Rangers: Your Thoughts and Preferences

What is your preferred Ranger archetype?

  • Drizz't (two-weapon dancer)

    Votes: 1 1.3%
  • Aragorn (heavy fighter with woods skills)

    Votes: 38 48.1%
  • Robin Hood (stealthy archer)

    Votes: 27 34.2%
  • Other (who? why? pray tell)

    Votes: 13 16.5%
  • Rangers? We don't need no stinkin' Rangers!

    Votes: 0 0.0%

Xodis

First Post
I voted Aragorn, because he shows the most versatility. Rangers are a necessity in that "unknown" situation. With a Ranger on your side here are a lists of things you can almost guarantee: Finding food, not getting lost, a way of helping any sickness if not curing it, some martial prowess, and stealth abilities. There are more but this is more prominent. Everyone calls Bards the Jack-of-All-Trades, which is true, but Rangers are the Clerical equivalent of them. Bards have less martial ability and more knowledge and use Arcane magic aka INT; Rangers have more martial ability and less knowledge and use Divine magic aka WIS.

Everyone hates Drizzt lol. For the record Drizzt's two handed fighting abilities come from his training as a Fighter more than a Ranger, and Aragorn uses two-weapon fighting skills, Great weapon fighting skills, and Bow skills.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Kobold Stew

Last Guy in the Airlock
Supporter
irreducible
ɪrɪˈdjuːsɪb(ə)l
adjective
not able to be reduced or simplified.

Seems like Rangers could easily be reduced or simplified to, well, "Fighters who choose certain gear", based on the rest of your post, so I'm not sure how you're using irreducible, here.

Having read his post, I'm pretty sure that's not what he's saying:

The main thing is that the ranger specializes in being in natural environments, whether forests, sub-arctic, deserts, or the Underdark. A ranger can be quasi-mystical, but doesn't have to be.

Neither of those criteria focuses on gear.

I actually think your counter example is the one that focuses on gear exclusively.

Certainly it's hard to reduce, say, Monks, because they can't really be simplified into another class or the like. The combination of "Highly Effective Unarmed Combat", "High non-magic AC despite no armour" and "Non-spell mystical self-boosting abilities" are not possessed by any other class nor combination of classes.

So what do you mean by irreducible?

So let's see if I got this right:

Seems like Monks could easily be reduced or simplified to, well, "Fighters who choose certain gear", based on the rest of your post, so I'm not sure how you're using irreducible, here.

The combination of "Highly Effective Combat", "High AC" and "self-boosting abilities" are all possessed by Fighters.

The specifics of "unarmed" "non-magical ... despite no armour" "non-spell mystical" are simply means to achieve an end, but are easily reduced; the first two are explicitly only about gear.

So what do you mean by irreducible?
 

tuxgeo

Adventurer
[barging in where i wasn't asked]- maybe it's the game itself that cannot be reduced to disinclude the first four classes, rather than the inability of any particular classes to be reduced. -[/barging in . . .]
 

Stormonu

NeoGrognard
I agree with Danny in that I don't think its fair to pigeonhole the Ranger into only one person as a sterotype. i can see Aragorn, Drizzt, Robin Hood and even Batman (as an urban Ranger) as all being Rangers.

Just like I could see Robin Hood as an archery-based fighter or a bow-toting rogue.

Classes should be big enough to encompasses several paths, but give you unique abilities for what sort specialization of that path you want to emphasize.
 

Having read his post, I'm pretty sure that's not what he's saying:

Luckily for us, he answered!

So let's see if I got this right:

Er, no, you didn't get it right, sorry. Fighters can't have any of those things by "focusing on certain gear". You seem to interested solely in the numbers, and that would make sense if we were discussing Champions or M&M, effects-based systems, but we're not.

Not quite what your dictionary definition means. Rather, crucial to the D&D canon - for me, of course. I see rangers as more core, more important, than any other class other than the Big Four.

Thank you for explaining. I would never have understood "irreducible" to mean that in this context, but whether I agree or not, I now understand what you mean. :)

But it isn't only about gear. A fighter is a warrior first and foremost, while a ranger is deeply connected with the natural world, and has the ability to fight. One thematic axis, or two polarities of the ranger are the rough woodsman who grew up outside and knows the woods like the back of his hands, is adept at hunting and trapping, etc; and, on the other extreme, a more quasi-mystical individual who has a deeply conscious connection with the natural world, including the life force, spirits, etc. I think both are valid, and that both should be accounted for in the rules. Weapons and armor are secondary, in my opinion, to understanding the deeper thematic elements.

Actually, it would be interesting to play a ranger that starts as the former--a rough woodsman--and gradually becomes more mystical, even "chosen" by some nature deity.

All of that may or may not be true (I think it reflects a very 2E and 3.5E view of the Ranger, less so a 1E and 3E one - 4E had every kind of ranger under the sun, including that), but I'm not sure how it makes Ranger the 5th-most important class to the D&D/the D&D canon.

Perhaps you could expand on that? I'm not sure I disagree but I'm not sure I understand, either.

What I will say is, Ranger is, in my experience, one of the most POPULAR classes in D&D with new players and that DOES make it important. It's nothing to do with being a "Rough Woodsman" IME, if by that you mean some sort of rough-and-tumble Davy Crockett-esque figure, but rather everything to do with being in touch with nature, with animals, and roaming the wilds and so on. Being free and friends with the animals seem to be big deals to a lot of new players (esp. female ones, IME, interestingly).

In fact, virtually all the new-to-RPGs players I've come across with D&D over the years wanted to play either Ranger or Wizard, and experienced players seem to often love Ranger too (albeit not as much).

Actually, maybe, if we're going with "most core to D&D", I might even put Ranger ahead of Cleric... historically I've seen it be a lot more popular if we disinclude 2E Speciality Priests and Druids. :)

(I was making a "most important classes to D&D" list I would have FTR/WIZ drawn at the top, then Rogue, then Ranger, then Cleric, then Bard/Paladin/Druid drawn and very close behind Cleric, then Sorcerer/Warlock, then Barbarian, then Warlord, then Monk, then "All the other classes" - but that's all IME/IMO of course)

PS - I have literally never seen a new player give two poops about Ranger tracking, I note. I feel like that is the most over-focused-on element of Rangers, even though it is totally a good fit for their general ethos (modern Ranger-figures like Katniss Everdeen are good at it, fr'ex).

[barging in where i wasn't asked]- maybe it's the game itself that cannot be reduced to disinclude the first four classes, rather than the inability of any particular classes to be reduced. -[/barging in . . .]

I think this is what he meant - it was the phrase "the four core, irreducible classes", i.e. classes are the object of irreducible, with no mention of the game, that threw me.
 
Last edited:

Mercurius

Legend
All of that may or may not be true (I think it reflects a very 2E and 3.5E view of the Ranger, less so a 1E and 3E one - 4E had every kind of ranger under the sun, including that), but I'm not sure how it makes Ranger the 5th-most important class to the D&D/the D&D canon.

Perhaps you could expand on that? I'm not sure I disagree but I'm not sure I understand, either.

When I say the ranger is the fifth most important class to the D&D canon, it shouldn't be taken too literally. And course there's the usual caveat "IMO" - I can only speak for myself.

Popularity is certainly part of it. "Iconicness," too. But you could say the same for the other "secondary classic classes" - paladin, barbarian, bard, druid, monk - and even the newer, tertiary classes - sorcerer, warlock, etc.

PS - I have literally never seen a new player give two poops about Ranger tracking, I note. I feel like that is the most over-focused-on element of Rangers, even though it is totally a good fit for their general ethos (modern Ranger-figures like Katniss Everdeen are good at it, fr'ex).

That's too bad, really, as I think the non-combat elements of the ranger are what set it apart from a fighter.

Again, though, I think it is a thematic issue. The ranger feels a certain way, with a range of possibilities within it. It feels different than, say, a tweaked fighter.
 

That's too bad, really, as I think the non-combat elements of the ranger are what set it apart from a fighter.

Again, though, I think it is a thematic issue. The ranger feels a certain way, with a range of possibilities within it. It feels different than, say, a tweaked fighter.

Oh, don't get me wrong, they love the non-combat stuff, it's just Tracking seems to be kind of a bore. What I see a focus on from new to RPGs or new-to-D&D-style-RPGs is:

1) I CAN BE FRIENDS WITH THE ANIMALS?!

2) I CAN HAVE AN AWESOME PANTHER (or the like) WHO DOES MY BIDDING AND LOVES ME?!!?! WOOT!!!! (Many/most editions gave an option for this - and what's interesting is this is NEVER from Drizzt fans!)

3) I can live off the land, find my way through the wilderness, and generally escape cities/villages? Yay!

4) I am really stealthy, especially in the wilderness? Awesome!

Then other features all sort of huddle together. New players see "no magic at lower levels" as "no magic" IME (which IME is pretty much correct too!), and tracking is just "Uh-huh, whatevs", though once it actually proves useful it gets more exciting.
 

JRRNeiklot

First Post
1E got the ranger right. It hasn't been done right since. No class should be hardwired into fighting with any weapon(s). The 1e ranger (and any fighter, really) can be an archer, a greatsword wielder, sword and board, two weapons, you name it. He's stealthy, but can wear plate if needed. Druid and magic user spells, he was the original jack of all trades. The only thing from 1e I would change is to penalize his stealth when wearing heavy armor.
 

steeldragons

Steeliest of the dragons
Everyone hates Drizzt lol. For the record Drizzt's two handed fighting abilities come from his training as a Fighter more than a Ranger, and Aragorn uses two-weapon fighting skills, Great weapon fighting skills, and Bow skills.

Minor correction: Drizzt's two weapon fighting (with scimitars) is a result of his being a Drow! Dual-weapon fighting, in 1e, was a particularly singular (and meant to be horrifyingly dangerous to PCs) ability of the Drow race.

As to the question at hand, "What's a Ranger?", I must agree with other esteemed ENworlders that the poll doesn't offer a suitable answer...and those asserting they are both "all and none" of the options.

Aragorn is, flat out and unabashedly, the character on which the original archetype was based. That can't be denied.

But, upon reading the thread title, my thoughts were the poll was going to include things like:
1. Fighter/More Fightery or Rogue/More Rogueish?
...to which I would assert, the Ranger is the direct intersection of Fighter/Rogue. Individual players can then, easily work their particular character vision into "more fighter" or "more rogue" as they see fit. But the Ranger is/has always kinda been [to me], the "Fighter with Intelligence", using skills and wits as much as arms, to the Paladin's "Fighter with Wisdom" who uses arms augmented with divine abilities.

2. Animal Companions or Animal Handling?
...to which I would assert the latter. They are good with animals...I'll even go so far as to say they might have some kind of TRAINED/TRAINING [NOT MAGICAL] animal empathy. Could this, then be used to get/have an animal companion? Sure. I've got nothing against options. But as a default-evey-ranger-is-walking-around-with-a-bear/wolf/puma, absolutely not.

3. Spell casting: at low levels/high levels/not at all?
...to which I maintain that a ranger definitely is NOT a caster class. If going traditional and given abilities like the "using scrying items" and/or a rogue's ability to "read scrolls" or something like that at higher levels, then I guess I'm ok with it. I could live with the minor/low level spells at much higher levels..."the rangers keep secret magical knowledge/practices that most normal/non-mage/non-druid people do not possess and only the most advanced among them are able to uncover/explore/develop these talents." Eh. I can live with it. But, again, as a default, I say "No" to Rangers = spellcasters at 1st level.

4. Woodsman or All Terrain Rover?
...to which I can really go either way. The Robin Hood woodsy "ranger" works. But as others have mentioned, I can also see a Fighter with woodsy skills, a rogue with woodsy skills, a Fighter or Rogue Archery specialist...nothing particularly says "Ranger" about him...though maybe one or two of his Merry Men might be. Batman as the Urban Ranger? Eh, I'd go more "Avenger" but sure. I can see it. Pretty much any Bounty Hunter character from anywhere, regardless of terrain or origins.

But, for tradition's sake, I would prefer to see a Ranger, in D&D, as the Woodsy guy...Nature's Champion...the Nature Fighter(or Rogue) to the Druid's caster, the way the Paladin is the Divine Champion/Fighter to the Cleric's caster.

5. Favored Enemies: Defining or just another ability?
...to which I would say...both. Sure, it began in the class as one of the defining traits. It is something no other class ever possessed as a built in class feature (though I suppose a parallel could be drawn with Clerics/Undead or Paladin/Demons). But given the status of the Ranger now [many many years from its creation in 1e]...and the array of non-combat skills attributed to the class, the "+X against Giant Class creatures" or however it is defined now, just becomes a random combat ability among the list of the ranger's other abilities.

So...yeah. No real answer for the poll as it exists. I suppose for tradition/history/origins' sake, I'm half-on-board for Aragorn and half-on-board for Robin Hood.
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
I voted "other" because there was no option for "all of the above, plus others".
Excellent point. The 5e ranger, moreso than in prior editions, needs to be able to stand in for many different concepts of the class, if it's to do it's part in realizing 5e's professed vision of inclusiveness.
 

Remove ads

Top