So they went and butchered the 3.5 ranger...

[Kichwas]

Sorry...


I've just read too many posts where two people get into it against each other while actually having the same point...

 

[Cedric]

In 1E, Even CLERICS could wield two weapons, as long as one was shorter than the other!

I have to add this reluctantly...because Henry did a really good job of describing the evolution of twf in D&D.

As far as I can tell, he is right about everything except the statement I quoted above.

In fact, only hand axes or daggers could be used in the off-hand. Your on-weapon could be any 1-h weapon, but off-hand had to be hand axe or dagger.

Otherwise...I think TSR just pulled the twf'ing ranger out of their butt for 2nd edition and I would be happy to see it go away in place of more appropriate class abilities for the ranger...rather then making them a different kind of combat monster.

Cedric

 

[Guilt Puppy]

Wow, finally I have the privilege of witnessing a coherent explanation for how TWF came into being. I had always worried that it secretly made sense as a game rule, but just wouldn't tell me about it. As an attempt to keep 2E fiction-compatible and later to keep 3E 2E-compatible, it comes up as a big "oh."

I'd straight dump it, without combat styles, although that raises compatibility issues for 3.5E... Ideally, I think the Ranger's base schtick should be favored enemies and terrain, at every odd level... Take a +1 versus a favored enemy, or a +1 in a favored terrain (although terrain is, admittedly, tougher to define).

Of course, fleshing out the class requires a few extra tricks: Free track is a must, and the Barbarian's Fast Movement would be a good fit. Nothing else big, as their skill selection and BAB help already. Maybe even a good Reflex save depending where they fall balance-wise.

Presto! A good, versatile Ranger. Fights as well as a non-raging Barbarian when he's not in good circumstances, once he hits his favorable circumstances he starts keeping up with/exceeding the Fighter (the fact that the fighter can't do this all the time is made up for by his lack of skill selection, and so on...)

I'd dump spells, but they're nice cause they encourage Wisdom, a definite Ranger necessity.

If you want your Ranger to be a better fighter multiclass to Fighter. If you want your Ranger to have sneak attack multiclass to Rogue. If you want your Ranger to be good in the wilderness (or, in broader terms, good in familiar situations) you should be able to take Ranger.

Oh, and I don't care one way or the other about Virtual Feats. They're kinda clunky, but not difficult to deal with in practice. Front-loadedness is a problem, poor flavor is a problem: I agree with you there. (although I think archery is more suited flavor than TWF; however, I'd say no fighter-style combat bonuses is more correct.)

 

[Wolv0rine]

I'd straight dump it, without combat styles, although that raises compatibility issues for 3.5E... Ideally, I think the Ranger's base schtick should be favored enemies and terrain, at every odd level... Take a +1 versus a favored enemy, or a +1 in a favored terrain (although terrain is, admittedly, tougher to define).

I don't know, while we're onthe subject of the origins of the D&D ranger.. where the heck did that Favored Enemy jazz come in to it? I mean, does that reference something I'm missing or what? Where's the fantasy precident for this? Is it an Aragorn thing? (I was uninspired by Tolkien as a grade-schooler when I read the books, I don't really remember much of them). Now Favored Terrain, that I think is brilliant.

 

[John Smallberries]

where the heck did that Favored Enemy jazz come in to it? I mean, does that reference something I'm missing or what? Where's the fantasy precident for this? Is it an Aragorn thing? (

Defintely, but not 'officially'.

The original Ranger got a bonus fighting Giant-class creatures (Orcs, Goblins, etc), kinda like Tolkien's Rangers were good at fighting Orcs, Goblins, etc...

The 2e Ranger expanded on this concept by allowing the player to choose a class of monster to be proficient against.

 

[Aaron L]

Yes, in 1E rangers were warriors who patrolled the wilderness to keep monsters at bay. They recieved a damage bonus equal to their level against "giant class creatures" (pretty much all goblinoids and giants, a very wierd grouping of creatures) because these were the things they fought against. They were a sort of anti-humanoid special forces.

In 2e they let rangers choose their enemies instead of predefining them, but then cut the benefits they gained against said enemies into a +4 to hit. Feh.

All that aside, I really dislike the limiting of these virtual feats to light or no armor. What is wrong with a ranger wearing a breastplate or chainmail?? I had a 1E ranger for 7 years who lived in chainmail.


Gosh, I loved 1E rangers.

 

[Ranger REG]

What is wrong with a ranger wearing a breastplate or chainmail?? I had a 1E ranger for 7 years who lived in chainmail.

Nothing is preventing the ranger from wearing chainmail, breastplate, and any medium or heavy armor.

But I do agree. They should be able to TWF, regardless of armor worn (assuming that other people still condone giving ranger Ambi and TWF feats as class features ... but so far, I hear opposition).

It seems the concept of rangers vary among gamers, and each individual gamer is very vehement about favoring their own concept while dismissing others. That's very antithetical to the motto of "giving options, not restrictions."

Gosh, I loved 1E rangers.

I missed it, too. But I also missed the +4 to hit from 2nd edition. Which is why I houserule that favored enemy bonus also applies to attack bonus.

 

[Steverooo]

 

 

[Wolv0rine]

Defintely, but not 'officially'.

The original Ranger got a bonus fighting Giant-class creatures (Orcs, Goblins, etc), kinda like Tolkien's Rangers were good at fighting Orcs, Goblins, etc...

The 2e Ranger expanded on this concept by allowing the player to choose a class of monster to be proficient against.

Ahh yes, it's been so long, I'd forgotten about the 1E Ranger's Giant-class thing. Thanks.

 

[S'mon]

Re: Stuff, and such

Perhaps the problem is that most of us aren't heroes. I can't do what a Navy Seal (or US Marine, or Army Ranger, or 82nd Airborne Commando) can do. I can't jump over a horse while wearing armor, either, I'm sure (not that I've ever tried). I don't believe that that means that a warrior trained from youth cannot, however, nor that a historical document is invalidated simply because a modern american can't do something which it states Medieval soldiers were required to do.
[/B]

I'm no hero, but I was in a (very much non elite) UK army reserve unit for a couple of years. In the Territorial Army Reserve we were expected to run 3 miles or so uphill in full kit, with 50 lb packs (they weighed them!) and kit - webbing, helmet (modern kevlar helmets are much heavier than medieval steel ones, BTW!), etc. With a bit of fitness training and practice the weight becomes much more bearable. And really, I was the equivalent of the D&D 1st level Commoner conscript. I think a lot of people, especially those in sedentary occupations, really underestimate what someone who trains constantly, like a medieval knight, can be capable of. Medieval armour was not even that heavy - the D&D weight figures seem very high, but reasonable as 'encumbrance' ratings - the biggest problem historically was heat exhaustion. And the ability of medieval crusaders to move & fight in heavy armour indicates that even that could be overcome.