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


log in or register to remove this ad

Undrave

Legend
now that just makes them even less cool.
I think that was the point.
Maybe a little? I honestly think 'sits at the border of two worlds' is a decent hook for the class. They could have easily defined archetypes based on what border the Ranger is apt at defending. Then add some combat style feature to pick from so you can mix and match and voila!

My biggest gripe with the ranger is the whole Beastmaster schtick. I find that if your pet isn't a summoned creature it runs into all sorts of issues that could easily be solved by instead treating the pet as an extra PC. Maybe a 'beast' sidekick class with its own progression and everything. Then any character could have a beast companion if they wanted to, but the Ranger would be designed with a combat style that allow it to partner well with another character, doing combination attacks and stuff, so they would be the best at having a sidekick. If you want a Beast companion, you just gotta be willing to do the extra work and the DM just needs to basically balance their encounter with an extra PC in mind.
 

jayoungr

Legend
Supporter
I think Tolkien is trying to use "hardy" to generally indicate "capable of surviving on any terrain because he knows how to endure, what measures to take", rather than like "literally resistant to cold/fire" here, though.
Quite possibly. He's slippery like that with his use of words.
 



Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Maybe a little? I honestly think 'sits at the border of two worlds' is a decent hook for the class. They could have easily defined archetypes based on what border the Ranger is apt at defending. Then add some combat style feature to pick from so you can mix and match and voila!

My biggest gripe with the ranger is the whole Beastmaster schtick. I find that if your pet isn't a summoned creature it runs into all sorts of issues that could easily be solved by instead treating the pet as an extra PC. Maybe a 'beast' sidekick class with its own progression and everything. Then any character could have a beast companion if they wanted to, but the Ranger would be designed with a combat style that allow it to partner well with another character, doing combination attacks and stuff, so they would be the best at having a sidekick. If you want a Beast companion, you just gotta be willing to do the extra work and the DM just needs to basically balance their encounter with an extra PC in mind.

Beastmaster ranger was a result of 3e Druid being OP OP.

Most D&D clones, MMOs, and fantasy games shifted beast companions to ranger from druids after Druidzilla. also 3e ranger was weak so ranger players utilized their weak beast buddy more whereas druids could easily forget they exist
 


It's pretty much the opposite! You can't subvert a trope that hasn't been established!
Clerics have a clear enough basic identity: fighting priests. You can subvert that by making them not part of a church or changing how they fight, but the basic trope still exists.

A wizard without a spellbook won't make people forget that wizards usually have spellbooks.

But rangers just have "often found on forests" as a core trope, which is... a weak thing to base a DnD class on.
 

Mind of tempest

(he/him)advocate for 5e psionics
Clerics have a clear enough basic identity: fighting priests. You can subvert that by making them not part of a church or changing how they fight, but the basic trope still exists.

A wizard without a spellbook won't make people forget that wizards usually have spellbooks.

But rangers just have "often found on forests" as a core trope, which is... a weak thing to base a DnD class on.
so what are the bitts of ranger we care about? like the things people could logically like about it separated out?
 


Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top