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

[Paul Farquhar]

2) D&D of the day was essentially in wooded, temperate terrain.

That's total rubbish!

There were more deserts and jungles than forests in those early adventures. The REH influence was strong.

Urban too. City State of the Invincible Overlord was popular, and the licenced Lankhmar stuff.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Honestly, being an expert wandering loner with unusually good tracking/hunting/survival skills is very much a solid core identity for a D&D class.

It's a solid identity for a D&D character. But it goes with pretty much any class.

 

[Minigiant]

Yes - and quite obviously so. A class based on an individual has an obvious identity. The question is - is it generalizable enough to be a playable archetype for characters who aren't that individual? Given the popularity of the ranger back in 1e, I'd say that's a yes.

Exactly.
The First Ranger is based of Aragorn. The Current Ranger still has heavy Aragorn influence because people see it as a major archetype of how a Ranger would look. Or in other words, if the Ranger was independently designed today, it would end up looking like a more magical Aragorn with a bow and one-handed weapons..

Players would naturally side to TW Fighting, Archery, Throwing, and Dueling due to the dexterity using in stealth and surprise and nonheavy armor in modern D&D and fantasy.

 

[Minigiant]

It's a solid identity for a D&D character. But it goes with pretty much any class.

It think the key and the reason why the first ranger was created was that the original D&D classes were bad at being loners amd manyskills were up to DM interpetation of how good your PC was at it. Fighters and clerics had no stealth and surprise skill. Thieves and wizards stunk at lone fighting.

So some guy converted Aragorn to make a fighter who could sneak up to "giant class" monsters and one-shot them and use magic when they can't OHKO.

 

[jasper]

Aragorn can heal (because he is a king) but he can't speak to animals, speak to plants, or survive extreme temperatures.

Dar can speak to animals but he can't speak to plants or survive extreme temperatures.

In order to "have something in common" it requires more than one instance...

Who TF is Rexxar?!

And who is Dar?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

And who is Dar?

Dar is the Beastmaster, as seen in the classic movie, sequels and TV series.

 

[jasper]

Dar is the Beastmaster, as seen in the classic movie, sequels and TV series.

Dune that was much beer and beef ago. I forgot those bad movies.

 

[Wolfram stout]

First off, I have really enjoyed this thread. Lots of good thoughts and interesting takes.

On reflection, it seems that a lot of the 1st edition classes were based on a very narrow take on a character. Not the fighter, who I think was built off of Generic War Game Medieval Warrior from the games roots, but for some the others:
1) Monk- Caine from the Kung-Fu show
2) Clerics- Knight-Templars (which is narrow when you consider all the possibilities out there)
3) Paladins- Lancelot (or at least the limited pool of Pure Knights)
4) Magic-Users- Dying Earth. These guys were not Wizards (ala Gandalf or Merlin), they were characters who had found a scrap of magic and scrounged around the world for more.
5) Thief- Grey Mouser? (I am not so sure that this is as strong).

As the editions advanced, most of the classes became broader to allow for the many many literary types to be built. Which is a very good thing. But for some reason the Ranger seems to cause more conversations than the others.

 

[steeldragons]

First off, I have really enjoyed this thread. Lots of good thoughts and interesting takes.

On reflection, it seems that a lot of the 1st edition classes were based on a very narrow take on a character. Not the fighter, who I think was built off of Generic War Game Medieval Warrior from the games roots, but for some the others:
1) Monk- Caine from the Kung-Fu show
2) Clerics- Knight-Templars (which is narrow when you consider all the possibilities out there)
3) Paladins- Lancelot (or at least the limited pool of Pure Knights)
4) Magic-Users- Dying Earth. These guys were not Wizards (ala Gandalf or Merlin), they were characters who had found a scrap of magic and scrounged around the world for more.
5) Thief- Grey Mouser? (I am not so sure that this is as strong).

As the editions advanced, most of the classes became broader to allow for the many many literary types to be built. Which is a very good thing. But for some reason the Ranger seems to cause more conversations than the others.

I think you can narrow those Clerics down even further to a direct "I wanna play Aragorn/ I wanna play Caine from the Kung Fu show." You had a single player who wanted to play Van Helsing. So a character class that knew something about dealing with the undead had to be born. ...Or so the story/game origin lore goes.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

First off, I have really enjoyed this thread. Lots of good thoughts and interesting takes.

On reflection, it seems that a lot of the 1st edition classes were based on a very narrow take on a character. Not the fighter, who I think was built off of Generic War Game Medieval Warrior from the games roots, but for some the others:
1) Monk- Caine from the Kung-Fu show
2) Clerics- Knight-Templars (which is narrow when you consider all the possibilities out there)
3) Paladins- Lancelot (or at least the limited pool of Pure Knights)
4) Magic-Users- Dying Earth. These guys were not Wizards (ala Gandalf or Merlin), they were characters who had found a scrap of magic and scrounged around the world for more.
5) Thief- Grey Mouser? (I am not so sure that this is as strong).

As the editions advanced, most of the classes became broader to allow for the many many literary types to be built. Which is a very good thing. But for some reason the Ranger seems to cause more conversations than the others.

Not quite right, but close! Very simplified:

1. Monk was actually based on Remo Williams (books), that Brian Blume enjoyed. I know!

2. Clerics are based on Van Helsing/Hammer Horror films (Arneson) with a touch of Bishop Odo (Gygax).

3. Paladins are based on Three Hearts and Three Lions (Poul Anderson). Seriously, it's a straight lift.

4. Magic Users are more diverse, but yes- Vancian casting is from Vance.

5. Thief is more complicated, because it was extensively borrowed from another source, but Gygax says that his slightly modified version is not based solely on Gray Mouser (who he claimed was too good of a swordsman), but is a mix of Jack of Shadows, Cugel, Conan, and Mouser.