This isn't posted here as a criticism of the core rules but rather as a topic for discussion hopefully to stimulate thoughts about house rules. It was prompted by the many laborious discussions about the wizards rule and it is certainly not meant to dig up that wormy body.
Anyway, I got thinking about the whole preserver = PHB wizard paradigm. It makes a good deal of sense. Whilst making the call that paladins and sorcerers don't belong on Athas is fine and coming up with a completely new core class (the gladiator) isn't a problem, there is a real difficulty with substantially reinventing a core class. It is meant to be D&D after all and if wizards ain't wizards then there's problems. So one very good reason for keeping preservers as core wizards is simply to make sure that you're still playing D&D (as opposed to a looser d20 system conversion). Does this make sense?
The problem with this argument is that Athasian bards and rangers have been completely reinvented. They are no longer D&D bards and rangers but... well... something else.
And thinking about it, I'm not sure why they needed to be quite so reengineered. The problem that the Athas.org team seemed to be trying to get round was magic use by these classes when the world is quite low magic. However, it occurs to me that the spell lists could be reconfiugred to represent the sorts of abilities that rangers and bard have under the current system without being overtly magical.
There are a number of advantages to doing this, I think. Firstly, it retain a good deal more consistency with the core rules. Secondly, as the classes stand at the moment they are perhaps a littel to specialised for most adventures and campaigns. Rangers particularly suffer from this but bards, as well, don't really have abilities that are going to serve them well in a dungeon-style campaign.
What do people think?
IMO the ranger class, in any world, should not have spells. When I think of Ranger I think of Aragorn, and my interpretation of Aragorn is that he is a very skilled ranger with his heal ranks maxed out and varius feats and such that make that heal skill better, he doesn't need spells to do what he did in the books or movies IMO.
That and the whole two-weapon fighting thing has to go. This doesn't speak ranger to me either, even though it's been that way since 1e.
What we have for the ranger works very well for Athas, hell I didn't even want to play a ranger until I saw the athas.org version. That's saying something.
So this isn't a beef at the rules put out by athas.org. Nor was I suggesting that rangers and bards should be more overtly magical. What I was suggesting was that, for homebrew rules, it might be possible to re-jig the spell lists for bards and rangers to represent the powers that Athasian bards and rangers had rather than so extensively re-engineering the classes.
There is actually a practical point here. I've go ta ranger in the campaign that I'm running but, because of the style of campaign, the athas.org ranger just didn't really work. On the other hand, I'm not entirely happy about him throwing around entangles either. I just want a spell list that doesn't quite feel so supernatural.
I don't know if you are aware,m but the official staff of D&D released two alternate versions of the Ranger class. One by Monte Cook (which looses the automatic ambidexterity, but gives bonus feats) and one by Kenneth Hood (which looses spells and gains stealth and mouvcement abilities, called Bushfighter)
The main problem with the original ranger is that it is really a "take a level and leave" class, especially if you want to play a two ewapon fighting character. In addition to gaining both ambidexterity and 2 weapon fighting for free, compare it to a 1st level fighter and you gain track, twice as many skill points, class skills, same BAB, HPs and Saves. However, from that point on, you don't really gain anything, aside from some spells, but the progression is really slow.
I really like the original ranger version of athas.org. Now I'm not so sure. I use a variant of the first version for my conversion.
Bard
I never liked that class to start with, at least, not as a base class. I don't really care for the idea of a menestrel being an adventurer to rival a fighter or a wizard. To me, its more of a rogue with perform ranks which best fits the role.
Also, in Dark Sun, the bard class takes a weird twist. He looses his spells, of course, but gains poison mastery. This image is also backed up by the following description of a thief's character kits:
"Assassin: If you want to play a thief that's good with poison, play a bard" (City-State of Tyr p.80)
I find something slightly weird (read: completely ridiculous) with that statement. Why would bards be inherently good with poisons? What is the link between playing music and poisoning people?
However, in D&D, there is no "theif" class. There is a "rogue" class. In my opinion, the bard of athas is a rogue of sorts. Also, since the bard is somewhat recognised as an loose organisation (there is bard quarters in all city-states), it makes sens to make that class a prestige class. Rogues have Perform as a class skill, craft(poisonmaking) too. They don't have knowledge as a class skill though, but bards are described as having learn "a little bit" of everything. As such, requirements for the prestige class can have them gain a few ranks in many knowledge skills, allowing them to pick up the prestige at early levels.
I really prefer the prestige option for the bard. The core class idea of a character who plays music and poisons people doesn't click for me.
Anyways, I plan to make a short prestige class option for the thief, as thieving for a patron seems to be a popular thing in the Tyr Region. Assassins will also need a rework of their prestige class, since they wouldn't cast spells anymore. I have an idea for that too. Drop the spells, make it a 5 level class, and have them gain +1d6 sneak attack at EACH level.
Originally posted by Afghan
.No. Don't get me wrong. I like the the new rules. What motivated the question was more me getting thinking about 'design philosophy'. The whole preservers/defilers debate seemed to incoroporate a good element of 'being true to Core D&D'. It suppose that it is what makes Dark Sun 3e D&D rather than just d20.
I was more or less just stating my opinion on the matter, that's all.
Originally posted by Afghan
So this isn't a beef at the rules put out by athas.org. Nor was I suggesting that rangers and bards should be more overtly magical. What I was suggesting was that, for homebrew rules, it might be possible to re-jig the spell lists for bards and rangers to represent the powers that Athasian ards and rangers had rather than so extensively re-engineering the classes.
It probably would be. However, I think it's missing the mark thematically.
If you look over the whole history of the DS3 effort, there's been a lot of changes to the design philosophy. When we first started out, there was an awful lot of effort put into rewriting classes and races ... A legacy of how DS(1|2) was implemented. I've spent a lot of time lately working to back out changes made, to pull classes (and a few other things) more towards the core books. This is probably most evident with the Preserver/Defiler bit, but it's been happening elsewhere as well.
The Ranger and the Bard rewrites, I still belive are the correct thing to do, actually. And the reason for that comes, not from a mechanical perspective, but from a thematic perspective.
Consider this, as a major theme of the entire Dark Sun setting: Power has its price. We've got the sorcerer kings, who enjoy unprecidented power, but they live in fear of the even greater power they have locked (barely) away -- and of each other. They weild a power that is incredibly potent -- but actually excersing that power has lead to the destruction of the world. Athas, as a whole, is a dying world ... it's certainly not getting any greener, despite the best efforts of druids and their ilk.
Every type of magic on athas has a definate, identifiable source. And most of them extract something for that power. Psionic power comes from the self. Divine power is granted from a definate, external source (which generally demands absolute loyalty, in thought and deed). Arcane power is drawn from the land, which can pay a terrible price. Those wizards who have found out how to draw from external sources are marked -- scarred and corrupted horribly.
Bards and rangers don't fit into that formatting.
Oh, sure, Rangers can get their powers from the SotL. But they don't really serve the sprits; never have. The bond between them is tenuous anyway. Rangers are survivalists, not great protectors of the wild creatures. Half the time, they're dedicated to destroying those wild creatures. Remember, Rangers don't have to be Good anymore.
Bards ... well, if they had magic, they'd be defiliers or preservers as well (as using plant life is a feature of Arcane magic, not just wizardly magic <0>) ... and that pretty clearly isn't the case. Leaving bards with magic is a pretty hefty splash of revisionism. And if they wern't defilers/preservers ... then where exactly do they get their magic from? Everything has a source, and it's Psionic power that comes from the inside.
<0> The astute may note that this means that Sorcerers can be perfectly usable in Dark Sun, just as long as they are subjected to the defiler / preserver rules ...
Druids have to find a mentor, which teaches him his ways, and then casts a spell to allow the pupil to converse with the Spirits of the Land and be tested. Only then can he become a druid. Conceavably, a Spirit of the Land could decide to grant this gift by himself, as it is an entity who can take actions by itself, but that would still make the character a druid.
Clerics also need to be inducted into the "church" (there is no church, but their is a loose clergy) to be able to form a pact with the elemental powers themselves, and they all follow the same kinds of principles.
Templars are inducted into a very define and finite order, and get their powers directly from the sorcerer-kings (or more accurately, from the power linked to each monarch).
As such, it would violate the principles of divine spellcasters of Athas to have a class which spontaneously develops divine spellcasting ability at mid level. If he does so, he must follow one of the three paths aforementioned, and therefore simply multiclasses in the appropriate class.
Originally posted by Shei-Nad
...
Also, in Dark Sun, the bard class takes a weird twist. He looses his spells, of course, but gains poison mastery. This image is also backed up by the following description of a thief's character kits:
"Assassin: If you want to play a thief that's good with poison, play a bard" (City-State of Tyr p.80)
I find something slightly weird (read: completely ridiculous) with that statement. Why would bards be inherently good with poisons? What is the link between playing music and poisoning people?
However, in D&D, there is no "theif" class. There is a "rogue" class. In my opinion, the bard of athas is a rogue of sorts. Also, since the bard is somewhat recognised as an loose organisation (there is bard quarters in all city-states), it makes sens to make that class a prestige class. Rogues have Perform as a class skill, craft(poisonmaking) too. They don't have knowledge as a class skill though, but bards are described as having learn "a little bit" of everything. As such, requirements for the prestige class can have them gain a few ranks in many knowledge skills, allowing them to pick up the prestige at early levels.
I really prefer the prestige option for the bard. The core class idea of a character who plays music and poisons people doesn't click for me.
Anyways, I plan to make a short prestige class option for the thief, as thieving for a patron seems to be a popular thing in the Tyr Region. Assassins will also need a rework of their prestige class, since they wouldn't cast spells anymore. I have an idea for that too. Drop the spells, make it a 5 level class, and have them gain +1d6 sneak attack at EACH level.
The connection between poisons & bards on Athas has to do with what they also are a support-role with. I see them as having the wide-ranged knowledge that Bards on other worlds have, but rather than blabbing/proclaiming it around to help others, Bards tend to hide their knowledge - as races & cultures were annihilated in Athas' history, the Bards have retained some of the knowledge that would otherwise be lost. They have many secrets - one of which is poisons. Another I'd say is alchemy (which are very similar), and I'm sure there's many more little "secrets" that the Bard can be attributed to having. They are also probably great herbalists & holistic healers (once again, similar to alchemy & poisons) - but many are very money-oriented, or at least favor-oriented. They use this hidden knowledge to their own benefit (or are more often portrayed as), and are a very dangerous lot because nobody really knows what all the bards know.
I can see where you are going with the Prestige Class idea for Bards, and it does make sense in a way. I'd almost have the Bards & Assassins merged together as a single PrC - on Athas, when people think of Assassins, they think of Bards and vice-versa. I like the work that has been done on the Bards the way they are currently, as they definitely add flavor to any DS adventuring party.
Every type of magic on athas has a definate, identifiable source. And most of them extract something for that power.
Mmm. No, I agree but I'm not talking about using bard and ranger spell lists to represent magic power, only to represent what a ranger and bard can do. I don't know about the bard but, for a core class, the ranger in DS3e is a lot more limited hat the PHB ranger. It certainly doesn't work in the campaign I'm running.
But the point is, spell list does not have to imply magic. Spells are a games mechanic but plenty of them don't requie a supernatural explanation. Animal Friendship mirrors a power given to Athasian rangers as it is, for instance. Ventriloquism or Detect Secret Doors for bards could have similarly mundane setting explanations.
(as using plant life is a feature of Arcane magic, not just wizardly magic)
But there aren't any other arcane spellcasters on Athas other than wizards are there? It sounds like a category error.
.Afghan's innitial post seems to imply a general dislike for the current ranger and bard classes more than a desire to bring in spellcasting to other classes (correct me if I'm wrong).
Well I don't dislike them. I think they are very cool actually. But I don't think they work so well as core classes. Certainly not as well as the PHB versions do. They feel more like prestige classes (to turn your argument on its head). They're too specialist.
Lets look at this then. What are the limits themselves of the ranger and bard? What role in the party do they not fill that they in fact should? Do they lack in the basic encounter situations such as hostile combat, NPC interaction, or overcoming obsticle (i.e. trap, puzzle, trick, riddle, mystery)? Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing them slightly more martial at the expense of one or two class features, but then again I could always tailor the ranger's dedications towards several broad catagories of creatures that I would be commonly encountering.
Lets look at this then. What are the limits themselves of the ranger and bard? What role in the party do they not fill that they in fact should?
Well let's stick with the ranger for the time being as it is the class I have looked at more closely. The problem with the athas.org ranger, for me, is that is seems quite difficult to crowbar into a party at all. Or at least certain manifestations do. This is the general problem I have with it. It just doesn't feel very cohesive.
In some ways, that's quite cool. It means that you can take a ranger character in a number of different directions. It's just I'm not sur ethat should be happening with a core class. In general though, as it stands, you can take it in three different ways.
You can, as you suggest, go for the favoured enemies option, but, to be honest, that doesn't seem to offer anything much different from the fighter class. A ranger will be slightly more effective against some opponents than a fighter and significantly less effective against others.
The favoured animals option is slightly better but, in general, I'm not very happy about any class whose main features are built on a contingent of NPCs (or animals). Yes, large numbers of followers have a place in certain sorts of campaign but they are not something you really want as a standard part of a core class. And the whole Doctor Doolittle theme feels even less Athasian than magic using rangers to me.
Which leaves the favoured lands and terrains. Which again would be a superb idea for a prestige class but for a core class, they don't seem to encourage the sort of adventuring character that most DMs and players are going to be looking for. And the criticisms that were levelled at extensive terrain modifiers for wizrds seem to be even more applicable here.
Reading back over what I've written, it sounds pretty critical and I want to say that's not really what I'm trying to do. The athas.org ranger is a very cool class. What I'm really trying to say is, it doesn't seem to me as though it quite works as a core class. I'm certainly not trying to derail the official release. But I just want to prompt ideas as to how to build a ranger with a genuine Athasian feel but which doesn't sacrifice the ability to work as a core class. If only to work into my own campaign.
I'd just like there to be a way to 'beef 'em' a little in other areas than combat or by adding spellcasting (I know I said I like combatative style rangers, but that doesn't mean that I think that is the best take on them). Perhaps the issue then is what to give the ranger? Perhaps a decent selection of unique feats that the ranger can aquire as dedications? Some feats could be specifically tailored to 'rationalize' a ranger into a party (as it stands, I still see the ranger as a xenophobic extreme survivalist, to heck with other people, I'll do it on my own or die trying). By adding the feats into the ranger's options of dedications, you don't take away or add too much. You merely present more choices. The specific feats shouldn't give any bonuses higher than those given out by the various dedications already and may in fact look similar to 'regional feats'. Feats that would confer some of the ranger's bonuses gained from various dedications would be nice to see, for example a feat that allows the ranger to confer some of his damage bonus to others in the party if he can communicate with them (1/2 or 1/3 the damage bonus), etc. A ranger in the wilds is an indispensible tool for the party though. Theres nothing the party cannot do without the ranger, but a ranger with various favored terrains especially makes alot of things easier. Still though, I'd like to see more 'options' for the ranger I guess.
Their power is derived their own synergy with the environment they exist in. So a ranger's power is derived from his knoweldge and experience of the wilds, whilst a bard's is derived from his oknoewledge and experience of Athasian society.
Writing this it occurs to me that mundane magic in general could be regulated like arcane magic. Rather than being dependent on plant life, however, it would be dependent on Intelligence density. Intelligence density, or total Intelligence per square mile, represents the level of civilisation in an area. A ranger's powers work best in the wilds whereas a bard's powers work best on the ignorant.
Therefore, ID (Intelligence density) would function for mundane magic in much the same way as terrain works for arcane magic.
If you get dragon, and you've looked at number 308, it includes a preview of the 3.5 Ranger. All I can say is that I'm impressed. They actually made the class worth playing, in a big way. And there's enough overlap with the direction that we've taken our version that I really don't belive that athas.org should continue to publish a completely differnet version of the class. Honestly, if I look at them and compare the two classes, I don't think I could ever imagine wanting to play the athas.org version over the 3.5 version ... quite a reversal from the initial 3.0 ranger ...
There are some elements of our own ranger that I think can be introduced into the 3.5 ranger: That is, the variations of the Favored $foo ability. I think that those may be workable as alternatives (scaling, of course) to the Favored Enemy ability of the 3.5 ranger. Maybe.
So. The spellcasting of the ranger. I don't think that there's really a way to cleanly remove it. Granted the ranger is simply a teritirary caster ... so, while the spells aren't amazingly powerful, it becomes a challenge of comparing power vs. flexibility. I don't think we've got the five-hundred group manpower to playtest that sort of thing.
And, of course, as some of you have noted, the ranger used to be able to cast spells anyway (way back in AD&D2 ...
So, if you're all willing to be nice to me for adjusting my position based upon pracicality rather than sticking with my position based on dogma ...
The need for a rewritten ranger class has passed. At this point I'd like to see DS using the core 3.5 ranger, either intact or only sightly modified (the Favored $foo abilities, rather than just Favored Enemy)
... All of the above is my opinion only; I am not speaking for athas.org on this.
No ranger class should have spellcasting abilities IMO, especially on Athas of all places. I can deal with it being like that for FR, et al, but not Athas, it doesn't fit IMO.
The point most often raised regarding the Dark Sun 3e conversion is "we don't have all the staff to playtest this issue throughly". I think this is a perfect valid point for any MAJOR changes, like completely revising the wizards spell lists or something of that scope. However, taken to the extreme, this point of view leads to "everything on Athas is equal to standard DnD", and that is (i guess for most of us) unacceptable.
In my opinion we ought to be able to make a reasonable balanced optional ranger, which does not have any spells. I might add that in my campaign I have a ranger, and with our style of play he performs very well.
I havn't read the new 3.5 ranger. If it is as good as flip suggest I think we ought to use that as a starting point. But we need to remove the spell-casting ability somehow.
Second issue:
Regarding the Bard I tend to agree with (was it Sheri) who said that "bards are just rogues with some skill points in perform". Remember in 2e, classes were very rigid. By this I mean that almsot all fighters were similar and so on for other classes. The only way to really differetiate between character types, was to introduce multiple classes. This I believe, are the major reasons for
1) Gladiators
2) Bards (Dark Sun Bards)
3) Defiles and preservers being different classes
In 3e the flexibility of each class are vastly increased. I am all in favour of reducing the number of classes, but expanding their flexibility.
* Blaze Trail
* Hard March
* Stealth Walk
* Animal Lure
* Stealth Run
But benchmarking those abilities vs the spells is tough. Of course, going on munchkin skill and game designer's intuition could get us far, but not to a perfect result. There is growing concensus that the thought of an athasian ranger with spells is not so horrible as it used to be. The fact that they had spells in 2E is a strong argument. To explain the source of the magic, we can add a few paragraphs of flavor text - the source most likely being either the elements or the spirits of the lands.
There are a couple of things in there that wern't covered in the Dragon article (or that I didn't notice ...)
you'll be happy to see, Jon, that the Ranger has good Reflex saves. And I like the comment that a Ranger's favored-enemy damage is not precision damage, so you actually get to apply it to, say, undead.
Originally posted by Gralhruk
How about limited psionic use instead of spell use? That would certainly sit better with me, particularly if it was kept to "self-sufficient" kind of abilities.
I'm willing to "settle" for this, but I'm pretty adamantly against them having spells.
I don't agree with giving them psionics either, as it would make them a "psionic class".
In my mind the ranger is a survivalist. He draws not necessarily on himself and his abilities, but on his knowledge of the environment and his know-how. Skills and feats, environment oriented. This is also linked with the idea that a ranger is profoundly linked with nature, the ranger's environment.
I have a writeup of the ranger class his resembles an earlier idea of athas.org.
Now that I look at the new ranger, I think it looks good, though I'm not sure of what I'll do to it, especially to remove the spellcasting. We'll see...
I find it funny though that they granted endurance to their ranger at 3rd level and I did the same thing to mine at 4th. I think I changed that though...
P.S.:I noticed that people have a great deal of trouble with spelling my nick here! I find that funny, since they only use "Shei", a four letter word, and always get it wrong (Shie, Sheri...) but they can get Gralhruk and xlorepdarkhelm (???) right!!! :D
Well, I really, really hate to say this, but after a general scan of the new ranger . . . it kicks arse. I'd probably give it a few other weapon focusing choices like spears; hunters/wild survivalists used spears and bows, even in cultures that had developed swords as well as a mounted fighting feat group. The two weapon thing I always thought was lame (may just replace it as a choice alltogether in Athas). I still think the spells need to be ditched. Upping the hit die to d10 could fix some of the power loss, but it still won't help the versatility loss from not having spells.
I also like the idea of higher level animal companions. I'm getting a great idea for an illithid ranger with his trusty dire squid companion (j/k). It fits the class a little better, especially on Athas where you can more easily justify class concepts like Roc Riders, pterran pterrax riders, and such.
No matter how you work it though, the ranger will always feel like a soloing class. At least now they'll rock a little more.
Maybe I am not to clear, but the ranger is a guy who wander the waste and survive with is knowledge and physical ability. This is no magical trinket guy. A ranger may believe that exist a force of nature but in no way he's gonna be able to manifest it through is body as spells.
Please, maybe have the 3.5 ranger, but at least melt it to the actual one (athas.org one), with no spells.
Originally posted by Mach2.5
Upping the hit die to d10 could fix some of the power loss, but it still won't help the versatility loss from not having spells.
Our balance gurus have been adamant that this is not an option ... I'm not entirely sure I understand the full reasoning, and I certainly can't reliably explain it, but I've figured out that we ought to trust them on this sort of thing ...
Replacing spells for a tertiary caster is tricky ... it's hard to know just how much of an impact on the class the spells actually have ... while none of the spells are overtly powerful (most of the ranger's spells are utility spells ... there's no way he's a spellcastingcombatgod) ... It's partially because they're not combat spells that makes it tricky. Combine that with trying to measure the impact of the day-to-day versitility in spell selection ... the spellcasting could have a minor impact on the class, or a large one.
So, at the moment what's going on is that we're going to remove the present ranger rewrite, in favor of the 3.5 core ranger. We will be presenting the Favored {Creature,Land,Terrain} class features as options to the favored enemy -- adjusted to gradiate as the Favored Enemy ability does. Other abilities not better represented in the 3.5.Ranger are likely to appear as a part of a prestige class.
There are plenty of psionic abilities that are self-reliance kind of powers: know location, anchored navigation, biofeedback, spider climb, body adjustment, psychofeedback, etc. These kinds of powers aren't overtly visible and they enhance many of the standard ranger abilities.
Well, from the limited amount of time I had spent in a party with a ranger, the ranger almost never had a need for the spells presented. An occasional cure wounds or delay/neutralize poison sure, but most of the other spells were very specific in use and the spell list made it difficult to 'have the right tool for the job'. Granted, should the ranger have had the proper spell under the proper circumstances, he or she would have rocked, but that was rarely the case.
Also, up until 10th level, there are no issues at all about loss of character balance since your talking about nixing one single spell. The only real issue comes in at the last few levels (16-20), but by then, none of the ranger's spells are worth 2 bits. If the 3.5 ranger is going to start getting stat buff spells, then its likely (even though the durations are going to be reduced) that those are going to be the spells of preference (a few cat's grace and bull's strength spells with a few cures thrown in in case something happens to the party priest). Granted, creativity will likely win the day with one or two of the spells, but overall, the spells are underpowered in the situations that the high level ranger is likely to find himself in.
Oh and the d10 thing was really dumb in hindsight. I dunno what the heck made me think that (brain leakage, sorry).
As for replacing the spells with psionics, in theory it sounds at least a little better, however in practice its likely to end up at the same junction as the spells.
Getting psionic instead of spells is a good idea at the bards! Thinking about the long history of psionics on Athas it's logically right that the tricky bunch of bards got psionic powers here and there. And don't forget, that the bards on other worlds did EXACTLY the same (just with arcane spells instead of psionics). They can have an own power list like the psychic warrior, similar power point and combat mode gain and the train can go...
Anyway it is a viable option, too, to redesign prestige classes with small spellcasting power like the assassin. Most of the spells they get has a close counterpart in psionic power.
Our balance gurus have been adamant that this [exchanging spells for d10 hit dice] is not an option ... I'm not entirely sure I understand the full reasoning, and I certainly can't reliably explain it, but I've figured out that we ought to trust them on this sort of thing ...
Actually, that was just Feebles' stance. I said I don't think that would unbalance the class, but I also said that under the assumption that they would only get good fortitude saves, not fortitude and reflex. All in all, I suppose, mechanically, a d10 hit die is not going to flip the class all the way over the balance edge, but they would be bordering there. Thematically I don't see rangers as the ultimate melee trolls (i.e. fighter/paladin), despite two-weapon fighting option - they have skills that help them evade and avoid enemies, and many use ranged weapons. Thematically, I feel d8 is more correct, and balance-wise it is safer to keep the spells than a hit die change.
As for the source of spells, I like the idea of rangers leeching magic from the areas they travel through, i.e. from the spirits of the lands.
Anyway, as far as ranger spells go, I don't think they present a huge problem making them 'fit' Athas. Dark Sun has always struck me as a very animistic setting. Whilst there are no gods, spirits inhabit the landscape, rocks, winds, whatever.
The ranger class is essentially an 'outdoorsman' archetype. Someone so close to nature could learn to deal with the spirits of Athas. Not to the same extent as a specialist like a cleric or druid but enough to barter the occasional favour now and then. Essentially, elemental and druidic spirits are as much a part of the ranger's milieu as the flora and fauna.
One thought I did have though... is it possible for a ranger to take a city-state as a favoured enemy? This would be a particularly good option for Gulg judagas. The only reason I ask is I'm thinking of including a judaga morg in my current campagn.
A defiling ranger would make a good PrC too, one who's hateful of nature and feels like he needs to control/destroy it. hmmm....
Originally posted by Afghan
One thought I did have though... is it possible for a ranger to take a city-state as a favoured enemy? This would be a particularly good option for Gulg judagas. The only reason I ask is I'm thinking of including a judaga morg in my current campagn.
Absolutely not. Your favored enemy is a [b]type[b], in the pure mechanical sense. What you learn so intimately about your enemy is their physiology -- where to hit them to cause the most damage, that sort of thing.
I'd consider allowing something like Knowledge (Nibenay) ranks to give synergy bonuses to things like Bluff or Diplomacy when dealing with citizens of that city state ... but the favored enemy bonuses need not apply.