Rangers: Leave them alone!?

[Steverooo]

 

 

[dkilgo]

I think that you really want to play a Ranger, but don't want to deal with the version in the core books. Why is it not cool enough for you? I am just kidding...

I like a lot of your ideas, but am unsure of how to apply them exactly. It will be hard to decide because balance is definitly an issue here. We must keep it in check with the other classes.

 

[Stalker0]

Okay since you asked...

One idea I've been toying with is tying the Ranger's special abilities to the type of favored enemy they choose. So rather than getting bonus feats or some special ability that Rogues or Druids or Fighters have, they would have unique special powers that represents a supernatural empathy with a kind of creature.

I really reallly really like this idea, wish I had thought of it. Basically, give the rangers a short of pseudo-domains depending on what favored enemies he picks up. He would get a special ability based on what favored enemy he gets, perhaps a scalable ability as he went on in levels.

And the rarer the category of creatures you pick, the better the special abilities. That would make both common creatures and obscure ones good choices for rangers to pick.

Problem with this is it would take a fair amount of work and a whole lot of thought to balance. But I think it could be a very cool concept.

 

[officeronin]

Re: "...infiltration and spying."

From "The Ranger", page 24 of the AD&D Players Handbook: "Rangers are a sub-class of fighter who are adept at woodcraft, tracking, scouting, and infiltration and spying."

So, those knocking everything and putting in no ideas of their own: Do you think the Ranger needs no fixing? Is it fine the way it is? Are you satisfied to leave it unchanged?

I know that I feel it needs a boost, both in power and uniqueness. Zarathrustran and StalkerO seem to feel the same way, IMHO.

What are YOUR ideas? Contribute, please!...

I've seen several first level PC rangers, but never a second level PC ranger... They all multiclass with rogue, or, occasionally, druid or barbarian. Yes, the gravy is all in level 1, and there is no reason to stay in for levels 2+.

There were so many feats in MotW that gave bonuses against a favored enemy -- and those feats are quickly duplicated by regular feats that allow their use against anyone. Very sad. I dislike the favored-enemy rules and concept -- it's too little, too late.

Personally, I don't think outdoor-type warriors need to use 2 weapons. Aragorn fighting the wraiths with sword and torch was fun, but archery and axes seem to be a more likely weapons for woodsman... I'd like to replace ambidexterity and 2 weapon fighting with, say, PB Shot and Rapid Shot -- or Mounted Combat/Ride-by Attack for plainsmen, or dodge/mobility/spring attack for hit-n-git force recon folk. Better yet, give the player the option. Problem is, not all of them are balanced -- what do you do for the player that wants to play a Pict with Power Attack and Exotic Weapon: Bastard Sword? (I think that would be too potent, compared to the other options.) In any case, I'd spread them over a couple levels. Maybe Track at level 1, and one of a particular train of feats at levels 2, 4, and 6? Better yet, make it 1, 2 and 4, but drop the heavy armor proficiency.

I like the idea of the skill-based fighter variant, but think the ranger runs into the same problem as bards -- your gimmick depends on a skill. So, of the 4 + INT modifier points, 1 is already spoken for (perform or wilderness lore, depending on bard/ranger) leaving too few for a PC that depends on skills for their tricks. Is 6 per level too many?

Summing up, I suggest:

Dropping favored enemy and heavy armor proficiency
Keeping track at level 1
Gaining extra feats at levels 1, 2 and 4 -- and these feats are dependent on a predefined string of feats being persued.
Ranger feats are no longer dependent on armor usage
6 skill points per level rather than 4.

You asked...

OfficeRonin

 

[Wanderlust]

Now, all ye nay-sayers, back to my original point: Since the pre-skill AD&D 1e days, it seems that The Powers That Be at TSR/WotC have had no clear idea of what Rangers ARE, nor what they DO. The first step in fixing them is to figure that out, no?

Quite right, good Sir

I have been going with the original definition. You may not like the "infiltration and spying" aspect, but it is there... Apparently you prefer to go with the "loner" concept, introduced in 2e (and promulgated by "The Complete Ranger"). The problem with that concept (and TCR book) is that loners don't adventure with parties. I reject this as a platform for a Class in an RPG because they require teamwork.

I have to disagree here. This "loner" could compliment a party in many ways, and he need not necessarily be a loner. I just think that his emphasis on Wilderness survival wouldn't leave room for the infiltrator aspect. BUT, I do think that in place of infiltrator you can substitute ambusher .

So, those knocking everything and putting in no ideas of their own: Do you think the Ranger needs no fixing? Is it fine the way it is? Are you satisfied to leave it unchanged?

Hey, I'm not knocking anything! Ninjas are cool! But seriously, in all of fantasy the Elf Ranger (tm) is my favourite concept, and yes, I think that the current rendition is sadly lacking. So yes, I think it should be changed.

I know that I feel it needs a boost, both in power and uniqueness. Zarathrustran and StalkerO seem to feel the same way, IMHO.

What are YOUR ideas? Contribute, please!...

Ok well, I'd do what you said and go back to the idea of what a ranger is. Well, I see him as a stealthy woodsman/hunter sort that might not be able to go toe to toe with a fighter, but could easily rip the fighter to shreds when in his home environment.

So, that basically translates to keeping his class skills as they are, though I'd be tempted to give him balance as well for the sake of hiding in trees, but I guess cross class is good enough.

As for actual changes I'd go with a similar path, but not the exact path, as the Alt Ranger, which I unfortunately don't have a link to at the moment. I'd start with dropping favored enemy in favor of Favored Terrain which may be chosen from table 9-5 of the PHB and work almost exactly like favored enemy in that you would get the same bonuses and a new Terrain every five levels. When in his Favored Terrain the bonuses apply to Animal Empathy, Hide, Move Silently, Intuit Direction, and Wilderness Lore. Also debateable is giving him the bonus to Spot and Listen as he can easily notice when things are out of place when in his Favored Terrain.

There is also the Overland Movement ability. When travelling alone the Ranger may make a Wilderness Lore check DC 20 in order to travel as if on a highway. If with a group then they travel as if on a road. This needs to be tweaked a bit, but I'm not in a patient mood at the moment.

The Two-Weapon fighting feats are most assuredly gone. In their place the Ranger will receive Point Blank Shot. Yes, only one feat, but at the third level the Ranger will receive the Druid ability Woodland Stride, and then at sixth he'll get Trackless Step.

Spell progression remains the same pretty much the same with some small additions. Check out Monte's ranger to find out the new spells, but his spells versus favored enemy will not be used of course. Skill pts are increased to 6 per level.

At level 16, 17, or 18 or perhaps not at all, the Ranger may make ranged coup de grace attacks within 30' provided that the recipient has no idea that he's there.

Lastly the hit die is dropped to d8.

Any thoughts?





Wanderlust

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

Re: "...infiltration and spying."

What are YOUR ideas? Contribute, please!...

1) I don't like favored terrain as a fix to the ranger. It pigeon-holes the ranger just as effectively as favored enemies do.

2) DnD should have had only one woodsman. With that in mind, here is my contribution:

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28547

 

[Wanderlust]

Pigeonholes?

Ok, but does casting spells pigeonhole a wizard or Sorceror?




Wanderlust

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

Re: Pigeonholes?

Ok, but does casting spells pigeonhole a wizard or Sorceror?




Wanderlust

What exactly is your point? A wizard or sorcerer can cast their spells on any plane of existence and on most creatures out there. Spells are effective most of the time, whereas favored terrains are effective seldomly. (Which is the whole problem with favored enemies in the first place.)

I would like a ranger to be as effective on the plane of Acheron or in a dungeon, as in his chosen terrain.
.
.
.
My point is that favored terrains do the exact same thing to the ranger that lots of people can't stand with the PHB ranger:

The PHB ranger blows chunks when not fighting his favored enemies. (The campaign must focus on these enemies to give the ranger a chance to shine.)

The Terrain ranger blows chunks when not fighting inside his favored terrain. (The campaign must focus on these terrains to give the ranger a chance to shine.)

 

[Steverooo]

 

 

[Steverooo]