NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BiggusGeekus@Work" data-source="post: 835456" data-attributes="member: 7828">Ah!  A ranger thread!  I've responded to so many of these I made a webpage for it so I could cut-n-paste!<a href="http://www.murchadslegacy.com/rantranger.htm" target="_blank">http://www.murchadslegacy.com/rantranger.htm</a>....After two years I have read exactly eight million and six on-line discussions about rangers.  I have heard over and over how much other people feel that rangers are awful.  I disagree.  Rangers are a perfectly fine class.  But for some reason, people keep comparing the ranger to a fighter!  Why?  In a stand-up fight a ranger will lose to most classes BUT the point of being a ranger is to insure the fight is not stand-up to begin with! Rangers are the only class outside of rogue and monk that get Hide and Sneak as class skills. Rangers get summon spells. Rangers get polymorph self. So a ranger can hide, summon some critters to outflank an opponent, and melee the opponent down (they can also turn into something nasty if needed). Remember also that as long as a spell is on the spell list, a given class can use items that produce that effect. A first level ranger can use a monster summoning wand or scroll just as well as a wizard ... AND they can do it all in armor because their spells are divine, not arcane. Plus, after the fight he can heal up a little bit before heading back to town. The common complaints I hear about rangers are: "One of the ranger's minor abilities isn't as good as another class' major ability!"   An example would be the ranger's heals versus a cleric's heals.  Of the healing classes, rangers are the worst at the job.  But for some reason people project this as a reason why rangers are lousy as opposed to an ability they have in the first place.  Sure the cleric, paladin, and bard are better healers.  But what happens when the party cleric is out of commission?  Who's going to heal then?  The barbarian?   Saying that one or two classes are better at something than the ranger doesn't mean a darn thing.  The ranger still has the ability and the character can still use it. "My ranger isn't as good in melee as the fighter!" Well, that's not surprising.  The fighter is geared around (guess what?) fighting while the ranger is generalized.  The fighter vs. the ranger is a trade-in of eleven feats for 46 skill points, four levels of spell ability, and five favored enemies (which is worth about the same as a feat).  So the ranger is far more versatile.  Granted, in a hack-n-slash campaign those abilities are not in play as often.  But again, we're comparing a highly specialized character class (fighter) against a jack-of-all trades (ranger) and surprise, surprise the fighter is better at his specialty.  If you're having this problem: stop playing your ranger like a fighter!  Sure, you don't get a rogue's sneak attack ability, but you can hide and sneak around an opponent to outflank without drawing an Attack of Opportunity (because the bad guy doesn't know  you're there).  You can cast a spell to hinder an enemy and then close with the enemy to engage him.  There are lots of options that the fighter doesn't have.  Also, for some reason I keep hearing about rangers who use two longswords in combat.  Guys, you'll hit more often if you use a shortsword in your off-hand.  Also, a shield counts as a light weapon.  Shield-bashing is great against weaker opponents that you just want to carve through and you have the shield equipped when you need that higher AC against the tougher foes. "Favored enemy is no good!" A +1 bonus to Bluff,  Listen, Sense Motive, Spot, and Wilderness Lore is no good?  Sure if you make sure to pick an enemy that the DM never uses in his game.  One may as well say that a cleric's ability to turn undead is no good if the DM doesn't have any undead in his game.  If a campaign doesn't have a theme, taking human or elf as an enemy is a good guideline because humans and elves are pretty common in most games and your basically getting some free skill points out of the deal.  But if a campaign has a theme (e.g. Murchad's Legacy) this should be a no-brainer.  I mean, what ranger wouldn't take orc as a favored enemy in Murchad's Legacy? "Bows have a lower damage output than melee!" Right.  Because bows are used from 30 feet away, can instantly re-target without the character having to move around, can attack enemy spellcasters who are hiding behind their minions, and can be used against flying creatures.  Next. "The core rule's version of a ranger doesn't fit my concept of a ranger!" The core rules version of a druid doesn't fit my concept of a druid.  The core rules version of a cleric doesn't fit my concept of a cleric.  The core rules version of a bard doesn't fit my concept of a bard.  You don't see me complaining.  If your concept of a 20th level ranger is the equivalent of a Fighter10/Rogue9/Druid1 then that's what you should play.  The strength of the 3rd edition rules is that they are much more flexible than the older versions.  That flexibility should be used. "The older versions of the ranger were better!" Well, the older version of the ranger depended on good die rolls at character creation.  That was removed from 3rd edition and for good reason.  If two people are playing and one guy gets good die rolls, why reward that player with even more options?  The guy who rolls well is already going to be better off!  The older version of the ranger (and for that matter the paladin and other classes) rewarded people who got lucky in the first place and the people who didn't roll well were stuck with classes they may not have wanted to play.  Well, until Skills & Powers came out and then everyone was godlike at first level. "But everyone says rangers suck!" Everyone is repeating what they've heard rather than reach their own opinion.  Everyone is having their ranger charge headlong into combat next to the fighters.  Everyone has DMs that never include a creature type in their game once the ranger chooses it for a favored enemy.  Everyone who plays a ranger only takes healing spells for their spell list and then is surprised when the cleric does the healing.  Everyone who plays a ranger doesn't use the magic items available to them based on their spell list.  In other words, everyone is playing a ranger like a fighter and letting the DM push their character into a corner.   Everyone is wrong.  The ranger is a great class.</blockquote>

Verification