Jump to content

  

75 members have voted

  1. 1. What do you think about changing the name for ranger class to Hunter ?

    • I tinhk it's a good idea.
      12
    • I don't know about it/ don't care.
      20
    • I think it's a bad idea.
      43
  2. 2. Whoud you like a ranger be more like hunter (monster, undead etc) insead of more "forest protector" ranger ?

    • Yes
      18
    • No
      38
    • other
      19


Recommended Posts

Not so big issu but what do you think about renameing this class ?

 

Im for it becouse when i hear "Ranger" the first thing that somes to my mind is coockies or helping turist in mountains ... monster killer, troll hunter more like insted of thypical D&D "forest potector" sound more cooler and propably will be more interesting ...

 

Expecionaly if Hunter can don't give **** about animals or forest ( not like druids ) ...

 

That can be interesting character ...

Edited by Ulquiorra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't that ultimately semantics? I imagine you'll be able to play your ranger how you want him(or her) as a forest dwelling protector, or as a duty/honour bound killer of a specific threat. Or another way.

  • Like 1

Remember: Argue the point, not the person. Remain polite and constructive. Friendly forums have friendly debate. There's no shame in being wrong. If you don't have something to add, don't post for the sake of it. And don't be afraid to post thoughts you are uncertain about, that's what discussion is for.
---
Pet threads, everyone has them. I love imagining Gods, Monsters, Factions and Weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of the name? I prefer Ranger. It just seems more respectful of their abilities as a whole, not just the tracking and killing of animals, but skills that grant them a greater understanding of their surroundings and greater chances of survival.

 

It's a pretty inconsequential thing, really, but I definitely prefer Ranger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for you message.

 

You se my only issu is that ...

 

I we assume that typical ranger is "forest protector" and typical hunter is "hunter of something".

 

Then can ranger be hunter or forest protector ?

 

Or

 

Hunter can be hunter or porest protector ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leave the class as ranger.  Any fine tuning of the actual role played by a ranger is up to the individual player, but the class itself should stay as is because they've already decided to include an animal companion for the ranger whith whom the ranger shares hit points (not sure about stamina).  Besides, this is a game in the vein of earlier RPGs, most notably AD&D.  The ranger is part of that legacy and I'd like to see it continue.


http://cbrrescue.org/

 

Go afield with a good attitude, with respect for the wildlife you hunt and for the forests and fields in which you walk. Immerse yourself in the outdoors experience. It will cleanse your soul and make you a better person.----Fred Bear

 

http://michigansaf.org/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand your analysis of the terms, Ulquiorra, but take "Fighter":

 

Is he a brawler who fights whenever he can, or a disciplined soldier and protector of things? Does he know group tactics and strategy, or does he simply excel at one-on-one (or one-on-several) fights that he can handle himself? This is all up to the player and the versatility of the class.

 

I understand that you think of a common use of the word "ranger" as a title for state park / wildlife authorities, but it also describes the survivalist/surveyor/precision skill set that the class possesses, no matter how huntery they are, or protectory they are. 8P

  • Like 3

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does a ranger have to be a "forest protector."  Seems awfully reductive to assume that they are only associated with the woods.  A "hunter" on the other hand tells me one thing, these people hunt animals. 

Edited by nikolokolus
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding of a Ranger was that they were a kind of rural fighting man. A pragmatic fighter whom incorporates their surroundings as a component in both their skills & technique, rather than exclusively focusing on bladecraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

prefer Ranger...Hunter somehow sounds limit the type of character in killing animals(personal opinion), but ranger would have me a wide choose of the paths of the character(skills/characteristic, I think)


I have struggle to understand a Universe that allows the destruction of an entire planet. Which will win this endless conflict - destruction or creation? The only thing I know for certain is never to place your faith entirely on one side. Play the middle if you want to survive.

 

Everyone else is a fanatic. I am Gauldoth Half-Dead. Your savior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The word Ranger originated during the 14th century and meant gamekeeper. It was later used to designate a mounted man who polices an area. So yeah, a protector of nature, but for his nobship.


"It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You see guys the other option is to simply adding specialization like in Icewind Dale.

 

For example you take ranger and you have two specjalizations "hunter" or "ranger" ... (first more hunting like second more other like)

 

Lephys

 

the socond thing is that i whoud like to play some hunter, that kills animals for money (oposition to typical ranger) likes to drink or youse drugs and don't giva **** about forest ... (he is much more consern about human world) ...

 

 

And in role-playing way ... a class named as "ranger" simply doesnt fitt ... Fighter whoud be good idea but only if ranger and fighter whoud have the same hunting capabilitis ... (witch whoud propably not have)

 

In D&D rangers was simply "more fighing" Drugids ... even if they where evil they where killing humans but in some way care about woods ... and when i was playing NWN ... there was even a dialog line "Im the servant of nature" ...

 

Bull**** .... i want to play a guy that hunts for money and don't give **** about nature ... he whoud more like to say "Nature is my servant" ...

rjshae

 

So you see typical Ranger was opposite to typical hunter ... even today rangers fight hunters that kill to much animals is sake od eko-balanace ...

 

In original D&D evil ranger was more like eko-terrorist .. who kill people for "Hunting" rabbits or choping forest ... i want to play oposite ...

 

Sandro G Meier

 

Typical ranger also don't hunt. Typical ranger fight's in most cases thouse whou hunt ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bull**** .... i want to play a guy that hunts for money and don't give **** about nature ... he whoud more like to say "Nature is my servant" ...

Sir, the term you are looking for is "bounty hunter", real hunters and rangers (IRL) have to look atfer the forest so the wildlife population would not decline, that's why there's a close connection in games between these classes and nature.

  • Like 2

"The very existence of flame-throwers proves that some time, somewhere, someone said to themselves: You know, I want to set those people over there on fire, but I'm just not close enough to get the job done." - George Carlin (RIP!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The archetypal D&D ranger that Gary Gygax developed is modeled directly off of Aragorn from the LotR books by Tolkien.  He wasn't some tree hugging nature worshiper.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ulquiorra, on 02 Apr 2013 - 00:54, said:

rjshae

 

So you see typical Ranger was opposite to typical hunter ... even today rangers fight hunters that kill to much animals is sake od eko-balanace ...

No, not quite. He's the foe of the poacher; protecting the hunting grounds for the use of his lordship. It had nothing to do with protecting nature as a goal in itself. The lord and his cohorts were quite free to hunt there. Edited by rjshae

"It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lephys

 

the socond thing is that i whoud like to play some hunter, that kills animals for money (oposition to typical ranger) likes to drink or youse drugs and don't giva **** about forest ... (he is much more consern about human world) ...

 

 

And in role-playing way ... a class named as "ranger" simply doesnt fitt ... Fighter whoud be good idea but only if ranger and fighter whoud have the same hunting capabilitis ... (witch whoud propably not have)

 

In D&D rangers was simply "more fighing" Drugids ... even if they where evil they where killing humans but in some way care about woods ... and when i was playing NWN ... there was even a dialog line "Im the servant of nature" ...

 

Bull**** .... i want to play a guy that hunts for money and don't give **** about nature ... he whoud more like to say "Nature is my servant" ...

Ehh... again, I do understand where you're coming from. I really do. But, the term "ranger" is meant to suggest a skillset/fundamental "style" (for lack of a better word) of the person. A ranger doesn't have to love bunnies and ladybugs and plants. He simply values, respects, and studies the natural resources of the land. He knows how to make his own tools, utilize natural resources (be they plant, animal, etc.), and navigate land and terrain.

 

If he uses these skills to hunt things (and people), then awesome. Maybe he goes around killing wolves just because it's fun. Maybe he's a poacher and sells the pelts. Maybe he bounty hunts folks for money. Either way, he knows how to best the wolves from studying them and familiarizing himself with nature, and he knows how to not get ripped up by thorns or poisoned by plants on the way through the woods to kill the wolves, and/or he uses such knowledge to get the better of humans without it, who think their armor and weapons sufficient protection for any situation.

 

Basically, what's survival to normal people is almost luxury life to the ranger. Obviously there's some leeway with the class specifics, depending on the surrounding lore/context and such.

 

But, yes, the term "ranger" covers what it needs to, even though it might resonate awfully strongly in your mind as national forest and wildlife protection and such. Even under that term, you can still be a hunter, exactly as you described. Even if they don't officially name the specialization "hunter" in your UI or character sheet.

 

A good example would be to look up the branch of the U.S. military known as the Rangers. They do not spend all day protecting ferns and deer and butterflies. :)

Edited by Lephys

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just thinking the other day that I prefer the word "ranger" to "hunter." I don't know, the word "ranger" connotates not only a forest protector, but one who uses ranged combat, which makes sense considering bows would likely be weapons of of choice for woodsmen and huntsmen during this implied time. The word "hunter" just seems to imply one who hunts animals, which is a bit under-whelming. (Plus I just never liked the word "hunt" or "hunter." I know it seems petty, but I just do.)


"Not I, though. Not I," said the hanging dwarf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only semantics that come to play in RPG's is how Aragorn was called a ranger, not a hunter.

Also wasn't the kind of ranger that'd spend his time making sure people don't scratch bark off the evergreens.

 

If he'd been called a nomad, then that's what we'd have in all the RPG's.

 

Don't really care much one way or the other, but I do prefer ranger to hunter.

 

To me, rangers seems to imply a wide set of skills needed to survive in the wilderness. 

While hunter obviously needs much the same skills, it also limits to a purpose of hunting, while ranger carries no such baggage.

Ie, I can more readily see ranger than a hunter as a scout, a guide of an expedition, or some other non-hunting profession.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :p

Edited by Ulquiorra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To range means 'to roam', but also 'vastness [of terrain]', doesn't it? So 'ranger' implies a person that is an expert at survival in the expanses of wilderness - which in fantasy land also implies that he or she can fend off orcs and beasts and aumaua. I agree with the others that 'ranger' is probably the best term for the class of wilderness warriors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To range means 'to roam', but also 'vastness [of terrain]', doesn't it? So 'ranger' implies a person that is an expert at survival in the expanses of wilderness - which in fantasy land also implies that he or she can fend off orcs and beasts and aumaua. I agree with the others that 'ranger' is probably the best term for the class of wilderness warriors.

 

So if milk is a white liquid made from cow ...

 

Then Milkman must mean that he is white, wet guy that came from cow ? :)

Edited by Ulquiorra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer the name Ranger. I also much prefer the 1E style ranger, who is a protector of civilization and is adept with survival on the fringes and in the wild, to the 2E and later wilderness guardian/warrior style ranger.

 

Also, Aragorn>Drizzt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

To range means 'to roam', but also 'vastness [of terrain]', doesn't it? So 'ranger' implies a person that is an expert at survival in the expanses of wilderness - which in fantasy land also implies that he or she can fend off orcs and beasts and aumaua. I agree with the others that 'ranger' is probably the best term for the class of wilderness warriors.

 

So if milk is a white liquid made from cow ...

 

Then Milkman must mean that he is white, wet guy that came from cow ? :)

 

The term "ranger" describes the person's affiliation with ranging. It does not make him a druid, or an earth elemental.

 

A milkman (if you're referring to the profession) transports and delivers milk. He probably knows his fare share about milk, and how to properly transport and deliver it without causing problems. Whether he perches atop barbed-wire fence posts at night with his arms folded to defend cows in pastures, or he likes to murder cows and poison people's milk, he's still called the same thing. His name doesn't change to "White Liquid Poison Man," or "The Bovine Defender."

 

A builder is a builder, to give another example. Whether he builds dungeons and deathtraps or orphanages and farms, he uses the same skill set and tools for both.

 

I shall re-iterate that your strong, preferential correlation between "ranger" and "protector" is perfectly understandable, but Calmar's post illustrates that while "ranger" can mean "protector," it also primarily involves a simple affinity for the wilderness, and a skillset to boot.

  • Like 6

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :p

 

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

 

And about Tolkien, silly or not but that's how it goes and what we're stuck with.

D&D is a pretty direct rip-off, with elves and orcs and hobbits (ehh.. make that halflings or kenders because of copyright).

 

Ranger was just given bow and 2 weapon fighting because ranger is just like fighter, only worse, doesn't really give much incentive to play one.

2-weapon fighting was a stupid thing to give them to begin with, but I guess that was because the mental image of a ranger with shield is just wrong.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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 :p

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

 

And about Tolkien, silly or not but that's how it goes and what we're stuck with.

D&D is a pretty direct rip-off, with elves and orcs and hobbits (ehh.. make that halflings or kenders because of copyright).

 

Ranger was just given bow and 2 weapon fighting because ranger is just like fighter, only worse, doesn't really give much incentive to play one.

2-weapon fighting was a stupid thing to give them to begin with, but I guess that was because the mental image of a ranger with shield is just wrong.

 

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.

They gave rangers two weapon fighting because of the popularity of Drzz't. The class started off as based on Aragorn but has drifted so far from it and become more based on that accursed dark elf as they tried to find a proper niche for the class.

 

The name really depends on whst exactly the class gets really. If they plan on making all rangers have pets and survival skills then ranger suits or maybe nomad. If they plan on the class being defined as a long range attacker that can be equally be built as an urbanite as a wilderness guy then something like archer might fit better.


"That rabbit's dynamite!" - King Arthur, Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail

"Space is big, really big." - Douglas Adams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...