[3.5] Rangers lose medium armor!

[Belen]

Argh! Why do we always have to hear the WHINE about the ranger. I guess all you people who are going to give the ranger a feat list to CHOOSE from will make them real feats and then not get rid of ANY of the ranger special abilities.

None of you consider how overpowered that ranger would be, but then, those who complain about this class constantly must have some munchkin in them.

A special ability for the first 11 levels, two good saves, and spells and people want the ranger to be a combat monkey too. Take the powergaming outside!

Three years and people cannot let the ranger alone. Argh!

 

[Numion]

Come to think of it, we've never really had the four role group. So hobviously you don't need them, and if D&D was designed on that basis, it was clearly for naught. Rogues, for example, have never been a big hit in our group. Neither are wizards.

 

[Mythtify]

excuse me ,but go play with yourself.

Do you have anything constructive to say? Or, are you just going to flame?

 

[DonAdam]

The second group is dead if you run it through an official WotC adventure.

This is the most obviously wrong thing I've ever heard said about D&D.

The only thing that I think is necessary, by the core rules, is a rogue, and only because only they can find traps. Everyone else is expendable.

My group runs a very nonstandard party. We started with a fighter/sorc going for dragon disciple (who has never been able to afford heavy armor), a druid, a monk/wizard, and a gnome rogue focusing on trapsmithing. Later, they picked up a courtier (from Rokugan). Finally, they picked up a psion (shaper).

I also keep them all sub-par when it comes to treasure.

If I tried to run any standard WOTC module with them, they would demolish it.

I had to switch to Anubium and Necromancer modules to steal ideas from, because everything in the WOTC modules is too easy. I think everyone in the group would rather have a druid than a cleric, for what we would consider obvious tactical reasons.

A monk is invaluable because wizards are what is to be feared most, and he can eat them for lunch.

A bard provides back-up healing and the ever-critical social interaction skills (the courtier came on right before a dungeon, and was the instrumental piece to wiping out half of its denizens, based purely on well-played social skills).

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

While the 3.5 ranger isn't exactly what I would have designed were I doing the job (I'm too much of a LOTR fan not to make him like Aragorn), I have to admit that I like this ranger in the role of a wilderness scout -- one who's slightly more of a fighting scout than the rgoue's more skilled dungeoneering trapfinder.

The role's a nice one to have for an archetype. Are the mechanics to everyone's satisfaction -- no.

I don't think losing medium armor really hurts anythign in the long run -- frankly, it make the class abilities more consistent. No one in 3.0 that dipped into ranger for one level for free TWF wore medium armor, and you're unlikely to now even with the more spread-out abilities.

Multiclassing with ranger can fill a lot of roles -- barbarian/ranger and ranger/rogue both look like great options if you want to tweak a character toward more combat-heavy, or more dungeoneering-skillful, since the ranger seems to fall smack-dab between barbarian and rogue.

(Someone asked anout mithral chain/chain shirts. Remember that mithral armor is treated as one weight category lighter, so mithral chain/mithral breastplate are both light armor.)

Not that the real world is any real parallel for D&D ... but has anyone here actually been a wilderness scout? (Olgar raises hand, paid Cav Scout for Uncle Sam.) IME the scout's best off lightly armed, lightly armored, and a jack of all trades when it comes to skills. For what it's worth.

 

[Zogg]

I actually have no problem with any of the answers provided. But then again I'm crazy.

 

[diaglo]

Do you have anything constructive to say? Or, are you just going to flame?

right back at you. but i called a spade a spade

 

[hong]

The only thing that I think is necessary, by the core rules, is a rogue, and only because only they can find traps. Everyone else is expendable.

Heck, for the adventures I run, I'm happy to dump the whole bomb disposal thing. I've never liked sticking bombs into the game just so the EOD experts have things to practise their skills on.

 

[TiQuinn]

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.

Okay, that's cool. But all it takes is a simple house rule to allow medium armor again. I don't see how changing that will unbalance the class one way or the other.

 

[hong]

Come to think of it, we've never really had the four role group. So hobviously you don't need them, and if D&D was designed on that basis, it was clearly for naught. Rogues, for example, have never been a big hit in our group. Neither are wizards.

Not to mention that the "fighting" schtick is probably the one thing that everybody in D&D (even bards) can do. They may not be able to do it as well as a _fighter_, but everybody can swing at least a club or mace with some degree of skill. A 10th level monk, rogue or 3.5E ranger may not beable to go toe-to-toe with a CR 10 melee brute (heck, even the 10th level fighter might have trouble), but they can probably stand up to a similar CR 6 or 7 brute. If your group doesn't have any tanks, it's absurdly simple just to scale back the brutes to fit.