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

[Xeviat]

I like the ranger's level 10 and 14 abilities, but I like the ranger having stealth features. I improved Hide in Plain Sight to work more like it did in 3E. As for level 6, my own house rules negate the need to gain new natural explorer terrains and favored enemies, so I moved their "ignore difficult terrain" ability down to 6th; it's at 8th now I believe, which already has something, so it should be at 6th.

 

[Minigiant]

Lvl10 and 14 class features also give bonuses that are situational as hell, and even in the right situation give lame bonuses ("you've used Hide In Plain Sight, now you're hidden in a tree, getting advantage in one attack... yay"). I'm still figuring out what to give the Ranger to compensate for them (maybe Expertise in some skills, or giving them more damage on crits a la Barbarian? I don't know).

You're suppose to use HIPS and Vanish for ambushes.

You lead the foe into a natural terrain with a fake trail. They follow. They can't beat your Stealth check with the +10 bonus. You surprise them and him them with the biggest attack you have (preferably leaping out a tree or emerging for the mud, snow, or sand). Ancients help them, if you have Vanish, Escape the Horde, and waist high cover.

Not as straight up broken as the 3.5 version of HIPS and Camouflage. Took a long while to get but just game breaking in natural environments.

 

[Chaosmancer]

One thing I often wonder about when reading ranger threads is how well defined the "primal" aspect of DnD is.

Using some various themes and previous groupings I think it is fair to say that we have three "primal classes". Druid, Ranger and Barbarian. And there is a little fluff in "communing with spirits" and a few other abilities, but if we look at the Arcane or the Divine or even the Abyssal we have a lot of lore and explanation for what is going on there. We simply don't have anywhere near that same attention spent on the Primal and I wonder if it would help. I wonder if we had more lore explicitly stating the great primal spirits and the effects they have on the world, if we had more than the generic "oh yea, woodsy survival stuff right?" if it would help drive where the ranger is thematically,

Personally? For me the Ranger is first and Foremost an Archer, then a Tracker and Hunter. I don't care for Two-Weapon fighting any more (used to love the idea, grew out of it as I realized it was a bear mechanically in 3.5, still think it looks cool though) or having a pet. I think spells are important because I want the Primal to feel just as vibrantly magical as the divine or the arcane. If they aren't an Archer... for some reason I want a Ranger weilding a spear. It is a hunter's weapon and we really don't have a class that takes advantage of what the spear brings to the table, it is a very oddball choice compared to axes and swords, but I like the image of the Ranger tracking through the woods with a spear.

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

Personally? For me the Ranger is first and Foremost an Archer, then a Tracker and Hunter. I don't care for Two-Weapon fighting any more (used to love the idea, grew out of it as I realized it was a bear mechanically in 3.5, still think it looks cool though) or having a pet. I think spells are important because I want the Primal to feel just as vibrantly magical as the divine or the arcane. If they aren't an Archer... for some reason I want a Ranger weilding a spear. It is a hunter's weapon and we really don't have a class that takes advantage of what the spear brings to the table, it is a very oddball choice compared to axes and swords, but I like the image of the Ranger tracking through the woods with a spear.

Interesting. This is probably where our opinions differ the most. Although i understand but dislike the magical woodsman aspect of the ranger, the archer i just don't. I agree that some rangers can have it as a ranged alternative (after all many of them could be hunters), i just don't see them as dedicated or specialized archers. Maybe i'm just too stuck in the historical warfare. Usually archers were a very specialized group of soldiers, either professional mercenaries, or warrior elites, but they were seldom actual guerrilla fighters (do note that guerrillas would use ranged weapons, pretty much as any force would do, it's just not their defining aspect). So i always imagined the archer as a fighter sub class and was pleasantly surprised to see when 5E made it possible to play a dedicated ranged fighter.

On the other hand, and for the same reasons, i completely agree with you on the spear aspect. After all, all those hunters that became rangers would probably bring their spears with them. And yes, the dual wielding would also be a strange choice.

Generally though, i don't see the rangers specializing in any specific weapons. I think, them being guerrillas and outdoors men, they would favor whatever weapon suited their current situation, so i would make them generalists (in opposition to the more specialized soldiers/warriors). On the other hand, this would not include the "military order" rangers as i call them. Rangers that are actually either part of special military orders (like today's special forces) or part of armies units (like dedicated skirmishers). These guys would probably specialize in one or two weapons, probably common to their fighting doctrine/culture, but these would fall under what i label "martial" ranger sub class. For game purposes, maybe they should be considered fighters that specialize in wilderness fighting?

I guess when i think of rangers i think of the following definition:

Adj.

1.

ranging - wandering freely

 

[Azurewraith]

I allways saw rangers as archers tbh. I can't see wotc adding many more classes tbh or even subclasses they seem more interested in adventure books as opposed to books with any real crunch.

 

[LightningArrow]

You're suppose to use HIPS and Vanish for ambushes.

You lead the foe into a natural terrain with a fake trail. They follow. They can't beat your Stealth check with the +10 bonus. You surprise them and him them with the biggest attack you have (preferably leaping out a tree or emerging for the mud, snow, or sand). Ancients help them, if you have Vanish, Escape the Horde, and waist high cover.

Not as straight up broken as the 3.5 version of HIPS and Camouflage. Took a long while to get but just game breaking in natural environments.

Too many problems with this:

- Hide in Plain Sight takes one minute to come online, so you can only use it before a combat, if you prepare ahead and know an enemy is coming.
- It only works in natural terrain, and at level 14 people should already be traveling the planes or simply teleporting to where they need to go. Natural environment AND waist high cover? Oh boy.
- Rangers only have "big attacks" against hordes.
- The Ranger gets no specific bonuses out of advantage, other than hitting his foe more easily. A lvl3 Assassin can potentially deal as much damage as a Ranger in an ambush. He can also take both Dash and Hide as bonus actions, and hide decently pretty much anywhere.

So no, Hide in Plain Sight and Vanish, while cool, are not broken anywhere.

 

[Minigiant]

We could allways make ranger the build a bear class. Make everyone happy right?

I feel rangers lost alot when they decided on this God awful simple skill system(my opinion ofc)

Too many problems with this:

- Hide in Plain Sight takes one minute to come online, so you can only use it before a combat, if you prepare ahead and know an enemy is coming.
- It only works in natural terrain, and at level 14 people should already be traveling the planes or simply teleporting to where they need to go. Natural environment AND waist high cover? Oh boy.
- Rangers only have "big attacks" against hordes.
- The Ranger gets no specific bonuses out of advantage, other than hitting his foe more easily. A lvl3 Assassin can potentially deal as much damage as a Ranger in an ambush. He can also take both Dash and Hide as bonus actions, and hide decently pretty much anywhere.

So no, Hide in Plain Sight and Vanish, while cool, are not broken anywhere.

Yeah. The5e versions of HIPS and Vanish are not broken like the 3e versions.

But ranger was always tracking and ambush focused. Since 1e. The ranger tracked down a foe then ambushed them to death.

The problem is that most groups, tables, and adventures books have no ambush or tracking elements.

 

[Tony Vargas]

One thing I often wonder about when reading ranger threads is how well defined the "primal" aspect of DnD is.

Not at all, really. Prior to 4e, there was a clump of obviously-woodsy classes: the Druid, Ranger, & Barbarian, and that was that. In 4e, 'primal' was teased out from 'divine' with a somewhat bizarre/arbitrary newly-invented 'primal spirits' (instead of losing-side-of-the-Dawn-War 'Primordials') rationalization and the Barbarian magick-ized to fit with the Druid, Shaman, Warden, and, later, ranger-like Seeker and ranger-sub-class Scout & Hunter. We're back to the same woodsy club as in the past, and calling it 'primal' or making anything of it when the Ranger & Druid have neo-Vancian spell abilities exactly like those of the Paladin & Cleric seems kinda pointless.

I wonder if we had more lore explicitly stating the great primal spirits and the effects they have on the world, if we had more than the generic "oh yea, woodsy survival stuff right?" if it would help drive where the ranger is thematically

Maybe, but it'd be a comparatively new direction (outside of Essentials, the Ranger was never 'Primal').

Personally? For me the Ranger is first and Foremost an Archer

I agree, but it's a funny thing some of us feel that way. The original Ranger class was not at all suited to archery. It had the proficiency, but that was about it. The Fighter could specialize more heavily (once that became a thing), had a better attacks/round progression and could prioritize DEX more easily than a Ranger (who required multiple moderately high stats to qualify) - the Ranger worked all too well as a heavily armored melee type. Yet the Archer idea was pervasive, and there was even an Archer-Ranger "NPC class" in The Dragon back in the day. Then the Ranger went TWFing in 2e, got more spellcasting sooner and could opt for TWFing or Archery in 3e, and dropped casting to become a dedicated TWFer or Archer in the 4e PH.

 

[renevq]

Yeah. The5e versions of HIPS and Vanish are not broken like the 3e versions.

But ranger was always tracking and ambush focused. Since 1e. The ranger tracked down a foe then ambushed them to death.

The problem is that most groups, tables, and adventures books have no ambush or tracking elements.

Agreed. The issue I have with those abilities is that when you get them at levels 10/14, the rogue is getting an extra ASI/Blindsense (while already having Bonus Action Hide since level 2), the Sorcerer gets Metamagic/ Flight, etc. You could give both abilities at the same level as part of some Ambush Specialist Class Feature, and it won't be overpowered.

 

[Shendorion]

You're suppose to use HIPS and Vanish for ambushes.

You lead the foe into a natural terrain with a fake trail. They follow. They can't beat your Stealth check with the +10 bonus. You surprise them and him them with the biggest attack you have (preferably leaping out a tree or emerging for the mud, snow, or sand). Ancients help them, if you have Vanish, Escape the Horde, and waist high cover.

Not as straight up broken as the 3.5 version of HIPS and Camouflage. Took a long while to get but just game breaking in natural environments.

Game breaking? How much damage can you possibly do? If you're in a natural environment and you lure your target into attack range and you've been hidden there for a minute and you win the surprise check, you get two, maybe three attacks with advantage? Let's say you're an archer with Sharpshooting, and you take the -5 to hit because you've got advantage. If you hit both attacks you get 2d8+20+DEXx2 damage, plus magic weapon damage if your bow is magic. You also get to vanish afterward, so that's cool.

Is there anything else you can heap on for damage? I saw spells and animal companions and stopped paying attention to the PHB ranger, so I'm sure there's something about this I'm missing. I must be, because even if all those situational and environmental conditions are met, a FTR/ROG can pull off the same ambush in any environment and deal a lot more damage (somewhere in the vicinity of six critical hits) without all that complicated setup.