PDA

View Full Version : Why do rangers have to choose between TWF and archery?



Aquillion
2008-04-21, 05:01 AM
Would it really be that unbalancing for rangers to get both the TWF and archery feat chains (at different levels, say)? Maybe they choose which one to get first, but... why not give them both? Sure, it's more feats than most classes get, but so what? It's not like they can use them both at the same time, and the extra versatility wouldn't really break anything.

I've noticed this is a trend with combat / melee-type classes... they generally have to choose one thing to be good at, and that's it. It seems silly to me. Why shouldn't rangers have options for both melee and ranged combat?

Of course, this wouldn't make rangers interchangeable -- a melee-focused ranger would need different stats than an archery-focused ranger, would probably have different equipment, etc. The option they don't choose to focus on would still generally be secondary. But still, why not give them the options? What's the point in making them choose?

(I'm aware that TWF is an inferior option, but bear with me here. If anything, that's just another reason to not make them choose.)

Talic
2008-04-21, 05:10 AM
TWF can be quite effective.

Greatsword + Armor Spikes.

Skjaldbakka
2008-04-21, 05:15 AM
Rangers don't have to choose. It is perfectly viable to do both at the same time, one set for free, and the other by spending feats. Quickdraw helps in this plan.

There is also the fact that if they didn't choose between the two, all rangers would have both, thus reducing the variety in rangers.

Tempest Fennac
2008-04-21, 05:16 AM
I'm guessing that WotC thought that they wold be too versatile if they could take more then 1 combat style (don't ask me how that makes sense when you look at a lot of the speels which cause Wizards to be overpowered). Flavourwise, I think it fits in with Favoured Enermies in the sense that Rangers are supposed to specialise in certain ways of fighting at the expence of other techniques.

Talic
2008-04-21, 05:20 AM
Look at it this way.

I'll go High str with low to average dex, and go Greatsword/Armor spikes and throwing axes.

I'll take Brutal throw and power throw, and the shock trooper tree.

Now, I take advantage of both, using the same stats, with similar bonuses, and I can TWF with my ranged weapons as well.

Matthew
2008-04-21, 05:39 AM
It would make next to no difference. Replace any Combat Style Abilities with Bonus Feats and there would be no particularly unbalancing effect. The whole 'you need X to do Y' aspect of the Feat System is a double edged sword for D20. On the one hand, it feels as though you are customising your character, on the other hand by defining his abilities in such strict terms and limited resource control, you are also limiting him.

To put it another way, it wouldn't make that much difference if every Class had access to twenty feats at Level One and gained two every level thereafter.

Talic
2008-04-21, 06:10 AM
Yes and no.

Yes, rules can give flexibility.

Yes, rules MUST provide limitations, restrictions. They must define boundaries of what can and can't be done.

Yes, you must learn basic math before you can take graduate calculus.
Yes, you must learn algebra and trig before you learn building design.
Yes, you must learn basic programming theory before you can train to be a web developer.

The feat system is a building block system. You must learn basic abilities before you can learn advanced ones.

Giving people more feats? Even at level one, it would vastly increase the power level.

For example, as a cleric, how about... Extend Spell, Persist spell, DMM: Persist, and Extra Turning x17?

For wizard? Sudden Quicken.

For melee types? Well, weapon focus in two different weapons, with most of the dodge tree, most of the power attack tree, the beginning of the TWF tree, and half of the Combat expertise tree. Round it out with about 5 uses of the Toughness skill, or all the save boost feats.

Rogues? How many skill boost feats can I get?

Yes, feat allowance can dramatically alter the power level of a game.

Grynning
2008-04-21, 06:12 AM
In Monte Cooke's new "by request" alternate handbook, he just said, screw it, everyone gets a feat every level. Class features are now basically special feats you can select, based on your class.

I will remind everyone that rangers in 3.0 did get both the Archery and TWF progressions. The reason the changed it is because no one wanted to play fighters because the rangers got all the coolest feats anyways (not that anyone wants to play fighters now :smalltongue: )

GutterRunner
2008-04-21, 06:24 AM
Back in old 3.0 D&D, rangers had the flavor of shooting or duel wielding, but the class only gave TWF feats (two at first level iirc). This ment that a TWF ranger got an advantage, and a 1 level ranger dip was sometimes taken by other classes to get the feats cheaper. Shooting rangers however got no feat help, and as they don't get fighter's bonus feats were actually worse at it than fighters with a moderate focus in shooting. And what was worse was that a ranger who specialised in shooting and only owned one melee weapon was still better at duel wielding than a fighter up to about lvl 8-10 :P

With 3.5 they changed the ranger class a bit, adding the combat styles so it could actually support both flavors, and not automattically support one. Automattically supporting both would lead to a slightly more powerfull class, with less flavorful builds, but could be a houserule you could apply if you find the base ranger to be too weak.

Matthew
2008-04-21, 07:04 AM
The feat system is a building block system. You must learn basic abilities before you can learn advanced ones.

Yeah, but it's heavily limited by Level and BAB and other factors that make having a lot of feats not that useful.



Giving people more feats? Even at level one, it would vastly increase the power level.

For example, as a cleric, how about... Extend Spell, Persist spell, DMM: Persist, and Extra Turning x17?

Some feats are more powerful than others, for sure. Feats that stack with themselves, such as Toughness and Extra Turning could prove unbalancing.



For melee types? Well, weapon focus in two different weapons, with most of the dodge tree, most of the power attack tree, the beginning of the TWF tree, and half of the Combat expertise tree. Round it out with about 5 uses of the Toughness skill, or all the save boost feats.

Most of those I wouldn't consider particularly powerful at all, just nice additional options.



Rogues? How many skill boost feats can I get?

Twenty? (or +5 to ten skills) Wouldn't make much difference as far as I'm concerned.



Yes, feat allowance can dramatically alter the power level of a game.
It could, but it probably won't, with a couple of exceptions (mainly multiple toughness and Extra Turning when combined with other certain feats).

Will a character with twenty feats be more powerful than one with three? Well yeah, but not by that much (allowing for the above exceptions)

Darrin
2008-04-21, 07:29 AM
Would it really be that unbalancing for rangers to get both the TWF and archery feat chains (at different levels, say)? Maybe they choose which one to get first, but... why not give them both? Sure, it's more feats than most classes get, but so what? It's not like they can use them both at the same time, and the extra versatility wouldn't really break anything.


The first three levels of Ranger are already pretty feat-heavy (Track at 1st, Combat Style at 2nd, Endurance at 3rd). Granted, two of those feats aren't exactly "Wow! Cool!" kind of feats (when the heck was anybody ever excited about Endurance?). So my initial feeling would be "No, it'd be unbalanced".

But when I give it more thought... it probably wouldn't be unbalanced at all. TWF is very feat-heavy and unless you're suplementing the damage-per-hit with something like sneak/skirmish/??? it's sub-optimal. Likewise, any archery-based build is going to have problems with the crappy damage and narrow crit range of bows. A ranger with both Combat Styles would still be pretty well-balanced.

Note: there are other Combat Styles available to rangers other than TWF and ranged. Dragon #326 added Bear-Wrestling (Improved Unarmed Strike), Mounted-Combat (Ride-By-Attack), Piscator (EWP: Net), Strong-Arm (Power Attack), and Throwing (Quickdraw).

Talya
2008-04-21, 07:54 AM
I have issues with ranger combat styles, but I do agree with making them choose one or the other.

Combat Style -Two Weapon Fighting

My issue here isn't with the combat style, per se, but TWF itself. Three feats so you can fight less effectively than you can with a single big sword? My house rules in my game are as follows:

Two Weapon Fighting (Req. Dexterity 15): Iterative attacks in your off hand now scale with your BAB. There are no Improved or Greater TWF feats. You take one, you'll get a second attack at BAB 6, a third at BAB 11...and hell, a fourth at BAB 16.

Two Weapon Defense (Req. Dexterity 18): This feat now grants a +3 to shield AC. There are no improved or greater versions of the feat. Rangers using the TWF Combat Style get this in place of Improved TWF at 6.

Dual Strike: This feat now acts like two actual attacks, rolling twice, allowing critical chances for both, and applying any bonus damage to both swings. The normal -2 penalty to hit applies. Rangers using TWF combat style get this in place of Greater TWF at 11.

Combat Style - Archery

My issue here is that all archery feats and PrCs seem to have prerequisites of feats that the Archery combat style doesn't give. I would change this so that after getting Rapid Shot at 2, a ranger is also considered as having Point Blank Shot for all feat and PrC requirements. Furthermore, after getting Improved Precise Shot, a ranger is also considered as having Precise Shot for all feats and PrC requirements.

bosssmiley
2008-04-21, 02:28 PM
In answer to the OP's question: because you can be either Drizzt or Legolas, not both! :smallbiggrin:

Serious head. The ranger as is is one of the most gimped character classes in the PHB. Compare/contrast to his outdoors buddy the Druid:

The druid gets 9 levels of spells to the ranger's 4 over 20 levels.
The druid gets a full effect animal companion, the ranger gets a half-power version of same (the dedicated summoner gets another pet?).
The druid gets wildshape and elemental wildshape from level 5 onwards. The ranger gets...err...TWF or Archery at levels 1, 6, and 11. Big whoop. :smallconfused:
The ranger gets 5 BAB on the druid over 20 levels. Like BAB actually means something after about level 10. :smallamused:

Giving the ranger both of twf and archery is the least you can do to make sure the druid doesn't steal his thunder every single time. You might also want to gimp the druid's companion and give the ranger the full advancement version instead.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-04-21, 03:57 PM
You might also want to gimp the druid's companion and give the ranger the full advancement version instead.I fully support this as a step towards actual balance.

mostlyharmful
2008-04-21, 04:30 PM
Damnit Bossmiley! Everything I was going to say Plucked from my brain!!! I tell you I do not take kindly to mindreaming!

DrowVampyre
2008-04-21, 04:49 PM
Just a thought, without actually checking the stuff (I know it's online...but I'm feeling lazy): how would it be to give Rangers the Sword of the Arcane Order feat for free (lets them prep Wizard spells in their slots and keep a spellbook) and roll the Arcane Archer's abilities into Ranger? Overpowered? My instinct says maybe...but both are considered subpar classes, so maybe not...

Talic
2008-04-22, 01:38 AM
Will a character with twenty feats be more powerful than one with three? Well yeah, but not by that much (allowing for the above exceptions)

There are several feats that are limited by the amount of prerequisites that they have.

For example, Sudden Quicken. A human wizard, at level 1, with 2 flaws, cannot get it.

However, it has no prerequisites, other than other feats, which can all be gotten at level 1.

Now, what's the overall power difference between a wizard that can drop 2 spells in a round, and a wizard that can drop 1? A lot.

Further, extra options = extra power. You won't be the best at any one thing, you'll be the best at everything.

For example, a rogue with 20 feats? Skill focus: Hide, and move silently. Shape Soulmeld: Kruthik Claws. Stealthy. There's a +9 to hide there. Now let's go with the spelltouched for DR 3, skill focus in 10 other skills (including bluff), and the ability to bluff as a move action.

As a fighter? Weapon focus, Aberrant blood, Inhuman reach, Willing Deformity, Deformity: Tall, Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, Stand Still, Animal Devotion, Power Attack, EWP: Spiked Chain, Combat reflexes.

Now, at level 1, we have a guy that has 30 foot reach, a great attack bonus, and great control.

A Kobold? Improved natural armor x20.

A psion/Psi-warrior? There's a feat that boosts your power points. I believe that x20 = +230 PP at level 1. Now say you're an Elan. Instead, go with 19, (+219 pp at level 1) and enhances repletion. Now, at level 1, you're negating about... well, over 800 damage.

Contrary to what you THINK, the facts are that feats, when left open, are powerful.

How many more "exceptions" must I find before they stop being "exceptions"??

Matthew
2008-04-22, 02:02 AM
My goodness, you are right; how foolish of me not to realise it right from the get go. :smallamused:

Whatever, Talic. A Wizard with one or two Spells at Level 1 is no great shakes at all, no matter how much Sudden quicken crap he junks up with. There are hundreds of feats in D20 and for the vast majority of them it will make very little difference to the power level of the character. However, I haven't got the time or the inclination to argue about each and every border line case you come up with. D20 is full of dumb ass exploits and character creation is hardly balanced to begin with. That's just my general opinion (and, yes, it's also what I think - indeed, "Cogito, ergo sum" and all that).

[Please note, there is little reason to shout in capitals for emphasis, it's just rude].

Turcano
2008-04-22, 02:17 AM
You might also want to gimp the druid's companion and give the ranger the full advancement version instead.

The problem with that is that it makes absolutely no sense thematically: why should the dedicated nature worshiper get a less powerful animal companion than a glorified woodsman? Giving both of them the same progression would be the best compromise between balance and fluff.

Also, how would Dodge > Mobility > Spring Attack work as an alternate combat style?

Jasdoif
2008-04-22, 02:27 AM
To put it another way, it wouldn't make that much difference if every Class had access to twenty feats at Level One and gained two every level thereafter.If feats were designed that way, certainly. However, there's an abundance of feats out there that only rely on other feats and/or a certain ability score, and are theoretically designed to be balanced at taking one every three levels. Shoving twenty of them in at level 1 could easily break things. Of course, those feats are a result of the design decision about how feats would be gained; with a different underlying decision twenty feats plus two per level would be fine throughout. And far more flexible, which I believe is your point.

Now, if there were no class abilities...no classes...everything is a feat....Huh, sounds kind of like GURPS now.

SofS
2008-04-22, 02:39 AM
I think that optimizing players would take those 20 feats and create fairly balanced characters, inasmuch as balance means anything in that situation. With that amount of customization, everybody becomes pretty much equally lethal. I don't really think that two 1st level spells is as powerful as many martial options, given that the save-boosting and HP-boosting feats would make any spell of that level rather ineffectual.

As for that Dodge -> Mobility -> Spring Attack progression, I'd ditch Dodge, move the other two down, and give either that one that gives two spring attacks when moving or that one (think it's called Combat Tactician) that gives bonuses when you attack someone in melee that you weren't threatening at the beginning of the round.

Talic
2008-04-22, 02:39 AM
These aren't border line cases, though. They're outright breaking the game. The psion who can use a power once a round, every round, for an hour an a half? You know, the one that has more PP's at level 1 than many psywars will have at level 20?

The character that can grapple the light fighter, power attack the heavy fighter, combat expertise the incorporeal one, TWF when the dozen goblins show up, Spring Attack their leader, and sunder his wand? All at level 1?

The rogue with a +25 to hide and move silent, along with bluffing, sense motive, a +20 to listen and spot, and +15 in every knowledge skill that could potentially be useful? At level 1?

Regardless of your opinion on the matter, increasing feats by a silly number increases power by a silly amount. The above examples, I hope, are enough to illustrate this. If not, then either way, I think the discussion is at an end, because, if they don't convince you, not much will.

(Oh, that's not even counting the Heritage feats that offer progressively greater benefits as you get more of them, and there are 3 different trees of them, if memory serves.)

riddles
2008-04-22, 02:50 AM
Some feats are more powerful than others, for sure. Feats that stack with themselves, such as Toughness and Extra Turning could prove unbalancing.

It could, but it probably won't, with a couple of exceptions (mainly multiple toughness and Extra Turning when combined with other certain feats).

Will a character with twenty feats be more powerful than one with three? Well yeah, but not by that much (allowing for the above exceptions)

erm...there is a marked difference between taking 5 uses of toughness and taking the DMM: persist tree.

i think the minute you say that stacking toughness would unbalance a character at creation you have lost this argument sir.

i'll take power attack, leap attack, shock trooper over your 3xtoughness at level 1 any day of the week.

Charity
2008-04-22, 03:55 AM
Shock trooper - Prerequisite: Improved Bull Rush, Power Attack, base attack bonus +6.

I think what Matthew was alluding to is the fact that spellcasting dwarfs melee to such an extent that any number of feats stuck on to your Ranger really won't make much odds power wise in the long run.

Using DMM to state that getting a lot of feats is broken is daft, we all know DMM is broken, and it's just 1 feat per metamagic, you can cheese away with just your standard allotment of feats, the fact that you get loads is fairly irrelivent, apart from the number of stacking extra turning feats, which would suck without the parmisan that is DMM.

riddles
2008-04-22, 04:27 AM
point taken. you couldn't get shock trooper at level 1. i concede that. but given 20 feat choices, you would be foolish to spend them on toughness. the whole of the combat expertise tree bar whirlwind attack, power attack, cleave, iron will, lightening reflexes and great fortitude, improved shield bash, the mounted combat tree and all the skill boost feats make you considerably more capable than a character who takes 20 uses of toughness. and that's core only.

what matthew was alluding to was that, with a large number of feat choices available, characters wouldn't really change in terms of balance unless they took toughness or extra turning multiple times, which is just wrong.

and he doesn't distinguish between spellcasting and melee:


To put it another way, it wouldn't make that much difference if every Class had access to twenty feats at Level One and gained two every level thereafter.


Whatever, Talic. A Wizard with one or two Spells at Level 1 is no great shakes at all, no matter how much Sudden quicken crap he junks up with. There are hundreds of feats in D20 and for the vast majority of them it will make very little difference to the power level of the character.

Charity
2008-04-22, 04:46 AM
Well again
Whirlwind attack - Prerequisite: Int 13+, Expertise, Dex 13+, Dodge, Mobility, base attack bonus +4 or higher, Spring Attack
Spring Attack - Prerequisite: Dex 13+, Dodge, Mobility, base attack bonus +4 or higher

I imagine as most of a spellcasters power comes from their spell list not their associated feats, and trying not to put words in the fella's mouth, he simply disregarded those... this was originally about Rangers after all.

I am not claiming this as my own theory here I just think I drok where he's coming from on this. It's not the number of feats thats the thing, it's that some feats are broken, just look at fighters, they have boat loads of feats, but they are still quite crap.

Aquillion
2008-04-22, 05:09 AM
The problem with that is that it makes absolutely no sense thematically: why should the dedicated nature worshiper get a less powerful animal companion than a glorified woodsman? Giving both of them the same progression would be the best compromise between balance and fluff.Easy. The ranger devotes themselves to a single 'animal companion', who is like a comrade-in-arms to them. Since the ranger is trained in the ways of war, this animal is likewise chosen for its warlike capabilities, and is battle-trained and hardened.

The druid devotes themselves to nature as a whole; they can summon animals constantly, and also happen to have an animal who attends them all the time... but unlike the revised ranger, that one animal isn't a main focus of their class, and is more of a friend than a weapon.

The ranger gets one animal, while the druid gets all animals. It makes sense for the ranger's animal to be unusually tough.

Talic
2008-04-22, 05:34 AM
The problem is, if there are 500 feats that wouldn't meaningfully impact the game with a 20 feat rule, and 25 that would, you can expect to see 10 of those 25 on almost any character's list. After all, most players will gravitate towards effective abilities.

Further, nobody's gonna argue that druids are worse off than rangers. Quite the opposite. That said, some abilities were left off ranger.

Such as Hide in Plain Sight, and the like.

Further, you can't tell me that any PC class in D&D is not trained "in the ways of war". All that matters is how thoroughly trained.

My power up of the ranger class? Well, rangers will never match the connection with nature that druids have. But they do train for physical combat. As do their pets.

Allow pets extra bonus feats. They get one whenever the ranger (with level adjustment for animal power) would get an extra feat. How about, for good measure, the animal can qualify for int based feats as if it had the int of the ranger? Now, the animal, with its HD (and BAB), can be meaningfully powered up, in a way that's customized to each ranger. You want a tiger with improved grapple? Great. You want your wolf to have spring attack? Sure thing. Your hawk would be better with wingover and improved flyby attack? Awesome. You can do that. Because you train for physical combat with your animal, in a way the druid wouldn't.

Charity
2008-04-22, 05:53 AM
The problem is, if there are 500 feats that wouldn't meaningfully impact the game with a 20 feat rule, and 25 that would, you can expect to see 10 of those 25 on almost any character's list. After all, most players will gravitate towards effective abilities.


This, I can only agree with Talic.

Your Ranger boosting is quite interesting, the only problem I can see in boosting the Ranger via his animal companion is what happens when the thing inevitably dies (in a final fashion) then you are back to square one.

riddles
2008-04-22, 08:37 AM
Well again
Whirlwind attack - Prerequisite: Int 13+, Expertise, Dex 13+, Dodge, Mobility, base attack bonus +4 or higher, Spring Attack
Spring Attack - Prerequisite: Dex 13+, Dodge, Mobility, base attack bonus +4 or higher

I imagine as most of a spellcasters power comes from their spell list not their associated feats, and trying not to put words in the fella's mouth, he simply disregarded those... this was originally about Rangers after all.

I am not claiming this as my own theory here I just think I drok where he's coming from on this. It's not the number of feats thats the thing, it's that some feats are broken, just look at fighters, they have boat loads of feats, but they are still quite crap.


ack. i give up charity. you win, my use of the srd in work has failed me. i maintain (in opposition to matthew) that a character with extra feats will be more powerful. talic's point (made more eloquently than i could) focuses on the fact that many characters would pick the same effective feats and be generic, albeit effective.

Person_Man
2008-04-22, 09:17 AM
In answer to the OP's question: because you can be either Drizzt or Legolas, not both!

Exactly. The Ranger class is essentially an artifact of the two most popular Ranger characters in fantasy. It's not like they sat down and said, "what would a balanced and fun Ranger look like." They just made the class features reflect the stories.

Talic
2008-04-22, 10:02 AM
This, I can only agree with Talic.

Your Ranger boosting is quite interesting, the only problem I can see in boosting the Ranger via his animal companion is what happens when the thing inevitably dies (in a final fashion) then you are back to square one.

Not if your new companion can gain feats until it catches up at a rate of say, one per game week?

Turcano
2008-04-22, 10:27 AM
As for that Dodge -> Mobility -> Spring Attack progression, I'd ditch Dodge, move the other two down, and give either that one that gives two spring attacks when moving or that one (think it's called Combat Tactician) that gives bonuses when you attack someone in melee that you weren't threatening at the beginning of the round.

That would work, and there's precedent for it in that the archery combat style lacks Precise Shot.


Easy. The ranger devotes themselves to a single 'animal companion', who is like a comrade-in-arms to them. Since the ranger is trained in the ways of war, this animal is likewise chosen for its warlike capabilities, and is battle-trained and hardened.

The druid devotes themselves to nature as a whole; they can summon animals constantly, and also happen to have an animal who attends them all the time... but unlike the revised ranger, that one animal isn't a main focus of their class, and is more of a friend than a weapon.

The ranger gets one animal, while the druid gets all animals. It makes sense for the ranger's animal to be unusually tough.

Still not buying it. It would be like switching the turn undead progression for the cleric and paladin: it (somewhat) gives the paladin a break, but any justification for it is going to be horribly contrived.

Infinity_Biscuit
2008-04-22, 02:43 PM
Still not buying it. It would be like switching the turn undead progression for the cleric and paladin: it (somewhat) gives the paladin a break, but any justification for it is going to be horribly contrived.
Really? I thought it worked very well, actually. You could give the Druid's animal companion features that synergise with the Druid's spellcasting and wildshaping, but since the Ranger is primarily a martial character, giving him a more martial companion works.

Hell, I could easily see how switching the two turning progressions would make sense, too. How is either example contrived?

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-04-22, 05:02 PM
The Paladin, as a martial arm of the deity's will, is far better at destroying the unholy aberrations against nature that are the undead. The Cleric gains some abilities to help him do this, but he has focused on study and contemplation more, so he is less effective. The only reason you think this is contrived is that you are used to it being the other way around.

Turcano
2008-04-22, 05:44 PM
Really? I thought it worked very well, actually. You could give the Druid's animal companion features that synergise with the Druid's spellcasting and wildshaping, but since the Ranger is primarily a martial character, giving him a more martial companion works.

Hell, I could easily see how switching the two turning progressions would make sense, too. How is either example contrived?

Rangers and paladins are, in theory, a synthesis between divine spellcasters and fighters, which is why they have abilities similar to those of divine spellcasters, but which aren't as powerful due to the classes' martial focus. But what do I know; maybe next you'll say that switching their spell lists makes sense, too. :smalltongue:

Infinity_Biscuit
2008-04-23, 01:26 AM
Rangers and paladins are, in theory, a synthesis between divine spellcasters and fighters, which is why they have abilities similar to those of divine spellcasters, but which aren't as powerful due to the classes' martial focus. But what do I know; maybe next you'll say that switching their spell lists makes sense, too. :smalltongue:
Well, being a rough combination between Class X and Class Y doesn't have to mean you have weaker versions of everything both classes provide. If there are parts where they synergise, like the Druid's animal companion and the Fighter's martial prowress (and in the fluff, his martial leadership), why not let it synergise into a stronger ability? And if the combination class has its own fluff unique to it, like the Paladin's powers to seek out and destroy evil, why not let it have a really good ability that works with that (undead being evil in D&D)?

Plus, if you only allow the class to have weak versions of all the abilities, it's harder to balance, since classes with a lot of abilities, none of which are as useful as they could be, tend not to work out in D&D. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v162/Chibigami/Smilies/icon_smile.gif

Turcano
2008-04-23, 11:56 PM
Well, being a rough combination between Class X and Class Y doesn't have to mean you have weaker versions of everything both classes provide. If there are parts where they synergise, like the Druid's animal companion and the Fighter's martial prowress (and in the fluff, his martial leadership), why not let it synergise into a stronger ability?

I'm not arguing that the ranger should have a weaker animal companion, either; I've said that they should be the same progression (preferably full, but half doesn't bother me too much). The same goes for the paladin as well. I'm just saying that having the more magically/spiritually-attuned class have a weaker magical/spiritual class feature than a martially-attuned class is asinine (unless a ranger can somehow attract a more powerful animal than a druid through his ability to shoot arrows or hit things with two weapons).

Infinity_Biscuit
2008-04-24, 12:31 AM
I'm just saying that having the more magically/spiritually-attuned class have a weaker magical/spiritual class feature than a martially-attuned class is asinine (unless a ranger can somehow attract a more powerful animal than a druid through his ability to shoot arrows or hit things with two weapons).
I think we're just seeing the features themselves differently here. I don't see an Animal Companion as a spiritual feature, and I would agree that giving Rangers better (or even equal) spellcasting or transformation than the druid would be weird.

Turcano
2008-04-24, 12:59 AM
I think we're just seeing the features themselves differently here. I don't see an Animal Companion as a spiritual feature, and I would agree that giving Rangers better (or even equal) spellcasting or transformation than the druid would be weird.

Animal companions have a metaphysical link to a given character and gains extra abilities therefrom, and acquiring a new one requires a 24-hour meditation ritual. That says "spiritual" to me.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-04-24, 01:04 AM
Animal companions have a metaphysical link to a given character and gains extra abilities therefrom, and acquiring a new one requires a 24-hour meditation ritual. That says "spiritual" to me.But they are trained to be a companion to their masters and aid them in combat, which says the ranger would be better at it to me.

shadowdemon_lord
2008-04-24, 01:05 AM
I think that giving a ranger a stronger animal companion makes sense. No, the ranger should not get an animal companion that is innately stronger then the druids. But saying the ranger has devoted more time to learn to fight with his animal companion then the more spiritually oriented druid does make sense. This could easily be reflected in bonus fighter feats. The druid spent that time learning to turn himself into a horse, or something.

Talic
2008-04-24, 01:11 AM
I disagree. I think the companions should power up in different ways. Druids and Rangers both respect nature, true. But while a druid shapes the primal energies of nature to overcome challenges, the ranger coexists, and uses what is already there to the utmost.

So, give the druid the ability to shape their companion, imbuing it with nature's power. Make it bigger, stronger, tougher, but still, basically the same animal.

Give the ranger the ability to use the animal that they have to the utmost. He can teach it more, push it harder, inspire greatness out of it. It may be feats, or combat abilities... Who knows.

But they're not the same class. Not even as close as sorcerors and wizards. Why give them the exact same ability?

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-04-24, 01:17 AM
So, give the druid the ability to shape their companion, imbuing it with nature's power. Make it bigger, stronger, tougher, but still, basically the same animal.He can. It's called spells.
Give the ranger the ability to use the animal that they have to the utmost. He can teach it more, push it harder, inspire greatness out of it. It may be feats, or combat abilities... Who knows.Like bonus hit die?

Infinity_Biscuit
2008-04-24, 01:26 AM
I disagree. I think the companions should power up in different ways. Druids and Rangers both respect nature, true. But while a druid shapes the primal energies of nature to overcome challenges, the ranger coexists, and uses what is already there to the utmost.

So, give the druid the ability to shape their companion, imbuing it with nature's power. Make it bigger, stronger, tougher, but still, basically the same animal.

Give the ranger the ability to use the animal that they have to the utmost. He can teach it more, push it harder, inspire greatness out of it. It may be feats, or combat abilities... Who knows.

But they're not the same class. Not even as close as sorcerors and wizards. Why give them the exact same ability?
This is kind of what I was saying earlier, only more elaborated, so, I agree.

Turcano
2008-04-24, 01:35 AM
But they are trained to be a companion to their masters and aid them in combat, which says the ranger would be better at it to me.

Why? Aside from the spiritual aspect of the animal companion and direct spellcasting, druids and rangers both have the same ability to interact with and train animals, which has little to do with combat. Soldiers don't inherently make better trainers of guard/attack dogs.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-04-24, 01:39 AM
Because a Ranger spends all of his time running through the forest with his AC training for combat while the Druid spends his time meditating on the nature of life and figuring out how to turn into a bear. The Druid still advances his AC, but he has broader concerns to devote himself to, so it takes longer.

Turcano
2008-04-24, 01:47 AM
That's a fairly gross overgeneralization; druids and rangers tend to spend a lot of time doing both, depending on the setting.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-04-24, 01:50 AM
All I'm saying is it is a balancing factor that can easily be justified, and makes an overpowered class weaker while a weak class gets stronger.

Turcano
2008-04-24, 02:00 AM
I'm afraid we're at an impasse on the first point, and it doesn't really do much to weaken the druid on the second point. All it does is make the druid's animal companion squishy instead of the ranger's, and if you're up against a high-level druid, his animal companion is the least of your problems.

Amur_Tiger
2008-04-24, 02:30 AM
I think that on the animal companion question it would make a decent amount of sense for the ranger to have a list of partially or somewhat domesticated companions while the Druid has a broader range of companions that instead stay more true to their animal roots.

For example I could see a ranger having a war dog or something like that which is tougher and stronger then a wolf in combat but lacks special abilities like trip and scent but could be trained further by the ranger towards specific tasks or purposes.

A druid by contrast in it's reverence for all things natural wouldn't be so inclined to try and mold their companion into something, it's more of an equal partnership. Which helps make more challenging creatures like big cats available but it dosen't allow you to make the big cat into a brawler, instead having it maintain it's mix of abilities and pounce focused melee combat.

The former would probably be stronger at it's specific task of combat or whatever else is chosen while the latter gets a more generalist animal from a longer list of creatures.

Roderick_BR
2008-04-24, 04:40 AM
In Monte Cooke's new "by request" alternate handbook, he just said, screw it, everyone gets a feat every level. Class features are now basically special feats you can select, based on your class.

I will remind everyone that rangers in 3.0 did get both the Archery and TWF progressions. The reason the changed it is because no one wanted to play fighters because the rangers got all the coolest feats anyways (not that anyone wants to play fighters now :smalltongue: )
Actually, in 3.0 rangers gained *only* the TWF progression... or rather, TWF beggining. Ambidestry (before it was put into TWF), and the first TWF feat. And that was it. Ranger was a perfect 1 level dip if you didn't care for heavy armor, plus the ability to use healing wands.

I like the idea of allowing more feats for classes. I'm actually using it in my homebrewed system.

Talic
2008-04-24, 05:02 AM
He can. It's called spells.Why, I'm sure he or she could do that too. However, the idea that a level 39 druid has the same exact wolf as a level 1 druid strikes me as just a wee bit... silly. Druid Animal companions need to gain abilities as the druid does, otherwise, by the time the druid hits level 10, it would be far less cruel to release the wolf than take it on what amounts to a suicide mission.

Like bonus hit die?You know, I'd really, really, like to think I'm intelligent enough to read the PHB and comprehend that, as it stands now, ranger animal companions gain HD with the ranger.

And I'd also really, really like to think that you're intelligent enough to recognize that when I suggest that it be changed to something different, that I do not mean, the same.

So, champ, how about it? Snarky comments, or open discussion between reasonably intelligent individuals wherein people can choose to state their opinions actively and civilly, instead of merely deriding the views of others?


EDIT: And, as for balancing fullcasters? Let me propose this thought, if I may.

Druids are not overpowered because of their pet. Nor are they overpowered because of wildshape.

To balance fullcasters, even kinda, sorta, maybe, you must start by removing any spell of 4th level or higher from the game. Then, get rid of the questionable 1-3 spells, like power word: pain, and the like.

To weaken an irrelevant part of the class under the pretense of balancing the class, first, you must be sure that you're balancing the class.

It's like if you owe $50,000 in back taxes, and the IRS comes to foreclose on your ashtray. Intention may be good, but the aim is WAY off.