[3.5] Rangers lose medium armor!

[Fenes 2]

Re: re

Why are you caught up in the 2 levels of Ranger when I am using that as an example? All you are doing is extrapolating the obvious and further proving my argument.

Which is the following:

1. The new Ranger is a more attractive multiclass option than before.

2. It is not a viable stand alone class in a group that does not already have a Fighter, Barbarian or Paladin.

A ranger is a viable stand-alone class in a group without a fighter, barbarian or paladin. As hong said, if your DM is unable or unwilling to adjust the adventures for your particular party, forcing you to play the "standard fighter-cleric-wizard-rogue" group, then you should get a new DM - just as you should get a new DM if your DM is unable to add the result of a d20 to a bonus and compare it to a DC, or if your DM is unable to remember the name, class or gender of your PC or yourself.

 

[hong]

Re: re

Why are you caught up in the 2 levels of Ranger when I am using that as an example? All you are doing is extrapolating the obvious and further proving my argument.

Your argument suffers from the unfortunate defect of being irrelevant to anyone except yourself.

Which is the following:

1. The new Ranger is a more attractive multiclass option than before.

The new ranger is a more attractive multiclassing option than before, because it's a more attractive CLASS than before. It has more features and abilities at just about every level than before, so naturally it's going to be more attractive to take levels in it.

2. It is not a viable stand alone class in a group that does not already have a Fighter, Barbarian or Paladin.

It's a bloody good class for doing what it does. If you want to be a fighter, barb or paladin, then PLAY a fighter, barb or paladin. And if your DM is unable to find suitable challenges for a group that doesn't include a tank, find a better DM.

Did you not state that WotC wanted to make the change because too many folks were taking 1 level of Ranger to gain TWF? Now they take two and gain more benefits as well as TWF.

I'll point you to the post upthread where it is noted that fighters get a bonus feat at 1st level with which to get TWF. Note in particular the bit about how a feat from one level is more good than a feat from two levels.

Did they not also want to reduce the attractiveness of multiclassing the Ranger?

Please to stop peddling disinformation. The quote in Dragon 308, which introduces the revised ranger and barb, runs:

"Plenty of folks cherry-picked the class to gain a quick road to fighting with two weapons and then they moved to more interesting or versatile classes."

and:

"Additionally, by giving the ranger more abilities and spreading those abilities out, we hope we've created a more viable long-term class."

I see nothing in there about reducing the attractiveness of multiclassing. I see comments about making the class more viable across the whole spectrum of levels, and making it so that people won't be able to take one level of the class and get everything they wanted. Reducing frontloading, in other words. Which is exactly what "taking two levels to get what used to take one" achieves.

Note that none of this rules out multiclassing the ranger with other classes, bleatings from certain persons to the contrary.

What was the point of the change if it does not accomplish what they set out to?

It helps if you know what it was they set out to do.

Also, my argument has not changed. Why are you helping me prove it?

Because you clearly need help fighting off all those strawmen you've summoned up.

Disprove my argument. You are the one who needs to buy a clue. I don't even know what you are arguing about anymore.

Hey, don't blame me if your brane has explodiated!

I cannot help but think that you are posting rebuttals to be an annoying little twit whose only goal is to raise my ire.

I have many goals. YOUR assignment, should you choose to accept it, is to figure out what they are.

Is that the case? Are you just a person who goes out of their way to annoy people? I'm done with you.

Sure, that's what they ALL say. I await your followup with bated breath.

My argument is proven.

Worst. Attempt to get into my sig. Evar!

 

[BryonD]

You shot down one argument and you misquote and misinterpret the rest of what I said, then talk about me using double talk?

Waaa Waaaa Waaaa

Bryon shot down my arguement won't let me pretend that I said different things than I really did.

So I'll just throw silly accusation of misquote and misinterpretations at him.

This is to simple to remain amusing.

Please, declare yourself the victor here. If that makes you feel better.

 

[Celtavian]

Re: Re: re

I'll point you to the post upthread where it is noted that fighters get a bonus feat at 1st level with which to get TWF. Note in particular the bit about how a feat from one level is more good than a feat from two levels.

It never was a concern for fighters.

"Plenty of folks cherry-picked the class to gain a quick road to fighting with two weapons and then they moved to more interesting or versatile classes."

and:

"Additionally, by giving the ranger more abilities and spreading those abilities out, we hope we've created a more viable long-term class."

Read those two quotes again. This time, think about what my assertions are.

Is the new Ranger the ripest cherry picking class in the game? Yes, it is. The new version is the ripest, sweetest cherry picking class in the game. I can think of not one better for a melee.

As in it is a more attractive multiclass character than previously.

Is the class viable in a group without a Paladin, Fighter or Barbarian? No, it isn't using the core rules.

Sure, any DM can take the time to come up with suitable challenges for a lightly armored group. The core rules just don't take it into account.

Is it a more attractive class to play overall as an "extra", like the monk? Yes, it is. I have stated it many times that it is now more akin to a monk.

Thank you very much Hong. You show me again what kind a person you are. I had almost forgotten our previous dealings. I firmly remember them now. I now remember why I had forgotten about you.

 

[Celtavian]

Re

Well Bryon,

I take the time to write out a detailed response to you and you resort to chiding and infantile rebuttals. You refuse to acknowledge that you once again misinterpreted my assertions reading into them your own version or what I stated motivated by your personal prejudices towards those who disagree with certain changes to in the Revised edition.

 

[hong]

Re: Re: Re: re

As expected, it didn't take long, you lovely liar, you.

It never was a concern for fighters.

(Sigh). I will 'splain it to you again in small words. In Three Eee, you need two feats to do Two W Eff. These are Am bi dex ter i ty, and Two Wea pon fight ing. Fight guys get one feat at 1, and one feat at 2. Range guys get two feats at 1, which are Am bi dex ter i ty and Two Wea pon fight ing. Two feats from one level is more good than two feats from two levels.

OOPS! I USED WORDS WITH MORE THAN ONE SYLLABLE _AGAIN_! I APOLOGISE PROFUSELY AND WILL SHORTLY COMMIT SEPPUKU, OR MAYBE NOT.

Read those two quotes again. This time, think about what my assertions are.

Your assertions are meaningless.

Is the new Ranger the ripest cherry picking class in the game? Yes, it is. The new version is the ripest, sweetest cherry picking class in the game. I can think of not one better for a melee.

That's because you're not thinking hard enough. Barb --> more hit points, rage for the special encounters, uncanny dodge, fast movement. Cleric --> spells, good Will save for the holds and dominates. Paladin --> Cha bonus to saves, smite, immune to fear.

YES, I KNOW THINKING TOO HARD ABOUT FANTASY IS BAD, BUT PLEASE, PEOPLE, THINK OF THE CHILDREN.

As in it is a more attractive multiclass character than previously.

Whatever, d00d.

Is the class viable in a group without a Paladin, Fighter or Barbarian? No, it isn't using the core rules.

Who gives a flying frick?

Sure, any DM can take the time to come up with suitable challenges for a lightly armored group. The core rules just don't take it into account.

Tell me where the "core rules" demand, yes, DEMAND, that you must have a fighter, rogue, cleric and wizard.

Is it a more attractive class to play overall as an "extra", like the monk? Yes, it is. I have stated it many times that it is now more akin to a monk.

This word "extra", I do not think it means what you think it means.

Thank you very much Hong. You show me again what kind a person you are. I had almost forgotten our previous dealings. I firmly remember them now. I now remember why I had forgotten about you.

So, you'll be back tomorrow for more, then?

 

[BryonD]

Re: Re

Well Bryon,

I take the time to write out a detailed response to you and you resort to chiding and infantile rebuttals. You refuse to acknowledge that you once again misinterpreted my assertions reading into them your own version or what I stated motivated by your personal prejudices towards those who disagree with certain changes to in the Revised edition.

Yes, I refuse to indulge in your fantasy.

You analysis was, and continues to be, so deeply flawed that I was forced to conclude that you put your conclusion first and your "facts" far later.

So now you resort to nothing more than "I know you are but what am I?"

Your analysis remains at error laden as ever. But proving it again would be a case of me doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result.

Your opinion is yours and mine is mine. And neither of them mean anything. So continuing to throw hollow insults won't change the truth that my comments are founded on the laundry list of factual errors you made. Yours are nothing more than playground debate tactics.

So go ahead and name call or whatever it takes to make you feel better.

(Will you drop it if I Double Dog Dare You?)

 

[ThoughtBubble]

You know, we could solve this "Ranger can't be a primary tank thing" fairly easily. All we need to do is run a basic scientific expirement. We'll take one WOTC module, run it with a group with a fighter as a tank, and run it with a different group with a Ranger as a tank. If we get enough groups doing it, the differences should balance out, and we'll get a valid statistical comparison (farily much so, anyway).

However, that's a lot more work than I'd like to go to.
Besides, they're not as attractive as tanks anymore. With the loss of some HP and armor, that role is getting diluted. I don't really have a problem with it. It seems like they've gained a pretty good role as wilderness scouts. The one thing that characterized rangers for me was their wilderness skill. They kept that, kept their ability to dish out damage, kept their ability to hit, and lost some ability to take hits. While it's a loss, it's not such a big one. Trust me. Try playing a 3E bard for a little. In compairson the ranger's D8, martial weapon proficicency and full BAB look pretty darn nice.

And the only person I've seen use medium armor in my games happens to be the fighter with a whopping 10 dex.

 

[Chasmodai]

[ I]Originally quoted by Celtavian[/I]

As in it is a more attractive multiclass character than previously.

So what? That's why you have the option to multiclass. If someone multiclasses into a Ranger for TWFwithout taking Wilderness Lore or Knowledge (Nature), and just pumping up his Hide and Move Silently, I just call that munching and bad RP.

And I'll kick that player out of my game.

Harsh? Maybe. But if you want to multiclass into Ranger, at least try to act like you want to be Ranger. Anyway, one thing I've noticed. If you, in 3E, became a Fighter5/Ranger1 (for TWF, of course) and you wore, say, a breastplate, you'd lose TWF and Ambidexterity because the Ranger can't use those two abilities in anything heavier than light armor.

So why are we complaining about the loss of Medium armor again?

[ I]Originally quoted by Celtavian[/I]

The core rules just don't take it into account.

Well then, the core rules are faulty, innit? But then again, since we're arguing about how the Ranger sucks, I think you'd agree with me.

 

[Darkness]

Some of y'all took a wrong turn on the road a short while back while deep in thoughtful conversation and are now slowly nearing a nasty place.
Please don't go there. Thank you.

- Darkness