Revised Ranger: Yup, time for a poll

[Felon]

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.

Other than Evasion, how else does the 3.5e ranger resemble a rogue? It has a lot of skill points because it has lots of skills that are intrinsic to the concept of a ranger (Spot, Listen, Search, Survival, Knowledge (nature), Handle Animal, Climb, Jump, Swim, Ride, plus the aforementioned stealth skills Move Silently and Hide).

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).

Except that we can quantify how a paladin or barbarian is different from a fighter. If you reduce the role of the rogue elements (which amounts to lots of skill points and some camouflage abilities), and trim off any supernatural or spell abilities (which you've also stated are unrangerly) then what class features are left to differentiate him from the fighter?

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.

Once again, you're dwelling on how the class isn't like a ranger without going into any detail as to what exactly you think a ranger is. If it's not a hunter or scout, and it doesn't bear any resemblence to a rogue, and its not a spellcaster, and it's more than just a fighter with the Track feat. It's easy to keep arguing about something if all you're going to do is to deconstruct what others say and do. Quantify your own position.

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.

I agree; virtual feats are lame. Now, where did you get the idea that virtual feats were being used in 3.5e? Where did you hear that they weren't receiving bonus feats?

While we're on the subject of bonus feats, if you're going to keep bringing up paladins and barbarians as some sort of justification as to why a ranger should be a distinct class from the fighter, then point out how to design a ranger as a warrior that doesn't rely on any kinds of bonus feats, because that's how the pal and barb are distinguished from the fighter.

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

And take and leave it, take it and leave it, take and leave it.... Merc, you keep saying the same things in thread after thread. Then people issue counter-arguements or ask for specifics instead of vague rhetoric, and you basically evade or ignore them while dogmatically insisting "this isn't a ranger" until it wears the thread thin. Then another ranger thread pops up and the pattern repeats itself all over. People will deny your position as long as they can't see that you actually have one. Refine your arguement: design your ideal ranger core class, and advocate it by showing how he's got class features that make it a distinct class, not just "every bit as tough as a fighter is, with the same hit die and bonus feats, plus other cool stuff". At best, that's a prestige class.

 

[PhaedrusXY]

I voted No, and I consider myself an "old schooler", but I didn't play 1st edition. I started with 2nd Edition AD&D. Here is the best ranger variant I've seen yet, IMO. I am just going to copy and paste it from the WotC message board. It was posted here originally by SMrks.

This will be my 3.5 ranger:
BAB as fighter
Hit Die 1d10 (he is a wilderness warrior/survivalist! He should be tougher than a city watch warrior or temple priest)
saves as fighter
skill points 4/level (skills don't have to be maxed out to be good)

1st = track, wild empathy, 1st favored enemy
2nd = combat style feat (TWF, archery, mounted, or 2 handed)
3rd = endurance
4th = woodcraft ("+2 to climb, hide, listen, move silently, and spot checks when outdoors in a rural enviroment or wilderness setting", KoKPHB)(animal companion is just casting your animal friendship spell why is it a special ability?)
5th = 2nd favored enemy
6th = 2nd combat style feat
7th = woodland stride
8th = swift tracker
9th = Forester feat, and resist nature's lure ("the ranger is knowledgeable about the secrets of the forest and wise in its ways"FRCG)
10th = 3rd favored enemy
11th = 3rd combat style feat
12th
13th = Move like the wind (the ranger "ignores armor check penalties on his move silently and hide checks. In addition, he no longer suffers the -5 penalty on those checks when moving at speeds between half and full"MotW)
14th
15th = 4th favored enemy
16th
17th = Favored Critical (when the ranger attacks his favored enemies that are normally subject to critical hits, the threat range of whatever weapon he is using is doubled)(favored foe feat gets improved critical why not rangers?)
18th
19th
20th = 5th favored enemy

spell progression will remain the same with some new spells added

No Evasion, no Hide in Plain Sight, not invading the rogue's claim to be the skill-master, still has the d10 HD, no virtual feats, and has enough woodsman type stuff to keep it interesting. If you want more skill points and don't picture the ranger as a tough, front-line fighter, lower your con and put the points into intelligence, or multi-class into rogue. Doing so won't affect the class adversely at all. Unfortunately, starting with a d8 HD and 6sp/level and trying to go the other way leads to all the rangers who actually want to try to melee being idiots, which certainly doesn't fit the image I have of the tactical, woods-savvy warrior.

 

[diaglo]

I voted old school and no.

In addition to defining what a Ranger is in D&D, the original AD&D Ranger (adapted from the Strategic Review article) will forever be my favorite.

Just out of curiosity, how would you define "old school"?

I voted Old School and NO for similar reasons.

 

[nHammer]

I haven't seen the write-up for the revised Ranger.

Could somebody post a link to it, please?

 

[Fenes 2]

I am neither old school gamer (I started with 2E, and I hate dungeon crawls) nor a newbie (been playing since 1992). I think the 3.5 ranger is way too good - it is, imho at least IMC, an overpowered piece of crunch.

 

[Felon]

There's no write-up, per se. The latest Dragon magazine goes into the changes. It's already all been posted in a thread on this board.

Say, you know what occurs to me? With this snazzy new ranger class, I wonder how bad the monk's going to look in comparison? I mean, only a d8 hit die and a mere 4 skill points a level and a second-rate BAB. It's like they're trying to make a rogue out of him or something! That doesn't fit in with my idea of what a monk is (whatever that idea may be). He didn't spend all those years learning martial just so he could run away from people. He should as much of a fighter as a barbarian or paladin or a ranger!

Could someone please post one of those "4 easy step" threads about how to fix the monk, please?

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Could someone please post one of those "4 easy step" threads about how to fix the monk, please?

1) Buy Four Color to Fantasy from RPGnow.com
2) Take your first level in Rogue
3) Multiclass evenly between Fighter, Rogue, and Hero
4) Spend your Hero Points on an improved AC, movement rate, unarmed attack damage, and any mystical abilities you want.

 

[krunchyfrogg]

I'm an old school gamer, and I love the new ranger.

It isn't clear yet whether or not this rangers combat feats are virtual or not. If he can do them in medium armor (or use a double weapon w/ TWF), I'll be even more pleased.

 

[Aldanas]

I think it works just fine in the context of a warrior that has specialized skills involving the wilderness.

It isn't meant to be the best fighter, except against it's specific enemies.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

...not invading the rogue's claim to be the skill-master...

Just to hijack things a little more...

So he "invades the fighter's claim to be the combat master" as do pal, barb, monk and to some extent rogue with the obscene sneak attack damage. And thats ok. And he "invades the wizard's claim to be the magic master" as do over half of the classes (including a rogue with a maxed use magical device). And he "invades the cleric's claim to be the healing master" along with the bard, druid and palidan. But for some reason that as a non "old school" D&D player (but no gaming newbie either, as I've played other systems nigh these many years) I cannot comprehend, STILL having less skill points and class skills than the skill-overpowered rogue is some sort of unforgivable turf violation...

What's up with that? Can some one give me an actual reason (that is, one not based on a nostalgic attachment to the division of labor in prior editions) that one class with plenty of offensive and defensive capabilities to go around also has to have twice as many skill points as the next class down? Or that while you can have a fully combat ready, magic slinging, healing capable party without any of the other three "traditional classes" there's this contingent of gamers who blows a rod at the idea that maybe you can have a sneaky, skill equipted party without the last archetype?

I honestly just don't get people's problem with other classes being reasonably endowed with the skills you need to make an interesting character.

Kahuna Burger