How I envy you! You have the pleasure to come of reading LoTR and immersing yourself in a mythic world. Whatever has stopped you doing this before?
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
What's an "Aragorn Style" ranger?
- Thread starter Rechan
- Start date
How I envy you! You have the pleasure to come of reading LoTR and immersing yourself in a mythic world. Whatever has stopped you doing this before?
trancejeremy
Adventurer
Well I always thought they operated in very small groups until it was time to call them all together for the big showdown.
Either that or they borrowed that bit from the Texas Rangers (the lawmen) - the old saying "One riot, one ranger"
Just like a lot from the Paladin comes from Bullfinch's Charlemagne (and 3 Hearts, 3 Lions), some of it also really seems to come from Paladin on the TV Western, Have Gun, Will Travel.
Tolkien's writing style is... not appealing to me, and I know the story. So I'm not interested.
Remathilis
Legend
Yeah this.
He got a bonus to surprise rolls
He got massive bonuses to damage "giant class" monsters which, despite the name, was nearly any humanoid in the MM.
He got tracking and herbcraft.
He got arcane and druid spells of 1-2 and 1-3 levels at high level.
He got the ability to use crystal balls (no joke) or other divination magic items
He had to be good aligned.
(He also got 2d8 starting HD, which I seriously doubt is going to make the jump to 5e)
Whats more important is what he didn't have:
He didn't get any bonus to dual-wielding weapons or archery.
He didn't get stealth skills
He didn't have animal empathy
He didn't have an animal companion (save perhaps for a henchman)
He didn't have choice of a favored enemy
His abilities weren't crippled by wearing heavier armor than St. Leather.
My theory is an "Aragorn" style ranger is going to focus more on combat more (using heavier weapons, shields and heavy armor) and be more mystical/magical than sneaky/skirmisher. Another way to say it is he might be more defender/leader than striker/skirmisher.
Remathilis
Legend
I feel the need to clear the air, AGAIN, of the biggest myth in D&D.
2e ranger's didn't get their two-weapon fighting from Drizzt.
While the Crystal Shard was being written, Salvatore was talking with David Cook, author of the 2e PHB. Cook mentioned how rangers in 2e were going to work; dual wielders in light armor rather than the 1e ranger. Salvatore, trying to keep with the edition that would be coming out (so his character would be relevant to the new rules) wrote Drizzt to fight with two scimitars (rather than one). At the time, it was assumed it was because drow elves typically fought with two weapons (see: Monster Manual 2, AD&D). However, Salvatore was in on the new changes and used them to basis his hero's "build" on.
Drizzt was a product of the new rules changes, not the other way around.
2e ranger's didn't get their two-weapon fighting from Drizzt.
While the Crystal Shard was being written, Salvatore was talking with David Cook, author of the 2e PHB. Cook mentioned how rangers in 2e were going to work; dual wielders in light armor rather than the 1e ranger. Salvatore, trying to keep with the edition that would be coming out (so his character would be relevant to the new rules) wrote Drizzt to fight with two scimitars (rather than one). At the time, it was assumed it was because drow elves typically fought with two weapons (see: Monster Manual 2, AD&D). However, Salvatore was in on the new changes and used them to basis his hero's "build" on.
Drizzt was a product of the new rules changes, not the other way around.
From Col Pladoh (i.e. Gary Gygax) in this post elsewhere on the site:
"The Ranger class was originally devised by Joe Fischer, then a regular in my D&D game group. I published his initial treatment of the class in The Strategic Review, thereafter revised it and included it in the core game rules. Of course it is apparent that Joe based the class on JRRT's work and Aragorn. Likely a forester of some sort would have been created at some point, but it would have been quite different from the Ranger as it appeared. certainly.
The Thief was based on Jack of Shadows (Zelazny) and Cugel (Vance) with a touch of REH's Conan, rather than solely on the Gray Mouser. Mouser was too good a swordsman to serve as the pure model.
What was done was tobuild game characters based on broad archetypes, and where there were strong fictitional characters of the archtypical sort, use them as central models."
"The Ranger class was originally devised by Joe Fischer, then a regular in my D&D game group. I published his initial treatment of the class in The Strategic Review, thereafter revised it and included it in the core game rules. Of course it is apparent that Joe based the class on JRRT's work and Aragorn. Likely a forester of some sort would have been created at some point, but it would have been quite different from the Ranger as it appeared. certainly.
The Thief was based on Jack of Shadows (Zelazny) and Cugel (Vance) with a touch of REH's Conan, rather than solely on the Gray Mouser. Mouser was too good a swordsman to serve as the pure model.
What was done was tobuild game characters based on broad archetypes, and where there were strong fictitional characters of the archtypical sort, use them as central models."
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him)
Elements of a couple of these were there. Gaining a bonus on inflicting surprise can be viewed as being due to some elements of stealth.
Some rangers did have animal companions (mine had a bear) because they showed up on the list of followers they could attract (not technically a henchman).
dagger
Adventurer
In addition to the below they needed more XP than the fighter to advance and had race restrictions
Although rangers do not attract a body of mercenaries to serve them
when, and if, rangers construct strongholds, they conform to the fighter
class in other respects.
A ranger must have strength of not less than 13, intelligence of
not less than 13, wisdom of not less than 14, and a 14 or greater
constitution.
- Any change to non-good alignment immediately strips the
ranger of all benefits, and the character becomes a fighter,
with eight-sided hit dice, everafter, and can never regain
ranger status.
- No more than three rangers may ever operate together at any
time.
- Rangers may not hire men-at-arms, servants, aides, or
henchmen until they attain 8th or higher level.
- Rangers may own only those goods and treasure which they
can carry on their person and/or place upon their mount; all
excess must be donated to a worthy communal or institutional
cause (but never to another player character). (cf. Paladin
above.)
Although rangers do not attract a body of mercenaries to serve them
when, and if, rangers construct strongholds, they conform to the fighter
class in other respects.
A ranger must have strength of not less than 13, intelligence of
not less than 13, wisdom of not less than 14, and a 14 or greater
constitution.
blargney the second
blargney the minute's son
Romantic tension should never be followed by a broken sword.
Squire James
First Post
My impression of the "Aragorn ranger" is that not all the rangers happened to be Aragorn. Strider wasn't normal, even among rangers. His healing abilities, his entitlement to mended swords and kingdoms, and an elf maiden's love were clearly derived from other sources than his status as a ranger. I think what is left, is something like this:
1. Weapon skill similar to a warrior.
2. Nature-related non-magical skills.
3. A protective attitude toward good-aligned folk.
A ranger dual-wielding scimitars is certainly rarer than a ranger with a sword or bow, but I don't think one would be impossible (unlikely, yes) in a Tolkien-like setting. All of Tolkien's rangers were human, but they acted in concert with elves enough that many elves could probably be considered from that class (elves in Tolkien often being superior to humans in every way... including the propensity for greater folly).
1. Weapon skill similar to a warrior.
2. Nature-related non-magical skills.
3. A protective attitude toward good-aligned folk.
A ranger dual-wielding scimitars is certainly rarer than a ranger with a sword or bow, but I don't think one would be impossible (unlikely, yes) in a Tolkien-like setting. All of Tolkien's rangers were human, but they acted in concert with elves enough that many elves could probably be considered from that class (elves in Tolkien often being superior to humans in every way... including the propensity for greater folly).
Similar Threads
