The 1st Edition Ranger was a neat concept; they were wilderness warriors and expert scouts, but they were implied to be part of something greater.  Their restriction on behavior and limited to "any Good" alignment gave them a "heroic defender" vibe.  It's like they're part of an organization of elite soldiers dedicated to defending their homelands against the monstrous threats of the savage realms.  They also gained followers of a similar bent, from fellow rangers to fantastic beasts.

The 2nd and 3rd Edition Edition Rangers retained many of the features of its earlier counterpart, although the inclusion of kits allowed variant archetypes (such as the Amazon warrior).  They also lost their "extra damage to giants/humanoids" and could specialize in other monsters.  The 3rd Edition Ranger went even further and dropped alignment restrictions, allowing evil rangers for the first time.

Is there are specific archetype you associate with Rangers?  Do you prefer them as generic "scout/huntsmen" types, or as special folk blessed by nature itself?  Do you associate the class with an organization or ideal to live up to?

I think rangers are themed fighters. They get bonus feats like the fighter, hp almost like the fighter, martial weapon proficiency like the fighter. They are in every way a fighter but with a distinct theme and more abilities. (at least in third).

Quote from: Libertad;575045The 1st Edition Ranger was a neat concept; they were wilderness warriors and expert scouts, but they were implied to be part of something greater.  Their restriction on behavior "any Good" alignment gave them a "heroic defender" vibe, like an organization of elite soldiers dedicated to defending their homelands against the monstrous threats of the savage realms.  They also gained followers of a similar bent, from fellow rangers to fantastic beasts.

The 2nd and 3rd Edition Edition Rangers retained many of the features of its earlier counterpart, although the inclusion of kits allowed variant archetypes (such as the Amazon warrior).  They also lost their "extra damage to giants/humanoids" and could specialize in other monsters.  The 3rd Edition Ranger went even further and dropped alignment restrictions, allowing evil rangers for the first time.

Is there are specific archetype you associate with Rangers?  Do you prefer them as generic "scout/huntsmen" types, or as special folk blessed by nature itself?  Do you associate the class with an organization or ideal to live up to?

I always envisioned the baseline 'start picking up mah drood spells' type as specifically devoted to Ehlonna/Meilikei/goddess of wildlife/nature.  In 2e if you wanted to be someone more along the bounty-hunter type I steered people towards the Scout rogue kit, and in 3e I've allowed people to take the assassin spell list instead of the ranger list if they wanted to be the same kind of deal, or even replaced the spell-slingin ranger with the ranger from Iron Kingdoms.  But I think that the base class per the phb is definitely dedicated to some kind of vaguely good nature god, hence the divine spells.

I vote that we should ban you because you pose fun questions.  For me? No Drizzt double weapon bullshit.  I want something akin to 1e or ACKS. A hunter.  A monster hunter, a bounty hunter with purpose that money or personal revenge has no meaning. That's a Witch Hunter or Avenger.

It also sucks because Mguy and myself agree again!!!

I generally prefer the elite monster hunter/wilderness warrior--essentially the Ranger in Tolkien come of much like this, I enjoy them having a few spells, and not being limited to "Archer" or "Dual Weapon Guy."

They're are a great number of possible ways to make any archetypical class. In my mind, that is what kits, and feats were meant to do, yet neither plan really helped you make the character you wanted better when the class "special abilities" often seemed to only be worthwhile if you took features that aided what you already had.


Class Build Elements I think a ranger should have:
Tracking
Wilderness Lore
Animal Empathy/Friendship as possible.
Decent Fighting
Lighter Armor than standard warriors
Bonus against certain chosen "monsters"
Very narrow field of spells, preferably tied to their other abilities: Animals/Nature Lore/Monster Fighting.

The Ranger is my favourite D&D class, always has been. Wilderness warrior/skirmisher/fantasy special forces. My archetypes are the pioneers of old, Davy Crockett, Kit Carson, Robert Rogers and so on.

The best incarnation of this is the 4th edition Essentials Scout or Hunter, depending on whether you want a melee or ranged combatant. Unlike the Core Ranger, the Essentials versions also add a load of actually relevant stuff in the form of Knacks (and some of the stances, which work out of combat). You make the party better at navigating the outdoors, rather than just being some dude with a few skills who fights with a bow/two weapons. We've got one of each in our 4e game, and they're both brilliant.

Thankfully they've dropped all the stupid animal companion nonsense and having some largely useless minor magic as fixed, mandatory things. Along with the pointless "bigot bonus" of old (though one of the Aspects gives a bonus to defenses and damage against Large or bigger creatures).

The ranger is just a fighter that lives in the wilderness.

They should have armour restrictions and in return get a set of bonuses or NWPs that relate to the wilderness. Survival, Tracking, Animal handling, Herbalism, etc. They should not get spells by default spells should be available to them to learn just liek they shoudl be available to fighters if they are willing to devote vast study to it and thus take a drop in their core martial progression. I don't think this needs to be done via multiclassing but by having a core mechanism that allows crosss skilling between classes at a cost.

They should probably focus on ranged combat as its far better for wilderness survival. Two weapons style make no sense for rangers and is much more fitting for gladiators, dualists and specialist figthers.

Aragorn is a ranger he has no spells. He has some herbalism.
Davy Crocket maybe a ranger.
Hawkeye is a ranger.

There are mainly three character types which have been simulated by the Ranger class, with different degrees of success:

• Robin Hood: guy who is at home in the forest, and is a master bowman;
• Aragorn: guy who is at home in the forest, has minor mystical abilities, and is a good swordsman who fights evil;
• Drizzt: the two weapon fighter guy, included on the basis of an obscure 1e AD&D sub-rule which gave drow two-handed fighting, and came back to influence the design of the core class.

The 1e Ranger does a decent job with Aragorn, 2e does a decent job with Drizzt, 3.0's Ranger is a rather blah class (although I had a great forester/lumberjack-themed ranger character in our current 3e game, who unfortunately got killed during the second session), and 3.5 has kinda-sorta acceptable options for both Robin Hood and Drizzt. I think the 1e version is the strongest idea, even if it isn't pure Aragorn, while a good Archer class has never been included in the core.

There is a murky territory where Rangers may overlap Barbarians, with their common theme of self-sufficiency and living off of the land. Since D&D Barbarians somehow become either berserkers who attack foes in a primal rage, or magic-hating dumbasses, a lot of barbarian/settler populations are better modelled with Rangers of some sort.

I see Rangers as hunters and scouts.

Quote from: jibbajibba;575096They should probably focus on ranged combat as its far better for wilderness survival. Two weapons style make no sense for rangers and is much more fitting for gladiators, dualists and specialist figthers.

Every time I see this canard, I feel the need to shoot it down. Through time immemorial, two hands have meant either a two-handed weapon or two weapons. Note a shield is a second weapon. If you have it, you use it. There's nothing "specialist" about it.

Davy Crockett, in popular folklore using a common "pioneer" fighting style (because as per Roger's Rules of Ranging, formalising a common practise, everyone carried a knife and hatchet):





Rangers should be using two weapons. Not twin scimitars or any such nonsense, but a knife or hatchet in their off hand.

I believe 1E made two-weapon fighting available to anyone, but limited it to a dagger or hand axe as secondary weapon.

Quote from: Skywalker;575105I see Rangers as hunters and scouts.

I agree.  Since words are stupid unless you get to the point.  Yep he covered it nicely. What? I said that already in my original post?  Really?

My image of rangers was set by Warcraft II (the elven ranger), and Magic: the Gathering before I encountered D&D. Right around that time I was also being influenced by Everquest, so it basically boiled down to:

- Archery
- Wilderness lore
- Half-druid, half-fighter

Since then two other features have risen in my esteem as defining elements of the ranger:

- Having a badass pet
- Favored enemy (but only when done right and chosen well)

I like the Dude with a sword fighting evil in wilderness option. That is, Aragorn.

I like the hunter/scout types, and I like the elite guardians of civilization vs. the encroaching Chaos in the wilds (interestingly, the Brazilian Portuguese translation of LotR translates "ranger" as guardião, "guardian" or "warden"4). The latter does strike me as more interesting and more in keeping with old school D&D's quasi-Howardian recurring theme of civilization/Law vs. barbarism/Chaos.

In addition to AD&D 1e, Swords & Wizardry Complete features a very Aragornesque ranger. Castles & Crusades does a great job too. I find these specific takes on the Ranger very evocative and I dig the Tolkienesque flavor they bring to the class.

But if you're having AD&D-like "fiddly" classes (i.e. anything more complex than Fighter, Cleric, Magic-User, Thief), it's nice to have a hunter/scout class for all these sneaky wood elf bowmen and wanderers at the edge of the world.

When I first read about Rangers in 1E they looked like a cross between the Dunedain of Tolkien and a Robin Hood style woodland warrior.

Since I read the original Ranger write up I view the 1e Ranger is a port of the Dunedain into D&D.

Since descendents of a lost good-aligned Atlantis/Numenor realm who have fallen on hard times and driven to live in the Wilderness as protectors of civilization is rather specific trope, I adopted a fantasy version of the Babylon 5 take on Rangers.

Rangers are an organization of good-aligned individuals dedicated to the unity of the races (humans and demi-humans basically) against depredations of the humanoids (orcs, etc). Sponsored by the Min.. err elves they teach wilderness skills and knowledge of arcane and druidic magic.

I used this in my LARP and a lot of the players really liked and became PC Rangers. Something I wasn't expecting.

I also used this in Blackmarsh as well.