Ranger - likes and dislikes?

The Le is getting a lot of good feedback on the Monk and the Barbarian, and the Ranger is one of my favorite classes, so I'm jacking his thread idea! Concerning 3.5, what do you like and dislike about the Ranger?

I like the skills and the spells of many of the Ranger's class abilities. I do not like the fighting styles.

One of my fauvorites: the only thing I feel lacking is versatility in the fighting styles.

LIKES
d8 HD
6 sp/level
Full BAB
Track
Flavor

The d8 hit dice is enough to fight with, but not enough to stay still with (in melee). A great way to guide a character into the mobile warrior role. Or into the 'dead ranger' role if an inexperienced player tries to play his ranger as a fighter who likes animals, but that's the price you pay for choosing one of the more advanced classes.

The skill points allow the ranger to cover his core schtick without having a high Int bonus, allow the class to cover the 'simple woodsman' role in combination with a low Int bonus, and generally get things done.

Full BAB is a must for a front-line fighter in D&D. Especially since the ranger is encouraged to take two-weapon fighting, which means he's only going to hit at all if he has a full BAB.

Track is a nice feat that's important to the ranger's core schtick, but which a lot of players wouldn't take on their own. Double kudos for making it a feat so non-rangers CAN take it if they want.

The ranger has a clearly defined niche, but it's not such a narrow niche that it can't encompass a) characters of all "alignments" and b) multiple character concepts. It's something you can either be born to or become over time. It doesn't require any particular attitude. And, it's not such an overpowering niche that it makes multiclassing seem odd.

DISLIKES
Animal Companion
Spells
Combat Styles

I like the ranger as a wilderness-oriented light fighter with a broader range of skills. I've never been fond of spellcasting rangers, but to be fair I've never taken more than four levels in the class in 3e.

I actually LIKE the animal companion class feature, but at 1/2 the druid's progression and without the druid's animal buffing spells, it's simply too weak to be worth having. If my wolf companion is purely flavor text, leave him in the flavor text.

I'd rather see bonus feats from a limited list than combat styles. It's not like medium armor is any good anyway, and heavy armor imposes too many penalties on the ranger's class skills.

UNDECIDED
Favored Enemy

Favored Enemy is a hard one to call. I don't like abilities heavily dependent on the GM's campaign preferences, but it's otherwise a well done power.

MoogleEmpMog said:

DISLIKES
Animal Companion
I actually LIKE the animal companion class feature, but at 1/2 the druid's progression and without the druid's animal buffing spells, it's simply too weak to be worth having. If my wolf companion is purely flavor text, leave him in the flavor text.

Click to expand...

True dat. By the time the ranger gets his animal buddy, the critter's already substantially behind the power curve of the ranger's own level, and it just gets worse as the ranger continues to level. So, unlike the druid, the ranger's animal companion doesn't make a good "combat buddy."

Beyond flavor, the only other possible use I can see for a ranger's animal companion is as a tracking / scouting assistant...but since the ranger can't communicate with his companion unless he has Speak With Animals running (and, until high levels, the ranger's only going to possibly be able to cast a couple of those a day), even that role isn't well-suited for the animal companion.

I actually kind of like the combat styles of the ranger...if for no other reason than it's some encouragement to create a fighter-type who isn't wielding a two-handed weapon, and using Power Attack like crazy. (My wife's 12th-level ranger, with a +1 holy shocking composite longbow, does some pretty scary damage, and with Improved Precise Shot, can hit just about anything.) Could the ranger stand to have some other choices for their combat style? Sure, though I can't, off the top of my head, think of what they'd be.

Well... if you are hoping for your Animal Companion to fight for you, you are screwed
But 'tis a nice bit of flavour not a salient ability

Spells? A really nice addition to the ranger... Now, seeing a (attracting) non-spellcasting variant would be indeed nice.

Like:

The class skills allow the Ranger to do everything he should, and there are enough points to go around.

The weapons, light armor, and d8 hit die make the Ranger a solid combatant, while his favored enemy bonuses makes him very good against certain groups.

Spells. Not a lot, not a huge selection, but enough to add some versatility (not to mention it lets Rangers use Wands of Cure Light Wounds )

There are reasons to go all the way to level 20 in the class.

Dislike:

Combat styles. I'm ok with the concept, but only having two is sort of limitng. I'd rather see a broader selection of styles, or have the entire thing replaced with bonus feats from a list of survival-oriented feats.

Animal companion. This rarely seems good for more than a mount or a scout; it rarely plays a role in combat, and can be more of a liability than anything. Just tends to be a bit too weak for the level.

Favored Enemy. Just too easy for this to not be a factor at all, or for every appearance of a favored enemy to appear to be solely so the Ranger PC gets to use one of his key abilities. Great if your game is going to feature a lot of orc bashing, not so great if you're going to be fighting a variety of threats.

Just too easy for this to not be a factor at all, or for every appearance of a favored enemy to appear to be solely so the Ranger PC gets to use one of his key abilities. Great if your game is going to feature a lot of orc bashing, not so great if you're going to be fighting a variety of threats.

Click to expand...

Actually, that is good!
In a creature-centric campaign the Ranger is too much of a focus (my game: we are attacking a drow fortress, on PC is a 2wf elven ranger with favored enemy drow (+6) = meat grinder).
My paladin/fighter barely gets a hit in... it sucks.

Now: in a campaign/adventure with varied creatures, the ranger gets to shine as the rogue does with traps or a wizard with knowledge checks.

Dislike - that WotC made only a baby step of an add-on variation to its capabilities years after other d20 publishers like Malhavoc and AEG totally tooled over this problem.

Like - that Mearls fixed the 3.5 version to address both the fighting style gripes and the spell casting gripes, and you can have it for a cool $5:
http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=504&affiliate_id=710

I like the styles. I wouldn't object to seeing more than two, granted, but the advantage of having styles is that it lets the ranger pick up some solid feats without meeting the pre-reqs. You can't do that with just bonus feats.

And while more styles might be nice, I don't want to see "styles" that cover every possible combat build. I really don't want to see Greatsword or Towersheild style Rangers.

I think the animal companion could be a little heartier without imbalancing the class. And I think the Ranger probably has the best minor spellcasting ability in the game. I'd argue that he gets more out of the spell list then say, the Paladin, for starters.