Yuku free message boards

In response to Shadow Templar:

I find your analysis equating the ranger and the paladin somewhat laughable. If I understand your post correctly, you are saying that each of the ranger's favored enemies is roughly equivalent to:

a)        the ability to detect evil at will,
b)        the ability to resist fear more effectively and allow others nearby to also receive the same benefit,
c)        the ability to completely remove debilitating diseases on others as well as yourself,
d)        the ability to turn undead,
e)        the benefit of having a exceptionally useful, powerful, and intelligent mount

Really, I must question your knowledge of the game system we are (presumably) talking about if you feel that any of these abilities is roughly equivalent to a +1 damage (and a few skills) toward a particular creature type that may never show up in the game (i.e., GM’s prerogative).

The ranger as it is defined in the PHB is designed poorly – very poorly. The “conditional feats” (ambidexterity and two-weapon fighting being conditionally granted if a certain armor is worn) are a hack. You should either have the feat, or not – in my humble opinion. The “favored enemy” is a non-ability for reasons I have stated earlier. And, on top of it all, the standard ranger is arguably the most “front-loaded” class of all. Many players never progress in the class past the first level because nothing further is gained by doing so - everything is given up front. This revised ranger is an attempt to make the class more flavorful, more playable, more balanced, and more in tune with the rest of the classes in the game system.

In response to many:

The “favored” reflex save was something that I added due to reasons stated in my previous posts. However, I do see your arguments to the contrary. One of the reasons I have not yet posted the “final” .pdf version of this revised ranger is because I always felt that you were probably right in this matter – I just needed to hear the arguments (BTW, I appreciate those of you who made this clear to me). Hence, I will “step-down” the reflex save and have only the “favored” fortitude save in the final revision. I will modify my original post to reflect this.

In response to Hejdun:

I understand where you are coming from with the “special to the druid” argument. I feel that it is just a matter of taste as to weather or not the ranger should share in those abilities. You will notice that the revised ranger has only a small fraction of the power of the druid when it comes to the abilities granted by the class: no wild shape, no higher-level abilities like Venom immunity, A thousand faces, and Timeless body, and a much slimmer selection of spells and number of spells per day. The druid, in my opinion, is the mystic heart and soul of the wood, while the ranger is the animalistic brawn. The two work closely together to serve and protect their demesne.

I feel that the flavor of the druid enhances the ranger and conjoins the two classes in a complementary fashion. I do not feel that it “cheapens” the druid. But as I stated above, it is a matter of taste.

-ogwul

In response to Shadow Templar:

The ranger class ability progression you have posted is, of course, a suitable replacement for the ranger only if you feel it reflects the archetypal ranger’s abilities. Unfortunately, I personally do not feel it does this - but to each his own . As I have stated many times in this thread, the virtual feats offend my sensibilities, and the favored enemies are worthless. Throwing uncanny dodge (UD) in there is definitely an improvement but ... I feel you have gone overboard in the UD progression. It’s almost as good as a rogues! In my opinion, the ability progression you have posted is unbalanced and of flawed design.

I am ever hopeful that the Masters of the Wild supplement will afford some comfort to the battered and bruised ranger class. But sadly, I fear it will not. I think it highly unlikely that WotC will modify this core class as drastically as it needs to be (IMHO). They may add some nifty feats and spells and such, but in the end they will still have a fractured design patched with a few band-aids.

In response to Windfall:

I agree with you to an extent, Windfall. Rangers are not as mystically entwined with the natural forces of the forest as the druids are. That is why the revised ranger only gets a limited, apprentice level selection of the druid powers. Without this small selection of powers, the ranger becomes a fighter - a fighter with a “lemon-twist” of having hailed from the woodlands. He may have some skills that can help him in the woods, but from an adventuring class standpoint, he is still a fighter. The original ranger tried to fix this banality and “lack of a niche” by throwing two-weapon fighting techniques and favored enemies into the mix. This was a failed attempt due to a muddled conceptualization of the archetype. By granting some of the lesser druid abilities to the ranger we tie the two classes together thematically and reinforce the true woodland reverence the ranger deserves.

Monte Cook does a good job in his attempt to revamp the ranger. But he is hamstringed by trying to stay within the confines of the bigoted, two-weapon fighter concept (and he overcorrects a bit with the power level, IMHO). The revised ranger allows players to pursue these traditional aspects of the class if they desire, but it also opens up new options to many players who were stymied by the original class’s lack of vision.

-ogwul

Well, here goes.

After more debate and excellent arguments by many in email, I have elected to restore the “favored” reflex save of my original concept to the revised ranger class. The main reasons for this are the lack of heavy armor and reduced hit die. For reasons sited in my earlier posts, I stand by this modification and I apologize for any confusion changing it may have caused.

Additionally, I have expanded the list of available “bonus feats” that the revised ranger may choose from. This by no means increases the number of bonus feats allotted to the revised ranger over his career. It simply affords more role-playing vistas to the player (e.g, the archer, the two-weapon fighter, the savvy hunter, and the beast-rider can all easily be accommodated by this revised class).

The original post now reflects these modifications and I will be wrapping-up my acrobat pdf file by this weekend.

Thank you all for your input and discussion. Your insight and opinions were appreciated.

-ogwul