The ranger is...

[S'mon]

I voted 'master archer', but 'skilled wilderness warrior-scout' is closer. IMO giving Rangers magic powers just because Aragorn (True King of Gondor) had some minor quasi-magical powers would be akin to giving them two-weapon fighting just because Drizzt Do'Urden was a drow (and thus had inherent TWF). I want a non-magical Ranger with good stealth, scout & track skills, a competent fighter, not quite as good as the true Fighter, but with the skills to compensate.

See my version here:
http://www.geocities.com/s.t.newman/earanger.htm

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Why do all your options have to be so theme centric

I agree - this isn't a well-designed poll.

I vote "other" - specifically, a scout who can fight. Of course, since he would no bonus combat feats, he wouldn't fight as well as a fighter.

He would be a lot weaker than the "wilderninja" but stronger than the "commoner with a Ring of Invisibility".

If the ranger wants TWF or archery, he can spend the feats like anyone else.

 

[Dispater]

...broken?

 

[Dark Eternal]

You people. I swear. What is the freaking obsession with the ranger?!! I really do not understand it.

I'm one of those people who've been playing D&D for two decades. Most of my fellow gamers have, as well. None of us have ever had any trouble understanding the ranger class, or ever thought that it didn't 'work right.'

I would be deeply appreciative if someone could explain to me what the heck we're missing - since, obviously, we're all seriously deluded if we think the ranger class is fine as is.

Thanks.

 

[Angcuru]

I tend to think of the ranger as a fighter will less feats but better skills and a bunch of favored enemis.

 

[Quinn]

And to think, I put the last option as a joke...

Everyone who has voted for the Wilderninja so far has subjected themselves to two irreconciable paradoxes. Brownie points to anyone who can figgure out why.

But it's not a joke to a lot of folks. Maybe just to you. The poll only shows your own bias. You seem to think of the ranger just in light of the weapons he uses, or his use of magical spells. That's a very narrow archetype.

 

[Merlion]

You people. I swear. What is the freaking obsession with the ranger?!! I really do not understand it.

I'm one of those people who've been playing D&D for two decades. Most of my fellow gamers have, as well. None of us have ever had any trouble understanding the ranger class, or ever thought that it didn't 'work right.'

I would be deeply appreciative if someone could explain to me what the heck we're missing - since, obviously, we're all seriously deluded if we think the ranger class is fine as is.

Thanks.

DE, allow me to indulge in a little repost to answer your question, from my perspective at least:
My thoughts on why the ranger is such a topic of such heated debate: I think the big thing is the archtype problem. Their are so many characters and ideas that all qualify for being exemplfied by the Ranger Class...and everyone has their favorite. Some want to see the Ranger class made into their perfect vision of there favorite rangery archtype...others want to see the class be able to fit all of thease different ideas..and many want for them to recivie specfic class features keyed to each and every one of thease different archtypes.
So you've got your this is what the ranger should be people, and your the ranger needs more versatility so it can fit all thease 1,001 concepts people...and then of course people who dislike certain specfic things about the class or the various versions thereof.
The 3.0 ranger fails to satisfy much of anyone. and what we hear of the 3.5 ranger satisfies only the TWF and Archery camps of the this is what the ranger should be people, and since it doesnt have specfic class abilities pertaining to all ideas of the ranger it doesnt satisfy the ranger that can fit 1,001 archtypes people.
My own thoughts on the ranger situation: the 3.0 ranger sucks. Big time. front loaded. Not enough skill points. stagnates at high levels. favored enemy bonuses get all out of whack. In my opnion even tho the ranger is a combat class his method of combat is not the source of his identity. I feel it is a ranger skills, tracking, and affinity for nature and survival that do. thease things are shown in his skillpoints and class skills, free track feat, and spells. Now many people of all groups want the ranger to get a bonus feat progression from a pool...most vote for some combat feats and things like Alertness Endurance, Skill Focus etc. Not a bad idea. but if thats the ranger you want, play Monte Cooks(very nice, original) variant ranger. Wizards is not ever going to give rangers a bonus feat progression from a pool. That is the fighters shtick. Now doing it with all survival type feats could work..but they arent gonna do that either. they arent going to get anywhere NEAR fighter territory. I think it is an acceptable way to do it but I dont blame them for not...it'd piss off as many or more people as are unhappy about them not doing it. Besides like I said I dont really see the ranger as being defined by combat styles anyway.
Now from what I have seen of the 3.5 ranger they are getting more skill points...the ability to track while running...evened out favored enemy bonuses....some sort of improved "wild empathy"...and the frontloadeness and the shoehorning into TWF is being removed. Now, I would have like to have seen another couple styles...but think about it unless they did at least 8 or 10 large numbers of people would still be unhappy. My big deal in all of this is...nothing is perfect and THEY CANT PLEASE EVERYONE. some times about the best they can hope for is to make as many people as happy as possible.
Getting back to my opnion of the 3.5 ranger...it looks like the major issues have been addressed. Just based on our partial information. more skill points etc goes a long way. and while 2 styles arent going to fill out all archtypes...you can take a style and then devote all your regular feats to another style or to survival feats...and coupled with the other new class abilities it allows the class to fill a LOT of bleeping roles.

 

[KnowTheToe]

I'm with Quinn and Joshua on this one, but mostly I would have to say the Ranger is over discussed. I'm outta here!

 

[maddman75]

My ideal ranger would be the Black Brotherhood from Song of Fire and Ice. Briefly, in Martin's world there is a huge wall of ice, built by king's past. It is guarded by the Black Brothers, a band of men who have forsaken the good life to defend the wall, going on ranges into the northern wilderness. Lightly armored warriors with lots of scout skills who are very loyal to one another.

Aragorn could even work with such a class. Give him a couple paladin levels to reflect the minor magics, etc.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

The Black Watch was cool. I think they had one guy with Ambidexterity, and no one with Two Weapon Fighting.

I'm a bit surprised that the monk doesn't get as much attention, since a lot of people wanted a martial artist, not "randomly assigned ki abilities" and "flurry of misses".

Anyway, about the ranger...

You people. I swear. What is the freaking obsession with the ranger?!! I really do not understand it.

1) Rangers are too focused on fighting styles, rather than skills. No amount of fighting styles will please everyone, and besides, fighters are supposed to be the master of combat styles, whether they choose one or several styles.

Rangers from 2e and 3e were forced to take one combat style, which has almost nothing to do with the class. Even if you twink the ability, or even if it were as overpowered as it was in 2e, it still has nothing to do with the class.

Believe it or not, combat styles can be connected to roleplaying. A fighter who takes Expertise and wears the heaviest armor available might be a cautious, tactical-minded warrior, very different from a character wearing a chain shirt, wielding a greatsword, and takes Reckless Offensive.

This even applies to Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and (dare I saw it) Star Wars.

I don't see any member of the Black Watch using this, and neither does Aragorn, unless he used Shield Bash when I wasn't looking. Robin Hood might have this ability, but it doesn't apply to quarterstaves, and he was better with the bow than a quarterstaff.

Perhaps more importantly, even if you wanted to make a ranger that wasn't a copy of a previous ranger, and decided to be a unique roleplayer you still had to take TWF and had to be a carbon copy of the 2e's "blades of death with almost no skill" class.

2) Favored enemy is a central focus of the class. Aragorn, the prototype for DnD rangers, had this ability, but most other rangers didn't. Not everyone wants this ability.

It's also hard to balance, and is much stricter than sneak attack when it comes to who can use it. Broadening the array of targets while decreasing the damage wouldn't work either - that's basically the same thing as Weapon Specialization. This ability works like a great prestige class ability or a feat chain, not a core class ability.

3) Rangers were too front-loaded, and didn't have enough skill points.

4) Some unique skills-based class feature would be nice (eg Favored Terrain), but would not be required and might be difficult to balance.

5) Spellcasting. Like infinite combat styles, it will be difficult to please everyone. A ranger starts getting spells at 4th-level, which is pretty close to the level a player might choose a prestige class for. *Hint hint*

Nonetheless, this "solution" might please me, but not everyone.