D&D 5E Improving the Ranger

[reelo]

Once I get a group going, I'm planning to add Great Weapon Fighting to the list of fighting styles Rangers have access to. I'm picturing a ranger wielding a longsword (versatile) with 2 hands like Aragorn wielding Narsil. Right now, rangers are already sub-par compared to fighters, so upping their possibilities seems logical to me and an additional fighting style doesn't seem overpowered to me. What do you think?

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

As I see it, adding a fighting style option to a class will have small (if any) impact on game balance. That said, I don't believe rangers need any help right now. I'm not a fan of the beastmaster, but the hunter is very strong. The hunter in my Night Below game is the top damage dealer in a group that also has two fighters.

 

[Minigiant]

Once I get a group going, I'm planning to add Great Weapon Fighting to the list of fighting styles Rangers have access to. I'm picturing a ranger wielding a longsword (versatile) with 2 hands like Aragorn wielding Narsil. Right now, rangers are already sub-par compared to fighters, so upping their possibilities seems logical to me and an additional fighting style doesn't seem overpowered to me. What do you think?

The ranger is supbar compared to the fighter at combat, yes.
But the 5th edition ranger is a lot better at exploration and survival than a fighter.
The 5th ed ranger was designed to be primarily for exploration tasks like tracking, scouting, sneaking, navigating, making camp, keeping watch, foraging, and survival. The ranger's combat ability was its tool to deal with the living threats, thus rangers are only good in ambushes and skrimishes.

It a campaign is more hack & slash than most, rangers are suboptimal.
An additional fighting style is good adjustment to make rangers work in a combat heavy game.

 

[Pickles JG]

The ranger is supbar compared to the fighter at combat, yes.
But the 5th edition ranger is a lot better at exploration and survival than a fighter.
The 5th ed ranger was designed to be primarily for exploration tasks like tracking, scouting, sneaking, navigating, making camp, keeping watch, foraging, and survival. The ranger's combat ability was its tool to deal with the living threats, thus rangers are only good in ambushes and skrimishes.

It a campaign is more hack & slash than most, rangers are suboptimal.
An additional fighting style is good adjustment to make rangers work in a combat heavy game.

The ranger is slightly weaker than a fighter in combat and somewhat better at wilderness stuff, or substantially better if he can leverage his favoured aspects.

Adding a fighting style will have next to no Impact as it will not be better than archery. Great weapon is also a bit of a trap as it needs STR not dex like his AC and missile 2wf options. Nothing wrong with allowing it though especially on theme grounds.

To make him a bit better I would buff 2wf - give him a quick draw type effect? Also look at making his spells that replicate archery stunts a little stronger. Conjure volley could do 5 dice not 3 Etc I'm not sure why they're so weak.

 

[steeldragons]

Rangers can use a Longsword.

The longsword is a "Versatile" weapon.

Versatile weapons can be used with one or two hands and deal higher damage (d10 in the longsword's case) when used with two hands.

So, Aragorn charging into battle with Narsil is...there. It's done. Spears, staves, battleaxes, war hammers, longswords layin' the smackdown using two hands. If that's the "archetype" image you're trying to achieve, you have it.

Why does the Ranger need something added to it to give you this?

They also can already use "Heavy" weapons, because heavy weapons are Martial weapons. So if you want to say "But Narsil's a two-handed sword" (it isn't, but if you want to argue it is) you can use that sword already, as well. Or a glaive or halberd or whatever. It's just not, understandably, one of the things Rangers, as a class, prefer enough to warrant a mode of "fighting style." Other ways of combat are more effective and keep with the flavor of the class.

But hey, do i think it will "break" anything? No. If it's something you want in your game and your DM says it's ok, then who the heck am I? My opinion is completely irrelevant.

I, personally, would see no reason to add this to/ask this of the ranger class if I wanted to play one. And would I add it in, if requested as a DM, for a particular PC?...Probably...and follow the DMG suggestion that, by virtue of that addition, a different ranger ability would get removed. But I would not just alter the class as a whole for this...admittedly narrow, if not singular, image of how someone charged into battle...not even in the neighborhood of a "trait", let alone "iconic" or "archetypal."

 

[Redthistle]

A ranger should be less skilled at combat than a fighter; the difference is what provides the space for the other cool things that a ranger can do.

Combat is a fighter's whole schtick.

It's what makes them feel special.

They pout when they feel that just anyone can do what they do.

And then they hit you.

Hard.

Because hitting people - that's like comfort food to a fighter.

So let fighters keep Great Weapon Fighting to themselves.

Then get the hell out of their way and pepper them with ranged fire weapons.

 

[Mercurius]

Call me old-fashioned but I kind of like the fact that fighters are better at, ah, fighting than rangers and rogues - unlike a certain previous edition. Kinda makes sense, no?

 

[aramis erak]

Call me old-fashioned but I kind of like the fact that fighters are better at, ah, fighting than rangers and rogues - unlike a certain previous edition. Kinda makes sense, no?

They all fought equally well in AD&D... but the balance was that the fighter would level slightly faster.

 

[Grimstaff]

The Ranger in my group consistently does as much and often more damage than anyone else, and has spells and skills on top of that. So, I really don't see the "subpar" element.

 

[Coredump]

Once I get a group going, I'm planning to add Great Weapon Fighting to the list of fighting styles Rangers have access to. I'm picturing a ranger wielding a longsword (versatile) with 2 hands like Aragorn wielding Narsil. Right now, rangers are already sub-par compared to fighters, so upping their possibilities seems logical to me and an additional fighting style doesn't seem overpowered to me. What do you think?

If you want to make the Ranger better, fine. But don't do it by making him more like the Fighter, improve his *ranger* aspects.

Things Like:
Give him more favored terrains
Give him more (non-combat) advantages regarding favored enemies, perhaps stealth, or perception checks or... whatever
Have Primeval Awareness give a general direction, and/or some indication of power level.
Boost his known spells by 2-3 (over time)

IOW, boost the things that make him a Ranger.