Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Steverooo" data-source="post: 822508" data-attributes="member: 9410">The Point is:Out of 131 pollees, only two think that TWF should be a Ranger Class Ability, and only 14 think Archery should be.  Since all Simple/Martial weapons and bows are already class features, a Ranger can fight with either, if he pleases... so that's not the issue.TWF/Archery "Combat Paths" will apparently please 16/131 people.  The rest will still be displeased.  Therefore, something else should be done.The question is, what?  Here's where the problem is, as almost no one can agree.  Thus, as I see it, the only option that will work is to make the Ranger much more flexible and adaptable.Some here state that this is trying to incorporate too many archetypes into a single one.  I disagree.  Let's examine that arguement...The Fighter covers the padded footman wielding polearms, the lightly-armored missile troops, heavy cavalry, light cavalry, heavy foot, and even an unarmed bully with no weapons.  Expending a few of his Bonus Feats, it can even cover a monkish sort with Improved Unarmed Strike and Stunning Fist...Now the Ranger can cover the padded halbardier, lightly-armored missileer, and light cavalry, but not the Heavy, as Rangers don't get the Heavy Armor Proficiency, or Bonus Feats to buy it with.  Likewise, Heavy Foot is out (for the same reasons), and the unarmored monkish type is almost impossible, due to the Feats required.So, if the Fighter can cover all this ground, why not the Ranger?  The Ranger will still have fewer Feats, and be worse at fighting as a result (generally), and also be easier to hit, due to lighter armor.  The Fighter will be better at combat, and have a higher AC, but less stealthy and preceptive (generally).Seems to me that having an Archetype that can do many things is a good thing.  If not, we need to rip the Rogue up into at least two new classes: The Conman, and The Thief.</blockquote>

Verification