Druids, Monks and Rangers - Issues

[AGX-17]

The ability to turn into an animal has always been kind of pointless to me, since it's humans who always win fights with animals.

 

One thing I would have thought would be great for Rangers was the idea that, instead of a 'Favoured Enemy' they got bonuses against, the instead got the ability to study enemies. Like the Witcher, they could slowly learn the weak spots of an enemy the more they fought them and the more they studied them in books and in the wild and such like.

 

I would assume a Ranger to be likely illiterate, a woodsman or hunter of some sort whose knowledge comes from direct experience living off the land rather from fancy-pants book learnin'. I've always imagined Rangers as being born and raised by experienced, self-sufficient parents, learning the weaknesses of critters and monsters through firsthand parent-to-child teaching. Salt-of-the-Earth types.

Edited December 4, 2012 by AGX-17

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Warning, this post will be a bit long.

 

I think that PE would have been better served by having 4(maybe 5*) base classes with several "subclasses"(at the moment the PE wiki says that subclasses will be included) instead of the 11 we have now. I believe that Paladin, Barbarian, Ranger, Monk, Druid, and Chanter are simply subclasses of the 4 usual base classes(Fighter, Priest, Rogue, and Wizard) and really don't need their own specific class, especially since subclasses are already going to be included.

 

However, there will be 11 base classes, so Obsidian needs to make them as distinct as possible. They need to have abilities specific to classes that no other class has access to. I have some ideas on how to make the classes listed in the OP more distinct.

 

The main problem I have with Druids is that as casters they can't compete with Clerics as divine casters or Mages as offensive casters, I would like to see a more unique druid spell list that lets them more effectively fill in a niche. I also think that letting a druid choose a "favored environment" where their spells are more effective when cast in that environment and/or a "favored element" which increases the strength of spells that deal with that element would make sense for a druid. As far as shifting goes, I think it either needs to be improved dramatically by allowing more creatures to shift in to and/or allowing the bonuses they get from equipment to carry in to the shifted form (as well as being able to cast spells while shifted", or ditched for an ability to channel an aspect of nature. What I mean by channeling an aspect of nature is that the druid could take upon the aspect of stone or flame to gain certain abilities, yet remain in human(oid) form and still have ready access to all equipment.

 

Spoiler: I don't like Monks. Monks in most RPGs are not really that broad of a class. They almost always end up developing very similarly and IMO get pretty bland. I think that a big part of it is that their main combat ability(unarmed martial arts) grows so rapidly in most games that it is incredibly sub-optimal to have them use a weapon. I think that if the progression for unarmed damage was less steep this would be mitigated quite a bit. I would suggest that instead of upping the damage output as rapidly, the Monk's unarmed attacks could gain some magical proprieties at benchmarks instead of just dealing more damage. Also the monk's Chi or Ki or whatever you want to call it could be utilized in many different ways. I would love a Ki points per day system with the options to learn abilities besides stunning fist, perhaps some techniques that allow the monk to resist spells or move quicker.

 

The biggest problem I've had with Rangers is that they usually get pushed in to being either a two-weapon warrior or archer. I think that if PE ditched the combat specialization rangers would get a bit more diverse. I generally think the concept of a favored enemy is fine, although I would like to see the list be a bit less redundant(Outsiders and Humanoids should not be split in to so many sub-categories) and the ability apply to more than just hit and damage. I also think the "druid-lite" nature powers need to be ditched in favor of other abilities, perhaps some that favor survival in certain environments or something.

 

 

*On account of the Cipher, if it is like a Psion, then it should be it's own class

[Odglok]

Haven't read all the responses yet, but all the talk about Monks made me want to ask: is it really important that the class not use weapons? It just occured to me how much more believable the monk class would be if they could simply wield a weapon. Baldur's Gate 2 had a subclass called Swordmaster (I think) who was basically a fighter designed to wear little-to-no armor while wielding a sword one-handed, no shield. If the monk was designed so that you could choose an appopriate weapon to master (sword, spear, staff), and exclusively use only that weapon in addition to all your other monk abilities, I think it would be more sensible and interesting.

 

Or... is the unarned combat aspect what makes people want to play monks in the first place? I've honestly never been much interested in them, so I may be missing the point of playing one.

[Umberlin]

Or... is the unarned combat aspect what makes people want to play monks in the first place? I've honestly never been much interested in them, so I may be missing the point of playing one.

 

Could be, at the end of the day, I can see that view. If a person really wants to use a weapon, they have that option, in quite a few classes. That said, don't kid yourself, Monks are still going to use gear of some sort, we just don't know the extent or of what kind. I've seen enough Monk styled classes, in D&D and otherwise, had had various weapon options, as well as fist weapon options, for hand to hand combat, that it seems obvious.

 

It just occured to me how much more believable the monk class would be if they could simply wield a weapon.

 

Check the art of the group, the Monk's fists are alight with energy. It's as believable as a Wizard frying something with a Fireball, which is to say, it fits perfectly within the game logic of using souls to superhuman result or the explosively magical. The idea of a person in the P:E setting using their soul to enhance their body, to superhuman extents, was presented even before the Monk was announced. We have a lot more to learn about all the classes, but, really, the second someone says that someone enhancing themselves magically to punch through plate armor isn't believable is the second they might as well start saying, "The Monk, Priest, Wizard, Cipher, Druid etc etc etc aren't believable please change them to be more realistic please." Spells to grant a person super strength, speed and other super Human abilities aren't exactly unheard of in Fantasy settings, not in the least. In the case of the Monk, it might not be a spell, but he's obviously enhancing himself, somehow, using his soul, as the other magical or superhuman classes all note the use of the soul, in some way, to superhuman or explosively magical result.

[Alexjh]

The ability to turn into an animal has always been kind of pointless to me, since it's humans who always win fights with animals.

 

Except when they don't of course. You have to consider than different animals are better at certain things than human - most four legged animals are faster than an average human, many are far stronger than an average human (things like tigers and bears for instance) many have poison and so on. If nothing else, lock a fully armoured knight in a room with a polar bear and see what happens. The knight might win certainly, but he is facing a creature that can break his neck in a single swipe. Combine that body with a human intellect and it's not an opponent to take lightly. This is of course to not neglect the out of combat uses like scouting etc.

[Sacred_Path]

Check the art of the group, the Monk's fists are alight with energy. It's as believable as a Wizard frying something with a Fireball, which is to say, it fits perfectly within the game logic of using souls to superhuman result or the explosively magical.

 

So what you're saying is that a monk is basically a crappy mage who has to hit stuff with his fists to be effective rather than bringing AoE flaming ranged death. I guess that nails it, but that also reinforces the point that monks are a bad idea.

[Alexjh]

Check the art of the group, the Monk's fists are alight with energy. It's as believable as a Wizard frying something with a Fireball, which is to say, it fits perfectly within the game logic of using souls to superhuman result or the explosively magical.

 

So what you're saying is that a monk is basically a crappy mage who has to hit stuff with his fists to be effective rather than bringing AoE flaming ranged death. I guess that nails it, but that also reinforces the point that monks are a bad idea.

 

By that logic every class is "basically a crappy mage", and that's not even what he's suggesting. The role of a monk in a party is not the same as that of a mage. Monks are front line fighters who have focused their souls into making their body a weapon, mages are artillery role combatants who turn their minds into weapons. Both discipline built classes with some magical effects but that's where the similarity ends.

[Sacred_Path]

By that logic every class is "basically a crappy mage"

 

Nop. A character who is defined by his wearing heavy armor and using heavy weapons is p. different from a mage in terms of mechanics and make-belief, especially when they're not relying on abilities that have a limit-per-day use

 

The role of a monk in a party is not the same as that of a mage. Monks are front line fighters who have focused their souls into making their body a weapon

 

Yes that's unfortunately what they do. They tank like a boss but without any explanation based in reality, and that is a very striking similarity to a mage (his powers are just as inexplicable)

[Alexjh]

By that logic every class is "basically a crappy mage"

 

Nop. A character who is defined by his wearing heavy armor and using heavy weapons is p. different from a mage in terms of mechanics and make-belief, especially when they're not relying on abilities that have a limit-per-day use

 

The role of a monk in a party is not the same as that of a mage. Monks are front line fighters who have focused their souls into making their body a weapon

 

Yes that's unfortunately what they do. They tank like a boss but without any explanation based in reality, and that is a very striking similarity to a mage (his powers are just as inexplicable)

 

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that high fantasy isn't the genre for you.

 

Out of 11 classes in the game, arguably only four at most are "based on reality" - Fighter, Ranger, Barbarian and Rogue. While there may be/have been real life Druids, Paladins and Clerics they don't really share that much in common with their fantasy counterparts. The rest are based on folklore or mythological characters which monks fall well within the remit of. Given that we already know that each of the classes uses their soul energy to become supernaturally good at what they do, learning what is effectively an exaggerated version of (cinema) martial arts with fists glowing with presumably chi isn't unreasonable, and more than the "unrealism" of being able to kill a 200ft dragon with a sword.

[Sacred_Path]

Realism is an exhaustive topic, but I think one point needs considering:

 

if you add something that is not based on reality to a fictional world, at least come up with some justifications/ explanations of why it's in there.

 

Now, with mages, it's usually neither: they're not based in reality and there's no indepth explanation of why they can do the things they do. But that's cool, I like wizards for the flavor and possibilities they add to the world. The monk is just the same, except that they don't really add anything to a fantasy world inspired by European Middle Ages. They are an enigma like the mage is, but a significantly more boring one.

[Alexjh]

Realism is an exhaustive topic, but I think one point needs considering:

 

if you add something that is not based on reality to a fictional world, at least come up with some justifications/ explanations of why it's in there.

 

Now, with mages, it's usually neither: they're not based in reality and there's no indepth explanation of why they can do the things they do. But that's cool, I like wizards for the flavor and possibilities they add to the world. The monk is just the same, except that they don't really add anything to a fantasy world inspired by European Middle Ages. They are an enigma like the mage is, but a significantly more boring one.

 

As actual shaolin monk schools exist, (unlike wizard schools) I presume your complaint here is that we're mixing eastern and western themes and ideologies together?

 

I think we have to work on the principle that most modern fantasy in games and films at least is more broadly drawn from various global mythologies other than the Scandinavian ones of Tolkien. Going the purist route, Chimeras, Centaurs, Sphinxes and Gorgons never shared a mythology/part of the world with say, Trolls, Elves or Dwarves. Let alone when you start adding in things like Rakshasa, Djinn and Coautl. Not to say those will be in PE of course, but just to demonstrate how broad a source material Fantasy draws from.

 

If PE is building a whole new world, it would be, in my view, a mistake to draw it purely from Northern European sources - this is a world with 6 different sentient species - of which it is suggested that humans and elves at least are recent arrivals. If you suggesting it's impossible that any culture in a multi-species world would develop differently to western societies as that seems fairly conceited.

 

I really don't think that Monks are any more removed from western mythology than (D&D style and by extension, general CRPG) clerics, who have little to no grounding in reality or mythology. At least with monks we have monastaries of people dedicated to purity of self and enlightenment, and orders of devout warriors, the only thing missing is combining the two.

[Sacred_Path]

As actual shaolin monk schools exist, (unlike wizard schools) I presume your complaint here is that we're mixing eastern and western themes and ideologies together?

 

That was not my main complaint, no. I an actual shaolin school, noone has flaming fists, noone is immune to poison and noone can facepalm a dragon. My point was that in this game, monks are simply superfluous; if the game was set in the ancient Far East, I wouldn't say so.

 

I think we can approach the problem from the rear, too: why should monks be in the game? What do they bring to the table that other classes can't do, or shouldn't do, and why is it relevant enough to implement them?

 

edit: sorry, I chose a bad example. All classes can do unrealistic stuff. The bard is often called ridiculous because his singing bestows extraordinary bonuses. So, let's look at it at a more basic level: an army of unarmed and unarmored shaolin would get slaughtered by an army of knights. There's no such thing as punching through armor and ripping someone's heart out. That's what makes them unrealistic, they fail at the most basic level while in the game the classes are considered to be about equal.

Edited December 6, 2012 by Sacred_Path

[Alexjh]

As actual shaolin monk schools exist, (unlike wizard schools) I presume your complaint here is that we're mixing eastern and western themes and ideologies together?

 

That was not my main complaint, no. I an actual shaolin school, noone has flaming fists, noone is immune to poison and noone can facepalm a dragon. My point was that in this game, monks are simply superfluous; if the game was set in the ancient Far East, I wouldn't say so.

 

I think we can approach the problem from the rear, too: why should monks be in the game? What do they bring to the table that other classes can't do, or shouldn't do, and why is it relevant enough to implement them?

 

Well going from D&D monks, the answer would be that they have a very different playstyle to the other front liners. One mechanic I think would be worth building into them would be something about a stance for deflecting/redirecting ranged attacks including certain spells. In addition to being a solid front liner, this then puts them in a position of being a defensive aspect of the team.

 

I'd also include a superhuman leap ability, allowing them to pass over barricades and formations that would force any other class to fight through them, and while they would presumably be a softer tank than barbarian, fighter and paladin, this then allows them to be by far the most manouverable class on the battlefield able to respond to problems that no other class would be able to respond to it time, whether it be leap forward to hold the line against a wave of enemies suddenly attacking your flanks until the rest of the party can get into position or leaping over a rank of ranks of skeleton knights in formation to engage the necromancer summoning them.

 

I can't remember if it was this thread I said it in or another, but I see the monk as something of a troubleshooter in terms of combat, using their movement speed to move around the battlefield to hotspots. Yes they'll hold the front line fine if that's all they are needed to do, but its not their specialty.

[Sacred_Path]

Well going from D&D monks, the answer would be that they have a very different playstyle to the other front liners. One mechanic I think would be worth building into them would be something about a stance for deflecting/redirecting ranged attacks including certain spells. In addition to being a solid front liner, this then puts them in a position of being a defensive aspect of the team.

 

Although the simulation **** in me is repulsed at the idea of deflecting ranged attacks, I see your point. The thing for me is that a fighter in plate+shield should be able to tank it out on all levels against all physical attacks anyway. Don't need a monk for that.

 

Tanking against mages is the one thing where I'd say ok, this is what a monk can do and why they should be in the game. Unfortunately that's kind of hard to implement mechanically (why would wizards point their magic missiles at your monk?)

 

I can't remember if it was this thread I said it in or another, but I see the monk as something of a troubleshooter in terms of combat, using their movement speed to move around the battlefield to hotspots. Yes they'll hold the front line fine if that's all they are needed to do, but its not their specialty.

 

I could also agree to this (except the 'holding the front line' part; there are already 3 classes in the game that can do this). It would actually make sense in a 6 man party to have one who is extremely maneuverable and can help out in all kinds of places.

[Odglok]

I rather like the idea of giving the monk a "magekiller" element. I'm not sure if Sacred_Path and I are on exactly the same page, but I am big on the notion that every class needs to have a clearly defined role and concept. I'm not fond of jack-of-trade classes and D&D's various hybrids. I'd like to think that a robust system would allow you to make whatever particular kind of character you want through skill/trait/specialization selection and multi-classing. I find it difficult to accept that someone who wants to play a woodsman warrior needs a specific class for that. If a ranger is just going to be a fighter with lighter armor, some outdoor-related skills, and a few druid spells, I would like to think that such a player could just start as a fighter and customize the character into what he considers to be a ranger. If not this, then at least make rangers & barbarians sub-classes of fighters. You don't need to design a class for every imaginable background, you just need classes for each basic function...

 

I got a little sidetracked there, but back on point: part of my bias against monks is that they seem to be fighters who don't have to wear weapons or armor. Oh, and they have a wide variety of useful abilities that fighters don't. Because they're spiritual or disciplined or something. Yes, that's a unique playstyle. But it's not really a unique function or role in the game. So I like where Alexjh is going, suggesting specific combat situations in which monks can bring something to the table that no one else can. The more well defined a class's purpose, the more accepting I am of it. If the only purpose of including monks is to give people who like kung-fu movies a class to play, I can live with that, but I would be highly disappointed if they functioned just like fighters.

 

I like the idea of monks being "above the influence" of magic, but I would expect that they couldn't benefit from it either. And fantasy setting aside, if they don't wield weapons or wear armor, I don't expect them to be able to stand on the front line of battle the way a heavily armed warrior could. But if you give them an unparalleled ability to pass through/over the front lines and get to the softer targets in the rear (casters & archers), like Alexjh suggested, then there's something they can do that others can't. In that way you're starting to define their playstyle by more than their equipment options, and I think that's a better route of class design.

[Alexjh]

I think for that to work you'd have to have a system whereby a monk would have to get between the caster/shooter and the target to intercept. This then ties into the maneuverability role again. I'm not sure if the way the programming is set up will allow that, but if it would that'd certainly be an option.

[Agelastos]

Realism is an exhaustive topic, but I think one point needs considering:

 

if you add something that is not based on reality to a fictional world, at least come up with some justifications/ explanations of why it's in there.

 

Now, with mages, it's usually neither: they're not based in reality and there's no indepth explanation of why they can do the things they do. But that's cool, I like wizards for the flavor and possibilities they add to the world. The monk is just the same, except that they don't really add anything to a fantasy world inspired by European Middle Ages. They are an enigma like the mage is, but a significantly more boring one.

 

 

Wizards ARE based in reality. Does functional magic exist? Probably not. Did wizards exist? Definitely!

It doesn't matter whether magic is real or not, because people thought that it was - and some still do. There were practitioners of High Magick (i.e. learned magic such as: Ritual Magic like theurgy and goetia, Natural Magic like alchemy and astrology, etc.) at pretty much every royal court in Europe up until the Age of Enlightenment. High Magick was usually not considered maleficium (harmful magic or "witchcraft"), and even if Inquisitor General Nicholas Eymerich, in his Directorium Inquisitorum, wrote that all forms of sorcery were to be considered heresy (because he thought that all magicians had to enter into a pact with the devil or a demon in order to receive their magical powers [the fact that a lot court wizards claimed to be able to summon angels and demons didn't exactly help]), the Inquisition didn't pay much mind to the (usually male) court wizards - at least in the beginning. No, maleficium was the weapon of the poor and unwashed masses - of hedge witches and other rabble - who (despite what most postcolonial feminist scholars would want you to believe) actually DID try to put hexes on their neighbors. A white (as in good) witch was not considered a maleficar and would only be harassed by the Inquisition if falsely accused of practicing maleficium.

Edited December 6, 2012 by Agelastos

[Sacred_Path]

Wizards ARE based in reality. Does functional magic exist? Probably not. Did wizards exist? Definitely!

It doesn't matter whether magic is real or not, because people thought that it was - and some still do. There were practitioners of High Magick (i.e. learned magic such as: Ritual Magic like theurgy and goetia, Natural Magic like alchemy and astrology, etc.) at pretty much every royal and noble court until the Age of Enlightenment. High Magick was usually not considered maleficium (harmful magic or "witchcraft"), and even if Inquisitor General Nicholas Eymerich, in his Directorium Inquisitorum, wrote that all forms of sorcery were to be considered heresy (because he thought that all magicians had to enter into a pact with the devil or a demon in order to receive their magical powers [the fact that a lot court wizards claimed to be able to summon angels and demons didn't exactly help]), the Inquisition didn't pay much mind to the (usually male) court wizards. No, maleficium was the weapon of the poor and unwashed masses - of hedge witches and other rabble - who (despite what most postcolonial feminist scholars would want you to believe) actually DID try to put hexes on their neighbors. A white (as in good) witch was not considered a maleficar and would only be harassed by the Inquisition if falsely accused of practicing maleficium.

 

I know that you're not trolling because you've had this argument before, so:

 

Monks punching through armor have as much basis in reality as wizards conjuring fireballs from their palms. Significantly less than one trained fighter whacking another over the head with a blunt object. That's the entire point.

 

I don't mind the fantastical (obviously), if it can earn its place in the narrative.

[Agelastos]

I know that you're not trolling because you've had this argument before, so:

 

Monks punching through armor have as much basis in reality as wizards conjuring fireballs from their palms. Significantly less than one trained fighter whacking another over the head with a blunt object. That's the entire point.

 

I don't mind the fantastical (obviously), if it can earn its place in the narrative.

 

I wasn't arguing for or against the inclusion of monks. I was merely pointing out that wizards DID exist, regardless of whether magic (as in actual, functional magic - like what we'll have in P.E.) did or did not exist.

Even in a medieval (or pseudo-medieval fantasy) setting completely devoid of functional magic, there should still be witches and wizards. It would be "unrealistic" otherwise.

Edited December 6, 2012 by Agelastos

[Sacred_Path]

I wasn't arguing for or against the inclusion of monks. I was merely pointing out that wizards DID exist, regardless of whether magic (as in actual, functional magic - like what we'll have in P.E.) did or did not exist.

 

Ah, but the definition of the fantastical wizard did not exist, that's the point. It's like defending DnD monks by saying 'but shaolin exist!' - yes, they do. But that's not the point.

 

But I realize this is something important to you so I won't press the matter any further.

[Kurumi Morishita]

Well, if it's about the Druid then I think there should be different "paths" (maybe a little bit like the Kits from BG2).. so that you are either a Shapeshifter focusing on the abilities/attacks, that your shapes give you, or you are some kind of caster (seer/sage) which focuses on healing, divination, control over plants, animals and the elements, etc. or a Beast Master focusing on having one or more animal/creature companion(s).

Edited December 6, 2012 by Kurumi Morishita

[FlintlockJazz]

The ability to turn into an animal has always been kind of pointless to me, since it's humans who always win fights with animals.

 

One thing I would have thought would be great for Rangers was the idea that, instead of a 'Favoured Enemy' they got bonuses against, the instead got the ability to study enemies. Like the Witcher, they could slowly learn the weak spots of an enemy the more they fought them and the more they studied them in books and in the wild and such like.

 

I would assume a Ranger to be likely illiterate, a woodsman or hunter of some sort whose knowledge comes from direct experience living off the land rather from fancy-pants book learnin'. I've always imagined Rangers as being born and raised by experienced, self-sufficient parents, learning the weaknesses of critters and monsters through firsthand parent-to-child teaching. Salt-of-the-Earth types.

 

I cannot disagree more thoroughly with your portrayal of rangers. What you describe is just standard peasant at best, barbarian or dumb fighter at worse. Even if you could call it a ranger, that is a very narrow and singular portrayal of one type of ranger, there many more. Being self sufficient is but one aspect of a ranger, they actually have a level of understanding greater than someone skilled in living in woods, closer to biologists in fact, and I kinda view them as the medieval biologists of their world due to their knowledge and method of learning through observation. They would need to have ways of storing and comparing data to observe shifts in animal and weather behaviour etc. They won't be bookworms but they won't be simplefolk either, on the contrary they are supposed to know things your average woodcutter doesn't (who again would be a fighter).

Edited December 7, 2012 by FlintlockJazz

[Tsuga C]

Being self sufficient is but one aspect of a ranger, they actually have a level of understanding greater than someone skilled in living in woods, closer to biologists in fact, and I kinda view them as the medieval biologists of their world due to their knowledge and method of learning through observation.

 

If you're looking for an ancient biologist or botanist, you'd do well to consider the druids. Rangers are more attuned to the wilds than woodcutters, for certain, but they're the more martial arm of the green team (druids & rangers). Druids aim to become part of the primeval world and defend it against the encroachments of civilization as a secondary function whilst rangers functions as intermediaries and buffers, defending the frontiers of civilization from savages and attempting to discourage the worst depredations of the city folk upon the wild lands and their inhabitants.

[Alexjh]

While I think that the "protector of the wild" concept is part of the ranger, I think the class is a bit more broad than that.

 

For me, rangers don't necessarily have any particular love of the wild even if they know it well. Many do, but I don't be any means see it as a prerequisite.

 

A man who guides merchant caravans over a treacherous range of mountains while fending off monsters using his knowledge would be a ranger, but he might only do the job because his family has always done it, and would quite happily get rid of the mountains entirely if that was an option.

 

Similarly, a man who has dedicated himself to killing all harpies, might know their habitats really well, and use tracking and survival skills to hunt through the wilds, but he only cares for killing those harpies, not the wild itself.

 

Lastly, the big one, people who are indifferent to the wild beyond the tactical advantages it provides, guerilla fighters who live in the deep jungle that no one else knows to strike at random on targets out of their element before disappearing back into the woods definitly fall in this category. If there was no occupying army or whatever, theyd be happily at home next to a fire, but choose to be out in the woods to give them the upper hand against a foe that has better weapons and/or more people. This is basically what Robin Hood was and he is one of the originators of the class.

 

I don't mind the noble guardian of the woods whatsoever, but the class is so much more diverse than that.

[Hertzila]

I'd prefer if rangers would be limited in the amount of 'magical connection' they have to the wilds. To me, it would make more sense if the druids would be the ones to have a real magical connection, while rangers would be more like the expert scouts and wanderers. They might not have any magic connection (up tp the player) to the forests but you can bet your life that they can out-travel and out-maneuver even druids there.

In essense, druids use their abilites to read, manipulate and influence the lands to do what they're doing, while rangers use the lands. The druid might be able to read the forests and with their soul carve a path, but a ranger could just glance at the place and he could approximate to the accuracy of a few meters (or whatever they use) the nearest source of water, where's the shortest and stealthiest path, where the ambush lies and whether or not anybody has been through the place in a few days.

Their soul abilities are harder, though. Pretty much anything I can come up with either deals with bows or minor manipulation of the wodds or are direct rips off the rogue but with a wood theme. I'd also like to see a few city-dwelling rangers and desert rangers, which complicate things even more.