What's an "Aragorn Style" ranger?

[pemerton]

Then what's all this talk of druidic magic? The 'they cast druid/arcane' spells in 1e?

Beginning from 8th level. From 8th through 17th level they get 1 spell per level, building up to 10 spells at the 17th level - 2 each of levels 1 to 3 druidic and levels 1 and 2 magic-user. I can no longer remember the exact progression, but I think it's 1 druid spell at 8th and 1 MU spell at 9th.

the d8 indicates that fighting is not their primary focus.

Not true of them originally - you must remember that when originally introduced, fighters had 1d8 for HD (and went up to 9d8), rangers started with 2d8 for HD and went up to 11d8.

<snip>

In 1e they kept their HD as was, while fighters got moved over to D10's, so they started off a little tougher and tended to even out.

Just adding to what Plane Sailing said here - the average of 11d8 (the maximum HD for a ranger in AD&D) is the same as the average of 9d10 (the maximum HD for a paladin or fighter in AD&D). And the ranger gets a CON bonus to every HD, which is therefore added 11 rather than 9 times. But for every level above name level, gets only +2 rather than +3 HD, so gradually the other fighting classes catch up and overtake.

Another oddity: XP required for name level are 250,000 for a fighter, 325,000 for a ranger and 350,000 for a paladin. But a ranger's name level is 10th rather than 9th. And all are on the same attack matrix. So at mid levels a ranger actually has better "to hit" than a fighter, because the XP requirements are spread over an extra level. But eventually the fighter will overtake because of the 250/325 ratio. And a paladin will always have the lowest hp and attack per XP earned, because of the hefty XP requirements at all levels.

 

[pemerton]

You read Tolkien because you enjoy a good slow read and the poetry of the English language.

<snip>

That's why I don't accept the idea that "Tolkien needed a tougher editor" or "Tolkien is long-winded".

I enjoy Tolkien a lot, but I don't think an editor would have done any harm - even if it would have made the books different from the ones I enjoy.

People that suggest Tolkien wrote like this are either completely unfamiliar with his work or are misrepresenting it on purpose. I think it is most likely that most people get bored having to think there way through literature so they tend to criticise literary authors as "long winded."

I don't think that's fair. There are lengthy descriptive passage in Tolkien. Personally, I find the most boring one is the description of the Old Forest leading up to the struggle with Old Man Willow. I'm pretty sure I've fallen asleep more than once reading that passage, and while you may suggest that's just verisimilitude on the part of the writer, I'm not sure I agree!

As to literature being "long winded" - I don't read much fiction, but most of what I do read I think would be classified as "literary" fiction - it appears on those shelves in the bookshops, at least - and a lot of it is not long winded. For whatever reason, my favourite author is Graham Greene (a very different sort of Catholicism from Tolkien's!) and he is not long winded.

part of the reason I'm reading REH and Leiber is because I'm writing a novel with strong S&S elements, so I want to go to the source to get a feel for the genre.

<snip>

Hemmingway is literature and he was concise.

Hesitant as I am to compare REH to Hemingway, REH is generally pithy, if often a bit overblown. Very modernist in tone (despite the trappings), especially when compared to Tolkien.

I think perhaps if the author spends a lot of time on something, especially it is at the beginning of the work, one might want to consider the likelihood that whatever the author is being "long winded" about is actually probably something important, and may in fact be among the most important things in the books.

Perhaps. But it is equally legitimate to think that the author is making an error of conflating length with emphasis. It is possible to make something the centre of a work without needlessly (and longwindedly) dwelling on it.

It's okay to not like Tolkien or to not be particularly inspired by his work, but when people make such demonstrably wrong claims about his literary skill, what they do is expose their lack of knowledge and understanding of literature. It's like saying Crime and Punishment is "too long": it is a perfectly valid opinion, but also an ignorant and insipid one.

But I could equally say that comparing Tolkien to Dostoyevsky shows an ignorance of literature. I mean, I don't want to be too judgemental, but the latter is practically the founder of one of the most important post-enlightenment ways of thinking about humanity. Huge chunks of contemporary culture - and all sorts of deep features of our culture - can arguably be attributed to that school. I'm not sure that the same is true of Tolkien. His influence in this respect seems to me to have been minimal, and the ideals he favoured are more-or-less dead in the practical world.

the older I get and the more I think about history and politics and the way the voice of privilege drowns out other points of view, the more Tolkien's romanticizing of medieval life in general and monarchy in particular grates on me.

I know what you're getting at, but I tend to have a different reaction - it drives home for me the independence of aesthetics from morality and politics (which maybe is a version of art for art's sake!).

I had the same thought the other evening after seeing Hero (the Jet Li/Maggie Cheung/Tony Leung movie) again. For me, at least, visually amazing and incredibly moving - especially the death of the Maggie Cheung character, which the wikipedia entry (which I just looked up to check my spellings!) misdescribes (in my view) as being prompted by guilt.

Yet the values that are exemplified here - a certain sort of romantic conception of loyalty and honour, in particular - don't really speak to me as political values at all. Another instance of the gap between morals and aesthetics. (In my view - which I realise not everyone shares.)

But Sam's the hero!

<snip>

I found the echoes of the first world war and the triumph of the ordinary man. Sam is the officer's batman (valet) who stops him failing.

While this may be biographically accurate (I don't know much about Tolkien's war experience), for me it would tend to confirm Dausuul's criticism. I find that view of the "ordinary man" - the batman - a very condescending one (although not confiend to Tolkien). One of the best treatments of this particular motif, in my view (and also in my view a very good absurdist treatment of the war overall) is Blackadder Goes Forth (with Baldric as the batman).

 

[TarionzCousin]

One Aragorn trait in the movies is the ability to go weeks without shaving and somehow maintain the sparsest beard possible.

 

[Desdichado]

I enjoy Tolkien a lot, but I don't think an editor would have done any harm - even if it would have made the books different from the ones I enjoy.

To quote Tolkien's original British publisher: "One does not edit Tolkien!"

I don't think that's fair. There are lengthy descriptive passage in Tolkien. Personally, I find the most boring one is the description of the Old Forest leading up to the struggle with Old Man Willow.

Nothing can appeal to everyone. Tolkien himself allowed for that in his Forward--curiously, saying that he didn't really prefer the kinds of works that his critics did, so to each their own. You're right, it isn't fair to dogpile on non-Tolkien fans for pointing out what they don't like. It's also not exactly fair to say that they are "flaws" though--the long-windedness was done very deliberately. In fact, all of the prose in Lord of the Rings is extremely deliberate and highly crafted and somewhat stylized in nature.

I guess for me it works because I'm enough of a kindred spirit to Tolkien (or something, I dunno) that I can "see" what he's done with his text, at most junctures, and can appreciate it. I don't see his "flaws" as flaws, I see them as style choices that add tremendously to the work.

That said, even I don't have much use for the poetry.

But I could equally say that comparing Tolkien to Dostoyevsky shows an ignorance of literature. I mean, I don't want to be too judgemental, but the latter is practically the founder of one of the most important post-enlightenment ways of thinking about humanity. Huge chunks of contemporary culture - and all sorts of deep features of our culture - can arguably be attributed to that school. I'm not sure that the same is true of Tolkien. His influence in this respect seems to me to have been minimal, and the ideals he favoured are more-or-less dead in the practical world.

I don't think that's necessarily true, although ironically I don't know that Tolkien would have always appreciated the effect his work has had on contemporary culture, and those who coopted it in the 60s. In any case, it's pretty undeniable that Tolkien had a huge impact on the fantasy genre, as well as having a huge impact on the gradual "mainstreamization" of fantasy--in the latter regard, he's probably only bested by George Lucas. And since this is a D&D messageboard... well, it may not be fair to jump on Tolkien's critics here, but it also shouldn't be unexpected. Tolkien criticism on a D&D messageboard is a somewhat perilous venture, I'd wager, at the best of times.

I know what you're getting at, but I tend to have a different reaction - it drives home for me the independence of aesthetics from morality and politics (which maybe is a version of art for art's sake!).

What he's getting at--or at least, how I interpret it--is that his cynical side has overwhelmed his romantic side. He can no longer accept the romanticization of Medievalism and monarchy without it continually jarring his ability so suspend disbelief. As I said, I find that approach extremely cynical, but there you have it. I personally wouldn't want to live in a monarchy, but I can appreciate a romanticized vision of it nonetheless.

All that said, as much as I love Tolkien, I wish more writers would step out of his shadow more. The genre needs to go some different directions (and lately, it very much has been, which is good), and those who imitate him too closely risk being compared to him, which is not likely to be a favorable comparison. Leave the Tolkienisms to Tolkien, I say. Base the ranger on a more generic outdoorsman archetype--a Robin Hood, perhaps, or a fantasy version of Davy Crockett, or even Bear Grylls.

 

[pemerton]

That said, even I don't have much use for the poetry.

Whereas I don't mind this aspect of the LotR.

In any case, it's pretty undeniable that Tolkien had a huge impact on the fantasy genre, as well as having a huge impact on the gradual "mainstreamization" of fantasy

Fully agreed, but for various reasons (some of which I don't think I can articulate consistent with board rules) I don't see this as anywhere near as big a contribution to the character of modernity as being a progenitor of existentialism.

What he's getting at--or at least, how I interpret it--is that his cynical side has overwhelmed his romantic side. He can no longer accept the romanticization of Medievalism and monarchy without it continually jarring his ability so suspend disbelief. As I said, I find that approach extremely cynical, but there you have it. I personally wouldn't want to live in a monarchy, but I can appreciate a romanticized vision of it nonetheless.

I think, here, that you may be agreeing with me about the independence of aesthetics from morality. But this is a controversial view.

A couple of years ago, when I was visiting at a UK university, I was asked to give a brief comment to the "philosophy and film" club. The film I had to comment on was about capital punishment ("A Short Film About Killing"), but the previous week's film had been about this issue of aesthetics and morality. The convenor of the club, in talking to me about that film, described the doctrine of the independence of morality and aesthetics as a pernicious one in a manner that suggested no reasonable person would disagree. So Dausuul is not Robinson Crusoe on this.

The retort to you (and me, I guess) from the critic of aesthetic independence might be that you (we) are allowing naive sentimentalism to cloud proper moral judgement.

Anyway, thanks for the very thoughtful reply (which I'm not allowed to XP).

 

[Charwoman Gene]

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.

Do you have a citation or are you spreading a rumor you heard? Or are you saying you were personally privy to the conversation?

I've been over this issue dozens on this board alone and no one has ever mentioned this before.

 

[Greg K]

Do you have a citation or are you spreading a rumor you heard? Or are you saying you were personally privy to the conversation?

I've been over this issue dozens on this board alone and no one has ever mentioned this before.

I am not Remathilis had it heard it before, but I don't recall where ( My memory could be wrong, but I thought it was a designer from the TSR days. However, I want to be sure and am trying to track down the quote.

Edit: Monte was asked in an interview by Morrus about Drizzt's two-weapon fighting. He says he had looked into it and Salvatore appears to have seized the idea from seeing Zeb's work on the Ranger while 2e was in the works. ).

I know Drizzt was not the reason the reason Rangers got two-weapon fighting.

From Dave "Zeb" Cook at Dragonsfoot when asked about 2e Rangers, Drizzt and two-weapon fighting (note the last paragraph with regardd

"I'm not sure where the ranger took shape, though I know it wasn't an imposition because of Drizzt. (Frankly, I've never read more than bits of the Drizzt series.) It was more to make them distinct and it fit with the style and image."

(Note: Any interesting thing in the original post from David Cook, the designers of 2e wanted to do ascending AC and have a unified roll over system, but could not to keep compatibility with 1e)

 

[Celebrim]

I'm going to break a few peoples hearts, but the 'Aragorn Style Ranger' isn't the 1e Ranger - it's the 1e Cavalier.

The Rangers of th North are Middle Earth nobility. They wear mail. They ride steeds. They are proficient with swords and spears. (We never once see Aragorn using a bow at any point in story.) The bear heraldic devices and they serve a leige Lord. They are honorable, dour, and relatively immune to fear compared to mortals.

Aragorn is not a 1e Ranger. He's a 1e Paladin. He's noble to a fault: forgiving enemies and even traitors, showing mercy, abandoning his dreams to save the lives of two small comrades, and never once showing any sign of being tempted by the ring. He lays on hands. He can perform artful healing, not merely in the sense of herbcraft but overcoming the spells of Sauron with what is in D&D terms an act of magic complete with verbal and somatic components (calling back Faramir from the darkness).

Aragorn's woodcraft is secondary to his character, like a secondary skill set or a NWP in 1e terms. He hasn't always been merely a wanderer of the North. We learn that much of his youth was spent performing 'deeds of errantry' with the Riders of Rohan and the Swan Knights of Gondor. He was a knight and a captain and commander of other knights. His woodcraft is a sideline for him, something he's picked up because his noble house has fallen on hard times and is forced to make hard scrabble in the wilderness during what amounts to a dark and barbarous age. His essential nature though is a noble knight of a royal house and a great captain and leader of men.

 

[Reynard]

Perhaps. But it is equally legitimate to think that the author is making an error of conflating length with emphasis. It is possible to make something the centre of a work without needlessly (and longwindedly) dwelling on it.

One's feelings about a particular author's style from an entertainment standpoint is decidedly different than making a critique -- in the academic sense -- of that same author's work. The suggestion that an author of Tolkien's calibre "made a mistake" in spending a lot of time on the way out of the shire is, frankly, silly.

That said, I want to be clear that I don't think "not liking" the Lord of the Rings shows any particular character flaw; preferences are what they are. I only feel the need to defend the work, as one with a degree in English literature, when individuals make the bold, false assertion that it isn't "good."

 

[Reynard]

I'm going to break a few peoples hearts, but the 'Aragorn Style Ranger' isn't the 1e Ranger - it's the 1e Cavalier.

The Rangers of th North are Middle Earth nobility. They wear mail. They ride steeds. They are proficient with swords and spears. (We never once see Aragorn using a bow at any point in story.) The bear heraldic devices and they serve a leige Lord. They are honorable, dour, and relatively immune to fear compared to mortals.

Aragorn is not a 1e Ranger. He's a 1e Paladin. He's noble to a fault: forgiving enemies and even traitors, showing mercy, abandoning his dreams to save the lives of two small comrades, and never once showing any sign of being tempted by the ring. He lays on hands. He can perform artful healing, not merely in the sense of herbcraft but overcoming the spells of Sauron with what is in D&D terms an act of magic complete with verbal and somatic components (calling back Faramir from the darkness).

Aragorn's woodcraft is secondary to his character, like a secondary skill set or a NWP in 1e terms. He hasn't always been merely a wanderer of the North. We learn that much of his youth was spent performing 'deeds of errantry' with the Riders of Rohan and the Swan Knights of Gondor. He was a knight and a captain and commander of other knights. His woodcraft is a sideline for him, something he's picked up because his noble house has fallen on hard times and is forced to make hard scrabble in the wilderness during what amounts to a dark and barbarous age. His essential nature though is a noble knight of a royal house and a great captain and leader of men.

That's an interesting assertion and one worth considering, but I think it is important to remember that there is also the issue of Aragorn being of the Dunedain, which provides hime with much of his virtue and many of his abilities. Remember, elves and elven heritage are full of "grace" -- they simply *are* better than Men in most cases (though, of course, not immune to fault).