Hello all, retro gamer here.

I have binged on western RPGs these past few years, and across the board, if there is a ranger class in that game, chances are it will suck...

Listing only the games I have played:

Eye of the Beholder trilogy: 100% useless. get a Paladin or Fighter/Cleric instead, or heck any fighter multiclass.

Dark Sun games : 100% Useless. Get a Gladiator, or Fighter/Druid instead.

Baldur's gate 1: wheeee!... I can choose a specific single enemy class I will have a bonus against... Fighters specializing in bows are better.

Ultima Underworld 1 & 2: A woodsman in a dungeon game where there is no forests or furry animal friends, and missile weapons are really really bad. Get a druid or paladin instead, or a fighter or mage.

Might and Magic 3: OK, this is only game listed here where he's useful and ONLY because of his exclusive access to Walk on Water. Would be useless otherwise.
Might and Magic 4-5 World of Xeen: No more exclusive nature spells? LOL, off to the trash bin you go...
Might and Magic 6: Speaks volumes that it's absent from this game where as the druid is included
Might and Magic 7: .... because in this one, it's the worst class out of 9, by far. Complete joke class, the first promotion class is the easiest because it involves finding a trickster fairy who makes fun of you.

Heroes of Might and Magic 3 (I know, strategy game, but I felt like including it because of all 18 available classes, it's one of the worst)


Note: this topic is NOT about the M&M Archer class, or Diablo 1 Rogue class, or Diablo 2 Amazon class. These bow/ranged combat specialist are all great.

So do you know any old western RPGs where Rangers are good?

There is one build that, while it might be considered an exploit, actually gives an interesting use for the Ranger class. It works as follows:
* Choose Human for the race.
* Start as a Ranger (or make it the second class, but I'd consider it as a first class because of the way HP works for dual-class characters). Choose a domain with good high-level spells.
* Dual-class into Cleric (perhaps as the third class, since these games let you dual-class twice). Choose a domain other than the one you choose as a Ranger.
* Once your Cleric level exceeds your Ranger level, you now have access to both sets of domain spells.

Now, while this might be considered an exploit, I would argue it's fair, because the Cleric class is generally not that good due to having only minor access to Cosmos (and hence no access to important spells you'd expect a Cleric to have, like any healing other than Cure Light Wounds).

In Wake of the Ravager, choosing Water as the Ranger domain is a good choice. If you dual class before level 11 (I would recommend level 7, or at the start of the game), you will be able to cast a Water spell that works like Heal once you reach Cleric level 11, and you still have your other domain spells.

As for other old WRPGs where Rangers are good? I can think of a couple:
* Oubliette: Rangers are the ultimate class here. They level up slowly, but if leveled up high enough, can cast every spell of both types, and can fight well while having the HP to survive the spells that hit all battle participants.
* Ultima 3: Can fight well, have the half-thief bonus (same bonus a Barbarian gets), and can cast both types of spells. The drawbacks are that it's hard to get their MP up, and they can't use the most powerful ranged weapon, but said weapon is too expensive (the money could be spent on stat boosts) and you can't actually use that weapon in the final area of the game, anyway. On the other hand, if you don't care about said weapon, then this class is clearly better than Fighter and Barbarian. (Also, in the Amiga and (I believe) Atari ST versions, Rangers are better than Druids due to getting about the same MP and MP regen, and furthermore are better than Paladin and Lark if you don't care about that +4 bow (the strong but expensive ranged weapon mentioned).)
* (In Ultima 4, Ranger works out to be the 3rd worst class (either that or Tinker), but they can still use a strong ranged weapon, and can cast any spell if INT is high enough, so they're at least decent (much better than Fighter or Shepherd), and you need to recruit everyone anyway (assuming not NES).)
* Wizardry 8 has good rangers, but note that this game uses them as ranged combat specialists, unlike the previously mentioned games where they're generalists. They're the only ones to get Scouting, and can critical at range. Worth noting that this is definitely *not* true of the main Ultima series. In particular, in Ultima 3-5 they're far better than melee, and are still quite good at 6, mainly because you have to choose between moving just 1 square or attacking on your turn.

I don't know if it counts as old. But Pathfinder Wrath of The Righteous has a great Ranger class. And the Ranger "subclass" DemonHunter is particularly strong in its campaign since you fight so many demons and the animal companion you get is about as strong as a regular party member. I think it's a little more common to play ranged but you can go for a strength/melee build just fine.

I agree, in CRPG's Rangers usually suck pretty bad and have no real benefits over a full warrior.

For D&D in particular, Ranger abilities are more about role playing options in the pen and paper game. People that want to play a hippy warrior love them. That doesn't translate to computer RPG's as well- role playing being limited usually to just hand placed scripted events placed by the developers.

But say what you want about Rangers, they are better than Bards! Bards suck.

There are games where Bards are good. For example (note that I use both WRPG and JRPG examples):
* Bard's Tale 1: Bards get access to bard songs, which provide bonuses to the party, including one that heals the entire party every round of combat, available before you gain access to healing magic. Also, there are Bard exclusive items like the Fire Horn that allow a Bard to breathe on a group like a dragon, doing more damage than you can do with any general purpose attack spell (yes, even the Fire Horn out-damages Mind Blade). Bard's Tale 2 and 3 also have bards, and the BT3 bard can halve the damage you take and can burn all enemies for free.
* In Ultima 4 (non-NES), Bard is one of the 3 classes that can use the most powerful ranged weapon, the Magic Wand. While Druid is probably better, and Mage better in the long run (once you can actually get that Wand), the Bard is still quite good, and can still potentially cast any spell in the game.
* Final Fantasy 5, and the 3D remakes of FF3 and FF4: By this point in the series, Square finally figured out how to make Bards good. FF5 bards do still tend to be an advanced choice, though they work really well against undead at a certain point, and also help against one of the superbosses. In the FF3 remakes, Bards are actually good, being able to do things like heal the entire party for free at the start of the round. For FF4 3D, the healing song is really good, and if you use the Bardsong augment on an endgame character (I recommend Rydia), the combination of Hastemarch + Berserk can make many bosses, including the final boss, much easier.
* Dragon Quest 7 (PSX): Bard gets free access to some spell effects, including one that prevents spellcasting, and one that can revive dead characters; even if it only works half the time, a free revive is still useful. Also possible to get access to a free party heal this way.
* Etrian Odyssey 1 has a good Troubadour (which is basically Bard) class. Unfortunately, this class isn't as good in EO2.
* Icewind Dale has a nice Bard class. You get the ability to cast Mage spells at a higher caster level than a Mage (so Bards are better at spells like Dispel Magic and Fireball that scale with level), and you also get some nice Bard songs, including one that heals, and one that makes natural 20s more likely and natural 1s impossible.
* Wizardry 8's Bard gets some instruments that allow for the casting of spells using Stamina (which is easily restored) rather than SP. In particular, Bards even get an instrument that heals the entire party (and there are two of that instrument in the game).

Edit: One common theme you might notice is that some of these good Bards are support specialists rather than the D&D idea of bards being generalists. I note that Ranger also has both generalist (Ultima 3) and specialist (Wizardry 8) interpretations.

This is partially due to the Armorer bug - heroes take more damage with the Armorer skill vs arrow towers, not less.

It has been patched in some versions - maybe HOTA? but there was never an official patch for it.

In general, I reckon it's the Aragorn effect. Aragorn is cool, so people want to play rangers, but if everyone plays rangers, it's boring, so they can't be more powerful than other classes.

Try playing Lords of Xulima without a bard...
Only class with object identification, object evaluation and mercantilism at 1 point per level, and money actually matter in that game, especially in the earlier part where you'll really struggle for every coin to afford even the food and rest, and then see what difference the songs make, early ones giving the edge to get through, late ones really changing the tide.

The first time I played Pillars, I picked the Ranger class, and the animal companion is pretty useful as a +1 if your party is full. I did find some of the Ranger abilities to be a bit self-defeating with trade offs, but it's mostly stacking bonuses and using your pet as a buff, acting as a self-contained support class. But I never actually beat the game, only got maybe halfway through before I stopped playing since it wasn't technically MY game at the time, so I don't know how a late game Ranger plays. My opinion on it is "if you're using a full party, you're probably not going to notice any real strengths or weaknesses".

Especially the song that can mass instakill weaker enemies making late-game battles so much faster.

Balrum has three character classes - archer, warrior, and wizard. The archer class is pretty much a ranger, especially since everyone gets a pet to follow them around. Every guide out there about playing on the grandmaster (hardest) difficulty starts by saying that you'll need to pick the archer class. Warriors have to stand toe-to-toe with everything, get hit, and spend money getting their armor repaired. Wizards are going to run into things, like Giant Mantis, that can drain them of all mana really fast. Archers (i.e. rangers) really are the easiest class to play.

No game balances classes 100% perfectly. Rangers are generally about the outdoors and wilderness, so it's to be expected that they're going to be so-so in Eye of the Beholder. It's like how Strahd's Possession is the only game where I specifically want a Paladin in my party no matter what even though I could take or leave them everywhere else.

Also think that rangers are pretty good in Divinity II.

That's not the only interpretation of the Ranger class I've seen. I have seen Rangers being the jack-of-all-trades class, much like some interpretations of Bard and the Final Fantasy Red Mage.

Also, Paladin can be good in Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous because you're fighting mostly demons, which are evil. Then again, the game does give you the Iconic Paladin as a companion early in the game.

Or, of course, if we look at JRPGs there's Final Fantasy 4, where you have to have a paladin in your party for more than half the game (this particular JRPG gives you no control over your party composition). On the other hand, Paladin's Quest, despite its title, has no Paladins in it.

In a lot of games, rangers suck because:
- They tend to have a bunch of nature-only (or worse, forest-only) abilities which are useless in urban environments when that part is realistically implemented (though in a lot of games, it isn't)
- They often specialize in physical ranged attacks and in a lot of medieval-themed rpg games where characters can comfortably receive a bunch of letal blows (or in this case, arrows) like it is no biggy and warriors are present, the ranged phase is limited to the very beginning of the fight before things degenerate into a melee slug-fest where the ranged characters are disadvantaged (especially since they tend to greatly shorten ranged scale compared to what would be realistic in real life)
- Their arrows tend to be better against mages which tend to stay far, although in a lot of games, mages have anti-arrow spells and then the rangers are back to being scr*wed.
- Rangers tend not to use metal armor and the disadvantage that gives you in melee combat tends to be at least semi-realistically represented in most games (no matter what crazy unarmoured dodging bonuses they give you, it doesn't quite put you on par with an optimized metal-wearing fighter in most games)
- When they give rangers spells, they tend to be significantly weaker than the spells they give pure spellcasters as the spell power progression is closer to an exponential curve than a linear one in most games: When you go into spells, it often pays to go all the way.

Of course, these are broad generalizations. There are obviously some exceptions.

I would expect that the developer/s were implying that the protagonist is the eponymous hero, but I have never played it.