D&D 5E The Dual Wielding Ranger: How Aragorn, Drizzt, and Dual-Wielding Led to the Ranger's Loss of Identity

Einlanzer0 said:

The main problem with rangers is nothing other than peoples' fixation on the idea that classes must be mechanically "pure" and unique in some significant way, which is unnecessary in cooperative tabletop gaming and it's kind of a new trend inspired at least in part by video game logic (I'm not dissing gamers, I am one myself).

Wizard vs sorcerer is a good example of this - they arguably have more thematic overlap than fighters and rangers, but because the subtle differences in how they handle spells run straight up through the spine of each class, players don't have as hard a time accepting them as separate classes.

In contrast, rangers do not have this type of hard line with fighters or any other classes - they instead serve up a grab bag of warrior, beastmaster, archer, scout, and nature priest character archetype options drawing inspiration from multiple sources. It's the thematic grouping of these options in a single class that makes them unique, not a single overarching mechanic, and there is nothing wrong with that, just like how there is nothing wrong with the idea of a fully baked witch class that sits alongside the wizard or sorcerer with some variant options. People just think there is for some reason and it leads to all of these philosophical discussions about the ranger's place in D&D - guess what? Rangers are exactly as easy or hard to justify as at least 6 of the other 12 classes. Ultimately, all that matters is that the ranger has a cohesive set of competitive options and is fun to play. I think they did a great job with the ranger concept in 5e, just a sloppy job with the execution, which has unfortunately helped feed this type of debate.

Click to expand...

4e provided a mechanical and narrative concept that worked very well IMO. Martial striker with wilderness skills. Lighter armor high damage, some mobility. Executed generally through a couple different combat paths, archery versus two weapon versus animal companion.

They were even very mechanically different from the other martial striker in the PH, the urban skills rogue who focused on significantly exploiting tactical advantage and tumbling for defense and mobility while the ranger picked a target to increase damage against and had some interrupt attacks.

Paul Farquhar said:

That's total rubbish!

There were more deserts and jungles than forests in those early adventures. The REH influence was strong.

Urban too. City State of the Invincible Overlord was popular, and the licenced Lankhmar stuff.

Click to expand...

I find this rather inaccurate. I mean, the influences, sure. But that's not what the bulk of what the adventures were.

Keep on the Borderlands: temperate wooded hills/countryside.
Isle of Dread: ok, "tropical" jungle which, as I said, was far off and alien with multiple different creatures you've never seen and a "native" tribe of "exotic" humans.
Village of Hommlet: temperate woods/countryside.
Cult of the Reptile God: temperate woods/countryside.
Bone Hill: temperate wooded hills/countryside.
U-series: Saltmarsh, et al: coastal, but temperate.
Crystal Cave & Dungeonland/Beyond the Magic Mirror: fairy land, but a traditional European/UK temperate woods/pastoral countryside.

Since Giants-2 was thrown out as "proof" of how wrong I am, which, yes, it was Glacier/icy/tundra. Not a wooded temperate realm. But, door being opened, let's look at the one immediately before that...
Hill Giant's Stead: oh look! Wooded hills/countryside.
Giants-3: predominantly in a volcano.
Slavers 1-3: woods/countryside (though mostly occurring underground), A4, of course, takes you to a volcanic island.
Tamoachan: "meso-american flavor" jungle.
Forbidden City:...I think that had some jungle in it, but it wasn't really a "jungle" adventure. You were wandering around the city.
Lost City: I believe handwaved you through a desert to get to the "entrance" but then the adventure, really, was all subterranean.
Desert Nomads (that's 2) and Desert of Desolation (3 modules): sure, I'll give you the desert modules.

Not surprisingly, most of the rest take place in subterranean places and what terrain was "top side" was fairly irrelevant: Descent/Drow/Demonweb Pits stuff, Tomb of Horrors, White Plume, Tsojcanth, pretty much anything else.

So we have 2 of 3 Giants. One of the Slavers (if you want). Tamoachan, Isle of Dread, 5 specifically Desert modules...from back in the beginning days, anyway.

Seems, to me, like there are more than enough "wooded countryside" scenarios to justify a "Wooded countryside specialist" class...who can still track and deal with [what we'd now call] "Survival" skills in places that AREN'T woodlands, as limiting the ranger's skills to a "favored terrain" won't be a thing for a long time to come.

steeldragons said:

I find this rather inaccurate. I mean, the influences, sure. But that's not what the bulk of what the adventures were.

Keep on the Borderlands: temperate wooded hills/countryside.
Isle of Dread: ok, "tropical" jungle which, as I said, was far off and alien with multiple different creatures you've never seen and a "native" tribe of "exotic" humans.
Village of Hommlet: temperate woods/countryside.
Cult of the Reptile God: temperate woods/countryside.
Bone Hill: temperate wooded hills/countryside.
U-series: Saltmarsh, et al: coastal, but temperate.
Crystal Cave & Dungeonland/Beyond the Magic Mirror: fairy land, but a traditional European/UK temperate woods/pastoral countryside.

Since Giants-2 was thrown out as "proof" of how wrong I am, which, yes, it was Glacier/icy/tundra. Not a wooded temperate realm. But, door being opened, let's look at the one immediately before that...
Hill Giant's Stead: oh look! Wooded hills/countryside.
Giants-3: predominantly in a volcano.
Slavers 1-3: woods/countryside (though mostly occurring underground), A4, of course, takes you to a volcanic island.
Tamoachan: "meso-american flavor" jungle.
Forbidden City:...I think that had some jungle in it, but it wasn't really a "jungle" adventure. You were wandering around the city.
Lost City: I believe handwaved you through a desert to get to the "entrance" but then the adventure, really, was all subterranean.
Desert Nomads (that's 2) and Desert of Desolation (3 modules): sure, I'll give you the desert modules.

Not surprisingly, most of the rest take place in subterranean places and what terrain was "top side" was fairly irrelevant: Descent/Drow/Demonweb Pits stuff, Tomb of Horrors, White Plume, Tsojcanth, pretty much anything else.

So we have 2 of 3 Giants. One of the Slavers (if you want). Tamoachan, Isle of Dread, 5 specifically Desert modules...from back in the beginning days, anyway.

Seems, to me, like there are more than enough "wooded countryside" scenarios to justify a "Wooded countryside specialist" class...who can still track and deal with [what we'd now call] "Survival" skills in places that AREN'T woodlands, as limiting the ranger's skills to a "favored terrain" won't be a thing for a long time to come.

Click to expand...

Keep on the Borderlands and Hommlet where very dry/deserty, as depicted in the maps and art. Not forested.

Cult of the Reptile God: Jungle.

U series: cool temperate maritime, swamps/marshes, no forests.

Slave Lords series: desert/plains. Very REH.

Tsojcanth did have an above ground section - mountains. As was Barrier Peaks of course.

I have to go pretty obscure (e.g. The Bane of Llywelyn) to think of a heavily forested early adventure.

If I were to redesign the Ranger, what I would do is make them a nimble martial skirmisher - no particular focus on archery or dual-wielding, though they would be valid fighting styles - with a focus on mobility and stealth in combat, and wilderness survival skills out of combat. No favored terrain, they should be equally capable of adapting to any wilderness environment. Preternatural abilities, but not overtly magical (think Aragorn figuring out the number of orcs in the party they were pursuing by putting his ear to the ground). For subclasses, have one that specializes in fighting a particular type of enemy, but make it broad, like the playtest hoard breaker and giant slayer. One that adds spellcasting. And one that has a pet. Pet options are The Hound (could be a hunting dog, a wolf, or any similar four-legged hunting beast) that harries foes and fights alongside you. The Raptor (could be a falcon, an owl, a raven, or any similar flying creature) that can be used as a scout or messenger but doesn’t take as active a role in combat, except perhaps to distract enemies with flyby attacks. And The Steed (could be a horse, a giant elk, or any similar mountable animal), which you can ride.

Charlaquin said:

If I were to redesign the Ranger, what I would do is make them a nimble martial skirmisher - no particular focus on archery or dual-wielding, though they would be valid fighting styles - with a focus on mobility and stealth in combat, and wilderness survival skills out of combat. No favored terrain, they should be equally capable of adapting to any wilderness environment. Preternatural abilities, but not overtly magical .....

Click to expand...

Strider von Aragon: So, I'm a nimble martial skirmisher! What about you ...

Bruce Not Lee: I'm a monk. I'm the nimble martial skirmisher.

Strider von Aragon: Oh, well .... see, I use weapons.

Bruce Not Lee: (fuming) I'M A KENSAI, DANG IT. A KENSAI!

Voadam said:

4e provided a mechanical and narrative concept that worked very well IMO. Martial striker with wilderness skills. Lighter armor high damage, some mobility. Executed generally through a couple different combat paths, archery versus two weapon versus animal companion.

They were even very mechanically different from the other martial striker in the PH, the urban skills rogue who focused on significantly exploiting tactical advantage and tumbling for defense and mobility while the ranger picked a target to increase damage against and had some interrupt attacks.

Click to expand...

Except that it placed arbitrary restrictions on the concept of a ranger in a pointless effort to mechanically differentiate it more from a fighter. Why, for example, would no ranger be able to use a two-handed weapon effectively? Likewise, why would a fighter not be able to pursue archery effectively? In a table top game that at least to some extent attempts to simulate an actual world, that neither makes logical sense nor serves any meaningful purpose. The classes are and should be defined by their themes and concepts, with mechanics emerging naturally according to what can fit the theme, not being defined first with seemingly the sole intent of keeping each class mechanically pure and unique.

5e discarding these conventions and going back to a more flexible identity for many of the classes was the right move. They should arguably have gone further in doing this with other classes, giving more design space over to subclasses. For example, cleric should really be more generic as a class, with the "armored, mace-wielding religious war priest" theme coming from subclass options.

TLDR: the ranger doesn't need to be redesigned or re-concepted, at least not any more than any other class. It just needed to have a better execution in 5e. Tasha's did a lot to correct the design flaws of the original Ranger.

Charlaquin said:

If I were to redesign the Ranger, what I would do is make them a nimble martial skirmisher - no particular focus on archery or dual-wielding, though they would be valid fighting styles - with a focus on mobility and stealth in combat

Click to expand...

How would you make them functionally distinct from rogues, in combat? Mobility and stealth are two really important parts of the rogue's toolkit, thanks to cunning action.

jayoungr said:

How would you make them functionally distinct from rogues, in combat? Mobility and stealth are two really important parts of the rogue's toolkit, thanks to cunning action.

Click to expand...

I felt like the UA spelless ranger was going in a good direction.

Einlanzer0 said:

Except that it placed arbitrary restrictions on the concept of a ranger in a pointless effort to mechanically differentiate it more from a fighter. Why, for example, would no ranger be able to use a two-handed weapon effectively? Likewise, why would a fighter not be able to pursue archery effectively?

Click to expand...

No 4e ranger? A 4e ranger's bonus damage works on any weapon. Rangers had a bunch of ranged only and two weapon specific power options, but not exclusively. They had power options in the base 4e PH that would work with any weapon combo. You can do those other weapon styles fine if you want.

4e fighters were designed primarily as heavy infantry, not as ranged attackers. Having the nonmagical best bow class be lightly armored robin hood concept rangers instead of 3e style plate mail fighters seemed a fine conceptual division to me.

The big 4e difference between rangers and fighters was between being a striker role class and a defender role class. Rangers were more maneuverable and hit hard, fighters were tougher and stickier once engaged.

Charlaquin said:

If I were to redesign the Ranger, what I would do is make them a nimble martial skirmisher - no particular focus on archery or dual-wielding, though they would be valid fighting styles - with a focus on mobility and stealth in combat, and wilderness survival skills out of combat. No favored terrain, they should be equally capable of adapting to any wilderness environment. Preternatural abilities, but not overtly magical (think Aragorn figuring out the number of orcs in the party they were pursuing by putting his ear to the ground). For subclasses, have one that specializes in fighting a particular type of enemy, but make it broad, like the playtest hoard breaker and giant slayer. One that adds spellcasting. And one that has a pet. Pet options are The Hound (could be a hunting dog, a wolf, or any similar four-legged hunting beast) that harries foes and fights alongside you. The Raptor (could be a falcon, an owl, a raven, or any similar flying creature) that can be used as a scout or messenger but doesn’t take as active a role in combat, except perhaps to distract enemies with flyby attacks. And The Steed (could be a horse, a giant elk, or any similar mountable animal), which you can ride.

Click to expand...

sounds like two subclasses one for fighter one for rogue.

Voadam said:

No 4e ranger? A 4e ranger's bonus damage works on any weapon. Rangers had a bunch of ranged only and two weapon specific power options, but not exclusively. They had power options in the base 4e PH that would work with any weapon combo. You can do those other weapon styles fine if you want.

4e fighters were designed primarily as heavy infantry, not as ranged attackers. Having the nonmagical best bow class be lightly armored robin hood concept rangers instead of 3e style plate mail fighters seemed a fine conceptual division to me.

The big 4e difference between rangers and fighters was between being a striker role class and a defender role class. Rangers were more maneuverable and hit hard, fighters were tougher and stickier once engaged.

Click to expand...

so it sounds like it could be fused with the rogue with no real loss of playability?

look you want anything from the ranger worth building from is its divine sneaky type ness, paladins can't do that properly and we lack a sneaky half caster with bard gone full caster.
hell given that the warden got merged into the paladin we could still have a naturey divine light armour fellow.