Topic: The Ranger class for LotFP
Hope you guys like it, feel free to leave some feedback! 
- Yuritau
- Member
- Offline
Re: The Ranger class for LotFP
Honestly, I think you could make a perfectly suitable ranger by giving a bow to either the fighter, the specialist, the dwarf, the elf, or the halfling. Maybe let them have an extra +1 or +2 in bushcraft (not the halfling or specialist) to represent a life spent in the wilds, with the trade-off being a -1 or -2 to rolls in social situations (including charisma-based rolls such as hiring retainers).
Your version seems decent, though I think the XP per level progression is too fast for all the bonuses it gets. As is, it kinda makes the fighter obsolete, imho, cause who wouldn't trade half their attack bonus for skills and a faster level progression? Could bring it more in line, again imho, by putting level 2 around 2200-2500 and building from there.
Re: The Ranger class for LotFP
Yuritau wrote:
Honestly, I think you could make a perfectly suitable ranger by giving a bow to either the fighter, the specialist, the dwarf, the elf, or the halfling. Maybe let them have an extra +1 or +2 in bushcraft (not the halfling or specialist) to represent a life spent in the wilds, with the trade-off being a -1 or -2 to rolls in social situations (including charisma-based rolls such as hiring retainers).
Your version seems decent, though I think the XP per level progression is too fast for all the bonuses it gets. As is, it kinda makes the fighter obsolete, imho, cause who wouldn't trade half their attack bonus for skills and a faster level progression? Could bring it more in line, again imho, by putting level 2 around 2200-2500 and building from there.
I see your point and I'm going to consider it.
In the meantime, I'll explain why I did it like this. For one thing, it's meant to be a sort of 'in-between' class between the Fighter and Specialist. At level 9, the Fighter hits at +10, which is a HUGE difference than hitting at +5 like the Ranger would.
Also, while the Ranger's progression is faster than the Fighter, also take a look at the XP needed for the next level after that. While the Ranger might get to a level first, there will be many cases where the Fighter and the Ranger spend some time at the same level. (Compare the amounts requires between levels 11 and 12)
Take into account that by then, even if the Ranger temporarily has one level over the Fighter, the Fighter has a MUCH higher Attack Bonus and better HD, so most likely more HP, or at worst the same amount. (Well, not at WORST worst, but you know what I mean)
So I could easily see many players preferring to be a Fighter over a Ranger, skill points or not.
On the Specialist side, the Ranger again doesn't outshine him. The Ranger will never be able to do as many things as the Specialist does by a long shot, and it'll be a long time before the Ranger has an Attack Bonus significantly higher than the Specialist. (Around lvl 9 with the +4 to hit difference is when it'd start to be truly noticeable, and by then the Specialist will have tons of skills the Ranger doesn't!)
I also thought about it and you could easily rename it something more generic like 'The Adventurer', let the player choose 5 other skills (limiting those the GM feels should be exclusive to the Specialist) and you'd have a good character option for a small group of players, or even a one-player game!
Anyway, I'm pretty sure the class works as is but I'll take another look at it just in case. To be honest, I think making it as costly as the Fighter at the low levels would be an injustice towards this class. Look at the Cleric, at first level he has access to spellcasting and his required amount of XP is the same as my Ranger. I'm pretty sure more spells are more useful at those levels than one mere extra point to put in skills.
In any case, thanks for the feedback. Despite appearances I will consider what you said, for now I'm just explaining my current point of view.
- Galahad de Corbenic
- New member
- Offline
Re: The Ranger class for LotFP
Full disclosure: I’m also fan of the Ranger class (and Paladin too, for that matter).
I like this – it produces a jack-of-all-trades kind of character that is really useful for small groups (three or fewer players) but is less useful in larger groups, since the more focused fighters or specialists will almost always be better at what they do than this version of the Ranger. As written, I think it would work well. I’d even allow access to the full range of specialist skills, given the Ranger’s slower skill-point progression.
Re: The Ranger class for LotFP
I like it (although I'd be inclined to make my players create a Specialist to simulate a Ranger, with the skills they see fit), and I'd keep it mostly the way it is, but I'd suggest slowing down progression for attack bonus a bit more - say +1 every 3 levels? Keep in mind that Dwarves and Elves get no bonus at all, but make for decent martial characters anyway due to the nature of the system.
Blogging about OSR at Deep Delving
- David
- Member
- Offline
Re: The Ranger class for LotFP
I'm not a fan of giving out attack bonus progressions to classes other than the fighter. If you allow your ranger to use the combat maneuvers available only to fighting types they have the same effectiveness as a dwarf or elf. If you want them to have a special, ranger-ish combat bonus you use the special two-weapon fighting rule.
I allow any player to use an off-hand weapon. They can apply a +1 to either AC or attack bonus. This bonus can switch every round merely by the player stating they are using the off-hand weapon offensively or defensively. The +1 to AC from the extra weapon does not count against missile fire.
The special rule: Rangers get both the +1 to AC and the +1 to attack bonus when using two weapons. Still no bonus against missile fire though.
There's a whole thread where the halfling was converted into a human ranger and dwarf was remade into a human barbarian. It would be worth looking at:
Re: The Ranger class for LotFP
O.k, after the feedback and some consideration... I wouldn't slow down the Ranger's attack bonus progression, but that particular progression would simply stop at +5.
If the Ranger's skills will always be at half the Specialist's amount, it should stand to reason that the attack bonus would always be at half the Fighter's.
People are free to ignore this home-made class and/or modify it as they want, but with the attack bonus progression maxed at +5 I think I have my final version for the LotFP's Ranger.
Last edited by Treant_on_Fire (2012-06-22 07:54:00)
Re: The Ranger class for LotFP
Ed Dove wrote:
I really like the idea of playing a character that's of "a sort of 'in-between' class between the Fighter and Specialist" whose "skills will always be at half the Specialist's amount" and whose "attack bonus would always be at half the Fighter's".
But the fact that the player in me really likes that idea makes the referee in me suspect that such a class might effectively obsolete both Fighters and Specialists by creating a synergy that's better than the sum of its parts. To illustrate that concern, I'll pose a question:
Wouldn't a party of all Rangers be 'better' (in only a general sense, not in every specific case) than a party of equal size that's composed of Fighters and Specialists?
I think the answer to that question is "Yes" unless the party is large enough for the Fighters to protect the Specialists better than Rangers could protect themselves. That's why, in the real world, small special forces units are composed of Rangers, but large army units are composed of Fighters and Specialists. And that's also why adventuring parties, which are much more like small special forces units than they are like large army units, would be 'better' if all of their Fighters & Specialists were Rangers instead.*
So the referee in me would allow such a class only if its level progression was slower than those of both Fighters and Specialists.
*(Except, of course, at 1st level, when Rangers would have the same Attack Bonus as Specialists, but only half the skill points.)
I see your point, but I disagree with part of your argument. Would an evenly mixed party of Specialists and Fighters lose in a fight against a party of equally numbered Rangers? Probably.
BUT. A party of Rangers would lose against a party of Fighters. And that's what makes it work in my mind. No one plays a Specialist for combat. You play a Specialist to help story-wise and in dealing with dungeons. Imagine a trap-infested dungeon, or urban situations where skills are needed, or what-have-you. The Specialists would outshine the Rangers.
Re: The Ranger class for LotFP
Ed Dove wrote:
Treant_on_Fire wrote:I see your point, but I disagree with part of your argument. Would an evenly mixed party of Specialists and Fighters lose in a fight against a party of equally numbered Rangers? Probably.
BUT. A party of Rangers would lose against a party of Fighters.
I agree with your assessments -- but they don't have much to do with what I meant. When I said I think a small party of Rangers would be 'better' than a small party of Fighters & Specialists, I meant neither in combat against each other nor a 50%/50% party of Fighters & Specialists. I meant 'better' at adventuring in general and any combination of Fighters & Specialists. And I still think I'm right about that because...
Treant_on_Fire wrote:No one plays a Specialist for combat. You play a Specialist to help story-wise and in dealing with dungeons. Imagine a trap-infested dungeon, or urban situations where skills are needed, or what-have-you. The Specialists would outshine the Rangers.
Yes... But only if & when protected by Fighters. And any combination of Fighters & Specialists is screwed if it loses too many of either because then it either can't fight effectively or can't 'operate' effectively. But Rangers can keep on both fighting and 'operating' effectively until they're all gone. That's why they're 'better' for both unconventional warfare and adventuring than any combination of Fighters & Specialists.
Do you still disagree?
Well, I'm pondering what you said because your arguments have merit.