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

[Corpsetaker]

Never got that spell less ranger thing.

A guy and his wolf trekking 50 to 200 miles away from town in the wilderness alone to kill a squad of orcs or drow without spells is just silly.

How is going to heal himself? Alarm his camp? Cure a venom bite of a stray snake or poisonous bush? Outrun the squad if he must retreat? Ask natural denizens for help? Spot traps around their camp? Hide from a mage if they brought one?

D&D is too crazy to go without spells. It only worked in 1e and 2e because a ranger one-shot most intelligent monsters va their damage bonus or could outsmart most animals. Do you really want Joe "+8 damage to everything" Ranger to come back?

I disagree entirely.

Most of these could easily be class abilities and since when did rangers have chats with animals? There is communicating with animals and then there is having a chat. Druids should be able to actually speak with animals while rangers have basic communication.

Spells have always seemed tacked on but that was because instead of giving them class abilities back in the day, they just had spells. Rangers shouldn't have to stop and switch these abilities on or memorize them or pray or whatever, they should always be on.

Don't forget that rangers are supposed to be masters of the land, so they should be able to use different plants and things to heal, cure poisons etc...

 

[Staffan]

I see the ranger as the guy who is uniquely aware of his environment and capable of exploiting it. He's the one who spots the best place to take cover, fords the river across hidden shallows, and leads his enemies into a deadly morass. Abilities like Natural Explorer and Land's Stride are good starts, but the trouble with their traditional implementation has always been that they place the character's expertise at the mercy of the DM's encounter design. What if the ranger mechanics took a more proactive approach?

That sounds a lot like the Hunter from Iron Heroes (written by Mike Mearls). IH hunters were supreme tacticians, and could get the most out of terrain benefits like cover (or deny them to their foes), move around easily by finding paths through difficult terrain, and buff allies via tactical insight. They also had improved access to Tactical and Lore feats, letting them do things like force opponents to make bad choices and having improved healing via the Heal skill (IH was basically 3e without magic, so a lot of the things that were normally left to magic was done via skills and feats instead).

 

[TheCosmicKid]

That sounds a lot like the Hunter from Iron Heroes (written by Mike Mearls). IH hunters were supreme tacticians, and could get the most out of terrain benefits like cover (or deny them to their foes), move around easily by finding paths through difficult terrain, and buff allies via tactical insight. They also had improved access to Tactical and Lore feats, letting them do things like force opponents to make bad choices and having improved healing via the Heal skill (IH was basically 3e without magic, so a lot of the things that were normally left to magic was done via skills and feats instead).

Very interesting. Did hunters do something like the Lay of the Land ability I proposed, or did they still rely on the DM to provide them with terrain to exploit?

Actually, in general, did anything in Iron Heroes do something like Lay of the Land? I'm interested in Mearls' thoughts on narrativist mechanics.

 

[Minigiant]

I think this could be modeled in a couple different ways. The best way is to include the Rangers proficiency bonus as the maximum number of pluses that they can have in play. This would allow a Ranger to specialize in one monster type or they could split their bonuses and add it have in play. This would allow a Ranger to specialize in one monster type or they could split their bonuses and add it to multiple types of monsters. The limitations above where they are learning about the type of monster could perhaps be tied to a nature skill roll. Basically when a situation arises where the player thinks they should get a roll the DM can say well make a nature roll and set the DC to whatever the DM wants based on the situation. The bonus could be added as a damage bonus, or perhaps another bonus dependent on the situation. Maybe a skill roll to hide against them. Or many other situations.

I think it's pretty good to have them go against one type of monster that the player opsin to if nothing else just to call them demon slayer or ghost hunter. I think it's pretty good to have them go against one type of monster that the player opsin to if nothing else just to call them demon slayer or ghost hunter. Perhaps they always have this bonus on and the others they can just attribute their skills gained as Demon Hunter or ghost slayer to whatever they're doing or whatever monster they are currently facing.

Good idea. How about political organizations rather than races and species. I mean jack the giant killer, or van helsing the vampire slayer, what about the Harper going against the zentherium?

Eww

That would make the "favored enemy problem" return.

The "favored enemy problem" is when the class is too reliant on a certain enemy type to function that it forced the DM to constantly use them. Meaning if you make a goblin slayer, the ranger suck unless 50% of the fights have goblins in threatening numbers or power.

5th edition did as I suggested and made rangers combat power rely on monster fighting groups (hordes, solos, giants) so the DM isn't hogtied to a monster type or have a mad ranger player.

Favored enemy combat bonuses are bad.

 

[Wuzzard]

The ranger has always been a favorite of players. So there ought to be something of an obvious archetype there. I don't think that is specifically Aragorn, because it resonates with players that are/were not even aware of that character. My guess is that because the ranger is a blend of other character types, it lets the player sort of be all the archetypes at once, the damage dealing fighter, the sneaky rogue and the magic user, without having to choose between them. It appeals to the player that doesn't want to specialize and in doing so miss out on some other aspect of play.

 

[Sadrik]

Eww

That would make the "favored enemy problem" return.

The "favored enemy problem" is when the class is too reliant on a certain enemy type to function that it forced the DM to constantly use them. Meaning if you make a goblin slayer, the ranger suck unless 50% of the fights have goblins in threatening numbers or power.

5th edition did as I suggested and made rangers combat power rely on monster fighting groups (hordes, solos, giants) so the DM isn't hogtied to a monster type or have a mad ranger player.

Favored enemy combat bonuses are bad.

Yes, I agree and I was trying to edit my post on my phone unsuccessfully. The idea I was trying to convey was that a ranger is a smart hunter who can gain bonuses as you described - by tracking and watching and combating them. The difference I was suggesting is that they may have a shortcut to those abilities through a class feature. If you were a giant slayer, you would have the ability to hunt and watch any target, with a giant though you would not have to do anything. I suggested this because the idea of a vampire slayer (or other monster type) as a moniker. I would not want to lose that, it is appealing. Of course these abilities could be conceptualized in a different way.

 

[Staffan]

Very interesting. Did hunters do something like the Lay of the Land ability I proposed, or did they still rely on the DM to provide them with terrain to exploit?

Actually, in general, did anything in Iron Heroes do something like Lay of the Land? I'm interested in Mearls' thoughts on narrativist mechanics.

Not really. The game stressed that you should put interesting terrain in fights, but the responsibility for doing so rested on the GM. The closest the Hunter gets is an ability called Fortuitous Insight, which gives yourself or an ally a buff to a single roll, flavored as spotting some otherwise unremarkable terrain detail that helps with the action in question (e.g. using a tree root to trip someone).

The problem with Lay of the Land is that D&D is, to a large degree, a game about assaulting more-or-less fortified positions (aka dungeon-raiding). In many of these places, having lucky terrain features just lying around makes little sense. It'd be great for random encounters though.

Another option for the ranger would be to make it the "gadget" class. If you look at the two most famous comic-book archers, Hawkeye and Green Arrow, you'll see that they have pretty big arsenals of trick shots - nets, grappling hooks, explosive arrows, gas, and so on. This is a tradition that's been carried into World of Warcraft, among other places. It might be too big a departure for some to have class features representing gadgets, but if they're going to offer multiple different rangers in UA I think this kind would be worth a look.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Yes, I agree and I was trying to edit my post on my phone unsuccessfully. The idea I was trying to convey was that a ranger is a smart hunter who can gain bonuses as you described - by tracking and watching and combating them. The difference I was suggesting is that they may have a shortcut to those abilities through a class feature. If you were a giant slayer, you would have the ability to hunt and watch any target, with a giant though you would not have to do anything. I suggested this because the idea of a vampire slayer (or other monster type) as a moniker. I would not want to lose that, it is appealing. Of course these abilities could be conceptualized in a different way.

You do have a point that "vampire hunter" is an appealing fantasy and the game should allow it in some capacity. However, I think D&D has historically gone the wrong direction with this in tying it to the ranger class. Not all rangers are vampire hunters (or whatever hunters). Aragorn himself isn't specially identified by his enmity for or skill against a particular foe - sure, he's good at fighting orcs, but he doesn't excel at that over Boromir or Gandalf, and nobody calls him "Aragorn the Orc Hunter". Furthermore, not all vampire hunters (or whatever) are rangers. For vampire hunters in particular, I see a lot of clerics, paladins, fighters, and even rogues. Buffy sure ain't no ranger. So to me, it would make more sense if favored enemies were a feat or a combat style or some other class-transcending option. I don't feel like it's at all a part of the core fantasy the ranger class is trying to capture.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

IMNSHO, their "thing" is wilderness survival. A ranger is your guy if you need to get through the pass in a blizzard without freezing to death, find food before your group starves, escape pursuit in the underbrush, or get across a canyon. Unfortunately D&D has never focused on these types of challenges or represented them in a fun, interesting way. The closest it got was the 2E Wilderness Survival Guide, which I liked but wasn't very popular. I would like a ranger primarily focused on the exploration part of the game and play mechanics to make this part of the game more fun.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Those are called subclasses. In short, your 1e Ranger wouldn't be a class at all.

I am *so* totally into that idea it hurts! I would love it if they would have done this in the first place. They kinda, sorta, almost'ish, did with the Outlander(?) Background. Combine that with a specific "archer/light-armor" style fighter or Rogue and I think we would have our 1e Ranger. But...they didn't. They kept on the whole "fight with two weapons just like Drizz't!" Ranger.... *gag* ... At least the Beastmaster isn't so...well, so "rubs me the wrong way" style Ranger.

^_^

Paul L. Ming