What is a Ranger,

 but a mismatched pile of special abilities.

The Ranger is a class that no one seems to be able to figure out.  The only other class that comes close to the constant stream of dissapointment is possibly the Monk.  It has had countless revisions both between and within editions.

I imagine that the problem lies with the original concept in general.

-I have no proof of this (maybe some digging over at Playing at the World would turn up some into), but presumably someone wanted to play Aragorn, so we have a class that emulates that character's abilities in Lord of the Rings.  But some of the abilities described in that work are the result of Aragorn's heritage and status, not his day job of running about the woods.  So in addition to the woodsie survival stuff, you also have an odd mix of divine and arcane spells and tricks (depending on edition)

-This brings us to the basic definition of a Ranger: one of a body of organized armed men who range over a region especially to enforce the law; a soldier specially trained in close-range fighting and in raiding tactics.  Honestly, that just sounds like any given D&D character? They leave the confines of civilization, raid dungeons, fight monsters in close quarters, and bring"law" to the wilds

The combination of odd abilities and a lack of clear thesis started the class of on a bad foot.  Then over time, it jut gets more confused. Drizzt shows up as a Ranger who can fight with 2 weapons (because he is a Drow), but that gets folded into the class.  Around 2e they seem to start the transition from folks who tame nature, to ones who protect it.  It is also my personal belief that since D&D lacked a proper swashbuckler type character, many folks looked to the Ranger class to create that sort of archetype, further muddying the expectations of the class.

3e comes along, and suddenly the doors open for character builds, but 2 weapon fighting is still presented as a core concept for the class?  It also gets pushed more into the "Nature Magic" camp than before, and you get animal companions (taking a bit from Beastermaster, which always seemed more of a Barbarian achretype). 3.5 adds the option of Archery, and also some acutal wilderness special abilities, but then dials back the HD, making it seem less of a warrior.  And you still have the long standing issue of a class who's major ability (favored enemy) only comes into play when the DMs plans for it.

4e, for whatever your opinion of it, did try to mitigate some of the issues by giving the class things like Hunter's Quarry and other abilities that synergized with "Special Forces" archetype to give it a niche.

So now we have a class that folks want to be about animal pals, and nature magic, and wilderness survival, and favored enemies, and Two Weapon Fighting, and Archer, and and and....

It cant be all of those things, even if you try to split all the flavors out into different "paths"

We circle back to the question, does it even need to be a class? Can it even be a single class, or should we give some of its stuff to the Fighter, Barbarian, and Druid and leave the title "Ranger" the same way we might use "Thief", "Witch", or "Knight"?

Mini Painting

 My first mini painting set was a free starter set that came with some Ral Partha minis I had orders (by mail catalog).  Prior to that I would never have considered even trying to paint minis. I didn't want to ruin my prized DragonLance and Draconian sets, so I hit the bargain bin at my local hobby shop and grabbed some Shadowrun minis to practice on first.  This also got me started on modding minis (something I prefer not to do often), trying to turn sub machine guns into something resembling a crossbow.  I still have those minis, they look alright.

At this point I was all in on the detailed painting of minis.  I got decent spread of citadel colors from the hobby shop and set about the task for the next few years.  (I still have some, those 90's citadel bottles were way better at preserving paint)  Again, those minis are crudely done, but still presentable next to more recently painted items.

Then the great hiatus.  My several year break in gaming also resulted in several years away from painting.  I briefly got back into it on and off, but found my paint drying out and getting frustrated (citadel had switched to screw on tops).

I finally started up again about 8 years ago, but this time I was determiner not to drop a fortune in mini paints.  TO THE CRAFT STORE!  Ever since then I have done the majority of painting with standard $1 craft paints (and those 25 year old citadel colors).  They have worked wonderfully.  I had to go back and pick up some silver and gunmetal metallics, as I have not found craft ones that hold up.  Oddly brass, gold, and other "yellow" metals are fine in craft paint.  Also I need to pick up some specialized "flesh" tones (another area craft paints seem to be lacking).

But, even if you are a serious painter, I would encourage you to pick up some primary colors, grey, browns, greens, and black to help fill in the gaps and give you more variety of colors on the cheap.

Now I just need to get better at photographing:

Miniatures

Reapercon has come and gone and it got me thinking about miniatures (plus the non-stop painting for the past year and a half since my Bones Kickstarter arrived)

I enjoy mini's for their own sake.  Before D&D I was into model trains and towns (not that I could afford any besides what went under the tree).  Legos too.  So even if not for RPGs I would likely have spent a good chunk of my free time painting tiny people and buildings.

My first D&D games used a mix of the DMs HeroQuest, Ral Partha, and Grenadier minis.  When I brought my Dark World minis, the collection nearly doubled.  Minis seemed a natural thing, after all, it is a game and games have pieces.  It was a year or two later playing with a different group that I was introduced to "theater of the mind".

So in short, I like minis.  I like painting them as a hobby, and I use them frequently in RPGs (current state of the world and no in-person D&D not withstanding).

I do wish that early D&D had settled on a 1' = 1yard (or meter) scale.  It would have given us army men sized minis which I think would have opened up a bigger world to mini sculpts earlier on.  It also would have made map scales make more sense where the markers for doors/windows are concerned, but that is a different discussion.

So that said, I don't mind the overall trend to larger minis.  Though, it is weird having some Halfling/Dwarf minis that are burlier than my classic barbarians.  I appreciate having more room to work with paint.  Somewhat in-congruently, I am less of a fan of they overly detailed minis that are coming out in recent years.  They gave me bigger minis that are easier to paint, but then crammed them full of tiny details!!!  Also, I feel the details and bits, makes it less and less likely that the minis is a "fit" for your character.  But I guess if you want that level of compatibility, you go to Heroforge. 

Bones are great, and I have great luck repainting old D&D Miniatures in addition to those ancient board game dudes.  But I still think metal is better.  Maybe because it is what I learned with, I find painting to be easier.  I enjoy the literal flexibility.  So whenever I can, I try to pick up things from my wishlist on the Reaper metal catalogue,  especially if it is something unlikely to be made into Bones.  (I may prefer metal, but my wallet prefers plastic)

That said, I wish Reaper has a Sort by Sculptor function.

And lest I give all the love to one company, I highly recommend https://www.darkswordminiatures.com/  they have some great quality sculpts that have a very different aesthetic than traditional D&D style minis.

More Mutants More Masterminds

How I went about putting together a game for Mutants & Masterminds (which I have still yet to run)

We previously etablished that after years of playing around with the system, I had settled on a 2.5 Edition as a mix of 2e  d20 core and 3e versatility in powers and effects.  Part of the reason I settle on this was that I assumed most players would be coming from a D&D background.

Many of the following points will be familiar to my discussion of Star Wars.  Since it is an unfamiliar system, and not one designed around advancement, I opt for a "quick shot" of sessions. I assume players will want to play brand name heroes (or something very close). 

While DC is personally my jam, the Avengers/MCU and Netflix shows were the owners of the zeitgeist. The Avengers, being top tier heroes and the movies being interlocked feels too restrictive for how I want to run a licensed game.  So I settle for the nice street level Netflix "Defenders".  The bonus at the time was the shows were in purgatory with impending cancellation, freeing my up continuity-wise.

So first things was stating out the characters using my two-tier characters sheet (one tab to build/one tab to reference during play).  I wanted to make sure the characters were balanced against one another.  Jessica Jones and "Iron Fist" can damage Luke Cage.  Iron Fist is better 1v1 and Daredevil can sweep a room.  I also throw in Punisher, which was an interesting challenge, since his powers are Guns and Rage.  Its not too long before I have them dialed in at PL 8 and a good idea of what they can take on.  I also throw in Blade, because I want too.

So, what will be the threat?  I went back and forth on ideas, what is something that will be more interesting than a bunch of ninja's or special forces, but not TOO big for this group.  Thankfully the movies ended up delivering.  "The SNAP" gives the perfect opportunity, major heroes are gone, the worlds is in disarray, and our heroes need to step up.  And because of studio politics, there will never be any worries of continuity (so I should not have to worry about rewriting this if we don't play for awhile - which is proving to be the case)

 Generating content is easy, maps of NYC, quick stats for police, ninja, special forces, generic goons.  But I need a villain for them to face off in a climactic battle and the mastermind behind it all.  I think Tombstone is unaccounted for and would make a good fit.  Also he is obscure enough I can tweak his power level to be threatening to the whole party. Taking cues from other media, it looks like he is distributing drugs laced with terrigen to create inhumans in order to force a conflict between the populace and enforcement agencies.  Part of the details are purposely vague at this point to leave me room to adapt and "yes and..." the player's ideas.

The inhuman angle also allows me to throw more "supers" at the party, so I make some low level knock off X-men as baddies as well.  This will allow me to get some practice with battles before the game progresses too far.

One day we will see how it went....