Well, there goes the "Drizzt Clone" theory...

[Tom Cashel]

(You directly responded to my suggestion to Jack Daniel that he just ignore the alt.ranger threads with some picture that doesn't show up, which gives me reason to believe that Tom Cashel and Jack Daniel are one and the same, though that's just a theory.)

what gets me is you telling me to be happy with the official class as well, and I'm not.

(You'll notice how I don't tell you how it's perfect for your campaign, I'll leave you to run your successful campaign--it'd be nice if you left me to do the same.)

1. I am not Jack Daniel. I responded directly as a pre-emptive strike to accusations of trolling...I like to read the entire thread before I respond. I'm not implying that you don't, I'm just saying that I do, and that's why I responded to a comment aimed at someone else.

2. I'm not telling you, or anyone else, to be "happy" with the official class--I'm telling you that no amount of kvetching will change the 3E core rules at this point. So until 4E comes along, just rule-zero it or house-rule it or whatever. The endless threads about Rangers and Drizzt are just tired, man. If you hate Drizzt so much, why not ignore him? That's my strategy.

3. Nor am I telling you how to run your campaign. If you don't want anyone to say anything to you...why are you posting your thoughts on a message board?

And none of this is meant to provoke or annoy...it's just a friendly response so please don't get all worked up over it!

EDIT: That picture is Mark Messier, and it shows up just fine.

 

[Desdichado]

I think the picture referred to is Jack Daniel's sig file. Because the picture is hosted on geocities and geocities doesn't allow outside linking of pictures, it shows up as a broken link.

 

[Codragon]

7) 2000. 3e retains the ranger two-weapon thing. Sane people sing its praises; crybabies whine about it on the internet rather than just rule-zeroing it and keeping their yammers shut.

I am insane. Please ignore the following post.

I managed to get out of the asylum and find a computer.

I don't think every ranger should be required to take the virtual feats ambidexterity and two-weapon fighting.

I think the designers at WotC made a mistake by including this feature in the newest edition of D&D.

I would list my arguements, but sane folks would ignore the obvious ranting of the hopeless lunatic that is me.

I am insane. I hope you ignored my above post.

 

[Tom Cashel]

I couldn't ignore a post that begins "I am insane" any more than I could ignore a thread titled "Well, there goes the 'Drizzt Clone' theory...'

 

[Enforcer]

1. I am not Jack Daniel. I responded directly as a pre-emptive strike to accusations of trolling...I like to read the entire thread before I respond. I'm not implying that you don't, I'm just saying that I do, and that's why I responded to a comment aimed at someone else.

2. I'm not telling you, or anyone else, to be "happy" with the official class--I'm telling you that no amount of kvetching will change the 3E core rules at this point. So until 4E comes along, just rule-zero it or house-rule it or whatever. The endless threads about Rangers and Drizzt are just tired, man. If you hate Drizzt so much, why not ignore him? That's my strategy.

3. Nor am I telling you how to run your campaign. If you don't want anyone to say anything to you...why are you posting your thoughts on a message board?

And none of this is meant to provoke or annoy...it's just a friendly response so please don't get all worked up over it!

EDIT: That picture is Mark Messier, and it shows up just fine.

Okay, so I was wrong about my conspiracy theory, so be it.

As for your 2nd point, I'm well aware that the core rules won't change--I just hate that Jack Daniel wants me to accept the core rules, when I'm happy with my rule-zeroing. By the way, I actually love Salvatore's stuff, including Drizzt Do'Urden--I've read every book that Drizzt has starred in (though lately he seems to have been ignored for Wulfgar and Entreri). This goes to prove that not all who dislike the core ranger because of TWF hate Drizzt. Also, as for the endless threads: look who started this one; it wasn't the people who dislike the core ranger.

For #3, since you're not Jack Daniel, I apologize for accusing you of telling me what to do--only idea fascists like the thread starter here really anger me by telling me what's okay in my campaign.

And, I still can't see the pic, but at least I get who it is now.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

So whats the big deal?

If people don't like the dual weapon ranger idea then just do what I do.

When a ranger is created he has two choices.

A. Take the standard ambidexterity and two weapon fighting feats when in light or no armor.

or.

B. Take point blank shot and rapid shot feats also only when in light or no armor.

Simple, to the point, and a good enough trade off to make your ranger PC's really think hard about what they want to do.

 

[MasterOfHeaven]

So whats the big deal?

If people don't like the dual weapon ranger idea then just do what I do.

When a ranger is created he has two choices.

A. Take the standard ambidexterity and two weapon fighting feats when in light or no armor.

or.

B. Take point blank shot and rapid shot feats also only when in light or no armor.

Simple, to the point, and a good enough trade off to make your ranger PC's really think hard about what they want to do.

I disagree with this, although it is of course your game. When you give a PC Point Blank Shot and Rapid Shot you are increasing their power when using ranged weapons.

When you give a PC TWF and Ambidexterity you are only giving them the option of using that style, and interestingly enough, it is not as effective as using a two handed weapon unless the character plans to take one level of Ranger and then go straight into Rogue.

I don't see why so many people think that just because Rangers have TWF and Ambidexterity they are required to use two weapons. A Ranger is actually more effective wielding a two handed weapon or a weapon and shield style than he is using the TWF style, but people almost always use the TWF style because the RAnger has bonus feats that allow him to do so.

Because of the way TWF works in 3rd Edition, the bonus feats do not give an increase in power to the Ranger so much as another option that may or may not be as good as wielding a two handed weapon or a weapon and shield. But this has been gone over a hundred times and more. I think I'm going to bow out of this debate, the ground has been covered enough times already.

 

[D'karr]

I don't think anyone is saying that the ranger needs to use two weapons just because he has the virtual feats.

Granted he is more effective using a two-handed weapon.

However, his advantages at first level include being effective at fighting with two weapons. It doesn't give him any advantages to fighting with a two handed weapon. Like for example a virtual feat of Power Attack only when in light armor.

The virtual feats are free. But if you don't use them then why even have them.

Use a barbarian and give him the track feat. Or take a fighter and multiclass him as a ranger.

I think the point is that a ranger has the feats. If he doesn't use them then he has cool feats for nothing. That is the players prerogative.

 

[Aaron L]

How effective as a class is the ranger if you don't use two weapons? It looses a lot of power if one of it's class features is ignored.

Oh, and 2E came out in 89, and Driz'zt came out in 88. And Driz'zt wore chain mail, so by 2E rules he couldn't dual wield in that armor. He didn't recieve his mithril armor until Mithral Hall.

And I like rangers in platemail. Hardcore anti-goblinoid shock troops with wilderness skills. That's my kind of rangers.

 

[Squire James]

Oops, another long rant to clutter this thread. Read at your own risk!

AD&D 2e came out in 1989, which was unlabelled in that timeline. This would mean numbers 2 and 3 should be switched in the list. I have my original 2e PHB open in front of me, turned to a forward written by David "Zeb" Cook, dated January 1989.

AD&D was still clearly in 1e at the time "Crystal Shard" was published. I also note that the Balor demon in that book was so pitifully weak that it HAD to be the 1e Balor (8d8+8 HD!); as a comparison note how well Ertuu fought later in one of the sequels!

This implies nothing about how good Rangers are now... this is just a little history lesson. I still assert that it is VERY likely the 2e Ranger inherited the 1e Drow ability of 2-weapon fighting in order to make a character like Drizzt 2e-legal (except for minor issues like him being a Drow). The primary reason for this guess is the raging popularity of the Drizzt books at the time.

As for the armor question, they didn't have to add 2-weapon fighting in to disallow heavy armor for Rangers. I suppose they may have added 2-weapon fighting to balance the loss, but even if this is so I think the "Drizzt factor" is the reason they chose THAT particular ability!

Second-hand info from Monte Cook is not enough to convince me otherwise. Even first-hand info might not be enough. At the very least, I'd need specific info like "I talked to Zeb Cook, and he said he put the 2-weapon fighting ability to Rangers because he felt they needed something like that to balance them with Paladins using the same XP table." Even then, I'd STILL suspect that the "Drizzt factor" selected that particular ability... it could been the ability to specialize with the bow!