Marandahir
Crown-Forester (he/him)
Isn't that the point of a Ranger, though?
When the Hobbits have Aragorn on hand in Fellowship, the exploration pillar is tossed out the window. Aragorn knows what paths to take in the wilderness, can provide enough food for them to survive, can tell that Gandalf's been to Weathertop and the Last Bridge ahead of them, and furthermore knows where the Ringwraiths are and when they'll attack.
When the Hobbits DON'T have Aragorn on hand – in Towers and King, they're stumbling through the wilderness, going in circles, using what tools they have to survive (elvish rope, lembas bread), running low on food stores regardless, and relying on a villain to find their way.
And this isn't because Aragorn is just that badass and is probably a high level Ranger. Faramir is certainly a much lower level character, and as soon as he comes into the narrative, the Frodo and Sam are much better off, until he departs to go hang with Gandalf and Pippin.
Rangers solve the issues that would be nightmares to other characters. They don't trivialize all wilderness and exploration challenges, but they reduce the challenge significantly, allowing the group to accomplish their goals more swiftly and come more well prepared to the various combats and social encounters they'll face, since they're not exhausted and worn down by the exploration part.
Last thought: As the DM, you should allow the Ranger to enjoy being really successful, rather than say "you succeed, move on to the next scene." Don't let the party be bored because the Ranger trivialized the challenge; make the party feel excited because the Ranger kept them from suffering too much. This is a narrative flourish, and requires a good sense of your group and what they're hungering for in the game, but usually someone plays a Ranger to feel awesome when they do their Ranger things. Figure out that narrative balance. That's not the fault of the Ranger, that's the fault of the DM.
When the Hobbits have Aragorn on hand in Fellowship, the exploration pillar is tossed out the window. Aragorn knows what paths to take in the wilderness, can provide enough food for them to survive, can tell that Gandalf's been to Weathertop and the Last Bridge ahead of them, and furthermore knows where the Ringwraiths are and when they'll attack.
When the Hobbits DON'T have Aragorn on hand – in Towers and King, they're stumbling through the wilderness, going in circles, using what tools they have to survive (elvish rope, lembas bread), running low on food stores regardless, and relying on a villain to find their way.
And this isn't because Aragorn is just that badass and is probably a high level Ranger. Faramir is certainly a much lower level character, and as soon as he comes into the narrative, the Frodo and Sam are much better off, until he departs to go hang with Gandalf and Pippin.
Rangers solve the issues that would be nightmares to other characters. They don't trivialize all wilderness and exploration challenges, but they reduce the challenge significantly, allowing the group to accomplish their goals more swiftly and come more well prepared to the various combats and social encounters they'll face, since they're not exhausted and worn down by the exploration part.
Last thought: As the DM, you should allow the Ranger to enjoy being really successful, rather than say "you succeed, move on to the next scene." Don't let the party be bored because the Ranger trivialized the challenge; make the party feel excited because the Ranger kept them from suffering too much. This is a narrative flourish, and requires a good sense of your group and what they're hungering for in the game, but usually someone plays a Ranger to feel awesome when they do their Ranger things. Figure out that narrative balance. That's not the fault of the Ranger, that's the fault of the DM.
