I only post because I believe my experience may have some value to the ranger haters.
I USED TO BE A RANGER HATER!
My logic went like this:
Why, OH WHY, would anyone ever play a single classed ranger. I even used to bemoan, why would anyone ever play a ranger past 1st level. After all, as everyone points out, the class is frontloaded. The next special ability after 1st level isn't until 4th with access to spells, 2nd favored enemy isn't until 5th level, etc.
I quickly revised my opinion on playing a ranger beyond 1st due to the obvious skills benefit. If playing a fighter with 1 level of ranger, I might take a second level to get the added skill points and ability to select ranger non fighter skills as non crossclassed.
But I was still persuaded that rangers got the shaft. What were the coolest class (IMHO) in 2nd ed. now were the worst class in 3rd perhaps along with bard and psion.
After all, if I want nature spells and fighting capability (twf) and track, I will just take one level of ranger and the rest druid at the loss of 4 pts of BAB (still getting 4 attacks) and an average of 19 HP with a gain of 2 good saves and 9th level casting.
If I want fighting capability with a bit of wilderness, I will take fighter and 1 or 2 levels of ranger.
If I want stealth and any of the above combinations I will simply add rogue into the mix.
However, after planning out numerous shadowlands encounters with the Hiruma family of the Crab clan in Rokugan, I realize the error of my ways.
I think one of the main reasons why people tend to dislike the ranger (at least if they were like me) is that the class progression seems to lack something. What I hear many people's arguments boiling down to, and what mine did as well, was that I don't want to advance in a class and not get any benefit out of it. If I want the BAB, I can advance in Fighter and get the same BAB as well as feats. If I want skills, I can advance in Rogue; spells, in druid; etc. Just look at it - its the one and only class that gets absolutely nothing from level 2 to 4 (with regard to special abilities). And I mean nothing. All other classes improve in some way. The spell casters all get better spells with cleric getting improved undead turning, wizard and sorcerer getting improved familiar abilities, bard getting improved performance special abilities and obsucre lore benefits, druid getting special abilities and magic, barbarian getting uncanny dodge, fighter getting feats, rogue getting evasion and uncanny dodge, etc.
AKA - WOTC - you all must of smoked up when doing the ranger - as simply spreading out the twf feats at level 1 to one bonus at level 2 and one bonus at level 4 (or 3) with a bit more choice would have fixed everything.
However, as I said, before I have completely changed my opinion of Rangers. What I realized is that what appears as no benefits and rangers getting shaft is in fact a mixture of the more core level progression benefits that are found no where else - namely best BAB, and good skills with some of the best skills in the game.
The reason why the ranger is VERY balanced with any other class and arguably even more powerful is because of the +1BAB, +4skill points, +d10 HP per level. That combination can be found in no other Core Class.
For all of those who thing that the favored enemy bonus blows - well there is some degree of truth to it. I must qualify that statement by, this ability perhaps more than any other will depend on the DM to make useful, but even so, it still is not that powerful of an ability. However, take into account that the bonus is given on top of the above combination of BAB, skills, and HD makes it look more like a perk than anything else. Add in low level spell casting ability and the Ranger turns out to be a GREAT class.
I am not suffering from the same crack WOTC smoke either. It really is a great class. However, that comes with certain conditions. While the class is versatile, it is also in some ways specialized. Rangers do make great guerrillas, but that comes with the condition that they are in natural (typically non-subterranean settings). A ranger WHEN PLAYED CORRECTLY, will dominate a natural setting (to the same power that a druid would, but in a different way).
I also would like to emphasize the point made about the comparison between rangers and the other classes that are commonly compared to it - while the rogue is better at stealth, the fighter is better at direct combat, the druid better at spells, none of them individually are as good at multiple things. Even while it is true that a 1 Ranger/19 Druid will be far better at spell casting than a 20 Ranger and will be more powerful on many accounts, the Ranger still has some benefits that help to balance that out. They will still have more HPs, better BAB, and better weapons. Moreover, a druid is even more limited than a ranger when it comes to setting. While the ranger is more effective in a natural setting, they still can be very effective in a non-natural setting while a druid loses almost all of its real power
