New Ranger (not monte)

[Caliber]

While this doesn't reflect the alternate Ranger I posted earlier, I have always wanted to see a Ranger (or something else, call it what you want) that was a lot closer to the Paladin.

Essentially, a Paladin is a Fighter/Cleric with extra abilities that neither class gets. I have always thought a cool class would be a Fighter/Druid that likewise gets extra abilities that neither gets.

Just some thoughts.

 

[Shirt Guy John]

've seen this kinda' thing WAY to much. As I've seen it, the Ranger works fine as is (we've only had one Ranger in our group. Seems no one really wants to play one.... maybe they read all the whining online about them ). That standing, I too have tried my hand at "Fixing" the ranger, but more for a personaly campaign preference than because it was broken.

Maybe I'm missing something, but what is so terribly wrong with the ranger? He can hide, move silently, cast spells (sure only a few of 'em, but that's all you really need) and then kick some righteous ass when all else fails. He has all of the skills that I like the most (Spot, Hide, Move Silently, Climb, Hide, Swim, Wilderness Lore, Search, etc...) and althought the favored enemy ability isn't the greatest, it still works.

I liked the statement made by whoever that the Ranger is supposed to go looking for his favored enemy. That's how I feel it should work, in game, at least.

 

[Plane Sailing]

At any rate, you all seem to be on the same page, but if you don't mind, I'd really like to hear more specifics about how Rangers were handled early. I didn't come on the scene until late 2e, and I've never been happy with the Ranger.

Your wish is my command!

A quick run-down of the evolution of the Ranger, from it's very earliest beginnings. Or should that be (d)evolution

It first appeared in the Strategic Review (SR), a short 'zine issued periodically and which was also where the Illusionist class was first introduced. This was for Original D&D, and appeared after Greyhawk/Blackmoor/Eldritch Wizardry.

Hit Dice
When introduced in SR the ranger started with 2d8 HD and went up to 11d8. Put into perspective, all fighters only had d8 HD too, and maxed out at 9d8. They were "tough and hardy wilderness warriors".

In AD&D 1e, They kept this 2d8 up to 11d8 HD regime while fighters and paladins moved to D10 HD. Rangers where hardier at 1st level, and could get more CON bonuses, but were down a peg or two.

In 2e, the ranger went to D10 HD along with the fighter and paladin, but started with 1d10 like the others.

In 3e the ranger continues in parity with the other fighting classes.

Analysis: The ranger has gradually lost hardiness over his incarnations.

Spell Use
In SR Starting at 9th level the ranger started getting MU spells, and at 10th started getting Cleric spells. He had an unrestricted list for both, and by 20th level he could easily be casting 7th level Cleric and MU spells. (OK, this was *definitely* over the top!)

In 1e the ranger was limited to 1st-3rd level Druid spells and 1st-2nd MU spells (although he had the full lists to choose from). This was quite a step down from his earlier power, but still very useful.

In 2e the ranger had a small and restricted list of feeble cleric spheres, with very few general useful or utility spells.

In 3e the ranger gets spells sooner, and has a better list of spells (although it is markedly worse than any of the other lists, and doesn’t have any unique spells at all, unlike the Paladin for instance)

Analysis: The rangers spell casting ability has fluctuated with time, dipping to a nadir in 2e, but making a spirited recovery in 3e. His flexibility in spells available has dropped since the origins and 1e days considerably though.

Favoured Enemy
In SR, the ranger can add his level to his damage bonus in all attacks against “giant class” creatures, which was everything from goblins and orcs up to true giants.

In 1e the ranger has the same ability.

In 2e the damage bonus is lost, but the ranger gets +4 to hit his “hated enemy” and there is some kind of personality problem associated with that enemy – he gets –4 on reaction rolls from those enemies. As Cyberzombie puts it “Kind of pointless, since 100% of 2e rangers I knew would attack there species enemy on sight, unless the odds where *overwhelmingly* against them”

In 3e the ranger has a wider range of choices for a favoured enemy, and he gets +1 damage (and on certain skill checks) per 5 levels. Additional favoured enemies can be started at each 5 levels, growing appropriately.

Analysis: The favoured enemy has grown in scope and has a lot more variety possible than it used to, but it’s power has decreased markedly. The 2e rules didn’t scale but gave an excellent bonus to hit. In general I’d say this area is a win for the 3e ranger, but I greatly prefer the alt.ranger method of adding a point of favoured enemy every odd level, either stacking it or starting something new. Total bonuses are less, but it has more of a chance to grow organically with the campaign and gives a more even growth across levels.

Woodsy-ness
In SR the ranger had the unique ability to track, he surprised opponents 50% more often and was only 50% as likely to be surprised as other classes (in those days you were surprised on 1-2 on a 1d6. The ranger surprised others on 1-3 and was only surprised on a 1)

In 1e the ranger continued as before

(In Unearthed Arcana, 1.5e, tracking became level-dependent as opposed to in 1E, where every Ranger had the same chance to track given the same circumstances. Rangers were required to be proficient a limited group of weapons that fit the huntsman archetype before gaining proficiency with any others: (1) the bow or the crossbow of any type, required at 1st level; (2) dagger or knife; (3) a spear or an axe; and (4) a sword. They gained Weapon Specialization along with the Fighter, but were limited to specialization in one of the above weapons.)

In 2e I believe he lost the surprise benefits and they were replaced by a base 10%/15% move silently and hide in cover and growing slowly across levels. This chance was halved when not in “woodsy” situations – certainly in dungeons and towns. This could only be used in light armour. Tracking was available to all, but non-rangers had an arbitrary -6 penalty on all their checks, while rangers got bonuses as they went up levels. Player's Option made Tracking freely available to all with no penalties, though Rangers still got it for free. Rangers lost the weapon specialisation granted to them in Unearthed Arcana.

In 3e he gets the track feat for free (anyone can get it though) and class skill access to spot, listen, hide, move silently, as well as wilderness lore. WotC said that they tied the Track feat into Wilderness Lore expressly so that Rangers would take this skill.

Analysis: 2e castrated the rangers ability to be sneaky and unsurprised. 3e has thankfully restored that ability, although at a price – with the limited number of skill points many rangers will have to miss other things out in order to get the benefit here.

Funky Followers
In SR, At high level the ranger attracts a group of special followers; character classes and good creatures, including the possibility of a golden dragon. Up to about 24 max, I think.

In 1e high level rangers attract a group of special followers; character classes and good creatures, including the possibility of treants and a silver dragon. Same sort of number, but the power levels at the upper end are toned down a little.

In 2e high level rangers attract a group of special followers; character classes and good creatures. The power level of followers are toned down across the board.

In 3e this class ability has disappeared completely. There is now a “leadership” feat which is available to everyone to gain a cohort and followers, but they are very different from the wide range of followers that rangers alone used to get

Analysis: The special followers of the ranger have been eroded over time, disappearing completely in third edition. Does this parallel the removal of the “build a fortress/temple/college and get a bunch of followers & men-at-arms turn up” that used to be par for the course for Fighters and Clerics? I wouldn’t like to say. It does remove one of the targets that high-level rangers could aspire to though.

Other abilities
In SR, high level rangers were allowed to use any magic items that were involved with healing, telepathy and clairvoyance. Only a limited number of rangers could associate together.

In 1e, they could still use clairvoyance items, but lost the use of healing magic items. Still limited in the number that could associate together.

In 2e they lost the ability to use clairvoyance items, but gained animal handling and a “calm wild animals” animal empathy ability. Gains two-weapon fighting when in light armour. Why? Who knows? I’ve heard it said that the aim was to encourage rangers to become “lightly armoured” fighters.

In 3e animal handling became an everyman skill and animal empathy became a skill shared with druids. These have to be bought out of the limited skill point supply rather than being available to all rangers.. The ranger gets special two weapon fighting when in light armour, for no character reason nor game-mechanic reason. It just is. presumably entirely to provide continuity with all the 2e rangers out there?

Analysis: The ranger has lost abilities from his clear Tolkien roots, and they were replaced with more woodsy abilities, which in turn became skills in 3e. Unlike the rogue who has special affinity with certain skills (their search can be used to find traps and magical traps, for instance) the ranger doesn’t get any special benefit to handle animal. animal empathy is restricted class skill for them and druids only, which helps. Over time, the flavour has moved from Tolkiens wilderness warriors and protectors towards a more generic woodsman. The exception being the seemingly random introduction of two-weapon fighting to the class in 2e.

Over time, the Ranger has become less hardy, lost out on funky followers and had less magical abilities; his ability to damage one wide class of opponents has decreased but the scope of his abilities has increased over time and there is arguably much more variety possible to the class than there was before. (with the exception of melee, which has been lock-stepped into two weapon fighting).

I hope this breakdown of the evolution of the class is helpful to the discussion, especially the look back to the Strategic Review origins.

Cheers
Plane Sailing
with input from Cyberzombie and Paul Greystoke

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

A quick run-down of the evolution of the Ranger, from it's very earliest beginnings. Or should that be (d)evolution

Actually, there's enough divergence there to suggest multiple independent evolutionary lines. Wow.

At any rate, thank you Plane Sailing, (and Cyberzombie and Mr. Greystoke). That's a lot to absorb, but it's got my brain percolating. As does Caliber's suggestion regarding paladins.

Shirt Guy John, only a small part of my complaint about Rangers is that they're underpowered (though they are. A first level Ranger is powerful toe-to-toe with any first level character, but maybe three levels down the road, they're rapidly losing ground). The larger part is that they don't make sense. Why would a class that's described as a woodsman/hunter (as per PH flavor text) be specialized in two-weapon melee fighting? When you're hunting deer (or most other game, for that matter), do you stalk through the woods with a pair of short swords? No, you get yourself a bow or a spear. Why is it that a fighter can become much better with bows and spears much faster than a Ranger, who should have been carrying one from shortly after the time he could walk, if the standard archetypes have any merit?

Favored Enemy is fine flavorwise if your DM provides a steady diet of the same few enemies, but that's not always the case, no matter how much the player wants to find them. And even if he does, is that fair to the rest of the party, who might want a little variety in their adventuring diet?

Party - "Well, we have two plot hooks here. One looks like it leads to an intriguing mind flayer slave ring. The other is a standard orc and goblin killing spree to rescue a stolen herd of cattle that any 1st level party could probably handle."

Ranger - "Gotta vote for the orcs and goblins, guys."

Party - "What the #&%@! Why do you always want to slaughter orcs and goblins?! It's getting old!"

Ranger (to self) - Mainly because 1) My favored enemies include orcs and goblins 2) Without my favored enemy bonus, the rogue can skill me at EVERYTHING, even in the woods, where I've supposedly been stalking things from shortly after birth and he's never been out of a city until last year. 3) Without my favored enemy bonus, my damage per round lags so far behind the fighter, the paladin, and even the cleric, I look like a pasty cancer patient in melee. (maybe instead of making a futile attempt to match the rogue in certain skills that fit my background by pumping intelligence and charisma, I should have put those points in Strength. But that wouldn't fit my character) Conclusion: If I want to be a contributor to this enterprise, there better be favored enemies involved.

Ranger (out loud, in an effort to justify all that in character) - "Because orcs killed my parents, and I will take EVERY opportunity to destroy them! Oh, and I hate goblins too!

And, to bring it back to mechanics: Rangers, even more than Paladins, need ALL their stats to be good in order to be reasonably effective. Unless you roll INCREDIBLE stats, you're better off leaving the fighting to the fighter and paladin, and the skills to the Rogue and Bard. And the spellcasting is a joke, no matter what your stats. Realistically, a 1st level Ranger is going to take something like orcs or goblins as their first favored enemy. First level characters don't have the resources to take on dragons, demons, etc. so those would be unrealistic choices. So, at 20th level, the Ranger has +5 and possibly +4 against canon fodder and +1 or +2 against things that are actually nasty. Well, that's more or less the precise inverse of useful, thanks. Not to mention that hunting skills and the best ways of killing things are actually pretty portable. Developing the skill to hunt magical beasts should make hunting normal animals that much easier. Hunting orcs for a long time would give you necessary skills for hunting any humanoid (or monstrous humanoid, for that matter). Realistically, it would work like other skills: +5 vs orcs would give a synergy bonus against any similar critter. Unless you want to say that the anatomy of each category is so different that the knowledge of where and how to hit them isn't portable, which doesn't make any sense. And how many ways are there to hide in a given environment? If I can spot goblins hiding in heavy brush, it should be that much easier to spot anything larger that doesn't have tremendously good camaflouge. And if a skilled bowman can hit a bullseye on a target from 50 or 100 feet (or more), why can't he apply his favored enemy bonus to damage at anything greater than 30 feet?

You might say that all this mechanical stuff is unimportant compared to playing the role. But how much fun is it to play the role of the guy who can't compete with the rest of the party at anything but tracking? The Ranger needs to at least compare with the other classes in something else. If they want him to be a dextrous warrior, why have his abilities lock-step him into melee where he needs Dex (and maybe Con) to avoid getting clobbered due to his armor restriction but also Str in order to be competitive? Charima is necessary for archetypes like Robin Hood or Strider. Wisdom is necessary for spellcasting. And Intelligence is vital to take advantage of their great skill selection, especially considering their low base skill points per level compared to the other "skill" classes. The character class is a staple of fantasy, and I think they made it simply less fun to play than the other classes.

 

[bozzutoman]

Strategic Review Ranger

This is a repost from WotC boards. I put it together from the Dragon Archive CD. The Strategic Review No. 2, Summer 1975.

RANGERS: AN EXCITING NEW DUNGEONS & DRAGONS CLASS By Joe Fischer
Rangers are a sub-class of Fighting Men, similar in many ways to the new sub-class Paladins, for they must always remain Lawful or lose all the benefits they gained (except, of course, experience as a fighter). Strength is their Prime Requisite, but they must also have both Intelligence and Wisdom scores of at least 12 each, and a Constitution of at least 15.

The statistics regarding Rangers are:

Rangers              Exp. Points    Hit Dice*     Spell Ability**
Runner                         0       2           Nil
Strider                     2500       3           Nil
Scout                       5000       4           Nil
Guide                      12000       5           Nil
Pathfinder                 25000       6           Nil
Warder                     50000       7           Nil
Guardian                  100000       8           Nil
Ranger-Knight             175000       9           Cleric, 1st Level
Ranger-Lord               275000      10           +Magic-User, 1st Level
Ranger-Lord, 10th         550000      10+2         +Cleric 2nd Level
Ranger-Lord, 11th         825000      10+4         +Magic-User 2nd Level
Ranger-Lord, 12th        1100000      10+6         +Cleric 3rd Level
Ranger-Lord, 13th        1375000      10+8         +Magic-User 3rd Level

*either with the standard system or the alternate system which allows fighters 8-sided dice

**spell progression is as follows: when only 1st Level are usable, then only one spell is usable, when 2nd Level spells can be taken then the R-L gets 2 1st Level and 1 2nd Level, and at 3rd Level it is 3, 2 and 1 respectively.


Until they attain the 8th level (Ranger-Knight) characters in the Ranger class are relatively weak, for they have a number of restrictions placed upon them, These restrictions are:

• They may own only that which they can carry with them, and excess treasure or goods must be donated to a worthy cause.
  
• They may not hire any men-at-arms or other servants or aides of any kind whatsoever.
  
• Only two of the class may operate together.

Advantages which accrue to low-level Rangers are:

• They receive no regular bonuses for advancement due to ability, but they automatically gain 4 experience points for every 3 earned.
  
• They have the ability to track the path of most creatures when outdoors, and even in dungeons they are often able to follow:

[I]Monster’s Action                Regular Needs to Track[/I]
Goes down a normal passage           01-65
Goes through a normal door           01-55
Goes through a trap door             01-50
Goes up/down a chimney               01-40
Goes through a secret door           01-30

The ranger so tracking must have observed the monster no more than six turns previously when in dungeon situations. In the outdoors he has a basic 90% chance of following a trail, with a 10% reduction for every day old the signs are. Because of their ability to track Rangers also are difficult to surprise, requiring a roll of 1 instead of 1 or 2.

• All Rangers gain a special advantage when fighting against monsters of the Giant Class (Kobolds - Giants). For each level they have gained they add +1 to their damage die against these creatures, so a 1st Level Ranger adds +1, a 2nd Level +2, and so on.

Upon reaching the 8th and higher levels, Rangers begin to accrue a number of advantages besides the use of spells already indicated.

• From 2-24 followers will join the character as soon as 9th level is attained by him. These followers are detailed later.
  
• Ranger-Knights are able to employ magic items that heal or cure disease, including scrolls.
  
• Ranger-Lords are able to employ all devices that deal with Clairvoyance, Clairaudience, ESP, Telepathy, Telekenesis, and Teleportation, including scrolls.

Drawbacks which apply to the 8th and higher levels are:

• The 4 experience points for every 3 earned bonus is lost.
  
• Followers who are killed cannot be replaced, although regular mercenaries can be.
  
• As already mentioned, if a Ranger turns Neutral or Chaotic he loses all benefits of the class, becoming an ordinary Fighting Man.

Special Followers: For each of the 2-24 followers the Ranger gains a dice roll must be made to determine what the follower is. Further dice rolls to determine type, class, and/or level will also be necessary.

Type 
01-60   Man
61-75   Elf or Half-Elf
76-90   Dwarf 
91-99   2 Hobbits
00      Extraordinary (see below)

Class (Men Only)
01-50   Fighter
51-75   Cleric
75-95   Magic-User
95-00   Thief

Multi-Class (Elves Only)
01-50   Fighter 
51-75   Fighter/Magic-User 
76-90   Magic-User 
91-00   Fighter/Magic-User/Thief

Level of Ability (Roll for each)
01-50   2nd Level
51-65   3rd Level
66-80   4th Level
81-90   5th Level
91-99   6th Level
00      7th Level


Extraordinary Followers
01-20   Ranger, 3rd - 7th Level
21-40   Lawful Werebear
41-55   2 Unicorns
65-70   Pegasus
71-80   Hill Giant
81-90   Stone Giant
91-99   Golden Dragon
00      Take two rolls ignoring any 00’s which might come up

Where not otherwise specified Rangers perform as Fighting Men. They may build strongholds. In all cases the Ranger will prefer Lawful to Neutral types.

I thinks it's kinda ironic that they can get giant followers.

Oh, and two hobbits for one other is just too funny.

 

[Jondor_Battlehammer]

've seen this kinda' thing WAY to much. As I've seen it, the Ranger works fine as is (we've only had one Ranger in our group. Seems no one really wants to play one.... maybe they read all the whining online about them ). That standing, I too have tried my hand at "Fixing" the ranger, but more for a personaly campaign preference than because it was broken.

Maybe I'm missing something, but what is so terribly wrong with the ranger? He can hide, move silently, cast spells (sure only a few of 'em, but that's all you really need) and then kick some righteous ass when all else fails. He has all of the skills that I like the most (Spot, Hide, Move Silently, Climb, Hide, Swim, Wilderness Lore, Search, etc...) and althought the favored enemy ability isn't the greatest, it still works.

I liked the statement made by whoever that the Ranger is supposed to go looking for his favored enemy. That's how I feel it should work, in game, at least.

Thank you!

Reading these boards, I was begining to think I was the only one that thought rangers were fine. "broken" and "underpowered" are just ways of saying he can't nuke things. Like any other class, he shines in his own way. Especially with MotW.

If I were to give the ranger more stuff, it would be a +10 movement, uncanny dodge,(AC bonus only), and maybe let them swap the two weapon fighting for a singleexotic weapon feat. The two weapon thing is a little cliche.

If you really feal he is under powered, either double his FEB, or turn the damage into a d6 sneak attack. But frankly I think the ranger is fine the way he is.

 

[kreynolds]

And for your info, i do find the phb ranger to be increadably good for taking a few levels of, but increadly bad if stay in the class to high level, without prestigin.

Actually, with the addition of the epic level rules, the Ranger totally kicks but at 1st level and at 30th level. Between 2nd level and 29th level, however, not so impressive.