Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Zustiur" data-source="post: 5892809" data-attributes="member: 1544">I don't see any real problem with centering the ranger around a middle ground between fighter and rogue.The fighter is a soldier. - full armour, full weaponsThe rogue is a skirmisher and a sneak. - very limited armour, limited weapons.Why not start the ranger off in the middle?Wilderness warrior - middle armour, wide, but not full range of weaponsHe can go toe-to-toe for a while, but not as long as the fighter. He can sneak, but not to the same degree as the rogue.And unlike both, his background focus is on the wilderness, not the city.I support the call to drop TWF, but I realize that it'll be included as an option thanks to the darned drow.I also support the call to drop the 'pure archer' nonsense. That doesn't fit terribly well in small DND games where you might not have enough front line party members to hide behind.I'd like to see something that is again more of a middle ground - bonuses with bows, spears and other hunting weapons, but proficiency in a wider range of weapons. The bonuses would be fairly flat, and spread across the hunting weapons, not just focused on one weapon specifically. Single weapon focus is a specialty fighter thing.I'd expect the spells/animal companion things to be an optional branches in the class, with hopefully some other options too. Wilderness skills, maybe some dungeoneering/monster slayer type of option. You could possibly drop the favoured enemy bit into this slot too.Combat skills would again fall between fighter and rogue - here is your skirmishing character who isn't mince-meat the moment he gets stuck in the front line.  As someone mentioned earlier, bonuses to movement and combat positioning skills sound appropriate. Things like moving without drawing opportunity attacks. Things like ignoring certain types of difficult terrain (particularly plant-like).</blockquote>

Verification