Ranger/Druid handbook

Remove all ads!

I'm looking for information on the ranger and druid handbook, i.e. release date (in Australia preferably), name of the book and anything else really.

Thanks in advance.

Cheers, Void

 

Well, it's called Masters of the Wild, and it will probably be released within the next few months, as it is the only classbook not yet released. And it's for barbarians too.

 

Thanks! I had no idea it was for brbs, I thought they would go in sword and fist.

Cheers, Void

 

Yeah, I would have thought that too. But in a way, he is more of a wildlife person, so it kind of fits...

 

If you look in the Swords and Fist Book, you will see how Barbarians fit into that book too..so basically, their gonna be in 2 ^_^

 

My pre-order of the book has a Feb 12th 2002 release date but that is for the US. I can't speak for other countries but I can imagine it will be that much later.

 

I suppose I could hope. But then again, I've yet to spot Song and Silence in any stores here. But that could just be good old slow Norway. Dang. I need some books. Now!

 

Well this book definately has a chance to improve on two of the oft criticezed classes of third edition: the ranger and the druid. At this point, I'm very interested to see what they can do with these two classes.

 

To me, the classes seem fine as they are, and I seriously doubt WotC will change any of the core classes, other than maybe printing a variant way of handling Favored Enemy. We might see some interesting new PrCs though.

 

I felt the Druid was well done in 3E but the Ranger could have been done better. I think Monty Cook's revised Renger is a big improvement on the core class. I hope MotW will have some of these rules as 'optional' rules for the class.

 

What aspect of 3rd Edition Rangers do you all find displeasing?

 

Personally I don't mind rangers the way they are though they are to geared towards two weapons.

 

The main concerns with Rangers, which I don't entirely share, are as follows:

1) they are too limited in scope. Their feats, etc are largely preselected by the class (two weapons, ambidextrous, improved two weapons, track, etc). Since many players like to play their rangers as Archers, they feel slighted because they can't afford the archery feats the way a fighter can.

2) Most of their 'cool abilities' are front loaded, so its easy to get nearly all the nifty rangerness by taking just one or two levels in that class then doing something else (like be a fighter).

That sums up the complaints that I feel have at least some validity. There are others, but I tend to think they are mostly just whines.

Aloha
Vormaerin

 

The front-load argument: Take a level of rogue instead, get more skills + sneak attack. Take a level of barbarian, get rage. Take a level of cleric, get some healing prowess. Take a level of wizard, get spells, plus if you're an elf or half elf, you'll be able to qualify for bladesinger with this and 5 levels of fighter .
Sure, it's front loaded, but not much more than the other classes in my opinion .
And the ranger gets spells and more skills than a fighter too. Favored enemy can be nice too, those times you meet your chosen enemies. Wonder why people whine, really.

The archer issue: Just give the player the option to replace the standard ranger feats with precise shot and point blank shot or somesuch. That should silence them

 

Heh, and if I went Azardu's route, I'd have a poor character indeed. I'll agree, the Rouge and the Barbarian can be front load classes. However, there is enough offered at higher levels to at least make characters want to advance a bit more in those classes, if not all the way to the end with them. With the ranger offered in the PHB, there isn't.

Everything is at the front end. Free Ambidexterity, Two Weapon Fighting (can take Impoved Two Weapon fighting even later with still only one ranger level), large selection of skills at first level where it really counts, Track, and even a favored enemy to boot. Why would I want to continue in this class? For the favored enemies *chuckle*? Sure, they can be nice. And they can be very limited or useless unless your DM really likes you or you guess the right favored enemy with the luck of Tymora on your side. Heh, and how bout those spells I could be a better ranger if I only took one level of Ranger and a lot of levels as a fighter. Very front load and hardly interesting to advance in after that.

It's the one class that I definately feel was implimented poorly in the PHB. It doesn't necesarilly pigion hole characters into being the typical dnd ranger (as people at WoTC see it), but if I wanted to be something other than a dual wielding protector of the forest or some other hippie tree hugger concept, I could pretty much create a better ranger out of just the fighter class.

The only real positive is the fighter BaB, which alot of people seem to use to try and point out that the ranger isn't a broken class. Yes, as Azardu correctly states, it's a very playable class, and characters still have enough room to mold it in the way they see fit. But then anything is a playable class. I could play a one legged half orc sorcerer if I wanted. Just because something is playable doesn't mean that it isn't in need of improvement. The ranger presented in the PHB definatly needs soemthing else done to it. Mr. Monte Cook did a respectable job making it a good class again. I think it still needs something to make it stand out other than just giving some extra feats and elemintating the virtual ones, but that's just my preference. I don't look at people who want a differnt ranger class as whiners. It's their dnd game, and they have a right to a valid opinion on the class. If you like it, well, enjoy playing it, but as is, it definately won't be in my campaign.

[This message has been edited by Crawl (edited December 16, 2001).]

 

Could someone please tell mw where to get the revised ranger thing?

Cheers, Void

 

I Emailed the PDF file to a bunch of people and I know someone put it up on their home page. If you search this forum you should find the link if it's still working.

 

Thanks!

 

Yes, if the DM allows for Monte's ranger, I see no reason to use the old, as it is superior in every way to the old one, with the exeption of hit points. But an average 1 hit point per level less than the original is a small price to pay for more skill points, faster spell learning rate, far better saves and more feats. A bit too good? Maybe.
A thing I find strange about it is that Monte begins the text by saying that he was concerned by the fact that favored enemy kicks in when the DM wants it to, and not when the player does, yet he doesn't do anything to improve on that situation. Go figure.

As to what would keep the ranger going, there are two reasons that come to mind.
1. Roleplaying: To quit a class after first level just because it has little more to offer seems a bit strange to me, indeed better then that he does not take it at all. 2. The 'vanilla' ranger gains the same amount of skills a bard does, and some useful, though not exactly thrilling, spells beginning at 4th level.
Both those arguments should keep a character advancing through the levels.

As a side note, at the beginning I didn't like the class either. But I sat down and looked at it, and came to the conclusion that it's not really any worse than the other classes. But sure, you can take levels as fighter instead. You'll get a lousy 2+int skillpoints each level and have almost all the skills as cross class. But you'll generally kick the but of every monster in the book, which might in some cases be a good trade-off, unless you plan to use that move silently skill to move past the apparently much stronger guard in front of that door over there. Or hide from thirty angry orcs chasing you through the forest. Or a use rope check on the hands of the man you captured. Oh, and Ao forbid you would have to do some healing checks on a nearly dead comrade. But as I said, other than those few instances that would require a skill check, choosing the fighter instead would be a good trade-off.

And what's the deal with two-weapon fighting anyway? You get -2 or -4 on your attack, you can only use both weapons in a full round attack, and you really don't get that much more damage done than someone using a two-handed weapon, which can also be used in a standard action, allowing the person using it to move around a bit more. As for using only a single-handed weapon, you can strap on a shield and get a small AC boost.

Ah, that's enough ranting for today
And I thoroughly apologize if these are but old arguments that you've all read before.