D&D General What is the Ranger to you?

[Yaarel]

Ki = SU

Ki = Psionics

Ki = Magic

Martial Arts <> Martial.

Even animals have Ki, in the sense of being a living lifeforce.

But I agree, the conscious manipulation of this lifeforce (ki, hamr, nefesh, psukhe) is mental psionic magic.

 

[Mercule]

So it's not really that a class-based system is stupid, or that a class-less system is stupid. What is stupid is wasting time trying to turn a class-based system into class-less or a class-less system into class-based.

I can see where you are coming from, but in my experience with high detail rules heavy point buy systems they tend to make for terrible games. I can think of some ways around that such as character burners, but class based systems have one huge advantage - they enforce breadth of skill that makes it much easier to play ensemble games with everyone contributing.

Both of these are true, so I want to clarify that I'm not opposed to class-based games, on principle. After 35 years of playing D&D off-and-on, I've kinda played through or have seen played through most of the "vanilla" implementations of the class archetypes. They're good to have available, but can also feel like a straight-jacket, sometimes. You can multi-class the heck out of things to get some builds.

In some ways, it's the class-based version of "there are only seven basic plots". At a certain point, though, it ceases to be a hybrid of the rogue and warlock concepts and becomes a sneaky guy with super powers. That throws the idea of class == archetype out the window. That's not really a big deal if your classes break down to "fights well", "casts spells", "knows skills", and maybe "prays well" (though that could just be "casts spells"). When you have 15(ish) classes, it gets hard to explain why the paladin isn't just a fighter/cleric multiclass or why the bard isn't a sub-class (or three) of wizard that gets access to healing spells and gets level-based abilities that aren't around a school of magic. Why isn't ranger just a fighter sub-class?

Better, IMO, would be a non-class system that provides examples for certain archetypes. Even Hero could be relatively simple to play if you broke down, say, fighter into 20 discreet blocks of advancement (i.e. levels) that could be bought every time you earned 15 experience (or whatever number). Players who want to play the archetype or the simplicity can have it, while those who want to tweak can. Now, I have other reasons why I don't think I want to go back to Hero -- and it is a complex system -- but it would work.

In some ways, I think Genesys has the right idea. It's far from a perfect system, and I have yet to play it, but you pick a profession at start and it grants you access to certain abilities that you can take. I don't know that I like that your cost for certain skills is permanent determined by which profession you take.

What I'd kill for, though, is a good example of how to use Fate Core for fantasy. Fate Freeport gets referenced quite a bit, but it reads pretty horrible, to me. I don't want a complex game. Savage Worlds might be the right level, but I haven't had a chance to try it, yet.

 

[Xeviat]

Classes in D&D are usually based on the fantastic theme of an archetype or a trope, not the reality of it. If we were worried about realism, we'd play classless it everyone would be fighters or rogues. The ranger might not fit a given setting, and in those cases it could be a fighter and/or rogue subclass.

 

[Garthanos]

In some ways, it's the class-based version of "there are only seven basic plots". At a certain point, though, it ceases to be a hybrid of the rogue and warlock concepts and becomes a sneaky guy with super powers. That throws the idea of class == archetype out the window.

I made a hybrid of two classes in 4e they were a Cleric and Invoker if I recall ...Immediate name of the hybrid was Bloodwright she was also a Vampire with a theme from Templar theme from Darksun. Her vampirism leaked out of her periodically and surreptitiously affected her allies though generally kept in check by her wisdom. The new class was a new class unique to her.

 

[Garthanos]

Both of these are true, so I want to clarify that I'm not opposed to class-based games, on principle. .

4th edition changed my mind, or that added another layer, I had many years where I didnt like classes. I like the way classes and roles supported one another in 4e. The roles were with us in the ealiest D&D (for me the blue book) but there were innadequate mechanics to represent them. The defender fighter was described in 1e the Warrior Lord in 2e and neither really had anything to make it so... And living up to the promises of the earlier editions was for me as cool as anything. 4e even helped me grok other D&Disms like single attribute based actions were ok (they describe a performance style not every quality involved just one that characterizes it)

 

[CapnZapp]

The Ranger will fail until it's actually good. Then it won't matter if it has spells, companions or whatnot.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Unless you consider it cultural appropriation to try to understand it by an inherently western European framework.

Arguably, sticking a Samurai or Ninja in otherwise-nominally-medieval-European D&D /is/ cultural appropriation, or "Orientalism."

Conversely, a set of mechanics able to model an armored, mounted warrior, that could be used to construct a Knight of the Angevin Empire or a Samurai of the Sengoku Jidai, at the option of the gamers using it, would not be.

 

[Horwath]

any version without favored terrain and/or enemy.

 

[Garthanos]

any version without favored terrain and/or enemy.

Not sure if your objections are the same as mine. But I saw an idea where the Ranger could scan the train using investigation or perception or the like inorder to gain specific benefits for a while when at this place.

 

[CapnZapp]

Too many suggested ideas forget that ruining the surprise isn't a good thing.

Don't give the Ranger abilities to auto-detect terrain, hazards or creatures. At the very most, make it (high level) spells.

An ability that allows Rangers to short-circuit scenarios and mysteries already at level 1 makes me want to have the designer mentally examined. What the heck!?




Mod Edit: Removed profanity skirting expression. ~Umbran