Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- Pocket Sized Adventures! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed for 1-2 game sessions.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 980927" data-attributes="member: 1465">Why should they be? Other classes have the same restrictions on other abilities, the only difference being that those abilities are not equivalent to existing feats.I think it makes sense, it was a choice to keep the Ranger close to the 3.0 idea of being a lightly-armored fighter. Now the class has drifted towards being a skill-using hunter, but I see no problems in keeping the lightly-armored style.Not that it wouldn't make sense to be otherwise, if they were plainly free feats it would be even easier, it would be fine as well. But it's not a must.Eventually the only consequence is that if you really wanted a heavily-armored Ranger, you are going to lose those feats' benefits. Then don't be a heavily-armored Ranger, or spend more feats to achieve a charater concept which is somehow astray from typical. I have never heard of armored Monks either, and few complains about it.Why would you like so much to be a heavily-armored or "mediumly-armored" Ranger? Is there any RP reason? What's the RP difference between a light and a heavy armor? Because if the reason is strictly the aim to get higher AC, there's plenty of ways to get that without any armor at all. I just don't see why this is so important for you... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification