From: Rannou@info.polymtl.ca (Patrick Rannou)
Subject: Re: Rangers and studded leather armors (was Re: Bastard DM From Hell Pt 2)
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal, Canada
	<1992Aug19.085817.25653@cfmu.eurocontrol.be>
	<Bt8n1D.8qn@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
	<1992Aug24.135926.25781@cfmu.eurocontrol.be>
	<BtIBIz.AFn@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 08:19:49 GMT

In article <BtIBIz.AFn@news.cso.uiuc.edu> dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Axly) writes:



   >If you really want to play a ranger, you have to roleplay it; that means
   >wear light armor; otherwise, you're no better that some paladins I know
   >who act evil from time to time.

   That's purely an opinion. Your vision of a ranger may be the type who likes
   light armor, but if I play a ranger who hunts giants, wearing heavy armor
   and wielding big weapons is in character.


   >>if he takes
   >>the required proficiencies. 

   >Which proficiencies?

   Two Weapon Style Specialization  and maybe Ambidexterity

   This is actually more effective than the way a ranger can wield two weapons
   in light armor, as it allows you to use two full size weapons. Yes, it
   may seem excessive, but it is a viable technique used by historical 
   figures. 

Axly


I disagree and I agree. If you want to play a ranger "in character" who
hunts down giants, then you WON'T take the 2 weapon style specialisation
and ambidextry. Nope. I just have this recurring problem with picturing the
ranger with his two long swords (or bigger weapons), one in each hand,
earing banded mail and swinging with perfect coordination.

As a GM I let many styles of ranger exist, and I agree that the "ranger
hinting giant" is a viable and interesting one. But I reserve the
two-handed fighting style to lightly dressed and ENCUMBERED characters.

Specifically, thieves and rangers wearing light armor. It's quite simple,
really: I just added the condition "emcumbrance must be light or better" to
the hability to fight 2 weapon style or use ambidextry. That's very
logical, and this means your ranger can still choose these options, but
can't use them whenenver he's encumbered, so if you really want to min max,
you'll have to choose and you're back to square one: either you make a
ranger who looks like a fighter, and thus he DON'T fight two handed, or you
make a ranger who looks like a thief, and fights two handed, or you make a
mix of both which MAY fight two handed.

By the way, it costs TWO slots, not one, to get ambidextry and double
weapon style. This is because fighting two handed is really killer.

Maybe I'll correct this to get nearer 2nd edition when I start using all
these intresting things about "shields attacks" for the fighters...
Then I`ll just let each player choose as he likes, but still I'll make
double-weapon style cost a little more because it's so much more killer.

Another thing I changed LONG ago is that I make the players split their
strength to-/hit and damage bonuses between attacks.

I.E. When you attack two handed at -2/-4, if vyou have 18 00% STR for +3 to
hit, you DON'T jump right to +1/-1. That's too killer, and make every one
start fighting with two weapons. You jump to -1/-2, and the damage is
splitted say +4/+2 if the second weapon is small. Still more killer than
fighting with only one weapon (try it).


Pat.


--
/---------------------------\
| Patrick "Paradak" Rannou. |
| Rannou@info.polymtl.ca    |
\---------------------------/

Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd