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

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Hunter's Mark is there to fill up the space left from 1e/2e's bonus against giant-kind/evil humanoids, 3e's Favored Enemy, and 4e's Hunter's Quarry.

I think that the Hunter's Prey feature is what is meant to cover those, and the hunter's mark spell is just gravy.

 

[Klaus]

I think that the Hunter's Prey feature is what is meant to cover those, and the hunter's mark spell is just gravy.

Hunter's Mark is closer to Hunter's Quarry in mechanics (assign it to a single opponent), and is available to all Rangers, while only the Colossus Slayer feature offers the extra damage we've come to associate with Favored Enemy. They're both there to fill the same space, but with different "opportunity" costs (a spell, or a feature).

Getting at-will Hunter's Mark at level 2, advantage/resistance to poison at level 5 (= Protection from Poison), an "area" attack with bow/crossbow at level 9 (= Conjure Barrage), immunity to difficult terrain and movement-reducing spells (= Freedom of Movement) at level 13, and "two ranged attacks with bonus action" stance (= Swift Quiver) at level 17, is enough to fill out a "spell-less" Ranger's repertoire. And this can be summed up in a single sidebar.

 

[Minigiant]

Hunter's Mark is closer to Hunter's Quarry in mechanics (assign it to a single opponent), and is available to all Rangers, while only the Colossus Slayer feature offers the extra damage we've come to associate with Favored Enemy. They're both there to fill the same space, but with different "opportunity" costs (a spell, or a feature).

Getting at-will Hunter's Mark at level 2, advantage/resistance to poison at level 5 (= Protection from Poison), an "area" attack with bow/crossbow at level 9 (= Conjure Barrage), immunity to difficult terrain and movement-reducing spells (= Freedom of Movement) at level 13, and "two ranged attacks with bonus action" stance (= Swift Quiver) at level 17, is enough to fill out a "spell-less" Ranger's repertoire. And this can be summed up in a single sidebar.

But half the rangers I saw in play or post were melee.
And some were dragon hunters, they don't need poison resist. They need fear and Fire resist.
Then there was the desert striders, the wild riders, the beast talkers, and the jungle trappers....

In order to justify the rangers existence, support the various types of rangers, and keep its power level high enough to meet expected challenges, you need a late list of choosable options.

 

[Tony Vargas]

For that matter, no one's niche in this game is spellcasting;

Sure, that's necessarily true, since every class casts spells to some extent or with one sub-class, fighters not excepted.

even the full casters are more defined on what they can do with the spells they cast, or how they cast them and recover them, than the simple fact they cast spells.

So spellcasting itself hardly defines the Ranger, nor should it.

But, what the Ranger can do with spellcasting - ie, his spell list, or even a very few unique spells, like Hunter's Mark - or how he casts/recovers spells (less likely), could be defining.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I think it's all right that Rangers are able to resist the same as a fighter and thus the same mechanically (d10 HD), if for completely different thematic reasons. Now the 3e d8 HD was an abomination.

I like the idea of having a 1d8 base hit die, but 2d8 for recovery. A skirmisher might not be as tough in a sustained fight, but he can back off, rest, and hit you again, easily winning a long war of attrition.

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

Essentially you have to double two of the Ranger's attacks, speed or proficiency modifier just to remove magic and still have him keep up with the Fighter and Rogue. First question it's "What do I want the ranger to be?" The second and harder question is "How do I make that image not suck compared to the other classes?"

However, keeping up with the fighter and the rogue in the damage department, doesn't have to be ranger's raison d'etre. After all, there are "alternatives to fighting". Multiple hit dice makes the ranger more self sufficient and more affordable to a party that is short on healing. Disengage as a bonus action, makes the ranger more capable of executing tactical maneuvers and/or fighting on his/her own terms. Awareness or ambushing could make the ranger always act first or at the very least prevent from being taken off guard. There are many ways to make the class useful without resorting to damage per round calculations.

I like the idea of having a 1d8 base hit die, but 2d8 for recovery. A skirmisher might not be as tough in a sustained fight, but he can back off, rest, and hit you again, easily winning a long war of attrition.

Yeah, but the original rangers were the "tough" guys and i kind of miss that. Personally i am a great fan of the 1E 11 hit dice per 9 levels concept (yes, they were d8's but you added CON bonus to each of those). I also like the 2d6 per level of the UA latest iteration. In my eyes, the rangers should be some of the toughest guys out there as far as their capability to stay in a fight and/or last on their own is at stake, though probably not the best and hardest hitters (which should be either fighter's or barbarian's role).

 

[renevq]

I like the idea of having a 1d8 base hit die, but 2d8 for recovery. A skirmisher might not be as tough in a sustained fight, but he can back off, rest, and hit you again, easily winning a long war of attrition.

But skirmishing/hit and run tactics is just one part of the Ranger's theme. As a woodsman and tracker, he should be able to go incredibly long periods of time between recoveries, and higher HP better reflects this mechanically, although I agree that he should be able to recover faster and better as well. Maybe 1d10 HP and 2d6 HD?

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Personally i am a great fan of the 1E 11 hit dice per 9 levels concept (yes, they were d8's but you added CON bonus to each of those).

Um... you add Con to each hit die in 5E, too -- you get more from it, in fact. And it was 11 HD over ten levels, not nine.

Mathematically, the 1E ranger worked out oddly: it started out tougher than the fighter because of the extra die, but then it got weaker as the fighter's bigger die caught up to it, then got tougher again after the fighter hit its lower cap. This sort of varying power curve is something we want to avoid in 5E, I think.

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

Um... you add Con to each hit die in 5E, too -- you get more from it, in fact. And it was 11 HD over ten levels, not nine.

Mathematically, the 1E ranger worked out oddly: it started out tougher than the fighter because of the extra die, but then it got weaker as the fighter's bigger die caught up to it, then got tougher again after the fighter hit its lower cap. This sort of varying power curve is something we want to avoid in 5E, I think.

So we would add them if we had a class with 2HD i guess? I mean, not just for recovery, but for HP per level?
Second question, why would you like to avoid the above mentioned power curve in 5E?

 

[Klaus]

But half the rangers I saw in play or post were melee.

You'd still be free to choose whichever weapon you want, and the Fighting Style you want. These would just be additional benefits.

And some were dragon hunters, they don't need poison resist. They need fear and Fire resist.

I could just say that green dragons deal poison damage, but instead I'll say that Rangers are wilderness warriors, and there are hundreds of poisonous creatures out there. Not to mention bad water, poisonous plants, etc.

Then there was the desert striders, the wild riders, the beast talkers, and the jungle trappers....

All still apply, and this would be an *option* to the spellcasting ranger. Consider it a complexity dial: you can take the easy, pre-selected package, or go with the full, choose-your-own-spells version.

In order to justify the rangers existence, support the various types of rangers, and keep its power level high enough to meet expected challenges, you need a late list of choosable options.

More options than (pick one from each column):

- Spellcasting or spell-less?

- Two-weapon, Duelist, Defense or Archery?

- Hunter (Colossus Slayer, Horde Breaker, Dragon Hunter) or Beastmaster?

That's 2 x 4 x 4 = 32 options.