D&D General Ranger Identity Patch (+)

[doctorbadwolf]

So the premise here is that the Ranger has a clear identity, and wotc cannot seem to get the identity right and also make the class function above a C tier.

If you disagree, please elave thst to any other ranger thread.

So what do i mean?

3.5 and 5e 2014 get the identity about right, but arent vety good classes. 4e and 5e 2024 are effective classes, but are barely Rangers in terms of ID.

What even is the Ranger? That is easy.

The Ranger is a purposeful wanderer, whose "mission" or purpose is to defend the land and its people, both wild and civilized, while being expert warriors, hunters, and scouts, and attuned to nature such that they reliably understand the land and the things that live in it and move through the wilds without disturbance.

That...isnt that hard to build. People have made hundreds of homebrew and 3pp versions that balance the identity and performance better than any wotc version has.

So, I am curious. What are folks' favorite fixes for the 5e Ranger that keep both the identity and performance in mind?

I personally think that you can tone down the revised ranger a bit, and replace its favored enemy with 4e's Hunter's Quarry, and be 90% there.

Or, take the current Ranger and give it some exploration/enviromental benefits, and again replace its favored enemy with Hunter's Quarry.

My favorite fix though is to replace spell slots with Focus, and give it special Banes and Knacks that are like a mix of artificer infusions and warlock invocations, but less class defining. Basically they fill the space of favored enemy and natural explorer, but with beneifts that are more broadly applicable, like a knack that gives cold resistance or a bane that helps force flyers to land and stay grounded.

So again, what are your favorite fixes, patches, and versions?

 

[Aurel Guthrie]

I really, really like Laserllama's alternate ranger, especially the Knacks.

Also, on the other thread going on right now I shared that I allow Rangers to cast Hunter's Mark through a creature's tracks, so they get advantage tracking the creature and when they find it it's already Marked. A couple people seemed to like that.

 

[payn]

I loved the PF1 ranger! The weapon fighting style, the skills, the archetypes. It allowed you to not only build a lot of different concepts of rangers, but you had abilities in every pillar!

 

[Minigiant]

Better spells.

The problem D&D always* has with the ranger is that it makes the ranger by borrowing 80% of the magic (and 90% of the reliable impactful) from other classes.

The best rangers imo have been expansions and homebrew new spells to the ranger list.

Spells that buff beasts.
Spells that imbuse blades or arrows with magic.
Spells that enhance or remove restricts on skill use.


*except 4e

 

[soviet]

I liked the 4e ranger. Could it and the other 4e classes have used more out of combat flavour? Sure. But I greatly appreciated not having to be a spellcaster.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I loved the PF1 ranger! The weapon fighting style, the skills, the archetypes. It allowed you to not only build a lot of different concepts of rangers, but you had abilities in every pillar!

IIRC it is like the 3.5 version with balance fixes to make it not weak alongside most classes, right? That is exactly whsy i wanted from 5e Ranger. And i say that as someone who hates 3.5e almost as much as some folks hate 4e.

Better spells.

The problem D&D always* has with the ranger is that it makes the ranger by borrowing 80% of the magic (and 90% of the reliable impactful) from other classes.

The best rangers imo have been expansions and homebrew new spells to the ranger list.

Spells that buff beasts.
Spells that imbuse blades or arrows with magic.
Spells that enhance or remove restricts on skill use.


*except 4e

While i agree, i do generally think that it is better when a class gets its identity primarily from features and secondarily from spells.

And the spells that enhance beasts...i think has to be general touch spells or the like. Too many rangers have no interest in a pet.

Tbh i would love to be able to choose to have a pet at level 1, and have a simple feature if you do that lets you target the pet with spells that normally target "self", and then let the subclass upgrade that to you and your pet sharing spells or something.

I liked the 4e ranger. Could it and the other 4e classes have used more out of combat flavour? Sure. But I greatly appreciated not having to be a spellcaster.

As a class it is pretty good. I played it as an archer with no concept of being a ranger as such and it was fine (other than requiring strength on its melee powers and dex on ranged) but it was just nothing like a Ranger IMO. its whole ID seemed to be "be lethal". Thats more fighter or assassin rogue than it is ranger.

And that is the crux of the issue. When wotc makes an effective ranger, it is always thematically bland even thpugh there is no real need for it to be.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I really, really like Laserllama's alternate ranger, especially the Knacks.

Also, on the other thread going on right now I shared that I allow Rangers to cast Hunter's Mark through a creature's tracks, so they get advantage tracking the creature and when they find it it's already Marked. A couple people seemed to like that.

I like that, and it dovetails with one of my ideas, which is to make the ranger play almost like an assassin. When you mark a creature you know what direction it is from you, you have advantage on wisdom checks related to it, and you can use wisdom with investigation if it relates to your mark, and you can mark a creature with multiple types of successful wisdom checks no action required. Ie if you successfully study the target, search for it, insight check it, track it, etc, you can mark it as part of the same action.

 

[Minigiant]

While i agree, i do generally think that it is better when a class gets its identity primarily from features and secondarily from spells.

And the spells that enhance beasts...i think has to be general touch spells or the like. Too many rangers have no interest in a pet.

Tbh i would love to be able to choose to have a pet at level 1, and have a simple feature if you do that lets you target the pet with spells that normally target "self", and then let the subclass upgrade that to you and your pet sharing spells or something

The beauty of spells is you can choose them and swap them in 5th edition.

I have 6 custom/fixed 3rd level Ranger spells when I DM

One for melee rangers
One for ranger rangers
One for beast pet rangers
One for trap survivalist rangers
One for defensive resistant rangers
One for magic heavy rangers

You pick the ones you want

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The beauty of spells is you can choose them and swap them in 5th edition.

I have 6 custom/fixed 3rd level Ranger spells when I DM

One for melee rangers
One for ranger rangers
One for beast pet rangers
One for trap survivalist rangers
One for defensive resistant rangers
One for magic heavy rangers

You pick the ones you want

Yep. My point stands though, regardless. The class itself needs to fix the identity problem, and spells can add to that.

 

[Tigris]

I liked the 4e ranger. Could it and the other 4e classes have used more out of combat flavour? Sure. But I greatly appreciated not having to be a spellcaster.

The later 4E ranger from essentials (Hunter as a Ranged Controller, and Scout as a Melee Dual Wielding Striker) did improve on the non combat flavour quite a bit. (I know the simplified classes are not for everyone, but the Ranger ones are well done in my oppinion especially because the non combat and flavour).

It had wildnerness knacks like improving stealth or climbing of the team or being able to easier keep watch while resting or better scouting areas.

Also it had animal aspects which (some of them) granted bonus to skills and or movement (or perception).

3.5 and 5e 2014 get the identity about right, but arent vety good classes. 4e and 5e 2024 are effective classes, but are barely Rangers in terms of ID.

I dont get why the 5E 2024 class should not be rangers in terms of ID or rather I am not 100% understanding what your problems are with it. Having ritual casting with nature flavoured spells for me is one of the best things in my oppinion to give a ranger the non combat identity, its exactly the kind of magic I expect. I agree that WotC has problems with the Ranger, in 2024 for me its especially the capstone (and the sometimes really bad subclasses).


Then having the Rangers Power come to big parts from the subclass (strong subclasses overall, and level 11 power spike being subclass dependant), also fits really well the Ranger, because the ranger is flexible (which is part of its identity and part of its lack of identity XD), but this also means that the subclasses all need to be (equally) strong (and flavourfull), which I think is a bit lacking.


Also many of the class features (most of them coming from Tashas) are 100% what I expect from a Ranger in case of flavour:

• Ritual casting as mentioned above
• Weapon Mastery: Having mastered 2 different weapons (like Sword and Bow like Aragor) is perfect for a Ranger.
• Deft Explorer: You traveled a lot so you know more languages and also learned a skill specifically good.
• Having the flexibility of learning 2 nature themed cantrips (druid) or be better at fighting with a specific weapon style is great fit for the "adaptility"
• Roving: Being good at climbing and swimming and also faster (and not using heavy armor) fits the Ranger which goes true wilderness well and does differentiate it more from fighter (and paladin) with heavy armor.
• Expertise: Getting more reliable at skills (tracking, sneaking, perception etc.) is also really much ranger (especially with the skill list from the class)
• Tireless: You can keep going and going longer than others, fits a Ranger well. (Especially if you think "special units" which are also named ranger). Especially handling exhaustion which others cant easily.
• Even the "hunters mark" which is like "attacking the enemies weakness" and "being able to chase it down" is fitting, although it would not need to be a spell, but thats just 5E design.

I think the only thing the 2024 version for me could improve on the flavour would be:

• Letting you use hunters mark on tracks of creatures. So if you are tracking/following a creature (and find tracks of them), you can mark it easily before combat making it easier to follow and give a small bonus for combat start
• Adding some additional unique ranger rituals to the spell list of the ranger.
• Rename "favored enemy" to something more fitting like "stalker"
• Make sure all the subclasses get some bonus spells fitting the subclass and some non combat feature. (Beastmaster learns to share spells with the beast later, but does not get any spells they could share as a bonus...)

In terms of how Ranger power could improve:

• Make the Hunter subclass better. Like a lot better. It has no bonus spells, no non combat feature and a weak level 11 feature (depending on hunters mark even).
  • In general: Have level 11 feature be less about area attack damage. (3 of the subclasses deal more area attack damage)
  • Also several subclasses have rather weak / not synergizing level 15 features.
• And of course create a better level 20 feature, because that is really weak. Like Hunters Mark does no longer need an action, and you can concentrate on 2 spells if one of them is hunters mark. (In addition to making it 1D10 damage).