Even the 3.5 ranger is a wimp

[Zaruthustran]

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.
...

My current character took a two level dip. For two levels he got:

2d8 hp
+2 BAB
+3 Fort and +3 Reflex
Track, Wild Empathy, Favored enemy: human, Rapid Shot
A ton of skills

That's a nice trade for a sneaky stalker character like mine. His other levels are Rogue 3, Fighter 2, Shadowdancer 2. It works--frighteningly well. Spring Attack is very scary when combined with Hide in Plain Sight and Sneak Attack. Against an opponent not tweaked for Spot it basically means every attack is a sneak attack, with no chance of retribution since you're effectively invisible and at least 20 feet away.

-z

 

[Prince of Happiness]

I've created my 3.5 ranger as a guerrilla-type fighter, based off of the Byzantine thema soldier/militia. They performed hit and run actions against invading armies, ambushes and supply line attacks in the Byzantine wilderness (usually Anatolia/modern-day Turkey which is pretty mountainous and arid), until the invading army was approaching a battlefield of their choosing. They'd gather, armor up and engage in a more-or-less set piece battle.

How does this apply to my ranger? Well, obviously since you're working in frontier/outdoor territory, the need for extended excursions in said land requires survival skills. Since you're setting up hit and run tactics, you need speed and with light armor, skill points to throw into Ride, and woodland stride (or whatever terrain, if your DM says it's ok), you've got speed. Since you're setting up ambushes and you need to be effective, you need a good BAB to make sure that the shots you're getting in count. Obviously the bow fighting specialization is key. The Rangers I play are warriors, just not in the traditional Northern European sense.

 

[Zaruthustran]

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.

Well, if your DM flat-out cheats... there's not much you can do.

So if you can't beat em, join em. Just remember that TWF does not necessarily mean "a weapon in each hand". It means "two weapon fighting".

Start taking levels in fighter or barbarian and lay down the hurt. Use a two-handed weapon and armor spikes as your TWF weapons. You'll get x1.5 Str and x2 Power Attack benefits on the two-handed weapon, plus a bonus kick, knee, or elbow with your armor spikes. Enchant the armor spikes with the Flaming ability for maximum "I'm a scary melee death monster!!! See me slay!!! AAAHAAARHG!" effect. For the big weapon, use a frost greataxe as a token nod to your hippie ranger roots: "Fire and ice, man--it's, like, all balanced and natural and stuff."

You'll fit right in with your maniacal buddies and, thanks to the extra armor spikes attack from TWF, probably out-damage them.

-z

 

[Sanackranib]

it sounds like the player playing the ranger did himself a dis-service. rangers have a good bab, good saves and spells. if you need to be in the front line then you must think as a rogue - dont get hit, not as a barbarian - absorb the damage. get the items / feats and spells to boost your armor class, or multiclass as a rogue for a few levels and get the added sneek attack damage. since I usually DM I havent had the chance to run a strait ranger yet but I have run the ranger/rogue and ranger/druid combos. in both cases I was the most dangerous character the party had (I got both characters up to @ 6th level in different games.
DO NOT OVERLOOK THE RANGERS SPELL ABILITIES WITH WANDS! remember if its on your spell list you can use the wands and scrolls.
think like a rogue!!! you hit well so use those weapons that have a lower crit number like scimitars or rapiers. and get the rogue to be your flanking buddy. flanks and other combat tactics can make ALL the difference. but if you go in with the im a tank philophy then even your barbarian will have a "short" carrear

 

[S'mon]

Strider is of course the archetypal Ranger.

Nothing wrong with a skill-using Ranger who's also good in combat, I'm sure going back to a d10 hit die wouldn't overpower them. For that matter I feel Rogues are also underpowered, full BAB would help make them more Grey-Mouserish. If I implemented this I'd give Fighters 4 skill points/level, their complete lack of skills makes them rather uninteresting. None of that would overpower these classes relative to the spellcasting ones, I think, though I tend to think Wizards & Sorcs ought to have more skill points too. Clerics are already overpowered, but nerfing their spellcasting in return for more skill points would be ok...

 

[Darklone]

I'm playing in a pretty nice hack&slash dungeoncrawl against undeads game with two rangers as frontliners. My dude started with two levels barbarian, wields a bastard sword and sometimes a dagger. For standard actions, he moves into flanking positions and wields the bastard twohanded, in case of full attack actions he draws a dagger and lays the hurt on the opponent. The other guy is a daggermaster. We get hurt a lot but we keep the rest of the softbodies in the group alive.

If there is a problem with the ranger, it's as mentioned the inferiority of TWF style fighters. Anything else is a tactical problem of the player.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

I prefer the Wildlander class from the Midnight CSB to any of the WOTC Rangers. The Wildlander has no magical ability but they are a much better "Ranger" than any other class due to the additional non-magical abilities that they have to make up for it.

 

[S'mon]

I prefer the Wildlander class from the Midnight CSB to any of the WOTC Rangers. The Wildlander has no magical ability but they are a much better "Ranger" than any other class due to the additional non-magical abilities that they have to make up for it.

Wildlander is a very weak class, though a Wildlander/Channeler in our campaign is pretty awesome, power-wise.

 

[Klaus]

In my 3-PC party, the Ranger 11 is the damage dealer. Between 2-weapon fighting (+1 ghost touch longsword and +1 flaming adamantine longsword), Improved Critical (longsword) and a belt of giant strength (pumps the Str to 20), he can dish out enormous damage. Specially if he wins initiative or sneaks up to a foe along with the rogue/wizard/battledancer. As for armor, he wears a darkleaf breastplate (substitute for mithril breastplate as needed), pumping his AC to 23-ish. And his dire wolf animal companion isn't too shabby on the combat either.

So I fail to see the ranger's weakness...

 

[Cerubus Dark]

And what would the Paladin and Barbarian then get?

A lovely fruit basket?