What's wrong with the single-classed Ranger?
- Thread starter Kai Lord
- Start date
My complaints are, largely, two.
First, the way the current archetype for the Rangter works, WRT the "phantom" ambidexterity and two-weapon-fighting feats. As written, those phantom feats do not work with double weapons.
Well, why in the nine hells DOESN'T it? In many of the fantasy-setting novels I've read in the past 10+ years, the character that best fits the "ranger" type, almost invariably wields a staff in battle. Staves are double-weapons; it would seem that they are also, in at least some peoples' eyes, archetypal "ranger weapons".
Ergo, IMC, I simply remove the prohibition against double weapons. *poof* problem solved.
Second, my complaint is that there is only ONE archetype for the Ranger ... the two-sword-swinging Drizzt lookalike. IMO, and IMC, other options would be just as viable (from a native american, or even Mongolian, style culture? There, "rangers" get mounted combat and mounted ARCHERY as phantom feats (same restrictions on use), and so on).
Other than that, I don't see -too- much problem. I think they may end up a "weak fighter", since many of their abilities are much more situational than even the Paladin's (who, at least, always has laying on of hands, and nice saving throw bonusses). I might experiment with a more bard-like spell progression, but it's not a -problem- area IMO, it's just something I think might've been done better, if taken in slightly different directions. 8)
First, the way the current archetype for the Rangter works, WRT the "phantom" ambidexterity and two-weapon-fighting feats. As written, those phantom feats do not work with double weapons.
Well, why in the nine hells DOESN'T it? In many of the fantasy-setting novels I've read in the past 10+ years, the character that best fits the "ranger" type, almost invariably wields a staff in battle. Staves are double-weapons; it would seem that they are also, in at least some peoples' eyes, archetypal "ranger weapons".
Ergo, IMC, I simply remove the prohibition against double weapons. *poof* problem solved.
Second, my complaint is that there is only ONE archetype for the Ranger ... the two-sword-swinging Drizzt lookalike. IMO, and IMC, other options would be just as viable (from a native american, or even Mongolian, style culture? There, "rangers" get mounted combat and mounted ARCHERY as phantom feats (same restrictions on use), and so on).
Other than that, I don't see -too- much problem. I think they may end up a "weak fighter", since many of their abilities are much more situational than even the Paladin's (who, at least, always has laying on of hands, and nice saving throw bonusses). I might experiment with a more bard-like spell progression, but it's not a -problem- area IMO, it's just something I think might've been done better, if taken in slightly different directions. 8)
ConcreteBuddha
First Post
Why I don't like the Ranger:
1) I don't like TWF. I'd rather have a two-handed weapon or a weapon and shield or just a single weapon.
Personal Preference.
.
.
2) If I wanted low-level Druid spells at high levels, I'd play a Druid. The only saving grace spell (WotC only) is Polymorph Self. I hate Polymorph Self.
.
.
3) Favored enemy is often outshined by a good rogue. Also, the very idea goes against what a ranger is. A specialized ability on a diverse character? Right.
.
.
4) Skill points: If I care about sneaking and spotting, I'll play a Rogue. If I care about wilderness stuff, I'll play a Druid or Barbarian with Track.
Rangers are inferior as the former because all of their sneaking doesn't lead up to anything that a Rogue can't do better. (i.e. A Rogue can sneak attack, read lips, open locks...etc.)
.
.
5) Stat heavy. Rangers need strength, dexterity, constitution, intellegence, and wisdom. This is more than paladins (or arguably, monks.)
.
.
.
.
.
Now I'm not saying that the Ranger is broken. I am merely listing the reasons why I do not like them. I'm assuming that there are people out there who dig the Ranger. That's neat.
Personally, I'd rather play a Fighter/Rogue/Druid than a Ranger. At least then I could use a Quarterstaff effectively...
1) I don't like TWF. I'd rather have a two-handed weapon or a weapon and shield or just a single weapon.
Personal Preference.
.
.
2) If I wanted low-level Druid spells at high levels, I'd play a Druid. The only saving grace spell (WotC only) is Polymorph Self. I hate Polymorph Self.
.
.
3) Favored enemy is often outshined by a good rogue. Also, the very idea goes against what a ranger is. A specialized ability on a diverse character? Right.
.
.
4) Skill points: If I care about sneaking and spotting, I'll play a Rogue. If I care about wilderness stuff, I'll play a Druid or Barbarian with Track.
Rangers are inferior as the former because all of their sneaking doesn't lead up to anything that a Rogue can't do better. (i.e. A Rogue can sneak attack, read lips, open locks...etc.)
.
.
5) Stat heavy. Rangers need strength, dexterity, constitution, intellegence, and wisdom. This is more than paladins (or arguably, monks.)
.
.
.
.
.
Now I'm not saying that the Ranger is broken. I am merely listing the reasons why I do not like them. I'm assuming that there are people out there who dig the Ranger. That's neat.
Personally, I'd rather play a Fighter/Rogue/Druid than a Ranger. At least then I could use a Quarterstaff effectively...
Crothian
First Post
ConcreteBuddha said:
Huge misconception that these classes need high stats. My Rangers stats from highest to lowest are Charisma, Wisdom, Dexterity, Intelligence, Constitution, Strength. Highest score is a 16, lowest is a 10. You don't need go scores to play any class, let alone the ranger.
Similar Threads
