Toril 2.0: Ranger Alignment

Discussion concerning the upcoming Toril 2.0 update as well as general 3.5 edition D&D discussion
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:07 pm

Shevarash wrote:
Sarvis wrote:Can you tell us anything about rangers in the new system?


Sure, I can tell you a little. Rangers in 2.0 are similar to those in D&D v3.5, with some added improvements. First things first - Rangers are a hybrid fighter and divine spellcaster class.

One of their class abilities is the choice to pick a combat style at low level, being either Ranged or Two-Weapon. That choice will then dictate the bonus feats that the ranger receives as they level up. For instance, if you take the Ranged style, you instantly receive Point Blank Shot as a free bonus feat, and will receive Rapid Shot, Manyshot, and more feats as you progress in levels. Alternately, if you picked the Two-Weapon combat style you would receive Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Defense, etc as you level up. This class feature allows the ranger to receive feats in their chosen specialty without using a precious feat slot, and in some cases offers the feat earlier than it would otherwise be available.

Rangers are also very skilled characters in relation to most other melee classes, but as I haven't really gotten into the new skill system I'll save that for later. Suffice it to say that a ranger would be a good bet if you need to be stealthy outdoors, among other things.

The spell list for Rangers has been completely revamped, starting with selections from the D&D v3.5 ranger spell list, and building on that by adding several unique ranger spells. I believe that a ranger's spellcasting is an integral part of the class, and should not be overlooked or left to play second fiddle to their combat abilities.

So there's a very high level overview. There are a ton of details and some other class features to go into later.

One last thing - Rangers are no longer alignment dependant. That is, a ranger can be any alignment...


Cool, except for the evil ranger thing. It's one of the things I dislike about 3.0, actually.

More questions:

What role do you see a ranger filling in groups?
What spells can rangers look forward to?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm

Rangers

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:44 pm

Sarvis wrote:Cool, except for the evil ranger thing. It's one of the things I dislike about 3.0, actually.


I can't believe I'm going to do this, but I actually agree with Sarvis. The ranger isn't a lumberjack. The ranger defends the forests. You take away the alignment restrictions on the ranger, and you're left with a druid with metal. The idea that you can have an evil character that knows the forests and can track people is cool, and makes perfect sense. It's called a rogue.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Rangers

Postby Sarvis » Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:54 pm

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote: You take away the alignment restrictions on the ranger, and you're left with a druid with metal.


Err... technically aren't Druids neutral?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
User avatar
Shevarash
FORGER CODER
Posts: 2944
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 6:01 am

Postby Shevarash » Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:07 pm

Rangers

Your definition of a Ranger might be a human or elf who defends the forest - but why couldn't it be a dwarf that defends his caverns? Or a drow that stalks the Underdark? Why pigeonhole a class with so many interesting possibilities? The "Ranger" class, to me, is a broad archetype that indicates a character who uses the environment to their advantage, studies divine magic, and has a strong emphasis on hunting, tracking, and survival skills.

The Ranger that Sarvis and Adriorn are comfortable playing is not going anywhere - it still exists as a human or elf ranger with a Good alignment. We're just adding new aspects to this class by opening it up to more alignments so anyone can play a ranger the way they want to, which is one of the primary tenets of 2.0, and something you've all asked for: the end of cookie cutter classes.

That said, I do welcome all feedback about this and realize it may be a somewhat controversial change. Thanks for the comments!
Shevarash -- Code Forger of TorilMUD
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:22 pm

I think the salient question here is: Why are there both Paladins and Blackguards? Fundamentally, they are the same thing with a different alignment and a few differing abilities to reflect that. Both are warriors who fight for an ideal, and have gained divine spellcasting abilities from some embodiment of those ideals.

Rangers are the same thing, they were always the more nature oriented equivalent of a Paladin. They often fight in defence of the forest, the natural order and gained their spellcasting and other abilities from an embodiment of that natural ideal.

I think there's a fundamental difference between a class which becomes good at tracking because the person wants to defend the forest, and one who becomes good at tracking because he wants to kill everything in it. If we must have a class with similar abilities, but focused on causing harm... why not have a Blackguard type class for it?


EDIT: Actually, maybe the short version is: Would you consider Steve Irwin to be a poacher? If not, we should have a difference between Rangers(naturalists/conservationists) and hunters.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
User avatar
Shevarash
FORGER CODER
Posts: 2944
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 6:01 am

Postby Shevarash » Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:48 pm

Well...I think of it like this:

Your class defines what you know, and your alignment defines what you do with that knowledge.

I could argue that the Paladin class shouldn't be alignment limited either, after all the definition of paladin is a leading champion of a cause (m-w.com), but due to the vast differences in the Paladin/Anti spell list and the history of them being separated, its acceptable to leave as is.

If I were creating a game from scratch though, I doubt I would choose to make two Paladin classes.
Shevarash -- Code Forger of TorilMUD
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:01 pm

I know what you mean, but consider this:

Would a poacher know how to use tranquilizers/tracking tags?
Would Steve Irwin know the best way to harvest and store elephant tusks?

I think when you set out with a different goal, you may end up with similar skills but have a lot of differences anyway. Steve isn't going to learn how best to dismantle and sell a carcass, and a poacher would never bother with tranquilizers to temporarily incapacitate his prey.

I'd also argue that someone who dedicates themselves to living with an environment may have skills that someone who just uses that environment might not.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm

Re: Rangers

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:47 pm

Sarvis wrote:Err... technically aren't Druids neutral?


That's kind of my point. You remove the alignment restrictions of a class whose stereotype has developed because of that alignment restriction. You remove it from Rangers, hell, remove it from Druids too, and Paladins for that matter. I disagree, because in the end, you also remove the ambience associated with that class, as well as its uniqueness, completely. Hell, for that, just make people choose between the four primary classes and let them decide how to play them.

Shevarash wrote:We're just adding new aspects to this class by opening it up to more alignments so anyone can play a ranger the way they want to


Currently, there is someone who plays his Ranger in an evil way. As well as several people who play their evil-race character in a good way. RP doesn't affect your class, in my opinion. Being able to chose between archery and melee, however, does.

Shevarash wrote:The "Ranger" class, to me, is a broad archetype that indicates a character who uses the environment to their advantage, studies divine magic, and has a strong emphasis on hunting, tracking, and survival skills.


You've basically defined a rogue with magical skills. The ranger does not study divine magic, it is granted to him, among other things.


I do agree with your other point though Shevarash. I do not like to limit classes due to race, generally. I think a halfling ranger is just fine, just like a barbarian ranger is fine. Completely agree. Excellent way to let people play the race they want and the class they want.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Rangers

Postby Sarvis » Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:59 pm

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:I think a halfling ranger is just fine, just like a barbarian ranger is fine.


Actually, you can't have a Barbarian Ranger in 3E because Barbarian is a class. Another of the stupid decisions they made...

(Well, you could dual class Barbarian Ranger... but that's not what he meant.)

<b>Shevarash</b>: *shrug* It's not something I can't live with, just an aspect of 3E I don't like. It _might_ be more fun and interesting though to have similar but different classes for Good/Evil rangers... *duck*
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Thu Feb 08, 2007 4:39 am

Cirath wrote:A ranger is a warrior devoted to a god that is tied to nature, and has the skills to complement that devotion. Why can't that god be Malar, rather than Silvanus? Also, I find it hard to believe that you see that little difference between rangers and rogues or druids.


No, that's the thing Cirath. I do see a difference between a rogue/druid/ranger. To me those are boundaries set by, among other things, alignment, although there are many others of course. I just keep thinking that the more you "open" up a class, the more it ends up resembling others. I can agree completely with the idea, to a certain degree; i.e. removing racial restrictions.

And here's something else to consider: Malar's followers avoid using archery to kill their foes. They get immense pleasure from the "hand to hand" killing/blood-spilling, etc. So will evil rangers only be able to use melee? Will there be other gods as options for them? Is the information on the mud wrong then?

Believe me, I completely understand the wanting to "open" classes up. Hell, even with alignment in regards to races. I just think it should be done with certain moderation. You might end up with even greater cookie-cutter characters than you have now.

Just my advice.


SARVIS: Yes, barbarians as a class is a completely idiotic concept. A gnome barbarian? Gimme a break...
Tasan
Sojourner
Posts: 1710
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Fridley, Mn USA
Contact:

Postby Tasan » Thu Feb 08, 2007 7:31 am

Sarvis wrote:Would a poacher know how to use tranquilizers/tracking tags?


People who steal kidneys and leave you in a bathtub full of ice aren't necessarily doctors, but it gets the job done...

I don't think this is a very good argument at all, and personally I'm starting to remember why we had such a problem with the ranger class before... mostly because some of you have man-crushes on the class :p

Alignment is still a morality question, and morality is defined by each individual. Granted the majority moral views are generally "accepted", but evil doesn't have to be limited to or defined by throat slashing and mean behavior. Evil is just not conforming to the accepted morality of whomever. Stealing is an "evil" act, but Robin Hood was considered a "good" character...

Open up your own ranger thread if you are going to continue to debate things please.
Danahg tells you 'yeah, luckily i kept most of it in my mouth and nasal membranes, ugh'

Dlur group-says 'I have a dead horse that I'm dragging down the shaft with my 4 corpses. Anyone want to help me beat it?'

Calladuran: There are other games to play if you want to play with yourself.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:51 pm

Tasan wrote:People who steal kidneys and leave you in a bathtub full of ice aren't necessarily doctors, but it gets the job done...


So anyone who could steal a kidney should be called a Doctor and trusted to perform all surgeries?

Stealing is an "evil" act, but Robin Hood was considered a "good" character...


No, stealing is an unlawful act. Especially in D&D where alignment is broken down into Lawful/Chaotic and Good/Evil.

Open up your own ranger thread if you are going to continue to debate things please.


1) Shevy asked our opinions in this thread.
2) We were done several hours ago, until you brought it back up.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Lilira
Sojourner
Posts: 1438
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:53 pm

Postby Lilira » Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:51 pm

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:SARVIS: Yes, barbarians as a class is a completely idiotic concept. A gnome barbarian? Gimme a break...


In 3.5 the Barbarian is based on the lack of being "civilized", not a race. Because they aren't "civilized" they won't be literate. They're tough as hell, and some clans of dwarves, gnomes etc. can easily become barbaric if they've spent centuries fighting enemies instead of retaining their "civilized" natures. Even elves have their barbaric sides, though most people call them wild elves. *grin* They're more in touch with nature in that they are forced to live off the land.

Really, there's no reason you can't have ANY race as a barbarian... even drow. (Think Drizzt after he escaped Menzo and became the "Hunter".)

To be truthful, I heartily agree with the notion that barb as a class sucks... My husband and I had worked out a way to translate a Faerunian barbarian onto paper, including shamen. 3.5 wrecked that one. *laugh*

Ah well.
~\o--Lilira Shadowlyre--o/~

You group-say 'my chars will carry the component on them if I can.'
Inama group-says 'hopefully they'll have some sort of volume discounts on ress items for people like you'
You group-say 'oh? Ya think? *giggle*'
Inama group-says 'they could at least implement frequent dier miles'

Suzalize group-says 'oh, eya's over weight i bet'
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:55 pm

Lilira wrote:
Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:SARVIS: Yes, barbarians as a class is a completely idiotic concept. A gnome barbarian? Gimme a break...


In 3.5 the Barbarian is based on the lack of being "civilized", not a race. Because they aren't "civilized" they won't be literate. They're tough as hell, and some clans of dwarves, gnomes etc. can easily become barbaric if they've spent centuries fighting enemies instead of retaining their "civilized" natures. Even elves have their barbaric sides, though most people call them wild elves. *grin* They're more in touch with nature in that they are forced to live off the land.

Really, there's no reason you can't have ANY race as a barbarian... even drow. (Think Drizzt after he escaped Menzo and became the "Hunter".)


Yes, all that is true. It's still not really a _class_ though. Barbarian gnomes would be different than regular gnomes, like they'd be 4' tall and muscular instead of 3' tall and scrawny. If anything, they should be a subrace.

The thing is, it isn't a class. You said yourself being a barbarian is a lack of being civilized... you can't _learn_ uncivilization!
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Eilistraee
Staff Member - Quests
Posts: 1097
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2003 7:20 pm

Postby Eilistraee » Thu Feb 08, 2007 2:25 pm

You can, however learn to channel and focus that lack of civilization into a specific direction.
Eilistraee
User avatar
Shevarash
FORGER CODER
Posts: 2944
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 6:01 am

Postby Shevarash » Thu Feb 08, 2007 2:47 pm

I split this off from the main Q&A thread so we can keep that one focused and continue to discuss this topic. Don't take this splitting action as a negative - it's great that we have enough discussion about this to warrant its own thread! :)
Shevarash -- Code Forger of TorilMUD
User avatar
Shevarash
FORGER CODER
Posts: 2944
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 6:01 am

Postby Shevarash » Thu Feb 08, 2007 2:54 pm

Woops, forgot to split my reply.

Sarvis wrote:I know what you mean, but consider this:

Would a poacher know how to use tranquilizers/tracking tags?
Would Steve Irwin know the best way to harvest and store elephant tusks?

I think when you set out with a different goal, you may end up with similar skills but have a lot of differences anyway. Steve isn't going to learn how best to dismantle and sell a carcass, and a poacher would never bother with tranquilizers to temporarily incapacitate his prey.

I'd also argue that someone who dedicates themselves to living with an environment may have skills that someone who just uses that environment might not.


You make some good points, but I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. The bottom line for me is that opening up Rangers to all alignments is good for game play in general, and I think we'll see evidence of that pretty quickly as players discover the new ranger combinations that are now possible and start playing with them.
Shevarash -- Code Forger of TorilMUD
User avatar
Shevarash
FORGER CODER
Posts: 2944
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 6:01 am

Postby Shevarash » Thu Feb 08, 2007 2:57 pm

Forgot this one too, sorry Cirath.

Cirath wrote:
Sarvis wrote:Cool, except for the evil ranger thing. It's one of the things I dislike about 3.0, actually.


Funny, considering that restricting the alignment of rangers was the thing I most disagreed with, though the two weapon fighting thing was a close second.

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:I can't believe I'm going to do this, but I actually agree with Sarvis. The ranger isn't a lumberjack. The ranger defends the forests. You take away the alignment restrictions on the ranger, and you're left with a druid with metal. The idea that you can have an evil character that knows the forests and can track people is cool, and makes perfect sense. It's called a rogue.


A ranger is a warrior devoted to a god that is tied to nature, and has the skills to complement that devotion. Why can't that god be Malar, rather than Silvanus? Also, I find it hard to believe that you see that little difference between rangers and rogues or druids.

Sarvis wrote:I think there's a fundamental difference between a class which becomes good at tracking because the person wants to defend the forest, and one who becomes good at tracking because he wants to kill everything in it. If we must have a class with similar abilities, but focused on causing harm... why not have a Blackguard type class for it?


EDIT: Actually, maybe the short version is: Would you consider Steve Irwin to be a poacher? If not, we should have a difference between Rangers(naturalists/conservationists) and hunters.


Wouldn't "defending nature" by killing those who are percieved to be violating it be evil? As for the Steve Irwin thing, I think he had all the necissary skills to be a capable, or even exceptional poacher. He just chose not to use them to kill or capture.

Sarvis wrote:I know what you mean, but consider this:

Would a poacher know how to use tranquilizers/tracking tags?
Would Steve Irwin know the best way to harvest and store elephant tusks?


Yes, both are quite likely.

I don't see why there would be a problem with removing alignment restrictions from rangers (personally, I like the alignment rules for druids in 3.5 too) and no problem with allowing dwarf of halfling wizards, despide their (at least former) non-magical natures. Personally, I am all for the removal of alignment restrictions on rangers (as well as opening the class to evil races, though I suppose dire raiders would fill this role, so long as we don't have ogres riding wolves half their size).

Now, an actual question:

With the opening up of class/race combonation restrictions, will classes previously offered only to one side (druids, psionicists, rangers, dire raiders, paladins, anti-paladins, bards, battlechanters) be offered to both? Sure, some of the roles overlap, but they perform the tasks in slightly different ways.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Thu Feb 08, 2007 2:58 pm

Eilistraee wrote:You can, however learn to channel and focus that lack of civilization into a specific direction.


Yes, but that specific direction would be the class. You're not learning to be more uncivilized, you're learning to better use your lack of civilization to beat things up.

I mean, we don't have a Strength class. Strength is something the character is created with, and their class (ie. Fighter) is what focuses that strength into a specific direction (hitting things.)
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Eilistraee
Staff Member - Quests
Posts: 1097
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2003 7:20 pm

Postby Eilistraee » Thu Feb 08, 2007 3:17 pm

You are channeling your lack of civilization into the barbarian class abilities. An increase in physical ability and stamina, rapid speed. Your separation from the 'higher functions' of logic and reason permit you to bypass the instinctive hesitation a more thinking person would experience before acting. You've become that much more attuned with your instincts, aware of that sixth sense, that you can act before you even know what you're reacting to (trap sense, flanking immunity).

In essence, a barbarian-class is a character who listens to instinct over reason, and channels their raw emotion into physical enhancements from time to time, with the consequence that their rationing abilities suffer while they're in the grips of that extreme emotion.
Eilistraee
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm

Moronic

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Thu Feb 08, 2007 3:24 pm

Can I be Drow class? Or wait, can I be Sailor race? (I'm sure Touk would love it). Same crap as the "barbarian" class idea, people mixing race and RP. I think the word people are looking for is "berserker" or "wild" or "savage". Eilistraee's idea of instinct over reason is fine, but you can say that just about anybody. As an artist I try to listen to my instinct over reason. As a mage I try to listen to my...same thing can be said all across. Doesn't make me a Barbarian artist. Leave to RP to the player, you should know! :)
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Thu Feb 08, 2007 3:53 pm

Barbarians are characterized by a wild lifestyle, typically living off the plains or mountains. Barbarians' somewhat rugged lifestyle is reflected in several ways within the class features... their ability to channel their rage into combat prowess, their illiteracy, and their increased hit dice and more varied skill selection (compared to Fighters from the Big City). It has nothing to do with height/weight or any kind of physical distinction. If you want to play a Barbarian with 6 Strength, you CAN. You could be the scrawniest little Gnome in the village and still be a Barbarian (but don't get me angry... you wouldn't like me when I'm angry...).

I think you're still thinking of Barbarians in terms of Toril Barbarians. Toril Barbarians are a race. D&D Barbarians are not.

That's kind of my point. You remove the alignment restrictions of a class whose stereotype has developed because of that alignment restriction. You remove it from Rangers, hell, remove it from Druids too, and Paladins for that matter. I disagree, because in the end, you also remove the ambience associated with that class...

Alignment restrictions in role playing games are bullshit in the first place. They're boring, and they force you to pigeonhole your character into some stupid movie stereotype. If you want to play Legolas or Robin Hood, choose NG or CG as your alignment and go ahead. There's more than enough room in the world for Lawful Neutral or True Neutral Rangers... the Ranger who values his forest above all else and drives off invaders with force is not a good character. He's Neutral (maybe Lawful Neutral, maybe True Neutral), and you can't even PLAY that character correctly under a rule that forces you to be good-aligned.

There are plenty of ways to play Evil Rangers. Being Evil-aligned doesn't mean you torture squirrels or mindlessly start fires... it means you act with your own best interest at heart. The Ranger who attacks a foundling village because the villagers are poaching his animals is probably Evil-aligned. You can spin Evil in a thousand different directions... "the only reason I'm bothering with this stupid adventuring party is so I can grab the Amulet of Mielikki and bring it back with me to heal the Great Oak." That's Neutral Evil.

There is almost nothing positive involved in forcing players to shoehorn their characters into a stereotype. If you want to play a nancing Elvish Ranger who feeds birds and dual wields scimitars with a longbow slung over his back, nobody is stopping you from doing so. However, not everybody wants to play a carbon copy, and I don't think the presence of varied Ranger characters in the world should have anything to do with how you perceive your own character's role within the class.

The ONLY reason I support alignment restrictions for Paladins is because the D&D rules operate under the notion that healing is "good" and not "evil." For some reason, they assume that Evil divine spellcasters don't actually need or want to heal themselves... other than that, I have no problem with Paladins and Blackguards being members of the same base class.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Moronic

Postby Ragorn » Thu Feb 08, 2007 3:55 pm

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:Leave to RP to the player, you should know! :)

But let's force all Rangers to be Robin Hood?
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Thu Feb 08, 2007 4:13 pm

Ragorn wrote:Barbarians are characterized by a wild lifestyle, typically living off the plains or mountains.


Actually, that's what Rangers are isn't it?

Barbarians' somewhat rugged lifestyle is reflected in several ways within the class features... their ability to channel their rage into combat prowess,


What does anger have to do with being uncivilized? I get angry all the time, but I'm still a Computer Programmer rather than a Barbarian. Of course, I could have been raised by wolves then been rescued and learned how to program computers. Wouldn't I then be a Barbarian Programmer?

(If that makes as little sense as I think it might, I blame the antibiotics...)

their illiteracy, and their increased hit dice and more varied skill selection (compared to Fighters from the Big City). It has nothing to do with height/weight or any kind of physical distinction. If you want to play a Barbarian with 6 Strength, you CAN. You could be the scrawniest little Gnome in the village and still be a Barbarian (but don't get me angry... you wouldn't like me when I'm angry...).


How are you a Barbarian, one living in a primitive/savage state, if you're growing up in the city?

I think you're still thinking of Barbarians in terms of Toril Barbarians. Toril Barbarians are a race. D&D Barbarians are not.


Err... here you're just missing the point. We know that D&D "Barbarians" are not a race. That is what we are complaining about. Barbarians _should_ be a race. It's not even a Toril thing, it's a word thing. You don't _learn_ to be a member of a tribe who has never invented fire, you are born into it and learn everything else after that. It's not as if some guy who's never left his city can _learn_ to have an innate mistrust of science/magic because he's never encountered it before!
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm

Re: Moronic

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Thu Feb 08, 2007 4:25 pm

Ragorn wrote:But let's force all Rangers to be Robin Hood?


Where have I ever, at any point said that? I TRY not to put words in other people's mouths, please extend the same courtesy. Very few Rangers have I ever come across, here in Toril, that have ever role-played like Robin Hood. But people want to be able to play that class the way THEY want to, as opposed to playing it as it was meant to, or should, be played, not including individual role-playing styles. Hey, if you want to create a counterpart to the Ranger, like the Anti, I guess that's fine.

Ragorn wrote:Alignment restrictions in role playing games are bullshit in the first place. They're boring, and they force you to pigeonhole your character into some stupid movie stereotype.


Normally, yes I completely agree. BUT, characters should pick either Good, Neutral or Evil. Specially those that pray. If I do something evil, my god might get pissed and I start losing stuff, and viceversa for evils.

You yourself are in favor of the alignment restrictions on the Paladin/Anti. I've always thought there should only be one class, Paladin. White ansi = good, black ansi = evil. But they would be basically identical. The idea that antis can't heal is just an old left-over from Sojourn, unless I'm mistaken. And it is just retarded, I agree with you completely.

However, the next step in this "open" mentality, down the line, is to want to be an all around class. "I tank, I fight, I cast disintegration, and I full heal, because who says you couldn't do all those things?" "I want to be an evil mage but worship Mielikki, sure, that's fine, because it would "open" the character up..."

The more you break things apart, the more they fall apart.
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm

Re: Moronic

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Thu Feb 08, 2007 4:28 pm

Ragorn wrote:But let's force all Rangers to be Robin Hood?


Where have I ever, at any point said that? I TRY not to put words in other people's mouths, please extend the same courtesy. Very few Rangers have I ever come across, here in Toril, that have ever role-played like Robin Hood. But I guess for some, things really are just black and white. Ironic, I think.

But people want to be able to play the Ranger class, as well as a few others, the way THEY want to, as opposed to playing it as it was meant to, or should, be played, not including individual role-playing styles. Hey, if you want to create a counterpart to the Ranger, like the Anti, I guess that's fine. I just think I'm seeing more and more people confusing the roleplay element of a character, with actual skills and traits.

Ragorn wrote:Alignment restrictions in role playing games are bullshit in the first place. They're boring, and they force you to pigeonhole your character into some stupid movie stereotype.


Normally, yes I completely agree. BUT, characters should pick either Good, Neutral or Evil. Specially those that pray. If I do something evil, my god might get pissed and I start losing stuff, and viceversa for evils.

You yourself are in favor of the alignment restrictions on the Paladin/Anti. I've always thought there should only be one class, Paladin. White ansi = good, black ansi = evil. But they would be basically identical. The idea that antis can't heal is just an old left-over from Sojourn, unless I'm mistaken. And it is just retarded, I agree with you completely.

However, the next step in this "open" mentality, down the line, is to want to be an all around class. "I tank, I fight, I cast disintegration, and I full heal, because who says you couldn't do all those things?" "I want to be an evil mage but worship Mielikki, sure, that's fine, because it would "open" the character up..."

The more you break things apart, the more they fall apart.
Lilira
Sojourner
Posts: 1438
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:53 pm

Postby Lilira » Thu Feb 08, 2007 4:31 pm

Ragorn wrote:You could be the scrawniest little Gnome in the village and still be a Barbarian (but don't get me angry... you wouldn't like me when I'm angry...).


ROFLMAO!!!!!!

Ragorn wrote: You can spin Evil in a thousand different directions... "the only reason I'm bothering with this stupid adventuring party is so I can grab the Amulet of Mielikki and bring it back with me to heal the Great Oak." That's Neutral Evil.


You can spin ANY alignment any way. Technically Robin Hood could be construed as LG... He follows his OWN CODE (law) and does it for the good of the people. In my current tabletop game I'm playing a wilderness rogue/sorc atm who is LN. Why lawful? She has her own rules and she plays by them to the point where she's ready to throttle the LG monk who is constantly insisting they follow the laws of the civilized society even though they're in the middle of the woods surrounded by every fanged goblinoid type you can imagine and being hunted by elves. (Don't ask. *laugh* The elves in this world are NOT all sweetness and light.) The monk is quite willing to leave the elves tied up and vulnerable so that the beasties can come by for a buffet, but cringes from slitting their throats himself.

Ragorn wrote:There is almost nothing positive involved in forcing players to shoehorn their characters into a stereotype.


I heartily agree with this statement. No one ever really plays their align anyway, its mostly about staying neutral so holy/unholy word doesn't hurt.
~\o--Lilira Shadowlyre--o/~

You group-say 'my chars will carry the component on them if I can.'
Inama group-says 'hopefully they'll have some sort of volume discounts on ress items for people like you'
You group-say 'oh? Ya think? *giggle*'
Inama group-says 'they could at least implement frequent dier miles'

Suzalize group-says 'oh, eya's over weight i bet'
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Thu Feb 08, 2007 4:37 pm

Lilira wrote:
Ragorn wrote:You could be the scrawniest little Gnome in the village and still be a Barbarian (but don't get me angry... you wouldn't like me when I'm angry...).


ROFLMAO!!!!!!


Actually, that reminds me I forgot something.

Doesn't the Hulk really prove barbarian is a race? Bruce Banner is hardly uncivilized is he? In fact he's a scientist, that's what all his knowledge and training was in. It was a MUTATION that created the Hulk, not training. If the Hulk is a barbarian, then it's clearly not a class but an alteration of the genes of the base race... in other words: A Subrace!
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Lilira
Sojourner
Posts: 1438
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:53 pm

Postby Lilira » Thu Feb 08, 2007 4:43 pm

Sarvis wrote:
Lilira wrote:
Ragorn wrote:You could be the scrawniest little Gnome in the village and still be a Barbarian (but don't get me angry... you wouldn't like me when I'm angry...).


ROFLMAO!!!!!!


Actually, that reminds me I forgot something.

Doesn't the Hulk really prove barbarian is a race? Bruce Banner is hardly uncivilized is he? In fact he's a scientist, that's what all his knowledge and training was in. It was a MUTATION that created the Hulk, not training. If the Hulk is a barbarian, then it's clearly not a class but an alteration of the genes of the base race... in other words: A Subrace!


In other words we've gone from D&D to Champions now. *wink* (pulls up another screen to see if that RPG even exists anymore....)

Yeah. :P I'm kinda a female gamer geek. Prolly why I enjoy RP so much.

Actually the Hulk is more like a disease such as Lycanthropy. A change brought on by specific circumstances adding toughness, strength etc. to a NORMAL (if brilliant) person.
~\o--Lilira Shadowlyre--o/~

You group-say 'my chars will carry the component on them if I can.'
Inama group-says 'hopefully they'll have some sort of volume discounts on ress items for people like you'
You group-say 'oh? Ya think? *giggle*'
Inama group-says 'they could at least implement frequent dier miles'

Suzalize group-says 'oh, eya's over weight i bet'
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Thu Feb 08, 2007 5:15 pm

Ragorn wrote:
I think you're still thinking of Barbarians in terms of Toril Barbarians. Toril Barbarians are a race. D&D Barbarians are not.


Besides which, this is <b>Toril</b>MUD, not D&DMUD. :P I think you just settled the question for us Rags!




(I really should be working, but I can't concentrate when I'm this sick... *sigh*)
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Thu Feb 08, 2007 6:28 pm

SARVIS: I really should be working, but I can't concentrate when I'm this sick... *sigh*

Same here...worst cold ever.

And yes, I agree with your TorilMUD point very, very much.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Thu Feb 08, 2007 8:33 pm

Eilistraee wrote:You are channeling your lack of civilization into the barbarian class abilities. An increase in physical ability and stamina, rapid speed.


All classes gain an increase in physical ability and stamina, monks gain speed from their discipline. What's this got to do with growing up in a tribe without technology anyway?

Your separation from the 'higher functions' of logic and reason permit you to bypass the instinctive hesitation a more thinking person would experience before acting.


<b>Any</b> fighter does that.

You've become that much more attuned with your instincts, aware of that sixth sense, that you can act before you even know what you're reacting to (trap sense, flanking immunity).


Yeah, it makes so much sense to give that to people living in a tribe rather than a guy living on his own inthe woods... :roll: Sorry, Ranger bitterness there. Nothing against you, but that's something I'd give to a Ranger class. In fact, that's how the original Ranger class for TorilMUD was designed with the Awareness skill!

In essence, a barbarian-class is a character who listens to instinct over reason, and channels their raw emotion into physical enhancements from time to time, with the consequence that their rationing abilities suffer while they're in the grips of that extreme emotion.


So they eat lots of food when angry? :P

A class who channels raw emotion into physical prowess is normally considered a Berserker, isn't it?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:14 pm

Sarvis wrote:What does anger have to do with being uncivilized? I get angry all the time, but I'm still a Computer Programmer rather than a Barbarian. Of course, I could have been raised by wolves then been rescued and learned how to program computers. Wouldn't I then be a Barbarian Programmer?

No, you would be a Human Programmer. Why would your upbringing have anything to do with what race you are?

If you want to apply a realistic definition, a "race" is a collection of individuals who share a common genetic similarity. Race has nothing to do with upbringing, environment, or predisposition. Elves are Elves because they have pointy ears and live for hundreds of years... it has nothing to do with the fact that (most) Elves love of nature, have an affinity for magic, dress flamboyantly, etc.

In D&D terminology, the term "Barbarian" doesn't refer to a racial definition. There is no such thing as a Barbarian race. The term refers to a person who adopts a particular style of combat characterized by light/medium armor, fast movement, plenty of brawn, and (semi-controllable) frenzied rage. If you think it's stupid that they used the term barbarian to describe that concept rather than battlerager or mad foam fighter or woad raider or berserker, then I've got nothing else for you. That's the word they used, and that's what the word means.

How are you a Barbarian, one living in a primitive/savage state, if you're growing up in the city?

How are you a Druid, one living in a state of harmony with nature, if you're growing up in the city?

How are you a Paladin, a holy defender of your chosen faith, if you're growing up in a remote village without a temple?

How are you a Sorcerer, a potent magic user who taps into his innate, inborn magical talent, if your parents were not Sorcerers?

Answer: You tell me. If you want to roleplay a Barbarian who grew up in the city, go write a story to explain how and why you got there. If you're a Paladin of St. Cuthbert who lives in a backwater village and who only learned about St. Cuthbert by reading discarded religious tracts left by pilgrims, go write a story to explain it.

If you're an Elf, I can tell you why you're an Elf... your parents were Elves :P
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Eilistraee
Staff Member - Quests
Posts: 1097
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2003 7:20 pm

Postby Eilistraee » Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:20 pm

Put into game terms for you Sarvis, barbarians gain in strength and stamina (Rage gives bonus to STR and CON). All classes gain in them at a certain progression, the barbarian class, perhaps it is misnamed and should be called berserker, but the barbarian class is able to gain extra boosts from time to time based upon their experience.

Any fighter does not abandon their intellect to the same degree that a barbarian does. All fighters gravitate between offense and defense, with the desire to survive vying with the desire to win.

People living in a tribe must still survive in the wilderness, just as a ranger does. They have to be aware of natural hazards like thin ice, or any number of things that I, as a city bred programmer simply can't think of right now. As for how the original TorilMUD ranger class was designed with the awareness skill, this is captured by the fact that the ranger class gets more skill points than fighters and barbarians and that they are one of the FEW classes which benefit from having such survivalistic skills as spot and listen as an in class skill.

They probably do eat a lot of food whilst angry, however the proper wording would have been reasoning abilities, my apologies.

The important thing to note is that a character's CLASS defines how their inherent skills have been focused. A character who has grown up in a tribe on the tundra is not automatically a Barbarian class; they could have studied with a passing weapons master, or been apprenticed to the clan shaman, or even undertaken a trek to a nearby city and gained levels as a rogue or bard. Their background is roleplay; their class is the encapsulation(sp?) of their training. Which is why the concept of racially preferrred classes exists in D&D 3.5 - to reflect what is the societal norm for a race. It isn't required for a character to pursue that training, to assume that class.

To redirect to the purpose of the splinter thread, I do believe that a ranger, that being a wilderness specialist that is attuned to the creatures in such a way that they can modify the very mindset of natural creatures, does not have to be good. Their devotion to their chosen patch of wilderness could well lead them to annihilate intruders, for the simple offense of cutting down one too many trees. That's not a good act, but that IS the act of one who is trying to protect a region.
Eilistraee
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:27 pm

Ragorn wrote:In D&D terminology, the term "Barbarian" doesn't refer to a racial definition.


Except, as you said, for Toril. Which is the setting for this MUD. :P

If you think it's stupid that they used the term barbarian to describe that concept rather than battlerager or mad foam fighter or woad raider or berserker, then I've got nothing else for you. That's the word they used, and that's what the word means.


Yes, it was stupid for them to use that word. It doesn't make sense in any context other than the D&D fanboy's glossary.

Answer: You tell me. If you want to roleplay a Barbarian who grew up in the city, go write a story to explain how and why you got there.


What if you want to roleplay an Elf who grew up in the city? For me that question brings up stories of a person growing up, at the very least, outside their own culture.

Maybe that's the hang-up, barbarian is more of a culture than a race...


If you're a Paladin of St. Cuthbert who lives in a backwater village and who only learned about St. Cuthbert by reading discarded religious tracts left by pilgrims, go write a story to explain it.


Which makes a lot more sense than growing up in the city, but still somehow being wild and savage.

If you're an Elf, I can tell you why you're an Elf... your parents were Elves :P


In D&D, not necessarily. :P

Eilistraee wrote:Put into game terms for you Sarvis, barbarians gain in strength and stamina (Rage gives bonus to STR and CON). All classes gain in them at a certain progression, the barbarian class, perhaps it is misnamed and should be called berserker, but the barbarian class is able to gain extra boosts from time to time based upon their experience.


My point is exactly that it's misnamed. I understand what the "barbarian" class is, but I also understand what the actual word barbarian _means_ and the two are in conflict. Not only are they in conflict with normal English usage, but it creates conflict between the various flavors of D&D as Rags has pointed out. In Toril, barbarians ARE a race.

Besides which, if Barbarian is a class we can't have Barbie Shaman anymore...

People living in a tribe must still survive in the wilderness, just as a ranger does. They have to be aware of natural hazards like thin ice, or any number of things that I, as a city bred programmer simply can't think of right now. As for how the original TorilMUD ranger class was designed with the awareness skill, this is captured by the fact that the ranger class gets more skill points than fighters and barbarians and that they are one of the FEW classes which benefit from having such survivalistic skills as spot and listen as an in class skill.


I'd say there's a difference between judging if ice is safe to walk over and sensing if a tiger is stalking you for dinner.

The important thing to note is that a character's CLASS defines how their inherent skills have been focused. A character who has grown up in a tribe on the tundra is not automatically a Barbarian class;


Maybe not in D&D, but under any normal definition of the word they would be a barbarian.

they could have studied with a passing weapons master, or been apprenticed to the clan shaman, or even undertaken a trek to a nearby city and gained levels as a rogue or bard.


Which would make them a barbarian Fighter, barbarian Shaman or barbarian rogue or barbarian bard... right?

Oh no, I guess if you want to be a barbarian after growing up on the tundra you have to find someone who can train you to eschew civilization. :roll:

Their devotion to their chosen patch of wilderness could well lead them to annihilate intruders, for the simple offense of cutting down one too many trees. That's not a good act...


Why not?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Lilira
Sojourner
Posts: 1438
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:53 pm

Postby Lilira » Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:48 pm

Is it my imagination or are we arguing over NAMES now?

Good grief guys. This is actually hilarious as this is the RANGER ALIGNMENT thread... and some of you have been waiting HOW long for ranger info??

*laughs*

Lil
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:52 pm

Lilira wrote:Is it my imagination or are we arguing over NAMES now?

Good grief guys. This is actually hilarious as this is the RANGER ALIGNMENT thread... and some of you have been waiting HOW long for ranger info??

*laughs*

Lil


Yeah yeah, but Shevy and I decided to agree to disagree before she split the thread off. The barbarian argument was still going on, though...

Sheesh... I thought you all _wanted_ me to agree to disagree!


(I might work up some thoughts on it later though... )
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Lilira
Sojourner
Posts: 1438
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:53 pm

Postby Lilira » Thu Feb 08, 2007 11:04 pm

Sarvis wrote:
Lilira wrote:
Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:SARVIS: Yes, barbarians as a class is a completely idiotic concept. A gnome barbarian? Gimme a break...


In 3.5 the Barbarian is based on the lack of being "civilized", not a race. Because they aren't "civilized" they won't be literate. They're tough as hell, and some clans of dwarves, gnomes etc. can easily become barbaric if they've spent centuries fighting enemies instead of retaining their "civilized" natures. Even elves have their barbaric sides, though most people call them wild elves. *grin* They're more in touch with nature in that they are forced to live off the land.

Really, there's no reason you can't have ANY race as a barbarian... even drow. (Think Drizzt after he escaped Menzo and became the "Hunter".)


Yes, all that is true. It's still not really a _class_ though. Barbarian gnomes would be different than regular gnomes, like they'd be 4' tall and muscular instead of 3' tall and scrawny. If anything, they should be a subrace.

The thing is, it isn't a class. You said yourself being a barbarian is a lack of being civilized... you can't _learn_ uncivilization!


No but you can go from being civilized to being barbarian. (I know, I just scolded you lot, but I reread this and HAD to respond.) Look at people who have done just that. Barbarian doesn't mean you have to be vicious etc, it just means that you put survival over niceties.

BUT, I've already stated I agree with the whole D&D3.5 sucking with the whole making them a class. But that's a personal opinion. If I wasn't involved with 20 other things atm, I'm dig through and find my Faeraun books and see if the "Uthgardt" et all cultures are listed.

Back on topic...

Evil rangers are rare, but they enjoy nature's mercilessness and revel in it. Saying they HAVE to be good is silly just because nature has her many alignments, though we would call it true neutral. Lifting alignment restrictions allows there to be a yin for the yang etc, playing out nature's true neutrality.
~\o--Lilira Shadowlyre--o/~

You group-say 'my chars will carry the component on them if I can.'
Inama group-says 'hopefully they'll have some sort of volume discounts on ress items for people like you'
You group-say 'oh? Ya think? *giggle*'
Inama group-says 'they could at least implement frequent dier miles'

Suzalize group-says 'oh, eya's over weight i bet'
Tasan
Sojourner
Posts: 1710
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Fridley, Mn USA
Contact:

Postby Tasan » Thu Feb 08, 2007 11:31 pm

Sarvis wrote:Yes, it was stupid for them to use that word. It doesn't make sense in any context other than the D&D fanboy's glossary.


I don't understand your reasoning on this point. Barbarian has always referred to a less civilized individual. The various ways to use the word Barbaric speaks to the connotation meant when you call someone a Barbarian. I don't understand how this word is poorly used other than the fact that you want it to be. Barbarians really never should have been a race. They are more of a subrace created from a human template and subjected to conditions by which they evolved different traits.

Personally I believe Barbarians as a race are more akin to the American Indian tribes. American Indians were characterized as savages by the white settlers that arrived here. However, we wouldn't consider them to be "non-human" would we?

Personally I would see Barbarians more as a culture than a race or class, but I think a culture could be considered a class. Priests are defined by a culture devoted to the service of a deity. They practice different ways of life then a mage or a rogue, much the same as Romans and Goths had different ways of life.

Barbarians as a class could be characterized by brutal, instinctive and perhaps irrational action, as opposed to the fighter who may use instinctive moves, but doesn't lose sight of what's going on. Flesh these abilities out with non-combat behaviors that are steeped in the cultural beliefs of a "barbarian" and you can have a class.
Danahg tells you 'yeah, luckily i kept most of it in my mouth and nasal membranes, ugh'



Dlur group-says 'I have a dead horse that I'm dragging down the shaft with my 4 corpses. Anyone want to help me beat it?'



Calladuran: There are other games to play if you want to play with yourself.
User avatar
Shevarash
FORGER CODER
Posts: 2944
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 6:01 am

Postby Shevarash » Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:41 am

I think it's funny that there's more posts in here than in the Q&A thread. :)
Shevarash -- Code Forger of TorilMUD
Lilira
Sojourner
Posts: 1438
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:53 pm

Postby Lilira » Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:42 am

Shevarash wrote:I think it's funny that there's more posts in here than in the Q&A thread. :)


Nothing like a debate to add to the post totals!!!
~\o--Lilira Shadowlyre--o/~

You group-say 'my chars will carry the component on them if I can.'
Inama group-says 'hopefully they'll have some sort of volume discounts on ress items for people like you'
You group-say 'oh? Ya think? *giggle*'
Inama group-says 'they could at least implement frequent dier miles'

Suzalize group-says 'oh, eya's over weight i bet'
Vigis
Sojourner
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Postby Vigis » Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:44 am

Lilira wrote:
Shevarash wrote:I think it's funny that there's more posts in here than in the Q&A thread. :)


Nothing like a debate to add to the post totals!!!


Nothing like the word "Ranger" in a thread title to add to the post totals.

It's like saying using a duck call to lure them in closer and shoot them :P
Nerox tells you 'Good deal, the other tanks I have don't wanna do it, and since your my special suicidal tank i figure you don't mind one bit!'

Alurissi tells you 'aren't you susposed to get sick or something and not beable to make tia so i can go? :P'
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm

Barbarian

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Fri Feb 09, 2007 2:09 am

I was reading up on the new 3.0 barbarian "class". Apparently they cannot be of Lawful alignment. So basically, this is pretty much a totally different "barbarian" than the 2.0 barbarian, or the Toril barbarian. I.E., the one that appears in almost every FR novel or short story that I can think of. Barbarians of the North, Ten Towns, etc., are all the type of barbarian that I think Sarvis and I are talking about. Like Lilira said, I think the problem here is that they used the word 'Barbarian' instead of using the word 'barbaric' or 'wild'.

The Toril barbarian, the 2.0 barbarian, was the tall & strong cousin of the human. You know, like the fact that Half-elf was also a race. The barbarian was basically fashioned after the Viking/Scandinavian/Germanic tribesmen of the middle ages and beyond.

Last I checked, I don't remember there ever, ever, being a halfling "barbarian" in DND. There might have been berserker, savage, or wild gnomes, akin to the ones in viking/scandinavian/germanic folklore, but certainly not barbarian, as we see it. I'm pretty sure that if you ask your average person to draw you a "barbarian", he/she won't draw you a gnome.

It's just a matter of semantics really, I see that now.
Branthur
Sojourner
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Thief River Falls, MN

Re: Barbarian

Postby Branthur » Fri Feb 09, 2007 3:34 am

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:Last I checked, I don't remember there ever, ever, being a halfling "barbarian" in DND.


Darksun
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Barbarian

Postby Sarvis » Fri Feb 09, 2007 3:38 am

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:It's just a matter of semantics really, I see that now.


Err... you didn't know that when we started?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Fri Feb 09, 2007 3:40 am

Vigis wrote:It's like saying using a duck call to lure them in closer and shoot them :P


Of course, a Ranger would never do that. :P
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Fri Feb 09, 2007 5:43 am

Sarvis wrote:
Vigis wrote:It's like saying using a duck call to lure them in closer and shoot them :P


Of course, a Ranger would never do that. :P

Unless he was Evil.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Lilira
Sojourner
Posts: 1438
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:53 pm

Postby Lilira » Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:56 pm

Ragorn wrote:
Sarvis wrote:
Vigis wrote:It's like saying using a duck call to lure them in closer and shoot them :P


Of course, a Ranger would never do that. :P

Unless he was Evil.


Not sure even an evil one would do that. Good or evil they'd want to protect their little area... its how they go about doing it that should determine the alignment. But then that's stepping into the RP side of a ranger.
~\o--Lilira Shadowlyre--o/~

You group-say 'my chars will carry the component on them if I can.'
Inama group-says 'hopefully they'll have some sort of volume discounts on ress items for people like you'
You group-say 'oh? Ya think? *giggle*'
Inama group-says 'they could at least implement frequent dier miles'

Suzalize group-says 'oh, eya's over weight i bet'
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm

Re: Barbarian

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Fri Feb 09, 2007 4:06 pm

Sarvis wrote:
Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:It's just a matter of semantics really, I see that now.


Err... you didn't know that when we started?


No. I thought it was about people who had their own notion about what a Barbarian was.

Branthur wrote:Darksun


Sorry Branth, my mistake, good point. I should have said FR, which is what the mud was based on primarily.
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm

Ranger Alignment

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Fri Feb 09, 2007 4:08 pm

Back on topic, I don't think anyone replied to my statement about ranger alignment and their gods. If rangers can be "any alignment" what happens if they delineate from their alignment/god? Do they still lose their god-given spells/powers?

Return to “Toril 2.0 Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest