D&D 3E/3.5 My players hate the 3e ranger.

[Moon_Goddess]

If you take again Ambi and 2 weapon, give them Rapid shot in its place. It may not seem to be a fair trade up 2 for one, but mechanically it does the same for bows as the original feats do for swords.

And if you keep the old feels, for gods sake, let it work on Quaterstaffs.

 

[Shin Okada]

My suggestion is to make Ranger/Fighter instead of modifying current class. IMHO, 3e multi class system, only by it self, already have enough possibility to make characters of any concept. For me, it seems that people are jumping to new core class or prestige class too easily.

Also, IHMO, TWF style is only "superior" to 2HW or 1HW + Shield when a man have additional damage dice (such as sneak attack) or something. On the other hands, those bow related feats are apparently an addition to his combat abilities. So I am afraid that substituting TWF virtual feats with those bow feats just make Ranger stronger than current one. Personally, I do not like such kind of modifications.

 

[hong]

If you take again Ambi and 2 weapon, give them Rapid shot in its place. It may not seem to be a fair trade up 2 for one, but mechanically it does the same for bows as the original feats do for swords.

... remembering, of course, that Point-Blank Shot is a prerequisite for Rapid Shot.

How much longer before Morrus whisks this off to House Rules, I wonder?

 

[Sigmund]

In the campaign I'm a player in now, one of our group plays a standard ranger who's a specialist with the light crossbow, which he accomplished without altering the core class. He's real good with it too

 

[Wormwood]

One more vote for Monte's ranger. It's a marked improvement over the lackluster PHB one.

*Over* powered? Maybe on paper, but we played with one for a few months with no problems.

 

[mmadsen]

They want a more bow orientated class. How about removing 2 weapon fighting and ambidexterity and giving them specialization in the bow and point blank shot? I'm not concerned with minor balance issues, hell balance issues at all as the rest of the party isn't concerned if the Ranger is perfectly balanced with thier classes.

It sounds like you've already got your answer. Give 'em the archery feats and move on!

 

[CRGreathouse]

Re: Re: My players hate the 3e ranger.

I strongly recommend giving the ranger one bonus feat in exchange for TWF and Abbidexterity. Ambi/TWF weren't designed to be equal to the other feats in power - that's why two are given on first level (along with 2-8 more skill points, access to spells for the purpose of wands, and a better skill list).

 

[Forrester]

Just wanted to add my two cents and say I agree; TWF/Ambidexterity is a helluva lot less powerful than many think. It can be useful . . . but to most characters, it's much less valuable than point-blank shot/rapid shot. Or point-blank shot/any other archery feat.

Perhaps giving them Alertness/Point-Blank Shot, or Endurance/Point-Blank Shot makes a *little* more sense. But be careful to not make the front-loading worse than it already is.

 

[Erekose]

I developed an alternative based on an archer-ranger model:

http://www.electricearth.net/ranger/rangers/10.html

 

[lobo]

Suggested fix

I allow the player to replace the two virtual feats at first level with one feat at level one, four, and eight.