What is the ranger's "role" in combat [3.5]

[Teapot Salty]

Hey guys. It's no secret that I think ranger's are awesome, but what do they do in combat that the other classes can't do? As I understand it, they are high tier 4 because of there out of combat potential, which kind of irks me. So, how do they shine in combat? Thanks, and as always, go nuts.

[Juntao112]

They're decent at archery.

[Regissoma]

To me I always liked the scout/ranger combo for a swift hunter, but the one thing I think that shines for them is their favored enemy ability. Not too many other classes get it and it can be quite fun especially if you combine it with other feats. My personal favorite is the Nemesis exalted feat which lets you know the position and location of all of the selected FE in 60 feet. Otherwise I usually have a ranger built as a volley archer using very heavily enchanted x bows shooting around 8 to so far a good 128 bolts before getting a book thrown at me.

[FidgetySquirrel]

Seems to me that the ranger kind of, well, doesn't have a distinct role.

Rangers can use TWF, but fighters, and possibly even rogues, do it better.

Rangers can use archery, but fighters do it better.

Rangers can use divine spells, but clerics and druids do it better.

Rangers have a snazzy animal friend, but the druid does it better.

They're kind of second- or third-rate at everything that they do, in combat, at least. That's not to say a ranger can't be good in a fight, but in the abstract, they're kind of a jack-of-all-styles, master-of-none sort of class.

That's my two cents on it , anyway.

[Flickerdart]

I think the ranger is supposed to be a sort of bard equivalent of the weapon-using guys. He's almost as good as a fighter in front-line combat, almost as good as a rogue at sneaking, almost as good as a paladin at having a mount. The ranger is most at home in wilderness encounters that use complex terrain and enemies, where charging is impossible and squaring against the dinosaur in a full attack exchange will end up killing you. When his light armour isn't a disadvantage because he needs to stay mobile, when there are no traps to be found, when enemies have Scent and can detect you before you can sneak up on them, the ranger does a pretty good job.

[Vhaidara]

Seems to me that the ranger kind of, well, doesn't have a distinct role.

Rangers can use TWF, but fighters, and possibly even rogues, do it better.

Rangers can use archery, but fighters do it better.

Rangers can use divine spells, but clerics and druids do it better.

Rangers have a snazzy animal friend, but the druid does it better.

They're kind of second- or third-rate at everything that they do, in combat, at least. That's not to say a ranger can't be good in a fight, but in the abstract, they're kind of a jack-of-all-styles, master-of-none sort of class.

That's my two cents on it , anyway.

1. Rogues yes, fighters are on par with straight ranger, behind swift hunter. TWF needs extra damage dice (Sneak Attack)
2. Again, yes if it is straight ranger or at a range of more than 30ft. But swift hunter beats out fighter
3. Correct
4. Very correct

The big thing with ranger is that it has full BAB and a decent number of skill points/a decent skill list. And some really good ACFs/sub levels. Wildshape Ranger is T3, and IIRC it is Mystic Fire Knight Sword of the Arcane Order ranger that basically becomes a wizard.

[Flickerdart]

I don't think it's fair to count anything out of core as determining the ranger's role, not in the least because pretty much everything they get from ACFs and feats are abilities from other, better classes. Wildshape Ranger? Druid. Mystic Ranger SotAO? Wizard. Swift Hunter? Scout.

[Urpriest]

In 3.5, individual classes don't generally have roles like they do in 4e. Classes are resources for builds, and builds fill roles. A few levels of Ranger gives TWF or Rapid Shot, full BAB, good skills, and prereq-friendly bonus feats like Track and Endurance. They also give you access to a whole heap of ACFs. That makes it nice for Gishes and heavily multiclassed melee combo characters, which both like having a good concentration of handy build components in a full BAB level. Further levels give you access to some of the best archery-focused spells in the game, and good synergy with Swift Hunter, so with support from Scout levels and other resources you can make quite a solid archer or TWF-pouncer.

In either case, Ranger isn't a class that does very much if taken alone, which is part of why its tier is relatively low.

[Teapot Salty]

Other than the fairly obvious scout, what is a good multiclass option?

[Azoth]

I do have to agree that the ranger is a fifth wheel in combat most times if stuck with core only. When you get past core and can start using ACFs and a wide array of feats you can make a truly scary character. I did one as an archer to prove to a friend who frequents these forums that a straight fighter will never compete with a Ranger as an archer. Granted I used many ACFs, comboed my feats well, and had to rely on spell backup but it was pure Ranger20.

Rangers are amazing flexible as a class and can cover a variety or roles if built for it.

[Flickerdart]

In either case, Ranger isn't a class that does very much if taken alone, which is part of why its tier is relatively low.
Ranger is a pretty solid 1-20 class. +10 on damage rolls is quite nice if the DM throws you a bone (remember that as a flat bonus, it multiplies on crits), Hide in Plain Sight is solid, though it comes a little late. Camouflage is actually fantastic - you can stand on someone's lawn and they can't see you! Rangers can also make a STR-focused TWF build because they bypass prerequisites for all the TWF feats. When their class features start to flag, spells like Arrowsplit pick up the pace.

Like most sneaky classes, the ranger actually does a fantastic job as an NPC for the party to fight. He's good at ambushing, isn't vexed by terrain, comes with a built-in minion, and has a small amount of dangerous spells. He also has plausible ways of both finding the party (Track, animal companion with Scent, FE keyed to a PC) and running away (Camouflage + HiPS).


Other than the fairly obvious scout, what is a good multiclass option?
A barbarian dip is thematic and enhances the ranger greatly - take either the standard two levels for Spirit Lion Totem + Whirling Frenzy + Improved Trip, or check out the other Spirit Totems for some rarely used but cool abilities. Fighter is an obvious choice for picking up some extra combat feats. Beastmaster enhances your sub-par animal companion. Rogue can have good synergy, especially with that one spell that uncaps SA for a round (though you're probably better going straight rogue and UMDing that).

[Slipperychicken]

Hey guys. It's no secret that I think ranger's are awesome, but what do they do in combat that the other classes can't do?

Aside from a few spell combos, like those involving Hunter's Mercy? Nothing.

Rangers make up for this by having an Animal Companion and being useful outside combat.

[Bronk]

Rangers can be great in combat, especially if you luck out and have your foes on your favored enemies list. Keep in mind that there are a couple of decent feats and spells they can use...

For feats, extra favored enemy from Ghostwalk, and Improved Favored Enemy (+3 to the bonuses for all favored enemies) from Complete Warrior can be useful.

For spells, hunter's eye and hunter's mercy are pretty good.

Of course, the ranger is often the one to find the combat in the first place by tracking it down... That gives the DM some options too.

[Slipperychicken]

Of course, the ranger is often the one to find the combat in the first place by tracking it down... That gives the DM some options too.

Ehh. If the GM wants that fight to happen, it's going to happen no matter how badly the Ranger flubs his tracking rolls.

[jiriku]

The ranger's chief asset is mobility, and his second is flexibility. He's an excellent skirmisher and hard-hitting striker. Or at least, that's what was intended, I'd say. In earlier editions, the ranger was the ONLY class with an animal companion, and his animal companion was a unique feature, often providing an early-warning system for the party and serving as a roleplaying focus for the character. In earlier editions, the ranger also cast wizard spells, not divine spells, and was a gish-in-a-box class for those who wanted to cast spells in armor.

[Dunsparce]

It's a shame there's no Ranger version of Battle Blessing. At least there's Mystic Ranger as an option(I play as one in a campaign, and not the usual SotAO one either. So far working out great for me.)

[Daremonai]

As I remember things, Rangers picked up limited access to priest spells fairly late on (8ish?) and started getting a small number of Magic-User spells a level or two after that...

[jiriku]

Could be... my memory of it is faint as well. 'Twas very much a hybrid class.

[Shining Wrath]

Full BAB + D8 HD + Light armor means the Ranger in combat is supposed to fill the "stick and move" style of melee, or ranged (depending on 2nd level choice). A Ranger who tries to match the Fighter for standing toe-to-toe with uglies gets squished.

The Ranger's also contributes the occasional utility spell. It's a limited list with a limited number of uses per day, but some spells is a long way ahead of the Fighter's none.

The animal companion is normally not durable enough to really make a difference, but can supply the occasional flanking / "Go pull the lever, girl!" extra 'person'.

Three ways to contribute, and two of them are mediocre while one requires real work to get up to almost acceptable.

But then there's two good saves and 6 skill points per level, plus some nice class features like Evasion.

I'd like to suggest that a two level Ranger dip prior to entry into Swordsage or Warblade might work - get the TWF style and feed Tiger Claw maneuvers, plus Favored Enemy.

[Grod_The_Giant]

For feats, extra favored enemy from Ghostwalk, and Improved Favored Enemy (+3 to the bonuses for all favored enemies) from Complete Warrior can be useful.
The really nice one is Favored Power Attack (CW). It combos beautifully with power attack enhancers like Leap Attack or Frenzied Berserker because it's not a percent increase-- it increases the numeric bonus. With a two-handed weapon and Leap Attack, you're dealing +6 damage/-1 to attack.

But overall, the best thing you can do with a ranger in 3.5 is probably Swift Hunter archery.

[Thanatosia]

Swift Haste and Arrowmind are pretty badass spells IMO that really help ranged combat without eating your action economy (Spell compendium).

A wildshape ranger makes a pretty effective Warshaper.

[Vaz]

As intended, an harrasser, battlefield controller - able to either pin targets with his animal companion and then pepper woth arrows, or use his TWF to 'flurry' on them. They also have scouting skills (with track etc) and using their pet and own Survival abilities can keep a party stpcked with supplies.

However in practise, like most multicapable characters, does nothing effectively at all.

[Pluto!]

The unique abilities the Ranger has are mostly hidden in its spell list, which frankly isn't all that great until you start digging up the SpC, PHB, Champions of Ruin and so forth, but when you do, Rangers get some goodies like extra attacks, pounces, damage multipliers, immunities, swift buffs, utility spells, pretty huge speed/initiative boosts and several flavors of bonus damage. At higher levels the decisions it makes aren't unlike those of a Gish. Just a really crappy Gish.

Without Mystic Ranger or another similar meaty variant, it's not ever all that strong, but straightclassed Ranger's a build I wouldn't put below the weak end of playable at any point from level 1-20.

That said, it really wants a Battle Blessing.

[Gavinfoxx]

With enough ACF's, they are decent soldiers.

http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=641044

[Jeff the Green]

Ehh. If the GM wants that fight to happen, it's going to happen no matter how badly the Ranger flubs his tracking rolls.

I keep hearing this, but it's always really bothered me. Do DMs really do this? I mean, when I run it, failure means the bad guys get away and/or accomplish their goals. Which moves the plot along. Success also moves the plot along, just more in the PCs favor. It's an excellent decision point and an opportunity for PCs to have a real effect on the plot; it's the opposite of railroading.


The really nice one is Favored Power Attack (CW). It combos beautifully with power attack enhancers like Leap Attack or Frenzied Berserker because it's not a percent increase-- it increases the numeric bonus. With a two-handed weapon and Leap Attack, you're dealing +6 damage/-1 to attack.

But overall, the best thing you can do with a ranger in 3.5 is probably Swift Hunter archery.

Also very nice when combined with the Favored Enemy (arcanist) ACF. Granted, it's a little nonoptimal, but combining it with TWF with a great sword and armor spikes (or an animated heavy shield) is kind of awesome.

[Flickerdart]

I keep hearing this, but it's always really bothered me. Do DMs really do this? I mean, when I run it, failure means the bad guys get away and/or accomplish their goals. Which moves the plot along. Success also moves the plot along, just more in the PCs favor. It's an excellent decision point and an opportunity for PCs to have a real effect on the plot; it's the opposite of railroading.
That approach, while laudable in theory, means that the DM essentially has to prepare two encounters (one where the PCs beat the bad guys to the place, and one where they're too late) and can't really plan very far ahead because he never knows which villain plan the PCs will be able to foil, and which they will miss because the ranger rolled poorly on a Survival check. It's also really anticlimactic for the PCs to arrive too late - great for a story in a book, but not so much for the real human beings who took time out of their lives to show up to a game about fighting cool stuff.

[137beth]

I think the ranger is supposed to be a sort of bard equivalent of the weapon-using guys. He's almost as good as a fighter in front-line combat, almost as good as a rogue at sneaking, almost as good as a paladin at having a mount. The ranger is most at home in wilderness encounters that use complex terrain and enemies, where charging is impossible and squaring against the dinosaur in a full attack exchange will end up killing you. When his light armour isn't a disadvantage because he needs to stay mobile, when there are no traps to be found, when enemies have Scent and can detect you before you can sneak up on them, the ranger does a pretty good job.

The ranger does have one major thing that the bard lacks, though: the ranger's class features are more amendable to multiclassing with other base classes. The ranger can function as a dip for any of the roles that it is second-string at. The bard, despite being a jack-of-all-trades, has class features which can't really stack with the sorcerer or rogue's features.

Aside from multiclassing with the scout for Swift Hunter, I think the best use of a ranger in combat is as a dip for a fighter focusing on either TWF or archery.

[Jeff the Green]

That approach, while laudable in theory, means that the DM essentially has to prepare two encounters (one where the PCs beat the bad guys to the place, and one where they're too late) and can't really plan very far ahead because he never knows which villain plan the PCs will be able to foil, and which they will miss because the ranger rolled poorly on a Survival check. It's also really anticlimactic for the PCs to arrive too late - great for a story in a book, but not so much for the real human beings who took time out of their lives to show up to a game about fighting cool stuff.

First, the DM should probably have the villain's personality and plans thought out well enough to know what he'd do if a given part of his plans is thwarted and how he'll proceed if it isn't. I mean, the villain does actually have a particular goal in mind, right? He's not just out committing random atrocities.

Second, I don't think it necessarily is anticlimactic for the PCs to arrive too late or not figure out where the bad guys went. If they're late it turns into a new encounter. If they're too late to stop the bad guys from destroying the village, it becomes a fight to round up the survivors and help them get to a safe place. If they're too late to stop them from getting to a city and disappearing into the seedy underbelly, it becomes a challenge to navigate the relationships and power-brokers of the criminal world to find their quarry.

Finally, there are so many ways players can jump the rails that a botched Survival check or a string of lucky ones is probably among the top 10% most predictable.

[Flickerdart]

First, the DM should probably have the villain's personality and plans thought out well enough to know what he'd do if a given part of his plans is thwarted and how he'll proceed if it isn't. I mean, the villain does actually have a particular goal in mind, right? He's not just out committing random atrocities.
Well, sure, but let's look at your next suggestion.



Second, I don't think it necessarily is anticlimactic for the PCs to arrive too late or not figure out where the bad guys went. If they're late it turns into a new encounter. If they're too late to stop the bad guys from destroying the village, it becomes a fight to round up the survivors and help them get to a safe place. If they're too late to stop them from getting to a city and disappearing into the seedy underbelly, it becomes a challenge to navigate the relationships and power-brokers of the criminal world to find their quarry.
This isn't an issue of not knowing what the villain will do. This is an issue of having to make two mutually exclusive encounters, and two mutually exclusive ways the plot proceeds, depending on the roll of a single die. I'd rather use my time making one good encounter than split it among two.


Finally, there are so many ways players can jump the rails that a botched Survival check or a string of lucky ones is probably among the top 10% most predictable.
Players are predictable. Dice are random.

[Jeff the Green]

This isn't an issue of not knowing what the villain will do. This is an issue of having to make two mutually exclusive encounters, and two mutually exclusive ways the plot proceeds, depending on the roll of a single die. I'd rather use my time making one good encounter than split it among two.

Note my examples. A lot of the time a failure is going to result in a non-combat encounter (or series thereof) that can be run ad lib with just a few notes about key figures in the world and a few character archetypes in your head.


Players are predictable. Dice are random.

...either you have levels in psion or your players are very different from mine.

[Flickerdart]

Note my examples. A lot of the time a failure is going to result in a non-combat encounter (or series thereof) that can be run ad lib with just a few notes about key figures in the world and a few character archetypes in your head.
An ad-libbed encounter isn't a replacement for a properly planned one, and it's certainly not what my players are attending for. I respect their time more than leaving whether or not we get to enjoy ourselves up to chance.

[Jeff the Green]

How can you possibly have a social encounter that isn't ad libbed?

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Ehh. If the GM wants that fight to happen, it's going to happen no matter how badly the Ranger flubs his tracking rolls.

People say this a lot and generally I agree that many DM's tend to make tracking (amougst other abilities) only needed if the party has them. However, I find modules tend to be pretty good at rewarding Track occaisonaly.

[Amphetryon]

An ad-libbed encounter isn't a replacement for a properly planned one, and it's certainly not what my players are attending for. I respect their time more than leaving whether or not we get to enjoy ourselves up to chance.

Ah, so anyone who ad-libs an encounter doesn't respect his Players? Even if the Players are attacking window dressing?

[Flickerdart]

Ah, so anyone who ad-libs an encounter doesn't respect his Players? Even if the Players are attacking window dressing?
If the players are attacking window dressing, it's their choice. They're doing it because they think it will be fun to do it, and given how flimsy most things in the world are, that fight won't last very long or be the focus of the session. It's a completely different situation from trashing an entire planned encounter because of a single throw of the dice.

It dawns on me that there might be a pretty decent compromise here - even arriving "just in time" is flexible enough to determine, for instance, whether or not it's the PCs or the villains that get the surprise round or can pre-buff/set up traps. This makes Track/Survival a valuable tool without having too much rest on it.