Ranger - likes and dislikes?

[Klaus]

Your opponent, who does 1d8+1 damage, swings at you. He barely misses, because you dodged. You take five damage, representing some slight strain.

Yes, say, you barely dodged in time, but got a bruise on your shield-arm from the force of the blow.

Your opponent, who does 1d12+9 damage, swings at you. He barely misses, because you dodged. You put the same amount of effort into dodging the previous attack, but you suffer 1d12+9 points of heel sprain damage.

Your shield-arm, already bruised from the force of the previous' opponent's blow, cushions the blow, but you hear an uncomfortable >crack< as the blow connects with your shield. You might not be able to avoid the next one (meaning 1d12+9 damage might actually put you below 0 hp).

I think something with wrong with that scenario. HP as dodging doesn't just break down when it comes to poison, it breaks down when it comes to taking damage. Why does dodging more damageing attacks result in ... more damage?

Beacuse it takes more effort? I'm not insinuating a 'clean dodge' all the time, but rather to describe the event after comparing the damage done to the target's hp. A 100hp fighter taking 5 damage is a lot different from a 10hp fighter taking 5 damage. And if the attack has a special effect linked to it (like poison), then any attack that deals damage is described as a wound, beacuse it must connect to deliver its special effect.

I can buy the "rolling with the blow" scenario, which is something I would associate with being tough, anyway, but not "taking damage when dodging".

I mostly describe attacks that deal little damage as near misses that somehow hamper the character's ability to defend from future blows (meaning, he has less hp to spare).

 

[buzz]

Never try to quantify what hit points respresent. Down that path lay only madness. They are "How Long I Should Be Able To Fight" points, and that's pretty much as specific as you can get.

 

[Steverooo]

I like the Ranger, pretty well (much better than the 3e version), but it could be improved. As for what it does, Rangers are stealthy, perceptive woodsmen, adept at survival, tracking, and infiltration & spying... or so 1e said. 3.5e doesn't do this, so well...

Stealth a Ranger has the SKILLS for, but the skills have been neutered. In 1 & 2e, Hide allowed using lampblack and/or camouflage (basically the equivalent of the Rangers' high-level ability) to hide, without needing something to hide behind. Both Rogues & Rangers (and any other PC Class with Hide) needs this ability restored. Hide in Plain Sight (which allows the PC to hide while being observed) is another matter. The Cloak of Elvenkind should grant both.

Perception the Ranger has down, pretty well. I would add Balance, and pernaps Sense Motive to the skill list. Balance is a necessity, IMHO. Rangers need to stop falling off of cliffs, and out of trees!

Survival Rangers are only so-so at, and this is a problem with the skills system, not the class... Sure, they can find food & water, but they can't do anything else with Survival. The skill is nearly useless, in 3/3.5e... A first level Cleric with Create Food and Water can outshine any Ranger, in most ways (and Clerics of the Travel Domain get Survival as a Class skill)! True, a Ranger can also use it to track, and (with 5+ ranks, always know which way is which), and to keep from getting lost, but... Once he's killed a buffalo, and gotten the meat, can he use the Sinew to make bows and strings? Made armor & moccasins out of the hide? Nope! Survival doesn't do that, Craft (X, Y, Z) does! So,... no!

A skill that can be invalidated, save for a use requiring a Feat (Tracking) by two Zero-Level spells (Create Food & Water, Know Direction) is a poor skill. One way to fix that is to allow Rangers to use Survival to survive more than just the weather, and "staying found". One possibility would be to give them a special "Survivalist" class ability that allows them to add their Ranger Class Level as a bonus to any Craft attempt with wood, stone, bone, or other natural materials (Barbarians... and perhaps Druids... should get similar).

Tracking Rangers do well at, and the Swift Tracker class ability at higher levels really helps here. It should decrease the one roll/mile, at some point, however. Also, a Ranger who tries to mask tracks (taking, say, one round/set of tracks being masked) should force others to subtract his/her Ranger Class Level from the tracking roll.

Infiltration & Spying Rangers don't have the skills for, except Listen/Search/Spot, & Hide/Move Quietly. They don't get Bluff (although they get a bonus vs. "Favored Enemies", for some odd reason), they don't get Disguise... So they can sneak in, assuming they have concealment or cover, or are very high level, but are no better at infiltrating than anyone else, and much worse than the Bard or Rogue! That could be improved (although many don't see it as the Ranger's place)!

Another thing Rangers are good at, however, is RANGING, or travelling from place to place. They are not just WOODSmen, but also as at home in the veldt, tundra, plains, swamps, jungles, (ant-)arctic, etc. At tenth level, like the Rogue, they should get a Bonus Feat of Skill Mastery, which allows them to Take 10, at any time, with Balance, Climb, Jump, Ride, Swim, and any other (Class) movement skills, including running long distance. (I could even see adding Tumble as a Class skill, and to this list, but since the D&D version deals more with avoiding Attacks of Opportunity than moving acrobatically, I won't suggest doing this). Other tenth-level Bonus Feats could also be added.

Animal Companions, I agree, should be optional, but (again) treated as (Ranger Level - 2), instead of x1/2. Swap for a Feat, if unwanted.

Caster Level should be (Ranger Level -2), as well. The spell list needs a lot of work, still... Yes, Rangers (and all Semi-Spellcasters) should have Zero-Level spells, and for the Ranger, these should be the Druid's & Wizard's list. Casting should still be Divine, to avoid Arcane Spell Failure in Light Armor.

Rangers tend to get "non-flashy" spells, and that's okay, by me, but they should get spells related to survival, etc. Cure Minimal Wounds, Mending to fix things, Prestidigitation to clean them, whichever Cure spell they're missing (moving Cure Light to first level). I agree with PS, they should have Shillelagh, and all 1rst-4th level spells of the Animal & Plant Domains, as well as the Travel & Trickery domains, and any spell that deals with travel (Feather Fall, Fly, Levitate, Phantom Steed, Steed, etc.) Invisibility is also an obvious omission (and the Assassin gets it, along with a good many others that are on their list that would look at home on the Ranger's). Any spells that aids in wilderness survival, and/or travel, and is forth level or less in any class, should be a Ranger spell.

As for "Spell-less" Rangers, some won't like it, but here's an idea... For each spell LEVEL (that's four of them, total) the Ranger's Player and the GM can pick one Extraordinary ability that is similar to a Ranger spell, and the PC has that ability as an Always-On (Ex.) ability, instead of the three spells of that level/day that a 20th level Ranger might have... For example.

Upon acquiring first level spell use, Aragorn opts to take the Cure Light Wounds ability, and gains 1D8+1 HPs, which are "Always-On" as his (Ex.) ability, instead of spells. Tough enough? He could select Traceless Passage, instead, and become as trackable as a Druid. Upon acquiring fourth level spellcasting, he could, instead, select Freedom of Movement as a permanent (Ex.) Ability.

Aside from Rangers who take the Entangle and/or Snare abilities, though, it would also be nice if Rangers could actually set traps, such as you always see in those Survival manuals. This should be doable with Craft (Trapmaking), but also with Survival, in some cases. Two ways to go with this...

The problem, here, is the DMG's trapmaking rules... One week and 1,000 GPs/CR of a trap is too much, and unusable, in game (unless you're building a dungeon). If a Ranger wants to beat steel into a bear trap, fine... go ahead and use the DMG! If he wants to set a quick simple snare, spring snare, deadfall, net or limb trap, or (cross-)bow trap, the times and prices are ridiculous.

So, allow any PC with Craft (Trapmaking) or Survival skill to set these simpler traps in a few rounds. For most, 20 rounds (two minutes) should be fine. Now for the "two ways" part...

The Detect Snares and Pits spell description makes it clear that Deadfalls, Snares, and Pits are easier to detect than other trap types... You can limit Rangers with Survival skill to setting CR Zero traps (which the DMG says to increase to CR 1), and keep them at DC:20 to detect/disarm. Personally, I see this as too weak to be useful, as Rogues already outclass this by about fifth level...

The other way is to limit non-falling, non-spike damage, and make the Spot DC be equal to the Ranger's Hide check (thus making that skill more useful, too). Perhaps 1D6/Ranger Level maximum damage, and a maximum Disable Device DC of 20? (Most of the traps in survival manuals ARE pretty doggone easy to disarm, but if you don't see'em...)

Also, I favor making Trapfinding a Feat. I also favor making the Monks' dodging ability (WIS Bonus to AC, plus plusses as you go up in levels) a Feats, as well. That would aid the unarmored swashbucklers, and should be on the Fighters' Bonus Feats list. Some form of Favored Enemy should be, as well (I suggest +2 to one type, the first time you take it, +2 to another the second, with the additional +2 to either the new or old one, thereafter. Take as often as you like, but never the exact same group).

Also, I originally suggested that Rangers get Uncanny Dodge, to make them better scouts. Instead, they got Evasion, and a good Reflex save... I would have preferred to see a Good Will save (many survival manuals state this as the most important piece of survival gear, and Rangers ARE Spellcasters - or at least Semi-!), no Evasion, and (Improved) Uncanny Dodge. I also wondered why they gave Barbarians the Fast Movement, instead of Rangers, but at least Rangers now get Longstrider, to help make up for it!

Yes, Favored Enemy should add to the appropriate Knowledge skill, and Favored Enemy (Vermin) or (Giants) add to Knowledge (Nature), already a class skill, while FE (Dragons) should add to Knowledge (Arcana)... not sure about making it a class skill, as it has other uses, and also give knowledge of Constructs & Magical Beasts, as well, IIRC. I think treating the Ranger as skilled in Knowledge (Arcana), and adding the FE Bonus, ONLY when dealing with Dragons, is enough. (Not that I'd object to giving them all Knowledge skills as Class skills, nor even to allowing FE to add the appropriate one). It's all good, to me!

Fixing TWF is easy: Just remove the -2/-2 penalties (when using a one-handed & Light weapon), and say that it doubles your attacks/round. No need for Improved/Greater TWF Feats. Then you could add TW Defense, Improved Shield Bash, TWF Rend and/or TWF Pounce as the other Feats in this chain. The Monks' "Flurry of Misses" needs the same fix, as well. This is pretty much the same thing as clawed monsters get...

In any case, these are my opinions on how Rangers can be improved... Oh, yeah, and WHY are they the ONLY spellcasting class without Dispel Magic? Not too flashy, is it? (Firebrand I can see!)

 

[Felon]

Never try to quantify what hit points respresent. Down that path lay only madness. They are "How Long I Should Be Able To Fight" points, and that's pretty much as specific as you can get.

Yep, just gotta love watching a PC get up after taking a spill down a 100 foot-deep pit, land on solid rock, stand up without so much a sprained ankle, dust himself off, and say "um, good thing I rolled with that!"

But of course, the DM should then maintain verisimilitude by describing him as having a nasty bruise

 

[Felon]

Also, I originally suggested that Rangers get Uncanny Dodge, to make them better scouts. Instead, they got Evasion, and a good Reflex save... I would have preferred to see a Good Will save (many survival manuals state this as the most important piece of survival gear, and Rangers ARE Spellcasters - or at least Semi-!)

I think it's often quite hard to justify giving a lot of classes a bad saving throw, particularly Will. Wouldn't be so bad if they'd introduced a medium save as they did in D20 Modern.

Yes, Favored Enemy should add to the appropriate Knowledge skill, and Favored Enemy (Vermin) or (Giants) add to Knowledge (Nature), already a class skill, while FE (Dragons) should add to Knowledge (Arcana)... not sure about making it a class skill, as it has other uses, and also give knowledge of Constructs & Magical Beasts, as well, IIRC. I think treating the Ranger as skilled in Knowledge (Arcana), and adding the FE Bonus, ONLY when dealing with Dragons, is enough. (Not that I'd object to giving them all Knowledge skills as Class skills, nor even to allowing FE to add the appropriate one). It's all good, to me!

The Archivist seems to have a good angle on this.

In any case, these are my opinions on how Rangers can be improved... Oh, yeah, and WHY are they the ONLY spellcasting class without Dispel Magic? Not too flashy, is it? (Firebrand I can see!) [/QUOTE]

 

[ruleslawyer]

Never try to quantify what hit points respresent. Down that path lay only madness. They are "How Long I Should Be Able To Fight" points, and that's pretty much as specific as you can get.

QFT.

As to the ranger: It's a hard call, this wilderness warrior archetype, as it lies at the crux of so many mechanical approaches. I actually think (much as I, like buzz, prefer the IH hunter) that WotC did a good job with choosing the class's abilities. He's a light fighter with a great skill selection, some spells that are supposed to add to his usefulness in the wild, and an animal companion (ditto). I sense that perhaps the problem is that everyone has their own take on what the ranger should look like. I think the ranger is balanced well, but that it's a difficult archetype around which to craft a crowd-pleasing class. F'rex, many people don't like spellcasting rangers. Others would think the Scout is too rogue-like. Still others wouldn't like a "team player" type like the Hunter. Still others (myself included) aren't fond of the Black Company sneak-attacking ranger. It's tricky.

I do agree 100% with Felon that animal companions, special mounts, and familiars should *not* be class features, but feat or substitution level abilities. Most people involved in hack-and-slash play don't want them, and they're a beast (no pun intended) to work with in many campaigns. For instance, I would consider a ranger companion or familiar a serious liability in either of the published Dungeon Adventure Paths. (Druid companions work fine even in hack-and-slash play because they're crazy powerful, but I don't necessarily think that's a recommendation for the animal companion class feature.)

 

[buzz]

Yep, just gotta love watching a PC get up after taking a spill down a 100 foot-deep pit, land on solid rock, stand up without so much a sprained ankle, dust himself off, and say "um, good thing I rolled with that!"

But of course, the DM should then maintain verisimilitude by describing him as having a nasty bruise

You lookin' for realistic physics, you playin' the wrong game, baby.

 

[buzz]

I do agree 100% with Felon that animal companions, special mounts, and familiars should *not* be class features, but feat or substitution level abilities.

As I mentioned in offline discussion of this thread with my friends, it's not surpising to me that most of the expanded class abilities in PHB2 involve trading a class' companion/familiar/mount for an innate ability.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Do you have this class online somewhere to look at?

Sadly, I had to reformat my hard drive a while back and lost my computer copy. All I have is a hard copy, but I'll be getting it scanned soon, so I don't have to type the durn thing in again. My table formatting skills in Word are less than stellar. I'll be happy to share a copy when I do get it scanned in, though.

 

[Imp]

Survival Rangers are only so-so at, and this is a problem with the skills system, not the class... Sure, they can find food & water, but they can't do anything else with Survival. The skill is nearly useless, in 3/3.5e... A first level Cleric with Create Food and Water can outshine any Ranger, in most ways (and Clerics of the Travel Domain get Survival as a Class skill)! True, a Ranger can also use it to track, and (with 5+ ranks, always know which way is which), and to keep from getting lost, but... Once he's killed a buffalo, and gotten the meat, can he use the Sinew to make bows and strings? Made armor & moccasins out of the hide? Nope! Survival doesn't do that, Craft (X, Y, Z) does! So,... no!

Honestly, I think Ranger is a pretty good class, and the litany of complaints on this thread is getting kind of silly, but this is a good point. Note to self:

- rule that Survival can be used to craft basic implements out of materials gleaned from the wilderness, at a penalty of -5 or -10 or something to the corresponding Craft check, and possibly material-type penalties to equipment (i.e. spears won't be as good without access to iron spearheads; but Survival could be used to make a spear out of spare wood, sinew, and a knife) – and of course you wouldn't be able to make masterwork equipment with Survival.

- figure something out for crafting traps this way. This should apply to both Survival and Craft (trapmaking).