In designing my game I've noted there's a number of different conceptions of what a Ranger is, so would like to canvas for opinion. What skills would your ideal conception of a Ranger have?

To make it concrete, you have 16 points to spend, and can spend 1,2,4 or 8 on any given skill, and these are the skills:

Melee, Unarmed, Bows, Thrown (all give bonuses to hit)
Parry (gives bonus on defense)
Athletics (increases strength so gives bonus on damage)
Acrobatics, Thief (Locks/traps), Scout (Hide/Sneak), Healer, Outdoor Skills

(I'm assuming Rangers don't cast spells).

For example a Warrior might spend 4 points on Melee, Parry, and Athletics which is a solid grounding in all aspects of Melee fighting. They spend 2 points on Unarmed in case they end up in a brawl, and 2 points in Thrown so they can chuck an axe in the first round of combat before closing.

Why does it matter?  Sounds like players can buy any set of skills they want (I think that is a good thing).  Based on the skills they show proficiency in the NPCs may call them Rangers, Warriors, Holy Warriors, Mercenaries, etc.

Outdoor 4, Bows 4, Hide/Sneak 4, Melee 2, Parry 2 I guess.
Some sort of 'train/befriend animals' would be nice, I suppose, if that's not part of Outdoor. IDK about 'thrown' as a separate skill.

Just based off literary influences, etc., I probably expect them to be a woods-dwelling scout type. You could argue for whatever level of melee is balanced or works - I suppose I expect them to have less direct melee fighting skill than a professional mercenary or knight, if I use literature rather than D&D tradition. I've always been partial to dual-wielding but I have to admit there's not much specific reason to allocate it to 'ranger' as a class.
You might find e.g. Barbarians of Lemuria interesting to check for ideas, it has a combat skill breakdown that's basically points allocation (though I forget the categories), then does the same for professions.

What skills? None. Skills suck.

BTW, if you are creating a point buy game, check out Warrior, Rogue, and Mage by Stargazer Games.
It's free and among the best fantasy point buy games I've seen.

http://www.stargazergames.eu/games/warrior-rogue-mage/

If you are making a Ranger, make Batman and put him in the forest.

When I think ranger, I think Druid Rogue dual class.

Here you go:
http://www.milsci.ucsb.edu/sites/secure.lsit.ucsb.edu.mili.d7/files/sitefiles/resources/Ranger%20Handbook.pdf

All of them, maxed out.

I'd probably go with Bows or Thrown 4, Melee 4, Outdoors 8, Scout 4.

What's your idea of a Ranger? For me they're outdoorsy fighters or fighter/thieves. My ideal ranger skillset would include bowmanship, stealth and survival. I'll grudgingly accept two-weapon fighting because it's a classic, as are animal companions. Not a fan of spellcasting but it's the default in several editions of D&D. Including, to my consternation, 5e.

For a more Tolkienesque Ranger, a wilderness-dwelling warrior trained by an ancient order in possession of ancient knowledge, I recommend the implementations found in Castles & Crusades and in Swords & Wizardry Complete.

Quote from: Xanther;935809Why does it matter?  Sounds like players can buy any set of skills they want (I think that is a good thing).  Based on the skills they show proficiency in the NPCs may call them Rangers, Warriors, Holy Warriors, Mercenaries, etc.

You're correct you can buy any set of skills you want, but if you don't like skill systems, or are just trying the game and want to get started quickly, then you choose a class. (You can switch to the skill system later without affecting the character's current abilities)

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;935845Outdoor 4, Bows 4, Hide/Sneak 4, Melee 2, Parry 2 I guess.

The original Ranger of fantasy – Aragorn – neither uses or carries a bow, but it's become so accepted as a stereotype that he got one for the film. He was skilled in healing, but that doesn't appear to have been carried forward into RPGs.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;935845Some sort of 'train/befriend animals' would be nice, I suppose, if that's not part of Outdoor.

Yes, that is part of Outdoor.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;935845IDK about 'thrown' as a separate skill.

Fencing and Javelin are rather different activities, so it makes sense. It allows for characters that excel in different combat areas, but without being overly specific. Also it allows non-combat specialists to take some (but not all) fighting skills.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;935845Just based off literary influences, etc., I probably expect them to be a woods-dwelling scout type. You could argue for whatever level of melee is balanced or works - I suppose I expect them to have less direct melee fighting skill than a professional mercenary or knight, if I use literature rather than D&D tradition. I've always been partial to dual-wielding but I have to admit there's not much specific reason to allocate it to 'ranger' as a class.
You might find e.g. Barbarians of Lemuria interesting to check for ideas, it has a combat skill breakdown that's basically points allocation (though I forget the categories), then does the same for professions.

I'll look again at Barbarians of Lemuria.

Quote from: Spinachcat;935850What skills? None. Skills suck.

There are dozens of ways in which skills can suck, so I don't know if your concerns apply here!
For the class variation of the system think of AD&D with thieves that don't suck.
If you think thieves ruined D&D because you want sneaky fighters then your fighter can be sneaky but isn't as good at it, or you can use the skill variation to make your own customised sneaky fighter.

Quote from: Spinachcat;935850BTW, if you are creating a point buy game, check out Warrior, Rogue, and Mage by Stargazer Games.
It's free and among the best fantasy point buy games I've seen.

I've looked and the broad skills == class idea is similar to what I've got but I've split it out into more classes (Archer, Acrobat, Healer etc). Does it suffer from characters taking points in all three and becoming too similar?

Quote from: Spinachcat;935850When I think ranger, I think Druid Rogue dual class.

Nothing wrong with dual classing Druid, but I'm still not sure why AD&D gave Rangers Druid spells.

Quote from: The Butcher;935865All of them, maxed out.

Always a popular option, but strangely not supported by most systems!

Quote from: The Butcher;935865I'd probably go with Bows or Thrown 4, Melee 4, Outdoors 8, Scout 4.

Very similar suggestion to Bloody Stupid Johnson.

Quote from: The Butcher;935865What's your idea of a Ranger? For me they're outdoorsy fighters or fighter/thieves. My ideal ranger skillset would include bowmanship, stealth and survival. I'll grudgingly accept two-weapon fighting because it's a classic, as are animal companions. Not a fan of spellcasting but it's the default in several editions of D&D. Including, to my consternation, 5e.

For a more Tolkienesque Ranger, a wilderness-dwelling warrior trained by an ancient order in possession of ancient knowledge, I recommend the implementations found in Castles & Crusades and in Swords & Wizardry Complete.

The magic given to Rangers in S&W is ability to case healing scrolls, which is more tolkienesque then access to Druid spells.

When I read "Ranger" I sigh or groan thinking of character classes, and the weird D&D(?)-spawned use of that word combined with its use for Aragorn to create a weird "archetype" for woodsy adventurer hero which I tend to fin annoying because I like woodsy types and I like Aragorn but I dislike D&D-spawned corruptions of words which have other different origins and meanings. Like "plate mail" and "Cleric" and "Bard" and "Monk" and "Gnome".

If I'm making a realistic outdoorsman for a generic fantasy low tech game, though, maybe:
4 outdoors (main skill)
4 athletics (hiking most days)
4 scout (being outdoors alone w animals most of the time)
2 bow (if part of his work is hunting)
1 thrown
1 unarmed

Quote from: Skarg;935928When I read "Ranger" I sigh or groan thinking of character classes, and the weird D&D(?)-spawned use of that word combined with its use for Aragorn to create a weird "archetype" for woodsy adventurer hero which I tend to fin annoying because I like woodsy types and I like Aragorn but I dislike D&D-spawned corruptions of words which have other different origins and meanings.

Speaking of annoying

Quote from: WikipediaSome noteworthy fictional rangers are Drizzt Do'Urden and Hank in the Dungeons and Dragons animated television series.

I think I'll leave Hank as inspiration for the upcoming D&D Animated TV Series Retroclone ;-)

I share your opinion on the subject of

Quote from: Skarg;935928"plate mail" and "Cleric" and "Bard" and "Monk" and "Gnome".

and find that there is no room in my game for them!

Aragorn is a Ranger, in the sense of an armed guardian who patrols a wild region. There's nothing particularly woodsy about him and he uses no bow. It seems to me that the concept of Ranger has morphed into that of Robin Hood who is also a guardian, but he lives in the wood and is an Archer.

Aragorn knows how to heal with herbs, which is initially seems to be him being wise in the ways of nature, but later as being due to his royal lineage, so I don't know if healing truly counts as being an aspect of a Ranger, but it is a good way to give someone in the party healing skills.

Quote from: Skarg;935928If I'm making a realistic outdoorsman for a generic fantasy low tech game, though, maybe:
4 outdoors (main skill)
4 athletics (hiking most days)
4 scout (being outdoors alone w animals most of the time)
2 bow (if part of his work is hunting)
1 thrown
1 unarmed

Thanks. Any particular reason why unarmed, bow & thrown but not melee?

I think if you want to go hunting in the forest, a bow is totally the way to do it. Beats eating grubs all the time

However, a given fantasy world might have social restrictions on using bows by the common folk, in which case maybe its down to slings and such. Or bows may just be very expensive. IIRC my English history, bows were encouraged for normal folk to maintain defense, even though longbows actually require reasonable amounts of training and adequate nutrition to give enough strength to draw the things. Shortbows not quite so much. I think. Not an expert on this.

I half-suspect Aragorn just doesn't use a bow to give Legolam "niche protection" as an elf Though again, could be wrong.
Even among D&Ders there's going to be a split between 3E people who consider Legolas to be a ranger in game-mechanical terms, and the 1E people who consider him a fighter (since ranger is off limits to elves).

Quote from: JoeNuttall;935946I think I'll leave Hank as inspiration for the upcoming D&D Animated TV Series Retroclone ;-)

oooo....challenge accepted!

I don't tend to like class-based RPG systems, particularly when they're generic archetypes that seem too broadly applied. I do like professions and backgrounds, but I like them to be specific to a gameworld group or cultural role, and so are just lists of what people in a certain group would tend to learn/develop/believe/etc.

Quote from: JoeNuttall;935946Aragorn is a Ranger, in the sense of an armed guardian who patrols a wild region. There's nothing particularly woodsy about him and he uses no bow. It seems to me that the concept of Ranger has morphed into that of Robin Hood who is also a guardian, but he lives in the wood and is an Archer.

Aragorn knows how to heal with herbs, which is initially seems to be him being wise in the ways of nature, but later as being due to his royal lineage, so I don't know if healing truly counts as being an aspect of a Ranger, but it is a good way to give someone in the party healing skills.

It just seems a bit off to me that Aragorn ended up being seen as the model for an RPG PC class. I can see why, but the actual Aragorn was a hundreds-year-old super-human prince sulking as Strider. (Actual Aragorn could have lifetimes' worth of skills.) I haven't read up on the details of exactly how the other Rangers operated. I have no real objection to them and think they seem interesting and wouldn't mind roleplaying one, but it seems to me like a specific gameworld professional group, rather than an archetype. I'm mainly saying all this just so you know where I'm coming from. TL;DR is just that again, I'm not much for class-based systems.

QuoteThanks. Any particular reason why unarmed, bow & thrown but not melee?

I was thinking of an NPC forester or woodward (one not geared for general mayhem/adventuring), who mainly goes about seeing that the woods aren't being abused and maybe doing some hunting, and dealing with poachers but in a low-impact way. He might scare them off with a bow or manhandle them, and he might practice throwing for hunting or possibly sport/hobby or intimidation, but prefer not to do battle, so relies on ranged threats and goes and gets a posse or the local knight or lord if there is anyone who really wants to fight with a hand weapon. But if there were more of that, and less/no call for hunting, then yeah the Bow and Thrown and Unarmed could easily shift to Melee. If there were less of that, or just out of taste, it could just all go to Bow.

It's clear that different people have different conceptions of a Ranger.

Quote from: Skarg;936115I do like professions and backgrounds, but I like them to be specific to a gameworld group or cultural role, and so are just lists of what people in a certain group would tend to learn/develop/believe/etc.

Quote from: Skarg;936115I have no real objection to them [Rangers] and think they seem interesting and wouldn't mind roleplaying one, but it seems to me like a specific gameworld professional group, rather than an archetype. I'm mainly saying all this just so you know where I'm coming from. TL;DR is just that again, I'm not much for class-based systems.

I like your idea Skarg - differing conceptions of what a class like Ranger is doesn't matter if classes are not archetypes but actually gameworld specific professions. I'm thinking of incorporating that, thanks.

Quote from: Skarg;936115I was thinking of an NPC forester or woodward (one not geared for general mayhem/adventuring), who mainly goes about seeing that the woods aren't being abused and maybe doing some hunting, and dealing with poachers but in a low-impact way. He might scare them off with a bow or manhandle them, and he might practice throwing for hunting or possibly sport/hobby or intimidation, but prefer not to do battle, so relies on ranged threats and goes and gets a posse or the local knight or lord if there is anyone who really wants to fight with a hand weapon. But if there were more of that, and less/no call for hunting, then yeah the Bow and Thrown and Unarmed could easily shift to Melee. If there were less of that, or just out of taste, it could just all go to Bow.

I think Bow and Thrown are too similar, so you'd probably specialise in one or the other. If I came across an angry wild boar I think I'd want Melee as a backup; so I'd switch Thrown for Melee to keep with that character concept.

Probably just "4 in combat skills" which would vary by person, and of course each person could be +/- a few points. I think it's useful to think of what are the minimum points (or resulting level) in a skill for someone to be considered competent for their profession, as well as (ideally) perhaps what average or unusually good levels would be.

Thanks for the useful thoughts posted to this thread.

I've made two changes as a consequence - realising classes are professions, based in the culture of the world, this means that different races should have different classes. As classes are lightweight templates it's easy enough for a Elven Mage to have different skills than a Human one.

Secondly I decided to fix the problematic Parry skill - it's necessary for the game but is not something your character would train at, and is clear from the responses here you'd only take it because you (the player) know from the rules it's a useful skill, not because it fits your conception of your character. I've changed it to be a bonus you get from any physical skill, which means that you get a bonus on Dodge/Parry from taking levels in Acrobatics which quite appeals to me.

If anyone's interested I've posted the rules for this section of the game on my blog at http://explorebeneathandbeyond.blogspot.com/2017/01/character-generation-3-levels-xp-classes.html and put discussion about the rules onto the accompanying FAQ page http://explorebeneathandbeyond.blogspot.com/p/faq.html.