TURN BASED combat in Deadfire?!

[Triple - A Foxy Lad]

outright dismissing legitimate criticism because the forum is known for being a haven for alt-right crap or is full of gatekeepers to the highest degree otherwise isn't going to accomplish much.

Dont matter what it accomplishes, folk are gonna do it, even if u implore them otherwise. if my thoughts on something align with the codex (occasionally happens. they were great, early advocates of motb among other things) id just state them as my own. easier.

[Triple - A Foxy Lad]

like if my take on rangers is of any relevance.

 

the ranger archetype consists of like three things.

 

ranger helps party achieve non-combat related goals in wild envirionemnts (ie. eat, sleep, track etc)

ranger has animal companion

ranger does consistent physical deeps at er... range.

 

(theres also the weird "ranger dual-wields" thing from d&d but im dismissing that as a quirk)

 

the first part of the archetype is easier to implement in a tabletop game. in a crpg, u have to create set pieces where the ranger meaningfully contributes. issue is, u cant construct these set-pieces to make the ranger *mandatory* or u stifle player expression. so, at best, ranger might get small bonus to survival/stealth/whatever which aint enough to justify unique class.

 

ranger has animal companion. in crpg, this must be a nightmare to balance. if companion is too stong, ranger is equivalent of two characters, if companion is too weak, what is purpose of companion? ghost heart got around this by making the companion a summon that can be balanced as such - and giving it a sad story to fulfil requirement of emotional bond with player. is quite ingenious imo, but i dunno if mechanically can be differentiated from other summoning classes. to me, it has enough of its own flavour, but ymmv. more dedicated ranger players would be better placed to comment on that.

 

ranger does consistent ranged physical deeps - this is another problem. in a game where abilities and resources are popping left-right-and-centre, what do you with a role that - traditionally - defines itself through basic attacks? How do you give them impressive stuff to do without watering down their niche? obs had similar issue with rogue, which ended up as multiclass fodder more than its own thing. there are only so many backflips and empowered basics u can dish out.

 

i dont want to go into too much detail, i aint enough of a ranger expert for that, but i think overwhelming picture is that of a tabletop archetype - popular enough to be a requirement - struggling to find a place in crpgs. like in d&d crpgs, they weren't worth rolling over a fighter or paladin, until u got to 3.x and they became the only practical means of hitting the ludicrous requirements for high-end dual-wielding - which still didnt make them worth it imo. still occasionally played ranger in such games, but only for strict rp reasons.

[Lord Brunitius]

No, you have to start a new game.