D&D 5E Ranger's favored enemies and spells.

Kobold Stew

Last Guy in the Airlock
Supporter
Let's accept the ranger is a class and not a fighter sub-class.
Fighting, tracking, wilderness (yeah yeah) and somehow different from a dual-classed Fighter/Druid.

Let's also accept that the literary and historical precedent is sleight (as it is for the Cleric), but we still want it to do things it has done in previous editions.

With that (and I see no reason to discuss it without these assumptions in place) where is the latest playtest pack failing?

1. As discussed, tying fighting styles to favoured enemy is weak. There's no logical correlation between the two. I think this is an important realization because it gives freedom to the players. Currently, the choices offer abilities at levels 2, 7, 11, and 15. It should be the case that a character can choose any of the level 7 options, any of the level 11 options, any of the level 15 options and still be balanced (cf. the elemental choices of the monk; clearly that's the way to go, IMO).

2. Are fighting styles even needed? Feats allow easy specialization with weapons and both TWF and archery are supported. Does a ranger archer need to be qualitatively different than a fighter archer? Obviously not -- it can do, but it's really just tricks and these could be represented by a weapon feat (thereby allowing Thrown weapons and other specialties as well).

3. What does this mean for favoured enemies? Right now, the only race-specific benefit of favoured enemies comes (currently) at level 2 (Horde Lore or Dragon Lore). There's no reason not to just let this be a choice -- again, like the elemental choices made by Monks, where previous choices do not limit subsequent ones. Simply letting the ranger choose one of 3-4 possibilities here should be sufficient to preserve the "heritage" and help individuate characters.

4. Tracking (and Natural Explorer at level 5) can reasonably be seen as defining Ranger abilities. They do however blur with Feats and Backgrounds (indeed, Natural Explorer seems to replace the benefit to be gained from the Guide Background), and I would like the Guide background to be able to grant something that is not available to the fifth-level Ranger.

5. Spells have long been a divisive issue for the class (since AD&D). Clearly at least one path chosen by Rangers should have some spells available. If the subclass-choice at level 3 (with most classes) maps on to this (and that's when Ranger currently get spell casting), then allowing players to choose between spells or (let's say) an animal companion (and...? see point 8) at this point should satisfy most players. It's not the case that EVERY Ranger has to have spells, but the choice should be available to every Ranger if the heritage of the class is going to be respected. this still allows players to opt-out (and into other reasonable and potentially fun options that are currently unsupported).

6. Let's not kid ourselves, though. The Ranger is a DEX-based fighter. You can have a DEX-based fighter that's a Fighter, and that's awesome, but the default-ranger is going to be using Finesse, Ranged, and Light weapons more often because that reduces attribute dependence and will maximize other class benefits. This being the case, limiting benefits to this sort of weapon (either in the form of limited proficiencies or whatever) is not really a penally to the class.

7. "But dual-wielding finesse weapons is badass". The game doesn't need to support Drow scimitar rangers and (as has been pointed out) it can do so through Drow abilities rather than Ranger ones. I personally do not find this a compelling argument. It can choose to do so easily, though, by allowing ANY character (or even if you must ANY Ranger) to dual-wield two medium weapons (or two medium finesse weapons) as long as the damage for the second weapon caps at 1d6. That avoids the players wanting to twink out and still allows those insisting on "concept" to have what they need. Will that satisfy people? Of course not, is my guess -- because the twink factor remains. Concept is separate from the mechanics, and one can support the former without needing to alter the latter.

8. There does seem to me to be one archetype for the Ranger (well established in the game if also under-represented in the fiction) that does seem undersupported at present, and I suggest that it could reasonably represent a third subclass. That's the Horizon Walker -- here' I'm thinking of the 3.5 prestige class. The one that goes from certain terrain specialities and by the upper levels is able to gain knowledge of planes and can even travel. I'll admit, I have always loved this idea, and if playing a ranger, I would give up spellcasting or an animal buddy to have it. It's got a history in the game, and fits the Ranger rubric. One terrain specialty should be "urban".

Where does this leave me? I would like the Ranger in DDN to

a. offer all rangers a choice of enemy types with which the character has some affinity (not necessarily as its hunter, mind -- the point about genocide is well taken, and there are cool stories that emerge from other options);

b. offer all rangers a choice of subclasses (at third level probably, like most other classes) between a spell-user, a beast master, and a horizon walker -- Three distinct archetypes, each filling a unique niche;

c. if dual-saber-wielding must be supported (and I don't think it must), then it be through a mechanical option that is also available to DEX-based fighters (and so ideally through a feat);

d. that the wilderness-related background choices (currently only Guide) offer something that will always enhance a Ranger, and not be eclipsed by subsequent Ranger abilities.

Is this too much to ask?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

JRRNeiklot

First Post
6. Let's not kid ourselves, though. The Ranger is a DEX-based fighter. You can have a DEX-based fighter that's a Fighter, and that's awesome, but the default-ranger is going to be using Finesse, Ranged, and Light weapons more often because that reduces attribute dependence and will maximize other class benefits. This being the case, limiting benefits to this sort of weapon (either in the form of limited proficiencies or whatever) is not really a penally to the class.

No. The last thing that comes to mind when I hear the word ranger is finesse (as D&D defines it). When I hear ranger, I think of Aragorn, John Rambo, George Washington Sears, Zachary Bass, John Thornton, Davy Crocket, and Daniel Boone. (Boone was 5'8", but he was burly.) Not that there couldn't be a finesse fighter, or even a finesse ranger, but it shouldn't be the default.
 

Kobold Stew

Last Guy in the Airlock
Supporter
No. The last thing that comes to mind when I hear the word ranger is finesse (as D&D defines it). When I hear ranger, I think of Aragorn, John Rambo, George Washington Sears, Zachary Bass, John Thornton, Davy Crocket, and Daniel Boone. (Boone was 5'8", but he was burly.) Not that there couldn't be a finesse fighter, or even a finesse ranger, but it shouldn't be the default.

I'm not denying any of these examples (though some I'll admit do not resonate with me the way they apparently do for you) -- I'm saying that the mechanics of the class favour DEX-based fighting, and in game they <del: always> have since 3e.

The point at hand (as you have quoted) is that any supposed penalty limiting to dex-based weapons is no penalty at all. And that's something that I think you would agree with.
 
Last edited:

JRRNeiklot

First Post
I'm not denying any of these examples (though some I'll admit do not resonate with me the way they apparently do for you) -- I'm saying that the mechanics of the class favour DEX-based fighting, and in game they always have.

Except that they haven't. Originally, the only stats a ranger could blow off were dex and charisma. A ranger required minimum strength of 13 (higher than a paladin or fighter, btw), Int 13, wis 14,con 14, and just for kicks, cha 5. Considering they are one of three classes to get a strength percentile bonus, or a con bonus greater than +2, the incentive to blow off dex is high. Conversely, the only reason to put a high score in dex is if you're rolling stats in order and have no choice, or if you're dead set on playing an archer or want a slightly better ac. With the ranger's high starting hit points, you're much better served putting your best stat in strength, and your second best in con. I see nothing to favor a dex based fighter.
 

Kobold Stew

Last Guy in the Airlock
Supporter
Fair enough; I'll edit my previous post to read, "...and in the game they have since 3e."

As before, this and your examples do not bear on the point I was making about offsetting Ranger benefits by limiting the available weapons.
 

Frostmarrow

First Post
I always thought rangers should be the masters of ranged combat. I find it disturbing that not everyone else agrees, for it makes perfect sense. The defining trait of the ranger is the keen eye and along with that comes uncanny precision.

In D&D ranged and melee combat has been the domain of fighters. I suggest fighters get to keep the best melee skills but has to hand the best shooting skills to the ranger.

Rangers are also known for their hit-and-run tactics. If your best game is from a distance you try to stay at a distance. If you need to be fast and mobile to get there you eschew armor.

All the other stuff rangers may or may not have can be modelled with skills.
 

Li Shenron

Legend
Where does this leave me? I would like the Ranger in DDN to

a. offer all rangers a choice of enemy types with which the character has some affinity (not necessarily as its hunter, mind -- the point about genocide is well taken, and there are cool stories that emerge from other options);

b. offer all rangers a choice of subclasses (at third level probably, like most other classes) between a spell-user, a beast master, and a horizon walker -- Three distinct archetypes, each filling a unique niche;

c. if dual-saber-wielding must be supported (and I don't think it must), then it be through a mechanical option that is also available to DEX-based fighters (and so ideally through a feat);

d. that the wilderness-related background choices (currently only Guide) offer something that will always enhance a Ranger, and not be eclipsed by subsequent Ranger abilities.

Is this too much to ask?

This would be very nice.

I like the idea of favored enemies be mixable (like totem animals benefits for the totem barbarian subclass, and elements benefits for the elemental monk subclass).

Making favored enemy distinct from picking a subclass, and then instead making spellcasting the benefit of one subclass, also sounds a nice possibility.

But also it could be the favored terrain to be used as general class benefit instead of subclass.... Favored enemy, favored terrain, spells, animal companions: all these could be Ranger-defining features (thus shared by all subclasses) but could also be subclass-defining features. They could even be both, i.e. if e.g. favored enemy becomes a class feature for all, then there can be a subclass granting a second favored enemy (or if mixable, then it would just grant twice as many favored enemy benefits).

Overall, it would be good to have even more flexibility than now, because clearly different people have wildly different expectations about how a Ranger should look like...

The only thing that I am convinced can be taken away from the Ranger is the weapon styles. IIRC in AD&D and 3.0 the Ranger had minor freebies related to 2WF (basically some removed penalties rather than boosts), and the whole weapon styles thing only started when a group of players uninterested in 2WF wanted a compensation for not using those minor benefits, hence 3.5 gave the choice between those and some archery feats. IMO this is quite weak conceptually, although I do actually like the attempt at connecting weapon benefits with favored enemies based on how such enemy typically fights (so that multiple-target abilities are more useful against a horde of minions, ranged abilities more useful against flying opponents etc.).

But overall Ranger weapon styles are an unnecessary design complication, because you either make them unique (an additional design effort, and then you have to explain why only Ranger get them) or you just make them feats freebies, which right now are completely unnecessary since the Ranger gets feats anyway... so what are you going to do, give the Ranger a choice between a "free" 2WF feat and a "free" archery feat at level X? Then why not just give them a regular any feat, so that someone uninterested in either can take something else entirely? That's much better, because what first looked like a "free" was instead a restriction.
 

Gadget

Adventurer
I can agree with the general thrust of the thread (Rangers currently lack something). But I feel that there is something missing in the debate of the Ranger history as I recall it. Rangers (along with paladins) where originally fighters++, a reward for rolling good stats that qualified you for these upper tier classes (kind of like prestige classes you had to qualify for at level one). There were some tweaks in regard to alignment and role play restrictions that seemed to be a partial balancing factor, but the fact remains that they got most of the benefits of being a fighter, plus the additional features of their class. Rangers running around in full plate, tracking, hard to surprise, etc. was quite common. In 2nd Edition, they made an attempt to entice the Ranger into a more like the woodsman-skirmisher archetype by bestowing two weapon benefits if they were in 'light' armor (I think it may have said studded leather or less). This had nothing to do with Aragorn (who never duel wielded) and was unlikely to have anything to do with Drizzt, as AD&D 2ed came out only half a year or so after the first Drizzt book (and likely went to print quite a while before that) and this would have been unlikely to have influenced the new edition's release.
 

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
Rangers, for me, are:

Ranged attackers
Two-Handed attackers
Trackers
Mystically Connected with Nature
Lightly Armored
Swift
Stealthy in Nature
 

JRRNeiklot

First Post
The word ranger has nothing to do with ranged attacks. While there's nothing wrong with a ranger choosing to focus on archery, he, nor any other class, should be forced, nor even encouraged to do so, unless there is an archer class that I'm not aware of.
 

Remove ads

Top