Ranger role in 3.5

[Teapot Salty]

Hey guys. I've been wondering, what can a ranger do? I mean, in combat it's outclassed by a fighter, in as a spellcaster it's outclassed by pretty much every other spellcaster, and as a skill monkey, it's outclassed by a rogue. What is it's niche? That it can do all those things reasonably well? A jack of all trades? I honostly love the idea for the class, but I don't want to use it if other classes can do what it does better.

[Diarmuid]

The thought of anyone being outclassed by a Fighter is just laughable.

[Erberor]

The thing about the core ranger in 3.5 is that he is a generalist. Not as good a skill monkey as a rogue, not as good a melee as a barbarian, not much in the way of spells, a weak animal companion, the list goes on. I personally have an issue with the ranger not really having any particular image of its own. Everything it can do can be done by someone else.

But the ranger can still do a lot. He has so many ways of getting things done and so many things he can do that he will, with certainty, find an unfilled role in the party and take that role. He might not be able to heal as well as a cleric, but he can still cast CLW from wands. He might not melee as good as a barbarian but he'll do it pretty damn well. And so on.

[Gwendol]

In core? Archery, quite reasonably better than anyone else since he's got the skills and features to do something with it.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Two-weapon style, quarterstaff, take Water Walking spell when you get to the needed level.

You are now a monk, except better.

[bekeleven]

Assuming you're not using any variants...

The ranger is best as a solo character. In a group it's 2nd-string at most things, but by himself he's an archer, wilderness survivalist, competent fighter, archer, minor healer, tracker, and archer. For this reason ranger is often slotted as a 5th member (or, as in OoTS, 6th member after the bard). Good pinch-hitter.

The Spell Compendium really beefs up the ranger's ability to wilderness survive and arch.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Well, in core, you really should all just be playing full casters if your concern is having a meaningful role. If you want a martial character with a meaningful role, you've got the Horizon Tripper. And that's about it.

[Flickerdart]

Rangers are around basically to make "realism" focused DMs tolerable. Think about it: they can scavenge for food instead of needing to buy rations, get Endurance so they don't have to deal with all those irritating environment rules, can Track so that when the plot stalls due to clumsy handling you can get it started again. While your party members are dying of arbitrary scorpion-boot-related causes, you can sit back, comfortable in the knowledge that while you can't really do anything, at least you're going to be around not doing anything longer than they are.

[Gavinfoxx]

It's basically a set of features which you can trade away for better features. Do it enough and you get a powerful soldier class in one direction, or a powerful mystic nature warrior in another.

[Coidzor]

I honostly love the idea for the class, but I don't want to use it if other classes can do what it does better.

Well, either you want to be a Druid, a Wizard, some form of Gish, or a Wildshaping Mystic Ranger/Master of Many Forms/(Nature's Warrior/Warshaper) with the Sword of the Arcane Order and Wild Cohort feats.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Jack of all trades, for the most part. With splatbook support, you can probably make a case as the best* archer (Swift Hunter, skills, and a very nice spell list)

*Discounting full caster builds like zen archery clerics, who just do everything better than noncasters.

[Kelb_Panthera]

The thought of anyone being outclassed by a Fighter is just laughable.

Before magical buffing the fighter's combat ability -does- exceed the ranger's, if only by a little. In core the ranger's buffing just brings him to even, though the ranger has the fighter beat in every other conceivable way. In the fullness of its options, however, ranger pulls a pretty good ways ahead.

The ranger's role is that of the survivalist and hunter. Consequently, they make excellent scouts, much better than the scout class. The SpC also makes them nearly peerless archers.

[Gwendol]

I would agree but for the simple fact that the ranger with his skills, his pet, and his spells even in core makes a better archer than the fighter. Not perhaps when it comes to damage and all the ridiculous feats tacked onto archery, but because the ranger has the features and skills to make something out of archery (while the fighter only really has the feats). The ranger can scout, track the target, hide from it, and hit it reliably. If he has access to the SpC he can also do respectable damage (hunter's mercy, etc).

[HaikenEdge]

Without ACFs and splatbook support, probably as the survivor chararacter in a low-magic campaign.

With ACF and splatbook support, using ACF chaining:


Trade Combat Style for Wild Shape and Barbarian Fast Movement,
Trade Wild Shape for Monk Fast Movement, Monk Unarmored AC, Favored Enemy, Track, and Swift Tracker.
Trade Track for Trap Expert (Dungeonscape)
Grab Shooting Star Substitution level @ 8th to trade Swift Tracker for and expanded spell list (and still get Swift Tracker due to ACF) (CV)
If allowed, trade Barbarian Fast Movement for a Spirtual Totem (CChamp)
Trade on of your Favored Enemies for Favored Enemy: Arcanist (CMage)


The the player grabs Zen Archery, or is Exalted and takes Intuitive Strike, you're pretty much set for a Wis-optimized (for combat) character who can do some of the Rogue's skill stuff on top of the normal ranger stuff. Granted, without combat styles, you'd be inferior in some regards, but it's still a pretty interesting build.

[nedz]

With spells from the SpC the Ranger can out stealth any Rogue.
It can fight as well as a Fighter since that's mainly about feat selection, though again Ranger spells help here a lot. Fighters don't get Blindsight or Pounce for instance.
With a Wand of Curing it can do the Healbot role.
With a little bit of work it can be a back up wizard.
Oh and it can Track.

Basically it's a stealth orientated fighter who can do a smattering of other things.

[Yorrin]

Ranger exists for Wildshape Ranger.

Or, as was almost alluded to above, ACF chaining can get you Wis to AC at level one, which in turn makes this a great dip for Sir Wisdom the SAD type builds, like my

Ranger 1/Monk 1/Paladin 2(Serenity)/Swordsage 2/Soulknife 2/Shiba Protector 1/Soulbow 10(Zen Archery)/x 1

for example. Combine with Anthropomorphic Bat for fun and profit.

[Firechanter]

The Ranger's role is to serve as an example for a non-synergistic abilities.

(The following applies mainly to the Core Ranger, later expansions ameliorated some of this.)

You get to ignore Dex prereqs, but only while you wear Light armour, which requires you to have high Dex anyway.
And speaking of Light Armour, you are limited to it but don't get Uncanny Dodge.
You get a damage bonus, but only when and if your DM decides to grant you this boon.
You get a pet, but at such atrocious scaling that it will just die when you actually send it into combat.
You get spells, but too little, too late.
You get HIPS, at a level where it's just unlikely to matter anymore.

Well, stuff like that.

[bekeleven]

The Ranger's role is to serve as an example for a non-synergistic abilities.

Oh, come on, you can't take that away from the monk.

The fast-moving skirmisher reliant on full attacks? The frontline fighter without good BAB, HP, or armor? The class reliant on so many abilities, that they're supposed to be highly skilled while int is their 5th priority ability? The multiple striker without bonus damage? The class not proficient in their signature weapon? The non-spellcaster who has the highest native defense against enemy magic, then as an afterthought gets spell resistance so it can't be buffed? The class that can speak to any living being but is unable to understand their replies? The class that, while billed as a grappler, has a significantly lower grapple check than a single-classed fighter with no feats or specialization in the area? The single class that created the rules black-hole so large, nearly every spell that interacts with weapons or claws has to specify how it works on (a) natural attacks, (b) weapons, (c) unarmed strikes, and (d) monk's unarmed strikes? The class that is also the reason for the grapple rules?

Seriously... read CaptnQ's 70-page unarmed strike thesis sometime. I think if he ever tried to cover grapples too, he'd have an aneurism. The system is so borked that the 4-part Rules of The Game articles had to be errata'd at least once and still contradict the SRD in places.

Now realize that unarmed strikes and grapples are both, in core, used only by monks. Both systems are designed with monks in mind. And not only is that a heavy burden to lay on any class, but the monk isn't even good at either of them. How must that feel?

[HaikenEdge]

Oh, come on, you can't take that away from the monk.

The fast-moving skirmisher reliant on full attacks? The frontline fighter without good BAB, HP, or armor? The class reliant on so many abilities, that they're supposed to be highly skilled while int is their 5th priority ability? The multiple striker without bonus damage? The class not proficient in their signature weapon? The non-spellcaster who has the highest native defense against enemy magic, then as an afterthought gets spell resistance so it can't be buffed? The class that can speak to any living being but is unable to understand their replies? The class that, while billed as a grappler, has a significantly lower grapple check than a single-classed fighter with no feats or specialization in the area? The single class that created the rules black-hole so large, nearly every spell that interacts with weapons or claws has to specify how it works on (a) natural attacks, (b) weapons, (c) unarmed strikes, and (d) monk's unarmed strikes? The class that is also the reason for the grapple rules?

Seriously... read CaptnQ's 70-page unarmed strike thesis sometime. I think if he ever tried to cover grapples too, he'd have an aneurism. The system is so borked that the 4-part Rules of The Game articles had to be errata'd at least once and still contradict the SRD in places.

Now realize that unarmed strikes and grapples are both, in core, used only by monks. Both systems are designed with monks in mind. And not only is that a heavy burden to lay on any class, but the monk isn't even good at either of them. How must that feel?

This I want to read. Do you have a link to it?

[Gwendol]

The Ranger's role is to serve as an example for a non-synergistic abilities.

(The following applies mainly to the Core Ranger, later expansions ameliorated some of this.)

You get to ignore Dex prereqs, but only while you wear Light armour, which requires you to have high Dex anyway.
And speaking of Light Armour, you are limited to it but don't get Uncanny Dodge.
You get a damage bonus, but only when and if your DM decides to grant you this boon.
You get a pet, but at such atrocious scaling that it will just die when you actually send it into combat.
You get spells, but too little, too late.
You get HIPS, at a level where it's just unlikely to matter anymore.

Well, stuff like that.

Well, for an archer dex will be a priority, and the archer doesn't want to be in melee so AC is of less importance. Skills and track can help the archer be more successful, and the favored enemy can help up the damage a little.
But yes, the spells are too few, and HiPS comes ridiculously late.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I would agree but for the simple fact that the ranger with his skills, his pet, and his spells even in core makes a better archer than the fighter. Not perhaps when it comes to damage and all the ridiculous feats tacked onto archery, but because the ranger has the features and skills to make something out of archery (while the fighter only really has the feats). The ranger can scout, track the target, hide from it, and hit it reliably. If he has access to the SpC he can also do respectable damage (hunter's mercy, etc).

Skills, except for tumble, have very little combat application, the pet is useless only a couple of levels after you get it, and the core spells don't add much to the ranger's combat ability.

In core only, the ranger's combat ability -is- comparable to the fighter's, overall. In every other part of the game and when you expand past core it's way ahead but so is most of every other class.


This I want to read. Do you have a link to it?

I imagine CaptnQ himself does, quite possibly in his forum signature. You could look him up in the forum's member list pretty easily.

[bekeleven]

This I want to read. Do you have a link to it?

Here is the introduction of Gauntlet V1.03 in his weapon handbook:


They are the only weapon that takes up a body slot. Well, there are those two helmets, but there aren’t any special magic helmet weapons, are there? The helmets don’t even have a 5 foot reach. No, the only real body slot occupying weapon is the gauntlet. The problem is, depending on the author, a gauntlet is either a weapon, a wondrous item, or sometimes both. This makes for a muddled and confusing set of rules for the gauntlet. Well, I aim to change that.

TL;DR: He failed. But read the next several pages, it's like a car crash you can't stop watching.

Here's an excerpt from the readme in the August version of Weapon Handbook, which I assume was written after his latest attempt:


READ ME (08/07/13)

I Just Don't Care Anymore.

This is going to sound weird, but the gauntlets broke me. I seriously cannot figure them out. I give up. I've tried to explain it and when I relay it to my focus group it just keeps making more and more arguments to the point where I simply do not care anymore. I'm burned out. I'll come back to this again someday, but for now. I'm DONE.
...
Gauntlet (1.03): Gauntlets needed a separate section because the EWSAs are only for weapons that use up a body slot. This is still in the rough draft stage but should include all options. I have TRIED to resolve the issue of Gauntlets and Flurry of Blows, but it just gets so convoluted that I don't care anymore. Here's my advice, ask your DM and live with it. If you are a DM, do whatever the hell you want. Seriously, I can justify just about any position on the matter. So, screw it. And screw WotC for such poorly defined terms as well. Do you know that TECHNICALLY, if a Monk misses on ANY roll to hit while performing a flurry of blows it stops being a flurry of blows? I don't even know what that MEANS! Damn WotC and their strangely worded definitions for Unarmed Attacks and Unarmed Strikes.
The fragmets of his shattered psyche are littered throughout his work, such as this piece from Unique Magical Weapons V1.01:

Editor (How Do They Work): They don’t. Seriously, the wording on this is all kinds of screwed up. Do they modify unarmed strikes? Are the weapons that do unarmed strikes? Can you use them with other weapons that modify unarmed strikes? What about natural attacks? They very quickly get into grey areas that are hard to define. So, like so many things, ASK YOUR DM. Don’t blind side the guy, figure out how he sees them. Me? I see them as NoNW that are twice as expensive and can only modify your unarmed strike. Someone else might see them as true double weapons. Unfortunately, they aren’t, but a DM can change that. Personally I see them working with NoNW and Ward Cestus, and even Amulet of Might Fists, although I’d never actually use AoMF.

[Flickerdart]

The Ranger's role is to serve as an example for a non-synergistic abilities.

(The following applies mainly to the Core Ranger, later expansions ameliorated some of this.)

You get to ignore Dex prereqs, but only while you wear Light armour, which requires you to have high Dex anyway.
And speaking of Light Armour, you are limited to it but don't get Uncanny Dodge.
You get a damage bonus, but only when and if your DM decides to grant you this boon.
You get a pet, but at such atrocious scaling that it will just die when you actually send it into combat.
You get spells, but too little, too late.
You get HIPS, at a level where it's just unlikely to matter anymore.

Well, stuff like that.
None of those are really synergy problems (where they don't work well with other class features), and some aren't really problems at all.

Ignoring Dexterity prerequisites as a Ranger is very useful, since archery and TWF really want good STR and DEX both without another way to add damage. So in addition to not having to take Point Blank Shot, the Ranger also isn't under pressure to get 17 Dexterity by 6th (at which point you can only afford one +2 item, if that). Since 32PB is actually listed as a high power option, this really lets Rangers comfortably assign their ability scores and get away with a 14 in Dexterity (or higher, but use their +2 on another score).

"Not getting Uncanny Dodge" isn't really a class feature and I'm not sure why light armour proficiency means you deserve it.

The damage bonus thing isn't strictly true. It's likely that you will gain levels in the course of a campaign, and thus pick FEs that reflect what you fight. Unless your DM is so spiteful that he immediately pulls all enemies of that type, you're pretty likely to get that damage.

The pet isn't really meant for slugging it out on the front lines, much like the ranger himself. They can scout or serve as mounts (useful for an archer), and if you're in a bind they're a disposable body you can send in to flank or body block.

Hide in Plain Sight is a whole lot better than what other melees get at that level, and is the only way to get it in core other than dumping two useless feats into Shadowdancer.

The spells have some gems in them. Tree Stride is a very nifty thing to have, for instance, Wind Wall is an auto-win against archery, etc. Rangers aren't primary spellcasters, but even that's better than nothing.

Ranger spells actually synergize fairly well with their role as scouts and ambushers. The weaknesses kind of underline it, actually - half-CL and half-level companions mean that your buffs are short duration and your ally is fragile (but possesses the senses that come with being an animal). Camouflage and Hide in Plain Sight help you make sure that when combat starts you're where you want to be - a surprise round's worth of movement away from someone you can full-attack, or somewhere you can shoot people in the face without retribution coming any time soon.

The actual problem here is that this isn't a very useful role to have in a party.

[Ivanhoe]

Two-weapon style, quarterstaff, take Water Walking spell when you get to the needed level.

You are now a monk, except better.

No, not really. :smallsmile:


Well, in core, you really should all just be playing full casters if your concern is having a meaningful role. If you want a martial character with a meaningful role, you've got the Horizon Tripper. And that's about it.

Well, at least the horizon tripper contains ranger levels, so there is already a ranger role in core...:smallwink: apart from that, I think there should be better martial characters in core than the horizon tripper, although that is a good build (the only thing about the horizon tripper that disappointed me, though, were the rather lacklustre levels until getting the dimension door ability. A tripping barbarian/ranger/assassin would get it earlier with a wand).

Overall, I also feel that a ranger lacks a certain focus in core, but has great versatility and is excellent for multi-class characters. And with the splatbook options, the ranger spells and animal companion boosts could be quite powerful.

[KillianHawkeye]

The was I see the Ranger is as a backup character. They can backup other members of the party in various ways.

They don't get as many skills as the Rogue, but they can take some skills so that the Rogue can focus on others since even with all their skill points the Rogue can't be great at everything.

They can backup the frontline fighters, or focus on archery since odds are the Fighter or Paladin or Barbarian has melee covered. And the Ranger makes a pretty damn good archer.

They can backup the healers by using wands or scrolls that the party finds or makes.

The only one they really can't serve as backup for is the arcanist, since they have neither blasting nor much in the way of utility aside from some buff spells. (If you want a backup arcanist, that's what Bards are for.)

But then we must remember the one ability that is probably only possessed by the Ranger: Tracking. Sure, anybody can take the feat (although you also want Survival as a class skill). But let's be honest, does anybody really want to drop a feat on Track? The Ranger wouldn't even want it if they didn't get it for free. But they do, and it's pretty likely that nobody else would bother taking it. Tracking might not come up very often (it depends on the adventure), but it's pretty nice to have when it does happen.

[Coidzor]

But then we must remember the one ability that is probably only possessed by the Ranger: Tracking. Sure, anybody can take the feat (although you also want Survival as a class skill). But let's be honest, does anybody really want to drop a feat on Track? The Ranger wouldn't even want it if they didn't get it for free. But they do, and it's pretty likely that nobody else would bother taking it. Tracking might not come up very often (it depends on the adventure), but it's pretty nice to have when it does happen.

Honestly it's better to just not have Track in the first place, since it's just a plot device disguised as a class feature.

[HaikenEdge]

Honestly it's better to just not have Track in the first place, since it's just a plot device disguised as a class feature.

To be fair, that kind of depends on what you're tracking; it's only a plot device if you're tracking something for plot reasons, and not, say, because your ranger is a creepy stalker guy.

[Eldariel]

Honestly it's better to just not have Track in the first place, since it's just a plot device disguised as a class feature.

Iono, in my games PCs usually just miss out on a bunch of loot without it, and have to go a much roundabout way to e.g. locate the bandit camp. Depends on the exact thing they're doing of course. Track is a means to an end just as much as Divination or Diplomacy.

[Coidzor]

Iono, in my games PCs usually just miss out on a bunch of loot without it, and have to go a much roundabout way to e.g. locate the bandit camp. Depends on the exact thing they're doing of course. Track is a means to an end just as much as Divination or Diplomacy.

It's just part of the basic Survival skill that they put a feat tax on and most people buy hook, line, and sinker. :smalltongue:

[KillianHawkeye]

To be fair, that kind of depends on what you're tracking; it's only a plot device if you're tracking something for plot reasons, and not, say, because your ranger is a creepy stalker guy.

"Tracking: Definitely more fun for the bad guys." :smallwink::smallamused:

[HaikenEdge]

"Tracking: Definitely more fun for the bad guys sociopaths and psychotics." :smallwink::smallamused:

I think this also works.

[LibraryOgre]

The ranger is best as a solo character. In a group it's 2nd-string at most things, but by himself he's an archer, wilderness survivalist, competent fighter, archer, minor healer, tracker, and archer. For this reason ranger is often slotted as a 5th member (or, as in OoTS, 6th member after the bard). Good pinch-hitter.


Like a lot of jack of all trades, a ranger is also a good "multiple role" filler. They're not IDEAL as scouts (no trapfinding), front-line fighters (poor armor), or healers (ha-ha-ha-ha!), but they can fill in as one if you don't have one, provided you don't expect them to act exactly like one of the ideals.

[Eldariel]

It's just part of the basic Survival skill that they put a feat tax on and most people buy hook, line, and sinker. :smalltongue:

You mean it's the random thing everybody gets when they dip Ranger anyways for something awesome :smalltongue:

But ya, I'm kinda inclined to agree; I think Hide in Plain Sight, Trapfinding and Tracking should all be more tied to their appropriate skills than feats. Feats to gain new options, sure. Feats to make something possible, eh.


Like a lot of jack of all trades, a ranger is also a good "multiple role" filler. They're not IDEAL as scouts (no trapfinding), front-line fighters (poor armor), or healers (ha-ha-ha-ha!), but they can fill in as one if you don't have one, provided you don't expect them to act exactly like one of the ideals.

There's always the "Trap Expert" ACF in Dungeonscape to get around the Trapfinding-issue. And the poor armor-issue isn't really an issue with good enough stats. It does mean you need high Dex to frontline on low levels tho, so it does restrict the number of Rangers that can fill the role (the ones with both, good Str and Dex).

[Gadora]

Honestly it's better to just not have Track in the first place, since it's just a plot device disguised as a class feature.
That really depends on the DM and the game. I've had a game where a tibbit spy escaped after accidentally being tossed out the window. (Long story. Just know that not all cats are kitties.) Only reason they got away successfully was due to a blown survival check by the ranger. Ultimately, it is a tool.


It's just part of the basic Survival skill that they put a feat tax on and most people buy hook, line, and sinker. :smalltongue:

Hm... Track is a kind of lame feat, yeah. What would you say about just folding it into survival and replacing all appearances of Track as a bonus feat or prerequisite with Skill Focus(survival)?

[TuggyNE]

Hm... Track is a kind of lame feat, yeah. What would you say about just folding it into survival and replacing all appearances of Track as a bonus feat or prerequisite with Skill Focus(survival)?

That would make a bit more sense, yes.

[Gwendol]

Skills, except for tumble, have very little combat application, the pet is useless only a couple of levels after you get it, and the core spells don't add much to the ranger's combat ability.


I think you are selling the ranger a little short. Spot and listen is useful to find hidden enemies, as is tracking (though not as generally applicable), and more so for an archer. The pet shouldn't be used for combat: you're not a druid after all. Use it as a mount or as a scout.
Rangers get entangle, wind wall, barkskin, bears endurance, etc. Even in core they do get something.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I think you are selling the ranger a little short. Spot and listen is useful to find hidden enemies, as is tracking (though not as generally applicable), and more so for an archer. The pet shouldn't be used for combat: you're not a druid after all. Use it as a mount or as a scout.
Rangers get entangle, wind wall, barkskin, bears endurance, etc. Even in core they do get something.

Enemies that are hiding aren't fighting and to resume hiding after combat is joined is extremely non-trivial. Enemies you have to track certainly aren't in combat and being mounted is only a matter of some gold. An AC for a ranger isn't dramatically tougher than a normal animal of that type in a core environment so as a mount it's even more negligible as a combat factor than normal.

In the overall, rangers have fighters outclassed in most places. In actual combat, not so much, at least not in core.

[hymer]

@ KP: I don't disagree entirely on your end point (rangers not being much better than fighters at fighting in core), but the specific examples I do disagree with:


Enemies that are hiding aren't fighting and to resume hiding after combat is joined is extremely non-trivial.

True, but seeing enemies before they see you means you have the initiative (I don't mean the game term), and noticing hiding enemies is useful in not walking into an ambush, which can make an otherwise tough fight easy.


Enemies you have to track certainly aren't in combat

Knowing what sort of activity is in the area can be very useful preparation for a fight for the whole group.


and being mounted is only a matter of some gold.

Rangers can direct their animal companion as a free action, rather than the move action you use to handle bought animals.


An AC for a ranger isn't dramatically tougher than a normal animal of that type in a core environment so as a mount it's even more negligible as a combat factor than normal.

A mount, when practical (and it is more practical for a ranger than a fighter), dramatically improves movement in a very cost-effective way. Useful to an archer.

[Kelb_Panthera]

@ KP: I don't disagree entirely on your end point (rangers not being much better than fighters at fighting in core), but the specific examples I do disagree with:

Okay.




True, but seeing enemies before they see you means you have the initiative (I don't mean the game term), and noticing hiding enemies is useful in not walking into an ambush, which can make an otherwise tough fight easy.

You don't need spot or listen to prevent ambushes, just a healthy dose of paranoia and a good eye for likely ambush locations.




Knowing what sort of activity is in the area can be very useful preparation for a fight for the whole group.

That's information gathering, not fighting. I've already conceded that the ranger is better at that, in that I conceded that the ranger is better at -everything- that is not combat.




Rangers can direct their animal companion as a free action, rather than the move action you use to handle bought animals.

Directing a war-trained mount in combat is a function of the ride skill and a free action at DC 10. The ranger's animal companion isn't much use in combat for anything else by level 6 or 7 or so.


A mount, when practical (and it is more practical for a ranger than a fighter), dramatically improves movement in a very cost-effective way. Useful to an archer.

How is it any more practical for a ranger than a fighter? Mounted Archery? The fighter can afford the feats much better than the ranger and PHB ranger spells add almost nothing to his archery ability. Mobility? Both direct the mount's movement as a free action. Neither is any smaller or larger than the other unless the warrior atop it is bigger or smaller. I'm just not seeing it.

[hymer]

You don't need spot or listen to prevent ambushes, just a healthy dose of paranoia and a good eye for likely ambush locations.

That depends a lot on the game style. Say a random encounter comes up, first thing the DM asks after may be 'Listen checks, everyone' to see who hears who first, and how far people are from each other when the encounter starts.
But even besides that: If you find a corridor you believe to be a great ambush site, but you can't see anyone in it because you have +1 Spot, you'll still get ambushed if you go down there. And then there's rolling for surprise.
If the DM allows you to completely substitute spot and listen for metagaming and paranoia, I'm of the opinion he's wrongfully penalizing those who did invest in it.


That's information gathering, not fighting. I've already conceded that the ranger is better at that, in that I conceded that the ranger is better at -everything- that is not combat.

Let's cease chopping at that hair, then. :smallsmile:


Directing a war-trained mount in combat is a function of the ride skill and a free action at DC 10. The ranger's animal companion isn't much use in combat for anything else by level 6 or 7 or so.

True enough, as long as you don't invest feats or levels in it. But if you suddenly want or need your mount to become a meat shield for a while, and you don't want to be one too, you'll need to dismount and use handle animal. Something the fighter can't really do. Also see next.


How is it any more practical for a ranger than a fighter?

It's more practical in the sense that you get it for free, and don't have to go back to town and track down someone who will sell you a new one every time it dies - if you can get 24 hours to summon a fresh one. Obviously, this depends a lot on the campaign, but losing a war-trained mount every other session runs into money even if you play near big cities nearly all the time.

[Kelb_Panthera]

That depends a lot on the game style. Say a random encounter comes up, first thing the DM asks after may be 'Listen checks, everyone' to see who hears who first, and how far people are from each other when the encounter starts.
But even besides that: If you find a corridor you believe to be a great ambush site, but you can't see anyone in it because you have +1 Spot, you'll still get ambushed if you go down there. And then there's rolling for surprise.
If the DM allows you to completely substitute spot and listen for metagaming and paranoia, I'm of the opinion he's wrongfully penalizing those who did invest in it.

If you see the corridor and think "this place would make a good ambush site" and you then proceed down the corridor, it's not all that surprising when the ambush occurs.You can avoid that ambush by..... not going down the corridor.

Saying to the DM, "I don't like the look of this, I suggest we look for another way through/around," and proceeding from there isn't metagaming, it's just good tactical sense.




Let's cease chopping at that hair, then. :smallsmile:

Indeed.




True enough, as long as you don't invest feats or levels in it. But if you suddenly want or need your mount to become a meat shield for a while, and you don't want to be one too, you'll need to dismount and use handle animal. Something the fighter can't really do. Also see next.

If you want your mount to be a meat shield, you're a meat head. Neither the fighter's nor the ranger's mount will be at all suited to the task. If you need it, run. Incidentally, you'll both be able to do that much better on the mount than off.




It's more practical in the sense that you get it for free, and don't have to go back to town and track down someone who will sell you a new one every time it dies - if you can get 24 hours to summon a fresh one. Obviously, this depends a lot on the campaign, but losing a war-trained mount every other session runs into money even if you play near big cities nearly all the time.

That's not practical, it's convenient. If you're losing mounts that often, being able to replace it in a day in the wilderness isn't going to make much difference. Your DM is telling you, at this point, that when you chose a mounted character, you chose poorly.

[hymer]

You can avoid that ambush by..... not going down the corridor.

Saying to the DM, "I don't like the look of this, I suggest we look for another way through/around," and proceeding from there isn't metagaming, it's just good tactical sense.

There's no other way into the throneroom/armoury/treasury than past the place specifically designed as an ambush site. If you never go past such places (whether they're manned or not), you're going to miss out on a lot.
Having the option rather than feeling constrained to leave it be is a big bonus in my book.


Neither the fighter's nor the ranger's mount will be at all suited to the task. If you need it, run. Incidentally, you'll both be able to do that much better on the mount than off.

Even at level 6, a 19 hp large creature can be pretty useful to give cover or block charges against someone. Any attacks directed at it rather than you is basically a waste of actions, and actually killing it isn't that likely. You can't always run, and sometimes you really want or need a win now, not when you come back tomorrow.
Add to that that we were discussing the ability to fight. Small differences mean little when you're doing fine. It's when you're under pressure for whatever reason that the little things suddenly get meaningful.


That's not practical, it's convenient. If you're losing mounts that often, being able to replace it in a day in the wilderness isn't going to make much difference. Your DM is telling you, at this point, that when you chose a mounted character, you chose poorly.

Convenient vs. practical? Now you're the one splitting hairs. The idea is, of course, that the fighter wouldn't risk his mount like that. The ranger however, has it as an option. And if he's going someplace where there's no place for a mount, he can switch to another AC.

[Gwendol]

In core, the ranger is a well-rounded addition to any party. Let's leave it at that.

With enough ACF's and spells, the ranger is pushing very high on the list of full BAB classes.

[Firechanter]

Yeah anyway, as you may have guessed from my previous post, I find the 3.5 Ranger sorely underpowered. In trying to fix it, I was shooting for the Martial Adepts' powerlevel, changing as little as possible. After much fiddling and various experiments, I have settled for the following:

- D10 HD, as befits a Warrior class
- Favoured Enemy scales differently
- wider selection of Combat Style bonus feats; Real feats, not virtual ones
- Uncanny Dodge in Light Armour
- swaps Animal Companion with Druid's. I.e. Ranger gets Full class level, Druid reduced progression. AS IT SHOULD BE!
- Caster Level = Class Level
- Spell Retrieval like Spirit Shaman
- +2 Spell Slots / Level
- some Swift Action movement
- Any 3.5 Ranger ACFs are fair game.

[I use some other houserules, such as PF feat progression and making Deadly Aim available.]

Previously, I had experimented with jiriko's Swift Hunter, but had found that the 6-level spellcasting was overkill, and the Skirmish ability rarely saw use, so I decided we could kick it again.
In gauntlet-style playtest, the class has performed very favourably, complementing a Crusader tank extremely well.

[Gwendol]

Those are very reasonable changes to make the class better without changing the flavor. I have also reacted against the D8 HD, which goes against the whole rugged outdoorsman image.

[Isamu Dyson]

My impression, from what has been said in this thread, is that the Ranger is basically a Combat Bard.

[Firechanter]

My impression, from what has been said in this thread, is that the Ranger is basically a Melee Bard.

I'm afraid I don't get it. Care to elaborate?

[Isamu Dyson]

I'm afraid I don't get it. Care to elaborate?

A jack-of-all-trades, but only in regards to combat. That said, I will now rephrase my previous statement (Melee -> Combat).

[Firechanter]

Ah yes. Well, kinda. You know how the complete saying is "Jack of all Trades, Master of None". There is at least one thing where the Bard is Master, and that's throwing bonuses around. Something like +6 to Attack and Damage for the entire party around level 8 is nothing to scoff at.

As for the Ranger, well I'm currently playing one in Pathfinder, and yes : in melee the Fighter is marginally better, at Range I'm fine though the Gunslinger might be better, and on top I have better skills than either. (though these will become irrelevant before long)

[Haldir]

I have been doing quite a bit of Ranger theorycrafting as of late (they're my favorite class and it saddens me that they're so terrible straight out of the box), and I'm quite sure that they can stand as the basis of a Tier 2 build if you have access to all materials.

The real problem I have with the Ranger is that they gain a series of mundane abilities like Camouflage and Hide in Plain Sight- things that any person in real life could easily do with the right gear- but they get them as class features super late into their level progression.:smallconfused:

[Coidzor]

I have been doing quite a bit of Ranger theorycrafting as of late (they're my favorite class and it saddens me that they're so terrible straight out of the box), and I'm quite sure that they can stand as the basis of a Tier 2 build if you have access to all materials.

The real problem I have with the Ranger is that they gain a series of mundane abilities like Camouflage and Hide in Plain Sight- things that any person in real life could easily do with the right gear- but they get them as class features super late into their level progression.:smallconfused:

I'm interested in hearing your take on that, then. Highest I've heard is between 6-10 (or 4-10 by trading out Endurance for Sword of the Arcane Order), they're T1, basically being wizards with a better chassis, (wildshape), fewer spells per day, and limited to looted/shared spellbooks and spending money to scribe all of their spells rather than learning any for free.

Agreed.

[georgie_leech]

The damage bonus thing isn't strictly true. It's likely that you will gain levels in the course of a campaign, and thus pick FEs that reflect what you fight. Unless your DM is so spiteful that he immediately pulls all enemies of that type, you're pretty likely to get that damage.



Are you kidding? That makes it even more powerful! Who wouldn't want a class feature that says "Never encounter this kind of creature again?"

[Coidzor]

Are you kidding? That makes it even more powerful! Who wouldn't want a class feature that says "Never encounter this kind of creature again?"

That would be pretty sweet in an Undead-, Dragon-, or Fiend-themed Campaign. :smallamused: At the very least, any precision-damage based characters will be grateful.

[Haldir]

I'm interested in hearing your take on that, then. Highest I've heard is between 6-10 (or 4-10 by trading out Endurance for Sword of the Arcane Order), they're T1, basically being wizards with a better chassis, (wildshape), fewer spells per day, and limited to looted/shared spellbooks and spending money to scribe all of their spells rather than learning any for free.

Agreed.

You have to stack all the great Ranger ACF's on.

Wildshape allows you dump your physical stats, as you'll need 14 wis, 14 int, and 19 Cha.

Sword of the Arcane Order lets you get spells off of the super sweet Wiz/Sorc list.
Mystic Ranger grants Ranger spells in a similar progression to Wizards.

The feat Alternate Source Spell allows you prepare any spell you know as either Divine or Arcane so long as you can cast both kinds.

So the build is MysticRanger9/Bard1/Sublime Chord 10. Full spellcasting from the Sorc-Wizard list, decent BAB while BAB still matters, access to DMM AND Metamagic Song, combined with Arcane Preparation and a jacked up CHA means Metamagic reduction for days.

Finding spells isn't hard, since you cast "as a wizard" then you can also add to your spellbook through independent research as a wizard. Even if your DM is bogging you down with spell restrictions, spellcasting classes get access to research. :smalltongue:




That's not practical, it's convenient. If you're losing mounts that often, being able to replace it in a day in the wilderness isn't going to make much difference. Your DM is telling you, at this point, that when you chose a mounted character, you chose poorly.

Actually, with Handle Animal, Knowledge (nature), and Wild Empathy in their arsenal, a Ranger is much better equipped to find and train a viable mount. Good Ranger's don't kill their animal companion over and over waiting for a new one to arrive magically, they use their skills to track down ravenous beasts and tame them to their will. Your fighter is plodding along on Bill the Pony, the Ranger is on Shadowfax. The fighter makes enough to buy Shadowfax, and the Ranger is riding Gwaihir the Windlord.

[Haldir]

Are you kidding? That makes it even more powerful! Who wouldn't want a class feature that says "Never encounter this kind of creature again?"

Sounds pretty good to me. I'll take the Arcane Hunter ACF. No Arcane Enemies = Win.

[Isamu Dyson]

As for the Ranger, well I'm currently playing one in Pathfinder, and yes : in melee the Fighter is marginally better, at Range I'm fine though the Gunslinger might be better, and on top I have better skills than either. (though these will become irrelevant before long)

Why is this the case?

[bekeleven]

Why is this the case?

The higher the level, the more magic entirely supplants the mundane ways of doing things. (Divine Insight et al = ranks don't matter, knock/fly et all = skills themselves don't matter.)

However, eventually you reach a point where the defenses in certain areas cancel out the offenses and you're back to skills again. it's great fun. Not in all areas - You never ditch fly for climb except in AMFs and other really edge cases.

[Firechanter]

Yes. Of course it also depends a bit on the campaign. I'll assume a "typical" D&D-game, where murder hobos travel from place to place to find magical Macguffins and kill BBEGs.

So for instance: Ranger (and Barb) have skills to get along in the wilderness. They can make sure that the party can travel overland without starving or being eaten by a grue.
Past level 9? Irrelevant. The Wizard casts Teleport, *zap* you're there.

The Ranger can also track. We've already covered this in this thread. It's less of a class ability and more of a DM tool. And again, magic can tell you more reliably how to get to your quarry. Besides, if a mid-level enemy uses Flight there will be no tracks to follow.