Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mercule" data-source="post: 858466" data-attributes="member: 5100">Exactly.&nbsp; I don't disagree with anything said here.&nbsp; &quot;Skirmisher&quot; is a word I've often used to describe the Ranger.That's the sort of Ranger I prefer.&nbsp; Which is why I like the 1E Ranger and dislike the 2E and later Rangers.TWF has nothing to do with skirmishing.&nbsp; TWF has nothing to do with scouting.&nbsp; TWF has nothing to do with the wilderness.&nbsp; TWF has nothing to do with hunting orcs (or whatever).&nbsp; TWF has nothing to do with the archetype the Ranger is supposed to serve.&nbsp; In short TWF has absolutely no business being associated with the Ranger.As far as allowing a player to play what he wants, I don't disallow PC Rangers from taking the TWF feat.&nbsp; Any PC can take it.&nbsp; Rangers have to spend the feat just like Rogues, though.&nbsp; That's one of the greatest things about the 3E system -- it's flexible enough that players can do some customizing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mercule, post: 858466, member: 5100"] Exactly. I don't disagree with anything said here. "Skirmisher" is a word I've often used to describe the Ranger. That's the sort of Ranger I prefer. Which is why I like the 1E Ranger and dislike the 2E and later Rangers. TWF has nothing to do with skirmishing. TWF has nothing to do with scouting. TWF has nothing to do with the wilderness. TWF has nothing to do with hunting orcs (or whatever). TWF has nothing to do with the archetype the Ranger is supposed to serve. In short TWF has absolutely no business being associated with the Ranger. As far as allowing a player to play what he wants, I don't disallow PC Rangers from taking the TWF feat. Any PC can take it. Rangers have to spend the feat just like Rogues, though. That's one of the greatest things about the 3E system -- it's flexible enough that players can do some customizing. [/QUOTE]

Verification