Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What is/should be the Ranger's "thing"?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6669332" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>While it wouldn't have upset me as much, I'm glad to see that, too. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>Fortunately, there's reason to hope both those are on track.</p><p></p><p> 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 <em>a</em> healer role or the 'warlord role.' As long as it's a worthy successor.</p><p></p><p> 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. </p><p></p><p>Nod. I admit those are a tad tenuous, I just find the Ranger's justification even more tenuous. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p> 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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p> 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. </p><p></p><p> 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.</p><p></p><p> The shaman interacts with a 'spirit world,' has a fetch and so forth. </p><p></p><p> 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. </p><p>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. </p><p></p><p> The mistake's been made, it can't be un-made - but that doesn't mean it has to be repeated.</p><p></p><p> 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 <em>won't be productive</em>. 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'). </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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...</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6669332, member: 996"] 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. 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 [i]a[/i] healer role or the 'warlord role.' As long as it's a worthy successor. 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. Nod. I admit those are a tad tenuous, I just find the Ranger's justification even more tenuous. 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. 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. 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. 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. The shaman interacts with a 'spirit world,' has a fetch and so forth. 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. The mistake's been made, it can't be un-made - but that doesn't mean it has to be repeated. 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 [i]won't be productive[/i]. 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... [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What is/should be the Ranger's "thing"?
Top