Rangers: Your Thoughts and Preferences

Quickleaf · Jul 11, 2014

Kobold Stew said:
As I described almost a year ago here, my dream would be to see three subclasses -- a spell caster, a beast master, and a horizon walker.

My preferred archetype is the horizon walker -- someone who focuses on the pillar of exploration more than any other class (to use the three pillars language for 5e). Hunting, tracking, crossing environments, and eventually crossing planes. A Dex-based fighter with options like these would put me over the moon. I'd find it much more compelling than the choice between archery and TWF.

Took the words out of my mouth!

Minigiant · Jul 11, 2014

None of the above.
And
All of the above.

To me, rangers are tough trackers to specializes who his environment.

A ranger who lives in the forest and fights orcs and gnolls wears light armor, dual wields for more attacks, and specializes in Stealth

A ranger who hunts red dragons in the mountaiin wields a greatsword, plate armor, and is is insight.

A ranger who slays mages in the forest and hills does it with bows, scale, and perception.

Olgar Shiverstone · Jul 11, 2014

I favor the Aragorn, 1E-style protector of civilization ranger, but want my ranger class to be flexible enough to cover the whole range of ranger concepts -- stealthy scouts, frontier fighters, monster hunters, beastmasters, etc.

Though I've never really grokked the light armor dual-wielding ranger. Sure, as a choice for a particular character it's fine, but building an entire class around that narrow concept is strange. Yeah, yeah, Drizzt, drow, and the transition to 2E, yadda yadda ... I'm still surprised it stuck around, and was quite relieved when 3.5 returned other options (and even happier when 4E opened the aperture further).

(Psi)SeveredHead · Jul 11, 2014

"Ranger" is a job, not a class.

The spear hunter who can sneak up on animals and later serve them for dinner is a ranger. The military scout is a ranger (or rogue). The bandit archer is a ranger. One class cannot mechanically represent all those archetypes. "Ranger" should be a background or skillset, not a class.

evileeyore · Jul 11, 2014

Minigiant said:
To me, rangers are tough trackers to specializes to his environment.

This. I'm still waiting to be able to make a City Ranger.

Mercurius · Jul 11, 2014

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
"Ranger" is a job, not a class.

The spear hunter who can sneak up on animals and later serve them for dinner is a ranger. The military scout is a ranger (or rogue). The bandit archer is a ranger. One class cannot mechanically represent all those archetypes. "Ranger" should be a background or skillset, not a class.

Sacrilege!!!!

Mercurius · Jul 11, 2014

It may sound like a cop-out, but my answer is "all and none." I have played a ranger more than any other class in my 30+ years of D&D, so have a special love for the class. I have played a two-short sword wielding roguish hobgoblin, a classic elven archer, a scimitar-wielding desert nomad, and others besides. I like variations, not one d istinct or narrow archetype.

So while I facetiously cried fowl at [MENTION=1165](Psi)SeveredHead[/MENTION]'s view that the ranger is a background and not a class, I think there is some truth in that but ultimately disagree. The ranger is a template--broader than some (monk), narrower than others (fighter)--that allows for a range (no pun intended) of variatons within the template. When we get too focused on two or three archetypal themes, then we lose the potential of the class as a whole.

That said, there are some things I just wouldn't do with a ranger - wear heavy armor, for instance. I see a ranger as wearing no, light or occasionally medium armor. Weapons can range widely, but shouldn't impede movement. The main thing is that the ranger specializes in being in natural environments, whether forests, sub-arctic, deserts, or the Underdark. A ranger can be quasi-mystical, but doesn't have to be.

If fighter, wizard, rogue, and cleric are the core four, irreducible classes, then ranger is a close fifth, just ahead of paladin and druid, and then bard, monk, and the rest.

Nikosandros · Jul 11, 2014

Lanefan said:
For my own part, I far prefer the Aragorn type to any others; the heavy fighter with woods skills who can beat you up with a sword then heal you with a herb and track you back to where you camped last night. Strong suits: Con and Wis.

It will be interesting to see if there will be classes with proficiency in wisdom and constitution saves. I'd be tempted to say no, to keep the 'balance' that we've seen in Basic in which every class has a 'valuable' save and a lame one.

Ruin Explorer · Jul 11, 2014

Mercurius said:
If fighter, wizard, rogue, and cleric are the core four, irreducible classes, then ranger is a close fifth, just ahead of paladin and druid, and then bard, monk, and the rest.

irreducible
ɪrɪˈdjuːsɪb(ə)l
adjective
not able to be reduced or simplified.

Seems like Rangers could easily be reduced or simplified to, well, "Fighters who choose certain gear", based on the rest of your post, so I'm not sure how you're using irreducible, here.

Certainly it's hard to reduce, say, Monks, because they can't really be simplified into another class or the like. The combination of "Highly Effective Unarmed Combat", "High non-magic AC despite no armour" and "Non-spell mystical self-boosting abilities" are not possessed by any other class nor combination of classes.

So what do you mean by irreducible?

Mercurius · Jul 11, 2014

Ruin Explorer said:
irreducible
ɪrɪˈdjuːsɪb(ə)l
adjective
not able to be reduced or simplified.

Seems like Rangers could easily be reduced or simplified to, well, "Fighters who choose certain gear", based on the rest of your post, so I'm not sure how you're using irreducible, here.

Certainly it's hard to reduce, say, Monks, because they can't really be simplified into another class or the like. The combination of "Highly Effective Unarmed Combat", "High non-magic AC despite no armour" and "Non-spell mystical self-boosting abilities" are not possessed by any other class nor combination of classes.

So what do you mean by irreducible?

Not quite what your dictionary definition means. Rather, crucial to the D&D canon - for me, of course. I see rangers as more core, more important, than any other class other than the Big Four.

But it isn't only about gear. A fighter is a warrior first and foremost, while a ranger is deeply connected with the natural world, and has the ability to fight. One thematic axis, or two polarities of the ranger are the rough woodsman who grew up outside and knows the woods like the back of his hands, is adept at hunting and trapping, etc; and, on the other extreme, a more quasi-mystical individual who has a deeply conscious connection with the natural world, including the life force, spirits, etc. I think both are valid, and that both should be accounted for in the rules. Weapons and armor are secondary, in my opinion, to understanding the deeper thematic elements.

Actually, it would be interesting to play a ranger that starts as the former--a rough woodsman--and gradually becomes more mystical, even "chosen" by some nature deity.