Rangers

Remove all ads!

Glad I'm not the only one who feels the Ranger class got taken. I lay the blame squarely at the feet of RAS. Because of him (Drizzt), two-weapon fighting is a must for any 'tank' and most of the Rangers in DnD CRPGs are merely clones of the dark elf. The ranger is now a fighter because he can get these feats for free. Unfortunately, people seem to forget about the armor penalty.

I played a ranger in a recent campaign and had a blast! She wielded a staff which threw the DM for a loop, since I found four different ways of smacking evil with it. I took the two-wep. fighting proficiency simply because my PC was the only fighter-type in the game. (And the only one who could cast priest spells. )

The things I don't like about 3.5e ranger are:
1)You can't wear medium or heavy armor and maintain your class abilities (2-wep. fighting or Imp. archery).

2)Took out double damage against giantkin (1e).

This all imo, and thanks for letting vent a little.

 

You know, Driz'zt gets the blame for rangers being two-handed, but I'll point out that Fiend Folio drow were two-weapon fighters, long before Driz'zt; it's not just Bob who's at fault. He wrote a drow character who became popular, and the designers for some godsawful reason applied that to all rangers.

However, to points one and two:
1) I have to agree; rangers are supposed to be light skirmishers, but they're somewhat pigeonholed by their rules but, look on the bright side: in 3.0, you weren't allowed to use double-weapons with your two-weapon fighting, either.

2) It was never double damage; it was + your level, which could get even worse (+20 damage? No problem!)

 

Hmm, been a while since I played Gateway/Treasures of the Savage Frontier (can't get them to run slowly and yes, I know about DOSbox), so my memory is faulty. I thought it was double damage. My bad, I guess.

I was rash blaming Bob. You did get my hidden, underlying meaning - the game designers are truly the ones I should be upset with. I'll add this point to the list. Thanks for the corrections; and being polite about it.

 

*chuckle* By way of amelioration, let me say that, until this summer, I absolutely refused to read any book about Driz'zt Do'urden because I hated the fannishness associated with him. I loved the Cleric Quintet, so I was pretty sure I'd like the books... I just wouldn't read the Driz'zt books, and had an irrational hatred of drow because of the fanboys.

(I still get sick of people who want to play drow and somehow expect everything to be OK when they wander the surface world).

I don't know what the old Gold Boxes did with the damage bonus, but I do remember what the books did; it was + your level, against a very wide category called "giant class"; and that included pretty much anything humanoid and monster-like, making rangers a real force to be feared.

 

Aragorn's ranger qualities seemed to me to be the following:

1: Independence -- He worked alone most of the time, though he was not a misanthrope, as he could work well with a group.

2: Separation from Society -- we spent most of his time in the wild, fighting evil beasts and other threats to society.

3: Goodness and purity on a par with a Paladin -- 'Nuff said there.

4: Combat skill on a par with a fighter.

5: Excellent tracking skills.

In D&D terms, I'd say he was a Ranger / Paladin (having taken the feat that allows you to switch back and forth). As a Hidden Monarch, he has a strong religious flavour, strengthened by his use of Kingsfoil on Frodo and his later miraculous healings after taking the crown. I would also say that he was a Neutral or Chaotic Good Ranger who finally accepted his destiny and became a Lawful Good Paladin.

I found no evidence that he was either a superlative Archer or an amazing Two weapon fighter. The notion that a ranger is a 2 weapon fighter must have come from another source.

I like what they did with the Ranger in 3rd Edition -- if you are looking at an intelligent woodsman who relies on brains and intuition rather than raw aggressive power (Barbarian) the Ranger is your man. That seems to be what they designed him as. Woodsmen can be good or evil -- I remember in 2nd Edition, Faiths and Avatars, the weird lengths they went to when designing the specialty priests of Malar. Now, it'd be easy -- specialty priests of Malar are evil rangers! Easy!

The whole fighting style question is a pain in the butt, I agree. If I wanted someone good in either 2 weapon fighting or archery, I'd take a fighter and use his bonus feats accordingly. Much easier, and he could also REALLY focus / specialize in his weapon of choice (longbow or melee weapon)

 

The fighting style wound up in there as a legacy from 2nd edition; a lot of oddities in 3e can be traced back to rule legacies like that (for example, it is probably the main reason they kept the Fire and Forget magic for Wizards and Clerics). 2nd edition had created an expectation of two-weaponed rangers; the LotR movies, I think, created a want for a lightly-armored archer class. Combine them, and you have a ranger.