Ranger - Medium Armor

[DougErvin]

One of the things rangers lost in the transition from 3.0 to 3.5 was the medium armor proficiency. The problem is the loss of hide armor as a viable armor type. In a hunter gatherer society rangers, barbarians and druids are going to dominate the tribes for professions. In such a society leather armor, studded leather (with bone or wood for the studs) and hide armor are going to be the major armor types. For this reason alone I recommend giving rangers medium armor proficiency.

Thanks,
Doug

[lastknightleft]

The problem is that they will then use that medium armor proficiency and never actually use hide armour, I know I wouldn't you'd be better off just asking that hide armour specifically be added to ranger proficiency than the entire mileu.

[Stereofm]

DougErvin wrote:

For this reason alone I recommend giving rangers medium armor proficiency.

Thanks,
Doug

I second this. (For other reasons).

In earlier editions, Aragorn from LOTR was often thought of as the archetypical ranger. Does he looks like limited to EDIT : LIGHT armor ?

Nope.

[Xaaon of Xen'Drik]

I've also advocated for Medium class armors also...with the exclusion of Mithral Heavy Armors...Rangers fall behind because of their low AC. Their Weapon styles and favored enemies don't make up for the lack of armor.

[DougErvin]

The only problem with asking for hide armor specifically is the problem of elven rangers and non-mithral elven chainmail. Then we get into the discussion of another special rule for either elves or rangers getting proficiency with elven chainmail.

Doug

[Iziak]

DougErvin wrote:

One of the things rangers lost in the transition from 3.0 to 3.5 was the medium armor proficiency. The problem is the loss of hide armor as a viable armor type. In a hunter gatherer society rangers, barbarians and druids are going to dominate the tribes for professions. In such a society leather armor, studded leather (with bone or wood for the studs) and hide armor are going to be the major armor types. For this reason alone I recommend giving rangers medium armor proficiency.

Agreed, rangers should be proficient with Hide armor... although I actually think that there was a Light form of Hide armor in the Rise of the Runelords Player's Guide that never made it into the Beta. I think that the Hide Shirt, if that's what it was called, would be a better idea than allowing rangers full access to all Medium armor, because Medium armor has the speed penalty that really wouldn't make sense for a ranger.

[lastknightleft]

DougErvin wrote:

The only problem with asking for hide armor specifically is the problem of elven rangers and non-mithral elven chainmail. Then we get into the discussion of another special rule for either elves or rangers getting proficiency with elven chainmail.

Doug

There's no such thing as non-mithral elven chain mail. If a ranger wants to wear chainmail they get mithral.

[Tholas]

I imagine any not dexterity centered Ranger would go for a Mithral Full Plate, and that doesn't seem right for me:

AC: 10 base + 8 armor + enchantment(max 5) + dex(max 3) = 26

Without at least three fighter levels he can't hope to match that AC with an Elven Chain(24) or Mithral Brestplate(25) or Mithral Chain Shirt(25). Only Bracers of Armor +8 and a dexterity bonus of +8 could match that.

So I wouldn't recommend giving Ranger full medium Armor proficiency. Maybe he could get explicit proficiency in of each the normal three medium armor types but I don't think any Ranger with a bit of cash to spend would wear it, the mithral/elven light armor types are just too good.

[Jason Nelson]

Tholas wrote:

I imagine any not dexterity centered Ranger would go for a Mithral Full Plate, and that doesn't seem right for me:

AC: 10 base + 8 armor + enchantment(max 5) + dex(max 3) = 26

He can't hope to match that AC with an Elven Chain(24) or Mithral Brestplate(25) or Mithral Chain Shirt(25). Only Bracers of Armor +8 and a dexterity bonus of +8 could match that.

So I wouldn't recommend giving Ranger full medium Armor proficiency. Maybe he could get explicit proficiency in of each the normal three medium armor types but I don't think any Ranger with a bit of cash to spend would wear it, the mithral/elven light armor types are just too good.

That would only be true if he wanted to kick the use of his combat styles (and evasion if he's high enough level), which don't work if he ain't in light armor (which mithril FP ain't).

[DougErvin]

lastknightleft wrote:

DougErvin wrote:

The only problem with asking for hide armor specifically is the problem of elven rangers and non-mithral elven chainmail. Then we get into the discussion of another special rule for either elves or rangers getting proficiency with elven chainmail.

Doug

There's no such thing as non-mithral elven chain mail. If a ranger wants to wear chainmail they get mithral.

In the Kingdom of Kalamar which is my preferred setting elven chainmail is the result of a racial manufactoring technique. Elven chainmail can be made from steel, high grade steel (+1 to AC), mithral or adamatine. Three of these are simply medium armor.

BTW, when we get to the equipment portion of the play test I plan on debating the issue that making an armor out of mithral should not allow a character without being proficient in that armor type to use it as if it were a lighter grade of armor. The reduction in weight and movement penalty are enough of a beneift.

Doug

[Tholas]

Jason Nelson wrote:

That would only be true if he wanted to kick the use of his combat styles (and evasion if he's high enough level), which don't work if he ain't in light armor (which mithril FP ain't).

Yes, of course. I silently assumed that a hypotetical medium armor proficiency included an adaption of his abilities.

[Tholas]

DougErvin wrote:

BTW, when we get to the equipment portion of the play test I plan on debating the issue that making an armor out of mithral should not allow a character without being proficient in that armor type to use it as if it were a lighter grade of armor. The reduction in weight and movement penalty are enough of a beneift.

Now that is brilliant.

[Xaaon of Xen'Drik]

I'll chime in on that as well...when the equipment section comes under scrutiny.

[Jason Nelson]

DougErvin wrote:

lastknightleft wrote:

DougErvin wrote:

The only problem with asking for hide armor specifically is the problem of elven rangers and non-mithral elven chainmail. Then we get into the discussion of another special rule for either elves or rangers getting proficiency with elven chainmail.

Doug

There's no such thing as non-mithral elven chain mail. If a ranger wants to wear chainmail they get mithral.

In the Kingdom of Kalamar which is my preferred setting elven chainmail is the result of a racial manufactoring technique. Elven chainmail can be made from steel, high grade steel (+1 to AC), mithral or adamatine. Three of these are simply medium armor.

BTW, when we get to the equipment portion of the play test I plan on debating the issue that making an armor out of mithral should not allow a character without being proficient in that armor type to use it as if it were a lighter grade of armor. The reduction in weight and movement penalty are enough of a beneift.

Doug

Hear hear. I'm on that boat with you.

[Sannos]

DougErvin wrote:

BTW, when we get to the equipment portion of the play test I plan on debating the issue that making an armor out of mithral should not allow a character without being proficient in that armor type to use it as if it were a lighter grade of armor. The reduction in weight and movement penalty are enough of a beneift.
Doug

Brilliant Idea!! I was thinking of removing mithral from games that I GM, but now I don't have too.

I agree that Ranger should have some way to get to use Medium Armor Proficiency.

Here my reasoning…

First, Ranger have Full BAB and d10 Hit Dice, therefore they are definitely a martial class.

Second, A Wizard with Armor Proficiency, Light, Arcane Armor Training and Arcane Armor Mastery feats can have the same armor class as my Ranger and the wizard still can cast spells. Yes, I understand they have to use a swift action and it takes 3 feats.

So my suggestion is to give Ranger there Medium armor back, or create a feat that they can take to use medium armor with they abilities or add a third option to Hunter's Bond to allow medium armor.

[Kirth Gersen]

I'm sort of not seeing any game-breaking abuse in allowing a ranger to wear, say, scale mail.

[JahellTheBard]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

I'm sort of not seeing any game-breaking abuse in allowing a ranger to wear, say, scale mail.

I agree for medium armor ...

[Jason Bulmahn]

DougErvin wrote:

BTW, when we get to the equipment portion of the play test I plan on debating the issue that making an armor out of mithral should not allow a character without being proficient in that armor type to use it as if it were a lighter grade of armor. The reduction in weight and movement penalty are enough of a beneift.

Doug,

This is a solid point and one that I agree with. Please remind me of this when we get to magic items.

As for rangers and Medium armor, I am weighing the thought and need to chat with some of the folks in the office tomorrow on this one.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

[Kalyth]

Do Rangers still loose their bonus fighting style feats when using heavier than Light Armor? I always thought this was wierd sinse nothing in the feats themselves have this limitation. If the ranger learns the Medium Armor proficiency or multiclasses to gain it why should they loose feats that are not dependent on light armor (only the ranger class imposes that limit.) It would require a multi-class ranger/fighter to take his own fighting style feats a second time just to benefit from them in a situation where EVERYONE else that can use Medium/Heavy armor can already benefit from them.

[Larry Lichman]

Kalyth wrote:

Do Rangers still loose their bonus fighting style feats when using heavier than Light Armor? I always thought this was wierd sinse nothing in the feats themselves have this limitation. If the ranger learns the Medium Armor proficiency or multiclasses to gain it why should they loose feats that are not dependent on light armor (only the ranger class imposes that limit.) It would require a multi-class ranger/fighter to take his own fighting style feats a second time just to benefit from them in a situation where EVERYONE else that can use Medium/Heavy armor can already benefit from them.

I have no problem with keeping the armor restriction for Rangers to Light. However, I would agree with a class exception to allow Hide Armor ONLY to the proficiency list.

Ranger feats require that the Ranger be mobile and agile. It's hard to fight with 2 weapons, or fire multiple shots from a bow if you're wearing medium or heavy armor, as the weight alone would slow you down. (FYI, the Ranger doesn't lose the feats, he just can't use them until he loses the medium armor).

And the Ranger isn't the only class adversely affected (potentially) by opting for proficiency in an armor that is heavier than Light. The Rogue has the same type of drawback, only it applies to his skills (the class' strength) rather than feats. Sure, a Rogue can take Medium or Heavy Armor Proficiency, but it's going to hinder his ability to use his stock-in-trade skills that require stealth or guile.

And don't forget the arcane casters. They, too, can select an armor proficiency, but it adversely affects their class ability to cast spells.

In all of these cases, the class can still opt to be proficient in armor that is normally outside of their class abilities, but there is a trade off. I don't think the Ranger is being singled out at all here.

[Kalyth]

Larry Lichman wrote:

Kalyth wrote:

Do Rangers still loose their bonus fighting style feats when using heavier than Light Armor? I always thought this was wierd sinse nothing in the feats themselves have this limitation. If the ranger learns the Medium Armor proficiency or multiclasses to gain it why should they loose feats that are not dependent on light armor (only the ranger class imposes that limit.) It would require a multi-class ranger/fighter to take his own fighting style feats a second time just to benefit from them in a situation where EVERYONE else that can use Medium/Heavy armor can already benefit from them.

I have no problem with keeping the armor restriction for Rangers to Light. However, I would agree with a class exception to allow Hide Armor ONLY to the proficiency list.

Ranger feats require that the Ranger be mobile and agile. It's hard to fight with 2 weapons, or fire multiple shots from a bow if you're wearing medium or heavy armor, as the weight alone would slow you down. (FYI, the Ranger doesn't lose the feats, he just can't use them until he loses the medium armor).

And the Ranger isn't the only class adversely affected (potentially) by opting for proficiency in an armor that is heavier than Light. The Rogue has the same type of drawback, only it applies to his skills (the class' strength) rather than feats. Sure, a Rogue can take Medium or Heavy Armor Proficiency, but it's going to hinder his ability to use his stock-in-trade skills that require stealth or guile.

And don't forget the arcane casters. They, too, can select an armor proficiency, but it adversely affects their class ability to cast spells.

In all of these cases, the class can still opt to be proficient in armor that is normally outside of their class abilities, but there is a trade off. I don't think the Ranger is being singled out at all here.

I know everyone suffers penalties to using medium/heavy armor to skills, etc.. heres an example of what I mean.

A Rogue takes two weapon fighting. The rogue then also takes the medium armor feat. The rogue puts on medium armor to infultrate an enemy camp disguised as a guard. The rogue CAN still use his two weapon fighting feats.

A Ranger has two weapon fighting (from fighting style). The ranger then also takes the medium armor feat. The Ranger puts on medium armor to infultrate an enemy camp disquised as a guard. The ranger CAN NOT use his two weapon fighting feats.

The ranger's fighting style grants him the feats but with the limitation that they only work in light armor. Anyone else that takes the two weapon fighting feats can still use them regardless of what armor they are wearing. Heck they can even still use the two weapon fighting feats if they are not even proficient in the medium or heavy armor they are wearing they just take a penalty. The ranger can not use his two weapon fighting at all.

Its kind of like if the rules said rogues can't use rogue class skills while wearing armor heavier than light but anyone that takes those same skills as non-class skills is free to use them without restiction regardless of the type of armor worn. Sure everyone would apply the armor check penalties for what ever armor they were wearing to the skills, but rogues would be restricted even worse than people who dont have those skills as class skills.

Not a perfect example but just trying to clarify how Im seeing it.

Or how about Evasion. I think Evasion requires that you have to wear light or no armor to use it right? What if it was availible as a feat that did not have that restriction. A fighter could take it and use it in full-plate armor. Heck a wizard could even take the feat and use it in full-plate armor even if he wasnt proficient in Heavy armor. But the rogue who has it as a class feature must wear light or no armor inorder to use his Evasion. Just seems to be overly restricting something that is supposed to be a bonus to rangers.

The feats should just be flat out free feats.

The monk bonus feats dont bare a similar restiction to the ranger bonus feats. So while the monk may loose alot of his class features if he wears armor he still retains the use of all of his bonus feats (save if the feat itself can not normally be used while wearing armor). But the monk isnt more restricted in the feats use than anyone else that took the feat normally.

[Dan Davis]

Giving rangers access to heavier armor won't change the fact that their specific two-weapon fighting ability will be nerfed if they wear it, but keep in mind that a ranger can take armor proficiency (medium) as a feat if they want to.

I would be in favor of removing the light armor only restriction from their two-weapon fighting ability so that they COULD take armor proficiency (medium) to fully gain its benefit.

[Dennis da Ogre]

Larry Lichman wrote:

I have no problem with keeping the armor restriction for Rangers to Light. However, I would agree with a class exception to allow Hide Armor ONLY to the proficiency list.

I don't get this at all. This is an addition to the rules which would never get used. Never. The only reason hide armor is in the rules at all is to give low level druids a small AC bump. Rangers have access to Studded Leather and Chain Shirts which are both vastly better than hide.

I get the role play end of things but leather armor (or studded for that matter) makes just as much sense for a tribal ranger and the AC is only 1 lower while the ranger maintains full movement. Studded leather the AC is the same, better movement, better everything.

Incidentally what sort of weapons would said ranger use? Spear + wooden shield? Shortbow maybe?

That said... I wouldn't mind just giving the ranger medium armor entirely. I just think making an exception for hide armor is silly.

[Sannos]

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

DougErvin wrote:

BTW, when we get to the equipment portion of the play test I plan on debating the issue that making an armor out of mithral should not allow a character without being proficient in that armor type to use it as if it were a lighter grade of armor. The reduction in weight and movement penalty are enough of a beneift.

Doug,

This is a solid point and one that I agree with. Please remind me of this when we get to magic items.

As for rangers and Medium armor, I am weighing the thought and need to chat with some of the folks in the office tomorrow on this one.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

I am curious on what you decided.

[Quandary]

And like Iziak mentioned, the RotRL introduced a Light Armor Hide Shirt (that's better all around)
This just needs to be put into the Core Equipment, and Rangers have a "rustic" Light Armor better than Leather.

[Samuel Weiss]

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

DougErvin wrote:

BTW, when we get to the equipment portion of the play test I plan on debating the issue that making an armor out of mithral should not allow a character without being proficient in that armor type to use it as if it were a lighter grade of armor. The reduction in weight and movement penalty are enough of a beneift.

Doug,

This is a solid point and one that I agree with. Please remind me of this when we get to magic items.

As for rangers and Medium armor, I am weighing the thought and need to chat with some of the folks in the office tomorrow on this one.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Just as a note, that is actually a RAW/RAI/FAQ issue that has come up in the past.

As written, mithral states:
"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."
The question is, what exactly are those "other limitations"?
That this is not clear is acknowledged in the FAQ (page 51 of the final FAQ), which admits that the DMG is "less precise than it could be". It suggests simply treating the armor as a lower category, even though that "isn't exactly" what the rules says.
This was effectively made the standard rule with the armor table in Races of the Wild. Of course that book is not OGL, though it does support RAI.

So even though "everyone" just treats the armors as being fully of the lower type, and that was eventually made the revised non-OGL rule, it should not be taken as that open and shut. That might actually be how it should be, and everyone has handwaved it off for ease of use all these years.
Of course, I would hazard that checking RAI is as simple as asking Monte Cook what he intended. :-P

Hopefully I will remember to mention this again when you get to magic items. :)