Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Pax" data-source="post: 421485" data-attributes="member: 6875">My complaints are, largely, two.First, the way the current archetype for the Rangter works, WRT the &quot;phantom&quot; ambidexterity and two-weapon-fighting feats.&nbsp; As written, those phantom feats do not work with double weapons.Well, why in the nine hells DOESN'T it?&nbsp; In many of the fantasy-setting novels I've read in the past 10+ years, the character that best fits the &quot;ranger&quot; type, almost invariably wields a staff in battle.&nbsp; Staves are double-weapons; it would seem that they are also, in at least some peoples' eyes, archetypal &quot;ranger weapons&quot;.Ergo, IMC, I simply remove the prohibition against double weapons.&nbsp; *poof* problem solved.Second, my complaint is that there is only ONE archetype for the Ranger ... the two-sword-swinging Drizzt lookalike.&nbsp; IMO, and IMC, other options would be just as viable (from a native american, or even Mongolian, style culture?&nbsp;&nbsp; There, &quot;rangers&quot; get mounted combat and mounted ARCHERY as phantom feats (same restrictions on use), and so on).Other than that, I don't see -too- much problem.&nbsp; I think they may end up a &quot;weak fighter&quot;, since many of their abilities are much more situational than even the Paladin's (who, at least, always has laying on of hands, and nice saving throw bonusses).&nbsp; I might experiment with a more bard-like spell progression, but it's not a -problem- area IMO, it's just something I think might've been done better, if taken in slightly different directions.&nbsp; 8)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Pax, post: 421485, member: 6875"] My complaints are, largely, [b]two[/b]. [b]First,[/b] the way the current archetype for the Rangter works, WRT the "phantom" ambidexterity and two-weapon-fighting feats. As written, those phantom feats do [b]not[/b] work with double weapons. Well, why in the nine hells [b]DOESN'T[/b] it? In many of the fantasy-setting novels I've read in the past 10+ years, the character that best fits the "ranger" type, almost invariably wields a [b]staff[/b] in battle. Staves are double-weapons; it would seem that they are also, in at least some peoples' eyes, archetypal "ranger weapons". Ergo, IMC, I simply remove the prohibition against double weapons. *poof* problem solved. [b]Second,[/b] my complaint is that there is only ONE archetype for the Ranger ... the two-sword-swinging Drizzt lookalike. IMO, and IMC, other options would be just as viable (from a native american, or even Mongolian, style culture? [b]There,[/b] "rangers" get mounted combat and mounted ARCHERY as phantom feats (same restrictions on use), and so on). Other than that, I don't see -too- much problem. I think they may end up a "weak fighter", since many of their abilities are much more situational than even the Paladin's (who, at least, always has laying on of hands, and nice saving throw bonusses). I might experiment with a more bard-like spell progression, but it's not a -problem- area IMO, it's just something I think might've been done better, if taken in slightly different directions. 8) [/QUOTE]

Verification