Removing Rangers

Expert: They are a bit buff :). Light armor, simple weapons, 10 class skills of their choice... and while the hit die/BAB isn't great, it's good enough for local hunting and scouting.
Hey, their combat stats are as good as the Rogue's; all they're missing is the Sneak Attack.
Note that the expert doesn't make a good ranger in the "guerilla warrior" sense, however; for that you would want a warrior with cross-class skills, or a rogue, druid or fighter.
The Rogue's Sneak Attack goes a long way toward creating a credible ambush.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I always thought that the mundane (ie, non-spellcasting) Ranger archetype was best and most easily filled by a Fighter/Rogue -- balance the levels to taste.
 

Everyone, thank you very much for your commentary. I've decided to drop the ranger and fill the hunter, park ranger and wilds scout archetypes with other classes and feats. Druids, experts and rogues can fill the shoes of the ranger quite nicely, and that' good enough for me :).

For those few things about the ranger that I really liked, I'll be adding an ambush feat (sneak attack +1d6 only when the target is unaware of you) and a favored enemy feat (standard +1, stackable with itself), and maybe one or two others.

Again, thanks :). The discussion definitely helped me sharpen my viewpoint.
 

seasong said:
Any thoughts?

Late to the party, I know, but I'd just like to add my tuppence...

I like the ranger archetype of someone who is at home alone in the wilderness - tough, resiliant, difficult to surprise, fast on his feet.

Hey - that's the Barbarian class!

Yep, I found that the Barbarian class captured most of the things which I found significant about "rangerdom" in my mind. So I nixed the barbarian class, made a "rage" feat chain available to people from barbarian tribe backgrounds, and constructed my own "ranger" class which basically had Barbarian BAB, HD, class abilities (except for no rage), ranger skill list, 6+int skill points, no spells.

Cheers
 

I always thought that the mundane (ie, non-spellcasting) Ranger archetype was best and most easily filled by a Fighter/Rogue -- balance the levels to taste.
I'd agree, except that neither the Fighter nor the Rogue gets Wilderness Lore as a Class Skill (which seems silly to me).
 

So I think I'm going to just drop it. Someone who wants to play a ranger will be encouraged to play a Druid with Tracking, or a Fighter or Rogue with a grudge against some species, or a dual-wielding Fighter, etc.
This reminds me of a few things.

When 3E introduced the Prestige Class mechanic, it introduced the perfect mechanic for spellcasting Rangers and Paladins. They could start in a mundane class and move into Druid or Cleric later.

Fighters and Rogues should have Wilderness Lore as a class skill -- and, arguably, Fighters should have a few more skill points. A Ranger could then be a Fighter/Rogue with maxed out Wilderness Lore and the Track Feat.
 

In the Game of Death I'm running, one or two people took a Cross Class Skill feat that allowed them to take on a single non-class skill as if it were a class skill. Looking over the skills you can take, the main reason it is restricted to a single skill is because of Tumbling :).

What it made me think about was a set of feats, each of which gave access to 1-2 skills as class skills, depending on their relative usefulness. If you prefer, these could be limited to being taken at 1st level only (making them more common among humans). Some examples:

Circus Acrobat: Tumbling is now a class skill for you.

Exotic Dancer: Diplomacy and Perform (dance) are now class skills for you.

Nobleman: Diplomacy and Sense Motive are now class skills for you.

Wilds Scout: Intuit Direction Wilderness Lore are now class skills for you.
 

seasong said:

Wilds Scout: Intuit Direction Wilderness Lore are now class skills for you.


mmm, Intuit Direction. I bet the're queuing up for that one, right? ;)

(I bet it is removed in 3.5e... probably folded into wilderness lore/survival. I can't imagine anyone wanting to waste skill points on it!)
 

AD&D Ranger = Strider

The AD&D Ranger was "Strider." Yes, I know that GG emphatically denies any influence by LOTR on his work. But somehow Strider snuck in and got himself a character class.

The 2d8 at first level made the first level Strider much tougher than any of the Gondorian fighters or the Riders of Rohan.

The bonus to damage against "Giant class" enemies against orcs, ogres, trolls, evil Giants, etc. was definitely a bonus going back to the Lord of the Rings and the Ranger's expertise in warfare against the Servants of Sauron.

The restriction to Good alignment was another part of the "war against the Servants of Sauron."

The spells were a way to give Aragorn the ability to cast cure light wounds (through herbs) and pass without trace and other minor magics.

Later on, 2nd edition and 3rd edition expanded the Ranger class to include other archtypes, losing the alignment restrictions, allowing any favored enemies instead of just humanoid/giantish servants of Sauron, etc. and 3.5 should be able to include Robin Hood with its emphasis on archery.

Drizzt (in 1988 The Crystal Shard) is the most famous Ranger known for two weapon fighting. But I can't remember whether AD&D 2e (which added two weapon fighting for Rangers) came out after the Crystal Shard, or whether it came out before the Crystal Shard.

Tom

mmadsen said:
The word "Ranger" obviously conjures up an image of a woodsman, particularly a soldier or law enforcement agent out in the wilderness. To any Tolkien fan, "Ranger" conjures up an image of Strider and his men, dusty, dressed in green and brown, or of Faramir and his men, in green cloaks, faces covered, waiting in ambush with bows and arrows. The elves guarding Lothlorien fit the same description. So do Robin Hood and his merry men. It's a strong archetype -- and one that's not specific to one fictional source.

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.

 

Re: AD&D Ranger = Strider

Endur said:
The AD&D Ranger was "Strider." Yes, I know that GG emphatically denies any influence by LOTR on his work. But somehow Strider snuck in and got himself a character class.
He's a ranger. He sneaks :).
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top