D&D General Ranger Identity Patch (+)

[doctorbadwolf]

I feel like one of the problems is that the Ranger doesn't have anything that is both distinctive and thematic at the same time. A lot of their abilities are highly situational and DM-dependent, and they excel in a pillar of the game (Exploration) that is rarely the focal point. If you don't have a ranger, most DMs gloss over travel. If you do have one and make travel a focus, many of the players other than the ranger are bored. This is bad design. So how do you fix that by designing rangers that are relevant?

First, you have to give the ranger a niche. So what should that niche be? Fighters have the weapons master covered, Rogues are the sneaky skill monkey, and bards are the Jack of All Trades class. So whither to slot the ranger?

1. IMO, Rangers should be the "alert" class - the one that's good for not getting surprised or ambushed. The Rogue may be the best "sneaker/ambusher" in the game, but in order to counter that, what you want is a Ranger.

2. Give Rangers as a class should fairly early on be some of the best in the game (Expertise) with the skills Animal Handling, Medicine, Nature, and Survival, and they should gain proficiency with the Herbalism kit the way Rogues get Thieves' tools. Because they just aren't Rangers without being the best at those things.

3. Combat skills close adjacent to those of fighters, with some kind of encouragement to being a highly mobile skirmisher class. I'd rather see something like the 3.5 Scout's "ambush damage" than Hunter's Mark. Faramir's men are really good at laying an ambush for the Southrons, and rangers as ambushers also fits both the Dunedain and the rangers set up by Robert Rogers in the early days of America.

That, to me, reads "Ranger." I don't totally object to spellcasting, but it should, IMO, be an optional part of the class (with some cool thematic spells), as opposed to a key one. Off the top of my head, you'd want subclasses like this:

Hunter: Specialist monster slayer - Aragorn, Faramir, Drizz't.
Beastmaster: Self-evident - Dar, Tarzan, Mowgli.
Warden (equivalent to Eldritch Knight): Spellcasting - Geralt of Rivia, Grey Wardens from Dragon Age.

Arcane Archer, Fey Wanderer, and Gloom Stalker could all be made to work as well.

Anyway, that'd be my pitch.

I like a lot of this, though imo spellcasting should be an option within the base class rather than tied to subclass.

Any ranger feature that gives an always prepared spell would also geant at least 1 free cast per day so it isnt wasted for those who choose whatever the alternative feature is.

Maybe choose between spells, a base class beefy pet, or something like a boosted class feature version of hunters mark.

In each case, if you double up with a subclass focused on fhe same thing, they integrate and imrpove on the base class thing ie if you take the beast, and choose beast master subclass, the the subclass features apply to your base class pet, always taking ghe better of any two conflicting numbers. If you choose a spell heavy subclass it gives you more spells known and free uses which effectively means more slots per day.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

What if the ranger, being a master of hunting monsters using knowledge and skill, has a feature that bypasses damage resistence and at high level even immunity?

Maybe as part of a divine favor style replacement for hunters mark.

 

[JohnSnow]

I like a lot of this, though imo spellcasting should be an option within the base class rather than tied to subclass.

Any ranger feature that gives an always prepared spell would also geant at least 1 free cast per day so it isnt wasted for those who choose whatever the alternative feature is.

Maybe choose between spells, a base class beefy pet, or something like a boosted class feature version of hunters mark.

In each case, if you double up with a subclass focused on fhe same thing, they integrate and imrpove on the base class thing ie if you take the beast, and choose beast master subclass, the the subclass features apply to your base class pet, always taking ghe better of any two conflicting numbers. If you choose a spell heavy subclass it gives you more spells known and free uses which effectively means more slots per day.

I confess to a personal bias that I don't generally think of "Ranger" as spellcasting class. I think the game uses spellcasting far too liberally to plug thematic holes in class features, turning nearly every character class into "wizard-lite." So I'm perfectly fine with chucking spellcasting out the window.

There's an argument to be made that picking your Subclass having to wait until 3rd level is kind of bad design, but it's what they've chosen to go with. Personally, I kind of loathe subclasses, but they seem really popular, straddling a weird niche between 2e's Kits and 3e's Prestige Classes. I'd prefer the ability to customize a class without using them - but I'm also not trying to sell supplement books.

 

[Minigiant]

I was talking to my wife the other day about her ranger, and how she often feels at a loss about what to do during social challenges. We do not play in a "no one but the face say anything" way, so it is noticeable when someone doesnt speak up as much with a characters as they normally would.

One thing we decided is that Insight should be usable to convince someone of something, rather than siloing that in persuasion.

If i describe reading someone and using what i glean to push buttons and get them to agree to something, i shouldnt be rolling persuasion. That is insight.

Usually insight is used to sus out lies.

IMHO the Ranger's iconic roles in social are:

1. Animal Whisperer
2. Linguist
3. Investigator
4. Lie Detector

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Usually insight is used to sus out lies.

IMHO the Ranger's iconic roles in social are:

1. Animal Whisperer
2. Linguist
3. Investigator
4. Lie Detector

Insight is used for a lot of things, not just lie detection.

 

[Minigiant]

Insight is used for a lot of things, not just lie detection.

In social situations, that's mostly what its used for

 

[jmartkdr2]

I would diagnose the problem a little differently than others: while it's pretty well understood what the vibes of a ranger are, the actual implementation can involve a lot of things. For example, I think rangers need access to all of these:

1. Archery
2. Two-weapon fighting
3. Druid magic
4. Favored enemies
5. Wilderness exploration mastery
6. Animal companions

Not that any one ranger needs all of these, but they all need to be available to the class. Kind of like how we understand that not every individual wizard can cast every spell, but we expect wizards to have access to a lot of different spells. The only one every ranger needs is wilderness exploration mastery, and that can be minimally satisfied with expertise in the survival skill. And, of course, there are other options that we could add, like other weapons, non-animal companions, urban exploration, etc.

I can think of a few ways to handle this - either something like 13th Age's Talent system (pick three areas to be good at or double up on one) or some sort of invocation/class feat system that lets you pick which areas you master on top of your subclass's focus.

But the class needs a lot of internal choices (close to warlock really) to cover the broad range of rangers.

(or just make them the pet class and offload non-pet rangers to subclasses of other classes.)

 

[doctorbadwolf]

In social situations, that's mostly what its used for

Irrelevant. It is also used for other tuings quite frequently. between my experience and actual plays, i have seen it used at least as much to determine someone's emotional state, to suss out motivations, and to figure out the best approach to a social interaction. I have seen it used quite a lot for determining social dynamics in a group, and other subtle social stuff. Its just social perception.

Further, it doesnt matter, we are talking about what skills could be used for

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I would diagnose the problem a little differently than others: while it's pretty well understood what the vibes of a ranger are, the actual implementation can involve a lot of things. For example, I think rangers need access to all of these:

1. Archery
2. Two-weapon fighting
3. Druid magic
4. Favored enemies
5. Wilderness exploration mastery
6. Animal companions

Not that any one ranger needs all of these, but they all need to be available to the class. Kind of like how we understand that not every individual wizard can cast every spell, but we expect wizards to have access to a lot of different spells. The only one every ranger needs is wilderness exploration mastery, and that can be minimally satisfied with expertise in the survival skill. And, of course, there are other options that we could add, like other weapons, non-animal companions, urban exploration, etc.

I can think of a few ways to handle this - either something like 13th Age's Talent system (pick three areas to be good at or double up on one) or some sort of invocation/class feat system that lets you pick which areas you master on top of your subclass's focus.

But the class needs a lot of internal choices (close to warlock really) to cover the broad range of rangers.

(or just make them the pet class and offload non-pet rangers to subclasses of other classes.)

Or treat knacks (pet, fighting styles, expertise, faster movement, special senses, special movement, enhancements to any of those, etc) like spells, and let the ranger change them with a long rest.

So like a hybrid of invocations and infusions.

Hell, even spells could at least be partially put here, with little groups of bonus spells per knack

 

[Corinnguard]

Long said it was a mistake to remove the Endurance skill.

If it was brought back as a 5e skill, how would it work for everybody? CON (Endurance) for physical endurance and WIS (Endurance) for mental endurance? They could play a part in handling things like fatigue and stress in and out of combat. They certainly would play a part in maintaining the concentration for a particular spell.