Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mercule" data-source="post: 823189" data-attributes="member: 5100">Agreed.&nbsp; I think everyone agrees with this.Again, agreed.&nbsp; Generally, I think that #1 and #2 are a result of the fact that Rangers simply excel outdoors.I'm strongly sympathetic to this one, but don't see it as a defining aspect of Ranger.&nbsp; Basically, I figure that Rangers are more prone to focus on the bow to complement their other abilities.I see this as completely unrelated to the Ranger.&nbsp; Some might, but no greater percentage than Rogues would.Besides, neither the 3.0 or the 3.5 Ranger actually is better than a Fighter at TWF (assuming the Fighter takes the feats).&nbsp; The best they can hope for to be equal.I completely disagree here.&nbsp; The Ranger's primary stat is/should be Constitition.&nbsp; These guys are defined by their ability to take punishment, whether it's caused by combat or the environment.&nbsp; The only class with a better claim to this is the Barbarian.Agreed, generally.&nbsp; Again, this stems from them being wilderness, skirmish oriented.Yes and no.&nbsp; I don't think spells are intrinsic to the class concept.&nbsp; On the other hand, Rangers seem to me to be the type of person who would pick up a few cool tricks of varying types, including spells.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mercule, post: 823189, member: 5100"] Agreed. I think everyone agrees with this. Again, agreed. Generally, I think that #1 and #2 are a result of the fact that Rangers simply excel outdoors. I'm strongly sympathetic to this one, but don't see it as a defining aspect of Ranger. Basically, I figure that Rangers are more prone to focus on the bow to complement their other abilities. I see this as completely unrelated to the Ranger. Some might, but no greater percentage than Rogues would. Besides, neither the 3.0 or the 3.5 Ranger actually is better than a Fighter at TWF (assuming the Fighter takes the feats). The best they can hope for to be equal. I completely disagree here. The Ranger's primary stat is/should be Constitition. These guys are defined by their ability to take punishment, whether it's caused by combat or the environment. The only class with a better claim to this is the Barbarian. Agreed, generally. Again, this stems from them being wilderness, skirmish oriented. Yes and no. I don't think spells are intrinsic to the class concept. On the other hand, Rangers seem to me to be the type of person who would pick up a few cool tricks of varying types, including spells. [/QUOTE]

Verification