Super-Simple DIY Ultimate DM Screen

This is a step-by-step guide on how to create the single greatest DM screen anyone could ever own. It is cheap and simple. A 10-year-old can make this. (Although adults will generally make less of a mess in the process. Also, I swear, so 10-year-olds definitely should not read this guide.) To begin, go buy yourself a pack of paper report folders. I chose black because I'm metal as fuck.

Take out two of them, open them up, and put their edges flush. make sure they're both right-side up and facing the same direction. Duh.

Use the perfect tool, duct tape, to stick them together. Leave a little gap on the tape, so there's room to fold it over without bowing the pages. A ~1mm (or ~1/16") gap should be good. Don't tape the folder slot shut, note the gap in the tape on the inner side in the following picture.

Now go get a bunch of plastic cover sleeves. You will also need a strong, fast-drying adhesive. I used 3M Super 77 spray adhesive. (I wouldn't recommend it- it makes a fucking mess. Same goes for crazy glue. You should use two sided scotch tape, or a glue runner. White glue and liquid glue can't adhere to the plastic, so don't bother with those.)

Don't forget to glue them open-end up! It may seem obvious, but these things have very subtle edge differences that can be hard to notice.

Print off some nice stuff for the players to look at and drop it into the slots! I chose a couple of funny memes and two pages of table rules.

Gather your game notes and other supplies, like a stack of pregens, a book of graph paper, and your adventure plan, and dump them into the folder slots! Pack your dice and books and head to the game, 'cause you're ready to rock!

If you're looking for something a little more sturdiness, but the same desgree of functionality, take a look here:

What Matters Most? Player or Character?

This is a reaction to "Attack of the Genericons: Challenge, Difficulty, and Monster Building" by the Angry GM on October 28, 2015. In that blog entry, the Angry GM makes a TON of extremely insightful and useful points- but there is one point where I disagree vehemently with him. He believes that in-game challenge must rely on the out-of-game knowledge and skills of the players, and that challenge is the key to enjoyment in D&D and Pathfinder. I say challenge, as a technical term, has no place in most RPGs during play. (And I've always felt that way, I just never say it out loud because basically nobody around me talks about this stuff anywhere near this level.) He's basically arguing that the game is more important than the role play, and I disagree. Yes, RPGs are games, but they're also about role play, and if you're going to play a role, you can't undermine its sincerity any more than you can undermine the game! Either way, you're doing yourself and the table a disservice, by making the RPG less. The game and the role play are equal parts of a whole. You can't diminish one for the benefit of the other. What we're seeing here, in my reaction to the Angry GM's post, is RPG theory, or rather, its absence. Specifically, the Angry GM is making an exclusivist agenda-based argument, and in contemporary RPG theory, that is retarded.

Creative agenda is pretty simple to understand, and it was one of the first structures formed in RPG theory, because we needed a way to explain the conflicts of opinion in the gaming community which all seemed to be correct but somehow also incompatible. (Like the nonsense the Angry GM wrote) It was originally called Trifold theory, and then expanded to be called GNS theory. GNS was then absorbed into the big model. I use the big model as the dictionary for discourse on the subject of RPG theory, but I do not prescribe to it as a theory as a whole, because its only axiom turned out to be false. We'll get to that axiom and what it has to do with this in a moment. First, a crash course in creative agenda for the uninitiated.

Keep in mind that creative agenda terminology is not designed to segregate players into groups. Nobody is fully immersed in only one group. Rather, people tend to lean toward one agenda over another, and which agenda they lean toward can change over time- sometimes quite rapidly. This means that, on some level, every player can enjoy playing within the agendas of other people just fine, and most people can at least temporarily adjust their attitude to suit their group. You can't go around spouting nonsense like, "get out of my group, you're a simulationist and we only play with gamists here". I make that point, because that's what GNS theory was used for, and that was wrong. That's also basically what the Angry GM is doing in that post. Creative agenda describes a behavior and its associated intent- not the values or beliefs of the person engaging in a given agenda.

So, what is creative agenda? Creative agenda is what the player is seeking when they sit down to play an RPG. There are three creative agendas. The gamist agenda loves challenge as defined by the Angry GM. They don't care much about the generation of a meaningful narrative experience or the sincere simulation of a setting. They'd rather have fun overcoming challenges by their own skill and knowledge. The gamist agenda actually breaks down into a lot of smaller techniques, including challenge, but there's also things like the crunch, (metagame character building) and the gamble (relying on probability). The Angry GM is basically shouting, "GAMISM IS THE ONLY WORTHWHILE AGENDA, AND THE REST OF YOU ARE FUCKWITS!" and then goes on to say, "CHALLENGE IS THE ONLY WORTHWHILE TECHNIQUE TO EXPLORE GAMISM!" (I'm paraphrasing) ... which is pretty immature for such a prominent person in the gaming community to say in 2015. The next agenda is narrativist. Basically, the idea here is that RPGs are like a form of literature, and that the game should serve the purpose of constructing a narrative in the literary sense of the word. People who lean toward this agenda typically describe RPGs as a form of collaborative literature,  and that the game is an art form. I agree with them on a theoretical level, but I don't believe it is the fundamental essence, or primary purpose of RPGs,  so I often find narrativist objectives a little misguided. They often do things that undercut the rules of the game  in order to create a narrative that goes the way they think it should- which kind of defeats the purpose of even having those rules. (Really, they should make rules which intentionally construct a narrative in the first place.) This is, by my understanding, why the Angry GM hates FATE. FATE is full of self-defeating rules intended to allow the players and GM to make a story they like. I also dislike FATE, if you didn't notice. Finally, there's simulationism, whose sphere I have always understood with ease. Simulationism is about the sincere simulation of another thing- and that extends to role play too. Simulationism actually has two major techniques that most people totally overlook or conflate. The first technique is what I call rational simulationism. The focus is on creating game engines that accurately replicate physics, chemistry, and biology, or they write convoluted physics engines to literally represent the mechanics of magic. People who focus on this form of simulationsim tend to give way to gamism or narrativism in play though, because as long as the world they play in is internally consistent, they're happy. Then you have emotional simulationism. People who exclusively prescribe to this behavior, by my experience, tend to cause the most problems at the table. Ever met a guy who says, "my character does [something stupid/horrible] because that's what my character would do."? That guy is pursuing an emotional simulationist agenda. Basically, they believe that, when playing a role, metagame knowledge can not be used, and they must play the character as the character "should" be played. Low INT score? When playing that character, you can't make statements or decisions which exceed the character's stated mental capacity. Low charisma? When role playing, your are compelled to be rude, awkward, or confusing. Evil characters WILL do evil things that WILL put them at odds with the good characters in the party. Basically, they feel that metagame knowledge applies only to metagame problems, and is excluded from in-game behavior, for the purposes of a sincere performance, or simulation, of another person.

So, that's the gist of what matters about creative agenda. Now for what all that has to do with the Angry GM and my reaction to him...

The Big Model used to have an axiom. (An axiom is a proposed "law" within a theory, which has not undergone scrutiny yet. A theory cannot be a theory without any axioms or laws- otherwise it is just a dictionary of technical jargon, which is what RPG theory is at the moment) That axiom was that creative agendas are fundamentally incompatible with one another, and that effective game design should focus on one agenda only, to prevent players adjusting it to suit their agenda; an effect called drift. As it turns out, that is wrong! The agendas are not mutually exclusive, because everyone likes them all at least a little bit! People are not robots, and we express ourselves in a complex, organic manner! Drift only happens when you have a whole group of people who lean very heavily toward one agenda playing a game that does not consistently address that agenda. That group is playing the wrong game, the game was not necessarily built wrong!

So, given that the agendas are not mutually exclusive, and that the Angry GM is basically arguing for gamist agenda drift at the expense of simulationism and narrativism in D&D and Pathfinder, all I can say is: You're playing the wrong games! Go find something you actually like to play if you're so damn angry! I hear Hackmaster is pretty good! D&D puts gamism on the same level as emotional simulationism, and the gamist techniques it employs on a mechanical level are the gamble and the crunch, with actual challenge being left as an option to the DM. The gamble is used to represent the mental capacities of the character, regardless of the mental capacities of its player. For example, rolling a charisma check to convince the king to give you his pants has NO challenge- it's a gamble designed to abstract character effectiveness from player talent, thereby enforcing an accurate simulation of the character, even if the player fails to do so. (If the DM sets the DC too low and the king actually gives the PC his pants, that is the DM's fault, not the game's) The crunch is used during chargen and progression to allow the players to use their metagame knowledge to improve their odds in the gamble.

D&D gives the DM the purview to drift the game toward narrativism or gamism on a whim- it's a very flexible system. A DM may decide to pretty much ignore mental ability scores, adjusting DCs on INT, WIS, and CHA checks based on role play, regardless of its consistency with those scores. A DM may also introduce in-play challenge reliant on wholly metagame capacities of the players at the table. That's OK. It also isn't the core of the game. The Angry GM is saying that one form of adjustment to play is the ONLY RIGHT WAY TO PLAY, and that's stupid. It's only one of many ways to play, and they should all be used together, not exclusively.

Twenty-Sided Heart

You're breakin' my heart, people.

(This is a long article, and it includes links to several other long articles which need to be read in order for this to make sense. It also contains pop culture references, gamer slang, and colourful language. Needless to say, you need to be somewhat with-it to understand this page. That said, I believe the most important parts of this message are spoken plainly enough that anyone should be able to get the point, even if they miss the humor. Still, if you prefer your language bland and colourless, you have been warned: I and others in the hobby have utterly filthy vocabulary. So, let's get on with it, shall we?)

You know what's wrong with the RPG hobby these days? Assholes. Assholes are the problem.

No, seriously. In the last 6 months I have been exposed to more ignorant, short-sighted, selfish, rude, hateful, manipulative bullshit from DMs than I have ever experienced in my preceding decade of role playing. What the hell is wrong with people these days? I thought we were growing out of this already! I thought the "boys club" mentality was over! I thought that, if nothing else, Ron Edwards' exposure of the DM's Iron Curtain and Oija Board gaming had turned us off of playing with people who suck! I'm shocked we've already forgotten the only worthwhile rule of the hobby:

If you're not having fun, stop playing. No play is better than bad play.

It really is that simple. Don't like your group? Get another one. Don't like your DM? Start your own campaign without that guy. Don't like the game? Go buy a different one- or  better yet, make one up as a group! These people are your friends dammit,  treat them like it! You're inviting them into your home to entertain them and be entertained by them! If that isn't your only reason for running an RPG, you are an asshole. And if they don't treat you like a friend, then they aren't your friends and you need to get away from those assholes.

If you're in it for money, you're a retarded asshole.

If you're in it to control people, you're a sociopathic asshole.

If you're in it to abuse people, you're a bully and an asshole.

If you're in it for an identity, you're a hipster asshole.

If you're in it to discriminate against people, you're a bigoted asshole.

If you're in it to write a novel from your session transcripts, you're a lazy asshole. (And probably a shitty writer, quite frankly.)

If you're in it to pick up chicks,  you're a pathetic asshole. (Also kinda dumb. The other assholes have made the hobby very unappealing to women)

If you're in it to indoctrinate people toward a given belief system through propagandistic writing and game design, you are the ultimate asshole.

If you're in it to escape from your miserable reality, you aren't necessarily an asshole, but you do need help.

So, I want to campaign for love in the RPG community. There's too much misery and hate in the world. People turn to games as entertainment, a break from the drudgery of life, a shot of joy and happiness that they can rely on! But for many people, this is not what RPGs have become. For many people, RPGs are a political hell of subterfuge, manipulation, and disrespect. That is not OK. I am a game designer because I love making people happy. That is my one desire in life. I know that's what other game designers are in the business for as well. We all want you folks to enjoy our creations, not use them to harass one another!

In RPG theory, there is a set of ideas called the "Social Contract". The original definition in theory is now mostly defunct, and only big model purists (are there even any of you royal assholes left?) still use it for its intended meaning. I think it's time we took that back and gave it a useful meaning. The Social Contract, as I imagine it for the RPG hobby, is not a theory of game design, but a philosophy of game play. It is derived from basic ethics, morals, manners, and sportsmanship, all wrapped up in a comfy blanket of genuine love for your fellow gamers. This is the philosophy I prescribe to when running and playing a game. RPGs are meant to create joy- that's what the "G" in the acronym implies. Let's take back our GAMES.

Now, I know what you're thinking. "What, are we back in kindergarten?" Yes we are, because apparently some of you 60-something D&D veterans still have the attitude of a spoiled 6-year-old with a toothache. Those three rules are pretty much fundamental to getting along with the entire rest of humanity. If you can't get that right, the US army has every right to land troops in your country and point guns at you for your insane mistreatment of your fellow man.

There's more to the gamer's Social Contract than just basic manners though. The RPG is an extremely unique social environment, with very complex and unwritten rituals and communication methods. We need to cover what is right, and what is wrong. In particular, we need to discuss the true role of the DM.

Let's get one thing straight: the DM is a player too. The DM is not a unique opponent who you are playing against. The DM is not your enemy. The DM is not the game. If you are a DM and think of yourself as these things, you are a misleading asshole. If you are a player who thinks of the DM as these things, you are a metagaming asshole.

The DM is there to have fun just as much as everyone else is. Why the hell else would they invite your ass over unless they wanted you to be there? They wanted to share an experience with you and the others at your table so much, that they went to the trouble of trying to learn ALL the rules AND build an entire world, story, and adventure to explore. This is no easy task. If you think it is, try your hand at it some time, I'm sure your DM would love a break and a chance to watch you squirm for a change. There is a reason whole books have been written about how to be a successful DM.

Now let's debunk some myths of Dungeon Mastering that were propagated in the early days by people who sucked at expressing their ideas clearly.

1. The DM is not like a god in the game. Although the DM is the grand arbiter of the rules and game content for the session, the only purpose behind that is for the DM to facilitate an entertaining game. The only way to ensure that the impartiality of the dice doesn't produce anticlimactic garbage, is to have someone with the authority to fudge the rolls and make stuff up on the fly.

2. The DM is not like a director. The players at the table are not your "cast". You can't give them a script. You have no true control over the direction of the plot. The DM is more like a camera man, framing the scenes and giving context more than directing the action. If you try to control your players, even through coercion or manipulation, you are defeating the purpose of the game. For the game to work, the players need to be able to genuinely make their own decisions, not be manhandled into making YOUR decision for them.

3. The DM is more than just a referee. Although being impartial and being the interpreter of rules is part of the job, that is not the only reason the DM exists, it's merely the clerical work of it all. If that weren't the case, whole campaigns could be made by dice using random tables, entirely supplanting the DM in function. RPGs operate entirely on imagination, and as a consequence, anything can happen. It is impossible to write a set of rules for every possible imagined situation. Even when we write very flexible, open-ended, versatile rules, we wind up with multiple valid methods of achieving the same results. Someone has to take charge and be the final word. Someone has to decide, not what is most correct, but what is the most fun way to resolve a given situation.

So what is the true role of the Dungeon Master?

Artist. The DM is the creator of a fictional environment. A whole imaginary world. The fantasy setting is, itself, a creative work of art. The DM is the author, not of adventures, but of alternate realities which we may explore, and the events which occur around us as we do so. Old professionals, like Ed Greenwood and the late Gary Gygax are unsung master artists of the modern age, the forerunners of an art form yet barely recognized by the public consciousness of this time, and the creators of the first art movement in the medium! Every DM is a fledgling artist walking in their giant footsteps.

Impartial Mediator. Do you remember playing pretend or make-believe as a kid? Ever get into an argument about whether one of you could successfully do one of your imagined actions, only for the game to come to an end? The purpose of the rules is to put an impartial mediator between the players to decide, empirically, who succeeds at what, and when. That's what the dice and rules are for. The DM's job is simply to moderate the randomness and interpret the rules as they apply to the circumstances of gameplay. Without this role in place, every session of every RPG would just be the tabletop equivalent of Calvinball.

Performer. The DM is an actor. They play the role of every single character and creature the players encounter over the course of the game. Every worried king, every damsel in distress, every irate shopkeeper, every well-spoken goblin is the DM putting on an act and playing improv to the players' reactions.

Facilitator of Fun. At the end of the day, there is really only one  function the DM plays, and everything else is simply part of that function. The Dungeon Master's job is to create an exciting, entertaining adventure for the people at the table. When successful, this can be deeply rewarding, but to do it right requires maturity in the forms of patience, restraint, modesty, and kindness.

As for my advice on how to be successful as a DM? Two rules, both part of my Gamer's Social Contract.

Rule 0. This is an old one. A classic rule from the good old days of save-or-die competitive dungeon crawls. Rule 0 is simply the word "no". To clarify for non-gamers and the newer generation, Rule 0 actually refers to the absolute authority of the DM over the interpretation and application of game rules. Basically, the current DM's interpretations of the rules ARE the rules. Unfortunately, because game content counts as rules, this means they effectively have absolute control over everything in the game but the players' decisions. That's pretty heavy authority. As we all know, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and it is this disproportionate allocation of power which has produced nearly all of the sourness I see in the hobby today. Good DMs gone bad through abuse of authority. Good gaming groups split up by inappropriate rules interpretation. People who dropped the hobby completely because they got stuck playing with an asshole DM.

So, my rule 0 is actually a quote from a comic book:

Specifically, in the case of Rule 0, the responsibility to use that power as little as possible. Do not dismiss anything out of hand simply because it wasn't part of your plan, that is a blatant attack on the autonomy of your player group. Rule 0 is a weapon to be used against metagaming and rules lawyering, not against your fellow players on a whim. Remember: He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.

But what do you do instead of saying no? What if they have an idea that you're unsure how to resolve? What if the players' ideas are insane? What if the rules don't cover this situation?

Enter: The Rule of Yes.

This one comes from a couple of different sources, but neither of them state it quite as a rule the way I do. Simply put, whenever a player comes up with a new idea; interprets a rule differently; tries to do something outside the scope of the core material; or otherwise blindsides you, before you just Rule 0 it away, consider saying yes first.

To some people, this may seem counterintuitive- after all, isn't the purpose of a rule to tell you what you can't do? No. It isn't. The rules in D&D are an abstract framework which the DM uses to impartially determine success or failure and action order. In reality, the only rules the players need to follow is the interpretation by the DM. As for how the DM should interpret those rules, well...

So, what is the rule of yes all about, and what does it have to do with all of this? I don't have to tell you, because other people have said it better than I can. I'm just formilizing the truth.

From Dungeon'/s Master:

"[...] Nothing grinds a game to a halt faster than a no ruling. Nothing frustrates a player more than being told their brilliant idea is no good. Nothing creates animosity towards the DM greater than a closed door policy on new ideas or rule interpretations. A no ruling at my normal game usually results in at least one player pulling out the PHB looking for clarification on the rule. It slows things down, it’s a distraction, it’s no fun. [...] There are instances when no is the correct call, but I urge to always consider the possibilities of yes before shutting an idea down. Unless the idea is clearly absurd, learn how to say yes. It will change your gaming life."

"[...] Saying no is lazy. Learn to say yes, challenge yourself and your players to be more creative. You’ll become a better DM, your adventures will appear more compelling and your players will come back each week craving more."

"[...] If you don’t know, say yes. If you don’t care, say yes. If it makes sense, say yes. Nothing is worse than a DM who can’t make a decision on a ruling. If you find yourself in this position say yes. Your players will love you for it."

My other source for the rule of yes is an article written on the gaming blog, beneath the screen. Follow that link, read that page, and come back. We're not done here yet.

Ya' done? Good. Moving on. Next are the two final rules in the Gamer's Social Contract. These rules have existed in undefined and unwritten form for a very long time. This is my attempt to clarify and standardize them.

The Rule of Cool.

The limits of the “willing suspension of disbelief” for a given idea are directly proportional to its coolness. Remember Bellisario's Maxim: "Don't look at this too closely..." also remember the gamer's version of the MST3K Mantra: "It's just a game; I should really just relax." Whenever a DM botches things in a weird or quirky way, assume "A Wizard Did It". The best way to use the RoC, is to watch player reactions. If a sudden shift happens where everyone's mood changes for the worse, or if people are suddenly disinterested or distracted, then something very uncool has happened, or something very cool has failed to happen. Simply claim Rule of Cool, and then correct the situation using Rule 0. This is your permission, as a group, to retcon events on the fly as necessary.

The Rule of Uncool.

Games are never worth anger. If it sucks, then FUCKING stop. And I cannot stress the cursing enough. Seriously, bad play is worse than no play at all. If people are mad, sad, bored, confused, frustrated, upset, arguing, leaving, distracted, or otherwise just not into the game and having fun, then for the love of yourself and your friends, stop the stupid game, and TALK IT OUT. Calling RoU means Time Out.

And now it's time I reintroduced a piece of text from the glory days of gaming, the mid-1980's: The RPG Manifesto.

"The Role-Playing Game Manifesto is a short ideology that identifies the end-goal of tabletop role-playing gaming. The manifesto has been printed towards the beginning of numerous game publishers books, most notably smaller presses such Milan Games and Guardians of Order (the original writers of the Manifesto). The powerhouse publishers, Wizards of the Coast and World of Darkness have both used the manifesto with just one publication. Its short and poignant message rings true for many gamers, and as such it is well-beloved in the gaming community." -D&D Wiki

I have revised the wording slightly, to make the manifesto a little clearer to read, and so it stands up to time a little better. (The original made use of outmoded gamer slang, and was very narrow in its focus on D20 based tabletop RPGs.)

v  These rules are written on paper, not etched in stone tablets.

v  Rules are suggested guidelines, not required edicts.

v  If the rules don't say no, the answer is yes.

v  There are no official answers, only official opinions.

v  When dice conflict with the story, the story always wins.

v  Poor sportsmanship isn't a problem with the game; it’s a problem with the player.

v  The Game Master has full discretionary power over the game only.

v  The Game Master always works with, not against, the players.

v  A game that is not fun is no longer a game.

v  The source material contains the answers to all things.

v  If you don’t know, make it up.

I don't know why we stopped prefacing our core books with that text, but it's a damned shame. That, right there, is the spirit of what it means to be a decent role player. There is love in those words, love for you and your fellow gamers. That needs to be appreciated, taken to heart, perpetuated, and spread as far as it can go.
There was another RPG manifesto written, a little more recently, and far less known. It doesn't come across as much of a manifesto, but more of a series of "Table Rules" framing how one should behave at the gaming table. Go check them out and come back.
That was a bit of a read wasn't it? 24 points, some multiple paragraphs long. Yeah, but every letter was worth soaking in, I promise you. That page should be the doctrine of proper socialization with your fellow gamers.
And now it's story time, ladies and gentlemen. This one is a modern tragedy of sorts. It chronicles the foibles of humanity in every regard, and D&D features as its theme. This story is the root if why I am lying awake tonight writing as my aching muscles force my sleep-deprived mind to wander. Take a read.
What happened to that boy is a human nightmare. The way people reacted to it, caring more about their own agendas for some stupid game is what makes the whole thing truly miserable. To this day, even though almost every gamer knows some kid died because of D&D, almost none of us know that it had nothing to do with the hobby. That is a shameful disrespect, and the darkest mark against our community- that we are too immature to even know the truth, let alone defend ourselves or that boy's memory. It is an ongoing cruelty that we perpetuate to this day.
In recent months, I have heard stories of...
A girl who was invited to her boyfriend's D&D sessions, only to be told to sit and be quiet, to run the elf NPC, and was repeatedly mocked by the guy's friends for not understanding the game.
A guy who wanted advice on how to stop his players from killing each other all the time. Out of hundreds of conniving, twisted, manipulative, disrespectful suggestions on how to strong-arm the players into obedience, only one person said, "If the players like PvP so much, you should make a campaign based on PvP."
A kid who was kicked out of his home because he invited his gaming group to his house for one night.
A guy who ruined his gaming group by violating impartiality in favor of a girl who joined the game. She didn't ever date him, BTW.
A player who was faced with over 10 save-or-die rolls in a row for minor unjustified inconveniences, like tripping over rocks. He left the game angry. Something tells me he wasn't wanted there in the first place.
The entire Adventurer's League management team banning a core race that was explicitly built for them simply because it could fly. Upon playtesting the first 10 adventures that were made after this decision, it was found that having a flying character on your team gave no apparent advantage in any combat encounter, nor did it provide an easy resolution to any problem presented.
A table where what you say is what happens, no take-backs, not even if the dice haven't hit the board yet. No talking allowed unless it's in-character.
A DM asking advice on what to do with a group that just runs around being silly all the time. After pages of crappy advice, only one person gave an out-of-game suggestion: Just let the silly stuff slide, and only have it actually happen in-game if the players genuinely want it to happen. You don't have to take their words at face-value.
Do you know what the Gamer's Social Contract is, really? It is a very long-winded and detailed elaboration upon a single phrase:
Don't be an asshole.

I hope that picture got you a laugh. I also sincerely hope that those of you in the hobby have gained a new appreciation for your fellow gamers, and a deeper understanding of why we do this and why we love it. For those of you who don't play RPGs, I thank you for making it this far. I can only hope that these words have she'd some light on a world that is far too often shrouded in subculture-imposed mystery and secrecy. Good night everybody.

What is a Ranger?

What is a Ranger?

A Crash Course on the Ranger Character Archetype

This is a response to WotC's extended focus on the Ranger character class, and why nobody likes it.

WotC launched its second survey way back in February, where they noted that the first survey told them people are dissatisfied by the Ranger class presented in the PHB.

They then produced a Ranger variant for Unearthed Arcana in September.

In October, they opened another survey, this time focused entirely on the Ranger.

Clearly this annoys them.

I think the answer is simple, really:

People don't like your ranger class because it looks like you have no idea what it is supposed to be, or at least, what you want it to be. I think you guys painted yourselves into a corner when you made the other classes so flexible. (Which isn't an insult, so much as a compliment- the other character classes are just so good that such a thematically restricted class can't compete)

Let's do the emulation test. This is where you try and build several unique iconic characters from popular culture who symbolize a given archetype. Can you do it without the dedicated class?

1. Want to emulate Aragorn? Play a Human Fighter with feats to fill in the blanks.
2. Want to emulate Legolas? Play an Elven Rogue. Or an Elven Fighter.
3. Want to emulate Drizzt? Dark Elven Rogue+Fighter.
4. Want to emulate the Huntsman? Human Rogue.
5. Want your ranger to be more mystical? Crossclass into Druid, take the Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster archetypes, or take the Magic Initiate or Ritual Caster feats.
6. Want an animal companion? Go buy, or tame/train one. The DM's just gonna kill it ASAP anyways, why waste a perfectly good feature on something mortal that doesn't scale with your enemies or you? You're probably better off buying packs of mastiffs. (It's kind of like having extra arms equipped with short swords, except you can't fully control them all)

So, given that you can currently build a more powerful and competent "Ranger" without using a dedicated Ranger class, how does one go about building a desirable dedicated Ranger class?

Let's ask Google. Everything below is simply a compilation of text and images gathered from a google search for "Fantasy Ranger". This is just a cursory overview of the public imagination of what a Ranger is. I didn't even dig past the second page of results, and I already have a very clear understanding of what people expect out of this class.

Definition

(Let's start with the basics. What does the word actually mean?)

ranger

[reyn-jer]

noun

1. forest ranger.

2. one of a body of armed guards who patrol a region.

3. (initial capital letter) a U.S. soldier in World War II specially trained for making surprise raids and attacks in small groups.
Compare commando.

4. a soldier specially trained in the techniques of guerrilla warfare, especially in jungle terrain.

5. a person who ranges or roves.

6. (especially in Texas) a member of the state police.

7. British. a keeper of a royal forest or park.

Tolkien:

(I'm sorry. I know D&D has tried to distance itself from Tolkien since the very beginning, but as a work of fantasy that is equally influential, you kind of have no choice but being tied up with it. Tolkein's Rangers were the original inspiration for the character class, and this has been well documented. You cannot discuss or create the class without acknowledging that people will try to make Aragorn. So learn the damn history.)

In J. R. R. Tolkien's legendarium, the Rangers were two secretive, independent groups organized by the Dúnedain of the North (Arnor) and South (Gondor) in the Third Age. Like their Númenórean ancestors, they appeared to possess qualities closely attributed to the Eldar, with their keen senses and ability to understand the language of birds and beasts. They were great trackers and hardy warriors—defending their respective areas from evil forces.

The two groups of Rangers were the Rangers of the North and the Rangers of Ithilien. The two groups were unconnected to each other, though distantly related by blood. (This means Tolkien's Rangers wee actually an ethnic or cultural group; more of a race than a class)

Tolkien's Rangers (and Aragorn in particular) are the primary inspiration for the Dungeons & Dragons character class called "ranger".

Dúnedain

In J. R. R. Tolkien's legendarium, the Dúnedain /ˈduːnɛdaɪn/ (singular: Dúnadan, "man of the west") were a race of Men descended from the Númenóreans who survived the sinking of their island kingdom and came to Eriador in Middle-earth, led by Elendil and his sons, Isildur and Anárion. They are also called the Men of the West and the Men of Westernesse (direct translations of the Sindarin term). They settled mainly in Arnor and Gondor.

The Westron name for Dúnadan was simply Adûn, "westerner", but this name was seldom used. This name was reserved to those Númenóreans who were friendly to the Elves: the other, hostile survivors of the Downfall were known as the Black Númenóreans.

The Dúnedain were descended from the Elf-friends, the few Men of the First Age who sided with the Noldorin Elves in Beleriand. Their original leader was Bëor the Old, a "Vassal" of the Elf lord Finrod. His people settled in Eldar lands, and he was an ancestor of the Lord Elros, a half-Elf. In the Second age, the Valar gave them Númenor, an island-continent to live on. They later created fortress-cities along the western coasts of Middle-earth, which dominated the lesser men of these areas. In time, Númenor was drowned and a small number of the Faithful (led by Elendil) escaped the destruction.

Sauron's spirit fled from Númenor to Middle-earth, and he again raised mighty armies to challenge the new Dúnedain kingdoms, Gondor and Arnor. With the aid of Gil-galad and the Elves, Sauron was defeated, and he vanished into the wild East for many centuries. Gondor and Arnor prospered during this time.

As Sauron began to re-form and gather strength, a series of deadly plagues came from the East. These tended to strike harder in the North than the South, and caused a population decline in Arnor. The chief of the Nine Ringwraiths, known commonly as the Witch-king of Angmar, began assaulting the divided Northern Dúnedain kingdoms from a mountain stronghold (Carn Dûm). Eventually, he succeeded in destroying Arthedain, the last of the Northern kingdoms.

After the fall of Arthedain, a remnant of the northern Dúnedain became the Rangers of the North, doing what they could to keep the peace in the near-empty lands of their Fathers. The surviving Dúnedain population of Arnor retreated to the Angle south of Rivendell, while smaller populations made isolated settlements in far western Eriador.

Over the centuries, the southern Dúnedain of Gondor intermarried more and more with so-called Middle Men. Only in regions such as Dol Amroth did their bloodline remain pure. Their lifespan became shorter with each generation. Eventually, even the Kings of Gondor married non-Dúnedain women occasionally.

In the Fourth Age, the Dúnedain of Gondor and Arnor were reunited under King Aragorn II Elessar (who was also called the Dúnadan). He married Arwen, daughter of Elrond (a cousin removed by sixty-four generations) and reintroduced Elf-blood into his family line.

In addition to the Faithful, there were Dúnedain in the South who manned Númenórean garrisons at places like Umbar. Many of these folk had been turned toward evil by Sauron's teachings, and remained loyal to him after the fall of their homeland. These are referred to as the Black Númenóreans.

Tolkien's Dúnedain are superior to the other men of Middle Earth in nobility of spirit and body, although they were still capable of evil if corrupted, and tended to do more evil in such circumstances. They were tall, with dark hair, pale skin and grey eyes.

In addition, Dúnedain, especially those of high rank, possessed great wisdom and discernment, and occasional prophecy. They benefited from longer life-spans (three times the life of a regular man) than ordinary men and could retain their youth until the very end of their days. Though the reason is not fully explained in the 'Tale of the Years', one factor that almost certainly contributed to their numerical decline was an extremely low birth rate, with many couples having only one child.

Rangers of the North

In J. R. R. Tolkien's legendarium, the Rangers of the North, also known as the Dúnedain of the North, were the descendants of the Dúnedain from the lost kingdom of Arnor. Their menfolk ceaselessly patrolled the boundaries of Eriador and were by necessity skilled with the sword, bow and spear.

The Rangers were grim in life, appearance, and dress, choosing to wear rusty green and brown. The Rangers of the Grey Company (see below) were dressed in dark grey cloaks and openly wore a silver brooch shaped like a pointed star during the War of the Ring. These Rangers rode rough-haired, sturdy horses, were helmeted and carried shields. Their armament included spears and bows.

Like their distant cousins, the Rangers of Ithilien, the Rangers of the North spoke Sindarin (or some variation of it) in preference to the Common Speech. They were led by a Chieftain, whose ancestry could be traced back to Elendil and beyond, to the ancient Kings of Númenor.

During the War of the Ring, the Rangers of the North were led by Aragorn, but the northern Dúnedain were a dwindling and presumably widely scattered folk: when Halbarad received a message to gather as many of the Rangers as he could and lead them south to Aragorn’s aid, only thirty men (the Grey Company) were available at short notice for the journey. The Grey Company met up with Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli at the Fords of Isen in Rohan, and at Pelargir, along with the Dead Men of Dunharrow, they captured the ships of Umbar. The Dead Men then departed and the others continued on to fight in the Battle of the Pelennor Fields. There, Halbarad was killed. They are also mentioned as part of the army Aragorn commanded at the Battle of Morannon.

With the exception of Aragorn, the Rangers of the North are virtually omitted in Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings film series, save for a few mentions in the extended cuts. Arnor itself is mentioned only in one line in the extended edition of The Two Towers, when Aragorn explains to Éowyn that he is a "Dúnedain Ranger", of whom few remain because "the North-kingdom was destroyed". The film calls them "Dúnedain Rangers", perhaps to distinguish them from the Rangers of Ithilien, though Tolkien calls both groups Dúnedain (men of the west).

Jackson's terminology appears in some of the film's merchandise, like the computer and video games by Electronic Arts. In the game The Lord of the Rings: The Third Age there is an original Ranger character called Elegost. In another, The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II, Dúnedain Rangers are playable units, but they are like the Ithilien Rangers. Halbarad is featured in The Lord of the Rings Trading Card Game and, together with his fellow Rangers, in The Lord of the Rings Strategy Battle Game.

The role of the Rangers of the North has been greatly expanded in The Lord of the Rings Online: Shadows of Angmar, which includes numerous Dúnedain spread across the remnants of Arnor. It features several Rangers (including some created expressly for the game) as key characters in the first volume of its story. The Dúnedain in the game have at least two major permanent settlements: Esteldin near the ruins of Fornost and Tinnundir near Annúminas on the shores of Lake Evendim. When the Grey Company rides south, it consists almost entirely of named Rangers with whom players have already interacted. (Aragorn and Halbarad are the only northern Rangers named in the book.)

Rangers of Ithilien

In J. R. R. Tolkien's legendarium, the Rangers of Ithilien, also known as the Rangers of the South and Rangers of Gondor, were an elite group of the Southern Dúnedain warriors who scouted in and guarded the land of Ithilien.

The Rangers were first formed at the end of the twenty-ninth century of the Third Age by a decree of the Ruling Steward of Gondor, for Ithilien was frequently subjected to enemies from Mordor and Minas Morgul. One of their chief bases was Henneth Annûn, the Window of the Sunset.

These Rangers were descendants of those who lived in Ithilien before it was overrun and, more distantly, of the ancient Númenóreans. Like their cousins, the Rangers of the North, they were able to speak Sindarin (or some variation of it), their preferred language as opposed to the Common Speech. Their camouflaging green and brown raiment proved to be a useful asset to their secret activities, which mainly concerned crossing the Anduin to assault the Enemy in a manner much akin to guerilla warfare. They were skilled with swords and bows or spears.

During the Fourth Age, it is presumed that most of these men became a part of the White Company, the guards of Faramir, the first Prince of Ithilien.

Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings film trilogy has an original Ranger of Ithilien named Madril, played by John Bach. He serves as Faramir's lieutenant. He helps defend Osgiliath, but is fatally injured and is eventually killed by Gothmog by a spear-thrust. New Zealand actor Alistair Browning played Damrod.

The likeness of the actor who portrays Anborn was also used in the 2006 EA video game The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II as the portrait of the Men of the West's worker unit, and the Ithilien Rangers are playable archer-like units.

What Wikipedia Has to Say:

(Shockingly, they have a lot to say on this! You should read every section but the one about D&D Rangers. You already know what the Ranger has been in the past, and that basically nobody likes it. Look at what other games and works of fiction have done with the ranger. This is what your game has inspired. This is the public imagination, and it is much bigger than any single edition of D&D. Learn from your descendents.)

A Ranger (also known as Hunter, Archer, Scout, or Tracker) is an archetype found in many fantasy fiction and role-playing games.

Rangers are usually associated with the wisdom of nature. Rangers tend to be wise, cunning, and perceptive in addition to being skilled woodsmen. Many are skilled in stealth, wilderness survival, beast-mastery, herbalism, and tracking. Archery and (often dual-wielding) swordplay are common to rangers, though there are many instances where rangers use a variety of weapons, skills, and sometimes magic or have a resistance to magic.

Ranger skills in books and games can include and are not limited to:

• Skilled with the bow, usually because they use them so often for the hunting of wild animals.
• They tend to be well versed in other forms of combat however, most notably dual-wielding short swords or long knives, although rangers prefer using ranged weapons, and their melee combat abilities often pale in comparison to other character classes such as a warrior or barbarian.
• Throwing knives
• Stealth
• Climbing
• Detecting or laying traps
• Taming, calming or charming animals
• Tracking and leaving no trail to be tracked
• Knowledge of herbs for medical and poisonous uses
• The art of healing (magical or medical) due to their self-reliance
• Land and nature related magic and enchantments or the ability to recognize them or resistance to them
• Ability to move quickly through the forests due to them living amongst them
• Skilled in speaking the language of all creatures.
• Skilled in training wild animals.

In Dungeons & Dragons, rangers typically worship a nature god or goddess, and they take a role similar to druids by protecting nature and slaying foul creatures. Rangers gain offensive bonuses against certain creatures through the choosing of a "Favored Enemy" (such as giants, dragons or undead). They may also gain defensive bonuses within certain terrains through the choosing of a "Favored Environment" (such as Desert, Forest or Urban) that stacks with their "Favored Enemy"; this further illustrates their cunning. In addition, rangers have access to divine magic and an animal companion to aid them in battle.

Rangers tend to prefer the company of fellow rangers. They are extensively trained. However, good rangers will often act as the guardians of others - whether appreciated or not - by repelling "evil" forces and protecting the weak.

Some noteworthy fictional rangers are Drizzt Do'Urden and Hank in the Dungeons and Dragons Cartoon.

Rangers have appeared as in various Final Fantasy games, including the MMORPG Final Fantasy XI. Rangers have also appeared in one form or another in other Final Fantasy games often called Archer or Hunter. In Final Fantasy Tactics Advance Hunter is an upgraded class of the basic class, Archer.

Rangers in Guild Wars are sleek looking individuals who primarily use bows, but are allowed to use some of the game's other weapons such as swords, axes, spears. The headgear of rangers is a mask shielding the face (similar to the appearance of "Old West" robbers). Rangers can tame pets, summon nature spirits, set traps, command beasts, use a variety of combat "stances" to evade attacks or run faster, and use powerful marksmanship skills. The ranger class worships Melandru, the Goddess of Earth and Nature. Rangers wear medium armor (higher than spellcaster classes, lower than warriors) and the highest elemental defense in the game.

In the Guild Battle portion of Guild Wars Player versus player rangers are known for their survivability and effectiveness as solo characters, often acting separately from the rest of the team, reflecting the hardy and cunning nature of a ranger.

Rangers in Dark Age of Camelot are an archer class in the realm of Hibernia. The races of Elves, Lurikeen, Celt, and Shar may become rangers. The differ from the archer class of the other realms in that they wield two weapons instead of a sword and shield, or a large spear. The weapon of choice for a Dark Age of Camelot Ranger is the Recurve Bow. Like all archers, they employ spells to augment their abilities as bowmen, and are adept at stealth.

In Fire Emblem units of the Archer class can wield only bows, allowing them to attack most enemy units without receiving a counterattack, but at the same time preventing them from counterattacking enemies who manage to close to melee range. Hunter is a similar class with lower defensive stats, but the ability to move through forest terrain without being slowed. The Hunter's promoted form Horseman is a cavalry unit which can equip both swords and bows, making them extremely flexible; in addition they usually lack some of the normal weaknesses of mounted units, such as vulnerability to anti-cavalry weapons and inability to pass through rough terrain. In some games the Horseman class is instead known as Ranger, and can be promoted from both Mercenary (a balanced class specialising in two-handed swords) and Archer.

In Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance the protagonist Ike's initial class is named Ranger, but is otherwise identical to the Mercenary class described above.

The rangers in Heroes of Might and Magic, as usual, were a ranged class (their special class ability was a slight bonus to their ranged skills.) However, they were notable for not having any connection to nature, only to pathfinding, and for being an advanced class of either the barbarian or the thief (neither of which normally become rangers.)

Although there are not definitive classes in RuneScape, Rangers are characters who have decided to invest most of their resources in the Ranged skill and its associated equipment, increasing their ability with bows, crossbows, throwing knives, and all of the games ranged weapons. They show none of the regular attunement to nature and animals, being primarily a distance attacker, though certain items allow the traditional usage of poisons. Like many other Rangers, RuneScape Rangers use lighter, leather armour, placing their defensive ability somewhere between the low-armour magical classes and the high-armour melee classes, Though during PVP they are known to wear Heavy armour helmets and legs if their defence level allows it. A Ranger may also invest in the Mage skill so that they may use restricting spells that can hold the opponent in place while the caster attacks from a distance with Ranged.

In Maplestory the ranger is a third advancement from the bowman base class. Rangers specialize in bows and rapid attacks in contrast to their cousin, the sniper, who specializes with crossbows and power. Although there is not a clear affinity for nature, both Rangers and Snipers can summon a silver hawk and golden eagle respectively, that can aid their caller in battle by stunning a nearby monster.

"Ranger" is a character class in NetHack. Rangers can become skilled or expert with many thrown or fired weapons such as spears, bows, and daggers. Rangers enjoy the ability to be able to skillfully cast "Divination" spells that help them discover monsters, identify objects, map areas, etc. Orcs, Elves, Gnomes and Humans can play ranger, the alignments available to this class are neutral and chaotic.

"Ranger" is a Class in the role-playing game Dragonfable. Zhoom, the master Ranger, is the main NPC in the town the Sandsea. You must complete Zhoom's Quest, The Hard Way, to unlock the armor. The Rangers of DragonFable are described by Zhoom as moving from place to place and calling no one place home. All Rangers have different codes of honor, but they live and die by that code. Zhoom also states that, "Rangers serve no king." Rangers have an affinity for nature as well, and each have an animal that they consider a partner and seen to share a spiritual connection with. Zhoom has a PrideLord named Zixcy, but he teaches the player character Falconry after the player completes the Hudson's Hawk Quest.

In order to Level Up this Class, the player needs to give Zhoom three Ancient Treasures, which can be obtained by completing various Quests throughout the Sandsea. The Class armor consists of leather armor, leather boots, and leather gloves with cloth pants. It carries a bow and arrows, a knife, and the player's equipped weapon, which is displayed hanging from the waist of the armor. While the Ranger's default attack is Melee, most of its attacking Skills involve Ranged damage. Its Skills involve enchanting arrows to cause flashbang and poison effects, using multiple arrows to attack, and using multi-hit attacks that can involve both Melee and Ranged attacks.

In Scions of Fate the Ranger is a slow attacking warrior that uses arrows to attack from far distances. He has relatively low health and defence ability. However he has a very high dodging ability and attack power. The class is not actually called "Ranger". The cycle goes Novice Bowman - Bowman - Silent Strider - Swift Ranger. This class can only be accessed if the Order Faction is selected.

The Ranger of Norrath is a cousin of the Druid, though one that specialises in melee as opposed to magical combat. They are usually referred to as Guardians or Wardens of Nature and many have similar beliefs and principles to Druids; though as their equipment often requires repairs and periodic replacing Rangers tend to be more comfortable socially than their spell casting counterpart. They do still have a similar ability to call upon spirits (of nature) and unseen forces but it is much more limited in its power, as such they are extensively trained in many weapon types and combat abilities, usually to a far greater level of proficiency than any Druid would be expected to reach.

A Rangers combat training focuses on offensive skills, with the defensive side left to an individuals cunning and agility. Many of a Rangers spells can either be used at a distance or allow the Ranger to fight outside their opponents range, archery is one of a Rangers primary weapon skills and when mastered becomes one of the most powerful weapons available to them. Rangers can also slow movement, 'root' a target to the ground and when fighting animals make them flee in fear. They gain some of the Druid 'blast' spells and can transform into a wolf when they reach the required level of power.

While defensively limited, a Ranger does have some defensive boons including the capability to wear chain armour. Their armour class and hit points can be magically raised and they can cast a shield which harms their opponent when they strike the Ranger. In addition Rangers can reduce aggression and 'lull' creatures enough that they wouldn't attack when approached, giving enough distraction to pick groups of them off one by one. Along with the best tracking ability of any profession this means Rangers are often considered the masters of hunting, commonly taking responsibility for scouting ahead or choosing suitable 'prey' for a party.

A Hunter of WoW is a ranger character class that has an animal companion and employs firearms.

Rangers are a Scout Class in the Live action role-playing game, The Vorydian Chronicles. They are more combat oriented than the other two Scout Classes, Rogue or Spy, in order to better survive the wilderness on one's own. Rangers are specialize in wooded environments, able to slip past animals and carnivorous plants unnoticed, track, camouflage one's self, and they are given the ability to dual-wield swords, in addition to the existing Scout Fighting Styles. Their combat skills are generally centered on Marksman (archery and thrown weapons) and gladiator (dual-swords), and they receive fighting style proficiencies, as well as Expert Flanking proficiencies. Defensively, Rangers receive Vaea boosts to their hit points, as well as a threshold soak, up to two chosen element types to take minimal from, and immunity to a poison of choice. At the highest common rank, a Ranger may receive a Spirit Animal. Rangers may achieve any one of the Exemplar lists: Stalker, Ghost, Sniper, or Bounty Hunter.

A young adult fantasy book series based in medieval times revolves around Rangers. They are the "police" of the country and widely feared. Normal people consider them sorcerers of the black arts, but the rangers of Rangers Apprentice do not associate with magic. There are fifty active rangers in the Ranger's corps and all of them are skilled bowmen, trackers, knife fighters and throwers, and are masters in unseen and unheard movements. Only one ranger in the corps, Gilian, knows how to fight with a sword. Every ranger, and any apprentice to a ranger, has their own horse. The horse they have is specially bred and trained to travel for long distances at fast speeds. These horses all have a sort of "password" needed to ride. If a person attempts to ride on the horse and they do not know the password then the horse throws them off. This word is only needed to be spoken into the horse's ear the first time someone attempts to ride. (OMFG, THAT IS SO COOL.) Each certified ranger is required to protect and deal with trouble and laws in their fief, which is similar to a county. The series bases itself around a young orphan named Will who becomes apprentice to a high ranking ranger named Halt. By book five Will completes his apprenticeship and is a certified ranger and is called upon to go on missions. Most of the time on these missions he is accompanied with Horace, a knight who grew up with Will in the orphanage, and Halt.

Rangers in the MMORPG Midgard Rising are masters of Curbing beasts. Curbing is the term used to described taming combat pets. The Ranger and pet are a force to be reconned with in the World of Midgard (WoM). The ranger has a full compliment of ranged skills to choose from. They have a multitude of ranged weapons to choose from including various assortments of bows, guns, and crossbows. The ranger is not limited to ranged weapons; they are just as effective in melee combat as well with the use of varying axes, daggers, and claws. The rangers can melee with two handed weapons or are just as at ease dual wielding as well. Rangers have a large arsenal of skills at their disposal; with skills revolving around tracking, scouting, setting snares, and the use of their combat pets, the rangers are always well equipped. The rangers of WoM are able to wear cloth, leather, or mail armour.The ranger is just as at home in a full party of other players providing ranged or melee dps, or crowd control as they are running solo with their trusty pet companions. They are sort of a Jack of all trades class.

(If you're going to restrict the usage of an animal companion, at least make it halfway decent.)

What TV Tropes Has to Say

(If you want to know anything about pop culture, hit up TV tropes. It is the most awesome kind of horrible.)

No, we aren't talking about the kind fellow at the national park who wears the snazzy uniform.
We're talking about the forest-dwelling recluse who serves as a self-appointed guardian for their ancient and enchanted home. They may wear green in an attempt to blend in to their forest surroundings. They guard their forest with their bow slung across their back, and would rather take your hat off with an arrow than post a polite notice to please put out your campfire before you leave. In a fantasy setting, expect at least one elf to be this trope.

The Forest Ranger may also be a Nature Hero and have similar associating tropes, however, the Forest Ranger is not a hero and may be a member of a large group of forest dwellers, such as elven city, or even be guard to such a city.

The Ranger Class: Other Names: Hunter. Rangers are woodsmen skilled at surviving in the wild. They may be lumped in with Fighters or Rogues (above) but more often than not are a separate tree of classes all their own. Archery is generally their favored skill, although most can fall back on swordplay if necessary. Rangers may also be skilled in some form of wilderness or nature magic. They may be very good at fighting a specific type of enemy, and often take on the role of The Hunter against such foes. Rarely, a Ranger may have access to guns as well as bows.

The Sniper Ranger: This version is totally reliant on archery, but usually does higher damage because of it. May have a variety of status-inflicting arrows to slow or otherwise annoy enemies. Keeps to the back of a battle.

The Archer is a skilled bowman. They're generally independent and used to working alone. This tends to make them practical, a little haughty or arrogant and not the best at following orders especially from those they don't respect. The archer is generally stealthy and graceful and tends to fight at a distance. As a result, they're often portrayed as vulnerable up close unless they switch to a different weapon for close combat.

The archer is most likely to be found in a wild setting and can share traits with the Cold Sniper, most notably an analytical and calculating nature. This archetype tends to be depicted as having a more slender build despite the great upper-body strength required to draw a powerful bow without mechanical assistance. The character is likely to also be The Chick, a Nature Hero, a Forest Ranger, and/or an Elf. This also has the benefit of keeping the delicate female safely out of the bone-crunching melee.

The Pinned to the Wall trope is a common enough tactic by this archetype in comics. Most notably, Hawkeye and Green Arrow.

The Bow and Blade Ranger: A version of the ranger that can handle bladed weapons as well, allowing them to defend themselves against approaching enemies or close in for the kill. The most likely Ranger to overlap with the Fighter archetype.

A character who wields both a bow and sword (this includes crossbows). This is quite common in fiction for a number of reasons:

It makes tactical sense. Even the toughest swordsman or most accurate archer will find their weapons useless when fighting at the wrong range.

It looks damn cool.

It gives the author another tool for their hero to use, allowing for easier writing during action sequences.
Besides these more down-to-earth or aesthetic reasons, using a bow and sword competently takes a lot of training and time; it can symbolise dedication, co-ordination, flexibility of character and perhaps even a certain kind of intelligence. It's certainly the mark of a wary, well prepared character; if you're this well prepared you're either naturally thorough in preparing for circumstances or have been taught the value of said preparations by experience. Characters like this are often royalty or nobility in reduced circumstances; the combination of a bow, a relatively humble weapon, beside a sword or other heraldric arm, a sign of high birth. It might also be a character from a humble background who has come into a more heroic, important role in life.

It can also signify that this character, for all his noble bloodlines, is an amoral person. Be wary of sword and crossbow combinations in particular.

Characters armed this way tend to be rather lightly armoured. This may of course be due to the fact that most archers are lightly armored. (When was the last time you saw or read about a hero in full plate using a bow?) For some reason, the archer element seems to dominate. They tend to either be extremely agile or wily and cunning in order to make up for it. This does make some sense, given that the more weapons you carry, the less weight you can devote to armor.

Of course, it's rather difficult to wield both a bow and a sword at the same time (though some characters with crossbows small enough to be fired one-handed manage) unless you've got more than two hands. The favoured technique for this style is typically to shoot foes with arrows from a distance, and then draw the sword once they get too close for comfort.

The Dual Wielding Ranger: The Dual Wielding Ranger most famously represented by the famed Drow ranger Drizzt Do'Urden, who uses two melee weapons, though it does predate him by quite some time. Very common in Dungeons & Dragons-based material, but less so elsewhere.

This trope refers to wielding two weapons at once. After all, if one weapon is good, then two weapons must be twice as good. The tactics can vary widely. A character might be concerned only with offence, and therefore decides that he wants to kill with both hands rather than just one. More tactical characters might typically use their off-handed weapon for blocking or tricky counter-attacks. Game mechanics often grant additional attacks to characters with two weapons.

The types of weapons used can also be diverse. If the character has one hand dominant, he might wield a long weapon in one hand and a shorter weapon in his off-hand, such as a classic rapier and dagger pairing. Two small weapons is also pretty common, with the idea that smaller, nimbler weapons won't get tangled up with each other. However, some characters will dual-wield long weapons, such as swords or axes, which is generally portrayed as quite a feat. Mary Sue and Munchkin characters stereotypically wield two katanas. A Bifurcated Weapon might allow the character to switch between one- and two-weapon styles on the fly. On the extreme end of the scale, a character might wield a One-Handed Zweihänder in each hand!

Whatever the weapon, you'll probably see a lot of Flynning and Slice-and-Dice Swordsmanship in the choreography. Two crossed weapons are also perfect for a Blade Lock.

Dual wielding appears in various Real Life cultures and combat styles, but it tends to be over-represented in fiction because it's... well... cool.

The Beastmaster Ranger: This class specializes in either taking temporary or permanent control of wild animals, and then allowing their pet to rush to the front lines while they support with healing and long-range attacks.

A type of character who uses the assistance of an animal, force of nature, or just some sort of not-highly-sentient creature (with free will) to help them fight.

There are a few variations to this:

A) The creature in question has befriended the Beastmaster with a lifelong bond, and is always by his/her side, constantly ready for combat and play.

B) The Beastmaster can convince, cajole, or outright force a critter/creature to fight with them via some type of influence or power. Sometimes he is also a Nature Hero.

C) The beast being used is actually mystical in nature, such as an elemental or spirit, typically requiring a pact; and is normally called with magic.

D) The ally is artificial in nature, normally constructed by the master. Is either a Robot Buddy (a Robot Master), or a puppet controlled by either magic or plain-old strings (a Marionette Master).

E) The Beastmaster can grunt and squeak and squawk with the animals or telepathy and convince them or request for them to help. (AQUAMAN!)

F) The Beastmaster can see through the eyes of animals and maybe even control it from the inside with a form of mind control.

In video games, the Beastmaster either has complete control over their ally, an ally that follows the "Monkey-see, monkey-do" mentality and follows the master's actions, or the ally just does what it wants in range of its master. As the AI isn't always very good at doing actions that don't kill everyone, the playerbase may regard the job as unpopular. This will normally not be the case in other forms of fiction, as no computer is directing the ally's actions, that's now the plot's job.

Due to the fact that the ally is, at best, another damage dealer/damage taker, Beastmasters are generally able to do things on their own in an MMORPG environment.

The Trapper Ranger: The Trapper is a character who can lay down various traps in an area that the enemy can walk into, making them vulnerable to ambushes or follow-up attacks.

The Magical Ranger: A version of the ranger who can uses enchanted or Trick Arrow to take advantage of Elemental Rock-Paper-Scissors, or slow down and disable enemies with "net arrows" or "freezing arrows" and the like.

So You Want to Be a Ranger?

By Nemo of Calh

(Read this. It doesn't say anything about what a ranger is mechanically, but it gives us something very useful- a deep look into the mind of someone who has spent the better part of a decade living as one)

I have been playing a Ranger in Dagorhir for seven years.  I have been told in the more recent of those years that I have very good Ranger gear, but it was not always that way.  I did not enter into Dagorhir looking as if I stepped out of a movie; it took me five years to refine my garb to the point that, looking back on it, I can at least be satisfied with it now.  Even in the years since, I have not stopped improving my Ranger gear, and I am at the point now where I feel as if, given the right skills, I could live as a Ranger in a fantasy world.

I say this because I want new people to understand that they won't look like me immediately.  It takes years of time, thought and money to develop a well thought out set of gear that blends with a flushed out character.  I hope that the advice I can give in this thread will help Dagorhirrim both old and new who want to portray a Ranger to think in new directions.  I never stop improving my gear, and there is no reason anyone else needs to.

Some of you may have noticed already that I have made a distinction.  For me, "garb" and "gear" are two separate yet overlapping concepts that are both essential to looking like a Ranger.  Garb is what most people think of.  It's just the clothing a Ranger wears.  Gear, on the other hand, is everything from weapons and tools to belts, quivers and even tents.  Some garb items--such as a cloak or a wool doublet--are both Garb and Gear. I say both are essential for portraying a Ranger because of what a Ranger does: he ranges.  Ranging is "mov[ing] around or through a region in all directions," or "rov[ing], roam[ing] or wander[ing]".  More than (to use Dungeons and Dragons terms) a fighter, a rogue, or a bard, Rangers have to travel as much as fight.  As such, a Ranger's gear is as important to his appearance as his garb.

This article will be broken up into three sections, each of which is equally important to the creation of a Ranger's garb and gear.  Being more versatile than many other types of characters--fighting at close and long range, as well as sneaking--Rangers often work alone.  As such, they need to be self-sufficient.  This includes not only often working without the aid of other people, but without the aid of a cart or even a horse--should a fight go poorly, it would work against a Ranger to have to defend something other than himself.  It would be better, instead, to run and live to fight another day.  A Ranger is at one with his environment, so he would disappear and defeat his foes from afar if he could not fight them head-on.  Thus, the three aspects that I feel determine the garb and gear of a Ranger are stealth, combat and travel.

Stealth

Stealth comes first because it determines the base layers of a Ranger's appearance--his garb.  In modern times, we have camouflage, but most fantasy cultures would not have such.  Instead, those wishing to portray Rangers have to make their own, more basic camouflage clothing.  This does not mean "wear green" as most people would immediately assume.  The forest is not exclusively green, nor is it a uniform green where it is.  Ranger garb should contain some green, but it should predominantly be browns and greys.

Equally as important as the coloring of a Ranger's garb is its silhouette.  Modern camouflage is not only designed to blend in with the colors of its environment, but to break up its wearer's silhouette.  An enemy scanning the trees looking for a Ranger will be looking for a human shape, but if no colors draw his eye, and the patterning of the Ranger's silhouette does not appear immediately human, he will overlook the Ranger.

Animals in the wild do this as well.  Deer, for example, are darker on the top and lighter on the bottom, and this helps to break up their outline and make them more difficult to see for predators.

For this reason, what I recommend for garb are loose garments.

I made the mistake early on of thinking the newbish "black=stealth!" when I bought my most expensive garments.  I should have gone with grey instead.  Nevertheless, wearing this gear during the woods battle last Rag, I was able to successfully hide five feet away from a group of four people who were all looking for a fight.  By crouching and standing absolutely still, I was able to use the patterning of my garb to hide myself.  If some people in the camp I was defending had not charged the group I was watching and had instead let them advance, I would have stayed hidden and been able to come in behind them when the two groups engaged (as it stands, I was forced to try to shoot one of them through the branches of a tree, the arrow bounced off, I killed one of them with my dagger when he rushed me, and I was double teamed by two others and killed).

Wear long vests, a hood, and a cloak.  The cloak is the most important piece of equipment in a Ranger's gear.  Not only does it break up the Ranger's silhouette, but it is an important piece of travel equipment (more on that later).  Wear multiple layers in various shades.  Make sure that there are as few solid colors as possible showing.  There are no straight lines in nature--why should you have any?  My doublet is brown, but only the sleeves show under the black long vest, and there is brown over top of that.  Having no solid colors next to each other will make you appear less human, and thus will allow you to blend into the forest better.

Quote from: Fayne Erving
One thing you didn't stress a lot of importance on is the hood. It also serves to sell the fantasy ranger look, but more importantly, it keeps the sun off the face, the rain off the neck, the wind out of the ears, and helps with stealth! When I used to be in a paintball league, our unit leader taught us when hiding in the woods from enemy units, don't stare directly at them, even if they don't know where you are. Subconsciously, people pick up when someone is staring at them. But if you lower your head a bit, look off to the side and only watch them with your eyes, not your face, their subconscious is much less likely to clue in. A hood does the exact same thing for you. It hides your face, obscuring your (in my case, pasty white basement) skin. If you notice, the first picture Nemo posted is a great example. At first, I thought he was looking at the ground, and my subconscious wouldn't think twice about it. But upon closer inspection, you can see he has one eye trained on the viewer. A ranger without a hood, or at the very least a hat, is like an elf without ears.

Combat

I will freely admit that I am not the best fighter on the Dag field, so my advice is not on the best weapon combo to use to win, but the best equipment to carry to appear to be a Ranger.  As I said, Rangers travel often, and they have limited carrying space.  Thus, every weapon a Ranger carries should be a multi-tool.

The bow is, in my opinion, the most important tool in the Ranger's arsenal.  It allows him to silently attack from hiding, constantly harassing his foes until every one of them is dead.  Using a bow, a Ranger could kill any number of men without being seen or heard.  It serves both as a weapon and a hunting tool.  Rangers can use meat from their prey to eat, they can use its hide to patch their clothing, they can use its bones as tools, and they can trade any part of it for much needed coin on their journeys.  I prefer a shorter bow that can be used in dense woods, covered in leather to blend in, but longbows have a storied tradition among Rangers.  Rangers should carry as many arrows as they comfortably can.  Some can be reused after a fight, but many are likely to break, so it is important to have spares.

Melee weapons should be light and compact.  In Tolkien's universe, Rangers carried swords and spears, and Dungeons and Dragons Rangers specialize equally in dual wielding long weapons, but I do not believe that swords are the best weapons for a Ranger to carry with him always.  They are long and heavy, and they can get in the way.  Carrying two compounds the problem.  Everyone is perfectly welcome to carry a sword if they want to, but, in my opinion, the perfect weapon combination for a Ranger is a tomahawk (Otherwise known as the handaxe, the single only verifiably broken weapon in 5e) and a dagger.

Quote from: Fayne Erving
I agree that a ranger's weapons should double as tools, and that carrying a dedicated weapon increases encumbrance, but you did mention if a ranger carries a dedicated weapon, it should be easy to maintain. My ranger is part of the Order, which is essentially a guerrilla-tactic, underground good guy group. As such I change my ranger style just a tad bit. Fayne carries a two handed sword because a single, long blade is easier to maintain when you're far from home base than a sword and a shield or even two swords, and a two-hander is devastating in the right hands. My point is I feel your ranger is more focused on stealth and travel. If anyone reading this is an aspiring ranger, it's perfectly acceptable to focus your ranger on other parts of the trifecta, as long as you don't forgo parts either. It's quite ok to focus on travel and combat, as my ranger is, but also note my garb/gear is stealthy too.

Tomahawks are perfect weapons and multi-tools.  They are light and compact.  If they have a hammer head on the back like mine, they can be used for cutting attacks against unarmored targets or bludgeoning attacks against armored foes.  They have no less reach than a mace, yet they are also balanced enough to be thrown, and can have a devastating effect whether or not they "stick."  They are easy to sharpen, yet the weight in their head makes them nearly as effective blunt as they are sharp.  As I will discuss in the Travel section, they are essential tools as well.

When paired with a dagger, the combination is even more devastating.  Both are small and light.  The dagger can attack faster than the tomahawk, and, since it is not being used as a tool, it can be kept razor sharp until it is needed.  A hunting knife can be substituted as well, should the Ranger want to carry no single-purpose items like a dedicated weapon.

I have found, however, that this combination works poorly in Dagorhir. Combat in Dagorhir takes place over much greater range than it would in real life, and it is not as necessary to commit to attacks.  Thus, short weapons like the tomahawk and dagger are difficult to use alone.  Should combat be more important to a new Ranger than characterization, or the Ranger does not mind the extra burden of a sword, then a long one handed sword or a short two handed sword would likely be a better choice.

Again, as Rangers travel more than other types of characters, armor is most often a poor choice.  I am of the opinion that, if armor does not feel or act like real armor, it should not be worn.  Thus, soft leather armors that most people picture Rangers as wearing are an affront to my eyes.  If a new Ranger is trying to look the part of a real Ranger, they will stay away from "larp armor."  Hardened leather armor can work with a Ranger look, but even that restricts movement and adds additional weight that serves only one purpose.  For the sake of saving energy on the countless miles a Ranger will be walking, he will likely forgo armor in favor of stealth and agility.

Quote from: Fayne Erving
I would venture to say a ranger should never wear soft leather larp armor. Unhardened leather, even setting aside its crappy protection and ahistorical significance, does one thing no ranger ever wants: squeaks. It squeaks when you breath, when you walk, when you blink. I've taken off larp armor and set it in my tent, only to be woken up by its vengeful squeaking late in the night. Hardened leather, however, does provide a bit of protection and if it's wax hardened, easily slides without sound. It also only makes sounds when it's hit.

At the same time, any garb and worn gear should be very comfortable to wear and not restricting in any way.  Rangers fight as much as they travel, and restrictive clothing would be a detriment to both.

Travel

The last need for a Ranger in defining his look is the ability to travel.  This aspect is what separates a great Ranger kit from a mediocre Ranger kit.

Personally, I wear the entirety of my gear with me at all times.  This means that, when I am on the battlefield, I am carrying everything I would need to set up camp and survive in the wilderness.  To me, this is essential to being a Ranger, as the Ranger's side could lose a fight, forcing him to flee into the wilderness.  A fighter with a cart full of equipment in camp will be lost without it once the enemy takes it, but a Ranger with his gear on his back will be right at home.  Other opinions may differ, and I am not saying that a Ranger kit cannot be good without pounds of gear on the Ranger's back, but nothing screams "Ranger!" like the look of self-reliance.

With careful planning, it is possible to have all of this equipment on comfortably and not lose significant effectiveness while fighting.  For example, I wear a two part cloak.  The inner layer can be separated from the outer layer and used as a blanket, while the outer layer can be used as a small shelter if it is needed.  Rather than carrying one large pack that move my center of gravity backward, I distribute my gear among many pouches so that, not only is the weight more evenly distributed, but I can easily get any item I need quickly without removing a pack.

The important thing is to learn how to be comfortable with very little.  I only carry one change of clothes that fits in a pouch at the back of my belt (which doubles as a pillow!).  I use my long vest as a ground cloth.  I carry light trail foods.  This past Ragnarok, the only extra things I brought with me were a couple of cans of meat (to simulate hunting), my Dag weapons, a sleeping pad, and a tent in case of emergencies and to store everything out of sight.  I lived for a week with only the items I brought in on my back, and it was not difficult.  I did have portions of some meals my unit made and I bought one or two meals from vendors, but this would not be out of the question for a Ranger on the move.

Everything a Ranger carries should have multiple purposes.  I do not carry a large dedicated weapon because I have my tomahawk, which can not only be used as a weapon but also to hammer tent stakes, split firewood, and even climb trees.  My Cloak doubles as a blanket and a shelter.  My long vest doubles as a ground cloth.  My clothing pouch doubles as a pillow.  Even my garb serves an additional purpose besides looking good and hiding me in the woods.  The linen and wool doublet regulates my body temperature in hot and cold.  The long vest and my boots protect my legs from thorns.  Thought and planning can turn Ranger garb from the mediocre "it looks good," to the amazing "it feels real."

The ideal materials for Ranger garb are leather and a combination of linen and wool.  Linen and wool do an amazing job of regulating body temperature, and leather is very durable and provides protection against light damage such as thorns or abrasions.

Conclusion

The strength of a Ranger is versatility.  He should be able to hide, fight, and travel equally as well.  As such, if you are planning a Ranger character, think hard about every item you add to your kit.  It cannot serve only one purpose.  It cannot stand out in a forest.  It cannot hamper you in a fight.  Though seven years of refining my garb, I have found a balance where I can hide, fight and travel equally, and that, more than the physical appearance of my gear, is what has made me look like a Ranger.  You will not become a great looking Ranger overnight.  It takes work.  Whether you buy your gear or make it, you will need to strongly consider every addition and how it will affect stealth, combat and travel.

I wish you luck, fellow Rangers.  Good hunting.