Bacon Bits
Hero
It was the era before true game design and mostly "jamming spells and incentives together that creates an image".
I'm imagining the 3e, 4e, and 5e rules sweating profusely and avoiding your gaze.
It was the era before true game design and mostly "jamming spells and incentives together that creates an image".
All of that but the light weapons fits Aragorn, too.I don't remember where I saw it, but I recall seeing some rationale that since rangers were mostly forest pathfinders and scouts, they wouldn't favor two-handled weapons (hard to swing in a polearm or greatsword in a forest) or shields (again, clumsy in a narrow woodland) so they felt that a ranger would opt for a small off-hand weapon (knife, handaxe, etc) as an alternative. They also moved rangers to light armor (studded leather) to further that archetype as a scout, skirmisher, and archer rather than the heavier armor and weapons of a fighter.
Likewise, they moved the ranger's "move undetected in the woods" into thief like stealth abilities.
It's probably fair to view the 2e ranger less as Aragorn and more as Davy Crockett.
Both are equally valid fantasy archetypes. Both have different skill sets. Neither casts spells. Wilderness spellcaster is a separate fantasy archetype (Radagast).I alway felt Rangers were more 'special forces' than scouts.
Those editions should have attempted to create classes instead of creating images.I'm imagining the 3e, 4e, and 5e rules sweating profusely and avoiding your gaze.
Both are equally valid fantasy archetypes. Both have different skill sets. Neither casts spells. Wilderness spellcaster is a separate fantasy archetype (Radagast).
Which is why ranger should be a background (upgraded to something a bit more significant than backgrounds are in 5e) so any class can be a ranger. Within 5e, subclasses are a better option. We have Rogue-rangers (scouts) and we have cleric-rangers (nature), we need Fighter-rangers and Wizard-rangers.
Ranger-as-a-class needs to be hurled into the depths of hell, where is should have been for the past 40 years.
I always felt Rangers were more 'special forces' than scouts.
Exactly.I would say there is a strong case to be made that the best scouts are Special Forces. As anyone who has seen a scouting rogue can attest, the biggest challenge for a scout is the fact that they are alone in enemy territory. If a King needed to send someone to look into those rumors of giants and trolls gathering in the hills, they would need someone highly skilled to go out, because they need to get back out of those hills if the rumors turn out to be true.
Those editions should have attempted to create classes instead of creating images.
Rangers have spells because TSR and WOTC
- Refused to give Fighters unfiltered access to skills until 5e
Or couldn't - I wouldn't know where to start in creating a "detailed exploration system" for D&D, and I don't know an RPG that has such a thing.
- Refused to create detailed exploration systems
No, it was created for and Aragorn fan. And something created to suit a specific player who couldn't get their head around the difference between class names and class abilities (Aragorn is a paladin with a wilderness guy background) is not a good reason for including something in the game.The ranger was created by an Aragorn fan.
- Used spells as a shortcut to not create detailed skills or explain fantastical skill use.