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

[theoremtank]

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.

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.

 

[niteshade6]

Well virtual feats does allow you to give a ranger more powerful abilities, since they will have drawbacks as well. That way the abilities aren't great for everyone, they are only good for those who really want to wear light armor. Given that there is already a class that gives extra feats as it's only ability (fighter), there is something to be said for putting some restrictions on exra feats given by the ranger. Weither it's properly balanced is another matter entirely.

 

[Ranger REG]

Well, the fighter get bonus feat at 1st, 2nd, and two levels thereafer. 3.5e ranger will get their virtual feat (aka "Combat Path") at 2nd level. The only bonus feat he get at 1st level is Track (as well as he should since he is supposed to be a hunter).

Both paladins and fighters have proficiencies in all armors at 1st level, while ranger begins with proficiencies in light and medium armor (as well as he should since he should have some mobility going through rugged terrains, as opposed to an open battlefield).

But why place that additional restriction to his combat feats? It makes no sense. But some of us are willing to compromise that by removing the medium armor from the ranger's starting proficiencies, then we have to spend our feat (alloted by character level or take first level in fighter class, of course, I'd rather give heavy armor proficiency at fighter's 2nd class level for free) in order to use better armor, and yet won't be penalize if we decided to employ TWF in heavier-than-light armor.

 

[LordAO]

I never had a problem with the armor limitation. Elven chainmail is good enough for me.

Besides, why would a ranger want to wear medium armor? It severaly penalizes all of his best skills. If you want to be a tank, play a fighter. Rangers have always relied more on stealth and agility than fighters.

 

[Ranger REG]

Maybe you don't have a problem but we do. 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?

Unless Wizards is false advertising their "Option, Not Restrictions" policy for 3.5e...

 

[Drakron]

Rule 0.

In my group we allow the rangers to extend their virtual feats into dual weapons.

(Pretty pointless to the group half-elf ranger/rogue sniper, the only ranger in the group)

Also there is still the case of ranger combos with fighter (and cleric) classes now allowing then to have free feats that they dont meet the pre-requirements.

Also I dont remenber anywere that says that wizards with still feat can go around in full plate casting spells, I remenber my 2nd ed group actually tested something similar and drop it from being too good for the multiclass combos.

 

[Olive]

Unless Wizards is false advertising their "Option, Not Restrictions" policy for 3.5e...

it is possible to read to much into a slogan. i certainly don't think this comes under the category of false advertising, more under a disagree ment between you and WotC R&D over implementation of a design philosophy.

 

[theoremtank]

Doesn't it just sound odd that the 3.5e ranger wearing hide armor can't use any of his archery feats granted by his combat style?

I really believe a less restrictive rule mechanic needs to be developed. Yes, at the expense of other class features.

 

[hong]

Maybe you don't have a problem but we do.

Who's "we", Ranger boy?

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?

Unless Wizards is false advertising their "Option, Not Restrictions" policy for 3.5e...

Oh well. LABATYD.


Hong "TLAs are for wimps" Ooi

 

[Darklone]

Hah, options.... promises!