Everyone hates Drizzt lol. For the record Drizzt's two handed fighting abilities come from his training as a Fighter more than a Ranger, and Aragorn uses two-weapon fighting skills, Great weapon fighting skills, and Bow skills.
Minor correction: Drizzt's two weapon fighting (with scimitars) is a result of his being a Drow! Dual-weapon fighting, in 1e, was a particularly singular (and meant to be horrifyingly dangerous to PCs) ability of the Drow race.
As to the question at hand, "What's a Ranger?", I must agree with other esteemed ENworlders that the poll doesn't offer a suitable answer...and those asserting they are both "all and none" of the options.
Aragorn is, flat out and unabashedly, the character on which the original archetype was based. That can't be denied.
But, upon reading the thread title, my thoughts were the poll was going to include things like:
1. Fighter/More Fightery or Rogue/More Rogueish?
...to which I would assert, the Ranger is the direct intersection of Fighter/Rogue. Individual players can then, easily work their particular character vision into "more fighter" or "more rogue" as they see fit. But the Ranger is/has always kinda been [to me], the "Fighter with Intelligence", using skills and wits as much as arms, to the Paladin's "Fighter with Wisdom" who uses arms augmented with divine abilities.
2. Animal Companions or Animal Handling?
...to which I would assert the latter. They are good with animals...I'll even go so far as to say they might have some kind of TRAINED/TRAINING [NOT MAGICAL] animal empathy. Could this, then be used to get/have an animal companion? Sure. I've got nothing against options. But as a default-evey-ranger-is-walking-around-with-a-bear/wolf/puma, absolutely not.
3. Spell casting: at low levels/high levels/not at all?
...to which I maintain that a ranger definitely is NOT a caster class. If going traditional and given abilities like the "using scrying items" and/or a rogue's ability to "read scrolls" or something like that at higher levels, then I guess I'm ok with it. I could live with the minor/low level spells at much higher levels..."the rangers keep secret magical knowledge/practices that most normal/non-mage/non-druid people do not possess and only the most advanced among them are able to uncover/explore/develop these talents." Eh. I can live with it. But, again, as a default, I say "No" to Rangers = spellcasters at 1st level.
4. Woodsman or All Terrain Rover?
...to which I can really go either way. The Robin Hood woodsy "ranger" works. But as others have mentioned, I can also see a Fighter with woodsy skills, a rogue with woodsy skills, a Fighter or Rogue Archery specialist...nothing particularly says "Ranger" about him...though maybe one or two of his Merry Men might be. Batman as the Urban Ranger? Eh, I'd go more "Avenger" but sure. I can see it. Pretty much any Bounty Hunter character from anywhere, regardless of terrain or origins.
But, for tradition's sake, I would prefer to see a Ranger, in D&D, as the Woodsy guy...Nature's Champion...the Nature Fighter(or Rogue) to the Druid's caster, the way the Paladin is the Divine Champion/Fighter to the Cleric's caster.
5. Favored Enemies: Defining or just another ability?
...to which I would say...both. Sure, it began in the class as one of the defining traits. It is something no other class ever possessed as a built in class feature (though I suppose a parallel could be drawn with Clerics/Undead or Paladin/Demons). But given the status of the Ranger now [many many years from its creation in 1e]...and the array of
non-combat skills attributed to the class, the "+X against Giant Class creatures" or however it is defined now, just becomes a random combat ability among the list of the ranger's other abilities.
So...yeah. No real answer for the poll as it exists. I suppose for tradition/history/origins' sake, I'm half-on-board for Aragorn and half-on-board for Robin Hood.
