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

[epithet]

...
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?

Yeah, I really think it does.

Almost every post in this thread is talking about tweaking the familiar ranger to emphasize one thing or de-emphasize another. Your idea is an actual re-imagining of the class based on its inspirations, taking it somewhere new.

Bravo.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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. Could our new "from the ground up" ranger not benefit from emphasizing the idea of "leader" ... in the dictionary sense?

Even when Aragorn wasn't being a Legendary Monarch summoning ghost armies, he was leading the fellowship, and before that, protecting the hobbits - 'leading' them through the wilderness.

You may have something there.

 

[Minigiant]

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?

I dunno.
Aragorn was royal. Robin Hood was a fighter and a noble. And Tarzan was a barbarian.

To me , a ranger doesn't lead "men". A ranger might lead beasts, plants, or fey. But a ranger guides men. They advise. They take over only when their specialty appears.

Which brings up another thing.
We have hunter and beastmaster.
Where's "plant master" and "friend of the fey"?
Why don't rangers mix plant based poison or at least make some with magic? Where's the ranger with "brass knuckles" made of thorns in spiky cactus armor? The greenwood ranger was a thing.

You could say the fey warlock is the "fey friend". But we have druids and nature clerics and oath of ancients paladins. Can a ranger get a few charms, anti-charms, glamors, and a small army of wee folk?

 

[Hussar]

Giving this a bit more thought on the archetypes, you could point to Jon Snow, he's got his wolf obviously, but, he's also the guy in charge. Robin Hood's cohort might be Little John. It's not like Robin Hood was the greatest fighter, although obviously the archery thing is his schtick. Even Bran from GoT is the leader of his group.

Granted, D&D doesn't do platoon or company sized scale very well, but, at the group level, the ranger is the guy you want when you're heading out into the wilderness to lead the expedition and get you back in one piece. Lewis and Clark, Magellan, that sort of thing is what I'm thinking of as the archetype. And i think there is space in the game for an "explorer" class that focuses on the notion of going somewhere interesting and then coming home again.

 

[Minigiant]

Giving this a bit more thought on the archetypes, you could point to Jon Snow, he's got his wolf obviously, but, he's also the guy in charge. Robin Hood's cohort might be Little John. It's not like Robin Hood was the greatest fighter, although obviously the archery thing is his schtick. Even Bran from GoT is the leader of his group.

Granted, D&D doesn't do platoon or company sized scale very well, but, at the group level, the ranger is the guy you want when you're heading out into the wilderness to lead the expedition and get you back in one piece. Lewis and Clark, Magellan, that sort of thing is what I'm thinking of as the archetype. And i think there is space in the game for an "explorer" class that focuses on the notion of going somewhere interesting and then coming home again.

Again I dunno.
No one of that leadership really comes from "rangerness". It's more background. Jon Snow was one of the few "nobles" at the wall who could fight or range. Robin Hood was similar as a noble in a band of thieves and misfits. And Bran was one a quest with his bodyguards and the questgiver and his bodyguard tagged along. And Bran is closer to the ASoIaF druid.

Rangers tend to be loners or 2nd in command more often if background doesn't push them ahead. When rangers have followers, the followers tend to be lesser than humaniods or other rangers.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

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?

It definitely has legs, at least to my mind. I must confess that behind all the inconclusive arguing on this thread I've been tinkering with an actual class write-up, and I've got a leadership-based subclass penciled in. (I call it the "pathfinder", because it fits and because I enjoy a little meta humor.) I do think the leadership theme is better as a subclass than as the identity of the class as a whole. Consider how others in this thread, notably Hriston, have stated exactly the opposite view: the ranger's identity is that of a loner. The class needs to be broad enough to encapsulate the characters they are envisioning too.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Someone mentioned the 1E ranger and that sparked a memory. Back in 1E the ranger's biggest edge was tracking. It was an often critical skill, and the ranger was the only one who could do it. With subsequent editions opening abilities to more classes, the classes that had a showcase skill like this have lost some of their raison d'etre. The other big example is the thief, whose climbing skills were critical in 1E, but in later editions have had a declining edge in this department. The 5E ranger is a bit better at tracking than other classes, but not enough to matter much.

I would like some of these unique skills to return, but then you have the issue of what happens when noone wants to play that class. In my games I would expect the players to get creative and come up with alternate approaches, but what about games where the players decide they have to be able to track for some encounters they want to do? One idea would be to allow all classes to have an ability but to impose a higher cost outside of the class for which that's their "thing." Frex, tracking and climb walls require a feat, but the ranger and rogue, respectively, get it for free.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's like the word "leader" is cursed.

'Guide' works, too. You don't follow the ranger and do what he says because he's inspiring, but because he knows where he's going and what you need to do to survive - and you don't.

 

[kerbarian]

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.

I like a lot of those ideas (and had some similar ones around encouraging non-greatsword weapons and spellcasting as a subclass in an earlier post), but interestingly I don't see most of them as making the ranger more like a rogue. Though I guess any mechanics that move away from fighter might seem a bit like moving towards rogue.

I particularly like the ideas about choosing a native terrain and having that give benefits that are related to the terrain but can be used anywhere (e.g. swim and climb speeds) and favored enemy choices that give defensive (not offensive) combat bonuses that might be useful fighting something other than those specific enemies, e.g. resistance to psychic damage.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I particularly like the ideas about choosing a native terrain and having that give benefits that are related to the terrain but can be used anywhere (e.g. swim and climb speeds) and favored enemy choices that give defensive (not offensive) combat bonuses that might be useful fighting something other than those specific enemies, e.g. resistance to psychic damage.

Everybody seemed to like this idea in the playtest. I think the hunter subclass was the ultimate result of it, though it's so watered down as to be unrecognizable. But yeah, less "I hate orcs so let's please only fight orcs", and more "Here's a little trick I picked up fighting the orcish hordes back in the day".