Well just remember survival, trapping, exploration and stealth arnt 'Required' for hunting either when you are pushing that role.
I said 'Survivalist' is the primary role. And all those you mentioned are integral parts of that. To survive in the wilderness you need to know how to hunt (which includes trapping), exploration, camping, stealth, etc.
Recon doesn't require those attributes. It's one aspect of 'Survivalist' but not the other way around.
And from the basis that you require them to 'Survive' in the wilderness you can expand to include them to work vs NPCs and PCs.
If I can set traps for animals those same traps can harm people. If I can track animals I can also track people. If I can hide and sneak past animals with their enchanced senses it will also work vs people. All those are basics of surviving in the wild that work both vs animals and people. However they are not Recon abilities. They don't involve gathering 'intel'. They are about surviving in the adverse conditions of the wile. They are all aspects of 'Wilderness Survival'. Hence 'Survivalist'.
You are saying there is no basis, i give you basis = nothing has changed
You say you need military training, but NO profession in swg recieves military training = nothing has changed
A RANGER (edit) is not a 250 sp profession, it requires additions, most notably a firearm or melee weapon specialisation. Now lets not get wrapped up in the idea that you dont realy NEED a firearm or melee weapon because every ranger here knows to be most effective you need either a gun or a melee weapon.
Baring this in mind what you are saying that a recon unit would benefit from having firearms or melee weapons training, we agree, we pick up a core combat profession to enhance our recon role. Easy. Dont need it, like you said before but would help alot.
Again commandos and infantry units come to the table involving real life examples, again real life is taken as a marker, not as a place to base in game and swg boundaries on. Who is to say that a ranger using rifle skills cant be a great recon unit? Thats the character you make. Who to say that ranger wouldnt bring the recon skills to the table?
We are no playing RL here we are talking about swg, we both have no right to say what is or isnt because we just dont know, but what we can do is develope ideas, suggest things and move forward. You have this idea that a ranger must be hunting orientated for some reason, you think that we could not be a recon unit because we dont have firearms training. Well commandos dont train in heavy weapons to get where they are, the pratice in firarms and melee trainnig (not mliitary as you put it) and then branch of in a new and unique direction. the same way ranger could branch off scout using the stealth, trapping, tracking, information gathering and survival aspects.
They move off into something different so why shouldnt we?
I think you dont understand what a base in marksman or brawler actually means. Seem to me you think doing marksman trains you in military ways or makes you into a soldier, well it doesnt. It trains you how to use a FIREARM (not a weapon in general but a firearm), it can also train you in special abilities using those firarms (marksman only).
The only thing that no pre-reqs in marksman or brawler should mean is no rifles, no pistols, no carbs, no 2hd, no 1hd, no pikes, no knucklers. We dont desire or need any of those. Not having a firarm specialisation doesnt mean anything either, we are taking about templates here, the choice issue. Best thing about ranger = you can pick what weapon you want. Who else has this freedome as a combatant?
You dont Need a weapon to survey the area, as you said before, its just gathering information. But why make it boring when you can make it an interesting role to play? Add stealth, add ambushing, add intell gathering and tracking and you have a very apealing profession based around skills they have already learned in their base profession.
Its a tad hypocrytical when you say we cant have recon because we havnt a firearm just because RL situations dictate so. How many hunters do you see runing around without a weapon in RL?
Instead of of being held back on these misconceptions that you somehow need to have a specific weapon in your hand to be a recon unit, let go and imagine what a fun profession this could be. Defining a profession is never that easy because its not just about one dimentional training. You train what you MAY need to know, not just what you have to know.
Firearm requirements are out, its not military training, its simply a role you can fullfil in a template. Being a rifleman is no more 'military' than being a scout, you are only a soldier if you fight for an army. You dont need a weapon to be a recon unit yet one would greately benefit your efforts. As would stealth, as would tracking as would survival. Same with ranger as it currently is, you dont NEED a firearm or melee weapon training specialisation but you would do better to have one.
Again the stepping on toes issue neans nothing. We arnt stepping on anyones toes. We have stealth, recon doesnt NEED it, rifleman brings the rifle, recon doesnt NEED it. What it does need (bah edit) is information gathering and we have you beet on that, all be it slightly, we can gather extreme amounts of data on a target and even find targets who arnt in visual range. Besides you already have a damn role, why not give ranger this one when requirements arnt an issue, stealth isnt an issue and it isnt stepping on peoples toes?
Not in swg they arnt. I can be a survivalist without hunting, without trapping and without exploring. Recon is equaly justified and even more so because it brings a unique role to the table rather than an already used one.
You dont need a firearm for recon, would help though, as would stealth, traps, survival techniques and tracking. Is it so hard to imagine that we could advance our information gathering skills to orientate around humanoids and GCW situations? I think not. And there you have it, the only REAL requirement to recon, one which we have. The others would just help us perform that much better in an swg sense.
Why go for the already used role when we have a unique one lined up that actually developes ranger in some way, not advance it straight up.
Ranger is not meant to be a super scout. The Devs specifically posted this back in August 2003:
1. We aren't unique.
"Rangers have very little that differentiates them from scouts. Once Master Scout is reached, Ranger is essentially more of the exact same thing."
In my mind this issue is of critical importance and largely trumps the rest of the Correspondent list. The other 4 issues are mainly issues with inhereted scout ability bugs.
The focus of this post will be on how we are making Ranger different from scout. Ideologically, the ranger is still a "super scout." The key is implementing new and unique ways to go about that kind of gameplay.
Each skill tree is being adjusted to be more interesting and unique.
So we have a very strong argument for branching out from the basic Scout skills.
As for why Recon seems like an acceptable route to go, there are many arguments.
Semantically, it is easy to argue for a Recon extension to Scout. I'm assuming everyone here is talking about recon as the shortened form of reconnaissance. Reconnaissance is the act of reconnoitring, usually with military undertones. Reconnoitring is just exploring to gain information. Synonyms include such words as scouting... The military undertones are to be expected in a game where there is a large war going on that is meant to become the high level endgame. The name is Star Wars.
In the real world, you have many examples of reconnaissance units being based off of "hunters". Before the world's militaries started training their own reconnaissance units (such as the Army Rangers), they would normally hire local hunters (such as French Fur Traders or Native Americans) who knew the terrain and knew how to get in and out of enemy territory without getting killed. While they could defend themselves if necessary, they were not there to fight. The same is true of most military scouts through the ages. Most of them will also have a limited amount of training in other fields (maybe a demolitions expert or a sniper) but you won't have one uber "commando" like you see in movies. The recon units work in teams because they don't have enough "skill points" to learn everything they would need to be useful and stealthy. You don't send in a strike team of Army Rangers or Navy Seals expecting them to fight with a big army. They are meant to go in and complete their objectives without getting caught in a large firefight. Often those objectives include reconnaissance. Sending them against a big army will get them killed. They are not like SWG commandos that just have a lot of firepower.
Going to Star Wars lore, I direct you to Fred_Skinner's post in this thread. Most of the Rangers listed there have heavy military training.
Recon should be just as much a part of Ranger as buffing and rezing is a part of Doctor. You don't need to use the skills but you will want them in every PvP battle you can have them for.
In the real world, you have many examples of reconnaissance units being based off of "hunters". Before the world's militaries started training their own reconnaissance units (such as the Army Rangers), they would normally hire local hunters (such as French Fur Traders or Native Americans) who knew the terrain and knew how to get in and out of enemy territory without getting killed. While they could defend themselves if necessary, they were not there to fight. The same is true of most military scouts through the ages. Most of them will also have a limited amount of training in other fields (maybe a demolitions expert or a sniper) but you won't have one uber "commando" like you see in movies. The recon units work in teams because they don't have enough "skill points" to learn everything they would need to be useful and stealthy. You don't send in a strike team of Army Rangers or Navy Seals expecting them to fight with a big army. They are meant to go in and complete their objectives without getting caught in a large firefight. Often those objectives include reconnaissance. Sending them against a big army will get them killed. They are not like SWG commandos that just have a lot of firepower.
Going to Star Wars lore, I direct you to Fred_Skinner's post in this thread. Most of the Rangers listed there have heavy military training.
Recon should be just as much a part of Ranger as buffing and rezing is a part of Doctor. You don't need to use the skills but you will want them in every PvP battle you can have them for.
Nemo,
You are almost proving my point for me. The Recon you are talking about were Hunters that used their skills for the military. Their main skills were outdoors skills that had a military application. That is what I'm saying. Their main focus wasn't Recon, it was Wilderness Survival. Those skills could be used in specific applications to assist the military. But they are Outdoors skills.
And though you are correct about not sending SeALs vs a large army. You aren't in regards to Rangers. They are light infantry for the most part now. Even in WWII they were used as special infantry. They were part of the Normandy invasion and scaled the cliffs to take out artillery positions. Now adays they are trained to take high value targets such as airfields. They operate in large units for the most part. And no they are not like SWG Commandos. But SWG Commandos are not like RL Commandos either.
Ranger has two meanings. The military and the outdoors. The way Rangers in SWG are set up, they are the outdoors type. That doesn't mean however there skills won't have a military application. As you yourself gave examples. And that is what I'm arguing. Like your examples they are outdoorsman whose skills can be use for military applications. However their primary role isn't military. It's outdoors (wilderness survival).
When you look at Fred's post. Notice that the examples are of the military/para-military variety. Not the outdoors type. And some used the Ranger title because they liked it. I don't think even you would say the Pirates that use the name Rangers fit either definition of Ranger. Unless you consider Pirate para-military. Which could be the case depending on their level of organization and training.
Waste it just seems to me that you are basing your opinions about the future developements of ranger based on the current ranger skill set and orientation. Forget the direction we have now, the main problem we have is the current orientation is bad, we dont have uniqueness.
Even if went to have outdoors survival as a primary role then the odd racon bit here and there we would still only be super scouts with a little added on. We dont want that, we want to apear like we learned what we neeeded to know in scout then branched off using the concepts of those skills to make something unique.
Again real life examples comes into the discussion and to be honest, they more or less mean nothing. This is SW and we should be living in the SW universe as we all joined up to do, but rangers of lots of varieties already feature in the swg universe without you saying rangers should be this.... because they are not this....
The point is Rangers CAN be recon and they CAN be survival. One can be the primary role, as can the other.
Being a recon unit steps on no-ones toes, recon can be well justified to being a ranger role mainly because the current ranger role is not unique. Forget what ranger is now, this is not just a revamp that is needed, its a redefinition. We are combat orientated so there is no reason for us not to have a combat related role such as recon. Survival is key but isnt unique therefore should SUPPORT the primary role, not have other roles support it.
So just to sum up:
- Real life examples dont have alot of validity, this is not earth online, this is swg. Just because a real life recon unit may not always have concealment training (which i believe a lot would) who is to say swg rangers dont? This is a war after all, different situations, different worlds and most importantly a different galaxy.
- Military means you fights for an army or cause. A commando isnt military in swg, nor is Bh, smuggler, rifleman, sl, carb, tk, pike or any other class for that matter. Why should it be a factor in ranger development if it hasnt for anyone else.
- We ARE combat orientated therefore any suggestions related to combat skills are fair game as long as they dont step on the toes of others.
- Rangers are the masters of concealment and stealth already, no other class comes close so a stealth therefore recon role is justified.
-If we wanted a rifle, carb, pistol, pike, unarmed, 2hd or 1hd sword then we would need a marksman or brawler pre-req. We dont so no pre-req needed. Marksman and brawler DO not teach you anything but how to weild a certain weapon and use it in combat. Not military training in the slightest. So we would never need a marksman or brawler pre-req to be combat orientated.
I said 'Survivalist' is the primary role. And all those you mentioned are integral parts of that. To survive in the wilderness you need to know how to hunt (which includes trapping), exploration, camping, stealth, etc.
Recon doesn't require those attributes. It's one aspect of 'Survivalist' but not the other way around.
We said Recon is the primary role. And all of the features you mentioned are integral parts of that IN a Star Wars setting. To survive reconaissance you need to know how to track, use camoflage, place traps, negotiate terrain, and you need to have an understanding of how people hunt so that you can avoid being hunted and return to base with your intel.
A weapon is not required, nor is a military needed to produce reconaissance intelligence.
And what exactly does /snipershot or /concealshot have to do with the marksman rifle tree? The suggestions being made here are no more far fetched than some of the abilities that rifle wielders have.
________________________________
Experience the greatest Star Wars saga ever told -- yours. ________________________________
Because Ranger in this context isn't the military version. Its the outdoorsman version. The military context you are looking at are actually Commandos. The military skills you are talking about aren't Ranger skills, they are Commando skills.
Having been in the military and gone through Ranger training, I kinda take exception to that comment. They most certainly can be defined as skills available to a Ranger.
As they are Commando skills (military) and the fact that the pre-reqs for Ranger do not include ANY military (combat) pre-reqs. Then they appear to be obviously out of place.
I know you won't agree with this. But Ranger isn't a combat profession. It may be a combat augmentation profession, but it isn't a direct combat profession. You can level Ranger without being involved in combat at all. Can you not?
Perhaps if we were to start looking at things from a perspective contrary to what we know and also look at things outside the box, then we may open our minds up to the idea that these are Rangers from a different UNIVERSE. The definition of what a Ranger is in the Star Wars Universe is now ours to define. Why limit ourselves to what we know as the Rangers here in the Real World? Allow for some new ideas to creep into your heads and create a NEW vision for what a Ranger can be. The possibilities are only held in check by the conceived notions of what we believe a Ranger HAS to be.
Well not completely. Trap XP is combat XP. So that is the one exception. But you can level Scout and Wilderness XP without any combat at all.
Having been absent from these forums for quite some time, I feel a little out of place right now as I have missed a lot of the recent developments (or potential lack thereof). When I have the time to scan through the most recent topics and get an idea of where everyone seems to be standing, I will try to organize a document myself in regards to the current topic at hand.
We arnt arguing or anything, just discussing how we see rangers. We clash on a few things i think because alot of us know uniqueness and new definition is required. Our primary role NEEDS to be unique in order for us to develope as a profession. Hands up who wants to be a super scout? I want to be a ranger, through and through, thats it. I want to be recognised for my skills and have people think, thats a ranger over there, they do something like noone else, they are my heros. Well leave off the end part but you get my picture
Waste it just seems to me that you are basing your opinions about the future developements of ranger based on the current ranger skill set and orientation. Forget the direction we have now, the main problem we have is the current orientation is bad, we dont have uniqueness.
Of course. Because unless you are also changing the base pre-reqs which is what all elite professions have their skills based upon.
Being a recon unit steps on no-ones toes, recon can be well justified to being a ranger role mainly because the current ranger role is not unique. Forget what ranger is now, this is not just a revamp that is needed, its a redefinition. We are combat orientated so there is no reason for us not to have a combat related role such as recon. Survival is key but isnt unique therefore should SUPPORT the primary role, not have other roles support it.
You can have a recon role. But nor a recon primary focus. You also forget that as part of the revamp we can make survival unique.
So just to sum up:
- Military means you fights for an army or cause. A commando isnt military in swg, nor is Bh, smuggler, rifleman, sl, carb, tk, pike or any other class for that matter. Why should it be a factor in ranger development if it hasnt for anyone else.
That is where you are wrong. Three professions are nothing but military. Combat Medic, Commando, and Squad Leader. Those very terms indicate they are military. As do a number of tier names including Sniper, Gunner, Soldier, Assaulter, Grenadier and a host of others. They indicate that those skills are military in nature. The list is even longer if you include the para-military or dual use names. Rifleman itself can be a military name for Infantry. Carbineer has a similar dual use.
- Rangers are the masters of concealment and stealth already, no other class comes close so a stealth therefore recon role is justified.
Another error. You are equating stealth to recon. They aren't the same thing. They are completely seperate. It's quite possible to do recon with no stealth what so ever. Is it useful? Sure, in some instances. And this is why I say stress the Hunter angle for these skills. Military stealth skills are great vs people. But they are much less useful vs creatures. Reason being that military camo is about sight and sound. Creature camo is about sight, sound, and smell. Creatures are much easier to spook and have better senses, in general, than people. Even in SW. So if you are good enough to hide, stalk, etc a creature, you are well within your rights to be able to do so vs a person.
Having been in the military and gone through Ranger training, I kinda take exception to that comment. They most certainly can be defined as skills available to a Ranger.
The word Commando comes from the Dutch and came into use during the Boer wars. The meaning is lightly armed fast moving units that operate behind enemy lines. Ranger is a more American word that means roughly the same thing and came into use during the French and Indian War. Where the present Ranger Creed comes from.
Perhaps if we were to start looking at things from a perspective contrary to what we know and also look at things outside the box, then we may open our minds up to the idea that these are Rangers from a different UNIVERSE. The definition of what a Ranger is in the Star Wars Universe is now ours to define. Why limit ourselves to what we know as the Rangers here in the Real World? Allow for some new ideas to creep into your heads and create a NEW vision for what a Ranger can be. The possibilities are only held in check by the conceived notions of what we believe a Ranger HAS to be.
The reason is because the word has a specific meaning. We use the word Ranger in SWG because of its Real World meaning to convey that meaning in SWG. There are two meanings for Ranger. Based on the skills and the pre-req of Rangers in SWG it indicates which version is meant.
"Three professions are nothing but military. Combat Medic, Commando, and Squad Leader. Those very terms indicate they are military. As do a number of tier names including Sniper, Gunner, Soldier, Assaulter, Grenadier and a host of others. They indicate that those skills are military in nature. The list is even longer if you include the para-military or dual use names. Rifleman itself can be a military name for Infantry. Carbineer has a similar dual use."
Bah i wrote up my reply but all i seem to be doing is repeating the same points because they dont seem to be 'clicking' with you, you just dont seem to get my way of thinking. So ill start again and just summarise in a few short sentances:
There are no 'Military' professions in swg no matter how much you want them, they just dont exist. Training is done outside of ANY militart organisation or army in swg therefore you cant be a military person just for having skills. To do so you would need to join the gcw for a side, or role play a side, but again this is player choice, not profession need.
What you mean is combat orientation. There are combat orientated professions out there, some more combat orientated than others, some less than others, thats all. There are weapon speacialisations, simply allow you to adopt a role specific to that weapon and learn to fight using that weapon. Not having a firearm or melee weapon specialisation as a pre-req does not mean in any way at all that you cannot be combat effective. It just means you have not learn how to wield that specific weapon type correctly.
Scout IS combat orientated, therefore can justify a combat role (without firearms or melee weapons of course)
Ranger should be based off the scout concepts only not the skills themselves. The concepts are stealth, information gather, analysis techniques, hunting, wilderness survival, specialist weapon, exploration. The primary role for ranger cannot be one of these, it wont be unique, not matter what you do, it will be better granted but never unique. The primary role needs to be one that allows the player to use the concepts to perform the primary role. For instance recon.
I dont know why you have so many issues with recon being one of alot of roles. No other profession is suited more to it than rangers, and no toes would be stepped on. When we do get our revamp and if it involves recon skills then it sounds like you are expecting ranger to be a recon unit always and none stop. We are making 4 tiers that allow us to do lots of unique things under one all encompassing heading, ranger. The roles that our profession allows us to do are simply due to the skills we will have. Thats why we are planning the roles. If ranger actually had a universal meaning then we would have ranger as our primary role, but there isnt so recon skills come top of the list as stealth, hunting, information gathering, trapping and pathfinding all point towards it as areas an sw ranger would cover.
The problem, in my mind is in the definition of Ranger. This trumps all other issues. Because some people really believe what Waste said-- something along the line of "Rangers should be hunters." But many of us don't want to be just hunters.
Waste-- you say that the word Ranger is a term that basically means the same thing as Commando-- but you also say that we should be hunters. Something is very wrong if that's the case. We have commando's in the game. But they aren't military-style commando's. They are more "Rambo" style warriors-- big guns, lots of damage-dealing. and we know that they're not going to drastically change that. So there is room in the game for a "true" commando-- one that is a light assault troop.
Now before we get into what is "military" and what is not, let's look at something very important-- this is an MMORPG. One of the dificulties in creating an RPG is skill balance. You can't make someone into a "soldier" and give them all the skills of a soldier. An Army Ranger has training in several different skills. First of all, they are masters of several weapons. They are also in extremely good shape, and able to traverse hills with ease. They aslos know how to survive in the wilderness.
Now you can't give all these skills to one profession. So the issue becomes where to break tke skills. Which skills go best together?
In my mind, it's broken down like this: weapons professions are the "combat" aspect of a military unit. Think of a combat profession as a person who has spent their entire time in the military on the firing range. They can shoot with the best of them. Now think of Ranger as a person who spent their entire military training in running through the mountains, learning how to survive by killing animals and harvesting their componants, learning how to hide and learning how to make traps from nature. That's a Ranger.
So Ranger is 1/2 of a true military training. It isn't a full military unit by itself. Just like a rifleman shouldn't be the same as infantry-- infantry is also trained hard physically to improve stamina and the ability to cross varied terrain.
Besides, Waste-- rifleman have conceal shot-- explain to me where riflemen learn to conceal themselves. Answer: they don't. Shooting a rifle all day doesn't teach you how to conceal yourself. Get rid of conceal shot for rifleman and make it something that only someone with master ranger and rifleman can do and I'll actually listen to you. Because right now, your own skill set proves that you don't always need the pre-reqs to get skills. Riflemen need no scout whatsoever. They don't need camoflage and yet they can shoot animals all day without getting aggro'd. Where are the pre-req's for that? If you don't want to sound hypocritical then you should insist that Riflemen lose /concealshot-- or they have a pre-req of getting the camo line from Ranger.
Being in the military is about more than shooting a gun. Even for infantry. Even for special forces. Even for real Rangers. What a SWG Ranger should be is the other half of military training-- evasion, recon, tracking. Not hunting. YES, we can be hunters too-- but more in a "hunt for survival" way. Collect more resources, yes-- but as a result of military trainig designed to keep us alive in the wilderness. Two people each kill an animal-- the one able to retrieve more meat, bone and skin is going to last longer. Harvesting should just be part of our role-- not the focus.
Basically Waste-- the problem with Ranger is with people who think like you: creature-centric. And that's not saying anything bad about you. But you can't have a profession that is one-sided. If you want to call riflemen the "infantry" well then I say that infantry aren't trained to shoot deer or any other animal. They don't shoot targets shaped like bears, do they? No, they shoot human-shaped targets. So you shouldn't be able to hunt animals. Or you should only have skills that apply to killing NPC's and PC's. See how crappy an idea that is?
Rangers are the recon and survival training that combat professions are lacking. So Recon is a perfect focus for us. We are the evaders, the shadows, the people who have trained their bodies to survive. and yes, they have learned how to use combat against animals more effectively.
Like I said, in an RPG, you have to split skills up. You can't just have "soldier". Because there are so many things a soldier is good at. Most infantry are trained to use several different weapons-- machine guns, rifles, pistols, shotguns, knives. They are also trained to run long distances up mountains, and to cook rations in the wilderness AND how to survive. But you can't make rifleman have all those skills. You need to divy them up.
So Pistoleer is where you pick up those pistol skills, rifleman is where you pick up the rifle skills, fencer is where you'd pick up the knives skills-- and as for Ranger-- that's where you pick up the equivalent of military training.
By the way Waste-- Rifleman doesn't equal infantry. Rifleman = guy good with rifles. a serial killer can be good with a rifle-- doesn't make his infantry. YOU are the one who insists on trying to put military terms to all the professions. So please, stay consistant and realize that if you want to think of combat classes as military units, then Rangers will be too. As will chefs, doctors, armorsmiths, weaponsmiths and every other profession.
PHE'NIX ANTARUS BOTHAN ELDER RANGER BEST LOOKING SPY EVER --FOUNDER OF SATGWNIWNU BURNING H*TPANTS SINCE 2003
This is horrible! I return to find my new title on the forum is "Jedi". What's up with that? If they wanted to confer that I'm rare and learned, they'd make my title RANGER. and then make it camo colored.
"Based on the skills and the pre-req of Rangers in SWG it indicates which version is meant"
This is exactly what is wrong with ranger as it stands. The role that was picked out is far too restrictive, so different from the sw ranger, so generic and un-unique. Its this that needs to change and its that what you cant seem to grasp.
The problem is not what skills ranger has or doesnt have, its that the skills are aimed in a direction that was limited from the start, that never had any potential and one that only provided oportunities to enhance scout skills.
You see scout as a complete house, all you want to do is dress the interior up, the walls are already in and add the rest of the stuff to make it look prety. We truth is the base profession is only the foundation, you build the house on top of those and the foundations support the building. In the same way scout is where you learn the basics, ranger is a completely other profession, one which should move off in its own direction whilst still taking into acount the 'ideas' covered in the foundations, scout.
These ideas would be:
Stealth
Survival
Information Gathering
Hunting
Trapping
Exploration
If ranger only required survival line the fair enough, we could become the survival rangers, but we are not, we are more, we need stealth, exploration and all the others in too and one of many roles would be recon. Think about it, some of your skills learn how to go unnoticed, you learn how to survive on your own for long periods of time, how to gather information and how to trap. What is the next progression from that? A sneaky, behind enemy lines, intel gathering, trapping, unit. A recon unit or the perfect representation of how i percieve the ultimate sw recon unit, a ranger. The ranger would also have other skills to, all that fit and give depth to the profession.
