Ranger - likes and dislikes?

[Steverooo]

Although I like the 3.5e ranger better than the 3e ranger, I still think that the class has a lot of problems as written. The main problem IMHO is that the class is too focused on combat and killing things rather than woodscraft and wilderness lore.

(Emphasis added). More on this, later.

I never understood the combat styles. Shouldn't combat styles belong to the fighters?

No, Rangers are hunters. Fighters get 10 different Feats to develop their style. Rangers get their choice of two sets of three, plus skills, one better save, fewer HPs, less armor proficiencies, an Animal Companion (which they may not want), some spells (likewise), and Track & Endurance. They need a missile-weapon style (suable with spears, tridents, thrown nets, javelins, grenade-like missiles, throwing axes, and whatever else).

Also favored enemies seems too narrow; the ability only kicks in when the DM decides to throw your favored enemies in an adventure.

Regardless of the FE, it will come up, sooner or later. What needs to change is the idiocy of FE: Humanoid (Tiny-Sub-Group). FE: Outsider (Evil) is good enough, the same should apply to Humanoids.

The ranger needs more unique abilities to distinguish itself from the more combat oriented fighter and barbarian classes. One problem is that making tracking a feat that any character can acquire takes away from the ranger's niche. The ranger needs some type of tracking related abilities like "trailblazing" (from the scout class in the Star Wars rpg).

This is the heart of the matter! Or, as Plane Sailing called them, "cool abilities"! Fighters fight. They get cool Feats to do it better. Thieves thieve. They get skill points (and Trapfinding) to do it better. Magic Users use magic. They get spells, and most magic items to do it. Rangers range. They travel, and get some skill points to do that, but not enough, and the Barbarian gets the Fast Movement, and the Ranger gets nothing else (well, I take that back - as of 3.5e, they finally got Woodland Stride). They also Survive, but get no abilities there, either. They also Track, but get no special abilities to help...

My version gets automatic identification of tracks he's tracking, past a certain level, depending upon how familiar they are. He can also conceal trails better than others. He also gets bonus abilities to making things from natural items, can set certain traps using Survival skill, and has faster movement. All of these work regardless of terrain. I say, "That's cool!" WotC should hire ME!

 

[Hussar]

A thought about the animal companion. Yes, Davey Crockett didn't have a dire wolf, but Tarzan did. I've always seen rangers in more that light than Robin Hood. To me, Robin Hood was a fighter. As was Davey Crockett. Sure, they lived in the bush, but, then again, a few ranks in Survival works for that.

Rangers, to me anyway, should have an animal companion. It seriously boosts their combat abilities. However, I am also very much in the camp that it should be at level -2, and not level 1/2.

As far as making it a spell again, well, I'm very much glad they didn't. One of the most abused spells in the game IMO. Making it a feat, well, that's possible. I would certainly like to see some feats to boost the companion. I know the Monstrous Companion feat from Dragon helps.

 

[The_Gneech]

Actually, I'd posit that Robin Hood was a Scout/Fighter. That whole "hiding in the woods, being sneaky" thing.

-The Gneech

 

[Greg K]

Actually, I'd posit that Robin Hood was a Scout/Fighter. That whole "hiding in the woods, being sneaky" thing.

-The Gneech

nah. fighter/wilderness rogue!

 

[SCMrks]

There are several issues about the 3.5 Ranger that I dislike. To start, the concept of the Ranger has been changed. In "the Ranger Design Notes" by Andy Collins it says that the image of a ranger was that of a hardy, self-sufficient wilderness warrior. This is my image of a ranger and that of my gaming friends. Mr. Collins explains how the 3rd edition ranger fell short of that image and how the barbarian actually filled the image better. So many people did not like the 3rd edition ranger. But when Mr.Collins revised the ranger for 3.5 he did not improve it to meet the image most people had of the ranger. Instead Mr.Collins decided that the ranger would no longer fill this image but would be a skirmisher instead.

He gives 3 main reasons for changing the image of the ranger. One reason is that the ranger uses light armor so his AC isn't high enough to be on the frontlines. Another reason is that two weapon fighting gave the ranger -2 to attack so he hit less often. Third, two weapon fighting ment the ranger used lighter weapons so he did less damage with each it.

So Mr.Collins decided these disadvantages made it too hard for a ranger to be a frontline warrior and instead of revising him to fit the wilderness warrior image the ranger was changed into a skirmisher. The ranger's hit die was changed to a d8 to make everyone else accept the new "default view" of the ranger.

Another dislike I have about the ranger is that metagame thinking was used to design it. The DM's guide says metagame thinking is bad and should be avoided always but it seems to have been used to design the ranger class. In lowering the hit die to d8 Mr.Collins realized the ranger would not last as long in combat because it will have fewer hit points now. So Mr.Collins says, "In part to make up for that loss, we gave the ranger a good reflex save." The ranger did not get a good reflex save because he is seen as a lightning quick person but because he needed a way to last longer in combat. Even the acrobatic warrior/rogue Swashbuckler class did not get a good reflex save.

Why did the ranger get evasion? Not because it fits the image but because with a high reflex save it was a "no brainer" to multi-class with rogue to get evasion. Mr.Collins wanted to reduce the frequency of rangers dipping into rogue so he just gave the ranger evasion. Again, not even the Swashbuckler gets evasion and the Ninja doesn't get it until level 12. The ranger doesn't even have tumble as a class skill but he has better reflex and evasion skills than these two acrobatic classes. Granted they did come out after the ranger was revised.

The third reason I dislike the ranger is that his abilities don't make sense. Why can a ranger wear studded leather armor and a 70 pound backpack and fight with his bow or two weapons but if he takes off the backpack and puts on a 50 pound breastplate (medium breastplate armor is described as studded leather with a breastplate) he doesn't fight as well? Or while wearing a chain shirt he fights just fine but if he puts chain pants on with it his arms don't fight as well?
Just how does camouflage and hide in plain sight work? I always assumed that camouflaging yourself was part of the hide skill. Can a ranger in bright red and yellow clothing hide in an open meadow/field? And can Bozo the ranger stand 5 feet from you in this open meadow and just disappear from sight while you're watching him? These abilities are not described well enough.

Also I dislike the ranger having divine spells. In a world rich in magic like a D&D world I can see rangers learning spells as another tool to assist their survival skills but I don't think every ranger has to be so religious. Atleast in Forgotten Realms a ranger has to follow a nature god to get spells. I see the ranger spells more like mimicing the magic of the fey. The ranger survives in the wild where dryads, pixies, sprites, etc live so he picks up nature magic to survive the way the fey have magic, not by service to a god.

Finally, back to the skirmisher concept. Now that the Scout class is out the ranger is not the best choice for a wilderness skirmisher. If the barbarian replaced the ranger as the hardy wilderness warrior then the scout replaces the ranger as the skilled wilderness skirmisher. Mr.Collins changed the ranger because he felt a warrior in light armor should not be encouraged to be on the frontline by having a d10 hit die. Yet now we have the swashbuckler and hexblade who are light armor warriors with d10 hit die.

Mr.Collins felt the ranger was not capable of filling a role with the fighter, paladin, and barbarian so he put it in a role with the monk and rogue, a role the scout now fills also. My preference is that I dislike the ranger in that new role. I would like the ranger to be put back up in a warrior role in the ranks of the swashbuckler and hexblade.

 

[Mad Mac]

Um...last I checked, the 3.5 Ranger is more than capable of matching the "incredible" toe-to-toe fighting prowess of the Swashbuckler and Hexblade. (Both classes that are considered on the weak side) I mean, unless you seriously think a d10 HD magically bestows astounding melee prowess or something.

 

[SCMrks]

Um, looking at the categories of roles that were mentioned we have:
Frontline fighters were Fighter, Paladin, and Barbarian.
Skilled Skirmishers were Monk, Scout, and Rogue.
Then in the middle were Swashbuckler, Hexblade, and I propose Ranger.

Now fighter and paladin have d10, barbarian has d12.
Monk and scout have d8, rogue has a d6.
So why make the assumption that every class in the 3rd category must have the same d10?

If the hit die is to be the issue then I argue that the ranger got evasion because he had the high reflex save anyway, and he was given the high reflex save because his hit die was dropped. So return the reflex save to poor and take away evasion. After all the swashbuckler is an acrobatic warrior and he doesn't have a high reflex save nor evasion. And now we have the rogue, monk, scout and ninja with good reflex and evasion.

But the reasons to make the ranger a skirmisher were: low AC, -2 to attack, and less damage because of lighter weapons. So could the ranger be given an ability to help his AC along the lines of the swashbuckler's dodge bonus or the scout's AC bonus with skirmish. And why make a melee ranger use two weapon fighting? A swashbuckler often uses rapier and dagger but the class is not designed to force a player to use that style. So give the melee ranger a choice at something different and you eliminate reason of having a -2 attack penalty and less damage because of lighter weapons.

 

[JVisgaitis]

There are several issues about the 3.5 Ranger that I dislike. To start, the concept of the Ranger has been changed. In "the Ranger Design Notes" by Andy Collins...

Wow, never read those notes. In reading your post you make a >lot< of valid points. I've been toying around a lot with our new Waywalker class (here's a link to my Blog), and having poured over the 3.5 Ranger for the past few weeks as well as a dozen or more other similar classes, here are my conclusions:

What do I like?
-Lots of skill points
-Good Fortitude and Reflex saves
-Tracking bonuses
-Free Endurance feat

What I dislike?
-Only light armor
-Combat Styles (give us a bonus feats list!)
-Hide in Plain Sight
-Their role changing from Wilderness Survivalist to Skirmisher
-Lack of a base speed bonus (they should be faster in natural terrain than any other class)

What am I on the fence on?
-Spells (some like them and some hate them. They should be an option.)
-Animal Companion (again, something that can be good but for even people that want one they're too weak)
-Favored Enemy (I like the concept, just not the application)

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I agree 100%. In fact, I was asked to leave Andy's boards just for saying I thought combat styles were a bad design idea.

Mr.Collins felt the ranger was not capable of filling a role with the fighter, paladin, and barbarian so he put it in a role with the monk and rogue, a role the scout now fills also. My preference is that I dislike the ranger in that new role. I would like the ranger to be put back up in a warrior role in the ranks of the swashbuckler and hexblade.

 

[Steverooo]

Well for that matter, why not make "Animal Companion" a feat that druids, wizards, sorcerers, and rangers get as a bonus feat at the appropriate level? Then you could have a whole "beastmastery" feat chain with Improved Animal Companion, Multiple Animal Companions, and so on...

-The Gneech

Well, because that is, first of all, highly inflexible. Animal Friendship allows for one animal companion of your level, or as many one-hit-die animals as you have levels, or multiple critters with fewer hit dice than your PC. The Feat version allows for ONLY one critter, with equal hit dice.

Also, a Wizard/Socerer's familiar is a different case, entirely, supposed to help teach them spells (although D&D has NEVER done it right)! Originally, there was a separate spell for that, and Pseudo-dragons, brownies, etc., were allowed, on an especially good role.

Also, Feats are a stricylt limited commodity, for anyone except a Fighter. There already is a Feat for anyone wanting an Animal Companion who doesn't happen to be a Druid/Ranger. While more Feats could be added to "improve" them, that would not be a good thing, IMO. Such Feats make the Animal Companion (not the PC) stronger. At the same time, the PC becomes less and less able, in comparison to other PCs.

Also, by returning it to a more flexible spell, OCs who DON'T want an Animal Companion won't be forced to take one, anymore. Nor will they be weakened in comparison to those who do, as they will have an extra spell-slot to be used for something else. The same could be done for Sorcerers & Wizards, with their own spell. Say... Summom Familiar.

"Flexibility" is the main "Why?"!