Talk:Ranger, Tome (3.5e Class)

Favored Enemy Abilities

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)

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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by IGTN (talk • contribs) at

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)

Ratings

	MisterSinister favors this article and rated it 4 of 4!
	Finally, a ranger that can be used in a Tome game that doesn't make my eyes bleed.

	Wildmage likes this article and rated it 3 of 4.
	About time the ranger came back a option in a wizard level game.

Tarkisflux favors this article and rated it 4 of 4!

I've spent a lot of time hating on Rangers, because the concept never seemed to fit. On top of that, they didn't have anything that was their own, just some minor druid casting and some fighter feats. They could occupy no niche that other classes, even moderate balance ones, couldn't do better. This ranger though, it does not make me hate. The favored enemy bonuses are something no one else gets, and they are varied and numerous enough to make each ranger somewhat different. It has a clear role and mission, and feels like a class dedicated to the destruction of a particular set of creatures. It's also strong enough to stand in the types of games that I prefer to play (if a bit power creepy in some places), which I also appreciate. In short, I likes it and recommend it.

Surgo favors this article and rated it 4 of 4!

It seems like everyone and their mom has tried their hand at making a Tome Ranger (or, for those that don't know of the Tomes, a Ranger variant). Pretty much everyone has failed in some way, usually from differentiating it from a Fighter or Rogue, or on the other end, being any good at all. This is different. This is a class with the correct amount of power, and is significantly different from any option that was already on the table. And it has a great Ranger feel too. So it's altogether awesome.

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)