Remathilis
Legend
Wow, you just called Dave Cook is a liar. Way to really prove your point there.
What's next? "I'm rubber, you're glue?"
D&D 5E Rangers in 5e
- Thread starter paladinm
- Start date
Wow, you just called Dave Cook is a liar. Way to really prove your point there.
What's next? "I'm rubber, you're glue?"
JRRNeiklot
First Post
Neither Drizzt or Robin Hood evoke images of rangers for me. When I hear ranger, I think of Aragorn, John Rambo, George Washington Sears, Zachary Bass, John Thornton, Davy Crocket, and Daniel Boone. Drizzt should have been a fighter/thief.
Victim
First Post
Well, that's only partially true. 2e rangers and paladins only got spellcasting at levels 8 and 9 respectively. That's a lot of rangers and paladins who aren't going to get spells because the game ends at level 7. A lot of games simply didn't reach levels 8 and 9.
3e both made ranger and pally casting more accessible by starting it at level 4, and made higher levels in general more attainable. So far more characters of these classes were getting spells.
And then what happens: we get official variants without spells for people who don't want casting, along with plenty of prestige classes that would allow them to minimize spell ability. There's also a big push to grant rangers and paladins unique spells that complement their own abilities and fighting styles instead of just getting cleric/druid spells super slowly.
So while DnD has had spellcasting ranger and paladin classes for a long time, the spellcasting is often either somewhat irrelevant to most characters or is recognized as having problems or being undesirable. Not exactly a strong history IMO.
It was the Animal Friendship spell. Classes with access to the spell got Animal Companions as a feature when the spell was removed in 3.5. 3.0 defined the Druid's animal companion as per the spell. Rangers and Animal domain clerics could also access the spell. Then the spell is axed, and all 3 of those characters have a far more detailed animal companion class feature.
Steely_Dan
First Post
Calm down (listen to Jeff Beck's The Pump), I did not call him a liar, but he was definitely "padding" the job.
Basically, TSR was capitalising on the popularity of the Drizzt character, I mean, what 13-year old doesn't dig dual-wielding ink-coloured angst-ridden elves.
We don't have to agree; anyway, you seem to have an agenda (a passive-aggressive one).
Last edited:
Steely_Dan
First Post
He is primarily a Fighter in all editions, IIRC, save 4th Ed, where he is a Solo Striker monster.
Remathilis
Legend
I'm sick of people who think 2e rangers = Drizzt clones. Its a nasty stereotype started out of irrational hatred of a popular character (and dislike of a broken class being redone to fit the other PHB classes). The reason is so that people can argue that twf has no reason to be associated with rangers as an excuse to get rid of it. Its real easy to blame Drizzt for it, even though the two events are non-related.
Personally, I think stealth, two-weapon fighting, druid spells and animal companions seem a lot more ranger-flavored than an extra HD, adding your level to damage all humanoids, wizard spells, and use crystal balls as class features.
Steely_Dan
First Post
1) Well, that there's what it is, I believe they are (for many reasons), why then the sudden need for a woodsman to dual-wield?
2) Of course they are; let's not kid ourselves.
3) I do not agree that the dual-wielding and animal companion shtick is integral to the Ranger.
To me, a s fighting style is more tailored to his environment.
Sine 90% of D&D is in temperate forest, rangers would favor light armor with bows and light weapons with no shields (thus offhand weapons and dual wielding)
But in a plains environment, rangers would favor mounts. They'd be light cavalry with bows and heavy weapons like spears.
In the tundra, the ranger would bundle up and wear medium or heavy armor. They'll pick up shields or go with light two handed weapons. Ranged weapons are dropped as fingers would freeze.
In the dry hot deserts, rangers would drop ranged weapons and armor altogether and focus as dexterous duelists.
Sine 90% of D&D is in temperate forest, rangers would favor light armor with bows and light weapons with no shields (thus offhand weapons and dual wielding)
But in a plains environment, rangers would favor mounts. They'd be light cavalry with bows and heavy weapons like spears.
In the tundra, the ranger would bundle up and wear medium or heavy armor. They'll pick up shields or go with light two handed weapons. Ranged weapons are dropped as fingers would freeze.
In the dry hot deserts, rangers would drop ranged weapons and armor altogether and focus as dexterous duelists.
Remathilis
Legend
Well, I have nothing else to add. I cite the creator of the class, and you ignore his reasoning because you were there and know better. Please, continue to believe what you will oblivious to the facts.
JRRNeiklot
First Post
A forest is the absolute worst place for ranged weapons. They are great for hunting and assassination - I.E, one shot one kill, but as a weapon of war, they fail miserably. Too much stuff in the way.
Yes, forest suck for long term ranged combat. So the traditional ranger of the forest would be a sniper and not the machine gunner D&D makes him to be.
A forest ranger wouldn't be firing a shot every turn like a archer fighter. They'd line one one shot for a quick kill or high damage and then draw their sword.
tlantl
First Post
While this may be true in the games you might have participated in, my experience was much different. Saying that something is partially true because you never actually got to use that ability doesn't make it true.
I have two Paladins from 1e and both of them are well into the teen levels one of them is almost level 20. He would be if circumstances were different, but people's lives diverge and groups melt away. It's easier to get a group together with the current system than it is to find players for a game that was mothballed in favor of the new and shiny.
The point being that although you may not want to accept it those classes have always had spell casting ability regardless of whether or not any particular player or group ever actually got to cast them, some of us have.
Jester David
Hero
Nope.
Most 2e characters attracted followers. Mostly hunan fighters and the like, but rangers attracted animals. Also unrelated to Drizzt.
I've heard the creation of dual welding being attributed to Drizzt and not. I imagine the truth is somewhere in the middle. Someone, having read the Crystal Shard, pitches dual wielding and the team runs and develops it, or dual wielding is pitched and takes hold because it works well with Drizzt.
Jester David
Hero
A good class should be able cover the major traits of all, or be doable via speciality and / or background. But Aragorn/ Robin Hood have always been the primary influence.
Well, he was always meant to be a ranger, so that's moot. Personally, I always thought Tanis Half-Elven was a great ranger, but he's a straight fighter.
Jester David
Hero
I doubt very, very, very much TSR redesigned an entire class based on the popularity of a character who had appeared in a single book a year before the edition was published (and likely halfway though the design of said edition) - especially when said character was a supporting character and lacked much of his current angst.
Mishihari Lord
First Post
In terms of the "three pillars" the folks designing D&DNext have been talking about, I see the ranger as an exploration specialist for outdoor/wilderness/natural environments, similar to how the thief is an exploration specialist for indoor/artificial environments. Combat should be a sideline, but in an environment where the ranger can use his exploration abilities to augment his combat proficiency, he should have an advantage.
I prefer the ranger as a strictly non-magical class. The 1E ranger had some spells, but I always saw these as a way of modeling non-magical abilities withing the paradigm of 1E, not really magical abilities. Frex, I think Animal Friendship was one of those abilities. The ranger didn't actually cast a spell, he was just really good at making friends with animals. Before the various skill abilities were created there wasn't a good way to model this aside from spells.
I prefer the ranger as a strictly non-magical class. The 1E ranger had some spells, but I always saw these as a way of modeling non-magical abilities withing the paradigm of 1E, not really magical abilities. Frex, I think Animal Friendship was one of those abilities. The ranger didn't actually cast a spell, he was just really good at making friends with animals. Before the various skill abilities were created there wasn't a good way to model this aside from spells.
ComradeGnull
First Post
I think this has as much to do with the Ranger Follower's rules in 2e- Rangers and Druids could roll various magical and non-magical animals as their companions. Nearly everyone that I knew that played a ranger wanted one of the animal followers more than another dopey PC-type to follow them around, and in many cases DM's indulged this desire.
Regarding Drizzt and dual wielding- worth noting that Drizzt's dual wield would not have qualified as a Ranger's penalty-free dual wield under the 2e rules. To quote the 2e PBH:
If the rules were created specifically to support Drizzt'ing, then it seems a bit odd that the exact weapon combo that Salvatore used was unsupported. It makes the 'Salvatore heard that dual wielding was going to be a thing for Rangers and added it for Drizzt' route seem more likely- the author heard of the rules' existence, but not its specific final form and went to town with it. 3e, which was written after the drow books had become massive sellers for TSR, fixed the error by explicitly supporting Drizzt-style same-sized weapon dual wielding.
It could makes sense in a roundabout way as I explained before.
A stealth based forest based ranger would not carry a shield nor a large two handed weapon. They would carry one handed weapons like longswords, axes, and knifes. Because their off hand would be empty, the ranger might carry another weapon in the off hand. Thus dual wielding.
But since every ranger is not based in thick forests, dual wielding makes no sense to be automatic.
Desert (cold) and Mountain rangers would more likely wear heavy armor and use two handed weapons or shields.
Desert (hot) rangers would be dexterous due to lack of armor and be dual wielders or mounted warriors.
Forest and jungle rangers would be the traditional ranger with, light armor, ranged sniping and finesse weapons.
Plains and Hills rangers with their more open environment would allow for ranged attacks, mounted attacks, and reach weapons.
Jester David
Hero
As has been stated earlier, in 1e Drow could dual wield, which is where that comes from.
Looking back at my 1e PHB tracking and Druidic magic were there, so those have been in for 3 editions. And there's the basis of favoured enemies (a bonus against giants). So all that should be included from the start. Dual wielding has also been there for 3 editions (2-4) so that's in.
While it might be nice to have variants (non-spellcaster) that can come later.
Similar Threads
