D&D 5E 5th edition Ranger: Why does every class have to have it's own schtick?

[Onslaught]

I'm on the "magic" boat, as in, I do think Spells are a good part of the Ranger class and a perfect source of utility abilities (and damage improvement) that "makes sense".

However I think "animal companion as magic" is a terrible idea... For me it just make no sense and isn't Ranger-y, plus it's not cool fluff-wise.

Also, any spell created must take into account that the Bard could (and most likely would) exploit it.

So, for me, animal companion is an ANIMAL companion. It's not a bonded by magic pet nor a spirit that acts only a few times a day.'

 

[Hussar]

You're getting close to the "Rangerlord". You're gonna get the thread moved.

LOL. I reread what I wrote and I was totally not thinking of that when I wrote it. Must be my subconcious at work. To be fair though, the Ranger I'm talking about as a base isn't really a "warlord" since none of the powers I was thinking of were particularly combat based. It's no more a Rangerlord than a bard is a Barlord. I was thinking that shifting ranger from front line combatant as a baseline to a support baseline with the subclasses then doing the lifting work of where you want to put the ranger in the marching order.

A Spell Ranger could be similar to a nature oriented Bard - lots of nature lore, spell progression that focuses on nature and hunting (as opposed to a druid's worshipping nature), and that sort of thing. You would want the Spell Ranger as a guide if you're heading out into the unknown, uncharted wilderness.

A "tanky" ranger, little or no magic, lots of combat features, would likely end up looking a lot like a fighter with the Wilderness background, but, more focused on specific terrains and enemies. You want to take the Tanky Ranger with you when you're hunting something.

A "Pet" ranger, little or no magic, combat features synergize with a pet, would likely not look like any other class really since no other classes have this feature. It's basis is Tarzan or Mowgli or Beastmaster. I just love the archetype and I'd probably add in a bit of flavor along the lines of "raised by wolves" or some sort of tribal tie to a specific animal type. I suppose the closest analogue would be Totem Barbarian, but, instead of becoming like an animal, this class utilizes that animal to resolve goals.

 

[renevq]

However I think "animal companion as magic" is a terrible idea... For me it just make no sense and isn't Ranger-y, plus it's not cool fluff-wise. So, for me, animal companion is an ANIMAL companion. It's not a bonded by magic pet nor a spirit that acts only a few times a day.'

Why not?

First of all from a mechanical perspective, I think that compared to the Ranger, the Wizard and Paladin very elegantly handled the issue of having pets (Familiars and Mounts). If you want one, cast the spell. If you don't, or the circumstances of the campaign don't allow it, you don't cast it. You are using resources to get them (spells), but you are not saddled with a useless Class Ability if you don't/can't use it.

Second, from a thematic point of view: what gives a Ranger the ability to form a bond with an animal companion? I mean, what makes him/her be able to go above and beyond what, say, a properly fluffed out Fighter or Rogue with the Outlander background can do? Why can a Ranger be able to fight as one with a wolf or panther as opposed to buying and training a mastiff? Metaphysically speaking, a Ranger has a deep, mystical relationship with nature, which given the fact that magic is a known quality of the world and infuses every part of it, is (in my mind at least) inherently magical. Not to the extent of a Druid, who has given up completely to nature and acts as an avatar of sorts, but someone whose reverence for nature allows him/her to use it as a tool whilst preserving and admiring its beauty. It is (again, in my mind) this relationship with nature which allows the Ranger to make a bond with an animal companion, thus making it inherently magical as well. Now, if thematically appropriate, why not allow the class to mechanically make use of its magical resources for it?

Also, any spell created must take into account that the Bard could (and most likely would) exploit it.

The bard can already poach Find Familiar and Find Steed, which given at face value should both be better spells... to unlock a powerful animal companion you'd have to be a Ranger with the Beastmaster archetype.

 

[Lanefan]

Why wouldn't you continue to tank at high levels with a ranger? You have no armor restrictions and, at higher levels, stealth generally gets overshadowed by spells anyway. Why bother with Hide in Shadows when the 9th level wizard beside you can drop an invisibility spell on you that lasts 24 hours? Or, if you're a high level ranger, you've probably got things like magic elven chain or whatnot, and your AC is just as good. Heck, a decent Dex and a shield with leather armor is just as good as plate mail anyway. +2 leather, +2 shield, 18 Dex and you're already in the negatives for AC. Since your HP are equal to a fighter's, what does a fighter get that a ranger doesn't? By 9th level, I've got 10d8 HP vs the fighters 9d10. It's not like that's going to be much of a difference.

Long-term observation tells me that for some reason it is; and high-level Rangers tend to fall over considerably more often than high-level Fighters.

And, IIRC, in 1e, rangers got weapon specs same as a fighter.

They got the same number of weapon *proficiencies* but I don't think they got weapon spec. when it came out in UA (though I could be wrong on that, I'm going by memory) - I know in my own games only Fighters get weapon spec. and Cavaliers get their own version 'weapon of choice'.

Why do that within a single class? It sounds more like the character is being railroaded through a particular multiclassing path. Wouldn't it be better if that were up to the player? What if they want the character instead to start off stealthy, then get casty, then get tanky? If the game keeps the classes consistent in their capabilities, players can evolve their characters as they wish by taking levels in different classes

Not 'round here they won't; I'm quite harsh on multiclassing and unlike newer editions I don't have additive levels (e.g. a F-4/T-4 is not an 8th-level character).

or, if they find a role they like, just stick with the same class and keep getting better at what they're already doing.

What makes Ranger different is that while it does get better at what it does, it does so in part by doing it different ways. As you say, it's almost like a sort of pre-fab multiclass; which is fine.

Lanefan

 

[Minigiant]

LOL. I reread what I wrote and I was totally not thinking of that when I wrote it. Must be my subconcious at work. To be fair though, the Ranger I'm talking about as a base isn't really a "warlord" since none of the powers I was thinking of were particularly combat based. It's no more a Rangerlord than a bard is a Barlord. I was thinking that shifting ranger from front line combatant as a baseline to a support baseline with the subclasses then doing the lifting work of where you want to put the ranger in the marching order.

A Spell Ranger could be similar to a nature oriented Bard - lots of nature lore, spell progression that focuses on nature and hunting (as opposed to a druid's worshipping nature), and that sort of thing. You would want the Spell Ranger as a guide if you're heading out into the unknown, uncharted wilderness.

A "tanky" ranger, little or no magic, lots of combat features, would likely end up looking a lot like a fighter with the Wilderness background, but, more focused on specific terrains and enemies. You want to take the Tanky Ranger with you when you're hunting something.

A "Pet" ranger, little or no magic, combat features synergize with a pet, would likely not look like any other class really since no other classes have this feature. It's basis is Tarzan or Mowgli or Beastmaster. I just love the archetype and I'd probably add in a bit of flavor along the lines of "raised by wolves" or some sort of tribal tie to a specific animal type. I suppose the closest analogue would be Totem Barbarian, but, instead of becoming like an animal, this class utilizes that animal to resolve goals.

You know what?
Why is there only a hunter's mark? Why isn't there a beast master's mark? A seeker's mark? A marauder's mark?

What if there was a "mark" spell for each type of ranger. Each mark would give you a different combat benefit and exploration benefit

• Hunter's Mark
  • Combat: You deal bonus damage to quarry
  • Exploration: You have advantage on Wisdom (Perception and Survival) checks to find it
  • Replicates 4e ranger's quarry
• Beast Master's Mark
  • Combat: All beasts within 30 ft of quarry deal bonus damage to it
  • Exploration: Beast's add your magic ability to Wisdom (Perception and Survival) to find it
  • Replicates 3.5 ranger's Smell of Fear and Enrage animal spells
• Marauder's Mark
  • Combat: You have 30 temporary hp that only apply to the quarry
  • Exploration: You have advantage on Charisma (Deception and Intimidation) checks to scare it
  • Replicates 1e ranger

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

[*]Marauder's Mark

• Combat: You have 30 temporary hp that only apply to the quarry
• Exploration: You have advantage on Charisma (Deception and Intimidation) checks to scare it
• Replicates 1e ranger

[/LIST]

How do 30 temporary HP against a quarry replicate 1E ranger?

 

[Minigiant]

How do 30 temporary HP against a quarry replicate 1E ranger?

Extra HP. For the extra 1d8 HD of the 1e ranger.

But since it's one target only and uses a spell slot and concentration, and has a duration, you quadruple it.

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

Extra HP. For the extra 1d8 HD of the 1e ranger.

But since it's one target only and uses a spell slot and concentration, and has a duration, you quadruple it.

So, during a hard fight, they are extra tough, but otherwise just generic fighters? Makes sense i guess, if you want to make them "situationally" tough. But the 1E's were just generally tough in the low-mid levels and not so tough in the mid-high levels.... dunno, this way they'll get proportionally tougher as their spell slots increase and you'll get the opposite effect (tougher as they level up).

 

[Azurewraith]

Ok so from where I'm sat a ranger needs to be
Tough
Fast
Ranged
Dex
2hers
Spells
Pets
Mobility
Skills
Regen

Did I miss anything? I mean I'm just looking at mechanics here ofc but it looks like a ranger should be a God class... there is the issue to many people want to many things maybe we should put all other classes as ranger sub classes then we can all have the perfect ranger.

 

[Minigiant]

So, during a hard fight, they are extra tough, but otherwise just generic fighters? Makes sense i guess, if you want to make them "situationally" tough. But the 1E's were just generally tough in the low-mid levels and not so tough in the mid-high levels.... dunno, this way they'll get proportionally tougher as their spell slots increase and you'll get the opposite effect (tougher as they level up).

Well at higher levels due to the exponential increasing damage of the foes, that 30 hp will be grinded through easily.

CR 8 frost giants deal ~25 damage a swing. You are negating 1-2 hits of a equal foe at mid-levels for 1 of your few spell slots.