Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mmadsen" data-source="post: 454833" data-attributes="member: 1645">The word "Ranger" obviously conjures up an image of a woodsman, particularly a soldier or law enforcement agent out in the wilderness. To any Tolkien fan, "Ranger" conjures up an image of Strider and his men, dusty, dressed in green and brown, or of Faramir and his men, in green cloaks, faces covered, waiting in ambush with bows and arrows.  The elves guarding Lothlorien fit the same description.  So do Robin Hood and his merry men.  It's a strong  archetype -- and one that's not specific to one fictional source.How is it then that the D&D Ranger, the class that purports to be just such a woodsman class, has roughly zero to do with this famous archetype?  Yeah, it has Tracking, and, yeah, the skill list looks good, but what the heck do Favored Enemies, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting and spellcasting(!) have to do with this archetype?  The D&D Ranger simply isn't the archetypal hunter, scout, tracker, whatever.  It's an odd agglomeration of "neat" abilities.Do I hate Favored Enemies?  No, I think that Favored Enemies are a great idea, but I don't see how they're Ranger-specific. Realistically, we'd see a bunch of Rangers with Favored Enemy: Deer -- and lots of Fighters with Favored Enemy: Knights of the Next Kingdom Over.Do I hate Improved Two-Weapon Fighting? Not particularly.  It can fit in a fantasy setting, and there are a few historical examples (main gauche & rapier, double sticks or blades in Filipino martial arts, Musashi using two swords in feudal Japan), but it's certainly not a hunter's fighting style; hunter's use a bow and arrow or perhaps a spear.Do I hate spellcasting?  No, but it's hardly typical of all woodsmen, and it's much easier to just let Rangers multiclass into Druid at no penalty.I don't object too terribly to having a "neat" class that combines Tracking, Favored Enemies, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, and spellcasting -- you can even write up a cool backstory to explain it -- but I do object to the fact that there's no good class for all those generic scouts, hunters, and outlaws in the woods.After all, something's wrong with your class-based game when Robin Hood isn't enough of an archetype to deserve a class.  You can call this "Ranger" class something else if you'd like.  "Scout" works fine. (That's what they use in the Star Wars game.)I tend to think of these woodsmen, particularly outlaws like Robin Hood, as Rogues, and it seems simple enough to open up the Rogue class a bit, following the pattern of the 3rd-edition Fighter, i.e. give the Rogue a list of bonus feats (available every other level like the fighter's) rather than a carved-in-stone ability progression: Alertness, Endurance, Improved Critical, Point Blank Shot (Far Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Shot on the Run), Quickdraw, Run, Skill Focus (Class Skill), Track, Weapon Focus; Nature Sense, Animal Companion, Woodland Stride, Trackless Step; Sneak Attack, Evasion, Uncanny Dodge.  With a few Ranger skills (esp. Wilderness Lore) added to the Rogue's skill list, a Rogue would have the option of being a Robin Hood type of outlaw.  This would also be the perfect class for elven "warriors" or goblin scouts.</blockquote>

Verification