Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercule" data-source="post: 812625" data-attributes="member: 5100">*pulls out Unearthed Arcana**rereads the ranger entry completely**rereads the equipment rules (sparse as they are**rereads weapon specialization**thumbs remainder of book*No a single mention of using two weapons at once.  Anywhere.  AFAIK, TWF rangers were an invention of 2E.  As far as Drizzt goes, I think it's a chicken/egg thing.  There's some possibility either way.  Personally, I always chalked up Drizzt's TWF to the fact that he was a drow -- that doesn't mean that I'm not painfully sick of twin-scimitar weilding drow rangers.I second most of Kaffis' sentiments on the matter, so I'll try not to type a novella of my own.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />It really does boil down to flavor.  I think the image I have of ranger is just about the coolest concept for D&D (and not because it's power-gamey).  Unfortunately, only the 3E ranger is almost unable to meet that vision.  The 2E version wasn't bad, after stripping the TWF from the class (I've _never_ allowed TWF as a class feature of rangers and never will -- not even as a "path" in 3.5).  If a class can't be used to build the archetype it's supposed to represent, it's a failed design.To be "successful" as a class, the ranger must be appropriate for: Aragorn, certain versions of Robin Hood, the idealized Davy Crocket, an archetypal Native American brave, Tarzan, Benjamin Martin from "The Patriot", Panamon Creel, Perrin Ay'bara, even some versions of Zorro, and a low-tech version of Special Forces.  None of those examples are TWF, except Robin Hood who can't be made with the ranger because he used a quarterstaff.  And half of them rarely, if ever, used a range weapon -- at least with any remarkable skill.  In fact, while most were competent in combat (other than probably being higher level), few stand out as having any particular style.  Robin Hood was good with a bow, Davy Crocket with a knife, Tarzan with his hands.  Of those, only Robin is duplicatable.  All differ enough that it could be nothing more than the normal expenditure of feats as they rose in level.  Forcing a "combat path" of any sort does more harm to the ranger's cause than good.  The examples of the ranger archetype argue more for diversity in combat than _any_ amount of pigeon-holed mechanics will allow.Aside from flavor, the 3E+ ranger seems to be home to poorly conceived mechanics, like virtual feats and combat paths.  Even if the flavor aspect were improved, the mechanical design of the class makes it prime to disrespect.  Personally, I don't think there is any good reason to ever have a mechanic like the "combat path" for any character class.  If the designers feel that the ranger needs something to give the ranger a kick in the pants, they should add bonus feats.  It's not like bonus feats are a sacred cow of the fighter by any means.  Wizards get them, as do Psychic Warriors.  The latter even are able to pick up Weapon Specialization.  If you go beyond core books, the Woodsman from WoT (a common replacement for the Ranger, by my understanding) gets bonus feats.  Of course, the best examples are right in the core books.  The Loremaster has the opportunity to pick up _any_ feat as a bonus.  And, as a base class, the Rogue could get any extra _four_ feats at higher levels.IMHO, WotC should just forget about lame mechanics like "virtual feats" or "combat paths" and just grant Rangers a few bonus feats from a limited list.  If they included some non-combat feats in the list, the Ranger could actually be used to simulate someone who skilled in recon.</blockquote>

Verification