What's a Monte Ranger?

[Hakkenshi]

I dont consider Aragorn the quinessential roleplaying ranger. I consider the Gary Gygax's 1st edition version of the ranger as the quinessential ranger. Aragorn became a king, which most rangers would not want to do, so I dont think of Aragorn as a serious ranger.

A warrior who is adept in the forest, and casts the occasional spell is my definition of a ranger. That sounds like a 1st edition ranger.

Which just goes to show how 1st Ed. REALLY needed to be improved upon. 3e changes the whole thing, since your character's definition is not entirely created by one class. For example, if you like the 1st Ed. version (now THAT was actual blasphemy!), just have your spell-less woodsman take levels in
druid and sorcerer. There you go, limited spell access!

Just because Gary Gygax wrote it that way, doesn't mean it fits the fantasy archetype of the ranger. In fact, it most assuredly doesn't. It's already been pointed out that spell-casting rangers (those that do so by class ability and not by race) are all but inexistent in fantasy literature.

And most importantly, as I've said, multiclassing eliminates the need for it. Just like the paladin class should probably be a prestige class for fighter/clerics instead of a base class.

 

[Tsyr]

The book is called "Path of the Sword"... it's a great book, IMHO.

Here are some of the details of their ranger varient (Called the Outdoorsman)

Fight BAB, good FORT and REF saves.

Gets a "favored terrain" ability at first level and every five levels therafter (To represent having adventured beyond their own boundries, I guess), an animal companion (Which improves to a beast companion, then at really high levels to a magical companion), a few fighter bonus feats, the ability to move through terrain (if its part of his favored terrain) at full movement rate when it would normaly slow him down (Thick brush, for example), and is skilled at not leaving tacks. D10 hitpoints, and 4 skill points per level to spread amongst various ranger-ish skills.

Now, that seems like a lot, right? Well, there is a catch.

The Outdoorsman is only proficient with two weapons. Of his choice, but only two weapons. Any bonus feats he takes have to apply to those to weapons. Nor is he profficient with shields or heavy armour.

Also, the favored terrain is a defensive bonus, not offensive. It provides a minor boost to his AC (Using natural cover to aid him), and bonuses to assorted skill checks in that environment. These bonuses vanish if he leaves the terrain, even so much as going inside a building deep in the woods, or being in a clearing in the forrest.

 

[Hakkenshi]

I have a minor beef with prohibiting classes from using weapons. That seems so 2e

I think I'll make my own version of the ranger and post it here once it's done. I'll keep you posted (I want the feedback )

 

[Tsyr]

I have a minor beef with prohibiting classes from using weapons. That seems so 2e

Do you allow all classes to be profficient in all weapons from the start then? Mages using longswords without paying the feat, clerics running around with dire-axes?

They can still spend a feat and gain proficiency normaly. They just don't start with them, and they can't spend bonus feats to improve extra proficiencies.

 

[Desdichado]

For a standard D&D game, I'd use Ken Hood's bushfighter instead of the Woodsman, probably. I really like the Woodsman, and I've used it in games that had a more WoT-ish ruleset to them (class AC progression, for example.) But the Bushfighter just seems to fit the core rules better.

And I like it better than the 1e derived blasphemy!

 

[hong]

People are starting to break out their own ranger hacks, so it looks like it's time to post the alt.ranger page again:

http://www.electricearth.net/ranger

25 alt.rangers for your browsing pleasure. It's all been said before, people....

 

[Desdichado]

People are starting to break out their own ranger hacks, so it looks like it's time to post the alt.ranger page again:

http://www.electricearth.net/ranger

25 alt.rangers for your browsing pleasure. It's all been said before, people....

Thanks, hong. What would we do without you?

 

[hong]

Thanks, hong. What would we do without you?

Lead useful, productive lives as valued members of an advanced and industrious society?

... I'm sorry. That dancing leprechaun has taken over my brane. Make it stop, somebody!

 

[Hakkenshi]

Thanks hong! Not crazy about the alternate rangers I've seen so far, though. I guess I'll refrain from posting my (quickly thought up) alternate, since it might just enflame an already heated debate

 

[fett527]

Like I said, Bendrig, the woodsman needs a bit of tweaking to be acceptable for a D&D game.

For example, the saves SUCK. That's because WoT uses the intermediate save mechanic, starting at +1 and ending up at +9 at level 20 (which I think D&D should have had, BTW).

Also, all classes in WoT have more skill points. The Armsman has the least with 4. So the Woodsman's 6 (IIRC) is maybe a bit much (YMMV).

The Nature's Warrior ability is VASTLY superior to favoured enemy, which I never really liked anyway. A ranger should be able to fight better in the land which he guards, not against a specific enemy. That makes him more of a specialty hunter or assassin than anything else.

And the woodsman is not limited to forests, either, since you get many terrain choices, and more later on. It's easier to make a Dwarven underground ranger using that system.

Partial Improved Initiative is good, but doesn't make the class as top-heavy as the two-weapon fighting feats. All in all, the class just seems better balanced.

As for FFG's book, does anyone know what it's called?

I do remember that we supplanted the Woodsman's saves with the Rangers and scaled back the skill points. Thanks for pointing those out as well as the terrain expansion ability. The terrain bonus is the major reason we liked it better as a wilderness type. I'd forgotten that increases. I agree with the specialty hunter comments as well.