I dare anyone to name any source material that isn't really a fighter or rogue with ranks in survival. This class should just be eliminated... stupid backwards compatibility.
I always thought Menion Leah from Sword of Shannara made for an iconic ranger.
Edit: Archery type of course.
|
This doesn't strike me as a big deal. Evasion is generally considered to be superior to Mettle, however.It's not a question of which is superior, but of which fits the archetype better.
Hmmm... I wouldn't mind you got to choose between the two, because I see both of them being thematically fitting for the ranger. First of all, rangers *are* perceptive/alert, mobile, light-armored warriors, at least in D&D -- therefore, I *like* that they get Evasion. But as I said, Mettle might be good, too, but only if you get to choose between the two.
I'm definitely against giving them more "combat goodness" (i.e. fighting styles), because that would make multiclassing into fighter pretty much needless. Given some of the abilities rangers get, I fear it might even steal the fighter's "thunder".
It is clear that the D&D Ranger comes straight from Lord of the Rings, but the archetype does exist in RW, both for wilderness wardens and for particular (ie, guerrilla commandos) soldiers since before the 18th Century. I see quite OK having a basic character class for a wilderness-oriented, light armor, quick-action oriented warrior. We do have the basic fighter (a middle ages archetype) and the holy warrior of legend (paladin). Calling it ranger is clearly a tribute to Tolkien, but whatever.
The non-magical abilities seem appropriate; tracking, specialization against certain foes (prevalent in the region or culture), good endurance, archery, etc. 2-weapon skills, no matter how much drow ranger inspiration they may have, do make sense for warriors who, given their action in foliage and rough terrains, would not get that much advantage from shields (whereas a backup weapon is a plus). Evasion seems right too, fits my idea of a nimble, non-totally frontal fighter type.
The magic stuff is, of course, the after-effect of philtering this into a fantasy setting... D&D takes as a model a "druidic religion which survived into the Middle Ages". Having (some) rangers connected to wilderness patrons makes sense. You can always use the optional rule of "spell-less rangers" (is it in the SRD?), which makes sense in certain settings, of course.
I remember fondly 1st ed AD&D rangers with access to magic-user spells. Again, pretty Aragorn-y, but seemed OK to me. They even had a line for "ability to use scrying devices like crystal balls", a wink to Aragorn peering into the Palantir. Probably some round-up for a very capable order of defenders of good.
But again, I read Lone Wolf books even before getting a D&D box, so that must be it.
On multiclassing, I still think Fighter/Ranger is one of the best multiclass options in the game. Combine the ranger abilities with the PF fighter's AC bonus when wearing armor and the mix is still good (especially given a ranger's AC limitation).
The term ranger were historically applied to wardens (individuals that protected a lord's forest) or to any person who "ranged" over a wide area.
It was not until the 17th century that the term started being applied to military skirmish units.
Prince Gwydion of the Prydain Chronicles, specially in the first book, seems pretty rangerish to me...
Also, in some older books are given historical and legendary ranger examples such as Robin Hood, Orion the Hunter, Jack the Giant-Killer, and the huntresses of Diana.
|
I dare anyone to name any source material that isn't really a fighter or rogue with ranks in survival. This class should just be eliminated... stupid backwards compatibility.
This is the least thrilling dare I've ever encountered.
When I was at school I was once dared to finish my work. Even that was a bolder dare. :b
If you drop two-weapon fighting then you're left with a lightly armoured archer who lives and works in the wilderness, knows his herbs and plants, and is an expert animal-handler. There is a vast resource of historical and mythological/legendary archetypes for this.
Whilst the original Ranger tried too hard to model Strider/Aragorn, (when it would have done better trying to recreate his wilderness allies) the current concept seems pretty unique - light armour, archery, wilderness lore, animal companion, tracking... Maybe you could do something similar with a fighter/rogue/druid but maybe you could do a Paladin with a cleric/fighter or a bard with a rogue/sorcerer, maybe you could stick a fighter in a loincloth and call him a barbarian...
on LotR.
Tolkein chose the the term Ranger for Strider and his allies because of a pre-existing tradition that matched the concept of a person living beyond the boundaries of civilisation. When we hear that Strider is a Ranger (and it's Strider who is the Ranger, the change from Strider to Aragorn neatly matches the transition from the Rangers ranks to kingship) we are being given expectations by the author so that he doesn't have to go into a lengthy exposition about what Strider has been doing all this time.
You could just simply .... not play one, or if you're DM ban them from your game entirely. For that matter, I could give Charlegmagne and Belgarath/Merlin arguments for putting the Paladin and Sorcerer on the chopping block as well. Why not just make them all fighters and wizards and be done with it?
Actually, Merlin would be a good argument for putting wizards on the chopping block (unless Merlin had a Vancian spellcasting mechanic that I'm not aware of).