Why so much attention on the Ranger?

What's the deal? There seems to be an awful lot of emotion dragged out whenever rangers are discussed. Are they really that big of a deal to people? Why? Is this a Drizzt thing? I just don't get it.

Nobody throws a red-faced hissy fit over the Bard, and they need all they help they can get...

...but if the ranger isn't juuuuuuust right, there's screaming and breath holding and admonitions that once again, Wizards is screwing us all.

Help me out here. 'Cause I'm lost.

Also lost:

Mark Messier: Iconic Ranger!

Because the ranger is the easiest example of front end loaded junk of the system. go to a con and see how many rogues have one level of ranger for the front end feats. heck for that matter go to any con and see how many character have one level of ranger just for the free feats. One level of ranger give a lot and there is not a lot of encouragement to keep getting more level of ranger.
Well as one of the players in town showed me, if the bard needs help just give him a level of ranger. then have a high dex weapons finesse with rapier and you are good to go
Ken
I like the bard.

Joseph Elric Smith said:

Because the ranger is the easiest example of front end loaded junk of the system.

Click to expand...

I think another reason is that in 1e and 2e the ranger kicked butt. You had to roll very well to qualify for the ranger class, so you already had a good character base to start out with. Then you got nifty abilities on top of that. It was poorly thought out game design, because you don't want to reward the player who rolled well, because he's already been rewarded with the high rolls. It would be like starting a game and saying, "OK, Bill, you rolled the most starting gold pieces so I'm going to give your character a 1,000 gp ruby. Ted, you rolled 5gp, so I'm going to give your character a sucking chest wound."

It increased a divide that was already there. But people are still used to the idea of the ranger being "better". Now the're pretty much the same as other classes, so the old-school players felt like they lost something.

Yet another reason is that there should be some sort of educated woodsman archtypical fighter.

The Barbarian does an exceptable job of capturing the primitive berserker, but doesn't work well for a thoughtful, educated woodsman. That is what many feel the ranger should be.

There are many examples of hardy, fighter-types who can survive off the land. The Fighter class doesn't get the skills or skill points to do this properly. The ranger is the closest thing in the game, and many find that it doesn't fit their idea of what such a fighter type should be.

In other words, it isn't just a balance issue. It is also an issue of needing a class to cover a particular archtype.

bret said:

In other words, it isn't just a balance issue. It is also an issue of needing a class to cover a particular archtype.

Click to expand...

You are probably correct there. Just as I have never figured out where the two weapon fighting came from. I don't see a skilled woodsman fighting with two weapon, but more then likely a bear or boar spear and a bow and traps for keeping himself fed.
Ken

Alchemist said:

What's the deal? There seems to be an awful lot of emotion dragged out whenever rangers are discussed. Are they really that big of a deal to people? Why? Is this a Drizzt thing? I just don't get it.

Nobody throws a red-faced hissy fit over the Bard, and they need all they help they can get...

...but if the ranger isn't juuuuuuust right, there's screaming and breath holding and admonitions that once again, Wizards is screwing us all.

Help me out here. 'Cause I'm lost.

Click to expand...

I assume you're saying all this because of the ranger news on the news page. Here's a hint - check the date...

Re: Re: Why so much attention on the Ranger?

Carnifex said:

I assume you're saying all this because of the ranger news on the news page. Here's a hint - check the date...

Click to expand...

I'm not, and I figured something was wrong with that front page right around the part about discarding tracking.

These are good answers. I suspect that the power drop from 2nd to 3rd edition explains the behavior I observe. And I don't get the TWF thing either. Makes no sense to me as to why wilderness warriors would be uniformly gifted with TWF.

bret said:

There are many examples of hardy, fighter-types who can survive off the land. The Fighter class doesn't get the skills or skill points to do this properly. The ranger is the closest thing in the game, and many find that it doesn't fit their idea of what such a fighter type should be.

In other words, it isn't just a balance issue. It is also an issue of needing a class to cover a particular archtype.

Click to expand...

Plus, everybody has a different idea of what a ranger should be - whether he should be an archery expert or a two weapon fighter, whether he should be like Aragon or Tarzan or Drizzt Do'Urden or Grizzly Adams. The core ranger isn't flexible enough to fit all the archetypes.

Alchemist said:

Grizzly Adams

Click to expand...

Dude, Grizzly Adams was a druid.

You want ranger, maybe Mad Jack. He was kinda old, but he always seemed like he knew what he was doing out there in the wilderness.. retired ranger turned prospector or something maybe.