Mayby HUNTER class insead of Ranger ?

[Jarmo]

Oh yea, now I remember.

I'd guess drizzt (or his teacher druid) is also the reason why druids specialize in sticks and clubs and scimitars.

 

Nowadays the entire dark elf race consists of chaotic good exiles, specializing in dual wielding and brooding.

To misquote the order of the stick..

[Ulquiorra]

But yeah, hope it's a hunter in polish version so everybody's happy.

(btw, is the word really hunter in polish as well? google says so.

 

In D&D games tranlated to polish the ranger class is translated "Łowca" witch literaly mean "Hunter" in english.

 

The strict tranlation of ranger in polish is "Commando" (yeah like with ak47) ... but in not stict but definicional (the meaning of the word not word itself) is forest keeper or woodsman ...

 

So any real translation ranger from polish sounds rally dump ... and i hope they stay with hunter ...

[rjshae]

Woodsman might serve, but really Ranger is more widely recognized form of the profession in English-speaking nations. The word has certain connotations that just aren't present with the term 'Hunter', so I think it's highly unlikely that the PE developers will switch. But they could always call it Hunter in translations.

Edited April 4, 2013 by rjshae

[Chilloutman]

Nonsense, even in Czech (almost polish) we have word for ranger aka woodprotector - Hajny. Its the guy who keep forest (roads) save for travelers and keep eye on animals in his territory so there is plenty if some local Lord want to go hunting. I dont see problem with Ranger name at all.

 

Now lets talk about that Aragorn thing:

 

Yes he doesnt have 2 weapons - it doens't mean that no other ranger cant specialise in this type of fighting

If I recall correctly he got great knoweladge about forest fauna and flora ( he saved that small hobbit with some leaves)

He knows how to camp in wilderness to not attract too much attention

He can fast travel through forest because he knows them well

Even if I dont recall him using bow, it doenst mean that he cant

 

Now about hunter 

its guy who goes to forest to hunt down animals for profit/sport/food

he use bow and lay traps

thats it

 

So even that ranger can be hunter doesnt mean that all hunters are rangers, anyone who can shoot bow on animal is considered hunter. With this attidue we would not have mages but cooks or schoolars because well they read books or cook strange things aka potions/regents/whatever

 

Now Classes vs Tolkien

 

If we keep that anatology that D&D took classes from there then we would have:

 

Aragorn - Ranger/Fighter

Gandlaf - mage

everyone else - very bad to good fighter

 

So I dont think that classes are so heavily influenced by it. Standard classes are bards, priest/cleric, druids, thiefs. and some new ones like barbarians, monks etc.....

 

to sum it up:

 

Leave RANGER be and go hunting yourself

[Elerond]

 

The funny thing. In polish translation "Ranger" class of D&D games (NWN, BG, Icewind dale) was literaly translated to hunter not ranger. Mayby it's just cultural difrences that people in USA or other parts of English speaking countiers prefer "Ranger" over "hunter" but in Poland prefer "hunter" over "ranger".

 

In our translation "Ranger" class also means "Guardian" or "protector" witch in my opinion don't suit the sets of abilitys ...

 

By the way the whole argumentation about "Tolkien named Aragorn ranger so i't perfect"  it's simply dump ...Becouse if i remember Aragorn don't used two-swords or bow when fighting ... not mentioning this games in not "lord of the rings" universe game so argumentation is the same like "in Bleach they have shinigami so the ranger class must be called shinigami" haha

 

By the way the thread is closed becose i will propably play polish translation ... so i propably will have my hunter

 

Funnily enough, I only now think of what the names would be in finnish. (Won't be a translated version and I wouldn't play one if there was)

 

Ranger = Metsänvartija = literally forest guardian, or forest keeper

In RPG's it'd probably be Metsästäjä = hunter,  or Metsämies = Forest-man or forest dweller

 

I like "samooja" (Person who travels around, but is different from nomand ["irtolainen/vaeltaja"]) or "sissi" (Finnish army commando) as better translations for ranger. "Metsänvartija" translation comes from british forrest ranger

[Ulquiorra]

Nonsense, even in Czech (almost polish) we have word for ranger aka woodprotector - Hajny. Its the guy who keep forest (roads) save for travelers and keep eye on animals in his territory so there is plenty if some local Lord want to go hunting. I dont see problem with Ranger name at all.

 

So it's woodprotector still not ranger

Edited April 4, 2013 by Ulquiorra

[Dwarfare]

Dunno about you guys, but for me, when I look at Ranger, I don't think "Forest Protector" or "Hunter of Men, Beasts and Monsters", I think "A forest protector that is a hunter of men, beasts and monsters," and even I think that's pigeon-holing the class a bit in terms of breadth and depth (as not all rangers are hunter/protectors or dwell in forests, particularly.  Desert rangers, mountain rangers, underdark/under-dwelling rangers, etc).

 

It's a multi-faceted class that has aspects of both, at least in D&D.  You're focusing too much on one or the other, it seems to be, when as I see it, it's both of them at the same time.  Class roles tend to be a bit more flexible than that, though this is of course Project Eternity, and while it's borrowing from staples of the genre, it can still choose to smudge the classical definitions a bit.

 

As far as changing the name in my opinion, I'm more in favor of keeping it as it is.  In borrowing the class title and theme from an established source, the name Ranger is more laden with meaning for gamers in this genre as compared to hunters.  Not a bad idea, but I have to admit that I do have some preference for sticking with the familiar as I'm more in touch with it's various nuances and whatnot.

Edited April 4, 2013 by Dwarfare

[Kissamies]

If Ranger would be named something else, I'd probably prefer "Scout" over "Hunter", but Ranger is fine really.

[Jigawatts]

To address some of the above comments. In 1E AD&D (1977) rangers didn't get two weapon fighting, the class was based almost completely off Aragorn. When 2E (1989) came about the ranger received a makeover that included them receiving free two weapon fighting (which has long rumored to be due to the growing popularity of Drizzt). Druids were able to use scimitars as weapons in 1E, long before the character of Drizzt was created. And Drizzt's teacher, Montolio, was also a ranger, not a druid.

 

/endhistorylesson

[rjshae]

Barbarian is closer to a hunter class: hunter-gathers as a culture.

[Forlorn Hope]

"Ranger = A keeper, guardian, or soldier who ranges over a region (generally of wilderness) to protect the area or enforce the law."

 

I think tha's a good definition. The term "ranger" is more versatile compared to "hunter".

[gertiyolem]

i think it's a good idea but ranger is still good

[Lephys]

Well, one who relies upon the wilderness for his effectiveness/edge would kind of HAVE to have some degree of interest in protecting it, lest his skillset be rendered entirely moot.

 

Take hunters, even. A hunter doesn't just go out and kill as many living things as he possibly can. Because, what happens if you kill 100% of the deer populous? Well, now you're huntless. Or, what happens if the entire forest is burned down? Well, now you have no plants from which to make salves, and no wood from which to make arrows, etc.

 

Just because you don't hug the land doesn't mean you don't value it and care for its continued prosperity. Tyrants don't care about their people, but they care about the productivity the people provide. If a tyrant let his entire populous die, where would his power be?

Edited April 5, 2013 by Lephys

[JFSOCC]

in his zombie slave army

[Lephys]

in his zombie slave army

For this no single che will do,

so I shall grant not one but tou...

[necromate]

well if others talked about ranger and hunter translation issues... I might as well add Hungarian to the lot... :D

 

we have 2 different terms, similar to hunter and ranger

 "vadőr" = wild animal/wildlife guard (vad=wild, őr=guard), a professional who tends to the forest, plants trees, marks trees to be cut down, puts extra food out during the winter, hunts occasionally, puts down or cures sick animals etc. 

"vadász" (ász=ace), who mainly hunts animals for sport/profit, it's not a profession, more like a hobby (though you need to be a member of the "hunter guild/association" of the specific location, membership is hereditary or costs a fortune), but  they still need to work together with the "vadőr"-s

so both terms are a bit different... Either of the two possibilites would shift the English meaning

 

nobody gives a **** about a Hungarian translation though XD and given the awfully dull experiences I had with translated games (Mass Effect and Dragon Age were especially bad), I am strongly against a Hungarian localization... unless there are some skilled game lovers who supervise it...
(Grey Wardens were translated as Szürke(Grey) Kamarás instead of the very obvious choice of Szürke Őrség (~protectors/wardens)... "kamarás" = chamberlain, a title granted to nobles that had no significance whatsoever in Hungary, it was only a ceremonial role... so on top of "kamarás" sounding ridiculous, it suggested a certain uselessness... well that went a bit off topic... sorry xD)

Edited April 6, 2013 by necromate

[JFSOCC]

The Dutch have Boswachter (Forest watch) which is essentially a park ranger. They carry hunting equipment are are the ones who determine if a population is running out of control or needs support.

And we have "Jagers" which mean hunters. These are people who like to hunt, and can do so when a Boswachter gives the OK.

[Ulquiorra]

Take hunters, even. A hunter doesn't just go out and kill as many living things as he possibly can. Because, what happens if you kill 100% of the deer populous? Well, now you're huntless. Or, what happens if the entire forest is burned down? Well, now you have no plants from which to make salves, and no wood from which to make arrows, etc.

 

Even some species of animals died out becouse of hunting so i think that common hunter don't giva **** about eko-balace he thinks mostly about gold ....

 

Secondy some hunters TODAY may have more global point of view so they don't kill as many as before ... but in middleage ?

 

In some time almost all population of wolf died out in france ... in poland an spiecies of wild bull almost died out (today their rabulding it) ...

 

So what type of protecters where hunters ?

 

 

Barbarian is closer to a hunter class: hunter-gathers as a culture.

 

Your right but only if they have "hunting skil" ... In D&D games the "Barberian" is mostly inspired by "BERSERK" .. not "Hunter" ...

 

 

 

And lastly

 

Project eternity is inspired by D&D and D&D is inspired by lord of the rings. BUT does not meant that ranger must be 100% like Aragorn or Drizt ... serously im starting to feel like you guys thing that PE whoud be somekind og Baldours Gate 3 or Icewind Dale 3 continuatuon ....

 

By the way i did not remember "Orlan" in middleearth ... strage ...

[Adhin]

I prefer ranger but it depends what the class is supposed to be. A 'Hunter' is just that, a hunter, they hunt stuff. Maybe its trolls, maybe its just 'large game' but ultimately they're existence revolves around finding and killing dangerous stuff. A Ranger is a protector of a Range. A area, weather that's a city, or a small town and its surrounding lands. The only thing, to me at least, that a Hunter and a Ranger have in common is they're used to tracking stuff. I mean, a 'Hunter' doesn't even mean it has to be a good survivalist... some rich **** with a big guns a hunter, you know? Ranger takes a bit more self-survival and dedication to his chosen life style.

 

Think to many people mix these 2 up as interchangeable, and far to many tack Ranger up with another version of a Druid which I also think is a bit silly but I can understand both of them I guess. Either way, I prefer Ranger. Hunting is a hobby, Rangering is a calling. Though I will say Hunter bugs me less when the class has a heavy ranged only focus... RPG that make Rangers archers only always drive me nuts, but then that's because often times people don't realize the names based off 'an large area' not referencing using a bow.

[AGX-17]

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&q=ranger&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=6Z9gUcu3N6ayigLqgYGwDA&sqi=2&ved=0CC8QkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&fp=494c9f1b679e21a3&biw=1440&bih=775

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranger

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Ranger_Division

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Rangers

 

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ranger

 

"rang·er noun \ˈrān-jər\

1

a : the keeper of a British royal park or forest

 

2

: one that ranges

 

3

a : one of a body of organized armed men who range over a region especially to enforce the law

b : a soldier specially trained in close-range fighting and in raiding tactics

"range verb

 

transitive verb

 

a :to rove over or through

 

b :to sail or pass along

 

intransitive verb

 

1 a :to roam at large or freely

 

b to move over an area so as to explore it"

 

Aside from park rangers, there's no history of "ranger" referring to some elfin "defender of nature" who summons bears to stop people from eating animals that bears naturally would eat (that's PETA-level stupidity.) It's a fundamentally flawed concept in D&D, but "hunter" isn't much better.

 

A hunter is someone who hunts, hunters in a medieval-ish setting hunt for sustenance or profit or both (taking pleasure in the act is peripheral, unless you're a noble, in which case you probably have hundreds of men and dogs to help you kill a few foxes and maybe a boar or two.) Ancient people hunted with spears and traps before bows existed, and continue to use traps to this day. When ancient people hunted mammoths they formed large groups and stabbed the things to death with their spears, they didn't use bows and arrows, even if they had a bow and arrows it would be useless for hunting large game. People used firearms for hunting at least as far back as the 18th century, too. Since there are firearms in P:E, why wouldn't a "hunter" use firearms? That would be a much more effective way of taking down any prey.

 

Now, it's true that human hunters have long relied on dogs, or more rarely, birds of prey to aid them in the process, so the only detail we know about the Ranger class has some veracity unless we're talking about bear-mounted archers.

 

The idea of a "ranger" in the vein of a "wanderer" or "scout" is what appeals to me the most.

Edited April 6, 2013 by AGX-17

[Alexjh]

I much prefer Ranger as a name, hunter is a bit of a narrower word for me than ranger.  The way I see it is that the ranger archetype is actually a fair bit broader than "the nature protector thing" that people tend to treat it as.  Realistically, to me at least, it's any character that uses knowledge of the wild for combat purposes, which while it would include hunters and trackers certainly, would also include guerilla fighters, which realistically includes the archetype inspiration Robin Hood.  It's not necessarily anything to do with them loving nature, it's a thing with using the environment to balance out comparatively less training.   

[Adhin]

I was gonna make a big post about why I think people have the wrong idea of the Ranger class in DnD and... blah blah blah. But I deleted that, simply folks just take it as a Warrior Druid due to its spell list and affinity for non-'civilized' areas. No where in the actual descriptions of rangers in DnD are they described as such though. Personally, I would of liked to of seen spell list swapped focus kinda like Cleric's 2 chosen 'domains' but a singular spell list, or a single domain, been used for Rangers. Cause even I agree, descriptions aside, they're way to druidy on the spell side.

 

....though I still like the animal companion, druidy-spell list or not. Don't feel like that's off the mark to much... though it would of been nice if that was a feat option, not a 'they ALL have this'. Think that with the vast majority of classes in DnD though, other then the Barb-rage, I feel like a lot of classes have a bit to much forced nonsense... except Fighter, but Fighter doesn't have 'anything' forced... except a wealth of feat options heh.

 

Anyway I'd be fine with a name change, but as I've said before (and others) Hunter is to focused. Sure you could turn that into anything you wanted but... If your not hunting ****, or that isn't a big focus in your life, why the crap are you called a hunter? I could make a survivalist, yup... but if I aint hunting stuff then...? Meh.

[Calmar]

I don't see rangers in general as protectors of nature, or protectors of anything, for that matter. They're people who are experts in surviving the wilderness and using it in their favour when battling their enemies. Some rangers live in temperate forests, some in deserts, frozen wastelands, or sail the seas (killing aumaua). They can hunt, but that's not the only thing they're good for. Just like a rogue can fulfill many roles besides being a 'thief', or a 'trap-finder'.Oh, and they of course also can protect people from nature, or nature from people, or people from people, or nature from nature.

 

What's the merit in calling rangers 'hunters', anyways? Does it sound cooler because they're called that way in WoW? Rangers range and roam, and hunt and survive, and shoot arrows and wield blades. I like that class, its concept and its name. 

[Ulquiorra]

I don't see rangers in general as protectors of nature, or protectors of anything, for that matter. They're people who are experts in surviving the wilderness and using it in their favour when battling their enemies. Some rangers live in temperate forests, some in deserts, frozen wastelands, or sail the seas (killing aumaua). They can hunt, but that's not the only thing they're good for. Just like a rogue can fulfill many roles besides being a 'thief', or a 'trap-finder'.Oh, and they of course also can protect people from nature, or nature from people, or people from people, or nature from nature.

 

What's the merit in calling rangers 'hunters', anyways? Does it sound cooler because they're called that way in WoW? Rangers range and roam, and hunt and survive, and shoot arrows and wield blades. I like that class, its concept and its name. 

 

I did not play WoW so i don't know ...

 

Besiaclt the D&D ranger is just mixture ... of Aragorn, Drizt, Archer, hunter, nature specialist (that knows witch berries are good and witch are poisonus) and driud....

 

The rogue class is mixture of pickpocking, trap user, lockpicker, diplomat, merchant and other  ...

 

In general all rogues can specjalize in 1 or two this things ... but are not aginst other ...

 

In ranger there is many things that don't fitt ...

 

IF i want to play a park ranger that kills people becouse of rabbits ... (more forest protector wariation) or im simply warrior that knows a little bit of a nature (more Aragorn, Drizzt variation) or i want to plat hunter, poacher that kills for monenet or i play a hunter that hunt orcs becouse of revange ... this 4 archetips don't fitt in 1 class ...

 

The 1 is opposite to the 2,3,4 options ...

 

In rogue class a trapp rogue, or lockpicker whoud not fight becouse of class opisition ... if they will fight they will becouse of the same reason (money) and they aren a fire and wother ...

 

A ranger is oposiotion to pocher ....

[Adhin]

Just to throw this out there but 'Pocher' is one of those 'what side your on' kinda things. Go back far enough and anyone who hunts an animal in the 'kings land' with out very specific permission is a poacher... Robin Hood, as mentioned above, is very rangery and he was ultimately considered a poacher. Ranger in its very original use... sure. Ranger in its vast majority of other uses? Not really. As was stated before and, this part seems to not of stuck with you Ulquiorra... Ranger is a militaristic title. The only one that's not, the only one that literally doesn't involve any form of military or law enforcement (of which there can be many sides of) is are current day 'Park Rangers' and even then, in many of those cases, they're still a wilderness oriented law enforcement.

 

My point is you can have a poacher who's a ranger. AS for why you'd want a ranger, or any class, that kills people because of rabbits? I... have no idea why you'd want that unless you intended to play a crazy person. Personally, out of your 4 options, the 1st is the only one that, to me, doesn't fit the 'Ranger'... but then it doesn't fit anything other then a 'crazy person' so... any class, technically, could fit that just fine... all you gadda do is make them completely crazy and has some kinda weird rabbit worship/obsession going on.

 

UNLESS of course you mean rabbit as a 'kills anything going for 'nature' because all of nature is friends with each other' in which case thats... still not a Ranger, or a Druid for that matter. That's children's animals can talk TV shows, and its bull****.

 

Either way you got a real bizar outlook on Rangers. Go look up Army Rangers or something...