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

[Hriston]

The ranger is more like Aquaman. He can work alone in the sea because he's OUTRAGEOUSLY OVERPOWERED in the water.
On land, he can still punch a foe through a wall and stick tridents in places where tridents don't go.

At the risk of derailing the thread into a discussion of DC superheroes, I see Aquaman as more of a Circle of the Land (Sea) Druid, since he is more interested in protecting the sea and it's creatures from the world of men, than he is in protecting the overworlders from sea monsters, as I would imagine a Ranger of the sea doing. He is surrounded by the animals of the sea and is the leader of a society of sea-dwelling folk, analogous to the society of druids that protects the forest.

Green Lantern is an Evocationist Wizard.

Wonder Woman is a War Cleric of Aphrodite/Hera, whose high Wisdom and skill with Insight allows her wield the Lasso of Truth.

Superman is, of course, the group's Paladin, Oath of Devotion. (His divine smite comes from his eyes?)

Some might want to cast Green Arrow as the group's Ranger because of the archery connection, but I dislike this characterization of the Ranger as specializing in particular weapon combinations. It's pretty clear that in 5E, the Fighter is presented as the weapon specialist and can be expected to outshine any other class in the use of any particular weapon or fighting style, ranged weapons and two-weapon fighting included. I think that's another one that should be crossed off the list of what makes the Ranger unique.

In the wild, the ranger is straight overpowered when prepared. He can work alone there if he feels and he can meet the threat. In the city or a dungeon, he can bring those skills to help the group and be a scout, backup healer, watchman, offensive warrior, and backup defensive warrior.

This brings me back to Batman. Some might want to associate him with the Rogue class, but I think this just clarifies what the Ranger's identity crisis is all about. Batman isn't a Rogue, but sometimes he looks like one. He uses many of the same tactics, goes undercover as a criminal, and even finds himself on the wrong side of the law. I'd be tempted to say he was a Way of the Shadow Monk, due to his eschewing of weapons, except that he is most certainly armored. Of course you could say he was Oath of Vengeance, maybe a multi-class.

But I think Ranger best sums up what Batman is all about. Favored Enemy: Criminals, you learn Thieves Cant. Favored Terrain: Gotham City. He excels at reconnaissance and stealth, but is armored and fully martial, resolving conflict with direct action rather than subterfuge.

Another feature that Batman shares with Aragorn, which I think is telling, if not fundamental to the Ranger, is the secret identity. In a more general way this speaks of the Ranger's identity as a wanderer. No one truly knows him because he's not from around here. He's not really from any particular place because his home is in the wilderness. He inhabits the liminal zone, beyond the bounds of kenning. "Who was that masked man?" the townspeople ask, but it's too late. He has vanished once again into the murky haze from whence he came.

 

[Tony Vargas]

This brings me back to Batman. Some might want to associate him with the Rogue class, but I think this just clarifies what the Ranger's identity crisis is all about. Batman isn't a Rogue, but sometimes he looks like one. He uses many of the same tactics, goes undercover as a criminal, and even finds himself on the wrong side of the law. I'd be tempted to say he was a Way of the Shadow Monk, due to his eschewing of weapons, except that he is most certainly armored. Of course you could say he was Oath of Vengeance, maybe a multi-class.

'Batman' often gets used as a metaphor for the high-versatility, utility-based Wizard. Spell for every occasion, like the ol' Utility Belt.

 

[Minigiant]

Yes, you are. You're completely over-exaggerating the questionable benefits and ignoring the manifold drawbacks.

Number of attacks is meaningless without context - force multipliers are a thing. There's also the small issue that the Ranger isn't built for heavy weapons, forcing them to use weaker attacks compared to the Fighter. Since we're talking about a subclass, we also need to take into account Superiority Dice and Action Surges. Which you are neglecting.

This is why its a strawman. You are using just a pale imitation of the actual truth.

The ranger worked fine with heavy weapons. It's only a trope to dual wield. Greatsword and bow was the best style in 3.5 and it's still best in 5th.

Yeah, its called -gaining a level-. You seem to be confused with the idea that different subclasses have different battle styles. The Hunter specializes in at-will AoE weapon attacks as part of the Hoard-breaker theme. Beastmaster doesn't have that theme. As well, the Hunter class can use the Hunter Mark freely, while the animal companion cannot. This isn't a matter of sacrificing, this is a matter of designing mechanics to fit a certain theme for the subclass.

That's same cost as a beast summoner. The big complaint that some have is that summoned pets are stronger than the beast companion. This is only true if you use your highest spell slots.

Turn by turn, the Eldritch Knight has a higher damage output before feats, plus magic, plus a familiar that's just as good at scouting as the beastmaster's animal companion. You were the one that said the Ranger is broken. So far, it seems like the Eld.Knight is actually better at fighting and the same at exploration as the Ranger.

Eks can't remove poisons. Good luck with vipers.
Eks can't cast lesser restoration. Enjoy your wind or sun blindness, deafness, paralysis, or them vipers again.
EKs can't cast pass without trace. Orc, giant, and hobgoblin warhounds are gonna find you.
Eks can't cast water walk. Easy way to avoid landbound foes.
Eks can't cast locate animal or plants, locate object, or find trap. Good luck finding anything.
EKs can't cast speak with animals nor speak with plants. More alone time.
Eks can't cast tree stride.

Combine that with the fact EKs only get 4 spells max outside the evocation and abjuration schools so they won't have access to a lot of spells.

So... suddenly the Ranger isn't being overpowered in his forest when there's a danger? Lets not move the goal posts and forget that was the point of this comparison!

It's a dragon. No one solos a dragon unless the dragon is a wyrmling and you are high level.

The ranger isn't better at using skills than anyone else in 5e - a druid or cleric is just as adapt as the ranger at the signature skill traits. Maybe more at times.

Druids and clerics rarely have high Dex or Stealth profieciency.
Even if they do. No vanish. No HIPS.

They do have ranger's beat in perception. I give you that. I still think the design time messed that up.

The Ranger spell list, while it does have a number of good spells, I've yet to see any that make them "abused" or "overpowered." Start listing these supposed bonuses and spells that no one else can use in a way that's abusive and overpowered, or I'm calling shenanigans.

And I don't care what happened in 3.xe. Not only are we talking about the fifth edition Ranger, not the ranger across editions, but it also matters how the GM played enemy mages - those with only the most basic defenses active are generally easy targets. That's how it is with wizards - they're only super great when they've had time to prepare.

See the above area with EKs. Add in nondetection for anti scrying. Water breathing, jump and longstrider for travel. Alarm for camping. Hunter's mark for tracking. Freedom of movement for magic snares.

If you're not a ranger or druid, you will probably get ambushed a bunch of times in the wild, lose your tracking quarry, and make the wilderness rather annoying if your DM isn't babying your party. A wizard with a huge spellbook or nature cleric could maybe fill in some of this. This wastes tons of resources however as caster need their spells. Rangers can freely dump them. Many DMs handwave all these potential TPKs and mission failures.

But the ranger is the only skill class or warrior class who can do this.

Nor it isn't perfect. Rangers know too few spells and they miss o' favorites like magic fang, bloodhound, tree shape, snowshoes, implacable pursuer, and lion's charge.

 

[Jhora]

I don't know if the ranger class needs a complete overhaul. The Beastmaster path needs some work and I would LOVE to see some enhancement to favored enemy and favored terrain but I think it is a fun class to play. I love the old school combat boosts to favored enemies in past editions & I always thought that was the rangers "niche" but I guess some don't see it that way.

Give some love to the Beastmaster and tweak the favored enemy and favored terrain rules to include this ...

Favored Enemy – Against any of your favored enemies you may re-roll weapon damage dice if the result is a “1”. Furthermore, if at any time your favored enemy is ALSO your designated quarry (aka Hunters Mark) the damage die from the spell is 1d8 instead of 1d6.

Favored Terrain – While in your favored terrain you and your allies have advantage on any checks made to break their concentration from an attack made against them, one time per round.

And call the class fixed

 

[Hriston]

'Batman' often gets used as a metaphor for the high-versatility, utility-based Wizard. Spell for every occasion, like the ol' Utility Belt.

Well I guess that makes some sense of the Ranger being a caster then.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

'Batman' often gets used as a metaphor for the high-versatility, utility-based Wizard. Spell for every occasion, like the ol' Utility Belt.

...not in a good way, either. The classical Vancian wizard is just a chassis to hang spells on; he doesn't actually do anything himself so much as he releases spell-bombs at appropriate times. Spell point systems, including the 5E RAW spell slots (a more-granular type of spell point), are more fun.

Quoting from the 1994-era Net Wizard's Handbook:

(2) "The Utility Belt":
Most character classes other than magic users rely on reusable abilities, the success of which are decided by dice rolls. For instance, thieves' skills may be used over and over again, as long as an opportunity to do so presents itself. Furthermore, these abilities have the potential for failure, adding an additional dimension of strategy to the play of the thief. Similarly, fighters fight, clerics turn, bards sing, monks use martial arts, et cetera.
Magic users, on the other hand, are the AD&D equivalent of Batman with his utility belt; for once they decide which spells to memorize, they are essentially push-button characters. Fundamentally, the M-U is a sedentary peasant wearing a utility belt. It is a depressing moment for the low level M-U when he realizes that he could be totally replaced (and, indeed, improved upon) by a decent wand until he reaches the higher levels.

 

[pBard]

I would think Batman should have Alchemist thrown in there someplace.

 

[EvanNave55]

I've been reading this thread for a while now and finally decided to comment on one point I've read about a couple times (mostly in the earlier sections). People have said that rangers specializing in being in the wilderness can't be their "thing" because the druid and barbarian also do that however I they they do it in different ways.

I think of the druid as being one with nature in tune with everything, they are essentially a part of nature itself as much as the trees and animals are.

The barbarians live in the wilderness and can survive decently there but I definitely don't see it as something they excel beyond others at they're more just savages (no insult meant to anyone) that roam and live by hunting pack animals.

The ranger however I see as being mundane people who have acquired enough knowledge and experience about the wild that they have mastered it such that nothing nature throws their way (short of natural disasters) poses any sort of threat and they can thrive there.

 

[Sadrik]

People have said that rangers specializing in being in the wilderness can't be their "thing" because the druid and barbarian also do that however I they they do it in different ways.

If it was me, that was not exactly what I was saying. I was saying that the mechanics have a place for skills, they are in the background. If you take a fighter/champion with outlander, DEX based, and armed with a bow are you not a wilderness warrior - dare I say Ranger like? What about a rogue/assassin, with outlander and a bow? These could be real alternatives to a ranger who are even highly effective. So wilderness survival is not something that I see as a ranger thing. It is a thing that many can do. Not a unique ranger thing.

I think anyone can squint and just go ok, a ranger is just a mishmash of fighter, rogue, and druid and call that a unique class. That can be their thing - combo class.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well I guess that makes some sense of the Ranger being a caster then.

heh. No.

The ranger's casting is the result of it's unfocused 'Aragorn did it' early design. In LotR, Aragorn had some elven training and, healed someone with herbs. The only available mechanic to reflect anything out of the ordinary a character might do was spells.

...not in a good way, either. The classical Vancian wizard is just a chassis to hang spells on; he doesn't actually do anything himself so much as he releases spell-bombs at appropriate times.

Yes.

Spell point systems, including the 5E RAW spell slots (a more-granular type of spell point), are more fun.

But don't change the basic issue, that the character, himself, is still just tossing out spell bombs.

OTOH, 5e retaining at-will cantrips and out-of-combat rituals /does/ help.