Even the 3.5 ranger is a wimp

[wysiwyg]

If the original poster is looking for a more combat-heavy ranger, there's no reason to just go bumping his hit dice and then trying to change other classes to make up for it. Just go back to the 3.0 version of the ranger, which was less skilled but more of a fighter. It's simple, and it's already more or less balanced with the other classes as-is.

You took the words out of my mouth.

That being said, I must say that I only play a 3.5 ranger. IMHO, he's the best multi-faceted class out there - the best skills, combat, saves & relatively good hps & the cherry of spells on top.

Also, he's the best when it comes to using the Survival & Track skills - one of the most useful skills in the book: who has been here recently? how many of em? how long ago? where are they heading? how fast? Not to mention a food finder when all the rations are running out.

 

[rangerjohn]

As is I don't see the need for ranger. It is sad to say that, but as been said rangers are just wilderness rouges. As written thier set up for the ambush attack, Hide and Move Silent skills, even getting hide in plain sight, but not able to use sneak attack to take advantage of it.

 

[knitnerd]

Stop playing your rangers like fighters!!!!

Put some points into the sneaky skills people!

I am a beginner but my ranger has reached eleventh level. You don't see her unless she wants to be seen. She cripples enemies from a distance and lets the dwarf and the barbarian finish them off.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Been playing rangers since 1st Ed- I love 'em. A goodly number of my D&D PCs take at least a couple levels in the class.

Don't have a survivability problem with them, either. When I go for a 2WF style rgr, I favor using the shield as my off hand weapon or some kind of entangling weapon as my primary weapon.

Rangers should be considered to be 2nd rank fighters or really tough scouts, not toe-to-toe sluggers.

If you must go into a situation where your ranger must be used as a front line fighter, USE HEAVY ARMOR! Sure, you'll lose some of the nifty abilities-but you'll keep him alive until the next encounter.

 

[Zaruthustran]

I think the biggest problem that people have a hard time understanding was created by LoTR...Strider...that's a Ranger! Look at him jump into the fray, slash, hack, kill, kill, KILL!!! I've even heard it said specifically that Strider was a Ranger.

Is this a joke post? Or a troll? I mean, of course Strider was a Ranger.

The question is, is the D&D Ranger a Ranger?

-z

PS: in your example above, one could build a D&D Ranger based off the movie's Strider by choosing favored enemy: orc and having Aragorn choose as his TWF weapons a bastard sword (often w/ two hands) + improved unarmed strike--just like in the movie.

 

[Zaruthustran]

The rangers used hit and run tactics and seam to get cleanup bad news on the AOA. Eventually most the rangers get stuck in front line roles because the parties tend to have one barbarian and too many spellcasters.

If I do bump up the ranger hit dice I'll probably change the fighter to get a free feat at every level after 10th.

As others have said: the problem is your Ranger player, not the Ranger itself.

If all the ranger does is retreat then there's no AoO. If the party needs frontline fighters then all those spellcasters should start casting Summon Monster spells.

Rangers are not tanks. They don't have the AC, unless you specifically build for AC. Like this:

2nd level human ranger
28 point buy
Str 14 Dex 14 Con 14 Int 14 Wis 12 Cha 8

Feats: Dodge, Combat Expertise (Track, Wild Empathy, Two Weapon Fighting, Favored enemy: human)
Equipment: Chain Shirt, large spiked shield, armor spikes, scimitar.
AC: 18 (19 w/dodge)

That's not bad for frontline. He can TWF with his armor spikes and his sword, while retaining his shield bonus. And if he needs to he can convert his +2 BAB into more armor class. If he choses to go that route, then he should use the Aid Other action to give his brawny fighter or barbarian friend a +2 to-hit.

-z

 

[Ogre Mage]

I think a two-weapon fighting ranger works best when multiclassed with rogue. You HP will be even less, but as long as you have a fighter or barb to set up flanking opportunities, you will deal out massive amounts of damage.

 

[zepherus]

Sorry, since the title of the thread was about 3.5 rangers, I thought the meaning was implied, but I can see how someone might confuse my statement.

Strider is not a 3.5 Ranger. And yes, you can build up a 3.5 Ranger to be "Strider-esque", but I think alot of people assume "low level 3.5 Ranger" = "Strider", and it just isn't.

Sorry for the confusion!

Zeph

Is this a joke post? Or a troll? I mean, of course Strider was a Ranger.

The question is, is the D&D Ranger a Ranger?

-z

PS: in your example above, one could build a D&D Ranger based off the movie's Strider by choosing favored enemy: orc and having Aragorn choose as his TWF weapons a bastard sword (often w/ two hands) + improved unarmed strike--just like in the movie.

 

[zepherus]

As a followup, I should have put in the previous post that I watched this very incident happen in one of my games. Ranger thought he was a fighter...he's now fertilzing the soil in his favorite forest.

3.5 Rangers are not what they used to be. As I said before...Rogues of the forest.

Sorry, since the title of the thread was about 3.5 rangers, I thought the meaning was implied, but I can see how someone might confuse my statement.

Strider is not a 3.5 Ranger. And yes, you can build up a 3.5 Ranger to be "Strider-esque", but I think alot of people assume "low level 3.5 Ranger" = "Strider", and it just isn't.

Sorry for the confusion!

Zeph

 

[Ranger REG]

Wilderness Rogue, Scout, Hunter, Druidic Circle's militant arms...

But definitely not tanks. If you want to play tank, take a paladin or a fighter ... or that ridiculously named Samurai class in Complete Warrior.