D&D 5E (2014) It's official, WOTC hates Rangers (Tasha's version of Favored Foe is GARBAGE)

[Tales and Chronicles]

Here's a thought exercise for everyone.

Suppose I rolled up a bard in 5th Edition, and I name him Higgins. For his race, I chose Wood Elf (+2 Dex, keen senses, weapon proficiencies, mask of the wild). For his background I chose Outlander (proficient with Athletics and Survival). And I choose his three class proficiencies from the same list as the Ranger class. I outfit Higgins with studded leather armor, a longbow, and a set of daggers. At 3rd level he chooses the College of Swords to get the Two-Weapon Fighting combat style and the extra attack.

So is Higgins a ranger? Why or why not?

Suppose I rolled up a cleric named Sparrow (also wood elf, also Outlander background, also outfitted with studded leather and longbow and daggers. Sparrow chooses the Nature domain, and chooses as many of her proficiencies from the ranger class list as she can). So: is Sparrow a ranger? Why or why not?

How you answer the "why or why not" question will inform you about what truly "makes" the Ranger a stand-alone class according to you. Is it because they don't have a tracking bonuses against a particular creature, or while exploring a particular terrain? Is it because they can't cast hunter's mark? Is it just because the character sheet doesn't have the word "ranger" anywhere on it?

I must say, I just went over the whole list of backgrounds, feats and archetypes...and the things a ranger is supposed to be able to do, both mechanically and in-fiction, can be covered easily by a bunch of other mixed options.

Background: Outlander, yes, but also Fisher, Urchin (urban ranger), City Watch (urban ranger), Marine, Tribe member, Archeologist, Anthropologist.

Feat: Observant, Keen Mind, Alert, Delver, Mobile, Durable, Skulker

Archetypes:

• Nature, trickery, twilight cleric
• some druids
• sword, valor bards
• Fighters
• Dex-based ancient paladins
• totem barb (mix of wolf and eagle)
• scout rogue
• fey blade-lock.

Mix any of those options + proficiency in survival, perception and (maybe) nature, animal handling or stealth. You got yourself a potent ''ranger'' IMHO.

 

[CleverNickName]

No, its pretty easy and not all that personal.

They're scouts or trackers, which is only part of what the ranger does, and the vast majority of what these characters can do has no relationship whatsoever with what rangers do.

Feel free to explain what bardic inspiration and charm spells, or channel divinity and holy fire and wrath, have to do with rangers?

Rangers aren't just scouts.

Yes, I know that "rangers aren't just scouts." However, the reason(s) why they are more than scouts will vary by person. That's the point of this little exercise. (I'm not trying to convince anyone that a ranger is just a scout; I'm just trying to get people to think about what is and isn't a "ranger.")

I love to re-skin abilities and their descriptions to fit character concepts, so maybe when Higgins uses 'bardic inspiration,' he sounds his hunting horn to rally his fellow hunters to the quarry, clearing their minds from distraction so that they can focus on the foe before them. Some bards have lutes and songs; this one has a hunting horn and some calls. You can do this with just about any class feature and make it "ranger-esque." Except when you can't.

And it's those situations that you can't, that are going to tell you what is important to you about the Ranger class.

Look at it from the other direction. If (to you) a "ranger" is 'an outdoorsy lightly-armored fighter with two weapons and survival skills,' you aren't wrong. You probably won't use many of the must-have features that others are emphasizing in this thread...which is fine, because a ranger is still a ranger when he isn't tracking or casting hunter's mark.

 

[Asisreo]

Here's a thought exercise for everyone.

Suppose I rolled up a bard in 5th Edition, and I name him Higgins. For his race, I chose Wood Elf (+2 Dex, keen senses, weapon proficiencies, mask of the wild). For his background I chose Outlander (proficient with Athletics and Survival). And I choose his three class proficiencies from the same list as the Ranger class. I outfit Higgins with studded leather armor, a longbow, and a set of daggers. At 3rd level he chooses the College of Swords to get the Two-Weapon Fighting combat style and the extra attack.

So is Higgins a ranger? Why or why not?

Suppose I rolled up a cleric named Sparrow (also wood elf, also Outlander background, also outfitted with studded leather and longbow and daggers. Sparrow chooses the Nature domain, and chooses as many of her proficiencies from the ranger class list as she can). So: is Sparrow a ranger? Why or why not?

How you answer the "why or why not" question will inform you about what truly "makes" the Ranger a stand-alone class according to you. Is it because they don't have a tracking bonuses against a particular creature, or while exploring a particular terrain? Is it because they can't cast hunter's mark? Is it just because the character sheet doesn't have the word "ranger" anywhere on it?

What's missing is the Ranger isn't an expert in a particular area of terrain as well as understanding a creature type beyond any other class.

The exact details aren't important to me. Whether they get advantage on every ability check while within their favored terrain, gain expertise on ability checks wherever as long as its related to your favored terrain, or you simply get a +2 to attack rolls, damage rolls, and ability checks in your favored terrain; Rangers need a specified boon for their efforts in understanding the lore of the land and the mechanisms of a creature type in order to properly feel like a Ranger to me.

 

[CleverNickName]

What's missing is the Ranger isn't an expert in a particular area of terrain as well as understanding a creature type beyond any other class.

Maybe not "beyond any other class," but possibly beyond any other member of the party. And at the end of the gaming session, that's the part that is going to matter the most to me. I'm not going to measure my character against potential characters that aren't in the game.

The exact details aren't important to me. (snip) Rangers need a specified boon for their efforts in understanding the lore of the land and the mechanisms of a creature type in order to properly feel like a Ranger to me.

Excellent answer.

 

[cbwjm]

Here's a thought exercise for everyone.

Suppose I rolled up a bard in 5th Edition, and I name him Higgins. For his race, I chose Wood Elf (+2 Dex, keen senses, weapon proficiencies, mask of the wild). For his background I chose Outlander (proficient with Athletics and Survival). And I choose his three class proficiencies from the same list as the Ranger class. I outfit Higgins with studded leather armor, a longbow, and a set of daggers. At 3rd level he chooses the College of Swords to get the Two-Weapon Fighting combat style and the extra attack.

So is Higgins a ranger? Why or why not?

Suppose I rolled up a cleric named Sparrow (also wood elf, also Outlander background, also outfitted with studded leather and longbow and daggers. Sparrow chooses the Nature domain, and chooses as many of her proficiencies from the ranger class list as she can). So: is Sparrow a ranger? Why or why not?

How you answer the "why or why not" question will inform you about what truly "makes" the Ranger a stand-alone class according to you. Is it because they don't have a tracking bonuses against a particular creature, or while exploring a particular terrain? Is it because they can't cast hunter's mark? Is it just because the character sheet doesn't have the word "ranger" anywhere on it?

Interestingly enough, I was just looking through my various characters I've made on DnDBeyond, and one of the latest was a warforged ranger that I created after finding a cool picture on the internet. I made him as an artificer with the outlander background and the battlesmith subclass. He has spells such as cure wounds, snare, longstrider, and faerie fire for that ranger feel, but also shield and heroism. He's a ranger, he just doesn't have the ranger class.

 

[Azzy]

Chai shirt costs about the same and is 13+2, or AC 15,

I took me a moment to realize that you meant chain shirt as I was left wondering how one makes a shirt out of tea.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Of course you do. You've been collecting healing herbs on the journey, or know of a nearby herb or natural remedy that would heal the man.

Like how Aragorn knew how to heal Frodo:

Athelas

But that isn't what the ability says. It says you have expertise in wisdom checks related to your favored terrain that you are proficient in. It does not claim that you have gathered medical herbs while in the mountains.

And if you did, then why can't you have a stock of medical herbs from your mountain life that you use in the forest?

Also, this was to identify what caused the wound, not heal it, and how do you know your medical herbs will heal it? Are you telling the DM that there are omni-useful medical herbs in these mountains? And that this rare herb can be found nearby?

That seems like a lot of stretching. Not saying that the DM should tell you no, but you have completely left the realm of the ability, until the DM tells you to roll survival or nature to find those herbs.

 

[Flamestrike]

But that isn't what the ability says. It says you have expertise in wisdom checks related to your favored terrain that you are proficient in. It does not claim that you have gathered medical herbs while in the mountains.

As long as you can relate your proficient Intelligence or Wisdom check to your terrain, you can double the proficiency bonus.

It is not far fetched or fanciful to use your knowledge of herbal remedies available in the area, sources of clean water, natural anti-biotics etc to benefit a Medicine check to treat an injured person in that terrain.

In fact the Ranger/ survival expert knowing local remedies, healing herbs etc to treat an injury is so common, it's virtually a trope.

I mean, Aragorn himself did this in LoTR.

I would have no issue with it at all. It goes to the RAI, doesn't break RAW and importantly also goes to the RAF.

 

[Horwath]

Or just axe the Favored enemy completely. Maybe add some variant to slayer/bounty hunter subclass.

Natural Explorer:
You can move at fast pace, forage for food and water, navigate and stay alert to danger.
You can make Stealth checks without penalty for Normal pace, and with disadvantage for Fast pace.
Natural terrain does not impede your movement.

You gain proficiency and expertise in Nature and Survival(no reason 3rd level scout rogue gets this and not 1st level ranger)

6th level:
gain +5 speed and climb and swim speed eqaual to your speed.

10th level:
Hide as Bonus action. +5 to stealth if you stay motionless.

14th level:
gain proficiency in Con saves and halve your effective exhaustion levels(round down). You die with 12 exhaustion levels instead of 6.

 

[Don Durito]

Yes, I know that "rangers aren't just scouts." However, the reason(s) why they are more than scouts will vary by person. That's the point of this little exercise. (I'm not trying to convince anyone that a ranger is just a scout; I'm just trying to get people to think about what is and isn't a "ranger.")

I love to re-skin abilities and their descriptions to fit character concepts, so maybe when Higgins uses 'bardic inspiration,' he sounds his hunting horn to rally his fellow hunters to the quarry, clearing their minds from distraction so that they can focus on the foe before them. Some bards have lutes and songs; this one has a hunting horn and some calls. You can do this with just about any class feature and make it "ranger-esque." Except when you can't.

And it's those situations that you can't, that are going to tell you what is important to you about the Ranger class.

Look at it from the other direction. If (to you) a "ranger" is 'an outdoorsy lightly-armored fighter with two weapons and survival skills,' you aren't wrong. You probably won't use many of the must-have features that others are emphasizing in this thread...which is fine, because a ranger is still a ranger when he isn't tracking or casting hunter's mark.

To me, a Ranger has to hold his own in a straight up one on one fight with a Fighter. I'm happy if the Fighter is slightly better - but it should at least be within the margin of error.

To me that's the whole benefit of having a class system, that you can be good across different sections of the game.
If I wanted to trade off combat for more skills, why wouldn't I just pay a classless levelless game where you build your character with points and decide my own level of trade-off.

The fact that people insist that the Fighter has to have both no niche outside combat, and that they have to be better straight up combatants to make up for that, is a infuriating design black hole that hopefully the game will one day manage to crawl out of.