Specifically improving the Ranger's spellcasting from garbage to adequate.

[Droopy McCool]

Like the Paladin (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?472329-The-Paladin-Hypothetical-Fix), Ranger spellcasting is garbage. However, I don't think great spellcasting is as big of a deal for them. Obviously, though, they need some help.

Unlike the Paladin, I'm not sure the Ranger needs the Bard's progression to be up there (due to free Combat Style feats for starters) tier-wise. My proposal, then, is to give the Ranger the Adept's spell progression, giving them up to 5th level spells down to 0th, while at a faster rate. The spell list would be a reworked "Ranger spell list" with Druid spells thrown in.

Once again, let me know what you think.

McCool

[ComaVision]

Already done, it's called the Mystic Ranger and it's in Dragon Magazine. It pairs nicely with trading the Combat Styles out for Wild Shape.

[Flickerdart]

The ranger doesn't need a fix - it needs a job description. What is a ranger supposed to do? You can't really fix it until you can answer that question. Why does getting 5th level spells fix the ranger?

[Droopy McCool]

Already done, it's called the Mystic Ranger and it's in Dragon Magazine. It pairs nicely with trading the Combat Styles out for Wild Shape.

I don't have access to the Dragon Mags, and this is to fix the base class, not an ACF (I'm guessing that's what Mystic Ranger is).


The ranger doesn't need a fix - it needs a job description. What is a ranger supposed to do? You can't really fix it until you can answer that question. Why does getting 5th level spells fix the ranger?

5th level spells are just a perk. I was really after the better spell progression, but can also give them a couple better spells now.

McCool

[ComaVision]

I don't have access to the Dragon Mags, and this is to fix the base class, not an ACF (I'm guessing that's what Mystic Ranger is).

It's a rework of the class. Some class abilities are removed, casting progression is totally different. It's not that difficult to find Dragon issues around.

[Soranar]

The ranger, even without ACF, is a pretty solid class. Sure it's no tier 1 or 2 class but it can easily be optimized into a tier 3 with minimal effort.

The spellcasting, which is greatly enhanced with magic compendium, helps archery tremendously, I honestly don't see why you would want to improved a ranger further.

1d8 hitpoints, x6 skillspoints, a decent skill list and access to very juicy alternate class features (like wildshaping)

makes the ranger one of the most versatile core classes without magic

[Flickerdart]

5th level spells are just a perk. I was really after the better spell progression, but can also give them a couple better spells now.
How do better spells and more spells "fix" the ranger, though? What does the ranger attempt to do and fail that these spells correct? You need to determine what that is first, and then make changes. Setting your requirements is like the #1 rule of project management.

[Droopy McCool]

The ranger, even without ACF, is a pretty solid class. Sure it's no tier 1 or 2 class but it can easily be optimized into a tier 3 with minimal effort.

The spellcasting, which is greatly enhanced with magic compendium, helps archery tremendously, I honestly don't see why you would want to improved a ranger further.

1d8 hitpoints, x6 skillspoints, a decent skill list and access to very juicy alternate class features (like wildshaping)

makes the ranger one of the most versatile core classes without magic

This is where I wanted the conversation to go. People are now providing reasons why the spellcasting can be left alone, which was something that couldn't work as well for the Paladin. I've never played a Ranger, but friends have told me it isn't super great (without ACFs), but we usually play Core+ this or that anyway. Thanks for the feedback.

McCool

[Flickerdart]

Paladin works great without casting - flip to the back of the DMG where it gives guidelines for custom mounts, and then whip up a cool monster to drag around.

Ranger doesn't do anything without casting. It's an okay sneaky guy, a mediocre archer or TWFer, and that's really about it.

[Droopy McCool]

Paladin works great without casting - flip to the back of the DMG where it gives guidelines for custom mounts, and then whip up a cool monster to drag around.

Ranger doesn't do anything without casting. It's an okay sneaky guy, a mediocre archer or TWFer, and that's really about it.

Funny, I've always seen it the other way around.

McCool

[Flickerdart]

Funny, I've always seen it the other way around.
Do you care to substantiate your position in some way? What does the ranger get that can compete with the paladin's ability to customize himself a CR=lvl-3 monster, stellar saves, and turning to feed divine feats?

[illyahr]

I've always thought of the Ranger as a hunter/tracker. I actually though up some ACF's that would help in this regard. The intention being that if a Ranger was on your trail, you worried.

For example, I made an ability that allows him to know the direction and distance to a creature he has previously encountered or one that he has a personal belonging of.

Another ability allowed him immunity to environmental conditions and water breathing. I wanted him to be able to follow his prey, no matter where they went.

At high levels, he can follow teleportation and planar travel effects with a Survival check, allowing him to keep up with those who try to get away via magical means.

[Droopy McCool]

Do you care to substantiate your position in some way? What does the ranger get that can compete with the paladin's ability to customize himself a CR=lvl-3 monster, stellar saves, and turning to feed divine feats?

I'm looking at skills. Versatility. General utility. Sure, a Rogue does skills better, a Wizard does versatility better, a Druid does utility better, but a ranger shoots to be it all. Paladins can hit things and take hits. Great for dips too! I certainly like the idea of a righteous knight smiting foes more.

Rangers can do almost anything. Paladins might be better at the important stuff, but that's all they do.

Optimized Paladins are fine. Unoptimized Rangers are still good.

Edit: Oh yeah, try to optimize a Paladin using Core material alone.

McCool

[Flickerdart]

I'm looking at skills. Versatility. General utility. Sure, a Rogue does skills better, a Wizard does versatility better, a Druid does utility better, but a ranger shoots to be it all. Paladins can hit things and take hits. Great for dips too! I certainly like the idea of a righteous knight smiting foes more.

Rangers can do almost anything. Paladins might be better at the important stuff, but that's all they do.

Optimized Paladins are fine. Unoptimized Rangers are still good.

Paladins can do a whole lot more than hit and be hit. They are great at the social game - detect evil is very handy for sussing out potential villains for further interrogation, the skill list has good social skills, TU gets converted into stuff like free movement (Travel Devotion) or flight (Animal Devotion).

While a ranger can be okay at everything, they can't be good at everything. Or anything, really. The generalist niche is taken by the bard, and done way better.



Edit: Oh yeah, try to optimize a Paladin using Core material alone.

No problem. Spirited Charge on a Half-Celestial young adult silver dragon or 12-headed cryohydra. Powerful beatsticks with amazing SLAs and special abilities, plus core's most powerful damage configuration, blows ranger out of the water.

[Telonius]

In no particular order, here are a few things that (I think) make up a Ranger's "ranger-ness."

- Outdoorsy stuff. Should be able to get along in the wild.
- Tracking. It should know that the orc stopped to scratch its nose by how the blade of grass is bent.
- Hunting. Ranger specializes in stalking a particular sort of monster. It also has skills that benefit scouting and stealth.
- Pet. Ranger has an animal companion.
- Combat style. Ranger is either an archer or a TWF'er, and should be better at this than most (if not all) other classes.

A lot of the Ranger's conceptual problems are a direct result of having its toes stepped on by another Wilderness-y class, the Druid. In my personal houserules, I try to move the Druid in less of a melee direction and more of a spellcasting/shapechanging direction. I use the PHB2 version of Druid. Ranger gets the full Animal Companion progression (like the standard Druid has). I also bump up the power of the weapon style feats generally (TWF scales with each iterative; ITWF lessens the penalty; GTWF removes it altogether. Rapid Shot gets similar treatment).

[Droopy McCool]

No problem. Spirited Charge on a Half-Celestial young adult silver dragon or 12-headed cryohydra. Powerful beatsticks with amazing SLAs and special abilities, plus core's most powerful damage configuration, blows ranger out of the water.

Wha-ha-ha-at? A Half-Celestial Silver Dragon? A 12-headed Cryohydra? What does your PHB look like? Where on earth do you get these from as mounts? The standard mount is a heavy warhorse from what I read, and while "your DM could work with you" and give you a custom mount, I don't think Hydras and Dragons are DM OK'd replacements for the mount. Not mine by a long shot. I said Core anyway. DMG, PHB, MM.


Paladins can do a whole lot more than hit and be hit. They are great at the social game - detect evil is very handy for sussing out potential villains for further interrogation, the skill list has good social skills, TU gets converted into stuff like free movement (Travel Devotion) or flight (Animal Devotion).

Good skills, sure, but try making them all work with no skill points. I'd rather not have to put my 16 into Int just to get the skills buffed. As for "the social game", that will really depend on your character. Roleplay. Fluff. And I don't even want to touch what you've done to turn undead. What Pal can't turn undead?

Everything you said may be rules legit, but requires so much cheese it's disgusting.

It doesn't matter. This is a thread I started to hypothetically make the Ranger better, not argue their worth vs a Paladin's. Everything comes down to preference. Perhaps I should have titled the thread 'Specifically improving the Ranger's spellcasting from garbage to adequate.'

McCool

[Forrestfire]

Wha-ha-ha-at? A Half-Celestial Silver Dragon? A 12-headed Cryohydra? What does your PHB look like? Where on earth do you get these from as mounts? The standard mount is a heavy warhorse from what I read, and while "your DM could work with you" and give you a custom mount, I don't think Hydras and Dragons are DM OK'd replacements for the mount. Not mine by a long shot. I said Core anyway. DMG, PHB, MM.

Everything you just quoted is core. He's referring to an oft-forgotten rule introduced in the Dungeon Master's Guide, on page 204. A paladin can swap out their mount for any suitable creature, which is defined as:



Able and willing to carry its rider in a typical fashion. (A camel is able and willing. A tiger might be capable but may not be willing. A giant might be willing but not truly able.)
At least one size category larger than the character. Also, a flying mount can carry no more than a light load aloft.
The mount’s Challenge Rating should be no more than 3 less than the rider’s character level. If the mount can fly, its Challenge Rating should be no more than 4 less than the rider’s character level.


A paladin who gets a special mount using these rules has a slightly different progression than normal paladins for their special mount abilities. Now, you might say that a hydra might not be willing to carry a paladin, but the list of examples in the DMG lists dire wolves, sharks, and monstrous spiders as viable options for paladins, so I think that that complaint will hold little water. A paladin at level 7 can get themselves a five-headed hydra. A paladin at level 14 can get themselves a 12-headed hydra, or a level 16 one can get a 12-headed cryohydra. This is entirely within the rules. Templated creatures often don't change CR much either, so it's pretty nice for customization.

[LTwerewolf]

Asking to remain core, yet get homebrew to improve rangers when there are already a lot of improvements already published places, then arguing about it. Seems legit. Look: what it comes down to is if you're sticking to core only, all you're doing is ensuring that wizards, clerics, and druids remain top dogs by a huge margin. Other sources might give them more options, but not any options they did not already have in core. Going outside of core does however give other classes the much needed things that make them fun. A single feat entirely changes how paladins function (battle blessing). An alternate class (mystic ranger) with a feat (sword of the arcane order) turns rangers from inept at pretty much anything to pretty decent at whatever they choose to be. There's no reason to ask people to homebrew things that have already been done.

[Droopy McCool]

Everything you just quoted is core. He's referring to an oft-forgotten rule introduced in the Dungeon Master's Guide, on page 204. A paladin can swap out their mount for any suitable creature, which is defined as....A paladin who gets a special mount using these rules has a slightly different progression than normal paladins for their special mount abilities. Now, you might say that a hydra might not be willing to carry a paladin, but the list of examples in the DMG lists dire wolves, sharks, and monstrous spiders as viable options for paladins, so I think that that complaint will hold little water. A paladin at level 7 can get themselves a five-headed hydra. A paladin at level 14 can get themselves a 12-headed hydra, or a level 16 one can get a 12-headed cryohydra. This is entirely within the rules. Templated creatures often don't change CR much either, so it's pretty nice for customization.

I know this is core, but it's still absurd. Any DM I know would say "What, are you kidding?!" to a Hydra or Dragon mount. I know I'll come under fire for having said "Optimize a Paladin with Core only" and then saying it's absurd, but I also said using this is a matter of preference. Sure, I could also say "all I heard are ways to improve the mount" at which point everyone will scream "THE PALADIN ONLY GETS A MOUNT!" Whatever happens now, let it be known, I can optimize, but it kills our fun (my group), so I don't fly around with my Celestial Hydra doing most of the damage.

Also, The whole rule here is at DM discretion. So the point is moot.

McCool

[Bullet06320]

I never cared for spellcasting rangers personally
when I think ranger, I think of Davy Crocket, Daniel Boone, Robin Hood, William Tell, Juble Sackett, frontier or wilderness hunters types, guides, trackers, survivalists and marksmen.
usually for rangers I use the Wildscape book from Legends & Lairs series, it has variant rules for spell less rangers, adding more weapon styles and options

[Droopy McCool]

Asking to remain core, yet get homebrew to improve rangers when there are already a lot of improvements already published places, then arguing about it. Seems legit. Look: what it comes down to is if you're sticking to core only, all you're doing is ensuring that wizards, clerics, and druids remain top dogs by a huge margin. Other sources might give them more options, but not any options they did not already have in core. Going outside of core does however give other classes the much needed things that make them fun. A single feat entirely changes how paladins function (battle blessing). An alternate class (mystic ranger) with a feat (sword of the arcane order) turns rangers from inept at pretty much anything to pretty decent at whatever they choose to be. There's no reason to ask people to homebrew things that have already been done.

And like I said: I did not try to fix Rangers entirely. I was spit-balling, and now it has spun out of control. All I wanted out of this was to see if the Ranger could be improved slightly to accommodate the fact that Ranger's spellcasting is terrible.

[LTwerewolf]

And as had been said here: a ranger spellcasting fix has already been done in the mystic ranger, which incidentally is very friendly towards prestige classes.

[Forrestfire]

More on-topic: the ranger, if you have access to all its options, is pretty much the platonic ideal of Tier 3. Let's look at what they've got in their hands:

Class Features

Full BAB
6+Int mod skill points
1-5 casting (Mystic Ranger ACF, Dr336), starting at 1st level
+X to attack and damage rolls against Favoried Enemies, a fairly decent boost (Solitary Hunting ACF, trades the useless pet for attack boosts, Dr347).
The ability to get their Favored Enemy bonuses against arcane spellcasters, rather than a creature type (Arcane Hunter, CM).
The ability to choose an organization as a Favored Enemy (Dr310. There's also a differently-named version in Cityscape that's pretty bad).
A multitude of bonus feats choices without prerequisites (various splatbooks. Some highlights include Strongarm Style (Power Attack, Improved Sunder, Great Cleave, Dr326) and Mounted Combat Style (Ride-By Attack, Spirited Charge, Trample, Dr326).
Some good choices that trade away combat styles, such as wild shape (Shape-Changing Ranger, UA) and the amazing Moon-Warded Ranger (+Wis to AC, conditional DR, and mind blank that can selectively be turned off on a spell-by-spell basis, Dr340).
Some useful but not great ribbon features, as well as general utility. Hide in Plain Sight is good, but far too late.


Overall, they can do pretty well on their own here. Good but not great. What makes them great is their other options:

Feats

Extra Favored Enemy (Ghostwalk, later errata'd) gives you an extra Favored Enemy, with a +2 bonus to it.
Nemesis (BoED), one of their best feats, lets you sense your chosen type of Favored Enemy within 60 feet (even through walls) and deal +1d6 damage to them. Spellcasters can suck it, Rangers are where the real detection abilities happen. Not blocked by Darkstalker.
Favored Power Attack (CWar) gives you a 1:2 return on Power Attack against one of your Favored Enemies, or 1:3 if you're using a two-handed weapon. Tons of DamageTM.
Intimidate The Enemy (Dr335) lets you demoralize one of your Favored Enemy types as a move action, and adds your Favored Enemy bonus to the check. Not the best, but amazing in the right build (especially because 3.5 demoralize can escalate to Frightened).
Foe Hunter (PGtF) gives you an extra Favored Enemy off a list, based on region. According to Dr319, if you have 2 ranks of Knowledge (Local) at level 1, you can qualify as any region you want (but not a race).
Sword of the Arcane Order (CoV) lets you prepare and cast wizard spells from your ranger slots, starting at generally level 6. You need to buy a spellbook and fill it, but it's amazing for utility.


Magic Items

The Enemy Spirit Pouch (MIC) is 2,100gp and gives you a Favored Enemy you don't have, with a +2 bonus. If you already have that Favored Enemy, it ups your bonus by +2. It also gives a +1 competence bonus on attack rolls against that creature type. This is absolutely amazing, because if you have any idea of what you're fighting, you can buy a bunch then swap them out between combats to get an edge. Alternatively, you can combine them using the item combination rules in that very book.


Prestige Classes

The Master of Many Forms (CDiv) is uniquely suited for rangers, since they get Wild Shape at 5 if they want, and they're much more combative than Druids. Not much to say about it other than shapeshifting being great.
The Stalker of Kharash (BoED) is absolutely amazing and, amusingly, makes rangers into better paladins than a paladin could ever be. Their first level gives you an ability called "scent of evil," which functions like scent except it only smells evil things. Notably, the way they wrote it means that the PrC's later ability that lets them track by evil auras is irrelevant; you can track them by smell instead. Their second level gives you Favored Enemy (Evil), which applies to anything with an evil alignment. It's a Favored Enemy, so you can increase its bonus when you go back to taking levels of normal ranger. Stack on Nemesis (Evil) and you've got an even better evildar than any caster or paladin can get. After your two-level dip to become a holy warrior, go back to ranger to keep progressing Favored Enemy or combat style bonuses.


Overall, the ranger has a ton of options, many of which are quite decent. They're a gish-in-a-can class just like the Duskblade is, and have a multitude of ways to express it, thanks to the bonus feats and potential PrC options they have.


I know this is core, but it's still absurd. Any DM I know would say "What, are you kidding?!" to a Hydra or Dragon mount. I know I'll come under fire for having said "Optimize a Paladin with Core only" and then saying it's absurd, but I also said using this is a matter of preference. Sure, I could also say "all I heard are ways to improve the mount" at which point everyone will scream "THE PALADIN ONLY GETS A MOUNT!" Whatever happens now, let it be known, I can optimize, but it kills our fun (my group), so I don't fly around with my Celestial Hydra doing most of the damage.

Also, The whole rule here is at DM discretion. So the point is moot.

McCool

As a DM who has allowed it, your assertion is patently false. In addition, everything in the game is DM discretion. The existence of PrCs is DM discretion. Splatbooks are DM discretion, but is generally assumed. A paladin not falling by thinking evil thoughts is DM discretion. The rules give the DM the final say on what is and isn't an appropriate mount, then lays down what the game expects to be an appropriate mount. To selectively apply DM discretion because it doesn't suit your preferences doesn't make the point moot, it makes your argument moot.

[Droopy McCool]

And as had been said here: a ranger spellcasting fix has already been done in the mystic ranger, which incidentally is very friendly towards prestige classes.

Up until this point in time, I had never seen the Mystic Ranger. I have no problem utilizing it, but I also might just use what I made. They're practically similar, but mine gets Orisons.

Also, to be clear, I'm not arguing Rangers are bad/good or that Paladins are bad/good. This was merely an exercise to improve something I didn't know had already been done. Nothing more furthering this argument is required, because we're all on the same side here.

McCool

[Florian]

Like the Paladin (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?472329-The-Paladin-Hypothetical-Fix), Ranger spellcasting is garbage. However, I don't think great spellcasting is as big of a deal for them. Obviously, though, they need some help.

Unlike the Paladin, I'm not sure the Ranger needs the Bard's progression to be up there (due to free Combat Style feats for starters) tier-wise. My proposal, then, is to give the Ranger the Adept's spell progression, giving them up to 5th level spells down to 0th, while at a faster rate. The spell list would be a reworked "Ranger spell list" with Druid spells thrown in.

Once again, let me know what you think.

McCool

Like with the Paladin "Fix", take a look at how Pathfinder has reworked the Ranger.
- Added Favored Terrain that works similar to Favored Enemy
- More Ranger Combat Styles to chose from

More important for an 1-4 caster is actually when they access spells and what spells they get. Lower placement on the spell list is practically equal to having access to an expanded spell casting option.
Also, the spell Instant Enemy rocks.

[Seerow]

I feel like others have already covered the benefits of a non-homebrewed Ranger quite well, especially with ACFs. But in case the OP is still looking for a homebrew solution, just going to throw this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?375449-The-Ranger-Revitalized) out there.

[Psyren]

@OP: "Here, have 5ths" would make the Ranger better, sure, but I wouldn't call that a "fix." As Flickerdart stated, you really have to define what you're "fixing" first.

[Flickerdart]

Whatever happens now, let it be known, I can optimize, but it kills our fun (my group), so I don't fly around with my Celestial Hydra doing most of the damage.
"Most of the damage" nothing, you get really good numbers out of charging with a lance, Power Attack, and Spirited Charge.

[Florian]

"Most of the damage" nothing, you get really good numbers out of charging with a lance, Power Attack, and Spirited Charge.

And that is a Ranger to you?

[Flickerdart]

And that is a Ranger to you?
What? No, I'm talking about the paladin, refuting the OP's argument that paladins suck and need their spells, while rangers don't.

[ComaVision]

"Most of the damage" nothing, you get really good numbers out of charging with a lance, Power Attack, and Spirited Charge.

That's far too much cheese, Flickerdart, where's the flavour?!

But honestly OP, 3.5 has been out of print for close to a decade and there are tons of books for the system. Chances are that you'd solve a lot of your perceived problems just by looking outside core. I don't see why you wouldn't when you're considering homebrew.

[Flickerdart]

That's far too much cheese, Flickerdart, where's the flavour?!
Cheese is a great way to add flavor to any dish. Shaved gruyere can spice up even the saddest salad!

Blue text aside, I find that a holy knight wielding a lance on the back of an even holier dragon is heaps more flavorful than a professional hobo with racism for a class feature.

[GilesTheCleric]

Up until this point in time, I had never seen the Mystic Ranger. I have no problem utilizing it, but I also might just use what I made. They're practically similar, but mine gets Orisons.

Also, to be clear, I'm not arguing Rangers are bad/good or that Paladins are bad/good. This was merely an exercise to improve something I didn't know had already been done. Nothing more furthering this argument is required, because we're all on the same side here.

McCool

If you would like a hand on building rangers beyond Forrestfire's excellent post, PM me. I'm currently building one and have some additional sources for even more flexibility. That said, there's still some things I need help with (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?472359-PF-Ranger-Gear), too.

[Droopy McCool]

I will repeat for clarity on how the issue has already been solved.


I did not try to fix Rangers entirely. All I wanted out of this was to see if the Ranger could be improved slightly to accommodate the fact that Ranger's spellcasting is terrible.


To be clear, I'm not arguing Rangers are bad/good or that Paladins are bad/good. This was merely an exercise to improve something I didn't know had already been done.

McCool