D&D 5E Rangers in 5e

[Remathilis]

In your opinion, I think David was just covering.

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]

By "recent" you mean 2nd Edition and 1989. For D&D that's ancient. I think it's pretty much an iconic ability now.
Drizzt and Robin Hood are the go-to examples of everything rangery, and both tend to alternate between bows and swords. Plus an animal companion.

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]

I can't understand why anyone would believe that the ranger or the paladin are going to be non casters.

For 3 and a half editions the ranger and the paladin were spell casting classes. This means that these classes are most likely going to continue to have some form of spell casting ability. How they do that is anyone's guess at the moment.

Personally I hope some form of arcane magic like they had so many years ago, even if it's a magic missile cantrip.

I hope they delay spell casting until fourth or fifth level though.

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.

What really confuses ME is how Drizzt having a Figurine of Wondrous Power all of the sudden translated into all rangers simply must have an animal companion!?!?! I suspect that was a 3e-ism. Drives. Me.Crazy.

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]

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?"

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).

 

[Steely_Dan]

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.

He is primarily a Fighter in all editions, IIRC, save 4th Ed, where he is a Solo Striker monster.

 

[Remathilis]

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).

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]

1) I'm sick of people who think 2e rangers = Drizzt clones.

2) Its real easy to blame Drizzt for it, even though the two events are non-related.

3) 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.

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.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

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]

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)

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.