Rangers

Remove all ads!

It seems to me that pretty much every single ranger you get to see in 3E is a short-sword-dual-wielding rogue type with minor druidic casting. Even the sniper role is forgotten and left to arcane archers.

I somehow miss those Tolkien style rangers who used to be the counterpart of paladins, not of rogues. Am I alone in this sentiment or does someone agree with me?

 

D&D had it right with 1st edition Rangers.

It's been downhill since then, because the Ranger class has been an imitation of Drizzt, not Aragorn.

 

Well chev, some people partly agree with you, as they brought back the archer part in 3.5e.

I think the ranger is ok. He can track and fight well, he is in touch with nature and he is stealthy. It indeed reminds me of Drizzt, but if you remove the double weapons, you more or less have Aragorn again. And in my opinion the ranger should be a bit like a rogue: a loner. But like the paladin, the ranger should indeed strive towards good (allowing the ranger to be neutral or evil in 3e was a wrong decision in my opinion).

 

You seem to be thinking in the original third edition. I find that the revised edition greatly improved on the Ranger, although I would not have been adverse to seeing a third weapon style for the class (e.g. defensive melee fighting, using feints and parries).

I am not a big Tolkein fan, so I can't share your sentiment, but the rift between the original Ranger and the Ranger as it is now has probably grown since second edition and 3.0 (in the same way as have elves, for example, thanks to other fantasy being around and the preferences of the D&D community).

This growing separation between Tolkein fantasy and D&D-style fantasy is something some people would celebrate, though. I for one am glad that 3.5 has reintroduced a class with stealth capabilities that rival that of the rogue, who previously was largely alone in sneaking (although the Ranger's handicap in urban areas leaves something to be desired, but I believe the new Races of Destiny covers the urban Ranger).

 

Well, either way you can role-play the ranger which ever manner you prefer. From where I'm standing, you can make your ranger which ever no matter what the rules are.

 

Well, everyone's idea of what the Ranger should be is greatly different (there was a huge discussion on this a few years ago on a D&D message board).

Is he a knight with woodland abilities (Aragorn)?

Is he a stealthy hunter?

Is he a dual-weilding menace with favored enemies?

Is he an archer?

Does he wear heavy armor?

.... light armor?

...sneaky?

 

Yeah, you still can. It's just no one really does.

 

I think we need to remember that "Classes", ala D&D SHOULD be rather broad, in and of themselves, until you get down to the "prestige"/sub-class/kit levels.
A Ranger SHOULD be allowed ANY alignment imaginable when you remember that Rangers include(as a broad class of vocations) Bounty Hunters, Wooodland Stalkers, Alpine Mountaineers, Snipers/sharpshooters, Sylvan Archers etc.

If I were creating a more or less generic "Warhammer"-esque world, I would include everyone from evil "poachers" to law-enforcing outriders/marshalls as "Rangers". The term Ranger seems to imply simply one who spends more time in the wilderness tracking/scouting/trapping and the like than, say an urban rogue/assassin/spy type.

But having said that, if there is one person on the net whom I have come across that I tend to agree with %90+ of the time concerning RPG mechanics and flavor, it is Chev'! And I agree that this whole Drow/Drizz't bussiness is tiresome already.
I may be no great Tolkien fan(more of a Moorc o c k(Elric etc.) and Lieber fan) but compared to the Forgotten Realms books, I worship at the altar of J.R.R.T!

And Aragorn was just more interesting than Drizz't besides.

[ March 19, 2005, 18:20: Message edited by: RuneQuester ]

 

Well, if you miss an archer class, then you could create a Fighter and use his bonus feats to improve his ranged attacks. But I agree, everyone I know who plays ranger, will either play the aragorn or the drizzt style. nobody wants to play the archer style anymore :'(...

What was the original idea about the ranger back in 1st edition? Archer or Aragorn/Drizzt?

 

Both. More pure Aragorn but as D&D evolved the general Tolkien-esque "archer of the woodlands" became the template.

As for myself, I read the Moonshaes trilogy and it was so inexcuseably bad that I swore I would never open another FR book again, on pain of death! D&D ers, like most people, tend to be a trendy lot. When the Dragonlance books became popular you could not play in a D&D group/campaign where someone was'nt playing a Raistlin type mage. As soon as a RPGer was introduced to Elric(back before a thousand clones of said character emerged) he would almost invariably be DMing a session where PCs were questing for a soulsucking sword of some sort(White Plume Mountain was popular amongst D&D players who fancied Elric).

 

To be honest, I generally prefer the Tolkien-style and Arthurian-style traditional view.

I don't like what they have made of paladins, rangers and mages. No mage in D&D has a feel like Gandalf had. Paladins are out of place and look like something between constables and temple guardians. Rangers are all starting to look like some version of Drizzt. Don't like that.

I would prefer Merlin style bards, Lady of the Lake style druids, Lancelot or Boromir style fighters, Galahad style paladins. Aragorn style rangers. Not like Aragorn couldn't be a paladin, anyway. Gandalf style mages. Hobbit style rogues.

 

I'm sure there is a Lord of the Rings or King Arthur RPG out there instead.

 

Middle Earth Role-Playing(MERP from Iron Crown Enterprises) and Pendragon from Chaosium to name a few. The potential drawbacks of these two being that MERP is based on the ridiculously and unecessarily complicated and chart-heavy Rolemaster system and Pendragon being almost a precursor to the whole storytelling, narrativist, rules-lite RPG thing in many ways.

 

Perhaps I should finally get around to running that Arthurian style game in the Roleplaying Corner one day...

 

Personally, I like the idea of rangers being somewhat like skirmisers and long-range scouts, with several possible configurations (the fighting styles); some might be archers, some two-weapon fighters, some light cavalry, each having several elements in common, but their own unique fighting style progression.

 

Personally, I've always seen Rangers as the rogues of the wild. Needless to say, I also see them as scouts. I would say that 3.5 has captured them pretty well in that they favour the wild over built up urban areas and that they have good abilities with dealing with creatures. They also are capable with the bow and if needs be, in melee.

The two weapon fighting aspect, I wouldreserve more for fighters. Saying that, fighters can get that feat as a fighter feat. I guess it depends on your build.

But I'd personally play a ranger (which, I must admit I havn't played before) as a wilderness scout, that cares for nature's wellbeing, and battles against creatures that aren't natural. In most cases yes, I think Rangers are best as loners - abit like Aragon in the Fellowship of the Ring. This would also include having a great knowledge of the areas, and knowing what creatures lurk where

 

I see rangers as the rogues of the wild too. but you can play many different kinds of rangers. His many tracking abilities and favourite enemy class feature makes him an excellent hunter... And also an excellent bounty hunter (an evil ranger with humans as his racial enemy can give a party of human players a serious challenge )...

ranges serves also great as "guide-NPC's", who can tell your players about interesting places in he wild, if you're a DM... because he, like Sniper said, knows the area very good...

the ranger is a fantastic class !

 

Hey, we often took human as our favored enemy... not because our characters hated humans, but because we were especially familiar with them, and how they fought.

 

I like rangers becose of the "druidic/wild warrior" aspect, and that they are perhaps the most allrounded class in the game.

 

Yes, that's true, according to the 3rd edition rules, rangers can only select their own race if they are evil... I was referring to human rangers, who hunts other humans as bounty hunters... But of course it's possible to play a ranger like you say MrNexx !