Level Up (A5E) The Sadness that is Wilderness Lore (Ranger 12)
Davies
Legend
I would suggest dropping the CR requirement, mostly because giant fire beetles are CR 0 and one of the earliest "you can harvest something useful from this critter" examples I can find is taking their "glowing glands" that continue to glow for a few days after the creature is dead, per Moldvay Basic.
Edit: The value can be changed to "10 times the creature's CR (minimum of 1 gp)"
Edit: The value can be changed to "10 times the creature's CR (minimum of 1 gp)"
Last edited:
lichmaster
Hero
Honestly I think that the ranger is a vestigial class that keeps being included in the game but struggles more and more to find its reason to exist.
Back when the game was more about combat, the ranger was a class which focused more on exploration, tracking, movement, specific monster knowledge and pets.
In o5e they made the very questionable decision of giving some classes (the ranger in particular) more oomph on the underdeveloped exploration pillar instead on the fighting side, resulting in a class that can shine quite a lot but normally not for much time.
In a5e, with a properly developed exploration pillar, the ranger shines even more on that side. The end result is a class that may feel unsatisfactory if the exploration aspect of the game is not that emphasized (which happens quite a lot, since we've been used to it from previous editions' published adventures).
It does have some cool combat features and flavor, but I think its limit is really on its inherited identity which is very tightly coupled with the exploration aspect of the game. If that's not a thing, the ranger has very little reason to exist. A5e has done a lot to improve also the non exploration aspects of the class, but some features, like trap making, are really underwhelming for the level you get them IMO.
Back when the game was more about combat, the ranger was a class which focused more on exploration, tracking, movement, specific monster knowledge and pets.
In o5e they made the very questionable decision of giving some classes (the ranger in particular) more oomph on the underdeveloped exploration pillar instead on the fighting side, resulting in a class that can shine quite a lot but normally not for much time.
In a5e, with a properly developed exploration pillar, the ranger shines even more on that side. The end result is a class that may feel unsatisfactory if the exploration aspect of the game is not that emphasized (which happens quite a lot, since we've been used to it from previous editions' published adventures).
It does have some cool combat features and flavor, but I think its limit is really on its inherited identity which is very tightly coupled with the exploration aspect of the game. If that's not a thing, the ranger has very little reason to exist. A5e has done a lot to improve also the non exploration aspects of the class, but some features, like trap making, are really underwhelming for the level you get them IMO.
The thing about the ranger and the exploration pillar is that IF you have a ranger, it doesn't make the journey more exciting, it just makes them over quicker.
Oddly enough, if you give a class a great specialty in exploration - a player that selects it often wants to do so to show off their niche. However, doing so in exploration usually just has the result of making those scenes end quicker (i.e. Ranger "Well, he finds all the food you need, and you have a clear trail to your destination. Wanna tell campfire stories?"
If I started from the ground up, part of me would probably just ditch the Ranger entirely - and roll its core themes into Fighter and Rogue. But, since I'm not quite able to do that for my players, I think it was probably still better as a half-caster. I always saw the Ranger as the more agile Paladin; the compliment to the druid the way the paladin is to the cleric.
Also - can we talk about the level 14 feature that lets you, quote "start a fire" - I mean...that's probably the lamest option I've seen, and at 14th level?? Feels like an oversight somewhere.
xiphumor
Legend
It’s at 16th level, and it is lackluster, although you could read it super generously and say it works underwater. Still, Under the Stars is clearly superior.
MNblockhead
A Title Much Cooler Than Anything on the Old Site
I've always felt that both the ranger and paladin should be fighter sub-classes. But I'm also partial to tradition, so I'm not sure completely relegating traditional and iconic classes to subclasses should be done now.
lichmaster
Hero
More than sub-classes, I could see them as multiclass: fighter-cleric and fighter-druid-rogue. But the paladin works very well in o5e and even better in a5e, because it does not specialize in a non-core part of the game, while the ranger does.
I think an interesting ranger would be more of a "hunter", with a lot of skills and powers related to the two fighting together and eventually having a few exploration pillar related skills.
Faolyn
(she/her)
Heh--in 2e, rangers and paladins were fighter sub-classes.
Corinnguard
Hero
Paladin (5e Subclass) - D&D Wiki and Ranger (5e Subclass) - D&D Wiki Someone actually did create 5e Fighter subclass versions of the Paladin and the Ranger on D&D Wiki.
niklinna
satisfied?
Boy they sure packed a lot of things into that Ranger subclass.Paladin (5e Subclass) - D&D Wiki and Ranger (5e Subclass) - D&D Wiki Someone actually did create 5e Fighter subclass versions of the Paladin and the Ranger on D&D Wiki.
Similar Threads
Level Up (A5E)
Wilderness Mystic - Kindred spirit - Ranger *Clarification*
