What's wrong with the single-classed Ranger?

[Plane Sailing]

I really really like that idea of a ranger, Plane Sailing. It has everything it needs to be really great. I've been thinking for a while that Rangers should really get extra movement as well.

-The Souljourner

Thanks!

It has proven an interesting addition in my own game, and fills a niche which I'm very happy with.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Another thought in line with the original question:

Given that the ranger class abilities are not exactly earth-shattering, why does it have so many exceptions built in?

e.g. virtual Ambi & TWF - but *not* with double weapons? why ever not? It is hardly that this would make them fearsome uber-fighters that overshadow everything else, is it?

e.g. favoured enemy damage bonus doesn't apply to creatures immune to crits. Why ever not? Just define it as a morale bonus and *let* them choose undead or whatever to whale away on. The notes by designers that "undead is deliberately a sub-optimal choice for favoured enemy" sounds like horse-pucky of the highest order to me, right up next to "the halfling outrider wasn't supposed to have a BAB".

Making it a morale bonus works well for a number of reasons, not least in terms of stacking with certain spells.

I can't see why these limiting restrictions were added. Sure, rogues sneak attack doesn't work against creatures immune to crits, but that makes sense, since it is about striking the vitals and adds a huge damage bonus when it kicks in. Favoured enemy is such a small bonus that it hardly seems worth nerfing.

Cheers

 

[hong]

e.g. favoured enemy damage bonus doesn't apply to creatures immune to crits. Why ever not? Just define it as a morale bonus and *let* them choose undead or whatever to whale away on. The notes by designers that "undead is deliberately a sub-optimal choice for favoured enemy" sounds like horse-pucky of the highest order to me, right up next to "the halfling outrider wasn't supposed to have a BAB".

Possibly because the rationale for the favoured enemy bonus is that the ranger has spent time studying the enemy, looking for weak points and vulnerabilities. A feature of undead and such is that they don't _have_ weak points, and so are immune to crits and sneak attacks -- and the favoured enemy bonus.

Making it a morale bonus works well for a number of reasons, not least in terms of stacking with certain spells.

The obvious rationale that springs to mind, if you're going to make it into a morale bonus, is to turn favoured enemy back into 2E's "hated enemy". IOW, the ranger gets a bonus because he plain wants to destroy undead. This has problems too, not the least of which is that it leads back to the dreaded al*gnment wars....

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

According to Sean K Reynolds, the extra damage should work like Weapon Specialization. That feat works against undead, and it isn't a morale bonus. Maybe the ranger knows the precise way to cut an ooze to make it leak...

 

[Storm Raven]

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.

You can only attack once when you Spring Attack. Having a sunblade in either hand when you Spring Attack is irrelevant, since you can only attack once with one of them.

 

[The Souljourner]

According to Sean K Reynolds, the extra damage should work like Weapon Specialization. That feat works against undead, and it isn't a morale bonus. Maybe the ranger knows the precise way to cut an ooze to make it leak...

This is a really good point. Specialization is based on the idea that you spend a lot of time focusing (heh) on a weapon, and eventually you become better at using it than other weapons. If we just transfer that logic to the favored enemy bonus, we could look at it as Foe Specialization, you've fought them so much you just become better at damaging them than normal people.

For the undead case - it's not that they don't have weaknesses, they just don't have specific organs or soft spots you can hit to cause shock and do substantially more damage that a usual blade hit.

Weapon specialization works on them because the fighter knows just how to twist the blade at the end of the swing so it rips through a little more muscle. Doesn't matter that it's undead muscle, he's just better at using the sword.

It's not like you're putting a knife into the zombie's lung... it doesn't care about that. For a ranger, you could envision him knowing that if you aim for a skeleton's pelvis with your mace, you can crack one of the largest bones in its body and weaken the magic that holds it together. For zombies, you aim for the limbs and try to slip your sword between the bones and hack off an arm.

The main difference between favored enemy bonus and criticals is the scale of damage. A critical can be an amazingly large amount of damage, generally assumed to be caused by a hit to the head or a vital organ. THough your sword isn't really tearing through any more flesh than usual, the flesh it's tearing is more valuable. With things such as specialization and favored enemy damage, it's only a small amount of damage being added on. You're not going to be crippling someone with a single blow simply because of this damage, it's just that it makes you more effective in the long run.

So yeah, I think favored enemy damage should be treated just like specialization. I mean, f*ck, it's far MORE specialized than specialization, you'd think it would at least work as well.

-The Souljourner

 

[Gaiden]

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.

I thought that the visual was so damn funny it deserved repeating.

 

[Felon]

For the undead case - it's not that they don't have weaknesses, they just don't have specific organs or soft spots you can hit to cause shock and do substantially more damage that a usual blade hit.

Incorporeal undead don't have weak points, true. But surely anyone who's watched horror movies know that are certainly specific techniques for killing the likes of vampires, zombies, mummies, etc. Decapitation, for instance, is just about universally effective against the walking dead.

Heck, D&D 3e put a lot of vampire hunters out of work

Seriously, though, for everyone who's disappointed with the lack of flavor that the ranger class offers needs to bear in mind one of 3e's best features: prestige classes. Masters of the Wild offers a career path that should allow most folks to play the type of ranger they want, such as archer, beastmaster, bounty hunter, or monster slayer. It's one of the better splatbooks IMHO.

Oh, and there's one ranger asset that nobody's brought up yet: his animal companion. Pick the right beast, and you'll be more than holding your own in the damage department.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Decapitation, for instance, is just about universally effective against the walking dead.

True, but IMC it only works against undead with Int 1 or higher.

Oh, and there's one ranger asset that nobody's brought up yet: his animal companion. Pick the right beast, and you'll be more than holding your own in the damage department.

Which beast is that? I can guess. Dire Bears also get a lot of hp, but their low AC is killer. Against other monsters things might not be so bad (beware their low CR, however), but against a fighter using Power Attack...

IMC I use the base ranger, with a few of Monte's modifications: the new spells (but not the new spell progression), the bonus feats instead of two free feats at 1st-level, and I let favored enemy work against creatures immune to crits.

 

[Caliber]

Incorporeal undead don't have weak points, true. But surely anyone who's watched horror movies know that are certainly specific techniques for killing the likes of vampires, zombies, mummies, etc. Decapitation, for instance, is just about universally effective against the walking dead.

Heck, D&D 3e put a lot of vampire hunters out of work

Seriously, though, for everyone who's disappointed with the lack of flavor that the ranger class offers needs to bear in mind one of 3e's best features: prestige classes. Masters of the Wild offers a career path that should allow most folks to play the type of ranger they want, such as archer, beastmaster, bounty hunter, or monster slayer. It's one of the better splatbooks IMHO.

Oh, and there's one ranger asset that nobody's brought up yet: his animal companion. Pick the right beast, and you'll be more than holding your own in the damage department.

I agree Felon. In fact, MotW is my favorite splat book, and defintely has the best PrC WotC has put out (IMO, of course.)

A Ranger's animal companion is often less than useful however. You can only attract a companion with a number of hit dice equal to your caster level. So even a 20th level Ranger can only have a 10 HD creature as a companion.

While I don't have any books with me, I am pretty sure that discounts Dire Bears (and a lot of other Dire beasties too.)