|
1 year ago ::
Mar 09, 2012 - 9:37AM
#1
|
|
|
For some people, the defining characteristic/fluff of the Ranger class is 'wanders around the forest protecting trees'. That's not really a class concept, though ... anybody can do that regardless of their abilities. Train Nature, Stealth, Perception, pick out a bunch of pine trees you like hugging, and *boom* call yourself a Ranger.
So, make Ranger a theme with skill bonuses and abilities related to forestry and such. Nature, Perception, Stealth bonuses, movement in woods, that sort of thing. Slap it on any class and you have a Ranger.
Want the 4e style martial ranger? Slap it on a fighter or warlord.
Want the 3e style mixed magic-martial ranger? Slap it on a multiclass martial/druid or cleric character.
Want a purely 'mystic ranger'? Slap it on a cleric or druid.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 09, 2012 - 9:45AM
#2
|
|
|
Sure, but you could break down just about any class like that and attach it to any other class.
Regardless, your definition is based on "some people," and is not really representative of what the class truly is. Rangers are far more than the tree-huggers you have alluded to.
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept.
Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new.
Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept.
Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept.
Default module =/= Core mechanic.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 09, 2012 - 9:46AM
#3
|
|
|
Umm...
Ranger has been a class since 2nd edition.
Fighters and Warlords have been taught thier skills (usually).
Rangers are a martial class that trains itself. Mostly better than fighters in combat, but wears less armor.
It's true that they're similar to each other, but Rangers are more of the "lone wolf" type character.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 09, 2012 - 9:49AM
#4
|
|
|
It all depends where D&D Next plans to go with the classes. How much will the classes and themes contribute to overall character.
You could go with Just the Core:
Fighter
Rogue
Cleric
Wizard
Or you could go with an expanded list:
Fighter
Rogue
Cleric
Wizard
Ranger
Paladin
Assassin
Bard
etc...
Technically speaking,
A ranger could be a theme for a Fighter/Rogue
A paladin could be a theme for a Fighter/Cleric
A assassin could be a theme for Fighter/Rogue
a bard could be a theme for Rogue/Mage
There is alot of options... personally I prefer a very tight list of Core Classes with a bunch of different themes or 'sub-classes' , like they did in video games like Reckoning or maybe Dragon Age.
But I don't mind if they introduce all the classes from the core books, I don't think that will make a huge difference in the end... I just don't want tons of classes introduced in later modules, I think they should just keep to a core list and add different themes instead. Classes like the Ranger and Bard are pretty iconic though, so I don't think they would cut them from the core.
Anyways, if they DO come up with a Core List that doesn't change, then they need to make sure that Core List represents every Core Element of the game, so that the themes CAN represent any other unique character you can think of, without the need of creating a new class.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 09, 2012 - 9:53AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Jun 14, 2009
|
Salla, your opening premise defines what some people want. However, there are others of us who want a wide variety of mechanically interesting classes. While I have no objection to a "wilderness protector" type theme that could be applied to any class, I certainly don't want to axe the ranger.
More classes, not fewer classes, please!
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 09, 2012 - 10:04AM
#6
|
|
|
Umm...
Ranger has been a class since 2nd edition.
Fighters and Warlords have been taught thier skills (usually).
Rangers are a martial class that trains itself. Mostly better than fighters in combat, but wears less armor.
It's true that they're similar to each other, but Rangers are more of the "lone wolf" type character.
Yes, but some people say the Ranger is just the dual-wielding class, or the archer.
Some want it to be a mix of martial and nature magic.
Some want it to be mostly nature magic with a sprig of martial.
The Ranger is practically undefinable; it's like no two people agree on exactly what it means, or what it should be. This, to me, indicates that it shouldn't be a class, it's a concept that you use mechanics to build, in the same way you could try to build 'a pugilist' with the Monk class.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 09, 2012 - 10:40AM
#7
|
|
|
Just because people may have differing opinions on something does not make it undefinable.
Now matter how 5E defines it will not prevent you from flavoring it to your taste, or flavoring any other class with a hint of ranger.
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept.
Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new.
Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept.
Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept.
Default module =/= Core mechanic.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 09, 2012 - 10:49AM
#8
|
|
|
I would prefer if each class had its own set of unique mechanics. A ranger should not be a class of it is defined as fighter with nature skills and a bow. I feel the same way about sorcerer and wizard. If they can give these classes unique and pertinent abilities then yes make a brand new class. If not, leave it as a theme or subclass.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 09, 2012 - 10:52AM
#9
|
|
|
Ranger = Hybrid fighter|druid. Paladin = Hybrid fighter|cleric. More classes, not fewer classes, please!
Disagree... sorta...
More options, less overlap.
More classes just leads to 28 copies of "i parry the attack".
guides
Show
my builds
Show
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.
Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.
Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.
King Fisher Does an excellent job at keeping an enemy disabled in a few ways. Strong.
Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.
Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.
Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.
Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.
Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.
Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.
Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.
Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.
Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.
Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.
Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.
Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.
Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.
Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.
The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.
Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power
Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken
Unnamed Avenger|Runepriest/Hammer of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.
Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.
Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.
Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight, only far more broken.
Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.
Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 09, 2012 - 11:07AM
#10
|
|
|
Ranger = Hybrid fighter|druid.
Paladin = Hybrid fighter|cleric.
More classes, not fewer classes, please!
Disagree... sorta...
More options, less overlap.
More classes just leads to 28 copies of "i parry the attack".
Yes I think the key term is less overlap
Every aspect of a class should be completely unique, if the class is just a mix of two other classes, then it should simply be an advanced Theme.
A Ranger is iconic yes, but it has to be distinct enough to warrant a class and be able to have ITS OWN set of Themes... else to me it should just be a theme.
If all a sorcerer does is not use a vancian system compared to the wizard, then it shouldn't be a class, it should be a theme.
|
|
|
