[3.5E] Change to Track feat?

[Steverooo]

I like to think that it is the player who adds mystery to his character. Let's here from some more people. Should a ranger be as good in a dungeon as he is in the wilderness?

Assuming he takes Search (which is already a Class Skill), he pretty much already is. He can spot secret doors already, but not magical/DC:20+ traps.

People really need to lighten up on the "Oh, the Ranger is stepping on the Rogue's toes!" routine... In 2e, the Ranger's Move Silently/Hide chances (which were much lower than the Thief's) were halved in the city/dungeon, while the Theif's weren't in the wilderness. No one (but me) ever seemed to complain about that!

No one ever seems to complain about the Barbarian, Bard, or Monk stepping on the Rogue's toes, either. They have a lot of the same abilities. Why is it always the Ranger (the weakest PHB Class, second only to the Psion) who gets complained about?

Does it really make Rangers too powerful that they can notice the cracks in the wall or cliff that conceal a secret door, find the hidden stud to open it, and locate a simple trap? (Check out any survival manual; you'll see plenty of stuff on deadfalls, nets, pits, snares and other small traps). He still can't find complex mechanical ones (DC:20+), nor magical ones, and even if he does, he can't even attempt to disarm it without setting it off!

This isn't really a change, by much... The Ranger already had Search. It just means that now, he'll probably stop taking Wilderness Lore (Survival) at about 12th level (if not before), and keep taking Search, instead. He'll have no new abilities that he didn't already have...

...assuming this rumour is true!

 

[Kaffis]

This seems really weird to me. Why? Well, because shifting track to a search check (while logical from that perspective) means that you're moving it to an Int based skill (which seems completely counter-intuitive to the druid/ranger archetypes). But I suppose I can live with it, taken with the other rumored ranger-lubbin' due in 3.5.