Does the 3e Ranger stink (as is)?
- Thread starter krunchyfrogg
- Start date
krunchyfrogg
Explorer
Re: Re: Does the 3e Ranger stink (as is)?
Hehe, I use the word 'stink' because I find the word 'suck' to be a tiny bit offensive.
Hey now! I'm just askin' because it makes a good discussion. My decision to play a Ranger or not now or sometime in the future will not depend either way on the results of the poll. The group I play in makes sure everybody has fun.
I doubt it. That's a pretty old picture. BTW, as a NY Mets fan, I know just what it's like to have an extremely overpaid, old, underachieving embarrassment to root for.
Henry said:
Hehe, I use the word 'stink' because I find the word 'suck' to be a tiny bit offensive.
warlocke said:
Hey now! I'm just askin' because it makes a good discussion. My decision to play a Ranger or not now or sometime in the future will not depend either way on the results of the poll. The group I play in makes sure everybody has fun.
Tom Cashel said:
I doubt it. That's a pretty old picture. BTW, as a NY Mets fan, I know just what it's like to have an extremely overpaid, old, underachieving embarrassment to root for.
Christian Walker
First Post
We like them just fine.
Our campaign can be characterized as "low power." The 5th level ranger finally found a +1 longsword in the last session, about the highest level anyone will ever see is 9th, and everyone is human. Emphasis has switched from combat and how much crap one can cram onto their equipment list and instead focuses on setting, char. development, and fun with NPCs.
In light of this, Rangers work just fine as is. Hell, we could be using the Warrior NPC class and we'd still have fun.
Our campaign can be characterized as "low power." The 5th level ranger finally found a +1 longsword in the last session, about the highest level anyone will ever see is 9th, and everyone is human. Emphasis has switched from combat and how much crap one can cram onto their equipment list and instead focuses on setting, char. development, and fun with NPCs.
In light of this, Rangers work just fine as is. Hell, we could be using the Warrior NPC class and we'd still have fun.
What I'M doing?
Well with the number of posts YOU'VE made Merlion I see what YOUR doing.
And for the ones who thought my rather tame comments were "attacks" is foolish. And I am told to "tone it down" when I am merely posting a response?
Sorry I hurt your delicate feelings I will be more cautious next time Don.
Well with the number of posts YOU'VE made Merlion I see what YOUR doing.
And for the ones who thought my rather tame comments were "attacks" is foolish. And I am told to "tone it down" when I am merely posting a response?
Sorry I hurt your delicate feelings I will be more cautious next time Don.
No, it doesn't suck. It suffers mainly by not having interesting signature abilities at higher levels, but it certainly doesn't suck.
Most rangers that I've seen played badly:
1) Tried to two-weapon fight even when it wasn't the best option. It's not powergaming for your character to go "Hm, two weak attacks aren't hurting this tough monster. I'll switch over to one powerful attack instead." That's how your character would react in real life.
2) Were playing in a bad game for rangers. If your DM tells you it's gonna be an urban campaign big on social interest and low on monsters, pick a rogue or bard. If your DM tells you that you're gonna be dungeon-hacking, pick a fighter. Only play a ranger in a game where there's gonna be a decent outdoorsy section.
3) Overconcentrated their skills. This might be just me, but I've made this argument time and time again and never seen it successfully refuted:
The relatively low amount of skill points that a class gets does not make it broken. It simply means that you should make the choice to either concentrate or be a jack of all trades.
Too many players level up in ranger and go, "Oh, shoot, I only have an Int of 11, and I'm elven. Well, I'll put a rank in Hide, Spot, Move Silently, and Listen, and then... I'm OUT!! Great Hera! The ranger is BROKEN!!!!!"
I don't believe (and don't DM while assuming) that a character of a given level should have to have a given skill max'd out for that level in order for that skill to be useful. A sixth level nonhuman ranger with an average intelligence could have 9 ranks in 4 different skills (36 total points). That would mean that for those four skills, he is at the top of his class. He is the best and the brightest, right there. That's what he's great at. OR he could have 6 ranks in 6 different skills. In each of THOSE skills, he'd be much better than the average Joe, definitely making use of his abilities, but a bit behind an absolute specialist.
Let's say that I'm DMing a game with three different 6th level rangers:
One guy fancies himself the master of stealth and observation, and could really care less about everything else. Also, he wants to be an archer, not a TWF.
One guy wants to be pretty good at a bunch of different things.
One guy really just wants to have a shot at everything.
For the first guy, I look in the DMG at the place where it explains how to customize characters. I take out the TWF stuff and put in Point Blank Shot and Rapid Shot. He has 9 ranks in Hide, Spot, Move Silently, and Listen.
The second guy has 6 ranks apiece in Hide, Spot, Move Silently, Listen, Wilderness Lore, and Climb.
The third guy has 4 ranks apiece in Hide, Spot, Move Silently, Listen, Wilderness Lore, Climb, Swim, Jump, and Animal Empathy. Or at least, that's where he starts.
As the DM, I know all of this.
I plot my game accordingly.
I put up numerous opportunities for stealth. In some of these locations, the third guy really ought to hang back. In one or two places, even the second guy should hang back and let the first guy go it alone. On the other hand, I also have enough places where climbing could be important that the second and third guy get to show off their more varied skills. Finally, I'll have one or two areas where a few ranks in Animal Empathy lets the party avoid a fight.
I believe that these worries about not having enough skill points come from a) DMs who inflate skill DCs in every scenario so that only someone with max'd out ranks has a chance and b) Players who believe that a character is entitled to have max'd out ranks in any skill that player thinks is cool.
-Tacky
Most rangers that I've seen played badly:
1) Tried to two-weapon fight even when it wasn't the best option. It's not powergaming for your character to go "Hm, two weak attacks aren't hurting this tough monster. I'll switch over to one powerful attack instead." That's how your character would react in real life.
2) Were playing in a bad game for rangers. If your DM tells you it's gonna be an urban campaign big on social interest and low on monsters, pick a rogue or bard. If your DM tells you that you're gonna be dungeon-hacking, pick a fighter. Only play a ranger in a game where there's gonna be a decent outdoorsy section.
3) Overconcentrated their skills. This might be just me, but I've made this argument time and time again and never seen it successfully refuted:
The relatively low amount of skill points that a class gets does not make it broken. It simply means that you should make the choice to either concentrate or be a jack of all trades.
Too many players level up in ranger and go, "Oh, shoot, I only have an Int of 11, and I'm elven. Well, I'll put a rank in Hide, Spot, Move Silently, and Listen, and then... I'm OUT!! Great Hera! The ranger is BROKEN!!!!!"
I don't believe (and don't DM while assuming) that a character of a given level should have to have a given skill max'd out for that level in order for that skill to be useful. A sixth level nonhuman ranger with an average intelligence could have 9 ranks in 4 different skills (36 total points). That would mean that for those four skills, he is at the top of his class. He is the best and the brightest, right there. That's what he's great at. OR he could have 6 ranks in 6 different skills. In each of THOSE skills, he'd be much better than the average Joe, definitely making use of his abilities, but a bit behind an absolute specialist.
Let's say that I'm DMing a game with three different 6th level rangers:
One guy fancies himself the master of stealth and observation, and could really care less about everything else. Also, he wants to be an archer, not a TWF.
One guy wants to be pretty good at a bunch of different things.
One guy really just wants to have a shot at everything.
For the first guy, I look in the DMG at the place where it explains how to customize characters. I take out the TWF stuff and put in Point Blank Shot and Rapid Shot. He has 9 ranks in Hide, Spot, Move Silently, and Listen.
The second guy has 6 ranks apiece in Hide, Spot, Move Silently, Listen, Wilderness Lore, and Climb.
The third guy has 4 ranks apiece in Hide, Spot, Move Silently, Listen, Wilderness Lore, Climb, Swim, Jump, and Animal Empathy. Or at least, that's where he starts.
As the DM, I know all of this.
I plot my game accordingly.
I put up numerous opportunities for stealth. In some of these locations, the third guy really ought to hang back. In one or two places, even the second guy should hang back and let the first guy go it alone. On the other hand, I also have enough places where climbing could be important that the second and third guy get to show off their more varied skills. Finally, I'll have one or two areas where a few ranks in Animal Empathy lets the party avoid a fight.
I believe that these worries about not having enough skill points come from a) DMs who inflate skill DCs in every scenario so that only someone with max'd out ranks has a chance and b) Players who believe that a character is entitled to have max'd out ranks in any skill that player thinks is cool.
-Tacky
Will
First Post
My problems with the Ranger class break down in 4 areas:
1) TWF and Ambidexterity. Yes, everyone brings this up... because it's obvious. It's also very very easy to fix. Personally, I'd give rangers, oh, a bonus feat at levels 1-3 from a list including TWF, Ambidexterity, Track, and some bow feats. There, fixed.
I almost don't rate this as a problem, because it's so easy to fix... but it's still there.
2) Favored Enemy. My problem is not that this is DM fiat... after all, turning undead and sneak attack are both vulnerable to DM choices, to name two obvious oens. The problem is that it is _very_ DM fiat.
See, turning undead... well, undead are really really common. A lot of monsters, spells, and adventures deal with undead. So at least there's a good chance they're going to come up. And you can design clerics that turn/rebuke other things, like plants and elementals. (Via domains) Hmm. There's a thought... allow clerics to take a domain-like turn in the place of turn undead... oh, getting sidetracked.
Sneak attack... well, roughly 1/3-1/2 of the monsters are invulnerable to this. Which is annoying... but in the end, shouldn't be insurmountable. Unless the DM has the 'all undead' campaign.
But favored enemy is _very specific_. It's one of 20 or so types.
This isn't bad merely because the DM might 'screw with you,' but because it sets up antagonism. As a DM, I have to worry about 'sheesh, should I toss in more goblins in this scenario?' I'd rather not have to worry about them.
I'd be happier with fewer favored enemy choices, maybe broad things like Humanoids (goblins, humans, elves, ...), Animals, Elementals, Fey, Plants, ... something with 5 or so choices, so without trying it's likely the DM will include them.
3) Overall focus. Actually... this isn't a problem with the class as written, unless you count 'it's not made clear enough.' The ranger is a class about, well, ranging. Being a scout. Mucking about in the woods and tracking things. This should be rather obvious...
The problem, however, is that the character is again sensitive to DM choices, bringing up the antagonism again. If the DM has to include woodland elements just to make the ranger have something to do, this can also create a tension with the other players, who sit around bitching while the ranger strides happily through the woods.
Rogues, with the use of sneak attack, are quite useful in melee and ranged combat (depending), but have a variety of cool other skills and tropes. So they aren't limited the same way into just doing 'roguey things.' However... locks, traps, and treasure are something clear to the focus of D&D. Unlike rangers, people are more likely to be interested in the rogue's core focus.
This isn't a problem with the class perse... I mean, how else would you design a _ranger_? But it's a problem of presentation. It would be nice if there were more material showing how to integrate woodland elements into campaigns... though I suppose that's the job of world books and adventures.
4) Magic. This is another 'problem in Will's head' rather than a true problem. Personally, I hate that rangers have magic. Just rubs me the wrong way... I realize others disagree, but I'd like to see rangers as a cool skilled fighter/scout type, occupying a niche distinct from both fighters and rogues. Need magic? Multiclassing as druids or clerics works perfectly fine.
But that's me.
Luckily, there are resources to design your own classes. My favorite is:
http://www.custoscogitatum.com/classcalc.cfm
1) TWF and Ambidexterity. Yes, everyone brings this up... because it's obvious. It's also very very easy to fix. Personally, I'd give rangers, oh, a bonus feat at levels 1-3 from a list including TWF, Ambidexterity, Track, and some bow feats. There, fixed.
I almost don't rate this as a problem, because it's so easy to fix... but it's still there.2) Favored Enemy. My problem is not that this is DM fiat... after all, turning undead and sneak attack are both vulnerable to DM choices, to name two obvious oens. The problem is that it is _very_ DM fiat.
See, turning undead... well, undead are really really common. A lot of monsters, spells, and adventures deal with undead. So at least there's a good chance they're going to come up. And you can design clerics that turn/rebuke other things, like plants and elementals. (Via domains) Hmm. There's a thought... allow clerics to take a domain-like turn in the place of turn undead... oh, getting sidetracked.
Sneak attack... well, roughly 1/3-1/2 of the monsters are invulnerable to this. Which is annoying... but in the end, shouldn't be insurmountable. Unless the DM has the 'all undead' campaign.
But favored enemy is _very specific_. It's one of 20 or so types.
This isn't bad merely because the DM might 'screw with you,' but because it sets up antagonism. As a DM, I have to worry about 'sheesh, should I toss in more goblins in this scenario?' I'd rather not have to worry about them.
I'd be happier with fewer favored enemy choices, maybe broad things like Humanoids (goblins, humans, elves, ...), Animals, Elementals, Fey, Plants, ... something with 5 or so choices, so without trying it's likely the DM will include them.
3) Overall focus. Actually... this isn't a problem with the class as written, unless you count 'it's not made clear enough.' The ranger is a class about, well, ranging. Being a scout. Mucking about in the woods and tracking things. This should be rather obvious...
The problem, however, is that the character is again sensitive to DM choices, bringing up the antagonism again. If the DM has to include woodland elements just to make the ranger have something to do, this can also create a tension with the other players, who sit around bitching while the ranger strides happily through the woods.
Rogues, with the use of sneak attack, are quite useful in melee and ranged combat (depending), but have a variety of cool other skills and tropes. So they aren't limited the same way into just doing 'roguey things.' However... locks, traps, and treasure are something clear to the focus of D&D. Unlike rangers, people are more likely to be interested in the rogue's core focus.
This isn't a problem with the class perse... I mean, how else would you design a _ranger_? But it's a problem of presentation. It would be nice if there were more material showing how to integrate woodland elements into campaigns... though I suppose that's the job of world books and adventures.
4) Magic. This is another 'problem in Will's head' rather than a true problem. Personally, I hate that rangers have magic. Just rubs me the wrong way... I realize others disagree, but I'd like to see rangers as a cool skilled fighter/scout type, occupying a niche distinct from both fighters and rogues. Need magic? Multiclassing as druids or clerics works perfectly fine.
But that's me.
Luckily, there are resources to design your own classes.
My favorite is:http://www.custoscogitatum.com/classcalc.cfm
Similar Threads
