D&D 5E (2014) Let's Tweak the 5E Ranger!

[steeldragons]

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.

You're quite welcome. And I find this an interesting point as well, which I think we [of all backgrounds/former editions] tend to forget as a core design principle...the whole "Three Pillars" thing.

That in mind, the ranger takes on more significance...as a primary/major player of the Exploration pillar. I would probably be inclined to say the design of the classes follows (obviously, roleplay can and should allow characters that excel in any of the 3):

Combat: The Fighter, obviously is the pinnacle here. Followed up, closely, by the Barbarian and Paladin...more far by the Monk and, for magic, Sorcerer.

Exploration: The Rogue seems the obvious "core class", here. Followed by the Ranger and then the magic-users, Wizard and Druid, are both prone to inquisitive and/or exploring types.

Interaction: Oddly, there is no specific "core 4 " class that really fits here and I would say, the Bard rules the roost. The magic and powers of the Warlock seem designed to function,primarily, to make them the primary arcane-class, here.

Clerics are completely dependent on their Domain option to place them squarely in one of the 3 pillars...so they don't "go" anywhere, on the whole. War and Light and Tempest would be the obvious Combat choices. Knowledge and Nature, perhaps fall into Exploration. Life and Trickery would probably be the most prone to interactions (healers need people to heal/sought out for healing and trickery is self-evident).

So, the game still skews toward combat, obviously, but there does seem to be a conscious spread in class design, with the ranger firmly entrenched in the Exploration pillar, with a "secondary degree" in Combat and an Interaction "minor", if you will.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[jrowland]

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.

I think abilities that were interesting for the Ranger within the Exploration pillar would be good as well. So far, I am not seeing it...well. (there are hints in various proposals)

For example:

A "Find the Path" power: A ranger has an uncanny ability to not only track, but to anticipate and deduce intuitively where prey is/likely going. Perhaps the ability could manifest similar to the augury spell: Given a choice, the "find the path" feature points the ranger to the High Reward option (regardless of Danger) or to the lowest danger (if the reward is similar or non existant) - perhaps a sidebar about pointing the ranger in the direction that supports the PCs goals in the narrative. Obviously outdoors or natural settings.

Same thing for camps. Anyone remember scouts/rangers in Star Wars Galaxies? Somehting like that. Similar to a Bards song of rest or healing or whatever its called. The ranger can make an outdoor camp that can (pick some, improves with level, choose 3 when making camp, whatever feels right when designing - I'll let you pseudo-designers work that out):
a) Improves healing (or actually gives healing if thats your cup o tea)
b) Gives a bonus to saves for long term problems like disease
c) Gives a bonus to Perception to spot intruders
d) Gives a bonus to Stealth to hide from intruders
e) Shortens a Short rest by 10 minutes (or 20 or 30 ...whatever is balanced)
f) Shortens a Long rest By an hour (or more..whatever is balanced)
g) etc.

Perhaps an ability to lower the frequency of wandering encounters - or the ranger can force a re-roll of whats encountered if he chooses (1/day or some such) - or some other interaction with the wandering monsters in a way that gives the player some control.

In many ways, I could see the Ranger filling a meta-game space in the Exploration pillar (not the other pillars). Diviners can meta-game the DM with the Portent ability, so its not unheard of. In the exploration space, I think you could up the meta-gaming without breaking anything.

I think anything along those lines for the BASE Ranger is ideal, with the sub-classes filling out the Combat and Interaction Pillars.

 

[Inconnunom]

My impressions from the pdf. Overall it sounds like a good concept.
Does the ranger gain extra attack?
Do tactical tricks stack? Does it stack with mark?
Mark damage is too much like sneak attack. Does mark stack with hunter's mark and hex?
Stalked is too weak compared to the other archtypes.
Wilderness boon duration/concentration explanation is confusing.

My suggestions:
Bring back extra attack (At least for stalker and guardian, beastmaster gains damage through beast bonus action). Cut mark damage in half, apply it to all shots. Mark requires concentration but advantage on save (to help out melee rangers). One tactical trick per attack. Normal rangers get tactics at 6, 11, 17. Stalkers get an extra two tactics at 3, then an extra one at 8 and 15.


These are the things that pop out in my mind.

 

[Mephista]

Well that's what I was getting to. Look at the examples proposed by Barantor (which are all good)-
Wild Archer- Fighter, with a bow.
Dervish- Fighter, with two weapons (and, um, what does fighting with two weapons have to do with rangers?)
Beastmaster- Fighter (or barbarian), with a pet.

Well, archer and dervish are kinda weak, in my opinion. That's just your weapon of choice, and Fighting Style and Feats cover that just fine. You really should be able to be a dervish or a bow master as a Hunter or as a Beastmaster. I think that heavy weapons and sword/board should be viable options as well, though I could understand leaving the heavy weapon to a specific subclass, since that'll require much more tinkering to the base assumptions. Really, the only reason to have a subclass devoted to a weapon is for more techniques for that weapon style, and at that point, I have to wonder at the difference between a Ranger and just a generic Battlemaster with maneuvers.

Removing spells from the Ranger, I think, is a mistake. Part of the issue with them is that, unlike the Paladin who's grown beyond "cleric magic," the Ranger is still just a miniture druid. The paladin's magic falls into three categories - auras, smites and knight powers. It has a distinct feeling to it. The Ranger, meanwhile, has bow magic and druid spells. The bow magic is a good start, but the druid stuff needs to go. Rangers should be monster powers. That is monster-killing, monster charming, and monster emulating. Take the monster aspects and run with it.

Anyways, some archetypes:
Beast master - not just of one pet, but of multiple kinds, a generic animal-charmer. Think Dar the Beastmaster.
(Monster) Hunter - good at slaying the monsters through skirmishing. I don't really like the name "Hunter" since you really don't do a lot of hunting, but a damage focused skirmisher is an archetype.
Scout - A hyper-stealth and perception focused group
Spiritualist - much like a Totem Barbarian, channal animal powers. Unlike the Barbarian, it works more a Paladin Aura, since you call up a specific spirit. Think "pack hunter" for the entire party.
Geomancer / Trapper - using the terrain around you to full advantage
Slayer - adapting monsters to yourself (overlap with warlock?)

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Mephista]

Thoughts on the PDF -

Marking. This is not a rogue, do not want ranger-sneak-attack. Wilderness boon - either give the Ranger magic, or get rid of it. This half-hearted measure is kinda worthless; once-a-day magic that takes a 1 minute ritual is not only weak, but frankly too magical. Why is a ranger spending a minute to go off sneaking with Pass Without Trace?

Otherwise, this is just moving around the current ranger stuff, and making it so that the Hunter is the base, and the base Ranger got turned into a subclass. It doesn't actually solve anything, it just makes everyone a Hunter and keeps all the same issues. Beastmaster still has action economy and health issues, you're not that great at doing anything related to Ranger without Stalker, and Wild Guardian uses the crappy Eldritch Knight progression.

 

[Mephista]

This quote, and this idea, is starting to get to why I think the Ranger core concept is so muddled for me now. There's different lines of thought going through it, and I can't seem to get my head around them.
1. The Ranger as Strider- Tolkien archetype.
2. The Ranger as "I want to play a fighter who also casts spells." (1e, no multiclass carryover).
3. The Ranger as "generic holding spot for outdoors-y fighters."
4. The Ranger as archer or dervish or other specific fighter, not otherwise covered by fighter / knight / barbarian.

I don't see the thread connecting them. I think some of you ideas are good, but, for example, what is a scout except a wilderness-oriented rogue? Why have spell-casting as a core component, when there are now fighters that can cast spells? Why do fighters need a specialized wilderness class (two, really, if you count barbarians)?

Again, I like your ideas. But I feel like Ranger is just a holdover, and that's why it was included in the core rules.

It may very well be a hold-over, but so is the wizard and sorcerer by that logic. The demand for a psion is a holdover. Anyways, let me start at the top.

1. Strider-Aragorn. For the most part, Aragorn actually comes off as a paladin to me. "The hands of a king are a healer." Lay on Hands anyone? His holy sword? Leading armies and calling up the spirits of the ancestors to follow him? I've never really felt he actually works the Ranger vibe very well, except for the whole tracking-through-wilderness stick when he was still Strider.

Still, before we hit Rivendell, there's stuff we can mine: the LotR Rangers, before the war, were the monster hunters that protected the North. When they left, all the monsters came out to play and hunted people so that they had to huddle inside. They were all well known for having elvish qualities - speaking with animals, keen senses (more D&D fey gnome, tbh, but still!). Strider served as a guide through the wilderness, knew how to avoid leaving trails, knew how to use things like fire to hold off monsters instead of holy magic. Actually, I think that's something that'd be cool to include in a Ranger - a torch as a weapon against monsters, maybe with something like the current bow magics. Torch and warhorn in addition to bow. Anyways, moving on. Strider didn't do much after Rivendell, led to the mountains, took over after Gandalf fell, Fellowship fell apart, tracked the hobbits. And then, we went on to the battles against Sauron, and he stopped being Ranger-y and more paladin-like.

As another example, lets look at the Rangers from Babylon 5 - "We are Rangers. We walk in the dark places no others will enter. We stand on the bridge, and no one may pass. We live for the One, we die for the One." Clearly inspired by Tolkein's. Walking in darkness and not letting the monsters pass, guardians. It keeps coming back to fey-like associations and protecting against mosnters in the darkness/wilderness.

2. The Ranger really isn't a fighter with some spells, though. The original Fighter class was a generic weapons master, alongside the gishy Cleric, Magic-User, and then, the Thief addition. If you primarily relied on weapons, you were a Fighting (Wo)man. The Fighter is now someone who's primarily a front line warrior now, or perhaps a master (but mostly stationary) archer. Rangers are skirmishers in a way that Fighters are not. Let me use a quote from the US Army Ranger web page - "The 75th Ranger Regiment encompasses the 'Big five philosophy': marksmanship, physical training, medical training, small-unit tactics, and mobility for the success of the individual Ranger and the Ranger mission." Marksmanship and physical training are about the only thing a Fighter has in common with an Army Ranger. Note the healing, mobility, and small-unit tactics - all very important to the D&D Ranger. And that's not touching on the skills of a forest ranger, which I assume should be part of the class. Rangers are much more like the Rogue, but without the criminal overtones. You're primarily a hunter, above all else. Stalking, worrying prey down, slaying (not fighting, but killing).

3. Same as above. Paladin, Barbarian, and Ranger were all once part of the Fighting Man class. They've all branched off into their own segments. Fighter does not have the skirmishing mobility, the healing, the small unit tactics. Its not enough to have forest ranger skills - that's easy enough to acomplish. In addition to the military might, we have a focus on stealth, wilderness survival, beast-mastery, herbalism, and tracking. Tracking and wilderness is easy. Even stealth is easy - just add the skills. But the Fighter lacks all of them together. We need a stealthy skirmisher with herbalism healing, tracking, enhanced senses, and animal empathy. There's just -more- to it than Fighter + spells and outdoors-ness. Hells, take away the wilderness survival aspects, and the Ranger should be urban-ready. The point of the Ranger is to fight against the monsters - that can easily be in the wilderness or ones hiding among the civilized people.

4. Rangers are mobile and stealthy skirmishers. Fighters, Paladins (knights as far as I'm concerned) and Barbarians really aren't that.


The thread connecting them is the theme of Monster Hunter. They're not outdoorsy Fighters with magic. They're survivors. They skirmish to avoid being directly hit. They live off the land when civilization's food industry is unavailable. They know how to treat wounds with wild plants and herbs. They need to be hardy and skilled in order to hunt the monsters to their lairs and slay them. This makes them more than a little wild themselves, with animal-like senses and pack tactics. They are skilled at archery to bring down their own meat, they use weapons in close combat when they need to sneak up. They're not front line warriors, they need to -move-. They're not glory hounds like the barbarians, being all obvious. Again, they don't want a fight, they want to kill their enemy and go home. The're not knights who need steeds, duels, and leadership in battle - they'll work together to bring down an enemy anyway they can, be it traps or ambushes working together.

 

[Weird Dave]

My impressions from the pdf. Overall it sounds like a good concept.
Does the ranger gain extra attack?
Do tactical tricks stack? Does it stack with mark?
Mark damage is too much like sneak attack. Does mark stack with hunter's mark and hex?
Stalked is too weak compared to the other archtypes.
Wilderness boon duration/concentration explanation is confusing.

My suggestions:
Bring back extra attack (At least for stalker and guardian, beastmaster gains damage through beast bonus action). Cut mark damage in half, apply it to all shots. Mark requires concentration but advantage on save (to help out melee rangers). One tactical trick per attack. Normal rangers get tactics at 6, 11, 17. Stalkers get an extra two tactics at 3, then an extra one at 8 and 15.


These are the things that pop out in my mind.

I purposefully left Extra Attack off of the list of abilities for the ranger, to balance out the other more circumstantial combat abilities. And my thoughts originally were to have the tactical tricks stack if appropriate, but I think I'm going to rethink that. Or not? Ranger moves 10 ft and gains +1d8 weapon damage from Skirmish Strike, if the opponent is below max hp gain an additional +1d8 weapon damage from Colossus Slayer, and then additional +Xd6 if you have the target Marked. Hmm. Add in Volley or Whirlwind Attack to that and you can hit a bunch of people for a bunch of damage. But is this too much? You have to be at least 9th level to make that work, and have a group of enemies bunched up that have already been wounded. Assume Whirlwind Attack, Skirmish Strike, and a longsword - base 2d8 damage, or 3d8 if they're not at max hp, against all the targets around you. Too much? Maybe not?

 

[Minigiant]

The pdf looks good but it does feel rangery to me. What makes the ranger in my eyes is the mix of weapons, magic, and skill and the focus on exploration.

To me a ranger is a dude to tracks a villian to a dead end, casts speak with plants, and the oak tree tells him to go west.

To me a ranger is a guy who waits right under the waterline, shrouded in weeds and muck,listening in on an orcish battleplan while holding his breath or using water breathing.

To me, a ranger is a gal who walks right up to a hobgoblin captain, curses him in Goblin, makes him flinch and call his guard. Then whirlwind attacks all of them.

To me, a ranger is a lady who through her pet falcon's eyes sees the incoming barbarian horde and sends a note carried by a squirrel to the wizard to use fireball spell glyph.

To me, a ranger is the one who takes half damage from the dragon's breath and stands tall past the dragon's frightening presence due to magic, might, and skill to fire two arrows into its face nonchantly cursing its ma and pa.