New Ranger (not monte)

[Thorvald Kviksverd]

I think one potential solution to having a Ranger that would satisfy everyone's conceptions would be a new, more general, core class--let's call it the light fighter for the time being.

Where the standard Fighter focuses almost exclusively on combat, the Light Fighter would place slightly less emphasis on combat, and more on skills (though not to the extent of a Rogue). Perhaps something along the lines of the following ...

LIGHT FIGHTER

HD: d8

BAB: +1

Save: FORT or REFL (one time choice)

SPs: 4/lvl

Skills: (Choose X (8?) skills as class skills)

Bonus Feats: 1/3 lvls

Weapons: as Fighter

Armour: Light, Med, and Shields

This, or something similar, should be able to accomodate everything from a Forester to a Swashbuckler.

 

[Plane Sailing]

FWIW my concept of a ranger is quintessentially a loner, fighting a lonely battle at the fringes of civilisation. I would envisage them being tough, able to travel quickly, with a wide range of skills and difficult to surprise.

(This is quite similar to the pre-1st edition ranger...)

How do I implement that in my campaign?

I use the Barbarian class, but with Rage removed and the ranger skill list and favoured enemy added. I also removed Track as a feat, and made all tracking based upon the search skill... with a DC of less than 20 anyone can search for tracks, higher DC's can only be found by someone with levels in Ranger, but still using the search skill (like the issue of search for traps and the Rogue class can search for traps with DC 20+, anyone can search for traps with lower DCs).

Before someone cries "foul! what about the barbarian class" I ought to mention that in my campaign I don't have the barbarian as a distinct class, but as regional tribes - comprising fighters, rogues, druids and (my) rangers, and with access to a certain set of regional RAGE feats.

As such I understand that this approach wouldn't fit well in most peoples campaigns - but in my campaign I have a class of loners who can track and run down any prey, are extremely tough and hardy, and are difficult to catch flatfooted because they are used to living on their nerves.

Cheers

 

[Thorvald Kviksverd]

Plane Sailing--

I like what you've done wrt the Ranger and Barbarian in your campaign, but what did you mean by "similar to the pre-1st edition ranger"?

 

[Plane Sailing]

Well, the Ranger first appeared in "The Strategic Review", when he was introduced as a new class to the original white books + greyhawk (paladin & thief) + blackmoor(monk) + eldrtich wizardry(druid).

I did a long write up some time ago about the evolution of the ranger character class

< rummages around >

I'll post it later tonight when I've located it

< continues rummaging >

Cheers

 

[Thorvald Kviksverd]

You can find that Ranger in the old Best of Dragon as well.

I thought maybe you were talking about another one that I hadn't heard of.

I think the original Ranger Class is similar enough to the 1e version that you could say they are basically the same in spirit.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I think the original Ranger Class is similar enough to the 1e version that you could say they are basically the same in spirit.

Certainly the same in spirit... although in 1e he had lost out in hardiness, lost a lot of his magical power and lost the ability to use a certain subset of magical items. His followers were downgraded slightly too.

Still, the gap between original and 1e is far less than 1e and 2e!

 

[dagger]

The 1e ranger could cast both magic user and druid spells, Im not sure what the pre 1e ranger could use spell wise though.

 

[Thorvald Kviksverd]

...Im not sure what the pre 1e ranger could use spell wise though.

Cleric and Magic-User

 

[Plane Sailing]

And my 16th level ranger could cast up to 6th level cleric spells and 6th level wizard spells, IIRC (and it *was* a long time ago!). I was gutted when I went down to 3 levels of druid spells and 2 levels of wizard spells in 1e. Happily the character was retired long before 2e - I don't like to think about the feeble spell ability they had by that time!

Cheers

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

You run off to the mountains for a weekend, and you totally lose track of a conversation... But it was a great place to think about Rangers...

At any rate, you all seem to be on the same page, but if you don't mind, I'd really like to hear more specifics about how Rangers were handled early. I didn't come on the scene until late 2e, and I've never been happy with the Ranger.

Among other things, how important is spell-casting to people's view of the Ranger? I'm waffling, but increasingly against the whole concept of them casting spells. Of course, I use Aragorn and Robin Hood as my models of the Ranger, and neither of them was a spell-caster. Are there any archetypal Rangers who actually cast spells? It seems to me that only the post D&D, derived Rangers do that, but that might reflect a hole in my education.

At any rate, here's the short, quick, and dirty version of my Ranger concept, as developed in the green mountains of Vermont:


Rangers are, first and foremost, survivors. They live off the land, and have developed their hunting, tracking, and wilderness survival skills to the fullest. Like druids, they respect the balance of nature, and seek to maintain it. Partially, this is out of respect for the creatures who share their home, but it is also more pragmatic. If you kill all the deer this month, what will you eat next month?

Rangers are warriors, but while fighters derive their combat skills from training and barbarians from their rage and sheer strength, Rangers fighting skills come from uncanny focus and determination. They attack their foes with the same concentration and resolve they use to survive in the harshest of environments. Often relying on speed and agility rather than brute force, smart Rangers know that the best way to survive an attack is to get out of its way.

Often, Rangers are exiles, disgraced or disenfranchized men and women who do not have a place in society and have built a place for themselves outside it. But in societies with a strong tie to the land, they are natural leaders.


It needs some fleshing out and expansion, and I invite commentary in that regard.