Will 3.5e really fix the ranger?

[shadow]

Okay, I really went off on a rant against 3.5e a while back. Now that I've cooled down a bit, I've began to wonder about the revisions, specifically the ranger. I'm not so concerned about the current ranger being front loaded (although admittedly it is), but rather the fact that all 3e rangers are pretty much two-weapon fightin', monster hatin' bigots. Every one envisions the ranger in a different way. Many people see him as Aragorn, others see him as Robin Hood. The 3.5e ranger should be flexible enough to incorporate these archetypes. For example, suppose that I want a ranger that can't fight with two weapons, but rather is a master archer. Will the 3.5e ranger allow me to do that? How about a ranger who is a survivalist, living in the wild for an extended time, he has learned to live off the land. Hopefully the 3.5e ranger will allow me to make such characters, because I'm getting tired of all rangers fighting with-two weapons against some hated racial enemy.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

I doubt they'll "fix" the ranger, since as you say everyone has different versions of what they think it should be, but I'm sure they'll change it in some way...

 

[Apok]

Well, they did say that the Ranger got a major overhaul. Exactly what that will entail I don't know, but I do know that Morrus has a rumored version of the 3.5e Ranger somewhere but he won't post it until he can get some conformation.

Hey Morrus, post it anyway! C'mon, you know you want to!

 

[Wolv0rine]

I think it would be cool if they did the ranger along the same vein as Steven Peterson (Chang) did Wardens in the Second World Sourcebook (which I only reference because there was such a concise review of it today). Lots of ways you could build a Warden.
I think rangers, moreso than any other class possibly, need to be adaptable to the way a player thinks of that class. I don't suspect that any of the other classes have this sort of vastly different base conceptual differences from person to person that the ranger does. I mean really, as far as a Ranger in my mind goes, 2-weapon fighting and racial enemies both have absolutely nothing to do with being a ranger, they sould like general combat Feats to me. (And at least 2-weapon fighting IS one)
But, I don't have any hopes that the revised ranger will be any closer to what I think a ranger is, no.

 

[Nifft]

Since the 3.5e mantra is "Choices, Not Rules", I suspect they'll give us some nice options for building our own conception of a Ranger. That will make me very happy if it's true.

-- Nifft, currently using Monte Cook's Ranger

 

[Zaruthustran]

Yup

Yeah, this is my little pet peeve as well. I'm very worried that the 3.5 ranger will be a "TWF fighter/bow Fighter" instead of, you know, a RANGER.

The rumors I've heard suggest that this worry is justified.

Sigh. I play a ranger in the RPGA, so the "official" view of the ranger is very important to me. I don't have the luxury of creating and playing a homebrew version.

Still, the official word has yet to be given, and I remain optimistic.

-z, not actually optimistic

 

[Morrus]

For example, suppose that I want a ranger that can't fight with two weapons, but rather is a master archer. Will the 3.5e ranger allow me to do that?

I think you'll be OK on that front.

 

[Desdichado]

Well, if not, you can at least take comfort that there's a good two dozen or more good alt.rangers on the web, and at least half a dozen more in d20 third party print that I know of...

My personal favorite is Ken Hood's Bushfighter.

 

[Jack Daniel]

Re: Yup

Yeah, this is my little pet peeve as well. I'm very worried that the 3.5 ranger will be a "TWF fighter/bow Fighter" instead of, you know, a RANGER.

Ranger; /rAnjur/; n.; 1. One who patrols an area and its border regions in the interest of defense. 2. Law enforcement officer, especially of Texas. 3. Offical charged with the protection of a wilderness area or park.

The fantasy ranger already fulfills definition one: a warrior type who defends a region against particular types of monsters. And it can't really fill definition 2 in worlds without a Texas, but the urban variant makes for the game's best bounty hunter, so really the ranger is already better than anyone else at RANGING. My worst fear is that they change the ranger to reflect definition 3 more than definition 1.

Yea two-weapon fighting, nay rubbing two sticks together!

 

[shadow]

I never quite understood what two-weapon fighting had to do with being a ranger. If anything, I would envision the archetyptical ranger to be an archer. I don't think they should trash tow-weapon fighting, but rather they should give rangers a variety of feats to choose from (two-weapon fighing, archery feats, etc.) so people could customize the ranger more. Also track needs to be changed to a class skill. I've always wondered why it is a feat. Third they need to add some wilderness related abilities to the class. Othe than track(which any class can take) and a few of the class skills, nothing seemed to stand out as being particularly "outdoorsman" about the ranger. This is odd since the description stated that the ranger was such an outdoorsman. (Of course the ranger should be able to be customized to vary somewhat from that archetype.)