The thing you did NOT like about the PHB Ranger

[Petrosian]

I use the WOTC ranger as is, for ONE god's sect of rangers. They all share a common school of training and as such its sensible for their teaching to be able to impose ONE STYLE.

What does not follow, in my game world, is that ALL ranger-types everywhere even of different gods all are trained in the same combat style. Matter of fact, it MAKES SENSE for each locales rangers to have similar but locale specific training.

So i also have another rnager, the {"generic" ranger, who loses TWf and AMBI semi-feats and gains at first level ONE *full* fighter bonus feat (ie not restricted by armor).

So many areas rangers can take FOCUS in the main weapons or archery feats or whatever suits their fancy. In the next campaign this may well become one NORMAL feat to also allow things like FOCUS Wilderness Lore or FOCUS healing.

My only problem with the core ranger is its odd fighting style only really makes snese with a single uniform training regimen and the class does not seem to have background for such.

 

[Schmoe]

Do you know the levels involved? All we know are the classes. They could just as easily be 1 Ranger/5 Fighter as 5 Ranger/1 Fighter or 3 Ranger/3 Fighter. Not knowing how the classes are distributed you can't say they are examples of how front loaded the class may or may not be.

Sorry, I should have included that info. One is a Ranger 3/Druid 2. The other is a Ranger 3/Fighter 3.

The Ranger/Druid also has Skill Focus: Wilderness Lore, along with a Wisdom of 16. She can track pretty much anything.

Hopefully that clears things up!

 

[Florin]

I have a lot of the typical gripes.

1. Two-Weapon fighting should not be built into the class. There is no point to it.
2. I don't like magic for rangers. I'd rather give them extraordinary and/or supernatural abilities.
3. Front-Loaded
   [/list=1]

 

[Uller]

I think the ranger is fine as is for what it seeks to be: A mystical-wilderness-warrior type. He is compitant with martial weapons, skilled in tracking and stealth, has keen sight and hearing, and at one with nature. There is no class combination that can uniquely acheive this. (Edit: if I had my way...he'd be purely a wilderness fighter/tracker/hunter...no spells...but that's not what this class seeks to be).

I'd like to see him have a bit more skill points(maybe a "free" Wilderness Lore point or something), and a bit more flexibility in his quasi-feats(but not too much or they would be overly useful or spread them out over other levels).

As for the ranger being too front loaded...that's totally bogus, IMO.

What does a ranger get?

Feats: Two melee combat feats with the caveat that he you can't wear any thing heavier than light armor and light encumberance(people forget the encumberance part, methinks). This is not really that useful except for Rogues who generally travel lightly anyway...most other lightly armored character types tend to shy away from melee combat and even rogues are best off not wading right in too much. Track is a skill that is useful on in specific circumstances and unless you are doing a lot of following/tracking in your campaign, it doesn't come up THAT often...in my experience, about once every 4 games or so...how useful is a feat that only gets used once every 4 games or so?

Compare that to the fighter who gets a TRUE feat at first level and another at second. If you want to dual wield, you are far better off taking two levels of fighter than one of ranger, IMO because you can then wear some armor.

+1 BAB and +2 to one save and d10 hp...about average with most other combat classes.

Favored Enemy...big deal...only really useful in games where you are facing a specific enemy all the time. Most games, in my experience have a variety of enemies because players and DMs get bored fighting the same bad guys all the time.

So where is the front loading...just because it is useful for flushing out a VERY specific arch-type(a stealthy dual-wielding fighter-types who wear little armor and carry little gear) does not make it overly front loaded...lots of classes do that...

Fighters: If your character concept is a non-fighter who is competant in combat, take two levels of fighter...

Rogues: You wanna be able to search for traps? Rogue. Who wouldn't like to deal an extra 1d6 damage when you've got an enemy flanked?

Clerics: Who doesn't want to be able to cast three CLWs per day and use any cleric wand?

Wizards: If you don't wear armor...Scrolls of SHIELD! All Wizard wands! For just one level!

Barbarian: RAGE! Sure it's only once per day...but sometimes once is all you need. (Edit: and +10ft to your move! for just one level)

Bard: Bestow +1 to attack, damage and saves to the whole party! +2 to TWO saves!

Monks: If you don't wear armor and you have a good Wisdom...this is the class for you. One level can increase your AC by +2 or more depending on you wisdom. (Edit: and +2 to ALL your saves...That's a deal!)


My point is...just because a class helps fill some character concept does not make it front loaded or unbalanced.

 

[Henry]

*BZZZZ* Wrong...

A character who remains in the ranger class gains the same benefit the bard does: single-classed versatility, resulting in a far less dramatic drop in power. If you want to take one level as a ranger and then switch to another class, great. It's within the rules. You define your specialty and get really good in that area, but you don't get it all. A ranger 1/fighter 9 can't sneak. A ranger 1/rogue 9 can't fight. A ranger 1/druid 9 can cast really good spells, but he won't be very stealthy if he's not morphed and fighting with druid weapon/armor restrictions bites.

Sorry - BZZZT. Wrong point being made, IMHO. With every other class, there is an immediate reason to "stick with it" for two or three levels - there is very little reason to stick with being a Ranger, that another class cannot provide. Even Paladins do not gain all of their main abilities at first level - you must be 5th level before you get all of the main abilities that make a paladin, a paladin.

With Ranger, the point is not that they lose versatility, it's that Ranger gives them tons of additional abilites to add to their class.

• What Barbarian wouldn't want to pick up two-weapon fighting for free, which works well with their talents, and the ability to use some spell trigger items?
• Bards and rogues supplement the ranger abilities with stealth, sneak attacks, and the ability to track a foe. (And please no one mention to me that bard's can't sneak attack.)
• Fighters get spell trigger items, rudimentary stealth, 2-weapon fighting (only useable to finesseable fighters), and keep the same BAB and hit points.
• Wizards and sorcerers get all weapons save exotic, hit dice, and the ability to use a cure wounds wand.
• Clerics get martial weapons and more spot and listen in one level than they might get in half their careers otherwise.

Druids, monks and paladins might be the only classes that don't benefit as much from 1 level of ranger. Even then, each one has a few things that are useful from it, the same way that all classes 1st level abilities are useful to each other in some small way.

Staying in ranger does have benefits, but do they compare with the benefits that a person has taking one level of ranger and then walking away? From a rules standpoint, they don't.

I agree as I said earlier that I find the Ranger quite balanced, but if they had spread out his abilities a little better, and perhaps offered a choice besides only the virtual 2-weapon use, then it would be less attractive to pick up one level of ranger, and then leave it.

 

[Uller]

I voted other.

This is because I think the Ranger gets too many of its abilities at first level then doesn't get much of a bonus in later levels. If your going to give the Ranger those virtual feats it would have been better to spread them over the first few levels. At the moment the ranger class is abused by taking just one level of it.

I play in two games and not only PC has just a single level in Ranger. In the game I DM, I'd allow it because I don't see taking a single level in a class to flush out a character concept as abuse...it is the POINT of 3e...No one in my game WANTS to be a dual wielder except the pure ranger who wants to be very good at fighting and have an animal companion as well.

Reason to stick with ranger:

A character concept that has maxed BAB for his level(so you can eventually get 4 attacks per round...5 with rapid shot or even 6 with your off-hand), maxed spot and listen, the ability to cast some simple wilderness spells at lower/mid levels and some down right useful spells at high levels, have an animal companion of hit dice equal to your level, the ability to use all martial weapons, light armor and shields, the ability to track and still have all the other feats that are your due, the ability to study specific enemies and learn to exploit their weaknesses to greater and greater degree.

There is no class that can do this but the pure ranger. The class is fine from a game mechanic point of view. The only thing wrong with it is that it doesn't fit everyone's view of what a ranger should be from a RP POV...(including mine, BTW).

 

[Uller]

• What Barbarian wouldn't want to pick up two-weapon fighting for free, which works well with their talents, and the ability to use some spell trigger items?
• Bards and rogues supplement the ranger abilities with stealth, sneak attacks, and the ability to track a foe. (And please no one mention to me that bard's can't sneak attack.)
• Fighters get spell trigger items, rudimentary stealth, 2-weapon fighting (only useable to finesseable fighters), and keep the same BAB and hit points.
• Wizards and sorcerers get all weapons save exotic, hit dice, and the ability to use a cure wounds wand.
• Clerics get martial weapons and more spot and listen in one level than they might get in half their careers otherwise.

What <class X> wouldn't want a level of Ranger?

A Barbian that uses one weapon and want to get DR, more Rages per day and uncanny dodge as fast as possible.

A Rogue that wants his rogue abilities as fast as possible and keep his sneak attack damage as high as possible.

A Bard that doesn't want to water down his already watered down abilities.

Any Fighter that wants to wear better armor than a chain shirt(i.e. any fighter with some sense)

Any Wizard or Sorcerer that wants to get high level spells as quickly as possible.

ditto for clerics...(most clerics where armor in my experience, YMMV)

 

[KDLadage]

I voted 'other.'

My complaint: all of the above.

 

[Storm Raven]

What <class X> wouldn't want a level of Ranger?

A Barbian that uses one weapon and want to get DR, more Rages per day and uncanny dodge as fast as possible.

Okay.

A Rogue that wants his rogue abilities as fast as possible and keep his sneak attack damage as high as possible.

A rogue doesn't really give up all that much to take one level of ranger. Many of the common rogue skill selections are on the ranger list (notably Spot, Search and Listen), and delaying the sneak attack die addition by one level pales in comparison with being able to get two sneak attacks in for the price of one, essentially doubling your sneak attack dice in one level.

A Bard that doesn't want to water down his already watered down abilities.

Or who wants to focus on combat. This is a taste issue though.

Any Fighter that wants to wear better armor than a chain shirt(i.e. any fighter with some sense)

Just wear a mithril breastplate at higher levels. It is light armor, and protects pretty well.

Any Wizard or Sorcerer that wants to get high level spells as quickly as possible.

Good point.

ditto for clerics...(most clerics where armor in my experience, YMMV)

Agree on the spells, but the mithril breastplate is just as valid for clerics as for fighters.

 

[GuardianLurker]

All of the above, plus...

The class concept/archetype wasn't presented very well, or strongly. Is the ranger a Wilderness Warrior? A Skirmisher? A Druidic "Paladin"? An Archer? Right now, it's basically all of these and none, because it doesn't have enough flexibility to support all the roles.