Ranger Design Goals

Doug McCrae said:

No, but, as you say, it's expected. Peoples pay their moneys, they wants their classes.

Click to expand...

I guess options are good. Sounds like their are multiple ways to get a certain type of build, this isn't a bad thing truth be told . I guess I am divided

FitzTheRuke said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yes, so nifty when the 1st Ed Ranger blapped something with a magic missile.

I don't know that Rangers have to choose Archery or TWF, and I would hope not, but that they can.

I don't think Rangers should be better at either of those than Fighters. Maybe they can get the same theme, and be almost equal.

Rangers being familiar with, and respectful of nature is great. I wouldn't mind if they choose a particular environment such as Mountains, Forests, Jungles, Deserts, or Plains type areas, and they would get certain bonuses and can sustain their party with food and shelter in those types of areas(similar to what someone else already mentioned).

Light armor, stealth, tracking, trapmaking (and therefore possibly disarming) also could make sense.

I don't see anything horrible about the description, but have possible problems. I'll wait until I see exactly how it plays out before making any statements definitively for or against what they've said so far.

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.

Click to expand...

I have a sneaking suspicion that a fighter with a forester background will be an option.

As will a ranger class.

As will a druid with TWF.

As will an elf wizard who is great with a bow and lives in the forest.

Etc....

I think in 5e, just because a concept happens to be expressed one way, doesn't mean it won't also be expressed in 25 OTHER ways. Much like the 4e Vampire: My Vryloka (race) Vampire (class) with the Vampire feats is an amazing and awesome abomination, and I can't wait to have my Elf (race) Ranger (class) Forester (background) With A Pet (theme).

The only question is: what, exactly, does the ranger (class) contribute to this gathering?

This blog post doesn't really tell me that very clearly. It doesn't say anything that can't also be true of an Elf Wizard Forester With A Pet. But I think that's kind of a good thing: classes are not the EXCLUSIVE shrine of a particular character type. I don't have to be a Wizard to cast spells. I don't have to be a fighter to fight good. I don't have to be a cleric to heal. I don't have to be a rogue to find traps and hide in shadows. All those classes will certainly help me do those things, but none are a prerequisite.

That's exciting to me!

Kamikaze Midget said:

My Vryloka (race) Vampire (class) with the Vampire feats is an amazing and awesome abomination,

Click to expand...

When Vampire became a class is when I saw 4th Ed going south (Jander Sunstar was an Elf Wizard Vampire, not vampire as a class/profession), I know it was to appease the 15-year old Twilight fans (and very ham-handedly, IMO), but please, let's not be so obvious: new class: Teenage Angst Werewolf Boy.

"...totally got to be at class, but before that leave me alone in this corner to be forlorn..."

Fighting style nonsense. Yawn.
Not sure how I feel about the protector of nature being core to the class. Sure that's always been implied (to varrying degrees, edition dependent) but making it something all rangers have in common doesn't appeal to me at all.

...called to protect individual trees or creatures, groves or packs, or fey creatures.

Click to expand...

However, the notion that rangers could have some kind of pact thing with one or more things in the wilderness could be kind of cool - provided there was a provision for a ranger to swap out for something else equivalent. This isn't a developed idea just something that occurred to me.

The rest of it looks okay, if a bit bland. I'm not sure these are the right pillars to make rangers out of but they'll do.

RangerWickett said:

Seriously, my blood boils. For a game that wants to be modular, can we just please cut that crap out of the description of the class? If I want a ranger who prefers to use bolas, or spears, or a single sword (like ARAGORN!), why should the rules push me to pick some other fighting style?

Click to expand...

Modularity talk was likely just marketing BS. I'm beginning to think it won't really materialize in any meaningful fashion.

Instead will get non-modular assumptions baked right into the basic game, class descriptions, etc.,.

I think the article by Mearls where he says the best D&D play comes from times the DM must set the rules aside and use rulings instead is a pretty clear indication that they're not really interested in making rules modules to support a certain type of play. After all, why bother when the rules are to be set aside when it comes time to produce the best play?

The modularity will likely come in half baked add on rules and tweaks that are no different than a list of approved house rules to tack onto a game that already produces a certain style of play.

I don't think we'll ever see the designers go "We want to support X type of play, now lets design a rules module to do that!" Instead, I think they're going to comb through the playtest feed back and catalogue the house rules that they hear about the most and just rework them as pass them off as modularity.

I think if modularity ever was a true design goal, it'd be something they lead with a little more strongly than a tiny note indicating you can drop backgrounds & themes if you want an older school feel.

People will always say "You don't get it! This is about testing the basic system first!" As if you can have a basic system around modularity without making modularity a key component that needs to be tested as part of the core of the game.

So expect rigid Ranger fighting styles. And all sorts of assumptions that you think should be optional or in modules. Perhaps later they'll release a single weapon ranger build like they did with brawling fighters in 4E. Or in the mean time, you can choose a non-ranger theme and somehow expect your idea for your ranger to be found there.

Personally I agree with all those design goals but I also would really like the Ranger to retain a certain shade of magic... I do not mean that I want the Ranger to be a spellcaster, I just mean that I want an aura (even a smudge) of supernatural around a Ranger's call, in a way not dissimilar to the Paladin. In fact, I think that reducing the Ranger to a mere scout is the almost as disappointing as reducing the Paladin to a LG fighter.

RangerWickett said:

Booooo.

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, NO MORE FORCING RANGERS TO PICK A 'FIGHTING STYLE.'

... the idea that if you go around in the woods, you have to either know how to use a bow, or swing a pair of swords. Why?!

Click to expand...

Truth indeed. Pathfinder expanded it to having the choice of single-weapon-used-in-two-hands and the old "sword and board" options, but I still don't see what's "rangery" about it. Sounds a lot more like a Fighter thing, don't ya think?

To those that think a ranger class isn't necessary, if you make rangers a Background and Theme combo, you use up the characters Background and Theme. You can't be a commoner who becomes a ranger. You can't be a ranger who is a healer. You can't be a elf guardian knight who under orders from the elf queen patrols the royal forest as a ranger.