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

[theoremtank]

Medium armor proficiency means you know how to wear and fight in that armor.

Then why is the 3.5 ranger being penalized for using his virtual feats in medium armor?

If the desingers don't want the ranger to use these feats in medium or heavy armor there are many more logical ways to fix the problem.

Some suggestions are...
Take away the rangers medium armor proficiency.
Penalize the rangers movement related class features.

Just get rid of the virtual feat idea. Either give the ranger the feats or don't. There are plenty of better ways to encourage rangers to wear light armor rather than to create exceptions to the rule (i.e. virtual feats).

 

[Caliban]

Did you have an actual question in there somewhere, or did you just feel like ranting?


If you just want to give feedback to the game designers, this may not be the best forum for it.

 

[theoremtank]

Did you have an actual question in there somewhere, or did you just feel like ranting?

Good point. Ok a question. Aside from whether other folks on this board think this topic is a priority or not...What is everyone elses opinion on this subject? Could the designers solve this problem more effectively?

 

[shilsen]

Good point. Ok a question. Aside from whether other folks on this board think this topic is a priority or not...What is everyone elses opinion on this subject? Could the designers solve this problem more effectively?

My opinion is that this should be on the general rpg discussion board, not in rules

As for your real question, it doesn't really bother me. If it's a problem, house-rule away the medium armor proficiency. Doesn't solve the issue for the longbow-using Ftr/Rgr in full plate, however.

 

[hong]

I don't really mind virtual feats. They seem as good a solution as any to the problem of enforcing a certain behaviour (in this case, not wearing armour) that would usually not be wise.

 

[Jack Daniel]

Then why are rangers trained in medium armor (presumably when they're going to be in comat) and trained in a special Combat Style (aslo, presumably for being in actual combat)?

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

There are times when a ranger will need to fight in less than optimal circumstances, situations where his best abilities won't come into play or where his individual performance is secondary to the performance of the entire group (the ranger included).

An example:

There was a situation where some soldiers were holding a small pass, well defended and with good cover. A stand-off engagement would have definitely favord the bad guys, so we saddled up and charged into close combat. Before charging in, the ranger switched to heavier armor, considering the extra AC worth the loss of some offensive ability. While he, with superior archery skills, may have been more successful sitting back and plinking away, his presence as part of the cavalry charge made a big difference in breaking up the enemies fmation, preventing flankings, etc.

 

[bwgwl]

What is everyone elses opinion on this subject?

i agree with you. i dislike the idea of "virtual" feats. in my mind, a feat is a feat is a feat. either you know how to do it or you don't. i had already house-ruled the 3.0 ranger to get full feats. i'll do the same in 3.5 if they still have virtual feats.

 

[theoremtank]

Doesn't solve the issue for the longbow-using Ftr/Rgr in full plate, however.

But you do notice that if a ranger wants to fight in medium or heavy armor he is forced to multiclass or buy the armor proficiency feats.

If it is not a problem for a fighter/rogue to use a longbow in heavy armor then why should it be a problem for a fighter/ranger?

The answer is it shouldn't. This is why I am making the point that the rangers virtual-feat armor restiriction is a poor rule mechanic. That could be handled much more consistently through other methods.

 

[Ranger REG]

I agree with you, theoremtank. I believe we should remove the armor restriction placed on the ranger's virtual feats (which is now being turned into "Combat Path" starting 2nd level in 3.5e). Of course, I would prefer that they be limited to starting proficiencies in light and possibly medium armor. They can acquire the heavy armor proficiency later. Besides, it's a lot easier to move through the woods in light or medium armor.