TOPIC: 2006 Token Guides Are Posted!

Yes... the fighter loses his +3 to hit in h-to-h (due to strength, assuming gaunlets are worn), and has no dex bonus, for no damage upgrade... so the fighter is far better suited to h-to-h... <br /><br />If you're asking between choosing 1 or the other, I think the fighter will prevail if you don't want to roll 2 attacks, but the new missile weapon rules make it close.

<br />...so how is that making things WORSE? 

<br /><br />Because logically, FORCING a player to do something that will cause them to do WORSE, is WORSE for the Player.  <br /><br />I understand the idea of a themed-type player, e.g. "The Dual Wielding Ranger", "The Sneaky Thief", "The Raging Fighter", etc. but really, having a TD rule that isn't that logical and runs contrary to the 3.5 Rules and makes the already weak Ranger even weaker doesn't seem logical to me.<br /><br />I guess the issue I have (in addition to this) is play balance of the characters, which seems to be out of balance at the moment.

<br />Yes... the fighter loses his +3 to hit in h-to-h (due to strength, assuming gaunlets are worn), and has no dex bonus, for no damage upgrade... so the fighter is far better suited to h-to-h... <br /><br />If you're asking between choosing 1 or the other, I think the fighter will prevail if you don't want to roll 2 attacks, but the new missile weapon rules make it close.<br />

<br /><br />And what about the Fighter using the +1 HRCBow...

<br />

<br />...so how is that making things WORSE? 

<br /><br />Because logically, FORCING a player to do something that will cause them to do WORSE, is WORSE for the Player.  <br /><br />I understand the idea of a themed-type player, e.g. "The Dual Wielding Ranger", "The Sneaky Thief", "The Raging Fighter", etc. but really, having a TD rule that isn't that logical and runs contrary to the 3.5 Rules and makes the already weak Ranger even weaker doesn't seem logical to me.<br /><br />I guess the issue I have (in addition to this) is play balance of the characters, which seems to be out of balance at the moment.<br />

<br /><br />So forcing the Cleric and Wizard to have a memory test is bad for players? - This is the challenge for a certain class of CHAR we are talking about here...I don't see your logic at all Douglas...<br /><br />The ranger has an in-game skill requirement, like having to memorize beads or planes to cast spells - this fighting CHAR needs to fight two-handed...  This can not be optional (IMHO) as it is core game mechanics for that CHAR.  People have skirted the rules about sliding two pucks...sending one only an inch or off to the side...but if you think this is a can-o-worms then there should be a "minimal effort" rule so there are no questions and unity between DMs and group experiences can exist.<br /><br />What is so weak about the Ranger - or should I say what is so weak about it (other than attack rules) that is different to D&D rule sets?  I think the Ranger got a few big perks this year with Ranged and new E-chain.<br /><br />

<br />So forcing the Cleric and Wizard to have a memory test is bad for players? - This is the challenge for a certain class of CHAR we are talking about here...I don't see your logic at all Douglas...<br />

<br /><br />No, forcing the Ranger to slide two pucks (instead of one), is like forcing the Wizard to cast spells, or forcing the Thief to backstab, or forcing the Fighter to use his Rage attack, or forcing the Cleric to heal.  Wizards and Clerics NEVER have to use the beads and plane board if they don't want to.  Forcing them to do so would be silly.  Of course, you give the Ranger the OPTION if they WANT to attack with two weapons (class skill) then they MUST slide them at the same time.  This is how the mechanics for all the other class BENEFITS work, you have the OPTION of using it.<br /><br />It also doesn't make sense.  If you are holding a Longsword and a Shortsword, are you irresistably compelled to swing with both weapons?  Of course not.  ;/ <br />

I guess my take on the Ranger is - it is as natural for them to attack with two weapons as it is for other classes to use their weapon and shield or two-handed weapons...(I'm talking the CHAR class here - not the real world player...)  The decision to use a shield or two-handed weapon is left to the player...but it is not optional for all classes...Some classes can't use two-handed as they are not big enough, others have class limits on what weapons they can use etc.<br /><br />The Ranger CHAR (as I see it) is trained in two handed combat...and I see this as much as a REAL WORLD challenge for a team of players to deal with as picking someone who can remember the beads or planes...making this two-handed attack optional takes this challenge away and makes the CHAR selection less critical.  Some might say the Ranger is so well trained to attack with two weapons they have developed a combat style that is ONLY done with two weapons - the way the rules are today... <br /><br />I would suggest if a Ranger is allowed to fight with only one weapon they do so at a -2 to hit penalty to demonstrate the switch from normal "ranger training."  I would still rather see the rules stand as they are today with clarification on how far both sliders must go.<br /><br />I grant you that spell casting IS optional as is what CHARs arm themselves with - so perhaps the Ranger is the most critical CHAR to assign to a real world player...but we are not debating that aspect...<br /><br />I don't think we want to remove the two weapon element...as all that would be left to the real world CHAR selection would be picking a steady hand to be the thief and picking good memory people for spell casters.  <br /><br />G

<br />I don't think we want to remove the two weapon element...as all that would be left to the real world CHAR selection would be picking a steady hand to be the thief and picking good memory people for spell casters.  <br />

<br /><br />Agreed, absolutely keep the two-weapon element... but as a Ranger class option.  :cool:

Forgive me for chirping in, but from what I understand isn't it an option?<br />I mean you can fight with 2 one handed weapons, 1 two handed weapon, or with bow and arrow.<br />Doesn't the ranger have enough fighting options???<br />And last year didn't they also add some scrolls that a Ranger can use? So don't they already have enough abilities?<br /><br />Alright I will flee now before I get squished with a book for my silly questions.<br /><br />

<br />

<br />I don't think we want to remove the two weapon element...as all that would be left to the real world CHAR selection would be picking a steady hand to be the thief and picking good memory people for spell casters.  <br />

<br /><br />Agreed, absolutely keep the two-weapon element... but as a Ranger class option.   :cool:<br />

<br /><br />I would suggest if a Ranger is allowed to fight with only one weapon they do so at a -2 to hit penalty to demonstrate the switch from normal "ranger training."  <br /><br />I would still rather see the rules stand as they are today with clarification on how far both sliders must go since all that would be left to the real world CHAR selection would be picking a steady hand to be the thief and picking good memory people for spell casters.  <br /><br />I don't think it is un-reasonable to have a group find someone that can slide two pucks fairly well.

<br />Forgive me for chirping in, but from what I understand isn't it an option?<br />I mean you can fight with 2 one handed weapons, 1 two handed weapon, or with bow and arrow.<br />Doesn't the ranger have enough fighting options???<br />And last year didn't they also add some scrolls that a Ranger can use? So don't they already have enough abilities?<br /><br />Alright I will flee now before I get squished with a book for my silly questions.<br />

<br /><br />As the rules stand today the Ranger must fight with two one handed weapons...<br /><br />One should be bigger than the other...primary hand uses big, off hand uses smaller.<br /><br />Using a Ranged weapon permitted to the class is OK...and trumps the two weapon rule.

Actually, with the change in missle combat this year (no more throwing tokens - did anyone EVER do this?) and high dex they would make pretty good archers as well.<br /><br />One thing I have a concern with however, is that with the "new" rules on monster targetting (they can hit whoever they want in the room), that the weaker melee classes such as wizards are going to have a major problem if they get targeted.  One good hit could take them out.  Before, there was always the option to have someone stay in the back ranks as it were, and not be targeted.<br /><br />I would love to see some sort of "taunt" power or something that would let the Warrior or the Paly take the blow for someone else.  There are similar feats that you can do this with in D&D, but I don't know of any in the core rules, if that is a problem...  Otherwise, I am afraid that some DMs might get a little overzealous.  It's bad enough wizards can't use armor, but always being in melee range... that is something that never happens in real D&D, as they can move out of the way somehow.

Is the rule that a player can block/shield another still an option???