D&D General What is the Ranger to you?

lowkey13 said:

So .... the bolded part is, fundamentally, why I don't much like the Ranger. Not hate, as in Paladin, more like ... why?

Look, we have the ol' original Ranger, Aragorn (OD&D via periodical, 1e).

And then we have various permutations after that to make it make sense.

Archer?
Dual wielder?
Drizzt?
Pet wrangler?

None of that really makes sense, to me, and so other than the name, I don't much care for any archetype.

I guess, if I had to, I'd keep with an outdoors-y theme (Ranger is to Fighter as Druid is to Cleric) and perhaps a more special forces/commando type feel.

Oh, and the ability to use crystal balls. Because reasons.

Click to expand...

I think this comes up a lot with the more specific story focused classes, like the Bard, druid, paladin, and ranger. These aren't as "archetypical" as the core four (cleric, fighter, rogue, wizard). The ranger just seems like it has been through more changes than others.

honestly, I just want an unarmored or lightly armored fighter. The outdoorsman theme is fitting since it comes to reason that one forced to live in the wild must travel light and must be self-dependant. Whereas the paladin bridges the cleric and the fighter, i'd like the ranger to bridge the fighter and the rogue (rather than fighter and druid).

Spells are nice, but for me they aren't central to the class and could be optional (subclass). However, building off 5e half caster frame, the ranger could be a good chassis to make spell-slot powered "mundane" abilities. It's not far off actually; a redesign of the ranger spells (and spell list) would probably do the trick.

Rangers have always been an elite, special forces type of vibe to me. Combined with the ability to function independently for long periods of time and survival away form the the group/civilization. While the isolated woodsman/tracker type can certainly meet the requirements, to me the concept has always represented being part of an elite group, perhaps with a similar purpose. It could just be elites who follow some obscure wilderness code of honor, or a more focused group ala Aragorn and his people in tLotR. Even being part of a 'good' organization like the 1e requirements isn't too objectionable. One thing I do not care for is having them be some sort of Greenpeace-like "defender of nature" type. Or Druid-lite. Sure there is some overlap there, and individual Rangers could share that sentiment and outlook, but I don't like it as a whole.

Mechanically, I can take the spellcasting, especially since this helps distinguish them from Fighter/Rogues with a similar skill set, but I like that 5e has given them their own spell list that is not a complete overlap with the Druid or other spellcasters. This gives them their own unique flavor. I have always felt that things like favored enemy/favored terrain were misguided and troublesome features, as they tend to be too limiting and finicky, requiring a DM-mother-may-I type of play. I think a more general Hunter's Mark/Quarry like feature would be a better direction overall. Similarly, I find the attempt to shove an animal companion on them irritating, cumbersome, and unnecessary with a class that has spells like Animal Friendship and Speak with Animals on their spell list, though I can understand the desire for others to have some sort of a "pet" affectation. I just find that a little burdensome in practical play. I would like it if any class could use the new Sidekick rules to have something similar, be it a henchman, loyal follower, or animal companion and let groups opt in if they so desire.

*Deleted by user*

"What do you think? What is the Ranger to you?"

The key features for a ranger are (to me):

Martial expert - primary fighter but without heavy armor
Wilderness- Scout, tracker, hunter, survivalist
Hedge Druid - Some variation on low end druidic type magic tho this could be replaced by some form of herbalist or ritual casting into fetishes etc. Truthfully if it were a " prepared" caster" where the " prep" was making fetishes and poultice- I would be fine.

Specifically, the animal companion beastmaster never worked it's way into my view of ranger, nor did dual-scimitars - honestly, archer and spear kinda fit the bill for me.

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.

To me, the Ranger is the Lord of the Rings standard, but not so much Aragorn, who's been many things in his life - it's Faramir and his soldiers, wilderness scouts who can survive in the wilds for extended periods, track enemies, and if necessary ambush them very effectively.

I'd consider them to have more in common with Rogues than Fighters, with a useful skillset centred around stealth and perception, and while they'd have specialised abilities I wouldn't build anything magical into the base class - that could be an option to be explored in a subclass or two.

Xeviat said:

What do you think? What is the Ranger to you?

Click to expand...

Aragorn, with a magical upgrade.

The defining characteristic of Rangers for me is their mythical task of patrolling and defending the borders of the world. This eventually implies a good survival capability, feeling at ease in the wilderness, mobility, and having stray lore of weird and monstrous things.

Magic is for me an essential part of the D&D Ranger, but not as a primary occupation, rather as a complement, and part of their stray lore. However, Ranger's magic is at its absolute best when it feels somewhat borderline between magical and not at all... when you see an edition's Ranger casting spells that could have been non-magical abilities instead, or viceversa having non-magical abilities that make you think should be spells, that's the best Ranger, truly at the borderline!

Without magic and lore, a Ranger risks feeling like a scout, and demoting Rangers to scout is like demoting Paladins to altar boys...

Everything else, especially mandatory weapon styles like 2WF or archery, favored enemies and animal companions are for me irrelevant BS. Good to have some options there, but none of those are part of the Ranger identity for me, and making them mandatory to every Ranger sucks.

She can kill with a blade, she can wound with her bow
She can pass without trace with her animal companion
And she only casts spells when she wants you to bleed
She hides like a rogue but she's always a ranger to me


She can lead you through woods, she can mark you or snare you
She can forage for food but she'll never feed you
And she'll take what you give her as long as it's free
Yeah she steals like a thief but she's always a ranger to me...

*Deleted by user*