Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jack Daniel" data-source="post: 823634" data-attributes="member: 694">Yes they have.&nbsp; It was introduced to the 2e ranger because the 1e ranger had no mechanic to keep him in light armor.&nbsp; Hence, they added 2WF, MS, and HiS.&nbsp; Now that we have armor check penalties in 3e, there's no reason to keep the &quot;light armor only&quot; mechanic, but that's a flaw that can be fixed by eliminating the concept of 'virtual feats' in favor of simple bonus feats.&nbsp; 2WF has simply become part of the ranger, by virtue of its inclusion in 2e, and if you don't like, go watch Last of the Mohicans or The Patriot and then come tell me why rangers don't at least deserve basic proficiency in two weapons, like they have in bows and swords already.&nbsp; (Fun point, notice how daggers and hatchets are always the off-hand weapons used by the woodsmen in those movies?&nbsp; And remember how in 1e, the only legal off-hand weapons were daggers and hatchets?&nbsp; And how a high DEX could totally offset 2WF penalties?&nbsp; And how 1e rangers ALWAYS had a high DEX?&nbsp; Hmm....)That, sir, is a matter of gross opinion that bears no relevance on the topic at hand.&nbsp; The ranger archetype is about 50 years old [LotR], spellcasting rangers are around 25 years old [D&amp;D], and two-weapon fighting rangers are about 15 years old [2e].&nbsp; Age means nothing here except where the history of the archetype has changed.It seems that you, like everyone else who belies the ranger, doesn't want a ranger at all.&nbsp; You want a woodsman or a scout.&nbsp; Great.&nbsp; Make a new class.&nbsp; The ranger is a warrior and has nothing to do with those archetypes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jack Daniel, post: 823634, member: 694"] Yes they have. It was introduced to the 2e ranger because the 1e ranger had no mechanic to keep him in light armor. Hence, they added 2WF, MS, and HiS. Now that we have armor check penalties in 3e, there's no reason to keep the "light armor only" mechanic, but that's a flaw that can be fixed by eliminating the concept of 'virtual feats' in favor of simple bonus feats. 2WF has simply [i]become[/i] part of the ranger, by virtue of its inclusion in 2e, and if you don't like, go watch [i]Last of the Mohicans[/i] or [i]The Patriot[/i] and then come tell me why rangers don't at least deserve basic proficiency in two weapons, like they have in bows and swords already. (Fun point, notice how daggers and hatchets are always the off-hand weapons used by the woodsmen in those movies? And remember how in 1e, the only legal off-hand weapons were daggers and hatchets? And how a high DEX could totally offset 2WF penalties? And how 1e rangers ALWAYS had a high DEX? Hmm....) That, sir, is a matter of gross opinion that bears no relevance on the topic at hand. The ranger archetype is about 50 years old [LotR], spellcasting rangers are around 25 years old [D&D], and two-weapon fighting rangers are about 15 years old [2e]. Age means nothing here except where the history of the archetype has changed. It seems that you, like everyone else who belies the ranger, doesn't want a ranger at all. You want a woodsman or a scout. Great. Make a new class. [i]The ranger is a warrior and has nothing to do with those archetypes.[/i] [/QUOTE]

Verification