Soldier (Formerly Martial Ranger) [Base]

[Lord Iames Osari]

Martial Ranger
Alignment: Any.
Vitality Die: d8.
{table="head"]Level|BAB|Fort|Ref|Will|Special
1st|+1|+2|+2|+0|Bonus feat
2nd|+2|+3|+3|+0|Bonus feat
3rd|+3|+3|+3|+1|Endurance
4th|+4|+4|+4|+1|~
5th|+5|+4|+4|+1|Bonus feat
6th|+6/+1|+5|+5|+2|~
7th|+7/+2|+5|+5|+2|Woodland stride
8th|+8/+3|+6|+6|+2|Bonus feat
9th|+9/+4|+6|+6|+3|Evasion
10th|+10/+5|+7|+7|+3|~
11th|+11/+6/+1|+7|+7|+3|Bonus feat
12th|+12/+7/+2|+8|+8|+4|~
13th|+13/+8/+3|+8|+8|+4|Camouflage
14th|+14/+9/+4|+9|+9|+4|Bonus feat
15th|+15/+10/+5|+9|+9|+5|~
16th|+16/+11/+6/+1|+10|+10|+5|~
17th|+17/+12/+7/+2|+10|+10|+5|Bonus feat, hide in plain sight
18th|+18/+13/+8/+3|+11|+11|+6|~
19th|+19/+14/+9/+4|+11|+11|+6|~
20th|+20/+15/+10/+5|+12|+12|+6|Bonus feat[/table]Class Skills
The martial ranger's class skills (and the key ability for each skill) are Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Hide (Dex), Intimidation (Cha), Jump (Str), Knowledge (geography) (Int), Knowledge (war) (Int), Listen (Wis), Move Silently (Dex), Profession (Wis), Ride (Dex), Search (Int), Spot (Wis), Survival (Wis), Swim (Str), and Use Rope (Dex).
Skill Points at 1st Level: (6 + Int modifier) x 4.
Skill Points at Each Additional Level: 6 + Int modifier.

Class Features
Unlike the standard ranger, the martial ranger has no spellcasting ability. This description of martial ranger class abilities covers only those abilities that are not found in the ranger class description. The martial ranger's special abilities function only when he is wearing light or no armor.
Bonus Feat: At 1st and 2nd level, and every third level thereafter, the martial ranger gains the Track feat or a feat from the fighter bonus feat list. Note that the martial ranger must still meet all prerequisites for the feats he selects.

[Rainspattered]

This is a ranger I would actually play, and I think the smaller HD keep it from just outright eclipsing the Fighter.

[jlousivy]

is it a mis-print or do the martial rangers get a +12 on will saves when achieving lvl 20?

[Lord Iames Osari]

Definitely a misprint.

Edit - fixed.

[Yakk]

Fighter vs M. Ranger

Fighter edge @ L 20
4 more feats
21 more HP on average (2 at L 1, 1 each other level)

M. Ranger edge at L 20:
Track feat (I assumed the ranger would take this)
Woodland stride
Swift Tracker
Evasion
Camouflage
Hide in plain sight
92 skill points and wider selection
+6 reflex safe

Fighter edge at L 1:
2 more HP

M. Ranger edge at L 1:
2 more reflex save
12 more skill points (and wider selection)
Option of taking Track feat

... What armor can the M. Ranger use? Not that it matters -- splashing a medium/heavy armor class for 1 or 2 levels (like fighter) solves that completely (no M. Ranger ability requires light armor).

Hmm. L 18 M. Ranger L 2 Fighter.

Costs you 8 skill points 1 reflex save.
Gives you +1 feat, +2 fort, +2 hp, Medium/Heavy armor proficiencies, Tower sheild prof.

So L 20 Fighter vs L 18/2 M. Ranger/Fighter

[icke]

Yakk:
Ranger vs. Fighter at Lvl. 1 is the same as Martial Ranger vs. Fighter at Lvl. 1.

Concerning the armor, I would restrict the Martial Ranger to light armors and shields. Also, I would give them a special bonus feat selection and NO werapon specialization , that's the fighter's main kick after all.

Otherwise I think it's balanced quite well, like it:)

[Yakk]

*nod*. Give the M. Ranger access to both combat styles of the normal ranger.

Toss in something distinctive... Hmm..

Wis Bonus times per scene, the M. Ranger gets to add his Dex bonus to the damage of a blow that hits. This ability can only be used at most once per round. (L 5 ability)

Once per day for every 2 levels of M. Ranger, the M. Ranger can add his Wis bonus to his to-hit roll.

L 15 ability: Superior offhand-weapon parry. The M. Ranger may add his Dex bonus as a shield bonus when weilding two weapons. This stacks with two-weapon defence.

That kind of thing, and strip out the Bonus Feats.

[Fizban]

Looks fine to me though with the idea I would have done a bit different.
I'd do: Combat Style (Ex): At 2nd, 6th, and 11th level the ranger gains a bonus feat chosen from the fighter's bonus feat list. The ranger does not need to meet ability score prerequisites for these feats, and ranger levels count as fighter levels for meeting prerequisites at all levels.

Although now that I look at it, you got rid of favored enemy and replaced it with bonus feats as well. That works, but now it just seems like a fighter variant with some non-feat abilities and more skills.

I still prefer the Warcraft setting's Scout for a ranger class, but that's a whole nother setting.

[Serakus_DeSardis]

Not to be a jerk but this reeks of munchkin design.

This basically looks like you merged the two classes.

I could be mistaken.

If so I apologize.

[Logic]

I would like to go back to second edition rules on "Rangers", that rule being that rangers were good. ("Heart of a Ranger" was a description for good characters, not just trackers)
For a non-good version of the ranger, my group uses the title "Hunter" or "Woodsman" which usually does not have spells, but more martial characteristics. This class does not preclude good characters, but most good characters take ranger instead of my variant class.

[Lord Iames Osari]

Yakk:
Ranger vs. Fighter at Lvl. 1 is the same as Martial Ranger vs. Fighter at Lvl. 1.

Concerning the armor, I would restrict the Martial Ranger to light armors and shields. Also, I would give them a special bonus feat selection and NO werapon specialization , that's the fighter's main kick after all.

Otherwise I think it's balanced quite well, like it:)

Martial rangers are proficient with all simple and martial weapons, light armor, and shields, just like the standard ranger. I've taken out the line about Weapon Spec, but I'm keeping the fighter's list of bonus feats rather than making up a new one.

That said, if people think they should get fewer bonus feats, I'm open to suggestions.

[Yakk]

Dispite the lack of medium/heavy armor feats...

No combat ability of this ranger requires or encourages light armor.

[Triaxx]

Why not add some 'Styles of the Wild', that only function while wearing Light armor. For Example:

Wolf Strike:

A Martial Ranger has learned how to hamstring like a wolf, and may make a single attack attempt, at a -3 penalty, to hamstring his opponent, reducing the opponent's ground speed by 5' for the first, and immobilizing for the second. The second strike wears off in 1d4 rounds, but the first requires a DC 25 heal check.

Tiger Claw:

A Martial Ranger may attempt to deal a stunning blow, capable of rendering an opponent unconscious when striking empty handed, at a -4 penalty. Unconsciousness lasts 1d4 rounds, DC 18 reflex save to be nauseated for 2 rounds.

[Fizban]

Not a bad idea, but in that case I'd suggest direct crossovers from animals. The wolf's trip ability, pounce, maybe hold breath, sprint if you like, improved grab, rend, heck I could see a rake-like ability. But this approaches more nature-warrior than wilderness fighter.

[Lord Iames Osari]

Yeah, this class isn't "I'm a warrior who uses techniques inspired by animals to pwn you!" it's "I'm a fighter who can handle himself in the woods and not go crashing through the undergrowth like freaking Gojira".

[Behold_the_Void]

Just give no access to Fighter-specific feats, that's the only thing the Fighter really has going for it.

[Triaxx]

I was going for more of a 'I'm a ranger who's spent more time in the woods than in a city, but yes, I can still show you your heart while it's still beating' style of ranger.

[Serakus_DeSardis]

This may be my humble opinion, and many may not agree with it, but I say again.

This smacks of munchkin play. The ranger is already very well defined and very well balanced, Favored enemy alone can make the ranger the damage center of some parties in alot of situations (that is if the ranger has chosen a decent enemy, not some obscure one that you never see), not to mention the obvious TWF uses, and the supplement of spells and an animal companion makes them all around well balanced.

If you don't want the spells then play a fighter. Or splash fighter after a few levels of ranger.

I just think rewriting the ranger to include the things that make the fighter different and more specialized is ridiculous. again, I'm not trying to be a jerk, its just a little excessive in my opinion.

Also what is the line about the ranger not needing to meet the requirements for fighter feats he selects? Or the recently removed line about specialization? Why does this martial ranger get special treatment in regards to feats?

In a game that is very kind to multi-classing, it is borderline offensive to undermine the balance and design of the core game by totally breaking that balance and design. This may sound harsh, but it is how I feel.

In my opinion if you want to have a fighter with some functionality in wild enviroments, then perhaps develop a few feats to allow that to happen. That way you are not breaking either class, and you are reaching the goal you seem to have. Its much more agreeable to simulate a class ability in a feat (tho in my opinion you should always make it a little less effective, balance again) than to chop and butcher two classes into one.

Thats my two copper, again no offense intended, as harsh as this post may seem, I mean well. I just feel that sometimes we all need to be reined in a bit.

[Lord Iames Osari]

Well, first of all, the line that says MRs don't have to meet prereqs wa a typo - it's supposed to say "Note that...", not "Not that...".

And why are you still harping on the specialization thing? It's gone. Not there. People didn't like it, I took it away. Move on.

[Serakus_DeSardis]

Its not just the specialization. Its the concept bud. I've seen alot of your work before, and its usually of very good quality. This just happens to be in my opinion a munchkin concept from the core of it. That may not have been your intent.

[Lord Iames Osari]

Okay. Camouflage, wilderness movement, etc. are things that modern soldiers are trained in. In my world, there is a movement away from classic medieval tactics toward more modern ones, mostly as a result of the huge 15-year war that occured, and the much shorter (but equally intense) war that happened 10 years after that.

My problem with the "do it by multiclassing" argument is that, by the time you get to the ranger levels where the camouflage abilities and all that stuff is given to you, you've picked up stuff that doesn't fit the vision of "semi-modern soldier" - animal companion, divine spells, etc. This is my attempt to fix that and make it available to others.

Looking back, I see that the swift tracker ability really doesn't fit the vision either. Soldiers might be trained in tracking, but it's a specialty, not a blanket ability.

So, now that I've explained what I'm going for, let's try to make it fit better. And I'd be a lot more receptive to criticism if, instead of going, "MUNCHKIN! MUNCHKIN! EVIL BLARG!!!11!!one!", you pointed out specific features that you disliked.

[Yakk]

Let's make the class less Fighter-ish and more ranger-ish.

As it stands, it really really looks like a Ranger/Fighter hybrid class.

Fighters get swarms of bonus feats. Rangers, well, they get ranger-ish combat abilities.

First, kill wild empathy and animal companion and spell casting from the Ranger list. Leave most of the rest. But, as a core flavour ability, let's replace Favoured Enemy with something better.

Track: At L 1, the Ranger gets track as a bonus feat.
At L 8, Swift tracker

Woods: At L 7, Woodland stride
At L 13, Camouflage
At L 17, Hide in plain sight

Combat Style: At Level 1, the M. Ranger picks his primary combat style (as a ranger).
At L 2, the M. Ranger gets the other combat style.

M. Rangers gain the further upgrades to the Primary combat style at the same level as Rangers.
M. Rangers gain the further upgrades to the Secondary combat style one level later the Primary combat style.

Slaying: A M. Ranger gets +1 damage to 1 handed melee weapons and bows at every even level.
(Effectively favored enemy in combat, but against everything. @ L 20, +10 damage -- same as Favoured enemy.)

This resulting class is a bit thin at higher levels. But Slaying really really adds up.

Slaying fails to work in heavier-than-light-armor, as do the free Combat Styles feats of the M. Ranger.

Some concerns: Wisdom isn't that useful. I wish there was a way to make wisdom more useful for the M. Ranger.
Give them innate Finess and the ability to replace Strength with Wisdom for damage purposes?

Other ranger-esque ideas:
Aim: As a full action, can aim and shoot a bow. This adds the character's Wisdom bonus to hit.
Accuracy: Dex bonus to damage for bows.
Well-Placed Blade: Dex bonus to melee damage on x2 crits. On x3 crits, twice Dex bonus. On 4x crits, three times Dex bonus.

[Yakk]

Oh, more of a (Forest) Skirmirsher than a M. Ranger. This is a varient Fighter not a varient Ranger.

Kill all special ranger abilities -- we'll put them back in later. Keep d8 HP and the high Reflex save.

First, no access to Fighter-only feats.

Second, proficient in simple weapons, one-handed martial weapons, and bows.

Third, armor proficient in light armor and small shields.

This is a lightly-armed fighting class, not a bruiser.

Get's a bonus feat at L 1 and every 2 levels. These feats are chosen from the Fighter Bonus feat list, but not fighter-only feats.

Instead, at the following Skirmisher levels or above, you can purchase:
3rd: Endurance
7th: Woodland Stride
8th: Swift Tracker
9th: Evasion
13th: Camouflage
17th: Hide in Plain Sight

These abilities can be purchased with either bonus feats or with normal character feats.

These bonus feats only work while in light armor.

If that isn't strong enough, you can toss in something (flanking bonus's?) on odd levels.

[Lord Iames Osari]

Let's make the class less Fighter-ish and more ranger-ish.

As it stands, it really really looks like a Ranger/Fighter hybrid class.

Fighters get swarms of bonus feats. Rangers, well, they get ranger-ish combat abilities.

First, kill wild empathy and animal companion and spell casting from the Ranger list. Leave most of the rest. But, as a core flavour ability, let's replace Favoured Enemy with something better.

Track: At L 1, the Ranger gets track as a bonus feat.
At L 8, Swift tracker

Woods: At L 7, Woodland stride
At L 13, Camouflage
At L 17, Hide in plain sight

Combat Style: At Level 1, the M. Ranger picks his primary combat style (as a ranger).
At L 2, the M. Ranger gets the other combat style.

M. Rangers gain the further upgrades to the Primary combat style at the same level as Rangers.
M. Rangers gain the further upgrades to the Secondary combat style one level later the Primary combat style.

But combat styles also don't really fit the "soldier" vision. Soldiers have a variety of specialties and weapons training, so doing this limits their weapon choices, which is something I'm trying to avoid.

Slaying: A M. Ranger gets +1 damage to 1 handed melee weapons and bows at every even level.
(Effectively favored enemy in combat, but against everything. @ L 20, +10 damage -- same as Favoured enemy.)

I like this ability a little more. However, again, the weapons restrictions don't fit what I'm aiming for, and taking them out would make the ability much more powerful than the Weapon Spec tree that people said I should avoid. Thus, unfortunately, I'm not going to use this.

Some concerns: Wisdom isn't that useful. I wish there was a way to make wisdom more useful for the M. Ranger.
Give them innate Finess and the ability to replace Strength with Wisdom for damage purposes?

Hmmm. I don't know. Add some Wis-based bonus feats to their list, perhaps?

Other ranger-esque ideas:
Aim: As a full action, can aim and shoot a bow. This adds the character's Wisdom bonus to hit.
Accuracy: Dex bonus to damage for bows.
Well-Placed Blade: Dex bonus to melee damage on x2 crits. On x3 crits, twice Dex bonus. On 4x crits, three times Dex bonus.

Aim and Accuracy, I like. Not as class abilities, but as feats to go on their list. Well-Placed Blade doesn't do much for me, and I'll take away the specific mention of bows and make it apply to ranged weapons in general, or maybe a specific ranged weapon that they choose.

Oh, more of a (Forest) Skirmirsher than a M. Ranger. This is a varient Fighter not a varient Ranger.

Kill all special ranger abilities -- we'll put them back in later. Keep d8 HP and the high Reflex save.

First, no access to Fighter-only feats.

Second, proficient in simple weapons, one-handed martial weapons, and bows.

Third, armor proficient in light armor and small shields.

This is a lightly-armed fighting class, not a bruiser.

Get's a bonus feat at L 1 and every 2 levels. These feats are chosen from the Fighter Bonus feat list, but not fighter-only feats.

Instead, at the following Skirmisher levels or above, you can purchase:
3rd: Endurance
7th: Woodland Stride
8th: Swift Tracker
9th: Evasion
13th: Camouflage
17th: Hide in Plain Sight

These abilities can be purchased with either bonus feats or with normal character feats.

These bonus feats only work while in light armor.

If that isn't strong enough, you can toss in something (flanking bonus's?) on odd levels.

Hmm. I like the idea of making their abilities armor-restricted, but I might go with medium as the cut-off and add Armor Prof (medium) to their bonus feats.

[Serakus_DeSardis]

Well here we hit a good discussion point. Unless I'm mistaken you didn't previously mention that this was a semi-modern concept. I can see what you are going for now.

That being said, I still think it would be better to supplement this concept with feats or class abilities mimicking the abilities you want. Perhaps using feats to substitute for the divine abilities or any other undesireable traits.

But I also think Yakk makes an excellent point that "This is a lightly-armed fighting class, not a bruiser. - Yakk". I'd agree with that. You want to be very careful that you balance these abilties you seek from the Ranger, and maintain the same kind of approach.



As for your vision of a "semi-modern" soldier, are we just referring to tactics?

I guess what I'm trying to determine by that question is is this more appropriate for d20 Modern? Or is this a traditional DnD setting with some tactics and mentality of a modern era? I've seen alot of material put out both professionally and homebrew that brings semi-modern tactics into play with traditional DnD play. A good example is alot of Elven material speaks of using guerilla tactics, using their smaller force size for its advantages such as concealability and mobility. Elves are actually a perfect example of what I'm trying to illustrate to you, they are fleet footed and graceful, and capable warriors. But they are not the brawler type, that wade into battle directly. In your original concept I saw alot of room for munchkin style exploitation. It wasn't your intent I can see that now, but I saw the opportunity.

I know I'm probably driving you crazy right now. For that I apologize. I hope this post makes some sense to what I'm trying to convey.

[Lord Iames Osari]

I'm aiming for some of the tactics and the mentality/philosophy. My world is in transition from a high-magic kind of setting to a more low-magic, technology based one, thanks to the sealing away of a lot of magic. The "default" era setting assumes that the "sealing" has not yet occured, but that modern kinds of elements have begun to take hold.

[Yakk]

The modern soldier happened because of semi-automatic firearms.

In the modern battlefield, if you can see your target, you can (and probably will) kill it. This wasn't true before the advent of repeating rifles.

In the ancient battlefield, the amount of damage each person could put into the air was much less.

War was more about concentrating power. You would pack your troops together in order to slaughter anyone who dared get within range. Low-density combat was silly, because a high-density formation would walk through it with minimal casualties.

If anything, D&D wars should look more like modern wars thanks to magic. Fireballs and lighting bolts and other area effect weapons make densely packed troops into sushi. Magic allows some semblance of modern communication speeds -- so a military force can afford to split itself up into sub-forces, and use magic to relay contact with the enemy.

To aviod being nuked to death, an army would have to travel in extremely loose order. Mixed squads of 6.

Large amounts of scouting and a large volume, designed to provide early warning of a magical assault on the army. Outer layer of expendable scouts (who report back regularly), next layer of heavier fighters, next layer of mixed melee and low level casters, and finally a diffuse core of higher level casters.

Mundane threats get picked up by the outermost shell, and defeated by the second shell.

Invisible threats get picked up by the 3rd layer, and taken out there or in the core.

In the event of battle, the game becomes "how do I bring the glass cannons to bear without being killed by enemy glass cannons".

...

Take a single L 10 wizard.
Cloudkill: 200 ft start range, 1200 ft end range, 10 minute duration.
Instant-kill every L 1 to 3 character in it.

Fireball: 800 ft range
10d6 damage to 40 foot diameter. Kills 50% of all L 3 warriors who make their reflex save, and basically 100% of them that don't.

A tightly packed group of troops (5 deep, one troop for every 5') 40' of frontage, killing about 40 troops, from each fireball.

A L 10 evoc spec wizard can pump out at least 11 fireballs, and a sorc 14. That's a minimium of 400 troops dead per L 10 wizard and 500 per sorc, if they dare pack themselves in close, and that's before the wizard finds better spells to cast or metamagic feats.

Of course, as powerful as that is, create food & water spells may be more powerful military wise. The hard part of moving massive armies is logistics -- with magic providing clean food and water, large armies would happen much sooner.

[Lord Iames Osari]

I should add that firearms came into existence shortly before the start of the 15-year war and developed rapidly as the war went on. Firearms technology is at the about the revolvers and breech-loading rifle stage, with longarms with internal magazines in the prototype/extremely limited production stage.

[Yakk]

Ah. Yes, that would do it. :)

I just find it interesting that people use medievil tactics in fantasy games. A single metropolis of 25,000 population can produce enough spellcasting to kill 10,000+ massed troops every single day.

How do you work firearms? d20 modern?

[Lord Iames Osari]

Actually, the most modern firearms (revolvers and breechloaders) are restricted to military usage, with flintlocks and some muzzle-loading longarms being available for general citizens.

For the older weapons, I use stats from an issue of Dragon - I can't remember which one. In addition to the article on guns, it had a celestial-based PrC, and that's basically all I remember.

For the more modern weapons, I basically look at weapons from d20 Modern and fudge the stats from there. "Okay, a revolver of this caliber usually does this damage at this range, and weighs about this much..."