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
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.
But that's just my opinion. ;)
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.
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.
Originally posted by Kravell
I like Greyhawk a lot. In fact, I wrote a prestige class for the setting in Dragon 317. The idea for the class did come from 1st edition, back when classes were named. What would a ranger knight or ranger lord look like in 3rd Edition?
You'll notice how different the ranger knight of Furyondy looks next to an osteomancer. And yet I can see an osteomancer serving Iuz and striking terror into the hearts of villagers the ranger knight has sworn to protect.
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).
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;)
Originally posted by Jag Arin
Of course, I still think his take on a Ranger Knight is silly;)
[rant]
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.
[/rant]
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?
Originally posted by Brom Blackforge
[rant]
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. [Snip-a-roo] we don't need a prestige class to allow rangers to take horses as animal companions.
[/rant]
I thought it made sense. Is it contrary to something that's already been established? Or does it seem like an unwarranted extrapolation?
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.
Upon initial examination, I do like the tracking while mounted.
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.
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.
This class is a good concept but mechanically it's strange.