Pax Prime seminar 2012 juicy news!

[Greg K]

So if the ranger class had no background, then what would a ranger be?

The lightly armored stealthy survivalist warrior. Backgrounds and specialties should allow creation of the following
a. A lightly armored archer leading a rebellion from the forest (Robin Hood, himself, would, probably, be a Fighter with archery style and Survival skills since he was a nobleman trained in heavy armor and served in the Crusades before returning home)
b. A lightly armored outdoorsman/tracker living on the edges of civilized society. With an animal companion, one might have something along the lines of Grizzly Adams. Without an animal companion, one might have a character along the lines of Daniel Boone, Davy Crockett or even Lewis and Clark.
c. A non-raging lightly armored tribal warrior fighting with two weapons (see the movie Last of the Mohicans)
d. A sword and shield warrior working patrolling the borderlands as part of an organization protecting civilized society from humanoids or monsters
e. A two handed sword wielding beastmaster ( Beastmaster TV series or movie with various critter companions)
f. A military scout
g. an urban based ranger (see 3.0 Masters of the Wild, 3.5 Unearthed Arcana, 3.5 Cityscape Web Enhancement 1).

 

[JeffB]

So if the ranger class had no background, then what would a ranger be?

Uhm..You Know...like...uhm... part of an organization...with like..a code...code of conduct...

good guy...

bow...

light armor...


YOU know...just like in that older edition...

that everyone played...

way back...

when they still had a code...

and bows..

 

[Phaezen]

Exactly. I want to be able to engage MY players in MY world. That becomes quite hard when flavor is baked into classes. And here they were doing to well with getting me to want to get this game again (after the disaster that was Playtest [URL=http://www.enworld.org/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=1]#1 [/URL] ).

If you look at Rangers being members of an organisation that dwell on the borders of civilisation, living to a code to protect civilisation which may or may not have abandoned the rangers from the perils of the wild beyond you can find the following ideas.

The Rangers from LOTR
The Night's Watch from A Song of Ice and Fire
The Witchers from The Witcher series
The Harpers from The Forgotten Realms (some memebers anyway)

So I don't see it as limiting the DMs ability to create a world, but rather providing ideas to flesh it out. Does your kingdom have an almost forgotten order protecting the borders from some forgotten menace? Is there a group of outlaws fighting the the established Nobility in the kingdom who usurped the rightful rulers several generations ago? Any of these could possibly fit the description of the ranger class and add to the world you are building. If it completely and utterly does not fit with your world then there are no rangers, or if a player really wants to play a ranger, come up with a suitable backstory with him.

 

[Remathilis]

And to the issue as a whole, I think he is expressing an overly bleak perception of classes in the last editions, which was not actually as bad as he makes it sound, what he is actually saying is not that special. It's exactly what makes people love Binders, bemoan that truenammers have terrible mechanics, and makes them want to play monks. It's not the mechanics people love, it's the ideas of the concept they love, even if the mechanics are terrible.
"A ranger is not just a light armor fighter with a bow or two weapons" is all he is saying and that's something nobody really would disagree with.

Excellent voice analysis, btw.

This is yet-another-rejection of 4e and its design ideas. In the early days of 4e, people who wanted to be archers were told to be rangers, even if thematically they were closer to fighters (trained soldiers) or rogues (urban cutpurses). If you wanted to use a bow (or dual wield) you became a ranger and "refluffed" the class to your liking. This destroyed the unique place for these classes in the world. The term "ranger" was kinda pointless, except to explain "dual wielding or archery or pet-controller builds". When my elven rogue should really be an elven ranger because he wants to use a short bow (and I just rename everything to sound more roguish) than neither ranger nor rogue are meaningful terms anymore.

I really hope to see classes like Ranger, Assassin, Paladin, Druid, or Monk mean something again. It means unique training, specialized skills, and a certain assumed origin, outlook, or organization that binds them together. Those not interested in such things can still use Fighter, Cleric, Rogue and Wizard to build a wide range of "rangery" characters using backgrounds and specialties, but a Ranger (captial R) is something unique and special and should be treated as such.

 

[Yora]

The lightly armored stealthy survivalist warrior. Backgrounds and specialties should allow creation of the following
a. A lightly armored archer leading a rebellion from the forest (Robin Hood, himself, would, probably, be a Fighter with archery style and Survival skills since he was a nobleman trained in heavy armor and served in the Crusades before returning home)
b. A lightly armored outdoorsman/tracker living on the edges of civilized society. With an animal companion, one might have something along the lines of Grizzly Adams. Without an animal companion, one might have a character along the lines of Daniel Boone, Davy Crockett or even Lewis and Clark.
c. A non-raging lightly armored tribal warrior fighting with two weapons (see the movie Last of the Mohicans)
d. A sword and shield warrior working patrolling the borderlands as part of an organization protecting civilized society from humanoids or monsters
e. A two handed sword wielding beastmaster ( Beastmaster TV series or movie with various critter companions)
f. A military scout
g. an urban based ranger (see 3.0 Masters of the Wild, 3.5 Unearthed Arcana, 3.5 Cityscape Web Enhancement 1).

But this is all rather specific background fluff. You mention having an animal companion, being a tribal warrior, protecting civilization, bring a proffessional soldier, being city-based.
What I meant is the opposite. How would one be able to design a class without making any assumptions about the characters place in society?

 

[Sadrik]

But this is all rather specific background fluff. You mention having an animal companion, being a tribal warrior, protecting civilization, bring a proffessional soldier, being city-based.
What I meant is the opposite. How would one be able to design a class without making any assumptions about the characters place in society?

I think his point was he wants to do all of those things and not be tied to only one of them. If the ranger only means guy in a forest who is from an order of monster fighters it does not allow you to do the other things. If it is a monster order then why cannot a wizard be in it? Why not a fighter? Why not a cleric? Point is an organization should not be tied to one class. That seems very niche and campaign specific.

 

[Sadrik]

If you look at Rangers being members of an organisation that dwell on the borders of civilisation, living to a code to protect civilisation which may or may not have abandoned the rangers from the perils of the wild beyond you can find the following ideas.

The Rangers from LOTR
The Night's Watch from A Song of Ice and Fire
The Witchers from The Witcher series
The Harpers from The Forgotten Realms (some memebers anyway)

So I don't see it as limiting the DMs ability to create a world, but rather providing ideas to flesh it out. Does your kingdom have an almost forgotten order protecting the borders from some forgotten menace? Is there a group of outlaws fighting the the established Nobility in the kingdom who usurped the rightful rulers several generations ago? Any of these could possibly fit the description of the ranger class and add to the world you are building. If it completely and utterly does not fit with your world then there are no rangers, or if a player really wants to play a ranger, come up with a suitable backstory with him.

Good point however it does not consider the 10-15 other classes. What if a fighter wants to join the nights watch? Is he barred from it? What about a cleric? organizations seem to make excellent backgrounds. Like the thief background. They are part of the theives guild or at least aware of it and interact with it. A priest, and a knight are also part of an organization too...

 

[Remathilis]

Good point however it does not consider the 10-15 other classes. What if a fighter wants to join the nights watch? Is he barred from it? What about a cleric? organizations seem to make excellent backgrounds. Like the thief background. They are part of the theives guild or at least aware of it and interact with it. A priest, and a knight are also part of an organization too...

Multiclassing. Duh.

 

[Sadrik]

Multiclassing. Duh.

So if you are a cleric and you want to join the nights watch you have to multiclass into ranger you are ok with that mechanically. I am not sure I am...

 

[gyor]

Excellent voice analysis, btw.

This is yet-another-rejection of 4e and its design ideas. In the early days of 4e, people who wanted to be archers were told to be rangers, even if thematically they were closer to fighters (trained soldiers) or rogues (urban cutpurses). If you wanted to use a bow (or dual wield) you became a ranger and "refluffed" the class to your liking. This destroyed the unique place for these classes in the world. The term "ranger" was kinda pointless, except to explain "dual wielding or archery or pet-controller builds". When my elven rogue should really be an elven ranger because he wants to use a short bow (and I just rename everything to sound more roguish) than neither ranger nor rogue are meaningful terms anymore.

I really hope to see classes like Ranger, Assassin, Paladin, Druid, or Monk mean something again. It means unique training, specialized skills, and a certain assumed origin, outlook, or organization that binds them together. Those not interested in such things can still use Fighter, Cleric, Rogue and Wizard to build a wide range of "rangery" characters using backgrounds and specialties, but a Ranger (captial R) is something unique and special and should be treated as such.

I agree. Still Paladin's shouldn't be universally trapped into being Lawful Good. I liked the Cavilier/Blackguard verison where alignment restrictions are based on ones virtue.

People are focused on the a Ranger and oraginization idea with which we know nothing about. This could mean anything. We have no mechanical details.

So lets focus on the two "niche" ideas which actually seem very customizable.

A Dragon Sorceror can choose between dragon type, of which thier are ten given so far, each of which effects the character a twist, like unique type of breath attack. He also has choices in which spells he casts and which minor spells he picks. Want a Blue dragon flavour pick, Blue Dragon, shocking grasp and unleash lightening spells. Want a twist focus on,your bastard sword in stead. Or go red dragon and this is one only one Bloodline.

Warlocks can pick which Invocations, which patrons, and which Ritual Spells they want.

All this plus specialities and Backgrounds.

I also find thier multiclass and prestige class rules interesting.

Do they hint at if any other races and classes will be released in October? I can't ger the link to work right. Oh thanks for all the info given guys.