Rangers... the weakest of classes?

[Balgus]

sorry for jakking this thread for a sec

Personally, I think the fighter is the weakest of all classes when it comes to leveling up. he is the only class that increases linearly, while all other classes increases geometrically. Fighters get a feat every two levels (actually, after the first 10 feats, what do you spend it on?) so the feats' importance decreases.

A barb gets more rage, and more powerful rage, and longer rage. which is important for the many fights he gets into... and uncanny dodge. Rogue gets special abilities, casters get monster spells, and the druid gets a huge spell list and a familiar or two. the ranger gets the same thinsg as the ftr, but with lots of skills and, favored enemy, and spells.

So in my opinion, the ftr is worst off. the ranger just gets a lot at lvl 1, and falls asleep for a couple levels. Then at level 10 or so, gets to be really strong, if played right- and with focus.

 

[Henry]

I can't BELIEVE I'm getting into another Ranger Thread...

One point I wish to make - I think Arcane Runes Press is totally off-base.

I LOVE Macaroni & Cheese!

It's the best food on planet earth! The Kraft crappy boxed kind, homemade, Velveeta, 3rd party generic - MACARONI & CHEESE IS MY FAVORITE FOOD ON PLANET EARTH. If my health wasn't an issue, I'd eat it EVERY DARNED DAY OF MY LIFE.

I was highly offended by your statements.




------------------------------
Getting back to the Ranger, one point needs to be made, I feel - why do so many people make a crashing distinction between Wilderness and dungeon explorations? The fact is that almost all of the ranger's skills and abilities are just as facile in a dungeon setting as a wilderness one. Hiding, moving silently, wilderness lore, spot and listen are ALL just as useable below as well as above - the same set of dangers lurk, and the scout ranger is just as useable in both settings. Favored enemies can be used on vermin, of which many are found in natural dungeon settings - and many of the ranger's spells, while available later, are quite useable in dungeon expeditions. Just the first level spell list alone gives many things a scout would find infinitely useable. Same things go for Druids to a lesser extent, but for the ranger especially, dungeons do not hold any features that hinder the powers a ranger gets in level progression.

The favored enemy bonus: one huge point of contention for our buddy the ranger. the fact is, many people use the old definition of "racial hatred" to explain it. However, were it only combat related, I might say this was viable - but how does hatred play into bonuses at bluff, tracking, hiding, and moving silently?

The ability is actually described in the PHB as an intimate understanding for the enemy in question. It transcends hatred. It transcends blind disgust. It enter the arena of UNDERSTANDING. Know thy enemy, the old adage says - the ranger takes it to heart, and knows the enemy well, better than it in fact knows itself. From this perspective, the ranger can excel at defeating the enemy - because it knows the enemy and treats it with respect that only a true hunter can.

-------------------------

All that said, were I to change anything, it would be to open the options, such as the two weapon fighting, and the favored enemy, and make them more versatile - not locked down, as the perception is now.

I fully expect to see a significant change to the Ranger class when the 4th edition of D&D is released, whenever that is... just because of the amount of dissatisfaction expressed by players over the "sexiness" of the class compared to the "jam-up" job done by the designers and playtesters over the other character types.

 

[MThibault]

Do I hate Improved Two-Weapon Fighting? Not particularly. It can fit in a fantasy setting, and there are a few historical examples (main gauche & rapier, double sticks or blades in Filipino martial arts, Musashi using two swords in feudal Japan), but it's certainly not a hunter's fighting style; hunter's use a bow and arrow or perhaps a spear.

Well, go tell that to a Huron with a hand axe and knife.

But I don't think that it is seriously in dispute that the D&D ranger is an internal creation. If you don't like it, use one of the alternatives. Some of us do like it. WotC can't please everyone. I guess I'm just glad it was me that they pleased and not you.


Balgus,

Personally, I think the fighter is the weakest of all classes when it comes to leveling up. he is the only class that increases linearly, while all other classes increases geometrically. Fighters get a feat every two levels (actually, after the first 10 feats, what do you spend it on?) so the feats' importance decreases.

That's more of a problem if you don't allow feat chains to synergize. First of all, not all feats are created equal and the more powerful ones require heavy prerequisites so if you only have a few feats available you'll probably never see more than one feat chain. You will never get to see the synergy between Improved Two Weapon Fighting and Whirlwind Attack, for example. Add in Power Attack (because all but one of your attacks will be at your highest BAB -2 so you've got a bit of wiggle room in the attack department) and Great Cleave and the body count starts to rise quickly. Or if you are running low on HP, use the excess attack bonus to boost up your AC with Expertise.

If you don't use your feats, they are wasted. Whirlwind Attack allows you to get +5 to your second attack, and +10 to your third attack. If you roll some of this bonus over into Expertise or Power Attack you will have fewer wasted feats.

A halfling rogue will have to devote every last one of her feats to just get WWA.

Many people houserule away the combinations of WWA/Great Cleave and Improved TWF/WWA. I think that leads to a more "linear" progression of power for the fighter.

 

[Turjan]

How is it then that the D&D Ranger, the class that purports to be just such a woodsman class, has roughly zero to do with this famous archetype? Yeah, it has Tracking, and, yeah, the skill list looks good, but what the heck do Favored Enemies, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting and spellcasting(!) have to do with this archetype? The D&D Ranger simply isn't the archetypal hunter, scout, tracker, whatever. It's an odd agglomeration of "neat" abilities.

Right you are. The D&D Ranger hasn't got this woodsman feeling. I don't object to the spellcasting though, because the Ranger's spell list fits the picture of a woodsman really well. But I despise Favored Enemy and TWF; not because they are bad, but because they badly restrict the versatility of the class. Favored Enemy is fine as long as you meet your favored enemy. TWF is fine as long as your Ranger is high level and the enemy is low level. Both don't really work in other cases. Plus, I like the ranger to use his bow. And his Wilderness Lore . Why can't he be a herbalist, for instance?

All that said, were I to change anything, it would be to open the options, such as the two weapon fighting, and the favored enemy, and make them more versatile - not locked down, as the perception is now.

I think this is exactly the right solution for the D&D Ranger. Make the class more versatile. Make all core classes valid on their own. Balance them at every single level in order to end the Ranger's fate as the ultimate "one level class" exploit for multiclassing.

Turjan

 

[ranix65]

Personally, the Ranger is my favorite class, and it's also the favorite class of one of my players. The only change we've made is that you get your damage bonus to your favored enemy no matter it's type(you still get the extra damage on constructs and undead; I don't care what the book says, if you hit the undead in the right spot, especially a vampire, it's gonna hurt more).

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Since people were mentioning the ranger varient they liked I thought i'd like to say my favorite ranger simulator was the infiltrater from KoK players guide. It's fighting skill was rogue Bab sure, and its HP sucked, but it seemed more IMO rangerish than the ranger ever did.