The thing you did NOT like about the PHB Ranger

[Wolfspider]

Wow....

Jack Daniels said:

Let's see: can't be two-weapon fighting, because a proficiency isn't an archetype, and it doesn't say "Race: Drow only" under ranger... nope. Sorta sad that this one is winning... shows how shallow people are. Same folks who think rangers are shoehorned by dual-wielding proficiency because they "have to use it" are the same ones who go right around and say it's mathematically inferior to a greatsword... I love pointing out hypocracy.

Wow...what an insulting tone. So I'm a hypocrite, then? Boy...I'm sorry I took part in this poll....

 

[Michael Tree]

As others have said, the problem IMO isn't that the Ranger is weak, it's that it's utterly boring.

At first level a Ranger gets several cool abilities, but after that they get practically nothing. Rangers have nothing to look forward to. All other classes get new goodies when they gain levels, new powers or options that expand their capabilites. Fighters get more feats, Barbarians gain more rage, uncanny dodge, and eventually DR, Druids and Monks gain tons of special abilities, Wizards gain new spells and feats, Sorcerers gain firepower galore and expand their repetoire of spells known, Rogues get better sneak attacks, and several unique abilties after 10th level. When a Ranger goes up a new level all he gets is a few more skill points, and maybe an uninspiring spell or two at higher levels. Bleh. There's no incentive to gain levels, nothing to look forward to.

Add to this that they only have one unique ability that no other class can learn, is favored enemy, and it's a rather insignificant bonus and only applies when the DM brings that enemy into play. It's no wonder that so many Rangers take a single level of Ranger then advance in something else.

Hopefully Masters of the Wild will have some fixes or prestige classes to fix the boring-as-cold-porridge Ranger, but I'm not holding my breath.

It used to be that their sole redeeming feature was gaining Polymorph Self at 14th level (which is a long time to wait for a cool ability), but now even that ability has been castrated. Turning into a Stone Giant is nice and all, but a "ranger", a dedicated woodsman, shouldn't have to turn into a giant to be a viable class.

Don't get me started on TWF. It's a bizarre holdover of a bizarre rule in 2nd edition, and makes no sense whatsoever. Sure some Rangers will want to take TWF and Ambidexterity, but certainly not enough to make it a class feature. Heck, fighting with two weapons is far more common among rogue character archetypes, but you don't see Rogues getting TWF as a special ability.

 

[Jack Daniel]

Exactly why I give it to BOTH rangers and barbarians. It's a balance factor for not having heavy armor.

once again...(and hopefully functional this time)...===Shameless alt.ranger Plugging Link===

But even as-is, the ranger works, given that people don't misunderstand what a ranger is. He's not a woodsman -- that's an expert with druid levels. He's not an archer -- that's another fighter type, like swordsman or gunslinger or pikeman or whatever. He's a slayer, a specialized stalker, assassin, or bounty hunter of specific creatures. No more, no less. The spells are there because he's on the same "prestige level" as a paladin or a rogue/assassin, not because they're druid wannabees. A ranger is not a fighter/druid anymore than a paladin is a fighter/cleric. Fighter/druids have crappy skills.

Nobody seems to ever notice that a single-classed ranger (and ONLY a single-classed ranger) can ecinomically and efficiently fight with full fighter statistics like the d10 hp and 1/1 attack, maximize his stealth, and cast a few spells -- only bards are more versatile without sacrificing the power that a mutliclassed character loses.

 

[Ukyo the undead]

Well, let me say one or two things...

First, the feats.

I really dont know why twf and ambidexterity would be class features for the ranger. Unless I´m wrong, the ranger was inspired by the Strider/Aragorn´s guardian "class".

So, I thought about how to change the ranger class, to make it looks more like a guardian than a "I want to be Drizzt" class.

The feats:

why not change TWF and ambidexterity for endurance and weapon focus OR alertness( I not sure which one to choose)?

And about the spells:

Change it for a feat every 5 levels.


WELL, ITS A IDEA.

 

[Ukyo the undead]

Oh, The spells can be replaced by a feat every 6 levels, and some special abilities in certain levels, like gain the ability to cast the sending spell 2 times per week, animal 2 time per week, uses expeditious retreat 1 time per day, true seeing 2 time per week etc.

I mean, if a ranger have to watch the wilderness and look for problems, this abilities would be very usefull and apropriated: he see the problem, identify it, and, if he/she is unable to solve it, he/she can run way to warn rulers or the potential victims of the treath, or send a message, by magical means.

 

[Storm Raven]

Spellcasting. Rangers don't bring the image of a spellcaster to mind. Why can they cast spells?

The original model for the Ranger class seems to have been Aragorn from LotR, and possibly Gwydion from Celtic mythology. Both of those characters had mystical powers (in Aragorn's case, more or less quasi-mystical powers). As a result, Rangers were given spells.

This is mostly a guess, things are kind of murky in the very earliest days of D&D history.

 

[Vhane]

I hated the spells aspect. I can more easily live with two weapon than this.

 

[praetorian]

I find it funny how much people like to talk about what they DON'T like, instead of what they DO like.

One thing I think a whole lot of people miss, is that it is YOUR character. YOUR ranger doesn't HAVE to use two weapon fighting. YOUR characer doesn't have to take only one level in ranger. Does it matter if your character is as powerful as the next? It shouldn't! What your character is, is what you want it to be. If you want to make your ranger different, then do it! The best characters are those that trancend the power gaming, min/maxing, stereotypes, and are actualy DIFFERENT, and UNIQUE. Is every dwarf a fighter? NO! There are bards, wizards, and sorcerers too. The point I am trying to get across is that your bonuses and BABs and AC do not make your character, it is the emotions, and individuality of your character. So go, make that half-orc waizard, because she might just be the best cahracter you will ever play.

 

[Henry@home]

I think Henry meant that the fighter has many exototic weapon proficiencies by ways of fighter bonus feats...although I'm once again second guessing a poster.

No, actually what I was referring to was the fact that the Ranger has proficiency with all simple and martial weapons - about 80% of all weapons in the PHB - not the abilities of the fighter himself.

In other words, 1 level of ranger gives you most of the advantages of the fighter class, tacked on with two-weapon skills, IN ADDITION TO the ability to use various spell trigger items. One level of ranger is waaay too loaded for any fighter to not take (unless you are of course taking role-playing considerations into account, which as has been discussed elsewhere is a very bad way to balance a game rule.

 

[Henry@home]

One thing I think a whole lot of people miss, is that it is YOUR character. YOUR ranger doesn't HAVE to use two weapon fighting. YOUR characer doesn't have to take only one level in ranger. Does it matter if your character is as powerful as the next? It shouldn't! What your character is, is what you want it to be. If you want to make your ranger different, then do it! The best characters are those that trancend the power gaming, min/maxing, stereotypes, and are actualy DIFFERENT, and UNIQUE. Is every dwarf a fighter? NO! There are bards, wizards, and sorcerers too. The point I am trying to get across is that your bonuses and BABs and AC do not make your character, it is the emotions, and individuality of your character. So go, make that half-orc waizard, because she might just be the best cahracter you will ever play.

I agree totally - your ranger should and shall be different and stand out from mine. However, I hope we can agree that the basic design goal behind 3E was to provide an internally balanced and consistent system, where no one path was clearly superior to all other choices. The goal was to have all class choices equally appealing for different reasons.

The ranger suffers from only one game design problem, and it is this: Unlike the Rogue, the Fighter, the Barbarian, the Paladin, and the Monk, it does not behoove a player any game advantage to stick with the Ranger for more than one level - 1 level is plenty to get over half of the advantages of the Ranger. Also, unlike the fighter, the sorcerer, the wizard, and the bard, sticking with ranger for the length of your career does not give you dramatic advantages that could not be gotten by choosing another class. In summary, he is "front-loaded". From this standpoint, he does not succeed in the test of balance that is passed for all the other classes. Even picking rogue for only your first level of experience, a choice that was once thought by some to be a glaring loophole in the rules, is not an attractive option - that plethora of skills you get are all low-level!

From a role-play standpoint, you can make almost any kind of character you desire in these rules, and they are all just as fun. From a game design standpoint, it fails the test succeeded by all the other character classes - not enough desirability to stake a career in Ranger, other than for roleplaying reasons - you get all the most important benefits at first level. It has nothing to do with having the most powerful combo - rather, the Ranger as he stands now is a little TOO favorable to multiclassing, if you follow me.