What's wrong with the single-classed Ranger?

[Wizardry]

Re: Rangers

I love message boards.

Something that is generally accepted throughout the 3e world (i.e. rangers are the most underbalanced core class) actually gets debated.

Why? Because most of us know this, and don't even visit that thread, and then a handful of people who don't, do and post 20 messages each.


StGabriel, the Taoist saint.

You know, when 3E first came out, most people "knew" the Monk was "broken and overpowered". Then people actually played the class, and it became apparent this was obviously not the case. I find it interesting that all of the supporters of the core Ranger in this thread have actually played the core Ranger in a campaign, while the naysayers seem to be operating mostly on theory and hearsay.

I personally have never seen the Ranger as being a weak class, and personal experience confirms this. You're free to disagree, but I suggest actually trying to play the core Ranger in a game without the inbred assumption that they are "underbalanced".

 

[Psyduck]

Re: Re: Rangers

You know, when 3E first came out, most people "knew" the Monk was "broken and overpowered". Then people actually played the class, and it became apparent this was obviously not the case. I find it interesting that all of the supporters of the core Ranger in this thread have actually played the core Ranger in a campaign, while the naysayers seem to be operating mostly on theory and hearsay.

I personally have never seen the Ranger as being a weak class, and personal experience confirms this. You're free to disagree, but I suggest actually trying to play the core Ranger in a game without the inbred assumption that they are "underbalanced".

Definitely...couldn't agree more

 

[Kai Lord]

I don't see the Ranger as a weaker class, but I do feel that some tweaks are needed.

Just picture a Ranger Entangling and then Briar Webbingan evil Fighter, then casting Freedom of Movement and Spring Attacking his sorry ass with a shining Sunblade in each hand. At the very least its a cool visual, and that's what the game is all about.

 

[kibbitz]

Just picture a Ranger Entangling and then Briar Webbingan evil Fighter, then casting Freedom of Movement and Spring Attacking his sorry ass with a shining Sunblade in each hand. At the very least its a cool visual, and that's what the game is all about.

True, but personally, I'd stick with Rangers shooting down hordes of charging orcs after Entangling them No Sunblade in each hand though, mainly running around with only one blade and no shield... but that's my picture

 

[Felon]

To answer the question "why don't people like the ranger in the 3e PHB", you have to keep in mind, a lot of people disliked the 2e ranger, and they were hoping for an overhaul with 3e.

Like many of the class-balance issues that people have with 3e, it's due to WotC's attempts to ensure 3e's acceptance by the D&D community by maintaining "backwards compatability" with 2e. So they also kept the rather contrived two-weapon-style feature, as well gave the ranger mediocre access to druid spells, even though the former was made unnecessary due to 3e's feat system, and the latter was made pointless due to the new multi-classing system (which would make it possible for any class mediocre access to druid spells).

Personally, I thought the concept of "favored terrain" was a great way to go. From there, the ranger gets a base special ability and a list of bonus feats appropriate to the terrain that he can select every three or four levels. You could then take the Favored Enemy ability, and turn it into a class-exclusive feat, similar to Weapon Specialization, and put in the ranger's list of bonus feats.

Do that, give the ranger 6 skill points per level and a good Reflex save, and he's good to go. I actually wrote this up as a homebrew class, so if anyone wants to see it, lemme know.

 

[Kai Lord]

True, but personally, I'd stick with Rangers shooting down hordes of charging orcs after Entangling them No Sunblade in each hand though, mainly running around with only one blade and no shield... but that's my picture

You see with the dual Sunblades he could skewer half a dozen Eyeball beholderkin with each sword then flap his arms and use their magical buoyancy to soar above the forest as the Great Protector of the Wilderness.

 

[Caliber]

I haven't really weighed in here, and most of the things I am about to say have already been said at one point or another but anyway ...

The real problem with the Ranger (IMO of course) isn't so much a power situation, but more of a lack of flavor.

Obviously, an Archer is an archtype that is strongly associated with the Ranger (look at the illustration in the ELH) yet Ranger's gain no abilities that truly emphasize Archery. Instead they get TWF/Abidex. for what seems to be no apparent reason, aside from retaining 'sacred cows'.

The Favored Enemy ability advances slowly, and while at higher levels comes into effect often, at lower levels it can be much less useful, especially if you've chosen a rare type. Even worse, the Favored Enemy bonus doesn't even apply to several types (although MoTW helped fix this somewhat with the defensive option.)

The mechanics of the Favored Enemy itself seem somewhat wonky. Sure Orcs killed your parents, but you haven't even seen one for the past 5 levels. Why are you still training to kill them again?

Every other class has some kind of ability that seems to 'define' the class so to speak. The Ranger really lacks this, again IMO.

Can Rangers lay the smack down? Defintely. Yet, they still seem to lack 'something' that is hard to define.

I believe changing how Favored Enemy works in order to make it a more useful ability would help (and in fact thats what I do in my games.) As always, your mileage may vary.

 

[hong]

Re: Re: Rangers

You know, when 3E first came out, most people "knew" the Monk was "broken and overpowered". Then people actually played the class, and it became apparent this was obviously not the case. I find it interesting that all of the supporters of the core Ranger in this thread have actually played the core Ranger in a campaign, while the naysayers seem to be operating mostly on theory and hearsay.

The ranger isn't weak, per se. However, it doesn't have a clear niche or schtick in terms of class abilities. If the ranger has any signature ability, it's the two-weapon fighting thing, and you get that in its entirety at 1st level. Because of that, the most common ranger types you tend to see are characters with 1 level of ranger just for TWF, and the rest as rogue or some other class that can take advantage of it. Hence the perception that the ranger is weak or front-loaded.

 

[StGabriel]

Re: Re: Rangers

You know, when 3E first came out, most people "knew" the Monk was "broken and overpowered". Then people actually played the class, and it became apparent this was obviously not the case. . .

a) what do judgments made right after release have to do with judgments made years later? Yes, snap judgements made then were likely to err. We're not talking snap judgements now. Most avid 3e players I've ever talked to agree: rangers suck. Fans of faithful renderings of of rangers to CRPG's agree: rangers suck. This after years of stewing on the core rules.

b) who said we'd never played rangers. I played one, briefly. More to the point though, I've had a lot of experience playing in campaigns with other rangers, which is really the same thing. I know the players that played them. They did good jobs of developing their characters, playing to their strengths, etc. and there characters were still barely mediocre. They started out ok, and they just got more and more boring after that. None of those players played rangers ever again.

I mean, it's not like ranger are unplayable, certainly. Given enough magic items, or enough determination to play the class despite its flaws, a ranger can be ok. If you're fine being underbalanced, then that's ok, but it doesn't mean that you're not underbalanced. Maybe part of my experience is that the campaigns I tend to play in are invariably rather low magic, and the classes when left to their core abilities really show more strongly their weaknesses. My level 7 rogue with a +1 dagger was the star of combat in a party containing a level 7 ranger with a +1 long sword/abheration bane. She had spells, sure, but very few. Only 1 in 10 or so encounters had her actually casting a spell. That's a big mistake that all the posters here make. They act like having one spell memorized is like having that for every encounter. Yay, you have 1 entangle per day. You waste it early blowing apart some orcs, and then what good is it when you fight the death knight? (who would have made his save anyhow).

Rangers just don't have depth. They have a few cheez spells (stolen from other classes) that they get really slowly. They have a few extra feats early (that aren't that great and are painfully arbitrary) and hardly ever get anything else again. They have good BAB and hps and ok skills. Yay, there's just nothing to back that up though. Meanwhile barbs with the same bab, hps and skills are gaining actually useful abilities like faster movement, rage, etc.

---
StGabriel, the Taoist saint.

 

[Wizardry]

Re: Re: Re: Rangers

a) what do judgments made right after release have to do with judgments made years later? Yes, snap judgements made then were likely to err. We're not talking snap judgements now. Most avid 3e players I've ever talked to agree: rangers suck. Fans of faithful renderings of of rangers to CRPG's agree: rangers suck. This after years of stewing on the core rules.

In your experience, perhaps, but from what I've seen the complaints about the Ranger are more about their lack of flavor than any lack of power.

b) who said we'd never played rangers. I played one, briefly. More to the point though, I've had a lot of experience playing in campaigns with other rangers, which is really the same thing. I know the players that played them. They did good jobs of developing their characters, playing to their strengths, etc. and there characters were still barely mediocre. They started out ok, and they just got more and more boring after that. None of those players played rangers ever again.

You seem to be complaining more about the flavor of the Ranger, here, given your "boring" statement. I'd agree the Ranger lacks flavor, but it certainly isn't lacking in power.

I mean, it's not like ranger are unplayable, certainly. Given enough magic items, or enough determination to play the class despite its flaws, a ranger can be ok. If you're fine being underbalanced, then that's ok, but it doesn't mean that you're not underbalanced. Maybe part of my experience is that the campaigns I tend to play in are invariably rather low magic, and the classes when left to their core abilities really show more strongly their weaknesses. My level 7 rogue with a +1 dagger was the star of combat in a party containing a level 7 ranger with a +1 long sword/abheration bane. She had spells, sure, but very few. Only 1 in 10 or so encounters had her actually casting a spell. That's a big mistake that all the posters here make. They act like having one spell memorized is like having that for every encounter. Yay, you have 1 entangle per day. You waste it early blowing apart some orcs, and then what good is it when you fight the death knight? (who would have made his save anyhow).

Okay, from what I've seen of your post, it seems like you or the Ranger player expected to be a "star" in some way or another. In other words, you expected the Ranger to be a master combatant, or a great spell caster, and so on. The key to the Ranger is that the Ranger, like the Bard or the Monk, is that the Ranger is a supporting class. The Ranger can't fight quite as well as a Fighter or a Barbarian, but he's a great warrior nonetheless, and provides valuable support on the front lines.

The Ranger can't cast as well as a Wizard, Cleric or even Bard, but he has great supplemental spells that will aid a party substantially, again providing extra bonuses that would not be present if the Ranger was not a part of the group.

The Ranger can move silently and hide just as well, if not better, than a Rogue and given his great BAB, spells and HP, is arguably the best scout in the game. Even if you don't want to use the Ranger in this role, the Ranger is still a great supporter of the Rogue or Monk scout up in front. I can't tell you how valuable it really is to have two scouts covering each other in case of detection.

The Ranger does all of the above extremely well, and when you combine them into one whole, they become one of the most powerful classes in the game. The only time I've ever seen people have problems with Rangers is when they try to make them something they're not, and flat out ignore some of the abilities the Ranger has to offer in favor of one specific path.

Rangers just don't have depth. They have a few cheez spells (stolen from other classes) that they get really slowly. They have a few extra feats early (that aren't that great and are painfully arbitrary) and hardly ever get anything else again. They have good BAB and hps and ok skills. Yay, there's just nothing to back that up though. Meanwhile barbs with the same bab, hps and skills are gaining actually useful abilities like faster movement, rage, etc.

---
StGabriel, the Taoist saint.

Barbarians have Hide, Move Silently, and Spot? Damn! Thank you for informing me they possess three of the most valuable skills in the game. By the way, the Ranger hardly has "ok" skills. The Ranger has the third best skill list in the game, beaten only by Bards and Rogues. The spells they have are great supplementary bonuses to have, and they have d10 hps and BAB. If anything, the Ranger is one of the deepest core classes in the game.