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

[Quickleaf]

I just started working on a revision of the ranger, and I came up with 3 sub-classes, each representing a different philosophy of the wilderness and reflecting a progression from civilized to wild.

This assumes a base ranger class without spellcasting.

Borderlands Guard: Like the 1e ranger, the borderlands guard is concerned with protecting communities at the very edge of civilization where there are no standing armies. They know the way of the deep dark woods, serving as the frontline against the foul creatures lurking there. They are mostly lawful or good aligned. Mechanically, they would have features emphasizing vigilance, toughness, defense, maybe some kind of mounted combat, and maybe a reinterpretation of some of the 1e "smorgasborg" features.

Hinterlands Scout: The hinterlands scout can hail from an organized military or scattered tribes in the wilderness, yet they neither operate wholly in civilization nor the wild, sticking to the hinterlands and spaces in between. At the fringes of the city, woodland encampment, or ruined keep, these rangers focus on gathering reconnaissance to gain the edge over their foes, even while operating behind enemy lines. They are often neutral or good aligned. Mechanically, they would have features emphasizing scouting, mobility, infiltration, exploration, guiding, and communication, and possibly taking cue from the 2e ranger kits Pathfinder & Explorer.

Wildlands Warden: The wildlands warden is the defender of the woods (or holy mountain, desert oasis, native swamp, etc) who was trained alongside druids or shamans. These rangers exist in the forgotten remote places of the world, far from civilization, and they are often critical of how civilization despoils the wilds and threatens indigenous ways of life. They are often chaotic or neutral aligned. Mechanically, they would have spellcasting, primeval awareness, a connection to a particular land, perhaps the ability to call on woodland animals (apart from spell casting), and possibly take some inspiration from the 4e Warden class.

 

[Hriston]

What about rangers who go out into the wilderness for other reasons?

What sort of reasons do you imagine?

Do they just not exist?

People might go out into the wilderness for all sorts of reasons. Grizzly Adams was accused of a crime he didn't commit and went into the Rockies to get away from civilization, and the long arm of the law. Should the Ranger archetype be broad enough to include fugitives from society and hermits, or is that sort of character better represented by a background? Not all outdoorsmen are Rangers, are they?

Should class be allowed to define a character's motivations? Do all fighters or rogues or wizards have the same motivations?

We can assume that characters of a given class are all motivated to gain the skills of that class. The motivation is as general or as specific as the particular skill. The Fighter can have all sorts of reasons for wanting to excel at fighting. The same is true of Rogues and Wizards. I don't think it's too prescriptive, however, to say the Cleric is motivated by devotion to a deity, or the Paladin by a desire to fulfill an oath.

The Ranger is rather specialized, and part of this specialization is the knowledge of and skill to track a particular creature, or set of creatures. The Ranger isn't a collector, or big-game hunter. Those types of motivations don't seem too heroic to me. I suppose that kind of objectification could be described as a kind of hatred, regardless, so why not?

And if a ranger does feel this way, what if the people whom he protects are preyed upon by a diverse assortment of monsters rather than just one? Your standard paladin is also a protector, but we don't say she has to specialize in fighting one kind of monster. Shouldn't a character as resourceful as a ranger have even less reason to overspecialize?

This does have some interesting implications about the ecology of the campaign the Ranger is part of. Of course, specializing to the point of gaining the benefits that the Ranger possesses would require some focus on the Ranger's part, indicating once again a driving hatred of the creature in question. A Paladin could just as easily take an oath of vengeance against some particular creature, but this wouldn't necessarily extend to an entire race. In contrast, a Ranger is less specialized. It only becomes overspecialization if the Ranger is ineffective in protecting her flock due to concentrating on the wrong threat, which because this is entirely a matter of character concept, seems highly unlikely.

 

[Minigiant]

For the Ranger, I like Hunters Quarry (as a feature) replacing Favored Enemy.

I know Favored Enemy is ‘traditional’, but it is unseemly, a weird fixated racism.

By contrast, Favored Terrain, is awesome, and captures the flavor of being one with the environment. A Ranger should pick two terrains to start with, and perhaps gain more while leveling.

The Ranger isn't one with the environment. Only a few are.
A Ranger just knows the environment and the people within. Much how a person knows their neighborhood. They know the bad guys who live there and their language and how they act. They know how to spot the the places to avoid and the signs of danger.

The issue with Favored enemy and favored terrain to me is the best way to represent it is to make it a collectable list like a spell book. But that requires bookkeeping people aren't used too when dealing with the class.

I see the Favored Enemy as the class's raison d'etre.

The Ranger goes out into the wilderness fueled with a burning hatred for the creatures that prey upon those whom the Ranger protects.

The Ranger tracks down these foes even to the haunted and isolated places where they reside, bringing the fight home to them.

The Ranger is not a hippie.

Favored Enemy isn't the raison d'etre. It's a consequence or reaction to it.

The ranger is about survival. It survives by countering the thing that try to kill it and it's allies.

Starvation? He can find his own food.
Thirst? He can find his own food.
Predatory animals? He can hide from them and charm them if they find him.
Roving warbands? He can speak their language, hide amongst them, and know how to avoid them.
Roaming squads? He can sneak up on them and kill them or see them coming and hide from them.
Poison, blindness, deafness, disease? Got a spell for that.
Darkness? Got a spell for that.
Traps? Got a spell for that.
Water blocking the way? Got a spell for that.
Enemy trackers? Got a spell for that.
Scrying mages and dragons? Got a spell for that.
Dragon breath? Got a spell for that.
Grasping vines and quicksand. Got a spell for that or just train to avoid it
No intelligent witnesses? Got a spell for that.
No armor? Got a spell for that.
No ready source of information. Got a spell for that.
Need to move fast? Got a spell for that.
Need to cover an escape. Got a spell for that.

The ranger is about surviving whatever nature throws at them. Then they get into specialties: beast allies or combat skill.

 

[Hriston]

The Ranger isn't one with the environment. Only a few are.
A Ranger just knows the environment and the people within. Much how a person knows their neighborhood. They know the bad guys who live there and their language and how they act. They know how to spot the the places to avoid and the signs of danger.

The issue with Favored enemy and favored terrain to me is the best way to represent it is to make it a collectable list like a spell book. But that requires bookkeeping people aren't used too when dealing with the class.




Favored Enemy isn't the raison d'etre. It's a consequence or reaction to it.

The ranger is about survival. It survives by countering the thing that try to kill it and it's allies.

Starvation? He can find his own food.
Thirst? He can find his own food.
Predatory animals? He can hide from them and charm them if they find him.
Roving warbands? He can speak their language, hide amongst them, and know how to avoid them.
Roaming squads? He can sneak up on them and kill them or see them coming and hide from them.
Poison, blindness, deafness, disease? Got a spell for that.
Darkness? Got a spell for that.
Traps? Got a spell for that.
Water blocking the way? Got a spell for that.
Enemy trackers? Got a spell for that.
Scrying mages and dragons? Got a spell for that.
Dragon breath? Got a spell for that.
Grasping vines and quicksand. Got a spell for that or just train to avoid it
No intelligent witnesses? Got a spell for that.
No armor? Got a spell for that.
No ready source of information. Got a spell for that.
Need to move fast? Got a spell for that.
Need to cover an escape. Got a spell for that.

The ranger is about surviving whatever nature throws at them. Then they get into specialties: beast allies or combat skill.

I like your formulation of the Ranger as externally focused. I do wonder, however, if the Ranger is so interested in surviving for the sake of survival then why does he choose to live in a wilderness populated with dangerous monsters? Why push yourself to such limits? Maybe this is best answered by character concept, but in the case of Favored Enemy, why the focus on a particular race of creatures when it can be assumed that the Ranger's favored terrain is home to a variety of creatures that are out for blood?

 

[TheCosmicKid]

What sort of reasons do you imagine?

Hunting and trapping. Scouting and exploring. Searching for somewhere, fleeing from somewhere. Shipwrecked and lost. Sheer misanthropy. Good old-fashioned wanderlust.

You know. Reasons.

People might go out into the wilderness for all sorts of reasons. Grizzly Adams was accused of a crime he didn't commit and went into the Rockies to get away from civilization, and the long arm of the law. Should the Ranger archetype be broad enough to include fugitives from society and hermits, or is that sort of character better represented by a background? Not all outdoorsmen are Rangers, are they?

Of course they are. Why not? What else would they be? An outdoorsy background doesn't make a character a ranger any more than a military background makes them a fighter. You say it yourself: a fighter is someone who seeks to excel at fighting. Well, a ranger seeks to excel at ranging. That word doesn't mean "hunt and kill a particular variety of foe"; it means "roam around in the wilderness".

The Ranger isn't a collector, or big-game hunter. Those types of motivations don't seem too heroic to me. I suppose that kind of objectification could be described as a kind of hatred, regardless, so why not?

In the context of D&D, devoting yourself to fighting a favored enemy doesn't seem too heroic to me, either. It's simply not consistent with the typical D&D activity of banding together with a party of eclectic heroes and going off on an adventure. NPCs may spend their lives waging a guerrilla war against the orcish tribes, but PCs have grander destinies. Does it really make sense for a 20th-level ranger who has braved the Tomb of Horrors, slain dragons, and battled evil archmages to still identify himself (and be identified by the rules) as the guy who hates orcs?

Of course, specializing to the point of gaining the benefits that the Ranger possesses would require some focus on the Ranger's part, indicating once again a driving hatred of the creature in question.

Circular reasoning.

It only becomes overspecialization if the Ranger is ineffective in protecting her flock due to concentrating on the wrong threat, which because this is entirely a matter of character concept, seems highly unlikely.

Let me rephrase my objection with a concrete example. A village is periodically threatened by human bandits, orcs, gnolls, lizardfolk, and the occasional giant. Does the local ranger think to himself, "I hate gnolls so much! I'm going to go off into the wilds to hunt gnolls!" Or does he hunt them all to the best of his ability? And sure, perhaps you can say that it's the gnolls who killed his parents, so he's got a special hatred for them. But what about the ranger in the next village over? Does she too have some reason to single out one enemy type over all the rest? And what about the next ranger? And the next one? Does everyone in the world who ranges the wild, just by sheer staggering coincidence, also happen to be a racist?

 

[Hriston]

Speaking in terms of the character archetype outside of D&D, favored-enemy-type characteristics rarely appear. Artemis didn't have it,

If I was to equate her, or any of these others, with the Ranger "archetype", I would say her favorite enemy was men, especially those who had the misfortune to happen upon her while bathing.

Robin Hood didn't have it,

To me more of a Fighter/Rogue with the Archery fighting style and Sharpshooter (which really speaks to the Ranger's ambiguous identity), but if he were a Ranger, I would say his favoured enemy was the Sherriff of Notingham and his men.

Natty Bumppo didn't have it,

Wasn't he a bit of an "Indian-fighter"? I haven't read Last of the Mohicans, but since one of his aliases is Pathfinder, I'd have to agree that Bumppo is a formative influence on the archetype. He was very likely based on Daniel Boone, a real life "Indian-fighter", so if we accept him as one of the starting places for the Ranger archetype, we can see that racism was part of it from the beginning.

Allen Quatermain didn't have it,

He battled large wild animals and "native" peoples.

Tarzan didn't have it,

He fought gorillas, didn't he?

Aragorn and Legolas didn't have it,

If I were to give Aragorn a Favored Enemy it would be "Servants of the Enemy" whose designs and tactics he has committed his entire life to studying in preparation for fulfilling his destiny.

As for Legolas, if you wish to call him a Ranger because he uses a bow (cf. Robin Hood above), you don't need to look any further than the 1E elf who knew the languages of his most hated foes: orcs, goblins, hobgoblins, and gnolls.

 

[fuindordm]

In the context of D&D, devoting yourself to fighting a favored enemy doesn't seem too heroic to me, either. It's simply not consistent with the typical D&D activity of banding together with a party of eclectic heroes and going off on an adventure. NPCs may spend their lives waging a guerrilla war against the orcish tribes, but PCs have grander destinies. Does it really make sense for a 20th-level ranger who has braved the Tomb of Horrors, slain dragons, and battled evil archmages to still identify himself (and be identified by the rules) as the guy who hates orcs?

Let me rephrase my objection with a concrete example. A village is periodically threatened by human bandits, orcs, gnolls, lizardfolk, and the occasional giant. Does the local ranger think to himself, "I hate gnolls so much! I'm going to go off into the wilds to hunt gnolls!" Or does he hunt them all to the best of his ability? And sure, perhaps you can say that it's the gnolls who killed his parents, so he's got a special hatred for them. But what about the ranger in the next village over? Does she too have some reason to single out one enemy type over all the rest? And what about the next ranger? And the next one? Does everyone in the world who ranges the wild, just by sheer staggering coincidence, also happen to be a racist?

This is exactly why the story behind Favored Enemy falls flat in the context of the campaign. Sure, at 1st level you can pretend it is part of the character's backstory (gnolls killed my mommy), but for the professional adventurer it is too restrictive. FE implies the ranger stays in one place, fighting one population. 1E got around this by applying it to a whole range of common monsters, from orcs to giants, so the ranger would get there bonus some of the time almost anywhere. 2E and 5E copped out by making the FE a ribbon.

Hence my suggestion earlier that we think of the Ranger not as a Hater but as a Hunter. Unlike the fighter, barbarian, and paladin, the Ranger doesn't approach a combat hoping that their personal skill at arms will carry them through. The Ranger will take her time, looking for every possible advantage of the terrain and weak point in the foe. Furthermore, if the player spends time scouting and studying the enemy, the game should reward that behavior for the Ranger, because it is very much in line with the archetype.

And it's easy enough to do: give a FE bonus and make it apply to any foe that the Ranger takes time to study or fight. My earlier post suggested a cumulative +1 to attack, damage, and skill rolls per significant interaction (typically observation from hiding or a battle), so the Ranger gets better and better the more they fight a particular foe. By the time the party meets the Gnoll Warlord, the Ranger should be at their maximum. But the Gnolls of the Broken Fang might have very different fighting styles from the Gnolls of the Muddy Paw, so the FE bonus should reset in the next adventure when the Ranger meets a new tribe of gnolls.

Then the question becomes where to cap the FE bonus, how many FEs the Ranger can sustain simultaneously, and whether the Ranger can give some of the bonus to allies... but these are just details to be resolved through a bit of math and playtesting.

 

[Minigiant]

I like your formulation of the Ranger as externally focused. I do wonder, however, if the Ranger is so interested in surviving for the sake of survival then why does he choose to live in a wilderness populated with dangerous monsters? Why push yourself to such limits? Maybe this is best answered by character concept, but in the case of Favored Enemy, why the focus on a particular race of creatures when it can be assumed that the Ranger's favored terrain is home to a variety of creatures that are out for blood?

Usually the ranger does it because of what I always said...

D&D has all these crazy stuff out there.
Someone has to do it and and anyone who ever gets stuck out there better learn to range fast.

As for FE, I see it as a reaction not a conscious desire to be a xenophobic racists. A goblin becomes a goblin expert because that's who he meet.

That's why I think a "book of monster knowledge" fits better than FE tied to level.

Kill a gnoll. +1 damage vs gnolls.
Kill 12 gnolls; +2d6 damage to gnolls.
Kill 30 gnoll: Foe slayer hits gnolls.
Track a gnoll. Advantage to Wisdom (Survival) checks to track a gnoll.
Hear a gnoll: Next level you learn Abyssal.

 

[Quickleaf]

Usually the ranger does it because of what I always said...

D&D has all these crazy stuff out there.
Someone has to do it and and anyone who ever gets stuck out there better learn to range fast.

As for FE, I see it as a reaction not a conscious desire to be a xenophobic racists. A goblin becomes a goblin expert because that's who he meet.

That's why I think a "book of monster knowledge" fits better than FE tied to level.

Kill a gnoll. +1 damage vs gnolls.
Kill 12 gnolls; +2d6 damage to gnolls.
Kill 30 gnoll: Foe slayer hits gnolls.
Track a gnoll. Advantage to Wisdom (Survival) checks to track a gnoll.
Hear a gnoll: Next level you learn Abyssal.

This sort of idea would work great in a video game or something to do the tracking for you, but I've met very few players who would be willing to track monster kills this way. Plus, would this require separate advancement tracks for determining the benefits a player gets according to monster type? I mean, would those example gnoll benefits be the same for all monsters, like a dragon?

As a more practical implementation of a good idea, what about something like:

OOC: Give rangers advantage on ALL Wisdom (Survival) checks to track, and/or an improved tracking class feature. Studied Strike:As a bonus action you can being concentrating on a specific enemy you can see. After every round you spend concentrating on that enemy, increase your damage against them by +2. This damage bonus may never exceed the summation of your Wisdom modifier and your proficiency bonus. When you stop concentrating on an enemy with studied strike, or switch the enemy you’re concentrating on, you lose this damage bonus.

This approach would allow for a similar (though not exact) feel. It would encourage preparing for / scouting out battles. It would allow for damage to increase in longer/harder fights. It doesn't require any of the "kill tracking" your suggestion would require.

 

[Li Shenron]

So much angst. So much hate. Let me ask y'all this - Who here is actually a Ranger fan? They're the people that should be having input on the matter. If the ranger fans overwhelmingly want a beast to be default, then, by hell and high water, we should have it. If the fans are split, or its a minority? Then there shouldn't.

Just as the Fighter fans wanted a simple Fighter type first and foremost, it was delivered. Psionics fans got their own class, instead of nay-sayers feeling that it should be a subclass (I was among the ones happiest with subclasses, but I admitted to not being a fan that particularly cared about it as a class). In the end, all classes should be aimed at pleasing their number 1 fans.

Not to the point of being detrimental to the others.

The problem with a pet is twofold:

- Being a fan of the Ranger and being a fan of pets is two separate things. A pet is a HUGE baggage for a player who isn't interested, if you make it a default for an entire class it will be detrimental to those who want to play that class but not the pet. At the same time, if one class is the "pet class" of the whole game, it will be detrimental to those who want to play a PC with a pet, but not a Ranger. IIRC also the Warlock and Wizard can get a pet, probably the Warlock has a class feature and the Wizard can learn a Find Familiar spell (at least it was so in the playtest). NONE of them have the pet by default, it is ALWAYS a choice, even tho the delivery method (subclass, class feature, learnable spell) varies. This is a very good deal IMO.

- Way too many people don't just want a pet, they want a combat pet. This easily has problems both in terms of balance (you can't design it so that the Ranger is good as 2 characters in combat, not even 1.5, unless you introduce a nasty XP cost or something like that) and increasing complexity of combat. I don't know the details but from what I have heard on the forums, the 5e designers clearly made the decision for everyone's pet to be NOT combat-oriented, if it's true that you can have it only replace an attack of yours instead of adding it. You are still free to use your pet in all non-combat situations and tasks in whatever way you want.

Overall I am very glad 5e made both these decisions!

Although the ranger originally has magic because of Aragorn, if makes perfect sense for rangers having spells as you can't do healing, restoration, animal and plant manipulation, tracking and antitracking, and divination without being a caster in D&d.

My point exactly. The Ranger's casting reflects utility in and out of combat. To do this with a spell-less Ranger would require the introduction of a whole new set of mechanics, which should probably go beyond the use of poultices and superiority dice.

I don't have problems with Rangers spells, but I want to point out that it is not that complicated to make them look completely non-magical abilities.

The only tricky part is the daily slots limit, which in general can only be explained either as "fatigue" or "magic". Wilderness abilities may require a less straightforward explanation if daily-limited, maybe something related to "running out of resources in the current locale"?

'Would require the introduction of a whole new set of mechanics' makes it sound like a scary task, but it only took us an hour or so back in 3ed to write up a decent spell-less Ranger (and Paladin) for our campaign. We took a bunch of spells that could be easily described as non-magical, make them at-will extraordinary abilities, and let a Ranger pick one of them (or a feat, or a Druid's extraordinary ability) each time it would have acquired a new level of spells. No new major mechanics, just minor adjustments. Here they are [note that they are for 3e]:

Animal Friendship (Ex), at will: as per the PHB spell, except that it requires one full day per animal befriended

Animal Messenger (Ex), at will: as per the PHB spell, except that it requires one hour per animal

Bloodhound (Ex), at will: when tracking enemies, you can reroll each failed check once

Detect Favored Enemy (Ex), at will: as per the Masters of the Wild spell, except that it applies only to one favored enemy of choice (can be taken multiple times)

Detect Snares and Pits (Ex), at will: as per the PHB spell

Nature Sense (Ex), at will: as per the Druid special ability

Pass Without Trace (Ex), at will: as per the PHB spell

Snare (Ex), at will: as per the PHB spell, except that it requires one hour per trap (a trap created this way is not magical but can only be detected by a Ranger of equal or higher level, or by a character with the Trapfinding ability)

Speak With Animals (Ex), at will: as per the PHB spell

Woodland Stride (Ex), at will: as per the Druid special ability