pawsplay's dealbreaker list

muffin_of_chaos

First Post
pawsplay said:
Until Drizzt came along, two weapon fighting had nothing to do with rangers. Prior to him, a ranger would wield either the blade of Isuldur, some kind of quarterstaff, or a bow. I have a hard time picturing many samurai, many if not most historical fighters, some gladiators, and the majority of duelists during the heydey of the rapier as rangers or multiclass rangers.
Like the Warlord class, I expect that the name of the class "Ranger" is sort of a misnomer, determined by tradition if nothing else. We've seen no indication that Rangers have anything to do with Nature other than their skill list (which might be accounted for by the fact that some Rangers are actually rangers, and so there's that option, I do not think that it is meant to define the role of the class as it used to). They are a Martial class, after all, neither Primal nor Divine.
It would seem that Rangers as Strikers fill two Striker combat roles--ranged and melee. (Note that this is different from the Rogue, which is ranged* and melee*, the star indicating that they specialize in opportunism instead of straight combat.)
If the Ranger decides they want to be a meleer, that's their schtick, and they have the time and will to cultivate a potentially deadlier two-weapon fighting style. Meanwhile, Fighters don't, Warlords don't, Clerics don't, and Paladins don't, all of them focusing on training the powers associated with their Role (none of which would be benefited with an extra weapon). Rogues wouldn't bother focusing on learning how to fight with two weapons because they are more concerned with getting in that one carefully-placed backstab than actually dueling face-to-face.

In other words, forget everything you preconceived about what the Ranger class is. They are now Strikers. Melee Rangers are not merely rangers who melee, but any and all persons who want to do straight, non-centrally-opportunistic damage in a melee situation. Thus they have have the capability to fight with two weapons unlike every other class/Role.

That's my theory, and it's hard to substantiate because we haven't seen many Ranger abilities. Seems right though.

Of course, this idea might just make people mad that Roles are so defined, and that's a legitimate complaint.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

ShockMeSane

First Post
A wizard pulling out a crossbow after running out of magic was perhaps the most vile thing in any past edition.

Well, other than what happened when Wizards didn't need their crossbows anymore and became one-man-parties.
 

JesterOC

Explorer
pawsplay said:
*Wizards as infinite energy machines. I just can't abide wizards zotting all day long. What's wrong with using a crossbow now and then like an honest person?


That one made me laugh out loud.
I think that sentence will be spoken about 10,000 times less often than the old 1E,2E and 3E reaction spoken by so many new wizard players ....

"What!?!? I get How many spells?!?! Thats it... for the whole day!?!?!"

JesterOC
 

too many oversights in the corebooks and badly edited tables and power entries... thats the only things i fear right now...

(reason: orc minion stats, half-elf pregen, multiclass feat table, commander's strike)
 

Moon-Lancer

First Post
pawsplay said:
I've never hashed it out on rec.games.frp.dnd, but I have more than fifteen years of boffer combat experience, some familiarity with SCA rattan combat, and I've received a couple of escrima tutorials. I can cite Miyamoto Musashi or point out that most dueling manuals suggested rapier and dagger or rapier and buckler. But if you want to vaguely cite some discussion on Usenet back in the 90s, without linkage, I guess to each their own.

When I read your first post that talked about experience, I had a hunch it was about boffer combat. twf is easer done with lighter weapons (although i still manage to suck at it somehow). I dont have the knowledge or experience to debate if twf was historically true or not, but i do know some maneuvers with boffer combat do not apply to real fighting due to the nature of how light boffer weapons are, and how blade orientation is almost never considered (in the group i attend at least)
 

ShockMeSane

First Post
UngeheuerLich said:
too many oversights in the corebooks and badly edited tables and power entries... thats the only things i fear right now...

(reason: orc minion stats, half-elf pregen, multiclass feat table, commander's strike)

These are far more legitimate fears than anything presented in this thread, imo =/
 

muffin_of_chaos

First Post
ShockMeSane said:
These are far more legitimate fears than anything presented in this thread, imo =/
Agreed. Methinks they need to recruit like 10x as many playtesters-for-free (like in a video game Beta) to minimize the chances of this happening.
I'd personally be in favor of putting it all online and Patching the rules now and then, but I'm sure this would antagonize a lot of people who are more relaxed when there are absolute/fixed rules in their games. And of course, then there'd be less of a chance of selling obviously flawed books. Not really a profit in it, when the gamers control the games themselves and mess with the rules how they like.
 

AllisterH

First Post
Reason why I find the Frost Giant issue so weird is that sure, its iconic, but frankly, like most D&D monsters, it blow chunks.

Seriously, is there ANY difference between running an encounter with kobolds--->hobgoblins other than HP and attack bonuses? So exactly what makes a gnoll for example, iconic?

Same thing applies to the giants..Yeah, yeah, against the giants is a classic module but I've always founf in practice fire, frost giants to be interchangeable simlarly, frost and cloud.

I rather have had previous MMs have creatures with distinct attack forms rather than wolf, dire wolf and the worg ALL GETTING ENTRIES.
 


Charwoman Gene

Adventurer
AllisterH said:
Seriously, is there ANY difference between running an encounter with kobolds--->hobgoblins other than HP and attack bonuses? So exactly what makes a gnoll for example, iconic?

Orc are tactically different because they have a killer charge range, and non-minions have a bloodied minor action to use a healing surge.
Kobolds can shift a ton, making them harder to keep in melee or control their position. They have an easier time hitting you when they gang up.
Gnolls do extra damage when attacking in packs.
Hobgoblins can shake off negative effects easier than others.
Goblins slip away from you if you swing at them and miss.

This doesn't talk into account other themed powers of leaders and soldiers and such.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top