D&D 5E Rangers in 5e

[paladinm]

Looking over the history of the Ranger class.. In the original Strategic Review article (and 1e), the Ranger was a fighter with some (relatively) minor druid spells, a few Magic User spells as well, tracking, and bonuses when fighting a "giant class" monster. Starting in 2e, the class shifted a purely wilderness character, lost the MU spells, gained a few Thief skills, and broadened the "giant class" fighting to "favored enemy". 3e continued this progression and added the archery or 2-weapon options, and 4e dropped just about all "spells" and made the Ranger a completely martial character, a sort of fighter/rogue hybrid.

In BECMI, there was no real "ranger" class; but "foresters" had the same fighter/MU abilities as elves, and "druidic knights" were paladins that used druid spells.

Going forward, should rangers go back to having some limited "magic" abilities, or should they remain strictly martial? If the latter, could not the class be replaced by fighters with the right skills/feats/theme?

If there is still a "ranger class", I'd personally like to see more of a return to the "original" concept. But then, I am a grognard.

Thoughts?

 

[Grazzt]

Looking over the history of the Ranger class.. In the original Strategic Review article (and 1e), the Ranger was a fighter with some (relatively) minor druid spells, a few Magic User spells as well, tracking, and bonuses when fighting a "giant class" monster. Starting in 2e, the class shifted a purely wilderness character, lost the MU spells, gained a few Thief skills, and broadened the "giant class" fighting to "favored enemy". 3e continued this progression and added the archery or 2-weapon options, and 4e dropped just about all "spells" and made the Ranger a completely martial character, a sort of fighter/rogue hybrid.

In BECMI, there was no real "ranger" class; but "foresters" had the same fighter/MU abilities as elves, and "druidic knights" were paladins that used druid spells.

Going forward, should rangers go back to having some limited "magic" abilities, or should they remain strictly martial? If the latter, could not the class be replaced by fighters with the right skills/feats/theme?

If there is still a "ranger class", I'd personally like to see more of a return to the "original" concept. But then, I am a grognard.

Thoughts?

I'd like to see it go back to the original concept as well. If it means designed through skills/feats/themes/whatever, that works. Stand-alone class works too.

 

[Yora]

I think magic should be optional. There are many good reasons to have spellcasting rangers and non-casting rangers. Being able to chose to learn spells or focus more on other aspect of the class would be great.

 

[paladinm]

I kinda liked how they did the "hybrid" classes in BECMI. Paladins (and Avengers - Not the same as in 4e) progressed as fighters until they hit "name level"; then they gained the casting and turning abilities of a cleric of 1/3 level (rounded down). I personally would start this at level 1, which means a paladin would operate like a 1st level cleric. Just extend that to rangers using druid spells and we're all set. Very simple. You could do something similar with Bards (except they use thief/rogue as the "base" class).

 

[Astrosicebear]

I think if they are going to make the Ranger a core class it has to differentiate itself from an archer themed fighter, which leads to basically adding some kind of magic system to the 'wilderness' base themed ranger.

I would like to see a strong argument for stronger archer fighters than archer rangers, except when dealing with the wilderness. Its the Rambo vs Aragorn argument, but the archer fighter is a killing machine with a bow, where the archer ranger is a wilderness survivalist. These are base assumptions, themes in the system would allow any customization.

 

[Khaalis]

JMHO, but this goes back to having to define what one means when using the term "Ranger".

The modern definitions are:
* an official in charge of a forest, nature reserve, etc. aka 'forest ranger' or 'warden' (UK)
* WWII soldier specialized in surprise raids and attacks in small groups (aka Commando)
* a soldier specially trained in guerilla warfare, especially in jungle terrain
* a person who ranges over large areas; a rover
* one of a body of armed troops employed to police a district (e.g. Texas Rangers)
* (UK) a member of the senior branch of the Guides (Ranger Guide)


Tolkien Archetype: Secretive, independent groups of extensively trained grim and hardy warriors skilled with sword, bow and spear also known for their keen senses and great tracking ability; patrolled the boundaries of Eriador and Ithilien, defending their territories from evil forces.


General Gaming: In most fantasy games/fiction, rangers are mostly synonymous with archers and hunters. They are woodsman skilled at surviving in the wild. They may be lumped in with Fighters or Rogues but can often be a separate tree of classes all their own. Archery is generally their favored skill, although most can fall back on swordplay if necessary. Rangers may also be skilled in some form of wilderness or nature magic. They may be very good at fighting a specific type of enemy, and often take on the role of The Hunter against such foes. Rarely, a Ranger may have access to guns as well as bows. Common sub-classes of the ranger archetype in these games:
* Sniper Ranger
* Bow and Blade Ranger
* Beastmaster Ranger
* Dual Wielding Ranger
* Trapper Ranger
* Magical Ranger


When you look at the modern definition, it pretty much defines the martial aspects of the ranger as we know it. In general, the ranger archetype covers:
* More skilled with a bow than the 'average' fighter, generally because they are game hunters.
* Skilled with other forms of combat, often dual-weapon and stealth.
* Stealth/Stalking/Hunter skills
* Detecting and Creating hunting traps
* Tracking and leaving no trail
* Taming/Training animals
* Medical/Herbal skills

Only rarely, mostly in D&D and 1 or 2 other sources do rangers have any minor magical skill.

Thus I would like to see the base ranger be the Commando/Scout/Hunter archtype. It could be a standalone class to maintain verisimilitude with older versions, or better yet be a build option under the Fighter class. I do think an "option" should be allowed to have the magical ranger, but it shouldn't be the core build. It appears that most people don't prefer the magical Ranger over the martial, except those that see the Ranger as the Paladin equivalent to the Druid.

As for Fighter Archers vs. Ranger Archers, I would have to disagree. Throughout history, most archers fit the Ranger archetype far more than the Fighter archetype. Even in military use archers were lightly armored and armed. Yes heavy warriors could use bows, but not to the extent of a trained archer. If Ranger is going to a sub-class of Fighter then there is your Archer Fighter. If Ranger remains its place as a stand-alone class, then this should be one of their primary choice for combat training (and it should be better than a generalist fighter).

 

[paladinm]

So where would Aragorn (arguably the "model ranger") fit into all this? He wasn't particularly known for his use of the bow, or of "two-handed fighting." Yes, he was great in the wild, and was an amazing tracker. He had some herbalist healing ability, which got ramped-up into full blown "lay on hands"-type healing when he accepted his destiny. Would he have switched or multi-classed into paladin then? He did have some undead control (when holding Anduril).

I don't see that he fit either the druidic or martial molds. Maybe he wasn't a true ranger??

 

[Minigiant]

The main thing is to define what a ranger is.

To me, a ranger is a warrior trained to survive in the wilderness alone.

The ranger knows spells out of neccesity. Rangers often spend a lot of time away from town and other people. They learn magic to make up for this lack of back up. Healing spells to patch up after dealing with some wolves. Posing removal to deal with a snakebite. Animal charms to escape an angry mama bear.

Most of these things could be done with with nonmagical methods too.

 

[Yora]

I think rangers get their spells for the same reasons that bards do. They spend a lot of time on their own in dangerous places, so they try to pick up some of the tricks that other people they meet there use to survive. Rangers are expected to have contact with druids and share many interests with them, so they learn some of the basic spells druids use for survival in the wilds.

 

[Khaalis]

So where would Aragorn (arguably the "model ranger") fit into all this? He wasn't particularly known for his use of the bow, or of "two-handed fighting." Yes, he was great in the wild, and was an amazing tracker. He had some herbalist healing ability, which got ramped-up into full blown "lay on hands"-type healing when he accepted his destiny. Would he have switched or multi-classed into paladin then? He did have some undead control (when holding Anduril).

I don't see that he fit either the druidic or martial molds. Maybe he wasn't a true ranger??

Actually, to me, Aragorn is a true ranger (either as a sub-fighter or a martial class of its own), but he multi-classed. In fact he is the commander of the Rangers of the North. He is a highly skilled tracker, hunter and survivalist as well as an accomplished Ranger (aka commando) warrior. He prefers the sword but is also described as being trained other weapons including the bow and short blades.

As for the multi-classing, I would say he multi-classed into Warlord. He is after-all a leader of men. He led the Rangers of the North. He led almost every battle he was in, in the stories. He inspired people to follow him including other rulers, and in the end he became the twenty-sixth King of Arnor, thirty-fifth King of Gondor and the first High King of the Reunited Kingdom.

As for the magical properties vs, undead.... eh. That could either be a property of Narsil/Anduril (it IS magical after-all) or it could simply be his incredible leadership ability, or in D&D terms, a Paladin-like PrC atop his other classes.

 

[Khaalis]

@ Yora and Minigiant

These views are why I say a magical version should be included. Some people, yourselves included, basically see the Ranger's relationship with Druids pretty much the same as the Paladin is as to the Cleric and the Bards is as to the Wizard.

That's fine, but my personal preference and one that people have been yelling for since early 2E is for a non-magical ranger (which we got in 4E, but it was too narrow). I can't count how many threads there were here and and on other boards (not to mention other products) over the years trying to make balanced non-magical, martial rangers.

This is why I think the core build should be non-magical but at the same time present the option for a magical version as well. It also fits in the WotC design philosophy that they need "simple" classes as core and that magic is by default "more complex" than martial classes.

Side note:[/b I personally disagree with the whole "we need a simpleton class". The old idea of "hey he's new, give him the fighter" line of thinking needs to die in a really BIG bonfire.

 

[KidSnide]

Reading this thread (and others) suggests to me that WotC has similar problems with all of the traditional martial classes (fighter, ranger and rogue). Each of these classes have had significantly different mechanics through the editions, and the community understanding of "what is a ranger" (or fighter, or rogue) is varied and far from consensus. WotC simply can't pick one example of "ranger" without causing an uproar in a significant part of the community.

That suggests to me D&DN needs to have a "big tent" when it comes to these character classes. Other than light armor, tracking and better-than-average use of weapons, there isn't that much that all the ranger variants share. The game will need to accommodate archer rangers, two-weapon rangers, wilderness trick rangers, magic-dabbling rangers, and some kind of jack-of-all-trades rangers.

What's the difference between a fighter that wears light armor and decides to wield two weapons and a similar ranger build? Maybe not much. Maybe the fighter is marginally tougher and the ranger has slightly better out-of-combat abilities? But I don't have a problem if the difference is small. When we get the 4e-style tactical combat module, it's totally ok if all three martial classes access the same pool of martial exploits, just like sorcerers and wizards access the same pool of arcane spells. The "concept" of rangers and fighters overlaps and it's ok if the mechanics overlap also. Yes, the two classes need different mechanical cores, but they can overlap at the margins. Forcing the classes into truly separate buckets strikes me as foolish consistency. I wouldn't worry about it.

-KS

 

[Frostmarrow]

I think rangers should get a bonus when fighting size large monsters. That could be their thing.

 

[LordArchaon]

Already blogged a bit about this here and will blog again in detail about the Ranger, because I have many ideas about it!

My thought basically revolves on the fact that the for martial classes should not differ as much in tactical role (4e's role) but in "Strategical Role". That is *HOW* you accomplish your tactical role. Your tactics may vary on a round-per-round basis, but your strategy is something more tied to your class. Other than Strategy and perhaps very tied to it, the martial classes should also differ in preferred "combat field", in physical terms.

Ranger would have the Strategical Role of "Skirmisher", meaning that everything he accomplishes he accomplishes it moving a lot. Even the stealthier or even magical rangers should (IMO) do their tricks while moving a lot.
Ranger's preferred "combat field" would of course be open wild areas, with cover preferably.

For comaprison, I'd have the following for the other Martial classes:

Fighter:
- Strategical Role: Stalwart (visible, up-front, no tricks, moves slowly)
- Preferred Field: Any field in which many enemies can concentrate around him (he can also "create" this field by goading/challenging or good positioning.
Rogue:
- Strategical Role: Sneak (poorly visible, dirty tricks, moves to get advanatge and hit weak spots)
- Preferred Field: Urban/cramped environment, concealment, objects to use as advantage, traps. At best when enemies are isolated or positioned in a way as to offer weak spots (flanked).
Warlord:
- Strategical Role: Commander (very visible, second line of battle, uses allies and psychology to control and lead the battle)
- Preferred Field: Any field in whcih allies have room to maneuver and operate in concert. At best in war-like situations in which formations and advanced tactics can be used.
Ranger (to state it again clearly)
- Strategical Role: Skirmisher (always moving, using terrain for advantage/cover, advanced combat styles that match high speed and "shock" tactics)
- Preferred Field: Open and wild fields in which enemies move fast and require the speed and *range* of the Ranger to be dealt with. At best in forests or similar environments in which guerrilla-like skirmish can be set up.

 

[steeldragons]

I too would like to see the Ranger as a strictly Martial/Non-caster class (as I would like all Fighter and Rogue types, the abilities [though not spells!] of Paladins and Bard being the notable exceptions).

If "magic" is viewed as being part of the ranger archetype, then it should be minimal and not come into play until very high ("name", 10th or higher) level.

I am totally fine with class variants involving "magic use/powers", for pretty much any of them (shadow-magic assassin variant, druid-magic rangers, sorcerer-sword-swingers, totem-channeling barbarians, whatever) but the initial "base" martial classes should be as "magic-free" as possible.

The Paladin's abilities are imbued with divine grace. Barbarians rage by working themselves into the fury (not spirits or "primal magic" or whatever, though the culture may color it as such). Warlords are just good at leading, inspiring, and exuding confidence.

But nobody is "using" magic or spells (again, the Paladin skates the exception line there).

5e needs to make Fighter-types and Rogue-types as cool and fun as Casters without "just add magic."

 

[paladinm]

Hmm.. but you can create a "non-magical" ranger easily with feats, skills, and themes, so why do you need an entire class for that? Of course, I think the same about a "warlord".

Curious.. how is a bard's relationship to a Wizard akin to a paladin's relationship to a cleric? Historically, a bard was based on the thief class with a charm ability thrown in.

 

[billd91]

Reading this thread (and others) suggests to me that WotC has similar problems with all of the traditional martial classes (fighter, ranger and rogue). Each of these classes have had significantly different mechanics through the editions, and the community understanding of "what is a ranger" (or fighter, or rogue) is varied and far from consensus. WotC simply can't pick one example of "ranger" without causing an uproar in a significant part of the community.

That suggests to me D&DN needs to have a "big tent" when it comes to these character classes. Other than light armor, tracking and better-than-average use of weapons, there isn't that much that all the ranger variants share. The game will need to accommodate archer rangers, two-weapon rangers, wilderness trick rangers, magic-dabbling rangers, and some kind of jack-of-all-trades rangers.

I have no problem with a big tent approach. That sort of approach gives the local game the most freedom to do what they want without having to file off the serial numbers and reskin everything.

That said, when it comes to disagreements in what a ranger (or other class) is, I think we need to look at the changes that spark the disagreements. There seems to be pretty broad consensus that the ranger is oriented toward fighting and surviving in the wilderness and that they should be appropriately set up to excel at doing so. There are nitpicks here and there about how this is done within the bounds of the shifting game mechanics even when the general gist of the ability remains intact - tracking % vs non-weapon proficiency vs skill ranks, surprise bonuses vs hide/move silently skills vs stealth skill, surprise bonuses vs spot/listen skills vs perception skill. But I think they are relatively minor.

The greatest inter-edition conflict seems to come over combat mechanics and that seems to be where the greatest shifts are as well - probably none bigger than 2e's introduction of dual wielding. Maybe that's where 5e should focus its efforts when figuring out how to actually make players who favor different editions all happy.

 

[Minigiant]

@ Yora and Minigiant

These views are why I say a magical version should be included. Some people, yourselves included, basically see the Ranger's relationship with Druids pretty much the same as the Paladin is as to the Cleric and the Bards is as to the Wizard.

That's fine, but my personal preference and one that people have been yelling for since early 2E is for a non-magical ranger (which we got in 4E, but it was too narrow). I can't count how many threads there were here and and on other boards (not to mention other products) over the years trying to make balanced non-magical, martial rangers.

This is why I think the core build should be non-magical but at the same time present the option for a magical version as well. It also fits in the WotC design philosophy that they need "simple" classes as core and that magic is by default "more complex" than martial classes.

Side note:[/b I personally disagree with the whole "we need a simpleton class". The old idea of "hey he's new, give him the fighter" line of thinking needs to die in a really BIG bonfire.

The thing is the ranger doesn't NEED spells. It NEEDS the ability to survive in the wild.

The ranger is like those guys on the Nature shows who know all sorts of tricks to survive out in the wild. The main differences are there is no crew helping him out and the animals actually attack him.

Rangers aren't necessarily warrior druids. They pick up what is needed for survival. Some archery and melee skill for the aggressive beasts. Some spells for self sufficiency and the faker parts of nature. Some stealth and detection for efficiency. They are a special jack of all trades.

 

[LordArchaon]

Hmm.. but you can create a "non-magical" ranger easily with feats, skills, and themes, so why do you need an entire class for that? Of course, I think the same about a "warlord".

Curious.. how is a bard's relationship to a Wizard akin to a paladin's relationship to a cleric? Historically, a bard was based on the thief class with a charm ability thrown in.

Well, these are good questions IMO. To me, each class should always be thought out in comparison to the others, at least the ones that are similar in either role (strategical, not tactical, see my previous post in this thread) or power source. I already talked about what could really differentiate martial classes for good in the previous post, and some magic could be added in there too (specifically, Assassins would get some Shadow magic, Rangers some Primal), but the first thing to consider is always "identity" when making a class. A Ranger shouldn't just feel as a fast, light-armored fighter. His/her *mindset* should be completely different, it should appeal to completely different players.

I think the Bard could be an odd-ball class with a nearly undefined power-source. The incredible artistic talent of the bard can make him/her have access to typically arcane things, but sometimes also typically divine, martial, shadow or whatever. They should be jack of all trades in this aspect too. This can be purely thematic or mechanic too, depending on how you do it. Anyway, the thematic differences of the Bard are very clear (compared to Wizards and Rogues), and their strategical role would be similar to that of a Warlord, but with trickery. Also, they wouldn't "buff" their allies in "war-like ways" (although it could be a result of their more "morale" buffing). I think a good way to differentiate the Bard and make it really ROCK as a class (pun intended), would be to consider their affinity to morale and music/art in their very mechanics. They would in some way "set the rhythm" of battle, and they'd act a bit as 4e's Resourceful Warlords in that they make their allies do even more when they perform right (a "crescendo") or recover better if they perform badly. They could change initiative orders as to represent an "acting in concert" thing, and when these "concerts of actions" are successful, they could feel really magical, making something really cool happen, spell-like effects of various kinds. What should be clear is that most of these abilities come from their talent, not from a studied form of magic. They COULD also study magic (because they'd normally be quite Intelligent and fast learners even if not so intelligent), but everything would feel a bit like they were "dabbling", just as in 4e they can take a lot of MC feats and end up with a lot of other class powers.

I actually find it harder to really differentiate Paladin from Cleric. Their "hierarchy" is quite clear, but the true question for them is: "What are the differences between a Battle Cleric and a Healing Paladin?" - giving a clear answer to this question would solve the problem at its roots.

 

[paladinm]

The original paladin (from Greyhawk supplement) didn't have any spellcasting abilities. He was a fighter with Lay on Hands (healing), better saves, immunity to disease, detect evil, and Dispel Evil at 8th level. I think spellcasting was added in 1e to keep up with the original ranger.

Would that provide more of a distinction?