Rangers - leave them be!

Dinkeldog said:

Anyone seen Monte's new ranger yet?

Click to expand...

I don't think we can call him new anymore and the last time I saw him he was running naked down Route 66, he was being chased by several dozen dual scimitar wielding darkelves who were shouting, "Get out, and stay out!"

Re: The Ranger Archetype and the Rogue Class

mmadsen said:

How is it then that the D&D Ranger, the class that purports to be just such a woodsman class, has roughly zero to do with this famous archetype?

Click to expand...

That about sums it all up.

Core Rangers rule!

http://www.murchadslegacy.com/rantranger.htm

-BG

PS Yes, I know core rangers can use wands, etc. so folks don't need to remind me to update. That being said, e-mail validates me life, so I'd still be delighted to hear your comments

I like the Ranger class. Like any other class you need a character concept ahead of time so you don't get disappointed later. if one want to play a Ranger that wears armor, fine, but just understand what sort of penalties apply. Maybe a fighter or paladin is what you (generically) are looking for?

In other words, play a Ranger like a Ranger. Play to the class strengths, don't try to play them like head-to-toe-armored-up-arrow-sponge fighter and you are good to go!

My redone ranger;
instead of 2-weapon/ ambi, they can choose rapid shot (without the prereq PB)

Instead of favored enemies as written, they get a +1 at 1,4,7,10 etc. each bonus is for a a race as usual, but doesn't raise on it's own, you can add further bonuses to the previous ones. (so, you can add them all to Dragon, or have +1 in a bunch of different types)

They should get mobility abilities, like moving through woods easier, and I'd like to see an ability that lets them sleep less, or be more aware while they sleep.

I think barbarian's would be better off with favored enemies, and rangers should get their move bonus and evasion.

I think the main problem is that you can approach the skilled woodsman type of character much better with a multiclass character. If I really wanted to play a Robin Hood type, I'd go for a mix of Fighter and Rogue levels. If you feel your character needs some magic, take a few Druid levels as well (which also gives you Wilderness Lore and Animal Companions). A Druid5/Fighter5/Rogue5 is in most cases probably a much better approach to being a woodsman character then the Ranger will ever be.

This leaves us little or no reason to pick Ranger. Not every Ranger should be forced to take Favored Enemy (it should be a feat) and why would you want it in the first place if you can be a Fighter and take Weapon Specialization instead (much more appropriate to the concept to begin with)? What good is it to have 4 skill points/lvl when a Fighter/Rogue/Druid mix will have just as many? Why oh why don't Rangers get good Reflex saves (eventhough they are stuck with light and medium armor)? The whole Ranger class just reeks of a badly designed Prestige Class. Come to think of it, if it were a Prestige Class any sensible DM would probably ban it on sight (because of the front-loading).

The class is simply too much of a mish-mash of random abilities that have more to do with D&D traditions then any historical/literature example of what people think Rangers are.

Having said that, I do like Monte's BoHM Ranger, especially with the Favored Enemy Strike and Favored Enemy Critical Strike feats. You can actually make a decent archetypical Ranger out of that without having to resort to multiclassing. Even after that however, it's still a class that's narrow in application (compared to a Fighter/Rogue type woodsman) that the campaign you play would have to really justify taking Ranger (you know that you'll be up against Undead, Drow and Abberations for example). What we really need is a Ranger without the Favored Enemy, but then what you get is the beforementioned Fighter/Rogue/Druid.

If the ranger purported to be a woodsman, it wouldn't be a very interesting class. It's a monster-slayer and a defender of its home turf... fighting with two weapons is a great deal more fun than rubbing two sticks together. The difference between a Ranger of Gondor and a Ranger of Jellystone Park is the emphasis on being a fighter-type.

DustTC said:

Having said that, I do like Monte's BoHM Ranger, especially with the Favored Enemy Strike and Favored Enemy Critical Strike feats. You can actually make a decent archetypical Ranger out of that without having to resort to multiclassing. Even after that however, it's still a class that's narrow in application (compared to a Fighter/Rogue type woodsman) that the campaign you play would have to really justify taking Ranger (you know that you'll be up against Undead, Drow and Abberations for example). What we really need is a Ranger without the Favored Enemy, but then what you get is the beforementioned Fighter/Rogue/Druid.

Click to expand...

I don't think the Ranger is supposed to be a woodsman, so much as the equivilant of a modern special forces soldier.

IOW, can survive in harsh conditions (urban or rural) on their own. Focuses on defending their turf (be it a village of commoners, a holy site, or a place of evil that must be kept hidden from the forces of evil). Or offensive, but with a specific focus, that should be based on the campaign setting or the adventure in particular. Picking a racial enemy of undead, then laerning that your DM loaths the undead concept is somewhat poor planning, you need to talk to your DM and ask "is this racial enemy worth taking in your campaign?"

I think making a "generic" ranger appears problematic, but if the character is focused on the campaign setting the class makes more sense.

A good simple change to give more a woodsman feel is to change favored enemy to favored terrain. Giving bonuses to tracking, hiding, moving silently, and such while on his home turf. As he travels and gains more experience he can learn to adapt to new lands.

Clear Dragon said:

A good simple change to give more a woodsman feel is to change favored enemy to favored terrain. Giving bonuses to tracking, hiding, moving silently, and such while on his home turf. As he travels and gains more experience he can learn to adapt to new lands.

Click to expand...

That's a really good idea. Or maybe the option of favored enemy or favored terrain. But not both.