Ranger Design Goals

Kobold Avenger · Jun 8, 2012

I've always been mixed about whether Rangers should get magic or not. I think it should be an option. I think it might be preferable if Rangers get to pick their "special tricks" rather than a possible particular fighting style thing. Some "Special Tricks" could be completely "martial"/fighting style tricks, others could pick "primal magic" as theirs, an undead hunting Ranger could pick "divine magic" as theirs, and another type in splatbooks could pick "shadow magic" as their tricks.

CleverNickName · Jun 8, 2012

Kobold Avenger said:
I've always been mixed about whether Rangers should get magic or not. I think it should be an option. I think it might be preferable if Rangers get to pick their "special tricks" rather than a possible particular fighting style thing. Some "Special Tricks" could be completely "martial"/fighting style tricks, others could pick "primal magic" as theirs, an undead hunting Ranger could pick "divine magic" as theirs, and another type in splatbooks could pick "shadow magic" as their tricks.

I let my players trade their spellcasting ability for d10 Hit Dice if they want. In more than six years, nobody has chosen a spellcasting ranger.

nnms · Jun 8, 2012

The main issue with fighting styles as themes is that they are individual rigid choices. I'm guessing Ranger will start with two theme choices (archer and two weapon) and future ranger fighting styles will be added just like new builds in 4E.

Sure you can grab a cleric theme or slayer or whatever instead, but when it comes to choosing ranger related themes, I'm predicting that it'll be rigid, well defined and that you'll have to abandon ranger related themes to make anything but the default fighting styles.

Not that having a slayer theme isn't perfectly fine, it's just like multiclassing into fighter more than choosing an appropriate ranger ability.

Amator · Jun 8, 2012

CleverNickName said:
I let my players trade their spellcasting ability for d10 Hit Dice if they want. In more than six years, nobody has chosen a spellcasting ranger.

Nice house rule. I also think rangers should be more modular than most classes. In addition to basic wilderness skills what seems to set rangers apart in most archetypes are their diversity. Giving them a chance to pursue minor druidic spellcasting, healing (through herbalism), gaining an animal companion, or just becoming tougher or gaining more weapon skill should be options for the class.

This doesn't step on the bard's toes as they are jack-of-all-trades. A ranger instead should be able to pick a speciality and increase his or her proficiency in that specialty through feats and PrCs/PPs. In this sense you can have an array of wilderness warriors, all somewhat different. Kind of like 2E specialty wizards.

UngeheuerLich · Jun 8, 2012

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?

Did you even read the relevant part?

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.

This should mean, you could swap that fighting style with magic user or healer theme if you don´t want one weapon style. And IMO this sounds good.
Really, such overheated reactions based on nothing become really annoying.

edit: I would give Plane Sailing xp... but I can´t... he basically already said the same...

Steely_Dan · Jun 8, 2012

Amator said:
A ranger instead should be able to pick a speciality and increase his or her proficiency in that specialty through feats and PrCs/PPs.

I'll be interested to see how they implement either, both, or none.

As for the weapon style shtick, no, as they stated as part of core Ranger design: they were focusing on Aragorn, Drizzt and Pet-Boy (Grizzly Adams); hopefully more.

...my brother's two-handed sword Ranger better be viable...

Lord_Blacksteel · Jun 8, 2012

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

Sure, they were listed that way, but they had different abilities, a different hit die, different followers at high levels, and spell ability! So they worked out to be quite a bit different from fighters as one advanced, and I've seen no indication that we're bringing back the term or the concept of "subclasses" in Next.

JRRNeiklot said:
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.

I have to say I completely agree with this. I think if you boil the class down to two words it starts with "Wilderness Fighter". I'd like to see more mechanical focus on what a ranger should be able to do rather than on their attitude.

- They tend to operate alone or in small groups and they spend more time than most in wild (even harsh) places.

- Maybe they protect the wild from civilization, maybe they protect civilization from the wild but either way they deal with the wild quite a bit.

- Tracking, some kind of survival ability, maybe some extra knowledge depending on how that works out with backgrounds and the like, faster movement through rough terrain

- Finally maybe some kind of damage bonus or critical strike ability, I'm still not sure it's truly a class thing, but if you can kill a bar when you're only 3, I think it might be justified

FitzTheRuke · Jun 8, 2012

Plane Sailing said:
I think you ate misreading it.

The fact that they specifically call it out here in the class description makes it sound like the ranger class is due to have, say, a 'bonus fighting style theme'.

I doubt it. I think the fact that they specifically called it out just says that they expected people would wonder how their ranger would get TWF or archery, so they felt like telling us : You get it from picking a theme.

I cite the use of the word "many" in the original article (as opposed to "all") as evidence.

JRRNeiklot · Jun 9, 2012

Lord_Blacksteel said:
Sure, they were listed that way, but they had different abilities, a different hit die, different followers at high levels, and spell ability! So they worked out to be quite a bit different from fighters as one advanced, and I've seen no indication that we're bringing back the term or the concept of "subclasses" in Next.

Well, they actually end up with the exact same number of hit points as fighters (on average) at the hit dice cap - a fact a lot of people forget when discussing the rangers d8 hit die. This means with a con bonus, rangers will have more hit points than a fighter until very high levels.

Plane Sailing · Jun 9, 2012

jadrax said:
I think you might be over-thinking it. I think it was more 'This is what you expect to be able to do from past editions, and this is how you use the new theme mechanic to do it'.

FitzTheRuke said:
I doubt it. I think the fact that they specifically called it out just says that they expected people would wonder how their ranger would get TWF or archery, so they felt like telling us : You get it from picking a theme.

I cite the use of the word "many" in the original article (as opposed to "all") as evidence.

OK, I guess it could be read either way.

In any case, not anything to worry about at the moment - plenty of time for worry once the Ranger eventually appears in the playtest docs!

Cheers

Ranger Design Goals

Kobold Avenger

Legend

CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing

nnms

First Post

Amator

First Post

UngeheuerLich

Legend

Steely_Dan

First Post

Lord_Blacksteel

Adventurer

FitzTheRuke

Legend

JRRNeiklot

First Post

Plane Sailing

Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!

Similar Threads