Pathfinder 2nd Ranger


Classes


Is it me or is it hard or almost impossible to build a good ranger like Aragorn. You can make a duel wielding ranger or a good archery ranger and you can make a ranger with a pet but no single weapon using ranger.Why is this?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Because Aragorn is a PF Fighter, not a PF Ranger.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wow this is the only game I can recall that calls him a fighter and not a ranger then.


Caladan wrote:
Is it me or is it hard or almost impossible to build a good ranger like Aragorn. You can make a duel wielding ranger or a good archery ranger and you can make a ranger with a pet but no single weapon using ranger.Why is this?

Perhaps he's a Monster Hunter?

Gorbacz wrote:
Because Aragorn is a PF Fighter, not a PF Ranger.

The master tracker and herbalist healer is a Fighter? Maybe in the playtest but definitely not in Pathfinder First Edition.


The Once and Future Kai wrote:
Caladan wrote:
Is it me or is it hard or almost impossible to build a good ranger like Aragorn. You can make a duel wielding ranger or a good archery ranger and you can make a ranger with a pet but no single weapon using ranger.Why is this?

Perhaps he's a Monster Hunter?

Gorbacz wrote:
Because Aragorn is a PF Fighter, not a PF Ranger.
The master tracker and herbalist healer is a Fighter? Maybe in the playtest but definitely not in Pathfinder First Edition.

He could be Kai.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

A lot of the ranger feats lend them self towards a leader archetype where you are giving boons to your companions.

1: Monster Hunter
2: Monster Warden
4: Scout's Warning
8: Warden's Boon
10: Master Monster Hunter
12: Double Target
14: Shared Target
14: Warden's Guidance
20: Triple Threat

Not sure if those are necessarily good feats but there is clearly a design intention to have a leadership spec.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Caladan wrote:
Is it me or is it hard or almost impossible to build a good ranger like Aragorn.

It is indeed.

In the other hand, Path's ranger isn't based on Aragorn, he's based on Gimli. Gimli with a crossbow.

Spoiler:
It is hard to build a ranger like the Gimli of the books.

But it's really easy to build him like the Gimli of the films. Take nothing useful, make some joke because you're small and you're a dwarf, done!


Gorbacz wrote:
Because Aragorn is a PF Fighter, not a PF Ranger.

No.

Type in "Lord of the Rings Ranger" in google images and tell me who's picture you see most.

---

Gaterie wrote:
Caladan wrote:
Is it me or is it hard or almost impossible to build a good ranger like Aragorn.

It is indeed.

In the other hand, Path's ranger isn't based on Aragorn, he's based on Gimli. Gimli with a crossbow.

No.

Gimli is a Fighter.
PT2e Ranger is much more like Legolas.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Because Aragorn is a PF Fighter, not a PF Ranger.
Caladan wrote:
Wow this is the only game I can recall that calls him a fighter and not a ranger then.

Early in 3.0 I came to an epiphany. What we players call "class" is, very often, not what the PCs and NPCs in the game world would call their profession.

A group of "Rangers of the North" (where Aragorn gained the "Class" that we players think is Ranger) would, in-game, consist of a bunch of fighters, rangers, rogues, maybe a few barbarians and druids, maybe even a few paladins. Not even counting multiclass options. And every one of those guys, regardless of "Class", would call himself a "Ranger of the North".

Note: None of them would say "My Class is Ranger of the North" just like I don't say that my class is software engineer. That's my profession. All those "Rangers of the North", regardless of their "class" would say that their profession (or maybe their occupation, association, or calling) is "Ranger".

If you look at it this way, recognizing that "class" is a very out-of-game description that helps GMs and Players define and talk about characters and in no way reflects the characters' actual occupations, professions, or self-descriptions, then you come to the same epiphany that I did:

The "class" written on a character sheet or stat block is for metagame purposes only; the individual character would never use "class" to define himself and may actually call himself something very different than what his "class" entry says on the paper."


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber
DM_Blake wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Because Aragorn is a PF Fighter, not a PF Ranger.
Caladan wrote:
Wow this is the only game I can recall that calls him a fighter and not a ranger then.

Early in 3.0 I came to an epiphany. What we players call "class" is, very often, not what the PCs and NPCs in the game world would call their profession.

A group of "Rangers of the North" (where Aragorn gained the "Class" that we players think is Ranger) would, in-game, consist of a bunch of fighters, rangers, rogues, maybe a few barbarians and druids, maybe even a few paladins. Not even counting multiclass options. And every one of those guys, regardless of "Class", would call himself a "Ranger of the North".

Note: None of them would say "My Class is Ranger of the North" just like I don't say that my class is software engineer. That's my profession. All those "Rangers of the North", regardless of their "class" would say that their profession (or maybe their occupation, association, or calling) is "Ranger".

If you look at it this way, recognizing that "class" is a very out-of-game description that helps GMs and Players define and talk about characters and in no way reflects the characters' actual occupations, professions, or self-descriptions, then you come to the same epiphany that I did:

The "class" written on a character sheet or stat block is for metagame purposes only; the individual character would never use "class" to define himself and may actually call himself something very different than what his "class" entry says on the paper."

I've tried explaining this to people in my group and they just can't get a grip on the idea. You would not believe the arguments we've had on it


Greylurker wrote:
I've tried explaining this to people in my group and they just can't get a grip on the idea. You would not believe the arguments we've had on it

That's because it's not accurate. There's every reason wizards would call themselves "wizards" and belong to a wizard's academy. People self-identify all the time. I consider myself a trail mountain biker as opposed to a downhill biker. I seek out and group up with other trail riders. I own a mountain bike that's targeted for trail mountain biking.

In Lord of the Rings, the barkeep at the Prancing Pony specifically calls Aragon "one of those Rangers," "dangerous folk." So clearly there are people who consider themselves Rangers, are known as Rangers, and identify as such.


Plus the game itself disagrees.
Being a member of the Paladin class for example is not metagame only, it's part of the setting.


Wizards conceptually have a defined role, but cantrips need to expand to cover more things. Spell durations should be a lot longer. Like, customize yourself for the day, and have a couple 'big gun' spells with the way the spell casting is distributed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
Greylurker wrote:
I've tried explaining this to people in my group and they just can't get a grip on the idea. You would not believe the arguments we've had on it

That's because it's not accurate. There's every reason wizards would call themselves "wizards" and belong to a wizard's academy. People self-identify all the time. I consider myself a trail mountain biker as opposed to a downhill biker. I seek out and group up with other trail riders. I own a mountain bike that's targeted for trail mountain biking.

In Lord of the Rings, the barkeep at the Prancing Pony specifically calls Aragon "one of those Rangers," "dangerous folk." So clearly there are people who consider themselves Rangers, are known as Rangers, and identify as such.

Nothing you said contradicts anything I said. Saying "He's one of those Rangers" means, literally, "He's a guy who might be a fighter, rogue, paladin, druid, ranger, monk, slayer, bruiser, bounty hunter, or whatever else, who joined the Rangers of the North and now calls himself a ranger."

You know what ol' Barliman Butterburr never said? How about "He's a guy who has levels in the ranger class". Because that's what the Pathfinder ranger is, a class, a metagame construct that we players use to categorize different kinds of characters.

Aragorn didn't have a class. I doubt he had an occupation. Or a profession. He was just a guy who called himself whatever was handy. Strider, Dunedain, Aragorn, Ellesar, Ranger of the North, tracker, pathfinder, wayfinder, King of Gondor, Companion of the Fellowship, and probably a few others I'm overlooking.

One of those names refers to his time spent hanging out with the Rangers of the North. That doesn't mean he suddenly has levels in the ranger class. It doesn't even mean he has the skills that Pathfinder players associate with rangers (archery, dual wielding, animal companions, tracking, spellcasting, druidish stuff, nature lore - he wasn't particularly good at any of this stuff, letting Legolas do almost all of the above instead).

Sure, a wizard probably calls himself a wizard. He might also call himself a conjurer or a necromancer or a diviner or maybe even an Istari, just for example. In much of fiction, wizard and sorcerer are interchangeable, and one man might call himself both things in the course of a single story. Oddly enough, clerics and sorcerers might call themselves such things too.

Oddly enough, Gandalf is not really a wizard at all. He's something a lot more like an angel and, by Pathfinder rules, would be some kind of outsider, perhaps from Celestia, wielding some divine magic. And yet, he calls himself a wizard, sometimes, and is also called a sorcerer, but nobody calls him a cleric or angel. Odd how his perceived metagame "class" has no bearing on what he is called or even on what he calls himself.

You know what Gandalf doesn't say? "I'm an immortal Maia with class levels in wizard." Because he doesn't have a class.

Finally, neither does your character if you ask him. Even if you're playing a ranger, if somebody in game asks him in game to describe himself, he wouldn't say "I belong to the ranger class." He would much more likely say "I'm a hunter" or "woodsman" or, maybe, if he actually works as a ranger, you know, like the Ranger in the Yogi Bear cartoons, or like Walker, Texas Ranger, then maybe your character would actually say "I'm a ranger". But, I bet Walker (the Texas Ranger), if he had levels in any Pathfinder classes, is mostly leveled in Monk or Bruiser, yet he too would also call himself a Ranger.

TL;dr: our metagame "class" is a label to classify what our character can be or do. It's not an in-game description of the character.


DM_Blake wrote:
stuff

So let me start by saying, I've run into your exact arguments before. I was playing 3.5 and the GM took this position OOC, though thankfully he did not impose it in the game. I've also seen this mindset manifest itself in different formats: no one knows the name of spells, no one know what levels are, etc. Let me try and address this more formally.

1.

Quote:
"He's one of those Rangers" means, literally, "He's a guy who might be a fighter, rogue, paladin, druid, ranger, monk, slayer, bruiser, bounty hunter, or whatever else, who joined the Rangers of the North and now calls himself a ranger."

If we look at wikipedia, about Rangers, it says this:

Wikipedia on Rangers wrote:

In J. R. R. Tolkien's legendarium, the Rangers were two secretive, independent groups organized by the Dúnedain of the North (Arnor) and South (Gondor) in the Third Age. Like their Númenórean ancestors, they appeared to possess qualities closely attributed to the Eldar, with their keen senses and ability to understand the language of birds and beasts.[1] They were great trackers and hardy warriors—defending their respective areas from evil forces.

The two groups of Rangers were the Rangers of the North and the Rangers of Ithilien. The two groups were not connected to each other, though distantly related by blood.

Emphasis mine. This does not support the notion that the "Ranger of the North" were a hodge bodge of unrelated skill sets, linked only by name. It clearly suggests that the Rangers were a group of individual with some core skillsets. It makes it clear that the Rangers knew who they were and organized themselves as Rangers and would tell you they were a Ranger if they had cause to.

2.

Quote:
"He's a guy who has levels in the ranger class".

This comes up a lot and is fundamentally a different issue. One of the disconnects D&D/PF have with real life is that you acquire skills/abilities in a step fashion. One day, you cannot rapid shoot, the next day you can. In really life, you'd gradually gain abilities. Video games can do this more readily. Morrowind is an example of a game where using a skill increased the probability it would work. Pen and paper RPGs can't really do that and have to simulate that by tracking levels and having clean points for when to award improvements.

However, in real life, people absolutely use rank and level as indication of proficiency. It's just more appropriate for certain contexts and not others. In organized recreational tennis, there is national grading system. All players who use this system will talk about their proficency in tennis in terms of a grade e.g. 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, etc. There are formal requirements to be considered a 3.0 vs 3.5 and those involve demonstrated proficiency with certain maneuvers e.g. backhand, volley, serve, etc. Frequently, when I talked to people about playing tennis, they ask me what my ranking (level) is.

The problem that arises in 3.5/Pathfinder is that some subset of players find it immersion breaking to think about medieval warriors or barbarians having a formal recognition of proficiency. And yet, we can easily imagine wizards going to great lengths to classify their individual power levels, especially when those power levels are readily determinable via spells.. Wizards, would very very very quickly figure out how spells work and that spells had variables that corresponded to levels e.g. Any wizard that could cast spells in X category (essentially level 2) power range, can also cast lower spells exactly 10ft farther than someone who could not cast spells in X category.

3.

Quote:
In much of fiction, wizard and sorcerer are interchangeable, and one man might call himself both things in the course of a single story.

I've seen this come up before as well. The answer to this is pretty straight forward;

Fantasy fiction is not attempting to recreate the physics of any RPG. What happens in a movie is not cannon for how the game works, even a movie licensed by said RPG. The fact that X movie doesn't differentiate between sorcerers and wizards is like saying the average American can't tell the difference between Japanese and Chinese, or Spanish and Portugese so there is no real difference to people who speak the language. The game differentiates and that differentiation is substantive and real. So it's inconsistent with the game to insist the actual PCs don't recognize any distinction. I can imagine that IC, a sorcerer might be annoyed at being confused for a wizard and vice versa.

4.

Quote:
Aragorn didn't have a class. I doubt he had an occupation.

One of the oversights people have with this topic is the concept of context. Depending on the context I will self identify with different "classifications" When it comes to biking, my class is Mount Biking. When it comes to indoor sports, I might consider myself a basketball player. When it comes to baseball, I would consider myself a catcher. The context in which are discussing the topic defines what classification I would use. None of these are my profession.

The other aspect of your argument is the over emphasis on nomenclature and formalized terms While PCs might not use the formal world of "class" they would all know when someone was interested in the IC equivalent of their class and be able to provide it. Barbarians (who went on adventures with non-barbarians) would know their skills and extraordinary abilities were markedly different than non-barbarians and they would recognize they their fighting is born from their tribal upbringing. They would certainly recognized that others classified them as barbarians, because barbarian would be synonymous with any group of individuals with the same fundamental qualities: Empowered by their rage, inability to function in heavy armor, etc. And yes, people would be aware that barbarians might have variations in abilities, just like everyone else.

5.

Quote:
Finally, neither does your character if you ask him. Even if you're playing a ranger, if somebody in game asks him in game to describe himself, he wouldn't say "I belong to the ranger class."

That would be entirely false in Middle-Earth. Rangers would absolutely tell you they were Rangers. And Rides of Rohawn would tell you that they are Riders of Rohawn, which IC, you'd know was an archetype of cavalier. You're getting hung up on the world "class" and it's irrelevant. The context of the discussion would make it clear that people are talking about their "class" without having to use that term.

6.

Quote:
But, I bet Walker (the Texas Ranger), if he had levels in any Pathfinder classes, is mostly leveled in Monk or Bruiser, yet he too would also call himself a Ranger.

This argument is predicated on the idea that the label conveys/requires no functional proficiency. In PF, IC-society would recognize that everyone who self-identified as a Ranger did so because of their skill set, or because they were lying. Unlike a movie, a Rogue has a specific skill set and th world would recognize that those with that skillset belong to the class of individual who are known as Rogues.

Even if you did not think of yourself as artsy or techy, once you got out in the world and exhibited your skills, you'd become aware of what label applied to you and you'd be able to use it in the appropriate context.

The real question is why? Why is it so important to eschew this aspect of the game? Is your immersion that much better when your players can't tell each other what they are directly? In games where players have tried to go this route, I find it undermines the IC and OOC communication. Getting the stink-eye because my PC calls someone a Fighter or Barbarian is counter-productive for me. Pathfinder and especially PFS, is a game intended to foster cooperation. That requires people can communicate efficiently. Expecting or even suggesting a game view that slows down retards that communication and info exchange, is, in my experience, a net negative.

Let me remind you that all classes in AD&D had actual names for each level, up until the name level. So this was a definite indication that TSR expected PCs to use these titles to indicate their level to others, in-game. Unfortunately, WoTC and Paizo have left those titles off and there's no colorful way to convey level without giving a number. And while I agree that his isn't sexy, I find it far more helpful than hurtful.

YMMV.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Playtest / Player Rules / Classes / Pathfinder 2nd Ranger All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.