It is agreed by even the most fervent ranger lovers that a change was needed, because as originally written the ranger was just too powerful. Experienced players have witnessed upper level rangers with a magic sword and possibly a strength bonus slaughter opponents. Plus, the broad scope of enemies made virtually every humanoid-type monster ranger-hash. The question is, "does the new rule adequately rectify the situation?" Like Rick, I believe that the pendulum has swung too far, taking too much power away from the ranger. I wholeheartedly endorse his categories with a few additions and changes of my own.

Wizard Will's Species Enemies

1. GOBLINOID: Goblins, hobgoblins, orcs, kobolds, gnolls, flinds, half-orcs, etc.
2. GIANT: All giant types, titans, trolls, ettins
3. SWAMP: Lizardmen, troglodytes, giant lizards, shambling mounds, will­o-wisps(?)
4. DRAGON: All dragon types, including wyverns but not dinosaurs
5. WALKING DEAD: Zombies (including ju-ju), skeletons, ghouls, ghasts, wights, vampires, lichs, and other corporeal undead
6. HAUNTING SPIRITS: Wraiths, spectres, ghosts, and other noncorporeal undead
7. DEMONS, DEVILS: All demons, devils, daemons, etc.
8. WERECREATURES: Lycanthropes and shapechangers but excluding werebears
9. INSECTS: Giant versions of spiders and insects, including carrion crawlers, etc.
10. MAN, ELF, or DWARF: Providing these are evil enemies of the forest or mankind (the ranger is in a role such as "Robin Hood"), including evil mages, etc.
11. FREAKS OF NATURE: Non-natural, or magically manufactured freaks such as owlbears, golems, and beholders. This category must be judged on a case-by-case basis by the DM.

Where Rick and I differ is in the inclusion of certain categories such as #11, or the inclusion of the will-o-wisps as a swamp creature. Rick figures that the ranger is specially trained or is specially skilled against certain body types, fighting techniques, etc.

My view is that the ranger is like the Tolkienian bounders who protected the borders of the Shire. They function as protectors of communities. They receive no special training in fighting (over what a warrior might), but they certainly begin to hate those that threaten that which they dutifully protect.

In the rules my justification for this is simple. I believe that the +4 to hit in the SER implies a special skill versus the class or species. Conversely, the +1 per level damage bones in the FER implies not a special skill but hatred for the given species. I prefer to leave the original bonus intact and simply limit the number of creatures against which a ranger may use this bonus.

The ranger can hit the species no better than a fighter of equal level, but when he hits he strikes with such emotion and ferocity that he does added damage. In other words, the ranger with the damage bonus has no great skill versus the given class, but he attacks with such ferocity and hatred that he gets a damage bonus. By this reasoning we can lump together creatures that a given ranger might hate, rather than ones that resemble one another through some body shape of fighting style. The ranger can be like a "bounder."

If the community a ranger is protecting is constantly attacked by insects, then he will hate these insects. If his job is to keep the swamp evils in the swamp, then he will certainly begin to hate his enemy. If he is Robin Hood, then he will hate "men" who bring suffering to others.

Imagine the player character who becomes a ranger at age 18. He goes on to many adventures; unless he repeatedly faces the same foes, there iss no justification for him to attack any creature any better than a fighter who has fought the same battles. However, if he is a member of a certain order of ranger,, or if his homeland was constantly harassed by a certain creature, he surely would have a reason to have added hatred, i.e. a damage bonus.

Also, Rick's own list of species enemies betrays him. His logic rests upon the belief that creatures within his categories have similar fighting styles There are several creatures in this table which are grouped together that don't fight alike.

Refer to his table only let's observe the following inconsistencies lizardmen surely fight more like the "Goblin Group" than the creatures found in the "Swamp Group." Skeletons and zombies are listed side by side, and we know from respected authorities (sarcasm) that they fight differently. (Footnote: movies like "Night of the Living Dead" and "Sinbad"). Mummies fight more like zombies and skeletons more like kobolds, with slightly better tactics. Obviously a werewolf, a doppelganger, and a werebear have very different styles. In the insect category, can we expect someone to successfully use the same tactics versus spiders, giant centipedes and giant wasps? I think not. Thus if we accept Rick's reasoning we must limit these classes more severely.

Conversely, on my side of the fence we find one odd exception: the werebear. In the werebear's particular case the bear might not be good, but the ranger would feel no true hatred, rage or loathing, as he might when confronted with a greasy wererat or viscous werewolf.

I believe Rick's idea of "groupings" is brilliant, but I offer it in my response with some revisions based on my points.

The other major change in the rules that catches my attention is how the ranger's tracking ability is handled. In the old FER rangers had a base 65% chance indoors and 90% chance outdoors; this ability never increased with level and started relatively high at lst-level. In the SER the player is told to refer to the tracking non­weapon proficiency. "Furthermore, this improves by +1 for every three levels the ranger has earned." Referring to the descriptions for NWPs, rangers check versus their WIS ability with certain modifiers.

What I don't like about this new rule is that it isn't simple enough. As a DM, especially in the heat of the moment, I don't have time to do a lot of figuring. I want one table I can refer to and in an instant know the result. With that in mind I have created the following tables, which have virtually the same probability as the NWP check in the SER.

Wizard Will's Ranger Ability Table
Ranger Level	% Indoors	% Outdoors
1	65	80
2	67	82
3	70	85
4	72	87
5	74	89
6	75	90
7	77	92
8	79	94
9	80	95
10	82	97
11	84	98
12	85	100

Wisdom Bonuses to Tracking Abilities

WIS Bonus
15 5%
16 10%
17 15%
18 20%

Terrain Modifiers for Tracking

Soft or mud +20%
Thick brush +15%
Small signs +10%
Rocky/rough ground -50%
Shallow water -50%
Every 2 creatures passing +5%
Each 12 hours of time passed -5%
Each hour of precipitation -25%
Poor light -30%
Tracked group attempts to hide -25%

Editor's Note:

Both the FER and SER provide for failure despite the experience and number of attempts a character makes in performing or planning a task to simulate random chance. I would suggest that at 9th-level in Will's table for outdoor tracking that the percentage remain fixed at 95% base from this level on up, and that once indoor tracking becomes 95% by ranger's experience that it remain fixed at this base also. This falls in line with the 1 in 20 chance of failure the both systems use as a mainstay, and in the SER, the 95% is maximum for any thieving skill, so logically it should be applied to rangers as well should the DM decide to use Will's modifications to tracking. Of course, depending upon conditions, the base tracking ability could be raised to the maximum possible chance, 100%. Furthermore, Will makes no provision for indoor tracking modifiers: refer to the FER Player's Handbook page 24 for suggestions.

Point and Counter-point Opinions

This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com