D&D General What is the Ranger to you?

[Garthanos]

When I was young, a Ranger was Aragorn. When I came back to D&D in 2009 with 4E, a Ranger became a nature-loving Striker dishing out enormous damage, and that's what I prefer now.

And Aragorn became a Warlord with nature skills, martial practices or ritual magic (to cash in an oath marshalling troops and talk to animals and similar tricks not to cast spells like a wizard or druid when he finally hits name level ), also some wicked epic destinies.

 

[Charlaquin]

So, I’ve noticed that a lot of people who point to Aragorn as their quintessential embodiment of the ranger archetype also say that spell casting is an essential feature of the ranger class. This has always confused me, given that Aragorn never... uh... casts spells. Anyone who feels this way care to shed some light on this for me?

 

[Zardnaar]

Wilderrogue, spells, favoured enemy.

1E to 3E mostly.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

So, I’ve noticed that a lot of people who point to Aragorn as their quintessential embodiment of the ranger archetype also say that spell casting is an essential feature of the ranger class. This has always confused me, given that Aragorn never... uh... casts spells. Anyone who feels this way care to shed some light on this for me?

He uses healing magic on Frodo, and in The Houses of Healing. (note that no one really "casts" spells in LotR (the book), apart from one light spell from Gandalf. Galadriel even takes Sam to task for expecting magic to work that way.)

But in 1st edition rangers didn't get spells till around 8th level, and since most characters where expected to retire around level 9, that was a very minor feature very late in the game.

 

[Leatherhead]

Rangers are example number 3 on a list I like to call "Fighters aren't allowed to do cool things."

Which is legitimately the only definition I can consistently apply to them other than "That one person who lives outside of town, closer than the barbarians, and talks to us more than the warlocks/witches or the druids."

 

[Charlaquin]

He uses healing magic on Frodo, and in The Houses of Healing.

Yeah, but he does that by using athelas boiled in water. That’s not spellcasting, that’s proficiency with an herbalism Kit.

note that no one really "casts" spells in LotR (the book), apart from one light spell from Gandalf. Galadriel even takes Sam to task for expecting magic to work that way.

Yeah, but it does work that way in D&D. I would expect a D&D representation of Gandalf to cast spells, but not a D&D representation of Aragorn.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Yeah, but he does that by using athelas boiled in water. That’s not spellcasting, that’s proficiency with an herbalism Kit.


Yeah, but it does work that way in D&D. I would expect a D&D representation of Gandalf to cast spells, but not a D&D representation of Aragorn.

In Tolkien's Middle Earth no one "casts spells", not Aragorn, and not Gandalf. Magic is more of a subtle influence. There is no less justification in rendering Aragorn's abilities as spells (which are a combination of special knowledge and birthright, and can't be done by anyone else with the same herbs) as rendering Gandalf's abilities as spells. In the book, he fights with a sword, not with spells.

 

[Li Shenron]

As others have pointed out, the ranger can be a few different things. I think the class started out as a mix of a few related things, but grew out of control. It actually a good poster child for why I've become even more disenchanted by a class-based system -- I think it's stupid to use classes as bundles of abilities without archetypes, but I've found myself doing so more and more. Since the question makes no sense unless you're talking archetype, I'll go with that train of thought.

I strongly agree with everything in your post, but I want to point out that the Ranger does have an archetype and that's why it can be a class. Nothing wrong with a class-less system, but the Ranger works fine in D&D.

I don't blame the game if lots of people just look at the mechanics instead of looking at the bigger picture, think that the Ranger is just a bunch of lesser abilities, then proceed to envision an even more watered-down concept based on a couple of skills or weapon choices, and finally conclude there is no need for a Ranger in the game... it's a problem they created themselves. And pretty much the same thing can be done (and is done, in fact) on every class, see the periodic rambling about wizards and sorcerer begin too similar, druids should be just a kind of clerics, bards should be just multiclass combinations, barbarians should be just a background, paladins not much different than fighter/cleric... but all these are just part of the hobby of bored gamers to try and re-think parts of the games when they aren't playing it.

So it's not really that a class-based system is stupid, or that a class-less system is stupid. What is stupid is wasting time trying to turn a class-based system into class-less or a class-less system into class-based.

So, I’ve noticed that a lot of people who point to Aragorn as their quintessential embodiment of the ranger archetype also say that spell casting is an essential feature of the ranger class. This has always confused me, given that Aragorn never... uh... casts spells. Anyone who feels this way care to shed some light on this for me?

As I wrote in my post, for me the Ranger = Aragorn + spells.

Even tho I said Aragorn/Strider, I should have said Dunedain in general, not just a single character.

The spells addition to the Aragorn baseline is important because it tunes the archetype to the more magical world of D&D, compared to the less-magical world of Tolkien, and because it emphasizes the mystical-otherwordly nature of Rangers, thus strenghtening the archetype.

But it really matters which spells. If it was a subset of druidic spells it would not be good at all, and in fact when it happens, it dilutes the Ranger archetype into "part-time druid" and even forces some religious aspect which is not needed and just gets in the way. If it's a mix of different classes spells it's only slightly better, but still it suggests the Ranger is just scraping up random stuff from others, instead of having something of her own.

Have a more unique spells list as in 5e, and the Ranger herself gains a stronger identity. It's not anymore like the Ranger learning other's abilities here and there, it's everybody else who will not be able to do the same stuff unless they pick up a whole Ranger's life.

Then of course, allow multiclassing in the game, and you can just throw everything out of the window, but that's for another topic.

 

[Lanefan]

Someone upthread said it best - the Ranger is to the Druid what the Paladin is to the Cleric: the warrior side of the coin; only the Ranger doesn't need much if any religious aspect to back it up.

And when I say warrior, I do mean warrior: somebody has to like the concept of the heavy-metal tank Ranger who uses his extra hit points as a damage sponge for the party, and that's me* - stand in toe-to-toe melee with the other side's heavies instead of this namby-pamby dancing around half-naked with two weapons stuff.

When they want to do things other than combat, e.g. track or scout, they can take the armour off. That said, the class should be flexible enough that a light Robin-Hood-like Ranger works too.

* - maybe because the very first character I ever played was just this: a heavy Ranger. Still one of my favourite character concepts.

I don't mind some limited magic use but the trick is to base it on herbcraft - and in all of its editons the game's still never really given us a decent take on magical herbs. There was an early Dragon article that kind of waved at the idea, but they didn't follow up - yet this should be the basis for the Ranger's magic.

And fer gawds sake lose the stupid pets. And the smart pets while you're at it. Can't stand 'em. Don't see any of Robin's merry men hauling bears and tigers behind 'em, do ya?

 

[CapnZapp]

Not in the 5e structure.

Better to develop a secondary system of maneuvers that can replace the Spellcasting trait optionally, and give the ranger spell and maneuver options that are purpose built to support the companion, and plenty that aren’t, so that people can play with or without both spells and companion.

Not sure what you mean or how you think the "class structure" comes into play.

By the sound of it, what you're suggesting is too complex for 5E, but again, not sure what you mean.

Anyway, complexity and options detract from the bigger picture, that WotC simply needs to design a class with abilities that actually feels powerful for once, and the players will embrace it.

The core issue of the Ranger is that nobody likes a class that feels constrained, limited with odd wonky restrictions for no good purpose...