Raner balance suggestion

[Boddynock]

Rangers seem to suffer from being a sub par martial class that relies on martial skills to get by. I had this thought to remedy some of that by making more of the fighter druid hybrid idea from which the class originated. They get an animal companion as a druid of four lvls lower than their ranger lvl, why not let them qualify for fighter martial feats (weapon focus and specialization, namely) as if they were a fighter four lvls lower than their ranger lvl as well?

Ideas? Thoughts? Suggestions?

[mrm3ntalist]

Rangers seem to suffer from being a sub par martial class that relies on martial skills to get by. I had this thought to remedy some of that by making more of the fighter druid hybrid idea from which the class originated. They get an animal companion as a druid of four lvls lower than their ranger lvl, why not let them qualify for fighter martial feats (weapon focus and specialization, namely) as if they were a fighter four lvls lower than their ranger lvl as well?

Ideas? Thoughts? Suggestions?

I wouldnt categorise rangers as subpar but that is not the point here. There are some ideas currently being worked on, that will give rangers and other classes more options and versatility

[Karond]

It's not sub-par, it's a perfectly good class balance-wise. Sure, variety is being discussed, but it's definitely not due to any concern about the class. It's more of a "wouldn't it be nice...", like you would see with any other class.

[Boddynock]

Well, agree to disagree on the ranger thing, but that doesn't address the idea of giving access to the fighter stuff with some delay and or other restrictions.

Also, any peek into what these options may be?

[R0ninknight]

I like the suggested concept. I might say 6 levels lower than a fighter rather than 4 or something but yeah- it makes a lot of sense to me.
Heck I'd much prefer that to having to take some arbitrary weapon style anyway. What if I wanted to be a ranger that uses a shield, for example? Nope- another reasonless nerf if that was attempted. Its right up there with 'why can't there be paladin/bards? That would be fun and I have no idea why the rules forbid it- the reasons in the book seem really, really thin.'

Chalk it up to the 'never try to apply logic to DnD' expression, I guess.

In any case, I like the suggestion as a concept anyway. If anything it might be the start of some kind of ranger-ey prestige class, too, as another option.

[Thorsson]

So one class gets spells, animal companion, loads of free Feats and qualifies for Fighter Feats as well? All it needs is HiPS. Wait...

[matelener]

The only thing that rangers need is variety (perhaps a PRC or two-handed weapon style / animal companion style). Maybe tumble as a class skill too.

[seawied]

I think Rangers are fairly weak in DnD 3.5, but by no means the weakest class that needs adjustment right now. If you take advantage of all the free dual wielding feats Ranger has, and take a splash of something that gives sneak attack, they can be decent.

[chad878262]

Actually pure rangers can be pretty strong with the enhanced spell list we have. I'd say they're on par with paladin as a well balanced class. Do they keep up with favoured soul, gish, dc caster, F/R/WM/FB or druid? No, but we try not to compare classes against OP classes/builds.

Can't really give insight to the proposed changes because we are very early in the process and haven't narrowed down their list, but PRC/Kit options such as beast master are in the discussion.

I'm leery of allowing rangers the fighter specific feats. Whereas other classes get feats/abilities at certain levels fighters get their combat feats based on how much they put into leveling as a fighter (4/8/12). Giving rangers axes at later levels isn't really an issue since most take ranger to either 13, 21, 25 or 30. End of the day you're giving rangers access to be as good at fighting as fighters along with everything else they get... This also begs the question of why paladin shouldn't gain access? What about barbarian? Swashbuckler? Just seems to me as taking away a unique ability you get for being a fighter...rangers and paladin get spells and abilities, barbarians get rage, fighters get WS, GWF, etc.

[R0ninknight]

Oh I was thinking 'instead' of a weapon style rather than on top of them. Like 'weapon focus style' that grants weapon focus, specialization and expertise over time instead of archery or two weapon fighting. Like... a boar hunter or bear hunter that uses spears, for example. Perhaps the choices rangers get would be limited to simple weapons for their weapon focus style bonus feats and fighters would of course be able to select any weapon to focus in?

Two-Handed, Sword and Shield, and Animal Companion styles would really open up character concepts for the class. Kaedrin's version of Ranger already has Two-Handed and Animal Companion.... I think as Sword and Shield tree would be great for this PW, too, to help capitalize on previous development work put into shield blocking and shield bashing feats.

I wouldn't say the class is 'weak' at all but rather just a bit stifling creatively from time to time. That said, there are plenty of ranger characters running around for a reason.