Is the 3.5e Ranger yours?

[Steverooo]

Without multiclassing and/or Prestige Classing, but with the proper Feat & Skill selections, is the 3.5e Ranger your idea of a Ranger, or not? (Please, no "The Ranger shouldn't be a core class", etc., posts!)

 

[BiggusGeekus@Work]

I think its safe to say the Woodsman from Wheel of Time RPG is my idea of a ragner. That said, I thought the 3.0 ranger was perfectly fine and the 3.5 ranger is great.

And note: I'm a guy who doesn't like the WoT game.

 

[Mercule]

Nah. I'd rather play a 3.5 Ranger than a 3.0 Ranger, but I don't really consider either one to represent Rangerhood particularly well.

This is mainly because I don't consider the Ranger to be to Druid what Paladin is to Cleric. I don't see it in that relation to any class, but if I had to categorize it, I'd say it should relate more to Wizard.

Besides that issue, I think the Ranger should be slightly tougher than the Fighter. Not necessarily Barbarian-tough, but just a bit hardier. Thus, the d8 HD disqualifies the 3.5 version from being a true Ranger, IMO, but I wouldn't advocate a d12 unless someone said, "You can use any die for Ranger except a d10."

Also, I'd like to slap whoever decided that Rangers needed TWF. I see absolutely no correlation between being a skirmisher and borderlander and fighting with both hands. I don't mind the idea that any specific Ranger might use TWF, but it shouldn't be any more common than, say, TWF Rogues. It definitely shouldn't even be available as a class ability. Rangers can take the feats like anyone else.

I can see some rationale to the bow style, but not enough that I think it should be forced. For the combat path mechanic, it's a fair option.

I'd also include a path for the scout. It would include Alertness and some other feats. A horseman path would be good, too.

My Ranger would look just enough like the Barbarian that both classes wouldn't be necessary, but Barbarian would be a groovy PrC aimed at the Ranger.

So, tough, lightly armoured, fast, good in the wilds and with critters, good at combat but not as good as a Fighter, stealthy, light arcane spells. And cunning, but there are no mechanics for that. Favored enemy optional, but I'd probably keep it for tradition's sake.

 

[Crothian]

The revised version seems to work great and be able to make the type of character I would want to make with a Ranger. I never had a problem with the orginal, and tried out Monte's for a campaign. So, I've had a little experience with the more populiar ones and they have worked for what I have wanted to do.

 

[Tarrasque Wrangler]

It's closer than the 3.0 ranger was, but so far Midnight's Wildlander is the closest I've seen to the archetype. I've always had a hard time wrapping my head around the spellcasting angle.

 

[Psion]

I hate polls that ignore the middle condition.

I'll say "close enough", but I still don't like that what is essentially a woodsman or guide is forced to have a fighting style. I replace the fighting style with bonus feats.

 

[KnowTheToe]

I don't particularly care either way (and therefore did not vote). All the new Ranger really brings is the bow chain of feats. It has the same flavor and power of the 3.0 ranger. I wish there was no spell casting and some wilderness based abilities, but what do I know, I am just a player.

 

[Steverooo]

I hate polls that ignore the middle condition.

I'll say "close enough", but I still don't like that what is essentially a woodsman or guide is forced to have a fighting style. I replace the fighting style with bonus feats.

Heh! Apologies, Psycho-Electronically-endowed one!

The problem with the middle ground is, everyone takes it, more or less!

I'd say, if you have to house rule it, then the Ranger doesn't meet your needs.

 

[Steverooo]

I don't particularly care either way (and therefore did not vote). All the new Ranger really brings is the bow chain of feats. It has the same flavor and power of the 3.0 ranger. I wish there was no spell casting and some wilderness based abilities, but what do I know, I am just a player.

You know as much as the rest of us... And, again, if you're wishing that there was a spellless Ranger, then that's basically a "No" vote.

 

[KnowTheToe]

You know as much as the rest of us... And, again, if you're wishing that there was a spellless Ranger, then that's basically a "No" vote.

OK, I will vote no.