The ranger is...

[Jack Daniel]

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.

Tossing this on the WotC boards too, just for laughs? Let's see... stealthy, yeah, that's a ranger. Tracking too. Bow better than a fighter? Un-uh. "Bowman" and "archer" are fighter archetypes. Dual-wields better than a fighter? Also, un-uh. At least equal, but not better. I should note this now, before people get all whiny about it (*reads back posts* ... oops, too late):

The current, 3e ranger is basically proficient in martial melee combat, martial ranged combat, and two-weapon fighting. He is not "specialized" in any of them.

So, right now, the ranger fills all the possible combat archetypes. The 3.5 ranger will goof in this regard, being either 1) specialized at archery, even better than a fighter and *NO* basic 2WF or 2) specialized in 2Wf, which in case no one's noticed, people hate with nigh-psychopathic passion.

Someone who has less hit points than a fighter? Get real. You're thinking of rogues, buddy. Does Aragorn look like he can't match Boromir for hit points? If the barbarian gets d12 just for rugged living, the ranger having d8 would be a complete joke. Thank goodness 3.5 is keeing the d10/good Fortitude/poor Reflex build. And besides, it's never been the case. 2e? 9d10, like its fellow warrior classes. 1e? The ranger got 11d8 hit points, which is the same average total as 9d10. Sure, he got +2 after "name level" when the other fighters got +3, but you'll remember that 1e wasn't built to play past name level. End result, tough rangers.

Someone who has less armor class than a fighter? I won't argue here. They have to sneak; and it should be sneaking that keeps them in light armor, not arbitrary virtual feat restrictions. Make them bonus feats, take them out of two restricted paths, and you'll have the house ranger I'll be using after 3.5 comes out. [edit: well, that and the AD&D "rangers must be good in alignment" bit. Yeah for classics and tubby halflings! As far as I'm concerned, the sneak-attacking Blackguard covers evil rangers better than evil rangers do now!]

Someone who can cast some druid spells -- can't argue there. They've always had druid spells too. They just dropped the wizard spells in 2e for the sake of mechanical consistency, so that in 2e only warriors and priests used priest spells, and only rogues and wizards used wizard spells.

That said, you forgot the most important focus of the class: the D&D ranger is at its core not just a woodsman. D&D has never had a class for the straight, skilled woodsman archetype, and I don't expect to see one anytime soon. 'Cause it's boring. The ranger's archetype is monster-hunter, bounty-hunter, or general hunter of things more intelligent than game animals. And here I quote Ed Stark from that radio show: "... the ability to affect his favored enemies more dramatically..." Here is where I breathed a huge sigh of relief. The ranger's archetype in 3.5 will be what it was in OD&D. WotC's not capitulating to the vocal minority who laughed at the urban ranger and said "where's my wilderness rogue?"

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Someone who can cast some druid spells -- can't argue there. They've always had druid spells too. They just dropped the wizard spells in 2e for the sake of mechanical consistency, so that in 2e only warriors and priests used priest spells, and only rogues and wizards used wizard spells.

Just because it's old doesn't mean it's good. There was lots of old stuff that had to be ditched, like weird XP charts and 2e psionics.

PS a "boring" woodman is, of course, a matter of opinion.

As for TWF, psychopathic is the right word. Now I'm going to wrestle with my dog over his "dog biscuits" since I'm a real ranger

No, I think people hate it because WotC has never explained or defended their decision to give TWF to rangers.

 

[Jack Daniel]

Yes they have. It was introduced to the 2e ranger because the 1e ranger had no mechanic to keep him in light armor. Hence, they added 2WF, MS, and HiS. Now that we have armor check penalties in 3e, there's no reason to keep the "light armor only" mechanic, but that's a flaw that can be fixed by eliminating the concept of 'virtual feats' in favor of simple bonus feats. 2WF has simply become part of the ranger, by virtue of its inclusion in 2e, and if you don't like, go watch Last of the Mohicans or The Patriot and then come tell me why rangers don't at least deserve basic proficiency in two weapons, like they have in bows and swords already. (Fun point, notice how daggers and hatchets are always the off-hand weapons used by the woodsmen in those movies? And remember how in 1e, the only legal off-hand weapons were daggers and hatchets? And how a high DEX could totally offset 2WF penalties? And how 1e rangers ALWAYS had a high DEX? Hmm....)

Just because it's old doesn't mean it's good. There was lots of old stuff that had to be ditched, like weird XP charts and 2e psionics.

That, sir, is a matter of gross opinion that bears no relevance on the topic at hand. The ranger archetype is about 50 years old [LotR], spellcasting rangers are around 25 years old [D&D], and two-weapon fighting rangers are about 15 years old [2e]. Age means nothing here except where the history of the archetype has changed.

It seems that you, like everyone else who belies the ranger, doesn't want a ranger at all. You want a woodsman or a scout. Great. Make a new class. The ranger is a warrior and has nothing to do with those archetypes.

 

[Quinn]

It seems that you, like everyone else who belies the ranger, doesn't want a ranger at all. You want a woodsman or a scout. Great. Make a new class. The ranger is a warrior and has nothing to do with those archetypes.

Why can't a woodsman or a scout also be a warrior? I don't see anything that makes the two mutually exclusive or "munchkin-y".

Edit: Natty Bummpo, Benjamin Martin, Robin Hood, Aragorn, and practically every other character that has been categorized as a ranger in this thread have been all three: a woodsman, a scout and a warrior.

 

[beta-ray]

I chose the wilderninja as well... and tend to agree with both Quinn and DerianCypher.

 

[Jack Daniel]

Why can't a woodsman or a scout also be a warrior? I don't see anything that makes the two mutually exclusive or "munchkin-y".

Edit: Natty Bummpo, Benjamin Martin, Robin Hood, Aragorn, and practically every other character that has been categorized as a ranger in this thread have been all three: a woodsman, a scout and a warrior.

Then perhaps I've erred through vaugery. When I say scout, I specifically refer to one of various alternate rangers and generic d20 classes characterized by the 3/4s attack bonus, 6 or 8 skill points, the d6 or d8 hit die, and utter lack of magical ability.

Being skilled and being a warrior are not mutual, true, and the 3.5 ranger will still be all fighter (1/1 attack, good Fort only, d10 hp) and still carry 6 skill points.