3.5e Ranger... Little Improvement But Still...

[Delgar]

Diaglo


Nah, I don't even want that.

Thels


A ranger who has to spend his seven feats on combat, rather than 18 feats, will not be a match for a fighter. The fighter can take both combat styles, if he wanted to, as well as Greater Weapon Specialization and whatever else, and still kick the ranger's behind.

Removing the combat styles won't make the ranger any stronger than the fighter.

Besides, paladins and barbarians don't get this kind of restriction. Why handcuff the ranger?


Yup.

Sure the fighter can beat the ranger in combat, big surprise! Isn't that the point?

Does the fighter have an animal companion?

Can the fighter cast spells?

I'm really not sure how any of that is handcuffing the ranger. I guess someone will find something to complain about. If you want to fight as well as a fighter, be a fighter. If you want to cast spells as well as a druid, be a druid. It's that simple.


I think the ranger class is a great improvement on it's old incarnation. No more will rogues be taking a single level in it to get two feats. It's actually a class that has a reason to advance in it past 1st level.

Delgar

 

[Fenes 2]

That ranger got so much improved that the class is overpowered for my campaigns. If anyone wants to make a ranger imc - I am not too keen on "woodsy classes" he or she can build a ranger with multiclassing fighter, rogue and druid, or whatever other class is "needed for a true ranger".

 

[Jack Daniel]

There's a darn good reason I re-wrote the 3.5 ranger for my own game...

 

[MadScientist]

Yeah I think they went way to far with the new ranger as well. I'm okay with more skill points, "woodsy" abilities and even the virtual feats (although I do wish they had done away with virtual feats all together... I just don't like the concept.) But the improved favored enemy and good reflex save went way to far IMO.

Most campaigns I've seen have preponderance of certain types of enemies. (Currently in the campaign I play in its giants.) It seems to me by 10th level a Ranger, with three intelligent favored enemy choices, could have the fovored enemy bonus in most combats. This bonus, especially against the rangers most favored enemies becomes huge. I think in many campaigns the Ranger could outshine the fighter in many combats because of this and that sux.

On top of that the good Ref save is a big power boost. The fighter is realy looking poor to me by comparison. Of course I never thought the ranger was underpowered before, just not interesting enough and too front loaded.

 

[Jesster]

Besides, paladins and barbarians don't get this kind of restriction. Why handcuff the ranger?

Um... I don't recall Barbarians being given a CHOICE of taking Wild Shape instead of rage. Or Evasion instead of Uncanny Dodge. Or SR instead of DR.

And since when were Paladins given the CHOICE to detect and smite chaos instead of evil?

In fact, where in their advancement are Barbarians and Paladins given ANY CHOICE AT ALL as far as class features are concerned?

And yet somehow, Rangers are being "handcuffed" by giving them the CHOICE of two weapon fighting or archery.


Face it, people. RANGER IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE A FLEXIBLE CLASS. If you want flexibility, that's what the four basic classes (Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard) are for. The other classes are supposed to be more specialized. The last thing I want to see is all the classes devolving into various collections of bonus feats. Class features are what give a specialized class flavor, by giving them abilities no one else can have. Ranger now has lot's of these, plus they have the ability take certain combat feats classically associated with rangers WITHOUT MEETING THEIR PREREQUISITES. Who else can do that?

Now, if you want to play a sword+shield ranger, fine. I suggest you either multiclass as a Ranger/Fighter, or simply live with the fact that you're not making the most of you characters class abilities (nothing wrong with that). However, I don't hear monk players complaining about being "handcuffed" into playing unarmed fighters, so I fail to see any justification for the complaints about the Combat styles of the new ranger.

-=The Jesster: Gatchaba Goose=-

 

[Ranger REG]

Most campaigns I've seen have preponderance of certain types of enemies. (Currently in the campaign I play in its giants.) It seems to me by 10th level a Ranger, with three intelligent favored enemy choices, could have the fovored enemy bonus in most combats. This bonus, especially against the rangers most favored enemies becomes huge. I think in many campaigns the Ranger could outshine the fighter in many combats because of this and that sux.

Actually, while the figher may seems slightly changed, they're getting a big boost in the form of Greater Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Specialization feats added as "fighter-only" feats.

Compare this to ranger's favored enemy, the ranger is only going get the bonus if they're fighting the same enemy everytime.

On top of that the good Ref save is a big power boost. The fighter is realy looking poor to me by comparison. Of course I never thought the ranger was underpowered before, just not interesting enough and too front loaded.

Personally, a good move to add good Ref save, especially if you're going to downsize the hit die to d8.

At least you and I have in common with regards to "virtual feats."

 

[TracerBullet42]

Delgar's right

So the fighter can "out-fight" the ranger? Well, duh! That's why they're the fighters. Because they're the best at fighting. It's right there in the name. A ranger can do so much more.

Ok, you're gonna have to stretch your imagination here for a bit. Imagine that a group of characters, all with different abilities and strengths...all worked TOGETHER to run through a campaign! Woah, I know this is a crazy idea, but I think it just might work if we give it a chance.

If you want to have a character who deals the most damage in fights....JUST PLAY A FIGHTER!

Let's see a fighter try to track the ranger, and find him hidden...it's not going to happen! How come nobody complains that the bard doesn't do enough damage? They're different classes, and hopefully they'll remain different.

Or at least that's my take on things...if you're interested.

 

[mmadsen]

Face it, people. RANGER IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE A FLEXIBLE CLASS.

Why not?

Considering the monumental arguments over what a Ranger should be, why didn't the designers present a flexible Ranger that could accommodate everyone?

If you want flexibility, that's what the four basic classes (Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard) are for.

Why just those four classes? And why, if those classes are supposed to be flexible, aren't they flexible enough to accommodate popular archetypes like the ranger/scout? (Personally, I think a Rogue with Wilderness Lore matches the archetype surprisingly well, but that's not a Class Skill within the rules as written.)

The last thing I want to see is all the classes devolving into various collections of bonus feats.

What's wrong with collections of Bonus Feats?

I'd give the Ranger a Bonus Feat list like: Alertness, Endurance, Improved Critical, Point Blank Shot (Far Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Shot on the Run), Quickdraw, Run, Skill Focus (Class Skill), Track, Weapon Focus; Nature Sense, Animal Companion, Woodland Stride, Trackless Step; Sneak Attack, Evasion, Uncanny Dodge.

 

[MadScientist]

Personally, a good move to add good Ref save, especially if you're going to downsize the hit die to d8.

But the 2 extra skill points per lvl already more than makes up for the downsize of the hit die to d8. To a ranger the only meaningful mechanic intelligence effects is skill points. So giving the Ranger 2 skill points/lvl effectively means a 3.5 ranger needs 4 less points in intelligence compared to the 3.0 ranger for the same benefit. So during character creation instead of putting a 14 into intelligence and a 10 into constitution you can put the 14 in constitution and the 10 intelligence. Now, compared to ranger 3.0, you have the exact same number of skill points 1 more HP/lvl and a +1 fort save. Also keep in mind that the skill list has been condensed in 3.5 (examples- no intuit direction or animal empathy) so the 3.5 Ranger even has less of need for extra skill points than the 3.0 Ranger!

The good Ref save and better favored enemy are pure gravy. Also remember that in some ways the favored enemy bonus is less limited than weapon specialization because it works with any weapon, so the ranger will get the bonuses in melee or ranged combat. The fighter will likely have specialization in only one instance or the other. Not to mention that Greater specialization will likely max out at +4 ( I haven't seen the feat yeat), while favored enemy bonus max's out at +10! on top of also applying to several skills.

The new version of the Ranger is pure boost and a very significant one at that.

 

[Ranger REG]

But the 2 extra skill points per lvl already more than makes up for the downsize of the hit die to d8.

But the two extra skill points are not going to protect his lowered hit die. The skill point will boost his Diplomacy skill when using Wild Empathy feat, and boosting his Survival skill when living in the wild as well as tracking his prey, among other things.