Revised Ranger: Yup, time for a poll

[Mercule]

Conclusion: So what does the Revised Ranger and the Rogue have in common? Evasion. Period.

I wasn't making a 1:1 comparison. I didn't think I needed to clarify that.

I've just seen a lot of people saying that the Ranger needs to be more like a Rogue and less like a Fighter. I completely disagree. Other than some stealth, I don't think the Ranger should resemble a Rogue much at all. A Ranger should look as much like a Fighter as the Paladin or Barbarian does, though, and should be just as geared toward fighting as either one of those (and don't say "But then it'd just be a Fighter," because by that argument, neither the Paladin or Barbarian should exist, either).

This new Ranger is about 50% Fighter and about 50% Rogue. That's about 25% too much Rouge, IMHO.

Don't get me wrong, though. The class is awesome. I like that they're mixing up the BAB and the Hit Dice some (why do all/only d10s and up have a 1:1 BAB and all only d4s have a 1:2 BAB and all/only d6s and d8s have a 3:4 BAB?). I like some of the interesting abilities. I'd be more than happy to play it.

I just don't think the word "Ranger" fits it very well. With this class, there really isn't a spot for a true Ranger, though. They should just call this class something else (Hunter? Scout?) and forget Ranger ever existed.

FWIW, if we're going for a Ranger, I really don't see Evasion. Uncanny Dodge makes _much_ more sense. I also think that virtual feats is an absolutely worthless (took me a second to find a nice word) mechanic -- either give 'em the feat or don't, no exceptions. And, if I understand the Combat Path correctly, I hate the idea that a choice at 2nd level also sets a variable at 6th and 11th. Bonus feats should have been used instead, if for no other reason than Alertness and Stealthy make as much (if not more) sense for a Ranger than TWF -- and it would fix both the virtual feat problem and the 2nd level choice sets the 6th/11th level choice.

You asked for opinions and that's mine. Take it or leave it.

 

[Mercule]

Really? I don't understand why so many people would want 3/4 of the core classes to have a spell progression.

Absolutely. I really hate how many spells and supernatural abilities are applied to all the classes. I think the Ranger is the perfect place to start trimming the spell-use a bit.

Which is also, not so coincidently, another reason why I don't really consider this incarnation a "Ranger". Too many supernatural abilities (as if the spells weren't enough).

 

[Mercule]

I'm figuring when I answered the question, "old school" referred to 2nd edition and before then ...

Interesting. I'd think "old school" would be 1E and before. The TWF Ranger appeared in 2E, and that's where the schism usually appears, IME. (No Ranger has _ever_ received TWF as a class ability in my game -- nor will they ever.)

 

[Myconid Sage]

I can't wait to convert my 3e Ranger to the new and improved 3.5 version. I am the only person in my gaming group to play a Ranger (well more than 1 level anyway) since 3e came out.

JP

 

[Michael Tree]

I've just seen a lot of people saying that the Ranger needs to be more like a Rogue and less like a Fighter. I completely disagree. Other than some stealth, I don't think the Ranger should resemble a Rogue much at all. A Ranger should look as much like a Fighter as the Paladin or Barbarian does, though, and should be just as geared toward fighting as either one of those.

It seems to me that the only people who say that the 3.5 ranger is like a rogue are the people complaining about it. The only commonality is better than average skill points, but rangers need those to be effective rangers. Virtually all the archetyal rangers are good at tracking and surviving in the wilderness (including climbing, jumping, and swimming), moving stealthily and hiding, and noticing their surroundings with eagle eyes and uncanny hearing, and many have a natural way with animals and are good healers. Those are a lot of skills, just to be like the archetypal ranger. All of those (except the animal empathy) are skill Aragon excelled at.

The 3.5 Ranger is just as geared toward combat as fighters, barbarians, and paladins, but all three excel at different kinds of combats. The fighter excels at advanced combat techniques, the barbarian excels at ignoring danger and just charging into combat with a scream, and the ranger is the ultimate skirmisher, excelling at guerilla warfare and commando missions.

Is the 3.5 ranger good at skills? Yup. Are they also good at combat. Definitely. They have slightly less hit points than before, but also have more combat feats than before.

 

[Azzy]

Well....

Old school (started out with both basic D&D and 1st ed. AD&D -- albeit shortly before the arrival of 2nd ed.).

Best ranger? Best revision at the very least. The missing arcane spells always gave me pause. Ah, screw it. Even with these caveats, consider me a "yes."

 

[Mercule]

It seems to me that the only people who say that the 3.5 ranger is like a rogue are the people complaining about it.

That may be true in this thread, but it runs counter to my general experience.

 

[Gez]

That's about 25% too much Rouge, IMHO.

True, true. Any rouge is too much rouge, unless you're going for the Drag Queen prestige class.

 

[Mercule]

True, true. Any rouge is too much rouge, unless you're going for the Drag Queen prestige class.

Doh!

Man, that typo really bugs me when other people do it, too.

Oh, well. At least I didn't misspell it ten times within the same post.

 

[Kai Lord]

This new Ranger is about 50% Fighter and about 50% Rogue. That's about 25% too much Rouge, IMHO.

That's because you're forgetting the 25% that's Druid (as long as we're making generalizations).

You asked for opinions and that's mine. Take it or leave it.

I think it goes without saying that opinions posted on a messageboard are subject to critique and counter opinions. I also like the new Ranger, and think it feels very Rangerish. So take that or leave it.