Archer doesn't mean Ranger!

[KrazyOne]

This is a bit of rant post. I find it extremely annoying when people label something incorrect. Yes i'm aware some people associate words with inaccurate meaning alot.

Assuming most people understand Ranger doesn't mean Archer. Literally meaning of Ranger is Wanderer. In DnD other fantasy based environments a ranger is a woodland wanderer with martial skills. No where does the concept equals an Archer. Archers uses bows as their primary source of damage. Rangers are swiss army knives they use whatever available. They have zero specialization. I dare say Rangers are closer to a Warrior than an Archer.

Well anyway I had to vent my complaints, back to digging through the hundreds of post not associated with the class they claim to be playing.

[Grumpy]

so because something have a exact meaning in one universum it need to have that exact definition in every universum? try 'warrior and barbarian' or 'sorcerer and mage' or 'necromancer and conjurer'. so many things which are slightly different but getting used interchangeably. in the end it matters in which universum you are communicating.

far worse are things which confuse the whole context when used in the wrong way. like using SKSE for special edition and SSE for script extender

[JDaremo Fireheart]

I do have to agree to a point.
Having played D&D since the early 80s, I usually chose the Ranger Class. But there is a fine line between the skills of a Ranger and the Assassin. Both are adept at using what ever is handy, they just choose different ways of applying those skills. One for Good, and one for . . . well . . . most often Evil. There have been Assassains who can be considered Good.

If people call a Ranger an Archer, is an Assassin who specializes in the Bow also an Archer? Nope. Not even close.

Archers use mainly the bow, with minor skills in either Dagger or Short Sword. Definatly not in Shield use or any other skills other than Light Armour and Basic Survival Skills.

[Incunabulum]

Originally posted by KrazyOne:

This is a bit of rant post. I find it extremely annoying when people label something incorrect. Yes i'm aware some people associate words with inaccurate meaning alot.

Assuming most people understand Ranger doesn't mean Archer. Literally meaning of Ranger is Wanderer. In DnD other fantasy based environments a ranger is a woodland wanderer with martial skills. No where does the concept equals an Archer. Archers uses bows as their primary source of damage. Rangers are swiss army knives they use whatever available. They have zero specialization. I dare say Rangers are closer to a Warrior than an Archer.

Well anyway I had to vent my complaints, back to digging through the hundreds of post not associated with the class they claim to be playing.

1. Rangers in DnD do specialize. Severely. 2h Melee or *ranged*.

2. Rangers use bows - because they use them to hunt.

In the vast majority of fantasy work and artwork you're going to see rangers using bows. A lot.

[JDaremo Fireheart]

Still doesn't make them an Archer. LOL

[Incunabulum]

Originally posted by JDaremo Fireheart:

But there is a fine line between the skills of a Ranger and the Assassin. Both are adept at using what ever is handy, they just choose different ways of applying those skills. One for Good, and one for . . . well . . . most often Evil. There have been Assassains who can be considered Good.

Not in DnD there isn't. In DnD an Assassin is a variant of the Thief class (later Rogue) and specializes in backstabs and poisons and is not all that great in open confrontation (and loses a lot of the skillmonkey abilities of a regular thief/rogue) while a Ranger is a second tier combatant beside your Cleric (no one plays Fighter as they're . . . just bad) and adds DPS to his tanking.

[Incunabulum]

Originally posted by JDaremo Fireheart:

Still doesn't make them an Archer. LOL

And archers can't wander? Why is choosing a melee weapon defining a ranger?

[JDaremo Fireheart]

Originally posted by Incunabulum:

Originally posted by JDaremo Fireheart:

Still doesn't make them an Archer. LOL

And archers can't wander? Why is choosing a melee weapon defining a ranger?

An Archer is/was a Class of soldier. Like the Cavalry, Polemen, Halberdmen, etc. Archers typically hung back to rain down death from above while the others charged in. The Ranger would be like a Scout Class and often were Scouts for the Army.

The debate here is about people calling the Ranger Class an Archer Class, which they aren't because Archers use Bows primary and a smaller weapon secondary. Archers don't know how to do 1/3 of what a Ranger can do.

[MysticMalevolence]

Is a ranger not one that uses ranged weaponry? If not, then... why not? This seems silly.
I haven't played a ranger in D&D since they suck in 5E, but I've seen those who use ranged attacks referred to as rangers in other fantasy media so. Don't really know what to tell you.

Except that I'm going to continue using ranger to describe someone who uses ranged weaponry, because that's how I have always experienced it in the past.


If ranger/archer is so bad, I suppose you have a problem with necromancer as well? Given that the -mancy suffix originally referred to divination by means of, not one who practices magic with, thus a necromancer would be one that speaks to the dead to learn the future. Or barbarian, which is a word to describe non-Greeks, non-Romans, or non-Catholics depending on your time period.

[NecroMaster]

Originally posted by KrazyOne:

This is a bit of rant post. I find it extremely annoying when people label something incorrect. Yes i'm aware some people associate words with inaccurate meaning alot.

Assuming most people understand Ranger doesn't mean Archer. Literally meaning of Ranger is Wanderer. In DnD other fantasy based environments a ranger is a woodland wanderer with martial skills. No where does the concept equals an Archer. Archers uses bows as their primary source of damage. Rangers are swiss army knives they use whatever available. They have zero specialization. I dare say Rangers are closer to a Warrior than an Archer.

Well anyway I had to vent my complaints, back to digging through the hundreds of post not associated with the class they claim to be playing.

3 words
Power forest rangers.

[alexander_dougherty]

Originally posted by KrazyOne:

This is a bit of rant post. I find it extremely annoying when people label something incorrect. Yes i'm aware some people associate words with inaccurate meaning alot.

Assuming most people understand Ranger doesn't mean Archer. Literally meaning of Ranger is Wanderer. In DnD other fantasy based environments a ranger is a woodland wanderer with martial skills. No where does the concept equals an Archer. Archers uses bows as their primary source of damage. Rangers are swiss army knives they use whatever available. They have zero specialization. I dare say Rangers are closer to a Warrior than an Archer.

Well anyway I had to vent my complaints, back to digging through the hundreds of post not associated with the class they claim to be playing.

In Dungeons and Dragons Rangers do have specialisations, they can either have the dual weild specialisation or the archer specialisation, this is literally a class choice for them.

Can't really compare them to real world, since the term Ranger has only ever been used by armies, and then for scout/scirmisher specialists, all armed with rifles.

[JDaremo Fireheart]

Originally posted by Dylan the Cartographer:

Is a ranger not one that uses ranged weaponry? If not, then... why not? This seems silly.
I haven't played a ranger in D&D since they suck in 5E, but I've seen those who use ranged attacks referred to as rangers in other fantasy media so. Don't really know what to tell you.

Except that I'm going to continue using ranger to describe someone who uses ranged weaponry, because that's how I have always experienced it in the past.

So, someone who uses throwing knives, shurikens, etc are also Rangers because they use ranged weapons? How about someone who uses a ranged attack spell, are they Rangers as well?

Ranger typically use a bow because that is what they use to hunt. That's why they're good with one. If they weren't, they would starve.
If I pull out a gun and shoot something am I also a Ranger because I used a ranged weapon? Hardly. I think you'd better take a closer look at the skillset of those others referred to as Rangers and you'll see it's more than just using a ranged weapon.

[Jerubius]

Yeah, and a literal translation for necromancer would be death diviner. It isn't actually someone who raises the dead, but rather someone who communes with spirits for information on the past and future.

[MysticMalevolence]

Originally posted by JDaremo Fireheart:

So, someone who uses throwing knives, shurikens, etc are also Rangers because they use ranged weapons?

In my books, yes. That's how the fantasy media I consumed when I was younger presented it, and distance attacks were always presented as ranged, so why wouldn't my conclusion be that ranged = ranger?

I am of course being a bit... facetious, because I much despise the tone of these kinds of threads, but regardless...

How about someone who uses a ranged attack spell, are they Rangers as well?

No, they are mages, as they use magical attacks, which are generally regarded as a special entity. They don't use a ranged weapon per say, as there is no physical expense (no arrows).

If I pull out a gun and shoot something am I also a Ranger because I used a ranged weapon?

Well, sure. I mean, guns do not appear in all fantasy settings, and it's still assuming that the ranged weapon is your primary weapon. But I don't see why not.

[KrazyOne]

Rangers are generalist in term of combat they don't train in any specific fighting style. They use tools of war that fit the situation they are presented in.

Example a Ranger in Skyrim or any other Elder Scroll game is called a Scout by class definition. Scouts do not specialize in bows or melee but uses both equally.

An Archer uses a Bow or Xbow exclusively as they main form of attack. Rarely do they draw upon a melee weapon or shield.

Heck even in Tolkien which DnD gets most of it inspiration, shows a ranger as a wander who skilled in whatever fighting style they choose. Hence if you are making a ranger you arent ignoring melee weapons. You personally may not use em but that is different than the actually skills said class would have.

An Assassin is the definition that so many should be using when describing their class since it the closest thing they thrive for. A stealthy combatant who strikes from the shadows with bow and blade while using poisons to bring down their targets.

Yes I might just be rare case where I play my game based on restrictions and proper labeling of things.

Hence why i said it annoys me so many people get the class name wrong on their build they are showcasing.