The thing you did NOT like about the PHB Ranger

[Grim]

IMO, the ranger definitly works best as a secondary or equal multiclass. At high levels, starting to take levels of fighter just looks so much more attractive than levels of ranger.

I think the best way to use a ranger was presented in the most recent Dragon: The Silverback.

All i did was change some of the suggested feats, and add a level of the very good "Prairie Runner" Prestege class (also in said Dragon) and boom! I had a really cool, darn powerful Halfling Ranger/barbarian dude. Decent hit points, cool abilities, superfast movement (for a wee one) and a powerful twin attack style...

 

[Umbran]

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

 

[Henry@home]

Jack Daniel,

I don't think it shallow to say that the Ranger is too "front-loaded" for some people's taste. In fact, maybe one of the choices should have been "Too 'Front Loaded'."

While I personally see nothing wrong with the Ranger's power balance, and it is a perfectly viable class to use, I find it reasonable for some posters here to find too much desire for everyone from Wizards to Bards to take one level of Ranger just for the Feats it gives. One level in exchange for three feats, a +1 bonus against the enemies you are most likely to face, and the ability to use various wands is perhaps a bit much when tacked on to the other bonuses for taking a fighter type (d10 hit dice, +1 BAB, and proficiency with darned near any weapon you find). It means that most characters who plan to mix it up in melee combat have a vested interest in taking one level of ranger.

Many many people are quite happy with the ranger. Just as many find it too top heavy to be balanced with the staggered progression of all the other classes.

 

[LightPhoenix]

I just think overall the class is pointless as written. It's basically a Fighter/Druid hybrid, with more emphasis on fighting.

LightPhoenix

 

[Ron]

There are several minor problems with the ranger such as the inflexibility of the ambidexterity/2 weapon fighting and the low number of skill points compared to the number of class skills. However, the major problem is that the class is very attractive to take a single level, but there is few incentives to take more levels. By taking one level of ranger, your character could take no less than three feats as well as an additional bonus in the BAB and a favorite enemy. This is probably the best deal as far as classes' first levels go. However, you could probably do better as fighter or a druid than taking additional levels of ranger.

 

[Ace]

Hey how come there isn't an all of the above?

The current ranger isn't broken or shafted but it sucks.
There I said it, The current Ranger sucks. Whew


While I am not doing a custom ranger IMO The class needs

New class abilties
6 skill points per level maybe
A better non Drizzit feat layout
and maybe a spelless option

 

[Claude Raines]

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.

 

[Ruvion]

I guess it was a little late for me when I first typed up the polls...
As mentioned by some of the above posters, the following options should have been included:

A) Too front loaded
B) Spellcasting Ranger (I like mine pure skillz like)
C) Not enought incentive to continue as Ranger (though this can tie in with "not enough funky unique abilities" option)
D) All of the above.

Keep the votes rolling in~

 

[Ruvion]

Attention Moderators!

If any of you Moderators are watching, please edit the poll to include the above 4 options (note however, "all of the above" option should go before "other (post below)" and "what have you been smokin'? Ranger is fine as it is" option) and take out the "favored enemies (What?! So a Ranger is a bounty hunter?!)" option to make room.

Thanks in advance~

 

[mattcolville]

Taking a level of Ranger can be really useful since you get Ambi and TWF. Apart from that. . .why take more levels? You can get spells faster by taking a level of any spellcaster, you can get feats faster by taking levels of fighter.

I've taken a level of Ranger with more than one character, but I don't see a real good reason to be a single classed ranger, whereas I do see good reasons for being a single class everything else.

But I have no problem with the Ranger being something no-one in their right mind would be a single classed version of. So what, they could have just not put it in and we'd have one fewer class. I'm happier with the extra option even if it is mostly useless.