Cool! I did a non-spell ranger, too, which I called the Hunter. Like you, I went with thiefly skills. My description of the class was terser, but it's mostly the same.
XP/HD: Fighter experience, but Cleric HD progression.
Weaponry and Armor: No pole arms, light/leather armor only.
Abilities: Stealth in the wilderness (stalking, ambush, and camouflage, as well as detection of the same) and trapping/woodcraft. Basically, thief skills excluding the surprise attack damage bonus, but reskinned as woodland skills.
Post by Koren n'Rhys on May 19, 2013 20:19:02 GMT -6
Those are both really cool guys. I can certainly see the clean utility of doing skills this way, and by adding in the increasing die mechanic for improvement? Super nice! This is a skill system I can see porting into my Classic game. These ranger/hunter writeups are really close to my orchid race as class too!
I guess if one liked the 2nd ed. AD&D ranger, then these revisions would be right up one's alley.
Hey Scott, I'm not quite sure I'm seeing it in the same light..? The 2e ranger has (from memory) any armour, shield, dual-weapon fighting, favoured enemy, and priest spells. Plus a whole lot more text.
What I really love about it is how DD/OD&D classes can be so brief, yet so rich