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

[Blue]

Warlock invocations make a better chassis then spells.

I think part of it is a hangup on spells vs. special abilities. "A ranger should be able to do X because of their training, not because they know a spell". To me, the easy answer is reskin the resource allocation mechanic of spells and spellcasting as what they can do, but for those that want certain things "always on" because they are skills that's not going to satisfy.

That makes the warlock invocations a better mechanic for the ranger than spells. Have a bunch of choices of stunts your ranger can do. This one ambushes and skirmishes, this one tracks and spots, this one has a bunch of useful companions, this one has a large combat companion, this one makes amazing bow shots. Make all of them invocations, including some that build on others (such as turning a useful animal companion into a combat companion).

 

[MonkeezOnFire]

The ranger's thing is that it is the half caster blend of druid and fighter (or perhaps rogue), so in my head its closest analogue is the paladin. But unlike the paladin, the ranger doesn't feel like it is greater than the sum of its parts. On top of having the the martial prowess of the fighter and support-heavy spell casting of the cleric the paladin also gets its own unique mechanics in the form of smiting, powerful defense auras and a pool of healing resources in addition to its spells. The ranger's unique abilities are very heavy in survival and navigation, but because the game makes this fairly easy in order to get to "the real action" these abilities aren't of the same value as the paladin's.

So in order to make the ranger really stand out, it needs something that really can't be simulated by a rogue/druid multiclass. I'm not quite sure exactly what that should be. Perhaps something like the ability to create healing remedies while travelling or giving the entire party a bonus to stealth in its favored terrain (as opposed to just itself). Whatever it is, I feel like it should be something big.

 

[Sadrik]

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.

I agree survival is not easy. However I think there is more than one way to skin a cat and I do not want a situation that no one can survive unless you have a ranger. That is going too far in the niche protection. So the Outlander background should be able to have survival and be good at it. It is like stealth, can only the rogue be sneaky? No. Of course not. Can only the ranger be an excellent outdoorsman? No. Of course not.

 

[Dausuul]

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.

Here's the problem: If you make wilderness survival the focus of the ranger class, then the only campaign where rangers are fun to play is the one that is constantly traveling the wilderness. If the party spends a couple of sessions adventuring in a city, or exploring a deep dungeon, or traveling the planes, or whatever, the ranger spends those sessions as a sub-par fighter.

It's one thing to tweak your campaign to make sure everyone has something to do. It's quite another to have one character's needs force the whole campaign into a very narrow mold.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I'm not sure I agree with that purported design goal, and in addition, AD&D's multiclassing rules allowed you to be both a warrior and a spellcaster, switching between them on a round-to-round basis.

In any case, you're correct that 5E has a design goal of enabling casual play, and long spotlight cycles are incompatible with casual play. I think your observation is correct w/rt 5E's design goals; I just don't agree that those goals are normatively superior.

Fair enough. Implicit in my statement was that I think these are the correct goals if you want a broadly appealing game.

This is where I have a problem.

Why must you be able to do max damage in order to feel awesome? I have never ever seen a ranger that might as well not have shown up just because they weren't fighting their favoured enemy. The whole point of Favoured Enemy was to give the ranger that extra flavour and to give that flavour a mechanical distinction.

Okay, so is favored enemy the core of the ranger's identity, or is it just "extra flavor"? Because I thought you were saying before that it was the core of the ranger's identity. If it is the core of the identity, then yeah, when you're not doing it you don't feel awesome. Wizards don't feel awesome when they can't cast spells - not because they're weaker, but because the player rolled a wizard in order to fulfill a spellcasting fantasy. Barbarians don't feel awesome when they can't rage and smash faces - not because they're weaker, but because the player rolled a barbarian in order to fulfill a rage-monster fantasy. So if what you're saying now is that rangers do feel awesome when they aren't fighting their favored enemy, this tells me that players don't roll rangers in order to fulfill a favored-enemy fantasy, that favored enemy is not the core of the class' identity.

Now, yes, I'm aware that doing something like separating the wizard from his spellbook can make for an interesting adventure if it is run well. But adventures like this are the rare exception, not the norm. Furthermore, the primary goal of the wizard in such a situation immediately becomes "get my spellbook back or acquire a new one", which is engaging, in character, and drives the plot forward. Separate the ranger from her favored enemy, and what do you get? "Let's get out of here as soon as possible and find some giants to fight"? The wizard's spellbook tells the character to be more engaged in what's going on, but the ranger's favored enemy ability tells the character to be less engaged in what's going on.

You must also account for the fact that not every DM can run such a curveball adventure well. You say you tailor adventures to PCs, and that's great; I try to as well. But the implication I'm getting from you in this conversation is "Everything will be fine if only every group plays the game the same way mine does", and every group does not play the game the same way yours does. There are many different styles at many different skill levels, and I think the game should, insofar as it is possible, support all of them. In particular, I'm thinking of people who participate in organized play, or run published adventure modules. These games are very common. They should probably be accessible for a very popular character class. And by "accessible" I do not mean "You can show up, but you're just going to be a weak fighter because there are no giants."

Here's the problem: If you make wilderness survival the focus of the ranger class, then the only campaign where rangers are fun to play is the one that is constantly traveling the wilderness. If the party spends a couple of sessions adventuring in a city, or exploring a deep dungeon, or traveling the planes, or whatever, the ranger spends those sessions as a sub-par fighter.

I think this can be alleviated by interpreting the "wilderness survival" focus as "environmental awareness". No matter where the ranger is, he can figure out something to do with his surroundings. To anyone else, those weird mushrooms are just set dressing, but to the ranger they might be food, or bait for a trap, or a source of poison, or a hiding place. He's the guy who notices which sewers the rats avoid, and improvises a shelter out of a modron chassis. He is, in a word, resourceful.

...which may be hard to capture mechanically.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The basic issue underlying not just the ranger, but all classes is that if you are going to use class as a basis for characters then the entire concept of skills needs to be thrown out the window.

A class based game is one designed to feature strong archetypes period. Classes should have unique abilities without any extraneous fiddly bits that you can tack on to replicate the abilities of another class. If you want a skill based game then make the game skill based and get rid of class baggage. Mixing classes and skills never works out well without issues.

Step 1: Decide if you want a class based or skill based game

Step 2: STICK to whatever you decide.

 

[Sadrik]

The basic issue underlying not just the ranger, but all classes is that if you are going to use class as a basis for characters then the entire concept of skills needs to be thrown out the window.

A class based game is one designed to feature strong archetypes period. Classes should have unique abilities without any extraneous fiddly bits that you can tack on to replicate the abilities of another class. If you want a skill based game then make the game skill based and get rid of class baggage. Mixing classes and skills never works out well without issues.

Step 1: Decide if you want a class based or skill based game

Step 2: STICK to whatever you decide.

I think this is an all or nothing argument and I do not agree with it. You are saying that each class has their niche and you select your niche and that is that. that is not how 5e was made. you have several interlocking choices that pull together your entire class. Race, background, class, subclass, feats, spells, equipment. All serve to differentiate you from other PCs. The game is designed so that players can find and discover their "strong archetypes". I would not want to play a game (at least for long) where designers decided all of those things for me. The game can and should be a hybrid of skills and open player character design and exploration. You absolutely do not have to stick to one or the other.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

I don't know who you are. I don't know what features you want. If you are looking for maneuvers, I can tell you PHB Rangers don't have superiority dice. But what Rangers do have are a very particular set of skills, skills they have acquired over a very long list of editions. Skills that make them a nightmare for people like Mearls. If Mearls lets the 5E Ranger stand now, that'll be the end of it. Players will not look for a rebuild, players will not pursue errata. But if he doesn't, they will look for him, they will find him, and they will Tweet at him.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I think this is an all or nothing argument and I do not agree with it. You are saying that each class has their niche and you select your niche and that is that. that is not how 5e was made. you have several interlocking choices that pull together your entire class. Race, background, class, subclass, feats, spells, equipment. All serve to differentiate you from other PCs. The game is designed so that players can find and discover their "strong archetypes". I would not want to play a game (at least for long) where designers decided all of those things for me. The game can and should be a hybrid of skills and open player character design and exploration. You absolutely do not have to stick to one or the other.

The designers don't decide what class you play. The class you play decides what abilities you have in a game system built on archetypes. The only issue with this are players who want to do everything and pinch a few skills here, a feat there, take a couple levels in a class to get ability X. Differences from other PCs via mechanics is a crappy illusion. So long as the same options exist for every player someone else can build a carbon copy of your character leaving you with nothing unique about your character except the name, which is where we were 35 years ago with B/X. So nothing has changed in all that time except the creation of more complex and diverse ways to make those carbon copies.

In addition, the more options you start piling on, the more power disparity you get between those options. 5E was a vast improvement over 3E & 4E with regard to trap options but it is unavoidable. Look at the great GWM/SS debate. That's just the core rules. Have you looked at the optional magic feat for deep gnomes in the elemental guide? Take a look at that sucker and compare it to Magic Initiate.

The only REAL differences there can be between two PCs of the same basic type have to come from the person playing them. Always has been that way and it always will be.

 

[Sadrik]

The designers don't decide what class you play.

Correct. Resisted urge to be nuanced on this with you though.

The class you play decides what abilities you have in a game system built on archetypes.

Correct again!

The only issue with this are players who want to do everything and pinch a few skills here, a feat there, take a couple levels in a class to get ability X. Differences from other PCs via mechanics is a crappy illusion. So long as the same options exist for every player someone else can build a carbon copy of your character leaving you with nothing unique about your character except the name, which is where we were 35 years ago with B/X. So nothing has changed in all that time except the creation of more complex and diverse ways to make those carbon copies.

Ah, I see where your biases lay. Why give the illusion of choice if there is only one optimal mechanical choice anyway. And secondarily, if choice is an illusion then why not eliminate all choice and let the designers choose for you. Then you play the game via their vision and hence we already are playing their vision of D&D why not give them all the controls on that vision. Meanwhile, details do not matter, balance is key, because more options and details complicate and make potential abusable instances. Any iterative process, should result in the exact same procedural outcome. YMMV.

The only REAL differences there can be between two PCs of the same basic type have to come from the person playing them. Always has been that way and it always will be.

All procedural outcomes being the same will allow differences in the operator. Operator errors will be mitigated. This will hone architectural integrity to the core benefit of a role playing game - same anticipated outcomes with different operator input.

In addition, the more options you start piling on, the more power disparity you get between those options. 5E was a vast improvement over 3E & 4E with regard to trap options but it is unavoidable. Look at the great GWM/SS debate. That's just the core rules. Have you looked at the optional magic feat for deep gnomes in the elemental guide? Take a look at that sucker and compare it to Magic Initiate.

Balance is core to all.

Sorry for the snarky remarks. I understand your points. I just do not agree.