[3.5] Rangers lose medium armor!

[Henry]

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

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. [/B]

First of all, it's not really polite to put words in someone's mouth - the quote from above looks like Olgar said your quote about his not belonging on the design team. It would be nice to clarify that.

Second, I have to disagree with your examples. IMO, what would a scout of ANY type be doing running around in heavy armor? Breastplate as described in the PHB is too noisy to be running around in in the first place, and restricts dex too much for a high-dex character to want. A Dwarven cave ranger would likely be running around in light armor to avoid restriction of movement as well as avoiding noise.

A Steppe rider will still likely be wearing little to no armor. The steppe and plains warriors of our own earth rarely or never used heavy armor - the Mongols used nothing more than lamellar armor, which some suspect was nothing more than leather armor reinforced with fish-glue lacquer, with silk underneath for resistance to arrows. The plains indians rarely used any type of armor. In all, most horse riders (european knights being an exception) do not wear heavy armor, depending on mobility instead.

This in no way implies that armor wearing rangers are not desirable - only that the archetype, from Legolas/Aragorn to Robin Hood, and most historical parallels, are lightly armored, and the archetype was designed with this archetype in mind.

 

[diaglo]

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

This in no way implies that armor wearing rangers are not desirable - only that the archetype, from Legolas/Aragorn to Robin Hood, and most historical parallels, are lightly armored, and the archetype was designed with this archetype in mind.

but Robin Hood fought in the Crusades (just ask Sean Connery )

and Aragorn/Legolas in major combat donned heavier armor.

the option is now no longer available unless you spend a feat.

first they took away the Tower Shield and now they take away med armor.

plus the dwarven cave ranger can now run around in heavy armor without movement restrictions.

 

[mmu1]

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.

None. The class is there to make people who enjoy Eastern martial arts happy and broaden D&D appeal, not because it's needed or it fits the game.

 

[BryonD]

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.

Fine. But I fail to see why being a viable fighter front line substitute is a criteria for Ranger design. Much less why it should be more important than being a decent Ranger archetype.

 

[BryonD]

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

but Robin Hood fought in the Crusades (just ask Sean Connery )

and Aragorn/Legolas in major combat donned heavier armor.

the option is now no longer available unless you spend a feat.

Or multi class, which I would argue covers all 3 examples above.

 

[Valiantheart]

Re: Re

The straight Ranger is now not a viable class for the main fighter of a four person group, which means the problem of the multiclassing Ranger exists.

The game designers are not thinking very hard. The Ranger was supposed to be interchangeable with the Fighter in a four person group, just as the Paladin is.

Now, the Ranger is neither interchangeable with the Fighter or the Rogue, so he is SOL.

What a stupid change. The changes have done nothing to make the Ranger a more viable class. The Ranger is still the red-headed step child of the game.

Andy,

What the hell was the design team thinking? The game is designed for four person parties. The Ranger, Paladin, and Fighter are supposed to be interchangeable in a four person group. You guys have been playing too many MMORPG's. This Ranger stinks of EQ IMO.

I think you miss the point. The Ranger is not supposed to be interchangeable with the fighters role in the 4 person group.

Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard are one group.
Ranger, Bard, Druid, Sorc are a second.

The second group is more versatile and less specialized than the first.

 

[mmu1]

Fine. But I fail to see why being a viable fighter front line substitute is a criteria for Ranger design. Much less why it should be more important than being a decent Ranger archetype.

Because the game has been designed and balanced based on a party of four characters, each filling a role. Something that isn't able to fill any of the four primary roles has no business being a core class.

 

[Numion]

Because the game has been designed and balanced based on a party of four characters, each filling a role. Something that isn't able to fill any of the four primary roles has no business being a core class.

If there are only four roles to fill, then what do bard and monk do, since they don't fit the fighter/rogue/wizzie/cleric roles?

I think you're stretching it a bit. It's not only about filling roles, but getting to play the character you want. Ranger isn't intended for players who want to wear plate. Fine. They've got plenty of choice already.

 

[BryonD]

Then I'll just steal a line from Psion's sig.

"The rules should serve the game, not vice-versa."



I think the core classes should provide fantasy archetypes that players want to play.

 

[JPL]

There's been some talk that the 3.5 ranger is overpowered [although I don't see it]. If so, maybe losing medium armor is a good thing.

Makes perfect sense to me, though. And I never saw anyone run a ranger with anything heavier than a chain shirt anyway [since 1st Edition, when they wore plate and kept spellbooks].