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

[EarthsShadow]

does it matter?

Does all this ranger modification really matter? I mean, by appearances alone the ranger in the PHB looks weaker than what people were used to with 2nd edition. All these changes are combat related changes and nothing to do with overall game balance, they are just trying to make the ranger a better overall fighter type class when the ranger already kicks butt as he is standardly.

So does all this matter? the answer is no, because there will not be a single ranger class that will please everyone, so just change it for your campaign setting and be done with the arguments about what goes with what about the class.

 

[Crothian]

I think everyone could be happy with a Ranger. We all seem to be happy with the Fighter. I've yet to see an alt fighter.

Ranger's a concept class, and everyone has a different concept. Favored enemy, or favored terrrain. A 2WF or a Bow fighter. Skills verse combat orientation.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Well I went and gave him Wep Spec in the bow of his choice and gave him point blank shot. So far it's fine. The ranger should be a bowman IMO. Thanks for the input.

 

[Dagredhel]

I just thought I'd put in a plug for my Forester alternate core class, perfect for all you ranger-haters (like me) out there. By itself, or mixed with a few parts Fighter, its a refreshing change from the ordinary! Now NEW and IMPROVED, thanks to some great suggestions from fellow Enworlders! Get your copy today--- supplies are unlimited! Get yours here!

 

[mmadsen]

Re: does it matter?

So does all this matter? the answer is no, because there will not be a single ranger class that will please everyone, so just change it for your campaign setting and be done with the arguments about what goes with what about the class.

As long as the Ranger class remains inflexible, like a 1st- or 2nd-edition class, I agree, but, as Crothian has pointed out, everyone's fine with the Fighter -- even though some want a French Knight, some a Welsh Longbowman, some a Genoese Crossbowman, some a Swiss Pikeman, etc.

If the Ranger had a Bonus Feat list instead of a set progression of Special Abilities, then the player could choose to be either Drizzt or Robin Hood -- and we could all get along.

 

[Crothian]

Re: Re: does it matter?

If the Ranger had a Bonus Feat list instead of a set progression of Special Abilities, then the player could choose to be either Drizzt or Robin Hood -- and we could all get along.

The biggest problem, is some Rangers need the skill points, others need the fighting ability. No one class can do that without becoming so versaatile it will outshine all the other classes.

Personally, I'm one of the ose who thought the Mont Ranger was too much. But that was without playing it. Right now I'm playing it and I'm pretty happy with it. But I'm not that far into the class, so it might be too much at the high levels like I think it will be.

 

[Steven McRownt]

I've found those link useful to this thread. It is the Athanasian Ranger (Dark Sun) modified some days ago; it is a non spellcasting one, and very interesting in terms of versatily (something you were asking....)

Here's the link anyway:
http://www.athas.org/classes/display.cfm?name=ranger

...ah...yes....
It comes from the Burnt World of Athas

Steven McRownt

 

[LostSoul]

Re: Re: Re: does it matter?

The biggest problem, is some Rangers need the skill points, others need the fighting ability. No one class can do that without becoming so versaatile it will outshine all the other classes.

What if you gave the Rogue Wilderness Lore as a Class Skill and took away the special Traps ability? (Maybe paring down the skill set and skill points to 4 in exchange for d8 hit points as well.)

Then you'd have a great ranger class if you multi-classed as a Fighter/Rogue.

 

[Crothian]

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

What if you gave the Rogue Wilderness Lore as a Class Skill and took away the special Traps ability? (Maybe paring down the skill set and skill points to 4 in exchange for d8 hit points as well.)

Then you'd have a great ranger class if you multi-classed as a Fighter/Rogue.

Then you still have the sneak attack which doesn't fit as written. But if we divided that into a Favortie enemy ability, and an ambush ability (only get sneak attack in a surprise round or when opponet is flat footed) I think it would work nicely.

 

[Shirt Guy John]

I've yet to see an alt fighter.

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.