The thing you did NOT like about the PHB Ranger

[TheTaxMan]

... and [the fighter has] proficiency with darned near any weapon you find

Explain how he has more proficiency than a Barb, Paladin, or Ranger?

 

[Ruvion]

Originally posted by 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.

He may have been jesting...a burst of sarcasm perhaps...a little trolling here and there...though he could have fully well have been serious~

Originally posted by Henry@home
... and [the fighter has] proficiency with darned near any weapon you find

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.

 

[omedon]

My problem with the ranger is that whatever it is exactly is wrong with it is hard to pin down, and it just leaves me generally disatisfied without a clear idea of how to make it the way it "should be".

 

[MythandLore]

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.

 

[MythandLore]

Explain how he has more proficiency than a Barb, Paladin, or Ranger?

Feats, he gets lots of extra feats to become better a it, and he gets weapon specialization.
With those feats it's easier for him to become a Weapon Master PrC.
Which really makes him more proficient in a weapon.

 

[Castaigne]

The TWF. It's the source of the frontloading, and the straw that breaks the camel's back for me. I never read the Drizzt novels or played 2e, so dual-wielding has nothing to do with the images that come to my mind when I hear the word 'ranger.'

Note that I'm not thrilled with the treatment of paladins or bards in 3e either, but I don't feel compelled to change those classes.

 

[Ruvion]

Originally, the pay-off of playing a ranger came from the good skill selection and the Polymorph Self spell. Take these away and the ranger is neutered IMHO. Which means that more than anything, the above are the class defining features of the ranger (even more so than the TWF and Ambi feats)...

With the advent of shafting of the Polymorph Self spell, I think the ranger was powered down somewhat.

So we have an unoriginal, dull class without the flexibility of the initial Polymorph spell. I'm still not sure if the ranger is shafted, but it sure is an uninteresting class....YMMV however.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

The Ranger is completely playable exactly as he is, but nonetheless serves as a perfect example of exactly how not to design a core class.

I voted for "Drizzt clone" because I think this is the main cause of the front loading. If they didn't dump two extra virtual feats on at first level it would not be a clear favorite of minmaxers.

The 3e Ranger is pretty much a mindless conversion of the 2e Ranger which itself is a very confused slavish attempt to emulate a cheesy character in a dime novel. As already pointed out, the "designers" confused a Drow fighting style made infamous by EGG himself in early adventure modules into a class feature, thereby requiring the class to be painfully rewritten.

But I suppose I can chuckle over the fact that this ranger sillyness was merely one obvious symptom of an "ingenius" cross-genre marketing scheme that sunk TSR into bankruptcy.

 

[birdboy2000]

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

 

[Gargoyle]

Replace the spells with some bonus feats and a different bonus feat list than the fighter, and I'd like the class better, but that's just me.