The ranger is...

[Remathilis]

Why can't the ranger be a wilderness warrior, in tune with nature and the world around him, adept in swords, axes, and/or bow, able to survive alone in the wilderness, uncannilly track both beast and man, calm and befriend natural animals, scout and ambush foes, protect his lands and friends from sworn enemies and those who would harm them, and become so connected with his surroundings that he can draw upon the land and nature itself to aid, guide and protect him?

Sound familar to anyone?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Why can't the ranger be a wilderness warrior, in tune with nature and the world around him

Because you aren't. Instead, a barbarian could have done your job just as well, and their animalistic rages are flavorful.

adept in swords, axes, and/or bow

*Looks at BAB entry.* Ok... he wasn't just adept in swords, axes, and/or bow, he was adept with two swords.

able to survive alone in the wilderness, uncannilly track both beast and man, calm and befriend natural animals, scout and ambush foes

Fair enough, but they didn't have enough skill points.

protect his lands and friends from sworn enemies and those who would harm them

Sworn enemies? Why can a ranger pick pixies or elementals as his "sworn enemies"?

and become so connected with his surroundings that he can draw upon the land and nature itself to aid, guide and protect him?

Or you could multiclass with druid.

 

[Henry]

I believer you're wrong, Jack, and I'll tell you why.

The Ranger ought to be what the class was designed from.

The class was designed from Aragorn, and Aragorn was NOT a monster-slaying magical fighter. The First of the trilogy, Fellowship of the Ring, will give you this by example.

Aragorn was:

1) A scout. He was one of the first to note the portents across the land, the movements of men, dwarves, elves, and the other races of Middle Earth. He could travel fast, be unnoticed, and return with information. His dedication to fighting later came as a result of his choice to accept the task of finding Frodo, and later accompanying him on this travels.

2) A woodsman. He was trained by the elves since his youth in the arts of swift travel, survival, subtlelty, and combat. By nature of the elves being the ones to train him, he excelled in woodcraft above all other things.

HOWEVER, there are other archetypes for the Ranger. The first is that of powerful woodscraft-savvy archer, brought about by the example of Robin Hood's legend. Robin Hood and his merry men were quite skilled at archery, according to most versions, and most D&D players I knew thought "Ranger" the first time they ever laid eyes on (whatever you think of it) the movie Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves.

The ranger is now, for better or worse, a two-weapon fighter. this ecample, instituted in the 2nd edition, is now inextricably liked to the Ranger, and many players would now balk to have this feature removed. It may be the newest element of the class, but it doesn't make it any less intrinsic to the archetype, now.

Jack, you seem to go by the original concept of the ranger only. I dare to state that the original Ranger concept in D&D is faulty, and did not represent who it claimed to at all. In truth, NO version of the ranger ever purely represented Aragorn, as he was in the novels; That would be represented by a skilled tracker, woodsman, and scout type, who had skill at healing that bordered on magical, yet was a special ability rather than spell based; it would be skilled at personal combat, almost as much as a pure warrior. All the versions introduced have mixed in favored enemies, weapon styles, and spells, and about the only thing truly dead on was the tracking feature.

And it really is kind of insulting to tell people that they got the wrong answer in a poll. If it's a poll, then there IS no right answer - it's based on opinion ONLY. If it's a question, there had better be something other than subjectivity to back it up. If you really want people's honest answers, please take the results at face value.

 

[Angcuru]

herny....I think you and I are saying the same thing.

 

[Desdichado]

Psst... quick hint.

#1 is wrong because the ranger is not a fighting style.
#2 is wrong for the same reason.
#3 describes exactly what the class is, and has been since OD&D.
#4 describes what the ranger isn't, and never has been, yet it's what people seem to want.
#5 is the munchkin choice

Psst.... Quick hint - your poll also asked what the ranger class ought to be, which you conveniently ignore now.

Me, I didn't vote. You didn't include the option that I think it ought to be.

 

[Steverooo]

I voted for the "WilderNinja" who can do all of the above, because the Ranger should be able to do ANY of these jobs. Be a master with sword and axe (even at the same time), or with a bow, or with some spells, and certainly when tracking and surviving outdoors! The 3e Ranger doesn't allow for these, very well, nor will the 3.5 version...

Note that TWF and Bowman both rank lower than any of the other options, and the "do-it-all" higher than anything else. I don't think anyone is saying that the Ranger should be able to do it all at once, just that the player should be able to select how THEIR wilder-warrior fights - with two weapons, missiles, spells, or whatever.

That's what everyone wants (choices, not restrictions)! That's what 3.5e won't provide!

That's why Alt.Ranger threads will live on and on and on and on and on...

 

[Ferret]

My vote is for other.

The ranger is a wilderness scout who can track down enemies and fight them.

Their weapon choice is irrelevant. Their use of magical abilities (or not) is irrelevant.

All IMO.

Yeah! Thats my choice, like the one matt made

 

[rounser]

Let's get a cross-section once and for all.

I don't know if you got a cross-section, not that you were looking for one, but you did manage to get at least one person cross. *boom-tish*

 

[Steverooo]

I believer you're wrong, Jack, and I'll tell you why.

The Ranger ought to be what the class was designed from.

The class was designed from Aragorn, and Aragorn was NOT a monster-slaying magical fighter. The First of the trilogy, Fellowship of the Ring, will give you this by example.

I believe you're wrong, Henry, and I'll tell you why. Aragorn describes himself as a hunter of the servants of the Enemy. I can't find my Ballantine editions, but in The Folio Society's ninth printing of FotR, page 195, he says: "I have quick ears, and though I cannot disappear, I have hunted many wild and wary things...". There are other such quotes, as well.

 

[Steverooo]

Aragorn was:

1) A scout. He was one of the first to note the portents across the land, the movements of men, dwarves, elves, and the other races of Middle Earth. He could travel fast, be unnoticed, and return with information. His dedication to fighting later came as a result of his choice to accept the task of finding Frodo, and later accompanying him on this travels.

Aragorn was, indeed, a scout, but to say that he was a warrior only because of finding Frodo is just... I believe you are wrong, Henry... and I'll tell you why. By the time the Hobbits met him in Bree, he was already over eighty years old. Before Frodo was born, he had already served the Lords of Rohan and Gondor, even having served aboard ship in the Pelargir, warring with the Southrons, and campaigning into "...far Harad, where the stars are strange". Aragorn had been adventuring for round-about 60 years, by the time of the FotR, fighting Sauron's forces all that times, and often protecting the Shire, when Gandalf wasn't there.

See the "Strider" chapter, and note what he says about himself... "I am older than I look." "If I had killed the real Strider, I could kill you!" "It would not be the first time the servants of the enemy have set traps for me." Etc. He even knew the effects of the flowers in the vale of Minas Morgul, where the nine Dark Riders laired, and had searched the Meres of the Dead looking for Gollum after his escape from the Elves!