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

[TheCosmicKid]

Doesn't make sense if the speak with animal spell exists in that world.

It's fine. The spell is just like comprehend language but for animals.

 

[Lanefan]

Because characters should not vary in relative strengths and weaknesses over the long term. It's weird and metagamey -- how on earth do the characters conceptualize that the Rob the Ranger used to be tough, but now Fred the Fighter is tougher? If they're the same people with the same basic abilities, how did that happen?

Because Bob's been spending his time learning how to do all sorts of other things (including, I suppose, spellcasting) while Fred's been doing nothing other than becoming badder-ass.

It also mechanically incentivizes abandoning characters at low points on the curve in favor of characters at high points.

Perhaps, but that's where bringing in new characters at a slightly lower level comes in handy: either keep what you've got and slog through the "low" bits (note: just like everyone else has to do during their low bits) or drop your Ranger and come back with something that's a level lower than the rest of the party.

And it just feels bad for many players to show up to sessions knowing that they're going to be worse at what they used to be good at.

Except they're also in process of becoming good at other things.

Take the 1e Ranger, a wonderful example of a character that morphed over time. At very low levels it was the party hit point sink and oftentimes a front-line tank; at mid levels it excelled at tracking and outdoorsy stealth, and at high levels it became a part-caster, part-second line warrior. But if you came in expecting to play a high-level Ranger as a front-line tank like you did at 1st level you'd probably be in for a nasty surprise.

And I don't mind relative power levels varying between classes as time goes on; assuming that in the long run it all vaguely balances out.

Lan-"Rangers should be the most useful character in the party when outdoors and average at best when indoors"-efan

 

[Hussar]

/snip

Take the 1e Ranger, a wonderful example of a character that morphed over time. At very low levels it was the party hit point sink and oftentimes a front-line tank; at mid levels it excelled at tracking and outdoorsy stealth, and at high levels it became a part-caster, part-second line warrior. But if you came in expecting to play a high-level Ranger as a front-line tank like you did at 1st level you'd probably be in for a nasty surprise.

And I don't mind relative power levels varying between classes as time goes on; assuming that in the long run it all vaguely balances out.

Lan-"Rangers should be the most useful character in the party when outdoors and average at best when indoors"-efan

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.

The big disadvantage with rangers was that they needed more XP to go up levels than a fighter. But, again, the difference isn't all that much. At worst, you might be 1/2 a level behind (you gain level X before the fighter gains X+1).

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

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Take the 1e Ranger, a wonderful example of a character that morphed over time. At very low levels it was the party hit point sink and oftentimes a front-line tank; at mid levels it excelled at tracking and outdoorsy stealth, and at high levels it became a part-caster, part-second line warrior.

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

And I don't mind relative power levels varying between classes as time goes on; assuming that in the long run it all vaguely balances out.

You might not. Others do. The basic problem is that "the long run" in a D&D game is measured in months or years. It's just better all around if the classes maintain rough parity.

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

1.Honestly I don't see a need or reason to change it. I love the Ranger exactly as it is. Hunter works very well and in my experience does excellently in and out of combat. Definitely has advantages in melee and range over fighters when it comes to dealing with crowds.

2. I also don't see the big deal between 1d10 vs 2d6, you have 1 more hp/level on average/fixed. That doesn't paint the picture of that much tougher really :/ if you want to be tough have a high con, your class only adds/subtracts 60 (d12vsd6). Whereas your con adds up to 100, feats/race can net you 60 more.

3. As far as spells vs martial, personally I like the idea of them being nature spell-casters. In a multiverse that has nature magic, the people who spend most of their time in the woods would probably work some of it out. More if they are totally focused on it(druids) but Rangers would definitely practice and utilize this sort of thing. Any advantage would be used to conquer and protect their environs.

1. I don't think most of us that call for a non casting ranger do it because we think the casting (current) variant is "mechanically unviable" or badly under powered. We simply want non magical alternatives to rangers, that don't rely on pets and animal companions. Call it a flavor change with mechanical repercussions (as it would change the way the class is played);

2. The goal of 2d6 VS 1d10 is not a dramatic increase in total HP, the goal is dramatic increase in self sustenance as a result of increased self-healing potential during short rests. The minor increase in HP is just a secondary differentiation if that at all. BTW, it's good that you mentioned the constitution factor. In the elder times, it was constitution that was one of the defining class stats for a ranger, while right now, the basic PHB version even discourages you from investing in it. There aren't really any requirements or features bound to it as it is.

3. Do note, we aren't looking for "suspension" of the casting ranger as a class. We just call for moving it into a variant or subclass and adding a non casting variant to be made available.

 

[Minigiant]

Take the 1e Ranger, a wonderful example of a character that morphed over time. At very low levels it was the party hit point sink and oftentimes a front-line tank; at mid levels it excelled at tracking and outdoorsy stealth, and at high levels it became a part-caster, part-second line warrior. But if you came in expecting to play a high-level Ranger as a front-line tank like you did at 1st level you'd probably be in for a nasty surprise.

And I don't mind relative power levels varying between classes as time goes on; assuming that in the long run it all vaguely balances out.

Lan-"Rangers should be the most useful character in the party when outdoors and average at best when indoors"-efan

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.

The big disadvantage with rangers was that they needed more XP to go up levels than a fighter. But, again, the difference isn't all that much. At worst, you might be 1/2 a level behind (you gain level X before the fighter gains X+1).

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

The real weakness on rangers compared to fighters in 1e was that

• They got less XP
• They got extra attacks 1 level later
• After level 5, fighters would usually average more HP (27(6d8) vs 27 (5d10))
• They could have back up magic items
• They got followers instead of a freehold/stronghold

The advantages were:

• They have tracking exclusively
• They were better on surprises
• They massacred any giant-type monster (basically any nondemihuman, nonfey, nonaberration, nonelemental biped)
• They got druid and magic user magic
• They could use "divination" items
• *They could use healing scrolls (depending on which rules you use)

Now if the players where equally lucky, the fighter would have higher stregnth and constitution whereas the ranger just meets all the stat prereqs.

The ranger is still a strong warrior at higher levels. The fighter just surpasses them eventually as a warrior whereas the ranger gains more magic to meet the greater foes.

This is funny as in 3e, fighters start strong and get passed by the other warriors. The ranger starts weak and get strong through levels and becomes useful indoors and outdoor as a sturdy wand and scroll user who can stealth.

Then it gets to 5e. The 1st level of the ranger is all flavor and skills, the power takes 4 or 5 levels to get in, then it becomes a utility power with good on-demand combat "sustain". Whereas the fighter just grows and grows as face wreckers from 1st to 20th wrecking faces.

 

[Minigiant]

There could be an alternative direction to go with the ranger - party buffing. Having a ranger in the party makes the party better. For example:

2nd level- can't get lost, party travels faster overland in the ranger's terrain, maybe disadvantage on random encounter checks (DM rolls twice taking the no-encounter result).
5th level - party gains bonuses to stealth, party regains additional HP when short resting
9th level - resistances and neutralize effects ability (similar to lesser restoration) on long rests
13th level - ????
17th level - ????

Then you have three subclasses - the casty ranger with spells similar to an EK, but using a ranger spell list; a beatstick ranger with several non-magical combat bonuses i.e. Colossus slayer, Volley, that sort of thing; and the pet ranger who gets lots of stuff to do with having a (or perhaps several) pet(s).

So, the base Ranger is all about traveling in the wild. Give the ranger a new favoured terrain every three or four levels and his bonuses apply to more areas. Seems like it would cover most of a Ranger's schtick to me.

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

 

[Klaus]

It works as a prepackaged version.

For a more customizable version. The better way for a martial ranger is to pick one of the more subtle spells of each level in the rangers repertoire and have a lesser version be permenamt.

2nd level: +5ft speed
5th level: Speak with herbivores or carnivores
9th level: Resist any 2 elements
13th: ????
17th: Bonus action to attack with a weapon.


Something like that. Something about a ranger who never get speak with animals just feels... off... to me.

That's what Animal Handling is for, in a non-magical manner.

But if we go down the rabbit hole of endless customization for the class features, we end up back where we started, with a number os spell slots and a thematically-appropriate spell list.

 

[Corpsetaker]

Not sure who said it but there should be general rules for animal companions.

The beastmaster Ranger should then have the option to be better at using those options.

 

[renevq]

The way I think might be the best way to handle Animal Companions is to take a page out of the Paladin and Wizard's book and base it off of a spell; only instead of summoning a mount or familiar, you make a bond with a non-hostile beast. If the pet dies, you could re-cast it again to either get a new one or raise the old one (instead of resummoning as a paladin or wizard). It could have similar limitations to a familiar (can't attack, etc), and the Beastmaster archetype could enhance it (higher/progressive CR cap, bonus HP, attack ability, ability to use on magical beasts, etc). That way you could either not have a pet, have a small pet to aid in scouting and for RP purposes, or have a powerful animal companion that boosts your offensive capability.

Now I know that as it currently stands that would put a serious dent on the Ranger's resources as spells are known, not prepared, but there might be ways to mitigate that.