|
13 months ago ::
Jun 07, 2012 - 9:30AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2007
|
Designer Bruce Cordell has tracked down the ranger, and now he’s sharing the design goals for this class. Come take a peek and tell us what you think!
Trevor Kidd
Community Manager
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 07, 2012 - 9:36AM
#2
|
|
|
1. The ranger is a wilderness hunter and tracker.
Cool.
2. The ranger is a warrior.
Also cool.
3. The ranger is a protector.
Eh, not so much. And certainly not 3rd.
4. Rangers are friends with wild creatures.
Cool. A better third.
I would have liked to seen some divine nature domain or primal source goal. No spells for rangers in 5th?
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 07, 2012 - 9:38AM
#3
|
|
|
I agree -- "the ranger is a protector" feels really out of place. That's totally the druid's milkshake.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 07, 2012 - 9:39AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Agreed with that. Druids are protectors of the land and the forest, not the rangers.
The rest is fine.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 07, 2012 - 9:41AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
May 31, 2012
|
I'm ok with most of the goals presented here, the Ranger was my very first class and character way back in 2e carrying on to 3.5... Just one thing don't make the Ranger a spellcaster, we always house ruled to use the uneathed arcana version of a none magic Ranger
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 07, 2012 - 9:43AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2003
|
Agreed with that. Druids are protectors of the land and the forest, not the rangers.
The rest is fine.
I think the world is ending because I agree as well. Rangers both in life and in fiction are not wilderness protectors nor were (and are) used as such in war. Rangers are fundamentally wilderness scouts with a very elite and peculiar skill set. I also think that a Ranger is not a warrior. He is a rogue.
-Polaris
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 07, 2012 - 9:43AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
May 30, 2010
|
number 3 would have been better summerized as "A ranger is a warden" 
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 07, 2012 - 9:50AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
Is the ranger really unique enough within the system framework to justify a discrete class anymore?
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 07, 2012 - 9:52AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2003
|
Is the ranger really unique enough within the system framework to justify a discrete class anymore?
That would depend on what kind of skill/feat system you have I think. If it's one like 3e or even 4e, then no, I really don't think so. A Ranger is nothing more than a wilderness oriented rogue with the special wilderness skills to go with it (or a wilderness oriented fighter I suppose). With the limited/non-existant skills of 1e, then....let's give it a qualified maybe.
Honestly IMO and from what I remember, the only reason the Ranger was invented at all originally in DND was because people wanted to play "Aragon son of Arathorn" and the old DND rules wouldn't let them.
-Polaris
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 07, 2012 - 9:58AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
IMHO based on Background and Theme, number three can be different than druid somehow. but...
My issue is, how can a Ranger hold up thematically when the archetype is basically a Fighter with Woodsie Background and Two themes? Like Healing and (Archer). Archer a theme totally base off the assumption of Mr Cordell's 2nd item. And Two Themes based off of Mr Mearls two themed Fighter proposal.
You might even pass as a druid with Fighter/Priest/Healer/Guardian
I think the power of Backgrounds and Themes allows class dopplegangers. The focus should be, why do I want to play a Ranger?
EDIT: QMark Ninja'd
|
|
|
