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 the Ranger to you?
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="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 7633196" data-attributes="member: 6704184"><p>Then you aren't trying to make a Ranger by concept, but by CharOp battle standards. </p><p></p><p>I don't know what threads you're reading, but there is only broad disagreement about a few things, most of which is about execution, not concept. How natural explorer should work is execution. Everyone agrees that the Ranger should have benefits in natural exploration that go beyond what a rogue with expertise can do. </p><p>Everyone agrees that the ranger should be an excellent hunter in a way that contributes to combat, and be able to focus on an enemy. There's disagreement on whether that should still include a favored enemy, as such, or should shift to a new type of execution, but the concept is the same. </p><p></p><p>The only conceptual disagreements I've been seeing are magic being part of the concept (and hell, I don't think spells should be part of the Paladin class, so there are always outliers), whether the beast is core or subclass material, and some folks not knowing the difference between a ranger and a woodsman in general, non game related, terms, but there isn't much mechanically to leverage the actual concept of a ranger as someone who patrols the wild and it's border with civilization to protect people and/or the wilds. It's just something to keep in mind while building the class. </p><p></p><p>That's details, not identity. </p><p></p><p> I don't care about 2e, and the 4e ranger was just a fighter with a bonus skill, incorrectly labeled. They needed a fighter striker and hadn't decided yet that a class could be multiple roles, so they just didn't make a ranger but used it's name anyway. Like 4e "Eladrin" or Zach Snyder's "Batman". </p><p></p><p> History usually informs the evolution of identity, but it never defines it. The thread already covers sufficiently what the ranger is, and pretty much no one who is seriously engaging with the question is sitting there just listing some historical trivia as if it answers the question. </p><p></p><p> [quote[Yeah, putting on your Game Design hat and adding stuff from whole cloth is so much easier than trimming what you don't need... said Sarcastro.</p></blockquote><p>If you trim from an already mechanically weak class, you have to also add. So, yes, it literally is easier to add without also taking a hatchet to the class. </p><p></p><p> As long as it's an optional variant.</p><p>[/QUOTE]</p>
[QUOTE="doctorbadwolf, post: 7633196, member: 6704184"] Then you aren't trying to make a Ranger by concept, but by CharOp battle standards. I don't know what threads you're reading, but there is only broad disagreement about a few things, most of which is about execution, not concept. How natural explorer should work is execution. Everyone agrees that the Ranger should have benefits in natural exploration that go beyond what a rogue with expertise can do. Everyone agrees that the ranger should be an excellent hunter in a way that contributes to combat, and be able to focus on an enemy. There's disagreement on whether that should still include a favored enemy, as such, or should shift to a new type of execution, but the concept is the same. The only conceptual disagreements I've been seeing are magic being part of the concept (and hell, I don't think spells should be part of the Paladin class, so there are always outliers), whether the beast is core or subclass material, and some folks not knowing the difference between a ranger and a woodsman in general, non game related, terms, but there isn't much mechanically to leverage the actual concept of a ranger as someone who patrols the wild and it's border with civilization to protect people and/or the wilds. It's just something to keep in mind while building the class. That's details, not identity. I don't care about 2e, and the 4e ranger was just a fighter with a bonus skill, incorrectly labeled. They needed a fighter striker and hadn't decided yet that a class could be multiple roles, so they just didn't make a ranger but used it's name anyway. Like 4e "Eladrin" or Zach Snyder's "Batman". History usually informs the evolution of identity, but it never defines it. The thread already covers sufficiently what the ranger is, and pretty much no one who is seriously engaging with the question is sitting there just listing some historical trivia as if it answers the question. [quote[Yeah, putting on your Game Design hat and adding stuff from whole cloth is so much easier than trimming what you don't need... said Sarcastro. [/quote] If you trim from an already mechanically weak class, you have to also add. So, yes, it literally is easier to add without also taking a hatchet to the class. As long as it's an optional variant. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What is the Ranger to you?
Top