Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Boda 02-19-07, 06:06 PM	I have recently started a campaing with a ranger character, but some aspects of the class are a little absurd: - If the ranger is a hunter/tracker of the wild, why does it have proficiency with swords and is an expert in two weapon fighting? Shouldnt it have profiency with typical hunting weapons( bows, spear, axe)? - The spellcasting abilities seem a little of character. If most rangers are wilderness dweling people, very pragmatic, commonly living alone, magic seams to make no sense!? - The critical damage system for the archery is anything but ineffective, because while it work at low levels, it almost uselless against high level characters. A sniper that cant kill? - I heard that there's is an order of the church of mystra of rangers. Isnt the ranger a little dow to earth kind of person to get envolved in politics or religion? And they are loners, so how can they have an Order?
Faraer 02-19-07, 08:03 PM	I have recently started a campaing with a ranger character, but some aspects of the class are a little absurd:It would be wiser to say they seem absurd to you.- If the ranger is a hunter/tracker of the wild, why does it have proficiency with swords and is an expert in two weapon fighting? Shouldnt it have profiency with typical hunting weapons( bows, spear, axe)?The 3E ranger is proficient with all simple and martial weapons. The two-weapon fighting is a quirk, as you say, that appeared with 2nd edition AD&D, supposed by some to be a play to the early popularity of Drizzt Do'Urden, though I don't think this has ever been confirmed.- The spellcasting abilities seem a little of character. If most rangers are wilderness dweling people, very pragmatic, commonly living alone, magic seams to make no sense!?Joe Fischer's original ranger class in The Strategic Review #2 is closely based on the rangers of Tolkien's Middle-earth, and the class's use of cleric and magic-user spells at high levels is probably modelled on Aragorn's arcane knowledge and herb lore. But the ranger's priestly spellcasting in 2nd and 3rd editions is particularly suited to the Realms -- see below.- The critical damage system for the archery is anything but ineffective, because while it work at low levels, it almost uselless against high level characters. A sniper that cant kill?Can't quickly kill significant villains or heroes, which has nothing to do with the ranger class but is a characteristic of D&D, and, to a large extent, the fiction it's based on, and the Realms as well.- I heard that there's is an order of the church of mystra of rangers. Isnt the ranger a little dow to earth kind of person to get envolved in politics or religion? And they are loners, so how can they have an Order?Rangers of Faerūn are 'both very individualistic and clannish' -- even those who are not members of adventuring companies or druidic circles are part of large informal networks. And in the Realms, most rangers are strongly devoted to the service of Mielikki and are effectively a kind of 'specialty priest'. As practical as rangers are, they're also spiritual devotees, not materialists. The D&D ranger's bonuses originally against 'giant-class' creatures and later against a 'favored enemy' -- perhaps based on Jack the Giant-Killer and related legends -- don't, on the other hand, fit Realms rangers particularly well. For more on the original concept of the D&D ranger, see the "Sage Advice" in Dragon #66. Information on rangers of the Realms is scattered through various sources, but look at the Mielikki write-up in Faiths & Avatars and the story of the prototypical Faerūnian ranger, Florin Falconhand, in Swords of Eveningstar and the forthcoming books of the trilogy.
Fabius Maximus 02-19-07, 08:18 PM	I, too, wondered about the weapon proficiencies of rangers. Why would they learn to wield great swords and axes, not to speak of shields and heavier armor? The two-weapon fighting actually makes sense if you remove the shield profiency. But now that we have the Scout base class, all is well. Most of the 'rangers' in question would be scouts in my book, simply because the class fits them better. Rangers as such would be the elite and be represented by the Ranger PrC from Unearthed Arcana.
Stigger 02-19-07, 08:45 PM	The Mystran ranger order (Order of the Shooting Star I think it is) is dedicated to the idea of hunting down dangerous outsiders who get loose in the wilderness regions, so it does make sense really. As to the entire concept of spellcasting, it makes perfect sense to me... same with the religious aspect considering that spellcasting's divine source. At least within the context of the FR, given the heavy involvement of the divine in the setting. As far as weapon proficiencies, I'd presume they'd use whatever weapon was at hand, and whatever was most effective and available given the terrain and quarry, so that makes sense to me too. Part of that whole pragmatic 'down to earth' streak they seem to have. The two weapon thing is pretty iconic by now really, but I'd agree it is a somewhat odd quirk to the class. Can't really speak to the archery crit/damage/sniper thing though, never messed around with it really.
MerrikCale 02-19-07, 09:00 PM	It would be wiser to say they seem absurd to you.The 3E ranger is proficient with all simple and martial weapons. The two-weapon fighting is a quirk, as you say, that appeared with 2nd edition AD&D, supposed by some to be a play to the early popularity of Drizzt Do'Urden, though I don't think this has ever been confirmed.Joe Fischer's original ranger class in The Strategic Review #2 is closely based on the rangers of Tolkien's Middle-earth, and the class's use of cleric and magic-user spells at high levels is probably modelled on Aragorn's arcane knowledge and herb lore. But the ranger's priestly spellcasting in 2nd and 3rd editions is particularly suited to the Realms -- see below.Can't quickly kill significant villains or heroes, which has nothing to do with the ranger class but is a characteristic of D&D, and, to a large extent, the fiction it's based on, and the Realms as well.Rangers of Faerūn are 'both very individualistic and clannish' -- even those who are not members of adventuring companies or druidic circles are part of large informal networks. And in the Realms, most rangers are strongly devoted to the service of Mielikki and are effectively a kind of 'specialty priest'. As practical as rangers are, they're also spiritual devotees, not materialists. The D&D ranger's bonuses originally against 'giant-class' creatures and later against a 'favored enemy' -- perhaps based on Jack the Giant-Killer and related legends -- don't, on the other hand, fit Realms rangers particularly well. For more on the original concept of the D&D ranger, see the "Sage Advice" in Dragon #66. Information on rangers of the Realms is scattered through various sources, but look at the Mielikki write-up in Faiths & Avatars and the story of the prototypical Faerūnian ranger, Florin Falconhand, in Swords of Eveningstar and the forthcoming books of the trilogy. I agree with everything you said. I would say that I never, ever liked the spellcasting of the rangers and use any variant that gives it up.
bitter thorn 02-20-07, 04:40 AM	I have recently started a campaing with a ranger character, but some aspects of the class are a little absurd: - If the ranger is a hunter/tracker of the wild, why does it have proficiency with swords and is an expert in two weapon fighting? Shouldnt it have profiency with typical hunting weapons( bows, spear, axe)? Warrior types commonly have martial weapon proficiency in this system. Rangers have proficiency with all the weapons that you mentioned. Rangers don't have to take the TWF path. RAW they can go with archery, but there are a lot of different combat paths they can can take using OGL stuff. - The spellcasting abilities seem a little of character. If most rangers are wilderness dweling people, very pragmatic, commonly living alone, magic seams to make no sense!? Using your assumptions and generalizations druids should not cast spells either. - The critical damage system for the archery is anything but ineffective, because while it work at low levels, it almost uselless against high level characters. A sniper that cant kill? While nothing says that Rangers are snipers, I would point out that a rangers FE bonus damage is not limited to 30' like a rogues SA damage, so they get a little traction in that role. RAW, there are no real sniper mechanics in 3.5. - I heard that there's is an order of the church of mystra of rangers. Isnt the ranger a little dow to earth kind of person to get envolved in politics or religion? And they are loners, so how can they have an Order? 1) Everyone in Faerun is involved in religion. 2) Rangers do not have to be loners! 3) Why would a ranger be any more opposed to cooperation than any other member of thier species? This assumption makes no sense.
bitter thorn 02-20-07, 04:42 AM	I agree with everything you said. I would say that I never, ever liked the spellcasting of the rangers and use any variant that gives it up. I think it works fine for the Realms.
The_Shaman 02-20-07, 07:47 AM	@Boda: I think ranger spellcasting comes more from the "druidic connection" those classes have with the wild and the spirits/deities connected to it. In the Realms, this connection is strong enough. Particularly before, when rangers got it at higher levels - when any character was among the powerful people who know and have done things the normal man would not even dream of - it could work. In settings magic is weaker or the magical creatures less involved with humans - say in Rokugan - they may do without it. Rokugani rangers (with the exception of a small group that managed to get into spellcasting) get bonus feats instead, afaik on every level they'd normally get a new spellcasting level. However, looking at some of the swift ranger spells from CAdv, CoR, and a few other places, and even some of the less spectacular PHB ones, ranger spellcasting can be tailored to include skills and knacks that need not be exactly magical. As for TWF... I myself am more than a bit surprised at it, although it could work well for staves, daggers, or short swords, and its most "canon" application would be to have Imp. Unarmed strike and "dual-wield" one weapon and unarmed strikes. Lugging a heavy shield doesn't fit a woodsman much more, though, but a style using heavy weapons could be handy.
Boda 02-20-07, 11:35 AM	Ok, so the archery faults arent a ranger thing, it's a DD 3.5 thing. But the two weapon fighting? Hunters/scouts dont directly chalenge their quarry! Thats just stupid! The profiency with swords it's very poorly explained trait for a ranger. A sword is one of the most uselless weapons for a ranger to have. Not efficient to hunt, chop wood, prepare shelter, or anything a person that lives in wild needs. As for the magic, i didnt meant that no ranger should have magic, i just meant that it shouldnt be so common because first is divine magic, so it involves a worshiping of some kind (of nature), and most ranger are very down to earth people, who live in the wild, and understand it's ways but dont make a center of their life out off it. How many hunters have you heard that revered nature? They use it, understand it's ways, but are to pragmatic to worship. And no, druids are a whole different subject, since they are priest of nature in itself, not just residents in it's locations. So a ranger bounty hunter worships nature?! No i dont think so. As for the order thing, i not saying that it's impossible for ranger to cooperate, but given their generally solitary nature, a long term cooperation seams unlikely. Wouldnt it make more sense if the gods of nature sponsored this kind of order (hunt outsiders)? What does mystra has against outsiders?
Duedaine 02-20-07, 12:22 PM	There is a difference between a hunter and a ranger. A ranger is a protector of the forest and of small villages, communities, towns, etc. that spring up around them. A hunter hunts/traps animals for a living a.k.a. for money. Most rangers will live off the land.
Faraer 02-20-07, 12:33 PM	Boda, I pointed out how some of your preconceptions about rangers -- that they don't revere nature and don't cooperate in the long term -- are wrong, according to the lore. If you're just going to ignore that, you shouldn't have started the thread in the first place. The D&D and Realms ranger is a very specific idea; what you have in mind is more like the scout class that Fabius mentioned.
Stigger 02-20-07, 03:27 PM	Doubt Mystra has much against Outsiders per se, but I suspect they were formed as a response to Hellgate Keep, as well as to prevent those sorts of situations from happening again in remote places very few go to. Imagine a wizard's tower a hundred miles from the closest town who just happens to develop an unhealthy interest in extraplanar magics who happens to open a planar breach he can't close... Rangers are the ones who would keep an eye on those places and warn the cavalry that it's time to mount up. :D
HVulpes 02-20-07, 03:38 PM	Well, the two handed fighting style might fit with one of the optional views of the Ranger as a sorta medievil bounty hunter. A person who tracks down dangerous animals or humanoids that might endanger a frontier community that would likely be closer to nature than a city. Look at Drizzt as an example, he was alloed to live in Ten Towns in exchange for being a troubleshooter for the dangerous creatures that hunted near the villages (at least in the first trilogy printed). Also it is not right to think a ranger as a guardian of the forest, that's just the best stereotype that was taken from Tolken (Sp?). D&d has created adaptation of this for any setting from the Urban Ranger (Usually an urban bounty hunter type) to Rangers of the Caves for Dwarves and Drows alike. Just a few ideas. Edit: Just had an image of Duane Dog Chapmen as a Ranger. Strange.
GothicDan 02-20-07, 04:10 PM	As for the magic, i didnt meant that no ranger should have magic, i just meant that it shouldnt be so common because first is divine magic, so it involves a worshiping of some kind (of nature), and most ranger are very down to earth people, who live in the wild, and understand it's ways but dont make a center of their life out off it. How many hunters have you heard that revered nature? They use it, understand it's ways, but are to pragmatic to worship. And no, druids are a whole different subject, since they are priest of nature in itself, not just residents in it's locations. So a ranger bounty hunter worships nature?! No i dont think so. Native. American. Comparing the points of views of 'modern hunters' of our world (the past few centuries) to those of a highly polytheistic, spiritual world like Faerun is really sort of off the mark. For how Rangers in the Forgotten Realms typically make their ways in life, read Faraer's posts again. The Ranger of Faerun is not the same as a hunter of Earth.
MerrikCale 02-20-07, 09:54 PM	The Ranger of Faerun is not the same as a hunter of Earth. fair enough, but I still don't think Rangers using spells make sense
Dark Wizard 02-21-07, 01:48 AM	I don't know many people who hunt, but the few hunter-types that I know are deeply spiritual people, ranging from Christian to "new age." Some are probably also superstitious. Some don't care either way, so they run the gamut. As for the sniper bit. Even at level one, a ranger can kill a regular person with one shot. As they improve in levels, they have feats and enhancements helping them increase their damage. Simply reconceptualize a feat like Manyshot as the ranger nocking several arrows at once and releasing them into a target. Certain prestige classes (Order of the Bow Initiate) also develop the powerful single shot at the expense of multiple attacks. Finally, consider the cinematic aspect of it. Boromir didn't go down on one shot and he was just a secondary character. Your regular goblin infantry does get picked off with one shot, as with the escape from Moria scene in the LotR movie.
Stigger 02-21-07, 02:47 AM	Well, you could treat it as them channelling spirits of nature, plants, animals, and such and say the magic comes from their innate connection with such beings... kinda like WoD Garou gifts. Give them more 'appropriate' names and you may have something much more to your liking. I prefer the standard system personally, but who knows, it could work for you.
bitter thorn 02-21-07, 11:47 AM	Ok, so the archery faults arent a ranger thing, it's a DD 3.5 thing. But the two weapon fighting? Hunters/scouts dont directly chalenge their quarry! Thats just stupid! The profiency with swords it's very poorly explained trait for a ranger. A sword is one of the most uselless weapons for a ranger to have. Not efficient to hunt, chop wood, prepare shelter, or anything a person that lives in wild needs. As for the magic, i didnt meant that no ranger should have magic, i just meant that it shouldnt be so common because first is divine magic, so it involves a worshiping of some kind (of nature), and most ranger are very down to earth people, who live in the wild, and understand it's ways but dont make a center of their life out off it. How many hunters have you heard that revered nature? They use it, understand it's ways, but are to pragmatic to worship. And no, druids are a whole different subject, since they are priest of nature in itself, not just residents in it's locations. So a ranger bounty hunter worships nature?! No i dont think so. As for the order thing, i not saying that it's impossible for ranger to cooperate, but given their generally solitary nature, a long term cooperation seams unlikely. Wouldnt it make more sense if the gods of nature sponsored this kind of order (hunt outsiders)? What does mystra has against outsiders? A ranger in the Realms doesn't have to be a hunter or solitary or even a defender of nature or woodlands, per se. Look at Myrmeen Lhal, the Lady Lord of Arabel for instance. Rangers don't have to use swords, but it's a very common martial weapon. As for the relationship between rangers and nature, keep in mind that rangers are a very diverse group. Not all rangers are human or elven or even woodsman. There are mountain men, desert nomads, sea rangers, cavers, arctic rangers, urban rangers and so forth. Some rangers are dedicated servants and protectors of nature. Others are not. Think of gnoll rangers or Malarites. As for rangers social habits, I recomend the novel "The Lost Library of Cormanthyr". It deals with some social gatherings and networking in FR. I liked it. Ulimately it's your game and you can do with it as you wish, but I think that you are stereotyping rangers in a narrow way that is inconsistant with established FR lore. Cheers!
Faraer 02-21-07, 12:26 PM	The complication is that the 3E ranger class is intended to represent a broader range of characters than earlier concepts of the ranger, including many that are closer to the Complete Adventurer scout. Malarites, on the other hand, match the ranger class pretty well.
bitter thorn 02-22-07, 07:29 AM	The complication is that the 3E ranger class is intended to represent a broader range of characters than earlier concepts of the ranger, including many that are closer to the Complete Adventurer scout. Malarites, on the other hand, match the ranger class pretty well. I concur. 3.X Rangers are intended to be somewhat more generic to cover all lot of different character concepts. They can certainly be more customized through subtitution levels and PrCs. My overall point is that I think stereo typing classes and kind of pigeonholing thier roles is counter productive to good character development. I may be reading the OP too narrowly, but I think that there are assumptions at work here that don't fit well with the established lore. Ultimately, there is no wrong way to play D&D or FR. It's what each group finds enjoyable. The goal of D&D is, after all, to have fun. If I came off as scolding Boda or anyone else, I sinserly appoligize. I just feel that flexability in seeing the roles and flavor of the classes in the context of FR allows for the most opprotutnities in role play. Happy gaming!;)
GothicDan 02-22-07, 10:54 AM	I think there is certainly a wrong way to play FR. ;)
bitter thorn 02-22-07, 11:24 AM	I think there is certainly a wrong way to play FR. ;) LOL! There are groups I might not want to game with, but if they are having fun and buying product it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, so to each thier own.:cool:
Alediran 02-22-07, 11:28 AM	Don't forget Zaor, former king of Evermeet, he was a ranger to the core and yet he wielded a Moonblade, wich is an ancient elven longsword (I think it was a broadsword in 2nd edition).
bitter thorn 02-22-07, 11:35 AM	Don't forget Zaor, former king of Evermeet, he was a ranger to the core and yet he wielded a Moonblade, wich is an ancient elven longsword (I think it was a broadsword in 2nd edition). Given the Elven penchant for longsword use, I would suspect it was a longsword in earlier editions.
Boda 02-22-07, 12:51 PM	True, my hunter/scout perception of ranger maybe narrow, but the greenpeace ranger also is! The ranger class is suppose to gather all types, and then when you wish to particularize you take another class or prestige class. I didnt say that no ranger should use longsword, just that i shouldnt be a class trait given that is a very uncommon weapon for the class. As for the example os native american indians as ranger examples note this; while they did worship nature spirits, the average indian didnt considerate himself capable of performing magic like the shamans did. And how many indians used sword-like weapons? None. As for the range combat issue, the rules are flawed, for they make very little distinction between a hit in a vital organ and a hit in any other part of the body. So a high-level character head is more invunerable to an arrow hit than a low level?!
GothicDan 02-22-07, 01:49 PM	True, my hunter/scout perception of ranger maybe narrow, but the greenpeace ranger also is! The ranger class is suppose to gather all types, and then when you wish to particularize you take another class or prestige class. I didnt say that no ranger should use longsword, just that i shouldnt be a class trait given that is a very uncommon weapon for the class. As for the example os native american indians as ranger examples note this; while they did worship nature spirits, the average indian didnt considerate himself capable of performing magic like the shamans did. And how many indians used sword-like weapons? None. Do you make a habit of taking statements out of context and trying to apply them to your own stances in absurd ways? Or am I just misreading things here? As for the range combat issue, the rules are flawed, for they make very little distinction between a hit in a vital organ and a hit in any other part of the body. So a high-level character head is more invunerable to an arrow hit than a low level?! Have you ever read any of the old myths, tales, and fables?
Stigger 02-22-07, 04:40 PM	Considering the technological development of the native americans... effectively going from stone-age technology to 'relatively' modern in a few short generations... why bother with a sword when you just got a rifle off that dead guy you clubbed over the head? Bad example there really, historically speaking, since no one knows what they could/would have developed on their own without European influence. Though by the by, I do believe some did indeed use cavalry sabers at times, when they managed to get them off of dead soldiers.
TomCosta 02-22-07, 05:06 PM	Don't forget there are several variations on the ranger, including the Unearthed Arcana non-spellcasting version and various substitution level versions based on group-affliation or race or substitution powers in PH2, not to mention the scout base class or even the wilderness rogue variant in UA, and all of the similar 3rd party publisher variants on the theme. So if you don't like the current ranger, and I can understand why you might find aspects of it quirky, make use of the other options available or create new options that suit your own imaginings.
MerrikCale 02-22-07, 06:50 PM	Don't forget there are several variations on the ranger, including the Unearthed Arcana non-spellcasting version and various substitution level versions based on group-affliation or race or substitution powers in PH2, not to mention the scout base class or even the wilderness rogue variant in UA, and all of the similar 3rd party publisher variants on the theme. So if you don't like the current ranger, and I can understand why you might find aspects of it quirky, make use of the other options available or create new options that suit your own imaginings. I agree and I do. Another option is to multi-class in as a fighter when you get to spell levels
Boda 02-23-07, 12:41 PM	Maybe you are misreading. I have read a few things, not as much as you, i sure, but these rules are aplied now, and no ancient explanation is offered, so what do old myths and tales have to do with it?
Boda 02-23-07, 12:48 PM	True, indians did use saber, when they could get them, but only in war. Do you think the average indian would use a saber in his avery day live? I couldnt kill buffalo with it, couldnt catch fish, hunt birds, lay crops, chop wood, or use it in the average day-to-day activities. Again, i'm not saying that ranger shoulndt have acess to swords, just that it shoulndt be a class capability.
Stigger 02-23-07, 02:14 PM	Why would anyone use a sword in every day life? If you judge them by that criteria, there's pretty much no one who could find use for it in the way you seem to be suggesting... rangers aren't just simple woodsmen living out in the forest to be one with the animals... they have their own reasons for being there, doing things, and getting involved in things, usually tending towards a fair bit of violence to achieve their ends, hence it makes sense to gear them towards either brutal-in-your-face melee combat or towards quick-fade-sniping tactics. At least it makes sense to me.
Boda 02-23-07, 02:37 PM	Sure, they equipp themselves with whatever they feel it's usefull, but wouldnt make more sense they carry and wield weapons that have multiple uses? You can fight with swords, but can also fight with axes, bow, spear, daggers,etc. But you can do other things with these weapon that sword cant. As for other classes using swords, it's a different issue because fighters are a war-related profession or activity, so they dont so frequently hunt, chop wood, etc. As for barbarians, notice that they prefer heavy weapons so best apply their strenght, as rogues prefer smaller waepon, witch are easier to conceal, and so on. It's a question of all around use. As for the spellcasting, ok, some concepts of rangers make sense, but other dont ( ex: city rangers, bloodhounds, underdark rangers), since the generallly live in places that have little to do with nature (note that most of the underdark is barren tunnels). All i'm saying is that it should be an option for thr player to develop a spellcasting ranger or not. The current system doesnt give that option. Maybe if they did like the 2level ranger( choice between archer inclined and close combat inclined), it would be more balanced.
TomCosta 02-23-07, 03:49 PM	True that the core books don't allow for a non-spellcasting ranger, but the variations in Complete Warrior do, as do numerous other variations of the ranger class or similar wilderness types. The ranger as it is written is a clear evolution of from characters like Robin Hood and Aragorn, as well as the evolution of the game. They have had magical powers from the beginnings of the game over 30 years ago. It is not based on any real world woodsman. If you want that play an expert or maybe a scout or the wilderness rogue variant or as I pointed out any of a variety of other third party wilderness warrior variants. The options are there to be had if you look for them. Ultimately, if you don't like the basic class as it is don't use it or change it.
Boda 02-23-07, 07:42 PM	Sure, you right, the non spellcasting variant exists. My all point is not that they have spells or not but the fact that they have too(by the core books). The real issue is that since there's a 3.5 update in the classes, why not merge the portions of both spellcasting ranger and nonspellcasting ranger, so that players, when adopting the class, will have the possibility of develop any kind of ranger. Rangers were originally crafted based on iconic characters, but maybe now we can start thinking a little beyond that? After all, there's a lot of ranger prestige classes that dont fit in any of those characters. My point with the sword issue is that, there's no direct conection to the broad ranger class and the use of swords. But it's not only the ranger class that suffer of that problem (ex: so magical tutors teach how to fight with a staff? i tought they teach magic.). Just because drizzt uses swords, it shouldnt be a rule, but a exception.
MerrikCale 02-23-07, 08:21 PM	Just because drizzt uses swords, it shouldnt be a rule, but a exception. I think that goes farther back then Drizzt. The whole 2 handed fighting bonus feat is directly linked to him though
see 02-23-07, 08:46 PM	Well, in 1e Unearthed Arcana (1985), drow characters were allowed two-weapon fighting without penalty. So a drow character created in 1e could fight with two weapons better than anyone else. In 2e (1989), this power was removed from drow and given to the ranger. Why is not clear, but the most famous ranger in the game had the ability in 1e, which may well have influenced the choice of the ranger's powers in 2e. Especially given that drow were (initially) removed from the available PC races in 2e. Come 3e (2000), and the ability of rangers to fight with two weapons better than anyone else had been part of the D&D conception of the ranger for well over a decade. It was weakened a bit in 3e; it became a matter of free feats for a ranger. A non-ranger could match it, but rangers by default remained the masters of two-weapon fighting. Then, in 3.5 (2003), the ranger and two-weapon combat was reworked yet again. Two-weapon fighting was removed as an automatic power of the ranger, and instead became one of two choices for the ranger.
Duedaine 02-27-07, 05:01 PM	Indians are more akin to barbarians in my opinion, being tribal and all. I agree with Boda, that the sword is an odd weapon because it serves no utility purpose. However, it is likely the most common weapon in Faerun, so it stands to reason that they be familiar with it given that they are a martial class. It also makes perfect sense to me that magicians learn to fight with a staff or dagger (as per dragonlance) in case their magic fails.
dragonheart 02-27-07, 08:03 PM	I didnt say that no ranger should use longsword, just that i shouldnt be a class trait given that is a very uncommon weapon for the class. lets rethink a bunch of this sword - no sword bit for a minute. a ranger is fighter who lives and works in the wild (not just the woods) does he use other tools? yes does he have to fight regularly? yes what is the best weapon around for single light armoured close combat? a sword (if it wasn't such a good weapon it would not have lasted as long as it did) so a ranger carrying a sword as a weapon makes sense - its just another tool he carries to do his "thing" if we start with the first "ranger" of fable (robin hood) he was a master of both the sword and the bow how do you portray this inthe rules of D&D? probably by giving him the archer version but then giving him sword feats with all feats he gets every 3rd level to balance out. now what about double weapons (notice weapons not just double swords) a ranger doesn't get shield but is used to doing things as needed in the wild - this tends to breed a bit of abidexterousness simply because it calls for two hands to do so many things safely. so take a good look at the double weapon rules - they actually call for a long and a short or two short weapons not two long weapons so double longsword should be a rarity - even Drizzt's double scimitars is unusual. more typical combinations would have been something like the early saxons who carried several hand axes for combat and throwing and then also wore a sword. if needed they could and probably did wield the axe and sword as a combo at times. If you have a prob lem with double weapons start by limiting them to the RAW and eliminate the more rediculous add on feats like monkey grip to make wielding the long swords more difficult (remember you ALWAYS get negatives when dual weilding). Now as for the magic - if you dig way back the 1e ranger's magic was a little different and I've always liked it best - it provided them a mix of divine (mostly druidic) and arcane spells (generally level 1 and 2 arcane as level 3-4 ranger) - in 3e terms think of them as a sort of druid-sorceror combo. THE powers weren't huge but it made him a more potent foe in the wild. the combonation of buffing, disguise and movement spells does doa pretty good job of providing for the sorts of powers high level ranger style characters seem to have in fables and legends as well - the seem to be able to appear and dissapear, make themselves more ferocious or pwerfull for a time etc and this is better done with spells than with feats or abilities. As for the idea that only shamans did magic in native american cultures - try again while the shamans/preists were the primary and most powerful "spellslingers" in a tribe they were far fromthe only ones. each lodge had it s own magic that you learned when you joined, each individual had their "medicine" pouch which contained the items/tokens/talesmins needed to work and center their personal magic (I still have mine hanging near my desk) and most had some sort of personal link to the divine powers in their lives (think totem beasts etc) that they used and called on to improve the odds for them in times of need. that all translates to spell casting in D&D terms to me. even technically non native groups like the mountain men that stayed out west often had many of these and were reputed by each other and the native americans to have special powers in some cases. All together the ranger class makes for a fairly good general purpose wilderness warrior with links to the divine. If you want what is basically a hunter in the modern sense use the scouty class.
bitter thorn 02-27-07, 10:55 PM	Good analysis DH. I think that's a solid way of looking at it.:tiphat:
theartistformerlyknownas 02-28-07, 05:52 PM	lets rethink a bunch of this sword - no sword bit for a minute. a ranger is fighter who lives and works in the wild (not just the woods) does he use other tools? yes does he have to fight regularly? yes what is the best weapon around for single light armoured close combat? a sword (if it wasn't such a good weapon it would not have lasted as long as it did) so a ranger carrying a sword as a weapon makes sense - its just another tool he carries to do his "thing". I agree whole-heartedly. The ranger being self-sufficient as they are, I imagine that they would carry at least a short archer's blade with them at all times, seeing as how rangers aren't the only people that dwell in the wilderness. Bandits, fugitives, and monstrous humanoids all call the wild regions of the Realms home, and chances are they carry swords of one form or another. While it is possible to take on a couple enemies with a combination of weapons (such as the more utilitarian dagger and hatchet), even modest fencing skills would be invaluable. As for the spellcasting, ok, some concepts of rangers make sense, but other dont ( ex: city rangers, bloodhounds, underdark rangers), since the generallly live in places that have little to do with nature (note that most of the underdark is barren tunnels). All i'm saying is that it should be an option for thr player to develop a spellcasting ranger or not. The current system doesnt give that option. Maybe if they did like the 2level ranger( choice between archer inclined and close combat inclined), it would be more balanced. There are enough d20 ranger variants to fill this niche. If you want the hunter, poacher, trapper archetype, I recommend the wilderness rogue from Unearthed Arcana. I have always seen rangers as "good people" protecting the wild areas they call home, along with those who dwell within it. In previous editions, trappers/poachers and the like were typically fighter/thieves, and they usually treated rangers with almost as much contempt as they did paladins, because they both interfered with what the what the trappers considered 'honest business' (nevermind the fact that excessive trapping leads to many an extinct species of animal). In my campaign, I tend to maintain this archetype, restricting rangers to a non-evil alignment, with the exception of the priests of Malar, who serve nature in a way similar to rangers. True, my hunter/scout perception of ranger maybe narrow, but the greenpeace ranger also is! Define "greenpeace ranger" before you make an argument about it being a narrow perception. As for the example os native american indians as ranger examples note this; while they did worship nature spirits, the average indian didnt considerate himself capable of performing magic like the shamans did. And how many indians used sword-like weapons? None. All low-technology people have superstitious rituals which could be considered a form of 'spellcasting.' The ancient Hebrews practiced many rituals to ward off demons and 'the evil eye', (but refer to them as spells will result in a swift stoning...) Some of these rituals, in fact exist to this day. I tend to think of ranger spells as 'charms,' the kind that has a superstition tied to it drawing upon nature spirits, rather than the divine-granted miracles that evangelicals preach about. That's all I got.
The_Shaman 02-28-07, 08:30 PM	On ranger-animists, I think of it this way: anyone can worship the spirits. However, only those who have truly proven themselves (lvl 4+) and have the wisdom to understand them can earn their blessing. Mind you, Faerun is a high-magic setting. Everywhere there's something that would pay attention to a promising mortal who can survive where even wild beasts perish, and who is searching for a spiritual guide ;) . As I often mention, OA/rokugan is a low-magic setting, and most rangers there are advised to take a bonus feat each time they'd get a new spell level instead, to represent their training in war and stealth rather than mysticism (except for one clan, who managed to get in touch with something, but no one gives much of a damn about them anyway ;) )
Critalondel 03-02-07, 01:38 AM	Firstly, I think a few people are attributing a little too much power to Drizzt's popularity, here. He hasn't been around, or been wildly popular, for that long, fellas. The archetypical Ranger of earlier editions was probably based a lot more on Robin Hood than Drizzt Do'Urden. Second, stop going "Indians didn't use swords, so no D&D character that can Track should use a sword!" It doesn't accomplish anything, it doesn't add to a conversation, and it's not an argument in any way, shape, or form that's based in reality. For starters, Indians didn't have swords because they were crappy (at best) metalworkers. They didn't have swords because, to be blunt, they were a stone aged civilization until they began to get (through barter or theft, very rarely through making themselves) higher levels of metal technology from Europeans. Fact. Sorry. It's not like they had some beef against swords, it's that they just didn't have any. But the good news is, it's a moot point anyways -- Rangers don't just have a "wield two swords" special ability, if they go the melee route (which, don't forget, they don't HAVE to do, they can specialize in ranged combat if you prefer). They can wield two melee weapons, period. Not just swords. Watch Last of the Mohicans, sometimes, one of the best martial arts movies of all time (yes, really). See how they fight? Axe in one hand, knife in the other. War club and axe. Knife and war club. So if you really really have to justify anything a medieval fantasy wilderness-warrior can do based on the ability of a stone-aged Wild West Indian, well, there you go. Wield two weapons to your little heart's content. Third, never make the mistake of thinking a Ranger is just a hunter. They aren't. Every Ranger (or at least the vast majority of them) can hunt, but that doesn't mean it's all he's good at. Heck, if that's all you're after play an Expert (knock yourself out). Rangers are much, much, more. For starters, they're in the traditional "Warrior" base class group, which means (to put it bluntly) wielding lots of cool weapons is part of their job. Deal.
Cord de'Beron 03-03-07, 04:57 PM	Do anyone have some suggestions the, for other versions of a Ranger, like non spellcaster etc. (and not scout)
Boda 03-03-07, 07:40 PM	greenpeace ranger-I have always seen rangers as "good people" protecting the wild areas they call home, along with those who dwell within it.
FrostWolf 03-04-07, 10:52 AM	Watch Last of the Mohicans, sometimes, one of the best martial arts movies of all time (yes, really). See how they fight? Axe in one hand, knife in the other. War club and axe. Knife and war club. HA!! A few of my uncles played extras in that movie!:D I too have issues with Rangers, but of a more mechanical flavor than a flavor flavor. Namely, the pet is trash, but just cutting it out causes more harm than good. Your armor and HD DO NOT support melee, so TWF is almost a moot point
Purple Dragon Knight 03-04-07, 02:00 PM	I know I'm catching this thread late, but I think the 3.5 version of the ranger is superb. Now, there's even a version without spells, but I personally think that ranger spells are incredibly useful, especially with all the extra ranger spells published in Realms literature... As for weapons, they can now elect to be the archer/robin hood type, which is just peachy! :D
dragonheart 03-04-07, 05:52 PM	If you want to do smething highly unsusual with the ranger and the two weapon fighting take a couple of levels of monk first then as a ranger take the ascetic ranger feat - your ranger levels count as monk levels for unarmed strike - then go double weapon with unarmed strikes (and when you get spells keep a magic fang/improved magic fang spell or two handy to enchant your strikes as needed). I have a high level ranger who often fights this way - 8 attacks with each "hand" each doing 2d10 plus strength damage each round is decent damage even if you do take a -2 to each strike on the to hit. he also weilds 2 weapons regularly - a long sword and a horseman's pick/hammer - another deadly combo that fits into the rules not breaks them and still makes him unique in what and how he does.
FrostWolf 03-05-07, 09:15 AM	As for weapons, they can now elect to be the archer/robin hood type, which is just peachy! :D I'd like the see a third path for the ranger. One that focuses on eather a two handed weapon, their casting abilities, or their pet. Just to make them even more flexable and open up more options for them.
The_Shaman 03-05-07, 11:48 AM	I've heard people just gave them a druid level of ranger level - 3 for the companion, and it worked out. Right now I'm trying a weird idea about the ranger style - dual-wielding with a single weapon and unarmed fighting.
Purple Dragon Knight 03-05-07, 10:35 PM	I'd like the see a third path for the ranger. One that focuses on eather a two handed weapon, their casting abilities, or their pet. Just to make them even more flexable and open up more options for them.FrostWolf: the two handed weapon path already exists, as explained by the current issue of Dragon (at the end of the magazine, in the class act section, under "Fighter Guide") Here's how it goes: 1. Have your ranger take the two-weapon fighting combat path; 2. Have your ranger wield a greatsword; 3. Have your ranger make off-hand attacks with either a spiked gauntlet or armor spikes. I personally prefer the armor spikes, as they are useful in a grapple (you apply armor spike damage for each successful grapple check; unlike attacking with a light weapon, it is not an attack roll at -4, it is a simple grapple check!)
bitter thorn 03-06-07, 03:46 AM	I'd like the see a third path for the ranger. One that focuses on eather a two handed weapon, their casting abilities, or their pet. Just to make them even more flexable and open up more options for them. There are also alternate paths put out by OGL ublishers like Mongoose. Quintessensial Ranger 2 has several alternate paths in it. I'm sure there are others.
Critalondel 03-06-07, 03:58 AM	Or you could always just ask your GM, instead of producing another book. Most GMs (in my experience) are willing to be pretty flexible as long as requested class/race alterations don't result in huge power shifts. It's a game, and the whole purpose is to have fun -- though I've gotta ask, if you want a Ranger with more focus on spells/pets, why not just get a few levels of Druid?
FrostWolf 03-06-07, 08:36 AM	SQUEEEEEE!:D That is good news, as I hate the flavor of TWF, and prefer spears. Thank you all for bringing this to my attention.
bitter thorn 03-06-07, 10:43 AM	SQUEEEEEE!:D That is good news, as I hate the flavor of TWF, and prefer spears. Thank you all for bringing this to my attention. Glad to help; I'm fairly sure that there is a power attack path in the quint ranger 2. We have a ranger in our game who took a feat to use a spear/polearm as a double weapon. She gets pretty good mileage out of her TWF feat that way.
Fabius Maximus 03-06-07, 11:59 AM	There are five alternate paths in Dragon Magazine #326.
dragonheart 03-06-07, 08:43 PM	I've heard people just gave them a druid level of ranger level - 3 for the companion, and it worked out. Right now I'm trying a weird idea about the ranger style - dual-wielding with a single weapon and unarmed fighting. If you are going to try dual weilding involving uanrmed combat I strongly suggest youtake both several levels of monk and the ascetic ranger feat - it allows you to count the ranger levels for unarmed damage according to the monk tables. So a 10th level ranger monk would get 1D10 wiht the unarmed attack (hrm which weapon becomes the primary and which the secondary? :D )Personally I would go to monk 4/ranger 6 throughthe first 10 levels. that would give you Improved Unarmed combat, flurry of blows, improved grapple/stunning fist, combat reflexes(yes!)/deflect Arrows, Evasion, Still Mind (almost as good as Iron Will), Ki Strike (unarmed attacks are treated as magic (+1 equivalent) for Damage Reduction, SLow Fall - 20ftand +10 to your speed from the monk levels and 2 favoured enemies, tracking, wild Empathy, , Endurance, an Animal companion, improved two weapon fighting and level 1 ranger spells from the ranger classes. With that he does fall one step behind in BAB (he is +9/+4 rather than +10/+5 as a 10th level ranger would be), he would also have saves of F9/R9/W6placing 2 ahead of either ranger or monk on F & R saves and 3 ahead of rangers but 1 behind monks on will saves when comapred to a "pure" 10 th level PC of either class. All together a very nice set of additions for minimal losses (of course he does have to stay lawful till your done with the monk classes. If you can stand to go one more level lawful and get monk 5 Giving you immunity to all non magical/supernatural diseases (Purity of Body) and a +1 to AC but only if unarmoured and unenecumbered (if so they also get their wisdom bonus added to their AC) nice but I'm not sure I would want to stay lawful that long. - time to invest in bracers and rings/cloaks like the mages :P
The_Shaman 03-09-07, 07:39 AM	I'm monk 2/ranger4 now (was a hexblade but since the campaign stopped for a while anyway I asked the DM to change), and I'm still unsure if I shouldn't remake my character as an urban ranger as his backstory features a little vendetta/manhunt. I could go into Shou Disciple later on, we'll see. So far I'm a bit unwilling to get more monk levels at least until I hit lvl 5 or 6 in ranger, though. Ascetic hunter is there, of course.
Realms Walker 03-09-07, 09:21 AM	Personally in my campaigns I use the Complete warrior version of a ranger ( I believe that was the book it was published in) because there use of spells never made sense to me regardless of how useful or not they were. I then gave em a form of herb lore like ability that simulated SOME spell effects but seemed to fit more into there image.
Uchiha_Arthas 03-19-07, 08:34 AM	Strictly speaking are you complaining about TWF or about using Swords? As a warrior class, the ranger knows how to use swords doesnt mean he has to use them. For instance you could have a ranger using two axes instead of swords if you want to keep an outdoors feel to the class.
kave99 03-19-07, 07:24 PM	just as a side note TWS Quarterstaff can be pretty good used this way , think robin vs Little John on the log
rolig 03-22-07, 08:36 AM	i just wanna say... ROLEPLAY the whole character is not all about class and what it should be... the player should be allowed his style of play... heck once i played a lvl 1 elf ranger with a greatclub as wapon. And a sword is a quite easy wapon to use...