So they went and butchered the 3.5 ranger...

[Shard O'Glase]

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.

even if that were true it is about 1000 times better than you seem to be with snide coments like this.

 

[Wolv0rine]

What about the Archer-Ranger from the Best of Dragon 1st ED. That and the Bounty Hunter were two of the most frequently chosen classes in my game "back in the day."

Oh wow, the old 1E Bounty Hunter. I played one of those once. Wicked class, too. I wonder if I still have that old charsht floatin around somewhere...

 

[JDeMobray]

It's just one step away from a Merits and Flaws-system. We don't want that, people.

We don't

Also, I have no problems with virtual feats. They're neato keen super excellent with me.

 

[theoremtank]

Virtual feats do very little to solve game balance problems. It makes much more sense to add or subtract existing consistent class features as opposed to creating exeptions to the rule that is inherent in virtual feats.

If a ranger wants to wear heavy armor, then his ranger-like skills (stealth, mobility, hiding, etc.) need to suffer through normal penalties. A ranger, whom is just as much of a hardy warrior as a paladin or barbarian, isn't going to fight less effectively than these other classes in heavy armor so they shouldn't be penalized by the virtual feats. Just take away the rangers proficiency in medium armors and force him to buy a feat or multiclass to get heavy armor proficiency.

A ranger prancing around in the wilderness needs to be heavily penalized in terms of his abilities dealing with speedy movement and silence however not during combat. That just doesnt' make sense.

I believe no class should start out with heavy armor proficiency (especially clerics). As a houserule, all classes that have medium armor proficiency should have to purchase heavy armor proficiency with a feat. The fighter could use his first level bonus feat for this purpose.

 

[Starman]

Your arguement only applies IF you're the GM! If you're the player, you CAN'T just create your own. You either go by what's official, or what your GM is willing to accept. Your third alternative is don't play.

It's a poor GM that won't at least try to work with a player to come up with a workable character concept. When I or anyone else I know GM's we are almost always willing to sit down with a player and hammer out something that will fit the character they are looking for. Seriously, talk to your GM.

That and wait for the rulebook/SRD in your hand before you completely freak out about the new ranger.

Starman

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

...
If a ranger wants to wear heavy armor, then his ranger-like skills (stealth, mobility, hiding, etc.) need to suffer through normal penalties. A ranger, whom is just as much of a hardy warrior as a paladin or barbarian, isn't going to fight less effectively than these other classes in heavy armor so they shouldn't be penalized by the virtual feats.

Being a "hardy warrior" has nothing to do with it. It is not physically possible to do certain things in heavy armor. If it were up to me, if you didn't have a backstory that included years training in the stuff, you would suffer massive penalties just for putting it on. There should also be stringent minimum strength requirements to wear it without massive penalties to all forms of movement and combat. And two-weapon combat in it should just be a joke. I've never been taught to use anything longer than a short sword, and it takes both dexterity and freedom of movement to do it effectively. Longer weapons would only be worse. You'd need arms like a gorilla, only much, much faster. Or the first guy who came along who wasn't encumbered with armor would take you apart in about 4 seconds.

 

[psionotic]

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

I've been wanting to make a ranger that uses the quarterstaff as his weapon. The current (3.0) version of the class doesn't make that a viable option. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that they fix that in 3.5.

 

[Sir Edgar]

Instead of just complaining, you should post your own ranger class so people can see what a ranger "done right" looks like...

 

[Droogie]

All I can think is there had to be an easier way to do it.

We complained that rangers shouldn't be pidgeon-holed into 2-W fighters. Fine; I agree. So, WotC has added another "path" for a bow fighter. I don't think this really solves the problem either. Now we just have an extra pidgeon-hole to stuff ourselves into.

Wouldn't it have been easier to just throw a couple of extra feats at him?

Sure we love the Robin Hood archtype, but what if I want to use a William Tell archtype? Can I use my Manyshot virtual feat with a crossbow?

One more vote vs. virtual feats. Either you have the feat, or you don't. Agreed, virtual feats aren't rocket science...but why bother?

And one more vote for doing away with the restrictions on double weapons. Of course, if the feats weren't "virtual" we wouldn't have to worry about it.

 

[Kichwas]

Yup, they screwed up.

rangers can choose a combat path, likely from melee (two-weapon style) or ranged archery.

rangers have never, in their whole history, had any free archery abilities. At least two-weapon style has precedent.

I think you have these two backwards.

Conceptually there's no reason for Rangers to have two weapon fighting. Conceptually they are woodsmen, and conceptually this does sync with archery.

I don't see two weapon fighting in my 1E players handbook, btw...


Finally I'd like to ask, where's the URL on this new Ranger?