Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="hafrogman" data-source="post: 5891913" data-attributes="member: 8858">Ranger is a tough one to define.&nbsp; I'm very much of the opinion that fighting styles (twf/archery) should never define a class.&nbsp; And lightly armored warrior isn't much to go on.&nbsp; I also think we should divorce the ranger from the woods, as woodsman is more like a theme.&nbsp; So I would go for a ranger is a warrior who is practiced in using his knowledge and experience of his environment to his advantage.&nbsp; I prefer the favored terrain schtick over the favored enemy for a few reasons.&nbsp; The biggest one is the strange way it was treated in 3.X with a ranger slowly accumulating a list of completely unrelated 'favored enemies' throughout his career.&nbsp; It seemed to dilute the idea of a 'favored enemy' into very much a list of 'random enemies I have bonuses against'.I do like this idea, perhaps there is a 'home' bonus that a ranger is specialized in, and a 'floating' bonus that is refocused after spending a night or two in a new environment.&nbsp; Thus if you take an urban ranger and put him onto a boat, he may not be AS skilled out of his element, but he's also the first person to adapt and adopt to new circumstances.&nbsp; He's so used to studying and being aware of his environment that he's able to adjust to take advantage of his new surroundings.But this does create a math issue as discussed above.&nbsp; What kind of bonus should we be talking about?&nbsp; Do we design based on the assumption that the ranger always has his bonus?&nbsp; Never has his bonus?&nbsp; 50/50?&nbsp; The larger the bonus is, the more meaningful it is, but the more vital it is to get an accurate answer to that question.EDIT:The issue here is that they've already stated their intention of including every class that was a core class in any previous PHB.&nbsp; Thus we don't get to decide which concepts should be classes.&nbsp; Instead we are left with, since we have a class called ranger, what is a class design that can mimic older edition rangers well, but still be broad enough to deserve to be a class.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="hafrogman, post: 5891913, member: 8858"] Ranger is a tough one to define. I'm very much of the opinion that fighting styles (twf/archery) should never define a class. And lightly armored warrior isn't much to go on. I also think we should divorce the ranger from the woods, as woodsman is more like a theme. So I would go for a ranger is a warrior who is practiced in using his knowledge and experience of his environment to his advantage. I prefer the favored terrain schtick over the favored enemy for a few reasons. The biggest one is the strange way it was treated in 3.X with a ranger slowly accumulating a list of completely unrelated 'favored enemies' throughout his career. It seemed to dilute the idea of a 'favored enemy' into very much a list of 'random enemies I have bonuses against'. I do like this idea, perhaps there is a 'home' bonus that a ranger is specialized in, and a 'floating' bonus that is refocused after spending a night or two in a new environment. Thus if you take an urban ranger and put him onto a boat, he may not be AS skilled out of his element, but he's also the first person to adapt and adopt to new circumstances. He's so used to studying and being aware of his environment that he's able to adjust to take advantage of his new surroundings. But this does create a math issue as discussed above. What kind of bonus should we be talking about? Do we design based on the assumption that the ranger always has his bonus? Never has his bonus? 50/50? The larger the bonus is, the more meaningful it is, but the more vital it is to get an accurate answer to that question. EDIT:The issue here is that they've already stated their intention of including every class that was a core class in any previous PHB. Thus we don't get to decide which concepts should be classes. Instead we are left with, since we have a class called ranger, what is a class design that can mimic older edition rangers well, but still be broad enough to deserve to be a class. [/QUOTE]

Verification