Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'Ranger'.
Found 54 results
Are Rangers being included? I always liked Ranger classes, not in the sense that they are necessarily archers but rather protectors of the wild. Think BG2 or LotR, that kinda Ranger. Equipped with typically (for me, anyway) a sword, bow and perhaps a spear. Some minor healing abilities and ability to calm enemy beasts and scan the ground for signs of whats ahead e.g. lots of wolf prints here so expect wolves ahead kinda thing.
Not so big issu but what do you think about renameing this class ? Im for it becouse when i hear "Ranger" the first thing that somes to my mind is coockies or helping turist in mountains ... monster killer, troll hunter more like insted of thypical D&D "forest potector" sound more cooler and propably will be more interesting ... Expecionaly if Hunter can don't give **** about animals or forest ( not like druids ) ... That can be interesting character ...
First of all, is this role even desireable? A scenario: Ragnar and Erule went first down the thick of the forest, shadows all around them. Sparkles of slight light, eyes in the blackness. One of the beasts lunged forward, and as if appearing out of the very shades themselves appeared Orianna and pinned down the beast to the ground by its neck. She whispered some carefully laid words into the beasts ear and shortly thereafter it ran away back to the pack, now leaving each other respectfully and knowingly alone. Later, accidentally falling into the beasts lair, the Wolves Den. At the heart of the pack. Though instead of lashing out and biting, they notice Orianna in the back, huffing and puffing. Sighing as if annoyed but respectfully abides to the "Truce". No words have been spoken, but simply put Orianna's knowledge of the wilds, human to beast, is what allows for such an interaction. ----- What I am suggesting is that the tribe of wolves you slaughtered mindlessly on Playthrough 1 could actually be a sentient tribe of Wolves that you can interact with on Playthrough 2. A Druid or Barbarian too, or a Scholar.
As these are the three classes which haven't really been talked about by Obsidian, I thought I'd bring them up for discussion, particularly as to some degree I think they are all classes which have had conceptual problems in some games, so more or less just opening this up to have a place to debate a bit at what these classes are about/how to fix the problems. MONK Issue 1: Monks as the loot-poor class. I think this is perhaps the most pressing issue of the class historically in D&D as far as IWD2, NWN and NWN2 had it - because the whole point of monks was that they are a class which relies on their own body as a weapon they don't really get to partake in looting in the same way as all the other classes. This can be fixed to some degree by having robes for their armour slot, but I found many of the robes from the Neverwinter games not very exciting, finding a robe with resistance to 1 point of slashing just isn't even the same as finding, say, a +1 suit of chainmail. You obviously don't want them to become too similar to fighters as part of their appeal is that they are so different. This is also putting into account that Obsidian have stated that they want to be able to have anyone wearing any armour if they want to. The weapon thing is similar. So how do you make them be able to get loot (which I consider a cornerstone of the genre) without ruining the class concept? Issues 2: Monks as a low choice/linear class. The other big problem I see with monks is how they were handled in the D&D games had very little "give" in their levelling up/character creation. You would level up and though there were certainly feats you could use, there weren't really any designed for them. You got lots of cool abilities but you didn't have any say over them. How do you inject some player input into the design of a monk, without either breaking the class concept or going the opposite end and becoming overly "move" based? DRUID Issue 1: Druids, wildshape and spellcasting. I think one of the biggest problems with any class is that Druids are a two focus class, and those focuses don't really mesh well in combat - a cleric can go whack someone with a mace on the front line and then cast a spell the next, but when you have wildshape it doesn't gel well with casting. Yes, there is the NWN2 solution of giving the player a feat to cast spells while in animal form but that didn't quite work for me - it felt a bit silly to have a wolf stop in the middle of combat to cast a traditional spell, and if you are going to do that it should have been built into the class rather than having to take a feat to make the basic premise of the class useable. So, how to balance shapeshifting with wildshape? Issue 2: Wildshape becoming redundant At this point I'd like to clarrify, I really feel like wildshape is something that really makes druids stand out as a class, sure wizards can do it too, but not to the same degree. However, I do think the focus should generally be on versatility - in the 3rd edition games there was a bit of an issue where really, only the most recent shape you learnt was actually useful, the rest became gradually more redundant. This especially felt a bit of a shame when you progressed onto the elementals, which although technically less powerful, felt less cool than turning into, say, a polar bear. Is there a way to keep the wildshapes relevant throughout? Issue 3: Wildshapes outside combat This has never really been addressed in any of the IE games/NWN, but one thing I feel hasn't really been done is use of wildshapes outside of combat. Even if it were limited to anonymously scouting as a fox or eagle or something that wouldn't arouse suspicion (with some risk of being detected from other spellcasters perhaps so as not to be too useful) or to reach a certain place quickly using the form of some fast animal, it's never really been explored. RANGER Issue 1: Making Rangers stand out. I do feel rangers have been sometimes treated as a bit of a generic hybrid between rogue and fighter, but how do you make them more unique compared to those two? This was done in D&D by use of favoured enemy, spells and animal companions, but are these things you want in the class? Could they be elaborated on more (having favoured enemy options including classes perhaps?) or is there some other feature that you think would fit the archetype? Anyway, I do have my own ideas on these but for the mean time I mainly wanted to see what everyone else's thoughts on these were?