Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="nevin" data-source="post: 8244065" data-attributes="member: 7024481">The original AD&amp;D ranger was more like a Celtic Warrior for Druidic orders.&nbsp; That's the way I used to run them in the way back.&nbsp; The problem is the term Ranger isn't clearly defined in legend or history and everyone had their own idea of what it should be so we got the 3E ranger and so on.&nbsp; &nbsp; Now in modern D&amp;D/Pathfinder Modern ranger's are either appointed guardians of forests by rulers, Grizzly Adams style (Mountan men who live alone for you Young uns) people that just don't like civilization, or the equivalent of the knightly&nbsp; order of Druidic organizations.&nbsp;&nbsp; I just let whatever back story the player wants determine what kind of ranger they are.&nbsp;&nbsp; I think the biggest problem the ranger class has always had is it's rather vague all encompassing &quot;warrior of the wilderness&quot; .&nbsp;&nbsp; Just define them more for your campaign.&nbsp; Quit thinking of all rangers as a monolithic group and build orders like you would paladins or cavaliers.&nbsp; &nbsp; They'll all have some things in common but each order will have it's flavor and goals.&nbsp;&nbsp; But I will point out the Ranger was a beloved class for the very reasons people continue to complain about it. The ranger was that guy that did a bit of everthing, that got animal followers at High level, could cast a few magic spells, that the wild magic(or druidic orders) shared druidic spells with.&nbsp;&nbsp; They were the original jack of all Trades Class.&nbsp; I personally prefer the original concept as it was written.&nbsp;&nbsp; I think the flavor it had got destroyed when it became an Animal Companion Class.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="nevin, post: 8244065, member: 7024481"] The original AD&D ranger was more like a Celtic Warrior for Druidic orders. That's the way I used to run them in the way back. The problem is the term Ranger isn't clearly defined in legend or history and everyone had their own idea of what it should be so we got the 3E ranger and so on. Now in modern D&D/Pathfinder Modern ranger's are either appointed guardians of forests by rulers, Grizzly Adams style (Mountan men who live alone for you Young uns) people that just don't like civilization, or the equivalent of the knightly order of Druidic organizations. I just let whatever back story the player wants determine what kind of ranger they are. I think the biggest problem the ranger class has always had is it's rather vague all encompassing "warrior of the wilderness" . Just define them more for your campaign. Quit thinking of all rangers as a monolithic group and build orders like you would paladins or cavaliers. They'll all have some things in common but each order will have it's flavor and goals. But I will point out the Ranger was a beloved class for the very reasons people continue to complain about it. The ranger was that guy that did a bit of everthing, that got animal followers at High level, could cast a few magic spells, that the wild magic(or druidic orders) shared druidic spells with. They were the original jack of all Trades Class. I personally prefer the original concept as it was written. I think the flavor it had got destroyed when it became an Animal Companion Class. [/QUOTE]

Verification