D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]

[RobbyPants]

1. What are the rangers class ablities of note.
2. What is the ranger doing right.
3. What is the ranger doing wrong?
4. Based on 1, 2, 3 what can we do te make the ranger equal in terms of "Power"/"Versitility" to set it equal or nearly equal to a Swordsage, or a Crusader who's dedicated to defending the forest.

I agree in that this should be the basic approach for any change (although number 4 would need to change).  I'm not sure how well I can answer all of these.  I guess to keep in mind, I like the basic idea of the PHB ranger.  I'm fine with his basic abilities.

1) Full BAB.  Light armored.  Favored enemy.  Wilderness stealth/tracking.

2) Decent stealth.  Good tracking.  Good at landing attacks.  Favored Enemy works well in some situations.

3) Favored eneamy doesn't work in other situations.  Barring using tricks to get lots of attacks, even with FE, the ranger doesn't do a lot of damage.  Swift hunter does seem almost mandatory when it's allowed.

4) I'm not well enough versed in the ToB to give a good answer here.

Oddly enough, I left out the animal companion and divine casting from number 1.  Now, I don't really want to remove those, as I'd like to keep the class relatively close to it's PHB original.  I suppose we could always work out an ACF if we wanted later.  That's pretty low on my priority list.

[Elennsar]

1) I'd add "generally familiar with and good at surviving in the wilderness" to the class abilities. Though no special powers per se, Survival as a class skill and an incentive to max it out lead to being at the top here.

2) No comments here.

3) Too dependent on Favored Enemy if this is the case. Rangers need to feel that Favored Enemy gives them an advantage over those not so focused in that situation, and that their class abilities in generally are good enough to be useful, if not necessarily as big a contributor in a fight. After all, how many other people know how to survive naked in the arctic besides rangers? Not many. This isn't quite as sexy, but these kind of abilities, if they count for something, are worth remembering.

4) Same as Robby.

As for realistic: Let me put it this way. In a world where dragons are real (with all the MM powers), which is more likely...

1) Humanity dominates and dragons hide in fear.

2) Dragons dominate and humanity hides in fear.

3) Neither, dragons are in remote locations where most humans don't go. Those who do get pwned.

4) Neither, dragons are in remote locations where most humans don't go. Those who do pwn the dragons.

There is no reason that a magic missile (no italics, I mean as in a "missile made of magical energy", not as in the specific 1st level spell) has to be better than an arrow. There is no reason that humanity has to be able to survive the Wrath of the Dragons unassisted.

I don't mind supernatural beings being able to do things that are literally impossible. They're entitled to it. Those who want to do things equally impossible without a similar method of doing so are shit out of luck, yes. That's the point. In a setting where you have to learn X or die, then there isn't a role for "I don't know X" people.

[Midnight_v]

1) I'd add "generally familiar with and good at surviving in" to the class abilities.

2) No comments here.

3) Too dependent on Favored Enemy if this is the case.

4) Same as Robby.

Come on dude gimme a number 2. At leas that way we all have an gauge for how you feel about the class. Just try it, please? 

1. Same as robby plus the giant cat. I rememeber looking at dragon and I could always tell who the ranger was cause he was the guy with the hawk on his shoulder or the Wolf crouching next to him as they examined a trail together.  The spell casting? Meh. It's so late that its a minor class feature, BUT at high levels it might need to be more because at high levels the game changes so dramatically. At least an animal growth or two might help. A pass witout trace, a "pass wall" or entangle maybe. Its basically just for utility overall.

2. It does have a good skill selection. It has all the components that makes it a passable alternative to fighter or maybe even rogue if you're out in the woods. Gives you the weapon styles without having to max dex if you don't want to. Lowers Mad in that way.

3. Little damge overall, stealths but doesn't capitalize well, the master of skillchecks and other checks that get glossed over. Endurance? Seriously. Track? I'm sure it has its uses but over all the dm isn't generally going to leave you lost because no one has track. It's almost a fluff power. Did I mention a general lack of damage? Too dependant on fighting his favored enemies.
4. I gave my analysis and reasons to give it the skirmish advancement on the last page.
I acutally crunched the numbers a bit at mid levels
Swift hunting fixes the damage problem and you have a more powerful Ac. Maybe not full progression but maybe -2 if that proves two powerful.
Revise the spell list to match the druids 1-4. This will help him be effective late game for a least simple things and point him more towards being a "nature warrior."

[Elennsar]

Well, I think Robby summed up the second question's answer too well do anything but say "What he said", so not commenting.

Here's my question: Does spellcasting fit the ranger?

I say no. Animal companion you can justify as generally applicable. Spellcasting...really, not so much.

Skirmish is probably a good idea. It gives the ranger a reliable fighting bonus, which he needs if FE isn't it.

[Midnight_v]

Well, I think Robby summed up the second question's answer too well do anything but say "What he said", so not commenting.

Here's my question: Does spellcasting fit the ranger?

I say no. Animal companion you can justify as generally applicable. Spellcasting...really, not so much.

Skirmish is probably a good idea. It gives the ranger a reliable fighting bonus, which he needs if FE isn't it.

*shrug* okay

[JaronK]

1:  Some sort of "you are my enemy" ability, which Favored Enemy does.  A choice of Archery, TWF, or Shapeshifting as a focus.  General nature themed abilities.

2:  I think the Wild Shape thing is great.

3:  The current animal companion is too weak, he's just a speed bump.  The TWF tree doesn't have enough damage to support it.  Rangers have a tough time doing well with archery unless FE applies.  FE often does not, in fact, apply.

4:  The Wild Shape Ranger is basically already there, though a little adjustment one way or the other wouldn't be too bad.  For the other two varients, giving full caster level and a better animal companion works great, as does making sure FE bonuses actually apply a decent amount of the time.  

My general votes for what to do with the Ranger:  Increase caster level to full and animal companion to Druid.  Make the Wild Shape varient lose the casting bonus (so it's still half level).  Make the TWF tree get a few more things (TWD, Rend, two weapon attacks as a standard action).  The archery tree could use a touch more as well, but not too much.  I think at that point you're good to go.

I don't think Skirmish is a good idea, because I like the Ranger and Scout being different options.

JaronK

[RobbyPants]

My general votes for what to do with the Ranger:  Increase caster level to full and animal companion to Druid.  Make the Wild Shape varient lose the casting bonus (so it's still half level).  Make the TWF tree get a few more things (TWD, Rend, two weapon attacks as a standard action).  The archery tree could use a touch more as well, but not too much.  I think at that point you're good to go.

This is pretty close to what I suggested earlier.

If we beef up TWF/Archery a bit more, where should the benifit come?  As it stands, rangers have dead levels at 12, 14, 16, 18, and 19.  16 seems like a logical choice (in that the last two combat styles come at 6 and 11).  Should they get something minor, but useful at level 1?  Perhaps TW Defense for the TWF style and Precise Shot for the archery style.

[Risada]

My general votes for what to do with the Ranger:  Increase caster level to full and animal companion to Druid.  Make the Wild Shape varient lose the casting bonus (so it's still half level).  Make the TWF tree get a few more things (TWD, Rend, two weapon attacks as a standard action).  The archery tree could use a touch more as well, but not too much.  I think at that point you're good to go.

This is pretty close to what I suggested earlier.

If we beef up TWF/Archery a bit more, where should the benifit come?  As it stands, rangers have dead levels at 12, 14, 16, 18, and 19.  16 seems like a logical choice (in that the last two combat styles come at 6 and 11).  Should they get something minor, but useful at level 1?  Perhaps TW Defense for the TWF style and Precise Shot for the archery style.

Something like this?

Veteran Hunter (Ex): beginning at ?th level, the ranger can study enemies she is unfamiliar with. The ranger can make a Spot check against an opponent (using the target's AC as the DC). If she succeeds, the ranger gains a +1 bonus to her attack and damage rolls against that target until the end of the encounter (if there are more enemies similar to the target, this bonus applies to all of them).

-Should this scale? stay as is? Pump the DC (say, 10 + target's AC)?

This is only one suggestion for lots of dead levels.... we have to come up with more stuff...

[JaronK]

Yeah, it doesn't need to be big.  I'd actually give a few bonuses with decent feats that aren't great, though I like the idea of giving TWF Rangers the ability to attack with both weapons as a standard action.  And sure, throw them in on the dead levels.

JaronK

[veekie]

Hmm, adding Skirmish on top of a weaker, archivist-like favored enemy, would be nice,except as is, TWF does nothing for a skirmishing ranger. Perhaps a standard action two weapon strike as JaronK suggested?

The pet definitely has to be beefed up along with the caster level.

How about trapfinding? Rangers are supposed to be fairly good with  snares and stuff as well.

[Midnight_v]

Hmm, adding Skirmish on top of a weaker, archivist-like favored enemy, would be nice,except as is, TWF does nothing for a skirmishing ranger. Perhaps a standard action two weapon strike as JaronK suggested?

The pet definitely has to be beefed up along with the caster level.

How about trapfinding? Rangers are supposed to be fairly good with  snares and stuff as well.

Well... actually there are feats that fix that, but most importantly at some level were give the ranger the ability two make two attacks as a standard action.  Later it gets Two-wpn rend, and I'd think that at some level in the teens it gets the ablilty to do 4 attacks on a standard action (2 with each hand) That was actually a good fix. and should scale accordingly.

Risada, Veekie how bout the 4 step program? So we know exactly where you're coming from yknow?

Jaronk:
The thing is.
1. Swifthunter already exist.
2.If skirmish alone is the defining characteristic of scout then its already done. Over. They're one class
If not then they are two classes and as it is now all rangers are swift hunters. We just give them that progression without burning the level of bab and a feat.
 Seriously thats the only difference Its hardly even a deal.
  Honestly thoughI've moved away from doing away with scout. They both get to exist. Similar but not the same. So please accept skirmish as a mechanical balancing point.
We'll be able to make the scout equally powerful as well but for now. . .
Skirmish is the much simpler than debating for another page the validity of a FE recharge mechanic.
M_v

[JaronK]

Jaronk:
The thing is.
1. Swifthunter already exist.
2.If skirmish alone is the defining characteristic of scout then its already done. Over. They're one class
If not then they are two classes and as it is now all rangers are swift hunters. We just give them that progression without burning the level of bab and a feat.

Well, Scouts have more than just Skirmish, but Skirmish is the signature ability of scouts.  They also get Freedom of Movement, 8 Skill Points, and some other cool stuff.  But Skirmish is the big one that's theirs.  I always figured the big difference was that the Ranger is a hybrid class between the concept of scout and warrior and caster, whereas the Scout himself is for people who just want to play a nature skillmonkey.

Also, with the combination of abilities we're giving, I have to wonder if it would be overpowering to give Skirmish.  I mean, I'm pretty darn sure the Wild Shape Ranger would be over the top with Skirmish and a full Animal Companion just tacked on.  Right now if you want Skirmish you have to sacrifice some levels of Wild Shape and Animal Companion to do it, so it's reasonable, but I think it would be a bit much.

JaronK

[veekie]

1. Combat Styles(which would be mainly TWF and archery, though I'm open to stuff like wildshape), Animal Companion and some extras
2. It can sneak(along with some other skill related hijinks like tracking) and can hit fairly reliably,
3. Big one here:
Without abusing stuff, the ranger can't do much with his hitting, TWF having taken the Power Attack out of his melee sails.
Favored enemy is too inflexible as a bonus damage source, it either works for a passable damage bonus on a handful of creature types, or it adds nothing at all, all campaign long, requiring the DM to adapt encounters around these few enemies or the player to default to picking the statistically most probable foes.
The animal companion, it's a speedbump, bait, portable food supply.
Anemic caster level.
Combat styles aren't very good either, stuff could be added to round out dead levels here.
4.
Damage, 2 things, one is as mentioned above, adding skirmish damage, probably to a lower degree than the scout's
The other is fixing favored enemy to either the mediate for an hour to reallocate(this would also involve higher FE damage, and no skirmish) or replacing it with a modified level check to add a reduced FE bonus for a foe/type of foe for the duration of an encounter.
Bring the pet up to a full powered one.
Caster level, either set it to ranger level or ranger level -4
Combat styles, as mentioned above, more tricks unique to a ranger's combat style to round out dead levels.
And a minor, entirely optional bit to add trapfinding and disable device to their skills to represent their ability with snares and make them a more viable rogue substitute in an outdoor environment.

I'm flexible on most points though, if the alternative works well enough.
EDIT: brainfart ate part of the first item.

[RabidPirateMan]

1.  Spellcasting, AC, FE, feats, full BAB and skills.

2.  Spellcasting has plenty of utility, the feats are nice and skills and BAB work fine.

3.  Animal Companion becomes useless fairly quick, Favored Enemy is a bit campaign specific.

4.  I wholeheartedly think we might be overpowering some aspects of the ranger with our fixes.  Full Animal Companion progression is huuuuuuuuuge.  The new way TWF is being done works fine, give him the ability to make two attacks as a standard at 6 and a rend attack at 11.  Dead levels?  I thought WotC had updated dead levels on their site?  Spells will be fixed when we fix... spells... and as for FE, I still like my suggestion of changing bonuses on the hour and changing choices on the downtime between adventures.  At that point, I really think the Ranger is coming out ahead.

As for Skirmish, Swift Hunter is a feat that could use a bit of a rewrite- it should hinder the Ranger's other abilities more.  Taking the feat now with full AC levels is still very easy.  Maybe requires Skirmish 2d6?

Just because he's not a wizard of a cleric doesn't mean we must make him a god.  I'm getting the feeling we're a bit too liberal when it comes to handing out power to noncaster classes because we are so willing to take casters down a notch.

[Elennsar]

Well, a quick question then.

Are fighters as written in core too weak to take on level fitting challenges, or simply much weaker than wizards, clerics, and druids?

Same with anything else in need of a boost, but since we have a working fighter rewrite, I'd like to know how far we had to go.

[Risada]

1. What are the rangers class ablities of note.
2. What is the ranger doing right.
3. What is the ranger doing wrong?
4. Based on 1, 2, 3 what can we do te make the ranger equal in terms of "Power"/"Versitility" to set it equal or nearly equal to a Swordsage, or a Crusader who's dedicated to defending the forest.

Meh...let's see how well I peform in this test  

1- Favored Enemy, Combat Styles, tracking abilities, Spells, Full BAB, Animal companion
2- Combat style (sort of), Spells (lots of utility for the ranger)
3- Favored Enemy (again, sort of), Animal Companion (free kill for the monsters)
4- make Favored Enemy better, make the Ranger not suck when fighting creeps that aren't his Favored Enemy, improve combat styles, take away/pump the Animal Companion.

Well, a quick question then.

Are fighters as written in core too weak to take on level fitting challenges, or simply much weaker than wizards, clerics, and druids?

Same with anything else in need of a boost, but since we have a working fighter rewrite, I'd like to know how far we had to go.

Well, the core fighter have to pray to win an encounter against some enemies from her level (anything with spellcasting capabilities for example, but not necessarily a wizard, cleric or druid - even a bard can offer trouble against the fighter, or any mid to high level demons/devils)...

[RabidPirateMan]

Well, a quick question then.

Are fighters as written in core too weak to take on level fitting challenges, or simply much weaker than wizards, clerics, and druids?

Same with anything else in need of a boost, but since we have a working fighter rewrite, I'd like to know how far we had to go.

Well, fighter being one of the worst classes in the game outside of ubercharging and having no real reason to continue past level 4 (6 with dungeoncrasher), we had to go far.  However, just because we had to go that far with the fighter doesn't mean we need to look at, say, a Sorcerer and say 'we went this far with the fighter, now we will go the same distance as with the sorc.'  Sorc is closer to the power that we want than the fighter was, and the ranger is no different.  He's more or less got versatility, he just needs to be better at it.

And to tell the truth, I still have nitpicks about the fighter, but I'm afraid I'll get my whacking stick stuck if I continue beating that bloated corpse.

[Elennsar]

::nods.:: Just wanting to check. No point making the class (any class) end up too powerful relative to monsters jsut to be equal with other PCs. That's not a good rebalance.

[Kuroimaken]

Well, a quick question then.

Are fighters as written in core too weak to take on level fitting challenges, or simply much weaker than wizards, clerics, and druids?

Same with anything else in need of a boost, but since we have a working fighter rewrite, I'd like to know how far we had to go.

I would say both. Most Fighters have little to no means of fighting things CR appropriate for them, particularly at mid to high levels. They ALSO are weaker than wizards, clerics and druids because those guys can buff themselves until their balls fall off and the Fighter feels small in his pants.

[Elennsar]

Bad combination. Being able to buff yourself to be a better fighter then the Fighter is not only broken, its stupid.

So...how badly do we need to scale back the overpowered so they're not stealing the spots of the other classes?