Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5891852" data-attributes="member: 54877">My gut instinct is that what would make the most sense can't happen:&nbsp; Make a &quot;scout&quot; (or similar name) class to handle the core, mundane bits of the ranger for a lightly armored skirmisher, at home in the wild.&nbsp; Then make &quot;ranger&quot; a theme with some of the more offbeat but iconic bits.&nbsp; &nbsp;Due to classic class names being retained, I think the tendency is to try to do something like that, but flip the names around.&nbsp; The problem is that then either &quot;ranger&quot; gets assigned to &quot;wilderness, lightly armored skirmisher&quot;--which ticks off a lot of people who want all or most of the offbeat stuff built in, or the &quot;themes&quot; that emerge to support it don't really fit what the name of the theme is.&nbsp;I'd realy like to be proved totally wrong on this.&nbsp; It seems the finesse way out may be to make &quot;ranger&quot; the mundane class, but attach default themes to it that end up covering the offbeat stuff.&nbsp; Whether this is acceptable to people, I don't know, since I can't follow the logic of, &quot;It is not enough to get the exact abilities I want.&nbsp; They must come from the source I expect and have the labels that I demand, or my world will die in flames from the inherent tension of this state of affairs!&quot;&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :p"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5891852, member: 54877"] My gut instinct is that what would make the most sense can't happen: Make a "scout" (or similar name) class to handle the core, mundane bits of the ranger for a lightly armored skirmisher, at home in the wild. Then make "ranger" a theme with some of the more offbeat but iconic bits. Due to classic class names being retained, I think the tendency is to try to do something like that, but flip the names around. The problem is that then either "ranger" gets assigned to "wilderness, lightly armored skirmisher"--which ticks off a lot of people who want all or most of the offbeat stuff built in, or the "themes" that emerge to support it don't really fit what the name of the theme is. I'd realy like to be proved totally wrong on this. It seems the finesse way out may be to make "ranger" the mundane class, but attach default themes to it that end up covering the offbeat stuff. Whether this is acceptable to people, I don't know, since I can't follow the logic of, "It is not enough to get the exact abilities I want. They must come from the source I expect and have the labels that I demand, or my world will die in flames from the inherent tension of this state of affairs!" :p [/QUOTE]

Verification