D&D 5E The Ranger

[AmerginLiath]

Pretty much every change in the Ranger this edition excited me to read. Favored Enemy in particular is a great change: bonuses to hit and damage are boring while increased knowledge and markers of a character's training of dealing with all the idiosyncrasies of a species (YES!!! MOAR LANGUAGES!!!) are really, really cool. Likewise a focus on terrain choice as a second axis of specialization without losing the first. As for spells? They were there at the start, and the decreased focus in 3.x because Drizz't didn't use them and their loss in 4e because reasons doesn't mean the Ranger doesn't get his toolbox back – especially when his toolbox is this awesome.

Hunter is really neat, as folks have said. It's not about combat bonuses – IT'S NEVER ABOUT COMBAT BONUSES – it's about whether the class makes a neat impression for the player to build around. In combat, exploration, and social (especially social with particular races), the Hunter is an exceptional chassis. Likewise, the Beastmaster looks to be fun (even if the Hunter is more my style). The "MOAR ACTIONS FOR ME BUT NOT FOR THEE!" idea is generational and doesn't reflect traditional ranging, so I'm glad to see it go, above and beyond how it was abused at the table (much like I'm glad to not have to sit through Rogue's with eight sneak attacks or whatever).

The other thing to keep in mind is that we've spent how many years as a culture dealing with an epidemic of dogs being rescued from dogfighting rings over the last decade (as someone from the Philadelphia area, the Michael Vick story was of course the big one)? Yes, of course let's train lots of fighting animals!

 

[pming]

Hiya.

My apologies if this horse has been well and truly beaten

I've not bought the book(s) yet, but a friend of mine suggested that the 5ed Ranger was pretty lame compared to other classes.

What's your opinion?

Actually, in my last campaign (that imploded due to the party pretty much being CN/CE with a lone CG), the Ranger (the lone CG) in the group was easily the most useful character in the game. The group did a fair bit of travelling between a few places, and her Natural Explorer ability had me thinking I may have to nerf it a bit (or at least force some kind of skill check). There was virtually no chance of the group: getting lost, starving, dying of thirst, or unable to discern exactly what and how many of various creatures they came across. I suppose it may be a bit more reasonable once the ranger gets out of their favored terrain, but man o' man...when in their favored terrain, rangers ROCK! Her ability to cast some supportive spells, as well as fight both up close and at range, made her the most versatile character in the group...easily (oh, there was a Moon Druid, Barbarian, and Warlock).

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Blue]

Agree with this: this was one of those design choices which was marking a clear demarcation from the previous edition. I have always loved rangers but I never really grokked the spell casting ranger even in 1e/2e days. So I just passed over the 5e ranger. For me it is a flavour thing: having spells to find traps or pass without a trace makes as much sense as Rogues having to cast a spell to open a lock. I just think that a ranger having to cast a spell like good berry could be better flavoured as a herbalism ability, etc. But I guess you could play the ranger spells as an inherent ability of some kind.

Everytime I see something like this, I think people get hung up on names.

Is your character "I'm a 'Ranger' class?". Nope. Maybe they think of themself as a scout, a woodsman, a hermit, whatever. The 5e rules, because of backgrounds, give easy access to creating a skilled woodsman without needing any levels of the ranger class. Fighter and/or rogue would be the most likely parts if you don't want casting.

The Ranger for several editions has mixed nature-based spellcasting and martial prowess, like the paladin mixes divine casting and martial prowess. That's the class niche. If your envisioned character isn't hooked into the nature-magic abilities, fantastic! There's are lots of flavorful other classes that can be skilled outdoorsmen.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I completely agree there Blue.

When I make a ranger to play in D&D he is going to be the Barbarian character class, but reskinned as a ranger. The standard barbarian gives me everything that I actually want in a ranger class, which is a bit weird but hey, I can live with that


(although I'm a little disappointed that the book ranger was so uninspiring for me)

 

[steeldragons]

I'll just agree to disagree about the "spellcaster rangers" being an integral part of the ranger niche. Yes, they always had access to spells...at "higher" [for 1e] levels.

As for the hang up on "names", the ranger, unabashedly, is based on the character of Strider/Aragorn. Everything about the D&D Ranger was based on that. It is why and how the D&D ranger was constructed for 1e. So, yes, a ranger classed PC would absolutely say "I am a Ranger." Specifically for the purpose of differentiating themselves from "mere" scouts or woodsmen or other miscreant rovers.

But, from my perspective, the flavor -which is perfectly fine flavor in/of itself for something that is not a Ranger- is unnecessarily limiting for the concept/framework of the base class. They did a magic-using Fighter subclass. A magic-using Thief...er...excuse me, "Rogue" subclass.

There's really no excuse or reason that they couldn't have done a magic-using Ranger subclass, with the ranger being the nature/survival-skill-based warrior with forgotten/secret lore as its base framework. Hunter, Beastmaster, and "Nature's Adept" or whatever title for a magic-using-from-level-3 on subclass.

That being said, I see no reason a magic-using ranger subclass option would be necessary, at all, with something like the Eldritch Knight or Ancient's Oath Paladin or even the Arcane Trickster options, which, with a simple refluff to nature/Druid spell list could give you a nature magic-using warrior, no problem.

So, with that in mind, spellcasting isn't really integral to the ranger niche [even after recent editions], since that "niche" is easily duplicated/presented by other options in the game. With Barbarians being reskin-able as the nature/survival skill-based warrior -maybe Battlemasters or straight up Thieves for that matter, given the nature of skills in 5e-, it's almost like "the Ranger" divested of its Aragorn-esque roots isn't even necessary as a base class at all.

 

[txshusker]

I'll just agree to disagree about the "spellcaster rangers" being an integral part of the ranger niche. Yes, they always had access to spells...at "higher" [for 1e] levels.

The point of the Ranger is that they are spell casting fighters. Of course it's a niche... what other martial class can cast nature spells? Rangers have always been spell casters, and if you took that away from the base class and made them choose spells or beastmaster or hunter, then you've limited - not expanded - their options. A barbarian can do much of the nature/survival stuff, but can't cast spells... the spells are exactly what differentiates the class. Without the spells, you call them fighters and move on and it's the spell casting that makes them the equals of the other classes. If you take away the Ranger's casting, then you must take away the paladin's as well and you've changed the base of a game that's been played for 40yrs.

They did a magic using fighter subclass because the sword mage doesn't exist and a lot of people like to cast spells playing fighters because it gives you something else to do - since they took away all the extra stuff from 4e. if they had a swordmage class, they wouldn't have the eldritch knight.

As to the OP, I'm finally getting to play in a game instead of DM and I plan on Rangering. They better not be weak.

 

[steeldragons]

The point of the Ranger is that they are spell casting fighters. Of course it's a niche... what other martial class can cast nature spells? Rangers have always been spell casters, and if you took that away from the base class and made them choose spells or beastmaster or hunter, then you've limited - not expanded - their options. A barbarian can do much of the nature/survival stuff, but can't cast spells... the spells are exactly what differentiates the class.

This shows a distinct lack of knowledge in the history of the actual game or class.

Rangers are not and were not created to be "spellcasting fighters". In 1e, you got druid spells at 8th level...and, in today's terms, "arcane" spells at 9th. 8th and 9th. Spell ability maxed out at 17th...with a grand total of 2 1st-thru-3rd level druid spells (with no 3rd level spells before 16th level) and 2 1st and 2 2nd mage spells.

That's it. There's you big spellcasting fighter.

2e rangers didn't get spellcasting until 8th again. This time only "priest" spells and only from the plant and animal spheres. At 8th level you had spells and caster level of -hang on to your post-2e-hats- 1. You were 12th level before you got level 3 spells (again plant and animal clerical spheres only) and that's as high as you got. Your spell use was a nice, lil' something extra that might make life a little easier, not something you relied on.

So no, spellcasting is not "the point" of the ranger. For 2 editions -not "most", not "several" editions, the first 2 of 4- of the game the ranger spent a good half of the game -if not more depending on how much past 8th level you got in play- with no access to spellcasting at all.

Spells for the ranger were the top/pinnacle/best/forgotten/secret knowledge & skill they could get their hands on and you had to be ridiculously high level [again, for 1e or even 2e] to be equivalent to even a mid-level caster.

Without the spells, you call them fighters and move on and it's the spell casting that makes them the equals of the other classes. If you take away the Ranger's casting, then you must take away the paladin's as well and you've changed the base of a game that's been played for 40yrs.

I'm not sure where this kind of false equivalency spawns from, but it seems very popular these days. Doing anything to the ranger doesn't mean I have to do anything to the paladin. Paladin's not even in the same room. He's waaay over there in some other thread. We're talking about the ranger here. What changes are made to a class effect that class. Nobody else.

As to the [apparently revisable] record of the 40 years of the game, however, fun fact...Paladins in 1e and 2e didn't get spells until later levels also! Level 9 to be exact. 1 1st level spell at 9th level and slow low level progression from there. Yes, unlike the ranger, paladins COULD in fact get up to 4th level spells (from 15th level on). Having their magical paladiny powers are the paladin's shtick, yes. Whether or how much spells are needed for that paladiny magicky goodness is a completely different debate.

They did a magic using fighter subclass because the sword mage doesn't exist and a lot of people like to cast spells playing fighters because it gives you something else to do - since they took away all the extra stuff from 4e. if they had a swordmage class, they wouldn't have the eldritch knight.

As to the OP, I'm finally getting to play in a game instead of DM and I plan on Rangering. They better not be weak.

I'm sure 5e will meet your expectations...or may be shaking in its boots. I'm not sure which.

 

[Minigiant]

I think one of the things that hurt spell less ranger is the return to the crazy side of D&D. Most fast crazy magic.

Basically the upper limits of the weird part of D&D reappered. This put a strain on the usefulness of a tracker where dragons can fly way and leave no tracks, an outdoorsman when scaly raiders can leap from the depths, or a warden in world with fire breathers, poisonous fangs, giants of a dozen feet in height, and enemies who can blind with magic.

So the only option were to weaken active magic so the ranger could just be a fighter variant, keep the magic how it was and buff ranger martial prowess to exactly of the fighter and barbarian, or give them magic spells.

5e did it the good way by giving rangers the spells they need earlier and not at the very end when such magic have be outclassed by the challenges. At least they are not scroll hoarders and wand wavers again.

 

[Raith5]

Everytime I see something like this, I think people get hung up on names.

Is your character "I'm a 'Ranger' class?". Nope. Maybe they think of themself as a scout, a woodsman, a hermit, whatever. The 5e rules, because of backgrounds, give easy access to creating a skilled woodsman without needing any levels of the ranger class. Fighter and/or rogue would be the most likely parts if you don't want casting.

The Ranger for several editions has mixed nature-based spellcasting and martial prowess, like the paladin mixes divine casting and martial prowess. That's the class niche. If your envisioned character isn't hooked into the nature-magic abilities, fantastic! There's are lots of flavorful other classes that can be skilled outdoorsmen.

I dont disagree that backgrounds offer great ways to recreate or flesh out archetypes, but I just dont see the ranger as a mysterious archetype. In fact after the big 4 class, I would say the lightly armed skirmisher would be the next major archetype/class. For me, the skirmisher is foremost, and nature skill monkey is secondary (but still important). I just see missed opportunities as to how this combination of abilities could be done. The thing is that spell using for rangers has gone from a small additional thing in pre 4e to being a key part of the class. I would like that archetype to be wholly non magical because many of the spells in the 5e note abilities that woodsy folk in our world do all the time, without casting spells. In the grand scale of things it is small point - but given that like rangers one that I wanted to mention.

 

[Plane Sailing]

This shows a distinct lack of knowledge in the history of the actual game or class.

Rangers are not and were not created to be "spellcasting fighters". In 1e, you got druid spells at 8th level...and, in today's terms, "arcane" spells at 9th. 8th and 9th. Spell ability maxed out at 17th...with a grand total of 2 1st-thru-3rd level druid spells (with no 3rd level spells before 16th level) and 2 1st and 2 2nd mage spells.

That's it. There's you big spellcasting fighter.

Uh, can I give you some additional knowledge of the history of the actual game or class?

Rangers were added to to OD&D in an issue of 'The Strategic Review'. They started getting Cleric spells at about 8th and Magic User spells at the following level, but they got in a wacky progression, with a new level of cleric spell every even level and a new level of wizard spell every odd level after that! My 17th level Ranger was casting up to 4th level Cleric spells and up to 4th level Wizard spells, and was a holy terror.

I'm not saying that 1e didn't bring a bit of necessary balance to the class, because it did.

But the very first incarnation of the Ranger class got to be a massive spell caster.

Cheers