Rangers... the weakest of classes?

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

I've been playing a ranger for the past year or so, and I don't think that the ranger's problems are function of my inability to play one well. (Heck, my first D&D character was a ranger, and that was 20 years ago). OTOH, I don't think that the ranger is broken or otherwise unplayable. My issues with the ranger are:

1) Poorly thought out advancement -- My campaign tends to go in fits and spurts, so we don't level up as fast as some. As a consequence, it can be weeks or months between levels, and even longer before my ranger gets something new. The fighters are constantly getting new tricks, the casters new spells, but the ranger tends to fall into a rut. While this doesn't affect the RP aspects of the game, it does make the combat start to feel like the same old thing.

2) Very dependent on the DM -- The ranger is at the mercy of the campaign setting. While this is true for other classes as well (esp. the Druid), I think the ranger gets hit a little harder. The ranger is the only class dependent on the DM to provide the fodder for a class-defining ability (Favored Enemy). Casters will cast, fighters will fight, rogues will be rogues, and clerics will ALWAYS be healing, but unless the DM makes sure to include giants, I'll not get to use my favored enemy bonus.

3) Semi-forced fighting style -- The Ambi/TWF issue has been beaten to death. I'd just add that the Paladin isn't forced into using a greatsword or sword-and-shield, and even clerics got thrown a bone as far as weapons are concerned. Forcing the ranger into TWF (or making him blow off a large chunk of the class's perks) is an unwelcome throwback to older editions.

So, make the most of what you like about the ranger, and work with your DM to make sure you get your fair share of the limelight. There are ways to get a little individuality, too. My gnoll barb/ranger is taking advantage of some of the splatbooks shield-based feats (Shield Expert, Imp. Shield Bash) to dual-wield in a less traditional manner.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Basically D&D comes down to spending your resources what ever classes let you acomplish your goals with the least resources spent are seen as the best classes. In a flat out dungeon crawl the speciclists spend the least amount of resources as a general rule. But if you face more varied encounters a lot of resources are spent helping the dead weight fighter get by in the no fight based encounters. The ranger thanks to there skills/spells cover a wide range of ground with a small expenditure of resourses and can even help other classes get by through spells in there weak departments.

Now the generalists like the ranger spend more resourses to get through encounters that cater to a specialists area of expertise, so if the vast majority of encoutners don't require a broad range of abilties like the standard dungeon crawl then overall the specialists spend fewer resources, if the encoutners are diverse and require a broader range of abilities then the generalists spend less resourses over all.

The one exception to this is the case where the encoutner is suited to a single person handling the situation. Traps are probably the biggest exmaple, it is a somewhat diverse encounter yet one single specialist easily covers the entire party. Other encoutners requiring stealth, communication, gathering info where usually the entire party might get involved having a specialist usally has one of two results either a player who twiddles thier thumbs and does nothing(therefore not contributing to reducing a resource expenditure), or a player who participaltes but may actually cost the party more resources by flubbing things up. Again here is where the generalists shine, by making shure the party over the course of the campaign spend less resources.

Now personally I think the pure spell casters might break this basic rule in that they spend less resouces in specialist sitations than the speicalist, and they spend less resources than you would overall with a generalist.(IOW spells cover far too much ground) So I think all spellcasters are a little too good.

 

[KarinsDad]

I think where there is smoke, there is fire.

Nothing has really changed with regard to the Ranger. After seeing it in action for the last few years, there is still little to recommend it.

The Ranger class is still ability front heavy.

Compared to other classes, it gains new feats/new special abilities/new spell levels (total):

Ranger: 10 (14) in 19 levels

Barbarian: 11 (22) in 19 levels
Bard: 15 (15) in 17 levels
Cleric: 14 (14) in 17 levels
Druid: 23 (31) in 17 levels
Fighter: 16 (16) in 19 levels
Monk: 23 (28) in 19 levels (not including damage increase, AC increase, and movement increase)
Paladin: 16 (20) in 17 levels
Rogue: 15 (25) in 19 levels
Sorcerer: 14 (14) in 17 levels
Wizard: 18 (18) in 19 levels

Average of other classes: 16.5 (20.3) in 18 levels

This to me is the real downside of Rangers (other than them having to wait until 8th or 10th level to get Cure Light Wounds, sigh). They get "new abilities" on average every other level whereas most other classes average a new ability closer to once per level (or better).

Every other "combatant type" (and in fact, every other class) does better.

 

[Rhael]

my AUD0.04 (allowing for exchange rate)

I think this has been said by a few different people, but as it stands (in the Core rules) the Ranger is probably a little too reliant on the DM constructing the sessions so that there is something for the Ranger to do. That said, the player must be aware of the abilities that his Ranger has and use them wherever possible.

By this, I mean think about the surroundings that the GM has you in and use your wilderness lore skill whenever you can - just for Roleplaying, if nothing else. A ranger gets Search and Spot as class skills - they can be very, very useful, and for some time my ranger was working with the rogue in tandem as the party scouts. (that all came to an end when he started wearing full plate, but that's another story - see below). Indeed, Spot is one of the most often used skills in our games (again, the GM has to make the ranger useful in many circumstances), as is search (although the rogue excels here, so that's his job now).

We all know that the favoured enemy is probably too dependent on the GM, but I don't agree with the take that you would have +5 v Orcs at 20th level where it is useful, but only a +1 or 2 against dragons. Just because you can't use it for 5 levels, doesn't mean you shouldn't take it. For my character, the favoured enemies I took were more related to the character's personality than any real desire to pick a monster I'd be fighting heaps and get a bonus - however my plan for my character was slightly different.

After about three levels of advancement, my GM started using Monte Cook's ranger (the one with d8 HD), but kept the PHB casting advancement. This was fine for me because I wasn't planning to be a 2-weapon fighter (yes, that old chestnut), but maybe, just maybe, if the ranger in the party had gone with the 2wpn combo option, he wouldn't have changed the rules. It was a bit tough initially, because my HP dropped from 39 to 33, but I picked up an extra feat, so it was all good.

As previously mentioned, a dungeon-hack may see a standard ranger struggle slightly where his wilderness-related abilities don't get used, but Tracking is always useful.

Where party-usefulness is taken into account, the ranger comes into his own. You may not be the best at everything, but you'll be good at lots of things.

My final point about rangers is that they can make very useful 'other' classes. IMHO, a ranger/cleric is one of the coolest duals around.

Now, for those who are wondering what I'm talking about, my ranger was never going to be a pure, single class ranger. When discussing the character with my DM and what I wanted to do we came to the conclusion that perhaps Knight of the Chalice (DotF) might be appropriate given the setting. My ranger was always more of a paladin in personality, just more outdoorsy anyway, and he is a tank (just the way it turned out). As he stands (at 10th level) he's a 5/4/1 Ranger/Cleric/Knight of the Chalice, speaks seven languages, has five separate knowledge skills (most cross-class and with at least a few ranks in each) and is trying to overcome a -1 Cha mod to be a good diplomat.

The reason for the above paragraph of self-indulgence is that to look at a ranger (or any class for that matter) and say : they're a little underdone, is to be a bit short-sighted because of options further along the way.

 

[LokiDR]

Ranger is bad at dungeon crawls, or at least not optimized for them, right? Well, a large amount of the DMG is devoted to this aspect of the game. It is part of the name of the game. It seems strange that we can agree that a ranger is weak at dungeons, but not agree that it is a weak class overall.

Ok, new theory. If rangers are supposed to be good outside the underground fortified defense installation (dungeon) to make up for the weakness in the dungeon, lets look at them there. What do you do outside? You move over land, run into random encounters, talk to NPCs, search out materials, and fortify positions. Not a complete list, but this should show some points. Rangers should do several of these things better than most, to make up for being substandard in those dungeons.

Move over land: better than most, with wilderness lore, hide, and spot. Ok, rangers make good scouts. I would put them above rogues, the nearest competition.

Random Encounters: Spot helps them see it coming. They are as prepared as they will ever be, not really worrying about spells. The lack of Uncanny Dodge, though, so I would put them under barbarian and rogue.

Talk to NPCs: No reason to be better than most, less than those with high cha. Maybe they would be good with other rangers, but most people live in cities, and rangers aren't found there much.

Search out Materials: Scouting, good. Information skills, not so good. With no gather info, they can only do half a "find the sacred ..." by searching an area.

Fortify Positions: Spell casters are first here. You can build an entire tower for next to nothing with stone shape and wall of stone. Rangers could take craft:traps, but so can every one else. All in all, bottom.

My conclusion, rangers only really make good scouts, and most of that is skills. If the ranger could have more special abilities, like uncanny dodge, that help in the scouting. Ambidexterity and TWF really don't seem to fit. Tracking is nice. Spell casting should be greater, and more focused on scouting. This would confirm the ranger's place as definitely useful part of most parties.

 

[Darklone]

Rangers are bad at dungeoncrawling? Ok, if you consider DC stomping in full plate from one room to the other to bash monsters and collect the magical items (which they didn't use against you), then a ranger is worse than a fighter.

If you do this in my dungeons, you'll get eaten. Slowly.

Ok, this may be the old "A ranger needs a DM who plays for him" proverb. But I really don't think so. I played rangers without using Favored Enemy once, I used their spells scarcely, but I used my head to use my skills to the groups advantage.

Skills can be stronger than spells, you just have to be clever. Apparently, many ranger players don't think so or can't argue with their DMs.

 

[Dark Dragon]

As it was already said, when a ranger gets a level or two, there's no big change in spells and special abilities. Played simply by the rules, I don't see a reason to play a ranger beyond first level (where he gets a couple of feats, a quite good amount of skill points and good hp). Instead of progressing as a ranger, I'd take fighter levels (to make a strong first line PC) or druid or cleric levels (making him good at scouting around or getting lots of spells).
BTW, a druid is as good in scouting as a ranger because of his wild shape (he morphs into a hawk to get a quick view from a large area or a wolf to track someone by scent...).

 

[LokiDR]

Rangers are bad at dungeoncrawling? Ok, if you consider DC stomping in full plate from one room to the other to bash monsters and collect the magical items (which they didn't use against you), then a ranger is worse than a fighter.

If you do this in my dungeons, you'll get eaten. Slowly.

Ok, this may be the old "A ranger needs a DM who plays for him" proverb. But I really don't think so. I played rangers without using Favored Enemy once, I used their spells scarcely, but I used my head to use my skills to the groups advantage.

Skills can be stronger than spells, you just have to be clever. Apparently, many ranger players don't think so or can't argue with their DMs.

DC stomping? I have no idea what you mean. If you are refering to a fighter making lots of noise then I would note that only one out the "standard" party has the ability to be quiet.

But if you never used the favored enemy, and rarely used spells, doen't you think they are wasted class abilties? You played a skilled fighter. Is that all the ranger is? Shouldn't there be abilites that help out with this then, instead of favored enemy?

And for the record, I don't like all this DM help talk. Should a DM change a published module to account for a ranger? Where do rangers fit in RttToEE or City of the Spider Queen? If I have a mix of encounters, should I make sure that tracking is neccessary for some encounters? No. I say that, just like a DM shouldn't intentionally exclude any class, they shouldn't focus on any either.

Encounters should not be aimed at specific classes, with the possible exception of traps. Traps have been around for a long time though, and tracking as a special abiltity is fairly recent. I don't agree with any class that needs the DM to make special provisions for them. Ranger needs the most of those provisions.

 

[Dinkeldog]

Where discussing "how's" now, so this is moving to the General forum.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

And for the record, I don't like all this DM help talk. Should a DM change a published module to account for a ranger? Where do rangers fit in RttToEE or City of the Spider Queen? If I have a mix of encounters, should I make sure that tracking is neccessary for some encounters? No. I say that, just like a DM shouldn't intentionally exclude any class, they shouldn't focus on any either.

I'm running a group through RttToEE that is composed of 2 rangers, a sorceror, a rogue and a cleric. Did I set out to modify it to 'account' for rangers? No, but the party did. They took off in a direction that emphasized the rangers' strengths. As DM, I could have forced them to play the module the expected way, but I found it much more enjoyable (and hope they did too) to adapt on the fly. They reached the same conclusions, and ended up at the same places, they just took the long way around sometimes. If I wrote up their adventures, most of it would probably be unrecognizable to others who played the module, but the essence of the plot, and the major encounters all ended up taking place.

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.

Running a game with no wilderness activity and expecting the ranger to hold his own (as a class; as a player they certainly could) is like doing a court intrigue adventure and expecting the fighter to be as useful as a bard.

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