Why do only rangers get to quit in wilderness?

[Xygax]

You frustratingly continue to argue against strawmen, FightClub, which either means you're trolling or you simply aren't Getting It.  We have chosen not to give EVERYONE the ability to quit out in the wilderness because it functions as a significant IC (and yes, coincidentally, OOC) advantage to being a ranger.

Alright, so here we are, saying that a delf, warrior, can't survive in the wilderness?  ...alright, lets consider this, an elf, who has survived their entire life in this specific zone, cannot outmanuever a ranger southlander in their own territory.  They can survive better than me, never having truely known the land, and because rangers are uber 1337 they get special quit skills, which are entirely ooc.

Yes, that is precisely what we're saying.  Rangers (human and otherwise) are better at surviving in the wilderness than warriors (even desert-elf warriors).  This is categorically the case: desert-elf warriors have spent their young lives focusing on hand-to-hand combat, NOT on finding difficult-to-locate food and water sources, shelter from storms, or safe places to hide from worms, scrabs, anakore, mekillots, etc., in the desert.

You all need to get off the meat train of believing quitting is ic, IT IS NOT, quitting is completely ooc, your character persist while you are gone, IT IS NOT, your characters fault you have to go take a dump, or walk the dog, or go to work -- why should he suffer?

No.  As has been said previously on this thread, quitting out in the desert is a very important IC ability.  It enables rangers to venture much further from cities than non-rangers by allowing them to "sit-out" storms offline (not suffering from dehydration or starvation, and not being attacked by baddies they cannot see).  That strikes me as a very IC benefit.  Furthermore, your character suffers in endless other ways when you're away from your keyboard, and we have no intention of fixing those either.  You will continue to age, time will roll away on your apartment rental, and other PCs that you knew and loved will die while you're offline (or AFK), and yet the game goes on without you, regardless of whether you've "quit" out or are sitting idle.

It has absolutely nothing to do with adeptness in the environment, it has to do with a person having to quit the game for ooc reasons, and needing transport immediatly.  No this isn't call for preplan your trips, only pick city characters, that's crap, we're placing ooc conditions in ic once more, and these people call themselves roleplayers?  Obviously we cannot make out the difference between ooc and ic, the most basic of things in rp, so I'm just going to let it end here.

We as the staff feel that the benefits with respect to game balance outweigh your (and by "you" in this context, I mean, you FightClub and the few people who are arguing this point) inability to plan your time online.  If you consider this a significant barrier to your play, then I invite you to find a less restrictive environment elsewhere.  Your tone on this thread has become increasingly belligerent, and you strayed from constructive feedback a long time ago.

There's not point in debating it really.  You all can shoot crap at me all day about survival statistics, all of that crap, a tribal warrior survives for 20 years in game, he navigates sand storms over and over, he shouldn't be killed of dehydration, and starvation, from idling through seven passing storms.  No, he'd wait for a storm to pass, and go get food and water.  But instead, since the warriors player cannot quit, he is forced to do so, hence killing all ic nature of this, and bringing ooc into game.

Yes.  There is no point in debating it.  This has been discussed dozens of times before and the staff position on the matter has never wavered.  If you can come up with a creative solution to the problem of suddenly needing to logout of the game for OOC reasons that doesn't equate to "let my warrior logout in the wilderness", I'd be interested in hearing it.  What I'm not interested in hearing is, "a tribal warrior... should not be killed by idling through seven passing storms" because it doesn't make sense -- in fact, it's downright laughable....  The ridiculous assumption that anyone but the hardiest of individuals should be able to "idle through" any Zalanthan storm isn't really even worth addressing.  Beyond that, rangers have any number of other survival skills (as a result of a life of hardship, study and training in the wilds).  Are you suggesting that a tribal warrior should be able to forage for food or water in the sands?  That's another ability we reserve solely for rangers.  As you suggesting that a tribal warrior should have the same ability at skinning game as a ranger?  Or sneaking up on it?  Or hiding from predators?  You question our roleplay in your remarks above, but are you even thinking about the differences between the life of a tribal warrior and the life of a human hunter?  I hope that if you do stop to think about it, you'll realize that they're bound to be drastically different ones.

Just as emotions shouldn't have an effect on how you play your character.  OOC aspects such as work, sickness, walking the dog, taking a dump, getting some food, should not either.  Then why do the majority of you insist it do?

As I said above, this is more an IC mechanic than it is an OOC restriction.  If you think that you might be interrupted by sickness, walking the dog, taking a dump, or getting some food, then don't leave the city walls.  Even tribal warriors are, in most cases, provided with safe sanctuaries from storms, in the form of tribal villages and outposts.  You should think of these provisions as a very good sign that living in the wilderness is not considered the norm for anyone but rangers.  This is a very viable/playable situation, and I am entirely comfortable with telling you (same you, again) that if you can't reliably control your bowels, you should probably play a city-bound merchant.

I propose all or nothing, give the ability to quit in the wilderness to everyone, or take it from everyone.  There is no ic justification for giving a person an ooc command.  You want to make it rp, make them able to camp anywhere in game, making a camp out of nearby materials, building shelter for a passing storm.  That's IC ranger's ability to survive, me hitting quit is OOC, it has no reflection on your ranger whatsoever.

Fortunately, it isn't an all-or-nothing choice.  Unless some HL/OL has a drastic change of heart, the system will remain as is:  wedged in the lovely greys of Zalanthas, and not conforming to any drastic all-or-nothing, black-or-white requirement.  

-- X

[FightClub]

I ready the entire thing Xygrax, and thanks for paying attention to -everything- I said.  Most of the people here, myself included spot pick, and pound.  It was nice to see you address everything.  I'll continue to search for a resolution, maybe one more befitting, and until then I pass the sceptre, gonna let someone else have their turn.  But just so you know.

I wasn't argueing that warriors should be able to pass through long term storms.  The arguement was solely that it should not have to wait through several passings of storms, where he would have taken the first chance, and left.  

Like here's a rough scenario of what happened, so that you might understand.

Warrior A is on a hunt, he's still in his territory, but the territory he chooses to hunt this day is particularly bad.  So he ventures in, clear day.  is hunting, travels into a new area...  well apparently this new area is engulfed in freak storms, which aren't happening top-side.  Well once warrior a is at the bottom, he cannot move up, because he cannot seem to find his way, even having a steady focal point and line of vision, he just bounces into walls.  SO -eventually- warrior a by chance, after waiting for several days, makes it to a cliff face, and bounces his way up to the surface, where -behold- it is beautiful, and skips back home merrily, and covered in twenty pounds of sand.

Warriors player however was suppost to be asleep after the first storm, as the planned hunt was suppost to be quick, and precise, Warrior A's player, couldn't fathom a storm brewing a room below in this region, as typically the bottom of a hill doesn't get pounded by storms that often, if the top of the hill is not.  So after waiting several hours disgruntled wishes he could have just logged out there, and picked up tommorow, rping logging off in nearby outpost, which is where Warrior A would've been after storm would've passed two hours after he logged off, and was in bed.

Maybe that clears it up a bit. We'll see, but yeah thanks again.

[mansa]

...Warrior A is on a hunt, he's still in his territory, but the territory he chooses to hunt this day is particularly bad...

And that is where you got it all wrong.  You got to understand this simple thing.

Warriors fight Humanoids.

Warriors do not fight beasts.  Warriors do not hunt.


Warriors have no clue how to skin a beast, and even the most expert warriors still have trouble with a simple skin job.  It's a waste of time and energy to ATTEMPT to skin a beast.  They chop off the heads of the scrabs and say, 'LOOK AT ME I SKINNED IT'.

[LauraMars]

Warriors have no clue how to skin a beast, and even the most expert warriors still have trouble with a simple skin job.  It's a waste of time and energy to ATTEMPT to skin a beast.  They chop off the heads of the scrabs and say, 'LOOK AT ME I SKINNED IT'.

Warriors get skin.  This suggests they obviously have some kind of clue.

[mansa]

Warriors have no clue how to skin a beast, and even the most expert warriors still have trouble with a simple skin job.  It's a waste of time and energy to ATTEMPT to skin a beast.  They chop off the heads of the scrabs and say, 'LOOK AT ME I SKINNED IT'.

Warriors get skin.  This suggests they obviously have some kind of clue.

Even the Most Expert Warriors STILL have Trouble with a SIMPLE SKIN JOB.

[Xygax]

You can avoid stumbling into "sudden" storm areas by using the weather command to check the room ahead of you before you proceed there.

-- X

[LauraMars]

Even the Most Expert Warriors STILL have Trouble with a SIMPLE SKIN JOB.

I know warriors who've skinned plenty of things just fine, without the benefit of a hunting subguild, so...yeah, I guess we have a difference of opinion here.

[Xygax]

Even the Most Expert Warriors STILL have Trouble with a SIMPLE SKIN JOB.

I know warriors who've skinned plenty of things just fine, without the benefit of a hunting subguild, so...yeah, I guess we have a difference of opinion here.

Mansa's opinion on this subject more closely matches the content of the guilds datafile (the one that sets skill caps, etc.).  Warriors have some token skinning ability, but really it's -nothing- like the ridiculous screen-spam a veteran ranger can make with a skinning knife.

-- X

[FightClub]

Even the Most Expert Warriors STILL have Trouble with a SIMPLE SKIN JOB.

I know warriors who've skinned plenty of things just fine, without the benefit of a hunting subguild, so...yeah, I guess we have a difference of opinion here.

Mansa's opinion on this subject more closely matches the content of the guilds datafile (the one that sets skill caps, etc.).  Warriors have some token skinning ability, but really it's -nothing- like the ridiculous screen-spam a veteran ranger can make with a skinning knife.

-- X

Off topic, but I'd like to see warriors doing ridiculous screen-spam with flying body parts. *nods*

[LauraMars]

Mansa's opinion on this subject more closely matches the content of the guilds datafile (the one that sets skill caps, etc.).

Yes, I realize a warrior's cap is low.  However, that doesn't mean they absolutely cannot do it for shit, as mansa says, or...let's see...

Warriors fight Humanoids.

Warriors do not fight beasts. Warriors do not hunt.

They do fight beasts, and they do hunt, if that's what they want to do.  They're quite good at killing whatever they put their mind to, it seems.  In my short time here I have known plenty of hunting warriors.  They can certainly kill animals, and (albiet crudely) skin them.  I was also under the impression that profession is not directly determined by guild, but I'll concede to the veterans here, and point us back on topic by saying that I think the warrior guild is nicely balanced how it is.

However, I think it would be nice if after some long years of crazy nomadic desert travelling a small navigation skill could be learned by anybody who earned the right.

[mansa]

However, I think it would be nice if after some long years of crazy nomadic desert travelling a small navigation skill could be learned by anybody who earned the right.

I've seen some very very strange things in my time with the game, and this could potentially happen, as can most anything in the game.

But, that's up to immortals to 'specialize' characters in that format.  The typical warrior guild is designed for Humanoid vs Humanoid combat.  If you want to primarily fight non-humanoids, you go with a Ranger.  That's just the way it is.  It's like deciding to be a pickpocket or a burglar.

[FightClub]

However, I think it would be nice if after some long years of crazy nomadic desert travelling a small navigation skill could be learned by anybody who earned the right.

I've seen some very very strange things in my time with the game, and this could potentially happen, as can most anything in the game.

But, that's up to immortals to 'specialize' characters in that format.  The typical warrior guild is designed for Humanoid vs Humanoid combat.  If you want to primarily fight non-humanoids, you go with a Ranger.  That's just the way it is.  It's like deciding to be a pickpocket or a burglar.

I contest, warriors are good for killing anything at close range.  Rangers distance.  They both can get the same job done, just get it done in different ways.

[Bestatte]

Perhaps a different approach to this discussion would help Fight Club. I'll take a stab at it.

In most games, the class you pick is the profession your character has, rather than just a bunch of skills clumped together. You pick the class because you want that character to "do" that class -as- a profession.

Arm is a bit different in its approach, but the basic premise is the same - only kinda-sorta in reverse.

First, you have to learn how Armageddon defines its roleplay, and its professions. Other than a gladiator, there really is no such thing as a warrior profession in Arm. A traditional real-world warrior would be the front-man in an army and generally wouldn't walk around the city patrolling. He'd be training for war, or fighting in a war, and not doing much else. In Arm, a warrior is a set of skills grouped for the *primary* purpose of being a combat-related character within the confines of a city or outpost. Like a House guard, or a templar's right-hand-man, or the city's police department (legionairres and Arm of the Dragon).

So - you decide what -kind- of character you want to play. What do you intend for his profession, his career? And then you pick the set of skills that most closely match what you want your character to do. Then you pick a subset (subclass) to either back up your primary choice or augment it.

If you want to "be" a warrior, that means you want your character to get in on a city clan, and not spend much time at all outside the city, except during active war when you might be needed to defend the gates and walls.

If you want to "be" a ranger, that means you want your character to spend most of its time outside the city, rarely venturing inside, knowing his own territory like the back of his hand and knowing -how- to identify aspects of other territories as well.

Desert elfs only get the outdoor quit-anywhere thing if they pick the ranger class, even though they've spent their entire lives outside cities. Why -would- a "merchant class" desert elf get a quit-anywhere? The merchant class desert elf would *usually* run only with the company of rangers in his tribe, who would escort him to and from trading posts. Otherwise he'd spend the bulk of his time in the trading posts, or in his encampment, or in "communal areas" of various territories, making trade and making crafts. He wouldn't need a quit-anywhere skill latched onto his character code because the need to quit anywhere would only come up once in awhile - and "wish all I gotta log" would usually suffice for that.

The same goes for city-based characters. A city-based character's primary function involves being IN the city, not out of it. If anything, you should be arguing for a "city quit" tag on city-based characters, that let them quit out in more parts of city-coded areas (like along that long-ass road leading from the north side to the south side of Tuluk). ICly, city characters have homes they live in, on city streets, and it would make sense for them to emote walking up to one of those virtual houses and opening the door, then typing "quit." A desert-dweller would not have that luxury within a city.

It would make much more sense to petition for more city quit-spots than it does for city-dwellers and non-rangerly desert-dwellers to have more quit-spots in the desert.

[Nao]

I think the southern hunters would have learned a set of skills that is more accurately reflected by picking warrior as a class from the start than picking ranger. In the north, it would be the other way around. Why?

Northern Hunter
:arrow: Archery:
Northern hunters would depend heavily on archery (even if this isn't always refelcted by player characters in game). Wood and all materials you need for arrows are easily available, as well as cheap arrows and bows if you don't make those yourself. Arrows would also damage a pelt far less than any other weapon used (except maybe for bludgeoning) and can be used from a safe distance without getting yourself in too much danger.
Rangers get archery right from the start and can also kick major ass with a bow, much moreso than warriors - so that's a plus for rangers.

:arrow: Running Critters:
In the north, you've got mostly relatively harmless (compared to the southern ones) critters that depend on running to get away. Sure, there's larger ones a bit further out - but why bother with those if the far easier-to-kill ones give you less danger, are closer to the city and get you an equal or greater profit?
Well, the running critters - those are far easier to hunt if you depend on your bow (ranger speciality, see above) or your ability to sneak up to them quietly (another ranger speciality) to kill them than chasing them down until they can't run anymore, for creatures whose ability to survive depends solely on running away as fast as they can.
Another ranger ability, tracking, is also very useful if you can't find your prey or if you lose sight of it for whatever reason.

:arrow: Furry and small critters.
Hunting in the north involves pelts, and a lot of those. Skinning an animal is hard - you need to know where exactly to place your starting cuts, might easily slip and cut through the pelt and you need to find a balance between cutting a hide that's too thick (thus cutting off parts that you don't want to cut off) or too thin.
There's also soem smaller animals around that would be harder to cut apart since you need to work more precise. Try getting a pelt and a steak off a ra, even if that rat is the size of a small dog (try doing the same with your dog for that matter...  :shock: ).
Ranger again for the skinning ability.


Southern hunting:

:arrow: NASTY beasts.
A southern hutner would have to be much better concerning pure fighting ability than a northern one to not get eaten once he's outside. Whatever you are hunting is probably nasty enough already - but there's always soemthing bigger luring somewhere else - scrabs, terantula, mekillots, beetles, even gith - the ability to fight well against humanoids would come in handy there, and someone that's not already very experienced at fighting will (and does) have a hard time hunting around there.

:arrow: Chitinous creatures
Most of the huntable stuff in the south is insectoid - scrabs, mostly, maybe something larger when you're feeling lucky. You chop the head and legs off, cut off a few chunks of meat and maybe get the shell - which has a definite shape already, you start at the edghes and can't cut through it. I can see this at being easier than cutting off a thin, easily damaged pelt - that would explain the lesser skinning ability if you play a warrior in the south and not a ranger.

:arrow: Aggressive creatures
You don't need to sneak up to anything but jozhals down there and since the salt flats or just dunes don't provide cover like the grasslands might, it would be near impossible anyways.
Sneaking would be low-priority inthe south for other reasons, too - the critters are likely to find you before you find them... Same goes for hunting, the critters don't run away, they try to eat you. So there's no real need for hunt or sneak.


:arrow: No archery
No wood, arrows and bows are expensive as hell and whatever you're trying to hit might eat you before you even got your bow out... A hunter isn't very likely to learn archery at all.

:arrow: the landscape
It's pretty flat and doesn't provide a lot of shelter that would make ranger quit look sensible. There also is no opportunity to forage for food other than stealing it from the fields (or was there a place near the city that's not a field, I forgot, if there is ignore this...) which would get you in trouble with the guards. Scrabs live realtively close to the city so you're also less likely to spend a night or several outside (ranger quit) than when you go off to one end of the grasslands or all the way to the tablelands in the north.

So in the south, you wouldn't really need all those ranger skills, but need someone that fights well for hunting - so that's what I think the hunters down there would be best at (your learn what you need in whatever environment you're doing the job), so sometimes picking warrior abilities might be a better match than picking ranger for a southern character.

The only problem I see with this are the sandstorms - the south is really stormy and as a warrior, you wouldn't be able to deal with those - but you probably just wouldn't go out in bad weather anyways.

Has anyone thought of that typical fantasy-stereotype of the heroic warrior slaying the dragon? Even if the stereotype doesn't really fit into zalanthas that well.
also, the thing about warriors being only good at fighting humanoids  isn't reflected by the code, so if a warrior skillset fits my hunter concept better than ranger skills I'll pick that one.

[rishenko]

Warriors have some token skinning ability, but really it's -nothing- like the ridiculous screen-spam a veteran ranger can make with a skinning knife.

-- X

Out in that one area, six bodies, two bags, one skinning knife - good times.

Anyways, going to what Nao said, I can see where you are coming from, but I disagree.

The need for a southern ranger would be even greater than that of the north.  Having a working knowledge of general beast locations, the ability to lead a group through massive storms, to scout ahead for a hunting party, and to know how to take apart bodies that are nothing more than walking slabs of armor just begs for a ranger.  You also have to consider the need to be able to scour for food in far off locations when things are looking grim, how to patch up hunting party members when a swarm of spiders hits and how to have a sharp eye out for those hidden buggers waiting to slay you for a quick fix.

The main difference between north and south to me is that the south is deadly enough to require not -only- a ranger, but one, if not two, warriors working together as a team to make any hunting trip worthwhile (unless we're talking about a truly badass ranger here).  So while the south might need the brute strength of a meat head to hack down the beetles and silt flyers, the ranger's wilderness prowess, perceptive abilities and general survival tools are just as necessary.

[Inky (unlogged)]

Xygax Said

We as the staff feel that the benefits with respect to game balance outweigh your (and by "you" in this context, I mean, you FightClub and the few people who are arguing this point) inability to plan your time online. If you consider this a significant barrier to your play, then I invite you to find a less restrictive environment elsewhere.

Not to disrespect the immortals or the one whos said this. Or even to challenge the monstrous and frightening bureaucracy that makes this game work so well. But I have issues with what Xygax said.

Even if wilderness quit is given only to rangers for balanced reasons, it is still difficult to players who like to play city-based character and leave the city. To suggest that because some such players are unable to spend the time required to overcome the difficulty of such roles shouldn't even play them, (I'm assuming that xygax meant less time intensive roles when he says "less restrictive enviroment") is discouraging not to just the players of such roles, but to the players that don't have alot of time to spend on the game.

As someone that might be able to put in three hours a week (at this point) I am restricted to a number rolee. These include nobles, leadership roles, roles that are central to large plots etc. To limit this even further is even more upsetting even if based on the pretense of 'balance'.

If I had five hours a day to play this game, it wouldn't be an issue. However, it gets under my skin when someone suggests that I 'should go somewhere else' under the pretense time management.[/b]

[Medena]

To limit this even further is even more upsetting even if based on the pretense of 'balance'.

If I had five hours a day to play this game, it wouldn't be an issue. However, it gets under my skin when someone suggests that I 'should go somewhere else' under the pretense time management.[/b]

I don't see any pretense.  It's pretty simple and straight forward. If you know you only have an hour to play, you don't set out for a distant locale that takes an IG day to travel to. Instead, you travel for a bit, enjoy the sights, snag a bit of wood or small game, then by early afternoon you turn around and head back home.  That is what is meant by time management.

Are you wanting your city dweller to be able to head out on a camping trip?  Because if you are, this really isn't too realistic.

[Tlaloc]

Even if wilderness quit is given only to rangers for balanced reasons, it is still difficult to players who like to play city-based character and leave the city.

This is by design. Zalanthas is a harsh world, and if you have a city-based character (or even a non-ranger), they will naturally have difficulty leaving the city. I don't think we're suggesting you not play a city-based character who leaves the city. However, many people, staff included, have played many non-ranger characters and overcome the difficulties.

Yes. Sometimes you get stuck in a sandstorm. Yes, sometimes it sucks. But yes, that is the choice you make when you play a non-ranger, and head out into the wilds.

[jmordetsky]

Even if wilderness quit is given only to rangers for balanced reasons, it is still difficult to players who like to play city-based character and leave the city.

This is by design. Zalanthas is a harsh world, and if you have a city-based character (or even a non-ranger), they will naturally have difficulty leaving the city. I don't think we're suggesting you not play a city-based character who leaves the city. However, many people, staff included, have played many non-ranger characters and overcome the difficulties.

Yes. Sometimes you get stuck in a sandstorm. Yes, sometimes it sucks. But yes, that is the choice you make when you play a non-ranger, and head out into the wilds.

I think we probably lose players because of it. I think if we thought about it we could come up with something that would reflect how hard it is to survive out there but still let people leave the game if they needed to.

[Omen]

How about skill "make camp".
I figure, alright, rangers spend all their time outside, therefore giving them the ability to camp outside if necessary. Say, a warrior spends so-so amount of time out there, growing accustomed to the ways of the outdoors (a modest amount of time that is, not something to be easily acquired) and would be capable of branching such an ability(the ability would range class from class, giving the realism of ability to stay outdoors, aswell). In all realism, and outdoorsman can make it in the wild IRL without anything, but an untrained person cannot, whats to make an untrained person capable of such a feat, spending time outdoors.. thats just my opinion.

[jmordetsky]

Just to emphasize why I think this should be opened up to non-rangers, is for example, I just died and I was trying to decide what to play.

My last 3 chars have been naki city dwellers so I'm ready for change and I thought about possibly venturing out doors again.

However, I don't really want to play a combat hunter guy who will one day have access to archery and poisons. I'd like to play a travelling merchant who in all likely hood isn't rich enough to hire a byn escort.
Now, given enough time I know I could get a merchant from Nak to Tuluk and back, it would be tough, but I've been playing a while and that sort of thing is the challenge that makes me smile.

But I'm a grown up and a professional and I'm not going to risk having to sit at my computer for a day and a half while I wait for a storm to blow over.

So, my travelling merchant will be a ranger, it will be easy, and it will suck.

Well, it won't suck, but it would be much cooler if I could be a merchant caravan guide and in the odd event I need to quit out do so, with some horrible penalty.

Plus, I don't want to play a ranger with a starting offense of whatever, and all sorts of weapons skills. I want to haggle over goods and buy in the north and sell in the south.

Am I the only one who thinks of these types of characters?

[Packersfan]

Good idea everybody (including some staff members) let's encourage people to stop playing the game.

If you are adequately prepared to camp in the wilds, if you have received adequate training to camp in the wilds, if you are comfertable camping in the wilds, then why can't you camp (quit) in the wilds? Oh wait I know, there is a massive ooc distinction between a ranger and other classes. A Ranger should be able to do it right away, a Ranger should be able to do it "better" than others, and a Ranger is going to be able to do it in many scenerios. However, if you are going to sit there and tell me that a character that is not a Ranger can not eventually learn how to set up some sad excuse for a shelter in a very hospitable part of the Grey then I don't know what to tell you except DIRRRRRRRRR.

[Marauder Moe]

Plus, I don't want to play a ranger with a starting offense of whatever, and all sorts of weapons skills. I want to haggle over goods and buy in the north and sell in the south.

Ranger/Con Artist?

[jmordetsky]

Plus, I don't want to play a ranger with a starting offense of whatever, and all sorts of weapons skills. I want to haggle over goods and buy in the north and sell in the south.

Ranger/Con Artist?

Subguilds are nice. But, it's like a warrior thief. You are still a tank, but you can sort of steal. You're just shit at it.

[Grey Area]

I suppose you could try letting characters quit out in the wilderness if they're with a ranger. Kinda like how groups led by rangers don't get lost in sandstorms.