D&D 5E Rangers in 5e

[Cybit]

At the classes panel at Prime, it was stated that should they do rangers, (which they most likely are), they would go back to their LOTR / Aragorn roots, and not be much like the Rangers of 3/4E.

 

[tlantl]

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 can't understand why anyone would believe that the ranger or the paladin are going to be non casters.

For 3 and a half editions the ranger and the paladin were spell casting classes. This means that these classes are most likely going to continue to have some form of spell casting ability. How they do that is anyone's guess at the moment.

Personally I hope some form of arcane magic like they had so many years ago, even if it's a magic missile cantrip.

I hope they delay spell casting until fourth or fifth level though.

 

[Ratinyourwalls]

Just roll Rangers and Warlords into the Fighter. If you want to play the Ranger, pick Fighter, select a matching theme/background, and select the Ranger build.

Same goes for the Warlord. D&D has too many classes right now.

 

[Sadrik]

Just roll Rangers and Warlords into the Fighter. If you want to play the Ranger, pick Fighter, select a matching theme/background, and select the Ranger build.

Same goes for the Warlord. D&D has too many classes right now.

Conceptually I am on your page, however they cannot go backwards and opt out certain classes like the ranger. Warlord they could opt out I think without too much trouble. I think combine warlord and ranger into one class.

 

[Jester David]

The ranger, like the paladin and bard, survives as a separate 1-20 class because it has been around so long, in so many iterations.

What makes the ranger unique? Multiple combat styles paired with wilderness lore and nature magic.

Rangers should be able to dual wield and use bows. Their powers and features should work for both. They should be able to track and hunt and set traps and the like.
Favoured enemies are also a fun mechanic.

 

[Minigiant]

Just roll Rangers and Warlords into the Fighter. If you want to play the Ranger, pick Fighter, select a matching theme/background, and select the Ranger build.

Same goes for the Warlord. D&D has too many classes right now.

"Easier said than done."

Good luck trying to cover the many traditional aspects of a ranger or warlord in a single background/specialty combo.

Good luck providing groups who don't use specialties or backgrounds the opportunity to play ranger and warlords.

They gave the sorcerer a melee option and 1/2 the fans freaked, imagine if they screwed up devolving a traditional base class into 3 skill and a pair of feats.

 

[The Shadow]

What makes the ranger unique? Multiple combat styles paired with wilderness lore and nature magic.

Rangers should be able to dual wield and use bows.

Actually, dual-wielding for rangers is a rather recent development, for which we can pretty much thank our good friend Drizzt. It has virtually nothing to do with the ranger concept as such.

 

[Jester David]

Actually, dual-wielding for rangers is a rather recent development, for which we can pretty much thank our good friend Drizzt. It has virtually nothing to do with the ranger concept as such.

By "recent" you mean 2nd Edition and 1989. For D&D that's ancient. I think it's pretty much an iconic ability now.
Drizzt and Robin Hood are the go-to examples of everything rangery, and both tend to alternate between bows and swords. Plus an animal companion.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

There's a lot of people that think the Ranger and Warlord (and maybe even Paladin) ought to be rolled up into the Fighter.

I disagree. I think the Fighter needs to be more clearly labelled as the soldier. The guy who fights for a living. The Ranger fights for survival, the Warlord leads those who fight and the Paladin fights for justice. The Fighter, he just does it because he can.

 

[KidSnide]

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.

I agree that classes shouldn't have specializations that cause their effectiveness to be too narrowly tied to a specific opponent. I think the designers recognize that this was a problem with many editions of D&D, and we probably won't see the 1-3e style of favored enemy in D&DN.

That said, it was pointed out in another thread that you can get the story of a specialist without the mechanical limitations of a specialist by giving that kind of character a range of more broadly applicable abilities that happen to all work with a favored enemy or terrain. For example, a giant hunter could have abilities that work well against large creatures, abilities that work well against humanoids and maybe some extra skill at climbing. I'm not sure how that interacts with "rangers as an organization", but I do think they will move away from pure specialists.

-KS

 

[The Shadow]

By "recent" you mean 2nd Edition and 1989. For D&D that's ancient. I think it's pretty much an iconic ability now.
Drizzt and Robin Hood are the go-to examples of everything rangery, and both tend to alternate between bows and swords. Plus an animal companion.

I have to say I don't remember a 2e rule tying rangers to dual-wielding. I'm willing to believe it's there, but my memory draws a blank.

I certainly don't think it was baked into class features until 3e? Or am I wrong.

 

[steeldragons]

I have to say I don't remember a 2e rule tying rangers to dual-wielding. I'm willing to believe it's there, but my memory draws a blank.

I certainly don't think it was baked into class features until 3e? Or am I wrong.

I do believe, much to my chargrin, that it was an actual rule in 2e (though I couldn't give you a page number even if I had the book).

As the legend goes, Salvatore had the inside scoop that dual-wielding was going to be introduced in 2e and thus, when writing/creating Drizzt incorporated it into his character. Whether this is fact or industry legend, I can not say.

What really confuses ME is how Drizzt having a Figurine of Wondrous Power all of the sudden translated into all rangers simply must have an animal companion!?!?! I suspect that was a 3e-ism. Drives. Me.Crazy.

 

[Minigiant]

I agree that classes shouldn't have specializations that cause their effectiveness to be too narrowly tied to a specific opponent. I think the designers recognize that this was a problem with many editions of D&D, and we probably won't see the 1-3e style of favored enemy in D&DN.

That said, it was pointed out in another thread that you can get the story of a specialist without the mechanical limitations of a specialist by giving that kind of character a range of more broadly applicable abilities that happen to all work with a favored enemy or terrain. For example, a giant hunter could have abilities that work well against large creatures, abilities that work well against humanoids and maybe some extra skill at climbing. I'm not sure how that interacts with "rangers as an organization", but I do think they will move away from pure specialists.

-KS

Exactly.

A while ago I suggest an alternate version of favored enemy that where the ranger gets skill training and offensive and defensive bonuses that they can apply to various situations.

So a forest ranger would get a bonus to stealth and detection, charm animals, and deal more damage with light weapons like bows and finesse weapons (promoting Dual Wielders and Archers). Where a giant slayer would have a bonus to Climb and Jump, bonus damage to large or greater creatures and something else.

---

This could apply to ranger organizations

Night's Watch eerrr... Arctic Ranger

+2 AC in medium armor.
Spot+3
Survival+3
Cold resistance
Some sort of power or whirlwind attack.

 

[Steely_Dan]

As the legend goes, Salvatore had the inside scoop that dual-wielding was going to be introduced in 2e and thus, when writing/creating Drizzt incorporated it into his character. Whether this is fact or industry legend, I can not say.

The dual-wielding thing was originally a drow trait (1st Ed Fiend Folio).

 

[steeldragons]

The dual-wielding thing was originally a drow trait (1st Ed Fiend Folio).

AH YES! I knew that!...didn't remember...but did know. But how it then translated into a ranger skill...?...and I am sure I've heard a story about Drizzt getting it because it was going to be in the 2e books...so guess that's legend, then. Cuz you're right, dual-wielding was a drow ability first.

Maybe the story has it backwards and Drizzt being a ranger (as opposed the reality of him being drow) is actually what caused the dual-wielding to come in in 2e for rangers...I honestly dunno.

 

[Steely_Dan]

AH YES! I knew that!...didn't remember...but did know. But how it then translated into a ranger skill...?...and I am sure I've heard a story about Drizzt getting it because it was going to be in the 2e books...so guess that's legend, then. Cuz you're right, dual-wielding was a drow ability first.

Maybe the story has it backwards and Drizzt being a ranger (as opposed the reality of him being drow) is actually what caused the dual-wielding to come in in 2e for rangers...I honestly dunno.

The editor (The Silver Shard) asked Salvatore about a companion for Wulfgar (the original main protagonist), off the top of his head he came up with a dual-wielding good drow ranger; due to the immense popularity of the Drizzt character, they stuffed dual-wielidng into the 2nd Ed ranger, which came out about 2 years after The Silver Shard.

At least that's how the story goes as I've read it.

 

[Remathilis]

The editor (The Silver Shard) asked Salvatore about a companion for Wulfgar (the original main protagonist), off the top of his head he came up with a dual-wielding good drow ranger; due to the immense popularity of the Drizzt character, they stuffed dual-wielidng into the 2nd Ed ranger, which came out about 2 years after The Silver Shard.

At least that's how the story goes as I've read it.

:Casts Dispel Legend:

David "Zeb" Cook, designer of 2e, said when asked where the two-weapon ranger came from,

"I'm not sure where the ranger took shape, though I know it wasn't an imposition because of Drizzt. (Frankly, I've never read more than bits of the Drizzt series.) It was more to make them distinct and it fit with the style and image."

 

[Steely_Dan]

:Casts Dispel Legend:

David "Zeb" Cook, designer of 2e, said when asked where the two-weapon ranger came from,

"I'm not sure where the ranger took shape, though I know it wasn't an imposition because of Drizzt. (Frankly, I've never read more than bits of the Drizzt series.) It was more to make them distinct and it fit with the style and image."

*counter-spells* (what I read about Salvatore cannot be denied); Drizzt and the dual-wielding ranger are a fluke.

 

[Remathilis]

Counter-spells (what I read about Salvatore cannot be denied); Drizzt and the dual-wielding ranger are a fluke.

Right.

Drizzt dual wields because he is a drow.
He also happened to be a ranger.
Zeb Cook designs a new ranger for 2e and independently gives it dual wielding to distinguish it from other warriors.
Both come out within a year of one another.
People assume A causes B or B causes A.

Correlation =/= causation.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Right.

Drizzt dual wields because he is a drow.
He also happened to be a ranger.
Zeb Cook designs a new ranger for 2e and independently gives it dual wielding to distinguish it from other warriors.
Both come out within a year of one another.
People assume A causes B or B causes A.

Corellation =/= causation.

In your opinion, I think David was just covering.