What's an "Aragorn Style" ranger?

[Dausuul]

How are these ranger related?

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.

I haven't seen the term "Aragorn-style ranger" tossed around, but I presume it means a ranger whose concept is defined by "wilderness expert" rather than "dual wielding and/or archery specialist."

 

[GSHamster]

OK, so what do they do and how are they different from rangers of later editions?

Ok, I'll be serious. It's a code or dog-whistle for "not-Drizzt". According to most grognards, only munchkins/kiddies pattern their rangers after Drizzt. "Proper" players pattern their rangers after Aragorn. The invocation of "Aragorn ranger" is really code for "see old-school players, we're on your side, not the newbs/kids."

Mechanically, maybe a little more focused on survival and tracking than combat skills.

Personally, I always thought Driz'zt was a decent example of a ranger. Maybe a little more combat-oriented than woods-lore, but still well within the sphere of ranger.

 

[billd91]

What do rangers do in Lord of the Rings? They're excellent fighters. They operate in the wild keeping watch over peaceful communities, protecting them from dire threats, including the kinds of things that come out of the Trollshaws--a bulwark against evil as important as the men of Minas Tirith. They work with subtlety and stealth in the North and even in Ithilien. They are comfortable in lighter armors because they are often on the move, but they don't seem opposed to heavier armors. They can track. They know wood and herb lore. And the two rangers we know best, Aragorn and Faramir, are men of wisdom - both more inclined to think like wizards (mainly Gandalf)... And more inclined to selflessness than raw ambition or cynical desires.

The 1e ranger is the one that hits closest to the mark, even with its adaptations to D&D. No specific fighting style. High effectiveness against humanoids who would make up a large proportion of enemies in Middle Earth. Tracking. Wilderness orientation and even minor healing, in this case via druid spells. Wizard-friendly symbolized by minor use of magic user spells. Use of scrying devices like the palantir. Mobility through the limitations on wealth. Stealth through their bonus to gaining surprise.

 

[Rechan]

I haven't seen the term "Aragorn-style ranger" tossed around, but I presume it means a ranger whose concept is defined by "wilderness expert" rather than "dual wielding and/or archery specialist."

Which I don't get, because the two are mechanically separate and all rangers get both. One is skills, the other is combat class features. All rangers have access to nature/whatever skills. 3e rangers had Track, 4e rangers can use Nature to track.

It's like saying "I want a Wizard who's less focused on casting spells and more focused on knowing magical lore". That's what skills are for, as well as campaign focus.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I would say he is a defender off leader instead of a striker off controler.

He uses herbal lore to heal, and is a bit of a weapon master.


Infact I would in 4e see aragorn as a Warlord long before a ranger.

 

[billd91]

I would say he is a defender off leader instead of a striker off controler.

He uses herbal lore to heal, and is a bit of a weapon master.


Infact I would in 4e see aragorn as a Warlord long before a ranger.

I dunno. Some of the utility powers wouldn't be such a bad fit, skill sharing and all that. Perhaps it's the preponderance of combat-orientation in 4e that makes the utilities easy to overlook.

 

[Reynard]

What do rangers do in Lord of the Rings? They're excellent fighters. They operate in the wild keeping watch over peaceful communities, protecting them from dire threats, including the kinds of things that come out of the Trollshaws--a bulwark against evil as important as the men of Minas Tirith. They work with subtlety and stealth in the North and even in Ithilien. They are comfortable in lighter armors because they are often on the move, but they don't seem opposed to heavier armors. They can track. They know wood and herb lore. And the two rangers we know best, Aragorn and Faramir, are men of wisdom - both more inclined to think like wizards (mainly Gandalf)... And more inclined to selflessness than raw ambition or cynical desires.

The 1e ranger is the one that hits closest to the mark, even with its adaptations to D&D. No specific fighting style. High effectiveness against humanoids who would make up a large proportion of enemies in Middle Earth. Tracking. Wilderness orientation and even minor healing, in this case via druid spells. Wizard-friendly symbolized by minor use of magic user spells. Use of scrying devices like the palantir. Mobility through the limitations on wealth. Stealth through their bonus to gaining surprise.

What he said.

Now, I don't think that's the only viable kind of ranger and I hope 5E allows you to play all the ranger icons listed in the 2E PHB: Aragorn, Drizzt, Robin Hood, Jack the Giantkiller, etc...

 

[saskganesh]

Total generation gap with this thread. I always assumed Aragorn was the base for the Ranger and I was excited to see the class show up in the PHB; this was after a few Dragon mag mentions of them.

One significant difference between a D&D Ranger and a Dunedain was the prohibition against associating in a group of more than three rangers. Sure, Aragorn preferred to operate alone, but when total war broke out, a large group of them (30? 50?) met him in Rohan, who he then lead through the paths of the dead and then onward.

I only knew of Drzzt many years later when I found some old disks of BG and proceeded to play the Bhaalspawn out of them.

It's interesting to see how popular conceptions of the class have evolved. It's all good: myth always change shapes and reskins itself.

 

[ferratus]

I think people are excited about an "Aragorn" ranger in that you aren't forced to be a dual-wielding melee fighter. You can be a sword and board, or wield a danish axe, or be an archer.

Instead of being defined by a specific weapon style you are defined by being a grizzled, shaggy, woodsman. Possibly one who knows druidic/elven magic and herb lore.

Plus, two-weapon fighting is generally for jedi, swashbucklers, and hollywood ninjas isn't it? When I think dangerous man in the wilderness, "sword dancer" isn't really the first thing that comes to mind. I suppose if a drow became a ranger, with the drow's penchant for being graceful blademasters, that particular ranger would be good at two weapon fighting. But I don't see how it follows that this should be the only archetype for rangers who fight in melee.

 

[dagger]

Old quote from Aaron L about 1e rangers.

Rangers were survivalists, and they learned anything and everything they could to make them better at fighting "giant class" creatures. Arcane magic, Druidic magic... a little bit of everything.

This is also why they got 2 hit dice at 1st level; assuming that most classed individuals are 1st or 2nd level or thereabouts, then Rangers are the toughest guys around. Even with the lower hit die, with the extra die they ended up with more HP at lower levels.


The move from the 1E Ranger to the 2E Twin Bladed Light Armor Dervish Warrior was such a drastic change it still amazes me. The 1E Ranger was so much cooler and more flavorful. I can see an argument for the Ranger being a more lightly armored warrior for forest combat, but in 1E that wasn't what Rangers were about. They weren't Forest Rangers, they were like the Army Rangers, humanity's Special Forces against the hordes of orcs and goblinoids who were out there waiting to attack. They weren't concerned with the sanctity of nature, they were like Rambo, who knew tracking and ambushing techniques and respected nature, but because it was a dangerous thing to be tamed and used to their advantage, not to be revered and emulated. They weren't Druidic, they used Druidic magic as a tool, just like they used Arcane magic. It wasn't a case of the Ranger gaining magical powers from his reverence of the forest, it was the Ranger learning tricks and techniques to help him win in the types of environments he was usually in.

2E completely changed the concept of the Ranger, from a hardened Special Forces raider against the humanoid hordes who used every trick in the book to protect humanity from the Evil races, to a Druidic, nature worshiping mystic warrior who lived in the forest and who's lightly armored, twin bladed combat style was taken directly from Drizzt Do'Urden.

I was very upset when I saw that the 3E Ranger was nothing but a direct port of the 2E Ranger, completely ignoring the 1E concept. It was the biggest, and pretty much only, thing I was disappointed about with 3E. I've since accepted the 3E treatment, especially since 3.5 was such an improvement to the class, and acknowledge that it does indeed fit better as a generic "wilderness warrior", but a generic "wilderness warrior" wasn't what the 1E Ranger was supposed to be: the first line of the Ranger entry in the 1E PHB says: "Rangers are a sub-class of Fighter who are adept at woodcraft, tracking, scouting, and infiltration and spying." Also, they had to have a 13 Strength, a 13 Inteligence, a 14 Wisdom, and a 14 Constitution. They had to be tough, smart, strong, and have a lot of willpower. The 1E Ranger concept is much closer to the Scout class of 3E, but that;s not even a really good fit.