Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2004 6:24 pm
My take on a Ranger is that, like most player character classes, it cannot be put into a single box.
In general the Ranger is singly catagorized as a warrior of nature, while this is essence is true, I think there is enough room in the Forgotten Realmz millieu to allow for a broad spectrum of Ranger-based PCs, in much the way I would run PnP campaigns in the golden days of RPG.
A ranger is a warrior who depends on skills of survival, tracking, general hardiness in a non-civilized setting. But this does not mean he has to shun civilization, nor solely base his motives on the protection of the woodlands. and for a ranger PC *not* to do so should not be automatically construed as bad Role Playing.....
To whit:
The Complete Book of Rangers (AD&D 2nd edition) Lists the "Stalker" variant of the Ranger class. This subclass of ranger is "equally comfortable in the wilderness and in an urban setting." They are "The scouts, the elite intelligence gatherers."
In 1E AD&D, before the advent of kits and even before such Unearthed Arcana classes as Berzerkers and Barbarians, the Ranger was typically the class used to build a Norseman-type PC, emphasizing the class' abilities at tracking, hunting and guerilla-style fighting; not a shunning of cities, which while not Romanesque by any means, were still urban centers even in the North. It could be in fact argued that the original Ranger's combat bonus against giants (not left up to the player's pick until 2E) was inspired by the tales of the Norseman and the many giant-class creatures that were their monsters.
in the world of Tolkein, Aragorn, a Ranger, seemed equally comfortable at using his guile inside the walls of a town or city, or deep within caverns, as he did in the wilds.
You get the picture.....
Conversely, one who is considered a "civilized" warrior, such as a Paladin, would by an all-encompassing stereotype, seem out of place in the wilds, but what of Elven Cavaliers (or even Elven Paladins, in 3E)? Would they not be as sylvan as their other class counterparts?
In short, I think the demeanor and comfort of a Ranger in certain settings can be as variant as their alignment (ie, an entire spectrum, as long as it's Good). In D&D mechanics, and even -- as I have observed so far -- quite well duplicated in the MUD, there is a wide enough selection of skills, feats, and proficiencies to allow any player to build a character to be just how they envision. It would be an injustice to expect every Ranger to behave like a warrior-druid... just as much as it would be to expect every Ranger to be like Drizzt Do'Urden (no, we don't all want to dual wield!)
In general the Ranger is singly catagorized as a warrior of nature, while this is essence is true, I think there is enough room in the Forgotten Realmz millieu to allow for a broad spectrum of Ranger-based PCs, in much the way I would run PnP campaigns in the golden days of RPG.
A ranger is a warrior who depends on skills of survival, tracking, general hardiness in a non-civilized setting. But this does not mean he has to shun civilization, nor solely base his motives on the protection of the woodlands. and for a ranger PC *not* to do so should not be automatically construed as bad Role Playing.....
To whit:
The Complete Book of Rangers (AD&D 2nd edition) Lists the "Stalker" variant of the Ranger class. This subclass of ranger is "equally comfortable in the wilderness and in an urban setting." They are "The scouts, the elite intelligence gatherers."
In 1E AD&D, before the advent of kits and even before such Unearthed Arcana classes as Berzerkers and Barbarians, the Ranger was typically the class used to build a Norseman-type PC, emphasizing the class' abilities at tracking, hunting and guerilla-style fighting; not a shunning of cities, which while not Romanesque by any means, were still urban centers even in the North. It could be in fact argued that the original Ranger's combat bonus against giants (not left up to the player's pick until 2E) was inspired by the tales of the Norseman and the many giant-class creatures that were their monsters.
in the world of Tolkein, Aragorn, a Ranger, seemed equally comfortable at using his guile inside the walls of a town or city, or deep within caverns, as he did in the wilds.
You get the picture.....
Conversely, one who is considered a "civilized" warrior, such as a Paladin, would by an all-encompassing stereotype, seem out of place in the wilds, but what of Elven Cavaliers (or even Elven Paladins, in 3E)? Would they not be as sylvan as their other class counterparts?
In short, I think the demeanor and comfort of a Ranger in certain settings can be as variant as their alignment (ie, an entire spectrum, as long as it's Good). In D&D mechanics, and even -- as I have observed so far -- quite well duplicated in the MUD, there is a wide enough selection of skills, feats, and proficiencies to allow any player to build a character to be just how they envision. It would be an injustice to expect every Ranger to behave like a warrior-druid... just as much as it would be to expect every Ranger to be like Drizzt Do'Urden (no, we don't all want to dual wield!)