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

[steeldragons]

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.

Soooo, you obviously have no idea about the ranger or its history of the game called D&D, then, do you?

1e, yes, had a massive damage bonus to a wide range of "giant class" humanoids...which originally included: actual giants, all goblinoids, gnolls, orcs, kobolds, ettins, ogres, ogre magi, and trolls...which was then expanded with the release of Unearthed Arcana to include basically anything that might be described as a monstrous or savage humanoid.

In 2e this was downgraded in scope, though no less an integral part of the ranger's story and class. Instead of +1 per level to damage, to a flat +4 to hit against a chosen "species" of creature. Just one. You were also at a -4 penalty to conceal your hatred ["enmity"] for these creatures and were directed that you should seek them out and fight them prior to and to the exclusion of other foes when the opportunity presented itself.

3e...primary class feature, Favored Enemy. +2 to certain skills and +2 damage against a monster category or humanoid race at 1st level. Adding more/additional Favored enemies every 5 levels.

I have no idea how 4e displayed it. But how you can possibly assert, with any semblance of a straight face, that favored enemy was never ["since 1e"] a major ranger feature, if not defining feature, is patently and irrefutably false.

Likewise the assertion that the 1e ranger was an amalgam of disparate features that didn't make sense, when the class was explicitly created for some one who wanted to play the character of Aragorn from the LotR series [the books, incidentally, not the movies. Feel the need to clarify that not knowing your age.], and thus modeled after that character is similarly misguided if not deliberately disingenuous.

 

[Corpsetaker]

The ranger from 2nd edition up is a class that was designed where the player is supposed to look at the Favoured Enemy class feature and come up with a background reason as to why you chose a specific enemy as your Favoured Enemy. When Favoured Terrain was introduced it was the same.

There are a few posters who just want the ranger to get rid of basically what makes the class unique and have them effect everything the same. Trying to do this just takes the concept of the ranger and throws it in the bin.

 

[DerekSTheRed]

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.

IME running LG game days, I introduced new players looking to create their first PCs. For most of them, they had trouble coming up with a character concept. It's wasn't so much looking for an "I Win" button as it was simply using the characters that inspired the player in the fantasy genre as inspiration for their first character in D&D.

I was also under the impression that the BRAND of D&D being placed in primacy over the game was because WotC had research that showed people are more likely to read D&D novels set in worlds like FR and not play D&D than the reverse. I'm willing to be convinced pending new evidence.

 

[Minigiant]

To me, I believe the issue of 5th and every edition to come, is page space management.There just isn't or wasn't enough space to fit all the archteype everyone wants and keep all the other stuff in. D&D is too big and diverse at this point. The best bet is to make 2 more ranger archteypes, a few nonranger subclasses, and mabye a new class or two.

My belief for the best versions Rangers of 5th edition are:

• Ranger class (PHB version)
  • Hunter ranger archetype
  • Beastmaster ranger archetype
  • Seeker ranger archetype
• Ranger class with no spells (UA variant)
  • Hunter ranger archetype
  • Beastmaster ranger archetype
• Barbarian
  • Path of the Feral/Wild Savage
• Rogue class
  • Scout rogue archetype
• Druid class
  • Circle of the Wood
• Tamer class (new class)
  • Beastlord subclass
  • Spiritmaster subclass

This fills most of the desired forms of "rangers" while still working in a general game and needing the least amount of DM gruntwork or player dissatifaction.

 

[DerekSTheRed]

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.

At least two or three Ranger spells per level are bonus actions that enhance the Ranger's attacks. It's entirely possible for Ranger to only use those spells. Thus the Ranger does not cast spells in the narrative sense while still casting spells in the gamist sense.

Also Aragorn used Kingsfoil in RotK which is kind of like casting Lesser Restoration. Some are really passionate about spells and Rangers. I'm not passionate either way. It seems like adding the spell portion to the class was an easy way to add utility to the Ranger using already existing game elements and have a Nature Gish thus killing two birds in one stone.

Consider the Way of the Four Elements Monk. He gets the ability to cast "spells" using ki points. The monk can choose which "spells" but all have the elemental attunement ability. What if the Ranger (or a single Ranger build) could do something similar with "Nature" points. The Ranger would pick which spells (like Hunter's Mark) but all had the Favored Enemy/Terrain "spell". The elemental monk could get ki points back in a short rest so the Ranger would as well.

I am currently playing the elemental monk in D&D encounters and I never really consider him a caster. Sure spell-like effects happen but I consider him spell-less and instead he "bends" the elements. In a similar fashion the Ranger's innate connection to nature allows the manifestation of the "bending" of nature. Others may disagree about the element monk being spell-less. In any case I would consider a Ranger with similar design elements to be spell-less as well but again others may disagree.

I admit I never really understood the desire for a spell-less Ranger so maybe the people who want one can set me straight.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

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.

I wouldn't bet on that if I were you.

They would not completely rewrite the ranger to the point where the one in the PHB becomes obsolete.

Well, the PHB version is never going to "become obsolete". It's still going to be there no matter what they do. But it does sound from Mearls' comments like they're thinking about a complete rewrite, or even more than one. If you haven't yet, I recommend you listen to the podcast where Mearls discusses this. Phrases like "from the ground up" are used.

There are a few posters who just want the ranger to get rid of basically what makes the class unique and have them effect everything the same. Trying to do this just takes the concept of the ranger and throws it in the bin.

I repeat: the concept of the ranger, from the class description in the 1E PHB, is this: "Rangers are a sub-class of fighter who are adept at woodcraft, tracking, scouting, and infiltration and spying." There is no mention of favored enemy until it's listed among the "other abilities and benefits" alongside scrying, surprise, tracking, spells, and attracting followers. Your claim that favored enemy is central to the class concept is something that you are asserting without evidence. It has no textual basis. Rangers without favored enemy would still be "adept at woodcraft, tracking, scouting, and infiltration and spying." Imagine we took the 5th Edition ranger and just changed the benefits of Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer so they applied to all monsters and terrains. Do you really believe that the class would no longer be unique? It would still have all manner of unique class features that reflect this concept.

But maybe you disagree with my assessment of the 1E text. So let's back off from that question. Let's assume for the sake of argument that you're correct, and favored enemy has been the concept of the D&D ranger since 1E. We still don't have to accept that as the end of the discussion. Just because this is the concept the class has always had doesn't mean it's a good concept. Not all concepts are equal. And for the purposes of the Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game, favored enemy is rather a poor one. Firstly, it is arbitrary; it does not reflect the expectations that non-D&D players and newcomers are likely to have upon hearing the term "ranger". And secondly, it incentivizes players and DMs to avoid diverse encounters and adventures, when every mechanic in this game ought to enable them. Yes, it's possible to rationalize an orc-slaying ranger showing up in an adventure without any orcs. But given a choice between "more orcs" and "something else", the class feature naturally pushes the player towards "more orcs", for both mechanical and roleplaying reasons. And it's just poor game design for there the optimal decision not to be a fun decision -- as fighting orcs session after session is likely not to be fun for most groups.

So if we changed the favored enemy concept in favor of something more broadly applicable, as are the concepts of the barbarian and rogue and wizard and every other core class, then yes, this would "take the concept of the ranger and throw it into the bin" -- but because that concept was a poor one, this would be an improvement. It would be easier to grasp for new players coming into the game with ideas based on Aragorn and Robin Hood. And it would put ranger characters on an even footing with the others in their ability to select and excel in diverse adventures. So why not do this? What advantage does the arbitrary, limiting concept of favored enemy provide to the game?

And what concept could we change it to?

Well, how about "adept at woodcraft, tracking, scouting, and infiltration and spying"?

 

[Corpsetaker]

At least two or three Ranger spells per level are bonus actions that enhance the Ranger's attacks. It's entirely possible for Ranger to only use those spells. Thus the Ranger does not cast spells in the narrative sense while still casting spells in the gamist sense.

Also Aragorn used Kingsfoil in RotK which is kind of like casting Lesser Restoration. Some are really passionate about spells and Rangers. I'm not passionate either way. It seems like adding the spell portion to the class was an easy way to add utility to the Ranger using already existing game elements and have a Nature Gish thus killing two birds in one stone.

Consider the Way of the Four Elements Monk. He gets the ability to cast "spells" using ki points. The monk can choose which "spells" but all have the elemental attunement ability. What if the Ranger (or a single Ranger build) could do something similar with "Nature" points. The Ranger would pick which spells (like Hunter's Mark) but all had the Favored Enemy/Terrain "spell". The elemental monk could get ki points back in a short rest so the Ranger would as well.

I am currently playing the elemental monk in D&D encounters and I never really consider him a caster. Sure spell-like effects happen but I consider him spell-less and instead he "bends" the elements. In a similar fashion the Ranger's innate connection to nature allows the manifestation of the "bending" of nature. Others may disagree about the element monk being spell-less. In any case I would consider a Ranger with similar design elements to be spell-less as well but again others may disagree.

I admit I never really understood the desire for a spell-less Ranger so maybe the people who want one can set me straight.

Trying to mimic the LoTr with D&D is very hard. I believe it was more the magic of the land such as the plants than Aragorn possessing any spells.

 

[epithet]

Aragorn's ability to heal with Kingsfoil had nothing whatsoever to do with his training as a ranger. Aragorn was of royal blood, so the plant became magic medicine in his hands. He could have used it just as well if he had been a grocer or a librarian.

 

[epithet]

So, here's a question: does the "favored enemy" feature make you want to play a Ranger? Have you ever thought "Hmm, I could play a Rogue, but I really want that favored enemy bonus. Gotta go with the Ranger!"

When you're talking about the Ranger's "thing" and your mind isn't in the gutter, you should think about class features that are compelling and fun. That's not to say that the Ranger shouldn't have the favored enemy feature, but favored enemies are not the special sauce.

 

[Diamondeye]

Soooo, you obviously have no idea about the ranger or its history of the game called D&D, then, do you?

No, in fact I have an excellent idea of it, or I wouldn't have pointed out that it was never a defining feature after 1E, and in 1E it was only defining because it was so broad.

1e, yes, had a massive damage bonus to a wide range of "giant class" humanoids...which originally included: actual giants, all goblinoids, gnolls, orcs, kobolds, ettins, ogres, ogre magi, and trolls...which was then expanded with the release of Unearthed Arcana to include basically anything that might be described as a monstrous or savage humanoid.

Which I already acknowleged. However, a feature being present in 1E is not a reason - by itself - to keep it, and even then it was one of several equally important features. More importantly, the 1E ranger was an incoherent amalgamation of features and should not be considered a guide to class design. 1E was, like the first generation of anything, a good start but not something to repeat. If you think it is, maybe you'd also like to fly a MiG-15 against an F-15?

In 2e this was downgraded in scope, though no less an integral part of the ranger's story and class. Instead of +1 per level to damage, to a flat +4 to hit against a chosen "species" of creature. Just one. You were also at a -4 penalty to conceal your hatred ["enmity"] for these creatures and were directed that you should seek them out and fight them prior to and to the exclusion of other foes when the opportunity presented itself.

Yes, the feature was relegated to secondary status, as I pointed out. Stealth and dual wielding became much more important, in part because people like dual wielding and sneaking around, and in part because they are not situational.

3e...primary class feature, Favored Enemy. +2 to certain skills and +2 damage against a monster category or humanoid race at 1st level. Adding more/additional Favored enemies every 5 levels.

It was not a primary class feature. +2 on skill checks is a moderate bonus at level 1 and drops to trivial by level 5. +2 to damage is even more trivial. Most other features were more important. Even more, with the heavy emphasis of 3.X on multiclassing it was unlikely the feature would ever be developed. Most players would simply select "undead" and be done with it because undead were a widely applicable creature type.

I have no idea how 4e displayed it. But how you can possibly assert, with any semblance of a straight face, that favored enemy was never ["since 1e"] a major ranger feature, if not defining feature, is patently and irrefutably false.

It didn't display it at all, and yes I can say it with a straight face, and I just explaiend why. Period. You do not get to say "patently and irrefutably false"; that's just an error of begging the question. That's all there is to it.

Even more importantly, it does not MATTER whether it was a major feature as that does not mean that it should be. That's simply an error of Appeal to Tradition.

So - it does not define the Ranger. Period.

Likewise the assertion that the 1e ranger was an amalgam of disparate features that didn't make sense, when the class was explicitly created for some one who wanted to play the character of Aragorn from the LotR series [the books, incidentally, not the movies. Feel the need to clarify that not knowing your age.], and thus modeled after that character is similarly misguided if not deliberately disingenuous.

My age is "old enough to have played 1E when it was all there was" and that's all you need to concern yourself with.

Furthermore, whether it was an attempt to duplicate Aragorn is irrelevant to whether it was an amalgamation of unrelated features. That was exactly what it was. The Ranger was a woodsman that tracked, but for some reason also used low-level magic-user spells and could also tramp around in plate mail armor. It had a rather odd hit die arrangement for no apparent reason. So on and so forth. None of the features were logically realted to any other except insofar as they kind of sort of duplicated one particular Ranger who wasn't even a D&D character to begin with.

Your objection is therefore entirely irrelevant - the features were, in fact, entirely unrelated (and there was also nothing "Explicit" about it being created to duplicate Aragorn; the PHB said no such thing. That's what the meaning of "explicit" would indicate). All you have managed to demonstrate is that, if translated to D&D terms, Aragorn is an amalgamation of incoherent features. There is nothing wrong with this because Aragorn is not a D&D character, but it does demonstrate that trying to make LotR character into D&D characters is a bad idea and should not be done.