Ranger and Fighting Styles

[Serendipity]

Why does a ranger need a 'fighting style' again? That was pretty much something 3.0 tacked on to make a ranger take TWF or Archery. Don't need it.
More to the point, if rangers get a 'fighting style,' why wouldn't fighters (and possibly other martially inclined classes) get something like that?

 

[Li Shenron]

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.

Short answer: I don't want the Ranger to have any fighting style.

Why should they have one, built-in the Ranger class? The Ranger class is not anymore about fighting than the Rogue, the Barbarian, etc. If there is a class that should have a class feature to represent fighting styles it is the Fighter, because the Fighter is all about fighting, it is their definition and their class purpose. But for the Ranger, fighting is a necessity, not a way of being.

So I think that the designer should drop "fighting styles" from the Ranger class, and just let the player define any fighting style through themes/feats, or just not specialize at all. Designers should worry about things that make the Ranger a Ranger... archery and two-weapon fighting do not make a Ranger.

 

[Minigiant]

Let themes do it.

It is like exactly what it was designed to do.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Short answer: I don't want the Ranger to have any fighting style.

Why should they have one, built-in the Ranger class? The Ranger class is not anymore about fighting than the Rogue, the Barbarian, etc. If there is a class that should have a class feature to represent fighting styles it is the Fighter, because the Fighter is all about fighting, it is their definition and their class purpose. But for the Ranger, fighting is a necessity, not a way of being.

So I think that the designer should drop "fighting styles" from the Ranger class, and just let the player define any fighting style through themes/feats, or just not specialize at all. Designers should worry about things that make the Ranger a Ranger... archery and two-weapon fighting do not make a Ranger.

Thank you!

Yes, a Ranger is not defined by what weapon (weapons...) they wield.

 

[DogBackward]

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.

If you start thinking like this, then how far does it go? You can argue that anything you can put in a Theme fits in a class instead. Why have the Magic-User theme? Only Wizards should get cantrips and a familiar. Why have the Healer theme? Only Clerics should have access to healing potions and maximized healing effects. Why have the Guardian theme? Only Fighters should be protecting squishy allies. And if you want a Fighter with the Guardian theme, you're "consuming [...] a whole series of [feats]", just like with weapon styles. Following your logic, we wouldn't have any themes at all.

Themes are a character-customization resource. And combat styles are a character-customization effect. Want to focus in two-weapon fighting? That's character-customization. Want to focus on ranged combat? That's character-customization.

Because of the way they're set up, Themes can, and should, include all of the types of abilities that should be available to everybody. If you don't put advanced weapon styles in Themes... then where? How are you going to explain why only the Ranger can be good at two-weapon fighting? You're telling me the Fighter can't be as good with two weapons? You're telling me a Rogue can't specialize in ranged sniping attacks?

Themes are, as you say, a character-customization resource. And a focused weapon style is the epitome of character-customization.

 

[variant]

I definitely think rangers shouldn't have fighting styles like archery and two-handed weapon fighting.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If you start thinking like this, then how far does it go? You can argue that anything you can put in a Theme fits in a class instead.

Not the point I was going for, I'm afraid. I wasn't arguing that fighting styles like "specialized in longsword & shield" or "specialized in TWFing" should be built into a class either. Rather, I was arguing that such generic 'styles' weren't worthy, by themselves, of being a Theme.

And combat styles are a character-customization effect.

But they're a trivial effect compared to the flexibility classes already get. And, by making them a theme, taking a style sucks away too much customization. Specializing in a generic style like that does nothing but limit you, it peggs you almost exclusively to melee or ranged, for instance, and it takes away the possibility of having a different Theme. You should be able to customize your character's choice of weapons by simply choosing weapons. Being particularly good at a particular weapon or mix might warrant a feat, but it's just not worthy of a Theme.

A 'Combat Style' that might be worthy of a theme would be one that covers a variety of weapons and combat situations. Really, a Theme-worthy 'Style' should have some techniques for each general sort of combat - melee vs ranged, dueling vs multiple attackers, mounted or afoot, etc - and use a number of distinctive weapon & armor mixes. "You're stuck swinging a big axe for the next 20 levels" is not exactly customization.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

I think of the ranger as a few things.

Dexterity driven. (including hiding and nimbleness...from this maybe the two fighting styles mentioned, but only peripherally).

Wilderness master (as opposed to tree-hugger). Here I'm thinking of Survivorman (who is great) and Bear Gryllis (who is flashy and takes risks). Both would be "rangers" if I statted them for my game. I actually think survivalist (tracking, survival skill etc) is core to the ranger concept and shouldn't require additional investment (or choice of non-investment). E.G. in 3e, a ranger shouldn't have to take "knowledge nature" or "survival"...take away 1 skill point per level and give him those two skills for "free". Make them mandatory and built in.

Driven hunter (of foes). This could be "favored enemy" or a specific target he's hunting or whatever...there's a bounty hunter element that is attractive to rangers.



A ranger should be able to survive in any environment he was skilled with, should be able to hunt and kill the dangerous denizens of that environment (including the intelligent and monstrous), and should be able to survive more as a "creature" who sometimes hides and less as a "fighter" who relies on weapon skill and armor primarily.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

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.

From what we've seen so far, most of the feats required in 3e to make a "style" like TWF or archery viable just won't be necessary in 5e.

Note that in 5e, everyone gets Weapon Finesse, Spring Attack, and any number of other previously necessary 3e "combat feats" for free. I have absolutely no doubt you won't need 3+ feats to make TWF work either; my guess is that it'll be built into ALL characters, so a fighter (or ranger, or maybe even a wizard) can pick up two daggers just as easily as a sword and board; the themes will make those choices more flavorful (like the Defender theme makes shield use more interesting), but won't be strictly necessary to make any common fighting style viable.

 

[variant]

I think having them specialized in things like traps, wilderness survival, herbalism, guerrilla combat and such would be a better way to go than to have them focused on simply weapon styles.