D&D 3E/3.5 My players hate the 3e ranger.

[Crothian]

My Alt Fighter:

*Looses bonus feats
*Gains Spell Progression as a Ranger or Paladin, using the Bard spell list
*Can fight as if he had the power attack and lightning reflexes feats but only when in heavy armor
*Skills like the wombat... I uh, mean the uh... Wizard?
*Can rage once per year, but only if the moon is crooked or falling towards the earth

That's about it.... Like it?

I personally like the darn Ranger.... it works. It's not the best, but it works.

You have a very odd definition of the word fighter, my friend.

 

[Shirt Guy John]

Sorry, I guess sarcasm isn't as obvious in text. I meant it to poke fun of rangers. And I KNOW that I have to explain this to you, because no one else in the universe understands sarcasm... ever.

PS. I was being sarcastic, for those who really can't sense sarcasm... I pity you....

 

[Crothian]

I actually caught that. I was continueing the sarcasm insanity but I posted the so people could tell that I knew it was not serious. It was funny though. I like it.

 

[mmadsen]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: does it matter?

Then you still have the sneak attack which doesn't fit as written.

Sneak Attack doesn't fit an expert ambusher?

...an ambush ability (only get sneak attack in a surprise round or when opponet is flat footed) I think it would work nicely.

That's what the Thief's Backstab ability used to be (effectively), and that wasn't popular (compared to the modern Sneak Attack). Really, I think it's splitting hairs.