D&D 5E Rangers in 5e

[Khaalis]

Yeah, I dropped it from my most recent post because of some similar thinking. I think it's important, though, to have some kind of schtick for the ranger, but that's covered with the details that you go into. So the bow thing isn't necessary, or wanted by some. Give the ranger some nature, sneaky, and tracking then let the player choose the rest.

^^ THIS! So this! Yes, the class should still be a martial 'warrior' class, but divorced of a specific weapon style. Any source you look at that could be construed as the classic ranger archetype includes various weapon use. What really should make them distinct is in their "wilderness" aspects. Stealth, tracking, survival, ambush, terrain use (both special movement and for tactical gain [e.g using the terrain to your advantage and to foes' disadvantage]). That to me is where the Ranger should start to be differentiated from the Fighter.

On a similar note, the Barbarian should also be a 'warrior' base, but where the fighter is the trained soldier who uses tactics, skill, training, etc. the barbarian instead fights purely with wild abandon and ferocity.

As to the Paladin concern... the problem is that the Cleric is Already a Paladin by its core definition. If you truly want to separate the Cleric and Paladin then Clerics should be more Priests. By that I mean they should be primarily spellcasters, backers (4E leader role stuff), masters of undead perhaps, and gain much more "molding" based on their Faith, more like 2E specialty priests. The Paladin should then be the plate wearing military branch of the faith.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Again have to mention @Crazy Jerome but this time negatively: I disagree with the above post. Consider them as "hybrid classes" is exactly what kills their interesting side, and uniqueness. If Paladin is just Fighter with limited access to Cleric spells, then just go multiclass/dual-class/hybrid. A Paladin, to be a iconic, to be a true class, has to be different from both Fighter AND Cleric. Granted, it should have similarities, but it should offer an experience that you just couldn't get by simply mixing and matching Fighter & Cleric.

As @WotC_Trevor put it, we should instead focus on what's truly unique about these so called "hybrid" classes, so that they're not hybrids anymore. My Paladin thread to find out this uniqueness is open, too!

For clarity, I was using a bit of short-hand in an already overly long post. By "hybrid" in this context I don't mean flavorless mishmash of the two parents. If that was what we wanted, we wouldn't want any hybrids at all. You can see the distinction better in a theoretical "gish" hybrid than you can with the ranger, because the D&D ranger concept has been so mushy. If you blend weapons and magic into some kind of useful whole, make that a class, it stands conceptually between the fighter and the wizard. How it goes about that should, however, be somewhat different than a straight fighter/wizard would--yet share enough with them to easily multiclass with either.

The bard's useful power scope seems to be a blend of wizard and rogue. The schtick is "music", which is presumably in this context the best way to blend wizard and rogue seemlessly. There is no comparable, unique piece to explain how the ranger blends fighter/druid or rogue/druid or paladin/druid or whatever the heck it is that he blends--in part, because we can't agree on what he blends.

Or consider the paladin. The paladin is arguably in a much tighter window between the fighter and cleric, thanks to the original D&D cleric already being a armed and armored divine caster. Yet even in this tiny window, with nothing much else to distinguish it but a code and a few abilities, it manages to work pretty well. Whatever else it is, it isn't as mushy as the ranger. Perhaps it is the tight window that allows this to happen, since one of the reasons that the ranger is so conceptually mushy is that it is so spread out. Plus, the paladin doesn't have something as popular as the barbarian imposing on his schtick. Of course, you'll note that there hasn't been a massive call for the cavalier class to reappear, and perhaps schtick integrity is why?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

On weapons, agree with the call to attempt to divorce particular weapons from classes--or at least make them as broad as possible. Ideally, a rogue woudn't prefer a greatsword because of something inherent in its properties as they interact with his abilities, not because of arbitrary limits on what sneak attack works with. (Maybe using a big 2-handed weapon would make it more difficulty to get into position to make a sneak attack.)

An acid test: If some ranger characters aren't quite happy to use spears--you know, the premier weapon of characters that may stick an arrow into a large, wild beast without killing it--then there is something wrong with the ranger.

 

[paladinm]

Personally I've never liked the barbarian as a class. It seems like it would be better as a kit, or a "theme" in 4e terms. A barbarian has to do with background more than anything. The "raging" feature, which seems to be the one true distinguishing feature, can easily be a "feat." Without raging, a barbarian class is superfluous if you have a ranger class.

 

[variant]

This is why we need Talent trees in 5e. If you want magic, you can take the Nature Affinity or whatever Talent tree.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think magic should be optional for a ranger. Not required, not omitted. Optional.

I think 3e was pretty close on what a ranger should be conceptually, but the combat styles were too limiting. Broaden that and we're good.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Why an archer guy though?

I think that to be a successful archetype it is important to *completely divorce* weapon style etc from the class. Completely. Allow any ranger to choose any martial weapon, like we would allow any fighter to choose any martial weapon (or simple weapon if he prefers!)

Yes! The ranger is my favorite class. Well, the 1e ranger, at least. He's been neutered ever since. 2e and 3e made him Drizzt, 3.5 made him Robin Hood. I want to play Aragorn or Jim Bridger, or Rambo. SO in 3e my ranger didn't have a single ranger level. He was a barbarian/druid multiclass who ignored the rage and wildshape mechanics. Shoehorning the ranger into ANY combat style reduces the archetype you can model him after. No class should be shoehorned into any weapon style. Archery or twf or sword and board or bigass two handed weapon should be an individual choice. Class should not matter.

 

[Minigiant]

Maybe rangers could have access to a temporary herbal potion and poison system.

The ranger could gather materials each day via Nature or Dungeoneering skill check. Based on the ranger's current location, the ranger can create 4-5 potions/poisons a day. These potions and poisons could have the same effects as spells.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I could live with rangers having access to one ritual, but that is as far I can go when it comes to ranger spellcasting. I catch myself thinking of Crocodile Dundee as the epitome of ranger. He can survive in the wild, can throw things with great accuracy, he can kill a croc, summon bats, and fight hand to hand. He can also calm beasts. The role-playing challenge amounts to fish out of water in civilized settings approached with practicality rather than criticism.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

When we get the 4e-style tactical combat module, it's totally ok if all three martial classes access the same pool of martial exploits, just like sorcerers and wizards access the same pool of arcane spells.

Well if they do re-unite spell lists (rather than having fixed power lists for classes) then this is an excellent idea.