Defend the ranger as a class...I'll wait

>Defend the ranger as a class...I'll wait

Don't worry friend for I am FIGHTER and I have you covered with my Tower Shield!

I don't understand why it has to be a dichotomy. You can have wacky-sword-dungeon-funtimes and have to engage in basic survival. One would think needing to figure out how you'll stay alive would enhance the wackiness

Wilderness adventures can be fun, but it depends on what your party enjoys.

If they like resource management, be sure to enforce loss of fatigue points with three meals a day, clean water, broken equipment and injury from failed skill rolls and inclement weather, etc.

Failed Navigation rolls don't necessarily mean getting lost for two weeks with. It could just be time spent lost (important if you're on a time limit, or tracking resources, or both), or you could wander into a monster's lair, stumble across a banditry operation, intrude upon a druidic cult's grove, etc. Getting lost could be an adventure itself, such as managing to intrude upon some forgotten valley teeming with undead for no apparent reason, or ancient, living, and hostile ruins that wait until they seek shelter from the elements to ensnare them.

And there's always the chance they stumble into an ambush or traps set by local denizens, or get caught in some sort of natural disaster, like a mudslide or a flood.

Guard duty for a caravan means that they don't have to bother with resource management, unless they fail to protect their charge from bandits or monsters. If your players just like combats, this or a random encounter are probably the way to go.

In the end, though, it's up to you as a GM to be able to make anything fun.

Is he storing carrots in his collar?

Yes. Yes he is.

Someone with survivalist skills. Isn't that kind of important for an adventurer to have?

Guerilla warfare. Done.

Ranger suffers from the same hyperspecialization problem as the Rogue. He's there to make checks for navigation/detect traps, and if he flubs the roll the party is out of luck. Other players cannot contribute to his field of specialty which leaves them sitting it out while he does his thing. What exacerbates the problem is that there is a specialist in the party then the GM feels need to put in encounters where he can shine in his field so these non-contributing events are tacked on to the other players' dismay.

Needs no defense. It's great.

Keep waiting. You might learn something.

>three classes gain some kind of immunity to poison/disease
>casters can create pocket dimensions to avoid any kind of danger from the environment
>world has bags of holding/flasks of infinite water/jugs of mayonnaise/just random shit that says you don't even need to breath

No actually, it isn't

Their animals make great tanks in gw2

Still waiting

1. So all the other classes should be allowed to die horribly?
2. What if your caster doesn't have that spell? Or you don't have a caster? Sounds like a ranger would make a nice replacement
3. Aren't magic items optional in 5e? Can't imagine you'd run into much of that stuff, especially if there's a ranger in the party so you wouldn't need to try and buy one.

Any good DM makes it important to have someone with actual survival skills in the party.

On a purely mechanical level, maybe you could just stop playing 3.5 and accept that 4th and 5th are better? Both editions give rangers a good niche.

Laius is going to go nuclear soon.

He's going to eat the whole fucking dungeon.

But can they do ALL OF THOSE THINGS AT ONCE?
I enjoy your post.
My nigga, and that's not even mentioning while you're going Viet Cong you also get Cure for a spell, so you can double as field medic.

>More versatile than Fighters
>Not ludicrously broken like Tier 1 casters
>Fluffy enough to get teeth into but not too much to limit ideas
>Muh tactical operations operating tactically
>Barbarian a shit
>If the DM actually uses spotting distance rules you get a couple (or several) rounds of shooting before dumbass orcs engage in melee.

>So all the other classes should be allowed to die horribly?
They're allowed to have lesser restoration cast on them
>What if your caster doesn't have that spell? Or you don't have a caster?
Then it would be wiser to get a full caster than to get a ranger
>Aren't magic items optional in 5e?
So are feats, though I've yet to find a game that doesn't play with either

>Me retard
>Me has to be snuflake
>Me not know how to make point buy
>Me has iq of 70
Thanks proving you have a microscopy brain user.

Try not to drown with your own tongue.

Why are make believe games of childhood heroes a topic that causes you to act with such aggressive, extreme contempt towards their people?

You need to re-evaluate how you handle social situations, there's something wrong with you.

Aragorn and Faramir are very clearly fighters under the guise of the term "rangers". Obviously neither of them are throwing nature magic or have animal companions.

ACFs bruh

>urrr D&D started in 3rd edition
Also Aragorn had magic proportional to the degree the elves or gandalf did. Namely he could cast cure light wounds at best.

Which edition? 1e rangers are awesome.

They feel like a pre made multiclass of all 3.

5e
Is there an edition you would recommend?

Fourth

4e

>DM not using spotting rules
Yeah, no thanks, famalam. I want to play d&d, not a board game.

Aragorn could cast cure light wounds? I must have missed that in the books.
>coughbullshitcough
Don't try to say he cast spells in the book because he didn't. Not even once.

Point-buy is impossible to balance, due to the fact that synergies exist.
Point-buy systems are just class based systems with A LOT of trap options.

I recall that in 4th Ed ranger could be melee/shooting dervishes that demolished foes in a single blow.

1e, 2e or 4e.

4th.

Defend the wizard as a class and why it should be as powerful as it is.

I'll wait

Silly goose, he's only pretending to be retarded.

>he knows salves and shit

I studied magic for 18 to 24 years while you were practicing with your first lock pick set. BOOL the end

>Point-buy is impossible to balance
GMs exist.
>Point-buy systems are just class based systems with A LOT of trap options.
What? What system are you talking about? A system being point-buy has nothing to do with the existence of trap options.

>Salves are spells
I can see salves being under the purview of a ranger but it's still not a spell, even in 3.x e.

>demolished foes in a single blow
Rangers never hit you just once. That's why they could demolish foes.

Kek, just read the thread. That guy never realizes he is That guy.

They were pretty goddamn magical salves, but salves all the same.

A druid fighter hybrid without having to multiclass, also with tracking, foraging and sometimes enemies they are really REALLY good at killing.
Not as fighty as a fighter, nor as magic as a druid, but sits in the middle.

What? What the fuck does this even mean?

Well most magic in Tolkien was creation based, so maybe

Exactly. I'd maybe let the rangers and druids craft them with the right ingredients but king's foil isn't a spell.

It's not a spell in 3.x because 3.x decided to add crafting skills with actual rules.

You could argue NWP in 2e did that too but it's an optional rule.

Rangers in 2e were the first version that had dual wielding (as did rogues and bards); ironically until Complete Ranger added kits for it, theyr were garbage as archers compared to Fighters.

No spotting rules, you might as well play a board game where you can see your enemies as soon as they hit the board. Senpai.

Still doesn't make Aragon a caster in any way, shape, form or fashion. He never cast a spell in the book. He never even came close.

I'm aware of what 3x did but still, the point stands. Skills aren't spells. They don't even act like spells in any way.

Literally the only magic character who does cast something D&D fags would think of as obviously a spell in the books is Galadriel and in the actual LOTR rpgs she's the blastiest of blasters imaginable.

Ah, I think I see that.
I more meant that most DMs I've met tend to have engagements at 30-70ft, instead of 200+ like the rules frequently state.

>GMs exist.
A system should be somewhat balanced by itself.
That's why 3.5e DnD get a lot of flak (and rightfully so).
>What? What system are you talking about? A system being point-buy has nothing to do with the existence of trap options.
Any one. In point-buy system there will always be a few archetypes made of skills/perks/whatever that just work well together that function as pseudo classes. Meanwhile everything else will just be a weak aimless mishap of dissonant abilities.
What would be needed to solve the problem is to tax synergies, but good luck with that.

Go read the scene where he heals Faramir.

Rangers are garbage, just like Hobbits in any setting but the Lord of the Rings. Aragorn served a thematic purpose in Lord of the Rings. He is the disgraced heir to the throne that is also kind of a loner and thus not the best candidate. He has to grow out of his ranger ways to become an actually useful human being. Outside of that framework, rangers are superfluous and should never have been included in D&D as anything except a novelty joke for avid fantasy readers.

What does a ranger bring to the table that a fighter doesn't? I can't think of a single thing!

You're going to make the murderhobo morons cry.

>failed navigation
I keep a bunch of vignette encounters just for those, nothing particularly punishing and some of them are of the sidequest village variety anyway.

>A system should be somewhat balanced by itself.
>Point-buy is impossible to balance, due to the fact that synergies exist.
You say that as if class based systems are any easier to balance or that class based synergies don't exist. Besides, point buys are easier to balance because a) the GM can limit how many points you have to spend on abilities and b) abilities that are more powerful tend to be exponentially more expensive to own than weaker ones.

Granted, it's not always a perfect system but when you allow the players to build any character they want, of course some abilities are going to be more expensive than other. The only way to prevent imbalance issues is to offer so little character choice that it basically boils down to choosing between A, B, and C.

>I've only played Monty Haul D&D with kid gloves.

In point-buy games, it's up to the player to come up with their own character concept. If someone wants to play a social outdoorsy nobleman who fences at an expert level, that's fine and dandy, but they'll need the points to be able to do all of that. If your GM isn't giving that many points for character creation, you might have to change your concept to make them fit on the budget.

However, a concept like "Outdoorsy noble" would work, because you're only splitting your attention two ways - outdoorsman abilities and the wealth, status, and knowledge that comes with nobility. You know how to run your area of rule, and you know how to hunt, fish, and survive. That's a character that can help both in town and in the wilderness.

I love the freedom pointbuy allows for off-the-wall concepts. I'm not terribly concerned about balance, as long as everyone's competent at what they do and has chances to do so.

If they want to miss out on all the fun, that's fine with me.

This is the only defense it needs.
At least before the retcon that is

It's almost like having so many options to play that way encourages it or something

That actually is standard 3.PF shit, to be fair.

>a) the GM can limit how many points you have to spend on abilities and b) abilities that are more powerful tend to be exponentially more expensive to own than weaker ones.
You still don't get it.
It's not about the individual abilities, but the surplus in value from combining certain specific abilities.

>A system should be somewhat balanced by itself.

The mass Munchkining of tabletop ruined everything.

To take this a step further.

Min Maxers are a cancer on the game.

At one time that was true. Today though, min-maxing is the core of the game and the game is built around it.

The Gm can cap derived abilities/values if so desired, and simply audit/veto sheets and XP purchases. That's what I did running a campaign in Unisystem and I got by just fine with a light hand.
Just knowing that the optimization level was going to be enforced made my players police themselves.

>le roleplay and not having a character who selected color spray means a system is exempt from all criticisms, and that developers should publish a shitty product
>le its okay guise, we don't need to balance our games, and should not be held zccountable or have to make reasonable errata to rectify our mistakes
>Ivory Tower design is fine you guise!
>How dare you complain about us serving you a plate of shit instead of the rigatoni you ordered!
Fuck off Paizo!

So what I'm getting from this is that if Warriors were actually allowed to have skills there would be no reason for rangers to exist.
Because all a ranger fucking is is some dork trained in nature.

middle-earth.xenite.org/did-aragorn-use-any-magic/
A pretty good article on the matter, but simply put: It's indistinct whether or not he is using magic or simply has (often unique) access to magic effects.
Of course, it's obviously foolish to say he had control or use of magic comparable to Gandalf or the Elves. Dunno what the fuck that guy was on about.

This whole thread's full of you making very obviously duplicitous arguments. If you can't accept your opinion is an opinion, then maybe you should go take a nap or find some other excuse to fuck off while and everyone can busy themselves with actually enjoying our hobbies.

>The Gm can cap derived abilities/values if so desired, and simply audit/veto sheets and XP purchases.
Which require a lot of system mastery from the GM and a lot of mother-may-I from the player.
>Just knowing that the optimization level was going to be enforced made my players police themselves.
FUN!!!!!

Role Playing Games are dead.

Now you play WoW on the tabletop and believe that you "get" it.

>Which require a lot of system mastery from the GM and a lot of mother-may-I from the player.
Not a bad thing.
>FUN!!!!!
Yes, it was. They helped keep to an even tone, where nobody brought a disbelief-inducing cyborg ninja recluse lonewolf type. The combat monster was a titanic challenge for any fencer, but couldn't defeat an infantry unit. The social butterfly was charming, but not Loki. The doctor was clever but didn't try to invent the automatic rifle. I think we had more fun doing the game justice than by going off on the hackneyed powertrip plot most DM threads complain about.

4e did it right by making them a potent class for damage and skirmishing, while fighters used more defensive and marking mechanics, as well as giving them utility options that enhanced their survival skills.
5e's revised ranger is also good.
The "Why is muh wilderness fighter a class" thing is a question of how granular you need the class differences to be, based on how many mechanics one class can cover. Paladin, Ranger, Monk, and Barbarian are all fighter-y...but some have half casting, unarmed attacks, nature bond, holy blessings, and supernatural rages that present unique mechanics and make them not just fighter flavors. Likewise for various casters.
If you want to argue that the system itself is at fault for having a class with a too-similar concept by its own standards, that's one thing. If you just stop by to say "I don't like it and think it should be closer to fightan man and magic user only" then don't argue about it like that preference is fact.

>brainlets

Highly effective switch-hitter archer with utility magic and a decent array of skills. Has some pretty decent durability depending on build as well.

Dual wielding focus is a trap though.

>he still doesn't get it

>Today though, min-maxing is the core of the game and the game is built around it
If you're talking about playing DnD idk, but players at my table are here to have fun, not to be expert at mastering crunch.
I don't know about others because I've never observed another GM at work, but I always "patch" some stuff in the systems that I play for various reasons, when I'm not homebrewing entire parts of it

In 3.pf, it's still the best way to dual wield since you completely ignore all the dex requurements, and just focus on str.

They make the best husbandos.

>It's not about the individual abilities, but the surplus in value from combining certain specific abilities.
Unless you can somehow combine three level 1 abilities in order to end the world as we know it, it's probably not as big of a deal as you're making it out to be.

Like give me an example of how this would come up during play.

>Which require a lot of system mastery from the GM and a lot of mother-may-I from the player.
How is this an issue and how is this any different from the way tabletop games used to be way back in the day?

So just to restate what this post is to make sure I have a grasp on what your position is supposed to be: a guy says that players had an idea of fairness that didn't need reinforcement from the rules.
This allowed them to focus more on what made the campaign fun for them.
And you think that's bad?

I know this will sound derisive or like an insult, but I promise you I say this in earnest: maybe RPGs aren't for you.

>Rangers originally developed as a kit for Fighter, giving them a unique skillset and magic.
>Hurr durr why do they exist, aren't they just a fighter?

Yes, they were. Fuck you retard.

You just need to google "[insert point-buy system] broken builds"
e.g.
d3mm2..it/2013/01/broken-tactics.html

>end the world as we know it
You just need to make the other players obsolete.

How is is a good thing?

>a guy says that players had an idea of fairness that didn't need reinforcement from the rules.
He didn't say that. He said that he imposed "fairness" by threatening the players with mechanical punishments otherwise. It doesn't sound fun to me.

Also you guys are still missing my initial point.

>You just need to google "[insert point-buy system] broken builds"
Ah, that's what YOU need to do since YOU'RE the one making the claim.
>You just need to make the other players obsolete.
How would that be possible? Again, I need examples.
>How is is a good thing?
Because a GM should know how the system works before he decides to run a campaign with it and the players should be asking questions before they do a thing.
>He said that he imposed "fairness" by threatening the players with mechanical punishments otherwise.
That isn't what he said and you know it.
>The Gm can cap derived abilities/values if so desired, and simply audit/veto sheets and XP purchases.
What he said boiled down to "limit how much they can buy and double check to make sure everything is kosher," which is, again, what you're supposed to do before you start the campaign in order to prevent the broken builds that you're complaining about.

>"Why is muh wilderness fighter a class"

God now I'm getting flashbacks to the cretins that infested the 4e official forums back when they existed.

>I want to play a Fighter, but focused on damage instead of being tanky, and dual wielding.
>"Oh hey, the class you probably want for that is Ranger, they're literally built for 2-weapon damage dealing."
>I don't want to be a woodlands character.
>"You can take dungeoneering instead of Nature, and you can reflavor your abilities to not have the woodland elements."
>But then he'll be a Ranger. I want to play a Fighter.
>"We,, you can cross out Ranger and write Fighter on your character sheet. Your PC doesn't have his class floating over his head like WoW."
>BUT I WANT TO PLAY A FIGHTER!

I think we got those at least 2-3 times a week at one point.

>Ah, that's what YOU need to do since YOU'RE the one making the claim.
Which is what I did:

>d3mm2..it/2013/01/broken-tactics.html

the link is mangled because of the shoddy anti-spam filter, but if you google that it should be the first link.

Also the fact that the GM must veto potential builds, is just more proof of the veracity of my initial point, that is POINT BUY SYSTEMS ARE INHERENTLY UNBALANCED.