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

[Klaus]

For me, the Ranger is all about "survival": enduring the elements, finding their way (and their quarry) in the wild, with little more than a knife (which he can probably improvise). Keen sense, honed instincts. He might not stand toe-to-toe with a Fighter in battle, but he doesn't try to. The barbarian looses himself into a battle trance, the fighter accesses years of combat drills, the monk channels his inner discipline, the rogue takes the cheap shots, and the ranger circles his prey, finds the openings and attacks with a hunter's precision.

Some rangers will "survive" by being in tune with nature's magical side, others rely on more material things. Some conjure up a berry that can nourish them for a day and use magic to ward off the elements, others hunt down an animal to eat its meat and wear its fur. Some hunt with bow and arrow, others use twin daggers as a cougar uses its claws.

 

[Frostmarrow]

For me personally, cleaving any class too tightly to equipment seems silly. I want rogues in heavy armor with spears. I want fighters with rapiers and no armor. I want wizards with greatswords. I want clerics with twin scimitars.

So "uses equipment X" doesn't seem like a great idea for a class to my mind.

Of course you can have a rogue with heavy armor and spear. It's just not optimal. Just because a ranger is (would be) geared toward ranged combat doesn't mean you couldn't build a ranger with focus on melee.

I think building is easier if the builing pieces are compatible. A wizard plus ranger makes an arcane archer. -Makes perfect sense to me.

Do it: Image search "Fantasy ranger" and please let me know if you spot any bows. Even the guys with swords carry bows on their backs. Ranger is as synonymous with bow as fighter is with sword or knight with plate. From the image search we also learn that rangers are all about hiding, roaming, tracking and surprising. -No artist seem interested in painting the ranger as some kind of exterminator.

 

[steeldragons]

The more of this thread I read, the more I am leaning toward the Ranger becoming a Rogue class. I mean, from Basic on the thief is described as someone who fights either with sneak attacks and "light" style weapons or relies on his high Dex to use thrown or missile weapons. If a defining weapon set for rogues includes swords, daggers, spears, and bows...AND if the "expert/skill-dependent/skill-reliant" adventurer are the Rogues...it really does sound like the Ranger belongs there as opposed to under the warrior/fighter classes.

HUGE deviation from legacy/tradition for Rangers. I know. But...it seems so perfectly fitting without really "taking away" anything from the ranger, itself, or the "Fighter classes" as a group.

 

[Frostmarrow]

For me, the Ranger is all about "survival": enduring the elements, finding their way (and their quarry) in the wild, with little more than a knife (which he can probably improvise). Keen sense, honed instincts. He might not stand toe-to-toe with a Fighter in battle, but he doesn't try to. The barbarian looses himself into a battle trance, the fighter accesses years of combat drills, the monk channels his inner discipline, the rogue takes the cheap shots, and the ranger circles his prey, finds the openings and attacks with a hunter's precision.

Some rangers will "survive" by being in tune with nature's magical side, others rely on more material things. Some conjure up a berry that can nourish them for a day and use magic to ward off the elements, others hunt down an animal to eat its meat and wear its fur. Some hunt with bow and arrow, others use twin daggers as a cougar uses its claws.

Sounds a lot like Crocodile Dundee to me. (My favorite ranger example). Dundee carries a hunting knife which he can throw with unerring accuracy. He can knock someone out by throwing the knife button first. If robbed of his knife he can use a can of food with the same effect or when presented with a real weapon, a rifle, he can use that with the same (non-)lethal precision.

Dundee can fight but stands little chance when facing a real fighter; Donk. He can summon bats, cure a cold and share a meal with the locals without embarrasing himself.

 

[I'm A Banana]

For me, the Ranger is all about "survival":

I'm fond of that conception of what the ranger is all about.

Of course you can have a rogue with heavy armor and spear. It's just not optimal

Well, that's my point. It should be equal in every way to a rogue in leather armor with a rapier, or a rogue with two daggers. A class should not be tethered to use of a particular kind of equipment.

The more of this thread I read, the more I am leaning toward the Ranger becoming a Rogue class.

I think the ranger is as much a rogue as the druid is a cleric. Which is to say, I could certainly see a world where they all become the same thing. It just depends on your level of detail you've pegged classes at.

 

[Dausuul]

I think Favored Enemy as the ranger's defining trait was a good move, but trying to shoehorn fighting styles into that is a mistake. The ranger doesn't need artificial pressure to focus on archery and two-weapon fighting. All you need to do is give them class features that reward high Dexterity, and don't give them proficiency with shields. After that, archery and TWF come naturally.

I preferred the way the last playtest packet handled favored enemies; you choose your favored enemy and get a set of abilities that make you especially good at fighting that enemy, but are also useful in general.

 

[Mistwell]

The word ranger has nothing to do with ranged attacks. While there's nothing wrong with a ranger choosing to focus on archery, he, nor any other class, should be forced, nor even encouraged to do so, unless there is an archer class that I'm not aware of.

I disagree. I do think they have something to do with archery. They're sort of the assassins of the wilderness, in their role of defending the wilderness border from monstrous incursions. They specialize in guerilla warfare. And the bow is the weapon of choice for such strikes from camouflage from the brush or trees, in addition to the sword for close combat.

They're never forced. But why shouldn't they get a bonus to archery of some sort, to represent their guerilla warfare focus? What is the harm in one Ranger class ability being that each chooses a weapon style (two weapon fighting, archery, spear fighting, etc..) that they get a special benefit in?

 

[Salamandyr]

I'm gonna be cantankerous and say that combining favored enemy and fighting style was brilliant.

First off, I hate the 3e favored enemy mechanic. The 2e was okay; it was an afterthought ability that rarely applied, the 1e one was overpowered but broadly applicable. But in 3e it was considered the main feature of the class, and was basically lottery whether it applied in the situation.

On the other hand, I like fighting styles...so using "favored enemy" rather than a unique mechanic, but as a fig leaf explanation for why a ranger has particular skills with certain weapons completely works for me.

And rangers should keep spells. The ranger should feel a bit jack of all trades-ish, with an emphasis on woodland skills and outdoor survival. The more martial oriented ranger-the elite Special Forces soldier who can slip in and out places without being seen, slaughter everybody around them, and stand toe to toe with monsters with nothing more than a toothpick and their trusty ka-bar is a high level fighter, not a ranger.

 

[Mistwell]

I'm gonna be cantankerous and say that combining favored enemy and fighting style was brilliant.

First off, I hate the 3e favored enemy mechanic. The 2e was okay; it was an afterthought ability that rarely applied, the 1e one was overpowered but broadly applicable. But in 3e it was considered the main feature of the class, and was basically lottery whether it applied in the situation.

On the other hand, I like fighting styles...so using "favored enemy" rather than a unique mechanic, but as a fig leaf explanation for why a ranger has particular skills with certain weapons completely works for me.

And rangers should keep spells. The ranger should feel a bit jack of all trades-ish, with an emphasis on woodland skills and outdoor survival. The more martial oriented ranger-the elite Special Forces soldier who can slip in and out places without being seen, slaughter everybody around them, and stand toe to toe with monsters with nothing more than a toothpick and their trusty ka-bar is a high level fighter, not a ranger.

For the most part I agree, combining favored enemy and fighting style works. And, I think it fits the Tolkienesque nature of the class (which is the iconic version I prefer). Fighting giants in the mountains comes with a different set of fighting styles than fighting orcs in the forest or Drow underground. I'm cool if they simply assign a set of fighting style class abilities depending on the sort of background set of experiences you choose.

 

[Dausuul]

They're never forced. But why shouldn't they get a bonus to archery of some sort, to represent their guerilla warfare focus? What is the harm in one Ranger class ability being that each chooses a weapon style (two weapon fighting, archery, spear fighting, etc..) that they get a special benefit in?

I'm reluctant to define ranger abilities in terms of weapon style.

First, I generally disapprove of class and feat abilities that push you toward using a particular weapon; they lead to the situation where a warrior will leave a magic battleaxe lying in the dust, or sell it for beer money, because her specialty is the longsword.

Second, a focus on weapons seems to me like the wrong direction for the ranger. The fighter is the weapon specialist of D&D. The ranger's weapon of choice should be the terrain; ambushes, stealth and evasion, maximizing the use of cover, making use of difficult terrain and natural hazards to hinder the enemy. Actual weapons are whatever works best for the battle at hand. The ranger should never be reluctant to switch off between bow, dual swords, spear, or anything else.

All that said, being a Dex-based warrior, rangers will obviously prefer weapons that work best with Dexterity. That means ranged and finesse weapons, which leads to... archery and dual wielding. Imagine that. But you could have a ranger with high Strength who fights with a greatsword instead. That's fine too.