D&D General What is the Ranger to you?
- Thread starter Xeviat
- Start date
Your campaign is free to vary, but I require paladins and rangers to actually worship a deity to gain their supernatural powers. Oddly, no one has ever complained.
Xeviat
Hero
But the paladin is specifically based around the knight in shining armor. Who are your archetypal rangers?
Mercule
Adventurer
As others have pointed out, the ranger can be a few different things. I think the class started out as a mix of a few related things, but grew out of control. It actually a good poster child for why I've become even more disenchanted by a class-based system -- I think it's stupid to use classes as bundles of abilities without archetypes, but I've found myself doing so more and more. Since the question makes no sense unless you're talking archetype, I'll go with that train of thought.
A ranger exists between civilization and the wilds. They could be tribesmen, but not in the "noble savage" mold. That's the realm of the barbarian (which is a dumb class, but that's another thread). The ranger is a (mostly) civilized person who lives apart, not a wildling who can carry on a conversation on philosophy. They have a bit of a special forces vibe, but not in sense of being able to kick the crap out of anything better than a fighter. They're harder to kill than most, but not in the raw physicality of the barbarian. They rely on training, but not in the same way as the rogue. They're just "smarter" in the sense of being more prepared for anything that comes their way. How, exactly, does one stat up a Boy Scout without making the player actually know all the things a Boy Scout would know? Well, in five editions, we've had five different answers. But, that's the kernal of the class -- a well prepared warrior who is comfortable without comforts, thinks ahead, and knows a smattering of things that reflect that preparedness.
What isn't a ranger?
A ranger isn't a druidic paladin. Their spells are tricks and tools they've picked up, not stuff they get from their religion. This is one thing 1E got more right than any other edition. Rangers had access to both magic-user (wizard) and druid spells. They actually had more wizard spells than druid, which always made it seem like the druid spells were tacked on or were a way to create a custom spell list without actually creating a custom spell list (paladins cast from the cleric list). So, the lack of explicit arcane/divine categories in 5E works well for rangers, who really should be considered arcane casters, more than divine. Rangers don't (have to) worship nature. They're actually much, much more likely to worship the gods of civilization.
A ranger isn't death on wheels. They should lose in a straight-up brawl against a fighter of the same level (Aragorn was not the same level as most folks). But, they also shouldn't typically allow themselves to get into a fair fight. But the not fair fight of a ranger looks a lot different than the not fair fight of a rogue. The ranger is going to use cover, movement, traps and snares, hazards, etc. to their advantage. Rogues will tell you they're fighting fair then use a hidden dagger on your kidney.
A ranger isn't (necessarily) a TWF master. I don't really have an issue with some rangers choosing to go this way, but it's totally orthagonal to the archetype.
A ranger isn't a wilder-rogue. There should be a noticeable difference in the way they handle problems. The rogue has become a bit too much warrior, for my taste, but that's a different topic.
A ranger isn't (necessarily) an animal handler. Yeah, I can see it as an option, but it's not core to the archetype of being prepared.
A ranger exists between civilization and the wilds. They could be tribesmen, but not in the "noble savage" mold. That's the realm of the barbarian (which is a dumb class, but that's another thread). The ranger is a (mostly) civilized person who lives apart, not a wildling who can carry on a conversation on philosophy. They have a bit of a special forces vibe, but not in sense of being able to kick the crap out of anything better than a fighter. They're harder to kill than most, but not in the raw physicality of the barbarian. They rely on training, but not in the same way as the rogue. They're just "smarter" in the sense of being more prepared for anything that comes their way. How, exactly, does one stat up a Boy Scout without making the player actually know all the things a Boy Scout would know? Well, in five editions, we've had five different answers. But, that's the kernal of the class -- a well prepared warrior who is comfortable without comforts, thinks ahead, and knows a smattering of things that reflect that preparedness.
What isn't a ranger?
A ranger isn't a druidic paladin. Their spells are tricks and tools they've picked up, not stuff they get from their religion. This is one thing 1E got more right than any other edition. Rangers had access to both magic-user (wizard) and druid spells. They actually had more wizard spells than druid, which always made it seem like the druid spells were tacked on or were a way to create a custom spell list without actually creating a custom spell list (paladins cast from the cleric list). So, the lack of explicit arcane/divine categories in 5E works well for rangers, who really should be considered arcane casters, more than divine. Rangers don't (have to) worship nature. They're actually much, much more likely to worship the gods of civilization.
A ranger isn't death on wheels. They should lose in a straight-up brawl against a fighter of the same level (Aragorn was not the same level as most folks). But, they also shouldn't typically allow themselves to get into a fair fight. But the not fair fight of a ranger looks a lot different than the not fair fight of a rogue. The ranger is going to use cover, movement, traps and snares, hazards, etc. to their advantage. Rogues will tell you they're fighting fair then use a hidden dagger on your kidney.
A ranger isn't (necessarily) a TWF master. I don't really have an issue with some rangers choosing to go this way, but it's totally orthagonal to the archetype.
A ranger isn't a wilder-rogue. There should be a noticeable difference in the way they handle problems. The rogue has become a bit too much warrior, for my taste, but that's a different topic.
A ranger isn't (necessarily) an animal handler. Yeah, I can see it as an option, but it's not core to the archetype of being prepared.
bedir than
Full Moon Storyteller
Light or medium armor
Simple weapons, bows, martial light weapons, all swords (that's specific for 5e, but oh well)
MAD (STR/DEX/WIS)
Ability to use HD in unique ways (double the number of dice ala 2d6 or 2d4)
Wilderness skills that include tracking, foraging, traps and some things that go beyond what other classes have in the wilds
Ability to learn specific enemies and then find their vulnerabilities (I may even use a way to make an enemy vulnerable to an attack type for 1 minute)
Friendship with beasts as a baseline, with a full-on companion being an option
Certain rituals as a baseline (alarm, goodberry, purify food&drink), with expansion of spells being another subclass option
Expanded mobility and fantasy spec-ops type stuff, with an expansion that could involve nova/hunter's mark
Not Aragorn as the baseline, as he was a named level hero.
The baseline is the Dúnedain -- the Rangers of the North.
Simple weapons, bows, martial light weapons, all swords (that's specific for 5e, but oh well)
MAD (STR/DEX/WIS)
Ability to use HD in unique ways (double the number of dice ala 2d6 or 2d4)
Wilderness skills that include tracking, foraging, traps and some things that go beyond what other classes have in the wilds
Ability to learn specific enemies and then find their vulnerabilities (I may even use a way to make an enemy vulnerable to an attack type for 1 minute)
Friendship with beasts as a baseline, with a full-on companion being an option
Certain rituals as a baseline (alarm, goodberry, purify food&drink), with expansion of spells being another subclass option
Expanded mobility and fantasy spec-ops type stuff, with an expansion that could involve nova/hunter's mark
Not Aragorn as the baseline, as he was a named level hero.
The baseline is the Dúnedain -- the Rangers of the North.
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him)
Tolkien's rangers - whether the Dúnedain or from Ithilien. Tough warriors operating in the wilderness to protect civilization from the things that would have normal people hiding under their beds if they knew they were so close by. They have to be woodcrafty and wily because they may be operating far from easy help or support.
doctorbadwolf
Heretic of The Seventh Circle
ideally, none of those would have a level of Ranger, except perhaps the trapper. Rogues and fighters with the right skills and backgrounds cover those characters.
The Ranger isn’t just a hunter or scout or woodsman. They’re a champion of nature and defender of the free folk. That’s why we use the term Ranger rather than scout or hunter. The core element of Tolkien rangers that has always been and should always be part of the identity of the class is that purpose. Being not just a simple scout, but a guardian as well.
Not in the 5e structure.
Better to develop a secondary system of maneuvers that can replace the Spellcasting trait optionally, and give the ranger spell and maneuver options that are purpose built to support the companion, and plenty that aren’t, so that people can play with or without both spells and companion.
Charlaquin
Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Yeomen. Historically, Yeomen were attendants and groundskeepers to royal households, later becoming a term for commoners who held their own land. The Yeoman from Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales is very much the ur example of the archetype in literature, influencing the Dunedain and Ithilien rangers in Tolkien’s works, and in turn the Rangers of most modern fantasy. Robin Hood and the merry men are also a good quasi-historical, quasi-mythical representation of the archetype, analogous to Arthur and the knights of the round as representing the archetypal knight in shining armor.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
AD6_gamerati_skyscraper
Recent & Upcoming Releases
-
April 16 2024 -
May 31 2024 -
June 3 2024 -
June 4 2024 -
June 18 2024 -
July 16 2024 -
September 17 2024 -
October 1 2024 -
November 12 2024 -
February 18 2025
