An idea for rangers

[DustMight]

Not that rangers need more nifty stuff - but some code I saw imped on another mud a long time ago had rangers that had the ability to mark a room and then using a command could judge how far they were from the mark.

>Mark
You take a bit of  time memorizing the location.
...
>Locate
You are about three leagues east and two leagues north of the place you memorized.

Or something like that.

Good or bad?

[FantasyWriter]

Very interesting.  I like it.
I would also think that "marking a room would give you an archery bonus to hit something in said room.
(since you have measured exactly how far away your mark is from you)

[Dar]

I'd love that. And to be honest, the code for it already exists. Just change things about a little bit.

[Lakota]

This has potential.

[FantasyWriter]

I'd love that. And to be honest, the code for it already exists. Just change things about a little bit.

Oooo... I didn't even think about that!

[Chronicle]

I had an idea for a Ranger as well. You ever watch Man VS Wild or Survivor man? Well any ranger-like person can look at the terrain and make some sort of makeshift shelter out of the natural existing obstacles or rock formations, etc. Putting some leaf-covered branches over a fallen tree trunk, piling up some sort of rocks near an overhang to block the wind, etc. I think the coded way it should work is each ranger should get the skill to make a shelter in the wild, and have the room's regen rate go up for it. Just a thought, you guys can put your own twist to it.

[FantasyWriter]

I am for anything that makes the world less static... I like seeing remains left lying around (when people use the arrange command to make them imformative as to what happned).

Seeing abandoned makeshift shelters would absolutely rock.
Make them either fade over time (like corpses) or last until the next reboot.

[Ammut]

It might be going a bit too far by telling the player exactly how many rooms away they are, but I think a general direction indicator would be better.

If, for example it said:

Code Select Expand

>Locate
You are southwest of the marked location.

Then, as you moved along and used the 'Locate' function again,

Code Select Expand

>Locate
You are south of the marked location.

[DustMight]

The only thing I hate about both these ideas (my own included) is that it gives rangers EVEN MORE stuff.

I'm also all for melding rangers and warriors together and getting rid of one or the other. Then we can use subclassing to figure out what the character is good at - but then, this is just me bsing.  Ain't worth much.

"The point is Moo, you know, like a cow's opinion - not worth much."
- Joey, from Friends.

[roughneck]

Rangers are super nifty as it is and OOC you know how far you are away from something.  Or should if you've been paying attention at all.

The new scan/listen stun-drain has made their frustrations outweigh their niftiness and versatility in my opinion and I doubt I'll play them any more, excepting delves.

But I do have two ideas for rangers that would put them back to the top of my list of favourite classes.

1) I said this in the other thread - drain stamina over stun for scan/listen/watch.

2) Drop dual wield and give them a good shield use as their class-necessary combat skill.  To me, dual wielding is a pretty specialized dueling style of combat that isn't well suited to hunting and after the 'defense nerf' leaves rangers very vulnerable because it's their only real option because their shield use skill has a low cap and doesn't branch to that very important skill all rangers covet so passionately.  It makes sense for someone who hasn't devoted their life to fighting and weapons styles to go with a shield, it's the most intuitive of all the styles and if you were fighting a bear would take a shield and spear over a couple of wood-splitting axes any day of the week.

[FantasyWriter]

2) Drop dual wield and give them a good shield use as their class-necessary combat skill.  To me, dual wielding is a pretty specialized dueling style of combat that isn't well suited to hunting and after the 'defense nerf' leaves rangers very vulnerable because it's their only real option because their shield use skill has a low cap and doesn't branch to that very important skill all rangers covet so passionately.  It makes sense for someone who hasn't devoted their life to fighting and weapons styles to go with a shield, it's the most intuitive of all the styles and if you were fighting a bear would take a shield and spear over a couple of wood-splitting axes any day of the week.

This is a great idea, IMO.

[Morrolan]

2) Drop dual wield and give them a good shield use as their class-necessary combat skill.  To me, dual wielding is a pretty specialized dueling style of combat that isn't well suited to hunting and after the 'defense nerf' leaves rangers very vulnerable because it's their only real option because their shield use skill has a low cap and doesn't branch to that very important skill all rangers covet so passionately.  It makes sense for someone who hasn't devoted their life to fighting and weapons styles to go with a shield, it's the most intuitive of all the styles and if you were fighting a bear would take a shield and spear over a couple of wood-splitting axes any day of the week.

I agree with this idea.  I once had a ranger for over a year who was killed by a common mob when he started trying to dual instead of shield.

Then again, I think 4/5 of my last characters were killed by one variation of this mob or another.  D'oh!

[My 2 sids]

The thing with duel wield v. shield use is that, according to the docs, these things reflect cultural location.  Southerners favor two weapons, Northerners favor shields. 

Now maybe if these skills (one or the other) were handed out after a PC chose starting location, I could see going from one skill to another.  But, I think both have to remain an option.

[DustMight]

I dunno. I apped a ranger/thug and got shield use.  So what's the problem?

Ohh. Low cap, I see the problem.

Just get rid of rangers, add the skills to warriors and be done with it.

[DustMight]

The thing with duel wield v. shield use is that, according to the docs, these things reflect cultural location.  Southerners favor two weapons, Northerners favor shields. 

Now maybe if these skills (one or the other) were handed out after a PC chose starting location, I could see going from one skill to another.  But, I think both have to remain an option.

You know - this is worthy of it's own thread.

First - no one (almost no one) abides by this cultural distinction of shield/non-shield....and no one really pays attention to the cultural docs regarding armor, weapons and fighting styles.

Why?
1. The weapons/armor docs are Tuluki biased - heavy weapons and armor DO NOT lend themselves to "dancing poetic movements" - it's a blatant attempt to make Tuluk more "artsy" and give them heavier weapons and armor.

2. 'nakis WOULD use shields when combating bugs and the like (as well as wear heavier armor)

3. The docs pretty much limit 'nakis (if you are playing by the docs) to two weapons, one shorter than the other, while allowing Tuluki players heavier weapons, more weapon choices, shields and heavier armor.

It's a silly doc and while I respect the powers at be for putting it all in place and making some attempt - it is an inarticulate one at best.

There is no culture (that I know of) that is without its arts and "sword dancing and masterful two-weapon styles should be the province of Allanak OR straight forward killing with simple tactics (as is the suggested province of 'naki folk in the docs) should allow for big-assed weapons and armor.

IMO, deadlly beauty, subtle and quick like a snake should be the way 'naki folks fight - but somehow 'nak has consistently gotten the short end of the stick in arts, fighting and everything else. (Except, thankfully, in city design).

Meh.  But then again, I'm a 'naki lover and biased.  I think I've played three characters in Tuluk (and rarely visit) because the city is silly (was better before the fall) the culture is over-orchestrated and it doesn't at all represent the mud that I came to play years and years ago. 

Man, we should ruin it again.  Huh.  Sounds like I have YACB (yet another character brewing).

/rant.

[FantasyWriter]

I have seen MANY people following these docs (cultural dual wield/shield use).  I have also been picked on before by using the wrong one with a couple of PCs.  But I have also always considered the doc as relating to WARRIORS people who are "fighters" and who are "trained" in weapons combat in their respective locations.  For the most part hunters are more reliant (on Earth and most long lived Zalanthan Rangers I know) on ranged weapons.

Hand to hand combat is remains for the most part sentient vs. sentient.

In the European/Middle Eastern history and weapons/armor research I have done (ALOT) for school, personal enjoyment, and for my favorite subguild RP [/armorcrafter plug], most old world hunter kept a sword on them but this was mostly to defend against raiders and the occasional wolf/gortok that snuck up on you while hunting.

The idea of a man running through a forest after a deer while dual wielding short battle axes makes me chuckle a little.
Anyway, my point is that I don't think that the cultural docs on how people "fight" should be that heavily reflected in people who have spent most of their life in the wild learning to take down animals.