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

[LapBandit]

It is travel and survival (with a small s), in the same way that the rogue's theme is stealth and misdirection. A theme, not just one skill (although for these particular themes skills are more important than most). Any character can get Stealth proficiency, but a rogue can Sneak Attack. The class' features expand on the theme beyond the realm of basic skills. The ranger should be like that too.

And it doesn't require spells any more than the rogue does. I've already had the spell conversation with him, so I'm not going to rehash that.

...

Ability-wise, the common threads I see in these characters are practical knowledge, situational awareness, precision, mobility, self-sufficiency, and long-term endurance. You may be bigger and stronger than them, but you're you're not going to get the drop on them, you're not going to hide from them, and you're not going to outrun them.

...

I want to play this ranger.

I could see:
*Cunning Action being a base ability.
*Movement going up 5'.
*Expertise in Nature/Survival/Medicine/Perception/Investigation/etc on their Favored Terrain.
*Forage from the Outlander background being a base ability.
*Advantage against Exhaustion checks.
*A paladin-style aura that heightens senses of allies somehow.

 

[Hriston]

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

You know. Reasons.

None of these reasons for going into the wild would necessarily lead to one becoming a Ranger. People engaged in the activities you've described could just as easily be Commoner NPC's. "I wanted to learn to hunt, so I became a Ranger." isn't much of a compelling backstory. Not every hermit in the woods is a Ranger.

I'll grant you wanderlust is a huge component of the archetype, but it would have to be a strong wanderlust indeed, and not just, "I like to take long walks through the countryside, exploring the local pubs and villages." Tolkien's Earendil the Mariner is perhaps the ultimate expression of the far-wandering Ranger, and yet ultimately he too is a monster slayer, hunting the creatures of Morgoth beyond the Walls of the World.

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".

While fighter has the meaning, "one who fights", the meaning of ranger is a bit more complicated, and I think it's more helpful to look at the meaning of the noun being used, rather than the verb range. Google gives three definitions for ranger:

noun: ranger; plural noun: rangers

1. a keeper of a park, forest, or area of countryside.

2. a member of a body of armed men, in particular.

•a mounted soldier.
•US: a commando or highly trained infantryman.

3. a person or thing that wanders or ranges over a particular area or domain.
"rangers of the mountains"

all of which are in play in the class title. So it's not simply "ranging around" that makes one a Ranger, but rather a particular position of guardianship and martial character. Wandering is only part of it.

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.

Adventures where they kill people they don't hate? Seems pretty hateful to me. Remember the favored enemy is the most hated. It's the one you love to hate.

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?

Why not? I imagine that orcs are worthy of hatred. Since when is it wrong or unseemly to hate creatures whose sole purpose in life is to destroy and dominate those weaker than themselves? In 5E, a large group of orcs is a formidable threat, even at higher levels.

Circular reasoning.

I know. It was late.

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?

You're making a lot of assumptions. First, why is there a Ranger in every village? It's supposed to be one of the more rare class types. I'd assume that the typical villager defending her home would progress as a Fighter, if she had a character class at all. Developing sheer fighting ability after all is the best way to defend against the widest variety of attackers. When it comes to fighting specific enemies, the Ranger is the rare specialist. Village having trouble with marauding hordes of gibberlings? A Ranger who has spent her time studying these creatures helps the people mount a defense. Most likely she is not one of them, but is a mysterious wanderer who keeps watch on the general area.

Second, does everyone in the world who ranges the wild, just by sheer staggering coincidence, also happen to be a Ranger?

 

[Quickleaf]

A question about scouting: would a Scouting feature (see my example below) be something you'd want to see in the Ranger? Or perhaps in one of its sub-classes? Or do you prefer to leave such things up to the DM and the skill system?

OOC: Scouting At 3rd level gain Scouting. While under a clear sky, whether night or day, you always know the direction of true north and cannot get lost. In addition, when you have 1 hour of downtime (such as during a short rest), you can scout out a discrete area either 2,640 feet (1/2 mile) away or all around you in a 100 foot radius without being detected. You determine the presence and numbers of any creatures that are not hidden or invisible, and the general layout of the area scouted. At 7th level, you know true north and cannot get lost while above ground no matter the weather conditions. The range you can scout increases to a discrete area 3,960 feet (3/4 mile) away or all around you in a 150 foot radius. At 11th level, you know true north and cannot get lost while underground. The range you can scout increases to an area 5,280 feet (1 mile) away or all around you in a 200 foot radius. At 15th level, you know true north (if it exists) and cannot get lost even while on other planes. You also detect any hidden creatures in the area.

 

[Hriston]

And genocide does?

Who said anything about genocide? Just because you hate your enemy doesn't mean your goal is to exterminate every last one of them. You may simply wish to hurt them badly enough that they stop bothering you. Commonly held feelings of hatred are synonymous with mutual enmity.

I cursorily pointed out up-thread, however, that the ranger archetype has its roots in real and fictitious figures who are associated with colonialism and expansionism. Daniel Boone and Allan Quatermain, although they have to some degree "gone native", represent and advocate for the expansion of "the white man's culture" into the respective continents in which they operated, leading to the ultimate replacement of the cultures with which they had come in contact. So you are right in identifying genocide as being a formative element of what became the ranger archetype.

Does this mean we should scrap Favored Enemy and similar mechanics as being somehow offensive and antiquated? Do such concepts as genocide and racism really have a place in a fantasy world whose rule-book identifies certain fantastic races as being irredeemably evil? If such creatures as Illithids actually exist to enslave us and harvest our brains for food, isn't it just to not only gird ourselves for defense with every resource at our disposal, but also to reserve for them our most undying and unending hatred? I'm actually rather tired of people screaming "racism" with regard to fantasy races that don't really exist. To my mind it cheapens and decontextualizes the word. The same goes for "genocide".

I'm in the camp that would rather drop favored enemy entirely, or make it a feat or something that would make it available to any class, and replace it with a more generically useful ability.

I agree that a feat that grants a watered-down version of the class ability, as other feats already do, would be a good thing, as I already stated up-thread. I don't think it should be taken away from the Ranger, however. In fact, I think if anything it should be strengthened, but at the same time retaining its usefulness in the exploration and interaction pillars, rather than providing a combat bonus, except at high levels as it currently does.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Mobility is an interesting point.

Barbarians and monks - with their increased speed - have typically been more associated with mobility in D&D.

Though it does seem to fit the ranger archetype readily enough.

Traditionally ranger mobility has been represented by the longstrider spell. (The clue is in the name!) Also ignoring difficult terrain, in 4E and 5E.

Monks should definitely be faster over open ground and better jumpers. They're the mobility class. A monk is a Ferrari; a ranger is a Jeep.

A question about scouting: would a Scouting feature (see my example below) be something you'd want to see in the Ranger? Or perhaps in one of its sub-classes? Or do you prefer to leave such things up to the DM and the skill system?

I'm on the fence. It definitely represents a core ranger activity. And mechanically it doesn't differ hugely from the Primeval Awareness ability they get in 5E. But in terms of verisimilitude, a guarantee that you won't be detected might be a little bit much. It seems to me like actually getting close enough to observe enemies is cause for a roleplaying scene, not to be handwaved by an ability. (At least it's not as bad as the old assassination table.)

So what about something a little more low-key? Like a "passive tracking" ability? A ranger spots the evidence of creature activity as easily as characters with Perception spot the creatures themselves. They basically always know what's been moving through the area recently, unless their targets have been deliberately sneaky (and possibly even then).

 

[Quickleaf]

Traditionally ranger mobility has been represented by the longstrider spell. (The clue is in the name!) Also ignoring difficult terrain, in 4E and 5E.

It's interesting how when we each got into the game influences our thinking about what is "traditional." For example, I was thinking more 1e and 2e, but your reference to longstrider is from 3e.

Monks should definitely be faster over open ground and better jumpers. They're the mobility class. A monk is a Ferrari; a ranger is a Jeep.

I think that's a good comparison! Though that seems to speak more to abilities around overland travel & bypassing difficult terrain than a boost in speed.

 

[Nifft]

Traditionally ranger mobility has been represented by the longstrider spell. (The clue is in the name!) Also ignoring difficult terrain, in 4E and 5E.

Monks should definitely be faster over open ground and better jumpers. They're the mobility class. A monk is a Ferrari; a ranger is a Jeep.

So basically, we ought to rename that spell as landrover.

 

[Hriston]

The approach you're taking with all these characters is, again, circular. You're assuming that the ranger archetype needs to have a favored enemy, then looking at whomever these characters happened to oppose and calling that their favored enemy. But every hero in adventure stories opposes someone. If you assumed that wizards had to have a favored enemy you could do exactly the same exercise for Merlin, Gandalf, and Harry Potter.

I suppose you could. It would be difficult for me to identify an FE for Merlin, however, unless it was "Sorceresses named Morgana".

Remember, this was your exercise. You identified these characters as Rangers and then claimed that a Favored Enemy could not be found for them. My response was that if I were to attempt to build these characters as Rangers it would actually be quite easy to find an FE for them. I could just as easily build them as some other character class. If I were to build them as Wizards I wouldn't need to identify their FE because that has never been a class feature of the Wizard in any edition of D&D I know of.

My point here is that none of these ranger characters are distinguished by their hatred of a particular enemy any more than their non-ranger allies. You've said that hunting these enemies is the ranger's raison d'etre. But Artemis doesn't exist to hunt men. Natty Bumppo is an ally of the Indians. And Aragorn is not a more driven or better "Servants of the Enemy" fighter than Boromir or Gimli. If you were writing a new game with a class to model these characters, ignorant of the conventions of D&D, you would not think to yourself, "Okay, key to all these characters is their racial (and/or gender) hatred, so I'd better write that as an ability." Not the way you could look at wizard characters and say, "Oh, yeah, spells", or barbarian characters and say, "Berserker rage, easy, done".

Artemis exists to protect the wild sanctuary of the gods as she protects her own virginity. The natural enemy of such efforts is the mortal interloper who, unwittingly or no, penetrates the boundary of her privacy. If Artemis loves those she transforms into a stag and hunts to their death, she has a strange way of showing it.

Nathaniel Bumppo may be a romanticized ally of the Indians, but was Daniel Boone?

Gimli may have been as good against orcs as Aragorn, but remember he's a dwarf. It says right in the 5E PH that dwarves hate orcs. It's a racial trait that's been in the game since Chainmail. I'd actually like to see a version of FE given as a racial trait to dwarves, elves, etc. Now against a Nazgul, I think Aragorn might have had an edge over Gimli.

As for Boromir, I hardly think attempting to seize the ring and use it is proving yourself effective against Servants of the Enemy. Maybe if he had studied the stratagems and designs of Sauron more closely he might not have been ensnared in this trap.

Generally, literary characters are not well represented by D&D. They tend to have the features of many classes and are difficult to define in game terms.

And if you do not think these characters are rangers, who do you think is a ranger? Woodcrafty characters like these, I would argue, are who define the ranger class in most players' minds. I honestly can't think of a character who would define the class the way you describe. George R. R. Martin's Night's Watch is probably closest, but they of course postdate D&D rangers by decades and are probably based on them rather than the other way around.

How about Beowulf? He tracks Grendel out onto the heath and crosses the liminal boundary of the surface of the lake to destroy the monsters. The hero's journey often take a similar form, thus making the archetype widely applicable.

Also, many of your proposed favored enemies are not legal choices in D&D and would be OP compared to the regular options if they were. I mean, "Servants of the Enemy"? That's... the whole Monster Manual, in Middle-Earth.

You're accusing me of making Aragorn OP? This is Aragorn we're talking about. Besides there are lots of monsters in Middle-earth that have nothing to do with Sauron.

There's the Balrog of Moria. I don't remember Aragorn being particularly good against him.

Smaug had no allegiance to Sauron, and Aragorn is never depicted as a dragon-slayer.

There are many things that are beyond him.

And, like I said, the rules of D&D come with their own assumptions about the game-world and don't model particular works of literature very well. To set a campaign in the lands of Middle-earth would require a bit of tweaking, don't you think? Wasn't that the type of thought experiment you were engaging in when you brought up all those literary characters as examples of Rangers?

 

[TheCosmicKid]

None of these reasons for going into the wild would necessarily lead to one becoming a Ranger.

Of course not. And not everyone who joins a temple becomes a cleric. But none of them preclude it, either.

I'll grant you wanderlust is a huge component of the archetype, but it would have to be a strong wanderlust indeed, and not just, "I like to take long walks through the countryside, exploring the local pubs and villages." Tolkien's Earendil the Mariner is perhaps the ultimate expression of the far-wandering Ranger, and yet ultimately he too is a monster slayer, hunting the creatures of Morgoth beyond the Walls of the World.

All rangers are monster slayers -- they're all experts in armed combat, just like fighters and paladins and barbarians. That's certainly not what I'm questioning. But what is Eärendil's favored enemy? Does he hunt all the creatures of Morgoth, or does he specialize in one? Why should he specialize? Why should he have to? Why should that define the class he is?

So it's not simply "ranging around" that makes one a Ranger, but rather a particular position of guardianship and martial character. Wandering is only part of it.

My point is that being driven by hatred to hunt a particular enemy is not a part of it at all.

Adventures where they kill people they don't hate? Seems pretty hateful to me. Remember the favored enemy is the most hated. It's the one you love to hate.

And every ranger has to have one of those? Why?

Why not?

Because he's gone on so many adventures that are not orc-related. If orc-fighting were his motivation, why would he have gone on those adventures? And let me remind you, your thesis is that favored enemy should be the defining feature of the ranger. Even if some ranger is driven through his entire career by a burning hatred of orcs, because "Why not?", that does not establish that all rangers are.

You're making a lot of assumptions.

Every assumption of mine that you contradict is an equally strong assumption on your part. You say rangers are rare -- assumption. You say they're mysterious wanderers -- assumption. You say they're specialists at fighting specific enemies -- assumption, and of your conclusion, no less! Why should your assumptions have priority over mine? Why should the rules dictate that the campaign world you're assuming is the only one we can play D&D in, and that the campaign world I'm assuming is in some way unacceptable? Shouldn't the rules be broad enough for lots of different campaign worlds?

Second, does everyone in the world who ranges the wild, just by sheer staggering coincidence, also happen to be a Ranger?

It's hardly a coincidence when that's literally what the word means.

 

[Hriston]

...hatred as Hriston described it is not a particularly heroic quality even when it is hatred of the enemy -- it's a tragic flaw.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...Ranger-s-quot-thing-quot/page24#ixzz3gENmZ2su

Please direct me to all the stories about heroes fighting and killing people they don't hate.

Heroes are flawed.