[4e]Class Acts: Ranger

[NPCMook]

http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drcact/2009July

The entire article focuses on Two-Weapon Rangers, and the level 2 and 6 Utility powers seem a bit good for being just encounter powers... anyone else feel this way?

[BillyJimBoBob]

It appears that I would need to purchase a subscription to view this. I'll stick with the books I've already purchased. I'm not going to pay an additional monthly fee for content which will have great pressures placed upon it to surpass the existing material in ways which will simply begin a power escalation. This way lies the downfall of 4e.

[1of3]

Of course, you need to pay for it. It's part of the Dragon Magazine. Thank you very much for such... insight.

[Artanis]

The entire article focuses on Two-Weapon Rangers

Go figure.

*sighs and goes back to being resigned to his fate of his shooty Ranger never getting ANY support :smallfrown: *

[eepop]

It appears that I would need to purchase a subscription to view this. I'll stick with the books I've already purchased. I'm not going to pay an additional monthly fee for content which will have great pressures placed upon it to surpass the existing material in ways which will simply begin a power escalation. This way lies the downfall of 4e.

Actually, the subscription material is balanced quite well. It has its outliers of course, but no more than the core material does.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As for the original post:

They are a little better than the stock Ranger utilities we had for those levels, but honestly, I have felt that those two levels of utilities have been pretty lacking up to now.

[Yakk]

Bending Branch isn't that bad, other than the "have an ally slide you" exploit. Not every bad guy does forced movement, so even if it is 1/encounter, it wouldn't occur 1/encounter.

Death Threat requires that you personally drop your quarry to 0.

Both deal damage -- and utilities shouldn't deal damage that directly that often.

Plant to the Hilt just seems ... silly. Why do you need a total of 3 slide when the only legal destinations are adjacent to you?!

Lashing Leaves -- immediate interrupt?! without a trigger?

Same with Storm in the Trees. And every other attack power from that level up.

Ya, the article is pretty crappy.

[RTGoodman]

Ya, the article is pretty crappy.

Pretty much. When it was posted last night, I (and about a bajillion other people, I guess) noticed the lack of triggers thing pretty immediately. Makes me wonder how something that obvious got through editing. There's also at least one that's an immediate reaction on your turn, when, IIRC, you can use immediate actions on your turn anyway.

I wouldn't necessarily say they're all TERRIBLE powers (they do need to be fixed, though), but I'm just not that impressed with what is essentially a whole article of immediate interrupts/reactions. Would have been cooler to get some just varied TWF-based Ranger standard attacks.

[Ninetail]

Looks like most of those should just be standard actions.

The level 10 utility should be a free action, I think -- you can't use immediate actions on your turn.

Most of the Dragon articles are pretty decent, but this one... was it even edited?

[Oslecamo]

Go figure.

*sighs and goes back to being resigned to his fate of his shooty Ranger never getting ANY support :smallfrown: *

That's because there isn't actually a ranger class in 4e. There's a (PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT) class, aka dual wielding scimitar dude class. They pretended for there to be a shooty builds, because all other classes had two builds, but in practise it's dual wield scimitars or go play something else.

[Mando Knight]

Most of the Dragon articles are pretty decent, but this one... was it even edited?

They might edit it for the complete issue and the Character Builder/Compendium...

[RTGoodman]

They might edit it for the complete issue and the Character Builder/Compendium...

They always do, as far as I know. They don't update the single-article PDFs, but when the full issues come out at month's end they implement the changes. Back when that Star Pact Warlock article came out last year, for instance, the original version listed the Twofold Pact feat as being Tiefling-only, but the current version in the compiled issue, CharBuilder, and Compendium removed it.

[Sir Homeslice]

That's because there isn't actually a ranger class in 4e.

PHB1, Martial Power, the boatload of Dragon Articles that reference Rangers, and Class Acts: Ranger all disagree with you.

[Artanis]

He was being silly.

[NPCMook]

PHB1, Martial Power, the boatload of Dragon Articles that reference Rangers, and Class Acts: Ranger all disagree with you.

Woosh...:smallamused:

[The New Bruceski]

Woosh...:smallamused:

When fire or acid isn't available, obliviousness works great.

[RTGoodman]

Apparently Wizards realized how terrible the original Class Acts: Ranger article was, so they actually OFFERED A WRITTEN APOLOGY (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drcact/2009July) AND UPDATED THE WHOLE THING.


Revision to Class Acts: Ranger

Today, we posted a new version of the Class Acts: Ranger (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drcact/2009July) article that originally appeared on July 13, 2009.

To put it bluntly, the previous version of the article was of unacceptable quality. You, the readers, correctly pointed that out and we agreed. Hence, these revisions.

We apologize for this lapse in quality.

Though we believe that this particular article is an isolated failure in our mission to provide D&D Insiders with high-quality, exciting content every month, we still take this failure very seriously.

We're confident that the new version of the article adheres to our (and your) high standards for all published game material -- whether that material comes to you on paper or via the digital format.

We're also reviewing our process for designing, developing, and editing Insider content to identify places where additional time or training are required to avoid such errors in the future.

We appreciate the trust that you place in us, and we'll strive to continue to justify that trust.

Thank you, and good gaming.

Andy Collins
RPG Development & Editing Manager
Wizards of the Coast R&D

So the article has been updated, and all of the offending problems have been fixed as far as I can tell.

[Artanis]

So does this mean it has stuff for shooty Rangers now?

[Kurald Galain]

Apparently Wizards realized how terrible the original Class Acts: Ranger article was, so they actually OFFERED A WRITTEN APOLOGY (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drcact/2009July) AND UPDATED THE WHOLE THING.

What the foof?

It almost makes me want I had an insider subscription so that I could follow the soap opera...

[Mando Knight]

So does this mean it has stuff for shooty Rangers now?

That's the one problem they haven't fixed yet.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Apparently Wizards realized how terrible the original Class Acts: Ranger article was, so they actually OFFERED A WRITTEN APOLOGY (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drcact/2009July) AND UPDATED THE WHOLE THING.
Man, I wonder how many people were fired over this - it's unprecedented!

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Man, I wonder how many people were fired over this - it's unprecedented!

I guarantee that however many they were, none of them had anything to do with writing the article....

[RTGoodman]

Man, I wonder how many people were fired over this - it's unprecedented!

You know the solution to all this, though, right? Fire the editing folks, and then hire a bunch of us forum-goers as independent contractors that go through everything that, apparently, WotC's own folks miss. It'd be great! :smalltongue:

[KIDS]

Though everyone I know takes the WotC team's apology as an excuse to just spit at them some more, I very much appreciate It's nice to see that they're paying attention to feedback and it's unprecedented. Maybe we'll get a designed to apologize for broken druids in 3.5 too? :D