I hear Rangers suck. Is this true?

[Henry]

First of all, some of us are getting too off-topic. According to Psyduck, ONLY the PHB and Masters of the Wild are allowed.

For 10th level, a ranger can compete quite well, even with the existing abilities.

By 10th level, you can easily have two melee weapons enchanted with additional dice damage effects (such as fire or frost or shock). extra dice of damage on your weapons makes two-weapon style more effective.

Look at the other party makeup; will you need to be a front-line fighter? or can you afford to hold back for missile use?

Front-line? Start with either human or elf. Elves get you many bonuses that synchronize with a ranger, and for humans the extra feat ans skills cannot be underestimated. Add power attack as soon as possible, and give yourself as high a strength and dexterity as you can manage. Pump up the following skills: Move silent, hide, spot, listen and wilderness lore.

Back-line? Be a gnomish or (better) Halfling ranger. Take levels of the Deepwood sniper class from MotW as early as possible. You can become an unholy terror with a bow.

FRONT LINE: stick with something like a longsword/shortsword or a battle axe/dagger combo. Add enhancements of fire or shock to both weapons. If the opponent is of a low AC, stick with one medium sized weapon, double-grip it, and beat the tar out of them. NEVER use two weapons against anything that has an AC so low you need less than a 40% chance to hit it. (You can usually figure this out within one or two rounds.) Work with any party rogues to establish flanking for them.

BACK-LINEeepwood sniper by itself will take care of you as it rises in levels. Just invest in the most powerful bow and arrow you can get hold of that you can use, and in your hide and move silent skills.


Here's an idea I've been wanting to try since February:
Half-orc Ranger 4 / Rogue 3 / Barbarian 3, heavily feat-invested in two flaming shortswords, and begin taking levels of Tempest Prestige class. All I'd need is to flank (easy with barbarian move and tumble), and I'd be rolling so many d6's it would be a like a touch-ranged fireball.

Good luck, Psyduck! (Hey, that rhymes!)

 

[Voadam]

Frostmarrow,

Doesn't favored terrain give you bonuses on your wilderness lore, move silent and hide in your terrain? From a flavor perspective I think it makes sense that the woodsman knows how to move and track in the woods but might not be as good in a city. The rangers niche is supposed to be wilderness, having their class abilities reflect that makes sense to me. It might not be optimized for dungeon or city adventuring but I still think it is valid for the ranger concept.

For an urban version see Malls and Morons.

 

[Voadam]

I second the choices of bastard sword and quickdraw as good feats, plus improved two weapon. Going two handed to two weapon depending upon your foe and situation is a good option.

The straight ranger with wands is also a good choice for increasing the ranger's utility.

 

[Macbrea]

I think if I was going to create a ranger at this point he would look something like:

Myr, M Half-Elf Ranger10 CR 10; Size:M Type Humanoid; HD (10d10)+20; hp 96; Init +3 (+3 Dex, +0 Misc); Spd Walk 30'; AC 13 (flatfooted 10, touch 13), / ( /x ) or ; SA: Elven Blood,Immunity to sleep,save +2 vs enchantment spells,Favored Enemy(Human +3),Favored Enemy(Aberration +2),Favored Enemy(Magical beast +1); Vision: Low-light AL: CG; Sv: Fort +9, Ref +6, Will +5; Str 14, Dex 17, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 14, Cha 9

Skills and Feats: Climb +7, Heal +3, Hide +10, Jump +7, Listen +6, Move Silently +10, Search +3, Spot +8, Swim +10, Tumble +5, Wilderness Lore +10; Ambidexterity,Armor Proficiency (Light) (1x),Armor Proficiency (Medium) (1x),Improved Shield Bash,Improved Two-Weapon Fighting,Martial Weapon Proficiency,Power Attack,Shield Expert,Shield Proficiency,Simple Weapon Proficiency,Track,Two-Weapon Fighting


Basicly using a longsword and large shield as my primary weapons and Composite longbow as my secondary weapon. Granted a DM could run a game with no humans, Aberants or Magic beasts but I have a feeling that would really limit his choices of creatures.

 

[Christian]

Is the DM letting you buy magical equipment with the starting gold from the DMG tables? I highly recommend a mithril magic breastplate for armor ... If you want to use TWF, you should (a) be sure to take the Improved TWF feat for you 9th level feat, and (b) be sure to have a magic secondary weapon (ideally a small spiked shield with bonuses on both the shield and the spike). The TWF won't be particulary useful at that level otherwise. That said, you're probably better off pretty much ignoring the TWF ability ...

If you have any idea about the campaign theme, keep that in mind when choosing your favored enemies. If you're primarily interested in min/maxing, there's nothing stopping you from taking, say, demons as your +3 favored enemy, even though it wouldn't make sense to have taken that at 1st level when building the character from the start ...

As has probably been stated, for a scout-type Ranger, it doesn't hurt at all to take a level or three of Rogue. A Rog3/Rgr7 is definitely a superior scout and sniper to a straight Rgr10. The only real issue with that is if you were really into the 2nd level Ranger spells, in which case you may want to go with Rog2/Rgr8 or Rog1/Rgr9. (But I would personally go with Rog3/Rgr7-the 2nd level Rogue ability is Evasion, and at 3rd you get Uncanny Dodge, and these two abilities are very handy for keeping you alive in your light armor. Not to mention the second d6 of sneak attack as a 3rd level Rogue ...)

 

[Frostmarrow]

Frostmarrow,

Doesn't favored terrain give you bonuses on your wilderness lore, move silent and hide in your terrain? From a flavor perspective I think it makes sense that the woodsman knows how to move and track in the woods but might not be as good in a city. The rangers niche is supposed to be wilderness, having their class abilities reflect that makes sense to me. It might not be optimized for dungeon or city adventuring but I still think it is valid for the ranger concept.

For an urban version see Malls and Morons.

I agree that it could be nice with FT from a flavor perspective but I don't see why we can't have flavor without it. For me the ranger concept should include things like ranged weapons, ability to track, almost supernatural senses and an uncanny ability to survive even the harshest conditions. I see the ranger as a rugged outdoors-man who possess abilities honed in the wild that will astound city people. A ranger should be an expert at performing feats with relatively modest resources. A ranger in my mind is swift and deadly (guerilla style) in a war but professional and to the point when hunting.

For me the flavor of the ranger is what he knows and how it can apply in civilized territory as well. I don't like the idea of a person suddenly becoming radically worse at hiding, for example, just because he is standing behind a dumpster rather than a big rock. As I mentioned above; no one would suggest that a rogue should become better in a city than in a dungeon so why should the ranger be treated this way? In a medieval society the wilderness might be considered the norm rather than city life.

Moreover FT is not just. If a ranger has FT (forest) and the entire campaign takes place in a forest that ranger is at his best all the time. If another ranger is whisked away by the whim of a DM and has to make his way in a series of dungeons, that ranger is never going to be at his best. If we compare this with the fighter we see that a fighter is always at his best. There is always going to be use for a character who knows how to defeat monsters. It doesn't matter if we are going to fight knee deep in mud or on an arena floor - all fighters will always be equally useful. This is not the case with the ranger with FT. It's like creating a fighter who specializes in greatsword and later learn that the greatsword factory has gone chapter eleven.

Well, to each his own. If you think FT is a good addition to the ranger you should use it. I think Crocodile Dundee is a good example of a ranger. Dundee can survive on roots in the outback for years and is a marksman with ranged weapons. He can use a knife, a can or a rifle with the same unerring accuracy. He hears or spot things before others do, even though Dundee himself exaggerates this ability a bit. His skills are equally valuable in the NY subway as on his walkabout.

 

[Psyduck]

Thanks for all of the input. Sorry it took so long to respond....

I guess I'll talk to the group and see if they need a missle warrior or a front liner. I won't tell them that I'm a ranger, just a warrior type. Let's see if they can figure it out.

I like the idea of the shield expert feat. My DM is using anything that says "Dungeons and Dragons" on the cover i e all 3rd edition d&d stuff, so sword and fist would apply, too. Sorry if I was a bit vague or confusing.

Anyone have any helpful animal companions? I was thinking of having one aid me in battle, and give me a +2 competence to attack, negating my penalty for twf

 

[Tarin Greenflame]

I'd steer clear of that Ambi/TWF-combo. It's just too much of a hassle to switch from longbow to two weapons. Even with Quick Draw it takes 1 round. First you draw one weapon as part of movement and then you draw one weapon for free. In the first round you have already lost one attack. On the other hand if you carry a greatsword you can wait until the bad guys charge you and draw your greatsword for free and then whack them with a full round attack action. For even more punch you pick Hold the Line instead of any of those two weapon boosting feats.

Um, just wanted to bring this up...can't you quick draw as many times as you want per round? Thus drawing two weapons in the same round for TWF would have no such penalty, nor would throwing weapons using multiple attacks (you would need quickdraw to throw daggers/throwing axes/shuriken etc. more than once a round).

 

[Ron]

Hi Ron

You'll have to excuse me but I never understood why a ranger should get Favored Terrain from a gameplay point of view. Naturally, I understand that it's appropriate from a real world perspective but in an adventure game I simply don't get it. I mean, no one is going to suggest that a rogue's ability to disarm traps should be better in furnished rooms than in a natural cave. Moreover, if one we're to introduce FT instead of Favored Enemy we end up in the same position. I.e the DM will decide when we get to use it.

One other thing about FT and it's various incarnations I've seen on the net is that 'Dungeon' is never an alternative. We can always choose between arctic and desert but we can't pick city or dungeon. This is rather strange since most adventuring in 3ed is done in dungeons. Remember the motto of the edition is "Back to the dungeon". Perhaps the reason for dungeon to be omitted is that all rangers would pick it if it was available.

Oh. I don't mean to be all negative, I like reading about the ranger and terrain is an obvious sub-topic. If you like FT go for it but I don't think it makes for a better ranger than the one we've got.

Hi Frostmarrow,

Well, I can see from your post that at least you agree with me that FT makes more sense in a real world perspective. Although I am not into very detailed pseudorealistic games, I think that making sense in a real world perspective a quality every game should go for.

Considering your gamewise view. You can always choose underground as FT to help with this kind of adventure. However, you should notice that rangers, in any kind of game, should shine only when the party is outdoors. As such, FT is a pretty good addition. You should remember that a party should go into a limited diversity of terrains.

"Return to the dungeons" may be WotC motto for third edition, but, by all means, I don't believe that this implies that they are sugesting to limit adventures to dungeons. If so, they would have dropped the druid and the ranger.

 

[hong]

This thread is FAR too well-mannered for a ranger thread. Lift your game, people!