[3.5] Rangers lose medium armor!

[mmu1]

Right, because taking away ONE FRIGGIN' ARMOUR PROFICIENCY, while shoving in a boatload of extra features, counts as "hardly improving the class at all". Of course, some people also think the earth is flat.

Watch out, Hong, you've got flames coming out of your ass...

 

[Storm Raven]

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

One archetype of Wizard is Gandalf, a sword-wielder. Is the limitation that wizards in D&D don't get martial proficiency, to use a sword, lack of imagination?

That is a single example, easily dealt with by a feat. Gandalf is also more than just a "wizard", being, essentially, a Celestial being clothed in human form, so he's a particularly bad example. On the other hand, the mounted wilderness warrior of the open plains, for example, is a common figure in history, mythology, and literature.

I will also note this: feat paths are stupid. They should have just given the ranger a limited set of available bonus feats and allowed the character to choose which combinations he wanted at the appropriate levels.

 

[diaglo]

Right, because taking away ONE FRIGGIN' ARMOUR PROFICIENCY, while shoving in a boatload of extra features, counts as "hardly improving the class at all". Of course, some people also think the earth is flat.

earth as in the ground is flat. every time you trip and fall it reminds you.

Earth on the other hand is...too big for me to see from my computer screen

 

[hong]

Watch out, Hong, you've got flames coming out of your ass...

I AM ROCKET-PROPELLED, BAY-BEE!!

 

[mmu1]

I think the idea that a ranger is not an optimal warrior is a good.

At least, in my perspective.

Of course, that's what Fighters are for. But there's a difference between "not optimal" and not being able to hold their own in melee as the primary warrior in the group. A high-Dex warrior doesn't work in that capacity, in my experience.

 

[ForceUser]

Kind of funny, but this attempt to "fix" the ranger is just starting up the whole debate about what a ranger is again. Myself, Im keen to allow the 3.5 ranger but let him choose from a bonus feat list similar to Monte's. Which means, of course, that's he'll be a house-rule ranger...just like before. Which means that the 3.5 ranger solves nothing. I don't mind them losing medium armor, I just don't like the class being locked into archery or TWF. It stinks.

 

[Numion]

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

That is a single example, easily dealt with by a feat. Gandalf is also more than just a "wizard", being, essentially, a Celestial being clothed in human form, so he's a particularly bad example. On the other hand, the mounted wilderness warrior of the open plains, for example, is a common figure in history, mythology, and literature.

Gandalf was very human except for his age in the books. And if its easily fixed with a feat, so are your plate rangers. Besides, they can still use the armor, the penalties are just there .. they can still use medium armor, so it's just options. It's not like they were sneaking up on anyone on horseback.

 

[Tom Cashel]

Rangers lose medium armor?

What? They traded Lindros?

FINALLY!

 

[DonAdam]

Cashel comes through again!

There are two problems in this thread, I think:

1) I generally disagree with Andy Collins and have never defended him from anything, but you guys are taking his "look" statement entirely too literally.

However...

2) I think rangers should get medium armor. I realize that it does nothing for 99/100 rangers, but the problem is with medium armor, not with rangers having it. It is always the worst choice. I much prefer cutting running speed with medium armor, and not cutting movement until heavy armor. When we made that switch, people actually started wearing medium armor in my games.

 

[Numion]

Of course, that's what Fighters are for. But there's a difference between "not optimal" and not being able to hold their own in melee as the primary warrior in the group. A high-Dex warrior doesn't work in that capacity, in my experience.

Whats the role of the Monk then? People don't moan about him not fitting in 4-man party, but neither can a monk replace a fighter.