What's an "Aragorn Style" ranger?

[Gentlegamer]

Tolkien's writing style is... not appealing to me, and I know the story. So I'm not interested.

If you also haven't seen Monty Python and the Holy Grail, turn in your gamer-card.

 

[Dausuul]

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."

Hmmf. For my money, proper players make their own damn rangers instead of mimicking somebody else's. D&D has quite enough Tolkien knock-offs already, thanks.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

How are these ranger related?

They are not. Most of Aragorn's traits are Aragorn's traits, not ranger traits.

If you wanted to design a Middle-earth ranger, I would suggest doing up a "generic" ranger, and than Aragorn. This would clearly show the difference.

My impression of the "Aragorn ranger" is that not all the rangers happened to be Aragorn. Strider wasn't normal, even among rangers. His healing abilities, his entitlement to mended swords and kingdoms, and an elf maiden's love were clearly derived from other sources than his status as a ranger. I think what is left, is something like this:

1. Weapon skill similar to a warrior.
2. Nature-related non-magical skills.
3. A protective attitude toward good-aligned folk.

I agree with the first two, but not the last. While you couldn't belong to the "prestige group" Rangers of the North if you were evil, I see no reason why you couldn't be an evil Ranger of Ithilien (just don't kill orc kids in front of the commander), or play a character with that skill set who is evil. (Even in a campaign where evil PCs are banned, such as mine, I wouldn't prohibit evil NPC rangers.)

A Fighting-Man who patrols a wilderness area. Trained well, Aragorn is also good at hunting, scavenging, scouting, stalking, tracking, and surviving adversity. The rest made good plot devices.

This!

At the risk of public mockery, since it's not written well enough for public presentation, I have actually designed in 4e a 6th-level and 16th-level version of Aragorn, if anyone cares to see. (These are "monsters" without good Dunedain powers but could conceivably be converted into companions.) Alas, I don't have a "generic Ranger of the North" for comparison purposes, so maybe posting those stat blocks are pointless.

I hate the connection between rangers and dual-wielding, but Aragorn did dual-wield once... when facing the Nazgul the first time, he fended them off with a pair of flaming brands of wood. I saw nothing to suggest that was his favored fighting style, and I don't even know if he hit them (or needed to do so; the Nazgul were extremely afraid of fire).

 

[ferratus]

A ranger dual-wielding scimitars is certainly rarer than a ranger with a sword or bow, but I don't think one would be impossible (unlikely, yes) in a Tolkien-like setting.

That's not really the complaint. I think the complaint is that 3 editions now, we could only play rangers as two-weapon fighters or bow fighters. It is more hyper-specialized than it should be.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

The way I interpret "Aragorn-style ranger" is that it's a class that hews a bit more toward ruggedness and toughness than dexterity and finesse.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

That's not really the complaint. I think the complaint is that 3 editions now, we could only play rangers as two-weapon fighters or bow fighters. It is more hyper-specialized than it should be.

It's not just hyper-specialization, one of those fighting styles doesn't fit at all.

 

[Rechan]

Sorry guys, I'm just not interested in reading Tolkien, regardless of how important LotR is for you. Although I have been looking into Swords & Devilry, and the various Conan stories.

If you also haven't seen Monty Python and the Holy Grail, turn in your gamer-card.

No, I've seen that about three times.

 

[Rechan]

2. Nature-related non-magical skills.

Then what's all this talk of druidic magic? The 'they cast druid/arcane' spells in 1e?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Then what's all this talk of druidic magic? The 'they cast druid/arcane' spells in 1e?

I think one or more of the designers wanted to model the class after Aragorn, rather than making it possible for Aragorn to be of the class. As a result, another ranger inspiration, Robin Hood, could cast druid spells, which doesn't make sense.

Class design has become more flexible over time, along with multi-classing rules, but unfortunately the ranger is almost the last frontier against change.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Sorry guys, I'm just not interested in reading Tolkien, regardless of how important LotR is for you. Although I have been looking into Swords & Devilry, and the various Conan stories.

At least read The Hobbit. It was written for children should be at your reading level...