Rangers and the Listen skill

[Larrath]

I'm going to be blunt with this thread.

I see no reason why a ranger should have the Listen skill.  A ranger is the master of the outdoors, namely the desert.  Sound carries extremely well in the desert.  There are no tall structure or a lot of people talking to make it difficult to make out something.
Anyone in a desert that isn't quite filled with dunes should be able to easily make out anything said at above a whisper from, say, one hundred feet away?

Listen is a city skill, used to pick out conversations through noise.  It also has other effects, but they're really just secondary, especially with other skills rangers get.

I think that removing Listen from rangers will be a good step in preventing our rangers from becoming Jacks of all trades.  Or at least it will reduce many city-based rangers to floristry instead of, say, tailoring.

[Tamarin]

I think that this is a bad idea.  Listen doesn't (to me) have anything to do with being in the city.  It has everything to do with being hyper-aware of one's surroundings, something that rangers are very, very good at.

[Jakahri]

It has everything to do with being hyper-aware of one's surroundings, something that rangers are very, very good at.

Absolutely.

There -are- perks to having listen out in the desert as well. I've found the skill highly useful in certain situations.

[WarriorPoet]

I agree with Larrath completely. I love the ranger class, but I agree with him that this will help stop every other Amos from being a tavern-sitting city dwelling whatever.

Listen seems a city skill to me. Nix it there, imo.

-WP

[Anonymous]

While there are situations where a Ranger can make use of the listen skill for things other than tavern evesdropping, I do believe a overhaul of the skill would be nice.  I think targeted listening as well as removing Ranger's ability to listen indoors and in the city (think sneak), would greatly improve the useability and greatly reduce the twinkability of the skill.

Or you could split the skill into two different ones.  One focusing on being aware of your surroundings, waking when something enters the room you're sleeping in, etc., and the other retaining the evesdropping qualities.


Mmm, gooey.

[jcarter]

While there are situations where a Ranger can make use of the listen skill for things other than tavern evesdropping, I do believe a overhaul of the skill would be nice.  I think targeted listening as well as removing Ranger's ability to listen indoors and in the city (think sneak), would greatly improve the useability and greatly reduce the twinkability of the skill.

Or you could split the skill into two different ones.  One focusing on being aware of your surroundings, waking when something enters the room you're sleeping in, etc., and the other retaining the evesdropping qualities.


Mmm, gooey.

As far as I know, listen is already divided up into city/wilderness. I've had assassins who couldn't get a listen going in the wilderness if their lives depended on it, but would get it within one to two tries in the city.

[Larrath]

Just remember that Zalanthan rangers aren't doing extreem survival missions in the jungles.  They're acting in the desert.  They're more likely to hack off part of a bush to extract moisture than they are to dive behind it and hide during High Sun.
I'm not even sure how likely they are to mimic mating calls since any animal within hearing range would, probably, also be within sight.

But anyway, just remember all that.  Zalanthan rangers will very rarely be in a situation where they can hear something approach but not see it.

[Jakahri]

Zalanthan rangers will very rarely be in a situation where they can hear something approach but not see it.

Are you sure about that?

I've been in quite a few situations (ie, more than I can remember) where the listen skill helped me identify someone stalking me. I do tend to play rangers more than any other class, though.

[Larrath]

Zalanthan rangers will very rarely be in a situation where they can hear something approach but not see it.

Are you sure about that?

I've been in quite a few situations (ie, more than I can remember) where the listen skill helped me identify someone stalking me. I do tend to play rangers more than any other class, though.

A Zalanthan ranger is going to have a hard time training to defend himself against something that isn't really encountered in nature.
It can help, possible, if you're hunting down some large lizards in a pebbly canyon, but even then it's a question of acute hearing and not being able to make sense out of noise.

And the fact is that even if Listen -can- theoretically be useful for a ranger, they shouldn't be able to listen in taverns, but they do.  I think that Rangers would be much more balanced without Listen at all, rather than with the skill as it is right now.
If we can have desert-listen, I guess that can also work; though practically anyone should be able to hear extremely well in a flat desolate area.

[Bebop]

I have used listen in the desert quiet a few times.  Rangers are keen to their surroundings even if that is in the city though they are coded and I think should be RPed most of that time as in harmony outside of the city walls.  Rangers can pick out people hiding in crowds as well, if nothing else just being in the city would make a Ranger perk up his/her ears feeling more pensive and aware in the crowded cities.

[Armaddict]

...What's so bad about a ranger being able to listen in Taverns?

You don't like that scene in LoTR with Aragorn in a booth by himself, being all dark and mean looking as he studies and listens to the hobbits?

I find it disturbing that people are getting -this- distraught about listen -this- often.  I don't think it means that something needs to be changed, I think it just means a lot of people worry too much about being overheard.  WHO CARES.

[Delirium]

There is a very good reason that rangers have the listen skill.

To explain would delve into code, but.. trust Delirium.

[Bebop]

...What's so bad about a ranger being able to listen in Taverns?

You don't like that scene in LoTR with Aragorn in a booth by himself, being all dark and mean looking as he studies and listens to the hobbits?

I find it disturbing that people are getting -this- distraught about listen -this- often.  I don't think it means that something needs to be changed, I think it just means a lot of people worry too much about being overheard.  WHO CARES.

I was sooo thinking of that scene I just didn't say it.  "He's one of them Rangers!" Heh.

[Larrath]

You don't like that scene in LoTR with Aragorn in a booth by himself, being all dark and mean looking as he studies and listens to the hobbits?

Aragorn is not a Zalanthan ranger.  Aragorn is one of those 'standard' rangers that I don't think the Known World even houses.

I don't know what other side-effects the code has that makes Listen important for rangers, but in terms of game balance, my uneducated opinion is that it's better to take away a bit more than one should rather than to hand out far too much.

As long as people consider picking the Ranger guild for their city-based character, something is bad with the balance.  A ranger in the city should be like an assassin in the desert (assuming they don't ninja-cross giant distances to backstab and sap in a completely twinky manner) - a well-trained individual who is out of their natural environment.
And not being able to hide and sneak in the city doesn't cut it.

My bottom line?
Choosing the Ranger guild for a character meant to be a Noble House guard should be just a little less silly than choosing the Merchant guild for the same purpose.  And as long as that's not the case, I think something is wrong.

WHO CARES.

I care.  If you don't care, I wonder why you bothered posting in this thread at all.

[Agent_137]

choosing a ranger to be a guard IS silly, and it will always be. Warriors will always whoop up on rangers, all other things equal.

I mean, do you think listen is being -abused- or something?

Further, it seems to me that rangers are built to be somewhat well rounded. So i think listen fits in fine.

[Anonymous]

my uneducated opinion is that it's better to take away a bit more than one should rather than to hand out far too much.

An uneducated opinion? Are you -trying- to dissuade people from your current position on the matter?

My bottom line?
Choosing the Ranger guild for a character meant to be a Noble House guard should be just a little less silly than choosing the Merchant guild for the same purpose. And as long as that's not the case, I think something is wrong.

-That- is your bottom line? You must realize that anyone in search of a guard with a listen skill WILL choose the warrior/bard combination and NOT ranger.

I don't know what other side-effects the code has that makes Listen important for rangers, but in terms of game balance,

I suggest that you contact the staff and obtain the essential/necessary facts prior to formulating such claims.

Semper Pax,

Dirr

[flurry]

I agree wholeheartedly with the idea to restrict ranger listen to the outdoors only.

As I see it, rangers should be (and are) capable of developing into experts at the outdoors.  In my opinion, they should not be nearly as adept at city living, certainly not to the point where they rival or exceed the city-based classes.  

Other positive side effect to this change would be that that "listen" would not be quite so widespread and that people might think twice about whether ranger is the most appropriate class for their character concept.   However those are secondary to the reason that I think this makes sense, which is realism.  

As things stand currently, those who spend the bulk of their time in cities cannot manage as well in the wilderness as those who spend their time out there.  I would love to see that true in both directions (to a greater extent than it is now).

Further, it seems to me that rangers are built to be somewhat well rounded. So i think listen fits in fine.

Somewhat?!   :shock:   Sorry, but that just made me chuckle.

WHO CARES.

Clearly some of us do.  Why have a discussion board if not to discuss issues people care about discussing?

[Lazloth]

City listen vs outdoors, ala

There are two separate varieties of sneak: the one which is used by rogues and thieves, and the one which is employed by rangers, desert elves, and halflings for purposes of hunting. The latter operates only in wilderness terrain and has no application within a city or indoors (and vice versa).

[Larrath]

my uneducated opinion is that it's better to take away a bit more than one should rather than to hand out far too much.

An uneducated opinion? Are you -trying- to dissuade people from your current position on the matter?

No, I am trying to present my position, limitations intact.  I think it's only fair that I do so.

My bottom line?
Choosing the Ranger guild for a character meant to be a Noble House guard should be just a little less silly than choosing the Merchant guild for the same purpose. And as long as that's not the case, I think something is wrong.

-That- is your bottom line? You must realize that anyone in search of a guard with a listen skill WILL choose the warrior/bard combination and NOT ranger.

Yes, that is my bottom line.  There should be no reason to pick the Ranger guild for an indoors character.  While this is not the case, the Ranger guild should be adjusted for balance.  I think this is a pretty important bottom line.

I don't know what other side-effects the code has that makes Listen important for rangers, but in terms of game balance,

I suggest that you contact the staff and obtain the essential/necessary facts prior to formulating such claims.

No thank you.  I don't feel that any additional information would change my position on this - 'Listen' is a very valuable skill, and its existence is a major reason in people picking Ranger over Warrior for a city-based character.

Yes, you can take a warrior with a listen-giving subguild, but as a ranger you can take a more useful subguild - a crafting subguild, or Linguist, or something to give an extra 'unf' to your combat abilities.

[EvilRoeSlade]

The fact that a ranger has one skill that happens to be useful in both the wilderness and the city is no reason to throw a hissy fit.

A ranger's bandage skill also works remarkably well in the city.  Should we take it away from her because it isn't her specialty?  No, because it makes sense for a ranger to have the bandage skill.  Just as it makes sense for a ranger to have the listen skill.

Meanwhile, an assassin's throw skill can often work wonders in the desert.  Should we remove it in order to keep assassins pure to their city origins?  I think not, for it makes sense for an assassin to have a throw skill.

The vast majority of a ranger's skills have primarily survival applications.  There's no reason to cry and scream simply because there's a couple things they can do to avoid getting bored when they're dropping by the tavern for a drink.

And need I remind you all that we are talking about a skill that ANY class can have at abusable levels?  Anyone who wants the listen skill can have it.  Most classes have it whether they want it or not.  Listen is probably the most common skill in the game due to its usefulness and grotesquely wide availability.  It's impossible for this skill to unbalance any class.

[Maybe42or54]

That is partly why you can really do anything you want in Arm, but just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

[flurry]

Who is throwing a hissy fit?   Who is crying and screaming?   I wish an issue could be discussed without people characterizing different opinions like that.

Personally, I think a significant in-city drawback to rangers would make the class more interesting and more realistic.  If city classes suffer reasonable and significant setbacks in the desert, shouldn't rangers suffer reasonable and significant setbacks in the city?  In my opinion, yes.   Of course, that doesn't mean this is the right one, but personally I like it.

And subclasses could still make up for it, as they do for other classes.

[Stroker]

Who is throwing a hissy fit? Who is crying and screaming? I wish an issue could be discussed without people characterizing different opinions like that.

No thank you. I don't feel that any additional information would change my position on this

This individual clearly outlined that no amount of fact or persuasion can sway the asserted stance. To me, this implies that (to the original poster) the subject cannot be discussed as a result of the mulish disposition. It seems as though the original poster intended to announce his/her position on the subject instead of -actually- discussing it.

Semper Pax,

Dirr

[Larrath]

The fact that a ranger has one skill that happens to be useful in both the wilderness and the city is no reason to throw a hissy fit.

A ranger's bandage skill also works remarkably well in the city.  Should we take it away from her because it isn't her specialty?  No, because it makes sense for a ranger to have the bandage skill.  Just as it makes sense for a ranger to have the listen skill.

Why does it make sense for a ranger to have the listen skill?

Meanwhile, an assassin's throw skill can often work wonders in the desert.  Should we remove it in order to keep assassins pure to their city origins?  I think not, for it makes sense for an assassin to have a throw skill.

If distances worked in a realistic fashion?  I don't think an assassin should be able to throw a knife half a league away.  But this question is similar to asking whether Merchants should lose their Cavilish skill when in the outdoors.  I smell straw, this has little if anything to do with Listen.

The vast majority of a ranger's skills have primarily survival applications.  There's no reason to cry and scream simply because there's a couple things they can do to avoid getting bored when they're dropping by the tavern for a drink.

Shouldn't warriors get this same benefit?

And need I remind you all that we are talking about a skill that ANY class can have at abusable levels?  Anyone who wants the listen skill can have it.  Most classes have it whether they want it or not.  Listen is probably the most common skill in the game due to its usefulness and grotesquely wide availability.  It's impossible for this skill to unbalance any class.

Except warriors.  And a few others.
Letting a Ranger pick a crafting subguild that will provide an immense income while forcing a Warrior to pick one of the generally-crappy subguilds that offer Listen...hmm.  I don't think that's extremely balanced.

Be respectful when you post, ERS.  I don't think I--or any other poster--deserve less.


EDIT: I don't tend to post threads in a discussion board without expecting a discussion.  This thread was and remains fully intended to hold meaningful conversation.

[Stroker]

If distances worked in a realistic fashion? I don't think an assassin should be able to throw a knife half a league away. But this question is similar to asking whether Merchants should lose their Cavilish skill when in the outdoors. I smell straw, this has little if anything to do with Listen.

So, if I have a half-giant assassin, you're telling me that he should not be able to throw something as far outside just because of his guild? While a puny desert elf can throw it three leagues away? I don't see how adjusting distance in such a fashion -could- make sense in that particular situation.

I, however, digress - if the ability to distinguish coherent noise through meaningless static seems outlandish for a desert ranger, then consider the ability to discern danger in an environment constantly besieged by storms: storms reduce visibility -and- produce a significant amount of noise.

Semper Pax,

Dirr