What's wrong with the single-classed Ranger?

[Kai Lord]

Now that the new edition has been out for 2 years, I'm curious as to whether or not the things people complained about regarding the PHB Ranger still hold true today. So let's hear it, what don't you like about the class?

This post brought to you by kreynolds and The Transporter, now playing at a theater near you

 

[Dr. Zoom]

I have experimented with many alt.rangers and have finally concluded that, although a fine class as written, a few small tweaks is all it needs. I give rangers Alertness as a bonus feat at 2nd level so that they are extremely difficult to surprise under normal circumstances. At 3rd level, they get the ability to smite a favored enemy once per day, as the smite domain power. Rangers and bards also get 6 skill points in my game. And finally, I use Monte's spells per day progression for rangers and paladins.

Any other variations I do on a case by case basis, based on the class customization rules in the PH. Don't want the two weapon fighting/ambidexterity ability? Drop it in exchange for a feat. Don't want your ranger to cast spells? Drop them in exchange for a couple of feats or for two extra skill points per level. These are all the rules I need.

 

[Christian]

Here, I'll throw everything up front. Virtually every complaint I've ever seen about the ranger falls into these three categories:

1) The class is underpowered/out of balance compared to the other classes. ('The ranger is shafted!')

2) The abilities the ranger is given don't match a given concept of the wilderness warrior. ('I don't see rangers as two-weapon fighters/spellcasters/whatever.')

3) The ranger is 'front-loaded'; the most powerful abilities (the Track, Ambidex, and TWF feats) are granted at first level, and nothing of consequence comes in after that (at least not for a long time). Result: a proliferation of characters with one level in Ranger and the rest of their levels in Fighter, Rogue, and/or Barbarian. ('I'm tired of seeing mucnhkins take one level of ranger for the TWF ability!')

IME, I think 2) and 3) are pretty good points. Some added flexibility in the class would be a big improvement, and moving some of the special abilities to 2nd and/or 3rd level would make the class more interesting to develop (as well as less attractive to min/max multiclassing). IMC, I added some minimal tweaks to the class to do this (virtual feats don't apply until 2nd level, and there are choices other than Ambi/TWF available).

I heartily disagree with 1). Well, mostly, anyway. The ranger may be just a bit underpowered ... but not enough for me to worry about. I think that the root of this complaint actually lies in complaint #2. Players have a preconceived notion of what the ranger should be, and play the character according to that preconceived notion; then they complain that the character isn't good at filling that role. Playing a ranger character along the lines of how the class is actually designed makes for a pretty decent and effective member of a party.

 

[Li Shenron]

Honestly, I have had only 1 Ranger up to now in my party, so my comment is limited. Anyway, we never experienced a concrete underpower or flaw in him, and the player seemed to like the PC as he was.

At the moment, I think it's the best class for those who want to play a fighter-type while trying spellcasting here and there without multiclassing*. Rangers and Paladins are the only ones who have top BAB and weapon proficiencies and cast spells, and while Paladins have probably a little more useful abilities, they are very flat to roleplay, while you can make anything out of a Ranger.

* I mean he's a good character especially if you don't want to play a full spellcaster (a lot of my fellows were beginners and were scared of all those spells to learn to use), since divine spellcasting is easier (doesn't interfere with armor).

 

[Kai Lord]

I have experimented with many alt.rangers and have finally concluded that, although a fine class as written, a few small tweaks is all it needs.

Why do you believe the Ranger needs to be tweaked?

 

[Dr_Rictus]

Rangers get the best selection of class skills and best skill points per level of any class with a +1 BAB per level progression. I find that many people who think the ranger is underpowered are undervaluing those skills.

I do think there's some validity to the point that rangers are "front-loaded," but in practice I haven't found it to be a very significant problem.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I generally agree with Christian.

The Ranger is perfectly playable as is, but it is a little wonky when you look at other classes and start multiclassing. There are peculiarities of the class that make Rangers very attractive to minmaxing. That doesn't affect playability, but the frontloading is a design flaw nonetheless.

With respect to overall effectiveness, low level Rangers are every bit as good as Fighters, if not better. A high level Ranger sporting a great BAB, good HPs, TWF, and Polymorph Self is nothing to sneeze at.

A lot of people underestimate the long term value of good skills.

 

[Oni]

I'm not really fond of the spellcasting ranger, but I can make the sneaky woodsman I envision through multiclassing so it isn't really an issue and people that do like the spellcasting ranger can still do that. As for the frontloading, I not sure its a huge problem what with the armour restriction.

In general I prefer classes that are more general/loose, to classes that are more locked in to one specific progression like the monk and the ranger.

 

[Crothian]

Nothing. My Ranger is seventh soon to be eighth level. I'm the best archer in the party (even better then the archer cleric). With Craft Wondrous Items I can make a lot of utility items that are very useful for everyone. And now that I'm getting into the spells, ther versatility of this character is amazing.

It's amazing how playing it and taking advantage of the great abilities really shows this class to be great.

Edit: And the Transporter stunk, why is this thread sponsored by them?

 

[Christian]

Darn straight, Crothian.

I've seen people complaining that rangers got shafted, and then when you ask about their experience playing them, you get stuff like, "Well, I didn't use the magic abilities much. Real rangers wouldn't have spells, and anyway, look at their spell list! I didn't see anything really useful there." "Yeah, clerics were shafted too. I mean, real clerics would only call on their deity's powers in dire extremity; and look at their combat spell selection! They have nothing that can compete with the wizards' fireballs and lighting bolts! What a pathetic class!"