Even the 3.5 ranger is a wimp

Sejs said:
Rangers. Use and love your bow. Use the advantages of the class - woodland stride. hunter's mercy. camoflage. loads of skill points. amazing outdoor mobility.

Question...I've seen this many places, but I don't know what "Hunter's Mercy" is. Is it a feat? A spell? Where is it found?

Thanks.

And in my experience, the ranger class is awesome right now. Not a powerhouse in toe-to-toe melee, but outstanding at scouting and hit-and-run fighting. I like it very much...
 

log in or register to remove this ad

3.5 Rangers

Quick question to all those people who have rangers that do really well in your campaigns, how many use the Archery path instead of the two weapon path, and how many of those who actually take the two weapon path are actually using two weapons (ie not a weapon and shield combo).

I have no doubt in my mind that Archery rangers do really well, extremely well in fact, the problem usaully lies with the two weapon users (who actually use two weapons, not a shield), two weapon fighting does not really work well with hit and run tactics, typically if you stick around long enough to actually get to use it, your enemy will get a full attack on you, not usaully the best of options for a character with low ac and a lower hit die.

Dontpunkme:
If you want to keep a melee type ranger in your campaign, bumping the hit die back to D10, problably won't ruin your campaign, the extra hit die typically won't effect the archery ranger (thier goal is never to be in a place to be hit anyway) but will help your melee rangers a little bit (typically one round or critical longer than before), but should be balanced with something else. Personally I handicap some of thier other abilities to offset the bonus of the higher hit die. I simply changed camoflage and hide in plain sight so that they only work when the ranger is wearing light or lighter armor, and thier combat style and swift tracking abilities so that they do not work if he is wearing any armor heavier than light or carrying a light load, this might not seem like a big deal at first, but that light load restriction can be big handicap, even to the archery guys, and it helped me achieve my vision of the ranger more acurately than the 3.5 version did. A tough, skilled woodsman, who wanders through the wilderness and is capable of surviving the various dangers on his own if he chooses.

It also helped to keep my least favorite ranger design away from the campaign. The archer pack mule. Essentially the Archer, never goes anywhere with out his trusty suit of really heavy armor (typically 40+ pounds) strapped to his back, when ever they are in wide open terrain, the Archer finds a place to snipe at the enemy (the whole time with the armor stapped to his back), any time they go into a more confined space (like a dungeon) he straps on his heavy armor since he won't be able to sit back and hit from afar any way, and the armor won't really affect the rest of his abilities, like using camoflage and swift tracking. I've seen it three times, from three separate players, in two separate groups, in two Different Cities (Fort Worth and Houston) which is sad since I've only DM'd five campaigns since 3.5, and two of them where after I made my changes.

I also allow a mounted combat style track, and a dodge, mobility spring attack track for a melee ranger who better utilizes the rest of the rangers class abilities.

Think about the Light load limitations to balance out the Hit die increase, it really is effective. A ranger with a 14 str won't be able to carry more than 58 pounds, thats a chain shirt, long sword, short sword, two daggers, a long bow and a quiver of 20 arrows, a traveller's outfit, with only 14 pounds to spare, doesn't leave a lot of room for treasure or other goodies (like magical items, I doubt your going to want to drop them so you will be able to fight better or use swft tracking, and even the lightest bag of holding is fifteen pounds).

Good luck, And personally I would have prefered the 3.5 rangers tag line to be a Skilled Survivor and Tracker (any one can hunt, but not everyone knows how to survive, and stalker makes him sound like..., well like a rogue).
 
Last edited:

knitnerd said:
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.

^
|

Good ranger.
 

JRRNeiklot said:
The problem lies in the fact that WOTC changed the ranger from a warrior to a rogue. I absolutely detest what they have done with the ranger, and have yet to see anyone play one, other than a level or two dip.
One or two level dip? Perhaps you're still playing 3.0?

I used an alt.ranger that was fundamentally identical to the 3.5 ranger, and none of my (three) ranger players stepped out of the class, except one who wanted a truly "savage" ranger and thus picked up barbarian levels. The class is just too good in 3.5 for a level dip.

The problem, really, lies with the TWF style. It wasn't part of the 1e ranger, and got folded in to the 2e ranger for what reason I can't imagine. (I must admit I liked the 1e ranger MUCH better than the 2e ranger, except for the silly two-hit-dice-at-first-level thing.) It simply makes no sense for a wilderness warrior or scout type; the use of an off-hand weapon in 3e mechanics terms is to deliver a devastating number of sneak attack or other extra-damage attacks in conjunction with a full attack, and historically, the use of TWF was to use the off-hand weapon to parry. Neither of these uses makes much sense for a wilderness fighter, and I think that the archery path happens to fit both thematically and mechanically with the ranger, which is maybe why the TWF path is so eschewed. Just my 2 cents...
 

The only thing that irks me about the new ranger is that players are given the opportunity to make a bad choice: Two-weapon fighting style.

The ranger was never great at melee, and now they are clearly inferior to fighters and barbarians in melee combat. The posters who say that the player is the problem are correct, but the design of the class leaves the door open to what I consider a poor choice for single class rangers.

But the game also has a myriad of poor choices available for other classes. Fighters can pick a lot of bad feats, wizards can choose weak spells...it's better to have lots of choices than not enough, and players have to be careful when making strategic decisions about their characters.

DM's should also consider being flexible and allowing players to redesign their characters from time to time. Would it really hurt to allow a fighter to change out a couple of feats, for a wizard to swap some spells, or a ranger to change from a two-weapon to an archery style?
 

ruleslawyer said:
One or two level dip? Perhaps you're still playing 3.0?

I used an alt.ranger that was fundamentally identical to the 3.5 ranger, and none of my (three) ranger players stepped out of the class, except one who wanted a truly "savage" ranger and thus picked up barbarian levels. The class is just too good in 3.5 for a level dip.

The problem, really, lies with the TWF style. It wasn't part of the 1e ranger, and got folded in to the 2e ranger for what reason I can't imagine. (I must admit I liked the 1e ranger MUCH better than the 2e ranger, except for the silly two-hit-dice-at-first-level thing.) It simply makes no sense for a wilderness warrior or scout type; the use of an off-hand weapon in 3e mechanics terms is to deliver a devastating number of sneak attack or other extra-damage attacks in conjunction with a full attack, and historically, the use of TWF was to use the off-hand weapon to parry. Neither of these uses makes much sense for a wilderness fighter, and I think that the archery path happens to fit both thematically and mechanically with the ranger, which is maybe why the TWF path is so eschewed. Just my 2 cents...

Actually, I'm playing 3.11 for workgroups. :-)

The 2 hit dice at first level was because rangers are tough. They are not scouts, nor are they wilderness rogues. They are warriors first and foremost. They learn spells due to their intimate familiarity with nature. They gain magic user spells because they are also scholars. The only thing setting them apart from fighters should be feats. And they should make up for this with their spells, and against monstrous humanoids (orcs, etc) they should put the fighter to shame. Against all others, the fighter should be better, but only slightly. The ranger should be equal to the barbarian and paladin in combat. All this wilderness rogue, scout crap just makes me sick.

The 1e ranger got it right, ever since then he's been slowly rogueified. As someone else said, the ranger as he stands now has no place in D&D. He is a fighter/rogue hybrid that can't fight well, and can't do rogue things well. Sure, he can sneak up on someone, but surprise without sneak attack dice is hardly worth it. There is already a very serviceable rogue, no need in forcing that role on one who was formerly a warrior.


This is, of course, all my opinion only, if you want your ranger to be a second rate fighter or second rate rogue, go right ahead.
 

I'm playing a Ranger 6/Windrider 2, and while slightly "crunchy" he is NOT usually one of the characters who gets knocked unconscious in combat. That's one of the side effects of using a bow when there are front-line fighters around.

He's a real generalist, in the sense that I went with a two-handed sword and Power Attack for his melee weapon, and I took the Archery tree, and then I took Mounted Combat and have a very tough warhorse[1]. Although his archery is somewhat hampered by not having Precise Shot, Rapid Shot is particularly useful on its own, he can do reasonable damage in melee, and fighting on horseback is pretty good.

If you wish that the ranger still had a d10 hit die, then I have one thing to suggest: take Improved Toughness. The +1 hit point per level will raise the character's hit die to the same average as a d10.

I'm very glad that I got Quick Draw, though. In a typical outdoor battle, he'll probably start by casting Entangle, fire a bit with his bow, drop that, pull out the lance, charge, and finally draw the greatsword and start chopping away, along with getting his horse to attack and his wolf to circle around for flanking.

[1] Although not, actually, his animal companion. My GM let me get a higher-HD heavy warhorse to begin with, at a higher cost in gold, and then he got the boost from Windrider. The menagerie is completed with a wolf, and a hawk which never gets used in combat.
 
Last edited:

Yeah sneakiness is nice, but unfortunately the one DM hardly even lets players try to hide. Creatures tend to somehow have unlimited vision at all times (don't ask me how, but there's always a natural 20 spot check even though my elven vision sees this orc at 120 feet, the orc and his 60 foot darkvision sees me about 180 at night because one DM insists on taking nothing straight from the book). Like opportunities for ambush are usually nullified by the a spell barrage from the sorceror and the barbarian charging while raging. Because of their loud actions the rangers and rogues are consistently spotted. So hit and run consists of hitting a creature while taking a AOA. And then the ranger has to take a shot from some munchkined up ogre, giant, orc or whatever else will give the DM a pair of challenge rating 12's.
 

beepeearr said:
I have no doubt in my mind that Archery rangers do really well, extremely well in fact, the problem usaully lies with the two weapon users (who actually use two weapons, not a shield), two weapon fighting does not really work well with hit and run tactics, typically if you stick around long enough to actually get to use it, your enemy will get a full attack on you, not usaully the best of options for a character with low ac and a lower hit die.

Two-Weapon Defense would be a no-brainer if you wanted to go the TWF melee route, and that makes up for it a little.
 

Mouseferatu said:
Interesting. I've found the opposite to be true. I think someone's played a ranger in well over half of all 3.5 games I've ever seen, and they've been extremely effective. The only time that wasn't the case was the one campaign where he was the only combat type, and so behaved like a front-line fighter. When used as a scout/hunter/skirmish fighter/ambushers/archer/tracker, they're absolutely spot-on.

Ditto, I finallt had a plyer take more than 2 levels of ranger, he plans to take ranger all the way, as a dex based 2 weapon fighter. He has been getting an awful lot of use from Spring Attack and Mobility.

The Auld Grump
 

Remove ads

Top