Still Don't Like the Ranger...

[billbo]

The Ranger is a bit better now, no doubt about it.

But I am still offended by the annoying "Favored Enemy" schtick. This isn't a cool ability, like most character's abilities. Most characters have abilities that allow them to do cool . The Ranger just gets some plusses to his attacks against certain enemies, as if he's the only character class capable of holding a grudge and/or studying his opponents.

I really want to jettison the Favored Ability crap and give the Ranger some <i>proper</i> class features in place of the Favored Ability power-ups.

How powerful do you think each power-up is? Not nearly as powerful as a feat, correct? Perhaps half a feat? What?

What would you estimate these power-ups are worth were one to trade them in for something a bit more interesting? I'm not looking to power-game, I just want something more flavorful.

 

[Crothian]

I guess the real question is what do you want to replace it with? giving a half of feat is even less flavorible.

 

[billbo]

I disagree. I think even a very weak feat-- like +2 on Tracking checks -- is more flavorful than the dumb +2 Favored enemy bonus. (But clearly the Favored Enemy bonus is more powerful than a +2 bonus to Tracking or Survival!)

I just don't see what is "Rangery" about having some dedicated enemy. If this were the Bounty Hunter from Star Wars-- FINE! Absolutely! Target-specific bonus; makes sense. You're a bounty hunter!

But with the Ranger... the idea that he just picks, out a hat, Orcs or Undead or something, and he's specially trained to fight them...

...in an in-game way, it doesn't even make sense. Before becoming "adventurers," most characters, we must assume, lived fairly mundane lives. Rangers guarded the frontiers between civilization and wilderness, yes, but one must imagine that a first level ranger did not fight a good many ghouls or vampires or liches...

The old 1e bonus -- +4 versus humanoids and giants -- made sense in that Rangers probably would spend all of their time (pre-adventuring, at least) warding off goblins and orcs and giants. Like Indian-fighters on the western frontier (pardon the analogy; I am speaking just off a clash between different peoples who want the same land). I didn't much like that feature, but at least it made sense.

I don't get the new favored enemy thing at all.

 

[Olive]

You're 'offended' by the favoured enemy rules? Wow, you need to get out more.

 

[billbo]

Did I write "offended"? I don't know why I did that. I deserve to be made fun of for that.

I'm not "offended" by them. I'm <i>annoyed</i> by them.

This is why. It seems to me that we have three Outdoorsy type characters. Barbarians, Rangers, Druids. They want to make sure each character is sufficiently different from the others; well, that only makes sense. Can't argue with that, certainly.

But in order to find that differentiation, they just sort of brainstorm different features they could give to the Ranger. Just to make him different. And they come up with Favored Enemy.

Let me ask you: Couldn't you build just as good a rationalization for the Barbarian having Favored Enemy? After all, this is a raging character; why can't we say that barbarians cultivate the idea of a Blood Enemy from their earliest ages. Sort of like Conan and snakes.

Now, maybe you buy that, maybe you don't: But I think that's just as good as any rationalization for the Ranger having a favored enemy. Why not give the Barbarian Favored enemy and the Ranger a higher base speed-- to make him more like the Father of All Rangers, Strider?

That's just an argument I came up with off the top of my head. Maybe it's not a good idea. But I just don't see anything <i>implicit in the idea of "Ranger"</i> that says "Favored Enemy."

And the reason I think I used the word "offended" is that I am a Ranger partisan. Always have been. I've been GM'ing for most of my RPG life, but the few times I've actually played, I've played as a Ranger.

Why? Because I love Aragorn. I love the name "Ranger." I love the basic premise.

But in edition after edition, we've gotten nothing but fairly lame Rangers. The new edition gets us part of the way there, but we're still saddled with this flavorless, purely game-mechalical method of characterization/differentiation known as "Favored Enemy."

 

[Simplicity]

I'm not sure I agree with your statement that it could go to any class just as well. A ranger in D&D really should have been called a Hunter. The guys track, and they're better at killing specific things. Sounds like a hunter to me.

The favored enemy bonus in 3e was pretty lame. In 3.5, I think it's incredibly strong. Heck, be an elven ranger and pick human as your favored enemy. Very strong.

In general, I would prefer to see all of the classes have a Lesser Class Ability list that you pick class skills from at 1-10 level, and a Greater Ability list that you pick class skills from at 11-20. If only for versatility in the class. But, whatever.

 

[billbo]

Here's what I'd like the Ranger to have:

Either a weak sneak attack or a surprise attack feature.

The idea of a "surprise attack" is that it is a more limited sneak attack. It is limited to situations of actual surprise (and, perhaps, versus flat-footed opponents). It would not be available for flanking opponents.

The reason I think this suits the class is simple: I think of Rangers as the special forces of the medieval world. They're highly trained, highly mobile, highly self-sufficient shock troops that are lightly armed and armored (just like our Green Berets and, well, Army <i>Rangers</i>, for that matter) and are practiced in the techniques of ambush, harassment, and hit-and-run.

So why not give rangers a minor sneak or surprise attack bonus? Make them more like commandos?

You've got to admit, it's more interesting than a "favored enemy" bonus.

Yes, I do see the problem, that at this point the Ranger begins to poach dangerously deeply into Rogue territory, especially with the changes in the new edition.

But that's the sort of idea I'd like to see.

 

[jgbrowning]

Since your the only one that knows what you don't like about the ranger, your the only one that can fix it.

I don't like the ranger, druid, barbarian, monk, bard and paladin, so i'm not much help...

joe b.

 

[billbo]

I'm not the only one who knows what I don't like about the Ranger, since I just told anyone who cares to read this thread. I don't like the Favored Enemy ability. I only said it six times.

But that's besides the point; my main question is, "How powerful would you say that ability is?" I'd like to swap it, but I don't want to either under-power or over-power the class.

 

[Crothian]

What do you want to swap it for? It's must easier if you would list like 5 abilities of varying degree and then some one can say about which one would be fine to swap it for.

Personally, I like favored enemy, but that's not important. What you want to swap it for is.