Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="StGabriel" data-source="post: 427777" data-attributes="member: 8225">Re: Re: Rangersa) 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.</blockquote>

Verification