Basic Fantasy RPG Forums

As far as the ranger is concerned, I think this supplement is great! I generally like the idea of non magic using fighter subclasses and your creation perfectly fits my personal taste.

Regarding your paladin I would prefer if he moved in a similar direction. For example giving him the equivalent of the ranger's missile power in melee attacks (+2 AB and extra half attack at fifth and ninth level) instead of spells. He could get a chosen enemy as well and instead of the ranger's special skills he could either get a faster level progression or some flavour attack skills like lance attack (douple damage on horseback) or a bonus to AC when using a shield or a saving throw bonus against fear attacks (because he's such a brave guy). I would also prefer to call this gentleman knight instead of paladin, but that's only my thought.

I simply think that clerics and druids are already good magic using fighters, so I do not see a need for another class that provides spells with fighting power. Therefore, your ranger is really brillant in my opinion. A perfect example for a fighter subclass as it should be.

Ok first thank you for making an effort to make a good class supplement but...
my problem with this design is:

The Rangers bowmen skills.

His skills with bow alone make the Fighter class obsolete. I can just play a Ranger in heavy armor and when I need to conduct range combat I am way better than a Fighter.

The experience difference between the Ranger and Fighter is minimal. If I use this Class no player is going to choose the Fighter class, not when he can have all this power creep.

Possible solutions:
· Make the earned experience needed to level the Ranger more.
· Rangers Have same Armor restrictions as Thief.

Zargul wrote:He could get a chosen enemy as well and instead of the ranger's special skills he could either get a faster level progression or some flavour attack skills like lance attack (douple damage on horseback) or a bonus to AC when using a shield or a saving throw bonus against fear attacks (because he's such a brave guy). I would also prefer to call this gentleman knight instead of paladin, but that's only my thought.

So that would be a totally different sub-class, don't you think? A knight would be more like the cavalier of AD&D 1st, while the Paladin, would be... well... the classic D&D paladin. Maybe it's just that I kinda love paladins.

Love the Ranger and Paladin redo. Not too powerful yet different enough to be another class and still simple.

Something's occurred to me... would it perhaps be advisable to split each class off into its own supplement?

I considered it, but I've decided to keep this one together.

Arbiter wrote:Ok first thank you for making an effort to make a good class supplement but...
my problem with this design is:

The Rangers bowmen skills.

His skills with bow alone make the Fighter class obsolete. I can just play a Ranger in heavy armor and when I need to conduct range combat I am way better than a Fighter.

The experience difference between the Ranger and Fighter is minimal. If I use this Class no player is going to choose the Fighter class, not when he can have all this power creep.

Possible solutions:
· Make the earned experience needed to level the Ranger more.
· Rangers Have same Armor restrictions as Thief.

While it does state that two of the ranger's skills (hide and move silently) can't be used while wearing anything heavier than leather armor, in my opinion rangers should be restricted to leather armor.

I also think halflings shouldn't be listed as allowed races along with humans and elves, they're too small to use any sized bow.

chiisu81 wrote:

Arbiter wrote:Ok first thank you for making an effort to make a good class supplement but...
my problem with this design is:

The Rangers bowmen skills.

His skills with bow alone make the Fighter class obsolete. I can just play a Ranger in heavy armor and when I need to conduct range combat I am way better than a Fighter.

The experience difference between the Ranger and Fighter is minimal. If I use this Class no player is going to choose the Fighter class, not when he can have all this power creep.

Possible solutions:
· Make the earned experience needed to level the Ranger more.
· Rangers Have same Armor restrictions as Thief.

While it does state that two of the ranger's skills (hide and move silently) can't be used while wearing anything heavier than leather armor, in my opinion rangers should be restricted to leather armor.

I also think halflings shouldn't be listed as allowed races along with humans and elves, they're too small to use any sized bow.

While my version does not necessarily address these points you bring up, but perhaps the overall presentation is more palatable for you. It is in the showcase, "Additional Fighting Sub-classes" where one can also find my version of Knights (proto-cavalier), a lightly armed fighter Gladiator (or some like calling it duelist), Ranger, and Thug (a slightly tougher thief sub-class). I am planning a rework of Artkid's Great Way Adept (to which I will just call Monk) to add to this document sometime soon.

Regardless, take what you like from the different incarnations of what you can find, and kitbash it all into something that works better for you. That is the way of things around here. Just share it, as we like the feedback loop to see where we can improve our designs as well.

chiisu81 wrote:I also think halflings shouldn't be listed as allowed races along with humans and elves, they're too small to use any sized bow.

They can use shortbows.

I do think there's some valid concerns there. A ranger shouldn't just be a fighter-plus, there should be some tradeoff. Granted higher XP requirements are a start for that, but a little more might be reasonable.