So they went and butchered the 3.5 ranger...

[Jack Daniel]

Yup, they screwed up. I really, REALLY hope this one of those things that gets revised before the revision. It's probably out by now that rangers can choose a combat path, likely from melee (two-weapon style) or ranged archery. 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.

This, however, is what I object to:

but only when he is wearing light or no armor

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-. Rangers no longer need to be shoehorned into light armor by their combat specials; that was a thing of 2e, when rangers could Hide in Shadows, Move Silently, and Fight with Two Weapons in lighter armors only (on a histoircal sidebar, this happens to be the real reason rangers were given two-weapon fighting; it was a shoehorn, yes, but not one involving Drizzt Do'Urden). Nowadays we have the d20 skill system and armor check penalties, and this unnecessary relic seems like it's here to stay. Way to goof, WotC.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't have much of a problem with it.

The archetype of ranger has generally been a stealthy woodsman.

In the woods, you don't wear big noisy metal armor. You hunt in light gear, if anything, since it all needs to come with you. You want to be able to stalk prey, to leap on them without them knowing. That is the epitome of a hunter -- one who sneaks up on prey.

Virtual feats I don't see as much of a problem. Basically, they're feats that go away under certain special conditions. I don't see at as too clunky or awkward at all.

Meh. Maybe I don't have much of a problem with it, and you do. I don't see why it's exactly a butchering, though, myself...

 

[Quinn]

Jack,

What do you propose?

 

[JDeMobray]

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.

 

[Sniktch]

I'm with K_M; I don't see a problem with giving them an archery path to follow either. The ranger in the D&D cartoon was an archer, if I recall correctly, plus if I try to think of rangers from fiction I come up with Aragorn, who's not a two weapon fighter but uses a bow sometimes, or Robin Hood and his Merry Men, just to name a couple.

 

[Quinn]

Sniktch -

I just gotta say: Best iconic ever.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I kinda hope they give a Sneaky Path for rangers to follow that gives them some sneak attack powers and the like, myself. I thirst after a ranger that fades in and out of the shadows, striking vitals, a warrior of the woods.

Or perhaps even an Unarmed Path for 'em, so that your ranger can hone his natural powers?

Though now I'm off on an tangent...keeheehee....

 

[theoremtank]

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

I believe rules should be in place to encourage a ranger to wear light armor such as armor check penalties, although I do not think their class features should be negated by it unless they are specifically movement oriented. There is no reason why a ranger using this new many shot feat should not be able to use it in heavy armor as a fighter could.

There is a simple solution to this "only in light armor" thing. That is, give rangers proficiency in light armor only. This means if they want to use their abilities in heavy armor then they will have to either purchase the feat or multiclass. This rule would encourage rangers to stay in light armor however not completely disallow it.

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.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I strongly disagree with the original poster's statements.

I think the ranger should exemplify the woodsman and scout, and by that nature he should use light armor and have lots of skills, and would most likely use a ranged weapon like a bow. The two-weapon bit never really made sense to me (coming from 1E -- where rangers were this type of woodland scout but didn't have the armor restriction). Giving the ranger a "path" to choose will distinguish hiim even more from the fighter, barbarian, paladin, and rogue.

Good move, WOTC.

 

[theoremtank]

I strongly disagree with the original poster's statements.

I think the ranger should exemplify the woodsman and scout, and by that nature he should use light armor and have lots of skills,

I agree that the mechanics of the class should be persuasive to the use of light armor but not heavily penalize the medium armored ranger. Remeber the revisionis supposed to be about options and not restrictions (or something like that). A simple way to encourage the use of light armor is to give the ranger class proficiency in light armor only. Thus the ranger still needs to pick up a feat for medium armor and then heavy armor, or be forced to multiclass to another warrior type class. (By the way, Clerics should only have at most medium armor proficiency in my opinion). Most ranger skills are already penalized in the form of a armor check penalty for heavier armors.