Ranger - likes and dislikes?

[Klaus]

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).

Check the booby-trap section in the DMG2. Basically, you can scavenge the parts of a booby-trap from the wild with just a few minutes of work and, iirc, a Survival check.

 

[Felon]

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

The very point being that coming up with rationalizations as to why a ranger should get the same hit die as a fighter based on speculative notions about what hit points represent is kinda deluded.

 

[Mercule]

The very point being that coming up with rationalizations as to why a ranger should get the same hit die as a fighter based on speculative notions about what hit points represent is kinda deluded.

Eh, but holding the view that a hearty border fighter should be able to take a sword-thrust just as well as a professional soldier isn't.

Everything about the ranger archetype just screams that he's gonna be hard to wear down through torture, environment, accidents, traps, and pure attacks. There is really no speculative portion of the "hit point" score that a ranger shouldn't score as well on as a fighter. In many cases, the ranger should be obviously rated better. I can see the argument for giving the ranger a higher hit die than the fighter (not that I'm advocating that, just pointing to where I could see the gray), but there isn't one for giving them a lower hit die.

If you want to give the fighter a d12 and say the class represents the tough-as-nails veteran that the warmain does, I might buy that. The ranger is still going to be in a different league than the cleric, druid, and scout. D10 for ranger makes just as much sense when you compare him to the other d8 classes as it does when you compare him to the other d10 classes.

 

[Gundark]

I dislike the spell casting. IMHO rangers shouldn't cast spells.

 

[Felon]

Eh, but holding the view that a hearty border fighter should be able to take a sword-thrust just as well as a professional soldier isn't. Everything about the ranger archetype just screams that he's gonna be hard to wear down through torture, environment, accidents, traps, and pure attacks.

Mercule, it sounds like you feel convinced that the distinction between a d8 and a d10 is massive, and that a d8 hit die turns a character into a wet rag. Am I being unfair to say that? When you describe the ranger, you seem to be co-opting the barbarian's role of meat shield into the ranger class. The ranger is about skill, not brute toughness.

There is really no speculative portion of the "hit point" score that a ranger shouldn't score as well on as a fighter. In many cases, the ranger should be obviously rated better.

Opinions don't become facts simply through conviction. Despite the matter-of-fact tone, this personal scoring system doesn't seem to have a lot of objectiivty. From a quantitative standpoint, the ranger already does have an outstanding BAB/HD/skill/save package--better than the fighter's, even allowing for the lower hit die.

I can see the argument for giving the ranger a higher hit die than the fighter (not that I'm advocating that, just pointing to where I could see the gray), but there isn't one for giving them a lower hit die.

Arguements don't cease to exist because one refuses to acknowledge them. Not only do they exist, but they've been presented in this very thread. It is in fact entirely speculative to debate about how an abstract concept like "ranger" should measure up to another abstract concept called "fighter".

 

[ruleslawyer]

mercule: Here's an argument for it: The ranger is not a specialist in straight-up combat. That role belongs to the fighter, the paladin, and the barbarian, all of whom are much better built for it in general. The ranger is a skirmisher, a guide, a tracker, a scout, an irregular. Those people DON'T have the main combat endurance of FIGHTERS (who, as their name implies, are fighting specialists) or other characters designed to stand fast and trade blows with the enemy.

To give Tolkien a spin, I'd bet Boromir gets a better Hit Die than Aragorn, even though Aragorn is of the royal house of the Dunedain and a (pretty direct) descendant of Elros; principally because Boromir was a hale-and-hearty, upfront fighter-type, whereas Aragorn had da mad skilz and a host of other abilities that made him an excellent runner, tracker, and woodsman (I'm leaving out the "hands of a king" and other qualities that are probably more about ol'Aragorn being a Numenorean and of royal blood).

Most of the things you quoted, mercule, are issues related to Con checks and Fort saves. On some of these (resisting torture, privation, and traps) I could make the same arguments for why the monk should also have d10 HD. And, IMHO, the ranger should have a high Con. But hit points? Those are the domain of the front-line fighter, which the ranger is NOT. Want a truly hardy meat shield wild warrior type, like a Celt or Northern German? Then play a barbarian. The ranger is a skirmisher who relies on his wilderness lore, knowledge of the terrain, stealth, and hedge magic to squeeze out the advantage from combats. He's NOT a hard-bitten in-your-face hand-to-hand combat monster.

Note, of course, that the ranger does have the same Hit Die as a professional soldier; those are "warriors" in D&D parlance.

Now, if you want a character that's BOTH, the approach to that in D&D is to multiclass and get some fighter levels too.

 

[rounser]

I think HP make a lot more sense when interpreted as "running out of luck" points. Maybe your PC loses 100 HP, and doesn't take a scratch, but fate ensures he gets a brain hemorrhage and keels over immediately when he takes 15 more.

But the rules talk about damage, so that's how it's interpreted.

 

[satori01]

Non Spell Casting Rangers and non d8 HD Rangers does not fit the 1E History of Rangers. You young wippersnapers out there that never played 1E can get a non spell casting Ranger when all us Dinosaurs go extinct.

Full Bab is really all you need to be effective in combat in 3.5. Getting Rapid Shot and Manyshot for free still makes one a pretty potent archer.

D8 HP, Evasion, Endurance(thus being able to sleep in armor), Hide in Plain Sight, Woodland Stride and good Fort and Reflex saves means a Ranger can survive in most circumstances.
Throw in spells (Longstrider, Arrowstorm, Hunter's Mercy, Cure, and Polymorph) and you have some really good possibilities out there.

Favored Enemy in 3.5 is great. 1e you could add your level to damage against giants only,(which included Hobgoblins and Bugbears if memory served correctly). For those that say 3.5 Favored Enemy is too dependent on the DM, taking Favored Enemy Undead, Dragons, Giants, and Aberrations covers most of the creatures in the game. Also for one feat in CW, Improved Favored Enemy you add + 3 Damage against all of your Favored Enemies, pretty signifigant. A Two Weapon Fighting Ranger doing
+11 damage from Favored Enemy alone is pretty frightening.

Animal Companion, doesnt scale very well, but it is more of a Flavor Abillity, and means in many cases a Ranger has a nice horse, or a good Hawk buddy to send scouting. An Archer style Ranger with a Hawk as an Animal Companion can be a very dangerous thing, Hawks make great Coup de Grace-ers. Ranger Pin Cusions creature to negatives and Hawk finishes them off.
In my own Campaign I allow a Ranger to trade in the Animal Companion ability for a bonus feat.

The Synergy of the Rangers abillities is what makes them powerful, that and smart play.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Regarding the hit dice argument, it is worth remembering that...

when first introduced, the 1st level ranger had 2d8hp as against 1d8 for fighters.

When 1e turned up, the fighter got boosted to 1d10hp but the ranger still got his 2d8 at first level.

i.e. as originally concieved, the starting ranger was considerably hardier than anyone else.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Regarding interesting alternative rangers - swapping the spell list for an alternative existing 4 level list can work quite nicely.

I've played a 'Justicar' character who was intensely lawful and who used the paladin spell list instead of the ranger spell list (with 'good' aligned spells changed to 'law' aligned spells in this instance). This worked really nicely and seemed well balanced.

Another interesting combination that I've allowed in my campaign was the Spymaster, which was a ranger with the assassin spell list rather than the ranger spell list. Once again, it gave an interesting and distinctive flavour to the class with minimal change.

Cheers