Still Don't Like the Ranger...

[EricNoah]

So would Surprise Attack be a sneak attack that only takes place in a flat-footed situation, but not in a flanking situation? That doesn't sound too bad to me. Have the number of dice increase a couple of times over a few levels or something. And maybe limit it to whatever "weapon track" the ranger takes (i.e. can only do it with bows if taking the bow track, or only with two-weapon-style weapons if not, etc.).

 

[Belphanior]

So would Surprise Attack be a sneak attack that only takes place in a flat-footed situation, but not in a flanking situation? That doesn't sound too bad to me.

Except, of course, that rogues will still take a single level of ranger all the time, so they can do better sneak attacks when they surprise somebody (which should be often).
A rogue 1 / ranger 1 would have +2d6 when surprising somebody! No thanks.

I'll take the 3.5 ranger as is.

 

[Goobermunch]

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."

But doesn't "the father of all rangers" spend most of his time hunting orcs? I suspect that's where we get the notion of a favored enemy bonus.

--G

 

[Dr_Rictus]

I note that the Outlaw of the Crimson Road (from Song and Silence) has exactly such a "surprise attack" ability, i.e. a sneak attack that only works vs. flat-footed opponents, not in other circumstances that would normally allow a sneak attack.

I think it's still a perfectly useful ability (just not a cornerstone ability like sneak attack is with rogues), and adds nicely to the flavor of the class.

 

[EricNoah]

Except, of course, that rogues will still take a single level of ranger all the time, so they can do better sneak attacks when they surprise somebody (which should be often).
A rogue 1 / ranger 1 would have +2d6 when surprising somebody! No thanks.

I'll take the 3.5 ranger as is.

Hey we're just tossing around options here. Besides, who says a) the ranger gets it starting at first level and b) it stacks with a sneak attack?

 

[KnowTheToe]

Sneak attack and Surprise attack would not stack as they are the the same, but rangers are not as versatile as the rogue in executing it.

 

[Grishnak]

I think that receiving a fe every 5 levels does suck, why all of a sudden does a person gain pluses to hit something that quite possibly he hasn't faced (Player thinks oh we'll be onto liches next I'll take favoured enemy undead liches now) I personally like the the favoured enemy at 1st level and think that possibly they receive it once only but get more from it such as +4 Ac, +2 to hit, +2 Damage and a higher critical range versus them due to the knowledge of fighting them. This might be a bit over powered but it makes a little more sense than just gaining them because the player knows what he's going to face at later levels.

 

[billbo]

I think they'd have to stack, or else you make a Ranger/Rogue multiclass unplayable due to being underpowered.

And I don't see what the big deal is about a 1 Rogue/1 Ranger having a +2d6 attack in the surprise round only. A regular rogue will have +2d6 in surprise, sneak, and flank attack sittuations in a couple of more rounds, anyway.

The idea of a "surprise attack" can be further limited, however, to situations of genuine surprise. What we used to call "complete surprise," back in the day. That is to say, real surprise, not just grabbing your sword a split second before your opponent. But sneaking-up-behind-someone-and-putting-the-kaibosh-on-them-before-they-know-you're-there sort of surprise.

Actually, I think the rules really ought to say that EVERYONE gets +1d6 in such situations. EVERYONE. I mean, if you sneak up on someone, they're not even defending themselves as per usual; so a longsword should do more damage than the normal 1d8. That 1d8 is based on the defender actually defending. If he's not defending, but just sitting there presenting his head like a ripe melon, there ought to be some bonus damage. (Maybe just an automatic critical in such situations...?)


And then Rangers (and Rogues) would just add to that bonus.

 

[KnowTheToe]

I think they'd have to stack, or else you make a Ranger/Rogue multiclass unplayable due to being underpowered.

Yep, your're right, but if you make it a second level abaility for the Ranger, then there is less to worry about.