The Ranger: What is his shtick?

[Howndawg]

I like my rangers high INT, low DEX, tough as nails guardians of the wild. But if some folks like the nimble skirmisher, why not offer a way to do both? Perhaps the original ranger could be THE ranger, and the skirmisher type be called the scout. Or the skirmisher type could be the ranger and the original be called the warden.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I like my rangers high INT, low DEX, tough as nails guardians of the wild. But if some folks like the nimble skirmisher, why not offer a way to do both? Perhaps the original ranger could be THE ranger, and the skirmisher type be called the scout. Or the skirmisher type could be the ranger and the original be called the warden.

Drat, posted my XP statement with a terrible typo. The 4E warden makes a great 1E ranger.

 

[GM Dave]

Here's the problem with trying to say "X is a theme or background, not a class" is that if you work hard enough, you get left with very few classes.

Lets say WotC takes all the PHB1 classes (Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue, Bard, Ranger, Paladin, Druid, Illusionist, Assassin, Monk, Sorcerer, Barbarian, Warlock, Warlord) and decides to try to make some Themes or Backgrounds instead.

Its really easy to make warlock a theme (eldrich powers) and background (pact) so its gone. Sorcerer and Ilusionist could also be replicated with just a Theme and proper spell selection.

Bard could be a background (with music/knowledge talents) applied to a rogue (troubadour), wizard (loremaster) or fighter (skald). Assassin likewise is really just a theme (with lots of killing powers/feats).

A druid could a darn good example of a specialty priest, so lets make that a nature background and a shapechanger theme. A monk could work just as well as a martial arts theme and acrobat background; one could imagine priestly monks (shugenja), rogue-monks (ninja) or warrior monks. Even wizard monks (super sayians!)

A ranger is an archer theme (or two-weapon theme) + a natural background. Barbarian is the same, but with a rager theme. Even a Paladin could be a fighter or cleric with the "smite evil" theme. Warlords are pretty much akin to our warrior-bards above but more shouty and less singy.

That leaves us: Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue. But wait! What's a rogue but a skill-monkey and sneak attack? You could make them a theme (stabby) and a Background (criminal) and have fighter-rogues and wizard rogues. Even our buddy the cleric could theoretically just be a theme/background if not for the arcane/divine magic split.

Hmmm... Fighter, Cleric, Wizard. Where have I heard that before... Oh yeah, OD&D (1974).
....
Its probably for the best at this point to accept ranger, assassin, and all the other PHB1 classes as being unique special snowflakes, even if they could in theory be themes or backgrounds. What is one person's indespensible class is another's talent tree in X supplement.

You could even call it two classes as Clerics are just using magic with a different flavour from Wizards.

Taken to the extreme, you could turn everything into a set of lego blocks that you assemble as you like.

Look at Mutants and Masterminds, True20, or several others like Blue Rose that basically have done this already.

If you peel the class system apart enough then you would end up in your suggested possibility.

It is one end of an extreme line of choices ranging from totally fixed and rigid class builds (you get what it says you get and no more or less). This was typical of OD&D and 1st ed DnD.

2nd ed DnD and 3e DnD worked to change this trend and reduce rigidity by giving options. PF has also followed in this tradition which has made it very successful.

Core elements of a class are things that are packaged to make it easier for a player to choose. They are ideas that makes it easy for me to talk to a new player and help them decide what they would like to do.

I did this just on Friday as I helped a new player figure out from what games they had played in the past and what kind things they wanted to do.

The player wanted to sneak around, ambush people, and possibly set traps. The player like the idea of being tough and hitting people rather than relying on speed to hurt people. This looked like it could be Rogue, Barbarian, or Ranger.

I further asked if he wanted to run in and go face to face with opponents or attack from the shadows. The player preferred to strike from the shadows but didn't want to be a wimpy halfling. I could then assign Orc or Half-Orc (playing PF) as choices along with Rogue.

I further suggested the customization of the Thug choice from Advanced Player's Guide to accentuate the brutal side of the Rogue that liked to use a Great Axe to do Sneak Attacks.

The Class is Rogue and has the Sneak Attack and access to a variety of skills which the player choose the physical skills and avoided the Wis/Cha skills (Wis 6 & Cha 5). Race is Orc (extra strong, intimidating, and knows how to use Great Axes).

The Theme is Thug. The player could play without the theme and the class would work find but using Thug allows the Player to switch a few class abilities to things that more represent what they want to do in the campaign.

Profit to the GM?

1> I got the player selected on a class with only a few questions and could discuss other options with a few questions.
2> A player that is able to more closely get a character to match their wants is likely to play that character longer and with more personality.
3> A player that is more involved with their character tends to pay more attention to the game and cause less problems.
4> A better sketched out character makes it easier for me to work storylines to meet what the players want to do in the game and give them challenges that match their selections of skills.

 

[Andor]

What is the Ranger?

He is the wilderness warrior. A badass who can live off the land without discomfort. Aragorn was a ranger, Legolass was probably a ranger. Army Rangers are rangers. Scouts are rangers. Cowboys were rangers. Mongols were rangers.

Mechanically? Sort it out from there. The game has never, ever made everyone happy with the ranger class matching up to fluff/expectations.

Yes Aragorn was a badass ranger and cast spells. People also tend to forgethe was 80 years old and he been actively adventuring almost his entire life, and trained with elves for much of it, plus he had bloodline boosts. A 1st level character he was not. Multiclassing may have been involved, 'nuff said.

If the class cannot fight his way out of a paperbag he is not a ranger whether he is a longsword type like Aragorn, a bow and dagger sort like Legolass or a spear like most everyone in history.

If he cannot find his way about in the wilderness he is not a ranger.

If he cannot hunt he is not a ranger.

Spell casting? It can be left to themes and/or multi-classing but I won't gripe if it's built in.

Heavy Armour? Let him spend a feat or mutli-class.

 

[The Shadow]

Yes Aragorn was a badass ranger and cast spells.

No question he was badass. But other than tracking, what makes him a ranger?

And cast spells? Really? When? I suppose his kingly ability to heal might be considered a "spell" in D&D terms, but that wasn't due to being a ranger.

 

[Minigiant]

No question he was badass. But other than tracking, what makes him a ranger?

And cast spells? Really? When? I suppose his kingly ability to heal might be considered a "spell" in D&D terms, but that wasn't due to being a ranger.

The whole thing with spells was that in the older editions didn't have any core out of combat actions. They was no core ways to pick herbs and rub it on wounds. No core way to talk down an animal (until wild empathy showed up). No core way to endure the bitter cold of the frozen winter.

And before anyone say "The DM will let you do that via adjudication", I've encounter DMs could have said "No.

But yeah, if the ranger doesn't get free ritual casting or the Nature/Dungeoneering skills is not expanded, then I want a spell casting ranger.

 

[Andor]

No question he was badass. But other than tracking, what makes him a ranger?

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.

rang·er   
1. forest ranger.
2. one of a body of armed guards who patrol a region.
3. ( initial capital letter ) a U.S. soldier in World War II specially trained for making surprise raids and attacks in small groups. Compare commando ( def. 1 ).
4. a soldier specially trained in the techniques of guerrilla warfare, especially in jungle terrain.
5. a person who ranges or roves.
EXPAND6. (especially in Texas) a member of the state police.
7. British . a keeper of a royal forest or park.
8. Building Trades . wale1 ( def. 5 ) .

Origin:
1350–1400; Middle English; see range, -er1

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?

And cast spells? Really? When? I suppose his kingly ability to heal might be considered a "spell" in D&D terms, but that wasn't due to being a ranger.

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."

 

[howandwhy99]

"Rangers are a sub-class of fighter who are adept at woodcraft, tracking, scouting, and infiltration and spying."

Rangers were a unique variety of fighters, which makes them sort of like the Ranger corp of all the kinds of special forces. They were trained like Dwarves to fight against Giantkin and Goblinkin with those foes special physiques, intelligences, and strategies. They were practiced like Elves & Halflings to surprise opponents. In later training they learned both druidic and arcane magic. As Ranger Lords they gained a group of followers like Robin Hood. Their unique ability was tracking, which no other class received better than at norm.

There were some restrictions however. They had to work largely separately. They had alignment restrictions and could lose ranger status permanently just like a paladin. They were limited with how many people they could work with including hirelings and henchmen beyond basic charisma limits. And they had to be able to carry all their worldly goods.

So goes AD&D. For OD&D Rangers are slightly different. I treat them as the spear points of the lawfully aligned forces working for the Druids. In this way they are similar to Bards, while being a sub-class rather than prestige class.

 

[steeldragons]

Just my few thoughts on this thread, most all of which has been said, but I will throw in my 2 coppers to reenforce...

1) To the point of thread, the Ranger's primary "shtick", play-wise, which no other class had (until the 1e UA Barbarian, but even then not as good): Tracking and outdoor Survival skills. (I am of the similar opinion to my esteemed ENworld colleague that "Urban Ranger" is an oxymoron. The Ranger is defined by being trained for and experienced in being "out of doors, out of/on the brink of civilization, in the border/wilder-lands." THAT'S the archetype.)

2) I sincerely HOPE that "spell-casting" varietals and animal companions are PURELY OPTIONAL via Backgrounds or Themes (I don't care which). The days of every guy/gal walking into town with a deep hooded cloak and a wolf or bear on their hip needs to just...stop...or at least note be an automatic "gimme" of the class (that goes druids' animal companions, as well)

3) If spell-casting IS to be a "gimme/built-in" of the class, then I sincerely hope it harkens back to 1e and is purely a HIGH level additional {and MINOR] ability..."picked up" over long amounts of time and experience in their class. Not "I'm a 10 level rogue who takes a level in ranger so I can cast spells now cuz my CHARATER LEVEL is 11." NO. No. no. no. Even then, the narrative/fluff that casting magic is somehow just "picked up over time through osmosis or something" is damn thin and doesn't really fly with me.

'Sides, 5e needs to balance (or severely IMbalance) NON-caster classes vs. caster/magic-using types. (vying on the side of more NON-magic types...keeping magic strange, rare and mysterious...by default and then allowing individual campaigns/settings/groups be as HIGH magic or lower/no-magic as they like.).

--SD

 

[underfoot007ct]

True, but I'm still holding out hope that they will come back to their senses.

Assassin is the most egregious example: There is just no way that belongs as a class.

And I don't think my hope is unjustified - they've already talked about making specialist wizards into "advanced themes", so that may scotch the idea of an Illusionist class. (Mind, I think this particular idea is a bad one - but it does show the way their thoughts are going.) I seem to recall one of the DDXP seminars saying that they were open to finding out in playtest if certain classes should become themes.

I disagree strongly, I have no wish to live in the past, the game has moved on. Sometimes not perfectly, but move on it has & will continue to.

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