Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="GreyLord" data-source="post: 9472178" data-attributes="member: 4348">Naw, it depends on HOW you played them.&nbsp; They would lose abilities, but they still could be played like tanks, especially if you used C&amp;T.I had a couple PC's in my groups that were Rangers and were TANKS.&nbsp; Part of that was the high Cons requirement that meant that their two highest rolls went to fulfilling the class minimums, and many times at least one if not both would be a 15 or greater.&nbsp; It was HARD qualifying for a Ranger on your rolls to begin with (a lot of higher rolls were needed to be one) and with Constitution being one of the required ability scores.&nbsp; Wis was normally more a of a debate of whether you use the higher rolls in than Constitution.&nbsp; This meant that the Ranger would, in general, have a higher Cons (due to lucky rolls to begin with for high ability scores to even qualify) than many fighters or other classes (especially more than the poor paladins).Even without the stealth options being used (and they could always remove armor if they wished to go stealthy, I had some that would wear armor and then remove armor if scouting ahead or using MS and HS...but in average party movement, wear the heaviest armor they could), if they chose NOT to go the 2wf route, rangers still got the favored enemy (+4 to hit on chosen creatures), empathy with animals, and tracking.&nbsp; They weren't that bad off in 2e without 2wf.&nbsp; There were just many who chose that route (and even then, I had at least two rangers that still used 2wf, but chose to do it the hard way using C&amp;T and weapon proficiencies just so they could ALSO wear heavy armor.&nbsp; Heavy armor was no laughing matter in AD&amp;D.(PS:&nbsp; It's also one of my pet peeves that 3e and beyond added penalties to DEX modifiers for wearing armor.&nbsp; Having worn both what would be considered heavy armor and Leather armor...as in leather that actually WOULD BE armored as opposed to leather that is basically just light clothing that wouldn't stop a dime much less a dagger...the heavy armor actually had more mobility than that leather stuff.&nbsp; I think they just added the DEX limitations to armor to replicate the hollywood thing of the agile rogue who can dodge better than the heavily bulked up warriors trope).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="GreyLord, post: 9472178, member: 4348"] Naw, it depends on HOW you played them. They would lose abilities, but they still could be played like tanks, especially if you used C&T. I had a couple PC's in my groups that were Rangers and were TANKS. Part of that was the high Cons requirement that meant that their two highest rolls went to fulfilling the class minimums, and many times at least one if not both would be a 15 or greater. It was HARD qualifying for a Ranger on your rolls to begin with (a lot of higher rolls were needed to be one) and with Constitution being one of the required ability scores. Wis was normally more a of a debate of whether you use the higher rolls in than Constitution. This meant that the Ranger would, in general, have a higher Cons (due to lucky rolls to begin with for high ability scores to even qualify) than many fighters or other classes (especially more than the poor paladins). Even without the stealth options being used (and they could always remove armor if they wished to go stealthy, I had some that would wear armor and then remove armor if scouting ahead or using MS and HS...but in average party movement, wear the heaviest armor they could), if they chose NOT to go the 2wf route, rangers still got the favored enemy (+4 to hit on chosen creatures), empathy with animals, and tracking. They weren't that bad off in 2e without 2wf. There were just many who chose that route (and even then, I had at least two rangers that still used 2wf, but chose to do it the hard way using C&T and weapon proficiencies just so they could ALSO wear heavy armor. Heavy armor was no laughing matter in AD&D. (PS: It's also one of my pet peeves that 3e and beyond added penalties to DEX modifiers for wearing armor. Having worn both what would be considered heavy armor and Leather armor...as in leather that actually WOULD BE armored as opposed to leather that is basically just light clothing that wouldn't stop a dime much less a dagger...the heavy armor actually had more mobility than that leather stuff. I think they just added the DEX limitations to armor to replicate the hollywood thing of the agile rogue who can dodge better than the heavily bulked up warriors trope). [/QUOTE]

Verification