# What's an "Aragorn Style" ranger?



## Rechan (Jan 27, 2012)

I've seen "Aragorn style ranger" tossed around a little and I don't really understand what it means. What specifically did Aragorn do that's different?

I only saw the movies, and didn't really see anything that struck me as ranger-y (aside from dual wielding the sword and torch against the ringwraiths).


----------



## Remathilis (Jan 27, 2012)

Rechan said:


> I've seen "Aragorn style ranger" tossed around a little and I don't really understand what it means. What specifically did Aragorn do that's different?
> 
> I only saw the movies, and there wasn't really much in the way that implied any sort of ranger-y action (aside from dual wielding the sword and torch against the ringwraiths).




Didn't dual-wield or use a bow
Could go toe-to-toe with orcs in melee
Could scry with a crystal ball
Track
Heal via herbcraft
Become King.


----------



## Rechan (Jan 27, 2012)

Remathilis said:


> Could go toe-to-toe with orcs in melee
> Become King.



How are these ranger related?


----------



## GSHamster (Jan 27, 2012)

Rechan said:


> I've seen "Aragorn style ranger" tossed around a little and I don't really understand what it means. What specifically did Aragorn do that's different?
> 
> I only saw the movies, and there wasn't really much in the way that implied any sort of ranger-y action (aside from dual wielding the sword and torch against the ringwraiths).




It's a ranger that does not dual-wield magical scimitars. Nor does he have a magical panther. Also lower on the angst scale (but still some angst, mostly relating to romantic situations instead of heritage).

Whether all "Aragon-style" rangers need to be heirs to an ancient bloodline, romantically involved with elves and/or shield-maidens of Rohan, and carry a broken sword, is left to the discerning player (who is certainly not the type of player who would play the "other" ranger). Old-school greybeards recommend at least one of the three qualities be met.


----------



## Remathilis (Jan 27, 2012)

Rechan said:


> How are these ranger related?




Beats me. Ask Tolkien.


----------



## Gort (Jan 28, 2012)

An "Aragorn-style" ranger is a warrior-woodsman. He can track, fight, and knows herb-lore. That's it.

Note that you don't have to start specifying what weapons he uses, or his fighting style. In my experience the worst-written characters are the ones whose writers begin their descriptions with, "Marty Stu is a warrior who fights with his two home-made elven bread-katanas!"


----------



## Rechan (Jan 28, 2012)

GSHamster said:


> It's a ranger that does not dual-wield magical scimitars. Nor does he have a magical panther. Also lower on the angst scale (but still some angst, mostly relating to romantic situations instead of heritage).
> 
> Whether all "Aragon-style" rangers need to be heirs to an ancient  bloodline, romantically involved with elves and/or shield-maidens of  Rohan, and carry a broken sword, is left to the discerning player (who  is certainly not the type of player who would play the "other" ranger).  Old-school greybeards recommend at least one of the three qualities be  met.



The only context I've ever seen the phrase used in is *class design*, not character traits. It's being discussed over in the 5e forums, and I'm pretty sure no one using it means romantic elements or kingly parentage in the class's abilities. 

Unless they mean 
Level 2 Class Feature: Romantic Tension
Level 8 Class Feaure: Broken Sword
Level 15 Class Feature: Hail to the King



Gort said:


> An "Aragorn-style" ranger is a warrior-woodsman. He can track, fight, and knows herb-lore. That's it.



So... all rangers.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 28, 2012)

The one that is in the 1st Edition AD&D PHB.


----------



## Rechan (Jan 28, 2012)

Reynard said:


> The one that is in the 1st Edition AD&D PHB.



OK, so what do they do and how are they different from rangers of later editions?


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 28, 2012)

You sit around a campfire smoking a pipe and fantasize about elven maidens.


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 28, 2012)

Rechan said:


> How are these ranger related?




Aragorn is a ranger in the same way that Gandalf is a wizard: That's what they're called in Middle-Earth, even though their skill sets bear little resemblance to the D&D classes of the same name.

I haven't seen the term "Aragorn-style ranger" tossed around, but I presume it means a ranger whose concept is defined by "wilderness expert" rather than "dual wielding and/or archery specialist."


----------



## GSHamster (Jan 28, 2012)

Rechan said:


> OK, so what do they do and how are they different from rangers of later editions?




Ok, I'll be serious. It's a code or dog-whistle for "not-Drizzt". According to most grognards, only munchkins/kiddies pattern their rangers after Drizzt. "Proper" players pattern their rangers after Aragorn. The invocation of "Aragorn ranger" is really code for "see old-school players, we're on _your_ side, not the newbs/kids."

Mechanically, maybe a little more focused on survival and tracking than combat skills.

Personally, I always thought Driz'zt was a decent example of a ranger. Maybe a little more combat-oriented than woods-lore, but still well within the sphere of ranger.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 28, 2012)

What do rangers do in Lord of the Rings? They're excellent fighters. They operate in the wild keeping watch over peaceful communities, protecting them from dire threats, including the kinds of things that come out of the Trollshaws--a bulwark against evil as important as the men of Minas Tirith. They work with subtlety and stealth in the North and even in Ithilien. They are comfortable in lighter armors because they are often on the move, but they don't seem opposed to heavier armors. They can track. They know wood and herb lore. And the two rangers we know best, Aragorn and Faramir, are men of wisdom - both more inclined to think like wizards (mainly Gandalf)... And more inclined to selflessness than raw ambition or cynical desires.

The 1e ranger is the one that hits closest to the mark, even with its adaptations to D&D. No specific fighting style. High effectiveness against humanoids who would make up a large proportion of enemies in Middle Earth. Tracking. Wilderness orientation and even minor healing, in this case via druid spells. Wizard-friendly symbolized by minor use of magic user spells. Use of scrying devices like the palantir. Mobility through the limitations on wealth. Stealth through their bonus to gaining surprise.


----------



## Rechan (Jan 28, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> I haven't seen the term "Aragorn-style ranger" tossed around, but I presume it means a ranger whose concept is defined by "wilderness expert" rather than "dual wielding and/or archery specialist."



Which I don't get, because the two are mechanically separate and all rangers get *both*. One is _skills_, the other is combat class features. All rangers have access to nature/whatever skills. 3e rangers had Track, 4e rangers can use Nature to track.

It's like saying "I want a Wizard who's less focused on casting spells and more focused on knowing magical lore". That's what _skills are for_, as well as campaign focus.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 28, 2012)

I would say he is a defender off leader instead of a striker off controler.

He uses herbal lore to heal, and is a bit of a weapon master.


Infact I would in 4e see aragorn as a Warlord long before a ranger.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 28, 2012)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I would say he is a defender off leader instead of a striker off controler.
> 
> He uses herbal lore to heal, and is a bit of a weapon master.
> 
> ...




I dunno. Some of the utility powers wouldn't be such a bad fit, skill sharing and all that. Perhaps it's the preponderance of combat-orientation in 4e that makes the utilities easy to overlook.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 28, 2012)

billd91 said:
			
		

> What do rangers do in Lord of the Rings? They're excellent fighters. They operate in the wild keeping watch over peaceful communities, protecting them from dire threats, including the kinds of things that come out of the Trollshaws--a bulwark against evil as important as the men of Minas Tirith. They work with subtlety and stealth in the North and even in Ithilien. They are comfortable in lighter armors because they are often on the move, but they don't seem opposed to heavier armors. They can track. They know wood and herb lore. And the two rangers we know best, Aragorn and Faramir, are men of wisdom - both more inclined to think like wizards (mainly Gandalf)... And more inclined to selflessness than raw ambition or cynical desires.
> 
> The 1e ranger is the one that hits closest to the mark, even with its adaptations to D&D. No specific fighting style. High effectiveness against humanoids who would make up a large proportion of enemies in Middle Earth. Tracking. Wilderness orientation and even minor healing, in this case via druid spells. Wizard-friendly symbolized by minor use of magic user spells. Use of scrying devices like the palantir. Mobility through the limitations on wealth. Stealth through their bonus to gaining surprise.




What he said.

Now, I don't think that's the only viable kind of ranger and I hope 5E allows you to play all the ranger icons listed in the 2E PHB: Aragorn, Drizzt, Robin Hood, Jack the Giantkiller, etc...


----------



## saskganesh (Jan 28, 2012)

Total generation gap with this thread. I always assumed Aragorn was the base for the Ranger and I was excited to see the class show up in the PHB; this was after a few _Dragon_ mag mentions of them.

One significant difference between a D&D Ranger and a Dunedain was the prohibition against associating in a group of more than three rangers. Sure, Aragorn preferred to operate alone, but when total war broke out, a large group of them (30? 50?) met him in Rohan, who he then lead through the paths of the dead and then onward.

I only knew of Drzzt many years later when I found some old disks of BG and proceeded to play the Bhaalspawn out of them. 

It's interesting to see how popular conceptions of the class have evolved. It's all good: myth always change shapes and reskins itself.


----------



## ferratus (Jan 28, 2012)

I think people are excited about an "Aragorn" ranger in that you aren't forced to be a dual-wielding melee fighter.   You can be a sword and board, or wield a danish axe, or be an archer.

Instead of being defined by a specific weapon style you are defined by being a grizzled, shaggy, woodsman.  Possibly one who knows druidic/elven magic and herb lore.

Plus, two-weapon fighting is generally for jedi, swashbucklers, and hollywood ninjas isn't it?   When I think dangerous man in the wilderness, "sword dancer" isn't really the first thing that comes to mind.   I suppose if a drow became a ranger, with the drow's penchant for being graceful blademasters, that particular ranger would be good at two weapon fighting.    But I don't see how it follows that this should be the only archetype for rangers who fight in melee.


----------



## dagger (Jan 28, 2012)

Old quote from Aaron L about 1e rangers.



Aaron L said:


> Rangers were survivalists, and they learned anything and everything they could to make them better at fighting "giant class" creatures.  Arcane magic, Druidic magic... a little bit of everything.
> 
> This is also why they got 2 hit dice at 1st level; assuming that most classed individuals are 1st or 2nd level or thereabouts, then Rangers are the toughest guys around.  Even with the lower hit die, with the extra die they ended up with more HP at lower levels.
> 
> ...


----------



## Anselyn (Jan 28, 2012)

Rechan said:


> I only saw the movies, and didn't really see anything that struck me as ranger-y (aside from dual wielding the sword and torch against the ringwraiths).




How I envy you! You have the pleasure to come of reading LoTR and immersing yourself in a mythic world. Whatever has stopped you doing this before?


----------



## trancejeremy (Jan 28, 2012)

saskganesh said:


> Total generation gap with this thread. I always assumed Aragorn was the base for the Ranger and I was excited to see the class show up in the PHB; this was after a few _Dragon_ mag mentions of them.
> 
> One significant difference between a D&D Ranger and a Dunedain was the prohibition against associating in a group of more than three rangers. Sure, Aragorn preferred to operate alone, but when total war broke out, a large group of them (30? 50?) met him in Rohan, who he then lead through the paths of the dead and then onward.




Well I always thought they operated in very small groups until it was time to call them all together for the big showdown.

Either that or they borrowed that bit from the Texas Rangers (the lawmen) - the old saying "One riot, one ranger"

Just like a lot from the Paladin comes from Bullfinch's Charlemagne (and 3 Hearts, 3 Lions), some of it also really seems to come from Paladin on the TV Western, _Have Gun, Will Travel_.


----------



## Rechan (Jan 28, 2012)

Anselyn said:


> Whatever has stopped you doing this before?



Tolkien's writing style is... not appealing to me, and I know the story. So I'm not interested.


----------



## Remathilis (Jan 28, 2012)

Reynard said:


> The one that is in the 1st Edition AD&D PHB.




Yeah this.

He got a bonus to surprise rolls
He got massive bonuses to damage "giant class" monsters which, despite the name, was nearly any humanoid in the MM.
He got tracking and herbcraft.
He got arcane and druid spells of 1-2 and 1-3 levels at high level.
He got the ability to use crystal balls (no joke) or other divination magic items
He had to be good aligned.
(He also got 2d8 starting HD, which I seriously doubt is going to make the jump to 5e)

Whats more important is what he didn't have:
He didn't get any bonus to dual-wielding weapons or archery.
He didn't get stealth skills
He didn't have animal empathy
He didn't have an animal companion (save perhaps for a henchman)
He didn't have choice of a favored enemy
His abilities weren't crippled by wearing heavier armor than St. Leather.

My theory is an "Aragorn" style ranger is going to focus more on combat more (using heavier weapons, shields and heavy armor) and be more mystical/magical than sneaky/skirmisher. Another way to say it is he might be more defender/leader than striker/skirmisher.


----------



## Remathilis (Jan 28, 2012)

I feel the need to clear the air, AGAIN, of the biggest myth in D&D.

2e ranger's didn't get their two-weapon fighting from Drizzt.

While the Crystal Shard was being written, Salvatore was talking with David Cook, author of the 2e PHB. Cook mentioned how rangers in 2e were going to work; dual wielders in light armor rather than the 1e ranger. Salvatore, trying to keep with the edition that would be coming out (so his character would be relevant to the new rules) wrote Drizzt to fight with two scimitars (rather than one). At the time, it was assumed it was because drow elves typically fought with two weapons (see: Monster Manual 2, AD&D). However, Salvatore was in on the new changes and used them to basis his hero's "build" on. 

Drizzt was a product of the new rules changes, not the other way around.


----------



## Greg K (Jan 28, 2012)

From Col Pladoh (i.e. Gary Gygax) in this  post elsewhere on the site:

"The Ranger class was originally devised by Joe Fischer, then a regular in my D&D game group. I published his initial treatment of the class in The Strategic Review, thereafter revised it and included it in the core game rules. Of course it is apparent that Joe based the class on JRRT's work and Aragorn. Likely a forester of some sort would have been created at some point, but it would have been quite different from the Ranger as it appeared. certainly.

The Thief was based on Jack of Shadows (Zelazny) and Cugel (Vance) with a touch of REH's Conan, rather than solely on the Gray Mouser. Mouser was too good a swordsman to serve as the pure model.

What was done was tobuild game characters based on broad archetypes, and where there were strong fictitional characters of the archtypical sort, use them as central models."


----------



## billd91 (Jan 28, 2012)

Remathilis said:


> Whats more important is what he didn't have:
> He didn't get any bonus to dual-wielding weapons or archery.
> He didn't get stealth skills
> He didn't have animal empathy
> ...




Elements of a couple of these were there. Gaining a bonus on inflicting surprise can be viewed as being due to some elements of stealth.
Some rangers did have animal companions (mine had a bear) because they showed up on the list of followers they could attract (not technically a henchman).


----------



## dagger (Jan 28, 2012)

In addition to the below they needed more XP than the fighter to advance and had race restrictions


Any change to non-good alignment immediately strips the
ranger of all benefits, and the character becomes a fighter,
with eight-sided hit dice, everafter, and can never regain
ranger status.

No more than three rangers may ever operate together at any
time.

Rangers may not hire men-at-arms, servants, aides, or
henchmen until they attain 8th or higher level.

Rangers may own only those goods and treasure which they
can carry on their person and/or place upon their mount; all
excess must be donated to a worthy communal or institutional
cause (but never to another player character). (cf. Paladin
above.)

Although rangers do not attract a body of mercenaries to serve them
when, and if, rangers construct strongholds, they conform to the fighter
class in other respects.

A ranger must have strength of not less than 13, intelligence of
not less than 13, wisdom of not less than 14, and a 14 or greater
constitution.


----------



## blargney the second (Jan 28, 2012)

Rechan said:


> Level 2 Class Feature: Romantic Tension
> Level 8 Class Feaure: Broken Sword



Romantic tension should never be followed by a broken sword.


----------



## Squire James (Jan 28, 2012)

My impression of the "Aragorn ranger" is that not all the rangers happened to be Aragorn.  Strider wasn't normal, even among rangers.  His healing abilities, his entitlement to mended swords and kingdoms, and an elf maiden's love were clearly derived from other sources than his status as a ranger.   I think what is left, is something like this:

1.  Weapon skill similar to a warrior.
2.  Nature-related non-magical skills.
3.  A protective attitude toward good-aligned folk.

A ranger dual-wielding scimitars is certainly rarer than a ranger with a sword or bow, but I don't think one would be impossible (unlikely, yes) in a Tolkien-like setting.  All of Tolkien's rangers were human, but they acted in concert with elves enough that many elves could probably be considered from that class (elves in Tolkien often being superior to humans in every way... including the propensity for greater folly).


----------



## Anselyn (Jan 28, 2012)

Rechan said:


> Tolkien's writing style is... not appealing to me, and I know the story. So I'm not interested.




OK. I've avoided Dickens until recently for the same reasons - and it turns out that was I wrong, btw.

But-

War and Peace: The enemy advances; the enemy retreats. 
There's more to literature than the plot?


----------



## Tallifer (Jan 28, 2012)

Rechan said:


> Tolkien's writing style is... not appealing to me, and I know the story. So I'm not interested.




Same for my first dungeon master in the 1980s. He knew nothing of the middle ages or classic literature. We were good friends and I enjoyed his game, but his ideas about knights, clerics, rangers, elves and dwarves were quite bizarre. Of course nowadays I am equally ignorant of all the new fantasy tropes like anime, double-wielding, double-weapons, fantasy axes, steam-powered robots, sparkly vampires and necromancer heroes.


----------



## Tallifer (Jan 28, 2012)

Remathilis said:


> Didn't dual-wield...




From whence did Salvatore get that ridiculous idea anyways? Did he roll up an ambidextrous character when he was 12 and want moar fighting power? The only dual-wielding I was aware of beforehand was the rapier and dagger combination, wherein the dagger parried in place of having a shield. In the 80s, even the fantasy games did not allow dual-wielding two large weapons to attack. Maybe it is from wuxia?


----------



## Anselyn (Jan 28, 2012)

Tallifer said:


> Of course nowadays I am equally ignorant of all the new fantasy tropes like anime, double-wielding, double-weapons, fantasy axes, steam-powered robots, sparkly vampires and necromancer heroes.




Quite. When I ran /4e for my 8 year-old I realised that his view of combat came more from Power Rangers than Robin Hood or King Arthur ...


----------



## Hautamaki (Jan 28, 2012)

Tallifer said:


> From whence did Salvatore get that ridiculous idea anyways? Did he roll up an ambidextrous character when he was 12 and want moar fighting power? The only dual-wielding I was aware of beforehand was the rapier and dagger combination, wherein the dagger parried in place of having a shield. In the 80s, even the fantasy games did not allow dual-wielding two large weapons to attack. Maybe it is from wuxia?




IIRC, In medieval sword play, the 'Florentine' style of fighting was using 2 swords.  Likewise in Japan, Musashi used two swords in at least some of his fights.


----------



## Ravellion (Jan 28, 2012)

Tallifer said:


> From whence did Salvatore get that ridiculous idea anyways? Did he roll up an ambidextrous character when he was 12 and want moar fighting power? The only dual-wielding I was aware of beforehand was the rapier and dagger combination, wherein the dagger parried in place of having a shield. In the 80s, even the fantasy games did not allow dual-wielding two large weapons to attack. Maybe it is from wuxia?



Dude. The answer is right here, in this very thread.


----------



## Izumi (Jan 28, 2012)

A Fighting-Man who patrols a wilderness area. Trained well, Aragorn is also good at hunting, scavenging, scouting, stalking, tracking, and surviving adversity. The rest made good plot devices.


----------



## Hautamaki (Jan 28, 2012)

Here's a link: Niten Ichi-ry? - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Izumi (Jan 28, 2012)

Hautamaki said:


> Here's a link: Niten Ichi-ry? - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Shinmen Genmen Musashi No Kami Fujiwara no Genshin. Good luck separating the truth from the fiction.


----------



## Derulbaskul (Jan 28, 2012)

Tallifer said:


> From whence did Salvatore get that ridiculous idea anyways? Did he roll up an ambidextrous character when he was 12 and want moar fighting power? The only dual-wielding I was aware of beforehand was the rapier and dagger combination, wherein the dagger parried in place of having a shield. In the 80s, even the fantasy games did not allow dual-wielding two large weapons to attack. Maybe it is from wuxia?




The first character in fiction that wielded two scimitars was, IIRC, Prince Rann from the War of the Powers. Rann was a major villain.

There were six books published around 1980 and I vaguely recall that they were first serialised in Playboy in the 1970s or 80s.

They're high fantasy...  but with a few X-rated touches which are easy enough to skip over and get to the meat of flying cities, elementals etc....


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jan 28, 2012)

Rechan said:


> Tolkien's writing style is... not appealing to me, and I know the story. So I'm not interested.




If you also haven't seen _Monty Python and the Holy Grail_, turn in your gamer-card.


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 28, 2012)

GSHamster said:


> Ok, I'll be serious. It's a code or dog-whistle for "not-Drizzt". According to most grognards, only munchkins/kiddies pattern their rangers after Drizzt. "Proper" players pattern their rangers after Aragorn. The invocation of "Aragorn ranger" is really code for "see old-school players, we're on _your_ side, not the newbs/kids."




Hmmf. For my money, proper players make their own damn rangers instead of mimicking somebody else's. D&D has quite enough Tolkien knock-offs already, thanks.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Jan 28, 2012)

Rechan said:


> How are these ranger related?




They are not. Most of Aragorn's traits are _Aragorn_'s traits, not ranger traits.

If you wanted to design a Middle-earth ranger, I would suggest doing up a "generic" ranger, and than Aragorn. This would clearly show the difference.



Squire James said:


> My impression of the "Aragorn ranger" is that not all the rangers happened to be Aragorn.  Strider wasn't normal, even among rangers.  His healing abilities, his entitlement to mended swords and kingdoms, and an elf maiden's love were clearly derived from other sources than his status as a ranger.   I think what is left, is something like this:
> 
> 1.  Weapon skill similar to a warrior.
> 2.  Nature-related non-magical skills.
> 3.  A protective attitude toward good-aligned folk.




I agree with the first two, but not the last. While you couldn't belong to the "prestige group" Rangers of the North if you were evil, I see no reason why you couldn't be an evil Ranger of Ithilien (just don't kill orc kids in front of the commander), or play a character with that skill set who is evil. (Even in a campaign where evil PCs are banned, such as mine, I wouldn't prohibit evil NPC rangers.)



Izumi said:


> A Fighting-Man who patrols a wilderness area. Trained well, Aragorn is also good at hunting, scavenging, scouting, stalking, tracking, and surviving adversity. The rest made good plot devices.




This!

At the risk of public mockery, since it's not written well enough for public presentation, I have actually designed in 4e a 6th-level and 16th-level version of Aragorn, if anyone cares to see. (These are "monsters" without good Dunedain powers but could conceivably be converted into companions.) Alas, I don't have a "generic Ranger of the North" for comparison purposes, so maybe posting those stat blocks are pointless.

I hate the connection between rangers and dual-wielding, *but* Aragorn did dual-wield once... when facing the Nazgul the first time, he fended them off with a pair of flaming brands of wood. I saw nothing to suggest that was his favored fighting style, and I don't even know if he hit them (or needed to do so; the Nazgul were extremely afraid of fire).


----------



## ferratus (Jan 28, 2012)

Squire James said:


> A ranger dual-wielding scimitars is certainly rarer than a ranger with a sword or bow, but I don't think one would be impossible (unlikely, yes) in a Tolkien-like setting.




That's not really the complaint.  I think the complaint is that 3 editions now, we could only play rangers as two-weapon fighters or bow fighters.   It is more hyper-specialized than it should be.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Jan 28, 2012)

The way I interpret "Aragorn-style ranger" is that it's a class that hews a bit more toward ruggedness and toughness than dexterity and finesse.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Jan 28, 2012)

ferratus said:


> That's not really the complaint.  I think the complaint is that 3 editions now, we could only play rangers as two-weapon fighters or bow fighters.   It is more hyper-specialized than it should be.




It's not just hyper-specialization, one of those fighting styles doesn't fit at all.


----------



## Rechan (Jan 28, 2012)

Sorry guys, I'm just not interested in reading Tolkien, regardless of how important LotR is for you.  Although I have been looking into Swords & Devilry, and the various Conan stories. 



Gentlegamer said:


> If you also haven't seen _Monty Python and the Holy Grail_, turn in your gamer-card.



No, I've seen that about three times.


----------



## Rechan (Jan 28, 2012)

Squire James said:


> 2.  Nature-related non-magical skills.



Then what's all this talk of druidic magic? The 'they cast druid/arcane' spells in 1e?


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Jan 28, 2012)

Rechan said:


> Then what's all this talk of druidic magic? The 'they cast druid/arcane' spells in 1e?




I think one or more of the designers wanted to model the class after Aragorn, rather than making it possible for Aragorn to be of the class. As a result, another ranger inspiration, Robin Hood, could cast druid spells, which doesn't make sense.

Class design has become more flexible over time, along with multi-classing rules, but unfortunately the ranger is almost the last frontier against change.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jan 28, 2012)

Rechan said:


> Sorry guys, I'm just not interested in reading Tolkien, regardless of how important LotR is for you.  Although I have been looking into Swords & Devilry, and the various Conan stories.



At least read _The Hobbit_. It was written for children should be at your reading level...


----------



## Reynard (Jan 28, 2012)

Rechan said:


> Sorry guys, I'm just not interested in reading Tolkien, regardless of how important LotR is for you.  Although I have been looking into Swords & Devilry, and the various Conan stories.
> 
> 
> No, I've seen that about three times.




Read what you want of course, but if you are interested in reading material to inspire your D&D, I would recommend Howard, Leiber and Anderson's fantasies before Tolkien. Tolkien is a great author and LotR is defining literature for the fantasy genre, but it isn't very D&D (though The Honing is a lot closer to gaming style fantasy).


----------



## ferratus (Jan 28, 2012)

Rechan said:


> Sorry guys, I'm just not interested in reading Tolkien, regardless of how important LotR is for you guys.  Although I have been looking into Swords & Devilry, and the various Conan stories.




Tolkien isn't for everyone.   You don't read Tolkien stories for cinematic action,  romance, sex or thrilling pacing.  

You read Tolkien because you enjoy a good slow read and the poetry of the English language.  You read Tolkien because you enjoy thinking about deep philosophical, moral and religious themes woven into the narrative.  You read Tolkien because you want an ocean of depth informing the story you are currently reading.

The problem with the story elements of first paragraph, is that if Tolkien included them he would destroy the story elements in the second paragraph.   That's why I don't accept the idea that "Tolkien needed a tougher editor" or "Tolkien is long-winded".    It is also the reason while the movies bear a superficial resemblence to plot of the books, it doesn't really tell the story. 

Tolkien doesn't have to be for everyone.  It just means you have to be a particular type of person, in a particular mood, or at a particular stage in your life.   But if you are, it will change you forever, as all great works of literature do.

Robert E. Howard is good too.  His prose is purple, and he'll never change the person you are, but it has a great amount of vitality to it.   Appearantly, Tolkien was familiar with it.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jan 28, 2012)

Reynard said:


> Read what you want of course, but if you are interested in reading material to inspire your D&D, I would recommend Howard, Leiber and Anderson's fantasies before Tolkien.



Also, E.R. Burroughs.


----------



## Rechan (Jan 28, 2012)

Gentlegamer said:


> At least read _The Hobbit_. It was written for children should be at your reading level...



 

I own the Hobbit (and do plan to get around to it). But my issue with Tolkien is 1) his habit of going completely offroad to wax on about leaf structures or some other unrelated tangent for multiple pages. 2) All that damn singing. Yes, he was trying to recreate storytelling through bardic tales of yore, but no thanks. As an editor/writer, these both grind my teeth. So it becomes a Tedious read. 

Not counting the books I set down because I didn't like/got distracted, I finished roughly 26 books last year, so it's not like I'm a stranger to reading.  Although looking at the list that I _did_ read, very little was strictly fantasy, aside from _Dark Jenny_. Unless you count Urban Fantasy (modern-day wizards and monsters and the like) which is my favorite genre.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jan 28, 2012)

ferratus said:


> Tolkien isn't for everyone.   You don't read Tolkien stories for cinematic action,  romance, sex or thrilling pacing.
> 
> You read Tolkien because you enjoy a good slow read and the poetry of the English language.  You read Tolkien because you enjoy thinking about deep philosophical, moral and religious themes woven into the narrative.  You read Tolkien because you want an ocean of depth informing the story you are currently reading.



More immediate to the need of "gaming" inspiration, read Tolkien if you want to learn what good world building looks like.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jan 28, 2012)

Rechan said:


> I own the Hobbit (and do plan to get around to it). But my issue with Tolkien is 1) his habit of going completely offroad to wax on about leaf structures or some other unrelated tangent for multiple pages.



There is no such thing in Tolkien.


> 2) All that damn singing. Yes, he was trying to recreate storytelling through bardic tales of yore, but no thanks.



This is a sign of our (collective) poor modern taste: we no longer appreciate (narrative) poetry, and can only handle prose.

For me, Illiad, Odessey, Aeneid, Beowulf, Divine Comedy, Paradise Lost, etc are pure joy.


----------



## Anselyn (Jan 28, 2012)

Rechan said:


> Although I have been looking into Swords & Devilry, and the various Conan stories.




I recommend Jack Vance. Not for Vancian magic but for the anti-hero Cugel. Vance describes him as "a man of many capabilities, with a disposition at once flexible and pertinacious. He was long of leg, deft of hand, light of finger, soft of tongue ... His darting eye, long inquisitive nose and droll mouth gave his somewhat lean and bony face an expression of vivacity, candor, and affability. He had known many vicissitudes, gaining therefrom a suppleness, a fine discretion, a mastery of both bravado and stealth." [From Wikipedia on "The Eyes of the Overworld"]

I only came to these recently but they're great fun.  




> No, I've seen that about three times.




And _Life of Brian_ too, I hope. It's about the Edition Wars. Splitters!


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jan 28, 2012)

Anselyn said:


> I recommend Jack Vance. Not for Vancian magic but for the anti-hero Cugel. Vance describes him as "a man of many capabilities, with a disposition at once flexible and pertinacious. He was long of leg, deft of hand, light of finger, soft of tongue ... His darting eye, long inquisitive nose and droll mouth gave his somewhat lean and bony face an expression of vivacity, candor, and affability. He had known many vicissitudes, gaining therefrom a suppleness, a fine discretion, a mastery of both bravado and stealth." [From Wikipedia on "The Eyes of the Overworld"]
> 
> I only came to these recently but they're great fun.



How could I forget Vance?!?!

Also, the "Harold Shea" (typically collected as _The Incomplete Enchanter_) stories of Camp & Pratt. The story "The Roaring Trumpet" was the direct inspiration for Against the Giants, as well as the sympathetic spell components (Verbal, Material, Somatic) of AD&D magic.


----------



## Iosue (Jan 28, 2012)

Gentlegamer said:


> There is no such thing in Tolkien.
> This is a sign of our (collective) poor modern taste: we no longer appreciate (narrative) poetry, and can only handle prose.
> 
> For me, Illiad, Odessey, Aeneid, Beowulf, Divine Comedy, Paradise Lost, etc are pure joy.



I enjoy Beowulf in the original Englisc, and I still tended to skip past Tolkien's songs.

But that's not really a criticism.  I love Tolkien's prose, and I love Lord of the Rings.  I read LotR nearly once a year, skipping the songs more often than not.  I say, if the songs are not one's bag, skip 'em.  Hell, skip the environmental exposition.  There was a time, in my romantic youth, when desiring high saga above all else, I used to skip whole Frodo and Sam chapters in the Two Towers!  Lord of the Rings is dense -- and even if you're not so interested in the gold, silver, marble of quartz, mine it deep enough and you'll find mithril.  And you may find those parts will bring you back to parts you skimmed through earlier.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 28, 2012)

Gentlegamer said:


> There is no such thing in Tolkien.




This. People that suggest Tolkien wrote like this are either completely unfamiliar with his work or are misrepresenting it on purpose. I think it is most likely that most people get bored having to think there way through literature so they tend to criticise literary authors as "long winded."


----------



## Niccodaemus (Jan 28, 2012)

Here's my take on what an "Aragorn Style Ranger" is:

Shatterworld: Behind the Scenes: The "Aragorn Style Ranger" as Fox Mulder

The essence of it:

1) They use d8 hit dice instead of d10 as a fighter

2) Against certain "giant class" humanoid opponents (which include a large number of monsters from kobolds and goblins to trolls and giants), they add their current experience level to the damage done on a successful attack.

So, the d8 indicates that fighting is not their primary focus. Toe to toe with a fighter of the same level, they would lose. They actually fight like a cleric. However... and here's the fascinating point... they get considerable extra damage to certain classes of monsters. They are monster hunters.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 28, 2012)

Rechan said:


> I've seen "Aragorn style ranger" tossed around a little and I don't really understand what it means. What specifically did Aragorn do that's different?
> 
> I only saw the movies, and didn't really see anything that struck me as ranger-y (aside from dual wielding the sword and torch against the ringwraiths).




You have to look back at the original ranger class from Strategic Review to understand that (from your comment I guess you came to d&d in 2e or later?). 

So, the focus of the OD&D ranger was

1. Hardier than normal 
2. Good at fighting goblins, orcs, ogres, giants
3. Good at tracking
4. Header to surprise
5. Better at surprising others
6. Could use healing magic items and clairvoyance magic items
7. At high level gained a mixed bag of followers
8. Learned mu and cleric spells at higher levels

The first seven of those are directly drawn from Aragon in LotR, whom the class was originally clearly inspired to emulate. 

This isn't to say that future steps weren't  taken to make the ranger a more generic woodsman. But it should explain fully to you what 'Aragon style ranger' might mean in a d&d context. 

Cheers


----------



## Rechan (Jan 28, 2012)

Reynard said:


> Read what you want of course, but if you are interested in reading material to inspire your D&D, I would recommend Howard, Leiber and Anderson's fantasies before Tolkien.




Well in all honesty I get inspiration for my D&D from everything I see. Or rather, I'm not afraid to pull tropes or plots or ideas from anywhere.

But part of the reason I'm reading REH and Leiber is because I'm writing a novel with strong S&S elements, so I want to go to the source to get a feel for the genre.



Anselyn said:


> I recommend Jack Vance. Not for Vancian magic but for the anti-hero Cugel.




I'm very wary of Cugel. I recall hearing that, among other things, he is guilty of sexual assault. I am fine with anti-heroes but I expect them to have some redeeming features.



			
				Reynard said:
			
		

> I think it is most likely that most people get bored having to think  there way through literature so they tend to criticise literary authors  as "long winded."



I'm glad you feel the need to assume that if people feel a certain way, it's because they are flawed (unwilling to think) than that they might have a legitimate viewpoint.

It's not a matter of "literature" but a matter of technique. I dislike how willing Neal Stephenson is at going on long-winded tangents which are irrelevant to the plot or the characters. Hemmingway is literature and he was _concise_. Spending three paragraphs to say something that could be said in two sentences is to me *sinfully* unnecessary. I'm of the school of writing where every single word must be chosen wisely, spent carefully and must serve a strong, concrete purpose, every scene must move things forward or otherwise have a strong reason of existing, or it is a waste. The art comes from the word choice, the sentence structure, the way it fits into the rest of the paragraph/page, and the message it conveys. It doesn't matter if it's a contemporary novel or a classic. If I finish a sceen or a chapter or anything and can say "What did that have to do with anything", then it shouldn't be there.

It's like show vs. tell, narrative summary vs. scene, etc. The issue is technique.


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 28, 2012)

ferratus said:


> That's why I don't accept the idea that "Tolkien needed a tougher editor" or "Tolkien is long-winded".




Dude, Tolkien _was_ long-winded. Extremely freakin' long-winded. I cut my fantasy teeth on the Lord of the Rings, I'd read the Hobbit and LotR and the Silmarillion and half of the Lost Tales-type stuff before the movies were a gleam in Peter Jackson's eye, but I can well see why people might not like Tolkien, and it's got nothing to do with them not being smart enough or refined enough. One reader's lyrical and entrancing prose is another's pretentious bloviating. And the Catholic theology underlying the story could be a real turn-off for many.

That's not to say there are not many things to love about the Lord of the Rings, and I do still love it. But I'm not at all sure I would like it if I were reading it for the first time today. They spend a third of the first book just getting out of the Shire, for Pete's sake.

(I will add that the older I get and the more I think about history and politics and the way the voice of privilege drowns out other points of view, the more Tolkien's romanticizing of medieval life in general and monarchy in particular grates on me. Feudal monarchy is great if you're one of the aristocracy. If not, it sucks hardcore, and I find myself less and less able to gloss over that fact as I read.)


----------



## steeldragons (Jan 28, 2012)

Ravellion said:


> Dude. The answer is right here, in this very thread.




That, apparently. But also, 1e Unearthed Acrana presented the rules for a "two-weapon" fighting style for rangers.

Give you a page, but don't have the books with me. 

--SD


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 28, 2012)

Niccodaemus said:


> So, the d8 indicates that fighting is not their primary focus. Toe to toe with a fighter of the same level, they would lose. They actually fight like a cleric. However... and here's the fascinating point... they get considerable extra damage to certain classes of monsters. They are monster hunters.




Not true of them originally - you must remember that when originally introduced, fighters had 1d8 for HD (and went up to 9d8), rangers started with 2d8 for HD and went up to 11d8. In the pre-1e days, rangers were supposed to be significantly tougher than fighters!

In 1e they kept their HD as was, while fighters got moved over to D10's, so they started off a little tougher and tended to even out. 2e removed their initial HD bump and set them in second-class toughness land ever since.

Personally? I prefer the original vision.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 28, 2012)

Rechan said:


> I'm very wary of Cugel. I recall hearing that, among other things, he is guilty of sexual assault. I am fine with anti-heroes but I expect them to have some redeeming features.




I don't know if you've read the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant by Donaldson, but if you haven't you probably wouldn't want to - the principle character rapes the person who first helps him in the fantasy land, and never developed any redeeming qualities in three novels as far as can recall. I read them once, but never wanted to go back to them.

Regards


----------



## Klaus (Jan 28, 2012)

Rechan said:


> I've seen "Aragorn style ranger" tossed around a little and I don't really understand what it means. What specifically did Aragorn do that's different?
> 
> I only saw the movies, and didn't really see anything that struck me as ranger-y (aside from dual wielding the sword and torch against the ringwraiths).



Broadly-speaking, IMHO, "Aragorn Style" rangers are mostly good-aligned warriors protecting civilization from the evil creatures of the wild. Kinda-like wilderness paladins.


----------



## jonesy (Jan 28, 2012)

Gentlegamer said:


> At least read _The Hobbit_. It was written for children should be at your reading level...



In my book The Hobbit is better literature than Lord of the Rings.

And more relevant to my D&D too, since while Hobbit focuses on the fantasy elements, LotR seems to be mainly concerned with trying to make the world presented in The Hobbit work on a realistical level.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jan 28, 2012)

Rechan said:


> I'm very wary of Cugel. I recall hearing that, among other things, he is guilty of sexual assault. I am fine with anti-heroes but I expect them to have some redeeming features.



Cugel forces himself on his wife, whose family and town had tricked him into imprisonment in a tower (the marriage being part of the scam on Cugel).

Cugel isn't an anti-hero. He's not a hero of any kind. He's a good example of Neutral Evil alignment. 

When I play old-school D&D, when confronted with a tricky situation, or one in which I had been fooled or betrayed, I think to myself, "What would Cugel do?"


----------



## Reynard (Jan 28, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> They spend a third of the first book just getting out of the Shire, for Pete's sake.




At the risk of exacerbating this little tangent, I think perhaps if the author spends a lot of time on something, especially it is at the beginning of the work, one might want to consider the likelihood that whatever the author is being "long winded" about is actually probably something important, and may in fact be among the most important things in the books.

It's okay to not like Tolkien or to not be particularly inspired by his work, but when people make such demonstrably wrong claims about his literary skill, what they do is expose their lack of knowledge and understanding of literature. It's like saying Crime and Punishment is "too long": it is a perfectly valid opinion, but also an ignorant and insipid one.

/rant (sorry, literature is something that really matters in culture and there are so few examples of it in "geek culture" that I feel compelled to defend the Professor's work when it is maligned)


----------



## ferratus (Jan 28, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> (I will add that the older I get and the more I think about history and politics and the way the voice of privilege drowns out other points of view, the more Tolkien's romanticizing of medieval life in general and monarchy in particular grates on me. Feudal monarchy is great if you're one of the aristocracy. If not, it sucks hardcore, and I find myself less and less able to gloss over that fact as I read.)




It all depends on your perspective.  I would rather be a medieval peasant than be born poor in some neighbourhoods today, because my quality of life would probably be better.   I would certainly rather be born a peasant than born somewhere where egalitarianism was forced by a communist/socialist state in the 20th century.

Also, I generally think Tolkien favours government by good kings, rather than kings in general.   After all, it isn't like he doesn't have examples of bad or ruinous monarchs in his work, that lead their people into slavery or disaster.


----------



## Halivar (Jan 28, 2012)

I think Tolkienn's literary style plays into the original concept of the ranger in very important way. He is a fighter, and a poet, and a naturalist. Tolkienn himself was an ardent conservationist, and very anti-industrial. His hero would naturally have these aspects, too.

For the ranger, it is the milieu (Tolkienn was solidly a milieu writer, hence the baroque prose to accentuate the feeling of antiquity in his setting), not internal struggle or external events, that are the defining aspect of his character. He exists because he is needed, and fulfills the role of protector for a people that both fear and respect him. He is potentiality and destiny; the 1e ranger becomes a lord at level 10, and accrues followers, Aragorn is the future high king. The ranger is the strong and silent type. He is even often overshadowed by his traveling companions, but his own subplot is pregnant with tension, and the milieu itself is anticipating his Crowning Moment of Awesome (thank you, tvtropes).

Anyway, that's my two electrum pieces.


----------



## Niccodaemus (Jan 28, 2012)

Halivar said:


> He exists because he is needed, and fulfills the role of protector for a people that both fear and respect him.




This!


----------



## LurkAway (Jan 28, 2012)

Plane Sailing said:


> I don't know if you've read the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant by Donaldson, but if you haven't you probably wouldn't want to - the principle character rapes the person who first helps him in the fantasy land, and never developed any redeeming qualities in three novels as far as can recall. I read them once, but never wanted to go back to them.



I remember the first book being boring and difficult as you say. It got better. I remembered The One Tree being particularily good -- there are at least two scenes so engrossing that I forgot I was reading in bed.


----------



## Tallifer (Jan 28, 2012)

Ravellion said:


> Dude. The answer is right here, in this very thread.




So I skipped a few posts. <shrug> Now we can blame David Cook for this travesty?

There is an interesting article on Wikipedia about parrying daggers and off-handed weapons. It seems to support my dismissal of Drizzt, but it leaves the matter open. Parrying Dagger


----------



## Tallifer (Jan 28, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> Tolkien _was_ long-winded. Extremely freakin' long-winded.




Yes he wrote many pages. But most fantasy novels nowadays are thicker than each volume of the Lord of the Rings, and most "trilogies" nowadays run past three books as well. Jordan, Eddings, Martin, Moorcock all write and write and write (or wrote and wrote). Perhaps we have Tolkien to blame for that.

I do like me some Edgar Rice Burroughs. 100 pages. Gets to the action. . At least the Elric novels were modeled on that.


----------



## Anselyn (Jan 28, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> (I will add that the older I get and the more I think about history and politics and the way the voice of privilege drowns out other points of view, the more Tolkien's romanticizing of medieval life in general and monarchy in particular grates on me. Feudal monarchy is great if you're one of the aristocracy. If not, it sucks hardcore, and I find myself less and less able to gloss over that fact as I read.)




But Sam's the hero! 

Returning to LoTR to read it to my son, I found the echoes of the first world war and the triumph of the ordinary man.  Sam is the officer's batman (valet) who stops him failing.


----------



## Incenjucar (Jan 29, 2012)

I think Aragorn multi-classed, or at least grabbed a paragon path/prestige class, so I don't want to see anything *directly* patterned after him.

What I'd like to see is a fighting-style-neutral commando/guerrilla style character. As mentioned, Rambo is a good example, and other action heroes like Arnold's character in Predator work quite well.

My ideal ranger class is a cunning, savvy skirmisher that can utilize their environment, full stop. That is all.

The particulars of their combat style and the particulars of their knowledge are not important. I don't care how many weapons they wield. I don't care whether they use poison, magic, or purely martial means. I don't care if they have a pet or not. I don't care if they prefer forests, caves, cities, or Limbo. I don't care if they defend orphanages or a dread lord. Those should all be options, one way or another, but they're just variations of the core concept of the warrior that basically uses knowledge and cunning in place of plate mail and giant muscles.

This should make plenty of room for Aragorn AND Drizzt and plenty of unique but class-identifiable characters.


----------



## On Puget Sound (Jan 29, 2012)

I think a Tolkien style ranger describes an attitude more than a class.  Generic rangers were like FR Harpers - it was their duty and mission that made them rangers, not the set of skills and abilities they had.  Aragorn happened to also be the Heir to Gondor, which gave him (uniquely) certain abilities. "The hands of a king are the hands of a healer, and so shall the rightful king be known."

A "generic" ranger could just as easily have been designed as a type of fighter from the beginning, rather than its own class.  The easiest shortcut might have been possible in 3e: "Ranger fighter: as fighter, but armor proficiency limited to chainmail; 6 skill points per level; (long list of class skills)."  

But for better or worse, the first rangers were designed as if they were all Aragorn, right down to the palantir.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jan 29, 2012)

On Puget Sound said:


> I think a Tolkien style ranger describes an attitude more than a class.  Generic rangers were like FR Harpers - it was their duty and mission that made them rangers, not the set of skills and abilities they had.



This is demonstrably false in the case of Aragorn. He was the 'greatest traveller and huntsman in this age of the world,' responsible for tracking down Gollum in the years before the War of the Ring, leading the hobbits through the wilderness, foraging for _Kingsfoil _by _its sent in the dark_, and tracking the Uruk-Hai through the stony slopes of the Emyn Muil, among his explicit ranger feats in the text.


----------



## Niccodaemus (Jan 29, 2012)

I think all of this illustrates the difficultly of allowing players to create their character backgrounds for your campaign. First, they have to understand just what the character class _means_ in your campaign. I'm prone to create backgrounds for player characters, and then let the players tweak them.

Here's a ranger background I came up with for my campaign

Shatterworld: Behind the Scenes: Character Background, Ranger

Basically, character is raised in a small village. Father owns the local sawmill. When character is 12 years old, uncle comes to train him as a ranger.

It raises some interesting questions as to why the parents agreed for their son to be trained as a ranger.


----------



## malcolypse (Jan 29, 2012)

The definition of Aragorn-Style Ranger is, I believe: A character with 15 levels of Bada$$.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 30, 2012)

Rechan said:


> I only saw the movies, and didn't really see anything that struck me as ranger-y (aside from dual wielding the sword and torch against the ringwraiths).



That's a joke, right?  What does duel-wielding have to do with being a ranger, outside of D&D?  Aragorn was a ranger because he was the best there was at wandering around in the wilderness.  He was the best hunter, the best tracker, and knew everything there was to know about the plant and animal life all over the continent.  He was the ultimate outdoorsman.


----------



## Rechan (Jan 30, 2012)

Hobo said:


> That's a joke, right?  What does duel-wielding have to do with being a ranger, outside of D&D?



The whole point of this discussion was me wanting to understand what an "Aragorn-style ranger" meant _within D&D_.


----------



## Niccodaemus (Jan 30, 2012)

I had no idea the ranger had been so mangled and garbled in later editions. The fact that you didn't even see the "ranger-y" type stuff that Aragorn did in LoTR dumbfounds me. Makes me sad.

As an analogy, it would be like taking the Medusa, and reducing her to an upperclass urban species of sentient squirrel that has the spell-like ability to turn people to stone, if they so choose.

Then seeing Clash of The Titans and saying you didn't see anything particularly "Medusa-ish" about her, besides her turning people to stone, which she didn't even need a spell for and couldn't control.


Seems like a harsh analogy, but to me it fully represents the disconnect between the original inspiration for the character and how it has been modified as a particular D&D entity.


----------



## Niccodaemus (Jan 30, 2012)

Duplicate post


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 30, 2012)

Rechan said:


> The whole point of this discussion was me wanting to understand what an "Aragorn-style ranger" meant _within D&D_.



Totally awesome wilderness skills, mostly.

That's kind of the whole concept behind the ranger to begin with.  From long before D&D appropriated the term.


----------



## aurance (Jan 31, 2012)

Can we stop inferring that people who dislike the writing style of Tolkien have some sort of low-patience/childish interests/love of Twilight/character flaw?

I'm 34, I've read plenty of books of all kinds, including all manner of classics and modern literature. I dislike Tolkien's writing style. That doesn't imply that I have a two second attention span or I only DM parties of sparkly ninja gnomes.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 31, 2012)

saskganesh said:


> One significant difference between a D&D Ranger and a Dunedain was the prohibition against associating in a group of more than three rangers. Sure, Aragorn preferred to operate alone, but when total war broke out, a large group of them (30? 50?) met him in Rohan, who he then lead through the paths of the dead and then onward.



Yes. I always found this strange. And what balance role did the "no more than 3 rangers" rule play?



Remathilis said:


> Could scry with a crystal ball





billd91 said:


> Use of scrying devices like the palantir.



In LotR the reason Aragorn can use the palantir is because of his heritage. As the heir of Isildur and Elendil, the palantir's are rightfully his. Conversely, although Denethor is also a dunedain, his use of the palantir is part of what leads to his fall.

In D&D terms, the ability to use a palantir should therefore be part of a theme or bloodline feat, I think, rather than part of the ranger class - even an "Aragorn-style" ranger.



Remathilis said:


> He got a bonus to surprise rolls
> 
> <snip>
> 
> He didn't get stealth skills



The stealth skills _were_ the bonus to surprise!



Remathilis said:


> He didn't have an animal companion (save perhaps for a henchman)



At 10th level, he got 2d12 followers (which were faitfully loyal and did not count against the CHA allotment of henchmen), to be rolled up on a table in the DMG. Roughly speaking, the fewer the number of followers, the better each follower was. The best was a young copper dragon. It was also possible to get animals like bears, unicorns etc. And followers could also include henchmen types.

One ranger in my old AD&D campaign had 4 followers: a dragon, a brown bear, a human fighter and a human druid.



Remathilis said:


> He got massive bonuses to damage "giant class" monsters which, despite the name, was nearly any humanoid in the MM.



I remeber this being very strong in Against the Giants, in conjunction with a +4 two handed sword and two-handed sword specilisation - 3d6 +4 +2 +10 for level + STR (18/01-50, from memory) for 3d6+16, or about 6 HD worth of damage on a hit - at 2 attacks per round for specialisation.



ferratus said:


> When I think dangerous man in the wilderness, "sword dancer" isn't really the first thing that comes to mind.   I suppose if a drow became a ranger, with the drow's penchant for being graceful blademasters, that particular ranger would be good at two weapon fighting.    But I don't see how it follows that this should be the only archetype for rangers who fight in melee.



In the Fiend Folio and Unearthed Arcana, drow had the ability to fight with two weapons without penalty. So Drizzt's two weapon fighting was originally a drow thing, not a ranger thing. I think it was 2nd ed that conflated the two.

EDIT: Alternatively, what [MENTION=7635]Remathilis[/MENTION] said.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 31, 2012)

Rechan said:


> Then what's all this talk of druidic magic? The 'they cast druid/arcane' spells in 1e?



Beginning from 8th level. From 8th through 17th level they get 1 spell per level, building up to 10 spells at the 17th level - 2 each of levels 1 to 3 druidic and levels 1 and 2 magic-user. I can no longer remember the exact progression, but I think it's 1 druid spell at 8th and 1 MU spell at 9th.



Niccodaemus said:


> the d8 indicates that fighting is not their primary focus.





Plane Sailing said:


> Not true of them originally - you must remember that when originally introduced, fighters had 1d8 for HD (and went up to 9d8), rangers started with 2d8 for HD and went up to 11d8.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> In 1e they kept their HD as was, while fighters got moved over to D10's, so they started off a little tougher and tended to even out.



Just adding to what Plane Sailing said here - the average of 11d8 (the maximum HD for a ranger in AD&D) is the same as the average of 9d10 (the maximum HD for a paladin or fighter in AD&D). And the ranger gets a CON bonus to every HD, which is therefore added 11 rather than 9 times. But for every level above name level, gets only +2 rather than +3 HD, so gradually the other fighting classes catch up and overtake.

Another oddity: XP required for name level are 250,000 for a fighter, 325,000 for a ranger and 350,000 for a paladin. But a ranger's name level is 10th rather than 9th. And all are on the same attack matrix. So at mid levels a ranger actually has better "to hit" than a fighter, because the XP requirements are spread over an extra level. But eventually the fighter will overtake because of the 250/325 ratio. And a paladin will always have the lowest hp and attack per XP earned, because of the hefty XP requirements at all levels.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 31, 2012)

ferratus said:


> You read Tolkien because you enjoy a good slow read and the poetry of the English language.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> That's why I don't accept the idea that "Tolkien needed a tougher editor" or "Tolkien is long-winded".



I enjoy Tolkien a lot, but I don't think an editor would have done any harm - even if it would have made the books different from the ones I enjoy.



Reynard said:


> People that suggest Tolkien wrote like this are either completely unfamiliar with his work or are misrepresenting it on purpose. I think it is most likely that most people get bored having to think there way through literature so they tend to criticise literary authors as "long winded."



I don't think that's fair. There are lengthy descriptive passage in Tolkien. Personally, I find the most boring one is the description of the Old Forest leading up to the struggle with Old Man Willow. I'm pretty sure I've fallen asleep more than once reading that passage, and while you may suggest that's just verisimilitude on the part of the writer, I'm not sure I agree!

As to literature being "long winded" - I don't read much fiction, but most of what I do read I think would be classified as "literary" fiction - it appears on those shelves in the bookshops, at least - and a lot of it is not long winded. For whatever reason, my favourite author is Graham Greene (a very different sort of Catholicism from Tolkien's!) and he is not long winded.



Rechan said:


> part of the reason I'm reading REH and Leiber is because I'm writing a novel with strong S&S elements, so I want to go to the source to get a feel for the genre.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Hemmingway is literature and he was _concise_.



Hesitant as I am to compare REH to Hemingway, REH is generally pithy, if often a bit overblown. Very modernist in tone (despite the trappings), especially when compared to Tolkien.



Reynard said:


> I think perhaps if the author spends a lot of time on something, especially it is at the beginning of the work, one might want to consider the likelihood that whatever the author is being "long winded" about is actually probably something important, and may in fact be among the most important things in the books.



Perhaps. But it is equally legitimate to think that the author is making an error of conflating length with emphasis. It is possible to make something the centre of a work without needlessly (and longwindedly) dwelling on it.



Reynard said:


> It's okay to not like Tolkien or to not be particularly inspired by his work, but when people make such demonstrably wrong claims about his literary skill, what they do is expose their lack of knowledge and understanding of literature. It's like saying Crime and Punishment is "too long": it is a perfectly valid opinion, but also an ignorant and insipid one.



But I could equally say that comparing Tolkien to Dostoyevsky shows an ignorance of literature. I mean, I don't want to be too judgemental, but the latter is practically the founder of one of the most important post-enlightenment ways of thinking about humanity. Huge chunks of contemporary culture - and all sorts of deep features of our culture - can arguably be attributed to that school. I'm not sure that the same is true of Tolkien. His influence in this respect seems to me to have been minimal, and the ideals he favoured are more-or-less dead in the practical world.



Dausuul said:


> the older I get and the more I think about history and politics and the way the voice of privilege drowns out other points of view, the more Tolkien's romanticizing of medieval life in general and monarchy in particular grates on me.



I know what you're getting at, but I tend to have a different reaction - it drives home for me the independence of aesthetics from morality and politics (which maybe is a version of art for art's sake!).

I had the same thought the other evening after seeing Hero (the Jet Li/Maggie Cheung/Tony Leung movie) again. For me, at least, visually amazing and incredibly moving - especially the death of the Maggie Cheung character, which the wikipedia entry (which I just looked up to check my spellings!) misdescribes (in my view) as being prompted by guilt.

Yet the values that are exemplified here - a certain sort of romantic conception of loyalty and honour, in particular - don't really speak to me as _political_ values at all. Another instance of the gap between morals and aesthetics. (In my view - which I realise not everyone shares.)



Anselyn said:


> But Sam's the hero!
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I found the echoes of the first world war and the triumph of the ordinary man.  Sam is the officer's batman (valet) who stops him failing.



While this may be biographically accurate (I don't know much about Tolkien's war experience), for me it would tend to confirm Dausuul's criticism. I find that view of the "ordinary man" - the batman - a very condescending one (although not confiend to Tolkien). One of the best treatments of this particular motif, in my view (and also in my view a very good absurdist treatment of the war overall) is Blackadder Goes Forth (with Baldric as the batman).


----------



## TarionzCousin (Jan 31, 2012)

One Aragorn trait in the movies is the ability to go weeks without shaving and somehow maintain the sparsest beard possible.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 31, 2012)

pemerton said:


> I enjoy Tolkien a lot, but I don't think an editor would have done any harm - even if it would have made the books different from the ones I enjoy.



To quote Tolkien's original British publisher: "One does _not_ edit Tolkien!"


			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> I don't think that's fair. There are lengthy descriptive passage in Tolkien. Personally, I find the most boring one is the description of the Old Forest leading up to the struggle with Old Man Willow.



Nothing can appeal to everyone.  Tolkien himself allowed for that in his Forward--curiously, saying that he didn't really prefer the kinds of works that his critics did, so to each their own.  You're right, it isn't fair to dogpile on non-Tolkien fans for pointing out what they don't like.  It's also not exactly fair to say that they are "flaws" though--the long-windedness was done very deliberately.  In fact, _all_ of the prose in Lord of the Rings is extremely deliberate and highly crafted and somewhat stylized in nature.

I guess for me it works because I'm enough of a kindred spirit to Tolkien (or something, I dunno) that I can "see" what he's done with his text, at most junctures, and can appreciate it.  I don't see his "flaws" as flaws, I see them as style choices that add tremendously to the work.

That said, even I don't have much use for the poetry.


			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> But I could equally say that comparing Tolkien to Dostoyevsky shows an ignorance of literature. I mean, I don't want to be too judgemental, but the latter is practically the founder of one of the most important post-enlightenment ways of thinking about humanity. Huge chunks of contemporary culture - and all sorts of deep features of our culture - can arguably be attributed to that school. I'm not sure that the same is true of Tolkien. His influence in this respect seems to me to have been minimal, and the ideals he favoured are more-or-less dead in the practical world.



I don't think that's necessarily true, although ironically I don't know that Tolkien would have always appreciated the effect his work has had on contemporary culture, and those who coopted it in the 60s.  In any case, it's pretty undeniable that Tolkien had a huge impact on the fantasy genre, as well as having a huge impact on the gradual "mainstreamization" of fantasy--in the latter regard, he's probably only bested by George Lucas.  And since this is a D&D messageboard...  well, it may not be fair to jump on Tolkien's critics here, but it also shouldn't be unexpected.  Tolkien criticism on a D&D messageboard is a somewhat perilous venture, I'd wager, at the best of times.


			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> I know what you're getting at, but I tend to have a different reaction - it drives home for me the independence of aesthetics from morality and politics (which maybe is a version of art for art's sake!).



What he's getting at--or at least, how I interpret it--is that his cynical side has overwhelmed his romantic side.  He can no longer accept the romanticization of Medievalism and monarchy without it continually jarring his ability so suspend disbelief.  As I said, I find that approach extremely cynical, but there you have it.  I personally wouldn't want to live in a monarchy, but I can appreciate a romanticized vision of it nonetheless.

All that said, as much as I love Tolkien, I wish more writers would step out of his shadow more.  The genre needs to go some different directions (and lately, it very much has been, which is good), and those who imitate him too closely risk being compared to him, which is not likely to be a favorable comparison.  Leave the Tolkienisms to Tolkien, I say.  Base the ranger on a more generic outdoorsman archetype--a Robin Hood, perhaps, or a fantasy version of Davy Crockett, or even Bear Grylls.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 31, 2012)

Hobo said:


> That said, even I don't have much use for the poetry.



Whereas I don't mind this aspect of the LotR.



Hobo said:


> In any case, it's pretty undeniable that Tolkien had a huge impact on the fantasy genre, as well as having a huge impact on the gradual "mainstreamization" of fantasy



Fully agreed, but for various reasons (some of which I don't think I can articulate consistent with board rules) I don't see this as anywhere near as big a contribution to the character of modernity as being a progenitor of existentialism.



Hobo said:


> What he's getting at--or at least, how I interpret it--is that his cynical side has overwhelmed his romantic side.  He can no longer accept the romanticization of Medievalism and monarchy without it continually jarring his ability so suspend disbelief.  As I said, I find that approach extremely cynical, but there you have it.  I personally wouldn't want to live in a monarchy, but I can appreciate a romanticized vision of it nonetheless.



I think, here, that you may be agreeing with me about the independence of aesthetics from morality. But this is a controversial view.

A couple of years ago, when I was visiting at a UK university, I was asked to give a brief comment to the "philosophy and film" club. The film I had to comment on was about capital punishment ("A Short Film About Killing"), but the previous week's film had been about this issue of aesthetics and morality. The convenor of the club, in talking to me about that film, described the doctrine of the independence of morality and aesthetics as a pernicious one in a manner that suggested no reasonable person would disagree. So Dausuul is not Robinson Crusoe on this.

The retort to you (and me, I guess) from the critic of aesthetic independence might be that you (we) are allowing naive sentimentalism to cloud proper moral judgement.

Anyway, thanks for the very thoughtful reply (which I'm not allowed to XP).


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Jan 31, 2012)

Remathilis said:


> While the Crystal Shard was being written, Salvatore was talking with David Cook, author of the 2e PHB. Cook mentioned how rangers in 2e were going to work; dual wielders in light armor rather than the 1e ranger. Salvatore, trying to keep with the edition that would be coming out (so his character would be relevant to the new rules) wrote Drizzt to fight with two scimitars (rather than one). At the time, it was assumed it was because drow elves typically fought with two weapons (see: Monster Manual 2, AD&D). However, Salvatore was in on the new changes and used them to basis his hero's "build" on.
> 
> Drizzt was a product of the new rules changes, not the other way around.




Do you have a citation or are you spreading a rumor you heard?  Or are you saying you were personally privy to the conversation?

I've been over this issue dozens on this board alone and no one has ever mentioned this before.


----------



## Greg K (Jan 31, 2012)

Charwoman Gene said:


> Do you have a citation or are you spreading a rumor you heard?  Or are you saying you were personally privy to the conversation?
> 
> I've been over this issue dozens on this board alone and no one has ever mentioned this before.




I am not Remathilis had it heard it before, but I don't recall where ( My memory could be wrong, but I thought it was a designer from the TSR days.  However, I want to be sure and am trying to track down the quote.  

Edit:   Monte was asked in an interview by Morrus about Drizzt's two-weapon fighting.  He says he had looked into it and Salvatore appears to have seized the idea from seeing Zeb's work on the Ranger while 2e was in the works. ).

I know Drizzt was  not the reason the reason Rangers got two-weapon fighting.

From Dave "Zeb" Cook at Dragonsfoot when asked about 2e Rangers, Drizzt and two-weapon fighting (note the last paragraph with regardd

"I'm not sure where the ranger took shape, though I know it wasn't an imposition because of Drizzt. (Frankly, I've never read more than bits of the Drizzt series.) It was more to make them distinct and it fit with the style and image."

(Note: Any interesting thing in the original post from David Cook,  the designers of 2e wanted to do ascending AC and have a unified roll over system, but could not to keep compatibility with 1e)


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 31, 2012)

I'm going to break a few peoples hearts, but the 'Aragorn Style Ranger' isn't the 1e Ranger - it's the 1e Cavalier.

The Rangers of th North are Middle Earth nobility.  They wear mail.  They ride steeds.  They are proficient with swords and spears.   (We never once see Aragorn using a bow at any point in story.)   The bear heraldic devices and they serve a leige Lord.  They are honorable, dour, and relatively immune to fear compared to mortals.

Aragorn is not a 1e Ranger.  He's a 1e Paladin.  He's noble to a fault: forgiving enemies and even traitors, showing mercy, abandoning his dreams to save the lives of two small comrades, and never once showing any sign of being tempted by the ring.  He lays on hands.  He can perform artful healing, not merely in the sense of herbcraft but overcoming the spells of Sauron with what is in D&D terms an act of magic complete with verbal and somatic components (calling back Faramir from the darkness).  

Aragorn's woodcraft is secondary to his character, like a secondary skill set or a NWP in 1e terms.  He hasn't always been merely a wanderer of the North.   We learn that much of his youth was spent performing 'deeds of errantry' with the Riders of Rohan and the Swan Knights of Gondor.   He was a  knight and a captain and commander of other knights.  His woodcraft is a sideline for him, something he's picked up because his noble house has fallen on hard times and is forced to make hard scrabble in the wilderness during what amounts to a dark and barbarous age.   His essential nature though is a noble knight of a royal house and a great captain and leader of men.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 31, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Perhaps. But it is equally legitimate to think that the author is making an error of conflating length with emphasis. It is possible to make something the centre of a work without needlessly (and longwindedly) dwelling on it.




One's feelings about a particular author's style from an entertainment standpoint is decidedly different than making a critique -- in the academic sense -- of that same author's work. The suggestion that an author of Tolkien's calibre "made a mistake" in spending a lot of time on the way out of the shire is, frankly, silly.

That said, I want to be clear that I don't think "not liking" the Lord of the Rings shows any particular character flaw; preferences are what they are. I only feel the need to defend the work, as one with a degree in English literature, when individuals make the bold, false assertion that it isn't "good."


----------



## Reynard (Jan 31, 2012)

Celebrim said:


> I'm going to break a few peoples hearts, but the 'Aragorn Style Ranger' isn't the 1e Ranger - it's the 1e Cavalier.
> 
> The Rangers of th North are Middle Earth nobility.  They wear mail.  They ride steeds.  They are proficient with swords and spears.   (We never once see Aragorn using a bow at any point in story.)   The bear heraldic devices and they serve a leige Lord.  They are honorable, dour, and relatively immune to fear compared to mortals.
> 
> ...




That's an interesting assertion and one worth considering, but I think it is important to remember that there is also the issue of Aragorn being of the Dunedain, which provides hime with much of his virtue and many of his abilities. Remember, elves and elven heritage are full of "grace" -- they simply *are* better than Men in most cases (though, of course, not immune to fault).


----------



## Greg K (Jan 31, 2012)

Celebrim said:


> Aragorn is not a 1e Ranger.  He's a 1e Paladin.  He's noble to a fault: forgiving enemies and even traitors, showing mercy, abandoning his dreams to save the lives of two small comrades, and never once showing any sign of being tempted by the ring.  He lays on hands.  He can perform artful healing, not merely in the sense of herbcraft but overcoming the spells of Sauron with what is in D&D terms an act of magic complete with verbal and somatic components (calling back Faramir from the darkness).
> .




Is he a 1e Paladin?  Is he a holy warrior receiving mystical abilities for faith or service in a a deity? Does he detect evil like a Paladin? Does he radiate a mystical circle or protection vs. evil?  Can he, mystically, turn undead? Does he,mystically, heal by lay hands without material components like the 1e Paladin (as opposed to requiring a material component (i.e., kingsfoil)? 

Doesn't sound like a 1e Paladin to me.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Jan 31, 2012)

There is no single class that could represent Aragorn. He's multi-classed. Making a class based off of him would cause problems. (And it did.)


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 31, 2012)

Greg K said:


> Is he a 1e Paladin?




Obviously there are going to be differences between a literary source and the game mechanics, but of all the 1e classes Paladin is far and away the one that best represents Aragorn.  

There is a good reason for this.  Aragorn and the 'Paladin' have the same literary inspirations.  Aragorn's 'hands of the King are the hands of healing' and a Paladin's 'lay on hands ability' have identical mythic and literary sources.  Aragorn is an idealized chivilric King.



> Is he a holy warrior receiving mystical abilities for faith or service in a a deity?




Yes, and in the exact same sense that the literary inspirations of the Paladin were.   As the legitimate King, Aragorn is Iluvatar's appointed representative on the earth and appointed leader among mortal men.  His ability to heal and command mystic forces is proof of his legitmacy not merely by blood, but by divine ordination.   In Middle Earth this differs from the source material only in as much as Iluvatar is an unrevealed God, but Aragorn bears symbolicly the light which illuminates the path back to the creator through those that have born witness to Iluvatar directly or indirectly.  In fact, if we read the background material in the Simirillion, we realize that Aragorn is not only the rightful heir to the throne of vanished Numernor and the subsequent Numernorean kingdoms in Middle Earth, but he is the lone rightful High Priest to Iluvatar because only the High King performed direct worship of and petition to Iluvatar.   He is the High Priest and High King over the Children of Iluvatar, and through is elven linage the means by which knowledge of Iluvatar  - through the Valar, thence to the high elves who had seen the light of Valinor, and thence to the decesdents of the ancient elf friends among the tribes of men - is to be brought to the rest of humanity.



> Does he detect evil like a Paladin? Does he radiate a mystical circle or protection vs. evil?  Can he, mystically, turn undead? Does he,mystically, heal by lay hands without material components like the 1e Paladin (as opposed to requiring a material component (i.e., kingsfoil)?




There is no reason from the text to believe that Aragorn cannot detect evil, cannot radiate protection from evil, and cannot indeed 'turn' undead.  Indeed, much of what is somewhat mysterious in the text is a lot easier to explain if we assume that Aragorn in some way possesses these mystic qualities.  For example, it is very difficult to explain how Aragorn drove away the assembled Nine from Weathertop and saved Frodo, when we consider that Gandalf by his own account had a great deal of trouble doing so unless we assume that there is something about Aragorn's nature as the King which caused the Ringwraiths to (seemingly) unaccountably fear him.   

Granted, as with most of the 'magic' of Middle Earth, these things aren't nearly as explicit and mechanical as they are in a game and we should not expect 100% agreement mechanically with the 1e Paladin and any fictional source, but that is no reason to suggest that if you were running middle earth in D&D that the Paladin is not Aragorn's primary or possibly even sole class.



> Doesn't sound like a 1e Paladin to me.




Be as that may, Aragorn is much better approximated by the 1e Paladin than the 1e Ranger.   I bring this up as a testimony to how poorly most people seem to follow the text, and to point out that those people who are snearing at Drizzt because he's not a 'real Ranger' should note that because of the poor correspondence between the D&D Ranger and any of the source material and because of the prominence of D&D in shaping what people think when they think of fantasy, the D&D Ranger has become its own inspiration and its own archetypal source.   Drizzt is a 'real Ranger' and Aragorn is not.  The Rangers of Middle Earth are exactly what Tolkien said they were - the last remenent of the Nobility in Middle Earth.   Not all those that wander are lost.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 31, 2012)

Reynard said:


> That's an interesting assertion and one worth considering, but I think it is important to remember that there is also the issue of Aragorn being of the Dunedain...




The Merovingian kings of France rested their claim to the rightful kingship of the Franks on the grounds that they had an ancestor who was a sea serpeant.  It was common for the pagan germanic kings to claim as the source their authority some sort of uncommon and mystical connection to greater than mortal powers.  Aragon's inherent nobility also rests upon a similar claim - having had an fairy ancestor.   But I don't think the issue of Aragorn being the Dunedain means much more than he is qualified by birth to be a Paladin or other class restricted by virtue of birth.   There are of course differences that Tolkien explicitly blames on Aragorn's blood (or more accurately on the spiritual significance of his blood, because he notes that inbreeding weakened rather than strengthened the line) such as his long life, but most of what makes Aragorn different IMO comes from the fact that he is the rightful King.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 31, 2012)

Reynard said:


> The suggestion that an author of Tolkien's calibre "made a mistake" in spending a lot of time on the way out of the shire is, frankly, silly.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I only feel the need to defend the work, as one with a degree in English literature, when individuals make the bold, false assertion that it isn't "good."



I didn't say that it's not good. I canvassed that a mistake can be made.

Obviously opinions can differ, but I happen to think that Graham Greene is a better writer than Tolkien. But he can still make mistakes.

Even Tom Shippey in The Road to Middle Earth suggests that Tolkien is guilty of sentimentality, and that it is not necessarily a virtue of the LotR that the hobbits have to depart 5 homely houses before the events of the novel really get underway.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jan 31, 2012)

Hobo said:


> To quote Tolkien's original British publisher: "One does _not_ edit Tolkien!"
> 
> ...
> 
> All that said, as much as I love Tolkien, I wish more writers would step out of his shadow more. The genre needs to go some different directions (and lately, it very much has been, which is good), and those who imitate him too closely risk being compared to him, which is not likely to be a favorable comparison. Leave the Tolkienisms to Tolkien, I say. Base the ranger on a more generic outdoorsman archetype--a Robin Hood, perhaps, or a fantasy version of Davy Crockett, or even Bear Grylls.




The reason that Tolkien gets away with breaking a lot of "rules" that an editor would impose, is that Tolkien has something to say that works well the way he is saying it.  A lot of his imitators don't have anything in particular to say, but seem to be under the impression that high page count correlates to epic.  Of the currently writing authors, I think Tad Williams comes closest to justifying his page count (and word count density in a scene) of anyone.  If he would quit wimping out on plot in favor of trying to write psychological characterizations, he might even pull of something comparable. 

On the issue of game mechanics derived from literature, I have never once been a fan of conflating the characteristics of a small subset of characters, or even a single character, as entirely representative of what goes into a "class".  As far as I'm concerned, if you can't make a D&D "class" with at least some reflection of three separate literary influences, it is probably overly constrained.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 31, 2012)

[MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION], I'm surprised that your comment is at all controversial.

But equally, there is little denying that the AD&D Ranger is an attempt to create a class that mirrors Aragorn's functional (as opposed to thematic) role in LotR, right down to use of the palantir.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jan 31, 2012)

I agree with Celebrim's view as a way to view Aragorn. I've always said that Aragorn exhibits Paladin-like qualities in the text. Glorfindel is a Paladin, too.

Similarly in D&D terms, Gandalf, Elrond, and Galadriel are Clerics. Going by function within the milieu those class roles fit the characters.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 31, 2012)

pemerton said:


> [MENTION=4937]But equally, there is little denying that the AD&D Ranger is an attempt to create a class that mirrors Aragorn's functional (as opposed to thematic) role in LotR, right down to use of the palantir.




I don't at all disagree that Tolkien's concept of the Ranger, both Aragorn and the descriptions of the Rangers of the North and Ithilien, is the inspiration of the Ranger class.  I think that that is a matter of historical record, albiet one that TSR tried to bury in order to avoid getting sued.

But, for instance, the 1e class had restrictions on the weapon proficiencies that the Ranger could begin with and the order in which they could be taken that is clearly based on passages in the text describing how the Rangers are equipped.  But there is a lot about the implementation where the decisions made by the person who wrote up the class are mysterious to me, and which, to me reflect the typically poor understanding of the text at the time.  The 1e Ranger is based on the text of LotR in the same way that the text of LotR is an allegory for WWII.   It's clear that someone saw it that way at one time, but not at all clear to me from this priviledged vantage why they thought that.   To what extent the problem is explained by the crude understanding of the text, and to what extent it is explained by the biases built into the average rules smith at the time due to the relative primitive state of RPG technology at the time the class was wrote up, is something I can't answer.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jan 31, 2012)

Anyway Celebrim, the subject at hand isn't 'what class is Aragorn,' but 'what is an Aragorn-style Ranger in D&D,' in the context of the rules changes over the various editions. Of the Ranger options available, it's clearly the Strategic Review or 1e version (with or without Unearthed Arcana).


----------



## Yora (Jan 31, 2012)

Gentlegamer said:


> Similarly in D&D terms, Gandalf, Elrond, and Galadriel are Clerics. Going by function within the milieu those class roles fit the characters.



Gandalf is a shapeshifted Solar.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 31, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Fully agreed, but for various reasons (some of which I don't think I can articulate consistent with board rules) I don't see this as anywhere near as big a contribution to the character of modernity as being a progenitor of existentialism.



Well, sure.  I merely point that out as something much less controversial about Tolkien's legacy.


			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> I think, here, that you may be agreeing with me about the independence of aesthetics from morality. But this is a controversial view.



Maybe.  I've never really thought of it in those terms exactly.  I'd say that my views with regards to the monarchy as a romanticized form of government are fine.  My concern for monarchy as an actual system of government is in my fear of a bad monarch, which I'd say is almost certainly inevitable over time.  That doesn't mean that I don't believe that a romanticized monarchy is necessarily impossible... just unlikely.  Therefore, it doesn't affect my suspension of disbelief; I can believe that such a state actually exists.

I'm not sure that my morality really comes into play here.

Then again, maybe I'm saying the same thing you are just in a different way.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 31, 2012)

pemerton said:


> [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION], I'm surprised that your comment is at all controversial.
> 
> But equally, there is little denying that the AD&D Ranger is an attempt to create a class that mirrors Aragorn's functional (as opposed to thematic) role in LotR, right down to use of the palantir.



I think the reason it's controversial is that the whole idea of the ranger--as a word in the English language, not necessarily just as a word in D&D or LotR--implies an outdoorsman with skills that allow him to be a better outdoorsman than others.  Also--that's an important aspect of the character of Aragorn.  In fact, for quite a long time, it's really the _only_ real characteristic that he has.  Until they all get to Rivendell, anyway, where his "heir to the King" aspect starts more and more to overtake it.

That is not, however, an aspect of the paladin or cavalier class, or the archetype on which they're based.  Therefore, the claim is controversial, and in fact, I strongly disagree with it.  Any ranger that isn't mostly focused on being a hunter/outdoorsman type character is a ranger that's wildly mislabeled.  And Aragorn was rather properly labelled a ranger after all.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Feb 1, 2012)

Hobo said:


> That is not, however, an aspect of the paladin or cavalier class, or the archetype on which they're based. Therefore, the claim is controversial, and in fact, I strongly disagree with it. Any ranger that isn't mostly focused on being a hunter/outdoorsman type character is a ranger that's wildly mislabeled. And Aragorn was rather properly labelled a ranger after all.




Oh great, now I'm hearing Vizzini debate Aragorn as Ranger or Paladin:  "Clearly if he has snowshoes in winter, he would be prepared, which is a property of boy scouts, who are mini-rangers.  So he could not be a paladin."  And so forth.  

You guys stuck the image in my head.  So *clearly* I wasn't the only one that should have to suffer ...


----------



## pemerton (Feb 1, 2012)

Celebrim said:


> the 1e class had restrictions on the weapon proficiencies that the Ranger could begin with and the order in which they could be taken



I don't think this is correct, unless it's a UA addition to the rules that I've forgotten.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Feb 1, 2012)

pemerton said:


> I don't think this is correct, unless it's a UA addition to the rules that I've forgotten.



It is.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 1, 2012)

pemerton said:


> I don't think this is correct, unless it's a UA addition to the rules that I've forgotten.




Actually, I just looked and it is in the UA.  For some reason I remembered it being in the PH.


----------



## Rogue Agent (Feb 1, 2012)

Gort said:


> Note that you don't have to start specifying what weapons he uses, or his fighting style. In my experience the worst-written characters are the ones whose writers begin their descriptions with, "Marty Stu is a warrior who fights with his two home-made elven bread-katanas!"




That's ridiculous. Everyone knows you get better bonuses from dwarf bread katanas.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 1, 2012)

Hobo said:


> I think the reason it's controversial is that the whole idea of the ranger--as a word in the English language, not necessarily just as a word in D&D or LotR--implies an outdoorsman with skills that allow him to be a better outdoorsman than others.




I don't know exactly what sense of the word inspired Tolkien's use of it, but the most common definitions of the word are:

a) A magistrate of the law responcible for care of a park, garden, or forest and enforcement of the laws therein.
b) A member of a military or law enforcement company employed to patrol a large district
c) Someone who wanders about a large area

From the usage, it appears the term is used most in the sense of 'b'.  Being outdoor is implied, but its not the definition of the term.



> Any ranger that isn't mostly focused on being a hunter/outdoorsman type character is a ranger that's wildly mislabeled.




Like a Texas Ranger for example?



> And Aragorn was rather properly labelled a ranger after all.




It's not an issue of whether the term 'Ranger' is a proper label to apply to Aragorn.  Tolkien applies the label.  The issue is whether the class Ranger truly captures want it meant to be a 'Ranger of the North'.   I believe 'Ranger' is Aragorn's profession, and is used in a sense akin to 'soldier' or the modern US military unit - elite commandos who can operate in enemy controlled territory.   But while his initial profession might be, "Captain of the Rangers of the North", his class is Paladin.

I think its a bit spurious to argue that Paladins are archetypally not associated with the wilderness on the grounds that its D&D's take on the classes, because D&D created the archetypes as they now exist by the siloing of skills as class features.   Hense, if you are fighter you can't be stealthy (ergo, Conan must be multiclassed) and if you're a Paladin you can't have woodcraft (ergo, Aragorn must be multiclassed) and so forth.  But Tolkien didn't write his material with conforming to D&D in mind, and it wasn't woodsman, woodcutter, game warden, vagabonds, or even Robin Hood that was serving as Tolkien's archetypal inspiration for Aragorn.  We aren't dealing with a member of the Yeoman class.  Woodsman or vagabond is merely as it were his disguise.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 1, 2012)

Gentlegamer said:


> Anyway Celebrim, the subject at hand isn't 'what class is Aragorn,' but 'what is an Aragorn-style Ranger in D&D,'




I know what the subject is, and I'm answering the question as I think is best.  The answer to, "What is an Aragorn-style Ranger in D&D", is "Paladin".  Yes, that is not obvious and yes it means I think that the question is a trick question, but its still an answer.  



> Of the Ranger options available, it's clearly the Strategic Review or 1e version (with or without Unearthed Arcana).




I consider the debate to be unresolvable, because I don't find there to be that big of a difference between the 1e and 3e Ranger.  The basic concepts of 'spell using' and favored enemy are there from the beginning.  I have no desire to side with either the "Hank the Ranger" crowd or the "Drizzt the Ranger" crowd over what the Ranger ought to be, nor do I intend to let anyone argue "my Ranger is more Tolkien than your Ranger" unchallenged given how little any of the Rangers have to do with Aragorn's Ranger.  It's snobbery, and I say that as someone with no love for Drizzt and no great apprecition of R.A. Salvatore's writing.  As for two weapon fighting, the rules on page 70 of the 1e DMG rewarded anyone with more 15 Dex for pursuing that path, so if you happened to have a Ranger loaded with Dex, then he fought with bows and two weapons even though Aragorn didn't do either of those things but instead employed, well, a holy avenger as basically his exclusive weapon.


----------



## Rogue Agent (Feb 1, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> Aragorn is a ranger in the same way that Gandalf is a wizard: That's what they're called in Middle-Earth, even though their skill sets bear little resemblance to the D&D classes of the same name.




While that's true for Gandalf, the class abilities of the original ranger are:

- Must be of good alignment.
- Minor spell capabilities of a naturalistic bent.
- Very good against trolls and giants.
- Good at tracking.
- Good at sneaking through the wilderness.
- Able to use palantirs magic items with clairaudience/clairvoyance.
- Lead a small band of ranger followers.

It's a class almost entirely defined by "crap Aragorn did in LOTR (or talked about doing)", with some of it being generalized.



GSHamster said:


> Ok, I'll be serious. It's a code or dog-whistle for "not-Drizzt".




Partly true. What you have is a mechanical journey that starts with "we'll give the ranger dual-wielding to make them distinct" (which many attribute to Drizzt, although that doesn't seem to be true -- Zeb Cook says it wasn't and Drizzt's books had barely even been in print at the time the class would have been getting redesigned for 2e) and ends with the definitive class ability of the ranger being "select a fighting style".

This is probably also related to the game becoming more mechanically focused on combat compared to other aspects of gameplay. Which is something I suspect most people saying they want an Aragorn-style ranger are also hoping to see rolled back.



pemerton said:


> Perhaps. But it is equally legitimate to think  that the author is making an error of conflating length with emphasis.  It is possible to make something the centre of a work without needlessly  (and longwindedly) dwelling on it.




Possibly. But I find those sections of the book work in three very specific and important aspects:

(1) Although many people read it first, LOTR is a sequel. These sections provide a very necessary transition from one protagonist to another.

(2) There is a deep emotional investment in the Shire on the part of the main characters. This pervades the entire book and is strongly required for the Scouring of the Shire. By spending time there, Tolkien is emotionally investing the reader in the Shire as well. (Much like he forces the reader to walk in the shoes of Frodo and Sam across the Mordor later in the book.)

(3) LOTR is a work structured around a multitude of deeply engrained themes which are interwoven with each other. One is a tale of growing up -- and the Shire's embodiment of childhood is an important part of that theme. Short shrift it, and you damage a major thematic arc of the work. (The transformation of the Shire also features fundamentally in the hero's journey of the tale -- the knowledge which the heroes bring back from their adventures which transform themselves and their homeland. This theme doesn't justify the length of the Shire sections, but also factors into the equation.)

Everyone is, of course, allowed to have their own opinions on what does and doesn't work for them. But describing the Shire sequences as a "mistake" would be to ignore the major structures of the work.


----------



## Ulrik (Feb 1, 2012)

Celebrim said:


> I have no desire to side with either the "Hank the Ranger" crowd or the "Drizzt the Ranger" crowd over what the Ranger ought to be




The true answer is, of course, Belkar.


----------



## nightwind1 (Feb 1, 2012)

Hautamaki said:


> IIRC, In medieval sword play, the 'Florentine' style of fighting was using 2 swords.  Likewise in Japan, Musashi used two swords in at least some of his fights.



Actually, Florentine originated in the Renaissance, long after the medieval era, in Florence, Italy. Hence the name. And it was primarily rapier and maine-gauch (sp?).


----------

