Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jeff Wilder" data-source="post: 1783321" data-attributes="member: 5122">I'll grant that the ranger is closer in 3.5 to a rogue than he was in 3.0, but why is that a problem?&nbsp; A wilderness warrior, almost by definition, is a guerilla fighter.&nbsp; The 3.5 ranger is incredibly well-suited for that role.The 3.5 ranger has the HP of a fighter/rogue, the BAB of a fighter, the weapons knowledge of a fighter, the shields proficiency of a fighter, the saves of both ... looks like a wilderness warrior to me.Why is evasion a problem?&nbsp; The ranger is more lightly armored than a fighter, and usually quicker.&nbsp; He relies more on avoiding damage than absorbing it.Well, compared to the 2E and 3.0 ranger, the 3.5 ranger has double the choices.&nbsp; How in the world you can count that as a negative is beyond me.Talk?&nbsp; Say what?The animal companion is a tougher, more experienced version of an animal, just as an adventurer is a tougher, more experienced version of a normal person.If you think the animal companion can talk, or shares a telepathic link with the ranger, or anything that can't be justified as a natural -- albeit maybe extraordinary -- ability, you just don't seem to know the rules.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jeff Wilder, post: 1783321, member: 5122"] I'll grant that the ranger is [i]closer[/i] in 3.5 to a rogue than he was in 3.0, but why is that a problem? A wilderness warrior, almost by definition, is a guerilla fighter. The 3.5 ranger is incredibly well-suited for that role. The 3.5 ranger has the HP of a fighter/rogue, the BAB of a fighter, the weapons knowledge of a fighter, the shields proficiency of a fighter, the saves of both ... looks like a wilderness warrior to me. Why is evasion a problem? The ranger is more lightly armored than a fighter, and usually quicker. He relies more on avoiding damage than absorbing it. Well, compared to the 2E and 3.0 ranger, the 3.5 ranger has double the choices. How in the world you can count that as a negative is beyond me. Talk? Say what? The animal companion is a tougher, more experienced version of an animal, just as an adventurer is a tougher, more experienced version of a normal person. If you think the animal companion can talk, or shares a telepathic link with the ranger, or anything that can't be justified as a natural -- albeit maybe extraordinary -- ability, you just don't seem to know the rules. [/QUOTE]

Verification