Baldur's Gate : The Sword Coast Chronicles : NWN2 Persistent World

Montaron Alagondar wrote:You can become a fallen ranger, you know.

Then you are not a ranger, you are a fighter.

How about we do exactly what the FR rules say to do? I mean if we don't, they how about we allow druids to worship anyone, since that would be going against the FR lore. Or allow LG blkguards (not paladins - blkguards), and wizards that can wear fullplate and cast spells without penalties.

Eviloth wrote:How about we do exactly what the FR rules say to do? I mean if we don't, they how about we allow druids to worship anyone, since that would be going against the FR lore. Or allow LG blkguards (not paladins - blkguards), and wizards that can wear fullplate and cast spells without penalties.

What? At the time of the server, the game was on first edition and in first edition ALL rangers were required to be of a good alignment therefore, at the time of the server, ALL rangers should be of a good alignment. That is how lore works.

As for Rangers falling, let's just take the paladin falling rules and apply them to ranger in the same way they are applied to paladins. Let's look at those rules in first edition!

http://www.mjyoung.net/dungeon/char/clas020.html

The Paladin was originally introduced as a subclass of fighter; but with the introduction of the cavalier class in the arcana rules it became of subclass of that new class. Some referees never made the alteration, and some permitted both versions to exist, so the two versions are described and distinguished in this text.

The character must be Lawful Good; failure to maintain that alignment may result in the permanent loss of all special powers of the class, reverting to either a fighter or a cavalier main class.

Oh, look at that. Paladin is a subclass of fighter (or cavalier) just like a Ranger is a subclass of a fighter. And look, if the paladin "falls" he reverts to a fighter or a cavalier.. so that would mean a Ranger that "falls" would revert to a fighter.

If we're going by lore, ALL rangers are good (No exceptions).

But the server follows 3.5e, regardless of the timeline. DMs has stated that plenty of times.

Seymor wrote:

Eviloth wrote:How about we do exactly what the FR rules say to do? I mean if we don't, they how about we allow druids to worship anyone, since that would be going against the FR lore. Or allow LG blkguards (not paladins - blkguards), and wizards that can wear fullplate and cast spells without penalties.

What? At the time of the server, the game was on first edition and in first edition ALL rangers were required to be of a good alignment therefore, at the time of the server, ALL rangers should be of a good alignment. That is how lore works.

As for Rangers falling, let's just take the paladin falling rules and apply them to ranger in the same way they are applied to paladins. Let's look at those rules in first edition!

http://www.mjyoung.net/dungeon/char/clas020.html

The Paladin was originally introduced as a subclass of fighter; but with the introduction of the cavalier class in the arcana rules it became of subclass of that new class. Some referees never made the alteration, and some permitted both versions to exist, so the two versions are described and distinguished in this text.

The character must be Lawful Good; failure to maintain that alignment may result in the permanent loss of all special powers of the class, reverting to either a fighter or a cavalier main class.

Oh, look at that. Paladin is a subclass of fighter (or cavalier) just like a Ranger is a subclass of a fighter. And look, if the paladin "falls" he reverts to a fighter or a cavalier.. so that would mean a Ranger that "falls" would revert to a fighter.

If we're going by lore, ALL rangers are good (No exceptions).

1st edition btw SUCKED.

-------------------------------------------------------
"7. Multiclassing is only available to demi-humans. Humans can't multiclass, but certain multiclass combinations are allowed for certain races. Humans can "Dual Class", but the rules for it are very unclear. You stop being one class and become another... you can't use your old class abilities until you reach the same level in your new class. Do you keep your old hit dice ? Who knows. Can you wear armor and cast arcane spells ? Who Knows.


It's not that unclear. As for dual classing, it's based on an older vision of careers and life that just doesn't "click" for modern people today who do not, nor ever have, live in a world where "you are what you do" was a major thing and you probably would end up doing what your father did for a living. Changing profession was a HUGE thing, akin to remaking your life. In that light, it makes more sense.

And, for the record, you kept your old hit points, but dropped back to first level. Then, you didn't gain new hit points until your hit dice level (i.e., the level of your new class) exceeded that of your old. Then you started gaining more HP and your old abilities "kicked back in" without penaltyso to speak.


8. Race / Class combination rules mean only certain races can be certain classes. If you don't have unearthed arcana, you can't have paladins who are not human. Also most classes (other than thief (which means "rouge" in 3.5 terms)) have a maximum level limit for races other than Humans."

Seymor wrote:Yes, but in the time that the server takes place. All rangers are good (No exceptions).

This has nothing to do with time. Moradin could easily allow paladins in his dwarven ranks, but thing is, in 2nd edition, paladin was something that should be heavily restricted due to all much more superior abilities in comparison to other classes. The same with ranger. There fore came restriction of alignment, race and etc.

3rd edition proclaimed freedom. So rangers can now easily be evil and many races can have paladin calling. I am sure that some hardcore fans of 2nd edition won't appreciate that, but it did not make sense for rangers to be only good, in my opinion.

And lastly, I like 2nd edition and I will not join Eviloth in sullying i's realism. This thread has gone a bit too far from help to one player who needs guidance of experienced peers.

Rainbow Prism wrote:

Seymor wrote:Yes, but in the time that the server takes place. All rangers are good (No exceptions).

And lastly, I like 2nd edition and I will not join Eviloth in sullying i's realism. This thread has gone a bit too far from help to one player who needs guidance of experienced peers.

I think I am just an instigator. This happens often when I post. Whoops..

Okay I guess what this thread comes down to is, can we have rangers of Lolth and other gods/goddess?

A ranger without spellcasting? I'm 100% sure. With spellcasting? I can't say.



Ranger is a life-style, it only requires a nature deity because of the spells. You could easily worship even gond and be a ranger so long you don't cast spells, merely use your skills.

Hoihe wrote:Ranger is a life-style, it only requires a nature deity because of the spells. You could easily worship even gond and be a ranger so long you don't cast spells, merely use your skills.

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!

RANGER GETS SPELLS FROM WHATERVER GOD THEY FOLLOW!

YES, OUR RANGER OF GOND IS FULLY COMPETENT SPELL CASTER.

THE ONLY THING AMISS IS NWN2'S IMPLEMENTATION OF RANGER AND SPIRIT SHAMAN DEITY LISTS!


You really dissappoint me Hoihe.

Yeah I also got school on this topic, and I even posted the image prior.

If you look a ranger just has to have a patron deity. So basically where is boils down to is, the only ranger that DOES NOT have spell casting is an atheist. And even then, I am sure with the alternate rules he can worship like an element or something.

I am just inclined to contiue underlying the Ranger part of the image... bad underlying produces bad conclusions since people do not finish reading...

*Facepalm.*

Could we get some staff commenting on the FR lore per the ranger class? We have the lore pulled out right here.

I'm going to step up, be the voice of reason and suggest that we close this thread. Every other post is just saying the same thing. Maybe we should post the ranger deity issue in the suggestion thread and leave it at that.

Montaron Alagondar wrote:

Hoihe wrote:Ranger is a life-style, it only requires a nature deity because of the spells. You could easily worship even gond and be a ranger so long you don't cast spells, merely use your skills.

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!

RANGER GETS SPELLS FROM WHATERVER GOD THEY FOLLOW!

YES, OUR RANGER OF GOND IS FULLY COMPETENT SPELL CASTER.

THE ONLY THING AMISS IS NWN2'S IMPLEMENTATION OF RANGER AND SPIRIT SHAMAN DEITY LISTS!


You really dissappoint me Hoihe.

Montaron, no matter how frustrated you feel, using all caps and a big font isn't going to make you sound any convincier. It's the equivalent of standing up at the dinner table and shouting, hoping that the other person will be intimidated into silence - except since it's over the internet, everybody is going to read it as flat text and nobody is going to be scared.