# Dragon #308 previews new ranger and barbarian!



## thalmin (May 9, 2003)

Just got in Dragon #308. This issue's 3.5 update has some info on revised classes. They list classes in three groups: Few Changes (fighter, paladin, wizard, cleric, rogue, sorcerer); Moderate Changes (barbarian, druid, monk); and Big Changes (bard and ranger). As examples, they then outline what's new for the fighter, barbarian and ranger.


----------



## caudor (May 9, 2003)

Cool!  Thanks for the info.

It always seems that I'm like the last one to get my Dragon.


----------



## Thaumaturge (May 9, 2003)

Anything new?


Thaumaturge.


----------



## Branduil (May 9, 2003)

What's the ranger get?


----------



## thalmin (May 9, 2003)

The ranger Class Philosophy says he is no longer a lightly armored fighter, he is a skill-using hunter.

Notable changes to the ranger:
Skill points changed to 6
Hit die changed to d8
Favored enemy bonus now gives +2
New favored enemy at levels 1, 5, 10, 15, 20 with graduated increases
Wild Empathy ability at level 1 (replaces the skill)
Gain a 2-weapon OR archery feat at levels 2, 6 and 11
Endurance at level 3
Animal Companion at level 4
Woodland stride at level 7
Swift tracker at level 8 (move normal speed while tracking)
Evasion at level 9
Camouflage at level 13 (hide in any terrain even without cover or concealment)
Hide in plain sight at level 17

(edit to add)

There also will be some changes to his spell list.
He gains _charm animal_ as a 1st level spell choice, a better _barkskin_ as 2nd, _darkvision_ at 3rd, and _animal growth_ at 4th.
His spell casting levels are unchanged.


----------



## Thaumaturge (May 9, 2003)

An ability of some kind every level 1-11?  nice.

I thought about saying lvl 12 got the shaft, but that is so cliche.


 

Thaumaturge.

what a waste of a 100th post. *sigh*


----------



## Branduil (May 9, 2003)

Sweet


----------



## Ashardalon (May 9, 2003)

I suppose the only change for fighters are a few new feats and minor tweaks to the skill list (Intimidate!)?


----------



## Eridanis (May 9, 2003)

Hmm, yummy.

(Is it just me, or have other subscribers not yet gotten their copies of this issue?)


----------



## thalmin (May 9, 2003)

That's right. Two abilities at 1st, one each at 2-11, 13, 15, 17 and 20.

It's worth noting that in addition to 2 more skill points, the ranger no longer has to spend any on Intuitive Direction (now combined with Wilderness Lore into Survival) nor on Animal Empathy (now a class ability).


----------



## thalmin (May 9, 2003)

Eridanis said:
			
		

> *Hmm, yummy.
> 
> (Is it just me, or have other subscribers not yet gotten their copies of this issue?) *



This issue just arrived at the store today. I haven't received my subscription copy yet.


----------



## Nightfall (May 9, 2003)

Don't suppose you could outline the differences for each class? (Save ranger, since you already did that.)


----------



## Buddha the DM (May 9, 2003)

Eridanis said:
			
		

> *Hmm, yummy.
> 
> (Is it just me, or have other subscribers not yet gotten their copies of this issue?) *




I don't know if I have gotten mine or not yet. I left the house before the mail came today.

What issue was the DM screen supposed to be in?


----------



## Remathilis (May 9, 2003)

thalmin said:
			
		

> *The ranger Class Philosophy says he is no longer a lightly armored fighter, he is a skill-using hunter.
> 
> Notable changes to the ranger:
> Skill points changed to 6
> ...




Wow. From Suckatude to Major Overhaul!

Kinda Sad to see Animal Empathy go... Nah. No one used it! 
I like the Endurance and bonus path feats. In addition to track, a ranger gets 5 bonus feats. 
Woodland Stride + Camoflague = Nice. 
Hide in Plain Sight a rogue bonus skill in 3.5? I think so...
Evasion doesn't seem to fit though. Not with a poor reflex save. UCD would be better. 

I'm lost as to how favored enemies now work though. Can someone with the issue explain?


----------



## thalmin (May 9, 2003)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> *Don't suppose you could outline the differences for each class? (Save ranger, since you already did that.) *



Almost nothing new for the fighter. Intimidate is now a class skill, and the list of Bonus Feats has been expanded to incoporate new feats, including Improved Precise Shot, Greater Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Specialization.

The Barbarian gets some added or adjusted class abilities.
Trap sense at level 3 (bonus to reflex saves vs traps)
Trap sense improves by +1 every 3rd level
DR 1/- at level 7
DR improves by 1 at levels 10, 13, 16 and 19
Greater Rage at level 11
Indomitable Will at level 14 (+4 to Will saves vs enchantments)
Tireless Rage at level 17
Mighty Rage at level 20 (Rage bonus increases to +8 Str, +8 Con, +4 Will)


----------



## Psion (May 9, 2003)

Hmmm... I was a little dubious at first, but this doesn't sound too bad.

I am torn though... I still prefer the feat progression of the BoHM ranger to the weapon oriented virtual feats.


----------



## thalmin (May 9, 2003)

Buddha the DM said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I don't know if I have gotten mine or not yet. I left the house before the mail came today.
> 
> What issue was the DM screen supposed to be in? *



Issue #310.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (May 9, 2003)

I think that's a Ranger I can support!

I'm happy.  The virtual feats are still a little silly, but *shrug* the whole packaghe is pretty good.


----------



## The_Gneech (May 9, 2003)

I'm likin' it! I particularly like the return of the animal companion.

   -The Gneech


----------



## Branduil (May 9, 2003)

Could anyone elaborate on the changes to Favored Enemy? Also, do you know what exact feats the ranger will get for his combat paths?


----------



## Ashardalon (May 9, 2003)

The_Gneech said:
			
		

> *I particularly like the return of the animal companion.
> *




Unless I'm missing something, it wasn't really away. That's the effect of the animal frienship spell, after all.


----------



## thalmin (May 9, 2003)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Kinda Sad to see Animal Empathy go... Nah. No one used it!
> (snip)
> I'm lost as to how favored enemies now work though. Can someone with the issue explain? *



Animal empathy as a skill is gone. It is replaced by Wild Empathy, a class ability (no skill points required!)
Favored enemy starts at +2 to damage and appropriate skills at first level. At 5th, add a new favored enemy, get +4 to EITHER the first OR NEW enemy, +2 on the other.  It just says "Additional favored enemy; graduated increase" at 10, 15 and 20th levels.


----------



## Branduil (May 9, 2003)

_Favored enemy starts at +2 to damage and appropriate skills at first level. At 5th, add a new favored enemy, get +4 to EITHER the first OR NEW enemy, +2 on the other. It just says "Additional favored enemy; graduated increase" at 10, 15 and 20th levels._ 

Souns great. With this system the ranger won't have to basically guess what his high-level opponents will be in order for FE to be worth it.


----------



## Ashardalon (May 9, 2003)

thalmin said:
			
		

> *At 5th, add a new favored enemy, get +4 to EITHER the first OR NEW enemy, +2 on the other.*




Dragon hunters just became more dangerous!


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (May 9, 2003)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Wow. From Suckatude to Major Overhaul! *




Yep. Wonder if you can pick your own race as your favored enemy now?

*points at 3.5 ranger*

Let me introduce you to the new uber-assassin!


----------



## thalmin (May 9, 2003)

The feats for the Combat Styles are not listed. Guess we will have to wait until July.

The animal companion comes before he gets the spells.
Oh, and it says "similar to the druid's improved ability."
The article mentions there is some reworking of the druid's "wild shape ability and her animal companion rules."


----------



## Branduil (May 9, 2003)

_The animal companion comes before he gets the spells._

Don't rangers get their first spells at level 4?

Out of curiousity, what changes have been made to the Paladin?


----------



## thalmin (May 9, 2003)

Branduil said:
			
		

> *The animal companion comes before he gets the spells.
> 
> Don't rangers get their first spells at level 4?
> 
> Out of curiousity, what changes have been made to the Paladin? *




Only if they have high enough wisdom, now not required to get a companion.
Only mention on paladin was "changes to their spells."


----------



## drnuncheon (May 9, 2003)

Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> **points at 3.5 ranger*
> 
> Let me introduce you to the new uber-assassin! *




These guys are cool; and by cool, I mean totally sweet.


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (May 9, 2003)

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> These guys are cool; and by cool, I mean totally sweet. *




Yea. I may have just found my new favorite class.


----------



## DonAdam (May 9, 2003)

+10 damage against a particular enemy at 20th level?

I might be replacing that with sneak attack, and give the option of picking a favored terrain instead and getting a +1 to AC in that terrain and the bonus to saves.

And he's still got those pesky spells... I guess I could just drop them and the virtual feats, bump the hit die, and give the BOHM bonus feats.

And yes, I am talking about house ruling it already.

I like everything else.


----------



## Number47 (May 9, 2003)

Well, I think we've learned everything we need to learn here. I'm locking this thread before it gets too out of hand.


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (May 9, 2003)

That is an interesting idea. Instead of an upgrade to his favored enemy every few levels, give him sneak attack upgrades.

That might be a bit too powerful though. Not to mention that he would be stepping all over the rogue's toes.

Really, at that point, why play a rogue?


----------



## thalmin (May 9, 2003)

The only info on the bard:
some "tweaking"
"The bard's spell list changed significantly."


----------



## Branduil (May 9, 2003)

_Well, I think we've learned everything we need to learn here. I'm locking this thread before it gets too out of hand._ 

Which would be easier if you were a mod.


----------



## Technik4 (May 9, 2003)

Damn thats hot.

Evasion and Hide in Plain Sight? Are rangers assasins or woodlands guys? I hope HiPS specifies you must have some foilage or some kind of terrain to hide behind, as opposed to the shadowdancer's ability which is based off of shadows.

Favored Enemy bonus is really sweet now.

Sounds like it will be difficult to choose what class to play. Before a multi barb/rang/ftr was just fine, now barb and ranger have more attainable cool abilities earlier which makes mixing fighter levels hurt more. Kinda like the monk mixing fighter levels, you never wanted to because it means denying yourself cool monk stuff. All in all, woohoo!

Technik


----------



## DonAdam (May 9, 2003)

> That is an interesting idea. Instead of an upgrade to his favored enemy every few levels, give him sneak attack upgrades.
> 
> That might be a bit too powerful though. Not to mention that he would be stepping all over the rogue's toes.
> 
> Really, at that point, why play a rogue?




I wouldn't give the bonus against everybody, just against favored enemies.

The rogue gets a bigger bonus, and gets it against anything vulnerable to sneak attack.


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (May 9, 2003)

DonAdam said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I wouldn't give the bonus against everybody, just against favored enemies.
> 
> The rogue gets a bigger bonus, and gets it against anything vulnerable to sneak attack. *




Oh. I misunderstood. Carry on then.


----------



## thalmin (May 9, 2003)

"Hide in plain sight    Hide in natural terrain with no concealment even while being observed."


----------



## The_Gneech (May 9, 2003)

Ashardalon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Unless I'm missing something, it wasn't really away. That's the effect of the animal frienship spell, after all. *




Well, that's as may be ... I haven't studied the 3e ranger spell list extensively (the only ranger in our group that has enough levels to get spells, already has a familiar from taking levels in sorcerer).

   -The Gneech


----------



## Valiantheart (May 9, 2003)

Yikes.  Considering the Ranger and Barbs new abilities i hope they created a few better feats than just improved weapon specialization for the poor fighter.


----------



## maddman75 (May 9, 2003)

Hide in Plain Sight!  Blech - I HATE that ability.  It doesn't make any sense.  How does one hide while not, well, being hidden?  Is it invisibility?  Why not call it that.

I still like mine better - wish they'd get rid of spellcasting altogether.  No need for it with the multiclassing rules.


----------



## Zaruthustran (May 9, 2003)

Awesome. I'm so playing a ranger. Or a bard. Or a druid. 

Man, this is almost as much fun as the 3E release.

-z


----------



## Eridanis (May 9, 2003)

Valiantheart said:
			
		

> *Yikes.  Considering the Ranger and Barbs new abilities i hope they created a few better feats than just improved weapon specialization for the poor fighter. *




The fighter has the advantage of being able to be as flexible as the number of d20 suppliments you have will allow, while the (good) abilities of the barb and ranger are unchangable (barring house rules). It will be interesting to see how play balance works out, though.


----------



## kenjib (May 9, 2003)

thalmin said:
			
		

> *Gain a 2-weapon OR archery feat at levels 2, 6 and 11
> *




I'm not sure yet that I like this.  With twf -- if you want it you'll already have it by levels 6 and 11.  If you want to focus on archery, you'll probably have everything you need by level 11 (6 feats already for non-human, 7 for human).

It seems like you'll just end up taking something you don't really want all that much so by level 11.  Still better than the 3e fixed-twf version though.  Are they adding a lot more archery feats?  Are there now only 2 feats for two weapon fighting: twf and imp. twf?

Ah well, I guess we have to see what the feats are to really know.


----------



## Gregor (May 9, 2003)

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> These guys are cool; and by cool, I mean totally sweet. *




Yes......they are full of REAL ULTIMATE POWER arent they?


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (May 9, 2003)

Gregor said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Yes......they are full of REAL ULTIMATE POWER arent they?  *




I heard one of their two weapon fighting bonus feats was called "Flip out and kill *two* people."


----------



## drnuncheon (May 9, 2003)

kenjib said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I'm not sure yet that I like this.  With twf -- if you want it you'll already have it by levels 6 and 11.  If you want to focus on archery, you'll probably have everything you need by level 11 (6 feats already for non-human, 7 for human). *




I think it's a fixed progression.  For example, if you pick the 2WF path, you get 2WF at 2nd, something at 6th (possibly the new Two-Weapon Defense?) and then I2WF at 11.

J


----------



## kenjib (May 9, 2003)

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I think it's a fixed progression.  For example, if you pick the 2WF path, you get 2WF at 2nd, something at 6th (possibly the new Two-Weapon Defense?) and then I2WF at 11.
> 
> J *




But then if I really wanted twf, it would probably be better to just take the feats sooner with my normal feat progression and get the bonus feats as archery feats instead - feats that I might not really want.  It would work if they set up the prereqs of the feats so that the earliest level you can take them coincides with the bonus feat level of the ranger.  Maybe that's what will happen...


----------



## Simplicity (May 9, 2003)

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I think it's a fixed progression.  For example, if you pick the 2WF path, you get 2WF at 2nd, something at 6th (possibly the new Two-Weapon Defense?) and then I2WF at 11.
> 
> J *




This is what I'm wondering...  There has to be some missing
2 weapon feat in there...  Two weapon defense sounds pretty
cool.

You can't get Improved TWF until the 11 feat...  So what could
possibly go in the 6 feat if you're not an "archer" ranger...


----------



## thalmin (May 9, 2003)

Judging by the Fighter Bonus Feats,  there are
Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Defense, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Greater Two-Weapon Fighting.
Point Blank Shot, Far Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Manyshot, Shot on the Run, and Improved Precise Shot.

There is no indication so far if you can switch between the 2 paths. They are labeled: Combat Style; Improved CS; Combat Style Mastery.


----------



## Simplicity (May 9, 2003)

kenjib said:
			
		

> *
> 
> But then if I really wanted twf, it would probably be better to just take the feats sooner with my normal feat progression and get the bonus feats as archery feats instead - feats that I might not really want.  It would work if they set up the prereqs of the feats so that the earliest level you can take them coincides with the bonus feat level of the ranger.  Maybe that's what will happen... *




It's better in the short run to take the twf sooner, but in the
long run, it's better to get the feat for free and pick something
you will use early, like say Weapon Focus.  (Remember, it's just
feat now, not feats...  You only need 1 feat to fight well with 2 weapons.)


----------



## Dark Jezter (May 9, 2003)

thalmin said:
			
		

> *
> Almost nothing new for the fighter. Intimidate is now a class skill, and the list of Bonus Feats has been expanded to incoporate new feats, including Improved Precise Shot, Greater Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Specialization.
> 
> The Barbarian gets some added or adjusted class abilities.
> ...




Yes!  I've always been a fan of the barbarian class, and hearing about these new changes have really made my day. 

Mighty Rage?  Wow!  That +8 to Con equals 80 bonus hit points at level 20, not to mention that the barbarian will be doing hella damage in combat, since by level 20 he should have a Belt of Bull's Strength +6 and a +4 or +5 weapon.  The +8 to strength will turn the barb into a killing machine.

I forsee Barbarian gaining a lot of popularity as a class when 3.5e comes out.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (May 9, 2003)

To venture a guess:

TWF: 2d -TWF, 6th - TW Defense, 11th - ITWF

Archery: 2d - Rapid Shot, 6th - Many Shot, 11th - Shot on the Run

Based on the Manyshot feat revision, we know that (as of that time anyway) the Rnger got Manyshot at 6th.  By giving him Rpaid Shot at 2d, he gets a second attack on a full round action regardless of combat style, albeit with penalties, and then improved options later on.

With the "virtual" path, there could be no Point Blank Shot (unless it's PBS, Many Shot, Rapid Shot, but that'd be a bit weak), which would mean the Ranger isn't automatically better than the Fighter -- in either case, a fighter focusing on TWF or archery is going to get those abilities sooner.

But that's just a guess.


----------



## thalmin (May 9, 2003)

I remember reading they wanted to give reasons for staying in a class for all 20 levels. Seems like we have a few couple examples of that here. Something you have to give up  if you multi- or prestige-class.


----------



## Greatwyrm (May 9, 2003)

Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Yep. Wonder if you can pick your own race as your favored enemy now?
> 
> ...




Couldn't you already do that if you were evil?


----------



## Corinth (May 9, 2003)

The revision actually makes it easier to follow both feat trees at once.  Use your regular slots for one path and chose the other as your class ability allotment.


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (May 9, 2003)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> *
> Mighty Rage?  Wow!  That +8 to Con equals 80 bonus hit points at level 20, not to mention that the barbarian will be doing hella damage in combat, since by level 20 he should have a Belt of Bull's Strength +6 and a +4 or +5 weapon.  The +8 to strength will turn the barb into a killing machine.
> 
> I forsee Barbarian gaining a lot of popularity as a class when 3.5e comes out. *




The only problem I have with it is that it is such a huge boost for one level.

I think they should have done +6 STR, +6 CON, +3 Will at 16th level or so.

EDIT - Wait. I noticed Greater Rage kicks in at 11th level. Any idea what that is?


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (May 9, 2003)

Greatwyrm said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Couldn't you already do that if you were evil? *




Yea. But I never agreed with it. You could be good, and be something like a bounty hunter. It would make sense for a human bounty hunter have Human as his favored enemy.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (May 9, 2003)

Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> *
> 
> EDIT - Wait. I noticed Greater Rage kicks in at 11th level. Any idea what that is? *




Greater Rage is already a Barbarian ability (+6 Str, +6 Con) -- right now they get it at 15th.


----------



## drnuncheon (May 9, 2003)

Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> *EDIT - Wait. I noticed Greater Rage kicks in at 11th level. Any idea what that is? *




Probably the same thing it is in 3e, except 4 levels earlier. 

J


----------



## thalmin (May 9, 2003)

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Probably the same thing it is in 3e, except 4 levels earlier.
> 
> J *



Yes. Sorry, in my haste to post this info, I left out some comments, such as "...is awarded earlier."


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (May 9, 2003)

maddman75 said:
			
		

> *Hide in Plain Sight!  Blech - I HATE that ability.  It doesn't make any sense.  How does one hide while not, well, being hidden?  Is it invisibility?  Why not call it that.
> 
> *




Good point.  How exactly would I explain this to my players?  You just dissapear?  Your ranger abilities allow you to bend light?


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (May 9, 2003)

Ok. Nevermind.... I never play barbarians so Greater Rage didn't sound familiar.

All sounds good then.


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (May 9, 2003)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Good point.  How exactly would I explain this to my players?  You just dissapear?  Your ranger abilities allow you to bend light? *




In the Wheel of Time books, there are these guys called Grey Men. They are used as assassins. They have a supernatural abiltiy to simply go unnoticed. You might see them, but they don't really register in your mind. 

You ignore them. This is how I explain Hide in Plain Sight. You are visible, it's just that people don't take notice of you.


----------



## thalmin (May 9, 2003)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Good point.  How exactly would I explain this to my players?  You just dissapear?  Your ranger abilities allow you to bend light? *



Just mention what happened in Crocodile Dundee II. It's a combination of camouflage, wilderness lore, and supernatural.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (May 9, 2003)

If the HIPS requires natural terrain, maybe it's an advanced version of camouflage -- they just fade into the background.

Think Predator (the movie, not the drone).


----------



## johnsemlak (May 9, 2003)

Thanks a lot thalmin for the scoop!


----------



## johnsemlak (May 9, 2003)

Funny thing, just as you sumitted your scoop to the newspage I put your summary up myself.

Thanks again.


----------



## Chris Tavares (May 9, 2003)

Valiantheart said:
			
		

> *Yikes.  Considering the Ranger and Barbs new abilities i hope they created a few better feats than just improved weapon specialization for the poor fighter. *




This is just another go round on the wheel. Every edition of D&D tries to make fighters cool so that people will play them. For example, nobody in 2nd edition played straight fighters; why bother when ranger or paladin gave you more kewl stuph?

So, they introduced kits. And they were cool. So cool, that they added kits for all the classes. Now fighters aren't cool, again.

So then, there was Birthright; an attempt to (among other things) make fighters cool again. Not sure where it went, but we all know what happened to Birthright.

In 3rd edition, fighters were cool because they get all those bonus feats. That with the fighter stchick. However, notice that more and more core & prestige classes are coming out with bonus feats as you gain levels. And fighters don't look so cool anymore...

Round and round we go...


----------



## thalmin (May 9, 2003)

johnsemlak said:
			
		

> *Funny thing, just as you sumitted your scoop to the newspage I put your summary up myself.
> 
> Thanks again. *



You're welcome.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (May 9, 2003)

I think fighters will stay cool.  They're still getting their bonus feats, which means that they can get combat abilities sooner, and generally better, than classes with those abilities as class abilities -- and since you can pick every feat, they're the ultimate in customizable character.

When 3E says "options, not restrictions" I think fighter.


----------



## kenjib (May 9, 2003)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Good point.  How exactly would I explain this to my players?  You just dissapear?  Your ranger abilities allow you to bend light? *




This is D&D.  Rules first.  Flavor later.  Just make something up post-facto like everyone else has done so far.


----------



## Stalker0 (May 9, 2003)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> *I think fighters will stay cool.  They're still getting their bonus feats, which means that they can get combat abilities sooner, and generally better, than classes with those abilities as class abilities -- and since you can pick every feat, they're the ultimate in customizable character.
> 
> When 3E says "options, not restrictions" I think fighter. *




Also considering rangers not get less hp and no heavy armor, I think the fighters will do just fine.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (May 9, 2003)

One thought about Rangers and Evasion, do they get different saving throws?  Like good a Reflex save as well as Fort?


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 9, 2003)

This is excellent news. At last the ranger is a class which defines its own niche!

I can hardly wait to play one...

Thanks Thalmin


----------



## TroyXavier (May 9, 2003)

I really hadn't played Barbarians or Rangers in 3rd ed. but 3.5 will change that.  I especially like the revised Ranger.


----------



## Breakstone (May 9, 2003)

Woo hoo!

I'm very, very pleased with this new ranger.

Just looking at it makes me want to play one!


----------



## Nebuchadnezzar (May 10, 2003)

Holy cow, I thought the barbarian and the fighter were even in 3.0! My first impression of the new changes is that the barbarian kicks the fighter's arse, unless Greater Weapon Specialization adds A LOT of damage. 

Aww, I really liked the fighter


----------



## Orias (May 10, 2003)

Well, I personally will not be using Hide in Plain Sight in any games I run. That's just plain silly.


----------



## Michael Tree (May 10, 2003)

kenjib said:
			
		

> *It would work if they set up the prereqs of the feats so that the earliest level you can take them coincides with the bonus feat level of the ranger.  Maybe that's what will happen... *



In D20 Modern, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting has a prerequisite BAB of +6, and Advanced Two-Weapon Fighting has a prerequisite BAB of +11.  Now why do those numbers look familiar...


----------



## Simplicity (May 10, 2003)

Michael Tree said:
			
		

> *
> In D20 Modern, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting has a prerequisite BAB of +6, and Advanced Two-Weapon Fighting has a prerequisite BAB of +11.  Now why do those numbers look familiar...  *




Somehow, it's not surprising.  You normally get a second attack at +6 BAB.  So, if you left the TWFer with no option to add another attack, the two weapon fighting loses a great deal of its effectiveness right at +6 BAB.

At +11 BAB, you'd get that third attack (making your attacks +11/+6/+1) and it seems reasonable to bump up TWF right
there too.  The question is, why do they stop at +11...  Why
not have something at +16 as well?


----------



## Valiantheart (May 10, 2003)

Nebuchadnezzar said:
			
		

> *Holy cow, I thought the barbarian and the fighter were even in 3.0! My first impression of the new changes is that the barbarian kicks the fighter's arse, unless Greater Weapon Specialization adds A LOT of damage.
> 
> Aww, I really liked the fighter  *





Exactly.  Its just +4 to Damage.  A Fighter is going to be completely smoked by a Barbarian now.  80 extra hipoints, +4 to hit and dam, and damage reduction 5...well at least the fighter is "versatile" at losing to the barb.  

They need to add another level (i.e. feat) of improved critical or automatic critical for the fighter I think.  Oh well, Im sure the first extra special fighter splat book will prolly try to even things out again.  Of couse then the extra special barb splat book will come out after that....


----------



## Jack Daniel (May 10, 2003)

CLICK HERE for the first major alt.ranger campain of revised D&D!

They came close -- darn close -- to doing the ranger justice.  The bard will be great, the barbarian "r0x0rs" is I believe the term, but the ranger is too thiefy.  So click above if you miss rangers who are fightery!


----------



## Kobold Avenger (May 10, 2003)

Barbarians were able to use Mighty Rage at level 21 at the minimum, as it was in the Epic Level Handbook.  I don't really see the reasoning for allowing this in non-epic play other than encouraging players to be a barbarian for all 20 levels.


----------



## Valiantheart (May 10, 2003)

Well that and the fact that the Epic Splat Book is largely reviled.....


----------



## Felon (May 10, 2003)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> *Also considering rangers not get less hp and no heavy armor, I think the fighters will do just fine. *




Here we go again 

In 3e (and likely in 3.5e too) proficiency with heavy armor is not some huge perk, especially in comparison to the ranger. For anyone who hasn't got the memo: heavy armor is basically just a crutch for warriors with mediocre Dex and that's not likely to be a subset that many rangers fall into. 

Don't get me wrong, I like the look of the new ranger, but if the other warrior classes are getting a new feature every level (and sometimes multiple features), that will go a long way towards diminishing the attractiveness of the fighter class since it's only getting one feat every every other level. Especially considering that many if not most class features are better than what you can get out of a feat anyway. The lower hit-die does balance things a bit more. 

The article does say that they wanted the fighter to be a strong choice past mid-levels, but looking over the list of new feats I don't see much to back up that statement other than Greater Weapon Specialization.


----------



## Felon (May 10, 2003)

Valiantheart said:
			
		

> Exactly.  Its just +4 to Damage.  A Fighter is going to be completely smoked by a Barbarian now.  80 extra hipoints, +4 to hit and dam, and damage reduction 5...well at least the fighter is "versatile" at losing to the barb.




Right, the fighter will have even greater "flexibility" once the barbarian breaks every bone in his body, LMAO.

"But the fighter gets more customizability"....pretty lame counter-arguement IMO. Customization is not a substitute for raw numerical bonuses. They're both nice but one's got nothing to do with the other.

And now the barb gets his Will and Reflex saves buffed-up. And still keeps the larger hit die and 4 skill points/level too. Geez.


----------



## jasamcarl (May 10, 2003)

Yeah, the fighter's effectiveness will now depend heavily on what type of synergies are possible between different feat chains. By the way, the test of balance is not one of 'can one class beat the other in a single fight', but rather how useful is such a class to the average adventuring party. Weapon specialization has the advantage of being persistent and can be downright deadly when combined with certain mounted combat feats. I Fighter will also be able to switch more effectivly between melee and ranged combat, a form of versatility which does have a real combat effect not easily caught by looking at a stat sheet.


----------



## Felon (May 10, 2003)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> Somehow, it's not surprising.  You normally get a second attack at +6 BAB.  So, if you left the TWFer with no option to add another attack, the two weapon fighting loses a great deal of its effectiveness right at +6 BAB.




I'll bite. How does the ranger lose a great deal of effectiveness there? He's still getting an extra attack. A second attack at a lower BAB doesn't affect that.



> At +11 BAB, you'd get that third attack (making your attacks +11/+6/+1) and it seems reasonable to bump up TWF right there too.  The question is, why do they stop at +11...  Why
> not have something at +16 as well? [/B]




To make it mult-classing friendly, I'd wager. I don't know for sure, but it reads like the ranger gets a bonus feat list (similar to a fighter), rather giving the ranger "Feat X" at any given level (which is what seems to be the general presumption in this thread). That makes multi-classing into a ranger less of a hosejob if you'd already taken Feat X. That's also why the class would receive fewer bonus feats than actually comprise the pool.


----------



## Nightfall (May 10, 2003)

Well there's always the Player's Guide to Fighters and Barbarians to make things for the fighters more interesting...  But that's just me.


----------



## Felon (May 10, 2003)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> > By the way, the test of balance is not one of 'can one class beat the other in a single fight', but rather how useful is such a class to the average adventuring party.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Felon (May 10, 2003)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> *Well there's always the Player's Guide to Fighters and Barbarians to make things for the fighters more interesting...  But that's just me. *




Yeah, that's pretty much my bright spot in all of this as far as fighters go. They can get re-balanced later on simply by making better feat chains available to them. That's the real main asset of their flexibility.

Oh, and Arcanna Unearthed is starting to look better and better.


----------



## Nightfall (May 10, 2003)

Yeah but this only works if you allow d20/third party stuff.


----------



## Technik4 (May 10, 2003)

*Counters*

Hopefully there will be a couple counters for things in 3.5. For instance a spell that stops a raging barbarian, a spell that makes you immune to the rangers favored enemy bonus, etc. Not for every encounter, but just so there are more tactics to these classes.

Most games only get more interesting as more counters and counter-counters are added (ala fighting games).

The regular fighter of course, wont have a counter as he just has a collection of feats.

Technik


----------



## Liquid Snake (May 10, 2003)

*Sorcerer changes*

Hmm, so now we have reasons to stick with the sorcerer throught the whole 20 levels (outisde of familair progression)?

Cool.


----------



## The_Gneech (May 10, 2003)

thalmin said:
			
		

> *I remember reading they wanted to give reasons for staying in a class for all 20 levels. Seems like we have a few couple examples of that here. Something you have to give up  if you multi- or prestige-class. *




Bah. The more reasons for multiclassing, the better, I say!  You already give up a lot more than you gain in most combinations that I've played with.

   -The Gneech, iconic multiclasser


----------



## jasamcarl (May 10, 2003)

Felon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> There's truth to that indeed, but melee is the primary form of combat in D&D, and if a another class outshines the fighter's attack and damage bonuses in that major area, then something's not kosher.
> 
> ...




Oh, don't get me wrong, this is a major boon for barbarians and I would certainly say that the rage boost is worth a fair number of feats alone in terms of effectiveness. But the major boost comes at level 20. By that point a fighter can expect to have three feat chains down plus weapon specialization. At high levels, ranged combat tends to become more important as you begin to fight creatures with a large number of spell like abilities and flight. Here, the fighter will almost certainly outshine the barbarian. In a situation of open terrain, mounted combat and archery are both superior ways of unleashing damage while taking little in turn. Straight tanks become less usefull because at that point, anybody can get just about anywhere on the battlefield. At least mounted characters are archers can avoid a full attack progression by constantly moveing, while still being able to attack.


----------



## jodyjohnson (May 10, 2003)

*Re: Counters*



			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *Hopefully there will be a couple counters for things in 3.5. For instance a spell that stops a raging barbarian, ...
> Technik *




Like Calm Emotions (Cleric 2)?


----------



## Felon (May 10, 2003)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> * Straight tanks become less usefull because at that point, anybody can get just about anywhere on the battlefield. *



Well, it works both ways. At high levels, it's quite easy to bring melee to flying foes (have you seen what they're charging for Wings of Wonder these days? they're practically giving'em away!).

I was actually more peeved about barbs getting Greater Rage before 15th level, not to mention Will and Reflex save bonuses.


----------



## fba827 (May 10, 2003)

Hmm.  I liked the 3.0 Ranger just fine - I had no trouble finding ways to make it work for me (just like any other class).

These changes still seem cool though (for the Ranger and for other classes) though it is difficult to "judge" them without seeing all the other classes for comparison (i.e. what is the norm/benchmark upon which this should be judged).

Anyway, as said, it all looks cool.  New stuff is always reason to make a person giddy in anticipation


----------



## Ricochet (May 10, 2003)

*Silly question*

This might be a silly (or merely uninformed) question:

Do rangers still get to use spells in 3.5? And if so, are there any changes?


----------



## JRRNeiklot (May 10, 2003)

Bah.  What a piece of crap.

Let me elaborate.  The new ranger is a VERY nice class, and I'd play one, but it IS NOT a ranger.  Lose the combat feats and evasion and bring back the d10 and you've got yourself a ranger.


----------



## Fenes 2 (May 10, 2003)

I have got two words for the 3.5 ranger: Banned IMC. There it would be overpowered, no doubt.

(I don't care how balanced/cool it is in other campaigns, it is overpowered in my low-magic item campaign for sure.)


----------



## satori01 (May 10, 2003)

Lol, just goes to prove that the ranger is that one mystical class that just seems to piss everyone off 

I havnt received my Dragon yet, but on the surface I like the revised ranger, it has its own personality now, very distinct from the fighter.  I love the d8 hit points and tracking special abilities, reminds me in spirit of unearthed arcana ranger(better tracking abilities by level and  weapon spec).

I like what they did to the Barbarian, a little more incentive to actually the play the class as the 3.0 version was a little to backloaded.  I dont have fear about the fighter compared to the barbarian, different strokes and the fighter will have more combat finesse and the barbarian generally only needs pwr attack, cleave, and great cleave.

I would love to see the sorcerer changes, if they update the skill and skill points and add extra spells know I would be satissified.


----------



## Someone (May 10, 2003)

Leave the ranger alone for a moment. What about the paladin? There´s one being played in the campaing I´m DMing and I´m interested in what changes they have.


----------



## Simulacrum (May 10, 2003)

Fighters will be the RULING CLASS (after cleric) in 3.5
- Untouchable AC (TAnk armor + improved expertise! up to +20 dodge -> w000t w00t)
- Best *to hit chances*
- more effective against a broader range of enemies
- better saves (thanx to the extra feats and the level of Monk everyone should take 
- Tower Shield
- Bigger choice of weapons
- No need for a spell list
- And will get countless of bonus attacks thanks to the new 
AoO rules. I stick with the fighter while you guys can play the men in thights, or the the little nature kids with all that rage going for themm    
Karmic strike RULES!
Hold the line RULES!


----------



## shilsen (May 10, 2003)

Me like 

Of course after reading this thread it seems like we are going to see a bunch of "The Fighter was shafted" threads soon.


----------



## Bloodstone (May 10, 2003)

> This is what I'm wondering... There has to be some missing
> 2 weapon feat in there... Two weapon defense sounds pretty
> cool.
> 
> ...





my guess is that the feats for TWF are:

2nd: TWF
6th: ITWF
11th: GTWF

The prerequsite BAB for ITWF should now be +6. 

The prerequsite BAB for GTWF should now be +11.

That's how it works in d20 modern at least.

Looks like I have to head down to Games Plus this afternoon


----------



## thalmin (May 10, 2003)

*Re: Silly question*



			
				ParagonofVirtue said:
			
		

> *This might be a silly (or merely uninformed) question:
> 
> Do rangers still get to use spells in 3.5? And if so, are there any changes? *



Not silly, you just missed the info in the 5th post. 







> There also will be some changes to his spell list.
> He gains charm animal as a 1st level spell choice, a better barkskin as 2nd, darkvision at 3rd, and animal growth at 4th.
> His spell casting levels are unchanged.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (May 10, 2003)

*Scratches head*

After a night to think about it ... why evasion and not uncanny dodge?  UD seems a bit closer to the "wilderness hunter" flavor for me -- too much in common with the barbarian, maybe?  How will this work with the rogue's evasion (will rogue evasion + ranger evasion = improved evasion? If so, look out for the Rgr9/Rog2)?

Otherwise, I still think it's good -- I'm not as hung up on the d8 HD as others are -- what's 21 hp difference over 20 levels?  Put  two more points in Con, take Toughness -- lots of ways to make that up if you want.  (Though I'd still prefer real feats to "virtual" ones, or at least make them usable in medium armor so the ranger's armor proficiencies make sense.  Maybe this will be the case.)


----------



## krunchyfrogg (May 10, 2003)

*RE: Ranger changes*



			
				thalmin said:
			
		

> *
> Gain a 2-weapon OR archery feat at levels 2, 6 and 11
> *




Does the article say whether or not these will be virtual feats?  Everyone assumes they are, but I'm wondering if the article says so.


----------



## thalmin (May 10, 2003)

*Re: RE: Ranger changes*



			
				krunchyfrogg said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Does the article say whether or not these will be virtual feats?  Everyone assumes they are, but I'm wondering if the article says so. *



Doesn't say exactly. The wording in the table is

"Combat Style ........ Choose either archery or two-weapon combat; gain a bonus feat"

The article makes no mention of armor.


----------



## MadBlue (May 10, 2003)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> **Scratches head*
> 
> After a night to think about it ... why evasion and not uncanny dodge?  UD seems a bit closer to the "wilderness hunter" flavor for me -- too much in common with the barbarian, maybe?  How will this work with the rogue's evasion (will rogue evasion + ranger evasion = improved evasion? If so, look out for the Rgr9/Rog2)?*




Evasion doesn't stack (same thing with Monk and Rogue Evasion).  

I agree with you about Uncanny Dodge. My only concern about the 3.5 Ranger is that the drop in HD and the special abilities it gets make Archery a more attractive combat style path to follow than TWF is - and since the player has to pick between the two, they should be equal in value to the Ranger. 

Uncanny Dodge is more in line with the concept of the Ranger as being hard to surprise (at least in 1e) and directly aids a Ranger in melee combat against multiple opponents, making TWF a more attractive choice than it is in the 3.5 build. Evasion pretty much sweetens the pot for the Archery Ranger, since most spells that call for a Reflex save aren't cast on a character in melee.

MadBlue


----------



## MadBlue (May 10, 2003)

*Re: Re: RE: Ranger changes*



			
				thalmin said:
			
		

> *
> Doesn't say exactly. The wording in the table is
> 
> "Combat Style ........ Choose either archery or two-weapon combat; gain a bonus feat"
> ...




The writeup of Manyshot on the WotC site (from 2/25) says "A 6th-level ranger who has chosen the archery combat style is treated as having Manyshot even if he does not have the prerequisites for it, but only when he is wearing light or no armor", but it's possible that it's been changed since then.

MadBlue


----------



## Ferret (May 10, 2003)

Why did they change the barbarian? I had no qualms and i haven't seen anyones, the rage needs to be tones down, it might have seemed nesscessary to lower it, however if they thought that other things had to be added after lowering the final level ability... It should have been something else.


----------



## TroyXavier (May 10, 2003)

They made the changes(according to themselves) so that Barbarians could get use out of them early on when they could really use the abilities.


----------



## Mercule (May 10, 2003)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> *Bah.  What a piece of crap.
> 
> Let me elaborate.  The new ranger is a VERY nice class, and I'd play one, but it IS NOT a ranger.  Lose the combat feats and evasion and bring back the d10 and you've got yourself a ranger. *




I agree almost completely.  The new "Ranger" class fills a nice niche, and I'd gladly play one.  It shouldn't be called "Ranger", though.

Funny.  I know Jack Daniels threw out the term as a (derogatory) joke in a poll, but the term that keeps coming to mind is "Wilderninja".  So, how about it, Jack, is that term OGC?  Would you consider just releasing it to WotC?  The books haven't gone to press yet, there's still time for them to edit the name.


----------



## theoremtank (May 10, 2003)

The 3.5 ranger definitely does not look underpowered.  

The changes I like:
- The d8 hit die
- Woodland stride
- 6 skill points per level
- Endurance (Nice, but should be available as a bonus feat.)
- Camouflage


What I don't like:
- Evasion -- Too redundant with other classes.  One should have to multiclass to either Bbn, Mnk, or Rog to get this.  This should possibly be replaced with a new unique class feature such as "ambush" or "surprise awareness" (these are made up names).
- Combat Style -- The virtual feat thing disappoints many people including myself.  They should just give a small list of actual bonus feats to choose from.  Most people would agree to a limited feat list over the combat style concept.  This will probably be the most house ruled class feature.
-  Favored Enemy -- I'm still impartial to this one.  It is definitely more powerful now but I believe it is still to DM dependent on what monsters he chooses to throw at you.
- Hide in plain site -- Camouflage seems good enough without getting too magical.  Perhaps another new unique class feature could go here.

Overall this current 3.5 ranger is more uniquely interesting and powerfull than the 3.0 version.  It definitly makes the choice to multiclass more difficult.


----------



## Wormwood (May 10, 2003)

edit: I'll withdraw my comment. Kinda petty and lame, and liable to **** someone off.

For the record, the 3.5 Ranger looks like a really cool, playable class. 

Considering that nobody can agree what what a freakin' Ranger even *is*, I think this new approach is better than most I've seen.


----------



## Ricochet (May 10, 2003)

More classes now has Evasion.. I wonder if the Wizards spells will be tweaked somewhat to make up for the fact that they are now universally weaker (lightning bolt, fireball) ?


----------



## randomninja (May 10, 2003)

I love the Ranger and barbarian changes. The are really distinguished between each other and the fighter now. It makes me really curious to see what they plan to do with the other classes.


----------



## Stalker0 (May 10, 2003)

ParagonofVirtue said:
			
		

> *More classes now has Evasion.. I wonder if the Wizards spells will be tweaked somewhat to make up for the fact that they are now universally weaker (lightning bolt, fireball) ? *




I agree, I don't like the evasion addition. Rangers have low reflex saves anyway, and as most have pointed out UD makes a lot more sense.

But with more classes that have evasion, the reflex save spells do seem a bit weaker.


----------



## Astalanya (May 10, 2003)

First: thanks for posting this!  _Dragon 308_ won't be out here for at least another week or two, but this definitely will encourage me to pick it up. 

If you don't mind, could anyone with the article in question post a few clarifications for me? I've read through the posts here and I don't think these were answered, so... 

1) Do barbarians retain the same rage progression? That is, they get it 1/day at 1st level, 2/day at 4th level, and +1/day every four levels thereafter? Eventually reaching 6/day at 20th? 

2) Are ranger favored enemy choices likely to be the same, minus the loss of 'beasts' and 'shapechangers'? So the list might include: Aberrations, Animals, Constructs, Dragons, Elementals, Fey, Giants, Humanoid type, Magical beasts, Oozes, Outsider type, Plants, Undead, and Vermin?

3) If the Wild Empathy ability replaces Animal Empathy, does that mean the skill has been utterly removed? Was there any clarification on what Wild Empathy actually does, in system terms? How you make the check, if at all? 

4) Were the bonus feats granted to the ranger identified as actual or virtual feats?

That's all I've got for the time being. I went ahead and constructed two tables along the lines of those in the class sections of the PHB, but I'm not sure if it's acceptable to post them or not yet, so I'll refrain unless I'm given a go ahead.


----------



## Mercule (May 10, 2003)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> *Considering that nobody can agree what what a freakin' Ranger even *is*, I think this new approach is better than most I've seen. *




You have a point.

What the word "Ranger" evokes to me is Aragorn, Davy Crocket, or a Navy Seal.  I really don't see much correlation between a commando and a Rogue.

Apparently, most people disagree.  Oh, well.

Like I said, though, the class looks nice.  I just wouldn't call it a Ranger.


----------



## Felon (May 10, 2003)

Astalanya said:
			
		

> 1) Do barbarians retain the same rage progression? That is, they get it 1/day at 1st level, 2/day at 4th level, and +1/day every four levels thereafter? Eventually reaching 6/day at 20th?




The article doesn't say, and according to the article, the rule of thumb is that when the table doesn't note a change you can usually assume there was no change worth noting.



> 2) Are ranger favored enemy choices likely to be the same, minus the loss of 'beasts' and 'shapechangers'? So the list might include: Aberrations, Animals, Constructs, Dragons, Elementals, Fey, Giants, Humanoid type, Magical beasts, Oozes, Outsider type, Plants, Undead, and Vermin?




Doesn't say. Same rule of thumb as above.



> 3) If the Wild Empathy ability replaces Animal Empathy, does that mean the skill has been utterly removed? Was there any clarification on what Wild Empathy actually does, in system terms? How you make the check, if at all?




Doesn't say, BUT Urban Arcanna does have a "Wildlord" Advanced Class which has an ability called "Animal Empathy" which allows them to improve the attitude of an animal or magical beast by making a Handle Animal check. What are the odds they'll be similar?



> 4) Were the bonus feats granted to the ranger identified as actual or virtual feats?




It's not clear, but the impression given is that they're not "virtual" but rather just like fighter bonus feats, but drawn from a more restricted pool. In fact, the impression I got is that the ranger *DOESN'T* choose between a 2WF or archery path, which he is then locked into for the rest of his career, but rather just chooses from a single list which contains 2WF and Archery feats. Then again, others who have read the article have inferred something completely different.


----------



## CrusaderX (May 10, 2003)

I'm happy with these changes.  The 3.5 Ranger seems quite cool.


----------



## coyote6 (May 10, 2003)

Mercule said:
			
		

> *I really don't see much correlation between a commando and a Rogue.*




I do. Lots of skills, lots of sneaking around to avoid people, and when that fails, killing people as quickly as possible.


----------



## Valiantheart (May 10, 2003)

Simulacrum said:
			
		

> *
> Karmic strike RULES!
> Hold the line RULES!
> *




Yeah, too bad they're not core though.


----------



## Felon (May 11, 2003)

Simulacrum said:
			
		

> [Fighters will be the RULING CLASS (after cleric) in 3.5
> - Untouchable AC (TAnk armor + improved expertise!



As has been already pointed out, "tank armor" is a fallacy in D&D 3e (and probably 3.5e too). 


> - Best *to hit chances*



What are you talking about? If you mean Base Attack Bonus, they have the same "to-hit" chances as the ranger and barbarian. If you mean overall bonuses, a barbarian's rage will give Strength bonuses that the fighter will be hard-pressed to match.


> - Tower Shield



That's one that I definitely want to check out.


> - No need for a spell list



That's not a class feature.


> - And will get countless of bonus attacks thanks to the new AoO rules.



The rules are a little repackaged for the most part. Everyone here understands that the way defensive casting works, a mage will never *actually* suffer an AoO from casting a spell if he doesn't want to, right?]


----------



## Storminator (May 11, 2003)

Felon said:
			
		

> *
> As has been already pointed out, "tank armor" is a fallacy.
> *




Snipped the rest of it, just wanted to point out there are a couple rules from Arcana Unearthed that boost the tank armor. I'll be swiping those for my game...

PS


----------



## Michael Tree (May 11, 2003)

Felon said:
			
		

> *Doesn't say, BUT Urban Arcanna does have a "Wildlord" Advanced Class which has an ability called "Animal Empathy" which allows them to improve the attitude of an animal or magical beast by making a Handle Animal check. What are the odds they'll be similar?*



I suspected it might be something like this.  So "animal empathy" is very much like "tracking": a class ability that lets the character use a normally sub-standard skill in a useful new way, to encourage characters to take that uncommon skill.


----------



## Michael Tree (May 11, 2003)

Storminator said:
			
		

> *Snipped the rest of it, just wanted to point out there are a couple rules from Arcana Unearthed that boost the tank armor. I'll be swiping those for my game...*



Oh?  Do tell.


----------



## Felon (May 11, 2003)

Michael Tree said:
			
		

> *I suspected it might be something like this.  So "animal empathy" is very much like "tracking": a class ability that lets the character use a normally sub-standard skill in a useful new way, to encourage characters to take that uncommon skill. *




Yeah, I love those type of abilities in a d20 character. It beats the heck out of handing out a flat bonus to a skill, as is all-too-often the design habit with non-combat oriented classes (e.g. Smart, Dedicated, & Charismatic Hero, Star Wars' Tech Specialist).

Of course, Hide in Plain Sight is of that same vein, and I really don't care for it. At least the shadowdancer needs to be close to shadows. I hope the Ranger's HiPS feature has some sort of restrictions as well.


----------



## Felon (May 11, 2003)

Michael Tree said:
			
		

> Oh?  Do tell.




Tell? See for yourself!


----------



## Kai Lord (May 11, 2003)

Felon said:
			
		

> *Of course, Hide in Plain Sight is of that same vein, and I really don't care for it. At least the shadowdancer needs to be close to shadows. I hope the Ranger's HiPS feature has some sort of restrictions as well. *



Probably only works in the woods.


----------



## Merlion (May 11, 2003)

Well I'll weigh in here, albeit it rather late.
  I like it. I like it a lot. the bonus feats or whatever exactly the are are spaced a bit wider than I expected, but then they get other interesting things. Adding Woodland Stride was brilliant...in fact the only thing like a real complaint I can make is that they didnt add Trackless Step also(rangers being the master trackers, it would make sense for them to be able to evade such skills as well).
  I dont know that uncanny dodge would make MORE sense than Evasion. I think either one makes sense as they both essentialy represent hyper awareness/reflexes. Obviously the choose Evasion over Uncanny Dodge because of the Barbarian.
  /rant on: Ok I dont mean this to offend anyone but I cant believe 1) that they are people out there saying they dont like the Hide In Plain Sight ability(in general) because its silly and I can believe even less than 2) their are people on the boards who dont know how its "supposed to work" for those who have it.  I'm going to talk about the second thing first since it relates to the first. Shadowdancers can only do it within 10 feet of some sort of shadow besides their own. It seems pretty obvious that they are able to semi-supernaturaly use shadows to hide themselves even when they have nothing else to hide behind or arent actualy IN the shadows. And I'm sure that the Ranger will have a restriction similiar to that involving plants or natural terrain or something. I just dont see how in the context of DnD thats any more "silly" than a Paladin's Divine Grace or a Rogue with Slippery Mind. /rant off
  Back to the Ranger. I love the camoflauge thing I've long thought rangers should have something like that. Hide in Plain Site is a nifty addition to. they do seem to finaly be at least somewhat addressing the issue of core classes giving little reason to stick with them.
  And, to all the people endlessly quibling over what a "ranger" is, and wether the revised ranger fits the name: Get over it already. the DnD Wizard doesnt really fit a lot of the characters that bear that name on which it is based, themeaticaly(with the whole spell preperation thing and all). That doesnt mean it shouldnt be called a wizard.


----------



## shilsen (May 11, 2003)

Merlion said:
			
		

> *And, to all the people endlessly quibling over what a "ranger" is, and wether the revised ranger fits the name: Get over it already. the DnD Wizard doesnt really fit a lot of the characters that bear that name on which it is based, themeaticaly(with the whole spell preperation thing and all). That doesnt mean it shouldnt be called a wizard. *




Nice point. It's fascinating how many people get their knickers in a twist when a D&D class doesn't perfectly match a historical or fictional character who has absolutely nothing to do with the game.


----------



## Remathilis (May 11, 2003)

I'm still hoping someone acidently typed "Evasion" instead of Uncanny Dodge. 

Oh well, I'm not going to complain about rangers and barbarians, they look like they done well for themselves. Fighters will still be a popular choice I think, because they are so versatile and generic. 

NOW GIVE ME MY FREAKING BARD INFO!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## theoremtank (May 11, 2003)

I'm not sure if adding _Uncanny Dodge_ to the Ranger's class features is any better than _Evasion_.

Barbarians and rogues already have this feature.  Too many classes with the same features is not interesting.  In 3.0e, the ranger/rogue multiclass was very desireable.  If you gave the 3.5e ranger _Uncanny Dodge_ also, then there is little incentive to multiclass to rogue.  Sure sneak attack is nice but that alone is probably not enough for me to give up spells, bonus feats, and higher level ranger class features.

I know it should be hard to surprise a ranger but perhaps it would be better if a unique class feature was designed to handle this.


----------



## ragefearmadness (May 11, 2003)

*Druid Info*

Does anyone have the info on the 3.5 Druid?


----------



## Caliban (May 11, 2003)

Ashardalon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Unless I'm missing something, it wasn't really away. That's the effect of the animal frienship spell, after all. *




I think that spell goes away in 3.5, which is why the ranger now get's the animal companion as a class ability.


----------



## Caliban (May 11, 2003)

Felon said:
			
		

> *
> As has been already pointed out, "tank armor" is a fallacy in D&D 3e (and probably 3.5e too).
> *



*

I don't know, my 11th level "tank armor" dwarf is nearly unhittible in most combats.  His AC starts at 28, and can reach 50 when I need it to.   +1 full plat, +2 shield, +2 ring of protection, +1 amulet of natural armor, +1 Dex bonus, +1 dwarven defender bonus, +1 dodge, mobility, +5 expertise, +4 boots of speed, and +7 for casting shield off a scroll when needed (not very often). 

Heavy armor isn't the only thing you need, but it's a major part of the equation for a low-dex fighter.    He has a lower damage output than a barbarian or a fighter who focused on strength and damage feats, but he can stand toe to toe with creatures that force them to retreat after a few rounds.  The "living wall" concept functions very well at higher levels, as it can give the rest of the party the time they need to get their mojo working.*


----------



## Ashardalon (May 11, 2003)

Caliban said:
			
		

> *
> I think that spell goes away in 3.5,... *




That is certainly a possibility.


----------



## ragefearmadness (May 11, 2003)

*Druid Info PLEASE!!!*

Does anyone have the info on the 3.5 Druid?

PLEASE!!! I AM DYING TO KNOW!!!!


----------



## Lela (May 11, 2003)

Balance wise, Evasion sounds fine to me.  I will admit that I cringed a little when I read it though.  It just doesn't seem to fit in with the rest of the class.  Uncanny Dodge (at least the Dex bonus to AC part) does fit.  I doubt I would add Cannot be Flanked or the Trap stuff (which i think is useless most of the time anyway) but the Dex Bonus fits with the rest of the class: Surprise them without being surprised yourself.


----------



## Mercule (May 11, 2003)

theoremtank said:
			
		

> *I'm not sure if adding Uncanny Dodge to the Ranger's class features is any better than Evasion.
> 
> Barbarians and rogues already have this feature.  Too many classes with the same features is not interesting. *




If you're saying they shouldn't have either, I can see your point.

If you mean Rangers should have Evasion and not Uncanny Dodge because two classes already have UD, I don't think you've got a good case.  Two classes also have Evasion (Monk & Rogue).  If either ability fits the Ranger, it's UD.


----------



## Saeviomagy (May 12, 2003)

Felon said:
			
		

> *
> As has been already pointed out, "tank armor" is a fallacy in D&D 3e (and probably 3.5e too).
> 
> What are you talking about? If you mean Base Attack Bonus, they have the same "to-hit" chances as the ranger and barbarian. If you mean overall bonuses, a barbarian's rage will give Strength bonuses that the fighter will be hard-pressed to match.
> *




Do you use rolled stats or point buy? Either way, that dex you need to use to make up for your light or medium armour is taking away from your strength and con. Dex is no more free than enhancement bonuses. Apart from that, the fighter's bonuses tend to equal or exceed the benefits of the barbarian. Combat feats are not something to be scoffed at. Rage benefits and penalties tend to even out, and rage is (IMHO) at best worth a feat. Uncanny dodge balances out the lack of heavy armour (in most situations - backstabbing rogues are the main exception).

In fact, the primary thing that the barbarian has over the fighter is his skill list and skill points.


----------



## ragefearmadness (May 12, 2003)

*Re: Druid Info PLEASE!!!*



			
				ragefearmadness said:
			
		

> *Does anyone have the info on the 3.5 Druid?
> 
> PLEASE!!! I AM DYING TO KNOW!!!! *




PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE! 

PLEASE I JUST WANT THE DRUID INFO!!!!  AAAAAAAARGH!!!


----------



## thalmin (May 12, 2003)

Sorry, WotC hasn't given out much, if any, info on the new druid, other than to say it is in the category of receiving moderate changes to the class.


----------



## Felon (May 12, 2003)

Caliban said:
			
		

> I don't know, my 11th level "tank armor" dwarf is nearly unhittible in most combats.  His AC starts at 28, and can reach 50 when I need it to.   +1 full plat, +2 shield, +2 ring of protection, +1 amulet of natural armor, +1 Dex bonus, +1 dwarven defender bonus, +1 dodge, mobility, +5 expertise, +4 boots of speed, and +7 for casting shield off a scroll when needed (not very often).



OK, out of all of that, he only got 4 more points of AC than if he'd been wearing a chain shirt with equivalent qualities.



> Heavy armor isn't the only thing you need, but it's a major part of the equation for a low-dex fighter.




Sure, it's a +4 part of the equation, assuming your dwarf's Dex is 13 or lower. And for that you trade off a big chunk of mobility and take some penalties to dex-based skills (which matters to fighters little, but rangers a lot). I see some fighters take it, and I see some fighters pass on it. Done it myself. It's an option that has benefits and penalties.




> _Originally posted by Saeviomagy_Either way, that dex you need to use to make up for your light or medium armour is taking away from your strength and con. Dex is no more free than enhancement bonuses.




Never said it was, but a ranger doesn't assign a decent number to Dex just to "make up for" light armor. Dex is a prime place for a ranger to put a decent number (14+) regardless of the armor he wears.



> Rage benefits and penalties tend to even out, and rage is (IMHO) at best worth a feat.




*does a quick double-take*

Maybe I misread. +4 STR, CON, and +2 to Will saves in exchange for a -2 AC is a break-even deal? Think I'll just post the eyes-rolling emoticon and be done with my response lol


----------



## Caliban (May 12, 2003)

Felon said:
			
		

> *
> OK, out of all of that, he only got 4 more points of AC than if he'd been wearing a chain shirt with equivalent qualities.
> *





And if you don't think that extra 4 points is important, then you haven't played enough mid-level combats.    Having your opponent need a 20 to hit you instead of a 16 makes a huge difference in the amount of damage you take, especially when fighting opponents with an increased crit range. 


*



			Sure, it's a +4 part of the equation, assuming your dwarf's Dex is 13 or lower. And for that you trade off a big chunk of mobility and take some penalties to dex-based skills (which matters to fighters little, but rangers a lot). I see some fighters take it, and I see some fighters pass on it. Done it myself. It's an option that has benefits and penalties.
		
Click to expand...


*
Where did I say it doesn't have benefits and penalties?   For a dwarf with a 13 Dex, it's benefits far outweigh the penalties, especially in 3.5, when it won't reduce my speed. 

Heavy Armor is very useful for certain types of fighters, and less useful for others.   It's by no means a "fallacy", it's an effective portion of one type of viable fighting style.


----------



## Caliban (May 12, 2003)

*Re: Druid Info PLEASE!!!*



			
				ragefearmadness said:
			
		

> *Does anyone have the info on the 3.5 Druid?
> 
> PLEASE!!! I AM DYING TO KNOW!!!! *




I'm sorry, I signed an NDA that prevents me from sharing specific details.

I will say that their animal companion ability is substantially revamped, and their spell list, a few spells, and some of the class abilities get tweaked.   

I don't remember anything about their weapon/armor limitations, so I don't know if they have been tweaked or not.

The changes looked pretty good to me, but I don't primarily play druids, so I may not be the best judge.


----------



## Sejs (May 12, 2003)

> Yep. Wonder if you can pick your own race as your favored enemy now?
> 
> *points at 3.5 ranger*
> 
> Let me introduce you to the new uber-assassin!



Rangers in 3e can do it already, but you have to be Evil.  Something I personally remove in my games - if I'm playing a ranger as a Bounty Hunter type character.. a wandering lawman, going to places most normal law enforcers can't go to, to bring criminals to justice - I _should_ be able to choose my own race as a favored enemy, and not be evil.

And as for the 3.5e revision to how Fav. Enemy works, I'm happy as a clam.  In my oppinion I'd much rather see a Ranger5 (fav enemy: humans)/Rogue 5/Assassin 10 than just a Rogue10/Assassin10.  Part of being an assassin would be the Hunting Down and Fighting parts of the job.  Something to which the Ranger/Rogue seems to fit much better than just the straight Rogue.




> In the Wheel of Time books, there are these guys called Grey Men. They are used as assassins. They have a supernatural abiltiy to simply go unnoticed. You might see them, but they don't really register in your mind.
> 
> You ignore them. This is how I explain Hide in Plain Sight. You are visible, it's just that people don't take notice of you.



 Discworld has something similar - Social Invisibility.  You're still visible.. it's just that people don't note you're there.  You stand in a blindspot in their mind's eye.  If you're in a crowd of people, or someone points you out or interacts with you, but the Social Invis thing is still working against the person trying to look for you, you're just totally unmemorable.  Sure, you know the barmaid was talking to some person over by the stairs, but you didn't notice anything special about the person at all.  Just some faceless nobody.  Pay it no mind.  




> After a night to think about it ... why evasion and not uncanny dodge?




Call me a nut here, but from all the revisions that I've seen, I haven't seen any mention of any class having uncanny dodge.  I see Trap Sense mentioned now and again, but no Uncanny Dodge. 

Maybe UD was taken out entirely.


----------



## Felon (May 12, 2003)

Caliban said:
			
		

> And if you don't think that extra 4 points is important, then you haven't played enough mid-level combats.    Having your opponent need a 20 to hit you instead of a 16 makes a huge difference in the amount of damage you take, especially when fighting opponents with an increased crit range.




I've played plenty of combats at all levels of play; my gaming-geek resume is as solid as anyone's here, thank you very much. Relying on heavy plate is a good option for certain types of fighters, in that it helps them get a decent AC when they haven't assigned a high number in Dex. That's pretty much what I said from the get-go. Some of the folks were trying to argue that if a ranger got d10 hit dice, plus fighter feats, plus its other considerable class benefits, that heavy armor alone would preserve the fighter's appeal. I was pointing out that the difference between the fighter in full plate isn't that much greater than the ranger in chain mail shirt, and if it's a little better then it's at a cost. 



> For a dwarf with a 13 Dex, it's benefits far outweigh the penalties, especially in 3.5, when it won't reduce my speed.




Come again there? Armor won't reduce your character's speed? Is that specifically because the character's a dwarf? Please don't tell me dwarves just received another perk lol...



> Heavy Armor is very useful for certain types of fighters, and less useful for others....it's an effective portion of one type of viable fighting style.




That pretty much sums up my position as well. The notion that wearing heavy armor is as it was in pre-3e editions--a total no-brainer choice--is the fallacy I was speaking of.


----------



## Caliban (May 12, 2003)

Felon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I've played plenty of combats at all levels of play; my gaming-geek resume is as solid as anyone's here, thank you very much. Relying on heavy plate is a good option for certain types of fighters, in that it helps them get a decent AC when they haven't assigned a high number in Dex. That's pretty much what I said from the get-go. Some of the folks were trying to argue that if a ranger got d10 hit dice, plus fighter feats, plus it's other considerable class benefits, that heavy armor alone would preserve the fighter's appeal. I was pointing out that the difference between the fighter in full plate isn't that much greater than the ranger in chain mail shirt, and if it's a little better then it's at a cost.
> *




At low levels, I think it's a signficant difference.  A higher levels, the bonus from the armor isn't as signficant, especially if the ranger keeps increasing his Dex.  

There is still a balance though, as the cost of the Dex increasing item for the ranger is much more than the cost of plate mail as compared to chain mail, and to take full advantage of his increased Dex, the ranger will probably need to invest in mithril armor, or switch over to Bracers of Armor, which are more expensive than an enchanced chain shirt with equivalent AC. 

And the fighter in full plate can use that same amount of money for a Str or Con increasing item.

Plate armor definitely has it's drawbacks though.

*



			Come again there? Armor won't reduce your character's speed? Is that specifically because the character's a dwarf? Please don't tell me dwarves just received another perk lol...
		
Click to expand...


*
...  


*



			That pretty much sums up my position as well. The notion that wearing heavy armor is as it was in pre-3e editions--a total no-brainer choice--is the fallacy I was speaking of.
		
Click to expand...


*
Ah, sorry then.  I misunderstood.   You're right, in 3e full plate makes no sense for high dex characters.


----------



## MadBlue (May 12, 2003)

Sejs said:
			
		

> *
> Call me a nut here, but from all the revisions that I've seen, I haven't seen any mention of any class having uncanny dodge.  I see Trap Sense mentioned now and again, but no Uncanny Dodge.
> 
> Maybe UD was taken out entirely. *




It's still there. There are characters with UD in the Shackled City adventure path in Dungeon. The abilities from the first two levels of UD are listed under UD and Trap Sense is listed separately.  

Hmm. That makes me wonder if UD and Trap Sense stack in 3.5 or if they're treated as separate abilities.

MadBlue


----------



## Mucknuggle (May 12, 2003)

I've seen a couple of people make reference to the BOHM. Can someone plz tell me what it is?


----------



## Olive (May 12, 2003)

Mucknuggle said:
			
		

> *I've seen a couple of people make reference to the BOHM. Can someone plz tell me what it is? *




the Book of Hallowed Might, by Monte Cook, Malhavoc Press.

Cool book with new PrCs, spells, magic items etc. and it also presents new interpretations of the ranger and paladin classes. the ranger has, instead of combat paths or two weapon fighting, has a list of bonus feats that the character can take every few levels, tailored to ranger type stuff.

i'm of the opinion that even if they thought it was a good idea, WotC wouldn't have used it because it would have meant using other peoples OGC, which they have seemed loathe to do.


----------



## GamerMan12 (May 12, 2003)

From the polls that have been conducted to date, most people, thought that the ranger class was the one that was most need changing from the D&D 3e version.

As a DM I would agree with this, although the Ranger player in my campaign seemed happy enough, the discrepancy in character and combat skills at 12th level compared to a fighter or barbarian in a high magic campaign was just enormous.

Several posts in this thread have said that the new ranger is overpowered, perhaps compared to the old ranger. The new ranger now looks very playable, as it was a niche class before.

I believe  that WoTC have tried to balance the classes in 3e and again in 3.5e and that they have suceeded, in that are classes all in the same ballpark, but there is in 3e and will be in 3.5e an ordering of power and campaign usefulness.

If (and I am not saying the following is the gospel) the pecking order for classes was cleric, fighter, barbarian and somewhere near the bottom, ranger and it is now cleric, ranger, barbarian then fighter - that does not invalidate the new ranger, nor is it a cause to ban it from one's campaign, nor does it make the fighter class somehow less just because the barbarian class has tipped some mythical balance to be ahead on the (subjective) scale of power.

Please note, that I think a DM has the right to ban anything they like from their campaign. It's just that, if a standard character class was banned from a campaign, I would prefer a better reason than 'I think WoTC made the class too uber'. If campaign play shows it to be too uber than that is a different argument.

Just my 2c

GamerMan12


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 12, 2003)

It seems rather strange to me that there are a few people who are already considering banning this class or that class ability without actually seeing the book in print yet.

We're at a good point to start weighing up changes on information revealed compared to 3e, but we've got even less of a whole picture than the SRD will (eventually) have, let alone the actual books!

Cheers

edited for clarity of expression


----------



## Mercule (May 12, 2003)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> *It seems rather strange to me that there are a few people who are already considering banning this class or that class ability without actually seeing the book in print yet.
> *




Eh, I guess I'm one of those.  PirateCat was right, though.  The whole package (assuming what we're getting is in fact that) is a lot nicer than the rumors that were coming out.

For a casual/Greyhawk game, I think I've decided to let the class be.  It's a well designed class and, even if it does not exactly match my image of a Ranger, it does make a variant Ranger someone unneeded.

When we move to my homebrew, which I consider to be much more flavor-intensive, I'll almost certainly replace the class with something else.  Of course, I'm making Paladin a PrC; and I'm looking for a way to remove fire-and-forget spells, which means I'll almost certainly be changing any class that casts spells; so I don't see that me using an alt.Ranger is much of an insult.

_Edit:  Forgetting a "not" can completely change a post's meaning._


----------



## Fenes 2 (May 12, 2003)

Based on the information in this thread - which I have no reason to doubt, since if it were wrong someone would have corrected it by now - I can easily conclude that this ranger is overpowered in my campaigns. I can even more easily decide that I don't want such a "wilderninja" in my game.


----------



## Jhamin (May 12, 2003)

Fenes 2 said:
			
		

> *I can easily conclude that this ranger is overpowered in my campaigns. I can even more easily decide that I don't want such a "wilderninja" in my game. *




Do you allow Rouges?  Do you allow Barbarians?  Do you allow Multiclassing?

If so, you already allow "wilderninjas".  This is just a class that gives some aspects of both while limiting the character in other ways.  You get there in one rather than balancing two.

It will probably be wise to see the changes to all the other classes before you decide which ones are overpowered.  It sounds about half the classes are better now.


----------



## Fenes 2 (May 12, 2003)

Jhamin said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Do you allow Rouges?  Do you allow Barbarians?  Do you allow Multiclassing?
> 
> ...




Hey, I review any single PC before allowing it - a barbarian/rogue would have to be approved just as a single-classed rogue, and just as our single-classed barbarian was. Besides, you would need some druid as well to account for the spells.

And, again, I don't want a spellcasting, full BAB 6 skill points bonus combat styles favored enemy evasion hide in plain sight "thing" IMC. I don't need to see the other classes - I don't want this IMC.

I am not even sure what about the new barbarian I will let into my current campaign - I consider our current barbarian balanced with our two other fighters, and great rage at 11 and other goodies might be overpowered. My base is the fighter - and the fighter class will not be significantly altered in 3.5E. Anything that is that much better than the fighter IMC - and the ranger would be that much better IMC, which is not standard D&D - will probably be banned.


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (May 12, 2003)

hehe.. "Wilderninja"

I like it!


----------



## Storm Raven (May 12, 2003)

Mercule said:
			
		

> *I agree almost completely.  The new "Ranger" class fills a nice niche, and I'd gladly play one.  It shouldn't be called "Ranger", though.*




I'm not sure why d10 hit dice are considered integral to the Ranger. When the class was first put together decades ago, it had d8 hit dice.


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (May 12, 2003)

1d10, 1d8, - On average, the only difference is 1 hit point.

It makes very little difference. 

IMHO, this is the quintissential "ranger". I mean, looked at our own special forces. The US Army Rangers are trained in combat, stealth, and survival.

Sounds pretty dead on to me. If you don't like the Two Weapon Fighting or Archery Combat Styles, just add bonus feats in their place. 

Personally, I'm really loving this revision.


----------



## Xeriar (May 12, 2003)

Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> *1d10, 1d8, - On average, the only difference is 1 hit point.
> 
> It makes very little difference.
> 
> ...




And as for Hide in Plain Sight, take a -REAL- good look at pictures of the White House.

It looks so open and friendly...


----------



## Lela (May 12, 2003)

Fenes 2 said:
			
		

> *Based on the information in this thread - which I have no reason to doubt, since if it were wrong someone would have corrected it by now - I can easily conclude that this ranger is overpowered in my campaigns. I can even more easily decide that I don't want such a "wilderninja" in my game. *




Could you be a little more specific?  What makes him overpowered?  Compare with the Monk in terms of abilities and realize that some of these Ranger abilities are going to be useless most of the time (Ex. Woodland Stride).  I just don't see it.


----------



## Aaron L (May 12, 2003)

It's new and it's different, so it's overpowerd automatically, didn't you realize that?


----------



## daTim (May 12, 2003)

While I really like the new Ranger, I also feel it may be overpowered. If you break it down, at level 11 a fighter gets 10 feats, at 11th level a Ranger gets 9... Yes, they may be slightly more focused, but ontop of those 9 feats they also get 4 more skill points per level, spells, animal companions, better stealth and a neat favored enemy ability. As has been said before the d8 hit dice and the armor restriction are hardly a real detriment to the overall powe of the calss


----------



## Stalker0 (May 12, 2003)

One of the things I really don't like about the new ranger is the copycatting of certain abliities.

Evasion, woodland stride, and hide in plain sight are rip offs of other abilities. Although HIPS is from a Prc, so not as bad imo.

This was why I was normally so opposed to bonus feats for the ranger, its just latching on another ripped off ability.

But then again, the ranger is kind of a hodgepodge regardless of your opinion of the ideal ranger, and wotc doesn't seem to have a problem with copying of abilities, as long as its only with two classes (ie. turning undead, animal companions, evasion, uncanny dodge). But in that spirit, I again hate the addition of evasion. Now 3 classes have it!!! Its getting to the point that its not a special ability, its a "what do you mean you don't have evasion?"

As just a thought, instead of evasion, why not give the ranger an initiative bonus? IT represents being able to handle surprise, its a powerful ability, and one no one else has.


----------



## Lela (May 12, 2003)

daTim said:
			
		

> *While I really like the new Ranger, I also feel it may be overpowered. If you break it down, at level 11 a fighter gets 10 feats, at 11th level a Ranger gets 9... Yes, they may be slightly more focused, but ontop of those 9 feats they also get 4 more skill points per level, spells, animal companions, better stealth and a neat favored enemy ability. As has been said before the d8 hit dice and the armor restriction are hardly a real detriment to the overall powe of the calss *




I see four feats (combat style: 3, Endurance).  I don't think character feats should be taken into account for a class (balance wise anyway).  There's also five speical abilities (not feats).

To break that down:


Wild Empathy: At lower levels this will be very helpful.  But later, sometime around levels 7-9 (well before 11), it becomes almost useless in anything besides flavor.  Weak.
 Favored Enemy: While powerful against the enemy itself, much of it depends on what the DM throws at the party (as Monte Cook said).  Though a lot of this has been taken away by the option to up your new enemy to +4 right out, the DM still has much control.  *Strong.*
Combat styles (3):  Here we have three combat feats that can be used all the time.  *Strong, Strong, Strong.*
Endurance: Exactly how many of your players take this feat?  Yes, it helps with running and swimming but that doesn't translate into actual gameplay that often.  It's almost completely flavor.  *Weak.*
Animal Companion:  Being able to use this so many different ways, it depends on the player (and the changes WotC made).   *Strong.*
Woodland stride: I've never seen this used.  Ever.  Which is not to say that it hasen't come up in other games, but I doubt it's that often.  Mostly flavor.  *Very Weak.*
Swift tracker:Useful, but not _that_ great.  This one will depend on the campaign style (though it is very cool and I hope the DM uses it).  *Average.*
*Evasion: This blows a lot of the Ranger's other abilties out of the water.  Suddenly a dragon hunter (with FE) can avoid one of the dragon's main attacks.  Mages have lost a powerful weapon against them.  *Very Strong.*

Final score:

Very Strong: 1
Strong: 6
Average: 1
Weak: 2
Very Weak: 1

So it's a good class, but not _that_ good.

Did I miss anything?

*I still advocate putting UD in place of Evasion.  Though I doubt I'd actualy House Rule it.

[Edit: Math. Bolding]


----------



## Kobold Avenger (May 12, 2003)

Sure I'll also mention that you shouldn't try to ban the class until you actually get the book in the first place.

But here's something you should consider, the new Ranger needs to be that powerful to survive encounters against the revised Pit Fiends and Mystic Theurges.


----------



## Merlion (May 12, 2003)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> *One of the things I really don't like about the new ranger is the copycatting of certain abliities.
> 
> Evasion, woodland stride, and hide in plain sight are rip offs of other abilities. Although HIPS is from a Prc, so not as bad imo.
> 
> *




Before I start let me say, Stalker, this is not an attack on you. Just the voicing of thoughts and opnions, sparked by your comments.
  3e/3er/D20 is very much all about "copycatting". The d20 system was made to be modular and generic...to use certain basic mechanics either alone or in groups to represent certain things.
  Lots of classes and prestige classes get Uncanny Dodge, and/or Evasion. the Smite ability in one form or other is possessed by at least half a dozen classes and prestige classes.
  Now this could be a good thing, a bad thing, or some of both depending on your view. Me, I mostly like it...although when designing stuff I do try to at least accasionly come up with all new "mods" for the modularity.
  As you also say Stalker the Ranger is a hodgepodgy sort of class any way you cut it. I think the combination of "mods" being used in the 3er Ranger is pretty decent. Actualy I like it a lot myself from what we've seen and I think it will drasticaly up the number of more-than-1-level rangers played. I think it fits a number of archtypes nicely. Not all that everyone feels the name "ranger" entails. Its not gonna please everyone. but neither would anything else they decided to do.


----------



## Jai Kel (May 12, 2003)

Caliban said:
			
		

> *
> quote:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ...





Dwarves in Urban Arcana are allowed to move at their base speed (20) even when wearing medium or heavy armor or even when carrying a medium and heavy load...


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (May 12, 2003)

I think several classes are just mixtures of other concepts with a little spice added in.

Ranger = Fighter/Rogue
Paladin = Fighter/Cleric
Bard = Rogue/Sorcorer
Psychic Warrior = Fighter/Psion

I personally wonder why these classes weren't Prestige Classes to begin with. *shrug*


----------



## Aaron L (May 12, 2003)

When a Prestige Class becomes common enough in a setting that it appears as frequently as a core class, then it should be a core class.  Making rangers or paladins Prestige Classes could be viable for your home setting, but in default D&D, they are both common enough that they are justified as being core classes.


(As and aside, I would actually like to see a prestige class variant of the paladin for my homebrew campaign world, and maybe even a PrC version of the ranger, too.)


----------



## Simplicity (May 12, 2003)

Felon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I'll bite. How does the ranger lose a great deal of effectiveness there? He's still getting an extra attack. A second attack at a lower BAB doesn't affect that.
> 
> *




A two-weapon fighting specialist begins the game with double the attacks of a normal one-weapon fighter (although at a lower to hit, and possibly a lower damage per hit).  I think people pretty much agree that a level 1 TWFer vs. a level 1 OWFer is about equal.  However, at +6 BAB, the ratio becomes skewed.
Without Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, the two weapon fighter now only gets 3 attacks versus the OWF's 2 attacks.  

Think about it.  If 1 swipe from a one-weapon fighter is equal to 2 swipes from a two-weapon fighter, then 2 attacks from a one-weapon fighter is greater than 3 attacks from a two weapon fighter.  Luckily, improved two weapon fighting is there at +6 BAB to kick in and give you another attack.  Thus, the ratio goes back up to 2 attacks vs. four attacks.


----------



## Christian (May 12, 2003)

Lela said:
			
		

> *Woodland stride: I've never seen this used.  Ever.  Which is not to say that it hasen't come up in other games, but I doubt it's that often.  Mostly flavor.  Very Weak.*




FTR, I am picking on this item because everything else on your list seems pretty much on target.

Our group's druid's WS ability has come into play not infrequently. Maybe it's just our DM, or our party's tendency to pursue pretty much any fleeing beastie into any kind of terrain. But when we're all stumbling through the underbrush running after and/or away from something, her unimpeded mobility is always tactically very useful; and I'd venture to say that it would be even more useful if she were stronger in melee combat, as she would be as a ranger ...

I'd definitely prefer Woodland Stride to Endurance or Wild Empathy.


----------



## Lela (May 12, 2003)

As I said, it could come up on other campaigns.  I just haven't seen it myself.

With your use of it, would you still consider it weak or do you think it should be average?


----------



## Sejs (May 12, 2003)

> Ranger = Fighter/Rogue




Ranger = Fighter(50%) / Rogue(25%) / Druid (25%), least by my estimation.


As for folks moaning about Evasion ~ personally, I don't see it as that bad, they don't get it until level 9. They never get Improved Evasion, which monks and rogues will be getting soon by that level.  And if they don't have good Fort _and_ Refl saves, it won't be nearly as effective as the other classes' versions.  Heh, personally I'd prefer if they kept rangers with just good Fort saves, but we'll see when the books are released.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (May 12, 2003)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I'm not sure why d10 hit dice are considered integral to the Ranger. When the class was first put together decades ago, it had d8 hit dice. *





Yeah, but  then, so did the fighter.


----------



## Quixon (May 12, 2003)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> Yeah, but  then, so did the fighter. *




Huh? When did Fighters get d8 HD in AD&D, not in 1st, 2nd or 3rd Editions thats for sure. Maybe in DnD Basic/Expert rules they did or in the 0 edition(the old set with little white books), but never in Ad&d 1st thru 3rd editions.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (May 12, 2003)

Here's a thought: 

If rangers are great woodland hunters, why don't they get some kind of snare-setting ability?  They could set a snare that affects a certain area and captures/entangles or damagesa creature that enters it.  Could be a x/day ability that scales with level, or something -- though it would require some better trapmaking/setting mechanics.

Trap setting could be a rogue skill; snaring would be a watered-down hunter's version of it.

Just a thought.  Accusations of turning the ranger into a wilderninja will be summarily ignored.


----------



## Nightfall (May 12, 2003)

Ogler...too bad I'm under NDA or I could say that I kind of did something about trapsetting in a book I written...but I can't so there.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (May 12, 2003)

Nightfall:   

Other ranger-related info, from Andy Collins' boards:

A poster asked:



> I presume that every 5 levels the ranger gets an extra enemy, with bonuses of 2,4,6,8, and 10 (according to level). He may arrange them as he wishes, as long as no favored enemy ever loses bonus points.
> 
> For example, would such a progression be possible?
> 
> ...




Andy's response:



> Every time the ranger gets a new favored enemy, he increases any existing bonus (even his brand-new one) by +2. For instance, at level 5 he can go from +2 to +4 vs. his first enemy, or jump immediately to +4 vs. his new enemy.
> 
> It means the ranger doesn't have to pick his most important enemy first--he can safely pick "animals" at 1st level and know that by 10th level "dragons" or "giants" could be at +6.
> 
> As for evasion...well, maybe you haven't seen the whole ranger yet?




and later ...



> I'll put it this way:
> 
> If evasion weren't a ranger ability, there'd be a whole lot of rangers picking up 2 levels of rogue in order to get it.
> 
> ...




Most interesting, that evasion is in part to avoid dipping into rogue.  Clever solution, that, though I still like the UD idea.


----------



## Felon (May 12, 2003)

Jai Kel said:
			
		

> Dwarves in Urban Arcana are allowed to move at their base speed (20) even when wearing medium or heavy armor or even when carrying a medium and heavy load...




Hmm. So they do.

Well, that cinches it. Dwarves are to third edition what elves were to second edition. Guess every edition has to have a fair-haired son.


----------



## Simplicity (May 12, 2003)

Felon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Hmm. So they do.
> 
> Well, that cinches it. Dwarves are to third edition what elves were to second edition. Guess every edition has to have a fair-haired son. *




Well, considering that the stereotypical dwarf image is the stout tank with thick full plate...  It would be nice to allow them to move
some in their common armor.

Imagine a war between elven and dwarven kingdoms with the old rules...  The dwarven army charges in their full plate (30 feet move... 15 feet x2 for charge)...  Meanwhile, the elves walk backwards at the same speed (30 ft) and fire arrows.  Very, very sad.


----------



## Olive (May 12, 2003)

Felon said:
			
		

> *Well, that cinches it. Dwarves are to third edition what elves were to second edition. Guess every edition has to have a fair-haired son. *




anyone else remember the arguments that gnomes should be a ECL+1 race?


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (May 13, 2003)

And more on favored enemies from Andy Collins:



> The 3.5 ranger gets a +2 bonus vs. a chosen enemy at 1st.
> 
> At 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th, the ranger gets a new +2 bonus, and also may increase any bonus (including the brand new one) by +2.
> 
> ...


----------



## Felon (May 13, 2003)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> *Well, considering that the stereotypical dwarf image is the stout tank with thick full plate...  It would be nice to allow them to move some in their common armor.*




Well, I said the same thing in another thread, but it applies equally here as well:

I'm not trying to argue that it would be nice for dwarves to move faster. I will argue, however, that dwarves as they currently stand have enough racial benefits that there ought to be some give and take at this point, not just give give give.


----------



## Lela (May 13, 2003)

I'm starting to wonder if 3.5 is going to be a whole lot of give, give, give for everyone.


----------



## Felon (May 13, 2003)

Well, that's the big question isn't it? With the barbarian and ranger getting class features every level and 4-6 skill points, that will run the risk of diminishing the appeal of a class that only gets a feature every two levels and only a couple of skill points--like the fighter.

But unless the impression given so far is radically off-base, it doesn't like there's love going around for every race or class.


----------



## bertman4 (May 13, 2003)

Quixon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Huh? When did Fighters get d8 HD in AD&D, not in 1st, 2nd or 3rd Editions thats for sure. Maybe in DnD Basic/Expert rules they did or in the 0 edition(the old set with little white books), but never in Ad&d 1st thru 3rd editions. *




I would like to point out that in 1E Rangers got 2d8 at 1st level.

Bertman


----------



## bertman4 (May 13, 2003)

> The 3.5 ranger gets a +2 bonus vs. a chosen enemy at 1st.
> 
> At 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th, the ranger gets a new +2 bonus, and also may increase any bonus (including the brand new one) by +2.
> 
> ...




True, but why not 18/0/0/0/0? If you really wanted to be a Dragonslayer, why not be one? Instead, it forces you to choose some other favored enemies. That's what I don't like about it.

Bertman


----------



## JRRNeiklot (May 13, 2003)

Quixon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Huh? When did Fighters get d8 HD in AD&D, not in 1st, 2nd or 3rd Editions thats for sure. Maybe in DnD Basic/Expert rules they did or in the 0 edition(the old set with little white books), but never in Ad&d 1st thru 3rd editions. *




It was pre 1E, but everybody brings up at some point, that rangers originally had a d8.  If you go back far enough, so did fighters.


----------



## Fenes 2 (May 13, 2003)

Lela said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Could you be a little more specific?  What makes him overpowered?  Compare with the Monk in terms of abilities and realize that some of these Ranger abilities are going to be useless most of the time (Ex. Woodland Stride).  I just don't see it. *




I banned the monk IMC, except for NPC villains. When I wanted a monkish NPC as a cohort NPC for a player  I built a fighter/rogue with several unarmed combat feats.

As far as the new ranger is concerned, I have a beef with 
- the 6 skill points, especially compared to my baseline, the fighter, but also creeping up on the rogue
-  the favored enemy bonus, in my campaign most enemies are humans
- the evasion ability
- hide in plain sight, which is very powerful in a campaign where you can't just buy rings of invisibility
- the combat styles, which lessens the fighter bonus feats (and heavy armor is impractical in my main campaign, due to weather, social stigma etc.)

When you take all that, and add spells and other nature abilities, it blows away the fighter IMC.


----------



## Kershek (May 13, 2003)

Fenes 2 said:
			
		

> *When you take all that, and add spells and other nature abilities, it blows away the fighter IMC. *



I think it's safe to say they didn't have your nonstandard game in mind when making these changes.


----------



## Fenes 2 (May 13, 2003)

Kershek said:
			
		

> *
> I think it's safe to say they didn't have your nonstandard game in mind when making these changes. *




That is why I always said that this ranger is overpowered *IMC*. I never said it was overpowered in a standard D&D game (whatever that is) - but I don't need to see the book to ban it IMC.


----------



## Kershek (May 13, 2003)

Fenes 2 said:
			
		

> *
> 
> That is why I always said that this ranger is overpowered IMC. I never said it was overpowered in a standard D&D game (whatever that is) - but I don't need to see the book to ban it IMC. *



Thank you for posting something that is useful to an audience of yourself.


----------



## Fenes 2 (May 13, 2003)

Kershek said:
			
		

> *
> Thank you for posting something that is useful to an audience of yourself. *




You're welcome.


----------



## doctorjeff98 (May 13, 2003)

Fenes 2 said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I banned the monk IMC, except for NPC villains. When I wanted a monkish NPC as a cohort NPC for a player  I built a fighter/rogue with several unarmed combat feats.
> 
> ...





Seems like most of the players in my campaigns have more fun when they are allowed to play whatever they want and I adjust the strengths of the monsters as necessary.  But it does seem possible that some settings might be incomptible with some classes.  I guess I would try to base it on overall philosophy and not strength---I can deal with characters that are 'too strong.'


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 13, 2003)

Fenes 2 said:
			
		

> *
> 
> - hide in plain sight, which is very powerful in a campaign where you can't just buy rings of invisibility
> *




Hey, keep a bit of perspective here! The new ranger would get this ability at 17th level... which is when clerics are casting miracle and true resurrection, wizards are casting wish and timestop and shapechange.

Do you *really* think that some kind of ability to use hide checks in some kind of situation with otherwise limited cover (we don't know the parameters of it yet) is a game-breaker?

Or perhaps you don't use clerics or wizards in your campaign either ?!? (just joking, but do you get my point?)


----------



## Fenes 2 (May 13, 2003)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Hey, keep a bit of perspective here! The new ranger would get this ability at 17th level... which is when clerics are casting miracle and true resurrection, wizards are casting wish and timestop and shapechange.
> 
> ...




I banned wish, timestop and miracle, and I currently have no wizard or cleric imc (as long as you don't count the fighter/duelist who multiclassed into one cleric level due to roleplaying reasons, and with wisdom 10 at the time to boot).

I run a rather low-magic campaign, and any cleric or wizard entering it would have to be carefully balanced, with several spells banned or restricted. I don't encourage either high-level wizards or clerics, and have gutted the party sorcerer accordingly.


----------



## Steverooo (May 13, 2003)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> *Good point.  How exactly would I explain this to my players?  You just dissapear?  Your ranger abilities allow you to bend light? *




Actually, "Hide in Plain Sight" is a name of an ancient Samurai ability...  You can explain it to players in any number of ways.

Being unseen is easy, as long as you are BEHIND someone.  Above and below work well, too.  While much stealth involves taking advantage of concealment or cover, a great deal of it also involves other tings; mainly, staying out of the line of sight.  (Ashida Kim's book, The Art of Invisibility has several good examples of this).  Where staying out of the line of sight isn't possible, fooling the eye often is.  One oft-used example is changing the shape of your body into a non-manlike form (such as spreading the legs slightly, then doubling over at the waist, and appearing like a stump or post).  Any good manual on stealth, evasion, and escape should cover a number of such ideas.  A few more might include:
* Lying flat in a dip while camouflaged.
* Hiding against stone while wrapped in a stoneflage cloak (thus appearing like a boulder, etc.)
* Running through a door and around the corner (along the wall) while in sight, then pressing against the ceiling and upper door jamb before the pursuer runs through the doorway, turns, and sees you've disappeared.


----------



## Steverooo (May 13, 2003)

Lela said:
			
		

> *[*]Combat styles (3):  Here we have three combat feats that can be used all the time.  Strong, Strong, Strong.
> *




Nope; see the Update Spotlight on Multishot (quoted several times in this thread).  Rangers of level 6+ can use it ONLY WHEN IN LIGHT OR NO ARMOR.  Lame, lame, lame!


----------



## Dinkeldog (May 13, 2003)

Sunshine and kittens!

Sunshine and kittens!

Sunshine and kittens!

Pre-emptive love strike.


----------



## SpikeyFreak (May 13, 2003)

bertman4 said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I would like to point out that in 1E Rangers got 2d8 at 1st level.
> 
> Bertman *



I can't believe how long it took for someone to point this out.

--0ld 5k00l Spikey


----------



## Christian (May 13, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Fenes 2 _ (in two different posts)
> *That is why I always said that this ranger is overpowered IMC. I never said it was overpowered in a standard D&D game (whatever that is) - but I don't need to see the book to ban it IMC.
> 
> I banned wish, timestop and miracle, and I currently have no wizard or cleric imc (as long as you don't count the fighter/duelist who multiclassed into one cleric level due to roleplaying reasons, and with wisdom 10 at the time to boot).
> ...




Well, I'm not sure what a 'standard D&D game' is either. But I'm pretty darn sure that that isn't it ... I am perfectly willing to concede that the 3.5E ranger is overpowered in a campaign world in which the spellcasters have been heavily nerfed. In fact, I'd have to say that it sounds like the 3.0 ranger is overpowered in such a campaign. It might be a good idea to include these kinds of details when you pronounce judgment, to give some context. Eg. rather than:



> I have got two words for the 3.5 ranger: Banned IMC. There it would be overpowered, no doubt.
> 
> (I don't care how balanced/cool it is in other campaigns, it is overpowered in my low-magic item campaign for sure.)




Expand that paranthetical quote to something like:
(It may be balanced in many or most campaigns, but I run an extremely low-magic campaign in which every class's spellcasting and/or supernatural abilities have been removed or sharply limited, so I'd need to do something comparable to this ranger class before I could include it.)

Just saying that you run a 'low magic-item' campaign doesn't make it clear how far off the beaten track yours is, and (I think) led people to the conclusion that you were saying something much stronger than you were.


----------



## Henry (May 13, 2003)

Given the alterations, I can see why the Revised Ranger is undesirable in Fenes' campaign. As for the existing core rules, I don't see the Ranger as being bad, and in fact solves the main gripe I had about him (the front-loaded aspect).

I'm not too worried about players in my campaigns preferring him over fighters - because the humongous number of feats for fighters still make fighters top dog in combat specialization.


----------



## Lela (May 17, 2003)

Steverooo said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Nope; see the Update Spotlight on Multishot (quoted several times in this thread).  Rangers of level 6+ can use it ONLY WHEN IN LIGHT OR NO ARMOR.  Lame, lame, lame! *




Which was not in the Dragon issue.  In fact, it doesn't mention virtual feats at all.  It just says they gain feats.

As for Multishot, have you ever seen that used?  Putting them in light armor is not going to be a deterent at all.  Especially when you consider that the archers using it will have a high Dex anyway.


----------



## fba827 (May 17, 2003)

Regarding Hide in Plain Sight ...

Just thought I would add that it is a little more clarified in the article than just giving the name of the ability.

"Hide in natural terrain with no concealment even while being observed"

 -- so (as per the article in print at this time) it isn't just hide in plain sight anywhere.. it does have the qualifier of being "in natural terrain"


(just wanted to mention it in case people were making their opinions of it based soley on the name of the ability).


----------



## Merlion (May 17, 2003)

Thank you for pointing that out.
  Although I dont really see how anyone could have not more or less known thats how it would work for Rangers, given their nature and inclinations. Its basicaly an improvement on the Camoflauge ability they get at 13th.


----------



## MerricB (May 18, 2003)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> *
> 
> It was pre 1E, but everybody brings up at some point, that rangers originally had a d8.  If you go back far enough, so did fighters. *




The Fighter (or Fighting-Man) was one of the original 3 classes in Dungeons and Dragons. It had d6 hit dice, as did the Magic-User and Cleric. The difference was that it had _more_ hit dice than the MU and Cleric.

For 1st through 5th levels the comparative dice were:
1st - Ftr 1+1; MU 1; Clr 1
2nd - Ftr 2; MU 1+1; Clr 2
3rd - Ftr 3; MU 2; Clr 3
4th - Ftr 4; MU 2+1; Clr 4
5th - Ftr 5+1; MU 3; Clr 4+1

With the release of the _Greyhawk_ supplement, the idea of different hit dice for each class was introduced, along with the thief class:
Fighter: d8
Magic-User: d4
Cleric: d6
Thief: d4

The Ranger class was introduced in _The Strategic Review_, issue #2 (the precursor to _Dragon Magazine_). It had 2d8 hit Dice at first level, and gained one per level thereafter. (If you used the original system, it was 2d6 then 3d6, 4d6, etc.)

Spells were first gained at ninth level and progressed as follows:
9th: Cleric: 1
10th: Cleric 1; MU 1
11th: Cleric 2/1; MU 1
12th: Cleric 2/1; MU 2/1
13th: Cleric 3/2/1; MU 2/1
14th: Cleric 3/2/1; MU 3/2/1

The originator of the Ranger class was *Joe Fischer*.

Cheers!


----------



## Pickaxe (May 25, 2003)

A few comments on the new ranger, as far as we know it:

1) First, I just don't like this version; I like my rangers more "fightery" and less "roguey". This revision definitely shifts the ranger toward the rogue, and, personally, I just don't want to go in that direction.

2) Considering that the biggest complaint about the ranger was not its power or even its abilities, but its "front-loadedness", I'm surprised that WotC made such a sweeping revision. Really, all that I thought was needed was a redistribution of existing abilities to give more reasons to stick with ranger past a certain level.

3) A number of people have mentioned the concern that this revision makes fighter less attractive, but I'm surprised nobody has mentioned how this impacts perception of the rogue. In particular, giving 6 skill points per level to a class (at least two, in fact) diminishes the distinction of the rogue's 8 per level. A friend of mine suggested that, if some classes get 6, then rogues should be upped to 10. (This would actually help rogues customize a bit more.)

4) Last, there's one ability missing from the new (and for that matter from the old) ranger that I can't believe has been overlooked still. How about Alertness? This seems like one feat common to all of the various ranger concepts.


----------



## Endur (May 26, 2003)

Your Tank Dwarf has expertise and mobility?  I guess somebody skimped on the wisdom and charisma.   My dwarf skimped on the int, and put a decent amount into charisma and wisdom.

My "unhittable" Tank Dwarf has an AC that reaches the same level, but I only have +1 ac items (+1 ring, +1 shield, +1 Mithril Full Plate).  Of course, Endur is married to a Dwarven Cleric who has a bead of Karma and can cast +4 Magic Vestment spells, +5 Barkskin, and other protective spells.

I've never been a big fan of the expertise feat.  Having a high BAB means I'm more likely to hit on an AOO when a Big Bad Monster tries to grapple Endur (and Geoff has no shortage of Big Bad Grappling Monsters).



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I don't know, my 11th level "tank armor" dwarf is nearly unhittible in most combats.  His AC starts at 28, and can reach 50 when I need it to.   +1 full plat, +2 shield, +2 ring of protection, +1 amulet of natural armor, +1 Dex bonus, +1 dwarven defender bonus, +1 dodge, mobility, +5 expertise, +4 boots of speed, and +7 for casting shield off a scroll when needed (not very often).
> 
> Heavy armor isn't the only thing you need, but it's a major part of the equation for a low-dex fighter.    He has a lower damage output than a barbarian or a fighter who focused on strength and damage feats, but he can stand toe to toe with creatures that force them to retreat after a few rounds.  The "living wall" concept functions very well at higher levels, as it can give the rest of the party the time they need to get their mojo working. *


----------



## hong (May 26, 2003)

Endur said:
			
		

> *(and Geoff has no shortage of Big Bad Grappling Monsters).
> *




Tell me about it. YOU LISTENING, GEOFF?


----------



## Will (May 26, 2003)

Wow. I think the essential problem with the Ranger (as has been pointed out already) is that nobody agrees on what it should be.

Given that, damn... I feel for WotC. Set up for being reviled... well, more so than the usual 'we're a game company.'

Some see rangers as super commando deadly people, some see them as woodland trackers, some as scouts, some as nature warriors, ....

Personally, I think I'll stick to my idea, and treat all rangers as multiclass of ... well, nearly any other combo of classes. (Fighter/bard, sorcerer/rogue, fighter/druid, with bits of Expert tossed in here and there)

I think that's the only way to keep on track with wildly varying goals. While Favored Enemy, the one thing really unique about rangers, is interesting, I don't consider it particularly important enough for a separate class.


----------



## RigaMortus (May 26, 2003)

Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> *I think several classes are just mixtures of other concepts with a little spice added in.
> 
> Ranger = Fighter/Rogue
> Paladin = Fighter/Cleric
> ...




IMO, the Ranger = Fighter/Druid...  They are still nature lovers, yes?

I do think they should have some stealth abilities, but only as they apply to the wilderness.  Where as a Rogue's stealth abilities are more universal (can be used in wilderness, dungeons, cities, etc.).


----------



## RigaMortus (May 26, 2003)

Steverooo said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Actually, "Hide in Plain Sight" is a name of an ancient Samurai ability...  You can explain it to players in any number of ways.
> 
> ...




I bet your players would be pissed if you described it like this, and the opponent succeeded in his Spot check, and then walked over and attacked them while they were laying prone when they never actually suggested they were doing that.



			
				Steverooo said:
			
		

> *
> * Hiding against stone while wrapped in a stoneflage cloak (thus appearing like a boulder, etc.)
> *




And when there is no stone to press their body against or they are not wearing a stoneflage cloak?  What if you were in a flat open field on a sunny day?  How do you describe it then without putting the players into potentially dangerous situations (such as laying prone in attempting to hide from an aggressive enemy)?



			
				Steverooo said:
			
		

> *
> * Running through a door and around the corner (along the wall) while in sight, then pressing against the ceiling and upper door jamb before the pursuer runs through the doorway, turns, and sees you've disappeared. *




This isn't Hiding in Plain Sight though...  This is, running away from an enemy then when he gets out of sight, quickly looking for a place to hide.


----------



## RigaMortus (May 26, 2003)

Will said:
			
		

> *Wow. I think the essential problem with the Ranger (as has been pointed out already) is that nobody agrees on what it should be.
> *




Perhaps the Ranger is really the Jack of All Trades, and the Bard is just a Fighter/Mage?


----------



## Morte (May 26, 2003)

Lela said:
			
		

> *I'm starting to wonder if 3.5 is going to be a whole lot of give, give, give for everyone. *




I rather wonder if 3.5 is going to be give, give, give for the non-casting classes. Those melee classes we've heard about (ranger and barb) look somewhat more powerful than before. Fighters may also be getting a less obvious boost through the various "Improved" and "Greater" combat feats appearing on the list.

I wonder whether WOTC are taking an undeclared stab at the "casters are more powerful at high levels" thing. Especially given the change to Haste, which now looks more useful to fighter types than casters.


----------



## RigaMortus (May 29, 2003)

I hope the 3.5 Ranger's updated spell list takes advantage of his new abilities.  Spells that help out Archery, TWF, animal companion, stealth, etc...


----------

