D&D 5E Fictional examples of Rangers

[Minigiant]

so the Witcher?

D&Ds over reliance on spells in place of kewl class abilities is a whole different debate, but yeah I wouldn’t mind if the Ranger was a fighter base with access to Druid rituals as standard

Like witchers. A witcher would be a ranger/bloodhunter multiclass.

I think it's less D&D overreliance on magicthat's an issuee and more people not coming to term of what the base assumption of D&D is.

Many focus on "What does the ranger look like?" and not ""Why does the ranger look like this?"

This is why the ranger has so many discussions. Rangers use magic because D&D heavily uses magical and supernatural beings and obstacles in its wilderness.. Ranger must deal with them. Most fantasy settings in Western books and TV are low magic or no magic so rangers don't need magic. If rangers exist as separate entities from fighters at all. Fantasy settings in video games or Asian media are high magic and thus rangers are high magic. So ranger use magic spells or rituals.

Once you open up the skill system, many settings don't really have rangers anymore because their world are too low magic to have rangers as a separate thing.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Apparently, half-casters aren't supposed to have ritual spells. Is it a balance thing? Maybe. I'm not sure. It would be flavorful if they did have it, though I suppose it wouldn't be too out of the way to get it as a V-human.

Anyways, Rangers don't necessarily need these spells as rituals. Rangers have a hard time using their spells for combat outside Hunter's Mark and a few other notable spells like the 2 Conjure spells, lightning arrow, swift quiver, and 2-3 AoE spells. The rest are definitely going to be utility based.

The combat spells usually take concentration so it's rare you'll use more than 1 or 2 in a single combat. The rest of your spell slots should be used during exploration or immediately before a long rest ends.

That is...very different from my play experience with ranger.

 

[Asisreo]

That is...very different from my play experience with ranger.

I often play at high-levels and I consider leftover spellslots to be a waste. Most important encounters, I'm busy concentrating on Conjure Woodland Creatures and having me and my animal companion attack. It's usually the CR 1/4 option since fey are almost always good even at their lowest CR. If the encounter isn't important/difficult, I'll cast hunter's mark for the extra damage and just cruise with that.

If I leave the rest of the day and I have spell slots remaining, I'll use locate whatever to have a sense of where we are in relation to something else, Primeval Awareness to ensure nothing crazier than a person or beast shows up while we're resting, I'll then go off and find a wild beast and use Animal Friendship and Speak with Animals. It isn't a guaranteed "I'll serve you forever!" Relationship but being friendly with a beast can be quite useful when you didn't have anything else to do.

 

[Undrave]

I've always viewed Rangers as guerilla-style warriors, using "dirty" tactics and harrying their opponents. Their affinity for terrain and wildcraft existed mostly to serve that need, that approach to fighting (know the terrain and use that knowledge against the enemy), rather than any particular faithful devotion to nature itself. They have a vested interest in protecting said nature, since to them, it's another tool or weapon, no more or less critical than the bow and/or sword they carry...and it's home to them.

The rangers of Gondor (as depicted in the Lord of the Rings films) are a good example of that. They're far less effective once it becomes a stand-up brawl (since their lower numbers can't exactly support that type of more "proper military" engagement). Rangers can be effective combatants in such a brawl given sufficient numbers, but that's not utilizing them to their best effect, since their training implies that guerilla-style, ambush type of warfare and large numbers typically works against that.

This is why I'm not a fan of rangers in 5e...they lean too much into the spellcasting/druidic elements and not remotely enough into their (what I view as their primary facet) martial nature. I always felt their spellcasting should have been part of an archetype, not core to the class, and should have been more utilitarian in scope (Entangle, Fog Cloud, effects that deal with terrain and manipulating it) rather than enhancing their combat output (Hunter's Mark and the like).

There's plenty of interpretations of the class, each as perfectly valid as the next. I do find the 5e Ranger misses the mark, as the base class plays into pillars that are not particularly interesting (exploration is the most hand-waved...it's enough to have a Ranger present than to play it out in dull minutae) and, more or less, forces the interpretation of a druidic/spellcasting warrior on to it. I'd rather the spellcasting be shunted into an archetype that supports that vision of the ranger, an archetype that supports the guerilla tactics, etc. The base class should be the platform from which the various interpretations spring. The 5e Ranger only kinda/sorta does it. Some of the revisions started to address that, but they gave up too soon.

I agree with you on the Guerilla 'Dirty' fighting styling. Rangers should be the kind to pick up Magic tricks when they're useful, and gives them an edge, and shouldn't have such a structure progression and spell list. It should be closer to the Bard's Magical Secret even. And probably more rituals. Then you can have Subclasses that tap more into the Magical aspect or not. Arcane Archer or the Seeker could have been a more Magical Ranger, for exemple.

You call this a ranger discussion?
Okay. Let me start problems.

Many examples of ranger people give are either not rangers or are fighter/ranger multiclasses that are more fighter than ranger.

The reason is that few settings are high enough in level or high enough in magic to need rangers. Rangers deal with the border of civilization and the wilderness or chaos. In D&D, that's often monsters, monstrosities, and intelligent magical beings which require magic or magic items to handle or deal with safely.

In editions that let fighters track, a fighter with tracking can suffice for a true ranger in many settings. Especially if the only enemy are humanoids.

Robin Hood isn't a ranger.

I think this speaks more to DnD's reliance on a magic system than anything else if you ask me.

He did a alpine survival shoot in my backyard, and everyday we watched as the helicopter flew him up in the morning and back down in the afternoon so he could go back to his hotel. He also did a scene where after heading down the mountain he found a mountain stream to catch crays and then a geothermal pool to cook them in - the problem being there are no crays on the mountain and the pool he cooked them in is 20kms north.

So the episiode was fictional and became a bit of a joke locally. Now I dont doubt he has some credible skill, but so did the four local guides he had on call to help

That's why Survivorman was always the superior show. It's not as 'flashy' and 'badass' but Les is doing it all on his own, including lugging his camera equipement.

For similar reasons, I’d also call the Paladin the Knight and Fighter the Man at Arms (is there a good gender-neutral equivalent to that, by the way? Armsman kind of works but still has the masculine suffix, and Person At Arms sounds clunky and awkward)

How about 'Weapons Master'? Or simply lean into the fiction a little more and call them 'Mercenaries'.

so the Witcher?

D&Ds over reliance on spells in place of kewl class abilities is a whole different debate, but yeah I wouldn’t mind if the Ranger was a fighter base with access to Druid rituals as standard

5e really is the 'Spell' edition. Unique racial abilities? Just have them check the Spell section. Unique Class abilities? Just throw a spell name in italics and some limits to its use. Done. Magic items? They just reproduce spells.

Spells spells spells spells... so much spells.

 

[Asisreo]

I agree with you on the Guerilla 'Dirty' fighting styling. Rangers should be the kind to pick up Magic tricks when they're useful, and gives them an edge, and shouldn't have such a structure progression and spell list. It should be closer to the Bard's Magical Secret even. And probably more rituals. Then you can have Subclasses that tap more into the Magical aspect or not. Arcane Archer or the Seeker could have been a more Magical Ranger, for exemple.



I think this speaks more to DnD's reliance on a magic system than anything else if you ask me.



That's why Survivorman was always the superior show. It's not as 'flashy' and 'badass' but Les is doing it all on his own, including lugging his camera equipement.



How about 'Weapons Master'? Or simply lean into the fiction a little more and call them 'Mercenaries'.



5e really is the 'Spell' edition. Unique racial abilities? Just have them check the Spell section. Unique Class abilities? Just throw a spell name in italics and some limits to its use. Done. Magic items? They just reproduce spells.

Spells spells spells spells... so much spells.

To be fair to 5e, it does make the assumption that the world is magical and magic is everywhere. If anything, something that doesn't engage with magic at all in 5e is the anomaly.

Edit: at least what adventurers are likely to engage with.

 

[Undrave]

To be fair to 5e, it does make the assumption that the world is magical and magic is everywhere. If anything, something that doesn't engage with magic at all in 5e is the anomaly.

Edit: at least what adventurers are likely to engage with.

It just feels like there's an over reliance on the Spell section of the book, not specifically on Magic itself. It's a bit pedantic of me I guess, but it's the difference between the ability of the Shadow Monk to teleport between shadows, and its ability to spend 2 ki points to cast 'Darkness' or 'Silence'.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It just feels like there's an over reliance on the Spell section of the book, not specifically on Magic itself. It's a bit pedantic of me I guess, but it's the difference between the ability of the Shadow Monk to teleport between shadows, and its ability to spend 2 ki points to cast 'Darkness' or 'Silence'.

Yeah I rewrote the low levels of several classes a while back without any spells or with only a few ritual spells, and I found that...I agree with the design team. It’s just more efficient to make the supernatural abilities just be a spell, and let players flavor it as they will.

 

[Minigiant]

I think this speaks more to DnD's reliance on a magic system than anything else if you ask me.

It's more that D&D

• has a high magic setting as base assumption
• doesn't have a proper item crafting system that scales to match it.
• doesn't have a proper shopping and gathering system

The "where do you find forest herbs in the desert" was the nonmagical ranger problem.

So D&D used spells as a substitute for a lack of system for scaling craftable healing herbs, posions, crystal balls, and ointments. Now we have infusions and invocations as core assmptions which could eleviate this but many will balk.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

It's more that D&D

• has a high magic setting as base assumption
• doesn't have a proper item crafting system that scales to match it.
• doesn't have a proper shopping and gathering system

The "where do you find forest herbs in the desert" was the nonmagical ranger problem.

So D&D used spells as a substitute for a lack of system for scaling craftable healing herbs, posions, crystal balls, and ointments. Now we have infusions and invocations as core assmptions which could eleviate this but many will balk.

Indeed.

I think one of the best example for this is the Snare spell from XGtE. Okay, yeah, the spell is on the Ranger's list, but it shares the same slot level as their other main spell that replicate a feature that use to be a non-spell.

How in the Nine Hells do we get a spell that create a ''trap'' before we have a single, almost workable, rule to create basic snares? Why couldnt they just create a ''Trapper Tool'' kit, then takes the same description as for the spell and make it mundane. Then a few more lines to explain how to a character with said tools prof. can buff the DC of the bear trap in the equipment list?

Same for poisons I guess. For now, my rules for poison crafting use the same rules as for potion making using Poisoner kit, and they are mostly ''On the first hit after applying the poison or if ingested, a creature is affected by X spells and must make the save against a DC 8+prof+Int (for roguish) or Wis (for nature-ish). Its crap, but it works.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

My ideal ranger would look something like that:

1: Deft explorer (UA), Healing Poultice (same as Lay on hands)
2: Fighting style, Hunter Mysticism, Favored Foe (UA, mundane, concentration-less, x per day)
3: Primal Awareness

Hunter Mysticism
You gain 2 rituals from any spell list. You can learn ritual you find on scrolls.
Furthermore, you gain 2 Nature Knacks (Warlock's Invocations-like) and gain one more at each 3 level thereafter.

Beast friend: speak with animal at-will.
Ear to the ground (lvl 11): gain tremor sense 60' when you do not move.
Whisper on the wind (lvl 15): Cast Scrying once per rest for free.
Warg-sight (lvl5): can see trough the eyes of a friendly beast.
Favored Enemy: Pick one creature type, when creatures from this type are affected by your Hunter Mark from the Favored Foe feature, you add your WIS mod to the damage dealt).

etc