had a weird thought..rangers = bland.

So, I was sittin here reading an article on deer hunting.. Deer stands, blinds, camoflauge, gillies, rifles, bows, crossbows..all that good stuff.. was the ranger(spell less, of course lol) inspired by and based on hunters? Certainly looks it. Hunters rely on stealth, well-practiced precision with a weapon, knowledge of the outdoors, the animals very anatomy/habits/habitat, survival skills, physical fitness, listen, spot, rope use, and even first aid( lol accidents happen). Without spells...ranger is just a hunter and his dog more or less...kinda bland....is that what acfs are for?

Love love love the Alchemist though, nothing at all bland about that one!

If you think that's remarkable, wait till you hear about fighters. No joke, based on soldiers. Like, regular guys who run into battle with a sword and then just hit guys with that sword until the guys are dead. Crazy, right?

A ranger not only knows how to hunt, but he can track, he can read the environment and know if anything is amiss. The ranger may not know exactly what threat is out there but from the bird calls (or lack thereof), the actions of any animals in sight, and other signs a city-dweller would never see he knows danger is afoot.

Plus with his favored enemy ability the ranger is designed to be a defender of civilization from the bad guys littering the wastelands. To paraphrase some lines from a movie, the ranger is the wall between the howling wilds and the staid farms and towns back home. He knows what is out there, he knows how to track it, hunt it down, and kill it if necessary.

Most deerhunters sit in stands at dawn or dusk and wait for the poor thing to come by to eat or drink.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flickerdart

If you think that's remarkable, wait till you hear about fighters. No joke, based on soldiers. Like, regular guys who run into battle with a sword and then just hit guys with that sword until the guys are dead. Crazy, right?

---

Wait, fighters kill people? Is that an evil act? Are all fighters evil?! They need some problem resolution training perhaps; take a dip into bards. Those long haired hippy types that like to sing a lot.

I dont think its amazing, just bland. Extremely bland. (Nah, there are stalk and spot hunters, too..I think there are some left lol.) I always thought of Dar from the beastmaster movies as being more mythical ranger-ish..ish. Atleast with the fighter (and well chosen feats), you can build something intresting.

Hehe..I just wanted to stir up a debate. :-)

Now, alchemists and bards...they have some flavor.

I find them pretty bland, too.

I mean, I'm not a big fighter guy and I'd rather player fighter. Dungeoncrasher Goliath isn't cheating, right? :smalltongue:

IMO, alchemist flavor is cool, but most of it is there so you have to reread rules you should already know. *cough* extracts *cough*

And if you take a wizard's spells away he's just a bookish scholar :smallamused:

Rangers are actually my favorite class mechanically. Full BAB and 6+Int skill points with a good variety of class skills is just great. From the fluff standpoint they are the base for some of the more subtle character choices. Not every second character has to be a Template stacked awakened Raccoon Gunslinger.

Here's a list what rangers can be:
- Defenders of the Wild
- Bounty Hunters specialized on FE prey
- Trackers and Scouts for armies
- local law enforcement (for some farms and woods)
- the single best mundane thing against his specific type of favored enemy

Seriously how often is a character devoted to crushing a certain subtype of enemy? Quite often I'd say. Demon hunters, undead hunters or just "monstrous humanoid" hunters. You really can't argue the effectiveness in that niche. And playing a main character for an adventure isn't quite fighting in your niche. But several (N)PCs justify having loads of ranger levels because FE bonusses do last all day.

If Ranger has a flavor problem, its not that their like real world hunters, it's that their Druid-lite. Nerfed Animal Companion and massively nerfed spells, but here have some BAB and a couple feats that are less of a combat buff than Wildshape.

On the plus side they get lots of things on a strong chasis so if you start trading things away they have a lot to trade. This is true in both published material and in homebrew.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hand_of_Vecna

If Ranger has a flavor problem, its not that their like real world hunters, it's that their Druid-lite.

---

:confused:

Where in LotR did you think: That Aragorn guy is really just a druid with a shorter beard? Before we continue I dislike the druidic spells on the ranger immensely. I would gladly trade this for a full leveled animal companion (because that's what makes up the beast master trope). Everyone and their mother go for Boon Companion anyway and CRB really needs more classes without spells.

Reread the class.

Wis casting? Check, but crummier.
Animal Companion? Check, but crummier.
Class feature that covers fighting? Check, but crummier.

And don't diss the spells. They are crummy, but Aragorn is just a fighter. He can't split his arrows or sneak attack from half a mile away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowbluff

Reread the class.

Wis casting? Check, but crummier.
Animal Companion? Check, but crummier.
Class feature that covers fighting? Check, but crummier.

And don't diss the spells. They are crummy, but Aragorn is just a fighter. He can't split his arrows or sneak attack from half a mile away.

---

The class certainly points in the direction but the flavor does not. At least for me. Animal companion is really just a way to make combat trained animals work in the system. The casting is actually the thing that I really hate about the class. It's just ... not necessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sporeegg

:confused:

Where in LotR did you think: That Aragorn guy is really just a druid with a shorter beard? Before we continue I dislike the druidic spells on the ranger immensely. I would gladly trade this for a full leveled animal companion (because that's what makes up the beast master trope). Everyone and their mother go for Boon Companion anyway and CRB really needs more classes without spells.

---

By 3rd edition Ranger had little to do with Aragorn. The first edition Ranger was a lot more similar, though it also had a lot of extra bells and whistles. Looking back I liken it to the OP Hero or King class the main characters in some video games have that is better than Fighter/Knight/Whathaveyou with no drawbacks. They got things like 2 hit dice at level 1 and automatic max hp through level 11. They got low level wizard spells in addition to low level Druid spells and this was in addition to the fighting and wilderness abilities that are actually Aragornish.

1st ed Ranger was Aragorn with a little fanboyism sprinkled on top.

3rd ed Ranger is a lesser Druid rather than a conversion of the classic Ranger.

I like Ranger, but you have to be in a game where the skills are actually useful. Also, it helps to be in a mid tier party — If your party looks like this: Wizard, Druid, Cleric, Ranger then you don't want to be Aragorn. I would actually prefer them to have more spells, but then Mystic Ranger is an option — or multiclass and use a skill/caster hybrid PrC to Gish it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HowlingWolf

Love love love the Alchemist though, nothing at all bland about that one!

---

A class based on medieval pseudoscience? Pretty bland tbh. Just revolves around making **** up and pretend it's scientific. Easily the least interesting class ever designed for any game ever.

Like, commoners have more thought put into them than the hodgepodge of random fictional **** that is the "Alchemist". Tis true, without lying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sporeegg

:confused:

Where in LotR did you think: That Aragorn guy is really just a druid with a shorter beard? Before we continue I dislike the druidic spells on the ranger immensely. I would gladly trade this for a full leveled animal companion (because that's what makes up the beast master trope). Everyone and their mother go for Boon Companion anyway and CRB really needs more classes without spells.

---

Not in their inspiration but in their implementation. Hard to give them spells that aren't at least somewhat related to the druid's bailiwick though. And we've yet to have a model of them having the supernatural abilities inspired by Aragorn without either spells or sucking worse than half-casting. :/

Part of why full-strength Animal Companion for Rangers is such a popular and recurring houserule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anlashok

A class based on medieval pseudoscience? Pretty bland tbh. Just revolves around making **** up and pretend it's scientific. Easily the least interesting class ever designed for any game ever.

---

It leaves space for imagination. I have a blast explaining various extracts on my Alchemist.

My favorite character right now is my Ranger. Granted a Mystic Ranger, but from playing as one that DOESN'T utilize Sword of the Arcane Order I see that the Ranger spell list has some gems. Spell Compendium and many other splatbooks gave Rangers spells that are swift are immediate actions so they can still attack or have fixed or very lengthy durations to make up for their poor caster level. And many of them are exclusive to Rangers, like Swift Haste. Not even druids get that.

Core-only ranger spell list is pretty meh, but splatbooks make their spell slots worth using.

I sorta like the (conceptual) design of the 4e ranger because of that. Dumps spellcasting. AnC is an optional feature. Instead becomes a paragon of martial combat with a woodsman/survivalist theme in its skill list.

Though since it's 4e it lacks real class features and it doesn't support THF and switch-hitting is only mediore (which still ends up being good because Rangers are the best class in that edition). So like I said, conceptually.

It strikes me as a little odd that the ranger was (so I have heard) based on Aragorn; looking at the 3.5 incarnation of the ranger (the one which I am most familiar with by far), it looks more like Legolas than any other LotR character. The favored enemy seems to mirror his particular hatred of and prowess against orcs, especially the bonuses to skills against them. He fires his bow with amazing speed (Rapid Shot), is shown firing multiple arrows at once (Manyshot), and fires into melee with no apparent risk to his allies (Improved Precise Shot). And when he ends up in melee himself, what weapon does he use?

Spoiler

Show

http://thumbs1.ebaystatic.com/d/l225...FUhtOisQxQ.jpg
That's right, two knives.

He's like a ranger with both combat styles at once. Never really understood why Aragorn (fights with one sword, and only occasionally a bow {if at all; it's been a while since I've read the books/seen the films}) is the archetypal character.

It never even occurred to me that Aragorn was the ranger and not Legolas. I was under the impression that for the most part he was a fighter geared more towards lightness rather than the shining steel plate-armor type.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Extra Anchovies

Spoiler

Show

http://thumbs1.ebaystatic.com/d/l225...FUhtOisQxQ.jpg
That's right, two knives.

---

I'm pretty sure that was only in the movies, the book mentions a single long bladed knife. Apparently wielding one knife just wouldn't have been cool enough for the movie though...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by squiggit

Though since it's 4e it lacks real class features and it doesn't support THF and switch-hitting is only mediore (which still ends up being good because Rangers are the best class in that edition). So like I said, conceptually.

---

Mediocre? Bow and2 weapons with Dual Strike or whatever their OP at-will is, right? Switch hitter does mighty fine if you're not in a cheesy game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowbluff

Mediocre? Bow and2 weapons with Dual Strike or whatever their OP at-will is, right? Switch hitter does mighty fine if you're not in a cheesy game.

---

Twin strike. Like I said a mediocre ranger in 4e is like a mediocre druid in 3.5 (well not quite THAT bad, but still). You suffer from having weak riders (because you're not gonna be able to get a high starting wis) and end up splitting a lot on powers but you do get some crazy cool stuff.

If it actually had tracking and traps and all that jazz it'd definitely be my favorite incarnation of the class. Gets to be a big scary martial paragon without actually having all that extra baggage of being a not-druid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Extra Anchovies

It strikes me as a little odd that the ranger was (so I have heard) based on Aragorn; looking at the 3.5 incarnation of the ranger (the one which I am most familiar with by far), it looks more like Legolas than any other LotR character. The favored enemy seems to mirror his particular hatred of and prowess against orcs, especially the bonuses to skills against them. He fires his bow with amazing speed (Rapid Shot), is shown firing multiple arrows at once (Manyshot), and fires into melee with no apparent risk to his allies (Improved Precise Shot). And when he ends up in melee himself, what weapon does he use?

Spoiler

Show

http://thumbs1.ebaystatic.com/d/l225...FUhtOisQxQ.jpg
That's right, two knives.

He's like a ranger with both combat styles at once. Never really understood why Aragorn (fights with one sword, and only occasionally a bow {if at all; it's been a while since I've read the books/seen the films}) is the archetypal character.

---

Except all of this is feats, who get lots of feats ? Fighters. Legolas is just a fighter with a lot of feat sgeared toward archery.
Asside from combat style, who does the outdoorsy type stuff ? Leading the band cross country, tracking stuff ? Aragorn does.

And then tracking is just a single feat anyone can take.


wait a minute....it's almost like.....yes it's almost like lord of the ring doesn't actually conform to a class system. Crazy !

Base classes are SUPPOSED to be bland. The players are the ones who spice to taste.

Aragorn is a Ranger because that is how he is termed in LOTR; AD&D Rangers (which came 20-30 years after Aragorn) appear to be based on him as a wilderness traveller, tracker etc. Spells were added presumably because that was how the game dealt with supernatural effects like healing at the time. A 3.5-style reboot would probably give something akin to Lay on Hands, and spell-like abilities or martial stances that mimic things like True Strike and Haste.
As far as I remember, the Ranger TWF archetype came in with 2nd Ed (and may have originated with Drizzt)

Drizzt came long after the TWF ranger in 2e. 2e Rangers were all TWF, apparently because Aragorn was TWF. They were inferior at archery to fighters. I'm not sure if the 3.0.0 Ranger had archery, either, off the top of my head...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JusticeZero

Drizzt came long after the TWF ranger in 2e. 2e Rangers were all TWF, apparently because Aragorn was TWF. They were inferior at archery to fighters. I'm not sure if the 3.0.0 Ranger had archery, either, off the top of my head...

---

*pulls open 3.0 PHB that hasn't been touched since I got my 3.5 copy*
3.0.0 Ranger was even blander, it seems. D10 hit die, 4 skills instead of 6, and receives no special abilities other than track, the normal favored enemy progression, spells, and eligibility for Improved TWF at ninth level. They don't gain it as a bonus feat at ninth level, only the ability to take it without meeting prerequisites.
No combat styles. No wild empathy. No animal companion (granted, the 3.0.0 animal companion was near worthless after a few levels, as it didn't advance beyond the normal animal stats), no endurance, no woodland stride, swift tracker, evasion, camouflage, or hide in plain sight.

This isn't to say that the 3.5 ranger is necessarily bland, though. If your character concept is "I'm a guy who hates [favored enemy type]", then yeah, you're as bland as the fighter who fights because that's what fighters do. However, there's lots of room for a ranger to develop a great character concept, especially if you're using the Arcane Hunter variant from Complete Mage and/or the Urban Ranger, with organizations as favored enemies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nightcanon

As far as I remember, the Ranger TWF archetype came in with 2nd Ed (and may have originated with Drizzt)

---

1E UA, which was the book with all the polearms :smallamused:. But Rangers usually wielded Two Handed Swords — just like in 3.5 :smallamused: