So they went and butchered the 3.5 ranger...

[Darrin Drader]

**YAWN** This is a troll...

Seriously, if you don't like the ranger in 3E, 3.5, 203E, or whatever other incarnation of D&D that comes out, either use an alternate (like Monte's Ranger at http://www.montecook.com/arch_stuff3.html) or make one to your satisfaction. That's the great thing about a game system - it can be easily tailored to personal tastes and expectations, and the whole notion that something has to be official to count is patently ridiculous.

 

[Kai Lord]

rangers have never, in their whole history, had any free archery abilities.

Its called an evolution of the game. Kind of the point of playing 3e vs. 1e.

 

[DonAdam]

rangers have never, in their whole history, had any free archery abilities.

I would like to give a new name to this kind of argument (it won't stick):
Rules Positivism

It's like legal positivism. Legal positivism is when people say that "it's right because it's legal."

This is rules positivism. Who cares if, in terms of game mechanics, rangers have never had bonuses to archery?

Our mythological and fictional examples of rangers, including the person the name was taken from (Aragorn), are much more archers than two-weapon fighters.

The importance is not in rules precedent, but the precedent set by the genre that the game is trying to emulate.

By this same argument that JackDaniels makes, I could claim that monks should not be part of the game. Nor assassins. Why? The precedent was that they be removed.

But wait, you say, that's only the second edition precedent!

That's all the two-weapon fighting thing is. A 2nd edition precedent. As a person who thinks that 2nd edition was in almost all ways a step down from 1st, I am very, very glad that this precedent is going away.

Besides, you've got nothing to complain about, since it's an option. Unless you think that core classes should be that shoehorned.

 

[Olive]

i'm still worried about the ranger, but not for any of the reasons that Jack is. I'm just worried that they'll deal with the "one stereotype ranger" by making a bunch of front-loaded options.

no precedent for an archer ranger? who cares! i like the idea of an archer woodsman type. archer rangers make more sense than TWF rangers to me, but i wouldn't want to do away with the TWF stereotype either... it's a DnD icon now!

 

[Umbran]

It is also a bit jumping the gun to say a thing is "butchered" before we can see more than a snippet. Remember the fable about the blind men and the elephant? Don't pass judgement on what the thing is or isn't until you see it in full.

 

[jgbrowning]

It is also a bit jumping the gun to say a thing is "butchered" before we can see more than a snippet. Remember the fable about the blind men and the elephant? Don't pass judgement on what the thing is or isn't until you see it in full.

i have no idea what your talk'n about man.... everyone knows the nose causes the tail!


joe b.

 

[Mercule]

(troll, but true IMHO)

There is no possible way the ranger could be worse, so long as Two-Weapon fighting isn't the default. In fact, the best possible thing they could do to the ranger is strip any mention of TWF from the class description. The feats are still available to take if they choose, but really have nothing to do with the concept of a woodland skirmisher/border guard.

Unless you consider that the 2E design team was smoking crack -- which, IMHO, is the only way to associate rangers and TWF.

(/troll)

Okay, that was about as inflamitory as I could be, but the simple fact of the matter is that I _love_ the concept of the stealthy/woodsy fighter and still I _banned_ the class from my game in 3E (I skipped 2E) because of the TWF.

I eventually replaced it with the Woodsman from WoT, but the TWF has no business being married to the class the way it is. Archery, maybe, I can see the concept, but not TWF.

 

[Eosin the Red]

rangers have never, in their whole history, had any free archery abilities.

What about the Archer-Ranger from the Best of Dragon 1st ED. That and the Bounty Hunter were two of the most frequently chosen classes in my game "back in the day."

 

[Spatula]

Our mythological and fictional examples of rangers, including the person the name was taken from (Aragorn), are much more archers than two-weapon fighters.

Aragorn never uses a bow in the LOTR books. Nor does he fight with two weapons. You can look to the movies (although that moves away from your point), but even there Aragorn sometimes uses a bow (Moria) and sometimes fights with two weapons (at Weathertop vs the Nazgul and at Amon Hen vs the Uruk-hai).

Robin Hood is a good example for an archery-based ranger. And the idea of a woodsman/scout/warrior lends itself to the idea of guerilla tactics, archers melting in and out of the forsest to harrass their foes, like Faramir's group in The Two Towers.

 

[Jack Daniel]

**YAWN** This is a troll...

Might I direct you to Salem, 17th century?

I agree with Jack that Virtual Feats should be done away with. They only create unnecessary exceptions to the rule.

One person who actually read the post... so let me get this straight. The rest of you don't mourn the integration of partial and attack actions into the "standard action," but a klunky concept like virtual feats doesn't irk you at all?