Ranger Design Goals

Dausuul · Jun 7, 2012

Hmm. The general thrust of the article is okay, but I strongly dislike the "rangers are protectors" bit. I agree that this is a role the ranger should be able to play, but it should not be mandated. The ranger by its nature has an offensive focus: Tracking, stealth, light armor, ranged attacks and/or dual weapons, all predispose the ranger to attack. Forcing the ranger into a protective role is massively counterintuitive.

Besides, what about evil rangers? The bounty hunter, the wilderness assassin, or (since Snow White was brought up) the wicked queen's chief huntsman? The ranger class should be able to encompass those characters as well as Aragorn and Drizzt.

Plane Sailing · Jun 7, 2012

I quite like all this except for the combat style (unnecessary IMO) and the revere nature bit (will they have spells? can't tell from this excerpt, but might be in because of this bit).

I like the sound of
stealthy, alert, light armour, tough, protector in particular.

I'd hope they might be fast moving too (I'd have given them the 40ft move in 3e rather than the barbarian - so they could, y'know, 'range'.

Minigiant · Jun 7, 2012

I agree. First and foremost, a ranger is a tracker and hunter. Tracking is essential. As for hunting, I prefer to have some sort of bonuses with dealing with their quarries. Not all damage. Bonuses to perception, stealth, and social interaction as well

The ranger is a warrior. Agree. Only cannot hunt if one cannot fight. I love removing combat style from the base ranger. The ranger chooses how he will fight.

The ranger is a protector? Bwhuh? Sounds like fluff. What does this mean? Rangers don't protect. They run or kill. Rangers are not the protectors of nature. They avenge it... if they feel like it. Getting along with nature is priority number one.

Rangers are friends with wild creatures.Don't forget. There are more than just animals out there in the D&D wilderness. Magical beasts, fey, and monstrous humanoids are out there too. Now the ranger might not have fey and monstrous humanoid servants but he should have a leg up on making their allies.

Ellington · Jun 7, 2012

I am happy that there is no mention of spellcasting.

Boarstorm · Jun 7, 2012

If a ranger's combat style is determined by theme instead of class, does there remain enough "unique feel" to justify a full class? IE, is "Tough rogue who tracks and befriends woodland critters" enough to set it apart?

I'm certain they can make it work, but to me it feels like they need a little something more.

I find it interesting that the article makes no mention of spellcasting.

Gold Roger · Jun 7, 2012

I'm pretty meh on these, but then, I guess I'm not a great ranger fan.

I don't really care about 1 and 2. They're obvious and never sufficed to give the ranger an identity.

Point 3 The ranger is a protector has some potential. Protecting nature from civilisation, but also protecting civilisation from nature is a nice theme for the ranger. Sadly, they give no idea how they translate that into mechanics. Which with design goals should be there, I think.

Number 4 is simply confusing, I have no idea what that means for the class. Doesn't sound like traditional animal companion.

All in all, these design goals are even more nebelous than previous examples.

Now, the really interesting thing is, do they stick to these design goals? They didn't completely stick to it with the cleric. They can't say divine magic is subtle and then throw out a 1st level cleric shooting lasers at everything.

Frostmarrow · Jun 7, 2012

Protector? Funny notion. Rangers kill stuff.

Give rangers extra damage versus Small or Large (player's choice).

Boarstorm · Jun 7, 2012

I feel people are getting a little hung up on the word "protector." They didn't say "defender" (as in the 4E party role).

Protectors can kill stuff. After all, the best defense yadda yadda.

It just means you have something to fight for.

Amator · Jun 7, 2012

1. I too am glad there's no mention of spellcasting. That should be left for multiclassing.

2. I also don't like fighting styles. IMHO fighting styles should be reserved for feats and whatever Prestige Class/Paragon Path equivalent 5E has. That way I can not only have a spear and shield boar-hunter type of ranger, I might also have something more interesting than a static plus to accuracy or damage.

3. Sure a ranger can protect an area (the Dunedain did so for the North) but that shouldn't be necessary.

4. This makes me wonder what multiclass rules will be like, as many other non-Aragorn and Drizzt Ranger archetypes seem to me to be multilclass combinations such as Robin Hood (Ranger/Rogue), Little John (Ranger/Fighter w. Staff Specialization), Ashitaka from Princess Mononoke (Ranger/Cavlier) etc. The Ranger part was always the wilderness skills and tracking, not specifically archery, TWF, or animal companions.

5. I hope to also see options for herbalism, trap-making, and enhanced movement through rugged areas.

Gundark · Jun 7, 2012

Apparenty the masses want this, but so far the Palladin and now the Ranger could be handled with backgrounds and themes . Do we really need a new class for these?