Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JRRNeiklot" data-source="post: 809628" data-attributes="member: 717">Since when is a ranger an archer?&nbsp; The original ranger was based upon Arragorn from LOTR.&nbsp; While Arragorn may have used a bow occassionally, he was hardly an archer.&nbsp; He was a stealthy ranger.&nbsp; A warrior who could disappear into the wilderness and subsist on what nature alone had to offer.&nbsp; Yet, he was still the epitome of the warrior.&nbsp; With any weapon or with none.&nbsp; I.E., he had no special feats besides maybe weapon focus in sword.&nbsp; Making Arragorn an archer would have left little room for Legolas in LOTR.&nbsp; While I realize that's a pretty shaky analogy, it's close enough.&nbsp; Rangers need no fighting styles.&nbsp; Sure, you can ignore them, but I stand by the fact that you are in effect &quot;wasting&quot; the feats.&nbsp; I fail to see why many people associate archery with rangers.&nbsp; Is it Robin Hood?&nbsp; Legolas?&nbsp; Either seem to fit the rogue or fighter archetype better than ranger.&nbsp; Is it hunting?&nbsp; Sure, hunting was done with a bow, but why extend this to combat?&nbsp; A ranger should get up close and personal.&nbsp; He should not equal the fighter in sheer combat ability, but he should be close.&nbsp; And still be able to fill a niche.&nbsp; That niche, as some have said is better filled by a fighter/rogue or fighter druid.&nbsp; That's just wrong.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="JRRNeiklot, post: 809628, member: 717"] Since when is a ranger an archer? The original ranger was based upon Arragorn from LOTR. While Arragorn may have used a bow occassionally, he was hardly an archer. He was a stealthy ranger. A warrior who could disappear into the wilderness and subsist on what nature alone had to offer. Yet, he was still the epitome of the warrior. With any weapon or with none. I.E., he had no special feats besides maybe weapon focus in sword. Making Arragorn an archer would have left little room for Legolas in LOTR. While I realize that's a pretty shaky analogy, it's close enough. Rangers need no fighting styles. Sure, you can ignore them, but I stand by the fact that you are in effect "wasting" the feats. I fail to see why many people associate archery with rangers. Is it Robin Hood? Legolas? Either seem to fit the rogue or fighter archetype better than ranger. Is it hunting? Sure, hunting was done with a bow, but why extend this to combat? A ranger should get up close and personal. He should not equal the fighter in sheer combat ability, but he should be close. And still be able to fill a niche. That niche, as some have said is better filled by a fighter/rogue or fighter druid. That's just wrong. [/QUOTE]

Verification