The ranger is...

[Mercule]

Yet you already must, as any PC can take Ambidexterity and Two-Weapon Fighting! Only the Ranger is forced into a "Combat Path", though. By removing this railroading and replacing it with a pick from a selected list, different from the Fighter's, and including TWF, Archery, Mounted, Unarmed, etc., TWF is no longer a part of the class, but the choice is still available!

I said "as a class ability". I have no problem with a Ranger here or there learning TWF any more than I do with a Rogue learning it. TWF just has nothing to do with the core "woodsman" (however you want to define it) of Ranger.

Personally, I think that leaving TWF as a Ranger class ability was the _biggest_ mistake, hands down, in 3E. Nothing else even close. The introduced all these feats that anyone could take, including a Ranger. By leaving it as a Ranger ability, they force a certain role on the character that has nothing to do with the class and could easily be duplicated by those who do want that ability.

Just adding an archer "path" isn't enough. Now, we're saddled with a "pick from these two narrow concepts" instead of "here's a single narrow concept".

Honestly, I'm a proponent of giving the Ranger a few bonus feats from a list. The list should be _different_ than the Fighter's,. It should include Alertness and the Favored Enemy feats as well as some combat feats.

 

[Mercule]

Re: The Point is:

The question is, what? Here's where the problem is, as almost no one can agree. Thus, as I see it, the only option that will work is to make the Ranger much more flexible and adaptable.

For my two cents, I think the core philosophy of the Ranger class (or what it should be) can be summed up with a few catch-phrases: "skirmisher", "special ops", and "skilled wilderness warrior". IMHO, the empasis should be on the first two, because the third will naturally flow.

Oh, let me clarify what I mean by "special ops", because the Rogue fills one aspect of that role. Rogues are CIA. Rangers are Seals and Green Berets.

 

[Draxus the Tainted]

The ranger is...talked about too much?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

We should have a new poll - which special abilities should the ranger get?

Feats (including combat feats)
Feats (no combat feats)
Special abilities (similar to what the monk and druid get; selectable)
Special abilities (similar to what the monk and druid get; non-selectable)

Any other suggestions?

(PS I can't choose between 1, 2 and 3. I know I don't like 4. I would only pick 1 because some people will get angry if TWF is completely removed from teh class. )

 

[Kaffis]

Re: The Point is:

Out of 131 pollees, only two think that TWF should be a Ranger Class Ability, and only 14 think Archery should be. Since all Simple/Martial weapons and bows are already class features, a Ranger can fight with either, if he pleases... so that's not the issue.

TWF/Archery "Combat Paths" will apparently please 16/131 people. The rest will still be displeased. Therefore, something else should be done.

Not true at all. 16/131 people think that's ONLY what a ranger is. The other choices are not mutually exclusive of the first two, except that the poll makes them so by not being multiple choice. I could, if I were inclined to add to the multitude of ranger threads, create a another poll: one asking what the majority of rangers should use -- archery, TWF, sword and board, or two handed combat. This would, by virtue of not having more attractive and comprehensive options like "wilderninja" to collect the majority (notice wilderninja says nothing about whether they think a wilderninja is not a TWFer or archer -- so it could be that wilderninja opters are ok with the combat path idea, as I am).

I think if this poll had been setup to imply that the TWF and archer options were, in fact, wilderness oriented like the others, they would have gotten more votes.

 

[Merlion]

Well, you think wrong, Sir! I don't! I think combat style is a stylistic issue and should be left entirely up to the player, instead of being forced on the PC by a "Combat Path", something no other class has, something which reduces the adaptability and flexibility of the class, and something which is bland, flavorless, and does not define the Ranger's role in the party - or the archetype!

Well let me reprhase myself then...although the idea is the same....you see combat as the primary definition of the ranger, or seem to. they are a combat class yes....but their other abilities is what makes the ranger a ranger. and the 3.5 ranger is getting more of those, and those he has are being improved. the combat styles or paths or whatever you want to call them arent really that important.
Will it be perfect? No of course not nothing is. Will it please everyone? same thing.

 

[greymarch]

To me, a ranger is...

1. Someone who is stealthy in outdoor settings

2. Someone who excels at tracking

3. Someone who uses a bow better than a fighter

4. Someone who uses dual-wielding better than a fighter

5. Someone who has less Hit Points than a fighter

6. Someone who has less Armor Class than a fighter

7. Someone who can cast some druid spells

That's my ranger.

 

[Mercule]

To me, a ranger is...

1. Someone who is stealthy in outdoor settings

Agreed. I think everyone agrees with this.

2. Someone who excels at tracking

Again, agreed. Generally, I think that #1 and #2 are a result of the fact that Rangers simply excel outdoors.

3. Someone who uses a bow better than a fighter

I'm strongly sympathetic to this one, but don't see it as a defining aspect of Ranger. Basically, I figure that Rangers are more prone to focus on the bow to complement their other abilities.

4. Someone who uses dual-wielding better than a fighter

I see this as completely unrelated to the Ranger. Some might, but no greater percentage than Rogues would.

Besides, neither the 3.0 or the 3.5 Ranger actually is better than a Fighter at TWF (assuming the Fighter takes the feats). The best they can hope for to be equal.

5. Someone who has less Hit Points than a fighter

I completely disagree here. The Ranger's primary stat is/should be Constitition. These guys are defined by their ability to take punishment, whether it's caused by combat or the environment. The only class with a better claim to this is the Barbarian.

6. Someone who has less Armor Class than a fighter

Agreed, generally. Again, this stems from them being wilderness, skirmish oriented.

7. Someone who can cast some druid spells

Yes and no. I don't think spells are intrinsic to the class concept. On the other hand, Rangers seem to me to be the type of person who would pick up a few cool tricks of varying types, including spells.

 

[Remathilis]

My preferred ranger would be...

A.) Adept at surviving in the wilderness, usually alone.
B.) A capable warrior, excelling in archery and or dual weapons while still being mobile.
C.) The del-facto tracker.
D.) A Scout and ambusher.
E.) Adept with wild beasts, at least at calming them if not befriending them.
F.) A Guardian of the land, trained in handling specific menaces against his wards.
G.) A naturalist so in tune with nature, he can produce minor magical favors to aid, guide, and protect him.

The 2e ranger filled all of these requirements for me. The 1e ignored D, parts of B, and E. THe 3e ranger made you choose from A, D or E, and hopefully the 3.5 ranger will refill all the requirments for me again.

Ideally, a ranger should be like a paladin, a blend of fighter and cleric (fighter and druid) that stands on its own legs. If you think that the ranger should be a fighter/druid or fighter/rogue, ask yourself, is a paladin just a fighter/cleric?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

How can you be a mobile TWF warrior? In order to use TWF you have to use full attacks.

I think if this poll had been setup to imply that the TWF and archer options were, in fact, wilderness oriented like the others, they would have gotten more votes.

I doubt if, unless someone can tell me what is so "wilderness oriented" about holding a short sword in their left hand.

1. Someone who is stealthy in outdoor settings



2. Someone who excels at tracking



3. Someone who uses a bow better than a fighter

Personally, I would take archery feats, but I don't have to be better than the fighter.

4. Someone who uses dual-wielding better than a fighter

! See my point above about how natural it is to be ambidextrous.

5. Someone who has less Hit Points than a fighter

? Maybe...

6. Someone who has less Armor Class than a fighter

Perhaps you should say someone who wears less armor than the fighter After all, you might boost your Dex, wear only minimal armor, and carry a shield. Rangers are proficient with shields, after all.

7. Someone who can cast some druid spells

Maybe...

So far, I haven't seen anyone disagree with 1 and 2, but this is a very small sample size at the moment.