Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jack Daniel" data-source="post: 823429" data-attributes="member: 694">Tossing this on the WotC boards too, just for laughs?&nbsp; Let's see... stealthy, yeah, that's a ranger.&nbsp; Tracking too.&nbsp; Bow better than a fighter?&nbsp; Un-uh.&nbsp; &quot;Bowman&quot; and &quot;archer&quot; are fighter archetypes.&nbsp; Dual-wields better than a fighter?&nbsp; Also, un-uh.&nbsp; At least equal, but not better.&nbsp; I should note this now, before people get all whiny about it (*reads back posts* ... oops, too late):The current, 3e ranger is basically proficient in martial melee combat, martial ranged combat, and two-weapon fighting.&nbsp; He is not &quot;specialized&quot; in any of them. So, right now, the ranger fills all the possible combat archetypes.&nbsp; The 3.5 ranger will goof in this regard, being either 1) specialized at archery, even better than a fighter and *NO* basic 2WF or 2) specialized in 2Wf, which in case no one's noticed, people hate with nigh-psychopathic passion.Someone who has less hit points than a fighter?&nbsp; Get real.&nbsp; You're thinking of rogues, buddy.&nbsp; Does Aragorn look like he can't match Boromir for hit points?&nbsp; If the barbarian gets d12 just for rugged living, the ranger having d8 would be a complete joke.&nbsp; Thank goodness 3.5 is keeing the d10/good Fortitude/poor Reflex build.&nbsp; And besides, it's never been the case.&nbsp; 2e?&nbsp; 9d10, like its fellow warrior classes.&nbsp; 1e?&nbsp; The ranger got 11d8 hit points, which is the same average total as 9d10.&nbsp; Sure, he got +2 after &quot;name level&quot; when the other fighters got +3, but you'll remember that 1e wasn't built to play past name level.&nbsp; End result, tough rangers.Someone who has less armor class than a fighter?&nbsp; I won't argue here.&nbsp; They have to sneak; and it should be sneaking that keeps them in light armor, not arbitrary virtual feat restrictions.&nbsp; Make them bonus feats, take them out of two restricted paths, and you'll have the house ranger I'll be using after 3.5 comes out.&nbsp; [edit: well, that and the AD&amp;D &quot;rangers must be good in alignment&quot; bit.&nbsp; Yeah for classics and tubby halflings!&nbsp; As far as I'm concerned, the sneak-attacking Blackguard covers evil rangers better than evil rangers do now!]Someone who can cast some druid spells -- can't argue there.&nbsp; They've always had druid spells too.&nbsp; They just dropped the wizard spells in 2e for the sake of mechanical consistency, so that in 2e only warriors and priests used priest spells, and only rogues and wizards used wizard spells.That said, you forgot the most important focus of the class: the D&amp;D ranger is at its core not just a woodsman.&nbsp; D&amp;D has never had a class for the straight, skilled woodsman archetype, and I don't expect to see one anytime soon.&nbsp; 'Cause it's boring.&nbsp; The ranger's archetype is monster-hunter, bounty-hunter, or general hunter of things more intelligent than game animals.&nbsp; And here I quote Ed Stark from that radio show: &quot;... the ability to affect his favored enemies more dramatically...&quot;&nbsp; Here is where I breathed a huge sigh of relief.&nbsp; The ranger's archetype in 3.5 will be what it was in OD&amp;D.&nbsp; WotC's not capitulating to the vocal minority who laughed at the urban ranger and said &quot;where's my wilderness rogue?&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jack Daniel, post: 823429, member: 694"] Tossing this on the WotC boards too, just for laughs? Let's see... stealthy, yeah, that's a ranger. Tracking too. Bow better than a fighter? Un-uh. "Bowman" and "archer" are fighter archetypes. Dual-wields better than a fighter? Also, un-uh. At least equal, but not better. I should note this now, before people get all whiny about it (*reads back posts* ... oops, too late): [SIZE=3]The current, 3e ranger is basically proficient in martial melee combat, martial ranged combat, and two-weapon fighting. He is not "specialized" in any of them.[/SIZE] So, right now, the ranger fills all the possible combat archetypes. The 3.5 ranger will goof in this regard, being either 1) specialized at archery, even better than a fighter and *NO* basic 2WF or 2) specialized in 2Wf, which in case no one's noticed, people hate with nigh-psychopathic passion. Someone who has less hit points than a fighter? Get real. You're thinking of rogues, buddy. Does Aragorn look like he can't match Boromir for hit points? If the barbarian gets d12 just for rugged living, the ranger having d8 would be a complete joke. Thank goodness 3.5 is keeing the d10/good Fortitude/poor Reflex build. And besides, it's never been the case. 2e? 9d10, like its fellow warrior classes. 1e? The ranger got [b]11d8[/b] hit points, which is the same average total as 9d10. Sure, he got +2 after "name level" when the other fighters got +3, but you'll remember that 1e wasn't built to play past name level. End result, tough rangers. Someone who has less armor class than a fighter? I won't argue here. They have to sneak; and it should be sneaking that keeps them in light armor, not arbitrary virtual feat restrictions. Make them bonus feats, take them out of two restricted paths, and you'll have the house ranger I'll be using after 3.5 comes out. [edit: well, that and the AD&D "rangers must be good in alignment" bit. Yeah for classics and tubby halflings! As far as I'm concerned, the sneak-attacking Blackguard covers evil rangers better than evil rangers do now!] Someone who can cast some druid spells -- can't argue there. They've always had druid spells too. They just dropped the wizard spells in 2e for the sake of mechanical consistency, so that in 2e only warriors and priests used priest spells, and only rogues and wizards used wizard spells. That said, you forgot the most important focus of the class: the D&D ranger is at its core not just a woodsman. D&D has never had a class for the straight, skilled woodsman archetype, and I don't expect to see one anytime soon. 'Cause it's boring. The ranger's archetype is monster-hunter, bounty-hunter, or general hunter of things more intelligent than game animals. And here I quote Ed Stark from that radio show: "... the ability to affect his favored enemies more dramatically..." Here is where I breathed a huge sigh of relief. The ranger's archetype in 3.5 will be what it was in OD&D. WotC's not capitulating to the vocal minority who laughed at the urban ranger and said "where's my wilderness rogue?" [/QUOTE]

Verification