RPG Superstar 2009 Top 4
|
Is there really a balance need for "virtual feats" that get lost if the Ranger wears meaningful armor? If the ranger wants to blow a feat on heavier armor, or multiclass to get the proficiency, so be it. That's a resource spent to accomplish something. The heavier armor, with its ACP, slower movement, etc will hamper the Ranger's skills anyway... why this extra burden?
The flavor is already there in the starting armor proficiencies. Let's get rid of this annoying artifact.
Seconded.
To me, no matter how high level or bad-a** your Ranger is, if they're stomping around in Dwarven Plate with dual bastard swords or something, they aren't really a Ranger.
The meta feats are to force some semblance of an archetype into all the class builds on a fundamental level. Even if not terribly dexterous, they are all mobile, guerrilla-like attackers or archers, and they learn all of their skills, it's presupposed, while wearing armor that doesn't hinder movement.
All in all, I see this as a bad idea... not to say that you couldn't house-rule it. People seem to think all of their personal house rules should be everyone else's. If you could completely remove Ranger from your DnD world, which you could if you wanted, then you can easily just do away with that requirement or any other little thing you don't like. There's no right way to use the books.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 4
|
To me, no matter how high level or bad-a** your Ranger is, if they're stomping around in Dwarven Plate with dual bastard swords or something, they aren't really a Ranger.
The meta feats are to force some semblance of an archetype into all the class builds on a fundamental level. Even if not terribly dexterous, they are all mobile, guerrilla-like attackers or archers, and they learn all of their skills, it's presupposed, while wearing armor that doesn't hinder movement.
All in all, I see this as a bad idea... not to say that you couldn't house-rule it. People seem to think all of their personal house rules should be everyone else's. If you could completely remove Ranger from your DnD world, which you could if you wanted, then you can easily just do away with that requirement or any other little thing you don't like. There's no right way to use the books.
And here's where I both agree and disagree with you...
Of course a ranger stomping around in dwarven plate and dual bastard swords isn't going to be doing ranger-y things. Know why? Because he's got -7 to all his effective skills, no DEX bonus to AC worth speaking about, and moves like a turtle.
And he doesn't, by default, get any armor proficiencies other than Light. So now you're stacking even more penalties if he straps on a breastplate.
So, what I'm really getting at, is that if he actually takes feats to use heavier armor effectively, or dips for a level or two into fighter... why does his fighting style need to be crippled? The archetype is present from the get-go, and you don't need to gut his fighting ability to maintain it. Plus, the feats or class choices indicate that he HAS trained in the use of those armors.
It is perfectly reasonable for an underdark Dwarven Ranger to "stomp" around in mithril plate. Sure, he's taking some penalties for the armor, but he's a Dwarf, it is more iconic for him to have plate! I'd prefer to see the armor restrictions removed, so that the class is more versatile and works with more character concepts. It doesn't increase the power of the class significantly - the character will still need to do with the armor penalty on skills (but ooh now Fighter/Ranger might make sense for that Dwarf to reduce some of those armor penalties).
It is perfectly reasonable for an underdark Dwarven Ranger to "stomp" around in mithril plate. Sure, he's taking some penalties for the armor, but he's a Dwarf, it is more iconic for him to have plate! I'd prefer to see the armor restrictions removed, so that the class is more versatile and works with more character concepts. It doesn't increase the power of the class significantly - the character will still need to do with the armor penalty on skills (but ooh now Fighter/Ranger might make sense for that Dwarf to reduce some of those armor penalties).
My 2cps...
The iconic dwarf (gimli)... chainmail
The hollywood knight... plate
The iconic dwarven metal... adamantine
The iconic elven metal... mithral
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Is there really a balance need for "virtual feats" that get lost if the Ranger wears meaningful armor? If the ranger wants to blow a feat on heavier armor, or multiclass to get the proficiency, so be it. That's a resource spent to accomplish something. The heavier armor, with its ACP, slower movement, etc will hamper the Ranger's skills anyway... why this extra burden?The flavor is already there in the starting armor proficiencies. Let's get rid of this annoying artifact.
I can see them in Medium Armour.
Barbarians can use their abilities in Medium, so I think Rangers in Medium isn't breaking the rules at all.Heavy Armour is out of the question. That really is just not a Ranger.
|
I can see them in Medium Armour.
Barbarians can use their abilities in Medium, so I think Rangers in Medium isn't breaking the rules at all.
Heavy Armour is out of the question. That really is just not a Ranger.
Right, but then it goes back to the old mithral plate debate, does mithral plate count as medium armor for what the Ranger can wear and still gain all his class abilities? Or should it still count as heavy and they must wear light, medium, or "mithral light?" That distinction needs to be made.
|
The OP isn't asking to get rid of all penalties associated with heavy armor for the Ranger, or even asking that they begin with increased proficiency.
He is making a plea that the Ranger's abilities work with other class combinations. I think that makes sense. Yes, the Ranger can use two-weapon fighting without having a crazy high Dexterity, so it would make a good option for a two-weapon fighting fighter/ranger.
The question is two-weapon fighting unbalancing when you have a +0 Dex and are wearing full-plate?
I personally don't think so. We're not talking about gaining a benefit without a cost. We're just limiting the cost so that a character CAN train in other ways and not lose their class abilities.
A Ranger wearing full plate may not be what we imagine when we say Ranger, but there are times where it should be a appropriate. A Ranger that decides to infiltrate the Hell Knight fortress might wear the armor of a hell-knight. Now, if he spent the time and energy to get heavy armor proficiency, it would be good if he could use his signature fighting style if he has to overcome some guards physically.
Removing this restriction doesn't make wearing heavy armor a good idea for a Ranger. It only would make it possible. And it still remains a bad idea for a Ranger in most situations. I think it would be a good change.
And it does not make the Ranger better than the fighter. Having the ability to choose your bonus feats grants a lot of flexibility. And having more class skills that suffer ACP isn't going to make the character appreciably better.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Right, but then it goes back to the old mithral plate debate, does mithral plate count as medium armor for what the Ranger can wear and still gain all his class abilities? Or should it still count as heavy and they must wear light, medium, or "mithral light?" That distinction needs to be made.
I can see them in Medium Armour.
Barbarians can use their abilities in Medium, so I think Rangers in Medium isn't breaking the rules at all.
Heavy Armour is out of the question. That really is just not a Ranger.
Yeah but of course the same argument can be had for Barbarians as well. How many Barbarians do you see running around in Mithril Plate? I think that if someone wants to powergame to that point then wy bother, the game is lost on them anyway. Taking a Mithril Breastplate to Light is fine (imho), but the above MP is taking it too far and a player should have the common sense to stop that from a flavour sense.
I think if you want a dual wielder in heavy armor, then as a fighter it is pretty easy to do with all the feats you get.
Rangers should be light and fast. That's their thing.
ASEO out
I think its a matter of what the DM decides.
I would have to agree that plate is plate, regardless of any benefits it bestows. The armor classifications of 'Light', Medium', and 'Heavy' are really misnomers - its really about the mobility one has in those types of armor. You can build an ultra-light suit of plate out of Bambo, but its still not going to be easier to move in. The reverse is also true - if you have a specially designed suit of plate armor with more flexibility around the joints, waist, ect... you can achieve a decent amount of movement even with all the added weight. In fact, I think thas the difference between 'Field Plate' and 'Full Plate'.
IMG, I'd let a Ranger wear anything up to Ringmail/chain, but make sure he has all the penalties that go with it. If he wants to remain silent, he's going to need something special, like Elven Chain. If decides to put on plate anyway, then I would make him lose the his class abilites.
So I guess I agree with the OP as well - if you nhave to burn a feat (or class-dip) to get the armor proficiency, AND get all the penalties for wearing the heavier armor, I see no reason to place further restrictions on a character. After all, Aragorn could have worn plate if he wanted - he just preferred agility and stealth over the extra protection offerred.
|
|
Armors are typed by form, not weight. Plate armor that's made out of mithral is still a Heavy Armor type. even with the benefits it's mithral construction bestows.
Sorry to bust ya like this, but that is not true.
quoted from the SRD: "Most mithral armors are one category lighter than normal for purposes of movement and other limitations."
Thus mithril Full plate is considered medium armor for the purposes of limitations on barbarians movement, and mithril breastplate is considered Lt for limitations like Rangers TWF and Rogues evasion.
Robert
|
|
Yeah but of course the same argument can be had for Barbarians as well. How many Barbarians do you see running around in Mithril Plate? I think that if someone wants to powergame to that point then wy bother, the game is lost on them anyway. Taking a Mithril Breastplate to Light is fine (imho), but the above MP is taking it too far and a player should have the common sense to stop that from a flavour sense.
So you're okay with mithril breastplate so that rogues and rangers can get the best protection possible without losing their abilities and so that bards can cast freely in it; but you draw the line on mithril full plate? One is fine and flavorful but the other causes the game to be lost on them?
I'm not sure I understand this logic at all. It seems outwardly to be a bit hypocritical.
Robert
I would be in favor of removing the restriction that a ranger loses their combat style when wearing heavier armors. Note: That is NOT the same as saying rangers should receive medium and heavy armor proficiencies! That is not what is being advocated.
If a ranger wants to go stomping around in heavier armor, then as Raidou and DeadDMWalking pointed out, they'll have to contend with MASSIVE Armor Check Penalties to all those nifty skills that make them standout from the Fighter. Furthermore, unless that ranger spent feats to gain medium and heavy armor proficiency (or spent a level multiclassing into a class that grants them) then they will not be as efficient at using heavy armor as the cleric, fighter or paladin.
In essence, no further special case rules are required to enforce rangers using only light armors. The ACP built into game is self-enforcing and they will lose Evasion when wearing heavier armors too. The reason that we are advocating the removal of the clause is so that they can at least still contribute in a fight by continuing to use their fighting style.
Well put - you got the point across better then I was able.
|
The note I keep hitting, here and elsewhere is that flexibility of design makes the game the most adaptable to different play styles.
I have no problem with any fundamental adaption if it opens the gateway to s better game at somebody's table.
I also think that PfRPG gets stronger when it is designed around the ability to customize and modulate teh ruelsw set to the play style you want.
That being said, deploying a series of feats that allow a ranger to repsoition himself or herself in relationship to armor is reasonable. The Dm always has the abiltiy to say, "Not in my game." Another DM might say, "Yeah, in my game, because I want to do a dwarven underground Orc war and it fits."
The core rules set should be fairly rigid. Other ideas should be presented as possible variants that can be modularly assembled and chosen by the DM to support any specific narrative structure.
As a matter of fact, a section or chapter in the PFRPG DMG should talk about layering and shaping variants to achieve a specfic campaign style and narrative structure.
But, in my game, rangers wear light armor.
"A ranger isn't a fighter."
Except when he takes levels in fighter, of course, which is what the OP is saying. He's a fighter/ranger.
What you're really arguing is that the ranger class abilities (TWF) should trump fighter class abilities (heavy armor proficiency). I don't buy that at all.
And, if you're playing a TWF ranger, you're not power-gaming. It's right down there with the bard and monk.
NO rangers in fullplate. Ever.
|
|
What you're really arguing is that the ranger class abilities (TWF) should trump fighter class abilities (heavy armor proficiency). I don't buy that at all.
Here's how I look at it.
A ranger is better then average at wielding 2 weapons when he's not weighed down by armor. He doesn't have two weapon fighting feat, he just can fight like he has it.
Take drawing for example. There are people that can draw awesome when they're like 5. Then there are people that use books, take classes, watch tv shows to get better. Now take the gifted artist's pencil away and give him a paint brush, and suddenly his pictures aren't so pretty anymore. Maybe they're just as bad as someone who's not naturally gifted.
Well that's a ranger with 2 weapons (or archery.) He's better then the average person, he can do it like a person with training, but only in certain circumstances.
I vote for making them usual bonus feats (thus removing the armor restriction) and have them meet the prereqs.
If a ranger wants to use full plate, well he'll have to deal with the huge AC-penalty.
But why should a ranger fighting in "ultra-magical-feypowered-superduper-half-plate-whichiswornlikesilk" losing his "special" combat styles?
No sense to me.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
So you're okay with mithril breastplate so that rogues and rangers can get the best protection possible without losing their abilities and so that bards can cast freely in it; but you draw the line on mithril full plate? One is fine and flavorful but the other causes the game to be lost on them?
I'm not sure I understand this logic at all. It seems outwardly to be a bit hypocritical.
Robert
The only reason I would allow Mithril Breastplate is because it is primarily just Studded Leather, with a Breastplate over thr chest.
I would probably also allow Mithril Chainmail for a Ranger as well, but not for a Barbarian.
That is where I would draw the line. Of course this is purely from a flavour point of view as I have said. The picture of a Barbarian (or Ranger for that matter) running around in FP, even if it is Mithril, isn't what I imagine them to be.
I suppose it is a little hypocritical, but it is just my opinion of flavour. Everyone has their own
I'd say either keep the restriction, or change it:
The restriction clearly balances the fact that he doesn't need any of the prerequisites. I could live with the change that if he wears "prohibited" armour, he loses the use of any feat he doesn't have the prerequisites for.
I'd also not mind a feat that lets him keep his stuff in medium armour. Prerequisite: proficiency in medium armour
It is perfectly reasonable for an underdark Dwarven Ranger to "stomp" around in mithril plate. Sure, he's taking some penalties for the armor, but he's a Dwarf, it is more iconic for him to have plate!
It's also more iconic for him to be a fighter, not a ranger. Being iconic doesn't enter into it. I could also say that it's iconic for elves to know magic. Does that mean that they should cast spells even as a fighter? Nope, and neither does it mean that dwarves can use whatever armour they want.
If you want to go against stereotype, don't mess around I say.
I'd prefer to see the armor restrictions removed, so that the class is more versatile and works with more character concepts.
It's a "specialised" class, so it just won't work with every concept. The part about them being a hunter and tracker are kind of worked in, so if you go against that and stick to the ranger (instead of, say, fighter), it will have consequences.
Of course a ranger stomping around in dwarven plate and dual bastard swords isn't going to be doing ranger-y things. Know why? Because he's got -7 to all his effective skills, no DEX bonus to AC worth speaking about, and moves like a turtle.
Note that this ranger wouldn't need any dex: He'd use strength for attack rolls and his armour for AC. If you did the same as a fighter, you would need dex to get the two-weapon fighting feat, but the ranger doesn't need to fulfill any prerequisites.
As for speed: If you choose dwarf, you wouldn't get any slower.
And that's why I think the restriction should stay.
As I said, I'd be okay with "either you stick to light armour, or you have to fulfill the prerequisites".
And he doesn't, by default, get any armor proficiencies other than Light. So now you're stacking even more penalties if he straps on a breastplate.
That can be changed quite easily: Just get a level of fighter, cleric or paladin, or get the feats.
So, what I'm really getting at, is that if he actually takes feats to use heavier armor effectively, or dips for a level or two into fighter... why does his fighting style need to be crippled?
As I said: Because he gets advantages no one else gets: He doesn't need to fulfill the prerequisites of those feats.
The restriction's probably there so no one would play a dwarven fighter/ranger with dex 10 in full plate with an urgrosh or something.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 4
|
My argument has nothing at all to do with a vision of an "iconic" ranger. I appreciate that we all have an idea of what the ranger should be. I had the same trepidation 9 years ago about dwarven wizards, half-orc paladins, and gnome monks.
The point I am trying to make is that you, the player of the character, do not always know what role you are going to be assigned in a given party. In a party of 4, if you choose the ranger and the other PC's choose a wizard, a cloistered cleric, and a rogue, you are going to be forced into the role of frontline warrior.
Rangers are already a little out of the player's control because their favored enemies might show up rarely, if at all. Particularly true in published adventures or under DM's who just don't care.
So lets say you are this unfortunate ranger, stuck in the frontlines. You decide to suck it up, and explore your options in this role. You can either:
- multiclass to get better armor, better HP, a few fighter feats, but be unable to perform your combat style and stink at your ranger core competencies.
- take armor proficiency as a feat and suffer the same fate minus the fighter bonuses
- get hit often, and hard.
I am willing to accept a feat that allows you to use your combat style in heavier armor. I am willing to have a gradual progression that allows the same, built into the core class. (warmage - armored mage for example).
But from a flavor standpoint, I feel that we are stuck in a mindset that went largely out-of-style with the 3E game itself. Instead of "this is what the ranger should be" we should be saying "this is what the ranger starts as. Now here's how to mess with it." and offer options for doing so.
My opinion, of course.
Lastly, I don't see the problem with the previous example, the DEX 10 dwarven fighter/ranger with dwarven Urgosh and full plate. Instead of moving like a turtle due to the full plate, he moves like a turtle due to being a dwarf. His skills still stink, he can't evade, and by having a low DEX and multiclassing into fighter, he's sacrificed at least a point or two of reflex save. Not to mention spellcasting, favored enemy, animal companion HD, etc.
I see the heavily armored dwarf urgosh-ranger as a valid archetype patrolling a dwarven underground citadel. YMMV.
thanks, this is an interesting discussion.
-
A Ranger who can use his feats in heavy armor is not significantly more powerful than one who cannot. In this case, removing the armor restriction costs nothing, and adds flexibility to the system.
The typical Ranger is still going to opt for lighter armor because he needs Heavy Armor Proficiency to not take an attack penalty from heavy armor, and because many of skills are penalized.
The atypical Ranger might just want to wear heavier armor. Why make him lose several feats by making this choice? What is the benefit to the mechanics? I know it forces the flavor in a certain direction (lightly armored rangers), but is that necessary above and beyond the skill penalties and need for Heavy Armor Proficiency?
Good point
|
|
I'm still trying to understand why someone would play a ranger, who has to wear light armor and wouldn't favor Dex over Str regardless of Combat Style. Seems to me there's almost no difference the first few levels in AC and you Weapon Finesse for the attack bonus.
A Ranger isn't a Fighter and he's not supposed to be. He's not supposed to be either.
However, I've come to a conclusion about what this "problem" really is all about. It's not about class roles. It's not about improving the ranger.
It's about ROLLplay.
And as such, I'm even more against giving ranger access to full plate.
Now aside from that, this comes down to a metagaming issue.
If your party really is a Ranger, Rogue, Wizard, and Cleric.. it's the CLERICs job to be the fighter, not the Ranger. The cleric knows when he needs to heal himself. The Ranger and Rogue should be keeping monsters away from the Wizard and keep the Cleric from being overwhelmed (hello rogue and sneak attack!) The wizard should cast enlarge person when able on the Cleric or Mage Armor on the Ranger or Rogue if their AC is low. Every other spell out of the Wizard should be a crowd control spell that effects multiple targets. None of this magic missile one target and hope someone else finishes the job if you don't do enough damage to kill it. The cleric should probably pop a Shield of Faith on his melee support player, the Ranger or Rogue, since they'll need the AC boost.
The atypical Ranger might just want to wear heavier armor. Why make him lose several feats by making this choice? What is the benefit to the mechanics? I know it forces the flavor in a certain direction (lightly armored rangers), but is that necessary above and beyond the skill penalties and need for Heavy Armor Proficiency?
Why can't wizards cast spells in heavy armour without some downsides? Why can't monks wear any armour without losing some powers? Why can't druids wear metal armour without losing stuff? Why can't wizards cast their forbidden schools without losing powers?
It's not that the ranger is unable to wear heavier armour. It just has downsides for him.
A wouldn't mind a feat that lets him use medium armour (heavy would be pushing it), or change it so he has to fulfill the prerequisites once he wears "prohibited" armour. But some of the consequences should stay.
|
|
A wouldn't mind a feat that lets him use medium armour (heavy would be pushing it), or change it so he has to fulfill the prerequisites once he wears "prohibited" armour. But some of the consequences should stay.
I made a Combat feat based on the Arcane Armor feats and posted them in the new rules forum awhile back and if Combat feats had stated around, I would agree that a feat would certainly be a possibly solution.. but since Combat feats are going away.. well.. I'd say to get to medium they'd have to be 10th or 11th level.. and heavy by 15th. The feat originally was worded so it could be used by rogues and barbarians too. :)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 4
|
However, I've come to a conclusion about what this "problem" really is all about. It's not about class roles. It's not about improving the ranger. It's about ROLLplay.
And as such, I'm even more against giving ranger access to full plate.
Now aside from that, this comes down to a metagaming issue.
If your party really is a Ranger, Rogue, Wizard, and Cleric.. it's the CLERICs job to be the fighter, not the Ranger.
I 100% disagree. 110% disagree. This is not about ROLLplaying. Don't mock my argument by throwing that crap around.
This is about a warrior class, being unable to perform a warrior's role in a standard party.
If a ranger should be a Complete Adventurer Scout, then make it a scout. Give it movement, give it rogue-ish abilities. Pathfinder didn't do this. It's still a warrior with a warrior's role.
A cleric in no way should be the party fighter. That is a party that is not long for this world. And how is that NOT metagaming?
Player 1: I am Algaeforn, priest of the sea and all who travel upon it.
Other Players: Great, we have a frontline fighter, let's roll!
Come on.
|
|
It is based abut ROLLplaying, the hypothetical presented is biased to make the ranger look like the all star choice for combat.
It doesn't matter who your god is, a cleric still wears more armor then the ranger and rogue. If you need a fighter, the guy that comes with the metal armor should be upfront, not the guys in leather. They should be wading in and out of combat or staying outside of it all together.
I also roll my eyes at the thought of a two weapon ranger playing the role of fighter. If two weapons really was the direction you wanted to go, fighters make better two weapon wielders hands down.
But anyway, with a ranger and rogue up front and the cleric hiding in the back to be the healing stick with d8 hp and plate armor.. the party will get wiped pretty quickly anyway and you'll all learn your lesson.. or maybe you won't.
Side note, I'd love to know what a priest of the sea is doing in a land based adventure.. and if it's a sea based.. who wears fullplate out on the high sea?
Why should taking a Ranger who has more Strength than Dexterity be more suboptimal?
Here's some examples.
I want a Ranger (Robin Hood) who wields Longsword (no benefit from Weapon Finesse) and Shortsword, because Rapiers are uncommon in the campaign setting.
Or maybe he's a lumberjack, wielding say Battle Axe (no benefit from Weapon Finesse) and Hand Axe. He goes out into the woods, cuts down trees, and brings back wood with the help of his trusty draft horse. He needs to be strong to lug around timber. He wants to wear Scale Armor (Medium Armor Proficiency) made from a large Green Dragon that he killed. Say he has Dex terity 16 and Strength 24 around middle levels.
Or maybe he is a Fighter 4/Ranger X who is a scout for a Heavy Cavalry group. He wears say Chainmail and rides a Light Warhorse.
Why are all of these builds penalized? It should be reasonable to build a non-Dexterity based Ranger who still has decent AC (having got the feats for Medium or Heavy Armor), decent attack bonus, and who still has the use of his armor feats.
None of these are necessarily min/maxing or not-roleplaying. They're just roleplaying a different character than the typical Ranger envisaged by the 3.5E D&D rules. What do we lose by allowing that versatility? Why do you want to force roleplayers of a Ranger to play only a narrow role that is enforced by game mechanics? Shouldn't game mechanics accommodate players as much as possible, while still maintaining balance? How do any of the above violate game balance?
|
|
I want a Ranger (Robin Hood) who wields Longsword (no benefit from Weapon Finesse) and Shortsword, because Rapiers are uncommon in the campaign setting.
Robin Hood? You mean the dude that's a really good archer in just about every movie I've seen. Granted many traditional ballads and plays from the century he supposively ran about focus less on his archery and more on his sword play, but regardless.. modern fiction focus on him as an archer. IF he has two weapon fighting.. something I've not really seen, I'd wager he took it as a feat.
Or maybe he's a lumberjack, wielding say Battle Axe (no benefit from Weapon Finesse) and Hand Axe. He goes out into the woods, cuts down trees, and brings back wood with the help of his trusty draft horse. He needs to be strong to lug around timber. He wants to wear Scale Armor (Medium Armor Proficiency) made from a large Green Dragon that he killed. Say he has Dex terity 16 and Strength 24 around middle levels.
Sure sure.. a lumerjack as a backstory.. why not make him a fighter with Profession (Lumberjack)?
Or maybe he is a Fighter 4/Ranger X who is a scout for a Heavy Cavalry group. He wears say Chainmail and rides a Light Warhorse.
And he can get two weapon fighting from fighter and not gain archery from ranger. Sounds like he sound be a Scout class to me.. you know, it's still COMPATIBLE.
Why are all of these builds penalized? It should be reasonable to build a non-Dexterity based Ranger who still has decent AC (having got the feats for Medium or Heavy Armor), decent attack bonus, and who still has the use of his armor feats.
Because all of these builds are fighters, not rangers.
None of these are necessarily min/maxing or not-roleplaying. They're just roleplaying a different character than the typical Ranger envisaged by the 3.5E D&D rules.
I would say they're finely thought out backstories with poor class choices. You're trying to shoe horn the Ranger into something he is not.
What do we lose by allowing that versatility?
The fighter class, rangers aren't fighters. If you want to be a fighter, be a Fighter.
Why do you want to force roleplayers of a Ranger to play only a narrow role that is enforced by game mechanics? Shouldn't game mechanics accommodate players as much as possible, while still maintaining balance?
And what about preserving uniqueness of classes? If you want to soak up damage in melee combat; a hunter, forester, boyscout, RANGER is not the class for you.
Alex Woodrow, Lumberjack of Darkwyld. 10th level Ranger. Wields Battle Axe and Hand Axe (Ranger combat style of Two-Weapon combat). Skills: Climb, Craft (Woodworking), Handle Animal, Ride, Survival, Use Rope. His favored enemies are Dragon, Giant, and Humanoid (Goblinoid) as those are the main threats in the magical forest Darkwyld where he cuts down Darkwood, Ironwood, and other more exquisite varieties of wood. He wears Green Dragon Scale Armor, made from the hide of a large Green Dragon that he slew last year when it was planning to snack on his trust draft horse (his Animal Companion - stats as Heavy Horse).
Please explain to me why this character should be built as a Fighter who does not have the skills to represent such a woodsman.
|
|
Alex Woodrow, Lumberjack of Darkwyld. 10th level Ranger. Wields Battle Axe and Hand Axe (Ranger combat style of Two-Weapon combat). Skills: Climb, Craft (Woodworking), Handle Animal, Ride, Survival, Use Rope. His favored enemies are Dragon, Giant, and Humanoid (Goblinoid) as those are the main threats in the magical forest Darkwyld where he cuts down Darkwood, Ironwood, and other more exquisite varieties of wood. He wears Green Dragon Scale Armor, made from the hide of a large Green Dragon that he slew last year when it was planning to snack on his trust draft horse (his Animal Companion - stats as Heavy Horse).
Please explain to me why this character should be built as a Fighter who does not have the skills to represent such a woodsman.
Oh no, when you put it like that he's not a fighter at all. But this is not your game. D&D belongs to Wizards of the Coast. Pathfinder RPG belongs to Paizo.
According to both, Alex Woodrow can't dual wield in that armor. You're still shoe horning a backstory into a class that's not designed to be a front line fighter.
If he wants to wear that armor he can only single wield that axe. Seems to me that since he survives so long on his own, he knows he won't be able to be as mobile in said armor.
When it comes down to it, Rangers are just talented with both hands and when they're not hindered by armor, can use both hands like someone with formal weapons training (someone that took those feats.) But many conveniently ignored my post earlier this morning about that.
That said, Alex's backstory could also go he made armor for his trusty draft horse out of the hide and used the bones of the dragon, or carved the horns of the dragon into handles for his axe. Personally I think I like that better then a player/gm knowingly gimping the character for this scenario you're concocting to make your argument.
|
|
If I take levels in Ranger, I am given 2-weapon fighting feats as a Class Ability. I do not need to meet the Dexterity requirement, but I must wear light armor.
If I am a Fighter 10/Ranger 10, and I would like the ability to use 2-weapon fighting in plate mail, I must meet the prerequisites for the higher Dexterity and I must also take the feats as 'real feats' instead of virtual feats. That is certainly not cost effective.
Would people agree that if the Ranger has the Dexterity required to qualify for the feat normally, they should be able to use the feat as if they had selected it as a 'real feat'? Because I would argue that if the reason it is not acceptable is that the Ranger doesn't have to meet the requirements, I think the Ranger should get some consideration if they do, so the character doesn't have to spend feats for feats he already effectively has.
I do think the example of a Ranger putting on full-plate to sneak into the Fortress of Evil is a good example of a situation where a Ranger should be able to use their iconic ability. The situation is a fantasy (and science fiction) trope. If the ruse is discovered, you expect a fight, and yet the Ranger is severely handicapped in the fight because he is 'disguised' in full-plate. I think this is an example where the restriction becomes a problem.
Now, I can see thinking the ability is too powerful if you don't have the requisite dexterity. I disagree, but I can see the point. I think that there may be situations where you would have a character that is a 'Ranger' wearing full plate and using 2-weapon fighting, but most of the time you'd expect them to go straight fighter because the Ranger skills aren't that good if you're planning on wearing Full Plate. But if it does expand options without creating serious power-creep, I'm in favor of it.
First, not that it means anything, Robin Hood was a knight that fought in the crusades alongside Richard the Lionhearted and returned back to England... he's really a fighter that uses a longbow in addition to his melee weapons. He is most definetely not Mr Flynn the Ranger. Hollywood never gets anything right.
Secondly, I have to agree with the people who argue that if you want your ranger to TWF with plate then you need to buy the feat.
And being a follower of the Church of Gygax... mithral is an ultra rare metal mostly hoarded by the elves... why would the sell it to adventures. I find the notion of campaigns were mithral and adamantine are sold as easily as copper and iron to be rather strange. But hey... to each his own.
I've noted the fighter/ranger mention more than once, so I'll share my personal house rule:You can't multiclass into two classes of the same "profession".
I don't see why not. A good example of why this should work is Drizzt. (All rants about angst-driven munchkins please be redirected to a handy stone wall in your near vicinity). He was formally trained (as a fighter) in his home city. 10 Years in the fighting academy and all. So he has levels of fighter.
But then, when it became clear that he didn't fit into drow society, he fled the city and lived in the Underdark wilderness for a long time. Raw survival required, often lapsing into a "hunter" mindset. So he got levels of barbarian on top of fighter.
Finally, he went to the surface, met a ranger who tought him the ways of the wood. Hence the ranger levels.
In that situation, three different warrior classes make perfect sense. I'm sure we could come up with lots of different backgrounds that warrant multiclassing of this type, like the fighter-turned-paladin, the rogue who takes up the instrument...
Would people agree that if the Ranger has the Dexterity required to qualify for the feat normally, they should be able to use the feat as if they had selected it as a 'real feat'?
I've been suggesting this in this thead, so I'd definetly welcome it as an official rule.
I do think the example of a Ranger putting on full-plate to sneak into the Fortress of Evil is a good example of a situation where a Ranger
... should be hit with the stupid stick. If you want to sneak, you don't wear heavy armour that announces your presence to everyone on the same plane. Might as well take a bullhorn with you and shout "don't mind me, I'm the pizza guy." ;-P
Why should taking a Ranger who has more Strength than Dexterity be more suboptimal?
Actually, it's usually good to have both high strength and high dexterity.
I want a Ranger (Robin Hood) who wields Longsword (no benefit from Weapon Finesse) and Shortsword, because Rapiers are uncommon in the campaign setting.
Get two shortswords. Or up your dex. Or play robin hood and use the bow. I haven't read the original material, so I'm not an expert. It's just that the wikipedia site mentions his outstanding archery talent, the Robin Hood memorial in Nottingham shows him with a bow, and every single Robin Hood movie I ever saw showed him mainly using the bow and be really good with it. I think he did use a sword a couple of times. A single one. No two-weapon swashbuckling for mister of Loxley
Or maybe he's a lumberjack
"Hi"
"Who're you""Oh, I'm Jack, the Ranger. You know, the guys who guard the forest and stuff like that."
"Oh, and what's your profession?"
"I'm a Lumberjack."
"Int and Wis were your dump stats, right?"
"Damn straight. Let's make a big bonfire in that dry underbrush there. I don't see anyhting wrong with that, either."
:P
He goes out into the woods, cuts down trees
he eats his lunch, he goes to the lavat'ry. On Wednesdays he goes shopping, and has buttered scones for tee.
None of these are necessarily min/maxing or not-roleplaying. They're just roleplaying a different character than the typical Ranger envisaged by the 3.5E D&D rules.
Same goes for the fully armoured wizard, or the monk in chain mail.
The class isn't cut out for this sort of thing. If you want do do things differently, either accept the consequences (not everything will work perfectly) or go a different way (i.e. fighter or fighter/rogue who calls himself a ranger.)
Side note, I'd love to know what a priest of the sea is doing in a land based adventure.. and if it's a sea based.. who wears fullplate out on the high sea?
The guy with a swim speed :P
This is about a warrior class, being unable to perform a warrior's role in a standard party.
The warrior's role is not to be a tank and soak up damage. It's about being a warrior. It's about fighting. The fighting style doesn't enter into it. Rangers aren't built for standing around in a tin can and letting others batter them.
A cleric in no way should be the party fighter. That is a party that is not long for this world.
A cleric, with his combat buffs, heavy armour proficiency, shield proficiency, and general robustness (he's not a fighter, but he's not far off) is definetly made for the thick of battle.