Talk:Ranger, Tome (3.5e Class)

Constructs
"Oh look. The enemy has built a small planet out of wood. Well, we can either sneak into it and detonate the reactor, or..." the level 8 ranger snaps his fingers, and the planet explodes, "I could just do that and trawl through the remains looking for nice loot."

I suppose it's not more than the World Dominator can do, but it seems really absurd on a fairly low-magic character. --Foxwarrior 20:22, September 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's post the ability in question here:
 * "Construct: You automatically destroy unattended objects and structures with hardness less than your class level. This doesn’t apply to construct creatures."
 * Now, with no range, or needed action, uh, anything with a hardness of less than 8, anywhere, is automatically destroyed. That can't be right... --Ganteka Future 20:45, September 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * Added stipulation of "melee and ranged attacks", so hopefully that clears that up. - TG Cid 21:52, September 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, for a ranger, there's no doubt he's the best lumberjack ever, able to cut down a mighty thousand foot high redwood tree with but a pebble, and then probably another one, in the same round, because he has two attacks, regardless of distance, since a penalty to hit doesn't matter, since it's automatic success... also, with a hardness of 8 for stone, at 9th level, he can destroy a mountain with a flicked toothpick, and then another mountain, since he gets two attacks a round... or he could headbutt the mountain, because that would be cooler... no, wait, flicking a cigar butt at a mountain, and then having the mountain collapse into a volcano as he walked away without looking back, that would be the coolest.
 * Silliness aside, there should probably be a size limit or something. Practically, perhaps he can destroy something of his size (or a size larger) per round, like a section of a fortress wall, rather than an entire fortress. --Ganteka Future 04:59, September 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * This was based off the Tome Samurai's Blade of Devastation class feature, which looking back I realize I did a poor job of paraphrasing. How's this for a revision: "With a standard action, you may automatically destroy unattended objects or walls with hardness less than your class level with a melee or ranged attack. You may only destroy an object or section of wall that is your size or smaller. This doesn’t apply to construct creatures."


 * That's a fair bit more reasonable, although I agree with Ganteka that it would be fine if it worked on things up to one size larger than you. --Foxwarrior 18:55, September 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, can do. Added. - TG Cid 20:04, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

Animal
You gave Trapfinding as the minor ability, to a class without disable device or search as class skills. This seems rather useless compared to the other minor abilities you hand out. It probably needs more, or to be reworked. - TarkisFlux 16:44, September 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * What if getting those two skills as class skills was added in? It would actually make that ability feasible without adding too much, and I concur that animal is pretty lacking compared to the rest (then again, animals are pretty weak as a group so I wasn't sure how much was warranted). - TG Cid 17:06, September 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * That seems like very backwards logic. If animals are weak as a group (which only seems true after level 5 or so, few enemies I have thrown at people have been more lethal), then you should give extra big favored enemy bonuses for favoring them in order to compensate for the reduced benefit of extra attack and damage. --Foxwarrior 18:55, September 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * You probably don't want to do less because the group is weak. If it's an option, it needs to be a worthwhile option. And it probably shouldn't be any more awesome than the other options either, despite the fact that animals don't show up all that much. The favored enemy bonus itself won't show up all that much outside of specific enemy slaying campaigns or high level games where you have lots of them and your odds of using it are higher. I honestly don't even care about the favored enemy hit and damage stuff; as far as I'm concerned these abilities are what's important and what are resolving one of the larger issues I have with the standard ranger.


 * Anyway, if you're good at finding hidden snares and whatnot, I can see that applying to hidden pressure plates and even magical triggers. But disabling that stuff is a much larger stretch for me, since there's a much wider gap between disabling a snare and disabling a proximity triggered fireball or a symbol of death. So noticing the traps is probably something you just want to give them with the trapfinding ability, but disable them is something I can see making them invest in. I think I'd give them a bonus to search equal to their class level + 5 for the purposes of finding traps only (no bonus for other things) and not make it a class skill (since it's intended to be rather narrow in focus and this gets that), and then disable device as a class skill in case they wanted to invest in dealing with those things. You could even allow them to make disable device checks untrained since that would probably allow them to deal with really low end traps like snares and whatnot. I don't think I'd just give them both as class skills without additional skill points, but I think giving extra skills without the ability to invest in them is just rude. - TarkisFlux 01:43, September 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, so perhaps if the ranger got a bonus to Search equal to his class level in the same fashion as he normally gets a bonus to Survival checks? If nothing else, a bonus equal to class level would make the ranger decent enough to be credible. Then if he really wants to go all out he can add ranks as needed. As far as flavor is concerned, I figured he would be able to disable traps because of his experience setting them. I know that that doesn't really cover magical traps and such, but does it work any differently for the rogue? - TG Cid 02:27, September 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * Whatever bonus they get probably needs to be typed such that it doesn't stack with items. Doing otherwise allows them to replace rogues at trap detection (because they'd get ranks, item, and class bonuses) and that sort of full-on shtick theft seems out of place here. Getting in on the game is fine, but telling the rogue he doesn't need to play anymore because you've "got this one" isn't.


 * Since it doesn't require any more investment after initial selection, I don't see a compelling reason to extend the bonus to anything more than trap detection. That puts it on the same level as the other abilities anyway since you can just avoid / trigger from range most traps if you can detect them. You could give them both of the skills as class skills after that if you wanted, I just dislike giving classes extra skills to spend the same number of skill points in since it's either never used or only serves to dilute other investment choices, and thus not as useful an option as it appears. But it leaves the ranger in the position of needing to take an item and pour ranks into the skill if they want to do everything that a rogue can do with it, and that looks fair to me, if sub-optimal. It's hard to make the numbers work otherwise though, so I don't have any better suggestions. - TarkisFlux 01:13, September 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * What about being able to use a survival check instead of search, but limiting it to just outdoor or woodland traps, that way rogues are still useful in the dungeon and doesn't feel replaced and the ranger doesn't need to invest into skills that would be rarely used in the first place. --PixieDragon 05:55, October 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the option of substituting the Search check with Survival is actually a pretty good idea, but the reasoning behind giving it as a rogue was that in wizard-level campaigns there might not necessarily even be a rogue in the party, and this allowed someone to fill that role in those situations. My only real beef with limiting it to outdoors/woodlands traps is it seems to take away a great deal of the ability's usefulness. As it stands, it's already my least favorite of the benefits just due to the fact that it doesn't seem to do all that much. If you don't have anyone else who can do trapfinding, fine, but since most parties do it's not like the ranger would always trump them. He can gear his favored enemy abilities around other things, and if the situationever comes up where he may be needed to do it he can use Natural Predator to gain the ability for a little while. - TG Cid 15:12, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

Elementals
There needs to be a way to remove the elemental subtypes after gaining them, and you should probably restrict the ranger to having one elemental subtype at a time from this ability. --DanielDraco 00:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Vermin
Being "separated" does not really mean anything in game terms. You should probably explicate this effect. --DanielDraco 00:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Aberrations
Rebounding ALL targeted psionic effects is overpowered, plain and simple. It means that you pretty much automatically win against any pure manifester. Even if you're not a fan of psionics and don't want to deal with it, you can't discount its existence. At least not without saying that you're discounting its existence. But in that case you should still discuss what happens in games that ARE using psionics.. --DanielDraco 00:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Fey
While this is not really a matter of balance, for flavor reasons I would suggest that the ability to detect creatures while in a forest be limited to detecting creatures which are in the forest. That way you can't take one step into the woods and then sense a few football fields into the city behind you. --DanielDraco 00:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Magical Beasts
You might want to change the bleeding wound damage to the beginning of YOUR turn so that it's not staggered strangely. --DanielDraco 00:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Dragons
Why the fear change? Frightful presence doesn't happen until CR8 or later (unless I missed one), so it's not even necessary until then. Not that I think fear immunity is all that or anything, it just seems early in this case.

Also, updating the movement fixing action to a full-round action or two subsequent move actions might be interesting (if potentially fiddly). Two turns of standard actions vs. one turn of nothing sort of decisions. - Tarkisflux Talk 04:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I changed it around more due to the much-increased versatility of the Advanced ability (which was the primary intention) and me not really thinking evasion was all that for a minor benefit by itself; I figured evasion and fear immunity together were still fine despite the admitted lack of things that do fear at that level (cause fear is available from the get-go, although it's nowhere near as debilitating as later fear effects).


 * I had thought about that action possibility. Perhaps a standard action allows you to recover half your movement speed while the full-round gets you back all of it? - TG Cid (talk) 16:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Feral Libram
The Feral Libram project that I'm working on wants a wizard-level ranger. Can I take this one for it when it comes time to do that?


 * Sure thing; it would be a great way to get this class a little more exposure. I hope it serves your purposes to your liking. - TG Cid 04:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Recent Edits
After hearing critique on The Gaming Den and some deliberations with some Tome-knowledgeable persons (most notably Tarkisflux), I have made some edits to this class that I hope are to the liking of viewers. These have included the changing of certain Favored Enemy benefits, the moving of the Big Game Hunter class feature to the Major benefit for Favored Enemy (animal), and a key change to the Combat Style class features (including removing the level 16 bonus feat and restricting the choice of what Combat feats could be taken to those that were more weapons-oriented. This makes the Combat Style class feature gained at all the same levels as the normal ranger, while also still covering all the archtypical ranger types.

I'm fairly happy with just about all of the Favored Enemy benefits at this point, but it anyone has any suggestions for how to improve them I'm willing to listen. - TG Cid 02:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The one possible exception is the Trapfinding given as the minor benefit of Favored Enemy (animal). This is probably more reflective of the general lack of cool things trapfinding gives than the favored enemy itself, so if anyone has a way to revise traps and make them a more viable means of combat I'm all for it. - TG Cid 02:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Survival
Survival seems to be missing. I can't imagine why a ranger wouldn't have it especially since they get track as a bonus feat.


 * Bam, fixed. Thanks for noticing and pointing it out. - TG Cid 04:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Tome of Prowess
Rangers have 6-level spellcasting, so they should maybe get Concentration too. Also, the blurb under Tracker for ToP doesn't make any sense (seems to be the same either way to me). Surgo 21:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Concentration only covers casting while being actually interrupted, like with a sword from a readied action. Endurance covers casting a spell while on fire or swimming in acid or whatever, which they do get. Neither of them do any of the casting defensively work in ToP, that's all been offloaded into the magic skills. Casting defensively does require a feat though, Combat Casting, Prowess (3.5e Feat), so giving them that feat early on or allowing them to take it as one of their bonus feats might be worth doing.


 * The feat thing was a typo and has been corrected. - Tarkisflux Talk 22:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Things I'd change
Not that the class isn't good (it is): add the ranger spells from sourcebooks (given that it prepares spells, you can just dump them without a problem of either too many options, or people lacking the sourcebooks); remove etherealness and mass heal (while I understand there's some thematic relation, it's not all that much IMO and it's level 9 spells on a semi-spellcaster that'll eventually swift-cast them); clarify the CR limit for the animal companion for rangers under level 3 (or maybe just push it up and make it a Leadeship feat); put the bonus feats at 3/7/13/17 and move forest specter/ghillie in the mist (BTW, I prefer the former name, which is only in the table as of now) either up or down a level (to avoid crowding 17, so only in case you put a feat there); award a +2 spell DC for favored enemy (its DCs *are* bad if it ever casts a spell allowing a save, though as of now it'd only matter for entangle and the cure spells against undead); and halve the extra damage for favored enemies, rounding up (it doesn't need to deal as much damage as a barbarian or Kantian paladin, IMO, having a lot more good options than either, and going on to eventually have nearly everything as favored enemy; also, the other 2 are melee-only - maybe reduce only the ranged bonus, so that there's incentives for both melee and ranged combat). Comments on favored enemy abilities later. Bigode 00:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Since I've spent lots and lots of time with Cid on this, here's some preliminary return comments while he's out.
 * Mass Heal at 6 is a reflection of moving healing spells up generally, so Heal winds up a 4, and Mass being worth +2 levels. I don't know if Cid will be willing to remove it or not, we've been discussing healing on the class on and off for a while now.
 * Not sure what needs to be clarified on companions under level 3. Per text you can select a companion of your CR at 1 but cannot advance them until you hit 4, which seems to cover that range pretty clearly.
 * Why for the feat increase / moves?
 * The +2 DC is an interesting call that would open up some actual direct combat spells. Cid has previously said that he wanted their casting to be support based and pull direct combat effects from the favored enemy bits, but I don't know if he's reconsidering that at all in light of our paladin work.
 * I've been trying to talk him down on the damage for a while now, and would generally agree with that assessment. I would also drop the BAB only requirement if that went through and give the bonus damage to TWFers. There's enough combat feats in here to justify taking something other than dual wielding. And even if that does push people into 2 blade stabbing machines, it just fits the stereotype in teh pic.
 * - Tarkisflux Talk 05:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmm, a damage cap of 5d6 instead of 10d6 but a removal of the BAB-attacks-only -- thoughts on this? Surgo 20:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I retract the idea about expanding the spell list: most sourcebook spells were numerical boosts, not that interesting and not needed here. Mass heal is 3 levels above heal, not 2, and I'd like to keep 9th-level spells out of the partial spellcasters (but agree with heal at 4, about the same class level a cleric gets it, - and note, one level earlier! - that it'll swift-cast). My mistake on the animal companion "being unclear" - but I'll raise http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=65473#65473 with regards to levels 1-2 and say that, so far, spellcasters didn't have leadership IIRC - I'd actually like to reduce those to the level seen on Quantumboost's sorcerer. The move are to avoid crowding if the feat gets added, which I suggested mostly to keep the progression predictable. Anything, including leaving as-is, before "halving the damage" and introducing a character-concept-limiting backdoor that amounts to "no change, except if you want to blatantly sandbag by not taking TWF". Lastly: as of now, it's a class with spellcasting that's near full save for the number of spell slots (not that I've a problem with that - only with the sum of all stuff), a cohort by default, and *thirty* good abilities; maybe, actually, I might suggest not changing the damage formula, but reducing the favored enemies to 6 or 7 ... ? (And downgrade the cohort, but that's me wanting to do it with all classes, so there may be little to discuss here.) Bigode 00:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * When I've used this on my own I've dropped the number of favored enemies to 7 (2, 5, 8, etc.) with no damage formula change and that works out ok, but you have to do a more substantial reorganization on the higher levels to avoid dead stuff (though I prefer it because this is a bit later work power creepy). I don't actually get why people don't want TWFers dealing stupid amounts of damage with static boosts like this outside of thematic reasons, and the class has baggage at this point that suggests it fits with those thematic reasons. I am totally fine with +3/4 BAB and full SA vs + full BAB and 2/3 SA, which is what it would be in this case. As for sandbagging by not taking TWF, you could instead take Point Blank and add BAB to damage for each hit, which is about as much damage as a second strike would add at half SA. It doesn't stack with other combat feats in the same way (don't hit twice as many targets with Combat School, don't get twice as many AoOs with hoard breaker, etc.), but it's ranged and you're not in melee and that's fine as far as I'm concerned.


 * I don't agree that Mass is worth +3 spell levels, but we can discuss the worth of adding Mass to a spell elsewhere I guess. And I'm with you on downgrading the cohort, but that's because I want people to get on the "cohorts are CR-4" bus and start dropping things in general. - Tarkisflux Talk 00:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I can agree with 7 enemies and +1d6/each (including comparing as-is to "later work"), but should likely be {1, 4, 7}, {10, 13}, {16, 19} - after all, I do want to hate people from level 1. :P I of course agree there's reasons to use ranged weapons (and, in fact, worry it may still get the best of all worlds with +7d6 at any range against a large majority of enemies, if properly selected), but would like to see a reason to use single melee weapons (e.g. spear - two scimitars is about as badly-armed as you can get for hunting, AFAICT); I'd prefer keeping the [number granted by BAB] attack limitation, but removing it and making some incentive, even if situational, for single melee weapons could also work. Bigode 01:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I could see lowering it to 7. It would make end-game Rangers not all samey. Should put something else minor in to compensate though. Surgo 02:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll post preliminarily to respond to all the suggestions above. Not going to rule anything out at this point, but I think I'll sit on acting until we reach some kind of consensus (since it's good to see that enough people have vested interest in it that this discussion is even taking place).
 * I'm tentatively OK with cutting the number of favored enemies to 7; I'm just thinking that while it does make rangers less samey and puts greater emphasis on the choices made since you end up unable to get everything, it shrinks the ranger's primary unique feature. Which I think is its best asset and one of the reasons I like it so much. Further thoughts on how much/little it affects the game would be appreciated, as I haven't really been able to play-test it. By the same token, I could see a damage decrease being justified, especially for ranged characters (although I think ranged martial characters tend to be cursed by the stereotype that they should deal significantly less damage as a general rule, despite the fact that casters can blast people from distance for crazy damage/save-or-dies and what-have-you.
 * Reshuffling class features is a mixed bag. Changing the number of favored enemies obviously constitutes a shuffle, which I think could be accomplished with 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20 to get a total of seven. That setup still allows the new tiers of favored enemy abilities to be given at the same levels and allows favored enemies to come into play quickly while still being relevant all the way through. I'm totally OK with moving Animal Companion up to 3 and simplifying it to a generic cohort ability for a CR -2 pet that follows you everywhere. It removes the only real complications of that ability. My primary fear would be that it crowds level 3, so any suggestions for what to do there would be helpful. Thrill of the Hunt is a minor enough ability that it could probably be moved to level 1, so that's my primary mode of thinking for now.
 * The spell DC increase is interesting, but it seems to have essentially been discarded with the expanded spell lists. Another idea I had for that would be to replace your normal spell DC with your default favored enemy save DC (aka 10 + 1/2 level + Wisdom mod), which just gives you one constant value instead of having to calculate everything.
 * The bonus feats being moved around just sounds like a consequence of changing the favored enemy count and needing to put in something to fill otherwise dead levels. I like how they are at present since it's consistent with gaining new benefits with Combat feats and thus the typical "big power jumps" for meleers, but I'm not set against changing it by any stretch.
 * All I have time for right now, the IRC chat would probably be a good place to continue. - TG Cid 11:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I worked up a sketch alternate progression last night.
 * Spells 0, Favored Enemy, Tracker
 * Spells 1, Natural Predator, Combat Style
 * Animal Companion, Thrill of the Hunt
 * Spells 2, Favored Enemy, Nature Walk
 * Camouflage,
 * Beastmaster, Swift Tracking
 * Spells 3, Favored Enemy, Combat Style
 * Advanced Favored Enemy Benefits,
 * Fast Casting 0 1, Skirmisher,
 * Spells 4, Favored Enemy,
 * Fast Casting 2, Ghillie in the Mist,
 * Combat Style
 * Spells 5, Favored Enemy,
 * Fast Casting 3, Major Favored Enemy Benefits,
 * Bloodhound,
 * Spells 6, Favored Enemy,
 * Fast Casting 4,, Combat Style
 * Forest Specter,
 * Favored Enemy,
 * Fast Casting 5, Survival of the Fittest,
 * You really don't need anything at the levels where you get Advanced and Major benefits, since you get 3 or 5 things from the advancement by itself. And it's a reduction from 30 to 21 abilities, which is still substantially more than it gets from any other source. Combined with Natural Predator checks to continue the creature knowledge based violence and I don't think it dilutes the class feel too much. - Tarkisflux Talk 15:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Edit - On expanding the spell lists, I would be happy to see some appropriate Druid 0-6 expansion spells in here if the Ranger expansion spells are meh (haven't confirmed that myself though). Ranger has always sort of been a Druid-lite spellcaster anyway. - Tarkisflux Talk 16:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Alternative progression:


 * 1 level 0 spells, favored enemy, tracker
 * 2 level 1 spells, bonus feat, nature walk
 * 3 advanced learning, thrill of the hunt, natural predator
 * 4 level 2 spells, favored enemy, swift tracking
 * 5 camouflage, beast companion
 * 6 advanced learning, skirmisher
 * 7 level 3 spells, favored enemy
 * 8 bonus feat, advanced favored enemy abilities
 * 9 advanced learning, fast casting (1), ghillie in the mist
 * 10 level 4 spells, favored enemy
 * 11 fast casting (2)
 * 12 advanced learning, bloodhound
 * 13 level 5 spells, favored enemy, fast casting (3)
 * 14 bonus feat, major favored enemy abilities
 * 15 advanced learning, fast casting (4)
 * 16 level 6 spells, favored enemy
 * 17 fast casting (5)
 * 18 advanced learning, forest specter
 * 19 favored enemy, fast casting (6)
 * 20 bonus feat, survival of the fittest


 * (Beast companion admits magical beasts right away, and advanced learning is abjuration/divination/necromancy druid spells IMO. Also, this is slightly different from the one I showed Cid.) Bigode 03:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Necromancy has combat options in it that Cid has previously avoided for the casting here, so I'm not sure it's appropriate. [Healing] spells might be more in line. And (this is probably going to sound out there) illusion spells might be fine too. There's only 3 from WotC material that even qualify for it (4 if you count 3.0 sources, though my reference database might be off) and 2 more on the wiki, with a couple of combat options in there, but hiding and misleading and disorienting fit the theme a bit more IMO. - Tarkisflux Talk 06:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * But the necromancies are awesome (not just, or even mainly, the direct attacks), and the ranger is supposed to hate people so hard they die! :P (And may justify that +2 applying to spells - besides, don't like it, don't pick it; is there a conceputal, or other, problem with a ranger that chooses them?) On healing: I'd rather avoid repetition, but I do see it fitting, of course. On illusion: I did look and like at least one, but there isn't even an option per level; if there was at least that, I'd have suggested abjuration/divination/illusion/necromancy. Bigode 16:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Conceptual in terms of spell effects? Not really. There are some nice poisons and environmental effects in there that I think would fit. But I also think that it interacts poorly with the fast casting on top of everything else they get. Swift Blood Snow / Infestation of Maggots / any other combat spell + Full Favored Enemy Damage Attacks + Favored Enemy Special Bits might be a but much for a class that you already want to tone down the combat on by reducing bonus dice and favored enemy bits. - Tarkisflux Talk 18:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Though after further thought it's probably fine if they have the normal 10+spell level saves and don't get +2 against their favored enemies. Swift action crappy DC combat spell isn't that concerning on top of their other things. - Tarkisflux Talk 19:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Why gut the ranger in exchange for just a few more spell effects arbitrary spell effects that, because they weren't vetted in the creation of the class, are pretty much guaranteed to interact really poorly with the (otherwise good) fast casting mechanic? Just lower the damage to 5d6 or something and be done with changes. Though I do maintain that it's fine where it is now, even with 10 favored enemies. I dn not think that looking at the cardinality of the set of class features is a good measurement of, well, anything. Surgo 19:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Surgo, we didn't propose lowering the number of favored enemies to make space for necromancy (or even advanced learning in any form); we did to make rangers less alike at high levels (which Surgo told me he stopped caring about, but I still do), and lower damage by not-so-much. Seemingly, Tarkis agrees with me that advanced learning fits even with necromancy, without that +2 DC bonus I was never that heavily invested in; so, people: *must* we have 10 favored enemies? I think it's better not to. Also, on the damage "being fine", the class is advertised as being behind the main damage-dealers, which is the case with +5d6, or +7d6 without counting extra attacks, but not with +7d6 on extra attacks, or +10d6 even without extras, as it is now (therefore, we're currently in violation of design intent :P). Bigode 19:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, like said, I care little about high-level rangers being samey (most other classes are the same). I think the 10 favored enemies is great, personally. I'll stand by my point about Advanced Learning though -- people will pick spells with no saves, if their saves are bad. As far as a possible violation of design intent -- given how I think the class is okay as-is, I'm not particularly bothered by that. I don't think they outdamage the main damage dealers though, who I would consider to be the Rogue and the Samurai (the Barbarian to a lesser extent; I'm not sure if this outdamages that or not).


 * I recognize that this is a bit of a shift in opinion from what I had said before, but after taking a second look at everything I really do think the class is good as it stands now. Surgo 20:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, I don't think anything on the class needs to be changed. It's a late Tome style class, with all the creep over Dungeonomicon and possibly RoW that entails, but it's basically fine as is. It's not what I would have done in some places, and this discussion has brought those things out, but I didn't write it and don't expect it to be changed to suit. I "loved" the version of it that's here and stand by that... but if Cid wanted to tweak things, he's got plenty of think about.


 * And I can't find the part where it's supposed to be behind the main damage dealers, so I don't know if it's in violation of design intent on that front or not. - Tarkisflux Talk 05:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * FWIW: "A ranger places more emphasis on mobility than a (...) barbarian, since he lacks (...) the raw attack strength of the latter." (And the barbarian is up there with the rogue and assassin, which *should* be a tie for first position; the fact that the samurai substantially surpasses them means ... it does have issues - as pointed out at length elsewhere. (Not saying the samurai couldn't also be tied for first.)) And since we supposedly "are at a matter of taste" now, I may talk to Cid later. (I.e. I don't think soldier/soulborn/totemist/what predated them, i.e. "anything by Koumei", should be the new standard.) Bigode 05:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I feel as though cutting down the number of favored enemies as a whole diminishes not only the damage but also the utility, which is supposed to be the ranger's strong suit. I feel as though getting damage bonuses against almost everything by level 20 isn't exactly a bad place to be, since many games don't even get to that point. So I'm not particularly in favor of actually reducing the number of favored enemies he receives, not to mention that doing so reduces primary unique class feature of the ranger, which makes me sad.


 * That having been said, I am in favor of addressing spell DC's and reducing the damage that the ranger deals. I think this can be accomplished by making regular spell DC's be superseded by the default favored enemy DC when doing so would be advantageous (which is probably almost all the time since the spell DC scales more regularly, but I'm not sure). As for damage, MisterSinister has suggested making the initial bonus damage dealt to favored enemies 1d6 and then having it increase for every three character levels taken thereafter. As a result, the end damage is not only reduced (since the BAB-only-attack restriction is maintained) to about 8d6 at the maximum, but it also makes the ranger more multi-class friendly by allowing the damage from favored enemies to scale by character level rather than by something that only the ranger itself receives in the number of favored enemies. Any thoughts on this? - TG Cid 23:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Meh on spell DCs, they would have to get more spells for use against foes for me to see it as an issue.


 * I have mixed feelings on multiclassing in Tome classes and don't support their being multiclass friendly in general, but that change sounds actually bad. Get to level 3 for Natural Predator, multiclass into Barbarian, Rogue, or anything that granted a scaling damage boost, and then get both for lots of damage against everyone with a check. It stacks with too many other things to be worth doing IMO. - Tarkisflux Talk 23:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * As D&D (even Tome) is right now, Sinister is wrong. Else, we'll soon see every new class have a character-level-based damage bonus (of a magnitude that was going to be balanced for a single-classer), and you know exactly what comes next (in the unlikely case you don't, Tarkis does). Also, 8d6 is almost 10d6 anyway - the previous proposal had been 7d6, and I'd prefer 6 or 5. That said, I can some merit to leaving the number of favored enemies alone; if the damage got reduced to +1d6/2 enemies (rounded up; *maybe* a larger value in melee), and advanced learning was added, I'd be pretty damn happy (for spell DCs, either proposal works for me; and yes, I want advanced learning for conceptual reasons, not merely "to shove in anything that vaguely fits"). Bigode 21:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * So I've realized I cannot do simple maths, and the previously used formula would come out to 7d6 bonus damage. That said, I would not be averse to making it something like every three class levels rather than character levels. It reduces damage and sets damage gains to different levels than additional favored enemies, allowing the ranger to keep all his utility of ten favored enemies while still having the decreased damage.


 * Frankly, rangers being more samey at very high levels doesn't particularly concern me. I believe that for many games, level 14 (where there could still be significant differentiation between rangers) is a pretty high level to achieve, and I think it's reasonably justifiable that a level 20 ranger should pretty much be able to hit everything hard (which he can through natural predator anyway) and have gobs of nice utilities.


 * As for Advanced Learning, I think it could be slotted in, just not necessarily at the expense of other things. Given that spells are also subservient to the other abilities of the ranger, I'm not sure just how useful it is. This is fine to me, though, since I think it means Advanced Learning can be put in without sacrificing anything else. - TG Cid 01:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Advanced Learning is probably more useful that you're giving it credit for. Being able to pick a spell that you want from a large-ish list will cause spellcasting to be less subservient than it is at present. And there are some good options in there. I don't think it wise to bolt it on without sacrificing something else for it (and I'm still not convinced it's a good idea in the first place). Dropping damage to +5d6 max might be a decent cut, as would fast casting (which I still hate, but it's not like the rest of this section isn't all preference bias anyway). Tweaking spell DCs up while you're at it will similarly boost the spellcasting class feature, and I still don't think that fits your previously stated spellcasting design goals. - Tarkisflux Talk 03:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If fast casting stayed, spell DCs got no improvements, advanced learning was added, ranged damage was approximately +5d6 and melee damage was approximately +7d6, what'd y'all think (the removal of etherealness and mass heal seems agreed on, I think)? Also: *is* this damage difference something that would incentivize melee to some extent? Bigode 05:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Sticking an extra die on melee compared to ranged for a most levels in the mid range and 2 dice at the top is unlikely to matter I think. It's not a lot, and you'll be locked into Combat feats by then anyway and going with more of what you started with. And there are more melee feats to select from, which incentivizes on its own. Plus, it seems like a dirty hack and needlessly complex to track those things separately.


 * As to spell removals, I didn't realize we were still talking about them. No, I don't think either need to go. - Tarkisflux Talk 05:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Favored Enemy
Does extra damage dice multiply on a critical hit?


 * Bonus dice are never multiplied on crit, no matter the source. Surgo 18:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * And if anyone feels a redundant warning would be useful: there *is* one. Bigode 18:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Spells
With such a small spell list, wouldn't the ranger be better suited to spontaneous casting?


 * Probably, I have no argument against this and no objection to changing it. I think the prepared casting was a carry-over from the base ranger, so it definitely doesn't need to stay as far as I care. I'll wait a couple days and if no one has any objections I will change it. - TG Cid (talk) 06:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Does this use the base ranger spellcasting? If it does, that was fairly expanded with splatbooks.  Be wary. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 07:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It only does insofar as the spell mechanics is concerned. the actual levels were revised heavily to allow for the additional levels of casting that the base ranger did not receive. - TG Cid (talk) 07:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * So what about the expanded ranger spells in places like spell compendium? Should this ranger have access to them? (BTW I was the first poster and forgot to sign.) --Dragonexx (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that would have to be handled on a case by case basis, since without references to those spells on the Wiki I can't really determine what their "new" level would be. And since this ranger is supposed to be limited to (mostly) combat support spells, some of the additional spells probably just won't work for him anyway. - TG Cid (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)