See, ever since I started reconsidering the ranger, my imagination has captured this pic completely at odds to the way the character class is generally portrayed. You folks probably know what I'm talking about: the effete, lightly armored archer type, perhaps with some forest colored cloak (brooding hood included), and...for the males anyway...a light beard or Erol Flynn goatee. Something like this:
 |
| Pulled from Pinterest |
This is image is what comes up when I google the phrase "typical D&D ranger." Yes, there are a lot of other similar images, many of them equally awful...not bad because of the artwork but just so, ugh, trope-riddled, okay? And they just don't align with image in my head. None of them.
Because here's what I am picturing: a really beefy bruiser, dressed in plate armor, sporting a beard that would put a Jeremiah Johnson style mountain man to shame. Probably carrying a big axe for felling trees and orcs alike.
But BIG okay? Not slim and trim, but barrel-chested with the increased lung capacity of a cross-country skier. A ranger should be damn near as big and hairy as a bugbear...literally. After all, the average bugbear only has 14 hit points; it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect a 1st level ranger to have at least that many hit points in AD&D, given their constitution requirements. And if playing a campaign where the DM awards max HPs to start, the ranger's going to be closer to ogre-size.
Rangers are human bugbears...they're big, sneaky sons of bitches that goblins tell campfire stories about, trying to scare each other. They live and ply their trade on the edge of human civilization, operating in areas the normal army can't or won't operate. Armed and armored to the teeth, they are self-sufficient and fiercely independent...if you find the maximum (3) rangers operating together, chances are they are a married couple and a single child learning the parents' craft. Other than a mate or a student-teacher relationship, there's little reason for rangers to congregate: they value their solitude and while they'll tolerate non-rangers' lack of etiquette in impinging on their space, they won't tolerate such intrusions from their own (ranger) kind, who should really know better.
My own ranger would look something like this guy, I suppose. The helmet is a little too fancy for the wilds (too easy to get those antlers stuck when passing through a heavily wooded area), but I like the idea of a character decorating his armor with trophies in such a way as to cut a more intimidating figure. Most evil humanoids should fear the class...rangers are trained slayers of such creatures, and hunt them as they can, with neither pity nor remorse.
As I consider the role of such characters in my campaign setting...especially as they relate to both druids and bards...this is the image I'm holding in my mind's eye. Rangers: the true bully of the wilderness. Bugbears have nothing on 'em.
Because here's what I am picturing: a really beefy bruiser, dressed in plate armor, sporting a beard that would put a Jeremiah Johnson style mountain man to shame. Probably carrying a big axe for felling trees and orcs alike.
But BIG okay? Not slim and trim, but barrel-chested with the increased lung capacity of a cross-country skier. A ranger should be damn near as big and hairy as a bugbear...literally. After all, the average bugbear only has 14 hit points; it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect a 1st level ranger to have at least that many hit points in AD&D, given their constitution requirements. And if playing a campaign where the DM awards max HPs to start, the ranger's going to be closer to ogre-size.
Rangers are human bugbears...they're big, sneaky sons of bitches that goblins tell campfire stories about, trying to scare each other. They live and ply their trade on the edge of human civilization, operating in areas the normal army can't or won't operate. Armed and armored to the teeth, they are self-sufficient and fiercely independent...if you find the maximum (3) rangers operating together, chances are they are a married couple and a single child learning the parents' craft. Other than a mate or a student-teacher relationship, there's little reason for rangers to congregate: they value their solitude and while they'll tolerate non-rangers' lack of etiquette in impinging on their space, they won't tolerate such intrusions from their own (ranger) kind, who should really know better.
 |
| It was this or some viking image. |
As I consider the role of such characters in my campaign setting...especially as they relate to both druids and bards...this is the image I'm holding in my mind's eye. Rangers: the true bully of the wilderness. Bugbears have nothing on 'em.
Human bugbears...I never thought of it that way, but I think this is probably the best description of what a ranger should be. I also like the implication that rangers have studied the ways of bugbears and figured out how to be better at being bugbears than bugbears. It speaks to the level limits that non-human PCs have in most classes in 1e AD&D: humans have figured out how to be better at the things all of these non-human creatures around them are good at. It also begs the question: who became rangers first? I am tempted to credit humanity and to imagine all the non-humans are catching up...
ReplyDeleteWould also explain why half-elves top out at 8th level: they're just not beefy enough to be as beastly as a true (human) ranger...
DeleteThere is barbarians in you game? If so how different in ethos they are from the ranger?
ReplyDeleteI mean... Your vision makes a lot sense but it would remind of barbarians to some people (the modern mainstream D&D 5e version of barbarians).
@ GB:
DeleteIndeed, there are no barbarian class in the campaign world I’m designing...My intention (at this time) is to stick with the PHB, DMG, and various monster manuals. I am setting aside the UA...at least for the time being.
[I find the original barbarian problematic in several regards, but even if I included it, it would hardly satisfy those players expecting the raging half-orc archetype]
My ranger isn’t born a savage killing machine; she is trained to become one.
As a ranger weighing 137 lbs. and standing 5 ft. 6 in., who takes care of himself and has pride in being cleanshaven, I take considerable affront to this post and to others who show prejudice towards those of use who do not fit the desired stereotype. Furthermore, I contest the use of the male pronoun throughout this post.
ReplyDeletePlease call me "they" in the comments.
I have been trying to use the female pronoun of late and felt a little dirty falling back on the male possessive (or was there more than one usage?); I might still go back and edit the post.
DeleteI did find one female image worth posting, but I didn’t want to clutter stuff TOO much...I’ll get it up in a separate entry.
137# is too small to be a ranger in my world, I’m afraid. Doubt that would rate a strength higher than 11 or so.
; )
Simone Biles weighs 92 lbs (42 kg). You're going to tell me this woman doesn't have an 18 strength?
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyzdDu7ZHz8
Hey, man...I said a 137# Bruce Lee has 18 strength, too, remember?
Deletehttp://bxblackrazor.blogspot.com/2016/03/strength.html
This is one of the reasons I kind of hate the term "strength" for this particular ability score. It's not a measure of overall physical strength; it's a measure of *applied* strength in specific areas (melee combat and, in AD&D, lifting ability). Ms. Biles and other trained athletes (from ballet to basketball) have IMMENSE physical strength, but that doesn't necessarily translate to combat ability or carrying capacity. The ability to lift one's own body weight requires incredibly developed musculature and fitness, but the ability to apply force in an objective (i.e. non-relative) fashion is something different altogether. In theory, I could develop myself to the point of lifting a 200+% percent of my mass, but my frame can only support about 180# (if that) of lean, usable muscle...meaning I could never lift as much as some 300# power lifter, even at my max potential.
With apologies to Ms. Biles and other elite athletes, I suppose I'd prefer to call the abstract number "adventuring strength" or something.
Forgive me, but I'm going to pick at this scab.
DeleteThe "strength bonus" is not for lifting twice your body weight (though there is a ridiculous encumbrance rule in the player's handbook, that relates to the gygaxian nonsense that encumbrance is NOT about weight but about "bulkiness," something totally impossible to measure), but to the ability to hit with a weapon. I'm sure Ms. Biles, had she been trained with a sword and not a balance beam, could carve up your 300 lb. weightlifter and serve him up for turkey dinner to a hungry Russian family, any time.
I'm only pushing because you've decided to define the ranger according to your "personal feeling about rangers," which is obviously total bullshit and prejudiced in a dozen ways. Something you've doubled down on, though even two comments about it have already begun to exasperate your patience ~ which is ONLY going to happen at your gaming table, again and again, as other people aren't going to understand or appreciate your "feeling," no matter how much you think they ought to.
This is the sort of thing that sank AD&D 35 years ago ... this horseshit nonsense of ascribing specific physical and mental characteristics to professions, which absolutely burned the bridge where it came to building an intelligent philosophy for play. I have no idea why you've decided to go down this road (though I can guess why others have decided to follow ~ they did 35 years ago as well), but as long as you're headed that way, I'm going to stand at this intersection and shout, "Where the fuck do you think you're going?"
Hmm. Don’t think I’m quite exasperated with the comments I’ve received (as of yet). Some would be better addressed in a future post (thus I ain’t feeling the need to reply at the moment).
DeleteYou can yell at the crossroads all you want, but I’m not sure there’s a way around taking a particular stance and sticking to it (as I’m...kind of...doing here). It’s really, reallly tough to model all the specificities of life’s possibilities, and there always comes some point when the game suffers more from the trying despite what you’re getting out of it.
But you, Alexis, already know this: I’ve seen you write about it before. There’s no need to belabor THAT point.
Ability scores have a mechanical effect and model SOME sort of “real world thing” in the game, but they simply fail to model the whole of human attribute in six simple categories. And since the game isn’t about who is the best athlete (pick your sport), I’m disinclined to spend much brain sweat on figuring how to model the physical prowess of such real world individuals. For me, that IS an “intelligent philosophy for play;” but if you want to write off my expedience as laziness I won’t disagree...I have chosen to prioritize expedience (in this instance) over something more comprehensive. And, yes, it IS based on “feeling” somewhat: what I *feel* is appropriate to include in the game. Even so I reserve the right to change my feelings (and what my system models) at a future date, if it appears that doing so would have a positive impact on the game.
Regardless, this is all theoretical stuff at the moment as I have no players to run...much to my chagrin.
Sure, she'd carve up the weightlifter - if you didn't give the weightlifter an equal amount of sword training. If you actually give them equal training, though, the the 300# strongman will have a longer reach, the weight of his strikes will make them more difficult to parry, and if one lands it will be much more devastating. On the other hand, Simone Biles certainly qualifies as an 18 Dexterity, while the weightlifter certainly does not.
DeleteIf Strength was "strength relative to your body type and frame" then penalizing halflings or limiting exceptional strength for various demi-human races would be rendered nonsensical. Ditto for other scores; a dwarf wouldn't be penalized on Charisma if an 18 was relative and meant "as charismatic as a dwarf can possibly be." And of course, the worst of both worlds would be the inconsistency introduced if Strength was relative, but the other scores were absolute...
I always saw the original ranger as someone like Aragorn, but contemporary D&D seem to think of Legolas instead. The Witcher could make a decent ranger... loner, monster-killer, a few spells, etc.
ReplyDeleteI like your version, too.
If I must say, the ranger as usually depicted in modern days is a bit tame. Your description is on point, if not for them being big as bugbears* and strutting about in plate armour. Still, it's closer to my envisioning as the Roman limitanei or the Byzantine akritai, a border guard or a wilderness soldier.
ReplyDelete* despite their size, however, bugbears are noted as very stealthy and excellent ambushers
I was taking into account the bugbears stealth when making the comparison. Sorry if that was unclear.
DeleteI like the image, although it strays into both the barbarian and 'feral druid' archetype.
ReplyDeleteI always associated rangers as being the champions of law in the wilds (as opposed to druids, who champion the actual wilds). At ease in the wilds, but not of the wilds. Hence the divine spellcasting - they are granted these because they are the ones paving the way for borderlands to live safely in proximity to the dangers of the untamed wilds.
How do you explain spellcasting rangers then?
Sorry I didn't reply to this sooner: had a need to consider an answer, and then got lost over time.
DeleteSince classed characters in my setting learn their training from a young age (sufficient to become a 1st level adventurer) and then only get "better" with experience, the young ranger already knows something of druidic craft but needs EXPERIENCE in order to execute the spell rituals effectively. Since the majority of their time is occupied with fighting and woodcraft, they don't really begin to master druid magic until very high levels (as per the PHB rules).
The magic-user spells are both different and similar. Similar in that this is something the ranger would have been exposed to in their youth, but different in the reason why...specifically, something far back in the early days of "ranger-dom" someone (obviously) got mixed up with a hedge wizard or forest witch and learned a little magic theory, which was then passed on to their trainees. Since arcane magic is so finicky (I liken it to being a "mad scientist" in my campaign), it takes even LONGER for a ranger to get around to mastering even a few simple spells, and they never become more than a dabbler...and that only after having more-or-less mastering their other (fighting) skills and looking to branch out into new challenges.
Does that work for you?
; )
It suggests to me that "Ranger" in-world is something akin to a lineage, with all the quirks that come with accumulated tradition over generations.
DeleteWhich I suppose begs the question, especially in a world where rangers are basically human bugbears - What is the raison d'être of such a lineage?
Lost in the mists of time, probably.
Delete; )
FWIW: the idea behind my campaign setting is that humans are a fairly recent arrival to the world (maybe a couple-three centuries) based on an inter-dimensional shift. This is just background / "setting bible" info for the DM (me) and not something that is known to the players. When humans got there, they had to work to establish themselves as outsiders among existing cultures and...fortunately...were able to survive and thrive, eventually supplanting other sentients as the dominant power(s). Specially bred/trained classes like the ranger helped make this possible.
However, this is all "DM-facing" info, unknown to the players at the table. As such, it's subject to change, though it helps me keep themes/concepts organized a bit.
So..... rangers are like serial killers who stalk humanoids then?
ReplyDeleteSomething like that.
DeleteSo Ethan Edwards from the Searchers? That seems a pretty good model for the kind of ranger you're talking about.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I would focus less on physical power and more on attitude. The Ranger is a guardian of civilization who thrives in the wilderness, tough but not necessarily a powerhouse. It could be someone small, wiry and sneaky. But more commando then well groomed swashbuckler. Someone who preys on the predators.
As a side note - Simone Biles is very strong for her size but she's about 3/5 the size of the average man. So a relatively modest strength would translate into a high power to mass ratio and corresponding agility. That said, agility alone doesn't make a good fighter. A lot of it is perception - reading an opponent and reacting. The Sports Gene has a good discussion of this. You could probably train Serena Williams to be a good sword fighter a lot faster than Biles.
I wouldn't want to fight Serena even without sword training...she could probably club me to death with her backhand!
DeleteWell, my S&W ranger has a 5 charisma, so I just chalk it up to being out in the woods by himself too long....
ReplyDeleteSo yeah, we'll chalk him up as sneaky forest weirdo.
I'm late to this; only read it in the last day or two. But: thank you for sharing.
ReplyDeleteIt's helped me crystallise some thoughts I'd been having about the/my ranger (particularly as it applies to 1e/2e & my own formative mental images).
On my blog sometime soon fwiw.
Right on, Shuttered. I'd be interested in seeing your take on the ranger (anything new is better than another Robin Hood dude...and I say that as a FAN of the 'Hood).
Delete; )