Ranger - likes and dislikes?

[JRRNeiklot]

Likes? Er, he gets wilderness lore, otherwise he sucks. IMO, the ranger doesn't exist in 3.5.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

Likes? Er, he gets wilderness lore, otherwise he sucks. IMO, the ranger doesn't exist in 3.5.

You made Aragorn cry.

 

[ceratitis]

i like lots of stuff but always wondered why doesnt the ranger gain 0 level spells. say he gets 0 for two levels (only bonus applies) and something like a bard later on.
Z

 

[Kunimatyu]

I prefer the Scout(Complete Adventurer) to the Ranger. The scout ability gives the player more an incentive to move during combat, as opposed to TWF and Rapid Shot, both of which encourage a stock-still full-attacking character.

In addition, the 8 skill points, lack of divine magic, and lack of a crappy animal companion don't hurt. The 3/4ths BAB and d6 HD hurt somewhat, but well-chosen feats and good tactics can offset those disadvantages.

 

[Aaron L]

I agree with the animal companion being like a stuck on flavor thing with its effectiveness. It isnt even needed. I can see a wilderness warrior having an animal buddy, Grizzly Adams and stuff, but as far as the PHB campanion goes, its worthless in a fight. Im OK with the spells, thats D&D, but make them more useful; at the levels a ranger gets his spells they are largely worthless. Entangle at the level a ranger gets it is a almost a joke beyond rare encounters against hordes of kobolds in the outdoors. The spells that have come out after the PHB have mitigated this somewhat, though.

Ill agree again with the d8 hit die. A ranger isnt a tank, hes a fairly sneaky warrior. Full BAB, yes, needed. Lighter armor, definately. (I allow full abilites in medium armor, myself. Chain mail fits my conception of lightly armored) 6 skill points is dead on. Im even ok with the favored enemy. While it isnt perfect, it does fit the archetype, I think, as either a favored prey as a hunter, or a primary enemy as a free spirited Robin hood type. I can imagine it could be made better, but I cant think of anything better at the moment (thats why I pay people to make the games for me, I suppose )


And the fighting style, while a step in the right direction, is still nothing but a throwback to 2E dual wielding rangers (which just completely baffled me.) Some kind of bonus feat progression in place of the fighting style, an upgraded animal companion, and a better spell list would fix things up.

I dearly loved the 1E ranger, but Im under no illusions that it made any kind of sense as a literary or mythological archetype It was a horrible hodgepodge of abilities. Still, I would have loved to have seen a minor arcane spell progression added to the 3ED ranger, perhaps as merely an allusion to elven teachings. Magic missle would have made no less sense than two weapon fighting, but it would have had the benefit of continuity from 1E.

 

[frankthedm]

Life is a pit. Happiness is a lie. Fairy tales dont come true. Most people don't find true love, and the good guys usually lose.

Smile when you say that!

As the animal companion goes, the rules do allow and expect them to be used as throw away meat shields.

It is funny, the classes that a person would expect to treat thier compainions well and protect them from harm, suffer less from using them as lambs to the slaughter than the often moraly bankrupt arcane casters. Rangers and Druids can set up a revolving door for animal companions, but the wizard would not dare consider that.

Perhaps letting rangers use level -1 for ther compainion but also suffering an XP loss if his best friend gets killed would make the compainion more viable?

 

[Felon]

Like:
Fighting Styles
Skilset
Improved Stealth/Tracking Capabilities
BAB/HD/Skill Pt ratio

Dislike:
Spells
Animal Companion

Ambivalent:
Favored Enemy

Along with the paladin and bard, I think the ranger works a lot better as a prestige class (as presented in UA).

The real trick with the class seems to be to stop thinking "I wanna play Aragorn" for a minute, and start figuring out what the actual party role of such class is supposed to be. It's easy for people to say stuff like "ASFAIC the ranger does not exist in 3e", because all they have to do is criticize the content that they consider inappropriate. But when you strip that stuff away, something has to replace it. What should a ranger be able to do that's special and unique?

The best I can figure is that the class is supposed to be a kind of fighter that incorporates an emphasis on stealth and some other skills. Is that enough to provide the basis of a class?

Favored enemy was a good idea in theory. Personally, I'd like it actually provide some unique offesnive/defensive features, not just pick a creature type and gain some damage bonuses (which just duplicates something you can get from playing another class) and some questionable skill bonuses (yeah, I'm going to use Sense Motive against an ooze, or Bluff a plant). For instance, allowing critical hits to actually work against foes like undead and constructs would be unique and useful, particularly with some rogue levels thrown in.

 

[Imp]

I like the idea of ranger as consummate, mystical hunter – I wish his shtick was more along the lines of hang back, study the adversary for as long as possible, and deliver a lethal or crippling blow. That would make playing one interestingly tense and different, I think. The spells and favored enemies (or favored terrains) could play into this. And perhaps instead of having an animal companion he should have the ability to very easily recruit animal help from his surroundings.

I like scouts too, but I think there's room for a separate, dedicated hunter role.

 

[rounser]

Good Hit Die. Not like a fighter, but a ranger is a light warrior, and doesn't need the hit points.

I think you and a few others in this thread have got this backwards. Because he's a lightly armoured warrior he needs the HP more than a heavily armoured fighter does. Hit points are abstract, and thus represent exactly the sort of thing you expect from a ranger (the ability to roll with the punches despite not having a wall of metal to protect him from them).

 

[Hussar]

I'm a little surprised by the dislike of favoured enemy. Since you pick types, it shouldn't be too hard for it to come up a fair bit. Then again, I actually talk to my DM before picking a type and see if he won't at least point me in the right direction.