Even the 3.5 ranger is a wimp

[ForceUser]

1 cleric/11 ranger-archer in my party is disgustingly potent. But I agree on the general sentiment regarding TWF rangers...they are not frontline fighters & have no business being the first guy into the fray. I suggest playing them like a rogue in melee.

 

[Fiendish Dire Weasel]

The 3.5 Ranger is a solid class, absolutley amazing if you spend a lot of time in the wilderness. Even outside of the wilderness they don't do too badly. If your rangers are having a hard time it's either due to the player, the group and/or the DM, it's not a fault of the class.

The problems with the two-weapon fighting tree tends to be more from a lot of players not knowing how to use it to their advantage more than it be worthless. With some good design it can do well for you, though it still is probably one of the weaker fighting styles in the game.

If your rangers are struggling, take them off the front line, get them on the archery feat path and they should do much better.

 

[Sejs]

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.

No problem. Hunter's Mercy is a spell, found in the Player's Guide to Faerun (though it's also been printed in other places before that; I just can't remember where atm). It's a 1st level ranger spell, that's basically Ranger True Strike. It makes your next attack with a ranged weapon automatically threaten a critical hit, which you have to confirm as normal.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I've played a couple of ranger in 3.5, and overseen (as DM) several more. Even the TWF ranger didn't suck too much; he went with a breastplate, low Dex and used a two-bladed sword.

The ranger I'm currently playing is 4th-level and took archery (on the grounds that TWF really sucks at low levels compared to archery). He also has a finessed short sword for combat with humanoids and a spear for combat with boars and the like. He's the only party member who hasn't fallen unconscious, and I've had multiple opportunities to use his unique skills. Heck, he's so tough he deliberately provided cover for hostages* when a lot of fighter-types were available. Plus, I've been given the "Terminator" designation for the only one to make it through the acid-pit combat plus my good attack bonus

Aragorn isn't tough (he never gets hit, suggesting a high Dex and class bonus to Defense), and Faramir was practically a wimp, so there's little in Tolkien's works that indicate that rangers are somehow tough. Perhaps you're thinking of the Endurance feat?

If you were to remove the magic from the ranger class you could easily replicate Aragorn and Faramir with them.

* By hostages, I mean lamp oil. We were on a wagon, with lots of lamp oil, and an evil ranger was shooting at the lamp oil with flaming arrows. She was an accurate shot...

 

[ForceUser]

I've played a couple of ranger in 3.5, and overseen (as DM) several more. Even the TWF ranger didn't suck too much; he went with a breastplate, low Dex and used a two-bladed sword.

A breastplate is medium armor, sir. A ranger would lose his virtual feats in anything heavier than light armor. Were you guys using a house rule?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

A breastplate is medium armor, sir. A ranger would lose his virtual feats in anything heavier than light armor. Were you guys using a house rule?

I think he was using mithral (it was either that or adamantine, but I'm pretty sure it was mithral). A mithral breastplate has a pretty good ACP.

Having said that, I've seen claims that mithral doesn't really make armor take a lower category. Oh well, a chain shirt provides one point of AC less, which isn't that massive.

 

[LurkerFreak]

Bracers of Armour (No max dex or check penalty), owl animal companion and the biggest, nastiest quarterstaff you can get. Have your poor, confused enemy wondering why he is being charged my a magic user then open up with the large magical lump of wood. Extra buffing on the staff (Impact, Bane etc.) is just extra hurty goodness.

 

[ForceUser]

Bracers of Armour (No max dex or check penalty), owl animal companion and the biggest, nastiest quarterstaff you can get. Have your poor, confused enemy wondering why he is being charged my a magic user then open up with the large magical lump of wood. Extra buffing on the staff (Impact, Bane etc.) is just extra hurty goodness.

Quarterstaff ranger is on my short list of character concepts. The staff fighter has never been explored among my friends.

 

[Kelleris]

In my games we allow a TWFer to make two attacks as a standard action, which makes them more useful when you have skirmish-y sorts of characters. What TWF rangers are best at, though, is fighting favored enemies - with a +2 or greater bonus on all damage rolls and 2x the normal number of attacks (and, at 6th level or better, more attacks than you can achieve with Rapid Shot), the damage adds up quickly.

Has anyone ever tried a cavalryman TWF ranger? Guiding a warmount is a free action, so you could move and attack much more easily than someone on foot.

 

[Ancalagon]

2 coments:

Of course, the ranger is an inferior warrior when compared to the fighter... but he is, overall, a much better ADVENTURER. He's incredibly versatile, and I find he can hold his own in melee combat. Having d8 instead of d10 is only the equivalent of having a con score of 2 lower...

About Aragorn. Don't forget he's about oh what, 70, 90 years old? He's been adventuring for DECADES. Of course he can do all that as a 3.5 ranger, he's level 27 or something! He's also extremely rangery in the book I found.

Ancalagon