Knights & Knaves Alehouse

A ranger's got several class limitations that are particularly interesting concerning the feel of the class, IMO.

First, the ranger can't hire help until 8th level.
Second, the ranger can't own anything more than he (and his mount) can carry.
Third, no more than 3 rangers can work together at one time.
Fourth, rangers must remain good or lose their ranger status permanently.

These are very interesting in terms of what it might mean to be a ranger in any particular campaign milieu, because it can be interpreted (just like the "giant class" creatures) in a variety of ways by the player and DM.

For instance, not being able to hire help until 8th level might mean the ranger has a need to "prove" himself until he is worthy of leadership. Maybe the ranger's order has been wiped out in the distant past, which explains why they must not work all together at once. Maybe there is a "knight errant" aspect to the ranger class, in the way the ranger travels with what he can carry, nothing more. And what about the dedication to good above all else? Surely, rangers are very much akin to paladins in this way, albeit they are not dedicated to a particular deity in this case, but rather something else, and then, what? The idea of human civilization maybe, the defense of all that is good in the world, a particular philosophy or set of tenets like medieval Chivalry... this could be declined in any number of ways in a particular campaign.

It's very cool, much more open to interpretations than the Paladin, in some ways.

How did you use these limitations to flesh out the roles of rangers in your campaign milieu, or the milieu itself, if at all?

Odhanan wrote:

...not being able to hire help until 8th level might mean the ranger has a need to "prove" himself until he is worthy of leadership.

Interesting observation, this would certainly tie in to the Aragorn inspiration.

Maybe the ranger's order has been wiped out in the distant past, which explains why they must not work all together at once.

I think it could also be interpreted in that becoming an adept 'tracker' means a lot of time learning on your own, tracking, stalking, and learning to read the subltle voices of flora and fauna and how they relate to the particular human/humanoid/creature whose track one is reading.

Maybe there is a "knight errant" aspect to the ranger class, in the way the ranger travels with what he can carry, nothing more.

Possibly, by the nature of the class he is able to travel light to begin with - he is a long-striding, skilled tracker and hunter/gatherer competant at living in many uncivilized and even hostile environs. In other words, he does not need to lay waste to the land, plowing it under and domesticating it into a village, town or castle in so doing to inhabit it.

I think overall, the ranger concept stems from Tolkien's Aragorn, and however one wishes to interpret and articulate that, be it possessed of a 'knight errant' mindset, or that of an Apache scout can remain rather ambiguous.

I have tended to interpret the class with that of a 'knight errant' mindset and to be drawn from nobility. In my campaigns, a rangers strength is ability to live off the land bound to his workable skill in tracking. I tend to run this as a fighter with a few modifications, one could also play a hunter but would not have the martial skill with the sword or armor (unless initially trained as a man-at-arms) As for expert tracking I have really shifted that more to indiginous and barbaric peoples living closer to nature.

Usually I treat the restrictions as stemming from operational necessities and the particular "mission" of the ranger subclass. The restriction on enlisting aid until 8th level I imagine as being related primarily to stronghold construction.

I think this reflects a personality thing and a style they are taught to operate under. Imagine Strider with a bunch of employees hanging out with him.

AxeMental wrote: I think this reflects a personality thing and a style they are taught to operate under. Imagine Strider with a bunch of employees hanging out with him.

Faramir.

Matthew wrote:

The restriction on enlisting aid until 8th level I imagine as being related primarily to stronghold construction.

From the angle of your argument not sure why they could not enlist hirelings prior to stronghold construction...

Faramir...

Good point, forgot about him being a ranger, so if Tolkien's rangers can cluster in larger numbers, what do you imagine the restriction to be based on?

Matthew wrote:

AxeMental wrote: I think this reflects a personality thing and a style they are taught to operate under. Imagine Strider with a bunch of employees hanging out with him.

Faramir.

Ahhhhh yeah. I think he's the exception. I think Strider was the template of the ranger not Aragorn and not Faramir (I remember being really disappointed when I found out Strider was actually Aragorn, Strider was far cooler, as Sam noticed). Plus, I wouldn't call Faramir's group hirelings (and, isn't Faramir studying magic as well, is he even a "practising ranger" when the war breaks out?).

Rangers are simply too rare to bundle up (hell check out the qualifying stats). And they are so self sufficient they don't need to be slowed down by escorts (who couldn't keep up crossing swamps and briars anyway). When Aragorn goes into the caves to get the help of the undead, I think he takes a couple rangers with him. That was considered rare and only because a major war for the fate of the world was afoot. Infact, that might be the origin of the rule (it would be interesting to ask the creator of the class. Who was that again?)

sepulchre wrote: From the angle of your argument not sure why they could not enlist hirelings prior to stronghold construction...

My guess is that it is expected they will begin to construct a stronghold at around eighth level, so at that point they can enlist hirelings and henchmen. Alternatively, it may simply reflect Aragorn after Helm's Deep meeting up with the Rangers of the North

sepulchre wrote: Good point, forgot about him being a ranger, so if Tolkien's rangers can cluster in larger numbers, what do you imagine the restriction to be based on?

Well... bear in mind that not all of the Rangers of Ithilien are going to be classed rangers, most will just be 0-level unclassed types, regardless of their status. That is a bit of a cop out, though, more likely the restriction is mainly there to limit the number of ranger characters for aesthetic reasons, since it does not really match up with the practices of Tolkien's rangers or any other example association of rangers I can think of.

AxeMental wrote: Ahhhhh yeah. I think he's the exception. I think Strider was the template of the ranger not Aragorn and not Faramir (I remember being really disappointed when I found out Strider was actually Aragorn, Strider was far cooler, as Sam noticed). Plus, I wouldn't call Faramir's group hirelings (and, isn't Faramir studying magic as well, is he even a "practising ranger" when the war breaks out?).

Rangers are simply too rare to bundle up (hell check out the qualifying stats). And they are so self sufficient they don't need to be slowed down by escorts (who couldn't keep up crossing swamps and briars anyway). When Aragorn goes into the caves to get the help of the undead, I think he takes a couple rangers with him. That was considered rare and only because a major war for the fate of the world was afoot. In fact, that might be the origin of the rule (it would be interesting to ask the creator of the class. Who was that again?)

You are way off the mark here. Aragorn has more than a score of rangers with him after Helm's Deep (thirty, I think), all of his kin that could be gathered from the north in fact. In the context of D&D, Faramir's rangers are almost certainly hirelings (they surely cannot all be henchmen and associates), being soldiers in the service of Gondor. The D&D rule has a fleeting literary antecedent in Lord of the Rings, in that the Rangers of the North at that time are unlikely to gather in numbers whilst about their usual business, but when Aragorn needs them, they turn up in force.

AxeMental wrote:(it would be interesting to ask the creator of the class. Who was that again?)

A guy named Joe Fischer, who was one of the players in the Greyhawk Campaign but not, that I'm aware, ever an employee of TSR. AFAIK he's not active in online D&D fandom (for that matter I don't even know if he's still alive) but one of the other old-timers like Rob Kuntz or Mike Mornard might know more.

I think the first two have to do with the ranger's transient nature. They're not supposed to be setting up shop early on; they're supposed to be ranging - patrolling the borders of civilization and keeping the bad guys away from the normal folks. Thus no servants and not a whole bunch of stuff.

I think the third could be related to the first two and emphasize that the ranger is more of a commando than a soldier. But I think it was mainly supposed to be a balancing mechanism. I believe the original restriction for the OD&D ranger was no more than 2 rather than 3, and the reason for it being there was that the extra hit points made a low-level party full of rangers over-powered. Personally, I think the higher ability score requirements in AD&D make this issue a non-factor and that you could probably safely drop the restriction as long as you're using random char-gen.

The fourth issue relates to AD&D's conceit that humanity/civilization = good and monsters/wilderness = evil, which descended from the OD&D conceit that humanity/civilization = lawful and monsters/wilderness = chaotic. It's a good reminder that rangers aren't warrior for the wilderness, but rather warriors against the wilderness, where "wilderness" equals those things that spoil crops, steal livestock, and eat babies.

rogatny wrote:The fourth issue relates to AD&D's conceit that humanity/civilization = good and monsters/wilderness = evil, which descended from the OD&D conceit that humanity/civilization = lawful and monsters/wilderness = chaotic. It's a good reminder that rangers aren't warrior for the wilderness, but rather warriors against the wilderness, where "wilderness" equals those things that spoil crops, steal livestock, and eat babies.

Which is important and shows that the class owes just as much ore more to the myths of the American Old West as to Tolkien -- Ethan Edwards in The Searchers, Call and McRae in Lonesome Dove, and plenty of other examples of loner characters who devote their lives to ranging the wilderness defending "civilization" but are never able to really be a part of it (the characters in The Seven Samurai too, which is at heart a Western in Japanese drag).

No, I think it’s:

Yogi (Bug)Bear is a "giant class" creature.

And Boo-boo boy is a fuzzy goblin!

My bet is that the ranger class was created as a "hero" for the "against the giants" adventures that became the G module series. It looks inspired largely by Tolkien, but the giant-class kickassery makes me think GG 'tacked it on' to Mr. Fischer's initial class write-up, maybe to bring it more into Greyhawk (as it was being run at that time) than leaving it in Middle Earth.

Total speculation on my part. Unfortunately, I don't think I ever had a player running a ranger for very long, so I never really did much interpretation of the class in-play.

T. Foster wrote: Which is important and shows that the class owes just as much or more to the myths of the American Old West as to Tolkien -- Ethan Edwards in The Searchers, Call and McRae in Lonesome Dove, and plenty of other examples of loner characters who devote their lives to ranging the wilderness defending "civilization" but are never able to really be a part of it (the characters in The Seven Samurai too, which is at heart a Western in Japanese drag).

The direct old/wild west analogue never sits quite right with me, though I have some sympathy for it. Possibly it is because the western is not an isolated mythos, but draws on a broader history of frontier experience and conception of civilisation and barbarism in opposition. It may indeed be just as reasonable to cast the western as the frontier experience in drag, but I suspect such generalisations of similarities are unhelpful except as initial points of reference on the whole. For myself, I am yet to find it helpful to think of the ranger in terms of the old west frontiersman.