D&D General Seeking Input: A moment of prayer for the Ranger

The problem is that the archetype you are describing is only fun in 5e for levels 1-4.

After that those sorts of wilderness challenges are just too mundane.

In a more grounded sort of game where all characters were more mundane the archetype could work.

As it stands wizards will be casting great spells and paladins unleash holy wrath and protective fields while the proposed ranger is good at hunting beasts and being sneaky against foes without magical senses. Rather lacking.
I wonder if this scaling problem is just communicating to us that 5e (and similar) character power levels are excessive? I feel like in my mind I was playing in The Black Company by Glen Cook (amazing books btw) and 5e rapidly ratched up to superhero scale. And this may actually be the problem? Rather than the Ranger as a class, its that the Ranger becomes superflous as power level increases?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

<quotes clipped to focus on narrow point>



Specific to niche and protection -- D&D as a game, focuses on specific things at the expense of others. Being able to do certain things is exciting or not based on whether the rest of the game facilitates them.

In a super-low-magic homebrew, I had a character who knew how to knap flint arrowheads, make beeswax waterproofing, weave his own cord and start fires with a bow-drill, and otherwise not just survive but stay a viable combat threat for years in the wild without resupply. In D&D, where even the more travel/survival-focused earlier editions usually amounted to checks to make sure you found the dungeon and travelled there in the least amount of time (minimizing purchased rations used and wandering monster checks made before getting there), those abilities just aren't going to see play (even if, as others have alluded to, there isn't a spell which can do it better).

So, to make a short answer long, yes -- a ranger's niche is weak in this game. Whether you want to protect it is another matter. And, as TiQuinn points out, if you do want a ranger-that-behaves-rangery to be a viable character type, there needs to be events in the game with differential outcomes based on whether there is a ranger there to tackle them.

If you want to do that, crafting a new ranger class to do so is a reasonable first step. However, where you will really need to start is both the skill section and the overall task resolution mechanisms in general.

Specific to the "army scout" idea -- this is a simplification, but IRL army scouts do a specific task well. They make sure they know where an opposing army is, as well as what other hazards and difficulties there are for their own wilderness-hardened (but less mobile) army behind them to move through the wilderness. In practical terms, they make sure that the eventual engagement occurs at the time and place most advantageous to their side, and with the highest information deficit in their favor (and their own side spent a minimal amount of resources getting into that position).

In D&D, for a proposed non-magical ranger, perhaps that translates to this: If the default is the DM saying that a wilderness encounter is happening and drawing out a battle map, party with a ranger gets to select from a set of pre-made maps. Depending on level and roll, they may also get placement of their choosing, deciding the direction their enemy is coming from, and eventually massive stealth bonuses for each character until they reveal themself (letting their opponents rush past and potentially get flanked or surrounded). It's still not going to be as effective as real life, in that being in optimal formation isn't quite as make-or-break in D&D as it is in real life*, high mobility (including flying) and poor zone-of-control means flanking already happens a lot, and the characters that most benefit from remaining hidden until the right time already can do so. *and some things will never translate perfectly in a game where one successful hit doesn't drop or at least render ineffective most opponents.

Even then, this is only going to work when choosing the situation of the engagement is an option. In the common D&D scenario of invading a dungeon full on emplaced opponents, a ranger's abilities are going to be reduced to hopefully not being surprised by their opponents and not giving away their presence at inopportune times*. And that's reasonable, IRL -- much like cavalry, archery, etc., scouts are a unit type which can only be used most effectively in given scenarios. It's just really frustrating in a game where you generally play one character most of time if their applicability is too scenario specific. This is the same reason why 'still mostly effective when equipment-limited' types like monks and swashbucklers have generally been upgraded over the editions**.
*although much like similar cinematic scenarios, that will depend on how well their comrades can successfully perform the 'don't touch anything' task.
**as that quality is recognized as not going to show up enough to make it more than a ribbon quality otherwise


So instead rangers generally get abilities which vaguely approximate (or at least allude to) doing what IRL army scout types would do (and then we argue over how appropriate an approximation they are). Many of the spells are kinda-sorta like choosing the optimal terrain situation, just without the pre-planning. If they weren't specifically coded as spells, most of them individually would be fine with me -- instead of casting entangle, you maneuvered the enemy into an entrapping terrain feature no one had noticed until you invoked the ability. However, I would prefer something like a broad expansion of battlemaster-like maneuvers, or even better a broad expansion or using skills, items and terrain to your advantage (and then make rangers the best at doing so). But that will always run into the issue of making a class highly scenario--dependent.

Overall -- people have been doing good job of recommending other attempts at rangers which do not use spells. Most are, however, either a collection of abilities which 1) are not unlike the spells (just not magic) and 2) only vaguely approximate what IRL rangers do (and thus the eternal debate over applicability); or (like Level-Up) come from a game/version of the game which overall makes non-magical task resolution more interesting. If one of them speaks to you, go for it. I'm mostly just laying out the challenges of the task, not offering a specific solution (or poo-pooing the attempt, I want to make that clear -- I think it's a noble endeavor I love seeing).
Firstly thanks for the very deep dive, really enjoyed reading it!
I am begining to understand from the range of responses to this post that this is a common issue (yay not alone) and that there is a gap between what I think I am playing at the table and the game that I am playing.
My understanding of what I want to do is from fiction and things like the Scout Regiment in Attack on Titan, and they have a power level that is usually on a human scale.
And as folks like yourself are pointing out, as level increases the skills brought by the Ranger becomes, well, less important I guess?
 


But the issue I would see there is that the other classes are then feeling like that segment of the game is purely for the Ranger.
Not necessarily. Each class just needs to have features that cover all three pillars of game play- combat, exploration and social interaction. If the other classes have an exploration feature, then the exploration segment of the game won't feel like it's there to make the Ranger its' sole benefactor.
 

Not necessarily. Each class just needs to have features that cover all three pillars of game play- combat, exploration and social interaction. If the other classes have an exploration feature, then the exploration segment of the game won't feel like it's there to make the Ranger its' sole benefactor.
I think we’ve got to be careful about expanding the scope from let’s make changes to 1 class to let’s redesign the whole game.
 


Yes, this is 100% the problem, but without going down the road of every class being spellcasters, or the opposite extreme of limiting the spells to preserve the ranger's niche. The remaining option is to make wilderness/ travel/ movement a bigger part of play? But the issue I would see there is that the other classes are then feeling like that segment of the game is purely for the Ranger.
I guess we can contrast this with the more "generic" or versatile abilites of the Rogue, which folks have pointed out really shines in all sorts of terrains, situations and seems not to need any niche protection.

I would argue that if you emphasize wilderness travel, then you are enabling lots of other character abilities and spells that are frequently characterized as weak. Animal Handling, for instance, doesn’t get a whole lot of use but is much more likely in a wilderness game. Finding mounts becomes more important.
 

I wonder if this scaling problem is just communicating to us that 5e (and similar) character power levels are excessive? I feel like in my mind I was playing in The Black Company by Glen Cook (amazing books btw) and 5e rapidly ratched up to superhero scale. And this may actually be the problem? Rather than the Ranger as a class, its that the Ranger becomes superflous as power level increases?

I don't think it is a problem. It is just the way it is.

As others have said, the ranger has always been magical. They used to essentially be an enhanced fighter but now all classes are aimed to be balanced.

The game used to be all over the place for the pace of power advancement. Classes had different XP for levels and there were XP bonus % for different things. So it is too simplified to say characters had a certain level of power at a certain level.

Now the tiers are intentional.

1-4 is apprentice and small town stuff.

5-10 is what the game focuses on. Yes, it is super powered but fireball and fly are level 3 spells so it was always designed this way.
 

I wonder if this scaling problem is just communicating to us that 5e (and similar) character power levels are excessive? I feel like in my mind I was playing in The Black Company by Glen Cook (amazing books btw) and 5e rapidly ratched up to superhero scale. And this may actually be the problem? Rather than the Ranger as a class, its that the Ranger becomes superflous as power level increases?
Funny thing is 5e power level is generally lower than prior editions, at least for casters.

1e recharged slowly but had several times as many spell slots per day, plus enemy hit points were MUCH lower. 2e and 3e casters had volumes of slots and recharged quickly, plus hit points were less than 5e. Oh, and there were forms of spells auto-leveling and you could have a near-infinite number of spells going at once as Concentration didn't exist.

So 5e has seriously curtailed caster power. There is the matter of increasing monster hit points but 5e warriors get all their attacks at the same bonus, so that feels somewhat mitigated.

You might want to go for a game with lower PC power levels. Maybe MERP or Rinequest.
 

I would argue that if you emphasize wilderness travel, then you are enabling lots of other character abilities and spells that are frequently characterized as weak. Animal Handling, for instance, doesn’t get a whole lot of use but is much more likely in a wilderness game. Finding mounts becomes more important.
But what if I don't want to emphasize wilderness travel? A class shouldn't depend on the DM changing their preferred style to make it work.
 

Trending content

Remove ads

Top