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
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="Hriston" data-source="post: 6670282" data-attributes="member: 6787503"><p>There are two things wrong with this assumption. First, we can really only assume that the fluff is the way it is because EGG wanted the fluff to be that way. If he had wanted the mechanics to adhere more closely to the fluff, we can only assume he would have so emended them. It is incorrect to assume authorial intent for the Ranger's design can be gleaned from that one sentence. Second, EGG didn't write the 1E Ranger. You might say he converted or adapted it. If you compare it to Joe Fischer's Ranger in <em>The Strategic Review</em>, #2 it is, mechanically speaking, nearly identical. The fluff text, however, is not present in Fischer's article, by which it is made obvious that the mechanics of the class were designed first, and that Gygax added the fluff as an afterthought.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I see the connection. My point was that having access to spells of any sort isn't the same as being skilled in woodcraft as a mundane woodsman is. I do recognize, however, that EGG's changing of the Ranger's cleric spells to druid spells and the addition of the flavor text mentioned above seem to be of a piece. My opinion is that Gygax made these changes to distinguish the 1E Ranger from the SR Ranger, possibly for IP reasons. He went even further in this direction with the requirement in UA that the Ranger start with the bow as one of its weapon proficiencies. His intention seems to have been to overlay the woodsman theme onto Fischer's template. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that in UA, while bringing the Ranger into further accord with the theme, Gygax also enlarged the giant class to include every humanoid that had been added to the game since the PH had come out.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>But my position isn't that the Ranger shouldn't have abilities that overlap with those of other classes. My position is that the Ranger should also have something cool it can do that other classes don't.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, but as you say this is all situationally dependent on being in the favored terrain. The Rogue's expertise has no such limitations. Outside of its favored terrain how is the Ranger's proficiency in Survival any better than the Fighter's?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>My preference would be that favored terrain remain special for individual Rangers. Having the benefits be always on would seem to dilute the flavor of one particular choice or another.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Right, and I think you're on to something here. Maybe a bonus to surprise creatures that you've successfully tracked?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>My point was that I don't see FE as being nearly as problematic as you seem to. The way I described FE up-thread is in line with my own aesthetic preferences, and I don't expect everyone else to rationalize their Ranger's FE the same way I do. My comments were intended to be along the lines of, "Flavor to suit your own preferences," as I see that many are quite comfortable re-fluffing their characters in one way or another.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Not if you recognize, as I'm sure you did above, that the Rogue's "thing" is Sneak Attack. I agree that the Ranger should have something like that.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Hriston, post: 6670282, member: 6787503"] There are two things wrong with this assumption. First, we can really only assume that the fluff is the way it is because EGG wanted the fluff to be that way. If he had wanted the mechanics to adhere more closely to the fluff, we can only assume he would have so emended them. It is incorrect to assume authorial intent for the Ranger's design can be gleaned from that one sentence. Second, EGG didn't write the 1E Ranger. You might say he converted or adapted it. If you compare it to Joe Fischer's Ranger in [I]The Strategic Review[/I], #2 it is, mechanically speaking, nearly identical. The fluff text, however, is not present in Fischer's article, by which it is made obvious that the mechanics of the class were designed first, and that Gygax added the fluff as an afterthought. I see the connection. My point was that having access to spells of any sort isn't the same as being skilled in woodcraft as a mundane woodsman is. I do recognize, however, that EGG's changing of the Ranger's cleric spells to druid spells and the addition of the flavor text mentioned above seem to be of a piece. My opinion is that Gygax made these changes to distinguish the 1E Ranger from the SR Ranger, possibly for IP reasons. He went even further in this direction with the requirement in UA that the Ranger start with the bow as one of its weapon proficiencies. His intention seems to have been to overlay the woodsman theme onto Fischer's template. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that in UA, while bringing the Ranger into further accord with the theme, Gygax also enlarged the giant class to include every humanoid that had been added to the game since the PH had come out. But my position isn't that the Ranger shouldn't have abilities that overlap with those of other classes. My position is that the Ranger should also have something cool it can do that other classes don't. Yes, but as you say this is all situationally dependent on being in the favored terrain. The Rogue's expertise has no such limitations. Outside of its favored terrain how is the Ranger's proficiency in Survival any better than the Fighter's? My preference would be that favored terrain remain special for individual Rangers. Having the benefits be always on would seem to dilute the flavor of one particular choice or another. Right, and I think you're on to something here. Maybe a bonus to surprise creatures that you've successfully tracked? My point was that I don't see FE as being nearly as problematic as you seem to. The way I described FE up-thread is in line with my own aesthetic preferences, and I don't expect everyone else to rationalize their Ranger's FE the same way I do. My comments were intended to be along the lines of, "Flavor to suit your own preferences," as I see that many are quite comfortable re-fluffing their characters in one way or another. Not if you recognize, as I'm sure you did above, that the Rogue's "thing" is Sneak Attack. I agree that the Ranger should have something like that. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What is/should be the Ranger's "thing"?
Top