The Ranger: What is his shtick?

[The Shadow]

4e assassin fits in as a class as it has special abilities (teleport from level 1, shadow form, shadow based powers...) . Previous assassins just seem to be rogue variants.

Now see, I just don't think something like that belongs as a base class. It's not a common fantasy archetype at all. Nor does it sound like something a 1st level character would be - like shadowdancer, it sounds more like something you'd eventually become. And to be a little more nitpicky, there is nothing about the name 'assassin' that screams shadow powers at me.

[MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION]: I don't know about the 'superclasses' - 2e didn't really do much of anything with them, as I recall. The game would have played exactly the same if you just ignored the whole subclass business. However, you're right about the druid - it really was just another specialty priest. That could happen again, I don't know. Wildshape could be turned into a spell or series of spells easily enough - and I think that actually might make more sense than a class ability.

Also, in the more nitpicky department, they didn't specify that all the old classes would be included as classes. It could be that some get "demoted" to a theme. Although, I feel, "demoted" is a bad word choice. Let's say Assassin is a theme, not a classe. That's actually awesome! Now you can be a Fighter-Assassin or a Wizard-Assassin, etc.

Exactly! Turning an old class into a theme opens up tons and tons of new options! The trick is, the class in question can't have too many unique abilities, otherwise it won't 'fit' into a single theme - and as someone mentioned, it would suck to have to wait X levels to gather the themes for what you could have done as a single class in the past.

Ranger, Barbarian, and Assassin should work fine as themes and/or backgrounds, so far as I can see at this point. How many others, I don't know.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-horizons-upcoming-edition-d-d/322199-ranger-what-his-shtick-5.html]Wizards don't fit into a low-magic campaign too well, nor customisable Clerics in a monotheism.

I disagree about the latter - customisable clerics fit just dandy into a monotheism. I've done it up brown in one of my campaigns. The key is that you have different orders of priests devoted to a particular aspect of the Divine Nature.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Let's say Assassin is a theme, not a class

I think I recall them saying the Assassin will be a Class unto itself, a complex one.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Mechanically.. controversial perhaps.. but I think sneak attack should only work on humanoids - I don't think Rogues should be these insane DPS monkeys. I think that Rangers should just fight better against wild and unusual creatures (the bonus damage against Large creatures mentioned earlier isn't bad)...

Sneak attack (or mechanical replacement) as something that different classes have in their own niches, is an interesting idea! Rogues against humanoids, rangers against normal wilderness creatures and their fantastical counterparts, maybe wizards against particularly arcane creatures, clerics and paladins against undead and demons ...

Then you can distinguish fighters as the characters that get a moderate amount of such damage against pretty much everything. They know how to fight everything, but aren't specialists in any particular thing.

Rogues then need something else to compensate, but given the breadth of their abilities in all the versions, that shouldn't be hard to find.

 

[Somebloke]

Hmmmmmm.

Hunter's quarry. Hunter's precision. The ranger can inflict terrible damage as per the rogue, without the rogue's need for optimal circumstances. The simple man's striker, if you will. If the leaks are to be believed, the fighter has armour and versitility (spare attack means you can play with more options) and the warlord focuses on synergy. The ranger and rogue do damage, and more of it.

Beyond that (although as a martial only enthusiast I hope not) minor access to druidic powers, or skill bonuses when you are in a particular area or dealing with certain monsters- probably broader than 2e or 3e. The rest is up for grabs by themes- an archer, skirmisher and tempest theme have already been confirmed, which means that all of the ranger's old standbys are already gone.

Still, it's up for grabs at this stage. Can't wait for late May...

 

[grimslade]

A ranger is a scout

The ranger is a skirmisher, someone who uses hit and run attacks, both melee and ranged. He is the master of ambush and concealment. He is always 'in the field' so he is self sufficient and able to endure the long haul. He is an uncommon class, there are 10 times as many fighters or rogues. He is adaptable to his environment. He remembers his Charlemagne, "Let my army be the rocks and the trees and the birds in the sky..." He can use terrain and flora and fauna to aid him.

So in game terms, he steals the 3.5 scouts skirmish damage mechanic when moving and attacking. The ranger should have access to stealth and perception skills. A ranger has the ability to live off the land, find water and shelter. The ranger does not have a preferred terrain but given time can suss out the 'lay of the land' with a little investigation. The ranger can befriend animals and work with the natural denizens of the area. This could be an animal companion or a more temporary 'summon natures ally' sort of thing.

This can be accomplished in part with backgrounds and themes, but the skirmish and animal companion should be bolted on. If there is a terrain bonus mechanic that should be class granted.

 

[erleni]

Now see, I just don't think something like that belongs as a base class. It's not a common fantasy archetype at all. Nor does it sound like something a 1st level character would be - like shadowdancer, it sounds more like something you'd eventually become. And to be a little more nitpicky, there is nothing about the name 'assassin' that screams shadow powers at me.

And yet it is in 4e. Maybe it's not an archetype in fantasy, so what? It's a D&D class with some distinctive features from the start and it's not a shadowdancer. And actually shadow powers are perfect for an assassin. Mundane assassination is for rogues.

The point is that there are many different opinions out there. Some people like a shadow assassin class so why do you want to take it from them?
Same for the ranger. For me the ranger is just a special kind of fighter that lives in the wilderness and uses some specific weapons. For some others it is worth a class on its own and I have nothing against that.

 

[The Shadow]

And yet it is in 4e. Maybe it's not an archetype in fantasy, so what? It's a D&D class with some distinctive features from the start and it's not a shadowdancer. And actually shadow powers are perfect for an assassin. Mundane assassination is for rogues.

...I would have thought that 'fantasy archetype' was just about the very definition of a D&D class.

The point is that there are many different opinions out there. Some people like a shadow assassin class so why do you want to take it from them?

Oh please. I think we ought to be able to discuss this issue without making it personal. There's limited page space in the core books - if I say that in my opinion, a shadow-assassin doesn't rate page space in them, that doesn't make me a big mean meanyhead trying to spoil other people's fun. It means I can think of lots of other things that would fit better in the core books.

Say, was this shadow-assassin in the 4e PH1? Yeah, didn't think so. So I guess it wasn't that high of a priority in 4e either, hm? (Then again, neither were the druid and bard, so there you are.)

 

[Blackwarder]

The ranger is a skirmisher, someone who uses hit and run attacks, both melee and ranged. He is the master of ambush and concealment. He is always 'in the field' so he is self sufficient and able to endure the long haul. He is an uncommon class, there are 10 times as many fighters or rogues. He is adaptable to his environment. He remembers his Charlemagne, "Let my army be the rocks and the trees and the birds in the sky..." He can use terrain and flora and fauna to aid him.

So in game terms, he steals the 3.5 scouts skirmish damage mechanic when moving and attacking. The ranger should have access to stealth and perception skills. A ranger has the ability to live off the land, find water and shelter. The ranger does not have a preferred terrain but given time can suss out the 'lay of the land' with a little investigation. The ranger can befriend animals and work with the natural denizens of the area. This could be an animal companion or a more temporary 'summon natures ally' sort of thing.

This can be accomplished in part with backgrounds and themes, but the skirmish and animal companion should be bolted on. If there is a terrain bonus mechanic that should be class granted.

You realize that hit and run attacks is not actually hitting someone and that running away, don't you?

It more usually involve scouting for weak enemy forces out of support range from friendly forces, engaging and destroying them in pitched battle and than retreating before reinforment arrive. In D&D terms hit and run got more to do with the exploration part of the game than with actual combat.

IMO, the ranger, just like the paladin, is an elite class, it should be a sub class of the warrior meaning that beside the fighter it should have the best fighting skills in the game (along with any warrior sub class) and on top of that it should have a bunch of different abilities.

I always loved the different xp tables in 2e, it allowed elite classes running along with common ones and you didn't had to make sure that they are all balanced.

I highly doubt that we will see a return to different xp tables for each class though. What I would like to see though is not balancing the classes solely on their combat effectiveness and making elite classes have some penalties and bonuses.

Warder

 

[Plane Sailing]

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.

If I might give a small correction and add some other information about the class as originally conceived...

In Strategic Review he gained cleric and wizard spells, in 1e it became druid and wizard spells, in 2e it became a couple of weak spheres of cleric spells, in 3e it became his own spell list drawn from other caster classes.

In SR he was the toughest of fighters - starting with twice the hp of standard fighters, and gaining more total HD too. This changed a little in 1e (they retained the number of HD but kept d8, while fighters went to d10). It seems that a lot of modern conceptions that people talk about are fighters-lite, scouty rogues etc. Quite a different proposition from the original.

In SR and 1e they surprised people 50% better than other classes (1-3 on d6) and were only surprised 50% less than other classes (1 on d6). This got converted in 2e into very weak thief hiding skills, and stayed as hide/spot skills in 3e.

My preferred version of the Ranger class is the best 'lone' adventurer. The ones off-screen range across the world, keeping civilised lands safe on their own, relying upon their wits, force of arms and magical tricks they've picked up along the way. Most of them die unknown and unthanked by the people they have been protecting. Occasionally some of them join up with other adventurers to do great deeds...

Cheers

 

[Ratskinner]

If I might give a small correction and add some other information about the class as originally conceived...

In Strategic Review he gained cleric and wizard spells, in 1e it became druid and wizard spells, in 2e it became a couple of weak spheres of cleric spells, in 3e it became his own spell list drawn from other caster classes.

In SR he was the toughest of fighters - starting with twice the hp of standard fighters, and gaining more total HD too. This changed a little in 1e (they retained the number of HD but kept d8, while fighters went to d10). It seems that a lot of modern conceptions that people talk about are fighters-lite, scouty rogues etc. Quite a different proposition from the original.

In SR and 1e they surprised people 50% better than other classes (1-3 on d6) and were only surprised 50% less than other classes (1 on d6). This got converted in 2e into very weak thief hiding skills, and stayed as hide/spot skills in 3e.

I think a lot of that is that the "original" ranger was actually the "Aragorn", but the way multiclassing worked prevented him from being a Rog2/Ftr2/Pal2, so we got the monstrosity of nonsense that was the old ranger. 'Cause like, when I'm walking alone in the woods for days I like to wear heavy armor, too.