Rangers... the weakest of classes?

[Storminator]

Well, actually the ranger hasn't got so many skill points. He has to invest his ability points into STR, DEX, and WIS in order to get along. CON wouldn't be bad, either . Usually, a wizard has more skill points. Even a fighter may have the same amount because of bonus skill points, after all.

The 32 pt. point buy is a different story, though .

A wizard may have more skill points, but a lot of good skills aren't on the wizard's list. The ranger has the third largest class skill list, behind the rogue and the bard. Lots of ways to build your skill set with a ranger. Only so many efficient ways to do it with a wizard.

PS

 

[Crothian]

Even a fighter may have the same amount because of bonus skill points, after all.

A fighter needs to have an Int of 3 or 4 higher then the ranger to get the same amount. Since Rangers have much better class skills, usually they place a higher emphasis on Int then fighters.

 

[LokiDR]

Rangers have more skills, but what does that prove? If you took evasion, sneak attack, and uncanny dodge from rouge and replaced it with fighter bab, is it a good class? Maybe, but it is pretty boring. If rangers were the only class that could track, we might be talking, but barbarians and druids have just the same chance. Skill are great, but hell, the monk can sneak just as well as the ranger.

 

[Crothian]

Rangers have more skills, but what does that prove? If you took evasion, sneak attack, and uncanny dodge from rouge and replaced it with fighter bab, is it a good class? Maybe, but it is pretty boring. If rangers were the only class that could track, we might be talking, but barbarians and druids have just the same chance. Skill are great, but hell, the monk can sneak just as well as the ranger.

To me classes aren't really boring or exciting. It's the character that will make or break a class. It's exploring a character that would become a Ranger, Bard, monk, or whatever that I care about not the abilities or excitment or lack there of reading a set of rules might bring.

 

[Ron]

Ranger is my favorite class and I have played it more than any other in 3rd edition. Contrary to the opinion of most posters, I did not find it weakest than other classes. It is a generalist class and, as such, it will not be as strong as a specialist class, but it will be strong enough in several fields.

Fighters may be more effective in combat. My main Ranger character, as a light infantryman was not efficient in the front, but was quite successful in the second row attacking with a spear or with the bow. As a scout, my rangers were as good as the rogues, although they could do lot of other stuff I couldn't. As a combination of light infantry and scout, the ranger is a very interesting class to play. I was very happy.

This doesn't means that there isn't problems. The TWF stuff is limiting. As a DM I would let the players to choose any two combat related feats. Rangers have to little skill points to be effective scouts, which require players to use good stats in intelligence. This is not bad per se, but it is strange to have all rangers of the world to be that smart. Spells are mostly useless. They could have a better list or replace them with something else. Finally, favored enemy is not a bad ability, but it is kind of stupid to a ranger class. I would gladly have something like spot/listen bonuses in natural environments or something like it.

The rangers are not a weak class and they are fun to play. However, they are poorly designed and they could benefit of a revision.

 

[Turjan]

@Ron: I see, you didn't use TWF at all with your ranger. I usually end up the same. Low level chars have to look after better AC. Therefore, they are better off with a buckler or shield. If you want to make your ranger good with a bow, you have to spend your feats for fighting styles (point blank shot and so on), and this goes against the generalist image, because it leaves him as a poor fighter and nothing else.

The favored enemy makes the ranger extremely specialized and dependent on the DM's decisions. That's the reason why I don't like any changes that introduce favored terrains, because this narrows the utility of the ranger down even more.

The dependency on 4-5 good attributes doesn't make things easier. What use do you have of a excellent choice of skills if you don't have the skillpoints to use them? A wizard only needs one good attribute, although he is better off with 3 .

I very much like the ranger variant that Claudio posted a few posts ago. This variant got rid of all things restricting his general usefulness and makes some feats available for him which fit my personal picture of a ranger. The only complaint I have is the uneven progression chart as far as the feats are concerned. This makes the class prone to multiclassing exploits - similar to the present stage .

Turjan

 

[Emiricol]

Judging by the ratio of Ranger levels vs other levels in my campaign over the last two years, I'd say rangers are just fine the way they are. Personally I feel they are too front-loaded, if anything, certainly not too weak. So, recently I've taken a liking to Monte's ranger. But in my home campaign, we still use the PHB ranger.

There was a letter in Dragon Magazine a while ago where a guy was dissing the Ranger Class because compared to all of the other classes it has the fewest abilities. They don't compare to any of the other warrior classes because they don't get the Fighter's feats or the Paladin or Barbarian's abilities. He basically said that if you want to play a "Ranger" why not simply play a Druid and take Tracking as your first level feat since it isn't a class exclusive feat AND druids have Wilderness Lore as a class skill too. They don't have near the skill points as a Rogue and they don't have the saves or abilities of a Monk by a long shot. The Bard is the closest in power but they start casting spells earlier than Rangers AND they get a better selection. We won't even go into the Sorcerer, Wizard, or Cleric. Anyway... I thought I'd see if any of you have any thoughts on redeeming qualities of Rangers and why anyone should play one.

 

[Ron]

Re: Re: Rangers... the weakest of classes?

Judging by the ratio of Ranger levels vs other levels in my campaign over the last two years, I'd say rangers are just fine the way they are. Personally I feel they are too front-loaded, if anything, certainly not too weak. So, recently I've taken a liking to Monte's ranger. But in my home campaign, we still use the PHB ranger.

Although I agree with your comments on the ranger class power, I am not very found of Monte's ranger. I have played one from the 4th to the 8th level. It is a pretty good class but doesn't fit in my concept of rangers because it makes a too much skilled fighter. I see rangers as non-non sense warriors that master basic moves and concentrate in efficiency. Monte's ranger is a less sturdy warrior (d8 instead of d10 for hit points) and with much more finesse, as he would have many more combat feats than the PHB's ranger. Also, he retains the preferred enemy ability, which I think it is out of place with rangers.

There's nothing wrong with his view, but it's not mine.

 

[Sulimo]

Speaking of Rangers, I had a quick look over the Wheel of Time Woodsman which looks OK as a Ranger. What is the deal with Def Bonuses though? does WOT handle armour differently?

 

[Ron]

Speaking of Rangers, I had a quick look over the Wheel of Time Woodsman which looks OK as a Ranger. What is the deal with Def Bonuses though? does WOT handle armour differently?

Nope, armor is treated exactly like D&D. However, WoT designers were not satisfied in how savvy D&D characters are in avoiding being hit (which is covered by the ever increasing hit points) and added an ever increasing defense bonus which makes the character harder to hit (remember that hit points also take care for weariness provoked by the effort to escape from being hit).

Despite this, WoT is an excellent game and I think that the Woodsman class is a much better ranger than the D&D ranger.