The thing you did NOT like about the PHB Ranger

[Uller]

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.

Of course, the same can be said for taking a level of Rogue for an otherwise pure Ranger. If the character concept is that of a dual wielding-mystic-wilderness-warrior who finds himself in melee, then giving up +1 to BAB and a couple of hitpoints is likely worth the +1d6 to damage on many melee attacks and +2 to reflex saves,

So yes...one level of Ranger makes a lot of sense for a rogue who wants to dual wield or a finesse fighter who doesn't mind being restricted to light armor. But, IMO, just because it is a no brainer for a specific character concept to take one level of it doesn't make it overly front loaded. It just makes it a good fit.

What Fighter wouldn't want to Rage once per day and get a +10ft to his move?(assuming he wears medium or light armor). I'd say that is well worth the half a feat.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

If you actually play a Ranger as is, you will find an immense incentive to pick up 1 or 3 levels of Rogue.

The only signficant thing you give up is 1 BAB and 2 HPs per level. The spellcasting loss can be ignored unless animal companions are your thing.

What you gain is more skills and some sneak attack, both which play into your Ranger strengths. Your classic Ranger skills actually get stronger if you plan your progression well. Sneak attack has great synergy with the TWF and is in theme for a character that prefers not to do the grunt fighting because of weak AC. Picking up tumbling helps here, too. And you probably have a few more skill points left to round out your character.

A Ranger4/Rogue3 is actually a better Ranger than a Ranger7.

And I have not even mentioned the other Rogue abilities you pick up yet. (Evasion, Uncanny Dodge)

 

[Jack Daniel]

Fine, if you all agree that one level of ranger is fantastic, I'll concur... that it's a fantastic way to impede character advancement, that is. You'd better darn well be a human or a half-elf, 'cause otherwise you ain't triple-classin' later with one ranger level. If you're a spellcaster, faboo: you just bumped your spell ability back another level. Woe to the sorcerer who made that moron choice. As far as their multiclass abilities go, they synergize best with rogues and barbarians... and that's about it. A rogue with one level of ranger gets tons of special abilities that add up to diddly squat in offensive melee, and barbarians lack the stealth a ranger might otherwise have. Are the boring at high levels? Only if you find the one class that's able to sneak up on foes, strike first, stay in the fight, wade through the enemies, and then heal himself when it's all done boring.

 

[Uller]

...Are the boring at high levels? Only if you find the one class that's able to sneak up on foes, strike first, stay in the fight, wade through the enemies, and then heal himself when it's all done boring.

And you forgot that he is wading through his enemies as a Dual-wielding GIANT....

 

[Plane Sailing]

Woe to the sorcerer who made that moron choice.

Hey Jack, no need to get offensive with people.

 

[Ruvion]

That's right, let's keep the language down to a minimum...
We don't wanna give Eric's grandmama a heart attack.

 

[Ravellion]

I think that, generally speaking, the Ranger is fine as it is. But part of me really wanted to select all of the available poll options. As said before, balance wise there isn't a problem (which I can't say for Monte's Ranger - if I wanted to min-max, every fighter would have at least one level of that powergaming monstrosity... wow!)

I just really think that spot as a class skill is a very powerful class feature, one worth it to stick within the ranger class for. I however, will almost invariably argue with the DM about the Two virtual feats (swap them for just Alertness for all I care), unless I just happen to want to play a TWFer. I know I could just ignore the feats, but I don't even want them on my sheet for certain characters; and I'm min maxish enough to want something in return

Rav

 

[Ace]

I'm in the group that thinks he's way to "Front Loaded".
Way to many good things at first level, then like nothing really cool at higher level.
Everyone takes a level of ranger, but no one stticks with him because there is no real reason too.

A 6th level fighter with one ranger level is overall stronger then a 7th level ranger.

A 6th level paladin with one ranger level is overall stronger then a 7th level ranger.

A 6th level barbarian with one ranger level is overall stronger then a 7th level ranger.

Heck my 5th level cleric with one level of Ranger is better than a Ranger in almost everyway but DR.

 

[Ruvion]

The votes are all here!

"Drizzt Clone" took the cake, but I think some voters were thinking of front loading when they voted this option.
"Ranger is fine as it is" came second closely followed by "Not enought sexy abilities for me" and "Not so flexible".
Low skills points was not as much of an issue and there were other tid bits that were also mentioned.
Favored Enemy was seen as nonproblomatic (or at least non annoying enough) ability...Interesting.

A good DM should be able to come up with an interesting ranger variant (god forbid, not another one!) using the above votes. I sure will make use of this for my own homebrew!

 

[Hattersai]

As a proud owner of the 2ed Complete Book of Rangers A few things bug me of the 3rd one. Not all Rangers are the same. Some don't use two weapons, some don't cast spells etc.

Now I like the version of a Ranger in the OA book. Instead of getting a level of spells they can pick a Fighter feat. Not over balanced fits decent with some concepts.