The Ranger: What is his shtick?

[steeldragons]

We know "Noble, Pub Crawler & Commoner" are 5e Themes, doesn't seem balanced nor likely that Barbarian or Ranger would be a themes.

I believe we know "Noble, Pub Crawler and Commoner" will be Backgrounds...not Themes. They will offer Skills (I believe, generally speaking, that means non-combat options/abilities). Whereas Themes will contain "feats", possibly with some skills also, but (again, generally) things geared toward combat use.

So barbarian and ranger could be utilized as Themes. Though I, personally, think barbarian is more suited for a background....ranger too in the "skills/non-combat sense". Tracking, Herbalism/Herbalist healing, Foraging and Animal Husbandry could all be skills under a "ranger/hunter" or "barbarian/tribesman" Background. With, then, things like "Berserker, Archer, Ambush Skirmisher" as Themes with combat-oriented abilities/bonuses.

That said, I think we will see Ranger as a Class, but the buzz seems to be hinting that Barbarian will be achieved through the "Fighter" class with certain BGs and Themes.

At least, that is my understanding from what we've seen thus far. It is, certainly, subject to change this early on.

--SD

 

[Dausuul]

The things that have historically defined the ranger:

• Wilderness expert.
• Fighting style--lightly armed and armored (no two-handed weapons, no shield), highly mobile.
• Limited druidic magic.
• Tracker.
• Favored enemy.
• Animal companion.

"Wilderness expert" will presumably become a background, but that still leaves a fair bit of material. One approach would be to give rangers special abilities depending on their choice of favored enemy. So a ranger who hunts dragons might have evasion, the ability to ignore damage reduction, and some ability to entangle or otherwise disable a flying foe. A ranger who hunts undead could have resistance to negative energy/necrotic damage, low-light vision or darkvision, and some form of expertise (not in the feat sense) with fire-based attacks.

 

[paladinm]

Aragorn sort of fit the current "ranger mold" at first.. He wore light armor (if any), had animal-handling abilities, herbal/natural healing skills, and could move at speed through the wilderness, as well as "avoiding being seen if he wished". He did not evidence either 2-weapon or archery skill.

In book 2 he changed, becoming more of a cavalier-type with leadership skills and wearing heavier armor. By book 3, especially once he got Anduril, he was definitely getting into paladin territory: healing, rebuking/commanding undead, etc.

I do Not think he would be a good example of a late-edition-D&D ranger. Maybe multiclassed ranger/paladin?

 

[underfoot007ct]

I believe we know "Noble, Pub Crawler and Commoner" will be Backgrounds...not Themes. They will offer Skills (I believe, generally speaking, that means non-combat options/abilities). Whereas Themes will contain "feats", possibly with some skills also, but (again, generally) things geared toward combat use.

So barbarian and ranger could be utilized as Themes. Though I, personally, think barbarian is more suited for a background....ranger too in the "skills/non-combat sense". Tracking, Herbalism/Herbalist healing, Foraging and Animal Husbandry could all be skills under a "ranger/hunter" or "barbarian/tribesman" Background. With, then, things like "Berserker, Archer, Ambush Skirmisher" as Themes with combat-oriented abilities/bonuses.

That said, I think we will see Ranger as a Class, but the buzz seems to be hinting that Barbarian will be achieved through the "Fighter" class with certain BGs and Themes.

At least, that is my understanding from what we've seen thus far. It is, certainly, subject to change this early on.

--SD

Opps, you are correct. But "Blacksmith" is a theme, that doesn't really equate to a Ranger or Barbarian nor Skirmisher either. What buzz are you referring to?

Mike Mearls said, themes are what you do, backgrounds are where your from (so something close to that). I never heard anything official ever claiming Class's would be themes. Many old schools have that on their wish lists., but I just don't think that is going to happen. Nor do I desire that to happen. I believe that themes will aid customize your char, but not replace classes.

 

[underfoot007ct]

I think it might be possible (and cool too) if you could customize the Ranger using themes. A woodsman Theme to get Tracking/animal knowledge or Hunter to get Archery. Maybe Theme X to get spell casting as to create any or all of the previous ed Rangers.

 

[tuxgeo]

Where is the confusion coming from? A ranger is someone who ranges. Aragorn treks the length and breadth of Middle-Earth. Also he is a ranger because that is what the Dunedain were called by the people of Middle-Earth becuase it is what they did. The D&D use of the term descends largely from that very usage.

The Dunedain, the rangers, roved the wilderness of the north, outside of Bree, the Shire and as far as Laketown. They fought goblins, orcs and worgs. They filled most of the dictionary definitions of term ranger. What possible point of contention can there be about their right to bear that name?

Aragorn ranged from as far north as Fornost and the Ice Bay of Forochel to as far south as Harad, and from as far west as the Grey Havens to as far east as Rhun. It took him decades to do it, but he did.

I don't have the time or the energy to quote page and verse but Aragorn does indeed cast spells in the LotR. He also gives prophecy, uses telepathy and, as you note, heals the Black Breath. People tend to miss a lot of what happens in LotR because it's stated with British underemphasis rather than American flash and showiness. For example Gandalf throws a lightning bolt (maybe) in the Hobbit which is described something like "There was a flash of light and several goblins fell dead."

His healing of the Black Breath was because he was the rightful king, not because he was a ranger. ("The hands of a king are the hands of a healer," to quote the lore-filled woman. Any of the other rangers could not have done that; only Aragorn could.)

 

[steeldragons]

("The hands of a king are the hands of a healer," to quote the lore-filled woman. Any of the other rangers could not have done that; only Aragorn could.)

Quite so. And the D&D ranger was, quite unabashedly, based off of Aragorn.

Is that a problem?

 

[Gorgoroth]

I love rangers!!

I love rangers so much, I even bought a pretty good replica of Anduril from Darksword Armory. I sharpen it while watching those movies, and sometimes swing it around. I have been known to test its sharpness on unsuspecting watermelons and other fruit objects. Nothing has survived so far. And yes, although it's a bastard sword, it is far too heavy to be wielded one-handed for long, unless you are super strong which I admit I have maybe 14 str in real life. On horseback during a charge I could probably cleave a man in two with one handed chop, if the horse were moving fast enough. Certainly cut off their heads, no problem.

I think rangers need curative magic, or at least herbs-based healing, and some spells or spell-like abilities. The pathfinder take on it seems pretty good, although rangers are not exactly uber powerful, game mechanics-wise, in that game. I'd much rather a switch hitter with a single bastard sword than dual wielding...but where as an offense-oriented build you get a second attack sooner level than a fighter, or if you are dual wielding, conversely you can do that at high enough level with any warrior class. And not have to spend an insane number of feats to make it beat a greatsword with power attack (varying levels, obviously, or depending on the theme, similar to EQ where warriors or rangers can both do it, but rangers get it a bit sooner).

I don't particularly see why a ranger should avoid battleaxes or 2handed axes or swords if they wish.

My 1st edition, 1st character I ever played was a ranger. His name was Lurian. I was 13. RIP, but long live rangers!

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Quite so. And the D&D ranger was, quite unabashedly, based off of Aragorn.

Is that a problem?

Any such derivation is a problem, to me, when the one doing the deriving makes no distinction between the common class things which the character shows, versus the things that are specific to that character. For one thing, it is lazy adapation--a mere copy. For another thing, it manages to combine "esoteric" and "common" in a way that takes the heft out of both.

Exactly where the line is drawn is a matter of judgment and art. I hardly expect the adaptation to fit exactly what I would have done. I do expect the adapter to so draw a line.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I am going to go out on a limb and presume Katrineholm is not a municipality of 10 million or so.....cause out here in greater Los Angeles, the concept of the Urban Ranger..not so silly.

Dumplings in Arcadia, Drinks Downtown, and sober up in a Hollywood Dinner and it's corresponding fantasy equivalent in Lankmar, Ptolus or the City of Brass, or insert fantasy metropolis here *, seems viable to me.

Likewise the expression of Knowledge: Local...rather important as well.

Tourist Guide? Oh this is so sad.

In rural Katrineholm the rangers are grim, silent and deadly. They stalk boar in the cold bitter night. Patience is the most important virtue. The rifles are kept in pristine condition and they know exactly which animal to kill in a sounder.

If I ever get to LA I trust you will show me the sites.