| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| branmakmuffin |
Posted - 27 Jun 2003 : 07:56:01
I didn't see anything about rangers on the "Revision Spotlight" at WotC. If anyone knows that the following is changed in 3.5, I'm sure you'll let me know.
I find it odd that a ranger cannot be non-Evil if he chooses his own race as a favored enemy. Yet a non-Halfling ranger could be Good and take Halflings as a favored enemy, right? Halflings are mostly nice, friendly chaps.
So if a Good ranger can take a basically "good" race as favored enemy, he ought to be able to take his own race as well. A bounty hunter-type who does his best to make sure the criminals he's hunting are "bad" and who treats his targets with relative compassion ought to be able to be Good, it seems to me, even if most of his targets are his own race. |
| 7 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 30 Jun 2003 : 05:01:58
Woo! Well, I have to admit, I've never heard anything good about the Marines in the Asian theater. They always seem to be in trouble. Second, there is a very big rivalry between the Marines and the Green Barets. And finally, I suppose I should have made it clear that I wasn't talking about the rank and file Marines. The ones I've interacted with the most are those who are assigned to the US Embassies. You aren't likely to find many rowdy people there.
Oh, and I don't think that the Marines are anything along the lines of a warrior as a whole. That said, I actually wasn't trying to make a direct comparison to the Real World. It was just an off-the-cuff analogy I wrote out while multitasking.
I'm not going to retract it though. I've met soldiers from all branches, and the Marines are the ones I'd trust the most, all things equal. I knew one guy who was the crudest, most foul-mouthed person I'd ever met. He was not the person to have a friendly argument with. He wasn't the sort of person your mother would want you to be within a mile of. But if it came down to it, I'd have put my life in his hands before anyone else I knew.
Now, I freely put forth that as a Navy brat, I am both unavoidably biased and certainly without as much experience with the other branches as I am with the Marines. But I stand by what I've said.
Now. *cough* I believe that we have Realmslore to work on?  |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 30 Jun 2003 : 00:00:10
quote:
Originally posted by Bookwyrm
This is something that already occured to me; however, not only was I more concerned with spellcasters (I haven't had time to go through everything, having only just started!), I didn't make it a priority. Besides, Bran has articulated the problem better than I had.
In fact, were I not already convinced that the favored enemy was a bit screwy, I would certainly have been after reading his acount. After all, is there really much difference between the ranger's studying of a particular race and (to use a modern analogy) a special ops training program? As a Navy brat, I've met a few US Marines; they're special ops in all but name. I've never met one who could be considered evil. Very, very dangerous, yes. But you wouldn't believe the sort of training and self-control they have, unless you've seen it first hand.
All in all, this rule is simply arbitrary and has no basis in fact. I move that it be ignored.
Hmmm... US MARINES??? SPECIAL OPS???? SELF CONTROL?????
WHAT!!!!!!
Sorry bookwyrm, but I spent lots of time stationed with Marines. They do their job well there is no doubt about it, but they are far from having self control. When I was a cryptologist in the Navy I was also an Auxillary Security Cop for Torri Station on Okinawa Japan. When marines came to visit the Army base I was on, there were TONS of them I had to arrest, for them trying to 'test' themselves in bars against the GREEN BERET, or mouthing off to people they shouldn't have. I have a very low opinion of Marines because of the amount of fights I have seen them in, AND the amount of fights they tried to START with my friends and I. If marines are RANGERS I am a sardines Arse. NO, Marines are the BASIC rank and file soldier, a D&D equivalent of a WARRIOR. If you wnat to expand to Marine Recon then fine they might be a ranger.
Let me just say I respect the marines for WHAT they do, but I have had FAR TOO many run ins with US marines to respect them for WHO they are. This of course does not extend to the ROYAL MARINES, who are quite a cut above.
Trying to assign D&D character classes to Current military ops is quite near impossible as it is all completely arbitrary.
|
| Lord Rad |
Posted - 28 Jun 2003 : 19:55:20
quote:
Originally posted by Targon Moonrise
The ranger class was revised fpr 3.5e in a Dragon Magizine. I don't remember the number but it has been done.
I think its in issue 308, details Barbarians, Monks and Rangers, IIRC. I havent read the article yet and the only think I know about the new 3.5 ranger is the drop to a lower Hit Dice, which IMO is a good thing. Rangers are my favorite class, but as it said in Dragon, many people see them as just fighters with wilderness lore...this should change your average hack-and-slash player from choosing a ranger and stick to fighters   |
| The Sage |
Posted - 28 Jun 2003 : 05:54:15
Of course, you could just search through the WotC D&D forum boards (both the old and new ones). There is always a fan-created revised Ranger class posted on those boards nearly every week.
|
| Targon Moonrise |
Posted - 28 Jun 2003 : 00:43:07
The ranger class was revised fpr 3.5e in a Dragon Magizine. I don't remember the number but it has been done. |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 27 Jun 2003 : 22:32:37
This is something that already occured to me; however, not only was I more concerned with spellcasters (I haven't had time to go through everything, having only just started!), I didn't make it a priority. Besides, Bran has articulated the problem better than I had.
In fact, were I not already convinced that the favored enemy was a bit screwy, I would certainly have been after reading his acount. After all, is there really much difference between the ranger's studying of a particular race and (to use a modern analogy) a special ops training program? As a Navy brat, I've met a few US Marines; they're special ops in all but name. I've never met one who could be considered evil. Very, very dangerous, yes. But you wouldn't believe the sort of training and self-control they have, unless you've seen it first hand.
All in all, this rule is simply arbitrary and has no basis in fact. I move that it be ignored. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 27 Jun 2003 : 09:06:13
There has really been nothing posted officially about Rangers in 3.5. Looking over the 'Revision Spotlight' archive also reveals very little. I guess given the fact that most people believe the Ranger Core Class had problems in 3e, WotC is a little hesitant to release anything about the class until the revised core books are out.
Anyway, Bran this seems like an interesting idea. I suppose that if this type of situation was 'handled' correctly by both the DM and the player involved, there can really be no problems. I think that as long as you establish that this particular 'ranger/bounty-hunter' type is above the certain evil behaviours that is sometimes associated with regular 'bounty-hunters' role-playing this in a campaign, would not only be interesting, but fun.
As for hunting targets of his own 'race', again as long as the distinction between good and evil is accurately portrayed it seems to me that it should work. I think an important factor to consider (since he is a bounty-hunter), is how the community as a whole perceives this type of character. Is the environment this Ranger-type operating in, heavily populated by his own kind?. Maybe the authorities and community view such actions as evil regardless of the motives of the Ranger.
Anyway, I'd be interested in hearing about the results, if you decide to try it in a campaign.
May all your learning be free and unfettered
|
|
|
