D&D General What is the Ranger to you?

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
Fair enough, I guess. It’s just weird to me that the thought process is so common that rangers are supposed to be like Aragorn, Aragorn is good at healing in ways that are probably not entirely mundane, therefore rangers need to have spellcasting. I agree with those who have observed that this smacks of “non-casters aren’t allowed to do cool things.”

That claim really tends to cheese me off. So taking out giants and various humanoids with a long sword better than anybody (thanks to the giant class humanoid bonus in 1e) isn't a cool thing to do? News to me. I thought that was pretty cool.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
That claim really tends to cheese me off. So taking out giants and various humanoids with a long sword better than anybody (thanks to the giant class humanoid bonus in 1e) isn't a cool thing to do? News to me. I thought that was pretty cool.
I’ll grant that hitting stuff with weapons can be cool. If you prefer, “non-casters aren’t allowed to do cool things other than hit stuff with weapons” is more precise. Not as punchy, though.
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
Fair enough, I guess. It’s just weird to me that the thought process is so common that rangers are supposed to be like Aragorn, Aragorn is good at healing in ways that are probably not entirely mundane, therefore rangers need to have spellcasting. I agree with those who have observed that this smacks of “non-casters aren’t allowed to do cool things.”
I think the design process with early D&D was still verymuch in the wargaming headspace, and it was very common to have 'variants' down to the scenario level that re-used existing rules for different things. You see it a lot with monsters in older products, a goblin leader will 'fight as a hobgoblin' or young ogres will count as orcs or scimitar includes foil/saber/epee or whatever. There's lots of odd little mechanics stand in for this other thing, that, today, we might call reskinning.

Spells already covered so much territory, represented so much sunk development effort, that repurposing them must have seemed pretty reasonable.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
I think the design process with early D&D was still verymuch in the wargaming headspace, and it was very common to have 'variants' down to the scenario level that re-used existing rules for different things. You see it a lot with monsters in older products, a goblin leader will 'fight as a hobgoblin' or young ogres will count as orcs or scimitar includes foil/saber/epee or whatever. There's lots of odd little mechanics stand in for this other thing, that, today, we might call reskinning.

Spells already covered so much territory, represented so much sunk development effort, that repurposing them must have seemed pretty reasonable.
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.
 

Celebrim

Legend
I’m pretty sure it’s intentionally ambiguous. I like that about magic in middle earth, it’s subtle, and can almost always be read either as truly magical, or as mundane practice performed ritualistically. Terms like “spells” are used, but almost always to describe magic employed by other peoples, poorly understood by the observer who would call it a spell. What Sam might consider weaving magic into the elven rope, the elves themselves would probably just see as making good rope. It’s a very cool way for magic to work in a fantasy setting. But it doesn’t make me think “this character would need spellcasting to work in D&D.” The only characters I would think that about are Maiar.

Magic in Tolkien's universe is a very important topic, and if you get confused about it you could really take away some really weird impressions - like the poor early confused reviewers that thought the whole thing was an allegory of WWII.

'Magic' per se in Tolkien's universe doesn't exist. All the 'wise' characters affirm this. What is perceived by the unlearned as magic is one of two things: advanced technology or else a natural gift that the person was created with (or sometimes both at the same time). So for example, at the beginning of The Hobbit, the narrator affirms that the magic of Hobbits is that they can move around very quietly and secretly: "There is little or no magic about them, except the ordinary everyday sort which helps them to disappear quietly and quickly when large stupid folk like you and me come blundering along, making a noise like elephants which they can hear a mile off." Essentially, what seems magical to "large stupid folk" is ordinary stealth to a Hobbit, because they are naturally gifted when it comes to stealth.

The same thing applies to the Hobbits interactions with Dwarves, Elves, and to a large extent even wizards. To the Hobbits, Gandalf's magic is recognizable to us as just extraordinary talent with fireworks - a product of technology. His real 'magic' he keeps hidden. To the hobbits, the toys made by the Dwarves are 'magical', but we might well recognize them as windup toys and other objects of advanced mechanical skill. To Sam, the rope made by the Elves seems magical, but when he asks them about it, they have no idea what he means and answer, "Well, it's certainly well made. If we had known the craft delighted you, we could have taught you much." When characters in the stories talk about "magic", they are mostly talking about something that they themselves can't do and can't even imagine how it is done. But, some one can teach you how it is done, if you have a talent for it.

When Galadriel is asked about 'magic' she expresses confusion over what the word even means, and hints that she finds the word not particularly useful because it is such an umbrella term that it covers things which are completely unalike. However, she tells Sam that she will show him "the magic of Galadriel", by which she means what she can do with her knowledge and authority.

Authority is a big deal in the Tolkien universe. Beings in it can do things because they have the authority to do them. All the authority in the universe is delegated by its creator, and beings can choose to use or misuse that authority. Maiar, elves, and humans each have a certain sort of authority over the natural world, which allows them to reshape the world to suit their designs. Humans call their magic 'technology' because they understand it, but it's not really that different than what elves or maiar can do. Maiar and elves just do it a bit more directly because they are more plugged into the world, while humans are not native to it but simply sojourning in it. Gandalf's magic as a "wizard" turns out to mostly be his authority as a spiritual being over certain aspects of the universe, combined with authority granted to him as a vassal of more powerful spiritual beings for the purpose of the mission (symbolized by his staff), combined with the authority he gets from wielding a Ring of Power (more on that in a bit), combined with his deep education. Gandalf's "spells of opening" if inspected turn out to be more like what we'd call "passwords" - proof you have the authority you claim to have, and when he finally does open the door it is explicitly a "pass word" that he uses.

The closest thing to 'magic' in the D&D sense in D&D is that you are allowed to pour a part of your authority into the things you make, transferring your authority to them. This happens at a natural level, of for example a son inheriting his father's authority, or at the level of technology where you can bottle the essence of authority and invest it in an object. Essentially, if you make anything with enough love and appreciation for what you are making, if you care enough it make your best, if you put a lot of emotion into the making of it, and you make it well then this happens, and the result is a 'magic' item. The Rings of Power are the most salient and powerful examples of this, as they essentially bottle up a portion of the authority of a whole race and focus and amplify it, so that the wearer of the ring inherits a huge portion of the authority and natural gifts while amplifying his own. But there is still some sense in which they are just multi-dimensional technological artifacts - Clarke-tech if you will.

So whenever Tolkien is talking about magic, he's usually talking about knowledge and technology. And he wants to distinguish sharply good uses of technology that increase comfort, security, and beauty compared to the misuse of technology which is short sighted and destructive. He compares the good use of technology to the Medieval notion of "Natural Philosophy" (or perhaps Theurgy), the White Magic that you could learn by studying the world and using your natural authority rightly. And he compares the misuse of technology - even if it's something that's literally technology like a steam engine (such as Sarauman builds to run the Mill at bywater) or gunpowder (such as the blasting powder Saruman uses to destroy part of the wall at Helms Deep) when its used for destructive purposes - to the medieval notion of Goëtia. Goëtia was black magic that came by communing with evil spirits and trying to transcend the natural bounds of your own authority so that you could rule over things you weren't meant to or in ways you weren't meant to. Goëtia represents the temptation to do things that you know you ought not do, and is embodied in The One Ring, which is Sauron's attempt to transcend his own authority by stealing everyone else's authority and hording it as his own, effectively making everyone and everything else in the world his slave. This is why Galadriel is so confused by the word "magic" because it joins together two things that are for her opposites. She knows how it is all done, and to her its two very different 'crafts'.

Aragorn's "magic" is simply a really good education in healing from Elrond, combined with natural sciences (natural compounds from plants), combined with the fact that as King he has inherited a certain amount of authority over his subjects which, if they are in their natural (good) state, they'll be inclined to obey. So Aragorn can go and call back Faramir's despondent broken spirit, and Faramir's spirit would be more inclined to obey Aragorn, because Aragorn is his good and rightful king.

If you get this wrong, then you think that the story is somehow anti-reason or anti-technology, when Tolkien is really just critiquing what people use technology for ('rings' in his opinion, which is what he referred to the 'atomic bomb' as in his letters) rather than what they should use it for (blessings, if you will).
 
Last edited:

Celebrim

Legend
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 think you are totally correct there, except that I think that identity crisis got started because the original class so poorly understood the source material it was trying to emulate.

The original 1e AD&D Ranger was just a laundry list of things that Aragorn did in the story - right down to using a crystal ball. So the real truth is that there never was an archetype backing up the class. It always just was a disparate list of bullet points. The class was always about what Aragorn could do, and never about who Aragorn was. So naturally the class became more and more self-referential over time, and just kept adding more and more bullet points as more and more ideas appeared regarding what a 'Ranger' was.

Trouble is, Aragorn never was a 'Ranger' in the first place. That was in a sense just a disguise he (and all the rest of the Rangers) were in. And while Aragorn was a great woodsman and tracker, that was just something he could do. It wasn't really his identity, or at least it was never the totality of it. It was just some points he invested in some skills: some proficiencies he picked up in a long and varied life.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
They finally fixed the Bard once they managed to shed the notions a) if you want to be good at many things you must suck at them all, and b) "bardiness" must be implemented thru wonky musical special abilities with a lot of restrictions going on.

It is the same with the ranger. WotC needs to
1) decide on a strong concept instead of worrying about disappointing some part of the fan base
2) then implement that in a forceful and direct manner.

The current problem is giving it A + B + C + D and E because all of those are expected, then realizing balance dictates it has to be weak-ass versions of B, C, D and a truly crippled version of E.

Why not finally admit that exploration isn't a big part of most adventures? And by God, stop trying to give it abilities that shut down or bypass the little there is of it.

Also, the "nature in harmony" thing. There simply isn't enough design space with cleric and paladin and druid already in the game. Not to mention just picking a background and a skill proficiency. (If the spells absolutely must stay AT LEAST give rangers a way to convert them into power = damage as smite works for Paladins)

What there sure is space for, is more martial non-magical archetypes. There is also space for a "pet class" with a "permanent" (non-summoned) pet.
 

SkidAce

Legend
Supporter
Outdoorsman, wilderness hunter, Rambo special forces flavored. Deadly against favored enemy.
 
Last edited:

For other archetypes of Rangers, I thought of Geralt from Witcher as some sort of Ranger subclass with a few arcane spells and buffs, and I feel the Demon Hunter from Diablo 3 could be worked into another type of Ranger subclass.

If they were to bring back that really odd Seeker class from 4e, it could also be dumped into the Ranger.

Mearl's Happy Fun Hour toyed with an Urban Ranger subclass, and called it the Vigilante, and it seemed to very much be based on Batman.

But they would align with my idea of a Ranger being some kind of hunting specialist that could be in tune with an environment.
 

Toledo

Explorer
Rangers have always been an elite, special forces type of vibe to me. Combined with the ability to function independently for long periods of time and survival away form the the group/civilization. While the isolated woodsman/tracker type can certainly meet the requirements, to me the concept has always represented being part of an elite group, perhaps with a similar purpose. It could just be elites who follow some obscure wilderness code of honor, or a more focused group ala Aragorn and his people in tLotR. Even being part of a 'good' organization like the 1e requirements isn't too objectionable.

You would love playing for us. One of our two current GM's (alternating campaigns) and world creator (and the guy who hosts us every Friday night) is a former U.S. Army Ranger and sniper.

The one single element of our games that I wish would be tuned down is that our host makes Rangers supermen....unfortunately he brings his real life experience of actual Rangers and installs this into D&D Rangers. He allows/brings them to the forefront like no other class. Rangers are the ones who get all the outdoors benefits...Outlanders are no where close. I've heard dozens of times "You don't have a Ranger" or "Only the Ranger could do that" or "You'll die if you don't have your Ranger alive to lead you back" or....you get the picture.

He doesn't give them mechanical advantages in fighting that aren't in the books, but his Rangers get all sort of outdoors advantages that other players could only dream of. Basically his rangers get to shine outdoors to a huge extent in everything except in fights themselves. In all situations leading up to a fight, and then afterwards.

Fortunately in his current campaign, about 1/3 of our time is now in an urban environment, and our resident Superman (ooops, I meant Ranger) doesn't get to shine as much.

Our Ranger GM (an expert optimizer) also personally designed the Gloomstalker/Archer/Hand crossbow/Crossbow Expert/Sharpshooter character for our player who is playing a Ranger. This player gets to shine both in and out of combat.

I don't think that GM intentionally wants our PC Ranger to outshine everyone else, but our GM is proud that he has designed such a maxed out combat beast AND with all the real life Ranger skills our Ranger player gets to use all the time, the Ranger in our party shines like no one's business.

Oh, the Ranger PC is a member of an elite Ranger company too, the Grey Legion, which has a long and proud and dangerous history.

I think you'd like playing a Ranger for us!


(Rereading this before posting, it sounds like I'm ripping on the DM. I'm not...he does a very good job trying to make sure all have fun. His campaign is the best I've played in, well thought out and interesting. He treats all the players well. My character is a Fighter and a lot of extreme moments for me to shine/role playing elements have been added for her. Still, Rangers shine in this GM's campaigns beyond others. If you want to be awesome, be a Ranger! I'm not going to complain because everything else is so enjoyable...but sometimes I'm rooting for the Ranger PC to get sucked into a volcano or the like!)
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top