Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What is/should be the Ranger's "thing"?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Diamondeye" data-source="post: 6670200" data-attributes="member: 60019"><p>No, in fact I have an excellent idea of it, or I wouldn't have pointed out that it was never a defining feature after 1E, and in 1E it was only defining because it was so broad.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Which I already acknowleged. However, a feature being present in 1E is not a reason - by itself - to keep it, and even then it was one of several equally important features. More importantly, the 1E ranger was an incoherent amalgamation of features and should not be considered a guide to class design. 1E was, like the first generation of anything, a good start but not something to repeat. If you think it is, maybe you'd also like to fly a MiG-15 against an F-15?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, the feature was relegated to secondary status, as I pointed out. Stealth and dual wielding became much more important, in part because people like dual wielding and sneaking around, and in part because they are not situational.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It was not a primary class feature. +2 on skill checks is a moderate bonus at level 1 and drops to trivial by level 5. +2 to damage is even more trivial. Most other features were more important. Even more, with the heavy emphasis of 3.X on multiclassing it was unlikely the feature would ever be developed. Most players would simply select "undead" and be done with it because undead were a widely applicable creature type.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It didn't display it at all, and yes I can say it with a straight face, and I just explaiend why. Period. You do not get to say "patently and irrefutably false"; that's just an error of begging the question. That's all there is to it.</p><p></p><p>Even more importantly, it does not MATTER whether it was a major feature as that does not mean that it <em>should be.</em> That's simply an error of Appeal to Tradition.</p><p></p><p>So - it does not define the Ranger. Period.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>My age is "old enough to have played 1E when it was all there was" and that's all you need to concern yourself with.</p><p></p><p>Furthermore, whether it was an attempt to duplicate Aragorn is irrelevant to whether it was an amalgamation of unrelated features. That was exactly what it was. The Ranger was a woodsman that tracked, but for some reason also used low-level magic-user spells and could also tramp around in plate mail armor. It had a rather odd hit die arrangement for no apparent reason. So on and so forth. None of the features were logically realted to any other except insofar as they kind of sort of duplicated one particular Ranger who wasn't even a D&D character to begin with.</p><p></p><p>Your objection is therefore entirely irrelevant - the features were, in fact, entirely unrelated (and there was also nothing "Explicit" about it being created to duplicate Aragorn; the PHB said no such thing. That's what the meaning of "explicit" would indicate). All you have managed to demonstrate is that, if translated to D&D terms, Aragorn is an amalgamation of incoherent features. There is nothing wrong with this because Aragorn is not a D&D character, but it does demonstrate that trying to make LotR character into D&D characters is a bad idea and should not be done.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Diamondeye, post: 6670200, member: 60019"] No, in fact I have an excellent idea of it, or I wouldn't have pointed out that it was never a defining feature after 1E, and in 1E it was only defining because it was so broad. Which I already acknowleged. However, a feature being present in 1E is not a reason - by itself - to keep it, and even then it was one of several equally important features. More importantly, the 1E ranger was an incoherent amalgamation of features and should not be considered a guide to class design. 1E was, like the first generation of anything, a good start but not something to repeat. If you think it is, maybe you'd also like to fly a MiG-15 against an F-15? Yes, the feature was relegated to secondary status, as I pointed out. Stealth and dual wielding became much more important, in part because people like dual wielding and sneaking around, and in part because they are not situational. It was not a primary class feature. +2 on skill checks is a moderate bonus at level 1 and drops to trivial by level 5. +2 to damage is even more trivial. Most other features were more important. Even more, with the heavy emphasis of 3.X on multiclassing it was unlikely the feature would ever be developed. Most players would simply select "undead" and be done with it because undead were a widely applicable creature type. It didn't display it at all, and yes I can say it with a straight face, and I just explaiend why. Period. You do not get to say "patently and irrefutably false"; that's just an error of begging the question. That's all there is to it. Even more importantly, it does not MATTER whether it was a major feature as that does not mean that it [I]should be.[/I] That's simply an error of Appeal to Tradition. So - it does not define the Ranger. Period. My age is "old enough to have played 1E when it was all there was" and that's all you need to concern yourself with. Furthermore, whether it was an attempt to duplicate Aragorn is irrelevant to whether it was an amalgamation of unrelated features. That was exactly what it was. The Ranger was a woodsman that tracked, but for some reason also used low-level magic-user spells and could also tramp around in plate mail armor. It had a rather odd hit die arrangement for no apparent reason. So on and so forth. None of the features were logically realted to any other except insofar as they kind of sort of duplicated one particular Ranger who wasn't even a D&D character to begin with. Your objection is therefore entirely irrelevant - the features were, in fact, entirely unrelated (and there was also nothing "Explicit" about it being created to duplicate Aragorn; the PHB said no such thing. That's what the meaning of "explicit" would indicate). All you have managed to demonstrate is that, if translated to D&D terms, Aragorn is an amalgamation of incoherent features. There is nothing wrong with this because Aragorn is not a D&D character, but it does demonstrate that trying to make LotR character into D&D characters is a bad idea and should not be done. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What is/should be the Ranger's "thing"?
Top