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

[fuindordm]

I was just looking back over the AD&D Ranger, and it seems there were 3 *unique* class features:

• Tracking
• Improved Surprise (and, in turn, harder to be surprised)
• Favored Enemy (bonus damage vs. "giant class" creatures)

...

An interesting design test would be to implement a version of Favored Enemy that is adaptable in play, say after researching, tracking, or fighting a particular monster, the ranger would gain their Favored Enemy bonus against that monster. So the vibe would be more a "studied enemy" than being specifically a dragon slayer, giant slayer, or orc hunter.

I totally agree with your analysis. As for the "studied enemy" design, it's certainly possible and what I was going for in my proposed alt ranger (post #296).

 

[epithet]

A couple of points I'd like to make:

1. It really doesn't matter a whole lot if the "favored enemy" mechanic has always been a feature of the Ranger, at least not when answering the question posed in this thread's title. The important question is whether or not it should define the class going forward, right? What works about favored enemies, what doesn't work, and how should it be implemented in the new iteration of the Ranger class, if at all?

2. Drizzt is not a fictional character that inspired the Ranger class, he's a character that was designed to represent the Ranger class. Saying that the Ranger is based on Drizzt is like saying that EGG based the Magic User on Elminster, or the Paladin on Sturm Brightblade.

 

[DerekSTheRed]

Why do you need to qualify as a glass cannon? 5th edition wasn't designed around you doing specific damage. It's about playing the concept.

I consider the rogue a glass cannon. I was a basing my comment around my experience as a monk player who has far too low an AC despite being a melee fighter. Thinking about it more, I would expect most Rangers to go for Breastplate which should be sufficient.

 

[DerekSTheRed]

2. Drizzt is not a fictional character that inspired the Ranger class, he's a character that was designed to represent the Ranger class. Saying that the Ranger is based on Drizzt is like saying that EGG based the Magic User on Elminster, or the Paladin on Sturm Brightblade.

I agree. That's why I made the tail wagging the dog comment. Drizzt is an important consideration for WotC IMO. Many (not all or even most) players will make a Drizzt clone as their first PC. Being able to make a Drizzt or Aragon clone using the Ranger class is probably a requirement of any Ranger class made by WotC. The class can and should be able to make more than just those two, but since they are specifically called Rangers in literature I expect to be able to reverse engineer their stats with just 5E Ranger.

 

[epithet]

I might be very wrong about this, but I was under the impression that people became interested in the FR novels because they played D&D, not the other way around. I admit I'm basing this on nothing whatsoever besides my own personal experience.

That said, I doubt many people will roll a level 1 character expecting to be Gandalf, Aragorn, Elminster, or Drizzt. They might have it in mind that their character might become something like that after a few levels, but even then I think folks are, for the most part, aware of plot armor and the "I Win" button of destiny, being artifacts that do not gracefully translate from the pages of novels onto the character sheets of the gaming table.

 

[Minigiant]

[MENTION=6776548]Corpsetaker[/MENTION] - Just to point out. No, the ranger is not "just fine" the way it is. If it was, then Mearls wouldn't be talking about a complete rewrite. Obviously, based on feedback, they've discovered that many people don't like how the ranger is written in 5e. So, it is going to change. Trying to argue that it should stay the same isn't going to gain a whole lot of traction.

To me, the ranger class is "just fine".

According to this thread, the issue is that there is no concrete concept for rangers that everyone agrees on. Some just want a wilderness warrior. Others a nonmagical wilderness warrior. Others a damage focus archer/dualweilder. Another idea is an alternate to the base urban rogue make the ranger into the wilderness rogue. Others want a complete beast class.

The ranger in the PHB is mostly fine.
The D&D ranger concept isn't however. The concepts are found in the ranger class, fighter class, rogue class, druid class, and some nonexistent classes as well.

 

[Corpsetaker]

[MENTION=6776548]Corpsetaker[/MENTION] - Just to point out. No, the ranger is not "just fine" the way it is. If it was, then Mearls wouldn't be talking about a complete rewrite. Obviously, based on feedback, they've discovered that many people don't like how the ranger is written in 5e. So, it is going to change. Trying to argue that it should stay the same isn't going to gain a whole lot of traction.

I would have to say that you and Mearls have a different definition of rewrite.

I can honestly tell you right now that the overall concept of the Ranger "will not change". The Ranger will continue to have Favoured Eenemy and Terrain as it's abilities. The feedback received about the ranger has mostly been about the Beastmaster Ranger, Hunter's Mark being a spell, high level abilities, Favoured Enemy not having enough combat ability, and the ranger being so dependent on spells. There was never anything mentioned about the Ranger's concept when it comes to Favoured Enemy and Terrain being changed.

They would not completely rewrite the ranger to the point where the one in the PHB becomes obsolete. They will mostly like either write another variant or take the existing abilities and add to them.

 

[Minigiant]

I agree. That's why I made the tail wagging the dog comment. Drizzt is an important consideration for WotC IMO. Many (not all or even most) players will make a Drizzt clone as their first PC. Being able to make a Drizzt or Aragon clone using the Ranger class is probably a requirement of any Ranger class made by WotC. The class can and should be able to make more than just those two, but since they are specifically called Rangers in literature I expect to be able to reverse engineer their stats with just 5E Ranger.

Indeed. The 5e ranger would have to let players recreate Drizzt, Aragorn, Soveliss, and other iconic representations of D&D rangers.

 

[Corpsetaker]

I agree. That's why I made the tail wagging the dog comment. Drizzt is an important consideration for WotC IMO. Many (not all or even most) players will make a Drizzt clone as their first PC. Being able to make a Drizzt or Aragon clone using the Ranger class is probably a requirement of any Ranger class made by WotC. The class can and should be able to make more than just those two, but since they are specifically called Rangers in literature I expect to be able to reverse engineer their stats with just 5E Ranger.

You can make both actually except for you would have to leave out spells. Aragorn used his weapon one handed and two handed while Drizzt used two weapons. Spells is where people are having difficulty.

The 5th edition ranger is a throwback to the original ranger because you aren't forced into going two weapon fighting or archery.

 

[Corpsetaker]

Except for the fact that it isn't.

Aside from 1E, where the "favored enemy" was really a widely disparate group of vaguely similar bipedal humanoids, Favored Enemy has never been what the Ranger is about, a defining feature, or even terribly important. It's been a minor, secondary feature that you pick and only even remember is on your character sheet if you happen to fight that sort of enemy.

This idea that's it's a defining feature, or even a significant feature, is entirely incorrect. It's never been important after 1E, and the 1E Ranger is essentially an amalgamation of features that barely make sense together anyhow and shouldn't even be referenced.

???

Have you ever looked at the 1st edition ranger? Favoured Enemy and Tracking were the basis behind the Ranger. +1 to damage "per level of ranger" was huge and the defining feature of the class no matter what you say.