The thing you did NOT like about the PHB Ranger

[Dark Psion]

My problem with the Ranger is too much at 1st level and not enougth there after. The ranger has to advance 4 levels to gain added class abilities. All of the spell casting classes get something every level and the others get abilities every other level or two.

Have I taken advantage of this? Heck yes!! All of my rogues have one level of ranger so they can Track, gain a favored foe and use ambidexerity and two weapon attacks, and most of my Psions take it too to get weapons and armor plus the above virtual feats. The two weapon fighting is a must for Egoists with claw attacks.

 

[mmu1]

My main gripe is the fact that there is nothing either unique or exotic about any of the ranger abilties. I'd have liked them to have a list of bonus ranger-only feats to choose from at higher levels (kind of like the rogue's special abilities, maybe)

My other complaint is that they have to spread themselves thinner than any other class except maybe the Monk to actually get full use out of all their class abilities.

STR and CON - obvisouly, the key requirements for any figthing class.
DEX - badly needed because of the armor restrictions and because to get the benefit of your free feats you'll have to most likely forgo a shield. Also needed for couple of important class skills.
INT - Good to have a bonus there if you want to get good use out of your large skill list.
WIS - Needs to be high to get any kind of meaningful use out of the class' spell abilities...

If you don't have the stats to really take advantage fully of all the skills and the spells, a barbarian with track and a couple of rogue levels for an overall skill boost will be better at wilderness figthing than any ranger...

 

[nharwell]

Bah! Most people don't realize that the Ranger isn't a Drizzt Clone. Drizzt is just a ranger clone. The archetype ranger was like that before Salvatore ever started writing D&D novels.

Actually, I'm afraid that you're mistaken. I can't say when Drizz't first appeared in a Forgotten Realms product, but The Crystal Shard was published in March 1988. The 2nd edition PHB was published in 1989, well after Drizz't became a popular character. Two-weapon fighting was never particularly associated with the Ranger class in 1st edition AD&D.

 

[Gez]

Personnaly, I would have preferred a ranged-combat oriented ranger. To balance a bit with the paladin (who is usually seen as a melee-oriented combatant). And also because it would allow characters à la Robin Hood, Legolas(*) or William Tell.

Maybe with bonus feats, and with Fav. Enemy as a ranger special feat (much like weapon spec. is a fighter special feat). The Ambi/TWF could have been put in the bonus feat list, but also other archery-based feats.

(* I know the Archetypal Ranger in LotR is supposed to be Aragorn, not Legolas, however I think that Legolas fills more the bill of the forest warrior than Aragorn. He's more rangerish in the D&D meaning.)

 

[novyet]

Other than a small change to the ranger (allowing rangers to choose from a small list of virtual feats at 1st level) I use them as is. I really have never seen the problems with them that everyone else seems to. To each their own however.

 

[BluWolf]

There are several minor issues I have with Rangers but the biggest is the arbitrary granting of spells.

I've never liked this psuedo Druid/nature cleric aspect.

In fact there are several sorry prestige classes that are also granted random spell ability to compensate for lack of originality.

This granting of spells seems to be an easy cop out rather than putting real creative thought behind a class or prestige class.

 

[Storm Raven]

Bah! Most people don't realize that the Ranger isn't a Drizzt Clone. Drizzt is just a ranger clone. The archetype ranger was like that before Salvatore ever started writing D&D novels.

You are sadly misinformed. Driz'zt appeared in print almost a full year before the 2e PHB was published. In the 1e rules, Rangers had no special affinity for two weapon fighting, and nothing in the class made Rangers more likely to use this combat option than anyone else.

In point of fact, under the post-UA 1e AD&D rules, the Ranger was required to be an archer (forced proficiency in a bow or light crossbow), and had a system of other forced proficiencies than aimed the class more or less away from the two weapon fighting version that was set forth in the 2e PHB.

Driz'zt predates the two weapon fighting Ranger by a significant time span. Saying that the archetype Ranger was a two weapon fighting character before Driz'zt found his way in to print is just ignorant.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

The thing I like least about the ranger is how much people gripe about it.

Oh, my dear Lord, YES!!!

 

[Gilrion]

I really think it's the lack of class abilities hurting the Ranger more. If those existed, you wouldn't be morally "forced" to use TWF.

Amazingly, I'm with GIN on TWF: it's a proficiency, not a major class ability. If course seeing things from there leaves the Ranger lacking even more class abilities. The skills are very nice, but 6 sp/level would imbalance things. No class in D&D ever has enough skill points from my experience: why should the Ranger be different?
Favored Enemy is useless. The mechanics are weird, and the bonuses are too insignificant to make any sort of real difference. When I play a Ranger, I ask my DM if I have to take a Favored Enemy. A lot of times it doesn't make sense for my character.

The Ranger is far less front-loaded than many classes. Track is a weak feat because it requires a skill to be constantly maxed. TWF is "virtual" and can only be used in light armour. Compare this to the Paladin (CHA bonus to all saves, immunity to disease, lay on hands, detect evil), the Monk (d6 unarmed strike, stunning attack, evasion, flurry of blows, +2 all saves), the Barbarian (rage, fast movement) or any spellcasting class (arcane gets stuff like Shield, divine also has a lot of goodies). Some of the classes have restrictions, but with some creative backstory you can easilly make sense out of a progression. If anything, I find the Ranger less front-loaded than many other classes. The Rogue is really the only character to benefit from TWF, and has some common class skills there. Still, he's losing out on one level of Roguish goodies.


What I'm amazed is that no one caught these problems in playtesting.

 

[Gez]

You are sadly misinformed. Driz'zt appeared in print almost a full year before the 2e PHB was published. In the 1e rules, Rangers had no special affinity for two weapon fighting, and nothing in the class made Rangers more likely to use this combat option than anyone else.

In point of fact, under the post-UA 1e AD&D rules, the Ranger was required to be an archer (forced proficiency in a bow or light crossbow), and had a system of other forced proficiencies than aimed the class more or less away from the two weapon fighting version that was set forth in the 2e PHB.

Driz'zt predates the two weapon fighting Ranger by a significant time span.

Indeed. The irony of that is that the two-weapon thing was a racial trait, not a class ability when Drizzt was first designed. They have then removed TWF from drows and given it to rangers, implying that every ranger should fight like drows.

I'm not really worried by having dual-wielding rangers. However, I am by having no archer rangers. I should write my own alternate ranger one day, it would be what ?, the 74599th one ? Basically, like the ranger, but with ranger feat rather than front loading, and among these feats the TWF ones, but also archery, toughness, track and endurance, as well as some other that comes from the FRCS's regional feats (Forester, Treetoppers, Saddleback, and Foe Hunter as a specializatioon of Fav. Enemy, notably).