Ranger Design Goals

The idea of a proper Pet-Boy could be cool (Beastmaster the movie).

Kamikaze Midget said:

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....
!

Click to expand...

If it winds up being like this, you will color me very happy. As long as I can play a stealthy, acrobatic lightly armored warrior who wields two swords and has absolutely nothing at all to do with the wilderness, druidical magic, or fuzzy little forest critters, I will be a very happy player.

Steely_Dan said:

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..."

Click to expand...

Well, Evilra, Mistress of the Night and Teenage Vampire Princess, was a really fun character to play.

Campy, sure, but a lot of fun!

And that's the thing: D&D can embrace all sorts of weirdness. YOUR table might not like a vampire class, or a TWF theme, but MY table can have a lot of fun with them.

Salamandyr said:

If it winds up being like this, you will color me very happy. As long as I can play a stealthy, acrobatic lightly armored warrior who wields two swords and has absolutely nothing at all to do with the wilderness, druidical magic, or fuzzy little forest critters, I will be a very happy player.

Click to expand...

Say, perhaps, a Rogue with the Tempest theme? And maybe the Acrobat scheme or background? Yeah, I'd wager that's something that will happen.

Kamikaze Midget said:

Say, perhaps, a Rogue with the Tempest theme? And maybe the Acrobat scheme or background? Yeah, I'd wager that's something that will happen.

Click to expand...

It's all a bit theoretical at this point, so I don't know how it will be built at the end...I just want it to be possible. If I can get fighter with a tempest theme and some kind of thief or assassin background (spy was one background they mentioned) that would be ideal. The problem with the rogue is they are not a straight up combatant. For a character called "rogue" they're the ultimate team players, they practically scream to have a buddy to help them pull off maneuvers. They don't fight well on their own. I'd prefer a character that can hold his own in a fight absent a flank buddy or favorable terrain.

The thing about that build is it overlaps a lot of the design space of the ranger. So usually when I've built this character with other editions of D&D, it's a ranger absent the usual class fluff, or some kind of fighter/ranger/rogue multiclass hybrid that is, if anything, inelegant. To bring it back to the ranger discussion, what I'm hoping doesn't happen is that certain options, (like dual wielding, or archery specialization) are designated as ranger "things" and so other classes only get a limited form of them, if they can access them at all. Likewise, if they're gonna have a ranger, I hope he can use, say, a two handed sword and isn't pigeonholed into a handful of weapon styles.

I was also concerned that a Ranger was really just a Fighter w/ a Theme. So i tried to break down what I felt were class specific features based on the article, and here's what I came up with.

• Light armor
• Martial weapons
• Mid-to-high HD and/or (limited) DRish type thing
• Good attack progression
• Terrain bonuses / awareness
• Fast tracking / Enhanced tracking
• Favored enemy(ish type thing)
• Animal affinity/companions

If this is somewhat accurate, I think that sufficiently differentiates a Ranger from a Fighter, enough to warrant a separate class. The whole Protector bit I think is better as a Theme, unless they could phrase it so it didn't imply a particular ethical bent. Most of the other mentions in the article would be better handled by Backgrounds/Themes.

Themes and backgrounds will all be available to all classes. So just as a Ranger might choose to specialize in a fighting style, so may the fighter...or any other class.

RangerWickett said:

Booooo.

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

If there's one thing that is my pet peeve in D&D, it's 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?!

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...

QFT. I could not agree more. Weapon style should be an individual choice regardless of class. Shoehorning rangers - or any class - into one, two, or twelve particular styles is just wrong.

CleverNickName said:

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?

Click to expand...

Rangers are ALL about fighting, but screw fighting styles, he'll kill his foes with a sword, an axe, a bow, a knife, a stick, or his bare hands. He'll use both hands or none, one hand, ranged weapons or melee, or if need be, his teeth.

JRRNeiklot said:

Rangers are ALL about fighting, but screw fighting styles, he'll kill his foes with a sword, an axe, a bow, a knife, a stick, or his bare hands. He'll use both hands or none, one hand, ranged weapons or melee, or if need be, his teeth.

Click to expand...

I think the Fighter class would be better suited to a universal, no-holds-barred fighter. But if a "fighting style" is a Theme, then I see no reason why we can't just apply one of these fighting styles to a Fighter and have a specialist.

1. The ranger is a wilderness hunter and tracker.
2. The ranger is a warrior.
3. The ranger is a protector.
4. Rangers are friends with wild creatures.

Click to expand...

I don't totally agree with these assumptions. Here's my take (and this is just brainstorming here):

The ranger is... mobile (for lack of a better word). Rangers have no permanent base, they patrol vast areas and territories (including rural and urban areas). Rangers may tarry a while in one place, or with a particular cause, but ultimately they know they must move on.

As part of being a wanderer, a ranger is a hunter and tracker. Living off of the land (or surviving on wit and cunning in a vast metropolis), tracking down threats, learning hidden secrets and unknown lore due to the Ranger's intimate knowledge of the lands the ranger travels and the people with which the ranger interacts.

The ranger is... a warrior, but he is not limited to a particular style of combat. The ranger can employ a variety of weapons and styles, with each choice providing an certain advantage in any given situation.

The ranger is... A charismatic figure - a person with significant "force of personality and presence" This may be manifest through relationships with people or creatures

The ranger is... attuned to magic. While the ranger may not be a spellcaster per se (unless that can be added as an option for players), the ranger is no stranger to the mysteries of magic and can perform rituals, particularly within the school of divination.

Things that should be themes, backgrounds or other "choices"
Ranger as protector. I don't see the ranger as a protector except in the case of protecting a territory or area, or if the ranger has decided that, as part of a cause, that the ranger must protect an individual or item.
Ranger as magical The base magical features of the class (IMO) should not exceed ritual use (perhaps anything past this can be a modular feature).
Animal companions
Favored Enemies. I like favored enemies, always have. There's no rationale for this feature other than it might suggest that, through the ranger's travels she or he as had a particular history with, or gained knowledge of, a certain type of creature.

Things that should NOT be a choice forced onto players
Fghting-styles. I want a ranger with expertise in one, both or none of the so-called "archetypal" fighting styles. Let me choose.

A "wild" ranger. I want the flexibility to create a wilderness ranger (forests, swamps, mountains, etc.), an urban ranger, a planar ranger, a sea ranger... whatever. Make the base of the class simple and flexible enough to allow the type of modification that player's want.