# Mortality Radio # 30: Ed Stark interview available...



## Adlon (Mar 29, 2003)

IMO, this has been the best show to date. Ed Stark gave us over 2 hours of his time. He fielded a barrage of questions that were posted by the listeners, and answered ALOT of questions people had. I saw some people who were intrepid about the new Revised Core Rules become less so, or totally swayed towards the new rules.
Show lasted close to 3 hours, filesize approx. 30 MB.

You can grab the latest show here:
http://www.mortality.net/shoutcast.php


----------



## Henry (Mar 29, 2003)

I hope you don't mind if we post a few juicy tidbits from the interview, Adlon?

Among other things:


Bards don't suffer penalties spellcasting in armor.
Barbarians get Damage reduction earlier in their progression, and it attains up to DR 5 (I think Ed said DR 5?)
Ranger do NOT have the option of Two-Weapon Fighting at 1st level, but can get it at 2nd level. 

For a full list of goodies, check out the interview, or if some enterprising individual wishes to write up a list and post it, feel free.


----------



## Endur (Mar 29, 2003)

*3.5*

He didn't give us the full details on the Bard and Ranger classes (we'll have to wait to the SRD or books for the full version), but he came very close.

Bards + Rangers: 6 skill points
Bards: more songs, more knowledge bonuses
Rangers: more feats, more favored enemy bonuses, more balanced feat progression (don't get everything at 1st level)

Other stuff too
Skill Focus is +3 now
lots of +2/+2 feats like alertness, athletic, etc.

Tom


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 29, 2003)

Woo hoo. My ranger/bard isn't going to _suck_  anymore!


----------



## A'koss (Mar 29, 2003)

*3.5e tidbits from the Ed Stark chat.*

I'm just going to be brief here with the major points (and in no particular order). You can listen to the whole chat (2 hours worth) here: http://www.mortality.net/shoutcast.php

1. Class-wise, the fighter, cleric, wizard, sorcerer, rogue and paladin won't see much in the way of changes. Spells are another matter of course.
2. The barbarian gets DR earlier, starting at 7th level (1/-) and gaining more (5/- @ 19th level). Abilities spread out more to make class more attractive.
3. The monk gets ki strike earlier (Ki Strike: Magic at 4th level / Lawful at 10th level / Adamantine at 16th level) and has apparantly seen a broader changes in general. Flurry/Improved Flurry and multiclassing have been clarified.
4. The ranger gets improved species enemy abilities (starting at 1st level), more skill points, track while running, "wild empathy" ability (again at 1st level)... and at 2nd level gets to choose his "combat style" (two-weapon and archery only).
5. The bard is being treated as the "diplomat" and "information gatherer". He gets more song abilities, a revised spell list.
6. There will be a new "Combat and Tactics" style book coming out later this year for more tactical minis combat options! (The Complete Warrior perhaps?)
7. Spells, if unbalanced, were tweaked if possible to keep them at the same spell level. They tried to move as few as possible (up or down)
8. Harm and Heal cap out at 15th level (max. 150 HPs and Harm gets a Save for 1/2 [Min. 1 HP]), Haste goes back to previous editions affecting a larger group of people. Everyone gains a bonus to move, AC, attack bonus and an extra move action but of course no 2 spells at once. And on that note, Sorcerers still can't make use of Quicken Spell (the only way to cast 2 spells at once).
9. Diplomacy and Perform get minor tweaks, clarifications.
10. Magic Missile and Fireball (clarifications on setting things on fire only) stay the same.
11. More definitive list of Knowledge skills and what they can do in-game. Eg. Knowlege Arcana could be used to discern what a magical monster's special attack might be (That dragon looks like it uses sleep gas as a breath weapon...).
12. Little blurb in DMG about slowing XP accumulation. Onus still on DM.
13. Monsters treated more like characters - hit dice, skills, feats, etc. New rules for creating/advancing monsters and CR determination.
14. DR... silver, cold iron, magic, adamantine, epic (+6 or better), bludgeoning, piercing, slashing, alignment. And combos possible, magic-silvered for example. Ranges 5 to 15 (but I think he mentioned 20 appearing in there somewhere...)
15. More +2 to 2 related skills feats. Acrobatic feat: +2 to Jump and Tumble for example. Skill Focus: +3 to 1 skill.
16. Artwork: mixing old with new, new iconic character, some artwork removed to make space for other rules...
17. Skill Points: Bard/Ranger get more, everybody else stays the same.
18. Magic Item creation: tweaks, not wholesale changes. Bonuses to skills more expensive. Holy Avenger improved to justify cost.
19. Combat: a little more on mounted combat. Grappling easier to handle, more options to escape (and to grapple) and every monster has a Grappling modifier entry. Overall, the combat section thinned out a little.
20. SRD updated the same day books hit the stores.
21. 12 Prestige Classes in DMG. New ones include the Duelist (tweaked for 3.5) and the Eldritch(?) Knight.... some kind fighter/wizard PrC.
22. Paladin and Monk multiclassing restrictions stay.
23. No "action dice" rules or stuff like that...
24. DM Screen not on the radar this year. Dragon Mag has a promo for one though...
25. Polymorph being re-re-redone for balance (no commoner to solar polymorphs) and is broken down into sections. Changes include bonuses to save if new form can't live in current environment (eg. fish outta water).
26. Weapon familiarity: Halfling, Half-Orc and Half-Elf don't get any familiar weapons. Familiarity only useful if class gets martial weapon proficiencies.
27. Stacking spell and magic item bonuses clarified. Expedious Retreat and Boots of Striding and Springing for example.
28. Spells: filling gaps in schools with new spells. More spells to help differentiate classes like the Bard.
29. New Spell: 5th level Necromancy spell Waves of Fatigue - fatigues targets...
30. New Feat: Natural Spell - cast spells in wildshape. Well, not really new, but in there anyway.
31. MMII - will see a web update to convert over to 3.5 and should be available the day 3.5e core books are realeased. Splatbooks won't unless there is a huge outcry.



Cheers,

A'koss!

_edited Monk ki strike acquisition._
_edited Monk ki strike again to fill in the progression and edited harm._


----------



## Angcuru (Mar 29, 2003)

well, I still think that every class should be able to take weapon specialization. to me it makes no sense that you can eventually get something like Overpowering Critical, but still not get weapon specialization.


----------



## Green Knight (Mar 29, 2003)

Damn! I was really hoping the Paladin/Monk multi-classing restrictions would go away and that they'd give the Paladin a little bit more at higher levels to make them interesting. Really, how many Cure Disease attempts a week do you need? Oh well. The rest sounds pretty good.


----------



## ristan (Mar 29, 2003)

> 31. MMII - will see a web update to convert over to 3.5 and should be available the day 3.5e core books are realeased. Splatbooks won't unless there is a huge outcry.




Just wanted to add that he also mentioned Epic Level Handbook, Deities & Demigods, & MotP would be receiving these as well. 
 My guess is for the Monsters in them?


----------



## Wormwood (Mar 29, 2003)

I was really, really hoping they would look at Magic Missile (give it a save or make it a Ray).

Overall I'm happy, but I still don't think they went far enough balance-wise.


----------



## Angcuru (Mar 29, 2003)

why the hell would they alter magic missile? It is and always has been the mage's favored spell since it ALWAYS hits. It's a bit of a balancing factor, and has saved the lives of many a mage. I can't tell you HOW many times a mage in my games has saved his own arse with that spell when being charged by a goblin berserker!

are they going to have a trade-in type of thing for the altered books? For me this seems more like a scheme to increase sales than an attempt to balance the game. If I can trade in my Core books, S&F, and ELH for the 3.5 ones, for a reasonable fee, I will of course do so, but otherwise......probably not gonna get the new ones.


----------



## Wormwood (Mar 29, 2003)

Angcuru said:
			
		

> *why the hell would they alter magic missile? It is and always has been the mage's favored spell since it ALWAYS hits. *




Kinda answered your own question there, didncha?


----------



## Adlon (Mar 29, 2003)

A'Koss, thank you for the summary of the interview.


----------



## Angcuru (Mar 29, 2003)

well then why do they want to change it NOW? why not WAY back in 2nd edition?


----------



## Wormwood (Mar 29, 2003)

Angcuru said:
			
		

> *well then why do they want to change it NOW? why not WAY back in 2nd edition? *




My point was that they *are not* changing Magic Missile.


----------



## Adlon (Mar 29, 2003)

Henry, I definately do NOT mind. This show, and it's interviews, are for the community.

A'Koss has posted a pretty good summary in another thread.

To those who came, and/or posted questions, thank you.


----------



## Green Knight (Mar 29, 2003)

> are they going to have a trade-in type of thing for the altered books? For me this seems more like a scheme to increase sales than an attempt to balance the game. If I can trade in my Core books, S&F, and ELH for the 3.5 ones, for a reasonable fee, I will of course do so, but otherwise......probably not gonna get the new ones.




Are you serious?  Damned Nintendo! Should've had a trade-in deal for when they released the Super Nintendo. Had to buy that thing full price after I already owned a regular Nintendo. Can you believe that? Or how about Sony. They expect people who already owned a Playstation to buy a Playstation 2 at full price? Are they out of their minds? Nevermind the folks at computer companies? Why don't they have a trade-in deal where I can give them my old decrepit computer to bring down the price of the new one? Bastards! 

/sarcasm


----------



## A'koss (Mar 29, 2003)

I seem to have missed mentioning that Bards can cast spells in armor now. 

As far as Magic Missile goes, Ed mentioned that they tried a variant that inflicted d6 damage, save for 1/2. The playtesters apparantly said they thought it was more balanced, but hated it anyway. So back it went. It's funny he says this because that was exactly the same change they tried out during the original 3e playtest...

Apparantly the multiclass restrictions for the Paladin and Monk remained bacause "the playtesters wanted them." I personally found that a little hard to swallow...    At any rate, Ed said it was easy enough to drop them if a DM chose to.

Adlon, you're welcome. It was just something whipped up to tide people over until you guys get a proper transcript of the chat done.


Cheers,

A'koss.


----------



## Mercule (Mar 29, 2003)

Angcuru said:
			
		

> *well, I still think that every class should be able to take weapon specialization. *




That's a troll, right?


----------



## rounser (Mar 30, 2003)

> I seem to have missed mentioning that Bards can cast spells in armor now.



Hooray!  The situation before was damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't...and the amount of getting in and out of armour was enough to consider taking ranks in Perform (Stripping)...


----------



## JoeBlank (Mar 30, 2003)

A'koss said:
			
		

> *As far as Magic Missile goes, Ed mentioned that they tried a variant that inflicted d6 damage, save for 1/2. The playtesters apparantly said they thought it was more balanced, but hated it anyway. So back it went. It's funny he says this because that was exactly the same change they tried out during the original 3e playtest...*




WOTC published this variant in the _Spellbook_ feature on their website.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/sb/sb20030308x

Bards casting spells in armor without an armor check penalty is perhaps the best news of all!


----------



## A'koss (Mar 30, 2003)

Another little tibit about the Bard I missed was that they apparantly have a "dramatically improved" Bardic Lore ability. The "Eldritch Knight" was also one of those PrCs considered to be a good more into for the Bard...


A'koss.


----------



## ssampier (Mar 30, 2003)

Not bad, seems like a good enough reason to get the 3.5 PHB. Haven't seen any cause to get the other two yet though.

Magic missile is what makes a wizard a wizard, no rewrites! Otherwise you might as well play GURPS or something 

(I still wants to call D&D 3.5 "D&D 95" )


----------



## Henry (Mar 30, 2003)

Just a note: I merged this thread and the "tidbits" thread, just to keep the info together.


----------



## Gez (Mar 30, 2003)

A'koss said:
			
		

> *Another little tibit about the Bard I missed was that they apparantly have a "dramatically improved" Bardic Lore ability. The "Eldritch Knight" was also one of those PrCs considered to be a good more into for the Bard...*




Wonder if that may be Monte Cook's Eldritch Warrior PrC.

As for nerfing _magic missile_, why not ? While you're at that, give wizards a d1 HD, remove their good Will save, and replace the "Intelligence score must be equal to 10+spell level to cast a spell" by "Intelligence modifier must be equal to spell level to cast a spell". Sheesh.


----------



## Olive (Mar 30, 2003)

Angcuru said:
			
		

> *why the hell would they alter magic missile? It is and always has been the mage's favored spell since it ALWAYS hits. It's a bit of a balancing factor, and has saved the lives of many a mage. I can't tell you HOW many times a mage in my games has saved his own arse with that spell when being charged by a goblin berserker!*




and yet you're one of the people suggesting they change things about the paladin that have always been that way aren't you?


----------



## Celtavian (Mar 30, 2003)

*Re*



> And on that note, Sorcerers still can't make use of Quicken Spell (the only way to cast 2 spells at once).





This is pretty annoying. Kind of hamstrings sorcerers considering they already receive less feats than a wizard and really don't have the extra feat to spend on Arcane Preparation to take advantage of quicken spell. This will make the sorcerer a much less attractive class, IMO.

I could have accepted the Haste change if they had integrated a means for the sorcerer to use the Quicken feat without Arcane Preparation. Now, I feel like my blaster sorcerer has been completely hamstringed.


----------



## Gez (Mar 30, 2003)

Olive said:
			
		

> *and yet you're one of the people suggesting they change things about the paladin that have always been that way aren't you? *




The multiclassing restriction for paladin has always been the way it is ? Funny, I thought multi-classing didn't existed in 2e (it worked completely not in the same way, and was totally lame, that is; 3e multiclassing is real multiclassing).

The paladin was before restricted to humans. Humans couldn't multiclass. But there were lots of other classes that were restricted to human (like, for example, any specialist wizard save illusionist (gnome) and enchanter (elf)). What if they forbade clerics of human deity to multiclass ? For flavor ? Because that has always been the way it is ?


----------



## Gez (Mar 30, 2003)

*Re: Re*



			
				Celtavian said:
			
		

> *Now, I feel like my blaster sorcerer has been completely hamstringed. *




Nerfing was the intent.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Mar 30, 2003)

4. The ranger gets improved species enemy abilities (starting at 1st level), more skill points, track while running, "wild empathy" ability (again at 1st level)... and at 2nd level gets to choose his "combat style" (two-weapon and archery only).



I've heard enough.

This change has made up my mind.  Instead of being shoehorned into two weapon fighting, the ranger gets shoe horned into either two weapon fighting OR archery style.  I was willing to give WOTC the benefit of the doubt, but since theyn still haven't been able to come up with a decent ranger class, I refuse to purchase 3.5 E.  I may download the SRD, but they have gotten all my money they are going to get.  

A ranger is not defined by his fighting style.  Every other class can fight however they want - be it twf, archery, weapon and shield, single weapon style, unarmed, or two handed weapon style.  The ranger has to use twf or archery or waste half his class abilities.  There is no room for a ranger who fights with a single weapon only, or a two handed weapon.

I'm sure there are those who would say there is no reason why a ranger can't choose that style, but you'd as soon play a mage with a 10 intelligence as a ranger with feats he doesn't use.  I.E., it ain't gonna happen.  So, even though my piddly little dollar doesn't amount to crap, WOTC will not see any more of them.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 30, 2003)

*Re: 3.5e tidbits from the Ed Stark chat.*



			
				A'koss said:
			
		

> *
> 3. The monk gets ki strike earlier (Ki Strike: Magic at 1st(?) level) *




Fourth level (about the time a fighter is getting a magic weapon, according to Ed). 

Cheers!


----------



## MerricB (Mar 30, 2003)

Another thing I've just picked up (in response to one of my questions): No Beginner Game this year. Seems the rumours about a new 3.5E "Adventure Starts Here" product are still just rumours.

Cheers!


----------



## A'koss (Mar 30, 2003)

Thanks for the correction MerricB, I'll go edit the list. I listened to that section 3 times over and I still wasn't sure what he had said there (hence the _?_). Although I don't know many fighters in core D&D who have to wait until 4th level to get a magic weapon...

Good link JoeBlank, I'd forgotten that they'd posted that.

JRRNeiklot, I wasn't all that pleased about the Ranger's so-called "combat styles" myself. When I think of rangers I think of weapons along the lines of spears, axes, knives, swords and bows. No "mounted combat" style for people like the plainsmen? Will this "archery" style carry over to hand-hurled weapons as well?


A'koss.


----------



## drnuncheon (Mar 30, 2003)

Of course, the advent of 'fighting styles' for rangers means that instead of seeing scores of alt.rangers we'll just see scores of different fighting styles.

J


----------



## Nightfall (Mar 30, 2003)

Gez said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Wonder if that may be Monte Cook's Eldritch Warrior PrC.
> *




That's my thought Gez. I think if it is, that's cool. Eldritch Warrior was/is a good Pr-class.


----------



## Technik4 (Mar 30, 2003)

As someone else said, if you are upset that there are only 2 styles for the ranger to pick from, Im sure there will be many come July on the house rules boards. 

Also, I highly doubt a couple feats add up to "half his class abilities", a ranger has animal companions, spells, favored enemy bonuses, 6 skill points/level, AND a fighting style. Giving up a flavor style for balance would not create that much weaker of a character, for instance if you want a ranger with a greatsword, take the archery tree as backup and you will be about as effective as a paladin and a little less than a fighter (as you should be).

Who wants to go back to 2e when all the players were rangers?

Technik


----------



## Droogie (Mar 30, 2003)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> *4. The ranger gets improved species enemy abilities (starting at 1st level), more skill points, track while running, "wild empathy" ability (again at 1st level)... and at 2nd level gets to choose his "combat style" (two-weapon and archery only).
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Totally agree. The only class who needs a "fighting style" is the monk. 

Wouldn't it have been easier to just give the ranger a few extra feats and leave it at that? 

I'll prolly buy the books anyway, tho. *sigh*


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 31, 2003)

*Re: 3.5e tidbits from the Ed Stark chat.*

_Originally posted by A'koss _
1. Class-wise, the fighter, cleric, wizard, sorcerer, rogue and paladin won't see much in the way of changes. Spells are another matter of course.
Much. Hmm. Some higher level feats for fighters, new spells/domains for clerics, new spells for wizards, new or more spells for sorcerer, rogues get more trap abilities (from lifes bazzar), and paladins a boost on spells (maybe a bonus feat?) Thats fine. With the exception of the sorcerer, none of those classes were hella-broken, esp. if everything is put into line.

2. The barbarian gets DR earlier, starting at 7th level (1/-) and gaining more (5/- @ 19th level). Abilities spread out more to make class more attractive.
Fine enough. I still think I'll see more barbarian/fighters than pure BBNs. 

3. The monk gets ki strike earlier (Ki Strike: Magic at 4th level) and has apparantly seen a broader changes in general. Flurry/Improved Flurry and multiclassing have been clarified.
As long as they are brought into line with the changes.

4. The ranger gets improved species enemy abilities (starting at 1st level), more skill points, track while running, "wild empathy" ability (again at 1st level)... and at 2nd level gets to choose his "combat style" (two-weapon and archery only).
Thank God. More skill points to afford class skills, track while running (aragorn?), wild empathy (bonus to animal empathy? maybe druids get it too.), fighting styles to choose from (I don't know about you, but EVERY ranger I saw was a TWF or archer, so I embrace the change). I hope Imp. Species enemy translates into "Even bonuses for all species enemies"

5. The bard is being treated as the "diplomat" and "information gatherer". He gets more song abilities, a revised spell list.
Again, TG. Any bard that is more than a singing archer will be most welcomed. More spell slots would be icing. 

6. There will be a new "Combat and Tactics" style book coming out later this year for more tactical minis combat options! (The Complete Warrior perhaps?)
I'd like to think so.

7. Spells, if unbalanced, were tweaked if possible to keep them at the same spell level. They tried to move as few as possible (up or down)
Good. Less headaches for conversion. 

8. Harm and Heal cap out at 15th level (max. 150 HPs and Harm gets a Save for 1/2), Haste goes back to previous editions affecting a larger group of people. Everyone gains a bonus to move, AC, attack bonus and an extra move action but of course no 2 spells at once. And on that note, Sorcerers still can't make use of Quicken Spell (the only way to cast 2 spells at once).
Heal and Harm: Good changes (worth incorporating, if I knew exactly how they scaled), Haste is a mass spell? what happens to its bigger brother? Extra move action? No extra attack?  Maybe a higher level version might, or its a typo. 

9. Diplomacy and Perform get minor tweaks, clarifications.
Please treat perform like a craft, knowledge, or profession...

10. Magic Missile and Fireball (clarifications on setting things on fire only) stay the same.
Good. Staples of the game. 

11. More definitive list of Knowledge skills and what they can do in-game. Eg. Knowlege Arcana could be used to discern what a magical monster's special attack might be (That dragon looks like it uses sleep gas as a breath weapon...).
This is something I've wanted for a long time. Hopefully, there is crossover between knowledge skills and bardic lore. 

12. Little blurb in DMG about slowing XP accumulation. Onus still on DM.
Thats fair.

13. Monsters treated more like characters - hit dice, skills, feats, etc. New rules for creating/advancing monsters and CR determination.
We've seen this in Sav.Species and Race of Faerun...

14. DR... silver, cold iron, magic, adamantine, epic (+6 or better), bludgeoning, piercing, slashing, alignment. And combos possible, magic-silvered for example. Ranges 5 to 15 (but I think he mentioned 20 appearing in there somewhere...)
hmmm.... Silver + Bless = Holysilver? 

15. More +2 to 2 related skills feats. Acrobatic feat: +2 to Jump and Tumble for example. Skill Focus: +3 to 1 skill.
The first house rule of my game is official. Take a look at Star Wars or Wheel of Time for a good idea of the +2/+2 feats. 

16. Artwork: mixing old with new, new iconic character, some artwork removed to make space for other rules...
I figured as much

17. Skill Points: Bard/Ranger get more, everybody else stays the same.
Yeah for Bard/Ranger, boo for sorcerer. 

18. Magic Item creation: tweaks, not wholesale changes. Bonuses to skills more expensive. Holy Avenger improved to justify cost.
CASTER LEVEL PREREQUISTITE BETTER BE CLARIFIED. I'M TIRED OF THE AGE OLD ARGUEMENT!

19. Combat: a little more on mounted combat. Grappling easier to handle, more options to escape (and to grapple) and every monster has a Grappling modifier entry. Overall, the combat section thinned out a little.
Clarification is good. 

20. SRD updated the same day books hit the stores.
Good for the hold-overs.

21. 12 Prestige Classes in DMG. New ones include the Duelist (tweaked for 3.5) and the Eldritch(?) Knight.... some kind fighter/wizard PrC.
Maybe a renamed spellsword?

22. Paladin and Monk multiclassing restrictions stay.
Boo. O well.

23. No "action dice" rules or stuff like that...
Figured as much

24. DM Screen not on the radar this year. Dragon Mag has a promo for one though...
TG I get Dragon 

25. Polymorph being re-re-redone for balance (no commoner to solar polymorphs) and is broken down into sections. Changes include bonuses to save if new form can't live in current environment (eg. fish outta water).
As long as they make it balanced, I'm all for it

26. Weapon familiarity: Halfling, Half-Orc and Half-Elf don't get any familiar weapons. Familiarity only useful if class gets martial weapon proficiencies.
Now I'm confused. Poor Half-orc, stuck w/out his double axe...

27. Stacking spell and magic item bonuses clarified. Expedious Retreat and Boots of Striding and Springing for example.
Always nice.

28. Spells: filling gaps in schools with new spells. More spells to help differentiate classes like the Bard.
Again, nice. 

29. New Spell: 5th level Necromancy spell Waves of Fatigue - fatigues targets...
Like ray of fatigue, but more targets...

30. New Feat: Natural Spell - cast spells in wildshape. Well, not really new, but in there anyway.
Incorportating needed feats from Splat, got it.

31. MMII - will see a web update to convert over to 3.5 and should be available the day 3.5e core books are realeased. Splatbooks won't unless there is a huge outcry.
Good. More support Like Epic Insights or Minds Eye would be nice.


----------



## coyote6 (Mar 31, 2003)

*Re: Re: 3.5e tidbits from the Ed Stark chat.*



			
				Remathilis said:
			
		

> Please treat perform like a craft, knowledge, or profession...
> [/B]




FWIW, please don't. I like Perform the way it is now.

(And, while I'm at the counter-request, let me just hope again that Jump isn't changed to match d20 Modern.  )


----------



## Vocenoctum (Mar 31, 2003)

Anything about druid weapons/ armor?


----------



## bret (Mar 31, 2003)

No mention of if they changed the cost to scribe spells in a wizards spellbook?

The changes to Bard and Ranger make me wonder how many rogues we will see.

Both the Ranger and Bard have a good selection of skills available. They both have spells. The ranger gets full BAB. Now they are going to get almost as many skill points as a rogue, certainly more than a Rogue/Fighter multiclass would average.

I'm wondering how this will affect the rogue.


----------



## A'koss (Mar 31, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Remathilis_
> 
> Haste is a mass spell? what happens to its bigger brother? Extra move action? No extra attack?  Maybe a higher level version might, or its a typo.




That extra "move" action can be turned into an extra attack. No mention though of what happens to Mass Haste. I suspect that it has either been dropped or replaced with some kind of "Improved" Haste.

Vecenoctum, this chat gave virtually no new information on the Druid other than it's seeing some changes...

Bret, nothing on scribing spells either. I don't see the Rogue affected much by the changes, even if Ed liked to describe the new Ranger as a "Wilderness Rogue". The Rogue still has evasion, sneak attack and some decent abilities to pick up after 10th level...


A'koss.


----------



## Green Knight (Mar 31, 2003)

> Bards don't suffer penalties spellcasting in armor.




Ok, I just want this clarified for the sake of my sanity. 

Say I'm a multi-classed Bard/Paladin. I'm wearing a suit of Full Plate and holding a large shield. So I have* 0* chance of suffering Arcane spell failure? 

If so, WHOO HOO! My Bard/Paladin idea suddenly seems more appealing!  Hmm. I wonder if I can convince my DM to integrate the Bard improvements which we KNOW about for a fact? Specifically no Arcane Spell Failure and 6 skill points. I can always rewrite my character when 3.5 comes out, later, to add in the other new stuff but I could sure use this stuff right away when my DM gets around to starting up a new Forgotten Realms game. Now the only question is: Would I rather be a 3rd-level Bard, or a 4th-level Bard?


----------



## Spatula (Mar 31, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: 3.5e tidbits from the Ed Stark chat.*



			
				coyote6 said:
			
		

> *FWIW, please don't. I like Perform the way it is now.*



Perform as-is involves less bookeeping, but is rather silly.  Now that bards are getting more skill points, I don't see any reason not to break up the skill as they did in d20 Modern.







> *(And, while I'm at the counter-request, let me just hope again that Jump isn't changed to match d20 Modern.  ) *



It actually works out the same (without needing a calculator!), or very nearly so, when you've got a character with a speed of 30.  The current D&D Jump skill takes longer to resolve (for no benefit) if your move is 30, and takes forever if it's not.  If they use the simpler d20 Modern mechanism and can turn faster/slower movement rates into plusses/minuses to the skill, then they'd have a Jump skill that might actually be usable in the middle of a game.


----------



## A'koss (Mar 31, 2003)

I just picked up a new 3.5e tidbit from over on r.g.f.d. - Ambidexterity is being dropped. 

The Two-Weapon Fighting feat now grants the same bonus as having both. You'll still require the additional TW Fighting feats in order to gain the 2nd, 3rd and 4th extra off-hand attacks however.


Cheers,

A'koss.


----------



## Green Knight (Mar 31, 2003)

Did they mention the prerequisites? Do you need a Dex of 15+ like for Ambidexterity? 

Whatever the case, I'm glad it's gone. Two Feats for that? No thanks. Plus it made it a bear to recreate a character I had in 2E who fought two-weapon style, bastard sword in one hand and shield bashing with the other. Now it might be worthwhile to remake that character, after all.


----------



## Selvarin (Mar 31, 2003)

*Hmm...*

Sp Ambidexterity's gone for good or...?...I can still see where people may be ambidextrous without favoring TWF. but whataver works.

Hmm, no changes for the paladin? No improvements in order to bring about a better progression? Tsk.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Mar 31, 2003)

*Re: 3.5e tidbits from the Ed Stark chat.*



			
				A'koss said:
			
		

> *26. Weapon familiarity: Halfling, Half-Orc and Half-Elf don't get any familiar weapons. Familiarity only useful if class gets martial weapon proficiencies.
> *




Does that mean that Elves get weapon familarity? For what weapons? Is the Thinblade in?


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 31, 2003)

Green Knight said:
			
		

> *
> Say I'm a multi-classed Bard/Paladin. I'm wearing a suit of Full Plate and holding a large shield. So I have 0 chance of suffering Arcane spell failure? *




Of course, you might have a question of how your bard alignment (any non-Lawful) and Paladin alignment (Lawful Good) stack up... Are you going to be an ex-Paladin, or an ex-Bard, and which abilities are lost from which class 

(OTOH, I'd love to play a Paladin with the "inspire courage" ability - inspiring my mates as I charge into battle!)


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 31, 2003)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> *4. The ranger gets improved species enemy abilities (starting at 1st level), more skill points, track while running, "wild empathy" ability (again at 1st level)... and at 2nd level gets to choose his "combat style" (two-weapon and archery only).
> 
> I've heard enough.
> 
> This change has made up my mind.  Instead of being shoehorned into two weapon fighting, the ranger gets shoe horned into either two weapon fighting OR archery style.  -snip-  *




Doesn't it seem exciting that the ranger is getting some interesting unique abilities? It sound to me as though the ranger is now going to be defined more by his wider range of skills, wild empathy, track while running and improved species enemy...

fighting styles is something at 2nd level that could encourage someone to stick with the class for another level and looks like a nicely extensible option (I'm very likely to create an appropriate mounted fighting style for the Dukan Nomads in my campaign, for instance).

Sounds all good to me.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 31, 2003)

bret said:
			
		

> *
> The changes to Bard and Ranger make me wonder how many rogues we will see.
> 
> Both the Ranger and Bard have a good selection of skills available. They both have spells. The ranger gets full BAB. Now they are going to get almost as many skill points as a rogue, certainly more than a Rogue/Fighter multiclass would average.
> *




Well, since the Rogue still gets unique skills, sneak attack, unique ability to disarm traps, uncanny dodge & evasion, plus a range of other interesting abilities from 10th level... I'd imagine that we would see pretty much as many rogues as we do now.

This skill point fix for the Bard and Ranger is long overdue IMO - it was one of the early house rules in my campaign and I don't think it downplays the rogue one iota.


----------



## Tharkun (Mar 31, 2003)

Ya know what?  Everyone should go and buy the books if you can afford it regardless if you like it or not.  Why?  Because if you want the game to keep going (improving, whatever) then you need to show your support for WoTC.  

And if you do not like the 3.5 books you know what you can do?  GIVE them to someone who is just starting out in gaming or give them to an organization like Goodwill or something like that.  We want to make the hobby grow (and D&D in particular).  Don't we?


----------



## Knight Otu (Mar 31, 2003)

So, if halfling, half-orc and half-elf don't get weapon familiarity, what about HUMANS?


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Mar 31, 2003)

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *So, if halfling, half-orc and half-elf don't get weapon familiarity, what about HUMANS? *




And elves, too. 

I don't think humans get some. But halflings could gain the skiprock or the warsling, and half-orcs have the double axe, why don't they gain familiarity with them?


----------



## Knight Otu (Mar 31, 2003)

> and half-orcs have the double axe, why don't they gain familiarity with them?




I suppose it is a cultural thing... the half-races apparently are not as familiar with the racial weapons as their parents are (the halflings thus were caught by error ). That of course would require that the orc would gain weapon familiarity.


----------



## Schmoe (Mar 31, 2003)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> *4. The ranger gets improved species enemy abilities (starting at 1st level), more skill points, track while running, "wild empathy" ability (again at 1st level)... and at 2nd level gets to choose his "combat style" (two-weapon and archery only).
> 
> 
> 
> ...




How many barbarians do you see that focus on ranged combat?
How many paladins do you see that focus on sneaking?
How many sorcerers do you see that focus on melee?

My point is, just because they've limited the most effective use of a ranger to two different styles of combat, doesn't mean that they've shoe-horned the ranger any more than they've shoe-horned any other class. 

The ranger can focus on either melee _or_ ranged combat and still be effective.  If he chooses melee, he has some advantages when fighting with two-weapon style.  That hardly begins to define the class.

I think you are overreacting in this case.


----------



## Li Shenron (Mar 31, 2003)

What strikes me most is that all the changes are, as you say, "boosts". Is it really going to be a more balanced game, or is it only going to the have the effect of appealing powergamers? What about the poor losers who chose to play a class which is not going to be "boosted"?

I thing changing classes to make them more unique in style, or to remove restrictions for more flexibility was a good idea, but more skill points or bonus feats is not helping much, IMHO.

Anyway, let's wait and see how it works


----------



## Galfridus (Mar 31, 2003)

Magic Missile rant on.

Staple or not, Magic Missile is too powerful as is. 

1) It has excellent range, never misses and has no saving throw. This makes it hard for the DM to include low HP foes, as they will always (unless they have Shield) get zapped. Oh yeah, and cover/concealment doesn't matter either -- if you can see it, you can zap it.

2) It's a force effect, so it hits incorporeal creatures automatically and has no resistance built in. This means that right from level 1, incorporeal creatures lose a lot of their "mystique". Oooh, a ghost -- BZZZT. 

3) And of course, it scales very well, retaining it's usefulness for a long time.

It's so good that any character who can take it would be foolish not to take it. It's far, far better than any other 1st level attack spell -- so taking any other 1st level attack spell is just a bad call.

I'm rather dismayed that all they could think to try for 3.5 was the same failed idea as they tried in the 3e playtest. Some ideas I have toyed with:

-- Does 1d4 damage instead of 1d4+1. Probably not enough.

-- Does elemental damage (fire, probably) instead of force. At least then an Endure Elements will render you immune.

-- Ranged touch attack.

Personally, I wouldn't start another campaign without changing it, just to provide some variety in low level attack spells.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Mar 31, 2003)

Tharkun said:
			
		

> *Ya know what?  Everyone should go and buy the books if you can afford it regardless if you like it or not.  Why?  Because if you want the game to keep going (improving, whatever) then you need to show your support for WoTC.
> 
> And if you do not like the 3.5 books you know what you can do?  GIVE them to someone who is just starting out in gaming or give them to an organization like Goodwill or something like that.  We want to make the hobby grow (and D&D in particular).  Don't we? *




Or I can show WotC that I do not like what they are doing and that I don't aprove of the way they are doing it and I will not give them money so that they think it is OK. Instead I will spend my money on d20 publishers who care about the hobby rather than milking the customer out of as much money as possible. D&D will not die, the SRD can't be revoked, so I will spend my money with companies who do care.


----------



## Skaros (Mar 31, 2003)

*Re: Re*



			
				Celtavian said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> This is pretty annoying. Kind of hamstrings sorcerers considering they already receive less feats than a wizard and really don't have the extra feat to spend on Arcane Preparation to take advantage of quicken spell. This will make the sorcerer a much less attractive class, IMO.
> ...




I'm not sure...quicken spell would be much more useful to sorcerers than wizards, as sorcerers can more easily afford to sacrifice higher level spell slots.  Even with arcane preparation required, it might just be worth the price of admission.

-Skaros


----------



## Lord Rasputin (Mar 31, 2003)

Galfridus said:
			
		

> *Magic Missile rant on.
> 
> Staple or not, Magic Missile is too powerful as is.
> 
> ...




Ideas one and two sound pretty good to me, in combination. I always thought it should deal 1d3 damage, which would still make it better, since it never misses and has no save. Plus, you wouldn't need to roll the caltrops. There's a value in having an attack that never misses, even from the game-system standpoint, but _Magic Missile_ is too much.


----------



## Lord Rasputin (Mar 31, 2003)

Say, could someone sort all this new stuff into something readable? Like, sort changes by SRD chapter or something, so we can see all changes to the bard in one spot, all changes to feats in another, and so on and so forth. Morrus hasn't updated the 3.5 Scoops page lately.


----------



## dead_radish (Mar 31, 2003)

Re: Racial Familiarity:

Elves already get it - all elves are proficient with bows and rapiers or longswords.  Now Dwarves will as well.  And the halfling skiprock isn't a core weapon - it's a Sword and Fist weapon.  There might be an errata somewhere that adds it in, or they may only be playing with the SRD.

Re: DnD won't die.

Um, yes, yes it will.  If we were to stop buying Wizards products right now, DnD would die off quickly.  Wizards might sell it, might not.  But we need to keep buying products.  I was pissed when 3.5 first was mentioned.  Now I see they have done a lot of revisions, and that they will be SRD'ing it - bully for them.  3+ years is fine for a revision.  Support your favorite d20, sure.  But don't think that since the SRD exists, DnD will remain - we need new players, since old players drop off.  If there is no new marketing, and no new official material, many players will fade out, and no new ones will come in.  That is death for the game.  It's a niche market - it has to be fed.


----------



## Ron (Mar 31, 2003)

Schmoe said:
			
		

> *
> 
> How many barbarians do you see that focus on ranged combat?
> How many paladins do you see that focus on sneaking?
> ...




Still they are shoe-horning the ranger. My last ranger character used to fight with a spear, dismissing his 2WF abillity. Under 3.5 he will still be penalized for not accepting non-sense restrictions. Why not giving the ranger a limited choice of military feats like the fighter, but in reduced number?

Worse is that they insist in stupid 2ed favorite enemy. I would rather see it replaced by something more ranger-like such as advantages in the wilderness.

I guess that, after a few months, we will go back to the alt-ranger design contest.

BTW, I have seen a player very happy with his 1ed barbarian, who was found of using throwing axes as his primary weapon.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Mar 31, 2003)

dead_radish said:
			
		

> *Re: Racial Familiarity:
> 
> Elves already get it - all elves are proficient with bows and rapiers or longswords.
> *




No, they don't. They got some proficiencies for free, which are martial weapons, no exotic ones, and anyway they're in their racial package, while dwarves get bonus to saves against all magic, a dodge bonus against giants, a racial attack bonus against orcs.... Now the dwarves will get something on top of that, but what will the elves get?

And will the half-elves gain something new? They're off even worse since they were a little on the weak side before, and now the gap's getting bigger

*



			Now Dwarves will as well.
		
Click to expand...


*
Familiarity isn't the same as proficiency. An elven fighter will gain nothing from the free proficiencies, but a dwarven fighter will gain something from the familiarities (and fighting characters get the most use out of weapons!)

*



			And the halfling skiprock isn't a core weapon - it's a Sword and Fist weapon.  There might be an errata somewhere that adds it in, or they may only be playing with the SRD.
		
Click to expand...


*
I know, but maybe they incorporate a racial weapon for each race. And the warsling and skiprocks would be ideal for halflings.

*



			Re: DnD won't die.

Um, yes, yes it will.  If we were to stop buying Wizards products right now, DnD would die off quickly.
		
Click to expand...


*
"would" and "will" is not the same...
And I doubt that everyone will stop buying Wizards stuff now. Even if they don't pick up the revised core rules, there are other works for D&D and d20.


*



			Wizards might sell it, might not.  But we need to keep buying products.  I was pissed when 3.5 first was mentioned.  Now I see they have done a lot of revisions, and that they will be SRD'ing it - bully for them.  3+ years is fine for a revision.  Support your favorite d20, sure.  But don't think that since the SRD exists, DnD will remain - we need new players, since old players drop off.  If there is no new marketing, and no new official material, many players will fade out, and no new ones will come in.  That is death for the game.  It's a niche market - it has to be fed.
		
Click to expand...


*
Who says that there will be now new D&D books?

IMO the best way to gain new players is to recruit them. I know not a single roleplayer who started roleplaying because of an Add. They all entered existing gaming circles.

And new players need the core rules first. They won't start out with MM2 and A&EG...


----------



## NewJeffCT (Mar 31, 2003)

Don’t laugh, but, back in 2E days, we had a house rule that allowed each class to get weapon specialization, if they wanted it.  

We had quite a few levels of specialization (specialization, double specialization, signature move, master, grandmaster), but if a wizard wanted to specialize in a weapon, he or she could spend extra weapon proficiency slots over time and they would eventually become specialized.  (I think at around 12th level, or 18th)  I don’t think a wizard could progress beyond specialization, and most classes could double specialize at the most.  A fighter could specialize, then double-specialize, then they get a special “signature” move (like, extra damage or init bonus) or become a weapon master, then a grand master.  I think warrior classes (ranger & paladin), and a fighter multi-class, could get the signature move, but only pure fighters could become weapon masters.

So, it did happen before.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Mar 31, 2003)

Well, yes, it looks like some classes got a "boost", as one poster put it.  However, in defense of Wizards, I would think it would be easier to boost 3 or 4 classes and races than to tone down the advantages of 8-10.  Because, then you would have people complaining about things going the other way... "Why could I do this before, but not I can’t?  Waaahhh"


----------



## bret (Mar 31, 2003)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Well, since the Rogue still gets unique skills, sneak attack, unique ability to disarm traps, uncanny dodge & evasion, plus a range of other interesting abilities from 10th level... I'd imagine that we would see pretty much as many rogues as we do now.
> 
> This skill point fix for the Bard and Ranger is long overdue IMO - it was one of the early house rules in my campaign and I don't think it downplays the rogue one iota. *




Rogue Unique skills: There aren't that many skills that a Rogue gets which a Bard doesn't.

Bard gets Alchemy, Speak Language, Scry, Concentrate, the Knowledge Skills, and Spellcraft.

Rogue gets Disable Device, Forgery, Innuendo, Intimidate, Open Lock, Search, Read Lips, and Spot.

The traps ability really isn't that much fun. Traps are the rogue's version of healing spells. I get to have the GM roll a dice to decide if I'm going to die. Either the player has put enough points into the two skills (Search and Disable Device) to do the job, in which case they have the same number of remaining skill points as the Bard and Ranger, or they didn't put enough points in and die.

In many groups, the Rogue is expected to invest in both search and disable device just like the cleric is expected to heal. In some groups, it can be a little more fun if the GM allows the Rogue to set traps.

Read Lips is the only skill that is truely exclusive to the rogue.


There are so many ways to prevent Sneak Attacks, it isn't even funny. At high levels, a fair number of fighters are going to want armor with Fortification on it just to prevent the wild critical hits. It has the added bonus of stopping Sneak Attacks. Any concealment stop it. Many summoned creatures can not be sneak attacked.

The sneak attack is nice, but that is about the only thing the rogue has that is effective in combat. Compare it to the BAB of a ranger or the spells that a Bard can pump out, it starts looking a bit weak.

Evasion and Uncanny Dodge are available in any number of PrCs. Speaking of which, almost every rogue PrC only gives 6 skill points or less.


I've seen a lot more people take rogue for the skill points than other reasons. I can't help thinking that bumping the Ranger and Bard is going to take away from the rogue.

Guess we will find out about a year after the new edition is out what effect it really had.

BTW: The Rogues skills have steadily decreased with each edition. They allow you to choose how to specialize, but the total skill ability has steadily decreased.


----------



## Lalato (Mar 31, 2003)

> IMO the best way to gain new players is to recruit them. I know not a single roleplayer who started roleplaying because of an Add. They all entered existing gaming circles.




Speak for yourself...  I started playing DnD because me and my friend happened to be browsing through a train hobby shop one day.  We saw the DnD stuff... and the rest is history.  Not everyone starts playing DnD through some mysterious network of gaming groups.

As much as I like my local gaming stores...  I'm happy to see gaming materials at places like Barnes and Noble because it increases the possibility that some random person might get into the game.  

New products like revised rules offer companies like WotC an opportunity to make gameplay better for existing players and future players.  The revisions also offer them an opportunity to have a good marketing push...  something that is difficult to do with old gaming products.  That's why you don't see advertisments for Monopoly... unless it's the Sesame Street edition or somesuch.

--sam


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Mar 31, 2003)

NewJeffCT said:
			
		

> *Don?t laugh, but, back in 2E days, we had a house rule that allowed each class to get weapon specialization, if they wanted it.
> So, it did happen before. *




Yes, but the fighter still had the edge, because he got stuff the others couldn't get, like Grand Mastery.

Now there's nothing more then specialization, and that should be fighter only. Plus, you can focus on a weapon (2e specialization is the same as 3e Focus plus Specialization).


----------



## kingpaul (Mar 31, 2003)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> *Of course, you might have a question of how your bard alignment (any non-Lawful) and Paladin alignment (Lawful Good) stack up... Are you going to be an ex-Paladin, or an ex-Bard, and which abilities are lost from which class *



This is a personal peeve of mine, the Bard non-lawful requirement...never sounded kosher to me.


----------



## A'koss (Mar 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by Green Knight:
> 
> Did they mention the prerequisites? Do you need a Dex of 15+ like for Ambidexterity?



No mention, I'll ask though (and I suspect that it will).




> Originally posted by KaeYoss:
> 
> Does that mean that Elves get weapon familarity? For what weapons? Is the Thinblade in?



No word, but seeing as how Elves already have automatic racial proficiencies...

Regarding Half-Orcs, it is infact because they are only *Half*-Orcs that they don't gain any weapon familiarity.

No skiprocks for halflings apparantly in 3.5e either.


Cheers,

A'koss.


----------



## green slime (Mar 31, 2003)

I'm with bret on this, I feel a slight concern about the rogue being sidelined. The main reason for playing a rogue in 3e is the humungous amount of skill points. (Twice as much as any other class). Of course that was a poor reason, due to the large number of relatively cheap magic items that granted large bonuses to skills.

So making the skill boost items more expensive is a step in the right direction. But I'll be carefully weighing the changes to see how the rogue fares. I can better accomadate the Bard's skill pint increase (he still has a "must" to train in, performance, in order to gain class abilities), whereas the ranger just seems to keep on getting...( I  thought they were great at 4 skill points per level...) Perhaps they no longer gain spell casting?

I guess we'll just have to keep on waiting.


----------



## Someone (Mar 31, 2003)

A'koss said:
			
		

> *
> The Two-Weapon Fighting feat now grants the same bonus as having both. You'll still require the additional TW Fighting feats in order to gain the 2nd, 3rd and 4th extra off-hand attacks however.
> 
> 
> ...




That´s my house rule!! They read minds at intercontinental distances now??


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Mar 31, 2003)

Tharkun said:
			
		

> *Ya know what?  Everyone should go and buy the books if you can afford it regardless if you like it or not.  Why?  Because if you want the game to keep going (improving, whatever) then you need to show your support for WoTC.
> 
> And if you do not like the 3.5 books you know what you can do?  GIVE them to someone who is just starting out in gaming or give them to an organization like Goodwill or something like that.  We want to make the hobby grow (and D&D in particular).  Don't we? *





I wouldn't force this crap on my worst enemy.


----------



## kingpaul (Mar 31, 2003)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> *I wouldn't force this crap on my worst enemy. *



Crap?  You haven't seen the product, only heard/read info on it, and you're passing harsh judgement without having 1st hand information?


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Mar 31, 2003)

Schmoe said:
			
		

> *
> 
> How many barbarians do you see that focus on ranged combat?
> How many paladins do you see that focus on sneaking?
> ...





Who wants abilities that they never use?  What good is point blank/rapid shot when using a sword and shield?  Go tell the fighter with the greatsword he has to spend feats on two weapon fighting when he really wants the spring attack chain.  

"Uh, sorry, Regdar, you'll have to wait a few levels, you gotta take two weapon fighting first."

"What?  I use a great sword."

"Tough nookies."


And a ranger is even worse.  He doesn't get a bazillion feats to choose from.  Show me one person who will play a ranger and use a fighting style NOT granted by his class abilities and I'll eat my Dungeon Master's Guide.  It will be worse than it is now.  You'll have archers taking two levels for the archery feats and Drizzt wannabes taking it for twf.  They'll just have to take two levels instead of one.  Whoopee.


----------



## DrSpunj (Mar 31, 2003)

A'koss said:
			
		

> *I just picked up a new 3.5e tidbit from over on r.g.f.d. - Ambidexterity is being dropped.
> 
> The Two-Weapon Fighting feat now grants the same bonus as having both. You'll still require the additional TW Fighting feats in order to gain the 2nd, 3rd and 4th extra off-hand attacks however.*




Great!   Sounds like they're going with the d20 Modern version of 2WF then.

BTW, what's "r.g.f.d"?!?  

DrSpunj


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Mar 31, 2003)

kingpaul said:
			
		

> *
> Crap?  You haven't seen the product, only heard/read info on it, and you're passing harsh judgement without having 1st hand information? *





From what has been said about the ranger alone, it appears they have listened to no ones comments.  Look back at this thread.  At least half tose who have posted disagree with the fighting styles approach.  Any company that alienates 50% of their business is producing crap.  It would have been all too easy to satisfy both camps.  Bonus feats from a specific list, for example.  And weapon focus, twf, pbs, etc, shouldn't be on that list.  As it stands, a raner could have twf at first level anyway.  Give them a list of non-combat feats - alertness, etc.

At any rate, that's the way capitalism works.  I vote with my wallet.  If enough people feel the same way, they'll either fix the damn ranger or go bankrupt.  Either way, I'm through spending money on WOTC.  I WILL, however, support D20.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 31, 2003)

If you want some bonus feats for you sword-n-board or greatsword ranger, take a few levels of fighter and use the bonus feats. You can even get weapon specialization out of the deal. 

How soon we forget the flexibility of multi-classing when breaking class stereotypes.


----------



## Psion (Mar 31, 2003)

> I just picked up a new 3.5e tidbit from over on r.g.f.d. - Ambidexterity is being dropped.
> 
> The Two-Weapon Fighting feat now grants the same bonus as having both.




Good. It has been pretty thoroughly demonstrated that TWF didn't cut the mustard compared to two handed weapons; charging two feats for it was a bit much.



> BTW, what's "r.g.f.d"?!?




rec.games.frp.dnd, usenet newsgroup.


----------



## A'koss (Mar 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by DrSpunj:
> 
> Great!  Sounds like they're going with the d20 Modern version of 2WF then.
> 
> BTW, what's "r.g.f.d"?!?




Yea, a good step in the right direction indeed.

r.g.f.d. is just short for the D&D based newsgroup rec.games.frp.dnd.


Cheers,

A'koss.


----------



## Gez (Mar 31, 2003)

Galfridus said:
			
		

> *Staple or not, Magic Missile is too powerful as is. *




No. It is not too powerful. It even *can't* be too powerful. It's _absolutely impossible_ for _magic missile_ to be too powerful.

Why ?

Because it's the benchmark. The standard. _Magic missile_'s definition in the D&D designer bible is "most powerful 1st-level attack spell for wizards". Saying _magic missile_ is too powerful is like saying one meter is too long.



			
				Galfridus said:
			
		

> *1) It has excellent range, never misses and has no saving throw. This makes it hard for the DM to include low HP foes, as they will always (unless they have Shield) get zapped. Oh yeah, and cover/concealment doesn't matter either -- if you can see it, you can zap it.*




Wizards have no armor, no hit points, pathetic saves, and few spells.



			
				Galfridus said:
			
		

> *2) It's a force effect, so it hits incorporeal creatures automatically and has no resistance built in. This means that right from level 1, incorporeal creatures lose a lot of their "mystique". Oooh, a ghost -- BZZZT. *




Yeah. "oooh, a ghost -- TPK" is better. Sheesh. Wizards are there to zap things -- it is their very role. Bitching about wizards zapping things is like bitching about rogue disarming traps and picking locks, or clerics healing the party, or figthers engaging enemies in melee.



			
				Galfridus said:
			
		

> *3) And of course, it scales very well, retaining its usefulness for a long time.*




The horror, the horror. Cleave also retains its usefulness for a long time.



			
				Galfridus said:
			
		

> *It's so good that any character who can take it would be foolish not to take it. It's far, far better than any other 1st level attack spell -- so taking any other 1st level attack spell is just a bad call.*




This mean that other 1st level attack spells are too wimpy -- and that's my opinion. Look at those stupid _energy orbs_ spells, short range, attack roll, and saving throw. In other words, "how to be ridiculous by casting an useless spell that fails to kill the enemy, letting said enemy rip your asunder, and making you wanting to play a dang cleric this time".



			
				Galfridus said:
			
		

> *Does 1d4 damage instead of 1d4+1. Probably not enough.*




Yes, it's not enough damage.



			
				Galfridus said:
			
		

> *Does elemental damage (fire, probably) instead of force. At least then an Endure Elements will render you immune.*




A _shield_ or _brooch of shielding_ render you immune already.



			
				Galfridus said:
			
		

> *Ranged touch attack.*




Then give a 3/4 BAB to the wizards and sorcerers. They are the classes that are not supposed to make attack rolls applenty -- hence auto-hit spells like _magic missile_ and area-of-effect spells like _fireball_.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Mar 31, 2003)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> *If you want some bonus feats for you sword-n-board or greatsword ranger, take a few levels of fighter and use the bonus feats. You can even get weapon specialization out of the deal.
> 
> How soon we forget the flexibility of multi-classing when breaking class stereotypes. *





Yet another sign the ranger sucks.  If I want to play a proper ranger, I should multiclass?  I don't WANT bonus feats.  I guess I should clarify, as above I mentioned giving bonus feats instead of SPECEFIC feats.  Drop the fighting styles entirely and the ranger will be closer to being a valid class.  No bonus feats at all is better than bonus feats you'll never use.  That way you don't feel like your getting cheated.  A greatsword weilding ranger with twf or pbs/rapid shot will always feel like he's getting screwed.  I stand by the comment I made above.  There will be NO two handed weapon weilding or sword and shield weilding rangers (barring those who go the shield bash route, which is in effect two weapon fighting.)  It's like telling the wizard he HAS to be a divination specialist.


----------



## Galfridus (Mar 31, 2003)

Gez said:
			
		

> *Because it's the benchmark. The standard. Magic missile's definition in the D&D designer bible is "most powerful 1st-level attack spell for wizards". Saying magic missile is too powerful is like saying one meter is too long.*




Having a "most powerful" spell is a Bad Idea. The whole point should be to encourage choices, rather than effectively force everyone to take one spell because it's far and away the best.



> *This mean that other 1st level attack spells are too wimpy -- and that's my opinion. Look at those stupid energy orbs spells, short range, attack roll, and saving throw. In other words, "how to be ridiculous by casting an useless spell that fails to kill the enemy, letting said enemy rip your asunder, and making you wanting to play a dang cleric this time".*




Raising the power level of all the other attack spells is an option, but seems like a lot more work.


----------



## Vrylakos (Mar 31, 2003)

I'm sorry, but I agree with much of the frustration here.

I'm not seeing a pressing need to get 3.5 with the revelation of these changes, whereas a few days ago I almost put down money to preorder them.

It *doesn't* sound like they're making this revision to please the players out there, to "give options" as they say.

The ranger seems like the illusion of choice. It's stuck in one particular niche that only exists in "D&D land/D&D fiction" rather than the fantasy stories it's meant to emulate. You want to include rangers in a jungle setting? A setting with no bows, and only thrown weapons? Well, the ranger can't make the transition, but almost every other class can.

The sorcerer sounds like he's going to NEVER see play as a single class character to the high levels. I've only ever seen him as a multiclass option, used to support another class rogue/sorc, fighter/sorc.

I actually doubt the Rogue will be sidelined.  The other classes have too many other abilities they need to dump their big scores into. 

Sigh... sure, many people may have no problem with things, but I'm not one of them.

I wonder if the original team were working on this, would it be more widely liked?

Vrylakos


----------



## dead_radish (Mar 31, 2003)

Well, if you substanially modify the setting (no ranged weapons) I would argue you then substanially modify the classes.  Can a wizard do okay in an all jungle setting?  No, because a large portion of his spell components won't be available (not that any pays attention to spell components).  If you take X out of a setting, then any abilities tied to X need to leave.  If you remove all non magical beasts, the druid gets hosed.  You would have to adjust the druid.  And so on....

And I would point out that the people on this thread are not a representative sampling, nor have we seen and playtested the new rules.  You can't get 50% of the people in house rules to agree on things.  How could you expect that the new rules would satisfy everyone?  They are all new house rules, but they have a wide playtest audience.  I'm going to wait and see.

So is it the general assumption that sorcerors are a weak and useless class, compared to wizards?  That's been the general opinion here in the thread, it seems.  That's another thing I'd bet that not 50% of the population of ENWorld agrees with....

And for the ranger's combat trees - I've seen a lot of fighters that play dexy dodgy disarmy types.  That minimizes the value of high bab and high fort saves.  Do they feel that they are "left out" now?  Not at all.

I also know players that play rangers now, without twf.  Do they feel left out?  Nah - they do it for skills, track, favored enemy, spells, rp, and flavor.

So.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Mar 31, 2003)

A'koss said:
			
		

> *
> No word, but seeing as how Elves already have automatic racial proficiencies...
> *



Will they get something else, then? 
*



			Regarding Half-Orcs, it is infact because they are only Half-Orcs that they don't gain any weapon familiarity.
		
Click to expand...


*That makes sense
*



			No skiprocks for halflings apparantly in 3.5e either.
		
Click to expand...


*Cries for a house rule, then.


			
				JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> *Who wants abilities that they never use?*



What, like my cleric's turning? A sorcerer's proficiency for simple weapons? My bladesinger's heavy weapon proficiency gained by a fighter level? Well noone wants them, they just occur sometimes
*



			What good is point blank/rapid shot when using a sword and shield?  Go tell the fighter with the greatsword he has to spend feats on two weapon fighting when he really wants the spring attack chain.
		
Click to expand...


*Well, that's because he's a fighter. He has a good AB and bonus feats. And nothing else.
*



			And a ranger is even worse.  He doesn't get a bazillion feats to choose from.
		
Click to expand...


*But he has a truckload of class skills, many many skill points, still a d10 HD (I guess), favored weapons, spells,.... The fighter has just his feats.
*



			Show me one person who will play a ranger and use a fighting style NOT granted by his class abilities and I'll eat my Dungeon Master's Guide.  It will be worse than it is now.  You'll have archers taking two levels for the archery feats and Drizzt wannabes taking it for twf.  They'll just have to take two levels instead of one.  Whoopee.
		
Click to expand...


*Taking to levels to gain the Two Weapon Fighting feat for free? Well, these are clever buggers! 

The way I see it you'll get one feat at 2nd level, and at later levels you'll get additional feats. I don't see a way to get the use of these feats without taking many levels in the class


			
				JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> *From what has been said about the ranger alone, it appears they have listened to no ones comments.  Look back at this thread.
> *



So this thread is representative? I doubt it. And there aren't actually so many people that complain about the rangers' paths, and a lot who like the idea (me amongst them) or are indifferent towards it.
*



			At least half tose who have posted disagree with the fighting styles approach.  Any company that alienates 50% of their business is producing crap.
		
Click to expand...


*Let me reiterate it: You and a handful of other guys in that thread here aren't 50% of Wizard's business. You exaggerate.
*



			If enough people feel the same way, they'll either fix the damn ranger or go bankrupt.
		
Click to expand...


*I seriously doubt that Wizards will have to close their doors just because a single class (out of 11) was less than perfect for a percentage of the prospective customers.

That's like saying Ford will go bankrupt cause some people don't like the rims on the new Focus.


			
				JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> *I don't WANT bonus feats.
> *



I have a perfect soulution: just ignore the paths on the ranger. You won't GET bonus feats that way, and can invest your normal feats on fighting feats.
*



			I guess I should clarify, as above I mentioned giving bonus feats instead of SPECEFIC feats.  Drop the fighting styles entirely and the ranger will be closer to being a valid class.  No bonus feats at all is better than bonus feats you'll never use.  That way you don't feel like your getting cheated.  A greatsword weilding ranger with twf or pbs/rapid shot will always feel like he's getting screwed.  I stand by the comment I made above.  There will be NO two handed weapon weilding or sword and shield weilding rangers (barring those who go the shield bash route, which is in effect two weapon fighting.)  It's like telling the wizard he HAS to be a divination specialist.
		
Click to expand...


*
There are general classes, and there are specific classes. The ranger is a specialist, at least in some ways. The monk is best when fighting unarmed, and noone seems to complain - even the "penalties" a monk gets when fighting with something else (less damage at later levels, possibly a worse attack routine, not being able to use stunning fist....) are more severe.

As I said: if you don't like feats you'll never use, just don't take them. There's no rule against that.


----------



## D'karr (Mar 31, 2003)

Vrylakos said:
			
		

> *<snip>
> 
> I wonder if the original team were working on this, would it be more widely liked?
> 
> Vrylakos *




No...  It's a mathematical certainty that gamers are never satisfied so probably as many people as are pleased now would be dissatisfied then.

For gamers, "Bitching is not just a job, it's an adventure."


----------



## Acmite (Mar 31, 2003)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Or I can show WotC that I do not like what they are doing and that I don't aprove of the way they are doing it and I will not give them money so that they think it is OK. Instead I will spend my money on d20 publishers who care about the hobby rather than milking the customer out of as much money as possible. D&D will not die, the SRD can't be revoked, so I will spend my money with companies who do care. *




Are you serious?  I can understand an argument made that Hasbro could give a rat's butt about D&D, but Wizards?

Do you know anything about how Wizards gained the rights to D&D to save it from the bankrupt TSR?  Do you know that the main man behind Wizards at the time (CEO Peter Adkison) is a gamer and he has now bought Gen Con to stay involved in the industry now that he has left Wizards?

Wizards never looked at D&D as a huge money maker--they had Magic (and then Pokemon) for that.  They bought D&D becuase they played the game.  They wanted to make sure it never went off the radar and faded into obsurity.  They rescued it.  And by creating the OGL, they insured that even if Hasbro sandbags it, those d20 publishers you are raving about can still legally make D&D products for years to come.

Where do you get the impression Wizards doesn't care??

Edit Log:  Me no spell good


----------



## D'karr (Mar 31, 2003)

Oh my god!!!!!!

D&D is going to go the way of the Dodo...  Wizards is owned by the devil...  Hasbro doesn't give a rat's @ss about G.I. Joe.  The sky is falling!!!

Heh, people that overreact are funny...


----------



## seankreynolds (Mar 31, 2003)

*Re: 3.5e tidbits from the Ed Stark chat.*

{8. Harm and Heal cap out at 15th level (max. 150 HPs and Harm gets a Save for 1/2),}

IMO, the "but they can't kill you" is a silly and unneccessary restriction. Slay living is one level lower and could kill a creature that fails its save, regardless of hit points.

{And on that note, Sorcerers still can't make use of Quicken Spell (the only way to cast 2 spells at once).}

Poo.

{18. Magic Item creation: tweaks, not wholesale changes. Bonuses to skills more expensive. Holy Avenger improved to justify cost.}

Not sure about this one. In the hands of a paladin, it's +5. It gets +1d6 vs. evil, so that's about a +1 (it's kind of a lesserholy). SR 15 just to the wielder is a +3 armor bonus, so in a 5 ft. radius I can see a +3 weapon bonus. UNlimited dispel magic at caster level 18 is pretty huge, too. Just from plus-bonuses it's +9, which is 162,000. Add in the dispel and it's more than that. And even though it's only +2 in the hands of a non-paladin, that shouldn't reduce the cost that much and certainly doesn't justify more powers to "justify the cost." :/

{22. Paladin and Monk multiclassing restrictions stay.}

No reason for this. The playtesters they refer to were the original 3E playtesters, and if this revision is about taking into account customer feedback I think there is a significant population that realizes it is not needed.


----------



## seankreynolds (Mar 31, 2003)

Lord Rasputin said:
			
		

> *Say, could someone sort all this new stuff into something readable? Like, sort changes by SRD chapter or something, so we can see all changes to the bard in one spot, all changes to feats in another, and so on and so forth. Morrus hasn't updated the 3.5 Scoops page lately. *




I have marked up my playtest copy, and once the PH 3.5 goes live I'm going to post all of the changes I have noticed ... any my opinions of them.


----------



## Vrylakos (Mar 31, 2003)

dead_radish said:
			
		

> *Well, if you substanially modify the setting (no ranged weapons) I would argue you then substanially modify the classes.  Can a wizard do okay in an all jungle setting?  No, because a large portion of his spell components won't be available (not that any pays attention to spell components).  If you take X out of a setting, then any abilities tied to X need to leave.  If you remove all non magical beasts, the druid gets hosed.  You would have to adjust the druid.  And so on....*
> 
> My example may have been extreme, but I think that other classes, including the ones you mention, can fit into various fantasy settings a lot easier than the ranger - there are many flavors of fighter, wizard, rogue, bard, and so on.
> 
> ...




And that's my point. How about giving them things they can use? The class let them down, even if they didn't know it. The classes should be their to help a player's concept, not restrict it.

You'd assume if a ranger was trained in something, it would be so they could use it, not abandon it.

"Today, young Aragohrn, I'm going to teach you to fight with two weapons."

"But, I REALLY want to fight with a whip. Or maybe a long spear!"

"TWO WEAPONS!!!"

How about enabling those non-TWF and non-Archery ranger-players? Why MUST rangers get their greatest benefits from twf and archery?

Vrylakos


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Mar 31, 2003)

D'karr said:
			
		

> *Oh my god!!!!!!
> 
> D&D is going to go the way of the Dodo...  Wizards is owned by the devil...  Hasbro doesn't give a rat's @ss about G.I. Joe.  The sky is falling!!!
> 
> Heh, people that overreact are funny... *





Very few of the current group at Wizards had ANYTHING to do with 3E.  And they'll probably get the remaining few with the next round of layoffs.


----------



## A'koss (Mar 31, 2003)

> _Originally posted by seankreynolds:_
> 
> {8. Harm and Heal cap out at 15th level (max. 150 HPs and Harm gets a Save for 1/2),}
> 
> IMO, the "but they can't kill you" is a silly and unneccessary restriction. Slay living is one level lower and could kill a creature that fails its save, regardless of hit points.



Good one, I didn't even think about that... For everyone tuning in I forgot to mention that *3.5e Harm cannot reduce a target's HPs below 1.* 



> {And on that note, Sorcerers still can't make use of Quicken Spell (the only way to cast 2 spells at once).}
> 
> Poo.



They really should have *some* option. Limited, yes, but some option nevertheless.



> {18. Magic Item creation: tweaks, not wholesale changes. Bonuses to skills more expensive. Holy Avenger improved to justify cost.}
> 
> Not sure about this one. In the hands of a paladin, it's +5. It gets +1d6 vs. evil, so that's about a +1 (it's kind of a lesserholy). SR 15 just to the wielder is a +3 armor bonus, so in a 5 ft. radius I can see a +3 weapon bonus. UNlimited dispel magic at caster level 18 is pretty huge, too. Just from plus-bonuses it's +9, which is 162,000. Add in the dispel and it's more than that. And even though it's only +2 in the hands of a non-paladin, that shouldn't reduce the cost that much and certainly doesn't justify more powers to "justify the cost." :/



Our game so rarely hits the kind of levels where you'd see a Holy Avenger, I can't even remember half of what it does... I'm inclined to agree with you... (To top it off I thought the HA was errata'd to inflict +2d6 vs evil.)



> {22. Paladin and Monk multiclassing restrictions stay.}
> 
> No reason for this. The playtesters they refer to were the original 3E playtesters, and if this revision is about taking into account customer feedback I think there is a significant population that realizes it is not needed.



Not *this* playtester!    Anyway, there's an poll running about this in the messageboards that currently have the "remove the restriction" crowd outnumbering the "keepers" over 2:1.


Cheers,

A'koss!


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Mar 31, 2003)

Acmite said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Are you serious?  I can understand an argument made that Hasbro could give a rat's butt about D&D, but Wizards?
> 
> ...




Yes I know this. Wizards under Peter Adkinson was a good company, I thank them for saving D&D. I thank Peter Adkinson for buying (saving?) Gen-Con. But Wizards is not under Adkinson anymore it is under Ha$bro and is not the same company it used to be. Adkinson's love for gaming has been replaced by Ha$bro's love of the bottom line. SKR told a wonderful story of Elves and Bean Counters discussing this. Gone as well are others who brought the love of gaming to the company like Monte Cook who many consider the main creative mind behind 3E and Ryan Dancey who gave us the SRD. Additionally the R&D staff has been obliterated by layoffs leaving but a shell of the talent they once had. Just because a company previously under different management once did wonderful things doesn't mean I should support them now no matter what.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Mar 31, 2003)

KaeYoss said:
			
		

> *
> Will they get something else, then?
> 
> That makes sense
> ...


----------



## Narfellus (Mar 31, 2003)

*skills*

What did Ed say about how much time skills take? I really like the way SW did it, i sort of assumed they would take that and incorporate it.


----------



## A'koss (Mar 31, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Narfellus:_
> 
> What did Ed say about how much time skills take? I really like the way SW did it, i sort of assumed they would take that and incorporate it.




IIRC, Ed specifically said they weren't going the Star Wars route but I forget his reasoning why...


Cheers,

A'koss.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Mar 31, 2003)

Oh God, people, do you want any cheese with your whine?

We finished a long term campaign not that long ago, and my human ranger ended up around level 25.  All in ranger.  The rest of the group was in that level range as well and were a rogue/paladin (higher in rogue); a straight monk; two straight human fighters; a fighter/ranger (equal split in levels), a straight Halfling rogue and an elf fighter/wizard (mainly fighter).  Not to toot my own horn, but my ranger was probably the most effective overall character in the group when it came to non-roleplaying things –  Heck, the guys were even complaining that I was overpowered because I could fight well, cast some spells, had a good selection of skills and had favored enemy damage bonuses.  

And, why not only 2 weapon fighting or archery feats?  Rogues are restricted to certain weapons… put them in a gladiator campaign with only greataxes, greatswords and longspears available, and the rogue is screwed.  Why can’t he use big weapons?  My God, I am really screwed if I wanted to play a Halfling rogue that wields a greatsword.

Heck, what if in the same gladiator campaign, they go out and strap a shield to everybody’s left arm and a longsword to everybody’s right?  Boy, I am out of luck if I am a lefty, or if my best feature is unarmed fighting like the monk.

Or maybe instead of a shield, they strap a breastplate onto everybody, so nice bloody head shots are the way to go to kill combatants.  With a breastplate, the rogue and monk are both screwed.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Mar 31, 2003)

Vrylakos said:
			
		

> *
> 
> And that's my point. How about giving them things they can use? The class let them down, even if they didn't know it. The classes should be their to help a player's concept, not restrict it.
> 
> ...




Awesome. And right on. 

If D&D 3.5 is all about options, then why are rangers given mandatory feats/fighting styles?

That said... TWF is extremely helpful pretty much always. My 3E ranger uses a longspear for range and spiked gauntlets/spiked armor to threaten adjacent squares. A 3.5 Ranger who wanted to do sword and board style can use his shield or his armor spikes (shoulder, knee) for the extra attack. The ranged feats should apply to whip (it's a ranged weapon); it'd be silly and illogical to make the ranged feats apply to bows only.

Actually, that's an important point. Did Ed refer the ranger's alt virtual feats as "archery" feats or "ranged" feats?

-z


----------



## bayne (Mar 31, 2003)

Wow, I can't believe anyone would think Magic Missile is over powered.

1) A Wizard only gets one of these per day at first level (not including bonus spells). It does a whole d4+1. The party fighter can do double that damage per round using a simple longsword.

2) D4+1 isn't even likely to bring down a single Orc - the average damage (statistically speaking) from 1st level Magic Missile is 3.5, the average Orc is 4HP.

3) Magic Missile is far from the most powerful spell at low level - Sleep can take out 8HD of creatures in one shot. To use the Orc example - a single Magic Missile has a chance of killing a single Orc, but a single Sleep spell can take out 8 of them.

4) Magic Missile does not scale unreasonably. A buff mid-level Barbarian or Fighter can easily do more damage with a single attack than a 9th level Magic Missile. Plus, the Fighter and Barbarian gets multiple attacks per round.

5) Magic Missile is not infallible - It can't be used against invisible targets (while a Fighter can hit an invisible target with a little luck), it must pass spell resistance, and it has verbal and somatic components (a fighter doesn't need to speak to use a longsword, but a Wizard or Sorcerer does to use a Magic Missile).

In short, while the Magic Missile may require no attack roles and have no saving throws, it is balanced by the facts that it does little damage, a spellcaster has only a limited amounts of them, and there are other ways to foil it.


----------



## Skaros (Mar 31, 2003)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> *If D&D 3.5 is all about options, then why are rangers given mandatory feats/fighting styles? *




The same reason rogues are given limited weapon selections, sorcerers are given limited spell lists, and monks are given a limited and pre-chosen list of abilities, I'd guess.

Seriously, you have to draw a line somewhere.  Otherwise we'd have a classless system right?

That said, I can understand people out there that are dissapointed by the changes in particular elements they are seeing, as those changes won't meet everyone's tastes, but unless it presents a serious balance problem (which we won't really know until its all released), then we're mostly complaining about not seeing our personal opinions put directly into the rules.  Oh well.  Get  a DM that agrees and put in your own alt.ranger if its important to you personally.

-Skaros


----------



## Zaruthustran (Mar 31, 2003)

In response to Bayne: Overpowered or not, MM is the best spell in the game. Ask any sorceror. 

Our party had a gnome sorceror who focused on illusions. He chose spells like Silent Image, Ventriloquism, Color Spray. He used to always come up with clever plans and whatnot.

Then, at 5th level he picked up magic missile. Now, pretty much all he does in combat is roll 3d4. Many, many times. Last night, half the party was caught in a water elemental's whirlpool. The other half could not swim fast enough to reach the elemental. Who killed the monster? The sorceror--all by himself, thanks to MM. 

Magic Missile affects everybody. It can always be relied upon. It's a life-saver when you're fighting non-corporeal creatures, acidic creatures or other nasties you don't want to fight toe-to-toe, elementals, snipers with 9/10s cover.. pretty much everything. Overpowered or not, it's a great spell.

-z


----------



## Vrylakos (Mar 31, 2003)

NewJeffCT said:
			
		

> *Oh God, people, do you want any cheese with your whine?
> 
> And, why not only 2 weapon fighting or archery feats?  Rogues are restricted to certain weapons… put them in a gladiator campaign with only greataxes, greatswords and longspears available, and the rogue is screwed.  Why can’t he use big weapons?  My God, I am really screwed if I wanted to play a Halfling rogue that wields a greatsword.
> 
> *




Rogues are restricted to certain weapons based on thief-type weapons. It makes sense - the class plays to the archetype. If he wants more, he can spend a feat.

Hey, I'm glad you had fun with your Ranger 25, but really, can you get off the attitude that your opening sentence reeks of? What some of us are asking is not stopping you from having fun. We just want more OPTIONS so we can do what *we* want with the ranger. We're not messing up your fun.

Vrylakos


----------



## bayne (Mar 31, 2003)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> *In response to Bayne: Overpowered or not, MM is the best spell in the game. Ask any sorceror.
> 
> Our party had a gnome sorceror who focused on illusions. He chose spells like Silent Image, Ventriloquism, Color Spray. He used to always come up with clever plans and whatnot.
> 
> ...




I am not saying it isn't a very usefull spell, I am just countering the idea that it is over-powered. Heck, a maximized-empowered Orb spell can do 270HP of damage in one shot with a critical hit.


----------



## Green Knight (Mar 31, 2003)

> Of course, you might have a question of how your bard alignment (any non-Lawful) and Paladin alignment (Lawful Good) stack up... Are you going to be an ex-Paladin, or an ex-Bard, and which abilities are lost from which class
> 
> (OTOH, I'd love to play a Paladin with the "inspire courage" ability - inspiring my mates as I charge into battle!)




Well, first off, unlike Paladins, Bards don't lose class abilities if they change alignments. So my plan is to go up about 3 levels in Bard, change alingment from Neutral Good to Lawful Good, and then continue on as a Paladin. I won't be able to advance as a Bard, again, but I won't lose any class abilities, either. And besides, if I were to go back I wouldn't be able to advance as Paladin (Nevermind losing my Paladin class abilities). DAMN the Bard alignment restrictions and the Paladins' multi-class restrictions. 

Anyway, I'm thinking of being a Purple Dragon, so I'm picturing my Bard/Paladin singing The Cormyte's Boast song, a lot (I'll be damned before I sing it myself, though. HELL no!)


----------



## bayne (Mar 31, 2003)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> *In response to Bayne: Overpowered or not, MM is the best spell in the game. Ask any sorceror.
> 
> Our party had a gnome sorceror who focused on illusions. He chose spells like Silent Image, Ventriloquism, Color Spray. He used to always come up with clever plans and whatnot.
> 
> ...




I hope your DM is balancing your encounters properly - there should and can easilly be encounters where a Magic Missile spell is useless and the party will have to rely on party members with different skils to survive. For example, if you bump into a Golem, almost all magic will be useless. If you fight monsters with spell resistance the spellcasters will have difficulty harming them. If you fight something that can cast silence (2nd lvl cleric spell) and the Sorcerer does not have the Silent Spell feat he will not be able to use Magic Missile.

My point in this case is that if the party and the adventure are properlly balanced that there will always be times when different members of the party will have to step up to save the party, and perhaps kill a creature by themselves. If one character is dominating, then perhaps the adventure is not balanced.


----------



## Acmite (Mar 31, 2003)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Yes I know this. Wizards under Peter Adkinson was a good company, I thank them for saving D&D. I thank Peter Adkinson for buying (saving?) Gen-Con. But Wizards is not under Adkinson anymore it is under Ha$bro and is not the same company it used to be. Adkinson's love for gaming has been replaced by Ha$bro's love of the bottom line. SKR told a wonderful story of Elves and Bean Counters discussing this. Gone as well are others who brought the love of gaming to the company like Monte Cook who many consider the main creative mind behind 3E and Ryan Dancey who gave us the SRD. Additionally the R&D staff has been obliterated by layoffs leaving but a shell of the talent they once had. Just because a company previously under different management once did wonderful things doesn't mean I should support them now no matter what. *




We agree on most of this then.  You said, "Instead I will spend my money on d20 publishers who care about the hobby rather than milking the customer out of as much money as possible. D&D will not die, the SRD can't be revoked, so I will spend my money with companies who do care" and that's what got me going.

I honestly think that a good chunk of R&D likes what they're doing.  I think they want to make a good game.  Monte has suggested that some of them don't even play the game, but I'm thinking that they are the minority.  Did it hurt to lose people like Monte and SKR (although neither of them were fired or laid-off)?  Sure.

Does that leave the talent pool dried up?  I don't think so, but we won't know until we see more material made after they left--we're still seeing products that had their mark on it (Savage Species, Unapproachable East, Races of Faerun, etc).

Wizards, the company, cares.  But they have big wigs at Hasbro breathing down their necks--and I think it was that pressure that instigated everything that led up to the Bean Counter story.

Some of the best products coming out now are from other d20 publishers (have you seen Mutants and Masterminds? Wow!) I agree, but Wizards still fills an important role in R&D--a role I certainly wouldn't trust to some of the "major" third party publishers, like Mongoose for example.


----------



## Trepelano (Mar 31, 2003)

Ron said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Still they are shoe-horning the ranger. My last ranger character used to fight with a spear, dismissing his 2WF abillity. Under 3.5 he will still be penalized for not accepting non-sense restrictions. Why not giving the ranger a limited choice of military feats like the fighter, but in reduced number?
> 
> ...




Hey guy, 

you know -if you were happy playing a 3.0 ranger that way - you'd probably be able to convert the same character concept over to the fighter class with better results.  Just boost up you DEX, wear light armor, take the track feat.  All your missing from your old character is the favored enemy, but you get more feats to tailor your spear use.  If you need more skills, mix in a few levels of rogue.


The great thing about the four basic classes: cleric, fighter, rogue, and wizard - is that they don't have any predetermined background - so you can make them as "woodsy" as you like.


----------



## bushido11 (Mar 31, 2003)

First of all, w/o magic missile and/or sleep, the wizard or sorcerer in the party is probably only good for holding the other party member's equipment.  "It's not balanced with the other 1st level spells!"  At 1st level, you can at most cast two magic missiles per day.  Sure it's got a lot of quirks, but it's not like he can shoot a barrage of them either, so don't worry your pretty little heads.

About some classes being favored and more powered than others, that's what you get when you play a class-based game like D&D.  Try as you might, nothing is absolutely balanced.  I play it because it's fun and the class system works best for a fantasy setting.  If you want things balanced or you want to create your character in the very image YOU want (not the company's version), D&D is not the answer.  For that, I suggest Mutants & Masterminds.  Even though it's a superhero game, it is adaptable to any genre.  It's probably the d20 equivalent of HERO (or close to it).  The price is the same as the 3.5e PHB, and you get a lot more for your money than mere revisions.

Speaking of 3.5e, I see it as nothing more than a market ploy to milk D&D gamers out of their money.  Sure, the people in WoTC may have love for the game, but selling the revised core rulebooks is nothing more than a chance to make money.  For that, just come up with more products for FR or something.  Or come out with Dragonlance 3rd edition; I'd love to see that.  

Another thing they SHOULD DEFINITELY DO is replace AC with Defense and allow all classes to gain a Defense bonus, like in The Wheel of Time or d20 Modern.  I HATE the idea that a high-level fighter NEVER learns to evade attacks better without the use of feats and always has to rely on good magical armor to save his hide.  Also, monsters have insane attack bonuses and it gets even more insane with the arm swipe/arm swipe/bite combos they pull off.  Another variant they should add is the Wound Point system Star Wars utilizes.  Some people just aren't satisfied with hit points and the "I can take a bunch of arrow shots because I have 60+ hit points" syndrome.

What would really kick major butt is if WoTC came up with a classless system so that you can customize your character level by level.  The basic idea is that everybody starts off as the commoner NPC class but has a point allotment to make improvements.  The real challenge would be assigning point values to class features and spellcasting.  I've created such a system and if you want to check it out, e-mail me at humphrey_lepant@yahoo.com.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Mar 31, 2003)

The problem with the above approach is that you are not playing a ranger.  You are playing a fighter with the track feat.  That's part of what I'm screaming about.  Everyone tells me to play a fighter and take track or play a druid, blah blah blah.  That should be a sign that something is wrong with the ranger class.  The 3.5 version - at least the rumored version - is catering to the power gamers yet again.  I never claimed the ranger was underpowered.  Just that all rangers had the twf feats.  Now its either twf or archery.  They have fixed nothing.


----------



## Acmite (Mar 31, 2003)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> *In response to Bayne: Overpowered or not, MM is the best spell in the game. Ask any sorceror.
> 
> Our party had a gnome sorceror who focused on illusions. He chose spells like Silent Image, Ventriloquism, Color Spray. He used to always come up with clever plans and whatnot.
> 
> ...




Wow, we have vastly different experiences.  I have been playing 3E since its release, weekly, and I played Living Greyhawk for quite some time.  In all that time, maybe 50% of the Wizards and Sorcerors used Magic Missile.  About 90% of them were effective characters both in and out of combat.  By no means did they "suffer" for lack of Magic Missile.

IMO, Colour Spray is a better spell, anyway.  It affects more creatures, and has a defensive effect built in.  Wre you playing with the correct stun effect, ie: a stunned creature drops all held objects?  This can stop high level warriors from getting off a full-round attack with their prefered weapon, a wizard from casting a spell by forcing spell components to be dropped, an enemy from healing via a wand or potion, etc.  And this is all at high levels.  At low levels, this spell (like sleep) is much more devasting to enemies that Magic Missile.

Plus, being creative with spells like Grease, Silent Image, etc can be much more fun than playing a walking Wand of Magic Missiles.  And last I checked, there are much fewer anti-stun magics than anti-magic missile ones (Shield, Brooch of Shielding, frex)


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Mar 31, 2003)

Skaros said:
			
		

> *
> 
> The same reason rogues are given limited weapon selections, sorcerers are given limited spell lists, and monks are given a limited and pre-chosen list of abilities, I'd guess.
> Get  a DM that agrees and put in your own alt.ranger if its important to you personally.
> ...



Yet rogues can pick any style they want.  If a rogue uses a feat to use a greatsword, he burns one feat.  A ranger who uses a greatsword burns two without even trying.  Does that make sense?

  Not all of us can get a dm that caters to our every whim.  Most 3e dms I know refuse to change rules for fear of balance problems.


----------



## Acmite (Mar 31, 2003)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> *The problem with the above approach is that you are not playing a ranger.  You are playing a fighter with the track feat.  That's part of what I'm screaming about.  Everyone tells me to play a fighter and take track or play a druid, blah blah blah.  That should be a sign that something is wrong with the ranger class.  The 3.5 version - at least the rumored version - is catering to the power gamers yet again.  I never claimed the ranger was underpowered.  Just that all rangers had the twf feats.  Now its either twf or archery.  They have fixed nothing. *




How does that appeal to power-gamers?

I can see how that would appeal to players who want to play wilderness archers (like Robin Hood or Aragorn), or to players that want to play TWF melee types (Aragorn with Sword and Flaming Brand, Sword and dagger, etc).

TWF is a much less effective way of fighting than Two-handed weapons, mathematically.  It seems to me that power-gamers would go more the Greatsword route.  Players that choose TWF seem to be choosing style over substance to me, a purely Role-Playing choice.

I like the idea of rangers having to choose a primary fighting style.  I just don't like the idea of there only being 2 choices in the PHB.  I would have liked to seen at least 5, including spear, hand axes, sword and shield, etc.


----------



## Ron (Mar 31, 2003)

Trepelano said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Hey guy,
> 
> ...




You're not wrong, but I have being playing rangers (and sometimes wizards) since AD&D 1st ed, so it's hard to change. The point is, I am not trying to max/min my character to obtain the best combat combination. I like the concept of rangers and I think that 3ed doesn't captures it very well. The fighter will never give me the number of skill points I need to create my scout like ranger. Also, I enjoy having the druid spells -- despite the fact that they are near useless. A rogue will give something near what I want, but it will still missing something. Truth is, I could create my version of ranger multiclassing Rogue with a few levels of Druid, but then the result would be one more silly combination that explain why I am not so happy about 3ed less restrictive multiclassing.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Mar 31, 2003)

Acmite said:
			
		

> *
> 
> How does that appeal to power-gamers?
> 
> ...





Power gamers pick a level of ranger for twf.  Now they'll get to choose between twf and archery.  I'm not saying power gaming is a bad thing, just that those of us who want to play a ranger for the appeal of the archetype get forced into a certain combat style.


----------



## Stalker0 (Mar 31, 2003)

bret said:
			
		

> *No mention of if they changed the cost to scribe spells in a wizards spellbook?
> 
> The changes to Bard and Ranger make me wonder how many rogues we will see.
> 
> ...




Rogue: "Excuse me mr. ranger, did you need that lock picked?"
Rogue: "Um... mr. bard, I think you dropped your coin purse." "What, some of its missing? I guess some of it must have fallen out."
Rogue: "Ouch, I hope that extra 5d6 didn't hurt too badly"
Rogue: Looking at the burnt party. "Did you guys not see that fireball coming?"
Rogue: "What is flatfooted to me, really?"
Rogue: "I'm dead!!" rolls a d20. "Oh wait, I rolled out of the wya, I'm fine"

I think rogues will be just fine


----------



## kingpaul (Mar 31, 2003)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> *just that those of us who want to play a ranger for the appeal of the archetype get forced into a certain combat style. *



So create your own for play.  There's nothing stopping you from doing that in your own campaigns if you're the DM or if you can convince your DM.  I've known many DMs, and while they love throwing "interesting" things at the players, they are pretty amiable when it comes to how you want to develop your character.

Further, since 3.5 is going to be SRD'd, I'm betting the combat styles are going to be as well.  Therefore, you can publish your own (print, PDF, web, etc).


----------



## Acmite (Mar 31, 2003)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> Power gamers pick a level of ranger for twf.  Now they'll get to choose between twf and archery.  I'm not saying power gaming is a bad thing, just that those of us who want to play a ranger for the appeal of the archetype get forced into a certain combat style. *




Power gamers in a game where character background and role-playing matter little, maybe.  How does that character justify taking a level in Ranger?  Who taught him those virtual feats?  Why did he/she suudenly switch career paths only to return to their former profession immediately afterwards?

It seems to me you have a problem with a certain type of gamer, a certain type of DM, and a certain type of campaign and not necessarily with the rules themselves.  If DMs let players make inconceivable or illogical advancement choices (like a 10th level paladin in a military campaign suddenly take a level of Wizards despite not having even seen an arcane caster in years, or urban rogues who have never left the city take a level in Ranger) then that seems to be a problem with the campaign and/or DM, not the rules.

'Sides, the new Ranger seems to lessen the effectiveness of that cheesy multi-class--now you only get one feat (TWF instead of TWF and Ambi-dex, albeit there is no Ambi-dex anymore) and at 2nd level to boot.

I agree about the shoe-horning for actual Ranger players, though.  Personally, I'm still waiting for TWF with Hand-axes or daggers to become a viable combat option.  I think more official combat style options would go a long way to making people happy with the new ranger.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Mar 31, 2003)

kingpaul said:
			
		

> *
> So create your own for play.   *





That's my point.  why should I buy 3.5 or even download the srd if I have to modify every damn thing?  And a lot of dms will tell you to play the ranger as is or play some other class.

The ranger is dead.  He was sneak attacked by WOTC's new fighter/rogue/druid/barbarian/ad-infinitum.  May he rest in peace.


----------



## kingpaul (Mar 31, 2003)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> *That's my point.  why should I buy 3.5 or even download the srd if I have to modify every damn thing?*



You don't have house rules in your game(s)?


			
				JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> *And a lot of dms will tell you to play the ranger as is or play some other class.*



That's unfortunate.


			
				JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> *The ranger is dead.  He was sneak attacked by WOTC's new fighter/rogue/druid/barbarian/ad-infinitum.  May he rest in peace. *



If the ranger were dead, why are there so many variants?  It appears to me that proves the concept is desired.  So WotC didn't publish *every* _possible_ incarnation of the class...so what?  I'm having trouble understanding people's vehemence for a product that has yet to hit the shelves.


----------



## Henry (Mar 31, 2003)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> The problem with the above approach is that you are not playing a ranger.  You are playing a fighter with the track feat.




Here is a point of disagreement for me. I don't abide by a necessity of class labelling in order to play a "real" ranger. Any time someone has told me in the past that their concept of a character class includes abilities X,Y, and Z, I have come to the supposition that what's wrong is not necessarily that the class is incorrectly designed, but that the class does not meet the person's exact expectations for the class.

Piratecat's player Blackjack once said of his Paladin Malachite that (paraphrased) "I don't see Malachite as a Paladin/Undead Slayer - I see him as a Paladin of the God Aeos, and a knight of the Emerald Chapel. The class combo just happens to _best fit my vision_ of Malachite right now." This is the best way I've ever seen to look at D&D classes - what proportion of Ranger to Fighter, or Fighter to Druid, or Rogue to Wizard to Fighter, best fits the image I have of my character?

For your game, if multiclassing will not fit the bill of what a ranger should be, then of course rearranging of the character class will be required.



> That's part of what I'm screaming about.  Everyone tells me to play a fighter and take track or play a druid, blah blah blah.  That should be a sign that something is wrong with the ranger class.




Actually, I take it as a sign that your vision of a ranger and the existing ranger character class are incompatible. However, the vision of the Ranger is not necessarily out of sync with the majority of the gamers who play it - it just means that if you want one single by-the-book character class to give you all the features that a ranger will have, it's not available. I don't mean to make this sound like I'm stating the obvious, only that from your perspective, it's flawed. From mine, it's a nice change.



> The 3.5 version - at least the rumored version - is catering to the power gamers yet again.  I never claimed the ranger was underpowered.  Just that all rangers had the twf feats.  Now its either twf or archery.  They have fixed nothing.




Ironically, the main complaint UNILATERALLY on these message Boards two years ago was that Rangers should be given a choice between Archer Feats or Two-Weapon Feats. This wish has been granted, but didn't solve the problem for all people. At the least, it will please more people than the previous version.

From my perspective, WotC has satisfied me with their presentation of a Ranger. For my homebrew campaigns, I'll still use the Alyxian Ranger, with his Path of the Serpent, Path of the Feather, Path of the Claw, or Path of the Mount (four virtual feat combos that a ranger can choose in my game), but for the core rules, they satisfy me quite well for "general D&D rules.


----------



## Gailedon (Mar 31, 2003)

*Ranger broken?*



			
				JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> *The problem with the above approach is that you are not playing a ranger.  You are playing a fighter with the track feat.  That's part of what I'm screaming about.  Everyone tells me to play a fighter and take track or play a druid, blah blah blah.  That should be a sign that something is wrong with the ranger class.  The 3.5 version - at least the rumored version - is catering to the power gamers yet again.  I never claimed the ranger was underpowered.  Just that all rangers had the twf feats.  Now its either twf or archery.  They have fixed nothing. *




The only problem I see with the view that people will play a ranger two levels to get those two feats is that there are plenty of other classes that give you two feats in the first two levels.  Fighter for instance.  If you are going for TWF and have to take two levels in ranger to get it, why bother?  You can get two feat slots in the first two levels of Fighter.  Rangers are appealing for skills and flavor.  
If what was reported earlier is true, then TWF is only one feat now, easy to get why bother with two ranger levels?  How would that be catering to power gamers?  I can understand feeling a little shoe-horned, but honestly when I think of ranger I think bows.  Aragorn, Legolas, Robin Hood, Lellandor, even Perrin Aybarra from the Wheel of Time.  Tracking, wood savvy and bows define what a classic ranger is. 
In this situation since we are looking at feats directly, I find it hard to believe that any gamemaster will not let you trade any two combat focused virtual feats for any two other combat focused weapon feats. 
Will D&D (or any other role-playing game) ever NOT have house rules?  I doubt it.  Is 3.5 a good step in the right direction?  Yes.  With the SRD being updated the same day, is there any true reason to pick up the new books if you have the old?  No.  In my household we currently have 3 copies of each of the core rulebooks.  With 3.5e there will probably be one copy of each in the house.  <shrug>


----------



## The Little Raven (Mar 31, 2003)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> *Power gamers pick a level of ranger for twf.  Now they'll get to choose between twf and archery.  I'm not saying power gaming is a bad thing, just that those of us who want to play a ranger for the appeal of the archetype get forced into a certain combat style. *




First off, it'd have to be at 2nd level, since that's when the combat trees begin. Secondly, you don't get all the benefits immediately. You get a SINGLE feat, then have to take MORE levels to get the rest of the feats.

So, you want that Improved Two-Weapon Fighting for free, you need to take 9 levels of Ranger. In 3.0, you only had to take a single level of it, because your BAB is what allowed you to gain that virtual feat, not he class levels. They are tying the abilities to the class levels more directly, to avoid this very problem.

And I've got a question for you... did you actually READ the listed changes? Increased skill points, showing rangers to have more proficiency with various skills. Improved favored enemy bonuses, which allow rangers to fight and hunt particular enemies more easily. Track while running... do I really need to detail why THIS is a good benefit for rangers? Wild Empathy... no clue, but I figure it will allow rangers to deal with wild creatures more easily.

There you have several abilities, either new or improved, that fit the archetype perfectly.

On a side note... as a wilderness scout/hunter, the archery style is perfect for a ranger. How many medieval/fantasy era hunters did not use a bow (unless they were hunting boars, of course)?

And remember... the ranger isn't described as merely a wilderness scout... but a FOREST hunter and stalker...

"The forests are home to fierce and cunning creatures, such as bloodthirsty owlbears and malicious displacer beasts. But more cunning and powerful than these monsters is the ranger, a skilled hunter and stalker. He knows the woods as if they were his home (as indeed they are), and he knows his prey in deadly detail."

That's the PHB description of the ranger... so, by the core rules, the ranger should focus on the forest, thus mounted combat and such isn't considered...

And as for your greatsword wielding fighter complaint... that fighter should be a FIGHTER not a ranger. If he wants to hunt, track, and know his prey, then he should be a ranger. If he wants to own all with his +12 assbeating greatsword, then he should stick to fighter.


----------



## Zarrock God of Evil (Mar 31, 2003)

Gez said:
			
		

> *
> 
> No. It is not too powerful. It even can't be too powerful. It's absolutely impossible for magic missile to be too powerful.
> 
> ...




Add to that, Magic Missile is easily disabled. A simple shield spell, dropping out of sight (which may not work well against area-effect spells) and brooches of shielding (hardly in limited supply) all put and end to the effectiveness of Magic Missile.

-Zarrock


----------



## Olive (Mar 31, 2003)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> *From what has been said about the ranger alone, it appears they have listened to no ones comments.  Look back at this thread.  At least half tose who have posted disagree with the fighting styles approach.  Any company that alienates 50% of their business is producing crap.  It would have been all too easy to satisfy both camps.  Bonus feats from a specific list, for example.  And weapon focus, twf, pbs, etc, shouldn't be on that list.  As it stands, a raner could have twf at first level anyway.  Give them a list of non-combat feats - alertness, etc. *




or perhaps those who agree with the changes are looking at the info and going "hmmm... sounds good to me".

It's also possible that they couldn't redo the ranger so that it used feats from a list. why? because that's been done by monte cook, and wizards doesn't seem to like using OGC in their products.


----------



## Henry (Mar 31, 2003)

Olive said:
			
		

> *It's also possible that they couldn't redo the ranger so that it used feats from a list. why? because that's been done by monte cook, and wizards doesn't seem to like using OGC in their products. *




This triggered one last thought.

Not to slam anyone's opinion, but tacking bonus open feats onto new classes has always seemed like poor design work to me. Most anyone can make a class and simply add a short feat list to allow customization - it really serves to make the class no different from a fighter, who is the KING of bonus feat lists. 

However, the truly original work is to come up with brand new abilities that fit well with the character concept, and make a player say, _"That's COOL! I can't wait to get to X level in that class!"_ It takes far more work in the long run, and pays off better than sub-lists do, IMO.

It's why I view Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed book with interest, because he has defined his classes through abilities that have rarely or never been seen before.


----------



## Spatula (Mar 31, 2003)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> *Power gamers pick a level of ranger for twf.  Now they'll get to choose between twf and archery.*



And they'll have to take two levels of ranger instead of only needing one.  That's hardly catering to power gamers.







> *If a rogue uses a feat to use a greatsword, he burns one feat. A ranger who uses a greatsword burns two without even trying. Does that make sense?*



No, because that's not how it works.  The rogue that spends a feat on a martial weapon has one less feat than the the ranger.


----------



## A'koss (Mar 31, 2003)

I personally like the d6, Save for half idea but it has _nothing_ to do with game balance.

I simply _hate_ having to roll that damn d4. And I use the term "roll" loosely, as it doesn't really roll at all, it just... _flops._ 

"Roll 5d4" 

Flop.Flop.Flop.Flop.Flop. 


The only thing those dies are good for are makeshift caltrops to use against annoying chip-hogging players.  


/rant off


A'koss!


----------



## dead_radish (Mar 31, 2003)

Mourn said:
			
		

> *
> 
> First off, it'd have to be at 2nd level, since that's when the combat trees begin. Secondly, you don't get all the benefits immediately. You get a SINGLE feat, then have to take MORE levels to get the rest of the feats.
> *




Exactly - now you take 2 levels for a feat.  Sounds like something that could easily be done w/a fighter's every 2nd level feat.



> *
> 
> So, you want that Improved Two-Weapon Fighting for free, you need to take 9 levels of Ranger. In 3.0, you only had to take a single level of it, because your BAB is what allowed you to gain that virtual feat, not he class levels. They are tying the abilities to the class levels more directly, to avoid this very problem.
> *




Fyi, this isn't how it works.  If you look carefully, you'll note that the only thing a ranger with +9 bab gets is the ability to take ITWF without meeting the pre-reqs.  They don't get it for free.  I made that mistake as well.  But yes, TWF is a worse style for a beat-down fighter type than THF.  TWF is good for roguey types (sneak damage) or fighters that like to focus on getting many bonuses to damage on a weapon (elemental, spec, etc) or that like to use techniques over attacks (trip, disarm, etc), which requires a number of feats to do effectively.


----------



## jeffh (Mar 31, 2003)

Droogie said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Totally agree. The only class who needs a "fighting style" is the monk.
> 
> ...




I don't get it.

How do FREE feats in ADDITION to your normal selection "shohorn" you into a style?  It's not like they're forcing you to use normal feats for them.  You can still do anything you could if you didn't have them - they give you ADDITIONAL abilities, not limitations!

You're like the people at my work who complain  about getting a discount at Subway because they prefer a different sub place, as if a discount were a bad thing or were somehow forcing them to go to Subway!


----------



## bwgwl (Mar 31, 2003)

A'koss said:
			
		

> *I simply hate having to roll that damn d4. And I use the term "roll" loosely, as it doesn't really roll at all, it just... flops.
> 
> "Roll 5d4"
> 
> ...



i so agree. i'd love to find some d8's numbered 1-4,1-4. that'd be a d4 you could really _roll_.


----------



## dougdinneen (Apr 1, 2003)

*Re: 3.5e tidbits from the Ed Stark chat.*



			
				A'koss said:
			
		

> *20. SRD updated the same day books hit the stores.
> *




No, really....when will they be updated?


----------



## bret (Apr 1, 2003)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> *If you want some bonus feats for you sword-n-board or greatsword ranger, take a few levels of fighter and use the bonus feats. You can even get weapon specialization out of the deal.
> 
> How soon we forget the flexibility of multi-classing when breaking class stereotypes. *




That can work for half-elves and humans, but other races have a lot of problems.

The 'flexibility' of multiclassing is messed up any time you want uneven levels and none of the classes is favored. In your example, the only races that could could have an uneven mix of ranger with fighter are dwarf, half-elf or human. With any other race, you've got to keep the two classes at close to the same level which really interferes.

The 20% XP penalty prevents many from making what would otherwise be sensible multiclassing decisions.


----------



## CrusaderX (Apr 1, 2003)

The new Ranger sounds great to me.

Bring on 3.5!


----------



## kingpaul (Apr 1, 2003)

bret said:
			
		

> *The 20% XP penalty prevents many from making what would otherwise be sensible multiclassing decisions. *



Then Rule 0 it out of the game if the group is amenable to such a thing.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Apr 1, 2003)

Why are people saying that a ranger having point blank shot and rapid shot would force them to use a bow.

Don't those feats work with any thrown weapon as well?

And TWF... works with shield + <one-handed weapon> too. Not to mention all the spiked stuff.

And how is a two-dagger fighter not viable? with TWF and rapid shot, you can stab a couple of people and throw the dagger at a third. A dagger's a lot smaller than a spear... there's a lot of benefits there.

Add that to the fact that the base damage of a weapon rapidly becomes inconsequential, unless you're a low-strength combatant without access to additional damage (sneak attack etc), and there's not really any problems with daggers.


----------



## Stalker0 (Apr 1, 2003)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> *
> Yet rogues can pick any style they want.  If a rogue uses a feat to use a greatsword, he burns one feat.  A ranger who uses a greatsword burns two without even trying.  Does that make sense?
> 
> Not all of us can get a dm that caters to our every whim.  Most 3e dms I know refuse to change rules for fear of balance problems. *




Alright, forget the twf. Look at the new ranger class without it. You get 6 skill points and great skills, an animal companion, great BAB, spells (including some healing), and favored enemies. Would you play this class with just that?

If the answer is yes, then put a nice piece of ducktape over the twf fighting bit, and have fun. If the answer is no, then you have other problems with the ranger then the twf.


----------



## Wormwood (Apr 1, 2003)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> *And TWF... works with shield + <one-handed weapon> too. Not to mention all the spiked stuff.*




Good point. TWF feats actually enhance a Sword & Shield fighter quite a bit.


----------



## Malin Genie (Apr 1, 2003)

For the record, I play a ranger using a longspear.  Took Combat Reflexes as my first Feat.

Do I feel that the Ranger should have been given a 'spear-fighting' option?  Not particularly.  If I wanted to be the best spear-fighter ever I'd have taken some fighter levels.  

Are the bonus Feats 'wasted'?  No - they _still provide options._  When fighting Thoqqua my spear was badly burnt - one more hit and it would have fallen to cinders.  Pulled out a couple of daggers - voila*, effective again.  In a bare-knuckle brawl; double the attacks (plus the Combat Reflexes were delightful with all those AoOs going on...)

I think it's already been pointed out, but it's very likely the 'archery' path will involve generic ranged Feats (such as PBS/PS) which are equally applicable to thrown weapons.

Just bear in mind - even if your primary style is not one for which you gain bonus Feats; they still provide versatility and a back-up style.


*To the Francophones on the board - how do you get accents to appear in your posts?


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Apr 1, 2003)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Alright, forget the twf. Look at the new ranger class without it. You get 6 skill points and great skills, an animal companion, great BAB, spells (including some healing), and favored enemies. Would you play this class with just that?
> 
> If the answer is yes, then put a nice piece of ducktape over the twf fighting bit, and have fun. If the answer is no, then you have other problems with the ranger then the twf. *





I would have problems with any class that was shoe horned into a fighting style.  Suppose the barbarian got the twf chain (or single feat as it may be in 3.5).   99% of the people playing barbarians would fight with two weapons.  You'd feel cheated if you didn't.  That's my entire point.  When they attach those free feats to a class, you feel cheated not using them.  The first 3e campaign I played in, I begged the dm to pick two feats to replace twf with.  ANY two feats, I said.  Hell, I would have been happy with toughness and skill focus:back scratching.  At least those I would have gotten some use out of.  But since he wouldn't, I didn't play a ranger.  Nor has anyone played one past level one in any of the five campaigns I've played in.  Now maybe it'll get played to level 2.  Anyways, I've vented enough on this thread.  Carry on.


----------



## MadBlue (Apr 1, 2003)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> *
> I would have problems with any class that was shoe horned into a fighting style. *




You could make that argument for most of the combat-related classes:


Rogues get Sneak Attack
Paladins get an intelligent mount
Barbarians get Rage 
Monks get unarmed attacks
Rangers get TWF or Archery
Samurai get their Daisho and bonus Feats by clan
Sohei get Ki-Frenzy

Fighters get a choice. That's what makes the Fighter _the_ class to take if you want to pick and choose your own combat style, especially if it's an unorthodox one. 

I find it odd that someone who claims he wants "to play a ranger for the appeal of the archetype" is arguing that the Ranger is being "shoehorned" into taking archery.  

MadBlue


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 1, 2003)

> There is no room for a ranger who fights with a single weapon only, or a two handed weapon.
> 
> I'm sure there are those who would say there is no reason why a ranger can't choose that style, but you'd as soon play a mage with a 10 intelligence as a ranger with feats he doesn't use. I.E., it ain't gonna happen
> 
> ...


----------



## Olive (Apr 1, 2003)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> *I'm sure there are those who would say there is no reason why a ranger can't choose that style, but you'd as soon play a mage with a 10 intelligence as a ranger with feats he doesn't use.  I.E., it ain't gonna happen.  So, even though my piddly little dollar doesn't amount to crap, WOTC will not see any more of them. *




Of course, for a mage with int 10 it ain't going to happen because a mage with 10 int can't use his primary abilities (i.e. spellcasting). A ranger using a spear of course can use his fighting abilities, etc. So the analogy doesn't quite hold up.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Apr 1, 2003)

MadBlue said:
			
		

> *
> 
> You could make that argument for most of the combat-related classes:
> 
> ...





Since when is a ranger an archer?  The original ranger was based upon Arragorn from LOTR.  While Arragorn may have used a bow occassionally, he was hardly an archer.  He was a stealthy ranger.  A warrior who could disappear into the wilderness and subsist on what nature alone had to offer.  Yet, he was still the epitome of the warrior.  With any weapon or with none.  I.E., he had no special feats besides maybe weapon focus in sword.  

Making Arragorn an archer would have left little room for Legolas in LOTR.  While I realize that's a pretty shaky analogy, it's close enough.  Rangers need no fighting styles.  Sure, you can ignore them, but I stand by the fact that you are in effect "wasting" the feats.  

I fail to see why many people associate archery with rangers.  Is it Robin Hood?  Legolas?  Either seem to fit the rogue or fighter archetype better than ranger.  Is it hunting?  Sure, hunting was done with a bow, but why extend this to combat?  A ranger should get up close and personal.  He should not equal the fighter in sheer combat ability, but he should be close.  And still be able to fill a niche.  That niche, as some have said is better filled by a fighter/rogue or fighter druid.  That's just wrong.


----------



## ehurtley (Apr 1, 2003)

*No Cleric mods?*

No Cleric mods?  To me, that's a shame.  As the only class that gets nothing new after 1st level (except more spells) the Cleric just cries out for Prestige classes, and there aren't all too many great ones.  Yeah, there are a couple 'good' ones, but not great.  At least give the Cleric occasional fighter or wizard-style bonus feats.

I started playing a Cleric when 3E first came out, and of course played for a few levels before any of the books with prestige classes were out.  My group just finished that campaign, so we are just about to start a new one.  For fun, we decided to randomly determine our characters (every detail...  Race, sex, class, everything.)  And I ended up with another Cleric.  In the old campaign, I was a Human LG Cleric, this time it's a Gnome NG Cleric, but still, a class with no major benefits after first level.  

And yes, I realize how powerful Clerics already are, but it would still be nice to have SOMETHING in the 'Special' column...  (Actually, now that I look, I guess the Bard and Sorcerer are in a similar predicament.  And the new campaign has both of them, when the old campaign had neither.  So I guess they'll be in the same boat, too.  )


----------



## Olive (Apr 1, 2003)

*Re: No Cleric mods?*



			
				ehurtley said:
			
		

> *And yes, I realize how powerful Clerics already are, but it would still be nice to have SOMETHING in the 'Special' column...*




and so you also realise why it ain't never gonna happen!!!


----------



## William Ronald (Apr 1, 2003)

Overall, I like the changes.

I think the bard has not been handled too well in previous editions.  (I don't think many people who played 1st edition realized that bards should have gotten hit dice after their last level of thief.  This avoids the "beserker with a banjo" syndrome I have seen in a few games.)

I think what Henry said about Piratecat's player Malachite  should guide players.  When I design a character, I try to focus on concept not classes.  Such questions as who is the character, what does he do,  what are his goals, and the reasons why he pursues those goals should be paramount.

If someone thinks that 3.5 is just a plot to gather money, then why will we be able to download a new SRD document when it is released?

I am looking forward to Sean K. Reynolds and a few playtesters commenting on how the finished version differs from the play test version.  Sean, any thoughts on where WotC is going now that we are several months from the last round of layoffs?  (I have heard that the sky is falling so many times that I don't even look up anymore. )


----------



## Saeviomagy (Apr 1, 2003)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> *
> Since when is a ranger an archer?  The original ranger was based upon Arragorn from LOTR.
> *




He was? I was pretty sure that the original 1st ed ranger I read was a giant-slayer. I didn't think Aragorn was a giant-slayer.

'course maybe I'm wrong. Even so, I didn't think that magic missile was a spell that Aragorn ever cast.



> *
> 
> While Arragorn may have used a bow occassionally, he was hardly an archer.  He was a stealthy ranger.  A warrior who could disappear into the wilderness and subsist on what nature alone had to offer.  Yet, he was still the epitome of the warrior.  With any weapon or with none.  I.E., he had no special feats besides maybe weapon focus in sword.
> *




You mean like a ranger who chooses not to use TWF or archery, right? Or spellcasting. Or favoured enemies.



> *
> I fail to see why many people associate archery with rangers.  Is it Robin Hood?  Legolas?  Either seem to fit the rogue or fighter archetype better than ranger.  Is it hunting?  Sure, hunting was done with a bow, but why extend this to combat?  A ranger should get up close and personal.  He should not equal the fighter in sheer combat ability, but he should be close.  And still be able to fill a niche.  That niche, as some have said is better filled by a fighter/rogue or fighter druid.  That's just wrong. *



Sez you. I personally think that the classes could do with some loosening up, including the abolishment of the specialised classes which can easily be duplicated by multiclassing (ie - the ranger and the paladin). I don't think it's going to happen, but I don't go around complaining that my own personal vision of my character cannot be represented under D&D rules as a single classed character.


----------



## Frostmarrow (Apr 1, 2003)

Malin Genie said:
			
		

> **To the Francophones on the board - how do you get accents to appear in your posts? *




You hit the ´-button before you hit the a. Producing á!


----------



## Celtavian (Apr 1, 2003)

*Re*

The ranger changes are no good. My group has already decided we will be sticking with our house-ruled ranger with bonus feats. The ranger with limited fighting-styles just doesn't seem like a ranger to us. 

I am going to have to write up some house rule for the sorcerer to use the quicken spell feat without having to waste a feat slot now as well. I don't quite understand why Stark and the design team would on the one hand take away the extra spell-casting action because it was too powerful and on the other hand assume the sorcerer is already powerful enough that they wouldn't need to use the quicken spell feat. Just doesn't make sense, and certainly doesn't fit in with the "players should have fun" theme. Does he not have a clue how many people make "blaster" sorcerer's?

Kind of have mixed feelings after hearing this interview. I am getting the feeling that I would rather take the time to write up my own game than pay for another edition that does not have what I want.


----------



## Gez (Apr 1, 2003)

Olive said:
			
		

> *It's also possible that they couldn't redo the ranger so that it used feats from a list. why? because that's been done by monte cook, and wizards doesn't seem to like using OGC in their products. *




Possible. Still, the definitive SRD of the psionic prestige class is Bruce Cordell's redo of them. And of course, section 15 of the d20 SRD OGL don't mention ITCK as the section 15 of these two PDF documents do. IMO, this just mean that WotC would not hesitate to make a deal with authors of rule material they want to reprint, especially if said authors are former employee...



			
				Celtavian said:
			
		

> *Does he not have a clue how many people make "blaster" sorcerer's?*




Actually, considering the sorcerer is balanced assuming people play blasters (talk about shoehorning) but somewhat suck with another concept (utility sorcerer ? ain't possible; planeshifter sorcerer ? outside of a planescape campaign, not useful often enough; divination- or enchantment- centered sorcerer ? talk about getting oneself the shaft); I think he knows.

But there was so much people ranting that being depleted of spells twice as fast as normal was evil and sinful and dirty and unnatural, they've decided to make sure that would not going to happen again.


----------



## Gez (Apr 1, 2003)

bwgwl said:
			
		

> *
> i so agree. i'd love to find some d8's numbered 1-4,1-4. that'd be a d4 you could really roll. *




Better yet, a d12 numbered 1-4 thrice. That way, these polyhedrons will actually see use outside of greataxes and barbarians !



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> *Well, first and foremost, I don't think it'll be hard to add new fighting styles (I'm going to add an unarmed one toot suite).*




Unarmed, Stealth (alertness and similar feat bonuses to hide & move silently rather than combat feat, maybe something to disarm snares and a use rope bonus as well to compensate), and maybe one involving teamwork (inside a hunting party, or later with animal companions to help). That's what I plan to do.



			
				JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> *Since when is a ranger an archer?  The original ranger was based upon Aragorn from LOTR.  While Aragorn may have used a bow occassionally, he was hardly an archer.*




Since Robin Hood, who predates both JRRT and EGG.

Aragorn is called a ranger, but in the world of D&D, he would be a paladin primarily. Maybe multiclassed ranger, for the track feat and wilderness lore skill, but he's definitely the noble paladin. He even gets a crown and a kingdom !

Legolas, on the other hand, is very rangerish. Scout, spot, fare well in nature, and a splendid archer on top of that.



			
				ehurtley said:
			
		

> *And yes, I realize how powerful Clerics already are, but it would still be nice to have SOMETHING in the 'Special' column...*




Just fill it with "+1 caster level, +1 turner level" at each line. That's what they get, don't they ?

More seriously, I could imagine modifying the cleric so that he gets his first domain at level 2, his second at level 5, and why not a third at leve 10.


----------



## Gez (Apr 1, 2003)

Malin Genie said:
			
		

> *voila*
> *To the Francophones on the board - how do you get accents to appear in your posts? *




We have a keyboard for that. On my AZERTY, the "à" key is the same as the 0.

Without it, you may use Windows's charmap software. It's there, hidden in C:\Windows|System32. Adding it to the accessories in the start menu is one of the first thing I do when I install windows. This way you can copy/paste strange characters, and you also get a key combo for it. "à" is Alt-0224 (type 0224 with the numeric pad while holding the Alt key).



			
				Frostmarrow said:
			
		

> *You hit the ´-button before you hit the a. Producing á! *




Except the proper accent is à, not á. Yours actually don't exist in French. àéè. Plus the _circonflexes_ âêîôû and the _trémas_ ëï. Plus the _cédille_ ç and the compound letter œ, and you have all the funny French letters. German uses ß and the _ümlauts_ äöü but no other accents IIRC. Spanish has its tilde (ñ). In eastern European languages, you may find cedillas on t and z, and carons (inverted circs). In yet other funny languages, you also have bars (like ħ), double accents (like ő), and other wacky things like ŋ.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> *(I'm going to add an unarmed one toot suite)*




While we're on that language topic, lol at toot suite. Phonetically, "toot sweet" would be better, although that sure looks weid. The proper writing is "tout de suite". And it means ASAP.


----------



## bushido11 (Apr 1, 2003)

I agree that the ranger is a biased class in the sense of the fighting styles and whatnot.  What I don't get is this:  why are rangers able to cast spells?  Since when have you seen a ranger in any fantasy novel cast a spell, unless he had some training in the art of magic?  I've never seen Aragorn cast spells, or Robin Hood, or Drizzt Do'Urden (and I've read all of the Drizzt books except for The Thousand Orcs).  The only spells Drizzt does cast are those granted to him by his drow heritage.  I say take away the spells and put some additional feats instead.  Or if you want a spellcasting ranger in-tuned with the forest, multiclass him with a druid.  You'll only be increasing his magic potential rather than reaching 4th level and going up from there.  Or give him Skill Mastery at certain levels that apply to Nature related skills.  Or better yet, use the Woodsman class from The Wheel of Time RPG, which fits the ranger concept better than the D&D ranger.


----------



## MadBlue (Apr 1, 2003)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> *
> Since when is a ranger an archer?  The original ranger was based upon Arragorn from LOTR.  While Arragorn may have used a bow occassionally, he was hardly an archer.*



Well, you don't have to convince _me_ that Aragorn is the original Ranger archetype, but the archetype has broadened a bit since then, a lot of it having to do with the way the Ranger has been portrayed in novels, and in _other_ RPGs and computer games, not just D&D. 

In any case, the ultimate _archer_ is still going to be a Fighter who has dedicated bonus Feat slots to ranged weapon Feats, as it should be.  


> *
> He was a stealthy ranger.  A warrior who could disappear into the wilderness and subsist on what nature alone had to offer.
> Yet, he was still the epitome of the warrior.  With any weapon or with none.  I.E., he had no special feats besides maybe weapon focus in sword. *



So take TWF then. It doesn't make a character better at fighting with two weapons than they are with one, it mean they don't have the penalties those _without_ TWF have when fighting with two weapons.  Basically, it makes them the "epitome of the warrior", with any weapon, or with none - or with two.


> *
> I fail to see why many people associate archery with rangers. Is it hunting?  Sure, hunting was done with a bow, but why extend this to combat? *



That argument is so weak that it doesn't even merit a rebuttal. 


> *
> A ranger should get up close and personal.  He should not equal the fighter in sheer combat ability, but he should be close.*



Best BAB - check
d10 HD - check
Proficiency with all martial weapons - check
Proficiency with light and medium armors - check

Sounds pretty close to me.  And that's not even counting the Ranger's specials.


> *
> And still be able to fill a niche.  That niche, as some have said is better filled by a fighter/rogue or fighter druid.  That's just wrong. *



Pardon me if I'm not so easily swayed by what "some" say.

MadBlue


----------



## Steverooo (Apr 1, 2003)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> *Alright, forget the twf. Look at the new ranger class without it. You get 6 skill points and great skills, an animal companion, great BAB, spells (including some healing), and favored enemies. Would you play this class with just that?*




Rangers DO NOT get animal companions!!!  They get the Animal Friendship spell at 7th level (4th, with high Wisodm).  Only Druids get animal companions.


----------



## LuYangShih (Apr 1, 2003)

The Ranger just needs a shockingly high 11 Wisdom to cast his first level spells.    And the Animal Friendship spell is what grants Animal Companions for both Rangers *and* Druids.  Rangers are going to be practically untouchable in 3.5, unless they are buffing the other classes as well.  I swear, the Ranger class was just fine the way it was, now I might have to house rule them, unless 3.5 buffs the other classes as well.

Still, I'm not even sure I'm buying this anymore.  We'll see how it turns out.


----------



## Steverooo (Apr 1, 2003)

bushido11 said:
			
		

> *I agree that the ranger is a biased class in the sense of the fighting styles and whatnot.  What I don't get is this:  why are rangers able to cast spells?  Since when have you seen a ranger in any fantasy novel cast a spell, unless he had some training in the art of magic?  I've never seen Aragorn cast spells, or Robin Hood, or Drizzt Do'Urden (and I've read all of the Drizzt books except for The Thousand Orcs).  The only spells Drizzt does cast are those granted to him by his drow heritage.  I say take away the spells and put some additional feats instead.  Or if you want a spellcasting ranger in-tuned with the forest, multiclass him with a druid.  You'll only be increasing his magic potential rather than reaching 4th level and going up from there.  Or give him Skill Mastery at certain levels that apply to Nature related skills.  Or better yet, use the Woodsman class from The Wheel of Time RPG, which fits the ranger concept better than the D&D ranger. *




Or, on yet another hand, you could simply fix the Ranger!

Give the Ranger some "Combat Path" Bonus Feats, but make them selectable.  Include TWF, Point Blank Shot, limited Weapon Specialization, Improved Unarmed Strike, a spell path (Spell Penetration), and some Ranger-only Feats.  Then let the player chose which path the Ranger takes.  TWF, Missile, Sword&Board, Two-handed, Spellslinger, Mounted, AND OTHER paths (such as Spell-less or Saves) could all be included.

People disagree over whether or not the Ranger should have spells or not.  I have always seen him as someone so good in the wilderness that his abilities seemed almost magical.  Thus, he could do things like Pass Without Trace, and Speak with Animals.

One way to do that is spells.  Another is supernatural or spell-like abilities.  The easiest way, IMO, is to assume they have spells, and then allow those who don't want them to trade them away for a more limited, always-usable magical ability...  For instance, Pass Without Trace at will, in return for a first-level spell slot (making them no more powerful than a Druid with Trackless Step).  Another way to do that is to allow the Ranger to subtract their Ranger level from all attempts to track them.

In any case, in order to make the Ranger Class fit the various Archetypes (Aragorn, Robinhood, et al), flexibility will be required.  The current Ranger, the 3.5 version, Monte Cook's, the 2e, and even the 1e versions all fail at this.

Rangers need outdoors skills.  They can take Survival, get tracking, and can find food/water, dangerous ground, and simple traps IF they take enough of the right skills.  They may be able to find direction in 3.5e (or that may just be rumour).

They cannot forecast the weather, are not specifically noted as being able to identify plants, animals, nor fresh water (which makes me wonder how they find food), aren't noted as being able to find or make traps (see finding food, again - any survival manual covers snares, deadfalls, etc), build shelters, start fires without equipment such as flint & steel (see the bonuses to saves vs. weather effects), etc.

Feats/Abilities which allow all of these would be good, and generally not too powerful.  Combined with a few Bonus Feats from a list, I think it's a fix.

In my Ranger, I gave two types of Feats.  "Ranger-Only" Feats, which were almost all either Non-Combat-Related, or required "Favoured Enemies", which I made a General Feat.

I gave the Ranger a "Ranger-Only" Feat at 1rst level (which would have to be spent on Favoured Enemies, if you wanted to be backwards-compatible), then Bonus Feats at 2nd & 3rd, 6th, 11th, and 16th.  These could include any of the Ranger-Only Feats, or the "Combat Path" Feats, from above.  (This was based on the Wizard's one Class Feat/5 levels).

Along with that, I gave the Ranger some movement abilities which increased his movement rate in the wild (obviating the need for a mount, in most cases), and allowed him to travel with a Medium or lighter load better (or with only a light one, at the highest level).  I kept the spells (but allowed the trade-it-away) option, provided almost 40 special abilities to choose 10 or so from, gave some new Class abilities, some old ones, and added a lot of flexibility.

Then again, I favor one Class Feat/5 Class Levels for ALL classes, and special class abilities at every level, just like the Druid and Monk (or D20 Modern, I hear).

Anyway, I think that would work better than two combat paths.  My version can handle a spear wielder, or a Trident-bearer, or a sword-swinger, or a Tarzan/Beastmaster, or a wave-rider pulled by a pair of trained dolphins, or a Sword & Board woods-fighter, or a desert-tracker, or a Rhino-rider, without needing levels of Fighter, Druid, or Paladin.  It would handle the old man of the woods, but also Arctic/Desert/Swamp Special Forces, trained with Bows/Martial Arts/Tridents/Spears, or whatever.

That's what I think Rangers should be.  Wilderness- (not just Woods-) Wise, able to fit multiple archetypes, either spellcasting or not (at the player's option), and extraordinarily adaptable.

The 3.5e Ranger won't be most of that.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Apr 1, 2003)

bushido11 said:
			
		

> *About some classes being favored and more powered than others, that's what you get when you play a class-based game like D&D.  Try as you might, nothing is absolutely balanced.  I play it because it's fun and the class system works best for a fantasy setting.  If you want things balanced or you want to create your character in the very image YOU want (not the company's version), D&D is not the answer.  For that, I suggest Mutants & Masterminds.  Even though it's a superhero game, it is adaptable to any genre.  It's probably the d20 equivalent of HERO (or close to it).  The price is the same as the 3.5e PHB, and you get a lot more for your money than mere revisions.
> *




There's d20M and Call of Cthulu for games with more general classes (I haven't seen Mutands and Masterminds, so I don't know whether it's similar). 

*



			Speaking of 3.5e, I see it as nothing more than a market ploy to milk D&D gamers out of their money.  Sure, the people in WoTC may have love for the game, but selling the revised core rulebooks is nothing more than a chance to make money.
		
Click to expand...


*
You can get most of the changes in the SRD, at the cost of NULL. And the changes they make are massive: they change the monster layout, change the monsters, add a tactics part. They're qualifying many things in combat, seriously change a lot of spells, change many classes, change some races, change several game mechanics (most notable DR). I'll get the new books, if only to have all the changes since the first printing of the core rules (which I have) written down nicely.

*



			For that, just come up with more products for FR or something.  Or come out with Dragonlance 3rd edition; I'd love to see that.
		
Click to expand...


*
They keep on spilling out accessories and FR stuff. And enworld has the Dragonlance Campaign Setting on the release schedule for some time now.

*



			Another thing they SHOULD DEFINITELY DO is replace AC with Defense and allow all classes to gain a Defense bonus, like in The Wheel of Time or d20 Modern.  I HATE the idea that a high-level fighter NEVER learns to evade attacks better without the use of feats and always has to rely on good magical armor to save his hide.  Also, monsters have insane attack bonuses and it gets even more insane with the arm swipe/arm swipe/bite combos they pull off.  Another variant they should add is the Wound Point system Star Wars utilizes.  Some people just aren't satisfied with hit points and the "I can take a bunch of arrow shots because I have 60+ hit points" syndrome.
		
Click to expand...


*
Some people aren't. But most are, I think. AC is a better term than Defense, and it's classical D&D. d20M has class bonuses to defense because it doesn't use magic per default, and you have to come up with something. Since magic is an integral part of D&D, I don't see class bonuses to AC for it.

*



			What would really kick major butt is if WoTC came up with a classless system so that you can customize your character level by level.  The basic idea is that everybody starts off as the commoner NPC class but has a point allotment to make improvements.  The real challenge would be assigning point values to class features and spellcasting.  I've created such a system and if you want to check it out, e-mail me at
		
Click to expand...


*
I don't like classless systems. Classes are D&D! More generalized classes are OK for d20 M, but I still like my archetypes, combined with the mix-and-match system that is multiclassing, and I think classes are here to stay. If I want to play a classless system, I go play GURPS or WoD (which I don't, or rather do only seldomly).



			
				ehurtley said:
			
		

> *No Cleric mods?  To me, that's a shame.  As the only class that gets nothing new after 1st level (except more spells)
> *




Well, that's something, don't you think? Spells are pretty good (and he has domains, so there are different spells for different clerics, plus many spells are alignment-based).

*



			And yes, I realize how powerful Clerics already are, but it would still be nice to have SOMETHING in the 'Special' column...
		
Click to expand...


*
Clerics are on the verge of being to powerful as it is, so I don't see that happening, except at the cost of either BAB, saves, or HD

And you can customize your cleric with feats, including Divine feats which give you new options to use your turning.



			
				JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> *
> Cries for a house rule, then.
> If I wanted to use house rules, I wouldn't need 3.5.
> *




If you don't want to use house rules, quit playing RPG's. It's one of RPG's strong points: you don't like some rules, you change it. It's done in card and board games, too. It's what I really like in games.

*



			Close their doors, no. But as I said, I'll let MY vote show. That's how capitalism works.
		
Click to expand...


*
If you're saying you won't buy the book just because you don't like the new ranger, they surely can do without you money. I'm sure amongst those who don't like the ranger either, there are enough who won't make their decision whether to buy the book just on that little fact, cause it's only a very small part of the changes.

*



			If rims are important enough to you, you'll buy something else. Again, voting with your dollar.
		
Click to expand...


*
I won't stick to my old car just because I don't like some small detail.

*



			Again, when 3.5 hits the shelves, show me one ranger that uses a fighting style other than the free ones.
		
Click to expand...


*
You know what? I play a ranger, which is an archer. And he was that even before there was an option to get free ranged feats. I took him because he had more skill points than a fighter, because he had spot, listen, move silently and hide on his class list and still got the big BAB, and because it fittet the character concept.

If I plan to play a wilderness warrior, I'll stick to the ranger, even if he'll fight with a polearm, or a big big club. It's not just about fighting prowess, or I'd take fighter.

*




That's because unarmed fighting defines a monk. Bruce Lee didn't go around shooting people full of arrows.


Click to expand...



So you're saying that Bruce Lee the barehands fighter defines the monk, but Robin Hood the Woodlands Archer doesn't define the ranger? What about those Martial Artists that combine their unarmed attacks with attacks from the Katana? Or ninja's, fighting with nunchaku, shuriken and ninjato, and with their bare hands if they must? Why isn't it possible to portray those with the use of the monk class, AND retain all the benefits of the class? 

But I might still play them AND play a monk (or monk/rogue) for the OTHER benefits of the class: good AC even without armor, good saving throws, evasion, high speed.... It's not munchkinism, where every single class feature must make me more powerful, but I'll still enjoy the character...





			When they are hard wired into the class, you HAVe to take them.
		
Click to expand...



No, just tell the DM you don't want them. He can hardly argue with that, and the rules aren't set in stone. You might even convince him to get something else in exchange. 





			To use your automobile analogy, it's like a deaf person buying a car with the latest $5,000.00 stereo and speakers.
		
Click to expand...



Then don't buy the special model with $5000 worth of car hi-fi equipment! Get the the standard model. Of course, you'll have to pay extra for the leather seats, the air conditioning, the moonroof and the power windows. And the special model costs only $5000 extra, while you have to pay for your optional choices an additional $6000, even without the car stereo (values not in proportion).
Sure, if you don't want the other extra stuff, you'll get the standard model.

And that's how it works in D&D: You don't want to have those archery feats, but you'll take the ranger anyway, because he has good skills, good saves, good BAB, and gets some spells. If you don't need the BAB and the spells, you'll be better off with, or fighter/rogue, and if you don't want skills you'll be straight fighter, and a better warrior than the ranger. 





			It irks me to pay for something I won't use.
		
Click to expand...



You mean those feats in the paths? Well, none of my characters uses heavy weapons or a shield, and most of them got the proficiencies. And I never feel cheated.

Or do you mean the ranger class in the new PHB? Say it takes up 10 pages, than that will be 3% of the book, or a little less than 1$.

Considering I still have to play a druid, or a halfling, or a half-elf, and probalby there are some races and classes won't play in the next couple of years, I have "wated" more, and I don't regret it.





			I'm not talking about the new books here. I'm talking about the ranger class.
		
Click to expand...



What about "I won't buy the books, I'll vote with my wallet"? Was that a quote from your last ranger character?





			Why be a ranger?
		
Click to expand...



To get a good BAB, to get masses of skill points, to get spells, to get favored enemies, and, to get some bonus feats. I probably won't use all of it, but some of that really make a difference (I won't use the medium armor proficiency, either).





			I have yet to see ANYONE take more than one level of ranger, now they'll take two, big improvement there.
		
Click to expand...



I'd send you a photograph of me, since I have taken more than one level of ranger (but I have none scanned). 
And the idea of taking two levels of ranger to get one feat is the supidest thing I have heard today. (But then, I haven't met many people so far today).*


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Apr 1, 2003)

> Give the Ranger some "Combat Path" Bonus Feats, but make them selectable. Include TWF, Point Blank Shot, limited Weapon Specialization, Improved Unarmed Strike, a spell path (Spell Penetration), and some Ranger-only Feats. Then let the player chose which path the Ranger takes. TWF, Missile, Sword&Board, Two-handed, Spellslinger, Mounted, AND OTHER paths (such as Spell-less or Saves) could all be included.




This, I like.



> People disagree over whether or not the Ranger should have spells or not. I have always seen him as someone so good in the wilderness that his abilities seemed almost magical. Thus, he could do things like Pass Without Trace, and Speak with Animals.



This one is always controversial - I don't know if a PrC could be used to satisfy everyone.



> They may be able to find direction in 3.5e (or that may just be rumour).



Isn't Intuit Direction a ranger class skill?



> They cannot forecast the weather, are not specifically noted as being able to identify plants, animals, nor fresh water (which makes me wonder how they find food), aren't noted as being able to find or make traps (see finding food, again - any survival manual covers snares, deadfalls, etc), build shelters, start fires without equipment such as flint & steel (see the bonuses to saves vs. weather effects), etc.



Except for the weather forecasting, everything else is covered by Wilderness Lore.


----------



## Merlion (Apr 1, 2003)

Actualy I think the weather forecasting IS included in Wilderness Lore...I seem to remember that Predict Weather or whatever the old 2e proficeincy for it was, was folded into wilderness lore. I think


----------



## drnuncheon (Apr 1, 2003)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> *
> Yet rogues can pick any style they want.  If a rogue uses a feat to use a greatsword, he burns one feat.  A ranger who uses a greatsword burns two without even trying.  Does that make sense?*




He doesn't "burn" anything - hell, even if you ignore the Ambi & TWF he's got just as many feats as the first level fighter (although one is fixed on Track - but you wanted that anyway!), the same hit points, and three times the skill points.  Oh, and a favored enemy bonus.

If you gave him free choice of two more feats, or even free choice of one more feat, there would be no point at all in starting as a fighter.

J


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Apr 1, 2003)

KaeYoss said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> [
> ...



*

Thank you for calling me stupid.

Let's see, two levels of ranger, gets you twf or pbs/rs, track, 5 ranks of spot, search, listen, hide, survival, a favored enemy, and the ability to use any magic item allowed to rangers.  Wands of cure light wounds, etc.

Two levels of fighter gives you what?  Two feats?  Suppose you want to be an archer - you take pbs/rs.  Compare that to the two levels of ranger.  Or you want to fight with two weapons.  The fighter has twf and weapon focus, compare that to two levels of ranger.  Remember the skills?  Every fighter skill is also on the ranger list.

Why take two levels of ranger?


I'll say it again, the ranger will kick ass (at least for a level or two, maybe for 20 if you like the archetype) if you intend on being an archer, or fighting with two weapons, otherwise, they'll sit on the shelf and gather dust.

There will be tons of ranger/2fighter4/Order of the bow/deepwood snipers around, though.*


----------



## Spatula (Apr 1, 2003)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> *Let's see, two levels of ranger, gets you twf or pbs/rs*



Remember that not all of the details have been released.  Since Ambi/2WF is being folded into a single feat, the ranger will get *one* feat at 2nd level - probably either the new 2WF feat or PBS.

So, 2 levels of ranger - Track, one restricted combat feat (that will only be usable in light armor), good skills.
2 levels of fighter - any 2 combat feats (usable in any armor), and you're 2 levels closer to Weapon Specialization.


----------



## Remathilis (Apr 1, 2003)

In fourth edition, I hope they remove the ranger class. No one agrees on what it should have, no one agrees what it should be, and no one agrees on how it should be implemented.

Do away with it, and bard, paladin, barbarian, druid sorcerer and monk. 

Sorry, but it just seems one man's folly is another man's wife around here...


----------



## Merlion (Apr 1, 2003)

Well one little problem...if you do away with the Ranger, Bard(!?), Monk, Paladin, Sorcerer(!?), Druid(!?), and Barbarian, its no longer DnD. You might as well just go for a classless system. DnD is a class based system...its also a heavily class based system. An Archtypal class system.  Not a three or four base classes that lead you into various advanced classes game. Several of the classes you mention, particularly Bard Ranger and Druid are very standard fantasy archtypes and have always been part of DnD.
  Now granted it would be interesting for WOTC to do a base classes leading to advanced classes game...and even a classeless system of some kind. but those things would not be Dungeons and Dragons.
  Now, I am all for the core classes being made more and more generic and getting away from certain restrictive sterotypes held over from the early days of DnD(such as alignment restrictions) just for the record.
  However as to your saying that the ranger needs to be removed because no one can agree on what it is what it should have etc etc...well for the most part I say the solution to that is that people need to understand that the game designers CAN NOT PLEASE EVERYONE. Wether you want to believe that they are trying to do the best they can or not is your own choice but that fact...that they cant please everyone...is indisputable. Some times that have to try to either please as many people as they can, or avoid displeasing as many as they can. And some times they may fail even at that. But nothing's perfect.
  Now I have complained about things they have done myself, frequently. but I still love a good 80% of the stuff. and most of what I dont like is easily changeable. I agree, their should have been a couple more combat styles(and perhaps a line of non combat feats) for the ranger. but such a thing is hardly hard to come up with. And it is DEFINTILY an improvement over the 3.0 ranger...that to is beyond denial as far as I am concenred.


----------



## Henry (Apr 1, 2003)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Let's see, two levels of ranger, gets you twf or pbs/rs, track, 5 ranks of spot, search, listen, hide, survival, a favored enemy, and the ability to use any magic item allowed to rangers.  Wands of cure light wounds, etc.
> 
> Two levels of fighter gives you what?  Two feats?  Suppose you want to be an archer - you take pbs/rs.  Compare that to the two levels of ranger.  Or you want to fight with two weapons.  The fighter has twf and weapon focus, compare that to two levels of ranger.  Remember the skills?  Every fighter skill is also on the ranger list.
> 
> Why take two levels of ranger?




If I were to modify the question, why would I take, say 8 levels of ranger or fighter?

If I take 8 levels of fighter, I am a whirlwind of destruction. I can pummel my enemies with melee weapon or sword (my choice), I can survive most fights of my equal, and that's about it. I am good for my purpose.

If I take 8 levels of Ranger, I am a master of independent survival and scouting. I can survive, unaided, on my own, in any hazardous setting, without magical aid or the aid of my companions. I can recon, follow, evade, and be warned, and even have companionship without the assistance of others. I can self-heal, and I can endure hostile elements. I cannot be the melee master of all I survey, because my talents are not in that direction. I am a survivalist, but I am not a master of survival at combat. That is the job of another.

The role that 3E designers envisioned for the Ranger is that of a survivalist and scout. His spells and skills and hefty hit dice and BAB ensure that he is not weak on his own, and his role is that of recon, not master combatant. 

From what I gather in your post, you seem to see the Ranger as a lightly armed and armored version of the fighter. You apparently see him as supposed to be the equal of the fighter, just more versatile in combat that he currently is, but essentially the same. Am I incorrect here? If so, then the view that most players have of the Ranger is quite different from the role you want him to fulfill.



> I'll say it again, the ranger will kick ass (at least for a level or two, maybe for 20 if you like the archetype) if you intend on being an archer, or fighting with two weapons, otherwise, they'll sit on the shelf and gather dust.[/B]




About the only fighting style I don't see the Ranger in now is two-handed weapon style, because as one poster pointed out, even weapon and shield can be of benefit to an existing Ranger. But the point remains that a Rogue will excel at skill use, but will be little use if you want to be a caster. A Wizard will stink at disarming traps and bluffing guards consistently. A Cleric will be of little good if you want to sneak and pick pockets. And a Fighter will do little good if you want to do ANYTHING besides fight. The Ranger fits the role that WotC designers cast him in - its just doesn't happen to be the role you think he should be. I'm still not seeing the difference between the Ranger and trying to use any other class in the role it wasn't meant for.


----------



## MadBlue (Apr 2, 2003)

Merlion said:
			
		

> *Actualy I think the weather forecasting IS included in Wilderness Lore...I seem to remember that Predict Weather or whatever the old 2e proficeincy for it was, was folded into wilderness lore. I think *




Weather forecasting is part of Knowledge (Nature) in 3e.  Of course Rangers have access to that too.

I think the main reason why "Wilderness Lore" is being renamed "Survival" in 3.5 is because it's a bit of a misnomer.  Much of what amounts to "lore" is pretty much covered by Knowledge (Nature) - IMHO they should synergize, though, as there _is_ quite a bit of overlap. For example, when you're foraging for food, both Knowledge (Nature) and Survival would help you to identify which mushrooms are poisonous. 

MadBlue


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Apr 2, 2003)

Henry said:
			
		

> *
> 
> The role that 3E designers envisioned for the Ranger is that of a survivalist and scout. His spells and skills and hefty hit dice and BAB ensure that he is not weak on his own, and his role is that of recon, not master combatant.
> 
> ...




No, I don't expect the ranger to equal the fighter in combat.  He should be a decent fighter, second only to the fighter and maybe the paladin as well.  I want him to be the survivalist and scout, as you say above.  But I don't want to see him forced into any combat style, be it archery, twf, two handed fighting or projectile vomiting.   I don't want to see ANY feats forced upon him, except for track.  The ranger is a master of versatility and this should show in his fighting stle as well.  I.E., either no style feats, or enough choices that he can cover just about all possible styles someone wants to choose for their ranger.  A choice between archery and twf is no improvement over just twf as it stands now.

You seem to think I want MORE for the ranger.  I don't.  I want them to get rid of the free feats archery/twf feats they are giving him.   All rangers should not have to be archers or Drizzt clones.  Get rid of that crap and maybe expand the spell list a bit (no I'm not talking about magic missiles or fireballs) and the ranger will be fine.  Straightjacketing him into certain combat styles sucks.


----------



## A'koss (Apr 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by JRRNeiklot:
> 
> No, I don't expect the ranger to equal the fighter in combat. He should be a decent fighter, second only to the fighter and maybe the paladin as well. I want him to be the survivalist and scout, as you say above. But I don't want to see him forced into any combat style, be it archery, twf, two handed fighting or projectile vomiting. I don't want to see ANY feats forced upon him, except for track. The ranger is a master of versatility and this should show in his fighting stle as well. I.E., either no style feats, or enough choices that he can cover just about all possible styles someone wants to choose for their ranger. A choice between archery and twf is no improvement over just twf as it stands now.




The more I've thought about it, the more I'm inclined to agree with you. Go all the way (that is logical for a ranger) or not at all. 

Half measures _are_ worse... but I guess that's what house rules are for.


Cheers,

A'koss.


----------



## Steverooo (Apr 2, 2003)

KaeYoss said:
			
		

> *If you're saying you won't buy the book just because you don't like the new ranger, they surely can do without you money. I'm sure amongst those who don't like the ranger either, there are enough who won't make their decision whether to buy the book just on that little fact, cause it's only a very small part of the changes.*




Oh, I don't know...  I bought the 2e PHB, MM, and DMG, tried their Ranger, hated it, and never bought another 2e book until 3e came out, but that's just me.


----------



## Steverooo (Apr 2, 2003)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> *This, I like.
> 
> This one is always controversial - I don't know if a PrC could be used to satisfy everyone.
> 
> ...




Glad you like the "select your own Feats" idea.  (I do, too!)   

Spellslinger or Spell-less can BOTH be covered by the Ranger Class, WITHOUT a Prestige Class needed!  There are two different methods for doing this!

Yes, Intuit Direction is a 3e Ranger skill, but that's not the point.  Rumour has it that 3.5e's Survival skill will incorporate direction-finding, just as 3e's Wilderness Lore includes not getting lost.  This rumour may or may not be true.

::Sigh!::  Again, with missing the point, (P)SH...  A Ranger SHOULD be able to set various sorts of traps (snares, pits, spiked pits, deadfalls, (spiked) limb traps, etc).  WL allows them to find food and water in the wild.  Nowhere does it allow them the ability to set traps (try asking your GM to allow you to do this, next game - I've had GMs tell me no), nor to identify plants or animals (I've had GMs tell me Knowledge (Nature) was required for this), nor identify water quality, nor start fires without flint & steel or other tools, nor build shelters (I've had GMs tell me this required a Craft check)!

SO, what I'm saying is, let's state that the Ranger can set traps with DC 20 or less (Rogues also get to set higher level ones), and give rules for that.  Let's add a few lines to Knowledge (Nature) and Survival that state that Knowledge (Nature) is an Academic skill, and that Survival includes all aspects of it, from a practical standpoint.  In other words, you may not know that this plant is _Assea Aranion_ without Knowledge (Nature), but you would know that it is not edible, poisonous, nor good for making rope.  Profession (Herbalist) or Knowledge (Nature) would let you know that it is useful in healing the Black Breath.

Also, WL/Survival should allow you to tell water quality, and purify bad water.  It should also explicitly state that it allows firestarting and shelterbuilding without tools, identification of tracks and "scat" to tell what types of creatures have been in the local area, and yes, even predict the weather!

It should also provide DCs for ALL of the above, and some guidelines on time!

This is as easy as pie, folks, even if you're not a Boyscout!  The work was already done in 2e, except for the DCs part!  Just assign them.  Mine look something like this:

==============================================

*
Additional Uses for Wilderness Lore:                        DC:*
To determine which types of creatures are within a mile (by tracks, scat, etc.): 15
To identify an animal (Knowledge (Nature) can also be used):10 + Rarity + Terrain Modifiers
To identify a magical beast:                                15 + Rarity + Terrain Modifiers
To identify a normal plant and its usefulness (Knowledge (Nature) can also be used): 
                                                            10 + Rarity + Terrain Modifiers
To recognize a plant monster and its danger:                15 + Rarity + Terrain Modifiers
To determine the purity of water:                           10
To purify bad water:                                        10
To leave/recognize trail signs (made to be recognized):      2
To accurately predict the weather:                           0, +1/hour in advance
To start a fire (without aids):                             15
To build a simple, weatherproof structure (leanto, etc.):    15
To camouflage something (the Hide skill can also be used):  15
To build a simple deadfall, pit, or snare trap (DC <= 20):  10

==============================================

See what I mean?


----------



## Steverooo (Apr 2, 2003)

Henry said:
			
		

> *If I take 8 levels of Ranger, I am a master of independent survival and scouting. I can survive, unaided, on my own, in any hazardous setting, without magical aid or the aid of my companions. I can recon, follow, evade, and be warned, and even have companionship without the assistance of others. I can self-heal, and I can endure hostile elements. I cannot be the melee master of all I survey, because my talents are not in that direction. I am a survivalist, but I am not a master of survival at combat. That is the job of another.
> 
> The role that 3E designers envisioned for the Ranger is that of a survivalist and scout. His spells and skills and hefty hit dice and BAB ensure that he is not weak on his own, and his role is that of recon, not master combatant. *




If you take eight levels of Ranger, you may or may not be a master survivor or scout...  It depends, entirely, upon the skills you take.  You have no class abilities to help either.  Same with the other abilities listed.  You can only self-heal if your Wisdom is 14+ (otherwise, it's still two levels away).

Again, as either Survivalist or Scout, the Ranger has no class abilities to aid him.  The same is true for the Rogue, as far as stealth goes, but not for traps, for instance, where he has several bonuses (DC:20+, and Uncanny Dodge DEX Bonus to AC vs. Traps), not to mention several in-combat abilities.

Nope, get rid of the two "Combat Paths", and give Bonus Feats from a selected list, instead.  Put the Archery & TWF Feats on there, and Rangers' Players will take the ones they want.  Add Point Blank Shot and all its Sub-Feats for missile shooters and throwers.  Add Mounted Combat and its Sub-Feats.  Add Improved Unarmed Strike, all its Sub-Feats, and some animal fighting styles for the Tarzan/Beastmaster crowd.  Add a few Feats for the Two-handed and Sword & Board fighters (Weapon Specialization in an axe, bow, club, dagger/knife, spear, sword, trident, for instance), the "Saves" path (Iron Will, etc.), and something for the Spellslingers, and a "Trade the Spells Away" option for those who want a spell-less woodsman.

Now, you have a versatile, adaptable (but still bland and flavourless) Ranger who can occupy the Aragorn slot, the Robinhood slot, the Tarzan or Beastmaster slot, and also fight with a two-handed weapon from Rhino-back, if he wants to!  He can be magically powerful, or spell-less, as the player likes.  He is FLEXIBLE, adaptable, and versatile.  He gives CHOICES, not RESTRICTIONS!

Now give him some special class abilities that make him better at surviving in the wild than a Cosmopolitan Fighter with Survival skill, and some FLAVORFUL abilities, and you've got the world-travelling Ranger class that people will not only play, but also stop complaining about!

A choice between two pre-chosen combat paths (and with spells) just aint a'gonna cut it!


----------



## Steverooo (Apr 2, 2003)

*PS*

And while we're at it, Rangers need Knowledge (Geography) and Balance (used not just for trees and cliffs, but also for crossing ice and snow) as class skills, too.

Then again, it has been SAID that all 3.5e classes will have some sort of Knowledge skill as a class skill (Fighters probably Knowledge (History), as it covers wars, Druids K(Nature), Clerics K(Religion), etc.).  Again, this may or may not prove to be true.

Also, I favour giving ALL Classes Bonus Feats from a selected list at levels 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20, just like the Wizard now gets, and including some Class-Only Feats, such as the Fighter's Weapon Specialization, the Wizard's Spell Mastery, the Rogue's Skill Mastery and Crippling Strike, etc.  Ranger-Only Feats (some sharable with Druids and Barbarians) could include the ability to predict the weather a day in advance, without error, affinities with certain types of animals, and other such Non-combat scouting or survivalist Feats.

Okay, now somebody tell me WHY this idea is bad!


----------



## Plane Sailing (Apr 2, 2003)

Steverooo said:
			
		

> *
> Rangers DO NOT get animal companions!!!  They get the Animal Friendship spell at 7th level (4th, with high Wisodm).  Only Druids get animal companions. *




Unless, of course, Rangers wisely choose from their class skills Animal Empathy and Animal Handling... then they can train their own animal companions quite handily. A starting 1st level ranger could easily be given a trained animal as a companion without any strain on credibility.

In fact, an ranger who wishes to invest a few skill points will soon find that Animal Handling is much better for him than the animal friendship spell (especially at *his* caster level!)

Cheers


----------



## Henry (Apr 2, 2003)

Steverooo said:
			
		

> *If you take eight levels of Ranger, you may or may not be a master survivor or scout...  It depends, entirely, upon the skills you take.  You have no class abilities to help either.  Same with the other abilities listed.  You can only self-heal if your Wisdom is 14+ (otherwise, it's still two levels away).
> *




The skills to take are in the class skills of the ranger: Wilderness lore, spot, listen, hide, and move silently - all of which a ranger can get now, and will be able to hone them up even more in the revision.


And the Ranger gets NO class abilities - what about the Spells?


All the abilities I mentioned come from spells, which is a major class ability for the Ranger. Alarm, Animal Friendship, Endure elements, pass without trace, speak with animals - ALL of these are 1st level spells, and available to the ranger as early as 4th level. It requires a 12 Wisdom for a ranger to have, which is not unobtainable by any means - even 25 point buy will get a PC that score available for wisdom.

As for healing, while it is true it requires a ranger to have a slightly higher wisdom to have them at that level, the fact reamins they can have it, and they WILL have it by 10th. It doesn't change the bulk of his other self-sufficiency by 4th level, well in place by 8th.

I have to say however, that your ideas are actually similar to mine, except that I kept it as sets of feat 'paths', and added a set of feats for single-weapon focus & expertise, too. ("Path of the Serpent.")

If there is one thing they can do, it would be to cement the spellcasting a little more, and make sure that he is self-sufficient by 6th level or so, instead of 10th, and maybe put cure light wounds in the 1st level range, if they want him on his own more, as a scout should.



> Now give him some special class abilities that make him better at surviving in the wild than a Cosmopolitan Fighter with Survival skill, and some FLAVORFUL abilities, and you've got the world-travelling Ranger class that people will not only play, but also stop complaining about!




It'll never happen - no matter if the Ranger is given the abilities of a demigod, someone will always have something to complain about. _("What do you mean my Ranger can't summon Tarrasques by whistling through his nose!? UNFAIR!!!")_


----------



## bret (Apr 2, 2003)

Henry said:
			
		

> *
> All the abilities I mentioned come from spells, which is a major class ability for the Ranger. Alarm, Animal Friendship, Endure elements, pass without trace, speak with animals - ALL of these are 1st level spells, and available to the ranger as early as 4th level.
> *




The Ranger doesn't get Endure Elements.

Personally, I think this is a mistake. The 24 hour Endure Elements is in many cases better than that short duration Resist Elements that they do get. That is a different discussion.

In 3e, the Ranger is one of the few spellcasters who gets Resist and Protection from Elements, but not Endure Elements.


----------



## Henry (Apr 2, 2003)

bret said:
			
		

> *The Ranger doesn't get Endure Elements.
> *




I'll be two-weapon whipped!

I've been mentally glossing over that for about a year now!

Thanks for the catch!  

I think it ought to be a mistake, too. It makes little sense to give Rangers one but not the other. I hope that's one of the things that is changed, because the image of a ranger freezing his... err, butt... off on top of a frozen mountain range is not quite the image of "wilderness survivor" I'm pretty sure they wanted.

Huh.


----------



## Lord Rasputin (Apr 2, 2003)

bwgwl said:
			
		

> *
> i so agree. i'd love to find some d8's numbered 1-4,1-4. that'd be a d4 you could really roll. *




One of my GMs has such monsters. He saw a pair at a con, bought them ... and no one has ever seen another one since.

I loathe the caltrops. I'd pay $$$ for the 8-sided d4s. Especially if I can find an oversized one.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Apr 2, 2003)

Henry said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> I think it ought to be a mistake, too. It makes little sense to give Rangers one but not the other. I hope that's one of the things that is changed, because the image of a ranger freezing his... err, butt... off on top of a frozen mountain range is not quite the image of "wilderness survivor" I'm pretty sure they wanted.
> ...




It has bothered me for ages... it means that clerics, druids, wizards, sorcerers and even paladins are better at surviving in deserts or the arctic than rangers!

n.b. the ranger only needs an 11 wisdom to qualify for his 1st level spells if he doesn't mind waiting a little bit longer...


----------



## 2WS-Steve (Apr 2, 2003)

Lord Rasputin said:
			
		

> *
> 
> One of my GMs has such monsters. He saw a pair at a con, bought them ... and no one has ever seen another one since.
> 
> I loathe the caltrops. I'd pay $$$ for the 8-sided d4s. Especially if I can find an oversized one. *




Don't do it! They're dangerous I tell you...

Theory and Practice


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Apr 2, 2003)

I'd still use those d8s rather than d4s but I think I'm OT here.


----------



## seankreynolds (Apr 3, 2003)

*OT: Awesome disgusting barf picture*

Sorry to hijack the thread, but wasn't there an early post in this thread or a similar thread where a poster said, "Originally, thoughts of the 3.5E D&D made me feel like this:" and included a disgusting picture of some guy tossing his cookies. Anyone know where it went? I'm having a conversation about Gwar with someone and need to give them an example of what their show is like....


----------



## Malin Genie (Apr 3, 2003)

Frostmarrow said:
			
		

> *
> 
> You hit the ´-button before you hit the a. Producing á! *




`a 'a ^a 'a (holding it down this time) `a (ditto)

Maybe the French keyboards are different.

Sigh.


----------



## Steverooo (Apr 3, 2003)

Henry said:
			
		

> *The skills to take are in the class skills of the ranger: Wilderness lore, spot, listen, hide, and move silently - all of which a ranger can get now, and will be able to hone them up even more in the revision.
> 
> And the Ranger gets NO class abilities - what about the Spells?
> *




The first isn't the point, and the second is a misquote.  What I said was: "You have no class abilities to help either." - referring to Scouting and Survivalism - and it's true, too.  The Ranger has no special abilities relating to either.  I gave him Scouting and Survivalist Special Abilities at first and (IIRC) fifth or sixth level, and additional abilities from 1rst - 10th, then a choice of Ranger-Only ones from 11th - 20th, which include almost no combat options except for ones related to Favoured Enemies, if it was taken as a Feat.  (Yes, I made FE a General Feat).

Looking at the Ranger's first level spells, I see none that help with Scouting, either, so as far as the above quote is concerned, spells don't help there, either.  2nd level spells likewise.  3rd level he gets Tree Shape.  4th level, he gets several useful (but won't see them until the high teens, IF single-classed - post-twentieth level, if multiclassed).

So, spells can help with Scouting and Survivability, but at eighth level, the Scouting is certainly not there, nor is much in the way of survivability...  Rangers also get Tracking and Favored Enemies, too.  I'm not sure if Tracking aids in Scouting (I won't argue if you think it does), or Survivability (might help find game?).  Depending upon the FE, Favoured Enemies might help in Scouting and Survivability (FE: Animals, for instance), but a bonus of +1/+2 isn't all that much.

So, again, I say give the Ranger a better choice of paths, give him some Special Class Abilities (either through Special, Ranger-Only Bonus Feats or through Special Class Abilities) that aid him in Scouting and Survivability.  We Know the first isn't being done; we don't know about the second...

The 3.5e Ranger is an improvement over the 3e (and 2e) versions.  It will not be enough of one, however.


----------



## kenjura (Apr 3, 2003)

I've been here far too long not to say something.


I've been working on an alternate system, rather comparable to d20 modern, but for standard d&d fantasy settings.  Here's a few ideas relevant to the discussion that I'd like opinions on.

Standard ranger abilities:
Favored terrain - gain 1/2 level as a bonus to various skills (different skill list, but essential Wilderness Lore, Spot, Move Silently, etc) in your favored terrain.  Yes, that's a serious bonus.

Favored prey - gain 1/4 level bonus to hit and damage versus one type of creature.  Very similar to favored enemy, but a more serious mechanic.

Partial spellcasters - like the standard ranger, they get a modicum of spellcasting ability.


Every class gets the exact same number of bonus feats.  Despite what you'd expect, this actually works.  There's a whole lot of background information you'd need to judge the system as a whole, but I'm just presenting the core concepts applied.

Other concepts:

"Haste" works as in 3.5e (at least the way I thought 3.5e was supposed to work, with either an extra attack or an extra move action).  An 8th-level spell "Alacrity" does what the old haste did.  It also has a rather nasty material component (the imbiber swallows a flask of quicksilver, which has a poisonous effect) to stave off possible overuse.

Magic Missile remains unchanged (yay!).  A 5th-level spell, Force Missiles, deals 1d6+1 per 2 levels (max 7d6+6) with a ranged touch.  There are more like this.

The Bard gained skill points, greatly increased bardic music abilities, and lost spellcasting altogether.  I try to encourage multiclassing in my system, and I never liked how bards are forced to cast as sorcerers.  Take mostly bard and some sorcerer or wizard and you'll be just fine.

Certain classes, such as the Paladin, Cleric (gasp, the cleric! there's another class that maintains the old style), and Druid were altered significantly.


The point of this system is not to change the definition of any d&d class archetypes, but rather enhance them.  The Bard is a SERIOUS bard, the wizard a SERIOUS wizard (of course, he didn't need any help from 3e core), et cetera.

Oh yeah, and a 100% overhauled skills and feats list.


What can I say?  I like to stir up trouble.

Anyhow, I'll be popping ideas around for a while to see how awful they are.

-Kenjura


----------



## Green Knight (Apr 3, 2003)

*Re: OT: Awesome disgusting barf picture*



			
				seankreynolds said:
			
		

> *Sorry to hijack the thread, but wasn't there an early post in this thread or a similar thread where a poster said, "Originally, thoughts of the 3.5E D&D made me feel like this:" and included a disgusting picture of some guy tossing his cookies. Anyone know where it went? I'm having a conversation about Gwar with someone and need to give them an example of what their show is like.... *




You mean THIS pic, Sean? 







And it was in my thread about the new D&D miniature line, my opinion of it when I first heard about it. Namely that it was to be random, pre-painted plastic minis (Though I've since changed my mind about the line, which is akin to picking all that puke up off the floor and stuffing it back up my nostrils and my mouth. What I get for jumping to conclusions).


----------



## Steverooo (Apr 3, 2003)

kenjura said:
			
		

> *Standard ranger abilities:
> Favored terrain - gain 1/2 level as a bonus to various skills (different skill list, but essential Wilderness Lore, Spot, Move Silently, etc) in your favored terrain.  Yes, that's a serious bonus.
> 
> Favored prey - gain 1/4 level bonus to hit and damage versus one type of creature.  Very similar to favored enemy, but a more serious mechanic.
> ...




I have never seen "Favored Terrain" as a good idea, but I guess it depends upon what you do with it.

Favored Prey/Enem(y/ies) isn't my favorite idea, either.

Spellcasting, IMHO, has to be kept as an option, but should also be tradable for something else, for those who don't see their Rangers as Spellslingers.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Apr 3, 2003)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Thank you for calling me stupid.
> 
> ...




I don't think  they get both feats at 2nd level. TWF is one feat, and they get that. So unless they combine pbs and rs into one feat, the ranger will get only one at 2nd, AFAIK

*



			track, 5 ranks of spot, search, listen, hide, survival, a favored enemy, and the ability to use any magic item allowed to rangers.  Wands of cure light wounds, etc.
		
Click to expand...


*
Advancing as a ranger will give me even more skill points. 

*



			Two levels of fighter gives you what?  Two feats?  Suppose you want to be an archer - you take pbs/rs.  Compare that to the two levels of ranger.  Or you want to fight with two weapons.  The fighter has twf and weapon focus, compare that to two levels of ranger.  Remember the skills?  Every fighter skill is also on the ranger list.

Why take two levels of ranger?
		
Click to expand...


*
As I said, I doubt that you will get two archery feats.


*



			I'll say it again, the ranger will kick ass (at least for a level or two, maybe for 20 if you like the archetype) if you intend on being an archer, or fighting with two weapons, otherwise, they'll sit on the shelf and gather dust.
		
Click to expand...


*
I'd stick with the ranger and get better at sneaking, spotting and listening then the fighter.


As a sidenote: Monks aren't proficient with the katana, and it certainly isn't a "monk" weapon, either.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Apr 3, 2003)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I want them to get rid of the free feats archery/twf feats they are giving him. .... Straightjacketing him into certain combat styles sucks. *




The way I see it the problem is not with the Ranger being not versatile enough (for he's really a very versatile class, and the additional skill points and a choice of fighting styles - be they only to or two hundred), but the mentality of some people. They want to weaken the ranger by not giving him the feats, when all they have to do is not use them. It's practically the same: he won't use those feats and will be a good choice of class nonetheless. But there's the powergamer's instinct in people who want to have their character every single power they have to be as powerful as possible. 

If I don't want to use some thing, I don't do it. I'll choose a class for what useful stuff it will give me, for what will fit in my character concept, and not for what stuff it will have but I won't use.

I've played lots of characters with armor proficiency (heavy) who only use light armor (or maybe medium). I never had the urge to put that character in heavy armor, just because I don't want to "waste" that feat. (It's funny, though, that people are complaining that the armor proficiencies have to be bought with feats, in d20M. You can't satisfy everyone.)



			
				Remathilis said:
			
		

> *In fourth edition, I hope they remove the ranger class. No one agrees on what it should have, no one agrees what it should be, and no one agrees on how it should be implemented.
> 
> Do away with it, and bard, paladin, barbarian, druid sorcerer and monk.
> 
> Sorry, but it just seems one man's folly is another man's wife around here...  *




You are aware that this action will upset other people, and is therefor just another of those ways that won't please everyone (and actually, it is a choice that will upset more than any other).



			
				Steverooo said:
			
		

> *Nope, get rid of the two "Combat Paths", and give Bonus Feats from a selected list, instead.  *




I don't really like that. Either every single class gets bonus feats with a special list (as in d20m), or the ranger stays with his Paths. They're an improvement over the single style they got. I won't disagree, however, with additional paths, if they aren't to much and don't cover every fighting style there is (for this is fighter territory). Put in another for polearms, maybe (I don't see a ranger with a shield, it doesn't really fit), and some that give him other powers (maybe one with spells, one with survival-type abilities).



			
				Steverooo said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Yes, Intuit Direction is a 3e Ranger skill, but that's not the point.  Rumour has it that 3.5e's Survival skill will incorporate direction-finding, just as 3e's Wilderness Lore includes not getting lost.  This rumour may or may not be true.
> *




d20M Survival states DC 18 to avoid getting lost. I think that means ID (since it's not in the skill list). I'm almost positive they will do this in 3.5, too (ID was probably the single most useless skill and had no right to be a separate skill)

*



			::Sigh!::  Again, with missing the point, (P)SH...  A Ranger SHOULD be able to set various sorts of traps (snares, pits, spiked pits, deadfalls, (spiked) limb traps, etc).
		
Click to expand...


*
Hm... I think he will get the appropriate craft skill.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Apr 3, 2003)

> but the mentality of some people. They want to weaken the ranger by not giving him the feats, when all they have to do is not use them. It's practically the same: he won't use those feats and will be a good choice of class nonetheless.




That's a good one. Did you know that a combat style can be related to someone's personality?

For instance, a character who takes Expertise and heavy armor might be a tactical defensive fighter, whereas someone who takes TWF is cocky and aggressive.

Congrats, all the rangers are cocky, aggressive, and went to Mielikki's secret fighting school


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Apr 3, 2003)

No. Some rangers are (if their Fighting Style is related to their personality). The rest (who don't use the fighting style) aren't (and those whose personality doesn't dictate their fighting style. Or vice versa).


----------



## seankreynolds (Apr 3, 2003)

*Re: Re: OT: Awesome disgusting barf picture*



			
				Green Knight said:
			
		

> *
> 
> You mean THIS pic, Sean?
> *




That's the one, thanks.


----------



## Green Knight (Apr 3, 2003)

No problem.  



> I've played lots of characters with armor proficiency (heavy) who only use light armor (or maybe medium). I never had the urge to put that character in heavy armor, just because I don't want to "waste" that feat. (It's funny, though, that people are complaining that the armor proficiencies have to be bought with feats, in d20M. You can't satisfy everyone.)




Right now I'm considering playing a Fighter who wears at best Studded Leather. But it's true. Just because a class has an ability doesn't mean you have to constantly use it. How many Barbarians use their Medium Armor Proficiency? How many Monks actually use a Quarterstaff when they can do an equal amount of damage with nunchaku, with a better BAB? 



> *::Sigh!:: Again, with missing the point, (P)SH... A Ranger SHOULD be able to set various sorts of traps (snares, pits, spiked pits, deadfalls, (spiked) limb traps, etc).*
> 
> Hm... I think he will get the appropriate craft skill.




Thanks for pointing that out. I hadn't noticed. But yeah, you're right. Rangers have the Craft skill, and one of the Craft skill subdivisions is Trapmaking. So a Ranger can already make traps.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Apr 4, 2003)

KaeYoss said:
			
		

> *
> 
> The way I see it the problem is not with the Ranger being not versatile enough (for he's really a very versatile class, and the additional skill points and a choice of fighting styles - be they only to or two hundred), but the mentality of some people. They want to weaken the ranger by not giving him the feats, when all they have to do is not use them. It's practically the same: he won't use those feats and will be a good choice of class nonetheless. But there's the powergamer's instinct in people who want to have their character every single power they have to be as powerful as possible.
> 
> ...




Armor proficiency is not comparable to twf or archery.  I have yet to see anyone take an armor proficiency feat.  They will always multiclass for the feats.  Like my dm told me when I considered olaying a ranger: "you're not going to fight with two weapons?  Then why play a ranger?"  I'll say it again (for the umpteenth time)  No one wants feats they'll never use.  That's why fighters never choose spell focus.  And forcing these feats on a ranger who will never use them is tantamount to making a fighter choose spell focus and extra spell as feats.  He can always ignore those, can't he?

[


----------



## Steverooo (Apr 4, 2003)

KaeYoss said:
			
		

> *Either every single class gets bonus feats with a special list (as in d20m), or... *




That's what I've been saying, if you've read the whole thread.  Bonus Feats at 1rst, 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th levels (as the Wizard, now) which deal with their Profession.  Special Class Abilities or Class-Only Feats every level (just like the Druid & Monk, now).


----------



## Steverooo (Apr 4, 2003)

Green Knight said:
			
		

> *Thanks for pointing that out. I hadn't noticed. But yeah, you're right. Rangers have the Craft skill, and one of the Craft skill subdivisions is Trapmaking. So a Ranger can already make traps. *




And if a Ranger wants to make a living by building bear traps and selling them, he should!  On the other hand, if he wants to set out snares to catch a few snipes and squirrels, it should fall under Wilderness Lore/Survival.  (Check the context of the original quote.)

Above, in response to Henry, I pointed out that Rangers have no class abilities to make them better Scouts or Survivalists than a Cosmopolitan Fighter with Survival/WL skill.  This is one of those areas.  WL DC:10 allows him to find food & drink in the wild.  A quick look at any survival manual will show you that one of the ways this is done with is snares, pits, traps, etc.  I pointed out that the WL skill (and the Ranger's description) do not specify that he has this ability, and that spending a paragraph to specifically STATE that would be an improvement for the Ranger/WL skill.  The fact that two people here jump in and say ''He already has access to Craft (Trapmaking)'' pretty well proves that point.


----------



## Steverooo (Apr 4, 2003)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> *Armor proficiency is not comparable to twf or archery.  I have yet to see anyone take an armor proficiency feat.  They will always multiclass for the feats.  Like my dm told me when I considered olaying a ranger: "you're not going to fight with two weapons?  Then why play a ranger?"  I'll say it again (for the umpteenth time)  No one wants feats they'll never use.  That's why fighters never choose spell focus.  And forcing these feats on a ranger who will never use them is tantamount to making a fighter choose spell focus and extra spell as feats.  He can always ignore those, can't he?*




I agree with you, that allowing Feat selection is a better method.  I disagree that TWF is so bad, though.  You want to use a spear?  You can (provided the GM agrees with Monte Cook's ruling) allow him to bop the opponent on the head with the other end, as a quarterstaff.

You want sword and shield?  You have the added option of shield bash, when you don't need the extra AC.

You like two-handed weapons?  See spear, and/or make the off-hand attack with armor spikes, or spiked gauntlets...

And not all TWF are cocky and aggressive.  Mine happens to use claws, and fights with both hands.  Someone who fights unarmed might also.

I can't see too many Rangers who won't benefit from TWF OR Archery!  I just wish they had the power to choose for themselves.


----------



## Steverooo (Apr 4, 2003)

*Trap-Making Revisited*

Okay, let's look at Craft (Trapmaking), and apply it to the Ranger, and also the Rogue...

First of all, there are no traps listed in the PHB, so no prices...  Okay, let's assume we need a rope to set a snare...  That's 1 GP, but what's the price to make the snare?

We don'no'...  So, how long does it take to make the snare?  Same answer.  So let's assume the snare is FREE.  Okay, so what's the DC for the Craft (Trapmaking) check?  5 (Very Simple)?  10 (Typical)?  12 (Simple Melee/Thrown Weapon)?  15 (High Quality/Martial Melee/Thrown Weapon)?  20 (Complex)?  In any case, the minimum time to Craft (Trap) is one day.

But wait!  Wilderness Lore says that the Ranger only needs to spend half a day to get food and water, possibly for more than one person, but he has to spend longer than that making the snare?

Now apply the same logic to the Rogue...

Setting traps is an area of 3e that has been _pretty much_ left out.  The DMG gives a lot of space to typical traps, but very little to making them.  Obviously, this isn't something the designers wanted PCs getting into.

DMG:114-115 gives the "Building Mechanical Traps" rules.  Here it states that it takes one week and 1,000 GP per point of CR to make a trap.  Snares aren't listed, but a large net trap is CR 1.  Thus, one week to set!

Obviously, a Ranger (or Rogue) can neither use that to gain food, nor against foes.  Therefore; Craft (Trapmaking) is unusable for a Ranger, in-game, except during a week or more of downtime.  Setting snares it is not, so it doesn't solve the problem.

Here's my solution:


*Trapsetting* (General)
You are familiar with deadfalls, limb-traps, nets, pits, snares, and other such simple traps usable in the outdoors.
*Prerequisite:*  Free with Wilderness Lore 1+.
*Benefit:*  You can set deadfalls and snares, or concealed pit traps, with a DC of up to 20, making them out of natural materials at hand.

This is a General Feat, available to anyone, with a Prerequisite of one or more Ranks in Wilderness Lore/Survival.  Rangers get it as a freebie at level one, but it is only usable IF they have WL 1+.  Craft (Trapmaking) is reserved for making complex mechanical traps with DC 20+.


----------



## Technik4 (Apr 4, 2003)

*Ridiculousness*

As others have said there is nothing wrong with taking a class and not using every little bennie. I see nothing wrong with adding a style or 2 to the new ranger (unarmed is the only one Im really thinking of adding), but not using your style doesnt invalidate your rangerness.

Whats your concept of a ranger? Some aragorn type, wielding a bastard sword or a great sword? The ranger can do that! And the class even allows you to pick up some extra feats (of your choosing) to back you up. Like if you find yourself on a hill defending hobbits against ringwraiths, maybe that 2wf will come in handy with a torch. Or if youre trapped in the mines of moria, shooting orcs as they come through the door, maybe PBS will aid you.

Just because it may be a class feature you dont use all the time doesnt mean its useless. It will be far less useless than "Spell Focus".

The new ranger will lend itself to many different combinations of weapons and armor, 2-weapon fighting and Archery are something the ranger excels at, but it is by no means the limits of their ability. Next youll be complaining about the paladin's warhorse and how he can't take it into the dungeon, or how useless uncanny dodge is to your rogue with maxed initiative who goes first every combat. Or better yet how your bard is upset over some new song he can play, since it seems youll never ever want to use it, because after all, it doesnt fit your character.

Technik


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Apr 4, 2003)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> *
> 
> So why not give the fighter fireballs? After all, he doesn't HAVE to use them
> *




Why not? How could he fight with those? He'd whimper all the time, being good for nothing. And he'll always be interested in adventures that take him to the great clacier, where he can sit in the snow.

*



			Armor proficiency is not comparable to twf or archery.
		
Click to expand...


*
Armor proficiency is a feat. TWF is a feat. Looks quite comparable to me. 

More comparable than the *feat* TWF and the *spell* fireball, IMO.

*



			I have yet to see anyone take an armor proficiency feat.
		
Click to expand...


*
So?

*



			They will always multiclass for the feats.
		
Click to expand...


*
I disagree. 

*



			Like my dm told me when I considered olaying a ranger: "you're not going to fight with two weapons?  Then why play a ranger?"
		
Click to expand...


*
Your DM had no Idea of roleplaying, then. Also, your DM is hardly any authority on the boards here, especially since he hasn't said a word around here.

*



			I'll say it again (for the umpteenth time)  No one wants feats they'll never use.
		
Click to expand...


*
I'll say it again, too: If the rest of the class seems goot to you, and otherwise you'll get nothing, why mind if you get feats you don't use?

*



			That's why fighters never choose spell focus.
		
Click to expand...


*
You compare apples and oranges here. 

*



			And forcing these feats on a ranger who will never use them is tantamount to making a fighter choose spell focus and extra spell as feats.  He can always ignore those, can't he?
		
Click to expand...


*
I'd choose spell focus and extra spell as feats, if that brought me a bigger class skill list, more skill points, and a save against spells.

You pull things out of context: A fighter's only remarkable trait is bonus feats. The ranger is a warrior in the wilderness. Fighters only fight, they're hardly any good at anything else. Rangers fight often, too, but it's not the only thing they do.

And if you don't want to take the ranger class, just stick to the fighter, and don't buy 3.5. Noone'll bother.


----------

