[3.5] Rangers lose medium armor!
- Thread starter Olgar Shiverstone
- Start date
- Status
Re: Re: Re
The second group is dead if you run it through an official WotC adventure.
Low on healing, low on hit points, crappy damage output, no trap finding, no versatility in terms of spellcasting and late access to many spells, and a lot of very redundant skills.
The first party is the one that's versatile because it's composed of different specialists. The second just has three jack of all trades characters and a one trick pony.
Valiantheart said:
The second group is dead if you run it through an official WotC adventure.
Low on healing, low on hit points, crappy damage output, no trap finding, no versatility in terms of spellcasting and late access to many spells, and a lot of very redundant skills.
The first party is the one that's versatile because it's composed of different specialists. The second just has three jack of all trades characters and a one trick pony.
Re: Re: Re: Re: [3.5] Rangers lose medium armor!
Robin Hood was a fighter who multiclassed into ranger.
Aragorn and Legolas took the feat.
Tower shield? You're a ranger. Duck behind a tree or a deer or something.
And everyone knows that dwarf wayfinders are the only decent swimmers among the dwarves. Why ruin that with plate mail?
diaglo said:
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.
Robin Hood was a fighter who multiclassed into ranger.
Aragorn and Legolas took the feat.
Tower shield? You're a ranger. Duck behind a tree or a deer or something.
And everyone knows that dwarf wayfinders are the only decent swimmers among the dwarves. Why ruin that with plate mail?
hong said:
No Monk or Bard, anyway.
I'm beginning to think you're not just pretending to constantly miss the point...
The game was designed with four core archetypes in mind - it's the basis of the class system, affects monsters, magic, guidelines for adventure design. Any decent DM should be able to work around that limitation if he wants to structure his world differently - but since that's the system the designers decided to create, and they're not changing the focus of D&D with 3.5, they can at least try to be consistent when they re-design classes.
Personally, I'd have preferred fewer classes, much more robust multi-classing and Feat selection rules (although with more flavor than the bone-dry Modern stuff), and more support for different styles of play.
Psion
Adventurer
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re
Really? I rather think in the Standing Stone, you would be far better off with the second group. Better diplomacy, better outdoors skills.
I do think some adventures demand the core four or at least most of them. But I think this is more true of Necromancer's more dungeon-instensive adventures than anything by WotC. But then, if you look at necromancer's assumptions, they assume a party of six.
But I don't think that the core four is the only adventuring party archetype. Else there would really be no reason to go beyond them.
I for one am glad that they didn't taint the ranger with their "dungeoneering only" philosophy as they did the paladin. Generally, I am happy with the new ranger. About the only thing that needs fixed is virtual feats, and that can be done easily and in a "new product tranparent" manner (i.e., by making sure that both of the virtual feat chains are possible selections for the ranger.)
mmu1 said:
Really? I rather think in the Standing Stone, you would be far better off with the second group. Better diplomacy, better outdoors skills.
I do think some adventures demand the core four or at least most of them. But I think this is more true of Necromancer's more dungeon-instensive adventures than anything by WotC. But then, if you look at necromancer's assumptions, they assume a party of six.
But I don't think that the core four is the only adventuring party archetype. Else there would really be no reason to go beyond them.
I for one am glad that they didn't taint the ranger with their "dungeoneering only" philosophy as they did the paladin. Generally, I am happy with the new ranger. About the only thing that needs fixed is virtual feats, and that can be done easily and in a "new product tranparent" manner (i.e., by making sure that both of the virtual feat chains are possible selections for the ranger.)
Last edited:
sithramir
First Post
mmu1 said:
Whoever told you the role of a ranger was to take the place of the fighter tank was wrong. You want them to be able to do that? Fine. Lets take away the archer path (who tanks while shooting arrows?) Lets take away hide/move silent skilly. A rogue should do that not a fighter type! Better take away that added evasion. He can't dodge stuff he's the heavily armored fighter who stays in the front lines! Plus the fact that he couldn't sneak around in medium armor very well due to all the penalties to his skills. Just because you think he should be a plain fighter when all his abilities lead you to believe thats not the intentions doesn't mean he's bad. I thought rangers were very powerful in 3e with additional spells along with still keeping a level equivalent BAB.
Now they added a ton of powers and gave him MORE feats. Not onyl did they do this but they allowed him to use these feats WITHOUT the prerequisites. Instead all he has to suffer is wearing lighter armor which if he wasn't wearing would make his other class skills half useless (move silent/hide) anyways.
I don't think adding another feat chain would be a bad idea. The horse nomad using mounted fighting a good idea. The only problem is who said he had to be ranger class? Choose fighter use those bonus feats for mounted archery and choose all the armors weapons etc that he would have any you have that character. Since you can do it with a fighter why make it so a ranger has to do it? The idea of a ranger is a scout but also the idea is not needing prereq's to use 2 weapons or other feats that you couldn't if your fighter had lower dex, etc.
The trade-offs favor the ranger as being powerful. More powerful than a straight fighter UNLESS they stood toe to toe fighting which a ranger wouldn't do if he's smart. He can still meet the guy who stands in front idea also. Have him scout ahead hidden and when they bad guy sees the other guys he jumps out whacks him and then fights him down having great attacks and good hps. The difference between this and a rogue is he doesn't have to run and hide again because he still fights damn well. He' sjust not a lug in heavy armor.
- Status
Similar Threads
