Fix the revised ranger in four easy steps

Jack Daniel · May 10, 2003

Yes, there are people who actually liked the old ranger! Who knew? Well, for the vast majority of "n00bies" who are only aware of the sneaky woodsman stereotype, you'll get a nice, archery-prescribed, shoehorned ranger in July. Have fun. For the Olde Guarde who remember the ranger as it was in 3e... and 2e... and 1e... and 0e... and LotR... well, here.

1. Hit Die: d10
2. Skill Points: 4 + Int mod / level
3. Drop Combat Styles and Evasion
4. Add bonus feats at levels 2, 6, 11, and 16. Any archery, two-weapon, or mounted combat feats can be taken, in any combination.

And there, it's a ranger again.

Olgar Shiverstone · May 10, 2003

Disagree on 1 & 2 ... d8 & 6 SP work for me.

Agree on 3 & 4.

I go back to 1E days with the ranger, as well (it was my favorite class back then), which just goes to show that no ranger class is going to please everyone, because very few people will agree on what it is. The proposed version may not be perfect for me, but it is probably good enough for the majority of gamers out there.

LGodamus · May 10, 2003

I am one of the olde guarde and I like the new ranger so far.....

Agamon · May 10, 2003

hehe, you just can't please all of the people any of the time...

Errant · May 10, 2003

Revised 3E isn't even released yet & there's already "fixes" for it?

Mort · May 10, 2003

Jack Daniel said:
Yes, there are people who actually liked the old ranger! Who knew? Well, for the vast majority of "n00bies" who are only aware of the sneaky woodsman stereotype, you'll get a nice, archery-prescribed, shoehorned ranger in July. Have fun. For the Olde Guarde who remember the ranger as it was in 3e... and 2e... and 1e... and 0e... and LotR... well, here.

1. Hit Die: d10
2. Skill Points: 4 + Int mod / level
3. Drop Combat Styles and Evasion
4. Add bonus feats at levels 2, 6, 11, and 16. Any archery, two-weapon, or mounted combat feats can be taken, in any combination.

And there, it's a ranger again.

Funny, the ranger was completely different in 1e, 2e, 3e and LoTR, which ranger are you talking about?

I happen to like the one being introduced in 3.5 best (though obviously without playtesting who knows) as it actually seems the least shoehorned (with 6 skill points/level and at least more than one combat path) introduced so far.

As usual YMMV

Kai Lord · May 10, 2003

Re: Re: Fix the revised ranger in four easy steps

Mort said:
Funny, the ranger was completely different in 1e, 2e, 3e and LoTR, which ranger are you talking about?

*chuckles*

Let's just say he's talking about the one with Favored Enemy: Troll.

Jack Daniel · May 10, 2003

Let's say I'm talking about the one that was a sub-class of fighter, not thief.

Michael Tree · May 10, 2003

Jack Daniel said:
Yes, there are people who actually liked the old ranger! Who knew? Well, for the vast majority of "n00bies" who are only aware of the sneaky woodsman stereotype, you'll get a nice, archery-prescribed, shoehorned ranger in July. Have fun. For the Olde Guarde who remember the ranger as it was in 3e... and 2e... and 1e... and 0e... and LotR... well, here.

You'd probably get a better response by being less condescending to those who like the current ranger.

I'm one of the Old Guarde, and I think the new Ranger is the most rangerish of them all. I remember what the ranger was like in 3e, 2e, 1e, and 0e, and your variant is nothing like them.

0e: Rangers didn't exist. Play a fighter.

1e: Rangers got d8 hit points (with at extra one at 1st level), could cast both wizard and druid spells, have the ability to use any scrying device, at high levels gain weird followers, and got big bonuses against giants and goblinoids. Neither your version nor the 3.5 version is very close.

2e: Rangers were all skilled with Two-Weapon fighting, could hide and move silently in wilderness settings, and could track better than anyone else. The 3.5 ranger is much closer than your variant, despite the d10 hit points, since they have more skill points to be good sneaks and trackers, have wilderness stealth abilities at mid levels, and are once again the best trackers in the game, able to track at full speed.

3e: Rangers were a weak boring class that no one liked.

Kai Lord · May 10, 2003

Jack Daniel said:
Let's say I'm talking about the one that was a sub-class of fighter, not thief.

Well the only Ranger that was officially labeled a "sub-class" of Fighter was the 1E Ranger, the one with the Fighter BAB and d8 hit points. Too bad the 3.5 version is nothing like that....