3.5e rangers can't use bow feats in med armor?

[Steverooo]

Hide!

I also agree rangers should get only light armor proficiency. Its not that I want to see the ranger running around the forest with full plate. In fact if I were the DM I would make sure the player learned a lesson by throwing all kinds of encounters at the ranger to make him realise his choice of armor is not the most beneficial.

I am just hoping the designers realize the virtual feat idea is not the right way to handle this. Either give the ranger the feats or don't. And if they do, then I would agree they need to take away or tweak other aspects of the ranger. To start with they could take away the medium armor proficiency.

The problem with this idea is that Hide is listed as a Medium armor. A Ranger who gets shipwrecked, whatever, and must hunt critters and craft his own armor will likely only be able to make two kinds: Leather, or Hide. Eliminating Medium Armor Proficiency (and therefore Hide) is a mistake (besides, for those who care, Aragorn wore chainmail, in the battle before the Morannon's Gates).

PS: I hate Virtual Feats, too!

 

[Felon]

Yeah, "virtual feats" are a bit on the lame side. Either give the guy the feat or don't. The movement reduction, armor check penalties and max dex bonus restrictions on heavy armor (or medium armor for that matter) are sufficient to encourage a ranger to stick to light armor.

And if he doesn't, no big whoop. It's not like heavy armor is all that great of a benefit to in 3e--basically just a boost to AC for fighters with low Dex--and I'm betting that won't change in 3.5.

 

[Ranger REG]

Who's "we", Ranger boy?

The rangers in my gaming group, and the players who play ranger that I got to talk to in my local gaming community. That's "we," Ooi Boy.

 

[Red Baron]

If a mage can now wear armor (and circumvent the arcane spell failure by acquiring Still Spell feat) and wield sword (by acquiring WP feat on his own), why shouldn't rangers be able to use his TWF in heavier armor, even though he'll have to acquire the Armor Proficiency feats later on his own?

Couldn't your ranger also just take the TWF feat if he decides he wants to be able to wield two wepaons well in heavier armor? Take a level of fighter, and take TWF as the bonus feat.

Remember, it's a class-based system we're talking about, here, so you get your character where you want her to go by taking the right classes for the job...

 

[Ranger REG]

Why should he have to aquire a feat in which he gain as a class feature to use it fully?

Even a fighter could use a bastard sword in any armor he wears or not, even though he can wield it as a two-handed weapon without buying the EWP feat.

 

[Red Baron]

I'm certainly not going to sway you here, as the whole ranger thing has been going on for a looooong time. I have my own alt.ranger version, like everyone else. (Although I have to say, overall, that I'm quite happy with the 3E-R ranger. Yes, I've seen it.)

All I'm suggesting is that your argument re: wizards and plate armor/swords doesn't hold water: s/he has to pay two feats to do that... just like a ranger who wants to fight two-handedly in plate, because that's not what the wizard is supposed to do under these rules. If you want something different, use the multiclassing rules. That's what they're for. Or play MERPS or something.

If it's not part of the ranger the way it's designed in D&D, it's no personal slap at you -- if you don't like it, just fix it for your game. But that's the way it is in the core rules. Deal.

(Sorry if I'm coming off as a little harsh. Maybe it's the weather here -- big thunder storm right now. Anyway, apologies if I seem offensive. Just stating it the way I see it.)

 

[Ranger REG]

All I'm suggesting is that your argument re: wizards and plate armor/swords doesn't hold water: s/he has to pay two feats to do that... just like a ranger who wants to fight two-handedly in plate, because that's not what the wizard is supposed to do under these rules. If you want something different, use the multiclassing rules. That's what they're for. Or play MERPS or something.

And what I'm trying to say is giving a ranger half a feat's worth is ludicrous. In 3e, I have to spend two feats to make the ranger's virtual Ambi and TWF much like the regular feats they are supposed to be ... without the armor restriction. That's why theoremtank is suggesting a compromise: let us have full use of 3.5e TWF (sans armor restriction), and we'll sacrifice the ranger's starting Medium Armor Proficiency feat.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Also I dont remenber anywere that says that wizards with still feat can go around in full plate casting spells.

Arcane Spell Failure chance does not apply to spells with no Somatic Components.

Still Spells have no somatic components.

Thus, for a +1 level increase, a wizard with Still Spell can prepare any spell he likes and cast it in Full Plate and Large Shield.

-Hyp.

 

[niteshade6]

"Arcane Spell Failure chance does not apply to spells with no Somatic Components.

Still Spells have no somatic components.

Thus, for a +1 level increase, a wizard with Still Spell can prepare any spell he likes and cast it in Full Plate and Large Shield."

Of course doing this is still an incredibly bad idea, given that means you are now MUCH weaker at casting spells then you were before. At least a ranger who takes TWF as a feat fights just as well as anyone else in heavy armor. I think they are just trying to make it so the ranger path isn't an obvious path for every fighter type to go down eventualy. You have to decide if it's in flavor for the kind of character you want to play (ie lightly armored) before you take levels of it. And to me, this is a good thing.

 

[Ranger REG]

What is a good thing? The armor restriction on ranger's virtual TWF feats? Doubt it.