If you were going to set the ranger's prime...

[zarathustra]

It was one of the first things I considered when I looked at the class primes and thought about them.

Not that I know better than the designers, just how I thought about rangers working IMC.

Ranger as strongman just jumped out at me. I liked most the idea (in this therad? or the other ranger one?) about offering alternate primes for some classes. Provided a little bit more flexibility whithin the archetype.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

DangerDwarf wrote:
Dude....we've got like 3-4 more pages in us. 5-8 if we're goofy.

Yeah, I've been around here long enough to be well aware of that. I just feel sorry for that poor, dead horse.

[Relaxo]

Sir Osis of Liver wrote:
Yeah, I've been around here long enough to be well aware of that. I just feel sorry for that poor, dead horse.

the horse won't mind.

Unless someone Raises it, of course, then it might be pissed!

[Lord Dynel]

Sir Osis of Liver wrote:
Yeah, I've been around here long enough to be well aware of that. I just feel sorry for that poor, dead horse.

C'mon now, the ranger prime discussion hasn't come up for at least six months...it was about that time.

On topic, I'm actually suprised that Strength is starting to pull away with it. For those who answered yes, I pose these questions -

Does it just make sense that Strength is prime? If so, why does it?

Or are you just playing by the book and don't want to change things?
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

[Piperdog]

Wow. I'm a little surprised too. Strength just doesn't make sense to me as a prime. I just have to voice that opinion because I feel a little goofy and want this thread to go a few more pages....lol.
_________________
When in doubt as to who is in charge on the battlefield, listen to the man with the bloodiest sword.

[serleran]

When one considers the design goals, which involves the elusive Rule of 6, "something" needed to be Strength, aside from Fighter. Rangers "are" fighters, but skilled for a different set of opponents. They are the militant arm of the wilderness, in some ways of reading it, set against the evil encroachment by those who would defile nature's purity, like rampant misuse of lumbering, foul monsters, and the like... sort of like a strong-arm eco-terrorist, if one will. That doesn't mean Steve and the gang specifically thought these thoughts, but I always get that when reading the class description and looking at the abilities... even in OAD&D.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

[DangerDwarf]

While I've divorced Primes from Class, I don't have an issue with STR Prime for rangers. Depends on how you view them I suppose.

Rangers are just good ol' country boy ass kickers.

[zarathustra]

serleran wrote:
When one considers the design goals, which involves the elusive Rule of 6, "something" needed to be Strength, aside from Fighter. Rangers "are" fighters, but skilled for a different set of opponents. They are the militant arm of the wilderness, in some ways of reading it, set against the evil encroachment by those who would defile nature's purity, like rampant misuse of lumbering, foul monsters, and the like... sort of like a strong-arm eco-terrorist, if one will. That doesn't mean Steve and the gang specifically thought these thoughts, but I always get that when reading the class description and looking at the abilities... even in OAD&D.

I always disliked that view of rangers and druids, it seems to be transplanting modern ecological views into a setting where such ideas are thousands of years away.

[serleran]

Sure, and I can understand that. They don't have to be played that way. But look at their abilities. They are "loners" by nature, heh, with a diverse array of stealth-based guises (concealment and climbing natural terrain) and tracking, which lets them hunt down their prey, which, by the default rules, are evil humanoids like orcs and goblins... and, they get survival. Rangers are like Rambo. At least, they can be. Of course, all the archetypes can be viewed many different ways... I guess that is why they're "archetypes."
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

[Rigon]

DangerDwarf wrote:
Rangers are just good ol' country boy ass kickers.

I like that explaination.

R-
_________________
Rigon o' the Lakelands, Baron of The Castles & Crusades Society
The Book of the Mind

[Lord Dynel]

serleran wrote:
When one considers the design goals, which involves the elusive Rule of 6, "something" needed to be Strength, aside from Fighter.

Why, really? Why dpes teh Rule of 6 have to be maintained? Why does Strength "need" two classes?

Quote:
="serleran"Rangers "are" fighters, but skilled for a different set of opponents.

Agreed, but so are barbarians, knights, paladins, and monks.

serleran wrote:
They are the militant arm of the wilderness, in some ways of reading it, set against the evil encroachment by those who would defile nature's purity, like rampant misuse of lumbering, foul monsters, and the like... sort of like a strong-arm eco-terrorist, if one will. That doesn't mean Steve and the gang specifically thought these thoughts, but I always get that when reading the class description and looking at the abilities... even in OAD&D.

But the same thing can be said about the aformentioned classes. Paladins being a militant arm of their deity, knights being the elite of the elite of the kingdom guard, monks are a mystical order of combatants, barbarians are uncivilized warriors, etc. Don't take this an attack, serl, and I do see your points. I just think that the justification is a little bit of a double-standard if you look at the other classes than can, technically, be in the same boat as the ranger.
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

[serleran]

Naturally all the classes can be broken down into a single Prime. They are all Intelligence, or Wisdom, or Dexterity, depending on what you want those terms to mean. If, however, you mean how they are defined in C&C, the Barbarian does not rely on his brute force (Strength) to survive -- he does so by intimidation, knowing the land, and by being beyond tough. Knights, too, do not lead by being the strongest man in the land... they lead because they are leaders, using Charisma to sway and dissuade. Paladins, likewise, may be defenders of their faith (or fans of Judas Priest) but they do not use raw muscle power to win out... they use their Wisdom and Charisma, the former to spread the good word and the latter so people will believe them and see them as the bastions of hope they are...

Now, you might say "but the Ranger does not use Strength for everything either" and that would be right. No class uses any attribute for "everything." But, the difference is in how the class is epitomized and presented, how it was "intended" to be used. The ranger is a Strength-based character.

I'm not saying that is "right" or that it must be played, but the Ranger class was seen by those deigning the rules to be the "secondary" Strength class. There was a lot of arguing then, and there will always be a lot of arguing. Everyone seems to have their own version and reason on why Rangers are not Strength Prime, and, unfortunately, it nearly always centers on the "there are not class abilities for them to use it with" which is funny because there aren't any for the Fighter either.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

[Lord Dynel]

serleran wrote:
Naturally all the classes can be broken down into a single Prime. They are all Intelligence, or Wisdom, or Dexterity, depending on what you want those terms to mean. If, however, you mean how they are defined in C&C, the Barbarian does not rely on his brute force (Strength) to survive -- he does so by intimidation, knowing the land, and by being beyond tough. Knights, too, do not lead by being the strongest man in the land... they lead because they are leaders, using Charisma to sway and dissuade. Paladins, likewise, may be defenders of their faith (or fans of Judas Priest) but they do not use raw muscle power to win out... they use their Wisdom and Charisma, the former to spread the good word and the latter so people will believe them and see them as the bastions of hope they are...

Now, you might say "but the Ranger does not use Strength for everything either" and that would be right. No class uses any attribute for "everything." But, the difference is in how the class is epitomized and presented, how it was "intended" to be used. The ranger is a Strength-based character.

I'm not saying that is "right" or that it must be played, but the Ranger class was seen by those deigning the rules to be the "secondary" Strength class. There was a lot of arguing then, and there will always be a lot of arguing. Everyone seems to have their own version and reason on why Rangers are not Strength Prime, and, unfortunately, it nearly always centers on the "there are not class abilities for them to use it with" which is funny because there aren't any for the Fighter either.

I understand your point, good sir. I've always understood that the Trolls needed a second class in the Strength Prime category. Can I say, for as much as I love the Trolls, that they designed it wrong?
Seriously, I look at your post, and think that the other classes you mentioned in your post use strength just as much as (or more than) the ranger. I think bad for the ranger, since everyone else had a Prime to go home to and the ranger was kind of stuck going home with Strength. At least that's how my warped mind see it. I think there was room in the car with Dexterity or Wisdom.
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

[serleran]

Sure, you can think the design was wrong, but that does not mean it is... at least, for those who disagree. I've changed the ranger's prime, removed the class, modified its abilities, and a whole slew of other things to make it "perfect" for me. It has not gotten there. But, I think that's because I just like to keep playing with things.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

[Lord Dynel]

serleran wrote:
Sure, you can think the design was wrong, but that does not mean it is... at least, for those who disagree.

Well, yes. That's kind of self-evident, isn't it? And of course, there's really no wrong and right in this case, unless you go strictly by written word in the PHB. But even that should be subject to a CK's whim.
In the end, my intention was to find out what other's thought. Not what was "right" and "wrong." Even though it's printed in the PHB, it's not right. It's not right until the CK, or the group concensus, makes it right - more or less the toying you commented on that you made with the class, serl. I subscribe to the thinking that even the printed word in the books aren't right until it's got the CK's seal of approval - until then the CK can modify it how he sees fit.

But this has been an interesting conversation. Hopefully it will continue, unless all has been said - I like to hear the "whys" and "whatfors" of this discussion.
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

[concobar]

i think wisdom should be the ranger prime.

[Lord Dynel]

concobar wrote:
i think wisdom should be the ranger prime.

That seems to be a popular choice. And one that's starting to make sense. Regardless of race, education/training, or anything else, it would seem that wilderness knowledge would be paramount to a ranger.
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

[concobar]

wisdom has always meant common sense to me and i believe common sense would be important to a scout or ranger.