Ranger and Fighting Styles

[Stormonu]

This a branch off the Ranger thread on Favored Enemy/Quarry.

If there is a ranger class in 5E, how do you want to see the ranger's fighting style handled?

Since at least 2E, and further refined in 3E and 4E, the ranger became "the class" whose fighting niche was two-weapon fighting or archery.

I'd like to see the 5E Ranger have a more flexible style, but at the same time not step on the fighter's toes as "the best with a weapon". If possible, I'd like to see the ranger focus on one fighting track and be fairly good at it - whether sword & board, two weapon, two-handed weapon, hurled, archery or even crossbows. The ranger should be good at one - maybe two styles by later levels.

The converse would be the fighter is GREAT with any weapon; the ranger *might* be able to match the fighter in one style, but the fighter is visibly superior overall.

That might mean moving "Weapon Specialization" from the fighter to the ranger - the basic ranger track would allow the ranger to be competent with his chosen style, and onto that he could stack specialization. On the other hand, the fighter would gain "Weapon Superiority" - it works basically like specialization, but is good with any weapon and is baked into the basic fighter, instead of something the fighter has to go out of his way to select.

Any one have any other (better) ideas?

 

[DogBackward]

Fighting styles are something that should definitely be handled by Theme. There is no reason that two-weapon fighting or good archery should be limited to Rangers, and with the way they're handling feats now, that leaves Themes to cover weapon styles.

Personally, if they can't make the Ranger something other than "A fighter with Favored Enemy", they shouldn't be making one at all. They need unique, flavorful abilities that separate it from every other class. They need to make a D&D Ranger, and not try to adhere to "classic" examples of rangers in literature and media. Aragorn's title was Ranger of the North, but his class was Fighter, with a Wilderness background and Healer theme. He didn't focus on any specific fighting style, he didn't have a devoted pet, he didn't cast nature spells... he just fought very well with whatever he had available, using wits and courage. Fighter.

What weapons a Ranger chooses to use is not a unique, flavorful ability. Weapon choice is something anybody can do. The Ranger, in D&D, needs to become its own thing. Animal companion, favored enemy*, favored terrain, and then it needs something new. It can't just be "wilderness stuff", because that is, again, something that shouldn't be class-specific. You can have urban rangers, and you can have wilderness fighters and rogues.

* I've grown fond of the suggestion from the WotC boards, of replacing the old "+X bonus vs Y creature" with "Gain a defense against attacks that are commonly used by Y creature. Then gain an offensive ability that mimics the abilities of Y creature."

 

[john112364]

I would like it if the ranger was more like the 1e ranger and was good with all weapons while the fighter is great with all. The ranger should focus on favored enemies (whether that is giant class or off a list etc.) or even favored terrain, and be good with stealth, nature lore, survival etc.

Against a favored enemy they should be at least as good, if not better than, a fighter against such foes. The same goes if 5e went with favored terrain or some such. In their specialty they should always be as good, or better, than a fighter in that field. When out of their favored niche they should still be better than a cleric (for instance), but never as good as a fighter.

I know it's a fine line to walk, but hey, we can dream.

 

[the Jester]

Fighting styles should be themes. The ranger shouldn't need a "fighting style" element to make it a distinctive class imho.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

The ranger shouldn't be pigeon-holed into a fighting style, nor should it be defined as "the class with the fighting style". Fighting style should be something every class can select.

Give the ranger wilderness skills, tracking, stealth, and perhaps favored enemy/terrain to make him an excellent scout, hunter, and defender of the frontier. Let us choose how he fights, so we can replicate the 1E ranger if we want, and not be required to be a Drizzt clone.

 

[Fifth Element]

Fighting styles should be themes. The ranger shouldn't need a "fighting style" element to make it a distinctive class imho.

Agreed. If you need a fighting style to justify the class' existence as such, you need to try harder.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

The ranger shouldn't be pigeon-holed into a fighting style, nor should it be defined as "the class with the fighting style". Fighting style should be something every class can select.

Give the ranger wilderness skills, tracking, stealth, and perhaps favored enemy/terrain to make him an excellent scout, hunter, and defender of the frontier. Let us choose how he fights, so we can replicate the 1E ranger if we want, and not be required to be a Drizzt clone.

This.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Yes, count me in for no fighting/weapon style attached to the Ranger.

My brother's two-handed sword wielding, magic-missile slinging Ranger kicks ass.

 

[GreyICE]

I'm fine with the Ranger having a 2-hander/bow style strongly linked to his character.

Without iconic styles, everything tends to start to feel a little same-y, and 2 handed/ranged bow is a broad enough base of fighting to get many interesting effects in there.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Themes, and the feats that make them up, are a character-customization resource. Taking something like weapon choice or 'style' choice (and they're very bland, generic styles, nothing like Bo9S or anything), and having it consume not just a feat, but a whole series of them (a Theme), makes characters who primarily use weapons both inflexible in what weapons they use, and harder to customize further.

Compared to the flexibility a caster gets in prepping a different slate of spells, being able to swap between using a shield or using a bigger weapon is positively trivial. Themes or specialization feats take even that trivial flexibility away.

If a Theme is going to represent a 'Style' it should represent a more flavorful, broader style of fighting that encompasses many weapon mixes and techniques. The art of the Samurai encompassed archery, mounted combat, swordsmanship with one sword or two, and expert use of a pole-arm. If a 'Style' covered that much ground, it'd be worth a Theme, and give the character some flexibility (still orders of magnitude less than that of casters).