[3.5] Rangers lose medium armor!

[diaglo]

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.

if you read the Story Hour in my sig. you will realize Olgar (the author of this thread) is my DM.

i don't expect a house rule coming.

 

[Zogg]

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.

I can understand this, to an extent. Often I find that traps aren't used properly in games - they are either used randomly or are so weak you have to wonder, "why would anyone put this trap here - is it just to p*ss me off?" These traps serve no purpose. Now, on a chest with loads of gold and items a trap being put into place makes sense - but then again I'd prefer such a trap to be REALLY deadly, otherwise why even bother to trap the chest at all?

I think I'm going off-topic here.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Settle down, guys -- no need for anyone to catch fire here.

(Though as predicted, any ranger thread seems to be highly inflammatory. Maybe "Incite Flame War" should be a ranger 1st level ability )

 

[TiQuinn]

if you read the Story Hour in my sig. you will realize Olgar (the author of this thread) is my DM.

i don't expect a house rule coming.

Ah, gotcha. Olgar holds pretty tight to the rules then as written?

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

if you read the Story Hour in my sig. you will realize Olgar (the author of this thread) is my DM.

i don't expect a house rule coming.

I'd actually consider it (if asked nicely ) because frankly, I don't think it matters, since use of med armor negates so many other class abilities. Of course, I've also said that I will continue to allow 3.0 classes when we switch, so there's always the ranger 3.0 option.

 

[Henry]

Friends, Romans, and Rangers, lend me your ears...

Let's clean up the insults. We can debate without name-calling, and "I know you are, but what am I" fests.

 

[Psion]

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.

None of us considered?

Look at my post. You will see that given that rangers are no longer an optimal path to get those feats (fighter is much faster), there is no reason to make them suboptimal. In short, I did consider it, and my conclusion was that making them real feats would not overpower the ranger in any way.

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

HAH! It is to laugh!

The entire reason I want a bonus feat list is because the "combat style" thing makes the ranger a "combat monkey" by default. My mehtod makes it possible to make a non combat-monkey ranger.

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

If it was perfect, it would be left alone.

It is, however, a massive improvement.

At any rate, I learned long ago* that paid designers aren't necessarily any better at game design than I am, and even the good ones miss things. I am not willing to settle for a suboptimum game design when I know I can tune it up by myself. I see not compelling reason to "leave it alone" when it could be better.

* - (back in 1e... I think the issue was rangers back then, too. It never made sense to me when they came out with rules for NWP's that rangers didn't have much of a selection of wilderness related proficiencies.)

 

[Henry]

Now, that said, I still stand by my supposition that it's better to distinguish the class, rather than force it into everybody's concept. Latitude to customize is great, but when you come down to it, a base class has to fit a role. The ranger's role, from the dictionary definition on down, is that of a scout - an informer, and a pre-empter.

The new ranger fits that very well. He's not the guy who sticks around in the front line - that's the barbarian, paladin, and fighter (and really not even the paladin, who seems to perform better on horseback than on foot.) Instead, he is the one who sneaks in, observes, informs, and leaves - but who can fight if he needs to, enough to escape his situation. His skills, spells, and class abilities are based on it.

This is similar to, though different from the rogue. The ranger is more independent than a rogue, whose skills depend on interaction with civlization more often than not.

It's different from the fighter or barbarian, who can wade into combat, but who has little ability to do reconnaisance.

THe loss of medium armor proficiency is a minor change, and to me one that fits the archetype. Legolas can strap on heavier armor, as can aragorn - but they didn't wear it by default. Does this mean they were even proficient in it, or comfortable in it? Not necessarily (someone who knows the books better than I could answer that). But their use of it once or twice in an entire trilogy does not imply proficiency. Frodo used a sword against the Barrow wight - it didn't mean he was good at it.

 

[diaglo]

to me Elmo is the archetypical ranger.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Look at my post. You will see that given that rangers are no longer an optimal path to get those feats (fighter is much faster), there is no reason to make them suboptimal. In short, I did consider it, and my conclusion was that making them real feats would not overpower the ranger in any way.

Just out of interest (and not meaning any offence), what do you think about the virtual feats ignoring prereqs? (assuming they still do). Doesn't that make them a little better than the standard feats? Or is it that even so it is not an overpowering issue for the ranger?

Just interested, Thanks!