The Ranger: What is his shtick?

[Zustiur]

I don't see any real problem with centering the ranger around a middle ground between fighter and rogue.

The fighter is a soldier. - full armour, full weapons
The rogue is a skirmisher and a sneak. - very limited armour, limited weapons.

Why not start the ranger off in the middle?
Wilderness warrior - middle armour, wide, but not full range of weapons

He can go toe-to-toe for a while, but not as long as the fighter. He can sneak, but not to the same degree as the rogue.
And unlike both, his background focus is on the wilderness, not the city.

I support the call to drop TWF, but I realize that it'll be included as an option thanks to the darned drow.
I also support the call to drop the 'pure archer' nonsense. That doesn't fit terribly well in small DND games where you might not have enough front line party members to hide behind.

I'd like to see something that is again more of a middle ground - bonuses with bows, spears and other hunting weapons, but proficiency in a wider range of weapons. The bonuses would be fairly flat, and spread across the hunting weapons, not just focused on one weapon specifically. Single weapon focus is a specialty fighter thing.

I'd expect the spells/animal companion things to be an optional branches in the class, with hopefully some other options too. Wilderness skills, maybe some dungeoneering/monster slayer type of option. You could possibly drop the favoured enemy bit into this slot too.

Combat skills would again fall between fighter and rogue - here is your skirmishing character who isn't mince-meat the moment he gets stuck in the front line. As someone mentioned earlier, bonuses to movement and combat positioning skills sound appropriate. Things like moving without drawing opportunity attacks. Things like ignoring certain types of difficult terrain (particularly plant-like).

 

[Blackwarder]

I don't really have a problem with spells, what I would like to have though is that instead of preparing spells like a cleric, the ranger will gain them as an x times per day sort of ability.

For example, starting from fourth level, on every even level, the ranger can choose one spell from a list and use it once per day, each time the ranger gain a new spell he can cast every other previuse spell one more time per day (so an eight level ranger could cast one spell 3/day one 2/day and his newest one once per day).

Now if you don't like spells than they could just be named wilderness abilities, and we could roll things like animal companions into that, so a ranger who would like to have an anime companion will pick the appropriate spell and a ranger who want to be the best outdoor type could pick spells that allow him to sense enemies in a one mile radius.

Warder

 

[FinalSonicX]

Alright so it took me a while to type up but here are my thoughts on the Ranger's identity:

The Ranger is master of their domain - no one dares to challenge a ranger on his "home turf" without some serious firepower. The Ranger wards the wilds from those he believes to be his enemies - if there's a forest the Ranger calls home, an invading army would prefer to walk around it than go through and come out with half the men that came in.

The ranger wears light armor, uses some kind of ranged ability, but is also basically competent in melee combat. Skilled at wilderness survival and extremely knowledgeable about his environment, the Ranger is truly self-sufficient. The Ranger's favored tactic is surprising the enemy with an ambush and peppering them with ranged attacks until they decide melee is necessary. In other words, the Ranger forces the enemy to fight on THEIR terms. The ranger is a master of mobility in his native environment and thus is quite adept at dodging and staying just out of reach of enemies, and is capable of vanishing into the brush at a moment's notice. The ranger is the class you can rely on to get the job done with a minimum of fuss. A few rangers can make the orcs think twice about wandering off into the woods, and an army of them can wear down an invasion force with superior geurilla tactics related to their mobility, stealth, and self-reliance.

What all of this means is that they get light armor, decent HP, good BAB, wilderness skills and plenty of points to distribute among them (or the equivalent), a few free ranged attack abilities (not bow-specific, but more generalized), the ability to stealth reasonably well in environments they're familiar with, some kind of ambushing capability (perhaps along with traps), some abilities directly related to combat-mobility, and superior ability to track and survive in the wilds. Rangers have access to animal companions and spellcasting if they so choose. Favored environments/enemies are an option but I'd rather get rid of favored enemies because they're way too context-sensitive and annoying as a player and a DM IMO.

I don't believe that rangers should be chopped to pieces and redistributed into various themes or backgrounds. I just can't imagine a themed fighter or rogue being near as flavorful.

 

[Minigiant]

If a gaming group never goes beyond the dungeon-based "kick the door - kill the monster - grab the treasure" type of adventures, then you're right.

And yes I know that the game is called Dungeons & Dragons, but if you check D&D publication history you'll recall that in the original 1974 first box the third booklet was titled The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures. Then the second book of BECMI was all about the wilderness, and that was at level 3... hinting that dungeon-crawling was more of a beginner heroes thing.

Truth is, it is easier to design and run a dungeon-based adventure than a wilderness adventure (including the "cool/scary" factor), and this could be one of the reasons why they are more popular. But that doesn't really mean they aren't "fun"...

Many people have missed out by skipping over wilderness play. Some DMs handwave them or toss them aside with a single check.

But D&D's wilderness is filled with thing to do. It is very different than those of Earth. Charming with dire lions. Hiding from fey tigers, Talking down owlbears. Living through quicksand, storms, and fires. Savage humaniods ambushing and trapping them as they travel. Getting lost over and over triggering more obstacles. Jungle diseases and animal poisons. Finding a healer... Haha... there's no healer in the middle of the wild except that crazy old hermit druid. Or the fey. Now everyone is a weasel. Run from the wolves and wait for the spell to wear off.

And that is the crap rangers have to tell with while not being a full caster to spell it away.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

The Ranger has always been my favourite class, despite that it's so difficult to pin down. I am disappointed that so many people are willing to throw it under the theme/background bus! We still have classes, so don't give up on the Ranger! Otherwise you may as well have a classless system with sneak attacks governed by the stealth skill and spellcasting by arcana (this has appeal, but it's not D&D).

The key things for a Ranger, in my opinion, are the wilderness schtick and versatility.

I think that Rangers differ from Fighters in two key areas. First, I see the Fighter as combat-trained for combat's sake, whereas the Ranger can hold his own in a fight because his weapon skills have other uses in survival and exploration. Second, the fighter inevitably specialises, because in the military (or party) it is efficient to do so, but the Ranger has to be versatile, able to switch between bow and blade as the situation demands.

Differences between the Rogue and Ranger are more subtle. The Rogue is more at home in an urban environment and fights dirty against other humanoids. The Ranger knows the wild and fights non-humanoids. Dungeons are strange environments in which both can contribute - I see the Rogue better with locks and mechanics, the Ranger better at spotting danger and hazards.

Mechanically.. controversial perhaps.. but I think sneak attack should only work on humanoids - I don't think Rogues should be these insane DPS monkeys. I think that Rangers should just fight better against wild and unusual creatures (the bonus damage against Large creatures mentioned earlier isn't bad). I think dungeons need to include more 'natural' hazards such as good old-fashioned moulds, plants, rocks falling and so on (obviously unless it's a custom-built thieves guild underwarren). I would love for Rangers to be able to switch between fighting styles quickly and easily (if stances survive, I could see ways to implement this nicely) - mobile in combat to deal killing blows and apply more interesting effects to creatures instead of just DPS. Overall, they do have a place in a class-based game, it's just a matter of emphasising their niche.

 

[erleni]

True, but I'm still holding out hope that they will come back to their senses.

Assassin is the most egregious example: There is just no way that belongs as a class.

4e assassin fits in as a class as it has special abilities (teleport from level 1, shadow form, shadow based powers...) . Previous assassins just seem to be rogue variants.

 

[GM Dave]

There have been several calls by people to make the Ranger the 'Wilderness' focused character.

My thoughts on that are it pigeon holes the class to a very specific type of campaign and situation.

I love 'Wilderness Rangers' and am a big fan of the Ranger's Apprentice series.

I just recognize that in DnD play, that the 'Wilderness' is not large enough a section of play to hang a whole class upon.

Urban Ranger a joke to get around hunting your own people? I'm fairly sure that I remember it being in my 2e Complete Ranger's book and I know it was in Dragon Magazines before then.

There are many campaigns that take place almost fully within cities (like Raven's Bluff) or are plane hopping (like Planescape) or have a very different wilderness (like Dark Sun or an Under Mountain).

A good class can adapt to the campaign with ease like a Wizard or Cleric selecting different spells or deities.

Now, if 'Wilderness' or the option to pick 'Wilderness' type of locations is important then it might be good to make the Ranger the 'Theme' class like the Fighter is the 'Feat' class. This would be using my suggestion that different environments be packaged in different Themes.

This would also allow the player that wanted to set up their Ranger to be some sort of different build (more magical build because maybe they are in a high magic campaign or maybe an anti undead build because they are in a Ravenloft world and want a dedicated monster hunter) to have the ability to pick and slot in the pieces.

I mean, a Ranger that is a Vampire Hunter makes sense but that doesn't suggest that they should be good in the woods or in the middle of a desert.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

There have been several calls by people to make the Ranger the 'Wilderness' focused character.

My thoughts on that are it pigeon holes the class to a very specific type of campaign and situation.

A good class can adapt to the campaign with ease like a Wizard or Cleric selecting different spells or deities.

Wizards don't fit into a low-magic campaign too well, nor customisable Clerics in a monotheism. I don't think the Ranger needs abilities that say 'if there are trees nearby..' or 'if you are moving overland' as default. But even in an urban campaign, you will probably fight non-humanoids at some point, you will probably want a highly mobile combatant who can spot danger better than others at some point. Maybe the rogue can fill this role, maybe not. I see no harm in having classes that don't suit every campaign - think of everyone as a 'module' if you so desire.

This would also allow the player that wanted to set up their Ranger to be some sort of different build (more magical build because maybe they are in a high magic campaign or maybe an anti undead build because they are in a Ravenloft world and want a dedicated monster hunter) to have the ability to pick and slot in the pieces.

I mean, a Ranger that is a Vampire Hunter makes sense but that doesn't suggest that they should be good in the woods or in the middle of a desert.

Vampire Hunter is a theme for any class. The customisation for a campaign you're talking about applies to any class. I mean, what good is a Rogue who can find traps in a game of political intrigue? The Ranger can be useful in all campaigns if the abilities are broad, but unique - as soon as the Rogue became the skill monkey *and* the DPS guy, they lost a lot of ground. Rogues shouldn't be the best at every skill, and they shouldn't be able to DPS any monster.

 

[Steely_Dan]

I heard they have 3 Ranger deals going so far: Aragorn, Drizzt (...I know...), and a Pet Guy (Grizzly Adams).

 

[Ratskinner]

EDIT:The issue here is that they've already stated their intention of including every class that was a core class in any previous PHB. Thus we don't get to decide which concepts should be classes. Instead we are left with, since we have a class called ranger, what is a class design that can mimic older edition rangers well, but still be broad enough to deserve to be a class.

That's actually not as clear cut as it may seem. 2e had 4 "superclasses" and a character's actual class was a subclass of that. So Fighter was a subclass of the Warrior class, IIRC. Druid was just a specialty cleric build. So which Druid are we in for? The recent Cleric article makes it sound like we might be in for the "subclass" version. Whether that means "by using the Treehugger theme applied to Cleric" or something else, is unclear. Also, the answer might be different if you're playing the "basic" or "advanced" versions, or with different "modules" turned on or off.

Also, in the more nitpicky department, they didn't specify that all the old classes would be included as classes. It could be that some get "demoted" to a theme. Although, I feel, "demoted" is a bad word choice. Let's say Assassin is a theme, not a classe. That's actually awesome! Now you can be a Fighter-Assassin or a Wizard-Assassin, etc.