Spatzimaus
First Post
(Edit: double post, no idea how)
Last edited:
Rangers... the weakest of classes?
- Thread starter zealot73
- Start date
Rogue as Ranger
Or, since no one quite agrees on what a Ranger should be, start with the Rogue, give him the Ranger's Skill List, then give him bonus feats (available every other level like the Fighter's) rather than a carved-in-stone ability progression: Alertness, Endurance, Improved Critical, Point Blank Shot (Far Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Shot on the Run), Quickdraw, Run, Skill Focus (Class Skill), Track, Weapon Focus; Nature Sense, Animal Companion, Woodland Stride, Trackless Step; Sneak Attack, Evasion, Uncanny Dodge.
Well put, Frostmarrow. The Ranger doesn't match the dark, brooding, and deadly image many of us have. Of course, the Rogue does (or can), and a slightly tweaked Rogue works quite well. Just give him Wilderness Lore as a Class Skill, and away you go! Now you've got a class that can afford all the appropriate skills (Climb, Hide, Intuit Direction, Listen, Move Silentley, Search, Spot, Swim, Wilderness Lore) and set a decent ambush (Sneak Attack).
Or, since no one quite agrees on what a Ranger should be, start with the Rogue, give him the Ranger's Skill List, then give him bonus feats (available every other level like the Fighter's) rather than a carved-in-stone ability progression: Alertness, Endurance, Improved Critical, Point Blank Shot (Far Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Shot on the Run), Quickdraw, Run, Skill Focus (Class Skill), Track, Weapon Focus; Nature Sense, Animal Companion, Woodland Stride, Trackless Step; Sneak Attack, Evasion, Uncanny Dodge.
the Jester
Legend
Well, having played a very successful ranger in 3e (though I later took rogue levels for the skill points), I have to say that they aren't underpowered; I think people just need to play to their strengths.
First of all, rangers get 4 skill points per level and get ALL the best skills as class skills (with the exception of tumble). Hide, Move Silently, Spot, Listen, Search, Wilderness Lore... all of them. Use them!
Secondly, the favored enemy bonus is actually not too bad, if you pick well. Some people will choose goblinoids or orcs as their first favored enemy; that's a legit choice, especially since at 13th level or whatever, you might just face a 13th level orc or goblin. Sure, in the old days it wouldn't happen, but in 3e it will. And don't forget: half-orcs count as orcs.
Now, I do agree that it's kind of silly that you can't choose your own race, but many dms will let you get around this (silly) restriction. And if you use the 'defensive favored enemy' variant in MotW, even undead or the like are a good choice.
The two complaints I have about rangers are: 1) FRONTLOADED!!! A first level ranger gets lots of cool stuff, but then, so does a first-level monk. The real difference is, a ranger doesn't really get anything else until 4th level, when he starts to pick up spells. Instead of every two or three levels they get new goodies every four or five.
2) The DM chooses when a lot of your powers come into play, specifically anything tied to your favored enemy bonuses. Well, again you just have to choose carefully. If you know that the campaign features lots of weird monsters, take aberrations or magical beasts. If you expect a lot of undead (assuming you can use the defensive variant) take undead. If you are going to be in urban areas a lot, take humanoids (especially if your dm will let you take humans).
Keep in mind, too, that just because something is a favored enemy doesn't mean you hate everything that falls under that umbrella. If that was the case, eventually epic-level rangers would hate EVERYTHING. It means you know how to fight, track, and deal with them. You're trained in the ways of the magical beast (f'rex). You know their spoor, you know where to hit them, etc.
Rangers, imho, are a fine class; they lack the sexy of a lot of the rest, but they are good at a lot of stuff. The pigeonholing into two weapon fighting is easily avoided, if your dm follows the advice in the dmg and lets you swap the feats out for PB Shot and Precise Shot, or something similar.
I've had this argument more than once before, and I think it always boils down to: the ranger's too frontloaded- agreed- and not sexy enough- also agreed. But really, neither of those points make the ranger useless, or even dramatically less powerful than other classes. Heck, add in some custom feats that work off of favored enemy- I know I've got several imc- and you're fine, you're actually able to pick up a new goody at 3rd level instead of waiting for those 1st-level spells.
First of all, rangers get 4 skill points per level and get ALL the best skills as class skills (with the exception of tumble). Hide, Move Silently, Spot, Listen, Search, Wilderness Lore... all of them. Use them!
Secondly, the favored enemy bonus is actually not too bad, if you pick well. Some people will choose goblinoids or orcs as their first favored enemy; that's a legit choice, especially since at 13th level or whatever, you might just face a 13th level orc or goblin. Sure, in the old days it wouldn't happen, but in 3e it will. And don't forget: half-orcs count as orcs.
Now, I do agree that it's kind of silly that you can't choose your own race, but many dms will let you get around this (silly) restriction. And if you use the 'defensive favored enemy' variant in MotW, even undead or the like are a good choice.
The two complaints I have about rangers are: 1) FRONTLOADED!!! A first level ranger gets lots of cool stuff, but then, so does a first-level monk. The real difference is, a ranger doesn't really get anything else until 4th level, when he starts to pick up spells. Instead of every two or three levels they get new goodies every four or five.
2) The DM chooses when a lot of your powers come into play, specifically anything tied to your favored enemy bonuses. Well, again you just have to choose carefully. If you know that the campaign features lots of weird monsters, take aberrations or magical beasts. If you expect a lot of undead (assuming you can use the defensive variant) take undead. If you are going to be in urban areas a lot, take humanoids (especially if your dm will let you take humans).
Keep in mind, too, that just because something is a favored enemy doesn't mean you hate everything that falls under that umbrella. If that was the case, eventually epic-level rangers would hate EVERYTHING. It means you know how to fight, track, and deal with them. You're trained in the ways of the magical beast (f'rex). You know their spoor, you know where to hit them, etc.
Rangers, imho, are a fine class; they lack the sexy of a lot of the rest, but they are good at a lot of stuff. The pigeonholing into two weapon fighting is easily avoided, if your dm follows the advice in the dmg and lets you swap the feats out for PB Shot and Precise Shot, or something similar.
I've had this argument more than once before, and I think it always boils down to: the ranger's too frontloaded- agreed- and not sexy enough- also agreed. But really, neither of those points make the ranger useless, or even dramatically less powerful than other classes. Heck, add in some custom feats that work off of favored enemy- I know I've got several imc- and you're fine, you're actually able to pick up a new goody at 3rd level instead of waiting for those 1st-level spells.
KnowTheToe
First Post
BiggusGeekus@Work said:
Well said
I am not going to bother to read any further than the first 6 posts or so because we have all heard it before. I truely hope no one reads down far enough to read this. Leave the darn ranger alone and play WoT.
Crothian
First Post
Re: Re: Re: Rogue as Ranger
So, it's the sneak attack? Rangers have Hide and Move Silently. Rangers can strike from the shadows just as anyone can, they just don't get sneak attacks. And a Sneak attack is dark, brooding and deadly? I'll agree with the deadly part. Rangers do have a better attack bonus, so they will more often hit then the rogue, just not do as much damage. And Rangers will have more attacks (Thanks Jester!!
) so the damage can very well equal out.
mmadsen said:
So, it's the sneak attack? Rangers have Hide and Move Silently. Rangers can strike from the shadows just as anyone can, they just don't get sneak attacks. And a Sneak attack is dark, brooding and deadly? I'll agree with the deadly part. Rangers do have a better attack bonus, so they will more often hit then the rogue, just not do as much damage. And Rangers will have more attacks (Thanks Jester!!
) so the damage can very well equal out.
Kai Lord
Hero
Re: Re: Re: Rogue as Ranger
A Hunter's Mercy from a hidden foe 300' away is a lot scarier than a non-warrior BAB Sneak Attack from a Rogue close enough for me to counter with melee attacks. With a max range of 30', so-so attack bonus, and the likelihood he'll only get one good SA per encounter, the Rogue isn't quite the shadow striking menace you make him out to be.
mmadsen said:
A Hunter's Mercy from a hidden foe 300' away is a lot scarier than a non-warrior BAB Sneak Attack from a Rogue close enough for me to counter with melee attacks. With a max range of 30', so-so attack bonus, and the likelihood he'll only get one good SA per encounter, the Rogue isn't quite the shadow striking menace you make him out to be.
I've only gotten as far as generating characters from EQ RPG, but the two races I'm using to create rangers are -- ta da -- halflings and wood elves. They have both a Str penalty, and Dex bonus. Toss in the Weapon Finess feat, and there you have it -- a guy who's better than a fighter with a bow, and swift with a daggar. Maybe it's just a flavor thing -- Rogues are for urban and dungeon settings, and Rangers are for the outdoors.
Cedric.
aka. Washu! ^O^
Cedric.
aka. Washu! ^O^
Similar Threads
