"stubs his toe" ...*insert obligatory comment about how viggo mortenson actually broke his foot during that scene and managed to seemingly turn the pain into a scream of rage*
And that happened before the wideshots of the second film. So he ran across new Zealand with a broken foot. Plus Orlando had fallen off a horse and the scale double of the dwarf had cracked his hip bone. Three cripples running 😂
He also broke his tooth during the Uruk-hai battle at the end of the first movie; refused to go to a dentist and opted to glue it back in place so they could continue shooting.
"Aragorn displays all the qualities of a D&D ranger to a T" Wow. It's almost like D&D based the Ranger class off of some monolithic piece of fiction that has borderline defined modern fantasy books and invented several races and ideas.
Quite the contrary, Gygax was not a fan of LOTR, and if you read interviews with him he freely says as much. Or look at his lists of suggested reading (like in the 1st ed AD&D DMG), you won't Tolkien on the list. Now it does seem inevitable that at least some Tolkien influence crept in to the original versions of the game (Gygax had at least read the LOTR books, even if he wasn't impressed by them), but it wasn't an intentional or conscious effort on Gygax's part.
Elves, dwarves and gnomes are staples of ancient folklore traditions, as are goblins, bugbears, etc. Halflings are one thing he did unquestionably take from Tolkien, as he actually called them hobbits in the earliest editions, and got into legal trouble with Tolkien's estate for doing so. No doubt the legal tussle only soured Gygax on Tolkien further than whatever mild disinterest he may have had prior to it, and encouraged him to distance his product all the more from anything to do with the Tolkien legendarium.
@@sststr D&D elves and dwarves are clearly inspired by the Tolkien version of those races. They used to be very different until Tokien wrote his own version. For not to mention that it was Tolkien who changed the word "dwarfs" to "dwarves" in popular culture/fantasy. His version of those races simply is THAT ingrained in the genre.
"Rangers have no place in fantasy." - never heard that opinion thrown around at gaming tables... monks and bards were occasionally discussed but rangers... things must have changed a lot at the gaming tables with the last 25 years or so XD
Since all Preditors must prove themselves, would they all be ranger multiclass with something else? Kind of like all Klingons are fighters multiclass with scientist, politition, strategist.
Is it a fix for ranger? Eh... kind of... but also not...? The favored enemy replacement takes up your concentration like a spell, which is intentional so it can’t be stacked with hunter’s mark, sure. But that... sucks. Oh, you wanted to cast your spells? Sorry, all your good spells are concentration. And the favored terrain replacement is alright but... weird
XGTE was just new sub-classes. It was like putting new tires on a car with a seized engine. Tasha's is better, but rather nurfed from the UA Vareint Ranger, so I'm a little unhappy still.
the favored terrain replacement is fine (altho i think they could have just gotten that feature as a bonus instead of having to lose something), but the favored enemy replacement is just. it's genuinely worse than favored enemy. I'd rather have a feature that's sometimes useful over a feature that's basically dead after 1st level
I'd actually provide two additional examples of rangers: Geralt (as you kinda alluded to) as he's all about knowing the enemy, basic magic, and hunting stuff down, all the bonus stuff about Witchers is basically just background/race; and the other example isn't fantasy based, but Steve Irwin could be an interesting model for a ranger, he wasn't a hippie like a druid might be, but rather just loved and was at home with nature, he was very knowledgeable about the stuff and the dude could 100% cast Speak with Animals, you could even mix him with a bit of Bear Grylls for a real fun and interesting Ranger design.
Yep, if you're only counting official classes Geralt is a Monster Slayer ranger. If you're counting Blood Hunter he's an Order of the Mutant Blood Hunter
Is Westley from princess bride a ranger? He tracks Vizini and Buttercup after climbing the cliffs of insanity with some pretty good nature skills. He navigates the fire swamp and deals with the ROUSs. Of course, he can fight, and his intellect is shown in his forethought and deception in the battle of wits, not to mention the holocaust cloak strategy and getting Prince Humperdinck not to attack him. He doesn't use a bow, but then again neither does Aragorn.
One thing I heard constantly in my first group was "Aragorn isn't a ranger, because Aragorn doesn't heal people with magic!" And then there's my ass going "...did...did y'all read the books? He literally does that. After the battle of Pelennor Fields. Explicitly and repeatedly. It's like a whole thing."
thats such a stupid argument; even if he couldnt heal, saying that a character that fits the archetype perfectly isnt one because they're TECHNICALLY missing one ability? one thats not even a core part its identity, but is more just from how the game is balanced? come on.
Lord of the Rings was one of the books that *invented* fantasy as the genre we know it as today, and the legacy of rangers in fantasy is huge. Rangers belong in fantasy more than artificers, IMO, and especially given the Drizzt exists as a character
This is true, but you can at least be confident in the knowledge that it's the worst subclass of fighter. Two uses of arcane shot? Really? Just two no matter what level you are? Level 7 feature is completely dependent on the feature you can only use twice? And they don't damage scale until a level most campaigns won't ever reach? Really? A champion is a better archer than arcane archer... at least they can crit fish and are probably going to do some real damage throughout the entire fight. Ranger, without any Tasha revisions, is pretty universally better at firing magical arrows via its spell slots (which is probably why they gave the subclass to Fighter in the first place) than Arcane Archer, a subclass dedicated to firing magical arrows.
@@zorawarsingh6795 Instead of Wizard, I'd argue Artificer (Alchemist) given Geralt's ability to brew potions. This also gives you the signs (cantrips) and you can use the infusions for Witcher's Sight (Goggles of Night) and improved armor and weapon. Be sure, of course, to take the Crossbow Expert and Tough feats.
@@zorawarsingh6795 I actually totally see ranger. After all, a ranger doesn't just have to fight with a bow; they do have some spells (that I regret to say I haven't tried but wish to) that make melee combat more interesting, as I recall. You could argue for a bit of battlemaster fighter, or alchemist artificer, but as far as "know your enemy," it's hard to hit that witcher archetype any more on the dot than a ranger's favored enemy
Aren't Sam and Dean Winchester Rangers? I watched the first four seasons of Supernatural. But maybe the are more like clerics that dispel evil? And in the show 'Grimm' Portland detective Nick Burkhardt is a "grimm" which is like a modern ranger. Aragorn. The Mandalorian. Drizzt. Taran from Prydain Chronicles. Kaladin in 'the way of kings'.
I would argue that reading the “The Ranger’s Apprentice” series as a kid helped me understand the D&D 5e ranger role way more than the Player’s Handbook ever did, and that series came out back in 4e when rangers weren’t nerfed to hell and back. The issue with them in 5e, imo, is that it’s not a class - it’s a character archetype. You’re effectively typecast into a certain, constrained naturalist role, whereas other classes have room to be multifaceted and can easily spec into abilities/subclasses that do what you do. That means the ranger player either never gets to really use their role because someone else beats them to it/doesn’t need to ask them for help, or the other players have to leave character traits out of their characters because they might step on the only things that give the ranger a place in the party. They don’t give you much choice as a ranger than to be an at least mostly-serious hunter-tracker type, as opposed to other classes who can be sorta whoever they want to be and just fight in a certain way. There can be some wiggle-room in that department with firearms, and if you homebrew in some rules that give them more useful traps and proficiency with improvised weaponry, though. I’d say a ranger is best suited for small groups, where ability overlap is limited and they can be turned to more often. As a class whose roleplaying potential is *strongly* linked with its unique mechanics, you need opportunities to use those mechanics if you want to have a happy player.
I had some idea for some variant ranger: Bounty Hunter, police officer, guards, spy and researcher. All of these can play in the trope of being a ranger if you flavour the class a little bit. You don’t always has to be a protector of nature.
If anyone wants some comedy, "DM of the Rings" is one of the funniest webcomics I ever read. The basic premise is that someone has a group of players who never heard of Lord of the Rings and the DM runs them in the by-the-book campaign.
There's also a webcomic that was inspired by DM of the Rings, called Darths and Droids, which is based on star wars, but instead of being about the DM railroading the players like in DMOTR, it's focused around the players hijacking the DM's story and forcing him to work around their randomness. :P
@@TheSamba37 I dunno. Paladin is a pretty specific archetype. I think Jedi are definitely the Star Wars equivalent (lore-wise, moreso than gameplay, but everything can'tbe 1 to 1), heroic magical Knights protecting the good and right with a code of honour and such. If you actually look at the Star Wars d20 RPG, the bounty hunter class is an extension of the scout, which is the parallel to Rangers.
The Rangers Apprentice books were my favorite growing up, I made my mom sew me a cloak and I would go out in the woods and pretend to be hiding from enemies.
YES! I love those books. Such a good representation of what that kind of character in a fantasy setting could be. They didn't even need magic to be deadly and feared by basically everyone, they were just that good at what they did. And not even all of them were just bow-wielding steath fetishists, some of them also had some serious close combat skills! Take notes, fantasy media
I loved those books! I read all the way to book 10 and loved how much of a survivalist will was and its a book series with female characters who pull their weight, have agency and are badasses just like their male allies Also yeah I wanted a cloak like will so I could run around the yard with my like $2.99 plastic bow with plunger head arrows that didn't stick or fire well
My first D&D character, who I'm still playing today, is a ranger rogue multi class that is basically exactly like Halt. Or at least he was until recent story beats have taken him down a very unexpected route
"Rangers have no place in fantasy" who the what when was this ever said lmao I've only ever heard of rangers IN fantasy. Where else y'all hearing about rangers from?
@@jamescarter7986 Actually, no. We don't really know if they can't make their own weapons. Maybe since the tech on earth is garbage, they can't make their gear there. Also, Artíficer (Artilerist) literally gives you a shoulder cannon. Can't pass that up.
@@yanderenejoyer the predators seen in the movies and comics all (or almost, didn't look that deep into it) are recreational hunters, and not all hunters are fletchers/gunsmiths.
One could argue that Riddick from "Chronicles of Riddick" is a Gloomstalker Ranger. I mean he has umbral sight, iron mind, dread ambusher, stalkers furry, and shadowy dodge. He's also a pretty good survivalist in every situation, oh and he speaks with animals too.
@@idontknow-mf4bp on Pathfinder there are many, many subclasses for each main classes: for ranger, one potential subclass is "espionage expert", a ranger with heavy emphasis on urban environment
A good fix to favored enemy would be to make Rangers be able to once a week "research" a specific enemy type and gain bonuses against them until a different enemy type is chosen.
I never understood why people thought rangers didn't have a place in fantasy. They're kinda everywhere in fantasy video games. Maybe it's just cause in TTRPG history ranger used to be a variant of fighter, back when there were only like 4 classes? While gloomstalker and horizon walker are great, the issue I have is they don't fix the problems with rangers, they more circumvent them. I don't like the idea of patching up a weak class with a strong subclass--it makes the other options feel neglected, and also can cause a problem with munchkins (see: hexblades as well). Hence, I'm really happy with TCE actually introducing options that apply to ALL subclasses (and had alternate options for beastmaster to make em more competitive). Favored Foe is great, and I love the favored terrain replacements, though part of me feels like it should've been an addition, not a replacement. I hope WotC is more willing to do more variant class options in the future instead of relying just on subclasses. Let the subclasses stay focused on being unique instead of being straight upgrades over the base options.
I just wish the CHA to attack and damage rools was a pact of the blade boon feture than Hexblade exclusive. It would requirea higher investment in the class to acquire that and also make blade pact viable with other patrons
I would say that the ranger was before 5e be more the long range fighter in that case . But since the warrior has the ability to use bow and arrow too that killed the ranger in 5e. Multiclassing can solve the rangers problem but solo classing needs some homebrewed improvements. Even with the Xanathars guide subclasses the rangers seems still so uninteresting .
He turned a self inflicted injury into an in character breakdown. Turned his scream of pain into one of anguish over their perceived loss of the hobbits. What a legend.
Y'know, I would've said there's three examples of rangers in media. Aragorn, Mando, and Geralt of Rivia. The ENTIRE point of the Witcher series when it comes to monster hunting is all about learning what the monster is you need to hunt, consulting what you know about them in order to more easily counter them, and then using your skills with weaponry combined with some limited magical powers in order to overcome them.
Wouldn't that make Sam and Dean Winchester Rangers? I watched the first four seasons of Supernatural. But maybe the are more like clerics that dispel evil?
Nick Stefan White there's a homebrew "hunter" class that a player of mine played once. It mostly followed in the footsteps of ranger with a little monk and some modern flavor
Aragorn, Geralt of Rivia, Daryl Dixon, Boba Fett, Van Helsing, Owen Grady, Katniss Everdeen, John Rambo, Robin Hood, the man with no name, Shaggy and Scooby doo....
@@benjrc3611 I think there could e a pretty healty dbate as to whether the true blade of malkier is a ranger or fighter (especially considering he's a swordmaster and taught the ta'veren from the two rivers mostly about weapons IIRC)
@@arettbarnard7832 But can a ranger not be a great swordsman? If not the best in the world? He also does "pass without a trace" quite frequently. I'm honestly just happy to talk about WoT!
He did say pop culture, and Drizzt is more classical. Also, pointing to a D&D character for pop culture exampled of D&D characters is more than a little circular. It would be like if someone in Critical Role played Ranger, and Jacob pointed to that.
I'm just here to say the format of this video was great and I really appreciated it. The title screens and photo/video clips to back your point really helped bring things to focus better than say your lay on the floor rants. Overall great video. Also rangers cool
Yeah, we have a ranger (hunter). He routinely does the most damage in combat and has all sorts of great abilities for out of combat (sometimes to the point of annoying me...I leave a hint that they are approaching a dragon layer and he immediately does his little trick to _know_ that there is a dragon nearby, for example).
I would also like to mention another fictional ranger representation. June from Avatar the Last Airbender. She was a bounty hunter with an animal companion who tracks people.
My first character was a ranger. That campaign is still ongoing, and he is currently ranger monster hunter 8, fighter battle master 5, and warlock 1 with intent to go with that rest of the way.
8:40 When it comes to TCoE I would highly recommend reworking Favored Foe to work directly with Favored Enemy. As it currently works you have to use your concentration to get a d4, d6, or d8 extra damage to one creature. I would change it so that when you hit a Favored Enemy on each of your turns you can add a d4 damage (include later level/damage scaling), no concentration required. Why I recommend this change is that EVERY useful ranger spell in combat is concentration based, so you're locking out all your concentration spells just to get a d4, d6, or d8 extra damage (which btw you could just use hunter's mark to get a d6 at 2nd level where this would be doing a d4, both require concentration). You could also allow rangers to either choose two non-humanoid races or two humanoid races to have as favored enemies at 1st level.
With Tasha's they fixed a lot of what was wrong with them, they felt underpowered before but now it's something that I'm actually excited to try instead of something I'd want to try eventually.
I haven't actually watched the Matt Colville video but I do love watching The Lord of the Rings and picking out all the individual moments where one of the characters fails an ability check or saving throw. Basically every large action sequence is full of moments that could have happened in a d&d game. Legolas: "I want to surf down the stairs on a shield" DM: "Roll acrobatics with disadvantage" Legolas: "I got two natural 20's"
It's a good vid IMO. His criticism is more so that the story structure of LOTR wouldn't make for a super fun dnd game since it would be quite a railroad.
@@Mirekluk I agree with your comment. But I believe I remember him saying something about The Hobbit being more akin to dnd than LOTR is in the comment section of that video but fair enough you're correct.
At 1:35, when you started the dramatic narration, it made me feel the calm happiness and excitement that washes over me when I'm starting a new campaign and the DM begins setting the scene :)
I would love a video series going through every class and naming well known representations of the class (or just videos about what class each character in a fantasy series are closest to, starting with LotR).
@@dren5810 are you being serious? Nothing about his skill repertoire includes Sneak attacks (beyond ambushes), thieves' cant, casting spells, creating mystical poetry or tracking down enemies like a Ranger. He's just a fighter that lives in the woods with friends.
@@elf-lordsfriarofthemeadowl2039 I should have clarified. When I liken Robin hood to rogue and bard im thinking of those archetypes in literature not mechanics. In literature rogues are not all edgy stabby people but more street smart, charismatic and always have the right tool for the job.
Another important thing to keep in mind is that it seriously depends on the dm as the dm could easily make rangers very useful in game if they would simply adjust the content. (As in the dm should make the challenges in game relavent to the characters that play it and that should include the ranger)
What it's the DM's job to make things relevant and interesting for the party?! NO WAY!(/s) Sorry been seeing a LOT of stuff responding to a certain video, that's how I'll refer to it and if you know you know! I still don't think I have watched the whole thing either because it was... well to be polite I COMPLETELY disagree with it and couldn't stand the video at all! Oddly enough that video is kind of relevant to this one, huh!
OH MY GOD THANK YOU! Jacob your my hero! I love Ranger it’s my first and favourite class (warlock a close second) a Ranger is such a fun class, and I love the versatility outside of combat, and my girl Vex proves that they can be awesome.
Oh have ya tried a warlock ranger. Focusing more on charisma than wisdom. So ya only need 14+ charisma and then flavoring stuff with warlock. I have an idea for a warlock ranger that uses their tome to write down information about the monsters they've encountered.
What made this video especially good was the background music from the greatest ranger of them all: The Gravewalker. It's little wonder this video wasn't monetized.
In more than one occasion Laura was dissatisfied with her class choice, that is why Matt gave her a lot more layaway to optimize her class and buff up her character and animal companion through other means so she can keep up with the rest of the party. Doing doing 13 damage a round next to a rouge and Barbadian didn’t help at all either.
You also kind of said it, but Geralt is another perfect example of a ranger, he tracks, has a ton of knowledge of (every) favoured enemy, can use a bit of magic and I'll be damned if he can't speak with Roache while NOT on drugs
Horizon walker is literally the most fun I’ve ever had playing D&D. I’m strength based with a maul and Hit, turn, teleport 10ft away, run to second enemy Hit, turn, teleport 10ft away, run to third enemy Hit, bonus action misty step to safety It’s so much fun wack-a-moling your way through combat. Plus a few good utility spells? Sure you barely get to use favorite terrain/enemy, but if you set up good backstory stuff around WHY you’re good at hunting whatever you’ve picked, it makes for great RP opportunities. Although I wish nature’s veil was more dynamic
I agree, Monster Hunter subclass suits him really well (unless you allow blood hunter, then he’s one of them, but base game only yes Geralt is absolutely a ranger)
Its funny bc he literally mentions Geralt later when talking about monster hunter. Though im sure if he did mention it, people would be shouting "BLOOD HUNTER!!!" from the hills
I don't see why anyone would say that rangers don't belong in fantasy (I would personally say that title falls to the bard, but let's not get into that today). My complaint has always been that rangers in D&D aren't what they should be. They should be survivalists that keep the party from getting lost or perishing in the wilderness, and in urban environments still serving as the fantasy equivalent of detectives, as well as making up for what they lack in physical prowess with their knowledge of their opponents, utilizing traps, the terrain and weaknesses to take down their foes. Meanwhile, D&D rangers are just fighter-rogue-druids. Unearthed Arcana is considered to have fixed them, but all it did was make them BETTER fighter-rogue druids. The Xanathar subclasses helped, but while the meat of the class was improved by that, the skeleton remains just as flawed. I really like the concept of rangers, in fact out of all non-mage fantasy classes they're probably my favourite, and that's why I wish that what makes them distinct and interesting was better represented in D&D. Stuff like actually making them snowballs by letting them gain an incremental bonus against certain enemies the more they fight them (Say, I don't know, after fighting four trolls you gain a +1 to hit against all trolls, after fighting ten trolls you gain a +1 to damage rolls against them, and so on). Because, like, I enjoy the IDEA of Favoured Enemy and Favoured Terrain, but the fact of the matter is that they are useless throughout most of the game and just letting the ranger switch them out at will would be overpowered, so having some manner of learning system where they gain favour with certain enemies or terrain types the more they gain experience with them would be an interesting mechanic. A wee bit too complicated for something like 5E perhaps, and that's part of the problem as I see it. In fact, I find that the design of the game itself actively works against rangers. For instance, there really aren't a lot of mechanics in place that makes the wilderness all too dangerous. Weather, terrain, disorientation, sickness, starvation, these are all things that most hapless adventurers would fall victim to in normal circumstances, but in D&D the only commonly used rule is difficult terrain. Which is annoying more than anything. The sheer difficulty of integrating survival elements into the game, even with homebrewing, is infamous. Really the biggest threat while wandering the wilds is random encounters, and that's where pretty much every other class shines. The rules that would benefit rangers simply aren't in the vanilla game, and so there isn't much to build the class around. As an aside, I also don't like the idea of them having magic. This is way more down to personal preference than anything mentioned above, but I think they work significantly better when it's just a matter of raw skill and knowledge. You don't need Speak With Animals when you have a high Animal Handling skill, you're just able to read the animals' behaviour and know what they're responsive to. You don't need healing spells when you have vast knowledge of healing herbs, natural afflictions and field medicine. But that's not so much a criticism of rangers as it is of D&D itself (again), as magic is something so common that nearly every class either has it or CAN have it through subclasses, and even if not, you got feats and other means of stumbling over it. I actually have a theory that even in D&D, rangers aren't supposed to know spells. Their "spells" are in fact intended to just be regular, nonmagical abilities, but because the system isn't designed to accommodate that, it would make for one daunting list of abilities to keep track of. So instead they just turned the excessive stuff into a spell list, which is largely considered much more manageable. I can't prove that, I just have a hunch. The idea of each class having a list of abilities to choose from upon levelup, kinda like the warlock's Eldritch Invocations, always appealed to me more than the rather lackluster arsenal of most non-mage classes (*COUGH* barbarians). But that would require a chunky overhaul of how classes work, since everything being passive or having a rest-based cooldown would get overwhelming fast. I guess I can't blame anyone for not wanting to do that, with the risk of it becoming overly complicated or at least alienating old D&D players. TL;DR: I really like rangers in concept, but I continue to dislike their portrayal in D&D. And I think it's largely the fault of the game itself just not being designed for them. Just like you could argue that the stealth mechanics are severely lacking, and rogues manage to skirt by because of Sneak Attack and how it's near-impossible to hit them. With sufficient homebrew they could be fun, but at that point it's not the game's doing but your own. So I think the ranger is just a prime example of 5E's "streamlined" philosophy (and neglect of noncombat features) biting it in the rear.
Bards make sense, musicians existed around that time in medieval Europe if you go by fantasy trope rules, and they don’t even have to be musicians, they’re just entertainers. If you were to go by fantasy trope rules monks don’t make sense. Sorry for getting into that today, don’t overthink this comment, it’s just my opinion.
@@interdimensionalgoober8769 Monks are really supposed to replicate martial artists like shaolin monks and not the western ones. They're the fist-fighty characters you see in some fantasy.
@@eintorpid9101 I get what they are, I never said otherwise, their origin is exactly why they don’t make sense in a medieval Europe (at least in my opinion). Shaolin monks make less sense around wizards and clerics than medieval tropes, because monks aren’t really medieval tropes.
personally favored enemy/terrain should be adjustable per long rest like if you're stuck in a city for a few days/weeks/months etc that forest specialist isn't gonna be a dumbass and never adapt he's gonna be better at killing people and understand urban environments a lot better. Yet each adjustment is based on exposure and takes that long rest. But yeah 5e is too streamlined so too many "prep time" type skills that pretty much a lot of classes CAN use yet it gets yeeted out the window for a kinda slow combat because people didn't prepare. I like rogues with all the flavor they got over the years the Thief is still the best one due to all its early skills never drop off. Or they shouldn't drop off. To me, a Mastermind is freaking busted with the right setup yet too many campaigns aren't suited for a prep-time character making schemes via observation. Like Rangers should be learning the land and getting better within it. Like drawing pursuers into traps like Rambo is a Ranger job, higher stealth like a rogue and or even helping the party in such ambushes. Even Druids get kinda pigeon-holed into magic barbarians. Wild Shape, maul things to death, never die, avoid psychic shit, repeat. 5e has a lot of problems thinking about it...
This video made me have another look at the class especially with the new TCoE options and im now in the midst of creating a Swarmkeeper ranger who's swarm is just a bunch of Ducklings. Great video.
Non-magical rangers, trades out spells for four additional feats at the levels when you would have gotten a spell level. From the Rokugan setting book.
they're actually a subclass that have a special ability, whenever coffee is prepared within 10ft of them the recipe and taste must be described in 2 paragraphs of detail
The beast master is an absolute trap. It sound so cool and cute, your own pet wolf. Fits great flavour wise. For someone who doesn't know the fine details of the game it looks really tempting only to be a huge let down in practice
Thankfully with the new Beast of Air/Land/Sea...it's actually nowhere NEAR as much of a trap as it was. Firstly the pet now takes your Bonus action to attack, secondly, they actually scale MUCH better into late game unlike the normal beast Master pets which barely scale. The funny thing was, when DnDNext (as 5e was called during playtesting) they initially went with the options listed in Tasha's (a set of statblocks that could be reflavored to any animal and scaled better) but the old Grognards that hated change wanted to be able to pick their creature...and what we got was the PHB version of Beastmaster.
@@luketfer Yea. My wife is playing BM and i let her change features to new BM and it's good. Not awesome/omg/OP good like new meta sorcerer build but it's fun and not useless !
Coming back to this video a year after seeing it the first time when I started creating my homebrew world, still an excellent video that is providing me with inspiration and knowledge on how to create my own homebrew Ranger subclass.
Great video! You and a couple other dnd youtubers actually inspired me to start making my own dnd video essays, and I actually talked about a lot of this stuff in my "In Defense of the Ranger" video!
Tasha's was an actual blessing to Ranger. I loved the class before, but strayed away because it was weak, but now it can stand up to the other classes!
My favorite Ranger on popculture is Will Treaty from Ranger’s Apprentice book series, I believe that this book series really cover up well what a Ranger is and show them in a really good light, or in shadow since they are stealthy, I really wanted to try to make a Ranger based on him on a D&D campaign, but oh god it is hard due to how weak the class is.
i would be interested to see a video like this where you break down each of the fellowships classes with arguments for each like this. PLLLLEEEAAAASSSEEE
This may be my favorite video of yours. I like your comical but effective breakdown! As a pseudo newbie to D&D under a year, I need to expand my understanding of rangers and this helped.
Thanks to the inspiration this and similar videos gave me now I'm playing a Goblin Ranger and I'm having the hell out my fun! Thank you for such fun and yet useful contents!
My favorite character I ever played was a Half-Elf Hunter Ranger with 1 level of fighter for the Protection fighting style. I used a sword and shield, some half plate armor, and made frequent use of Giant Killer and Multiattack Defense features. I was the party tank and it was both effective and fun. Btw, try the spell "absorb element" it's so much fun the situations you can create with it. In Castle Ravenloft, I leapt through a bonfire our warlock conjured in the doorway to deter a foe and I used absorb element to deal fire damage to the enemy with my attack.
I'm playing a game next week as a Fey Wanderer Ranger and I couldn't be more excited. It's a bugbear that lies and claims he was human, but go turned into a monster by a witch's spell.
Part of this reminds me what recently inspired me to create a ranger conclave that works like having big and developed cities as favored terrain. Also has some things with guns with the limitations of my setting but to me ended up really cool
I would like to make 2 points: 1) Every single comment stating how Viggo broke his toe in that scene exemplifies why people don’t like watching LoTR with us. 2) Mechanically Rangers have another problem in their spells and abilities with the lockup in concentration, but this can be easily solved with a little homebrew to put Ranger spells on the same level as others.
This is also the one problem Tasha's did not fix. So many of the good Ranger spells are concentraction based when they should be able to be cast as an option to spend your reaction. Hail of Thorns, for example, really shouldn't be Concentraction or it should be that it's text reads, "As part of the spell, make a ranged attack..." or hell, give it to them as the ability to burn a spell slot like Paladin's with Divine Smite...
@@luketfer I think the main problem with the concentration spells that effect a weapon attack is that they don't want you to be able to stack them, Paladin Smite Spells work the same way. a better way would be to allow those to be a class feature like a mix betwen divine smites and arcane shot. Or just make hunters mark not require concentration.
I always said Aragorn is just a fighter with the outlander background and a few feats like healer. He doesn't cast magic like rangers and doesn't seem to *really* have a favored enemy. The best example of a fantasy ranger is actually Geralt of Rivia, having a favored enemy of Monstrosity, elixirs being his buffing spells reflavored (get it?) and he actually carries magic like Rangers in dnd.
I have one more ranger in Pop culture and he is one of my favourite characters of all time and that is Raylan Givens in the show "Justified" he tracks his targets and through deduction ends up at their location before they do. He finds who knows how to make their products and how they can be made. He uses his own items as well as those at his immediate disposal and fights with his number one weapon being practicality.
Paladin, Ranger, and Bard is my ideal three-man party. Everyone can sword enemies to death, everyone can heal, everyone still has distinct niches built into his flavorful class.
I remember in my first D&D game I played a ranger. There was a part where these goblins had attack wolves chained up so I asked my DM if I could tame one for the time being. He said if I rolled high I could. Since it was a semi-wild animal and I wasn’t a beast master, the DM said he would get to have direct control of the wolf and once we left the area the wolf would leave. So, through the dungeon I got to have a wolf (mostly) listen to my commands and “accidentally” did most of the damage to the big goblin at the end.
Say it with me: We shouldn't have to use subclasses to fix the issues present in base classes. Also yeah Tashas did a lot for Rangers and I feel like it doesn't get enough credit.
expanded spell list is amazing. it might be weird to wrap your head around, but having a concentration spell in branding smite that competes with hunter's mark for potential damage output is a very nice dilemma to have. like do you risk dropping your mark to use your only 3rd level slot to dump a fat smite into that mammoth and maybe kill it outright? or do you save it to initiate the next encounter with lightning arrow on the cloud giant that's checking on his cattle?
Aragorn IS d&d ranger, his favorite enemy is nazgul, and he fought em.... once in the whole campaign
That’s as Ranger as one gets
He should have chosen ork
I'm dying
Drizzt's is everything
Wait, you can actually FIGHT your favoured enemy?
Rangers, here are your career paths: Aragorn, and Pokémon trainer.
Its not even a good Pokémon trainer tbh.
If your only Pokémon is a magicarp that never evolves.
@@apainintheaas Everyone and their mother knows that if you want to make an actual Pokémon Trainer, you'd make a Warlock with Pact of the Chain.
Geralt
and honestly, a rogue with Animal Handling Expertise could probably do that job better with time
"stubs his toe"
...*insert obligatory comment about how viggo mortenson actually broke his foot during that scene and managed to seemingly turn the pain into a scream of rage*
Just look at Arma’s comment and the replies proves how obligatory it is
i never knew that xD so cool
And that happened before the wideshots of the second film. So he ran across new Zealand with a broken foot.
Plus Orlando had fallen off a horse and the scale double of the dwarf had cracked his hip bone.
Three cripples running 😂
+1 I came to the comments to say it if anyone else hadent yet.
He also broke his tooth during the Uruk-hai battle at the end of the first movie; refused to go to a dentist and opted to glue it back in place so they could continue shooting.
"Aragorn displays all the qualities of a D&D ranger to a T"
Wow. It's almost like D&D based the Ranger class off of some monolithic piece of fiction that has borderline defined modern fantasy books and invented several races and ideas.
Quite the contrary, Gygax was not a fan of LOTR, and if you read interviews with him he freely says as much. Or look at his lists of suggested reading (like in the 1st ed AD&D DMG), you won't Tolkien on the list. Now it does seem inevitable that at least some Tolkien influence crept in to the original versions of the game (Gygax had at least read the LOTR books, even if he wasn't impressed by them), but it wasn't an intentional or conscious effort on Gygax's part.
@@sststr nothing you just said contradicted my statement.
@@sststr Then maybe Gygax could've tried coming up with something more original than Elves, Dwarves and -Hobbits- Halflings.
Elves, dwarves and gnomes are staples of ancient folklore traditions, as are goblins, bugbears, etc. Halflings are one thing he did unquestionably take from Tolkien, as he actually called them hobbits in the earliest editions, and got into legal trouble with Tolkien's estate for doing so. No doubt the legal tussle only soured Gygax on Tolkien further than whatever mild disinterest he may have had prior to it, and encouraged him to distance his product all the more from anything to do with the Tolkien legendarium.
@@sststr D&D elves and dwarves are clearly inspired by the Tolkien version of those races. They used to be very different until Tokien wrote his own version.
For not to mention that it was Tolkien who changed the word "dwarfs" to "dwarves" in popular culture/fantasy. His version of those races simply is THAT ingrained in the genre.
Worth noting: Aragorn isnt A ranger, hes THE ranger. The class was based on him. The books are like 100 years old
Book nerd here;
It’s more of 87 years old (ish not exactly)
@@GoblinHours-im2ue wait REALLY? damn, I thought they were newer than that....
Agreed. As Conan is THE barbarian and Gandalf is THE wizard.
@@GoblinHours-im2ue I'm going to give an 87 year old book the designation of "like 100"
@@GoblinLord
He made the mistake of thinking Aragorn was in The Hobbit. Tolkien never mentioned rangers until 1954. Which is 66 years ago.
"Stubs his toes."
He broke his foot. That scream is the poor but dedicated actor screaming in pain.
Broke two of his toes, but yeah, real dedicated guy.
Broke two of his toes, but yeah, real dedicated guy.
Broke two of his toes, but yeah, real dedicated guy.
Broke two of his toes, but yeah, real dedicated guy.
Broke two of his toes, but yeah, real dedicated guy.
"Rangers have no place in fantasy." - never heard that opinion thrown around at gaming tables... monks and bards were occasionally discussed but rangers... things must have changed a lot at the gaming tables with the last 25 years or so XD
If some Rangers can turn invisible while in nature, would that make the Predator a Ranger? 🤔
That's not the only thing that makes the Predator a Ranger. I would add in a couple of levels of Dread Commando in 3.x too.
Predator is clearly a monster but I'm sure there's a homebrew Predator PC race out there somewhere.
Yeah, predators would be a mix of fighter and ranger, maybe a bit artificer
@@EricIsntSmart nah I think they just have a generous dm
Since all Preditors must prove themselves, would they all be ranger multiclass with something else? Kind of like all Klingons are fighters multiclass with scientist, politition, strategist.
Fans: We want Ranger Fix
Wizards of the Coast: We already had one (Xanathar's)
Fans: We've had one, yes. But what about second Ranger Fix? (Tasha's)
Is it a fix for ranger? Eh... kind of... but also not...? The favored enemy replacement takes up your concentration like a spell, which is intentional so it can’t be stacked with hunter’s mark, sure. But that... sucks. Oh, you wanted to cast your spells? Sorry, all your good spells are concentration. And the favored terrain replacement is alright but... weird
XGTE was just new sub-classes. It was like putting new tires on a car with a seized engine. Tasha's is better, but rather nurfed from the UA Vareint Ranger, so I'm a little unhappy still.
the favored terrain replacement is fine (altho i think they could have just gotten that feature as a bonus instead of having to lose something), but the favored enemy replacement is just. it's genuinely worse than favored enemy. I'd rather have a feature that's sometimes useful over a feature that's basically dead after 1st level
Play adventure league and think about their PHB +1 book rule. Ranger still gets the shaft.
@@GrimHeaperThe they still haven’t changed that? Gdi Adventurer’s League SUCKS.
Ranger main here:
A third Ranger in pop culture is Geralt (the Witcher).
He feels like more of a blood hunter but blood hunter is very similar to ranger so whatever
I mean, bloodhunter is a non official class inspired in the witchers. Officialy ranger seems to be the most similar class (specially monster hunter).
@@pedropeixe1077 Exactly. Bloodhunter is Homebrew until it is officially printed or in a module (even the LoL subclasses are technically official).
Also Will from Ranger's Apprentice (great book series and what made me a sucker for the Ranger)
I mean mando and geralt pretty much do the same thing.
DM: "A group of bandits surround you, clearly looking for a fight."
Rangers after seeing this vid: "I use my seismic charge."
What do we have here? A couple of customers. I hope they aren't allergic to BASE, because they're about to eat it. Hehe.
Rangers with two levels of Artificer: (cocks crossbow) I shoot all of them.
I summon a swarm of Baby Yodas
it's fireball but way higher level and deals force damage
@@itwasidio1736 Puts a fireball wand in the crossbow
I'd actually provide two additional examples of rangers: Geralt (as you kinda alluded to) as he's all about knowing the enemy, basic magic, and hunting stuff down, all the bonus stuff about Witchers is basically just background/race; and the other example isn't fantasy based, but Steve Irwin could be an interesting model for a ranger, he wasn't a hippie like a druid might be, but rather just loved and was at home with nature, he was very knowledgeable about the stuff and the dude could 100% cast Speak with Animals, you could even mix him with a bit of Bear Grylls for a real fun and interesting Ranger design.
Yes, I thought about Geralt. He at least talks with the horse, lol.
Yep, if you're only counting official classes Geralt is a Monster Slayer ranger. If you're counting Blood Hunter he's an Order of the Mutant Blood Hunter
"...Steve Irwin could be an interesting model for a ranger,"
Never have I needed something so badly and not known until I received it.
Is Westley from princess bride a ranger? He tracks Vizini and Buttercup after climbing the cliffs of insanity with some pretty good nature skills. He navigates the fire swamp and deals with the ROUSs. Of course, he can fight, and his intellect is shown in his forethought and deception in the battle of wits, not to mention the holocaust cloak strategy and getting Prince Humperdinck not to attack him. He doesn't use a bow, but then again neither does Aragorn.
@@Taako_Tuesday I think he's more of a Rogue with a bit of a mix between the Scout and Swashbuckler archetypes
One thing I heard constantly in my first group was "Aragorn isn't a ranger, because Aragorn doesn't heal people with magic!"
And then there's my ass going "...did...did y'all read the books? He literally does that. After the battle of Pelennor Fields. Explicitly and repeatedly. It's like a whole thing."
Some people have literally only seen the films so I'm going to just assume not
Also, him keeping Frodo from dying long ebough for Arwen to get help. Bro just needed a spell component
He’s meant to come to Gondor as a healer it’s part of the reason they accept him as king XD
@@llewtree3013 Well yes but I do think that is, at least in part, a metaphor for a new era of peace.
thats such a stupid argument; even if he couldnt heal, saying that a character that fits the archetype perfectly isnt one because they're TECHNICALLY missing one ability? one thats not even a core part its identity, but is more just from how the game is balanced? come on.
Faramir (Captain of the Rangers of Ithilien) - "Am I a joke to you??"
Denethor: Yes.
Lord of the Rings was one of the books that *invented* fantasy as the genre we know it as today, and the legacy of rangers in fantasy is huge. Rangers belong in fantasy more than artificers, IMO, and especially given the Drizzt exists as a character
My only issue is with rangers is that they gave Arcane Archer to fighters as a subclass >(.
This is true, but you can at least be confident in the knowledge that it's the worst subclass of fighter. Two uses of arcane shot? Really? Just two no matter what level you are? Level 7 feature is completely dependent on the feature you can only use twice? And they don't damage scale until a level most campaigns won't ever reach? Really? A champion is a better archer than arcane archer... at least they can crit fish and are probably going to do some real damage throughout the entire fight. Ranger, without any Tasha revisions, is pretty universally better at firing magical arrows via its spell slots (which is probably why they gave the subclass to Fighter in the first place) than Arcane Archer, a subclass dedicated to firing magical arrows.
Yeah but rangers have many spells that are literally just magic arrows. Also arcane archer is so underwhelming lol
And its not even a good subclass...
@@wanderer202 what about Purple Dragon Knight? That's way worse
Right!!! WTF WOTC?!
Jesus Christ, when you mentioned Geralt i literally said: "He's a ranger too".
yeah he is kinda more of a fighter mixed with wizard mixed with ranger but yeah definately a ranger too
@@zorawarsingh6795 Instead of Wizard, I'd argue Artificer (Alchemist) given Geralt's ability to brew potions. This also gives you the signs (cantrips) and you can use the infusions for Witcher's Sight (Goggles of Night) and improved armor and weapon. Be sure, of course, to take the Crossbow Expert and Tough feats.
@@zorawarsingh6795 I actually totally see ranger. After all, a ranger doesn't just have to fight with a bow; they do have some spells (that I regret to say I haven't tried but wish to) that make melee combat more interesting, as I recall.
You could argue for a bit of battlemaster fighter, or alchemist artificer, but as far as "know your enemy," it's hard to hit that witcher archetype any more on the dot than a ranger's favored enemy
I think he's more of a Mutant Blood Hunter. The subclass was literally based on him.
He’s a Blood Hunter. Literally a Blood Hunter. The class was based after The Witcher and Bloodborne.
Another media figure that one could argue is a proper DnD Ranger: Crocodile Dundee
"You can live on it but it tastes like shit" best quote in the movie
The more I think about this the more I like it.
Aren't Sam and Dean Winchester Rangers? I watched the first four seasons of Supernatural. But maybe the are more like clerics that dispel evil?
And in the show 'Grimm' Portland detective Nick Burkhardt is a "grimm" which is like a modern ranger.
Aragorn. The Mandalorian. Drizzt. Taran from Prydain Chronicles. Kaladin in 'the way of kings'.
Actually... yea hes the perfect ranger the more i think about it 🤔
his favourite enemy are uppity city folk
I would argue that reading the “The Ranger’s Apprentice” series as a kid helped me understand the D&D 5e ranger role way more than the Player’s Handbook ever did, and that series came out back in 4e when rangers weren’t nerfed to hell and back. The issue with them in 5e, imo, is that it’s not a class - it’s a character archetype. You’re effectively typecast into a certain, constrained naturalist role, whereas other classes have room to be multifaceted and can easily spec into abilities/subclasses that do what you do. That means the ranger player either never gets to really use their role because someone else beats them to it/doesn’t need to ask them for help, or the other players have to leave character traits out of their characters because they might step on the only things that give the ranger a place in the party. They don’t give you much choice as a ranger than to be an at least mostly-serious hunter-tracker type, as opposed to other classes who can be sorta whoever they want to be and just fight in a certain way. There can be some wiggle-room in that department with firearms, and if you homebrew in some rules that give them more useful traps and proficiency with improvised weaponry, though.
I’d say a ranger is best suited for small groups, where ability overlap is limited and they can be turned to more often. As a class whose roleplaying potential is *strongly* linked with its unique mechanics, you need opportunities to use those mechanics if you want to have a happy player.
I had some idea for some variant ranger: Bounty Hunter, police officer, guards, spy and researcher. All of these can play in the trope of being a ranger if you flavour the class a little bit. You don’t always has to be a protector of nature.
dude i choose ranger in my first ever session, gotta get that halt/will going.
Whoa, you just sent me back a long while.
THIS SERIES IS SO GOOD IM NOT ALONE!
I loved that series too!
If anyone wants some comedy, "DM of the Rings" is one of the funniest webcomics I ever read. The basic premise is that someone has a group of players who never heard of Lord of the Rings and the DM runs them in the by-the-book campaign.
alsocheckoutorderofthestick
There's also a webcomic that was inspired by DM of the Rings, called Darths and Droids, which is based on star wars, but instead of being about the DM railroading the players like in DMOTR, it's focused around the players hijacking the DM's story and forcing him to work around their randomness. :P
GO TO MORIA DAMMIT
I think it's meant to be in a parallel universe where Lord of the Rings never existed.
Where can I find it?
He wasn’t even taped to the ceiling
My disappointment is immeasurable, and my day is ruined.
smh my head
He should tape himself upside down to the wall after that, he’ll look like even more of a tomato.
Mando is a ranger in a sci-fi setting, of course he has gadgets. It's like a D&D ranger buying rope and 10' poles and ball bearings
The gadgets are just reskinned ranger spells.
By extension, Boba and Jango are also Rangers.
@@DoctorLazers I would say Boba is a Vengeance paladin/ranger multiclass. That could change with the upcoming series though.
@@TheSamba37 I dunno. Paladin is a pretty specific archetype. I think Jedi are definitely the Star Wars equivalent (lore-wise, moreso than gameplay, but everything can'tbe 1 to 1), heroic magical Knights protecting the good and right with a code of honour and such.
If you actually look at the Star Wars d20 RPG, the bounty hunter class is an extension of the scout, which is the parallel to Rangers.
@@DoctorLazers jedi are sorcerers
Aloy from Horizon Zero Dawn is literally such a Ranger and I need more people to acknowledge this
Oh gosh you're right.
Ey another HZD fan
Yep
I cant get into that game.
i am glad im not the only one
The Rangers Apprentice books were my favorite growing up, I made my mom sew me a cloak and I would go out in the woods and pretend to be hiding from enemies.
YES! I love those books. Such a good representation of what that kind of character in a fantasy setting could be. They didn't even need magic to be deadly and feared by basically everyone, they were just that good at what they did. And not even all of them were just bow-wielding steath fetishists, some of them also had some serious close combat skills! Take notes, fantasy media
I loved those books! I read all the way to book 10 and loved how much of a survivalist will was and its a book series with female characters who pull their weight, have agency and are badasses just like their male allies
Also yeah I wanted a cloak like will so I could run around the yard with my like $2.99 plastic bow with plunger head arrows that didn't stick or fire well
Greybeard Halt's a friend of mine, I've heard common talk!
My first D&D character, who I'm still playing today, is a ranger rogue multi class that is basically exactly like Halt. Or at least he was until recent story beats have taken him down a very unexpected route
@@solitariuslupus1195 he got reincarnated into a new body didn’t he
"Rangers have no place in fantasy" who the what when was this ever said lmao I've only ever heard of rangers IN fantasy. Where else y'all hearing about rangers from?
Parks of course, have to keep Yogi Bear in line
@@monhunterz5430 Texas. Even Chuck Norris was a ranger.
Power Rangers
Fallout?
Army rangers?
The predator is definitely a beefy ranger/artificer.
Oh god that is perfect. How did I not see this?
Again probably just Ranger as like the Mandalorian he doesn't make his weapons.
So you watch Toluk the Barbarian???
@@jamescarter7986 Actually, no. We don't really know if they can't make their own weapons. Maybe since the tech on earth is garbage, they can't make their gear there.
Also, Artíficer (Artilerist) literally gives you a shoulder cannon. Can't pass that up.
@@yanderenejoyer the predators seen in the movies and comics all (or almost, didn't look that deep into it) are recreational hunters, and not all hunters are fletchers/gunsmiths.
6:20 "DID YOU KNOW THAT IN THIS SCENE VIGGO ACTUALLY BRO-"
One could argue that Riddick from "Chronicles of Riddick" is a Gloomstalker Ranger. I mean he has umbral sight, iron mind, dread ambusher, stalkers furry, and shadowy dodge. He's also a pretty good survivalist in every situation, oh and he speaks with animals too.
"If I'm wrong at least you can gain some entertainment from my failures." Never change Jacob.... Also I'm stealing that slogan
6:18 is where Aragorn took his first level in Barbarian
He actually breaks his toe in this scene.
I'd just like to note Ranger does a real good job of doubling as a mechanical backbone for a fantasy hard-boiled detective.
I prefer rogue for that sort've thing but now that you mention it I might try ranger
Thats why i wish there was an urban ranger kind of option
@@idontknow-mf4bp Hunter Ranger's pretty solid if you're working a bounty hunter kinda vibe.
@@idontknow-mf4bp on Pathfinder there are many, many subclasses for each main classes: for ranger, one potential subclass is "espionage expert", a ranger with heavy emphasis on urban environment
@@darkj3di666Better yet, Pathfinder 2e has the Investigator, which is a whole class focused around being a detective
A good fix to favored enemy would be to make Rangers be able to once a week "research" a specific enemy type and gain bonuses against them until a different enemy type is chosen.
"You can't convince me Mando ain't a ranger." - Jacob 2020
...but he's a paladin.
I never understood why people thought rangers didn't have a place in fantasy. They're kinda everywhere in fantasy video games. Maybe it's just cause in TTRPG history ranger used to be a variant of fighter, back when there were only like 4 classes?
While gloomstalker and horizon walker are great, the issue I have is they don't fix the problems with rangers, they more circumvent them. I don't like the idea of patching up a weak class with a strong subclass--it makes the other options feel neglected, and also can cause a problem with munchkins (see: hexblades as well). Hence, I'm really happy with TCE actually introducing options that apply to ALL subclasses (and had alternate options for beastmaster to make em more competitive). Favored Foe is great, and I love the favored terrain replacements, though part of me feels like it should've been an addition, not a replacement.
I hope WotC is more willing to do more variant class options in the future instead of relying just on subclasses. Let the subclasses stay focused on being unique instead of being straight upgrades over the base options.
I just wish the CHA to attack and damage rools was a pact of the blade boon feture than Hexblade exclusive. It would requirea higher investment in the class to acquire that and also make blade pact viable with other patrons
Favored foe is bad because it eats concentration
Well favored foe would be great if it didn’t require concentration and only applied on one attack
I would say that the ranger was before 5e be more the long range fighter in that case . But since the warrior has the ability to use bow and arrow too that killed the ranger in 5e. Multiclassing can solve the rangers problem but solo classing needs some homebrewed improvements. Even with the Xanathars guide subclasses the rangers seems still so uninteresting .
Great opinion, but Zedrin, you have even greater art
XP: "Sorry this video was a little short"
You're talking to a guy who mainly watches your 4 minute shorts.
Aragorn isn't just a ranger, he is *the* ranger codifier.
"Stubs his toe"
Dude, Viggo BROKE his toe in that take.
He didn't even break character, that scream was him going "OW THAT FUCKING HURTS" and they thought it was perfect.
He turned a self inflicted injury into an in character breakdown. Turned his scream of pain into one of anguish over their perceived loss of the hobbits.
What a legend.
it was obviously a joke
We ALL know!!!
The Joke
--
Your head
Y'know, I would've said there's three examples of rangers in media. Aragorn, Mando, and Geralt of Rivia.
The ENTIRE point of the Witcher series when it comes to monster hunting is all about learning what the monster is you need to hunt, consulting what you know about them in order to more easily counter them, and then using your skills with weaponry combined with some limited magical powers in order to overcome them.
Wouldn't that make Sam and Dean Winchester Rangers? I watched the first four seasons of Supernatural. But maybe the are more like clerics that dispel evil?
And in the show 'Grimm' Portland detective Nick Burkhardt is a "grimm" which is like a modern ranger.
Nick Stefan White there's a homebrew "hunter" class that a player of mine played once. It mostly followed in the footsteps of ranger with a little monk and some modern flavor
As a Ranger main, we needed this
The ranger class was literally DnD's way of representing Aragorn in the game.
Aragorn, Geralt of Rivia, Daryl Dixon, Boba Fett, Van Helsing, Owen Grady, Katniss Everdeen, John Rambo, Robin Hood, the man with no name, Shaggy and Scooby doo....
Lan Mandragoran?
Faramir...?
@@mr.viewer3906 finally. Someone said his name
@@benjrc3611 I think there could e a pretty healty dbate as to whether the true blade of malkier is a ranger or fighter (especially considering he's a swordmaster and taught the ta'veren from the two rivers mostly about weapons IIRC)
@@arettbarnard7832 But can a ranger not be a great swordsman? If not the best in the world? He also does "pass without a trace" quite frequently. I'm honestly just happy to talk about WoT!
Here I am, the idiot, thinking he was going to mention Drizzt.
He did say pop culture, and Drizzt is more classical. Also, pointing to a D&D character for pop culture exampled of D&D characters is more than a little circular. It would be like if someone in Critical Role played Ranger, and Jacob pointed to that.
Ikr
Drizzt has more levels of fighter than he does ranger. As of 3rd edition, he was Fighter 10/Barbarian 1/Ranger 5.
Drizzt's cool
@@DrPluton Ah yes, the 1 level in barbarian. Always a favorite
I'm just here to say the format of this video was great and I really appreciated it. The title screens and photo/video clips to back your point really helped bring things to focus better than say your lay on the floor rants. Overall great video.
Also rangers cool
6:20 Fun movie trivia, Aragorn’s actor actually broke his toe when he kicked the helmet during filming. The scream is very genuine.
My group’s ranger is the only reason we’re still alive today
Edit: He betrayed us later
Yeah, we have a ranger (hunter). He routinely does the most damage in combat and has all sorts of great abilities for out of combat (sometimes to the point of annoying me...I leave a hint that they are approaching a dragon layer and he immediately does his little trick to _know_ that there is a dragon nearby, for example).
@@WarpigPSU can we also talk how Rangers if built properly, can almost always hit enemies with their insane dice rolls?
no competent full casters huh?
I would also like to mention another fictional ranger representation. June from Avatar the Last Airbender. She was a bounty hunter with an animal companion who tracks people.
"Just kidding it's about rangers" - I legitimately paused this video to go get snacks
My first character was a ranger. That campaign is still ongoing, and he is currently ranger monster hunter 8, fighter battle master 5, and warlock 1 with intent to go with that rest of the way.
You could say Rangers have a “Range” of abilities.
Ok I’ll go now.
No thats a perfect definition! Don't shame your self for your big brain.
don’t worry, humans are my favorite enemy
... the door is where you found it.
Dang this comment almost had three hundred likes. Didn’t think people would like something so dumb.
thank you sir for your contribution to comment section, i love it
8:40 When it comes to TCoE I would highly recommend reworking Favored Foe to work directly with Favored Enemy. As it currently works you have to use your concentration to get a d4, d6, or d8 extra damage to one creature. I would change it so that when you hit a Favored Enemy on each of your turns you can add a d4 damage (include later level/damage scaling), no concentration required.
Why I recommend this change is that EVERY useful ranger spell in combat is concentration based, so you're locking out all your concentration spells just to get a d4, d6, or d8 extra damage (which btw you could just use hunter's mark to get a d6 at 2nd level where this would be doing a d4, both require concentration). You could also allow rangers to either choose two non-humanoid races or two humanoid races to have as favored enemies at 1st level.
With Tasha's they fixed a lot of what was wrong with them, they felt underpowered before but now it's something that I'm actually excited to try instead of something I'd want to try eventually.
I haven't actually watched the Matt Colville video but I do love watching The Lord of the Rings and picking out all the individual moments where one of the characters fails an ability check or saving throw. Basically every large action sequence is full of moments that could have happened in a d&d game.
Legolas: "I want to surf down the stairs on a shield"
DM: "Roll acrobatics with disadvantage"
Legolas: "I got two natural 20's"
Hahahahahahaha
It's a good vid IMO. His criticism is more so that the story structure of LOTR wouldn't make for a super fun dnd game since it would be quite a railroad.
@@pandacakes6613 It's not even criticism really. It's just taking the story in different context and showing two opposing mindsets for D&D.
@@Mirekluk I agree with your comment. But I believe I remember him saying something about The Hobbit being more akin to dnd than LOTR is in the comment section of that video but fair enough you're correct.
“I’m Elon Musk of bad ideas”
So just elon musk
?
-Michael Reeves
You missed a "the" in that quote.
@@gamertwo6263 2nd richest man in the world is an idiot k mate.
At 1:35, when you started the dramatic narration, it made me feel the calm happiness and excitement that washes over me when I'm starting a new campaign and the DM begins setting the scene :)
I would love a video series going through every class and naming well known representations of the class (or just videos about what class each character in a fantasy series are closest to, starting with LotR).
Xp: "There are only two rangers in pop culture"
The Witcher: "Am I a joke to you?"
Not to mention the OG:
ROBIN HOOD?
@@kedabro1957 ehh I think Robin hood is more of a rogue with a possible dip into bard.
@@dren5810 are you being serious? Nothing about his skill repertoire includes Sneak attacks (beyond ambushes), thieves' cant, casting spells, creating mystical poetry or tracking down enemies like a Ranger. He's just a fighter that lives in the woods with friends.
@@elf-lordsfriarofthemeadowl2039 I should have clarified. When I liken Robin hood to rogue and bard im thinking of those archetypes in literature not mechanics. In literature rogues are not all edgy stabby people but more street smart, charismatic and always have the right tool for the job.
Geralt is a blood hunter
Talion from Shadow of Mordor/War is also a ranger. I mean, he's literally called the Ranger all the time.
That game is so much fun
He'd probably be a bit multiclassed though with the ability to dominate orcs.
I included music from the game in most of this video lol
Those are some of my favorite games
MANSWINE!!!
I made him as a PC once, I actually went with Blood Hunter Order of the Profane Soul and had an undying patron to represent Celebrimbor
Another important thing to keep in mind is that it seriously depends on the dm as the dm could easily make rangers very useful in game if they would simply adjust the content. (As in the dm should make the challenges in game relavent to the characters that play it and that should include the ranger)
What it's the DM's job to make things relevant and interesting for the party?! NO WAY!(/s)
Sorry been seeing a LOT of stuff responding to a certain video, that's how I'll refer to it and if you know you know! I still don't think I have watched the whole thing either because it was... well to be polite I COMPLETELY disagree with it and couldn't stand the video at all! Oddly enough that video is kind of relevant to this one, huh!
The love towards us dedicated rangers is felt my dude. Much love
OH MY GOD THANK YOU! Jacob your my hero! I love Ranger it’s my first and favourite class (warlock a close second) a Ranger is such a fun class, and I love the versatility outside of combat, and my girl Vex proves that they can be awesome.
You're*
Off in the distance.....
Marisha Ray: *uk'otoa........*
Oh have ya tried a warlock ranger. Focusing more on charisma than wisdom. So ya only need 14+ charisma and then flavoring stuff with warlock. I have an idea for a warlock ranger that uses their tome to write down information about the monsters they've encountered.
What made this video especially good was the background music from the greatest ranger of them all: The Gravewalker. It's little wonder this video wasn't monetized.
In more than one occasion Laura was dissatisfied with her class choice, that is why Matt gave her a lot more layaway to optimize her class and buff up her character and animal companion through other means so she can keep up with the rest of the party.
Doing doing 13 damage a round next to a rouge and Barbadian didn’t help at all either.
You also kind of said it, but Geralt is another perfect example of a ranger, he tracks, has a ton of knowledge of (every) favoured enemy, can use a bit of magic and I'll be damned if he can't speak with Roache while NOT on drugs
Yes, but his bit of magic is actually focused and powerful, instead of the tiny hedge magic Rangers have.
Horizon walker is literally the most fun I’ve ever had playing D&D. I’m strength based with a maul and
Hit, turn, teleport 10ft away, run to second enemy
Hit, turn, teleport 10ft away, run to third enemy
Hit, bonus action misty step to safety
It’s so much fun wack-a-moling your way through combat. Plus a few good utility spells?
Sure you barely get to use favorite terrain/enemy, but if you set up good backstory stuff around WHY you’re good at hunting whatever you’ve picked, it makes for great RP opportunities.
Although I wish nature’s veil was more dynamic
I really love these class dissection videos and I also loved the rogue class history video! The sketches have also been top tier recently
Is Geralt not also a ranger? He's specifically a monster hunter.
I agree, Monster Hunter subclass suits him really well (unless you allow blood hunter, then he’s one of them, but base game only yes Geralt is absolutely a ranger)
Its funny bc he literally mentions Geralt later when talking about monster hunter. Though im sure if he did mention it, people would be shouting "BLOOD HUNTER!!!" from the hills
@@Ashley-of6ro BLOOD HUNTER!!!!(I am absolutely on the hills, you can't see so SHUT UP lol)
I don't see why anyone would say that rangers don't belong in fantasy (I would personally say that title falls to the bard, but let's not get into that today). My complaint has always been that rangers in D&D aren't what they should be. They should be survivalists that keep the party from getting lost or perishing in the wilderness, and in urban environments still serving as the fantasy equivalent of detectives, as well as making up for what they lack in physical prowess with their knowledge of their opponents, utilizing traps, the terrain and weaknesses to take down their foes.
Meanwhile, D&D rangers are just fighter-rogue-druids. Unearthed Arcana is considered to have fixed them, but all it did was make them BETTER fighter-rogue druids. The Xanathar subclasses helped, but while the meat of the class was improved by that, the skeleton remains just as flawed. I really like the concept of rangers, in fact out of all non-mage fantasy classes they're probably my favourite, and that's why I wish that what makes them distinct and interesting was better represented in D&D. Stuff like actually making them snowballs by letting them gain an incremental bonus against certain enemies the more they fight them (Say, I don't know, after fighting four trolls you gain a +1 to hit against all trolls, after fighting ten trolls you gain a +1 to damage rolls against them, and so on). Because, like, I enjoy the IDEA of Favoured Enemy and Favoured Terrain, but the fact of the matter is that they are useless throughout most of the game and just letting the ranger switch them out at will would be overpowered, so having some manner of learning system where they gain favour with certain enemies or terrain types the more they gain experience with them would be an interesting mechanic. A wee bit too complicated for something like 5E perhaps, and that's part of the problem as I see it.
In fact, I find that the design of the game itself actively works against rangers. For instance, there really aren't a lot of mechanics in place that makes the wilderness all too dangerous. Weather, terrain, disorientation, sickness, starvation, these are all things that most hapless adventurers would fall victim to in normal circumstances, but in D&D the only commonly used rule is difficult terrain. Which is annoying more than anything. The sheer difficulty of integrating survival elements into the game, even with homebrewing, is infamous. Really the biggest threat while wandering the wilds is random encounters, and that's where pretty much every other class shines. The rules that would benefit rangers simply aren't in the vanilla game, and so there isn't much to build the class around.
As an aside, I also don't like the idea of them having magic. This is way more down to personal preference than anything mentioned above, but I think they work significantly better when it's just a matter of raw skill and knowledge. You don't need Speak With Animals when you have a high Animal Handling skill, you're just able to read the animals' behaviour and know what they're responsive to. You don't need healing spells when you have vast knowledge of healing herbs, natural afflictions and field medicine. But that's not so much a criticism of rangers as it is of D&D itself (again), as magic is something so common that nearly every class either has it or CAN have it through subclasses, and even if not, you got feats and other means of stumbling over it.
I actually have a theory that even in D&D, rangers aren't supposed to know spells. Their "spells" are in fact intended to just be regular, nonmagical abilities, but because the system isn't designed to accommodate that, it would make for one daunting list of abilities to keep track of. So instead they just turned the excessive stuff into a spell list, which is largely considered much more manageable. I can't prove that, I just have a hunch. The idea of each class having a list of abilities to choose from upon levelup, kinda like the warlock's Eldritch Invocations, always appealed to me more than the rather lackluster arsenal of most non-mage classes (*COUGH* barbarians). But that would require a chunky overhaul of how classes work, since everything being passive or having a rest-based cooldown would get overwhelming fast. I guess I can't blame anyone for not wanting to do that, with the risk of it becoming overly complicated or at least alienating old D&D players.
TL;DR: I really like rangers in concept, but I continue to dislike their portrayal in D&D. And I think it's largely the fault of the game itself just not being designed for them. Just like you could argue that the stealth mechanics are severely lacking, and rogues manage to skirt by because of Sneak Attack and how it's near-impossible to hit them. With sufficient homebrew they could be fun, but at that point it's not the game's doing but your own. So I think the ranger is just a prime example of 5E's "streamlined" philosophy (and neglect of noncombat features) biting it in the rear.
Bards make sense, musicians existed around that time in medieval Europe if you go by fantasy trope rules, and they don’t even have to be musicians, they’re just entertainers. If you were to go by fantasy trope rules monks don’t make sense. Sorry for getting into that today, don’t overthink this comment, it’s just my opinion.
@@interdimensionalgoober8769 Monks are really supposed to replicate martial artists like shaolin monks and not the western ones. They're the fist-fighty characters you see in some fantasy.
@@eintorpid9101 I get what they are, I never said otherwise, their origin is exactly why they don’t make sense in a medieval Europe (at least in my opinion). Shaolin monks make less sense around wizards and clerics than medieval tropes, because monks aren’t really medieval tropes.
personally favored enemy/terrain should be adjustable per long rest like if you're stuck in a city for a few days/weeks/months etc that forest specialist isn't gonna be a dumbass and never adapt he's gonna be better at killing people and understand urban environments a lot better. Yet each adjustment is based on exposure and takes that long rest. But yeah 5e is too streamlined so too many "prep time" type skills that pretty much a lot of classes CAN use yet it gets yeeted out the window for a kinda slow combat because people didn't prepare. I like rogues with all the flavor they got over the years the Thief is still the best one due to all its early skills never drop off. Or they shouldn't drop off. To me, a Mastermind is freaking busted with the right setup yet too many campaigns aren't suited for a prep-time character making schemes via observation. Like Rangers should be learning the land and getting better within it. Like drawing pursuers into traps like Rambo is a Ranger job, higher stealth like a rogue and or even helping the party in such ambushes. Even Druids get kinda pigeon-holed into magic barbarians. Wild Shape, maul things to death, never die, avoid psychic shit, repeat. 5e has a lot of problems thinking about it...
You just gave me a ton of great ideas. Thank you!
Lets be honest, Lord of the Rings in general is just a really good D&D campaign represented as a movie
A book first...
This video made me have another look at the class especially with the new TCoE options and im now in the midst of creating a Swarmkeeper ranger who's swarm is just a bunch of Ducklings. Great video.
There is also the “rangers apprentice” books (no magic) but they are fairly close to dnd rangers
Those rangers are op af
Non-magical rangers, trades out spells for four additional feats at the levels when you would have gotten a spell level. From the Rokugan setting book.
they're actually a subclass that have a special ability, whenever coffee is prepared within 10ft of them the recipe and taste must be described in 2 paragraphs of detail
@@coolghoul8515 but did the coffee have honey in it or not?
@@primedog100 do you really have to ask?
The beast master is an absolute trap. It sound so cool and cute, your own pet wolf. Fits great flavour wise. For someone who doesn't know the fine details of the game it looks really tempting only to be a huge let down in practice
Thankfully with the new Beast of Air/Land/Sea...it's actually nowhere NEAR as much of a trap as it was. Firstly the pet now takes your Bonus action to attack, secondly, they actually scale MUCH better into late game unlike the normal beast Master pets which barely scale. The funny thing was, when DnDNext (as 5e was called during playtesting) they initially went with the options listed in Tasha's (a set of statblocks that could be reflavored to any animal and scaled better) but the old Grognards that hated change wanted to be able to pick their creature...and what we got was the PHB version of Beastmaster.
@@luketfer Yea. My wife is playing BM and i let her change features to new BM and it's good. Not awesome/omg/OP good like new meta sorcerer build but it's fun and not useless !
Read this and thought you meant the old movie. Then I thought, there's another Ranger!
Coming back to this video a year after seeing it the first time when I started creating my homebrew world, still an excellent video that is providing me with inspiration and knowledge on how to create my own homebrew Ranger subclass.
Great video! You and a couple other dnd youtubers actually inspired me to start making my own dnd video essays, and I actually talked about a lot of this stuff in my "In Defense of the Ranger" video!
Tasha's was an actual blessing to Ranger. I loved the class before, but strayed away because it was weak, but now it can stand up to the other classes!
My favorite Ranger on popculture is Will Treaty from Ranger’s Apprentice book series, I believe that this book series really cover up well what a Ranger is and show them in a really good light, or in shadow since they are stealthy, I really wanted to try to make a Ranger based on him on a D&D campaign, but oh god it is hard due to how weak the class is.
I just play a rogue for Halt with expertise in stealth and perception
i would be interested to see a video like this where you break down each of the fellowships classes with arguments for each like this. PLLLLEEEAAAASSSEEE
This may be my favorite video of yours. I like your comical but effective breakdown! As a pseudo newbie to D&D under a year, I need to expand my understanding of rangers and this helped.
Easy way to fix ranger: either use Revised Ranger, or use Tasha's alternate class features
I once DM'ed a campaign that took place in the underdark and for once I thought huh Gloom stalker Ranger is actually REALLY good
Thanks to the inspiration this and similar videos gave me now I'm playing a Goblin Ranger and I'm having the hell out my fun! Thank you for such fun and yet useful contents!
My favorite character I ever played was a Half-Elf Hunter Ranger with 1 level of fighter for the Protection fighting style. I used a sword and shield, some half plate armor, and made frequent use of Giant Killer and Multiattack Defense features. I was the party tank and it was both effective and fun.
Btw, try the spell "absorb element" it's so much fun the situations you can create with it. In Castle Ravenloft, I leapt through a bonfire our warlock conjured in the doorway to deter a foe and I used absorb element to deal fire damage to the enemy with my attack.
You look so much more professional with glasses.
Ikr
He looks like hes tryna sell me lawnmower insurance
Everyone does
Everyone does, that is why I got glasses without lenses.
@@coolboy9979 tried it once, didn’t work for me, I guess I’m spacial!
"dying to every member of the chroma conclave you meet up with"
Rip Trinket. If only he got his time to shine
@@Usagi33353 spoilers yo wtff
@@mowzrascal2350 it's years old bro
@@thundereagle97 i know but i only started watching recently
I'm playing a game next week as a Fey Wanderer Ranger and I couldn't be more excited. It's a bugbear that lies and claims he was human, but go turned into a monster by a witch's spell.
Part of this reminds me what recently inspired me to create a ranger conclave that works like having big and developed cities as favored terrain. Also has some things with guns with the limitations of my setting but to me ended up really cool
I would like to make 2 points:
1) Every single comment stating how Viggo broke his toe in that scene exemplifies why people don’t like watching LoTR with us.
2) Mechanically Rangers have another problem in their spells and abilities with the lockup in concentration, but this can be easily solved with a little homebrew to put Ranger spells on the same level as others.
This is also the one problem Tasha's did not fix. So many of the good Ranger spells are concentraction based when they should be able to be cast as an option to spend your reaction. Hail of Thorns, for example, really shouldn't be Concentraction or it should be that it's text reads, "As part of the spell, make a ranged attack..." or hell, give it to them as the ability to burn a spell slot like Paladin's with Divine Smite...
@@luketfer I think the main problem with the concentration spells that effect a weapon attack is that they don't want you to be able to stack them, Paladin Smite Spells work the same way. a better way would be to allow those to be a class feature like a mix betwen divine smites and arcane shot. Or just make hunters mark not require concentration.
I like how I'm watching for aragon then end up having flash backs to fighting graugs with Torvin in Shadow of Mordor
'Ive been watching way to much Lord of the Rings lately.'
I don't understand the sentence.
I always said Aragorn is just a fighter with the outlander background and a few feats like healer. He doesn't cast magic like rangers and doesn't seem to *really* have a favored enemy. The best example of a fantasy ranger is actually Geralt of Rivia, having a favored enemy of Monstrosity, elixirs being his buffing spells reflavored (get it?) and he actually carries magic like Rangers in dnd.
In reference to the second ranger in media “why would you say something so controversial, yet so brave”
honestly the pop culture comparisons really help your points in this video. also, you made me wanna watch lord of the rings again
I have one more ranger in Pop culture and he is one of my favourite characters of all time and that is Raylan Givens in the show "Justified" he tracks his targets and through deduction ends up at their location before they do. He finds who knows how to make their products and how they can be made. He uses his own items as well as those at his immediate disposal and fights with his number one weapon being practicality.
I recognize the background music around, 8:00! Shadow of War/Mordor menu music
you know he is serious when he doesnt sit in a tub or lay on the ground.
I may be a Paladin main, but I have all the respect in the world for Ranger mains.
It is mutual 🙏
Paladin, Ranger, and Bard is my ideal three-man party.
Everyone can sword enemies to death, everyone can heal, everyone still has distinct niches built into his flavorful class.
I can't believe I missed this! This was uploaded on my birthday last year
I remember in my first D&D game I played a ranger. There was a part where these goblins had attack wolves chained up so I asked my DM if I could tame one for the time being. He said if I rolled high I could. Since it was a semi-wild animal and I wasn’t a beast master, the DM said he would get to have direct control of the wolf and once we left the area the wolf would leave. So, through the dungeon I got to have a wolf (mostly) listen to my commands and “accidentally” did most of the damage to the big goblin at the end.
Aragorn does have healing hands actually, which could be seen as Cure Wounds.
Say it with me: We shouldn't have to use subclasses to fix the issues present in base classes.
Also yeah Tashas did a lot for Rangers and I feel like it doesn't get enough credit.
People only talk about Favoured Foe being nerfed from the UA version, even though the rest of the variant features are great.
expanded spell list is amazing. it might be weird to wrap your head around, but having a concentration spell in branding smite that competes with hunter's mark for potential damage output is a very nice dilemma to have.
like do you risk dropping your mark to use your only 3rd level slot to dump a fat smite into that mammoth and maybe kill it outright? or do you save it to initiate the next encounter with lightning arrow on the cloud giant that's checking on his cattle?
This video helped me fall back in love with Rangers and play a ranger. It also gave me some awesome ideas!
I love everything about this video. Great summary!
“And dying to every member of the chroma conclave you meet up with” sksksks
F in chat for Trinket