So they went and butchered the 3.5 ranger...

[Quinn]

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?

Nope

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Also a few questions regarding the ranger archetype itself.

#1 - What was the inspiration for the Ranger into D&D? Was it the early 'Mountain Men' that explored America's west or just the old Woodsman character?

#2 - Why did the ranger have TWF at all? I'd figured they be more archers than the now whirling blades of death.

And #3 - And why did they have spellcasting? Was it just something to give 'em more abilities or just what?

EGG just posted some ionformation on this over in the Q&A thread.

1. While he didn't get too specific, he said the ranger was designed as a stealthy woodland scout who would operate alone (or in very small teams) in the wilderness -- hence the restrictions on the number or rangers in one party in 1E.

2. This came at the change to 2E. I'd blame Drizzt, personally, but I'm speculating.

3. Been like this since 1E. Speculating again here, but you could imagine Aragorn having some spellcasting ability (1E rangers specifically could use crystal balls), and I could see Fafhrd satted up as a ranger, and he'd need some minor spell casting ability.

Edit: Oh, yeah --there is precedent for archery abilities. The 1E ranger was required to have a bow or crossbow as one of his weapons of proficiency (as well as a sword or dagger, and spear or hand axe).

 

[Golandrinel]

Re: I Don't Get It

If you want to strip the Ranger of all flavor, why not simply play a fighter? They can use the bow while wearing Full Plate as normal, and can probably pick up the same feats with their bonuses.

Exactly. And a ranger also has/used to get stealth capabilities .. not much good in clanking plate mail.

And why did the ranger have the two weapons ability??? Never made any sense to me at all!

 

[Zenon]

Re: Re: I Don't Get It

And a ranger also has/used to get stealth capabilities .. not much good in clanking plate mail.

A simple +1 market bonus eliminates the clanking plate mail:

Silent Moves

This armor is well oiled and magically constructed so that it not only makes little sound, but it dampens sound around it. It adds a +10 circumstance bonus to its wearer’s Move Silently checks. (The armor’s armor check penalty still applies normally.)

Caster Level: 5th; Prerequisites: Craft Magic Arms and Armor, silence; Market Price: +1 bonus.

 

[djrdjmsqrd]

*COUGH*

....delurk...

Here is what I have done;

TWF/AMBI, ect - Plains Ranger

PS/Archery, ect - Forest Ranger

No Spells, 4Lvl WpnSp, No TWF/AMBI, Trackless Step/Wilderness Step, Dash - Scout Ranger


Simple, yet, effective. I fall to see why one can just mod classes if they need to. Yes, it would have been nice if they added .alts

I would also love to see alts for all the classes for a low-level-magic campaign...just means more work for me, eh?

...lurk...

 

[DonAdam]

So now Jack's argument makes no sense.

He says that his primary point is about Virtual Feats.

Yet he says that they butchered the ranger in 3.5e.


Um...

Since virtual feats were around before, why is the ranger butchered now?

 

[Psion]

Did I miss a spotlight? Were does the info on the ranger come from?

 

[Sagan Darkside]

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

The concept does not bother me at all- it makes sense to have abilities tied to the situation.

Of course, I have not allowed the ranger class in along time.
I don't plan to do so in the future.

SD

 

[KnowTheToe]

Well, here you're looking at someone (me) who kinda thinks the entire rules system should be set up around say, four classes. Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard. Then take a ton of feats and other options and customize them to whatever you want. Or maybe have a lot of pretige classes. Or.. oh wait.. but that's not D&D anymore, eh?

<

I think if they started from scratch, you would see this. This would eliminate the need for PrCs and allow a vast amount of diversity within the classes. The only other way to allow real diversity is have tons of base classes with slight variations. I allow lots of standard classes from WoT and Kalamar and others, but limit the PrCs.

I predict D&D 4E in 3-4 years will work off of fewer classes and massive customization through feats, skills and special talants.

 

[Knight Otu]

Did I miss a spotlight? Were does the info on the ranger come from?

The third revision spotlight featured the Manyshot feat for Revised Edition here.

It's the special line that is of interest:

Special: Regardless of the number of arrows you fire, you apply precision-based damage (such as sneak attack damage) only once. If you score a critical hit, only the first arrow fired deals critical damage; all others deal regular damage.

A fighter may select Manyshot as one of his fighter bonus feats.

A 6th-level ranger who has chosen the archery combat style is treated as having Manyshot even if he does not have the prerequisites for it, but only when he is wearing light or no armor.