[Rangers] Likes & Dislikes?

[thele]

Quick question for you all concerning D&D 3.5.

What do you like, and dislike, about the Ranger?

Be as specific or non specific as you like.

-The Le

[C.W.Richeson]

Like: The sequence of special abilities focusing on outdoors. Animal companion, hide in plain sight, and other powers really push the class feel home. I really like the 'light tank' aspect of the class, with plenty of skill points but decent combat ability.

Dislike: Spells. The spells just don't make any sense to me, never have.

[Pthagonal]

Like: The sequence of special abilities focusing on outdoors. Animal companion, hide in plain sight, and other powers really push the class feel home. I really like the 'light tank' aspect of the class, with plenty of skill points but decent combat ability.

Dislike: Spells. The spells just don't make any sense to me, never have.

Well....that says all I was going to say I guess. The spellcasting is just too weak to be useful and thematically iffy. IMO.

[Rolzup]

Personally, I'd like to see more combat styles. Something more than just bows and two-weapon fighting.

[Mr Adventurer]

Like: The way the class melds abilities and spells to make a coherent character empowered by closeness with the wild. Spells that (with the use of expansions like the Spell Compendium, at least) are amazingly useful.

Dislike: The animal companion is a nice idea, but because it is so weak it isn't really worth that much. The class isn't tough enough to function as a proper frontliner, and that makes finding its niche difficult.

[Gloombunny]

Like: fightiness and skill points combined in one class

Dislike: the arbitrary restrictions on combat style, the spells, that it's inextricably tied to the woodsy theme, the favored enemy concept


I'd like to see a class doing the "full BAB and 6 skill points" thing in a more generic way, perhaps with an option of light spellcasting.

[Dragon_Blooded]

Like: the theme. I like the concept of the wilderness warrior, trained in tracking and wilderness lore, keeping civilization safe from dangers most of its inhabitants don't even know are there.

Mechanically, I like the skill monkey+full BAB combatant combo. I also like the idea of combat styles.

Dislike: two-weapon fighting as a combat style/shtick. I don't care one bit about Drizzt, and dislike the fact that TWF has become associated with the ranger due to his influence. I also agree that we could have used more combat styles on the rulebook, particularly a Power Attack/two-handed weapon one (for the woodsman and his big axe) and a Mounted Combat/cavalry one.

I also dislike the spells, and like the Paladin, would rather see the cool ones converted to class abilities. Also, I really, really dislike when rangers have to be associated with specific gods/religions, and the associated role of Nature's Defender (basically, I dislike Forgotten Realms rangers). Rangers defend civilization from nature, not the other way around (that's a Druid's job).

I really like Favored Enemy conceptually, but in practice it is far too dependant on DM fiat. I would either give the Ranger a Favored terrain ability in addition to it (so there's a good chance you're either fighting the Ranger's favored enemies or on his favored environment), or allow him to change it's Favored Enemy somehow (maybe it becomes a "learn your enemies weaknesess" ability, allowing the ranger to gain bonuses against any creature he studies for X amount of time; this nicely meshes with his role as wilderness scout and stealth monkey).

Oh, and although I think it's a cool ability, Animal Companion should be optional (as in, you should be able to choose it among a list of options), because a) it doesn't fit every Ranger concept, and b) I don't think "pet" abilties (like familiar, animal companion, or the paladin's mount) should be mandatory, because they require some added bookeeping many players dislike.

These days, I'd rather play a Scout than a Ranger: the niche is more or less the same (although the scout isn't as proficient in combat as the ranger), the builds I like in both classes are focused on ranged combat, and I don't have to deal with a friggin' spell list in order to play my woodsman.

Eduardo Penna

[Valadorn]

Dislike: Spells. The spells just don't make any sense to me, never have.

I forget which, but there's a book that has an option for you to give up the spells for other abilities. I want to say it's Complete Warrior.

Personally, I'd like to see more combat styles. Something more than just bows and two-weapon fighting.

That would be neat. Does anyone have any ideas?


Dislike: The animal companion is a nice idea, but because it is so weak it isn't really worth that much. The class isn't tough enough to function as a proper frontliner, and that makes finding its niche difficult.

Yeah, I was never fond of the animal companion. Can't quite put my finger on it.


Dislike: the arbitrary restrictions on combat style, the spells, that it's inextricably tied to the woodsy theme, the favored enemy concept



Not true. There's an "Urban Ranger" (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#rangerVariantUrbanRanger) and a "Planar Ranger" (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#rangerVariantPlanarRanger) variant out there.

EDIT: Dragon_Hunter - there's also a "favored terrain" (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/classFeatureVariants.htm#favoredEnemyVariantFavoredEnvironme nt) option out there too.

[Narcisista]

Thematically the Ranger is my favorite class.

Dislikes: Spells, they are weak and I can't see them as thematic in any way.

Two-Weapon fighting. Again I don't see it as very thematic and would like for a greater variety of styles to be available.

Favoured enemy I can't really say I dislike it, but gavoured terrain seems a better fit.

The Animal Companion I like a lot, but I would prefer it was gained earlier and probably restricted to a few very specific animal, hunting related (Dogs, Falcons, Horse).

[Rolzup]

For variant combat styles?

Mounted Combat -- fits the animal companion, too.

Unarmed Combat -- strikes, grapples, and such.

A limited Sneak Attack progression, to represent the "commando" sort of ranger -- the guy who sneaks up on a guard and knifes him. This seems to fit the hard-boiled Urban Ranger variant as well, I think.

[Mr Adventurer]

For variant combat styles?

Mounted Combat -- fits the animal companion, too.

Unarmed Combat -- strikes, grapples, and such.

A limited Sneak Attack progression, to represent the "commando" sort of ranger -- the guy who sneaks up on a guard and knifes him. This seems to fit the hard-boiled Urban Ranger variant as well, I think.

The mounted one sounds really cool!

As for the rest - I once played a homebrew variant on the Ranger (I called it the Bandit): basically, give up Favoured Enemy and most of the nature-oriented stuff for Sneak Attack +1d6 at 1st, 5th, and every 5 thereafter; and give up the spells for a bonus Fighter feat at 4th level and every 4 levels thereafter. It probably wasn't quite as powerful as a standard Ranger but it was a lot of fun.

[thele]

I actually like the concept of Combat Styles. However, I am puzzled that they decided to cap it at 11th level. It seems to me that there is room for it to advance again at 16th and 20th levels.

~Le

[Silent Wayfarer]

Likes:
Full BAB.
Decent HD.
2 good saves, Fort and Will
6 skill points/level.
Very nice class skill list, with everything needed to make you a skillmonkey bar trapfinding.
May only be a half-caster, but has very nice spells nonetheless, and can use cure wands.
Has the whole "special forces commando" feel to it.
Fighting styles are really fun.
Free Track and skillset means you automatically fill the wilderness dude niche without trying.
Gets a LOT of love in supplements and alternate class features - notables are Sword of the Arcane Order, Swift Hunter, Horizon Walker and Stalker of Kharash.
Favored Enemy system is free damage bonus, which synergizes well with its preferred combat styles.
Works very well as a dip class or a single full class.


Dislikes

Level 12+ becomes quite barren. There's still a host of useful abilities scattered throughout, but nowhere near the goodies of the prior levels.
Animal companion is kind of meh.
Half-caster, which seems kind of wasted.
Favored Enemy system is tricky to navigate (you need to know that your choices will not be worthless).
Locks you into one style of combat, TWF or Archery.

[knik]

Dislike: two-weapon fighting as a combat style/shtick. I don't care one bit about Drizzt, and dislike the fact that TWF has become associated with the ranger due to his influence.

I always thought that the 2-weapon thing predated Drizzit for some reason, going back to Aragorn. I'll admit my chronology may be off, but I thought Drizzit just popularized it, not started it.

Again, sorry if I'm wrong.

Kurt

[Valadorn]

Dislikes

Level 12+ becomes quite barren. There's still a host of useful abilities scattered throughout, but nowhere near the goodies of the prior levels.


This helps a little. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20061013a)

[nonsense]

Two-weapon fighting makes no particular thematic sense for a Ranger, and I certainly don't understand why it's been included. Were I to design the class, I'd swap TWF for a spear/archery divide. It's thematically workable (spears being excellent hunting weapons), and would make for a more interesting style - keeping opponents at bay so they don't tear your light armour to shreds.

I'm also not fond of favoured enemies. I've always felt that sort of thing should be a generalized feat for anybody to pick up. In its place, I'd probably pop in some more foresty feats, perhaps relating to alchemy/poisons, or trapping.

I can live with the spellcasting.

[Kintara]

If you have the Spell Compendium or at least the Complete class books, the Ranger spells are pretty damn useful. Now, thematic is another thing, but I've always found most of the spells to be rather subtle in effect, almost skill like. In fact, I tend to think of them like that, as basically extensions of their skills.

Actually, I think my least favorite ability is Favored Enemy. One thing that annoys me about it is that it should always give you a good bonus on knowledge checks that actually relate to the enemy you've chosen.

[Martial Controller]

Likes: everything they already incorporated into Scout.
Dislikes: everything else, plus the bitch-tease class that is the Urban Ranger, which should be cool, but is LAME.

[Dragon_Blooded]

I always thought that the 2-weapon thing predated Drizzit for some reason, going back to Aragorn. I'll admit my chronology may be off, but I thought Drizzit just popularized it, not started it.

Again, sorry if I'm wrong.

Kurt

I thought so too, but a few years ago on this very board (well, on TO, actually) I was told otherwise. And frankly, it makes much more sense that way, since Aragorn has exactly one fight where he uses two weapons that I can recall (Weathertop, two torches against the Nazgûl), while Drizzt does it all the time.

Eduardo Penna

[Dagor]

Actually, I seem to vaguely recall that at the time Drizzt first showed up (AD&D1) the whole two-weapon fighting thing was more a drow shtick than it had anything to do with him being a ranger. Maybe somebody with better access to the old material could confirm or disprove that.

[simontmn]

I like that the 3.5 Ranger is a viable class, unlike in 3.0e.

I dislike that he casts spells and has a d8 hit die.

I like the C&C Ranger better.

[wingedcoyote]

I actually like the spells a lot. To me the SRD classes push the idea of a world where learning a little magic isn't all that hard for special people (PCs) and somebody with esoteric interests is likely to pick some up. Bards know assorted magic because they're multitalented sorts and are concerned with gathering knowledge, even though they're not really devoted spellcasters. Paladins get divine magic because they're so faithful. Rogues don't get magic (too busy learning to sneak around and fiddle with locks, I guess) but they get Use Magical Device which is pretty clearly a magical talent, and Monks don't get magic but they get clearly magical abilities from their focused chi (or whatever). The only classes with no magical ability at all are the Barbarian (why bother, can't use it while raging out) and the Fighter (too focused on learning martial skills to study anything else). Hell, even the Assassin prestige class gets spells, because they'll do anything to kill their target and learning magic is an effective means to an end.

A ranger is someone who spends his life in the woods and develops a deep relationship with the forest and animals, so in the context of the other classes it makes sense to me that they'd pick up a bit of forest magic. And magic is fun! To me that's the main thing that makes them cooler than the other melee classes.

[Silent Wayfarer]

A ranger is someone who spends his life in the woods and develops a deep relationship with the forest and animals, so in the context of the other classes it makes sense to me that they'd pick up a bit of forest magic. And magic is fun! To me that's the main thing that makes them cooler than the other melee classes.

Or, they're mystic special forces soldiers.

Still good. =D

[Kiero]

Two-Weapon fighting. Again I don't see it as very thematic and would like for a greater variety of styles to be available.

People keep saying this, claiming it's based on Drizzt, but I see two-weapon fighting as very much in keeping with the wilderness warrior. Specifically the colonial-era American pioneer, a popular combination was "Indian style" with knife and hachet.

I like the whole wilderness warrior concept, especially the skirmishing focus rather than a plated tank with greatsword.

I dislike the Favoured Enemy (which doesn't make a lot of sense) and the magic which seems a poor fit.

[Sangrolu]

There's nothing I dislike about the ranger that isn't fixed by FFG's Wildscape. It has:

1) New "combat styles", some not too "combative", that allows you more than just two choices to customize your ranger.
2) Options that let you trade in spellcasting for extended ability with your combat style.

To me, this is the best of all worlds. Existing rangers are still perfectly valid, but the rules let you customize the ranger to fill whatever niche you need it to without resorting to a plethora of new classes.

For those interested, it can be found here (http://eshop.rpg.net/product_info.php?products_id=8503&).

[Dragon_Blooded]

People keep saying this, claiming it's based on Drizzt, but I see two-weapon fighting as very much in keeping with the wilderness warrior. Specifically the colonial-era American pioneer, a popular combination was "Indian style" with knife and hachet.

I guess people keep saying it because that ability appeared first in AD&D 1e, which was published right after or alongside Drizzt's first novels. Myself, I never made the colonial-era American pioneer connection (probably because “Colonial America” and “D&Dland” are far away from each other in my headspace). It's a cool image, though (and one supported by Complete Warrior, where there's a fighting style which uses knife and axe, IIRC).


I like the whole wilderness warrior concept, especially the skirmishing focus rather than a plated tank with greatsword.

Me too, although I prefer rangers with focused on bows and hit-and-run tactics.


I dislike the Favoured Enemy (which doesn't make a lot of sense) and the magic which seems a poor fit.

Agreed about the magic, but why the dislike for Favored Enemy? IMO, it fits perfectly with the “guardian” ranger, who protects villages and little towns at the edges of civilization from the hordes of humanoids trying to destroy them. It makes sense to be very good at it after years of fighting orcs/goblins/giants/ogres/etc. Frex, IMO it fits perfectly with Aragorn, one of the quintenssencial ranger exemplars.

It also helps if you want to take a hunter-type ranger: just select something like Animal or Magical Best and be done with it.

Eduardo Penna

[Kiero]

I guess people keep saying it because that ability appeared first in AD&D 1e, which was published right after or alongside Drizzt's first novels. Myself, I never made the colonial-era American pioneer connection (probably because “Colonial America” and “D&Dland” are far away from each other in my headspace). It's a cool image, though (and one supported by Complete Warrior, where there's a fighting style which uses knife and axe, IIRC).

I don't find it so difficult a connection given some of the Wild West mentality which I've seen discussed around the modules. Not too far a leap from Wild West to an earlier colonial era.

Me too, although I prefer rangers with focused on bows and hit-and-run tactics.

I like the bow to be a weapon to thin the crowd of foes, before closing to meet the main opposition. I like the viscerality of close-in combat.

Agreed about the magic, but why the dislike for Favored Enemy? IMO, it fits perfectly with the “guardian” ranger, who protects villages and little towns at the edges of civilization from the hordes of humanoids trying to destroy them. It makes sense to be very good at it after years of fighting orcs/goblins/giants/ogres/etc. Frex, IMO it fits perfectly with Aragorn, one of the quintenssencial ranger exemplars.

It also helps if you want to take a hunter-type ranger: just select something like Animal or Magical Best and be done with it.

Eduardo Penna

More the way it's handled turning into a "bigot bonus". I tend towards using it for "the unnatural" - undead, demons, outsiders and so on.

[JDeMobray]

1) New "combat styles", some not too "combative", that allows you more than just two choices to customize your ranger.I would love to see some more combat styles, but the lack of other well developed feat chains makes it difficult.

I've personally always been hungry for a ranger focused on the spear who could either hurl it or use it in melee to good effect.

I also want to come out in quiet support for the Ranger's spellcasting. As the spell list expands, I've become more of a fan. I admit, with both the Paladin and the Ranger, the PHB spell lists didn't do anything for me and I would happily trade them out any chance I got. But with more spells, and more flavorful spells specifically, there are certain ranger concepts that can use them well.

[KoboldLord]

I'd like two big changes:

#1: More combat styles. Dragoon ranger, monkey grip ranger, mounted ranger, pugilist ranger, shield ranger, knife ranger, natural weapons ranger (for monster rangers), and probably more. This is easy enough to fix; just swap out the combat style feats for more appropriate choices.

#2: Favored Enemy needs to be revamped completely. First off, it's a boring bonus that doesn't even make sense half the time. Second, the choices are completely unbalanced. Anyone ever pick vermin or animal as their choice? Ever? Undead and constructs, two of the most logical choices for an enemy to target above all others, are both immune to precision damage like the Favored Enemy damage bonus. Third, it is completely useless if your particular enemy doesn't happen to blunder up to you.

So how to fix it? Well, instead of making it a damage bonus and a bonus to a few skills that are always the same, why not give the ranger the choice of several themed totems that give a series of related powers? For instance, instead of Favored Enemy: Undead, the ranger could pick Totem Animal: Hyena as his totem. The Hyena is the anti-undead totem, say. At L4, instead of the animal companion (which would be part of the animal-themed totem's progression) the Hyena Totem Ranger might get Lay on Hands, which damages undead but still remains useful if they aren't around. The L20 capstone ability of the totem might be Death Ward as a permanent extraordinary ability, which would be anti-undead thematically but also useful even if you never see any undead at all. In between these two points the Hyena Totem might grant the ability to strike incorporeal opponents normally, suppress fast healing, or whatever.

The Buffalo is perhaps the replacement for Favored Enemy: Animal, and the Buffalo Totem ranger of sufficient level gets an animal companion, is never attacked by animals (except class feature animals like those of rival Buffalo Totem rangers), can see through the eyes of any animal he has touched in the last 24 hours, and can direct swarms of tiny animals to hinder opponents even while taking other actions.

Instead of a whole host of Favored Enemy: PC Race (an illogical patch for the fact that regardless of the close physiological similarities between the PC races Favored Enemy: Humanoid is too strong to not be split into subgroups), the Rat Totem ranger is basically an urban ranger with some generally useful abilities.

Rangers might even be able to take more than one totem during their career; they would have a level lag on their newer totems, which means they wouldn't get the high-level abilities of their later totems as early as their primary totem. For instance, a ranger in the undead-heavy Age of Worms campaign might start out with the Hyena Totem for the obvious reasons, and when it is time to pick a second totem might pick Rat. The ranger will never get the highest-level Rat Totem abilities, but the urban-themed abilities will hopefully still be useful.

[Christopher V. Brady]

Like: The sequence of special abilities focusing on outdoors. Animal companion, hide in plain sight, and other powers really push the class feel home. I really like the 'light tank' aspect of the class, with plenty of skill points but decent combat ability.

Dislike: Spells. The spells just don't make any sense to me, never have.

Ayup. Nails right through the forehead to me.

[Kiero]

I think more modular choices in special abilities, thus you don't have to take Favoured Enemy, and Animal Companion and spells. Instead they're all available to be swapped out for something else.

[Dragon_Blooded]

I think more modular choices in special abilities, thus you don't have to take Favoured Enemy, and Animal Companion and spells. Instead they're all available to be swapped out for something else.

Like Talent Trees in Star Wars Saga? Se you have Animal Companion, Favoured Enemy, Wilderness Survival, Natural Spellcasting and several Fighting Styles? That would rock, IMO.

Eduardo Penna

[Sangrolu]

I would love to see some more combat styles, but the lack of other well developed feat chains makes it difficult.

In Wildscape (http://eshop.rpg.net/product_info.php?products_id=8503&), Mearls gets around this by not plugging into existing feats, but creating whole new abilities.


I also want to come out in quiet support for the Ranger's spellcasting. As the spell list expands, I've become more of a fan.

I'm perfectly good with rangers having spells. Many don't though, and Wildscape gives you the choice.

[Katsue]

#2: Favored Enemy needs to be revamped completely. First off, it's a boring bonus that doesn't even make sense half the time. Second, the choices are completely unbalanced. Anyone ever pick vermin or animal as their choice? Ever? Undead and constructs, two of the most logical choices for an enemy to target above all others, are both immune to precision damage like the Favored Enemy damage bonus.
Favored Enemy damage isn't precision damage.

[MikeJW]

Likes: Concept of a lightly armored fighter patroling the wilderness to keep civilization and travelers safe, decent in combat,

Dislikes: Having to make a choice between TWF or archery, the belief that rangers are loners, the en vogue idea that rangers are protecting the wilderness from civilization, spells dont seem right,


I usually take TWF but never use it. It doesnt fit my idea of a ranger. Also, I'd rather be given unique wilderness abilities rather than spells.

[JDeMobray]

Likes: Concept of a lightly armored fighter patroling the wilderness to keep civilization and travelers safe, decent in combat,

Dislikes: Having to make a choice between TWF or archery, the belief that rangers are loners, the en vogue idea that rangers are protecting the wilderness from civilization, spells dont seem right,


I usually take TWF but never use it. It doesnt fit my idea of a ranger. Also, I'd rather be given unique wilderness abilities rather than spells.Sounds like what you want is the Scout, from Complete Adventurer. It's almost a better wilderness wanderer than the actual Ranger aside from the lack of a +20 Base Attack Bonus.

[David Nash]

Sounds like what you want is the Scout, from Complete Adventurer. It's almost a better wilderness wanderer than the actual Ranger aside from the lack of a +20 Base Attack Bonus.

I agree completely, except for "almost". I think the Scout simply is a better, well, ranger, than the Ranger.

Wouldn't mind a full BAB, though. I'd even be fine with dumping Skirmish for it.

[Gloombunny]

People keep saying this, claiming it's based on Drizzt, but I see two-weapon fighting as very much in keeping with the wilderness warrior. Specifically the colonial-era American pioneer, a popular combination was "Indian style" with knife and hachet.

It's not that TWF is inappropriate for a ranger, just that it doesn't really make more sense than various other melee styles, so it's annoying for it to be the only option.

Personally, I don't understand why they bother with "combat style" at all instead of just giving rangers some bonus feats of their choice from the fighter list.

[Christopher V. Brady]

Dislike: two-weapon fighting as a combat style/shtick. I don't care one bit about Drizzt, and dislike the fact that TWF has become associated with the ranger due to his influence.

Eduardo Penna

People keep saying this, claiming it's based on Drizzt, but I see two-weapon fighting as very much in keeping with the wilderness warrior. Specifically the colonial-era American pioneer, a popular combination was "Indian style" with knife and hachet.

Incorrect, the FIRST 'Ranger' archetype, and the one that, um, pioneered two weapon fighting was the one, the only Aragorn of the Lord of The Rings trilogy.

He used Longsword and Knife as combo (And in this case it's the 'bastard sword' and 'dagger' from DnD), he was a loner and an expert woodsman. He wasn't especially good against any creature nor did he have an animal companion or, but those were added well after the first DnD game came out. And I think the animal companion was a Grizzly Adams sort of thing anyway.

Actually, I seem to vaguely recall that at the time Drizzt first showed up (AD&D1) the whole two-weapon fighting thing was more a drow shtick than it had anything to do with him being a ranger. Maybe somebody with better access to the old material could confirm or disprove that.

Actually the big Double-D was taught dual weapon combat at the hands of his erstwhile father, my favourite character, Zaknefien (Although it's been a while so I'm pretty sure I mangled that spelling.)

[Dragon_Blooded]

Incorrect, the FIRST 'Ranger' archetype, and the one that, um, pioneered two weapon fighting was the one, the only Aragorn of the Lord of The Rings trilogy.

He used Longsword and Knife as combo (And in this case it's the 'bastard sword' and 'dagger' from DnD), he was a loner and an expert woodsman. He wasn't especially good against any creature nor did he have an animal companion or, but those were added well after the first DnD game came out. And I think the animal companion was a Grizzly Adams sort of thing anyway.

Having read the trilogy a few times (which reminds me I should re-read it again, it's been a couple of years), would you please indicate in which battle/combat/skirmish he uses the sword/knife combo? Not trying to be pedantic here, it's just that the only scene that I can recall that despicts Aragorn fighting with two weapons is the combat at Weathertop against the Nazgûl, and it was with a torch in each hand.

As for favoured enemy, it's never explicitly stated, but I don't find hard to believe that Aragorn became much better at fighting orcs than anything else after years of protecting Bree and the Shire from their depredations.

Agreed about the animal companion, which is why I would rather see it as an option amongst many, instead of a mandatory ability.


Actually the big Double-D was taught dual weapon combat at the hands of his erstwhile father, my favourite character, Zaknefien (Although it's been a while so I'm pretty sure I mangled that spelling.)

Pretty close (it's Zaknafein, BTW). And thanks for confirming this: I remember reading something akin to it on AD&D 2e's Menzoberrazan boxed set, but couldn't find it anywhere to confirm the data. It only makes the TWF even more non-sensical, because Drizzt's Fighter levels supposedly represent his training by Zaknafein before he left Menzoberrazan, which would make TWF a Fighter bonus feat for Drizzt.

Eduardo Penna

[Christopher V. Brady]

Having read the trilogy a few times (which reminds me I should re-read it again, it's been a couple of years), would you please indicate in which battle/combat/skirmish he uses the sword/knife combo? Not trying to be pedantic here, it's just that the only scene that I can recall that despicts Aragorn fighting with two weapons is the combat at Weathertop against the Nazgûl, and it was with a torch in each hand.

As for favoured enemy, it's never explicitly stated, but I don't find hard to believe that Aragorn became much better at fighting orcs than anything else after years of protecting Bree and the Shire from their depredations.

Agreed about the animal companion, which is why I would rather see it as an option amongst many, instead of a mandatory ability.

I'm thinking of the fight with Boromir's death. I THINK he dual wielded in that one. I could be wrong.

Also, I think Keiro might be on to something with his comparison, but that one I have no idea if it's true or even close.

Pretty close (it's Zaknafein, BTW). And thanks for confirming this: I remember reading something akin to it on AD&D 2e's Menzoberrazan boxed set, but couldn't find it anywhere to confirm the data. It only makes the TWF even more non-sensical, because Drizzt's Fighter levels supposedly represent his training by Zaknafein before he left Menzoberrazan, which would make TWF a Fighter bonus feat for Drizzt.

Eduardo Penna

Actually, in AD&D he was an impossible combination of Fighter/Ranger with the ability to kill with a 95% chance if he tags with both weapons. Not sure if a Critical was required.

In 3.x he's a Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger of about 16th level. Not sure if the numbers are right, but it breaks down to about... 3/1/12 in that order. I don't have my FR book anywhere in sight, unfortunately.

[Jon Chung]

Drizzt was a demihuman dual-class character - ie, utterly illegal. He also had thief skills and a weird instakill percentile chance, and was pretty much the definition of GMPC Mary Sue.

However, his 3E build is truly horrible.

[Kiero]

Incorrect, the FIRST 'Ranger' archetype, and the one that, um, pioneered two weapon fighting was the one, the only Aragorn of the Lord of The Rings trilogy.

Problem here is the classic image of the pioneer predates Tolkein by several generations. Davy Crockett, Jim Bowie, Kit Carson et al. Long before Drizzt or Aragorn, they were folk heroes with songs written about them.

[Dragon_Blooded]

Problem here is the classic image of the pioneer predates Tolkein by several generations. Davy Crockett, Jim Bowie, Kit Carson et al. Long before Drizzt or Aragorn, they were folk heroes with songs written about them.

Thing is, at least in my case, they don't have nearly as much weight as Aragorn (heck, even Drizzt, and I dislike the character) when it comes to D&D/fantasy roleplaying. YMMV, of course.


I'm thinking of the fight with Boromir's death. I THINK he dual wielded in that one. I could be wrong.

Only in the movie Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas fight the orcs. In the books, they all disperse looking for Frodo, but the only ones that stumble with orcs are Merry and Pippin, who are immediately found by Boromir, who dies trying to save them. Aragorn hears Boromir's call for help with his horn, draws his sword (no dagger/knife mentioned), but arrives when the combat is over, too late to save Boromir's life.

Eduardo Penna

[OldKentuckyShark]

I have an alternate theory: Dual Weilding is the traditional domain of the Protagonist. It's a longstanding cliche that even protagonists who don't fight with two weapons will, in a moment of desperation, scoop another weapon up off the ground and fight back twice as hard. Anakin does it in Star Wars, Bruce Campbell did it in Army of Darkness, the world's only french native american did it in Brotherhood of the Wolf, etc. Samuel flippin' Vimes even did it in Night Watch. It's just a thing, I don't know why. It looks cool, I guess.

In many previous editions of DND, rangers were, like, THE protagonist characters. Partly this was because of Aragorn, partly it's because they have a broad skillset (sneaking AND fighting AND healing/lore), which lets them score some quality screentime, partly it's because they're neither dumb like fighters nor boring like clerics nor weak like wizards nor untrustworthy like rogues nor constantly getting fucked over by the DM like paladins. That makes rangers the go-to-guy when it comes to having a marketable party faceman. That's why you get Drizzt, and Tanis Half-Elven. Heck, they even have animal sidekicks.

So the two potagonisty flavors got swirled together.

[KemperBoyd]

Thing is, at least in my case, they don't have nearly as much weight as Aragorn (heck, even Drizzt, and I dislike the character) when it comes to D&D/fantasy roleplaying. YMMV, of course.

I think that Howard's Conan stories where he is a borderer on the pictish frontier might be an influence. Those stories are full of borderers who fight with two weapons like the American pioneer heroes.

[Christopher V. Brady]

I think that Howard's Conan stories where he is a borderer on the pictish frontier might be an influence. Those stories are full of borderers who fight with two weapons like the American pioneer heroes.

Only one story mentions the Borderers. Beyond the Black River.

[Victorian Robot Lincoln]

I like the idea of naturey fighters, personally I think they would be better as an advanced class *maybe one with a lot of levels in it*. Then again I think a lot of base classes could use the same treatment. Paladin and Barbarian come to mind *back in 2nd Ed when barbs were called berserkers*.

But then again i've always been a big fan of modular/point buy systems myself.

And if rangers can get favored enemies, why can't fighters? They get no class abilities *and feats get kinda worthless once you hit higher level* and if they spend all there time training, isn't that what you would do *especially if you are a dualist or a town guard which gets attacked by orcs every couple of years*.

[Kiero]

Davy Crockett:

http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/images1/crockett_d_sm.gif

And Hawkeye from Last of the Mohicans:

http://images.art.com/images/-/Daniel-Day-Lewis---Last-of-the-Mohicans--C10103887.jpeg

[Christopher V. Brady]

Davy Crockett:

http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/images1/crockett_d_sm.gif

Kiero, most Americans don't know their own history past a few points, (Hell, same thing applies here in Canada) so I don't think most gamers would know about the pioneer being the Ranger's dual wield archetype.

You may be right, but like I said, I have no idea.

[Ghola]

I think more modular choices in special abilities, thus you don't have to take Favoured Enemy, and Animal Companion and spells. Instead they're all available to be swapped out for something else.

You may be interested in this: the Wildlander (http://darknessfalls.leaderdesslok.com/class_wildlander.htm), a different take on the Ranger for the Midnight D&D setting from FFG.

[Kaewin]

I like the ranger, its my preffered class. I like the way the can survive so well it the wildereness and are a must for any party travelling overland.

That said there are a few things I do dislike. I don't like there spell options. They seemed forced, maybe if they were teamed up with a potion making thing instead of something you could cast. I think a smaller choice of animal companion but to survive with a ranger they should be as strong as a druid. There should be a couple of more combat options And lastly I don't like the way a druid gets the boost to his survial without something simular for a ranger. They are an outdoor type of people they should get that respect.

[neonchameleon]

Were I making the ranger now, I think the maneuvers/stances mechanic fits the ranger (and a couple of other classes) better than the way it was done. But I like the flexibility and general feel of the 3.5 ranger. (The 3.0 one needed a serious upgrade).

[Jerrythehun]

I'd like to see the spells dumped and more combat options added. A bow ranger is fine, so is a TW ranger, but I'd also like to see a spear-weilder be viable, too.

[travisjhall]

I guess people keep saying it because that ability appeared first in AD&D 1e, which was published right after or alongside Drizzt's first novels.
Ah... not exactly.

Forgotten Realms came out fairly late in 1st Edition AD&D's run - 1987 for FR as a full-on setting and for the first of the novels, though there were a few bits and pieces published earlier. Drizzt first appear in The Crystal Shard in 1988.

The core rulebooks for 1st Eidtion AD&D were published from 1977 (PHB) to 1979 (MM), and 2nd Edition AD&D was published in 1989.

What was published relatively soon before the FR setting and Drizzt's first appearance was the Unearthed Arcana, which gave rules for Drow elves, including very big bonuses for using two weapons simultaneously. (I'd tell you exactly what those bonuses were, but my UA hasn't emerged from a box after my recent move yet. Oriental Adventures I could quote, but who ever wants to quote 1st Edition OA?) Drizzt, of course, used those rules. At that time, rangers did not get any special bonuses when using two weapons, and in fact using paired scimitars was illegal for most characters - Drow (not rangers) being a notable exception.

When 2nd Edition came out, there were no rules given for Drow elves, but rangers had acquired bonuses for fighting with two weapons. Under the rules at that time, Drizzt was technically illegal, as nobody was allowed to use two weapons of the same size, but I suspect that many groups overlooked that rule.

Not too long after that, the PHBR "Complete" series came out. The Complete Fighter's Handbook gave rules that made Drizzt legal again, by expending a weapon proficiency.

Myself, I never made the colonial-era American pioneer connection
It's a pretty weak connection, really, considering the timing of the rules changes. It's hard to overlook the appearance of the extremely popular ranger Drizzt Do'Urden using two weapons in 1988 followed by rules changes to the ranger class to give them almost that ability (officially, and unofficially exactly that ability).

"Indian style" may well have been an influence on the original 1st Edition two-weapon fighting rules, though. Those allowed the use of a second weapon only if that second weapon was a dagger or hand axe.

[Kiero]

It's a pretty weak connection, really, considering the timing of the rules changes. It's hard to overlook the appearance of the extremely popular ranger Drizzt Do'Urden using two weapons in 1988 followed by rules changes to the ranger class to give them almost that ability (officially, and unofficially exactly that ability).

"Indian style" may well have been an influence on the original 1st Edition two-weapon fighting rules, though. Those allowed the use of a second weapon only if that second weapon was a dagger or hand axe.

It may be a weak connection for D&D specifically, but its something that was in the popular consciousness before D&D was even conceived. Even if it had faded by the time it came along.

[travisjhall]

It may be a weak connection for D&D specifically,
And, of course, we are discussing D&D specifically. No-one has denied that there were Native Americans who fought in a style that used hatchet and knife. It just doesn't seem to be what that rules change was intended to reflect.

[travisjhall]

That's why you get Drizzt, and Tanis Half-Elven. Heck, they even have animal sidekicks.
Except, Tanis Half-Elven was a fighter. (Someone might have done something different with his 3rd Ed build, but from the original module series through to 2nd Edition he was straight fighter.) And he didn't have an animal sidekick.

[travisjhall]

Unpacked more and found my UA, BTW. Drow elves at that time could fight with two weapons without any penalty, provided that each weapon could be easily wielded in one hand. That last bit is important, as it bypasses the restriction of a secondary weapon being a dagger or hand axe according to the 1st Edition DMG.

[Kaewin]

Tanis did have an animal sidekick, he was called Caramon. Or was that Raistlin's familar?

I have looked but I can't find the rule that all rangers must wear green, can anybody tell me where thats at?:D

[thele]

I'd like to see the spells dumped and more combat options added. A bow ranger is fine, so is a TW ranger, but I'd also like to see a spear-weilder be viable, too.


That sounds pretty cool actually. Maybe I will write one.

~Le

[Kiero]

Except, Tanis Half-Elven was a fighter. (Someone might have done something different with his 3rd Ed build, but from the original module series through to 2nd Edition he was straight fighter.) And he didn't have an animal sidekick.

I think that's the problem; in 3.x they made him a ranger when he was just a fighter in 2e.

[Therion]

Likes: the idea and theme of the tracker/hunter/woodsman. I love the 2nd edition ranger.

Dislikes: Species enemies as a real game mechanic rather than as a thematic, flavour thing.

Overall, I also loved kits which basically made it possible to choose variations of the base class. And flexibility (as in, what weaponstyle, spells or not spells, etc), but that has more to do with the system rather than the class. And gradual skills in the 2nd edition compared to feats.

[Krypt_the_Gnoll]

I find myself constantly lagging behind my ranger party members. They can fire 6 arrows per turn if they invest heavily into the whole "archer-thing". As a fighter, I relish close combat and cracking skulls. But by the time initiative rolls around to my dwarf, there are no enemies left. I think that at higher levels they become too powerful compared to fighters and other combat-based classes.

I do like their "favored enemy" ability, and I'm glad that there is now a concrete reason to have a preferred monster to fight, other than as a cosmetic aspect.

[Golden Age Superhero]

I like that the 3.5 Ranger is a viable class, unlike in 3.0e.

I dislike that he casts spells and has a d8 hit die.

I like the C&C Ranger better.

Preachin' to the choir baby.:D :D :D .

First thing that impressed me about C&C was the Ranger class.

[Golden Age Superhero]

Incorrect, the FIRST 'Ranger' archetype, and the one that, um, pioneered two weapon fighting was the one, the only Aragorn of the Lord of The Rings trilogy.

He used Longsword and Knife as combo (And in this case it's the 'bastard sword' and 'dagger' from DnD), he was a loner and an expert woodsman. He wasn't especially good against any creature nor did he have an animal companion or, but those were added well after the first DnD game came out. And I think the animal companion was a Grizzly Adams sort of thing anyway.



Actually the big Double-D was taught dual weapon combat at the hands of his erstwhile father, my favourite character, Zaknefien (Although it's been a while so I'm pretty sure I mangled that spelling.)

Wouldn't Tarzan count as a Ranger of sorts?

[Kiero]

Preachin' to the choir baby.:D :D :D .

First thing that impressed me about C&C was the Ranger class.

Why what does the C&C Ranger look like? Presumably like the AD&D1e Ranger?

[Valfader]

Like: The sequence of special abilities focusing on outdoors. Animal companion, hide in plain sight, and other powers really push the class feel home. I really like the 'light tank' aspect of the class, with plenty of skill points but decent combat ability.

Dislike: Spells. The spells just don't make any sense to me, never have.

Same here, really. The optional no-spells ranger from Complete Warrior, is one I'm considering making compulsory in my campaigns.

[Kiero]

Same here, really. The optional no-spells ranger from Complete Warrior, is one I'm considering making compulsory in my campaigns.

What do they get instead of spells? Higher HD? Some extra Feats? Something else?

[Valfader]

What do they get instead of spells? Higher HD? Some extra Feats? Something else?
Fast movement: at sixth level. Same as Barbarian.

Nature's Blessing: +4 to a stat. Lasts 1 min/class level. Available at level 11.

Healing Touch: Remove disease or Neutralize poison. Gotten at level 13.

Freedom of Movement. 16th level.

[thele]

Wouldn't Tarzan count as a Ranger of sorts?

I would say yes. More like a Barbarian/Ranger though, since he can't read or use utensils.

~Le