The King's Rangers! (Reprised)

[Umbran]

Take for example, a Ranger, or a Fighter. Imagine a certain background, of various kinds, whether hunters/ranchers, or educated and scholarly, and the standard skills will be hard-pressed to do the two following goals:

(1) Accurately represent the character's detailed and unique background, of family teaching, mentored learning, and even tutors, scholars, or some other kind of formal or specialized training.

(2) Adequately equip the character to have a reasonable chance of survival and success in the upcoming challenges.

There's an old adage - nobody can do everything. I extend that slightly - nobody can do everything at first level.

The problem, as I see it, is not that the core class does not give enough skill to do everything you want. It's that your expectations are too high for a first level character.

New classes are cool, but so is finding ways to do a thing without actually rewriting anything. There's a simple solution closer to the core rules - simply have the character take a level of Aristocrat or Expert first, and then take a level of a fighting class. That would give plenty of skill points to well describe a fighting man who has spent much of his youth studying non-fighting subjects.

 

[Valavien]

Have any of you had much of a look at the Wheel of Time "Woodsman"? Tonight our group is switching from OA to WOT for a while so I started to make one a couple of weeks ago. They appear to be more in line with what one would normally excpect from a Ranger/Woodsperson class. I can't remember the details as I don't own the book but I can tell you all more after tonight if you don't already own, or have an opinion of it.

Valavien

 

[Maldur]

mmmmm, I decided not to tinker with the d20 system until I knew all the ins and outs. But you guys are making several good points.

since Im not playing this weekend I think Ill spend my time pondering the implications of what both of you (Shark and Mmadsen) said.

Ill try to have a more substancial reply by monday.

Cheerz, maldur

 

[mmadsen]

I'm glad Mmadsen! You know, these are some really cool ideas.

Thanks, SHARK.

I don't want to sound arrogant, but many of the prestige classes for knights and fighters in Sword and Fist, and Defenders of the Faith just don't cut it, you know?

Absolutely. For the most part, I don't see the need for Prestige Class mechanics, especially for what amount to Fighters with cool Feats. Introduce the Special Abilities as new Feats, and let the Fighters have 'em!

I think the designers are confused by the fact that they don't have a mechanic for each of the paths a Fighter might take: Knight, Archer, Pikeman, etc.

The Feat Master was designed by a fellow known here as Tower. He hasn't posted here at all I think, and it has been ages since he was at EN-Boards under Eric Noah. Too bad, he was an excellent member of the community. At his website, he has some very cool stuff, ranging from feats, racial profiles, equipment, to generic prestige classes useable in any campaign. He also created the Feat Master mechanic, which is just brilliant! I've personally expressed such to him privately as well. I highly recommend his website.

http://www.geocities.com/towerthebroken

Interesting. The Feat Master reminds me of a few ideas I've been batting around. In particular, I was thinking there should be a generic Adventurer class, a bit like the Rogue, something of a jack-of-all-trades, with the Skills and Bonus Feats appropriate for a typical adventurer, all the things an adventuring wizard might learn that a bookish wizard wouldn't, for instance. Then we could peel off the BAB progression, the extra Hit Dice, the improved Saves, etc. from many "bookish" classes, and "adventurers" would be multiclassed Adventurers: Adventurer-Wizard, Adventurer-Priest, Adventurer-Expert, etc.

Besides, most adventurers should have a few ranks of Wilderness Lore, Hide, Spot, and other random skills -- at least once they've actually been adventuring through a few jungles and crypts.

Combining the Rogue and expert sounds interesting Mmadsen.

Thanks. Call of Cthulhu, which I got after implementing this idea, basically makes everyone an Expert, but they get to choose which is their Good Save (Fort, Ref, or Will) and which are their bad Saves. (It also allows a trade-off of BAB for a second Good Save, but let's ignore that for now.) What I didn't like about CoC's Investigators, and something that's always bothered me about D&D's Experts, is that they get no Bonus Feats (or Special Abilities).

Rogues, on the other hand, look just like Experts with lots of Special Abilities, just no choice of Class Skills (or Special Abilities).

My solution? Mix the two! Then make up lots of variants! Start with a Rogue/Expert, choose the appropriate Good Save (Ref for a typical Rogue, Will for a typical Expert, maybe Fort for a laborer or smith), choose Class Skills, then pick an appropriate Bonus Feat list (with many Special Abilities as Feats).

This makes new "mundane" classes very, very easy to design. A "bard" is a Rogue/Expert with the Bard's list of Skills and "juggler" Feats like Ambidexterity, Dodge, Mobility, etc. A "ranger" is a Rogue/Expert with the Ranger's list of Skills and "scout" Feats like Alertness, Endurance, etc. A "barbarian" is a Rogue/Expert with the Barbarian's list of Skills and Feats like Alertness, Toughness, etc. (That barbarian isn't much like the D&D Barbarian though.)

It also works well with Fighters. Viking berserkers are Fighters with a Rage Feat. Paladins are Fighters with Aura of Courage, etc.

Lastly, this all works particularly well with spellcasting classes as Prestige Classes. Not everyone likes a "low magic" campaign, but I like the notion of a 1st-level Druid only being able to cast spells because he's already a 5th-level Expert who knows the forest like the back of his hand.

How have your players responded to your experiments? Have they responded well to such experimentation?

So far, so good, but my group's pretty casual. I've been playing low-magic almost from the get-go, and that helps. There's no expectation that "it's in the PHB, so I can do it!"

 

[Voadam]

Have any of you had much of a look at the Wheel of Time "Woodsman"? Tonight our group is switching from OA to WOT for a while so I started to make one a couple of weeks ago. They appear to be more in line with what one would normally excpect from a Ranger/Woodsperson class. I can't remember the details as I don't own the book but I can tell you all more after tonight if you don't already own, or have an opinion of it.

Valavien

The woodsmen have 6 skill points and improved init in light armor instead of TW and ambi. I like this change a lot because it allows their power to be useful no matter their combat style (unless they go for heavy armor). They get favored terrains where they get bonuses as well. I think that is instead of favored enemy. Also they have no spell casting ability. When I first read through WoT RPG and a friend of mine was thinking of running a campaign, this was the class that interested me the most.

I understand that the dragonstar rangers have traded out TW and ambi for PBS and the range feat, but are otherwise core rangers.

 

[Voadam]

mmadsen,

I like the customizable fighter approach, it cures the "every paladin gets exactly the same power at every level" problem and allows divine champions who are not LG.

How do you deal with sneak attack progression and uncanny dodge? about how many bonus feats do your expert rogues get? is it similar to a fighter or every level?

 

[WSmith]

Greetings!

SHARK, and mmadsen, two of some of my favorite posters.

I have two classes I love equally. The first is the barbarian. The second is the ranger. I never really liked the straight knight archtype. Heavy armor never appealed to me. Therefore it was apparant what choices to make.

SHARK, do you have a barbarian class for your campaign completed? I would love to see it.

Back to the rangers. I love the concept of a lightly armored fighter, skilled in stealth, proficient with ranged weapons, able to blend into the wilds around him, and swift to pounce on his prey, be it man or beast! He may have some knowledge of healing herbs and plants, as well as wilderness survival techniques. He is fast and silent. Neither assassin nor knight, but able to fall in somewhere in the middle.

I don't care about rangers spellcasting. Take that away, and I would be more happy. I like the WOT Woodsman. I don't mind the TWF/ambi thing for the core ranger, but don't think it should be standard. I like the idea of customizable "fighting styles."

Oh, and before Jack Daniel attacks, no, I don't think there is anything wrong with the core ranger mechanic wise, just for flavor flexability.

I certainly understand the rules getting in the way of creativity.

Go, SHARK! Do you have a map of your setting?

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Yes, I can post a Barbarian! I'll get one up in just a bit. As for the encouragement, thankyou WSMITH, thankyou very much!

Would you believe that I have a map of my world, hand-drawn, that covers almost the entire floor-space of a large livingroom floor?

It's quite true. Indeed, it is something that I began work on over 14 years ago. I designed it in such a manner, that I still don't have the entire *world* mapped out. I designed parts of it to be nebulous, and on the fringe, so that none of the players would ever be certain that they had "seen it all!" Thus, to this day, there is a large degree of mystery about much of the word!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[mmadsen]

SHARK, one of your stated concerns about first-level characters is that they aren't "adequately equiped to have a reasonable chance of survival and success in upcoming challenges," and I know you use a supercharged variant of Toughness. Have you considered borrowing an idea from Star Wars' Wound/Vitality system?

I don't particularly like the added complexity of two pools of Hit Points (one for real injuries, one for "missed me" points), but I do like the idea that characters start with Con (Wound) Hit Points and get their normal Hit Dice as extra (Vitality) Hit Points. In effect, everyone starts with around 10 extra Hit Points.

(As an aside, NPC noncombatant classes could actually have no Hit Dice and still work under such a system).

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Hmmm...that sounds interesting! Mmadsen, seeing that you have WOT, STAR WARS, and Call of Cthulhu, why in those games, the character classes/types all have considerably more skill points per level than the character classes in D&D?

You know, when I mention characters having a reasonable chance of survival in the future, I'm not quite limiting my scope to merely survival in direct combat, though that is an important part. I'm also focusing on the eventualalities of a member of the group not having the range of skills necessary to succeed in life, throughout the other 70-90% of the time when fighting and direct combat *isn't* taking place.

For example, the Standard Ranger has 4+intel bonus for skill points. Now, assuming the character isn't especially brilliant, let's take the straight average--let's assume a "10" intelligence. Now I know that Humans get extra skill points, for "Game Balance" reasons, so people will want to be humans, but there's a huge credibility problem: Let's assume our Ranger is an Elf. Sorry, but Elves, with their incredibly ancient lives, should know incredibly more than a Human. In my campaign, I have changed the Elves significantly, to better reflect the absolute mythological superiority of Elves over much of creation. None the less, let's assume our Ranger is an Elf. With a "10" Intelligence. That means that he starts the game with

4+0x4=16 Skill Points. In my campaign, I provide an across the board bonus of +2 Skill Points, for every class. Even then, though, our Elf Ranger of average intellect still only gets 24 Skill Points at first level, and 6 Skill Points each level after that. Let's look at the Ranger's class skillls:

(1) Animal Empathy (CHA)
(2) Climb (STR)
(3) Concentration (CON)
(4) Craft (INT)
(5) Handle Animal (CHA)
(6) Heal (WIS)
(7) Hide (DEX)
(8) Intuit Direction (WIS)
(9) Jump (STR)
(10) Knowledge--Nature (INT)
(11) Listen (WIS)
(12) Move Silently (DEX)
(13) Profession (WIS)
(14) Ride (DEX)
(15) Search (INT)
(16) Spot (WIS)
(17) Swim (STR)
(18) Use Rope (DEX)
(19) Wilderness Lore (WIS)
(20) Knowledge--Hearth Wisdom (INT); *Optional*

To this broad range of skills, I add Knowledge--Hearth Wisdom, (INT); Reading the description of the skill in SoF or DoF if I recall correctly,--the skill is ideal for Rangers.

Whether these skills are augmented by others, or not, the argument could be made, especially with the increased depth in "New Uses For Old Skills" sections, that Sense Motive, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Bluff, Appraise, and perhaps a few more, are all not only very useful, but practically essential.

The thing is, though these skills are seemingly slated as "Rogue" skills, in my campaign, at least, everyone is thrown into the deep end of intense social/political interaction, in addition to combat. It just isn't realistic, or practical, to somehow task all social interactions to the "Rogue" character. What if there is no Rogue in the group? Something that happens often in my campaign, is that I make allowances and opportunities for a vast array of things to happen, even very important things, to different *individual* characters. The problem is, they don't go everywhere and do everything *Together* For example, when the Ranger Maria is hit on by Baron Lowenbrau, and he invites her to attend a ball at his estate, he sure as hell isn't expecting the group's Rogue or Bard to talk for her, you know? Ranger Maria is the only person invited, from the group. However, there are some problems to begin with. because of Ranger Maria's low skill points, she is probably going to burp at the dinner table, and generally make an array of social blunders. In addition, though, through a developing romance, Baron Lowenbrau is a leading cultist of a Dark Cult, and Ranger Maria is going to need many social skills to not only continue to entice his interest, but also to gather the information needed, to go along with what the rest of the group discovers, in order to make a raid upon his estate eventually, and either kill him, or drag him before the magistrates.

I offer this to simply show that the backgrounds, and the current demands, are often quite broader than what the Standard Classes allow, as to the skill points, and sometimes skills offered. Typically, if following the rules and capabilities strictly, Ranger Maria would put in foot in her mouth in such a crass manner, that at best, she would be swiftly dismissed and taken back to town by carriage, never to see the Baron again. (And the party won't learn what they could have, had Ranger Maria been seeing the good Baron.) At worst, Ranger Maria would make such a scene, that, enraged, the Baron would have Ranger Maria imprisoned, where he would ravish her, and afterwards, have one of his trusted servants dump her dead body in the sewer somewhere. (Unless she notified the rest of the group, the group might not even be aware of this happening to her.) All of these things, and other plot strands, can develop, or fail to develop, from the Ranger having, or not having, sufficient skills beyond combat.

Classes definitely need more skill points, in order to develop more "Rounded" characters, and they should be able to do so without everyone having an 18 intelligence, you know?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK