Ranger's Combat Marauder ability

Skywalker · Post by **Skywalker** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 8:41 pm

I am reading through C&C at the moment and was intrigued by this ability. I am not making any specific point about it. Hopwever, I would be keen to hear how this ability works in play as to the effect it has on those playing Rangers. Also, if anyone has any thoughts as to the logic behind the ability that would be cool too.

Matthew · Post by **Matthew** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 9:17 pm

You might want to take a look at this thread: Ranger Combat Marauder Ability

Personally, I'm not a big fan of this ability, neither the mechanic nor the rationalisation.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 9:40 pm

The CM bonuses / benefits were intended to function somewhat like the OAD&D "giant class adjustments" in a sense, but expanded slightly to include common threats to civilized lands, like orcs (who are not giants, but applied the bonuses in AD&D, anyway) and so forth. The major point of contention is that "humanoid" is both a descriptive word and one of an actual creature type, and is usually misread to mean "those of that type" which, while some of us do (like me for my own reasons which are entirely different than those of this abilities' existence), its not supposed to... so, dwarfs and elfs and so forth are not BTB affected by CM. Nor are undead and others nont expressly categorized, unless the Castle Keepers wishes it to be otherwise - this is an ability that, when used incorrectly, can be too useful in too many circumstances. Campaigns centered on orcs, goblins, kobolds, and giants will find that the rangers love it; but, one that's focused on kuo-toa, sahuagin, and crikey-stabbers will find it less so (or, mandates the CK changes the CM ability somewhat.)

Skywalker · Post by **Skywalker** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 9:40 pm

Matthew wrote:
You might want to take a look at this thread: Ranger Combat Marauder Ability

Personally, I'm not a big fan of this ability, neither the mechanic nor the rationalisation.

That's a great post. I don't mind the ability but just wanted to see some thoughts about it.

I may make it option to forgo Combat Maruader for an additional favoured enemy at 1st level.

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 9:59 pm

Skywalker wrote:
That's a great post. I don't mind the ability but just wanted to see some thoughts about it.

I may make it option to forgo Combat Maruader for an additional favoured enemy at 1st level.

*chuckles* And here's myself who's quite happy to toss 'favored enemy' and replace it with something more to my liking like TWF or Archery.

However, for those who wish to use the ability for their characters, I have no problem expanding the definition to fit a given culture or society. This for the purpose of inter tribal wars and the like.

I don't actually mind Combat Marauder
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

jaguar451 · Post by **jaguar451** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 3:35 am

gideon_thorne wrote:
*chuckles* And here's myself who's quite happy to toss 'favored enemy' and replace it with something more to my liking like TWF or Archery.

I've been toying with the idea of taking Combat Morauder & Favored Enemy from Ranger, add some archery items from the 'Marksman' in the netbook of classes, maybe misc tweaks, and a 'Jaeger' or some such class....

Would need to add 'Messer' and 'Grossemesser' as weapons as well, tho.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » Wed Apr 16, 2008 5:06 am

or you could leave the ranger as is and just create an archer.

BASH MAN · Post by **BASH MAN** » Wed Apr 16, 2008 5:06 pm

Skywalker wrote:
That's a great post. I don't mind the ability but just wanted to see some thoughts about it.

I may make it option to forgo Combat Maruader for an additional favoured enemy at 1st level.

Don't forget to lower his xp to level chart at least down to the fighter's chart so he won't scream bloody murder at losing his BEST class ability.
_________________
Basic Action Games http://www.bashrpg.com

Check us out for free demos and downloads or visit us onFacebook.

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Wed Apr 16, 2008 5:13 pm

Joe wrote:
or you could leave the ranger as is and just create an archer.

Already have an archer, but its based on a dex based version of the fighter instead of the ranger. ^_^
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

jaguar451 · Post by **jaguar451** » Wed Apr 16, 2008 6:57 pm

gideon_thorne wrote:
Already have an archer, but its based on a dex based version of the fighter instead of the ranger. ^_^

Well, "Jaeger" (Hunter) could co-exist or replace the Ranger, depending on what ye want.... As Gideon says, current ranged classed I found on the web (Archer, Marksman) are based more on fighters, and the idea was for someone who had the wilderness skills of the ranger (tracking, hiding, survival, etc) who could be good with a ranged weapon (not just bow) for a broader range of creatures. Helpful if you want venison for dinner instead of Orc...
No idea how balanced it would be -- I'd imagine worse against humanoids, better at range for non-humanoids....

And sorry it I've hijacked this thread....

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Wed Apr 16, 2008 8:58 pm

jaguar451 wrote:
Well, "Jaeger" (Hunter) could co-exist or replace the Ranger, depending on what ye want.... As Gideon says, current ranged classed I found on the web (Archer, Marksman) are based more on fighters, and the idea was for someone who had the wilderness skills of the ranger (tracking, hiding, survival, etc) who could be good with a ranged weapon (not just bow) for a broader range of creatures. Helpful if you want venison for dinner instead of Orc...

There was an old Dragon article about archers I use as well.

Quote:
And sorry it I've hijacked this thread....

I wouldn't worry about it. No one is obsessive about keeping things strictly on topic here.

Conversations wander, they split into new posts, and they come back to the topic tree. Just the nature of the beast.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

jaguar451 · Post by **jaguar451** » Wed Apr 16, 2008 9:27 pm

Might need to start a poll on people's favorite ranged (aka, Archer) class.... (or a search)

Best of Dragon Vol III

Archer (don't know off hand at work where I found the C&C class)

Marksman

Fighter with Weapon Specialization:Bow, ....

Ranger with Combat Maurauder (vs Humanoids)

Rogue lvl 4+

Just found the old AD&D Hunter: http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3589

...

csperkins1970 · Post by **csperkins1970** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 6:55 pm

jaguar451 wrote:
Might need to start a poll on people's favorite ranged (aka, Archer) class.... (or a search)

Best of Dragon Vol III

Trollher (don't know off hand at work where I found the C&C class)

Marksman

Fighter with Weapon Specialization:Bow, ....

Ranger with Combat Maurauder (vs Humanoids)

Rogue lvl 4+

Just found the old AD&D Hunter: http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3589...

Since my first RPG character ever was a halfling archer (the version presented in Dragon magazine) I'm gonna have to go with that version.

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 8:18 pm

The Archer Ranger in Best of Dragon has been my favorite. I even got to play one up to 14th level once. He was awesome.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 8:21 pm

I like Rambo.

Best. Ranger. Ever. To somewhat resemble the normal fare of iweb postalages.

But, I actually don't care much for any ranger - not the AD&D one, not the 2e one, not the C&C one, not the RC one... none. They always lack something, or have too much. And, none of them are ever Rambo-enough for me, which is how I like to see the ranger. d20 tried, but, its not even Rambo-esque enough.

Skywalker · Post by **Skywalker** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 10:13 pm

I have always enjoyed the Ranger and I like the standard version in C&C. I personally find the addition of "archery" and "dual weapon fighting" to a Ranger to be completely periphery to the concept.

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 10:32 pm

Skywalker wrote:
I have always enjoyed the Ranger and I like the standard version in C&C. I personally find the addition of "archery" and "dual weapon fighting" to a Ranger to be completely periphery to the concept.

Might be, to the C&C concept. But my ranger in my game has quite a different concept.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

Matthew · Post by **Matthew** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 12:27 am

I always found the Ranger a bit of a hard concept to pin down. Looking at it from a LotR's standpoint, the question of why Tolkien chose 'Ranger' to describe the Numenoreans operating in Illithien and in the North is of interest. It may be he chose the term for it's double meaning of 'guardian' over an area and ranging 'far from home' (and yet in their disinherited homes).

Looking at the AD&D 1e Ranger it's fairly clear that he's supposed to be some sort of 'guardian' and guerilla type, but his place in society is far from explained. His defining qualities are adjuncts to his military abilities; that is to say that he is primarily a soldier of some sort with 'extra' skills. Tracking and modifiers to Surprise speak to the 'stealthy soldier' or guerilla type. His bonus versus 'Giant Class' creatures is a sure indication of his primary enemies, as is his alignment stipulation. By contrast, his magical abilities seem randomly acquired and I have never really heard a convincing argument for them; still, since they don't appear until high level, they were a fairly minor advantage for me.

The AD&D 2e Ranger remains broadly the same, though Hit Dice become 1d10, Surprise Bonuses morph into Move Silently and Hide percentages, and favoured enemy becomes slightly less deadly. The most prominent items are the introduction of the Two Weapon Fighting Skills and the loss of Magic User Spells at high level. Broadly speaking, the changes are cosmetic, but there is an increased emphasis on the Ranger as being associated with the Druid and forming a parallel to the Paladin and Cleric.

The D20 1e Ranger was pretty similar to the AD&D 2e version, but with even more emphasis on the 'wilderness' aspect and an increase in magical abilities. The other mechanical changes were more subtle, but by D20 1.5 they were more apparent, and the Ranger was pigeon holed into the 'lightly armed skirmisher' role, losing access to anything but Light Armour and having a lowly 1d8 Hit Points.

The C&C Ranger is a pretty interesting variant; he got his 1d10 Hit Points back, access to a broader selection of body armour and a mix of old and new abilities. Lack of Spell Casting is no big deal, as far as I am concerned, but that might be because I think anybody who the DM wants to learn magic should be able to without having to build it into a Class. Lost out on the BtH and Multiple Attacks thing, though.

Ideally, I would like Rangers to be Fighters, 'but better'. Which is to say, Fighters with extra abilities, much as they were in AD&D. Let's see if I can work something up...

Quote:
Matt's Ranger

Level 01: 0 EP | 1d10 HD | +1 BtH | AT 1/1

Level 02: 2,250 EP | 2d10 HD | +2 BtH | AT 1/1

Level 03: 4,500 EP | 3d10 HD | +3 BtH | AT 1/1

Level 04: 9,000 EP | 4d10 HD | +4 BtH | AT 1/1

Level 05: 18,000 EP | 5d10 HD | +5 BtH | AT 1/1

Level 06: 36,000 EP | 6d10 HD | +6 BtH | AT 1/1

Level 07: 72,000 EP | 7d10 HD | +7 BtH | AT 3/2

Level 08: 144,000 EP | 8d10 HD | +8 BtH | AT 3/2

Level 09: 275,000 EP | 9d10 HD | +9 BtH | AT 3/2

Level 10: 550,000 EP | 9d10+3 HD | +10 BtH | 3/2

Level 11: 825,000 EP | 9d10+6 HD | +11 BtH | 3/2

Level 12: 1,100,000 EP | 9d10+9 HD | +12 BtH | 3/2
Weapons: Any
Armour: Any
Alignment: Any
Abilities:

Weapon Mastery

Sneak

Hide

Listen

Observe

Search

Track

_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

Skywalker · Post by **Skywalker** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 1:12 am

Matthew wrote:
Ideally, I would like Rangers to be Fighters, 'but better'. Which is to say, Fighters with extra abilities, much as they were in AD&D. Let's see if I can work something up...

Well that's certainly a Fighter with extra abilities. So much so, why would you ever play a Fighter? He gets extra attacks 3 levels before the Fighter, though never 2/1 and he gets all those abilities. All for 10% extra EP.

Personally, I think the C&C Ranger is more balanced.

Matthew · Post by **Matthew** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 1:13 am

Whoops, my Fighters get 3/2 at Levels 7-12. Ignore it and apply the same thing Fighters get.

You'd only play a Fighter if you wanted to advance quicker or weren't interested in stealth/perception abilities.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

Skywalker · Post by **Skywalker** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 1:40 am

Matthew wrote:
Whoops, my Fighters get 3/2 at Levels 7-12. Ignore it and apply the same thing Fighters get.

You'd only play a Fighter if you wanted to advance quicker or weren't interested in stealth/perception abilities.

That makes more sense. I think the one thing that I like about this change the least is the removal of armour restrictions. In C&C, a ranger can still wear any armour but they can't wear the heavy armour and still have access to their stealth/perception abilities.

Matthew · Post by **Matthew** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 2:05 am

Yeah, I just don't think Heavy Armour would interfere with Track, Observe, Listen or Hide. A helmet would interfere, but I would just leave that up to the CK to adjudicate. Sneak, I would imagine, would be inconvenienced by heavy armour, but again I'd rather leave it up to the CK to decide to what degree.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

Fizz · Post by **Fizz** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 3:29 am

If ranger means `wilderness warrior', then C&C has it properly defined. It has all the required skills for living extended periods in the wilds, but without forcing the ranger down a specific role.

The C&C ranger could quite easily be a dextrous bow-using hunter, or a tough axe-swinging lumberjack. Both know the outdoors, and yet can deal with threats in entirely different ways.

The C&C ranger is the best version of ranger i've seen published. It doesn't need the goody-two-shoes protector of nature bit, nor does it need magic. It's its own class.

I've got a couple of my own tweaks for it (like i do for most classes), but overall, i think it's quite solid and aptly designed.

-Fizz

jaguar451 · Post by **jaguar451** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 4:14 am

Skywalker wrote:
Well that's certainly a Fighter with extra abilities. So much so, why would you ever play a Fighter? He gets extra attacks 3 levels before the Fighter, though never 2/1 and he gets all those abilities. All for 10% extra EP.

Personally, I think the C&C Ranger is more balanced.

I like your general concept, although I'm not sure about the heavy armor for a Ranger (med + maybe Wisdom AC bonus...), and maybe a few more skill items (I like some of the skills stuff from Gary's Hunter class I linked to previously.)

But yeah, fighter like, outdoorsman, no spells or beasts.

And for encroaching on the Fighter class, Fighters could have other skills, such as Encumberance bonus, fortification creation / destruction skills, a bonus to break things, .... Or just leave as is....

phadeout · Post by **phadeout** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 2:25 pm

I wouldn't ever give the Ranger access to heavy armor.

I just can't picture this guy prowling through the woods hunting a deer while wearing Full Plate...

And Armor should always affect Hide Skill checks. It does for Rogues in C&C, it did for Rangers in 2E. A ranger, as is in C&C, can basically wear medium armor and still use their minor stealth skills "without penalty". That's pretty powerful right there.
_________________
"If everyone was drunker, was beer cheaper? And if they were more drunk the further back one goes, is there a time when everyone was completely soused all of the time? And, could I go there?" -Davis Chenault

Fizz · Post by **Fizz** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 3:20 pm

phadeout wrote:
I just can't picture this guy prowling through the woods hunting a deer while wearing Full Plate...

That's what the 1st Ed AD&D ranger was- "a walking tank that could track". And that's why they fixed that in 2nd Ed- by giving skills that could only be used while in lighter armor. If he needed to go to war, he could still don the heavy stuff.

Quote:
And Armor should always affect Hide Skill checks. It does for Rogues in C&C, it did for Rangers in 2E. A ranger, as is in C&C, can basically wear medium armor and still use their minor stealth skills "without penalty". That's pretty powerful right there.

I apply the standard rogue armor rule to all classes. Penalty = AC-2. It's a nice simple rule that can be remembered by all- no extra rules when not needed.

-Fizz

phadeout · Post by **phadeout** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 3:38 pm

Fizz wrote:
I apply the standard rogue armor rule to all classes. Penalty = AC-2. It's a nice simple rule that can be remembered by all- no extra rules when not needed.

-Fizz

It makes me wonder now, looking at the 2E armor penalties, if that is enough? (I'm guessing your rule is AC Bonus -2, as AC -2 could be confused).

That would mean, if converted to 2E Percentile (kinda equivalent) that for Chain Mail you'd only have a -3 to rolls while wearing it. Which is like -15% in 2E. Studded leather had penalties like that... Plate Mail would only give you a penalty -5 (25%). I don't think that's enough, especially in C&C where there is No Cap on the skill bonus (2E had a cap of 95% to the skill). At high levels in C&C, it's a broken system since the bonus you gain from level will be so high...

I guess, this is the reason that the skill just Can't be used if you are not wearing the appropriate armor and may be it needs to be a little more strict. I.E. Rogues CAN'T hide/move silently in anything heavier than Chain Mail for example, and that would give them say a -6 to the check (-2 for each point of AC bonus above +2, which is leather).

It's not as simple, but their needs to be checks and balances to keep things in line sometimes.
_________________
"If everyone was drunker, was beer cheaper? And if they were more drunk the further back one goes, is there a time when everyone was completely soused all of the time? And, could I go there?" -Davis Chenault

Fizz · Post by **Fizz** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 3:58 pm

phadeout wrote:
It makes me wonder now, looking at the 2E armor penalties, if that is enough?

...

I don't think that's enough, especially in C&C where there is No Cap on the skill bonus (2E had a cap of 95% to the skill).

If memory serves, you could have a skill bonus of over 100%, but the actual chance on any roll was never better than 95%. This is the C&C equivalent of always failing a roll of 1, even if you've got a +20 on the check.

In 2nd Ed, the penalty varied with the skill. For simplicity's sake, i'll just use Move Silently. For full plate, the penalty was -95%; for chain, -40%. Mind you, no armor gave a +10% bonus (it was assumed a thief was wearing leather).

So i agree, the scale is a bit messed up. And level modifiers will overshadow at high levels. So let's create a better one!
What if we make it a quadratic formula?

Penalty = ( AC bonus - 2 )^2 (that is, squared)

Then, leather is still 0. Chain mail would have a penalty of 9, equivalent to 45%. Plate mail would have a penalty of 25(!), equal to -125% in 2nd Ed terms.

This is actually not that far off. A little skewed at the high end, but not unreasonably so. The difference between no armor and full plate in 2nd Ed was 105%.

However it's defined, i personally would apply it to every class. I don't want a different armor rule for each class.

-Fizz

PS: i found the numbers for the 2nd Ed thief here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/3395/ebook-PD ... s-Handbook

That cannot be legal can it?

phadeout · Post by **phadeout** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 4:11 pm

That's actually pretty good Fizz.

And it does scale not bad, as a 20th Level Rogue could reasonably wear chain and still use skills, but a 1st Level Rogue is just not able...

I like charts, as they make visualizing it easy.

You could use the same formula to give a bonus too, but I wouldn't Square it.

AC Skill Modifier

+0 +0 (+2)

+1 +0 (+1)

+2 +0

+3 -2

+4 -4

+5 -9

+6 -16

+7 -25

+8 -36

Think I like this better:

AC Skill Modifier

+0 +2 (+10%)

+1 +1 (+5%)

+2 +0 (+0%)

+3 -2 (-10%)

+4 -4 (-20%)

+5 -8 (-40%)

+6 -12 (-60%)

+7 -16 (-80%)

+8 -20 (-100%)

Usable, but I think rangers should be able to use their minor stealth skill without penalty, as long as they are proficient in the armor, or at only half the penalty at most.
_________________
"If everyone was drunker, was beer cheaper? And if they were more drunk the further back one goes, is there a time when everyone was completely soused all of the time? And, could I go there?" -Davis Chenault

Fizz · Post by **Fizz** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 4:26 pm

phadeout wrote:
Think I like this better:

AC Skill Modifier

+0 +2 (+10%)

+1 +1 (+5%)

+2 +0 (+0%)

+3 -2 (-10%)

+4 -4 (-20%)

+5 -8 (-40%)

+6 -12 (-60%)

+7 -16 (-80%)

+8 -20 (-100%)

Yeah, that's a rather elegant chart. That would work just fine. I just like formulae.
Though should we go the route of bonuses for no armor? That seems counter to the rest of the Siege engine.

What about:

AC Skill Modifier

+0 +0 (0%)

+1 -1 (-5%)

+2 -1 (-5%)

+3 -2 (-10%)

etc, as before?

-Fizz