Ranger spell review

[archolewa]

Originally Posted by Estie

@Thraalbee, @Pete:

I am not disagreeing with the sentiment. But why does it have to be exclusive for ranged weapons ?

One ranger wields a bow, another can wield a crossbow. You dont make the same exclusion for melee weapons:

The dunadan ranger should wield a longsword, doesnt mean my dwarf ranger cant wield an awl pike. Or a kobold rogue a MoD.

Given that launchers are already harder to come by than melee, it isnt good game ergonomics to place additional barriers. Especially given that the only (minor) melee barrier - blunt weapons only for priest - has been removed.

Adding insult to injury is of course that you also need the required ammo. Ranged weapons already have so many barriers, forcing Rangers to only be awesome with a specific class is overtuning in my opinion.

Now, I dont know that it needs to be extra shots for slings and xbows, if we want to make things interesting. You could do something like rangers dont need ammo for slings (they are really good at foraging for rocks for their sling), and xbows ignore some fraction of AC, so they end up being much more accurate, or they have an enhanced crit rate or something.

But I agree Rangers should get *something* for the other two classes of launchers.

[Voovus]

I agree with what @Estie wrote.

Also, it would be good to have some class that primarily relies on shooting. I don't mind whether this is Ranger or Archer (... or Amazon... ).

For what it's worth, in the olden days of Moria, the Ranger was a Warrior/Mage hybrid with no (or minimal) bonuses to missile weapons.

[DavidMedley]

Seems to me that rangers are slowly taking on a more interesting and canon flavor of outdoorsmen, hunters and trackers. We can't tie them too closely to the Rangers of the North unless you want to restrict their race. And we shouldn't tie the class too closely to just one character, who happened to find Narsil on DL1. Legolas is of the ranger class, even though he's not a Ranger of the North. And for all we know, The Rangers might have mostly relied on bows.

There was a great suggestion to give rangers a Fletchery ability, which in practice just means they get more arrow drops. We're already calculating hearing range... Maybe Rangers could have an ESP-like ablitlity that functions within a certain hearing distance?

I think the class is really strong and the main problem is ranged cheese, not the class. The class is fun. Cheese is not.

[Nick]

Thanks everyone for the excellent discussion, I am again amazed by this forum

I agree with pretty much all the points made. So here's my current thinking:

• Herbal Curing really is rubbish where it is. How about we just replace Cure Poison with it, in book 1? Probably just for rangers, I don't know what we do for druids.
• I'm inclined to agree that rangers should get the same bonuses for all missile weapons. This kind of loses the niceness of Create Arrows. Could we maybe add a later spell that creates bolts or shots (out of something else, or even out of nothing), so regular bows have a distinctness still?

Opinions on these, or other suggestions?

[Selkie]

Originally Posted by Nick

[*]Herbal Curing really is rubbish where it is. How about we just replace Cure Poison with it, in book 1? Probably just for rangers, I don't know what we do for druids.[*]I'm inclined to agree that rangers should get the same bonuses for all missile weapons. This kind of loses the niceness of Create Arrows. Could we maybe add a later spell that creates bolts or shots (out of something else, or even out of nothing), so regular bows have a distinctness still?[/LIST]
Opinions on these, or other suggestions?

Couldn't you just make herbal curing heal 300HP and leave it where it is. This change would turn it into a decent enough spell, without getting close to the healing ability of a paladin.

I honestly don't mind that rangers get bow bonuses, it feels true to the class. But I really think the extra shot bonus should be doubled. At the moment it's a bit too insignificant.

[Pete Mack]

@selkie
300hp is as much as 4.1 and earlier Paladin. It would change the class into a second paladin type, but with good ranged combat.

[Estie]

wand -> arrows
staff -> bolts
(non artifact) mithril item -> mithril shots

[Voovus]

Originally Posted by Estie

wand -> arrows
staff -> bolts
(non artifact) mithril item -> mithril shots

I'd suggest breaking the symmetry between the three, so that different rangeders had a different feel to them. For example:

Wand/Staff -> Arrows (quality depends only on item used)
Spell that takes no resources -> Bolts (quality depends only on clv)
Pebbles/Shots never break.

I appreciate that this would mean more work for Nick than three similar systems.

[Estie]

Originally Posted by Voovus

I'd suggest breaking the symmetry between the three, so that different rangeders had a different feel to them. For example:

Wand/Staff -> Arrows (quality depends only on item used)
Spell that takes no resources -> Bolts (quality depends only on clv)
Pebbles/Shots never break.

I appreciate that this would mean more work for Nick than three similar systems.

Sounds good. Nick, get to work.

[Nick]

Originally Posted by Voovus

I'd suggest breaking the symmetry between the three, so that different rangeders had a different feel to them.

Yes, I like this idea too. It's also made me think about other tweaks that might make for more interesting choices for missile combat:

• Maybe extra shots - at least a ranger's where they seem to represent increasing skill - should have a different effect depending on launcher type. There's only so much better one can get at reloading a heavy crossbow, but practiced users of regular bows and slings can get very much quicker than a novice.
• Maybe there should be a difference between how STR and DEX affect accuracy for different ranged weapons, with DEX more important for a sling and STR for a longbow, for example.