C-elf rangers?

[Sinna]

You know, this problem would be solved with a CLASSLESS system.
Just saying.   

[Sephiroto]

I like Synthesis' idea, but I have one problem with it.  The term "ranger" implies a wilderness aspect.  A guild that has the same skills as a ranger but with the city-subset in place of wilderness is absolutely cool.   I think we should give it a different name though.  Rogue is close to what I'm thinking, but a city-ranger mix would still lack some traditional "rogue" skills off the bat.

[Qzzrbl]

You know, this problem would be solved with a CLASSLESS system.
Just saying.   

Try not to derail my thread too much pls. x]

[Jingo]

Four rogue classes? Heh.

Though I guess one of them would deserve to start with scan.

Do burglars? I forget.

[jmordetsky]

All I'm saying is if you're going to stick a byn elf with no ride at least let him quit when he wants to.

lol +1

[hyzhenhok]

All I'm saying is if you're going to stick a byn elf with no ride at least let him quit when he wants to.


Edit: I just disagree where this is taking the game. I disagree with staff on this, and find their reasoning to go against the spirit of a roleplaying game.

I'm confused. Nothing has changed, so this is "taking the game" exactly where it's been this whole time.

Besides, just because you're playing a roleplaying game and want to play a role in a certain way doesn't mean it should be viable. It doesn't mean it should be viable. If you want to play an exception to the rule, fine; just don't expect the game world to bend over backwards to accommodate that for you.

Have you considered that it sucks to be an elf in the Byn for a reason? We shouldn't make the Byn elf role more viable than it should realistically be according to the documentation just because someone wants to play the role but thinks silly things like Elven racial roleplay and Byn clan policy are getting in the way of their precious fun.

Roleplaying isn't about doing whatever the fuck you want.

[FantasyWriter]

App a breed ranger/thief or some such who's grandmother was raped by a human (75% elf/25% human).
Prioritize stats to lean more towards the elf end of the spectrum. Select elf as your appeared race.

Done.  No code change needed.


PS- you still shouldn't ride mounts since he was raised elven.

[Synthesis]

App a breed ranger/thief or some such who's grandmother was raped by a human (75% elf/25% human).
Prioritize stats to lean more towards the elf end of the spectrum. Select elf as your appeared race.

Done.  No code change needed.


PS- you still shouldn't ride mounts since he was raised elven.

Well, no, it's not done.

This character would still lose stamina like a human when running in the city.  This character would start with a very low allundean skill.  This character would start without the haggle skill.  This character would not be able to keep up with any real elves he tried to run with.  Certain racist NPCs in certain areas of the game would instantly know he wasn't an elf and would do mean things to him.  This character (presumably) could still enter the Trader's Inn.

In short, he wouldn't be an elf.

The fix is really quite simple:  let city-elves pick the ranger skillset.  It's a versatile skillset that is equally suited to city applications as to desert applications.

If you want to get more complicated, change the dual-version skills to the city versions when combined with the city-elf race.

As I said earlier, there are only three skills in the ranger skill tree that city-elves could not possibly ever learn or find useful.  The desert_quit option is the only perk that rangers get that maybe would be a little weird, but certainly no weirder than city-elf merchants starting with pilot, and if desert_quit works in the sewers and/or whatever may or may not be left of UnderTuluk, it would make perfect sense, anyway.

[Saellyn]

All I'm saying is if you're going to stick a byn elf with no ride at least let him quit when he wants to.


Edit: I just disagree where this is taking the game. I disagree with staff on this, and find their reasoning to go against the spirit of a roleplaying game.

I'm confused. Nothing has changed, so this is "taking the game" exactly where it's been this whole time.

Besides, just because you're playing a roleplaying game and want to play a role in a certain way doesn't mean it should be viable. It doesn't mean it should be viable. If you want to play an exception to the rule, fine; just don't expect the game world to bend over backwards to accommodate that for you.

Have you considered that it sucks to be an elf in the Byn for a reason? We shouldn't make the Byn elf role more viable than it should realistically be according to the documentation just because someone wants to play the role but thinks silly things like Elven racial roleplay and Byn clan policy are getting in the way of their precious fun.

Roleplaying isn't about doing whatever the fuck you want.

Wanna bet (;?

[hyzhenhok]

All I'm saying is if you're going to stick a byn elf with no ride at least let him quit when he wants to.


Edit: I just disagree where this is taking the game. I disagree with staff on this, and find their reasoning to go against the spirit of a roleplaying game.

I'm confused. Nothing has changed, so this is "taking the game" exactly where it's been this whole time.

Besides, just because you're playing a roleplaying game and want to play a role in a certain way doesn't mean it should be viable. It doesn't mean it should be viable. If you want to play an exception to the rule, fine; just don't expect the game world to bend over backwards to accommodate that for you.

Have you considered that it sucks to be an elf in the Byn for a reason? We shouldn't make the Byn elf role more viable than it should realistically be according to the documentation just because someone wants to play the role but thinks silly things like Elven racial roleplay and Byn clan policy are getting in the way of their precious fun.

Roleplaying isn't about doing whatever the fuck you want.

Wanna bet (;?

Yes.

I would like to roleplay a really sweet mullish sorcerer-psionicist who spends his time meddling in other peoples' affairs, showing up dramatically for the deus ex machina moment when our heroic thief has been captured by a templar, or to protect a waylaid damsel from a horde of gith or a rioting crowd (obviously he would be powerful enough to act in the city states with impunity; he just doesn't have his own city-state because he's noble like that). I'm sure I could roleplay this character realistically, give him a real personality and make him really cool. He really would add to the game world.

He would just add to the game world in entirely the wrong way, and thus wouldn't be allowed. As much as I would love to play this tricked out concept, complaints that the coded game world is stifling my creativity would not be entertained.

[RogueGunslinger]

The problem with your argument is that you're saying just because an elf is using a certain guild he's going to play a certain way. I find that to be so incredibly against the spirit of roleplaying it's ridiculous. The player is going to play the character how he wants. Regardless of guild choice. I don't play all my warriors to be Gage Gritshaw's. I don't play all my rangers as desert-wayward rugged badasses. And if you are playing like that, then ... why? It's so limiting.

A roleplaying game is about being a character, the skills we get in game shouldn't affect that character.

[jmordetsky]

The problem with your argument is that you're saying just because an elf is using a certain guild he's going to play a certain way. I find that to be so incredibly against the spirit of roleplaying it's ridiculous. The player is going to play the character how he wants. Regardless of guild choice. I don't play all my warriors to be Gage Gritshaw's. I don't play all my rangers as desert-wayward rugged badasses. And if you are playing like that, then ... why? It's so limiting.

A roleplaying game is about being a character, the skills we get in game shouldn't affect that character.

Agree again. Also - we needn't adhere to everything that's in the docs *just* because it's in the docs. Questioning is good.

[brytta.leofa]

Agree again. Also - we needn't adhere to everything that's in the docs *just* because it's in the docs. Questioning is good.

(Pedantically: yes, we must adhere to everything that's in the docs just because it's in the docs, but questioning the docs in hope of revising them is perfectly good.)

[hyzhenhok]

The problem with your argument is that you're saying just because an elf is using a certain guild he's going to play a certain way. I find that to be so incredibly against the spirit of roleplaying it's ridiculous. The player is going to play the character how he wants. Regardless of guild choice. I don't play all my warriors to be Gage Gritshaw's. I don't play all my rangers as desert-wayward rugged badasses. And if you are playing like that, then ... why? It's so limiting.

A roleplaying game is about being a character, the skills we get in game shouldn't affect that character.

Why are you accusing me of something I never even alluded to?

I never argued you have to play a guild a specific way. I argued that it is not the job of the code to facilitate players who wish to break the mold, play the exception, go against the documentation, etc. It is fully possible for you to do so despite the current coded limitations that are in place.

If you think that the bar against elven rangers impinges on your creative leeway, then you are the one who has pidgeonholed the guilds. If the guild does not make the character, then the character does not need the guild. The only way I could see your point is if your concept absolutely demands the ranger skillset, in which case you can make a special application. Otherwise, you should be able to find a way to make your concept work without the ranger guild.

Otherwise, I see such blocks as things that boost creativity. You look at the reality of the game world, see "oh, this is not a viable thing...but what about this?" and then you go out and do something awesome. You put a twist on it. You find a way within the confines of the world we're playing in to do what you want to do, without simply breaking down the documented blocks because they "stifle your creativity." This contributes to a richer world.

[spawnloser]

You're limiting your discussion and denying parallel discussions?  Good job.  I stopped reading after X-D pointing out that if c.elves are allowed to take ranger, it follows that d.elves should be allowed access to the guild choices that they are denied.  If the logic for one is valid, the logic for the other is valid.  If c.elves are given ranger without d.elves being given the city sneak guilds, I would be very upset, actually.  If c.elves are given ranger and d.elves are given access to the city sneak guilds... the world is going to get STUPID dangerous really quick.  I don't think you understand how scary a d.elf assassin would be.  D.elf rangers are bad enough when played by an experienced player.

[Lizzie]

I would totally love it if there was a "stupid dangerous" d-elf assassin. Make it a higher karma requirement, and even more, make it take up both guild and subguild. So if you pick desert elf, and assassin as your guild, you don't get a subguild. But you'd get everything that comes with desert elf, and everything that comes with assassin.

I'd say require the same karma as a krathi.

I'd love that. I'd play it, AND I'd get a total rush being pursued by it, if I was its victim. SO much more interesting than random raptor #7.

[Qzzrbl]

You're limiting your discussion and denying parallel discussions?  Good job.  I stopped reading after X-D pointing out that if c.elves are allowed to take ranger, it follows that d.elves should be allowed access to the guild choices that they are denied.  If the logic for one is valid, the logic for the other is valid.  If c.elves are given ranger without d.elves being given the city sneak guilds, I would be very upset, actually.  If c.elves are given ranger and d.elves are given access to the city sneak guilds... the world is going to get STUPID dangerous really quick.  I don't think you understand how scary a d.elf assassin would be.  D.elf rangers are bad enough when played by an experienced player.

Yes, I'm trying to limit discussion and  parallel discussions in my thread.

If you want to talk about D-elf assassins, make another thread about it-- don't discuss it in here. I didn't make this thread to talk about D-elves and sneaky guilds, I made it to talk about elves and rangers.

And if C-elves were ever eventually allowed to make rangers, that wouldn't mean the same would have to be done with D-elves and sneaky guilds.

D-elves are a whole 'nother creature-- and karma-required at that, they've got their own little set of rules because of that.

If I didn't deny discussion on the subject of D-elves, this thread would derail into, "Well why do you think C-elves should get the ranger guild, but not D-elves assassins?!?!!"

D-elves get way more perks than C-elves-- that's why they're a karma-required race. And that's why they're not allowed to have city sneaky guilds. Because it's pretty much in the D-elf handguide that D-elves don't spend any more time in the city than they need to. D-elves don't go into cities often, at all, because that's how they're supposed to be played. Not to mention they'd be ridiculously powerful.

C-elves, on the other hand, can go out into the wastes if they so chose to do so, and many have and still do, using guild/subguild combinations to make a watered-down pseudo-ranger.

My suggestion of allowing c-elves to become rangers wouldn't make them be able to do any more or less than they do already. They wouldn't be any more dangerous than your average assassin/hunter c-elf, and all that topped off with no desert-run ability, and unable to ride mounts, they'd be pretty much city-bound anyhow.

-Alot- of skills that come with the ranger guild make sense in a strictly city-bound setting. Bandaging,  poisoning, listen, scan, sneaking, etc., etc., etc.

[Shalooonsh]

When a poster creates a thread with a specific topic (like this one) the OP usually desires the resulting discussion to be on-topic.  Because that's what the thread was started for.

Qzzrbl has absolute right to request that the thread stays on topic, Spawnloser.  Please respect his desires and keep this thread on topic.

I will now walk away from this discussion without giving any input as to my views on the topic.



Ha.  Ha ha.  Ha ha ha.

[X-D]

My suggestion of allowing c-elves to become rangers wouldn't make them be able to do any more or less than they do already. They wouldn't be any more dangerous than your average assassin/hunter c-elf, and all that topped off with no desert-run ability, and unable to ride mounts, they'd be pretty much city-bound anyhow.

You are so very very VERY wrong on that point. (hence Shals laughter by the way)

Without getting into code specifics. A celf ranger would be the top of the food chain in the wilderness assuming the player knew anything at all,

[spawnloser]

I understand his desire, Looon, but I would maintain that the two discussions are inextricably linked and requesting them to be separated is futile.  Quite a few people would feel the need to post the same thing in both threads because they/we maintain that they are the same argument/discussion.  I/we think that the request to have them be separate is silly.

[Delstro]

I agree with spawnloser. I believe these arguements are one and the same. You cannot use the arguement that you should play the character, not the guild and then turn around and say that the guild is too powerful.

I could easily say that any player can make the ranger guild the most dangerous thing. I have known a lot more dangerous rangers than I have known dangerous assassin guilds.

I am in favor of both guilds being given the the guilds. I am in favor of the play the character and not the guild. I am also in favor of giving C-elves massive negatives to wilderness hide and sneak and the massive negatives to a D-Elf city sneak and hide.

[solera]

I still think a c-elf should have the option of making a home in the city wilderness.

[Qzzrbl]

My suggestion of allowing c-elves to become rangers wouldn't make them be able to do any more or less than they do already. They wouldn't be any more dangerous than your average assassin/hunter c-elf, and all that topped off with no desert-run ability, and unable to ride mounts, they'd be pretty much city-bound anyhow.

You are so very very VERY wrong on that point. (hence Shals laughter by the way)

Without getting into code specifics. A celf ranger would be the top of the food chain in the wilderness assuming the player knew anything at all,

Assuming the player knew anything at all.... Hm.... Lemme think on that.

Going over the elf docs, here's what I can gather as far as positive racial abilities and the like go.

They're physically weaker than most races. Their agility is better than a human's. The docs say that they live by their quick fingers, and go on to say that they have "abilities" to compensate for their drawbacks.

Okay.

So they're not as strong as humans or dwarves.
They're a bit faster than half-elves.
And they have an ability or two which aren't terribly hard to figure out, and would likely have very little bearing on their badassery in the wastes.

Now let's go over their drawbacks-- one in particular is a doozy.

They have to do everything on -foot-.

Have you ever seen a ranger IG (besides D-elves) that have never used a mount in the entirety of their character's lives?

I know I sure haven't, and I'd imagine those that would ever attempt to make a desert-dwelling badass without a ride of any sort would not last very long at all.

Let's recap here....

Rangers of every other race (spare Desert Elves): Can ride about the wastes willy-nilly and destroy stuff with trample.

City Elf rangers: Have to hoof around on foot for everything, rest frequently, can't use trample, low strength, would be at a disadvantage when facing a pack of raptors or the mounted raider.

Now just for shits and giggles....

City Elf assassin: Have to hoof around on foot for everything, rest frequently, can't use trample, low strength, would be at a disadvantage when facing a pack of raptors or the mounted raider....

Maybe I'm missing something, I'm still learning bits and pieces about the game every day, but it kinda seems like the C-elf ranger's getting the raw end of the deal, and  could never stack up to rangers of other races.

But then why am I debating the matter?

The ranger guild just has an incredibly versatile skillset. Bandaging, decent combat skills, poison, watch, listen, etc.-- city-elves can already get most of this with the proper guild/subguild anyhow, and I'm just failing to see why they're not allowed to make rangers.

Again, I'm probably ignorant to something glaringly obvious as to why city-elf rangers would be so horrible, but after much searching, I simply can't figure it out.

[Qzzrbl]

You cannot use the arguement that you should play the character, not the guild and then turn around and say that the guild is too powerful.

I see now that my thought process on that matter probably doesn't make sense, but desert-elves are a karma-restricted race. You pretty much -have- to play them a certain way, else they wouldn't be karma restricted. Seeing that desert-elf play is the way it is, it actually makes sense that they wouldn't have access to certain guilds-- but in another sense, it might not make sense that a d-elf would never, ever be able to learn backstab. But whatever, they're karma-restricted. Tough beans.

Maybe it's just my backwards way of thinking, but I don't believe zero-karma races should have a restriction like this.

[X-D]

Have you ever seen a ranger IG (besides D-elves) that have never used a mount in the entirety of their character's lives?

I've had 4 so far. 1 HG 2 dwarves and a breed. the dwarves lived past 30 days and 6 months and so did the HG, I hated the breed (but not because of stats).

The other three were quite brutal and had certain advantages that come from not using a mount.



As for the rest of your post, it is moot, the arguments are based on things that are either untrue or ignoring other things that MORE then balance out the drawbacks.

Again, I'm probably ignorant to something glaringly obvious as to why city-elf rangers would be so horrible, but after much searching, I simply can't figure it out.

You are, but GDB rules prohibit anybody from stating them.