D&D 5E The Ranger

[Plane Sailing]

Yet it explicitly was. I wish I could remember where in the old publications it was said and give you a quote. But it was.

[EDIT] Maybe it was the original Strategic Review, an early Dragon magazine or just a quote from Gary. I really don't remember. [/EDIT]

It wasn't explicit in the original Strategic Review article, and I imagine that they wouldn't have been specific after they got hauled over the coals for the Ent and Balrog (hence the renaming to treant and balor)

The original ranger was clearly based on Aragorn though. Level names included 'strider'. Ranger Lords get use of healing magic and clairvoyance items (athelas and palantir). They also accumulated a band of 2-24 followers at that level, which can be men, elf, half elf, dwarf or hobbit of various levels and some extraordinary followers which were most excellent (golden dragon follower anyone?). I'll try to attach a photo of that page


They had tracking (which nobody else could get - odd that rogues got niche protection for find traps for so long, but no niche protection for tracking).

They were only surprised on a 1 on a 1d6 because of their tracking ability (general awareness?)

They added their level to damage against giant class creatures (which ranged from kobolds to giants)

 

[Joe Liker]

Going from those roots to "the point of the ranger is to be a spellcasting fighter"is a huge leap/gap.

It simply wasn't...and, as I've been asserting, "should not be." I never heard of anyone choosing to be a ranger because they'd have a few low level spells around level 10. No one said "I want a spellcasting fighter. Ah! Ranger. That's the stuff!"

First, I'll point out that, regardless of the class's true origins, there are plenty of players who may not be big readers and are coming to D&D with a whole different set of preconceptions about what a ranger should be. The Everquest ranger, for example, was defined very much as a hybrid fighter/druid. The WoW hunter is very solidly a beastmaster. I'm not saying that these preconceptions are right or wrong, just that they exist, and are becoming more frequent as younger people join the game.

For these reasons (and yours), if someone tells me they might want to play a ranger in 5e, I always ask them exactly what they mean by "ranger." The label slapped onto a class by the designers is ultimately far, far less important than finding something that fits your concept. If you think you want a ranger, but an archery fighter is more what you want mechanically, then the latter is what you should build. You can still call yourself a ranger in-game. No one's going to mind.

And finally, for those who want a more old-school ranger with fewer spells and more martialness, multiclass fighter/ranger is a great option. Seriously, I understand the stigma on multiclassing that arose from 3.5, but I think it needs to stop. Multiclassing is a great way to smooth the rough edges of a character concept when the existing classes aren't quite what you want them to be.

 

[txshusker]

I am running one right now, human hunter archetype with the dual wielding feat. Dexterity based. He is the "glass cannon" in the group, dishing out the most damage per round, but not as resilient as the barbarian (no surprise there).

Hunter's Mark coupled with the Colossus Slayer ability is just downright nasty - with dual wielding rapiers, dealing about 24 hp a round at 4th level. And as others have mentioned, can heal too (though not very effectively).

Steeldragon is correct about the spell casting - very limited spell slots make resource management a priority. But the spells are quite powerful.

I just started running my ranger and was using this combo. The thing I find with the spells are that the combat spells run much like the 4e ranger powers (no, not the 4e power rangers) because the spells that add damage to attacks are bonus actions, not full actions. It plays very much like a Ranger striker in 4e. The other spells available - outside of a heal - are more out of combat/enhance the characters roleplaying stuff. At least, thus far.

 

[Andor]

The 5e Ranger is a very flexible class, and the archetype is even more so.

For a start the background system lets any class be an outdoors man, so if you want a mundane "woodsy" type take a fighter with the right background and go nuts. Or barbarian as has been mentioned in this thread.

The ranger class itself is a strong spell caster whose limited slots force him to specialize, therefore few rangers will look alike. You can pick subtle spells and downplay the magic or showy stuff to up the wahoo factor.
It was well said before, and bears repeating, that the class name in the book and the in world buisiness card are completely different things. I played a ranger tonight. Do you know how he described himself? As an arcane archer. The Ranger class needs exactly nothing to fulfill that archetype (amusing side note. The ranger is the only class whose spellcasting writeup does not explicitly call out as arcane or divine.) However I could also fulfill that role as a fighter-eldritch knight, or even as a straight up wizard (using elven weapon training to provide the long bow.)

Likewise the ranger role can be performed, flawlessly, by the ranger class. Or by a barbarian, fighter, or oath-of-ancients paladin with the right skills and background. Out of the box 5e is the most flexible edition of D&D imho. If you can't make the character you want to play, I don't think the fault lies with the system.

 

[BASHMAN]

The 5e Ranger is a very flexible class, and the archetype is even more so.

For a start the background system lets any class be an outdoors man, so if you want a mundane "woodsy" type take a fighter with the right background and go nuts. Or barbarian as has been mentioned in this thread.

The ranger class itself is a strong spell caster whose limited slots force him to specialize, therefore few rangers will look alike. You can pick subtle spells and downplay the magic or showy stuff to up the wahoo factor.
It was well said before, and bears repeating, that the class name in the book and the in world buisiness card are completely different things. I played a ranger tonight. Do you know how he described himself? As an arcane archer. The Ranger class needs exactly nothing to fulfill that archetype (amusing side note. The ranger is the only class whose spellcasting writeup does not explicitly call out as arcane or divine.) However I could also fulfill that role as a fighter-eldritch knight, or even as a straight up wizard (using elven weapon training to provide the long bow.)

Likewise the ranger role can be performed, flawlessly, by the ranger class. Or by a barbarian, fighter, or oath-of-ancients paladin with the right skills and background. Out of the box 5e is the most flexible edition of D&D imho. If you can't make the character you want to play, I don't think the fault lies with the system.

Yeah, this. Even BARDS make pretty good rangers. They can take spells they want from any list (even getting high-end ranger spells before actual rangers) and they can also cast Awaken which rangers inexplicably don't have on their spell list. So if you really want a pet dire wolf riding halfing archer, go Valor College Bard and just "reskin" it as a ranger!