Why so much attention on the Ranger?

[Merlion]

Well I had a nice long post giving all my thoughts on the matter...but my stupid computer deleted it

 

[Mercule]

As for Drizzt...

King Henry (a moderator) discussed that before. In 1.5e TSR introduced a product (UA) that gave rangers TWF. They contacted Salvatore and told him this before he released his first Drizzt book ... not that it mattered, since drow had free TWF in 1e anyway.

*pulls out Unearthed Arcana*
*rereads the ranger entry completely*
*rereads the equipment rules (sparse as they are*
*rereads weapon specialization*
*thumbs remainder of book*

No a single mention of using two weapons at once. Anywhere. AFAIK, TWF rangers were an invention of 2E. As far as Drizzt goes, I think it's a chicken/egg thing. There's some possibility either way. Personally, I always chalked up Drizzt's TWF to the fact that he was a drow -- that doesn't mean that I'm not painfully sick of twin-scimitar weilding drow rangers.

I second most of Kaffis' sentiments on the matter, so I'll try not to type a novella of my own.

It really does boil down to flavor. I think the image I have of ranger is just about the coolest concept for D&D (and not because it's power-gamey). Unfortunately, only the 3E ranger is almost unable to meet that vision. The 2E version wasn't bad, after stripping the TWF from the class (I've _never_ allowed TWF as a class feature of rangers and never will -- not even as a "path" in 3.5). If a class can't be used to build the archetype it's supposed to represent, it's a failed design.

To be "successful" as a class, the ranger must be appropriate for: Aragorn, certain versions of Robin Hood, the idealized Davy Crocket, an archetypal Native American brave, Tarzan, Benjamin Martin from "The Patriot", Panamon Creel, Perrin Ay'bara, even some versions of Zorro, and a low-tech version of Special Forces. None of those examples are TWF, except Robin Hood who can't be made with the ranger because he used a quarterstaff. And half of them rarely, if ever, used a range weapon -- at least with any remarkable skill.

In fact, while most were competent in combat (other than probably being higher level), few stand out as having any particular style. Robin Hood was good with a bow, Davy Crocket with a knife, Tarzan with his hands. Of those, only Robin is duplicatable. All differ enough that it could be nothing more than the normal expenditure of feats as they rose in level. Forcing a "combat path" of any sort does more harm to the ranger's cause than good. The examples of the ranger archetype argue more for diversity in combat than _any_ amount of pigeon-holed mechanics will allow.

Aside from flavor, the 3E+ ranger seems to be home to poorly conceived mechanics, like virtual feats and combat paths. Even if the flavor aspect were improved, the mechanical design of the class makes it prime to disrespect. Personally, I don't think there is any good reason to ever have a mechanic like the "combat path" for any character class.

If the designers feel that the ranger needs something to give the ranger a kick in the pants, they should add bonus feats. It's not like bonus feats are a sacred cow of the fighter by any means. Wizards get them, as do Psychic Warriors. The latter even are able to pick up Weapon Specialization. If you go beyond core books, the Woodsman from WoT (a common replacement for the Ranger, by my understanding) gets bonus feats.

Of course, the best examples are right in the core books. The Loremaster has the opportunity to pick up _any_ feat as a bonus. And, as a base class, the Rogue could get any extra _four_ feats at higher levels.

IMHO, WotC should just forget about lame mechanics like "virtual feats" or "combat paths" and just grant Rangers a few bonus feats from a limited list. If they included some non-combat feats in the list, the Ranger could actually be used to simulate someone who skilled in recon.

 

[Henry]

*pulls out Unearthed Arcana*
*rereads the ranger entry completely*
...Not a single mention of using two weapons at once. Anywhere. AFAIK, TWF rangers were an invention of 2E.

Actually, The Psionic-Headed one had it close, nut not exact. Unearthed Arcana introduced Drow PC's with no penalties from fighting with two weapons. Salvatore took the idea and ran with it, introducing the fairly original (pro tempore) character of Drizzt Do'urden. A direct link cannot be drawn between Salvatore's fledgling manuscript and the draft work of the 2nd edition PHB, but a very strong circumstantial one can easily be.

Azzy had it closest.

If the designers feel that the ranger needs something to give the ranger a kick in the pants, they should add bonus feats. It's not like bonus feats are a sacred cow of the fighter by any means. Wizards get them, as do Psychic Warriors. The latter even are able to pick up Weapon Specialization. If you go beyond core books, the Woodsman from WoT (a common replacement for the Ranger, by my understanding) gets bonus feats.

The only problem with bonus feats I have is that I thinkit's poor design to do so. A good design is the barbarian. The rage, uncanny dodge, and damage resistance is an excellent way to define a party role - and nary a bonus feat in sight. Same thing with the rogue, and the special masteries of 10th level and above. The problem is that very few people have yet been able to come up with a good Ranger that doesn't rely on the simplistic mechanic of restricted feat lists. The only ranger I ever saw was an alt.ranger in the house rules of these forums about two years ago that had various favored terrain bonuses that came close - but it did away with spells, which I didn't like, since spells have been a part of the Ranger tradition since its inception in the Strategic Review back in the 1970's. (Or was it the first Greyhawk supplement? I forget which.)

 

[Kaffis]

It really does boil down to flavor. I think the image I have of ranger is just about the coolest concept for D&D (and not because it's power-gamey). Unfortunately, only the 3E ranger is almost unable to meet that vision. The 2E version wasn't bad, after stripping the TWF from the class (I've _never_ allowed TWF as a class feature of rangers and never will -- not even as a "path" in 3.5). If a class can't be used to build the archetype it's supposed to represent, it's a failed design.

Exactly.

To be "successful" as a class, the ranger must be appropriate for: Aragorn, certain versions of Robin Hood, the idealized Davy Crocket, an archetypal Native American brave, Tarzan, Benjamin Martin from "The Patriot", Panamon Creel, Perrin Ay'bara, even some versions of Zorro, and a low-tech version of Special Forces. None of those examples are TWF, except Robin Hood who can't be made with the ranger because he used a quarterstaff. And half of them rarely, if ever, used a range weapon -- at least with any remarkable skill.

Actually, I would suggest that quite a few ranger archetypes use ranged weapons (and point out that your own list includes Benjamin Martin ), such as Hawkeye of Last of the Mohicans, Faramir, Legolas (arguments that these can't be a ranger in Tolkien's world because Tolkienish Rangers are by definition a subset of humans consisting of Aragorn's line and kin aside .. you could make Legolas suitably well with either an elven fighter or an elven archer, and there are some very ranger/druidy spell moments for Legolas, such as walking -- err, running -- on top of snow at the pass of Caradhras, my favorite example of freedom of movement. Just because Aragorn did all the tracking doesn't preclude Legolas from rangerdom, imo), various rifle-toting mountain men, etc. But that's a nit-pick, I suppose.

In fact, while most were competent in combat (other than probably being higher level), few stand out as having any particular style. Robin Hood was good with a bow, Davy Crocket with a knife, Tarzan with his hands. Of those, only Robin is duplicatable. All differ enough that it could be nothing more than the normal expenditure of feats as they rose in level. Forcing a "combat path" of any sort does more harm to the ranger's cause than good. The examples of the ranger archetype argue more for diversity in combat than _any_ amount of pigeon-holed mechanics will allow.

Aside from flavor, the 3E+ ranger seems to be home to poorly conceived mechanics, like virtual feats and combat paths. Even if the flavor aspect were improved, the mechanical design of the class makes it prime to disrespect. Personally, I don't think there is any good reason to ever have a mechanic like the "combat path" for any character class.

If the designers feel that the ranger needs something to give the ranger a kick in the pants, they should add bonus feats. It's not like bonus feats are a sacred cow of the fighter by any means. Wizards get them, as do Psychic Warriors. The latter even are able to pick up Weapon Specialization. If you go beyond core books, the Woodsman from WoT (a common replacement for the Ranger, by my understanding) gets bonus feats.

Of course, the best examples are right in the core books. The Loremaster has the opportunity to pick up _any_ feat as a bonus. And, as a base class, the Rogue could get any extra _four_ feats at higher levels.

IMHO, WotC should just forget about lame mechanics like "virtual feats" or "combat paths" and just grant Rangers a few bonus feats from a limited list. If they included some non-combat feats in the list, the Ranger could actually be used to simulate someone who skilled in recon.

I don't have anything particularly against a 'combat path' system, as it just allows the class to cover several different flavors without becoming all-inclusive. I don't have a problem with the 'combat path' given to monks, why should I have a problem when a class is given the option of which to pick? Of course, I also would have no problem with bonus feats from a pool, but to be realistic, few people would take just the initial feats from several 'paths' (like point blank shot, ambidex, and TWF if a total of 3 were given over the course of character progression -- I'd expect there to be the ambidex/TWF/ITWF characters and point blank/Rapid Shot/Precise Shot characters), so the only difference I see is one of semantics.

Just a few points I thought were worth further discussion, I guess.

 

[Angcuru]

Y'know I think this whole problem could be solved by giving the ranger a good amount of bonus feats, similar to the fighter, but maybe every 3 levels instead of every 2, because virtual feats are AWFUL THINGS. Also, make the list of bonus feats identical to that of the fighter, but including track. So basically, since a ranger is a fighter who specializes in outdoor work, (tracking, hunting, etc), and adapts himself as such, you have just solved your problem. *takes bow*

Also on the general idea of TWF for the ranger, I think the TSR writers were either high, drunk, or both when they came up with that rule. And considering all the Drizzy talk, I have this to say: Nice character, nice concept. The problem is all the non-inventive gamers who try to copy him in every conceiveable manner.

 

[Mercule]

Actually, The Psionic-Headed one had it close, nut not exact. Unearthed Arcana introduced Drow PC's with no penalties from fighting with two weapons. Salvatore took the idea and ran with it, introducing the fairly original (pro tempore) character of Drizzt Do'urden. A direct link cannot be drawn between Salvatore's fledgling manuscript and the draft work of the 2nd edition PHB, but a very strong circumstantial one can easily be.

Ah. Didn't even think about the new races. Looking at it, the only restriction is that each weapon is "easily wielded in one hand", which seems to include scimitars.

The only problem with bonus feats I have is that I thinkit's poor design to do so. A good design is the barbarian. The rage, uncanny dodge, and damage resistance is an excellent way to define a party role - and nary a bonus feat in sight. Same thing with the rogue, and the special masteries of 10th level and above.

I don't entirely disagree (or entirely agree, for that matter). Even if they aren't a perfect choice, bonus feats are the best mechanic I've heard for the Ranger. I suspect the territory that Ranger needs to cover almost requires the feats to balance it, unless something severe is done to beef up the Favored Enemy (or Terrain) bonus.

FWIW, the rogue abilities that you're citing (I'm assuming you mean the "Special Abilities") as being a good thing are exactly the ones I'm looking at as being unrestricted bonus feats. Essentially, they are saying "Choose any feat, including a handful exclusive to rogues."

As far as ranger spells go (and I think we've had this discussion before), I'd just as soon see them disappear. Yes, they've always been part of the class, but none of the archetypes the class serves ever uses spells. I think Druid-like spells are completely out of place for a ranger. I assume they represent some sort of "pulse of nature" the ranger is part of, but doing that as spells has never seemed right to me. I see a slight arguement for arcane spells as an "ace up my sleeve" that a resourceful boy scout type would learn, but they shouldn't have enough of them to be a serious balancing factor.

Overall, I think the Ranger class should be stripped of spells because it isn't important to the archetype. If a particular character needs arcane or divine spells, let them multiclass. Of course, as far as illogical mechanics artifacts go, I begrudge spells, even pseudo-druidic ones far less than the TWF abomination. It's basically a preferrence -- shrug and move on.

 

[Angcuru]

I think Druid-like spells are completely out of place for a ranger.

I agree, just because you spend a lot of time in the woods does not mean that nature gods give you spells.

 

[Kaffis]

Originally posted by Mercule

As far as ranger spells go (and I think we've had this discussion before), I'd just as soon see them disappear. Yes, they've always been part of the class, but none of the archetypes the class serves ever uses spells. I think Druid-like spells are completely out of place for a ranger. I assume they represent some sort of "pulse of nature" the ranger is part of, but doing that as spells has never seemed right to me. I see a slight arguement for arcane spells as an "ace up my sleeve" that a resourceful boy scout type would learn, but they shouldn't have enough of them to be a serious balancing factor.

See, I guess I don't look at them as spells, really. I look at the selection and go "Huh, he's got some abilities that reflect stuff an outdoorsman would learn and find useful. Pass Without Trace, Free Movement, Alarm, Animal Friendship, Detect Snares and Pits, Speak With Animals, Protection from Elements, Snare, etc." I essentially see them as abilities that are well represented by spells already in existence, that it makes sense a ranger would master. Enduring heat/cold -- sure, he spends his time out in the elements. Animal Friendship -- seems like an extension to animal empathy to me. Alarm -- so he knows how to set up tripwires around his camp. Freedom of Movement -- ok, he has learned to find paths through thick growth, and firm footing on rocky slopes, etc. Fair enough. Pass Without Trace -- the master tracker can also hide his tracks, what a surprise.

Sure, some of them seem more druidic than I typically envision my ranger characters.. I don't use them. Speak with plants, tree stride, polymorph self, etc. Maybe somebody else does have a character who uses these heavily because it fits their character, I don't know.

Would you be happier if they made things like Pass Without Trace, Freedom of Movement, and Protection from Elements inherent (which could well be a good solution to combat paths, I suppose) or X/day like turning and paladin lay hands? In that event, they seem just like spells to me, although maybe spontaneous ones.

 

[Mercule]

Actually, I would suggest that quite a few ranger archetypes use ranged weapons (and point out that your own list includes Benjamin Martin ), such as Hawkeye of Last of the Mohicans, Faramir, Legolas (arguments that these can't be a ranger in Tolkien's world because Tolkienish Rangers are by definition a subset of humans consisting of Aragorn's line and kin aside .. you could make Legolas suitably well with either an elven fighter or an elven archer, and there are some very ranger/druidy spell moments for Legolas, such as walking -- err, running -- on top of snow at the pass of Caradhras, my favorite example of freedom of movement. Just because Aragorn did all the tracking doesn't preclude Legolas from rangerdom, imo), various rifle-toting mountain men, etc. But that's a nit-pick, I suppose.

I forgot about Hawkeye. Definitely had some prowess with ranged. As you say, Legolas could be either a Ranger or a Fighter. Personally, I'd probably design him as a multiclass character.

As for the high number of Ranger types who favor ranged combat, I'd devide them into two groups. The first group is the modern crowd, post gunpowder. From about 1800 on, combat = firearms. To say someone is a great shot is roughly the same as saying he is higher level. I give a bit less credence to some of the shootists for that reason.

The second group is the bowmen. To me, the association between rangers and the ranged combat comes not so much from the Rangers' expertise with the bow, as it does from them having the brains to ambush their enemies whenever the option presents itself.

All that is not to say that I don't think it's valid for Rangers to be good with a bow. Hey, that at least makes sense, unlike TWF. It just means that I only looked at the _really_ good marksmen.

I don't have anything particularly against a 'combat path' system, as it just allows the class to cover several different flavors without becoming all-inclusive. I don't have a problem with the 'combat path' given to monks, why should I have a problem when a class is given the option of which to pick? Of course, I also would have no problem with bonus feats from a pool, but to be realistic, few people would take just the initial feats from several 'paths' (like point blank shot, ambidex, and TWF if a total of 3 were given over the course of character progression -- I'd expect there to be the ambidex/TWF/ITWF characters and point blank/Rapid Shot/Precise Shot characters), so the only difference I see is one of semantics.

I'd say the monks don't so much have a "combat path" as they have a set list of bonus feats. I agree that most Rangers would follow a path all the way through. The mechanic bothers me in a lot of ways, but one of the chief is that once you've chosen your path it becomes a restriction (what about "options, not restrictions").

Also, there is the mix and match factor. Since I think restricting the list of feats to combat only is absurd, that opens up a lot of possibilities. I could see the "never surprised" ranger with Alertness, Improved Initiative, and Blind-Fighting. Or mix that with the archery feats.

Also, with the general gain of feats every three levels, this means that a ranger focused on the bow (for example) needs to either spend his 3rd level feat on something unrelated to his focus or kiss away one of his class benefits later by taking Far Shot (or whatever) sooner than "planned" by WotC. Sounds like a real good way to unbalance the character.

 

[Mercule]

Would you be happier if they made things like Pass Without Trace, Freedom of Movement, and Protection from Elements inherent (which could well be a good solution to combat paths, I suppose) or X/day like turning and paladin lay hands? In that event, they seem just like spells to me, although maybe spontaneous ones.

As I eluded, the Druid spells aren't a major burr to me. I understand the idea that these are more or less supernatural skills or abilities represented by spells. The problem is that the D&D mechanic evokes a certain image of casting. Incantations, hand gestures, and the like don't seem appropriate for the Ranger. Then again, as "little tricks" they make as much sense as my preference for arcane spells.

I don't know what my preference would be. It's never been a big enough issue for me to worry about it. I run a fairly low-magic game, so I just substitute the Woodsmans and tell people they can multiclass if they want spells. Considering that I prefer exceptional, but mundane characters as heroes, a spell-less ranger is perfect for my game.