ok, now rangers.

[Kannik]

-laugh- Well, this does get to the heart of why making a ranger class that pleases everyone (or anyone ) is so tough -- what exactly is a ranger? I'd say there are basically two main archtypes: A wilderness paladin, and a wilderness warrior (with this latter posessing many different aspirations as to why they are such) who generally fights a bit more unconventionally than the standard knight/fighter.

Of course, making the wilderness fighter Ranger uber-flexible might make it step on the toes of the pure fighter, so its a balance between nifty different abilities and flexitility.

And, of course, I've got my own take on the ranger class at http://boreal.catsden.net/RPG/d20-rangers.pdf

I should say classes, for I did split them up into two different classes there based on the above archtypes. }

Kannik

 

[takyris]

Since someone plugged the Monte Ranger, I want to casually anti-plug the Monte Ranger to make things even. The Monte Ranger is just absurdly powerful. Why would anyone choose to be a fighter when you can have two good saves, decent spellcasting, the ability to use a bunch of really nice wands and staves because of said spellcasting, three times as many skill points, a fantastic list of class skills, and Favored Enemy fun all at the cost of 1 hit point per level, heavy armor proficiency (which you wouldn't be using anyway, given your hiding emphasis), and three bonus feats over twenty levels?

Most people who complain about ranger weakness don't actually use all the available abilities of the ranger -- especially wand use. The ranger is one of the best backup healers in the game, given his ability to quickly fight off nearby opponents and then use a wand or staff to cure wounds on a fallen friend.

-Tacky

 

[Plane Sailing]

I would also like to do an anti-plug for Monte's ranger. He identifies the main problem as being a "favoured enemy ability that works when the DM wants it to, rather than the player", but then doesn't do anything about that.

He then takes the IMO silly idea of giving a list of "bonus feats". Classes need class abilities to make them special, and "bonus feats" always seems to be a shortcut for not actually thinking through some useful, specific and balanced class abilities.

Finally, he adds insult to injury by reducing the rangers HD to d8. In terms of D&D development the ranger has always been portrayed as one of the hardiest classes - starting with more hp at 1st level than anyone else in all editions up to 1st edition. Reducing his HD seems a giant step away from the hardy wilderness solo guy which he represented in the earliest versions.

So no, I don't think Monte's ranger does any favours.