|
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
I'm sorry, I thought you were familiar with the trope. For example, when Luke Skywalker and Han Solo want to sneak around the Death Star, they don't try to hide/move silent. They put Chewbaca in cuffs, and walk around the place in full (face concealing) armor.
And it works.
When you have a bunch of soldiers walkign around wearing great helms, they're going to notice the 'sneaky guy trying to avoid being seen' but won't pay any attention to the guy who looks like he belongs.
But, like any good fantasy, the gig never works for long. Going back to Star Wars, their inevitable discovery or failure to maintain the ruse is a forgone conclusion. They need to try to 'fight their way out'. This is where the idea of taking away the Ranger's fighting style seems unfair.
Now, in my opinion, I think the Dex requirements for the 3.5 2-weapon fighting tree are ridiculous. Actually, I think the whole tree is ridiculuous. Spending a feat to gain a 3rd attack with your off-hand at -17 isn't the same value you get for spending a feat to get 1 attack at -2. I guess I'd rather see 2-weapon fighting just grant you ititerative attacks for your 'off-hand' with one feat. But whatever.
I agree with the OP that Ranger's should get their fighting style in heavy armor. In all honesty, I don't see it as game-breaking if there isn't the high Dex requirement for something I consider fairly sub-optimal. There are other penalties for the Ranger who wears heavy armor, so it make the choice an otherwise poor one. Having a Dex 10 fighter in full-plate wielding a long sword and a small spiked shield doesn't seem to be a problem in my mind. And so allowing the Ranger to use 2-weapon in heavy armor is one way to get that - the other is to remove the crazy high dex requirements for the 2-weapon fighting styles. Do both and the whole discussion becomes moot. Nobody will take Ranger to 'avoid the requirements' because the requirements won't be overly difficult.
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.
Here here! Restricting rangers to light armor is pointless, and as far as I'm concerned the Dex prereqs for TWF and archery feats can go roll in the hay with an otyugh.
TS
I'm sorry, I thought you were familiar with the trope. For example, when Luke Skywalker and Han Solo want to sneak around the Death Star, they don't try to hide/move silent. They put Chewbaca in cuffs, and walk around the place in full (face concealing) armor.And it works.
When you have a bunch of soldiers walkign around wearing great helms, they're going to notice the 'sneaky guy trying to avoid being seen' but won't pay any attention to the guy who looks like he belongs.
That's not really a ranger's gig. Not at all. He didn't receive a soldier's former training, he doesn't know the secret handshake, and he usually lacks any training or natural ability to fake it convincingly.
He's still better off in the air ducts.
The issue with the ranger styles/armor restriction has little to do with the fluff (what do "rangers" do) and more with the crunch.
If you remove the Dex limitation then Ranger becomes a relatively useful level dip for high Str people to get into 2wf and then dual wield while in heavier armor without the high dex requirement.
-S
|
|
So if the Dex requirement for thw two-weapon fighting tree were reduced?
A 19 Dex is supposed to be beyond human ability, but two weapon fighting with 'many attacks' are not uncommon. The first thing to realize is that number of attacks is already an abstraction. Having one attack at 1st level doesn't mean you can only swing your sword once - it means you only really get one good opportunity. Parries and dodges are assumed to be happening - and the attack roll represents the one stroke where those active defenses were weak enough that you have a chance of striking your opponent.
For examples of two-weapon fighters in film, I'd like to bring up two extremely different examples. The first is from the movie 'the Scorpion King'. They have two women in the 'ancient Egypt' period fighting with two weapons. This quite likely represents the high dexterity/agile fighter that we typically think of. The other example to offer a contrast is from the movie Hudson Hawk. The 'butler' uses two swords that extend from his coat. I'd say they're the equivalent of shortswords, but they have a slicing blade - so call them a saber if you wil. In any case, he is not a good example of a high Dexterity character. But he can utilzie the two weapons in harmony with each other.
Using two weapons to attack an opponent shouldn't require much more coordination than using one weapon to attack an oppoenent and using a shield to block the oppoenents attacks. Or it is not much different from Karate where strikes with both hands are taught as a matter of course. Basically, two-weapon fighting IS something that anyone can learn to do. The Dex requirement is totally unnecessary and not terribly realistic. Eliminating the Dex requirement eliminates an incentive to 'dip' into Ranger for two-weapon Fighting. Eliminating the restriction against light armor at the same time adds some flexibility to the class. There still won't be many rangers wearing heavy armor because there are many other consequences. And it may allow some heavy armor fighters to fight with two-weapons, but that would just mean we wouldn't have quite as many 2-handed fighters, despite the mechanical superiority offered (for example, the cost to upgrade 1 weapon instead of 2).
|
The simple answer to the OP's question, is that because a Ranger is a Ranger and a Fighter is a Fighter.
If you want a TWF style ranger that can use Plate, then create a class that does so.
The fighter fits a niche, the rogue fits a niche and the wizard fits a niche.
I mean why can't I take a fighter and take a level of sorcerer and then have my magic missle expended through my sword for damage?
Because that is not what a fighter or sorcerer does. They made a new class to do that (I forget which one of the 200,000 splat classes it is).
Not that there is anything wrong at all with wanting a TWF style ranger in plate. Heck I want one now!
Pathfinder has added capstone abilities for the classes, which discourages taking a dip in another class for a minor mechanical gain. I don't really see a Ranger 2/Fighter X build as any better mechanically than the equivalent Fighter level X+2 character who gets access to Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Specialization, etc. earlier.
I still haven't seen any clear example from a game balance perspective that shows why Ranger being able to use those feats in heavier armor is too powerful, or more powerful than a lightly armored Ranger (or multi-classed Ranger if you will) that has been built appropriately to exploit its class abilities.
I see. There's a nice Catch-22 going on here. If you argue that there are flavor reasons for a heavy armored FIGHTER/RANGER that uses the class abilities of both, rather than either, it's invalidated because the player is clearly to blame for creating a character with poor design. And if the you argue that there are crunch reasons for FIGHTER/RANGERS to use both class abilities, you are accused of ROLLplaying rather than privileging fluff over crunch.
The idea that a tough cop/SWAT character brawling on the front lines should be supported by the Urban Ranger class? Heresy.
So if the Dex requirement for thw two-weapon fighting tree were reduced?
A 19 Dex is supposed to be beyond human ability
Well, you can put a 17 in it and your human +2, too. But say the +2 does not exist (as is the case in 3.5).
You'd have to be superhuman to have a 19. I agree. But at level 11, I say you can expect a bit superhumanity.
Anyway, it's very true: Beyond the flavour reasons, there's game balance to be considered: If you forego ALL restrictions, a two-level dip will look great indeed.
So, as I (and others) have said: Getting rid of the armour restriction just like that is bad, but a compromise can be worked out: If you violate the armour restriction, you keep the feat, but now you must fulfill the regular prerequisites.
So you can have the ranger who learns to use heavy armour just so he can do that one stunt in the armour (that will work for about as long as it takes people to figure out that their fellow guardsman smells of forest all of a sudden ;-)), but doesn't allow the weasels an easy way to the all strength, no dex two-weapon warrior. Everyone wins, except powergamers. And they deserve that :P
|
|
Everyone wins, except powergamers. And they deserve that :P
Well, if the design is built on the premise that powergamers exist and will try to break the system, and the system accounts for that, there will be no problem with 'powergaming'. Other than the annoyance factor.
I think the Ranger example is a good place to try to explain what I'm talking about. Try to follow me here.
Imagine there is no armor restriction on the Ranger. If that is the case, there are certainly powergamers who might consider taking levels in Ranger, planning on playing a 2-weapon fighter with Dex 11 in Full Plate armor. Now, how much of a dip are we talking about? Two levels gets us the 2-weapon fighting feat, but not the improved and greater versions. So, we either have to stick with Ranger to make our armor schtick work, or we only get one extra attack each round with an off-hand weapon.
Now, the DM COULD quash this if he has a problem with it, but other than flavor reasons, what is really wrong with this? The character can't improve his two-weapon fighting style unless he takes more levels in Ranger (so it wasn't a dip), or upping his Dexterity to take the feats as normal. If he ups his Dex, he probably wants to wear a lighter armor anyways (lower Armor Check penalty, same AC). So, I fail to see how this is really broken.
Assuming that the character hits with a longsword and a shortsword attack every round, we're talking (assume 20 strength) an extra 1d6+2 points of damage (plus whatever magic the guy spends on it) to go with his 1d8+5. So, assuming both hit we're talking about 15 damage. If this 'powergamer' went with a greatsword instead, he'd be talking about 2d6+7 (average 14). That doesn't look like a big difference. Particularly when we consider that the first character has to spend more to upgrade his weapons comprably, takes a -2 on the attack, and can't gain the benefit from taking feats like 'Weapon Focus' on each weapon, unless he 'downgrades' his one-handed weapon to a light weapon.
So to reiterate, I don't see this becoming a powergamer's option, but let's assume it did.
Now, we know that in real life, people like me can wield two weapons fairly effectively. I'd be lucky if I have a Dexterity of 8, in all honesty. While I'm getting into shape, I'm over 6 feet tall and weigh over 200 pounds. So, why the high Dexterity requirement for having 2-weapon fighting? Is it to prevent characters using Strength and not giving any thought to Dexterity? I think that makes a big mistake. While I frequently am willing to sacrifice Dexterity (my next character is a cleric and had no choice, with Wisdom, Strength, Charisma, Contitution being the most important in order, with Intelligence and Dexterity about equally tied for 'I wish I had a higher score') but it is ALWAYS a sacrifice. Dexterity can impact Armor Class, several skills, Ranged Attack rolls, and most importantly - Initiative.
So, what do we lose if we take away the high Dexterity requirement for 2-weapon fighting? We lose powergamers taking levels of Ranger, since if they wanted 2-weapon fighting, they might as well take Fighter levels and get the bonus feats that they want, rather than all the 'extra stuff' that doesn't matter, like Tracking. We don't lose High Dex fighters, because there are other advantages to it, and with Weapon Finesse, your attack rolls can be quite good.
So, I think that we can lose the restriction for Rangers because it is unnecessary, not easily abused, and not really a powergamer's option.
If we remove all of the 'pointless restrictions' that are written in the rules, we can get a lot more 'page count' of good stuff. So, this is a minor quibble for me - I don't really care if Rangers can use 2-weapon in heavy armor or not, since I wouldn't do so except in extremely unusual circumstances - but I don't think the restriction needs to be kept. If other people want to play Rangers in Plate Mail, let them. It's kind of pointless, and it is kind of sub-optimal, but let them learn the hard way.
|
|
Actually I just remembered something from Unearthed Arcana (which is SRD).
With a GMs permission you can adjust classes.
A simple fix would be drop favored enemy or animal companion for Heavy Armor Proficiency. Either one seems like a fair and balanced trade to me. (I would drop Animal Companion in a heart beat- if your group is like mine Animal Companions are jokingly called "Companions" as in escorts- the jokes could get old)
Repeat after me: nobody takes the TWF ranger class for power-gaming purposes unless they are playing a rogue. Concern over power gamers on this issue is very misplaced.
|
|
I'm sorry, I thought you were familiar with the trope. For example, when Luke Skywalker and Han Solo want to sneak around the Death Star, they don't try to hide/move silent. They put Chewbaca in cuffs, and walk around the place in full (face concealing) armor.
First problem..
"I can't see anything with this helmet."
Second Problem...
But, like any good fantasy, the gig never works for long. Going back to Star Wars, their inevitable discovery or failure to maintain the ruse is a forgone conclusion. They need to try to 'fight their way out'. This is where the idea of taking away the Ranger's fighting style seems unfair.
And yet they take off the armor to escape.
And Han Solo had to use the Stormtrooper carbine.. because he had to leave his pistol behind because Stormtroopers don't carry HIS weapon.
Oh.. same with Chewbacca.. he had to use a rifle instead of his Bowcaster.
|
|
Rangers aren't Fighters, that's why you keep the armor restriction. If Rangers can wear Heavy armor, they're better then a Fighter in every way.'Nuff said. :-)
I disagree. Not better in every way.
But, assuming it were true, why not fix the fighter at the same time you fix the Ranger? A couple more skill points and a couple more class skills and the Fighter looks like a real attractive option. If you're planning on going 2-weapon, either could work, so it depends on what 'flavor' you want.
That's what's most attractive about Pathfinder. If one solution can't be implemeneted because of a problem with 'class balance' that can be addressed right now and fixed before it ever becomes a problem.
Right now it can't be fixed without a little 'power creep', but if we just put the Ranger back at d8 HD, I'd say they'd be much more on par.
|
|
Rangers aren't Fighters, that's why you keep the armor restriction. If Rangers can wear Heavy armor, they're better then a Fighter in every way.'Nuff said. :-)
Actually in PfRPG every character is already better than the fighter. While I have not looked at the NPC classes yet (no real reason to so far) I expect they are better than the fighter as well.
Rangers aren't Fighters, that's why you keep the armor restriction. If Rangers can wear Heavy armor, they're better then a Fighter in every way.'Nuff said. :-)
I'm sorry, but I find that laughable. Give me the fighter's bucket loads of feats over poor spell selection, access to weapon specialization trees over Fluffy #32, d10s over d8s, use of shields over nothing, Power Attack trees over TWF, and focused ability scores over the TWF ranger's scorching case of MAD.
Yes, you get a second good save. Yes, if you're very lucky, favored enemy will be useful. But if you're thinking of the skills you use when the druid or rogue or bard don't beat you to it or the tin can fighter or cleric don't make irrelevant with all their noise and insistence on sticking together... well, I've ranted enough about this issue on other threads.
And it's not like the fighter is particularly good in the first place.
Until he fails a bluff.... of course, the ranger doesn't get bluff as a class skill. It builds character for your favored enemy bonuses to be gimped by only having cross-class ranks in it, especially since CHA is dead last in the ranger ability score hierarchy.
Rangers aren't Fighters, that's why you keep the armor restriction. If Rangers can wear Heavy armor, they're better then a Fighter in every way.
Agreed
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.
Mithral plate counts as medium for this, that is why the armor should remain as light so they can wear mithral medium armor.
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.
Could not have said it better, thank you.
Wearing mithral medium armor should bet the best they can get.
If they REALLY wanted heavy armor there is a magical effect in farun that is called Half Weight, which makes all armor light. I personally would never allow this on any heavy armor except it it is already mithral, but it is an option.
In 1e, rangers could wear any armor, and all ranger functions (notably including the enhanced ability to surprise opponents) worked in any armor.
In 2e, rangers could wear any armor (though 2-weapon fighting, hide in shadows, and move silently were limited to studded leather or lighter).
In 3e, they came with both light and medium armor proficiency (though combat styles were limited to light).
So, 3.5's light-only approach isn't exactly defining flavor for the class, historically.
My suggestion:
1) Give them back free medium armor proficiency, as per 3.0
2) Add "use weapon style feats in medium armor" as one of the "Combat Style Feat" selections added at 6th level. (Note this avoids any dip-for-style exploitation . . . unless you consider six levels a mere dip).
Indeed, nor are free combat feats of any kind. I'll go for allowing any kind of armor, in respect for D&D history, so long as we dump combat styles, also in respect for D&D history. Granted, I don't actually want to DO that, just making a point.
Cute. Of course, the point is rather blunted when you notice you can only make it by excising the history of the game from 1989-2003, when rangers both had the ability to use heavier armor and had a two-weapon combat style. Would you like to try to make another history argument, this time not ignoring 14 years of D&D?
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 agree with flash_cxxi.
I house ruled this in one of my campaign with the added rule that they could not wear Heavy Armor including mithril. It worked just fine. This is just one case. I am not saying I have fully play tested it or research all min/max possibilities.
Sannos
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.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.
It reduces the category to medium. From the SRD
Mithral
Mithral is a very rare silvery, glistening metal that is lighter than iron but just as hard. When worked like steel, it becomes a wonderful material from which to create armor and is occasionally used for other items as well. Most mithral armors are one category lighter than normal for purposes of movement and other limitations. Heavy armors are treated as medium, and medium armors are treated as light, but light armors are still treated as light. Spell failure chances for armors and shields made from mithral are decreased by 10%, maximum Dexterity bonus is increased by 2, and armor check penalties are lessened by 3 (to a minimum of 0).
An item made from mithral weighs half as much as the same item made from other metals. In the case of weapons, this lighter weight does not change a weapon’s size category or the ease with which it can be wielded (whether it is light, one-handed, or two-handed). Items not primarily of metal are not meaningfully affected by being partially made of mithral. (A longsword can be a mithral weapon, while a scythe cannot be.)
Weapons or armors fashioned from mithral are always masterwork items as well; the masterwork cost is included in the prices given below.
Mithral has 30 hit points per inch of thickness and hardness 15.
No exception for full plate is listed and IMO Rangers in medium is fine; heavy no way without multiclassing and burning a feat
I just houseruled every ranger "virtual feat" to a simple fighter bonus feat ages ago. I like archetypes, but I dislike things which prevent players from adjusting them.
If I were going to impliment virtual feats, I would make rangers choose between archery and Spring Attack-chain feats, preferably with bonuses to Hide/Move Silently/Sneak when using either (either to return to hiding after Spring-attack or to stay hiding while making ranged attacks).
Duel-wielding is "stand and chop" fighting. This is the opposite of geruilla fighting. This never belonged in the ranger archetype.
That Aragorn did it is, to my mind, an arguement for just using open bonus feats. But hey, whichever.
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.
Dwarven cavers.
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.Dwarven cavers.
Nah, go for the pure carnage of a Dwarf Barbarian (Whirling Frenzy variant) 1/Fighter (Axe Focus and Racial Foes from substitution levels at Ftr 1 and 2) 14/Tempest 5 with Extend Rage, Extra Rage, Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting, Power Attack, Two-Weapon Pounce, and Two-Weapon Rend wielding two keen dwarven waraxes and wearing a mithral breastplate. You know you want to...
Seriously, the use of heavier armor needs to be addressed. Perhaps it could be a Combat Style option? I'd like to see more than just archery and two-weapon fighting. You could add a heavy combat style (Cleave, Medium Armor Proficiency, Overhand Chop, Power Attack; add Backswing, Great Cleave, and Heavy Armor Proficiency at 6th; add Devastating Blow and Vital Strike at 11th) fairly easily. You could also add styles for such things as mounted combat (a great way to benefit from your animal companion) or other concepts.
Perhaps it could be a Combat Style option? I'd like to see more than just archery and two-weapon fighting. You could add a heavy combat style (Cleave, Medium Armor Proficiency, Overhand Chop, Power Attack; add Backswing, Great Cleave, and Heavy Armor Proficiency at 6th; add Devastating Blow and Vital Strike at 11th) fairly easily. You could also add styles for such things as mounted combat (a great way to benefit from your animal companion) or other concepts.
There is already a system in place for letting characters develop along any of a half-dozen martial paths.
They're called bonus feats.
Slight tangent to the point of the thread, but I've freaking loved the idea of cavers ever since I read that brief blurb about them in the PHB. It's awesome that "the ranger" in Pathfinder (or at least the picture in Alpha 3) is a dwarf.
I just houseruled every ranger "virtual feat" to a simple fighter bonus feat ages ago. I like archetypes, but I dislike things which prevent players from adjusting them.
Rangers shouldn't get fighter feats. Those are for fighters.
And things like two-weapon fighter (or archer) in heavy armour will still work quite badly, since heavy armour won't let you use your dex for AC.
Duel-wielding is "stand and chop" fighting. This is the opposite of geruilla fighting. This never belonged in the ranger archetype.
It still has been a ranger option for many years now. Pathfinder won't go and take away options.
And of course a spring attack style makes even less sense with heavy armour - or even medium armour.
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.Dwarven cavers.
Nothing says that dwarves must wear heavy armour.
But something says that Rangers can only wear light armor and now it is taken as gospel?
I say that "restrictions" (which this isn't really: They can still wear them, but they won't perform as well) make a lot more sense as class abilities than racial traits.
I think the idea of a Dwarven Ranger that does wear heavy armor makes more sense than a Dwarven Barbarian (what with Barbarians not being lawful).
I think it doesn't. Rangers get ranger training, which doesn't include training in heavy armour, so rangers with heavy armour are unconventional, exotic.
But dwarves that aren't lawful are very common. Dwarves aren't "always lawful".
And, as far as we could take the discussion, there's still balance to consider. Virtual bonus feats need a prerequisite to replace the usual prerequisites, or weird things happen. For example, the ranger would become the best choice for low-dex two-weapon fighters, which I think shouldn't be the case.
It will be perfectly fine to replace the virtual restriction with the normal restriction when you go beyond your armour allowance, so you either have to wear light armour for twf OR have DEX 15. That would allow the ranger to keep the use of his feats if he goes weird and encases himself in metal.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 4
|
I don't know that it's true, but from the number of posts about "mithral armor" I'd say that perhaps mithral itself is a balance problem.
I admit that regardless of class, mithral is the most sought-after armor material in my games.
Just throwing it out there. Is mithral armor too good?
Rangers shouldn't get fighter feats. Those are for fighters.
And Samurai.
And Warmians and Unfettered and Totem Warriors.And Divine Champions (along with countless other prestige classes).
The precidence for giving other classes fighter bonus feats was set long ago. It was a good idea, and it didn't take anything away from the fighter, anymore than ranger spells take away from the druid.
We're already giving the ranger fighter bonus feats. Two-weapon Fighting and Point-blank Shot are fighter bonus feats. We're just wrapping them up in weird rules and non-balancing restrictions which add nothing to the game (other than to create the illusion that they're different from fighter bonus feats).
And as you've probably noticed, most everyone in this thread is saying that they don't like those restrictions. They want rangers wearing armor, rangers wielding longspears, rangers riding their animal companions.
You could keep adding paths, of course, until there is a feat path for every set or chain of feats that a ranger might reasonably want to take. And then you'll still have fighters dipping into ranger just to avoid prerequisites, and rangers who want to take a feat but don't because they're going to get it for free in a few levels (meaning that for now they're actually worse at archery/mounted combat/whatever than they otherwise would be), and all the other weird crap that comes with repackaging fighter feats to make them look like something different. To say nothing of how ugly all those feat progressions would look on paper.
Or you could just make it an open bonus feat every four levels.
The ranger could have his own "bonus feat list", a bit like the monk, if that would make you feel any better. But in my games I just save time and reference the fighter's list. Why write out a list of all the combat-related feats in the game when the Feats chapter already marks them out?
Nothing says that dwarves must wear heavy armour.
No. No, there isn't.
But you can stomp around in heavy armor wielding duel bastard swords and still be a damn good caver (which, like I said earlier, is my favorite ranger archetype). Not many rangers are proficient with heavy armor because that isn't part of typical ranger training, but a lot of dwarven rangers will because a lot of dwarven rangers are going to have fighter levels (it is their favored class).
You seem to have what I would call an "old school" view of character options- that is to say, a restrictive one, written in negatives rather than positives. "You're not a ranger if you do this, and you're not a monk if you do that, and..." As opposed to deciding what is a ranger and thus being open to unconventional takes on that idea.
I won't say that that way of thinking is better or worse, but it is getting less and less common. The game is kind of leaving you behind.
Rangers shouldn't get fighter feats. Those are for fighters.And Samurai.
And Warmians and Unfettered and Totem Warriors.
And Divine Champions (along with countless other prestige classes).
Samurai get samurai bonus feats, depending on their clan.
Plus, none of these things are core base classes. Some repetition can be expected if we're speaking about specialising PrCs and classes that are variations on the theme, intended to replace fighters.
But if half the classes in the core books have bonus lists that are chosen from the fighter bonus feat list, it's not really the fighter bonus feat list any more.
You seem to have what I would call an "old school" view of character options- that is to say, a restrictive one, written in negatives rather than positives.
That's wrong. I am all for options and consequences. Like: These are virtual bonus feats. You can ignore the prerequisites, but you must wear light armour at most.
I already said that I approve of a feat that gives them medium armour, and that the virtual feats could be changed so that if you wear heavier armour, you have to meet the normal prerequisites. In fact, that's less restrictive than forcing the normal restrictions on people.
I'm all in favor of some way to give the Ranger a break here, and the "if his Dex meets the requirement, let him do it" seems the best compromise (but I still wouldn't allow heavy armor, unless he took a Feat to do so).
Lets attack this problem from a different angle - do the people opposed to any sort of compromise find it fair that a ranger 10/ Fighter 10 can't use any of his Ranger abilities while in heavier armor? If he must meet the Dex and have the Two-Weapon Feat, why did he bother taking 10 levels of Ranger in the first place?
After all, his other abilites are badly gimped by his armor usage, so he basically just wasted 10 levels in this build.
I'm not sure exactly what should be done, but I am sure something must be done - perhaps say he must maintain only a two-level difference between classes, or lose the benefit? I'm not sure if that would work either, but it does stop dipping for the sake of power-gaming.
Lets attack this problem from a different angle - do the people opposed to any sort of compromise find it fair that a ranger 10/ Fighter 10 can't use any of his Ranger abilities while in heavier armor? If he must meet the Dex and have the Two-Weapon Feat, why did he bother taking 10 levels of Ranger in the first place?
After all, his other abilites are badly gimped by his armor usage, so he basically just wasted 10 levels in this build.
Because a ranger isn't just an archer or two-weapon fighter? A ranger is basically a nature-oriented warrior/scout with a dash of druid. Full BAB, 6 + Int mod skills, Track as a bonus feat, Wild Empathy and other nature-oriented abilities, plus Animal Companion and spellcasting at 4th level. The Combat Style feats are only part of it. If you want to play a tank who fights with two-weapons, ranger is not the best option (even with some levels of fighter), although a mithral breastplate gives pretty decent protection for 4,200 gp (+5 AC, +5 Max Dex).
I am even that radical and say: Put away those stupid ranger combat styles and concentrate on hunting, scouting and survival. That's still enough to work with!
Everyone as shown in this thread get an opinion and none of them are really right or wrong they are just different from the other.
Now the armor penalties are easy enough if you don’t like them then go ahead and house-rule them out of existence or leave them if you like them.
I like the idea of the penalty mostly out of habit but for a few flavor reasons as well; I think that a woodsman in full plate or the equivalent is just ridiculous. Just seems like a funny picture in my mind’s eye. Even the dwarven ranger in the tunnels seems odd in heavy armor because it is hard to be stealthy in metal on stone. The main point behind a ranger is mobility and stealth. I can see other types but these are not the norm nor are they the iconic ranger that comes to mind when you say ranger to most people.
Also the idea of someone in heavy armor which have a DEX penalty using a DEX heavy feat seems a little on power gaming to me. I figured that if you have to have a DEX of 15 then you should be able to use the +2 bonus you get in the armor. This I think may be the main reason behind the rule of not being able to wear the other armors.
With that being said I can see some of the medium armor being allowed. Mostly scale mail but that is only because IMHO believe it to belong in the heavy category.
With all that said I think the ranger is still a mobile stealthy hit from the shadows gorilla type class.