Rangers... the weakest of classes?

[Storminator]

Rangers make great partners.

While the ranger doesn't do well as a replacement for any of the big 4, it is a GREAT 5th PC. With light armor and proper skills, you can sneak off with the rogue, giving a better scout team and providing a flanker for the rogue.

With good BAB, hp, and weapon selection you can stand with the fighter and relieve the cleric of second combatant duty. This lets the cleric cast spells much more effectively.

Once a ranger gets spells he can pick a CLW wand and save the cleric many healing spells.

With so much to do rangers are great to have around. I agree that there is no place to shine, tho. In all these cases the ranger is playing second fiddle.

PS

 

[LokiDR]

I agree the DM shouldn't set out to exclude any class, but they sure as heck should go out of their way to make sure everyone is included. The whole point of the DM is to make sure everyone has fun and feels like they are contributing. This doesn't mean every class has to be in the spotlight every second, but over the course of several sessions everyone should have the chance to take the lead. If your intentions are to run a campaign in which a particular class gets the shaft, make sure they know up front. If they still go ahead with their plans, at least they were warned.

As in all things, the key is 'balance'.

I know what you are saying about inclusion. Every one wants to be included, but look at it from a different point of view. If the adventures are taking place in a major city, trying to find the force of evil, should I have the group detour to the woods every couple of sessions? That strains every one else's sense of disbelief.

The 4 classes of the "standard" party can fit into almost any setting. A fighter can get along just as well in the woods as he can in the city or dungeon. Rogues sneak no matter where they are. Why can't the ranger have that versitility? It seems close now, but not quite. Your group made them work without you having to change the module, so that proves it can be done. Would the group had an easier time if the rangers were fighters? If the DM or players need to adapt around them, rather them adapt to the game, it just seems weak.

 

[Tom Cashel]

Did someone call me?

Look, Rangers aren't so bad. They've been throwing some bone-crunching hits (remember what happened to Ruslan Fedotenko last time he set foot in the Garden...I'll be he doesn't...), and if the playoffs started today, Rangers would go as #8 in the East.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

..should I have the group detour to the woods every couple of sessions?

No, you shouldn't. But if there is some sneaky-hidey stuff that needs to be done, let the ranger help. Or maybe there's something wierd dragging people down into the sewers, and the ranger can do a little 'urban rangering'. There are ways to insert little side plots that will keep everyone involved. But if you know in advance that there will be no outdoors activity for months (real-time) on end, don't let someone play a ranger, or push them to the 'urban ranger' variant in MotW.

Heck, maybe that would a good thread -- ideas on using rangers in urban environments....

The 4 classes of the "standard" party can fit into almost any setting.

Sure, but that's by design. The non-core classes and PrC's should give up some all-purpose stuff in exchange for being superior in their bailiwick.

Your group made them work without you having to change the module, so that proves it can be done. Would the group had an easier time if the rangers were fighters?

I had to change the module a fair bit. There were nights when I scrambled to re-write things on the fly so that they made sense in the overall scheme of things. But I'd have had to do the same if the party was overloaded with mages, or had rogues as the front-line troops. I just prefer to let the players make the characters they want, and then try to adapt, rather than force them to fit my campaign. Sometimes that means making the combats a little easier if they are light on fighters or clerics, or making the clues a little more obvious if they are light on social types. I didn't even draw the line when the desert nomad decided he wanted to be a deepwoods sniper. The abuse the player took from the other players was enough to convince him to forget about it.

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

There are several Rangers in my campaigns. They are single classed, and while their individual "goody" factor might be lower than Fighters or Paladins, or what not, the players themselves are quite satisfied with their characters, and they are always effective members of the party that contribute a lot in nearly every session. Whether it is knowledge of the woods, other cultural customs, dishing out pain with bows or with swords and axes, the Rangers always shine well. The fact that they also have spells and animal companions only increases their effectiveness and abilities.

I have to agree with others--most of the complaints must be from people who don't play Rangers, and are only looking at things from what it *appears* to be on paper.

In reality, Rangers are very deadly, and very effective characters to play.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[belegost]

Out of the 5 PCs in one of my campaigns, 2 of them are rangers. While there characters are both very different, they are 2 of the most effective PCs in the game. Of course, the gamers are two of the more experienced and talented in the group - but they love their rangers. I've offered to let them play the alternate ranger class from Monte Cook - but they are playing it straight from the PHB.

I really enjoy the finesse of the Ranger PCs in combat... a nice change to the Dwarf Barbarian.

 

[Arcane Runes Press]

My problems with the 3E Ranger class have always boiled down to this:

The Ranger is the macaroni & cheese of D&D.

Perfectly functional.

Perfectly bland.

For me it's frustrating. The Ranger's mechanics are solid and workmanlike.

They just aren't exciting. Which, for me, is the kiss of death.

The rest of the classes, I can look at them and say "Hey, that's pretty cool."

I look at the Ranger and say "Hey, that's mechanically sound."

It's not sexy.

The Ranger should have a cool something. Tracking doesn't do it, since other classes (notably the druid) can do it with the same proficiency.

Favored enemy could do it, but it isn't exciting enough.


If I had had a say in the Ranger class, I would have done one or more of these things:

1) Given him some good, unique, tracking stuff. The ability to track the trackless, or scent, or the "Humperdink" (Princess Bride)- the ability to completely recreate an event just by analyzing the tracks.

2) More oomph to the favored enemy stuff, like a high level fear aura that applies to his favored enemies, or a high level killing blow ability.

3) Discard mandatory 2 weapon fighting. Cause, you know, 3E is all about options.


Personally, I have been much more excited by the Scout and Hunter classes from AEG's Mercenary.

Those two classes, particularly the Hunter, are mad sexy.


Ultimately, it all comes down to taste, which is why this argument will go on until 4th edition at least.

In my opinion, the Ranger should have been made to taste a whole lot better.

Patrick Y.

 

[LokiDR]

No, you shouldn't. But if there is some sneaky-hidey stuff that needs to be done, let the ranger help. Or maybe there's something wierd dragging people down into the sewers, and the ranger can do a little 'urban rangering'. There are ways to insert little side plots that will keep everyone involved. But if you know in advance that there will be no outdoors activity for months (real-time) on end, don't let someone play a ranger, or push them to the 'urban ranger' variant in MotW.

Heck, maybe that would a good thread -- ideas on using rangers in urban environments....

I let my campaign go where ever the plot and the players take it. This is why it was good to generalist classes. I really don't like pushing the players at all. Both the rangers that joined the game have since changed characters. The druid, on the other hand, is having a grand old time, which is a bit strange since the party stays in the cities most of the time.

Sure, but that's by design. The non-core classes and PrC's should give up some all-purpose stuff in exchange for being superior in their bailiwick.

Didn't someone just say that rangers are generalists? I'm confused. If they are specialists, why aren't they clearly better in their area? The ranger is only good for sneaking in the wilderness, at least from my experience. A fighter with cosmopolitan feat (FR) might be better. The skills are major selling point, so what are the abilities for? I think the spells, TWF, and ambidex should be tradable for other abilites.

 

[Frostmarrow]

There are worse classes than the ranger. The reason it keeps on being controversial is that the ranger is very popular. Most of us, I suspect, would have ranger at the top of their wish-list if we were to chose classes from the names alone. The ranger-character is cool. He's dark, brooding and deadly. He travels swiftly and silently through the wilderness in secret pursuit of his prey.

Only, the write-up doesn't convey these images. In the campaigns I participate in the ranger is a walking joke.

"So, you fight two-handed?"
"Yeah."
"Oh. Is it fair to say that you are... a ranger?"
"Yes. I'm a ranger."
"So tell me mister ranger... who do you hate?"
"Well, I hate goblins. But not as much as orcs and certainly not as much as outsiders. I hate them the most. I'm planning to start hating humans soon."

Or when the party encounters a new and fiece monster.

"The beast is a towering brute. It has got huge fangs and walks menacingly against you, claws raised and jaw unlocked. Flem is trickling down from it's massive chin."
"Is it a beast?"
"No..."
"Is it a magical beast, then?"
"Uhm. No."
"Well, is it a dragon? Tell me what it is."
"Alright, alright it's a fargin giant"
"Oh. I don't hate those."

I just can't accept this silly, silly ability. I can handle the twf/ambi and I can deal with the poor progression but this favored enemy nonsense brings down laughter from the walls and ceiling time and time again.

"You didn't look so good out there today."
"What do you mean?"
"I mean you are usually a lot deadlier when we get into a fight."
"Ah. Yeah, that's because I didn't put my mind to it on account I don't favor fighting undead."
"But Sir Archbald got killed, couldn't you have given it your best when you saw him get torn to pieces by that undead ape?"
"No. As I said I favor killing apes - but not undead ones. It's a thing, dont ask."

 

[Spatzimaus]

Rangers are just too... I want to use the word "limited" but that sounds wrong.

Animal companion is nice, but they've got many of the vulnerabilities Familars/Mounts have without the redeeming abilities. Also, most towns would be a bit nervous about a bear walking down main street no matter who vouched for him. Likewise, most bears wouldn't like traipsing through the Underdark or the Abyss, especially if they're not Awakened.
Tracking? I'm not sure you could do it in a city, or in an area where your Wilderness Lore training didn't apply (would you know how to read tracks in Mechanus if you're not familiar with local weather/geography/physics?)
Feats? Unless you go two-weapon, it's wasted Feats, and IMHO the only people who 2-weapon are those with Weapon Specialization or Sneak Attack.
Favored Enemy? If you're not evil you can't pick "Human", for example, and that really cuts down on the urban use.

It's like others have said. Too many of their abilties only work when the DM lets them work. Even if it's not a conscious thing, too many times the Ranger has to go through his list and figure out which abilities work today and which don't. The only consistent abilities are his BAB, HP, and skills. If you're only using them as a skilled featless Fighter, why not just be a Rogue or Barbarian?

Now, I think you can still improve them by giving them minor abilities that other classes can't mimic. The "Humperdink" idea ARP mentioned is great. How about this:
when a Ranger makes a Track check or a Search check, they can add a synergy bonus for any skill appropriate to their location, the target creature type, etc. General information skills (Knowledge:the planes, Knowledge:undead, Handle Animal, etc., ) give a +1 synergy bonus per 4 skill ranks. More specific skills (Knowledge:elves, Knowledge:the Sword Coast, Profession:cook) give +1 per 2 skill ranks. Favored Enemy points can add directly here.
It'd be half Humperdink, half CSI... "hmm, there's a spot of blueberry juice in his footprint; with the type of soil in this area, the berry must have been stuck in his boot within the past three hours; there are only blueberry bushes on three farms in this area. Of those three, only one, Farmer Maggot's farm, is near the caves where that obsidian rock you see near the victim is found naturally. That must be where his hideout is!"

This also works better if you up skill points to 6+INT and drop HP to a d8. More points to burn on all those skills.