JRRNeiklot
First Post
If he doesn't have magic user and druid spells, he's not a ranger.
D&D 5E Ranger's favored enemies and spells.
- Thread starter variant
- Start date
(Psi)SeveredHead
Adventurer
This is what happens when you take something that isn't a class and make it a class. The ranger is not a class. If you want to play a typical elven ranger, take fighter, some sort of archery specialization, and something that gives you wilderness skills. Old packages were perfect for this (except not having an archery specialization). Aragorn is probably some sort of paladin or arcane warrior with sword specialization and wilderness skills.
Favored enemy was ridiculous from the start. Yes Aragorn was good at killing orcs. So was Legolas (who has become a ranger too these days) and Gimli who ... isn't. That should be some kind of background or feat if you're even bothering to include it.
Favored enemy was ridiculous from the start. Yes Aragorn was good at killing orcs. So was Legolas (who has become a ranger too these days) and Gimli who ... isn't. That should be some kind of background or feat if you're even bothering to include it.
JRRNeiklot
First Post
No, do that and you get an archer, or maybe a woodsman. That is not even in the same genre as a ranger.
(Psi)SeveredHead
Adventurer
The woodsman is not the same genre as a ranger? The ranger has become so changed and diluted it doesn't even mean anything. A lasso-wielding urban bounty hunter is a ranger these days.
Rangers were originally invented when classes had very little flexibility. Before kits, the easiest way to make a class was to just cram stuff onto a simpler one. Often this stuff didn't even make sense, certainly after a few editions when mysteriously every ranger was capable of replicating one specific ranger's - Aragorn's - dual-torch-wielding and kingly healing hands. (Abilities that Ranger Faramir never displayed.) You can make a better ranger these days with multi-classing and flavor text representing an organization, and that does not conflict with their origins at all.
Furthermore, I don't trust WotC to actually design a proper ranger class, it'll be a mishmash. I say this even of 4e; two versions of that ranger dual-wield, and one can cast spells that "summon walls of leaves". That wasn't exactly Aragorn's specialty, not that basing an entire class on one guy is ever a good idea.
Rangers were originally invented when classes had very little flexibility. Before kits, the easiest way to make a class was to just cram stuff onto a simpler one. Often this stuff didn't even make sense, certainly after a few editions when mysteriously every ranger was capable of replicating one specific ranger's - Aragorn's - dual-torch-wielding and kingly healing hands. (Abilities that Ranger Faramir never displayed.) You can make a better ranger these days with multi-classing and flavor text representing an organization, and that does not conflict with their origins at all.
Furthermore, I don't trust WotC to actually design a proper ranger class, it'll be a mishmash. I say this even of 4e; two versions of that ranger dual-wield, and one can cast spells that "summon walls of leaves". That wasn't exactly Aragorn's specialty, not that basing an entire class on one guy is ever a good idea.
variant
Adventurer
Actually, last I checked, Rangers were 'invented' in the medieval ages. The dual wielding Ranger has absolutely nothing to do with Aragorn wielding two torches. The dual wielding Ranger came from Drizzt, which actually dual wielded because it was a drow racial ability back in AD&D.
(Psi)SeveredHead
Adventurer
But does it bear any resemblance to a casting dual-wielding class that's really good at killing a specific range of creatures? What made real-life medieval rangers different from other soldiers? Those would be good class abilities. Assuming there's enough to make the ranger worth being its own class. To me, the ranger is a soldier with more stealth/wilderness skills, and that's not enough to make a class.
This comes up a lot, but the ranger picked up dual-wielding a little before Drizzt. (RAS gave Drizzt dual-wielding because he got a preview of the UA ranger rules. But Drizzt is better known than an old factoid like that.)
variant
Adventurer
Medieval Rangers escorted people through areas, tracked, hunted, and patrolled and protected the forests for the local land owner. It is why we have Rangers varying from what Tolkein created to modern day Rangers such as park Rangers, Texas Rangers, and military Rangers. The key descriptive word for them is range, as in to range over land.
It comes up because it is true. The Ranger didn't have a dual wielding ability in AD&D. It was a drow racial ability that appeared in Unearthed Arcana.
Tonguez
A suffusion of yellow
So what you're saying is that Ranger is just a fighter with some tracking and maybe wilderness survival skills?
So why not just take a High Dex Fighter and add tracking and wilderness skills?
variant
Adventurer
While we are at it, should we take the Fighter add some divine spells to make a Cleric, take a Fighter add some arcane spells to make a Wizard, and take a Fighter and add some stealth skills to make a Rogue?
The medieval Ranger was not someone that specialized in combat. The Tolkein Ranger was someone that knew how to survive in the wilderness, hide and travel through the forest quickly, and specialized in guerrilla combat which doesn't remotely resemble the Fighter.
Last edited:
Warbringer
Explorer
Similar Threads
