Life of a Ranger

10 posts / 0 new
Last post
So I created a rogue, then decided I wanted to use a bow (its all the fault of this pic, http://www.scifigenre.com/beta/itemImages/Alliance_Games%5CRPR%5C106503146261_big.jpg). I could take the weapon proficiency, but a bow doesn't suit the rogues powers very well.

So I created a ranger (Archer build). Only I don't want my character to be a woodsy-anti-social-loner-type.

What careers might a Ranger find that would keep them in a social norm, but also grant them the experience they need to justify, in this case, the Nature skill?

Scout comes to mind fast.

Could one reasonably justify training in the Nature skill by virtue of experience, and not dedicated study?
Could one reasonably justify training in the Nature skill by virtue of experience, and not dedicated study?

I've always assumed that was the default for a Ranger (or most any character, for that matter).

Military scouts are indeed an easy background choice, as is a hunter or trapper, making their living my collecting and selling animal skins and learning their woodcraft in that manner.

It could be that the character grew up on a frontier, rather than in a city, in a place where knowing how to hunt and track and survive in the forests was a necessary thing.

Though arguably more appropriate for a two-weapon ranger, the character could be a sailor, since last I checked the oceans were still part of nature.

Less predefined than that, though, the character might not even think of himself as a "Ranger" at all. Perhaps he is an explorer, or a cartographer, out to rediscover the long-lost bones of Nerath or chart the wild expanses of the World -either necessitates a certain amount of woodcraft when little more than sextants and spyglasses are your tradesman's tools.

Perhaps, rather than being a proper soldier, the character simply grew up in a war zone, or a city under siege, where every able body is called upon when of the proper age and found him- or herself learning the arts of survival and tracking against men (or worse things) and not beasts.

I never for a moment have assumed that any given Ranger would be a graduate of some "Ranger academy."

Some classes, notably Wizards, do lend themselves to a more codified sort of background learning, but anyone from the tribal shaman to the hedge knight to the inner-city guttersnipe, could have picked up their skills in their own way, rather than be taught them by organized schooling.
-m4ki; one down, one to go

"Retro is not new. Retro-fit is not new." --Seeker95, on why I won't be playing DDN

|| DDN Metrics (0-10) | enthusiasm: 1 | confidence in design: -3 | desire to play: 0 | Sticking with 4e?: Yep. | Better Options: IKRPG Mk II ||
The Five Things D&D Next Absolutely Must Not Do:
1. Imbalanced gameplay. Any and all characters must be able to contribute equally both in combat and out of combat at all levels of play. If the Fighters are linear and the Wizards quadratic, I walk. 2. Hardcore simulationist approach. D&D is a game about heroic fantasy. I'm weak and useless enough in real life; I play RPGs for a change of pace. If the only reason a rule exists is because "that's how it's supposed to be", I walk. I don't want a game that "simulates" real life, I want a game that simulates heroic fantasy. 3. Worshipping at false idols (AKA Sacred Cows). If the only reason a rule exists is "it's always been that way", I walk. Now to be clear, I have no problem with some things not changing; my issue is with retaining bad idea simply for the sake of nostalgia. 4. DM vs. players. If the game encourages "gotcha!" moments or treats the DM and players as enemies, adversaries, or problems to be overcome, I walk. 5. Rules for the sake of rules. The only thing I want rules for is the things I can't do sitting around a table with my friends. If the rules try to step on my ability to roleplay the character I want to roleplay, I walk. Furthermore, the rules serve to facilitate gameplay, not to simulate the world. NOTE: Items in red have been violated.
Chris Perkins' DM Survival Tips:
1. When in doubt, wing it. 2. Keep the story moving. Go with the flow. 3. Sometimes things make the best characters. 4. Always give players lots of things to do. 5. Wherever possible, say ‘yes.’ 6. Cheating is largely unnecessary. 7. Don't be afraid to give the characters a fun new toy. 8. Don't get in the way of a good players exchange. 9. Avoid talking too much. 10. Save some details for later. 11. Be transparent. 12. Don't show all your cards. Words to live by.
Quotes From People Smarter Than Me:
"Essentials zigged, when I wanted to continue zagging..." -Foxface on Essentials "Servicing a diverse fan base with an RPG ruleset - far from being the mandate for 'open design space' and a cavalier attitude towards balance - requires creating a system that /works/, with minimal fuss, for a wide variety of play styles, not just from one group to the next, but at the same table." -Tony_Vargas on design "Mearls' and Cook's stated intent to produce an edition that fans of all previous editions (and Pathfinder) will like more than their current favourite edition is laudable. But it is also, IMO, completely unrealistic. It's like people who pray for world peace: I might share their overall aims, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for them to succeed. When they talk in vague terms about what they'd like to do in this new edition, I mostly find myself thinking 'hey, that sounds cool, assuming they can pull it off', but almost every time they've said something specific about actual mechanics, I've found myself wincing and shaking my head in disbelief and/or disgust, either straight away or after thinking about the obvious implications for half a minute." -Duskweaver on D&D Next
Thank you for the insightful reply.

When I mentioned dedicated study, I didn't necessarily mean school. Only meant to imply that the person actively tried to learn that skill. LIke Aragorn in Lord of the Rings, he strikes me as a person who might have learned his trade for the sake of bettering himself as a Ranger (intentional learning by experience, as opposed to passively learning via experience).
It's also entirely possible that the character's background doesn't necessarily match his acquired skill set - he may have learned from a family acquaintance growing up (he hung out with the groundskeeper on the family's country estate), he may have grown up in the city but spent a year in the military where everyone was given the same training (most major battles taking place outdoors), or perhaps he previously worked as a caravan guard on a route that goes through an unpopulated area...

If the character's really just an archer and "ranger" is just the path he happened to take to that goal, it could simply be that it just happened to be a ranger that he learned to shoot from, and the Nature skill just happened to come with the training since the ranger naturally, pardon the pun, taught him to hunt with the bow as well. (And that's a whole lot of "just"ification in that sentence, lol)
Really, though, if the Nature skill is pretty much going to be extraneous to the basic concept of the character, it doesn't particularly need much justification beyond, "Oh, it's just a little trick I picked up from somewhere..."
Chances are that very few adventurers (unless they're some sort of academy wizard or clerical-order trainee) only held one job or lived their whole lives in one location before they actively started adventuring.

Show

I am the Magic Man.

(Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.)

 

I am the Lawnmower Man.

(I AM GOD HERE!)

 

I am the Skull God.

(Koo Koo Ka Choo)

 

There are reasons they call me Mad...

Ever read the Wizards First Rule books? The main character was a woods guide. He was social. :D
What careers might a Ranger find that would keep them in a social norm, but also grant them the experience they need to justify, in this case, the Nature skill?

You could always not take the Nature skill. Rangers have to take either Nature OR Dungeoneering. So if you'd prefer a Ranger who isn't woodsy, then take Dungeoneering.
Ever read the Wizards First Rule books? The main character was a woods guide. He was social. :D

Never read it. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0844653/ says there is a movie of it coming out though
You could always not take the Nature skill. Rangers have to take either Nature OR Dungeoneering. So if you'd prefer a Ranger who isn't woodsy, then take Dungeoneering.

I thought about that. I want my main weapon to be a long bow though. They're not so practical in tight enclosed places.
Ahoj

The most fun I have ever had with a non-multiclassed ranger is when I played the social ranger. He was a local guide and 'road runner' as he said. He basically was hired to clear the road of dangerous wildlife and scout for bandits along the roads to the outer parts of the kingdom.

Good on ya for thinking out of the box

Na Zdravi
Sign In to post comments