D&D 5E Rangers in 5e

[Khaalis]

Yeah, I dropped it from my most recent post because of some similar thinking. I think it's important, though, to have some kind of schtick for the ranger, but that's covered with the details that you go into. So the bow thing isn't necessary, or wanted by some. Give the ranger some nature, sneaky, and tracking then let the player choose the rest.

^^ THIS! So this! Yes, the class should still be a martial 'warrior' class, but divorced of a specific weapon style. Any source you look at that could be construed as the classic ranger archetype includes various weapon use. What really should make them distinct is in their "wilderness" aspects. Stealth, tracking, survival, ambush, terrain use (both special movement and for tactical gain [e.g using the terrain to your advantage and to foes' disadvantage]). That to me is where the Ranger should start to be differentiated from the Fighter.

On a similar note, the Barbarian should also be a 'warrior' base, but where the fighter is the trained soldier who uses tactics, skill, training, etc. the barbarian instead fights purely with wild abandon and ferocity.

As to the Paladin concern... the problem is that the Cleric is Already a Paladin by its core definition. If you truly want to separate the Cleric and Paladin then Clerics should be more Priests. By that I mean they should be primarily spellcasters, backers (4E leader role stuff), masters of undead perhaps, and gain much more "molding" based on their Faith, more like 2E specialty priests. The Paladin should then be the plate wearing military branch of the faith.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Again have to mention @Crazy Jerome but this time negatively: I disagree with the above post. Consider them as "hybrid classes" is exactly what kills their interesting side, and uniqueness. If Paladin is just Fighter with limited access to Cleric spells, then just go multiclass/dual-class/hybrid. A Paladin, to be a iconic, to be a true class, has to be different from both Fighter AND Cleric. Granted, it should have similarities, but it should offer an experience that you just couldn't get by simply mixing and matching Fighter & Cleric.

As @WotC_Trevor put it, we should instead focus on what's truly unique about these so called "hybrid" classes, so that they're not hybrids anymore. My Paladin thread to find out this uniqueness is open, too!

For clarity, I was using a bit of short-hand in an already overly long post. By "hybrid" in this context I don't mean flavorless mishmash of the two parents. If that was what we wanted, we wouldn't want any hybrids at all. You can see the distinction better in a theoretical "gish" hybrid than you can with the ranger, because the D&D ranger concept has been so mushy. If you blend weapons and magic into some kind of useful whole, make that a class, it stands conceptually between the fighter and the wizard. How it goes about that should, however, be somewhat different than a straight fighter/wizard would--yet share enough with them to easily multiclass with either.

The bard's useful power scope seems to be a blend of wizard and rogue. The schtick is "music", which is presumably in this context the best way to blend wizard and rogue seemlessly. There is no comparable, unique piece to explain how the ranger blends fighter/druid or rogue/druid or paladin/druid or whatever the heck it is that he blends--in part, because we can't agree on what he blends.

Or consider the paladin. The paladin is arguably in a much tighter window between the fighter and cleric, thanks to the original D&D cleric already being a armed and armored divine caster. Yet even in this tiny window, with nothing much else to distinguish it but a code and a few abilities, it manages to work pretty well. Whatever else it is, it isn't as mushy as the ranger. Perhaps it is the tight window that allows this to happen, since one of the reasons that the ranger is so conceptually mushy is that it is so spread out. Plus, the paladin doesn't have something as popular as the barbarian imposing on his schtick. Of course, you'll note that there hasn't been a massive call for the cavalier class to reappear, and perhaps schtick integrity is why?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

On weapons, agree with the call to attempt to divorce particular weapons from classes--or at least make them as broad as possible. Ideally, a rogue woudn't prefer a greatsword because of something inherent in its properties as they interact with his abilities, not because of arbitrary limits on what sneak attack works with. (Maybe using a big 2-handed weapon would make it more difficulty to get into position to make a sneak attack.)

An acid test: If some ranger characters aren't quite happy to use spears--you know, the premier weapon of characters that may stick an arrow into a large, wild beast without killing it--then there is something wrong with the ranger.

 

[paladinm]

Personally I've never liked the barbarian as a class. It seems like it would be better as a kit, or a "theme" in 4e terms. A barbarian has to do with background more than anything. The "raging" feature, which seems to be the one true distinguishing feature, can easily be a "feat." Without raging, a barbarian class is superfluous if you have a ranger class.

 

[variant]

This is why we need Talent trees in 5e. If you want magic, you can take the Nature Affinity or whatever Talent tree.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think magic should be optional for a ranger. Not required, not omitted. Optional.

I think 3e was pretty close on what a ranger should be conceptually, but the combat styles were too limiting. Broaden that and we're good.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Why an archer guy though?

I think that to be a successful archetype it is important to *completely divorce* weapon style etc from the class. Completely. Allow any ranger to choose any martial weapon, like we would allow any fighter to choose any martial weapon (or simple weapon if he prefers!)

Yes! The ranger is my favorite class. Well, the 1e ranger, at least. He's been neutered ever since. 2e and 3e made him Drizzt, 3.5 made him Robin Hood. I want to play Aragorn or Jim Bridger, or Rambo. SO in 3e my ranger didn't have a single ranger level. He was a barbarian/druid multiclass who ignored the rage and wildshape mechanics. Shoehorning the ranger into ANY combat style reduces the archetype you can model him after. No class should be shoehorned into any weapon style. Archery or twf or sword and board or bigass two handed weapon should be an individual choice. Class should not matter.

 

[Minigiant]

Maybe rangers could have access to a temporary herbal potion and poison system.

The ranger could gather materials each day via Nature or Dungeoneering skill check. Based on the ranger's current location, the ranger can create 4-5 potions/poisons a day. These potions and poisons could have the same effects as spells.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I could live with rangers having access to one ritual, but that is as far I can go when it comes to ranger spellcasting. I catch myself thinking of Crocodile Dundee as the epitome of ranger. He can survive in the wild, can throw things with great accuracy, he can kill a croc, summon bats, and fight hand to hand. He can also calm beasts. The role-playing challenge amounts to fish out of water in civilized settings approached with practicality rather than criticism.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

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.

Well if they do re-unite spell lists (rather than having fixed power lists for classes) then this is an excellent idea.

 

[SlimJim]

Personally, I'm not a fan of them having spells. If they have extremely limited spells, I would likely be okay with that. Otherwise, my main idea for the ranger was this: he gets his favoured enemy (perhaps favored terrain too, from pathfinder, or a choice of one or the other), some cool survival bits, and a combat focus, which works similarly to the rogue scheme. Much as the rogue gets a bonus background, the ranger gets a bonus specialty, which comes with even more benefits. I think the animal companion should either come as one of these choices, or else your animal companion is a non-combatant unless you take the beast master focus. I wouldn't even mind the magic system coming as one of these choices, but thats mostly just because I don't like rangers doing magic that much.
Including the usual combat focus, plus spells, plus combat pet is simply too much for a character to have IMO. I feel similarly about the druid, where I think they should choose between pet, wild shape, or spiritualist (4e shaman equivalent).

 

[Sadrik]

I am firmly in the ranger with no spells camp. I feel like if you want minor spells multi-class into Druid or wizard. Then you have them. I also think the best ranger possibly out there is the rogue with a wilderness theme. I mean it does everything that the rogue does. Give him The archery theme and you have a wilderness archer that is bad ass. Multi class into some Druid and you have something. That is not going to happen though we will have a ranger.

So what does that leave us with? A background, how do you base a whole base class on a wilderness background? Give them nifty specialties with their background? The ranger needs to exist on its own and a background is not enough. In factno background is better. Give it unique abilities that are neither rogue abilities nor are they fighter abilities. I think the only way you do that is to make them lightly armored and somehow still effective, you give them all weapons but they focus on one, you give them two backgrounds, one is a wilderness one (arctic, desert, forest, underdark etc.) (i am also ok with rangers without wilderness attached - let the player choose it!), I like the idea that the ranger consumuse some of the strategist portion of the warlord too. Finding weakness in enemies, perhaps tracking prey, developing tactical solutions. Ranger eats warlord?

 

[Shadeydm]

Yes! The ranger is my favorite class. Well, the 1e ranger, at least. He's been neutered ever since. 2e and 3e made him Drizzt, 3.5 made him Robin Hood. I want to play Aragorn or Jim Bridger, or Rambo.

Glad someone said it, the little Drizzt clones are the first thing that comes to mind about a ranger that needs to "die in a fire" to use the common phrase.

 

[Steely_Dan]

I agree the spell thing could be weird, but, man, there was a certain panache about your Ranger blapping something with a magic missile!

 

[Li Shenron]

I think that to be a successful archetype it is important to *completely divorce* weapon style etc from the class. Completely.

Absolutely!

I don't even thing any class should have "fighting styles" to choose from as in-built class features except the Fighter and the Monk. There is plenty of room between themes/feats and simply weapon & armor selection to build up a fighting style.

Also, let's realize that the introduction in 3.5 of Ranger's fighting styles weren't really needed by the concept of the class. The archery style was just thrown in because a lot of people weren't interested in the free 2WF feats, so they wanted something to compensate for not using those. Then other players complained that they weren't interested in neither the 2WF nor the archery feats because they wanted to have a Ranger with an even other style, at which point it's a fair complaint. The problem came from the original decision of giving fixed bonus feats to the class, but in 5e they are not bound to this, so far thankfully there is nothing really fixed that shoehorns any character into a "mandatory" fighting style*!

(*minor complaint, the closest thing to this is the automatic Eldritch Blast to all Warlocks)

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I listened to the little Pax interview that had Mike Mearls in it and I agree and disagree with what he said. He is perfectly aware that the ranger is easily made using a class such as the fighter, and an appropriate background and specialty but he goes on to say that they are going to create a ranger anyway because of the flavor.

Why can't Wizard's just write an entry about Ranger's as a society, which was one of the reasons he mentioned, and just leave it at that. I think a "Ranger" should be any class that fits the criteria set forth by the organization.

I fear we are going down the road of class bloat when the designers are already aware that you can create those archtypes using the core 4 plus backgrounds but still want to create the class anyway.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I want a modular ranger much like I want a modular druid.

Ranger is my favorite class, of the 1E variety -- a wilderness warrior who protects the realms of men against the hordes of evil monsters, who knows tricks of the wilderness and survival, who can use a limited number of weapons with great expertise, and who can suit up in heavy armor when tough assault troops are needed to take on giants and other threats. I prefer mundane rather than magical rangers, though I'd accept spells as a module (and would prefer mundane abilities that substitute for spells).

I skipped 2E, so was shocked and disappointed by the 3E dual-wielding ranger, who couldn't hang in melee due to light armor and lower hit points. The 3.5 ranger was a good fix -- my rangers usually augmented their longsword or handaxe/shield with a longbow -- but was still disappointed by being shoehorned into one of two fighting styles. I think the 4E ranger has provided the best set of choices, and particularly liked the animal companion option of the beastmaster ranger.

So I'd like to see 5E retain toughness, mobility, and wilderness focus for all rangers, while providing options for weapon specialization (more than just archery or dual-wield fighting styles), spellcasting/skill focus, and animal companions. I'd like, too, to be able to remake a 1E-style ranger in heavy chain, sword, and shield as a tough wilderness assault fighter without having to completely toss out class mechanics.

 

[Sadrik]

I fear we are going down the road of class bloat when the designers are already aware that you can create those archtypes using the core 4 plus backgrounds but still want to create the class anyway.

Rough, they need to get some people in there that can come up with some original ideas then.

I think everyone's ranger concept is best encapsulated as a rogue with a wilderness background (their thieves cant is reading trail signs) and a archery specialty (or two weapon fighting one).

Divorcing the weapon specialty and the blasphemy wilderness background is the way I would go with them. But since in previous editions that is all they were they have to be something else.

How about this concept:
Fighter is STR based
Rogue is DEX based
Monk WIS based
Ranger is INT based
Barbarian is CON based
Paladin is CHA based

This is as good a place as any to begin. Clearly STR is useful for all of these classes and I can see the Barbarian and Fighter can be combined in this design scope idea. Like upthread, I can see the ranger being a strategist and being an INT based warrior that swallows much of the warlords schtick. YMMV... this is the ranger after all...

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I fear we are going down the road of class bloat when the designers are already aware that you can create those archtypes using the core 4 plus backgrounds but still want to create the class anyway.

Well, I think I could live with a return to the concept of ranger, paladin, and barbarian as "sub-classes" of fighter. Make certain choices in character creation -- assuming all of the options are there -- and you get a "ranger" fighter that apes a prior generation ranger class. Have a pre-packaged background or specialty labeled "ranger" that gets one archetype if you want to roll up the character quickly.

 

[The Shadow]

I listened to the little Pax interview that had Mike Mearls in it and I agree and disagree with what he said. He is perfectly aware that the ranger is easily made using a class such as the fighter, and an appropriate background and specialty but he goes on to say that they are going to create a ranger anyway because of the flavor.

That's not quite what I got out of it. He was talking a lot about starting with story and then building mechanics to reflect it, rather than coming up with a cool mechanic and then asking how to justify it with fluff after the fact.

When talking about the paladin, for example, he said that, sure, a cleric with the Knight background and the Defender specialty is kind of like a paladin. So if there's to be a paladin class, it needs to pull its own weight. So they ask themselves what makes a paladin unique and special, and then how they can mechanically "punch it up".

Likewise the ranger. It's not just a wilderness fighter with the fluff of belonging to an organization - presumably they will be coming up with mechanics to make it unique and special.