Why the many Ranger variants?

[rawgt3]

Just a nagging question I've had, mainly because I never thought many people liked Rangers that much.

 

[Greylock]

...I never thought many people liked Rangers that much.

Heck, I know one guy who plays nothing BUT Rangers. Has a nervous fit whenever someone suggests another class. I actually used to know 2 guys like that, but then I got better.

 

[2WS-Steve]

I think the basic ranger concept is pretty popular, but people have pretty disparate views of what they should look like. The ranger as written isn't as flexible in implementation as the rogue or fighter, so people keep coming up with variations.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Because many people like Rangers that much. No, really.

Also, the core Ranger sucks. It has a weak-ass fluffy sidekick, as if a full-strength fluffy sidekick werent bad enough. It has to either be a reasonable archer, or a crappy TWF thing. It can't be a fighter, can't be a rogue, and certainly can't be anything else.

If anything, the 3.0 Ranger is probably closer (though not quite there) to what a lot of people seem to expect from a Ranger class.

Most of the archetypes from fiction don't match up well to it. Other way round, I suppose. But yeah. That's a fairly major reason too.

 

[jmucchiello]

What is a ranger? One who ranges? What's that mean? What's he do? What's his purpose? There are as many ranger classes as there are answers to the above questions.

 

[S'mon]

Luckily I now play C&C, and the C&C Ranger is fine. Playing 3e and 3.5e I did waste a lot of time trying to remake the Ranger into something decent, though.

 

[Sitara]

What does the C&C ranger get?
Does he get spells? (because thats the most annoying things; rangers are woodsmen, NOT spellcasters)

And yeah, the main reason for so many ranger variants is that most people prefer non-spellcasting rangers.

 

[Tetsubo]

To me the ranger typifies the classic "lone wolf" character. And that has been a popular stereotype with adolescent males since humans gained speech... who doesn't like the idea of the lone hero, surviving the elements with just his whits and skill and occasionally kicking butts? But... that idea has many, many variations... thus there being so many versions of the class... I like the idea of a spell-less Ranger with better combat style options, terrain expertise and a better animal companion (if he has one at all...)... maybe a Ranger/Scout gestalt without spells would be good...

 

[Phlebas]

the spell-casting / non-spell casting option is always useful if you're playing a more physical tpe and don't want the mysticism / hassle of spell.
Theres an urban ranger in one group i play in and that works fairly well as an alternative to a fighter / rogue combo
so yeah, the ranger base class is quite nice but more flexibility is always better

 

[Keefe the Thief]

The ranger is one of those classes which changed significantly during different edition and has many different abilities, so that nobody can easily answer the question what is the "core" of the class. Sturdy woodsman? Yes, but also agile warrior emphasizing dexterity. Lone wanderer surviving without help? Yes, but also devout follower of a god or gods.

In other words, it is able to support "i-know-how-a-ranger-should-look" and "nooooo-thats-not-what-a-ranger-should-look-like!" discussions in the thousands, which always leads to endless class variants. Just go over to dragonsfoot and search for ranger threads if you want to get lots of the "nooooo!" - discussions.