krunchyfrogg
Explorer
I've read so many bad things about the class, but I'd like to know what people think. Consider this a follow-up to my "Do monks stink" thread. 
Does the 3e Ranger stink (as is)?
- Thread starter krunchyfrogg
- Start date
Destil
Explorer
They’re actually surprisingly playable from my experience, right out of the book. Though good luck keeping a power-gamer in the class longer than one level.
They do require a good intelligence, though, since there are many good skills and few skill points. A human with 12 or 13 int and at least 10-11 wis can make a good ranger (13 for expertise). Though of course you’ll want decent physical stats to go into melee, as always.
(the two weapon fighting thing is a bit of an annoyance, but it's a stylistic issue, more than a balance once)
They do require a good intelligence, though, since there are many good skills and few skill points. A human with 12 or 13 int and at least 10-11 wis can make a good ranger (13 for expertise). Though of course you’ll want decent physical stats to go into melee, as always.
(the two weapon fighting thing is a bit of an annoyance, but it's a stylistic issue, more than a balance once)
JRRNeiklot
First Post
Yes. He sucks.
Reasons:
1: TWF - This has nothing to do with the ranger class. Any class can fight with two weapons.
2: A multiclass fighter/druid, a fighter with the cosmopolitan feat, cleric with the travel domain, or simply a barbarian makes a better ranger.
3: Caster level - A 20th level ranger with a 10 hd animal companion? He'll last about one round. Rangers will kill more animals than poachers.
4: Favored enemies suck. "Hey guys, I get +5 damage on goblins. Which means I just did 30 points to this 3 hit point creature." Or: "Hey guys, I can do 5 extra points to that dragon, if I could just hit him." OR: I get a bonus to bluff this guy, too bad bluff isn't on my skill list.
Any time a multiclass combination fits a core class concept better than the core clas itself. Something is wrong. Fighting styles, no matter what style, suck.
Reasons:
1: TWF - This has nothing to do with the ranger class. Any class can fight with two weapons.
2: A multiclass fighter/druid, a fighter with the cosmopolitan feat, cleric with the travel domain, or simply a barbarian makes a better ranger.
3: Caster level - A 20th level ranger with a 10 hd animal companion? He'll last about one round. Rangers will kill more animals than poachers.
4: Favored enemies suck. "Hey guys, I get +5 damage on goblins. Which means I just did 30 points to this 3 hit point creature." Or: "Hey guys, I can do 5 extra points to that dragon, if I could just hit him." OR: I get a bonus to bluff this guy, too bad bluff isn't on my skill list.
Any time a multiclass combination fits a core class concept better than the core clas itself. Something is wrong. Fighting styles, no matter what style, suck.
Henry
Autoexreginated
krunchyfrogg said:I've read so many bad things about the class, but I'd like to know what people think. Consider this a follow-up to my "Do monks stink" thread.
Define "stink." It gets to be an awfullly long time between baths out there in the deep forest, and it's hard to shave, too. Just look at Vigo Morttenson from Lord of the Rings...
The 3E ranger is playable, as is, in 3E. He fits the role of a scout well, and can do well in a fight. I have had many players play rangers in the past 3 years with little to no problem.
However, the arrangement of class abilities leave something to be desired for many people, and hence you have the changes that will be introduced in 3E Revised in July.
JRRNeiklot said:
Granted, a limited version of TWF has very little to do with the iconic ranger. On the other hand, having an ability that you don't need is not enough to make a class bad.
Except the BAB and hit points will be slightly lower.
In my opinion, a Barbarian doesn't make a better Ranger. You don't have nearly the scouting ability that a Ranger would. The differences in the class skill lists is enough to make the Ranger a much better scout than a Barbarian.
You've got other spells that you could be using. I do have to admit, though, that the Ranger spell list is not the most inspiring.
You have got to be kidding.
Rangers get full BAB progression. If anyone can hit the dragon, it will be the ranger. As for the goblin argument, by twentieth level you are most likely going against something somewhat more substantial than the average goblin grunt. When you hit a goblin with class levels, that favored enemy bonus can be useful.
There was a thread on what the concept of a ranger was. It was interesting, mostly because there were a lot of different opinions.
The core PHB ranger does not do a good job of portraying what I consider to be the iconic ranger. On the other hand, that doesn't mean that the class is bad.
It and rogue are the only classes that make really good scouts. A human ranger or any ranger with an Int Mod can buy all the scouting skills they would want: Wilderness Lore, Hide, Move Silently, Spot and Listen. With their better HD and BAB, they can make excellent scouts. Their spells do allow them some minor healing abilities, which also allows them to use wands with those spells.
Overall, the main problem with the current ranger isn't one of power. It is one of style.
francisca
I got dice older than you.
The guy who was playing a ranger in my party was enjoying the stock PHB ranger quite a lot, right up until he got mulched by a pack of Dire Boars [(Bite +12) + (1d8+12)] x5 = dead ranger. Famous last words: "Looks like bacon for dinner boys!"
Anyway, I think part of the reason he enjoyed playing the ranger is that I tossed in a lot of stuff for him to use his "rangerness" stuff on: tracking, lots of wilderness lore checks, plenty of his favored enemy to harrass......etc...
Anyway, I think part of the reason he enjoyed playing the ranger is that I tossed in a lot of stuff for him to use his "rangerness" stuff on: tracking, lots of wilderness lore checks, plenty of his favored enemy to harrass......etc...
John Crichton
First Post
That's the trick right there, IMO. Any DM worth his salt should be giving the Ranger his favored enemies to fight or deal with. Not all the time of course, but don't ignore the ability. And with a good player you can work in some good story aspects into how that creature got on the ranger's "hit list" to start with.francisca said:
So, no I don't think the current ranger stinks, but I agree with the changes they are making for 3.5.
Frostmarrow
First Post
John Crichton said:
That's the problem right there. If the DM caters to your special abilities you feel singled out like a teacher's pet or something. If the DM forgets about your special abilities at least you are allowed to feel autonomous. Still, it had been best if the player got to chose when to use his talents.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
