D&D General What is the Ranger to you?

Tales and Chronicles · Jun 26, 2019

I have in mind of merging the barbarian and the ranger into a single class to create my own vision of the ranger: the frontiersman who fights to protect nature from civilization and civilization from the dangers of nature. He's a guide and a specialist who goes against all odds to protect the things he cares about.

2d6 HD
Light, Medium, Shield
Simple, Martial
Wis, Str
1: Wild Wanderer (Unarmored AC to Con, Favored terrain), Vigilance/Against the Tide (aka barbarian rage only +2 damage)
2: Spells, Fighting style
3: Archetype
4: ASI
5:Extra Attack, Extra movement
6: Archetypes feature
7: Survivor Instinct (aka barbarian Feral Instinct)
8: ASI
9: Land Stride
10: Bane (Barb's Brutal Critical, X2 against 2 Favored Enemy)
11: Archetype feature
12: ASI
13: -
14: Archetype feature, Greater Bane ( 2 extra dice on crit, +1 favored enemy)
15: Persistent Vigilance (aka Persistent rage)
16: ASI
17: -
18: Gardian's senses (aka Ranger's Feral Sense)
19: ASI
20: Foe Slayer: On damage, reroll all 1-2-3.

Blue · Jun 26, 2019

Shiroiken said:
The Ranger is the Paladin for the Druid. Just as the Paladin is the divine champion of a particular deity, the Ranger is the champion of nature. Using special skills and druidic magic, they hunt down their enemies and defend the followers of the Old Faith.

Ugh, never. The trapper who's out there getting skins - likely a ranger. The demonic-influenced gnoll tracker - probably a ranger. The bounty hunters after the PCs - likely has a ranger.

Rangers are good with dealing with nature, but to revere it is not a requirement of the class in the slightest.

Dausuul · Jun 26, 2019

I regard the ranger as the "light cavalry" of the party - not in the sense of riding horses, but in the sense of being a highly mobile force used for scouting, flanking, and harrying the foe.

To me, the ranger is defined by:

Hard-hitting offense
Limited defense (they don't make great "tanks")
Mobility in combat
Exploration ability
Mastery of terrain

Note that "wilderness" is not on that list anywhere. I quite like the idea of an "urban ranger" who knows every rooftop and back alley. The key points of distinction between the ranger and the rogue are that rangers have more martial prowess and more ability to use the terrain in their favor, while rogues have a much broader and deeper set of noncombat skills.

(The other thing that isn't on that list is "magic." I don't feel like magic is a core part of the ranger concept, at all, and I look forward to ranger variants that let you trade spellcasting for other stuff.)

Kobold Avenger · Jun 26, 2019

Thinking in the broadest of terms a Ranger is a specialized warrior who is in tune with the environment (possibly specialized in one) who knows a few tricks and secrets. That way it covers the outdoors hunter types, urban vigilantes, monster hunters and a couple of other archetypes, that can be represented as a bunch of subclasses.

Giltonio_Santos · Jun 26, 2019

It's a merge of different archetypes that I've come to enjoy, and, in that regard, I don't see it as significantly different from any of the other D&D classes, perhaps with the exception of the fighter, which is the "use this frame to build your own fantasy archetype" class, when you think about it.

As such I want it to have a mechanical framework that starts with Beren and Aragorn, but also allows Drizzt and Rexxar to do their stuff (including the ability to have an animal companion and fighting with two weapons without losing any effectiveness, when compared to other fighting styles), because fantasy archetypes can evolve with time, and the ranger certainly evolved a lot in my fantasy of choice.

I'm not specially for or against spellcasting, but I like the fact that it helps distinguish them from a fighter/rogue multiclass. I believe they should have a list of spells that focuses on mobility, stealth, magical shots/maneuvers and enhancements (self and animal companion), in a way that a player who wants to play a ranger with no spells can simply choose those that are easily reskinned as talent/destiny. A ranger's healing knack should exist, but it doesn't need to be represented as spellcasting.

Curiously, the only ranger thing that I don't believe is necessary as a mechanical choice is the favored enemy. I'd gladly drop it from the class and make it into a background that any character can choose.

The Crimson Binome · Jun 26, 2019

To me, the Ranger is the first and best example of a redundant class. It's a Fighter, with wilderness scout flavoring. There's literally zero reason why you couldn't just play a Fighter, give them the appropriate skill choices, and call that a Ranger. (Except in 4E, of course, where Fighter was redefined as melee-Fighter. In that edition, Ranger existed to be a ranged-Fighter.)

CapnZapp · Jun 26, 2019

I think World of Warcraft got it right.

Cool black powder schtick, ranged specialist, an animal companion that makes you proud.

The at-a-distance fighter with a melee servant is a distinct niche that would easily justify having Ranger as a separate class from Fighter.

The wilderness bonuses should be judged to be ribbon abilities; i.enot something that justifies worse combat capability.

The spells should be relegated to one subclass only.

BookBarbarian · Jun 26, 2019

Sacrosanct said:
To me, the ranger is a bushcrafter. A mountain man/woman. Lives off the land, master scout and tracker. Daniel Boone. Don’t really care about Aragorn

Mechanically, that means light armor only, and no heavy weapons. Practical weapons that have multiple uses (as a bushcrafter myself, this is a golden rule). Space is limited and precious, especially if you have to hike an entire day. Or week. That means weapons are an axe over sword (along with a good knife and bow). Probably the most robust HP die of any other class.

No spells in the traditional sense, but could have spell like abilities that support that theme. Poultices, supernatural tracking and long range accuracy, etc. powers to enhance the ability of their animal companion. The ability to resist harsh climates and keep going when you’re beaten down.

I see this as a starting point. A core of the ranger if you will. A good description of a ranger in a world like the one we live in.

However a D&D Ranger may live in a specifically magical world. If living off the land in a land that is intrinsically magical, it makes sense for a ranger to learn useful land based magic. To me at least.

If living in a land of hostile monstrosities, giants, fantastic beasts, and other creatures it makes sense to me for a Ranger to learn special tactics or specialize in weaponry that is especially effective in combating such creatures.

For example if a Ranger is protecting a land in danger of being overrun by a horde of orcs, it may make sense for them to primarily use a sword over an axe or knife.

If the monsters of your land have tough hides represented by being resistant to slashing and piercing damage, it may make sense to specialize in blunt weapons.

Anyway while Strider leading the hobbits from Bree to Rivendell remains and shall forever remain my mental image of a Ranger overall Geralt of Rivia from the Witcher novels and games actually more embodies what I think of as a D&D Ranger.

Blue said:
Ugh, never. The trapper who's out there getting skins - likely a ranger. The demonic-influenced gnoll tracker - probably a ranger. The bounty hunters after the PCs - likely has a ranger.

Rangers are good with dealing with nature, but to revere it is not a requirement of the class in the slightest.

Agreed. In fact in fiction Rangers are far more commonly represented as defending civilization from the forces of the wild, rather than championing those forces.

Charlaquin · Jun 26, 2019

Fundamentally, a ranger is a trailblazer. A scout. Not necessarily a woodsman or a survivalist, but undoubtedly a pointman to the wilderness. Rangers are the ones who set out beyond the safety of the city walls into the untamed wild to lay the groundwork for its taming. Before there can be a kingsroad, there must be a trail beaten by the rangers from one city to another, which must be protected long enough and consistently enough to be deemed safe for ordinary people to travel. When the forces of evil begin mustering their strength, Rangers are the first to strike, to stop the threat before it can ever reach civilization.

5ekyu · Jun 26, 2019

Blue said:
Ugh, never. The trapper who's out there getting skins - likely a ranger. The demonic-influenced gnoll tracker - probably a ranger. The bounty hunters after the PCs - likely has a ranger.

Rangers are good with dealing with nature, but to revere it is not a requirement of the class in the slightest.

Ehhh...

See this is where i hit trouble.

My take is its not so much about revere as respect.

Respect nature to me isnt "dont kill animals and take hides." Its more "kill what you need and use it all" its more about the harmony and renewable or sustainable balance.

Tribes who hunt buffalo, take no more than they can use (often the weaker slower - duh) and use every bit of their kills show "respect" and honor the sacrifice and the hunt.

So, to me, an evil ranger would be like a buffalo hunter who slaughter herds, takes only hides, leaves rest to rot and wipes out the eco-system the herd created so he can pocket loads of coin. Then he moves on.