Reworking Ranger as a Quasi-Class (the Guardian)

[SmootRK]

Reworking Ranger as a Quasi-Class (the Guardian)

So a comment in another thread got me thinking about this sort of offering. The idea is to make a Ranger-esque sort of character type, except applicable to any of the standard base-classes. Much like the Holy Quasi-Class is a sort of Paladin ability package that can be applied to base classes, whether Fighter, MU, Thief, or Cleric. The basic idea is that a Quasi-Class offering like this eliminates the need for separate sub-classes for each such combination of classes. There is no need for a separate Ranger (fighter sub-class), Scout (thief sub-class), Wilderness Mage (if such a sub-class existed)... though I do think the Druid as an archetype is necessary. One cannot just slap on rangerish skills on a cleric and call it a druid, as there is a difference in such ideas there.

So, here is my first swing at the abilities for the Guardian (though I am not sure the name/term is universally the best choice... I am certainly open to feedback/suggestions on that). Most of this is lifted right off my version of Ranger located in the workshop thread "Additional Fighting Sub-Classes".

Guardian (quasi-class)

[table inserted here with Hide, Move Silently, Track]

Guardians live by tracking, hunting, acting as scouts, or as guides through dangerous regions. Often living on the fringes of society, they are often civilization's first line of defense against the horrors of the borderlands and the wilderness beyond. Guardians protect against (or hunt) their chosen enemy (or prey) with stealth and cunning.
In addition to any requirements of their base-class, Guardian characters must have a minimum Wisdom score of 13, and a Dexterity score of 11. Guardians must pay an additional +10% experience in order to advance levels in their base class.

While unarmored or wearing light armor (leather), Guardians have the ability to Move Silently or Hide as a Thief, although in non-wilderness areas such as indoors, underground (dungeons), or in urban areas, they suffer a -20% penalty to their chance to succeed. If the Guardian's base-class already has such abilities (such as a Guardian-Thief), they receive a +20% bonus to those abilities while in wilderness settings. Guardians Track quite effectively with a base chance of 40%, but the GM must generally modify the chance of success based upon conditions such as weather, terrain, age of tracks, or similar factors. These abilities may be modified by Race, Ability Score, or Armor. See the Thief-Like Ability Adjustments table when necessary.

Guardians are skilled outdoors-men and should be able to accomplish most mundane tasks associated with 'roughing it'. When necessary, the Game Master may apply a +2 (or more) bonus to such skill or ability checks as the situation dictates.

A Guardian must declare a Chosen Enemy. Against this chosen enemy, the Guardian adds his or her level as a bonus to attempts to track, any stealth rolls (moving silently or hiding amongst the enemy). A Guardian adds half his level (rounded down) to damage rolls in combat against his chosen enemy. This enemy should be a specific race or somewhat narrow category of creature such as Giants or Dragons. With the Game Master's permission, the list might include rival organizations, religions, nations, or similar agencies. For most of the mundane hunters of the world, the usual enemy is typically “normal game animals” to maximize their hunting efficiency. Guardians of the humanoid races such as goblins or orcs will often take humans, elves, dwarves, and the like for their chosen enemy.

The Guardian Quasi-Class makes the archetype of a 'ranger' easily when applied to a warrior class such as Fighter. In addition, when applied to a Thief class, one could call the combination a Scout, Bandit, or similar outdoorsy rogue idea. For Magic-Users, the idea is rather new, but one might call such a combination a Hedge Wizard, Wilderness Mage, Hermit Mage or something similar. Clerics can utilize such members of their clergy as Missionary Guardians, Heretic Hunters or similar ideas. Druids, being an especially good fit, might see such individuals as more militant members of the druid circle, actively going out to hunt down offenders of nature, called Paramander or Paramandyr, depending on specific outlook.

[SmootRK]

Now of course, I do understand that not everyone likes the quasi-class mechanic. While at its roots, it really nothing more than building a class/sub-class... it just does it differently than simply taking one particular archetype or idea and making 1 distinct sub-class. I think the thing that hurts the brain of some, is that it is a somewhat new method (in the not-so-old-school sort of mentality). It has some similarities to Kits of 2e or Templates of 3e+, but is different from those as well (being more of a hybrid of several such methods).

I just find that the mechanic has a sort of elegance to it. One 'semi-class' entry allowing for several distinct sorts of characters to be made. Some Background or Secondary Skill mechanics has a similar sort of elegance in my mind, but I still come back to this crunchier way of adding a suite of related (or themed array of) abilities to the base-class.

While I am in the mode of new thoughts, I want to remake the Acrobat in such a way as well (thinking back to the Thief-Acrobat idea first making appearance in the Dragon Magazine)... because I see some of these movement based skills being universally desired by any class.

[Hywaywolf]

For me, it isn't anything against the way the quasi classes are set up. Its just that, if I am going to use supplements, I want them to be souped up characters, not just kits that balance the new classes with the BTB classes. Or in other words, if supplemental classes are offered, a player wouldn't waste their time with a BTB class. For example, I would want my ranger to have a bonus when using range. And I do not like using "preferred enemy" for bonuses. I once played with that and we never met up with my preferred enemy lol.

[SmootRK]

For me, it isn't anything against the way the quasi classes are set up. Its just that, if I am going to use supplements, I want them to be souped up characters, not just kits that balance the new classes with the BTB classes. Or in other words, if supplemental classes are offered, a player wouldn't waste their time with a BTB class. For example, I would want my ranger to have a bonus when using range. And I do not like using "preferred enemy" for bonuses. I once played with that and we never met up with my preferred enemy lol.

funny... but I would say the GM in question should have 'played into' the class choice (and chosen enemy). Not so different than a Cleric fighting undead. Over a very long campaign, it would boil down to a GM being a bit of a jerk (especially against a rather common enemy type) if he did not allow one to do what one is good at. It would be like a campaign which does not offer any traps when one is playing a thief.

But then, as I have stated in other places, I am an accomodating GM. When someone wants to play into certain roles, classes, races, etc... then I try to bring appropriate choices into the campaign to work with the player. I don't look at it like ... ewwwh, he's a cleric, so I better not have any undead in this adventure or else he will walk right through all. I add it in happily, so the player can stand out when such encounters present themselves. Let him be heroic in what they should excel at.

Oh, the reference to those not liking the mechanic were not directly at you specifically. Just making clear that I understand that the mechanic is not universally endorsed by many (not just you). Old Schoolers can be a fickle bunch, and many do not like 'new ways of doing things'.

[SmootRK]

When it comes to the Chosen Enemy, there are other options that are very cool to explore as well. Back in an old Dragon Magazine article, there were Rangers that used Favored Terrain. Also, specific weapons make a good choice (aforementioned Bow usage). I especially liked the idea of a spelunking underworld ranger... something even a Dwarf might like. There was also a Huntsman, evil version of Ranger in some Dragon Magazine Module offering (if I remember correctly it had a Celtic theme). Thing is... Ranger-ish characters are very cool in whatever specific flavor they appear.

And... everyone has a personal idea of what they want in a class. Ranger is no exception. Some want 1e model, others like 2e, still others want a non-magical hunter or one can throw in a Beast Master sort complete with animal sidekick. No right or wrong, and impossible to represent with one and only one offering.

One could easily take out, add to, or exchange abilities from what I have done here. This offering simply follows my own particular Ranger ideas through to an almost equivalent quasi-class offering. If one has an alternative view on them, then they can easily modify.

[Thorfinn]

If I understood Hywaywolf, he was asking why someone would not add some quasi to any class, rather than just playing the base class.

It appears the major disadvantage to the class is the 10% XP penalty. Through the first 10 levels or so, a 50% XP penalty would mean he's only one level lower. The Guardian-Thief (Scout), for instance, gets quite a few bonuses to balance against a very minor penalty. The light armor restriction bothers him not at all. What Thief in his right mind wouldn't take a Guardian or similarly powered Quasi instead of being just a Thief? The mage is even better -- the only downside is the XP penalty, which places him one full level behind at level 17.

It's not that the concept of quasi classes isn't cool; it is. Great idea. I just think its a beast to balance it out against the base classes.

[Dimirag]

And seeing that humans gets a +10% XP bonus most humans will be basically changing one benefit whit another...
Maybe the quasi-classes could use their own XP table showing how much extra XP must be acquired for the character in order to advanced in level, so instead of having allways the 10% penalty you can balance the QC with its own XP values

[SmootRK]

Good points. One thing not addressed though is the additional requirements that must be met in order to become any particular quasi-class. That is a balancing point too. One cannot simply say that any particular character should choose a quasi-class - because he might not qualify for anything (or at least for those the player wishes to actually play... not everyone wants to play a Sage or Bard or whatever).

Then technically, I utilize a slightly different model for XP progressions (that can be found in my house rules document posted elsewhere), but I write this stuff to be more easily integrated with the way the Core Rules offers. I suppose if one wanted, the XP requirements can be reworked to be as you indicated. Or one could write up an altogether different XP progression for the Quasi-Class, then approach the idea in a closer way to Combination Classes (sum of the two progressions, which is not such a weird idea to explore).

However, having used the quasi-classes for a while now. The basic way they are written has worked fairly well, without any major imbalance or problems in game play. In addition, the players using these are role-playing into those roles well... and differently from their btb bretheren. For instance, our group's Barbaric Fighter plays quite differently than the vanilla fighter we also have, arguably due to some mechanical differences. And, overall, the point is not about hashing out mathematical formulas to work in every conceivable situation... it is about exploring ways to expand the character archetypes that are playable, at least in the easiest 'basic' sort of way.

and then I just see that Dimirag just posted a similar concept to what I was writing about... something to consider.

[Thorfinn]

I'll draw one parallel, then shut up about it.

Your Bard standalone class looks well balanced vis a vis base classes. Might be a bit tough, as in a party without NPCs, at first level, he can "cast" Bless all day long until his fingers get tired, something the Cleric can't do until, um, 4th level, and then can only do it for 4 minutes, maybe a couple times per day. Though unlike the Bard, he can do other things in the meantime. And as you say, Tumble is a big deal. But whatever. It's not obviously way out of balance.

So if a Fighter wanted to multiclass with Bard, it would cost him an additional 1750XP to get to second level, i.e., about an 88% XP penalty. The Quasi option allows him to add it for just a 25% penalty. Thief multiclassing with Bard would be a 140% XP penalty. If the class itself is balanced, and I think it is, offering the benefits of multiclass at a 75% discount seems a little excessive.

In this case, you are offering at least a substantial subset of ranger skills at a 90% discount from what they would cost to add if there were a ranger class.

Maybe what needs to be tweaked is the multiclass. Maybe the Fighter should be able to add Thief for just 25% or so. In "that other game", Ranger skills are added to Fighter for around 10%, to Cleric for 150%.

Then again, the roughly 100% penalty for multiclass keeps that character just one level below the single-classed party members up until 15th or so when he catches up. Maybe multiclass is already balanced.

Anyway, like I said, I'll shut up about the points now.

[Thorfinn]

One thing not addressed though is the additional requirements that must be met in order to become any particular quasi-class. That is a balancing point too.

I don't believe that's true.

Putting a 1 in a million chance of getting a vorpal weapon on the first level of the dungeon does not make it balanced. Its just that most of the time, the unbalanced aspect won't happen.