Keen rapier? Read again!

Remove all ads!

Got no clue how it is in NWN. But you can afford to waste feats, you take a ranger level for that to ambidex and save up

 

Skedaddle, let me wade in my saying that is total cheese. I think the Ranger, as printed in the PHB, has a lot of issues. I don't think getting all those free feats at first level is fair. In addition it casts the Ranger into a static mold that limits their creativity. Saying every Ranger should fight with two weapons is like saying every Paladin should fight with a lance or every mage with a staff. This is extremely norrow in scope. I much perfer the Cook rewrite www.montecook.com. Taking out all those feats at first and adding bonus feats like a fighter (but every 3 level not every 2) is a fair trade off when you take the other changes into account.

 

I totally agree, and have long ago decided to use Monte's ranger as the base ranger class (I have the printout glued in my PHB)
Nevertheless, taking a standard ranger class (one level, of course) is a popular practice to gain free ambidexterity. And I did put that remark initially as a sarcastic comment, if it wasnt so obvious...

 

Go see the movie classic Predator, that's what I consider to be a ranger. Divide and conquer using stealth (just look at the list of skills for the Ranger). The only people that require a long list of feats are those who charge blindly into bands of enemies, the class also known as fighters .

Hmm, and taking a Monte PowerRanger level means getting Track and a feat of your choice from a list that has most of the fighter feats list (excluding mount oriented ones, and maybe a few others), as opposed to gaining Track, Ambidex and Two weapon fighting? What a great way to make the notion of starting with one level of ranger appeal to a broader base of fighters. And as a bonus they also get more skill points than the previous incarnation. Let's just hope one level of d8 for hit die doesn't ruin their career then, shall we?

Sorry, I needed that rant But as you see, I'm not too thrilled about the new version.

I might have missed something, but are there really any other disadvantages than d8 HD to gain the advantages of the PowerRanger?

And are we straying off topic?

 

Take one level of ranger for one feat is not really a tradeoff for XP penalty from multiclassing. May as well go on with a fighter, and that feat won't be too far any moment. The standard ranger's only juicy part is that it not only gives you two-weapon feats, but also doesn't require the dex of 15 for being an ambidex.

Monte's ranger calls for actually progressing in ranger class to get to more feats and spells, but that's just my opinion.

 

Well, the xp penalty argument assumes you don't have fighter as your favored class (ie, aren't human/hal-elf/dwarf). Granted, the discussion in question seems to assume an elf, for the dex benefit.

However, its not just the ranger that has spiffy 'one level' munchkin benefits. So does the barbarian and the Paladin, though you could argue two levels is the best 'munchkin' zone for those classes.

 

I think one level of paladin gives a benefit too level-dependant to consider that munchkin. From one level you do not gain spells or really meaningful lay on hands. The CHA bonus to saves. And no real munchkin puts CHA higher than 8 in anything but bard/sorcerer

Barbie? Yes, rage certainly has its benefit, but a rage per day for a class? I think not, but that's jes' me.

Really, that's getting off topic...

 

Actually, its unlimited detect evil, immunity to all disease (even magical), and a Cha bonus to saves for a first level paladin. Immunity to fear based effects at second level.

The barb isn't as clear, but the fast movement is very useful and the 2nd level uncanny dodge is pretty nice, too.

Remember, your hypothetical keen rapier munchkin is already going to be a high dex, low armor type character. R1/B2/F17 would be a lot nastier than a straight 20th level fighter. Of course, an elf would take the 20% exp penalty, but no different than the Fighter/Ranger already being discussed.

 

Azardu, the old ranger is underpowered considering the fact that a fighter easily can whack them, so it needed a boost which it has had with monte's ranger.
I'd say Monte's ranger is closer to something justifying than the original one, though the boost in everything might be a tad too heavy. If skill points when down to normal perhaps.

 

Say what? The fighter *should* whack the ranger in straight up combat. He'd do the same thing to a paladin and probably a barb, too. If that's the real reason for rewriting the ranger class, its a joke. If he sought to give the class a bit more flexibility in character concept or make it more like the original version, that's fine.

 

my point is that the ranger is more useless at fighting even though the class seems to be very fight orientated. I think giving him some bonus feats and cut the hit die would be fine. At least that way you could add some of the lacking abilities compared to other classes to them.

[ August 04, 2002, 22:44: Message edited by: Lokken ]

 

*ahem* A fighter/ranger/barbarian elf would get a 40% exp penalty. Hardly a fair trade if you ask me. And of course the ranger should be whacked buy the fighter. It is a fighter after all. The ranger has more roleplaying oriented abilities, like animal empathy and track. The fighter tends to be nothing but a tank.

 

an elf fighter/ranger/barb would get no xp penalty as long as all the levels doesn't differ with 2 or more.

(meaning fighter 1/ranger 2/barb 2 would be ok while a fighter 1/ranger 3/barb 2 would not, and get 20% xp penalty for fighter/ranger mixup)

 

Hmmm, you are right about my example Sol'kanar. The rule is 'within one level of highest class', whereas I had thought keeping the two lower classes in balance would be sufficient. In that case, this only makes sense if you are a human, dwarf, or half elf (in which case you have no exp penalty). A half orc would have the 20% penalty, which is tolerable. I can't imagine anything worth 40% penalty.

Lokken, I don't see how the ranger is useless in combat. He's at least as good as a paladin. The barb and fighter are somewhat better, but the ranger has better non combat abilities. The standard ranger might be a bit too much of a straightjacket design, but its not too weak a character.

 

I think the original ranger was narrow in scope and weaker than a fighter, and when I say weaker I mean overall not just in fighting. The 'fixed' feats at first level made you fight with two weapons or fall way behind in ability to fighters, barbarains or paladins. Barbarains, and paladins continued to gain new class features after first while the ranger only gained spells and additional favored enemies. Since paladins also gained spells this is not saying much. I think that replacing the fixed feats with feat slots is a fair trade off. The Cook ranger only gets half as many bonus feats as a pure fighter and with only a d8 vs. a d10, and limited to light armor he is weaker in a head to head conflict. But with the additional skill points he is better able to use this skills to avoid direct combat.

Sol'Kanar, to say the original ranger is more role-playing oriented is crap. Ever class has as much role-playing potential as the player running them. This is not grounds for determining the balance between classes.

 

I believe the Ranger would win against the Fighter quite easily. Because the ranger would stay out of sight and employ ranged weapons, using his skills to remain unseen. Fight orientated the class may be, but not in the Fighter kind of way. Let's see the fighter try to make listen checks against a ranger moving silently... Of course, this assumes the ranger manages to lure the fighter into the forest, or somewhere else with good concealment, but has anyone ever heard of a smart fighter, eh? But for the average hack and slash adventure, where you travel from room to room bashing monsters, the Ranger might seem inferior to some of the other classes.

 

I must admit, I never did understand where they got this 'rangers = dual wield' idea from. Its certainly not in the 1st edition, nor does it seem to be a common archetype in literary character of the ranger sort. The first edition ranger tended to be blended into archer variants, not dual wielders. Spears and bows dominate the 'woodsman' characters in fiction, too.

I don't mind the Cooke ranger. It does allow a lot of traditional ranger archetypes to be made without resorting to dual classing. That's a good thing. However, I very much disagree with a lot of the reasoning given for making the new character. I don't think the ranger is too weak as is, nor do I think there is a problem with the favored enemy system. Cooke said something silly to the effect that he thought it was a problem because the DM controlled when it came into play, not the player. Uh, like the DM doesn't control how often a cleric's Turn Undead is needed or whether a paladin's fear/disease/etc immunities are useful? Heck, the DM can control how useful cleave is, for that matter. If he always sticks you with really tough single foes, its worthless. Etc, etc.

That's just profoundly deficient thought processes going on there and it makes me rather leery of the end result of such processes.

Aloha
Vormaerin

 

If one of my players were to say something, I'd let them trade one of the first level feats. As long as they had a good reason and it was appropriate to their character. And how is it crap to say that the ranger is more roleplaying oriented? A fighter's skills generally revolve around combat, hence fighter. Perhaps you misunderstand me. What I call roleplaying-oriented is non-combat abilities. The ranger has more non-combat abilities than the fighter. Simple as that.

 

I agree that the ranger has more non-combat abilities than a fighter but you can say that for all other classes as well. A fighter is the best at physical combat, so what. A mage is the best at magic. Does this mean anything? No, it is only pointing out a classes strenght. You are only talking about game mechanics. And that have NOTHING to do with role-playing. A fighter has just as much role-playing ability as any other class. Role-playing comes from the player not the character.

 

Vormaerin: How about Aragorn attacking the pack of ringwraiths with sword in one hand and torch in the other? That's a pretty cool dual wielding scene, isn't it?
I might be repeating myself now, but I consider the two weapon feats to be a way of giving the ranger more choices in melee, rather than restricting him to a specific path. Running through the woods would make a shield very impractical, so that would bring him down to the choice of using either a weapon one handed only, or using a two handed weapon, if not for the virtual feats he gains.
The two starting feats merely provide an extra choice for how the character arms himself. The class is able to stand well on its own feet without those. Heck, with a two handed weapon he will be able to do his full damage potential every time he strikes, not just when he is making a full round attack. I am actually pretty sure that without the two weapon fighting feats, all or most rangers would be running around with a two handed weapon. How often have you guys had combatants with one hand free in your games?

And I do not think you need the Cook ranger to create a traditional archetype. That's what the rules have you gain a feat every third level for, isn't it?

But as you say Vormaerin, the worst part is the "profoundly deficient thought process", as you so eloquently put it Cook says he feels that there is a problem with the favored enemy system, so he changes about every other aspect of the class, yet for some obscure reason he lets the favored enemy system stay intact. Now what's up with that?

Sol'Kanar: Trading the feats in for other feats seems just wrong to me... If you're a human you'll have the potential to be starting with 4 good feats at first level then. Better that two of them are restricted in use to only when you perform a full round attack in my opinion, rather than having some maniac with a bow running around dominating the fighter's domain the first couple of levels.

Voltric: Agreed. The fighter is best at fighting, the mage is best at magic, the ranger is best at uhm, ranging? I should create a class that's called Roleplayer, which will rival all other classes in roleplaying.

-Az