Rangers...make em more like Tolkiens books

[MissingDividends]

First of all...I am sick of the other ranger threads where nothing gets accomplished... I want to establish some things:

I dont want a discussion of weather or not the ranger really is weak.

I dont want a discussion of what other people did is flawed.

D&D was origionally based on Tolkiens books.

If you dont agree with the above, PLEASE DONT POST HERE

Enough said.


Strider in Tolkiens books had a few key points:
1) he was good at fighting
2) he said something like "i exist for one purpose, to kill the servents of the enemy"
3) he could travel well over the wilderness
4) he had excelent sences

so ill go over which points are already covered and which need improvments (ill try to be breif)

Covered:
1) the BAB, the weapon proficintcies
2) Favored enemy


Need improvments:

3) Implintation of some wilderness- based feats/spells. Examples might be a new feats that would make it possible for a ranger to pass more quickly through types of land
4) Addition of a ranger bonus to Listen spot and search checks

thats all for now (dinner)

 

[Crothian]

So, we lose the spells and add in some terrain friendly ability as well as a class bonus to certain skills. Should be easy to do.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Why don't you edit the title of this thread to make it clearer what you wish to do?

 

[MissingDividends]

i think iot might be good just to change the "spell" idea to make it so a ranger could use each of his "spell" as a special ability and add some more in addition...i know this is weird but ive had this idea rolling in my head since 3rd edition that the way spells in general work if screwed up, because D&D never would have been made if nit werent for LotR, and some aspects are too diferent.

as i said ive been throughing this idea around for a while, and it was decided when i started reading a book, i think maybe spells should work as though you get a set number of a spell a day: example:

Ranger learns specific spells, ranger gets each of those spell 1/day, 2/day, 1/week, or some other SET number for each spell




i just re-read that and it sounded like a mad-man's ravings so please feel free to ignore it!

 

[Celebrim]

Well, if you throw in that I don't think that Aragorn said that (it certainly doesn't sound right that Aragorn should belittle his role as heir of Gondor), and that Aragorn is just as much of a Paladin as a 'Ranger', I don't know exactly what you are going to get or where you are going.

As someone who has read Tolkein's LotR 17 times, I have to tell you that I still don't know what a 'Ranger' is like in Tolkein's books.

And using Aragorn as an example just completely muddles the issue. For instance, in Aragorn's back ground we know that he spent several decades as a Knight in both Gondor and Rohan, excelling in both places with the lance and sword and in the martial skills of both countries, which would presumably include horsemanship. We have no instance of Aragorn using a bow or even owning one, however hard it may be to believe that someone who had skill as a hunter did not use one. But maybe he meant that he was good at setting snares for small animals? We know that Aragorn had some skill in herbology, and a very great ammount of skill as a healer (he had studied under Elrond). One of the most critical scenes in understanding Aragorn is when he journeys about the city of Minas Tirith after the battle of the Pelannor fields tending the sick and wounded. Certainly Aragorn seems to have the appropriately kingly abiltiy to 'Lay on Hands'. However, we see no similar abilities manifested in say Faramir or any other ranger, so they are probably unique to him. Aragorn also is well versed in other kinds of knowledge and lore and no mere untutored fighter. This seems to be true of all the Rangers we get to meet, that they possess high medieval knightly virtues of courtliness and learning.

In analysis, Aragorn's primary 'class' is not 'Ranger' but 'King', and he may have a few levels of the prestige class 'High King' as well. How that translates to D&D I can't even begin to speculate.

 

[comrade raoul]

What he said. Even when you think a D&D ranger should be based on Tolkien, it's a big mistake to treat Aragorn as a paradigmatic ranger. The Heir of Elendil as we see him in LotR is best translated as a fighter/paladin/ranger in his low epic levels, and any core class based on him is going to be monstrously overpowered.

 

[DreamChaser]

As a general rule, there is danger in trying to use any character from a book as a paradigmatic example of a character type because major characters tend to be special...as is anyone in LotR with even a drop of elven blood.

I think, however, the Strider first met by the hobbits could be something of an example...provided we don't try to overgeneralize.

 

[Steverooo]

 

 

[Steverooo]

 

 

[Steverooo]