What good are rangers?

[Kaeso]

First of all, this isn't a tier discussion or anything, I'm just wondering what rangers were intended to do. They seem to have no real niche. As two handed fighters, they're trumped by fighters in skill and rogues in pure damage output, as archers a dedicated fighter beats them, as skillmonkeys rogues are leagues ahead of them and let's not even begin about how laughable their magic is. Even if you want to say they're a jack of all trades, the bard has them beat in that department.

So what is it that rangers do (or were intended to do)? Beyond track (which can be gotten for a feat, even though it's totally not worth it) they don't seem to have anything special going for them.

[Sian]

to say Rogues are leagues ahead of them on the skillmonkey side of things, is at best a truth with modifications, Rangers focus on being the skillmonkey survivor in the wilderness, while Rogues from the outset is excepted to focus on urban enviorments

[Fenryr]

Core:

Personally I think they're the 2nd best at lot of things. A somewhat backup or support character.

A Ranger may hold by himself in melee/range but will not surprass a Fighter. A Ranger may aid a Rogue with the scout missions or anything stealthy. A Ranger may help a Cleric to heal people with wands and scrolls.

Lots of splatbooks:

A Ranger of Wildshape and Sword of the Arcane Order is really nice. Add the Trapfinding ACF and you have a one man party.

[squiggit]

I'm just wondering what rangers were intended to do.
They're intended to be a gishy rogue-druid in the same way a paladin is a fighter-cleric and pathfinder inquisitor is a rogue-cleric.



So what is it that rangers do (or were intended to do)? Beyond track (which can be gotten for a feat, even though it's totally not worth it) they don't seem to have anything special going for them.

They do their outdoorsy skills really well. They hit hard and have some strong ancillary magic.

Also you're not stuck with that disgusting 2+int and skill list a fighter has.

[Nihilarian]

Rangers don't fall very much behind fighters. The only feat absolutely required for melee is power attack. They have the second best amount of skills around, and decent spells to play around with.

The more splatbooks are involved, the better they look. They are in no way weaker than the fighter. Especially in a core only game.

[Kaeso]

Rangers don't fall very much behind fighters. The only feat absolutely required for melee is power attack. They have the second best amount of skills around, and decent spells to play around with.

The more splatbooks are involved, the better they look. They are in no way weaker than the fighter. Especially in a core only game.

Could you elaborate on that? Fighters have a lot more feats to choose from as well as proficiency in heavy armor and the often overlooked tower shield (23 AC is nothing to sneeze at on lower levels), while rangers are forced to go with the inferior TWF route and have no real class features that support melee combat. Shouldn't that make them worse at melee than your average fighter? Even if we assume power attack is all you need, it works better with THF than TWF.

[eggynack]

The point is that rangers aren't forced to go the inferior TWF route. They can go archery, and support that path with spells, and just pick up a greatsword. Meanwhile, with light proficiency being perfectly fine on a dex heavy archery build, and shield proficiencies being usually pointless, they don't really fall too far behind in those terms.

[Juntao112]

So what is it that rangers do (or were intended to do)? Beyond track (which can be gotten for a feat, even though it's totally not worth it) they don't seem to have anything special going for them.

Racism. :smallwink:

[Gavinfoxx]

Rangers are GREAT two-handed fighters, provided you take sufficient ACF's.

[claypigeons]

Could you elaboraet on that? Fighters have a lot more feats to choose from as well as proficiency in heavy armor and the often overlooked tower shield (23 AC is nothing to sneeze at on lower levels), while rangers are forced to go with the inferior TWF route and have no real class features that support melee combat. Shouldn't that make them worse at melee than your average fighter? Even if we assume power attack is all you need, it works better with THF than TWF.

The problem with fighter is that there are so few good "fighter" feats. And even if you find one, it likely requires so many levels in the class that its like throwing a dead dog a bone.

In core, you really only need Power Attack, Improved Initiative and maybe Cleave. The Weapon Focus/Specialization lines are bad. A lot bad.

And, truthfully, most melee builds will splash fighter (especially core-only), so the lines are muddied.

[TuggyNE]

as archers a dedicated fighter beats them […] and let's not even begin about how laughable their magic is.

One of these things fixes the other, actually; Rangers using their spells (and spell trigger items) to shore up their archery can be quite a lot better than a fighter with spells like hunter's mercy, arrowmind, and others.

And then there's Swift Hunter, which is mostly a set of Ranger builds that happen to include some crucial Scout features, and make real use of Ranger's most unique class feature, namely FE.

[Gavinfoxx]

If you take Skilled City Dweller, Spiritual Connection, Trap Expert, Strong-Arm Style, Solitary Hunting, and Champion of the Wild, Rangers can be great two handed fighters...

[Thanatosia]

Ranger spells aren't all bad - Swift Haste (SpC) is almost good enough by itself for me to view it as a worthwhile trade for the pile of mediocre feats a Fighter gets instead.

And Wildshape Ranger ACF really makes the class outshine Fighters by a huge margin IMO and opens up some very interesting and fun Prestige Classes (Master of many forms, Warshaper)

[MadGreenSon]

Wow, never even had this thought occur to me. I have a ranger in one of my games, admittedly he's pretty far from core being a Mystic Ranger/Shooting Star w/ Sword of the Arcane Order, but he's the group's leader.

His perceptive/tracking/investigating skills along with archery and support spells allow him to tactically coordinate and support the party very well and act as leader for a good few teamwork maneuvers the group has.

Frankly he kinda reminds everyone of Aragorn in how he's RP'd and how badass he always seems.

Well, Aragorn with arcane spells. :smallbiggrin:

[Nihilarian]

Could you elaborate on that? Fighters have a lot more feats to choose from as well as proficiency in heavy armor and the often overlooked tower shield (23 AC is nothing to sneeze at on lower levels), while rangers are forced to go with the inferior TWF route and have no real class features that support melee combat. Shouldn't that make them worse at melee than your average fighter? Even if we assume power attack is all you need, it works better with THF than TWF.Pick up the archery combat style and pick up Power Attack with your regular feats. Now you have options for both ranged and melee. You can even get by with a lower dexterity because you ignore prerequisites for your archery. A 14 is perfectly fine.

You shoot your longbow until the enemy gets close, then you drop the bow, move in and hit him with a two-handed weapon.

And again, spells are pretty good.

[Techwarrior]

Rangers are GREAT two-handed fighters, provided you take sufficient ACF's.

Even without them, Greatsword and Amor Spikes/Improved Unarmed Strike is a great way to two weapon fight while you two handed fight.

Ranger spells, outside of core, are actually pretty beastly. There's a marked note for spells that help Archery, but there are plenty of spells that help melee as well (Rhino's Rush, Blindsight).

They also really help builds that benefit from two weapon fighting, but not Dex (+1 Halfweight Full Plate is light, and gives the same AC bonus as +4 Mithral Breastplate), as even a two level dip combined with Gloves of the Balanced Hand gets you Improved Two Weapon Fighting without Dex prereqs.

[Incanur]

Rangers have lots of cool tricks but unfortunately are rather MAD - especially if you go for wizard spells via Sword of the Arcane Order.

In core I think, as others are saying, they're supposed to excel at outdoors encounters while remaining useful in any situation. While worse than a fighter for strict damage output, they've got much better options in encounters that don't require damage.

[Nihilarian]

Rangers have lots of cool tricks but unfortunately are rather MAD - especially if you go for wizard spells via Sword of the Arcane Order.

In core I think, as others are saying, they're supposed to excel at outdoors encounters while remaining useful in any situation. While worse than a fighter for strict damage output, they've got much better options in encounters that don't require damage.Core only, I think the ranger outperforms the fighter even at damage. I mean, they even get access to (admittedly situational) bonus damage, with their favored enemy bonus. I think the only thing the fighter beats the ranger at is tripping.

[TuggyNE]

Core only, I think the ranger outperforms the fighter even at damage. I mean, they even get access to (admittedly situational) bonus damage, with their favored enemy bonus. I think the only thing the fighter beats the ranger at is tripping.

(Greater) Weapon Specialization is more generally applicable, and (Core only) is actually more potent than Power Attack, since it does not involve any decisions nor any lessening of total damage by reducing to-hit. +4 damage against four types or subtypes and +2 against another isn't as good as +4 damage against every creature.

[The Prince of Cats]

Well, having played a highly-optimised ranger in a Pathfinder party with a highly-optimised fighter and later plying as a kind of off-combat rogue...

Favoured enemy bonuses are very important; they add to both the to-hit roll and damage, with that +2 to-hit making a bigger difference than a +2 to damage In fact, +2 to hit balances out the TWF penalties quite nicely.

Ranger spells cannot be discounted. They have a good mix (in Pathfinder) of utility spells (like Alarm and Hide Campsite) and combat spells (Lead Blades / Gravity Bow to boost damage, Entangle / Wind Wall to let you focus on your chosen combat style) which can help them fulfil both the druid and the rogue's role.

Unlike a rogue, rangers get full BAB, so get multiple attacks at 6 instead of 8, but also get lots of skill points compared to a fighter. They also don't need special conditions (flanking, flat-footed) to do full damage and find even swarms and oozes just as vulnerable.

Compared to the fighter and rogue, talking pure numbers at level 7:

Attack rolls;
Fighter - +14 / +9
Ranger - +9 / +9 / +4 / +4 (but +13 / +13 / +8 / +8 for primary favoured enemy)
Rogue - +12 (assuming flanking; if not, it's +10 vs. flat-footed, thanks to feint)

Damage;
Fighter - 1d8 + 10 x2 (insanely focused on longswords)
Ranger - 2d6 + 4 x2, 1d8 + 4 x2 (dual-wield, lead blades, +4 on each for favoured enemies)
Rogue - 5d6 + 3

Against favoured enemies, the fighter and ranger hit about as often, but the ranger is doing an average damage of 55 against the fighter's 29 if all the hits connect. Against other enemies, the ranger hits less often (though he has a spell, Hunter's Howl, which can make them favoured for 4 rounds), but still for 39 damage, 10 more than the fighter.

Compared to the rogue (who will not get a second attack until next level), there's no contest, but it is worth noting that the rogue is doing an average of 20.5 damage with every hit, so a TWF rogue would be doing an average of 41 damage a round now if everything hits and 82 next level...

Back before I played the rogue, my ranger was often keeping the party alive with the right skills and feats. He could find food, scout ahead of the party, set up protection around the camp-site, even act as the back-up healer with the heal skill.

A ranger is someone who holds their own in combat, but also out of it.

[hymer]

Favoured enemy [...] add to both the to-hit roll and damage

Not so in 3.5 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/ranger.htm#favoredEnemy) at least. It adds only to damage.

[Metahuman1]

If you take Skilled City Dweller, Spiritual Connection, Trap Expert, Strong-Arm Style, Solitary Hunting, and Champion of the Wild, Rangers can be great two handed fighters...

Where are these feats/AFC's found? And which one's are feats and which one's are AFC's?

And is this Pathfinder?


Nihilarian:

Particularly if your smart and snag Zen Archery at level 1. Now your stat too hit with your bow is the one you also need to shore up that will save, make some of your more prioritized skill checks, and cast your spells.

Take a step further with one level each of Monk (or a level of Unarmed Swordsage if your lucky.) and a level of Shiba Protector. A 13 Str get's you power attack (Unless your using Martial Monk, then you don't even need that much.) and sticking to a simple weapon used two handed like a Morning Star or a Long Spear let's you Melee quite Well for a fall back strategy. And pick up Hanks Bow and a couple of little too hit boosters to let you take even a few points off your BAB to attacks for damage, given that your ignoring DR and getting a lot of attacks should make you worth while at a distance.

[Gavinfoxx]

Not so in 3.5 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/ranger.htm#favoredEnemy) at least. It adds only to damage.

Unless you take the right acf.

[hymer]

@ Metahuman1: From memory; Skilled City Dweller is from Cityscape (not specifically for rangers), Spiritual Connection and Champion of the Wild are from Complete Champion, Trap Expert is from Dungeonscape, and this isn't PF.


Unless you take the right acf.

While I haven't made a study of rangers' ACFs, I haven't come across the one you seem to be alluding to. Care to elaborate?

[The Prince of Cats]

Not so in 3.5 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/ranger.htm#favoredEnemy) at least. It adds only to damage.
Ever get the feeling that you are playing the wrong system? :smallwink:

Back in 3.5, I do recall playing a rapier-wielding ranger who made use of the Cityscape book to become quite an interesting urban character.

In the end, a ranger in 3.5 and Pathfinder is a very good match for the 'ranger' fluff; they are designed to function well in the forest and my rangers often found themselves tracking enemies, catching dinner or scouting. In fact, Pathfinder's rangers often out-perform rogues in the wild, thanks to favoured terrains giving them a bonus to sneak and perception.

[Gavinfoxx]

While I haven't made a study of rangers' ACFs, I haven't come across the one you seem to be alluding to. Care to elaborate?

Solitary Hunter, from Dragon Magazine 347.

[Metahuman1]

What about Champion of the Wild and Strongarm Style?

[OverdrivePrime]

I've always had fun with rangers in every edition (except for 4th, which doesn't count), and I've felt that aside from being annoyingly pigeon-holed into TWF or Archery (in which case, always take archery and then spend most of your feats on THF), the Ranger excels at what he does. He's not supposed to be a heavy shock trooper - full plate & packing steel, if you will - he's a mobile warrior. The ranger zips in, hits the enemy where it hurts, zips around somewhere, else, rains down a fullisade of arrows, and then mows down a line of his favored enemy with his greatsword. Give a ranger quick draw and an enchanted quiver and you're sittin' pretty.

In Pathfinder, rangers are strong as all get-out. I'm playing one (Orion in my sig) who, despite being in a party with a well-optimized fighter, a well-optimized druid and a lunatic necromancer, is the group's primary solution to boss battles. There really aren't many good reasons not to take the Guide archetype (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/ranger/archetypes/paizo---ranger-archetypes/guide). Guide basically gives you "Favored enemy: boss."
In a big fight, I let the fighter mop up the mobs, and I go toe to toe with the BBEG, hopefully with a little magical support from the rest of the team. But with +6 to strike & damage, plus all the goodness of the THF feat line, I don't need much extra help.

I tend to look at the Ranger as the guy who didn't just go to Warrior's college, he went to grad school and is currently pursuing his PHD in butt-kick.

[Dusk Eclipse]

What about Champion of the Wild and Strongarm Style?

I don't remember champion of the wild, though I think it is the one that gives talk with animals and commune with nature as SLA, but the strong arm style is one of the alternative fighting styles in some Dragon Magazine, from the top of my head it gives Power Attack, Cleave and Improved Sunder.

It is really nice since it has the same pre-requisite-lessness like TWF and Archery style which means you can dump str on a dex focused fighter and still be able to deal damage (pick an Elven courtblade or a spiked chain).

[Nihilarian]

Where are these feats/AFC's found? And which one's are feats and which one's are AFC's?

And is this Pathfinder?


Nihilarian:

Particularly if your smart and snag Zen Archery at level 1. Now your stat too hit with your bow is the one you also need to shore up that will save, make some of your more prioritized skill checks, and cast your spells.

Take a step further with one level each of Monk (or a level of Unarmed Swordsage if your lucky.) and a level of Shiba Protector. A 13 Str get's you power attack (Unless your using Martial Monk, then you don't even need that much.) and sticking to a simple weapon used two handed like a Morning Star or a Long Spear let's you Melee quite Well for a fall back strategy. And pick up Hanks Bow and a couple of little too hit boosters to let you take even a few points off your BAB to attacks for damage, given that your ignoring DR and getting a lot of attacks should make you worth while at a distance.Actually there's no need to dip monk or swordsage at all. The Moon-Warded Ranger (dragon 340) gains Wisdom to AC in light armor, but you'll have to take Rapid Shot with your regular feats.

[Metahuman1]

Now if only there was a way to get Wis to reflex saves.

[Nihilarian]

Now if only there was a way to get Wis to reflex saves.X stat to Y bonus. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=125732&highlight=stat+bonus)

Looks like Illumian is the easiest, but I'd go Paladin 2 and grab Serenity.

[Metahuman1]

Illumian Ranger X / Martial Monk 1/ Shiba Protector 1/ Ranger X.

Flaws: Pick Two, any two that will be low impact.

Affiliation: Make one that's let's you qualify as a halfling for feats and PrC's and such, and gives you halfling racial traits as a feature.

Feats: Zen Archery, Yondalla's Sense, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, anything else you want for your regular feat progression as long as you qualify for Shiba Protector ASAP. Ranger feats on archery progression, and Martial Monk Nails Power Attack.

Gear: Make sure to get Hanks Force Bow and a couple of Too-Hit boosters.





Ya know, I could almost play this.

[Nihilarian]

Illumian Ranger X / Martial Monk 1/ Shiba Protector 1/ Ranger X.

Flaws: Pick Two, any two that will be low impact.

Affiliation: Make one that's let's you qualify as a halfling for feats and PrC's and such, and gives you halfling racial traits as a feature.

Feats: Zen Archery, Yondalla's Sense, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, anything else you want for your regular feat progression as long as you qualify for Shiba Protector ASAP. Ranger feats on archery progression, and Martial Monk Nails Power Attack.

Gear: Make sure to get Hanks Force Bow and a couple of Too-Hit boosters.





Ya know, I could almost play this.I'd add in Mystic Ranger.

[Gale]

Why does everyone say Fighters do more damage than Rangers? I've never found a ranged Fighter build I felt was remotely capable of out-damaging a Swift Hunter, especially one with Splitting. I'm not saying it's not possible, I just haven't seen it.

[Metahuman1]

The fighter can get more feats which means he can add more tricks and none situational damage boosters to there archery if they dedicate too it. And in Melee they can do the same with out Dungeon Crasher, and with Dungeon Crasher out damaging a Ranger is trivial.


Note: I said Ranger, not Swift Hunter. Swift Hunter is often better then straight Ranger and as such is harder to out do for a fighter.

[Gale]

The only reason I brought up Swift Hunter is because even the guide (dictummortuum.blogspot.it/2011/09/swift-hunters-handbook.htmla) states fighters outdo them which still kind of perplexes me outside of situations where Skirmish doesn't apply.

[Sian]

as Shiba Protector is very strict on who's allowed to take it ... Humans from the Phoenix clan

[Techwarrior]

Why does everyone say Fighters do more damage than Rangers? I've never found a ranged Fighter build I felt was remotely capable of out-damaging a Swift Hunter, especially one with Splitting. I'm not saying it's not possible, I just haven't seen it.

If the Swift Hunter has splitting, the fighter does too.

Fighter has native access to Weapon Focus line, which outside core also includes Ranged Weapon Mastery, and Weapon Supremacy, which actually provides a discernible benefit to archery. It's trivial for a Fighter build to get the feats necessary to get ridiculous amounts of attacks with a bow, and the bonus damage that they need to punch DR they can't bypass. It's one of the few things that Fighters are good at. I've DMed archer fighters before, and they can be quite powerful, damage-wise.

[georgie_leech]

I've always had fun with rangers in every edition (except for 4th, which doesn't count)

Out of curiosity, what's your objection to 4th Edition Rangers?

[Flickerdart]

Rangers make great DMPCs, because they can fill in roles nobody else wants and aren't capable of stealing the spotlight. They can scout ahead on the plot rails (Track, HiPS), use CLW wands, use Survival to keep the party fed when they forget to buy rations. Favored Enemy becomes much more useful when you are the one who decides what the party will be facing, and TWF/ranged isn't as much of a problem when you can drop lots of good swords/arrows.

[OverdrivePrime]

Out of curiosity, what's your objection to 4th Edition Rangers?
Purely edition-based. The eight weeks my group tried to play 4th edition left everyone feeling pretty hollow. I tried a ranger, a barbarian, and a bard - normally my three favorite classes - and never felt at home. We moved to Pathfinder shortly after that experiment.

[Haldir]

Ranger with Sword the Arcane Order, Craft Wand, and TWF for Dual Wand Wielder, and you've got a badass buffing machine. Grab Power Attack as another feat and alternate between throwing out two spells a round or smashing fools much much much MUCH better than a fighter can ever dream.

No no no no no. Much better is to ask "What good is a fighter?" The Ranger- particularly the Mystic Ranger variant, is exactly what the fighter should have be in a world where magic exists. Which idiotic organization would even bother training fighters? If it did, how long do you think it would exist in a world where every other organization is teaching magic? Feh.

It's not even like the 3.X Fighter is a good representation of an actual warrior. Trivial combat necessities like a tripping, unarmed striking, shield use, and lunging are penalized by the necessity of feats. Fighter can't use stealth, can't do any scouting of his own. Bah, completely worthless as an actual asset, even on a no-magic battlefield! What kind of soldier isn't taught how to spot enemies or hide from them?

tl;dr- The Fighter is redundant because we have Ranger, not the other way around.

[Haldir]

The only reason I brought up Swift Hunter is because even the guide (dictummortuum.blogspot.it/2011/09/swift-hunters-handbook.htmla) states fighters outdo them which still kind of perplexes me outside of situations where Skirmish doesn't apply.

I'm afraid I have to speak against the word of Dictum Mortum on this one. Prioritizing Con and suggesting against taking Power Attack are a terribly unoptimal way to play Swift Hunter. Since the benefit of Swift Hunter is the damage boost, and you potentially get spells to mitigate -ToHit, there's no reaosn not to take power attack on a melee-oriented Swift Hunter, making the Swift Hunter Fighter-But-Better.

He also makes no mention of Crossbow Sniper and the super duper cheap Quick Loading enhancement for cheap crossbow full attacks. This one feat practically makes the Ranger SAD.

[Gwendol]

Rangers are skillful, and get a good selection of them, and generally useful class features. I never did get their d8 HD, but other than that can't complain about the class design.

[Zaq]

Rangers exist to get +1 BAB and 6 (x 4) skill points at 1st level. And also to give Archivists even more toys to play with, because they needed a power boost.

Honestly, I've never "gotten" the Ranger either. They've got archery! But they still have to pay all the feat taxes, and they don't really get anything special. They get TWF! But they don't get anything that makes TWF actually good. They get Track and Endurance! But no one knows why that's supposed to matter. They get Wild Empathy! But no other reason to use CHA. They get a pet! But they get it late, and it doesn't scale properly. They get spells! Except really, no, no they don't. Not with that casting progression.

Oh, and FE. But I literally forgot FE was a class feature before someone in this thread mentioned it. No joke.

They do have some badass ACFs. Mystic Ranger is cool, and so is Wildshape Ranger. And the chassis is hard to beat . . . two good saves, decent skill list, 6 skills, full BAB? Yeah, that's about as good as you're going to get on a base class, and it's not like a d8 HP is shameful. If you actually get access to their spells (usually through Mystic Ranger), they do have some good ones.

But yeah. Even thematically, the Ranger has always seemed superfluous to me. Like, even though they botched the hell out of the Monk, I have a pretty clear picture in my head of what they were intending to make. I've been playing the game for years and years, and I still don't know what they intended the Ranger to represent. What does TWF have to do with being the "martial nature-y guy"? If they're supposed to be so in tune with nature, why do their pet and their spells suck? Why do they even get spells at all, from a thematic perspective? If they're supposed to be dedicated hunters of a certain kind of foe, why don't they get more Knowledge skills so that they can tell what the hell they're focusing on? (I guess you could make a crack about racism being based on fear and ignorance, but let's not go too far down that road.) If they're supposed to be the scout-y hunt-y track-y guy, why can't they find traps, at least not without trading away their Track ability? (Yeah, okay, legacy protection of the Rogue, but again, from a thematic perspective? Doesn't make sense.)

Yeah, I don't get it. I just don't see why you'd bother, at least not without heavy ACFing or just straight up treating it as a dip class. I mean, you tell me "I want a character with the fluff of a Monk," and while I sincerely hope you have as few Monk levels as possible, I can still see what you're going for. You tell me "I want a character with the fluff of a Ranger," and I'm just going to look at you quizzically. (They do HAVE fluff, unlike the Fighter, but that fluff is inconsistent and nonsensical even by D&D standards.)

[Nihilarian]

The ranger is meant to represent Aragorn and Legolas.

[Haldir]

Rangers exist to get +1 BAB and 6 (x 4) skill points at 1st level. And also to give Archivists even more toys to play with, because they needed a power boost.

Honestly, I've never "gotten" the Ranger either. They've got archery! But they still have to pay all the feat taxes, and they don't really get anything special. They get TWF! But they don't get anything that makes TWF actually good. They get Track and Endurance! But no one knows why that's supposed to matter. They get Wild Empathy! But no other reason to use CHA. They get a pet! But they get it late, and it doesn't scale properly. They get spells! Except really, no, no they don't. Not with that casting progression.

Oh, and FE. But I literally forgot FE was a class feature before someone in this thread mentioned it. No joke.

They do have some badass ACFs. Mystic Ranger is cool, and so is Wildshape Ranger. And the chassis is hard to beat . . . two good saves, decent skill list, 6 skills, full BAB? Yeah, that's about as good as you're going to get on a base class, and it's not like a d8 HP is shameful. If you actually get access to their spells (usually through Mystic Ranger), they do have some good ones.

But yeah. Even thematically, the Ranger has always seemed superfluous to me. Like, even though they botched the hell out of the Monk, I have a pretty clear picture in my head of what they were intending to make. I've been playing the game for years and years, and I still don't know what they intended the Ranger to represent. What does TWF have to do with being the "martial nature-y guy"? If they're supposed to be so in tune with nature, why do their pet and their spells suck? Why do they even get spells at all, from a thematic perspective? If they're supposed to be dedicated hunters of a certain kind of foe, why don't they get more Knowledge skills so that they can tell what the hell they're focusing on? (I guess you could make a crack about racism being based on fear and ignorance, but let's not go too far down that road.) If they're supposed to be the scout-y hunt-y track-y guy, why can't they find traps, at least not without trading away their Track ability? (Yeah, okay, legacy protection of the Rogue, but again, from a thematic perspective? Doesn't make sense.)

Yeah, I don't get it. I just don't see why you'd bother, at least not without heavy ACFing or just straight up treating it as a dip class. I mean, you tell me "I want a character with the fluff of a Monk," and while I sincerely hope you have as few Monk levels as possible, I can still see what you're going for. You tell me "I want a character with the fluff of a Ranger," and I'm just going to look at you quizzically. (They do HAVE fluff, unlike the Fighter, but that fluff is inconsistent and nonsensical even by D&D standards.)

You're saying that because the mechanics of the class as misguided the theme is misguided, which is unfair. The Ranger is the true D&D infantry class, at least in theory able to travel to and contribute to a battlefield in the rocket-tag that is 3.X.

No one can doubt that the Ranger's base mechanics are terrible, but are you really implying to me that you see no practical purpose for someone who can march all day, fight all day, pull out the spells when they count (or at least be able to wand them), tame the beasts that matter (look at how animal usage changed warfare), and is able to move unseen and spot the things you need spotted?

As a student of military history, I can tell you that all of these things make perfect thematic sense for an infantry-shock trooper to have. Just because the mechanics are faulty does not make the concept faulty at all, and I am sorry if you don't appreciate the full value of mundane and magic options that the concept of the Ranger brings to the table.

[toapat]

*Nuke it from orbit, just to be sure*

Ranger exists to give access to the Hardened Survivalist type.

Mechanically, the reason why favored enemy is so forgettable is, its nigh worthless without swift hunter.

Vanilla ranger gets +10/+8/+6/+4/+2 to the favored enemies they choose, based respectively on the order chosen. Endgame is fighting Aberations and Undead? good thing you planned ahead and your 2 highest damage bonuses are against Outsiders and Dragons. while Favored Enemy is better then Skirmish for raw damage potential (a charge can deal upto 120 damage at least), skirmish ends up providing more bonus damage because its a single value applied to everything you need it to, and when the ranger is spec'd correctly, everything in the game is succeptible to skirmish.

[DMJeff]

If you wanted to be a martial Prestige class Shadow dancer. Ranger is the way to go. Other wise a lot of the time if you do group build's where everyone try's to do solo build's rangers aren't a good choice. There an ok choice... At best as a back up fighter with a few tracking skills for mob finding.

[squiggit]

Out of curiosity, what's your objection to 4th Edition Rangers?

Not speaking for him (since he said he just hates the edition) but the biggest thing is that 4e rangers don't have the pseudodruidism going on. They're really a damage based fighter variant when compared to 3.5 Rangers (sort of funny how fighter spinoffs are the best at everything in 4e considering the track record they have in other editions).


The ranger is meant to represent Aragorn and Legolas.

Debatable. DnD rangers (sans 4e) have a very mystical element to them that fantastical (and real life) rangers don't have.

Aragorn would be better off as some sort of wilderness survival ACF package for fighters.

[12owlbears]

speaking of rangers is the trophy hunter archetype (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/ranger/archetypes/paizo---ranger-archetypes/trophy-hunter) any good or at the very least not any worse than the regular ranger.

[Nihilarian]

Not speaking for him (since he said he just hates the edition) but the biggest thing is that 4e rangers don't have the pseudodruidism going on. They're really a damage based fighter variant when compared to 3.5 Rangers (sort of funny how fighter spinoffs are the best at everything in 4e considering the track record they have in other editions).



Debatable. DnD rangers (sans 4e) have a very mystical element to them that fantastical (and real life) rangers don't have.

Aragorn would be better off as some sort of wilderness survival ACF package for fighters.The Ranger was literally modeled after Aragorn. For that matter, I think in previous editions, the ranger actually was a fighter "acf" (or something similar).

[Techwarrior]

The Ranger was literally modeled after Aragorn. For that matter, I think in previous editions, the ranger actually was a fighter "acf" (or something similar).

Yes. The first edition Ranger was essentially Aragorn: the Class, and was a Fighter subclass. It has since become less and less so in newer editions, but even in 3.5, the class is designed to model Aragorn (or Legolas now).

[Zetapup]

In one of my future campaigns, the majority of the guards of one kingdom have a level in ranger for favored enemy:arcanist, which they use to qualify for nemesis. The ability to sense arcane spellcasters even through walls is pretty handy, since the kingdom is very anti arcane. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any way to avoid the detection besides staying further than 60ft away from guards.

I tend to either take a level or two of ranger as a dip or just go ranger with sword of the arcane order. Ranger as is seems to have a split between its abilities- favored enemy, track, and survival seem to fit the flavor of a hunter or survivalist, but combat style just... doesn't. I suppose there are ways to fluff it, but it's still annoying.

[TuggyNE]

The ranger is meant to represent Aragorn and Legolas.

And Drizz't. That's where the animal companion and dual-wielding come from, near as I can figure; neither Legolas nor Aragorn had any sign of either of those. (Well, unless you count "torch and sword for ringwraiths", but that's dubious.)

[MadGreenSon]

And Drizz't. That's where the animal companion and dual-wielding come from, near as I can figure; neither Legolas nor Aragorn had any sign of either of those. (Well, unless you count "torch and sword for ringwraiths", but that's dubious.)

I think there needs to be more support for torch and sword wielders! There's what? One feat, if that?

Awesome scene in the movie.

[georgie_leech]

And Drizz't. That's where the animal companion and dual-wielding come from, near as I can figure; neither Legolas nor Aragorn had any sign of either of those. (Well, unless you count "torch and sword for ringwraiths", but that's dubious.)

Eh... Drizz't had a magical item that summoned a Magical Panther. If anything it would be better modeled by a Paladin Mount.

[squiggit]

The Ranger was literally modeled after Aragorn. For that matter, I think in previous editions, the ranger actually was a fighter "acf" (or something similar).

Oh I know that's the original design, doesn't really change the fact that modern (3.5/4/5e) D&D rangers don't really model him at all and that an aragorn esque character should really just be a fighter ACF with more skill point, track, and knowledge(nature)/survival added to their class skills.

I disagree with the idea that rangers don't have any meaningful identity as a class. The problem here is that the "druid-archer/twf gish" concept doesn't really reflect what Rangers represent in any fiction other than D&D and things inspired by D&D.

Not that there's anything wrong with a druid-rogue class in and of itself. There's just a degree of conceptual dissonance.

[Incanur]

Fighters do actually make decent archers in terms of sheer damage output. But even if optimized fighter archers deal more damage optimized scout/rangers with Swift Hunter, the latter still solid damage while also have way more options than the fighter.

Also, perhaps the best core-only martial build uses the ranger: the Horizon Tripper. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80415) So, in core, the purpose of the ranger from an optimization standpoint is to get into horizon walker for that sweet, sweet shifting planar terrain mastery.

[Psyren]

Not speaking for him (since he said he just hates the edition) but the biggest thing is that 4e rangers don't have the pseudodruidism going on. They're really a damage based fighter variant when compared to 3.5 Rangers (sort of funny how fighter spinoffs are the best at everything in 4e considering the track record they have in other editions).

The Giant makes this very observation in SSDT; 3.5 Belkar is yelling at 4e Belkar, claiming that every aspect of the "badass TWF striker" rangers became is due to him.

[Nihilarian]

Oh I know that's the original design, doesn't really change the fact that modern (3.5/4/5e) D&D rangers don't really model him at all and that an aragorn esque character should really just be a fighter ACF with more skill point, track, and knowledge(nature)/survival added to their class skills. I'm confused. You say the 3.5 ranger doesn't model Aragorn, then describe an acf that basically turns the fighter into the 3.5 ranger in order to represent Aragorn. Is it just me?

[toapat]

I'm confused. You say the 3.5 ranger doesn't model Aragorn, then describe an acf that basically turns the fighter into the 3.5 ranger in order to represent Aragorn. Is it just me?

the joke is: More feats, less spells

[Nihilarian]

the joke is: More feats, less spellsWhy? Aragorn had some magic.

[Flickerdart]

I'm confused. You say the 3.5 ranger doesn't model Aragorn, then describe an acf that basically turns the fighter into the 3.5 ranger in order to represent Aragorn. Is it just me?
Aragorn lacked spells, a pet, TWF, HiPS, Camouflage, and favored enemy.

[toapat]

Why? Aragorn had some magic.

at least as far as ive gotten, Aragorn hasnt done any serious magic. The closest is basically the herb mash he used to delay the effects of the Wraith's drain effects. Which in DnD happens to be a spell that rangers have.


Aragorn lacked spells, a pet, TWF, HiPS, Camouflage, and favored enemy.

he did get HiPS + Camoflage. I dont know what happened to the Elven cloak though

[Flickerdart]

he did get HiPS + Camoflage. I dont know what happened to the Elven cloak though
Really? I don't recall him being exceptionally great at hiding, much less hiding in plain sight of an enemy.

[toapat]

Really? I don't recall him being exceptionally great at hiding, much less hiding in plain sight of an enemy.

i dont remember anyone Except Sam and Frodo using the elven cloaks explicitely, but the entire party minus Gandalf got them, and they functionally ARE HiPS + Camoflage

[Nihilarian]

Aragorn lacked spells, a pet, TWF, HiPS, Camouflage, and favored enemy.He had healing spells of some kind, and as I recall he had foresight (Commune with Nature) and I think he hid himself from Sauron (Nondetection). He probably lacked a pet, but you could say that one or all of his horses were Animal Companions while they were with them. He didn't TWF, but he did shoot his bow, so I guess he chose archery to make up for not specializing in dexterity. I can't point to any particular place where he hid, but it was pretty implied, wasn't it? Plus, hiding from Sauron.

it's been a while since I read the books, though.

[arkangel111]

Well my experience comes from PF but all the feats are more or less identical to 3.5. But, in my experience, I Full attack nearly every round unless I choose to instead cast a buff or for some reason move. With the summoner casting haste on round 1, many shot/rapidshot and full attack I am sitting at more attacks than an equal level monk and I full attack every single round and with a 19-20 crit range; that means I get a crit about every 3 rounds, which with the x3 damage I have actually dropped a BBEG in 1 round before anyone got to act. Every fighter tries trick after trick to get pounce and yet I have no need for it since i get a full-attack every round if I desire.

Granted a fighter could likely do this as well but I haven't wasted a single feat to pull this off, which means my feats can go towards other things. With the lighter armor I am the lowest AC in the group but hitting from 60+ feet away I don't need armor or HP, and the party doesn't expect me to tank anyways. Where as a fighter wearing full plate and shooting off arrows would be a waste to the party, someone needs to tank the guys and who better to do that than someone with High AC and some damage mitigation items, or feats.

With my skill points I cover many of the different knowledges because I had the points to spare, and FE/FT gives bonuses to these checks as well. The rogue covers many of these checks but I can keep my stealth on par with him, and a perception through the roof I usually follow him ahead of the party and yet still never have to worry about getting into melee, My companion flanks for him which with pounce also gets a full attack on most rounds, while the rogue usually makes one full attack with sneak before an enemy is down and he is forced to move again. The Rogues main skill comes in dungeoneering tasks which we all know can be solved with a summon natures ally running through the dungeon setting off traps if needed (750g wand will give you all the fodder you'll ever need if you don't want to waste your spells for the day)

While my spellcasting is limited, I can use a wand for most divine spells that matter and boost myself or my companions as needed. A simple investment into UMD can get me the rest of the spells if so desired.

All in all I say the versatility and lack of a feat tax make the Ranger far more effective than a simple fighter and at least as good for most skill monkey roles. My PF ranger is using feats for things other than combat and I am still very effective, especially at single target DPS. I have no complaints about the PF ranger and I can't see ever picking a fighter unless I am specifically looking for a build that requires a boatload of feats.

[Techwarrior]

Aragorn lacked spells, a pet, TWF, HiPS, Camouflage, and favored enemy.

Aragorn can "hide himself from most, but even he can't vanish from sight with such ease." He is later seen to sneak up on orcs in the forest.

Aragorn used his sword and a torch to fend off the Ringwraiths. (TWF)

I'm pretty sure that Aragorn also said something about "having studied the habits of orcs" in the half a book where they're tracking the group of Uruk-Hai.

Aragorn also was able to help Frodo back to health with the power of nature, although his cursed wound was "Beyond even my skill."

:smallannoyed:

[Lanaya]

Aragorn can "hide himself from most, but even he can't vanish from sight with such ease."

Right. He has good hide and move silently, but can't disappear while being observed by a whole roomfull of people. No HiPS.


I'm pretty sure that Aragorn also said something about "having studied the habits of orcs" in the half a book where they're tracking the group of Uruk-Hai.

I've studied the habits of dogs, doesn't mean I have them as a favoured enemy.


Aragorn also was able to help Frodo back to health with the power of nature, although his cursed wound was "Beyond even my skill."

Because he wasn't using magic, and thus couldn't combat the magic in that wound. He just has ranks in heal and knowledge (nature). Nothing he does is supernatural.

[toapat]

Right. He has good hide and move silently, but can't disappear while being observed by a whole roomfull of people. No HiPS.

I've studied the habits of dogs, doesn't mean I have them as a favoured enemy.

Because he wasn't using magic, and thus couldn't combat the magic in that wound. He just has ranks in heal and knowledge (nature). Nothing he does is supernatural.

1: The elven cloaks are HiPS: the plot device
2: the vaguity and the specific reason that comment arose leads to what is essentially saying "my lvl 1 Favored Enemy is in Orcs"
3: Heal checks cant break curses or suppress their effect. As defined within DnD he had to have been using spells to keep Frodo alive. And most spells do have some sort of material component that is used as a catelyst

[SiuiS]

Rangers make fantastic monks. Load em up with unarmed fighting, use spells for personal buffs, and go to town with your full base attack bonus.

[Psyren]

Because he wasn't using magic, and thus couldn't combat the magic in that wound. He just has ranks in heal and knowledge (nature). Nothing he does is supernatural.

Isn't it heavily implied that only he could have healed the wounds that way? It seemed like more than just knowing his way around herbs to me. (Granted it's not anything near to being magic as we understand it in D&D, but I wouldn't call it wholly mundane either.)

[Techwarrior]

Right. He has good hide and move silently, but can't disappear while being observed by a whole roomfull of people. No HiPS.

The line also could be read as "Has good Hide/Move Silent and HiPS (a purely 3.5 addition), but requires Concealment in non-natural areas, which is consistent with the Ranger class. It's also more of a statement of "Yea, I don't have Invisibility," than anything else.




I've studied the habits of dogs, doesn't mean I have them as a favoured enemy.

That was literally me trying to remember the line, it might A) be worded in a much more favorable (enemy) manner, or B) might still mean that the warrior meant that he had also studied them from a military angle as well.



Because he wasn't using magic, and thus couldn't combat the magic in that wound. He just has ranks in heal and knowledge (nature). Nothing he does is supernatural.

As toapat said, the Heal skill can't be used to remove Curses, which is technically what the wraith did to Frodo. The fact that he managed to keep the curse from overtaking him. Aragorn helping him at all is probably due to Lesser Restoration, the heal skill, and his Knowledge (Nature) to help him find plants that would help Frodo survive. Even if it isn't supernatural, Ranger is one of two PHB classes with full BAB and the Heal skill, and the only one that also has Knowledge (Nature).

Also, what Psyren said, as he is right.

[Vertharrad]

And Drizz't. That's where the animal companion and dual-wielding come from, near as I can figure; neither Legolas nor Aragorn had any sign of either of those. (Well, unless you count "torch and sword for ringwraiths", but that's dubious.)

I haven't read the books, but in the movie I know at least Aragorn used 2 weapons(longsword and shortsword or dagger) when he fought the lead Orc. And I think Legolas had 2 shortswords?

[Eldariel]

Right. He has good hide and move silently, but can't disappear while being observed by a whole roomfull of people. No HiPS.

Ranger's HiPS (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/ranger.htm#hideinPlainSight) is actually restricted to a natural environment, so that's only par de course.

[Gwendol]

I haven't read the books, but in the movie I know at least Aragorn used 2 weapons(longsword and shortsword or dagger) when he fought the lead Orc. And I think Legolas had 2 shortswords?

In the books Aragorn fights with a longsword most of the time.
Legolas uses a long knife for close range work.

[Haldir]

Taking Middle Earth's setting and applying it to D&D is a foolhardy endeavor, but I'll indulge regardless.

1. One can strongly suspect, based on the setting, that any Ranger would choose Orcs as a Favored Enemy. Aragorn spent ages roaming up and down Middle Earth fighting them in Gondor, Rohan, the North, and the East. At the battle of Helm's Deep Aragorn single-handedly holds off a whole Orc host to cover the Eorlingas retreat. The Orcs are said to have been kept at bay by the fear of Anduril.

2. Anduril is a bastard sword or a greatsword, and one of the most magical and storied blades in existence. The metalwork of Numenor before the fall is unmatched by any now in Middle Earth save the Elf Lords, who shortly after the story must depart. There is never mention of Aragorn using another blade or TWF'ing in any way, other than wielding a torch. As a melee focused build in a low-magic setting, Power Attacking with a magic weapon = Win.

3. Speaking of Numenor, it is very unfair to claim that Aragorn uses no magic, when in fact he might be the the only companion besides Gandalf who uses any at all. Though it might not be a "spell" in the traditional Vancian sense, Aragorn possesses the Wisdom of Numenor, and can use it manipulate nature

He has a gift for healing people, and thus would be naturey-wisdom-magic within the context of a low-magic setting. The Athelas he uses to cure people is brought from Numenor and when Aragorn applies it in the Healing Houses of Gondor he even mutters a little chant to go along with it.

He walks the Paths of the Dead and commands a Ghost-army to ride into battle because the powers of Numenor were able to bind these peoples to the world, even after death. This is intensely magical, but relates mostly to his legacy- again a perfectly fine substitute for magic in Middle Earth.

The Coup De Grace is the Palantir, which not even Saruman was able to tear out of Sauron's power. Aragorn looks into the stone upon his return to Helm's Deep and shows Sauron that Narsil had been reforged. Considering that Sauron is the BBEG that even Angels are afraid to tangle with, Aragorn is packing some serious power to be able to play chicken with the Lord of Barad-Dur and win. And he does, his legacy provides him with the ability to scry. (Hint- Scrying is probably the single most useful thing in terms of making war in a low magic setting, short of teleports and airstrikes.)

[Gwendol]

Not to mention that Sauron himself is concerned with his "return". Also, he wins the staring contest with the Mouth of Sauron at the Black Gates, a sorcerer.

[OverdrivePrime]

In the books Aragorn fights with a longsword most of the time.
Legolas uses a long knife for close range work.

Historically, a longsword is what we gamers tend to call a bastard sword (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiI1sCAd_Hk). The arming sword is closer to how the longsword is presented (http://youtu.be/CR8I6YthMsE) in D&D.

When Tolkien writes "longsword", picture a D&D bastard sword. I feel that Weta Workshop got it spot-on in their portrayal of Narsil and Glamdring.

In any case, D&D's weird attachment to combat styles for rangers has always puzzled me. A ranger is a wilderness warrior who relies on patience, cunning and skill. He doesn't usually have the berserk fury of a barbarian - crashing about and crushing everything in front of him. Instead, a ranger is a careful surgeon - cutting only what needs to be cut in order to do the most good, and doing so with no hesitation once he commits to the task.

[toapat]

In any case, D&D's weird attachment to combat styles for rangers has always puzzled me. A ranger is a wilderness warrior who relies on patience, cunning and skill. He doesn't usually have the berserk fury of a barbarian - crashing about and crushing everything in front of him. Instead, a ranger is a careful surgeon - cutting only what needs to be cut in order to do the most good, and doing so with no hesitation once he commits to the task.

the combat feats represent that the ranger is more disciplined and formally trained in their combat style then the barbarian. it also helps that other then TWF style, the entire line is always good for ranger's health in the game.

Ironically, that also makes paladins look untrained compared to rangers because they dont get any bonus combat feats.

[OverdrivePrime]

the combat feats represent that the ranger is more disciplined and formally trained in their combat style then the barbarian. it also helps that other then TWF style, the entire line is always good for ranger's health in the game.

Ironically, that also makes paladins look untrained compared to rangers because they dont get any bonus combat feats.

Right, right. I guess my main gripe with 3.0 & 3.5 is that they didn't go to the length that pathfinder did to expand those combat styles to something beyond "pick either Drizzt or Legolas." With the expanded combat style options in Pathfinder, I'm really happy. It closely matches my homebrew styles for 3.5 with the exception of an unarmed (not tooth & fang) style.

[Person_Man]

Between the inception of D&D up to 3.5, the Ranger class was more or less created to simulate the abilities of three iconic rangers; Aragorn, Robin Hood, and Drizzt. If one of those characters can do something, then the Ranger class can do it. That's why the class itself is a kludge of meh abilities.

[toapat]

Right, right. I guess my main gripe with 3.0 & 3.5 is that they didn't go to the length that pathfinder did to expand those combat styles to something beyond "pick either Drizzt or Legolas." With the expanded combat style options in Pathfinder, I'm really happy. It closely matches my homebrew styles for 3.5 with the exception of an unarmed (not tooth & fang) style.

alot of what makes the combatstyles good in PF is self-Plagiarized from dragon magazine material.

Sorta like how i took 4 ACFs from Dragon and one from EoE and transformed Monk into an Unholy Furry Abomination of Law and Contempt and Paladin and Druid

Divine Bond: Weapon is based on a Dragon ACF for paladin which was vastly superior called Sword of Celestia

Pazio, since its foundation, has made both Slop and Gold for DnD and PF.

[Draz74]

Aragorn totally uses magic. It's just that magic in Middle-Earth is mostly very subtle.

Aragorn also has a little bit of animal companion-ship (his horse) and TWF (the torch, and also his off-hand knife that he breaks out in emergencies). Neither are nearly as prominent as they are for the D&D ranger (in particular, his special bond with his horse is mostly implied to have been important before the trilogy), but they're there.

Another iconic literary ranger that I suspect inspired the class is Gwydion from The Chronicles of Prydain ... and he has some magical talents. Casts Entangle not long before he shows up in the first book. Has an animal companion (another horse), too. Not so much TWF/archery though.

[Nihilarian]

Aragorn totally uses magic. It's just that magic in Middle-Earth is mostly very subtle.

Aragorn also has a little bit of animal companion-ship (his horse) and TWF (the torch, and also his off-hand knife that he breaks out in emergencies). Neither are nearly as prominent as they are for the D&D ranger (in particular, his special bond with his horse is mostly implied to have been important before the trilogy), but they're there.

Another iconic literary ranger that I suspect inspired the class is Gwydion from The Chronicles of Prydain ... and he has some magical talents. Casts Entangle not long before he shows up in the first book. Has an animal companion (another horse), too. Not so much TWF/archery though.Wow, it's been forever since I thought of the Chronicles of Prydain. Used to be some of my favorite books.

[Thanatosia]

I can't recall Aragorn ever using anything resembling magic in LOTR, Subtle or otherwise.... he was pure mundane as near as I could tell. Can anyone give an example of where he used Magic?

[Silfir]

Mentioned in the thread already, I believe: His use of athelas to stave off Frodo's poisoning by the Morgul blade and later to heal Faramir and Eowyn (which goes beyond a simple use of the Heal skill in that he's stated to be one of the few who can harness the healing powers of athelas), his use of the palantir, his dealings with the Army of the Dead. Possibly even his fighting back the Nazgul; if just a stick on fire was enough to deal with one, they'd be quite a bit less intimidating, so perhaps there was something about Aragorn himself there.

Gimli, now, would be a purely mundane straight-up Fighter.

[OverdrivePrime]

I can't recall Aragorn ever using anything resembling magic in LOTR, Subtle or otherwise.... he was pure mundane as near as I could tell. Can anyone give an example of where he used Magic?

Here are a number of good examples. (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?120460-Aragorn-and-spellcasting&p=2034023&viewfull=1#post2034023)

If you've played Middle Earth Roleplaying they do a great job translating the subtlety of magic in Tolkien's world into various spell paths, called various things like "ice law" or "inner way." There were a few paths that were available to rangers at the outset, though powerful characters could learn more elusive paths.

[Lans]

One of these things fixes the other, actually; Rangers using their spells (and spell trigger items) to shore up their archery can be quite a lot better than a fighter with spells like hunter's mercy, arrowmind, and others.



Why does everyone say Fighters do more damage than Rangers? I've never found a ranged Fighter build I felt was remotely capable of out-damaging a Swift Hunter, especially one with Splitting. I'm not saying it's not possible, I just haven't seen it.


People have gone over this, and a fighter out does a ranger using spells at archery. The ranger is of course better than the fighter at everything else.

;
Animal companion originally came from a spell, called animal friendship, which is why rangers get it at half rate when they get 1st level spells

[TuggyNE]

People have gone over this, and a fighter out does a ranger using spells at archery.

The breakdown of this, I would like to see, either in this thread or outside it.

[Gwendol]

Gimli, now, would be a purely mundane straight-up Fighter.

I would argue that Gimli is more of a Knight than Fighter, but yes, he is together with Boromir the least supernatural of the fellowship.

[hymer]

Gimli, now, would be a purely mundane straight-up Fighter.


I would argue that Gimli is more of a Knight than Fighter, but yes, he is together with Boromir the least supernatural of the fellowship.

Oh, I don't know. In Lórien, Gimli listens to the ground, saying he hears nothing but the night talk of rocks and plants. Frodo can't hear a thing. Gimli also wants to put the three hairs of Galadriel into 'imperishable crystal', a nifty bit of crafting. Perhaps not entirely mundane.
Dwarves are very secretive, and maybe he seems rather mundane because he chooses to keep his magical talents hidden. Also, any magical skill of a Dwarf is more likely to do with smithing, building or the likes. Not much time to do that on the journey.
This is all from the book (people seem to be referring to those movies a lot in the thread), and from my memory (so there may be some glitches there).

[Gwendol]

Oh, I don't know. In Lórien, Gimli listens to the ground, saying he hears nothing but the night talk of rocks and plants. Frodo can't hear a thing. Gimli also wants to put the three hairs of Galadriel into 'imperishable crystal', a nifty bit of crafting. Perhaps not entirely mundane.
Dwarves are very secretive, and maybe he seems rather mundane because he chooses to keep his magical talents hidden. Also, any magical skill of a Dwarf is more likely to do with smithing, building or the likes. Not much time to do that on the journey.
This is all from the book (people seem to be referring to those movies a lot in the thread), and from my memory (so there may be some glitches there).

Very much in agreement, but I argue that in D&D 3.5 Gimli can be portrayed as a Knight. Maybe he's got a little Deepwarden going as well, who knows?