POLL: Is the ranger a weak class?

Remove all ads!

Okay, over the last few months i keep hearing this from people and reading it constsntly in Dragon. So i thought i'd ask you lot here . please give your reasons for your opinion as well.

Personally i don't think it is. The favoured enemy thing is fair enough, although i do think it should rise in bonus a bit quicker. You get a free feat and count as having 2 additional feats when wearing certains armours. Also you get more skill points than a fighter per level while still having the attack modifier and hit die of one. In addition you get spells and get them earlier with wisdom bonuses. Finally, the skills. A rangers skills are often very useful to a party in a game, especially one based in the wilderness a lot.

 

I would agree that the ranger is not a weak class. You do get a lot of extras, two weapon fighting, tracking, etc. I don't think the ranger is as versatile as a straight fighter but they are a great class. I've been playing one in a campaign off and on since last Sept. Having spells at 4th instead of 8th level is a nice bonus and the skills are excellent.

I've seen the unoffical ranger redo but I'm not a big fan. What do you all think?

 

Missed the un official ranger redo, where is it? As for weather or not a ranger is weaker than the fighter i say depends on how well you choose your racial enemy and wether or not your DM will play along with it.
for example if you choose undead as your enemy and your DM doesnt put undead or only the weak ones in the campain you may be in trouble. where as if you where going up agenst lots of your favored enemy you would probably do better that the fighter in your groop. So I would say it depends

 

Here are some of the alternative Renger Class discriptions. They are interesting and bring up some cool stuff but I don't think they are better than the normal version.
http://www.rpgplanet.com/dnd3e/conversions/ranger_watson.rtf
http://www.rpgplanet.com/dnd3e/conversions/ranger_axtell.rtf
http://www.rpgplanet.com/dnd3e/conversions/ranger_sh_jones.rtf

What do you think of these? Are they better than the standard class? Do they clear up this idea of weakness?

 

I think this is a good question. My answer is yes, to a degree. Naturally, I think there are weaker classes. But for a fighter, I'd rank a Ranger last. Now, I really like the free dual wielding and ambidexterity feats. That's nice, of course, but after that, without all the extra feats a fighter gets, he'll be pretty far behind quick. And obviously he couldn't hang with the Barbarian in melee. He does get more skill points, true, but skills IMO are much weaker than feats. They're nice, but you don't get as much milage out of the skills as you would a feat for fighting, however his expanded skill list in much nicer than the fighters. So for pure fighting, he and the Paladin are well behind the fighter and the Barbarian, but that's nothing new really. The most attactive thing about the classes aside from the RP aspect of it all is the spells they can get. However, druid spells still lag behind priest spells I think, so the Palidan gets the nod here. Plus they get a pretty powerful mount. I'd say if you want a stealthy fighter, take a Ranger and perhaps sacrifice a few levels for a 3rd level rouge to get the sneak attack evasion and uncanny dodge, and I'd consider taking those levels first. That would beef up the Ranger class I think to a degree. Otherwise, a Ranger is the weaker of the fighter classes I think, but overall it isn't that weak of a class.

 

In 3rd edition, and even 2nd edition to a lesser degree, the ranger is weaker than a fighter for fighting skill. The ranger is not a front line fighter but rather a scout of sorts. If used in this manner, the ranger is very useful and not weak in reality. In 1st edition, the ranger started with 2d8 for hit points and gained 1d8 per level thereafter. This made the ranger a very useful party member in 1st edition because of the much higher starting HP's. This of course changed with 2nd edition.

 

Every one hap a point and your right in general the ranger lags behing the fighter in a stand up fight.

 

But saying the Renger "lags behind a fighter in a stand up fight" does mean to is a weak class. A rogue also lags behind a fighter in a stand up fight, but rogue are not meant to be in stand up fighter alone, the same is true of Rangers. The Ranger is a scout, tracker, guide and skilled woodsmen. A ranger is not as durable as a fighter but with hide & move silently he might not have to fight at all. His skills allow him to work very effectively in his chosen environment. This is true for all the classes.

 

Point taken. I guess you have forced me to admit that I think a little to much along the lines of smash the emimy and not try to avoid a canflict and the Ranger has the skills to be able to avoid a conflict he knows he cant win.

 

Why is the Ranger so bad?
-Because he can't fight as good as the fighter?
Wake up! Why should he be compared to the fighter. He is a woodsman, a man who can survive a lot better than the fighter in the woods. The ranger know what plants to eat where he can find rabbit holes, he can track deers.
Put a fighter and a ranger 50 miles into a forest and tell them to come out, who do you think comes out first?

I think he should be compared to the rogue.
The rogue is a survivor of the city, while the ranger is a survivor of the forest.
They are not the greatest of fighters but in their right element they can be pretty scary.

 

Yes, Rangers are weaker than other classes compaired to what some classes get; but, they are quite good for role-playing purposes, not just all fighting. And, like metioned above, who would most likely survive longer in the woods, a Ranger or any other class besides a Druid?

 

There is nothing weak about a Ranger. Compaing a Ranger and a Fighter isn't the way to go. thats like comparing a Druid and a Cleric, you just don't. to each their own, right? All classes are equal, they just aren't equal in the same settings. Put a bard in the forest, and do you think he'll be able to charm his way out of a mauling from a bear?

 

Well, that was kind of my point there, Shadow Assassin. Every class is good for their own thing. Personally, that's why I prefer the arcane casting classes. They have spells that can emulate abilities of other classes. However, you have to go through the process of working your way up first before you get the nice spells.

 

Indeed, I play a half-elf Ranger in our D&D campaign.

He should not be the best fighter, for then it's very hard for a ranger. Don't make the mistake to compare a ranger with a pure fighter. But in my campaign there's also a dwarve-fighter who's in front of battles. The good thing of the elf-ranger is the combination of high Dexterity (initiative) and Long-Bow skills. I almost always have the quickest reaction, damaging the enemy from a distance with my bow. Also the spells of a ranger can be very usefull and the extra abilities also.

[This message has been edited by Headbanger (edited August 13, 2001).]

 

I just took a look at the Magic of Faerun book and I'm thrilled at all the new ranger spells. I asume that the Ranger/Druid book will have lots of 'nature' spells but the list in the PHB is somewhat weak. I know a ranger's main skill is not spell cast but if you have the ability at least have some interesting spells. MoF adds lots new spells that helps the class a bit.

Have any of you looked at MoF and what is your take? What do you think of the Ranger spells in the PHB?