Forums » The Ranger

Goodly Rangers

    • 44 posts
    May 23, 2018 4:34 AM PDT

    So, while we're all (painfully) aware that pre-alpha is a state of constant flux and revision, as it stands the ranger is only available to three races - Halflings, Humans, and Elves.

    Noteworthy, this would mean that there is no evil-aligned ranger at character creation. Elves are intrinsically good aligned, while Humans and Halflings are classified as good or neutral depending on your source. Of course, given Pantheon's fluid faction standing system, you can entirely "betray" and make your own path, but it is not a given at all.

    This would seem to hearken back to the original D&D Ranger who required one of the good alignments, be it lawful or chaotic, representing a person who guards wilds, patrols roads, looks over towns in a benevolent way. You might also notice that there are races like the Myr with access to all of warrior, rogue and druid which you might think would be fertile soil for rangers to emerge, yet they cannot be rangers - further implying a distinct, unique, possibly non-evil take on the ranger as a class.

     

    Personally, I don't mind. I can understand why a Skar cannot be a ranger - to bond with the land or animals while their whole theme is despoilment, the opposite of respect and nourishment, does seem off. But, I would not really have raised an eyebrow at Archai and Myr rangers.


    This post was edited by Raine at May 23, 2018 5:00 AM PDT
    • 940 posts
    May 23, 2018 5:03 AM PDT

    Same opinion overall, dark myrs and archai would have been logical to me, but the former might be too aquatic to bond with beasts, while the archai seems too vague yet to know why not. They raise interest in me as they seemed having barbaric traits : good hearted battleborns people, however I'm probably quite off too, and I wait to know more before speculating anything.

    • 149 posts
    May 23, 2018 10:44 AM PDT

    Is it confirmed that you will be able to radically change your starting alignment? I seem to remember it being mentioned in a stream once, but wasn't sure if it was still the plan. I would love to be able to align my character with a people/city that started out as an enemy.

    • 44 posts
    May 23, 2018 10:50 AM PDT

    Gyldervane said:

    Is it confirmed that you will be able to radically change your starting alignment? I seem to remember it being mentioned in a stream once, but wasn't sure if it was still the plan. I would love to be able to align my character with a people/city that started out as an enemy.

    I remember hearing during one of the streams that they entirely plan on a robust and fluid faction system, yes. Though, as always, everything is subject to change.

    In which case, while it typically takes an extreme amount of work, yes, you could radically change your faction standings even to originally diametrically opposed groups or places.

    Though, it is pretty much always more complex than just "gaining" faction - you would often lose standing with another faction, rapidly and dramatically.

    Also, since cities may consist of several different factions, even if you could prove yourself to the guards and the warrior's guild, the cleric's guild might still attack you on sight. (Until you find a way to also get in their good graces.)

     

     

    • 820 posts
    May 23, 2018 11:28 AM PDT

    MauvaisOeil said:

    Same opinion overall, dark myrs and archai would have been logical to me, but the former might be too aquatic to bond with beasts, while the archai seems too vague yet to know why not. They raise interest in me as they seemed having barbaric traits : good hearted battleborns people, however I'm probably quite off too, and I wait to know more before speculating anything.

    I dunno - kinda seems like they missed an opportunity with the Dark Myr to make a really unique kind of Ranger experience. An aquatic ranger? You're telling me I could have played as Aquaman?! 

    Kinda hoping they reconsider that down the road. 

    • 149 posts
    May 23, 2018 11:32 AM PDT

    Raine said:

    Gyldervane said:

    Is it confirmed that you will be able to radically change your starting alignment? I seem to remember it being mentioned in a stream once, but wasn't sure if it was still the plan. I would love to be able to align my character with a people/city that started out as an enemy.

    I remember hearing during one of the streams that they entirely plan on a robust and fluid faction system, yes. Though, as always, everything is subject to change.

    In which case, while it typically takes an extreme amount of work, yes, you could radically change your faction standings even to originally diametrically opposed groups or places.

    Though, it is pretty much always more complex than just "gaining" faction - you would often lose standing with another faction, rapidly and dramatically.

    Also, since cities may consist of several different factions, even if you could prove yourself to the guards and the warrior's guild, the cleric's guild might still attack you on sight. (Until you find a way to also get in their good graces.)

    Ah, nice. EQOA was like that to a degree, but there were limits on how much faction you could gain, so you could never truly "defect" to the other side, as it were. Would love to see the occasional ranger siding with the Dark Myr, or a dire lord hanging out in Faerthale. :)


    This post was edited by Gyldervane at May 23, 2018 11:33 AM PDT
    • 44 posts
    May 23, 2018 11:42 AM PDT

    There may well be limits in the form of modifiers applied by your class and deity, so perhaps a dire lord of all things may never get Faerthale to like him/her, while an "evil" warrior could. Far too early to know the specifics of that.


    This post was edited by Raine at May 23, 2018 11:43 AM PDT
    • 15 posts
    May 26, 2018 11:04 AM PDT

    It's too bad that races are so limited and I can't understand why. 

     

    I'd like to see 1-2 more races able to be a ranger class, Gnomes would be one of the top for me... Humans are the garbage race that due to lack of development skill always gets the perfect middle of the road build. Elves are fine but at this point elves seem far more of a common race in story/games than even humans. Asslings have a really disgusting smell to them but I don't see why a Assling can be a Ranger but not a Gnome, in fact it makes a lot more sense that  gnome would be far superior as a Ranger than Halflings. 

     

    Are options are so far:

    Humans = Filler junk race, historically the most lazy race in all games.

    Halfling = A squatty barrel of a being that makes no sense whatsoever to be a high Dex/Agi class. Once I saw an assling replace feathers in the arrow with foot hair.

    Elves = Most common race in the world for gaming. 

    I mean no disrespect but the races in Pantheon are all pretty lazy IMO. A Gnome/Assling warrior makes 0 sense but I'm sure its allowed... But rangers are limited to the least interesting races in all gaming history, why?

    Skar, Myr and Archai all seem light-years beyond humans and Asslings in ability to fill the Class of Ranger, but for absolutely no reason the idea of a 1h weapon and use of a Bow are incomprehensible to these races? It feels so lazy, more like Pantheon is based on past games than created from the ground up for Pantheon. I know I mentioned Gnomes as a Ranger class but just imagine what a Assling will be shooting at you with, like a tiny child's bow... arrows like toothpicks... Sure, it can kill you but a normal sized arrow simply has better accuracy, weight that can more believably penetrate armors and so on.

    For every dumb rule made many other dumb rules have to back up that mistake. Why not allow other races able to be a Ranger, it's far more believable.  

    • 44 posts
    May 26, 2018 1:38 PM PDT

    Well, gnome warriors are actually not allowed, and I beg to differ that gnome rangers would make sense. If any race would have trouble bonding with the natural world, you'd think it would be the one that's basically a bundle of arcane energy.

    Also worth noting that Pantheon's halflings are not at all the chubby hobbits that we usually associate with the name, and I think they make perfect sense for rangers regardless. Does it make sense that their tiny arms and tiny weapons are just as lethal as any other... eh... game mechanics. Odd that you insist on gnome rangers but don't agree with halfling rangers because of... size...? Eheh.

    Skar, Myr and Archai rangers would make perfect sense if we defined ranger as "hunter" or "lightly armored skirmisher" or "woodsman" or something like that. That's why I say that I wouldn't have raised an eyebrow. But, that is precisely why I raised the question; I get the impression that Pantheon is not defining its rangers in such a simple way - they are defined more deeply than just folks who use a bow or fight in a particular way.

     

    It seems to me like:

    A race without an extraordinary bond to the natural world does not produce rangers. 

    Evil-aligned races do not produce rangers, perhaps due to a lack of empathy with flora and fauna, or a lack of desire to protect those.

    I'm sure I'm wrong here and there, but I personally applaud the return to a more flavorful, thematic alignment-influenced ranger. Equally, I appreciate the idea of assigning classes to races because there are good reasons, and not just because there aren't any reasons not to.

    "There is no reason X cannot Y" is a modus operandi that will muddle the waters and rob classes of identity far more than "X can be Y for these significant, lore-supported reasons".


    This post was edited by Raine at May 26, 2018 1:46 PM PDT
    • 64 posts
    May 29, 2018 7:14 AM PDT

    I am surprised Ogres are not an option for Rangers?  Given that they can be Druids at one with the more aggressive side of nature I would have thought similar with being a Ranger and in harmony with animals.  Certainly living the land is very much an Ogre thing too

    • 57 posts
    June 17, 2018 9:55 AM PDT

    asteldian said:

    I am surprised Ogres are not an option for Rangers?  Given that they can be Druids at one with the more aggressive side of nature I would have thought similar with being a Ranger and in harmony with animals.  Certainly living the land is very much an Ogre thing too

    I feel like Pantheon's version of a Ranger is simply a Druid with style.

    Given that feeling, and given its self-perceived accuracy (which I assure you is the most impartial of impartial! /s), any race that could be a Druid should be able to be a Ranger. At least, in the traditional definition of the ranger, anyway. So, maybe my feeling's wrong, because I'm working with the assumption that the Druid is going to be trite and unoriginal, which we know to be untrue. (or, at least, we know that we don't know) Bah. Can't even trust my own feelings nowadays.

    Anyway, /rerailmyself, I'd be really interested to read all the lore behind the various orders of rangers, to see what it is about those races (or what it is about the class) that so suits it to just those three races. Something new, to be sure, in any case!

    • 149 posts
    June 17, 2018 10:55 AM PDT

    asteldian said:

    I am surprised Ogres are not an option for Rangers?  Given that they can be Druids at one with the more aggressive side of nature I would have thought similar with being a Ranger and in harmony with animals.  Certainly living the land is very much an Ogre thing too

    It probably comes down to the difficulty of manipulating arrows and bowstrings with those gigantic fingers. :)

    • 114 posts
    June 18, 2018 10:47 AM PDT

    Evil aligned rangers just don't make sense unless you want to go the even more lazy route of Rangers and Shadow Rangers. Give them some undead animals or something. You can't give them "evil animals" as really there is no such thing. What makes a snake anymore evil than a wolf? Besides religion.

    • 940 posts
    June 18, 2018 12:18 PM PDT

    Rogue said:

    Evil aligned rangers just don't make sense unless you want to go the even more lazy route of Rangers and Shadow Rangers. Give them some undead animals or something. You can't give them "evil animals" as really there is no such thing. What makes a snake anymore evil than a wolf? Besides religion.

     

    On the moral side, beeing evil imply having little care for the life of others. A ranger defending the woods with violence, killing anyone that dare to enter, is evil. Whatever his beliefs are, he chose to take the life of other on a regular basis. No need to be using defiling magic or such to be evil.

    • 110 posts
    June 20, 2018 11:50 PM PDT

    BUT I want to make a Dark Myr and name him Drizzt!! ;-)

    • 98 posts
    June 30, 2018 10:19 PM PDT

    Great idea, Kastor!

    • 64 posts
    July 3, 2018 4:35 AM PDT

    MauvaisOeil said:

    Rogue said:

    Evil aligned rangers just don't make sense unless you want to go the even more lazy route of Rangers and Shadow Rangers. Give them some undead animals or something. You can't give them "evil animals" as really there is no such thing. What makes a snake anymore evil than a wolf? Besides religion.

     

    On the moral side, beeing evil imply having little care for the life of others. A ranger defending the woods with violence, killing anyone that dare to enter, is evil. Whatever his beliefs are, he chose to take the life of other on a regular basis. No need to be using defiling magic or such to be evil.

    Exactly this.  An 'Evil' race could still be a protector of nature - they simply are not confined to the morals of humanity and would likely view any transgression as a killable offense...best to resolve the issue permenantly than risk the offender repeating his mistake

    • 223 posts
    July 5, 2018 5:35 PM PDT

    I've given up trying to justify the crazy decisions.  Constant contradictions... one day "this game is its own so stop comparing it to EQ" and on another day "let have the class/race restrictions, mechanics, classes, ect ect as EQ".  Archai = Barbarian, Dark Myr = Dark Elves, Skar = Troll (without regen).  People lose their minds when someone asks the simple question of "if a race can be a druid and a warrior why can't they be rangers?"  Or, "if a class can be cleric and warrior, why can't they be paladins?  Especially since Paladins are just former clerics that have taken up martial training?"  The answer is... because they did it in EQ1.  People will argue that the devs made their decisions based on "calculated" reasons, but I seriously doubt that (personal opinion).

    For those arguing that Ogres couldn't be rangers because they wouldn't be able to pull a tiny bow string... just make larger bows and larger arrows (like they would need to do with literally everything else).

    I can understand restricting certain races to/from certain classes, like Gnomes can't be warriors because they don't have physical forms.  That can actually makes sense.  Dark Myr can be Clerics, Druids, and Warriors, but not Paladins or Rangers... And Dwarves can be enchanters but no other INT based caster?  Huh?!  No amount of storywriting can rule out why Dwarf0784 grew up learning to be an enchanter like all of the dwarves in their family, but then decides to just not be an enchanter and try something else... unless Dwarf0784 is physically or intellectually incapable (but that still may not stop them from trying to become a summoner or a ranger).

    As DnD player, I am just tired of the same ole' cliche alignment restrictions from original EQ as a game that was based on 2nd Edition DnD.  Those restrictions scream "EQ Remake!" as much as people say that it is not.  But whatever.  I decided long ago to go along for the ride and stop trying to figure all of that stuff out.  Just accept it for what it is and see how the game turns out.   

     

    • 401 posts
    July 11, 2018 1:48 PM PDT

    Well  I can't understand some decisions either  especially because of that constant contradictory oscillation between "Pantheon is not EQ so let's make something totally un EQ" and "Let's be traditional and old school" .

    However Dark Myr not being paladins is not something that I find illogical . A Paladin is not just a hybrid between a priest and a warrior but a hybrid between a GOOD priest and a warrior . An evil race simply can't be paladin because their  values run contrary to a paladin's Codex .

    The same constraints don't exist for rangers so indeed any race that developped druids and warriors would spontaneously and logically develop rangers too .

    Now things like Elf shamans (!) , Dwarf enchanters , Ogre druids don't really make any sense and give the impression that somebody was just casting a die .


    This post was edited by Deadshade at July 11, 2018 1:49 PM PDT