Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Lord_Cronos 08-27-07, 11:02 AM	Hello, Everyone I was at con and a few of us were talking about how much we like the idea of the ranger but not the class itself. Well my Dm heard my complaints and told me to make a better ranger. So here he is (rough draft) I would appreciate any and all input on this so I don't look like an idiot when I take it to him. Thank you for your input, idea's and time. Abilities: Dex, Str, Con, and Wis are this rangers key abilities. Dex beacause he relies on light armor and movment to keep him safe in the wild and combat. Str because he finds himself frecquently in combat. Con because he must be hardy to survive in the regions of the world he lives. Wisdom because his most helpfull skills are based on Wisdom. Alignment: Any Hit dice: d8 Class Skills: Balance, Climb, Concentration, Craft, Disable Device, Escape Artist, Handle Animal, Heal, Hide, Jump, Know (dungeoneering), Know (geography), Know (nature), Listen, Move silent, Profession, Ride, Search, Speak Language, Spot, Survival, Swim, Tumble, Use Rope Skill points at 1st lvl: (8+Int mod) x 4 Skill points per lvl: 8 + Int mod The Ranger BAB Fort Ref Will Sepcial 1st +1 +2 +2 +0 1st Favored enemy, Track, Trap finding 2nd +2 +3 +3 +0 Skirmish (+1d6), uncanny dodge 3rd +3 +3 +3 +1 Fast movement +10ft, Skirmish (+1d6, +1 AC) Trackless step 4th +4 +4 +4 +1 Bonus Feat 5th +5 +4 +4 +1 Evasion, Skirmish (+2d6, +1 AC) 6th +6/+1 +5 +5 +2 Flawless Stride, 2nd Favored enemy 7th +7/+2 +5 +5 +2 Bonus Feat, Skirmish (+2d6, +2AC) 8th +8/+3 +6 +6 +2 Camouflage, bonus feat 9th +9/+4 +6 +6 +3 Blindsence 30ft 10th +10/+5 +7 +7 +3 3rd favored enemy, bonus feat 11th +11/+6/+1 +7 +7 +3 Fast movement +20ft, Skirmish (+3d6, +2AC) 12th +12/+7/+2 +8 +8 +4 Bonus feat 13th +13/+8/+3 +8 +8 +4 Skirmish (+4d6, +3AC) 14th +14/+9/+4 +9 +9 +4 Hide in plain sight 15th +15/+10/+5 +9 +9 +5 Skirmish (+4d6, +4AC), 4th favored enemy 16th +16/+11/+6/+1 +10 +10 +5 Bonus feat 17th +17/+12/+7/+2 +10 +10 +5 Skirmish (+5d6, +4AC) 18th +18/+13/+8/+3 +11 +11 +6 Free movement 19th +19/+14/+9/+4 +11 +11 +6 Skirmish (+5d6, +5AC) 20th +20/+15/+10/+5 +12 +12 +6 5th Favored enemy, Blindsight 30ft,Bonus feat Class Features Weapons and Armor Proficiency: This ranger is proficient with all simple weapons, light, one handed melee weapons and Bows, and with light armor and shields (except tower shields). Bonus feats: Any feats may be selected Favored enemy: See ranger class pg.46 PHB. Track: gains track as a bonus feat. Trap finding: see rogue class feature pg 50 PHB. Skirmish: see scout class pg. 12 of CAdv. Uncanny dodge: see barbarian class pg.26 PHB. Fast Movement: See Monk class pg.41 PHB. Trackless Step: see Druid Class pg.36 PHB. Evasion: see Monk class pg.41 PHB. Flawless stride: see scout class pg.12 CAdv. Camouflage: see scout class pg.12 CAdv. Blindsence: functions as described on pg.306 of MM. Hide in plain sight: see Ranger pg.48 PHB Free Movement: See scout class pg.12 CAdv. Blindsight: see scout class pg.12 CAdv. Thank you all again for your input! Also If you don't like it don't be a Jerk about it.... be constructive in your critque please.
dman11235 08-27-07, 11:12 AM	So.....you took the scout and gave it full BAB, track, good fort save, and favored enemy? I have never said this before, but this has promted me to do so: W.T.F. Hopefully I will never have to say it again.
Lord_Cronos 08-27-07, 11:22 AM	No! He has some of the same abilities but not all also my version has no spell casting ability nor animal companion.
dman11235 08-27-07, 11:26 AM	Like I said, you took scout and gave it this stuff. Scouts don't have spell casting. Granted you weirded up the skirmish progression, but it ends up being the same. If you want a hunter with skirmish, take the swift hunter feat, 3 levels of scout, and 17 ranger. And this way you keep the spells and animal companion.
DM Zoc 08-27-07, 11:32 AM	I hate to state the obvious, but this is just a better ranger. I never saw anything wrong with the ranger to begin with, so I can't say if you've gone "too far" or "not far enough" in getting the ranger to be as strong as you want it to be. It does strike me as odd that you have a skirmisher class with full BAB. The nature of skirmish meshes very poorly with iterative attacks.
dman11235 08-27-07, 11:35 AM	Agreed with DM Zoc. I though that ranger was well made, it just takes some skill to get those spells (which are actually really nice ones) right. See my previous post on adding skirmish.
RaivokasMagma 08-27-07, 12:17 PM	I think this ranger is too powerful
Lord_Cronos 08-27-07, 01:51 PM	Agreed with DM Zoc. I though that ranger was well made, it just takes some skill to get those spells (which are actually really nice ones) right. See my previous post on adding skirmish. I started with the ranger class and disected it and added what I liked from the scout not the other way around. Anyway Ok I don't have complete scoundrel so I have never seen the swift hunter feat. That looks like it will work well to add skirmish. But as far as the spells and animal companion well everyone I have talked to in the past few months seem to say the same thing why spells and animal companion? The 3.x ranger just isn't what it should be... He should be the wilderness warrior and not a drizzt clone or a archer only, the combat master stuff blows so favored enemy, track, his BAB, and his saves are the only redeaming factors.
bkdubs123 08-27-07, 02:15 PM	I wouldn't be surprised if this is exactly the sort of Ranger we'll see in 4e. However, there are a few balance issues. 8+Int skills and Full BAB should never be put together (unless those 8 skill points per level are your class features). You actually sped up a lot of the progression of the Ranger's really cool abilities, which I'm not sure I'm okay with. Evasion, Camouflage and Hide and Plain Sight. These are very powerful abilities for a full BAB character to have and the last two (without regard to the Scout) are very Ranger signature abilities that probably should be further along in the level progression. Finally when re-writing a class like this I find that, instead of taking out things you didn't like and putting new things in, its better to give the class more options (another path I'm sure WotC is taking with 4e). Keep what you didn't necessarily like, but also add your new stuff. However, the player doesn't get both, he has to choose. Allow the player to Grab an Animal Companion and Spellcasting instead of the Skirmish ability. Maybe even throw a third path in there for further character customization.
Meep326 08-27-07, 02:23 PM	Hello, Everyone I was at con and a few of us were talking about how much we like the idea of the ranger but not the class itself. Well my Dm heard my complaints and told me to make a better ranger. So here he is (rough draft) I would appreciate any and all input on this so I don't look like an idiot when I take it to him. Thank you for your input, idea's and time. There's a ranger-type class similar to what you presented here. The druid variant presented on pg. 58 of Unearthed Arcana, you lose wild shape and armor and sheild proficiecy's but keep everything else, and then gain Monk AC bonuses and fast movement, and favored enemy, swift tracker, and track all as the ranger. Yea, your're losing full BAB, but you'd be gaining much more.
Lord_Cronos 08-27-07, 02:24 PM	Thanx... I'll see what I can come up with.
Flamewarrior 08-27-07, 02:35 PM	W.T.F. Hopefully I will never have to say it again. I think this ranger is too powerfulStill worse than any class with full spellcasting, and arguably to classes with full manifesting too; thus, it's a very viable balance point if he wants things to be closer to the spellcasters. So, too powerful as compared to what? For the record, I'm making a class that looks somewhat like this, and it still has weak meldshaping on top ... because I'm not modifying the spellcasters much, and want the other classes to actually matter next to them. If you want a hunter with skirmish, take the swift hunter feat, 3 levels of scout, and 17 ranger. And this way you keep the spells and animal companion.You're telling him to take a roundabout multiclass-feat combo that picks things he doesn't want to have - do you consider official material sacred (since trading spells and animal companion for skirmish and Fortitude doesn't look particularly unbalanced)? It does strike me as odd that you have a skirmisher class with full BAB. The nature of skirmish meshes very poorly with iterative attacks.Who said a scout not making iterative attacks is worth a damn? It isn't*, so having more of them only helps - including with meeting prerequisites for scout-like feats such as Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, and, worse, Rapid Blitz (IIRC, it requires the BAB +18 a scout never has) - are you gonna tell me it doesn't look anything like scouts (seriously, I read it and thought "crap, scouts can't take it")? *: namely, any scout worth its salt either uses Greater Manyshot or figures out some way to move and full-attack in the same round (which isn't really hard, by the way). Agreed with DM Zoc. I though that ranger was well made, it just takes some skill to get those spells (which are actually really nice ones) right.Agreed, the spells from Complete Adventurer and Spell Compendium go a long way - hence why I'm not even sure if this ranger is stronger than the official. So, what's the objection? Lord_Cronos: in the end, that's a lot closer to the ranger concept I have (as said, I'm making one similar to this), and I think it's roughly in the same power level of a ranger using the good spells found in some sourcebooks, which does point that depending on what books you have and what other classes you use, you may wanna make it even better.
dman11235 08-27-07, 05:45 PM	1) Still worse than any class with full spellcasting.....So, too powerful as compared to what? 2) You're telling him to take a roundabout multiclass-feat combo that picks things he doesn't want to have - do you consider official material sacred (since trading spells and animal companion for skirmish and Fortitude doesn't look particularly unbalanced)? 3) Agreed, the spells from Complete Adventurer and Spell Compendium go a long way - hence why I'm not even sure if this ranger is stronger than the official. So, what's the objection? Okay, I inserted numbers on the points I wish to cover. But first, your name doesn't happen to do with what you are trying to do, does it? 1) too powerful compared to every single other non-full spellcasting class, and comes at least close (using completely arbitrary measuring devices) or surpassing some full casters. Besides, this is scout BUT BETTER. 2) first of all, not roundabout at all, it takes one feat, and 3 levels of scout/1 level of ranger. There are worse that people do ALL THE TIME. Second, if you don't want spell casting or an animal companion, there's distracting shot from PHBII, and the spelless ranger from CW. 3) My objection is that it takes an existing class and just makes it better. It's not changing the ranger (BTW, that skirmish progression is a LOT better than the spells, especially with full BAB), it's pumping up the scout. Ask yourself, would you rather play a scout, a ranger, a ranger scout (even ranger 1/scout 19), or THIS. The answer come a definitive THIS. That's a bad sign.
Flamewarrior 08-27-07, 06:00 PM	Okay, I inserted numbers on the points I wish to cover. But first, your name doesn't happen to do with what you are trying to do, does it?It worked, finally! 1) too powerful compared to every single other non-full spellcasting class, and comes at least close (using completely arbitrary measuring devices) or surpassing some full casters. Besides, this is scout BUT BETTER.Just no (except for the "better scout" part, of course). Seriously, I don't have the time now to elaborate on how any full spellcaster runs it to the ground, but it does - read other people's thoughts; and, with some luck, I eventually get the time to put some examples. 2) first of all, not roundabout at all, it takes one feat, and 3 levels of scout/1 level of ranger. There are worse that people do ALL THE TIME. Second, if you don't want spell casting or an animal companion, there's distracting shot from PHBII, and the spelless ranger from CW.And the fact that people have to do roundabout things is the suck. And all spelless rangers officially made so far are the suck too, because none has offered anything as valuable as spellcasting. 3) My objection is that it takes an existing class and just makes it better. It's not changing the ranger (BTW, that skirmish progression is a LOT better than the spells, especially with full BAB), it's pumping up the scout. Ask yourself, would you rather play a scout, a ranger, a ranger scout (even ranger 1/scout 19), or THIS. The answer come a definitive THIS. That's a bad sign.Yeah, it just makes it better - do you consider that it might be because the scout needed to be better to be competitve with many classes? Skirmish isn't better than spells with the right books - seriously, if talk about just the PHB, I never disagreed, but "spellcasting ranger" means either "uses SC and CV" or "crap nobody that knows D&D well takes to level 20, or even past ... a very low number".
dman11235 08-27-07, 06:37 PM	Not starting this. (well, continuing it, anyway.)
bkdubs123 08-27-07, 06:41 PM	When you powercreep one class to be better balanced against the spellcasters, then you have to start powercreeping all of the other classes, and pretty soon you've got an enormous task on your hands. I like to call that task 4th edition.
natzero 08-27-07, 06:56 PM	ya this is little too powerful imo aswell. just a little too much. its been said but.... full BAB, 8 skill ranks, extra feats (of which there is no specific selection ie. fighter), trap finding, favored enemy, etc. just a meld of some very good classes, of which multiclassing wont be required. in the long run this is allowing just more powergaming. in otherwords..... id play this class in a heart beat. as would any one else if it was a published class. :D :D :D :D
Flamewarrior 08-27-07, 09:07 PM	Not starting this. (well, continuing it, anyway.)Not sure, man: if that was about me, know that by "IT WORKED" I meant "the joke worked"; I'm not a flamer. When you powercreep one class to be better balanced against the spellcasters, then you have to start powercreeping all of the other classes, and pretty soon you've got an enormous task on your hands. I like to call that task 4th edition.I like to call the task "my game" - seriously, I'm making this now, and have made 4 "powercreeped" classes, if you have any interest (ironically, the next one would be the explorer, which looks like this, with incarnum frosting).
bkdubs123 08-27-07, 11:18 PM	All I'm saying is that you might just want to wait until 4e comes out before you start "fixing" all the problems with 3.5. They're doing it right now (supposedly)! Why waste the time. I was just about to do an entire rewrite of almost every class, rework the feat system, fudge around some skills, and create an entire new spellcasting system. I had already started, and would likely be continuing if I hadn't heard that 4e was coming out. I'll wait to see what 4e has in store. I have high hopes. If I don't like it, I'll stick with fixing 3.5s glaring issues myself. As I said earlier, this is probably very close to exactly the kind of Ranger we'll see in 4e (however I suspect there will be options for a few other flavors of Ranger). That doesn't make it a bad thing, that merely makes it the future. In 3.5 it would have been considered "overpowered," but in reality it really wouldn't be (well except that I still don't like 8 skills per level coupled with Full BAB). If you're going to play this class in a traditional 3.5 game, and if you're going to be playing alongside other melee (Full BAB) characters you might be stealing a lot of thunder. If you're going to play this in a sort of uber houseruled 3.75 game in which several other mundane combat roles have been powercreeped so that they better compete with spellcasters then you should be fine (but SERIOUSLY lower the skills to 4-6 per level, your skill list isn't even that big, you don't need that many points).
Flamewarrior 08-29-07, 10:27 AM	All I'm saying is that you might just want to wait until 4e comes out before you start "fixing" all the problems with 3.5. They're doing it right now (supposedly)! Why waste the time. I was just about to do an entire rewrite of almost every class, rework the feat system, fudge around some skills, and create an entire new spellcasting system. I had already started, and would likely be continuing if I hadn't heard that 4e was coming out. I'll wait to see what 4e has in store. I have high hopes. If I don't like it, I'll stick with fixing 3.5s glaring issues myself.Some people just don't think they need to stop meanwhile. Besides, the people who don't stop now get more time of intellectual exercise, and may be in a better position to find the shortcomings in 4E. In 3.5 it would have been considered "overpowered," but in reality it really wouldn't be (well except that I still don't like 8 skills per level coupled with Full BAB). If you're going to play this in a sort of uber houseruled 3.75 game in which several other mundane combat roles have been powercreeped so that they better compete with spellcasters then you should be fine (but SERIOUSLY lower the skills to 4-6 per level, your skill list isn't even that big, you don't need that many points).No, it wouldn't - do you not know what this guy (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060802a&page=2) can do? Also, what's the horrible thing with full BAB and 8 skill points/level?
wolf_man007 08-29-07, 11:08 AM	Just play a Scout. There, problem solved.
imakuni67 08-29-07, 12:03 PM	8+Int skills and Full BAB should never be put together (unless those 8 skill points per level are your class features). Totally agree. Also, I think the 3.5 edition of Ranger fixed it for good. The spells and animal companion are vital to making a Ranger as well. This revision is just too far away from what the Ranger should be
Lord_Cronos 08-29-07, 12:32 PM	What!? How are spells and an animal companion related to a ranger? A ranger is just a wilderness warrior... not some druid, wizard.... or any other caster. His animal companion is about worthless, If he trys to help in combat the DM will waste him first. The ranger is also a wilderness protector he would never have an animal anywere where it could be injured so why would a ranger have one? A ranger should be good enough with out spells and a companion to handle what ever comes his way. Now the core ranger gets the combat mastery stuff, Combat mastery pigeon holes the ranger into only 2 modes either a bow guy or a TwF. TwF Blows except for fluff and the Bow is ok at best. This stuff came out after drizzt... 3.x ranger is just a poor try at making a clone of that icon character. Now saying that; the Core ranger dosn't stand up very well when you compare it to other classes that can do his job. scout being one but also almost any caster class can do it better so how is it that the ranger is so good? Same has been said about the fighter and most melee/range type classes when you compare them to casters. Now lets look at the Tob that book has made almost every other melee/range class about worthless they are way better than any of the core class non-casters. This class is just a rough draft anyway.
dman11235 08-29-07, 01:02 PM	The paladin is a martial cleric, the ranger is a martial druid. (yes, I know what you are going to say, don't say it). Also, you can't compare martial classes to casters. It just can't be done. I hate using cliches, but that is like comparing apples and oranges. I do want to know why you think TWF is bad, as well as bows. I have found that the "best" (most damaging) build do not involve one weapon, rather two (or more) weapons, and the bow can't really be compared to melee weapons, as it is a different concept. You trade damage (unless you get skirmish) for not being in melee with the big bad bruiser. I also want to know how a scorcerer can be a wilderness expert with full BAB, and a wizard, and a cleric without the nature domain, and a beguiler, and a warmage, and a wu jen, and a shujenja. The only ones left are druid and spirit shaman. And the druid is overpowered. And also, once again, if you balance one class to casters (which you shouldn't do), you need to balance all classes to casters. Just don't balance a martial class to a caster class. I'll have you know that I don't like what the ToB did. I really liked the monk (though it was ever so slightly underpowered, but adding anything would probably overpower it), and then came the swordsage. Fighter made obsolete by warblade. I still consider those classes a full caster of sort (maybe half caster?), so those aren't something you should balance to as well. And another thing, if you look at the amount of really powerful things a full caster can do, this is no where near as powerful as some. In fact, you'd need to give it full casting to make it as powerful as a full caster. One final thing: I have never even heard of Drizzt before I joined the boards. I liked rangers before then.
Lord_Cronos 08-29-07, 01:35 PM	Thats just it when you have these uber class's no one wants to play the others. I havnt seen anyone play a fighter or a ranger in about 4 years there just isnt a need not with uber casters that can take there place (like the druid) also the ranger didn't have casting ability nor a animal before 3.x D&D. So why do they have it know? Back in 2e ranger was a much better class and you took it for its ability to be better than others in its field now with the right "build" casters can do it. My big problem is why bother with the ranger as is when there are others that do a better job of what he's suppose to be doing? Also I have never seen a TwF thats better than a ThF they just cant deal the same amount of dmg. I read the drizzt books back in the 80's when they were new...lol and 3.x ranger is a try at making the class like the character.
dman11235 08-29-07, 02:00 PM	Yeah, see, I wasn't even alive during the 80's (even though some of my favorite music comes from there.....). I don't even know the origins of Drizzt. As for the TWF vs THF, I made a thri-kreen skirmish dervish that averaged something like 650 or 700 damage a round, without the bard and with only two hands (still skirmish), that would be about 150 if I hit on half the attacks. The 650 or 700 was because I couldn't miss (words of creation), and I would have gotten about 150 from the bard. Actually, that makes about 200 damage at level 13 per round hitting with half. The barbarian (ThF greatsword) was getting about 100 with the bard on a full attack. Without, it would probably be 50. The warblade, probably would get 60 on one (manuever). I can go over many TWF that do better in play than ThF. There's AC (Improved Buckler defence with high dex) that can be better than a THF, mobility of a dervish, more weapons=more SA, SS, and skirmish dice, etc. ThF win on non-persicion based damage dealers, like a raging barbarian. I think your problem is that you are hung up on the concept that more damage=better. There are other things to concider. I like to play monks alot, and I put 8s in strength. Why? So I can have a higher dex, wis, con and thus have a higher AC and saves. I don't die. Ever. I annoy my DMs with how hard it is to kill me as a monk. i don't get lucky, I just have insane defensive capabilities. And if I can't die, and one of us must, then you must die. And I still do 4d8 per hit base for medium. Also, with the right build, casters can do anything better than any non-caster class (except maybe ToB (ex) abilities). The druid? That's just something that no one should ever balance a class to. Not even other full casters. Since this is a martial class, it should be balanced differently than full casters.And something that you can do to get the exact (almost, you don't get the blind sight or the full BAB, but it's precision based, you shouldn't get it anyway) same effect is ranger 1/scout 19 with the swift hunter feat.
peteyrock 08-29-07, 02:12 PM	Thats just it when you have these uber class's no one wants to play the others. I havnt seen anyone play a fighter or a ranger in about 4 years there just isnt a need not with uber casters that can take there place (like the druid) also the ranger didn't have casting ability nor a animal before 3.x D&D. So why do they have it know? Back in 2e ranger was a much better class and you took it for its ability to be better than others in its field now with the right "build" casters can do it. My big problem is why bother with the ranger as is when there are others that do a better job of what he's suppose to be doing? Also I have never seen a TwF thats better than a ThF they just cant deal the same amount of dmg. I read the drizzt books back in the 80's when they were new...lol and 3.x ranger is a try at making the class like the character. Personally, Ranger is my favorite class. I realize that I'm in the minority with this opinion. Also, I only use a base class outside of the core if I feel that it's both fair and fun to play (Warmage is a good example of this, even though one could get the exact same thing by multiclassing and having a precise spell selection). I can't stand the way that D&D is gradually making it okay to power game. That being said, it is now clear that my opinion in this matter is probably going to be disagreed with by just about anyone who reads it. I think the problem with this write-up, though it is well structured, is that's it too powerful. AC boost, vast damage increase, most levels get two traits, multiple bonus feats, huge speed increase, etc. It's too much. Plus, I would rather not keep track of favored enemies/conditional damage and AC increase with every encounter. Playing this would be clunky and slow down the game momentum. Not to mention, if the player invested heavily in Dexterity, it would get boring when nothing (not even area attacks from behind) can hit you. If you really want to play a character that is set up like this, I recommend simply gestalting (which is another thing that irks me). EDIT: I wasn't calling you a power gamer above. I was looking the other base classes people have created on this thread. Those people are power gamers.
Flamewarrior 08-29-07, 04:25 PM	Compare the ranger with spellcasters and see if it isn't weaker. I do weaken spellcasters instead of powering the other up to their level, but considering the power disparity in official material an advantage is just madness. EDIT: I wasn't calling you a power gamer above. I was looking the other base classes people have created on this thread. Those people are power gamers.That being me - you could at least make your accusation honest by giving names, you know.
Hanzo187 08-29-07, 07:10 PM	Overall, I always felt Ranger was a fairly good class. It meshes very well with the Rogue, Scout, and Ninja, and it's a decent combat/stealth hybrid class. However, you're giving this fella A LOT of power right away. Camouflage and HiPS are things a Rogue can't get until at least 10th Level, so you should knock back those abilities. Also, 8 SP is way too much for max BAB, d8's, and excellent stealth capabilities. You have to knock it down to 6 SP. That's a given. On another front, this class also polarizes the usefulness of the Swift Hunter Feat. The Skirmish on the Ranger makes the Feat way too powerful. On the other hand, it could also make it completely useless because some would see Swift Hunter as a redundancy. If you need an improved ranger, put in a special ability where the Ranger gets a bonus to certain skills (notably the Wis Skills), a la the Ninja's Acrobatics ability. Also, get rid of the bonus feats at every level you have them except at 12th, 16th, and 20th (three is enough for the abilities it has), and move fast movement to 4th and 12th Levels. That way, you can avoid the dead levels you would wind up with. Also, you should either tone down or lose skirmish. It's got the potential for abuse. Additionally, you could do favored enemy at 1st, 4th, 8th, and so on to get 6 enemies to help out. Nothing personal, but the moment, all you have is a Scout/Ranger hybrid. If you create some unique abilities (like the skill bonus I mentioned), it would help you pretty well. Good Luck.
Lord_Cronos 08-29-07, 08:20 PM	Overall, I always felt Ranger was a fairly good class. It meshes very well with the Rogue, Scout, and Ninja, and it's a decent combat/stealth hybrid class. However, you're giving this fella A LOT of power right away. Camouflage and HiPS are things a Rogue can't get until at least 10th Level, so you should knock back those abilities. Also, 8 SP is way too much for max BAB, d8's, and excellent stealth capabilities. You have to knock it down to 6 SP. That's a given. On another front, this class also polarizes the usefulness of the Swift Hunter Feat. The Skirmish on the Ranger makes the Feat way too powerful. On the other hand, it could also make it completely useless because some would see Swift Hunter as a redundancy. If you need an improved ranger, put in a special ability where the Ranger gets a bonus to certain skills (notably the Wis Skills), a la the Ninja's Acrobatics ability. Also, get rid of the bonus feats at every level you have them except at 12th, 16th, and 20th (three is enough for the abilities it has), and move fast movement to 4th and 12th Levels. That way, you can avoid the dead levels you would wind up with. Also, you should either tone down or lose skirmish. It's got the potential for abuse. Additionally, you could do favored enemy at 1st, 4th, 8th, and so on to get 6 enemies to help out. Nothing personal, but the moment, all you have is a Scout/Ranger hybrid. If you create some unique abilities (like the skill bonus I mentioned), it would help you pretty well. Good Luck. Thanx I'm in the middle of a revamp as I write this I should have it posted by some time thursday.