Rangers done wrong?

[ephemeron]

Rangers weren't archers in 1e, they were melee gods vs. giants and evil humanoids. +level to damage is huge in a system where bonuses to damage weren't that common.

Oh, man, those 1e rangers.

In the last 1e campaign I ran, the table joke was that the ranger's steely glare was enough to make humanoids drop dead as the variety of humanoids he didn't even need to bother rolling damage against gradually increased. Combine the damage bonus with the rule that fighter-types get one attack per level per round against enemies with less than a full HD, and it doesn't take very many levels before a ranger can kill every kobold or goblin within reach, each round. And the damage bonus always stays useful, because it also applies to big nasties like trolls and giants.

The post-1e history of the ranger class has been all about trying to find the right amount to tone it down.

 

[Samloyal23]

If you want to understand the 1E Ranger you have to look at the source material Tolkien used. The Rangers were Lost Kings, exiled rulers in hiding from the forces of Darkness. They had magical and sacred powers like their healing touch because they were blessed by a divine right of kings and knew some arcane lore because their social station demanded it. They learned to live in the wilderness to survive and hide while being able to covertly protect their followers from monsters and other villains. The Ranger is an Archetype, it follows the lore of the Merovingian sorcerer-kings displaced by the line of Charlemagne...

 

[Spatula]

Oh, man, those 1e rangers.

In the last 1e campaign I ran, the table joke was that the ranger's steely glare was enough to make humanoids drop dead as the variety of humanoids he didn't even need to bother rolling damage against gradually increased. Combine the damage bonus with the rule that fighter-types get one attack per level per round against enemies with less than a full HD, and it doesn't take very many levels before a ranger can kill every kobold or goblin within reach, each round. And the damage bonus always stays useful, because it also applies to big nasties like trolls and giants.

The post-1e history of the ranger class has been all about trying to find the right amount to tone it down.

...and to tack on two-weapon fighting.

2e was the worst, IMO - +4 to hit (and some social penalties) vs. one particular race is just really, really weak. Unless you just happen to be waging a war against that race for the entire campaign. 3e & PF are a little better but it's still too narrow, IMO. I have a ranger in my current PF game who picked animals as his first favored enemy because he wanted to play a hunter (clearly, he's not a metagamer). I give him the bonus vs. anything with animal-level intelligence or lower (animals, vermin, dumb magical beasts) because otherwise he'd hardly ever get to use it.

 

[billd91]

...and to tack on two-weapon fighting.

2e was the worst, IMO - +4 to hit (and some social penalties) vs. one particular race is just really, really weak. Unless you just happen to be waging a war against that race for the entire campaign. 3e & PF are a little better but it's still too narrow, IMO. I have a ranger in my current PF game who picked animals as his first favored enemy because he wanted to play a hunter (clearly, he's not a metagamer). I give him the bonus vs. anything with animal-level intelligence or lower (animals, vermin, dumb magical beasts) because otherwise he'd hardly ever get to use it.

Yes, the 2e ranger was the weakest version, by far. It was stuck on the same XP table as the paladin but had abilities that were more limited.

The 1e version's wizard spells also, I think, reflected the close association of the two most prominent rangers in LotR (Aragorn and Faramir) with Gandalf. I don't know if there's ever been an official statement what the inspiration for that was, but the association works for me.

As far as being archers, a lot of us played rangers with bows because it was a weapon that made sense to us for a civilization-protector operating in the wilderness to use. It became a pretty common occurrence and, I think, increased dissatisfaction with the 2e ranger and the 3.0 ranger.

 

[Dioltach]

I don't know whether it's ever been confirmed, but I always felt that the character of Gwydion in The Chronicles of Prydain was another source for the D&D ranger. One of the first things he does in the entire series is cast web.

 

[Samloyal23]

I am thinking that Tolkien probably heard about the tales of Rennes-le-Chateau and the supposed heir to Dagobert II and came up with the idea of hidden heirs to the thrones of Middle Earth kingdoms based on tales of the Merovingian saints and disenfranchised English nobles like Robert of Locksley. The Divine Right of Kings supposedly led to magical powers such as a healing touch. Scrofula was called the King's Evil because the touch of a royal hand could cure it. Royal blood was considered magical and it makes sense for a class based on exiled scions of royal blood to have magical powers.

 

[Celebrim]

The Divine Right of Kings supposedly led to magical powers such as a healing touch. Scrofula was called the King's Evil because the touch of a royal hand could cure it. Royal blood was considered magical and it makes sense for a class based on exiled scions of royal blood to have magical powers.

Healing touch and curing diseases are not part of the Ranger's suite of powers. Rangers also have no 1e requirement to be born of noble blood.

Those are features of an entirely different class.

As for the tales of Rennes-le-Chateau, I doubt Tolkien was familiar with them. They didn't become popular until 10 years after The Lord of the Rings was published, and they have no ancient provenance, being invented pretty much whole cloth during the 1960's. Aragorn's origins go back to the conception of Beren and Luthien, which in part is autobiographical, partly based on medieval romances (Tristan and Isolde, for example), and partly on more modern writings particularly Lord Dunsany's 'The King of Elfland's Daughter'. I've seen some theory that Tolkien was influenced by the tales of Oswald of Northumbria, but I consider the evidence on that pretty weak.

Aragorn isn't a D&D ranger. He's most easily read as a D&D Paladin. His rangers of the north companions aren't D&D rangers. They are D&D Cavaliers. The D&D ranger and paladin diverge mostly over physical appearance - ranger's are woodsman, paladin's wear full plate. As that happens, any relationship between the D&D ranger and the usage of the word that inspires the class is quickly lost. The D&D ranger stops being Aragorn and becomes Robin Hood. The Paladin goes on being Roland and Galahad, while Aragorn's relationship to Author and Charlemange is forgotten (indeed, in the original mythic conception, Arthur is almost certainly Aragorn's heir). While Aragorn is wood crafty, that's just one aspect of his broad 'hardiest of all mortal men' skill set. His status as a 'wild man' is really little more than a disguise he uses. He's an elvish trained lore-master and healer, and a knight errant. He is the true king of Gondor. Once Aragorn reaches 'civilized parts', he drops his disguise as a 'wild man', claims his title, puts on mail, and thereafter in the story is in the role of a knight and no long (at least publicly) 'Strider the Ranger'. And indeed, if you read the appendix, prior to the story he spent about 20 years in Rohan and Gondor as a famous 'black knight', that is a knight riding under a euphemism and without a device declaring his true identity. Denethor's descent into folly appears to have begun with his realization regarding who this rival and friend's identity really was. Strider the Ranger becomes to Aragorn something like 'Clark Kent' becomes to Kel-El.

 

[Samloyal23]

Aragorn is a very complex character. He is a king in exile, a forest protector, a healer, and has some arcane lore. The earliest version of the AD&D Ranger was based on these qualities. Later versions owe more to Robin Hood and still later version are basically genocidal assassins...