NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ComradeGnull" data-source="post: 6006926" data-attributes="member: 6685694">This sounds more like a very nice idea for the core schtick for an Alchemist class, not a Ranger.  Too big a departure from the earlier versions for many people to swallow.Because there are people who have been playing the Ranger class for 20+ years now, and who are going to be really insensed if it is removed from the core game.  Realistically, removing any core class that has existed since 3e or before is a non-starter, and it seems likely that the 4e new core classes (Warlord, Warlock, etc.) are going to make an appearance as well.  Ideas for turning Paladins or Rangers into multi-class hybrids or themes just aren't going to happen.2e Rangers had some Thief abilities as well- move silently, hide in shadows, and climb walls, I think.  All abilities that match up pretty well with a hunter-type of archetype.This is one of the things that Pathfinder did really well with the Ranger.  If you look through the Pathfinder Ranger spell list, all but a small handful of 4th level Ranger spells can be re-glossed as non-magical effects.  They are things like charming animals or treating poison & disease that could easily be the result of herb knowledge, animal behavior knowledge, superior skill at moving through the wilds, etc., but without the overhead of needing to create a new system to reflect each of those particular knowledges.  It doesn't even violate suspension of disbelief to have them limited to a few casts each day- there could be only a limited amount of an herb in a location, some animals might be ill tempered and not respond to any attempts at coaxing them, movement exploits might rely on temporary environmental features, etc.In general I would like the Ranger to be a non-caster wilderness warrior/rogue, but if spells work the same way they do in Pathfinder- a very select spell list that omits many showy or obviously magical effects- I could totally tolerate it as a way to bring a lot of flexibility without investing in a lot of new system creation.  You could tailor your spell selection to a theme/character concept (e.g., your Ranger is a herb/plant lore master, so you focus on spells like Cure Light Wounds, Slow Poison, and Cure Disease) but still have some flexibility when required.I mentioned this recently in another thread, but I would like to see the Ranger be the equivalent of the Rogue/Thief for wilderness encounters- filling a utility role but able to chip in with significant damage under the right circumstances.  Just like you want a Thief there to look for traps, pick locks, and scout ahead, you want a ranger to detect ambushes, track your quarry, avoid wandering wild animals, gather food for the whole party on the run, and generally keep your party safe from a hostile outdoor environment the way the Thief keeps you safe from a hostile indoor environment, with enough damage dealing options to keep him in the mix when the adventure moves indoors.I'd also like to see Favored Enemy replaced with something more intersting and flavorful.  Favored enemy seems like it should be a collection of optional feats that any class can take, not a required feature for Rangers.I like de-coupling fighting style from class. Dual-wield and Rangers never made sense to me and seemed like an overt fanservice for the Drizzt crowd. Bows are totally on-message, but are also appropriate for fighters and rogues, so no reason to make them the sole domain of the Fighter.In terms of combat effectiveness vs. a Fighter- a Ranger who focuses on a fighting style should be the equal of the Fighter in that style, but weaker when Fighting in another mode.  An Archer Ranger is just as good as an Archer Fighter, but an Archer Fighter has better options, damage, and survivability when the fight moves to melee.Also, animal companions- make this an optional feature at most.  Heck, make it an optional feat/specialty for any class.  No one should be required to deal with a pet just because they want to play a character with a nature connection.Oh, and no Code of Conduct for Rangers (this made an appearance in 2e- maybe 1e too).  Being a Ranger is a skillset, like being a Fighter or a Rogue, not a divine calling or a vocation.</blockquote>

Verification