d20 3.0 Ranger -- Equal to an NPC class?

[HowlingWolf]

Here's my question. Is the 3.0 Ranger more powerful than the NPC warrior,
as a fighter? I can't really see how that could be. Two-Weapon Fighting is not
quite as effective as sword(or what have you)/shield, or for that matter a large two-handed weapon. On one hand, he has more skills, skill points, and
hp -- by 2..woopidoo, stealth and two-weapons require light armor so.. All in all, as it is, isn't really just a little bit more powerful. Overall, I really don't think it's much more potent. It gets Track, Empathy, Two-Weapons, a few
more Sp and a few more Hp.

It has to wear light armor to use two-weapons, and favored enemy applies to ONE enemy species. Track is really nothing great. So, in another sense,
the warrior has the advange in being able to wear whatever he wants --
Fieldplate and a large shield (AC 11), while the two dagger wielding ranger has studded leather (AC 3). So, in respect, would one be overly more powerful than the other?

[ksbsnowowl]

Here's my question. Is the 3.0 Ranger more powerful than the NPC warrior,
as a fighter? I can't really see how that could be. Two-Weapon Fighting is not
quite as effective as sword(or what have you)/shield, or for that matter a large two-handed weapon. On one hand, he has more skills, skill points, and
hp -- by 2..woopidoo, stealth and two-weapons require light armor so.. All in all, as it is, isn't really just a little bit more powerful. Overall, I really don't think it's much more potent. It gets Track, Empathy, Two-Weapons, a few
more Sp and a few more Hp.

It has to wear light armor to use two-weapons, and favored enemy applies to ONE enemy species. Track is really nothing great. So, in another sense,
the warrior has the advange in being able to wear whatever he wants --
Fieldplate and a large shield (AC 11), while the two dagger wielding ranger has studded leather (AC 3). So, in respect, would one be overly more powerful than the other?The bold part is wrong, or at least a VERY incomplete statement.

3.0 Favored enemy works thusly: At first level choose a favored enemy, you get +1 on the appropriate skills, and a +1 on damage to that favored enemy type (with the exception of undead, etc, because in 3.0 the Favored Enemy damage was considered precision damage).

At fifth level you get a new favored enemy at +1, and the one from first level becomes +2. At 10th you get a new one at +1, the one from 5th level becomes +2, and the one from 1st level becomes +3. And so on.

The only thing the Warrior has going for him over the 3.0 Ranger is automatic proficiency with heavy armor. (Note, 3.0 ranger is proficient with medium armor, and "shields." "Shields" in 3.0 also meant proficiency with tower shields. Even if you reinterpret everything with 3.5 terminology, they are still proficient with tower shields, as they are not called out as not proficient with them, as is the 3.5 ranger). We'll call that +1 feat for the Warrior.

The Ranger has Track for free, so also +1 feat. He then also gets a conditional +1 feat in TWF. It's a bonus if he chooses to use it, but otherwise is no worse off than the warrior. Also, many warrior types in D&D don't use heavy armor, simply because it slows them down too much. Sure, the Warrior is "better" set up from the outset to fill the narrow niche of a heavily armored guard, but that's because it is a different animal than the Ranger in the first place.

Then the Ranger has a better HD, more skill points, and a better skill list. And spells, let's not forget the spells.

Yes, the 3.0 ranger is better than the Warrior NPC class. For the cost of one feat (Heavy Armor Proficiency), or a single level dip into Fighter, he can be just as good as the Warrior at what he does, but better in several other areas (hit points, skills, attacking specific subsets of enemies, spell use).

[Der_DWSage]

If you're talking sheer in-combat versatility...the only spot I see a 3.0 Ranger being equal rather than superior to a Warrior is 1st level, simply because TWF at 1st level does tend to turn into a flurry of misses, and he doesn't yet have his animal companion or his woefully limited spellcasting to help out. And then the 3.0 Ranger still has out-of-combat utility, as mentioned.

I agree that Ranger is a fairly weak class, but still-claiming it's equal to an NPC class whose features are purely 'I have a full BAB' is pretty far off.