Rangers and Armor

UnknownQuantity

I haven't seen this mentioned much. Maybe it's because Rangers are fairly weak compared to fighters and paladins despite their high stat roll minimums. I always wear plate armor when using a Ranger because I can. All the Ranger kits restrict the Ranger to leather type of armor. If you read the D&D handbook description they seem to be stealthy types. I don't really understand why they are allowed to wear plate armor. It seems Rangers should always wear leather as to be stealthy. The only exception I would make with this rule is if they dual classed to a Cleric. A Ranger wearing plate armor just doesn't seem like a Ranger at all. Without the restriction in place why not use it though? It makes you a far more effective front line fighter in BG1.

With that in mind I find a Ranger using hammers, maces, and flails a bit silly. They are not very stealthy weapons. Every time I try to play a Ranger/Cleric I usually stop. Even with the power of the class I feel stupid as a Ranger dual wielding heavy blunt weapons and wearing plate armor. If I were to play the Ranger it would almost definitely be the archer or the stalker. In the 2nd edition Rangers handbook it appears there are a lot more kits available.

PeteAtoms

I dunno, I don't have a problem with it personally. Maybe your idea of what "ranger" means is too narrow? In the kit description, there really isn't anything to suggest that all rangers skulk around the woods hunting animals with ranged and dual wielded weapons.

The description basically describes the ranger as a warrior with an affinity for forests and protecting the woodlands.

Oh, and I just noticed that a ranger can't even attempt to use stealth while wearing anything heavier than studded leather, so I don't really think there's an issue at all.

EDIT: And no one is forcing you to play out of character. If you have a certain understanding of what a "ranger" is, do it Just give him the kind of equipment that you think is proper.

deltago

Rangers are a stealthy and having one in the party allows your rogue to focus on traps and locks while the ranger uses its stealth to scout. But just like fighter/thieves, their stealth is disabled if they wear anything higher than studded leather. Just because he can wear plate mail doesn't mean he should.

hammernanvil

I always play rangers, but as a class they are at a slight disadvantage, the stalker kit is what a ranger should be IMO, whoever designed the ranger class in 2e was smoking crack IMO, the description does not fit the class.
"Rangers are skilled woodsmen and hunters" And the only dual class option is cleric? so heavy armor, and blunt weapons, and the only ranged weapon being a sling? Really?

UnknownQuantity

PeteAtoms said:

I dunno, I don't have a problem with it personally. Maybe your idea of what "ranger" means is too narrow? In the kit description, there really isn't anything to suggest that all rangers skulk around the woods hunting animals with ranged and dual wielded weapons.

The description basically describes the ranger as a warrior with an affinity for forests and protecting the woodlands.

Oh, and I just noticed that a ranger can't even attempt to use stealth while wearing anything heavier than studded leather, so I don't really think there's an issue at all.

EDIT: And no one is forcing you to play out of character. If you have a certain understanding of what a "ranger" is, do it Just give him the kind of equipment that you think is proper.

Exactly the point. You have stealth, but when wearing plate armor you can't use it. Rangers are a stealthy character like the rogue. Sure they are warriors, but they stay in the wilderness and are stealthy trackers/hunters. Thats what makes them different from fighters and paladins. If you are wearing plate armor you are just a regular warrior.

atcDave

Keep in mind the prototype Ranger is Aragorn. He will wear light armor for day to day purposes, but isn't shy about tanking up when needed. A cRPG is a limiting factor. In PNP 2E it was pretty clear certain Ranger abilities were only available when wearing light armor; but on the computer, most players will likely make a choice about if their Ranger will be an archer or a tank, and he will rarely switch roles in a party adventure.

hammernanvil

Actually the prototype ranger would be more robinhood, aragorn in the books is a lot different than in the movies.

PeteAtoms

UnknownQuantity said:

PeteAtoms said:

Exactly the point. You have stealth, but when wearing plate armor you can't use it. Rangers are a stealthy character like the rogue. Sure they are warriors, but they stay in the wilderness and are stealthy trackers/hunters. Thats what makes them different from fighters and paladins. If you are wearing plate armor you are just a regular warrior.

So what's the problem? That the class should have more restrictions?

UnknownQuantity

I think part of the problem is in BG having more AC is favorable to having stealth. Unless you are using your Ranger as a Ranged character (most would consider this a waste as you could instead use a fighter/thief who can do most of the same and more) it makes no sense to wear leather armor in melee combat. Rangers usually stalk about, track, and scout, but none of that is really required in BG. Perhaps Rangers are just not meant for BG. Rangers could really use a buff in D&D 2nd edition. In the handbook it describes them as powerful and rare. Personally I think they could use at least 4th circle druid spells and possible an animal companion as that seems important in the handbook. Charm animal doesn't count IMO.

Necroblivion

I can't see a reason not to go with fullplate with Minsc for example. But most players will go with a kit. And kits have backstab which is a good reason to go stealth. Or you will be the god of ranged weapons which is another good reason to use stealth so you can jump on casters and own them. Other then that I can see a reason not to use fullplate.

UnknownQuantity

When I read the 2nd edition handbook you can't use two weapon style in heavy armor just like you can't use stealth in heavy armor. If the rules were correct it would at almost force you to play a Ranger correctly. You also can't use a weapon in the off hand that is large in size. So long crom faeyr.

UnknownQuantity

I actually misread that. You can use two weapon fighting style in heavy armor. You just get large penalties to hit depending on the armor type.

atcDave

hammernanvil said:

Actually the prototype ranger would be more robinhood, aragorn in the books is a lot different than in the movies.

I'd call Robin Hood a fighter/thief of some sort. Not a Ranger.

The original D&D was very heavily influenced by Tolkein. It's almost funny to see how (after a lawsuit) TSR tried to de-Tolkein certain parts of the game for 2E. But Rangers in 1E had both Druid and Mage spells; but a lower average hit point total than other warriors. They were more "mystical" and less warrior-like.

As UnknownQuantity suggests, there were more mechanisms at play in PNP to encourage Rangers to be light-weights. But in BG there is little motivation for it.

hammernanvil

atcDave said:

hammernanvil said:

Actually the prototype ranger would be more robinhood, aragorn in the books is a lot different than in the movies.

I'd call Robin Hood a fighter/thief of some sort. Not a Ranger.

The original D&D was very heavily influenced by Tolkein. It's almost funny to see how (after a lawsuit) TSR tried to de-Tolkein certain parts of the game for 2E. But Rangers in 1E had both Druid and Mage spells; but a lower average hit point total than other warriors. They were more "mystical" and less warrior-like.

As UnknownQuantity suggests, there were more mechanisms at play in PNP to encourage Rangers to be light-weights. But in BG there is little motivation for it.

Ah, never played PNP, just baldurs gate, IWD, NWN, thats pretty much my DnD experience.


When I think ranger, I think of a hunter, a scout, someone stealthy and skilled with their weapons, able to track animals or men, with some wisdom in simple healing skills, all editions of D&D seem to be close to that. And If you think of it, a ranger has the ability to wear heavy armor because, first, he has the strength, and second there is nothing in his ethos(?) regarding metal armor.

PlasticGolem

Rangers and druids got re-imagined between 1st and 2nd Edition AD&D. In 1st Edition, rangers were modeled after Aragorn: noble warriors operating alone in the wilderness, using ingenuity and resourcefulness to defend civilized people from the evil creatures that lurked in the wilds. Druids were modeled after Celtic druids: priests of nature gods who harnessed the power of nature to do their bidding.

In 2nd Edition druids became more like environmentalists, protecting nature from human encroachment and harm, and rangers became more like U.S. park ranger than Tolkienesque rangers, with a bit of big game hunter thrown in. Jaheria's character wouldn't make much sense in a 1st Edition AD&D setting, and druids and rangers wouldn't really get along well: rangers are good-aligned while druids are true neutral and most likely very frightening to followers of more civilized gods.

Dragonspear

Dove Silverhand would like to have a word with this thread.

http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Dove_Silverhand

UnknownQuantity

Dragonspear said:

Dove Silverhand would like to have a word with this thread.

http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Dove_Silverhand

Dove is a broad-shouldered 6-feet tall human woman with long tresses of silver hair like her sisters. She usually dresses as men do, in nondescript brown or green leather breeches and a jerkin - or armors.
"A lithe and deadly mountain of a woman," a Harper minstrel once sang of her - before he realized she was in the audience and started to flee. His fright vanished when her bubbling laughter roared across the room, deep and loud, and she imitated the ground-shaking, thunderous stalk of a giant.

She doesn't seem to stealthy, but she apparently wears leather armor. I've never read any stories about her before.

I guess there are always exceptions to the rule like Minsc. I would prefer the core rules to try and differentiate between the different warrior classes more. If you want to play a class in an abnormal or different way that should be up to the DM IMO. I doubt before Drizzt Do Urden many people thought that Rangers should be proficient in two weapon style fighting lol. Most used a bow and perhaps a longsword with some leather armor.

atcDave

Drizzt and 2E were developed at about the same time (1987). Its entirely possible they influenced each other quite a lot.

I see Minsc as a pretty atypical ranger; in fact, in MY game he would never have been one... (long time inside joke with my friends, at one point, we had about 9 different campaigns running, and every controversial decision was greeted with multiple cries of "in MY game...")

Riolathel

This has always been a weird thing of 2e.

They fixed this in 3e by only allowing rangers to wear up to medium armor, and light armor if they wanted to dual wield.

Also keep in mind Rangers are not strictly stealth type characters. They are mostly woodsmen who have a closer connection with nature than most people, which is why they are similar to druids. They also tend to be elves for the same reason. This doesn't mean that a character couldn't be a ranger just because they don't sneak around or use a bow. They still are fighters not thiefs.

UnknownQuantity

I kind of forgot, but when growing up Tanis Half Elven was probably my favorite Ranger and character in Dragonlance. Most people liked Caramon, Raistlin, or Kitaria. I think he is more like a Ranger than Drizzt. None the less I like Drizzt a lot. He is definitely an exception to the rule as he grew up in a different environment than most Rangers do.

ZanathKariashi

Yeah...Drizzt doesn't make any damn sense in a 2nd edition standpoint..."Oh hey, I just spent 75 years training as a fighter and then the instant I set foot on the surface after abandoning my kin and talking to some blind guy I miraculously became a Ranger of equal level.....you know, like every other character is able to do at a whim...right guys? Guys? Why are you glaring at m...oh god not the spleen!"


And technically speaking, a Ranger can dual-class into whatever he damn well wants, as long as he has the alignment and stats for it. Bioware was just REALLY lazy about implementing stuff like that. You'd think with removing the Racial class limits for demi-humans, making multiclasses the obvious best choice, they'd at least give humans all their dual-class options, right?

true_shinken

atcDave said:

hammernanvil said:

Actually the prototype ranger would be more robinhood, aragorn in the books is a lot different than in the movies.

I'd call Robin Hood a fighter/thief of some sort. Not a Ranger.

The original D&D was very heavily influenced by Tolkein. It's almost funny to see how (after a lawsuit) TSR tried to de-Tolkein certain parts of the game for 2E. But Rangers in 1E had both Druid and Mage spells; but a lower average hit point total than other warriors. They were more "mystical" and less warrior-like.

As UnknownQuantity suggests, there were more mechanisms at play in PNP to encourage Rangers to be light-weights. But in BG there is little motivation for it.

Well, the writers of the AD&D player's handbook clearly disagree. Robin Hood is the first ranger example in the book.

ZanathKariashi

Yeah...that's the post-lawsuit book. I've got that one...every example mentioned is a real historic person or public domain character. The Original DnD handbook actually called Halflings, hobbits, and by the the art work, they're hobbits in all but name all through 1st and 2nd. 3rd finally overhauled their appearance entirely to the point they look like small, skinny humans, and don't have hairy feet nor disdain for shoes anymore, save certain sub-races.

atcDave

true_shinken said:

Well, the writers of the AD&D player's handbook clearly disagree. Robin Hood is the first ranger example in the book.

Funny I'd forgotten that. Still seems like a bad example....

As Zanath suggests, the post-Tolkein era was a dark age....

hammernanvil

level 3 title of ranger is strider. I downloaded the PDF to compare it to 2e.

Thorsson

atcDave said:

The original D&D was very heavily influenced by Tolkein. It's almost funny to see how (after a lawsuit) TSR tried to de-Tolkein certain parts of the game for 2E. But Rangers in 1E had both Druid and Mage spells; but a lower average hit point total than other warriors. They were more "mystical" and less warrior-like.

Less HP? You are forgetting the true awesomeness of the Ranger in 1e. Yes he was d8 rather than d10 for HP, but he got 2 die at first level, and 11 hit die in total, as opposed to the Fighter's 9. With a decent Con he would probably have more HP than the Fighter up to about level 16. Absolutely my favourite class in 1e, and has sadly never again reached the same heights (I speak up to 3.5 as I've never had anything to do with the execrable 4e).

Let me also add my weight to 1e Ranger being based on Aragorn. At the time AD&D came out I'd just read the LotR books for the eighth time and there was absolutely no doubt in my mind, and this no doubt heavily influenced me picking Ranger for my first big campaign (the Giants series - wish that'd got made into a computer game, would have been awesome).

kingthrall

Rangers use stealth this is news to me!, Oh and Archer kit cant use heavy armour.
As well when I think I.M.O lore-wise is like a druid but doesn't take care of nature hands on rather guards and roams the lands keeping an eye on things. If your arguing about the clich'e strider remember he ends up becoming a king in heavy plate at the end.

Pantalion

Cliché? I don't think he can be a cliché when he was first.

My rangers routinely use a certain good-aligned Dark Elf's armour for full stealth, whilst still being unkillable death gods in melee. This applies just as assuredly to my Thor-esque Ranger/Clerics.

When that's unavailable, then if they have to scout, then either they slip into leather or they go plain clothes for even better sneakery. If they're not scouting in the shadows, they're wearing the best armour money can buy, as is practical for trained warriors who are expecting trouble - it's not much use being "stealthy" in the middle of a raging combat.

atcDave

Thorsson said:

atcDave said:

The original D&D was very heavily influenced by Tolkein. It's almost funny to see how (after a lawsuit) TSR tried to de-Tolkein certain parts of the game for 2E. But Rangers in 1E had both Druid and Mage spells; but a lower average hit point total than other warriors. They were more "mystical" and less warrior-like.

Less HP? You are forgetting the true awesomeness of the Ranger in 1e. Yes he was d8 rather than d10 for HP, but he got 2 die at first level, and 11 hit die in total, as opposed to the Fighter's 9. With a decent Con he would probably have more HP than the Fighter up to about level 16. Absolutely my favourite class in 1e, and has sadly never again reached the same heights (I speak up to 3.5 as I've never had anything to do with the execrable 4e).

Let me also add my weight to 1e Ranger being based on Aragorn. At the time AD&D came out I'd just read the LotR books for the eighth time and there was absolutely no doubt in my mind, and this no doubt heavily influenced me picking Ranger for my first big campaign (the Giants series - wish that'd got made into a computer game, would have been awesome).

Actually, I was just doing the math and its really too close call. A 5th character with no constitution bonus would average 27 hit points as a 1E Ranger or 27.5 as a fighter. While at 10th level the Ranger would average 49.5 to a fighter's 52.5. Obviously the very common house rule of granting max at 1st level would give the Ranger a big boost.

And of course, any party facing giants in 1E would be happy to have a Ranger along!

And very funny calling Strider a cliche! Kind of in the way the Wright brothers were an aviation cliche, or Ahab is a whale hunter cliche , right?

Wanderon

Ahab??

Let me tell you 'bout Ahab The Ay-rab
The Sheik of the burning sand
He had emeralds and rubies just dripping off 'a him
And a ring on every finger of his hands

He wore a big ol' turban wrapped around his head
And a scimitar by his side
And every evening about midnight
He'd jump on his camel named Clyde...and ride

Thank you Ray Stevens... ;-)

atcDave

Wanderon said:

Ahab??

Let me tell you 'bout Ahab The Ay-rab
The Sheik of the burning sand
He had emeralds and rubies just dripping off 'a him
And a ring on every finger of his hands

He wore a big ol' turban wrapped around his head
And a scimitar by his side
And every evening about midnight
He'd jump on his camel named Clyde...and ride

Thank you Ray Stevens... ;-)

Errrrrr, I was thinking Melville. Ray Stevens would be another sort of genius, but not much to do with whale hunters!