D&D 5E Convince me that the Ranger is a necessary Class.

[GreyLord]

The Archetype people say is the Ranger is Aragorn and the Rangers of the Dunedain (sp? accuracy?).

I'd say it has an even MORE grounded archetype and base since 2e.

We have Actual RANGERS in real life. They've existed for centuries. They generally are more like police. They enforce the government rules and regulations (whether that's the local lord or ruler, or a government more like what you find in the US and Europe today) in forests and areas where it is untamed or considered wilderness.

Rangers are more a REAL class than a wizard or sorcerer, than a Bard or a Warlock...etc.

 

[SirGoldwyn]

In my opinion a Ranger is the one who tracks and catches Rogues and monsters. Those who has harmed or stolen things from either the Rangers employer or the ones he looks after. The Ranger has no magical skills at all it is a true martial class like the Fighter and the Rogue.

While the Rogue is usually an Urban dual wielding short range type, the Ranger is an wilderness tracker who snipes from long range with his bow or crossbow. The Rogue disable traps while the Ranger lay traps. A Rogue can hide in the shadows while the Ranger can hide in plain sight. The Rogue can use multiple attacks with their dual wielding. The Ranger can call the shots taken and shoot at multiple targets knowing the shot before hit true, think 51st state where Felix is shot in the ass rather than killed. The Rogue can use poisons while the Ranger can cure poisoning using herbs and plants.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Questions of magic and the supernatural should IMO be asked from the perspective of the players/audience, not the characters in the world. Our perspective as consumers and/or participants is what matters, and the only perspective we have is real life.

Naturally I disagree.

As I said originally, theres a different aesthetic at play when we call something uncanny vs magical, and the same extends to supernatural.

One can choose to not put any value in the differences, but that doesn't mean they're not there or that everything has to be rooted in the real world.

Thats actually a pretty narrow and limiting way of approaching fantasy.

let's not drag yet another thread into this nonsense, again.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Naturally I disagree.

As I said originally, theres a different aesthetic at play when we call something uncanny vs magical, and the same extends to supernatural.

One can choose to not put any value in the differences, but that doesn't mean they're not there or that everything has to be rooted in the real world.

Thats actually a pretty narrow and limiting way of approaching fantasy.

It doesn't, but our perspective by necessity does, unless there's a hidden world of which I'm unaware.

Also, I don't appreciate the knock on my approach to fantasy.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Im convinced. Ranger should be an artificers archetype based on poultice, traps and enhanced hunting companions.

 

[Micah Sweet]

let's not drag yet another thread into this nonsense, again.

I will drop it in the interest of avoiding needless acrimony, but it is in no way nonsense.

 

[Emberashh]

but our perspective by necessity does

No, it doesn't. If you can't conceive of accepting that a different reality has nothing to do with how our real world works then thats a shame, given thats the entire point of fantasy worldbuilding.

You're approaching it as though its science fiction and expecting things to be based in how our actual reality works, but as I said, that is in fact a narrow way of approaching fantasy. You're closing yourself off to, well, entire universes beyond our own.

Thats why I talk about the uncanny. It can, in fact, just be a learned skill that you can stick your ear to the ground and track the speed and direction of a pack of Orcs miles away. Middle-Earth as part of an entirely different universe can just work like that. Its not supernatural, its natural.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No, it doesn't. If you can't conceive of accepting that a different reality has nothing to do with how our real world works then thats a shame, given thats the entire point of fantasy worldbuilding.

You're approaching it as though its science fiction and expecting things to be based in how our actual reality works, but as I said, that is in fact a narrow way of approaching fantasy. You're closing yourself off to, well, entire universes beyond our own.

Thats why I talk about the uncanny. It can, in fact, just be a learned skill that you can stick your ear to the ground and track the speed and direction of a pack of Orcs miles away. Middle-Earth as part of an entirely different universe can just work like that. Its not supernatural, its natural.

Natural from Aragorn's perspective, not from Aragorn's player's perspective, who presumably is a real person living on the real world.

But one of your supporters on this issue has asked me not to bring my perspective on this into the thread, presumably because they don't agree with it, so I'll leave it there.

 

[Emberashh]

Natural from Aragorn's perspective, not from Aragorn's player's perspective, who presumably is a real person living on the real world.

Im pretty sure you've expressed that you get the idea of immersing yourself, though now I suppose I'll have to second guess that.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I will drop it in the interest of avoiding needless acrimony, but it is in no way nonsense.

the nonsense i was referring to was specifically the endless back-and-forth arguing respective viewpoints rather than anything about the topic itself, but yes, thank you, much appreciated.