So they went and butchered the 3.5 ranger...

[Shard O'Glase]

Re: Re: Light AND Medium

Um... No.

Have you ever trained in unarmed combat? trained in fighting with two weapons? actually worn armor? Even the best armor puts some limits on your range of motion, and heavy armors severely restrict movement. The monk's fighting style in particular requires complete freedom of movement, as it is stated explicitly that they are using their entire body to attack (fists, feet, elbows, knees, even shoulders and hips, depending on their fighting style).

The way you fight in many types of armor is COMPLETELY different from the way you would fight in no armor or exceptionally light armor.

I think the point is the restriction should if it exists be on the feat, and not on a specific class that gets the feat as a bonus. And i agree with that. Sure I can see them saying hey when you bust out the kung fu you can't do it effectively in plate mail, but a fighter should be just as restricted in using kung fu in plate mail as the kung fu specialist if not more.

 

[Zhure]

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

Main Entry: rang·er
Pronunciation: 'rAn-j&r
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 a : the keeper of a British royal park or forest b : FOREST RANGER
2 : one that ranges
3 a : one of a body of organized armed men who range over a region especially to enforce the law b : a soldier specially trained in close-range fighting and in raiding tactics

Rangers, as a term, significantly predates LOTR, but I'll admit Tolkien was highly influential.

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.

The 2e Ranger TWF stems from Drizz't being a drow. 1e drow PCs could fight with two weapons without penalty. As a ranger, he could specialize in a sword. The "player" (in this case, RA Salvatore) chose scimitar. By the time 2e came around, TSR extended the TWF abilites of Drizz't to apply to all rangers. Only explanation that makes sense.

Greg

 

[jester47]

Why the ranger can use spells and bows.

But I realize that lots of people still think that "ranger" and "archer" are some sort of synonym (hint: they aren't), and that enough people have cried that it's not going away.

Aroo?

The ranger comes from several spots. The oldest ranger I can find is Artemis, the greek goddess of the moon, wilderness and hunt, as time progressed she became a three formed goddess. The moon, the huntress, and the Hecate. Her brother, Apollo is the god of Archery, Light, Healing and Knowledge. They are called the sun and moon. This has precedence later.

Robin Hood is a ranger. He forsakes his nobility to fight against false nobility and for what is right in sherwood forest. Yet he is still a noble.

Tolkien put both of these items together in the form of Aragorn. Minas Tirith is the tower of the Sun, Minas Ithil was the tower of the moon. Minas Ithil fell, and became Minus Morgul. This foreshadows the choice Aragorn has to make. Should he remain as a ranger or claim his inheritance as King? Remaining as a ranger causes problems for middle earth and dooms the world. While it was once good he sides with the same things represented by the Hecate (darkness corruption death and evil) if he remains a ranger. Aragorn's denial of his nobility is direct from Robin Hood.

Apollo, Artemis, and Robin hood all used Bows. Aragorn is the archetype for the Ranger. He is a healer, and he can use the palintir (crystal ball, a knowledge device) without fear. Thus the spells (to be able to have healing and knowledge abilities in the D&D game system) and bow usage.

Aaron.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Re: Re: Re: Light AND Medium

I think the point is the restriction should if it exists be on the feat, and not on a specific class that gets the feat as a bonus. And i agree with that. Sure I can see them saying hey when you bust out the kung fu you can't do it effectively in plate mail, but a fighter should be just as restricted in using kung fu in plate mail as the kung fu specialist if not more.

Tentative agreement. Of course, a heavily-armored fighter who takes Imp. Unarmed is NOT doing Kung Fu. He's probably using a form of Western boxing which takes advantage of the weight and strength of his equipment, and negates the fact that he doesn't have full mobility in his shoulders. He'd close with you, negating your weapon by getting inside your reach and deliver a gauntleted pummeling about the head and shoulders while your weapons clang harmlessly off his shoulder plates. Unless you're taller than him, and then he better get under and inside so he can control your movement or take you to the ground. An unarmored monk, on the other hand, would be using his mobility to keep out of the way of your weapon and simply control your movement via grappling, etc. While a lightly-armored Ranger or Rogue with two weapons would be clearing your weapon with one hand and skewering you with the other, or trapping your weapon with both of his and trying to take you down with a trip or shoulder, preferentially keeping your weapon in the process . The fighting style is partially a flavor issue, and partially a natural outgrowth of their equipment. A monk who puts on full-plate can no longer use the vast majority of the moves he trained in. Carrying that much weight and limiting his mobility negates his entire fighting style. Similarly, a dexterous Ranger/Rogue who uses two weapons effectively would not have the range of motion in his shoulders to use many of the moves he's used to, and heavy gauntlets on his forearms would cut down on the quickness necessary to use two weapons effectively.

 

[JoeGKushner]

I however do not agree with Jack in regards to rangers and archery. I think rangers being good archers is a completely consistent idea. Rangers as defined in D&D are wilderness warriors and hunters. A hunter and tracker would most commonly use a bow if available. And remember that the archetype of the ranger in most fantasy worlds is not that of those in reality that have been known as rangers. Which by the way varies much dependant on world location. [/B]

Ranger and archery goes way back to first edition with the Archer and Archer Ranger. Found in a really old Dragon and one of the Best of Dragons.

It's like I keep telling Nightfall who keeps pointing out things he thinks originated in the Scarred Lands... "Just because you don't know it was there doesn't mean it wasn't." Nothing harsh meant by that statement but people have to keep an open mind as to how old D&D is.

2nd Ed tried some minor things like limiting the dex bonus you got with various types of armor when using weapons like longbows but not crossbows.

Overall Archery isn't the greatest in 3rd ed in terms of balance, but I'll live with it.

 

[MThibault]

My personal opinion is that the only thing "klunky" about virtual feats is the term "virtual feat". If it were called a class ability like all the other class abilities there wouldn't be any problem. They just tried to save space and time (theirs and the readers) by using a too-clever term to avoid writing the same mechanic twice and just detailing the differences.

The last things I would want to see would be: 1) the benefit of one level of Ranger increased even more by allowing the Virtual Feats to be used in heavy armor, or 2) Some sort of Attack Failure Rate or Armor Check Penalty to penalize Rangers in heavy armor without completely banning the choice.

Just my 2 cents

 

[Storm Raven]

Now this sort of set off the first red flag because that was always the first thing I looked for in labeling an alt.ranger as crap; rangers have never, in their whole history, had any free archery abilities. At least two-weapon style has precedent. But I realize that lots of people still think that "ranger" and "archer" are some sort of synonym (hint: they aren't), and that enough people have cried that it's not going away.

You apparently never read the 1e Unearthed Arcana, because in that, rangers had a forced proficiency in a bow, in effect, making it mandatory that they be archers. On the other hand, there is no precedent for two weapon fighting rangers that is not entirely self-referential back to a D&D precedent. Once again, your lack of historical knowledge concerning the background of the ranger class trips you up.

 

[frankthedm]

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?

because 3.5 won't let him squeeze his ranger into heavy armor. Kinda seems like just one more greedy, greedy player who is ticked he has to give up heavy armor for the ranger goodies.

 

[Korin Tempest]

does anyone else give a flip about the double weapon restriction?

 

[Shard O'Glase]

does anyone else give a flip about the double weapon restriction?

I do, if my ranger is going two weapon style, the weapon I'd want to use is the staff. Lame that I can't.