D&D 5E Ranger's favored enemies and spells.

[variant]

This thread is inspired by the survey which makes me want to rant a bit. Right now the Ranger in the current playtest packet is lackluster at best. Instead of giving a set of Ranger types that fit the various fictional and historical accounts of them, they try to divide it up into favored enemies.

The favored enemy was never the single defining feature of the previous D&D Ranger, but now they are forcing us to make a decision on our favored enemy based on what fighting style we want. If you want to use the bow primarily, you must choose the dragon as your favored enemy, if you want to dual wield, you have to choose the goblinoid and orc horde.

Rangers throughout history have been lawmen, scouts, guides, and trackers employed by kings, barons, and other governments. In Tolkein's works the theme was protecting civilization from the darkness out in the wilderness. Rangers of the South were a military group focused on defending Ithilien while the Rangers of the North were focused on protecting Eriador and preserving the line of Elendil and the ways of the Dúnedain. Modern fantasy continues all of these trends.

The thing that defines them is never their focus on fighting one particular enemy. They also do not worship nature gods or spirits for spells. I just don't see Rangers as Druids with swords and bows as the class seems designed around.

I don't mind if one type of Ranger having spells to fit the original D&D Druidish Ranger. I could even see a Ranger order that uses arcane magic of some type. However, I think to not have a non-spellcasting Ranger is really a travesty. I know many people through my years of D&D that wanted to play a Ranger without the spells and were disappointed.

 

[Li Shenron]

Probably a good solution would be to make a Ranger class that has subclasses similar to the current Barbarian, Druid and Monk, i.e. each subclass focusing on a different aspect & concept (spellcasting druid vs wildshaping druid, raging barbarian vs magic/shamanistic barbarian, magic/elemental monk vs martial artist), where one of these subclasses is also further customized: the Totem Barbarian also picks a totem animal, the Elemental Monk also picks an element, the Land Druid also picks a terrain.

Actually, the subclasses are even more flexible: you don't have to pick an element or totem animal and stick with it, you can mix them up and pick individual features of that subclass, but if you want you can focus on a specific chosen image (or the DM can house rule that in her fantasy world, you have to pick one only).

So we could have a Ranger class that has one subclass which grants spells, another which focuses on scouting, and another which grants favored enemies, with this latter subclass that contains the further choice of which favored enemy (mixable or not).

The problem however, is that a lot of players want all these things in a Ranger. They don't want to be only scout, or only have favored enemies, they think of a Ranger as all of these things. So the designers might end up creating a Ranger class more like the Druid, who always get both spells and wildshape, and subclasses only expand/empower one of them, but there is no wildshape-less Druid for instance. If they made a Ranger class which requires a specific subclass in order to cast spells, then a Ranger player may have to give up other essential Ranger elements to get spells. It might also be hard to balance a spellcasting subclass vs a completely spell-free subclass. However, if they are specifically asking feedback on this, it means they are willing to listen and eventually put more design effort to make this work. After all, there have been several fantasy settings with spell-less Rangers.

What I think should better be left out of the Ranger picture for good, is weapon styles. This is only a recent legacy, 2WF was tossed in the 3e Ranger only because of Aragorn, and archery was added in 3.5 only because some players weren't interested in 2WF, but weapons styles aren't really a necessary Ranger concept. Feats already take care of weapon styles. I think it'd be better to take them out from the favored enemy packages (although there is some feeble narrative image there: maybe bows & arrows is after all the best way to fight a dragon since getting close is suicidal, maybe dual wielding is the best way to fight a horde so you can drop mooks faster etc.).

 

[lkj]

I also spent considerable time int he survey critiquing the ranger. The tying of subclasses to fighting styles was my biggest complaint. That said, based on an earlier tweet from Mearls, I suspect they knew this was going to be a controversial point and were trying to get mass data from the public test to see what people think.

Beyond that, the ranger feels a bit weak.

AD

 

[Klaus]

My suggestion in the survey was to decouple Favored Enemy from Fighting Styles. Also, I suggested the possibility of spellcasting being "opt-in": you'd have a ranger with basic, iconic features that worked like some of the less-than-magical spells (Hunter's Mark and Longstrider, for instance), and the player would have the option of forgoing those in favor of spellcasting.

But I must say, grouping all "Favored Enemy: Evil Humanoids" inder the "Horde Breaker" moniker was inspired! I love that bit.

 

[I'm A Banana]

So we could have a Ranger class that has one subclass which grants spells, another which focuses on scouting, and another which grants favored enemies, with this latter subclass that contains the further choice of which favored enemy (mixable or not).

The problem however, is that a lot of players want all these things in a Ranger.

That's not as big a problem as it may first seem. Much like making a character who is a little bit elemental monk and a little bit martial arts monk, it should be entirely possible to break up Ranger subclasses into discrete bits if an individual wants a little bit of everything.

So, you maybe have a few subclasses, call them Orders, of rangers:

Order of the Grove allies with druids and has further choices of druidic magic or animal companions (or potentially other things like wild shape).

Order of Blood is primarily defined by combat style, allies with fighters, and chooses things like archery or TWF or other things (like perhaps thrown weapons). They're para-military special-forces with survival knowledge.

Order of Hunters is primarily defined by their chosen enemy, and follows some of the same logic of the current favored enemies, but isn't tied as intimately to weapon type (no "Bows = Dragons"). You can keep things thematic to the enemy type, like being able to pierce DR for dragon-hunters, but you're more interested in that particular enemy than you are in a particular weapon.

And there are characters, like with any other class, who goes more a la carte. Someone could take a single favored enemy ability, a single weapon specializaiton, and a few spells, too.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I don't think most rangers should even have a favored enemy, just the "stalker" or "hunter" subclass, or whatever they would want to call it. I don't really see a beast master, scout, etc. having that feature.

 

[variant]

My suggestion would be dividing them up into hunter, warden, and nature god worshiper.

The hunter could be anything from a hunter of orcs or someone who tracks down criminals and would specialize in favored enemy.

A warden is your typical Tolkein ranger, trained to protect regions or other things, specializing in scouting and guerrilla combat.

The nature god worshiper would get Druid spells.

Another option could be the beastmaster for a pet-based ranger or that could be rolled into the nature god worshiper. The hunter could have a hunting dog as well.

It would be nice if the ranger had herbal lore for natural healing and other survival things as well.

 

[steeldragons]

I agree. The ranger archetype, regardless of its history in D&D, should be a NON-magical/casting class. Even in 1e, you didn't get spell-use (and that very minor) until higher levels.

The default ranger is defined by where he's from...not necessarily who he hunts/fights/wants to kill...and definitely not magic-use.
A variant caster-ranger who uses magic (druidic or arcane). No problem.
A variant slayer/hunter-ranger who is all about "I know everything about these creatures and receive great big bonuses to fight them"? No problem.
A variant roguey/scouty-ranger who is all about his skills: stealthing and hiding and ambushing instead of direct fighting? No problem.

The default ranger needs to be just coasting along in the middle. Some skills. Some bonuses to fighting, based on where they are from. Their class features should be based on their "favored" terrain. "Magic spells" are not an integral part of a baseline wilderness/border protector/hunter guy.

 

[gyor]

Honestly I'd replace faviured enemy, which always creeped me out as it had a genocidical feel, with favoured terrian, and I'd allow a chance between spell casting and hunter's Quarry or a beast companion.

 

[Jester David]

I rather like favoured enemy being the defining feature of the ranger. They had a bonus against giants in 2e that evolved into favoured enemy in 3e, so that idea of opposing a certain type of enemy has been with the ranger for a couple editions.

The problem with the current design is that they're also trying to mash in weapon styles into the FE when they're really, really different things.
A bit of this seems like needless symmetry. All classes have a single build and major choice so the ranger needs to have a single choice, so they're combining their two choices into one.

I see two possible solutions. The first is to give the ranger two choices: favoured enemy and fighting style. So they make a couple choices that have lesser individual benefits but add up to the same power level.
The second option is to make favoured enemy the only choice and make rangers equally good with a bow and two weapons. Allow them to dual wield and rapid shot depending on what they're currently using, but allow them to switch at any time.

It'd also be nice if they could make it possible for the ranger to actually dual wield scimitars. Neither the 3e nor currently the 5e ranger can dual wield two full sized weapons. Which is awkward for representing the most well known of D&D rangers. If the game doesn't let you emulate and realize its most iconic characters there is a problem.
This could be limited to two finesse weapons to keep the damage down.