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

What is a Ranger? (pick up to 3)

  • Archery! Rangers and Bows. They just make sense.

    Votes: 48 40.0%
  • Dual wielding! Just like Drizzt taught me!

    Votes: 8 6.7%
  • Nature! But none of that magic crap, more like, "hey, that's poison oak, don't touch that"

    Votes: 67 55.8%
  • Magic! Like a mini-druid. Maybe poultices. Plants and animals are friends! With magic!

    Votes: 27 22.5%
  • Animal companions! Just like Drizzt taught me!

    Votes: 21 17.5%
  • DPS! Damage on damage on damage. Doesn't matter how, just keep magic out of it! They're martial!

    Votes: 10 8.3%
  • Favored foes! The "X killed my family" trope is due for a comeback! You'll see! You'll all see!

    Votes: 13 10.8%
  • Stealth! Stalking through the woods, unseen, unheard, unsmelt. This is the way.

    Votes: 58 48.3%
  • Aragorn! Just being Aragorn. That's all it ever was.

    Votes: 39 32.5%
  • Rogues! Just replace buildings with trees

    Votes: 8 6.7%
  • Monster Hunting! Toss a coin to your Drizzt!

    Votes: 29 24.2%
  • Environmental Adaptation! A Drizzt of all seasons!

    Votes: 10 8.3%
  • Magical Weapons Combat! Look I don't even know at this point

    Votes: 1 0.8%
  • Katniss! Dump Strider in the past! The future is catching fire and mocking jays!

    Votes: 2 1.7%

payn

He'll flip ya...Flip ya for real...
then what should the ranger be then what makes it sufficiently different that it should not become a sub-class?
Pretty obvious to me. Its a melee focused cousin to Druid like the Pally is to Clerics. Then again, I dont have these Ranger identity problems that folks seem to have. The fighter on the other hand...

I am ok with an animal companion being a "glorified familiar" if its just a class or feat. I think it should be for everyone with the Druid and Ranger maybe being able to do it a little bit better. If you want a pet class make it the summoner or something that entirely focuses on it. Though, the Cavalier in PF1 is a good study on this. Shut down their one trick (mount) and its easy to toss them from 2/3 of campaigns. Which is why I like options to make different types of class archetypes. If all Rangers are pet guys, then thats pretty limiting in many ways. Not sure why one thing has to be an entire identity thing?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Mind of tempest

(he/him)advocate for 5e psionics
Pretty obvious to me. Its a melee focused cousin to Druid like the Pally is to Clerics. Then again, I dont have these Ranger identity problems that folks seem to have. The fighter on the other hand...

I am ok with an animal companion being a "glorified familiar" if its just a class or feat. I think it should be for everyone with the Druid and Ranger maybe being able to do it a little bit better. If you want a pet class make it the summoner or something that entirely focuses on it. Though, the Cavalier in PF1 is a good study on this. Shut down their one trick (mount) and its easy to toss them from 2/3 of campaigns. Which is why I like options to make different types of class archetypes. If all Rangers are pet guys, then thats pretty limiting in many ways. Not sure why one thing has to be an entire identity thing?
given the hunger for a spell-less ranger your point is not self-evident.
 

Yaarel

He Mage
Yes D&D's Fighter design is too broad. That's a problem, but it's not a problem for today. Any future Fighter design should be narrower. You should not be able to make a Walmart Ranger with the Fighter class, really.
If the Fighter splits into two classes,

• Heavy infantry Knight
• Light infantry Skirmisher

I can see the athletic Skirmisher class having a Ranger subclass.
 


Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
That's gibberish. Ranger is a real archetype that exists in fiction and media far beyond D&D. The key elements, when it comes down to it, are Nature, Archery and Stealth, and Fighter doesn't cut it, because none of those are key things for Fighters.

Yes D&D's Fighter design is too broad. That's a problem, but it's not a problem for today. Any future Fighter design should be narrower. You should not be able to make a Walmart Ranger with the Fighter class, really.
The Fighter does Archery well. The issue is the Nature, Stealth, and Monster Hunting.

_______________________________________________________________________

But again one of the bigger issues is that the inspirations many have of Rangers are from low level, lower magic settings.

Even in the LOTR, the highest level you can even attempt to say Aragorn is 11. And he is the highest level ranger on Middle Earth. And Faramir the second highest level ranger is a few level lower. That's if you are using 1e rules. In 5e, Aragorn is level ~7 and Faramir ~5.
Jon Snow? Level 6?
I don't even think Katniss is a ranger but she be'd lucky to be over Ranger level 4.
Goblin Slayer is maybe level 6 with bad stats traded for feats.
 


James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Supporter
If it's not in the PHB, it's not workable, and I don't expect sidekicks to be in the PHB. On top of all that, it doesn't even make sense to use the sidekick rules for pets, because pets should be simpler than that.
I'm sorry, could you explain this comment, please? It sounds like you're saying "unless a class is in the PHB it doesn't work". I didn't think the Artificer was a bad class?
 

James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Supporter
Oh man, please don't make the ranger a pet class.
You misunderstand, I think. I'm talking about making a separate from the Ranger pet class that has a "Ranger-esque" Subclass for people who want that fantasy, as opposed to trying to figure out how to make a pet Subclass that works.

More design space that way.
 

CreamCloud0

One day, I hope to actually play DnD.
given the hunger for a spell-less ranger your point is not self-evident.
Even without magic, i could definitely see a ranger class that does basically everything the druid does thematically except by using ‘mundane’ skills and class abilities rather than magic, plus leaning a little more into weapon based combat and stealthing.
 

James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Supporter
Even without magic, i could definitely see a ranger class that does basically everything the druid does thematically except by using ‘mundane’ skills and class abilities rather than magic, plus leaning a little more into weapon based combat and stealthing.
Although the "spells are better than skill checks" trope is deeply embedded in D&D design. Many threads have been made on this subject. So this spell-less Ranger would need some kind of "skill unlocks" to allow them to do much more than normal skill use allows for.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top