What's wrong with the single-classed Ranger?

[Plane Sailing]

In a more contributory note to the actual topic, I think that Gaiden has hit the nail on the head with one problem with the ranger class.

There is no goodies at 2nd level.

All the other classes (with the possible exception of the Sorcerer, with his 1 new cantrip) have a compelling benefit to taking that 2nd level - evasion, uncanny dodge, feat, aura of courage etc. etc. The Ranger doesn't have anything specially compelling. It would probably be nice to have had an additional special ability at 2nd level (not just spread out the current abilities).

An additional beef that I have (which has also been mentioned) is that the spell list is uninspiring. The nearest point of comparison is the paladin, who has a kickin' spell list, with several unique spells of his own. The Ranger would, IMO, have been better served with some additional unique spells (for instance a holy-sword equivalent spell that gave their weapon a bane property against favoured enemies is an obvious missed opportunity). I also think that they would have been better served by knowing personal buffing spells rather than spells to "buff" their animal companions.

I'm currently playing a ranger which, with my DM's permission, uses the Paladin spell list rather than the Ranger list. I'm having great fun with him.

Cheers

 

[hong]

In a more contributory note to the actual topic, I think that Gaiden has hit the nail on the head with one problem with the ranger class.

There is no goodies at 2nd level.

All the other classes (with the possible exception of the Sorcerer, with his 1 new cantrip) have a compelling benefit to taking that 2nd level - evasion, uncanny dodge, feat, aura of courage etc. etc. The Ranger doesn't have anything specially compelling. It would probably be nice to have had an additional special ability at 2nd level (not just spread out the current abilities).

A simple fix to this, and the two-weapon thing that a lot of people have problems with, is to replace TWF/Ambidex with bonus feats at 2nd, 7th, 12th and 17th level. You can have it so that they're usable only in light or no armour, like the current "virtual" feats, or not bother with the hassle.

An additional beef that I have (which has also been mentioned) is that the spell list is uninspiring.

A fix to _this_ is to use the OA spell list, with a few mods. This, along with the feats mod above, is what I do for my Britannia 3E setting.

Ranger spell list

 

[Kibo]

To Summerize.....

What Is Wrong With The Single Classed Ranger

• Too few skill points per level (should be 5 or 6)
• The TWF virtual feat should be gained at 2nd level
• The Ranger's spell acquisition and progression should start one level earlier
• Possibly the choice of two virtual feat trees, one for archery, one for TWF

Personally, I think Rangers are pretty good as is. But this seems like a pretty decent list of short commings many others seem to have found in the class.

 

[Psyduck]

Well, um, Barbarians get +1 BAB, +4 skill points and +1d12hp per level. Does that count?

Yep, that's right......however...

The class skills of the two differ greatly. Barbarians do have a nice amount of points, but they only have a few class skills that aids him in his signature (combat). The ranger's class skills all help him be a stalker, hunter, and kind of like a beastmaster.

I've played both classes, and I think that the Ranger and Barbarian are quite equal in abilities. The barbarian's abilities are probably as equal to the ranger's. Anyone ever have someone take 1 level as a barbarian? I gamed in groups that do it all the time. barbarian1/fighter9 is currently in the group. They took the extra rage feat, and didn't lose much, but gained weapon specialization, extra feats, etc. Is there a reason to stay with a straight barbarian? If so, is it eaqualy to staying with straight ranger?

Last thing I got to say that everyone forgets about (and really, it may not even be that important to this discussion) is that rangers do get improved twf at 9th level. Yes, it's spaced out, but maybe the problem is that it's spaced out too much. I'd say drop this virtual feat to level 6, and the ranger class would be better to everyone. Now there's an incentive to get to lv 6, since the ranger is the only one who can aquire that feat at that level.

1 more thing about twf...most players who actually try to min/max this by taking 1 lv are restricting their fighter to light armor, making them need the same stats as a ranger anyway. Makes me laugh

 

[aliensex]

The Ranger doesn't get ITWF at 9th level, he gets it when his BAB is +9, so a Ranger1/Fighter8 will still get it.

Front loaded or not, I think the class is fine as is. You can argue just about every class is better with multiclassing. The simple fact is that the Fighter class was designed to be used multi classed, so of course a character is always stronger when you give them Fighter levels.

 

[hong]

1 more thing about twf...most players who actually try to min/max this by taking 1 lv are restricting their fighter to light armor, making them need the same stats as a ranger anyway.

Silly people. If you want to minmax, you go 1 ranger, and the rest as _rogue_. The only place where two weapon fighting comes into its own in 3E is with sneak attacks, because you get to apply the SA damage on every attack. Otherwise, TWF isn't generally that great.

 

[Psyduck]

Silly people. If you want to minmax, you go 1 ranger, and the rest as _rogue_. The only place where two weapon fighting comes into its own in 3E is with sneak attacks, because you get to apply the SA damage on every attack. Otherwise, TWF isn't generally that great.

Agreed and disagreed. TWF is a perk, not a single way of combat. Most people like to use just one big weapon, or weapon and shield. However, what if you are opposed by many opponents that you could possibly drop in one hit? If you have a big weapon, all of your damage goes to one target, whereas if you have two, you can essentially split your damage amongst two opponents.

Are there feats to help the singled weapon better against multiple enemies? Sure, but there are also feats to help the twf-er against single enemies: power attack and cleave, respectively.

Now hong, you did mention sneak attack damage, and while I agree that double sneak attack damage hurts, 2 frost weapons or flaming burst weapons will be more gruesome than 1, for you are getting an extra d6 with each attack, and you don't even have to have a single rogue level

 

[hong]

Agreed and disagreed. TWF is a perk, not a single way of combat. Most people like to use just one big weapon, or weapon and shield. However, what if you are opposed by many opponents that you could possibly drop in one hit? If you have a big weapon, all of your damage goes to one target, whereas if you have two, you can essentially split your damage amongst two opponents.

1) Whirlwind Attack

2) Great Cleave

3) Have a BAB of +6 or higher

4) Fireball

5) Chain lightning

6) Magic missile

If you're in the situation where you're facing lots of mooks, there are _plenty_ of ways to dispose of them, some physical and some not.

Are there feats to help the singled weapon better against multiple enemies? Sure, but there are also feats to help the twf-er against single enemies: power attack and cleave, respectively.

How does Cleave help you out against a single enemy?

Now hong, you did mention sneak attack damage, and while I agree that double sneak attack damage hurts, 2 frost weapons or flaming burst weapons will be more gruesome than 1, for you are getting an extra d6 with each attack, and you don't even have to have a single rogue level

The energy enchantments are useful, yes. However if you can afford two +2 weapons (frost and +1 enhancement minimum), the single-weapon fighter can get something equally useful.

 

[Stalker0]

Alright guys, I took all the time posting my Alt. Ranger idea, and not ONE reply. I was experimenting with the idea of giving the ranger special abilities instead of bonus feats, and a little feedback would be nice.

I think a good rule of thumb is that every class needs to get something preety good every 3 levels or so. Wizards/Sorcs/Clerics gets spells EVERY level, druids gets spells, wildshape, and animal companions. Barbs get new uncanny dodges and more rages every so often, fighters a new feat every two levels, bards get more music, decent spells, and special new musics every so often (although in my opinion, not enough past 10th level). Rogues get new sneak attack every 4 levels with also get uncanny dodge and then start getting special abilities.

Monks-no comment
Paladins- get okay spells, but they also get more healing and a better mount. And hey more remove disease per day......no comment. I think paladins have similar problems to rangers in that playing a paladin all the way through is kind of though. But at least they do get some very nice specific paladin spells.
Teh ranger gets a favored enemy every 5 levels!! and some okay spells.

the ranger definately needs to get things on a more routine basis, or else its very hard to justify going with him all the way. I mean we can all talk about a 10th level ranger can do this, a 20th level ranger can do that, but you got to get him there first.

 

[Relic]

Alright guys, I took all the time posting my Alt. Ranger idea, and not ONE reply. I was experimenting with the idea of giving the ranger special abilities instead of bonus feats, and a little feedback would be nice.

Didn't notice him. Where/When did you post him? I'm interested in seeing what you did with your alt.Ranger.