Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Gailedon" data-source="post: 808756" data-attributes="member: 11267">Ranger broken?The only problem I see with the view that people will play a ranger two levels to get those two feats is that there are plenty of other classes that give you two feats in the first two levels.&nbsp; Fighter for instance.&nbsp; If you are going for TWF and have to take two levels in ranger to get it, why bother?&nbsp; You can get two feat slots in the first two levels of Fighter.&nbsp; Rangers are appealing for skills and flavor.&nbsp; If what was reported earlier is true, then TWF is only one feat now, easy to get why bother with two ranger levels?&nbsp; How would that be catering to power gamers?&nbsp; I can understand feeling a little shoe-horned, but honestly when I think of ranger I think bows.&nbsp; Aragorn, Legolas, Robin Hood, Lellandor, even Perrin Aybarra from the Wheel of Time.&nbsp; Tracking, wood savvy and bows define what a classic ranger is. In this situation since we are looking at feats directly, I find it hard to believe that any gamemaster will not let you trade any two combat focused virtual feats for any two other combat focused weapon feats. Will D&amp;D (or any other role-playing game) ever NOT have house rules?&nbsp; I doubt it.&nbsp; Is 3.5 a good step in the right direction?&nbsp; Yes.&nbsp; With the SRD being updated the same day, is there any true reason to pick up the new books if you have the old?&nbsp; No.&nbsp; In my household we currently have 3 copies of each of the core rulebooks.&nbsp; With 3.5e there will probably be one copy of each in the house.&nbsp; &lt;shrug&gt;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Gailedon, post: 808756, member: 11267"] [b]Ranger broken?[/b] The only problem I see with the view that people will play a ranger two levels to get those two feats is that there are plenty of other classes that give you two feats in the first two levels. Fighter for instance. If you are going for TWF and have to take two levels in ranger to get it, why bother? You can get two feat slots in the first two levels of Fighter. Rangers are appealing for skills and flavor. If what was reported earlier is true, then TWF is only one feat now, easy to get why bother with two ranger levels? How would that be catering to power gamers? I can understand feeling a little shoe-horned, but honestly when I think of ranger I think bows. Aragorn, Legolas, Robin Hood, Lellandor, even Perrin Aybarra from the Wheel of Time. Tracking, wood savvy and bows define what a classic ranger is. In this situation since we are looking at feats directly, I find it hard to believe that any gamemaster will not let you trade any two combat focused virtual feats for any two other combat focused weapon feats. Will D&D (or any other role-playing game) ever NOT have house rules? I doubt it. Is 3.5 a good step in the right direction? Yes. With the SRD being updated the same day, is there any true reason to pick up the new books if you have the old? No. In my household we currently have 3 copies of each of the core rulebooks. With 3.5e there will probably be one copy of each in the house. <shrug> [/QUOTE]

Verification