The Ranger: What is his shtick?

[The Shadow]

EDIT:The issue here is that they've already stated their intention of including every class that was a core class in any previous PHB.

True, but I'm still holding out hope that they will come back to their senses.

Assassin is the most egregious example: There is just no way that belongs as a class.

And I don't think my hope is unjustified - they've already talked about making specialist wizards into "advanced themes", so that may scotch the idea of an Illusionist class. (Mind, I think this particular idea is a bad one - but it does show the way their thoughts are going.) I seem to recall one of the DDXP seminars saying that they were open to finding out in playtest if certain classes should become themes.

 

[fuindordm]

The fluff of a ranger is the wilderness scout, the self-sufficient warrior who can survive for weeks at a time behind enemy lines or on a frontier teeming with monsters. A party with a ranger should have an easier time moving through uncharted terrain, avoiding wilderness encounters if they wish, and setting up ambushes.

The fighter is a tactical and versatile warrior; the barbarian spends all their body's resources in a few rounds to try to overwhelm the enemy.

The ranger's fighting style should rely on mobility and endurance. If a scout gets into trouble, they may have to run, hide, and fight several times before making it back to civilization.

So I totally agree that the ranger should be good at disengaging from combat, repositioning, and attacking again. Maybe they should be the only class that can get something like a move-by attack at first level.

And on top of that, for a little extra oomph, I think they should have the favored enemy and favored terrain abilities. I think the 3.5/PF versions of these abilities are pretty well balanced.

This should be the meat of the class, which is essentially a fighter variant. I don't think spells or feat chains are necessary for the concept.

 

[Sunseeker]

I see the ranger as a ranged martial lurker. They are sneaky, like the rogue, but not as skilled socially due to their generally not living in civilization. Their skills, like the rogue, are not magical, though they may know a few "tricks"(read:cantrips), they are overall, a non-magical class whose good at what they do because of experience.

I see them as ranged because otherwise they're a rogue who lives in the woods or a fighter who wears light armor and lives in the woods. Sure, they can fight up close, but their skills really kick in when they are at a distance and can quickly get to cover.

I like "favored enemy", but it's very fiddly when it comes to a campaign, most of my DMs have been generous with "favored enemies" and allow you to change it as the game goes, but I think that "favored enemy" could be better served as a "hunters quarry" tie-in, where you call your hunter's quarry on something, and then get your favored enemy to your quarry target. No picking out certain races or species that you ONLY get your bonus to.

Honestly, most versions of the ranger are pretty spot on and only need a little fine tuning. I'd favor less weapon versatility and more bow mastery over the current setup of fighting styles, but that's about it. As long as bow mastery is a viable option, I'll go with that.

 

[am181d]

I'd like to see the Ranger as a lightly-armored, stealthy, terrain-themed warrior with some supernatural flavor but no overt spellcasting.

I never got a chance to play a lot of 4e, but one of my favorite, favorite, favorite things in that edition is the Ranger animal companion build. (Is it called Beastmaster?) If themes are feat trees, then I'd love to see a similarly constructed Beastmaster theme for 5e.

 

[paladinm]

So it sounds like most everyone is on board with dropping whatever druidic ability/spellcasting that has been "traditionally" associated with the ranger?

To my mind, if that is tossed, there is no reason for a ranger "class".. just add feats, skills, themes, backgrounds, whatever to the fighter or rogue.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

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'.

Alternately, make "terrain" a first class component in the system, which any character can get, but that "rangers" pick up a great deal of for free. A typical elf has bonuses in the "woods". Your gnome barbarian that grew up in a swamp knows "swamps". A ranger? He starts with a couple of "terrain" bonuses, and picks up more as he goes (or improves the ones he has).

 

[Minigiant]

[MENTION=6687937]paladinm[/MENTION] & @fuirdordm That is my vision of the ranger. The fighter is the weapons guy. The rogue is the skills guy. The wizard is the arcane magic guy. And the ranger is the Environment guy.

[MENTION=93444]shidaku[/MENTION]. Bah. Anyone can be an archer. And what about desert rangers? They shooting arrows 60' forward with sand in their eyes?

[MENTION=16760]The Shadow[/MENTION] The ranger is too iconic at this point to not be a class. The problem is every edition used a different ranger that the iconic class has no identity. So one must be creates from the many ideas that it had over the years. I propose the ranger be the "environment and monster knowledge" class. The class that can go out and survive in the harsh wilderness with little worry and deal with the dangerous creatures the wild tosses at him or her.

[MENTION=78503]hemera[/MENTION]. I like the scout too but it seems that backgrounds and themes will kill the scout and hand the pieces to whoever wants it. There might be fighter scouts, wizard scouts. One designer even mentioned a cleric of Apollo being a scout.

 

[The Shadow]

The ranger is too iconic at this point to not be a class. The problem is every edition used a different ranger that the iconic class has no identity.

I'm not clear on how these two sentences go together. If the ranger is so iconic, why has every edition used a different one? Why does the class have no identity?

I'm not advocating getting rid of rangers. I'm just saying that rangers don't need their own class. 'Ranger' can become a theme and/or background. (Probably both.)

Supposedly the archetype of the ranger is Aragorn, but really, other than skill with tracking, he isn't much like any version of a D&D ranger ever. He's a fighter with wilderness skills.

 

[Minigiant]

So it sounds like most everyone is on board with dropping whatever druidic ability/spellcasting that has been "traditionally" associated with the ranger?

To my mind, if that is tossed, there is no reason for a ranger "class".. just add feats, skills, themes, backgrounds, whatever to the fighter or rogue.

Oh I still LOVE rangers to keep their spells. They are easy ways to fill in the holes of whatever the enemy/terrain skill leaves out. Charm Animals. Neutralize Poisons. Endure elements. Scry enemy. Pass without trace. Hide from animals...

I'm not clear on how these two sentences go together. If the ranger is so iconic, why has every edition used a different one? Why does the class have no identity?

I'm not advocating getting rid of rangers. I'm just saying that rangers don't need their own class. 'Ranger' can become a theme and/or background. (Probably both.)

Supposedly the archetype of the ranger is Aragorn, but really, other than skill with tracking, he isn't much like any version of a D&D ranger ever. He's a fighter with wilderness skills.

The multiple heroine of ranger is due to the multiple ways to do nature/animal/enemy/terrain stuff. 1e & 2e used spells. 3e used spells and skills. 4e used skills and rituals..

But the ranger was always there. It is just than the various designers could not agree how to do it.

Now they have to do them all. They are all so screwed.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I don't like Favored Enemy. It's silly, bad game design, and make the ranger look like a douche.

It's silly because it's a huge bonus to a niche thing in an abstract system.
It's bad game design because the DM must keep this in mind when designing encounters. "I must add a few encounters with aberrations in this city adventure or else class balance is in jeopardy."
It makes the ranger look like a douche because favoring an enemy is stupid and not very heroic.

In the old days rangers were good at fighting giants and in those days weapons did different damage to S/M or L enemies. –Bring that back. Give rangers a bonus to damage against L creatures. It makes the ranger a natural born monster killer. Which is cool and very useful. It has exactly the same drawbacks as FE, described above, but somehow I'm okay with this.