Rangers Spells

[IDii]

Well rangers get invisibility purge too. I wouldn't exactly call that a nature spell either.
True strike on a ranger would be about the same as a divine favor on a paladin. Well worse actually but it's a different kind of spell, one that fits the ranger better. A paladin with true strike would be bit of a bad joke.

I'd be worried about rangers getting true strike if they could deal insane 30-100 damage hits all the time. But when's the last time you've seen a ranger do that?

Blade thirst is a waste of a spell slot actually. +3 weapon for round/lvl? Yeah right.

And any non-cleric class ditching the mage and going off alone will only happen in your dreams.

Sorry about sounding a bit sarcastic here. I was just kind of trying to imagine a ranger doing something even remotely powerful and for some reason ended up in a weird mood.

[Filatus]

You do make good points there. Though, I'm wondering what the exact argument behind these spell changes should be?

Giving the ranger a bit more to play their part as ranger, giving spells that really should have been there in the first place? Or are we also talking about making them a more competent class then they are now?

EDIT: By competent, I mean better in melee as opposed to just focussing on the fuzzy little rp bits.

[steverimmer]

Well for me it is seeing the Ranger as close as possible to the discription in the PnP handbook...for some reason Bioware decided not to include most of the spells and feats that the PnP ranger has.  I just wanted to see the ones already in the game restored to the rangers spellbook with the minimum of fuss...some of the missing feats would be nice too though.

[Lord of the Forest]

Well I think both Filatus. Giving them some spells would add possibilities to RP as a ranger, some spells at least, as well as balancing the class a bit.
This is not only melee though. True those suggested spells are mostly used for melee, but even archers like barkskin or stoneskin for example and some might not have the strength for +3 bow parts, so Bulls will help there as well.

[twidget658]

Giving the ranger a bit more to play their part as ranger...yes
...giving spells that really should have been there in the first place? yes
Or are we also talking about making them a more competent class then they are now? yes

Greater Magic weapon duration is 1 turn/level, Bladethirst is 1 round/level. Significant difference. Also, GMW can go up to +5, Bladethirst cannot.

Stoneskin would help against other archers firing in. I keep thinking about the pesty giant stalkers.

Bullstrength would be helpful in both melee and ranged.

[IDii]

I'm really just interested in game balance. But of course I wouldn't go for anything too artificial.

So I'm just trying to give some ideas to make them a more competent class and more fun to play without becoming anything they aren't meant to be.

[Rayenoir]

Blade Thirst also happens to add vampiric regeneration to the weapon it's cast on, something that no other spell in the game offers.  Lest we remember.

[twidget658]

The amount of hp gained is not that much, almost unnoticeable (I think about 3hp and for a short duration spell, it is pointless), that is why I never use it. It is one thing to have a spell and then another to have a useful spell. No matter if it is the only one in the game or not.

[twidget658]

Due to the spell slots available, these will already be limited if added.
 
 Also, this may revive the class a bit. The new players that start a ranger charatcer quickly learn that the class is in serious need of attention and love and usually submit for a character that they can do something with. In addition, there is such a small number of upper level rangers (four characters community wide, I beleive), these spell should not have that much impact on the server.
 
 Wish List:
 Add:
 Barkskin at Level 2
 Stoneskin at Level 3
 Woodland Stride at Level 3
 Premonition at Level 4
 True Seeing at Level 4
 
 Remove:
 Polymorph Self

[Acacea]

True seeing and premonition don't make much sense to me... The former isn't about knowing how to spot stealthed creatures, and premonition is...premonition. The others, and really all the ones in the original suggestion and ID's seem more fitting. And rangers can use some love, yeah.

[LordCove]

Whilst agreeing....I'm not too sure about Stoneskin being in there. Although I would LOVE to have Stoneskin for the Ranger's, I do think thats a little too much.

Barkskin and Woodland Stride would be a definite though

Although hazy on some spells....Concealment might be worth mentioning for a Lvl 4 slot. ( heh....if it's not already there )

[Lord of the Forest]

Whilst agreeing....I'm not too sure about Stoneskin being in there. Although I would LOVE to have Stoneskin for the Ranger's, I do think thats a little too much.

Barkskin and Woodland Stride would be a definite though

Although hazy on some spells....Concealment might be worth mentioning for a Lvl 4 slot. ( heh....if it's not already there )

Aye for barkskin and woodland stride. Rangers dont have concealment and should not really get it imo. Stoneskin really depends on the balance.

[twidget658]

Stoneskin really depends on the balance.

 
 The ranger is so far out of balance it almost seems that something drastic has to change to get some sort of balance.
 
 I have been playing a ranger character for over 2 years (I know LoTF, you have been playing for some where close to that) on pretty much a consistant basis. I have also played a sorceress for about a year. There is SO much of a difference that balance should NOT even be mentioned.
 
 

True seeing and premonition don't make much sense to me... The former isn't about knowing how to spot stealthed creatures, and premonition is...premonition.

 
 Yeah, maybe not premonition, but something that will help to offset the use of light armor or that will allow some sort of protection other than relying on the armor...perhaps the evasion spell. Most classes that use light armor have other means of protection and damage reduction, usually in the form of spells, feats, and skills. The ranger really has nothing and tends to take a beating from about anything and everything.

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

Just to note.

The Rogue class has nothing in the way of protection that the Ranger does not have (excepting class-specific armor), and, in addition, lacks the Animal Companion and greater Hit Die that the Ranger has. And the spells. And Dual-wield.

I am constantly baffled by the assertions that the Ranger class is weak. I've played most of the way through the OC with one, on Hardcore rules, and the fellow pretty much pwnzed anything in his path once he got Improved Two Weapon Fighting. Before that, he was still a force to be reckoned with...

[twidget658]

I am constantly baffled by the assertions that the Ranger class is weak. I've played most of the way through the OC with one, on Hardcore rules, and the fellow pretty much pwnzed anything in his path once he got Improved Two Weapon Fighting. Before that, he was still a force to be reckoned with...

 
 I invite you to submit one and play here so you do not compare apples and oranges.

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

I invite you to submit one and play here so you do not compare apples and oranges.

I've actually been planning to, as soon as I get the concept hammered out. A darkie, too.

But that still doesn't address my point about the Rogues also being "woefully underpowered."

[twidget658]

But that still doesn't address my point about the Rogues also being "woefully underpowered."

 
 This a post on rangers, not rogues. If you have suggestions and or recommendations on the rogue class, please start another thread.

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

This a post on rangers, not rogues. If you have suggestions and or recommendations on the rogue class, please start another thread.

My point there was to draw a parallel between the Rogue class and the Ranger class... And I then pointed out the various things that make surviving as a Ranger much easier than surviving as a Rogue.

I feel that the Rogue class, like the Ranger class, is perfectly well-balanced. There are indeed a few spells that should be added and removed, but that is to suit the flavor of the class rather than alter the strength of them. The spells proposed to add do indeed improve the combat strength of the class, but this would seem to be in accordance with what's been said in this thread.

My main point was that I do not feel Rangers are underpowered - at least, not moreso than Rogues (who I do not feel are underpowered, but rather underchallenged).

To return to the spirit of the thread...

Added spells:
Level 1:
- True Strike
 
Level 2:
- Bull's Strength
- Barkskin
 
Level 3:
- Spike Growth

Removed spells:
Level whatever:
- Polymorph Self

[Lord of the Forest]

*gives this thread a little bump*

Anything happening or is this already tossed into a trashcan?

[Lynn1020]

Some of these spells would be wonderful!!  May encourage some to pull those Rangers out and start playing them again.  Is there any chance for it?