Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FireLance" data-source="post: 764180" data-attributes="member: 3424">Re: The Ranger Class is IMO LameThe short answers:Yes.Yes.Yes.More skill points, more hit points, better saves, more feats, evasion, improved evasion, uncanny dodge, whatever else you feel is appropriate.The long answer:It all really depends on what you want your ranger to be.&nbsp; The success of the fighter, the rogue and the wizard as classes is that they are highly customizable.&nbsp; With proper feat selection, a fighter can be the mounted knight, the archer, the weapon master, the finesse duellist, whatever.&nbsp; With proper skill selection, the rogue can be the pickpocket, the cat burglar, the acrobat, the con artist, the lock and trap specialist, etc.&nbsp; With proper spell and feat selection, the wizard can also fit a variety of concepts, roles and archetypes.What the ranger lacks is the flexibility to fit all the various ideas that different people have of what he should be.&nbsp; Should he cast spells? Should he fight with two weapons? Should he be a ranged attack specialist? Should he focus on a terrain type? Should he have favoured enemies? Should he have animal companions? Should he be like Robin Hood? Strider? Drizzt? Hiawatha? Grizzly Adams? Tarzan? The Lone Ranger?Ultimately, it's up to you whatever selection of special abilities you want to bundle together and tack on the label &quot;ranger&quot;.&nbsp; What works for you may not work for someone else.By the way, there's been some talk of different &quot;paths&quot; that rangers may follow in 3.5e.&nbsp; While it may be limited to TWF vs archery, it might be possible to expand on that to get the Utimate Flexible Ranger.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FireLance, post: 764180, member: 3424"] [b]Re: The Ranger Class is IMO Lame[/b] The short answers: Yes. Yes. Yes. More skill points, more hit points, better saves, more feats, evasion, improved evasion, uncanny dodge, whatever else you feel is appropriate. The long answer: It all really depends on what you want your ranger to be. The success of the fighter, the rogue and the wizard as classes is that they are highly customizable. With proper feat selection, a fighter can be the mounted knight, the archer, the weapon master, the finesse duellist, whatever. With proper skill selection, the rogue can be the pickpocket, the cat burglar, the acrobat, the con artist, the lock and trap specialist, etc. With proper spell and feat selection, the wizard can also fit a variety of concepts, roles and archetypes. What the ranger lacks is the flexibility to fit all the various ideas that different people have of what he should be. Should he cast spells? Should he fight with two weapons? Should he be a ranged attack specialist? Should he focus on a terrain type? Should he have favoured enemies? Should he have animal companions? Should he be like Robin Hood? Strider? Drizzt? Hiawatha? Grizzly Adams? Tarzan? The Lone Ranger? Ultimately, it's up to you whatever selection of special abilities you want to bundle together and tack on the label "ranger". What works for you may not work for someone else. By the way, there's been some talk of different "paths" that rangers may follow in 3.5e. While it may be limited to TWF vs archery, it might be possible to expand on that to get the Utimate Flexible Ranger. [/QUOTE]

Verification