What's wrong with the single-classed Ranger?

[Kaji]

2 thoughts:

1) A number of players im my campaigns have run straight Rangers, and they love them, and I do mean LOVE them. They gush about how sweet their Rangers are, how cool, how blah blah blah their Rangers are. So, there appears to be nothing wrong with the class as written.

2) Dr Zoom has it all figured out, way back at the begining of this thread. Your character wants to be the Ranger who kicks a$$ with a bow and not 2 weapoms? Great, drop some feats, pick up some others, and off you go. I do this all the time with my players. I DM a cleric who really wanted a familiar type of companion. Great, several less turning attempts later (and I run a undead heavy campaign) and off he goes. Works out well for us. I suppose the only problem is to make sure you maintain some balance, but that should not be too hard for experienced DM's.

 

[The Souljourner]

Is it just me or does the Ranger's spell selection SUCK? I mean, Summon Nature's Ally IV? At 15th level? Damn, you really have to thanks the nature gods for giving you that challenge rating 3 animal when you're going up against a Mature Adult Blue Dragon with its 31 AC and 14d6 breath weapon.

WTF? The ranger's spell selection is terrible. All the spells are those ridiculously specialized spells that not even druids take. Why even bother? I'd much rather see a ranger with a few more skill points and an extra feat here and there.

If you're going to give him spells, give him some friggin' spells. If you're not, then just don't. As far as I can tell a ranger's spells are unlikely to be useful 95% of the time. The only mildly useful ones (resist elements and the healing ones) are going to be totally outshone by the party cleric or even the paladin.

So why even bother with this spell list? It's ridiculous.

-The Souljourner

 

[Crothian]

I've found the Rangers spell list to be great. It's the only reason I'm not multi classing, I want to keep my spells. They really don't have many combat spells, in combat they should be using weapons. That's why they get the best BAB rate.

 

[Pax]

And who says the PHB Ranger has to? Nothing in the description states Rangers have an affinity for two-weapon fighting or take any time to train with that style. They simple have a talent for it, presumably as a by-product for being so in touch with their surroundings.

If the PHB ranger is not -strongly- intended for AmbiDex/TWF style play, then, why is the class gifted with those abilities?

Sure, you COULD play a wizard who never casts spells (but why would you), or a rogue who never sneak attacks, and knows nothing of stealth, locks, and so on (again, why would you), or a fighter who never draws her weapons (same question).

The PHB ranger is set as a TWF archetype. Failing to play to the basic, foundation archetypeof a classis where most complaints of "this class sucks" come from.

And its still a template for Aragorn. Take Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Bastard Sword and Favored Enemy: Orcs to be followed up by Hobgoblin (Uruk-hai) and voila, enter Isildur's heir.

Actually, by the rules, Ranger is the last class I'd give to Aragorn. Fighter, instead, with maybe a touch of Bard (for his knowledge of history, etc). Rangers who do NOT use the TWF ability, are surrendering a large part of their class-gained benefits.

Which then begs the question: why bother being a ranger at all? Just be a fighter, ionstead -- and pick up Tracking ... if you ever even plan to use it.

 

[Kai Lord]

If the PHB ranger is not -strongly- intended for AmbiDex/TWF style play, then, why is the class gifted with those abilities?

Sure, you COULD play a wizard who never casts spells (but why would you), or a rogue who never sneak attacks, and knows nothing of stealth, locks, and so on (again, why would you), or a fighter who never draws her weapons (same question).

Please. A Ranger not fighting with two weapons is akin to a Wizard not bothering with a familiar. An ignored perk yes, but hardly the signature ability of the class. They're feats for crying out loud.

The PHB ranger is set as a TWF archetype. Failing to play to the basic, foundation archetypeof a classis where most complaints of "this class sucks" come from.

A Ranger with a bow can slaughter an equal level fighter by only using Entangle or Hunter's Mercy.

Which then begs the question: why bother being a ranger at all? Just be a fighter, ionstead -- and pick up Tracking ... if you ever even plan to use it.

A 1st level human Fighter who spent a feat on Track now has two feats to spend. A 1st level human Ranger gets Track for free, has two feat slots to spend, double the skill points and all the important Class Skills.

Beyond 1st level, the Ranger has spells, spells, spells. For any extra damage the Fighter does, the Ranger entangles him, tree strides away, cures himself, then blasts him with a few Hunter's Mercy's.

If by some chance the Fighter gets tricky with a bow of his own, the Ranger has Wind Wall.

For the epic Ranger, every Hunter's Mercy or natural critical means a Fort save or die. Epic Spells aren't even out of reach.

Forget the TWF. When it comes to archery, the Ranger has the Fighter beat. You just can't beat a natural 20 on demand. As for single weapon melee fighting, just pick the best feat tree and go with it, then use skills and spells to maximum advantage.

 

[kibbitz]

Well, this is what I think some people think.

One associates classes with what their core purpose is before looking at the side benefits. This might be due to some carryover from AD&D 2nd ED with Fighter, Thief, Priest and Wizard representing the 4 major groups Fighting, Utility, Healing/Buffing, Attack Magic/Buffing. Even if not so, perhaps people still look at classes and their ability to fulfill these roles.

Not using a familiar might be perceived a lesser loss to Sorcerors and Wizards (amendment ) than Ambidexterity and TWF to a Ranger, because a Ranger is expected to engage in melee combat (otherwise, why have Ambidexterity and TWF as part of the core class design to begin with?). Therefore, a more notable dissatisfactory response when one is asked to ignore these perks when playing a Ranger. Furthermore, there are disadvantages to taking a familiar, which make it less of a loss for a Sorceror not to take up one. For a Ranger who doesn't take up the virtual Ambidexterity and TWF bits, it's pure loss only, no?

Edit: Sorry, missed the bit on Wizards being able to have familiars as well.

 

[green slime]

Is it just me or does the Ranger's spell selection SUCK? I mean, Summon Nature's Ally IV? At 15th level? Damn, you really have to thanks the nature gods for giving you that challenge rating 3 animal when you're going up against a Mature Adult Blue Dragon with its 31 AC and 14d6 breath weapon.

WTF? The ranger's spell selection is terrible. All the spells are those ridiculously specialized spells that not even druids take. Why even bother? I'd much rather see a ranger with a few more skill points and an extra feat here and there.

If you're going to give him spells, give him some friggin' spells. If you're not, then just don't. As far as I can tell a ranger's spells are unlikely to be useful 95% of the time. The only mildly useful ones (resist elements and the healing ones) are going to be totally outshone by the party cleric or even the paladin.

So why even bother with this spell list? It's ridiculous.

-The Souljourner

Is every threat in your game a Mature Blue Dragon?

At those levels, I hardly call Freedom of Movement, Nondetectionand Polymorph Self as non-useful spells...two of those actually have combat applications, should the Ranger be so inclined.

YMMV...

 

[Wizardry]

The Rangers spell list is not meant for combat efficiency and firepower, it's meant to provide utility and a few nice bonuses, that's all. Arguing the Ranger is underpowered is the least logical stance you can take in this argument, IMO, since a well played Ranger will generally slaughter any equal level Warrior from one of the other three classes with a little finesse. I can accept that some people feel the Ranger doesn't have enough fluff, but complaining he's not a useful, powerful member of the party is ridiculous.

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

Please. A Ranger not fighting with two weapons is akin to a Wizard not bothering with a familiar. An ignored perk yes, but hardly the signature ability of the class. They're feats for crying out loud.

Okay then. We'll drop the first two feats from a Fighter and see if we like playing that, hmmm...?

A Ranger with a bow can slaughter an equal level fighter by only using Entangle or Hunter's Mercy.

Dueling a Ranger and a Fighter is not a good way of figuring out class balance. Especially with a use-specific spell like Entangle or an overpowered spell like Hunter's Mercy.

The reason why I believe that the spells are inferior at that level is because they have limited use in comparison to the level they are acquired at to defeat creatures of appropriate CR.

For example: Entangle is completely useless at high levels, as a DC 15 Reflex save is absurdly easy, flying creatures abound and most creatures can break out of it no problem. Besides, it is dependent on the amount of foliage, which is not necessarily prevalent in high-level campaigns. (The Abyss has few gardens.)

Nondetection, Freedom of Movement and Polymorph Self were all brought up by green slime. Granted, these are definitely good spells. But can't the resident Wizard cast them often enough already at L15? Are they worth giving up those extra feats?

A 1st level human Fighter who spent a feat on Track now has two feats to spend. A 1st level human Ranger gets Track for free, has two feat slots to spend, double the skill points and all the important Class Skills.

True, however, that same fighter at level 4 has 5 feats plus Track, while the Ranger has 3 feats plus Track (and Ambidexterity and TWF). At this level it is balanced, at higher levels, the Fighter pulls ahead in feats, so that burning a feat in Track isn't a waste at all.

As per class skills: the winners are Spot, Listen and Wilderness Lore. Do they really need to be at max ranks to be effective?
.
.
.
.
Hunter's Mercy:

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? ---Kai Lord

Please defend the PHB Ranger without Hunter's Mercy.

 

[Kai Lord]

Please defend the PHB Ranger without Hunter's Mercy.

I have. Nevertheless, I believe there is a section in the PHB that states that new spells can be added to the core spell lists, and gives rules/guidelines for doing so. So Hunter's Mercy is supported by the PHB. Heh heh. One of the perks of being a spellcaster....

Regardless, the Favored Enemy bonuses are extremely underrated. At 10th level the Ranger has the equivalent of Weapon Specialization with any weapon when fighting his first Favored Enemy. That's WS against any human, aberration, magical beast, dragon; which ever one you chose. At 20th level, five Favored Enemies, 4 of which the Ranger has Weapon Specialization against or better covers an incredibly broad palette of enemies.

The Fighter is great because he gets to spend his feats on multiple feat trees. All the Ranger has to do is spend his character feats on the best/most desirable fighting style and stick to it. Then he can contribute in any situation just like a Fighter but has so much more in settings that allow for use of his spells and skills.