D&D 5E 5th edition Ranger: Why does every class have to have it's own schtick?

[Li Shenron]

Why can't the ranger have a mixture of both?

Things like Pass without a Trace and Hide in Plain Sight could be something that isn't supernatural but just being "that good".

Healing, Camouflage, Cure Disease, See Invisibility, Glitterdust, etc could be done using herbs instead of spells.

In 3e we had a Ranger variant that did exactly that: we took many spells (not all) and turned them into extraordinary abilities, and a Ranger would choose which ones to learn (instead of spellcasting). Some of those are useful only sparingly, so it was ok to turn them into "at-will", which improved their believability as non-magical.

Favoured Enemy and Favoured Terrain are really missed opportunities that when done right can give the ranger some identity.

The problem with them is that if they are too good, then players start complaining when they are not in their favored terrain or not against their favored enemies. But you can't always set adventures in the desert fighting dragons or in swamps fighting orcs, it would be boring for everybody else... One idea that helps, is just to have many favored terrains/enemies, but not too many or they'll hardly be "favored" anymore. The other idea which the 5e designers got right, was to make the benefits more widely applicable than just with the actual favored enemy, but notice that this is not really named "favored enemy" now, instead it's under the Hunter's subclass features (the base class "favored enemy" benefits are more fluffy).

 

[Klaus]

While not part of the original ballads, magic has been part of the Robin Hood tales going back to at least to the early 17th Century with Jonson's play the Sad Shepard (1641) with a continuation by Waldron. It just was not in the hands of the protagonists, but characters such as an evil witch and Puck-Hairy. The Magic has also been seen in several versions since the 1990's (e.g. HBO's Robin of Sherwood).

But yeah, I would make Robin Hood a fighter with a noble background (for those stories where he was a noble). Then, I would, probably, create a new fighter subclass for him or multi-class him.

Are you kidding? Rogue. All the way. Robin Hood stories are not about surviving the harsh wilderness or winning fights -- Sherwood comes across as almost ridiculously hospitable and he actually tends to lose fights. They're all about tricking the authorities and stealing stuff.

Have to agree Robin would be a rogue more over a thief.

Anyone else noticed that even after all this conversation not just in this thread but all the others no one can agree on the rangers schtik or what it should be, or what a ranger even is for that matter?

No, I am not kidding. In many stories Robin was a noble and fought in the Crusades. He returns to find his family land stolen by Prince John. So at the start he is a fighter. Notice that I also said that I would create a subclass or multiclass him ( if I multiclass him it would be as a rogue or I might do a swashbuckler figher subclass). His fighting skill and how much he loses depends on the version you use as your source.
Now, if I go with the versions where is not a noble and never fought in the Crusade, yeah, rogue all the way!

I prefer the cunning like a fox robin. I do believe the the most recent robin I saw was the Nobel no magic variant was in 2010 by ridley Scott with Russ crowe

One of the first 3e-era Dragon Magazines had an adaptation of the Robin Hood mythos for the newly released D&D. Curiously it had *two* Robins: the Fighter nobleman Robin of Loxley, and the Ranger commoner Robin of Sherwood.

 

[Minigiant]

That's patently absurd. Where do you think they come from? Somebody had to gather them. Are you trying to tell me that if your PCs were in a forest, and one of them said, "I chop down a tree to get some lumber", you'd say, "No, you have to go back to town to buy lumber"?

I'm not saying you can't perform the action. I'm saying since there are no rules for it there is no standard for it.
Which no standard and reliance on the DM completely, there's nothing to base an assessment on. A DM can make up anything.

One wilds can have ingredients for this potion. Another could the herbs for the herabalist kit. It could take a day. It could take a week. It could take 2d4 days. It could be spring and summer only. It would be year round. It might require the Survival skill. It could take the nature skill. It could require proficiency in the herbalist kit.

That's what you can't say "an outlander fighter can do it."

But I didn't say my wilderness lacks them. You're assuming my wilderness lacks them because your argument depends on it. In fact my party ran into a green dragon at 4th level and escaped with no loss of life. Don't try to tell me they need magic to do that, because I know for certain that that is not true.

Again I was talking about a lone ranger living out in the wildnerness alone with no help from civilization once leaving it. That is the basis for the ranger having these features and why it's a class.

My statement is that "only player characters of the ranger or druid classes can realistically live alone in the D&D wilderness for very long periods without special circumstance, setting, or build."

 

[Minigiant]

I prefer the cunning like a fox robin. I do believe the the most recent robin I saw was the Nobel no magic variant was in 2010 by ridley Scott with Russ crowe

No, I am not kidding. In many stories Robin was a noble and fought in the Crusades. He returns to find his family land stolen by Prince John. So at the start he is a fighter. Notice that I also said that I would create a subclass or multiclass him ( if I multiclass him it would be as a rogue or I might do a swashbuckler figher subclass). His fighting skill and how much he loses depends on the version you use as your source.
Now, if I go with the versions where is not a noble and never fought in the Crusade, yeah, rogue all the way!

Are you kidding? Rogue. All the way. Robin Hood stories are not about surviving the harsh wilderness or winning fights -- Sherwood comes across as almost ridiculously hospitable and he actually tends to lose fights. They're all about tricking the authorities and stealing stuff.

While not part of the original ballads, magic has been part of the Robin Hood tales going back to at least to the early 17th Century with Jonson's play the Sad Shepard (1641) with a continuation by Waldron. It just was not in the hands of the protagonists, but characters such as an evil witch and Puck-Hairy. The Magic has also been seen in several versions since the 1990's (e.g. HBO's Robin of Sherwood).

But yeah, I would make Robin Hood a fighter with a noble background (for those stories where he was a noble). Then, I would, probably, create a new fighter subclass for him or multi-class him.

One of the first 3e-era Dragon Magazines had an adaptation of the Robin Hood mythos for the newly released D&D. Curiously it had *two* Robins: the Fighter nobleman Robin of Loxley, and the Ranger commoner Robin of Sherwood.

Robin was a DEX-based fighter/rogue multiclass.
Sherwood Forest was Candy Land compared to most D&D settings. The bandits joined him. Not an orc or fairy or assassin vine to be found. No wilderness survival needed.

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

The problem with the Ranger is that people have more versions of the ranger than can ever possibly fit in a single class archetype without having a more flexible class design. It's just as ranger-y to not have TWF or spells as it is to have them; what if I want no spells and an animal companion to track while using my sword-and-board fighting style?

My personal solution is to provide a broader list of ranger archetypes within the class and allow choices that are all equally viable.

This is a very good point. Too many people have too many favorite archetypes or ideas of what a ranger should be. Some like casters, other beast masters and some old timers like me, prefer the tough ones.

Aside from the Unearthed Arcana alternate ranger (which is the first ranger i really like in 3 editions now), the above concepts make much sense to me. I would just like to ad my own simplified concepts to the stew. IMO, just like the fighter, the ranger would benefit from "differentiation". Namely, we could the following archetypes:

-The magical woodsmen; i would really imagine this to work with elves, but heck, why not, if everyone can be an eldrich knight, why not a magical woodsmen? This Arch would be similar to the current ranger, only with even more of an accent on casting. Something like an "eldrich ranger"... sub specialization could include a choice between a "druidic" and "arcane" features.

-Tarzan.... the name says it all. An exclusive build for those who like to have animal companion(s). Do note i see no reason why there shouldn't be more then one companion. I would personally make the beast masters a class of its own, but that's just me. Subbing could include a choice between one powerful beast, or multiple weaker ones.

-Martial ranger; the tough one, we old timers want. Needs to get some features to make it closer to fighter (maybe an extra attack). Possibly armor proficiency (if the others are restricted to light). I would also like to play with hit dice. Maybe 2d6 per level, or 2d8 and 1d8 on some levels. Sub types would include just like generic fighters (depending on fighting style and ability distribution) either a melee or a ranged character.

All archetypes would get tracking and survival features. Possibly alertness as a choice for some sub classes.
Also, some limited spell casting at high levels, and/or use of magical items could be available for all archetypes (at pretty high levels)

ADDENDUM: Personally i think the lasting "quest" for ranger's schtick is what "diluted" the class so far from it's origins.

 

[Onslaught]

I have a feeling that people who don't like Rangers with magic think the solution is a specific ranger archetype with magic for people who like it - it should make Greeks and Troyans happy.

But it fail to see the point in Ranger spell-casting (and the point which people who don`t dislike it deffend): Ranger's spellcasting isn't the class MAJOR class feature, it's ONE class feature, that cover a lot of situations, including combat (Hunters Mark) but also other situations in the wilderness, especially exploration and "living in the wild".

If you go the "magic woodland man" route, you might as well play a Land Druid. Or a Nature Cleric.

Now going back to the OP point: if magic isn't (part of!!!) the Ranger "thing", what is the Ranger thing? What differentiates a Lvl 1 Ranger from a Lvl 1 Outlander Fighter? And a Lvl 3 (by that I mean archetypes)?

I think using Battlemasters Manuvers is a disservice - it makes the Ranger more like the FIghter, instead of ts own thing.

 

[Corpsetaker]

The problem I see is trying to make the ranger too universal.

It is supposed to be a specialty class that specializes in specific creatures. I think the problem now a days is that people want their abilities to work 100% against everything and in every situation. The idea of Favoured Enemy and Terrain is that the higher level you get, the more you add to your list. Picking a ranger should require a bit of planning with the DM. You find out the kind of adventure he/she is running and you can figure out which terrain and type of creatures to pick. Sure you aren't going to be maxed out against everything but if that is what you want then create a wilderness fighter.

 

[Mercule]

I personally would've preferred the following:

1) All Rangers to be granted an Animal Companion of CR 1/4 or less.

Ranger has been my favorite class since 1E. I explicitly do not want to be saddled with an animal companion. I can see where some people might like the option, but it isn't a defining feature of the class. Really, I'd rather see people who want to play a beast master go play a Druid or have another class introduced to handle it (is that what the 4E Warden did?).

 

[Azurewraith]

Ranger has been my favorite class since 1E. I explicitly do not want to be saddled with an animal companion. I can see where some people might like the option, but it isn't a defining feature of the class. Really, I'd rather see people who want to play a beast master go play a Druid or have another class introduced to handle it (is that what the 4E Warden did?).

Could be wrong never played a warden but I'm pretty sure 4e warden channeled nature to do stuffs. Sentinel the drood had the companion.

I feel rangers should be given more use and abuse nature skills so they stop getting compared to a Druid. Iv said it before army of orcs wandering through a forest ranger Burns it down. Druid uses entangling roots then summons a swarm of crows to Peck out their eyes

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

But it fail to see the point in Ranger spell-casting (and the point which people who don`t dislike it deffend): Ranger's spellcasting isn't the class MAJOR class feature, it's ONE class feature, that cover a lot of situations

You are of course right. The casting is not the the ranger's MAJOR feature, it's half it's features. What "we" would like more is probably trading spellcasting for other goodies.

If you go the "magic woodland man" route, you might as well play a Land Druid. Or a Nature Cleric.

Now going back to the OP point: if magic isn't (part of!!!) the Ranger "thing", what is the Ranger thing? What differentiates a Lvl 1 Ranger from a Lvl 1 Outlander Fighter? And a Lvl 3 (by that I mean archetypes)?

As someone mentioned somewhere in the middle of this thread, the druid is the oter side of nature coin. As the ranger augments its skills with magic the druid supplements its magic with skills.

As for what is the Ranger's thing? For a martial ranger, the thing is wilderness military operations. So yes, i understand those who think it should be a sub class of the fighter (i am not against it myself), however as also mentioned before, the class has been a staple of DnD since 1E, so why not make an archetype that pays service to the original idea?

The problem I see is trying to make the ranger too universal.

It is supposed to be a specialty class that specializes in specific creatures. I think the problem now a days is that people want their abilities to work 100% against everything and in every situation.

I can't speak for others, but for me personally i think the proposed rangers will specialize actually. The would specialize in ambush, attrition warfare, wilderness environments....... They may have overlapping roles with fighters in the front lines, but they will never have the fighter's dedicated specializations and universal damage output.

On a side note, i am still not sure if i want the favorite enemy feature to return to the old bonus damage VS given enemy. Maybe there could be optional features for this is well? I.E. If you chose between "hunter" feature (gives you bonus VS chosen enemy type), "guardian" (gives you AC and/or ST vs chose enemy), or "guide" (doesn't give you combat bonuses against anyone but your exploration skills get a bump)?