This is the oldest definition of Ranger I could find:-
the keeper of a public park or forest; formerly, a sworn officer of a forest, appointed by the king's letters patent, whose business was to walk through the forest, recover beasts that had strayed beyond its limits, watch the deer, present trespasses to the next court held for the forest ...
This definition sits perfectly well with everything in 4e - ranger being martial and not primal class, ranger being proficient in military ranged weapons, being more dependent on dexterity than strength unlike fighter, having pet animals, using swords in conjugation with ranged weapon, being good at tracking things, being related to forest, protecting territory, etc etc
It also fits in with the present definition of rangers in army units, police units and forest units.
At times ranger may wield a crossbow like a fighter, but has to be proficient in longer bows by default and should not have to take any feats etc for it. He will use crossbows when facing plated enemies - which are rare in forest. Hence a longbow would be his weapon of choice to kill unarmored and stealthy enroachers in the territory. Hence it is iconic for rangers to have bows instead of crossbows which are more iconic with fighters.
The defination also easily explains why rangers don't get automatic proficiency in Platemail but usually wear medium armor like leather armor. They are defined by mobility.
This also explains why elf fits this criteria well because Tolkien designed the elves after rangers. Having dexterity is as important for ranger unlike fighter who needs to have high STR only and low dex can do for him.
With this introduction,:-
If they are going by current MMO trends, the iconic ranger is the archer. 4e uses both the bow ranger and the dual wielding ranger. I suspect the first will be the bow ranger because the old preview silhouette seemed to suggest the ranger class used a bow.
And I haven't cracked open my 4e books in a long time but I don't believe rangers get pets, at least not in the core books.
Ranger is not an archer - he is supposed to be proficient in archery and should be able to combat too.
He needs to have both weapons - archery so he does not have to chase enemies, and melee when he has to capture or engage the enemy closely.
Nothing wrong with rangers in getting pets - they should be able to tame wild animals like cowboys can lasso wild horses. It is completely martial in nature, nothing to do with how arcanist has familiar or primal has animal companion.
There is no right answer for what a ranger is or should be. I personally feel like MMOs are getting stuck in certain roles too much, ie rangers shoot arrows and maybe have a close ranged attack or two, fighters use swords and maybe have a ranged attack or two. I would like the option to do either one on both, but have reasons of one person wanting to choose an archery fighter over an archery ranger, and vice versa.
All games try to be as faithful to real life as possible as it shows they have done research and not just quickly thought up something on their own.
When you use word like ranger instead of archer, you need to justify its use - or come up with your own name to the class. A ranger has to fit certain criteria - D&D rulesets do that very closely. A ranger is perhaps only martial class which is versatile and if build to its strengths, will get bonus to tracking, stealth, sight, aiming etc.
I think you are inferring a bit too much here. Fighters regularly carry bows too. In fact, pretty much every class has some sort of ranged ability. It's just generally wise to have some sort of ranged weapon before you close the gap.
Unlike crossbows, you have to be proficient in bows. Also you need to have dexterity. Fighter gets a hit to it when wearing armor.
You cn explain it in this way realistically - when fighter pulls the bowstring, his hands are not steady. Hence, even if he has appropriate strength, his bow is useless as bow is defined by accuracy.
A ranger is always accurate. If he has less strength, he will use smaller bow - lesser range but still accurate and deadly.
If he is strong enough, he will use Greatbow - and still be as acurate and have a longer range
(If he is mounted, he should use composite bow, but games do not go to realism that much)
Exactly what are you referring to? You're bouncing from D&D mechanics to real life examples
The rulesets of D&D are made to simulate reality - at least in martial class. If a ruleset has no ground in realism, it cannot expand itself when the person who made it left the team and new person came in.
Lastly, again:-
There are 2 reasons why rangers always carry a bow:
- It is a silent weapon
- You do not need to take your eyes off the target.
Crossbow: the only weapon to compete longbow is not beneficial in either.
However, if a ranger often faces foes with heavy armor, he will instead be using crossbows instead of longbows. That is because they change their weapons according to enemy.
However, still the rangers who use crossbows or two-handed weapons will be rare - only available at places where they have problems using longbows and one handed swords on enemies.
Because of forest habitat they use longbow/shortbow/bow as it is beneficial to them against people with no armor(and beasts).
Rarely do they need armor piercing bolts of crossbow - which will have shorter range. Similarly, their dex can help them wield two weapons - a dagger and sword(without taking any feat which is basically a mutation). Hence they can use their dexterity efficiently.
EDIT:
I guess that much is enough and that crossbow have lower range needs not be explained with another wall of text (though I was contemplating that).
Back to the topic, which iconic ranger do you prefer more - one who uses blades, one who uses pets or one who uses bow?
(Before we go off-topic again, let me remind you that all three can do all three, but it means a ranger better at one thing - one he can most easily do)
0
ambisinisterrMember, Neverwinter ModeratorPosts: 10,462Community Moderator
edited January 2013
I never argued that fighters in reality tend to use crossbows since they take far less skill to use but in terms of D&D the most important bit, as power gamers go, is that bows will give a strength increase if they have enough dexterity to use them.
As the end result though Gill, realize you base your argument on Rangers often using bows because they are dexterous.
I would call that natural talent but it doesn't necessarily define what they do. Being naturally talented in something doesn't truly define that you prefer using that talent.
Rangers need dexterity for the same reasons rogues and monks do - balance and mobility. Running around uneven forest terrain isn't easy afterall...
But not every rogue uses bows as a primary weapon nor do monks use them at all.
Rangers (and Rogues) will often carry one because they are naturally talented with bows but there's a huge difference between natural talent and actual combat preference. Ranged weapons are a natural part of D&D Combat for the simple concept that a chance of hitting you a couple of times before you reach me is better than no chance.
Even Robin Hood, as revered as he is with the bow, is always depicted with excellent swordsmanship as well.
In any case, as always I will prefer the melee Ranger.
I don't care what weapon...take the bow and go away. I have no love for it.
*clears throat and does an Arnold Impression*
Sticks and stones are for girly men.
Manly men use sword size of bodies and mayo instead of sword oil cause we eat girly men for breakfast!
Yaargh I eat at the manly The Salty Spittoon.
If you still want to use them sticks and stones then eat over there
You need little to no strength to use a crossbow just need to know how to use leverage. The greatest strength of a crossbow is its ease of use period. The use of a Longbow one needs strength and years of training. The Longbow proved to be the superior weapon on the battle field when used en mass longer accurate range and greater fire rate.
The bodkin arrow was used to puncture mail which led to plate armor. As crossbows got more powerful though even slower to reload Plate armor improved through a number of design improvements ie fluting, thickness, better quality steel. Fine Plate armor from Germany and Italy had a mark where a crossbow was shot at it at 50 feet to prove it was crossbow proof.
In the early years of low velocity firearms, full suits of armour, or breast plates actually stopped bullets fired from a modest distance. Crossbow bolts, if still used, would seldom penetrate good plate, nor would any bullet unless fired from close range. In effect, rather than making plate armor obsolete, the use of firearms stimulated the development of plate armor into its later stages. For most of that period, it allowed horsemen to fight while being the targets of defending arquebuseers without being easily killed. Full suits of armor were actually worn by generals and princely commanders right up to the second decade of the 18th century. It was the only way they could be mounted and survey the overall battlefield with safety from distant musket fire.
0
ambisinisterrMember, Neverwinter ModeratorPosts: 10,462Community Moderator
edited January 2013
History buff...!
I love history buffs...
Give me more facts that I will remember forever yet never be able to use outside of my dorky hobbies please!
I never argued that fighters in reality tend to use crossbows since they take far less skill to use but in terms of D&D the most important bit, as power gamers go, is that bows will give a strength increase if they have enough dexterity to use them.
As the end result though Gill, realize you base your argument on Rangers often using bows because they are dexterous.
I would call that natural talent but it doesn't necessarily define what they do. Being naturally talented in something doesn't truly define that you prefer using that talent. It is not a natural talent but a class talent. There is difference between two.
Rangers need dexterity for the same reasons rogues and monks do - balance and mobility. Running around uneven forest terrain isn't easy afterall...
But not every rogue uses bows as a primary weapon nor do monks use them at all. Monks are not ranger class hence they do not get automatic proficiency in bows - why are you even comparing them by the way.
Rangers (and Rogues) will often carry one because they are naturally talented with bows but there's a huge difference between natural talent and actual combat preference. Ranged weapons are a natural part of D&D Combat for the simple concept that a chance of hitting you a couple of times before you reach me is better than no chance.
Even Robin Hood, as revered as he is with the bow, is always depicted with excellent swordsmanship as well. Rogues usually go for crossbow. Most rogue use ranged weapon to act as a sniper of sort and then to hide away. Heavy repeater crossbow rogue is famous for certain reasons.
In any case, as always I will prefer the melee Ranger.
I don't care what weapon...take the bow and go away. I have no love for it. How can you play a ranger without a ranged weapon - are you playing a swordmaster? Ranger is not weapon specific. A ranger is automatically proficient in bow, weather you like it or not, you can't be a ranger class without learning bows at level zero (i.e. having class talent). A ranger should always have one ranged weapon and one melee weapon - and unless facing armored opponent, it is better to take bow because you already have class talent for it.
You need little to no strength to use a crossbow just need to know how to use leverage. The greatest strength of a crossbow is its ease of use period. Period. Exactly the point. Crossbow's greatest strength is ease of use while Ranger class by definition, already is proficient in using bows. Unless you have a mindflayer make you forget your class talent, you will know how to efficiently use the bow.
The use of a Longbow one needs strength and years of training. And Ranger has that as a class skill, otherwise how can you become a ranger? The Longbow proved to be the superior weapon on the battle field when used en mass longer accurate range and greater fire rate. Ofcourse, as I said, it has longer range than usual crossbow hence above point is quite obvious isn't it? The bodkin arrow was used to puncture mail which led to plate armor. As crossbows got more powerful though even slower to reload Plate armor improved through a number of design improvements ie fluting, thickness, better quality steel. Fine Plate armor from Germany and Italy had a mark where a crossbow was shot at it at 50 feet to prove it was crossbow proof. And what about ballista? Do you think someone can withstand a ballista? A crossbow is as strong as it is designed. However above point has nothing to do with rangers. Or are you saying that crossbows were not used for armor piercing while bows were?
In the early years of low velocity firearms, full suits of armour, or breast plates actually stopped bullets fired from a modest distance. They still can. It is because of weight the bullet proof vests became popular. Infact steel is better defence from bullets still - because you get less shock and your bones may not break unlike bullet proof vest(apart from the creep effect). However, weight for armor is most important.
Crossbow bolts, if still used, would seldom penetrate good plate, nor would any bullet unless fired from close range. Medium to close range - as I said they are medium to close range weapons. Their strength is the speed of the bolt and it looses it quickly. That is why you can fire bows higher in air but fire crossbows straight. (well good to know you already understand this).
In effect, rather than making plate armor obsolete, the use of firearms stimulated the development of plate armor into its later stages. For most of that period, it allowed horsemen to fight while being the targets of defending arquebuseers without being easily killed. Full suits of armor were actually worn by generals and princely commanders right up to the second decade of the 18th century. Bah! The nobility was just faking the fight all the time - they used bludgeoning weapons just to break bones of mounted knights and not kill them. Only during crusades or other such fights do you see some actual warfare. Though bullets changed it slowly and steadily.
It was the only way they could be mounted and survey the overall battlefield with safety from distant musket fire.
Responses in red.
However, I fail to understand how part under aqua is relevant to ranger. Are we just discussing history? I am fine with it, infact enjoying it.
Well I think by reading this whole thread (boredom) the one thing all can take from it is we all have our definition of what we think a ranger should be and in a fantasy setting no one here is right or wrong. All we can do is hope the Cryptic in all its glory can get one right which will make us all happy in some way. Frankly I would be happy with a single build useing a feat tree allowing us to augment our abilities towards ranged or dual weild. I never cared for Beast masters and the like because it never fit into how I envision and roll play my characters.
At this point we should be happy there seems to be a Ranger in the making at all.
The ballista was a siege weapon not a hand held poorly trained infantry ranged weapon:p which does not mean all crossbow wielding soldiers were poorly trained.
The crossbow was useless for penetrating well made plate armor a musket on the other hand at close range could.
0
ahrimavizxMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Hero UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited January 2013
Definitely two blades. I've always loved dual wielding.
0
ohnishiMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian UsersPosts: 0Arc User
snip:
The two handed fighter build for 4E may suck but it's not "oh rangers don't use anything but light weapons."
The most famous of rangers, other than Aragorn, also used a two handed sword when you first meet him. Good old Minsc.
Ah good old Minsc and his friend Boo the 'space hamster'.
I love to dual wield swords in this game, but seeing as we only have wizard and cleric for range, we would benefit more with an archer. Maybe they could do a mid-range archer, like the tera archer.
Im not a big Ranger player but I was wondering which you guys prefer the Archer Ranger or the Two-Bade Ranger?
Archer.
Its 1 of the core gameplay styles that the game is missing and needs to introduce to give all playstyles a choice.
I did a poll over at mmorpg.com and the results were 89% in favor of the Archer Ranger. For those who want the 2 bladed ranger, the Tricster Rogue is a nice substitute till then.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Character is what a man is in the dark
0
lordofscornMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian UsersPosts: 18Arc User
Ranged ranger of course. Whats the point in playing a ranger if you don't want to use ranged weapons?
A lot of people make that mistake. Being a ranger has nothing to do with using ranged weapons. A ranger is a person who covers a range of land for whatever reason. He traverses an open range and is typically a warden of said expanse of land. However, many are also hunters, and thus use hunting weapons in their arsenal, which typically includes bows and such.
Comments
This definition sits perfectly well with everything in 4e - ranger being martial and not primal class, ranger being proficient in military ranged weapons, being more dependent on dexterity than strength unlike fighter, having pet animals, using swords in conjugation with ranged weapon, being good at tracking things, being related to forest, protecting territory, etc etc
It also fits in with the present definition of rangers in army units, police units and forest units.
At times ranger may wield a crossbow like a fighter, but has to be proficient in longer bows by default and should not have to take any feats etc for it. He will use crossbows when facing plated enemies - which are rare in forest. Hence a longbow would be his weapon of choice to kill unarmored and stealthy enroachers in the territory. Hence it is iconic for rangers to have bows instead of crossbows which are more iconic with fighters.
The defination also easily explains why rangers don't get automatic proficiency in Platemail but usually wear medium armor like leather armor. They are defined by mobility.
This also explains why elf fits this criteria well because Tolkien designed the elves after rangers. Having dexterity is as important for ranger unlike fighter who needs to have high STR only and low dex can do for him.
With this introduction,:-
Ranger is not an archer - he is supposed to be proficient in archery and should be able to combat too.
He needs to have both weapons - archery so he does not have to chase enemies, and melee when he has to capture or engage the enemy closely.
Nothing wrong with rangers in getting pets - they should be able to tame wild animals like cowboys can lasso wild horses. It is completely martial in nature, nothing to do with how arcanist has familiar or primal has animal companion.
All games try to be as faithful to real life as possible as it shows they have done research and not just quickly thought up something on their own.
When you use word like ranger instead of archer, you need to justify its use - or come up with your own name to the class. A ranger has to fit certain criteria - D&D rulesets do that very closely. A ranger is perhaps only martial class which is versatile and if build to its strengths, will get bonus to tracking, stealth, sight, aiming etc.
Unlike crossbows, you have to be proficient in bows. Also you need to have dexterity. Fighter gets a hit to it when wearing armor.
You cn explain it in this way realistically - when fighter pulls the bowstring, his hands are not steady. Hence, even if he has appropriate strength, his bow is useless as bow is defined by accuracy.
A ranger is always accurate. If he has less strength, he will use smaller bow - lesser range but still accurate and deadly.
If he is strong enough, he will use Greatbow - and still be as acurate and have a longer range
(If he is mounted, he should use composite bow, but games do not go to realism that much)
The rulesets of D&D are made to simulate reality - at least in martial class. If a ruleset has no ground in realism, it cannot expand itself when the person who made it left the team and new person came in.
Lastly, again:-
Because of forest habitat they use longbow/shortbow/bow as it is beneficial to them against people with no armor(and beasts).
Rarely do they need armor piercing bolts of crossbow - which will have shorter range. Similarly, their dex can help them wield two weapons - a dagger and sword(without taking any feat which is basically a mutation). Hence they can use their dexterity efficiently.
EDIT:
I guess that much is enough and that crossbow have lower range needs not be explained with another wall of text (though I was contemplating that).
Back to the topic, which iconic ranger do you prefer more - one who uses blades, one who uses pets or one who uses bow?
(Before we go off-topic again, let me remind you that all three can do all three, but it means a ranger better at one thing - one he can most easily do)
As the end result though Gill, realize you base your argument on Rangers often using bows because they are dexterous.
I would call that natural talent but it doesn't necessarily define what they do. Being naturally talented in something doesn't truly define that you prefer using that talent.
Rangers need dexterity for the same reasons rogues and monks do - balance and mobility. Running around uneven forest terrain isn't easy afterall...
But not every rogue uses bows as a primary weapon nor do monks use them at all.
Rangers (and Rogues) will often carry one because they are naturally talented with bows but there's a huge difference between natural talent and actual combat preference. Ranged weapons are a natural part of D&D Combat for the simple concept that a chance of hitting you a couple of times before you reach me is better than no chance.
Even Robin Hood, as revered as he is with the bow, is always depicted with excellent swordsmanship as well.
In any case, as always I will prefer the melee Ranger.
I don't care what weapon...take the bow and go away. I have no love for it.
*clears throat and does an Arnold Impression*
Sticks and stones are for girly men.
Manly men use sword size of bodies and mayo instead of sword oil cause we eat girly men for breakfast!
Yaargh I eat at the manly The Salty Spittoon.
If you still want to use them sticks and stones then eat over there
*points down and to the right*
You already know my answer to lower part.
Is you masculinity threatened? Then you are not man enough to play!
The bodkin arrow was used to puncture mail which led to plate armor. As crossbows got more powerful though even slower to reload Plate armor improved through a number of design improvements ie fluting, thickness, better quality steel. Fine Plate armor from Germany and Italy had a mark where a crossbow was shot at it at 50 feet to prove it was crossbow proof.
In the early years of low velocity firearms, full suits of armour, or breast plates actually stopped bullets fired from a modest distance. Crossbow bolts, if still used, would seldom penetrate good plate, nor would any bullet unless fired from close range. In effect, rather than making plate armor obsolete, the use of firearms stimulated the development of plate armor into its later stages. For most of that period, it allowed horsemen to fight while being the targets of defending arquebuseers without being easily killed. Full suits of armor were actually worn by generals and princely commanders right up to the second decade of the 18th century. It was the only way they could be mounted and survey the overall battlefield with safety from distant musket fire.
I love history buffs...
Give me more facts that I will remember forever yet never be able to use outside of my dorky hobbies please!
However, I fail to understand how part under aqua is relevant to ranger. Are we just discussing history? I am fine with it, infact enjoying it.
At this point we should be happy there seems to be a Ranger in the making at all.
The crossbow was useless for penetrating well made plate armor a musket on the other hand at close range could.
Ah good old Minsc and his friend Boo the 'space hamster'.
Archer.
Its 1 of the core gameplay styles that the game is missing and needs to introduce to give all playstyles a choice.
I did a poll over at mmorpg.com and the results were 89% in favor of the Archer Ranger. For those who want the 2 bladed ranger, the Tricster Rogue is a nice substitute till then.
Character is what a man is in the dark
A lot of people make that mistake. Being a ranger has nothing to do with using ranged weapons. A ranger is a person who covers a range of land for whatever reason. He traverses an open range and is typically a warden of said expanse of land. However, many are also hunters, and thus use hunting weapons in their arsenal, which typically includes bows and such.
We'll call it the Archerest Ranger. Boom. Donezo.
-Kymos
that is all.
Aye, no matter WHICH you prefer, it'll be the two-blade one for business.