Quote:
Originally Posted by Rooj
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Kinda wish Ranger had gotten plate and Bard had gotten chain. Oh well.
|
Rangers were restricted to chain because of the legacy of the class in D&D and the class's reference - Lord of the Rings. I think it's critically important to maintain that sort of dynamic, as it maintains the role, and the fantasy of it. Modern RPG systems have crapped all over such distinctions and feel homogenized and featureless as a result IMO. Genuine class distinction is a tent pole of good RPGing.
I know there have been lots of skill-only systems, and others where you could basically design your own classes, but they were that much less compelling as a result - to me and my friends anyway. It might have looked good on paper and in concept, but it played out badly. When everyone can do everything you end up without any clear gameplay, and no reason to keep playing, and no reason to cooperate. EQ was designed to force you to group, and that is awesome in so many ways.
It's ironic how all these highly complex, big number systems end up creating build templates that everyone gravitates towards anyway. That to me is the proof positive that it's a mistake.
TL;DR Rangers got chain, but got the most elegant and elegantly useful implementation of the track ability in any game I've seen, and the ability to pwn from a distance, meaning that if they decide to go toe to toe they have to weigh the risk. Great class design (again, IMO).