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

[fuindordm]

Re. Background being sufficient to define a ranger--bunk.
Not all musicians are bards.
Not all priests are clerics.
Not all soldiers are fighters.
Not all scouts/hunters/explorers are rangers.
Ok, maybe in the Forgotten Realms they are. But the default setting assumptions laid out in every class description in the PH state that the PC classes are exceptional, rare examples of their professions.

So each class has abilities that support it's theme and set it apart from the common run of NPCs.

The existing ranger actually does that pretty well. The only change I would make is to give the class mechanics that provide a good incentive for the player to scout, explore, and hunt--after rereading the class last night that's what I think is missing. The hunter combat tricks are just always on, and don't encourage a play style different from the fighter. A ranger can be a damage machine but they make no in-game decisions to earn that damage.

Counting kills is interesting but better for a computer game. Choosing enemies is too rigid. Just reward them with a combat bonus for scouting and hunting.

Your frontier town NPC can still have stealth and survival, and a good chance of hitting a deer first and with advantage, with a 10% chance of critting. That's ranger enough for an NPC. Give the PC ranger some extra damage on top of that, cause they're fighting monsters and they need it, but make them work a little for it.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Remember, this was your exercise. You identified these characters as Rangers and then claimed that a Favored Enemy could not be found for them.

No, I identified these characters as rangers and then claimed that having a favored enemy did not define them. It's not the character trait that sets their archetype apart from other archetypes.

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.

What do you think the purpose of the class mechanic is? Does this model you're implying, where the rules give you an ability more or less arbitrarily and then you try to justify it to your character concept ad hoc, really seem ideal to you? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't the rules be giving you abilities you already expect and want out of the archetype you have chosen?

When you're rolling a wizard, you expect to learn magic spells, because all characters in fantasy fiction who fit the wizard archetype know magic spells. You don't have to read between the lines to find the wizards' magic -- it is immediately obvious; it defines their character's capabilities in their world. If the wizard class in a game did not have magic spells, that would be a glaring and bizarre omission. And that's just not true, at all, of rangers and favored enemy. I am quite confident that had rangers in previous editions of D&D not had the favored enemy ability, you would not be here arguing that they should. How can it possibly be a defining feature of the archetype if the class can support the archetype just fine without it, or if other classes could just as easily have had the feature instead?

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

Come on, dude. You can't just discard one example and substitute another one that better fits your position. Remember, you're trying to convince me that all rangers should have favored enemy.

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.

So now not only should everyone in an entire class have the same motivation, everyone in an entire race should too?

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.

What drove him to try to seize the ring? A burning hatred of Mordor. Of the entire Fellowship, Boromir is by far the purest example of hatred of one's enemies as a defining character trait. Your position has driven you to downplay this in order to rationalize the "favored enemy = ranger" identity. Are you starting to see the problem here?

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.

Beowulf isn't driven by hatred at all, doesn't specialize in a particular type of monster, and doesn't display any other particularly ranger-like skills.

You're accusing me of making Aragorn OP? This is Aragorn we're talking about.

I'm accusing you of outlining a "favored enemy" that is so broad as to be essentially meaningless and certainly not consistent with the narrow focus displayed by the D&D ranger.

 

[Staffan]

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.

But Favored Enemy changes the martial focus of the class from "defend my community from whatever threatens it" to "go out and kill these particular foes." IMO, it changes the class's martial motivation from a positive one to a negative.

I think their "knowledge-based fighting" is better served by something like the Pathfinder Slayer's "studied enemy" - study an enemy as a bonus action and gain a bonus to certain skills and attacks against them. In 5e, this would be represented by the Hunter's Mark spell (though I would probably make it a class ability instead).

As a side effect, this also broadens the class's usefulness - instead of being OK in general but shining against e.g. undead, it becomes good against everyone.

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 do think D&D, with the exception of 3e and particularly Eberron, is a bit suspect when it comes to defining certain humanoids as "always evil." I'm comfortable with mind flayers being in that category, but less so with goblinoids, orcs, etc. 5e actually doubles down here, saying that these races don't have the same moral agency humans do, that they were created by their gods without the ability to choose between good and evil.

 

[Quickleaf]

So each class has abilities that support it's theme and set it apart from the common run of NPCs.

The existing ranger actually does that pretty well. The only change I would make is to give the class mechanics that provide a good incentive for the player to scout, explore, and hunt--after rereading the class last night that's what I think is missing. The hunter combat tricks are just always on, and don't encourage a play style different from the fighter. A ranger can be a damage machine but they make no in-game decisions to earn that damage.

Counting kills is interesting but better for a computer game. Choosing enemies is too rigid. Just reward them with a combat bonus for scouting and hunting.

While I also think the ranger could use work to be a more adaptable class (since rangers should be masters of adaptation) and to enshrine the exploration aspects in a clearer way (and one easier to remember than the smorgasbord Natural Explorer feature), I do agree that you've hit the nail on the head when it comes to what distinguishes the ranger in combat.

I agree that the mechanics should reflect what I consider to be the ranger's style - scouting, reconnaissance, identifying and exploiting weaknesses. As a comparison, the rogue's Sneak Attack kicks in if you have advantage to attack the monster OR an ally next to the monster. So whatever circumstances/conditions must be met for the revised ranger's bonus damage to kick in shouldn't be too hard to achieve.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I do think D&D, with the exception of 3e and particularly Eberron, is a bit suspect when it comes to defining certain humanoids as "always evil." I'm comfortable with mind flayers being in that category, but less so with goblinoids, orcs, etc. 5e actually doubles down here, saying that these races don't have the same moral agency humans do, that they were created by their gods without the ability to choose between good and evil.

I think, if taken seriously and handled well, it's potentially an interesting question of speculative fiction: what if there's an intelligent species that really is irreconcilably hostile? What would that look like? How would that change the moral equation? It's challenging, to a modern audience. And you have to admit that given the premise that there are evil gods, it kind of makes sense that they would do this.

In my campaign, I split the difference: orcs are accursed and violently psychotic, goblins aren't. (This also helps to distinguish two enemy types that often blur together conceptually, in my experience -- perhaps because they were the same in Tolkien.) Your campaign may vary, of course. And it's important that D&D doesn't hard-code any assumptions like this in the rules. 5E does say that the evil races are always evil, yes, but that's in a throwaway line that can be easily disregarded if you prefer. The actual rules for the orc are amenable to all sorts of different interpretations. As it should be. Just like with the ranger class.

I agree that the mechanics should reflect what I consider to be the ranger's style - scouting, reconnaissance, identifying and exploiting weaknesses. As a comparison, the rogue's Sneak Attack kicks in if you have advantage to attack the monster OR an ally next to the monster. So whatever circumstances/conditions must be met for the revised ranger's bonus damage to kick in shouldn't be too hard to achieve.

What would you think of a bonus to attack rolls instead of damage? To me, that would emphasize the ranger's precision and tactical skill over brute strength. Just as a starting point, what if the ranger killed the avenger and took his Vow of Enmity? That's a suitably fitting effect for "Hunter's Quarry", I think. Maybe condition it on something other than a short-rest resource. Action to activate? That would encourage unseen observation of the enemy before jumping into the fight. Then maybe once your Quarry drops you can switch the effect to a new enemy of the same type as a reaction.

 

[Quickleaf]

What would you think of a bonus to attack rolls instead of damage? To me, that would emphasize the ranger's precision and tactical skill over brute strength. Just as a starting point, what if the ranger killed the avenger and took his Vow of Enmity? That's a suitably fitting effect for "Hunter's Quarry", I think. Maybe condition it on something other than a short-rest resource. Action to activate? That would encourage unseen observation of the enemy before jumping into the fight. Then maybe once your Quarry drops you can switch the effect to a new enemy of the same type as a reaction.

Yes, I agree a bonus to attack makes sense. However, given 5e's bounded accuracy and the fact the ranger already gets a Fighting Style (which can provide +1 attack), it seems far less needed than the damage.

The more I've thought about the ranger's fighting style - studying a weakness, then exploiting it - I have been considering that opportunity attacks could be the basis of the class' combat efficacy.

The ranger is a defender of the borderland and a hunter, so it sort of makes sense that this mobile guy is also adept at preventing foes from getting past him or from getting away.

Maybe a feature (somewhat stolen from 4e fighter) granting the ranger multiple opportunity attacks, and at later levels the ability to set unique conditions which will trigger his opportunity attacks.

Just a thought experiment, but I *think* it matches up nicely with the ranger's flavor.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Yes, I agree a bonus to attack makes sense. However, given 5e's bounded accuracy and the fact the ranger already gets a Fighting Style (which can provide +1 attack), it seems far less needed than the damage.

Well, over time, it does translate into extra average damage. But it's Saturday afternoon and I don't feel like doing the math on that right now, so *shrug*.

The more I've thought about the ranger's fighting style - studying a weakness, then exploiting it - I have been considering that opportunity attacks could be the basis of the class' combat efficacy.

The ranger is a defender of the borderland and a hunter, so it sort of makes sense that this mobile guy is also adept at preventing foes from getting past him or from getting away.

Maybe a feature (somewhat stolen from 4e fighter) granting the ranger multiple opportunity attacks, and at later levels the ability to set unique conditions which will trigger his opportunity attacks.

Just a thought experiment, but I *think* it matches up nicely with the ranger's flavor.

I don't love it. It seems to slot the ranger into the "defender" role of being sticky and making sure enemies stay where they are, which is contrary to the ideal of mobility and to previous incarnations of the class. Also, it doesn't work at all with ranged weapons.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

The more I've thought about the ranger's fighting style - studying a weakness, then exploiting it - I have been considering that opportunity attacks could be the basis of the class' combat efficacy.

But thinking about it some more -- what if it wasn't opportunity attacks? What if it was readied attacks? Like, instead of just rolling the dice on her turn, the player says, "I shoot this guy if he attacks Jim Darkmagic," and if she calls it correctly, boom! bonus damage. Rewards understanding your foe and being able to predict their actions. Tactical and engaging. And it makes clear that ranger precision is very different than rogue precision. But it might be too swingy, and/or a little rough on the action economy.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Re. Background being sufficient to define a ranger--bunk.

Maybe that's part of why they're thinking they need to re-imagine the Ranger? Because, as it stands, there just isn't a lot to it, conceptually, beyond a Fighter/Druid with the Outlander background?

A fighter's got abilities that can increase her damage output no matter what kind of enemy she's fighting. If a ranger does more damage against certain foes, but less damage against everybody else, that's a spotlighting problem: the character is going to be in the spotlight for an entire encounter or even adventure, then out of the spotlight for several other adventures. 4E and 5E deemphasizing this element of the ranger's identity was a major step forward for the class, and I can't get behind a rewrite which reverses that.

Except that 5e does depend heavily on that kind of 'spotlight balance.' It's not a step forward or back, it's just a matter of aligning with the rest of the game. 4e balanced the classes in the sense of giving them all these choices that were, generally, 'viable' (useful more often than not). 5e doesn't do that, it gives some classes, few or no choices at all (5e fighters are going to be DPR machines, it's just a matter of how optimally you want to tune that machine), but those choices are generally useful (high DPR rarely fails contribute in combat), other classes it gives many choices, each of which may be limited and/or highly situational. The 5e ranger is that that latter sort of design, it has spells and abilities that are more situational than the fighter's damage-grinding, and so will shine, some of the time.

Originally Posted by Minigiant
Nope. If your DM isn't coddling you, you either need to be a spell caster or have at lesat supernatural effect. Once a dragon takes flight or a mage teleport/passeswithouttrace you can't track them and they can gank you in your sleep.

If I believed this it would mean a third of the classes are useless in third and fourth tier play.

Actually, all classes in 5e cast spells or have some other sort of supernatural ability. Only 3 classes: the Barbarian, Fighter & Rogue, have any sub-classes in the PH that don't, for a total of 5 'mundane' non-casting sub-classes who would be 'useless' in this hypothetical high-level campaign you & Minigiant are considering.

 

[Staffan]

Here's what I'm considering doing with the ranger, assuming I don't want to rewrite the whole thing (which sounds like a lot of work):

* Turn Hunter's Mark into a class feature at level 2. A thing that's so core to the class shouldn't be hidden in the spells chapter, where it's easy to miss and cripple yourself by not taking it. Something like "Hunter's Mark: As a bonus action, you can focus your attention on a creature you can see, and use a mixture of primal magic and observational skills to forge a link to that creature. Any weapon attack you (or, for a Beastmaster, your animal companion) make against the creature deals +1d6 damage, and you have advantage on Wisdom (Perception) and Wisdom (Survival) checks made to find and track the creature."

* Let the Beastmaster command their companion as a bonus action. The game is full of ways of getting extra attacks as bonus actions (e.g. dual-wielding, Polearm Mastery), so one more won't break things, and it feels odd that the ranger has to spend their own action to make the companion do anything worthwhile. Maybe drop the proficiency bonus to companion damage to compensate.