D&D General What is the Ranger to you?

Umbran · Jul 2, 2019

CapnZapp said:
What the...

[MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION]

"Keep it clean: Don't use obscenities or profanity, don't use clever tricks to run around the profanity filters"

David Howery · Jul 2, 2019

Ratskinner said:
Rangers are a lost class, IMO. Historically, they are such a hodge-podge of implementations and ideas that they always seem a bit off to somebody. And much like bards, it makes it hard to a Ranger to mechanically stand out.

We have them " 'cause tradition", but really the modern concept: "Woodsyguy Notadruid" isn't enough to warrant a class, IMO. If it were my call, both Rangers and Paladins would be Fighter subclasses at best (and I'm not even sure Ranger rises to more than a Background, TBH.)

well, both were fighter subclasses in 1E/2E, but at the same time, they could both do stuff that a fighter couldn't. When the later editions went heavy into skills and feats, the ranger started becoming 'lost'. Now in 5E, the paladin can still do stuff that a fighter can't, but apparently the ranger can be duplicated fairly easily. Which is a pity, since it was always my favorite class back in my gaming days.

anyway... the 'idea of the ranger' to me is: A person from the edges of civilization who has spent a lifetime learning how to survive in the wilds and about the dangerous creatures that live there. They are distinct from the barbarian in that they have a settled/rural/part of civilization background and are dedicated to protecting that civilization from the dangers in the wild...

WaterRabbit · Jul 2, 2019

To me a Ranger = Fighter + Rogue. It is a blend of the two classes. They way it is implemented it is a Fighter + Druid with a splash of rogue.

Paladin = Fighter + Cleric
Ranger = Fighter + Rogue

To me it is an archetype of a fighter that doesn't need to be a separate core class.

Sacrosanct · Jul 2, 2019

CapnZapp said:
Yes, the proposed Ranger abilities come across as written by someone with zero clue.

I mean, when you can give an ability a casual glance and *immediately* say "that will ruin the game" something is off - professional devs are supposed to familiarize themselves with the various ways their product is played...

You know, you constantly insult designers as incompetent idiots. So I have to ask, where are your products that are so much better?

Tony Vargas · Jul 2, 2019

David Howery said:
well, both were fighter subclasses in 1E/2E, but at the same time, they could both do stuff that a fighter couldn't.

I was going to mention that. Ranger, Paladin, Assasin, Illusionist, even Druid, were all sub-classes back in the day. But sub-classes wasn't, well, diminutive like it is in 5e. An Illusionist was maybe less magic-user than the Magic-user, getting only 7 spell levels, but everyone else was different or more than the 'main' class.

In particular the Paladin and Ranger were Fighter+ … just better than fighters, in fact, to the point that the punishment for screwing up was to be demoted to mere fighter.

anyway... the 'idea of the ranger' to me is: A person from the edges of civilization who has spent a lifetime learning how to survive in the wilds

To that point, you've described the 5e Outlander background ...

... and about the dangerous creatures that live there. They are distinct from the barbarian in that they have a settled/rural/part of civilization background and are dedicated to protecting that civilization from the dangers in the wild...

and the rest is more skills, and some goals or relationships to NPCs, also background-appropriate.

When the later editions went heavy into skills and feats, the ranger started becoming 'lost'.

I think that the Ranger, and even more so the Thief, were classes only* because the system lacked skills, so the only way to introduce exploration skills was to add a class with arbitrary special abilities.

*OK, the ranger, also because someone's player really wanted an Aragorn PC.

Sacrosanct · Jul 2, 2019

Indeed, with a more robust background and skill and feat system, many of those classes could be obsolete and no longer needed.

In fact, with an even more robust skill and feat system, you really could go back to the three core classes: fighter, cleric, and magic user.

That will never happen of course.

Umbran · Jul 2, 2019

Sacrosanct said:
In fact, with an even more robust skill and feat system, you really could go back to the three core classes: fighter, cleric, and magic user.

With an *even more* robust skill and feat system, you could go classless.

That will never happen of course.

It already did happen - it is called "GURPS".

Tony Vargas · Jul 2, 2019

Umbran said:
With an *even more* robust skill and feat system, you could go classless.

Like RuneQuest did in '78.

Sacrosanct · Jul 2, 2019

Umbran said:
With an *even more* robust skill and feat system, you could go classless.

It already did happen - it is called "GURPS".

I meant with DnD of course. Some things are too iconic.

WaterRabbit · Jul 2, 2019

Sacrosanct said:
Indeed, with a more robust background and skill and feat system, many of those classes could be obsolete and no longer needed.

In fact, with an even more robust skill and feat system, you really could go back to the three core classes: fighter, cleric, and magic user.

That will never happen of course.

I see the three core class as fighter, mage, thief. With a slight tweak to the magic system, a cleric is just a mage.

But really the three core class are defined by the different pillars: combat, social, exploration. So fighter for combat, skill guy for exploration, face for social. However, in D&D the face is just a Skill Guy with a Social focus. The mage is just a class that on the fly be useful in all three pillars.

Then you mix and match to get your classes, which basically become.

Core Class + Archetype + Background
Core Class A + Core Class B + Archetype + Background

Where Archetype is how you do your class and background is how you became your class (as it were).