The Ranger: What is his shtick?

[Sunseeker]

@shidaku . Bah. Anyone can be an archer. And what about desert rangers? They shooting arrows 60' forward with sand in their eyes?

Anyone can pick up a sword too.

Um, I wouldn't expect anyone to be fighting in a sandstorm. You're going to have weather in your eyes no matter what terrain you're in. And yeah, it's kinda fantasy so I'm not really expecting wind resistance to be taken into account.

Terrain faces the same problem that favored enemies do. It's fine for a short campaign or a limited-area game, but any game that travels to more than one area is going to quickly make the ranger worthless. Aragorn didn't have a favored terrain, he was pretty darn good in any terrain.

Favored terrain, just like favored enemy, or mounted combat should be something that any class should be able to train into.

Class features that are unreliable or highly situational are not good class features.

 

[hafrogman]

In the old days rangers were good at fighting giants and in those days weapons did different damage to S/M or L enemies. –Bring that back. Give rangers a bonus to damage against L creatures. It makes the ranger a natural born monster killer. Which is cool and very useful. It has exactly the same drawbacks as FE, described above, but somehow I'm okay with this.

I quite like this idea, too. It provides a good line of distinction, fighters being trained to fight individuals, armies and the like, and the ranger learning to fight giants and monsters and all the things out there beyond civilization. It's got a fair amount of breadth to it, your classic dragon slayer, Captain Ahab, Jack (of the beanstalk), all could be rangers.

I've always found discussions of the reality of D&D combat to be kind of strange because as soon as you stop fighting orcs and start fighting chimeras and trolls and giants, all resemblance to reality has gone out the window. A class devoted to single targeting and bringing down a larger than life opponent is a nice recognition of that idea.

It does mean that there's not really any place for the urban ranger concept that's cropped up from time to time, but again, backgrounds and themes could hopefully address that idea with fighters and rogues.

 

[Minigiant]

Anyone can pick up a sword too.

Um, I wouldn't expect anyone to be fighting in a sandstorm. You're going to have weather in your eyes no matter what terrain you're in. And yeah, it's kinda fantasy so I'm not really expecting wind resistance to be taken into account.

Terrain faces the same problem that favored enemies do. It's fine for a short campaign or a limited-area game, but any game that travels to more than one area is going to quickly make the ranger worthless. Aragorn didn't have a favored terrain, he was pretty darn good in any terrain.

Favored terrain, just like favored enemy, or mounted combat should be something that any class should be able to train into.

Class features that are unreliable or highly situational are not good class features.

This is why I suggested that a ranger have the ability to gain favored enemies and terrain independent from level like a wised spellbook.


The town guard who becomes a level 1 ranger might have:
Human+1
Goblin+1
Urban+2
Forest+1

He and the party go on a quest and are ambushed by chills in a swamp. They kill them. He makes some rolls and gets Favored Enemy: Gnolls +1. They kill some more gnolls and levels after intimidating the gnoll chief and slaying the elf helping them (Elf+1). At level 2, he increases Forest to +2 and takes Favored terrain: Swamp +1.

 

[Minigiant]

Double post. I blame kobolds.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

A ranger is John Rambo, Zachary Bass, John Thornton, Davy Crocket. He's Daniel Boone, George Washington Sears, and yes, Aragorn (from the book, not the crappy movie). He is NOT Drizzit, Legolas, or Robin Hood. While he acknowledges the use of a bow both as a hunting tool and an implement of war, he is a warrior who prefers to be in the thick of things. Screw fighting styles, he'll kill you with a sword, an axe, a bow, a knife, a stick, or his bare hands.

 

[Li Shenron]

For me the Ranger's schtik is the wilderness.

The abilities to befriend animals and elves (or feys), to learn how to survive far from civilization, to blend with the surroundings (wilderness stealth), to recognize and avoid natural hazards but also monsters, to read natural signs (and tracks), to find healing plants, plus hunting skills and a general toughness and martial prowess are all part of this "schtik".

I see a fundamental difference with the Druid in the fact that the Druid controls the wilderness at a magical level, while the Ranger adapts to the wilderness through experience. So for instance the Ranger can predict the weather and improvise shelter from various climates or storms, while the Druids creates the weather or stops the storms, and while the Ranger befriends the feys the Druid becomes one of them.

 

[GreatLemur]

In all honesty, if they just dropped the Ranger completely, I wouldn't even notice until I heard the cries of outrage echoing across the nerdscape.

...But, that said, Minigiant's solution of letting the Ranger gather familiarity with foes and environments through play (rather than through leveling) makes a hell of a lot of sense. Following that idea of adaptability, the Ranger might also steal the Warblade's "reset all my weapon-specific feats to specify this weapon" ability.

 

[Frostmarrow]

For me the Ranger's schtik is the wilderness.

The abilities to befriend animals and elves (or feys), to learn how to survive far from civilization, to blend with the surroundings (wilderness stealth), to recognize and avoid natural hazards but also monsters, to read natural signs (and tracks), to find healing plants, plus hunting skills and a general toughness and martial prowess are all part of this "schtik".

I see a fundamental difference with the Druid in the fact that the Druid controls the wilderness at a magical level, while the Ranger adapts to the wilderness through experience. So for instance the Ranger can predict the weather and improvise shelter from various climates or storms, while the Druids creates the weather or stops the storms, and while the Ranger befriends the feys the Druid becomes one of them.

While I do agree with this sentiment, there isn't much game fun to be had from the wilderness skills. Kicking down a door, hitting someone, or even healing a friend is fun. Recognizing the dangers of a windthrow might be a lifesaver in real life but kind of dull in a game. Using a divining rod is an excercise in sheer tedium.

If wilderness is going to be any fun we need to come up with some wilderness game applications that are actually interesting. I just can't see cattle driving being interesting in a game (even though it must rock in real life.)

Another problem with survival skills is that we need to handwave them, point out that all but the ranger die of thirst, or simply establish that if it weren't for the ranger everyone would have died from thirst. I want to see the fun in it but I just can't. Win me over.

 

[BobTheNob]

I've always found discussions of the reality of D&D combat to be kind of strange because as soon as you stop fighting orcs and start fighting chimeras and trolls and giants, all resemblance to reality has gone out the window.

Im sorry, did you just just say that the resemblance to reality stopped when you stop fighting orcs? I thought it stopped when you STARTED fighting orcs!

On the ranger topic. Totally agree with Rangers being achieved with a Theme/Background/class(fighter) composition approach.

There should be some association with archery(or some ranged capacity) in that. Its just pragmatic in a outdoor enviroment and the association with hunting is too strong.

Would like to ditch the dual wielding bit. Not sure when and why that started but to preclude (or at least not support) other fighting forms in a little silly to me. My image of the hunter has always been spear weilding personally.

Drop the spells. I get WHY we had them (i.e. to grant outdoor capabilities that appeared supernatural to the casual observer, with the only mechanism of the time to tack this on to being spell casting) but with more modern design and thought we can give them enough cool in the whole "outdoorsman" area with needing to resort to spells.

 

[hafrogman]

Would like to ditch the dual wielding bit. Not sure when and why that started ...

Well, I can help you there.

1978 - AD&D 1st Ed. Rangers do not dual wield.
1985 - Unearthed Arcana. Drow dual wield.
1988 - The Crystal Shard published, featuring a certain dual-wielding drow ranger.
1989 - AD&D 2nd Ed. Rangers dual wield.