The Ranger: What is his shtick?

[Minigiant]

With Backgrounds and Themes being the current optional core method of using Skills and "how you do things", I began to wonder about what will happen to Rangers. This class has gone through many changes. And there are many opinions of what a ranger is among D&D fans.

Some see it as a light armored warrior. Others specialized the warrior aspect down to either a two weapon warrior or an archer warrior. Then there are others who get them heavy armor.

Then there are those who place the emphasis on the ranger's skills. Some focus on stealth, detection, survival and tracking. Others give it a more generic athletic skillets. Then there are more who focus on the terrain, some on a favorite terrain, others all terrain, and some only forests.

And then there is the hunter/favored enemy thing. Some see Rangers as hunters and border guards that specialize at dealing with certain types of beings. Whether it is is a previously chosen quarry or picked on sight as it is just a combat aspect is a whole other matter.

Then there is the whole pure martial, martial/cleric/ martial/druid thing.

So with this whole unity theme of the new edition and inclusion of backgrounds and themes, I see many of these thoughts stripped away from the base class. Then the player/DM can add them back to their particular preference.


But what should remain?
What do you think should be the ranger's special thing?
Or should we do the horrible act of killing the class?

 

[Ellington]

I think they should draw on inspiration from the scout class in 3.5; the warrior that focuses on indirect combat, skirmishing and speed. He'd be good at getting in some hits and getting out of the fray quickly. He'd maneuver around the battlefield to get into a good position, but wouldn't rely on that crucial backstab like the rogue does. A mechanic that would increase his speed wouldn't only help in combat, either, but could also help him in doing exploration and tracking.

I would also think the ranger should be able to get an animal companion, but should have an alternative if he doesn't want one. The quarry mechanic from 4E sounds like a great alternative if you want to be more of a solo badass. Maybe even some traps.

I don't like favored enemies since they're situational and I don't like combat styles since they're somewhat arbitrary. Favored enemies and combat styles should become themes available to all classes, like a sorcerer that seeks vengeance on the orcs that killed his family or the bard that focuses on two weapon fighting.

So in short, to me the ranger should be a lightly armored warrior that moves quickly and skirmishes. He's either a lone ranger (no pun intended) or has a trusty animal companion by his side.

 

[paladinm]

A ranger needs to lean toward being lightly armored, as his special abilities come from either a druidic or rogueish source. That being said, there almost need to be 2 different type of ranger: the "scout" type, which includes more of the rogue abilities; and the "forester" type, which is almost a druidic paladin.

In the Strategic Review, BECM and 1e, the ranger/forester was definitely more of a druidic paladin. In 2e and 3.x, there were more rogueish abilities added. In 4e and C&C, the class was virtually stripped of any "magic".

 

[Crazy Jerome]

My gut instinct is that what would make the most sense can't happen: Make a "scout" (or similar name) class to handle the core, mundane bits of the ranger for a lightly armored skirmisher, at home in the wild. Then make "ranger" a theme with some of the more offbeat but iconic bits.

Due to classic class names being retained, I think the tendency is to try to do something like that, but flip the names around. The problem is that then either "ranger" gets assigned to "wilderness, lightly armored skirmisher"--which ticks off a lot of people who want all or most of the offbeat stuff built in, or the "themes" that emerge to support it don't really fit what the name of the theme is.

I'd realy like to be proved totally wrong on this. It seems the finesse way out may be to make "ranger" the mundane class, but attach default themes to it that end up covering the offbeat stuff. Whether this is acceptable to people, I don't know, since I can't follow the logic of, "It is not enough to get the exact abilities I want. They must come from the source I expect and have the labels that I demand, or my world will die in flames from the inherent tension of this state of affairs!"

 

[Minigiant]

@Ellington & @paladinm

So what are you suggesting? A ranger is a just a warrior in light armor? Sounds like a fighter. In every edition a fighter could put on light armor and run around if they wished to.

Also at the moment, the designers are hinting that skills and companions are based on the themes and backgrounds. And there is a mention of a skirmisher background as well. Since it was mentioned that every class gets something unique. Seems like anyone can snag the light skrimisher woodsy guy thing.

EDIT: Personally I want the ranger's thing to be self sufficiency and favoritism. I love the favored enemy (or favored terrain) gimmick but there were too problems with it. The bonuses were so weak that the ranger's player would rarely feel that they were actually better at dealing with the enemy. Then it kind of forced the DM to include the enemy or terrain type, wrangling control from the DM. If they didn't then the already weak bonus is wasted.

It would be interesting if the favored enemy ability worked more like spellbooks. The ranger could collect lore about certain monsters, organizations, and terrains as they adventure. A fight with a minotaur grants a +1 versus Monstrous humanoids. Travelling through the desert grants immunity to exhaustion or fire resistance. Then the bonus could let DM dependent and the DM could throw out anything as the ranger has collected a host of knowledge bonuses.

 

[The Shadow]

I'm not seeing much reason why 'ranger' can't simply become a theme, and possibly a background too - taken by fighters, druids, rogues, or whoever.

Take the "Wilderness" background and the "Skirmisher" theme, and presto, you're a ranger. (Or perhaps "Archer" theme if you prefer. Heck, take one and then the other one at 6th level.)

(Same deal with the barbarian: "Tribal" background and "Berserker" theme.)

What, after all, does the ranger class bring to the table?

Tracking: It's been a feat in the past, but it arguably could be a skill in 5e.

Favored Enemies/Terrains: Sounds like a feat to me. Though again, depending on exactly how skills work, it could be folded into there, too. (I like Minigiants idea about monster lore - and that would tend to be a skill.)

Animal Companion: Again, feat territory - but in 5e might just be a background thing.

Spells: If you want them, take a level or two of druid or cleric or wizard, whichever you please. If you don't, stick with fighter and rogue.

 

[Meatboy]

I've always felt that the ranger tended to perform poorly as a main warrior. At least for 3e/4e they lacked the ac/hp to make effective front line combatants. To me their schtick was being the woodland rogue. Sure they may have some odd powers, like their magic. But mostly they seem to be characters that skulk about the outdoors using their skills to help the group gain advantages in such a setting while at the same time being a secondary warrior, generally using ranged combat and their animal companion to help out. This just smacks of the rogue just with a different local, woods/outdoors instead of urban/dungeon.

 

[hafrogman]

Ranger is a tough one to define. I'm very much of the opinion that fighting styles (twf/archery) should never define a class. And lightly armored warrior isn't much to go on. I also think we should divorce the ranger from the woods, as woodsman is more like a theme.

So I would go for a ranger is a warrior who is practiced in using his knowledge and experience of his environment to his advantage. I prefer the favored terrain schtick over the favored enemy for a few reasons. The biggest one is the strange way it was treated in 3.X with a ranger slowly accumulating a list of completely unrelated 'favored enemies' throughout his career. It seemed to dilute the idea of a 'favored enemy' into very much a list of 'random enemies I have bonuses against'.

It would be interesting if the favored enemy ability worked more like spellbooks. The ranger could collect lore about certain monsters, organizations, and terrains as they adventure. A fight with a minotaur grants a +1 versus Monstrous humanoids. Travelling through the desert grants immunity to exhaustion or fire resistance. Then the bonus could let DM dependent and the DM could throw out anything as the ranger has collected a host of knowledge bonuses.

I do like this idea, perhaps there is a 'home' bonus that a ranger is specialized in, and a 'floating' bonus that is refocused after spending a night or two in a new environment. Thus if you take an urban ranger and put him onto a boat, he may not be AS skilled out of his element, but he's also the first person to adapt and adopt to new circumstances. He's so used to studying and being aware of his environment that he's able to adjust to take advantage of his new surroundings.

But this does create a math issue as discussed above. What kind of bonus should we be talking about? Do we design based on the assumption that the ranger always has his bonus? Never has his bonus? 50/50? The larger the bonus is, the more meaningful it is, but the more vital it is to get an accurate answer to that question.


EDIT:

I'm not seeing much reason why 'ranger' can't simply become a theme, and possibly a background too - taken by fighters, druids, rogues, or whoever.

The issue here is that they've already stated their intention of including every class that was a core class in any previous PHB. Thus we don't get to decide which concepts should be classes. Instead we are left with, since we have a class called ranger, what is a class design that can mimic older edition rangers well, but still be broad enough to deserve to be a class.

 

[paladinm]

[MENTION=63508]Minigiant[/MENTION]: that's kind of my point. The ranger has gone from a fighter/druid hybrid to a fighter/rogue. In my mind, fighters and rogues should be able to "cross-pollinate" easily, since they are both "martial" classes. If you want a more agile ranger, make a rogue with the right feats and skills. If you want a more brawny ranger, make a fighter with the right feats and skills. You don't need a separate class unless they class is going to have something unique to bring to the table. Outside of the favored enemy feature, there isn't much unique about a ranger.

 

[hemera]

For the longest time I had really liked the ranger more or less as is. I wasn't the biggest fan of the whole two weapon fighting schtick, but what can you do. She had spells, and I thought, ok she has a connection to nature and can draw on it's power like a druid I guess. Hmm.

Then, something happened.

I met the scout. That pretty much epitomized my vision of the ranger. A lightly armored, highly mobile skirmisher, striking quickly from melee or range (or both), being highly skilled in various athletic and wilderness areas, and good with traps. That's what I would like to see. Bring back the scout. Even if it's just another class, or a background / feat package whatever. Bring her back! ^.^