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

[Bacon Bits]

It was the era before true game design and mostly "jamming spells and incentives together that creates an image".

I'm imagining the 3e, 4e, and 5e rules sweating profusely and avoiding your gaze.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I don't remember where I saw it, but I recall seeing some rationale that since rangers were mostly forest pathfinders and scouts, they wouldn't favor two-handled weapons (hard to swing in a polearm or greatsword in a forest) or shields (again, clumsy in a narrow woodland) so they felt that a ranger would opt for a small off-hand weapon (knife, handaxe, etc) as an alternative. They also moved rangers to light armor (studded leather) to further that archetype as a scout, skirmisher, and archer rather than the heavier armor and weapons of a fighter.

Likewise, they moved the ranger's "move undetected in the woods" into thief like stealth abilities.

It's probably fair to view the 2e ranger less as Aragorn and more as Davy Crockett.

All of that but the light weapons fits Aragorn, too.

 

[Don Durito]

I alway felt Rangers were more 'special forces' than scouts.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I alway felt Rangers were more 'special forces' than scouts.

Both are equally valid fantasy archetypes. Both have different skill sets. Neither casts spells. Wilderness spellcaster is a separate fantasy archetype (Radagast).

Which is why ranger should be a background (upgraded to something a bit more significant than backgrounds are in 5e) so any class can be a ranger. Within 5e, subclasses are a better option. We have Rogue-rangers (scouts) and we have cleric-rangers (nature), we need Fighter-rangers and Wizard-rangers.

Ranger-as-a-class needs to be hurled into the depths of hell, where is should have been for the past 40 years.

 

[cbwjm]

I think ranger would be worth keeping, maybe a name change would be good. They can be a spell-using wilderness warrior as a counterpart to the paladin (I still think we need an arcane counterpart) allowing a lot more archetypes that don't have the ranger baggage attached to them. You could throw in the warden and seeker from 4e, maybe some sort of shaman subclass. Most/All of the current subclasses could stay with the wilderness warrior, some might move across to other base classes such as the hunter becoming a fighter or barbarian subclass.

 

[Minigiant]

I'm imagining the 3e, 4e, and 5e rules sweating profusely and avoiding your gaze.

Those editions should have attempted to create classes instead of creating images.

Both are equally valid fantasy archetypes. Both have different skill sets. Neither casts spells. Wilderness spellcaster is a separate fantasy archetype (Radagast).

Which is why ranger should be a background (upgraded to something a bit more significant than backgrounds are in 5e) so any class can be a ranger. Within 5e, subclasses are a better option. We have Rogue-rangers (scouts) and we have cleric-rangers (nature), we need Fighter-rangers and Wizard-rangers.

Ranger-as-a-class needs to be hurled into the depths of hell, where is should have been for the past 40 years.

Rangers have spells because TSR and WOTC

1. Refused to give Fighters unfiltered access to skills until 5e
2. Refused to create detailed exploration systems
3. Used spells as a shortcut to not create detailed skills or explain fantastical skill use.

The ranger was created by an Aragorn fan.
The ranger remained because TSR and WOTC refused to give fighters access stealth, perception, tracking, talk to animals, and talk to plants AND fantastic abilities.

The D&D ranger is special forces. D&D wilderness just has dragons and giants and warlocks in it so it needs magic.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I always felt Rangers were more 'special forces' than scouts.

I would say there is a strong case to be made that the best scouts are Special Forces. As anyone who has seen a scouting rogue can attest, the biggest challenge for a scout is the fact that they are alone in enemy territory. If a King needed to send someone to look into those rumors of giants and trolls gathering in the hills, they would need someone highly skilled to go out, because they need to get back out of those hills if the rumors turn out to be true.

 

[Minigiant]

I would say there is a strong case to be made that the best scouts are Special Forces. As anyone who has seen a scouting rogue can attest, the biggest challenge for a scout is the fact that they are alone in enemy territory. If a King needed to send someone to look into those rumors of giants and trolls gathering in the hills, they would need someone highly skilled to go out, because they need to get back out of those hills if the rumors turn out to be true.

Exactly.
If the rogue rolls a 3 and the monster sees them, they are dead with their slightly better than wizards combat ability when Sneak Attack is turned off.

And how can you offer the other rangery job of escort if you can't fight alone or without surprise?

Then you have D&D's "Magic must defeat magic" thing where monsters are magic and you can't overcome their brokeness without special training or magic.

It is just fortunate that a butchered version of Aragorn matches how Fantasy Special Forces would look and work.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Those editions should have attempted to create classes instead of creating images.



Rangers have spells because TSR and WOTC

1. Refused to give Fighters unfiltered access to skills until 5e

Fighters have had access to all skills since 3rd edition.

1. Refused to create detailed exploration systems

Or couldn't - I wouldn't know where to start in creating a "detailed exploration system" for D&D, and I don't know an RPG that has such a thing.

1. Used spells as a shortcut to not create detailed skills or explain fantastical skill use.

The ranger was created by an Aragorn fan.

No, it was created for and Aragorn fan. And something created to suit a specific player who couldn't get their head around the difference between class names and class abilities (Aragorn is a paladin with a wilderness guy background) is not a good reason for including something in the game.

 

[Helldritch]

Two fire giants spot a lone 15th level ranger...
1ed ranger: It's gonna be over real quick. Those giants are dead meat.
2ed ranger: It's gonna be though. But I'll manage.
3ed ranger: Where's my back up? Better flee.
4ed ranger: I am dead.
5ed ranger: ok, time to vanish...

1ed ranger is the only one who could fight those giant alone and have a good time doing it. All the others will struggle or will have to flee.

And the first edition's ranger was not necessarily using two weapons. At +15 damage each attacks, a blur spell the ranger could fell those giants in about three rounds, maybe less and criticals were not in the game.