What's even the shtick of rangers as a class? Like I get that Aragorn is the inspiration for the class...

Thats because dnd is strategy game, not a rpg.

They should come with resistances to represent survival living.

I've always had a soft spot for the class since i started playing back in the AD&D 2e days. In the new editions they are terrible.

A ranger is not just a woodsman, they are the champions of a particular "land" but this land is not necessarily a literal piece of geography, a ranger can for example fashion himself as wandering sheriff of sorts that travels defending small populations from organized crime, think of them as a paladin that is empowered by the hunter/defender archetype they embody rather than by an ideological cause.

In an obtuse but simple way to put it they are to animism what paladins are to theism.

Yeah this is how I always perceived them. Pigeon-holing them into some bland NatureGuy stereotype feels contrary to the actual inspiration behind the class. Aragorn knew the wilderness sure, but that was in service of his job of protecting the normies.

The entire point of the ranger class is playing into /k/ sheepdog fantasies, not being a gayer druid with a bow.

The part that always made me see (non-4e) versions of the ranger as druid lite was the nature-themed magic spells.

....this explains a lot, really

Especially all those raped deer

GM word of the week had a recent episode on the ranger

that was comfy

Correct. Wardens of private game reserves, arctic explorers, or freelance monster hunters, etc.

>what powers do you even give someone whose archetype is "woodsman?"

As a woodsman he would be a tracker, as well as a dangerous fighter, combining good combat skills with a few extra abilities that give him many options and decisions during play. He'd boast the courage and strength of a warrior and the stealth and self-reliance of a thief. He'd combine the druid's affinity for the outdoors with the devotion and magical aptitude of a cleric. He's a hunter, a tracker, and a survivalist. By temperament and by choice, he's a loner, often preferring the company of animals to people. Without question, he's one with nature, sworn to protect the inhabitants of the wilderness and preserve the integrity of the land. However, what a woodsman needs above all else is a hatchet.

>By temperament and by choice, he's a loner, often preferring the company of animals to people.
But don't go overboard on that shit in-game, it's annoying when you want to play a group-based game but then there's this one fucker

Rangers get to add modifiers to the encounter roll, so that they can avoid certain things or find certain things.

The ranger's origins can be traced to the time when isolated human settlements were first founded in areas of unclaimed wilderness, or in areas occupied only by savage humanoid tribes. Those who were at first hunters, trappers, and guides were turned by the necessities of survival into canny wilderness warriors; and ultimately into the principle protectors of the scattered settlements of humans and demihumans, which had to fend off countless humanoid raids.

Few in number, but effective far beyond the power of local militias or the occasional military patrol of a ruling lord, the rangers have kept a protective watch on the forward frontier of human expansion. There are seldom more than one or two to be found in any place, but somehow, as a group, they manage to cover huge areas of the frontier. Where the tide of expansion has been turned back, they are the last to fight a desperate rear guard action against encroaching hordes of evil humanoids

In more civilized areas, it is common for kings and wealthy nobles to annex large tracts of forests for personal use. Some are maintained as private game preserves, others are harvested for the valuable timber. As a king's wilderness holdings grow, so does the need to protect them. But suitable candidates are hard to come by. Often, from among local woodsmen and hunters, able-bodied and trustworthy retainers are recruited as forest justices or wardens. Skilled in the management of land, wilderness survival, and natural lore, the forest justices are charged with guarding the king's holdings, preserving his game from poachers and his subjects from outlaws and brigands.

(cont.)
In other places, the local authorities have either lost control or become tyrannical. Perhaps the local order has broken down and the land is overrun by bandits or robbers. Perhaps a bad ruler has taken over and driven the peasantry beyond all possible tolerance. At such time a hero may arise, striding out of the wilderness, setting right the wrongs, returning a just overlord to power, and then disappearing back into wild and unknown lands. Such is the stuff of legends. Such is the legacy of the ranger.

As annoying as it is, it's true to template. Strider was the original "mysterious guy who sits in the corner" when he was supposed to be there protecting the hobbits

Exactly. Probs go with a Snow White type- Huntsman or go Paul Hogan (Crocodile Dundee).

Imagine someone who has spent a lot of time in a given environment. They aren't so supernaturally attuned to it to be able to reshape it or call on its aspects for power directly, but they Know it. They know where the earth is soft, and dangerous after the rains for weeks. They know where the big hunters are, and how to mask scents to avoid their attention. They're not warriors by intention, they're hunters; they know how to hit a target at a good distance after a slow and cautious approach, and while they'd rather make it quick and clean, they know when to hit once and then withdraw while the injury and blood-loss take their toll to do it again.

Some people like that appreciate company in otherwise wild and unpopulated areas. They might find a pet out there; a wolf, a boar, or some other creature native to their range. Others might be closer to civilization and their companionship reflects this; a partner of their own kind, or a more civil and useful beast like a dog or horse.

With how scarcely they're likely to see civilization, they'll have to be able to repair their equipment and Themselves if broken or injured. They won't likely be a first-class surgeon, but some first-aid and enough medicinal know-how to keep infection setting in goes a nice way to not dying out there.

They don't Control the patterns of nature, but they pay attention. They see bird migrations to tell the seasons and make plans months ahead. They cultivate bee hives, and might even plant new hives when the opportunity arises to stave off interlopers of various sorts.

Essentially, imagine the innawoods version of Home Alone.

>That one time after too many mysterious strangers were seated in their respective corners in an inn, it ended up developing extra spatial dimensions in order to accomidate all the kool kidz.

>Essentially, imagine the innawoods version of Home Alone.
I lieke diz.

As others have said; the ranger is to the druid what the paladin is to the cleric.

Rangers hunt their enemies and protect those who are kind of heart. The concept of a ranger (just like the paladin) has been dead ever since they lost their alignment restriction.

Rangers are good, they must be good. The only meaningful distiction between a ranger and a fighter with woodsman abilities is the fact that a ranger is a hero. His power is drawn from his heroic nature, that is what makes him a cut above the common scout.

>That guy who HAS to have a dire wolf combat pet, but won’t play a Ranger because it’s “bad”

... your point?

I would also be pissed if a stylistic choice was anchored to shitty mechanical chassis.

If we are talking 5e then it is completely understandable. In 5e either you do nothing or your pet does nothing during combat. At that point what is the purpose of having a pet?

If we're going to do that then why should the druid be different from the cleric? Both are nominally religious in origin and I can't buy the idea that just because they worship nature separates them from clerics who can and do worship concepts instead of just deities.

There is nothing wrong with saying the Ranger is a magic fighter who got his magic from being innawoods.

Druids are primal, clerics are divine.

At that point it isn't really a Ranger, it is just a magic Fighter.

A Paladin cannot exist without a code, nor can a Ranger. The new editions have bastardised the whole concept of the Ranger by making them a magic woodsman and the class has suffered because of this. They have no identity and because of this they have just been half a druid spell list stapled to half a fighter.

A fun thing to consider when building a ranger is the territory they hunt in. Forests are super common bit then you have archetypes designed for hunting in dark caves or frost covered terrains, a lot of what makes a ranger great is utilizing the landscape and the plants and animals to your advantage, act like your dad on a buck hunt

In my case, I established (or rather just acknowledged) that the basic class archetypes are Warrior (fighty, leader), Expert (skillmonkey, mundane utility), Priest (healer, buffs), and Mage (blaster, magic utility). Usually the term is "rogue" instead of Expert but I'm using Expert since the Thief class was renamed Rogue so it's kind of confusing.

After that each class is defined as either belonging to one archetype, or belonging to a combination, like so:

>Warrior: Barbarian, Fighter
>Expert: Rogue
>Priest: Cleric
>Mage: Sorcerer, Wizard

>Warrior/Expert: Ranger
>Warrior/Priest: Paladin
>Warrior/Mage: Warlock

>Expert/Priest: Monk
>Expert/Mage: Bard

>Priest/Mage: Druid

Thus we see that the Ranger is supposed to be a Expert/Warrior hybrid class. So it should be fighter, leader, and a skill monkey with utility achieved through nonmagical means.

>what powers do you even give someone whose archetype is "woodsman?"

This gets a lot easier when you remember that not every game of D&D takes place innawoods or even with the woods nearby. They're not woodsmen, they're supposed to be adept generally in the environment.