Quote Originally Posted by Jaxby View Post
I very much agree with Bjarkmundur's thoughts on the selfreliant ranger as a team player.

However I don't think there is a problem with referencing wilderness in the class descriptions. Firstly, it plays into the majority of ranger characters' lore/theme in a broad manner. I will be so bold as to assume that the urban hunter is quite a specific character. Secondly, it makes it clear which mechanic in the game the feature is supposed to apply to, without being overly game-language-y as I think "the exploration pillar of the game" is.

Edit: it would seem I mixed things up a bit. Bjarkmundur was talking about "environment" when referring to the wording, and exploration pillar in the second paragraph. My mistake.

I still think that an urban ranger is better suited for the rogue, as a character that is stealthy, good at percieving & moves through difficult terrain of the environment (ie. Traps and locks in the city). But I am not strongly opposed to an inclusive ranger wording, as long as it doesn't take away flavour and becomes generic.
The whole "wilderness/environment" thing is one of my main issues with the ranger class. If being a nature boy is the ranger's "main thing", that's not enough to justify it being a class of its own. You can have a wilderness-flavored fighter; that would be less situational (and more useful) than having the class built around on being a nature boy. At least some of the core abilities need to be useful outside of a wilderness setting. Thus the "favored enemy/studied target/hinters mark/quarry" concept.

I disagree about rogue being a better urban ranger. A ranger, even if it's a class of its own, is a fighter at heart. Always has been, always should be. When I think "urban ranger", I think Batman. Yes, he's stealthy and all; but he is oe of the best melee fighters above all. And if he's a ranger, he's also good to have around even outside of his environment (a city, especially Gotham).