|
1 year ago ::
Jan 28, 2012 - 8:17PM
#11
|
|
|
I'm hoping those were just examples of what you can do with the class and not the only things you can do with Rangers... it wasn't too clear on that point.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 28, 2012 - 8:29PM
#12
|
|
|
What Rangers NEED to have is the awesome capacities at their enviroment:
- Appropriate Skills (in 4e's terms: Nature, Dungeoneering, Perception, Stealth, and things like Athletics and Acrobatics)
- Good tracking capability
- Mobility
- Interesting Features related to the enviroment (like Essential's Wilderness Knacks, only more and better ones. I love the one where the Ranger / Druid collects plants and use them to increase their allies' healing surge value, for example).
- Probably, an Animal Companion
- Possibly, Nature Magic
The "specialize in a combat style" thing is much more suited to the fighter; I mean, the ranger SHOULD be able to dual-wield, but he should also be able to sword-and-board or go two-handed weapon. Maybe, MAYBE he be better at Archery because, come on, it's pretty ranger-y, but it shouldn't be his only option.
Maybe that's what they mean when talking about an Aragorn style of rangery.
If ranger is going to mean "wilderness guy", which seems kind of fairly logical, then I'd crack off all the other stuff. The core of ranger is just the skillset for surviving and operating in the wilderness. Mobility is probably fairly core there too. The rest is dependent on your particular character concept.
One guy might be an incredible tracker, another has an animal companion, etc. Those options can be independent of being a ranger because there's no real reason why some other character class that grew up in the sticks wouldn't or couldn't have them as well. In fact some of them are perfectly appropriate to characters of any sort of background (a fighter could have a special wardog, or a wizard could have a familiar).
Combat style specialization is a whole OTHER dimension. Again, being a crack archer has little to do with being a ranger but should certainly be an option for one, and other fighting styles would seem appropriate as well.
For a basic simple 'roll it up in 2 minutes and play' sort of thing there'd be nothing wrong with "pick one of Aragorn, Drizzt, or that animal trainer guy", pick a weapon, and you're ready to go. For more interesting concept building though something like themes would work best where you can lay them on top of a ranger, a druid, a fighter, etc and they're not particularly class specific.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 28, 2012 - 8:36PM
#13
|
|
|
What Rangers NEED to have is the awesome capacities at their enviroment:
- Appropriate Skills (in 4e's terms: Nature, Dungeoneering, Perception, Stealth, and things like Athletics and Acrobatics)
- Good tracking capability
- Mobility
- Interesting Features related to the enviroment (like Essential's Wilderness Knacks, only more and better ones. I love the one where the Ranger / Druid collects plants and use them to increase their allies' healing surge value, for example).
- Probably, an Animal Companion
- Possibly, Nature Magic
As options, certainly, but they shouldn't necessarily be baked into the class en toto. A class should be a broad concept with a wide variety of potential options. The Ranger is such a specific thing that I'm not even sure it should be a class*, but rather just how you take available options and put them together. Take a basic warrior, give it whatever fighting style you want, multiclass for nature magic if you want it, call yourself a 'ranger', go.
*Yes, I know it's going to be. But I question it.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 28, 2012 - 8:56PM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Sep 23, 2011
|
The ranger isn't just the wilderness guy, he's the survivalist guy. To this guy its all about self seficancy, in any enviroment, including cities.
In modern terms he's the guy that has a ton of guns, tons of wilderness survival skills, he can hunt, fish, maybe a bunker too in case of the end of the world, and a hunting dog too. He can fight (combat styles) just in case the world goes up in flames he can defend himself and his family, and in some cases he's military scout. Knowing some primal magic would simple be another tool of survival. Most focused on the bush because less need to depend on others day to day. Might go to Ranger jamborees to learn new skills and meet old friends (this happened in one FR book, don't remember which one, just that it starred my favourite ranger, whose name I,forget as well, but he had awesome deep bat companion, who could impale foes with her tail).
Btw Drizzt does have a beast companion, his panther, he might use a figurine to summon her, but thier bond is deep as any ranger beast companion. One of these days some ones going to figure out the key to beating Drizzt is tossing a giant bag of cat nip at his Panther.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 28, 2012 - 11:31PM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Jul 13, 2011
|
Aragorn would be best emulated by a fighter with Wilderness Survival. What makes rangers unique, I think, is their spells and animal companions. If you're in it just to wield two weapons, you're a fighter.
I wouldn't put too much on this "woodland" thing, though. They're masters of their environment, whatever it might be.
I think part of the Ranger Formula involves being able to hit stuff, just not fighter-tier hitting. They are expected to hunt scary magical animals, after all. I like how rangers sort of have everything, even if the spells are nothing incredible. They're a flat 0/10 as far as face stuff goes, though, and that's okay.
On a scale of one to ten, their magical power should be like a three (worse than a bard, better than a fighter, about the same as an average assassin), their combat should be between a six and a nine (never outdamaging a fighter but in roughly the same league with focus, through companion or otherwise), and their exploration ability should be between a seven and nine (a typical rogue would be like 7.5-10). Their social grace is one, or "Barbarian."
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 29, 2012 - 7:02AM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2007
|
I have a soft spot for the Ranger, ever since I started playing 1st Ed AD&D, I mean, you could blap people with a magic-missile, not really appropriate to the class, but the 1st Ed AD&D Ranger has mad vibe.
I wouldn't mind seeing an option to be racist again (favoured enemy etc). "...you ain't from around here, are ya, boy...?"
Th Aragorn option I like, not every ranger has to be bow or 2-weapon boy.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 29, 2012 - 7:16AM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Sep 23, 2011
|
Yeah, favoured enemy pick a race was creepy, the whole reason I never played rangers.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 29, 2012 - 7:17AM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Sep 14, 2008
|
I'm with Salla. Rangers (and paladins too, really) are just too specific to be its own class. Ideally, they should just provide the player the ability to create a ranger via a fighter or a rogue. Then just pick a beastmaster backround and take favored enemy feats.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 29, 2012 - 7:21AM
#19
|
Date Joined:
Oct 12, 2011
|
hmmm... think about it this way
what is it a ranger does that a Fighter CAN'T?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 29, 2012 - 8:02AM
#20
|
|
|
Think of a ranger like Crocodile Dundee or Tarzan. Ranger's have the option of existing within Nature, not just acting against it.
You might be able to take a bunch of the ideas people have here and just pair them out into different styles
Tracking - ranger is a great tracker/ ranger has a pet who is a great tracker/ ranger talks to trees, rocks, animals
Assault - ranger is a brace fighting beast/ ranger has a combat pet/ ranger uses skirmish tactics
Exploration - ranger gets bonus to vs. beasts/ ranger has interaction skills to handle beasts/ ranger's pet is an animal diplomat
Social - rangers smell bad and aren't welcome in towns/ ranger's pet smells bad and isn't welcome in towns/ ranger and his pet both smell bad and aren't welcome in towns.
Just mix and match parts. Maybe you can ignore one area completely and pick more from another.
Either way, its already built, so we'll see it when we see it.
|
|
|
