D&D 5E What is/should be the Ranger's "thing"?

Hriston · Jul 13, 2015

DerekSTheRed said:
A ranger ability that ignores or can remove exhaustion levels would multi-class really well with a tempest barbarian. Not that that's a bad thing.

I was thinking of something like this, based on Indomitable:

ENDURING TRACKER

Beginning at 2nd level, you can reroll a Constitution saving throw versus exhaustion that you fail. If you do so, you must use the new roll, and you can’t use this feature again until you finish a long rest.

You can use this feature twice between long rests starting at 6th level and three times between long rests starting at 18th level.

Corpsetaker · Jul 13, 2015

TheCosmicKid said:
In most specialized classes, the scenario that governs their specialty changes with the tactical situation from round to round. Some rounds the rogue can make a sneak attack, some rounds he can't. Some rounds it's important for the barbarian to absorb a ton of damage, some rounds it isn't. Some rounds the enemies are clustered up for a nice fireball from the wizard, some rounds they aren't. Old-school favored enemy, in contrast, changes in effectiveness from session to session. Some nights the party is fighting giants and the ranger is a rock star, some nights they aren't and she might as well not show up. This difference in spotlight time duration is of huge importance.

This is where I have a problem.

Why must you be able to do max damage in order to feel awesome? I have never ever seen a ranger that might as well not have shown up just because they weren't fighting their favoured enemy. The whole point of Favoured Enemy was to give the ranger that extra flavour and to give that flavour a mechanical distinction.

Li Shenron · Jul 13, 2015

Kamikaze Midget said:
[*] The Ranger is a slayer of dangerous things in the wilderness. They are a protector of civilization, a canary in the coal-mine. They are "rangers" because they range far and wide across the wilderness, investigating the evil that happens, and then seeing that it is attended to. They have lore and knowledge that gives them an edge. If a Wizard knows what a Type VII Demon is because they saw one in a manual of monsters, and the Cleric knows what it is because of the legends of demons vs. gods, the Ranger knows what it is because she's seen them before. So Rangers know how to fight monsters from their own experience, or the direct experience of some other member of their organization.

That's pretty much the same conceptual image I have of the Ranger.

Corpsetaker · Jul 13, 2015

When I played rangers back in 3rd edition and Pathfinder, I didn't mind it that every monster I fought wasn't my favoured enemy. The flavour of the class is the reason I played it, not the numbers.

Herobizkit · Jul 13, 2015

I kinda like Ranger as a ranged monster expert/hunter. The Pathfinder Inquisitor is a decent step in that direction; for the NuRanger™, I could see something like:

* bonus to monster lore checks (because a Ranger must know his enemy)
* bonus to intimidation (because Rangers are spoopy forest assassins)
* bonus to track foes (because that's what Rangers do)
* imbue a Bane weapon (to face specific monsters)

And hey, let's sprinkle in some low-level druid/cleric tricks (maybe just the Orisons?) to help him survive in the woods.

Seems (to me) like the Ranger's always been a two-weapon fighter or an archer. The Beastmaster is a decent idea but doesn't really get "good" until the Ranger gets his second attack, and even then, the animal "as is" usually has some decent attacks.

It's tough to make a "lone wolf"-style character for a group, but what if the Ranger was also a great team player (especially with, you know, his animal companion)? Back to the PF Inquisitor - they have an ability that allows them to 'share' certain feats with another character, making the group stronger as a whole... could make for an interesting paradigm, though I'm not sure how it would work in 5e with so few feats (but only a few that 'matter' for combat...)

Also, maybe bring back the Warden from 4e? THAT guy was nifty.

Quickleaf · Jul 13, 2015

My namesake character back in AD&D was a ranger. I like rangers a lot. I like the 5e version pretty well. There are things I would do differently with the class design to emphasize the ranger's niche, however. For example, these things would add to the ranger's appeal and make one MORE fun to play for me:

Accommodate both spell-less and spellcasting rangers in the same class.

Encourage a play style that focuses on scouting, planning, and exploiting the enemy’s weakness, rather than rushing headlong into the fray. This helps distinguish the ranger from other warrior types.

Maintain traditional features like favored enemy and favored terrain, but allow greater adaptability rather than pigeon-holing players/DMs.

Introduce “Bushcrafts” using a similar mechanic to warlock Invocations to encompass a whole gamut of optional features (e.g. animal companions).

***************

However, I've seen wildly varying reports on whether rangers hold their own in combat. Many, particularly at lower levels, say they do very well. Many, particularly at higher levels, say they are behind the combat effectiveness curve of fighters and paladins.

I haven't yet played a ranger in 5e (busy DMing), but I'd be curious about thoughts about combat effectiveness.

Corpsetaker · Jul 13, 2015

Herobizkit said:
Seems (to me) like the Ranger's always been a two-weapon fighter or an archer.

Well the two weapon fighting thing is just a Drizzt carry over. Original Rangers used shields.

Herobizkit · Jul 13, 2015

Corpsetaker said:
Well the two weapon fighting thing is just a Drizzt carry over. Original Rangers used shields.

Mine didn't. As far back as 1e before Unearthed Arcana, I recall longsword and dagger/shortsword/handaxe as the weapon style of choice. YMMV, of course.

Hriston · Jul 13, 2015

Corpsetaker said:
Well the two weapon fighting thing is just a Drizzt carry over. Original Rangers used shields.

The original Ranger used Anduril, Flame of the West.

Minigiant · Jul 13, 2015

Herobizkit said:
Mine didn't. As far back as 1e before Unearthed Arcana, I recall longsword and dagger/shortsword/handaxe as the weapon style of choice. YMMV, of course.

Mine uses a spear and heavy armor. But mine was a polar ranger.

Rangers can be from places other than forests. This is one thing I think they could have stressed.

A desert ranger, mountain ranger, coastal ranger, and forest ranger should have different major features.

D&D 5E What is/should be the Ranger's "thing"?

Hriston

Dungeon Master of Middle-earth

Corpsetaker

First Post

Li Shenron

Legend

Corpsetaker

First Post

Herobizkit

Adventurer

Quickleaf

Legend

Corpsetaker

First Post

Herobizkit

Adventurer

Hriston

Dungeon Master of Middle-earth

Minigiant

Legend

Similar Threads