Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="starkad" data-source="post: 437085" data-attributes="member: 6803">I think you need to read it a bit closer.They get bonus feats 1/2 as often.They get d8s for hit dice, not d10s.Their skill points are not as high as rogues, nor is their skill list as diverse.The animal companion is a moot point. They never get powerful enough to make a difference if they leave their home territory.Their spells are minimal at best. They never get anything truly awe inspiring.I have one in my campaign, and compared to a fighter or rogue of the same level, he is lackluster at best. This is at 15th level. I encouraged him to create a prestige class, which we did, and it worked out very well for him. He's enjoyed it immensely.I am not saying Monte's ranger is 'the best', nor is anyone's. Honestly, your initial post was so long, I couldn't finish it, so I can't comment on it, my apologies there.I just think that you skimmed it and didn't even give it a chance, which is fine, because it may not suit what your idea of a ranger is. I would like to point out though, that Monte's version doesn't lock a ranger into being a 2-sword specialist. The ranger in my game utilizes his bonus feats to be a well-rounded woodsman. He's good with a bastardsword and a shield, and equally as good with a bow. He never wanted to use two weapons, so the original ranger wasn't flavorful enough for him, whereas the barbarian was too 'dumbed down' for his idea, and the original fighter didn't have enough skill choices. So this worked out perfectly for him.It's all a matter of opinion and what you like. If yours works better in your game, go for it. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification