Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Diamondeye" data-source="post: 6666539" data-attributes="member: 60019">Having read the entire thread, I really find the idea that there's not enough to keep Ranger as its own class, or that it needs to have favored enemy/spells/animal companions just to work in the first place to be pretty absurd.  Rangers have existed in plenty of games outside of D&D and have always worked well.  It isn't particularly hard to come up with workable concepts for several Ranger variants as long as one doesn't get married to a Ranger having or not having various features just because <insert edition here> had it or a specific literary character had it.First, what's a Ranger?  A Ranger is an expert on the wilderness.  He's not a primitive tribesman; that's a Barbarian, he's not a guardian of nature, that's a Druid.  He's not simply a warrior that happens to be outdoors a lot, that's a Fighter and he's not simply a stealthy scout; that's a Rogue.  Those people could be Rangers, but they don't have to be.Instead, a Ranger has elements of all of these, and the key to making variants is which of the above the character favors.  What any of those Rangers generally have in common though, is that they are the people that make the wilderness approachable and livable for the rural folk that mine the ore and harvest the crops that feed the rest of civilization.  Civilization isn't only in cities; it's the peasantry, country nobles, small towns, etc.  Rangers may live in towns, even near cities.  They might live way out in the wilderness.  But, even if it's to a very small degree they're a member of society.  They might only be a criminal, but they're still part of that society.The old man that lives in the small house on the outskirts of town, and knows where all the best hunting, fishing, and trapping spots are?  He's a Ranger.  The Baron's Sheriff?  He might be a Ranger.  That one guard with the caravan that can always set a broken bone just right, make a poultice, tell you if water is safe to drink and that the sergeant always asks if he thinks an attack is likely or if it's going to rain?  He's a Ranger.  That hermit that lives up on the mountain and comes into town with a tame wolf to buy stuff to make moonshine?  The one that can tell you where to hide if you're afoul of the law? He's a Ranger too.A Ranger is:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">A combat class </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Generally proficient at both ranged and melee combat </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Knows the woodland (or wherever he's from) </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Good at survival against the elements </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">At least passable at staying unnoticed, particularly in his environment. </li> </ul>A Ranger might or might not be:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The leader of some sort of animal that fights alongside him </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Particularly dedicated to fighting a certain type of opponent, or even unusually good at it </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">An exceptional melee combatant </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Especially good at stealth </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Possessed of notable magical talent </li> </ul>A quick word on the fighter - if the fighter is going to be the all-around "best at fighting", as in at least workable in ANY type of fighting and especially good at the type of fighting he focuses on, then the fighter is not also going to be a utility class.  If we accept that - the Ranger is going to have more utility - then the Ranger is going to be more limited in terms of viable fighting styles.Therefore right off the bat I'm going to say the Ranger IS NOT going to be a heavily armored melee combatant.  His general defensive posture should be "moderate".  He's not going to be an unarmed combatant (that's a monk) and he's not going to get the number or variety of combat abilities the Fighter does.So, what should the class really look like?  Well, it needs baseline abilities and then it needs subclass/variant abilities.  Below are general capabilities, not specific mechanics but they form a framework for a way to make 4 types of Ranger.As a baseline, a Ranger should have:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Very good archery ability, better than anyone else that isn't going out of their way to be good at archery </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Wilderness survival and knowledge abilities. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Baseline martial class melee abilities </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Stealth capabilities better than most classes, possibly enhanced in terrain they're used to. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Terrain that they "know" and the ability to learn more. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">General freedom of common melee styles: Weapon + shield, 2-weapon, 2-handed, single weapon, but excluding more exotic options </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Ability to help party members with wilderness tasks </li> </ul>Now, as to subclasses/variants:  All Rangers should be very good at archery, so in addition to that, they each need a subclass "thing".A variant can be made focusing on stealth/utility, one for melee ability, one focusing on the animal companion and one focusing on spellcasting.  I'm not going into specifics on these because it's too much work and I'm not developing replacement classes for free, but there is PLENTY of room in the Ranger for variants and full development.I specifically left out the "Favored Enemy" because frankly I just don't think it's a good ability.  That's the sort of ability that should accompany a background - I would rather see it as an alternate class feature, and I don't think it should be a major emphasis.  It should be something more minor. Whether they're a Ranger thing or not they're too limiting to the player and DM, and too roleplay-centric to be a major class feature.</blockquote>

Verification