of ranger bondage

[jones0901]

ranger is my go to class in most games....

having no melee ability and a cliche wolf padding along at my heels is when i quit most games

 

this is very much a personal opinion, but i loved aragorn and drizzt and i loved my ranger is NWN2, my stalker in bg2.

 

please dont relugate rangers (if you use them, of course) to the wow hunter.

let people make this ranger by all means, but please dont force it

 

thanks, i know the game will be great either way

[Leferd]

Rangers should make use of their tracking/wilderness ability in-game.

[Gurkog]

Would be nice to have variance ranging from big game hunter, bounty hunter, tracker for lost livestock or preadtors. Lots of different ways of 'Ranging'!

[Yst]

On the other hand.

 

I do hope that Obsidian has the wisdom not to give into the idiocy which has afflicted RPG designers in the past, when confronted with Rangerphiles, who wish rangers to be, in effect, a tank, a pet class, a ranged DPSer, a healer, and a divine caster, with no concessions given in any of those areas, by virtue of all of them being present.

 

Drizzt is one of the worst things (who am I kidding - the worst thing) to happen to D&D class design, in the history of its development.

 

AD&D 2E Rangers are such a terrible idea from the get-go, so devoid of a clear niche of their own which isn't already otherwise covered by the other archetypes, that it's understandable players decided they should be dual-wielding pure DPSers (Barbarian niche, more or less), rather than ranged druid-fighter-thieves.

 

Much more sensible is the subsequent reconsideration which sees them as non-magic ranged DPS specialists. There, they genuinely have a unique role, and aren't merely prepackaged Fighter-Druid-Thief multiclass specialists, with some distinctive flavour text.

 

As far as popular class ideas, there are a lot of interesting archetypes which have emerged over the past ten years and gained traction, in Pathfinder particularly. I only hope that Project Eternity doesn't consider itself beholden to the worst ideas to be held over from second edition, in designing its brave new world. I hope, in short, that it doesn't consider itself responsible to the ranger, and to the would be Drizzt, in 2012.

[PsychoBlonde]

I would prefer that they not use ANY of the D&D classes. What's the point of designing your own system if you're just going to use the same old recycled names and styles?

[HangedMan]

I could see using the bog standard classes, though I think it might be neat to rename and refluff them. I also hope their will be 'kits'.

 

Edit: So, for instance, if I want to play a martial artist that is just a street thug, I could go to "Monk" and pick something like "street tough" kit. So instead of having a rigidly trained, well disciplined badass, I've got something closer to a thug.

Edited September 19, 2012 by HangedMan

[DCParry]

Ranger bondage, especially dwarf ranger bondage, is hawt.

 

Sign me up!

 

ANYWAYS, rangers are always a sticky wicket. Do basically make them like rogues with higher sustained DPS, higher survivability, but lower burst and skill access. Or do you go the spellcasting route? How do you implement hunting and tracking skills in a CRPG environment? Also, there is the characterization to think about. Are we talking about one with nature hippies (more druidy) or more utilitarian survivalist types?