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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Steverooo" data-source="post: 811890" data-attributes="member: 9410">Well, I have almost always played Rangers.  My very first AD&D 1e character was a Ranger, and I played him until he was 33rd level, and GMs wouldn't take him in their games, anymore.  I also had a F/MU/T, a Druid, and a Monk, but I never got into them, as much.  All of this was Pre-Drizzt, of course.There is a lot of emotion because many of us love Rangers, and the 2e and 3e versions meet NONE of our ideas.  They are ill-defined (if at all), have whacked abilities, are definitely sub-optimal characters, and have no flavorful class abilities.  The 3.5e variant will (no doubt) be much the same.As a historical sidenote; no, it is not a Drizzt thang...  Drizzt was written after the 2e rules incorporated two-weapon fighting, therefore Drizzt had it, because he was a Ranger.  Rangers do not have it because of Drizzt.  T$R gave Rangers TWF to encourage them to wear light armor (although why they wanted that, I dunno).  This has been confirmed many times, on these boards.  I believe someone even asked Salvatore, and he confirmed it.Why are Rangers important to people?  Well, for me, it has always been the only D&D class that I could really see playing.  I played a F/MU/T, and a Druid, and never found either particularly believable.  Spellcasters may be powerful, but to me, they suck as PCs.  The only other time I have ever played a spellslinger was when I was forced to, in a tournament module, where someone else took the Ranger.  My Mage, there, was the only party member to survive alive and conscious, and pull two other unconscious PCs out of there (although we failed to rescue the villagers from the trolls).The Ranger is the grownup version of the boyscout, the survivor, the special forces operative, etc....  Only he has no such abilities, and never has.  Thus, the "no flavor" charge.He started off being powerful, yes (see Plane Sailing's review).  He started with more HP than the Fighter, and almost as many spells as the Mage and Cleric.  In 1e, he was cut to 1rst & 2nd level MU spells, and Druid 1-3.  In 2e, he lost all MU spells and most Druidic ones, but gained two weapon use when in light armor.  In 3e, he got back sleep, and Druid 1-4.  In 1e, he got +1 damage/level against a small, fixed list of "Dark and Vile", "Giant-Class" humanoids.  In 2e, it became +4 to hit (IIRC), but he could select one favored enemy type.  In 3e, he has Favored Enemies.  The power curve has indeed dropped, and if it was only the powergamers complaining, they would all have been gone, after 2e.Personally, I like to play a stealthy, perceptive wilderness survival expert, who has the skills needed to make do in the wild.  A Fighter just doesn't cut it.  Neither does a Rogue.  Now if a Rogue had Wilderness Lore, he might make a better Ranger than the 3e version does (or the 3.5e version probably will).So the Ranger needs to be Stealthy, Perceptive, adept at wilderness survival (and not just in the woodlands, either).  He needs some FLAVOR, as in special class abilities that allow him to "do his job" in the wild.  3e gave him the SKILLS he needed for this, but not enough Skill Points to take them.  It also gave him no special class abilities except for Favored Enemies, and the TWF.Now most Ranger-players will agree with you, that there is no good reason for Rangers to have TWF.  The 3.5 version will allow a choice between TWF and an "Archery" path (which may or may not apply to other missile weapons).  But this won't work well enough...Besides having little to no "Class Flavor", the Ranger forcers PCs into one of two combat paths (Archery/TWF), while ignoring many of the "Ranger Archetypes".  You can now generate a Robinhood with 3.5e, or an Aragorn with 3e, but still not a Tarzan or Beastmaster.  There is no combat path for the Trident/"Tigerspear" wielding jungle warrior, nor the Axe & Shield-bearing mountain man, nor that spear-spinning Ranger archetype that you mentioned.What we still have is a very flat, flavorless class, with few special abilities.  He can now fit TWO Archetypes instead of one, but...Also, there is some disagreement over whether or not Rangers should have spells.  There is currently no Non-spell path for a Beastmaster-wannabe.  There is no combat path for the Tarzan type who wants to fight unarmed.The 3.5e's version, with 6 Skill Points/level, and the one Feat for TWF will solve the front-loading and lack of skills problem, but it will still not solve the others.  So, what does the Ranger Class NEED?1) Flavor (Class Abilities related to the wilderness).2) Flexibility (Choices for combat paths, abilities, and styles).3) The ability to fit the various archetypes (Not just Drizzt, Aragorn, Robinhood, and Tarzan or the Beastmaster, but also others...  The mounted combat path, Wild Warrior of the White Wastes, Two-handed wilderness fighting Scotsman/Celt, Sword & Board woodsman, Skarp Hedin Ice-skidding archer, OR ANYTHING ELSE THE PLAYER CAN CONCOCT).Now when the Ranger can do THAT, it will be a useful, flavorful class.  I can (and have) go(ne) on for 64 pages.  There are many, many, many Non-combat things that can be done to better the Ranger.  Giving him a class ability to allow Weather Prediction, for instance...  Little game effect, but flavor.  Basically nil power increase, but flavor... AND it fits with the wilderness warrior archetype.As for combat paths, allow Bonus Feats from a selected list at levels 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20 (like the Wizards gets), and include TWF and all its Sub-Feats, Mounted Combat and its, Point Blank Shot and its, Weapon Focus, Weapons Specialization in a select list of "Ranger Weapons", Improved Unarmed Strike and some animal-fighting Feats for the Tarzan/Beastmaster types, something for the Spellslinger wannabes, something for those who want a Non-Combat path (saves, perhaps), and some flavorful Ranger-Only Feats (some of which could perhaps be shared with Barbarians and Druids).  Then, allow the Ranger's player to select their "Path".No more complicated than the Fighter or Wizard currently is, fits multiple archetypes, solves front-loading and Ranger only being taken for one level, and also solves almost all of the "Ranger Problems".The only other thing you need is a way to allow a choice between spell-using and non-spellcasting Rangers.  This, too, can be done in a similar fashion, two ways.  Either make limited spell use a Ranger-Only Feat.  Or, make Ranger-Only Feats that allow a spell to be traded away for another wilderness ability (such as Pass Without Trace, or Speak With Animals, for instance).</blockquote>

Verification