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

[Minigiant]

Only if the DM decides to place only challenges that do those things.

I'd rather not work on the assumption that 5e is that limited & inflexible.

Well after level 8 of so, half the monsters are have alternate movement, warp reality, or are spellcasters. Your DM has to actively play dumb to survive wilderness encounters.

The Mundane Ranger does it just fine.

Nope. If your DM isn't coddling you, you either need to be a spell caster or have at lesat supernatural effect. Once a dragon takes flight or a mage teleport/passeswithouttrace you can't track them and they can gank you in your sleep.

Ok. Only took about a week.

What do we think o' this/these?

Nice. Have some issues since you separated everything. You allowed unacceptable vulnerabilities.



___

I have a thought.

Is the Lycantropic Ranger an archetype? The ranger who becomes as monster to fight the monsters. Claws, heightened senses, alternate movement, and bestial armor.

The Ranger's of old use to have transformative spells for alternate movement, natural weapons, and better senses. They also had the better base combat than a druid to better use these features. My wildshape ranger kicked but back in the day.

Perhaps move this to a subclass?

 

[steeldragons]

Nice. Have some issues since you separated everything. You allowed unacceptable vulnerabilities.

Such as?

I have a thought.

Is the Lycantropic Ranger an archetype?

Not that I'm aware of...unless a ranger was stricken with lycanthropy.

The ranger who becomes as monster to fight the monsters. Claws, heightened senses, alternate movement, and bestial armor.

I am not aware of any such ranger.

The Ranger's of old use to have transformative spells for alternate movement, natural weapons, and better senses. They also had the better base combat than a druid to better use these features. My wildshape ranger kicked but back in the day.

Perhaps move this to a subclass?

If it is anything...then yes, I would say it most certainly is a subclass. I presume this "of old/back in the day" you are referring to was still 3e+.

 

[steeldragons]

I'm also not clear on what you mean by "separated everything." Or what issues that would create.

 

[Minigiant]

Such as?

You reintroduced the FE problem. your ranger kind of stink when not fighting its FE or not located in it's favored terrain. That's why I campaigned hard to remove the combat bonuses like to creature type and made the combat bonuses more general.

Also, your ranger, buy splitting up the magic, denies ranger the full suite.

They lack the ability to speak to animals and plants. Mainly "I'm looking for a guy. You seen him and which way?"
Only only type can pass without trace.
Only one subclass gets darkvision.
Only one type get water walk or water breathing.
etc

Not that I'm aware of...unless a ranger was stricken with lycanthropy.

I am not aware of any such ranger.
If it is anything...then yes, I would say it most certainly is a subclass. I presume this "of old/back in the day" you are referring to was still 3e+.

I was thinking more like the demon hunter who becomes part demonic to fight the demons. The Grey wardens who does a ritual to hunter darkspawn. Witchers who do rituals or whatever to fight monsters. Half-vampire vampire hunters. Crazies who got crazy to fight the psychos.

Guys who think the Nietzche quote is a good idea.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Nope. If your DM isn't coddling you, you either need to be a spell caster or have at lesat supernatural effect. Once a dragon takes flight or a mage teleport/passeswithouttrace you can't track them and they can gank you in your sleep.

If this is true, then something is wrong with the fantasy world the game is creating, or at least with the fantasy world the DM is creating in the game.

In arguing that the ranger needs spells in order to survive you're putting the cart before the horse. The fact is that many players want to play mundane rangers. They want to play characters who survive in the wilderness Bear Grylls style by being tough and resourceful, not by using magic. You're basically saying, "No, you can't do that, and you're wrong for wanting to." But they're not wrong for wanting to. The system is wrong for saying they can't.

And for the record, I don't think the system actually says they can't. You say a dragon or an archmage can kill a mundane ranger? Those are dire threats for anyone. That's why their challenge ratings are so high. People in the "default" D&D setting survive not because they can beat dragons and archmages, but because dragons and archmages are very rare.

I was thinking more like the demon hunter who becomes part demonic to fight the demons. The Grey wardens who does a ritual to hunter darkspawn. Witchers who do rituals or whatever to fight monsters. Half-vampire vampire hunters. Crazies who got crazy to fight the psychos.

Guys who think the Nietzche quote is a good idea.

Sounds like it would have been a prestige class in 3E. 5E doesn't really have a convention for modeling that sort of thing yet. Perhaps if class archetypes begin to multiply it could be one of those, but it's definitely not one of the "core" class archetypes for the ranger. Or, by the KISS principle, maybe it's just a feat. It would make some sense for it to be available across classes, after all - the Grey Wardens are certainly not all rangers.

 

[steeldragons]

You reintroduced the FE problem. your ranger kind of stink when not fighting its FE or not located in it's favored terrain. That's why I campaigned hard to remove the combat bonuses like to creature type and made the combat bonuses more general.

I just don't understand [or agree with, I suppose] your campaign. I don't see being able to fight/hit -with any/all weapon, incidentally- as well as anyone else can, and probably better with melee or ranged weapons, if not both, because of your ability scores.

Everyone has to roll +ability mod. +prof. bonus. How that = "stink[ing] when not fighting their FE." I just don't see. The ranger is not "I can fight everyone great/better than everyone else/as good as a fighter." They are "I can hold my own next to a fighter, but I shine against these guys."

They are just better/extra good against FE...which I (obviously) contend is a very classic and defining "ranger" thing to do...before/beyond the idea rangers must have spell access for "the full suite", which apparently has to include water breathing and interrogating trees.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I just don't understand [or agree with, I suppose] your campaign. I don't see being able to fight/hit -with any/all weapon, incidentally- as well as anyone else can, and probably better with melee or ranged weapons, if not both, because of your ability scores.

Everyone has to roll +ability mod. +prof. bonus. How that = "stink[ing] when not fighting their FE." I just don't see. The ranger is not "I can fight everyone great/better than everyone else/as good as a fighter." They are "I can hold my own next to a fighter, but I shine against these guys."

They are just better/extra good against FE...which I (obviously) contend is a very classic and defining "ranger" thing to do...before/beyond the idea rangers must have spell access for "the full suite", which apparently has to include water breathing and interrogating trees.

Speaking in terms of the class' D&D legacy, 1E rangers had spells (both druid and magic-user!), but the closest they got to favored enemy was a hard damage bonus against "bugbears, ettins, giants, gnolls, goblins, hobgoblins, kobolds, ogres, ogre magi, orcs, and trolls."

Speaking in terms of the character archetype outside of D&D, favored-enemy-type characteristics rarely appear. Artemis didn't have it, Robin Hood didn't have it, Natty Bumppo didn't have it, Allen Quatermain didn't have it, Tarzan didn't have it, Aragorn and Legolas didn't have it, the Lone Ranger didn't have it, and the "ranger" or "hunter" classes in most other RPGs don't have it. If anything, I'd say characters who excel at fighting a particular kind of opponent are more likely to be paladins, rogues, or fighters (St. George, Jack the Giant Killer, Buffy the Vampire Slayer) than rangers. Wilderness types tend to be big on adaptability, after all.

Speaking in terms of game design, a ranger with FE doesn't hold his own against a fighter. A fighter's got abilities that can increase her damage output no matter what kind of enemy she's fighting. If a ranger does more damage against certain foes, but less damage against everybody else, that's a spotlighting problem: the character is going to be in the spotlight for an entire encounter or even adventure, then out of the spotlight for several other adventures. 4E and 5E deemphasizing this element of the ranger's identity was a major step forward for the class, and I can't get behind a rewrite which reverses that.

 

[Minigiant]

If this is true, then something is wrong with the fantasy world the game is creating, or at least with the fantasy world the DM is creating in the game.

In arguing that the ranger needs spells in order to survive you're putting the cart before the horse. The fact is that many players want to play mundane rangers. They want to play characters who survive in the wilderness Bear Grylls style by being tough and resourceful, not by using magic. You're basically saying, "No, you can't do that, and you're wrong for wanting to." But they're not wrong for wanting to. The system is wrong for saying they can't.

And for the record, I don't think the system actually says they can't. You say a dragon or an archmage can kill a mundane ranger? Those are dire threats for anyone. That's why their challenge ratings are so high. People in the "default" D&D setting survive not because they can beat dragons and archmages, but because dragons and archmages are very rare.

I'm not saying wanting a mundane ranger is bad. I'm saying D&D doesn't support this.
95% of the monsters over CR 8 is a spellcaster, has alternatre movement or has some other feature which makes exploration difficult.

D&D allows it's monsters to get very powerful out of combat. In 4e, this was less of a problem as out of combat power was almost all rituals or items and thus up to the DM on monster's access. But past level 10 in most of D&D, a DM has to struggle or actively to find mundane challenges which are worthwhile.

5th edition does help as a DM can see use weak monsters for a long while. But once the DM starts using mid to high CR foes... giants, vampires, genies, elementals, mages, high clerics, archdruids, demons, devisl, daemons, angels, archons, major fey, liches, dragons... mundane exploration starts to slip.

I'd love a mundane ranger, but I wouldn't ever suggest playing one with the DM's promise not to use all these broken D&D monsters.

Default D&D and its setting is overpowered compared to most fantasy settings. You have to go to Exalted or MTG to get more broken monsters in equal quantity.

I just don't understand [or agree with, I suppose] your campaign. I don't see being able to fight/hit -with any/all weapon, incidentally- as well as anyone else can, and probably better with melee or ranged weapons, if not both, because of your ability scores.

Everyone has to roll +ability mod. +prof. bonus. How that = "stink[ing] when not fighting their FE." I just don't see. The ranger is not "I can fight everyone great/better than everyone else/as good as a fighter." They are "I can hold my own next to a fighter, but I shine against these guys."

They are just better/extra good against FE...which I (obviously) contend is a very classic and defining "ranger" thing to do...before/beyond the idea rangers must have spell access for "the full suite", which apparently has to include water breathing and interrogating trees.

I'm not saying the ranger has to be equal to a fighter. But I'd like the ranger to have a specialty not up to the whim of the DM and not locking the campaign to using the FE a lot.

5th does a good job. The fighter is the best generalist fighter. The ranger is good at "AOE" weapons combat. Being outnumbered is common enough to special without overshadowing and putting pressure on the DM. Same with the monk and rogue who excell at "skrimishing" and the paladin at "burst damage".

A combat role should be general.
Then you can worry about D&D and its ridiculous monsters and their spells which can do almost anything. Who thought that was a good idea?

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I'm not saying wanting a mundane ranger is bad. I'm saying D&D doesn't support this.
95% of the monsters over CR 8 is a spellcaster, has alternatre movement or has some other feature which makes exploration difficult.

D&D allows it's monsters to get very powerful out of combat. In 4e, this was less of a problem as out of combat power was almost all rituals or items and thus up to the DM on monster's access. But past level 10 in most of D&D, a DM has to struggle or actively to find mundane challenges which are worthwhile.

5th edition does help as a DM can see use weak monsters for a long while. But once the DM starts using mid to high CR foes... giants, vampires, genies, elementals, mages, high clerics, archdruids, demons, devisl, daemons, angels, archons, major fey, liches, dragons... mundane exploration starts to slip.

I'd love a mundane ranger, but I wouldn't ever suggest playing one with the DM's promise not to use all these broken D&D monsters.

If they're broken against a mundane ranger, how are they not just as broken against a mundane fighter or rogue? In fact they are not broken, because D&D is a team game and no one character has to go up against these monsters alone.

And once again, in your counterfactual universe where they are broken, this is a problem with the system, not a problem with the mundane ranger. So don't criticize the idea of a mundane ranger for that.

 

[steeldragons]

Speaking in terms of the class' D&D legacy, 1E rangers had spells (both druid and magic-user!), but the closest they got to favored enemy was a hard damage bonus against "bugbears, ettins, giants, gnolls, goblins, hobgoblins, kobolds, ogres, ogre magi, orcs, and trolls."

Yes. I am well aware of the 1e's ranger. And 2e's. Being better against all "giant [goblinoid] class humanoids", I would say, are a pretty darn specific "favored enemies" in all but name.

Speaking in terms of the character archetype outside of D&D,

Which, thankfully, we don't have to since we are discussing 5e D&D. "Because X does Y in Z book/movie/tv show/comic book" does not mean a damned thing for what D&D "should/has to" be striving to allow/emulate.

Speaking in terms of game design, a ranger with FE doesn't hold his own against a fighter.

Sure they can. If you are using a ranged weapon with a decent Dex. or a melee weapon with a decent Str...your prof. bonus is the same as the fighter's.

The fighter and ranger both get various mod's dependent on Fighting Style. That's a character option/choice. It doesn't make the whole class "better/worse" than the other. The fighter and ranger both have class features that dole out situational mod's for different occurrences within battle, different actions, etc... None of those are "better/worse" they are just player options/choices to use.

The only reason you wouldn't be doing as well as a fighter against non-FE foes would be the dice roll.

A fighter's got abilities that can increase her damage output no matter what kind of enemy she's fighting.

Right. Yes. Cuz she's a fighter.

If a ranger does more damage against certain foes, but less damage against everybody else, that's a spotlighting problem: the character is going to be in the spotlight for an entire encounter or even adventure, then out of the spotlight for several other adventures. 4E and 5E deemphasizing this element of the ranger's identity was a major step forward for the class, and I can't get behind a rewrite that reverses that.

Fair enough. But I think "spotlight problem" is a...skewed...perception of the game and not something classes can be "designed" for. It is [if such a thing actually exists] a player issue, not a problem of the design or that a class will fix.

As my write-up works, the ranger is constantly adding to their enemies as opposed to simply increasing damage against a single target...which was the FE problem, in fact if not name, going back to 1e with the ever-increasing "+'s" to hit and damage against "these particular guys."

I propose you start with 1 monster type or 2 humanoids. At 4th you get any 1 creature (not type). At 7th you get another (2 if you're a Slayer).

At 10th level, you have either 1 whole category of creatures + 3(4 if slayer) individual creatures or 2 humanoids + 3(4) other creatures. And all of the added creatures are ones that you have encountered/do encounter. You should have a pretty good spread of being/using your "more effective than usual" a good portion of the time...for any DM who's paying attention.

Fast forward to 20th level, you'll have 1 creature type or 2 humanoids + 6 other creatures (8 if you're a slayer). You should be able to get extra/be at your best most, if not all, of the time.

Maybe, instead of the creature type or 2 humanoid thing (which was straight out of the ranger's Favored Enemy entry in the PHB), I could make it monster type or one of the Colossus/Horde/Giant-type things from the Hunter's entry...if 2 humanoids is too limiting...maybe could work.