D&D 5E What is/should be the Ranger's "thing"?

[Minigiant]

The ranger gets its bonus damage or combat versatility from its 3rd and 11th subclass features.

The Hunter gets situational bonus damage or free attacks and then an at will AOE attack.

The Beastmaster gets combat versatility then a 3rd attack.

The argument can be made that it isn't enough. However power gamers can twink both to crazy degrees.

The argument can be made that the damage should be linked to FE. However history shows that too many DMs and adventure writers aren't wise enough to make this work.

Another argument is that the bonus damage should have need part of the base class. That could be debated.

 

[fuindordm]

The bonus damage doesn't need to be part of the base class, I agree. If we want subclasses that encourage different combat roles, it can go in the subclasses.

The beastmaster actually does encourage a very unique play style and combat role, which makes it more interesting to me personally than the hunter. The beastmaster has tactical reasons to support and coordinate with the pet, and an updated version could use some explicit advantages (e.g. giving pack tactics to ranger and pet, even if the base animal doesn't have it). But it's not a play style with universal appeal because it requires the PC to travel with a pet.

The hunter gets several tricks, but none of them really encourage the player to stalk, scout, or hunt. They are, more or less, always on. The colossus slayer damage triggers on kobolds as well as ogres, it's just that the bonus damage is more likely to be wasted. So the player just goes up and whacks things, enjoying the passive advantages, and playing like a fighter who has an edge in certain types of battles. Only the AOE attack adds a new decision point, and that comes rather late.

I agree that the bonus damage does not need to be linked to FE, even though it traditionally has been. The beastmaster feels very much like a ranger to me. But I would like the bonus damage for some kinds of rangers to be linked to the playstyle of scouting and hunting, and I would like the base ranger to be mundane.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In the new podcast, Mike Mearls indicated that in a future UA we're going to see the Ranger rebuilt from the ground up. The problem, as he presented it, is that the Ranger was originally a hodge-podge of abilities, based on the various things Aragorn does in the LR, and that even as the class developed it's own shtick in 2E, its specialized abilities were made available to other characters through the skill system. According to Mearls, this problem has still not been adequately remedied by 5E, thus the redesign effort that is presumably underway.

This has been bugging me. How did the Ranger even rate a class if it was that unfocused and it's old claims to fame had been undercut since 2E? Did someone think game needed a half-caster of Druid spells /so/ badly that they couldn't count on optional multi-classing for it? Then why not 'just' a Fighter archetype like the EK, but with woodsy spells?

Obviously, the answer is that the Ranger was in every PH1, while other classes that actually would have contributed unique options to the game were in fewer, or in later supplements, or weren't technically classes when they appeared in a PH.

But needing to re-imagine the Ranger like this is clear evidence that it should have been cut to make room for something that would've added real options to the game. At least they got the Psion in the pipe-line before throwing more design resources at the redundant* Ranger.

In before the "should be a subclass/background" meme.

[sblock="*Ranger should be a subclass/background meme"]
Obviously, you can get really close to a traditional Ranger with a Fighter, some Druid levels (if you want a casting ranger) and the Outlander background.

That may not be close enough for everyone, but it is a whole lot closer to a Ranger than...

... Wizard Guild Artisan is to an Artificer.

... Great Old One Warlock is to a Psion.

... A Fighter/Bard Soldier w/ Inspiring Leader is to a Warlord.

... A Battlemaster is to a Warblade.

... An Eldritch Knight Soldier or Entertainer is to a Swordmage or Bladesinger.

... A Dragon Sorcerer Soldier is to a Warmage.

... A Druid or Nature Cleric is to a Shaman.

...etc...
[/sblock]

 

[TheCosmicKid]

This raises the question from where does a class derive its identity? Is it the flavor-text which, as is to be expected, is always presented in the form of a preamble tipped in at the beginning of the class description? Or does it come from the mechanics, which dictate how the class actually feels and is played? I'm giving preference to the latter because I think that's what makes the class what it is. The fluff, in contrast, doesn't have any real effect on the game at all.

Like I said, the fluff is what tells us what Gygax was actually thinking about when he wrote the class. All the mechanics are ostensibly in service of the fluff. It makes sense to ask, "Do the mechanics effectively or ineffectively reflect what the fluff says?" It does not make sense to ask the reverse.

I'm not sure how spells of any sort qualify as woodcraft. Certainly none of the woodsy types you've been saying the class must emulate are known for using magic as the source for their mastery of the environment. They all seem to be rather mundane woodsmen.

And I think the mundane ranger ought to be an option. But as far as discovering the theme of the 1E ranger as Gygax wrote it, I have a hard time believing you honestly don't see how druid spells show a connection to an outdoorsman theme. If the rogue got the ability to cast illusion spells, I'd disagree with it because I think the rogue ought to be mundane, but it would still be evidence that whoever wrote that rogue saw it as a trickster class.

Only 1, 2, and 3 are unique to the Ranger. 4 is available to Druids, 5 and 6 are available to Magic-users, and 7 is available to every class, AFAIK.

Okay, then that's two out of three. You're making my point for me.

Why do you think I would agree with that? Why should the Ranger have druid spells and not magic-user spells? What's wrong with being able to use scrying objects, considering the connection to Aragorn that this cultivates? And, lastly, why oughtn't the Ranger to attract followers? It is, after all, a sub-class of Fighter. It wouldn't make much sense for the Ranger to attain the title of Lord at 10th level and have no followers whatsoever. I'm not sure why you are ascribing these opinions to me.

...and I'm pretty sure you're just arguing for the sake of argument here, considering the above.

Let me get this straight. You're saying that woodcraft is the Ranger's "thing", but that this shouldn't depend on being in the woods, by which I think you mean the Ranger's favored terrain. Is that correct?

It should not depend on the woods to a major extent, yes, because that would punish a player for adventuring into diverse locations. Much as book knowledge is a wizard's "thing", but his powers don't depend on being in a library. These places are where these characters picked up their skills, but the skills have broader applicability.

The problem as I see it is that a Rogue can put its Expertise in Survival and be better at tracking than a Ranger can. The Fighter by being proficient is just as good as the Ranger.

As the ranger is written in 5E, this is not true when the characters are in the ranger's favored terrain. The ranger effectively has expertise, so he equals the rogue in raw skill bonus, and he also gets some added functionality from the Natural Explorer ability (most usefully, in my experience, being able to track while still remaining on lookout). The fighter, of course, doesn't get expertise and doesn't even come close.

And we are discussing rewriting the ranger, so augmenting the class abilities here is very much on the table. Just spitballing here, but a good start would be letting a ranger "acclimatize" to treat wherever he is as a favored terrain after an appropriate period. Or just making the abilities "always on". And surely it's possible to write more impressive abilities that directly or indirectly key off of Survival, the way a rogue has Sneak Attack keying off of Stealth/Deception. I've made this point before, but: nobody is complaining that you can build a rogue just by giving a fighter Stealth and the criminal background.

My answer was Favored Enemy, which I think fits nicely with what I see as the Ranger's back-story.

Characters have backstories. Classes don't.

If you don't like the narrative that having a favored enemy implies then you are free to rationalize it in any way you like. Or if you want to play an outdoorsy type character, but don't want to have Favored Enemy as a class feature, you could play a Rogue or a Fighter and take skills that reflect woodcraft.

This is... I'm trying not to call you names, but this is just a really, really arrogant statement. Please give it another read and try to understand how it sounds to others. "Do things my way, and if you don't like it, it's on you to figure out how to deal with it."

Of course the Ranger could have some entirely new mechanic to make it more effective at whatever you think its "thing" is, and there have been a lot of good suggestions in this thread to that effect, but the reason I've focused on FE is that out of those three original abilities that set the Ranger apart, only FE hasn't been co-opted by other classes, so it makes sense to me to strengthen that, rather than try to make the Ranger best at what other classes can do almost as good.

Again: rogues and sneakiness. Opening up the skill system to other classes hasn't damaged the rogue's identity. Heck, even as early as 2E other classes could hide in shadows and move silently, so the rogue's "thing" has ostensibly been co-opted far longer than the ranger's.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Obviously, the answer is that the Ranger was in every PH1, while other classes that actually would have contributed unique options to the game were in fewer, or in later supplements, or weren't technically classes when they appeared in a PH.

And most of the "unique options" you mention are not distinct classic fantasy archetypes the way the "resourceful woodsman" is. Artificers and psions are very setting-specific. Warblades are conceptually fighters, however mechanically different they behave. Ditto warmages for sorcerers. Swordmages and bladesingers are multiclass characters pretty much by definition. And I'm honestly not sure what you think distinguishes shamans from druids or nature clerics such that those classes are a poor match for the archetype.

That really just leaves the warlord. Never much cared for the 4E name, but that "mundane leader guy" archetype, along with the "swashbuckler" archetype, are the two things that are conspicuously missing from the 5E PHB. So if you want a new version of that class, I'm with you. But it doesn't have priority over the ranger, and it was never going to. And I don't see much profit in grumbling about that. This conversation, as I understand it, is about improving the ranger, not going back in time to pluck it out of the PHB in favor of classes we like better. So do you have productive things to say about how the ranger's archetype can be represented mechanically?

 

[Remathilis]

[sblock="*Ranger should be a subclass/background meme"]
Obviously, you can get really close to a traditional Ranger with a Fighter, some Druid levels (if you want a casting ranger) and the Outlander background.

That may not be close enough for everyone, but it is a whole lot closer to a Ranger than...

... Wizard Guild Artisan is to an Artificer.

... Great Old One Warlock is to a Psion.

... A Fighter/Bard Soldier w/ Inspiring Leader is to a Warlord.

... A Battlemaster is to a Warblade.

... An Eldritch Knight Soldier or Entertainer is to a Swordmage or Bladesinger.

... A Dragon Sorcerer Soldier is to a Warmage.

... A Druid or Nature Cleric is to a Shaman.

...etc...
[/sblock]

Agreed on Artificer. Being able to cast spells and make stuff =/= being able to magically make stuff or make magical stuff.

Agree on Psion/Mystic. Thank Pelor (and Vecna) that WotC saw fit to make psionics the pervue of a proper class rather than a bunch of spellcasters getting telepathy spells and psionic sublcasses.

Mostly agree on Warlord. There is definitely room for a warrior who can boost allies and grant extra actions, but I'm just not sure if he can fill the healer role well.

Disagree on warblade. Warblade is for the most part a meaningless, made-up name designed because they didn't want call it "Test Fighter 2.0". I think adding a few more options (and CS dice) to the Battlemaster does a good job of emulating the warblade.

Partial disagree on Swordmage/bladesinger. To me, Eldritch Knight, Bladesinger, Swordmage, Duskblade, Gish, Magus, and the old Elf class are all different examples of the fighter/mage mix trying to do so without multiclassing. Some lean more on the fighter with spells element, some lean more on the wizard with a sword element. Individual mixes vary. That said, the rumored "bladesinger" subclass in SCAG might be more wizard with sword type, which will balance nicely against the EK's fighter with spells mix.

Yeah, Warmage is 1/2 warblade problem (a meaningless name designed to cover a specific mechanical niche) and 1/2 swordmage (a wizard with sword, or in this case evoker with armor). Like the Dread Necromancer, Summoner, and Beguiler, they are just different ways to mechanically do specialist wizards, forced into being their own class.

Potential Agree on Shaman, depending on what you're basing your shaman off of. There are dozens of shaman classes at this point; some are primitive clerics, some are druidic/primal full casters, some deal with nature, some deal with spirits, some deal with none-of-the-above. The mechanical identity of shamans is more schizophrenic than mystics! So a druid or nature cleric COULD cover some old shaman classes, but not others. Its certainly good subclass territory, if not proper class territory.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Agreed on Artificer. Being able to cast spells and make stuff =/= being able to magically make stuff or make magical stuff.

Agree on Psion/Mystic. Thank Pelor (and Vecna) that WotC saw fit to make psionics the pervue of a proper class rather than a bunch of spellcasters getting telepathy spells and psionic sublcasses.

While it wouldn't have upset me as much, I'm glad to see that, too.

Fortunately, there's reason to hope both those are on track.

Mostly agree on Warlord. There is definitely room for a warrior who can boost allies and grant extra actions, but I'm just not sure if he can fill the healer role well.

It did when it was introduced, no reason it can't, again - though it's not like there are exactly roles in 5e. It might fill a healer role or the 'warlord role.' As long as it's a worthy successor.

Disagree on warblade. Warblade is for the most part a meaningless, made-up name designed because they didn't want call it "Test Fighter 2.0". I think adding a few more options (and CS dice) to the Battlemaster does a good job of emulating the warblade.

A recovery mechanism for CS dice other than resting (focus or momentum or something) would go little ways towards making the Battlemaster more like the warblade.

Partial disagree on Swordmage/bladesinger. To me, Eldritch Knight, Bladesinger, Swordmage, Duskblade, Gish, Magus, and the old Elf class are all different examples of the fighter/mage mix trying to do so without multiclassing. Some lean more on the fighter with spells element, some lean more on the wizard with a sword element. Individual mixes vary. That said, the rumored "bladesinger" subclass in SCAG might be more wizard with sword type, which will balance nicely against the EK's fighter with spells mix.Yeah, Warmage is 1/2 warblade problem (a meaningless name designed to cover a specific mechanical niche) and 1/2 swordmage (a wizard with sword, or in this case evoker with armor). Like the Dread Necromancer, Summoner, and Beguiler, they are just different ways to mechanically do specialist wizards, forced into being their own class.

Nod. I admit those are a tad tenuous, I just find the Ranger's justification even more tenuous.

Potential Agree on Shaman, depending on what you're basing your shaman off of. There are dozens of shaman classes at this point; some are primitive clerics, some are druidic/primal full casters, some deal with nature, some deal with spirits, some deal with none-of-the-above. The mechanical identity of shamans is more schizophrenic than mystics! So a druid or nature cleric COULD cover some old shaman classes, but not others. Its certainly good subclass territory, if not proper class territory.

I was thinking of the bolded sort. A fetch or spirit companion is really the missing piece of the puzzle. Maybe a feat or circle or domain, could finagle it.

And most of the "unique options" you mention are not distinct classic fantasy archetypes the way the "resourceful woodsman" is.

Aside from the psion being arguably science-fiction, they are. Not so much because fantasy fiction is full of Artificers, but because the Ranger archetype is so wobbly, right now, and because "resourceful woodsman" (or whatever identity gets picked out for the ranger) probably isn't all that distinct, at all.

Outlander appended to any class or class-combo that might be deemed 'resourceful' offers an alternate way to do it, that doesn't fall nearly as far short as the current ways to attempt those other examples tend to. Even if there weren't a Ranger class already, there'd be less of a need for a new class to cover the Aragorn/Robin-Hood/(and that's really about it) archetype, than there is for the other classes mentioned.

Warblades are conceptually fighters, however mechanically different they behave.

The fighter is asked to cover too much conceptual ground in most editions of D&D, and 5e is no different. The Warblade is just so much /more/ of what the Battlemaster tries to be, for instance, that, yes that mechanical difference is very meaningful. The same goes for things you could do with the 3.5 or 4e fighter. And, of course, the Warlord.

Swordmages and bladesingers are multiclass characters pretty much by definition.

Yep, as are Paladins and EKs, but, the EK isn't a full class, and like the Paladin, they each put their own spin on said multi-classing-equivalency. Not to say that they have any great right to exist or couldn't be done with multi-classing, just that the Ranger has less and could as easily be.

And I'm honestly not sure what you think distinguishes shamans from druids or nature clerics such that those classes are a poor match for the archetype.

The shaman interacts with a 'spirit world,' has a fetch and so forth.

That really just leaves the warlord... that "mundane leader guy" archetype, along with the "swashbuckler" archetype, are the two things that are conspicuously missing from the 5E PHB. So if you want a new version of that class, I'm with you.

I'd've called out Psionics as the second conspicuous missing character type in the PH after the Warlord - Psionics were in a PH1, just not technically as a class. The Swashbuckler never quite made it into a PH1.
With the use of light weapons & armor all but decoupled from class in 5e, it's not even that hard to do a 'swashbuckler,' there's even a Sailor(Pirate) background to go with it. Having to use fighter as a component of the build might limit it compared to the way some past eds might have implemented it, but it's almost as doable as the Ranger.

But it doesn't have priority over the ranger, and it was never going to. And I don't see much profit in grumbling about that.

The mistake's been made, it can't be un-made - but that doesn't mean it has to be repeated.

This conversation, as I understand it, is about improving the ranger, not going back in time to pluck it out of the PHB in favor of classes we like better. So do you have productive things to say about how the ranger's archetype can be represented mechanically?

I honestly think dropping the re-development of the Ranger as a wasted effort, and delving into other classes with more promise would be the better idea. And, yes, that /is/ productive, because re-developing the Ranger won't be productive. There are other, better-defined, archetypes that 5e doesn't yet cover nearly as well that would benefit the game more with their inclusion, than would a refined Ranger (or re-cycling the Ranger name on something totally novel, just for the sake of calling something a 'Ranger').

Move re-designing the Ranger to the back of the queue. We already have a Ranger, and can build very ranger-like characters using existing classes & backgrounds. The Psion('Mystic') and perhaps Artificer are already presumably ahead of it in line - other classes like the Warlord and Shaman (and I'm sure there are other excellent candidates) should be, too.



It's discouraging that they're apparently leading up to tackling the Ranger for a third or fourth or whatever time this'll make it (two Rangers in Essentials, iterations of playtest Rangers, the Outlander background, the 5e Ranger, the spell-less Ranger article: 6th+ attempt?) when there are much better uses for that effort.

But, while I'd rather not see WotC waste development hours on the Ranger, we have unlimited time to waste here, so don't let me derail the thread. Heck I'll probably chime in with another actual ranger idea if I ever have one...

 

[TheCosmicKid]

But, while I'd rather not see WotC waste development hours on the Ranger, we have unlimited time to waste here, so don't let me derail the thread. Heck I'll probably chime in with another actual ranger idea if I ever have one...

Yes, that was pretty much what I was getting at.

 

[Remathilis]

I think one of the problems with rangers is that people still view them as wilderness WARRIORS. As in, close kin with the Fighter. What if they instead were closer to Rogue? The original 4e ranger was on par with rogues (moreso than fighters) and most people felt the 3.5 Scout class was more rangery than the 3e ranger class.

Just to spit-ball a few ideas.

* Bonuses based on movement/skirmishing. Rogues are decent skirmishers, but require stealth or allies to get SA. A ranger could be more focused on moving around, such as getting extra damage if you move more than 10 feet in a round.

* d8 HD, but more skills. Match the rogue. Maybe even Expertise.

* Light Armor, simple and light weapons.

* Tighter weapon focus. Ya'll gonna hate me, but give them benefits when using archery, dual-wielding, or one-handed weapons. (Want a greatsword wielding ranger? multiclass a level of fighter). The tighter focus could give them great abilities with those weapons.

* Spellcasting Optional. Via subclass (ala Arcane Trickster) to grant druid spells.

* Terrain benefits. Your home terrain grants you benefits: forest terrain grants camouflage, coastal terrain gives you a swim speed, mountain terrain grant you a climb speed.

* Favored Enemy grants tangible abilities. FE dragons grant you immunity to dragon fear and advantage to saves vs. breath weapons. FE: undead gives you benefits against life drain and aging effect. FE: aberrations gives you resistance against psychic damage. Note: not a single bonus to damage here.

Basically, make them a wilderness rogue, adept at skills but with a outdoorsy focus rather than fighter/druids.


NOTE: I'm basically happy with the Ranger as is, but I would have liked him to be more rogue-like than fighter-like. My only gripe is that the animal companion ranger is kinda meh.

 

[Hussar]

Characters have backstories. Classes don't.

I'm going to disagree here. Many classes come directly with backstories - Clerics have some sort of diety/force behind them and are certainly implied to be tied to the setting. By and large, I wouldn't drop my Odin worshipping cleric in a Dragonlance campaign. Warlocks also come with a significant amount of baggage. And most of the classes certainly imply a starting point for someone of that class. I wouldn't expect my barbarian to be an eldest son, noble born, and well educated. He could be, but, generally that's playing against type.

-------

A thought occurs, and I'm just floating this one out there to see if it has any legs.

Again, holding with the idea of ranger archetypes, like Aragorn, or Robin Hood, or Tarzan even, something a lot of rangers have in common is the idea of leader of something. Aragorn's a king, Robin Hood has his merry men, Tarzan is king of the apes. And rangers have long had a "pet", whether through their followers in AD&D or straight up in 3e. What if we broadened that concept a bit and sneak up behind the Warlord and take his stuff?

Could our new "from the ground up" ranger not benefit from emphasizing the idea of "leader" (not the 4e role, but, in the dictionary sense) and have either a cohort in the case that your "pet" is intelligent or an actual pet. Warlordish powers could be repurposed to focus on the pet, with possible side beneifits for the entire party. No one seems to have an issue with a ranger having spells, so, healing could be brought in nicely as well without dredging up the whole non-magic healing bugaboo.

And people keep talking about how a ranger is supposed to fight smarter, not harder - being self reliant and all that. I think I could see the ranger taking on the warlords role in the party and becoming a more tactical/strategic style character. Maybe the three subclasses could be something like - Self Reliant Ranger who focuses on the group; Pet based ranger with animal goodies; and cohort ranger.

Does this idea have any legs?