Author Topic: Rangers Spells (Read 2372 times)

Lord of the Forest · « **Reply #40 on:** December 29, 2007, 10:24:52 pm »

I wouldn't really count on it ... wouldn't be the first time suggestions came up.

Dorganath · « **Reply #41 on:** December 29, 2007, 10:42:17 pm »

It's not a matter of the "trash can" but rather a matter of available resources. Since any of the above would require HAK changes, and we have HAK changes in store for the next update, now might be the time to consider doing this.

However, I'm not going to make any promises.

Is the list under Stephen's last post the most generally agreed-upon set of changes?

Lynn1020 · « **Reply #42 on:** December 29, 2007, 10:54:40 pm »

I would rather see IDii's or Twidget's myself.

Dorganath · « **Reply #43 on:** December 29, 2007, 11:18:34 pm »

Quote from: Lynn1020

I would rather see IDii's or Twidget's myself.

I think you may be biased on the last

Anyway...can I get a consensus here? Last thing I want is to keep going back and forth to this.

For what it's worth, I don't personally see True Seeing as a Ranger Spell. It's not a PnP Ranger spell (based on 3rd Edition rules) and just doesn't seem to fit the class. I'd rather see them have Find Traps (also not a PnP Ranger spell) for the +20 to Search, which makes a heck of a lot more sense for them.

Since I don't have a Ranger character, I'm not really going to offer much more in terms of suggestions.

Anyway, let's please get to some 90% solution here, meaning the option that makes 90% of you happy...or all of you 90% happy.

Lynn1020 · « **Reply #44 on:** December 29, 2007, 11:26:03 pm »

Quote from: Dorganath

I think you may be biased on the last

*with a look of surprise*

Now what would make you think that?

But I do think Idii's sounds more fair.

Twidget isn't here to put his vote in but you can tell by his post what his would be. He loves playing the ranger class and this is something he gets into. Wish he was here to say more on the subject. Which most know he is always more than willing to.

Stephen_Zuckerman · « **Reply #45 on:** December 30, 2007, 01:20:20 am »

Well, my list is more or less the same as IDii's, only lacking Stoneskin, which I think fits the Ranger class well enough.

So far that's three (me, Lynn, IDii) who support IDii's list... Though I will again say that perhaps removing Polymorph would be a good idea.

Lord of the Forest · « **Reply #46 on:** December 30, 2007, 06:28:05 am »

Quote from: IDii

Level 1:
- True Strike

Level 2:
- Bull's Strength
- Barkskin

Level 3:
- Spike Growth

Level 4:
- Stoneskin

I'm fine with IDii's list. Or maybe some concealment instead of concealment but I leave that as a balancing question.

On that note I think rangers can life with losing polymorph self. The only shape that is actually fun is pixie. If it could be replaced with something with plain wild shapes for RP it would be neat as well. Those don't need to be uber as they would simply add some spice to RP. Something like lvl 5 companions, a wolf, a hawk, bear, and something cat like for example

After all it is just a suggestion but remove polymorph self and maybe add this suggestion instead?

aragwen · « **Reply #47 on:** December 30, 2007, 10:02:22 am »

Quote

Level 1:
- True Strike

Level 2:
- Bull's Strength
- Barkskin

Level 3:
- Spike Growth

Level 4:
- Stoneskin

I think these would make fine additions, though I am not 100% convinced True Strike makes sense, but at the amount of level 1 spells a ranger has access to I dont think it would be an unbalanced addition.

jan · « **Reply #48 on:** December 30, 2007, 10:26:35 am »

Probably just my wrong thinking , but ....wouldn't a skin as hard and tough as stone lower the dex ?
Would a ranger give up his agility to have a harder skin ?

The rest off the spells do indeed look like things rangers should know , with perhaps the "true strike " as strange one in-there .

Lord of the Forest · « **Reply #49 on:** December 30, 2007, 10:31:01 am »

Quote from: jan

Probably just my wrong thinking , but ....wouldn't a skin as hard and tough as stone lower the dex ?
Would a ranger give up his agility to have a harder skin ?

Wouldn't barkskin do such a thing as well?

I don't really see True Strike as a big deal as it lasts for only one round, so like one or two strikes/shots. You could see it as he ranger is channeling energy for one shoot that will hit. Focusing on one strike so to speak.

jan · « **Reply #50 on:** December 30, 2007, 10:33:52 am »

Quote from: Lord of the Forest

Wouldn't barkskin do such a thing as well?

I don't really see True Strike as a big deal as it lasts for only one round, so like one or two strikes/shots. You could see it as he ranger is channeling energy for one shoot that will hit. Focusing on one strike so to speak.

Aye ...so would using both barkskin and stoneskin get the ranger to lose any bonuses from dex then ?

Lord of the Forest · « **Reply #51 on:** December 30, 2007, 10:35:52 am »

The weave provides .. it is magical *winks* Else it has to be altered for all casters ^_^

jan · « **Reply #52 on:** December 30, 2007, 10:39:59 am »

Quote from: Lord of the Forest

The weave provides .. it is magical *winks* Else it has to be altered for all casters ^_^

A dex penalty wouldnt be too strange , even if its magical ..it makes the skin tougher and sturdier .

Dorganath · « **Reply #53 on:** December 30, 2007, 11:29:44 am »

Nah...there's no reason to add DEX penalties for Bark/Stoneskin. It is magic, afterall.

Desicardo · « **Reply #54 on:** December 30, 2007, 07:37:42 pm »

As one who has extensively played a ranger though not much recently, I would have to agree with IDii's list. Rangers as frontline fighters are weak due to AC. I know, cause I die a lot.. a whole lot. Even dual wielding, I can't last nearly as long in a melee as even a much lower level fighter. While the arguement is that is not the Ranger's role, and I would agree, there are many times the ranger gets overlooked in party formation because they don't have the ability to hold own in a fight for long, can't cast helpful wards, and can't cast healing or other useful party based spells. Giving ranger class the oportunity to stay in the fight a bit longer will go a long way to helping them be sought after when forming a party. Just my two cents.

stragen · « **Reply #55 on:** December 31, 2007, 08:25:56 pm »

Quote

Originally Posted by IDii
Level 1:
- True Strike

Level 2:
- Bull's Strength
- Barkskin

Level 3:
- Spike Growth

Level 4:
- Stoneskin

I IDii's list seems fair.

I don't play a ranger, but I have seen plenty of them fall in combat.
True Strike makes sense as rangers are all about making the kill fast.

What I like about Barkskin and Stoneskin is that they scale with level. So a pure Ranger would finally be rewarded at higher levels over a multiclass ranger. Currently multi class rangers have a lot better survivability then the pure ranger.

Cheers,

Stragen

scifibarbie · « **Reply #56 on:** January 01, 2008, 04:25:33 am »

i like the idea of those spells for the ranger class. They would go long way to making us abit tougher.

Granted I try not to play abi as a frontliner, but often enough she gets caught up in a fight where she has to.

Filatus · « **Reply #57 on:** January 01, 2008, 04:35:02 am »

I'd add ironguts as a lvl 1 spell. Poisons are an important part of nature that ranger have to deal with in the form of spiders and such. This would give rangers a nice edge in something they should supposed to shine in.

ycleption · « **Reply #58 on:** January 01, 2008, 12:21:32 pm »

I hope I'm not making things overly confusing by throwing in more suggestions, but what about awaken as a level 4 spell for rangers? It makes animal companions a whole lot more useful, which can be fun for RP as well as mechanically.

Filatus · « **Reply #59 on:** January 01, 2008, 02:34:24 pm »

The combination of barkskin and stoneskin for a ranger at level 16 is pretty darn strong though.

+5 natural AC and DR 10/3

Might consider giving barkskin a lvl 4 spellslot as well, just so it will mean a ranger needs to invest in wisdom to be able to combine these two.