D&D 5E Ranger: Removing/changing rangers class features to make then non-depended on DM's charity.

[Horwath]

What are rangers?
Rangers are outdoor experts, scouts, survivalists.

In 5e they tried to make rangers good at that with some gimmick abilities like natural explorer and favored enemy and primeval awareness. Those features failed more or less and even when they didn't, they asked much in terms of DM going out of their way to cater rangers choice of terrain/enemies.

but for rangers to be good at being rangers, solution i simple. skills and things that make skills even better(expertise).

Here we go;


1st level;
rangers are only proficient with light armors.

rangers get skill proficiency at 1st level in;
survival, stealth, perception, nature and one other ranger class skill. If any of predetermined skills are gained with race/background, ranger can pick other ranger class skills instead.

ranger class skills are;
animal handling, acrobatics, athletics, insight, investigation, medicine, nature, perception, stealth, survival.

Expertise: at 1st level, ranger gains expertise in survival and one other ranger class skill that he has proficiency in.

Natural explorer; changed. Ranger can move at normal speed while being stealthed, foraging for food, tracking enemies and staying alert to danger. If ranger travels overland at fast pace he suffers disadvantage on all those checks.

Favored enemy removed.


2nd level;
Great weapon fighting added to rangers fighting style options.


3rd level;
primeval awareness; removed.
added track: ranger has advantage on all survival checks for tracking creatures.


6th level;
favored enemy improvement removed.
natural explorer improvement removed.

added expertise; ranger gains expertise in two more ranger class skills that he has proficiency.

added endurance: ranger has advantage on all constitution saves and checks against any prolonged activity(forced march, holding breath), sleeping in armor, going without sleep, thirst, starvation and enduring natural elements(heat/cold).


10th level;
Natural explorer improvement removed.

Added relentless; after completing short rest ranger can make DC 10 constitution save(endurance adcantage applies) to treat that short rest as a long rest. Ranger still can only gain benefit of long rest once every 24hrs. 2nd time ranger tries this check the DC is 20. Third time the DC is 30. 4th time the DC is 40...etc.
Ranger must complete 2 normal long rests(8hrs) in a row to reset DC back to 10.


14th level;
Favored enemy improvement removed.
added; ranger gains proficiency in constitution saves.


20th level;
Foe slayer removed.
added; ranger gains extra attack(3). Ranger can make 3 weapon attacks as an attack action.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

I believe it's time for the ranger temporary subforum.

 

[jodyjohnson]

I find that playing a Ranger or buying a horse are great litmus tests for what kind of DM you have.

When I find they actively try to negate my choices, I actively choose to go elsewhere. Mounts and Ranger are just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I think that it is evidence of a complete breakdown of a gaming relationship when someone equates getting to know which options are going to be useful, rather than useless, with "DM charity."

If your DM won't tell you what choices of character ability will work for the campaign at hand, it's time to find a new DM because that one has lost sight of the goal of everyone at the table having fun.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

added endurance: ranger has advantage on all constitution saves and checks against any prolonged activity(forced march, holding breath), sleeping in armor, going without sleep, thirst, starvation and enduring natural elements(heat/cold).

I think endurance is an important ability for rangers. However, this implementation of the concept runs into a bit of a mechanical problem: most of these conditions don't have Constitution saves or checks. When you skip sleeping, eating, or drinking, you just get an exhaustion level automatically.

You could try inserting a Constitution save, but I found that spelling out the rules for this got kind of clunky. What I did in the end was say the ranger's exhaustion level is effectively halved, rounded down, so they don't suffer any penalties until two stacks and don't die until twelve. They also regain exhaustion levels at double the regular rate.

 

[Horwath]

I think that it is evidence of a complete breakdown of a gaming relationship when someone equates getting to know which options are going to be useful, rather than useless, with "DM charity."

If your DM won't tell you what choices of character ability will work for the campaign at hand, it's time to find a new DM because that one has lost sight of the goal of everyone at the table having fun.

It's not breakdown.

its just bad mechanics.

If you have build your ranger with advance knowledge what you will be facing throughout the campaign, it is bad.

IF your DM has to change campaign for your choices it's bad also.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

It's not breakdown.

its just bad mechanics.

If you have build your ranger with advance knowledge what you will be facing throughout the campaign, it is bad.

IF your DM has to change campaign for your choices it's bad also.

That's nonsense.

The group is meant to work together to build a campaign - it's not the DM just coming with a complete campaign and having to change it because someone decided to play a ranger and pick some random thing, it's the DM saying "This is what the campaign is about" in a general overview and that information actually being accurate so that the players can make characters that fit, rather than every single character being a crapshoot as to whether it will work for the campaign, ranger and otherwise.

Just like you don't build a mount-focused character when the DM is running a dungeon-centric game, you don't build a ranger whose chosen enemies/terrains don't have anything to do with where the campaign is happening and what enemies are going to be faced.

It's not bad mechanics, it's bad communication and cooperation toward a shared goal.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

That's nonsense.

The group is meant to work together to build a campaign - it's not the DM just coming with a complete campaign and having to change it because someone decided to play a ranger and pick some random thing, it's the DM saying "This is what the campaign is about" in a general overview and that information actually being accurate so that the players can make characters that fit, rather than every single character being a crapshoot as to whether it will work for the campaign, ranger and otherwise.

Just like you don't build a mount-focused character when the DM is running a dungeon-centric game, you don't build a ranger whose chosen enemies/terrains don't have anything to do with where the campaign is happening and what enemies are going to be faced.

It's not bad mechanics, it's bad communication and cooperation toward a shared goal.

First of all, some people play Adventurer's League, published adventures, or simply quick pick-up games without a lot of planning, so what you're saying about how the game is "meant to work" simply is not true for everyone. I would hardly say these people are playing the game badly.

Secondly, it may be possible for experienced groups to play around the wrong-favored-enemy pitfall, but if it can so easily be written out of the class to begin with, why not do so?

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

First of all, some people play Adventurer's League, published adventures, or simply quick pick-up games without a lot of planning, so what you're saying about how the game is "meant to work" simply is not true for everyone. I would hardly say these people are playing the game badly.

Choosing to play a highly specialized character when you can't actually make sure your specialty matters is a poor choice - a player should adapt to the style of game they are playing, even if that means their Adventurer's League "ranger" character is actually something like a fighter with the outlander background.

And not even all of the things you listed preclude being able to know how to build a specialized character that fits, since all but quick pick-up games without planning already include brief blurbs that accurately give a sense of what to expect.

And pick-up games with no planning? They are the perfect opportunity for the specialized character's choices to be the right ones since the DM hasn't done any planning so they aren't even changing anything, they are just choosing between A) have the specialized character fit, and B) have the specialized character not fit.

Secondly, it may be possible for experienced groups to play around this pitfall, but if it can so easily be written out of the class to begin with, why not do so?

There is no "pitfall" to play around, at least not unless you are talking about how every class has options that can be poor choices in a particular campaign and suggesting that all of those also be removed - leaving only the most generally applicable options behind - so that players and DMs never have to talk about what kind of campaign they are playing in order to find characters that make sense as the protagonists.

No illusions or charms. No mounts. No abilities that only interact with traps and secret doors. No types of damage that any creature is immune to. No weapons too large to wield effectively in a narrow tunnel. And ever so minor by comparison: no favored enemies or terrains.

 

[Horwath]

That's nonsense.

The group is meant to work together to build a campaign - it's not the DM just coming with a complete campaign and having to change it because someone decided to play a ranger and pick some random thing, it's the DM saying "This is what the campaign is about" in a general overview and that information actually being accurate so that the players can make characters that fit, rather than every single character being a crapshoot as to whether it will work for the campaign, ranger and otherwise.

Just like you don't build a mount-focused character when the DM is running a dungeon-centric game, you don't build a ranger whose chosen enemies/terrains don't have anything to do with where the campaign is happening and what enemies are going to be faced.

It's not bad mechanics, it's bad communication and cooperation toward a shared goal.

not really.

Fighters extra action, extra crit range, extra-extra attacks, extra feats, save rerolls, second wind, etc. works against everything and everywhere. For example.