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

[Shendorion]

You can do all of that right out of the book, though. Take the first two levels as a rogue (outlander BG,) five as a battle master fighter, one more as a rogue if you like (for the Assassin's ambush feature,) and the rest fighter. Grab feats to simulate the other things (Mobility, Sharpshooter, Alertness, Medicine and so forth,) and you've got a martial ranger. Use your Expertise feature for Survival, and you're the best tracker in the group. Alertness makes you hard to surprise (and makes your ambush easier to achieve). You get multiple attacks, extreme mobility in and out of combat (thanks to thief's cunning action and the mobility feat,) the ability to size up a target, healing and lots of skill monkey stuff, a variety of in-combat trick shots, and if you took that third level in rogue your ambush is a game changer. If you want to go for more of a tanky ranger, pick up the sentinel feat and get your sneak attack die out of turn while you hamstring people for trying to disengage from you.

It will take you longer to mature than a single class character, but you'll still be relevant in and out of combat without having to rely on magic tricks or performing animals. Talk your DM into letting you swap thieves' cant for a monster language (or even druidic, if he's amenable,) and wear lots of green.

 

[Greg K]

You can do all of that right out of the book, though. Take the first two levels as a rogue (outlander BG,) five as a battle master fighter, one more as a rogue if you like (for the Assassin's ambush feature,) and the rest fighter. Grab feats to simulate the other things (Mobility, Sharpshooter, Alertness, Medicine and so forth,) and you've got a martial ranger. Use your Expertise feature for Survival, and you're the best tracker in the group.

Of course, you just used two *optional* rules to do it- multi-classing and feats. Not every group uses one or even both, but they might allow a new class.

 

[Shendorion]

If your DM doesn't allow the optional rules in the PHB, how likely is he to accept a whole new class published after the fact? In that sort of environment you might be able to go with the ranger as written and ignore the spells or the animal, because you'll be playing alongside a fighter whose most versatile class feature just became higher dump stats.

 

[Greg K]

If your DM doesn't allow the optional rules in the PHB, how likely is he to accept a whole new class published after the fact?

You would be surprised. I for one strongly dislike the 3e multi-classing rules unless including the 3.0 0/0 at first level and even then it was a last resort. I also banned most 3e official supplements. Outside of a few DMG, Unearthed Arcana variants, bits from web enhancements and a modified OA Shaman in place of the PHB, I used almost exclusively third party support. So did several DMs that I know.

In 5e, I would rather find new third party classes and class variants before ever allowing multi-classing (or even some of WOTCs own classes and class variants whether PHB, Unearthed Arcana or whatever). Then again, I think there are some better things from posters on these boards and elsewhere then published by WOTC.

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

This is exactly what I've done. There's a link in my signature.

I still don't think we need support for a nonmagical ranger within the ranger class. I think we need a Rogue subclass "Scout" that would support the nonmagical ranger. It could have some out of combat health recovery, extra skills, and a new way to trigger sneak attack that would mimic favored enemy/hunter's mark.

But what would a "scout" bring that a fighter or rogue with the Outlander background plus a few feats could not?

Two good points, although on the opposite sides of the coin.
My own 2 cents. At the moment we really do lack a dedicated scout class. Some would argue to the actual benefits or having such a class (especially its tactical usefulness), but personally i think no classes need be "battle worthy" to be in the game.

However, when i (and i think some of the guys here) talk about the "martial ranger", i don't mean the roguish scout. After all, some rangers are scouts but not all scouts are rangers. When i think of rangers i think of the high stamina mobile fighter that doesn't rage (to differentiate from the barbarian), and prefers guerrilla tactics (to differentiate from the fighter). And yes, you can MC this, but as mentioned some DMs are less lenient about MCing.

EDIT: How to effectively implement guerrilla fighting is also a good question. Someone mentioned a disengage as a bonus action. Some combat maneuvers like Maneuvering Attack and Evasive footwork also work. Some kind of stealth benefit is probably a good idea too (advantage on rolls, or alternatively no disadvantage on armor checks-up to chainmail ). Bonus on initiative maybe. And some mechanic for surprising enemies, at least in wilderness environments.

 

[renevq]

Two good points, although on the opposite sides of the coin.
My own 2 cents. At the moment we really do lack a dedicated scout class. Some would argue to the actual benefits or having such a class (especially its tactical usefulness), but personally i think no classes need be "battle worthy" to be in the game.

However, when i (and i think some of the guys here) talk about the "martial ranger", i don't mean the roguish scout. After all, some rangers are scouts but not all scouts are rangers. When i think of rangers i think of the high stamina mobile fighter that doesn't rage (to differentiate from the barbarian), and prefers guerrilla tactics (to differentiate from the fighter). And yes, you can MC this, but as mentioned some DMs are less lenient about MCing.

EDIT: How to effectively implement guerrilla fighting is also a good question. Someone mentioned a disengage as a bonus action. Some combat maneuvers like Maneuvering Attack and Evasive footwork also work. Some kind of stealth benefit is probably a good idea too (advantage on rolls, or alternatively no disadvantage on armor checks-up to chainmail ). Bonus on initiative maybe. And some mechanic for surprising enemies, at least in wilderness environments.

I think the UA Deep Stalker's level 3 ability is great for that: free attack when ambushing an enemy. As for stealth abilities, I've been toying with the idea of giving (at high level, of course) an invisibility-like benefit while in a favored terrain (the idea being guerrillas have the advantage on home turf, so to speak).
This is the Archetype I'm working on so far:
Level 3-Ambush!: During the first turn of combat, if you use the Attack action, you gain one extra attack. Also, during this turn, enemies have disadvantage on Attacks of Opportunity against you.
Fight the Enemy: You may select organizations as Favored Enemies.
Level 7-Fast Movement: Gain a +10' bonus to speed.
Level 11-Stay True to the Cause: Gain advantage on Wisdom saving throws against charm and compulsion effects.
Level 15-Ghost Guerrilla: When you take the Hide action in a favored terrain, you gain the benefits of an Invisibility spell.

EDIT: Also, a Conjure Natural Traps spell (or something to that effect) would work wonders not only for the archetype but for the class as a whole.

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

Fight the Enemy: You may select organizations as Favored Enemies.

I never thought of something like this before and i quite like the idea. It can make for some unique thematic builds.

 

[Shendorion]

You would be surprised. I for one strongly dislike the 3e multi-classing rules unless including the 3.0 0/0 at first level and even then it was a last resort. I also banned most 3e official supplements. Outside of a few DMG, Unearthed Arcana variants, bits from web enhancements and a modified OA Shaman in place of the PHB, I used almost exclusively third party support. So did several DMs that I know.

In 5e, I would rather find new third party classes and class variants before ever allowing multi-classing (or even some of WOTCs own classes and class variants whether PHB, Unearthed Arcana or whatever). Then again, I think there are some better things from posters on these boards and elsewhere then published by WOTC.

So if a player were to bring you a homebrewed character class that had all of the abilities of a MC FTR/ROG, the outlander background, specific feats as class features at set levels and so forth, basically presented a MC, feated character as a custom class that was relatively balanced and true to a concept, would that pass muster? At that point the features would all be spelled out from 1 to 20, so you could subject it to a thorough analysis.

 

[Greg K]

So if a player were to bring you a homebrewed character class that had all of the abilities of a MC FTR/ROG, the outlander background, specific feats as class features at set levels and so forth, basically presented a MC, feated character as a custom class that was relatively balanced and true to a concept, would that pass muster? At that point the features would all be spelled out from 1 to 20, so you could subject it to a thorough analysis.

It depends on what they brought me, does it fit a traditional archetype, and what I thought about it. Fighter/Rogue multiclass is to me not an archetype. Khaalis's Light Fighter variant class does cover a standard archetype and then has several subclasses to hone in a specific versions (e.g. corsair, duelist, gallant, swashbuckler). If a player brought that class to me, I would include it in many campaigns. If someone brought me a Shaman class similar to Green Ronin's Shaman for 3e which shared elements of cleric and druid (e.g., turn undead becomes rebuke spirit, domains replaced totems which grant bonus spells ( the player would have to research real world animals to see what various real world cultures associated with them- especially, if there is a real world analogue in the setting), detect spirits at 2nd level, a spirit companion (option of totem animal, ancestral spirit, nature spirit), base spell list is similar druid (with certain spells replaced with some cleric that bless curse, remove spell and some new spells dealing with spirits), yeah I would allow it. Similarly, I would allow a Witch class along the lines of Green Ronin's 3e Witch class and a new Monk class resembling the 3e OA Shaman. The only caveat is that I feel they are appropriate for the given setting and I don't have something else filling the archetype that I prefer.

 

[LightningArrow]

I've posted this in another thread, but...

In short, I don't believe the Ranger CLASS is bad, but three of its levels really need revision: 6, 10 and 14.

Level 6 gives the ranger Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer improvements. Not only are they EXTREMELY situational, they merely give more versatility to what the character can already do. Comparing that to Expertise in two skills, which the Rogue gets, or Aura of Protection, which the Paladin gets... well, no need to go on any further. At this level, I've given the ranger in my campaign proficiency in Constitution saving throws (because it's absurd that a SORCERER can do better against poisons and disease than a Ranger), along with new terrain and enemies.

Lvl10 and 14 class features also give bonuses that are situational as hell, and even in the right situation give lame bonuses ("you've used Hide In Plain Sight, now you're hidden in a tree, getting advantage in one attack... yay"). I'm still figuring out what to give the Ranger to compensate for them (maybe Expertise in some skills, or giving them more damage on crits a la Barbarian? I don't know).