D&D General What is the Ranger to you?

[Xeviat]

I would be very interested in seeing some work at reworking the ranger's subclasses into their choice of favored enemy, with favored environment as an additional floating feature. An undead hunter, a dragon hunter, a beast Slayer, a bounty Hunter ... These could all have different doodads that make each of these rangers feel distinct while also solidifying the base concept of the ranger:

A Hunter. The kind of creature they hunt could determine their subclass features, like the Monster Slayer.

I think favored terrain should be changed with attunement. The ranger spends some time in a region, they acclimatize to it magically, and they gain some features.

I'd be fine with their Animal Companion becoming a spell. Higher level castings of it get you a more powerful companion (either higher CR, or upgrading your lower CR one). The paladin has a 2nd and 4th level spell for their mount, and the second level spell allows for a CR 1/2. Having to cast it every day could be a limitation of it was needed for balance.

 

[CapnZapp]

The Ranger has a clear ID.

If you're saying you have a clear ID for what YOU want the Ranger to be, sure. Otherwise, this and other threads clearly reveal nobody can agree to what the Ranger is and should do; and that the inability of the devs to pick an ID and then give us a strong execution of said ID is really the core reason why people consider it weak.

More known spells, and upgrading Natural Explorer and Favored Enemy to real features, is all the class needs.

That's funny - I'd say all it needs is one subclass where TWF and Hunter's Mark doesn't trip each over, and a second class offering a sturdy combat pet that survives at least as well as any other party member! [emoji846]

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don’t know about that. The Ranger has a clear ID, and it ain’t “has advanced fighting styles”.

Except that /was/ it's identity in 2e & 4e (OK, and 3e, really, ever since the whole TWF thing took off - and it makes /no/ sense, nothing about the ranger before 2e screamed "TWF," DEX was one of the few stats it /didn't/ need, and back then DEX was critical to TWFing). OTOH, the Ranger seemed to scream 'Archer' to a lot of people even back then, even more specifically, Robin Hood (I guess because of the woodsiness & good alignment?), to the point that The Dragon presented an Archer-Ranger variant. And, if you did trick out a 1e PC to be great at archery, with high STR (made-for-STR bow for damage) /and/ DEX (ranged attacking adjustment), he also just happened to be really good at TWFing, /also/.

So, maybe, that's where it came from: mechanical artifacts of early D&D. Wouldn't be the first thing that graduated from glitch to exploit to feature to identity. (OK, actually, might be one of the earliest - certainly not the only.)

And before that, it's identity was Aragorn. The guy what originally wrote it up came right out and admitted it.

So what third identity is all that clear, really? And how does it square with that original identity, and it's assumed system-artifact identity?

I think what what we will see with upcoming Ranger related playtesting will be similar to what Mearls showed on the happy fun hour, and that will be enough. Groups that wanna can just add those features, rather than treating them as alternate options, and give BM and Hunter rangers bonus spells.

Yeah, putting on your Game Design hat and adding stuff from whole cloth is so much easier than trimming what you don't need... said Sarcastro.

But it I’m not interested in rebuilding the class. More known spells, and upgrading Natural Explorer and Favored Enemy to real features, is all the class needs.

Or no spells at all...

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If you're saying you have a clear ID for what YOU want the Ranger to be, sure. Otherwise, this and other threads clearly reveal nobody can agree to what the Ranger is and should do; and that the inability of the devs to pick an ID and then give us a strong execution of said ID is really the core reason why people consider it weak.

That's funny - I'd say all it needs is one subclass where TWF and Hunter's Mark doesn't trip each over, and a second class offering a sturdy combat pet that survives at least as well as any other party member! [emoji846]

Then you aren't trying to make a Ranger by concept, but by CharOp battle standards.

I don't know what threads you're reading, but there is only broad disagreement about a few things, most of which is about execution, not concept. How natural explorer should work is execution. Everyone agrees that the Ranger should have benefits in natural exploration that go beyond what a rogue with expertise can do.
Everyone agrees that the ranger should be an excellent hunter in a way that contributes to combat, and be able to focus on an enemy. There's disagreement on whether that should still include a favored enemy, as such, or should shift to a new type of execution, but the concept is the same.

The only conceptual disagreements I've been seeing are magic being part of the concept (and hell, I don't think spells should be part of the Paladin class, so there are always outliers), whether the beast is core or subclass material, and some folks not knowing the difference between a ranger and a woodsman in general, non game related, terms, but there isn't much mechanically to leverage the actual concept of a ranger as someone who patrols the wild and it's border with civilization to protect people and/or the wilds. It's just something to keep in mind while building the class.

That's details, not identity.

Except that /was/ it's identity in 2e & 4e

I don't care about 2e, and the 4e ranger was just a fighter with a bonus skill, incorrectly labeled. They needed a fighter striker and hadn't decided yet that a class could be multiple roles, so they just didn't make a ranger but used it's name anyway. Like 4e "Eladrin" or Zach Snyder's "Batman".

So, maybe, that's where it came from: mechanical artifacts of early D&D. Wouldn't be the first thing that graduated from glitch to exploit to feature to identity. (OK, actually, might be one of the earliest - certainly not the only.)

And before that, it's identity was Aragorn. The guy what originally wrote it up came right out and admitted it.

So what third identity is all that clear, really? And how does it square with that original identity, and it's assumed system-artifact identity?

History usually informs the evolution of identity, but it never defines it. The thread already covers sufficiently what the ranger is, and pretty much no one who is seriously engaging with the question is sitting there just listing some historical trivia as if it answers the question.

[quote[Yeah, putting on your Game Design hat and adding stuff from whole cloth is so much easier than trimming what you don't need... said Sarcastro. [/quote] If you trim from an already mechanically weak class, you have to also add. So, yes, it literally is easier to add without also taking a hatchet to the class.

Or no spells at all...

As long as it's an optional variant.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If you trim from an already mechanically weak class, you have to also add. So, yes, it literally is easier to add without also taking a hatchet to the class.
As long as it's an optional variant.

It's easier to trim unwanted, but balanced, options, leaving a smaller list of alternatives, than to add - and balance - new options, conceptually, was the point. I'm in no way defending the extant Ranger class...

...really, I can't personally defend any version of it, sure, the 4e ranger was arguably balanced, but I found it personally unappealing to the point I doubt I could speak up for it too convincingly.


In the final analysis, /having/ a ranger class, and leaving it to the DM to toss in favor of Outlander Fighters or Rogues or whatever is preferable, from a design & presentation standpoint, because it's less onerous to those who find it pointless to cut it, than to those who wish for it to have create it from whole cloth.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It's easier to trim unwanted, but balanced, options, leaving a smaller list of alternatives, than to add - and balance - new options, conceptually, was the point. I'm in no way defending the extant Ranger class...

But you'd still have to either create new features to replace them, or beef up what's left, which requires even more design work and balancing than simply beefing up the weakest links that are thematically appropriate but don't do their job.

...really, I can't personally defend any version of it, sure, the 4e ranger was arguably balanced, but I found it personally unappealing to the point I doubt I could speak up for it too convincingly.

I will always (correctly) posit that people who don't even like a concept to begin with, aren't necessary to consult in determining how to execute it. I don't need to be part of a design discussion on the cleric, because I think it's a garbage class that shouldn't even exist. If I was a dnd designer, I would advise Mike and Jeremy to ignore my input on the class, unless they randomly catch me in a good mood toward a subclass of it or something and I'm jacked up about it. Because my input isn't as important as those on the team who love clerics. I'm not the cleric's target audience.

Now, that doesn't mean I don't value your opinion in general, but it does mean that your not seeing the ranger's identity or why the 4e ranger (a striker, which you don't see the appeal of in general by your own admission) is appealing to people, isn't a surprise to me, and doesn't really impact my view of the discussion much.

Anyway, the 4e ranger is a really good martial skirmishing striker. They make a great foil to the lighter less durable rogue, they're fun to play, they just aren't actually a ranger until essentials came out and gave them primal utility powers and let them take a feat to get wilderness knacks.

I certainly don't expect people who actually like the fighter to care about my dislike of it. I do like most of it's subclasses, though, and would like the class if you got your subclass at level 1, so you're just playing a battle master or eldritch knight, and can ignore the word fighter entirely when looking for inspiration within your class.

In the final analysis, /having/ a ranger class, and leaving it to the DM to toss in favor of Outlander Fighters or Rogues or whatever is preferable, from a design & presentation standpoint, because it's less onerous to those who find it pointless to cut it, than to those who wish for it to have create it from whole cloth.

I agree! And I think that the only deficit for most people who want the ranger in the game is execution, and that their play experience should be the priority of any change or alternate feature for the class.

 

[CapnZapp]

But it I’m not interested in rebuilding the class. More known spells, and upgrading Natural Explorer and Favored Enemy to real features, is all the class needs.

It's spellcasting is incredibly weak sauce. Compare paladin smiting. The ranger needs way more than known spells - had they been able to convert spell slots to bonus damage on top of their regular damage, that could mean that feature would be worthwhile.

As is, nah. Just remove it entirely and hope WotC deems that to be a significant loss, so they make either the attacks or the pet significantly stronger...

 

[CapnZapp]

Then you aren't trying to make a Ranger by concept, but by CharOp battle standards.

I don't know what threads you're reading, but there is only broad disagreement about a few things, most of which is about execution, not concept. How natural explorer should work is execution. Everyone agrees that the Ranger should have benefits in natural exploration that go beyond what a rogue with expertise can do.
Everyone agrees that the ranger should be an excellent hunter in a way that contributes to combat, and be able to focus on an enemy. There's disagreement on whether that should still include a favored enemy, as such, or should shift to a new type of execution, but the concept is the same.

The only conceptual disagreements I've been seeing are magic being part of the concept (and hell, I don't think spells should be part of the Paladin class, so there are always outliers), whether the beast is core or subclass material, and some folks not knowing the difference between a ranger and a woodsman in general, non game related, terms, but there isn't much mechanically to leverage the actual concept of a ranger as someone who patrols the wild and it's border with civilization to protect people and/or the wilds. It's just something to keep in mind while building the class.

That's details, not identity.

Sorry but you don't get to decide my issues are unimportant while yours are.

And I don't know what threads you're reading, but you have certainly missed a crap-ton of them, all saying the Beastmaster is essentially .

What the Ranger most definitely does not need, is MMearls faffing around with relatively unimportant details while missing the greater picture, which is that the class basically can't compete.

Which is my entire point: fix the basic effectiveness, don't worry which exact abilities you keep or drop, and the players will come [emoji846]

If he instead keeps pretending the class is basically fine, and somehow just needs pointless tweaking around, he could just as well forget about it.

Replacing one woodsman ability for another, or giving it one more slot in which to cast it's weaksauce spells, or arguing which ribbon ability is really a power ability will accomplish very little in the way that really counts: getting the class up to snuff compared to the others.

 

[Garthanos]

That's funny - I'd say all it needs is one subclass where TWF and Hunter's Mark doesn't trip each over, and a second class offering a sturdy combat pet that survives at least as well as any other party member! [emoji846]

And one where my Aragorn isn't casting spells.

 

[Tony Vargas]

And one where my Aragorn isn't casting spells.

Why would your half-elf Warlord>Battle Captain>Legendary Monarch be casting spells?