D&D General What is the Ranger to you?

doctorbadwolf · Jun 28, 2019

Charlaquin said:
And that’s totally fair. But given the evolution of D&D’s design since then, it would seem to me that demand for rangers to be spellcasters in modern editions has more to do with reproducing the 1e ranger than it does reproducing Aragorn.

I think that’s a big part of the ranger’s identity crisis. It has gotten too caught up in trying to imitate past versions of itself that it has lost sight of the archetype it ostensibly represents.

I disagree entirely. I only ever played 1e long after playing 2e, 3.5, and various non dnd related games, and didn't find anything about it particularly enjoyable.

LOTR, on the other hand, was an immense formative factor in my development. I read it before puberty had hit full swing. It helped shape my outlook on life.

DnD Aragorn should have spells because DnD is more directly and profoundly magical than Middle Earth. In DnD, the ultimate bond with nature is represented by the Druid (which is where I'd look to model Gandalf, were I inclined to do so), which is a spellcaster. Therefor natural magic is done via spells. Therefor Aragorn would have spells in DnD.

Because the Ranger isn't just a woodsman, no matter what nonsense they put in the phb this time around.

CapnZapp · Jun 28, 2019

First and foremost, the Ranger needs to be good at what he does, whatever that is.

Okay, so you say spells are central to the concept? Well, make it a full caster, like the Bard, then!

It is the feeling of compromise that dooms the Ranger; the cloying smell of designed-by-committee!

TwoSix · Jun 28, 2019

CapnZapp said:
First and foremost, the Ranger needs to be good at what he does, whatever that is.

Okay, so you say spells are central to the concept? Well, make it a full caster, like the Bard, then!

It is the feeling of compromise that dooms the Ranger; the cloying smell of designed-by-committee!

I love the smell of committee design in the morning.

Garthanos · Jun 28, 2019

doctorbadwolf said:
I disagree entirely. I only ever played 1e long after playing 2e, 3.5, and various non dnd related games, and didn't find anything about it particularly enjoyable.

LOTR, on the other hand, was an immense formative factor in my development. I read it before puberty had hit full swing. It helped shape my outlook on life.

DnD Aragorn should have spells because DnD is more directly and profoundly magical than Middle Earth. In DnD, the ultimate bond with nature

Aragorn in a high fantasy summons an army of dead using Kings Magic and the Blood Oaths that are integral to it... heck Tolkeins subtle flavor is pretty close to that.
Not thinking the Returned king has Nature magic as his primary field and flavor (though he could have some)

Garthanos · Jun 28, 2019

Charlaquin said:
You jest, but frankly a Warlord can make a pretty convincing Aragon.

Been saying that for quite a while.

BookBarbarian · Jun 28, 2019

Xeviat said:
After reading a lot here, this seems to be the crux of the Ranger. It only speaks so much to abilities. It could be done with a fighter/rogue for non-magical settings. D&D is a magical setting so I like it that way. Being close to nature, whether you are protecting people from it, protecting it from people, or emulating it's hunters, rangers are somewhere between the civilized and the wild.

And to me the ranger has to be the best at those things. If the Ranger was relegated to be the Pet master class, but was being outdone in nature related exploration by the Rogue Scout or Fighter Scout, then what you have is a pet master, not a Ranger.

Xeviat · Jun 28, 2019

BookBarbarian said:
And to me the ranger has to be the best at those things. If the Ranger was relegated to be the Pet master class, but was being outdone in nature related exploration by the Rogue Scout or Fighter Scout, then what you have is a pet master, not a Ranger.

Definitely. The ranger, at a minimum, should be getting expertise in nature and survival, since the rogue can get that easily. Stealth and perception too, again since the rogue can get 4 expertises. I wouldn't mind the ranger overlapping with the rogue, as they're similar in my opinion

People keep saying they're okay with the fighter being better than a ranger in a fair fight. I'm okay with that too. That says to me that a ranger is part wilderness rogue and should be more of an "expert" class. Not that rangers can't be damage dealers, rogues are, just that they're skirmishers and should have things that make hit and run or ranged attacking better.

I just like pets. I can see I'm not in the majority on that.

CapnZapp · Jun 28, 2019

BookBarbarian said:
If the Ranger was relegated to be the Pet master class, but was being outdone in nature related exploration by the Rogue Scout or Fighter Scout, then what you have is a pet master, not a Ranger.

You could almost call it... the Hunter

BROOM

*lifts sunglasses*

BookBarbarian · Jun 28, 2019

CapnZapp said:
You could almost call it... the Hunter

I mean you could but people Hunt without pets all the time. It seems to me the only reason to do do so is to tie it to a video game 10 years past its prime.

doctorbadwolf · Jun 28, 2019

Garthanos said:
Aragorn in a high fantasy summons an army of dead using Kings Magic and the Blood Oaths that are integral to it... heck Tolkeins subtle flavor is pretty close to that.
Not thinking the Returned king has Nature magic as his primary field and flavor (though he could have some)

Sure, really that is the sort of thing that makes 4e Paragon paths and epic destinies so wonderful. That King’s Magic stuff isn’t a level one class concept, mostly because it shouldn’t be bound to one class.

But it in terms of what about Aragorn can be used to helps define a class, it’s a person who can listen to the rumble of the earth and learn the movements of creatures miles away, be deadly with an array of weapons, know some secrets of the Wise, but not in depth, and who stalks the boundaries between the wild and civilization to protect both and keep a watchful eye for the agents of The Enemy.

In DnD, a lot of that translates to nature based spellcasting. Because you could make it some kind of non spell based magic, but that presents needless complexity. In a game that already has Druids, it’s simpler and gets to the same goal to just use spellcasting and write up a handful of unique spells.