buzz said:
The ranger, as presented in D&D 3.x, is about skill and not brute toughness, yes...
...and thus making comparisons to Aragorn is a little off. Yeah, he's a "ranger" in Tolkien's terminology, but maybe not in D&D terminology. (There's also a whole host of other questions about Aragorn-as-PC that muddle discussion. Is he an Epic-level PC? What kinds of advantages does his race provide? Etc.)
Man, I hate being misinterpreted. I wasn't using Aragorn as an example for modeling the ranger, but rather invoking a situation in which a mystical, skilful woodsman skirmisher type might not be as hit-point-centered as a stand-up fighter. I could instead compare Drizzt with Bruenor, or Robin Hood with Richard Coeur de Lion. What I was trying to do was address the "rangers should have a higher HD-type because they're hearty woodsmen" types in their own terms. The game balance argument is easy; if I get MUCH better skills, a good Ref save, spellcasting, and class abilities, plus good BAB and martial weapon proficiencies, then it's simply twinkish for me to get the same HD type as the fighter, who gets only one good save, crappy skills, and a set of bonus feats to compare against my various class abilities and spellcasting.
The problem here is that the word "ranger" conjures up strong images in our imaginations, but ones that also seem to often be at odds with others'. The current D&D ranger seems to be very much Driz'zt-based, with some nods to Aragorn and Robin Hood. But, like many things in D&D, it's its own genre construct.
Thus my point earlier:
me said:
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.
And I say this as someone who played rangers all the freakin' time in 1e.
You probably played them all the time because they were crazy overpowered in 1e. I know that's why I did...
I think the ranger is good, but then I also can see how it's possible to model different elements of the "wilderness warrior" type using other classes. Druids are probably the best, but to be honest I think that's because they're a bit too powerful. Wilderness rogues work fine for the stealthy part, fighters are a much better pick for the combat styles, etc etc. But the ranger is the only class that combines all those abilities. Of course, everyone has their own ideal "mix" of spellcasting, stealth, wilderness lore, and fighting ability. Me, I'd probably keep everything about the 3.5 ranger except as follows:
-Replace favored enemy with favored terrain and/or something like the IH Beast Lore feat
-Give him woodland stride
-Provide him with increased mobility, and the ability to help companions achieve increased mobility, in difficult terrain
-Improve the spell selection
-Eliminate the fighting styles in favor of hunter-like battlefield control abilities.
