Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Voluptuous Horror of Karen Black 12-18-03, 08:43 PM	What are the differences between the 2 editions? My friend tells me nothing big and that the 3.5 ranger is really not worth playing. Is this true?
Lashan 12-18-03, 08:53 PM	From what I recall, they changed the rules on weapons. Instead of having your ranger be a Drizzt clone, you can choose wether you want to be a bow ranger or a two weapon ranger. That's pretty good! They also changed a few of his skills based on the survival skill check. I think he gets more druid type spells, as well. Basically, he is the same, but changed slightly. I don't know why your friend says that it's not worth playing. I like the 3.5 version better.
TheDarkestOfAngels 12-18-03, 08:55 PM	absolutely not. The 3.5 ranger (http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/v35/ClassesII.rtf) is a colossal improvement over the 3.0 ranger. But I'll let you judge that for yourself.
mwbeeler 12-18-03, 09:44 PM	Basically they took away medium armor usage and some hit point potential, and exchanged it with some free feats.
ksu_bond 12-19-03, 01:32 AM	They took steps to make the ranger a more playable and flexible class. They added a few spells, while removing some. They did take away some hit dice, but the ranger was never really meant to be a front line tank, but with a 1d8 and the ability to heal themselves with spells they can still function as a front end fighter. With 3.5 two skills were eliminated from the game entirely, ones that were on the ranger skill list. In return the 3.5 ranger gets a few more skill points and they added one or two skills. In addition you know get an animal companion for free as well as several feets: camoflage, hide in plain sight, and a few other. So in my opinion the 3.5 ranger is much better than 3.0 and definitely worth playing if you're interested in playing a ranger...if you're just wanting to get two weapon fighting or be the next robinhood, then fighter is still the better base class.
Ranger REG 12-19-03, 01:46 AM	Originally posted by TheDarkestOfAngels absolutely not. The 3.5 ranger (http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/v35/ClassesII.rtf) is a colossal improvement over the 3.0 ranger. But I'll let you judge that for yourself. It's ... an improvement. But I wouldn't label it as "colossal," IMHO. At least they're heading toward the right direction.
WizO_BigSister 12-19-03, 03:52 PM	As this is a topic about Rangers in general and is not Realms specific I am moving this to the D&D Classes forum.
TheDarkestOfAngels 12-19-03, 04:01 PM	Originally posted by Ranger REG It's ... an improvement. But I wouldn't label it as "colossal," IMHO. At least they're heading toward the right direction. well... considering that the 3.0 ranger was built like a warrior with d10 HD, better skills, better skill points, and favored enemies, and little else, I'd say, maybe "a gargantuan" improvement would fit quite nicely, if not "colossal." Certainly the 3.0 ranger might make a somewhat overpowered NPC class, but a PC class? maybe for one or two levels to grab the free virtual feats, but not much else. I actually have a reason now to be a 20th level ranger, and that makes me happy. :) Now if they could just do the same for the sorcerer...
SCMrks 12-19-03, 11:04 PM	3.5 has changed the ranger from a woodland warrior to a woodland rogue. I was almost willing to give this a try in my campaigns until complete warrior came out. The Swashbuckler, who is supposed to be an urban fighter/rogue, and the Hexer, who is a fighter/sorcerer, both get d10 for hit dice. How are these concepts deemed tougher than the ranger? Anyway, we've made modifications for our campaign.
Araciel 12-20-03, 01:13 AM	yes, mod your classes to suit your needs...it's up to players and DMs to make the classes what they think they should be....i think the new ranger is what it should have been...it's not a woodland rogue, look at its attack bonus! and aside from that, it gets feats which make it more than a little balanced with the other core classes.
deganawida 12-21-03, 11:22 AM	Originally posted by SCMrks 3.5 has changed the ranger from a woodland warrior to a woodland rogue. I was almost willing to give this a try in my campaigns until complete warrior came out. The Swashbuckler, who is supposed to be an urban fighter/rogue, and the Hexer, who is a fighter/sorcerer, both get d10 for hit dice. How are these concepts deemed tougher than the ranger? Anyway, we've made modifications for our campaign. Yeah, I find that problematic as well. I think that it works better when all full BAB classes have d10 for hit dice. Want the ranger to use smarter tactics than charge for every attack? Fine, let him keep the d10, but recognize that he still only gets light armor proficiency and his combat style (Drizzt or Errol Flynn; no Aragorn style, though) only functions in light armor. This means that he won't take the frontlines and whale on his enemies if he has other options. Many of the 3.5 changes, though, I felt were good changes, such as the improvement of the favored enemies and the stealth abilities. As Ranger REG said, it's a step in the right direction (which, IMO, is towards the 1E ranger).
Shadowfax7 12-21-03, 12:03 PM	Deganawida . . . a step in the right direction (towards 1st ed.) includes the d8 HD. :D
Ithilorien 12-21-03, 12:15 PM	I have neither the Miniatures Handbook nor Complete Warrior, but don't Hexblade and Swashbuckler come from the Minis book? If they do, from what I've heard it answers your question - those two classes are tougher than a ranger because the Minis Handbook somehow stopped caring about balance.
deganawida 12-21-03, 02:30 PM	Originally posted by Shadowfax7 Deganawida . . . a step in the right direction (towards 1st ed.) includes the d8 HD. :D [grins wryly] Yeah, I caught that when I wrote it. Probably should have clarified what I meant. The d8 isn't really a sticking point for me; I'd prefer that all warrior-types have d10 for game mechanics reasons, but I can live with a d8 (though the 1E ranger got 11d8 hp vs. 9d10 of other warrior classes, which is only a 2hp difference maxed-out). My main point, though, is with the conception of the ranger. The 2E and 3E rangers deviated substantially from the main archetype of ranger (using Aragorn/Strider as primary reference) and practically forced all rangers into quasi-Drizzt clones. 3.5 is a step away from this inflexibility and a half-step towards 1E, allowing for another conception of the ranger (the Errol Flynn-Robin Hood type) to coexist with the Drizzt ranger. Hopefully, in 4E (or, even sooner, in Unearthed Arcana) we will see a ranger which allows a player to choose one of the three popular archetypes of the ranger (Strider, Drizzt, Merry Man). Note: Though I do not agree that the last two characters should be considered archetypal rangers, the fact that Drizzt and Robin Hood are popular and associated strongly with the ranger (correctly or not) necessitates that they be given consideration when speaking of rangers. I still believe, though, that Strider and the Justicar make better archetypes for the ranger.
Kaboth 12-21-03, 03:11 PM	People also seem to forget Rangers get 6+ Int bonus ever level for skills. I mean if your in a hack N slash campaign this might be useless but the skill points are kool and grant rangers usefullness in a party. There some awesome spells that rnagers can use as well. One of which is called dawn, which allows the entire party to wake up with zero concentration checks or anything which is nice if you have a night time encounter. The other feats that a ranger gets are very nice as well. I will say that the melee feats that rangers get could use some tweeking... Id rather see them get some weapon focus and specializations rather than all the 2 weapon fighting ones maybe...however I am not really sure on this... I am playing an archer build ranger right now and I do really well damage.
detectevil 12-21-03, 04:00 PM	I think the new ranger has gone overboard. 3 bonus feats, a new good save (wich is something very important), 6 skill points per level, and lots and lots of special abilities. I think the ranger has gone from completely lame to ubber-powerful. Another class that might easily outfight the fighter.
Scarlet Knight 12-21-03, 04:05 PM	Originally posted by deganawida ranger got 11d8 hp vs. 9d10 of other warrior classes Why do people keep saying this? In First Edition, a ranger with 11d8 hit points would be tenth level, while a fighter with 9d10 hit points would only be nineth level. Why would you compare a tenth level character with a nineth level character? Compare characters of equal level instead. Nineth Level AD&D Fighter: 9d10 hit points (49.5 average) Nineth Level AD&D Ranger: 10d8 hit points (45.0 average) Tenth Level AD&D Fighter: 9d10+3 hit points (52.5 average) Tenth Level AD&D Ranger: 11d8 hit points (49.5 average) Fighters tended to have better hit points than rangers at higher levels.
Shadowfax7 12-21-03, 04:27 PM	Deganawida . . I also think the 3.5 ranger is better than 3.0 and heading in the right direction, but not yet there. Overpowered in certain ways, underpowered in others. However, lets not wish for 4.o too soon. :D Scarlet Knight . . . you are correct, I think it was just an unconscious error on the part of the poster. The 1st ed. Ranger got 2d8 HD at 1st level.
Kaboth 12-21-03, 04:28 PM	double post
Kaboth 12-21-03, 04:43 PM	Originally posted by detectevil I think the new ranger has gone overboard. 3 bonus feats, a new good save (wich is something very important), 6 skill points per level, and lots and lots of special abilities. I think the ranger has gone from completely lame to ubber-powerful. Another class that might easily outfight the fighter. This is not true... right now there is a fighter in my campaign thats going archer. I am playing a ranger thats going archer. The fighter out fights me and has more HP than me. However I have plenty of nice skills to back my ranger up and my archery is comparable in hitting and damage but the fighter will do a lot more than I can eventually. The reason being is the fighter only really has to focus Str Dex and Con... My Ranger on the other hand has to focus on Str, Dex, Con, Wis, and Cha
Kaboth 12-21-03, 05:29 PM	I also thought of another thing.... IF you want your fighter to have skills that are decent you could use some of your feats for things like Skill Focus or Feats that grant you bonuses to Skills. Or hell give your Fighter a High Intelligence and lower his physical skills...
Sheer_FALACY 12-21-03, 09:25 PM	Originally posted by Kaboth This is not true... right now there is a fighter in my campaign thats going archer. I am playing a ranger thats going archer. The fighter out fights me and has more HP than me. However I have plenty of nice skills to back my ranger up and my archery is comparable in hitting and damage but the fighter will do a lot more than I can eventually. The reason being is the fighter only really has to focus Str Dex and Con... My Ranger on the other hand has to focus on Str, Dex, Con, Wis, and Cha Cha? A ranger is the party spokesperson? Hey, if the fighter was the party talker, they would need Str, Dex, Con, Int, and Cha. Also, Wis isn't that important for a Ranger.
ShadowRanger 12-21-03, 09:31 PM	Rangers only use Cha for animal empathy (which is not affected by your diplomacy skill), and Wis is not that big of an emphasis since it nets you a few more low level spells and a slightly better DC score. My rangers tend to focus more on Dex, Con, and Str, while getting my Wis somewhere from 14 to 16, Cha low at 12 or so. Rangers are more skill characters in 3.5 though the free tracking feet has been very valuable since in the campaigns I play a lot of monsters leave there treasure in their lair which you need tracking to find, as well as pick up the trail of enemies. Rangers have more emphasis on skills and movement (ranging), less on tanking. Actually in my group ranger has oft been derided right until we needed tracking, or when everyone realized I get two attacks while they still have one.
Kaboth 12-21-03, 09:40 PM	Originally posted by Sheer_FALACY Cha? A ranger is the party spokesperson? Hey, if the fighter was the party talker, they would need Str, Dex, Con, Int, and Cha. Also, Wis isn't that important for a Ranger. Wild Empathy is based off Cha bonus... its 10 + Ranger Level + Cha Bonus.... And yes when it comes to avoiding fights with animals my Ranger IS the party Spokesperson... You think this is useless but I have already saved the party from some really nasty encounters when the party was wounded and low on spells. Wisdom not important for a ranger? I beg to differ.. 1st -you need a 14 just to cast 4th level ranger spells 2nd - Your tracking Skill is based of Wisdom (aka Survival), Heal and Listen are also wisdom based skills. 3rd- High wisdom grants you bonus spells, and maybe ranger spells are the flashiest, or most offensive. there are plenty of nice spells to help a ranger and their party in an adventure. As for the fighter comment... Yes he can be the party spokesperson if they player wants to sacrifice some of his other attributes to give himself a High Int and gain bonus skills and a Cha to do that... I might actually try that route some day in another campaign... BTW thats my suggestion to people that think fighters are way over shadowed by the other melee counterparts..
Kaya Kenobi 12-22-03, 03:44 AM	I think the only thing that still needs improving is that a ranger should be able to cast their spells spontaniously.
Dalaeck 12-22-03, 10:56 AM	Hmm... the old wizard tried to stymie discussion on this topic not long ago and there was little interest... maybe now? I contend that the 3rd edition ranger is a much greater force to reckon with than the 3.5 ranger ever will be. My reasons are simple and as follows: 1- The overall character needs to be looked at, not just the class changes. Warriors depend heavily on magic items and 3.5 magic items for warriors are not as usefull as 3rd Edition. Compare a 3rd Edition ranger with boots of speed to a 3.5 edition ranger. In 3rd Edition you could move and make your full attack when hasted. The whole point to a high level ranger is his 2-weapon full attack routine. You get your full attack off much much less often in 3.5. Improved critical no longer stacks with keen. Arrow enhancement no longer stacks with bow enhancement. DR 3.5 nerfs your ass - you now not only need 2 expensive weapons to use your full attack effectively, you need a golfbag! You can't even use power-attack to any effect against DR because the system is more-or-less built around a 2-handed weapon fighter using his uber power-attack to beat DR. Power attack is crap for you. Already taking a -2 to attack from using 2 weapons and you have nothing on your off-hand. The whole feat tree loses significance. Improved trip in 3.5 is "the way to go" and it doesn't couple at all well with 2 weapon fighting (compared to say the average 3.5 fighter: a spiked chain enlarged 2-handed powerattack guy). Plenty of minor things like resistances, in 3.0 you hit a creature with fire resistance 10 with a flaming weapon and you would actually do some flaming damage after about 3 hits. Niet in 3.5. Overall, you suck. 2- Skill points: There was a time when the ranger was the primary eyes and ears of the party - his spot and listen skills were unmatched, even compared to rogues. Now that role has switched to the designer's pet: the druid. With a vested interest in wisdom how in hell is the ranger supposed to even compete? These skills used to be "special" in that so few classes got them and they are used the most frequently. Why send a ranger forward as a scout anymore rather than a druid? They have the same hit-dice, the druid can wear el-cheapo dragonhide full plate armor (3000 GP) and is overall more competent than the ranger! Sure they can't move silently or hide without 3.5 el-cheapo magic enhancements on their armor, but once they get these.... +2 skill points per level vs. 3rd Edition isn't worth crap once your skills have been basically subsumed by a superior class in almost all respects. 3-Spells: People keep insisting that their spells got better. I still can't see this and am more than interested in someone explaining how in hell they could hold such a view. From my perspective you traded "commune with nature" for "polymorph self", a very bad trade. You got "resist elements" bumped from level 1 to level 2, a huge kick in the groin. Wind wall dropped in level which is good. Level 1: You acquired the amazingly weak "longstrider" and "jump" and "detect poison". You now have "charm animal" rather than animal friendship which is 1 day/level vs. permananent. Level 2: You acquire barkskin at level 8-10 at which point you have amulets of natural armor +2 or more? Your buff spells are useless? Hold animal is pathetic because hold spells got the nerf stick and your save is weak - after 1-2 rounds you're free. Spike growth is decent - probably the only good spell in the list. Wind wall is much lower level. I guess this couples well with the ranger-archer path? You know - deflecting your own arrows? A decent spell though. Detecting evil is gone, guess you better not try any infiltration anymore... Level 3: Darkvision at 11-12th level? Come on. Repel vermin? Coupled with your weak caster level you'll likely repel a wasp or two. Not a CR 11 or even multiple lower CR vermin. Level 4: Animal growth is nerftasticly useless now. Someone shed light on this... It looks like a whole lot of "meh". Neat-O thingies: Getting your damage bonus as +2/5 levels and having it effect a larger range of monsters is "kewl" but really you're hurting in the damage department any which way you look at it judging from 1-. Evasion is not the greatest ability. Rings grant you evasion among other things - improved evasion is where the real power is at. The additional reflex save couples nicely with it however and overall the only real improvement is the ranger's saves in my mind. "Hide in plain sight" is akin to saying: you must take hide as a ranger skill! The level at which you receive this is ridiculously high and likely won't help you because by that time many things have blindsight and/or 30+ to spot checks anyways. At this level you're really starting to feel the pain of your lowered hit dice, inability to move and make a full attack, crappy AC - keen/weapon critical non-stacking, DR walls, and the whole rest of the bad deal. Neat-O but nothing really more, a 3rd Edition ranger will eat you for lunch.
SCMrks 12-22-03, 01:34 PM	Has anyone, even people with a druid character, ever used woodland stride? In 20 years of playing I've never had an adventure where nonmagical thorns and underbrush became a major obstacle. And in our 3.0 campaigns the endurance feat was never picked because there aren't many times when it could be useful, has anyone had it make a difference for the 3.5 ranger? The animal companions are too much of a hassel. They eat alot of a party's rations and don't go into all the terrain or settings an adventuring party goes into. And the ranger's companion dies to easy. The new abilities just seem to be flavor and not really help in an adventure.
(Psi)SeveredHead 12-22-03, 03:40 PM	Originally posted by Dalaeck Compare a 3rd Edition ranger with boots of speed to a 3.5 edition ranger. In 3rd Edition you could move and make your full attack when hasted. The whole point to a high level ranger is his 2-weapon full attack routine. You get your full attack off much much less often in 3.5. Or you could get Rapid Shot quite often, and Manyshot a hell of a lot more often. I also beg to differ about full attacks. Aragorn used Anduril, not Anduril and Nirvana at the same time. The Drizzt-clone syndrome is over. Woohoo! Arrow enhancement no longer stacks with bow enhancement. DR 3.5 nerfs your ass - you now not only need 2 expensive weapons to use your full attack effectively, you need a golfbag! Interesting how you say this. I'm playing a 28 point buy ranger who just reached 3rd level. I kick more @ss than the fighter. Period. The only thing keeping me in check is DR ... after all, the DM does have to challenge the party, right? When I get back to civilization, I'm going to buy cold iron arrows, silvered arrows, adamantine arrows ... the works. They're really cheap. If I wanted to use TWF I could also get two weapons of different types. Overall, you suck. Drizzt sucks in 3.0 and 3.5. Can you guess why? TWF sucks, that's why! +2 skill points per level vs. 3rd Edition isn't worth crap once your skills have been basically subsumed by a superior class in almost all respects. Heh heh. You may have a point there. 3-Spells: People keep insisting that their spells got better. I still can't see this and am more than interested in someone explaining how in hell they could hold such a view. From my perspective you traded "commune with nature" for "polymorph self", a very bad trade. Have you read LotR? When Aragorn puts his ear to the ground to find the orcs who kidnapped Pippin and Merry, that sounded a lot like commune with nature to me. Did Aragorn ever change his form? How about Drizzt? Robin Hood? I don't think so. Rangers use subtle spells, with the exception of the lame entangle (it's lame on the ranger's list, not lame in effect). You got "resist elements" bumped from level 1 to level 2, a huge kick in the groin. Wind wall dropped in level which is good. The new resist elements is better, too. I'm failing to see how longstrider is weak ... +10 speed kicks serious butt, plus it's flavorful. Where do you think Aragorn got his "Strider" nickname from? Level 2: You acquire barkskin at level 8-10 at which point you have amulets of natural armor +2 or more? Your buff spells are useless? *Ahem* I'll use that slot to boost my Con, if you don't mind. Level 4: Animal growth is nerftasticly useless now. Says you :) You haven't seen it in action. In the campaign I'm DMing, I've seen it in action, without animal growth PLUS wildshape cheese, or indeed any other form of cheese. That dire lion wrestles elementals but good! Neat-O thingies: Getting your damage bonus as +2/5 levels and having it effect a larger range of monsters is "kewl" but really you're hurting in the damage department any which way you look at it judging from 1-. Evasion is not the greatest ability. Rings grant you evasion among other things - improved evasion is where the real power is at. The additional reflex save couples nicely with it however and overall the only real improvement is the ranger's saves in my mind. "Hide in plain sight" is akin to saying: you must take hide as a ranger skill! The level at which you receive this is ridiculously high and likely won't help you because by that time many things have blindsight and/or 30+ to spot checks anyways. At this level you're really starting to feel the pain of your lowered hit dice, inability to move and make a full attack, crappy AC - keen/weapon critical non-stacking, DR walls, and the whole rest of the bad deal. Neat-O but nothing really more, a 3rd Edition ranger will eat you for lunch. Favored enemy has always been "meh" - boosting it doesn't do much. I haven't used mine yet. Of course, I was stupid and picked "animals" instead of "vermin" in a desert.
Dalaeck 12-22-03, 05:38 PM	Originally posted by (Psi)SeveredHead Or you could get Rapid Shot quite often, and Manyshot a hell of a lot more often. And helplessly outclassed by a 3rd edition ranger who has his weapon and ammo bonuses to damage stacking. 3.5 nerfed ranged combat. It's pathetic now. I'm also amazed at the LOTR refrences, most of which are inspired by the movie and not the actual books. Aragorn used Anduril and Narsil. To top it off I do recall a particularly well shot scene in the recent films of Aragorn at Amon Hen dual weilding Anduril and a torch. I have this to say about Drizzt-clones: They exist, but so do skywalker clones, and conan clones and merlin clones and ... Interesting how you say this. I'm playing a 28 point buy ranger who just reached 3rd level. I kick more @ss than the fighter. Period. The only thing keeping me in check is DR ... after all, the DM does have to challenge the party, right? I'm curious, post your character and if possible your companion fighter. I doubt that statement very much. When I get back to civilization, I'm going to buy cold iron arrows, silvered arrows, adamantine arrows ... the works. They're really cheap. There are no rules for buying single arrows, there are only rules for buying 50 a shot - they're really expensive. If I wanted to use TWF I could also get two weapons of different types. But you see my point is even in doing that you are "screwed". If you have the versatility then clearly you're not getting the most out of your style. Indeed the single fighting guy is always better off than you are. He switches weapons for all his attacks. You can't. Two weapon fighting in 3rd Edition is great in my opinion, just as usefull as the other styles. Have you read LotR? When Aragorn puts his ear to the ground to find the orcs who kidnapped Pippin and Merry, that sounded a lot like commune with nature to me. :uh-huh: Sounds like a listen check to me?!?! Did Aragorn ever change his form? How about Drizzt? Robin Hood? I don't think so. Rangers use subtle spells, with the exception of the lame entangle (it's lame on the ranger's list, not lame in effect). You're also going to have to nix the following: Wind wall, Summon nature's ally I through IV, Command Plants, Animal growth, etc... No. I don't think polymorph self is any less subtle than the rest. Turning yourself into a mouse and creeping into an orc lair is subtle enough for me. The new resist elements is better, too. I'm failing to see how longstrider is weak ... +10 speed kicks serious butt, plus it's flavorful. Where do you think Aragorn got his "Strider" nickname from? +10 speed bonus is worth something early in the game and is absolute crap compared to boots of speed in 3rd Edition. I don't think Strider got his nickname from a pathetic 3.5 spell. You call it flavorfull and I'll call it weak to the point of near inutility. *Ahem* I'll use that slot to boost my Con, if you don't mind. If you use that slot for Con you're going to get hit far too often. And you may or may not have a sheild (likely not). Light armor is a severe penalty unless you start play with a pile of mithril chain shirts. You basically have rings and amulets for AC and killing the amulet puts you in serious jeopardy. I don't want to even argue this point anymore - the spell is a pathetic buff for your caster level compared to your character level. Says you :) You haven't seen it in action. In the campaign I'm DMing, I've seen it in action, without animal growth PLUS wildshape cheese, or indeed any other form of cheese. I don't know Psi... Pretty damn weak spell if you ask me compared to 3rd Edition animal growth. That dire lion wrestles elementals but good! The level at which you acquire "animal growth" is 15th. An elder elemental is CR 11. I don't think it's worth holding your breath for. I'de much prefer the 3rd Edition version which would make my dire lion actually usefull at this level.
(Psi)SeveredHead 12-22-03, 08:17 PM	Originally posted by Dalaeck And helplessly outclassed by a 3rd edition ranger who has his weapon and ammo bonuses to damage stacking. 3.5 nerfed ranged combat. It's pathetic now. IME it's not pathetic. It's not a strong as it used to be, then again there had to be a reason for non-archers to exist, too. I'm also amazed at the LOTR refrences, most of which are inspired by the movie and not the actual books. Aragorn used Anduril and Narsil. To top it off I do recall a particularly well shot scene in the recent films of Aragorn at Amon Hen dual weilding Anduril and a torch. I have this to say about Drizzt-clones: They exist, but so do skywalker clones, and conan clones and merlin clones and ... You got them both wrong. Narsil and Anduril are the same thing. Narsil was its name before it was broken. There's no way Aragorn could dual wield them, short of time travel. He never fought with a sword and a torch. He did fight with two torches, though. Faramir didn't, though, and he was an Ithilien ranger. I'm curious, post your character and if possible your companion fighter. I doubt that statement very much. Sure, let me get my hand on him... :) From memory, I'm human Rgr 3, Str 12, Dex 15, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 12, Cha 10. (If I cared about spellcasting I would have reduced my Cha to boost my Wis.) Feats: Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, Precise Shot, Weapon Finesse. Longbow (not masterwork or even composite) and a bunch of arrows, some of which are +1. Masterwork buckler, chain shirt, two shortspears, and a short sword. The shortspears are great if I need to CdG something, or if I need an emergency thrown weapon, or if I need to ready an action against a charge ... great for killing boars for food. I haven't used my favored enemy bonus yet, not that I need it! Right now my power comes from Rapid Shot. I'm sure the fighter will overtake me at 6th-level, if I weren't getting the amazing Manyshot. Using Manyshot with just two arrows is basically better than Rapid Shot in every way. I'm getting two attacks, and I can still retain my mobility. Sweet! Unlike the fighter I have yet to lose consciousness. (Every other character except the newly-joined wizard has fallen unconscious at least once.) I heal more hit points than I lose (net total) because I maxed out the Heal skill ... now if only I could find kingsfoil in the desert. ^^ Of course, Heal doesn't give you that many hp, so guess how many hp I lose in battle? Not that many. There are no rules for buying single arrows, there are only rules for buying 50 a shot - they're really expensive. They last a long time, too. Unlike the fighter, I'm not sinking everything into a single weapon that might not always work. But you see my point is even in doing that you are "screwed". If you have the versatility then clearly you're not getting the most out of your style. Indeed the single fighting guy is always better off than you are. He switches weapons for all his attacks. You can't. Huh? He will specialize next level in the bastard sword. He only has one. At higher levels he'll sink his cash into something like a cold iron +2 flaming bastard sword. That'll hose him when he fights a devil, golem or what not. On the other hand, I can use whatever sort of cheap arrow I want (including the precious "few" arrows made of special materials) and they all will work with my +1 frost longbow. I'll be nerfed more than the fighter facing earth elementals, but that's about it. DR x/- is pretty rare. (I won't be nerfed by barbarians, because unlike the plate-wearing fighter, I won't be in the barbarian's face. Even if the barbarian tries to ambush us, I've got a really good Spot and Listen score.) Two weapon fighting in 3rd Edition is great in my opinion, just as usefull as the other styles. It's useful ... just not very useful for a ranger, unless he's facing favored enemy or you have specific equipment like a 3.5 wounding weapon. You don't control when you get to use favored enemy, whereas a rogue will probably be able to use sneak attack half the time, and can do something to ensure they get sneak attack (eg flanking). :uh-huh: Sounds like a listen check to me?!?! Yeah, it was Aragorn's Listen check, since rangers did not cast spells in LotR. The closest thing he did was use kingsfoil, something that the ranger Faramir could not do, because he was the king, not because he was a ranger. However, the spell commune with nature does something quite similar to what Aragorn did, and its also quite subtle. Meanwhile, polymorph is just cheese that should be kept away from +1 BAB classes. You're also going to have to nix the following: Wind wall, Summon nature's ally I through IV, Command Plants, Animal growth, etc... Yup, yup through yup, no, and yup. I'm not seeing command plants as being unsubtle, as long as I'm not trying to cast it in combat. No. I don't think polymorph self is any less subtle than the rest. Turning yourself into a mouse and creeping into an orc lair is subtle enough for me. True. So is using Camouflage, which you get 3 levels earlier and requires no magic of any kind. :) +10 speed bonus is worth something early in the game and is absolute crap compared to boots of speed in 3rd Edition. I don't think Strider got his nickname from a pathetic 3.5 spell. You call it flavorfull and I'll call it weak to the point of near inutility. We could both be right :) I'm not sure how +10 speed is useless. It works amazingly well with Manyshot. Try it and find out first. Obviously my 3rd-level ranger hasn't used that tactic... however, I've used that tactic in the campaign that I DM, which is much higher level. As for the boots of speed, that was a cheesy item. Also hard to use ... the new boost of speed can be used as a free action, which makes a huge difference. It also boosts my speed by up to +30 ft., which is great with Manyshot, too. (Seeing a trend here?) It's also great when tracking enemies ... not only do I not suffer speed penalties for being a ranger, but I'm also outrunning them. They'll probably fail their Con checks before I do, since I have the Endurance feat. Nearly useless, but also flavorful. If you use that slot for Con you're going to get hit far too often. And you may or may not have a sheild (likely not). Light armor is a severe penalty unless you start play with a pile of mithril chain shirts. You basically have rings and amulets for AC and killing the amulet puts you in serious jeopardy. I don't want to even argue this point anymore - the spell is a pathetic buff for your caster level compared to your character level. I guess you haven't seen the AC-maximization methods of a lightly-armored character. You actually get higher AC scores than if you're wearing heavy armor. Check the character optimization boards, but be sure to only follow posts that stick to core rules. It also helps with my hit points. My AC means nothing if I'm getting blasted by horrid wilting, after all. AS for the barkskin spell, it works great if youre not wearing an amulet of natural armor - that way you get an AC score that's very nearly as high as if you were wearing the amulet of natural armor. Why should I spend thousands of gold pieces on the item when I can just whisper to Mielikki and get the same bonus, while enjoying a long-term Con bonus at the same time? Finally, I've got a masterwork buckler, for those times I get caught in melee, rare as they are. I don't know Psi... Pretty damn weak spell if you ask me compared to 3rd Edition animal growth. Just about any spell was. Do you own the MM II? Take a look at the legendary tiger. Do the stats yourself ... I did them at one point. The thing was ridiculous. It had sky high saving throws, attack bonuses, damage bonuses, AC... about the only disadvantage non-legendary animals face is a low AC score. The level at which you acquire "animal growth" is 15th. An elder elemental is CR 11. I don't think it's worth holding your breath for. I'de much prefer the 3rd Edition version which would make my dire lion actually usefull at this level. I was talking about a druid in that case ... my ranger hasn't reached 15th to 16th level yet. As a ranger I have no intention of using my animal companion for any combat-related purpose, whether I want to use animal growth or not. Not that the 3.0 ranger's companion didn't suck either. At least now I can get a companion early on and keep him.
Kaboth 12-22-03, 09:31 PM	About the Ranger 3.5 Companion... 1. You can train them 2. You can always get a different one for different climates. 3. They can help you do various things. Currently I have a level 7 Ranger with a hawk. Guess who the spotter is? Yup my hawk... Just because they are not UBER combat pet doesnt mean they cant be useful. Why does everyone that complain about a class (More than likely their class) only look at the hack N slash value of the class?
Tom Jackson 12-22-03, 09:41 PM	The 3.0 Ranger was a poorly designed warrior class that bore some resemblence to it's poorly designed 2nd edition predecessor. The 3.5 'Ranger' is a fairly capable class of mediocre (1 step better than poor) design that happens to no longer be a Ranger, but rather a wilderness oriented rogue. Keep in mind that "more powerful" is not the same as "correctly designed and balanced" There you have it.
Dalaeck 12-23-03, 12:50 AM	Originally posted by (Psi)SeveredHead IME it's not pathetic. It's not a strong as it used to be, then again there had to be a reason for non-archers to exist, too. Well we dissagree here Psi. I think a melee character gets the benefits doubly from the increase in strength, he gets attack bonus and damage. An archer gets merely attack bonus and so can't compete on the damage scale. The dice for melee are always better as well (unless you enjoy d6 and d8 weapons...). You are correct on the renaming of the sword, I am not an expert on Tolkien, but he does not weild Anduril in the days before the reforging. He weilds another sword, which isn't broken. I don't think Faramir fought at all in the books. It's been many years. From memory, I'm human Rgr 3, Str 12, Dex 15, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 12, Cha 10. (If I cared about spellcasting I would have reduced my Cha to boost my Wis.) Feats: Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, Precise Shot, Weapon Finesse. Longbow (not masterwork or even composite) and a bunch of arrows, some of which are +1. Masterwork buckler, chain shirt, two shortspears, and a short sword. The shortspears are great if I need to CdG something, or if I need an emergency thrown weapon, or if I need to ready an action against a charge ... great for killing boars for food. I think point buy systems are inherently unfair incidentally. I don't know how your friend the fighter isn't kicking your arse in all domains (not even trying to tailor him for archery). His stats could presumably be: Str 16, Dex 14, Con 16, Int 10, Wiz 8, Cha 8. Feats: Point blank, rapid shot, precise shot, exotic weapon b.sword, weapon focus (b.sword). Armor: Full plate, tower shield. Weapons: Masterwork c.longbow of might +3 and masterwork b.sword Attacks: +6 b.sword 1d10+3 or rapid shot +4/+4 1d8+3 (+1 attack /+1 damage when within 30 ft.) Your AC: 17 (4 armor +3 dex, you lose your buckler AC as soon as you attack). His AC: 23 ( 8 armor + 1 dex + 4 tower shield). His hp should be significantly higher than yours. Assuming you both rolled average hp, you have 8 + 4.5x2 + 6 (con) = 23. He should have 10 + 5.5x2 + 9 (con) = 30, or 25% more hp. Using Manyshot with just two arrows is basically better than Rapid Shot in every way. I'm getting two attacks, and I can still retain my mobility. Sweet! Many shot is garbage if you ask me. If you need that kind of mobility you're setting yourself up to get repeatedly charged and anything with reach will clober you by moving in close. I would prefer to run (like 3-4x movement) and rapid shot than to manyshot even once. Think about it, you're doing 1 attack at -4 for not-even-double-damage versus two attacks at -2 + one at -7. Your favored enemy bonus requires precision, and so you lose it on all but the first attack. Manyshot is the pits. Unlike the fighter I have yet to lose consciousness. I predict this trend will come to an abrupt halt sometime around lv.6 or so. Of course, Heal doesn't give you that many hp, so guess how many hp I lose in battle? Not that many. I do beleive that things should shoot back at you? Do they? I'm sorry Psi, is your friend consciously making the decision for the +1 flaming sword over frost? In what from my vantage is a desert world? Your cheap arrows will not help you overcome DR. If your DM allows you to buy them individually, then so be it. True. So is using Camouflage, which you get 3 levels earlier and requires no magic of any kind. :) Not at all in my view. I think a tiny (size modifier to hide) mouse is very very different than a half-speed hiding and moving silently ranger. Not to mention you could do it in a city or on another plane. It's basically a nerf. As for the boots of speed, that was a cheesy item. Also hard to use ... the new boost of speed can be used as a free action, which makes a huge difference. It also boosts my speed by up to +30 ft., which is great with Manyshot, too. (Seeing a trend here?) I don't think is was cheesy. Let's face it, +10 speed enhances the heavy armor guys and weakens the light armor guys. Compare going from 20 to 30 for a 3.5 full plate fighter and from 30 to 40 for a ranger. In 3rd Edition it was 20 to 40 and 30 to 60. A flat addition weakens the ranger, the ratio is in favor of the guy with the most to gain from it. Boots of speed are exactly like 3rd Edition haste. They take an action to start, there's nothing "wrong" with that, you're buffing yourself. My players used them all the time. I guess you haven't seen the AC-maximization methods of a lightly-armored character. You actually get higher AC scores than if you're wearing heavy armor. Check the character optimization boards, but be sure to only follow posts that stick to core rules. Even on the char op board everyone recognises that dwarven plate is the be all and end all for AC. If you think having a 20+ dex with mithral shirts is worth it then by all means, but the real advantage is to stick with a small number for dex and then pump your other stats. It also helps with my hit points. My AC means nothing if I'm getting blasted by horrid wilting, after all. Which is curiously a fort save and fighters are better at it than you are? :P Why should I spend thousands of gold pieces on the item when I can just whisper to Mielikki and get the same bonus, while enjoying a long-term Con bonus at the same time? Because whispering to Mielikki takes time and is not as good as an amulet +5? 3.5 also has it such that you can make anything a + to Con item. Just about any spell was. Do you own the MM II? Take a look at the legendary tiger. Do the stats yourself ... I did them at one point. The thing was ridiculous. It had sky high saving throws, attack bonuses, damage bonuses, AC... about the only disadvantage non-legendary animals face is a low AC score. Yep, and I beleive the story behind these monsters was that some idiot wanted the druid's animal companion to "be usefull at high levels". Something about "nature creating them specifically for a druid when he/she calls for an animal companion at a certain level"? I can speculate on which idiot that is but I'm not going to to be PC. I don't know what you mean about keeping your animal companion. A level 10 druid animal companion in a level 20 game does not an animal companion make. It is, again, your class being subsumed by a class which is for all intents and purposes better on every level.
Mythgaard 12-23-03, 06:41 AM	Handy Houserule: Ammunition, by piece Divide cost of bundle/sheaf/whatever by 50(or whatever the total is...I use 32 for a Sheaf of Arrows, not 50--pure personal preference). Add 5-10% (lose the bulk discount there) to the result. Voila, price per unit cost. The Ranger -one of my favorite classes from way back- isnt too bad as it is now, but needs individuality without sacrificing playability-- Houserules to the rescue! ;)
(Psi)SeveredHead 12-23-03, 05:23 PM	Originally posted by Dalaeck Well we dissagree here Psi. I think a melee character gets the benefits doubly from the increase in strength, he gets attack bonus and damage. An archer gets merely attack bonus and so can't compete on the damage scale. The dice for melee are always better as well (unless you enjoy d6 and d8 weapons...). Sure I do less damage, but I get more attacks (Manyshot, Rapid Shot). The fighter can exceed that with with TWF ... but that means he needs a high Dex too (so his Strength isn't improving as much) and unless he can get his hands on a pair of wounding weapons it's not an optimal combat style. You are correct on the renaming of the sword, I am not an expert on Tolkien, but he does not weild Anduril in the days before the reforging. He weilds another sword, which isn't broken. He was using the same sword before it got reforged. He had the broken sword with him on Weathertop, but didn't use it since it was still in pieces. I don't think Faramir fought at all in the books. It's been many years. He definitely does. He ambushes the forces of Mordor outside the gate of Mordor, like a good ranger :) I think point buy systems are inherently unfair incidentally. I don't know how your friend the fighter isn't kicking your arse in all domains (not even trying to tailor him for archery). His stats could presumably be: Str 16, Dex 14, Con 16, Int 10, Wiz 8, Cha 8. With a Wisdom of 8 he's wizard-bait. That's not reasonable IMO. He needs a 12 - 4 more points. Those 4 oints have to come from somewhere, most likely Con. Feats: Point blank, rapid shot, precise shot, exotic weapon b.sword, weapon focus (b.sword). Armor: Full plate, tower shield. A tower shield is really going to hurt him, since it inflicts penalties on attack rolls. It's also hard to get mobile with one. Weapons: Masterwork c.longbow of might +3 and masterwork b.sword Attacks: +6 b.sword 1d10+3 or rapid shot +4/+4 1d8+3 (+1 attack /+1 damage when within 30 ft.) Your AC: 17 (4 armor +3 dex, you lose your buckler AC as soon as you attack). His AC: 23 ( 8 armor + 1 dex + 4 tower shield). His hp should be significantly higher than yours. Assuming you both rolled average hp, you have 8 + 4.5x2 + 6 (con) = 23. He should have 10 + 5.5x2 + 9 (con) = 30, or 25% more hp. He's going to have a hard time shooting someone because his opponents will just close in on him. He has a speed of 20 ft. I'm going to get a speed of 40 ft. (literally double his speed) in only one more level. Many shot is garbage if you ask me. If you need that kind of mobility you're setting yourself up to get repeatedly charged and anything with reach will clober you by moving in close. I would prefer to run (like 3-4x movement) and rapid shot than to manyshot even once. Think about it, you're doing 1 attack at -4 for not-even-double-damage versus two attacks at -2 + one at -7. Your favored enemy bonus requires precision, and so you lose it on all but the first attack. Manyshot is the pits. Favored enemy isn't precision damage anymore. It works on undead. You need the mobility befcause your opponent can double move or Run towards you, while you can't double move if you're shooting at the same time. Besides, I don't need to move far. I can move behind cover (can't be charged) or behind someone who has a better melee attack bonus and likes using their AoOs. I predict this trend will come to an abrupt halt sometime around lv.6 or so. We'll see, but I've seen it work quite well at 15th to 17th level. I doubt it's going to suck between those levels. I do beleive that things should shoot back at you? Do they? Yup. I find it easier to get under cover than a tank fighter though, and I can attack from cover 50 ft. away, something a TWF ranger or tank fighter isn't going to do very well. I'm sorry Psi, is your friend consciously making the decision for the +1 flaming sword over frost? In what from my vantage is a desert world? It's just an example. At 3rd-level none of us actually have these weapons. Your cheap arrows will not help you overcome DR. If your DM allows you to buy them individually, then so be it. I have to buy them in batches of 50, so I can buy 50 cold iron, 50 silver, and 50 adamantine. All of my arrows get the bonuses from a magical bow, when I get one. Even if the fighter has a +1 silver bastard sword and a +1 cold iron bastard sword to go with this +1 frost adamantine bastard sword he's only getting full bonuses with the adamantine weapon. If he's facing a demon or devil, he's hosed. Not at all in my view. I think a tiny (size modifier to hide) mouse is very very different than a half-speed hiding and moving silently ranger. Not to mention you could do it in a city or on another plane. It's basically a nerf. *Shrugs* It isn't like that was a good ranger spell in the first place. I haven't lost anything when the spell got ditched. I don't think is was cheesy. I do. It replaces a feat on top of a three feat chain and requires you to wear light armor! Let's face it, +10 speed enhances the heavy armor guys and weakens the light armor guys. Compare going from 20 to 30 for a 3.5 full plate fighter and from 30 to 40 for a ranger. In 3rd Edition it was 20 to 40 and 30 to 60. A flat addition weakens the ranger, the ratio is in favor of the guy with the most to gain from it. Each round I'm moving a cumulative 10 feet faster than my opponent. Cumulative. Boots of speed are exactly like 3rd Edition haste. They take an action to start, there's nothing "wrong" with that, you're buffing yourself. My players used them all the time. It was a problem with it's incremental duration. You basically had to use your entire haste duration in one stretch, or you were losing haste rounds. Even on the char op board everyone recognises that dwarven plate is the be all and end all for AC. If you think having a 20+ dex with mithral shirts is worth it then by all means, but the real advantage is to stick with a small number for dex and then pump your other stats. Yeah, like taking levels in monk. Not exactly RP-friendly for a ranger IMO. Which is curiously a fort save and fighters are better at it than you are? :P Heh heh. Actually, I'll have the same Fort save, since I'm boosting my Con just like a fighter would. Because whispering to Mielikki takes time and is not as good as an amulet +5? 3.5 also has it such that you can make anything a + to Con item. To make a Con-boosting item that doesn't take the amulet slot, it costs 50% extra. You also don't find those in treasure hoards, and are unlikely to pull it off a beaten foe's corpse. You have to custom-orde ... with the 50% added cost. d I beleive the story behind these monsters was that some idiot wanted the druid's animal companion to "be usefull at high levels". Something about "nature creating them specifically for a druid when he/she calls for an animal companion at a certain level"? I can speculate on which idiot that is but I'm not going to to be PC. Alas, this is the sort of thing that's very common on these message boards. WotC has to nerf the really powerful stuff because munchkins keep abusing it and DMs let them get away with it. know what you mean about keeping your animal companion. A level 10 druid animal companion in a level 20 game does not an animal companion make. It is, again, your class being subsumed by a class which is for all intents and purposes better on every level. As opposed to the 3.0 ranger, which was still outclassed by the druid in every way, shape and form? Maybe a 3.5 ranger can't compete with a 3.5 druid, but I don' care. If I wanted to play a powerful class I would play a wizard, cleric or druid instead. I'm satisfied with what I have now - a competiive class that actually works as advertised, instead of the lame 3.0 Drizzt-clone class that had no business calling itself a ranger.
d_nychus 12-23-03, 07:51 PM	Preach on the truth, oh Brother (Psi), even though I doubt it will be heard.
Dalaeck 12-31-03, 07:33 PM	Originally posted by (Psi)SeveredHead Sure I do less damage, but I get more attacks (Manyshot, Rapid Shot). The fighter can exceed that with with TWF ... but that means he needs a high Dex too (so his Strength isn't improving as much) and unless he can get his hands on a pair of wounding weapons it's not an optimal combat style. No Psi, you're not "better" at it. He doesn't need a high dex, he can have a moderately high one and you can't afford that because your prime req's are all over the place, in wis, int and the fighter scores of str, dex and con. This hasn't changed since 3rd Edition. With a Wisdom of 8 he's wizard-bait. That's not reasonable IMO. He needs a 12 - 4 more points. Those 4 oints have to come from somewhere, most likely Con. Wizard bait is not a wisdom of 8. That's a mere -1 remember? He can and will do that ability selection if he's got half a brain. What the hell scores does you friend have anyway? A tower shield is really going to hurt him, since it inflicts penalties on attack rolls. It's also hard to get mobile with one. Your AC is the pits. His AC is rocking. You can strap a sheild on your back, get it shrunk, etc... it's not that big a deal. He's going to have a hard time shooting someone because his opponents will just close in on him. He has a speed of 20 ft. I'm going to get a speed of 40 ft. (literally double his speed) in only one more level. No Psi, your "multishot" is not going to help you even against the tank fighter. Moving at 20 feet means he charges at 40 feet. You're going to get your ass repeatedly charged. This is a dingus feat. Your spell doesn't stack with boots either, it's a dingus spell. Favored enemy isn't precision damage anymore. It works on undead. My bad, I knew the former but I thought it was still classified as precision regardless. You need the mobility befcause your opponent can double move or Run towards you, while you can't double move if you're shooting at the same time. Besides, I don't need to move far. I can move behind cover (can't be charged) or behind someone who has a better melee attack bonus and likes using their AoOs. You need shot on the run then because multishot doesn't allow you to do that effectively. You're going to end up one round exposed and another round taking penalty from cover. We'll see, but I've seen it work quite well at 15th to 17th level. I doubt it's going to suck between those levels. Well that is indeed odd. What with 15th level full-attack outclassing this moronic feat in all respect... :confused: Yup. I find it easier to get under cover than a tank fighter though, and I can attack from cover 50 ft. away, something a TWF ranger or tank fighter isn't going to do very well. He can attack just as well if not better. He even has portable cover. I have to buy them in batches of 50, so I can buy 50 cold iron, 50 silver, and 50 adamantine. All of my arrows get the bonuses from a magical bow, when I get one. For sure, you're not better off than the power attack monster... And certainly not better off than the 3rd edition ranger who just hoses you. I do. It replaces a feat on top of a three feat chain and requires you to wear light armor! ? lost you there... I thought the item "boots of speed" was just an item...? Each round I'm moving a cumulative 10 feet faster than my opponent. Cumulative. You used to be moving 20 feet faster. Cumulative. Your point? He's gone from 20 to 30, 50% increase, you've gone from 30 to 40, 25% increase. It advantages the slow guy, he gets more out of it. The 3.5 ranger is crappy. It was a problem with it's incremental duration. You basically had to use your entire haste duration in one stretch, or you were losing haste rounds. I don't get this. :confused: I don't know why you'de ever bother with taking levels of monk. The amulet is a must have for any ranger, 3.5 or 3rd edition. Not taking one will sink you.
d_nychus 12-31-03, 09:41 PM	Originally posted by Dalaeck No Psi, you're not "better" at it. He doesn't need a high dex, he can have a moderately high one and you can't afford that because your prime req's are all over the place, in wis, int and the fighter scores of str, dex and con. This hasn't changed since 3rd Edition. No, a fighter needs a high Dex to qualify for the TWF feat chain. That will cost him in some other stat to boost up high enough for it. And since when does a ranger need a high Int? Seriously, you already got 6 skill points per level. NEEDING a high Int is a remnant of the really worthless 3.0 ranger class, not a requirement of the better thought out 3.5 ranger class. You need a decently high Wisdom, Dex, and perhaps Str, but your abilities are not as heavily tied to them as the fighter's Strength and Con are tied to his. A ranger with 13-15 in those stats is pretty fair, while a fighter should not have less than a 16 to be effective. Originally posted by Dalaeck Wizard bait is not a wisdom of 8. That's a mere -1 remember? He can and will do that ability selection if he's got half a brain. What the hell scores does you friend have anyway? He traded his Wis score so he can get the Dex to equal a ranger in TWF, remember? That's the example we were talking about, and probably the most likely scenario. Unless he loses Con like (Psi) suggested later on. In which case the fighter tends to be melee bait... And yes, a fighter with an 8 Wisdom is wizard bait, even more so in 3.0 with the insane DC's. Originally posted by Dalaeck Your AC is the pits. His AC is rocking. You can strap a sheild on your back, get it shrunk, etc... it's not that big a deal. A fighter's AC might be "rocking" but he loses mobility. Besides, a ranger can get an AC that is comperable to the fighter's without too much effort, maybe a point or two behind on average. Strap a shield on your back does nothing in game terms. Get it shrunk, and it's a large shield, not a tower shield. It IS going to hurt him with the penalties he incurs in using it. Originally posted by Dalaeck No Psi, your "multishot" is not going to help you even against the tank fighter. Moving at 20 feet means he charges at 40 feet. You're going to get your ass repeatedly charged. This is a dingus feat. Your spell doesn't stack with boots either, it's a dingus spell. Umm, let's try that again, with the right math this time, shall we? A ranger is going to move 30 while using Manyshot, base. The fighter is going to charge 40, usually. If the ranger is more than 15 feet away (very likely if he is using Manyshot), the ranger gets off his FULL ATTACK, while the fighter merely spent all of his round moving without attacking. If he's less than 15 foot away, I would suggest merely using Rapd shot, then switching to melee. It's not a dingus feat to someone who knows that mobility is superior in the D&D game. Originally posted by Dalaeck My bad, I knew the former but I thought it was still classified as precision regardless. Nope, you also get it for any attack at any range. It clearly is not precision. I really wish they would put out an official list for precision damage... Originally posted by Dalaeck You need shot on the run then because multishot doesn't allow you to do that effectively. You're going to end up one round exposed and another round taking penalty from cover. Ridiculous. Have you even READ Manyshot? In this case, Manyshot is SUPERIOR to Shot on the Run, because Shot on the Run allows for a shot while you are moving, the timing of which does not matter in the example given. Manyshot allows for your FULL ATTACK and then a move. To reinterate: Shot on the Run: 1 attack and move. Manyshot: Full attack and move. The only advantage Shot on the Run has is moving from cover to cover, in which case it is downright handy. Originally posted by Dalaeck Well that is indeed odd. What with 15th level full-attack outclassing this moronic feat in all respect... :confused: Err, I REALLY think you need to reread the feat. Manyshot allows you to TAKE your full-attack as a standard action at 15th level. Originally posted by Dalaeck He can attack just as well if not better. He even has portable cover. No, he has no ability to make ranged attacks, and the ranger can easily leave him in the dust. It becomes the fighter having to concentrate on defense only, with no ability for offense. Not unless he wants the ranger to return fire and PWN him. Originally posted by Dalaeck For sure, you're not better off than the power attack monster... And certainly not better off than the 3rd edition ranger who just hoses you. Well, since we've prove the 3.0 ranger to be the one who is hosed at all levels by every other class, I'm going to say otherwise. Originally posted by Dalaeck ? lost you there... I thought the item "boots of speed" was just an item...? An item that replaces Spring Attack. That's what he was stating. And it DOES. Originally posted by Dalaeck You used to be moving 20 feet faster. Cumulative. Your point? He's gone from 20 to 30, 50% increase, you've gone from 30 to 40, 25% increase. It advantages the slow guy, he gets more out of it. The 3.5 ranger is crappy. Umm, okay, you try catching up to the ranger with your fighter, and then you see who is weak. The cumulative part is the most important. Every round, he is 10' further away. And the 3.0 ranger is crappy. This might not be true in your games, but in everyone else's games the world over, it definately is. Originally posted by Dalaeck I don't get this. :confused: You lose a standard action to activate them, and haste starts the round you active it. Thus, when you activate it, you LOSE the very first round of it. So, unless you use every round of haste all in one burst, you lose a round of haste with every useage. Even though I hated 3.0 haste, even I thought this was stupid. Originally posted by Dalaeck I don't know why you'de ever bother with taking levels of monk. The amulet is a must have for any ranger, 3.5 or 3rd edition. Not taking one will sink you. Untrue in 3.5, because of barkskin. Who needs to waste thousands of gold when you can casta single spell that will last for a good portion of the day? Sure, an amulet of natrual armor is nice, but it is no longer REQUIRED in 3.5.
Mister Mayhem 01-01-04, 04:31 AM	The only reason for playing a Ranger instead of a Fighter was skills, but unless you bumped up your INT, you never had enough to really make the difference. At Guerilla combat, he excelled. At toe-to-toe. he couldn't really compete. What would have been the point in changing the ranger to make him more like a fighter? If you want a fighter, play a fighter. Better, surely, to emphasise the things the can do that a fighter cannot. Which, IMO, is exactly what 3.5 did.
Kaboth 01-01-04, 12:40 PM	Dalaeck.... FYI Barkskin lasts 10 min per level.... and at half caster level the best ya can really hope for is 100 minutes... I agree with your other points but barkskin is not all that...
Assassin 01-01-04, 01:40 PM	The real point is the difference between a fighter and a ranger in regard to his job in the adventure. For the main fighting job you take a fighter or a barbarian, he is the man for the job. The ranger is a secondary fighter, maybe even a really good one with the right feats and right equipment. But as a scout in the wilderness, a survivor who can feed the group with hunted prey and someone to find those enemies the fighter can kill he is really good. Thats the job of a ranger. And he is alot better in this job as a fighter is. No one came to the idea to compare a fighter with a ranger in the wilderness at survival and scouting.
Dalaeck 01-01-04, 06:05 PM	Originally posted by d_nychus No, a fighter needs a high Dex to qualify for the TWF feat chain. That will cost him in some other stat to boost up high enough for it. And since when does a ranger need a high Int? Seriously, you already got 6 skill points per level. NEEDING a high Int is a remnant of the really worthless 3.0 ranger class, not a requirement of the better thought out 3.5 ranger class. You need a decently high Wisdom, Dex, and perhaps Str, but your abilities are not as heavily tied to them as the fighter's Strength and Con are tied to his. A ranger with 13-15 in those stats is pretty fair, while a fighter should not have less than a 16 to be effective. What the 3rd Edition ranger lacked in requiring intelligence the 3.5 ranger lacks in constitution. You put a 14 into int for a 3rd Edition ranger and a 12 into con and you have the same hp and skill points as the 3.5 ranger with a 14 con and a 10 int. It is a minor adjustment, not some world shattering increase in power for the class as some people attempt to claim. If a fighter wants to qualify for 3.5 TWF he can and will do it and he will still outshine you in his prime requisistes because of the painful wisdom reqiurement for a ranger to cast spells. A 15 into dex and a +2 item of dex is all he needs and it's more than feasable. The 3.5 two weapon fighting ranger needs a +2 to con regardless to "be as effective" anyways. These are minor tradeoffs that do not suddenly and miraculously make the class go from "worthless" to "good". He traded his Wis score so he can get the Dex to equal a ranger in TWF, remember? That's the example we were talking about, and probably the most likely scenario. Unless he loses Con like (Psi) suggested later on. In which case the fighter tends to be melee bait... Are you playing with Psi? Or do you have insight into his game through private communication? I'm curious as to why his fighter friend is not as effective as he is. The fighter can have a 16 str and con a 14 dex and a 10 wiz if he wants, easily, in his game and I'm curious why he doesn't. And yes, a fighter with an 8 Wisdom is wizard bait, even more so in 3.0 with the insane DC's. Look at that other thread. You're not talking reasonably. No a ranger can't be a point off in AC. His AC is indeed his greatest weakness. Unless he sacrifices all to dex, at which point he hurts elswhere, like con, he's not even going to touch the fighter in AC. This hasn't changed in 3.5. Umm, let's try that again, with the right math this time, shall we? A ranger is going to move 30 while using Manyshot, base. The fighter is going to charge 40, usually. If the ranger is more than 15 feet away (very likely if he is using Manyshot), the ranger gets off his FULL ATTACK, while the fighter merely spent all of his round moving without attacking. If he's less than 15 foot away, I would suggest merely using Rapd shot, then switching to melee. It's not a dingus feat to someone who knows that mobility is superior in the D&D game. Mobility is not superior in the D&D game. Indeed saves, AC and hitpoints are king. Mobility is secondary, can be very important, but push comes to shove saves, AC and hitpoint are the stats that matter. Manyshot does not give you a mobility edge. It gives you quite literally nothing. Let's break it down again, with the correct math: Archer moving at 30, full plate melee fighter moving at 20. Let's start them as you suggest 10 feet apart. Round 1: Archer runs 30x4 = 120 feet. Fighter chases at 20x3 = 60. Round 2: Archer fires at rapid shot rate of 3 arrows, takes a 5 foot step back. Figher runs in at 60 again. Round 3: Archer fires at rapid shot rate of 3 arrows, takes a 5 foot step back. Fighter charges the 20 foot gap and gets one attack. 6 attacks vs. one Or: Round 1: Archer moves and manyshots for 2 attacks, fighter charges with one attack Round 2: Archer moves and manyshots for 2 attacks, fighter charges with one attack Round 3: Archer moves and manyshots for 2 attacks, fighter charges yet again with one attack. 6 attacks vs three Really, this is a dingus feat. It gets the "neat trick" award, could be useful maybe once or twice in a character's career, but is really a dingus feat. I would chose shot on the run any day for this garbage. Ridiculous. Have you even READ Manyshot? In this case, Manyshot is SUPERIOR to Shot on the Run, because Shot on the Run allows for a shot while you are moving, the timing of which does not matter in the example given. Manyshot allows for your FULL ATTACK and then a move. You are NOT getting your full attack. Indeed you're getting much less than your full attack because you're penalised at -4 to start and -2 for each arrow after that. Compared to rapid shot and running away you're worse off. You have also less rolls which in effect means your average damage distribution is more spiked, you hit all or nothing, high AC means literally nothing. At the high levels with weapons of speed and haste spells you do not get extra arrows from these abilities when you manyshot. It then becomes an even worse decision to multishot rather than full attack. Improved critical stacks only with the first arrow. You have less chances to score a critical hit compared to a full allotment of attacks. Err, I REALLY think you need to reread the feat. Manyshot allows you to TAKE your full-attack as a standard action at 15th level. I think you need to re-read the feat. You do not get your full attack. You get only a single chance to critical, you get a codified number of arrows such that things like haste and weapons of speed do not stack with it. It is indeed much worse than your full attack which you can rapid shot with regardless. No, he has no ability to make ranged attacks, and the ranger can easily leave him in the dust. It becomes the fighter having to concentrate on defense only, with no ability for offense. Not unless he wants the ranger to return fire and PWN him. The ranger will get killed by a fighter. The fighter can drop his tower shield. He will likely have all of the combat abilities of a ranger and then coupled to his heavy armor and better overall ability score distribution we have a winner. Well, since we've prove the 3.0 ranger to be the one who is hosed at all levels by every other class, I'm going to say otherwise. I certainly don't think that and I think a 3rd edition ranger would mop the floor with a 3.5 edition ranger. An item that replaces Spring Attack. That's what he was stating. And it DOES. No it doesn't, it's much better than spring attack because spring attack is a single attack. This item allows you to move and full attack. It doesn't prevent a creature from smacking you with range like spring attack either. And the 3.0 ranger is crappy. This might not be true in your games, but in everyone else's games the world over, it definately is. I never had the problem with the 3rd edition ranger but judging from your other posts I think you needed a more powerful splat book or something. By the core rules the ranger is a great class. You lose a standard action to activate them, and haste starts the round you active it. Haste starts on your turn, your next turn. You don't get the benefits of haste until the round after that. Big deal. It's a great buff. Untrue in 3.5, because of barkskin. Who needs to waste thousands of gold when you can casta single spell that will last for a good portion of the day? Sure, an amulet of natrual armor is nice, but it is no longer REQUIRED in 3.5. Your barksin spell will, at 20th level will not even last a mere 2 hours. It's really crappy in my opinion.
Dalaeck 01-01-04, 06:35 PM	Originally posted by Mister Mayhem The only reason for playing a Ranger instead of a Fighter was skills, but unless you bumped up your INT, you never had enough to really make the difference. Yep that's exactly why you play a ranger, skills and minor spells. He has spot, listen, search, move silently and hide. He is as p.21 of the PHB states: A cunning skilled warrior of the wilderness. He actually benefits from wearing light armor through virtual feats and their lower penalties on his skills. A first level human ranger with a 12 intelligence can have: spot, listen, search, move silently, hide and wilderness lore all maxed. Do you want swim, climb and jump? You can easily have another one maxed with a 14 int. Or just split them up a little. Seriously, I don't see a problem. At Guerilla combat, he excelled. At toe-to-toe. he couldn't really compete. No, that's where we will disagree. He was a very decent warrior. You take one weapon, say a bastard sword, get weapon focus and improved crit with that one weapon and dual weild it. Make them both keen, add in some haste and/or speed, a little dash of power attack at +1 or +2 and you're pretty damn good. You could even get "light" weapons and dual weild them but I prefered the heavier die on the off-hand because of half-strength. A lot of the above is gone. I'de pit a 3rd edition ranger versus a 3.5 edition ranger in the wilderness and your 3.5 ranger will be stone dead. A fighter could do it all except for the skills and spells. That's still true in 3.5. The fighter has less interest in doing the same warrior tree because two weapon fighting and archery suck in 3.5. That's making the ranger more "unique" by making him a specialist in crappy fighting styles. Enlarged spiked chain improved trip monsters begone..
JTalbain 01-29-04, 06:37 AM	Okay Dalaeck, let's try the actual correct math. As before, Ranger and Fighter start off 10 feet away from each other. Round 1: Ranger full runs 120 feet away. Round 1: Fighter triple moves 60 feet forward. (Distance 70 feet) Round 2: Ranger Manyshots for two attacks, then moves 30 feet back. Round 2: Fighter 3x moves 60 feet. (Distance 40 feet) Round 3: Ranger Manyshots for two attacks, then moves 30 feet back. Round 3: Fighter 3x moves 60 feet. (Distance 10 feet) Round 4: Ranger 4x runs another 120 feet. Round 4: Fighter 3x moves 60 feet. (Distance 70 feet) etc., etc. Actual attacks made: Ranger- As many as he wants, Fighter- 0 As the levels go on, Rangers are allowed even more attacks with multishot, making the inevitable process of the fighter dying even more swift. In any sort of natural terrain, the advantage is even more profound. You could gain such a large distance advantage that you could climb a tree in the middle of combat while the fighter tries to catch up. When he does catch up, it'll be an absolute laugh riot to see him climb up after you in full gear. Woodland Stride means that the terrain could be damaging the fighter while you dance around him. After level 11, the fighter doesn't even benefit from cover. At really high levels the fighter simply dies to the intelligently equipped ranger. Even if the Fighter isn't the Ranger's favored enemy, how well do you think the heavy armored Fighter is going to stand up to the Manyshot swarm of +1 Brilliant Energy arrows? Let's see, assuming both are level 20, the Ranger has weapon focus, a +5 bow, and say, a 20 dex, he can fire 4 arrows a round at the fighter, which have a +23 to hit and deny him all shield and armor bonuses, all while playing keep away and singing "Can't Touch This". The Ranger could be stark naked for the battle. Screw AC. The tank won't come near him. Sorry if I sounded kind of preachy and fighter-bashery there, but I really like the Ranger. I like the guerilla warfare ambush machine, and I'll be damned if I'm ever going to let the fighter ever get a charge off on me if I can help it. Some of my favorite ranger feats? Run (for milking the 4x move manyshot), Brachiation (to put the 3rd dimension into combat non-magically), Resistance to energy (usually fire; I don't play fair, and I'm not above setting flammable areas ablaze to cause continuous damage to everyone but me. The smoke also grants me concealment, and after 11th level, grants them no benefit), Snatch Arrows (for the surprised look on their face when they get behind 3/4 cover and fire at the ranger, only to discover that they are not only gaining no benefit, but giving that damn Ranger more attacks), etc. etc. Given the space to move and a non-restrictive terrain, I feel that a properly equipped ranged Ranger can beat a heavy armored melee fighter any day of the week. Considering that most of these arenas would be found in the wilderness, however, that shouldn't be too surprising.
Nick Soapdish 01-29-04, 03:43 PM	I'm not sure if comparing a 3.5 ranger vs. a 3.0 ranger with an item that duplicated a hopelessly unbalanced spell is exactly fair. I may have misrembered, but I thought that the 3.0 Haste was one of the reasons that you were originally looking forward to 3.5. Also, the stacking of ammunition and weapons favors spellcasters a lot more than the warrior classes, at least when it comes to being independently powerful. And it probably favors the cleric or druid the most since they have a decent chance to hit. And I know how upset you've been about the nerfing of the cleric in 3.5. :D The mechanics that you've been describing as favoring the 3.0 ranger favor all of the 3.0 classes, not just the ranger. So the ranger might be a bit more flexible or powerful in those respects, but everyone else will be also so he'll still be way behind in the power curve. The only weakness of the 3.5 ranger in comparison to the 3.0 ranger is the reduction in HD. You can regain your original HD (in effect), by just dropping Intelligence and boosting Constitution (if you've got a point buy and weren't going for a really high Constitution or really low Intelligence) and you'll still be 1 skill point ahead. But if you're dying to get that fixed, just keep the HD and skill points the same as the 3.0 ranger and adopt everything else and it's still a huge boost over the 3.0 version. (Just for the record, I've got no problems with dropping the swashbuckler and hexblade down to a d8 as well, but I think that at least the swashbuckler should be getting the 6 skill points or a couple other abilities then.)
TheDarkestOfAngels 01-29-04, 04:19 PM	Originally posted by Nick Soapdish The only weakness of the 3.5 ranger in comparison to the 3.0 ranger is the reduction in HD. You can regain your original HD (in effect), by just dropping Intelligence and boosting Constitution (if you've got a point buy and weren't going for a really high Constitution or really low Intelligence) and you'll still be 1 skill point ahead. But if you're dying to get that fixed, just keep the HD and skill points the same as the 3.0 ranger and adopt everything else and it's still a huge boost over the 3.0 version. you don't even need to do that, just be a human and use that extra feat to take improved toughness (+1 HP/level, +2 Fort is a Prereq.) problem solved.
Nick Soapdish 01-29-04, 09:56 PM	Originally posted by TheDarkestOfAngels you don't even need to do that, just be a human and use that extra feat to take improved toughness (+1 HP/level, +2 Fort is a Prereq.) problem solved. Yeah, but the 3.0 ranger could do that also, assuming that it was ported over intact to use with 3.5 mechanics and feats.
Krelios 02-09-04, 09:52 AM	From the SRD... MANYSHOT [GENERAL] Prerequisites: Dex 17, Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, base attack bonus +6 Benefit: As a standard action, you may fire two arrows at a single opponent within 30 feet. Both arrows use the same attack roll (with a –4 penalty) to determine success and deal damage normally (but see Special). For every five points of base attack bonus you have above +6, you may add one additional arrow to this attack, to a maximum of four arrows at a base attack bonus of +16. However, each arrow after the second adds a cumulative –2 penalty on the attack roll (for a total penalty of –6 for three arrows and –8 for four). Damage reduction and other resistances apply separately against each arrow fired. Special: Regardless of the number of arrows you fire, you apply precision-based damage only once. If you score a critical hit, only the first arrow fired deals critical damage; all others deal regular damage. A fighter may select Manyshot as one of his fighter bonus feats. 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. Only the first arrow has ANY special properties. If you're using a bow that gives bonus energy damage, only the first arrow gets it--with Rapid Shot, ALL of your arrows get that damage. Same with criticals. Same with sneak attack if you have a few levels in Rogue. Same with your favored enemy damage. As much as I think some people here should really just say that they don't like 3.5 because they can't be combat munchkins like 3.0 and be done with it--Manyshot really is inferior to Rapid Shot in (almost) every circumstance.
(Psi)SeveredHead 02-09-04, 10:19 AM	Originally posted by Dalaeck What the 3rd Edition ranger lacked in requiring intelligence the 3.5 ranger lacks in constitution. You put a 14 into int for a 3rd Edition ranger and a 12 into con and you have the same hp and skill points as the 3.5 ranger with a 14 con and a 10 int. It is a minor adjustment, not some world shattering increase in power for the class as some people attempt to claim. The ranger I'm playing is a human with 12 Int, and only now do I have all the skill points I want and need. More skills is only part of the difference - Wild Empathy is now a class feature, and many skills like Intuit Direction have been folded into other skills. You get more skills and you have to spend less on skills - you're virtually doubling the skill points available to you. If a fighter wants to qualify for 3.5 TWF he can and will do it and he will still outshine you in his prime requisistes because of the painful wisdom reqiurement for a ranger to cast spells. A 15 into dex and a +2 item of dex is all he needs and it's more than feasable. The 3.5 two weapon fighting ranger needs a +2 to con regardless to "be as effective" anyways. These are minor tradeoffs that do not suddenly and miraculously make the class go from "worthless" to "good". I don't care. If a fighter wants to be a duelist, let him be a duelist. He's supposed to outshine the ranger in TWF and archery because his job is to fight. Do not assume that a ranger is, first and foremost, a duelist or an archer. Are you playing with Psi? Or do you have insight into his game through private communication? I'm curious as to why his fighter friend is not as effective as he is. The fighter can have a 16 str and con a 14 dex and a 10 wiz if he wants, easily, in his game and I'm curious why he doesn't. Wis 10 = dead. Seriously. My DM freaked out the first time the party's newly arrived wizard cast color spray. Of course, he quickly adapted - the fighter has found himself on the receiving end of cause fear and hold person already, and has a reasonable chance of making his save. No a ranger can't be a point off in AC. His AC is indeed his greatest weakness. Unless he sacrifices all to dex, at which point he hurts elswhere, like con, he's not even going to touch the fighter in AC. This hasn't changed in 3.5. The ranger stats I posted above had a reasonable Dex and Con score. It's quite easy to do. You also don't need as many hp if you avoid melee: 1d8+1 per level is pretty nice as it is. Of course, duelist-rangers will need more hp, but that's what they get for copying Drizzt. The ranger will get killed by a fighter. The fighter can drop his tower shield. He will likely have all of the combat abilities of a ranger and then coupled to his heavy armor and better overall ability score distribution we have a winner. And the barbarian will kill a paladin in one-on-one combat so obviously the barbarian is broken and the paladin a joke, right? The ranger is not supposed to beat the fighter at the fighter's job. He could only do that in 2e. Your barksin spell will, at 20th level will not even last a mere 2 hours. It's really crappy in my opinion. With his good Listen and Spot check, a ranger is hard to surprise. He can cast it in the surprise round, if for some reason he thinks he needs it. A first level human ranger with a 12 intelligence can have: spot, listen, search, move silently, hide and wilderness lore all maxed. Do you want swim, climb and jump? You can easily have another one maxed with a 14 int. Or just split them up a little. That's not enough skills. What happens if your ranger needs to cross an icy stream or a steep sand dune? Or climb a tree? The number of skill points needed by rangers is just amazing. No, that's where we will disagree. He was a very decent warrior. You take one weapon, say a bastard sword, get weapon focus and improved crit with that one weapon and dual weild it. Make them both keen, add in some haste and/or speed, a little dash of power attack at +1 or +2 and you're pretty damn good. You could even get "light" weapons and dual weild them but I prefered the heavier die on the off-hand because of half-strength. You got it into your head that a ranger is a duelist or even Dian Wei (a guy known for wielding a pair of halberds). That is not a ranger. Dark Angel you don't even need to do that, just be a human and use that extra feat to take improved toughness (+1 HP/level, +2 Fort is a Prereq.) problem solved. That's not a core feat, however.
Voluptuous Horror of Karen Black 02-10-04, 01:54 AM	I think I'll just stick with 3ED after all. It's just too confusing to switch to 3.5 after just learning 3ED.
Mikal 02-10-04, 07:42 AM	Originally posted by Krelios Only the first arrow has ANY special properties. If you're using a bow that gives bonus energy damage, only the first arrow gets it--with Rapid Shot, ALL of your arrows get that damage. Same with criticals. Same with sneak attack if you have a few levels in Rogue. Same with your favored enemy damage. . Umm.. reread that there buddy. The only thing that doesn't get duplicated is precision damage, which is sneak attack, or critical hits. energy damage from the magic of the bow and ranger favored enemy damage isn't precision, and thus stays with each shot past the first.
honeynuggets 02-10-04, 11:01 AM	Two comments 1. I heal more hit points than I lose (net total) because I maxed out the Heal skill ... I think you can't use Long Term care on yourself so having the heal skill doesn't increase your own healing rate. 2. I think you can't move when using a Tower Shield for Total Cover or if you can then at a fraction of your normal movement. Here is why I think this. *The PHB p152 describes varying degrees of cover. Peering around a corner (very small portion of your face exposed) or through an arrow slit only gives you AC +8, Ref +4(non spreading effects), +Improved Evasion sometimes. Therefore, lifting a Tower shield up enough to move normally without the shield hitting rocks and roots will expose at least 2 inches of your feet which is just as much flesh as is exposed when peering around a corner. Scraping the Tower Shield along the ground would grant Total Cover while moving but the scraping would slow down your movement rate. Also, if using it for total cover you would have to rely on Listen checks to follow someone because peering around the shield is flat out defined as only AC +8, Ref +4 (non spreading effects). Still, +8 AC is pretty awesome.