Thread 96125172

Which D&D edition or other class based system has the best version of the Ranger?

>>96125172 (OP)
The Ranger is never a good archetype or character worth playing.
That's all.
/thread

>>96125172 (OP)
The idea of Rangers as dimensional border patrol is probably the best way to interpret ranger. Just being a "guy innawoods." is literally a character type most of other classes could pull off.

>>96125172 (OP)
https://google.com/

>>96125199
You're making a very aggressive claim, that requires a well written defense. Get to work.

>>96125224
Rangers have never been just Guy Innawoods. It's always been the advanced forward scout, the monster hunter, and the highly trained soldier in a world where most people are expected to have had a life before adventuring that wasn't being a scout, monster hunter, and soldier.

>>96125363
All of which you can do with the Rogue and the Fighter.

>>96125172 (OP)
Dungeons & Dragons 4e.

4e ranger.

>>96125409
played one last time I was in a 4e game, Shifter, used two bastard sword, it was nice being a whirlwind of death

>>96125172 (OP)
4th Edition ranger is Drzzit D'ordan, the class, and as a result is actually really fun to play. You move fast, attack several times a turn (in an edition where that's uncommon) and have good abilities all around.

>>96125199
Fpbp

Why are half-elves such a popular ranger race?

>>96125583
fuck off, puckee

>>96125771
aren't you the crazy schizo who accuses everyone of being puckee?

>>96126140
Shut up, puckee.
We all can recognize those weird Instagram faces on top of more "painted" looking artworks.

>>96126140
Any sufficiently shitty puckee poster is indistinguishable from puckee.
-Arthur C. Clarke

>>96126158
>sufficiently shitty puckee poster
This is just random people posting art according to you though

I like the expert tracking aspect.

I feel like rangers fit well as the loner archetype.

>>96125363
>play D&D 3.5e
>Ranger scouts
>Scout covers a lot of range

>>96126202
I always play rangers as very open and sociable characters.

>>96126302
Really? Cha is their dump stat.

>>96126322
I usually dumpstat their CON since I play them as flankers.

>>96126140
No that's definitely a puckee commission
https://imgur.com/user/Ututu222

You guys hate rangers too much.

>>96127641
He should really get artists that more...soulful art

>>96125199
fippy bippy

>>96125172 (OP)
PF2E

Took Slayer core from 3.pf1e and made it into good ranger. A lot of good skill, exploring and downtime rules to live the ranger life

>>96125409
Combat yes; exploring and downtime no. Skill challenges were kinda silly

>>96125172 (OP)
ADnD, before the dork times, before the dribble elf.

>>96125409
no. anything post dexfaggotry and dualwieldan is retarded faggotry and NOT ranger.

>>96125440
go die in a fire, dexfaggot.

>>96126337
dexfaggotry =/= ranger.

>>96135236
So AD&D 2e onward...

>>96135255
exactly. ranger is aragorn or tanthalus. never dribble the retarded emo faggot elf.

>>96125199
>/threading your own post

>>96135254
I agree. I build my rangers around WIS

>>96125172 (OP)
I don't think I've played a game that's really nailed the class identity. The idea of the warrior of the wilds who fights to protect civilization on the frontiers seems like it should be straightforward to execute on. It's been said before, but generally it seems that rangers are either not that helpful to the party (say, if you're in an urban setting) or are too good at the wilderness bit and end up being boring because you trivialize your supposed area of expertise.

I never liked the dual wielding focus, I always envisaged the ranger as someone comfotable switching between ranged and any sort of melee weapon.

Every time a new edition comes out I find myself frustrated that they won't just give us Aragorn. Surely it can't be that hard.

The rangers from Baldur's Gate 1&2 always felt ok to me, so maybe the 1.5 ranger was good. Never played that edition.

>>96125172 (OP)
The ranger from Castles & Crusades.

5e ranger is actually pretty fine. You can play the archetype and not be a burden to the party. Good martial prowess, survival skills and nature spells. You do use speak with animals even inside cities, right? In our table the ranger always gets information from rats and pidgeons.
If it’d have to change something I’d lean them even heavier towards communication with nature. Give them ritual casting and more powerful rituals like commune with nature earlier on as class feature or smth.

>>96135245
but the best kind of 4e ranger is the str ranger?

>puck the cuck's asshole tonguing mod is back
Hope you got time, buddy, because I'm going to be wasting it.
>>96125583
Get raped and murdered.

>>96125172 (OP)
PF2e.
The animal companions/nature magic are optional.
Being a tracker/hunter is what it's about at its core.

the best TTRPG version of ranger was the first printing, when it had wizard and cleric spells

the best vidya version is the wanderer in snes secret of mana 2 ( Trials/Sins of Mana)

Ranger is really like 3 different archetypes, the hunter/trapper(archer) , the nature gish, and the wanderer/jack of all trades

>>96126322
>>96126337
>having designated "dumpstats"
Niggers.

>>96139205
>PF2e
A bad system no-one asked for for retards no-one wanted. It is a horrible Frankenstein of the worst parts of all iterations of D&D.

>>96135275
>>96136964

Aragorn would be a very high-level half elf with potentially non-magical healing capabilities. He can wear heavy armor but doesn't do it in the woods because he needs to go around quietly. He is absolutely something that the class-based system of D&D mostly hates.

But if you want a Ranger that does well in heavy armor, you could play 4e. >>96137752 is not pulling your leg; Dex can be a far secondary for a lot of Rangers, and they don't even need to use two-weapon fighting.

>>96143988
imagine making the class that was the original spell thief into a martial. Its a good 4e class but the name is terrible and hunter's mark is literally WoW

at least 4e has a better artificer than 3e. I just wish I didnt hate the psionics in 4e. Swordmage and warlock never get old. 5e warlock was such a huge downgrade

>>96136964

My problem with the Ranger archetype is that devs can't resist slapping on EXTRA SHIT that gets in the way of my character concept:
>This one is explicitly paired with a pet that you have to incorporate into your character fantasy
>ok the pet is gone but now you have control of plants I guess
>actually, we are gonna force you to dual weild becausr of that one black elf
>actually, forget dual weilding. In fact, forget melee all together you are now the designated marksman!
>lmao, how about we actually just make a fighter with less class features?

How fucking hard is it to just make an outdoorsy guy with focus on being a handy, resourceful guy with a bunch of survivalist knowledge? This is the FUCKING CHARACTER FANTASY of the origin of the ranger (Aragorn as Strider. Thats him, thats who we want to be. Just a dude with a sword, a bow and a bunch of knowledge). WHY DO THESE FUCKING INEPT CITYDWELLWERS KEEP INSISTING THAT I SHOULD WHISPER TO PLANTS AND HOLD CONVERSATIONA WITH WOLVES. I JUST WANNA INNAWOODS AND HAVE SOME ACTUAL RELEVANT CLASS FEATURES FOR THAT INSTEAD OF RESKINNING A FIGHTER

>>96144523

I'm so triggered thinking about this that I'll reply to myself just so I can point out how flabbergasting it is that several systems and editions of devs have completely missed the point of the class even though ranger specifically embodies the story archetype of "man vs nature". Hooooow do you miss the point of an entire genre?

The best version of the ranger is ironically found in Sworld World. I don't know how the japanese of all people where the only ones who "gets" ranger.

>>96125447
>>96129025
No.

>>96144523
>>96144542
Based.
The ranger archetype has so many weird baggages to carry around.
Funnily enough, if a system just calls them hunter, they are totally fine, great even. Never had anyone play a hunter in WFRP and complain about the class being weak.

>>96144567

Yeah! It's so weird because the ranger concept has a very good niche. He's not a barbarian, because the ranger represents civilization stepping into the wild (not the other way around). He is not a fighter, because he focuses on the wilderness rather than warfare. He is not a rogue because he likes to touch grass. He is not a druid because he is a defender of ordinary people living next to nature (also rangers focus on monstrous threats, so they aren't holistic nature hippies).

The ranger is the bordersman, they guy isn't really part of any worlld, but he has a foot in many. That's what makes him interesting but devs can't resist fucking kneecapping the class fantasty with weird features you can't get rid off as a player

>>96125348
No one owes you anything by default. If you want to demand they justify their opinion to you, then you first have to justify both your own opinion and why they are obliged to justify anything to you.

Go play with your little ranger by yourself. Quietly and with great shame as usual.

>>96125397
Imagine being limited by the famously failed design construct of "classes" in the year 2025. Imagine having the boundless freedom to do literally anything in your imaginary play pretend game and choosing to imitate a cliché character from a famous bit of media instead...

Just play as superman. Literally just play as superman. Blue tights. Red cape. Laser eyes. Blockhead jawline. Kal-el. Clark Kent. Superman.

Guys? How do I play as a superman? What's the best edition of D&D for playing as a superman?

>>96144629
Rangers are druidic initiates, anon. That's how they use druidic magic. That's the entire reason they can use druidic magic because they are druids. They just hunt and scout a lot so they don't have time to develop spiritually as much as the dedicated mystic priests do. They're like acolytes / novices of the same faith / religion.

>>96144567
So what you're saying is that WFRP has the best version of the ranger class?

>>96146124
D&D wasn't made to play pretend with American superheroes, silly. That's what GURPS Supers was for.

>>96146209
No, it's not a ranger, it's a hunter without the usual baggage of the ranger. A strong, useful career that offers anything you would want out of an outdoorsman and survivalist.

>>96146240
So it's good take on the ranger.

>>96146132

Anon, if we played at the same table I'd shove this stupid handcrossbow up your ass. Sincerely, anon.

>>96146506
Roll a dexterity check to avoid dropping your chicken nuggies and big gulp diet coke, anon. Also don't talk with your mouth full: your mom doesn't appreciate the loss of suction around her dick. So wait till after you swallow to say what you're gonna say.

>>96146218
That's not what was being discussed. The problem was imitation of preexisting characters. GURPS doesn't use mechanics to enforce imitation. D&D's classes are explicitly and specifically designed to constrain character design such that the outcome can only be imitations of preexisting characters.

>>96146506
Don't flatter yourself. You'd never be allowed near my tables.

>>96146132
>Rangers are [retarded headcanon]
Rangers = Dunedain of the North = Aragorn

>>96146132
Anon, *Druids* are druidic initiates. Rangers are druid-adjacent because of how much time they spend in and around nature, not because they're aiming to become druids. If they were, Druid and Ranger would not be different classes.

>>96146948
"Ranger" is a generic term that Tolkien did not invent. It's like saying all chefs have to be rats who only cook Provencal cuisine because of Ratatouille.

And furthermore, to carry that metaphor forward, all chefs do indeed cook food. Aragorn was initiated into druidry the same way that the elves were: they were spiritually tied to the land and worshipped the natural forces of creation. Literally.

You more easily argue that Gandalf was not a wizard because he was actually an angel, even though he's literally described as a "wizard" in the books.

>>96147545
That's HORSESHIT, anon, and you know it. Paladins are initiates in their faith just like clerics are. Inquisitors, too. Rangers are to druids what paladins are to clerics.

And it does not require them to be the same class, you FUCKING idiot.

And just so you can go look for yourself and see where you're wrong, it's literally explicitly explained like this in all the rulebooks. So no. Fuck you. Shut up. You're wrong. Stop spreading misinformation. No. No. You're done.

>>96149209
Anon, you realize you can just admit that you were wrong without throwing a tantrum, right?

>>96125172 (OP)
I always liked ranger archetypes more as a beast tamer type of class. Maybe not the best at magic or martial abilities, but they get the aid of there pet to cover that weakness. The issue with that is that it probably does not really match aragorn that well if we are going off of original inspirations.

>>96146124
What the fuck is this even suppose to mean? Playing a guy innawoods isn't some high concept class archetype

>>96143985
You have a bad case of PF2E derangement syndrome

>>96150099
I dunno, looks like you're the one having a hard time admitting you were wrong.

>>96150155
Tell us all what "a ranger" is, then? Why would the OP say "a ranger" instead of "a guy innawoods"? How come you just assumed we were talking about a guy innawoods? Why doesn't a ranger mean a wizard? Or an accountant?

>>96150534
Because the Ranger is a D&D class inspired by such classic fiction as LotR where Aragorn was also called a Ranger.

There is no reason a Ranger can't be a wizard. They have a whole subclass that lets them be fighters and still cast spells as normal so a dude who shots bows and dual wield swords could just as easily be a wizard, or a druid depending on how you want to flavor it.

Being an accountant would obviously be a background trait.

>>96150572
So you admit then that you were either being deceitful or stupid or both when you pretended previously that "ranger" was not a class archetype. Tell us which of those three possibilities it was.

>>96150805
Okay, and? The only connection the D&D Ranger has with aragorn is the name. Like I said before with the rogue and the fighter being just as good innawoods dudes Aragon can be a Fighter or a Paladin even if you want to go that route.

It's like trying to pin Barbarian's full identity to Conan even though they gave the Barbarian built in retardation (illiteracy) when his inspiration was highly intelligent asshole.

>>96144311
Are you talking about the Spellthief or a thief that's also a MU?

Also,
>4e
>Can't help but mention WoW

There's a limited number of simple ways to incentivize actions, anon. Being the closest to an enemy is good enough for use on board. At least it's not a spell like everything else even remotely interesting.

>>96144542
Sometimes what you need is an outside perspective.

>>96149188
yes but only one chef gets to make it so everyone knows what a pizza is, and that chef is Tolkien

>>96151750
When I said spellthief I am refering to the original printing of ranger being able to pick up spells from multiple schools during their travels.
and I will say again that quarry is probably the single most WoW sourced thing in 4e

>>96125199
False
having a native guide who knows the land is an archetype even beyond stock fantasy.

>>96144523
>>96144542
>WHY DO THESE FUCKING INEPT CITYDWELLWERS KEEP INSISTING THAT I SHOULD WHISPER TO PLANTS AND HOLD CONVERSATIONA WITH WOLVES
Because you're playing D&D and classes exist not just to express an archetype but to express abilities that contrast against other existing classes.
If you want to play a fighting man with no magic whatsoever play...a fighting man. Why do you -need- to be able to write "Ranger" on your character sheet to feel comfortable?

>>96125172 (OP)
> Pathfinder, Infiltrator archetype
He copies basic skills and abilities of favorite enemies. In essence, instead of multi-class, he's multi-race.

2e Ranger first, 4e Ranger second.
2e managed to capture the heart of the idea, 4e made the Ranger have variety; you could make a woodsman, a beast tamer, a soldier or a skirmisher.

>>96146124
The thread is asking about the ranger class specifically

>>96152284
>Only Tolkien

Except when it's pulp swords and sorcery like Howard or Leiber. Or weird fantasy. Or whatever the hell else is in Appendix N.

>Spellthief

That seems a really backward way to phrase a priestly wizard or wizardly/arcane priest.

>Hunter's Quarry
I was going to ask from what, but I don't even give a shit anymore. Charge into that WoW wall until you smash your brains out.

>>96144542
and gobslay. by extension as a development of sword world.

>>96144542
>>96144523
also, amen. a-fucking-men.

>>96143988
no. just NO. ADnD Ranger was literally just Aragorn, faramir, boromir, eomer expy.

>>96159201
Correction - the AD&D ranger was Aragorn while he was Strider. Aragorn as Aragorn switches to being a king who wears heavy armor and fights in formation with everyone else. As far as most iterations of D&D are concerned, he basically switched his character sheet.

>>96144523
Amusingly, the DFRPG barbarian is the closest to your concept. No, he has no special rage, he's just a guy who's good in a fight and at outdoor adventures.
If they named him "ranger" no one would bat an eye.
DFRPG also has the Scout, which is the "marskman + survival guy" archetype.

[POWERED BY GURPS]

>>96125172 (OP)
Warcraft with Hunters who use low-level druidic powers combined with traps and gadgets

>>96144523
So.... the 4e ranger?

>>96125172 (OP)
>Which D&D edition or other class based system has the best version of the Ranger?
AD&D 1e > D&D 4e > AD&D 2e > DnD 3 5 > DnD 5e

Why no one mentioned the ranger from this game?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yro4B2IAPIU

>>96159622
no he didn't. ever.

>>96160726
>rangers can't use crossbows because I've watched a movie where a ranger like character did it
that's so sloppy lmao

Wasteland

>>96156187
fucking retarded post
imagine arguing tolkein didn't make the ranger iconic first

kys 2hu

>>96125172 (OP)
Enlisted Rangers were absolute combat monsters in twilight 2000.

>>96144311
>at least 4e has a better artificer than 3e
3,5e artificer was the goat of classes, obviously for it's on-it's-own-tier potential but also as a way let those few and far between players who actually bothered to read and UNDERSTAND the books to have awesome shit and to carry the retards who made martials.

>>96146132
This. The game design objective is to provide a druid-like class to play for players who need to use their fingers to count but would like to play an actual druid. Any non-full caster class is basically a dumbed down version of an actual PC class in order to make sub 130IQ types to feel they're participating.