D&D 5E Let's Tweak the 5E Ranger!

[bgbarcus]

remember when I first started playing (which was, um, a while ago) people would often pick a Ranger early on because of the name (1e),

I think people in my 1e games picked the ranger to get 2d8 hit points at first level. They were the combat backbone of the party until third or fourth level when fighters caught up.

After that the image of the wilderness survivalist and stealthy hunter was attractive. Even though we knew Aragorn was the archetype we never had anyone try very hard to recreate him. Probably because, as someone already said, he was more paladin than ranger in D&D terms.

Beyond the first few levels the animal companions were a big draw to rangers. But they were always less interesting in play than anticipated.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Azurewraith]

At work so cant check the PDF ill have to look when i get back also just skimmed the thread so sorry if i end up echoing.

I feel the rangers stick should be ranged combat just drop the melee support imo. Also kill the magic(controversial i know but i am a martial purist)

Bring back favored enemy combat advantages giving something like +2 to hit or damage or some other small bonus. Now losing magic means losing hunters mark which is a big part of hunter DPR so add in quarry feature from 4e in which you pick a target as your prey and as long as you have line of sight to him you gain bonus damage akin to hunters mark as a bonus maybe add the ability to see them regardless of cover/lighting in a certain range.

Out of combat i feel rangers are in a good spot maybe drop favored terrain and make it a full time bonus? i do feel the healing poultices from the UA should be a thing

 

[Minigiant]

I

I disagree. I think you almost had it ... then backed away, when you wrote that "there are many different images from all the different fans."

One person wrote a very thoughtful post stating that the Ranger was a monster hunter (with a h/t to Babylon 5!). Other view the Ranger as a spell-casting fighter. Wilderness fighter. Two-sword fighter. Strider (not Aragorn!) fighter. And so on.

I think the original sin goes back to the class conception. There just isn't one- it was a fighter, with a few spells, and kind of a wilderness vibe. Which differentiated it from Strider (which, assumedly given the priors, was the model), but just made it more confusing. I remember when I first started playing (which was, um, a while ago) people would often pick a Ranger early on because of the name (1e), but after that, they didn't. If they did, it would be because they wanted a fighter who could cast a few spells. But I don't think there was ever a clear class concept (IMO).

And it would seem the problem has gotten worse with time. I am introducing new players to 5e, in addition to migrating some from 1e, and the new ones don't grok the Ranger. If it's explained as a "wilderness fighter," then the Barbarian seems like more of the archetype. If it's a "wilderness fighter with armor" then why not a fighter? So ... fighter with spells. Gah.

(Again, I agree that as a class, 5e has done a better job. I just think this thread has done a good job illuminating how many different ideas there are about the Ranger. And when I see them, I keep thinking to myself- these are the same ideas I see bandied about for other concepts- brawler, duelist, swashbuckler, etc. But the Ranger, due to history, gets a class.)

Again i feel that there was no one in the design team pushing no fix the ranger. They did the playtest version and didn't get enough outcry to bother fixing it as the play test ranger was already better than all previous rangers. The ranger [has/B] an identity but only a true ranger fan can describe it.

If I were in charge of the Ranger, at levels 1 and 2 a ranger would choose the 2 ranger archetypes they would take up.

The Hunter
*Combat: Gets offensive and Defensive features to combat the tactics of enemies.
*Exploration: Gets mobility features to catch up to and pursue enemies.

The Beast Master
*Combat: Gets a combat worthy beast companion.
*Exploration: Allows the beast companion to share exploration features of the other archetype and the ranger to utilize the beast's senses and movement.

The Herbalist
*Combat: Allows the ranger to mix potions for healing and toxins for weapons.
*Exploration: Allows the ranger to ignore plant based impedance to tracking and movement, gather food and water, and craft items with wood.

The Warden
*Combat: Gives the ranger druidic and fey magic to boost combat like lightning arrow, cure wounds, and ensnaring strike.
*Exploration: Gives the ranger druidic and magic to speak with beasts and plants, breathe underwater, and control winds.

The Dungeoneer
* Combat: Gives the ranger wizard magic to boost combat like burning hands, spell glyphs, and color spray
*Exploration: Gives the ranger wizard magic to create light, detect undead, and scry enemies.

The Trapper
*Combat: Gives the ranger defensive and ambushing features to lure foes in traps and small spaces.
*Exploration: Gives the ranger the ability to disarm, avoid, place, and improve traps quickly.

So the 1e ranger is the Trapper/Herbalist. The 3e ranger the Hunter/Warden. The 4e one is Hunter/Beastmaster or Hunter/Trapper.

 

[Mephista]

I'm starting to feel like I could say "To me the ranger's purpose has always been to divide the gamebase and call for an edition revision." The Ranger was one of the major excuses for the 3.5 revision. In 5e they had two years of open playtest to give players what they wanted, and two weeks after the release of the PHB there were already custom Rangers in all forums... where were all these people during the playtest? Were they writing feedback or not? Did WotC listen to such feedback or not?

Oh, they were. The problem is that the playtest Ranger moved to alpha without the general public seeing the final Ranger flavor. They got feedback, made changes, and went right to alpha and beta testing.

Classical is in the eye of the beholder.

Its classic enough that the devs gave the Ranger two weapon fighting style, despite it being an actively bad choice for either subclass from a mechanical perspective due to how the Ranger action economy works.

One person wrote a very thoughtful post stating that the Ranger was a monster hunter (with a h/t to Babylon 5!).

Glad you like it!

I feel the rangers stick should be ranged combat just drop the melee support imo. Also kill the magic(controversial i know but i am a martial purist)

The problem I see with this is that, while it supports the "martial purist" people... it steps on the toes of the archer-Fighter. Every class needs a distinct flavor, and being a Weapons Master is the Fighter's stick. Fighter will eventually get more support than the Ranger, and the class will fall eternally out of flavor. Well, at least for the edition.

Bring back favored enemy combat advantages giving something like +2 to hit or damage or some other small bonus. Now losing magic means losing hunters mark which is a big part of hunter DPR so add in quarry feature from 4e in which you pick a target as your prey and as long as you have line of sight to him you gain bonus damage akin to hunters mark as a bonus maybe add the ability to see them regardless of cover/lighting in a certain range.

Umm... Hunter's Mark IS the 4e quarry feature.

 

[Mephista]

The ranger has an identity but only a true ranger fan can describe it.

"Only a true Ranger fan?" If you can't explain it to others simply and easily to new players, then its worthless.

 

[Minigiant]

"Only a true Ranger fan?" If you can't explain it to others simply and easily to new players, then its worthless.

The Ranger is a wilderness warrior and natural survivalist willing who uses his or her knowledge or connection to the wild in order to endure natural challenges.

If simpler terms are needed. Ranger is a wilderness warriors who willing to use anything natural to survive and do their jobs.

 

[Azurewraith]

The problem I see with this is that, while it supports the "martial purist" people... it steps on the toes of the archer-Fighter. Every class needs a distinct flavor, and being a Weapons Master is the Fighter's stick. Fighter will eventually get more support than the Ranger, and the class will fall eternally out of flavor. Well, at least for the edition.

Maybe they will maybe they will sort out the Rangers schtick i dont feel like it will be stepping on the fighters toes as they can flavour it right such as an ambush skill so you do bonus damage when attacking from cover plus theres all the out of combat fluff.

Umm... Hunter's Mark IS the 4e quarry feature.

A god awful version of it that can only be used x times a day and if i remember rightly requires concentration.

I guess they could make BM the default path but change its action economy so directing the pet to attack is a bonus action and allow it to scale better.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[MonkeezOnFire]

I once came across a rework of the 5e ranger (I think it was on the wotc forums, but I cannot find it) that left the core class mostly as what it currently is but the archetypes were favored enemy options. Each Hunter of X archetype received a spell list similar to the paladin that gave spells that are useful against the group and sometimes related to the tactics of that group. For example the Hunter of the Horde archetype got aoe options, the Hunter of dragons got stuff like resist energy. The Hunter of Beasts archetype received an animal companion as well as some other nice goodies. The choices from the current hunter archetype were also spread throughout the new choices (Hunter of the Horde received hordebreaker and escape the horde features).

I liked it because I feel that there are no obvious ranger archetypes, ranger is already quite specific as is. This way felt very similar to how the wizard chooses a specialty school of magic.