Chris Thomasson playtest (Sep-26)

[dangerous jack]

Has there been any rejection of the idea of Ranger as Martial Controller? The Iron Heroes Hunter would have been a mix of Controller & Leader, as I recall.

I was just thinking that if the guys the ranger was "blasting" were the mooks swarming around the battlefield, then that could be consistent with a martial controlling action.

 

[FabioMilitoPagliara]

ranger as archer sounds good to me

the ranger is an hunter first and foremost, he knows herbs and animals, he can hide and track, more than magic he should be able to do impossible things with herbs

an hunter must be able to kill his prey with one single shot otherwise the prey will panic in pain and run away, he must be able to hit from a long distance.... he is a bowman

in close combat he will use the best weapon he can... in a forest this are axe, short sword, daggers....

 

[Ragnar_Deerslayer]

Bows are a natural fit for rangers, more natural than swords.

Why? Rangers are hunters - tracking, survival, etc. You don't hunt deer (or anything else) with swords. You hunt with bows. Swords are of virtually no use on a camping or hunting trip - only for pitched battle. It doesn't make sense for a lightly-armored woods-runner to be carrying around several extra pounds of steel. Even Aragorn only carried (in the FotR book) the broken handle of Narsil - not a full sword. And Rangers are often alone (in their role as scouts) - they aren't looking to close for melee; it's too easy for them to be overwhelmed. They snipe from a camouflaged cover, then fade away.

I think someone got their military stuff confused when they initially designed the TWF ranger. I see that as emblematic of the Army Rangers (which are more easily replicated by the Fighter class than the 2E or 3E Ranger). The real "ranger," trained extensively in woodcraft, is more of the Marine Corps Scout/Sniper (who operate alone or, more usually, in pairs).

IMHO, YMMV, etc.

 

[Irda Ranger]

the ranger is an hunter first and foremost,

One, I disagree on the "hunter, first and foremost" thing. A Ranger is more at home in the wild than a Fighter, but that's not to say he's a "hunter." An NPC Expert with Track and Skill Focus (Survival) is a hunter. A Ranger, to me, is a warrior, first and foremost, one that can go toe to toe with his orc, goblin and giant enemies if need be.

Two, I don't mind that some people want the option of playing an Archer-Ranger; that's cool and all. I just don't want it to be required.

he knows herbs and animals, he can hide and track, more than magic he should be able to do impossible things with herbs

Agreed on these points. This is how a Ranger should be distinguished from a Fighter and Paladin - NOT by a rule-enforced weapon choice.

 

[Glyfair]

Has there been any rejection of the idea of Ranger as Martial Controller?

Beyond the fact that the ranger was one of the initial examples of roles as a Martial Striker?

 

[Chocobot]

I'd be fine with there being no such thing as a bow specialized fighter in 4e. If you want to specialize in melee, play a fighter. If you want to specialize in archery, play a ranger. That would be cool, and support them being separate roles. As far as wilderness skills being attached to archery skills, I don't think that's a problem. Archery is historically part of "wilderness skills", and I'm not sure if it makes much sense to separate the two. Really there are very few historic or literary archer concepts that don't have wilderness skills. Yes there were military archers, but they were generally recruited from people who were already archers due to their hunting (i.e. wilderness skills).

Now not everyone with wilderness skills has animal pets and nature magic, so hopefully those will be optional talent trees instead of core parts of the class.

 

[dangerous jack]

Beyond the fact that the ranger was one of the initial examples of roles as a Martial Striker?

Ah, I missed / forgot that. Too bad, I was getting my hopes up for a second.

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

It's really starting to sound like they are making the classes too narrow. I'm sure new classes sell all kinds of books, but do we need a separate class for every possible character type?

I thought that's what Talents and Feats were for. :\

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Mostly good news, but I'm a bit worried about the Ranger at this point. This is the second time now we've seen the Ranger as "the bow guy" in a 4e Playtest, with no other versions of Ranger offered yet. I personally prefer an "archer Ranger" or a "TWF Ranger", but I really hope the Ranger isn't locked into one particular fighting style either way.

I hope there's no "lock-age" either, but given a choice, I'd rather be an archer ranger than a "wtf do I have this weird ability" TWF ranger.

 

[Rechan]

I do think that the ranger should be able to pick up an axe and go to town, as the axe is what one uses in the woods (Cut trees, fire wood, etc).

Fighters should be able to focus on ranged weapons. The crossbowman, for instance. I just don't see twenty or thirty rangers piling onto the field because "They're good with bows" during medieval warfare, you know?

But, if the Ranger is archery emphasized (with an option for melee) and the Fighter is emphasized melee (with an option for ranged), that'd be just fine for me.