Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Felon" data-source="post: 888788" data-attributes="member: 8158">Other than Evasion, how else does the 3.5e ranger resemble a rogue? It has a lot of skill points because it has lots of skills that are intrinsic to the concept of a ranger (Spot, Listen, Search, Survival, Knowledge (nature), Handle Animal, Climb, Jump, Swim, Ride, plus the aforementioned stealth skills Move Silently and Hide). Except that we can quantify how a paladin or barbarian is different from a fighter. If you reduce the role of the rogue elements (which amounts to lots of skill points and some camouflage abilities), and trim off any supernatural or spell abilities (which you've also stated are unrangerly) then what class features are left to differentiate him from the fighter? Once again, you're dwelling on how the class isn't like a ranger without going into any detail as to what exactly you think a ranger is. If it's not a hunter or scout, and it doesn't bear any resemblence to a rogue, and its not a spellcaster, and it's more than just a fighter with the Track feat. It's easy to keep arguing about something if all you're going to do is to deconstruct what others say and do. Quantify your own position.I agree; virtual feats are lame. Now, where did you get the idea that virtual feats were being used in 3.5e? Where did you hear that they weren't receiving bonus feats? While we're on the subject of bonus feats, if you're going to keep bringing up paladins and barbarians as some sort of justification as to why a ranger should be a distinct class from the fighter, then point out how to design a ranger as a warrior that doesn't rely on any kinds of bonus feats, because that's how the pal and barb are distinguished from the fighter.And take and leave it, take it and leave it, take and leave it.... Merc, you keep saying the same things in thread after thread. Then people issue counter-arguements or ask for specifics instead of vague rhetoric, and you basically evade or ignore them while dogmatically insisting "this isn't a ranger" until it wears the thread thin. Then another ranger thread pops up and the pattern repeats itself all over. People will deny your position as long as they can't see that you actually have one. Refine your arguement: design your ideal ranger core class, and advocate it by showing how he's got class features that make it a distinct class, not just "every bit as tough as a fighter is, with the same hit die and bonus feats, plus other cool stuff". At best, that's a prestige class.</blockquote>

Verification