reasonable price of $4.95).
The styles were:
Beast Wrestling (Unarmed Combat)
Mounted Combat
Piscator (Net and Melee Weapon) (Can't really see why this one's a ranger style but there you go)
Strong-Arm (Power Attack)
Throwing Weapon
Obviously all would require a little adaptation to fit them into the Pathfinder rules, but it's hardly going to make the Ranger ubrepowered compared to the Fighter if they keep the current restriction that they only work in light armour.
(STUFF)
Okay, let me try to explain this another way. :oD
Paizo reworks the Sorcerer, they now gain bonus feats thus: (1st)Weapon Prof: Great Axe, (5th) Weapon Focus: Great Axe, (10th) Weapon Spec: Great Axe, (15th) Greater Weapon Focus: Great Axe, (20th) Greater Weapon Spec: Great Axe
Now, much like the Ranger, the Sorcerer has a list of usable bonus feats that tie the class to a specific weapon choice. Even if Sorcerer A decides to go with it and use the Great Axe and bonus feats, Sorcerer B's opinion that
"An axe just doesn't work for me, my character needs a longbow. Hey wait, why does my class have to use an axe anyway?"
is a valid one.
Just as an axe might not be 'Sorcerer-y', 2 weapons or a bow is not always 'Ranger-y'. In both examples, none of the weapon choices are as tied to the class as the standard class proficiencies usually are. E.g. Wizards have limited weapon choices because they spend all of their time studying magic. As such, in order not to limit players to specific and arbitrary weapon choices then more options should be opened up.
Even if the Ranger had a dozen different 'weapon paths' to choose from, the class still wouldn't be stepping on the Fighter's toes. The Fighter still has a vastly superior number of feats, over twice the current number of Ranger bonus feats, and a wider selection. Not only can the Fighter do everything the Ranger can, but the Fighter can also do it better and do more. Also the Fighter has much better armor prospects, sure the Ranger can pick up the proficiencies and wear heavier armor, but at the cost of using the few bonus feats they get.
Rather than outclass the Fighter, different options change what the Ranger does and what role they fill. E.g. Ranged combat dude. I suppose a parallel would be the Wizard's schools or the Cleric's domains. A Wizard can choose which school (or none) to emphasize, changing their role. Limiting Rangers could be seen as similar to deciding all Wizards must be Evokers, or all Clerics must take the Healing domain - after all, in stereotype world that's all these classes do. ;o)
Removing all restrictions and saying Rangers can pick from any Fighter feats would be unbalanced and would lead to the Ranger 'stepping on the Fighter's toes', offering them a few more choices to get them out of 'cliche-ville' can only be a good thing. Archetypes, however, are a good thing and are largely responsible for defining what our core classes are. There are more Ranger archetypes than just 'bow dude' and 'Drizzt dude'. :o)
RE: Multiclassing, you should only have to multiclass when your character concept spills across the core archetypes. E.g. Common fantasy has built us a shared-world where the warrior-wizard is not a core archetype and doesn't fit into the core classes, that's why there's no Fighter-Mage core class. Any multiclassing beyond this should be optional and not necessary simply because the core classes are not representing the shared-world core ideas.
The Dragon issue where these variant styles were included was 326 (currently available as a download from the Paizo store for the very reasonable price of $4.95).
Thanks Paul, I may just have to check this out. :o)
It won't be a hard fix to make to Pathfinder, if it doesn't include this change, but it's one I'd rather not have to make. And shouting here on the message boards about what we want, is what Paizo has asked us to do. :oD
Peace,
tfad