3.5 Ranger changes [Archive] - Wizards Community

3.5 Ranger changes [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Karalyn the Sellsword
09-01-05, 07:28 AM Now I don't want anyone going on about how they din't like the 3.0 Ranger , I'll just ignore you and laugh at your inability to handle the class.

But how do people feel about the 3.5 Ranger over all?
Did they go too far, is it just right? Are there any problems you have? What problems should you have but don't?

You know, the basic stuff.
CzarGarrett
09-01-05, 08:36 AM It seems pretty good to me.

It makes the ranger more of a secondary fighter (lesser hp), and differentiates between archer and dual weild.

Overall, I'd say its pretty good.
not Yoda
09-01-05, 09:07 AM I liked the other version better. More of a wilderness warrior. The new one feels too much like rogue for me. The new way species enemy is handled is better though. It would probably serve better as a bonus to hit than damage like in 2e. This would allow power attacking or manyshot to be better. It would offset the penalties for TWF.
stamhaven
09-01-05, 09:17 AM I wish there was more flexibility in the combat styles, adding more progressions, like an improved grapple, trip, bullrush one for bounty hunters. Almost all of the combat style benefits rely on full attacks which often rangers can't do. Sniping skirmishy stuff would be nice too.
babysamurai
09-01-05, 09:37 AM And after 11th level, I just can't get excited about any of their abilities.
(Psi)SeveredHead
09-01-05, 10:39 AM They didn't go far enough. The Iron Kingdoms ranger is even better.
Oulak
09-01-05, 12:00 PM I wish there was more flexibility in the combat styles, adding more progressions, like an improved grapple, trip, bullrush one for bounty hunters. Almost all of the combat style benefits rely on full attacks which often rangers can't do. Sniping skirmishy stuff would be nice too.

The Quintessential Ranger has some other combat style options, one of which is skirmishing. Just substitute Dodge, Mobility, and Spring Attack at levels 2, 6, and 11 like normal. There was also a brawling ranger, a tough ranger (kinda lame), and a few more that I can't recall.

I like 3.5 rangers a lot more than 3.0 BUT, Sleep and Polymorph should have NOT been removed from their spell list!!!

Now I don't want anyone going on about how they din't like the 3.0 Ranger , I'll just ignore you and laugh at your inability to handle the class.

How did you handle the 3.0 class Karalyn? Just curoius ::wink::
Karalyn the Sellsword
09-01-05, 12:10 PM I handled it with Pinache of course. No it could've been easier, and yeah I was greatful for the little tweaks the DM shoved in, and making it clear that Rangers got the TWF and ITWF for free saved time with a spiteful player once.

I don't like the feel of the new Rangers, it's the most niggling thing I have against the changes. I find myself just picking up a greatsword or falchion these days, so the Combat Style changes are lost on me. The spell changes are a bit whacked, and the Animal Companions, why do we get Dinosaurs?

Then there are the ton of extras I don't use anyway, 11th is a good cut off point unless you're playing to optimisation.

I really do miss having a d10 though, at least my Elven Ranger stood a chance then.
Gurthoron
09-01-05, 12:34 PM I have always loved the concept of rangers, and having played both 3.e and 3.5e I find 3.5 far better. But the class remains subpar for what it should be. It has a lot of good ideas, but they aren't implemented well and don't mix great. I see the ranger as the wilderness warrior, at home in the forest. This is shown by the Animal Companion (which for rangers is now dreadfully vulnerable) Wild Empathy (love it) the spells (No real feeling either way). THey also made Rangers hunters through Track and Favored Enemy. I know I'm leaving things out, don't worry about it. And finally there is the warrior part, in the combat styles. Now, these three elements all embody part of what we see as Ranger, but I see them as being poorly combined.

Favored Enemy is, IMO, underpowered for a core class ability. You get a small bonus on certain rolls against certain foes. Not too great. Combat styles are interesting, and I like having to choose between the two. Animal Companions, while good from a RPing instance, lack a real role as the animals are too unintelligent to scout and too weak to fight. Camouflage and Hide in Plain Sight abilities are good, but they are gained obscenely late in the class. The Track feat and abilities, along with Endurance, are rarely useful. Frankly, I don't think the Track feat should exist, you just should need a sufficiently high Survival to track things. The spells do come in handy (especially with the new shooting spells) but hardly counterbalance the class. I favor classes that give you a reason to go all 20 levels in it, and Ranger just doesn't provide that. I've switched my prefered class over to Scout, as I see it fitting the role far better. It lacks some of the environmental skills, but those can easily be gained by multiclassing. Its better at hiding, has better class abilities, has a very interesting class ability in Skirmish, and just seems to be more fun.
SCMrks
09-01-05, 02:13 PM There are several things about the 3.5 Ranger that I dislike. In my campaigns Rangers have been the tough wilderness warriors who protect the frontier from dangers. The Ranger's description in the PHB begins by saying the ranger is just as tough as the owlbears and displacer beasts that roam the wilds yet ends saying he is a secondary fighter not ment to fight alone.
The new d8 hit die removes the ranger from being the wilderness protector who stands alone between the frontier and the wilds.

Then the ranger was given the high reflex save to make up for the loss of hit points. Even the dexterous light fighting Swashbuckler didn't get high reflex saves. Comparing ranger with swashbuckler again; the ranger was given the d8 because his light armor restriction ment he should not be considered a main fighter (from Andy Collin's notes) yet the Swashbuckler only wears light armor and is a d10 fighting class.

Then the ranger was given Evasion, not because it fit the class concept, but to discourage people from taking 2 levels of rogue.

The ranger was given some abilities that are nice flavor but rarely come into play. Endurance is useful for fighters who want to sleep in their medium armor but rangers don't wear medium armor. The bonus to the skill checks is hardly valuable because a lot of the time spells avoid having to walk, run, or swim for so long. In 20 years of playing I have never seen a character take damage from walking through regular vegetation so Woodland Stride isn't that great. Moving through at regular speed is nice but fighters just go around the obstacle or chop through it.

We do not have too many games when the party is in a hurry to follow someone. When they use tracking it is to follow someone's trail back to the lair to get the treasure so how fast you can track isn't important.

Camouflage has always been apart of the hide skill to me. Anyone who has a high hide skill is using techniques to camouflage himself. If a rogue tells me he wants to make a gilly suit and cover himself with leaves and grass to crawl across a field, I'm not going to tell him his +20 hide skill isn't enoughand that he needs camouflage special ability to do it. He made his own concealment and can give it a try.

The ranger was changed to be a skirmisher but he is not made to be one. His combat styles require full round actions so hit and run strikes with spring attack don't work. And now the Scout is much better at that role.

So for my campaigns I have changed the ranger back to being the tough wilderness warrior who can stand toe to toe with the owlbears and displacer beasts of the wild.
Randvek
09-01-05, 02:32 PM With the exception of dropping from a d10 to a d8, the 3.5 Ranger looks a lot like the 3.0 Ranger with the houserules we used thrown in. 3.0 Ranger didn't have enough skill points and the Favored Enemy was too weak. The 3.5 Ranger is one of the best changes 3.5 brought.
Lord Schpungus
09-01-05, 02:36 PM @SCMrks:

It sounds like your group didn't spend enough time working with the rules that are in place to make a ranger worthwhile in the wilderness (tracking, limited movement, etc). For me, and many others, the changes are a godsend.
Origin
09-01-05, 04:32 PM I've always though rangers are by far the coolest class, and don't take too much time just trying to decide class abilities and without a limit (those would be spellcasters). I think, personally, that they both arn't great. The 3.0 ranger, to me, doesn't have any real class abilities. More like a dip into class. Level 1 gives 2 feats: Ambidexterity and TWF. And a crappy little Favored Enemy +1 bonus (WOW!!! +1?? NO WAY!!). I do really like the bonus that the 3.5 ranger gets, but by level 20, +10 isn't absolutely great, and if you have a +10 to that ONE type of enemy, the other types you have as a Favored Enemy are like minor, just +2, and that's nothing. I know it seems overpowered, but I think it should actually be +4 vs. +2 per choice. I mean, waiting 5 levels for just a +2 bonus isn't honestly anything worthwhile. Think about it, at level 20. +10 = O.K. and the others +2 = Nothing. And the pet seems to weak to me, too.. I am asking my DM for a Ranger Variant: No spells in exchange for pet levels like a druid.

The ranger looks great on paper, but in reality..
Wolf72
09-01-05, 05:28 PM I wish there was more flexibility in the combat styles, adding more progressions, like an improved grapple, trip, bullrush one for bounty hunters. Almost all of the combat style benefits rely on full attacks which often rangers can't do. Sniping skirmishy stuff would be nice too.

I like this idea ...

there's combat style, improved style and then mastery right?

I would think it shouldn't be to difficult to come up with some other combat trees like the ones you listed.

expanded a bit one could go on beyond combat styles and throw in some skill styles ... hopefully trying to stay 'rangery'
Reinforcements
09-01-05, 07:51 PM I like this idea ...

there's combat style, improved style and then mastery right?

I would think it shouldn't be to difficult to come up with some other combat trees like the ones you listed.

expanded a bit one could go on beyond combat styles and throw in some skill styles ... hopefully trying to stay 'rangery'
Actually, alternative combat styles appeared in the ranger "Class Acts" in a recent issue of Dragon; which one I don't recall. There was a Two-Handed style, and... some... others. Okay, that's the only one I remember, but there were at least two others.
NehpetsTtocs
09-01-05, 07:51 PM I really like the 3.5 ranger. Maybe it could have done with a few more virutal feat trees, but everything else works very well for me.
Lord Schpungus
09-01-05, 09:02 PM The Ranger gets +18 to spread around as he wants, in multiples of 2, with 10 being the max. I think what you want is an Aragorn/Legolas lovechild that can kill anything by looking at it. You're not going to find such a class in D&D. Well, the Beholder Mage comes close, but nevermind.
Ziatyn Phoenixwolf
09-01-05, 09:04 PM I have always liked the ranger(I strated playing during 2e), and I do like the v3.5 changes to the ranger class as they feel the way that I have always thought that rangers should be. I absoultly loved the fact that they moved the two weapon fighting back to second level stopping the one level dip just to get the style. The lower hit die does not bother me. Come on people it is only two points that are only a posibility after first level(there is no garantee that one will roll a nine or ten, and PC's are not monsters as such thet do not merely get half of their hp's per level). The reflex save is very nice. I like the fact that the range now gets cless features other than track, vertual two weapon fighting(the choise of going archer is very cool), spells, and favored enemy every five levels.

In answer I still like the ranger and fine the new rules very exellent.
Koga:The ninja trick
09-02-05, 12:38 AM It would've been better without spells.

Otherwise it's a very good class..
Karalyn the Sellsword
09-02-05, 03:11 AM I thought +10 FE bonus was quite high:

What I did:
Make it +10 Evil Outsider
Get a Holy Bane Greastsword
Get Improved Favoured Enemy
Get Favoured Power Attack
Get Powerful Charge
Get Greater Powerful Charge
Use a Two Handed Style from Dragon

Worked great you know. I suppose it's better as a Racial Slayer, which is kinda like their Favoured Enemy bonuses from the Ranger.

Is there anywhere people would rather take the class? Like a Monster Slayer or a proper Woodland warrior?
Ranger REG
09-02-05, 05:04 AM Personally, it's a big improvement over 3.0e. The d8 hit die I can live with in favor of the good Reflex save. I don't exactly see them as frontline warriors (though they still have good BAB progression) but rather skirmishers that knows how to use the wilderness terrain as part of their combat foray, which is a good thing for them since they don't like wearing heavy armor most of the time (unless one has to defend Helm's Deep).

The combat style have now been expanded to two, bringing a throwback to the more archetypal ranger -- bowhunters. Could have a bit more, but then that's where Dragon magazine "Class Acts" column comes in.

And a few more skill points would make them skilled self-reliable survivalists who usually make their living as loners or in a small skirmishing unit.
Wildonion
09-02-05, 08:03 AM It would've been better without spells.

Otherwise it's a very good class..

You know I always wondered about dropping the spells and bumping the HD back to a d10. Though I thought that that might weaken the Ranger.
KoboldMenace
09-02-05, 09:07 AM The combat style have now been expanded to two, bringing a throwback to the more archetypal ranger -- bowhunters. Could have a bit more, but then that's where Dragon magazine "Class Acts" column comes in.

Or instead of a combat stlyes he coud get 'ranger bonus feats' instead. I think I am going ot go make a list of ranger bonus feats right now.
TheDarknessWithin
09-02-05, 09:14 AM Does anyone have some variant combat styles they have used. I'm going to be playing in a new campaign relatively soon and I would like some more options for my ranger rather than the same old TWF or Bow feats.
Ranger REG
09-02-05, 03:43 PM Pick up Dragon #326. They got five new combat styles for rangers (Beast-Wrestling, Mounted-Combat, Piscator, Strong-Arm, and Throwing).
(Psi)SeveredHead
09-02-05, 03:44 PM I handled it with Pinache of course. No it could've been easier, and yeah I was greatful for the little tweaks the DM shoved in, and making it clear that Rangers got the TWF and ITWF for free saved time with a spiteful player once.

So I guess this means you couldn't handle the class either? :rolleyes:

I don't like the feel of the new Rangers, it's the most niggling thing I have against the changes. I find myself just picking up a greatsword or falchion these days, so the Combat Style changes are lost on me.

That's one reason why I said the Iron Kingdoms ranger is better. Too bad it's not available as a free PDF or something.

Then there are the ton of extras I don't use anyway, 11th is a good cut off point unless you're playing to optimisation.

I would play up to 13th.

I really do miss having a d10 though, at least my Elven Ranger stood a chance then.

Wimp! I've never found the d8 to be a problem.

Then the ranger was given the high reflex save to make up for the loss of hit points.

That's because the swashbuckler is a terribly designed class. WotC can't design light fighter classes - you need D20 Modern for that.
Ranger REG
09-02-05, 03:52 PM Wimp! I've never found the d8 to be a problem.
Heh. I played a cleric a few times and it always ended up being a front-line warrior no matter how much I try to avoid being in that position.

Funny, after combat is over all the d10 & d12 HD-based PCs are down to 1 to 2 hit points, and with that comes the mandatory "wounded baby" whining -- "Oh! I'm hurt! Can't go on! CLERIC!"
DarknessEternal
09-02-05, 04:30 PM Hit die isn't really a problem for any class in D&D. You can tank with a d4 class if you try. It just takes different priorities in resource management.
Oulak
09-02-05, 06:30 PM I think the d8 HD is no problem. I actually think its kinda cool, like a wink and nudge to 1e (thought sleep spell on the rangers list was like that too - until they took it away from us).

I agree that they could have had a rangers bonus feat list and maybe could have given them 1 or two more levels to take feats from them (rather than 2nd, 6th, 11th, and thats it).
Ranger REG
09-03-05, 03:28 AM I agree that they could have had a rangers bonus feat list and maybe could have given them 1 or two more levels to take feats from them (rather than 2nd, 6th, 11th, and thats it).
But how often do you want to give them bonus feat? Every 2 levels? That would diminish the fighter's main feature and make ranger a better class because of the additional hunter/survivalist abilities.

I think the combat style is preferable because you can offer feats without having to go the standard route of acquiring prerequisites first.

BTW, regarding the damage bonus against species/favored enemies, I like that, though it could be better like 1e ranger's damage bonus vs giant-class opponents (i.e., +1 damage bonus per ranger level).
Calendinedhel
09-03-05, 06:00 AM I agree that the 3.5 ranger is pretty well cheated in comparison to the 3.0 ranger, as well as the other warrior classes. That's why we use a homebrew version, pretty similar to RT's Bad Mofo Ranger build which should still be on the site somewhere. Check it out, but your DM will probably want to change a few things. It's mostly just added versatility.
Karalyn the Sellsword
09-03-05, 10:26 AM Cheated? How so?

When someone told me they'd get a d8 and 6+int skills I thought they'd at least end up with 6th level spells in compensation. Given that Druids have 4+int skills and a d8 it's not like they'd be that far apart.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Karalyn the Sellsword 09-01-05, 07:28 AM	Now I don't want anyone going on about how they din't like the 3.0 Ranger , I'll just ignore you and laugh at your inability to handle the class. But how do people feel about the 3.5 Ranger over all? Did they go too far, is it just right? Are there any problems you have? What problems should you have but don't? You know, the basic stuff.
CzarGarrett 09-01-05, 08:36 AM	It seems pretty good to me. It makes the ranger more of a secondary fighter (lesser hp), and differentiates between archer and dual weild. Overall, I'd say its pretty good.
not Yoda 09-01-05, 09:07 AM	I liked the other version better. More of a wilderness warrior. The new one feels too much like rogue for me. The new way species enemy is handled is better though. It would probably serve better as a bonus to hit than damage like in 2e. This would allow power attacking or manyshot to be better. It would offset the penalties for TWF.
stamhaven 09-01-05, 09:17 AM	I wish there was more flexibility in the combat styles, adding more progressions, like an improved grapple, trip, bullrush one for bounty hunters. Almost all of the combat style benefits rely on full attacks which often rangers can't do. Sniping skirmishy stuff would be nice too.
babysamurai 09-01-05, 09:37 AM	And after 11th level, I just can't get excited about any of their abilities.
(Psi)SeveredHead 09-01-05, 10:39 AM	They didn't go far enough. The Iron Kingdoms ranger is even better.
Oulak 09-01-05, 12:00 PM	I wish there was more flexibility in the combat styles, adding more progressions, like an improved grapple, trip, bullrush one for bounty hunters. Almost all of the combat style benefits rely on full attacks which often rangers can't do. Sniping skirmishy stuff would be nice too. The Quintessential Ranger has some other combat style options, one of which is skirmishing. Just substitute Dodge, Mobility, and Spring Attack at levels 2, 6, and 11 like normal. There was also a brawling ranger, a tough ranger (kinda lame), and a few more that I can't recall. I like 3.5 rangers a lot more than 3.0 BUT, Sleep and Polymorph should have NOT been removed from their spell list!!! Now I don't want anyone going on about how they din't like the 3.0 Ranger , I'll just ignore you and laugh at your inability to handle the class. How did you handle the 3.0 class Karalyn? Just curoius ::wink::
Karalyn the Sellsword 09-01-05, 12:10 PM	I handled it with Pinache of course. No it could've been easier, and yeah I was greatful for the little tweaks the DM shoved in, and making it clear that Rangers got the TWF and ITWF for free saved time with a spiteful player once. I don't like the feel of the new Rangers, it's the most niggling thing I have against the changes. I find myself just picking up a greatsword or falchion these days, so the Combat Style changes are lost on me. The spell changes are a bit whacked, and the Animal Companions, why do we get Dinosaurs? Then there are the ton of extras I don't use anyway, 11th is a good cut off point unless you're playing to optimisation. I really do miss having a d10 though, at least my Elven Ranger stood a chance then.
Gurthoron 09-01-05, 12:34 PM	I have always loved the concept of rangers, and having played both 3.e and 3.5e I find 3.5 far better. But the class remains subpar for what it should be. It has a lot of good ideas, but they aren't implemented well and don't mix great. I see the ranger as the wilderness warrior, at home in the forest. This is shown by the Animal Companion (which for rangers is now dreadfully vulnerable) Wild Empathy (love it) the spells (No real feeling either way). THey also made Rangers hunters through Track and Favored Enemy. I know I'm leaving things out, don't worry about it. And finally there is the warrior part, in the combat styles. Now, these three elements all embody part of what we see as Ranger, but I see them as being poorly combined. Favored Enemy is, IMO, underpowered for a core class ability. You get a small bonus on certain rolls against certain foes. Not too great. Combat styles are interesting, and I like having to choose between the two. Animal Companions, while good from a RPing instance, lack a real role as the animals are too unintelligent to scout and too weak to fight. Camouflage and Hide in Plain Sight abilities are good, but they are gained obscenely late in the class. The Track feat and abilities, along with Endurance, are rarely useful. Frankly, I don't think the Track feat should exist, you just should need a sufficiently high Survival to track things. The spells do come in handy (especially with the new shooting spells) but hardly counterbalance the class. I favor classes that give you a reason to go all 20 levels in it, and Ranger just doesn't provide that. I've switched my prefered class over to Scout, as I see it fitting the role far better. It lacks some of the environmental skills, but those can easily be gained by multiclassing. Its better at hiding, has better class abilities, has a very interesting class ability in Skirmish, and just seems to be more fun.
SCMrks 09-01-05, 02:13 PM	There are several things about the 3.5 Ranger that I dislike. In my campaigns Rangers have been the tough wilderness warriors who protect the frontier from dangers. The Ranger's description in the PHB begins by saying the ranger is just as tough as the owlbears and displacer beasts that roam the wilds yet ends saying he is a secondary fighter not ment to fight alone. The new d8 hit die removes the ranger from being the wilderness protector who stands alone between the frontier and the wilds. Then the ranger was given the high reflex save to make up for the loss of hit points. Even the dexterous light fighting Swashbuckler didn't get high reflex saves. Comparing ranger with swashbuckler again; the ranger was given the d8 because his light armor restriction ment he should not be considered a main fighter (from Andy Collin's notes) yet the Swashbuckler only wears light armor and is a d10 fighting class. Then the ranger was given Evasion, not because it fit the class concept, but to discourage people from taking 2 levels of rogue. The ranger was given some abilities that are nice flavor but rarely come into play. Endurance is useful for fighters who want to sleep in their medium armor but rangers don't wear medium armor. The bonus to the skill checks is hardly valuable because a lot of the time spells avoid having to walk, run, or swim for so long. In 20 years of playing I have never seen a character take damage from walking through regular vegetation so Woodland Stride isn't that great. Moving through at regular speed is nice but fighters just go around the obstacle or chop through it. We do not have too many games when the party is in a hurry to follow someone. When they use tracking it is to follow someone's trail back to the lair to get the treasure so how fast you can track isn't important. Camouflage has always been apart of the hide skill to me. Anyone who has a high hide skill is using techniques to camouflage himself. If a rogue tells me he wants to make a gilly suit and cover himself with leaves and grass to crawl across a field, I'm not going to tell him his +20 hide skill isn't enoughand that he needs camouflage special ability to do it. He made his own concealment and can give it a try. The ranger was changed to be a skirmisher but he is not made to be one. His combat styles require full round actions so hit and run strikes with spring attack don't work. And now the Scout is much better at that role. So for my campaigns I have changed the ranger back to being the tough wilderness warrior who can stand toe to toe with the owlbears and displacer beasts of the wild.
Randvek 09-01-05, 02:32 PM	With the exception of dropping from a d10 to a d8, the 3.5 Ranger looks a lot like the 3.0 Ranger with the houserules we used thrown in. 3.0 Ranger didn't have enough skill points and the Favored Enemy was too weak. The 3.5 Ranger is one of the best changes 3.5 brought.
Lord Schpungus 09-01-05, 02:36 PM	@SCMrks: It sounds like your group didn't spend enough time working with the rules that are in place to make a ranger worthwhile in the wilderness (tracking, limited movement, etc). For me, and many others, the changes are a godsend.
Origin 09-01-05, 04:32 PM	I've always though rangers are by far the coolest class, and don't take too much time just trying to decide class abilities and without a limit (those would be spellcasters). I think, personally, that they both arn't great. The 3.0 ranger, to me, doesn't have any real class abilities. More like a dip into class. Level 1 gives 2 feats: Ambidexterity and TWF. And a crappy little Favored Enemy +1 bonus (WOW!!! +1?? NO WAY!!). I do really like the bonus that the 3.5 ranger gets, but by level 20, +10 isn't absolutely great, and if you have a +10 to that ONE type of enemy, the other types you have as a Favored Enemy are like minor, just +2, and that's nothing. I know it seems overpowered, but I think it should actually be +4 vs. +2 per choice. I mean, waiting 5 levels for just a +2 bonus isn't honestly anything worthwhile. Think about it, at level 20. +10 = O.K. and the others +2 = Nothing. And the pet seems to weak to me, too.. I am asking my DM for a Ranger Variant: No spells in exchange for pet levels like a druid. The ranger looks great on paper, but in reality..
Wolf72 09-01-05, 05:28 PM	I wish there was more flexibility in the combat styles, adding more progressions, like an improved grapple, trip, bullrush one for bounty hunters. Almost all of the combat style benefits rely on full attacks which often rangers can't do. Sniping skirmishy stuff would be nice too. I like this idea ... there's combat style, improved style and then mastery right? I would think it shouldn't be to difficult to come up with some other combat trees like the ones you listed. expanded a bit one could go on beyond combat styles and throw in some skill styles ... hopefully trying to stay 'rangery'
Reinforcements 09-01-05, 07:51 PM	I like this idea ... there's combat style, improved style and then mastery right? I would think it shouldn't be to difficult to come up with some other combat trees like the ones you listed. expanded a bit one could go on beyond combat styles and throw in some skill styles ... hopefully trying to stay 'rangery' Actually, alternative combat styles appeared in the ranger "Class Acts" in a recent issue of Dragon; which one I don't recall. There was a Two-Handed style, and... some... others. Okay, that's the only one I remember, but there were at least two others.
NehpetsTtocs 09-01-05, 07:51 PM	I really like the 3.5 ranger. Maybe it could have done with a few more virutal feat trees, but everything else works very well for me.
Lord Schpungus 09-01-05, 09:02 PM	The Ranger gets +18 to spread around as he wants, in multiples of 2, with 10 being the max. I think what you want is an Aragorn/Legolas lovechild that can kill anything by looking at it. You're not going to find such a class in D&D. Well, the Beholder Mage comes close, but nevermind.
Ziatyn Phoenixwolf 09-01-05, 09:04 PM	I have always liked the ranger(I strated playing during 2e), and I do like the v3.5 changes to the ranger class as they feel the way that I have always thought that rangers should be. I absoultly loved the fact that they moved the two weapon fighting back to second level stopping the one level dip just to get the style. The lower hit die does not bother me. Come on people it is only two points that are only a posibility after first level(there is no garantee that one will roll a nine or ten, and PC's are not monsters as such thet do not merely get half of their hp's per level). The reflex save is very nice. I like the fact that the range now gets cless features other than track, vertual two weapon fighting(the choise of going archer is very cool), spells, and favored enemy every five levels. In answer I still like the ranger and fine the new rules very exellent.
Koga:The ninja trick 09-02-05, 12:38 AM	It would've been better without spells. Otherwise it's a very good class..
Karalyn the Sellsword 09-02-05, 03:11 AM	I thought +10 FE bonus was quite high: What I did: Make it +10 Evil Outsider Get a Holy Bane Greastsword Get Improved Favoured Enemy Get Favoured Power Attack Get Powerful Charge Get Greater Powerful Charge Use a Two Handed Style from Dragon Worked great you know. I suppose it's better as a Racial Slayer, which is kinda like their Favoured Enemy bonuses from the Ranger. Is there anywhere people would rather take the class? Like a Monster Slayer or a proper Woodland warrior?
Ranger REG 09-02-05, 05:04 AM	Personally, it's a big improvement over 3.0e. The d8 hit die I can live with in favor of the good Reflex save. I don't exactly see them as frontline warriors (though they still have good BAB progression) but rather skirmishers that knows how to use the wilderness terrain as part of their combat foray, which is a good thing for them since they don't like wearing heavy armor most of the time (unless one has to defend Helm's Deep). The combat style have now been expanded to two, bringing a throwback to the more archetypal ranger -- bowhunters. Could have a bit more, but then that's where Dragon magazine "Class Acts" column comes in. And a few more skill points would make them skilled self-reliable survivalists who usually make their living as loners or in a small skirmishing unit.
Wildonion 09-02-05, 08:03 AM	It would've been better without spells. Otherwise it's a very good class.. You know I always wondered about dropping the spells and bumping the HD back to a d10. Though I thought that that might weaken the Ranger.
KoboldMenace 09-02-05, 09:07 AM	The combat style have now been expanded to two, bringing a throwback to the more archetypal ranger -- bowhunters. Could have a bit more, but then that's where Dragon magazine "Class Acts" column comes in. Or instead of a combat stlyes he coud get 'ranger bonus feats' instead. I think I am going ot go make a list of ranger bonus feats right now.
TheDarknessWithin 09-02-05, 09:14 AM	Does anyone have some variant combat styles they have used. I'm going to be playing in a new campaign relatively soon and I would like some more options for my ranger rather than the same old TWF or Bow feats.
Ranger REG 09-02-05, 03:43 PM	Pick up Dragon #326. They got five new combat styles for rangers (Beast-Wrestling, Mounted-Combat, Piscator, Strong-Arm, and Throwing).
(Psi)SeveredHead 09-02-05, 03:44 PM	I handled it with Pinache of course. No it could've been easier, and yeah I was greatful for the little tweaks the DM shoved in, and making it clear that Rangers got the TWF and ITWF for free saved time with a spiteful player once. So I guess this means you couldn't handle the class either? :rolleyes: I don't like the feel of the new Rangers, it's the most niggling thing I have against the changes. I find myself just picking up a greatsword or falchion these days, so the Combat Style changes are lost on me. That's one reason why I said the Iron Kingdoms ranger is better. Too bad it's not available as a free PDF or something. Then there are the ton of extras I don't use anyway, 11th is a good cut off point unless you're playing to optimisation. I would play up to 13th. I really do miss having a d10 though, at least my Elven Ranger stood a chance then. Wimp! I've never found the d8 to be a problem. Then the ranger was given the high reflex save to make up for the loss of hit points. That's because the swashbuckler is a terribly designed class. WotC can't design light fighter classes - you need D20 Modern for that.
Ranger REG 09-02-05, 03:52 PM	Wimp! I've never found the d8 to be a problem. Heh. I played a cleric a few times and it always ended up being a front-line warrior no matter how much I try to avoid being in that position. Funny, after combat is over all the d10 & d12 HD-based PCs are down to 1 to 2 hit points, and with that comes the mandatory "wounded baby" whining -- "Oh! I'm hurt! Can't go on! CLERIC!"
DarknessEternal 09-02-05, 04:30 PM	Hit die isn't really a problem for any class in D&D. You can tank with a d4 class if you try. It just takes different priorities in resource management.
Oulak 09-02-05, 06:30 PM	I think the d8 HD is no problem. I actually think its kinda cool, like a wink and nudge to 1e (thought sleep spell on the rangers list was like that too - until they took it away from us). I agree that they could have had a rangers bonus feat list and maybe could have given them 1 or two more levels to take feats from them (rather than 2nd, 6th, 11th, and thats it).
Ranger REG 09-03-05, 03:28 AM	I agree that they could have had a rangers bonus feat list and maybe could have given them 1 or two more levels to take feats from them (rather than 2nd, 6th, 11th, and thats it). But how often do you want to give them bonus feat? Every 2 levels? That would diminish the fighter's main feature and make ranger a better class because of the additional hunter/survivalist abilities. I think the combat style is preferable because you can offer feats without having to go the standard route of acquiring prerequisites first. BTW, regarding the damage bonus against species/favored enemies, I like that, though it could be better like 1e ranger's damage bonus vs giant-class opponents (i.e., +1 damage bonus per ranger level).
Calendinedhel 09-03-05, 06:00 AM	I agree that the 3.5 ranger is pretty well cheated in comparison to the 3.0 ranger, as well as the other warrior classes. That's why we use a homebrew version, pretty similar to RT's Bad Mofo Ranger build which should still be on the site somewhere. Check it out, but your DM will probably want to change a few things. It's mostly just added versatility.
Karalyn the Sellsword 09-03-05, 10:26 AM	Cheated? How so? When someone told me they'd get a d8 and 6+int skills I thought they'd at least end up with 6th level spells in compensation. Given that Druids have 4+int skills and a d8 it's not like they'd be that far apart.