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

[jayoungr]

it lacks rules or at least proper instructions on how to do it, most new guard do not even know what a hex crawl is.

I think this would be a great section for the next Xanathar's/Tasha's style book. XGtE covered traps, and TCoE covered puzzles, so the next book could go into depth on hazards. And maybe talk about the hex crawl too.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Well it's the same with the rogue. Most of the classes are part of organizations or loners on a mission.

D&D is typically 3-6 loners going up.

I would say it is a little different for Rogues. There are a lot of "the party breathing down the thief's neck" scenes. And not all rogues are sneak thieves.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well it's the same with the rogue. Most of the classes are part of organizations or loners on a mission.

D&D is typically 3-6 loners going up.

That, IMHO, is more of a legacy result of the original premise of the game, that each PC is basically a self-interested loner with no significant backstory. Not that you can't construct such a story a story, but the game is antithetical to it, as designed. Something like Beyond the Wall illustrates this perfectly, a game where you do start with a specific setup, and it is an OSR type of game too.

Modern D&D doesn't need to have this issue, the players can simply design a team, from day one. This was really the mode in which 4e works best, though 5e is good for that too. Instead of 'random collection of strangers' you can be "The town misfits. Drafted into the town guard, the Mayor sends you out to solve the mystery of the disappearing farmers." Of course he half hopes you all won't come back, but...

 

[Minigiant]

I would say it is a little different for Rogues. There are a lot of "the party breathing down the thief's neck" scenes. And not all rogues are sneak thieves.

There was a long time where all rogues were thieves.
And even in 5e, the 3 subclasses of rogue are loner archetypes.

That, IMHO, is more of a legacy result of the original premise of the game, that each PC is basically a self-interested loner with no significant backstory. Not that you can't construct such a story a story, but the game is antithetical to it, as designed. Something like Beyond the Wall illustrates this perfectly, a game where you do start with a specific setup, and it is an OSR type of game too.

Modern D&D doesn't need to have this issue, the players can simply design a team, from day one. This was really the mode in which 4e works best, though 5e is good for that too. Instead of 'random collection of strangers' you can be "The town misfits. Drafted into the town guard, the Mayor sends you out to solve the mystery of the disappearing farmers." Of course he half hopes you all won't come back, but...

The game heavily takes from loners and organization members for the basis for many of their classes.

The Cleric, Druid, Monk, Paladin, are Ranger are more or less archetypes assumed to have most of its members be part of an organization to explain the the unique set of skills. Barbarians and Fighters are often part of a military organization or culture. And the old school rogue used to be part of organized crime.

Sure, PCs don't have to be current or former members of some group. Hoever constant defyingof the archetype and repeated deconstruction of the tropes is why the images of some classes are so muddy. The ranger, as the class looks, only makes sense in there are organizations or traditions gathering these skills and training 75%+ of rangers. Same with clerics, monks, druids, and paladins.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

There was a long time where all rogues were thieves.
And even in 5e, the 3 subclasses of rogue are loner archetypes.



The game heavily takes from loners and organization members for the basis for many of their classes.

The Cleric, Druid, Monk, Paladin, are Ranger are more or less archetypes assumed to have most of its members be part of an organization to explain the the unique set of skills. Barbarians and Fighters are often part of a military organization or culture. And the old school rogue used to be part of organized crime.

Sure, PCs don't have to be current or former members of some group. Hoever constant defyingof the archetype and repeated deconstruction of the tropes is why the images of some classes are so muddy. The ranger, as the class looks, only makes sense in there are organizations or traditions gathering these skills and training 75%+ of rangers. Same with clerics, monks, druids, and paladins.

Meh, how is it hard to generate a group dynamic for a heterogeneous group? The ranger is assigned to guide the party. The cleric is assigned to 'complete the mission for the church'. The rogue is 'paying off his debt by keeping an eye on the wizard', who is searching for his master's lost spell book. I mean, this stuff falls off my fingers. If you want it tighter, then they're all part of the watch, and the warlord is 'sarge', and whatever. It isn't that much of an issue. In fact it is actually HARDER in newer editions where the PCs seem more established in their identities compared with 1e or OD&D where you're just some idiot that fell off the turnip wagon last night.

 

[dmhelp]

The ad&d ranger was a fighter plus damage against a very large selection of enemies that you will encounter plus ribbon abilities (assuming you are in a group and the surprise bonus is ignored).

The ranger got screwed starting in 2e when it became a minor bonus against a small number of enemies that you will not encounter.

I still count half casting without divine smite as a ribbon. I think giving them back plus damage against evil humanoids and evil giants (you will usually encounter something in that set) would bring back the ad&d feel of the class.

 

[Minigiant]

Meh, how is it hard to generate a group dynamic for a heterogeneous group? The ranger is assigned to guide the party. The cleric is assigned to 'complete the mission for the church'. The rogue is 'paying off his debt by keeping an eye on the wizard', who is searching for his master's lost spell book. I mean, this stuff falls off my fingers. If you want it tighter, then they're all part of the watch, and the warlord is 'sarge', and whatever. It isn't that much of an issue. In fact it is actually HARDER in newer editions where the PCs seem more established in their identities compared with 1e or OD&D where you're just some idiot that fell off the turnip wagon last night.

My point is not that it's hard to make a group dynamic.

It is that people have been playing the outliers and special cases so often that they don't understand the purpose and meaning of the classes.

Sure you can play a ranger as a random nature guy. But the class was designed and still is designed to be a person trained by an organization or passed down tradition for a range of specific functions. Random nature guy isn't trained to perform guerrilla warfare on an invading scout party. Drizzt is a fighter rolling with high levels and plot armor.

 

[Chaosmancer]

My point is not that it's hard to make a group dynamic.

It is that people have been playing the outliers and special cases so often that they don't understand the purpose and meaning of the classes.

Sure you can play a ranger as a random nature guy. But the class was designed and still is designed to be a person trained by an organization or passed down tradition for a range of specific functions. Random nature guy isn't trained to perform guerrilla warfare on an invading scout party. Drizzt is a fighter rolling with high levels and plot armor.

Eh, I'm not sure I agree with that. Everyone gets most of the classes and where they are supposed to come from. I've never really had someone not understand where the Cleric or the Barbarian came from or the purpose of the class. Same with the Monk and the Warlock. This seems to be a very minor sub-section of players to my eye.

 

[Mind of tempest]

My point is not that it's hard to make a group dynamic.

It is that people have been playing the outliers and special cases so often that they don't understand the purpose and meaning of the classes.

Sure you can play a ranger as a random nature guy. But the class was designed and still is designed to be a person trained by an organization or passed down tradition for a range of specific functions. Random nature guy isn't trained to perform guerrilla warfare on an invading scout party. Drizzt is a fighter rolling with high levels and plot armor.

it might help if people knew who to build such organisations for their worlds?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Sorry, this setting no such organisations, you can't play a ranger.