Any hints on the essentials ranger?

[RangerWickett]

We've seen the slayer fighter who could make a pretty decent archer ranger. Does anyone know what the essentials ranger will get? What can they give them to make them stand out from skirmishing rogues and archerying fighters?

I know it's crazy, but I'm kinda hoping they get rid of the weird idea of "wilderness guy = fights with two swords."

 

[Joshua Randall]

What's crazy is that rangers ever got associated with dual-wielding (which I hate, but that's another story) in the first place.

 

[Styracosaurus]

Ranger is a sacred cow that sits firmly between rogue and fighter. If you kill it then can you replace it?

I have never like the two weapon path for its flavor and archery shouldn't just be a ranger option.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I never had a problem with archery as a mainline combat technique being put in its own class, that's all the archer ranger ever was. As for the melee ranger, there IS a place for the melee skirmisher. However now that we have the slayer sitting firmly in the 'two handed weapon striker' slot what actually would you do EXCEPT a two weapon fighting melee skirmisher? I mean I agree, the whole two-weapon thing was always hokey and wasn't even the ranger's original shtick to begin with, but there doesn't seem to be too much other territory for it to occupy at this point.

I guess they could just kill the melee striker ranger totally and just keep the beastmaster? But I'm really doubting we'll see a class like that in Essentials. So get used to it, we'll have the PHB1 ranger sawn in half and presented as a TBF sub-class and an Archer sub-class (and how will you do something that is the current flex ranger, who knows exactly).

Or what the heck, maybe somehow those WotC guys are just that much smarter than all of us and they'll do something completely unexpected.

 

[YRUSirius]

Yeah, why not a beastmaster ranger in the second Heroes book? WoW has got one too.

-YRUSirius

 

[RangerWickett]

If I were to design an essentials ranger to stand out from the defender/striker fighter and the striker/? rogue, I might go for a leader/controller.

The beastmaster ranger would be a controller, because his animal companion could inflict penalties around the battlefield from a distance. Call them 'beastmaster commands,' and give a variety of at-will things for the companion to do, like knock prone on a hit, or have an aura of difficult terrain, or grab folks and drag them around.

The harrier ranger would be a leader, without an animal companion. Instead he'd be excellent at aiding hit and run tactics. He would have minor action (1/round) commands that let allies shift, or move their speed, or gain bonuses to attack the same target the ranger attacks, and so on. Instead of power strike, he'd have an equivalent ability to let an ally deal extra damage.

And the duelist rogue would be a controller . . . or defender. Where the beastmaster is a ranged controller, the duelist is a melee controller, which sorta is the same thing as a defender, right?

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's often been suggested that the archer-ranger could have been a controller. Sure, it'd be a bit like a Seeker, but being more than a bit like an existing build didn't stop the Warpriest, or Knight, or Slayer, or Thief...

I don't know exactly how the 2e ranger ended up with TWFing. But...

...in 1e, TWFing was hidden in an obscure section of the DMG. It gave you and extra attack, but a -2 to hit with your primary weapon and -4 with your secondary, which had to be a dagger or hand axe (no scimitars, sorry). If your DEX was over 15, the penalties were reduced. At 18 DEX, you were 0/-1, which was very much worth it.

The ranger had a lot of stat requirements, and a high-DEX ranger was not easy to come up with. Still, the ranger was an obvious Archer archetype, and archery required high DEX. If you've got high DEX to be a great archer, it also made you a very good TWFer. That's a possible path to Ranger = TWFer.

Anyway, it's how the Ranger I played in 1981 ended up doing it. It was quite a surprise, too. I pictured it as a melee backup to archery. But, it turned out, even with a 'STR bow' (also pretty obscure, but yes, they existed in 1e), that you could do more damage flailing away with two weapons than plunking out two arrows per round.


Anyway, Unearthed Arcana and weapon specialization made TWF with paired weapons pretty uber, and 2e ran with that. The rest is history.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Sounds about right Tony. I agree with your recollections. STR bows were fairly uncommon though because you really wanted a MAGIC bow, and while they were certainly not prevented from being magic STR bows, the random nature of treasure meant it was unlikely you'd get one that would suite you. Given that the most STR a ranger in 1e could get was 18 you were overall better off with a +3 bow or something.

Honestly a leader ranger? Why not just reprint the warlord? Likewise if you're going to make a controller beast master why not just reprint the shaman? I never really bought the archer as controller pill anyway. It isn't really intuitive nor is it any sort of archetype.

 

[RangerWickett]

Honestly a leader ranger? Why not just reprint the warlord? Likewise if you're going to make a controller beast master why not just reprint the shaman? I never really bought the archer as controller pill anyway. It isn't really intuitive nor is it any sort of archetype.

For novelty's sake, really. The 'thief' rogue already makes a fine skirmishing archer, and the 'slayer' fighter makes a great straight-up archer. There's not really another archer 'trope' that needs satisfying, so I figured we'd use the ranger for other things.

Aragorn was called a ranger, but the 4e ranger doesn't resemble him much at all. I admit that a martial leader is basically always going to end up looking like a warlord, but since they don't have a warlord in the essentials, I thought maybe they'd go with the "Here, you're Aragorn" class.

Gimli's a knight.
Legolas is a slayer.
Aragorn should get to be his own thing.

 

[Riley]

I admit that a martial leader is basically always going to end up looking like a warlord, but since they don't have a warlord in the essentials, I thought maybe they'd go with the "Here, you're Aragorn" class.

Gimli's a knight.
Legolas is a slayer.
Aragorn should get to be his own thing.

I thnk you have a great idea, that harkens back to a classic of fantasy (as you noted), and also to a classic D&D-ism. My favorite combo in AD&D 1e was a half-elf ranger/cleric*, and I've never played it since. And I, too, don't get what two weapons has to do wth rangers.

*: Yes, I was both Tolkien-obsessed, and a power gamer. There really wasn't a more powerful low-level AD&D character than a cleric/ranger in field plate. Especially if you managed to give him a high Dex and Con, and fudged on the first level hit points.