D&D 5E The Dual Wielding Ranger: How Aragorn, Drizzt, and Dual-Wielding Led to the Ranger's Loss of Identity

[Snarf Zagyg]

Technically, a married couple with 5 dependents would be at almost $10,000 for their stimulus check ($9,800) if they're below the income cutoff.

So, can I claim the people that comment on my posts as dependents?

Asking for a friend who, uh, needs to file taxes.

 

[Maxperson]

Technically, a married couple with 5 dependents would be at almost $10,000 for their stimulus check ($9,800) if they're below the income cutoff.

Well, yeah, but 5 is far less humorous than 10.

 

[TwoSix]

Well, yeah, but 5 is far less humorous than 10.

MATH IS NOTHING TO JOKE ABOUT!

 

[Sacrosanct]

MATH IS NOTHING TO JOKE ABOUT!

 

[Minigiant]

My guess as to why no Wild Elves was that the ranger was originally intended to protect civilization against the threats from the wild (much like Aragorn and the Dunedain did), whereas now, it's often associated with the opposite.

Well now rangers are seen as

1. Protecting civilization from nature
2. Protecting nature from civilization
3. Protecting natural civilization from urban or rural civilization
4. Protecting fey civilization from nonfey civilization
5. Protecting non fey civilization from fey
6. Protecting civilization from barbarians
7. Protecting barbarians from civilization
8. Protecting the king's or lords land
9. Protecting themselves and their family.
10. Protection civilization from demons
11. Protection civilization from lone monsters
12. Everything in between

 

[Umbran]

Well now rangers are seen as...

Yes. Now do a similar list for fighters, wizards, rogues, and clerics...

Modern classes are not really "an archetype". They don't do just one thing. They are a base set of collected things that each support a multitude of archetypes in their subclasses. And that's okay.

 

[Minigiant]

Yes. Now do a similar list for fighters, wizards, rogues, and clerics...

Modern classes are not really "an archetype". They don't do just one thing. They are a base set of collected things that each support a multitude of archetypes in their subclasses. And that's okay.

Yeah but modern classes do have a parent archetype.

The issue with the ranger is its first iteration was a subclass archetype that was created by smashing a bunch of already existing mechanics with a tracking mechanic.

So when plans for the parent archetype were to be drawn, the class was already tied with quick, dirty, and lazy homebrew which muddied it.

 

[jasper]

Who Aragon? Wasn't he in a 2001 movie? AKA some of us did not read Tolkein or really care for him during 1E. MoM MOM. Snarf is getting Tolkein in my D&D again.

 

[Stalker0]

Most definitely.

Pay me $100 and you get TWO (2!) of my upcoming articles.

Pay me $1000 and you get ONE (1!) of them.

let me negotiate a bit. I'll pay you $0 and you give me 3 Articles!

 

[jmartkdr2]

In a world recognizing that presenting characters as parts of monocultures is an approach with severe flaws, this is perhaps a good thing, even.

For gnomes, absolutely. I'm not sure it helps rangers, since we already know class isn't culture or heritage. It's a skillset, and the ranger's skillset is...

Odd. At a distance it looks coherent, but you can never quite put your finger on what a ranger does without noting that not all rangers do that. No other class has such fuzzy edges.