Woodland Ranger - New Class

[Agrarvyn]

I like this class, though I would change "Knowledge: Woodlands" to a more general "Knowledge: Nature" and allow them to make Knowledge checks for all plant and animal related issues, as in D&D.

[Al]

May 24, 2008 8:44:40 GMT -5 Agrarvyn said:

I like this class, though I would change "Knowledge: Woodlands" to a more general "Knowledge: Nature" and allow them to make Knowledge checks for all plant and animal related issues, as in D&D.

That was something a grappled with - nature literally means any setting, which this dude would not be familiar with. I think in a more detailed description I would give a bonus to Knowledge: nature in woodlands, and a minus in all other settings (like +4 woodland, -10 all other locations) and not allow him to take any other location as a skill full stop. This would mean that a first level char would probably have a +8 to +10 in woodlands, but a -2 to 0 in all other locations. Which would still be pretty good, but not nearly as good as in the woods.

In fact, I think I will go with this.

[Maerin]

Al,

There may be an easier (at least less confusing) way to deal with this.

Knowledge (nature) is a skill, nothing more. Make it a class skill is fine, but there is never any real need to put skill ranks into any skill for any base class (advanced classes are a different story; but it looks like you are making a base class, not an advanced one). This one is no exception. Theoretically, a character might not put any Ranks in Knowledge (nature), and instead only put ranks in Survival. The end result is a character that has practical skills, but literally none of the background knowledge explaining and justifying those skills. To the modern mind, that might seem absurd...but it is no different, in principle as well as reality, than someone putting ranks in Disable Device but none in, say, Craft (locksmithing) or Craft (trapmaking) or Knowledge (architecture/engineering).

Now, if you want to skew the bias over the overall class towards forest environments, then do it as a class ability or series of class abilities. For instance, give the character a class ability (probably level 1) that provides a +2 competence bonus for all Survival, Perception and Knowledge (nature) skill checks made in a forest environment. Alternatively, and if you want even more bias but also more flexibility, create a class ability that asks the player to select a skill every three levels and provides a +4 competence bonus to selected skills when making checks in a forest environment. The second idea allows a character to select, say, Acrobatics or Athletics as well as Survival or Knowledge (nature), which permits a good degree of character-specific customization.

It is virtually never a good idea to provide an actual penalty as a class ability, unless the benefit is so overwhelmingly good (and a meager +4 is not) that the penalty is needed for balance. In most such cases, the penalty is going to be either equal; or in the case you describe above, probably about half (since it is a penalty applying to all non-forest environment, which is a pretty hefty disadvantage all its own).

[Beowuuf]

I remember having a skill be conditionally a class skill when writing my wolven assassin. For a certain ability, Heal became a class skill, but only for the diagnosis of wounds, it was still a cross class skill (hence half the ranks) for healing anyone. And of course, the actual ability was to kill someone who was helpless - having Heal, you could try to disguise this action if you rolled a successful opposed roll (Still treating it as a class skill in this case)

I don't know if this would also be an alternative? Have the knowledge treated as a class skill only in certain areas, and slowly increase which areas the skill became a class not cross class skill.

[Maerin]

Maerin shakes head. Cannot agree for my part. Making a skill a class skill is, from a design standpoint, only a very minor benefit. Even skill bonuses of some non-stackable type is better. That is why you see so many classes (including Lone Wolf ones) that are broke because someone either made something a class skill that should not have been or...far more often, forgot to make a skill a class skill when they should have. A good example of this was Speak Language being cross-class skills for (I believe) every published class in Magic of Magnamund for no other apparent reason aside from the designers literally forgetting it was a skill at all.

Making it a class skill under only certain circumstances is a lot of extra complexity for almost no measurable benefit. Consider: why would someone "waste" Ranks by putting them into skills like that which are mechanically limited, thus making the Rank essentially worth "less" than it might otherwise be? If it is an integral skill to the class (such as Survival for the Woodland Ranger class), then there is no reason for it not to be a class skill. Conversely, if the skill is of such limited usefulness to a given class, then there is, in-turn, no reason for it not to be a cross-class skills. As mentioned previously, there is no reason why one cannot provide a class ability that adds a bonus to a skill for limited application...and in this case that may be true even if that skill is otherwise a cross-class skill. Though that idea is certainly still a bit too over-the-top-to-no-purpose for my own tastes, that would be, mechanically, far easier to keep track in realtime gameplay than alternatives requiring one to first decide necessity...and then divide the Ranks in a skill in half in order to constantly re-calc the skill bonus every situation one makes a skill check.

A certain amount of complexity is expectable, particularly when using the d20 system and OGL variants (but this pretty much goes for new/modified rules for any game system, relatively simple and especially complex alike). One wants to keep that complexity under control with simple solutions that mesh with the existing system (especially in non-combat oriented gaming applications). If you do not, you end up walking the road of essentially creating an all new game system...which, while an interesting new endeavor, still may not be the most effective solution to the problem one is really trying to solve.

[Al]

My logic behind the +4/-10 was that thier would probably be enough bonuses to the skill that the end result would be the -10 would bring the final result to around 0 (give or take a few), meaning that he would be average in the skill in all other settings.

I like your point, though, of doing it as a class ability - I will go over the class and see where it would fit in.

[Swiftstrike]

You could add in it as either one of the possible ranger flares that can be chosen every few levels or do a bonus to woodland checks linked into the woodland lore progression.

Did anyone have a good look at my suggested adds this could be put into the ranger flares as a choice as well if it was something that was though appropriate.

[Beowuuf]

Sure the point of a skill though is to add something, rather than be a zero sum game?

Look at the kai class then wonder if you need to tone down an ability!

[Al]

May 28, 2008 8:36:47 GMT -5 Beowuuf said:

Look at the kai class then wonder if you need to tone down an ability!

If you mean that these abilities pale in comparison to the Kai, then I would agree with you on that - but it should be noted that I think the Kai are the most unbalanced class that I have encountered, gaining note only five (plus int bonus) skill points per level, but after level five, the equivalent of five class abilities per level (one new one, and one four improvements on the old ones). Add in the lore circles after level 10 and I can only shake my head in wonderment.

I would rather use the other classes as the bar at which my char is judged against!

@ss I did look at your suggestions, and I like it a lot. I was thinking of incorporating it, but have not had much of a chance to update the description.

[Al]

I think what I am going to do is change the lores more fundamentally - turn them into more woodland survival and leadership skills rather than woodland mirrors of the pirate's abilities.

SS - I will use your suggestion in here.

Maerin - with regard to your suggestion on skills, I will incorporate that idea as well. Will replace the infamy class feature with friend of the woods. It will give him a +2 bonus to selected skills when in a woodland environment or dealing with woodland issues. This will also remove the reputation part of the character, which I was having a hard time reconciling. Woodland communities do not exactly have the same international networks of travelers that shipping communities do!

[Al]

Modified the class - changed the two handed fighting to Quarterstaff only. Got rid of Infamy and replaced with skills bonuses, redid the lores.

I really do not see much that needs changing here, I will slowly update the descriptions of everything, but the basic mechanics are here.

As per usual, any advice is most welcome.

EDIT - I was thinking of bringing two handed fighting back to bucc penalties, but allowing Dex bonus to be used for Quarterstaff instead of Str - logic is that if you are using it two handed, it is not being used as a blunt instrument of force solely, rather it is being used in a much more nuanced and fanciful manner.

[Maerin]

It is probably not worth delving too deeply into a discussion of the merits/flaws of d20's reliance on Strength over Dexterity as a representation of melee weapon accuracy. Frankly, one of the major points that distinguishes one game system from another is where they draw the lines between various measurements of "physicality", and even how many lines are actually drawn (I have seen anywhere from no lines at all up to five different lines...and all such systems were reasonably functional game systems). In the end, such distinctions really are somewhat arbitrary anyway.

What is also true is that people are really hung up on the idea that high Strength = dumb, brutish, and/or clumsy fighter. Like most such game-mechanic stereotypes, it may have an element of truth to it, but that doesn't stop it being a bit silly in practice. A trained swordsman wielding a two-handed sword did not swung it around, wildly out of control, with the idea that sheer force and momentum would compensate when the stroke finally connected. The very idea is absurd, as absurd as a fair number of soldiers of my acquaintance find spraying automatic weapons fire in an uncontrolled fashion in hope of similar compensation. It is further true that the text of a lot of game books on the subject do a lot to sustain this stereotype, even when the actual mechanics in practice in those books do not. That being the case, I suggest you look at this strictly within the context of this game system.

Strength in this game system is clearly not merely a representation of brute muscular force, but also a representation of "physical application" talent. Put another way, the ability to apply one's muscular strength in a productive, though perhaps not overly complicated, fashion. This may include certain aspects where muscle is the primary means to acheive overall physical control of the situation. This interpretation sustains Strength providing its bonus to most melee weapon accuracy, damage, and certain skills like Athletics.

Dexterity in this game system is a representation of reaction speed, reflex, and perception-driven coordination (which means it combines elements of the mental/psychological into the physical as well), as well as finer motor control tasks using only a relatively few muscle-groups or perhaps relatively little overall strain on more muscle-groups. This interpretation sustains it providing its bonus to ranged weapons, Armour Class, Reflex saves, and certain.

Using those interpretations, quarterstaff would remain a Strength weapon. The only Dexterity-based melee weapons would remain those whose sole capacity for useful offensive application rely on perception-driven coordination.

[Beowuuf]

For example, a ballet dancer is exhibiting strength not dexerity - they may be moving about swiftly, but lots of it is about perfect muscle control and strength.

About the quarterstaff - perhaps you could think gaining an AC bonus (which many times comes from dexterously using your weapon instead of attack) when fighting defensively. Weaponskill alreadyhas that providion for the Kai I believe

Perhaps you want to add a small bonus for fighting defenively with certain weapons

[Al]

OK M, excellent point, will get rid of that.

Another change I made was to allow an increase in the distance for sneak attack, to represent the woodsman's experiences with ambushes. I thought that would not be too much of a negative, as a woodsman's skills in hiding for the ambush are markedly less when outside of the woods (still good, but no where near as good as when in the woods)

[Al]

I was thinking, at lvl 12 instead of giving the first three levels of tracking, how about animal kinship? This would be a logical progression between nothing and summoning air elementals - it would demonstrate how the Ranger has become one with the woods.

I may put that at lvl 10 and rejig the others

EDIT - actually, what I think I will do is combine the first three levels of Animal kinship with the Friend of the Woods ability to give it in essence a five level ability - starting with freind, moving to first three of the kai abilities, finishing with Scourge of the Wood (I will probably rename that one)

I think I will allow half bonuses for animals encountered in urban areas and tame animals, and no bonus for animals from outside of the woods unless a Knowlege: Nature roll is made to a DC 15 plus creature End Dice