So they went and butchered the 3.5 ranger...

[S'mon]

Re: Re: Re: Stuff, and such

i always see 1st lvl commoners as being given a spear and told "fight, or i'll kill you'.

where as you had training. so 1st lvl warrior sounds more like it to me!

TA (Army Reserve) training - 1 Tuesday night a week, usually spent on rifle drill, and a few field training weekends a year. And if I was a Warrior 1 then, I'm definitely not now (Expert at best)!
It hardly made me proficient with all martial weapons, either - the DMG Commoner '1 simple weapon' (in my case the SA80/L85 5.56mmN Assault Rifle) seems closer to the mark.
Arguably the infantry training did give me the Toughness feat, though.

 

[coyote6]

I concede this point - I was mixing my 2E and my 1E.

Wasn't there a Dragon article that expanded upon TWF, and added to the list of weapons that could be used in the off-hand? ISTR it being in an issue numbered somewhere in the late 60s or early 70s.

It was after that article that I saw several two-weapon fighting characters popup (including some in my handwriting ).

 

[Dinkeldog]

Mmmm...ranger...I like mine medium rare, please.

 

[Zander]

The one explanation for TWF for Rangers that no one has latched on to is the Saracen character "Nasir" in the BBC "Robin of Sherwood" TV series. He fought with (IIRC) a longsword and scimitar, and as a 'merry man' he was kind of a Ranger.

No one? Please check out the first page of this thread.

I agree with your point. Or rather, you agree with mine. It's a shame that you failed to give me credit for it. I hope that was a one-off lapse on your behalf and that you don't routinely post to threads you haven't read carefully. I spend a lot of time reading what others have to say before contributing my bit. I would appreciate it if others did too.

 

[Enkhidu]

Wasn't there a Dragon article that expanded upon TWF, and added to the list of weapons that could be used in the off-hand? ISTR it being in an issue numbered somewhere in the late 60s or early 70s.

It was after that article that I saw several two-weapon fighting characters popup (including some in my handwriting ).

That would be Roger Moore's "The Two-Fisted Fighter," from Dragon #70. It expanded the list of weapons usable in the off hand (it once was only hand axe and dagger) and showed how it doubled the number of attacks you could get. It was never 1st Ed canon, but was included in 2nd Ed.

 

[Plane Sailing]

FWIW the pre-1e ranger, which appeared in an issue of "Strategic Review" was even more wicked than the 1e ranger - especially in spellcasting ability.

A couple of years ago I produced (with a little help from cyberzombie and Greystoke) a fairly comprehensive look at the evolution of the ranger class from its earliest origins, through 1e, UA, 2e and now 3e. If anyone is interested I could post that in here?

 

[Olive]

A couple of years ago I produced (with a little help from cyberzombie and Greystoke) a fairly comprehensive look at the evolution of the ranger class from its earliest origins, through 1e, UA, 2e and now 3e. If anyone is interested I could post that in here?

Please do.

 

[MerricB]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Stuff, and such

TA (Army Reserve) training - 1 Tuesday night a week, usually spent on rifle drill, and a few field training weekends a year. And if I was a Warrior 1 then, I'm definitely not now (Expert at best)!
It hardly made me proficient with all martial weapons, either - the DMG Commoner '1 simple weapon' (in my case the SA80/L85 5.56mmN Assault Rifle) seems closer to the mark.
Arguably the infantry training did give me the Toughness feat, though.

Never underestimate the effect high ability scores can have on your skills.

A useful concept several games have used is the idea of "potential" and "actual" ability scores... training will allow you to reach your potential - it is something that most of us don't get!

Cheers!

 

[teitan]

Virtual Feats

I am just jumping in here as regards the virutal feats issue. I don't see the rangers virtual feats as being any different than a monk's wisdom bonus to Armor class and the way they are denied the wisdom bonus when they wear armour. The ranger doesn't have those abilities when they wear heavier armour and would have to burn feats to use them

As to the revision, I am glad they are making more options available to ranger characters as the class really had nothing to offer after level 1 except a lot of empty levels until you got to cast spells and then nothing again. The combat option being made available are wonderful and definitely a bonus to 3.5. I personally can not wait to see the new Sorceror.

People whining about precedence, Rangers didn't use 2 weapons in 1E, they were just copies of Aragorn and people loved it. Why do Rangers need to use 2 weapons? The 2E ranger was modeled on Driz'zt and to help give rangers something more to make them more attractive because they lost a few abilities. Works for me.

 

[Dinkeldog]

No one? Please check out the first page of this thread.

I agree with your point. Or rather, you agree with mine. It's a shame that you failed to give me credit for it. I hope that was a one-off lapse on your behalf and that you don't routinely post to threads you haven't read carefully. I spend a lot of time reading what others have to say before contributing my bit. I would appreciate it if others did too.

Whoa there, partner! Take the righteous indignation down a notch, please. There's no loss of life--it's just a message board; we already know you're a wonderful person without you needing to prove it by being acknowledged the sole author of all your incredible, witty ideas.