Could be better...
Rangers, like Bards, are Generalists. They can do a little bit of a lot, but much worse than the Rogue, and a bit worse than the Bard. They have the third best skill list in the game.
Rangers are semi-spell-users, but worse than any other semi-spell-user. All others get six levels of spells. Rangers get four. This USED to be balanced by the fact that they got first and second level MU spells, too, but that has now almost been taken away (they still get
Alarm and
Sleep, although the latter too late to be much use, and less so as they advance).
Their spells are some of the worst as far as scaling goes, as well. Rangers don't get first level spells until seventh level (fourth, if they have 12+ WIS). By then,
Sleep will, on average, affect one target (if they're lucky), and
Summon Nature's Ally I (which gives them a whole two rounds of attacks from a one hit die creature) is pretty worthless, as well. Both only get worse, as time goes by. Their caster level advances the slowest of any class, save the tying Paladin's.
Rangers can be scouts, but they will always be inferior to Rogues, whether in the wilderness or in the city or dungeon. Rangers/Rogues with the same stats and ranks in Hide, Listen, Move Silently, and Spot, and with the same equipment, who scout against the same opponents... If the Rogues is surprised, he has light armor, and his Uncanny Dodge prevents him from being caught flat-footed, so he gets DEX, too. The Ranger has the same armor, but gets caught flat-footed without DEX... If the Rogue succeeds in gaining surprise, he sneak attacks for extra damage. The Ranger gets nothing, unless he ran into a "favored" enemy, when he gets +1-5... Likewise, the Barbarian is a slightly less-superior scout. He has Uncanny Dodge and faster movement, but not Spot. If surprised or not, he can choose to rage. The Ranger can stand there, flat-footed, and get hammered... I think even the Monk is about as good as a scout as the Ranger is.
According to the class calculator, the Ranger is THE weakest PHB class, and second only to the Psion, overall. (And some say the Psion is under-rated.)
The Ranger class concept is vague, and ill-defined, if not undefined. The Ranger has few class abilities, and NONE of them have to do with scouting, survival, or wilderness travel (note I said class abilities, NOT skills), save the spells.
Spell are obviously missing. Looking at the Plant & Animal Domains, Barkskin is one obvious example. Also, out of all the spell-users (and even semi-spell-users), only the Ranger and Paladin do not get zero-level Orisons. While the Druid gets
Know Direction, the Ranger gets the ability to spend too few skill points on the nearly-useless Intuit Direction - hence, the Druid is a better party guide at first level than the Ranger.
And then there are those missing skills and spells... Almost any other spell-caster (and even Paladins) are better in the desert and (ant)arctic than the Ranger, because they have access to
Endure Elements, which lasts 24 hours... The Ranger does not! And who is best at stalking across icy terrain? Why the Rogue, of course, because only he is likely to have the Balance DC 15 needed to stay afoot! And who will best guide the party, once direction is known? Why, the Clerics, Sorcerers, and Wizards with access to Knowledge (Geography), of course! Who else?
Who will be best in a fight? The Fighter, of course! Who will be best in the outdoors? Probably the Druid. Who will be best at healing? The Cleric, Druid, Paladin, and Bard. Who will be best at Climbing and Swimming? Probably the Rogue, followed by the Monk, tied with the Ranger, perhaps.
So what is the Ranger the best at? Being a Generalist? Nope! The Rogue is the best, followed by the Bard... Killing "favored enemies"? Nope, the fighter is still better. Wilderness survival? Nope! Druids and Clerics of the Travel Domain are better, and Barbarians at least as good...
So, the Ranger is not best at anything, nor even second best. He fights less well than the Fighter, but about as well as the Paladin (I think the Barbarian outshines him, a bit - YMMV). Scouting and spying? Nope! The Rogue is better, and the Monk about as good, with the Barbarian and Bard close behind. Travelling across, over, through the wilderness? Nope! Balance, Climb, Hide, Jump, Move Silently, and Swim all belong to the multi-talented Rogue (and the Monk can do as well as the Ranger). Ride belongs to the Paladin.
Okay, the Ranger gets Animal Empathy, IF he can find the skill points to feed it. The Druid will probably be better, but at least he's second-best at SOMETHING, if he pumps his skills in it, instead of stealth, perception, and/or Wilderness Lore/Survival. At least in 3.5e, he'll have a few more skill points.
So, what is the Ranger supposed to do? Scout? (Where are his scouting ABILITIES?) Be a Survivalist (Where are his survival ABILITIES?) Be third rate in everything except Animal Empathy (and second rate in that)?
And some people want to take away his spells, and Ambidexterity/Two-Weapon Fighting...
While we're at it, let's drop his hit dice to D6, remove both of the above, replace them with Uncanny Dodge and Sneak Attack, give him the ability to detect DC 20+ traps, add a bunch of new skills but get rid of Medium Armor Proficiency but keep Wilderness Lore/Survival...
There you have it, the new Ranger: The Rogue with Wilderness Lore!
None of this is really my main problem with the Ranger, though... MY main problem with the Ranger is that, as an outdoorsman, I expect to open any book on wilderness survival, and have my Ranger be able to do anything I see therein. That's why I play Rangers.
The problem is, it just doesn't work that way, even after level upon level... (Yes, I play Rangers; always). Oh well! I keep hoping the next version will be better... In every case (from Strategic Review, through 1e to 2e, to 3e), he just keeps geeting weaker and weaker...
Just give the Rogue Wilderness Lore and get it over with, already!
