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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Blackwarder" data-source="post: 5892410" data-attributes="member: 6688285">WHY THE FRACK DO YOU PEOPLE (and you know who you are) KEEP INSISTING THAT A RANGER IS A GUY WITH A BOW OR TWO WEAPONS???Seriously, every time I see this I want to just pull my hair out in frustration, and I don't have much of it left.I think that talking about the ranger in relation to his weapon skills is dumb, rangers aren't defined by their choice of weapons, they are defined by the fact that spend a lot of time out doors and know a lot of sheet about the wilds and stuff, they usually wear leather armor when they want to move stealthily around and they have bows because it's the iconic image of the hunter and many folks think that rangers are hunters (why can't he set traps to snare a couple of rabbits is a question that still hunts me).The only reason why rangers became the "iconic" two weapon fighters was because of Drizzt, and he started as a fighter!What happened to the Aragorns of D&D? The guy who fill at home away from civilization and comfortable wearing chain mail and wielding one sword? I think that the ranger should have core abilities that reflect that he spend most of his time outdoors, and basically that he should be the skill monkey for outdoors stuff, like forest lore, ability to collect healing herbs, faster movement in the outdoors etc etc. I firmly opposed the idea that he should get pigeonholed into some sort of a combat roll.Personally, I think that two weapon fighting and archering should be themes and they should have nothing to do with the core classes.P.s I haven't read the all thread, I read the first page and got attacked by a wave of web rage... Warder</blockquote>

Verification