So they went and butchered the 3.5 ranger...

[Hypersmurf]

In fact, only hand axes or daggers could be used in the off-hand. Your on-weapon could be any 1-h weapon, but off-hand had to be hand axe or dagger.

This is true... except in the case of drow. Drow could use any two weapons, "provided each could be easily wielded in one hand".

My personal ruling for what constituted "easily wielded" was that the primary weapon could have a speed factor of no greater than 5, and the sum of the two weapons' speed factors could be no greater than 8.

This allowed for longsword/shortsword, or scimitar/scimitar, or jo stick/jo stick, but prohibited combinations like bastard sword/bastard sword.

-Hyp.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I think Aragorn invented favored enemies. Look at what he fought: goblins, orcs - basically "giant-class" monsters.

Sadly, favored enemies is really hard to balance.

 

[Ysgarran]

I think Plane Sailing has said exactly what is needed to limit the criticism of the next iteration of the Ranger.

I don't really care what has 'gone on in the past' in terms of what a Ranger should be. It seems that the two archetypes driving what a Ranger should be is the Aragorn and The Rangers of the North, Rangers have a very heavy outdoorsmen flavor to them and they have have the ability to operate by themselves in the wilderness.

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
Cheers

 

[francisca]

I think Aragorn invented favored enemies. Look at what he fought: goblins, orcs - basically "giant-class" monsters.

Sadly, favored enemies is really hard to balance.

Does anybody out there house rule that to gain the favored enemy bonus, the ranger must have some winning experience against that particular type of enemy? To me, the bonus represents not only training and tactics against the enemy, but a serious desire to wipe them out.

And as for old Ewart, check my sig. He's good, but not perfect. He later recanted his statement about the Franks in a later edition. Having read 3 of his books, I find it quite possible that he would find a reference like the "jumping the horse" line and put it in without verifying if it was actual practice.

On the other hand, when I was 17, I think I could have managed jumping a horse like that, if it wasn't a clydesdale, and if the armor was light and didn't restrict the movement of my legs too much. Pretty big ifs...

 

[Henry]

Sorry...


I've just read too many posts where two people get into it against each other while actually having the same point...

Actually, I found it quite useful, as an "eyewitness account." Thanks to Don for that one, as I suspected it, but really couldn't say for sure.

 

[Henry]

In fact, only hand axes or daggers could be used in the off-hand. Your on-weapon could be any 1-h weapon, but off-hand had to be hand axe or dagger.

I concede this point - I was mixing my 2E and my 1E. I had a druid PC under 1st edition that weilded scimitar and dagger (Scimitar of speed +5 and Dagger +4 ), and got sidetracked.

(Ah, poor Linnaeus. most munchkiny character I ever had...)

 

[Cedric]

The funny thing about this whole evolution....

Is that when they introduced Drow in the Fiend Folio, they included this little blurb saying Drow were well coordinated and could fight with "either or both, hands/arms for attack and defense".

But what were they equipped with? Lond dagger and short sword...

Meaning they still followed the twf rules layed out in the DMG, but without any penalty for off-hand use. Very reasonable.

Then came Unearthed Arcana...where one editing faux pas opened up a whole can of worms.

In writing up the descriptors for the Dark Elves as player characters...they included this statement, "Dark elves...may fight with two weapons without penalty, provided each weapon may be easily wielded in one hand."

This of course goes against what's printed in the DMG and all previous precendent, and inspired many players and GM's .. also inspiring Salvatore to have Drizzt use two scimitars. Meanwhile, the most accomplished of the human assassins, Entreri, used what? You got it...sword and dagger.

Drizzt having been as popular as he was, TSR rolled that over into a "must have" ability for Rangers, since they were robbing them of the huge damage bonuses they use to enjoy against humanoids.

Cedric

EDIT: I should add that drow weren't really introduced in the Fiend Folio, but that was the first place to include a full write up on them.

 

[FraserRonald]

The one explanation for TWF for Rangers that no one has latched on to is the Saracen character "Nasir" in the BBC "Robin of Sherwood" TV series. He fought with (IIRC) a longsword and scimitar, and as a 'merry man' he was kind of a Ranger.

Okay, the explanation sucks. Still the Nasir character actually inspired me to create a Ranger in 1e who fought with two longswords.

Then, years later, came 2e, I heard about a 2-scimitar wielding Drow and the controversy began.

Alas.

edit: that'd be IIRC rather than IRRC, which could mean I'm Really Really Confused, but that's neither here nor there . . .

 

[Korin Tempest]

It has definitely been quite a while since playing 1e, or reading the books for that matter, and while I agree with all the "historical rules reference" that's going on for the most part, and will flat out say that 1e rangers rocked and every following edition has been sub standard, though they did improve over 2e rangers with 3e.... 2e in my opinion was a step down from 1e (being an attempt to compile and revise the all the add ons from 1e, being Unearthed Arcana, the Survival Guides, and other accessories)... but back to the original topic, being ranger version 3.5..... from all I've heard so far, I believe they are headed in the right direction, like the talent path(and from the descriptions, I'm betting it's set up that you get the bonus/virtual feat --whatever-- set like this... archery for example, probably point blank at first, rapid at 3rd, many at 6th, and probably every 3 levels after.. maybe spread out a little wider.. and i can probably infer from that that the two weapon path will start out with ambi, then basic 2 weapon, then an improved ambi feat/virtual at 6th maybe --this is just speculation of course, but I think it makes sense-- then improved two weapon at 9th, etc... )... and hopefully they develop a few more paths.. like a mobility tree.. maybe an expertise tree... or power attack... there are many possibilities... then there's talk of more skill points, making reflex a good save, reducing the hit die.... one thing I'd like to see is to drop them down to just having proficiency in light armor.... they're in the wilderness.. what's all this training in heavier combat armor coming from... they're supposed to be the hunter/scout/tracker/mountain man/beastmaster type.... these tend to be light travellers to me... eh.. just my two cents...

 

[Olive]

Re: Re: Stuff, and such

And really, I was the equivalent of the D&D 1st level Commoner conscript.

i always see 1st lvl commoners as being given a spear and told "fight, or i'll kill you'.

where as you had training. so 1st lvl warrior sounds more like it to me!