D&D 5E Rangers in 5e

[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?