D&D General What is the Ranger to you?

[Xeviat]

Hi friends. Today, I want to talk about one of my favorite classes, the Ranger. But my view of the Ranger may be different from everyone else's view of the Ranger, so I wanted to hear about that. What is the ranger to you? What things do you feel it has to be able to do to be the ranger to you (if mechanical, general answers, not gritty specifics). I don't want this to be edition warring, but definitely you can talk about what you liked about the ranger in certain editions and what you missed about them in others.

For me, the ranger is the fantasy interpretation of the woodsman. Resourceful. Knowledgeable about nature. Able to do things that the common folk see as mystical or magical. Where a Rogue can be a master of skills and be a good scout, tracker, or hunter, and where a fighter could cover a similar, if not more martially focused, role, the ranger takes things to a different level.

Like the paladin, which is a fantasy interpretation of the romance era knights in shining armor, magic is an important part of the ranger to me. It shows that their connection to nature is more than a skill, that it is something spiritual.

And though it is very hard to implement mechanically, I feel that "favored enemy" is an important part of the Ranger. This is difficult to get right in a game, because it's power is going to be dependant upon the adventure being played, but it just feels like it is a part of the Ranger's legacy.

Lastly, to really mechanically differentiate them, I feel that animal companions are important to Rangers. I'd be happy if it was something all rangers got, but I know plenty don't feel that way. To me, it just makes them feel intrinsically different from a fighter or rogue built for a similar archetype.

What do you think? What is the Ranger to you?

 

[Tallifer]

When I was young, a Ranger was Aragorn. When I came back to D&D in 2009 with 4E, a Ranger became a nature-loving Striker dishing out enormous damage, and that's what I prefer now.

 

[Sacrosanct]

To me, the ranger is a bushcrafter. A mountain man/woman. Lives off the land, master scout and tracker. Daniel Boone. Don’t really care about Aragorn

Mechanically, that means light armor only, and no heavy weapons. Practical weapons that have multiple uses (as a bushcrafter myself, this is a golden rule). Space is limited and precious, especially if you have to hike an entire day. Or week. That means weapons are an axe over sword (along with a good knife and bow). Probably the most robust HP die of any other class.

No spells in the traditional sense, but could have spell like abilities that support that theme. Poultices, supernatural tracking and long range accuracy, etc. powers to enhance the ability of their animal companion. The ability to resist harsh climates and keep going when you’re beaten down.

 

[Monayuris]

A ranger is a wilderness specialist. Navigation, tracking , foraging for food, hunting and so on. In a hex crawl they would be extremely valuable. I consider them as fighter subclass so would share the combat skill of a fighter type.

I prefer no spells and no animal companions. They definitely shouldn’t be forced into a dual wield or archery situation. A ranger would be distinguished by their advantages in wilderness.

 

[Blue]

I'm pre-Drizz't when ranger got set in my head, and Aragorn described as a ranger wasn't the same thing as the D&D class of the same name.

To me a ranger is an outdoorsman first. They don't have the same connection or reverence of nature that a druid has, but that doesn't mean that they can't do things that others can't. (Mechanically I'd be happier with invocations like the warlock rather than spells.) They should eb a master of tracking, roughing it, knowing about animals practically and possibly theoretically as well - and dealing with them (not just handling, but vet skills as well), as hunters they should be able to do snare and other traps. Potentially also be able to do things like identify healing herbs and poisonous berries and the like, but that may not be all of them.

They might have a dedicated animal companion with a bond, or might not (subclass likely). Actually, if they want a battle pet I'd make that a subclass, so that the it balances out. for a scout-type pet instead (or in addition) I'd allow that for all of them in a natural Find Familiar sort of way.

But even if not they should get more out of pets and mounts than others, including care for them.

They aren't a fighter and should lose to one in a slugfest locked in a featureless room - and should dominate them in a natural setting where they can use their mobility but also their ability to use the terrain in ways others couldn't. As hunters they should be great at the stalk, the ambush, and at archery. From a fighting perspective a ranger probably should have more in common with a rogue than a fighter-type.

Actually, rogue's in some ways the flip side of the coin. Urban skills instead of natural. both skirmishers who can stealth, good at killing with a first shot from ambush, etc. Not saying that 5e Rogue with some skill substitutions would be ideal ranger, but I could easily see a single class that handles them all ina warlock-like two-choice. One about type @ 1st level (urban or natural, but probably more broken down) and then a subclass like choice later.

 

[Arilyn]

Rangers to me are guides, trackers, hunters and masters of survival. This could be the loner, who has embraced the wild over civilization, or the guardian, protecting villagers and farmers from the dangers in the wilds. I don't like rangers having spells, but definitely unique abilities, which could border on magical. Animal companions and favoured enemies should be options. I don't mind the urban ranger concept; the shadowy figure who knows every corner of the city and its dangers, but is probably not a criminal.

And as Sacrosanct says, light armour and practical weapons.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Krachek]

I’m not a fan of the ranger, a subclass of the fighter would have been sufficient.
a 1/3 caster similar to EK.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Hi friends. Today, I want to talk about one of my favorite classes, the Ranger. But my view of the Ranger may be different from everyone else's view of the Ranger, so I wanted to hear about that.

The Ranger was, originally, Aragorn. Sorry, it was just a model-one-hero-from-fiction class, a testimony to the profound inflexibility of the class/level system.

What do you think? What is the Ranger to you?

To me, it's a superfluous/redundant class in most editions since that Aragorn thing in the early game. Prettymuch since we got Kits and non-weapon proficiencies, it's been questionable whether it was called for at all. Once we had skills & modular multi-classing, it was pretty pointless. 4e arguably briefly redeemed it as a martial striker - though, one of two, so still redundant. In 5e, with fighters getting a better choice of skills, seamlessly going DEX or STR, and the Outlander Background (and potential to customize similar ones to exactly the rangerness you want), it seems completely redundant - but then, 5e doesn't shy away from redundancy, at all.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The Ranger is an outdoors person, sure, but is much more than that. A rogue with the right expertise and background is a bushman.

The Ranger is someone who guards the land, protecting nature from man and man from nature. If they weren’t that, they’d be called the Hunter or The Scout or something.

In dnd, they are connected to nature in a way that is generally denoted with magical abilities. Classically, they train with Druids and are often part of their groves, and should be able to easily befriend animals and calm angry nature spirits, but not as simply as a Druid does (Druid casts a spell and it happens, Ranger makes checks and it happens if they succeed).

The animal companion should be a boost to the base class ability to befriend beasts, forming a mystical bond with a beast that allows that beast to exceed their normal limitations and the two to work together in ways that are decidedly supernatural. The Ranger’s abilities should combine with the beast. If the ranger has spells, they should be able to boost the beast just like they can themselves. If they have maneuvers, there should be manuevers that combine ranger and beast actions.

They should be reasonably competent in any terrain, and be exceptional in their primary environment, and that training should provide benefits wherever they are. So, plains rangers could be faster, forest rangers could be stealthier, mountain rangers could have climb speed and ignore certain types of difficult terrain, etc.

favored enemy should be a “study your enemy” benefit that requires no action when used against your favored enemy.