Not to defend dual wield too much, as I would be upset too if I was babysat by a Mary Sue, but Melan you can use your off-hand weapon defensively already. At least in 2e the GM may allow Parry (not Full Parry) where you use an attack of yours to deflect an oncoming attack. So Kiero is right pointing out it is a halfway between shield and one-hand/two-hand wield.

You declare a parry before initiative, and your parry will default to the first attack you receive (unless you specify delaying for a target attacker). If they hit, you roll a "contesting" to-hit back -- against their AC -- and if successful you deflect the attack. A bit complicated to explain, but pretty easy in practice. (Only additional info is Parry with a shield this way is at +2.)

The nice thing about that is it gives Rogue characters a bit of optional defense, since their archetype cannot use shields. And it's a style that switches up to offense whichever round the player likes as well. Don't know if 1e or 3e has it, but it's a pretty simple concept to houserule in.

Ranger: Aragorn, the Character Class.

Quote from: JRR;575286No spells?

You know, I'm a big fan of the concept that magic is more common in Middle Earth than normally thought by many- if only in earlier times.

But I'm afraid I'm not convinced by your impressive list of quotes that anything other than flowerly description typical of many types of writing was at work. A passage claiming "And he glared with eyes aflame at me" doesn't normally mean that the guys eyes were actually on fire.

I'm not going to go point by point, but I think you're reaching here for the most part, and what's left hardly means that a LotR Ranger should have spells. I know that I run a Middle Earth campaign, and it has Rangers in it. And they can duplicate every scene you listed- and they don't have a Spell Point to their name.

Quote from: JRR;575286No spells?



"The wood was full of the rumour of him, dreadful tales even among beasts and birds." FotR:75.



"If any wanderer had chanced to pass, little would he have seen or heard, and it would have seemed to him only that he saw grey figures, carved in stone, memorials of forgotten things now lost in unpeopled lands. For they did not move or speak with mouth, looking from mind to mind; and only their shining eyes stirred and kindled as their thoughts went to and fro." RotK:278.

So what you have here is a bunch of rumours from the folks of Bree, who are backwards thinking yokels and a load of vague powers that aragorn may have becuase he is Dunedin. I mean you could argue that the Dunedin are just half elves and that is why they live for 250 + years and can do all that elf shit. However in the books he rarely does any real elf shit and Legolas can see further, hear better, walk on snow without leaving footprints, never get cold, etc etc
Really Aragorn does nothing magical that is not linked to his bloodline. He doesn't talk to animals, he doesn't hide the party on Weathertop from the 9 and he doesn't use magic to defeat any opponents. Maybe he's just a 5th level ranger. The 1e ranger interestingly can use scrying devices because Aragorn can use Palantir becuase he is the rightful king of gondor. Doesn't really make much sense does it.

Quote from: Kiero;575109Every time I see this canard, I feel the need to shoot it down. Through time immemorial, two hands have meant either a two-handed weapon or two weapons. Note a shield is a second weapon. If you have it, you use it. There's nothing "specialist" about it.

Davy Crockett, in popular folklore using a common "pioneer" fighting style (because as per Roger's Rules of Ranging, formalising a common practise, everyone carried a knife and hatchet):


Rangers should be using two weapons. Not twin scimitars or any such nonsense, but a knife or hatchet in their off hand.

I believe 1E made two-weapon fighting available to anyone, but limited it to a dagger or hand axe as secondary weapon.

None of that means Rangers should get dual weild specialisation. you are just making the case for fighters in general to have access to dual wield.
In reality if you have personally ever wandered through a forest carrying a sword, as I have done on several larps you will appreciate having a free hand to stop branches and so on smacking you in the face. Just in the same way that you realise a short sort is more practical in a forest than a rapier and a hacket is more practical than both.

Quote from: jibbajibba;575677None of that means Rangers should get dual weild specialisation. you are just making the case for fighters in general to have access to dual wield.
In reality if you have personally ever wandered through a forest carrying a sword, as I have done on several larps you will appreciate having a free hand to stop branches and so on smacking you in the face. Just in the same way that you realise a short sort is more practical in a forest than a rapier and a hacket is more practical than both.

Firstly, I was disputing your notion that two-weapon fighting is "specialist" - which it isn't. So yes every warrior-type (and probably a few others, like rogue-types) should have access to it.

Secondly, I don't disagree with you that long weapons are inappropriate for wandering around forests. It's why I ended up having a lengthy argument on this issue on TBP because some loon thought a spear was an ideal weapon for a (forest-based) Ranger. As I already said, as far as I'm concerned, the archetypal load-out for a Ranger is a hachet and big knife. Both are useful outdoor tools doubling up as weapons.

Thirdly, the forest isn't the only terrain from which you get Rangers. Which is why we should be less restrictive on weapons than only considering what works with lots of trees and scrub around. A desert Ranger might dual wield scimitar and knife, for example.

The highly adaptable warrior.
Through sense of duty or circumstance, he protects civilization by being (and fighting) well outside of it.

The AD&D 1E ranger really is the "Aragorn class". Not a fan. The standard 'rpg ranger' I dig, though... unless it's the silly tree-hugger crap.

Quote from: Kiero;575681Firstly, I was disputing your notion that two-weapon fighting is "specialist" - which it isn't. So yes every warrior-type (and probably a few others, like rogue-types) should have access to it.

Secondly, I don't disagree with you that long weapons are inappropriate for wandering around forests. It's why I ended up having a lengthy argument on this issue on TBP because some loon thought a spear was an ideal weapon for a (forest-based) Ranger. As I already said, as far as I'm concerned, the archetypal load-out for a Ranger is a hachet and big knife. Both are useful outdoor tools doubling up as weapons.

Thirdly, the forest isn't the only terrain from which you get Rangers. Which is why we should be less restrictive on weapons than only considering what works with lots of trees and scrub around. A desert Ranger might dual wield scimitar and knife, for example.

Cool I think we are more in agreement that not and a good point about forests. A desert bedouin ranger is a totally acceptable class as well as are numerous others.
A spear is good when you get charged by a boar though

Quote from: jibbajibba;575696Cool I think we are more in agreement that not and a good point about forests. A desert bedouin ranger is a totally acceptable class as well as are numerous others.

Agreed. Said bedouin-styled Ranger would of course only be carrying one scimitar/shashmir.
 

Quote from: jibbajibba;575696A spear is good when you get charged by a boar though

Though given how inconvenient it is, that's likely to be something you expressly carry for hunting boar. Not your mainstay that you keep around all the time.

I've always envisioned the Ranger as a wilderness warrior.

I looked at Tolkien's Rangers as what would be considered elite operatives today, only that they are of a superior race (Dunedain) compared to the more "common men" of the North.  The Faramir led Rangers didn't have that advantage, but they were some of the elite forces that Gondor had.

That said, the concept of animal companions and a grove to protect simply seemed out of touch from what the Ranger was originally designed to be.

(For the record, I'm not even gonna touch any of the implications of Dunedain being superior over the other human races.  I've always looked at it as an offshoot of the mentality of Colonialism creeping into Tolkien's writing.)

Quote from: jibbajibba;575696A spear is good when you get charged by a boar though

Or a minotaur!

This Sunday, we were exploring a forest plagued by some sort of spreading "wrongness", and found the lair of a minotaur possessed by an evil ruby necklace. Since we were all 2nd level, and we had barely survived a previous encounter with a displacer beast (my character was at -8 Hp at one point), facing something even badder, and with a devastating charge attack, was not something we wanted to do without serious reinforcements.

On my suggestion, we returned to town, and two of us bought glaives (I think it was glaives, the Hungarian translation of the 3e rulebook is pretty sloppy). We ended up luring the minotaur into an ambush, and as it charged into the readied weapons when the sorceress blinded it for a moment with a burst of light, I managed to hit it for 12 points, automatically doubled due to the polearm rules (could have even critted for *6 if I was luckier...). That did not mean the melee was over, but it did mean my PC was (barely) alive at the end of the confrontation, and I ended up with a minotaur trophy instead of the other way round. :cool:

So yeah, invest in polearms, but don't haul it with you all the time. I am planning to use my mule for that purpose, once it recovers from the wounds it sustained from the displacer beast.

Quote from: Melan;575710Or a minotaur!

This Sunday, we were exploring a forest plagued by some sort of spreading "wrongness", and found the lair of a minotaur possessed by an evil ruby necklace. Since we were all 2nd level, and we had barely survived a previous encounter with a displacer beast (my character was at -8 Hp at one point), facing something even badder, and with a devastating charge attack, was not something we wanted to do without serious reinforcements.

On my suggestion, we returned to town, and two of us bought glaives (I think it was glaives, the Hungarian translation of the 3e rulebook is pretty sloppy). We ended up luring the minotaur into an ambush, and as it charged into the readied weapons when the sorceress blinded it for a moment with a burst of light, I managed to hit it for 12 points, automatically doubled due to the polearm rules (could have even critted for *6 if I was luckier...). That did not mean the melee was over, but it did mean my PC was (barely) alive at the end of the confrontation, and I ended up with a minotaur trophy instead of the other way round. :cool:

So yeah, invest in polearms, but don't haul it with you all the time. I am planning to use my mule for that purpose, once it recovers from the wounds it sustained from the displacer beast.

I thought a glaive was more like a scimitar on a stick so not ideal to set to recieve a charge but well played sir.

Quote from: Bill;575372If the 1E Ranger is based on Aragorn, why did they get Wizard spells instead of druid?

Maybe its because Aragorn was mostly raised and tutored by elves. I think the wizard spells may come from the notion that Rangers are part of an advanced society in exile.


Druid spells make much better sense, especially if you look before LoTR at characters from Silmarillion. I forget his name (one of the 'close names' hurin, turin, huor, tuor?) but there were other humans in exile that lived more closely to nature, befriending animals (not mystically so), etc.

Just for edition clarity, Rangers in 2e do not get Two-Weapon Specialization, per se. They get something slightly better/worse. 2W Spec gives you -0/-2 and equal weapon size, regardless of armor. Rangers get -0/-0, unequal weapon size (one must be small), and armor must be studded or lighter. All warriors and rogues (fighters, paladins, rangers, thieves, bards, etc.) get access to 2W Use, but it's at -2/-4, one weapon must be small, regardless of armor.

Basically Drizzt is a Ranger who took 2W Spec to get equal weapon size -- otherwise he's an illegal build (or just a Mary Sue).

And I like the idea of a spear Ranger, it just would have to be in different terrain, like a Masai warrior on the Sahel or other great plain. Now I want an Aleut harpoon Ranger with Survival: Arctic Coast and Seamanship... Damn you all! Now where will I find such a D&D game? There'll be no igloo tavern for the part to meet up!
:rant:

Quote from: jibbajibba;575675So what you have here is a bunch of rumours from the folks of Bree, who are backwards thinking yokels and a load of vague powers that aragorn may have becuase he is Dunedin. I mean you could argue that the Dunedin are just half elves and that is why they live for 250 + years and can do all that elf shit. However in the books he rarely does any real elf shit and Legolas can see further, hear better, walk on snow without leaving footprints, never get cold, etc etc
Really Aragorn does nothing magical that is not linked to his bloodline. He doesn't talk to animals, he doesn't hide the party on Weathertop from the 9 and he doesn't use magic to defeat any opponents. Maybe he's just a 5th level ranger. The 1e ranger interestingly can use scrying devices because Aragorn can use Palantir becuase he is the rightful king of gondor. Doesn't really make much sense does it.

Yes, you can give the ranger a bajillion special abilities that are non magical to duplicate most of that.  Or you can just give him spells and be done with it.  And yes, you can explain away some of those quotes as metaphor, but not all.  

"He sat down on the ground, and taking the dagger-hilt laid it on his knees, and he sang over it a slow song in a strange tongue. Then setting it aside, he turned to Frodo and in a soft tone spoke words the others could not catch. From the pouch at his belt he drew out the long leaves of a plant." FotR:233.

That doesn't sound like a spell?  Material and vocal components.

"'I have no fitting gifts to give you at our parting,' said Faramir; 'but take these staves. They may be of service to those who walk or climb in the wild. The men of the White Mountains use them; though these have been cut down to your height and newly shod. They are made of the fair tree lebethron, beloved of the woodwrights of Gondor, and a virtue has been set upon them of finding and returning."  

A virtue?  Sounds like a spell to me.  This is Faramir, not Aragorn, but if he's not a ranger, no one is.