Rangers Do you play them?

[Negative Zero]

Negative Zero, I tend to go along your line of thinking. It's the concept that I wan't to play. Even though I like two-weapon fighting, I don't like being restricted being a big bow fan myself.

i play an archer type ranger as well. though i'm still going to take the ambi and TWF feats at 3rd and 4th level. in our game tho, he has a reason to do so: it's part of his quest to find his father's two weapons that were stolen. i guess my DM likes the TWF style with a 16 INT and an 18 DEX, he makes a great scout!

 

[Ron]

I have been playing MC's Ranger and its works fine. Unlike the PHB ranger, which is the best class to take a single level, Monte Cook's variant is more interesting to play at several levels -- my character is currently at the 8th level.

Even so, I'm not completely satisfied with it. I see the ranger as a scout, and that's the reason why the Ranger should have 6 (instead of 4) skill points per level, otherwise it would be impossible to get all scout related skills. Moreover Cook's variant take only d8 in exchange for a greater amount of combat feats and slightly superior magic capabilities. I don't care much about the extra magic, as I think this is of secondary importance to the ranger. Although the extra feats are cool, they turn the ranger in a very elegant warrior, able of many different movements in combat. This is my problem with this version, I see the ranger not as a manuevering warrior but more like a no nonsense straitghforward combatant.

Considering all this, I'm planing to use in the games I DM my own alternative. It will include the following changes from the PHB: 6 skill points per level (instead of 4), no two-weapon fighting and ambidexterity at first level, an extra combat feat at second and another at the third level.

My version is more powerful than the PHB as it allows more skill points, my I think that the official version is too weak in this department. The combat abilities of my version are similar to the PHB version. It takes some of the feats from the first level to make other levels more attractive and, although allowing the recreation of the two-weapon user ranger, it also permits more freedom of choice to the player.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Does the Woodsman from WoT balance well with the regular D&D classes since it was designed for a different game with different set of classes? Just wondering because I would like to use it.

Balances perfectly with D&D. Some elements of it are WoT specific (defence modifier, for instance) but everything else is fine - BAB, Saves, HD, class abilities. It is extremely clear just what the class is about - a superlative wilderness warrior.

 

[hong]

I don't care much about the extra magic, as I think this is of secondary importance to the ranger. Although the extra feats are cool, they turn the ranger in a very elegant warrior, able of many different movements in combat. This is my problem with this version, I see the ranger not as a manuevering warrior but more like a no nonsense straitghforward combatant.

If what you want to play is a "no nonsense straightforward combatant", then it seems to me that you should play the class that's designed to be a no-nonsense straightforward combatant -- namely, the fighter.

 

[Henrix]

The only standard 3ed rangers I have seen anyone play around here have been multiclassed characters with one level Ranger for the TWF.

I kinda like the Monte Ranger, but it is a bit overpowered.
I like the idea of fighter BAB coupled with lower hit points and more skills.
I am considering allowing it, but cutting down on the bonus feats.

 

[hong]

The only standard 3ed rangers I have seen anyone play around here have been multiclassed characters with one level Ranger for the TWF.

I kinda like the Monte Ranger, but it is a bit overpowered.
I like the idea of fighter BAB coupled with lower hit points and more skills.
I am considering allowing it, but cutting down on the bonus feats.

I think I've mentioned this before: a "light fighter" class wouldn't go astray. It would have less hit points than a regular fighter, but have more skill points and perhaps other changes as well. Depending on the skillset, it could serve as a replacement ranger, a martial artist (replacement monk), and maybe even a swashbuckler (usually treated as a fighter/rogue).

 

[Henrix]

I really like that idea, hong!

 

[shilsen]

I'm currently running a rgr/rog, using a modified ranger with some similarities to Monte's, but very toned down in power, in a RttToEE campaign. Enjoying myself throughly from the roleplaying perspective, and as far as power is concerned, he's very effective there too. Tons of skill points and great with a bow (think Legolas!). Currently a Rog4/Rgr3/Deepwood Sniper2, and planning to mix rgr and rog levels all the way.

 

[Davelozzi]

None of my players chose to play a ranger in my new campaign, although one of them (currrently a rogue) is considering multiclassing into ranger in order to become a bounty hunter type. I'll probably either have him use the WoT Woodsman or a very close variant when that time comes.

 

[Ron]

If what you want to play is a "no nonsense straightforward combatant", then it seems to me that you should play the class that's designed to be a no-nonsense straightforward combatant -- namely, the fighter.

The fighter does not qualify in the sense I was writing as he have several combat options available through the multiple feats he can get. As such, two fighters can have quite different styles, depending of which feats they got. I imagine the ranger as a scout, as such, he is not as focused in combat styles as the fighter. Give him a high BAB but not so many feats.