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

[Alzrius]

(Bold emphasis added.) I don't follow the bolded claim. How do subjective personal opinions of an RPG fail to qualify as design criticism? When I express my opinion of a game's design aren't I critiquing criticizing that design, by definition?

The issue isn't one of subjective opinion versus objective critique; that particular debate ultimately leads to Descartes-level solipsism and "nothing beyond 'I think, therefore I am' is objectively true!"

Rather, the issue, as I see it, is one of talking about you (in the general sense of "you") versus talking about the material under discussion.

I'm of the opinion that critiquing something involves an attempt to understand what goals the thing in question has set for itself, and then explaining why you think it did or did not achieve those goals, following up with how artfully it did so (if it achieved them) or why it failed (if it didn't achieve them). It's ultimately still your opinion, but with regard to insights that you've had regarding the thing in question.

By contrast, "I didn't like it" tells us little about said thing, and more about you, i.e. what you like/don't like and why you feel that way. That's usually not as helpful for most people, since they're going to have their own opinions (and reasons for having those opinions) and so doesn't give them much in the way of useful information with regards to said thing.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Reading through all of this I am left with two main thoughts.

1) The Current DnD Ranger is not Aargon, so stop saying it. I think that is nowhere made more clear than in the OP where it lays out that high-level rangers are supposed to be heavily armored warrior-kings with castles and followers. None of that sounds like a DnD ranger to me. In fact, many of the ranger "classics" would rather gnaw off their own arms than do that.

Aargon is a fighter/Paladin with the Outlander background and some racial skill proficiencies for his divine birth. Yes, he shares some skills with some rangers, but he is not a ranger.


2) I think @Undrave really hit the nail on the head for me. If we are going to rethink and redesign the ranger, then I think the strongest place to start is by saying "Rangers are the people standing at the Border."

This could simply be the classic Border between the Town and the Woods, like everyone always says. It could be the border between the Underdark and the Surface World, like the Gloomstalker shows. It could be the border between the Outer Planes and the Material Plane, like the Horizon Walker. All of this works.

And, it ties a lot of the ranger's key aspects into a solid purpose that makes sense. Why do Rangers track? Because something got past them, and they need to find it. Maybe it was a child that fell through to the Fey or maybe it was an Starspawn cracking open reality, but the ranger will find them. How do they hunt? It depends on what they are doing. You could have the classic archer, you could have a slightly more heavily armored warden, you could have a fleet-footed dervish. It depends on what they are doing.

But, vigilance, watchfulness, maybe the occasional companion to aid them. Magic because magic is at these borders. It all slides together in a very coherent way, and it gives the ranger a rather unique identity. No body else is holding this role in the DnD worlds, but it makes sense to give it to Rangers and Druids as balance keepers and those on the fringes.

a broader guard is still super easy to do with fighter it needs to be conceptually sufficiently far away from any one other class.

 

[jmartkdr2]

a broader guard is still super easy to do with fighter it needs to be conceptually sufficiently far away from any one other class.

How far is "sufficiently far"?

 

[Mind of tempest]

How far is "sufficiently far"?

at minimum, a multiclass with something new added as paladins are fighter clerics with smites and they stick out.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

The issue isn't one of subjective opinion versus objective critique; that particular debate ultimately leads to Descartes-level solipsism and "nothing beyond 'I think, therefore I am' is objectively true!"

Rather, the issue, as I see it, is one of talking about you (in the general sense of "you") versus talking about the material under discussion.

I'm of the opinion that critiquing something involves an attempt to understand what goals the thing in question has set for itself, and then explaining why you think it did or did not achieve those goals, following up with how artfully it did so (if it achieved them) or why it failed (if it didn't achieve them). It's ultimately still your opinion, but with regard to insights that you've had regarding the thing in question.

By contrast, "I didn't like it" tells us little about said thing, and more about you, i.e. what you like/don't like and why you feel that way. That's usually not as helpful for most people, since they're going to have their own opinions (and reasons for having those opinions) and so doesn't give them much in the way of useful information with regards to said thing.

Well, there are degrees of this; "I don't like it" can be valuable criticism when you explain why you don't like something.

For example, "I don't like that ice cream because I don't like chocolate," is different than, "I don't like that ice cream because it is overly sweet," or, "I don't like that ice cream because it it has ice crystals in it from melting and re-freezing," or, "I don't like that ice cream because it's not ice cream, but gelato, and I hate gelato."

In all cases, explaining why you don't like something can be helpful; in some cases, it might be of limited help (if you don't like it because you don't like chocolate, it's more about you, and is only helpful to other people who share that exact same preference), and in other cases it might be more helpful (that it's not ice cream, but gelato; or that it had previously melted and re-frozen).

It's the lack of self-examination that's usually the problem; "I don't like that ice cream ... because I just don't."

Apply this to almost any thing- the ability to articulate why you do (or don't) like something is the start of having an appreciation and an ability to critique that thing. IMO, etc.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

How far is "sufficiently far"?

Near ....

Far ....

Wherever you are ....

I believe that the class archetype does go on.

 

[billd91]

Reading through all of this I am left with two main thoughts.

1) The Current DnD Ranger is not Aargon, so stop saying it. I think that is nowhere made more clear than in the OP where it lays out that high-level rangers are supposed to be heavily armored warrior-kings with castles and followers. None of that sounds like a DnD ranger to me. In fact, many of the ranger "classics" would rather gnaw off their own arms than do that.

Aargon is a fighter/Paladin with the Outlander background and some racial skill proficiencies for his divine birth. Yes, he shares some skills with some rangers, but he is not a ranger.


2) I think @Undrave really hit the nail on the head for me. If we are going to rethink and redesign the ranger, then I think the strongest place to start is by saying "Rangers are the people standing at the Border."

This could simply be the classic Border between the Town and the Woods, like everyone always says. It could be the border between the Underdark and the Surface World, like the Gloomstalker shows. It could be the border between the Outer Planes and the Material Plane, like the Horizon Walker. All of this works.

And, it ties a lot of the ranger's key aspects into a solid purpose that makes sense. Why do Rangers track? Because something got past them, and they need to find it. Maybe it was a child that fell through to the Fey or maybe it was an Starspawn cracking open reality, but the ranger will find them. How do they hunt? It depends on what they are doing. You could have the classic archer, you could have a slightly more heavily armored warden, you could have a fleet-footed dervish. It depends on what they are doing.

But, vigilance, watchfulness, maybe the occasional companion to aid them. Magic because magic is at these borders. It all slides together in a very coherent way, and it gives the ranger a rather unique identity. No body else is holding this role in the DnD worlds, but it makes sense to give it to Rangers and Druids as balance keepers and those on the fringes.

Exactly where is this not Aragorn and the life he led before the events of LotR? Because that's pretty much spot on Aragorn - wandering the wilds around Bree and the Shire, keeping the people safe from monsters from wilder territory. And it's definitely his comrades among the Rangers of the North.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Exactly where is this not Aragorn and the life he led before the events of LotR? Because that's pretty much spot on Aragorn - wandering the wilds around Bree and the Shire, keeping the people safe from monsters from wilder territory. And it's definitely his comrades among the Rangers of the North.

I am starting to get the feeling that rangers are just pointless and can be happily removed like wisdom teeth.

 

[billd91]

I am starting to get the feeling that rangers are just pointless and can be happily removed like wisdom teeth.

Depends on whether or not you think there's a definable role for someone operating in the interface between wilds and more civilized lands. I think there is so I prefer the presence of a ranger class.

 

[Chaosmancer]

a broader guard is still super easy to do with fighter it needs to be conceptually sufficiently far away from any one other class.

But "Guard" generally means someone who guards things like people, treasure vaults, cities, caravans.

That isn't what I am saying. Unless you think the fighter as written really carries good flavor for "I stand between the world you know and the things that wish to destroy it."

Sure, anyone can be "I fight monsters" but that isn't what I am saying here. I'm talking about something much more specific.