paizo.com Recent Posts in Barbarians and Rangers not proficient with shields: what do you think of it?paizo.com Recent Posts in Barbarians and Rangers not proficient with shields: what do you think of it?2018-09-19T18:47:37Z2018-09-19T18:47:37ZRe: Forums: Classes: Barbarians and Rangers not proficient with shields: what do you think of it?The Narrationhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42a0b?Barbarians-and-Rangers-not-proficient-with#392018-09-21T05:48:35Z2018-09-20T13:03:27Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Data Lore wrote:</div><blockquote>Drizzt didnt use one.</blockquote><p>Drizzt didn't, but his fighting style was supposed to be unique, not a benchmark for all other rangers going forward.
<p>Drizzt's ranger mentor <i>did</i> use a shield.</p>Data Lore wrote:Drizzt didnt use one.
Drizzt didn't, but his fighting style was supposed to be unique, not a benchmark for all other rangers going forward. Drizzt's ranger mentor did use a shield.The Narration2018-09-20T13:03:27ZRe: Forums: Classes: Barbarians and Rangers not proficient with shields: what do you think of it?Vosshttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42a0b?Barbarians-and-Rangers-not-proficient-with#382018-09-21T05:48:14Z2018-09-19T23:55:09Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">thorin001 wrote:</div><blockquote> Since barbarians are supposed to use 2-handed weapons and rangers are supposed to use crossbows what use do they have for shields? </blockquote><p>They want to be full fledged classes and not just crossbow guy and big sword girl?thorin001 wrote:Since barbarians are supposed to use 2-handed weapons and rangers are supposed to use crossbows what use do they have for shields?
They want to be full fledged classes and not just crossbow guy and big sword girl?Voss2018-09-19T23:55:09ZRe: Forums: Classes: Barbarians and Rangers not proficient with shields: what do you think of it?thorin001https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42a0b?Barbarians-and-Rangers-not-proficient-with#372018-09-19T16:32:43Z2018-09-19T16:32:43Z<p>Since barbarians are supposed to use 2-handed weapons and rangers are supposed to use crossbows what use do they have for shields?</p>Since barbarians are supposed to use 2-handed weapons and rangers are supposed to use crossbows what use do they have for shields?thorin0012018-09-19T16:32:43ZRe: Forums: Classes: Barbarians and Rangers not proficient with shields: what do you think of it?LordVanyahttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42a0b?Barbarians-and-Rangers-not-proficient-with#362018-09-22T02:14:01Z2018-09-19T04:23:14Z<p>Basic shield use is very simple to pick up on with minimal effort. Martials without basic shield proficiency is dumb.
<br />
And the cost of a general feat is not low when you stop to consider you only get 5 and they don't even start coming in until level 3.</p>
<p>You know, with all the things they took away from the Ranger it kind of make me wonder what exactly they spend all their training time on exactly?</p>Basic shield use is very simple to pick up on with minimal effort. Martials without basic shield proficiency is dumb.
And the cost of a general feat is not low when you stop to consider you only get 5 and they don't even start coming in until level 3.
You know, with all the things they took away from the Ranger it kind of make me wonder what exactly they spend all their training time on exactly?LordVanya2018-09-19T04:23:14ZRe: Forums: Classes: Barbarians and Rangers not proficient with shields: what do you think of it?Data Lore (alias of Datalore)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42a0b?Barbarians-and-Rangers-not-proficient-with#352018-09-19T12:16:01Z2018-09-19T02:45:49Z<p>I guess we have to agree to disagree. I see no problem with proficiency feats.</p>I guess we have to agree to disagree. I see no problem with proficiency feats.Data Lore (alias of Datalore)2018-09-19T02:45:49ZRe: Forums: Classes: Barbarians and Rangers not proficient with shields: what do you think of it?Rules Artificerhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42a0b?Barbarians-and-Rangers-not-proficient-with#342018-09-19T04:18:05Z2018-09-19T02:41:44Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Data Lore wrote:</div><blockquote> There is value in defining the theme and then giving folks the option to step beyond for a cost as opposed to making everyone feel the same by giving them the same slate of features. </blockquote><p>I fully agree, with the exception that I draw the line for "stepping beyond for a cost" <i>beyond</i> just being able to do a thing.
<p>Like wanting to multiclass Fighter to pick up some shield feats or multiclassing Paladin (eventually) to get a divinely powerful shield.</p>Data Lore wrote:There is value in defining the theme and then giving folks the option to step beyond for a cost as opposed to making everyone feel the same by giving them the same slate of features.
I fully agree, with the exception that I draw the line for "stepping beyond for a cost" beyond just being able to do a thing. Like wanting to multiclass Fighter to pick up some shield feats or multiclassing Paladin (eventually) to get a divinely powerful shield.Rules Artificer2018-09-19T02:41:44ZRe: Forums: Classes: Barbarians and Rangers not proficient with shields: what do you think of it?Paradozenhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42a0b?Barbarians-and-Rangers-not-proficient-with#332018-09-19T02:42:19Z2018-09-19T02:40:28Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">N N 959 wrote:</div><blockquote><div class="messageboard-quotee">Paradozen wrote:</div><blockquote>I'd seen shield and sword rangers before in PF1, largely because ranger was flat-better at shields with the sword and shield fighting style. </blockquote>Exactly. The sword & board Ranger was fun to play. Did it step on any toes? I don't see how and as others have mentioned, the TWF theme works really well with a shield in the off-hand. </blockquote><p>Well, in PF1 it did and it didn't. Mostly when I went for sword and shield, I would ignore the option to TWF with a shield and just focus on the weakened attacks with a one-handed sword. But I've heard people complain along the lines of rangers getting the good shield feats 4-5 levels earlier than fighters or paladins (more iconic shielded warriors, in their minds). Specifically, shield slam and shield mastery were earlier than anyone else. Didn't bother me as much though.
<p>PF2 almost certainly won't have that problem if they give rangers shields though. Unless they also took away all the cool shield feats fighters get and gave them to rangers.</p>N N 959 wrote:Paradozen wrote:I'd seen shield and sword rangers before in PF1, largely because ranger was flat-better at shields with the sword and shield fighting style.
Exactly. The sword & board Ranger was fun to play. Did it step on any toes? I don't see how and as others have mentioned, the TWF theme works really well with a shield in the off-hand. Well, in PF1 it did and it didn't. Mostly when I went for sword and shield, I would ignore the option to TWF with a shield and just focus on...Paradozen2018-09-19T02:40:28ZRe: Forums: Classes: Barbarians and Rangers not proficient with shields: what do you think of it?Data Lore (alias of Datalore)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42a0b?Barbarians-and-Rangers-not-proficient-with#322018-09-19T01:40:27Z2018-09-19T01:40:27Z<p>I guess I would disagree the current implementation isnt inclusive since for the low price of a general feat you can get shield proficiency.</p>
<p>One of the things I would call out PF2 for doing well, is that racial weapon proficiency feats and feats like shield proficiency actually feel valuable because not everyone that would want such a proficiency gets it for free.</p>
<p>There is value in defining the theme and then giving folks the option to step beyond for a cost as opposed to making everyone feel the same by giving them the same slate of features.</p>I guess I would disagree the current implementation isnt inclusive since for the low price of a general feat you can get shield proficiency.
One of the things I would call out PF2 for doing well, is that racial weapon proficiency feats and feats like shield proficiency actually feel valuable because not everyone that would want such a proficiency gets it for free.
There is value in defining the theme and then giving folks the option to step beyond for a cost as opposed to making everyone...Data Lore (alias of Datalore)2018-09-19T01:40:27ZRe: Forums: Classes: Barbarians and Rangers not proficient with shields: what do you think of it?Rules Artificerhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42a0b?Barbarians-and-Rangers-not-proficient-with#312018-09-19T04:14:09Z2018-09-19T01:25:58Z<p>My design philosophy is always <i>in</i>clusive, not <i>ex</i>clusive.
<br />
Rangers and Barbarians having shield proficiency opens up more options and doesn't restrict those who want to not use them.</p>
<p>Fighters and Paladins would still remain better with shields defensively due to class feats.</p>My design philosophy is always inclusive, not exclusive.
Rangers and Barbarians having shield proficiency opens up more options and doesn't restrict those who want to not use them.
Fighters and Paladins would still remain better with shields defensively due to class feats.Rules Artificer2018-09-19T01:25:58ZRe: Forums: Classes: Barbarians and Rangers not proficient with shields: what do you think of it?Data Lore (alias of Datalore)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42a0b?Barbarians-and-Rangers-not-proficient-with#302018-09-18T23:42:44Z2018-09-18T23:39:05Z<p>Clerics are often portrayed as more heavily armored and Druids are not scouts so much as wanderers. Either of them coming stock with shield proficiency is well within their thematic archetype.</p>
<p>You are assuming shield use is a byproduct of martial competency - which I dont think it is. Why then do monks not have shield proficiency? Rogues?</p>
<p>You make a strong point of comparison by noting the Bard. I would rather he not have shield proficiency stock though. Still, I can see it as the Bard is a kind of Jack of All Trades.</p>
<p>•shrug•</p>Clerics are often portrayed as more heavily armored and Druids are not scouts so much as wanderers. Either of them coming stock with shield proficiency is well within their thematic archetype.
You are assuming shield use is a byproduct of martial competency - which I dont think it is. Why then do monks not have shield proficiency? Rogues?
You make a strong point of comparison by noting the Bard. I would rather he not have shield proficiency stock though. Still, I can see it as the Bard is a...Data Lore (alias of Datalore)2018-09-18T23:39:05ZRe: Forums: Classes: Barbarians and Rangers not proficient with shields: what do you think of it?Mudfoothttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42a0b?Barbarians-and-Rangers-not-proficient-with#292018-09-19T04:12:50Z2018-09-18T23:23:48Z<p>Rangers and Barbarians should have shield proficiency because using a shield is really frickin' easy, and a basic way to fight in all cultures. In PF1, warriors and aristocrats (NPCs!) got proficiency with all types of shield, and rangers and barbarians are better than them. And in PF2, even bards, clerics and druids get shields.</p>
<p>Someone really was not joining the dots here.</p>Rangers and Barbarians should have shield proficiency because using a shield is really frickin' easy, and a basic way to fight in all cultures. In PF1, warriors and aristocrats (NPCs!) got proficiency with all types of shield, and rangers and barbarians are better than them. And in PF2, even bards, clerics and druids get shields.
Someone really was not joining the dots here.Mudfoot2018-09-18T23:23:48ZRe: Forums: Classes: Barbarians and Rangers not proficient with shields: what do you think of it?Data Lore (alias of Datalore)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42a0b?Barbarians-and-Rangers-not-proficient-with#282018-09-19T18:47:37Z2018-09-18T21:53:35Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">N N 959 wrote:</div><blockquote> I don't care if you're convinced. </blockquote><p>OkN N 959 wrote:I don't care if you're convinced.
OkData Lore (alias of Datalore)2018-09-18T21:53:35ZRe: Forums: Classes: Barbarians and Rangers not proficient with shields: what do you think of it?N N 959https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42a0b?Barbarians-and-Rangers-not-proficient-with#272018-09-20T22:12:42Z2018-09-18T21:52:41Z<p>I don't care if you're convinced.</p>I don't care if you're convinced.N N 9592018-09-18T21:52:41ZRe: Forums: Classes: Barbarians and Rangers not proficient with shields: what do you think of it?Data Lore (alias of Datalore)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42a0b?Barbarians-and-Rangers-not-proficient-with#262018-09-18T21:56:12Z2018-09-18T21:45:48Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">N N 959 wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Here is the AD&D picture of Ranger that accompanied the class in the Players Handbook</p>
<p><a href="https://i.pinimg.com/originals/3a/3a/61/3a3a61e3eaccac4194b5855a7f45f3eb.jpg" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">AD&D depicted Ranger with shield</a></p>
<p>There is nothing thematically wrong with a Ranger having a shield. </blockquote><p>If your one true guide is ADnD, they need to limit you to one attack unless your a fighter fighting low cr enemies. Also, clerics should only be able to attack with blunt weapons, nonhumans should be level capped and a bunch of other foolishness.
<p>Nope, sorry, still not convinced.</p>N N 959 wrote:Here is the AD&D picture of Ranger that accompanied the class in the Players Handbook
AD&D depicted Ranger with shield
There is nothing thematically wrong with a Ranger having a shield.
If your one true guide is ADnD, they need to limit you to one attack unless your a fighter fighting low cr enemies. Also, clerics should only be able to attack with blunt weapons, nonhumans should be level capped and a bunch of other foolishness. Nope, sorry, still not convinced.Data Lore (alias of Datalore)2018-09-18T21:45:48ZRe: Forums: Classes: Barbarians and Rangers not proficient with shields: what do you think of it?N N 959https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42a0b?Barbarians-and-Rangers-not-proficient-with#252018-09-19T01:22:49Z2018-09-18T21:42:11Z<p>Here is the AD&D picture of Ranger that accompanied the class in the Players Handbook</p>
<p><a href="https://i.pinimg.com/originals/3a/3a/61/3a3a61e3eaccac4194b5855a7f45f3eb.jpg" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">AD&D depicted Ranger with shield</a></p>
<p>There is nothing thematically wrong with a Ranger having a shield.</p>Here is the AD&D picture of Ranger that accompanied the class in the Players Handbook
AD&D depicted Ranger with shield
There is nothing thematically wrong with a Ranger having a shield.N N 9592018-09-18T21:42:11ZRe: Forums: Classes: Barbarians and Rangers not proficient with shields: what do you think of it?Data Lore (alias of Datalore)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42a0b?Barbarians-and-Rangers-not-proficient-with#242018-09-18T21:57:10Z2018-09-18T21:12:56Z<p>Lol, settle down now.</p>
<p>Also, are you actually arguing a class that gets numerous feats focused on stealth and perception isn't a scout because that wasn't in a blurb?</p>
<p>Haha.</p>
<p>Also...</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote>You might be a scout, tracker, or hunter of fugitives or beasts, haunting the edge of civilization or exploring the wilds. Living off the land, you are skilled at spotting and taking down both opportune prey and hated enemies. -page 112</blockquote><p>Hmm, anywho, I think Paizo has it right for the Ranger but should probably give shield profiency to the Barbarian. The character concepts fit best that way. You disagree because mechanics or whatever. Just fill out the class survey and specify as much.Lol, settle down now.
Also, are you actually arguing a class that gets numerous feats focused on stealth and perception isn't a scout because that wasn't in a blurb?
Haha.
Also...
Quote:You might be a scout, tracker, or hunter of fugitives or beasts, haunting the edge of civilization or exploring the wilds. Living off the land, you are skilled at spotting and taking down both opportune prey and hated enemies. -page 112
Hmm, anywho, I think Paizo has it right for the Ranger but should...Data Lore (alias of Datalore)2018-09-18T21:12:56ZRe: Forums: Classes: Barbarians and Rangers not proficient with shields: what do you think of it?N N 959https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42a0b?Barbarians-and-Rangers-not-proficient-with#232018-09-19T02:26:57Z2018-09-18T21:06:31Z<p>Here is the "Role" of the Ranger as defined in the Core Rulebook</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">PRD wrote:</div><blockquote>Role: Rangers are deft skirmishers, either in melee or at range, capable of skillfully dancing in and out of battle. Their abilities allow them to deal significant harm to specific types of foes, but their skills are valuable against all manner of enemies.</blockquote><p>There is nothing in there that aligns with your notion of Stealth and crawling around on one's belly. There is nothing about the Role of the Ranger that precludes shield use/proficiency.
<p>Go bark up another tree.</p>Here is the "Role" of the Ranger as defined in the Core Rulebook
PRD wrote:Role: Rangers are deft skirmishers, either in melee or at range, capable of skillfully dancing in and out of battle. Their abilities allow them to deal significant harm to specific types of foes, but their skills are valuable against all manner of enemies.
There is nothing in there that aligns with your notion of Stealth and crawling around on one's belly. There is nothing about the Role of the Ranger that precludes...N N 9592018-09-18T21:06:31ZRe: Forums: Classes: Barbarians and Rangers not proficient with shields: what do you think of it?Data Lore (alias of Datalore)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42a0b?Barbarians-and-Rangers-not-proficient-with#222018-09-18T21:57:48Z2018-09-18T21:02:47Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote>You have an idealized concept of what Rangers do and it has little or nothing to do with how the game actually works/plays, irrespective of mechanics.</blockquote><p>Those thematics have everything to do with how proficiencies are assigned. If mechanical limitations were the only arbiter here, then rogues should have shield proficiency - and wizards, and sorcerers, and so on.
<p>How the game actually works/plays is informed by mechanics that are derived from concepts which get boiled down into these things called classes, after all.</p>Quote:You have an idealized concept of what Rangers do and it has little or nothing to do with how the game actually works/plays, irrespective of mechanics.
Those thematics have everything to do with how proficiencies are assigned. If mechanical limitations were the only arbiter here, then rogues should have shield proficiency - and wizards, and sorcerers, and so on. How the game actually works/plays is informed by mechanics that are derived from concepts which get boiled down into these...Data Lore (alias of Datalore)2018-09-18T21:02:47ZRe: Forums: Classes: Barbarians and Rangers not proficient with shields: what do you think of it?N N 959https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42a0b?Barbarians-and-Rangers-not-proficient-with#212018-09-19T01:22:20Z2018-09-18T20:57:55Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Data Lore wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote>So while I can certainly see where you are coming from, that's not how the game is played. My sword and shield Ranger has never had a situation where his shield got in the way fo his doing Ranger stuff.</blockquote>The mechanics of a previous game has little to do with how the thematics of its successor are framed. There are tangible thematic reasons why rangers do not have shield proficiency. Niche builds associated with PF1 are, frankly, a nonissue for me. </blockquote><p>I don't think you're understanding me. There is no Ranger actions that are incompatible with using/carrying a shield. You have an idealized concept of what Rangers do and it has little or nothing to do with how the game actually works/plays, irrespective of mechanics.
<p>On top of that, Sword and Shield Ranger is not a "niche build." It's one of the Combat Style offered along THF, TWF, and archery. In fact, the "Weapon and Shield" combat Style appeared in the <i>Advanced Player's Guide</i> along with the Crossbow, Mounted, Natural Weapon, and Two-Handed styles.</p>Data Lore wrote:Quote:So while I can certainly see where you are coming from, that's not how the game is played. My sword and shield Ranger has never had a situation where his shield got in the way fo his doing Ranger stuff.
The mechanics of a previous game has little to do with how the thematics of its successor are framed. There are tangible thematic reasons why rangers do not have shield proficiency. Niche builds associated with PF1 are, frankly, a nonissue for me. I don't think you're...N N 9592018-09-18T20:57:55ZRe: Forums: Classes: Barbarians and Rangers not proficient with shields: what do you think of it?Data Lore (alias of Datalore)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42a0b?Barbarians-and-Rangers-not-proficient-with#202018-09-18T21:58:12Z2018-09-18T20:18:08Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote>So while I can certainly see where you are coming from, that's not how the game is played. My sword and shield Ranger has never had a situation where his shield got in the way fo his doing Ranger stuff.</blockquote><p>The mechanics of a previous game has little to do with how the thematics of its successor are framed. There are tangible thematic reasons why rangers do not have shield proficiency. Niche builds associated with PF1 are, frankly, a nonissue for me.Quote:So while I can certainly see where you are coming from, that's not how the game is played. My sword and shield Ranger has never had a situation where his shield got in the way fo his doing Ranger stuff.
The mechanics of a previous game has little to do with how the thematics of its successor are framed. There are tangible thematic reasons why rangers do not have shield proficiency. Niche builds associated with PF1 are, frankly, a nonissue for me.Data Lore (alias of Datalore)2018-09-18T20:18:08ZRe: Forums: Classes: Barbarians and Rangers not proficient with shields: what do you think of it?N N 959https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42a0b?Barbarians-and-Rangers-not-proficient-with#192018-09-18T19:48:26Z2018-09-18T19:45:52Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Data Lore wrote:</div><blockquote>I guess, thematically, the shield gets in the way. Its a big round thing that even strapped to your back would make it hard to climb up stuff, run and so on. I am not talking in mechanical game terms but in thematic terms. A shield is sort of thing you put on to go to battle but not something you would typically use to hunt boar, if you get my drift. </blockquote><p>I've never seen a PFS scenario where a Ranger had to go on a boar hunt. I've yet to have an PFS encounter where the Ranger was the only one who had to "climb up stuff, run and so on." The overwhelming majority of PFS combat takes place indoors/underground. There is very little in the game where being outdoorsy or unencumbered makes any difference.
<p>So while I can certainly see where you are coming from, that's not how the game is played. My sword and shield Ranger has never had a situation where his shield got in the way fo his doing Ranger stuff. </p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Paradozen wrote:</div><blockquote>I'd seen shield and sword rangers before in PF1, largely because ranger was flat-better at shields with the sword and shield fighting style. </blockquote><p>Exactly. The sword & board Ranger was fun to play. Did it step on any toes? I don't see how and as others have mentioned, the TWF theme works really well with a shield in the off-hand.Data Lore wrote:I guess, thematically, the shield gets in the way. Its a big round thing that even strapped to your back would make it hard to climb up stuff, run and so on. I am not talking in mechanical game terms but in thematic terms. A shield is sort of thing you put on to go to battle but not something you would typically use to hunt boar, if you get my drift.
I've never seen a PFS scenario where a Ranger had to go on a boar hunt. I've yet to have an PFS encounter where the Ranger was...N N 9592018-09-18T19:45:52ZRe: Forums: Classes: Barbarians and Rangers not proficient with shields: what do you think of it?Paradozenhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42a0b?Barbarians-and-Rangers-not-proficient-with#182018-09-19T18:45:52Z2018-09-18T19:34:26Z<p>For barbarian, this is a disappointment for me. I like the idea of barbarians having less armor and compensating with a shield. During the previews I'd wanted to make a spear and shield barbarian, using critical specializations to weaken enemy attacks and raise a shield for the one round of fatigue. Now, that takes a good bit more than I think it ought to.</p>
<p>For ranger I care a good bit less. Before the playtest, the ranger was just a slayer with unfortunate baggage to me. During the playtest, the ranger seems just to be a kinda bad fighter that might have a sorta okay pet. I'd seen shield and sword rangers before in PF1, largely because ranger was flat-better at shields with the sword and shield fighting style. Thematically it makes plenty of sense to me for rangers to have or not have shields.</p>For barbarian, this is a disappointment for me. I like the idea of barbarians having less armor and compensating with a shield. During the previews I'd wanted to make a spear and shield barbarian, using critical specializations to weaken enemy attacks and raise a shield for the one round of fatigue. Now, that takes a good bit more than I think it ought to.
For ranger I care a good bit less. Before the playtest, the ranger was just a slayer with unfortunate baggage to me. During the playtest,...Paradozen2018-09-18T19:34:26ZRe: Forums: Classes: Barbarians and Rangers not proficient with shields: what do you think of it?Bardarokhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42a0b?Barbarians-and-Rangers-not-proficient-with#172018-09-21T01:21:35Z2018-09-18T16:28:42Z<p>I kind of think shields should just be folded into armor proficiency. Light Shields should be medium and heavy shields should be heavy (no shields for light armored characters) and then leave it at that. Gives Rangers and Barbarians access to shields. Removes the odd thing where shield proficiency doesn't work like everything else. It might need some more tweaking but that's what I have been thinking about.</p>I kind of think shields should just be folded into armor proficiency. Light Shields should be medium and heavy shields should be heavy (no shields for light armored characters) and then leave it at that. Gives Rangers and Barbarians access to shields. Removes the odd thing where shield proficiency doesn't work like everything else. It might need some more tweaking but that's what I have been thinking about.Bardarok2018-09-18T16:28:42ZRe: Forums: Classes: Barbarians and Rangers not proficient with shields: what do you think of it?Data Lore (alias of Datalore)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42a0b?Barbarians-and-Rangers-not-proficient-with#162018-09-18T20:00:00Z2018-09-18T16:25:40Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Mergy wrote:</div><blockquote> What makes TWF iconic for a wilderness scout? That’s a duelist’s style, isn’t it? Why TWF but not shields? </blockquote><p>I guess, thematically, the shield gets in the way. Its a big round thing that even strapped to your back would make it hard to climb up stuff, run and so on. I am not talking in mechanical game terms but in thematic terms. A shield is sort of thing you put on to go to battle but not something you would typically use to hunt boar, if you get my drift.
<p>Again, I am not looking at the classes as just united in a miniature wargame but as representing archetypes in a fantasy world.</p>
<p>As I mentioned, you are right on TWF (I was wrong there; admitted it myself earlier). I would add 2 handers and even open hand fighting as something a wilderness scout should be ok at.</p>
<p>I am perfectly fine with shields not being standard on rangers though.</p>Mergy wrote:What makes TWF iconic for a wilderness scout? That’s a duelist’s style, isn’t it? Why TWF but not shields?
I guess, thematically, the shield gets in the way. Its a big round thing that even strapped to your back would make it hard to climb up stuff, run and so on. I am not talking in mechanical game terms but in thematic terms. A shield is sort of thing you put on to go to battle but not something you would typically use to hunt boar, if you get my drift. Again, I am not looking...Data Lore (alias of Datalore)2018-09-18T16:25:40ZRe: Forums: Classes: Barbarians and Rangers not proficient with shields: what do you think of it?N N 959https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42a0b?Barbarians-and-Rangers-not-proficient-with#152018-09-18T16:53:10Z2018-09-18T16:10:29Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Data Lore wrote:</div><blockquote> I get what you are saying but I think "savvy hunter" and "wilderness stalker" are good thematic touchstones.</blockquote><p>Answering this question is probably the biggest hurdle for the design of a Ranger. I'm going to try and do a write up on it and I hope to examine this question.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote> You are right that TWF and bows maybe shouldn't be the only viable styles. Aragorn used a 2 hander. However, you are wrong about shields.•••Classes are classes. They come with limitations that fit their thematic archetype. </blockquote><p>The attitude you express here is at the heart of Paizo's challenge: where do they draw the line? There are a bunch of things that I think should never be allowed or severely restricted, yet you'll find many people clamor for them. I'm sure there are things you think that should be added and many others would say wrongbadfun. Paizo has to decide if offering a specific configuration improves the game or undermines it. This is the "art" of game making.Data Lore wrote:I get what you are saying but I think "savvy hunter" and "wilderness stalker" are good thematic touchstones.
Answering this question is probably the biggest hurdle for the design of a Ranger. I'm going to try and do a write up on it and I hope to examine this question. Quote:You are right that TWF and bows maybe shouldn't be the only viable styles. Aragorn used a 2 hander. However, you are wrong about shields.***Classes are classes. They come with limitations that fit their...N N 9592018-09-18T16:10:29Z