Ranger Design Goals

fuindordm · Jun 7, 2012

Regarding fighting styles:

A wilderness fighter might avoid using shields as part of their fighting style. You want to have a free hand for climbing and navigating difficult terrain. And if you're avoiding shields for this reason, it makes sense to learn tricks from the TWF style or missile combat.

So I think there is some justification for having them select from these two styles, or at least to avoid sword-and-board. But why wouldn't a ranger focus on two-handed weapons such as greatswords and spears?

Deadboy · Jun 7, 2012

Gundark said:
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?

I've never understood why people keep pushing for Rangers and Paladins to no longer be distinct classes. D&D has always been a class-based system; if we're going to start whittling classes down to just a few, why not just go completely classless?

Remember that one of the biggest points of D&D Next is to rope back in grognards; departures from the commonly-accepted ways of doing things in the past in NOT going to be a feature of this edition.

Also keep in mind - classes sell books. More people will buy a book that has a class they want to play in it then will buy it for any other reason. Trying to limit classes would be like trying to limit profits for WotC.

Salamandyr · Jun 7, 2012

Honestly the ranger sounds more like a fighter with a forester background a theme emphasizing a fighting style than a unique class itself. And honestly, I'd prefer if that's what it was.

The ranger started life as a subclass of the fighter, and that's what it should go back to being.

EDIT: apparently I'm not the first to have said this. The point still stands.

Steely_Dan · Jun 7, 2012

I also do not want the Ranger railroaded into certain fighting/weapon styles, my two-hander should be perfectly viable, especially as they mention Aragorn (not that he's the only example, but he was not particularly into archery or TWF).

The Theme thing is sounding great.

CleverNickName · Jun 7, 2012

What fighting styles would you want for the ranger, besides just Archery and TWF? Off the top of my head:

1. No fighting style. Not all rangers are about fighting.
2. Mounted combat (such as an Outrider, for example.)
3. Spear combat (good for tribal cultures, or aquatic hunters.)
4. Non-lethal (like manacles, nets, and such...good for bounty hunters.)
5. Thrown (good for knife hunters and alchemists.)

Any others?

Dausuul · Jun 7, 2012

Boarstorm said:
It just means you have something to fight for.

Everybody's got something to fight for or they wouldn't be fighting. Joe Munchkin whose whole motivation is "kill monsters and take their stuff" has something to fight for. He's fighting for the monsters' stuff.

What does "something to fight for" mean in the context of class design?

Someone · Jun 7, 2012

None of those design goals suggest "class" to me. They strongly scream theme, background or plain character personality.

GX.Sigma · Jun 7, 2012

Salamandyr said:
Honestly the ranger sounds more like a fighter with a forester background a theme emphasizing a fighting style than a unique class itself. And honestly, I'd prefer if that's what it was.

The ranger started life as a subclass of the fighter, and that's what it should go back to being.

EDIT: apparently I'm not the first to have said this. The point still stands.

I agree that these classes should be "subclasses," but I don't think they could be done as background/theme. There's more to the ranger than a few skills and a fighting style, and there's more to the paladin than... well, whatever you could fit in a first level feat.

These classes should have their own entries like any other class, but at the beginning of each, make it clear that "a ranger is a special kind of fighter" or "a druid is a special kind of cleric" or "an assassin is a special kind of rogue."

dangerous jack · Jun 7, 2012

1. I'd drop wilderness and replace it with hostile environment, because I could see an enemy controlled city as a place where a ranger was more comfortable than other characters. But aside from splitting hairs like that, I reallly like the awareness about ambushes/trails aspect. I'm not sure how that is consistent with focusing on a singular enemy, but I'll remain optimistic.

2. Warrior... Yes to light armour, but I'd say it's because movement is key to them. Focus on a combat style? That's a silly design goal for the ranger, unless the point of that sentence is just to point out that the combat style is the theme's responsibility and not actually the ranger's.

3. Protector... the bulk of the paragraph sounds accurate (especially the "guide for those out of place in the wilderness" aspect). I suppose I can think of the stalking and hunting aspect as "protecting through offence".

4. Friends with animals... I suppose the beastmaster is a common archetype of the ranger. For some reason, this feels more like something that should be a theme though.

Overall, it doesn't make me want to play one yet. There just seems to be something missing.

FitzTheRuke · Jun 7, 2012

I'm surprised at how many people see "Many rangers focus on a particular combat style - by picking a theme" and read it as "All rangers must pick a theme to chose their combat style"

Based on everything we know about D&D Next. They just told us that Rangers DO NOT pick a fighting style UNLESS THEY WANT TO (by picking a fighting-style theme)

The opposite of what most people seem to be reading into it.

This means if you build a ranger you could pick "Lurker" like the rogue has in the playtest and get extra hiding abilities, or heck, use the Wizard's one and have a few cantrips.

All they're saying there is IF you want to, you can get TWF or Expert Archery as a theme. IF that's the kind of ranger you wanna play.