@kamuizin: Agreed. An Archer/Cleric should be able to get grandmastery in War Hammers and Slings, since both can be used as ranged weapons.
You could tweak the Archer kit to be able to max out their pips in War Hammers and Slings. The only side effect is that melee hammers would also benefit, but I think that would be okay.
I disagree. Allowing GM in a melee weapon would undercut the *entire* point of that kit. They're supposed to be *worse* than most warriors at using melee weapons... not better. It's called an *archer.*
Anyway the archer's ranged bonuses already apply to thrown hammers, and are much greater than the bonuses you get from specialization. So you can already make an extremely competent archer>cleric using the dwarven thrower or sling of everard or something. Those weapons already get STR damage bonuses, and as a lightly-armored archer for you first 6 or 9 levels you probably have great DEX. Strong stat-based thac0 and damage bonuses, plus +4 to ranged thac0 and damage, plus stealth, plus extra low-level druid spells, plus tons of hp = a totally worthwhile character, no hacks or cheats needed. Compare this build to a kitted single-class cleric, it's a monster.
It also compares perfectly well against a fighter>cleric, contrary to some of the assertions here. F>C is extremely well-suited for a front-liner; archer>cleric is clearly meant to stay on the back line. IMHO it's fine to have different roles for different builds.
Disagree.
You're focusing in numbers, but the range of attack of ranged war hammers are half the range of an bow, which means you have to be near the foe with an class restricted to light armor and one pipe to melee weapns if the enemy gets close.
Also, someone correct if i'm wrong, but doesn't bows get an extra attack per round?
Besides, there's no reason to block slings from grandmastery. Archer name is more an stereotype than an restriction.
Just to state, i can use war hammers with kensai to bypass their ranged forbidden and they also get the +3 hit dmg each 3 levels, which means war hammer archer would be surely penalized in comparison to an kensai ranged war hammer thrower (that can dual to a lot of classes besides cleric).
@kamuizin: I think the main point of comment you quoted was that Archers should not be able to attain grandmastery with melee hammers. I'm not sure you and @subtledoctor actually disagree.
And you're correct, long bows and short bows get an extra attack per round.
So, it's possible to mod the weapon proficience table? To either ignore any melee bonus past 1 proficience point or create more weapon proficiences? In the second case we would have to flag all weapons to match the new proficience created, and that could be a bit of work.
Maybe make a flag which give penality to the archer based on the weapon in use (if melee) and the number of proficience points for it:
~IF war hammer (melee) in use AND ~IF proficience in wah hammer is "1,2,3..." ~THEN attack rolls are penalized in 1,2,3... to hit and damage AND - 1/2,1 attack per round AND -x to speed factor.
I believe I've seen mods tinker with the proficiency table before, so it's probably possible. Don't know if it's easy or feasible to do it for thrown weapons, though.
@Lord_Tansheron: The hammer/throwing hammer problem probably fits the axe/throwing axe as well. Both require a different skillset. Since hammers and axes would be handled fairly similarly, you could change the axe proficiency to be axes and hammers, and make the hammer proficiency into THROWING axes and hammers. It would make conceptual sense and allow an Archer to get bonuses with thrown weapons without gaining bonuses for melee weapons. It'd also fit in with Korgan's existing proficiencies.
@subtledoctor I think the case for GM on other ranged weapons is actually kind of weak.
A ranger is synonymous with archery and the archer is the epitome of that. Even allowing GM in Xbows seems weird to me.
Currently the archer kit still gets great bonuses to all ranged weapons and they really don't need an extra +1/+3, +1/2 attack on top of the eventual +10/+10 they already have (or whatever it is).
If you could fudge the proficiency table like that would the bonuses go away when you have a throwing axe equipped but change it to melee?
End of the day, fighters make perfectly good thrown weapon specialists. If a anything we just need another fighter kit or two that isn't restricted to GM in melee weapons. Or, GM should be fixed to only be applicable to one weapon, only available to pure fighters (and I guess archers) and only available on warrior level ups.
I sort of agree that throwing weapons are perhaps not that well-suited for an Archer kit. It makes sense that they would GM in Bows/Xbows only, and nothing else; if anything, Slings is the most debatable.
Think about what a ranger is fundamentally. He ranges. He protects the forest. He hunts and lives in the forest and his weapon of choice is a bow as it's the most effective weapon for bringing down game (along with snares).
Modern day rangers have rifles but their functions are still similar. Put down feral beasts, protect people, track animals and people.
In fact or fiction the role of woodsman, hunter and ranger tend towards bows and knives more than anything else and the abilities of a ranger from tracking to animal empathy fit nicely in the concept of the woodsman who cares and nurtures the forest while taking what is needed for himself or his employee responsibly.
The archer kit itself is a product of Robin Hood, without him it would be most natural to be a fighter if ranged weapons was the priority. Certainly the demands of Grandmastering the bow should leave little time for becoming a true ranger.
I don't necessarily disagree with your description of a Ranger, I just don't know where you're getting it from. Bows are useful in the woods, sure. Other weapons are, too. Rangers can't set snares in BG.
If you're talking about real-life park rangers, they can be traced back to the enforcers of forest law in England. This is very much the opposite of Robin Hood's role; see the ballad "Robin Hood and the Ranger." Since Robin Hood has been explicitly described as a Ranger in D&D, then, I think it's safe to assume that ranger the profession and Ranger the class are two completely separate things.
The D&D ranger is most directly based on Aragorn, I believe, who was more inclined to use a sword. The class evolved in response to the popularity of Drizzt, who is again not strongly associated with bows. I think this falls below the threshold of being synonymous.
I don't necessarily disagree with your description of a Ranger, I just don't know where you're getting it from. Bows are useful in the woods, sure. Other weapons are, too. Rangers can't set snares in BG.
If you're talking about real-life park rangers, they can be traced back to the enforcers of forest law in England. This is very much the opposite of Robin Hood's role; see the ballad "Robin Hood and the Ranger." Since Robin Hood has been explicitly described as a Ranger in D&D, then, I think it's safe to assume that ranger the profession and Ranger the class are two completely separate things.
The D&D ranger is most directly based on Aragorn, I believe, who was more inclined to use a sword. The class evolved in response to the popularity of Drizzt, who is again not strongly associated with bows. I think this falls below the threshold of being synonymous.
Enforcing forestry law sounds like an early form of sustainable use. Sure, corruption by lawmakers might have turned it into something else but a ranger had and still has a crucial role in managing and sustaining their part of nature.
I tend to think of Martin of Crydee from Magician by R.E.Fiest as a good example of a ranger. He cares for the plants and animals in his domain and sustainably hunts for the benefit of his lord while ensuring the ongoing health of the forest. Additionally, as a simple product of his day to day activities he has many opportunities to do good just because he sees things that others wouldn't.
To me Grandmastering a bow would involve the sort of intense training that the English longbowman received being trained from such a young age to be one of the most specialised fighting forces on earth. However, this specialised training wouldn't have allowed the other skills that rangers develop.
I see an barbarian ranger using war hammer, in fact i see wulfgar much as an tundra ranger alike character. When i think in an ranger using war hammers as an archer class i see normally wulfgar.
Even though I've been a little contrary on this thread (which is mostly because I'm wary of leaning on unacknowledged headcanon), I agree that hammer-hurling Rangers sound silly. But I feel completely different about axes. The idea of a Ranger who's an expert (grandmaster?) tomahawk thrower strikes me as both totally plausible and cool as hell. I know that's not really an "archer," but still.
I see an barbarian ranger using war hammer, in fact i see wulfgar much as an tundra ranger alike character. When i think in an ranger using war hammers as an archer class i see normally wulfgar.
Wulfgar is a barbarian. Barbarians have nature themed skills and abilities in 3e which suits Wulfgar and the theme that you have in your head perfectly. In 2e you need NWP's to get the feeling.
Either way, a ranger or any other warrior can already throw axes, hammers and tables with skill and force, there just isn't a strong argument to suggest that there should be any Grandmaster Table Throwers.
Archery on the other hand, yes, to master a longbow takes years and years of dedicated training.
Archery on the other hand, yes, to master a longbow takes years and years of dedicated training.
This is no different for shortbows. A fully trained mongolian horsearcher could easily fire 2 arrows per second while on horseback, and still hit their target right where they wanted to.
Comments
You're focusing in numbers, but the range of attack of ranged war hammers are half the range of an bow, which means you have to be near the foe with an class restricted to light armor and one pipe to melee weapns if the enemy gets close.
Also, someone correct if i'm wrong, but doesn't bows get an extra attack per round?
Besides, there's no reason to block slings from grandmastery. Archer name is more an stereotype than an restriction.
Just to state, i can use war hammers with kensai to bypass their ranged forbidden and they also get the +3 hit dmg each 3 levels, which means war hammer archer would be surely penalized in comparison to an kensai ranged war hammer thrower (that can dual to a lot of classes besides cleric).
And you're correct, long bows and short bows get an extra attack per round.
Maybe make a flag which give penality to the archer based on the weapon in use (if melee) and the number of proficience points for it:
~IF war hammer (melee) in use AND ~IF proficience in wah hammer is "1,2,3..." ~THEN attack rolls are penalized in 1,2,3... to hit and damage AND - 1/2,1 attack per round AND -x to speed factor.
Maybe it's not perfect, but could work i think.
A ranger is synonymous with archery and the archer is the epitome of that. Even allowing GM in Xbows seems weird to me.
Currently the archer kit still gets great bonuses to all ranged weapons and they really don't need an extra +1/+3, +1/2 attack on top of the eventual +10/+10 they already have (or whatever it is).
If you could fudge the proficiency table like that would the bonuses go away when you have a throwing axe equipped but change it to melee?
End of the day, fighters make perfectly good thrown weapon specialists. If a anything we just need another fighter kit or two that isn't restricted to GM in melee weapons. Or, GM should be fixed to only be applicable to one weapon, only available to pure fighters (and I guess archers) and only available on warrior level ups.
Modern day rangers have rifles but their functions are still similar. Put down feral beasts, protect people, track animals and people.
In fact or fiction the role of woodsman, hunter and ranger tend towards bows and knives more than anything else and the abilities of a ranger from tracking to animal empathy fit nicely in the concept of the woodsman who cares and nurtures the forest while taking what is needed for himself or his employee responsibly.
The archer kit itself is a product of Robin Hood, without him it would be most natural to be a fighter if ranged weapons was the priority. Certainly the demands of Grandmastering the bow should leave little time for becoming a true ranger.
If you're talking about real-life park rangers, they can be traced back to the enforcers of forest law in England. This is very much the opposite of Robin Hood's role; see the ballad "Robin Hood and the Ranger." Since Robin Hood has been explicitly described as a Ranger in D&D, then, I think it's safe to assume that ranger the profession and Ranger the class are two completely separate things.
The D&D ranger is most directly based on Aragorn, I believe, who was more inclined to use a sword. The class evolved in response to the popularity of Drizzt, who is again not strongly associated with bows. I think this falls below the threshold of being synonymous.
I tend to think of Martin of Crydee from Magician by R.E.Fiest as a good example of a ranger. He cares for the plants and animals in his domain and sustainably hunts for the benefit of his lord while ensuring the ongoing health of the forest. Additionally, as a simple product of his day to day activities he has many opportunities to do good just because he sees things that others wouldn't.
To me Grandmastering a bow would involve the sort of intense training that the English longbowman received being trained from such a young age to be one of the most specialised fighting forces on earth. However, this specialised training wouldn't have allowed the other skills that rangers develop.
Maybe instead we could just create a bow in-game that shoots hammers instead of arrows. That would solve our realism problem.
Even though I've been a little contrary on this thread (which is mostly because I'm wary of leaning on unacknowledged headcanon), I agree that hammer-hurling Rangers sound silly. But I feel completely different about axes. The idea of a Ranger who's an expert (grandmaster?) tomahawk thrower strikes me as both totally plausible and cool as hell. I know that's not really an "archer," but still.
Either way, a ranger or any other warrior can already throw axes, hammers and tables with skill and force, there just isn't a strong argument to suggest that there should be any Grandmaster Table Throwers.
Archery on the other hand, yes, to master a longbow takes years and years of dedicated training.