Any hints on the essentials ranger?

[Reaper Steve]

Resurrected after a month, but with no new info? That was a fail of thread-necromancy.

Well, from another thread, we know that HotFK will have two Ranger builds: Hunter (controller) and Scout (striker.)

I do hope that neither of them is built for or around TWF. But then again, one of them almost assuredly will be. Knight = sword & board, Slayer = two-handed weapon, so one of the ranger builds has to be for the TWF crowd.

Actually, I think the Hunter will be the archetypical archer, and the scout an archetypical TWF melee dude. As someone else suggested, something instead of Hunter's Quarry would be needed to make these different than the PHB1 rangers.

 

[JohnSnow]

Actually, I think the Hunter will be the archetypical archer, and the scout an archetypical TWF melee dude. As someone else suggested, something instead of Hunter's Quarry would be needed to make these different than the PHB1 rangers.

I'd actually like to see both builds be able to switch hit between ranged and melee. That, to me, is the essence of the ranger. The scout can be a more typical damage-dealer - the perfect class for Legolas. The Hunter? That should be Aragorn or Faramir ALL the way. How to do it? I'm not sure, but I suspect a fair bit of it will involve the inflicting of conditions via trick moves and/or trick shots. An archer ranger was already dabbling in control...

I also don't get the loathing for 2-weapon fighting. I mean, I understand not wanting all the Drizz't clones, but it is true that shields are a bad option in the woods - and wielding a single weapon one-handed and doing nothing with your free hand is just...dumb.

Use a shield, use a 2-handed weapon, or use two weapons. It's really that simple.

 

[Reaper Steve]

I'd actually like to see both builds be able to switch hit between ranged and melee. That, to me, is the essence of the ranger. The scout can be a more typical damage-dealer - the perfect class for Legolas. The Hunter? That should be Aragorn or Faramir ALL the way.

I like that. A lot. I shall award you XP! (EDIT: after I spread some around, evidently. )
(and hope that we get something along those lines)

 

[scylis]

I'm hoping that the Hunter uses the PHB1 powers arrangement while the scout goes with a daily-lacking set-up. I'd be fine with the Scout even being another BA-modifying build, but I'd really like to see it use attack powers that throw in lots of movement and such in a similar manner to the Monk.

That would just make my day.

 

[Pickles JG]

I'd actually like to see both builds be able to switch hit between ranged and melee. That, to me, is the essence of the ranger. The scout can be a more typical damage-dealer - the perfect class for Legolas. The Hunter? That should be Aragorn or Faramir ALL the way. How to do it? I'm not sure, but I suspect a fair bit of it will involve the inflicting of conditions via trick moves and/or trick shots. An archer ranger was already dabbling in control...

I also don't get the loathing for 2-weapon fighting. I mean, I understand not wanting all the Drizz't clones, but it is true that shields are a bad option in the woods - and wielding a single weapon one-handed and doing nothing with your free hand is just...dumb.

PHB1 rangers are capable of swapping, which implies that later ones are too. The issue is that later books make specialisation in either melee or ranged much more efficient & so your hybrid looks a little sad. (Iron armbands of power/bracers of archery, more feats needed for expertise & exotic weapons er other stuff probably. My hybrid bow/melee ranger became a hybrid bow ranger / cleric mostly as bow rangers are the most boring thing ever to play)

I distinctly remember playing with a 2wf ranger in 1983 & I did not hear of Drizzzt until Baldurs Gate in the mid 90s. As has been said Aragorn & Fafhrd were influences but 18 dex made them effective meleers. Max hp at first level & 18 con was also amusing (some people did not have difficulty getting high ability scores my cleric made do with 15 wis)

 

[RangerWickett]

I somehow doubt the Essentials will have beast companion rules, but if I was going to go for a ranger controller, that's how I'd do it. Beast companion plus archery.

 

[Zaran]

I'm actually hoping for a small boost to melee rangers. I'm playing a melee ranger next to a monk and the monk outdamages the ranger easily.

 

[Almacov]

I'd like to see the Hunter Ranger be a very simple, intuitive to use controller that ditches the typical powers framework (except for utilities, possibly, ala Essentials Fighter) so that the original Ranger class doesn't suddenly gave a bunch of controller powers to choose from.

This would mean that the Scout should probably break from typical powers structure too, for consistency within the product. Besides, there are already plenty of powers for a striker Ranger under the original framework.

From a flavour perspective, it would be awesome if the Hunter had some mechanics for creating snares and traps. An animal companion would also be great, and fitting with the flavour. It should also introduce some utility powers related to tracking and setting ambushes.

If the Hunter is the pensive, stalking ranger, then the Scout should be the mobile, fast one. Ways to gain climb speeds and reduce fall damage (or transfer it onto creatures you pounce on) would be cool. If the Hunter is fantastic with slow tracking, the Scout should lean towards more immediate perception - spotting someone darting from tree to tree, or flitting above the horizon line. I also think the scout should have Leader as a secondary role.
It should be able to designate targets somehow in ways that provide bonuses to allies in engaging them. Sortof like the Archivist's Dark Knowledge in 3.5, but geared more towards observation. Like an Assassin's studying, though faster to accomplish, with a less potent benefit that is shared with the whole party.

It will be nice to see what the designers came up with.

 

[ourchair]

While I would love to, there's several other sources of blame, one due to Fritz Leiber, one due to Professor Tolkien, and the third is just "logic."

Leiber's Fafhrd was a dual wielder (as was the Grey Mouser). Fafhrd was also a northern barbarian skilled in the longbow, tracking, wilderness craft, and so on. Sound familiar? Although I grant he also had a pretty singing voice, and that didn't end up as a character point for Rangers.

On Weathertop, Aragorn fights off the Nazgul with "a flaming brand in either hand." Throughout the story, Aragorn, the original "fantasy Ranger" never only uses a shield when arrayed for war (Helm's Deep and similar). All the story's other "ranger" types - including Legolas, Faramir & his men, and Halbarad & the other Dunedain - carry bows or spears, and blades, but again, no shields.

All that makes no argument for anything but rangers as archers or spearmen who also carry swords, but not shields. But this also I put forth, arguing from logic as someone who has practiced swordplay. Single-handed fighting is DUMB. Either you use your free hand to grapple, or you pick up a secondary companion weapon, as did Fafhrd. Any shield bigger than a buckler doesn't generally go with a bow.

There's also the notion that using a quarterstaff is also pretty similar to fighting with two weapons. I don't think I need to point out that one of the legendary archetypal rangers is Robin Hood. And his men, in addition to their skill with bow and sword, are famous for using quarterstaves. So, there's still more rationale.

The point is that by the time Drizzt and his dual scimitars became popular, and they were looking ahead to 3e, there was a lot of precedent for rangers as skirmishers and two-weapon fighters. So they just went ahead and made it official.

I don't deny that Drizzt was probably the impetus, but the trend was already well underway when he hit big.

I concur entirely with this chain of reasoning.

On the other hand, I kind of wish more people who want to be two weapon rangers weren't doing it because they know and love Drizz't, which is usually the more likely reason (one not mutually exclusive of your argument of 'the historicity of the two weapon ranger').

 

[Nichwee]

I'd like to see the Hunter Ranger be a very simple, intuitive to use controller that ditches the typical powers framework (except for utilities, possibly, ala Essentials Fighter) so that the original Ranger class doesn't suddenly gave a bunch of controller powers to choose from.

Good point but I suspect they can mitigate this by making the powers low damage potential (so a Striker Ranger is less likely to want them) with some of the control being Build-based riders.
That way if you aren't a Controller Ranger you would be getting a low damage, minor control power - a sufficiently sub-optimal move that it won't tilt anything off it's axis but will add a small amount of control options to regular rangers who want them.