Rangers

[Pyromantic]

1. The devs have already stated that some classes may be better suited to Themes/Backgrounds in this edition and will end up there.

2. There is absolutely no reason to believe that placing Ranger elements into Themes/Backgrounds reduces the possibility to customize. The devs have specifically discussed this. Indeed, it may become easier to make a Ranger that fits your particular vision.

3. You also open up the possibility of layering things like Animal Companions and Favoured Enemies on top of other classes.

I'm not saying the Ranger is definitely not going to exist as a class in Next, but I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't.

 

[Minigiant]

1. The devs have already stated that some classes may be better suited to Themes/Backgrounds in this edition and will end up there.

2. There is absolutely no reason to believe that placing Ranger elements into Themes/Backgrounds reduces the possibility to customize. The devs have specifically discussed this. Indeed, it may become easier to make a Ranger that fits your particular vision.

3. You also open up the possibility of layering things like Animal Companions and Favoured Enemies on top of other classes.

Actually it makes it worse as Ranger element now take up both the background and theme slots. Before where I could have been a Noble Ranger Slayer, I am stuck as a Ranger Fighter Ranger.

I'm not saying the Ranger is definitely not going to exist as a class in Next, but I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't.

I'd be surprised.

Basically any concept that too complex to be condensed into a theme or background should be a class. And the way the designers are talking about themes and backgrounds, most of them will be rather simplistic.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I'd hate for the Ranger to become a Fighter/Druid multiclass. The Ranger is totally different from the Druid, thematically speaking--the Druid is a priest who worships nature, and the Ranger is a fighter who's good at naturey stuff.

Can we please have them be called subclasses again? I don't think there's anything wrong with saying "the barbarian is a special kind of fighter who can enter a berserker rage" or "the assassin is a special kind of rogue who specializes in murder."

 

[mlund]

The ranger is definitely a small-tent class pitched between the fighter and the rogue. There's going to be some obvious overlap between Fighters or Rogues with certain skills sets and a dedicated Ranger. In fact, in the game world there are probably people called rangers who don't even take the Ranger class but are those specialized Rogues and Fighters.

But at its heart, the Ranger is not a spell-caster (though some rangers may have some limited magical spells via backgrounds) nor a servant of nature (Aragorn wasn't). Rangers are survivalists of their environment. They "range" the uncivilized countryside - some patrolling borders, some hunting monsters, some prospecting gold, others sometimes just trapping animals for fur.

The Ranger class defines largely what you can do, not your motivations for doing it. "Champion of nature" could just as easily be cast aside for "Conqueror of the Wild" for a pioneer who subdues an area for settlement.

The point is a Ranger is a survivor. Drop him or her into the wilderness and they won't want for food, shelter, or water. They'll be prepared to combat or escape all manner of indigenous beasts and humanoids. They always know how many days travel they are from any relevant landmark and they'd never careless fall prey to the lightning sands, flame spurts or R.O.U.S.'s - even while baby-sitting a princess.

- Marty Lund

 

[Incenjucar]

The ranger as a concept has never fully matched the ranger as rules (at least since 2E...). A ranger, conceptually, is a master of their environment. Instead, they get highly-specific monster slaying abilities and woodland followers.

I doubt they ever will, but if they took the IDEA of the ranger and tried to build a class off of that, we could get something amazing.

 

[Li Shenron]

Personally I think that the strongest archetype of the Ranger is the lonely, away-from-society, wilderness-expert protector of the world. Protector of the world, not just protector of trees an furry animals, in a way that may or may not be immediately understandable to non-rangers (and some rangers as well), to which he may indeed look like he's just protecting the flora and the fauna.

I think a certain aura of mystery or the supernatural does the ranger a favor, in a similar way to paladinhood, which always has some unearthly flavor, starting from "the calling".

But then, if that should be the ranger to be magical of wholly mundane when it comes to actual class abilities, this is another (unresolved, probably unsolvable) matter.

 

[Blackwarder]

I don't want to see the ranger become a theme or a background, the ranger as a lass is the master of survival, if you have a ranger in the group than you will be able to go further and longer with a given amount of supply, he will know how to track, hunt and find the best way from point A to point B.

I wouldn't mind it one bit if they drop the bonus to attack a certain type of monster in the base class and move it to a monster hunter theme that anyone can pick, the same is true for archer ranger, two weapon fighting or having an animal companion, I would love to have them as a themes, perhaps ones that ranger can get more easily but themes non the less.

I want to play and Aragorn like ranger, ideally I could play a <noble><slayer><ranger>(<background><theme><class>) when I start the character or perhaps <noble><leader><ranger> on the count that Aragon later on lead man or ideally <noble><slayer><leader><ranger> with <leader> being the theme I pick on level six.

Warder

 

[Minigiant]

You know, essentially, I would hand ranger and ranger-wannabes like this.

Backgrounds:
Hunter: Intimidate, Perception, and Survival skills. Tracking trait
Pathfinder: Athletics, Diplomacy, and Endurance skills. Terrain Mastery trait
Detective: Perception, Streetwise, and Sense Motive skills. Bonus Language trait.
Scout: Athletics, Perception, and Stealth skills. Tracking trait

Themes:
TWF theme- Weapon blender
Archery theme- Polymorph into Pincushion
THW theme- Favored Leap Heedless Charge Power Attack for +40 damage -10 AC
Beastmaster theme- Animal companion
Priest theme- Spell ranger

Class:
Ranger
d8 HD
Near fighter combat ability
All simple and martial weapons, Light and medium armor
Tracking Trait

Favored Enemy List

• Skill bonus to FE (Bluff & Perception)
• Damage bonus to FE

Favored Environment List

• Skill Bonus to FE (Endurance, Perception, Stealth)
• AC bonus while in FE

 

[Prism]

It should be greatly beneficial to a party to have a ranger in the party when they set off into any wilderness or unexplorered land. A rangers powers should be to enhance the party rather than being always about sufficiency. The 4e essentials rangers contained some interesting party enhancing abilities that I'd like to see in a 5e ranger.

A party traveling with a ranger should be hard to suprise, never run short of food or warmth, be able to traverse difficult terrain, know in advance what monsters are likely to be encountered and their weaknesses. A party traveling without should struggle at some of these things. A party that doesn't have a ranger should consider hiring one. A ranger in a 4e world should have been a leader

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

Right. There's been a ranger class in every edition of the AD&D strand and it's been different in every edition.

1e: Aragorn. With the serial numbers filed off and not even filed off very well. Rangers gained the ability to use crystal balls because Aragorn could use a Palantir.

2e: A fighter variant, specialising in wilderness work and designed to soak up high stats rather than someone getting that stat roll putting it all into Str, Dex, and Con for an ultimate fighter. Also using two weapon fighting to differentiate them from fighters. Finally the ranger gains a bonus to damage against 'giants' - which includes anything from kobolds through orcs to real giants. This is multiplied up by the benefits of two weapon fighting (2e's strongest combat style) for a complete monster killer.

3.0: A nerfed fighter - two weapon with more skills and the ability to track. 3.0 rangers sucked. They gained two weak combat feats (two weapon fighting not being great without bonus damage in 3.X) as long as they only wore light armour and minor bonuses from their favoured enemy. They were also front-loaded and therefore used for one level dips. Bad, bad class.

3.5: A bounty hunter specialising in specific targets. Better skill points, tracking, a doubled favoured enemy bonus to make it worthwhile. And a choice between two weapons and archery. You couldn't run from them - they could track you with a bonus. You couldn't outrun them - they had endurance and high fort and ref saves.

4e PHB: A skirmishing warrior - either very similar to the 2e version (seriously high damage but poor AC) or able to turn the air black with arrows rather than fighting with two weapons. Decent although not outstanding skills, including a nature focus. And like the 2e ranger arguably the highest damage class in the game. A thematic conversion from a 2e ranger to a 4e one (or vise-versa) would work very well.

4e Essentials: A wilderness warrior with class based bonusses to outdoor skills that benefits the whole party - and the same choice in fighting styles that the 3.5 and 4e phb rangers had between two weapons and a bow. Much cleaner to play than the PHB ranger (I meant 4e but I'll put one up against any edition) and more strongly focussed thematically. Probably the one I'd recommend taking forward.