Ranger - likes and dislikes?

[Plane Sailing]

Really, my vision of what the Ranger should be would make the Barbarian a bit redundant.

Pretty much the position I came down to in 3e (see my post at the top of this page). I turned Rage into a feat available to those of a barbarian background (and dwarves IMC), and the barbarian tribesmen tended to be druids, fighters, rogues and rangers with feats from the rage/improved rage/perfect rage chain.

3.5e made the 'ranger' a more interesting class, and although it still doesn't fit my view of a ranger it was something worth having and playing now.

 

[JVisgaitis]

One thing I always considered was giving Rangers a Dodge Bonus to AC. Only problem with that is it seems more fitting for a Rogue. I'm really surprised that they didn't do that with 3.5. I think including a Dodge bonus to AC for all classes and then some sort of Armor Specialization for Fighters which would reduce Armor Check Penalties would be a step in the right direction. That's hopefully something that will be added in the next iteration of D&D.

 

[glass]

I like the styles. I wouldn't object to seeing more than two, granted, but the advantage of having styles is that it lets the ranger pick up some solid feats without meeting the pre-reqs. You can't do that with just bonus feats.

Why not? Any reason the rules couldn't say something like this?

Unlike other classes, a ranger need not meet the prerequisites when selecting bonus feats. However, they may only use such feats if they are wearing light armour and not using a shield



glass.

 

[glass]

4) Wilderness Warrior? That belongs firmly to the Druid.

I think this one could be more of a problem with the druid than the ranger. For a full caster, they are just too good at combat too.


glass.

 

[glass]

A ranger with Spells, since I was 12 years old and first introduced to 3rd edition

Does anyone else suddenly feel really old?


glass.

 

[glass]

Light fighters aren't supposed to be as tough as a heavy fighter. If I hit a swashbuckler, I expect more effect than if I hit a fighter.

Right, and one of the things that having lots of hp is supposed to represent is not getting hit a lot. Slightly breaks down with poison attacks and falling, but you can't have everything.


glass.

 

[Klaus]

I don't mind the ranger, though I wish the animal companion were tougher.

I rarely play them, but I can rationalize my character to the class, even if the ranger doesn't work entierly well.

In Eberron, I have a Valenar ranger. The two-weapon path works for using the double scimitar just as well as one blade in each hand. The spells can be channeling power from the elf's ancestor (more in an ancestor worship sense than devotion to nature), the favored enemy is human due to working as a mercenary on the Cyran front during the War. For an animal companion I took the Valenar Riding Horse, though even using character feats to take the Mounted Combat chain, the horse won't stand up to a good thrashing. The bonus Endurance feat can be ascribed to a 100+ years of life in the saddle and training as a warrior. Wild Empathy can be reflected in a natural gift with horses, but in game terms it's the same with the horses so prevelant in Valenar culture or with walruses and teacup poodles.

I could probably do the same with a fighter/scout multiclass, though. I'm not too attached to the spellcasting portion of the character concept, but since I'll only go to 5th level, it's not a significant part of the character's identity.

What you're looking for the is the Revenant Blade PrClass from Player's Guide to Eberron. BEST class to represent the Valenar I've ever seen. It even improves your animal companion. After that, Wild Plains Outrider is nifty.

 

[Steverooo]

Beyond flavor, the only other possible use I can see for a ranger's animal companion is as a tracking / scouting assistant...but since the ranger can't communicate with his companion unless he has Speak With Animals running (and, until high levels, the ranger's only going to possibly be able to cast a couple of those a day), even that role isn't well-suited for the animal companion.

Most of that should be doable with the Animal Companion's Empathic Link ability. There's a better solution, though.

Rangers' Spellcasting Level, and Animal Companion Level, should be Ranger Class Level - 2. Thus, spellcasting begins at fourth level (as it does, now), and as a second level caster (as it does now, @ 1/2 x 4th). I think that would solve both problems, easily enough, without really changing much...

For what it's worth, though, the Ranger's Animal Companion description specifically says that it should not be considered a "combat buddy".

 

[TheLe]

[imager]http://www.thele.com/TheLeGames/images/tn/NeoRangers_TheSpiderKing_tn200w.jpg[/imager]All this talk of the Ranger makes me want to write another Neo Ranger book!

LOL

It does seem kind of odd to me that the Ranger got a full BAB while the monk got the gimped BAB.

~Le

 

[Felon]

I really am of the opinion that gaining animal companions should be a feat function. Pets complicate things for both players and DM's, and they just don't appeal to everyone. Moreover, the feat could be made modular so that you can create a true beastmaster who takes the feat mulitple times.