Rangers (detach them from nature)

[Red Ropes]

Simple feedback.

Rangers in forgotten realms while often times outdoors men are not an explicitly nature based class. Various churches in forgotten realms include them as part of their clergy but they are often times just loners and laymen and their religious beliefs largely do not matter to their abilities. Their magick is similar to druidic traditions but they are not as intense and are entirely supplementary to their skills. Their magic comes from an understanding of nature - not a divine guidance. It can be vile, corrupting, or destructive to nature or to its benefit.

So, this said:

Remove rangers from nature for the purposes of casting their spells. Currently if you decide to be a follower of Shevarash (whose clergy includes many rangers), Kelemvor, Mystra, and other types of folks you will be unable to cast most of your useful spells like bladthirst and so forth.

Allow people to just be rangers and have their god choice be completely irrelevant to their class abilities.

[Richørd]

Oh, right. Rangers have that ..

... seconded. Fix dis pls.

[strong yeet]

Agreed wholeheartedly, this restriction has always irritated me. I also think anyone with a nature deity should be able to "touch plants" for piety, regardless of green-finger gift.

[The Rambling Midget]

I also think anyone with a nature deity should be able to "touch plants" for piety, regardless of green-finger gift.

The idea isn't that you're using your deity's power to rejuvenate the plant. That would cost piety. It's that you're tending the plant with your own skills, gained through ranger/druid experience, and that earns you the appreciation of a deity connected to nature. Fondling plants isn't especially praiseworthy.

[Drowble Oh Seven]

Please. This would make me so happy.

I've been playing my ranger's spells as garbled bits and pieces of arcane/druidic lore picked up and adapted for a fair while now, rather than the result of specific devotion to a given deity. It'd be nice to be able to do it mechanically. I feel like it would help with the notion of ranger as a wildly varying group of woodsfolk defined by that self-reliance and understanding of nature (though not necessarily benevolence towards it) first, rather than crusaders for the natural order (which always struck me more as a druidic/nature cleric thing).

[The Kriv]

before we go unlinking Ranger Classes based on opinion, I'm going to counter with a rules-lawyer link to the Forgotten Realms Wiki entry on Rangers. (because if it's in a wiki, you know it's canon)

The stereotype of the nature-loving ranger was not without merit, however, and many rangers fit the image of cunning hunters and protectors of forests or other wildlands. These rangers saw themselves as guardians against nature's corruption and had a special affinity for barbarians and druids, who often shared similar goals. Other rangers were however more mercenary, fighting for personal glory or wealth. As their aspirations differed so did rangers' backgrounds: some came from special military training while others learned under solitary mentors who vested them with lessons on how to survive in places where few of the civilized races cared to tread. Regardless of how they came about their training, all rangers were fairly self-reliant and were as much at home (if not more) in the wild as in a bustling city.

https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Ranger

Do rangers HAVE to be connected to Nature? no.

Should we unlink Rangers from Nature? Pfft... hell no.

You have the choice of playing a non-nature based Ranger. If we unlink ranger from nature-diety, then we unlink ranger spells from the DIVINE category.

Ranger spells in NWN are already dumbed down and made suck compared to 3rd edition versions of the same things. Lets not make rangers suck more, please.



There are as many different variety of RANGERS as there are Fighters, or Wizards. No one is required to play a tree-hugging, granola-eating defender of every tree and badger that is in the forest. That's just an archetype. If you don't want to play the Archetype... have at it! I'll support you best I can!

[JubJub]

if I'm not mistaken as ranger you don't have to worship a nature god . It's just if you don't you lose access to some spells. Spells I would assume that deal with nature. Or have things changed? Druids must worship a nature god, rangers don't have to. So if you want to be a Bane worshipping ranger you are free to, but he can't grant spells regarding nature. Only a god of nature should be allowed to grant nature spells. I think it would be bad to allow Rangers to . The power to cast something like Barksin has to come from somewhere, it would make no sense saying I lived in a city and somehow learned to cast barkskin at will with no help from some being.

[Kalopsia]

if I'm not mistaken as ranger you don't have to worship a nature god . It's just if you don't you lose access to some spells. Spells I would assume that deal with nature. Or have things changed? Druids must worship a nature god, rangers don't have to. So if you want to be a Bane worshipping ranger you are free to, but he can't grant spells regarding nature. Only a god of nature should be allowed to grant nature spells. I think it would be bad to allow Rangers to . The power to cast something like Barksin has to come from somewhere, it would make no sense saying I lived in a city and somehow learned to cast barkskin at will with no help from some being.

I think the primary concern here is the loss of Blade thirst, which could be considered a core class feature.
For that reason, Rangers not serving nature deities are objectively inferior to rangers that do serve a nature deity.

Perhaps a compromise could be exempting Blade Thirst from this limitation. That way nature-worshipping rangers retain their flavor spells, while all other rangers still get comparable mechanical power.

[TimeAdept]

i'd just nix them from nature adherence completely. FR canon specifically states they don't need to worship a nature god. not sure why this adherence is required on arelith.

losing blade thirst isn't an option, as kalopsia said, it's a core class feature, i would argue more so than the animal companion, and noly just behind favored enemy and dual wield/archery.

[The Kriv]

i'd just nix them from nature adherence completely. FR canon specifically states they don't need to worship a nature god. not sure why this adherence is required on arelith.

losing blade thirst isn't an option, as kalopsia said, it's a core class feature, i would argue more so than the animal companion, and noly just behind favored enemy and dual wield/archery.

I don't understand what the benefit is. Are you saying you want to make a Ranger that gets divine magic but doesn't worship a diety that has a Nature Aspect?

I do not disagree that Forgotten Realms cannon doesn't specifically say a Ranger MUST worship a nature god. But in the D&D rules it states that Rangers get their magic in the same way that a Cleric gets their magic.

So are you saying that you think Rangers should get their magic in a different way than the D&D rules state?

'Cuz if you want to have a Ranger RP Concept that follows SHAR but still gets access to Blade Thirst, then set your Ranger up to worship TORIL (i.e.) no specific diety... and then take the "ignore restrictions" gift for the few times you are actually going to have your character worship at an altar.


I don't see why the whole system needs to be overhauld just because FR CANON isn't specific enough in detailing how Rangers get access to divine spells.


There are WAAAAAY more things higher priority to take care of than this small detail that can be worked around through creative RP without re-hardwiring the whole Ranger-Class Deity-System that is (already very custom)

You want to be a Ranger of Bahamut? Be a ranger of Bahamut. Why send the Scripting Team to chase down custom script hooks for it?

[TimeAdept]

it's my understanding that there's no "overhaul" needed here. you lterally just axe the code that does the nature check.

you can already be a cleric of bane, or waukeen, or asmodeus, or tempus, or tyr with plant domain. the literal divine servants of the gods have less restrictions on their magic than random outdoorsmen. i don't see why this needs to be the case.

in your own words, you say rangers get their spell like a cleric does.

looks like arelith clerics make a pretty good case for unhooking rangers, then.

[JubJub]

So if Rangers lose their connection to nature should they lose animal companion? After all they are no longer tied to nature.


Also if you unhook rangers from nature and say make a ranger of bane, guess what Bane might not be able to grant some of the spells a Ranger can use. Now they have to lose spells depending on the gods domain. Every class has their limits a paladin must be LG, monks must ne lawful, rangers lose some abilites if they don't worship nature. etc... There are some classes that need looking at (*coughs* monk *coughs*) I would rather the server focus on content and fixing the classes that really need a looking at over the it would be nice if we could do this tinkering.

[Sartain]

So if Rangers lose their connection to nature should they lose animal companion? After all they are no longer tied to nature.

Good idea for a Ranger path maybe. The animal companion is pretty useless as is in my experience, so maybe unhook base ranger from nature and make a Nature's Servant path that gives you spells and/or improved Animal Companion, at the cost of some other stuff (two-weapon fighting maybe, standard ranger skill points, etc. I won't pretend to have a grasp of the balancing required off the top of my head)

[Sea Shanties]

Ranger spells aren't that powerful but are very useful. I don't see why it couldn't be considered "hedge magic" that anyone could access with training, similar to how other classes (shadowdancer, PDK, assassin etc) have spell-like powers that may or may not be magic. It's not a hill I'll die on but at the same time I do like the idea of survivalists and marines and bounty hunters that know how to operate in nature but aren't martial druids.

The problem with more non-nature rangers to me is RP, as in what is their place in nature communities. Do we want Banite bounty hunters in the Grove, for example. So the thing I would pull if they don't have a nature deity is animal language.

[Xerah]

Message recieved. Discussion pending.

[JubJub]

So if Rangers lose their connection to nature should they lose animal companion? After all they are no longer tied to nature.

Good idea for a Ranger path maybe. The animal companion is pretty useless as is in my experience, so maybe unhook base ranger from nature and make a Nature's Servant path that gives you spells and/or improved Animal Companion, at the cost of some other stuff (two-weapon fighting maybe, standard ranger skill points, etc. I won't pretend to have a grasp of the balancing required off the top of my head)

Were you here when companions went back to vanilla NWN strength? Was n o point in even summoning them.

[RandomhouseAudio]

So I guess if it were up to me (and it isnt). I would create a path that trades your spells and animal companion away for the 'Trapper' path that allows for on cooldown rapid trap placements, trap placement at range X times per rest, and other interesting design choices.

But pulling divine nature casting from being both divine and nature is about as thematic as saying Bhaal should grant druid spells.

[CosmicOrderV]

This seems like another thing that a polytheistic deity system would solve.

[Dagonlives]

I'm in agreement with this. Plenty of canonical ranger orders have nothing to do with nature dieties. A ranger is a woodsman, not necessarily a worshipper of the woods.

[The Kriv]

I'm in agreement with this. Plenty of canonical ranger orders have nothing to do with nature dieties. A ranger is a woodsman, not necessarily a worshipper of the woods.

Again, this is a statement of belief of how a class 'should' be, not of how a class can be closer to how it is in D&D. Which, in order to get spells, a Ranger prays for them... because it is Divine Magic.

Folk want a ranger that worships a non-nature diety? Have at it. But, y'all suffer by not getting the magic that Rangers need to pray-for to acquire (as per how Rangers are set up in D&D.)


If y'all want to say, "Lets make Ranger Class less like Rangers in D&D and make them more like how we personally believe Rangers should be" -then we need to have that discussion about other classes than just rangers... cuz there are a LOT of other classes that need tweaking to be better by un-hooking them from D&D class restraints. Again... Ranger? Not a priority.


If you want to say, "Lets make Ranger class MORE like Rangers in D&D" then, yeah.. lets open up something like the Complete ranger's Handbook from 2nd Edition... or the Masters of the Wild from 3rd edition... or some good Home-brew campaign stats and use those as the models for any changes. I am very interested in reading about some good stuff... maybe Pathfinder rules has some excellent non-nature based Rangers that also have divine or other magic ability. I'm keen on seeing what gets dug up!

But, so far, all I am reading about are changing rangers to match opinions of the class... based on FR novels. Well then we need to start restructuring the class based on in a subjective way based on fiction stories... and not game-rules. that's a different can o'worms... and again... other classes would need to be re-designed based on how they function in fiction literature, and not just rangers.

[Revelations]

Unless I’m mistaken*, what is suggested here that isn’t already in place?

Play a ranger with a nature deity - ranger is tied to nature, gets the whole spellbook

Play a ranger without a nature deity- ranger is what you suggest, but rightly gets no access to Fondle Plants and the nature-based spells of the spellbook. You don’t lose all of it.

If you want all advantages for non-nature rangers including a complete spellbook and stuff I don’t know exactly see.

*Should note, I’ve played non-nature rangers in the past, and this is how it used to be. I think that may have changed? Anyway I thought it was cool.

What I am not debating is that the deity system gets silly. Polytheism system yay.

[Drowble Oh Seven]

What I am not debating is that the deity system gets silly. Polytheism system yay.

Agreed!

What I suppose it is that gets my goat is that the current way the deity system is set up requires that a ranger be either devoted to a nature deity or another deity. I can't, say, have a Lolthite-slave hunter who also developed a respect for nature and an understanding of the natural world in the course of her frequent excursions (or, rather, I can. But it involves selecting Toril, and then RP-ing around it. Which is fine, but a little counter-intuitive).

The root (Ha?) of my argument sort of comes down to that respect and reverence for nature being fundamentally part of being a ranger. It's right there in the class description. It seems strange that it's necessary to reaffirm that with the deity system when; by my understanding, Toril doesn't precisely care whether it's worshipped in the traditional sense or not - as long as there's a respect for the way it functions and a general intent to preserve that function (which to my view is what being a ranger is all about).

[PeterRasta]

I'm not sure if this is helpful or not, but perhaps the Urban Ranger could be used as an inspiration for a class path for Rangers.

https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/UA:Ranger ... ban_Ranger

Perhaps removing their inability to HiPS outside of natural areas, but also instituting some other limitations to reflect their lesser affiliation with nature, or-... Something.

[Xerah]

I will admit that I find it odd that anyone would not be in favour of this change given your archetype you want to play (nature ranger) is still allowed; it just opens up more options, i.e. the urban ranger above. Also keep in mind, that given our deity system with the aspects, it is far more restrictive than on the table top, thus some allowances should be made in these cases.

Regardless, this has been approved and will be in a future update. Ranger will NOT require a nature deity to cast spells.

[JubJub]

I just think it needs to be a give and take, if you want to play a ranger with no nature affinity but still want to cast all spells ok, but there also needs to be some sort of loss for losing nature affinity. Maybe limit their companions to only city types. After all why would a city ranger ever be around things such as bears and panthers?