The ranger is...

To me the distinction between Ranger and Fighter is that the Ranger is highly skilled - good skill points, good class skills including Spot - whereas the Fighter has poor skills but lots of combat feats. It's impossible to adequately simulate a wilderness warrior-scout with the Fighter class, due to lack of skills, and I don't like having to use the Rogue class for characters who clearly aren't rogueish (or barbaric - though Barbarian skill list isn't good enough anyway, no Spot). Hence the need for the Ranger class.

Can anyone tell me if I multiclass Druid/Fighter maybe with a touch of Barbarian for fun - do I get a better Ranger?

WattsHumphrey said:

Perhaps everyone here could explain to me this obsession with rangers...

I may be unique, but I don't really use the ranger class at all. I don't really see that any of the aforementioned archetypes are interesting (my preference, of course) or... feasible.

I say feasible because it seems like 'wilderness warrior' is not an archetype but a desire to smash all of the fantasy heros into one class. A hero is already... unique... enough that they break the mold. Trying to make a class to fit such a wide variety of desires is futile.

It's from this wide variety of expectations that the desire for melee twf, bow fighting, hiding, sneaking, tracking, spells (for some) all fit into the same class. Too many expectations are being put into this specialization.

I'd rather see a removal of ranger. It can't be directly duplicated by the other core classes, but I'm not sure it should be. A wilderness warrior probably isn't a first-level character anyway. Perhaps as a PrC it would be more likely, though definitely as a combination of Rogue and Fighter, with maybe Cosmopolitain(Wilderness Lore) or a druid level or two thrown in.

I suppose if I have to pose one question, its: Does everyone think that there is any way that a class satisfying all of these requirements will be created in 3.5? I can't say as I do, and I can't say as I really mind.

Click to expand...

It certainly could be done. I doubt that 3.5e will do it.

I don't know about "obsession" with the Ranger. Class-rating tools clearly show that the Ranger is the weakest PHB class, and second only to the Psion, overall, while the Cleric is strongest. Anyway, most folks agree that it is broken and needs fixing. A few - like you - want to junk it all together. It should be obvious, however, that the current version pleases no one.

"Wilderness Warrior" is certainly an archetype, whether you find it interesting, or not. The skills are pretty well covered even in 3e. Unlike other classes, though, the 3e Ranger isn't flexible or adaptable. It could be. There could be 20 different "Combat Paths", but that's the wrong approach.

No matter how many combat paths there are, you are still restricted to one. It is still shoehorning, you just have 19 more options. It's like if I give you your choice of 40 careers, all drawn from the Janitorial and Medical fields.

Instead of putting the Ranger into a "Career Path" (something a lot of schools want to do, these days), I maintain that allowing the player (student) to choose what they want to do is the better course.

As for "too many expectations", a Ranger can do any and all of that in the current version... he just gets stuck with TWF, will he or nill he. In 3.5e, he can get stuck with either Archery or TWF (and maybe with additional restrictions, we don't know, yet).

In any case, looking at the current 122 responses to this poll, it is clear that few people think the Ranger should be shoehorned into EITHER TWF or Archery, and that MOST pollees think Rangers should be able to do EITHER of those, magical monster-slayer, or Scout. Therefore; it should be obvious that the 3.5e Ranger "fix" will please few people, and that another approach should be taken...

(EDIT: Fixed typo)

Wormwood said:

Because the ranger 'archetype' should probably be consisdered a subset of fighter. The system can handle, through multiclassing and skill selection, just about every flavor or ranger mentioned above.

Trying to expand the ranger into a top-level archetype in itself leads to debate over which brand of ranger should be predominant.

Click to expand...

It amazes me when I see people post things like that. The Ranger cannot be duplicated through multiclassing. Not under 3e, anyway. Now if 3.5e gets rewritten such that Ranger and Paladin are again Fighter sub-classes, that would be fine, but it won't happen.

1e Rangers and Paladins were "Fighters" in name only. It took more experience to advance as either than a Fighter, and thus the Fighter got multiple attacks before either. With 3e, it takes the same XP to go from level X to Y, regardless of class. Thus, XP required to level was removed as a balancing mechanic.

While exceptional STR and CON was given to all PCs (in 1e, only Fighter-types could have better than +1/+1 STR or +2 CON bonuses), and the different Non-Proficiency penalties were dropped (in 1e Fighters were -2, while Magic Users were -5, while in 3e everyone is -4), the Fighter-types got little, in their latest incarnation. The Paladin and Ranger, in particular, got cut. The Ranger's abilities were cut the most, as many of them became unbonused skills for which they had to pay... and without enough skill points to do it.

From what we know, 3.5e will be an improvement. Rangers will get six skill points/level. They will get the same feats that everyone gets. But they will get very few Class-defining abilities. There will still be little, besides the skill list, which makes them a Ranger. Unlike the Rogue and Bard, they have no Restricted abilities, save Animal Empathy, shared with Druids. And then there are the Virtual Feats, which almost no one likes, restricting him to one of two choices, instead of allowing choice.

None of this will make most of the respondents to this poll happy. It will satisfy almost no one. I would think that pleasing everyone would be a better solution. A Prestige Class will not do that. Many of us will not like being told we have to go through X levels of Y Class to become what we wanted to be, and will go looking for another game to play.

The Ranger is...

...eliminated.

Merlion said:

Steve I think the problem is you see particular combat styles as a major definition of the Ranger...

Click to expand...

Well, you think wrong, Sir! I don't! I think combat style is a stylistic issue and should be left entirely up to the player, instead of being forced on the PC by a "Combat Path", something no other class has, something which reduces the adaptability and flexibility of the class, and something which is bland, flavorless, and does not define the Ranger's role in the party - or the archetype!

Ergo: "This-here is a BAD thang!"

Bonus Feats could do the same thing, and do it better. Fighters, only, get Bonus Feats? HARDLY! Wizards get Scribe Spell at first, and one Feat/5 levels thereafter. Druids and Monks get small, non-selectable "Featlets" at almost every level. Rogues get some at 10th+, so this hardly applies.

Another possible solution would be to forget about Bonus Feats AND Combat Paths, and just give the Ranger some special Class Abilities which help define the archetype and his role in the party. Things which improve his Scouting and Survivability, for instance. This would be easy enough to do.

The method I prefer is a mixture. Let me say it again, for those who haven't been keeping up: I favor giving all classes one "Professional Feat" at first, fifth, 10th, 15th, and 20th levels, from a list of selected (often class-only) Feats, just as the Wizard gets, as well as special class abilities or a choice of "Class-Only" Feats at every level. No, that's not the way that things are done, now, except for Monks and Druids, but so what?

Ranger-Only abilities could include things like Weather Forecasting (should be shared with Druids), Language Ability (shared with Bards), IDing water-quality (shared with Druids and Barbarians), Setting snares, etc. (shared with Rogues, maybe others), affinity with certain type(s) of animals (shared with Druids), etc. None of these are combat abilities, or game-shaking, but all fit the various Ranger Archetypes, and add flavor to the class.

Ergo: "These-hyar would be GOOD thangs!"

YMMV, of course.

Tonguez said:

Can anyone tell me if I multiclass Druid/Fighter maybe with a touch of Barbarian for fun - do I get a better Ranger?

Click to expand...

Alignment would require a Neutral component, and have to be Non-Lawful (Druid/Barbarian), so CN, NG, N, and NE would be your only options, unless you wanted to start as a Barbarian, take all your levels of that class, then change alignment and suffer probable XP penalties.

Assuming you only want three spell slots for 1rst - 4th level spells (like a 20th level Ranger gets), you would have to go all the way to 10th level as a Druid, getting 10D8, losing +3 BAB, and gaining better Will saves and the abilities to identify plants, animals, and water quality, pass through overgrown areas without harm at normal movement, pick up an animal companion, pass without trace at will, speak Druidic, +4 on saves vs, spell-like effects from Feys, Wildshape 4x/day into size Large or Medium critters, gain six cantrips, two first and second level spells, pick up two fifth level, venom immunity, and the ability to Rage, move faster, and Heavy Armor Proficiency and whatever Bonus Feats the Fighter class gave you... You would also lose the ability to use most weapons and armors with which you were proficient (due to Druid restrictions), or lose your Druidic powers for 24 hours thereafter. You would also lose access to some skills (Search, Use Rope, for instance), gain others (Scry, Spellcraft, Intimidate, for instance), and depending upon levels taken, might have fewer HP (although if you took 10 Barbarian/10 Druid levels, you'd average out the same). Depending upon how much Fighter you took, your Wilderness Lore would probably be lower, so you'd track/survive less well. If you took 10 Barbarian, you'd also be able to Rage 3x/day, and have Uncanny Dodge (DEX Bonus to AC & never flanked), but then you'd lose any Bonus Feats, and be behind for having to take Track and TWF/Archery.

So, same Fortitude saves, better Will, about the same Reflex. more/better spells, more special abilities. one less attack/round due to worse BAB, worse weapons and armor selection (but better proficiencies, with armor, at least). Worse (or at least different) skill selection, probably worse HPs, you'd have to take Track and weapon Feats from the Feats everyone gets and/or any Bonus Fighter Feats (but you can't spend those on Track). In 3.5e, you'd have lower skill points (3e Barb.Druid would be the same, lower for Fighter levels thrown in).

Is that better or worse, in your opinion? Some of it depends upon which classes and levels are taken. Mileage will vary...

Henry said:

The ranger is now, for better or worse, a two-weapon fighter. this ecample, instituted in the 2nd edition, is now inextricably liked to the Ranger, and many players would now balk to have this feature removed. It may be the newest element of the class, but it doesn't make it any less intrinsic to the archetype, now.

Click to expand...

Seems like we have a catch 22 then. There are quite a few players (like myself) who won't accept a ranger with TWF as a class ability as valid.

My thoughts are that the ranger should either be Aragorn sans magic or the scout plus fighting. Of course, the two are almost identical. To the amount they do differ, I'd favor the Aragorn model because rangers are warriors of a flavor.

Mercule said:

Seems like we have a catch 22 then. There are quite a few players (like myself) who won't accept a ranger with TWF as a class ability as valid.

Click to expand...

Yet you already must, as any PC can take Ambidexterity and Two-Weapon Fighting! Only the Ranger is forced into a "Combat Path", though. By removing this railroading and replacing it with a pick from a selected list, different from the Fighter's, and including TWF, Archery, Mounted, Unarmed, etc., TWF is no longer a part of the class, but the choice is still available!

The Point is:

Out of 131 pollees, only two think that TWF should be a Ranger Class Ability, and only 14 think Archery should be. Since all Simple/Martial weapons and bows are already class features, a Ranger can fight with either, if he pleases... so that's not the issue.

TWF/Archery "Combat Paths" will apparently please 16/131 people. The rest will still be displeased. Therefore, something else should be done.

The question is, what? Here's where the problem is, as almost no one can agree. Thus, as I see it, the only option that will work is to make the Ranger much more flexible and adaptable.

Some here state that this is trying to incorporate too many archetypes into a single one. I disagree. Let's examine that arguement...

The Fighter covers the padded footman wielding polearms, the lightly-armored missile troops, heavy cavalry, light cavalry, heavy foot, and even an unarmed bully with no weapons. Expending a few of his Bonus Feats, it can even cover a monkish sort with Improved Unarmed Strike and Stunning Fist...

Now the Ranger can cover the padded halbardier, lightly-armored missileer, and light cavalry, but not the Heavy, as Rangers don't get the Heavy Armor Proficiency, or Bonus Feats to buy it with. Likewise, Heavy Foot is out (for the same reasons), and the unarmored monkish type is almost impossible, due to the Feats required.

So, if the Fighter can cover all this ground, why not the Ranger? The Ranger will still have fewer Feats, and be worse at fighting as a result (generally), and also be easier to hit, due to lighter armor. The Fighter will be better at combat, and have a higher AC, but less stealthy and preceptive (generally).

Seems to me that having an Archetype that can do many things is a good thing. If not, we need to rip the Rogue up into at least two new classes: The Conman, and The Thief.