The ranger is...

[Steverooo]

2) A woodsman. He was trained by the elves since his youth in the arts of swift travel, survival, subtlelty, and combat. By nature of the elves being the ones to train him, he excelled in woodcraft above all other things.

NOT just the woods, either! The meres around Bree, the dead meres, mordor, the plains between Bree and Rivendell, the plains of Rohan, Fangorn Forest, and even the seas, as well! A RANGER, in other words!

 

[Steverooo]

HOWEVER, there are other archetypes for the Ranger. The first is that of powerful woodscraft-savvy archer, brought about by the example of Robin Hood's legend. Robin Hood and his merry men were quite skilled at archery, according to most versions, and most D&D players I knew thought "Ranger" the first time they ever laid eyes on (whatever you think of it) the movie Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves.

The ranger is now, for better or worse, a two-weapon fighter. this ecample, instituted in the 2nd edition, is now inextricably liked to the Ranger, and many players would now balk to have this feature removed. It may be the newest element of the class, but it doesn't make it any less intrinsic to the archetype, now.

Which is why both archetypes should be "doable" with the Ranger, but neither should dominate it. The problem with 3.5's version is, it leaves out others. It might cover the Rangers of Ithillien, but what about Faramir, or The Grey Company, who all rode and fought mounted? What of a shipboard Ranger with Balance? These types also need to be included.

Doing it is easy, if WotC will. Bonus Feats instead of Virtual "Combat Paths".

 

[Steverooo]

I dare to state that the original Ranger concept in D&D is faulty, and did not represent who it claimed to at all. In truth, NO version of the ranger ever purely represented Aragorn, as he was in the novels; That would be represented by a skilled tracker, woodsman, and scout type, who had skill at healing that bordered on magical, yet was a special ability rather than spell based; it would be skilled at personal combat, almost as much as a pure warrior. All the versions introduced have mixed in favored enemies, weapon styles, and spells, and about the only thing truly dead on was the tracking feature.

This, too, is a valid Ranger concept, and can be done by the same methods. The Spell-less Ranger is as valid a choice as any other. I have already proposed a method to make it work - allow a spell slot to be traded for an ability. That, with Bonus and Ranger-Only Feats would fit almost any Ranger concept players can imagine.

 

[WattsHumphrey]

Perhaps everyone here could explain to me this obsession with rangers...

I may be unique, but I don't really use the ranger class at all. I don't really see that any of the aforementioned archetypes are interesting (my preference, of course) or... feasible.

I say feasible because it seems like 'wilderness warrior' is not an archetype but a desire to smash all of the fantasy heros into one class. A hero is already... unique... enough that they break the mold. Trying to make a class to fit such a wide variety of desires is futile.

It's from this wide variety of expectations that the desire for melee twf, bow fighting, hiding, sneaking, tracking, spells (for some) all fit into the same class. Too many expectations are being put into this specialization.

I'd rather see a removal of ranger. It can't be directly duplicated by the other core classes, but I'm not sure it should be. A wilderness warrior probably isn't a first-level character anyway. Perhaps as a PrC it would be more likely, though definitely as a combination of Rogue and Fighter, with maybe Cosmopolitain(Wilderness Lore) or a druid level or two thrown in.

I suppose if I have to pose one question, its: Does everyone think that there is any way that a class satisfying all of these requirements will be created in 3.5? I can't say as I do, and I can't say as I really mind.

 

[Angcuru]

I can't emphasize this more.

Bonus Feats = GOOD!
Virtual Feats = BAD!

 

[Tsyr]

Some particular reason that couldn't have been all in one post, Steve?

 

[Angcuru]

YEAH! STOP THAT!

 

[Quinn]

Why is that the fighter, the wizard, the rogue, and the cleric can satisfy many, many different archetypes yet the ranger must be placed into a limited niche?

 

[Wormwood]

Why is that the fighter, the wizard, the rogue, and the cleric can satisfy many, many different archetypes yet the ranger must be placed into a limited niche?

Because the ranger 'archetype' should probably be consisdered a subset of fighter. The system can handle, through multiclassing and skill selection, just about every flavor or ranger mentioned above.

Trying to expand the ranger into a top-level archetype in itself leads to debate over which brand of ranger should be predominant.

 

[Merlion]

Which is why they have created a ranger class that can come just about as close to being able to fit most or all of those ideas without stepping on the toes of other classes as the can.
Steve I think the problem is you see particular combat styles as a major definition of the Ranger...but many people dont, and I dont think the designers do. Mainly because....being a class capable of a variety of styles of combat is what the fighter is. Giving any other class extra feats or large numbers of virtual feats or whatever toward that end is stepping on the fighters toes big time.
All the melee classes did start out as fighter offshoots(although they are viable archtypes themselves), and that is why they never get multiple lots o options bonus feats or combat paths...instead they get the things that actualy differentitate them from the fighter...in the rangers case thats his skills, tracking, and unity/affinity with nature(in all forms)