Removing Rangers

You raised this thread from the dead with a recent link, so I couldn't resist commenting here...

I rather like the general direction that they have taken the ranger class, moving him clearly into the scout direction and away from the fighter. Now if you want someone to do scouting for you, the ranger is the guy you'd pick (leaving the rogue with his whole bluffing/thieving/diploming/sneak attacking/uncanny dodging schtick, so he's not really losing out.)

it is a slight reassignment of niches, but I think they have done a strong enough job that I'll be reintroducing the PHB ranger into my game, my comments above about barbarian types notwithstanding.

Cheers
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Eh. ;)

The swift tracker and camouflage abilities are both well balanced for feats, and everything else the ranger has going as a scout, the druid gets earlier and better. And by the time the ranger makes a good wilderness scout, the druid makes a better one.

But more damning in my mind is that the ranger still has the same problem that originally prompted my diatribe: he still tries to satisfy too many individual roles that are not inextricably linked. He's moved more towards scout, but he's still trying to be everything else.

He's definitely better balanced, but as an archetype he still sucks.
 

Well, I think this is a problem of all the non-basic classes. Look at the Monk, Ranger, Druid, Paladin, and Barbarian. Each one has many class abilities, but unless you are playing a specific character each of those abilities may not apply.

Monk is easiest, since many monk abilities are just "there", while the overall emphasis is speed, stealth, and defense. Some abilities like Slow Fall are just hold-overs from older editions.

The ranger does present a diverse amount of abilities, but talking 3.5 for now, they have an overall theme of wilderness tracking, stealth, and favored enemy fighting. Favored Enemy is all that really makes 2wf viable (imo, with the nerfing of Power Attack) and its icing on the cake for an archer. The stealth and tracking both fuel the favored enemy, as they are necessary abilities to stalk one's prey, and many of the class's spellcasting is suited towards that end. The light armor just further enhances the vision of someone chasing after someone, not someone gearing up then riding a horse (although a ranger can do that too). Perhaps if you tried one of your own tricks and renamed him Bounty Hunter you wouldn't have such a problem with it? It seems to be at least as widespread a class as Paladin, and quite a bit broader in terms of style of characters which can be created.

The druid casts like a cleric (but a little worse), gets wilderness abilities, has oath restrictions, and eventually gets to turn into animals and elementals and stops aging. What does spellcasting have to do with wildshape? It seems like the barbarian should have the wildshape, as he has no spellcasting to lose while in wildshape (this is looking at the classes objectively, with no regard for what has come before). The druid gets abilities following a theme of nature, spellcasting, and animals. Their abilities mesh rather well.

Paladin seems to be a far worse offender than ranger (in terms of having a cohesive group of abilities). Why can a paladin remove disease but not curses? All paladins are already cookie-cut to such a particular cast that it makes the act of making one different exhausting. Race and feats aside, they are all identical, something which cannot be said of the ranger who picks his foes, picks his combat style, and has enough skills to set each one apart. Paladins and Rangers both pick spells, but both suffer a lack of cantrips and an abundance of spells that should never be picked (what is the cantrip that gives 1 temporary hp doing on the paladin's 1st level list??). Overall I think paladin's still peter out too early (gaining only smiting and disease removal at higher levels) and for all their holiness and devotion to a code they don't have abilities which accurately reflect it.

Barbarian. While I am perfectly able to make arguments for why Trap Sense is a barbarian ability, it overall doesn't jive with what a barbarian is about. And as someone developed on this board some time ago, a barbarian is a very poor class at showing a generic "barbaric" character. Multiclassing can help, but what about a barbaric (or shamanistic) wizard? barbaric paladin? barbaric cleric? I think this is trying to mix a caste of people with a class, something that works for many characters, but doesn't suit the system well overall. A barbarian template (as developed on these boards) makes much more sense to me. Besides that fault, I think a barbarian is a choesive class, with skills and abilities emphasizing rage, speed, and survival.

The sorceror would be better served getting a treatment like the druid, minus the wilderness stuff. She needs her own spell list, her own custom mid-high level ability (which reinforces her bloodline and spellcasting), basically her own shtick, to stop being such a simulacrum of the wizard.

Technik
 
Last edited:

Well in February we get Unearthed Arcana which will include optional rules for the Bard, Ranger, and Paladin has Prestige classes. I wish they had included the Barbarian, Cleric, Druid, Monk, and Rogue as well.

Bard. The bard is improved in 3.5, but the concept of bard varies by culture and campaign worlds. In a Viking campaign you have a skald that does not cast spells. In a Celtic world, they would not have the roguish skills.

Cleric: I think a less militant priest would be better. Want a combat ability cleric w/ hitpoints almost as good as a fighter? take War Domain or multiclass w/ Fighter


Druid: Clerics have the nature domain, I am not even sure why this class still exists other than it has been around since 1e. Druid as a Shapechanging Prc for clerics w/ knowledge nature could be used for typical DND Druids. For a celtic campaign they would be clerics (ollave) or a Loremaster type PrC (maybe requiring bard and cleric). A better base class as an alternative to the Druid would be the Shaman which deals w/ spirits rather than gods and is found almost cross culturally and could also serve as possible barbarian priests.

Monk: What is a monk? Depending on sources they are Martial Artists mixed with cleric (Buddhist Priest), shaman (Shinto Priest), sorceror (Wuxia), psychic Warrior (Zen Monk or possibly combined with the other classes). However, the monk does not duplicate any of these adequately. Heck there is no ki strengh ability to represent lifting the cauldron at the of the Shaolin test, but people say it based on the Shaolin monk.
In addition, many DMs also feel there is no place for the Monk in DND, because the Monk is too tied to Asian cultures. Better to have a generic martial artists that can also simulate boxers, wrestlers, unarmed pit fighters, etc. and are more easily worked into campaigns. The Monk can be achieved by multiclassing the martial artist (possibly with apprentice rules) and entering a prestige class.


Paladin: There has been enough discussion on various boards and the designers considered making it a PrC, but playtesters considered it a sacred cow.

Ranger: As has been mentioned there are too many opinions as to what this class should be. Should it be a Wilderness Fighter? Should it be a Wilderness Rogue? Should it have spell casting? Personally, I like the 3.5 versions, but would have been happier without the spells. I would rather have an outdoorsman class that can serve has a hunter, outdoorsman or non raging barbarian (the latter which I always thought seemed more appropriate for a PrC).
As for spellcasting, Want Druid spells? Multiclass w/ Druid or Cleric (nature). Want arcane spells? Multiclass w/ Sorceror or Wizard ? Want a ranger that casts arcane and druid spells like a 1e ranger (multiclass with both). Regardless of which path of multiclassing with spellcaster you take, enter a Ranger prestige class with with the appropraite spellcasting type as a requirement for a Prc.
Also, IIRC, the designers had considered making the ranger a Prc just as they had considered doing with the Paladin.

Barbarian: The class is based on the concept of a berserker. As I mentioned under Ranger, I would rather have a non spellcasting non raging outdoorsman class as core classs. For a berserker, enter a prestige class to show that you are an elite warrior of your tribe or clan provided your tribe or clan has berserkers.

Rogue: The rogue is pigeonholed as sneak attack machine, but as such it sounds more appropriate for Prc. What if you want to run a burglar, charlatan, cutpurse or spy that avoids combat and know nothing about hitting people where it hurts or sapping them? There are no alternatives to sneak attack that allow you to support such a concept. So you either use sneak attack or you ignore it and, maybe, have your fellow players throw dice at you, because you are not using all of your class abilities. Shouldn't a class support a wide variety of archetypes? I would rather have an expert PC class or a Rogue that is more customizable to fit archetypes that are not sneak attack monsters. Not to mention when I think fantasy Rogue, I think a fighter/thief type wielding 2 weapons (again sounds like Prc) not a sneak attack master.
 
Last edited:

Not only does Strider track and sneak, if I recall correctly he can use the Palantirs hence 1e use scrying devices such as crystal balls. Also some of his abilities can loosely be interpreted as "spells" in DND terms so spellcasting as well.
 

Technik4 said:
Well, I think this is a problem of all the non-basic classes. Look at the Monk, Ranger, Druid, Paladin, and Barbarian. Each one has many class abilities, but unless you are playing a specific character each of those abilities may not apply.
Yes,but all of the class abilities fit a particular archetype :). Not every wizard will want a familiar, but a familiar is appropriate to the archetype. The ranger has a muddled archetype... and the archetypes that are muddled into that are better represented with other character classes.

For the monk, actually, I have similar issues, but I want an unarmed master martial artist, and there aren't really any other classes that do it quite as well, so I'm still thinking about that one.

Perhaps if you tried one of your own tricks and renamed him Bounty Hunter you wouldn't have such a problem with it? It seems to be at least as widespread a class as Paladin, and quite a bit broader in terms of style of characters which can be created.
The bounty hunter idea is very nice, but again, only covers parts of the ranger archetype - it doesn't jive very well with the wild empathy, animal companion, evasion, and druid-lite spell list. The ranger is still trying to be several things at once.

On the other hand, I like the idea of a bounty hunter. I may make a PrC with the non-magical, non-nature-y aspects of the ranger.

Paladin seems to be a far worse offender than ranger (in terms of having a cohesive group of abilities). Why can a paladin remove disease but not curses?
I believe the original idea was that it was part of the lay on hands thing, but there isn't a really good reason for the bio-only aspect of it. I find this idea intriguing :). I may put together an alternate package, so that remove disease applies to more different things as the paladin goes up in level. The ability to break enchantment on a reasonably regular basis might tempt some to the higher levels of paladin.

All paladins are already cookie-cut to such a particular cast that it makes the act of making one different exhausting.
Again,however, I am not interested in how restrictive an archetype is compared to how muddled it is. The ranger doesn't really know what it is - the paladin knows EXACTLY what it is.

And the archetype the paladin is filling in my campaign (Spirit of the Community) makes the cookie cutter approach look pretty righteous :).

Overall I think paladin's still peter out too early (gaining only smiting and disease removal at higher levels) and for all their holiness and devotion to a code they don't have abilities which accurately reflect it.
Agreed :). But I'm not really working on the paladin here.

Barbarian.
I'm calling it berserker. I think the flavor for this class sucks, which is why I rewrote it (my berserker has the same stats as the barbarian, but is described as a warrior who develops his primal instincts and "animal self" to become a frightening warrior, rather than his skill with a weapon).

The sorceror would be better served getting a treatment like the druid, minus the wilderness stuff. She needs her own spell list, her own custom mid-high level ability (which reinforces her bloodline and spellcasting), basically her own shtick, to stop being such a simulacrum of the wizard.
This is the same setting that has my alternate sorcerer that you gave such good commentary on :).
 

Humm, maybe the Ranger could be a prestige class for the fighter and rogue?:)

Though, just out of nastalgicness, I plan on keeping the Ranger just as it is in 3rd Ed (some those 4th Ed :D rules...ack!!).

To each our own, house rules are what make the game better "some times":rolleyes:

Cheers:D

P.
 

seasong said:

For the monk, actually, I have similar issues, but I want an unarmed master martial artist, and there aren't really any other classes that do it quite as well, so I'm still thinking about that one.


Then using your same arhument for Rangers, why not just make a fighter and select the appropriate feats for unarmed combat?
Or a fighter/rogue if you want the stealth?
 

Iscariot said:
Then using your same arhument for Rangers, why not just make a fighter and select the appropriate feats for unarmed combat?
Or a fighter/rogue if you want the stealth?
Because my argument for the ranger is not that you can make a wilderness scout with other classes. The monk knows what it is - a chi martial artist.

Ranger: Good mechanics. Doesn't know what it is.
Monk: Crappy mechanics. Knows what it is.

My answer to one problem is to revise it, the answer to the other is to remove it.

Originally posted by Ancient Gamer
Humm, maybe the Ranger could be a prestige class for the fighter and rogue?
Could be. I kind of like the bounty hunter idea.
 

I posted a Bounty Hunter prc a few days ago, I basically melded the parts of Ranger/Druid/Barbarian I thought held up this ideal, then added a couple later abilities which made it better than 10 levels in ranger. Still unsure about a couple things, I'd appreciate any feedback!

Technik
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top