D&D 5E Rangers in 5e

[Plane Sailing]

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).

Not sure how you jump to that conclusion when much of *this very thread* doesn't think so!

 

[Shadeydm]

What concerns me is we've already been told fighters will be the best at fighting and that the best archer in the realm would be a fighter.
Now we find that with the right specialty and background we can make the fighter "rangery".
This leads to the question of who will actually make a ranger (class) to play a ranger (concept) if the fighter can outshoot and outfight the ranger and do "rangery" stuff too? They will have to do something pretty special mechanically for the ranger or I would expect the "rangery" fighter might make him a relic of editions past.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

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.

Not no, but Hell no. The above statement shows your ignorance of previous editions. Rangers were, until 3.5 a warrior subtype. The only roguish abilities they originally had was the ability to surprise and in turn not be surprised very easily. Bring back the warrior ranger.

 

[Minigiant]

I understood the designers plan as that they would look at what really makes a ranger special. What makes a ranger not a woodsy fighter or forest rogue. By looking into what would make a ranger, they can justify its existence.

I think the best way is to focus on the ranger's various focuses: Enemies and Environments. Like the rogue picks schemes, the ranger picks "something" that altered them dramatically.

They can be the "dragonhunter ranger" or the "arctic ranger" or the "giantslayer ranger". They could get various class features that help them in their various specialties but have them broad enough that they are useful outside of the specialties. The desert rangers +2 AC in light armor, fire resistance, and ability to spot lightly obscured hidden enemies aids him in the desert and the jungle. The kobold hunter ranger can disarm and spot traps as well as any rogue and is okay when outnumbered.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I like the old ranger of 1st edition without the spells.

The ranger is a tracker and specialist fighter who hunts certain types of creatures. The dual wielding and the archery don't need to be a special part of the class.

 

[Sadrik]

Not sure how you jump to that conclusion when much of *this very thread* doesn't think so!

Everyone was not the right term "many" would have been better. I did not literally mean everyone, that would be an impossibility. It is better to state that many in this thread think the ranger should be a stealthy wildernessy commando. That is done very well by doing a rogue with a wilderness background and archer specialty. YMMV.

 

[ComradeGnull]

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.

This sounds more like a very nice idea for the core schtick for an Alchemist class, not a Ranger. Too big a departure from the earlier versions for many people to swallow.

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.

Because there are people who have been playing the Ranger class for 20+ years now, and who are going to be really insensed if it is removed from the core game. Realistically, removing any core class that has existed since 3e or before is a non-starter, and it seems likely that the 4e new core classes (Warlord, Warlock, etc.) are going to make an appearance as well. Ideas for turning Paladins or Rangers into multi-class hybrids or themes just aren't going to happen.

Not no, but Hell no. The above statement shows your ignorance of previous editions. Rangers were, until 3.5 a warrior subtype. The only roguish abilities they originally had was the ability to surprise and in turn not be surprised very easily. Bring back the warrior ranger.

2e Rangers had some Thief abilities as well- move silently, hide in shadows, and climb walls, I think. All abilities that match up pretty well with a hunter-type of archetype.

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.

This is one of the things that Pathfinder did really well with the Ranger. If you look through the Pathfinder Ranger spell list, all but a small handful of 4th level Ranger spells can be re-glossed as non-magical effects. They are things like charming animals or treating poison & disease that could easily be the result of herb knowledge, animal behavior knowledge, superior skill at moving through the wilds, etc., but without the overhead of needing to create a new system to reflect each of those particular knowledges. It doesn't even violate suspension of disbelief to have them limited to a few casts each day- there could be only a limited amount of an herb in a location, some animals might be ill tempered and not respond to any attempts at coaxing them, movement exploits might rely on temporary environmental features, etc.

In general I would like the Ranger to be a non-caster wilderness warrior/rogue, but if spells work the same way they do in Pathfinder- a very select spell list that omits many showy or obviously magical effects- I could totally tolerate it as a way to bring a lot of flexibility without investing in a lot of new system creation. You could tailor your spell selection to a theme/character concept (e.g., your Ranger is a herb/plant lore master, so you focus on spells like Cure Light Wounds, Slow Poison, and Cure Disease) but still have some flexibility when required.

I mentioned this recently in another thread, but I would like to see the Ranger be the equivalent of the Rogue/Thief for wilderness encounters- filling a utility role but able to chip in with significant damage under the right circumstances. Just like you want a Thief there to look for traps, pick locks, and scout ahead, you want a ranger to detect ambushes, track your quarry, avoid wandering wild animals, gather food for the whole party on the run, and generally keep your party safe from a hostile outdoor environment the way the Thief keeps you safe from a hostile indoor environment, with enough damage dealing options to keep him in the mix when the adventure moves indoors.

I'd also like to see Favored Enemy replaced with something more intersting and flavorful. Favored enemy seems like it should be a collection of optional feats that any class can take, not a required feature for Rangers.

I like de-coupling fighting style from class. Dual-wield and Rangers never made sense to me and seemed like an overt fanservice for the Drizzt crowd. Bows are totally on-message, but are also appropriate for fighters and rogues, so no reason to make them the sole domain of the Fighter.

In terms of combat effectiveness vs. a Fighter- a Ranger who focuses on a fighting style should be the equal of the Fighter in that style, but weaker when Fighting in another mode. An Archer Ranger is just as good as an Archer Fighter, but an Archer Fighter has better options, damage, and survivability when the fight moves to melee.

Also, animal companions- make this an optional feature at most. Heck, make it an optional feat/specialty for any class. No one should be required to deal with a pet just because they want to play a character with a nature connection.

Oh, and no Code of Conduct for Rangers (this made an appearance in 2e- maybe 1e too). Being a Ranger is a skillset, like being a Fighter or a Rogue, not a divine calling or a vocation.

 

[Minigiant]

This sounds more like a very nice idea for the core schtick for an Alchemist class, not a Ranger. Too big a departure from the earlier versions for many people to swallow.

It isn't too farfetched thou. A ranger of a certain type could know ho to make potions and poisons. Though the Healer spec does handle it now.

This is one of the things that Pathfinder did really well with the Ranger. If you look through the Pathfinder Ranger spell list, all but a small handful of 4th level Ranger spells can be re-glossed as non-magical effects. They are things like charming animals or treating poison & disease that could easily be the result of herb knowledge, animal behavior knowledge, superior skill at moving through the wilds, etc., but without the overhead of needing to create a new system to reflect each of those particular knowledges. It doesn't even violate suspension of disbelief to have them limited to a few casts each day- there could be only a limited amount of an herb in a location, some animals might be ill tempered and not respond to any attempts at coaxing them, movement exploits might rely on temporary environmental features, etc.

Even in 2e and 3e, ranger spells were subtle enough to be reflavored as nonmagical and more alchemy, lore, and herbalism.

In general I would like the Ranger to be a non-caster wilderness warrior/rogue, but if spells work the same way they do in Pathfinder- a very select spell list that omits many showy or obviously magical effects- I could totally tolerate it as a way to bring a lot of flexibility without investing in a lot of new system creation. You could tailor your spell selection to a theme/character concept (e.g., your Ranger is a herb/plant lore master, so you focus on spells like Cure Light Wounds, Slow Poison, and Cure Disease) but still have some flexibility when required.

I mentioned this recently in another thread, but I would like to see the Ranger be the equivalent of the Rogue/Thief for wilderness encounters- filling a utility role but able to chip in with significant damage under the right circumstances. Just like you want a Thief there to look for traps, pick locks, and scout ahead, you want a ranger to detect ambushes, track your quarry, avoid wandering wild animals, gather food for the whole party on the run, and generally keep your party safe from a hostile outdoor environment the way the Thief keeps you safe from a hostile indoor environment, with enough damage dealing options to keep him in the mix when the adventure moves indoors.

I'd also like to see Favored Enemy replaced with something more intersting and flavorful. Favored enemy seems like it should be a collection of optional feats that any class can take, not a required feature for Rangers.

I like de-coupling fighting style from class. Dual-wield and Rangers never made sense to me and seemed like an overt fanservice for the Drizzt crowd. Bows are totally on-message, but are also appropriate for fighters and rogues, so no reason to make them the sole domain of the Fighter.

In terms of combat effectiveness vs. a Fighter- a Ranger who focuses on a fighting style should be the equal of the Fighter in that style, but weaker when Fighting in another mode. An Archer Ranger is just as good as an Archer Fighter, but an Archer Fighter has better options, damage, and survivability when the fight moves to melee.

Also, animal companions- make this an optional feature at most. Heck, make it an optional feat/specialty for any class. No one should be required to deal with a pet just because they want to play a character with a nature connection.

Oh, and no Code of Conduct for Rangers (this made an appearance in 2e- maybe 1e too). Being a Ranger is a skillset, like being a Fighter or a Rogue, not a divine calling or a vocation.

I still think the best to handle the ranger is to take the 4E base (all weapons, light (and medium armor)) with Hunter's Quarry.

Then subclass it out into the different packages. The ranger would be the external warrior.

The Fighter is described by what he wields and wears:
Dual weapon fighter
Heavy armor fighter
Finesse weapon fighter


The Ranger is described by what he deals with:
Woodlands ranger
Goblinslayer ranger
Arctic Dragonhunter ranger


The "ranger type" could choose their fighting style, where they get magic or not, and their breadth of skills known.

The key is to make these external features broad enough to apply to situations outside their specialty. Instead of +1 AC in forests, the ranger gets +1 AC in obscured areas. Instead of bonus damage to giants, the ranger get bonus damage to all large or greater creatures.

 

[steeldragons]

The 5e Ranger
--by Steel Dragons

The Ranger is the warrior of the wilderness and borderlands. Where few dare to tread, the ranger boldly strides to protect their people's lands from encroaching threats. Rangers master these environments, know their denizens and are particularly skilled in dealing with whatever is found in "their" outdoors. Rangers are highly trained, not necessarily by tutors and mentors, but through necessity and the harsh surroundings in which they make their living and home. Whether by stealth and ambush, ranged attack, or up-close melee combat, a Ranger is able to handle herself admirably be it in combat or on the hunt. The Ranger is not some dumb axe-swinging barbarian or some haughty shining armored knight or paladin, she is a warrior of intelligence and skill and speed, with uncanny senses and powers of perception.

Ability Scores: As all warrior classes, Strength is very important to the Ranger for those times she must do hand-to-hand battle. Dexterity and Constitution are the Ranger's most important secondary abilities. Being fast and tough in the wild lands is necessary for survival. Most Rangers also opt for a moderate to high Intelligence as it effects their Tracking and Perception featrues. A Ranger with a 15 or higher in all 4 of these abilities receives a 10% XP bump.*

*This assumes one is using XP in the first place and following the optional rule of applying a bonus...which I just made up in my head as an "optional rule." I have no proof or insight that this would actually be a thing in 5e. But it worked for 1e, so why not throw it in there, right?

Hit Dice: Rangers begin play with 12 HP + Con. modifier. They receive their HD as a Fighter but recoup 1 additional HD per day after a short rest. (In essence 1 of the Rangers used HD is, effectively, "given back")

Weapons and Armor: A Ranger is able to use/be proficient in any type of weapons or armor. Note, however, that rangers suffer the same armor restrictions or penalties as Rogues when trying to be Stealthy.

CORE FEATURES (what Rangers have that no one else does):
Tracking: While any class might possess a tracking skill due to Background or Specialty, Rangers are simply better at it. They are capable of finding trails, tracks and noticing the most minor clues left by a creature's passage that would be overlooked by just about anyone else.

Keen Senses: A Ranger is finely attuned to his surroundings and has highly acute sight, hearing (as keen as their race allows) and above average smell to notice anything amiss. A Ranger is able to roll with an additional +2 (above and beyond Int. mod) against any attempt to Surprise them or their allies. They may also apply this +2 Senses Bonus to any Search or Perception rolls (looking for secret doors, noticing traps, etc.).

Favored Terrain: The Ranger is top warrior in their environment of origin, whatever the Player chooses that to be. Examples include (but are not limited to) Woodlands, Marshlands, Desert, Arctic/Tundra, Urban, etc...
This choice triggers a few things for the Ranger.

1. The Ranger receives a +2 applied toward skills/ability checks that are appropriate for their Favored Terrain (Swimming or Sailing for a ranger from the Coast, for example).
2. Similarly, the Ranger knows how to maneuver particularly well in their chosen environment. All Rangers gain a +1 to their Attack rolls while fighting within their Favored Terrain.
3. The Ranger gains an additional +1 to their Tracking rolls if in their Favored Terrain. They receive an additional +1 if what they are tracking is one of their selected Favored Quarry.
4. Rangers receive a +2 bonus to all Stealth checks while within their Favored Terrain.
5. The Ranger is able to select 2 types of creatures that were prevalent or recurring threats in their Favored Terrain. These creatures are the Ranger's "Favored Quarry". They are the greatest recurring and infamous threats to her lands and she has spent much time hunting and/or learning to fight them before setting off on the Adventurer's path. The Ranger gains a +2 to all damage rolls, regardless of weapon, against them. Examples/guidelines: A Ranger of Woodland Terrain might choose Orcs and Owlbears. A Ranger who favors/is from Mountain Terrain might choose Goblins and Ogres. A Ranger with Swamp Terrain favored might choose Lizardmen and Black Dragons.

Natural Healing: All Rangers are very knowledgeable about the flora and fauna and are able to gather natural materials (plants, fungi, animal parts or fluids) to assist in Healing and first aid for her allies. With these materials available (either on the Ranger's person or able to be found in the immediate area), the Ranger is able to apply ONE additional HD (of the person being healed, not the Ranger's HD) during a long rest. Having or finding these materials should be assumed to be 100% while in the Ranger's Favored Terrain. Other terrains might require some searching (DM's call.).

Stealthy: Rangers are particularly good at moving quietly and going unnoticed in just about any setting. All Rangers are able to use Stealth skill/checks as if they were a Rogue of their same level. (Note the +2 bonus while in Favored Terrain, above.)

That's it for "built in class features" as far as I'm concerned. Magic is totally optional, Fighting styles and preferences are totally off the table...wield dual hand axes, use a boar-hunting spear as your primary weapon, Sword n' Board, short bow specialist, whatever your concept dictates (and preferably makes sense for your homeland/Favored terrain).

Specialties and Variants may [and I would like to SEE] include:
--"Beastmaster": Ranger gets an animal companion at 1st level (maybe a second one at 5th?); is able to calm most normal non-magically controlled animals; never has to make a Riding check?; given time is able to train animals to do tricks. That kinda thing.
--"Arcane Adept": Magic-user background gives access to some minor arcane spells and Arcane knowledge/lore.
--"Nature Adept": Noviate background [I just made that up, but whatever they call the "Acolyte" version of a Druid] gives access to some minor druidic/nature spell and Nature Lore.
--"X-hunter": Where X= Dragons or Giants or Goblins or Demons or Undead or wutev's. Ex: Something something, extra good at tracking and fighting dragons, yada yada, knows lotsa Dragon Lore.
--Archer or Two-Weapon specialties. Big yawn. But we already know it's in there and the folks that want their Rangers to be those things will [and should] be all over those.

Think that's all I have for Rangers.
--SD

 

[The Shadow]

--"Nature Adept": Noviate background [I just made that up, but whatever they call the "Acolyte" version of a Druid] gives access to some minor druidic/nature spell and Nature Lore.

The traditional term would be 'Ollamh'.

--"X-hunter": Where X= Dragons or Giants or Goblins or Demons or Undead or wutev's. Ex: Something something, extra good at tracking and fighting dragons, yada yada, knows lotsa Dragon Lore.

This would make a great specialty for any class, I'd say.

 

[Minigiant]

Favored Terrain: The Ranger is top warrior in their environment of origin, whatever the Player chooses that to be. Examples include (but are not limited to) Woodlands, Marshlands, Desert, Arctic/Tundra, Urban, etc...
This choice triggers a few things for the Ranger.

1. The Ranger receives a +2 applied toward skills/ability checks that are appropriate for their Favored Terrain (Swimming or Sailing for a ranger from the Coast, for example).
2. Similarly, the Ranger knows how to maneuver particularly well in their chosen environment. All Rangers gain a +1 to their Attack rolls while fighting within their Favored Terrain.
3. The Ranger gains an additional +1 to their Tracking rolls if in their Favored Terrain. They receive an additional +1 if what they are tracking is one of their selected Favored Quarry.
4. Rangers receive a +2 bonus to all Stealth checks while within their Favored Terrain.
5. The Ranger is able to select 2 types of creatures that were prevalent or recurring threats in their Favored Terrain. These creatures are the Ranger's "Favored Quarry". They are the greatest recurring and infamous threats to her lands and she has spent much time hunting and/or learning to fight them before setting off on the Adventurer's path. The Ranger gains a +2 to all damage rolls, regardless of weapon, against them. Examples/guidelines: A Ranger of Woodland Terrain might choose Orcs and Owlbears. A Ranger who favors/is from Mountain Terrain might choose Goblins and Ogres. A Ranger with Swamp Terrain favored might choose Lizardmen and Black Dragons.

Natural Healing: All Rangers are very knowledgeable about the flora and fauna and are able to gather natural materials (plants, fungi, animal parts or fluids) to assist in Healing and first aid for her allies. With these materials available (either on the Ranger's person or able to be found in the immediate area), the Ranger is able to apply ONE additional HD (of the person being healed, not the Ranger's HD) during a long rest. Having or finding these materials should be assumed to be 100% while in the Ranger's Favored Terrain. Other terrains might require some searching (DM's call.).

Those abilities are too specific and have the same flaws of Rangers of the past. Favored Enemy/Environment works for only in the area or on the target chosen, forcing the DM to constantly use that enemy/environment. Even if the DM tell them of what the best choice is ahead of time, they are stuck with it.

A better way is to make the bonuses more broadly usable.

Forest Ranger
Can apply his Hunter's Quarry to Geographical Lore, Spot, and Stealth checks.
Can craft a Healer kit for half price
Ranged attacks ignore ACC bonus for half cover.
Always consider lightly obscured in an open natural environment and heavy obscured in light obscured natural environments.

Koboldhunter Ranger
Can apply his Hunter's Quarry to Find and Remove Tracks, Intimidate, Spot checks.
Can deploy a Hunter's trap as a action
+2 Ac when being attacked by more than 2 enemies
Can make one attack with a finesse weapon when making a Dodge action

 

[Greg K]

I prefer my rangers as light and medium armored (in 5e terms) non-spell casting warrior survivalists/trackers/hunters. While most most would be wilderness based, I want to keep it open for 3e's urban ranger.

I also want an option for spell casting rangers. However, for such an option, I want spell casting available at first level rather than having to wait until 4th level, 9th level or whatever.

 

[Sadrik]

I also want an option for spell casting rangers. However, for such an option, I want spell casting available at first level rather than having to wait until 4th level, 9th level or whatever.

This is where I say if you want some spell casting MULTICLASS then!!! Plese make no gish base classes. Focus on developing well thought out multiclassing rules.

 

[Greg K]

This is where I say if you want some spell casting MULTICLASS then!!! Plese make no gish base classes. Focus on developing well thought out multiclassing rules.

I don't want to rely on multiclassing. I don't like requiring my players to hoop jump for viable concepts for a campaign. I think the spell casting ranger is a viable option despite my preference for non-spell casting rangers as default. Keyword being *option* much like how a somewhat common 3e house rules involved rangers giving up spell casting for bonus feats (which became an official option in Complete Champion).

Despite that, we are pretty much in agreement. As I wrote in the PAX thread:

The lightly armored stealthy survivalist warrior. Backgrounds and specialties should allow creation of the following
a. A lightly armored archer leading a rebellion from the forest (Robin Hood, himself, would, probably, be a Fighter with archery style and Survival skills since he was a nobleman trained in heavy armor and served in the Crusades before returning home) (Edit: the nobleman Robin Hood that served in the Crusades may have it's origin in a later telling from the 16th Century. Therefore, the light armored version would be appropriate for other versions)
b. A lightly armored outdoorsman/tracker living on the edges of civilized society. With an animal companion, one might have something along the lines of Grizzly Adams. Without an animal companion, one might have a character along the lines of Daniel Boone, Davy Crockett or even Lewis and Clark.
c. A non-raging lightly armored tribal warrior fighting with two weapons (see the movie Last of the Mohicans)
d. A sword and shield warrior working patrolling the borderlands as part of an organization protecting civilized society from humanoids or monsters
e. A two handed sword wielding beastmaster ( Beastmaster TV series or movie with various critter companions)
f. A military scout
g. an urban based ranger (see 3.0 Masters of the Wild, 3.5 Unearthed Arcana, 3.5 Cityscape Web Enhancement 1).

 

[Sadrik]

I don't want to rely on multiclassing. I don't like requiring my players to hoop jump for viable concepts for a campaign.

It does not have to be a hoop if the rules are written in a way where multiclassing is not an after thought...

 

[steeldragons]

Those abilities are too specific and have the same flaws of Rangers of the past. Favored Enemy/Environment works for only in the area or on the target chosen,

Obviously. That's why they are "Favored". They are the things the Ranger has the most direct experience with.

forcing the DM to constantly use that enemy/environment.

First, that's just a ridiculous statement. It doesn't "force" the DM to do anything. Nothing in D&D "forces" the DM or players to do ANything.

Any player who just makes up their Ranger without finding out A) What kind of terrain they'll be playing in, primarily...or at least starting in and B) what kind of creatures are common to that terrain/setting is either being foolish/naive or choosing to play an "outsider" on purpose

"The road-hardened looking ranger from the far off wilderness stalks his way into the tavern. His reasons his own. A scruffy beard of reddish blond hair hugs his jaw and chin belaying his origin as a member of the south-men tribes, immediately in obvious contrast to the dark browns and black haired heads of the locals..."
​

...which is totally fine, of course and walks in [to the campaign], eyes open, with the knowledge that he has traveled out of his "home environment" to this other land...where his skills MAY apply sometimes against certain foes, but not all of the time. What's wrong with that?

Every once in a while, the party happens to be somewhere where the Fighter, Rogue and Paladin are left awestruck watching the normally quiet Ranger standing in the midst of battefield of slain enemies as he yanks his spear out of the last to fall. The ranger looks at the party and says, "What?! Never had to kill a hobgoblin before?"

Even if the DM tell them of what the best choice is ahead of time, they are stuck with it.

So, is the issue that they only get this 1 terrain? and, in the case of my completely hypothetical list of abilities, 2 favored enemies? We can fix that.

I wouldn't really have a problem if a feature of the class were that you could gain additional favored terrains and all of the bells and whistles that comes with it (Personally, I very much like the idea of having the favored enemy, attack and movement bonuses, etc...dependent on the terrain choice). But it would have to be worked out in some way that made some sense...not, "We traveled through a desert for 3 days, now I have Desert Terrain too!" or "I just fought my first drow! Now I can add dark elves to my favored enemy/quarry too!" nuh-no.

I'm not sure what would be the smoothest way to do that...by level gain and/or length of time/training in a certain area...if you come across (in the game/setting/story) a plot where you begin to encounter drow as the masterminds behind a whole scheme/story arc, and you run into them multiple times and eventually begin hunting them down into the Underdark...then, yeah, at some point in there, as DM, I could see letting you add Drow to your list.

A better way is to make the bonuses more broadly usable.

Forest Ranger
Can apply his Hunter's Quarry to Geographical Lore, Spot, and Stealth checks.
Can craft a Healer kit for half price
Ranged attacks ignore ACC bonus for half cover.
Always consider lightly obscured in an open natural environment and heavy obscured in light obscured natural environments.

Koboldhunter Ranger
Can apply his Hunter's Quarry to Find and Remove Tracks, Intimidate, Spot checks.
Can deploy a Hunter's trap as a action
+2 Ac when being attacked by more than 2 enemies
Can make one attack with a finesse weapon when making a Dodge action

"Better", as you know, is an entirely subjective term. I see nothing in your examples that is inherently "better" than what I proposed.

Making something more "broadly usable" is not really a feature to the archetype of the class, as I see it...or the archetype I was proposing as a default.

A Ranger is NOT just a "Fighter-Thief"...from the Latin "Fighter - best at fighting no matter where he goes" and "Thief - best at sneaking around in any environment".

A Ranger is the best warrior there's going to be in the environment with which they have the most experience and training...which others, even from the same region, do not because they are not out in it all of the time, like the ranger is. Their fighting and hiding skills are all wrapped up in where they are coming from...what they have the experience dealing [hunting, fighting, defending from, avoiding, etc...] with.

Now, that experience changes and grows, of course, so I probably should have thought ahead and written in something that allows for gaining additional Favored Terrains as they leveled up/gained more experience in different areas of the setting. That makes sense.

Not to mention one of what you propose is simply a variant specialty, "X [Kobold]-hunter Ranger", of what I suggested. I don't love/would tweak its implementation, but yeah, that's the idea.
--SD

 

[Minigiant]

[MENTION=92511]steeldragons[/MENTION]

Narrow favored enemies/environments do force the DM to use those enemies/environments
ven if the DM informs the player of the availability of the choices.

Even if the DM informs the player of the choices, if the character is locked in on his choices or gets few total choices; the DM is locked in too.

Player: I want to be a ranger, what are the good enemy choices.
DM: Well the first area is is forest filled with goblins, Orcs, and regular animals.
Player: Cool.

One or two adventures later, the party attempts to leave the forest. The ranger player becomes disgruntled as his ranger lacks any of the enemies or environments in the new area. The DM is forced to either deal with a severely weakened PC, allowing the ranger to gain or retrain Favored enemies on the fly, or has to drag old enemies and environments to the new area.

Dealing with specialists outside their element for long periods of time without retraining is often torture for all involved. It is as bad is sneak attack rogues in very simulationist rule sets against the undead. It is rare that you can get a player to deal with being hampered for long periods of time these days. Often they slowly get less and less interested unless the DM is very skilled.

Retraining or quick training of FE gets a 50% approval at best from D&D fans. It could work as an option but would make the basic unaltered ranger still hindered.

Which leaves many DMs locked around their ranger"s favored enemies and environment, forced to gift the ranger in another way, or having to deal with a player whose scowl grows every session. There are ways around it if the DM has the skill but the base is the above.

 

[Sadrik]

The ranger can be the smart (INT based) warrior. Skills and knowledge! Gobble up the warlord and the ranger and you have a pretty good class that can stand on its own.

The most important thing is that Many themes can be applied not just a guy from the forest in an organization that you may or may not like...

Themes I want to plug into the ranger:
Investigator (skilled warrior with a keen eye for details)
Bounty Hunter (tracker and lots of skills)
Military Tactician (understand environment and how to lead)
Dragon/Demon/Giant/Undead/Witch Hunter (knowledge of these beasts and how to slay them)
Assassin (humanoid hunter... Can fit here or elsewhere but a ranger would be a good one)
Van Helsing (Undead lore master with smarts and know how)
Captain of the city watch (leader who is sharp with lots of knowledge of the city and its environment)
Savage woodsman (hermit in a cabin way too far out, but knows how to survive)
Explorer (knowledge of different environments and maps and survival and how to address new cultures and their customs)
Sailor (knowledge of the sea and navigatining its waters and sea creatures and many other skills, perhaps a captain with leadership qualities)
Swashbuckler (being smart and witty never looked as good as being a ranger with a rapier and dagger)
Horseman (skilled at training animals and fighting from them) - as a side note I think every buddy should be able to have an animal companion or familiar if a caster
Aragorn (A guy in the forest in an organization)

I thought I would move my thoughts on this over to this thread. As it seems more applicable.

 

[steeldragons]

[MENTION=63508]Minigiant[/MENTION]

I appreciate your attempt to explain your position...by elaborating that "FT/FE forcing the DM"means "it is forcing the DM" ...and I'm not going to bother with an "is not/is too" tete-a-tete.

Suffice it to say, I heartily disagree with your presentation of opinions as facts of how things are and what a DM must do and how players will/do behave and react. We'll just leave it at that.

And on that last point, if it is accurate to your games, I am sorry that you have to experience and/or plan around such petulance.

--SD

 

[Minigiant]

I am sorry if it seemed that I placed my opinions as facts.

My point was just to describe how narrow class features can often upset players and place additional stress on DMs. This might cause them to avoid certain experiences or constantly reuse other to boost the happiness of some players or save their own sanity. It is a miserable experience if it occurs.