Why are rangers always the same?

"Ranger" doesn't really have a well defined archetype, monk has like 5. This makes it a lot worse than monk.

I think that's more of a problem with Elves than it is with rangers. I can think of a few rangers or snipers from different genres of fiction who had interesting personalities. Minsc from BG obviously, Shinon from Fire Emblem por, and pic related.
I think the reason Drow were so popular is because they're a race of pristine and beautiful immortals that's not quite as flat as
>muh woods
>muh magic
>muh magic woods
>muh god complex

It's no more "specific" than the raging Barbarian or the Paladin.

The main problem is that the Ranger class tries to be all things to all players, a stealthy survivalist/fighter/spellcasting nature Paladin.

If you looked at Minsc and didn't know he was a ranger, would you say he's a ranger? He's pretty much a two weapon barbarian with a hamster.

This is the problem with the ranger.

Shinon was amazing.

Now I want to make an archer who is such an asshole he is also inexplicably the party's main melee tank.

Chipper, eccentric camping enthusiast who's at home in the most absurd places known to mankind. Has a bunch of 'this reminds me of that time' stories.
>This reminds me of that time I freed a cougar trapped under a fallen tree.
>This reminds me of that time I got caught in a far south snowstorm buck-naked.
>This reminds me of that one time I got caught by desert slavers.

"Barbarian" is any warrior who channels their rage into power. Anyone with an anger problem can be a barbarian.
"Paladin" is anyone who abides by an oath to gain power, the whole "holy servant of the light" shtick was 3.X only. A celtic warrior with geasa would qualify as a paladin.

Monk has more options than ranger though, but it still has a problem of "graceful martial artist from distant lands" since not everyone who fights with fists is appropriate to Monk.

I think 'Monk' works better as a general framework for eastern style martial heroes. 'Xia' or similar might be a better name for the base class.

Paladins protect civilization from itself.
Rangers protect civilization from the wilds.

Maybe work it that way? Both are a higher calling to serve more than just yourself, and make them equally as rare/principled?

In older editions of DnD, if I recall correctly, Ranger was a variant of Fighter, and had fairly high requirements. Jimbob Murderhobo form up in the woods wouldn't be a ranger, he'd be a fighter or rogue with survival or nature skill.

Every class is specific except casters which can do everything with muh magic.

The real issue is that most games don't have much in the way of actual rules for exploration or survival. Trail rations are cheap and most groups don't even track them. A ranger cannot do anything that a player cannot buy at a store or having a fucking wizard do for him.

Now, in my more sober E6 games, rangers are vital to making sure you aren't walking around with Con drain, because if you go more than 2 days without food you start losing a point of Con per day without food, and an extra point if you don't have clean water, either. And it's easy to get turned around in the woods if you don't know where you are....

But still of course you can just carry trail rations, there goes half the fun of playing a ranger. Oh well. Maybe back in AD&D when iron rations were actually expensive.

>Rangers protect civilization from the wilds.
Then what would Druids be doing then?

>E6
Never played, but it sort of appeals to me. What's been your experience with it?
Protecting the wilds from civilization.

But he "is" a ranger, and that's tied to his character. The whole hamster and spiritual journey into the wild thing.
Any character is going to fall flat, if you don't have a person to tie the archetype to, and giving the archetype showtime is purely optional.
Most of the characters from those two games are amazing. Marcia and her bum brother. Soren. Zihark. I think Lethe was the only character I flatout disliked in PoR. She shows no overt sign of suffering any great deal from the beorc, but she was still a more relentless biddy than the actual fucking slaves and genocide survivors in the party.

>Fighter
>one who fights
>specific

>Barbarian, who battles with rage
>Paladin, who swears an oath
>Rogue, who strikes at weaknesses
>Psion, who wields the mind
>Bard, who... something about music (Bards are less limited than anyone since they don't really do anything specifically)

It's not really that they're limited, so much as there's a lot of casting classes and not actually that many martials.
You could argue that Paladin's limited by its variations since you only get so much room within those variations, but there's so many ways to interpret "magical oath that grants power" that I find it pretty generic once you actually start thinking about it. Paladin of Honor, what 3.X made baseline, is hardly the only one.

>Then what would Druids be doing then?
Protecting the wilds from civilization.
In a very stereotypical way: rangers would protect pioneers or frontier villages from wild beasts and creatures. A druid would lead those wild beats and creatures against the pioneers and frontier villages.

>But he "is" a ranger, and that's tied to his character. The whole hamster and spiritual journey into the wild thing.

And a barbarian isn't a man of the wild with spirituality relating to nature?

He's a ranger because he has "ranger" written on his sheet.

>And a barbarian isn't a man of the wild with spirituality relating to nature?
Nope. Barbarians are people who turn rage into power. The only lore-luggage they come with is they have to be able to be durable without armor, typically from having strong muscles.
Ranger, however, has to have a magic connection to the land, an animal friend, an enemy they are an expert at tracking and slaying, and great talent at moving through wildlands.

If you think Ranger is an overly specific Sneaky Fucker and Monk an overly specific Punchy Bastard, you might as well merge Barbarian, Paladin etc. into Punchy Bastard and Sorcerer, Warlock etc. into Magicky Douche.

He has an animal companion too.
>And a barbarian isn't a man of the wild with spirituality relating to nature?
There's not necessarily a spirituality to either class.
Minsc said in the first game that he's a ranger just because he loves nature (which makes sense, because an aggressive basket case like Minsc couldn't make it as a bread winner or a shop owner, and his heart's too kind for raiding or warfare).

Yep, 0E had it right. Fighting-Man and Magic-User are all you need. Even Cleric shouldn't have existed.

Make them a messenger/delivery guy for not-amazon.
>Travels long distances, solo, to remote locations
So of course the job requires survival skills

>Nope. Barbarians are people who turn rage into power.

Too bad literally all of the D&D editions that have barbarians disagree with you.

AD&D
> The Barbarian is a sub-class of fighter. In addition to extraordinary fighting abilities, they have skills related to survival in the wilderness.

Not even raging, but does have wilderness/survival

>3.5
...

I actually can't find a description online and already gave my 3.5 books away. Anyway, he's got wilderness and animal shit on his skill list.

>4e

When they rage, they are literally possessed by spirits of nature.

>5e

Totem barbarians, full stop.

>He has an animal companion too.

It's a pet hamster. You don't need a class feature for a pet hamster.

>Minsc said in the first game that he's a ranger just because he loves nature

You are still putting the cart before the horse. A barbarian can (and in most incarnation does) love nature. Minsc can call himself ranger all he wants, just because he's a ranger in fluff, doesn't mean he couldn't have a barbarian class. It's not like you have the name of your class tattooed on your face.

Skill and Stamina are the only two numerical stats you need.
Prove me wrong.

I always saw Rangers as the "hate" class.

I'm shaped by favored enemy being a defining characteristic. So like the Witcher or a tracker.

'Need' is impossible to define outside of a specific context. For the purposes of different games in different genres with different tones and themes, a vast variety of stats might be 'needed'.

>It's a pet hamster.
It's class-based humor. Most rangers choose a feline, hawk, or canine of some sort. Minsc chose his miniature giant space hamster.
>A barbarian can (and in most incarnation does) love nature.
Nature is certainly not what is best in life though.

This is why I like classless systems. The crunch follows your fluff, instead of the crunch and the fluff being the same thing.

Skill in what?

Are you arguing you should have one number that represents how good you are at casting, hitting and making pastry?

Also defense is a pretty important number. I'm sure you'll say "well hp and ac can be the same number " which quickly dissallows archetypes like a ninja who is frail but fast.

Your argument is like saying you need two stats "fighting and talking". While you could run a game like that it would suck.

Advanced Fighting fantasy second edition has skill, stamina, luck and magic, and yeah, you can leave out the last two easily.

I'd start by not making him a goddamn druid if sorts and base him upon his skills. A ranger is a person of the woods (or whatever terrain he's familiar with) so I'd say he most likely will use traps and use the environment against his foes. So leave all the nature hugging to the druids and make him the aggressor. He's a predator and a smart one at that.

>AD&D
As a sub-class it has thematic baggage, sub-classes work that way, this was before it was its own class.
>3.5
Skills are for the player to invest in exclusively and don't comment on the class itself.
>4E
4E changed a lot of things, but PHB2 reintroduced the Original Barbarian subclass anyway. They lose the primal spirit deal and work on pure rage.
>Totem barbarians, full stop.
Archetypes, like sub-classes, come with thematic baggage.

Rangers are the militant version of scouts. They are all about getting into advantaged fights. You do that by tracking your prey, not being seen, and striking when your prey is most vulnerable. There is no better class at hunting bandits hiding in the wild or being a bandit hiding in the wild. Any sort of active thievery by a rogue will be caught eventually because there is risk with each heist, but it will take an concerted military engagement, often guided by a ranger, to root out bandits led by a ranger.

>His game has stats
Fucking pleb

Happy-go-lucky Urban Ranger with a focus on duels, and winning them by tripping people and hitting them with his hanbo while they try and get back up. Used to work for a blacksmith. His old job had him running on rooftops for faster deliveries.

I miss playing him.

Like many things in D&D, they really only existed to facilitate LoTR ripoffs.

>He plays games
Get on my level, fag.

>Having a level
Really, user?

Yeah, because Aragorn was totally an archer-spellcaster with animal companions.

Some kinda highly conservative Afghan-like dude who hunts mountain lions with a Jezail.

Gimli was a Fighter
Legolas was a Fighter with high Spot/Perception
Aragorn was a Fighter with a Survival specialty
Fucking Gandalf was a Fighter with Eldritch Knight prestige/archetype at best

>it's "i can't make a subtype unique!" episode on Veeky Forums
THAT'S WHY THEY ARE SUBTYPES, YOU STUPID FUCK
HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A PALADIN THAT'S NOT ABOUT MUH SMITING
A DRUID THAT IS NOT ABOUT MUH NATURE
A CLERIC THAT IS NOT ABOUT MUH GODS
THAT'S LITERALLY TIED INTO THEIR CLASSES

YOU WANT TO AVOID STEREOTYPING? DON'T PLAY CLASS-BASED SYSTEMS WHERE CLASSES ARE NARROW AS FUCK

>What's been your experience with it?

Some short West-Marches-style exploration campaigns. Mostly based around battling 3 enemy factions trying to accomplish their own goals, which were slowly discovered over time.

I like E6 because it focuses the game quite a bit. Combat remains deadly, even a shitty build can still do okay damage-wise. It's not a solution to 3.x problems by any means but it is nice for lower-powered fantasy.

Also did one where players were caravan guards / merchants (the rogues and wizads) and traded in spices and other commodities with prices out of the Arms and Equipment guide. It was a lot of bookeeping but fun to run a business organically.

Another nice thing about E6: lack of treasure dependency. It's not until level 8 or 9 that not having your +2 sword and +2 armor starts to REALLY hurt you and make the game unplayable. So, magic items can be rare in E6, and the general treasure values much lower, making things such as merchantry much more viable as a means to earn money.

>Aragorn was a Fighter with a Survival specialty
Aragorn is a Ranger
Legolas is actually a fighter with archery focus in MERP
>Gandalf was a fighter
Gandalf is a bard or druid (and planetouched)

What about Faramir and Boromir?

Yeah Paladin used to be Fighter subtype with no god bend but still had a somewhat religous bend

>Aragorn is a Ranger
Does he have an animal companion?

Does he cast druid spells?

Does he even fight with two weapons or is an expert archer?

He's a ranger in fiction, but Aragorn has more in common with a paladin, what with the king's touch being able to heal and shit.

>'Xia' or similar might be a better name for the base class.
Nothing you have to google to know what it means is a good name for a base class.

>Aragorn is a Ranger
No he isn't. He's a Fighter with a high Survival skill and a notable Wisdom score. Name one Ranger-esque thing he has. Is he an orc-hunting professional (moreso than a typical warrior)? Does he draw magic from the land? Does he commune with animals? Does he have an animal friend?

He has knowledge of herbs and tracking, as well as a knack for overland travel, but that's all the Survival skill at play.

>Sorcerer, Warlock etc. into Magicky Douche.
Unironically yes, there aren't enough points of differentiation not to, just have warlock and sorcerer as character specialisations.

Oh and stop making one specialisation of every bloody class 'like vanilla but with spell slots'.

Fighters and fighters and fighters and fighters. LotR was an all Fighter party. (With a disguised Astral Deva hanging out)
You could make a small case for the hobbits to be rogues but more like they're just low level fighters who get lucky occasionally.

Lawman who captures criminals and fugitives who escaped from the city and fled to the wilder parts. Sort of a Mix of those lion dudes from Samurai Jack and Inspector Javere.

muh poisoned weapon
muh mad ac
muh camouflage
MUH animalz Zlave
muh lute
muh dragonscale

>capital city guardsman/constable sent to some bumfuck village to play sheriff
>young and inexperienced but learns fast
>has a bow but prefers twin swords
>rescued a wolf from a hunter's trap and it's a pretty solid companion so far
>friendly with all of the townsfolk
>complete hardass to any outsiders looking to cause trouble

Interesting topic Veeky Forums. I've got another one;

At which point is a character considered a Ranger rather than a Hunter?

Between the Paladin, Crusader, Cleric, Priest, and Healer, there are a whole lot of classes that fill the "holy dude" niche distrubted across varying degrees of magical ability.

basically Just make them a Canadian?

>Does he have an animal companion?

No, he obviously took the Hunters Bond variant to give his allies he favored enemy bonuses.

>Does he cast druid spells?
Yes. Well, he can cast "spells" (in the Tolkien way, where spells are small and subtle enough that you might not even know it) Delay Poison, Longstrider, Pass Without Trace, Tireless Pursuit, and probably several others.

>Does he even fight with two weapons or is an expert archer?
Yes, and yes. His off hand weapon was a dagger (when he bothered to use it) and he was only surpassed by Legolas as far as archery was concerned.

He also had several notable Ranger class features. Favored Enemy (Orc), Track, Endurance, Favored Terrain (Forest).

He's a pretty typical Ranger.

>hate
yeah i made a guy that was turned into a frogman by an unknown witch, so he had witches as favored enemies

Classes are mechanical bounds, the fluff you put on those mechanical bounds is up to you

I've played urban rangers and wilderness rogues. Barbarians that enter a "battle trance" and fighters who fly into battle frothing at the mouth. Monks with no formal training, just years of experience in bar brawls and and druids using ancient eastern mysticism to work their magic

Play it as a western movie cowboy.

I recently tried middle finger's Master Thrower homebrew for 5e. He was a show-offy ex-gladiator egomaniac who was all about the sport and style of the kill instead of money or fame.
It's pretty satisfying, especially with tavern brawler and eldritch knight. You can turn basically anything into a ranged weapon, and having a bound thrown weapon is just like a better boomerang.

Some cool shit I got to do with him:
>Picked up a rock, tossed it super hard and cast conjure barrage, turning it into a giant buckshot blast.
>With the ranger variant that uses maneuvers you could trip people just by tossing a dagger at their heels
>Pinned two guys to the wall with just kitchen utensils
>Flicked an arrow into someone's skull
>Unloaded 2 dozen dinner plates into one guy's face
>Tossed a battleaxe through a man's torso
>Interrupted and disarmed folks casting spells or attacking my allies while looking cool at the same time
>One of my allies upgraded my scale armor so under each scale was a small knife pouch for one of my daggers
>Always had gold to spare beacause shit was super cheap for him because daggers cost such little money, handaxes and hammers too
>Never had to pay for taverns because his entertainer background lets him do juggling acts for food and shelter

Only downside was that if someone were to hand him an enchanted weapon, he'd end up tossing it immediately.

By playing him as pic related. A gentleman explorer and big game hunter. He was a master of the wildlands and a hunter of the most dangerous game, so long as his porters and beaters were there to witness his greatness.

Crazy obsessed vagrant racist out to genocide their chosen enemy.

>"Paladin" is anyone who abides by an oath to gain power
I guess a warlock is a paladin

>Name one Ranger-esque thing he has.
His job is Ranger of the North. He's rugged and is more comfortable in the wilds.

>Is he an orc-hunting professional (moreso than a typical warrior)?
Is every ranger a professional monster slayer? He's REALLY good at fighting evil beings, more than other Fellowship members (bar Gandalf, who defies class tropes.)

> Does he draw magic from the land?
He can track orc movements by hearing the vibration from the ground. That sounds a lot like the "Preferred Enemy" from the Ranger class, huh? He can also concoct healing potions from herbs and grasses found in the wilds.

>Does he commune with animals?
He calmed a furious horse of Rohan with a touch while other Rohirrim failed, and said horse only let him ride it.

>Does he have an animal friend?
Said horse aside, the Ranger has two archetypes in the PHB, Aragorn is the killy hunter Archetype.

>He has knowledge of herbs and tracking, as well as a knack for overland travel, but that's all the Survival skill at play.
That's like saying Gimly is a wizard with proficiency in Athletics and high STR and CON.

Next time you pretend to know anything about Lord of the Rings or classic DnD classes, try to read the books first. Your newfag and idiocy is showing.

My Ranger was a member of a clone army created by an alchemist in the devil controlled nation to be angel hunters. After five years of being sent of suicide missions I'm the only one left standing and I want revenge for my brothers. I carry around a harpoon so I can drag winged creatures down to the ground.

Let's create a unique ranger one feature at a time.

I'll start

>He throws greatswords

To my mind, a ranger is a sort of country irregular to the fighters soldier of the line. Rangers are basically tacticool fighters with a variety of survival and ancillary skills.

If I could homebrew a system I would call them Yeomen, and they'd be a combination of game wardens and light cavalry, riding the backwoods and countryside in search of threats.

Although I agree with you, there's a few counterpoints. His sharp senses are because of his royal Numenorean heritage, and his ability to use Athelas as a healing concoction is literally used as proof that he's the rightful king of Gondor.

he crawls around on all fours for maximum stealth

>The ranger must have a verbal tic of some kind

>Warrior-hero of a nomadic peoples
>inhabiting a rocky barrens of a post-debacle Greek-style civilization
>a strength-based Ranger who has a unique style of Javelin fighting

every 15 seconds he has an uncontrollable urge to scream out as if in pain

he cannot prevent this but he can stuff socks in his mouth to help muffle it

He has rather severe allergies.

allergies to plantlife

Get rid of the grumpy survivor preconception and you'll see a lot more options.

>All rangers love nature
Why can't we have one that utterly hates nature? One whose sole motivation is "fuck animals" and who learned the most effective ways to recognize, track, hunt and kill animals because fuck animals? Maybe his backstory is that he was once bitten by a dog and that day decided "fuck animals".

Gygax was a whore for Conan and Grey Mouser

A rock element-aligned ranger who hates nature because it has taken over what was once an entirely rocky planet

He vows to destroy all nature

This guy
Alternatively, the Kratt Brothers

>This planet was once beautiful. Rock, smog and asphalt as far as the eye can see.
>But then those hue-mens came. They brought their trees and their shrubberies and their animals and their vegetables.
>But no more. This is where we stand. This is where we fight. This is where they die.
>We are the ESP (Eco-Special Forces)

>P
When did I forget how to spell words?

Eco-Special Phorces

I think a Ranger is more about survivalism and protecting nature in a less magic-heavy way than a Druid would, whilst a Hunter is all about that big game & trophy hoarding, with the optional trait of actually giving a fuck about preserving nature.

its not suppose to be "different" theyre fantasy archetypes, ranger is aragorn/wow hunter/drizzt

offtopic but one of my favorite CYOA's is the Hunter CYOA

This is like those constant threads asking why Dwarves are always the same. Things don't get less based with use.

what would the anti-dwarf be like?

Gee I dunno boss