So they went and butchered the 3.5 ranger...

[Steverooo]

 

 

[Steverooo]

 

 

[Gez]

Yay ! A troll !

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.

And clerics never had any free convert-to-cure-spell ability. And sorcerers never had any "I exist" ability.

Your point ?

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.

The ranger is simply the best class to make a Robin Hood like character. If rangers aren't archers, and fighters aren't woodsmen; how are you going to make the forest archer ? With an elven wizard ? With an orcish paladin ? With a halfling rogue ?

Now, we can play Legolas, Robin Hood or William Tell. Why do you whine ? Ah... You hate Legolas, that's it ? Well, I forgive you. He's truly loathable, especially with his mullet. Ewgh.

They still have virtual bloody feats! The game designers had this great opportunity to fix a clunky, pointless mechanic and streamline the game, and right now they're earning an F-.

On that, I agree.

 

[Mark Chance]

Re: IUS

Fighter takes IUS and Stunning Fist, he can conduct an IUS with Stunning Fist in Platemail.... So the Fighter can out-Martial-Art the Monk, when in plate.

No, the fighter can't. To get both IUS and SF, the fighter would have to be 8th-level minimum. He would get, at most, two attacks per round doing 1d3 points of damage and move only 20 ft.. An 8th level monk is getting two attacks per round doing 1d10 points of damage and move 50 ft. He also has added Evasion and Improved Trip to his arsenal, as well as the Flurry of Blows ability. The BAB bonuses for both using IUS are comparable.

My money's on the monk until the fighter whips out his bastard sword.

 

[Steverooo]

 

 

[hong]

Re: Ambi./TWF

Okay, so you're not really saying that the Ranger should be treated differently, just that you think the Feats should disallow heavy armor... That's a totally separate arguement.

As for what can and can't be done in armor, I will simply refer you to Ewart Oakeshott's quote of the requirements for becoming a soldier of the period (which I would post, if I could find which box it's in). Two of the requirements were to "climb the chimney" in full armor, and to place one hand on a mount's saddlehorn, the other on its withers, and then jump up and through your arms - again, fully armored!

Please check reality at the door.

As for the massive penalties associated with heavy armor, and STR requirements, I say: "Ragu! It's in there!" The lightest form of Heavy Armor is 35#. That requires a STR of 11+ to carry without falling into Medium Enc. and suffering all the penalties associated with that, as well as the armor's. The next lightest form is 45#, requiring STR 13+, as do the two 50# versions (and that's not even including a weapon, yet)! Having lower STR means an additional -3 Check Penalty.

Encumbrance penalties do not stack with armour penalties.

 

[Tsyr]

Re: Ambi./TWF

As for what can and can't be done in armor, I will simply refer you to Ewart Oakeshott's quote of the requirements for becoming a soldier of the period (which I would post, if I could find which box it's in). Two of the requirements were to "climb the chimney" in full armor, and to place one hand on a mount's saddlehorn, the other on its withers, and then jump up and through your arms - again, fully armored!

As for the massive penalties associated with heavy armor, and STR requirements, I say: "Ragu! It's in there!" The lightest form of Heavy Armor is 35#. That requires a STR of 11+ to carry without falling into Medium Enc. and suffering all the penalties associated with that, as well as the armor's. The next lightest form is 45#, requiring STR 13+, as do the two 50# versions (and that's not even including a weapon, yet)! Having lower STR means an additional -3 Check Penalty.

I would respectfully suggest that those "requirements" might not be wholey accurate. Those two feats you describe would be incredibly difficult today for a man in very good shape even without armour. Try either one some day. Esp. the latter. Do you have any concept of what jumping up 4+ feet strait up, with no boost or running start, and then through your own arms, while said arms are spread at an unatural distance would entail? I question the physical possibility of it in general, I outright deny that anyone other than a trained gymnist could do it, and laugh at the notion the average soldier would have even the faintest hope of doing that in full plate armour.

And I disagree about the encumbrance thing... Because you can carry 50 lbs doesn't mean you can move about effectivly when that weight is spread over every inch of your body. It would slow you down, rather akin to jumping into a pool in sweatshirt and sweatpants then trying to walk around while soaking wet, only worse.

 

[Steverooo]

 

 

[Tsyr]

Re: Re: IUS

stating that a Fighter in plate got to use them (if he had taken them), while A MONK IN PLATE did not, and that, therefore, the Fighter Out-Martial-Arts the Monk IN PLATE (and he does)! Now let's go back and look at your example.

I, personaly, have no problem with this. It's not what the monk trains for.

 

[Plane Sailing]

One of my sincerest hopes for the 3.5e ranger is that they concentrate on class abilities for the class rather than taking on feats, virtual or not.

We have all seen that giving a class feats makes it easy for people to complain "ah, but you would be better being a fighter/rogue/druid" or whatever. Class abilities, those things that are unique to particular classes, are what the 3.5e ranger needs to be distinctive

(and ideally there would be a class ability at 2nd level and another at 3rd level).

I agree with Jack that the virtual feats idea seems clunky and unnecessary; existing mechanisms could handle restrictions better IMO.

Cheers