Forgotten Kingdoms Forums

Ellian wrote:Are there any feats from DnD or D20 like what you are describing?

I have no idea, I don't have much in the way of sourcebooks for 3rd edition except a few on PDF. I wouldn't be surprised if there were... since people seem to be referencing some prestige class based on terrain features, maybe someone else has more information.

Also though I'd mention that if it became a feat open to Rangers and certain other classes, it would open up more obscure terrains to people for RP purposes. Forcing all Gruumsh Rangers to take their terrain in the swamps might not be a popular idea, but it shouldn't stop people from choosing that terrain for RP purposes if they like.

Certain terrains could be open to certain races just as a prerogative of that race, i.e. Dwarves could always choose to take a feat in Mountain terrain, Elves in forest, etc... but Rangers would have the option of choosing any terrain they like. Perhaps it could also be akin to other feats which are stackable, i.e. a Ranger could apply the feat numerous times. Or another take on it is that at certain levels a ranger chooses a terrain, say every 10 levels, and they get to apply that terrain. They could choose forest at 10, desert at 20, plains at 30, etc... or they could put them all into forest if they liked, becoming an expert at one terrain or just knowledgeable over many, or somewhere inbetween.

I don't think this post was to be about implementations for more restrictions and subdividing of rangers, though I do like the idea of faith ranger orders. The main goal was to open the class up to alignments that don't receive ranger as an option, but should have access to it. I want to see a well-roleplayed lot of rangers that serve the -opposite- side of the good-evil spectrum, not a new set of rules and guidelines to make your characters more uniform. I don't usually post very long about my feelings on subjects of discussion, but I feel that it's about time the roleplay of rangers and druids be given back to them. Make sure they have the ability to do the roleplay, as per the Ranger Council, then let them roleplay on their own, whether it be defending the cylce through planting their seeds in a druidic garden, or protecting a forest from orcs, or hunting something that is harmful to the environment. It is all up to the player on how they roleplay their character. I'm just saying, it'd be nice if code-backing was given to that evil guy who wanted to protect the forest his way. As per usual, I've started rambling, and am done.

Solaghar, from what I can see, I agree with Hrosskell and Rhytania. I believe what you are suggesting would restrict rangers on their RP, instead of trying to expand it, as my original post was trying to do.

To restrict rangers to a certain terrain would be limiting how they were Rped. I dont believe we have a big enough playerbase to have a ranger for snow, a ranger for desert. ICly they would really need to stay in those areas and this is a RP mud, there isnt much RP when you are the only one in a big desert. I believe most rangers would choose forests or something similar anyways.

Getting back onto the main topic, I do like Kregor's idea. Though I dont believe it should be restricted to just Malarites. A huntsman would be an evil ranger, but not necessary Malarite in following. But the idea for the guild is very nice and one I believe would bring much RP into the game. Good against evil RP has always been one of my favorite, for you must need evil for the good to really shine. The also is true, good must exist for the evil to just show how devious they are.

Myself playing a Malarite druid, people dont understand that they dont want the destruction of the forest. They are just as concerned about the balance as any other druid, they merely believe in a different solution.

Opening up alignments would bring in alot of RP with nature followers that is lacking much of the time.

Sol you never heard of the Chuantean Desert Warrior? Agriculture is highly revered in the desert places. Ill see if I can dig up the source for it, anyway heres a little excertpts just FYI as I am sure your curious as to what I was talking about. this is out of the Masters of the Wild Sourcebook. I Cut a lot of the fluff out but heres the meat and potatoes:

KING/QUEEN OF THE WILD
Few are brave enough to climb the highest mountains
and tread the deepest deserts. But where nature's fury is
at its height, there you'll find the kings and queens ofthe
wild, undaunted by the challenges before them-that is,
ifyou're strong enough to look for them there.
When choosing this prestige class, you must specify
one of the following eight terrain types: desert, forest,
hills, marsh, mountain, plains, sea, skies, or underground.
Other terrain types are not harsh enough to engender
this kind of survivalism .
Anyone with a tie to nature and sufficient hardiness
can become a king or queen of the wild. Rangers, barbarians,
and druids tend to be the most comfortable
with this lifestyle . However, many adventurers have
clashed with snow wizards and desert sorcerers who
have augmented their powers by adopting this prestige
class.
A character can choose this prestige class more than
once but must select a different terrain type and start
again at 1st level each time. Levels of different king/
queen of the wild classes do not stack for determining
level-based class features .
Hit Die: d12 .

Terrain-Dependent Features
Each of the nine prestige classes derived from king/
queen of the wild has different features depending on
the terrain type chosen.

King/Queen of the Desert
Terrain Type: Desert.
Prerequisite Skill: Spot.
Terrain Element : Fire.
Bonus Feats: Great Fortitude, Mounted Combat, Run,
Skill Focus (Spot), Toughness.

King/Queen of the Forest
Terrain Type: Forest.
Prerequisite Skill: Climb.
Terrain Element : Fire.
Bonus Feats : Alertness, Brachiation, Point Blank
Shot, Run, Skill Focus (Climb) .

King/Queen of the Hills
Terrain Type: Hills.
Prerequisite Skill: Climb.
Terrain Element : Cold.
Bonus Feats : Alertness, Far Shot, Run, Skill Focus
(Climb), Toughness.

King/Queen of the Marsh
Terrain Type: Marsh.
Prerequisite Skill: Swim.
Terrain Element : Acid.
Bonus Feats: Alertness, Blind-Fight, Great Fortitude,
Skill Focus (Swim), Toughness.

King/Queen of the Mountain
Terrain Type: Mountains.
Prerequisite Skill: Climb.
Terrain Element : Cold.
Bonus Feats: Alertness, Great Fortitude, Jump, Skill
Focus (Climb), Toughness.

King/Queen of the Plains
Terrain Type: Plains .
Prerequisite Skill: Move Silently.
Terrain Element : Electricity.
Bonus Feats: Alertness, Far Shot, Point-Blank Shot,
Run, Skill Focus (Move Silently) .

King/Queen of the Sea
Terrain Type: Aquatic .
Prerequisite Skill: Swim.
Terrain Element : Cold.
Bonus Feats: Alertness, Blind-Fight, Exotic Weapon
Proficiency (net), Silent Spell, Skill Focus (Swim).

King/Queen of the Skies
Terrain Type: Air.
Prerequisite Skill: Balance .
Terrain Element: Electricity.
Bonus Feats: Flyby Attack, Hover, Skill Focus (Balance),
Snatch, Wingover.

King/Queen of the Underground
Terrain Type: Underground.
Prerequisite Skill: Escape Artist .
Terrain Element: Sonic.
Bonus Feats: Alertness, Blind-Fight, Extra Turning,
Great Fortitude, Toughness.

Level Attack Bonus Save Save Save Special
1 st +1 +2 +0 +2 Terrain skill bonuses
2nd +2 +3 +0 +3 Endure elements 5, terrain movement
3rd +3 +3 +l +3 Attack native creatures +1, terrain camouflage
4th +4 +4 +l +4 Bonus feat
5th +5 +4 +1 +4 Attack native creatures +2, endure elements 10
6th +6 +5 +2 +5 Detect animals or plants
7th +7 +5 +2 +5 Adaptation, attack native creatures +3
8th +8 +6 +2 +6 Bonus feat, endure elements 15
9th +9 +6 +3 +6 Attack native creatures +4
10th +10 +7 +3 +7 Endure elements 20, freedom of movement

As per Glim's statement, I entirely believe in the idea of expanding the Ranger class ala 3rd edition to other alignments and faiths. The problem I see is that here on FK, right now, we characterize a Ranger in a very specific manner as basically, a guardian of the forest. If you remove that stricture, which one must admit you must do, what does a warrior become? The class has to be characterized as something, so it seems most natural to me to characterize the Ranger as merely an expert at some area of terrain. As you can see from my last post or two, I agree, restricting someone to some arbitrary terrain probably isn't a good idea. But a ranger still must have some meaning, some sort of class consistency that extends across all of the players part of the guild, regardless of their alignment or deity, something that makes them Rangers/Huntsmen rather than just warriors with some spells.

If you're not going to characterize Rangers as experts in some sort of terrain, outdoorsmen(women) who have a connection to the natural world through their long study and experiences in these places, then the class as a whole loses it's meaning and it will be impossible to maintain any consistent RP style. Rangers do have restrictions on their RP to an extent, they're not a base class like Warriors or Clerics, they're more akin to Paladins who have what I believe to be the strictest RP requirements, and hence you have to maintain some sort of rule structure for them, even if it's just saying that they should be expert outdoorsmen rather than expert forestmen. Let people choose what terrain they want to focus on... sure... but if they're not focusing on something, then how will their higher level of RP be maintained?

Solaghar, allow me to quote you something some PHB.

Page 44, Ranger.
The forestsare home to fierce and cunning creatures, such as bloodthirsty owlbears and malicious displacer beasts.
...
He knows the woods as if they were his home (as indeed they are), and he knows his prey in deadly detail.

Page 44, Adventures.
Rangers often accept the role of protecting, aiding those who live in or travel through the woods.

Now, im not saying that a ranger HAS to be a specialist of the woods. But this is what they are known for. I dont see why you need to actually put code into a ranger's file to see what terrain he is proficient in, when it could just be RPed.

Also, I dont think this discussion is really relevant to what a ranger or druid's alignment is, so perhaps this should be continue in another forum? Sorry if that is a bit...harsh. I just think that the discussion is really being moved away from what the original topic was about.