3.5 Ranger Combat Styles

[Vrylakos]

Thats what I was talking about. thats basicaly an accusation and could have turned this thread into a flame war which I really dont like. things seem to have gotten nicely back on track however.
Vrylakos: I agree just the TWF/Archery paths would not be enough...I am going to be a tad peeved if theres less than 4 paths. However on the bright side it looks as tho the 3.5 ranger is going to be essentialy Monte Cooks ranger with virtual feats instead of bonus feats. so its probable many may just continue using Monte's ranger.

Agreed. I really like his ranger material in Book of Hallowed Might.
Which one are you using?

Vrylakos

 

[Merlion]

Well I am not actualy getting to play right now I've been moving around to much. If I was going to play a ranger right now it'd be Monte Cooks. I think the ranger in the Book of Hallowed Might is just a printed version of the variant ranger he put on his website some time ago but I'd have to check.

 

[Vrylakos]

Hm... I think there were some differences. I'll check when I get home tonight. Monte himself said he made up the original one off the cuff and hadn't revised it since he did it - like he had second thoughts on some stuff.

I'll check and report back!

Vrylakos

 

[Merlion]

Eeek...I just checked it is different...dont like it as well. he gives it back the d10 hit die but takes away the extra skill points and the first level bonus feat. I like the one on the website better personaly...I dont mind the d8 and I think the extra skill points are a must.

 

[Vrylakos]

HM, I'll have to check it again. The original one seemed a bit too giving, IMO. Oh, hurry up and close, library!

Vrylakos

 

[Droogie]

re: the d8 hd----- when I heard that it was dropping to this in 3.5e, I balked. Then it started to grow on me as I realized that a ranger is more of a scout than a front-line fighter. If his BAB progression is better than a druid, then he's still a reasonably good fighter, right?

Well then I realized that if you want to go along with the 2-w fighting path, you are most likely going to be in the front line anyway. With studded leather. And no shield. And a d8 for a hit-die.

Noooo thank you. I have a feeling if 3.5 goes with the d8, the 2-w fighting ranger will become pretty rare.

re: "virtual feats": Kill them. Please. Just give him the dang feat already. AS of now, if I want to create Little John, I need to take the REAL 2-w fighting feat and the REAL ambidex feat to use a quarter-staff as a double weapon.

re: combat style paths:I've mentioned this in the last thread that dealt with this subject. Wouldn't it be easier to just give him a few extra feats from a selected list? Or better yet, a few extra feats but any feat he wants? Rangers are resourceful after all.
We hated it when he was pigeon-holed into a 2-w fighter. The archer path, while closer to what people imagine a ranger to be, still only gives him one more pigeon hole. Gee, thanks for the free manyshot feat, but can I use it with a crossbow? What if I want to make a character like William Tell?

Some feel stripping the ranger of his combat style strips away his flavor. I don't feel that way. What makes a ranger is his outdoorsey-ness. The only class that ceases to be when you strip it of its fighting style is the monk.

 

[Merlion]

I ferverntly hope their will be at least 4 Combat Styles. If not, I will just be staying with Monte Cooks original variant ranger most likely if I ever play one.
I do understand to a point why they do virtual feats instead of real ones...so all the people who think fighters are so darn downtrodden wont complain. and so we dont have rangers in platemail to much which would be weird

 

[Droogie]

I ferverntly hope their will be at least 4 Combat Styles. If not, I will just be staying with Monte Cooks original variant ranger most likely if I ever play one.
I do understand to a point why they do virtual feats instead of real ones...so all the people who think fighters are so darn downtrodden wont complain. and so we dont have rangers in platemail to much which would be weird

The fact that rangers don't have heavy armor proficiency plus the steep armor-check penalties is enough to keep rangers out of that armor.

Anyway, fighters get a ****load of feats. Throwing the ranger maybe two or three extra feats won't break anything.

 

[Merlion]

Ohh I agree wholeheartdly. I feel the people who bemoan the fighters downtroddeness are a bit odd. and I forgot that rangers arent even PROFCIENT with heavy armour for some reason...silly brain not working right.

 

[hong]

I think the one thing that comes out of this thread is that the alt.rangers will continue, even after 3.5E comes out.