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

[Hriston]

I identified these characters as rangers and then claimed that having a favored enemy did not define them. It's not the character trait that sets their archetype apart from other archetypes.

Now it's my turn to be pedantic. What you actually said, and what I was responding to, was this:

Speaking in terms of the character archetype outside of D&D, favored-enemy-type characteristics rarely appear.

So, not that it isn't defining, as you're now saying, but that the characteristic doesn't appear at all in most cases. Now you've refined your position, which is fine. It allows me to understand your point better.

I'd also like to refine my position, if I may. You seem to be responding to the idea that by saying that FE was the Ranger's raison d'etre, I was saying that FE style hatred is the main motivating factor for every Ranger character. That wasn't what was meant. The Ranger I was referring to is the class as a whole in that I see the Ranger class as taking what I would call the "FE" trope in D&D, which preexisted the class and goes back to Chainmail, and building a character class around the mechanic. Notice that this position doesn't assume the preexistence of a "ranger archetype" that the class was trying to emulate, because I don't think such a thing did exist before D&D made it what it is. Such archetypes are more properly referred to as character-class archetypes, and as such the Ranger is as much a creature of D&D as it ever was of Tolkien or any other author.

Come on, dude. You can't just discard one example and substitute another one that better fits your position.

You're simply not following me. I'm not substituting an unrelated example. Nathaniel Bumppo is widely acknowledged to have been based in part on Daniel Boone. Notice how similar their names are? Certain episodes of the Leatherstocking Tales are lifted right out of Daniel Boone's life. As I said up-thread, I haven't read the works of James Fenimore Cooper, so I can't speak to Bumppo's attitudes towards Native Americans, but I think since we're discussing literary archetypes that it's fair game to bring up the real life figure from which the archetype, in part, derives.

So now not only should everyone in an entire class have the same motivation, everyone in an entire race should too?

It's a D&Dism that's still part of the PH description of dwarves. They hate orcs and goblins across the board. Of course, you are free to ignore the fluff when creating your own characters and campaign worlds.

What drove him to try to seize the ring? A burning hatred of Mordor.

No, it was clearly the seductive power of the ring interacting with a tendency on the part of Boromir to see the might of Minas Tirith as the only way to resist Mordor.

Beowulf isn't driven by hatred at all, doesn't specialize in a particular type of monster, and doesn't display any other particularly ranger-like skills.

Beowulf didn't hate Grendel after killing so many of his men? Hunting him down across the heath doesn't seem Ranger-like to you? Keep in mind that as the subject of an epic poem, we can't expect Beowulf to conform to the details of a D&D class. Three monsters really isn't a large enough sample size to determine whether there was any specialization in play. Most epic heroes are depicted killing a very small number of monsters. If I were to build a Beowulf character, however, it wouldn't be too far off the mark to give him some sort of an advantage versus ogres, if that's what Grendel was, or dragons for that matter.

If I wanted to create a character that emulated the exploits of Perseus, for example, it might be a good idea for that character to have some sort of an advantage against medusas.

I'm accusing you of outlining a "favored enemy" that is so broad as to be essentially meaningless and certainly not consistent with the narrow focus displayed by the D&D ranger.

How narrow is a focus that includes this list of creatures?

"bugbears, ettins, giants, gnolls, goblins, hobgoblins, kobolds, ogres, ogre magi, orcs, and trolls."

That's the D&D Ranger, and that's not even including all the humanoids that were added in UA. Even now, in 5E, the focus is far from narrow.

 

[Quickleaf]

Sounds like *most* agree the ranger belongs as it's own class. Sounds like *most* agree they'd like a spell-less option for the ranger. And it sounds like *most* agree the PHB ranger isn't outright broken but does need some work.

It's evident there's lot's of ideas and options for the ranger's utility and exploration abilities.

The main question seems to be what sort of unique combat features should the ranger get?

Here's one approach I've just designed and I think I like it! Bridges the 5e hunter's quarry as a class ability, as well as some 4e ranger powers that allowed you to spam basic attacks, and binds it together with the concentration rules.

OOC: Overwatch: As a bonus action you can begin concentrating on either a specific enemy or a fixed 10 foot radius area you can see. Maintaining your Overwatch requires concentration. While concentrating on a specific enemy, your attacks deal +1d6 damage against that enemy. At 6th level, this extra damage increases to +1d8, at 11th level to +1d10, and at 17th level to +1d12. While concentrating on an area, you may use your reaction to make a ranged attack against a creature in the area making an attack against you or an ally, or against a creature attempting to leave the area. This ranged attack deals the same bonus damage described above.

 

[Hriston]

But Favored Enemy changes the martial focus of the class from "defend my community from whatever threatens it" to "go out and kill these particular foes." IMO, it changes the class's martial motivation from a positive one to a negative.

Except that, in 5E, FE is a boost to the exploration and interaction pillars, rather than combat. I don't think it gives any sort of combat bonus until you get to level 20. I'm AFB, but isn't that right?

I think their "knowledge-based fighting" is better served by something like the Pathfinder Slayer's "studied enemy" - study an enemy as a bonus action and gain a bonus to certain skills and attacks against them. In 5e, this would be represented by the Hunter's Mark spell (though I would probably make it a class ability instead).

As a side effect, this also broadens the class's usefulness - instead of being OK in general but shining against e.g. undead, it becomes good against everyone.

Right, but since the 5E Ranger already has Hunter's Mark as an option, what exactly are you proposing?

I do think D&D, with the exception of 3e and particularly Eberron, is a bit suspect when it comes to defining certain humanoids as "always evil." I'm comfortable with mind flayers being in that category, but less so with goblinoids, orcs, etc. 5e actually doubles down here, saying that these races don't have the same moral agency humans do, that they were created by their gods without the ability to choose between good and evil.

You can play D&D without alignment, but the alignment system, in my opinion, exists to encourage conflict based on things like good and evil. Heroic fantasy almost always hinges on such conflicts. The monsters are designed for that purpose.

 

[Hriston]

Not every burglar is a rogue, not every soldier is a fighter, and not every woodsman is a ranger. The PC classes are generally interpreted as representing an "elite" version of those skillsets. They don't need to have a qualitatively different defining ability -- they're just better at what they do.

But the Ranger is primarily a warrior, whereas a woodsman is not.

*chuckle* I think you know as well as I that this line of argument is just silly.

I do know it's silly. I was attempting to point out how silly I think it is for you to base your understanding of what the Ranger class is on a literal, and rather simplistic meaning of the word "ranger".

We can discuss the ranger class in terms of its literary archetypal antecedents, or not. But it's just a waste of time if you're going to use this line as a get-out-of-argument-free card in lieu of a substantial reply. Either Eärendil is relevant or he isn't. You can't have it both ways.

I gave you a reply. Earendil is a Dragon Slayer. Are you saying he isn't, or that it doesn't define him?

Why should the game make every ranger character go through this rationalization process?

It doesn't. You asked the question. To my mind it doesn't need to be rationalized.

I agree. This is precisely why I don't want a class to have an ability that puts characterization in a straightjacket.

If you agree that class is not the sole determining factor in establishing character then why would you see any class-feature as a straightjacket?

Those are skillsets, not motivations. There's nothing saying a fighter has to like fighting, or an assassin killing; they're just good at it. But your position from the beginning has been that the ranger hates his favored enemy.

Everyone hates their enemy. D&D is not generally a game about loving your enemy. The FE feature is about being specialized with regard to specific enemies.

Sure. Just like a rogue has to have abilities so he can't be represented just as easily by a fighter with stealth skills. And a fighter has to have abilities so she can't be represented just as easily by a commoner with weapon proficiencies. The key is that the rogue and fighter get abilities that are derived from the archetype they represent. A rogue's abilities augment his stealth and trickery, because that's what archetypal rogues do. A fighter's abilities augment her toughness and armed combat, because that's what archetypal fighters do. You wouldn't arbitrarily say, "The rogue needs to be more distinctive, so let's give him eye lasers! No other class has that!" Roguish characters in other media are not defined by having eye lasers. (Except in that one game.)

Similarly, a ranger's abilities should augment his survival skills, because that's what archetypal rangers do. If you were writing the ranger class for the first time today, with no knowledge of D&D history, you wouldn't arbitrarily say, "Let's give the ranger racial hatred!" Because ranger characters in other media are not defined by having racial hatred.

If I were writing D&D for the first time today there would be no ranger character-class archetype for me to refer to. It didn't exist before Joe Fischer decided he wanted to play an Aragorn-like character in EGG's home campaign. The idea that this is something that existed as a monolithic archetype in other media before that is a fiction. The class, as it was created, drew on any number of influences from various media. You're just picking and choosing the parts you like and calling that the archetype.

Maybe the class should be called the Hunter. The archetypal Hunter is generally good at hunting certain animals with which it is familiar. That might be a good starting place for designing a distinctive Ranger.

 

[Minigiant]

What if Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer were exchangeable. What if there were more options as well.

At level 1, a ranger gets to pick

• Favored Enemies
  • Advantage on Wisdom checks to track
  • Advantage to Intelligence checks to recall info
  • 1 racial language
    
• Favored Terrain
  • Travel and track features when in favored terrain
  • 1 skill proficiency based on terrain
• Favored Planes
  • Acclimatization in the plane
  • Can roll checks to find portals to that plane
  • 1 planar language
• Favored Organization
  • Advantage on Charisma (Persuasion) checks to gather info
  • Advantage to Intelligence checks to recall info
  • 1 organizational language or advantage on Charisma checks
    

___________

Favored enemy needs not be racial hatred. One of my rangers didn't hate his FE as he was of the same race, he just knew how they worked. In that setting, elves and dwarves had a chance of going insane and violent. He was charged with catching them and they often ran into dungeons if not creating them. This knowledge of hunting crazy high elves and dwarves helped in the drow focused campaign.

It's not always hate. FE is just knowledge. You know gnoll insults. You know gnoll eating patterns and know to follow trails of blood to find gnolls.

"That's deer blood. The poor thing was bleeding... suffering. Whoever did this did not make a clean kill... on purpose. I smell a baby deer. No... no. Fang, what do you think? Pregnant and running a straight line. Look alive everyone, the gnolls are close and well fed. What do you say, Mr. Tree? Northwest? This way."

 

[fuindordm]

OK, my turn to take a whack at it. Some of the key changes to PH abilities are underlined. I think the stalker and Ranger Lore features are roughly equivalent in utility to the spells, and give the player incentive to do rangery things in the game. I don't have any class features in mind for the Warden archetype yet, other than spells.

Ranger class abilities

(1st) Favored Terrain. While a ranger is at home in any environment, they always have an advantage on their preferred stalking grounds. Choose a favored terrain from: forest, plains, mountains, coast, urban, underground, desert, or arctic. You can propose other terrain types to your DM. In your favored terrain, you have advantage on stealth, perception, survival, and nature skill checks. You can choose another favored terrain at levels 6, 12, and 18. See the PH for additional advantages for movement and exploration in your favored terrain.

(1st) Fighting Style. Rangers are warriors as well as explorers, and specialize in a fighting style adapted to fast movement. Choose from Two-Weapon Fighting, Dueling, Archery, or Defense. You can propose another fighting style to your DM, such as the optional Mariner style from Unearthed Arcana.

(2nd) Primeval Awareness. At second level, your connection to the wilderness grows deeper. You can take an action to assess the immediate environment for subtle clues indicating the presence of an unnatural threat. After one minute, you know whether the area contains an outsider, fey, undead, or dragon of at least CR1, and the type and general alignment (helpful, neutral, or malicious) of the threat.

(2nd) Stalker. Where other classes develop their martial skill to the utmost, trusting in their own strength or speed to carry them through a battle, Rangers take a more measured approach to combat. Since they spend so much time alone in the wilderness, far from allies and resources, they focus more on exploiting their enemies’ weakness through keen observation and stealth.
Your maximum Stalker Bonus is your class level divided by two. The first time you encounter a certain type of enemy, which might be a species of monster, an evil cult, or a named individual, your stalker bonus for that enemy is +0. You can increase your stalker bonus for that enemy by the following actions:
• Observe the enemy out of combat for at least 10 minutes.
• Finish a combat with the enemy, even a short one.
• Interact with the enemy socially (conversation, interrogation, etc.) for at least 10 minutes.
You can maintain a number of enemies simultaneously equal to your wisdom bonus. After a long rest, you can drop an enemy type to focus on another. Your stalker bonus is applied to damage rolls against the enemy. You can add half your stalker bonus to skill rolls that actively target the enemy, such as Survival for tracking and Persuasion, but not Stealth.

For example, Allinda the 4th-level ranger and her party are looking for the Broken Fang tribe of gnolls. Allinda tracks them from a destroyed village to a clearing in the woods, and offers to go ahead to scout the approach. She succeeds at her stealth check and reaches a position where she can observe the gnolls’ campsite from hiding, then she returns to the party. Her stalker bonus against the gnolls is now +1. While the party is discussing options, a patrol of gnolls arrives and attacks. During this combat, Allinda gets +1 to all damage rolls against the gnolls. After the combat, her stalker bonus increases to +2. The party decides to wait until dark, and then try to capture some prisoners to find out if the camp contains the whole tribe, or if there is another group of gnolls to watch out for. The raid is successful, and if Allinda were at least 6th level her stalker bonus would increase to +3. But since she is fourth level, it remains at +2.

(3rd) Ranger Archetype: Choose an archetype: Foe Hunter, Beast Master, or Warden.
The Foe Hunter and Beast Master are unchanged from the PH..
The Warden gains spells from the ranger list as an Eldritch Knight. At levels where the Eldritch Knight could pick a spell from any school, you can pick any druid spell, or learn one of the innate spells of a fey willing to teach you their magic.

(4th) Ranger’s Lore. Your knowledge of the wilderness gives you and/or your allies useful tricks to survive in the wilderness. Choose one of the following perks:
• Know thy Enemy: Choose a type of monster, such as dragons or undead, or two humanoid species such as elves and goblins. You have advantage on skill checks to recall information about the enemy and learn their language. You also add half your stalker bonus to attack rolls against the enemy. You can take this perk multiple times.
• Snake Eater: You are resistant to poison damage.
• Feywise: You have advantage on saving throws against fey magic.
• Paranoid: Even if you are surprised, you can take a single action during the surprise round.
• Camouflage: Given one minute and access to suitable materials, you can alter your appearance to blend in more easily with the surroundings. While camouflaged, you can hide without cover, and if you also have cover you gain advantage on Hide checks.
• Disguise Campsite: You can make a Survival check as if it were a Hide check to disguise the party’s campsite, so that anyone passing by must beat your roll to notice the site. It takes one hour to disguise a campsite in this way.
• Spelunker: You can squeeze through a narrow space without considering it difficult terrain, and have advantage on Athletics checks to escape a grapple.
• Amphibioius: You gain a swim speed of 20’
• Monkey: You gain a climb speed of 20’
• Poultice: During a short rest, you can collect local products to craft a healing poultice or tea. The poultice heals 1d10 plus your ranger level. The tea can suppress effects other than damage from a poison or disease (e.g. the poisoned condition) for eight hours. You still benefit from the short rest while making the poultice. Either product loses its potency after one day. You can take this perk multiple times, to craft an additional poultice per rest.
• Tough as Nails: You become proficient in another saving throw.
• Poison Use
You can choose a new perk at levels 7, 10, 13, 16, and 19.

(5th) Extra Attack

(6th to 16th) ...regular progression including ASIs, new Favored Terrains, new Lores, and archetype features.

(17th) Horizon Walker. Every natural terrain counts as favored terrain for you. In addition, choose one plane of existence such as the Atral Plane or the Elemental Plane of Earth as a favored terrain. Once per long rest, you can find natural roads and interstices that transport you to that plane from the Prime Material, or vice versa. Traveling this way takes one hour. You can bring companions with you.
Choose another plane at levels 18, 19, and 20.

(20th) Foe Slayer. As a free action, you can double your stalker bonus to damage for one full round. If you took the "Know thy Enemy" perk then you also double your attack bonus. You can use this ability once per long rest.

 

[Minigiant]

Let's talk about the Ranger's version of Divine Smite, Primeval Awareness.

A ranger can spend spell slots to to notice special creatures. Many say it's useless unless you can burn slots to radar ping them.

What else should it do? Grant location? Make ranger notice the creature when they are near? Grant special senses like super hearing and scent? I like the last one. Fits the survival theme. "Watch out. It stinks like dragons."

 

[TarionzCousin]

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

"Stoic Pose: ponder your situation and gain advantage on Insight checks while doing so."

 

[Yaarel]

The fact that this thread exists makes me think the ranger shouldn't be a class and the burden of proof is on those who think it should stay a separate class.

It is a fair point to doubt the viability of the Ranger as a separate class. After all, in 1e the Ranger was a Fighter archetype. The Rogue class can cover all of the Dex finesse and archery, while the Fighter and Barbarian classes can cover all of the unarmored mobility and toughness. The animal companion works better as an NPC companion that any class can gain, plus a feat that allows better cooperation with an NPC companion. A Paladin archetype - Green Knight - can obsorb the half-caster aspects of the Ranger: consider the playtest had a ‘green’ life-oriented Paladin archetype.

Even so, the Ranger seems to cover enough design space to sustain a class. The Ranger is a highly mobile, super-tough, smart, and tool mastering warrior, who personifies the mastery of terrain. The smartness Int/Wis distinguishes the Ranger from Fighter and Barbarian, and the muscularity Str/Con distinguishes the Ranger from Rogue. A third-caster archetype gaining spells like the Eldritch Knight, might allow the spell-less Ranger to dabble in Druid/Wizard multiclassing.

A nonmagical version of the Cleric Channel Divinity feature, seems a decent way for a Ranger to favor multiple terrains and/or creature types.

Possibly Batman resembles an urban-terrain Elite Ranger. Here the Intelligence synergizes well with mastery of tools and equipment. The high Strength and low armor, benefits his mobility and contact combat. Batman might well be a Ranger/Rogue multiclass. With Rogue levels also mastering Dex tightrope stunts and deep stealth.

In any case, the smart Ranger synergizes well with tools and equipment to overcome various challenges.

 

[Yaarel]

I would feel better about ‘favored enemy’ if it becomes less about racist hate.

Instead call it ‘favored creature type’, or something like that. When studying a creature, the Ranger gains benefits to combat (impede and kill) the creature more effectively.

But oppositely, the Ranger also gains benefits to *help* (assist and heal) the same creature more effectively.

So for example. The Ranger who studies the Giant type can better help a Giant, as well as better combat a Giant.

Making the Ranger ‘favored creature type’ feature dual-use, makes it less about ‘hate’, potentially all about ‘love’, and moreso about gaining knowledge about the creature.