Rangers and armour.

[johnnybleu]

The AEC class description for the Rangers does not list allowed weapons/armour, I've noticed. Since they are a sub-class of the Fighter, I simply assume that they have the same restrictions (i.e. none).

So, if you allow your Rangers to wield any weapon and don any armour, how do you handle their special abilities-- more notably the ability to surprise on a roll of 1-3 and casting Magic-User spells? Would the usual Magic-User rules for casting spells apply? Spell book required, memorization, no armour, etc.

Personally, I'm thinking of allowing Rangers to use any weapon or armour, however it would interfere with their extra abilities. For example, you can only surprise enemies on a 1-3 if wearing studded leather or lighter. Also, when casting spells while wearing armour there is a chance that the spell fails, and that chance is proportional to the "heaviness" of the armor-- so something like 10% for leather, 40% for chain, 60% for plate, for example.

How would you guys handle these situations? Or anything else I may have missed, for that matter!

Thanks!

[Dyson Logos]

For questions like this I go to the source material for answers. Rangers in the source material have no issues wearing armour, and it provides no penalties to their special abilities. The primary benefit of the fighter classes is the ability to wear heavy armour and thus removing it or penalizing it for the subclasses wasn't considered kosher back in '78.

[kibosh]

I would say that if a Fighter in plate has the same chance to surprise enemies as a Fighter in leather, then the same would hold true for the Ranger - they can surprise enemies on a 1-3 regardless of armor worn.

I do like to imagine Rangers always wearing leather or studded though, so any Ranger I played would probably do that - unless I found some nice elven chain or something

[Lord Kilgore]

I do like to imagine Rangers always wearing leather or studded though, so any Ranger I played would probably do that - unless I found some nice elven chain or something

Agreed.

[johnnybleu]

I see- so no penalties for wearing armour, whatever the type. Of course, I can foresee problems with the Magic-User in my group asking why they shouldn't also be allowed to cast while wearing armour. Of course, there's always numerous ways to explain and rationalize these things, but I'd still like to be able to mitigate the questions of "why can't I do that?" as much as possible.

[bighara]

BtB, I would say the two main considerations a player of a ranger might take into account are:
1) Reduced movement, higher ENC, no swimming
2) Shield = no bow (There's no reason a ranger would HAVE to worry about things like bow v. shield, but the imagery of a ranger trying to track someone through the forest while wearing plate and shield is fairly silly-looking, IMO.)

[kibosh]

Of course, I can foresee problems with the Magic-User in my group asking why they shouldn't also be allowed to cast while wearing armour. Of course, there's always numerous ways to explain and rationalize these things, but I'd still like to be able to mitigate the questions of "why can't I do that?" as much as possible.

I guess it would be similar to why Elves can (as a class) and Fighter/Magic-Users also can.

Plus, if the wizard is asking "why can't I cast in plate if the Ranger can?" wouldn't he also be asking "why can't I cast in studded if the Ranger can?"

Keep in mind that a lot of old school systems do not even try to balance player options. Some races and classes have clear advantages that others do not. That is intentional

[johnnybleu]

Well, actually, I've been juggling the idea of allowing M-Us to wear armour, but suffer the aforementioned penalties (spell failure). Which is partly why I was thinking of implementing the same thing for Rangers. Of course, it's nowhere near perfect and still doesn't answer all the questions... That's just the old-school flavour, I suppose, and I'll deal with it. I guess my biggest problem right now is that the idea of a ranger hunting and tracking through the forest in full plate just doesn't sit right with me. Since there's no rules against it, I'll just have to accept it- no matter how silly that might seem.

And while we're on the subject of Rangers... My Ranger player pointed out yesterday that he should actually start with 2 hit dice at 1st level. Is that right? 2d6 hp? Is it just me, or does that seem like a bit much? I know this is probably due to the fact that Rangers started out with 2d6 in the source material, but that doesn't exactly jive with the rest of the classes, in my opinion. Especially since the character in question has 18 CON, and I allowed for max HP at level 1. This guy has 15 HP! That's 3.5 territory! And even then, that's 3.5 Barbarian with 18 CON. >_> That's the most possible HP you can start with without the Toughness Feats.

Someone please tell me that's a typo.

[jeff]

Nope, it's right. In the 1e PHB, rangers started with 2d8 hit points.

[Brad]

Rangers kick ass, especially at lower levels. They're stealthy, can wear any armor or use any weapon, have more initial hit points and can track. At 9th level, though, a ranger will have on average 5 less hit points than a 9th level fighter, so the 2 initial hit dice eventually becomes irrelevant. Still, in an AD&D game I ran one of the players had a ranger with an 18 CON; he started off with 24 hit points. I remember an anecdote that only 3 per group was decided because everyone wanted to play one.

Anyway, to address the initial question, they're rangers...they surprise opponents even wearing heavy armor. Perhaps they have some sort of precognition, oil their armor well, whatever. I'd also say that if a Magic-User wants to wear armor, the player should play an elf or a magic-user/fighter multiclass. The trade off for being able to use armor is slower advancement. Further, do you apply these penalties to rangers later in their career when they can cast MU spells? That doesn't seem very fair to the ranger player.