A whole bunch of ideas for KotC 2

[BlueSalamander]

That sounds fun. In ADOM, you could throw huge rocks at doors to smash them, and if you were a troll you could 'sacrifice' rocks to your god, the bigger the better.

[SkeleTony]

I disagree with the "Archer > Ranger" thing for the following reasons:

1)While archers Do have a place in the heroic fantasy genre, Rangers are more iconic to this genre and while a simple 'archer' is basically just a warrior specializing in archery(you could replace "knight" with "warrior" or "Fighter" and cover a slew of these types), they become a hindrance when they either run out of ammo or are closed in on by enemies in melee.

2)A Ranger is traditionally a hybrid between an archer and a druid(like 75% archer, and 25% Druid), they also have some specialized skills that only rangers should have(tracking, scouting etc.). In short, when they run out of arrows, they still have other abilities to contribute(melee, spellcasting, animal companions, stealth, tracking etc.).

This all kind of depends on whether you want to go for MORE classes with very specialized/narrow roles or slightly fewer classes with more versatility in how they can develop or contribute to the party.

I am also for expanding the number of PCs available for the player to create his party, at least as an option for those who do not like the 4-PC party limit. the best CRPGS I have ever played seem to always allow for at LEAST six and usually EIGHT PCs in the party. Combat is more interesting and often quicker and PC development is more fun because you do not have to consolidate so many different abilities into so few characters(i.e. your thief can be a THIEF rather than also having to become a tank/archer. Your Mage can be a MAGE rather than having to be an Archer/Mage/priest, etc.)

[MonkeyLancer]

1)While archers Do have a place in the heroic fantasy genre, Rangers are more iconic to this genre and while a simple 'archer' is basically just a warrior specializing in archery(you could replace "knight" with "warrior" or "Fighter" and cover a slew of these types), they become a hindrance when they either run out of ammo or are closed in on by enemies in melee.

2)A Ranger is traditionally a hybrid between an archer and a druid(like 75% archer, and 25% Druid), they also have some specialized skills that only rangers should have(tracking, scouting etc.). In short, when they run out of arrows, they still have other abilities to contribute(melee, spellcasting, animal companions, stealth, tracking etc.).

While certain names may bring certain connotations to some, but I don't think that they are all universal or iconic to all. Personally, I prefer the idea of it being open to interpretation, why limit it to the name archer, which pigeon holds into only type of skirmishing character when there are crossbowman, slingers, javelin throwers etc. Why limit rangers to use two weapon using or archery characters , when in real life tradition of rangers they are just 'range wardens' to police forested areas which could mean axemen, or spearmen or anything really...

that probably doesn't help

Anyway, I also like the idea of creating ranged combatants without the nature flavor added periodically too.

[SkeleTony]

1)While archers Do have a place in the heroic fantasy genre, Rangers are more iconic to this genre and while a simple 'archer' is basically just a warrior specializing in archery(you could replace "knight" with "warrior" or "Fighter" and cover a slew of these types), they become a hindrance when they either run out of ammo or are closed in on by enemies in melee.

2)A Ranger is traditionally a hybrid between an archer and a druid(like 75% archer, and 25% Druid), they also have some specialized skills that only rangers should have(tracking, scouting etc.). In short, when they run out of arrows, they still have other abilities to contribute(melee, spellcasting, animal companions, stealth, tracking etc.).

While certain names may bring certain connotations to some, but I don't think that they are all universal or iconic to all. Personally, I prefer the idea of it being open to interpretation, why limit it to the name archer, which pigeon holds into only type of skirmishing character when there are crossbowman, slingers, javelin throwers etc. Why limit rangers to use two weapon using or archery characters , when in real life tradition of rangers they are just 'range wardens' to police forested areas which could mean axemen, or spearmen or anything really...

that probably doesn't help

Anyway, I also like the idea of creating ranged combatants without the nature flavor added periodically too.

Taking your points one by one here...

1)Not sure what you are talking about when you say "Personally, I prefer the idea of it being open to interpretation, why limit it to the name archer, which pigeon holds into only type of skirmishing character when there are crossbowman, slingers, javelin throwers etc.". Crossbowmen technically ARE archers for one thing. But more importantly, my suggestions above already deal with this concern by replacing narrowly specific archetypes such as "Knight" with broader types like "Warrior" or "Fighter" and leaving it up to players which weapons they want to specialize in(bows, crossbows, swords, axes etc.).

2)I did not advocate "limiting rangers" to one specific weapon or some such and there are no "real life rangers"(save for the modern military special forces soldier but they are not "ranger wardens" either), but if a game developer IS going to have an archery specialized character class, rangers make more sense IMO for the reasons I listed already.

3)That is fine to want to create an archer who is NOT a ranger/Nature guardian type and again, you can do that with a more generic "warrior"/fighter specializing in bows/archery/whatever.

[BlueSalamander]

2)A Ranger is traditionally a hybrid between an archer and a druid(like 75% archer, and 25% Druid), they also have some specialized skills that only rangers should have(tracking, scouting etc.). In short, when they run out of arrows, they still have other abilities to contribute (melee, spellcasting, animal companions, stealth, tracking etc.).

The problem I have with this is that in the world of video games I've rarely seen the Ranger being a useful class. In a pen and paper game I figure tracking and stealth would be nice to have.
Rangers are not very good in melee combat because they wear light armour. The favoured enemy encourages metagaming (Lair of the Beholder? let me roll a ranger specialised in aberrations). The spellcasting is extraordinarily weak, at level 4 he can cast a single level-1 spell (with a wisdom of 12 or more), usually Cure Light Wounds. Compare that with the Paladin, which gets Lay on hands healing from level 1, as well as heavy armour proficiency and d10 hit points. In the domain of archery, the ranger isn't any better than the fighter.
I like animal companion and the nature-focused spells, but I think Druid is a much better recipient for these than Ranger.

That is fine to want to create an archer who is NOT a ranger/Nature guardian type and again, you can do that with a more generic "warrior"/fighter specializing in bows/archery/whatever.

That is true but ranged combat is often perceived as weaker than melee and maybe an archer class could change that perception. Just like the Archer in Baldur's Gate 2 he could have a very high ranged attack bonus (more than the fighter's) and called shots (which a fighter can't do) in exchange for lower HP, light armour, no extra feats.

I'd also give them bonuses against animals and surprise encounters in the wilderness.

From high dexterity they would automatically get good initiative rolls. They could also receive something like the barbarian's uncanny dodge (immune to flat-footed).

They should have the ability to craft basic items made out of leather or wood, as well as archery weapons and arrows/bolts of sleep and poison.

Sounds good.

Edit 1 - Cure Light Wounds is actually a level-2 spell for rangers in the SRD. So I guess their first spell would be Summon Nature's Ally.
Edit 2 - At the moment I'm more leaning towards leaving aside all crafting, to better control PC equipment and make item discovery more exciting.

[SkeleTony]

2)A Ranger is traditionally a hybrid between an archer and a druid(like 75% archer, and 25% Druid), they also have some specialized skills that only rangers should have(tracking, scouting etc.). In short, when they run out of arrows, they still have other abilities to contribute (melee, spellcasting, animal companions, stealth, tracking etc.).

The problem I have with this is that in the world of video games I've rarely seen the Ranger being a useful class. In a pen and paper game I figure tracking and stealth would be nice to have.

Too true. The sole exception I can think of are Everquest(MMORPG) where Rangers are considered OVERPOWERED to some extent. But this is due to poor game design decisions and failure to spend the effort(or even have the ideas) to balance the class properly. There are a million ways to keep the Ranger true to it's nature and make it comparable to other classes in power/usefulness.(More on this below)

Rangers are not very good in melee combat because they wear light armour.

This is true and I am inclined to think they should NEVER be much for front line tanking...except for the fact that if this WERE actually true then Conan should be the worst melee fighter ever to engage a monster. Heavy armors should be a trade off; better protection from damage vs. inability to dodge blows(of course this does not work so well with D&D's poor system, without some 'homebrewing'/modding to the traditional mechanics/rules). But if you give rangers truly special archery abilities this becomes irrelevant(think Legolas taking down an Oilephant with a few well placed arrows in the midst of a massive melee skirmish).

The favoured enemy encourages metagaming (Lair of the Beholder? let me roll a ranger specialised in aberrations).

Possibly(though this is EASy to counterbalance by NOT stocking an entire game with a majority of a specific type of monster/enemy). I see no need to keep this relic of D&D though anyway. It is YOUR game after all...

The spellcasting is extraordinarily weak, at level 4 he can cast a single level-1 spell (with a wisdom of 12 or more), usually Cure Light Wounds. Compare that with the Paladin, which gets Lay on hands healing from level 1, as well as heavy armour proficiency and d10 hit points. In the domain of archery, the ranger isn't any better than the fighter.

A weakness of D&D's magic system but in any case, their spell casting ability should not be their primary focus anyway. It should be a utilitarian bonus. Like "Well my ranger is not as good at taking damage as my Knight/warrior/whatever but he can at least do a little healing and cast a few useful spells(etc.)...".
Also there is nothing stopping you from putting in new spells unique to the ranger class that have better utility value. 'Arcane archery' type stuff for example: Maybe you envision rangers to not be quite as good as 'pure archers' except that they have spells like "hail of arrows" or"Killshot" etc.

I like animal companion and the nature-focused spells, but I think Druid is a much better recipient for these than Ranger.

The druid should be a better spellcaster than the ranger(that is what Druids DO!) but there is no reason that rangers cannot, as I pointed out before be balanced enough in otehr areas that their limited magical abilities can serve as some help and they can always have spells that Druids do not get(spells focused on archery/hunting, stealth/camouflage, perception/finding/tracking, etc.)

That is fine to want to create an archer who is NOT a ranger/Nature guardian type and again, you can do that with a more generic "warrior"/fighter specializing in bows/archery/whatever.

That is true but ranged combat is often perceived as weaker than melee and maybe an archer class could change that perception. Just like the Archer in Baldur's Gate 2 he could have a very high ranged attack bonus (more than the fighter's) and called shots (which a fighter can't do) in exchange for lower HP, light armour, no extra feats.

Yes, but my point originally was that Rangers could BE that class or you could still have "kits" or "subclasses" adn keep the archer as you envision him above but give Rangers arcane archery spells that archers do not get. The trade off would be that in order for a ranger to even come close to matching an equal level archer in ranged combat, he has to cast some spells and even then he would have different sorts of advantages. The archer would have straightforward bonuses to hit and damage and do criticals but rangers might be able to cast spells that cause their arrows to bypass armor or explode upon hitting their target or ignore range penalties etc.

Just some ideas off the top of my head.

[VentilatorOfDoom]

Edit 2 - At the moment I'm more leaning towards leaving aside all crafting, to better control PC equipment and make item discovery more exciting.

I always liked crafting.

[Marinx]

I know that this idea won't happen in KotC 2 but I'll say it anyway. Maybe you'll consider it for you next project.
I always like round based combat like it was in AD&D second edition. I mean simultaneous turns. All players states what they want to do in following round and then roll for initiative. I'm sure that all of you know what I mean

[BlueSalamander]

I mean simultaneous turns.

That sounds similar to the phase-based system used in Wizardry 8, did you like that one?

[Marinx]

That sounds similar to the phase-based system used in Wizardry 8, did you like that one?

Sorry, didn't play none of wizadry games.
This is from AD&D second edition:

The Combat Sequence
In real life, combat is one of the closest things to pure anarchy. Each side is attempting to
harm the other, essentially causing disorder and chaos. Thus, combats are filled with
unknowns--unplanned events, failed attacks, lack of communication, and general
confusion and uncertainty. However, to play a battle in the game, it is necessary to
impose some order on the actions that occur. Within a combat round, there is a set series
of steps that must be followed. These steps are:
1. The DM decides what actions the monsters or NPCs will take, including casting
spells (if any).
2. The players indicate what their characters will do, including casting spells (if any).
3. Initiative is determined.
4. Attacks are made in order of initiative.
These steps are followed until the combat ends--either one side is defeated, surrenders,
or runs away.
NPC/Monster Determination: In the first step, the DM secretly decides in general
terms what each opponent will do--attack, flee, or cast a spell. He does not announce his
decisions to the players. If a spell is to be cast, the DM picks the spell before the players
announce their characters' actions.
Player Determination: Next, the players give a general indication of what their
characters are planning to do. This does not have to be perfectly precise and can be
changed somewhat, if the DM decides circumstances warrant.
If the characters are battling goblins, a player can say, "My fighter will attack" without
having to announce which goblin he will strike. If the characters are battling a mixed
group of goblins and ogres, the player has to state whether his character is attacking
goblins or ogres.
Spells to be cast must also be announced at this time and cannot be changed once the
initiative die is rolled.
Before moving on, the DM will make sure he has a clear idea of not only what the
player characters are doing, but also what actions any hirelings and henchmen are taking.
Once he has a clear view of everything that's likely to happen, the DM can overrule any
announced action that violates the rules (or in the case of an NPC, is out of character).
He is not required to overrule an impossible action, but he can let a character attempt it
anyway, knowing full well the character cannot succeed. It is not the DM's position to
advise players on the best strategies, most intelligent actions, or optimum maneuvers for their characters.
Initiative: In the third step, dice are rolled to determine initiative, according to the
rules for initiative (see "Initiative" below).
Resolution: In the last step, PCs, NPCs, and monsters make their attacks, spells occur,
and any other actions are resolved according to the order of initiative.
The above sequence is not immutable. Indeed, some monsters violate the standard
sequence, and some situations demand the application of common sense. In these cases
the DM's word is final.
Rath is leading a party through the corridors of a dungeon. Right behind him are
Rupert and Delsenora. Rounding a bend, they see a group of orcs and trolls about 20 feet
away. No one is surprised by the encounter.
The DM has notes telling him the orcs are hesitant. He secretly decides that they will
fall back and let the trolls fight. The trolls, able to regenerate, are naturally
overconfident and step forward to the front rank (cursing the orcs at the same time) and
prepare to attack. Turning to the players, the DM asks, "What are you going to do?"
Harry (playing Rath, a dwarf who hates orcs): "Orcs?--CHARGE!"
Anne (playing Delsenora the wizard): "Uh--what!? Wait--don't do that . . . I was going to
. . . now I can't use a fireball."
DM: "Rath is charging forward. Quick--what are you doing?"
Jon (playing Rupert, the half-elf, to Anne): "Cast a spell! (To DM) Can I fire my bow
over him?"
DM: "Sure, he's short."
Jon: "OK, I'll shoot at orcs."
DM: "Anne, tell me what Delsenora's doing or she'll lose the round trying to make up her
mind!"
Anne: "Got it!--Acid arrow spell at the lead troll."
DM: "Fine. Harry, Rath is in front. Roll for initiative."

This is what I meant. Everybody declares their actions. Computer decide what are NPC and monster going to do. And then you press "action" or "play" or something. I think it would more interesting than classic turn based combat. You still have time to think what are every character should do and you have "the feeling" of realism and combat chaos.