So they went and butchered the 3.5 ranger...

[Enkhidu]

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?

It's not a matter of not reading it, it's a matter of not agreeing with it. In fact, I think virtual feats are great, and are (in effect) no different that, say, a druid's restrictions on metal armor or a paladin's dependency on her code of conduct (all of them are abilities completely dependent on a character's behavior and actions).

Persoanlly, my big problem with 3E rangers were the specific virtual feats they gave - I'd have been happier with Endurance, Run, Improved Initiative (for a tough wilderness warrior) or something similar.

 

[WayneLigon]

,,,but a klunky concept like virtual feats doesn't irk you at all?

No, not really. I don't mind it. Truly, the ranger as written doesn't bug me a great deal, though I agree there is too much front-loading. Two weapon fighting doesn't bother me, either.

 

[Mercule]

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?

Not a particular fan of the "virtual feat" thing, myself. Either give 'em the feat or don't. Not sure if I've played with any "virtual feat" using classes. I just read them as actually possessing the full feat.

Oh, Tempest would be a good example. Despite not having the standard ranger in my game, I do like the idea of a two-handed master (no jokes, please). The feats granted by the Tempest are quite real. (Seems like I did something to the pre-reqs, too, to make it fit better for a straight fighter. *shrug*)

 

[jester47]

This reminds me of a project I started a while ago, epic progressions for the alternate rangers. I think my stumbling Block was not getting Necropolis, and then getting the NG ranger online but not getting the AEG ranger.

Hrm. Need to finish that and about five other projects.

Aaron.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

The virtual feats, I can take or leave, but the ranger is still shoehorned into a fighting style. He either gets two weapon fighting or archery feats? that's no better than the current ranger. What about the ranger who wants to use a two handed sword, or fight with sword and shield, or fight with a single one handed weapon? Yeah, he can, but no one wants to have two feats they never use. Personally, I like rangers, but I detest two weapon fighting, so I never play rangers. I play a fighter with ranks in wilderness lore, or a multiclass Barbarian/Druid.

Just give the ranger a couple of free feats and let him CHOOSE how he wants to fight.

Oh yeah, and spontaneous casting like a sorceror. A ranger should not have to prepare spells. He is the consumate boy scout. He is ALWAYS prepared.

 

[jester47]

They should have an "open" path.

Aaron.

 

[Olive]

The virtual feats, I can take or leave, but the ranger is still shoehorned into a fighting style. He either gets two weapon fighting or archery feats?

or perhaps several other options. unless you knwo something i don't, all we know is that the ranger has something called a 'archery style' or whatever. Not, that the only options available to the ranger will be archery and TWF.

Assume makes an...

 

[Steverooo]

 

 

[jester47]

Need to point out that the article makes it clear tha extrapolating is dangerous. Perhaps they have allowed for the ranged ranger, the two sword ranger and theold traditional ranger. We still have to wait and see.

Now I have to go make my 666th post.

Aaron.

 

[Steverooo]