Ranger/Druids

Gunthar · Fri, 4th Aug '00, 2:28am

I just read an old post in which I was suggesting that the combination of Rangers and Druids should be possible and I noticed the Fat Egg agreed with me. Intelligent fellow that Fat Egg. Who else thinks this would make sense. They both are nature related and Ranger/Druid makes more sense than Fighter/Druid. They would have to be True Neutrals unless Druids can be other than that in the 3rd edition rules.

Vermillion · Fri, 4th Aug '00, 6:16am

I think that since the ranger, in 2nd ed rules was a fighter with some nifty bonus's was the reason he couldn't multi, although I think in 3rd ed, since the multi rules have changed, and very dramaticly too, it seems very possible, we'll find out in about a month.

Sat, 5th Aug '00, 1:55pm

Sounds cool, but aren't Rangers only allowed to be good-aligned?

Superbish · Sat, 5th Aug '00, 8:00pm

Um... No. They're both nature related, but the Druid tries to keep it completely balanced (hence the true neutralism), and the Ranger is more like a protector, militant and defensive (which why they must be good). I had some other points, but they've seemed to slip away...

The Fat Egg · Sat, 5th Aug '00, 8:18pm

Thanks Gunthar! And obviously I agree.

Vermillion · Sat, 5th Aug '00, 8:56pm

Yes rangers do have to be good, but a lot of rules are being scrapped and rewritten so the druids might actually get some deacent rules that make them playable in AD&D.

Sat, 5th Aug '00, 10:52pm

I think that Druids should be Neutral Good, Neutral Evil, or True Neutral and nothing else. It'd allow a lot more flexibility.

Voltric · Mon, 7th Aug '00, 3:02pm

I agree. A Ranger/Druid makes more since than a Ranger/Cleric, which was in 2nd Ed. The expanded Druid aligment also makes sense. I looked playing a Druid in 2nd Ed. but the True Neutral was so hard to RP.

Vermillion · Mon, 7th Aug '00, 7:47pm

You couldn't play a ranger/cleric in AD&D 2nd ed. you could only multi class using the fighter, mage, cleric and thief classes.

Gunthar · Fri, 11th Aug '00, 12:39am

With the new rules I saw something about having evil or neutral Paladins. This makes sense because evil gods and religions would have their own religious fighters. So for the Ranger I can see having a neutral one, since protecting the woods is maintaining the balance and not actualy doing good specificaly. An evil Ranger could be part of an evil forest cult or aligned with evil forest dwelling creatures. The world doesn't rotate only around good.

Vermillion · Fri, 11th Aug '00, 1:34am

About time they did that, although I did manage to get rules for evil paladins (anti paladins)a while back. And the worlds in which the games are set don't revolve around good, no, but lets face it, almost all adventures are written for "good orientated parties" and I think thats what the games all about, Go be the heroes sort of thing. Besides the rule when I'm running a game is players can't be evil because it saves on a LOT of stupid stuff, but then maybe thats just my players.

Gunthar · Sat, 12th Aug '00, 4:37am

With the ability to create your own scenarios in Neverwinter Nights, I'd like to see some more emphasis on evil because it would actualy be possible to be evil then.

Vermillion · Sat, 12th Aug '00, 5:55am

My problem with evil characters and BG was that so many quests put your reputation up, pissing off the evil people in the party. I think that the real evil people would want people thinking highly of them so that they're easier to manipulate and fleece. The reputation should have had nothing to do with alignment, apart from possibly keeping track of if you has to be good or nuetral characters lost thier abilities for not acting the correct way.

		Sorcerer's Place Home \| Chatrooms \| BoM Rules & FAQ Sorcerer's Place Stores: Games, Books, DVDs, Merchandise (buying via these links & our affiliated stores below helps support the site - thanks!)
Have you liked us yet?

Fri, 4th Aug '00, 2:28am	#1
Gunthar Gems: 7/31 Latest gem: Tchazar Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: St.Catharines, Canada Posts: 238 Like: 0 Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts vBActivity - Stats XP: 1,013 Level: 11 vBActivity - Bars Level Completion: 1.41% Daily Activity 2.43% Weekly Activity 2.43% Monthly Activity 2.04% Achievements	I just read an old post in which I was suggesting that the combination of Rangers and Druids should be possible and I noticed the Fat Egg agreed with me. Intelligent fellow that Fat Egg. Who else thinks this would make sense. They both are nature related and Ranger/Druid makes more sense than Fighter/Druid. They would have to be True Neutrals unless Druids can be other than that in the 3rd edition rules.

Fri, 4th Aug '00, 6:16am	#2
Vermillion Gems: 18/31 Latest gem: Horn Coral Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Yorkshire, the Third World. Posts: 1,031 Like: 0 Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts vBActivity - Stats XP: 2,753 Level: 17 vBActivity - Bars Level Completion: 8.97% Daily Activity 2.43% Weekly Activity 2.43% Monthly Activity 2.04% Achievements	I think that since the ranger, in 2nd ed rules was a fighter with some nifty bonus's was the reason he couldn't multi, although I think in 3rd ed, since the multi rules have changed, and very dramaticly too, it seems very possible, we'll find out in about a month.

Sat, 5th Aug '00, 1:55pm	#3
hooligan_inc Guest Posts: n/a vBActivity - Stats XP: 0 Level: 1 vBActivity - Bars Level Completion: 0% Daily Activity 0% Weekly Activity 0% Monthly Activity 0%	Sounds cool, but aren't Rangers only allowed to be good-aligned?

Sat, 5th Aug '00, 8:00pm	#4
Superbish Gems: 1/31 Latest gem: Turquoise Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Beaver Dam, WI, USA Posts: 4 Like: 0 Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts vBActivity - Stats XP: 486 Level: 7 vBActivity - Bars Level Completion: 94.37% Daily Activity 2.43% Weekly Activity 2.43% Monthly Activity 2.04% Achievements	Um... No. They're both nature related, but the Druid tries to keep it completely balanced (hence the true neutralism), and the Ranger is more like a protector, militant and defensive (which why they must be good). I had some other points, but they've seemed to slip away...

Sat, 5th Aug '00, 8:18pm	#5
The Fat Egg Gems: 15/31 Latest gem: Waterstar Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Detroit, Michigan, U.S. Posts: 788 Like: 0 Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts vBActivity - Stats XP: 2,391 Level: 16 vBActivity - Bars Level Completion: 6.9% Daily Activity 2.43% Weekly Activity 2.43% Monthly Activity 2.04% Achievements	Thanks Gunthar! And obviously I agree.

Sat, 5th Aug '00, 8:56pm	#6
Vermillion Gems: 18/31 Latest gem: Horn Coral Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Yorkshire, the Third World. Posts: 1,031 Like: 0 Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts vBActivity - Stats XP: 2,753 Level: 17 vBActivity - Bars Level Completion: 8.97% Daily Activity 2.43% Weekly Activity 2.43% Monthly Activity 2.04% Achievements	Yes rangers do have to be good, but a lot of rules are being scrapped and rewritten so the druids might actually get some deacent rules that make them playable in AD&D.

Sat, 5th Aug '00, 10:52pm	#7
hooligan_inc Guest Posts: n/a vBActivity - Stats XP: 0 Level: 1 vBActivity - Bars Level Completion: 0% Daily Activity 0% Weekly Activity 0% Monthly Activity 0%	I think that Druids should be Neutral Good, Neutral Evil, or True Neutral and nothing else. It'd allow a lot more flexibility.

Mon, 7th Aug '00, 3:02pm	#8
Voltric Gems: 19/31 Latest gem: Aquamarine Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Boston, USA Posts: 1,145 Like: 0 Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts vBActivity - Stats XP: 2,953 Level: 17 vBActivity - Bars Level Completion: 61.47% Daily Activity 2.43% Weekly Activity 2.43% Monthly Activity 2.04% Achievements	I agree. A Ranger/Druid makes more since than a Ranger/Cleric, which was in 2nd Ed. The expanded Druid aligment also makes sense. I looked playing a Druid in 2nd Ed. but the True Neutral was so hard to RP.

Mon, 7th Aug '00, 7:47pm	#9
Vermillion Gems: 18/31 Latest gem: Horn Coral Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Yorkshire, the Third World. Posts: 1,031 Like: 0 Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts vBActivity - Stats XP: 2,753 Level: 17 vBActivity - Bars Level Completion: 8.97% Daily Activity 2.43% Weekly Activity 2.43% Monthly Activity 2.04% Achievements	You couldn't play a ranger/cleric in AD&D 2nd ed. you could only multi class using the fighter, mage, cleric and thief classes.

Fri, 11th Aug '00, 12:39am	#10
Gunthar Gems: 7/31 Latest gem: Tchazar Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: St.Catharines, Canada Posts: 238 Like: 0 Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts vBActivity - Stats XP: 1,013 Level: 11 vBActivity - Bars Level Completion: 1.41% Daily Activity 2.43% Weekly Activity 2.43% Monthly Activity 2.04% Achievements	With the new rules I saw something about having evil or neutral Paladins. This makes sense because evil gods and religions would have their own religious fighters. So for the Ranger I can see having a neutral one, since protecting the woods is maintaining the balance and not actualy doing good specificaly. An evil Ranger could be part of an evil forest cult or aligned with evil forest dwelling creatures. The world doesn't rotate only around good.

Fri, 11th Aug '00, 1:34am	#11
Vermillion Gems: 18/31 Latest gem: Horn Coral Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Yorkshire, the Third World. Posts: 1,031 Like: 0 Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts vBActivity - Stats XP: 2,753 Level: 17 vBActivity - Bars Level Completion: 8.97% Daily Activity 2.43% Weekly Activity 2.43% Monthly Activity 2.04% Achievements	About time they did that, although I did manage to get rules for evil paladins (anti paladins)a while back. And the worlds in which the games are set don't revolve around good, no, but lets face it, almost all adventures are written for "good orientated parties" and I think thats what the games all about, Go be the heroes sort of thing. Besides the rule when I'm running a game is players can't be evil because it saves on a LOT of stupid stuff, but then maybe thats just my players.

Sat, 12th Aug '00, 4:37am	#12
Gunthar Gems: 7/31 Latest gem: Tchazar Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: St.Catharines, Canada Posts: 238 Like: 0 Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts vBActivity - Stats XP: 1,013 Level: 11 vBActivity - Bars Level Completion: 1.41% Daily Activity 2.43% Weekly Activity 2.43% Monthly Activity 2.04% Achievements	With the ability to create your own scenarios in Neverwinter Nights, I'd like to see some more emphasis on evil because it would actualy be possible to be evil then.

Sat, 12th Aug '00, 5:55am	#13
Vermillion Gems: 18/31 Latest gem: Horn Coral Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Yorkshire, the Third World. Posts: 1,031 Like: 0 Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts vBActivity - Stats XP: 2,753 Level: 17 vBActivity - Bars Level Completion: 8.97% Daily Activity 2.43% Weekly Activity 2.43% Monthly Activity 2.04% Achievements	My problem with evil characters and BG was that so many quests put your reputation up, pissing off the evil people in the party. I think that the real evil people would want people thinking highly of them so that they're easier to manipulate and fleece. The reputation should have had nothing to do with alignment, apart from possibly keeping track of if you has to be good or nuetral characters lost thier abilities for not acting the correct way.