Ranger Class

[Chilloutman]

Hello,

 

I would like to know your opinion about rangers in IE games. I totaly love concept of wilderness survival/beastmaster fighter type but in most IE games I just rather choose druid/fighter dual class. Thing is I am not huge fan of bows as primary weapon but its not that main issue. Problem is that ranger in most games was just inferior fighter. In BG1 and IWD1 and IWD2 there was absolutly nothing that fighter cant do and ranger can. He got lower BRB or fewer traits. In BG2 you can create at least subclass (and then only archer got some meaning, other subclasses were again weaker than any other fighter/whatever.

 

Things I would like to see for ranger in terms of combat:

 

More skills attuned to beastmastery - dual hit with pet, pet commands making them enlarged/frenzied etc.Tricky combat techniques using enviroment (probably hard to implement), maybe some stances and combat trick learned from animals. Eg. tiger stance for more crit/faster attacks, eagl stand for longer arrow flights etc.

 

In terms of non combat skills:

 

I remember that only once i really used ranger was in dark wood in IWD2 where i have to use tracking/wilderness survival to get out of it. I would like more of that interactions. Lets face it, fantasy worlds are mostly wilderness with few populated areas but somehow in these games we just dont have any use of such a skills, which is a shame for rangers. I think in Fallout it was great that if you have (cant remember now) survival skill and higher it was. you were traveling faster, can expect encounters. I would go down that road and add bonus encounters if you have ranger in group with high survival skill.

 

Please share your opinions about rangers in your favorit games and how they were implemented or what do you would like to see in PE

 

yeah and please forgive me my English, its not my native language. Feel free to point out typos

 

Chilloutman

 

offtopic: how can I add tags for thread?

Edited October 23, 2012 by Chilloutman

[Sensuki]

Rangers were good in Icewind Dale 1 and BG1 because of the extra attack per round they got to try and assimilate two-weapon fighting

The Archer and Stalker kit were okay in BG2

They sucked in IWD2. I mean really.

 

They worked better in P&P because the BG games were very combat focused and the non-combat stuff that exists in D&D didn't really come into play at all.

 

The Ranger has always been pretty much imitations of Strider and Drizzt Do'Urden. I'm not sure where the divine magic bit in 2E+ came from bit I suppose it makes sense.

 

I'm open for something a bit different, but I think it's already been stated that Rangers are going to be the class to pick if you want to use a ranged weapon (or a Bow at least) in P:E and there'll be an Animal Companion mechanic of some sort.

Edited October 23, 2012 by Sensuki

[Christliar]

It was very funny in NWN, because the best archer was a fighter/wizard/arcane archer ;d I agree that rangers get shafted very often, they should probably be given more synergies with their pets and have unique archery feats, but not to the degree that they are far and beyond any other attempt at making archers.

[rjshae]

I never quite understood that whole two-weapon specialization thing they added in D&D. The archery I understand because they're hunting-type specialist, but why would you favor dual weapons when fighting a bison or a bear? As woodsmen I think they would be more likely to specialize in agile fighting without a (cumbersome) shield, particularly with thrusting weapons.

Edited October 23, 2012 by rjshae

[Fimbul]

Archers often ended up being the most effective character in my parties, although I too did scarcely choose a ranger for the task, with the exception of the BG2 archer subclass. I preferred a warrior/mage class combo and gladly forwent armor and fast level-up for the extra punch down range.

 

 

Ranger's should have some unique mechanics for ranged combat, to make them more interesting!

Three examples from the top of my head:

- piercing missile on crit

- choice of targeted limb, with chance of crippling (I love this in the Fallout series)

- fletching: infinite availability of certain ammo types, depending on level

[Chilloutman]

I would not like to end up like simple hunter, I think that ranger should be proficient with mele weapon as well,he is protector of woodland but it doenst mean he fight onlz animals. he also fight with bandits and other armed humanoids and it mostly end up in close combat battles

[HansKrSG]

I never quite understood that whole two-weapon specialization thing they added in D&D. The archery I understand because they're hunting-type specialist, but why would you favor dual weapons when fighting a bison or a bear? As woodsmen I think they would be more likely to specialize in agile fighting without a (cumbersome) shield, particularly with thrusting weapons.

 

This is probably because of the Drizzt Do'Urden books. He was described as a Ranger and was the definite master of the two-weapon style in the Forgotten Realms (the base world in AD&D, if any was). I might be wrong and this connection might have been made before the Drizzt books, but if so, I am unaware of it, please correct me if I am wrong.

 

The ranger from LOTR, Aragorn, was described not as much as a bowvielding hunter with an affinity for animals, than a master warrior, though stealthy nonetheless.

The meaning of Ranger in real life is just as wide, and include wildlife protectors, police enforcment, military branches and simple wanderers.

 

Not quite sure where I am going with this, but I guess a point could be that ranger could mean most anything in this game, depending on the developers vision, though I guess that they should be good at moving around at least

[teknoman2]

rangers in IE games had 2 free points in 2 weapon fighting style, and that made them good dps material (especialy the archer, if used in BG1 through the trilogy mod could solo the entire game), when the fighter was more of a tank

[Gromnir]

the 3.0 ranger were a steamy pile, but monte cook variant, 3.5, and pathfinder versions were all quite satisfactory. in point o' fact, we were most likely to be playing a ranger with some rogue levels thrown into the mix... when we weren't playing clerics. got a particular fondness for priest characters, but a butt-kicking combatant with ridiculous skill points = win.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Jojobobo]

I would really like to see trapping done in an interesting, unique and useful way (which has IMO never been seen in crpgs yet) - rangers are the class for that. More scripted dialogue/events for rangers due to greater knowledge of the wilderness - sure, I'm down with that too.

[The Guilty Party]

I would throw out all the weird preconcieved notions that various d&d systems have put on rangers. Dual-wielding makes no sense (to limit to rangers, or have them magically good at it). Wilderness skills do make some sense, make them be useful. Some degree of stealth makes sense. Divine magic doesn't really make sense.

 

Something along those lines. They can build this world from the ground up, might as well have it make sense where it takes basically no effort to do so.

[teknoman2]

I would throw out all the weird preconcieved notions that various d&d systems have put on rangers. Dual-wielding makes no sense (to limit to rangers, or have them magically good at it). Wilderness skills do make some sense, make them be useful. Some degree of stealth makes sense. Divine magic doesn't really make sense.

 

Something along those lines. They can build this world from the ground up, might as well have it make sense where it takes basically no effort to do so.

it's not divine magic, it's natural magic like that of the druids

[DCParry]

Well, there seems to be a couple approaches to designing a ranger. D&D has influenced this a lot so I will use a lot of that as a base. I am old though, and never really played PnP past 2nd edition -

 

First, there is the holy nature warrior approach. The Paladin equivalent for tree lovers (similar to cleric/druid split). This ties up the ranger's powers with a particular ethos, emphasizing his connection to nature. I am not such a fan of this particular paradigm. Nothing wrong with it per se, just not my cup of tea.

 

Second, a general outsider warrior, this one focuses on the self-sufficiency, mountain man sort of attitude. Skills are learned from experience (as opposed to divinely granted) and the role they fill is a bit more varied. This is sort of the 2nd edition ranger I envision, at least in character, if not mechanics. He or she could be anything from a huntsman, sheriff, yeoman, guide, bounty hunter and so on. The sorts of activities that require a more varied skill set than a warrior and a martial disposition than a rogue.

 

Then we come to animals. Companions. Pets. Whatever. This has been a trend, and their is plenty of precedence for it. Grizzly Adams anyone? Anyways, while I am normally not one to advocate not using something because a popular genre or game has utilized it, please, for the love of all the is holy, no WoW BM hunters. Sure, mechanically, if you are going to play an archer, pets are a blast. But I would prefer if pets or animal companions stayed with druids (if they are class bound at all).

 

N.B. To teknoman2, at least back in the 2nd edition, both clerics and druids were classed as divine casters if I remember.

[Gromnir]

is some likely unnecessary overlap with barbarians... 'less you add stoopid stuff like spells and pets. first rangers were American colonials who were combining english and native american styles o' warfare. now, keeps in mind that Gromnir is understandably resistant to using the "barbarian" term for indians (our cousins tell us that "indian" is pc again,) but it is pretty much spot-on as far as general gaming labels is concerned. so, rangers = folks who use barbarian warfare skills. hmmm. ideally we would have rangers resemble hawkeye, uncas and chingachgook more than drizz'le, but how does one distinguish from barbarian class? give guns? am thinking guns is too small a difference in and of themselves.

 

...

 

is just one reason we loathe class bloat.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Adhin]

The dual-wielding bit makes sense to me in a ranger but that has less to do with the idea of 2 swords and more the idea a Ranger, in many cases would be the survivalist in that they carry what they need to do stuff. So in general a bow, a sword and an axe. Axe are awesome tools and weapons and make 'great' off-hand to swords as it allows you to hook and pull things while also getting the benefits of a sword. Most folks I feel often overlook that when they make rangers and its usually just identical weapons or dual shorties for whatever reason.

 

If you think about it like that, carrying what they need for any manner of situations both to help survive in wilderness enviroments and city (or whatever there 'range' is) things, at least to me, make a bit more sense with how there setup in 3E. The only part I think feels awkward is the forced focus. Lvl 2 in 3.5 your picking DW 'or' Archery. Which, granted, opens up general feats for archery or DW if you so choose but DW is so much more...exhausting on the feats side it was a bit lopsided.

 

Anyway I'd love to see, or at least have the ability to setup a Ranger like that. As for a pet I liked the DnD split in that a druid, ultimately, had the better companion cause... I mean they're a druid. If they can't befriend an animal early on there kinda crapping on there entire role compared to a Ranger where protecting a range can benefit from a companion but it's not exactly a base part of that existence.

 

Definitely hope they allow extensive speccing into any of that stuff, cause I'd love to make a Sword/Axe + Bow ranger with a wolf companion of some kind. I pray if they do companions (which no IE game has done worth **** so far) isn't some timed faky summon. Have it be an actual 'part' of the class, have it sit off to the left side of your character with in group formation or allow pet/summon circles when doing custom formations.

[Wolfentir]

I would like my ranger to be:

- agile

- able to use stealth

- able to set up traps while in stealth mode, hence when attacking with a bow being able to position him/herself so traps are between him/her and the enemy

- great at archery

- great at knife fighting

- able to raise a permanent pet (wolf/eagle/bear/etc)

- able to track

- good at healing

[Kissamies]

Being good with ranged weapons makes sense for the ranger because they are practical for him, but I hope the class won't be too married to the ranged combatant idea. In my mind that is not what defines the ranger and neither is beastmastery or having some mystical connection with the nature, though those are nice traits to have optionally. I think the defining features are wilderness survival and pathfinding, ability to cover ground. My idea of the ranger is much like the second point in DCParry's post. The self-sufficient hunter and scout.

 

As for actual abilities, I think the main things would be best survival and tracking skills and the ability to move quickly on the overland map, if there is one. Could also have good movement speed overall as long as light armour is used. Another ranger thing I think is practicality, carry only light gear but get most out of it. Most combat advantages might not be straight bonuses, but the ability to ignore certain penalties. A specialised fighter might be a better archer when shooting targets on a sunny day, but a ranger would beat him at shooting an obscured target at rainy swamp after staying awake for 48 hours.

 

Animal companions can be cool, but I hate it when they are forced on me.

[jamclark]

I would like my ranger to be:

- agile

- able to use stealth

- able to set up traps while in stealth mode, hence when attacking with a bow being able to position him/herself so traps are between him/her and the enemy

- great at archery

- great at knife fighting

- able to raise a permanent pet (wolf/eagle/bear/etc)

- able to track

- good at healing

 

Well Rangers would be the "label" of a character with the above skill sets. I see them as a Jack of all trades but master of none, as in a versatile member of a party. They can heal, but not as good as a Cleric or Druid. They are great in archery, but less so than an Archer.

 

I see them as forest guardians. They gain bonuses in the outdoors such as faster speed, stealth, tracking, laying traps, finding herbs, fletching, etc. Another would be bow range.

 

In towns, and underground they would have some penalties, such as lowered bow range.

 

A pet, like a Druid or Beast-master, would stand them apart. Not as a meat shield but a companion. Could be similar to a mage's familiar. If the pet dies, the Ranger would certainly suffer in the form of penalties.

[rjshae]

I agree that Rangers have some elements of the fighter, barbarian, and thief, but then there is overlap between many of the classes. They are probably the ideal scout class, having the stealth of the rogue and the wilderness acumen of the barbarian. In a pitched battle they would perhaps serve as skirmishers or raiders, moving in loose groups and employing hit and run tactics. For either case, shield is little needed and may even be a hindrance. Hence I'd expect them to be experts at fighting without a shield; much more so than a soldier. Rangers would be used to hunting in dense foliage and shooting moving targets, so they would be better at targeting foes during brief moments of opportunity. But I don't think that they would be any better than a veteran bowman at long range.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Rangers should be good at gaining bonuses against specific enemy types. Not just the usual "+1 to hit", but increased damage, defense, critical chance, resistance to special attacks, etc. Also, they should be able to grant these (at least partially) to allies.

Plus stealth (perhaps allowing some kind of ranged sneak attacks), wilderness survival, laying traps, great ranged combat, somewhat weaker melee (against creatures outside his specialization). The usual stuff. Ditch the magic and dual wielding aspects, and make the animal companion at least optional.

Edited December 9, 2012 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Osvir]

Howdy Stranger, you a Lone Ranger?

 

Bar fight Brawlers, Marksmen Lawyers (????)

 

Jokes aside, I'd like to see a Ranger who is a "drifter", and unlike the chaotic Rogue, with some purpose. Now -wait a moment- saying that a Rogue is chaotic I merely imply that the Rogue lives life on a "whim", with little structure. Drifting like the wind from one place to another, whilst I see the Ranger more like a drifter who is the wind (philosophically speaking), with structure.

 

I would like to see the Ranger have "Wilderness Smarts" whilst the Rogue would have "Street Smarts". Druids having "Nature Smarts" and Barbarian having "Mountain/Coastal Smarts".

 

Don't got too much input on the combat aspects, but the Ranger should be able to handle a dagger, a spear (throwing) and an axe, apart from being good with a bow. An un-adventurous Ranger living in some hermit hut by a forest: Dagger for ending the life of an animal with respect (Avatar), Spear for Bear-hunting or defending (taking down larger animals), and an axe for wood cutting as well as butchering purposes (as in profession). For more specific direction in the link: Primal Cut.

 

I see the Ranger as a self-serving resource. Self-sufficient. Gathers wood for the open fire at the house during winter, hunts animals for food and plays the banjo like a boss. A chillaxed dude/dudette who has harmony and lives life at a slow pace. Don't need much.

 

A Rogue is quite opposite, wants adventure, wants the hectic city life, wants stuff (thus steals stuff), wants excitement, climbs mountains, hitchhikes, charms his way through areas or whatnot.

 

Likewise, I don't want a certain "personality" to overshadow the class choices but I just feel they become more tangible with some "personality" in them.

 

A Construction Worker is a Construction Worker and shares some traits in his/her personality with other Construction Workers (outside of working, being a Construction Worker defines his/her personality slightly).

Edited December 9, 2012 by Osvir

[Odglok]

We'll never reach a consensus on what a ranger is or should be, but I'm gonna preface my preferences with this quote:

I would throw out all the weird preconcieved notions that various d&d systems have put on rangers. Dual-wielding makes no sense (to limit to rangers, or have them magically good at it). Wilderness skills do make some sense, make them be useful. Some degree of stealth makes sense. Divine magic doesn't really make sense.

 

Something along those lines. They can build this world from the ground up, might as well have it make sense where it takes basically no effort to do so.

 

Please don't throw in a ranger class just because people expect it to be there. Make it unique; make it logical; make it fit the world of Project Eternity.

 

Having said that, when it comes to class design, I put more emphasis on function than style. An inferior fighter who gets free dual wield, a pet, and some druid spells isn't defined enough for me. I actually like the idea of rangers being the premier archers of PE, because it gives them an actual role that isn't better filled by some other class. And it makes a ton of sense for a self-sufficient character who spends all his time outdoors. I don't have a problem with dual wield, but I don't think it should be a class-defining ability (seems more fitting for barbarians).

 

Speaking of which, this is how I see the trifecta of traditional warrior classes:

• Rangers are the masters of ranged combat - stealthy, quick, evasive, lightly armored
  
• Fighters are the most heavily armored - front line tanks, waging a war of attrition
  
• Barbarians are the masters of melee damage - epitmoze the philosophy that the best defense is a good offense
  

So while rangers could have a variety of useful and flavorful abilities that other warriors don't, their ultimate purpose in the game would be to kill enemies from a distance with non-magical damage. The more their special abilities fit this goal, the better. My two cents.

[Wulfic]

I dont like the class ranger in DnD ... I mean animal companions like bears ? Cmon gimme a break. Dual weilding ? Useless, as cool as it looks its just not practical to use two swords at once. Rangers shouldnt wear any armor at all.

 

 

I would love to see ranger made more realistic. DnD isnt really a good example from which u should take ur inspiration from. I personally recommend you to take a look at The Dark Eye which is IMHO superior to DnD.

[AGX-17]

I would like my ranger to be:

- agile

- able to use stealth

- able to set up traps while in stealth mode, hence when attacking with a bow being able to position him/herself so traps are between him/her and the enemy

- great at archery

- great at knife fighting

- able to raise a permanent pet (wolf/eagle/bear/etc)

- able to track

- good at healing

 

Well Rangers would be the "label" of a character with the above skill sets. I see them as a Jack of all trades but master of none, as in a versatile member of a party. They can heal, but not as good as a Cleric or Druid. They are great in archery, but less so than an Archer.

 

I see them as forest guardians. They gain bonuses in the outdoors such as faster speed, stealth, tracking, laying traps, finding herbs, fletching, etc. Another would be bow range.

 

In towns, and underground they would have some penalties, such as lowered bow range.

 

A pet, like a Druid or Beast-master, would stand them apart. Not as a meat shield but a companion. Could be similar to a mage's familiar. If the pet dies, the Ranger would certainly suffer in the form of penalties.

 

There is no Archer class in P:E. Ranger is almost certainly going to be the most archery-centric class.

Edited December 10, 2012 by AGX-17

[Tsuga C]

I never quite understood that whole two-weapon specialization thing they added in D&D. The archery I understand because they're hunting-type specialist, but why would you favor dual weapons when fighting a bison or a bear? As woodsmen I think they would be more likely to specialize in agile fighting without a (cumbersome) shield, particularly with thrusting weapons.

 

Drizzt had sufficient pull with the swords & sorcery readership in the USA that he became the standard by which all other "rangers" were molded and judged. Also, the dual wielding aspect of the ranger class makes sense if you're viewing the class as a bush fighting, hit-and-run specialist. Pepper the enemy with arrows and then close in to mop up with lighter melee weapons (clubs, daggers, tomahawks, short swords, spears**, and other single-handed melee weapons). If the attack goes poorly, it's time to fade into the underbrush and try again at a later date.

 

Large and tower shields are for relatively open areas such as plains and city streets. No one in their right mind is going to lug a large kite or circular shield through the undergrowth of a second-growth forest where you pay for every ounce you carry in sweat and aggravation. Small shields might be an option if the ranger isn't going too far from home and expects trouble. Old growth forests are something different as they're often fairly clear and open beneath their towering canopies, but anywhere there's an abundance of brush that shield's going to be a major hassle. I've wandered through enough forest in my life while crusing timber to know that the less you're carrying over and above the essentials in the wilds, the better.

 

 

**Although often employed as two-handed weapons, a spear with a shaft of ash is a surprisingly light weapon.

Edited December 10, 2012 by Tsuga C