Why play a Ranger?

[kreynolds]

Rangers have some good spells, they are a good class.

Well, see, that's the funny part. I don't play rangers, though I might one day. But I run a solo game with a Ranger, and my god that boy can deal out some damage! You can't find him when he hides. You can't hear him when he moves. I've seen him deal out over 100 points of damage with his bow, easy. And damn, he sure is a great character to build a game for.

In my opinion, the ranger really isn't worth taking up to 20th level, like some other classes are. For instance, there are obvious reasons why it's beneficial to max out your wizard or sorcerer. More 9th level spells! But the ranger is best used as part of a multi-class character.

My favorite combo I've seen? Ranger/Rogue/Fighter/Barbarian. Now that makes an interesting character.

 

[Malin Genie]

The other aspect to the Ranger that I've never seen mentioned in thse debates (although given the amount of material that's out there I may well have missed it....) is that precisely because they get full BAB, divine spellcasting and good skills all in one package, they are often the best class to qualify for PRCs.

For example, a Ranger can become a Sacred Fist at 4th level. A Ranger has the skill points (and Spot as a class skill) to qualify for Fist of Hextor at 5th level without using all their skill points. A Ranger can become a Master of the Wild at 5th (or is it 6th?) level with Hide, Intuit Direction, Wilderness Lore and the extra required skill all being class skills. A Ranger makes a great Devoted Defender (and again, Spot is a class skill, while the skill point per level needed for the SM ranks is less of a cost to the Ranger given their high skill point total.) And so on.

 

[mikebr99]

The Ranger is played along the same lines at the Bard... a jack-of-all-trades... master of none.

Monte's Ranger:
Great fighting, good skills, good spells.

When you want to be able to do some of just about anything... the Ranger is your guy.

 

[The Sigil]

Thoughts...

The other aspect to the Ranger that I've never seen mentioned in thse debates (although given the amount of material that's out there I may well have missed it....) is that precisely because they get full BAB, divine spellcasting and good skills all in one package, they are often the best class to qualify for PRCs.

This - and, as someone else mentioned, Animal Companions at mid-levels - are, in my mind, the best reason to be a ranger.

IMC, we have a guy who has been a straight ranger for 9 or 10 levels now... and he has never felt "underpowered." A ranger with the Leadership Feat... mmm....

--The Sigil

 

[Uller]

The ranger is definately playable as is. It may not fit everyone's idea of what a ranger should be, but that is just a matter of taste, really. (I think most people don't think of a ranger as a two-sword-wielding spell caster...). But mechanically, it's fine. You get full BAB, good skills, good skill selection, limited spells and animal companions. There is no class combination that can do that.

As for Rangers being "top-heavy"(i.e. people take one level of Ranger just for the quasi-feats)...I don't see it as a problem. Sure, it is a no-brainer for certain character concepts to take a level of Ranger...particularly ones that involve melee combat, stealth and light armor. But I don't see a problem with it at all. After all, those quasi-feats have a very severe limitation: you can only use them while wearing light armor and are lightly encumbered. For most characters, it is a bad idea to wade into melee with little or no armor. You could say that fighters are top-heavy, too: For just two levels of fighter, you get any TWO feats from a very substantial list and can use them WITHOUT RESTRICTION, plus you get access to all types of armor...so, 1 level of ranger = two feats w/ heavy restrictions or 2 levels of figher = 2 feats w/o restriction...seems like a fair trade off to me!

If I'm playing a rogue that plans on doing a lot of fighting, I'd go with two levels of fighter over one level of Ranger, so I have the option of heavier armor if I need it. If I'm not going to be in melee too much...then I'd go with the one level of Ranger. If I am going to avoid melee like the plague, then I'd just go with straight rogue.

Edit: In fact, I'm thinking my next character will be an elf wizard/fighter who favors a longbow as a weapon. I'm going to take just two levels of fighter just to get some bow feats and eventually increase it to 4 levels to get specialization. Is there a problem with that when that is my character concept?

 

[Quickbeam]

I play Rangers on occasion because they've been my favorite class since AD&D and reading LotR 20+ years ago. There are also a myriad array of Ranger options available as hong noted, and the combination of skills, fighting ability, BAB, animal companion AND access to divine spells make them mighty diverse IMO. I like having a plethora of abilities at my disposal once in a while, instead of a very specialized few.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I'll switch from ranger to fighter when fighters get Hide, Move Silently, Listen and Spot as class skills. The fighter will also need at least 4 skill points per level to get them.

The ranger is less combat-capable than the fighter, but he does get those cool class skills. The ability to never be surprised cannot be underestimated. Getting ambushed by a creature with Improved Grab (and maybe Swallow Whole) is not pleasant. Getting ambushed by a bugbear fighter/rogue is not pleasant. Getting ambushed by a wizard (with a Hold Monster spell) is not pleasant.

The paladin is also less combat-capable than the fighter, but I rarely see people say "dump the paladin and replace with fighter/cleric with Righteous Might."

As for the ranger concept, there are many, and not all involve two-weapon fighting. If you don't want to fight with two weapons, then don't use two weapons. You're giving up a class feature, just like a wizard who gives up on taking a familiar.

Rangers are, generally, people skilled at woodscraft (Hide, Track, etc) and fighting, who wear lighter armor for the extra mobility. Many but not all are archers. Some even fight with two weapons. Some are hunters, some are bounty hunters, some have been forced from civilization but have a good grip on their temper Some use only short swords, others use a bastard sword - in both hands. You don't need to follow the example given in the Player's Handbook and DMG.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I have to say that I disagree with the notion that the Ranger is more front-loaded than other classes, and hence there is too big a benefit for only taking 1 level.

Fact is, he doesn't have anything to look forward to at *2nd* level, so there isn't that "pull" to give the character a 2nd level in the class.

After all, one level of Paladin gives great saves, but at 2nd level you get fear immunity and smite evil.

One level of Monk can give lots of benefits to sorcerers or wizards, and some cleric/druids (saves, wis bonus to AC, unarmed combat, evasion) but 2nd level is tempting for deflect missiles and even better saves. Barbarians get uncanny dodge at 2nd level, rogues get their evasion then, fighters get an extra feat...

Sorcerers are the only other class with not much to look forward to at 2nd level (one extra cantrip! wheee!)

And I certainly agree with KReynolds - their spell list is especially sucky. They don't get anything to make their own weapons magical (unlike the paladin), just something to make animals bit harder. Doesn't sound like a good fighting tactic to me, especially since any animal companions will be weedy considering his caster level. The only decent spell they get is Polymorph Other, which is monstrously effective if you can wait that long.

Other than that... did you realise that they are less effective at living in the wilderness than Paladins? Since Paladins get the 24hr "endure elements", but Rangers don't? CLW is inexplicably a 2nd level spell for rangers when it is 1st level for everyone else... not too great for the spell you get when 8th level...

Cheers

 

[Henry]

I'm about to blow some minds.

In my opinion, the Ranger is the best character class to go on a solo mission/adventure, bar none.

"Good Lord, has Henry taken leave of his senses?" some may say. But her me out.

A Ranger gains the following abilities, all of which are vital to a lone scout, ranging in the wilderness.

1. The ability to fight well, both lightly and heavily armored.
2. The ability to hide and move silently.
3. The ability to track.
4. The ability to place alarms to alert him mentally of upcoming danger.
5. The ability to protect himself from all basic environmental damage.
6. The ability to gain an ally in the middle of any wilderness.
7. The ability to heal himself.

All these abilities, gained by 8th level, plus many more to be gained later, make a lone ranger (no pun intended) suitable to set off on his own.

Many other characters, with suitable magic items, could do as well -- but they require magic or other assistance to do these things.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Other than that... did you realise that they are less effective at living in the wilderness than Paladins? Since Paladins get the 24hr "endure elements", but Rangers don't? CLW is inexplicably a 2nd level spell for rangers when it is 1st level for everyone else... not too great for the spell you get when 8th level...

The ranger doesn't need to waste valuable spell slots. If you're lost in the arctic and the cold is getting to you, you have Wilderness Lore. Go track down a polar bear, kill it, eat it, and make a cloak of its skin. Now you're warm and camouflaged. Meanwhile, what does the paladin eat when he's out in the wild... besides magically conjured bland food.