Core Classes that IMO are lame

[shivamuffin]

The favored enemy is....Hell, I can't explain it...Where did they get that from too? It worked for the Desert Rider, because they always have enemies...Blood fueds, territorial competition, etc...

But normal rangers!?

The classic ranger is a woodsman, a woodsman that is tougher and harder hitting...they shouldn't be grizzly adams with a spell list...

They did the same stupid thing with assassins...WHY THE SPELLS!? How about more hands on killing abilities? Oh well, I'm just a peon in a sea of D20 material.

 

[Crothian]

A ranger gets spels because of their conection with the wilderness. They are the nature version of a paladin in some respects.

I never understood why people wanted to take the spells away from a ranger. Play a fighter with Wilderness Lore if you want that.

 

[HellHound]

I just keep forgetting that "Idiotic" and "moronic" ACTUALLY mean "not to my personal taste".

I'm just too darn polite sometimes.

 

[shivamuffin]

They get spells because of their bond with nature....

I retract Idiotic and Moronic with....( Drumroll )

IMO...Lame

Hopefully this will stifle a ranger war...

It is just an opinion, and the purpose was not to blah blah blah about rangers, but to have a rational discussion as to why it is what it is and why it never seems to get fixed.

A ranger is a warrior with wilderness lore skills...that's all they are or were in classic fantasy until the TSR novels came out...

Once again, my personal opinions aside...

MY QUESTIONS:

Is there a decent alternative to the ranger? ( This was Kind of answered, and the answer seems to be...IT DEPENDS.... )

Can a campaign survive without them?

Can we just take away the animal crap and spellcasting and keep the rest?

What would be a good replacement for what was taken away?

Another thing: If this topic is annoying and will cause you to get personal, just because you've seen it brought up a zillion times...DON'T RESPOND...I don't want to be insulted just over an opinion...Uless you are the original creator of the Ranger class....Then let's go biotch!! Otherwise be nice, I'm not attacking you, just the class.

 

[Crothian]

I think the first thing you need to do is define what you want a ranger to be, not what you want it not to be. But if you want a good wilderness/ mountain man type class there is a good one in Wheel of Time, there are a few in Mercanaries, and one or two in Path of the Sword.

So, are you going to complain about the Druid next? Because before D&D it was something completely different.

 

[shivamuffin]

So, are you going to complain about the Druid next?

Now see, there it goes.... Gamer dudes getting all worked up...I'm attacking the class, not YOU.

No, I won't complain about druids. Nobody is certain what they really did in real life. They performed alot of functions in Celtic society, but their religious/mystical role is uncertain...There's alot of stories, but little evidence. Rangers on the other hand have been in our stories for some time, and none of them cast spells.

The D&D druid is based alot on the modern druids and the Wiccans. I understand why and what the class was supposed to be. Druids are a common Pagan group in england, and the D&D druid is kind of similair, with a touch of the Wiccan's bond to nature. Druid to me translates into Witch. Obviously they wanted wtches, but settled with hags and druids, rather than incite the religious rite any more than they already have. IMO though...Just my opinion...


The ranger is Grizzly Adams, Strider, and Hiawatha...He is the trailblazer, and the point man in the conquest of the wilderness. He is the mountainman, master of the bayous, and or guide in the wastelands. he is the bushman, pigmy, and the conquistador.

Can the ranger class be made, and made well without spells, without animal followers? Not a fighter with wilderness lore, but a ranger in the classic sense. A tough, weathered frontiersman type.

 

[Gothmog]

FFG's Path of the Sword has two good ranger variants, the hunter and the outdoorsman. The hunter is a specialist in killing certain favored types of creatures, while the outdoorsman is a specialist in wilderness survival, and gains animal companions as he advances levels. And the best thing is that neither of them have spells or TWF/ambidexterity!!!

AEG's Mercanaries also has three ranger variants without spells. Their hunter class more resembles a bounty hunter- someone who can subdue or kill prey easily. The mercenary ranger has favored terrain, favored enemies, and a few extra feats similar to fighters- and if they want to use some of their options to get spells, they can, but its not required. Finally, the scout is a sniper and intelligence gathering expert.

I personally prefer FFG's outdoorsman- he feels the most like what I would imagine a wilderness warrior to be like. The mercenary ranger isn't bad either. Hope this helps you with your search.

 

[Crothian]

Can the ranger class be made, and made well without spells, without animal followers? Not a fighter with wilderness lore, but a ranger in the classic sense. A tough, weathered frontiersman type.

So, a barbarian?

 

[shivamuffin]

Groovy dude, thanks...Pleasant, polite, and informative...You get a cookie and 1000 thankyous.









I will now teach you some spells...munch munch munch...

 

[shivamuffin]

So, a barbarian?

You know, the barbarian is more ranger than the ranger. Although they kind of screwed it up too...The rage doesn't seem right.

I would like to say though, that an elf using the current spellcasting ranger class soes not seem improbable, or ridiculous. for other races it does.