|#1zombiegleemaxFeb 07, 2004 15:21:40||Any thoughts or opinions of this PrC as presented in Dragon 317? I like the premise, but HATE the execution. I can't see the mounted cavalry aspect carried out as a ranger. A paladin sure, a fighter or even cleric, but not a ranger.|
Maybe the stereotype loner ranger just doesn't fit with a faithful mount (whatever it might be) riding down evil rampaging orcs.
edited for clarity and content
|#2zombiegleemaxFeb 09, 2004 11:11:59||WOW! I am suprised that all of you major league Greyhawkers don't have an opinion about this PrC that is suggested for Greyhawk. It is, after all, "new material". Ahem. Cough. Ahem|
|#3zombiegleemaxFeb 09, 2004 11:49:32||ok, i can give you my opinion. I am totally agree with you, i like class to be well definited (i never liked 2 or 3 class character, save for the vilains), and the "mounted ranger knight " sounds bad for me. Like he city ranger or all those silly things.|
Ranger is ranger, a lonely man walking silently in the wood, attached to the nature and avoiding too much contact and too much "publicity" on his carreer.
That's only my opinion, but it works well...
I would just add that in an old old Dragon magazine (more than 20 years) i remember a new class for the 1st edition, it was the "anti-ranger". I didn't even read the article.
|#4zombiegleemaxFeb 11, 2004 22:27:55||I am not surprised that you didn't receive a more enthusiastic response. In my experience, the number of gamers who even read Dragon/Dungeon has dwindled over the last few years. The number of useful articles is down, the cartoons are sparse and mostly not funny, etc. The artwork is still good, but that's not the reason I subscibed to the mag. The sage advice has slipped badly. It seems that most of the questions printed are more a result of a gamer not being able to read what's printed rather than an interpretation. So, it's very likely that few people even read the article, but if they did, they probably filed it away as another poor attempt to "create" new material by perverting what is already in existance.|
But that's just my opinion. ;)
|#5Brom_BlackforgeFeb 12, 2004 9:05:35||I only just got the new Dragon in the mail yesterday, and haven't had a chance to read it yet. However, I don't much like prestige classes in general, and I doubt this is going to change my mind on that issue.|
|#6ElendurFeb 12, 2004 9:22:27||I liked the premise that the northern borders with Iuz have broken down to the point that standard armored knights are ineffective, and there is a call for more rogue and ranger types. Sounds like the perfect place for a band of adventurers to be...|
I'm pretty indifferent to most PrCs. I'd probably just make them rangers in my campaign.
I do disagree with the statement that rangers are all loners, and I think rangers making their horse their animal companion makes a lot of sense.
|#7zombiegleemaxFeb 12, 2004 11:12:16||I don't collect Dragon. I have some, because of a promo. a while back, but I never really was a subscriber.|
|#8zombiegleemaxFeb 12, 2004 11:32:53||Just to clarify, I can accept the Ranger using a horse as an animal companion, but the class seems to be modeled after a knight even to the extent of offering a feature allowing the PC to wear medium armor and use abilities usually restricted to light armor. It just doesn't fit with the "hunter combined with the speed and power of a warhorse".|
The PrC is really secondary, I was more interested in seeing people's reaction to content being added to Greyhawk (limited though it is) and especially considering their *interesting* take on how Belvor is responding to incursions in N. Furyondy.
|#9Brom_BlackforgeFeb 12, 2004 13:22:11||This was posted in a Greyhawk thread over in the Future Releases forum. When I realized that the poster had not been to this thread, I thought I'd paste it here.|
Originally posted by Kravell
The rest of the post, which I have omitted here, had to do with suggestions for bringing Greyhawk "into 3rd Edition." It's interesting; you can follow this link to the thread that I took this post from (jump down to page 4 to find the post).
|#10zombiegleemaxFeb 12, 2004 18:27:20||Hmmm...that post is really interesting. I think everyone here should read it. The old battle between "classic/canon" and "revisionist" factions would blossom, but he does have some interesting points.|
I tend to agree that he is essence trying to treat Greyhawk to a Forgotten Realms make-over, but the spirit of the post is good and certainly a starting point. Of course, I still think his take on a Ranger Knight is silly;)
|#11ElendurFeb 12, 2004 18:52:42||I find it a little disturbing that someone who didn't even know Greyhawk existed in 3e could get a Greyhawk article published in Dragon. Not that the article was bad, just that Greyhawk is that low profile.|
|#12Brom_BlackforgeFeb 13, 2004 8:54:15|
Originally posted by Jag Arin
Like I said before, I don't much care for prestige classes, and this one is no exception. What I would have preferred was something that stayed within the ranger class, but still offered some of the same suggestions. I don't think that horses are on the standard animal companion list, but I also don't have a problem with allowing it. At most, I think it requires a feat (Improved Animal Companion, maybe, if such a thing doesn't already exist - something similar to Improved Familiar, which I know I've seen somewhere); we don't need a prestige class to allow rangers to take horses as animal companions.
I was more interested in seeing people's reaction to content being added to Greyhawk (limited though it is) and especially considering their *interesting* take on how Belvor is responding to incursions in N. Furyondy.
I thought it made sense. Is it contrary to something that's already been established? Or does it seem like an unwarranted extrapolation?
|#13zombiegleemaxFeb 13, 2004 9:24:05|
Originally posted by Brom Blackforge
No. Actually I agree with you Brom. I like the *idea* of PrCs, but I dislike the execution of most of them. This one included.
I am not so sure that this one makes sense though. Given the conditions of the area and the Pact of Greyhawk, organized military strikes are not feasible. Rangers attacking with surprise to harrass Iuz's minions makes more sense. I can imagine a unit of orc troops marching across a field and then what they thought were stacks of straw turn out to be an ambushing unit of Rangers in their very midst. That would be beneficial and effective. Moving what is, in effect, light cavalry around is less likely to be effective unless you have a good unit of 5-10 and then suprise becomes unlikely and you run into the problems listed above. Instead of Silent Hoof, maybe Hide Animal Companion in Plain Sight. I don't know, it seems like Rangers are giving up what really makes them effective for a little extra speed. Maybe give these guys a version of the old Pass Plant spell.
|#14ranger_regFeb 13, 2004 15:07:41||I'll have to playtest it first.|
Upon initial examination, I do like the tracking while mounted.
|#15OleOneEyeFeb 14, 2004 8:04:30||I have a hard time understanding the disdain for a ranger on a horse. It seems almost necessary for a lone wilderness warrior to have a horse. If you wish for an archetype, look no further than the origin of the class: Aragorn. Or perhaps a wilderness tracker of a spagetti western. Please post your reasoning on why a ranger should not ride a horse, for it makes little sense to this gamer.|
|#16zombiegleemaxFeb 14, 2004 15:07:04||OK, I'll give this a whack Ole One Eye (pun intended). First, I have no problem with a Ranger on a horse, having a horse, or even being a horse (centaurs make good rangers).|
What I have a problem with is the this PrC trying to sell a Ranger that relies on speed and power of a warhorse to ride down his enemies. Especially in medium armor with a horse in barding. It sounds too much like a knight (i.e. fighter/paladin). If the horse had ability to hide in plain sight (see above) or pass without trace or other ranger abilities, maybe. Maybe if the horse had an AC bonus making barding unnecessary.
Again, it is just this PrC not the *concept* of a horse and his faithful Silver or Trigger or whatever.
|#17OleOneEyeFeb 14, 2004 21:27:50||The point of prestige classes is to create a character concept. Why is it hard to understand a armored horseman who happens to know quite a bit about the wilderness as well? Prestige classes are not an uber-extension of a base class. They are a concept their own. If you wish to play a ranger, then do not take a prestige class, play a ranger.|
|#18ranger_regFeb 15, 2004 0:52:15||Heck, I have been advocating that rangers should wear medium armor and still use their class abilities. While the 3.5e ranger is an improvement over 3e, it is still not good enough.|
In fact, this PrC may just make me want to play in a GH campaign.
Gawd, I remember the 1e day when we had Ranger Knights and Ranger Lords as ranger level titles.
|#19ElendurFeb 16, 2004 0:03:12||One thing that's weird is the ranger knight gets a mount ability, not an animal companion. Which means a ranger entering this class could have a weak companion and a weak mount, but the levels don't stack together.|
This class is a good concept but mechanically it's strange.