Monks, Bards, and Rangers. The 'other' white meat options.

No matter how tough Brock Lesnar cannot dodge bullets and everyone who would want to present some to him knows what he looks like, which cannot be said of the aforementioned bullet providers......

The local bar bully beats you up but you then go out and cut his brake cables..... who wins in the end......

 

This is true but anyone who isn't evil is not going to do cowardly stuff like that. They stand up for themselves and present, so everyone knows what the score is and what happens if he wins the challenge. Not sneak around to his back and off him, gaining nothing but notoriety and warrants for their arrest for premeditated murder. Maybe even mob justice, which I fully encourage.

Monks are lawful so I figure their prestige class must be as well. Even if they are lawful evil, there are certain codes and ethics they would follow.

 

The whole dnd ranger concept was modelled on Aragorn in the first place. If he isn't a ranger no-one is.

 

There are better models for rangers than Aragorn. He was on his way from being Strider to becoming the King. He hardly touches a bow in LotR.

 

I have never tried the bard in any D&D game or computer game. I guess the bard just doesn't suit my style of play. I like the tactical play more so than the strategic play in combat. I rarely use buffs. If I do, I'd rather have them on magical items like gauntlets rather than cast them over and over each day.

Monks tend to be designed to do well without using very many magical items. When playing a game like D&D, part of the appeal is finding magical items (particularly weapons) and using them. The only time I've every used one is in another computer D&D game for a specialised high AC build. Even with that build, I wield magical daggers. I find that magical weapons are way cooler than the monk's unarmed strike. I ended up not using a major feature of the monk which feels like a waste to me.

I have used a ranger in ToEE and found him to be inferior to the fighter. I have played with both an archer ranger and an archer fighter. The archer fighter is simply better because of more feats available and weapon specialisation and greater weapon focus. I'd rather have a +2 damage consistently rather than a +2, +4 or +6 damage that doesn't kick in very often. When fighting non-favoured enemies, I feel my ranger abilities are wasted where as weapon specialisation and greater weapon focus is never wasted. The only one real benefit of playing a ranger in ToEE that I can see is that he can craft Amulets of Natural Armour and that is only if I don't also have a druid. The animal companion is just underpowered and is little more than a speed bump and gets in my way some time.

 

that's teh point... why ranger = bow ?
I think that it's just a poor concept to associate a class to a specifical combat style..
I mean.. this way we could have 3 different classes out of the warrior just by forcing you to choose you "path" at level 1: go to sword/shield, dual wielind or 2 handers..

As i said, I think ranger should be defined by the access to more skills and skill points, as well as some special features like animal companion and stuff and minor magic (but personally i don't like the "magic concept".. i mean, i just "pretend" that the ranger knows how to make healing salves with herbs, or pretend "entangle" it's a "trap" and so on).

By forcing ranger to be a dual wielder and/or bow user you are making it a cookie-cutter class much more than others..


Anwyay, despite this problem that forces you to play a class they way other want you to play it, i think the ranger is a strong class even in ToEE.. ok a warrior can have more talents and slight more hp BUT as a ranger:
- you do get some bonus talents (that's what combat style is, that's a 2 talent bonus in ToEE if i recall it right).
- you do get a lot more skill points and, most importantly, access to uber skills like hiding/move silently which let you position yourself before engaging someone in combat
. you get favored enemy (which, if you choose the right favored-enemies - i.e. humans - , it's really uber)
- you get animal companion (not as usefull as in p&p but still it's nice)
- you get cool magic (healing/entangle/long strider)


If you just calculate raw numbers, maybe you can end up making a warrior archer with better bab/dmg statts than a ranger.. yet you just have to consider how many more things the ranger can do to think if it's worth it (and btw survival isn't useless in TOEE if you play on ironman and want to avoid being wiped out by random encounters).

 

Well, there are "monk weapons" that don't waste most monk abilities - like quarterstaff, or monk spade. At higher levels though, with fists treated as lawful, it is certainly a waste.

 

This reminds me of the Shoveller from Mystery Men.

 

I'm gonna have to call you out here. I played a Ranger in the 'Giants' modules (and the Drow follow ups), and it was ideally suited. In AD&D 1st edition Rangers got 2 hit dice at level 1 (and an extra 1 at level 10) even though d8 rather than d10, plus they had a damage bonus of +1 per level against humanoids and giantish opponents and gained surprise more easily. They were clearly modelled on Aragorn and my Ranger used a Longsword and had high Strength (min Str was 13 but min Dex was 6).

Completely different to the mincing namby-pambies that pass as Rangers these days.

 

Yeah 3.5 was supposed to de-wimp the 3.0 Rangers. :zzz:

 

I think the concept of a range warden (how I think of Rangers) class is pretty cool, but without using Pathfinder rules I'd never use it because it is too limiting using only two fighting archetypes. I think the magic they do get would be better in the use of appropriate woodsy skills with survival,herbs, traps, etc. However I'd argue that I think that 3E Rangers are more based on Drizzt then Aragorn, with the two weapon specialization and animal companion. I'd say that for pnp D&D I much prefer the Scout over the Ranger.
If I wanted to make a ranged combatant I cannot use a Ranger if I want them to be a crossbowman, slinger, or peltast without Pathfinder or House rules.

As for monks it is a class that I've never used because I feel the class isn't really appropriate unless it took place in a more Asian campaign.

I simply love bards, I'm glad some people see how potent and cool a class it is.

 

Show me one instance where Aragorn casted spells.

 

You are playing the original version as intended on a original module. Of course the DM has a lot whether it will do or not. But the model of the Ranger as it is in D+D in the latest version is clearly motivated by the movies LOTR. No question.

I only played a Ranger once and found it interesting. I was an Elven character so had the woodland advantage even more (thank God for Unearthed Arcana).

The older game was harder and I would venture that a character from the original AD+D game compared to what is out now is the superior character, even from the same class.

 

The 1st Edition rangers were based on Aragorn in the LotR books, with a smattering of other stuff like Jack the Giant-killer.

Rangers from 2nd Edition on were based on Drizzt. (Which is where the whole dual-wielding thing came from.)

3.5 tacked on the bow option to try to make them less pigeon-holed.