Fix the revised ranger in four easy steps

JChung2003

First Post
It's funny.

No one seems to agree on what the ranger should be, yet everyone seems to be an authority on what the ranger should be.

Ah, variety, the spice of life...
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Gez

First Post
Jack Daniel said:
For the Olde Guarde who remember the ranger as it was in <snip> LotR...

There was only one ranger in LotR, and he was an Aristocrat/Paladin in D&D terms. So there!

Legolas is closer to being the woodsy fighter-type (AKA D&Dranger) than Aragorn.
 

DonAdam

Explorer
You do realize you just (more or less) made this a Fighter but instead of the bonus fighter feats you are giving him bonus "Ranger" feats (presuming you made favored enemy and favored terrain bonuses into feat progressions)

I'd take the ranger being very close to a fighter over being a spellcaster at all any day of the week.

It might be a moot point if I switch the Arcana Unearthed classes anyway though.
 

Gez

First Post
The Perfect Ranger

OK. The problem of the ranger is that he's not a ranger -- he's a mishmash of rogue (stupid skillz), druids (stupid spellz), and fighter (stupid featz). So, how to make Rangy McRangeough, our rangery ranger ?

Simple.

Start with the spells. They are stupid. What is it, a fantasy game ? Ranger don't need those, they just cheapens the concept. Remove spells. Replace with bonus combat feats, at levels 4, 8, 12 and 16.

Continue with the skills. Come'on, 6 skill points ? It's not a ranger, it's a rogue. Trim they down a bit, 2 skill points per level are enough, honestly. Compensate by giving some more bonus combat feats, levels 1 and 20.

Then, proceed to Fav. enemy. Everyone just hates this, so remove it. Remove also that Evasion thingie, rogue, rogue I say! Vade Retro Nequas! Replace with some bonus combat feats, at levels 2, 6, 10, 14 and 18.

Now, what's up with the wussy d8 ? Bump it up to d10.

What's up with tracking ? If you want to track, you take the feat, you don't multiclass into ranger just for front-loading purpose! Remove the auto-track ability. Replace with the capacity to take Weapon Specialization as a feat from level 4 on.

Now, you have a great ranger, but the problem is, he's too much figthery, actually. Remove everything fightery from it -- it includes d10 (drop to d4), full BAB (drop to half), good Fort save (drop), bonus feats (drop all of them) and Weapon Spec (drop).

Now, you have a class that looks like the commoner.

Yeah, on a second thought, it really looks like a commoner.

So the comment everyone will make is "it got the shaft!"

And that, good sirs and ladies, is the proof that you have reached the real, deep, true nature of rangerhood -- a shafted class.
 

JRRNeiklot

First Post
My turn.

Bring back the d10
Lose evasion, replace it with uncanny dodge.
Lose the stupid combat paths, replace them with feats from a specific list - mostly non-combat feats, too. If a ranger wants twf, pbs, or weapon focus, he has 7 feats to pick 'em from.

There you go. Since my version is clearly the best, I demand everyone implement it now. Or I will say NI! to you.
 

Destil

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

Gez said:


There was only one ranger in LotR, and he was an Aristocrat/Paladin in D&D terms. So there!

Legolas is closer to being the woodsy fighter-type (AKA D&Dranger) than Aragorn.
Aragorn is called Head/Chief of the rangers in several places in the book, nearly a dozen more (I think) join him after the battle of Helm's Deep for the passage through the paths of the dead.... Of course "ranger" in thoes times in that part of middle earth really meant northren dundain. Just like "wizard" meant istari...
 
Last edited:



boschdevil

First Post
Fenes 2 said:
How would I fix the 3.5 ranger? Easy, I will ban it from my game. I don't want a "Ninja of the Wood" IMC.

From the results to the ranger poll, now I can see why this is in the house rules section of the boards. Very few people will want to ban the ranger in the first place ...
 

Fenes 2

First Post
boschdevil said:


From the results to the ranger poll, now I can see why this is in the house rules section of the boards. Very few people will want to ban the ranger in the first place ...

Very few people DM my campaign... but only those matter for my campaign. :)
 

Remove ads

Top