The Ranger now means so many different things to so many different people, at this point it should maybe be represented through subclasses/archetypes.
N N 959 wrote: Quote: Two can play at this game. You don't have to be rude about it. No one is being rude. You don't want access to the spell list and I don't want to turn the Ranger into a Hunter-Lite.
Having read the thread, there's one person here whose writing style could consistently be construed as rude - and it is you.
I've got no dog in the fight when it comes to your idea, but your approach to arguing it really isn't helping your cause.
N N 959 wrote: Barbarians aren't required to resort to magic items to make use of their abilities. Neither are Rogues, Assassins, Slayers, Fighters... so on and so on. Oh really? Just try playing through a campaign without a magic weapon, see how that works out for you. Or magic armor. Or any of the other 4 items of the Big Six. Maybe it's not necessary for their class features, but it is required to function. Meanwhile for the Ranger the scrolls aren't even required to function, they're just there to provide some more flexibility if you want to go beyond the spell slots you can prepare.
N N 959 wrote: it would be a brain-dead response by the developers to decide that the Ranger class needs to use more scrolls and wands to actually experience its full spell list. You realize that not a single casting class experiences it's full spell list right? Not at once anyways, and generally not even over time unless you have a very particular kind of Divine Prepped caster... in which case they do it just as much as a Ranger can. Does this mean that their approach to all casting is brain dead? Because let me tell ya, Clerics and Wizards have a lot of very situational spells too, ones that most people would never prep just like the ones on the Ranger list. You know what they do? They make or buy scrolls, or maybe wands, rather than trying to demand their class have full access to the entire list every time they cast a spell.
N N 959 wrote: Trying to pretend or suggest that a Ranger getting full access to what few spells they have on their list is "wildly unbalancing" is pretty far farfetched and pretty obviously an ad hominem. ...You do know what an ad hominem is right? Pretty sure no one is trying to personally attack you by disagreeing with your idea, and implying that they are is kinda rude.
N N 959 wrote: Vidmaster7 wrote: I don't want them to have spells at all... (or have it be an option but not forced.) Then you don't want to play a Ranger.
EDIT: And it's also because the spell casting is poorly implemented for Rangers.
Personally whenever I play Rangers, if I can I try to trade out spellcasting. It's *NOT* because I actually want to play a Slayer, if I'm playing a Ranger it's for Ranger things such as favored enemy and the animal companion. It's *NOT* because the casting is "designed poorly", as I have no issue playing Bloodragers that cast almost identically. Frankly it's generally as simple as I don't want to have to deal with prepared casting, and generally the casting doesn't even actually help my concept anyways.
N N 959 wrote: I will, but first, I'm trying to find a healing Cleric from any non D&D fantasy novel/movie/cartoon. Oldest example I can think of: Let's go straight to the christian bible. Jesus. Most of his miracles were various acts of faith healing. And various priests have been "duplicating" such miracles ever since... though most of those are scams of course.
dysartes wrote: Having read the thread, there's one person here whose writing style could consistently be construed as rude - and it is you. Personal attacks aside, and ignoring the fact that your statement that I'm "consistently" rude is inaccurate, your observation is not unreasonable. Why do I agree?
1) I am not the Mahatma Gandhi of forums. I don't create threads looking to start a flame war and I honestly dread it when I get involved in them. But wrong or right, I frequently perceive bad faith debate as a form of Internet bullying and I am predisposed to confronting that head on. Maybe that isn't the best way to handle every aggressive and bad faith poster, but I believe that bullies need to be confronted;
2) I am the focal point of this discussion/the defender of the idea. I am proposing something that is arguably radical and it is a change to status quo. People who agree or like the change, don't debate it. People who don't like it are motivated to continue to argue against it. If three people don't like it and post aggressively against it and become combative, then I am going to respond to all three. That means I will have more combative posts then any other individual in the thread. That will contribute to my being the most aggressive poster by comparison to any other individual poster;
Quote: I've got no dog in the fight when it comes to your idea, You obviously have some motivation as you are posting in the thread.
Quote: but your approach to arguing it really isn't helping your cause. I don't expect to convince everyone. I do hope to discourage bad faith arguments.
Shinigami02 wrote: Oh really? Just try playing through a campaign without a magic weapon, see how that works out for you. Yeah...we're not talking about the same thing.
Quote: N N 959 wrote: it would be a brain-dead response by the developers to decide that the Ranger class needs to use more scrolls and wands to actually experience its full spell list. You realize that not a single casting class experiences it's full spell list right?
What I realize is that other classes aren't given a choice that isn't really a choice. With the exception of perhaps the Magus and the ubiquity of Shocking Grasp, other classes get a enough spells to cover their core function and have some versatility. There's a reason why PF allows a Cleric to convert all their spells to cure spells, because without that ability, the Clerics would be forced to forgo the vast majority of their spells. Certainly the answer to that could have been: use scrolls. But WotC wasn't that stupid. The point of having a spell list and spending time in creating useful and interesting spells is for the players that play the class to, I don't know...actually use them?
You aren't getting that with Rangers.
Quote: Does this mean that their approach to all casting is brain dead? I think it's pretty obvious that it was brain-dead when it came to Rangers. The system works for Clerics/Druids who, you know, get more spells, at earlier levels, to 9th level, and can convert spells to still provide a core need.
Quote: Because let me tell ya, Clerics and Wizards have a lot of very situational spells too. It isn't comparable. Wizards get Scribe Scroll at 1st level and their casting stat is their main stat. Look, the more you try and argue that the system for full casters is appropriate for Rangers, the less credible your argument is. It's a nonsensical approach. It's like telling me tires designed for your commuter car are appropriate for your off-road vehicle because they work great on your commuter car.
Quote: ...You do know what an ad hominem is right? Pretty sure no one is trying to personally attack you by disagreeing with your idea, and implying that they are is kinda rude. Wikipedia wrote: However, its original meaning was an argument "calculated to appeal to the person addressed more than to impartial reason". Merriam Webster wrote: 1 :[ b] appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect[/b] an ad hominem argument
2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made made an ad hominem personal attack on his rival
My use of the term is correct. Claiming this idea is "wildly unbalancing" is an attempt to elicit an emotional reaction. We'd all reject something that is "wildly unbalancing" on its face.
Unicore wrote: Seeing how the ranger spell list isn't even going to be a thing anymore, I think the developers are already committed to doing something different with this class, and at this point we have no idea what it is. Agreed. It's likely that my efforts here are in vain because they've already decided on something new and Paizo feels this concern is no longer valid. Nevertheless, if there is even a chance Paizo might see things as I see them, that they might see an opportunity to do something really neat and unique, I wanted to take it.
Quote: I appreciate that you feel very passionate about the class and have a very specific vision of the ranger that doesn't apparently feel quite satiated by being a full BAB martial that also gets access to spells and magic items without having to use the skill use magic device or multi-class for a level to get self-access to some of the best combat buffs in the game. What I see is an opportunity to improve the play experience for the player without changing the power dynamic. As is evident by all the posts that don't want spells, clearly many perceive that ability is lackluster. What if Paizo could change that without actually making the class substantively more powerful? Wouldn't that be worth exploring?
Quote: I tend to play 18 CHA Paladins and 16 wis rangers because I feel like the spell list is a part of the character class and considering it a toss away is a mistake. It works for me. What you are calling for doesn't feel necessary because the things you are asking for are already possible. Yeah, I can see that based on your build and predilection for scroll use, you don't feel like this solves anything. But I think you're focused on the results, the outcome. I'm looking at the process. What does it mean to have those one or two spells in your back pocket? Maybe players would suddenly feel like the class always has an ace up its sleeve. While scroll use might provide the same functional benefit, I don't believe it provides the same psychological benefit, and I think the psychology of how a class plays is where the money is for Paizo.
Weather Report wrote: N N 959 wrote: Yes, and a 2nd level Ranger was called a Strider. Aragorn was an inspiration for the class, the character was not the exact template, not even for AD&D as the class got spells despite Aragorn never employing any magic in Tolkien's works. Apparently the druid and magic-user spells were there to reflect Aragorn's special skills/powers, though, of course those were due to his bloodline (Dunedain and all that), not being a ranger. How did magic from his bloodline manifest itself in the story, other than commanding the undead army by virtue of his wielding the sword? It's been years, but I don't recall Aragorn actually exhibiting anything approaching magic use. Is there some allusion to it in FotR?
N N 959 wrote: Weather Report wrote: N N 959 wrote: Yes, and a 2nd level Ranger was called a Strider. Aragorn was an inspiration for the class, the character was not the exact template, not even for AD&D as the class got spells despite Aragorn never employing any magic in Tolkien's works. Apparently the druid and magic-user spells were there to reflect Aragorn's special skills/powers, though, of course those were due to his bloodline (Dunedain and all that), not being a ranger. How did magic from his bloodline manifest itself in the story, other than commanding the undead army by virtue of his wielding the sword? It's been years, but I don't recall Aragorn actually exhibiting anything approaching magic use. Is there some allusion to it in FotR? I agree, it's a stretch, no overt magic, but the way magic was described in LotR was very abstract. Definitely no magic missiles.
Seems to me like you want something out of the ranger that the ranger isn't designed to accommodate. Ranger's are full BAB, martial characters. Their spellcasting is there to give them a gimmick they can do every now and then. It's not intended to give them a "once per day get out of any random situation free" card, which would be the result of your suggestion.
No class has full access to their spell lists, at least not in the way you describe. Every spell list has options that no PC will ever use. That's OK. You seem to hate the idea of scrolls, but they provide the options you want with the balance the game needs.
Question: Does the Hunter fill your needs? I ask because I don't think you can give the Ranger more versatility without taking something (BAB) away. I mean, spontaneous spellcasting with infinite spells known?!? Even with minimal spell slots, that's ridiculous, especially when you pair it with a full BAB.
Malachandra wrote: Seems to me like you want something out of the ranger that the ranger isn't designed to accommodate. That's inaccurate.
Quote: It's not intended to give them a "once per day get out of any random situation free" card, which would be the result of your suggestion. When the entire 1st level Core spell list costs 475gp, it's pretty obvious that the designers had no intention of stopping a 4th level Ranger from using every spell on their list from a scroll. So your assessment would be demonstrably false.
Quote: No class has full access to their spell lists, at least not in the way you describe. So what? 2e is going to do all kinds of things that the game has not done before.
Quote: Every spell list has options that no PC will ever use. That's OK. That doesn't change with my idea. I doubt I'd have cast cloak of shade, even if I could have.
Quote: You seem to hate the idea of scrolls, but they provide the options you want with the balance the game needs. Wrong on both counts. I don't hate scrolls, they just don't solve the problem I'm trying to solve.
Quote: I mean, spontaneous spellcasting with infinite spells known?!? Even with minimal spell slots, that's ridiculous, especially when you pair it with a full BAB. Really? It's "ridiculous"? Have you tried it? Please try it and tell me about all the situations that your 6th level Ranger made the game ridiculous by casting horn of pursuit and ant haul in same day without having to spend the 50gp on a scroll.
Sorry if I have trouble believing that charging a Ranger another 25gp at 4th level for access to a spell via scroll takes the game from "ridiculous" and "wildly unbalancing" to balanced.
N N 959 wrote: That's inaccurate Why? Care to elaborate, or respond to my point? Because, as I said, Rangers are martial characters. They shouldn't really be able to be extremely powerful combatants with the added bonus of infinite versatility.
N N 959 wrote: When the entire 1st level Core spell list costs 475gp, it's pretty obvious that the designers had no intention of stopping a 4th level Ranger from using every spell on their list from a scroll. So your assessment would be demonstrably false. Right. They cost money. That's the point. You can't get infinite versatility for free. At least with scrolls you have to think ahead of time and cough up a few gp.
And doesn't your statement demonstrate that scrolls solve your problem? Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but it seems like you want the Ranger to get better access to its spell list. Scrolls cover that niche. Looking back on your original post, please explain how scrolls don't answer every one of your points.
N N 959 wrote: Really? It's "ridiculous"? Have you tried it? Please try it and tell me about all the situations that your 6th level Ranger made the game ridiculous by casting horn of pursuit and ant haul in same day without having to spend the 50gp on a scroll.
Sorry if I have trouble believing that charging a Ranger another 25gp at 4th level for access to a spell via scroll takes the game from "ridiculous" and "wildly unbalancing" to balanced.
Yes. Yes, it is. It's not that they can cast horn of pursuit and ant haul in a day. It's that they can cast those spells... or any other spells they want. Any random encounter they face will have a spell that can trivialize it. That was true before, but they had to be well prepared, either with spells prepared or scrolls prepared. With your suggestion, they just have to face enough random encounters to max out their spell slots.
You didn't answer my Hunter question. Hunters are more spellcasty characters than Rangers. You have to pick one. Everyone can't be good at everything.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
I think the designers of the game need to be careful mechanically changing aspects of a game for "psychological benefit." A lot of players and especially Gms don't like the idea of characters using scrolls and wands to problem solve. I think that the resonance system is a natural result of the fact that from a logical gamist standpoint, characters in world would realize that well-prepared adventuring parties uses scrolls and wands to be much more effective than parties that attempt to rely solely on spell casting alone.
My personal issue with your suggestion as a universal rule change instead of an optional house rule, is that it opens doors that I do not want opened for a net result of something that is already the case, but feels like the wrong flavor for some people. Flavor is very easy to change. Scrolls can be totems or charms, or ingredients harvested from animals and plants in the woods. All of that feels very ranger-like to me, but still implies that the ranger had to put some forethought into the powers they wanted to have prepared.
I wouldn't even argue against a feat that mimics the skald ability that lets you possibly swap one prepared spell a day out for another spell on your list, although I think that the leaving spell slots open is a highly underutilized tactic that should be encouraged by more parties, especially for those low level spell slots that you are not sure how to fill. Taking fifteen minutes to solve a problem in real life is perfectly reasonable, and it is ok for parties too.
For me, the ranger is the character who actively prepares for the dangers she might face. A versatile prepared spell list + scrolls and wands says that very well. I don't understand why existing Ranger spell casting is broken, just because it, by itself, is not the stand out feature of the Ranger class.
Unicore wrote: A lot of players and especially Gms don't like the idea of characters using scrolls and wands to problem solve. Yes, they have never featured heavy in my campaigns, and certainly would not want a class depending on them, unless it was their shtick (artificer, etc).
Paizo - Please consider converting all spellcasting classes to spontaneous casters in 2e
houser2112 wrote: Paizo - Please consider converting all spellcasting classes to spontaneous casters in 2e They could meet halfway, and use the 5th Ed system, which debuted with the 3rd Ed Spirit Shaman class.
Weather Report wrote: houser2112 wrote: Paizo - Please consider converting all spellcasting classes to spontaneous casters in 2e They could meet halfway, and use the 5th Ed system, which debuted with the 3rd Ed Spirit Shaman class. Really? I thought the "neovancian" casting style was introduced with the PF Arcanist.
I've played a wizard and cleric in 5E, that system is really elegant too.
However, I refuse to play a "paleovancian" caster anymore. I played them back in 2E because better options weren't available, but I always felt it was the most idiotic way of implementing a magic system. Good riddance.
Unicore wrote: I think the designers of the game need to be careful mechanically changing aspects of a game for "psychological benefit." Careful, yes, but not afraid. A lot of 2e is about changing the psychology of how things feel. Look at what they are proposing for weapons. Did anyone really think weapons needed to be overhauled? But read one of Mark's posts about the player who went from a two-hander to shield and glaive. Clearly Paizo, or at least Mark, is putting huge value in weapons changing the whole game play of the same character.
Quote: A lot of players and especially Gms don't like the idea of characters using scrolls and wands to problem solve. Because it's contrived. In AD&D scrolls were a thing because they were rare. In 3.5, you go to Magic Mart and buy any scroll you need. WotC took a construct that was appropriate for the context, changed the context, and didn't do anything to address the balance/play ability issues.
Yes, I have no problems buying/using scrolls for my Rangers, but the Ranger's spell casting ability shouldn't just be a conduit for wand/scroll use.
Quote: Scrolls can be totems or charms, or ingredients harvested from animals and plants in the woods. All of that feels very ranger-like to me Sure, but I can say the same for the spell casting. It doesn't have to be "magic."
Quote: but still implies that the ranger had to put some forethought into the powers they wanted to have prepared. But that isn't achieved through prepared spell casting because you don't have information to make an informed decision on and you have too few spells. I don't understand how you can argue that asking a player to choose his/her ONE spell at the start of the day, for the entire day. That's not being prepared, that's simply guessing. What's more, IME, history shows players just go standard combat: Lead Blades/Gravity bow. The player isn't really given a legitimate choice on being prepared for anything other than combat.
Quote: although I think that the leaving spell slots open is a highly underutilized tactic that should be encouraged by more parties, especially for those low level spell slots that you are not sure how to fill. Sure, when you get six to eight spells and can effortlessly convert them to cure/summons, that can work. But I don't know why you keep thinking a system designed for completely different type of caster makes sense for Rangers. I've never seen Ranger's use this, let alone Paladins or even Clerics (Yes, I know one poster on here said his group uses it...with full casters).
Quote: Taking fifteen minutes to solve a problem in real life is perfectly reasonable, and it is ok for parties too. This isn't real life.
Quote: For me, the ranger is the character who actively prepares for the dangers she might face. A versatile prepared spell list + scrolls and wands says that very well. I don't understand why existing Ranger spell casting is broken, just because it, by itself, is not the stand out feature of the Ranger class. Spell casting should not be a "stand out" feature, IMO. It's a just a feature that is under-leveraged and utilized from a game-play perspective. It's not about outcome, scrolls are cheap enough that the Ranger effectively has access to all their spells, but once again, the primary benefit of Ranger casting can't be its access to scrolls/wands. Call it my own perspective, but I think you already recognized that Paizo agrees that the proliferation of scroll/wand use for non-full casters, is a poor mechanic.
If I'm reading you correctly, I think you like the idea of having to buy scrolls as it represents your idea of preparation. Trust me, if you're finding extensive benefits from having scrolls/wands, this isn't going to change that.
houser2112 wrote: Weather Report wrote: houser2112 wrote: Paizo - Please consider converting all spellcasting classes to spontaneous casters in 2e They could meet halfway, and use the 5th Ed system, which debuted with the 3rd Ed Spirit Shaman class. Really? I thought the "neovancian" casting style was introduced with the PF Arcanist. I'm pretty sure, check it out, in Complete Divine, the Spirit Shaman prepares his/her spells for the day from the druid list (known for the day), and can then cast spontaneously.
Weather Report wrote: houser2112 wrote: Weather Report wrote: houser2112 wrote: Paizo - Please consider converting all spellcasting classes to spontaneous casters in 2e They could meet halfway, and use the 5th Ed system, which debuted with the 3rd Ed Spirit Shaman class. Really? I thought the "neovancian" casting style was introduced with the PF Arcanist. I'm pretty sure, check it out, in Complete Divine, the Spirit Shaman prepares his/her spells for the day from the druid list (known for the day), and can then cast spontaneously. Yep, it seems you're right. I'm not crazy about metamagic being shackled to the way prepared casters do it as opposed to spontaneous casters, but otherwise good.
houser2112 wrote: I'm not crazy about metamagic being shackled to the way prepared casters do it as opposed to spontaneous casters, but otherwise good. Ah, metamagic is a whole different kettle of fish, have we heard about it's implementation in PF2?
Vidmaster7 wrote: I don't want them to have spells at all... (or have it be an option but not forced.) If you don't want spells, then a fighter is extremely similar to a ranger.
Weather Report wrote: houser2112 wrote: I'm not crazy about metamagic being shackled to the way prepared casters do it as opposed to spontaneous casters, but otherwise good. Ah, metamagic is a whole different kettle of fish, have we heard about it's implementation in PF2? +1 action. Presumably it can’t be applied to three-action spells.
Starting to get burned out on this thread, but let me answer your questions because you seem to be asking them in good faith.
Malachandra wrote: Why? How is the Ranger not designed to accommodate the use of any spell on the list? The scrolls are not prohibitively expensive and the spells aren't exactly "I win!" buttons. The game anticipates that any spell on any list might get cast. There's nothing inherently unbalancing in that. It's not access that is problematic, it's profusion. What makes a Wizard so overpowering is not the access to so many spells, it's the fact that a high level Wizard can has enough daily spells to cover all the basics and all the contingencies. Ranger's don't get that.
Quote: They shouldn't really be able to be extremely powerful combatants with the added bonus of infinite versatility. 1) Outside of fighting your favorite enemy, Ranger's aren't considerd "extremely powerful combatants" compared to other Martials;
2) The idea doesn't give them "infinite versatility." That's just a gross mischaracterization. Not only are the spell lists not infinite, the number of spells the Ranger can cast in a day are decidedly limited. Choosing any one, two, or four spells off the Ranger's entire limited list of spells, does not make the versatility "infinite" by any stretch of the imagination.
3) Ranger spells go to 4, not 11, not even 9. If we were talking about random access to level 9 spells, I might agree. If we were talking about level 7 spells, it might tickle my throat. But we're talking about level 4 spells...at level 13, if you've got the Wisdom stat to get it.
Quote: Right. They cost money. That's the point. You can't get infinite versatility for free. At least with scrolls you have to think ahead of time and cough up a few gp. Incorrect. You don't get "infinite" versatility for free. You chose one or two spells and that's it. Every choice now has an opportunity cost. Scrolls don't require you to "think" at all. They require that the PC has the money to obviate the need for thinking or actually deciding whether casting a spell now is a good decision.
Suggesting that scroll costs create some meaningful decision analysis is off the mark. The Ranger is now 4th level, not 1st. When the Ranger gets 2nd level spells, they are 7th level. There are twelve 2nd level spells on the Core Ranger list. That's 2400 gp. I checked my 6-7 level chronicle for a PFS Scenario. The chronicle awards 3,100+ gp. So after 1 adventure which nets me 1/3 of my 7th level experience, I can buy every 2nd level scroll and have what you call "infinite" versatility for a mere 200gp a scroll. If having access to all the scrolls was some game changer, you'd think more people would be doing it.
Quote: And doesn't your statement demonstrate that scrolls solve your problem? Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but it seems like you want the Ranger to get better access to its spell list. No. Rangers already have access to all their spells on the list via scrolls. They also have repeated access to more useful combat spells via wands. But lack of spells and the need to prepare them means actual casting isn't about making decisions because people just go straight combat.
Quote: Yes. Yes, it is. It's not that they can cast horn of pursuit and ant haul in a day. It's that they can cast those spells... or any other spells they want. No, they can't. At 6th level you get two spells. Once you use them, you don't get to keep casting.
Quote: Any random encounter they face will have a spell that can trivialize it.*** That was true before, but they had to be well prepared, either with spells prepared or scrolls prepared. Buying scrolls isn't about any mental exercise or meaningful thought process. It's about do I have enough money to buy scrolls. The prepared spell paradigm doesn't work with Rangers as I have discussed above. It was designed for classes who not only get a lot more spells, at higher level, and earlier, but whose primary stat also increases the number of spells the they get. None of that is true for Rangers. Ranger's aren't getting tons of extra spells from Wisdom in the low 30's.
Quote: You didn't answer my Hunter question. Hunters are more spellcasty characters than Rangers. You have to pick one.... I have no interest in Hunters. The class simply doesn't appeal to me. It's closer to a Druid than a Ranger, imo. The increased spell capability doesn't appeal to me. I want the decision to cast any particular spell to be meaningful not more powerful or more dominant.
QuidEst wrote: Weather Report wrote: houser2112 wrote: I'm not crazy about metamagic being shackled to the way prepared casters do it as opposed to spontaneous casters, but otherwise good. Ah, metamagic is a whole different kettle of fish, have we heard about it's implementation in PF2? +1 action. Presumably it can’t be applied to three-action spells. Right on, is it feat-based, or built into certain classes?
Weather Report wrote: QuidEst wrote: Weather Report wrote: houser2112 wrote: I'm not crazy about metamagic being shackled to the way prepared casters do it as opposed to spontaneous casters, but otherwise good. Ah, metamagic is a whole different kettle of fish, have we heard about it's implementation in PF2? +1 action. Presumably it can’t be applied to three-action spells. Right on, is it feat-based, or built into certain classes? Class feats, many of which are shared. It’s good for classses like Ranger- they’ll be able to use it even with limited spell levels.
Weather Report wrote: The Ranger now means so many different things to so many different people, at this point it should maybe be represented through subclasses/archetypes. I always feel its a little disingenuous the way people reach back to red box d+d, or 1st edition Ad+d or even 2nd edition d+d for their interpretations of things. We're what, near 20 years deep into a 3.0 style interpretation and 30+ for 2nd edition. Reaching back to a 40 year old design seems less like an actual belief and more like a rhetorical weapon for arguing.
Ryan Freire wrote: Weather Report wrote: The Ranger now means so many different things to so many different people, at this point it should maybe be represented through subclasses/archetypes. I always feel its a little disingenuous the way people reach back to red box d+d, or 1st edition Ad+d or even 2nd edition d+d for their interpretations of things. We're what, near 20 years deep into a 3.0 style interpretation and 30+ for 2nd edition. Reaching back to a 40 year old design seems less like an actual belief and more like a rhetorical weapon for arguing. I always feel it's disingenuous the way people ignore and discount previous editions, as if the D&D world started with 3rd Ed/in August 2000, or some such arrogant, ignorant nonsense; often an excuse for passive-edition warring.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Weather Report wrote: The Ranger now means so many different things to so many different people, at this point it should maybe be represented through subclasses/archetypes. Aragorn and Faramir were the templates, but Minsc and Boo, The Justicar, Halt, Gilan and Will have broken the ranger clean out of the Middle-Earth form factor.
avatarless wrote: Weather Report wrote: The Ranger now means so many different things to so many different people, at this point it should maybe be represented through subclasses/archetypes. Aragorn and Faramir were the templates, but Minsc and Boo, The Justicar, Halt, Gilan and Will have broken the ranger clean out of the Middle-Earth form factor. "Go for the eyes, Boo! Go for the eyes!"
Yes and no. Often, authors will simply appropriate a fantasy trope and attempt to leverage the good will or cachet of that trope for their own purposes. As an example, there was a D&D cartoon some of you may remember. One of the characters was Eric the Cavalier. Eric's character was nothing like a Cavalier in D&D apart from wearing armor and carrying a shield. In fact, from a roleplaying aspect, Eric was about as anti-cavalier as it could get on account of him being a coward. To allow that character to push the definition of what constitutes a cavalier would be disingenuous. Likewise, just because some author labels his/her character a "Ranger" is not grounds for accepting that as a valid bases for mutating the class in an RPG that proudly and intentionally takes its roots from AD&D.
I always felt Drizzt had an unfortunate impact on the 2nd Ed AD&D ranger, the dual-wielding shenanigans, and the funny thing is, dual-wielding was originally a 1st Ed drow thing, nothing to do with rangers.
3rd Ed compounded this, by adding an animal companion, and again, Drizzt's companion is a magic item, not a class feature/real pet.
Gwenyvar hasn't been alive so to speak since around the weeping war. she was someone else's companion first
Steelfiredragon wrote: Gwenyvar hasn't been alive so to speak since around the weeping war. she was someone else's companion first Yeah, its a magical item that had a previous owner/possessor, I think a drow wizard?
|
