[3.5] Rangers lose medium armor!

[Elvinis75]

Sounds like it is time for one level of fighter.
Man I hate the system as is. It would be better to see an skills & options guide like they did for D&D 2.5.

 

[Storm Raven]

(Quoted from yet another interview in which Andy Collins demonstrates he should have never been put on the redesign team) "To us, the ranger's archetypal look was much better matched by leather, studded leather, or chain shirt than by breastplates. If your dwarf would rather wear chain mail, start with a chain shirt and save up for mithral chain mail."

Ah, I see, now decisions are being made about what class abilities should be based upon what a character looks like, not based on what might otherwise make sense. I suppose that 3.5 will also have a rule in which wizards are required to wear pointy hats and paladins must always wear full plate too.

Couple this with the already noted fact that this simply limits the options characters have in defining their own niche within a class, and I get the feeling that Andy and the redesign team are annoted that people aren't playing the game they want them to, so they have set about insituting rules that will force characters into the roles they want people to play, not the roles that people might have decided they would like.

Sure, leather, studded or a chain shirt fits one version of the ranger: the woodsy guy who runs around in the forest. But what about the half-dozen or so other ranger types? What about, for example, the dwarven cave ranger who is at home in the wilds of the Underdark? A breastplate seems right up his alley. Or the horse riding steppe ranger? Why is he out of place in a breastplate or chain mail? Why is one, limited version of the class being made the one and only possibility and all things about the class being tailored to that version, and that version only?

This is just what happens when you put a man with no imagination on the redesign team.

 

[Psion]

Y'know, I have no problem with rangers not getting medium armor. It sort of conceptually jives with me.

That said, I think the main reason for virtual feats is gone. Fighters can get fighting styles faster than rangers; I see no reason for the complication of virtual feats.

In addition, I really see no reason that rangers need to be about either archery or two weapon fighting. Doesn't anyone else see a mounted scout type ranger with mounted feats? Or a footman type ranger with run and endurance?

That being the case, I think my new alt ranger will swap out "virtual feats" for a bonus feat from a feat list similar to the one from BoHM.

 

[diaglo]

i know the gaming industry is going downhill when Storm Raven and i agree.

 

[Darkness]

Psion summed up my thoughts pretty well:

Nothing wrong with Rangers not getting Medium AP automatically - but a list of bonus feats would be better than choosing among a mere handful of virtual feats.

 

[The_Gneech]

Yet another reason to hate damage resistance. A bazillion pinpricks in a round don't mean a thing to a creature that only feels a 10+ point hit.

-The Gneech

 

[Malicene]

Re: Re: [3.5] Rangers lose medium armor!

I suppose that 3.5 will also have a rule in which wizards are required to wear pointy hats and paladins must always wear full plate too.

don't forget Staff and Tobacco Bag and paper leaves

 

[Plane Sailing]

I wouldn't have thought anyone would have been crying about the loss of medium armour proficiency - I've never seen anyone take a medium armour. The reduced speed and massive Dex check penalties for a mere +1 to AC (or less!) over the best light armours? Just doesn't make sense. The only exception I can think of is 1st level characters who can't afford chain shirts yet

I can't imagine any 3.0e rangers actually using medium armour anyway, with the virtual feat restriction they used to have - and anyone who houseruled that for some reason will presumably have no difficulty in doing so again!

I forsee that I might produce some additional feat paths for rangers in my campaign - the horse nomads are an obvious example. I'd never go for "bonus feat from a list" though - I've always thought that to be too much like the fighters schtick (even with different lists). The idea of the virtual feat chain where you pick a specialty at 2nd level and that grows with you as you adventure sits better with me in terms of a different class having a different way of doing things.

BTW, I guess that not all fighters will have the option of TWF - only those that get a 15+ Dex or something. A Ranger build who didn't focus on Dex and aimed at Str instead would have a crummier AC, but could a little bit more damage with his weapons than a straight Ftr who had to meet the (currently hypothetical) Dex requirement. OK, its not a big difference, but it is a reminder that the ranger gets these feats for free whatever his Dex, and it isn't necessary for a ranger to focus on Dex. It would be equally easy to go for a high Cha animal tamer, a high Wisdom mystic etc.

Bottom line - I don't think this change is an issue. It won't affect the practice of converted 3e rangers regarding armour, and who wears medium armour anyway? Not many I'd wager!

Cheers

 

[Thaumaturge]

Those of you who are just giving bonus feats: are you going to ignore the prereqs the same way virtual feats do? To me that is one of the strongest arguments for virtual feats not working in all situations/armors. Improved Precise Shot has a Dex requirement of 19+? No problem, I'm a ranger.

There is a give and take here. They ignore prereqs, but have to wear light armor. Makes sense to me.


Thaumaturge.

 

[smetzger]

Q1) The rogues uncanny dodge has been pumped back a couple levels. Has the Barbarian's changed at all?

A1) No

Looks like a Rogue w/ one level of Ranger will work quite well. Assuming the stacking of Uncanny Dodge works the same way.