The Campaign Builder's Guild

As always happens when I'm about to begin a new campaign, the builder in me has to muck with things. Ever since 4E came out, the Ranger has been a thorn in my side. Something always seemed odd about it. First it was that the designers didn't take the opportunity to make the Ranger into a Martial Controller, or that they didn't include a Martial Controller at all. I thought the Rogue and the Ranger had considerable overlap; both classes could (in older editions) perform the role of sneaky ambush fighter or sniper. Now the rogue is limited to daggers, shuriken, slings, and crossbows for ranged combat.

When the PHB2 came out and the primal power source was revealed, I became irritated that the Ranger wasn't a primal class. To me, woodsmen should be primal, just like knights became divine paladins instead of just fighters. Live your life in the woods and become a part of it sounds pretty primal to me.

So I wanted to discuss with the other builders here their thoughts on the woodsman and archer archetypes within the confines of a class system with power sources. Do you feel that the woodsman should be in the same vein as the druid? If the barbarian gets to be primal, then why not the ranger? But if the ranger is primal, then where do martial archers go?

I know many of you aren't with D&D anymore, and/or don't like class systems. Consider this a gaming exercise then.

The selfish angle is that I'm looking into how to construct an Archer class for 4E D&D. At first it began as a way of working on how to turn the Ranger into a controller instead of a striker, which could still be the angle I take, but I'm exploring all of my options. I can either design an Archer from the ground up (with three builds: a sharpshooter with single target effects with heavy control; a quick shooter with multi target effects and area control; and a thrown weapon specialist), or I can rework the Ranger.

I wanted to see whether the group thought the Ranger/woodsman archetype was more primal or martial in a world where knights are divine, barbarians are primal, and monks are psionic. Would something be lost (that the rogue can't fix) if the hunter/woodsman archetype was removed from martial?

I always figured the Ranger as a pretty primal kind of character.  I don't really get why he's been associated so strongly with archery, really - after all, the original Ranger (Aragorn) is essentially a swordsman with woodcraft and healing skills.  Legolas is the archer of the group, whose skills are much more fighter-like, even if he eschews heavy armor (it's mentioned that only Gimli wears anything more than light armor at all though, other than Frodo's mithril; even Boromir skips the heavy stuff, and he seems to be the quintessential strongman fighter-type).

There's a great Archer class in Iron Heroes, though that one's built for 3.5 rather than 4E.  Frankly, though, I always figured that the best archer would be a fighter who specialized in ranged combat feats.

The ranger's tricky. He is the main archer character, but unlike the fighter which is generally associated with melee, the ranger is weighed down by alot of fluff. He is a woodsman with his quarry and things like that. This isn't necessarily bad, but since the fluff mixes with the crunch it makes it more difficult to come up with original ways to use the ranger.

Couldn't you just have a fighter who is good with the bow? Or can you not do that in 4E?

And i'd say giving the ranger the primal power source wouldn't hurt.

In 4E, characters are distinguished by power source and role. The fighter is a martial (power comes from intense training) defender (tank, keeps enemies focused on him instead of the rest of the party). So far, all defenders are primarily melee (though a couple have a handful of short-range ranged attacks). Fighters, though, have nothing ranged, nor do I think a defender could really be ranged.

Listening to you two, I'm leaning to thinking that there needs to be a martial archer character without the fluff "baggage" of the ranger. The ranger's fluff screams nothing but primal (to me at least), and I've been currious of the slow drifting of the ranger away from the druid and towards the rogue.

While I can certainly see an argument for ranger being primal, I'd like to pose a counterargument because I don't see this as one sided.

A ranger would likely serve as a scout for an army or freelance, or a tracker. Either way, though his job requires him to work in the wild, that doesn't necessarily mean he draws power from it anymore than a rogue's power source is urban sprawl. In truth, most adventurers probably spend more time in the wild than in cities, at least in standard D&D games.

Contrast with the barbarian, who not only lives in the wild, but likely worships its spirits. His powers are all about invoking that animal savagery. A ranger, as I imagine it, uses a bow or sword for precise kills. And fighting with tactics and skill rather than blind rage seems the essence of martial training.

QuoteIn 4E, characters are distinguished by power source and role. The fighter is a martial (power comes from intense training) defender (tank, keeps enemies focused on him instead of the rest of the party). So far, all defenders are primarily melee (though a couple have a handful of short-range ranged attacks). Fighters, though, have nothing ranged, nor do I think a defender could really be ranged.

Agreed. I think being ranged would almost defeat the point of a defender, who should be between the enemy and his charges.


I think a class dedicated solely to archery would be very limited compared to other classes. Consider, even bard has an archery tree, but it can do other stuff as well. Sure, you might have a soldier specialized in archery, but that doesn't necessarily translate well as an interesting PC class. Though the variant builds in the second post do sound neat.

My 2cp, anyway.

I'd imagine an archer-based class would likely also function as a scout type as well.  What about a class that combined some of the swift movement skills of the barbarian with excellent archery abilities and some "living off the land" (as opposed to "primal power") stuff thrown in?  Not so much a primal protector or champion of nature as a savvy, stealthy sniper/archer able to move quickly and effectively over rough terrain, pitted against nature rather than drawing power from it?

I think the reason given for dropping the scout class was because ranger replaced it. Which works for me, as I always so ranger as the scout in the truest sense.

The Seeker is a Primal Controller that focuses on ranged combat. The two builds are for throwing weapons or projectile weapons. It does the "magical archer" very well.

Phoenix, good counter arguements. Those are amongst the reasons that I haven't gone all the way and moved classes around.

But, the martial scout archetype seems like it could have been designed with the rogue in mind. It's a slightly different skill set, but the rogue fights with stealth, precision, and mobility, just like the ranger.

To me, it is like the difference between a Fighter and a Paladin. If you want your knight to be non-magical, use a fighter.