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

[Tony Vargas]

In before the "should be a subclass/background" meme.

Don't forget Multi-class. The Paladin, Ranger, EK, and AT could all be handled via multi-classing...

In your opinion, does the 5E Ranger have its own thing? If so, what is it? If not, what should it be?

I'm not sure any class really does, you probably have to get down to sub-class for that. At the sub-class level, virtually everyone casts spells, and so does the Ranger. If you cast spells, your spell list describes your 'thing.' Most spell lists are kinda long, and consist mostly of spells other classes & sub-classes can also cast. If you don't cast spells, chances are you just hit things.

The Ranger's thing used to be just being 'woodsy,' tracking was a pretty niche-protected woodsy thing in many eds.

Aside from that, the Ranger mostly does stuff lifted from other classes: casts mostly druid spells (including Animal Friendship), attracts woodsy followers (also like a druid), fights very nearly as well as a fighter (sometimes better), has woodsy skills like a barbarian or druid, maybe sneaks around (in the woods) like a thief...

So, no not really. Ranger could be a Fighter/Druid with the Outlander background and that'd more than cover it.

I guess the old giant-killer thing, which 3.0 generalized to 'favored enemy' and 4e as 'Quarry,' could be the Ranger's thing...

 

[I'm A Banana]

Just some random ideas...

• 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.
• The different subclasses of Ranger might be different organizations, defined by what they are experts in. One is allied with the circles of druids and knows about beasts and animals and plants (these know some druid spells and get an animal companion). Another is perhaps allied with a town military and knows about the various humanoids in the area and their lairs (these are spell-less guerrillas with martial prowess and survival skills). A third knows the streets and back alleys of towns, and knows how to hunt the people that pose a danger within a city (these might know some divination spells, Int/Cha-based skills, and perhaps grab sneak attacks!). In each example, the ranger is the character operating alone at the fringes, the survivalist, the scout, the private eye - the organization is mostly for the purposes of recruitment and knowledge-sharing. Note that "wilderness" here includes urban wilderness and dungeons as well as actual wilds - the point is that they are at home in places where others fear to tread.
• Mechanically, this might mean that all rangers have a mechanic that lets them learn something about an enemy, and that they have an edge when they know a thing. Their "favored enemy" (which a subclass might define) is simply an enemy they know better than others. For instance, all rangers might be able to get a "defensive edge" on a monster - maybe, after getting hit with an attack, the ranger gains an AC bonus against that particular monster. If that monster is also a Favored Enemy, the AC bonus turns into a bonus action to negate an attack roll. Thus your "ranger learning" is a category of thing (in addition to "defensive edge", there might be something like, miss an enemy -> gain a bonus to hit; hit an enemy -> gain a bonus to damage; enemy makes you make a save -> gain a bonus to saves), and, if the creature you apply that against is also a favored enemy, it turns it into something more. Favored enemy is broadly determined by subclass: a Druidic Ranger can apply it against beasts; a Hoardbreaker Ranger can apply it against humanoids; an Investigator Ranger applies it against humanoids of the same type as themselves, etc.

I dunno, just some random ideas.

 

[Eric V]

Hunter's Mark should definitely be a class feature, not a spell. Though Rangers being a spellcasting class otherwise is fine with me.

I also wouldn't mind if the Ranger's "thing" was simply ranged combat. Look, it even matches nicely with their name! Make the Ranger the best archer in the game, bar none. Build the class around that, maybe even incorporating Arcane Archer features at higher levels.

They did that in 4e and people flipped out over not being able to write "fighter" under the class section on their character sheet. :/

 

[Skarsgard]

Mostly I like the Ranger but there are a few things I would like to see to give them to make less dependant on Favoured Enemy and terrain types. I appreciate that most people seem to have their own mental version of what a Ranger should be. My observation were based on the fact that I could make Rogues as better outdoors characters than Rangers.

So my proposals would be:

Replace Favoured Enemy with Know you Enemy.

Know your Enemy

When a Ranger tracks or observes and enemy for more than 1 hour, they gain insights into the character of the enemy and gain advantage against their foe in their next battle. The foe could be 1 creature or any number up to their Ranger level.

Modifiy Natural Explorer to now be:

Natural Explorer: Ranger has expertise in Survival and Nature checks.

remove all reference to favoured terrain.


For the Beastmaster I'd recommend adding Expertise Animal Handling and a no Command required for the companion to attack etc. Have the animal companion bonded to the Ranger and able to "sense" how best to help him in the situation they are in and be able to do any attack they are able to do.

 

[Corpsetaker]

Mostly I like the Ranger but there are a few things I would like to see to give them to make less dependant on Favoured Enemy and terrain types. I appreciate that most people seem to have their own mental version of what a Ranger should be. My observation were based on the fact that I could make Rogues as better outdoors characters than Rangers.

But those things are what make the ranger, well a ranger. Take those away and you have a fighter with certain skills. Rangers are a specialized type of class so the design of the class does require specialized things. Something stops being special when it works in all scenarios. I think we are also forgetting that DM's run the games and don't run these things blind. When I create a game, I find out what everyone is playing and I tailor the game to any of the specialized classes. That is why Hunter's Quarry from 4th edition was so awful and bland. They took the specialness out of it and made it seem like it was tacked on just so the ranger could do top damage to every creature.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

But those things are what make the ranger, well a ranger. Take those away and you have a fighter with certain skills. Rangers are a specialized type of class so the design of the class does require specialized things. Something stops being special when it works in all scenarios. I think we are also forgetting that DM's run the games and don't run these things blind. When I create a game, I find out what everyone is playing and I tailor the game to any of the specialized classes. That is why Hunter's Quarry from 4th edition was so awful and bland. They took the specialness out of it and made it seem like it was tacked on just so the ranger could do top damage to every creature.

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. If the player feels like she only has to wait a couple of rounds to be awesome, that's fine. But if she feels like she might as well not have shown up, that's demoralizing. It may not be demoralizing to you or your players necessarily, but it's demoralizing to enough players to make mechanics like this of serious concern. And for the sake of illustration, I'll mention that favored enemy is not the only old-school mechanic that does this. Another major culprit is the differing power curve for warriors and spellcasters, where the spellcasters can feel like they're useless for months, then the table turns and the warriors feel like they're useless for months after that. The goal in game design should be that the spotlight falls on each player character pretty reliably several times a session, not several times a campaign.

And no, the DM writing his adventures with players in mind is not a sufficient patch for the problem. Your own logic betrays you here: if the DM makes the campaign entirely about fighting giants, then the ranger's ability works in all scenarios and doesn't feel special, but if he makes the campaign alternate between fighting giants and other things, then we're back in "why did I show up tonight?" territory. Plus, speaking as a DM, I like to have a little bit of leeway in how I design my adventures. If players want to play a campaign where their primary activity is bold and heroic giant slaying, they are capable of communicating that to me in the same way they'd tell me about any other campaign preference. They don't have to take a character option that mechanically punishes them whenever they're not fighting giants.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

Some ideas off the top of my head:

Rangers are not civilised. They spend most of their life away from people and towns and society and politeness.

Rangers are, however, never alone. They are always accompanied by an animal companion. The bond between Ranger and Beast is one of mutual respect and friendship, not one of ownership or slavery. This bond is closer than that of any other bond (except perhaps that between a mage and familiar).

Rangers are versatile. They can kill at range, close-in and via traps and snares.

Rangers don't take prisoners. When you are days away from civilisation, putting a foe in jail is not an option. When Rangers fight, they kill.

Rangers are not generally seen. They serve society not by teaching wilderness skills or by leading expiditions; but by killing foes. Most of the time, a logger or forester or caravaneer will never know their life was saved by a Ranger.

Rangers are survivors. They have skills and physical strength, but most importantly they have the mental fortitude to survive, and thrive, in the wilderness.

Rangers are not necessarily loners, but they are not worried by long periods of solitude.

 

[kerbarian]

I think of the ranger's "thing" as knowing her enemies and environment and creating advantages out of that. The tough part is: how do you turn that into mechanical effects that feel flavorful?

If you have bonuses against specific types of enemies, that feels flavorful but has the metagame problems the designers have talked about. If you have simple attack/damage/etc. bonuses against all enemies (like Hunter's Mark or the 4e ranger), it doesn't feel to me like it has the flavor of knowing your enemies and exploiting their weaknesses.

Maybe something where you study (as a bonus action?) specific enemies in combat (or when scouting beforehand) and then can use that for various effects against them. It would take some work to make those feel distinct from fighter maneuvers, though. Perhaps something around setting up creatures to have Vulnerability to your attacks? Obviously it would have to be carefully balanced, but I think it would feel fun and flavorful. Maybe a bit like a combo class.

For subclasses, the obvious ones to me seem to be purely martial (hunter), beast master, and 1/3 caster like an Eldritch Knight -- maybe based on the druid spell list, maybe not. For beast master, I like the idea of something a bit more magical like the conjure spells or Find Familiar where you get a fey spirit that takes the form of a beast. That way it would make more sense (to me, at least) diverging from normal animal stats and having a different action economy than an animal fighting by your side. It would also allow for some interesting higher-level abilities.

I can also understand why the designers wanted to keep some healing ability in the class, though I don't like the poultice thing of their spell-less ranger at all. Maybe a class feature like "Student of Anatomy" that would work a bit like the Healer feat.

 

[DerekSTheRed]

Another thing I'd like to see reflected in the Ranger, which I don't think any edition has done, is the tirelessness of Aragorn. Maybe an ability tied to tracking that allows the Ranger to forgo long rests and make forced marches without incurring exhaustion levels.

I don't have my PH with me, so if any of this already exists I've forgotten about it.

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.

IMO either let Ranger keep spells or just make the Ranger a subclass of fighter. You could even do both and have a nature version of Eldritch Knight that used Wisdom instead of Intelligence and drew from the Druid spell list. I see no reason to go halfsies with a non-spell casting Ranger since it doesn't seem flavorful enough to justify it and a Barbarian. You might as well make a non-Raging subclass of Barbarian with fighting styles and Favored Enemy and call it Ranger.

I also don't see why Rangers can't use heavy armor. The Green Knight in "Gawain and the Green Knight" could easily be a Ranger who uses heavy armor. Rangers in heavy armor with their warhorse as their animal companions would be very effective.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Another major culprit is the differing power curve for warriors and spellcasters, where the spellcasters can feel like they're useless for months, then the table turns and the warriors feel like they're useless for months after that. The goal in game design should be that the spotlight falls on each player character pretty reliably several times a session, not several times a campaign.

I'm not sure I agree with that purported design goal, and in addition, AD&D's multiclassing rules allowed you to be both a warrior and a spellcaster, switching between them on a round-to-round basis.

In any case, you're correct that 5E has a design goal of enabling casual play, and long spotlight cycles are incompatible with casual play. I think your observation is correct w/rt 5E's design goals; I just don't agree that those goals are normatively superior.