80 réponses à ce sujet

[Maria Caliban]

One of my favorite parts about DnD 4e is that the new way they defined classes, as a combination of role and power source. So you have strikers, defenders, controllers, and leaders with power sources like martial, arcane, divine, and primal.

Rangers, Warlocks, and Avengers were strikers - highly mobile with high bursts of damage. Fighters and Paladins were defenders - good at protecting their allies and taking lots of damage.

[Dakota Strider]

A couple points regarding which class a ranger should fit under:

A barbarian is always considered to be a warrior class, yet they often wear even less armor than a ranger, and they are definitely not a top-heavy, slow and lumbering type.

I think it is better to group classes into philosophy, rather than skills.

Rogues, which includes thieves, bards and assassin, are often depicted as having talents that may be just a bit shady. Or thought of just lovable miscreants.

Warriors: Generally, action orientated, that are skilled at arms. Battlefield strategists usually are from the warrior class. Some are Protectors/Defenders, others are more of the Attacker/Rager types.

Mages: While Dragon Age has turned this class upon its head a bit, by making mage talent inborn, instead of learned, it is usually characterized as those that believe in deep study and research, relying on willpower and learning to overcome obstacles.

Divine: Not relevant to DA (yet), but those that call upon a higher power to draw their inspiration, and power.

I have always considered Rangers to be of the guardian/protector philosophy. They are characterized as wilderness warriors, and while some of their skills are also shared by rogues, it is simply a matter of a ranger being at home in his/her environment.

A skill can be learned by anyone. If a mage also trains to be a locksmith, does that turn the mage into a rogue? If a Templar knows how to sing, does that transform him/her into a bard? If a thief has learned that it is beneficial to carry a shield from time to time, does that make him/her a warrior? A mage that can swing a battle axe, a warrior?

The ranger is a class that has numerous historical/fictional references. Some, like Robin Hood, is definitely more of a rogue, than a warrior. However, it would be impossible to try to see Aragorn, Davy Crockett, Daniel Boone or Hawkeye (Last of the Mohicans) as a rogue, as they are clearly warriors.

@Allan Schumacher: To answer your question, if I thought adding extra health to a rogue subclass and calling it a ranger is acceptable: If that is the only way to include the Ranger into DA3, yes. And in a metagame sense, making a ranger a part of the rogue class makes it very desirable to play, since it means you have a character with good combat skills that can open locks and disarm traps. Philosophically though, I am one that feels a ranger should be a warrior, that just happens to have hunting skills.

Also, my mistake when I refer to Baldur's Gate, I am usually talking about the whole series, or the finale,  Shadow of Amn and Throne of Bhaal.  That series continued to improve as it went on, but it still resembled the original.

Modifié par Dakota Strider, 27 avril 2012 - 04:52 .

[Dakota Strider]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

This is the part I have real difficulty seeing. They seem far more proactive and more like attackers to me.

And, to your point onn the skills, that can be turned the complete other way: If a rogue learns to survive in the wilderness, does that make him a warrior? Anything can be turned to fit one's view.

I would say Davy Crockett and Daniel Boone were very "rogue-ish." They were proactive--attacking animals, attacking enemies. Both were known for being explorers--an extremely proactive activity, as opposed to protecting or defending anything.

The other two I can't comment on because I don't really know who they are.

As I stated before, attackers are generally in the warrior class.  A rogue will attempt to avoid direct confrontation when possible, unless to take out a single target.    And instead of saying rogue, let's say thief, for a moment.  Using your example, if a "thief" goes out to the woods, and learns all the skills of tracking, flora and fauna, and other survival skills....he/she would still be a thief, just one that is better able to function outside a city.

And just because a ranger chooses to be proactive and attack something, does not make him/her less of  a defender/protector.  As the saying goes, sometimes the best defense, is a good offense.  Catch the enemy offguard, fight in the most favorable terrain, etc.   Most definitions of the word "ranger" includes words like "guards", "patrols", "keeper". 

Aragorn one of the main characters in the LotR trilogy  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aragorn_II
Hawkeye, fictional late 1700's American fronteirsman  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natty_Bumppo

[Pasquale1234]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

I'd love to chime in on the whole RPG thing, so I'll just quote myself--this was about ME:

EternalAmbiguity wrote...
Role-playing game. You play a role, you're playing an RPG. Role tends to mean choices, both in gameplay (picking and choosing powers or passives) and in story (tone, P&R, killing people, leaving them alive, etc.) with those choices defining you (the type of combat you can engage in, or where your alignment is, or who is alive in ME2/3, etc.)

I consider the prime standard of an RPG to be choice. Not, lots of stuff. Choice. Either or. One or the other. not both.

Unlike Skyrim, for instance. But I digress.

Okay, I'll toss my standards for what defines an RPG in the mix.

For me, role-playing is all about assuming the role of a character - which means (at the very least) understanding their personality, morality, beliefs, abilities, tastes, interests, and motivations - and then injecting them into a world, setting, storyline (which serves as a backdrop) where they can react to the environment, events, other characters in ways that are in character.  The more control I have over that character - their choices, behaviors, what they say and how they say it, the more I can fully experience the world, setting, story as that character would.

In a game where the protag is fully animated and voiced, the player ends up watching and listening to that character behave, which takes the actor (role-player) out of the character and makes them an observer.  This was the disconnect I experienced with Hawke, and the reason that DA2 does not serve as an RPG for me.

[Nerdage]

Don't "what is an RPG" topics get locked..

Anyway, the topic. Isn't what a ranger is completely up to whoever wrote the setting? This "in D&D" and "in LotR" is well and good, but they're entirely different worlds.

Doesn't mean I'm a fan of the summoning ranger in DAO, that was all a bit Jumanji to me. I'd prefer rangers had one pet (ideally acquired as part of the quest to learn the specialization) and some talents for interacting with them, setting up combos and things.

[Aly666]

Dakota Strider wrote...

I will give the DA team a pass for not having the Ranger Specialty in DA2, there was very little wilderness area, and without stealth outside of combat, the claim could be made there was no need for a ranger.  But I am hoping that they will be bringing back the ranger, as a specialty for either the warrior or rogue class. 

And I am sure I may be in the minority that enjoys playing a ranger.  It is an iconic figure in fantasy, since Strider/Aragorn, and there are different styles in which they can be played.  I know that a ranger is not the most effective in combat as most warriors, and that is a reason many do not play them.  To be honest, the benefits that a ranger gained in DAO, namely the animal companions, were probably weaker than benefits gained by other classes.  But for me, the reason to play a ranger is not for a combat advantage.  It is purely for roleplay reasons, of having a warrior/scout, that is in his/her element in the wilderness.  And since DA3 is supposed to be covering a very large part of Thedas, I am hoping there will be lots of opportunities for rangers to show off their skills in the wilds.

I would prefer, if the Ranger is brought back, that the animal companion part is not part of the package.  That is something that is more suitable for a druid....or Drzzt.  Tracking skills, and opportunities to use them, perhaps trap setting and making, and perhaps a bonus when in combat in the wilds.  Not often that specialties include negatives, but a ranger should probably have penalties when trying to use class skills in cities.

Anyways, there is my plea.  Hoping since the DA3 dev team says they have heard the message about player choices, have this in mind.

yes bring back rangers i would soo love to play that class my favorite besides that is templar... even though being a templar sucks and thanks douchebags for getting off topic like every F'en post.

[Realmzmaster]

The third edition rules of D & D changed the thief class to the rogue class. The rogue class was created to include any skilled and stealthy character which includes scouts, spies, detectives, pirates, assassins, and bards.

In that regards rangers could fit in the rogue class, but D & D still leaves them in the warrior class. $th edition rules tried to change the traditional definitions somewhat, but even that will undergo more revision with the new ruleset being proposed.

There are many definitions of what a true rpg is. The problem comes when one set of gamers think their definition is better than another group of gamers. Gamers can simply voice what they wish to see in a crpg. It is then up to the developers to balance the various interests and fit it within their vision of the story and gameplay.

You can talk about what rpg game mechanics you wish to employed in the game, but you will run around in circles trying to find the one definition that works.

[Nerdage]

 

Dakota Strider wrote...

I have always considered Rangers to be of the guardian/protector philosophy. They are characterized as wilderness warriors, and while some of their skills are also shared by rogues, it is simply a matter of a ranger being at home in his/her environment.  

A skill can be learned by anyone. If a mage also trains to be a locksmith, does that turn the mage into a rogue? If a Templar knows how to sing, does that transform him/her into a bard? If a thief has learned that it is beneficial to carry a shield from time to time, does that make him/her a warrior? A mage that can swing a battle axe, a warrior?

I'd say yes, at least in part. A class/role is just a skill set, so if you learn a new set of skills, you're a new class. How is a mage who can fight like a warrior any less of a warrior than a non-mage with the same skills? Doesn't mean it's no longer a mage, but it's a warrior now too. 

So if a ranger shares attributes with the warrior and the rogue, it's either some kind of hybrid or its own thing entirely, it's not going to fit neatly under another archetype.

Handily for the DA arcane warrior though it's easy to tell who it should inherit from, since you have to be a mage before you can use magic, so that fits neatly under the mage class. But a warrior/rogue hybrid (if that's what you can call a ranger, it can't be it's own class in this case) isn't so clear-cut unless it's available to both, which I guess could be possible.

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

And, again, the idea of a ranger as a defender or protector is one I have trouble with. Perhaps it stems from different views of just what a ranger is. i don't view a ranger as someone who lives in the forest and protects the king's deer from hunters, for instance. I view the ranger as the hunter, the one who's living in a hidden place partaking of things that may not belong to them. In that manner I think a ranger is more of a rogue-ish subtype.

A definition supported in part by the ranger's description in DAO, the only definition that matters when talking about the character as it relates to Dragon Age I'd have thought. If the topic is what rangers are in every setting though (for which there's no answer, it changes from one to the next) then ignore this next bit..

As for which class it should inherit from in DA (or even which it inherits most from), I don't know. I'd lean towards warrior though to be honest, since DA rogues seem to have a pretty urban skill set with picking locks and dirty fighting I see them more as thief types than some kind of scout, which seems closer to a warrior's discipline.

Ignoring the arbitrary restrictions on the equipment a character uses, anyway.

Modifié par nerdage, 27 avril 2012 - 10:05 .

[Sejborg]

Good idea OP. I support it. If not as its own class then at least as a specialization option.

Another skill the Ranger could have is the "survival" thingy that was in Origins. I think that ability would make sense to be exclusive to the Ranger class/specialization.

The "survival" thingy gave you the ability to sense enemies you could not see with your eyes yet, because they could be hidden behind a wall or a closed door. The ranger would be able to sense enemies in the next room for instance. Then they would show up on the minimap. If you bring a ranger along then you will be less likely to walk unknowingly straight into a trap.

[FieryDove]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

If ranger returns -- and God do I hope that it does -- I demand that it be given some decent story purposes.

1) I should be able to summon gorillas

100000x's This...Make it so!

Modifié par FieryDove, 28 avril 2012 - 01:32 .

[Curlain]

FieryDove wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

If ranger returns -- and God do I hope that it does -- I demand that it be given some decent story purposes.

1) I should be able to summon gorillas

100000x's This...Make it so!

Well given it's Dragon Age, if you can't have a minature giant space hamster as a companion, you should at least be able to have a dragon (or at least a drake ).

[Leon481]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

If ranger returns -- and God do I hope that it does -- I demand that it be given some decent story purposes.

1) I should be able to summon gorillas
2) I should be able to create dens filled with animals for the purposes of DAIII's story, should we be operating out of a HQ. I wanted to do this at Soldier's Peak and Vigil's Keep, but I couldn't.
3) Those animals should be able to be equipped with armor.

How I long for the day to charge into the fray riding my armored battlebear with an armored gorilla by my side.

I kind of agree. For one thing, animals should be recruited instead of just summoned at random. Get them from an event, then have them present in your base camp. Schmooples in DA:O got this treatment yet the actual summons got denied. It could work well if they lock the skill on the tree until the correct animal has been recruited.

Secondly, actually give the summons some kind of skills to use and a customizable AI. So far, the ones in DAO and DA2 were little more than meat shields. They need a little versatility. Basic skills like disrupting an enemy attack or inflicting a status effect would give them more use without overpowering them. Giving them each a branch of the skill tree for their own skills would make them so much more useful.

[The_11thDoctor]

Agreed. they need to return. It was a fun class and I also miss transforming into animals/cretures as a mage

[Akizora]

Could just create a system of primary and secondary class, so every primary class (rogue, warrior, mage) can be a ranger but each will benefit from it differently.

Rogue:
Would be agile and fast using a bow or longbow, would have a quicker firing speed and the ability to add crippling effects through abilities that debuff the enemy

Warrior:
Would be powerful and slow using a crossbow with higher damage output, and possibly also ranged taunts through the crossbow to tank range targets much easier.

Mage:
Would have the ability to attune their arrows with the elements and as a result cause fire damage, ice damage etc with their arrows, adding effects like freezing the enemies or setting them on fire. Each arrow wouldn't do as much physical (kinetic) damage as rogue or warrior, but magic damage instead.


This could be applied to a lot of other secondary classes as well, which augment the primary class and creates a more unique experience for each primary class through the choice of the secondary. Though this might be too much work/resources with too little return, since people tend to min/max things and choose the most optimal/popular class combination for their playthrough or just pick the default option.

Nonetheless it would provide more replayvalue even if you decide to play the same class several times and only change the secondary class (which could be like a talent tree I suppose.)

Modifié par Akizora, 29 avril 2012 - 01:12 .

[Curlain]

Akizora wrote...

Could just create a system of primary and secondary class, so every primary class (rogue, warrior, mage) can be a ranger but each will benefit from it differently.

Rogue:
Would be agile and fast using a bow or longbow, would have a quicker firing speed and the ability to add crippling effects through abilities that debuff the enemy

Warrior:
Would be powerful and slow using a crossbow with higher damage output, and possibly also ranged taunts through the crossbow to tank range targets much easier.

Mage:
Would have the ability to attune their arrows with the elements and as a result cause fire damage, ice damage etc with their arrows, adding effects like freezing the enemies or setting them on fire. Each arrow wouldn't do as much physical (kinetic) damage as rogue or warrior, but magic damage instead.


This could be applied to a lot of other secondary classes as well, which augment the primary class and creates a more unique experience for each primary class through the choice of the secondary. Though this might be too much work/resources with too little return, since people tend to min/max things and choose the most optimal/popular class combination for their playthrough or just pick the default option.

Nonetheless it would provide more replayvalue even if you decide to play the same class several times and only change the secondary class (which could be like a talent tree I suppose.)

This might be an interesting way to bring back the ranger spec (which goes together with the idea that there are both more warrior and more rogue ranger fantasy archetypes), by making it a sub-class or spec that could be open at to all main classes (or at least warrior and rogue), but working out differently with each class (perhaps the mage should have a druid-style variation)

[ReallyRue]

I agree, I loved playing a Ranger, and I always chose it as my specialisation when playing as a Dalish elf. It just fit. If by some miracle, we're able to play a Dalish again in DA3, and visit forests and whatnot again, I really hope this class returns. Especially if there is a bit more added to it, other than the summons. Some of the skills in DAO were perfect in combination (role-playing-wise, anyway), like herbalism, survival and trap-making.

[FDrage]

DA2 took the 3 classes out I had the most fun with in DA:O and therefore the classes of my 2 main wardens.

While a Ranger in itself is not necessary, it is still overall and in generally my preferred type of class (compared a mage or so).

[Dakota Strider]

PurebredCorn wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

A ranger as a rogue makes more sense. They're a type of wilderness scout.

Agreed. This is how I've always interpreted the class/specialization.

So...if someone has wilderness stealth skills, that makes them a rogue?  So, a 6'4" 300 pound mugger,  that takes your money at sword point in a dark alley is a rogue, right?  Or a mage that happens to sing is a bard?

I do not believe that being a scout, actually falls under the rogue domain.  Scouts often belong to the military, and often the only requirement is being able to ride fast, or run faster than the enemy, so you can report their position to your commander.   I think that it makes more sense to consider the average scout to be a warrior.  They do not all have to be big, slow, muscle-bound goons.   A ranger just happens to be a warrior that is lighter on his/her feet than average, and because of their familiarity with the outdoors, they know how to move through areas faster, and with less noise than the average person.

Most infantry in our modern military, could be considered rangers to some degree, based on their training.  They are taught to use stealth, terrain and ambushes to their fullest advantage.  And, like the typical ranger in most fantasy settings, their training makes them superior than average in both health and weapon skills.

Modifié par Dakota Strider, 01 mai 2012 - 09:39 .

[DeathScepter]

the point of the Ranger is information gatherers of the wilderness. And Information gathering the area of the Rogue not the Warrior.

Warriors are meant to lead others into battle and Rogues give them the information. It doesn't mean that Rogues can't be leaders or Warrior can't be information gatherers.

Just that Rogues have better skill sets for Information trade than the Warriors and Warriors are more adept for leadership in organization.

[Dakota Strider]

However, very often the ranger will not only gather the information, but will then act on it him/herself. Something a rogue is generally not capable of, when it comes to combat. In that way, a ranger is much more than a scout. A rogue obviously has the skills to be a scout, and to report back to the main force, so they can create a plan for action. A ranger is often on his own, and so must be more than a scout.

[DeathScepter]

A well designed Rogue build is quite dangerous regardless of specialization, Dakota Strider. Rogues, by their nature, are dirty fighters and disposes of enemies quickly so they can get out of that area quickly.

Rogues are stealthy that is true, but they have more than enough utility and fighting skills to take care of themselves.


Warrior's design philosophy is more Open warfare and working with other warriors, mages and rogues. That is why many warriors are hard tanks compared to Rogues and Mages.

Scouts and Rangers are functionally the same.