Ranger Design Goals

I don't know where this non fighting ranger talk is from. Rangers live in the wild or at least spend long periods of time their. The residents of the wilderness are all about fighting and killing stuff. If the ranger fails at a check to befriend a wild beast, it usually runs or attacks. Rangers have to fight as that is the only thing these bears, wolves, lions, giant lions, elephants, gangsters, fire demons, unicorns, planar monkeys, pawn shop owners, serial arsonists, and sharks respect.

Wanna be a pacifist, be a druid and charm them.

1. The ranger is a wilderness hunter and tracker.

Rangers are at home in the uncharted wilds, whether those wilds are darkling forests, mountain badlands, or sunless deeps. In their guise as trackers, rangers are both stealthy and alert. They can track a falcon on a cloudy day and find useful herbs. They remain aware of potential trails or ambushes. In their guise as hunters, rangers can choose to focus on an individual quarry, whereupon their hunter’s instincts kick in, allowing them to strike with enhanced lethal force.

Click to expand...

I have almost no problem with this. The last part, the quarry, seems better suited to an assassin.

2. The ranger is a warrior.

Rangers wear light armor appropriate for stalking prey, and they are adept with martial weapons. Having learned many hard lessons in the wild, rangers are tougher than other people, and they are better able to withstand hurts. Many rangers focus on a particular combat style, traditionally two-weapon fighting or archery, and they do so by using an appropriate theme.

Click to expand...

This part is almost right. The weapon style crap is, and has always been, just silly. It needs to go. Now. And the armor restriction as well. Are there times when light armor is necessary for a ranger to do his job? Absolutely, but there are also times when he needs the best protection possible, and he's gonna want that suit of plate mail.

3. The ranger is a protector.

Rangers revere nature, and they are often called to protect individual trees or creatures, groves or packs, or fey creatures. Rangers can also protect creatures that are out of place in the wilderness, serving not only as a guide, but also as a personal defender against threats both natural and unnatural.

Click to expand...

I don't know where the hell they got this crap. Rangers do not lead tours through the woods. They may protect or not, as can any other class. Their job is to prevent the encroachment of marauding monsters on civilization. They are the last defense against the horde of orcs and ogres. They walk the fine line between civilization and barbarism. They stare long into the abyss so normal folk don't have to. Revere nature? Maybe, but I'd not have chosen that word. Respect is a better fit. Nature is a harsh mistress, indifferent to the very existence of humankind. Rangers simply understand this better than most.

4. Rangers are friends with wild creatures.

Natural beasts are generally well disposed toward rangers and vice versa, as reflected in a ranger’s natural ability to befriend animals. Rangers have the option to form a deeper bond with a given animal by gaining its trust and loyalty, allowing it to aid the ranger as a scout, informant, or provider of some other useful service. Each new animal with which a ranger bonds allows the ranger to grow a better understanding and appreciation of the natural world.

Click to expand...

This is the only part they got mostly right.

The druid mentality is creeping way too much into the ranger archetype. A Ranger is are not a tree hugger, he is a rugged survivalist. He is John Rambo, Zachary Bass, John Thornton, Davy Crocket. He's Daniel Boone, George Washington Sears, and yes, Aragorn (from the book, not the crappy movie). He is NOT Timothy Treadwell, Drizzit, Legolas, or Robin Hood. It's time we got rid of the tree hugging and bought back a real ranger.

Subclasses like Ranger are even more defining of a setting than the core races. The 1st edition ranger was really pretty darn specific in this regard. Later iterations each have their own degree of breadth and uniqueness for the class too. Getting into the defining of "What is this subclass?" is in part asking the questions "What are subclasses? and "How do we create them... in order to define each of our worlds?"

From Point 1: How is wilderness defined in the game? I know there are players who will want urban rangers like urban druids. What's the difference? Is there a limit of scope here?

• Spells appear to be gone, but I don't they are using a spell system for 5th.
• Surprise might be there, I can't tell.
• Magic item proficiency isn't in the rules either IIRC.
• Alignment restrictions are probably in a module.
• Loss of the ability to attract a following upon construction of a stronghold would probably be in a later module too. It would be interesting if that's when they might add Followers too, which is one of the Rangers old benefits.

The ranger is going to need spells, else he'll invaribly become a fighter who tracks, perhaps with an animal companion. Or worse, they'll tack on rogue skills and we'll end up with the wilderogue of 3.5.

I got two beefs with the artical, a minor one and a major one.

The minor one is the two weapon fighting bit, I have no problem if they keep it a theme but I don't want my ranger to be Drizzt, I want him to be Aragorn.

My major one is the armor thing, I would like rangers to be able to use medium armors, it might won't be optimal for the character but thematically I would like my ranger to be able to don a suit of medium armor when he is forced to defend Helms Deep.

Warder

Blackwarder said:

I got two beefs with the artical, a minor one and a major one.

The minor one is the two weapon fighting bit, I have no problem if they keep it a theme but I don't want my ranger to be Drizzt, I want him to be Aragorn.

My major one is the armor thing, I would like rangers to be able to use medium armors, it might won't be optimal for the character but thematically I would like my ranger to be able to don a suit of medium armor when he is forced to defend Helms Deep.

Warder

Click to expand...

I don't like rangers, a warrior class, to have any armor restriction, though the wearing of chain or plate should impact his stealth skills.

armors

If platemail and medium armors are properly balanced, i.e. they ALWAYS give equal or better protection, no matter your dex, vs their disadvantages in the wilderness, that is a win-win.

I doubt a ranger - or anyone - would survive for very long periods in the wild wearing platemail all the time. Sure, if you're on horseback, or going off to fight a major battle, put it on, but it shouldn't really require training IMO. Wizards could have their arcane failure chance to hold them back, but I can't see why Aragorn or Conan shouldn't wear platemail into battle if the need arises.

What I'm saying is...the balance of platemail vs not platemail should be one of : it's heavy, slow, cumbersome, makes enemies aware of you a mile away (especially natural ones), and there is just no way a self-respecting ranger would bother using it, outside a big battle to save the kingdom.

so yes, I concur, being lightly armored is the archetype, but it should follow naturally from a set of non-combat rules that would make it very, very hard to survive for long periods in the wilderness wearing a suit without a horse, an entourage, squires, oils, slave girl massages/rubdowns, whatever floats your boat. Also, the cost...if platemail's cost were properly balanced vs the expected gold income, even of a semi-successful ranger, it would be a luxury that most wouldn't bother with, considering the negatives of owning it.

E.g. I own a real sword, but I can't take it outside and swing it around or I'll get arrested. That's a practical reason not to wield it. Plate mail should be uber tough, INSANELY expensive (forget about it before level 5, in most campaigns with standard gp values), and even then should require upkeep and give you such negatives to your survival out of combat that you'd be more likely to keep just the breastplate on than the whole thing.

Maybe make Plate armor give you negatives to hit (clumsy / slow + impedes your vision), until you get high enough level and specialize in it...that'd be one example of a mechanical disadvantage that would make players think twice even if cost were no object.

Using the Ranger class you should be able to build...

...Drizzt (did I spell that wrong?)
...Aragorn
...Robin Hood
...Jack the Giant-Killer
...the Huntsman from Snow White (who I recently learned looks a lot like Thor)

Should allow for different combat styles including AXE/HATCHET, the iconic woodsman's weapon.

Abilities should emphasize hunting and survival skills with some pseudo-magic (e.g. trackless step) type options but no overt spellcasting. (Ideally, if you wanted to cast spells, you would have good rules to multi-class into Druid or Wizard.)

nnms said:

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.

Click to expand...

Did you read the blog? He said that Rangers will NOT have fighting styles due to their CLASS. Themes alone will handle this.

So you could have a ranger with a two-handed sword with a slayer theme or a ranger with a swashbuckler theme specialized on the rapier, or a ranger with a spear-fighting theme, or a ranger with his classic archer or tempest/two-handed-fighting theme.

-YRUSirius

OMG All Rangers must take the emo drow theme and long lost emo king background! Wait... hang on... *pulls out Scroll of Reading Comprehension and reads it* Oh! Nevermind.

Fighting styles as themes sounds great. Protector in the Wilderness is classic. Hunter. Tracker. Friends with Dire Crocs and fuzzies, of course. Sounds like a good guide to work from.

Is there enough to warrant a full class? I think so. Animal companion will be class specific. Quarry/ Favored enema will be too. Maybe some surprise mechanic or terrain advantage. Themes should allow some good customization. Old school rangers even get the nod with the magic user theme.

Armor is in way too much flux right now to make any decision about light only or adding plate. My feeling is light as default and heavy armor later on, at like Ranger Lord level. Themes might be able to speed it up.

Urban Ranger is a rogue. Ranger is a wild class. Sorry, I am normally Mr. Inclusive but I don't know what an urban ranger brings different to the table. Is it just a favored terrain? Themes can make that better though.