Ranger = Crappiest Class?

[BlueWitch]

Not trying to be mean, but don't you guys think the Ranger is pretty lackluster?

After the first level or two I say just play a Fighter.
And if you were in it for the Animal Companion, why not just play a Druid?

Overall it feels like the weakest class in the game in my opinion.

I think what would fix it is if it got "Class Only" Special Abilities to go with each Fighting Style.
And an Increase on Damage to Favored Enemies over time. (+2, then later +4, then +8, etc.) Or the Crit Multiplier against them increasing over time. (x3 to x4, x5, etc.)

What are your thoughts?

[JNAProductions]

Not trying to be mean, but don't you guys think the Ranger is pretty lackluster?

After the first level or two I say just play a Fighter.
And if you were in it for the Animal Companion, why not just play a Druid?

Overall it feels like the weakest class in the game in my opinion.

I think what would fix it is if it got "Class Only" Special Abilities to go with each Fighting Style.
And an Increase on Damage to Favored Enemies over time. (+2, then later +4, then +8, etc.)

What are your thoughts?

Commoner. Warrior. Samurai.

Bad class? Maybe. Worst? No.

[MisterKaws]

The spells somewhat help it, but Fighter/Consecrated Harrier is usually superior in most aspects regarding that.

[pabelfly]

I think Ranger is a pretty decent class. 6 + INT for skills and Full BAB is pretty rare, and class skills aren't too bad. You can also get TWF and its upgrades without having to pump DEX to meet prereqs.

You can also do some nice things with a Ranger base like Swift Hunter and Stalker of Kharash.

It's also a lot better than fighter because Ranger gets access to Ranger spells.

[Psyren]

Not even in 3.5 I would say; the chassis is all right, and, being a core class, they got a ton of support over multiple splats. And then you throw in class options like Mystic Ranger or Sword of the Arcane Order, and they easily eclipse most other martial classes. But even without that they can be optimized fairly well (for a martial class.)

[ExLibrisMortis]

Ranger has full base attack, good skills, some spellcasting, access to Sword of the Arcane Order, FE (arcanists) + Nemesis, Swift Hunter, and a host of ACFs. It's not a druid, but it's a whole lot better than some. Granted, like all martials, it's particularly lackluster in core, but so is the fighter, or the monk, or the barbarian.

[liquidformat]

Echoing the others here also two good saves, and repeating they have some very powerful acfs, besides mystic ranger and sword of arcane order, there is also wild shape ranger which is very powerful for a lot of builds.

[noob]

In core only the ranger is better than a fighter due to their cool stuff(bonus feats can not replace cool stuff in core only games)
if you start throwing in all the manuals then rangers gets a ton of super good options making them outshine any straight fighter build.

[Biggus]

I'd say Monk is probably the weakest core class. At least the Ranger gets full BAB.

Having said that, I do give the Ranger some improvements when I DM, mostly imported from PF:

- animal companion is as Druid level -3 instead of half Druid level

- similarly caster level is class level -3 rather than half class level (otherwise they're extremely vulnerable to dispelling at high levels)

- use PF version of Power Attack where you can use it with light weapons

- d10 HD

[heavyfuel]

Here's the thing: If you're running a core only game and it's not a campaign where one particular kind of enemy is going to be present routinely, the Ranger does suck.

In core you're limited to two of the worst forms of combat, TWF and Archery, though both got some love in supplementals. Also, Dragon magazine gave some better options of combat style. In core you're also limited to crappy spell casting, since most good ranger spells are in Spell Compendium. The lack of ACFs means you can't get trapfinding, so despite having 6+int skill points, you're still no substitute for the party Rogue.

Overall, the Ranger is only a decent class in core if your group is both in need of a 5th man, AND playing a campaign against a particular enemy. That's a very niche market.

However, if you start to include things outside of Core, the Ranger does get significant love, and it becomes a very valuable asset, not only by getting better spells and ACFs. Swift Hunter builds are popular for a reason, and most people only dip Scout for the pre-req but stay in Ranger for the rest of their career.

I consider the Ranger a solid Tier 3 class, though most of the Forum doesn't seem to agree.

[noob]

Here's the thing: If you're running a core only game and it's not a campaign where one particular kind of enemy is going to be present routinely, the Ranger does suck.

In core you're limited to two of the worst forms of combat, TWF and Archery, though both got some love in supplementals. Also, Dragon magazine gave some better options of combat style. In core you're also limited to crappy spell casting, since most good ranger spells are in Spell Compendium. The lack of ACFs means you can't get trapfinding, so despite having 6+int skill points, you're still no substitute for the party Rogue.

Overall, the Ranger is only a decent class in core if your group is both in need of a 5th man, AND playing a campaign against a particular enemy. That's a very niche market.

However, if you start to include things outside of Core, the Ranger does get significant love, and it becomes a very valuable asset, not only by getting better spells and ACFs. Swift Hunter builds are popular for a reason, and most people only dip Scout for the pre-req but stay in Ranger for the rest of their career.

I consider the Ranger a solid Tier 3 class, though most of the Forum doesn't seem to agree.

Nothing forbids you from using a two handed weapon and taking power attack with your core only ranger: getting those weapon style bonus feats is not locking you.
essentially your ranger can quickly be a fighter but with spells.

[heavyfuel]

Nothing forbids you from using a two handed weapon and taking power attack with your core only ranger: getting those weapon style bonus feats is not locking you.
essentially your ranger can quickly be a fighter but with spells.

Oh, for sure. As a matter of fact, if you're dead set on going melee, you should definitely do that. Still sucks that you have to throw away three levels worth of class features *ahem* bonus feats for it.

[DrMotives]

Nothing forbids you from using a two handed weapon and taking power attack with your core only ranger: getting those weapon style bonus feats is not locking you.
essentially your ranger can quickly be a fighter but with spells.

True, but when you have a class feature that you aren't using, it feels like waste unless you have an ACF to swap it for. People will be bothered by things like that on their character sheet, and won't want to play a character like that.

[Psyren]

Oh, for sure. As a matter of fact, if you're dead set on going melee, you should definitely do that. Still sucks that you have to throw away three levels worth of class features *ahem* bonus feats for it.

I think noob's point though is that if you're core-only, monk and fighter are distinctly worse than Ranger, so it's still not the "crappiest."

[Ramza00]

Make it a 6 level spellcasting class like the bard (same spells per day) with the current ranger list + the druid list. Make it have full caster level for these spells. (Some individual spells will need to be tweaked due to caster level change and earlier access.)

The animal companion you get at 4th and are behind a Ranger is inferior to the "Wild Cohort" feat so just give Ranger at 4th the Wild Cohort and if the Ranger wants to upgrade the AC further allow him to take a feat to use the druid rules for the Animal Companion. (It is not worth it for the AC that Wild Cohort gives is already 90% of the way for the Druid, so unless you want the higher level forms of your Animal Companion it is not worth a feat when there are so many awesome feats to choose from.)

-----

Most of what I said above will benefit Ranger at later levels and not for the first 6 levels. e6 pretty much illustrated that a Ranger can be better than other classes if you allow some of the Ranger substitution options on the Ranger chassis.

Making Ranger a 6 level spellcasting class like the bard also makes sense for a bard has two good saves, 6+ skillpoints, and 3/4 BAB. Now a Ranger has Full BAB and d10 vs d6 with hitpoints but when a Bard does inspire courage the benefits of Full BAB vs 3/4 BAB go away unless we are talking specific attacks at certain levels and the Bard's IC also benefits the party. Furthermore the d10 vs d6 hitpoints is not a big of a deal for the Ranger is going to be in the face of the enemy so the 2 extra hit points per hit dice will quickly be swallowed up by the fact the Ranger is going to be hit far more often.

And the skill choices a Ranger gets compared to a Bard is inferior. Pretty much a Bard with Wild Cohort as one of its feats is better than the 3.5 Ranger, but they are roughly equal (but more specialized) with the suggestions I made above.

[liquidformat]

Oh, for sure. As a matter of fact, if you're dead set on going melee, you should definitely do that. Still sucks that you have to throw away three levels worth of class features *ahem* bonus feats for it.

So just to point it out to you, core only doesn't prevent me from say wearing armor spikes and wielding a two handed weapon to use for two-weapon fighting. Or taking unarmed strike to use in conjunction with a two handed weapon so both your attacks benefit from power attack. I have standardly used both of these methods and done quite well.

[heavyfuel]

So just to point it out to you, core only doesn't prevent me from say wearing armor spikes and wielding a two handed weapon to use for two-weapon fighting. Or taking unarmed strike to use in conjunction with a two handed weapon so both your attacks benefit from power attack. I have standardly used both of these methods and done quite well.

I always forget about armor spikes. They're just too silly for me to ever bother remembering them :smallsigh:

As for US - and this is an honest question - do you feel like it's worth a feat and taking the -2 TWF penalty to deal 1d3+Str extra damage? Outside of core it might be nice with Superior US and Snap Kick, but I think in a core only game it's just not worth the trouble.

[liquidformat]

I always forget about armor spikes. They're just too silly for me to ever bother remembering them :smallsigh:

As for US - and this is an honest question - do you feel like it's worth a feat and taking the -2 TWF penalty to deal 1d3+Str extra damage? Outside of core it might be nice with Superior US and Snap Kick, but I think in a core only game it's just not worth the trouble.

So remember monk's belt is core and increases you unarmed strike damage (1d8 for non-monk) and you still receive this damage enhancement even if you are wearing armor. Also although I am not sure if this is RAW (so I didn't mention it earlier) but I have never had an issue with my DMs using the assumption that monk's belt gives you IUS. So using armor spikes until you can shell out enough for monks belt isn't a horrible choice.

On a side note what is your dislike of armor spikes?

[Eldariel]

Ranger is probably the second best PHB martial behind the Barbarian. This puts it ahead of the Fighter, Monk & Paladin. Getting tons of skills off a good list, eventual HiPS, a nice spell list (with splats), full BAB and full proficiencies, and easy access to secondary ranged combat without burning a feat on PBS. FE is situationally useful (the skill bonuses are nice, the damage...you'll take it) and the AC is still an expendable, free underling with all that entails (from the lowkey uses like flanking, Aid Another, etc. and strategic uses like scouting, carrying stuffs, mount, etc.). Wild Empathy expands your underling influence pool further.

Overall, I'd say Ranger is a rather well-rounded class that gets everything a martial might want aside from Heavy Armor Prof. Skills and some skill boosters alongside the spells help with the non-combat role where martiald traditionally have issues with and the full BAB + full proficiencies is generally plenty for standard one-trick two-handing. The list even includes Rhino's Rush to this end.

[heavyfuel]

On a side note what is your dislike of armor spikes?

From a fluff standpoint, like I said, they're silly. Nothing else particularly noteworthy. I guess I could say that almost no one in the history of armors ever used an armor full of spikes should be pretty good indicator that they don't really work, kind of like boob armor we too often see in female character armor.

As from a mechanical standpoint, they're gimmicky. You get this piece of metal that is part of your armor, but not really. It's totally a piece of your armor, unless your armor is magical, in which case, it isn't. It's part of your armor, but can be sundered, unlike your armor. It also allows for a lot of cheese like tacking on a bunch of weapon enchantments you don't want on your main weapon like Defending and Warning

[Doctor Awkward]

No.

Even in core only ranger is a solid chassis. d8 hit dice. Lots of skill points with a decent list. Access to divine spells. Full BAB and good class proficiency list. Excellent selection of free feats regardless of your chosen specialty. Access to an animal companion is also a huge plus. That druid is unquestionably better in this department is an argument for the broken-ness of druids, not the crappiness of rangers.

The crappiest core class is monk.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

Oh, for sure. As a matter of fact, if you're dead set on going melee, you should definitely do that. Still sucks that you have to throw away three levels worth of class features *ahem* bonus feats for it.

Throw in another feat for Improved Unarmed Strike (or just tank the opportunity attacks, but that seems unwise) and you can use all those TWF feats with your greatsword. Your unarmed strikes even benefit from Power Attack. Alternatively, use armor spikes as the offhand weapon, but then you lose the Power Attack bonus damage (saves you a feat, though).

[Dimers]

I too feel that armor spikes are disbelief-inducing, but a spiked gauntlet is more reasonable. And in my experience, few DMs take issue with removing one hand from a 2H weapon in order to smack somebody (or manipulate a spell component).

[RNightstalker]

From a fluff standpoint, like I said, they're silly. Nothing else particularly noteworthy. I guess I could say that almost no one in the history of armors ever used an armor full of spikes should be pretty good indicator that they don't really work, kind of like boob armor we too often see in female character armor.

As from a mechanical standpoint, they're gimmicky. You get this piece of metal that is part of your armor, but not really. It's totally a piece of your armor, unless your armor is magical, in which case, it isn't. It's part of your armor, but can be sundered, unlike your armor. It also allows for a lot of cheese like tacking on a bunch of weapon enchantments you don't want on your main weapon like Defending and Warning

You're forgetting the Gutbuster Brigade!:tongue:

[Eldariel]

Armor Spikes as a grapple weapon makes some sense but armor spikes as a standard weapon is more than a bit odd :smallconfused:

[Anthrowhale]

Ranger is plausibly the best full-BAB core class primarily because they have good skills unlike every other full-BAB core class. Unless the DM is ignoring Spot/Listen/Hide/Move Silently rules, the ability to control whether or not you have an engagement is hugely helpful for both personal and party survivability.

[RNightstalker]

As with most classes, depending on the setting, campaign, and party structure, the answer to the original question will vary.

[Deadline]

I too feel that armor spikes are disbelief-inducing, but a spiked gauntlet is more reasonable. And in my experience, few DMs take issue with removing one hand from a 2H weapon in order to smack somebody (or manipulate a spell component).

Spiked armor as displayed in the PHB is silly, but using a spiked vambrace or pauldron as a weapon is less so. The ever-so common "body-check" attack seen in a variety of media could easily be improved by body-checking with a spike.

Using Unarmed Strike to hit with kicks is also a classic, but less effective than armor spikes without splat support or magic items.

[Maat Mons]

I guess my main gripe with Ranger is that I dislike all the things that are supposed to be the main selling points of the class.

Favored Enemy is the most iconic feature, but I hate the entire concept of specializing against certain creatures. I hate it from a roleplaying perspecitve, and I hate virtually every mechanical implementation I've ever seen. The only enemy specialization I can remember seeing that I actually liked is undead-hunting prestige classes that give immunity to various common undead attack forms. And that's because those same immunities could easily be useful even when not fighting undead.

I can't really get my head around giving the two-weapon fighting feat chain, but only when wearing light armor. The primary benefit of getting those as bonus feats is that you don't need to invest in dexterity. ... But since you have to wear light armor, you do need to invest in dexterity. Well, that or make a supposedly "front line" character with a sucky armor class.

While we're on the subject of things I can't fathom, who thought Druid should get the strong Animal Companion and Ranger the weak one? It clearly should have been the other way around. Actually, Druid should clearly have been 3 different classes. One class for the nature-themed spellcaster part. One class for the beastmaster part. And one for shapeshifting.



There are some fun things to do with ACFs though.

Moon-Wared Ranger gives you wis to AC in light armor at 2nd level. That's exactly the kind of thing that should be a part of the class, since it's supposed to be a lightly-armored frontliner with wisdom synergy.

Urban Companion gives your Animal Companion base attack bonus and saves equal to your own, and 75% of your HP. The downside is, you're restricted to animals that could normally be chosen as Familiars, but at least Dragon magazine gives dogs as a Familiar option.

Now, if I could just find something I like to trade Favored Enemy for, I'd be in business.

[Karl Aegis]

Just take Zen Archery and your only weakness is less than average AC. Most monsters don't have an effective ranged attack compared to their melee attack. Just stand away from the bigger ones.

[RNightstalker]

Now, if I could just find something I like to trade Favored Enemy for, I'd be in business.

Bonus feat

[heavyfuel]

Now, if I could just find something I like to trade Favored Enemy for, I'd be in business.

Rival Organization exists and I usually take it when dipping Ranger. Very often you're going against a BBEG and his organization, and getting +2 AC against them is pretty nice. In the campaign we're currently playing, pretty much all of our enemies are from the same church.

It also has slightly better fluff than Favored Enemy IMO


Bonus feat

Where is this ACF? Or are you suggesting a houserule?

If we're suggesting houserules, I'd say replacing Favored Enemy with Skirmish as the Scout should be OK, allowing players to be Swift Hunters from the get go is hardly game breaking.

[Vizzerdrix]

Can mystic and wildshape variants be combined? And is their a good way to add in sneak attack by level 5?

[Ashtagon]

Commoner. Warrior. Samurai.

Bad class? Maybe. Worst? No.

Those are NPC classes though. Yes, even the samurai.

[TristanS]

Ranger is not a bad class at all - as everyone else pointed out, it has good skills, solid HP, and full BAB. With ACF you can get wildshaping and go into classes like master of many forms or warshaper. You can improve spellcasting with sword of the arcane order. Mystic Ranger is also really good for the first 10 levels then tapers off.

In a gestalt game, it's great with the BAB, solid saves, good skills. Swift hunter and scout let you hit for good damage against most enemies, and there are alternate fighting styles if you don't like the TWF/Ranged options.
Favored enemy arcanist is also incredibly flexible, considering how many high level baddies have spell like abilities.

[liquidformat]

Spiked armor as displayed in the PHB is silly, but using a spiked vambrace or pauldron as a weapon is less so. The ever-so common "body-check" attack seen in a variety of media could easily be improved by body-checking with a spike.

Using Unarmed Strike to hit with kicks is also a classic, but less effective than armor spikes without splat support or magic items.

Also spiked knee guards and pointed shoes both make sense and work as weapons.


Can mystic and wildshape variants be combined? And is their a good way to add in sneak attack by level 5?
Yep Mystic and wildshape variants replace different things so they stack. 4 levels of scout and 1 of ranger with swift hunter as your 4th level scout feat gets you Skirmish damage by 5, and in all seriousness anything over 10 levels in Mystic Ranger is a waste of time, heck 6 is probably the good cutoff if you have a prc that increases spell caster level.

[Arkain]

Can mystic and wildshape variants be combined? And is their a good way to add in sneak attack by level 5?

In addition to what liquidformat said, there's also the level 2 spell Hunter's Eye, though it may not exactly be level 5 material or otherwise overwhelming with the usually pretty low caster level in 3.5.

[Psyren]

Those are NPC classes though. Yes, even the samurai.

Samurai isn't

[Malphegor]

I've privately considered that Rangers in 3.5 are just spread too thin.

So you're a ranger. What does that mean? A wild person? What, like a druid? More of a tracker? But rogues and barbarians would likely do that better. You've got spells? Meh, wizards can do it better, Druids do it vine enough, and clerics already stared making deals with devils days ago. You've got a pet? Nice, so do druids. You can shoot arrows? so do fighters.


It wants to be everything, but ends up being something sort of in the middle.

The class feels like it wants to be Aragorn but it doesn't quite feel epic enough. Buuuut... that puts the impetus on the player to play their ranger as something epic.

[liquidformat]

In addition to what liquidformat said, there's also the level 2 spell Hunter's Eye, though it may not exactly be level 5 material or otherwise overwhelming with the usually pretty low caster level in 3.5.

The Ranger spell list is actually pretty interesting, just about half or slightly more of the spells are general utility spells, of the rest buffing self and animal companion and bfc are the next biggest with archery after and two weapon fighting being the worst. So going archery or wild shape are actually the two best choices, there are a decent number of spells that give the ranger natural attacks or enhance natural attacks which if utilized well lets the mystic ranger compare favorably to totemist and psychic warrior in utility and power.

[Psyren]

But rogues and barbarians would likely do that better. You've got spells? Meh, wizards can do it better, Druids do it vine enough, and clerics already stared making deals with devils days ago. You've got a pet? Nice, so do druids. You can shoot arrows? so do fighters.


It wants to be everything, but ends up being something sort of in the middle.

The issue I have with this logic is that it ignores that some of these activities have synergy. So you can end up with a whole greater than the sum of its parts.

Shooting arrows for example - Fighters might do it better baseline (a highly debatable statement already), but lack a scaling bonus damage mechanic or spells like Arrow Mind that make shooting arrows even better.

Same with tracking - yes, barbarians and rogues can take the feat (the one that rangers get for free) and follow footprints just as well. But neither of them get a companion that can follow smells, nor can they ask nearby wildlife or rocks for directions or eyewitness accounts (using the spells again.) So once more, that synergy improves the activity.

[liquidformat]

I've privately considered that Rangers in 3.5 are just spread too thin.

So you're a ranger. What does that mean? A wild person? What, like a druid? More of a tracker? But rogues and barbarians would likely do that better. You've got spells? Meh, wizards can do it better, Druids do it vine enough, and clerics already stared making deals with devils days ago. You've got a pet? Nice, so do druids. You can shoot arrows? so do fighters.


It wants to be everything, but ends up being something sort of in the middle.

The class feels like it wants to be Aragorn but it doesn't quite feel epic enough. Buuuut... that puts the impetus on the player to play their ranger as something epic.

A barbarian and Rogue can track better than a ranger, really? I mean for starters a rogue doesn't even have survival so they would have to take an acf to gain access to it not to mention than waste a feat on track, and a barbarian has to either use an acf to get it at level 5 or waste a feat. In no way are a barbarian nor a rogue better at tracking than a ranger. By your logic, a ranger and barbarian are better at dealing with traps than a rogue and it is a waste of time to be a rogue because barbarian and ranger can both do it by taking the right acf.

Also how is a fighter in any way better than a ranger at archery? most of the archery feats kind of suck and the ranger is getting the better ones (with exception of precise shot) for free without meeting requirements and has a decent list of spells to buff it.

And sure Druid, wizard, and cleric are hands down better than a ranger, so what they are hands down better than all the other classes out there. That isn't an issue of the ranger that is an issue of druids, clerics, and wizards.

And honestly everyone is hating on FE but I have never had an issue just taking FE human if I am not sure in core only and if we are allowed to use splats even better FE arcanists. FE is a decent ability you just have to be smart in your choices.

[Ashtagon]

Samurai isn't

Yes it is.

[Psyren]

Yes it is.

I saw your white text after I posted and didn't feel like editing :smalltongue:

[mabriss lethe]

In core, even favored enemy has its uses. Focus on enemy types the rogue can't sneak attack or that tend to have DR. Using your bonus for things like undead and constructs or Evil Outsiders can potentially be quite useful. Even if it's outshown by other options outside of core. The same goes for their combat styles. An archery focused ranger that melees with a 2h polearm and a spiked gauntlet has a lot of baked in versatility. You've got reliable options at several ranges depending what sort of enemy you face. And then spells. Access to entangle and wands of clw give you some good options

[Vizzerdrix]

Yep Mystic and wildshape variants replace different things so they stack. 4 levels of scout and 1 of ranger with swift hunter as your 4th level scout feat gets you Skirmish damage by 5, and in all seriousness anything over 10 levels in Mystic Ranger is a waste of time, heck 6 is probably the good cutoff if you have a prc that increases spell caster level.

Good to know. I thought it did, but I remember seeing an argument that was convincing saying the opposite.

Scout won`t work for what I'm building. I was hoping to find a cleaner entry into daggerspell shaper for a wildshape mystic ranger. Buut I guess W.M. Ranger 5/rogue 1 will have to do.

[2D8HP]

From the 3.5 PHB Ranger is by far the class I most want to play for my character concept of "guy with a sword, bow, and arrows exploring a magic world".
Barbarian forces me to deal with Rage mechanics, Fighter forces me to choose a Feat, with Rogue I have to think about "Flanking".
That leaves me Ranger.

[liquidformat]

Good to know. I thought it did, but I remember seeing an argument that was convincing saying the opposite.

Scout won`t work for what I'm building. I was hoping to find a cleaner entry into daggerspell shaper for a wildshape mystic ranger. Buut I guess W.M. Ranger 5/rogue 1 will have to do.

Sadly I don't know of a feat that allows you to stack rogue and ranger sadly.


From the 3.5 PHB Ranger is by far the class I most want to play for my character concept of "guy with a sword, bow, and arrows exploring a magic world".
Barbarian forces me to deal with Rage mechanics, Fighter forces me to choose a Feat, with Rogue I have to think about "Flanking".
That leaves me Ranger.

ya Ranger is my favorite base class it is great for a lot of builds.

[Âmesang]

I had a lot of fun playing a ranger in a "gritty" Pathfinder game, even though it was only a short while; archery style for ranged (using composite longbow, daggers for backup), greatsword for melee (with Improved Unarmed Strike/Improved Grapple as backup), and animals as her first favored enemy (magical beasts would have been second, and after that would have depended on whatever foe came next).

Not the most optimized choices, but a lot of flavor to 'em. :smallsmile:

[Maat Mons]

On the subject of combining Mystic Ranger and Wild Shape Ranger, there is a possible issue. Mystic Ranger modifies the Combat Style ability. Specifically, it delays it by one level. Wild Shape Ranger replaces the Combat Style Ability, and it's not at all clear that an ACF that replaces an ability can be combined with one that modifies that same ability.

On more of a tangent, I have a personal grudge against Mystic Ranger because I feel it should have had a spell progression like what Duskblade has, and I've never been able to forgive it.

[RNightstalker]

Where is this ACF? Or are you suggesting a houserule?

If we're suggesting houserules, I'd say replacing Favored Enemy with Skirmish as the Scout should be OK, allowing players to be Swift Hunters from the get go is hardly game breaking.

Suggesting a houserule. My DM gave me Animal Devotion to simplify the animal companion issue, as we already had a druid that was wild-shaped and had a buddy who together were getting upwards of 20 attacks/rd and really slowing things down...last thing I needed to do was have another half-ass version.

FE is already replaced by skirmish in a sense with the Swift Hunter feat. The nice thing is SH allows you to add skirmish damage to your favored enemies, even if they're immune to precision damage...so all of my FE's were ones that had that "immunity".

[theboss]

Well, in my opinion, martial classes aren't meant to be taken all the way to level 20 (maybe ToB classes but you get the point). To become a worthy melee character who can stand against spell caters, you need to acquire yourself some abilities that not all of them are in the same class. For example, if you don't have enough Fort/Will saves you are going to get one shotted, nice and clean. But, combine a Fighter/Ranger with 3 levels of hexblade, you're going to get +3 will, cha modifier to all saves (another +3(?)), force of personality feat from Fighter (another +3will, in my table the bonus goes to all will saves, not just enchantments), mettle. Now you'll have about 12 will (without magic items) at level 6 + mettle.
I got carried away a little but the point is, there is no 1 martial class that's going to withstand the might of spellcasters, so you have to multiclass, otherwise you're as good as dead.
About the Ranger class, in my opinion this class is a solid 7/10. Mostly because of it's ability to gain twf without the need to pump Dex, this goes very well with Revenant blade Prestige class for example, and many other builds. Further, I personally like Paladin/Ranger first level spells (Rhino's Rush for example is a very powerful spell, especially in higher levels), he has good fort and reflax saves which is very rare because for some reason, many many martial classes are getting only 1 good save (Figher, Barbarian, Rogue, Swashbuckler, Paladin, Hexblade all Tob classes expect swordsage (which has poor BAB of +15) and so on..., if you want a rule applied, if it's a marital class and has good BAB, it has only one good save - this applies for 90%~95% of them all).

[ericgrau]

Their balancing factor is basically the skills. Much of rogue is likewise a trap until you count the skills. Even after you waste time setting up sneak attacks, you end up with less damage and survivability than others. Likewise a ranger is otherwise a fighter with less feats plus some pretty minor abilities. Part of the problem with skills is you need the DM to be pretty generous with them. RAW is, with fairly low DCs, taking 10s and 20s, and lots of options. But unfortunately many DMs tend to be stricter than that and/or don't do many skill based challenges. Or they're way too generous with a skill with unrealistic results and it breaks the game, and they quickly ban it. Or pre-ban it in fear of such things. Part of the problem is also the 105 minor things you can do with skills is hard for the DM or player to remember. I have some cheat sheets in my sig that help with that. The fact that you should max out half the skills but not necessarily max out the other half adds some confusion too. Many DMs also go in the direction of requiring skills for very minor things, and then they make the mistake of giving extra skills to other classes who "need them just for basic functions". Thus ruining the niche of the ranger, rogue and to some extent the core bard. Skills are for extraordinary talent and never ever for basic functions. Requiring skill checks for basic tasks, making it difficult to make checks for extraordinary tasks and handing more skills to other classes so there's no longer a niche effectively nerfs the ranger and rogue and makes it hard for them to keep up.

A ranger keeps up with other classes thanks to:

Tracking and a DM who just doesn't hand the PCs everything relevant to the plot for free.
Stealth and the ability to take a 10 and auto succeed on most scouting tasks. Likewise a DM that doesn't give enemy info for free, and allows strategizing and ambushing foes.
Obtaining food and water for the party, avoiding wilderness hazards (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/wilderness.htm), and a DM that actually tracks those things.
Knowledges and other random skills are kind of handy too. Knowledge(nature) especially for the most monster weaknesses of any skill and many other uses.
Animal companion. While poor in combat he still makes awesome utility. He can make a so-so mount, or a scout, and it only takes 24 hours and no resources to replace a dead one. Unlike other special mounts or familiars.


That's to make up the difference between a ranger and a fighter or barbarian. Spells and wand/scroll use adds a little minor utility, but not much that can't be replicated with cheap items. Plus ranger has some other really minor abilities. Sure you have some splat help but so do fighters, barbarians, paladins and etc. If you simply try to outfight a fighter, even using all of the above and splats, you'll be pretty disappointed.

All this DM dependence is making me want to DM a 3.5e campaign. I did 5e, but I miss the intricacies of 3.5. I have a couple pages of minor house rules and a couple more pages with help for character creation. But most of it is more clarification and player help than house rules. Including that I would go easy on skills and simply let them work. For example "You sneak into the camp, ok we're not in combat, you take a 10. Guards on watch also automatically take a 10, plus there are distance penalties. Ok you're definitely not detected even by the high spot captain, here's what you see safely from 100' away. No, silly, I won't ask you for spot checks when the enemy isn't hiding, that contradicts the very first sentence of the skill. No they aren't hiding all the time, that requires cover and they have things to do... even with distance penalties you make the DC 0. Moving on to the actual scenario." Rather than: "Roll hide and move silently. You rolled 11+18=29 on hide but 11+3=14 on move silently? And you split the party? Let's just put these ogres right next to you... I'm sorry, <many rolls later>, you got ambushed and died, roll a new character."

[Gnaeus]

A ranger keeps up with other classes thanks to:

Tracking and a DM who just doesn't hand the PCs everything relevant to the plot for free.
Stealth and the ability to take a 10 and auto succeed on most scouting tasks. Likewise a DM that doesn't give enemy info for free, and allows strategizing and ambushing foes.
Obtaining food and water for the party, avoiding wilderness hazards (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/wilderness.htm), and a DM that actually tracks those things.
Knowledges and other random skills are kind of handy too. Knowledge(nature) especially for the most monster weaknesses of any skill and many other uses.


That's to make up the difference between a ranger and a fighter or barbarian. Spells and wand/scroll use adds a little minor utility, but not much that can't be replicated with cheap items.

Well that is the problem, isn’t it?

I’ve found tracking to be useful incredibly rarely. Normally either you have your seat on the train and the DM isn’t going to skip the next section of the AP because that’s a load of work, or there is a magical method of doing it better.

Food and water are even less helpful. Even assuming that every party member wasn’t already packing a ring of sustenance so that they are never caught sleeping (which every PC I see is) best case it’s only useful until level 5 at which point your niche is saving the Cleric one level 3 slot on days when the party has run out of dirt cheap supplies.

Even wilderness hazards tend to pale to near 0 by 10th level or so when everyone has flight.

I am reminded of the part of Rise of the Runelords when the AP talks about how difficult the mountain passes are to climb and navigate and the thin air. And we all laughed and said “that would have been hard 8 levels ago. We cruise over the mountains in our magic flying chariot with magic bubbles of air and at night we camp in our extradimensional mansion with a sit down feast for 150.” The only problem a hunting ranger would have solved was obesity.

[ericgrau]

Well that is the problem, isn’t it?

I’ve found tracking to be useful incredibly rarely. Normally either you have your seat on the train and the DM isn’t going to skip the next section of the AP because that’s a load of work, or there is a magical method of doing it better.

Food and water are even less helpful. Even assuming that every party member wasn’t already packing a ring of sustenance so that they are never caught sleeping (which every PC I see is) best case it’s only useful until level 5 at which point your niche is saving the Cleric one level 3 slot on days when the party has run out of dirt cheap supplies.

Even wilderness hazards tend to pale to near 0 by 10th level or so when everyone has flight.

I am reminded of the part of Rise of the Runelords when the AP talks about how difficult the mountain passes are to climb and navigate and the thin air. And we all laughed and said “that would have been hard 8 levels ago. We cruise over the mountains in our magic flying chariot with magic bubbles of air and at night we camp in our extradimensional mansion with a sit down feast for 150.” The only problem a hunting ranger would have solved was obesity.
The DM train is the biggest part of the problem at low levels yes. On the flipside I've had a DM where track came up daily because in his very tough fights everything we could finally beat fled and came back in force with help. "Too bad you don't have a ranger, <chuckle>." He likewise made us pay whenever we weren't subtle enough with our tactics. I know most other DMs coddle & railroad a bit. At high level you have slightly better spells and a better animal companion. For example that can give you a pretty swanky mount which is easily replaceable if killed and requires practically no build resources. The mounted combat feat chain is often an unnecessary trap btw. Contrast to the issues with most other mounts. Or it can have other uses like a semi-expendable scout. Also camouflage and hide in plain sight, though splats and to some extent shadowdancer offer easier ways to get options that are pretty close to those. Also bear in mind most campaigns don't go that deep into high level. And while you may not use survival as often at high level, you get plenty good use out of other skills include hide and move silently. You can still use most of your skills, which really is the main thing.

[Maat Mons]

Hmm, let me see what I can cobble together from ACFs and feats.


LevelClass FeaturesFeatsNotes
1Favored enemy (arcanists), halfling ranger, solitary hunting, trap expert, wild empathyZen archeryAdd favored enemy bonus to saves (so +2 saves vs. arcane spellcasters), add favored enemy bonus to attack rolls
2Armor of the sensesAdd wisdom bonus to AC when wearing light armor or no armor
3EnduranceEndurance (B), steadfast determinationDon't autofail fortitude saves on a natural 1
4
5Favored enemy (???)Increase bonus versus arcanists (now +4 saves vs. arcane spellcasters)
6Improved combat style (throwing)Darkstalker, precise shot (B)Finally don't suck at shooting into melee
7Woodland stride
8
9Evasion???
10Favored enemy (???)Increase bonus versus arcanists (now +6 saves vs. arcane spellcasters)
11Indomitable mindImmunity to mind-affecting effects
12???
13Camouflage
14
15Favored enemy (???)???Increase bonus versus arcanists (now +8 saves vs. arcane spellcasters)
16
17Hide in plain sight
18???
19
20Favored enemy (???)Increase bonus versus arcanists (now +10 saves vs. arcane spellcasters)


It's... okay, I guess.

[Thurbane]

Wise to Your Ways (Ghostwalk) gives you your FE bonus to saves against extraordinary, spell-like, and supernatural abilities from that favored enemy type.

[Maat Mons]

Wise to Your Ways only lets you apply the bonus against abilities that are "natural," whatever that means. In the example, they note that if you picked undead, and fought an vampire with levels in a spellcasting class, Wise to Your Ways wouldn't help you against the spells. I guess you could argue that spells from class levels are a "natural" part of being an arcanist.

[Thurbane]

Yeah, WTYW probably isn't going to work with the arcanist favoured enemy ability, since it doesn't help against spells (the feat specifies Ex, SL and Su).

[Elkad]

Hmm, let me see what I can cobble together from ACFs and feats.

........Add favored enemy bonus to saves (so +2 saves vs. arcane spellcasters), add favored enemy bonus to attack rolls......

If the save bonus is from Halfling Ranger, it's only half your FE bonus. +1 to +5.

[Maat Mons]

Well shoot.

[RNightstalker]

Hmm, let me see what I can cobble together from ACFs and feats.
It's... okay, I guess.

Where do you get indomitable will and armor of the senses from?

[Maat Mons]

Those are from the Moon-Warded Ranger substitution levels (Dragon 340, p55).

[Vizzerdrix]

Those are from the Moon-Warded Ranger substitution levels (Dragon 340, p55).

Aaaaw. It replaces combat style. I was hoping to use it with wildshape ranger. :smallsigh:

[Particle_Man]

The Ranger also practically falls into the Horizon Walker prestige class, which has goodies like dimension door and immunity to Blasphemy.

That said, I wonder what would happen if the favoured enemy ability was replaced with the 1st edition +level damage to all humanoids, monstrous humanoids and giants (with the exception of elves, dwarves, halflings, gnomes and humans).

[pabelfly]

Hmm, let me see what I can cobble together from ACFs and feats...

There's quite a lot of stuff I like here, especially immunity to Mind-affecting spells at level 11, but I'm not sure I'd have Steadfast Determination while trying to pump WIS and still trying to be an archer requiring DEX for feat prereqs. Instead, I'd consider Illumian with Uurkrau sigils to get Dex for spellcasting, and with Steadfast Determination, dump WIS entirely.

I'd also consider Nemesis on FE: Arcane, which lets you pinpoint the location of all arcane users within 60ft, even behind doors or walls (or in them), and know where invisible and hidden arcane users are.

If you're not wedded to an archer Ranger, I'd also consider a Strong-Arm style Ranger for Power Attack, and get Favored Power Attack and Leap Attack for a x4 to Power Attack against Favored Enemies.

[Troacctid]

I think favored enemy is underrated. If you have humans and undead, you probably have half the campaign covered.

[heavyfuel]

I think favored enemy is underrated. If you have humans and undead, you probably have half the campaign covered.

Maybe. While I don't often play Rangers, it seems the number of Human enemies suddenly drops as soon as a player picks up Human as a favored enemy.

[Bavarian itP]

Maybe. While I don't often play Rangers, it seems the number of Human enemies suddenly drops as soon as a player picks up Human as a favored enemy.

And if you play Wizard and the DM decides for all your adventures to take place around 100 miles the spire of the outlands, you also suck, but that's not the fault of the class.

[Elkad]

I think favored enemy is underrated. If you have humans and undead, you probably have half the campaign covered.

Depends a lot on the campaign. My current game the party is 12th level, and they've fought about 3 humans since L1. And it's mostly pre-published stuff I've mashed together. Changes were made, but I've never changed a race.
They've also only fought a handful of undead. Some skeletons at low level, a few wraiths as mooks to a BBEG just recently.

[Ashtagon]

The biggest downside to FE is that there is no player agency in deciding whether it is used. It's use is an "always on" ability, but one that, by choice of monster, the GM can disable at will. It's the lack of player agency that makes it a poor special ability at least as much as its actual power level.

[Mato]

Not trying to be mean, but don't you guys think the Ranger is pretty lackluster?Still better than the barbarian.

People use the fallacy of moving the goal posts to claim it has one job of beating people up, and it's key class feature is +2 attack & damage once per day and it can be bought for 4,000gp.

[wookietek]

Can you retrain FE like feats and skills?

[liquidformat]

Can you retrain FE like feats and skills?

I don't think so but that would be a decent idea

[OgresAreCute]

Can you retrain FE like feats and skills?


Some class features offer two or more different options, such as the choice of combat style a ranger must make at 2nd level. Class feature retraining allows you to swap out one such option for another. Maybe your ranger would prefer to be an archer instead of a melee fighter, or your cleric of Heironeous feels that the War domain would be a better option than the Law domain. The character remains basically the same, since his class levels haven’t changed, but he’s now highlighting a different aspect of his class.

Based on this, I would absolutely say yes. However, on page 193 there is a table given that doesn't highlight favored enemy as something you can change. That is absolutely 100% bizarre considering that a wizard can change both their school specialization and what their prohibited schools are on level-up, essentially reworking their entire character.

[DEMON]

Can you retrain FE like feats and skills?

It's not on the list of retrainable class features in PHB2 (only the choice of Animal Companion (???) and Combat Style is listed as options for the Ranger), but I'd say an argument can be made to allow it.

I'm not sure why you'd want to retrain your Animal Companion, which would take 2 weeks and 1000 gp, when you could just release it and get a new one in 24 hours.

[Ramza00]

The biggest downside to FE is that there is no player agency in deciding whether it is used. It's use is an "always on" ability, but one that, by choice of monster, the GM can disable at will. It's the lack of player agency that makes it a poor special ability at least as much as its actual power level.

Favored Enemy should be like this.


It is a Knowledge Check to get the Favored Enemy Bonuses and thus can apply to all monsters and all enemies.

But the Ranger Favored Enemy gets a massive bonus to the FE Knowledge Check for certain Favored Enemies. Especially since Favored Enemy already gives a +2 bonus on Bluff, Listen, Sense Motive, Spot, and Survival checks to your Favored Enemies and it scales as you gain more FEs.

Thus FEs is both a generalist and a specialist ability, where it is generally useful against all things, but against a couple of things you get additional bonuses.

[Ashtagon]

Favored Enemy should be like this.


It is a Knowledge Check to get the Favored Enemy Bonuses and thus can apply to all monsters and all enemies.

But the Ranger Favored Enemy gets a massive bonus to the FE Knowledge Check for certain Favored Enemies. Especially since Favored Enemy already gives a +2 bonus on Bluff, Listen, Sense Motive, Spot, and Survival checks to your Favored Enemies and it scales as you gain more FEs.

Thus FEs is both a generalist and a specialist ability, where it is generally useful against all things, but against a couple of things you get additional bonuses.

That still doesn't create any player agency in its use, although it does remove GM agency in its use. With this change, FE is reduced to "roll a die; if you succeed, you get a bonus on lots of other rolls". It also creates a few questions. Is a successful roll counted as success against the individual, or against their entire species? If species, how do creature templates interact with it? How long do you retain FE against a given creature (type)? If you meet a second orc, do you roll again? If you didn't get FE with an orc, can you run away then return to get another try? It also renders obsolete backstories that designate a grudge against a specific species, common for many ranger character concepts.

[Psyren]

Can you retrain FE like feats and skills?

In Pathfinder you explicitly can. As stated it's a bit muddy in 3.5 but I would personally allow it, ultimately what matters is the player having the most fun, and having FEs that don't match what you're fighting the most isn't fun.

[Lans]

Also how is a fighter in any way better than a ranger at archery? most of the archery feats kind of suck and the ranger is getting the better ones (with exception of precise shot) for free without meeting requirements and has a decent list of spells to buff it.


By being a one trick pony. that's not valid when windy

[ErdrickOfAliaha]

More than a little off topic, but at my table our running joke/challenge for a Very long time was: "Find a class that Ranger Doesn't multiclass well with"

[gooddragon1]

More than a little off topic, but at my table our running joke/challenge for a Very long time was: "Find a class that Ranger Doesn't multiclass well with"

Truenamer? I could maybe try to homebrew something specifically, but I don't think that's necessary.

Somebody's making homebrew fixes on this forum for underpowered 3.5 classes atm. I'll be interested to see what happens with the ranger. I already made one for my own purposes, but it's always nice to see. Fighter and monk done so far.

[goodpeople25]

Commoner. Warrior. Samurai.

Bad class? Maybe. Worst? No.
Oh come on don't you think you're being a teensy bit harsh on one of those classes?

Commoners at least get spot and listen as class skills. Or you could go for use rope if that's something the character is into:smallwink:

[soullos]

I allow Rangers to swap their FE. When they encounter (like in combat), study or observe an enemy not on their FE, they can swap it the next day after resting (losing the old one). Each +2 bonus after the first takes an additional day. In effect it allows the Ranger to change their FE if they fight or run into a new enemy and as they continue to do so, they can upgrade the FE to a higher bonus. That way the players aren't stuck with a useless class feature if the DM is an ass and have some player agency to adapt to the DM instead.

[gooddragon1]

I checked to make sure this is allowed (I thought there was a rule somewhere against linking your own homebrew...):

The Strike Ranger (A Ranger Variant) (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?588543-Strike-Ranger-3-5-Ranger-Variant-Simple&p=23924532&viewfull=1#post23924532)

Break Through is the key here. It's archery focused and more into combat, but retains spells and skills so it has out of combat utility.

I made it because I like the idea of being good at ranged combat, but not the idea of needing to splat or have a magic item christmas tree to do it.