D&D 5E Let's Tweak the 5E Ranger!

Weird Dave

Adventurer
Publisher
I put my thoughts up on my blog about updating the 5E ranger. I wanted to repost them here to see if I can get feedback on the updated Ranger class I put together.

I really enjoy the new Fifth Edition of Dungeons & Dragons (5E). I think it strikes a really nice balance between crunchy rules for the players to latch onto and enough guidelines and fluff to allow the DM to control and alter the story without the session feeling like an extended board game. I like the fact that the designers are playtesting more before they release things, and that really shows in the classes. Each class feels balanced against each other but in ways that allows each to shine with something that no one else can do.

Except the ranger. The ranger feels like a throwback to the oldest edition of the class where it was a Frankenstein-like amalgamation of other classes. The ranger in 5E doesn’t do anything noteworthy that some of the other classes can’t accomplish with their existing abilities. It has a few cool abilities that really add to the flavor, but the other classes have that as well – and then some.

Mike Mearls stated a short while ago that they feel the ranger may have missed the mark with some players and that they were going to be looking at revising it in the future. Likely this means we’ll see some variation of it in an upcoming Unearthed Arcana article, but I’m pretty impatient. I wanted to see if I could put together a revised ranger that met my goals for the class while trying to keep the design aesthetics of 5E. So I tweaked it, pretty extensively actually as you will see.

My goals with tweaking the ranger came from the following thoughts.


  • The Hunter archetype has abilities that ALL rangers should have. The Beast Master archetype is neat, but when compared to the Hunter it falls waaaay short.
  • Spellcasting should be an OPTION for the ranger, not the default class. And I feel having a separate spell list is redundant – the Venn diagram between ranger and druid spells overlaps so much as to make a separate list moot.
  • Rangers should be mobile and focus on surgical strikes against foes. The exact details of this should be left to the individual ranger.


Looking at the existing ranger, I made the following major changes to the new one.


  • I removed spellcasting as the default option and replaced its abilities with Wilderness Boons. These are spell-like abilities that can be used outside of combat once per long rest to duplicate the utility aspects of the ranger’s spell list.
  • I gave them a unique ability called Mark, which scales in level in a similar fashion to sneak attack, that otherwise functions just like the hunter’s mark spell.
  • I moved the Hunter archetype abilities into a category called Tactical Tricks that the ranger can select at various levels. These are things that ALL rangers should have the option of doing, which includes some defensive and offensive abilities that are more situational.
  • I developed three archetypes – the Beast Master, the Stalker, and the Wild Guardian. The Beast Master functions very similarly to the existing Beast Master archetype, with some noteworthy differences (commanding your beast to attack is a bonus action, for example, and at 15th level your beast becomes bigger and better). The Stalker gets some of the more stealthy abilities of the original ranger class, and the Wild Guardian is essentially a druidic version of the fighter’s Eldritch Knight with some terrain-based abilities.
  • I beefed up the 20th level ability to make it more of a “wow” feature, like the rest of the classes.

Take a look at the PDF and let me know what you think. I’ll be playtesting this with my own home group as well to see how it balances out, but I wanted to have other people look it over as well.
 

Attachments

  • THE RANGER Modified.pdf
    372.9 KB · Views: 252

log in or register to remove this ad

steeldragons

Steeliest of the dragons
Epic
You seem to be onto the general gist of changes and archetypes a lot of us have wanted/made. That in mind, you may also want to check out...

...this [mine ;) ] http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?465488-Ranger-Rehash , the latest version is on page 4 of the thread, post #37,

...this great work by [MENTION=20323]Quickleaf[/MENTION] http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...ighter-and-others-(-quot-Class-X-quot-series) ,

...and this from [MENTION=63508]Minigiant[/MENTION] http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?467284-New-Hunter-Ranger-Features

for some other thoughts/perspectives on the 5e Ranger.

...and welcome to EN world. Have some start up XP. :)
 


But do we still have the Ranger just because, well, we've always had it?

Largely yes, but then again, that is why we have classes other than "spell caster" and "non-spell caster", or classes at all!

I'd almost like to see a return to letting rangers cast wizard spells, or like the bard, select spells from any class to add to their spells known. Magic is just another skill in D&D (there's no special pre-req to learn it, you learn it just as easy as hitting people with pointy sticks). To a ranger, magic is a tool to them, useful when roughing it or going alone. IMO, the ranger should sort of be like a bard with more martial prowess (and no dorky music) - they need a wide range of tricks and skills to function.
 

steeldragons

Steeliest of the dragons
Epic
But do we still have the Ranger just because, well, we've always had it?

I believe the answer to this is "Yes."

I will add that, because it has been around since before/included in 1e, it now exists in nearly all retroclones and OSR game systems, D&D of any edition derivatives (PF), and probably some other places I don't even know about. So, it's definitely become its own self-sustaining fantasy rpg trope.
 

Weird Dave

Adventurer
Publisher
You seem to be onto the general gist of changes and archetypes a lot of us have wanted/made. That in mind, you may also want to check out...

...this [mine ;) ] http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?465488-Ranger-Rehash , the latest version is on page 4 of the thread, post #37,

...this great work by [MENTION=20323]Quickleaf[/MENTION] http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...ighter-and-others-(-quot-Class-X-quot-series) ,

...and this from [MENTION=63508]Minigiant[/MENTION] http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?467284-New-Hunter-Ranger-Features

for some other thoughts/perspectives on the 5e Ranger.

...and welcome to EN world. Have some start up XP. :)

Thank you! I've been a lurker here for quite some time but only recently got into the habit of, you know, actually POSTING my thoughts. I'm going to go through the other ranger tweaks you posted above - thank you for summarizing them so nicely!

And I do think there is room for the ranger in the class list, especially when the focus of the game is on the Three Pillars (Exploration, Interaction, Combat) - none of the other classes come as close to focusing on the Exploration pillar as the ranger! Which is good, but ultimately needs to also be interesting in one of the other Pillars as well because the Exploration pillar is very, very situational.
 

MonkeezOnFire

Adventurer
I have a more general question, I guess-

What use is the Ranger? Do we need to have a Ranger class? Is it just a relic of 1e? Going deeper, is it just a relic of Tolkien?

I'm not saying that to be a jerk... but it has always seemed to be the most undefined class to me, and one that could easily be explained under the Fighter rubric. I understand that similar comments could be made regarding the Barbarian and the Paladin (Cavalier), and perhaps should be made.

But do we still have the Ranger just because, well, we've always had it?

To me the ranger's purpose has always been to fill the mechanical niche that is the half caster, half warrior that uses nature magic. The ranger is to the druid as the paladin is to the cleric. Being able to use martial weapons, while also utilizing magic to support the team and call down the elements to harm foes is the ranger's role. Since multiclassing is optional it's nice to have this hole filled by a core class. Consequently, this is also why the spell-less ranger confuses me. It goes against what I see as the core mechanic of the class. A spell-less ranger is just a fighter or a rogue.

As for the home-brew presented in the OP, It's not quite my cup of tea (for reasons mentioned above) but it does look interesting. Some thoughts:
- I like how much of the power of the class is in the core class instead of in the archetypes like it is in the current 5e ranger.
- The omission of fighting style class feature feels a bit inconsistent from the rest of the martial classes
- There are two different features that allow you to choose from a list. I think it might read better if these features were combined and each choice had requirements (similar to warlock invocations). This way you could avoid taking the spell ones in favor of the martial ones and vice versa for more fine tuning.
 

bgbarcus

Explorer
This looks good. Most of the ideas I've seen for changing the ranger were focused on turning the beast master companion into a major fighting force. Those sounded wrong to me. Here you've managed to keep the companion relevant without becoming over powered.
 

Barantor

Explorer
I have a more general question, I guess-

What use is the Ranger? Do we need to have a Ranger class? Is it just a relic of 1e? Going deeper, is it just a relic of Tolkien?

I'm not saying that to be a jerk... but it has always seemed to be the most undefined class to me, and one that could easily be explained under the Fighter rubric. I understand that similar comments could be made regarding the Barbarian and the Paladin (Cavalier), and perhaps should be made.

But do we still have the Ranger just because, well, we've always had it?

I've always felt that Rogue was to the city as the Ranger is meant to be to the outside world.


That said, for as many folks that want the arcane archer, I think that the Ranger could pick this up. For the last few editions ranger has specialized in one of 3 things: an animal companion, two weapon fighting or bow/ranged fighting. I think getting back to those roots but with flexibility built in would be the way to go. Ranger is supposed to be a "Fighting Druid" in the same format that Paladin is a "Fighting Cleric/Holyman" and I think adding in spellcasting similar to this would do well too.

For those wanting to take the spellcasting out of Ranger by default I think this is a case where it has already been covered in UA and also could be done almost as easily with fighter.

My three paths for Ranger would be...

Wild Archer - A woodsy bowman who imbues magic into their ranged weapon from nature. They would get bonuses to ranged attacks (not necessarily bow) somewhat like the smites the paladin gets. They might be limited to light armor in order to be able to use some of their abilities. Perhaps a slightly enhanced spell list to throw in some Arcane Archer flavor like a fireball later on.

Dervish - Two weapon fighting champ that would ramp up the damage to equal that of someone with a great weapon. They would get bonus attacks and abilities like the horde breaker that the hunter gets. They would lose some of their abilities if they wear heavy armor similar to barbarian.

Beastmaster - A ranger who focuses on fighting with an animal companion. The list of animals would be limited by CR and they would have to scale in damage with their pet to what the Dervish is in order to be fair. Perhaps in later levels allowing them multiple pets at once, but only if the combined CR is equal to the max CR of a single animal they could get (I.E. 2x 1/2CR creatures = 1x 1 CR creature). This class would also be utilitarian with speak with animals as almost a cantrip or something similar.
 

Mephista

Adventurer
Tweak the Ranger? Can't I twerk it instead? Just kidding.

What use is the Ranger? Do we need to have a Ranger class? Is it just a relic of 1e? Going deeper, is it just a relic of Tolkien?

I'm not saying that to be a jerk... but it has always seemed to be the most undefined class to me, and one that could easily be explained under the Fighter rubric. I understand that similar comments could be made regarding the Barbarian and the Paladin (Cavalier), and perhaps should be made.

But do we still have the Ranger just because, well, we've always had it?
In part, yes. But its not just because of that. The wilderness expert and monster hunter isn't something that easily fits under nature-priest, but a viable and vibrant archetype in fantasy lore. The problem is part execution, part totem-barbarian taking its stuff, part other stuff
 

Remove ads

Top