Why so much attention on the Ranger?

[Storm Raven]

Second Edition AD&D predates the earliest book in which Drizzt appeared, the Crystal Shard, by over a year. There's no way that Drizzt could have influenced the game in such a fashion-- if anything, the 2e Ranger's two-weapon fighting ability is why Drizzt became so capable.

Wrong. Driz'zt appeared in print ten months before Second Edition hit the shelves.

 

[Storm Raven]

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.

King Henry may be a moderator, but he's wrong. Unearthed Arcana had no provisions for giving rangers two weapon fighting. Unearthed Arcana introduced a forced weapon proficiency system that required rangers to have certain weapon proficiencies, but gave them no two weapon fighting capabilities.

 

[Mercule]

King Henry may be a moderator, but he's wrong. Unearthed Arcana had no provisions for giving rangers two weapon fighting. Unearthed Arcana introduced a forced weapon proficiency system that required rangers to have certain weapon proficiencies, but gave them no two weapon fighting capabilities.

That requirement was in the 1E PH. UA just added a couple.

 

[Storm Raven]

That requirement was in the 1E PH. UA just added a couple.

Actually, no, there was no such requirement in the 1e PHB. The forced weapon proficiency system was entirely new in UA. Under the 1e PHB rules, a ranger could choose any weapon proficiency he wanted, whenever he wanted to. Under the UA rules, he was required to select from a limited set of weaponry with his first several available weapon proficiency slots.

 

[Mercule]

Actually, no, there was no such requirement in the 1e PHB. The forced weapon proficiency system was entirely new in UA. Under the 1e PHB rules, a ranger could choose any weapon proficiency he wanted, whenever he wanted to. Under the UA rules, he was required to select from a limited set of weaponry with his first several available weapon proficiency slots.

How bizarre. I'd _swear_ they were originally required to learn sword, dagger, and bow by 3rd level. I can't for the life of me find the referrence, though.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

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 really would like to know why rangers have access to Entangle at 4th-level. It's a great spell, but ... it doesn't feel like a ranger to me.

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.

It's pretty difficult to avoid being close to Drizzt when your only option is to be close to Drizzt, or give up on two feats.

King Henry may be a moderator, but he's wrong. Unearthed Arcana had no provisions for giving rangers two weapon fighting.

Henry corrected me... drow got TWF in that product.

 

[Plane Sailing]

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.)

It was in the Strategic Review. I've still got it

Would it be worth posting my compleat history of the ranger again? Or could somebody link to the thread where it was most recently presented? It might help anyone who is puzzling over the rangers history in D&D.

 

[Plane Sailing]

To answer the threads original question from a personal point of view...

While we were eagerly awaiting the titbits of information on 3e leaking out on Erics original site, it was exciting to learn about all the neat new abilities and stuff which the different classes were getting.

And then there were the rangers. They stood out to me as a class which had a lot of stuff removed and almost no exciting new unique class features to make it an exciting class like the others.

That was my beef. Even just compared to 2e he lost his merry band of exotic followers and his ability to calm animals (unless he spent skill points on empathy, shared with druids). It gets worse when compared with earlier editions.

To cap it all, the few things he did have were laden with extra restrictions! No double weapons! No favoured enemy bonus against creatures not vulnerable to criticals! It's not as if those would have broken the game, after all

 

[Merlion]

Ok here it goes again

My thoughts on why the ranger is such a topic of such heated debate: I think the big thing is the archtype problem. Their are so many characters and ideas that all qualify for being exemplfied by the Ranger Class...and everyone has their favorite. Some want to see the Ranger class made into their perfect vision of there favorite rangery archtype...others want to see the class be able to fit all of thease different ideas..and many want for them to recivie specfic class features keyed to each and every one of thease different archtypes.
So you've got your this is what the ranger should be people, and your the ranger needs more versatility so it can fit all thease 1,001 concepts people...and then of course people who dislike certain specfic things about the class or the various versions thereof.
The 3.0 ranger fails to satisfy much of anyone. and what we hear of the 3.5 ranger satisfies only the TWF and Archery camps of the this is what the ranger should be people, and since it doesnt have specfic class abilities pertaining to all ideas of the ranger it doesnt satisfy the ranger that can fit 1,001 archtypes people.
My own thoughts on the ranger situation: the 3.0 ranger sucks. Big time. front loaded. Not enough skill points. stagnates at high levels. favored enemy bonuses get all out of whack. In my opnion even tho the ranger is a combat class his method of combat is not the source of his identity. I feel it is a ranger skills, tracking, and affinity for nature and survival that do. thease things are shown in his skillpoints and class skills, free track feat, and spells. Now many people of all groups want the ranger to get a bonus feat progression from a pool...most vote for some combat feats and things like Alertness Endurance, Skill Focus etc. Not a bad idea. but if thats the ranger you want, play Monte Cooks(very nice, original) variant ranger. Wizards is not ever going to give rangers a bonus feat progression from a pool. That is the fighters shtick. Now doing it with all survival type feats could work..but they arent gonna do that either. they arent going to get anywhere NEAR fighter territory. I think it is an acceptable way to do it but I dont blame them for not...it'd piss off as many or more people as are unhappy about them not doing it. Besides like I said I dont really see the ranger as being defined by combat styles anyway.
Now from what I have seen of the 3.5 ranger they are getting more skill points...the ability to track while running...evened out favored enemy bonuses....some sort of improved "wild empathy"...and the frontloadeness and the shoehorning into TWF is being removed. Now, I would have like to have seen another couple styles...but think about it unless they did at least 8 or 10 large numbers of people would still be unhappy. My big deal in all of this is...nothing is perfect and THEY CANT PLEASE EVERYONE. some times about the best they can hope for is to make as many people as happy as possible.
Getting back to my opnion of the 3.5 ranger...it looks like the major issues have been addressed. Just based on our partial information. more skill points etc goes a long way. and while 2 styles arent going to fill out all archtypes...you can take a style and then devote all your regular feats to another style or to survival feats...and coupled with the other new class abilities it allows the class to fill a LOT of bleeping roles.

 

[Steverooo]

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.

(Snip!)

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.

Exactly! Give Bonus (instead of Virtual) Feats, and Robinhood CAN be realized!