Mayby HUNTER class insead of Ranger ?

[nikolokolus]

My god.  This thread ... talk about elevating pedantry to a near art-form.

[Ulquiorra]

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...

 

 

The part about "killing those who kill rabbits" was a ironical joke ...

 

If you ever played NWN Shadows of undertine (or something like that) you know what i meant by "Forceing me to be protector of the nature or servant of the nature".

 

In first dialog about your abilitis is "He will test my abilitis of nature knowing becouse im servant of the nature" ... and i was playing ranger not druid ...

 

The second dialog on your abilitis when a dragon asks you about them and ranger option is "I am servant of the nature" ... and the funny part is that dragon say "A nature ? WTF ? A nature need servant nowadays ? haha" .... even dragon was laughing of me ...

 

I don't want to be forced to be a ranger mix between aragorn, drizzt, archer, hunter, park ranger, militaty officer and eko-terrorist or eko-crusaider ...

 

In my opinion ranger class is simply bad desined ... becose from mechanical level it's simpy more fighting druid with some rogue skills ...

 

And for role playing side .. it's simply to much "General" .. it is almost the same as putting paladin, dark paladin, barberian, warrior, and duelist itu one class and saing that this is "Fighter" ...

 

All other classes are wery dafined Fighter is warior that concentrate on wepon specialization and technics, barberian is fighter that concentrate on rage, paladin is fighter that concentrate on lidership and undead-destroying etc....

 

Ranger is to much general ... and i don't say that wee need to make 4 more classes like "park ranger", "Archer", "Aragorn-fanboy" and "Hunter" .. but i think that this class must have some specializations like priests in Icewind dale 2 ...

 

For example you take ranger and then take a "Hunter" specialization .. and you don't see "Ranger" class but "Hunter" ... if you take "Rabbit-protector" specialization then you see not "Ranger" class but "Rabbit-protector" ... and if you take "Typical ranger" you see then "Ranger" as your class ...

 

The same mechanics as "Illusionist" (mage specialization) from BG ...

 

Everybody happy, i have my hunter, you have your other variations and even if someone don't want other specialization he takes "Ranger" and problem solved ...

[Elerond]

I think that hunter as description don't have enough ambiguous to be class, as it quite specific what one does for living, ranger is much better as this topic has show, it mean many different things for different people.

 

Wanderer

Survivor

Protector

Soldier

 

with nature as thematic connector

[Adhin]

@Ulquiorra: and I agree with you, my point, along with many others here, is that a 'Ranger' is in its vast majority of uses not a servent of nature. **** in DnD hes rarely a 'servant of nature'... that was just BioWare doing some of its worst writing. That's NWN in a nut shell, i LOVED that game, really did, but the game suffered heavily on the writing department. That and choices, of which you had mostly 0. When they made that game it was based off the idea of DM's making and running stuff for there buddies via online networking. Which is a great idea and it provided me with years of entertainment. It's just the vast majority of that wasn't actually BioWares stories, that was kinda an afterthought due to time pressures.

 

Either way I agree Ranger isn't a servant of nature, druid is, and they're really the only ones that should be. Never was a fan of how forced you where into stuff in original BG, or NWN. They did a lot better job at that with BG2 and there later games after NWN. And Black Isle (or Obsidian now) has pretty much 'always' done a better job at letting you be what you want instead of forcing that kind of dialog choice on you.

[Elerond]

Either way I agree Ranger isn't a servant of nature, druid is, and they're really the only ones that should be.

 

I would like to see druid that are more sorcereric than nature servants. As in irish tales druids are descripted more like sorcerer that had supernatural power to turn people to animals or stone, heal and curse people and of course perform divination. So some what barbaric variation of priest or wizards, who believe more oral history and teaching than literary work.

[Lephys]

If you ever played NWN Shadows of undertine (or something like that) you know what i meant by "Forceing me to be protector of the nature or servant of the nature".

 

Just because a game shouldn't force you to defend, protect, and hug nature on a regular basis, sheerly because you're a Ranger, doesn't mean it should, therefore, force everyone to be hunters.

 

I think the lesson here is that "Ranger," as a class title for an RPG, should not be broader than BOTH a wilderness defender AND a hunter. Hence all the explanations as to why "Ranger" makes so much sense for the class title, while "Hunter" wouldn't work as well, and the complete lack of arguments as to why "Defender Of All That Is Green" should be the class title in lieu of both "Ranger" and "Hunter."

[Calmar]

The question whether or not rangers and druids are 'servants' or 'protectors' of nature is a separate one, for I definitely do not see them as eco activists, or - terrorists, nor as vergans or hippies worshipping random plants (as they're quite often more or less depicted).

 

I agree that rangers should not be treated as champions of some creed of ecological awareness. In D&D they have some meager divine spellcasting, but to me that stems from their grown insight into the mysteries of the natural world they attain on the higher levels, not from them becoming religious figures.

 

 

Either way I agree Ranger isn't a servant of nature, druid is, and they're really the only ones that should be.

 

I would like to see druid that are more sorcereric than nature servants. As in irish tales druids are descripted more like sorcerer that had supernatural power to turn people to animals or stone, heal and curse people and of course perform divination. So some what barbaric variation of priest or wizards, who believe more oral history and teaching than literary work.

 

This description is coloured by the fact that most that is known today about ancient Irish culture comes from the descriptions of Christian monks and such who attempted to demonise the old religion. However, I also think that druids as class in particular should fulfill the role of priests that negotiate the dangerous or hostile forces of nature in favour of their peoples. Consequently, a druid should be a servant of the gods/powers of nature and a protector of his human community who depend on his augury to properly deal with the nature surrounding them.
 

[Elerond]

 

 

Either way I agree Ranger isn't a servant of nature, druid is, and they're really the only ones that should be.

 

I would like to see druid that are more sorcereric than nature servants. As in irish tales druids are descripted more like sorcerer that had supernatural power to turn people to animals or stone, heal and curse people and of course perform divination. So some what barbaric variation of priest or wizards, who believe more oral history and teaching than literary work.

 

This description is coloured by the fact that most that is known today about ancient Irish culture comes from the descriptions of Christian monks and such who attempted to demonise the old religion. However, I also think that druids as class in particular should fulfill the role of priests that negotiate the dangerous or hostile forces of nature in favour of their peoples. Consequently, a druid should be a servant of the gods/powers of nature and a protector of his human community who depend on his augury to properly deal with the nature surrounding them.

 

 

Researcher that study history of druids think that Christian monks didn't acctually really bothered with subject and writed up many different tales. Most of description about druids come from romans (especially Caesar), who descriptes druids as leader class, who are also religious leaders that do human sacrifices (mostly criminals) and who have said having supernatural powers like divination.

 

Irish folk tales have many sort of druids (there is even giants that are called druids because they have magic). Which is why I proposed that druid should be more like druids in those stories, it isn't because it is more historically accurate, but it would be different take to druid class what other (mainly d&d) has taken and it would make them more intresting to me.

[Adhin]

Outside of religion or the world said druids in (which has always had some kinda impact on Druids in DnD, such as requiring a god or not to function). Well, Druid's in DnD have always kinda been the more sorcery type of the 2 main priest classes. Tend to have more direct damage related and situational like spells then cleric buff/heal stuff. Considering how PE's world involves souls as the source of power, not gods or some arcane web, weave, vortex or otherwise, I think would fit pretty well with a more 'sorcerer' like approach to them. Though I feel that should be more in theme then just making them a Wizard who doesn't use books for spells.

 

Ultimately a Druid's gonna still be a priest, and it'll have a hell of a nature bent on it. Curious to see where they go with em as I fully intend to play one at some point. I've also always loved the focus on shifting as an innate thing Druids are good at others aren't. Nature aside, that's been one of my favorite traits about them that other classes just don't get and I hope they have a good chunk of stuff for that in PE.