3.5e Ranger... Little Improvement But Still...

[Draxus the Tainted]

I figured it would atleast be a week or two after the books were officially released before people started complaining about the ranger but here we go already....

 

[shadow]

Although the 3.5e ranger is better than the 3e ranger, I'm still disapointed. Now instead of a two weapon fighter, a ranger is either an archer OR a two weapon fighter. I don't like the idea of virtual feats. Moreover, a ranger should focus on wilderness abilities (eg survival, tracking, favored terrain) not combat feats. The fighter should be the class that is getting the major combat abilities, not the ranger.

 

[Apok]

I figured it would atleast be a week or two after the books were officially released before people started complaining about the ranger but here we go already....

The problem springs from the fact that nobody can fully agree on what exactly a Ranger should be. Since everyone has their own personal vision of what a Ranger is, everyone who's vision doesn't match the one given by WotC is going to have complaints.

From my perspective, I think the 3.5e Ranger is much improved, but I still think that nothing can possibly top the Mercenary Ranger in terms of pure flexability. IMC, I will probably offer both the Core Ranger and the Merc Ranger as viable choices.

 

[Ron]

Although the 3.5e ranger is better than the 3e ranger, I'm still disapointed. Now instead of a two weapon fighter, a ranger is either an archer OR a two weapon fighter. I don't like the idea of virtual feats. Moreover, a ranger should focus on wilderness abilities (eg survival, tracking, favored terrain) not combat feats. The fighter should be the class that is getting the major combat abilities, not the ranger.

Well said. I would rather give the ranger three combat feats at the player choice than assign two paths. Also, it would be preffered to have more wilderness abilities in detriment to combat.

Still, it was an improvement.

 

[Steverooo]

Wild Empathy

2. Animal Empathy will now somehow be a proper class ability rather than an exclusive skill. It might still rely on a skill, but it won't be a skill of its own.

1D20 + Druid/Ranger Level + CHA Bonus on animals' reactions, as though using Diplomacy to modify a Reaction Check when dealing with an NPC.

 

[Stalker0]

Rangers get more skill points, a good reflex save, evasion, a better animal companion (see the new druid revision), some better spells (barkskin), cool hiding abilities, there favored enemy is much better and more flexible- seriously guys how much more do you want?

 

[Ranger REG]

I still think the ranger's feat path choices are too restricting. Instead of all rangers being the dual weapon guys, now they are all dual weapon guys or archers. Same problem.

IMC I'm going to house-rule it to allow two more feat paths: the two-handed weapon guy and the sword & board guy. That will pretty much cover the gamut of combat options.

You're better off using the fighter class, with its bonus feat at 1st, 2nd, and every two levels thereafter, in addition to the normal feats acquired at 1st, 3rd, and three levels thereafter.

* pauses *

"Sword & Board"??? LOL.

AFAIC, there is no unique feat for two-handed weapon or weapon-and-shield users.

 

[Ranger REG]

Although the 3.5e ranger is better than the 3e ranger, I'm still disapointed. Now instead of a two weapon fighter, a ranger is either an archer OR a two weapon fighter.

Eh, at least you have some kind of martial training. And then there are the starting weapon proficiencies as well as your normal feat acquisition (at 1st, 3rd, and every three levels thereafter).

I don't like the idea of virtual feats.

If by "virtual feat," you mean those feats with restriction (i.e., can only be used while wearing light or no armor), then yeah. That is the main crux of my discussion here.

Moreover, a ranger should focus on wilderness abilities (eg survival, tracking, favored terrain) not combat feats. The fighter should be the class that is getting the major combat abilities, not the ranger.

Fighter still reign supreme in major combat abilities, especially with the bonus feats.

Ranger have more combat options (sometimes in the wild, you have no choice but to fight to survive) to choose, but also have other wilderness/hunting abilities that the fighter or any other classes lack (let's hope the 3.5e barbarian is not good in this area, which was noticeable).

BTW, it was a smart move to let combat path begin at 2nd level, so as not to front-load the ranger class abilities at 1st level.

But again, my gripe is the armor restriction for those "virtual feats." I don't like the fact that ranger will forever be restricted, while a rogue or a wizard who even took the time to acquire armor proficiency could fight in armor without penalty.

 

[Plane Sailing]

P.S. I have yet to hear of any 3.5e change to the "wilderness hunter/survivalist" aspect of the Ranger (tracking, favorite enemy, animal empathy, etc.).

Look again at the list on the front page:

3: Endurance
7: Woodland Stride
8: Swift Tracker
13: Camouflage

I'd say that each of these consititutes a wilderness hunter/survivalist change (for the better)

Cheers

 

[Steverooo]

They ALL changed!

P.S. I have yet to hear of any 3.5e change to the "wilderness hunter/survivalist" aspect of the Ranger (tracking, favorite enemy, animal empathy, etc.).

Fast tracking changes how tracking works...

Favored Enemies now begins at +2 (instead of +1), and at levels 5, 10, 15, and 20 the Ranger can gain a new enemy @ +2, and add +2 to ANY enemy, including the new one.

Animal Empathy has been replaced by Wild Empathy, which is a class ability, and not a skill. It is now similar to a Diplomacy check (see post above).

So... All of these have changed!

FWIW, the Ranger also now gets Endurance...