What's an "Aragorn Style" ranger?

[Rogue Agent]

Aragorn is a ranger in the same way that Gandalf is a wizard: That's what they're called in Middle-Earth, even though their skill sets bear little resemblance to the D&D classes of the same name.

While that's true for Gandalf, the class abilities of the original ranger are:

- Must be of good alignment.
- Minor spell capabilities of a naturalistic bent.
- Very good against trolls and giants.
- Good at tracking.
- Good at sneaking through the wilderness.
- Able to use palantirs magic items with clairaudience/clairvoyance.
- Lead a small band of ranger followers.

It's a class almost entirely defined by "crap Aragorn did in LOTR (or talked about doing)", with some of it being generalized.

Ok, I'll be serious. It's a code or dog-whistle for "not-Drizzt".

Partly true. What you have is a mechanical journey that starts with "we'll give the ranger dual-wielding to make them distinct" (which many attribute to Drizzt, although that doesn't seem to be true -- Zeb Cook says it wasn't and Drizzt's books had barely even been in print at the time the class would have been getting redesigned for 2e) and ends with the definitive class ability of the ranger being "select a fighting style".

This is probably also related to the game becoming more mechanically focused on combat compared to other aspects of gameplay. Which is something I suspect most people saying they want an Aragorn-style ranger are also hoping to see rolled back.

Perhaps. But it is equally legitimate to think that the author is making an error of conflating length with emphasis. It is possible to make something the centre of a work without needlessly (and longwindedly) dwelling on it.

Possibly. But I find those sections of the book work in three very specific and important aspects:

(1) Although many people read it first, LOTR is a sequel. These sections provide a very necessary transition from one protagonist to another.

(2) There is a deep emotional investment in the Shire on the part of the main characters. This pervades the entire book and is strongly required for the Scouring of the Shire. By spending time there, Tolkien is emotionally investing the reader in the Shire as well. (Much like he forces the reader to walk in the shoes of Frodo and Sam across the Mordor later in the book.)

(3) LOTR is a work structured around a multitude of deeply engrained themes which are interwoven with each other. One is a tale of growing up -- and the Shire's embodiment of childhood is an important part of that theme. Short shrift it, and you damage a major thematic arc of the work. (The transformation of the Shire also features fundamentally in the hero's journey of the tale -- the knowledge which the heroes bring back from their adventures which transform themselves and their homeland. This theme doesn't justify the length of the Shire sections, but also factors into the equation.)

Everyone is, of course, allowed to have their own opinions on what does and doesn't work for them. But describing the Shire sequences as a "mistake" would be to ignore the major structures of the work.

 

[Ulrik]

I have no desire to side with either the "Hank the Ranger" crowd or the "Drizzt the Ranger" crowd over what the Ranger ought to be

The true answer is, of course, Belkar.

 

[nightwind1]

IIRC, In medieval sword play, the 'Florentine' style of fighting was using 2 swords. Likewise in Japan, Musashi used two swords in at least some of his fights.

Actually, Florentine originated in the Renaissance, long after the medieval era, in Florence, Italy. Hence the name. And it was primarily rapier and maine-gauch (sp?).