[3.5] Rangers lose medium armor!

[diaglo]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re

I for one am glad that they didn't taint the ranger with their "dungeoneering only" philosophy as they did the paladin.

i guess you didn't see the Knowledge (dung) change they added to the new ranger to fit with the Drizzt archetype.

 

[hong]

No Monk or Bard, anyway.

Unfortunately for you, they exist. Or perhaps in your world where the sky is a fetching shade of puce, they don't.

I'm beginning to think you're not just pretending to constantly miss the point...

One of us is, anyway.

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.

And they are consistent. You see, there's this archetype of the ranger as ----> BIG SHOCK UP AHEAD ----> not being a fighter.

If you want a fighter, play a fighter.

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.

Who cares what you personally prefer?

 

[hong]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re

Don't beat yourself up... If you pull your pants up, put away the lighter, and actually start reading other people's posts, you'll be back to the front of the class in no time.

Posting fill-in-the-blank flames now, are we? Wimp.

 

[Mythtify]

Ranger
RANGER, n.

1. One that ranges; a rover; a robber. [Now little used.]

2. A dog that beats the ground.

3. In England, a sworn officer of a forest, appointed by the king's letters patent, whose business is to walk through the forest, watch the deer, present trespasses, &c.

Taken from the first edtion websters dictionary.

Sounds like this kind of guy dosn't need much armor. If you need the medium armor, send the Feat and stop complaining. Better yet, go play 2nd edtion. nobody is focing 3.5 or its changes down your throat.

The idea that you need to fill 4 roles in D&D is silly. It be true if your playing a high combat, hack & slash game. I think there are as many different styles of play as there are grouops. A good DM designs the adventures to be a challange fort the party. They don't expect the party to be designed for the adventures.

Could a party composed of a ranger, monk, sorcerer, and bard make it through the typical offical WoTC adventure? I dont know. I dont play WoTC adventures, just as I didn't play TSR adventures. IMO those "offical" adventures are nothing more than glorified table top versions of Diablo or Guantlet.

If the ranger has to fit the role of the fighter, and is no good if he dosnt, why have a ranger class to begin with? If the game only functions if you fill the "four roles" then why even have the other classes at all? I think the only thing restrictive here are individuals ideas of how D&D should be played.

 

[Tzarevitch]

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.

Maybe I missed it but since when has it been stated that the ranger is intended to be interchangeable with the fighter?

Tzarevitch

 

[TiQuinn]

This medium armor prof. stuff is a non-issue for me. Most of the players I've gamed with wanted their rangers to be lightly armored in order to get the most benefit from Hide and Move Silently, etc.

 

[mmu1]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re

Posting fill-in-the-blank flames now, are we? Wimp.

"Maybe in the world you live in.".

"No, you are. No, you are. No, you are."

"Who cares what you think? I don't, but I couldn't stop myself from sharing my wan... I mean, wit, with the world."

"Wang! If you know what I mean, and I think you do..."

Is that fresh and original enough for you?

 

[diaglo]

Sounds like this kind of guy dosn't need much armor. If you need the medium armor, send the Feat and stop complaining. Better yet, go play 2nd edtion. nobody is focing 3.5 or its changes down your throat.

excuse me ,but go play with yourself.

and yes, in the campaign i'm currently in the 3.11ed for Workgroup rules are being used. so yes, it does affect my character concept.

shut yer own yap.

 

[JPL]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re

Posting fill-in-the-blank flames now, are we? Wimp.

Not on Morrus' birthday, guys.

Nerd must not harm nerd.

 

[diaglo]

This medium armor prof. stuff is a non-issue for me. Most of the players I've gamed with wanted their rangers to be lightly armored in order to get the most benefit from Hide and Move Silently, etc.

currently, i wear light armor and use weapon finese and twf etc...

but i always had the option open to use med armor if the need presented itself. like finding magic armor or losing my normal armor or etc...

now i won't touch med armor b/c of the penalty and just dance around naked.