|
7 months ago ::
Nov 09, 2012 - 3:08PM
#301
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2001
|
COmpare 3.5 Rnager to the 4th ed ranger. 4th ed ranger is just damage. Of course 3.5 had its bad classes and overpowered classes but it felt more organic bad word maybe) that 4th ed. This was probably due to 3.5 multiclass rules and the way you built your character was a large part of the fun in 3.5.
4th ed was alot more linear if that makes any sense. It was at least good at doing what it was designed to do. The kicker being what if you did not like the linear progression or tactical combat aspects of D&D. 4th ed got better in that regard as the game expanded via splats and the like but it felt clunky. Star Wars Saga would release a new talent tree of maybe half a page, 3.5 would release a feat chain, 4th ed would release a new character option like the tempest fighter or a new class.
Didn't help the 4th ed bloat situation.
Okay, lets examine the special ranger features
Favored Enemy: Pretty much just damage, although bloats a few skill rolls
Wild Empathy: All rangers are great at communicating with animals!
Woodland Stride, Swift Tracker, Camouflage, Hide in Plain Sight - Rolled into the Stealth/Survival skills
So pretty much if you want to play any other type of ranger than a wilderness exploring "in tune with animals" characture you're doomed. Why is Drizzt a Ranger? No idea. He was raised in Drow society, I have no idea how he learned how to track, or be in touch with nature, or hide in the woods - he was born and raised underground!
4E rolled it all into more abstracted skills. Did it lose some flavor? Perhaps. But it allowed a LOT more self-generated flavor rather than book-generated flavor.
A 4E ranger can be good at whatever the player wants him to be, rather than being "wilderness guy." With a favored enemy for whatever reason.
One of the 1st Humans Drizzt met on the surface was a Ranger and trained Drizzt. In 2nd ed he basically retrained his fighter levels out and took Ranger ones although he kept weapon specialisation. In 3.5 He was something like a level 11 Fighter/Barbarian1/Ranger 5 and in 4th ed he was something like a level 21 Solo IIRC. 3.5 handled his build the best in terms of his back ground but it was terrible from an optimisation standpoint.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
*pg 30, AD&D 2nd Ed DMG, 1989.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 09, 2012 - 3:27PM
#302
|
|
|
to be fair, two-blade ranger in fourth edition fits him to a T - so while he officially might be a monster or whatever, he would likely be best designed in 4th (although i might be wrong here, but i think the two blade ranegr was heavily inspired by him in the first place)
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 09, 2012 - 8:08PM
#303
|
|
|
to be fair, two-blade ranger in fourth edition fits him to a T - so while he officially might be a monster or whatever, he would likely be best designed in 4th (although i might be wrong here, but i think the two blade ranegr was heavily inspired by him in the first place)
Yeah, I'd imagine a Drow TBF ranger would pretty much exactly cover it. You might perhaps need a theme somewhere in there or a PP/ED of whatever sorts to add in something or other but honestly I don't think I've ever read the novels... lol.
I have to say though, 4e's monster stat blocks definitely let you cover a lot of stuff quite well if it isn't a PC. PERSONALLY I do all NPCs that way.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 09, 2012 - 8:15PM
#304
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2001
|
to be fair, two-blade ranger in fourth edition fits him to a T - so while he officially might be a monster or whatever, he would likely be best designed in 4th (although i might be wrong here, but i think the two blade ranegr was heavily inspired by him in the first place)
Other way around. IIRC rangers wer ethe onl class in 1st ed who could dual wield as a core mechanic. 2nd ed at least had it as an exlcusive rnager ability. 3.0 was the first edition where other classes apart form the ranger could dual wield in thecore rules. 2nd ed splats let fighters and other classes dual wield generally at the cost of weapon proficency slots.
3.0 gave us the best Drizzt in relation to his back ground, 4th ed gave us the best mechanical implementation of Drizzt. If Drizzt was constructed as a PC in 4th ed rules he would have been a tempest fighter multiclassed into ranger with some multiclass feats and skill training feats. It wouldn't have been a perfect adaption but it would have been the best Drizzt adaption mechanically, back ground not so much. Drizzt has cast the odd ranger spell in the books. Drizzt would also need some way to use his dex to hit as with 14 strength he would suck as a tempest fighter (he sucked mechanically in 3rd ed form a min/max POV).
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
*pg 30, AD&D 2nd Ed DMG, 1989.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 11, 2012 - 7:35PM
#305
|
|
|
to be fair, two-blade ranger in fourth edition fits him to a T - so while he officially might be a monster or whatever, he would likely be best designed in 4th (although i might be wrong here, but i think the two blade ranegr was heavily inspired by him in the first place)
Other way around. IIRC rangers wer ethe onl class in 1st ed who could dual wield as a core mechanic. 2nd ed at least had it as an exlcusive rnager ability. 3.0 was the first edition where other classes apart form the ranger could dual wield in thecore rules. 2nd ed splats let fighters and other classes dual wield generally at the cost of weapon proficency slots.
3.0 gave us the best Drizzt in relation to his back ground, 4th ed gave us the best mechanical implementation of Drizzt. If Drizzt was constructed as a PC in 4th ed rules he would have been a tempest fighter multiclassed into ranger with some multiclass feats and skill training feats. It wouldn't have been a perfect adaption but it would have been the best Drizzt adaption mechanically, back ground not so much. Drizzt has cast the odd ranger spell in the books. Drizzt would also need some way to use his dex to hit as with 14 strength he would suck as a tempest fighter (he sucked mechanically in 3rd ed form a min/max POV).
There are no rules in 1e WRT rangers and dual wielding. In 1e any PC can dual wield but only a dagger or a hand axe can be used as the secondary weapon.
UA introduced weapon specialization rules and IIRC some form of more advanced dual wielding rules. It wasn't until 2e that special rules were applied to rangers (they can use most one-handed weapons together and can even use 2 equal sized weapons). The general rules for specialization then really leverage this to make it a nice option. I'd note though that fighters and even paladins can do it quite effectively, just not quite as well as a ranger.
In any case, 4e certainly carries it to an extreme where you practically cannot play a non-dual-wielding ranger effectively.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 11:51PM
#306
|
Date Joined:
Oct 23, 2012
|
I have to say, I do like the idea of how HP in DDN works. I want Arcane Power 2, Divine Power 2, and Primal Power 2 though for 4e....
|
|
|
