This page contains an in-depth look at the uniqueness of the ranger class in third edition Dungeons & Dragons (pre-3.5). I have painstakingly compiled the necessary tables to compare Fighter, Ranger, Druid, and two flavors of Fighter/Druid (© Wizards of the Coast, printed w/out permission). These statistics do NOT suffice, there is still the whole "flavor" and "originality" issue to discuss, but I maintain that this class is nothing more than a mix of Fighter and Druid with a few nature-oriented roguishness thrown in.

This article will also introduce a few new ideas, such as Favored Enemy as a feat (and eligible for a fighter's bonus feat with DM discretion). Given the dependence upon skills that druids have, they should have more skill points per level, like rogues. I also propose to toss "trackless step" into a skill and perhaps offer a feat to further specialize in it.

Without further ado, here are some comparison tables:

The important things to note in the above table are the differences in when each class gets certain things: attack modifiers, spells, and feats are the keys. As is clearly obvious, fighters and rangers have the same progression of attack and saves, while druids progress slower in attacks and much faster in will. Spells are also easy to see, rangers get spells at a very retarded rate compared to druids. Many ranger spells are of lower level than their druidic or wizardly versions to empower rangers and compensate for this. More on spells will be discussed below, in comparing fighter/druids to rangers.

Feats

Feats are the main object of comparison in this (and the next) table; the ranger dominates this arena from first to fourth levels. At fourth level, fighters can specialize as a feat (an option not afforded to rangers). Thanks to Improved Two Weapon Fighting, rangers have the edge over fighters until sixth level (but with no access to weapon specialization), and the fighter does not pull ahead until eighth level (these estimates use the original rule that allows use of this feat to a first level ranger with +9 base attack bonus thanks to other classes). Druids, not so tailored to combat, pale in comparison to the fighter and ranger. They never catch up, and are probably best suited not using two weapons. Besides, a weapon in each hand makes spells harder (or impossible) to cast.

Now that you've had a chance to examine each class as a stand-alone entity, we dive into multi-classing. Here I compare an even multiclassed fighter/druid with our friend the ranger. I also toss in another multiclassed fighter/druid that spends twice the time on fighter as on druid, trying to compensate for rangers being more like fighters. Seems there is more advantage to a even mix, even if we ignore any potential experience penalties. (Note, you will need a very wide browser to read this; try width of 1024px and/or make your font smaller ... my apologies.)

Notice the planned progressions are rather odd. I chose to run the even multiclass as FFDD before continuing on fighter first even distribution so that it closely matched the ranger, since the ranger is most advantageous in the earlier levels. The feats line up best with this arrangement. The multiclass biased towards fighter starts with druid to take advantage of the extra skills, not reflected in this table, which means getting 16 points at first level instead of 8. Since this character has such a slow skill progression, I thought it important to start on this high note, despite the disadvantage in attack and feats.

Spells

Of special note in this table is advancement of spells, which will require a little more information before continuing. I drafted the following list of spells from whatever books were lying around me at that time (unfortunately not logged) to show the few spells rangers can cast that druids can not. It also includes spells of differing levels.

I propose to add all of the unique ranger spells to the druid spell list at one level higher, except alarm which should remain first level. As of my writing this paragraph, I do not have a Players Handbook handy to verify how good an idea this is; none of these newly added spells should have a druid level lower than their wizard level (after all, they're added to compensate for removing rangers, not to benefit druids).

Comparing the even multiclassed fighter/druid (with the modified spell list) to the ranger, we see that the f/d beats the ranger to first level spells. F/d gets second level spells at the same time as rangers get their first non-bonus spell of first level, and the same for third level druid vs second level ranger spells. The difference comes later; fighter/druids get fourth level spells at 14th level and fifth level spells at 18th level. Rangers get third level spells at 11th level (0) and 12th level (1), and fourth level spells at 15th level (1). This means that rangers can cast Control Plants, Water Walk, Nondetection, Polymorph Self, Tree Stride, and Wind Wall a whole three levels earlier than an even fighter/druid. [Note to self, put comparison to fighter/wizard in here, too.] This plainly is not fair. Any ranger with bonus spells from high wisdom actually gets spells sooner than the fighter/spellcasting multiclasses without the loss in fighting ability.

Skill Points

I should make a similar case about fighter/rogues and bards vs rangers. Rangers get 4sp/level, f/r's get 5sp/level (but note fighter levels can't help much but climb without losing value, thus f/r is about 4sp/level), bards get 4sp/level. Of these three, rangers are by far the best in combat, having a 1:1 level:attack ratio (f/r is 5:6=0.83, bard is 2:3=0.66).

Multiclass Rangers

Multiclassed Rangers are abusive. If none of my other points seem valid enough to go as far as to ban this class rather than patch it up, this should. Think of a ranger/fighter, still pure in 1:1 level:base attack, getting gobs of bonus feats and specialization all on top of other extra feats, skills, and spells.

The ranger/fighter has more feats than ANY other combination of classes, by a significant margin (regardless of whether you consider favored enemy a feat -- see below). Consider the ranger/rogue, master of stealth. Such a character is very able in combat, has a few spells under his belt, can track with the best of them, and is just as stealthy as the best single-classed rogues.

A ranger/druid gets obscene quantities of nature-based spells and is nearly a fighter in combat. Sure, ranger/druids aren't as magically capable as cleric/druids of nature deities, but they are much more combat-able; compare a ranger/druid to a fighter/druid and a fighter/cleric/druid, and you should see the ranger/druid come out on top. Ranger/wizards and ranger/sorcerers (and ranger/bards) all benefit from the ranger's fighting skills and never need to worry about armor, since they can't really wear it anyway. The exposure to extra spells can't hurt, and skills get a bump up (fighter/spellcasters have 2sp/level in both classes).

Recall that at lower levels (up to fourth or sixth if you don't specialize), the ranger is superior to the fighter in every aspect. Of course ranger is the better choice for multiclassing; if fourth level is the difference, that's eighth level for two classed characters, and if sixth level is the difference, that's twelfth level, at which point you break off and take a prestige class. Do not forget Improved Two Weapon Fighting, which kicks in at +9 to attack (this is fixed in D&D3.5), which puts the bar up to eighth level to make the classes even, discounting the ability to specialize in a weapon. Few multiclass characters take more than eight levels in a single warrior-type class; the prestige classes are just too appealing.

Filling the Gap

Ranger isn't the exact same thing as a fighter/druid, it is just very similar. Certain things don't work right if one wants to create a fighter/druid more akin to a ranger. The three most important ones are compensating for spells, favored enemy, and skills. We covered spells above, so on to favored enemy:

Favored Enemy

The only thing rangers have going for them is their racism (well, when you put it like that...), and this rarely comes into play. I call it that because that is when it is most interesting to role-play, like the elf that despises humans. Favored Enemy can be abused, too (ie when taken against a common pc-friendly race without the racism twist), like the human Artemis Entreri's enemy of humans (he is evil, but this intimate knowledge of humans should be covered by his rogue training and reflected by sneak attack). While I am proposing the creation of a feat to replace this, DMs should be wary of abuse; this really is racism, an obsession of hate that results in better understanding of combat against a specific species. It must be treated so in role-playing, lest it be abused.

New Feat: Favored Enemy. +1 vs chosen enemy as Ranger. You may choose this feat up to once per +4 base attack bonus. Each time you take this feat, previous bonuses increase by +1 and you choose a new enemy to get that std. +1. This feat qualifies for fighter's bonus feat.

Counting Favored Enemies as feats, Rangers and Fighters even at 16th level and 20th level Fighters have two more feats total while rangers have crazy volumes of skills AND spells.

Druids Suck

Is that so? I don't want to dwell here too long, for I have been told that they are very heavily modified in D&D3.5. My suggestions for druids (not just fighter/druids, that wouldn't make sense) are to increase the progression of skill points and make Wilderness Lore more of a focus-point, like Perform is to bards.

Wilderness lore should be an opposed check, taking synergy from hide to conceal tracks and synergy from search to track. Anybody should be able to track (with wilderness lore), so the feat then becomes a boost of some sort. If no concealment attempt was made, use whatever is in the book currently.

Trackless Step is stupid. (Obligatory quote: "Nothing vanishes without a trace!" -- Cigarette Smoking Man, X-Files.) Sure, druids are at one with nature and should therefore be harder to track (especially when they are trying to pass undetected), but this should not be automatic. Instead, using the above modifications to wilderness lore, third level should give a +10 competence bonus to hide tracks and get +5 competence bonus to hide checks in natural surroundings. Hiding tracks should be time-consuming. Cut movement down just like moving silently, with a bonus for slowing down to a half of that (roll twice and take better, the druid is essentially tracking himself for thoroughness). Third level druids should also be able to cover their tracks without slowing down. Consider this a -5 penalty to the check.

To cover a party's tracks, each non-druid member makes individual cover tracks (wilderness lore) check with a bonus of half the druid's modifier. For simplicity, take the best roll and that is the party's check. The druids in the party should make their own rolls separately with -1 per member of the party (take the better of this and the party roll).

I Don't Want a Spellcasting Shapeshifter!

Well, if you go by this presentation, you should play a barbarian or fighter (or fighter/barbarian). See my proposal of Aragorn as a single-class fighter in the next section.

The whole idea of ranger-as-a-master-tracker is not lost on me, it would simply require the re-working of both ranger and druid classes. Perhaps the solution is to pull the ranger out of the druid. This means rangers need a new skill to tie themselves to. Let's call it "track." It will take synergy from wilderness lore and a significant boost from the feat. Druids will need to attach themselves to wilderness lore (as already discussed) while rangers lean more towards the track skill. Rangers would also be more people-friendly while druids would care primarily for the wildlife (the druid also needs to distance him/herself from the cleric of a nature deity). Rangers need a reduced spell list that doesn't do things like lower levels of spells to counteract the slower progression. They also need the "feat package" concept that D&D3.5 will introduce; not every ranger wants to dual-wield weapons. Some wish to become master archers, and others might like to fight like their animal friends (claws, etc; like a feral monk). These packages need to be significantly worse than the fighter's choices, especially in progression.

The idea of unwanted abilities should be a point to discuss with your DM. One should be able to ditch an ability (like wild shape) in exchange for a less powerful one (like evasion at 5th level and improved evasion at 10th, or a domain, or bonus feats from an acceptable list, etc.). Just be careful to make sure it is actually less powerful (a good way to correct such an award is make the substitute ability require an extra check to succeed until a higher level). Remember that character development and customization are what make this game great, and separate it from computer-based wanna-bes.

Ranger as a Prestige Class

But I want to be like Aragorn! Aragorn was a seasoned veteran traveller at one with nature and very handy in a fight (read your Tolkien). He seems to me primarily a fighter. He was a very experienced fighter, very intelligent, learned (he spent a lot of time with the elves), and expert tracker. In game terms, he doesn't need any levels in ranger or even druid, he works just fine as a fighter. Give him an 18 intelligence and he gets seven skill points a level (he is human). With all those bonus feats, he has room for non-combat feats like track and skill focus:wilderness lore. First level, he has 30 skill points, more than enough to cover the eight needed to fill wilderness lore and the seven each additional level is more than enough to keep it peaked. I would personally make him a fighter/druid, leaning heavily on fighter (he is human, so there are no penalties here). He is wizened (remember he is Dunedain[sp?], and they do not age as fast; some estimate his age well over sixty) and very competent. I would say he is about a fighter16/druid6.

Perhaps Aragorn has a prestige class instead of those druid levels. Let's call it "ranger" for fun. The main point of this class is to grant many of the druidic abilities without any spells (Aragorn had no magic, Drizzt had no magic, ...) or advanced abilities like wild shape. The base attack progression should be either 1/level or something more akin to fighter/druid. Given the nature (yes, clever pun) of this class, the requirement should be something like the track feat, 4 ranks in wilderness lore, and 4 ranks in handle animal. No new armor, perhaps proficiency in staff and bows. Class skills should include those of the base ranger with four points per level, with some sort of barrier to prevent use in cities. Hark, no feats! Track was a requirement, so there doesn't seem anything left here. Note that this class is tailored to fighters looking for that woodsman feel.

Now for the special traits (we need to compensate for the lost feats and skills). How about something like a wizard's familiar, but more nature-based, like a really faithful animal companion thanks to an advanced form of animal friendship? Sounds good. Let's see, what did Aragorn have ... how about heightened senses in the chosen terrain (that's right, not just automagically all of them!), like +4 to spot, listen, search, and wilderness lore checks in this chosen terrain? So the companion at first level, the +4 at third, beef the bonus to +8 at sixth and +12 at ninth. Give a ranger-esque favored enemy at 5th and 10th levels. Trackless step should be somewhere in there, too, probably at second level. Now we just need a really cool something at 10th level (or else change the progression to 1/level).

Well, let's see what we have:

Rangers in D&D 3.5

Quick, hurry up and release this essay before it is too obselete! Yeah, I would have brushed this baby up more were it not for the rush of beating 3.5. I suspect it will still have some relevance even after 3.5, but it definitely addresses a large number of problems in D&D3.0 that will soon have more official fixes.

My anticipations for D&D3.5? I see the ranger class being made more independent, but not enough so to separate it from the fighter/druid. Wizards has promised to stagger the ranger's bonus feats so that they don't all come to first level characters, but I don't see how they can keep them all and still be slower and less than fighters. The sneak peeks have revealed that you can choose a feats package, 2 weapon, archer, or perhaps something else. This doesn't change my accusations. I also expect that the druid, which has reportedly been altered more than any other class, will reflect ALL of my changes in some form (though the skill points will likely stay at 4 per level), and of course there will be more, too; I'm trying not to completely redefine terms, whereas they are intending to do that a bit more. There are rumors flying around that the ranger may soon have a hit die of d8 instead of the d10. This may be a good idea, but it seems insignificant compared to the advantages rangers still have. It also breaks the standard of more hit points per level for the more warrior-type classes (+1attack/level) and further blurs the line between ranger and druid.

As to the spell lists, I wouldn't be surprised if they were merged, but they will probably grow more apart; druid spells are rather small in number presently, and this will soon change. Both lists will grow. Rangers will get more paladin-like combat spells (with a tilt towards nature instead of holiness, of course), and druids will get more wizardly looking spells. I hope they make some really cool material components; I've always pictured druids as using a forest like an equipment stronghold: need healing? here's some berries (goodberry). need a sword? here's one made of ironwood. need shelter? now this tree branch is wider, rest under it.

Paladins

Hey, what about paladins; don't they exhibit the same "problems?" Yes, but they have more unique flavor than rangers. I've actually had this grudge towards paladins longer than towards rangers, but there is a stronger argument against rangers than paladins. Essentially, paladins are lawful good fighter/clerics with one of the chosen domains as war (hello, weapon focus). This nicely matches the spell progression (paladins progress the same as rangers but have a more balanced spell list in my opinion, so they map rather similarly to fighter/clerics since clerics have the same spell progression as druids). Feats are not so easily compared; a fighter/cleric has far more feats than a paladin (and thanks to free weapon focus, more than a ranger by level six, including a shot at actually using weapon specialization). Paladins' abilities do not map to feats. They are simply more powerful (and before everybody shouts "MONK," notice they are far earlier). Now skills. Oh, paladins get the same as fighter; nothing abusive here. While I feel rangers can be replaced by fighter/druids, I feel paladins cannot be so easily replaced.

Paladins seem (to me) more fighters then clerics, even with the war domain. They spend more time fighting in the name of their faith than otherwise promoting it, so I would see the ratio of fighter:cleric as being 2:1 or 3:1, and cleric could even be replaced by bard (recall that our historical bards were all very religious, essentially travelling priests in all but name).

I instead feel they are best moved into a prestige class, whose requirements seek a fighter-type with priestly qualities (but not neccesarily spellcasting). This way, a potential paladin would need to spend time proving devotion to the strict ethos to whatever patron god, religious organization and/or self before suddenly getting all these cool "good" abilities (wow, I said "cool good").

Hmm, you could do the same thing to monks. What are you trying to do, reduce the basic classes to fighter, cleric, sorcerer, wizard, rogue? No, barbarian, bard, and druid are all valid classes, being significantly different from fighter/ranger (ahem), rogue/cleric 2:1, and cleric(nature). As to monk, there is a lot of controversy over the power of this guy; he needs no weapons and no armor, has skills over a cleric/fighter or ~tied with fighter/rogue, but he can't multiclass, can't use much of that powerful treasure the party keeps finding, and his feat-equivalents aren't in too high a number. Unlike ranger and paladin, he fights like a cleric but casts no spells. From a game-balance perspective, I am content. (Flavor/reality is another issue; 1d20/hit? quivering palm? in European-esque context?) I might prefer to have monks tied down by ethos nearing the strictness of paladins. And yes, rumor has it that D&D3.5 will fix the +1 equivalent so that it is earlier and doesn't render the monk so completely useless as often.

Conclusions

So, I hope I've made my case. Rangers are not unique in flavor as they are essentially fighter/druids with more skill points and class skills. They have the best base attack bonus, beating all of fighter/druid, fighter/rogue, fighter/cleric, fighter/bard, bard, rogue, and druid. Rangers get key spells sooner than fighter/druids and paladins, [and fighter/wizards? and bards?] and even have a few potent spells not normally available to druids. They have amazing skill points and class skills, adding many of the rogue's specialties to the druid's. Skill progression beats that of fighter/druid, fighter, and when looking at hide, move silent, listen, search, and spot, rangers also beat fighter/rogues and tie [or beat? look up] bards. Favored enemy, the only concept unique to rangers, has been moved to a feat. Spells unique to rangers have been moved to druid levels as appropriate. Rangers simply aren't worthy of being a base class.