Does anybody else hate how Rangers are portrayed in DnD (and to be fair, other games too)?
I love the archetype of le nature man who can track and fight with the best of them, can find and create natural poisons and cures, has awesome animal companions and such, but I DON'T like the fact they get magic. I think its a very poor way to give the class strength or spice them up.
What abilities should Rangers get that aren't super magical in nature? Something mystical, like being able to calm animals with your voice or see through the eyes of your companion like a Warg is totally fine, but casting spells is a no go.
How do you like your Rangers?
So basically, this supernatural shit is good, that supernatural shit is bad. Because magic, I ain't gotta explain shit.
4e rangers had no magic at all, and everyone complained about them because "not muh old school ranger" or "damage damage damage."
Spellcasting is all in how you fluff it IMO. 4e Rangers were functional and strong without spells, but in 3e and 5e the removal of spellcasting is almost certainly going to weaken the class more than any replacement feature will strengthen it. The archetypal Ranger does have magic to some extent in LotR (but so do many fighting/rogueish classes in D&D inspirational materials, like the Grey Mouser or Cugel the Clever).
In 3e particularly the spell-less ranger variant was its weakest option. Its strongest was the mystic ranger (with enhanced spellcasting) or shapeshifting variant.
A lot of ranger spells are fluffable as nature wisdom and I think you could select spells that would build on that image. If you had to to replace it a strong animal companion and the ability to switch PoV between your animal companion, you and potentially any animal with a kind of domination check might be a good pick. Guild Wars had its ranger be able to prepare medicines and suchlike from nature, use fighting stances, and commune with nature spirits. Maybe that would work for you?
>>43804482
Can you fuck off?
>>43804461
I haven't played much, but I do think I recall in Pathfinder that there were a few prestige classes for Rangers that replaced their magic with the equivalent of Rogue Talents for their class.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/ranger/archetypes/paizo---ranger-archetypes/skirmisher
I think there were a few others, but I can't be arsed to look.
Anyway, that being said... regardless of how I feel about the magic thing, I still can't really see myself playing the class. They're cool on paper, but the whole "favored terrain/enemy" makes them too specialized. You'll kinda feel like shit any time the campaign has you dealing with something that's not your specialty... and a good GM should always take you out of your comfort zone a little. Other classes can change up their items/tactics to adapt to this, rangers really can't.
Here's a pic though, just so I can contribute SOMETHING besides my whining.
>>43804861
*err, Archetypes, not Prestige Classes.
>>43804461
They live in a world with wizards. Fucking wizards.
Rangers are all about a grab bag of skills from everything. Natural knowledge, martial skill and yes, they'll snag a couple basic magic spells too. Because that's how you survive as a Ranger out alone innawoods in a world of owlbears and dire-everythings.
>>43804542
He's got a point. How is "seeing through the eyes of a wild animal" good but shooting lightning arrows or whatever bad?
>>43804461
Ranger in its purest essence in D&D is the Red Mage of combat classes.
It can fight at either range like a decent fighter
It has access to a good number of skills like a rogue
It can do animal shit like a Druid
It can do healing like a cleric
And it can do spells like a wizard.
But it isn't good at any of those roles, and tends to be longer range so they can show those gimmicks off the best, as casting tends to cause problems if you're up close and personal, and you stand no gain to be right next to your pet without specific builds.
If you want a proper nature man, I do believe you can run a fighter as a non-magic ranger if you really want to, or even a rogue.
>>43804890
Eh... that bit is kinda up to the GM. I've played in groups before where there might be a single wizard in an entire city, or the only spellcasters are essentially Sorcerers who don't actually understand their powers.
Fantasy doesn't HAVE to mean MAGIC EVERYWHERE!
>>43804920
Technically you can fluff your magic to not be magic.
A trick arrow with some plants you found.
Herbal medicine to cure wounds, shit like that.
>>43804978
That's not a ranger doing that, it's an elf.
Old WHFRP rangers were pretty awesome. No mystical shit, just plenty of skills for surviving in a dangerous world. Also cool in that there were like twenty different kinds of ranger, from bargemen to woodcutters.
I know GURPS is pretty skub around here, but I think their Dungeon Fantasy series does a pretty good job of making survival and wilderness skills interesting. You have both bow and arrow, stealthy rangers ('scouts') and barbarians who actually have a pretty decent focus on wilderness skills rather than just being angry.
>>43804461
I agree. Getting magic is okay, getting spells is weird. When I think of characters most often cited as inspiration for rangers, none of them displayed any spellcasting capability.
>>43804461
Why'd you post an image of a fucking Steward?
>>43806151
Because if you were trying to stat him up in D&D you'd probably give him at least a couple levels of Ranger.
>>43808010
Why would you use D&D to play that game and not the Game of Thrones RPG?
>>43804461
Preferably from Arizona, with big irons on their hips.
The reason rangers have magic is because it was the easiest way to mechanise a lot of their abilities when the class was first created.
A lot of ranger stuff, is something you'd either just do as skill checks, or I guess you'd have to invent new unique mechanics solely for them.
The trouble with rangers is they kind of overlap so much with other classes, they don't really feel that much like a class in their own right.
Oh, and as others have pointed out, your distinction between magic and "mystical" abilities is totally arbitrary.
One of my hangups when it comes to playing D&D rangers. Check out the Woodsman from the Wheel of Time d20 system.
>>43808059
Because there's this thing called "character inspiration".
Folks figured out how to make the Switch Hitter Ranger in Pathfinder because they wanted to play a character inspired by Aragorn. They didn't literally want to play AS Aragorn, but he inspired the idea of "Why should a Ranger have to choose between being a good archer and being capable in melee? Why can't he be solid at both?"
>>43804899
>>43809044
No, they aren't. Anyone with even a small iota of intelligence can tell the difference.
The warrior who prays to his spirit ancestors before battle and is rewarded with increased strength and vigor is not the same thing as a warrior who can fly or fire magical beams from his sword.
In the same way, a Ranger with heavy connections to animals and nature that can seem to calm raging animals and sense what is wrong with a local place is not the same as a ranger who casts Drudic spells. One is treated more like an innate ability and the other is a typical spell. These abilities can be used whenever, they aren't limited by daily use like a Wizard, and they have a very specific focus.
They are not the same thing, it is not an arbitrary distinction.
>>43804920
It is if you're using D&D as intended.
>>43811109
>an innate ability
So like a sorcerer? Or all the other innate spellcasting that exists in D&D and is mechanically represented with spells?
So like I said, completely arbitrary.
Protip: calling people stupid when they disagree with you is not a sufficient substitute for an actual counter-argument.
>>43811109
>The warrior who prays to his spirit ancestors before battle and is rewarded with increased strength and vigor is not the same thing as a warrior who can fly or fire magical beams from his sword.
And yet the former is how ranger spells have worked since 2e and the latter is not. So I guess you lack a small iota of intelligence.
>In the same way, a Ranger with heavy connections to animals and nature that can seem to calm raging animals and sense what is wrong with a local place is not the same as a ranger who casts Drudic spells.
That's the sort of thing druidic spells do, though.
>it is not an arbitrary distinction
oh boy, instead of being able to cast a spell that lets them check what is up with natural environs they should be able to use an ability: as per check what is up with natural environs
Shit/10
In PF the trap-using ranger is actually pretty good, but paying 1 feat per trap is just far too high a cost. Sub out spellcasting for traps at level appropriate points and you'd have a functional class (though it could do with some more miscellaneous stuff).
>>43811198
>Mechanically represented with spells
This cheapens the mystic. There is no reason why the Ranger should be limited in the number of animals he can calm a day, or how much nature disturbance he can sense, or how many herbal remedies he can produce or anything like that. They should be represented only in actual gameplay, each having their own chance to fail or being sensitive and slow processes that take a lot of time that the other party members might mess up since they aren't so closely aligned with nature.
Just sticking them into spells and saying 'just fluff it NERD' is very poor form. It's doesn't fit the class or idea and is very lazy.
>>43811227
Dude, too much D&D warps your perceptions and destroys your ability to look at fiction.
>>43811252
Can't relate, never had that problem.
>>43811246
>There is no reason why the Ranger should be limited in the number of animals he can calm a day, or how much nature disturbance he can sense, or how many herbal remedies he can produce or anything like that.
There's that there's no reason why rangers should be snowflakier than any other magical people, or why they deserve to calm animals, sense nature disturbances, or produce herbal remedies more often than, say, the druid. Less isn't always more, but when dealing with ultra generic stuff that's been handled with spells and skills for decades, it certainly is.
>It's doesn't fit the class
Of course it fits the class. It was designed around having spells, afterall, by definition it does. By the same logic, clerics shouldn't cast discrete spells, they should be sent miracles,e tc. etc.
>>43804461
To be honest half of DnD's classes don't need to exist and Ranger is one of them, it's basically a cross class between Rogue and Druid and should be adequately covered by a Rogue specialisation.
>>43804461
I often feel the opposite way. I usually want to play a Ranger that's even more towards a Druid, using nature magic to augment their archery and other mundane skills.
That said, I do understand your point. Some Ranger spells can be refluffed as more mundane herbalism though. Explaining the limited usage might be tricky, but it is doable.
>>43811320
I'm not thrilled by most elements of 3e, but I liked how there were urban and wilderness rogues, barbarians, rangers, and druids.
>>43811320
Really, most things can be covered by Fighter/Cleric/Wizard/Rogue being mixed together in various ways.
>>43811311
Are you literally retarded?
The entire point of the OP post was bitching about how Ranger's are portrayed in DnD. Then you go around saying 'duh this is how they are used in DnD'.
Seriously, are you mentally challenged?
My Barbarian is basically a low-rent Ranger.
>>43811425
Its one of the great mistakes of D&D development that the cleric was shoehorned into some sense of being one of the "classic" D&D classes, resulting in Jesii being viewed as a completely ubiquitous kind of character.
>>43811475
Casual reminder that the cleric class was invented for pvp reasons because of a that guy who played a homebrew vampire
>>43811470
>The entire point of the OP post was bitching about how Ranger's are portrayed in DnD
Correct, and I was responding to a post that was arguing how it fitted the class, ie the D&D portrayal of the archetype (that is, the Aragorn archetype).
>are you mentally challenged?
Classic case of attacking the messenger instead of the message; you are dismissed.
>>43811538
I'm a bit fuzzy as to whether the cleric was intended as an NPC antagonist or a PC antagonist.
The way that Sir Fang is described as having like, an x4 energy drain or something like that, makes me wonder how fucking strong the original cleric was to be able to compete with that.
>>43804461
Fifth edition has a spell less variant in the online Unearthed Arcana
>>43811425
Yeah, there are several entire classes that are basically wizards with differing spell selections.
>>43811680
>Playtest has warlocks that rely entirely on invocations and Sorcerors that evolve into their bloodlines as they expend their magic.
>Rejected by 3.shittesters.
>>43811764
I am still utterly depressed that the Playtest Sorcerer got rejected because the Dragon Bloodline was a Gish
>>43804461
In settings where magic is pervasive, it is perfectly reasonable that any reasonably skilled person would learn a few tricks related their interests.
However, for those who prefer less pervasive magic, or less systemically similar methods of use...
Rangers likely would have passive resistance to damage from natural disasters (including those targeted via magic), resist dedication and deprivation, possibly be able to quickly diagnose and treat poisons and infections, get more usable meat/skin from slain monsters, and acquire more resources in general from flora and fauna. Their traps and stealth, especially in wilderness settings should be particularly impressive as should their knowledge of wild places.
In specific, several Ranger "spells" could better be portrayed as Supernal skill and combat techniques, especially in 5e.
I assumed OP was focusing on D&D.
