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

[Minigiant]

look at this point it looks like it should just be cut up and given to higher and rogue, it has no core nothing to build from at all nor does it have something else to be its core like monk has.

ranger is just mutated Aragorn and he is not worth a class.

By that logic, none of the classes besides fighter deserve to be a class. Most are more or less based on one character that was expanded.

And that's the point Ranger isn't Aragon anymore. It's the wilderness warrior and border guardian. D&D has a history of making the dungeons in the wilderness and the ranger was kept to be a character who helped get you there. Problem is D&D has a love hate relationship on actually designing wilderness stuff.

For 4e specifically, the weapons, armor, and tactics of rogues, rangers, and warriors were so different that making them same would be justification for combining every class of the same power source and having 5 total classes: Fighter, Wizard, Paladin, Druid, Psion. Yeah, that woulda been a fight.

 

[Mind of tempest]

By that logic, none of the classes besides fighter deserve to be a class. Most are more or less based on one character that was expanded.

And that's the point Ranger isn't Aragon anymore. It's the wilderness warrior and border guardian. D&D has a history of making the dungeons in the wilderness and the ranger was kept to be a character who helped get you there. Problem is D&D has a love hate relationship on actually designing wilderness stuff.

For 4e specifically, the weapons, armor, and tactics of rogues, rangers, and warriors were so different that making them same would be justification for combining every class of the same power source and having 5 total classes: Fighter, Wizard, Paladin, Druid, Psion. Yeah, that woulda been a fight.

guarding which border? and from what?
the barbarian also tends to end up with a lot of warrior of the wilderness.

they are the same power sources and both fairly similar concepts.

 

[Minigiant]

guarding which border? and from what?
the barbarian also tends to end up with a lot of warrior of the wilderness.

they are the same power sources and both fairly similar concepts.

Any border.
From any threat.

The barbarian and ranger are similar. They more or less transformed to the heavy and light versions and home and away versions of the same base. That's enough difference for different classes.

Had Rangers stayed Aragon clones, it would been redundant.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Any border.
From any threat.

The barbarian and ranger are similar. They more or less transformed to the heavy and light versions and home and away versions of the same base. That's enough difference for different classes.

Had Rangers stayed Aragon clones, it would been redundant.

any border and any threat does not work for monster hunter characters, the rangers of the north I know less about but others tend to guard one area, hunt one type or tend to be complex orders and d&D rangers are none of those they seem to be guys in the wood with rather unpleasant hate of different kinds of hummanoids.

look everyone can see they lack something properly otherwise we would not have this discussion, how would you make them better if it was up to you?

 

[Dr Magister]

One point regarding archetypal duel-wielding rangers: The LordSword of the RingsShannara (1977) has the heir-in-waiting ranger AragornBalinor dual wielding shortsword and dagger and swanning around in a long green cloak while killing orcsgnomes.

It strikes me that this is more likely to be an original influence than any gloomy dark elves.

 

[Mind of tempest]

One point regarding archetypal duel-wielding rangers: The LordSword of the RingsShannara (1977) has the heir-in-waiting ranger AragornBalinor dual wielding shortsword and dagger and swanning around in a long green cloak while killing orcsgnomes.

It strikes me that this is more likely to be an original influence than any gloomy dark elves.

had to ask my dad but that is a logical possibility.

 

[Scott Christian]

Just throwing this out there: It might be the next iteration of ranger we see will be Geralt of Rivia.

 

[Minigiant]

any border and any threat does not work for monster hunter characters,

The ranger isn't just a monster hunter though. It's a border guard. Players roleplay as a monster hunters. Monster hunting is just often a part of the job

the rangers of the north I know less about but others tend to guard one area, hunt one type or tend to be complex orders and d&D rangers are none of those they seem to be guys in the wood with rather unpleasant hate of different kinds of hummanoids.

D&D originally were parts of organizations. The playtest name for ranger archetypes where conclaves.

It's players, not the class that chooses rangers to not be belonging to a group or charged by a powerplayer Many Ranger PCs are completely divorced for the ranger story then their players complain that the ranger doesn't match their story.

look everyone can see they lack something properly otherwise we would not have this discussion, how would you make them better if it was up to you?

It's less that and more people use ranger as a chassis to make nonranger characters then being disappointed.

It started with Drizzt.
Drizzt is a fighter. He spent years training as a fighter, years hunting as a barbarian, and a couple months training as a ranger. TSR used him as the iconic ranger but Salvatore gave Drizzt no ranger aspects.

 

[jayoungr]

this entire thread has slowly shown me the ranger has no point, no value, that was not the intended outcome I believe.

I wouldn't go that far. Ranger has a fuzzier and more loosely-defined niche than some other classes, but sometimes that's a good thing.

 

[Mind of tempest]

I wouldn't go that far. Ranger has a fuzzier and more loosely-defined niche than some other classes, but sometimes that's a good thing.

then what is its niche and why is fuzzy a good thing?