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

[Yaarel]

For me the word ‘Ranger’ conjures up two separate images.

Special ops elite force: This Elite Ranger is highly mobile, hits hard, accomplishes the mission, and is gone. Deadly melee skills, stealth, speed, ability to penetrate barriers like doors even walls, high skills, favoring the Urban terrain but training for endurance and wilderness survival. The Army Rangers and Navy Seals exemplify this archetype. Frontline combat engineers, including sappers, and those that maintain transportation equipment, including mounts, also inform this Ranger archetype. The Elite Ranger is smart, tool-mastering, tough, and athletic.

Wilderness sentinel: This Wilderness Ranger often defends the borders of a nation at a remote outpost in the wilderness. Wilderness surviving and flourishing, nature lore including folkmedicine, extremely alert, able to detect and perhaps avoid detection, tracking, favoring terrains (rather than monster types), using terrain to combat advantage. In Game of Thrones, the Nights Watch are something like this kind of Ranger - who happen to favor the Arctic and Mountain terrains. Stone Age cultures and similar hunter-gatherer clans can also inform this wilderness archetype. Even the noncombat National Park Rangers, as guardians of nature, and protectors of campers and hikers, help inform the smart aspects of this archetype. Regarding favored terrain, the archetypal Ranger terrain is Forest. Nevertheless, other wilderness terrains apply. To favor seafaring informs a resourceful Viking concept, to favor desert a hardy Beduin concept, or so on. Terrains to favor include: Forest, Mountain, Hill, Grassland, Swamp, Desert, Arctic, Underdark, Underwater. Probably, the Coastal terrain necessarily includes seafaring, via fishing, river navigation, island hopping, and sea trade routes. So, predatory Rangers who resort to pirating favor the Coastal terrain, including ships and navigation. The Coastal/Seafaring terrain is different from the Underwater terrain. The Wilderness Ranger is perceptive, tough, resourceful.

Both of the above Ranger archetypes are nonmagical. Tough, resourceful, and elite specialization seem to be what both have in common. The Ranger is up-close and lethal. The Ranger epitomizes Strength, Constitution, plus brains, Intelligence or Wisdom. Strength and athletics covers all of the mobility skills. Equipment replaces Dexterity stunts, so tightrope balancing is unnecessary.

Stealth can be important for a Ranger mission. Here the absence of Dexterity might be problematic. However, the Ranger relies more on equipment - and knowing how to use tools more effectively. For example, while hiding, camouflage gear and face paint can allow Rangers to substitute their Intelligence bonus for their Stealth check. Something along these lines, to rely on smarts over Dexterity.

Rangers excel at surprising opponents, but perhaps rely on speed over invisibility.

Personally, the Ranger seems unlike an Archer. The Archer tends to be physically weak and fights from a distance. As a specialist, I feel the Archer belongs solidly as a Rogue archetype, especially regarding Dexterity. A sniper seems roguish in mood and mechanics.

Rangers dont seem especially adept at social encounters. Perhaps they are the opposite of ‘glib’. However, their resourcefulness, intuition that applies gut instinct or analysis, plus their reliability, make Rangers assets in social situations. They tend to earn respect, even while circumspect. According to type, a Ranger who happens to have high Charisma might come across as a quiet presence, laconic but influential. People listen when this Ranger chooses to talk.

Dual weapons, is nonessential. At the same time, it synergizes with mobility and deadly melee strikes. So is a fine option.

Adding fantasy versions to these two:

Green Knight: This is a wild warrior who fights with nature magic. These spells include spells from the Druid and Wizard lists, and can benefit from either Wisdom or Intelligence. Probably, the Wood Elf needs to excel here, despite lacking Strength and Constitution. The Green Knight embodies nature, living in the open, sleeping in leaves, bathing in rivers, eating from berry plants and mushrooms, and so on. This Green Knight would be an anti-chivalrous version of a ‘faerie knight’. The Wood Elf would be able to manage melee combat magically without Strength or Constitution, such as wielding longswords while substituting a magical Wisdom or Intelligence bonus instead of the Strength bonus, relying on healing magic for hit points, and so on. Drizzt is a reasonable example of a magically competent Green Knight Ranger archetype. The Green Knight of the Arthurian tradition is a kind of plant spirit.

As part of tool use, the Elite Ranger, being especially Urban, might be responsible for magic items that are useful for mobility, including magical teleportation equipment for transport, mobility, and penetration.

Beastmaster: Perhaps this is inappropriate for a class concept. Let any class acquire any kind of ‘pet’.



In sum, the Ranger is strong, athletic, mobile, hardy, resourceful, highly trained, and smart.
• Elite Ranger - urban special ops, Str, Con, Int.
• Wilderness Ranger - wilderness sentinel, Str, Con, Wis.
• Green Knight - Wis, Int.

 

[pming]

Hiya.

Here's the problem: If you make wilderness survival the focus of the ranger class, then the only campaign where rangers are fun to play is the one that is constantly traveling the wilderness. If the party spends a couple of sessions adventuring in a city, or exploring a deep dungeon, or traveling the planes, or whatever, the ranger spends those sessions as a sub-par fighter.

It's one thing to tweak your campaign to make sure everyone has something to do. It's quite another to have one character's needs force the whole campaign into a very narrow mold.

Just chiming in on this... In the first paragraph you basically contend that if a character isn't "always good in all situations" that it is suddenly a bad design. I don't think this is true in the least.

Just because a particular classes skill-set makes them a "sub-par fighter" when not in their particular element, doesn't make then "not fun to play" or otherwise "a bad choice for a PC". Maybe the Ranger is a sub-par fighter when not in his element (re: wilderness), but when he is in his element, he shines very brightly indeed.

And, campaigns, IMHO, are best when the players make their own "story decisions". IME, a DM who has planned out some epic year+ long story for his campaign and doesn't give the players the "back cover" (re: doesn't tell them what the overall story arc and setting is going to be), is not being very fair to his players. So, if the player knows that the campaign is taking place in the Lands of Deepearth, and chooses to make a Ranger anyway...that's on him. If a player knows the campaign is going to be a seafaring, swashbuckling, pirates and privateers type campaign, and chooses to make a heavily armored two-handed sword wielding Fighter...that's on him. If a player know the campaign is based in and around intrigue, cities, and the noble houses and powerful merchants guild, and chooses to make a Druid...that's on him. If you, the DM (general you/DM) just says "Lets start a new campaign. Make some guys.", with no focus, just a let's play and see what happens type sandbox campaign, then, again, all those character choices are up to the PLAYERS. If nobody talks to each other about what characters they want to make, what type of adventuring they want to do, etc., and one ends up with a "niche" type character that doesn't fit with the others...that's on him.

What it all boils down to is this: Specialized characters should be RARE. Back in 1e, in addition to just the obvious 'specialized' classes, we also had stat requirements. The specialty classes had some pretty high ability score reqirements! What was the result? Well, as you would expect...those character classes were rare. If someone rolled up stats capable of being a Paladin, the player basically immediately told the group he was thinking about making a Paladin. If someone was dead set on making a LN Fighter and another wanted to make a TN Thief, then the guy with the great rolls probably shouldn't make a Paladin. So he wouldn't. Choosing to do so anyway, despite knowing what the other players are wanting to make/play, shows a lack of, pardon the pun, "character" on the part of the player. It's like someone going to a friends place who is having a party for their 12 year old son...and then deciding to get rip-roaring drunk because "it's a party". Not. Cool.

Ranger, Paladin, Druid, Illusionist, Monk, Assassin, Cavalier, Barbarian ... all were "specialty classes". But over the years, they got diluted and flattened out in the ever-going quest for "balance" (numerical, cold, by-the-book, nobody-should-be-better-at-anyone-ever, 'balance'), all the things that made these classes unique and unusual got lost. But the core ideas of these classes (sans Barbarian...they were never "rage-induced berzerkers" in 1e) were still used...even though the actual abilities started to reflect this less and less.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[steeldragons]

Biiig thumbs down on the idea for making Rangers "the pet class." BIG. Huge. Both thumbs and some toes as well.

Just no.

At best, the "I always have an unquestioningly intelligent and loyal critter to fight [a.k.a. deal extra attacks/damage and soak up damage] for me" ranger needs to remain [again, at BEST!] a sub-class.

It's an asinine archetype, but a monster D&D/WotC created themselves [and we'll just avoid the topic of everyone seems to just forget/ignore, as the years waxed on, that Drizzt's panther was a figurine of wondrous power] and continuously refueled by f'ing video game tropes [lookin' at you, WoW].

 

[Quickleaf]

Back in 1e when the ranger first appeared in D&D, they were a sub-class of fighter adept at woodcraft, tracking, scouting, infiltration, and spying. That seems like a good place to start in any redesign. Notably:

• They had stiff ability score requirements, had to be good, and operated under certain rules (like donating to a worthy cause). This aspect of design has mostly been dropped in modern incarnations of D&D.
• They were tougher (had more hit points) than other classes. Though that idea was dropped in 2e and onward, there was a 2e ranger kit called the Mountain Man that reinforced the idea that a ranger should be hard to kill. Mostly this old aspect of the ranger has become the barbarian's thing.
• They dealt extra damage equal to their level against "giant class" creatures (mostly monstrous humanoids).
• They had improved chances to surprise monsters, and reduced chances of being surprised.
• At 8th level they got Druid Spells, and at 9th level Magic-User spells. In both cases, their spellcasting did not exceed 3rd level spells.
• They could track. In 5e, anyone can make a Wisdom (Survival) check to track, so perhaps there should be emphasis on what makes a ranger's tracking better than any one else tracking.

I think part of it is a hangup on spells vs. special abilities. "A ranger should be able to do X because of their training, not because they know a spell". To me, the easy answer is reskin the resource allocation mechanic of spells and spellcasting as what they can do, but for those that want certain things "always on" because they are skills that's not going to satisfy.

That makes the warlock invocations a better mechanic for the ranger than spells. Have a bunch of choices of stunts your ranger can do. This one ambushes and skirmishes, this one tracks and spots, this one has a bunch of useful companions, this one has a large combat companion, this one makes amazing bow shots. Make all of them invocations, including some that build on others (such as turning a useful animal companion into a combat companion).

Absolutely agree, it's just a good fit for the ranger which has historically been more of a smorgasbord class. Call these "Woodcraft Talents." Anything that doesn't fit the "tracking, scout, infiltrating, and spying" concept, and isn't an established core class feature from past editions, should probably be made a Woodcraft Talent.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Biiig thumbs down on the idea for making Rangers "the pet class." BIG. Huge. Both thumbs and some toes as well.

Just no.

At best, the "I always have an unquestioningly intelligent and loyal critter to fight [a.k.a. deal extra attacks/damage and soak up damage] for me" ranger needs to remain [again, at BEST!] a sub-class.

It's an asinine archetype, but a monster D&D/WotC created themselves [and we'll just avoid the topic of everyone seems to just forget/ignore, as the years waxed on, that Drizzt's panther was a figurine of wondrous power] and continuously refueled by f'ing video game tropes [lookin' at you, WoW].

Not that I want rangers in general to be "the pet class", but this seems like a whole lot of negativity without a lot of reasoning. What conceptually is wrong with the animal companion ranger? What makes it "asinine"? A lot of players like it, and it does line up with a lot of fantasy character tropes, so why are you so down on it?

Absolutely agree, it's just a good fit for the ranger which has historically been more of a smorgasbord class. Call these "Woodcraft Talents." Anything that doesn't fit the "tracking, scout, infiltrating, and spying" concept, and isn't an established core class feature from past editions, should probably be made a Woodcraft Talent.

Try "Wilderness Lore".

If I'm understanding you guys correctly, this is basically the model that Pathfinder uses for most of its classes: every few levels, pick a talent from a big list. Obviously, this works. Pathfinder is a very successful system. But it seems to me that for 5E design philosophy, WotC consciously chose to go in a different direction. I suspect that, like the deemphasis of feats, it has something to do with keeping classes cohesive, avoiding "analysis paralysis", and making character creation and leveling quick and easy. So I doubt that we're going to see much of that in the official material for this edition.

Though as has been noted, the warlock does use it, so maybe I'm wrong.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Back in 1e when the ranger first appeared in D&D, they were a sub-class of fighter adept at woodcraft, tracking, scouting, infiltration, and spying. That seems like a good place to start in any redesign. Notably:

They had stiff ability score requirements, had to be good, and operated under certain rules (like donating to a worthy cause). This aspect of design has mostly been dropped in modern incarnations of D&D.

The specific requirements made it pretty difficult to put a high score in DEX, so they weren't that well-suited to the archery and TWFing that they became associated with (high DEX was the only way to be good at TWFing in 1e, and it sure helped for archery, too).

[*]At 8th level they got Druid Spells, and at 9th level Magic-User spells. In both cases, their spellcasting did not exceed 3rd level spells.

First level Druid spells included Animal Friendship which let the caster get a certain number of HD of animals to follow him around and do tricks. It could be one animal with a lot of HD.

They also got a pretty odd random table for followers at high level.


Between those two factors, they eventually got an Animal Companion feature. Thus was the 'Grizzly Adams' ranger born.

 

[Quickleaf]

Try "Wilderness Lore".

If I'm understanding you guys correctly, this is basically the model that Pathfinder uses for most of its classes: every few levels, pick a talent from a big list. Obviously, this works. Pathfinder is a very successful system. But it seems to me that for 5E design philosophy, WotC consciously chose to go in a different direction. I suspect that, like the deemphasis of feats, it has something to do with keeping classes cohesive, avoiding "analysis paralysis", and making character creation and leveling quick and easy. So I doubt that we're going to see much of that in the official material for this edition.

Though as has been noted, the warlock does use it, so maybe I'm wrong.

Yeah, it's a similar approach to Pathfinder in that respect, but with a key difference.

If you look over the talents from many of the Pathfinder classes, you'll notice lots of modifiers and things that make a PC better numerically.

If you look at the Warlock Invocations, you'll notice things that expand a PC's capabilities.

Obviously, it's not quite that black-and-white, but the overall trend is noticeable. So the things I would include as Wilderness Lores, Woodcraft Talents, or whatever would be things that expand the options to a ranger PC: animal companions, trap & snare setting, ambush expertise, etc.

 

[Minigiant]

As I read this thread, my suspicions have been confirmed.

A lot of people don't want to be rangers. They want to be fighters with proficiency in stealth, nature, and the healing kit.

Not trying to be patronizing or condescending but when describing ranger, many just describe light armored fighters. Nothing on how they avoid being eaten by bears or chopped up by orc bands or skewered by manticores or frozen by blizards or scryed by tower mages or tracked by gnolls or ambushed by bugbears or roasted by red dragons or gnawed by sharks or blown away by tornadoes or swallowed by quicksand or scrubbed by haboobs or poisoned by vipers or charmed by fey princesses or stalked by giant spiders or smashed by giants or sickened by mushrooms or drowned by whirlpools or gored by giant boars or snatched by rocs or dunked by sea trolls or ensorcelled by nymphs or electrocuted by evil druids or tricked by pixies.

I blame slacker DMs.

Not that I want rangers in general to be "the pet class", but this seems like a whole lot of negativity without a lot of reasoning. What conceptually is wrong with the animal companion ranger? What makes it "asinine"? A lot of players like it, and it does line up with a lot of fantasy character tropes, so why are you so down on it?

I'm against it because people want it but wont like what they will be given.

In gaming, successful pet classes have been:

• The master is awesome, the pet is very limited (This is the 5th edition and WOW method)
• The master is terrible, the pet is an absolute beast (this is the typical beastmaster/tamer/summoner class in most rpgs)
• The master and pet are individually weak but you get 2 characters so you have flexibility. (the is the 4th edition version and modern pet classes)

Basically the stronger and less limited the pet, the weaker the master.

However many people want a powerful master who can 2 shot a giant with a bear buddy who can go toe to toe with a dragon. This tends to only work in stories and TV shows. Having one player control 2 awesome characters at once with little drawback thends to be bad for gaming.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Thread way too long to read it all.

In my view the ranger should be: lightly armoured wilderness commando with a pet. Personally I would prefer no spells but a herbalism type ability that mimics spell like healing and nature magic. If spells they should have a strong primal bent. Wilderness exploration abilities. I think the pet should be locked into the base class features, like druid and shapechange, stronger for beastmaster and weaker for hunter.

Druid = shapechanger, ranger = pet.

Hunters mark damage bonus could be enabled via pet damage instead. Favoured enemy - blurghh, scrap it.

 

[Yaarel]

Rather than have a ‘pet’ class, it seems more fruitful to create excellent rules for how nonplayer characters interact with combat. Most importantly, how do these NPCs advance while leveling?

Then the pet is simply the same thing as a henchfolk.

Moreover, the ‘pet’ might be a human sidekick, a dragon, a zombie, an ancestral spirit, a loyal animal, magical familiar, special mount, hired personnel, military subordinates, cultist groupies, Wizard apprentices, accompanying teacher, a spouse, or any kind of NPC combat companion.

In fact, having certain classes be ‘pet’ classes - whether a Ranger, a Necromancer, a Vampire spawner, Faerie lover, or whatever - makes it more difficult to come up with good general rules for how to handle any kind of NPC.



If the designers jettison traditional aspects of the Ranger, like Beastmaster, Archer, or so on, then they need to present the alternative rules for these at the same time as presenting the Ranger class. For example, when UA-ing the future Ranger class, they simultaneously would need to have a separate system of NPCs that include animals, an Archer Rogue archetype, or so on. Whatever is missing.