D&D General What is a Ranger? A miserable pile of secrets! (+)

[Stalker0]

Fighters are generalists that are deadly all around, but one of the few consistent themes that has managed to stick throughout the editions is that the Ranger is a specialist that can take down a specific type of creature better than anyone else.

The reason I like the idea of ranger as fighter subset (though I don't think it will ever happen) is that there is nothing in the fighter chassis that is "anti-ranger". The flavor of a fighter fits perfectly well with a ranger, they are both strong fighter characters after all. You just need to add in the core ranger stuff on top.

I think between a more nature/survival fighting style (or maybe a "favored enemy" fighting style), and a "ranger" subclass, I think you could hit the key notes of a ranger pretty darn well.

 

[payn]

The thing about rangers is that large portions of ranger fans feel this way about basically every feature we associate with rangers, except (non-magical) naturey-ness and maybe stealth. I think the only satisfying solution is going to be to strip the ranger down to nothing but those two traits at base, and making all the rest - pets, spells, favored enemies, archery, dual-wielding, whatever - optional.

What's wrong with these things being choices? Why must every ranger have a pet, or be magic, or use a bow?

 

[Oofta]

The scout rogue can't track or survive supernatural threats and obstacles.



Same as scout rogue, the fighter can't handle ranger stuff post Tier 1.

What does a ranger get that changes much of anything? They have favored enemy and natural explorer, but it's a minor benefit to a narrow selection of possible opponents or environments that depends heavily on style of campaign.

Beyond that? It's spells that wouldn't apply to a mundane ranger. Without buy-in from the DM and group to really lean into the rangers strengths, the non-magic class abilities don't buy anything you couldn't easily get from other classes.

 

[Charlaquin]

What's wrong with these things being choices? Why must every ranger have a pet, or be magic, or use a bow?

Nothing is wrong with them being choices. That’s exactly what I’m suggesting.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The subclass system does pose an issue with this though as these are more mix and match options rather than either or.

 

[payn]

Nothing is wrong with them being choices. That’s exactly what I’m suggesting.

I assumed there was some push back saying a ranger must do certain things to be a class and archetype?

 

[Charlaquin]

I assumed there was some push back saying a ranger must do certain things to be a class and archetype?

There is, and I disagree with it.

 

[jmartkdr2]

The subclass system does pose an issue with this though as these are more mix and match options rather than either or.

You can go the 13th Age route and allow two or more “subclasses.”

More realistically you could structure it closer to warlock where you have a major and minor subclass and lots of additional customization points.

 

[James Gasik]

The subclass system does pose an issue with this though as these are more mix and match options rather than either or.

The Hunter Subclass has decision choices on abilities though.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The Hunter Subclass has decision choices on abilities though.

Enough for the many, many things the ranger essentially is, but should absolutely not have ever though?