What even is a ranger, at its core?
Classes are supposed to be based on historic and fictional archetypes, but can Ranger be an archetype if we can't even agree on what it encompasses? It seems everyone has a different concept of the ranger.
The word 'range' in the ranger's name refers to an area of wilderness that the individual guards, ranges or hunts in, like forest rangers in real life, or Aragorn in LotR. The verb to range means '(to pass over or through an area or region in all directions, as in exploring or searching)'.
But many people, perhaps having been introduced to RPG terminology from computer games, consider a core aspect of rangers expertise in RANGED combat, i.e. archery. Even though Aragorn was more known for using a sword than a bow, if a player tells you they want to play an archer, they will want to make a ranger, even after you tell them that Fighters can use bows too, and actually make better archers than Rangers do.
Is spellcasting a vital part of a ranger? They've often been the semi-caster for nature magic, to druids as what paladins are to clerics.
And what about animal companions? In most games you could probably potentially buy or train an animal, no matter what your class is. How can "has a pet" be a core part of a class's identity?
That everyone has a different idea is further proven by the fact that the semi-official supplements to D&D 5th edition include multiple and wildly varying remakes of the ranger: one that's a mundane outdoors class with spellcasting replaced by herbal medicine, one that doubles down on the 'animal companion' part with restricted summoning of a powerful spirit animal.
Sources:
https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/modifying-classes
http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/DX_0907_UA_RangerOptions.pdf
https://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/02_UA_Underdark_Characters.pdf
>>45836100
Aragorn.
Anybody who thinks Rangers have to do with ranged combat is a fucking idiot. Rangers are commandos who can divorce themselves of logistical support for extended period of times. IE they bleed into the forest or highlands and live off the land while executing their missions. They're guys you can send in teams to raid an enemy village with no food and know they'll make it their alive, do the job, come back, all without being followed. A ranger is a survivalist and professional soldier rolled into one lethal package.
>>45836100
Could the character in the image be a ranger?
Well yes, but most people would guess fighter or something first.
The fighter's archetypal silhouette includes weapons and armor, in a more pragmatic configuration than the paladin, who probably has shining armor, symbols and some magical holy glow to indicate divinity. A rogue has leather armor and daggers, maybe a hood.
But what's a ranger's silhouette? Cape to camouflage in the environment... and what?
>>45836148
This.
Self-sustaining, trail-blazing outdoor babysitter to other uninitiated/urban adventurers. Tracks and avoids being tracked, and patches up party members with poultices and masticated leaves.
>>45836180
People will probably say Legolas/Aragorn, so I think a mix somewhere between a fighter and a rogue. Broad pouches and bags for supplies, stout armour that still allows freedom of movement. The hood/cloak is made of a much thicker fabric that looks like it could luckily turn a blow.
Add a quiver, a backslung bow and a couple of knives to differentiate.
>>45836161
Right, so they're hit and run guerrilla fighters. That sure sounds like Sneak Attack, which is a rogue class feature. And why spellcasting then?
>Anybody who thinks Rangers have to do with ranged combat is a fucking idiot.
Maybe, but that's how they've been pigeonholed in a lot of computer games. WoW calls them hunters, but everyone equates them with rangers. In Final Fantasy they're an upgdare from archers. In Heroes of Might and Magic, rangers get a bonus to ranged weapons. In Nethack they use thrown or fired weapons.
You could also blame it on non-native English speakers not knowing the other meanings of the word range than the one that's the opposite of melee.
Wikipedia says this:
>A Ranger (also known as Hunter, Archer, Scout, or Tracker) is an archetype found in many fantasy fiction and role-playing games.
Rangers are usually associated with the wisdom of nature. Rangers tend to be wise, cunning, and perceptive in addition to being skilled woodsmen. Many are skilled in stealth, wilderness survival, beast-mastery, herbalism, and tracking. Archery and (often dual-wielding) swordplay are common to rangers, though there are many instances where rangers use a variety of weapons, skills, and sometimes magic or have a resistance to magic.
Now, the bow is usually considered a hunter's or woodsman's weapon.
>>45836161
>A ranger is a survivalist and professional soldier rolled into one lethal package.
This is a good description. A ranger always tends to portray a sense of survival and hardiness, usually with the outdoors, but not always. Their archetypal affinity with the bow probably just came from a logical progression of what tools a typical survivalist would need. They'd need it to hunt with. Of course they'd also need a bunch of other shit too.
I've personally always seen them as a jack of all trades. They've got a little bit of everything skill wise. Some stealth, good combat skills, maybe some magic, etc. The logic being that they use every possible toolkit to survive or finish their mission.
I think fighters are more on the melee side than the ranged side.
>>45836291
5e fighters can use melee or ranged weapons equally well with their class features. It pays off to specialize in one, but the class itself (and all the subclasses) benefit both playstyles.
>>45836232
The crossbow and longsword should be the ranger's ideal weapons. Unlike a bow you don' need to take as much tender care as a crossbow, and it can easily be kept in a sack to protect it from getting wet or easily carry on your person on the move. Meanwhile what idiots who associate bows with "guy who spends a shitload of time in the woods", is that unless he's using a small and light compound bow, lugging a warbow or longbow is going to fucking suck. It's impractical to carry on long trips and you HAVE to unstring it on the go. Plus you can't keep it loaded like a crossbow.
The longsword meanwhile is a fairly good all-purpose weapon for both fighting dudes in armor and lightly armored levies. While arguably a horseman's hammer or battleaxe may make a better weapon for a generalist like the ranger, those have to be carefully swung with precise strikes, and their damage is fairly minimal if grapples. Meanwhile a sword can be choked up for close thrusting or used like a crowbar when half swording.
For armor, the obvious armor choice is coat of plate/brig armor. Light, good movement, protects everything you need protecting. Maybe a hood with an integrated coif for protection while retaining camouflage.
>>45836354
And you are an idiot for assuming that you wouldn't need a massive, complicated heavy crossbow to get anywhere near the effectiveness of something like a longbow.
>>45836100
>>45836148
Aragorn with a bit of Legolas thrown in.
The ranger is a woodsman and a hunter, with the limited access to magic as a way to mechanically represent uncanny natural abilities. The confusion with the role stems from the fact that 5e builds characters on a relatively limited number of traits/abilities and has started to shit things up by going overboard with the archetypes.
In any case, 4e ranger best ranger.
>CAPTCHA says pictures of candy
>one of the pics is a live snake
fuck
I conflate the Ranger with the YEOMAN, so my ideal ranger would be stealthy, fighty, and also be able to ride a light horse. As >>45836161 >>45836193
>>45836265 say, the Ranger is a tacticool fighty man with knowledge of his territory who specializes in.ambushing, scouting, and unconventional tactics
>>45836443
Nigga do you even archery? Range means shit past point blank with bows or crossbows because it's going to be nigh impossible to hit anything at a distance, especially the crucial gaps in armor. You don't aim warbows or longbows like some Legolas chucklefuck elf. You get a hundred of them, point them at the enemy, and drown them by sheer volume of fire ensuring you will either hit weakspots in armor or gaps within a minute or two. A ranger will be engaging targets at under fifty meters to make sure his shots count.
>>45836443
Point of order, being an ambush fighter, wouldn't rangers be operating up close most of the time and therefore a crossbow would be better?
>>45836513
This is certainly a big advantage of the crossbow. On the other hand you have it's slow firing rate, maybe not so much if you use a very light crossbow.
>>45836508
>Nigga do you even archery?
Yes. I'm an amateur but occasionally I use one.
> Range means shit past point blank bla bla bla
Too bad we are not talking about such things, but individual fighters shooting at individual targets.
>it's going to be nigh impossible to hit anything at a distance, especially the crucial gaps in armor
Thank the gods I'm playing role-playing games for exactly this!
also
>implying every target always has armor
>implying it's always full plate
>implying game and monsters have armor
>>45836585
Well a shortbow or hunting bow would also possibly be useful, those were carried in bags as well right? Composite bows would be handy if you have fantasy fuckery glue that won't come apart in water.
>>45836616
>if you have fantasy fuckery glue that won't come apart in water.
Tar?
>>45836585
>Too bad we are not talking about such things, but individual fighters shooting at individual targets.
Yes, and said individual is not going to be shooting at ranges over fifty meters and hitting shit, with a longbow or a light crossbow or not. All shots will be at very close range to ensure hits.
>implying every target always has armor
Depending on the era and target, it will be an issue. Not to mention that depending on the range or power of the weapon, "padded sweater" will prove frustrating to score a killing shot at varying distance.
>implying it's always full plate
All that matters is that they're wearing a breastplate, because that's where your best chance of hitting is unless you're REALLY close.
>implying game and monsters have armor
>implying crossbows or arrows will penetrate deep enough or deliver enough kinetic energy to kill monster
laughingelves.jpeg
>>45836148
But he's basically a Fighter with a few extra skill points/proficiencies.
>>45836652
sorry about your incredible lack of imagination, i prescribe an extended abstinence from 3.X derivatives
>>45836100
I make the ''Ranger'' a feat that requires 13 Wis.
You gain +1 to Dex
You gain proficiency in survival and knowledge nature or any other 2 wis based skills if you are already proficient with these two.
You gain favoured enemy.
You gain Ranger spell casting which scales with your character level.
You can take this feat repeatedly and when you do so you get:
You gain +1 to Dex
Favoured enemy.
Extra 2 lvl 1 spell slots and 1 Druid cantrip of your choice.
>>45836663
Wow, that's... Incredibly retarded. Can I study under you sensei? Can I learn to be as big of a raging homofaggot?
Rolled 6, 5, 6, 4, 1, 5, 6, 2, 5, 1, 6, 4, 1, 4, 4, 6 = 66 (16d6)
>>45836633
>>implying crossbows or arrows will penetrate deep enough or deliver enough kinetic energy to kill monster
You fire your longbow at the dragon.
It lets out a deep rolling chuckle at your pathetic attempts and breaths on you for 16d6 fire damage.
>>45836659
Favored terrain and enemy is pretty weak to define an entirely different class.
It could be unique, but it's still just too close to being a Fighter variant.
>>45836633
>Yes, and said individual is not going to be shooting at ranges over fifty meters and hitting shit
There are actually archers that can do exactly this in a consistent manner. And Legolas even better.
>All that matters is that they're wearing a breastplate, because that's where your best chance of hitting is unless you're REALLY close.
Not if I roll lucky
>>implying crossbows or arrows will penetrate deep enough or deliver enough kinetic energy to kill monster
>implying swords, axes, maces etc. will kill a monster
>implying anything except magic will kill a monster
>implying humans can even wield magic powerful enough to kill said monster
>implying magic exists
>why am I even playing this game?
What the fuck are you talking about? Some realims is nice but you really overdo it.
I started a 5e game recently and I built a fighter which basically had all the elements described here, ex-scout with a crossbow and some survival tools.
I picked fighter over ranger because i didn't really want a caster character. I also find that the survivalist aspects don't really come up in our game, probably because it can be sort of boring if not done right.
>>45836703
>There are actually archers that can do exactly this in a consistent manner. And Legolas even better.
So you have examples of men who did this in actual fights to the death? Because bow trickshooters are nothing more than gun trickshooters- it's an act. If they were in actual combat and taking fire and fighting for their life, their skill would not be comparable.
>What the fuck are you talking about? Some realims is nice but you really overdo it.
You get twenty dudes with halberds and poke it to death. Or shoot it with a crude cannon.
>>45836725
I feel like Rangers should just have the option of ritual casting and otherwise get a bunch of things like Fighter's battlemaster, but more intense.
>>45836652
And paladins are just clerics with an extra focus on righteousness and swordplay. Fuck's your point?
>>45836731
I wouldn't really call hitting a simple target while standing still 'trickshooting', but whatever.
> If they were in actual combat and taking fire and fighting for their life, their skill would not be comparable.
I could say that about every unit that every fought something. That's what discipline is for.
>You get twenty dudes with halberds and poke it to death. Or shoot it with a crude cannon.
Awesome. I, the player, felt really engrossed in this engagement I had no chance to partake in.
Reminds me of this one lindybeige video, but I can't find it.
>>45836759
Guess I hadn't thought of it like that.
Although Paladins do have much stronger flavor and fluff than Rangers do.
>>45836790
Well, paladins are pretty much universally part of an order/organizations, whereas rangers have a pretty solitary, borderline non-societal image.
>>45836805
Hm, maybe if the Favored abilities gave abilities instead of just number bonuses. A solitary explorer that has learned unusual, unstructured techniques.
>>45836748
I agree, I'd like more non-magic ranger options, or even a system like PF's Ninja ki with a sort of mini-magic more to do with utility.
>>45836836
Giver Ranger the option to learn abilities from certain Monsters?
>>45836731
>>45836783
>If they were in actual combat and taking fire and fighting for their life, their skill would not be comparable.
it's worth noting that >GURPS has rules for this
in a non-combat situation where you've got the chance to be relaxed and all, you get up to a +4 to your skill checks, which is pretty fucking massive
so a skill 12 archer (pretty decent) can pull off some trick shots at skill 16 before penalties (VERY good) in a non-combat, practice situation, but is going to have a lot of difficulty pulling off the same tricks in a combat scenario
these trick shots might have a -2 to -4 penalty associated with them, bringing a skill 12 shooter down to skill 8 or so (which is very hard to consistently hit on 3d6 roll under)
so yeah, in GURPS an archer firing at a target 50 meters/yards away is going to have a penalty of -8
spending a turn aiming gives a bonus of +2 with a basic set regular bow, all-out-attack (determined) gives a +1, and being in a casual environment gives a +4, so a skill 10 shooter can get up to skill 17 while practicing, but goes back down to skill 13 in combat (and with all-out-attack, can't dodge or parry until his next turn)
overall he's hitting on 9 in practice scenarios, 5 in combat (these range mods are fucking brutal)
most PCs focusing on archery will have at least 14 skill though, so he's hitting on 13s in practice, 9 in combat.
of course you can also buy off the penalties related to these skill shots (representing hard training with these specific techniques) but that's another thing
it's a pretty interesting mechanic because it means that you can have a character with low 'background skills' and don't have to spend more than a couple of points on them to make them make sense
>>45836100
A Ranger is a forest Rogue.
Stealth, knowing the land, some minor magic tricks, tracking, taking down single large targets, avoiding being pinned down.
>>45836725
>the survivalist aspects don't really come up in our game, probably because it can be sort of boring if not done right.
They don't come up in anyone's game, so you're not alone.
The Ranger is shit because it's built around a playstyle that only a tiny fraction of DMs use (excluding when they shoehorn it in because somebody made a ranger).
LOTR copycats without the backstory to justify them
I think of them as sort of anti-rogues
>setting traps instead disarming them
>perception instead of stealth
>rural instead of urban
>>45836232
In WoW hunters being ranged only class is probably mostly due to gameplay reasons. Archetypical "hunter/ranger" type characters in Warcraft lore include both melee and randged fighters. However, a melee hunter would effectively be a warrior with less armour or rogue without stealth, but with a pet. Making them ranged-focused gave them a role that no other class really did (non-magical ranged dps).
Generally ranges are associated with survivalists and hunters, so them knowing how to use a bow (a common hunting weapon) does make sense and fit the character. Whether they use exclusively ranged weapons or be able to do either melee or ranged combat depends probably as much on what makes mechanic sense as from how rangers are perceived.
>>45839246
I think you nailed it with the extra perceptive asset.
Ranger have unbelievable keen sense, they arent trained soldier and don't have a fighting style like fighter, they aren't sneaky bastard like the rogue and they aren't raw power like barbarian, they are just pure honed skill, and I think a mechanic to cover this aspect could be a mix between reckless attack and hunter mark
>>45836100
>But many people, perhaps having been introduced to RPG terminology from computer games, consider a core aspect of rangers expertise in RANGED combat, i.e. archery.
And those people are clearly idiots.
YEOMAN (formerly known as RANGER)
HD: D8
Starting HP: D8 + Hale
AB: Full
Save Stats: Intuition, Agility
Armor and Shield Proficiency's: Buckler, Round Shield, Light Armor, Medium Armor
Weapon Proficiency's: Common, Soldier, Savage
Suggested Equipment: Leather Jerkin or Breastplate, Crossbow or Hunting Bow, Longsword or Mace, Buckler or Handaxe, 20 Arrows, Hunting Kit, Adventuring Kit, 25 Gilder
Class Features-
Ambush: Starting at level 1, a Yeoman may, when initiating combat on an unaware opponent or re-initiating combat on an opponent who has not been aware of them for one full turn, add +1 to their attack and damage rolls. This effect lasts for a number of rounds equal to their Intuition modifier + 1/2(Yeoman Levels), to a cap of 10 rounds.
Field Advantage: Starting at level 2, a Yeoman may, after having spent at least three rounds studying the surrounding terrain (a free action that precludes other Focus checks and may be taken during combat but only if no special maneuvers are used), move freely within the field of engagement and take 20 on all difficult terrain checks, in addition to adding +2 to any Impairment manuevers (Trip, Tackle, Eye-Gravel, etc)
etc...
>>45836100
Dude, you're making up this conflict, or ignorant of history. The "ranger" is a VERY clearly established archetype. The point hunter, the scout, the commando. Its the purest expression of our evolutionary potential as predators. The Hunter.
(this sounds a little edgefaggy, so I'll point out that The Learner/Teacher is the highest expression of our evolutionary potential, period. We are late to the predation game, and not made for it. Still, we are quite good.)
The ranger would be more distinct if people made more of a point to make them useful. Stuff like gathering food, hunting and game keeping, survival skills, that most people just ignore or have a wizard magic away are essential to providing an identity to the ranger.
>>45836100
I wanted to play a "ranger" I'd prefer it in the Aragorn/Dunedain sense. That is, a rugged wandering frontiersman who likes to fight evil. To that end, I'd rather play a Dex Fighter or a Rogue and put a bunch of points in Survival, Knowledge, Athletics, and possibly Stealth.
I was never a fan of the Beastmaster archetype. I feel that angle has enough personality to merit is own class and shouldn't be forced to associate with another class's identity.
I feel the spellcasting component was added on because Aragorn had magic. But that was because of his bloodline, not his class.
>>45836161
>>45836193
>>45836232
A ranger is an elf with a bow.
>>45840580
Do you know what a yeoman is?
>>45842703
So, an elf.
>>45836748
>>45836842
>5e has a semi-official ranger variant that replaces spellcasting with maneuvers (special weapon attacks) and herbal healing poultices
Looks like it's your lucky day!
https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/modifying-classes
>>45836100
The "Core" classes are all based somewhat on literary examples but you have to remember that in the end, D&D is a game. Half the original motivation for most of the classes was "it's not as fun if two people play the same thing!" and then fairly crude and basic ways of differentiating them rules wise started to bleed back into the lore and setting, which in turn influenced the next version of the rules and so on, and that's how you get that whole incestuous thing going on that always happens with D&D where D&D is very much it's own thing and fairly disconnected from mainstream fantasy.
D&D's main influence for as long as you have been alive has been previous iterations of D&D, so it's pointless to look back at the inspiration for the original archetypes since they don't look like that any more and aren't trying to.
It's sort of like Star Wars. You can't look the sixth movie or whatever and go "Right, this was clearly inspired by samurai movies" like the original was, because the main inspiration for the later movies were whatever the fans liked the most about the first ones.
I play fairly down to earth settings (combat is lethal, people look like normal people and not animu characters, not everyone owns 20 magic items) and Rangers in the official and correct use of the term, rather than some casual use, are soldiers or foresters who are tasked with guarding the borders and remote places that are not settled to any great extent. People who roam around in the deep dark forests and visit the frontier villages, looking for signs of enemies or dangerous creatures. So they're soldiers that are valued more for independence and resourcefulness than strict discipline or being able to march in lockstep. To me the Rangers of Ithilien will probably always be the most archetypical example of rangers, and they don't have and animal familiars or magical shenanigans, but being skilled archers are definitely a major thing for them.
>>45840436
>>45836100
What kind of retard thinks that the archer ranger comes from videogames? The lotr rangers of the south were crack archers.
The very idea of the ranger is of a kind of huntsman, living off the land, ambushing his foes, a tracker.
You don't bag a lot of rabbits for the stew or deer for the spit with a fucking sword.
>>45836100
>And what about animal companions? In most games you could probably potentially buy or train an animal, no matter what your class is. How can "has a pet" be a core part of a class's identity?
you could apply that logic to most classes. why is the fighter special? anyone can buy a sword and swing it around. if the ranger's animal companion is equivalent to the dog you picked up ye pette shoppe then something has probably gone wrong somewhere.
>>45836725
>I also find that the survivalist aspects don't really come up in our game, probably because it can be sort of boring if not done right.
most of 5e's martial utility features are underwhelming unless they are tied directly to skills. it doesn't matter most of the time because the skill system is better, but it doesn't help when the ranger is already underwhelming. this PDF takes a crack at improving them.
Ranger is, like monk, something that probably shouldn't exist at best, or is a glorified subclass at worst.
