Rangers

[Iapetus]

What is unique about the ranger? I have seen rangers in AD&D 2nd edition, 3rd edition, 3.5 edition, and 4th edition, in which they were too hard to be, under powered, or just easily replaceable, respectively. Even so, people played them for their flavor, be it the avenger/protector of nature, two handed weapon master, deadly longbow man, or the dude with a cool pet. Any of these, up to this point can be replicated through a fighter/druid combination, or purely fighter if you don't mind not having an animal companion. I would like to hear other's positions on this and what they should be the same/different about them in the coming 5th edition, or even if they should be removed.

 

[Pyromantic]

I for one would be perfectly happy to see Ranger removed as a class and split into Theme/Background. Off the top of my head, the various things that have distinguished the class in the past are:

Spells. I'm hoping that the multi-classing is robust enough to handle this if desired. (Or going pure caster if you want to emphasize it.)

Two-weapon fighting, or Archery. I think these kinds of abilities are set into Theme now.

Skills. Definitely Background.

Animal Companion. Since an animal companion makes plenty of sense for someone of just about any class, I'd expect this to reside in Themes.

Favoured Enemy. Ditto.

Point being, just about anything that has "defined" the Ranger in the past is something that resides in another class (making it redundant) or makes sense for someone regardless of class (making it Theme and Background material).

 

[Iapetus]

I for one would be perfectly happy to see Ranger removed as a class and split into Theme/Background.

Ok, but could their be any way to make it unique and irreplaceable, something not like a tree-hugging goblin-hating fighter?

 

[Sunseeker]

While I like "ranger" as a class, I do feel that it could largely be built as a rogue or fighter variant Theme that would provide all necessary elements that we generally expect from a ranger such as Favored Enemy, minor nature-themed spellcasting or perhaps SU/EX abilities that take their place, Quarry, a pet OPTION(I hate pets!) and so on.

Personally I think that the sneaky backstabber ranger is more fitting for a rogue setup, and the two-weapon drizzt is a better fighter thing. I really feel that the ranger's big shtick is in archery ala a more Legolas style deal.

 

[variant]

I play a Ranger to be a Ranger, not a Fighter/Druid, or a Rogue/Druid, or a Fighter or Rogue with some background. They are not rogueish and the only thing they have in common with fighters is that they use weapons.

 

[Minigiant]

I see a ranger as a master of perception, adaption, self-sufficiency, and experience.


The Ranger is not a fighter. The fighter masters fighting and combat. The ranger does what he has to do to deal with the rampaging owlbear, the territorial wolves, or the malicious fey out for some bloody fun.

The Ranger is not a rogue. The rogue is a master of skills. The ranger only masters the skill he needs to survive in wherever he is. Knowledge of nature, perception, and the streets. Stealth and perception. These are requirements not options.

The Ranger is not a druid. The druid commands nature and the environment. Rangers deal with nature. He makes relationships with beasts and fey instead of summoning them. He uses natural herbs to heal sickness rather than magicking them away. He predicts disasters and hazards rather than creating them.

 

[MoonSong]

Exactly, the uniqueness of the ranger comes from the players that likes the class, that may not meant much from the refluffers perspective, yes you could pottentially reduce a ranger to a theme/background thing, because mechanically they don't have anything truly unique to them, but once you do it, you essentially kill all but the most stereotipical rangers. What is a ranger? easy, a ranger is a ranger, the same way a bard is a bard and a paladin is a paladin. You can't reduce a ranger to a single mechanical element, because a ranger is the sum of the parts, there is not an individual part of the ranger that is the "ranger maker". Spellcasting? 4e and Complete Warrior rangers had no spells and they were still rangers, archery? Drizzit was no archer, Naturey skills? Urban rangers want to have a word with you...

I keep saying it, if Next reduced classes to themes, specially popular classes, then it will lose way more players than ever. If rangers get reduced to a theme, then noone gets to play one if themes are not used on a table, and in tables where themes are usable, all rangers become the same boring thing, because it gets impossible to customize a ranger, you already lost the customizing chance just to get plain old vanilla ranger.

Edit: and to me a Ranger is a master of his environment first and most, his abilities just follow suit to it. Try to reduce that to a theme/background combination

 

[DerekSTheRed]

The Ranger is a WotC cash cow. It ain't going anywhere thanks to a certain drow.

 

[Sunseeker]

The Ranger is a WotC cash cow. It ain't going anywhere thanks to a certain drow.

Drizzt is a multiclass ranger/fighter.

 

[Drakhar]

The Ranger is a WotC cash cow. It ain't going anywhere thanks to a certain drow.

Actually I think it's more likely that Ranger's not going anywhere because of Aragorn if anything.