D&D 5E (2014) What is/should be the Ranger's "thing"?

[Herobizkit]

Mine uses a spear and heavy armor.

Does she also have a magic helmet? Please tell me she does.

 

[Minigiant]

Does she also have a magic helmet? Please tell me she does.

She had one. Lots of magic loot in that game.

Not getting the reference though.

---

One other thing Id like to see is a movement bonus based on climate. Rangers should swim faster, climb faster, have ice walk, sand burrowing, and vine swinging.

The forest ranger is overdone. Rangers need snow and sand spells.

 

[I'm A Banana]

That's pretty much the same conceptual image I have of the Ranger.

Yeah, the more I think about it, the more I like "knowledge by experience" being one of the defining characteristics of the Ranger as a class. Everything flows from this - they are good scouts because they look before they leap. They are fast movers who can employ stealth because sometimes they need to get away from something they poked wrong. They are tough, capable fighters because they need to know how to defend themselves from new things that might wish them harm.

Their defining mechanic, then, should be about that - they should learn how to fight monsters better based on knowing them well.

Heck, maybe favored enemy can be something you apply not from your backstory, but as you undertake adventures: a specific monster who KO's you or who crits you or who knocks out an ally might become your Favored Enemy until it falls.

 

[Quickleaf]

Their defining mechanic, then, should be about that - they should learn how to fight monsters better based on knowing them well.

Heck, maybe favored enemy can be something you apply not from your backstory, but as you undertake adventures: a specific monster who KO's you or who crits you or who knocks out an ally might become your Favored Enemy until it falls.

In an early draft of my witcher class for 5e, I included a feature which allowed the PC to prepare versus a particular monster type in order to gain a bonus. For example, preparing to fight "flying monsters" meant your attacks could compel them to land or crash for an encounter. Sort of reminiscent of the 4e essentials ranger with the ranged attack knocking a monster prone.

It's a bit of work, and more detailed than the prevailing 5e class design ethos, but something along those lines could be flavorful and fun.

 

[Minigiant]

Their defining mechanic, then, should be about that - they should learn how to fight monsters better based on knowing them well.

Heck, maybe favored enemy can be something you apply not from your backstory, but as you undertake adventures: a specific monster who KO's you or who crits you or who knocks out an ally might become your Favored Enemy until it falls.

One think I'd like would be for a ranger to "collect" favored enemies. A ranger would have a black book of enemies same as a wizard has a spellbook.

And this black book of hatred grows each time a ranger fights and records his experience filled with orcish cusswords, dragon weakspots, drow camp patterns, gnoll smell descriptions, a detail drawing of giant feet.

Before she meets one, a goblin is just a small man.
After the first kill, she knows a goblin's weakspo for bonus damage.
After scouting one, advantage on tracking.
After a dozen kills, event more damage.
A week of research, she speaks Goblin.
One interrogation later, she has bonus to Intimidate.
After 50 kills, all goblins have Vulnerability to Her.
After 100 kills, goblins who see he must save or be frightened.

The bookkeeping would be worth it.

 

[amerigoV]

It is not clear what a ranger does to me too. They are wilderness warriors. Ok, that is just some skills that make them effective in a particular terrain. That sounds like you can give them expertise in a few nature skills. It is also just skills so could encompass a background. I understand Mearls dilemma. The other ranger things are a bit of a grab bag. Should they be nature spellcasters too? They are in the nature. Sure why not? Should they be roguish outdoor scouts. Yeah sure, stealth and sneaky. The big key for me is they are a skill based class, knowing stuff. Monster knowledge. Knowing the weaknesses of monsters. Researcher. Van Helsing. A lone wolf, much like a rogue.

While probably not intended, the tone of the above is a big reason for the issues with the Ranger. Surviving in the wilderness is a very hard skill in real life even with the rarity of predators that hunt us. Us gamers just hand wave it away and do not think much about it. Gaming systems tend to gloss over it as well (a few survival rolls and its done). This the area where the Ranger should shine but rarely does.

I recall reading a book about some of the great explorers going into the Amazon (the jungle, not the website ). The best description is that despite its look that it is a desert. The water, if untreated, will make you (as an outsider) incredibly sick. Many of the plans and animals are poisonous to eat or even touch. And you can get hopeless lost in no time due to limited visibility. Despite the abundance of life and water, the place is barren in what it provides to someone that is not a native to the area.A good number of trained and experienced explorers never made it back out. In D&D (probably gamers in general), this is routinely treated as a "walk in the park". Do you ever see players having their PCs treat going out into the wilds as true exploration? Do your PCs routinely hire guides and porters in areas they are not familiar with?

Of course how do you make the fun is the big question. But, if going into a hole in the ground and exploring it is fun, then exploration of the wilderness should be as well.

 

[steeldragons]

OK! I'm back from 10 days of vaca. Went to Colorado for some of it. Was nice. But I digress/more on that later/different threads. SO...I can actually catch up of everything...apparently they went and threw out some psionics while I wasn't looking. But again...digression...

HOW ABOUT...as @kerbarian rightly points out the importance of the [ANY] class having that mesh of meaningful mechanical advantages WITH/while maintaining a distinct flavor, instead of a "Favored Enemy" (even if they were going to increase in number as the ranger leveled), per se, and instead of a sweeping "bounus to everything" like Hunter's Mark [or practically everything, a la 1e] we (as is wise for so many things in life) moderate...take it in moderation...find the reality in the middle...

What if "Favored/Preferred/Advantaged/Whatever Adjective Quarry/Prey/Foes/Whatever Noun" were a feature of combat bonuses that you add to at a significant rate of expansion, like every level or every other level. The usefulness/foes, that is, NOT the bonus just endlessly "+'ing up (though that might increase at a much slower rate).

Those Poor Unfortunate Foes:
In their role as defender of their respective civilizations and/or wilderlands, the ranger is adept at sizing up and taking advantage of any weaknesses they perceive in the enemy creature. This feature requires some time, often including multiple run-in's with the creatures in question and observation, study, and/or training or learning from peers about these particular creatures effectively. Further, they are astute and intelligent enough to apply this assessment to any of the creature's race, allowing them a bonus to hit and damage fighting such creatures anywhere, in any number.

Beginning at level 1 the ranger selects such a creature/race of the Humanoid (up to ogre or troll) or Animal (including monstrous or giant varieties) type. An additional Humanoid or Animal foe is chosen at 2nd level. Following that, the ranger adds additional Unfortunates to their list of Foes every other level [each even level].

The ranger is +1 to hit and damage when attacking these creatures with melee or ranged weapons. The ranger is also +1 to any tracking or lore roles pertaining to the creature, their culture or behaviors and gains 1 language for every 3 types of creature they have amassed as their Unfortunate Foes, if there are creatures that possess a language. This bonus increases +1, for attack and skill rolls, every 5 levels thereafter.

At level 5 the ranger may begin studying/selecting creatures of the Fey or Undead type. At level 7 or above, the ranger is free to select monsters with the Giant or Dragon type. The DM is free to add or swap out creature types, within this general framework (e.g. no more than 2 or 3 creature types at a time, more powerful creatures added at higher levels, etc...), as best befit their world and campaign. If you run a game overrun with Aberrations or Demons or Elementals, then it makes sense the ranger would be permitted that creature type at 5th or 7th level, if not from first.

At 20th level, you're looking at a ranger who has amassed (throughout their adventuring career, as played in game) +5 bonuses to hit, damage, tracking and lore rolls against 11 creature types. Not really game breaky from what I can see, and lets players [including DMs] "build" their rangers to their specifications, i.e. They aren't all the same, hunting/doing the same thing all of the time, but gaining their own life experiences and using their intelligence and expertise to apply to what they -repeatedly/consistently- face.

Those that want can "Aragorn it up" by choosing with a list of: Goblins, Wargs, Trolls, Wraiths, etc etc...

Those that want Ginsu Blades of Doom can choose every humanoid in the book.

Those that want "Giant-killer/Dragon-slayer/Vampire Hunter" can choose every creature of a particular type that they can.

But I think this nicely blends old school sensibility without being "99% of humanoids & ALL giants all the time" and the newer school "we need a bonus against everything all of the time or we're no good/not as good as the fighter". You are "good" [and increasingly "good"] against an ever-widening sphere of creatures. But you'll never be "as good against everything."

 

[Herobizkit]

She had one. Lots of magic loot in that game.

Not getting the reference though.

[video]https://archive.org/details/WhatsOperaDoc[/video]

Head to about 1:42 and enjoy.

 

[Dausuul]

Count me among those who would like to see the ranger become the "pet class." It's the one really unique thing they've got going for them. The beastmaster was a nice try, but ultimately suffers from the fact that the pet is an add-on rather than a core feature; they can't make the pet really strong because it has to be balanced against the other ranger archetype.

Wilderness survival doesn't work as a ranger shtick, because it's not unique to the class. To make wilderness survival the ranger's distinctive "thing," you have to take it away from druids and barbarians, who would rightfully complain. Furthermore, it suffers from the same problem as Favored Enemy--it's too campaign-dependent. A campaign focused on urban intrigue has little room for a wilderness-centric class, while a campaign about exploring lost ruins practically demands​ such a character.

Traditionally, the ranger's role has been "lightly armored skirmish fighter." In 5E, however, the Dex-based fighter killed that archetype and took its stuff, which left the ranger a bit adrift.

 

[bedir than]

One think I'd like would be for a ranger to "collect" favored enemies. A ranger would have a black book of enemies same as a wizard has a spellbook.

And this black book of hatred grows each time a ranger fights and records his experience filled with orcish cusswords, dragon weakspots, drow camp patterns, gnoll smell descriptions, a detail drawing of giant feet.

Before she meets one, a goblin is just a small man.
After the first kill, she knows a goblin's weakspo for bonus damage.
After scouting one, advantage on tracking.
After a dozen kills, event more damage.
A week of research, she speaks Goblin.
One interrogation later, she has bonus to Intimidate.
After 50 kills, all goblins have Vulnerability to Her.
After 100 kills, goblins who see he must save or be frightened.

The bookkeeping would be worth it.

It'd almost be like Grimm.