D&D 5E (2014) The Dual Wielding Ranger: How Aragorn, Drizzt, and Dual-Wielding Led to the Ranger's Loss of Identity

[Paul Farquhar]

The fighter has access to so wilderness stuff. The ranger has access to all wilderness stuff.

The thing about "wilderness stuff" is it is out of combat stuff. So it doesn't really belong in the class at all. It belongs in the Background. Which 5e tries to do with Outlander. So long as you have the outlander in your party you don't get lost or starve in the wilderness. Fine, that's that covered.

Everything else: archery, duel wielding, animal companion, should just be folded into fighter.

 

[Minigiant]

The thing about "wilderness stuff" is it is out of combat stuff. So it doesn't really belong in the class at all. It belongs in the Background. Which 5e tries to do with Outlander. So long as you have the outlander in your party you don't get lost or starve in the wilderness. Fine, that's that covered.

You miss the whole reason why the Aragon Ranger was created.

No DM allows you to roll Nature to find a plant that heals 1d8 hp.

No DM allows you to roll Survival to use a crystal ball.

No DM allows you to roll Animal Handing to have a chipmunk send a message back to town.

No DM allows you to roll Int to add 1d6 to damage rolls.

The whole point is there is a limited level of adjudication the D&D community accepts. I am pretty dang sure that if I played in a campaign where the DM limited the classes to the core four, the DM would not let my fighter cast Goodberry just because he is an Outlander.

Everything else: archery, duel wielding, animal companion, should just be folded into fighte

The fighter already has access to archery and dual wielding.

The ranger is limited to archery, dualweilding, animal companion, and dueling in mastery of fighting style.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

You miss the whole reason why the Aragon Ranger was created.

No DM allows you to roll Nature to find a plant that heals 1d8 hp.

No DM allows you to roll Survival to use a crystal ball.

No DM allows you to roll Animal Handing to have a chipmunk send a message back to town./

And having spells that do those things seems to me to be what the vast majority of ranger fans are complaining about.

And they may have a point, since most fictional rangers who aren't called Aragorn or Snow White can't do that stuff.

No DM allows you to roll Int to add 1d6 to damage rolls.

The whole point is there is a limited level of adjudication the D&D community accepts. I am pretty dang sure that if I played in a campaign where the DM limited the classes to the core four, the DM would not let my fighter cast Goodberry just because he is an Outlander./

Magic Initiate: Druid covers that.

The fighter already has access to archery and dual wielding.

The ranger is limited to archery, dualweilding, animal companion, and dueling in mastery of fighting style.

Indeed. All that is needed is a beastmaster subclass for fighters and the ranger class can be axed.

 

[Minigiant]

L

And having spells that do those things seems to me what the vast majority of ranger fans are complaining about.

And they may have a point, since most fictional rangers who aren't called Aragorn or Snow White can't do that stuff.

It's not a majority.
Some fans want a nonspell system.
Some fans want more ranger themed spells.

Magic Initiate: Druid covers that.

It only gives you one spell.

That's the core problem. You can't add enough spell to the fighter to make a ranger without making the fighter OP or making the nonmagic fighter weak in comparison.

That's why the 0e and 1e ranger had strict requirements. It was a Fighter +.

Indeed. All that is needed is a beastmaster subclass for fighters and the ranger class can be axed

A beast companions at the power level of dual wielding is a RIOT waiting to happen.

If 5e proves anything, beastmaster has to take up 1/2 your class features to work.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

That's the core problem. You can't add enough spell to the fighter to make a ranger without making the fighter OP or making the nonmagic fighter weak in comparison.

But we have established: you don't need to be able to cast spells to be a ranger. The vast majority of fictional (and all real life) rangers can't. Maybe some rangers can cast spells. They can get that by multiclassing.

 

[Minigiant]

Overall it all seems to come down to "Icon has feature" to "Ranger gets feature" to "Community retroactively thinks feature makes sense as a ranger thing".

Aragon use healing plant.
Community thinks rangers having healing plants makes sense as they are loners and have no healers nearby.

Drizzt uses dual wielding.
Community thinks rangers should use dualweilding for melee as they think shields and great swords are bad for stealth.

Aragon uses divination item.
Community thinks rangers should have divination magic as rangers are the games detective class.

Dar sees through animal eyes.
Community thinks rangers should sees through animals to scout for danger as escorts and scouts.

Aquaman talks to animals.
Community think ranger should talk to animals to gather and send information.

Wood Elf and Robin Hood uses bows.
Community thinks rangers uses bows because that's what fighting woodsmen and forest warriors would use.

Marine uses ghillie suit.
Community thinks rangers use ghillie suit as rangers are seen as similar role.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Overall it all seems to come down to "Icon has feature" to "Ranger gets feature" to "Community retroactively thinks feature makes sense as a ranger thing".

Aragon use healing plant.
Community thinks rangers having healing plants makes sense as they are loners and have no healers nearby.

Drizzt uses dual wielding.
Community thinks rangers should use dualweilding for melee as they think shields and great swords are bad for stealth.

Aragon uses divination item.
Community thinks rangers should have divination magic as rangers are the games detective class.

Dar sees through animal eyes.
Community thinks rangers should sees through animals to scout for danger as escorts and scouts.

Aquaman talks to animals.
Community think ranger should talk to animals to gather and send information.

Wood Elf and Robin Hood uses bows.
Community thinks rangers uses bows because that's what fighting woodsmen and forest warriors would use.

Marine uses ghillie suit.
Community thinks rangers use ghillie suit as rangers are seen as similar role.

Which I think was said earlier: there is no "one true ranger" everyone has different ideas. As an archetype, it's a failure.

 

[Minigiant]

But we have established: you don't need to be able to cast spells to be a ranger. The vast majority of fictional (and all real life) rangers can't. Maybe some rangers can cast spells. They can get that by multiclassing.

The vast majority of fantasy characters are in low magic settings. And even then the rangers there has features that the fighter doesn't and most DMs will not adjudicate to add.

Thats why the first ranger that blatantly rips off Aragon has spells.

Because if I said my fighter heals hit points, increases damage, and cures poison by grabbing plants and rocks off the ground 99% of DMs from 1979 to 2009 would say "Aw hell naw."

Which I think was said earlier: there is no "one true ranger" everyone has different ideas. As an archetype, it's a failure.

It's not a failure of archetype. Almost Every D&D fan knows what a ranger is.

The problem is designing the class. As D&D is the grandpa of fantasy ttrpgs, it ends to design things first. And the prototype is rarely the best version. Add in designers phoning it in on the the ranger for decades and you get the expected result. None of D&D's rangers were designed well in my opinion

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The vast majority of fantasy characters are in low magic settings. And even then the rangers there has features that the fighter doesn't and most DMs will not adjudicate to add.

The vast majority of Rangers are not fantasy characters at all. Grizzly Adams, The Lone Ranger, Buzz Lightyear, Ranger Smith, US Army Ranger corps.

Thats why the first ranger that blatantly rips off Aragon has spells.

The first ranger was designed for a player who wanted a character that ripped off Aragorn.

Which is a VERY VERY bad way to design a class. One character does not an archetype make.

Because if I said my fighter heals hit points, increases damage, and cures poison by grabbing plants and rocks off the ground 99% of DMs from 1979 to 2009 would say "Aw hell naw."


It's not a failure of archetype. Almost Every D&D fan knows what a ranger is./

Every fan believes they know what a ranger is.

But what every D&D fan believes is different to what every other D&D fan believes.

 

[Minigiant]

The vast majority of Rangers are not fantasy characters at all. Grizzly Adams, The Lone Ranger, Buzz Lightyear, Ranger Smith, US Army Ranger corps.

We should not be designing medieval fantasy rangers based on industrial era or later rangers.

The first ranger was designed for a player who wanted a character that ripped off Aragorn.

Which is a VERY VERY bad way to design a class. One character does not an archetype make

Like most 0e classes, the class shown is just a subclass of the true parent. The Aragon Ranger is a subclass of Parent ranger.

fan believes they know what a ranger is.

But what every D&D fan believes is different to what every other D&D fan believes.

Only one mechanics.

And half the d&D class have this problem.