Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="(Psi)SeveredHead" data-source="post: 859934" data-attributes="member: 1165">I think you misunderstand me, but I'm not so sure.Suppose there are 100 ranger players in a room <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> That means 100 different combat styles. WotC couldn't possibly fit 100 combat styles into the Player's Handbook.I think, if a ranger wants to fight as well as a fighter, they should spend their (limited) character feats on fighting. They can take whatever combat style they desire, or try multiple paths (not a good idea, IMO, but at least they have that option) or none if they would rather take flavor/skill feats, or some combination of them.One of the problems with the ranger is WotC is trying to satisfy a wide variety of desires with narrow options. I don't see a problem with letting a player take a class and moving it in the direction that fits their character concept.Personally, everything I've heard about the 3.5 ranger fits my definition of a ranger, but I don't think it's going to fit everyone in my gaming group. That's why I'd rather they remove the fighting styles entirely.Lots <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> This is the very first time I've seen a flavor argument in favor of TWF, so you've given something to think about. I guess I just didn't like every ranger learning and using the same combat style. I'll probably stick with archery though <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="(Psi)SeveredHead, post: 859934, member: 1165"] I think you misunderstand me, but I'm not so sure. Suppose there are 100 ranger players in a room :D That means 100 different combat styles. WotC couldn't possibly fit 100 combat styles into the Player's Handbook. I think, if a ranger wants to fight as well as a fighter, they should spend their (limited) character feats on fighting. They can take whatever combat style they desire, or try multiple paths (not a good idea, IMO, but at least they have that option) or none if they would rather take flavor/skill feats, or some combination of them. [i]One of the problems with the ranger is WotC is trying to satisfy a wide variety of desires with narrow options.[/i] I don't see a problem with letting a player take a class and moving it in the direction that fits their character concept. Personally, everything I've heard about the 3.5 ranger fits [i]my[/i] definition of a ranger, but I don't think it's going to fit everyone in my gaming group. That's why I'd rather they remove the fighting styles entirely. Lots :D This is the [i]very first time[/i] I've seen a flavor argument in favor of TWF, so you've given something to think about. I guess I just didn't like [i]every[/i] ranger learning and using the [i]same[/i] combat style. I'll probably stick with archery though :D [/QUOTE]

Verification