Ranger in 3.5 what does it bring to the party?

[huginn]

Hello
I have almost no experience with 3.5 and I will be joining a new group that will be using just the core rules . I didn't care for 3rd when it came out so I just ignored it and I like playing rangers in 1st and 2nd

I was looking at the class and was disappointed and I got the impression that whoever wrote the game had no idea with to do with it. It has lots of skills but so does the rogue. It can track but cant the druid's pet track also

Is the class useless?

[Deeds]

Eh, in core Ranger definitely sucks. They're nice to have when you're out in the woods, making spot checks, or identifying a monster. When combat starts, a puzzle appears, or your party is in town then they're awful.

Play Bard or Rogue if you can't use material outside of core.

[noce]

Compared to a rogue, he has less skills but higher hp, saves, attack bonus.
He lacks sneak attacks but gets free feats to specialize in a fighting style.
On top of that, he has a (little) bit of spellcasting and a (mediocre at best) animal companion.

To summarize, you will be less competent than fighter at fighting, less competent than rogue at sneaking, less competent than a druid at being a druid. You can take the place of one of them if needed (not really true for the druid).
Your strength is versatility.

I think that, in core, ranger is perfectly fine, powerful (not the "caster powerful" kind of course) and fun to play.

[Bucky]

Rangers make good enemy mooks, since they can basically have "favored enemy: you".

[Jormengand]

The class is far from useless, mostly outdoing the fighter at its own job (especially against the ranger's favoured enemies) while bringing a fairly respectable number of skill points to the table as well as spells with a decent range of utility and an animal companion, if not as good an animal companion as a druid. A ranger is rarely at a loss for anything at all to do that contributes, putting you a step ahead of fighters and monks at least.

[Hackulator]

Aragorn-ness?

[Deeds]

The class is far from useless, mostly outdoing the fighter at its own job (especially against the ranger's favoured enemies)

Yeah I'm gonna have to disagree with you there. A typical core half-orc fighter is going to out damage the ranger faster than you can say 2d6+7 and a human fighter scoffs at the idea of two-weapon fighting when you should be trippin' instead.

If we consider multiclassing or mention versatility then yes, the ranger has its niche feat TWF without needing dex and skill points.

[noce]

Do not underestimate your spells. You can buy wands of any spells on your spell list and start swinging them from level 1.

You don't have every spell in the game, but at early levels you can use wands more reliably than a rogue using UMD.

Also, keep in mind that, even if you get free fighting feats, you don't have to use them if you prefer, say, a greataxe.
You can even use a big weapon coupled with a non-hand weapon, like armor spikes.

It's really a pity you don't have access to spells outside core, or swift activated wand of rhino's rush would have been fantastic at early levels.

[Anxe]

If you're doing high optimization, the class is bad. It's only unique feature is favored enemy which doesn't make up for the others being worse than their alternatives. For example, if you're doing animal stuff, druids are better. If you're doing feat stuff, fighters are better (for dipping).

If you're not doing high optimization stuff, the ranger is a fine class as others have said. It can contribute in most any situation and favored enemy provides a little extra umph when needed.

[Zaq]

Count me in on Team Rangers Suck. (Pure-class Rangers, at least.)

As you noted, they don't really have a niche in the party. They can't bring enough damage to the field to be a primary beatstick (even a ranged beatstick). They have skills, but the list is weirdly patchy, and I'd argue that they don't have a broad enough skillset for that to be their primary contribution. Their spells are (with splat support) halfway decent, but an actual Ranger is about the worst class at using Ranger spells, since they get so bloody few of them and they come so bloody late. Their other class features are either extremely narrow in scope (Wild Empathy, Favored Enemy, etc.), hopelessly nerfed (Animal Companion), or way too late to matter (Evasion & similar).

Wild Shape Ranger is a little better, since clever use of Wild Shape plugs a lot of gaps (even with their limitations). And there are a couple other ACFs that are decent, but none that I'd want to base a character around.

I admit that the numbers on the chassis are very nice (full BAB, d8 HD, two good saves, 6 + INT skills), but I find that pure-class Rangers just end up being disappointing. It's very much a "it's very nice, but what does it do?" kind of class. Multiclassing helps—Swift Hunter gives them a combat niche, if nothing else.

[Jowgen]

Core-only it's only really worthwhile if optimization levels are low or if you know it's going to be a very Favored-Enemy-type-creature specific campaign. Beyond than that, it can make a decent 2 level dip in some martial builds.

However, if everything is on the table, then that's a different story. Rangers have no shortage of alternative class features, especially in Dragon mag, that allow them to fill a large range of roles. Mystic Ranger variant to capitalize on nifty ranger spells. Swift Hunter feat builds for a Skirmish build. Alternative Fighting styles to e.g. get Power Attack without having to meet prerequesites. Trapexpert to take the Trap-Monkey role of the rogue. Urban Companion for Familiar Cheese. And with the right ACFs and obscure items you can get Favored Enemy up into double digits for damage, to hit and saves against most stuff.

So basically, Ranger can be a rewarding specialist if you have the resources and put the work in.

[Zaq]

So basically, Ranger can be a rewarding specialist if you have the resources and put the work in.

The cheeky part of me demands to comment that the same is true of Truenamers. (Though I will grant you that Mystic Ranger, if on the table, is a marked increase in power/usefulness. Particularly with Wild Shape, though I forget if those variants are compatible.)

[AnimeTheCat]

Ignore the naysayers. Play a ranger. Pick up exotic weapon proficiency: net. Use said net to capture pokemon, I mean monsters. Use wild empathy to bring them to friendly. Use handle animal to train them. Once you hit level 4 start preparing or using a wand of speak with animals. Start using free actions to command your army of free, personally trained animals and magical beasts (2 or 1 int).

Druids can do it, sure, but you can do it better as you only need 14 wisdom for all of your spells. You can stand to enhance your charisma a bit.

[Goaty14]

The rangers have a hunter niche, especially with the camouflage and hide in plain sight class features.

This (which is just about the only good thing about it) is easily outplayed by the wilderness rogue(UA) (Rogue + Camouflage/Hide in Plain Sight as tricks).

From a optimization standpoint, I would enter Ranger for 1 of 2 reasons.
1.Bonus feats: A 1 level dip in ranger gets you Track and Endurance as bonus feats, another level gets the first combat style feat. (Note that the 1st level feats ARE NOT fighter bonus feats)
2. UA wildshape ranger. Yea, thats all.

As a DM, I would use rangers as NPCs because their combat style doesn't have to meet prerequisites. Yes the fighter would have more feats by the time you finish your combat style, but can a 10 dex fighter get greater TWF?

[rel]

ranger is pretty lacklustre.

They have a fighting style so like the other martials they are limited to a specific weapon to use.

If you lose your special weapon or fight something with a defense you are not contributing.

On top of that you have favored enemies but not many of them. You rely on the bonus damage to make your fighting style work.

So you can only contribute in a particular style of fight vs a particular type of opponent.

Basically, your contribution in combat is as easy to distrupt as the rogues. Which in a core only game is very easy.

One of the only times a core only ranger is worth considering is if the campaign has a theme that results in almost all monsters being of one type so you always get your favored enemy bonuses.

[Telonius]

They're a great dipping class for Rogue. A single level will get you +1 BAB, proficiency in all martial weapons, proficiency in shields (except tower shields), slightly higher hp, better Fort save, Track, Wild Empathy, a Favored Enemy, and a spell list so you don't have to UMD wands of Cure Light Wounds. All that for the price of 2 skill points. Two levels will get you another free feat (TWF) that your Rogue will likely want. While this becomes less impressive the more sources besides Core are allowed, I'd still put it above Fighter for swapping out that useless last level of Rogue.

[Eldariel]

It's great for gishes. Basically no reason to run a Fighter/Wizard when a Ranger/Wizard has about 16 more skillpoints and a better list and the ability to use Ranger-wands (CLW & al.). All in exchange for 2 HP, and medium/heavy armor prof that you'll never use except for Spellsword qualification.

Already the ability to use Scrolls of CLW over Potions is worth it. And level 2 gets you Rapid Shot without prerequisites, saving you an extra feat. Favored Enemy, Wild Enpathy and company are just bonuses (with some nice ACFs). Let alone if you can use Elf ranger sub [RotW] for 8+Int points.

[Zanos]

I think rangers get a bad reputation because both of their built in fighting styles are weak. But a Ranger with a great sword has the same chassis as a fighter. Subtract bonus feats and add an animal companion, some okay support casting, 6+int skills from a much better list, and favored enemy. I think you've got something that can fight as good as a fighter while being useful elsewhere.

If you can take the THF combat style it's pretty good I would say.

[Gruftzwerg]

In core, the best what a Ranger has is the ability to dump Dex, max Str and get the TWF feats from his combat style. Other than that, I would probably stick to any other class and theme/fluff it more ranger-like. There is nothing wrong being a rogue, barb, druid or even a paldin/cleric of the right deity and pretend to be ranger.

Imho, look for the abilities/skills you need and where (class) you get it. Than tailor a build and call it however you like it.

[Eldariel]

In core, the best what a Ranger has is the ability to dump Dex, max Str and get the TWF feats from his combat style. Other than that, I would probably stick to any other class and theme/fluff it more ranger-like. There is nothing wrong being a rogue, barb, druid or even a paldin/cleric of the right deity and pretend to be ranger.

I don't like any Dex dump Rangers; they only have the option of light armor to use their abilities, leaving their AC very low without Dex.

However, they get free archery and great skillpoints for full BAB so two-handed/archery Ranger is superversatile with good spells, Fighter-level combat and almost Rogue-level skills. Very strong overall; just use Guisarme and Longbow and decent stats (dip Barbarian for speed, Fighter for feats as desired). Animal Companion can at least tank'n'flank and perhaps Aid Another. Mounted Combat with Lance and Bow too.

It's still martial but better than the rest of the pack, save Barbarian (decent skills, great combat prowess).

[Celestia]

The Ranger can serve as a decoy to make enemies think there is an extra member of the party. This especially works well if you dress it up as a wizard and have it pretend to cast spells. It can soak damage while your real party members do the work.

[eggynack]

Druids can do it, sure, but you can do it better as you only need 14 wisdom for all of your spells. You can stand to enhance your charisma a bit.
This doesn't really sound like doing it better to me. Especially since I strongly suspect druids can get higher wild empathy if so inclined. Half-orc druid substitution levels are sweet. Turn into a bog standard black bear and you have 19 strength, which bully animal makes your main stat for wild empathy purposes. This is pretty clearly not the furthest one can optimize strength, and yet I doubt rangers are typically going to match that number. They're pretty clearly better at netting animals too. Handle animal is a bit less trivial, but you could always eschew the half-orc plan to use shifter stuff. You get a straight up +4 to both things at first level from the substitution levels.

[DEMON]

First of all, its 3.5 so you don't need to only consider Ranger 20 vs Fighter 20 vs Wizard 20 etc. Multiclassing is right there for the taking, so you can somewhat cherry-pick the abilities of various classes, then move on to Prestige Classes.

Secondly, disregarding the full-casting powerhouses, a Ranger is not much better or worse than many other classes in core-only environment. The chassis itself is decent and the class features, while not overly impressive, are comparable to what other classes in the book get.

Also, while many ACFs are not available in core, depending on the definition of core, a wildshape Ranger might be available. That's not a bad option at all and provides a ton of utility for the class.

[AnimeTheCat]

This doesn't really sound like doing it better to me. Especially since I strongly suspect druids can get higher wild empathy if so inclined. Half-orc druid substitution levels are sweet. Turn into a bog standard black bear and you have 19 strength, which bully animal makes your main stat for wild empathy purposes. This is pretty clearly not the furthest one can optimize strength, and yet I doubt rangers are typically going to match that number. They're pretty clearly better at netting animals too. Handle animal is a bit less trivial, but you could always eschew the half-orc plan to use shifter stuff. You get a straight up +4 to both things at first level from the substitution levels.

2 things played a factor here. I was really tired and about to fall asleep so I wasn't particularly coherent and I was only thinking within core/SRD only. In this sense, making sure you have 5+ ranks in Handle Animal and having a potentially higher charisma makes it possible for you to out wild empathy the druid from a very early point since the half-orc sub levels aren't available within this restriction.


Also, a quick look at "bully animal" (is this PF? I can't find anything 3.5 on it so I assumed intimidate?) would still tie that to charisma, not strength meaning your bog standard black bear is still getting the same ability added to the intimidate check.

[Darrin]

A typical core half-orc fighter is going to out damage the ranger faster than you can say 2d6+7 and a human fighter scoffs at the idea of two-weapon fighting when you should be trippin' instead.


My suggested build for a Core Ranger combines THF with IUS as an offhand attack:

Race: Orc
Ability Scores: Str > Con > Dex > Int > Wis > Cha
Weapons: Greatsword/Unarmed Strike
1) Ranger 1. Feat: Improved Unarmed Strike, Bonus: Track
2) Ranger 2. Bonus: TWF.
3) Ranger 3. Feat: Power Attack, Bonus: Endurance.
4) Ranger 4.
5) Ranger 5.
6) Ranger 6. Feat: Cleave, Bonus: Improved TWF
7) Ranger 7.
8) Ranger 8.
9) Ranger 9. Feat: Improved Critical: Greatsword.
10) Ranger 10.
11) Ranger 11. Bonus: Greater TWF.
12) Ranger 12. Feat: Improved Natural Attack: Unarmed Strike.
13) Ranger 13.
14) Ranger 14.
15) Ranger 15. Feat: WF Greatsword.
16) Ranger 16.
17) Ranger 17.
18) Ranger 18. Feat: WF Unarmed Strike.
19) Ranger 19.
20) Ranger 20.

The only thing the Core Fighter really has on the Ranger would be Weapon Specialization/Greater Weapon Specialization... so you're lagging behind maybe +4 damage or so, which you can make up for if those offhand unarmed strikes hit. Attack bonus lags a little, what with the -2 TWF penalty, but depending on the opponent's AC you may get more "quantity" over "quality" hits.

What the Ranger has over the Fighter in Core is more utility: skill points and some limited spellcasting. When it comes to doing things outside of "I hit it harder", the Ranger really shines with 6 skill points per level and a decent selection of class skills. They can be top-notch sneakers, spotters, and still have some skill points left over for things like Jump, Handle Animal, Survival, etc. Spell slots are meh but where they really stand out are spell-trigger/spell-completion items: 750 GP for a wand of CLW makes you a decent backup healer, wand of entangle gives you some BFC, and every so often a commune with nature will shake out a "DM Clue-By-Four".

Archery-based Rangers have all the problems of any archery-based build in 3E: low damage output, boned by DR, no encounters at longer ranges, extremely item-dependent. You will either get enough loot to afford a high-damage bow and do well as an archer, or you won't and will suffer through the feelings of inadequacy all archers go through.

There are a few klunker abilities in the Core Ranger: Track is either useless or a "Detect Obvious" ability. Favored Enemy tends to be useful for 1-3 levels and then the DM "forgets" to use that type of enemy ever again, or the damage bonus is wasted on what is now cannon-fodder. Trying to use Camouflage/HiPS without a thorough understanding of the Hide rules can be extremely confusing.

Overall, though, Rangers can stand toe-to-toe with the fighters and still be good at a few other things that don't involve "I hit stuff with sharp objects".

The other advantage to Rangers in Core is it's a good starting point for Saph's Horizon Tripper (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?80415-The-Horizon-Tripper-(Core-Melee-Build)), which is a solid Core-only build that gives you a few more interesting things to do than a standard Fighter/Ranger meatbag.

[Grod_The_Giant]

It's somewhat unfocused, to be sure, but it's not bad. You can't do thief stuff like the Rogue, but that also means you don't have pressure to invest in Search/Disable Device/Open Lock, so your skill points balance out to "about as good as it gets." Your BAB is good; you don't get as many bonus feats as the Fighter, but the ones you do get are good (especially on the archery side), and if you don't get many spells you can load up with wands and scrolls. They're pretty good all-arounders, as far as Core classes go. And they lead right into Horizon Walker, which is one of (maybe the?) better non-caster PrCs in core. I'd much rather play a Core Ranger than a Core Fighter, maybe even a Core Barbarian.


Yeah I'm gonna have to disagree with you there. A typical core half-orc fighter is going to out damage the ranger faster than you can say 2d6+7 and a human fighter scoffs at the idea of two-weapon fighting when you should be trippin' instead.

If we consider multiclassing or mention versatility then yes, the ranger has its niche feat TWF without needing dex and skill points.
Meh. There aren't enough good feats in core for the Fighter to have a meaningful advantage. I mean, you're talking what, Power Attack, Combat Expertise, Improved Trip? Point-Blank/Precise/Rapid Shot? Anyone can get those by level 6, or by level 3 if they're a human. I'd rather have the Ranger's skills and spells than a few extra Weapon Focuses. And they can make fine THFs, either with unarmed strikes like Darrin suggests or with armor spikes.

[eggynack]

Also, a quick look at "bully animal" (is this PF? I can't find anything 3.5 on it so I assumed intimidate?) would still tie that to charisma, not strength meaning your bog standard black bear is still getting the same ability added to the intimidate check.
Bully animal is the first half-orc druid substitution level from races of destiny. It swaps strength in for charisma for the purposes of wild empathy. Pretty sweet.

[AnimeTheCat]

Bully animal is the first half-orc druid substitution level from races of destiny. It swaps strength in for charisma for the purposes of wild empathy. Pretty sweet.

Oh... That is pretty neat. I usually run as a houserule that the attribute used during intimidation is either strength or charisma, depending on how you're doing it. If you're flexing your muscles during a staredown, strength. If you're whispering in someone's ear that if they don't stand down you're going to make sure that they get to watch all of their relatives/friends die in front of them, charisma.

Pretty neat ability though.

[ATHATH]

The Mystic Ranger (gives you an accelerated spell progression) and Wild Shape Ranger (gives you the ability to Wild Shape) ACFs/variants combined with the Sword of the Arcane Order (lets you use your spell slots to cast Wizard spells) and Natural Spell (lets you complete the verbal and somatic components of spells while Wild Shaped) feats makes for a pretty darn good pseudo-Druid build.

Alternatively, for less cheesiness, take the Arcane Hunter ACF, which lets you replace your first Favored Enemy with Favored Enemy (Arcanists). Note that taking this ACF does not mean that your character hates arcanists; only that he has learned how to (properly) fight them (probably because he respects their power).

[ATHATH]

Combining the Mystic Ranger (gives you an accelerated spell progression) and Wild Shape Ranger (gives you the ability to Wild Shape) ACFs/variants with the Sword of the Arcane Order (lets you use your spell slots to cast Wizard spells) and Natural Spell (lets you complete the verbal and somatic components of spells while Wild Shaped) feats makes for a pretty darn good pseudo-Druid build.

Alternatively, for less cheesiness, take the Arcane Hunter ACF, which lets you replace your first Favored Enemy with Favored Enemy (Arcanists). Note that taking this ACF does not mean that your character hates arcanists; only that he has learned how to (properly) fight them (probably because he respects their power).

[Endarire]

A Ranger with access to all sources can make a great solo character. (See this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?444354-3-5-Alternative-Class-Features-(ported-from-Wizards-community-boards)).)

This means swapping Track for Trap Expert, base class for Mystic Ranger, going Sword of the Arcane Order (and possibly multiclassing at level 3 for a Wizard level to qualify for the "Dragon" 336 feat Greyhawk Method), and also possibly swapping Combat Style for Wild Shape. Remember, Fleshrakers are Medium Animals and venomfire is a Ranger4 spell. <cackle>

But if we're talking a 'stock' Ranger, they're a means of getting 2 good saves, 6+INT mod skill points, full BAB, and some dippable features into a buncha builds. I'd rather just be a full caster much or most of the time.

[Eldariel]

But if we're talking a 'stock' Ranger, they're a means of getting 2 good saves, 6+INT mod skill points, full BAB, and some dippable features into a buncha builds. I'd rather just be a full caster much or most of the time.

If you compare it to the other full BAB Core classes though, it fares fine. Way better than the Fighter or the Paladin and comparable with the Barbarian in many regards. A bit behind the Rogue, perhaps, but full BAB, higher hit die, and spells have their uses. If we had to play a Core-only game with just non-casters, the Ranger and the Barbarian would most likely rock the house (Pally can work with extremely high ability scores).

[Grod_The_Giant]

Combining the Mystic Ranger (gives you an accelerated spell progression) and Wild Shape Ranger (gives you the ability to Wild Shape) ACFs/variants with the Sword of the Arcane Order (lets you use your spell slots to cast Wizard spells) and Natural Spell (lets you complete the verbal and somatic components of spells while Wild Shaped) feats makes for a pretty darn good pseudo-Druid build.

A Ranger with access to all sources can make a great solo character. (See this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?444354-3-5-Alternative-Class-Features-(ported-from-Wizards-community-boards)).)

Perhaps a shame that the OP is talking about core-only stuff, huh?

[Psyren]

In 3.5 core, not much, but that's mostly because other classes exist. On its own it stacks up fairly well against the stuff in the monster manual at CR-relevant levels.

*cue Ranger 20 vs. Balor threads*

[Deeds]

The real question is 20 Balor sizes level 1 Rangers

vs

1 Ranger sized magic-less Balor with 20 levels in Monk

[Soranar]

In core only, an horizon tripper build is based around a ranger if I remember correctly

but an open to all books ranger is a much better option

-your useless animal companion can be traded for a familiar (with better HD, skills and abilities)
-track can be traded for disarm trap and search
-your combat style can be traded for wildshape

-at early levels a fleshraker is a great form to use
-at later levels (13+ I think) a legendary ape is a 30 STR medium animal that can wield weapons) letting you ignore your physical stats
-wildshape feats (like aberrant wildshape) really expands your abilities
-sword of the arcane order gives you access to spells like alter self and polymorph if wildshape isn't an option

a 3 level dip in scout can make you a very decent damage dealer via swift hunter

you have access to very good spells as a normal ranger too

-entangle
-hunter's eye
-all the archery spells
-vigor (to heal outside combat)

education + knowledge devotion turns you x6 skillpoints into damage vs anything while using any weapon

finally you have access to pretty decent PrC like a master of many forms

[Jormengand]

*cue Ranger 20 vs. Balor threads*

Nope! Psyren, out! You have ruined everything!

Seriously, though, we should be spared more threads on that.

[Eldariel]

In core only, an horizon tripper build is based around a ranger if I remember correctly

but an open to all books ranger is a much better option

-your useless animal companion can be traded for a familiar (with better HD, skills and abilities)

While weak, it's generally decent as a free mount you don't mind losing and that at least somewhat scales. It has no combat potential but decent movement speed, good control (free action handling) and you can use it for cover while mounted and special senses and such. Pure utility but not quite worthless like it is as an independent fighter.

[DEMON]

*cue Ranger 20 vs. Balor threads*

But... shouldn't it be Pit Fiend?

[Jormengand]

But... shouldn't it be Pit Fiend?

I mentioned balors in another thread, and so of course the fighter apologists gathered their pitchforks bows with tailor-made ammunition, only slightly different tailor-made ammunition, to prove they could totally take a balor!

(Spoiler alert, they couldn't).

[mabriss lethe]

In core, Favored Enemy is pretty much the only source of bonus damage that applies to things immune to Sneak Attack. Every time I've built a core ranger, I usually focus on the things the rogue can't really hurt and then work as a tag team. (frequently starting with Undead, since it's a common enough creature type custom built to give rogues problems) I'm also fond of going for ranged fighting style and relying on a two handed weapon in melee, since it increases flexibility and overall damage potential vs twf.

[Zaq]

In core, Favored Enemy is pretty much the only source of bonus damage that applies to things immune to Sneak Attack. Every time I've built a core ranger, I usually focus on the things the rogue can't really hurt and then work as a tag team. (frequently starting with Undead, since it's a common enough creature type custom built to give rogues problems) I'm also fond of going for ranged fighting style and relying on a two handed weapon in melee, since it increases flexibility and overall damage potential vs twf.

I recognize that undead are super common and all, but I still cringe a little bit at the idea of making a character who primarily shines only when they get to serve as a hard counter to a monster that's intended to hard-counter another player (and who doesn't get the nice numbers at other times). Something about that just seems unreasonably niche. That said, I've always hated Favored Enemy in general, so I don't pretend to be objective.

[rel]

Leaving aside the fact that damage is rarely the problem, even in core a two handing fighter does at least as much damage as soon as haste becomes available.
Also power attack damage is more reliable and plays much better with buffs.

[mabriss lethe]

I recognize that undead are super common and all, but I still cringe a little bit at the idea of making a character who primarily shines only when they get to serve as a hard counter to a monster that's intended to hard-counter another player (and who doesn't get the nice numbers at other times). Something about that just seems unreasonably niche. That said, I've always hated Favored Enemy in general, so I don't pretend to be objective.

It's not like that's all they can do. If, for example, we're talking about the ranger I outlined above. Power attack and related feats are available options to utilize for normal combat and can be brought online fairly early on. They have some limited casting that includes basic buffs, healing, some BFC. They can acquire and utilize minions in the form of animals and summons. SNA4 nets a Unicorn, which is a pretty solid healer even when a ranger gets access to it. So yeah, in core they can function as a fairly competent combat generalist and backup healer with a slight magic edge in other areas and access to everything that the Handle Animal skill can bring to the table. Oh, and they're good at killing zombies (or whatever)

[stanprollyright]

Ranger is a nice generalist class. I prefer them to Fighters because they have more skills and utility options, and to Rogues because they are more reliable in combat. They make decent archers who can pull out a greatsword when needed, and decent str-based TWFers because they don't need to meet dex requirements. They won't be breaking any damage records, but they fight just fine, can use the CLW wand, scout ahead, guide you through the wilderness, etc.
Favored Enemy gets a lot of flak for being situational, but I find that "favored enemy: human" is pretty much always useful. Undead are pretty common across all levels as well, and dragons are fairly common in many campaigns, and are often boss fights.

Outside of core they can do all sorts of shenanigans: wild shape, cast wizard spells, do crazy damage with swift hunter, take a feat to boost their animal companion into being worth a damn in combat...