POLL: Which Ranger?

Remove all ads!

Since there were so many posts on this topic in the 'Keen Rapier' topic I thought we should create a topic of it's own. Was now we can continue our debate and have a poll to count up the numbers.

[ August 06, 2002, 19:39: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

Poll Information
This poll contains 2 question(s). 24 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Which Ranger (24 votes.)

Is the 3E Ranger as it appears in the PHB weaker then other classes? (Choose 1)
* Yes - 29% (7)
* No - 71% (17)

Which of the Ranger classes do you think is the best? (Choose 1)
* 1st Edition - 17% (4)
* 2nd Edition - 21% (5)
* 3rd Edition (per the PHB) - 29% (7)
* 3rd Edition (Monte Cook version) - 33% (8)

 

The classes are fairly balanced in my book. (Yes, even the bard.) I just prefer the more flavorful Monte-ranger. No more having all rangers proficient in two-weapon fighting (Drizzt clones), just pick the feats you like instead. Make that ranger specializing in archery you've always dreamed about. Ok, Monte's version might be slightly overpowered, but I dislike the usual way of giving large amounts of minor items to the players, so they'll need that extra help.

Personally I like having varied base classes, instead of having the players pick prestige classes. (So I'm a fan of classless systems, sue me.)

I like the other Monte-versions more than the common ones anyway, just for the coolness factor. His bard isn't just a fighter-mage playing music, but someone making magic from his music. The sorcerer isn't bad either. Now if he'd make some more variant classes, maybe with epic-level rules and everything, and make it to a book, I know I'd be happy.

 

From my posts in the Keen Rapier thread, I obviously find the core ranger a good class when played like a ranger and not like a fighter. I chose the 3E ranger as I am not certain how the older rangers have been. Anyone care to enlighten me on that?

 

Its hard to compare between the different editions, especially between 1st and 3rd. I picked the 1st edition ranger as my preferred, though by that I mean I wish they had modeled the 3e ranger on that one instead of the 2nd edition one. I wouldn't want to go back to a system with no skills! That's why I moved on from AD&D in the late 80s in the first place.

The main features of the 1e ranger were that they got animal companions, could use a few low end mage spells, and had d8 hp (2d8 at first level, though). And they had a woodsy roleplaying focus that wasn't well supported by the primitive game mechanics of the day. The portrayal of rangers in game materials was almost invariably of hunters and frequently archers. Their 'favored enemy' system was also pretty sick: they did an extra 1hp/lvl of damage against humanoid type monsters like giants. Thwack!

The base 3e ranger is fine, but it would be better if they didn't make dual wielding a class feature. If anything should be mandated, it should be archery. If Cook had just replaced the dual wield automatic feats with the bonus feats, I'd like his ranger a lot more. But boosting spell power, saves, etc is a joke.

[ August 06, 2002, 01:28: Message edited by: Vormaerin ]

 

As I may have said before, simply allowing the ranger to replace those mandatory feats with other appropriate feats such as shot on the run. This doesn't unbalance the character any, as long as they are appropriate feats (DM's call). This is what I do.

 

Well, I'm going with monte cook's, as I've never seen the 1st ed. one (maybe someone should make up a 3E version 'hint' 'hint' ). The old ranger was underpowered and was only really good with two weapons or a bow (if you were willing to pour every last feat avaliable to you into bows), this made it very limited in scope. The Monte Cook version is much better, and I think that haveing a d8 hit die is much more suited.

I really like the sounds of the first ed. ranger though.