First and foremost thank you, Gwain, for your frank and honest answer and for sharing your experience in playing the class.
Gwain wrote:I think much and more can be done to strengthen the class itself, I am just reluctant to give them urban advantages as I see rangers as rural woodsman with some warrior advantages, not urban fighters.
Well, I see rangers as stealthy warriors with a strong link to nature. Much like a bard is a stealthy spellcaster, while a thief is a pure stealth specialist. It was this stealthy aspect that attracted me to create a ranger, since I had read well about the other limitations, i.e. light armour, few feats, etc. What really baffled me is that this hide limit came as totally unexpected, despite I had read extensively all the helpfiles before embarking in this. This is also why I posted and made all this fuss, had I known in advance I would not have dared to discuss so passionately, and, quite possibly, I would have thought twice before creating a ranger. But, as I said, the potentials for rp are still nice and I would otherwise have missed them, so this isn't all bad in the end.
As for improving the class I believe, as a new player but used to that edition of D&d, that making it up to date to
tabletop 3.5, as proposed also in
this thread, would really suffice. And yes this, in my humble opinion, includes hiding, which for rangers is a class skill in the same way it is for thieves, bards and monks.
I think that putting rangers in competition head-to-head with fighters, focusing on their military prowess, is a lost battle, since in the end it is the fighter who is the specialist in that. The hybrid-ranger, on the other hand, who is a bit rogue, a bit druid and a bit fighter is, from my point of view, much more appealing and less prone to abuse or powerplaying. In fact who wants to excel in those skills will more likely go straight for thieves, druids or fighters respectively.
As a cynic I see a wonderful potential for abuse or misuse of class. If I were more hopeful I could see rangers using the hide skill in the way you mentioned above, as they would in a tabletop D&D game. I just remain skeptical that it would go along that line and not say a ranger hiding most of the time in a city like a regular rogue, thief or bard.
Now about the abuse potential of this I am a bit puzzled, since this is the first time in a mud where I see a limit put there to actually encourage abuse, even involuntarily and by players in good faith.
Let me explain. Let's take for instance the supposed abuse of a ranger hiding in a city: now the problem IMHO is for the ranger to be in a city most of the time, regardless whether he hides, sneaks, tracks or eats muffins. Period. What is the worst thing a ranger could do hiding in a city? Hmmm, not being seen. That might sometimes have a sense, say, the rangers sees a character of an enemy race of faith, why would he not spy or try to avoid them? For the rest a ranger cannot steal or backstab, and has to stick to some code of honour, hence no big deal. If a ranger hides in a city, worst thing that can happen is that people won't see him. Actually the thing is even nice since it limits the possibility to see rangers in cities.
Okay, I am kidding in this last sentence, but the matter still stands, since I see the consequences of such an abuse as very marginal, and far less worrying than many other behaviours a ranger can have.
Let's see instead the potential of abuse with the limit as it is now: it is simply incredible. A ranger can hide in certain rooms but not in others, so in theory, and barring rooms flagged wrongly, every time a ranger is hidden and steps in one of those rooms he is abusing the game code. I myself have already done it probably well over 50 times just by testing the other evening! On top of that, even with all the good will, it is extremely demanding on the part of the player to try to learn each and every room where his character can legitly hide. Only a minority of rooms are so clearly characterized as forest or wilderness in their description and in fact the only real way to know for sure is to try to hide in them and then to remember.
Uhm, well, I think I have explained these points in the best way I could at least twice by now, so I will refrain from repeating them further if nothing else comes up. Thanks again, Gwain, for your frank explanation. I would like also to state one last time that I will still strive to rp my ranger in the stealthy way I thought of, despite the limit, of which what I criticize the most is the lack of any warning in advance.
