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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hriston" data-source="post: 6669044" data-attributes="member: 6787503">This raises the question from where does a class derive its identity? Is it the flavor-text which, as is to be expected, is always presented in the form of a preamble tipped in at the beginning of the class description? Or does it come from the mechanics, which dictate how the class actually feels and is played? I'm giving preference to the latter because I think that's what makes the class what it is. The fluff, in contrast, doesn't have any real effect on the game at all.Considering the importance you give to primacy of position, however, perhaps it is worth noting that among the actual mechanical attributes of the 1E Ranger, the first that is mentioned is the bonus to damage against giant-class humanoids, the 1E Ranger's favored enemies.Yes, but the Ranger's tracking indoors is still better than anyone else's.I'm not sure how spells of any sort qualify as woodcraft. Certainly none of the woodsy types you've been saying the class must emulate are known for using magic as the source for their mastery of the environment. They all seem to be rather mundane woodsmen.Only 1, 2, and 3 are unique to the Ranger. 4 is available to Druids, 5 and 6 are available to Magic-users, and 7 is available to every class, AFAIK.Why do you think I would agree with that? Why should the Ranger have druid spells and not magic-user spells? What's wrong with being able to use scrying objects, considering the connection to Aragorn that this cultivates? And, lastly, why oughtn't the Ranger to attract followers? It is, after all, a sub-class of Fighter. It wouldn't make much sense for the Ranger to attain the title of Lord at 10th level and have no followers whatsoever. I'm not sure why you are ascribing these opinions to me.Let me get this straight. You're saying that woodcraft is the Ranger's "thing", but that this shouldn't depend on being in the woods, by which I think you mean the Ranger's favored terrain. Is that correct?Unfortunately we're not getting anywhere because either I'm not very good at articulating what I mean, or you're intentionally misunderstanding me. I'll try to be more clear. I'm asking what makes the D&D Ranger unique as a class when compared to other D&D classes. What sets it apart from the other classes? What can it do that the other classes cannot?I'm not asking what makes the D&D Ranger unique compared to so-called rangers in other games or other media.The problem as I see it is that a Rogue can put its Expertise in Survival and be better at tracking than a Ranger can. The Fighter by being proficient is just as good as the Ranger. Without changing those classes, what does the Ranger have left? My answer was Favored Enemy, which I think fits nicely with what I see as the Ranger's back-story. If you don't like the narrative that having a favored enemy implies then you are free to rationalize it in any way you like. Or if you want to play an outdoorsy type character, but don't want to have Favored Enemy as a class feature, you could play a Rogue or a Fighter and take skills that reflect woodcraft.Of course the Ranger could have some entirely new mechanic to make it more effective at whatever you think its "thing" is, and there have been a lot of good suggestions in this thread to that effect, but the reason I've focused on FE is that out of those three original abilities that set the Ranger apart, only FE hasn't been co-opted by other classes, so it makes sense to me to strengthen that, rather than try to make the Ranger best at what other classes can do almost as good.I suggested up-thread that FE could be made available as a feat or as a racial trait, and this wouldn't necessarily step on the Ranger's toes because it's unlikely that other characters would focus on the same creatures.There is if no other class has the same expertise.</blockquote>

Verification