What's an "Aragorn Style" ranger?

[Niccodaemus]

Here's my take on what an "Aragorn Style Ranger" is:

Shatterworld: Behind the Scenes: The "Aragorn Style Ranger" as Fox Mulder

The essence of it:

1) They use d8 hit dice instead of d10 as a fighter

2) Against certain "giant class" humanoid opponents (which include a large number of monsters from kobolds and goblins to trolls and giants), they add their current experience level to the damage done on a successful attack.

So, the d8 indicates that fighting is not their primary focus. Toe to toe with a fighter of the same level, they would lose. They actually fight like a cleric. However... and here's the fascinating point... they get considerable extra damage to certain classes of monsters. They are monster hunters.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I've seen "Aragorn style ranger" tossed around a little and I don't really understand what it means. What specifically did Aragorn do that's different?

I only saw the movies, and didn't really see anything that struck me as ranger-y (aside from dual wielding the sword and torch against the ringwraiths).

You have to look back at the original ranger class from Strategic Review to understand that (from your comment I guess you came to d&d in 2e or later?).

So, the focus of the OD&D ranger was

1. Hardier than normal
2. Good at fighting goblins, orcs, ogres, giants
3. Good at tracking
4. Header to surprise
5. Better at surprising others
6. Could use healing magic items and clairvoyance magic items
7. At high level gained a mixed bag of followers
8. Learned mu and cleric spells at higher levels

The first seven of those are directly drawn from Aragon in LotR, whom the class was originally clearly inspired to emulate.

This isn't to say that future steps weren't taken to make the ranger a more generic woodsman. But it should explain fully to you what 'Aragon style ranger' might mean in a d&d context.

Cheers

 

[Rechan]

Read what you want of course, but if you are interested in reading material to inspire your D&D, I would recommend Howard, Leiber and Anderson's fantasies before Tolkien.

Well in all honesty I get inspiration for my D&D from everything I see. Or rather, I'm not afraid to pull tropes or plots or ideas from anywhere.

But part of the reason I'm reading REH and Leiber is because I'm writing a novel with strong S&S elements, so I want to go to the source to get a feel for the genre.

I recommend Jack Vance. Not for Vancian magic but for the anti-hero Cugel.

I'm very wary of Cugel. I recall hearing that, among other things, he is guilty of sexual assault. I am fine with anti-heroes but I expect them to have some redeeming features.

I think it is most likely that most people get bored having to think there way through literature so they tend to criticise literary authors as "long winded."

I'm glad you feel the need to assume that if people feel a certain way, it's because they are flawed (unwilling to think) than that they might have a legitimate viewpoint.

It's not a matter of "literature" but a matter of technique. I dislike how willing Neal Stephenson is at going on long-winded tangents which are irrelevant to the plot or the characters. Hemmingway is literature and he was concise. Spending three paragraphs to say something that could be said in two sentences is to me sinfully unnecessary. I'm of the school of writing where every single word must be chosen wisely, spent carefully and must serve a strong, concrete purpose, every scene must move things forward or otherwise have a strong reason of existing, or it is a waste. The art comes from the word choice, the sentence structure, the way it fits into the rest of the paragraph/page, and the message it conveys. It doesn't matter if it's a contemporary novel or a classic. If I finish a sceen or a chapter or anything and can say "What did that have to do with anything", then it shouldn't be there.

It's like show vs. tell, narrative summary vs. scene, etc. The issue is technique.

 

[Dausuul]

That's why I don't accept the idea that "Tolkien needed a tougher editor" or "Tolkien is long-winded".

Dude, Tolkien was long-winded. Extremely freakin' long-winded. I cut my fantasy teeth on the Lord of the Rings, I'd read the Hobbit and LotR and the Silmarillion and half of the Lost Tales-type stuff before the movies were a gleam in Peter Jackson's eye, but I can well see why people might not like Tolkien, and it's got nothing to do with them not being smart enough or refined enough. One reader's lyrical and entrancing prose is another's pretentious bloviating. And the Catholic theology underlying the story could be a real turn-off for many.

That's not to say there are not many things to love about the Lord of the Rings, and I do still love it. But I'm not at all sure I would like it if I were reading it for the first time today. They spend a third of the first book just getting out of the Shire, for Pete's sake.

(I will add that the older I get and the more I think about history and politics and the way the voice of privilege drowns out other points of view, the more Tolkien's romanticizing of medieval life in general and monarchy in particular grates on me. Feudal monarchy is great if you're one of the aristocracy. If not, it sucks hardcore, and I find myself less and less able to gloss over that fact as I read.)

 

[steeldragons]

Dude. The answer is right here, in this very thread.

That, apparently. But also, 1e Unearthed Acrana presented the rules for a "two-weapon" fighting style for rangers.

Give you a page, but don't have the books with me.

--SD

 

[Plane Sailing]

So, the d8 indicates that fighting is not their primary focus. Toe to toe with a fighter of the same level, they would lose. They actually fight like a cleric. However... and here's the fascinating point... they get considerable extra damage to certain classes of monsters. They are monster hunters.

Not true of them originally - you must remember that when originally introduced, fighters had 1d8 for HD (and went up to 9d8), rangers started with 2d8 for HD and went up to 11d8. In the pre-1e days, rangers were supposed to be significantly tougher than fighters!

In 1e they kept their HD as was, while fighters got moved over to D10's, so they started off a little tougher and tended to even out. 2e removed their initial HD bump and set them in second-class toughness land ever since.

Personally? I prefer the original vision.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I'm very wary of Cugel. I recall hearing that, among other things, he is guilty of sexual assault. I am fine with anti-heroes but I expect them to have some redeeming features.

I don't know if you've read the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant by Donaldson, but if you haven't you probably wouldn't want to - the principle character rapes the person who first helps him in the fantasy land, and never developed any redeeming qualities in three novels as far as can recall. I read them once, but never wanted to go back to them.

Regards

 

[Klaus]

I've seen "Aragorn style ranger" tossed around a little and I don't really understand what it means. What specifically did Aragorn do that's different?

I only saw the movies, and didn't really see anything that struck me as ranger-y (aside from dual wielding the sword and torch against the ringwraiths).

Broadly-speaking, IMHO, "Aragorn Style" rangers are mostly good-aligned warriors protecting civilization from the evil creatures of the wild. Kinda-like wilderness paladins.

 

[jonesy]

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

In my book The Hobbit is better literature than Lord of the Rings.

And more relevant to my D&D too, since while Hobbit focuses on the fantasy elements, LotR seems to be mainly concerned with trying to make the world presented in The Hobbit work on a realistical level.

 

[Gentlegamer]

I'm very wary of Cugel. I recall hearing that, among other things, he is guilty of sexual assault. I am fine with anti-heroes but I expect them to have some redeeming features.

Cugel forces himself on his wife, whose family and town had tricked him into imprisonment in a tower (the marriage being part of the scam on Cugel).

Cugel isn't an anti-hero. He's not a hero of any kind. He's a good example of Neutral Evil alignment.

When I play old-school D&D, when confronted with a tricky situation, or one in which I had been fooled or betrayed, I think to myself, "What would Cugel do?"