Ranger: What needs fixing?

[Desdichado]

I'd agree with BiggusGeekus -- it's my intention, next time I run a campaign, to use the WoT Woodsman instead of the ranger. It may be a bit too much like a fighter lookalike, but it's a much better idea of a ranger than one I've ever seen in D&D.

Then again, my idea of a ranger is more like a fighter that takes track, Wilderness Lore and a few archer feats. I ranger of the kind I'd like can already be done with the fighter mechanic in D&D now.

 

[Jaligard]

I haven't seen the Woodsman, though it was my understanding that they did not get spells. Could someone either summarize it or point me to a summarization?

As for Heavy Armor, I don't think I'll be giving it to my Ranger. It just doesn't fit the flavor of the Ranger anyway. (As it stands, the Ranger barely has Medium Armor proficiency, since he loses his two-weapon fighting if he uses it.)

One of my goals is to make a Ranger that is balanced, level by level, with the other classes. So any abilities they don't get will be balanced out by ones they do get.

 

[Desdichado]

Yeah, the woodsman is more like a woodland fighter. Get's lots of bonus feats like a fighter as it progresses. It does not have heavy armor proficiency, and loses some bonuses even in medium armor. Instead of favored enemy, it has favored terrain which gives it bonuses. Also, haven't double checked, but seems like he gets a better skill progression.

If you want a ranger that is more like the current ranger, only "fixed" that depends on what you think is wrong with it. I merely think the two-weapon fighting as obligatory is "wrong," so I had it swap those two feats out with some archery related skills. However, I've never played a ranger into higher levels, and it does seem like there's no reason to keep progressing as a ranger unless you're just married to the concept, or really want the spells.

 

[bardolph]

I disagree that Rangers are more front-loaded than other classes.

Examples:

• Bard: Bardic Knowledge, Bardic Music, Spontaneous Spellcasting, +2 on two saves.
• Wizard: the entire 0-level spell list, four 1st-level spells known, Scribe Scroll, Summon Familiar
• Monk: +2 on three saves, Wisdom/AC, Stunning Attack, Unarmed Combat, Evasion
• Cleric: Turn/Rebuke Undead, Two Domain Abilities, Heavy Armor Proficiency, Domain bonus spells, access to the complete list of 0 and 1st-level spells, +2 on two saves.
• Paladin: Heavy Armor Proficiency, Detect Evil, Smite Evil, Divine Grace, Divine Health, Lay on Hands.
• Rogue: Sneak Attack, Find Traps, 32 skill points.

Spellcasting classes are even more front-loaded than they appear, since generally the difference between being ABLE to cast spells and NOT being able to cast spells is quite large (in my opinion). Example: detect magic and light (0-level spells) are not exactly spectacular, but being able to do it makes a world of difference in any campaign.

Rangers get plenty of "backloading" from their spellcasting and favored enemy bonuses.

"Virtual" Two-Weapon Fighting (and Ambidexterity) are not game-breakers. The TWF style is only useful in certain situations, and even then, it does not impact the game in any large way. Rangers can focus on other fighting styles without taking a monumental loss. You want archery? Take archery feats. Want to use a greatsword? Go ahead.

Think of the virtual combat feats as "throwaway feats" which sometimes come in handy, like Bardic Knowledge, or even Wizard Familiars (not all wizards summon a familiar, you know, and they aren't screaming for "compensation feats")

 

[Desdichado]

Bardolph, I don't think anyone's arguing that the virtual two-weapon fighting feats are game-breakers, just that they are silly, and don't really fit the idea of a ranger as well as some other options could. I'd rather have a virtual set of feats related to archery: it'd fit the concept better, and I'd be more likely to use it.

For those who want to use it, it's fine, but I'd rather not. All in all, I think the WoT woodsman is a class that does everything I want the ranger to do. If I want a more mystical woodsman, I'd modify the ranger slightly to give him access to archery related virtual feats rather than the ones he has. Just minor changes related to taste, really. I've played rangers already, at lower levels, and been very happy with them so far.

 

[Rashak Mani]

I think you defined very well the major points that make the Ranger a silly to class to get exclusively... take one level and get all the goodies !!

One you could add would be the very slow rythm which Rangers get spells... it takes a very high level Ranger to have 3rd and 4th lvl spells. A more reasonable spell progression chart would help in my opinion...

 

[Blackwind]

Rangers and TWF

It's never made sense to me why exactly rangers are supposed to be good at two-weapon fighting. I've been playing since back in 2E, but never seen an explanation for why it's an aspect of the class. Is it some kind of sacred cow left over from 1E? When did TWF first become a part of the ranger? Must be somebody here who remembers.

 

[Pazu]

I tend to shy away from major changes, although since I haven't actually playtested any of my ideas yet, I'm not sure if that makes any difference.

In any case, I kind of liked the option for rangers in the D20 Rokugan book, which suggested that if you don't like the idea of spell-casting rangers, give them a bonus feat at each level that they would gain a new spell level.

The other idea I had was to give all rangers one free rank in Wilderness Lore per level, since it's such a class-defining skill. That way, you can keep your Wilderness Lore skill going while saving your skill points for other things, but you still have to make a skill point investment to max it out. (I also thought about implementing a similar change for bards and the Perform skill, thinking this method might be a better alternative to simply increasing both classes' skill points per level. I don't know how well it would work in play, however.)

--Pazu

 

[Curranos]

Try this
*Tracking and a single bonus feat at first level
*Favoured enemy begins as +1 at first level then at each level you either add another +1 to the first favoured enemy or choose another the caveat is that no favoured enemy bonus can be greater than five. The ranger then could have for example 10 favoured enemies each recieving only a +2 bonus or any combination you can imagine. The only down side to this may be that by 5th level the ranger could have a +5 bonus to hit one type of creature.
*Favoured terrain begining at 2nd level a new favoured terain at 6th then 10th and every four level after that. The bonus works in a similer way to how favoured enemy works at the moment increasing the bonus by +1 each time a new terain is added. Favoured terrain also allows the ranger to travel faster +10 feet while in the chosen terrain and further more at 4th level the ranger developes uncanny dodge this becomes improved uncanny dodge at 10th level
*Lastly there several bonus non combat feats that could be gained at 4th level and every four levels after
With both favoured enemy and favoured terrain there is less need to increase the number of skill points that the ranger recieves.
sorry about the length

 

[Squire James]

In case you're wondering about origins, the first official mention (that is, published in a book and not a Dragon Magazine) of Two Weapon Fighting is in Unearthed Arcana. This book was essentially (um, personal opinion ahead...) permission from TSR for everyone to min-max and never, ever play a Fighter again. Drow could fight with two weapons "easily held in one hand" with no penalty whatsoever.

Drizzt Do'Urden, or at least his combat ability, is merely a direct translation of this rule. He wasn't exactly the only Drow outcast running around in a D&D game at the time, but he was certainly the most popular! In fact, Drizzt was so popular, TSR apparently decided that someone had to be able to make something very close to Drizzt in their then-new Second Edition game. One snag was that Drow were no longer considered a playable race. They "fixed" that by moving the Drow two-weapon fighting ability to the Ranger class. So Drizzt had obtained his two-weapon ability because he was a Ranger, not because he was a Drow.

At the time, I guess they thought everyone who wanted to play a Ranger wanted to "be like Drizzt". At the time, that may have been a valid assumption. There was certainly no big outcry about it back then. Then again, most people weren't on the Internet (without a doubt the #1 Whining Tool in the world) back then either!