D&D 5E The Dual Wielding Ranger: How Aragorn, Drizzt, and Dual-Wielding Led to the Ranger's Loss of Identity

[Chaosmancer]

any border and any threat does not work for monster hunter characters, the rangers of the north I know less about but others tend to guard one area, hunt one type or tend to be complex orders and d&D rangers are none of those they seem to be guys in the wood with rather unpleasant hate of different kinds of hummanoids.

look everyone can see they lack something properly otherwise we would not have this discussion, how would you make them better if it was up to you?

I think the point is, is there a significant difference between the rangers who defend the border between civilization and the Northern Woods where the fey creatures roam and the rangers who defend the border between civilization and the Raging Desert where the Elemental forces of the earth and sky come to life and the rangers who defend the border between civilization and the Underdark where ancient horrors sleep?

I think there is a problem in how the ranger's lore is presented, but that is simply a need to make them more epic, and not focus on their weakest interpretation.

 

[jayoungr]

then what is its niche and why is fuzzy a good thing?

This thread is full of people circling around describing the niche. If you're looking for a neat summary in a few words that makes you say "Aha, bullseye!"--I'm not sure that can be done. But I don't believe every class has to have that.

Personally, I see the Ranger as being to the Fighter and Rogue what the Druid is to the Cleric and Paladin. Yes, the Druid is more mechanically distinct from the other two because of shapeshifting; I do think the Ranger could have used some similar unique "banner" mechanical feature, but I see that class occupying a similar thematic niche. I am also sympathetic to the wish to see a Ranger without spells, even though I'm also not bothered by the very idea of the Ranger being a spellcasting class, as some seem to be.

As for why fuzzy can be a good thing, try substituting the word flexible. Not being tied to a rigid concept creates freedom for the player to be creative and for the character to become what the individual party needs him/her to be. Bards have also been criticized in this thread, but I have played in a lot of 5E parties with bards, and on the whole, I've loved the fact that those are characters who can slide in to fill whatever gaps are discovered. Is the party missing a blaster? A healer? Someone who can take some hits or pick locks? A bard can be any of those, depending on feat and spell choices.

 

[jayoungr]

@Mind of tempest, I had a further thought on the Ranger's niche: I believe the Ranger is intended to be the supreme master of the Exploration pillar of play, at least in a natural environment (as opposed to a constructed dungeon). It's just that this pillar gets neglected in a lot of games, for one reason or another.

 

[Mind of tempest]

@Mind of tempest, I had a further thought on the Ranger's niche: I believe the Ranger is intended to be the supreme master of the Exploration pillar of play, at least in a natural environment (as opposed to a constructed dungeon). It's just that this pillar gets neglected in a lot of games, for one reason or another.

it lacks rules or at least proper instructions on how to do it, most new guard do not even know what a hex crawl is.

 

[Minigiant]

it lacks rules or at least proper instructions on how to do it, most new guard do not even know what a hex crawl is.

The problem is old guard and new guard. The older generations don't know how to handle fantastic nature or high level wilderness exploration.
The younger generations don't know how to do mundane wilderness exploration without making it boring nor the history and importatance of ranger organizations.

So everyone who the Ranger of XYZ are but not what they do.

"Of course there are rangers out there in the the wild borders. Fighters and wizards would be never survive"
"Never survive what?"
"I dunno. But they'd be killed. Only rangers and druids have those skills. And Druids don't care about people."
"Skills? Which skills?"
"Nature. And Dual wielding or archery."

 

[Mind of tempest]

The problem is old guard and new guard. The older generations don't know how to handle fantastic nature or high level wilderness exploration.
The younger generations don't know how to do mundane wilderness exploration without making it boring nor the history and importatance of ranger organizations.

So everyone who the Ranger of XYZ are but not what they do.

"Of course there are rangers out there in the the wild borders. Fighters and wizards would be never survive"
"Never survive what?"
"I dunno. But they'd be killed. Only rangers and druids have those skills. And Druids don't care about people."
"Skills? Which skills?"
"Nature. And Dual wielding or archery."

yeah, the ranger lacks both its place in the world and a core concept.

 

[Minigiant]

yeah, the ranger lacks both its place in the world and a core concept.

Incorrect.

Rangers have a place in the fantasy world.

The problem is people keep taking that role out, saying they cannot find the point to rangers, then ask for help filling back the hole.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Incorrect.

Rangers have a place in the fantasy world.

The problem is people keep taking that role out, saying they cannot find the point to rangers, then ask for help filling back the hole.

yeah, but it is nut us taking that out, it is the designers who lack knowledge of how to do exploration beyond a dungeon crawl.
plus it lacks a core archetype which people just get.

 

[Minigiant]

yeah, but it is nut us taking that out, it is the designers who lack knowledge of how to do exploration beyond a dungeon crawl.
plus it lacks a core archetype which people just get.

The ranger has core archetypes. The issue is designers and world builders remove it.

It's like having cleric class without deity worship be the norm. You will just have wizards who can heal.

This why defining aspects of the ranger to many are basic fighting styles. Make your wilds tame, your monsters confined to dungeons, your treks easy, your governments unresponsive and then rangers become pointless.

 

[Dioltach]

I'm not a game designer, but I agree with some of the criticism of rangers that's been expressed here. I've never really been comfortable with ranger spells, mostly because they seem to have been tagged on without really adding anything: usually, by the time the ranger has access to them, power levels have increased to the point where they don't offer any real benefit. Favoured enemy seems too specific for a particular role to be such a key feature of the class.

So I'd probably do something like this:

D12 hit dice.
Bonus to save vs poison.
Lose favoured enemy, instead add something like "favoured environment" (with possibilities including not just forests, deserts, mountains etc. but also urban and underground environments). At low levels, the ranger gets bonuses on Hide, Search, Spot, Survival. Maybe bonuses on saves vs natural threats in that environment. Later on, hide in plain sight and improved initiative. A few levels up, add "nature's scout": the ranger can take the form of a bird (or other natural flying creature) native to the environment. Next is "nature's hunter", when the hunter can take the form of a big cat (or other natural hunting creature) native to the environment. Add new favoured environments along the way.

This creates a tough fighter who excels in a scouting and fighting role in particular environments, with some added supernatural abilities to spice it up. Enough versatility to work in wilderness, urban and dungeon settings.

Like I said, I'm not a game designer, so I can't judge how balanced this would be, or whether this is what other people want the ranger to be. Just saying that this is what I'd like to see.