The Ranger: What is his shtick?

[Sunseeker]

4 Skills? That's not enough, man.

How am I supposed to spot and sneak up to one scout to snipe him, goad the other scouts to chase me, jump over the deadly natural hazard I noticed on the way, whistle for my pet birdie to hop out the tree to claw the face off the other, pull the arrow shot at me out my shoulder, neutralize the poison, heal up, and send a bird to the rest of the party with an update message.

Y U wan nerf ranger?

Actually it was 4+class skills and whatever extra skills u get from race or background. So a skillful, theme on a rogue class with a "learned" background might have something in the range of 8 or 9 skills, tack on some skillful race and you've got a serious skillmonkey build. But the base class would have 3-5 skills of its own.

Also its spot, stealth/move silently/hide, attack action, goad as a free action(no skill check), jump/acrobatics in your move action, new round, call pet, pull arrow out roughly as a minor, poison save, heal check standard, send pet away. Really only have like, 4 skills here.

 

[satori01]

I fall into the camp of those that would like to see the Ranger class fall by the wayside and be represented by Themes and Backgrounds.

A single tactic, like say Guerilla fighting, is just not enough thematically to hang a class on. A single class should not have a monopoly on mobility, wilderness survival, or tracking.

These are clear candidates for Background and Themes.

The 1E Ranger had the gleam of just being better than all other fighting classes and hard to qualify for, so rarity lead to comradierie if one was presented as a NPC.

I have always felt Favored Enemy/ Favored Terrain bonuses to be sterile, and gamey, and woul not like them reprised.

The notion of The Ranger as the monster killer is cool, and has promise, but I think the Game would be better with that as a Theme or Background and thus available to everyone, and not just a single class .

 

[GM Dave]

My thoughts and two pennies.

1> There are plenty of versions of rangers. When I look at my books of ranger kits, prestige classes, or dragon articles then I find there are plenty of different rangers.

Many of those types of rangers like the Desert Ranger, Urban Ranger, or Glacier Ranger are similar to each other with the Wilderness part pulled off and bolted on in a new version. You shift a few skill and feat choices and you create the Sea Ranger.

Further to this, I see almost the same amount of the exact same bolt on and snap off bits for all the other classes. I've seen Mountain Wizards, Ice Clerics, Primitive Fighters, and other variations on the main theme.

This suggests to me that the Forest or Wilderness concept to the Ranger is like the Criminal idea to the Rogue. If you want a 'classic' forest Ranger then choose the Forest theme but if you are doing a nautical campaign you might replace the Forest theme with the Sea theme.

This now allows value to the Ranger concept as they can start adapted to their environment (instead of explaining why they are dressed in green tights and standing in the middle of a desert ~ cactus? ). It also allows other classes to choose to pick up any of these 'Terrain Themes' at the start if they want to make a Desert Priest or Sea Warrior.

When a ranger levels up they could then select with their 'theme' choices to pick up additional 'Terrain Themes' or the design of the Ranger class may allow a 'free' Terrain Theme choice at certain levels.

2> Animals, how I love my Ranger pets and how some people loathe them.

Some people want a pet and some people don't. Some people want to start with a pet and some people would like to put it off.

Pets, Animals, Familiars, Divine companions, and other such things are again something that is not unique to the wants of Rangers.

If you are Cleric of the Forest then you might want to have a Wolf or Bear following you around even though you are not a Druid. If you are a Fighter then maybe you are a Bestiario that fights with War Dogs beside you while riding a Warhorse.

If you don't want an Animal then maybe you'd like a Brownie or Elf to stand beside you in battle (1st ed rangers did not just attract animals to accompany them but non-humans also). If you are a Wizard then maybe you'd like a Shield Maiden or Yojimbo accompanying you on your travels and adventures.

A universal idea that has appeared in different classes and at different levels speaks to me again of the concept of 'theme'.

This again works well for the 'Ranger' who can then trade the 'Animal' or 'Companion' theme for a different theme if the GM doesn't want pets in their campaign or if the player prefers picking up 'mystic' or 'noble' as an alternative choice.

A classic 3e core Ranger might choose 'Forest' as his first level theme and 'Animal Companion' as his 5th level theme. He could even pick up 'Mystic' as his 3rd theme to give access to limited spells at higher levels.

3> So if we pull those parts off of a Ranger, what is left? If you remove the themes of 'Terrain', 'Companion', and 'Mystic' (my stand in for limited spell access without knowing more of the system) then what is left to be the Ranger?

+ There is the Damage Bonus (Favoured Enemey or Anti-humanoid Giants).
+ There is tracking
+ There is Ambush (bonus on surprise checks), Stealth, Mobility
+ Preference for light armour and certain weapons (though not mandatory in 1st ed where the selection was fully the same as Fighters).
+ Possibly a dedicated weapon specialist though this seems to me more of a Fighter concept then a Ranger.

This would suggest going with a Hunter/Special Ops approach. Rangers are not just ordinary woodsmen or warriors trained to stand firm in the line of battle. They believe them selves to be the 'Best of the Best'. One or two rangers can work independently or as part of a team to round up Poachers, Lead forces through hazardous terrain, Find enemy formations, and hunt down dangerous animals.

Personally, I'm not a fan of the 'Favoured Enemey' approach. I've been burned too many times by GMs while playing a ranger (weird how undead and dragons stop appearing in the campaign when you are dedicated to killing them). I much prefer the Avenger/Ranger 4e version of quarry or the PF Inquisitor's Bane weapon and Judgements (though I doubt the fluff would fly with most of the Ranger crowd complaining of magic getting in the way of their 'pure' rangers).

For the Hunter theme to work there are two ways to approach the problem.

Option 1: The Hunter has to select a target to go after and they get bonuses on damage (or some ability) against the target. The good of this idea is that you can 'trigger' this in any fight (depending on how skills work, it may even require a 'skill check' to get it to work). The bad of this is that players might want to know why your Ranger who has never met a Quaggoth before knows how to hurt them so well (there is also a heavy 'its magic' association that people might want to avoid).

Option 2: The dedicated weapon specialist. You've given up medium and heavy armour because you are just so focused on your weapon or weapons of choice. Fighters are generalists that can be good with any weapon but you've spent years dedicated to one weapon (bow, double blades, single blade, daggers, axes, spears, whatever). The good is that as long as you are using your favoured item then you get your bonus to damage (you are the 'ace archer' or the 'kensi blade master'). The bad is that Fighters/Warriors may be upset that your ranger using that one weapon can do more damage then they can (the balance being you are stuck in light armour where they are not).

That is enough 'chew' for one post.

 

[tlantl]

The Ranger: What is his shtick?

This is a good question, or maybe 'what is it going to be in D&Dnext' would be more appropriate. It seems the ranger is one class that has changed in every edition of D&D.

The changes from 2e to 3e were probably the smallest but the ranger certainly has an identity problem.

The ranger is also the least used character in any of the games I've played in or DMed.

So is the ranger going to continue to be the rogue of the woods that likes to fight dirty or from the shadows, or is she going to go back to being a real fighter? Is she going to rely on others, namely her pets, to do her job for her or will she step forward and earn her reputation as a force to be reckoned with?

I do know that as long as the ranger relies on an animal companion and spells to do her job she ain't a fighter and doesn't deserve to share top billing in the melee department. Maybe a subclass of druid or rogue would be a better fit.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I hope we don't have to afford niche protection for the urban ranger. I see the urban ranger as an appendix we can live without. Frankly, I'm amazed it's been mentioned more than once.
The urban ranger was invented to give support to the idea of having your own race as a favored enemy without being evil. The urban ranger was a bounty hunter build, not having a lot to do with ranger at all.
If we want a bounty hunter let's make a bounty hunter with the new themes and backgrounds not by piggy-backing the ranger.
Urban ranger, pft. A contradiction in terms.

 

[Ramen]

I'm going to have to agree with some of the others in the class, theme, and background method. This allows you to really create The type of Ranger you want rather than have a class that tries to do it all. I think its a good method for all the classes that where like another class. Paladins, Assassins, Monks, Barbarians, etc.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I see a Ranger's wilderness skills as the primary schtick. In the separation of activities as combat/exploration/interaction that's been discussed, the ranger's main strength is in exploration, specialized in a wilderness setting. A thief, on the other hand, is the exploration specialist for indoor, urban, or artificial dungeon settings.

The rest I can take or leave. Bows make sense as a hunting tool, and light armor makes sense because traveling untracked wilderness in heavy armor is unnecessarily exhausting. I'd be happy to see two weapon fighting and favored enemies go away; I don't think they fit.

I'm not really a fan of spells for rangers either. It seems to me that starting in 1E certain abilities that made sense were crammed into spell format because that's how the other abilities were written. I'm fine with some mystical abilities at high level, but I'd rather see them in skill form, with a nonmagical basis.

 

[fuindordm]

A single tactic, like say Guerilla fighting, is just not enough thematically to hang a class on. A single class should not have a monopoly on mobility, wilderness survival, or tracking.

All the mundane classes have this problem to some extent.

Shouldn't everyone have the possibility of learning some sneak attack? Rogue talents are just feats.

Barbarian isn't a class, it's a cultural background. Berserking is a tactic with advantages and disadvantages. (since 3e's release at least)

Paladins are just fighter/clerics.

Fighters are the worst of the lot, they're just buckets of feats.

You're absolutely right that all the mundane classes can be assembled out of themes, backgrounds, feats, and talent trees -- see d20 Modern/Grim Tales. It works great, if that's the kind of game you want.

But in the context of D&D, the important thing is to have a range of classes that offer different and interesting play experiences, and is not so large as to paralyze new players with a wealth of choice.

So in that sense, a unique fighting style with the class abilities to support is indeed enough to hang a class on.

 

[Li Shenron]

While I do agree with this sentiment, there isn't much game fun to be had from the wilderness skills.

If a gaming group never goes beyond the dungeon-based "kick the door - kill the monster - grab the treasure" type of adventures, then you're right.

And yes I know that the game is called Dungeons & Dragons, but if you check D&D publication history you'll recall that in the original 1974 first box the third booklet was titled The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures. Then the second book of BECMI was all about the wilderness, and that was at level 3... hinting that dungeon-crawling was more of a beginner heroes thing.

Truth is, it is easier to design and run a dungeon-based adventure than a wilderness adventure (including the "cool/scary" factor), and this could be one of the reasons why they are more popular. But that doesn't really mean they aren't "fun"...

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

What I think could be cool is the Ranger becoming the master warrior of wilderness terrain.

They'd be able to out-scout the enemy, pick the advantageous ground and spring the ambush. Surprise attacks and hit and run. They would also be masters with all the varieties of improvised natural snares and traps - spiked pits, dead falls, spiked branches, vine nets, natural poisons, etc...

They will be able to out-last and exhaust their foes, running them ragged over days if necessary. Fatigue will be a weapon for them to use, with their superior fitness and athleticism.

A lot of martial and outdoors skill for sure, and add the options for a bit of nature magic and/or animal friends if they want. Give them armour, they are warriors, but the heavy stuff will negate some of their strengths. They can weigh up that decision on the day.

Not sure about the must be good aligned Ranger, I don't rightly know where the fans stand of this. Maybe a decent nod in this direction without a hard restriction.

Anyway in short, make the Ranger 10' tall out in the wilderness so that the other players think "we need a Ranger" when they look at the overland map.