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

[Gradine]

Is environmental adaptation significantly different from nature-y to warrant a separate option?

EDIT: Same for stealth vs. “like a rogue.”

This is an open marketplace of ideas, buddy. Nature & Stealth were options when someone insisted on the inclusion of "Adaptation" and "Rogue". Who am I to argue? Let the market decide!

 

[Shardstone]

So, if I was in charge of a new PHB, here is how I would define the Ranger:

“The Ranger is the Warrior of the Frontier, the one who exists between two worlds. Rangers protect settlers from the assaults of wild beasts, they protect Nature from the wanton destruction of Man, they stalk the borderland between enemy kingdoms, or they guard the World against those that would invade from another plane. These situations naturally develop in a need for novel tactics, employing might and cunning in equal measures, and they often lead to living in isolated conditions where knowledge of your surrounding and self-reliance are essential for survival. This combination of skills and traits makes Rangers incredibly well suited to the life of Adventurer, and are regarded as some of the best companions one can have on a long quest.

While all Rangers share certain traits, the relationship they have with the different Worlds they straddle marks them in unique ways, making them stand out from each other. They might look totally different to an outsider's perspective, but two different Rangers who meet for the first time will often realize their commonality and quickly bond over stories of their personal Frontier."

Every subclass would thus be defined in what frontier it straddles, rather than purely it's favored foe. Some would be purely martial, others would have picked up magical skills.

So long as Frontier includes INSIDE OF CITIES, I'm very much in favor of this.

 

[Charlaquin]

This is an open marketplace of ideas, buddy. Nature & Stealth were options when someone insisted on the inclusion of "Adaptation" and "Rogue". Who am I to argue? Let the market decide!

Eew, markets are terrible at everything.

 

[Shardstone]

Yeah she even uses her knowledge of nature to heal people and so on (though er... also nanotech healing gels sent by supporters lol)

Oh I definitely agree, I just don't think I'd pick those three options as the direction to move in, because they're so impressively esoteric.

I kind of totally agree and also totally disagree but you can definitely draw some similarities.

Ya I'm speaking in hyperbole hahaha

 

[John R Davis]

The 1st ed ranger is awesome.
Quite like 5th ed too

 

[Gradine]

Eew, markets are terrible at everything.

Fair point! But also I've already set the poll to be what it is (including allowing for additional options) so it is what it is!

The point is to see what people are most looking for in a Ranger. It folx wanna get nitpicky I'm not going to judge.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Every subclass would thus be defined in what frontier it straddles, rather than purely it's favored foe. Some would be purely martial, others would have picked up magical skills.

I think this sort of "high concept" approach to Rangers, rather than basic-ass "What do people actually want?" is exactly how a lot of D&D's Ranger designs got into trouble. And it's striking that generally other classes don't get this "WE NEED A FANCY HIGH CONCEPT!!!" applied to them.

Which is so weird, because Ranger is more of a real archetype that exists beyond D&D than, say, Cleric (though even Cleric is 100x more of an archetype beyond D&D now than it was in say, 1989), so why not just start with that archetype? I blame the designers!

 

[aco175]

I find that 5e makes rangers without a home. I looked at all the choices and was hard to pick three that I felt gave it something for its own and that another class couldn't do better. First I was thinking a fighting druid- but druid can fight better. Rogues and fighters can bow and damage better over favored foe with backstab to everyone. Magic- nope druids are better. Sneak- nope rogues. Unless we are going way out with things like tree stride and elemental magic they just don't have a home.

 

[billd91]

Just a heads up that I've set it so that you can update your vote if any new option pops up that tickles your fancy.

My selections have not changed as they were already perfect and correct.

 

[billd91]

On the subject of favored foe, I never understood the genocidal mania take. There is nothing in the descriptions that say you were f'd over by the thing you are experienced in tracking and fighting.

You can probably blame 2e for it. The favored foe there was characterized as typically something that marauds the ranger's homeland and they had a -4 on encounter reactions with the hated creatures.
3.0e didn't make it better with requiring rangers who took their own creature type as a favored enemy to be evil. 3.5e removed that restriction and the bonus for favored enemy could be a more dispassionate study/focused skill rather than a full genocidal, mad-on.