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

[epithet]

For what it's worth, I've always thought of the Rogue's "thing" as sneaking, picking pockets, and dealing with traps. Sneak attack is sneaking first, attacking second.

Similarly, I've always thought of the Ranger's thing as... well, ranging. Being at home in the wilderness between the points of light, so to speak.

To say that these classes are built around sneak attack and favored enemy bonuses is, quite frankly, silly. Maybe your games are just combat encounters strung together on some flimsy, forgettable pretext--if that's what your group enjoys, have at it! In my experience, however, what defines a character and lingers in the memory long after the character is retired are just as often the things that happen between combat encounters.

Maybe your focus on combat features is the lingering effect of 4e, where your PC was (like in an MMO) just a collection of combat "powers" and gear. I'm glad that dark period has ended.

 

[steeldragons]

"Built around"is a combat centric perspective, yes. But not necessarily on a playstyle level, if you get my meaning. One of the "differentiating/central" features of classes, in mechanics and story, is the "How" the class does what it does that makes it different than other clases ( and in theory, "justifies" the class' existence in the first place).

PART of this differentiation, is what/how the class does in combat. What makes it stand up to/in [general] line with the other classes? A Fighter has their various fighting/"in combat" features. The paladin has some fighting style, oath powers, and spells. The rogue gets its sneak attack. The wizard gets spells. The clerics and druids get decent armor, some channeling/mystic powers, and spells. The ranger...instead of just getting a xeroxed sneak attack, which would only solidify the ranger's place as a rogue archetype instead of warrior one, have [have had] FE as their "This is what the ranger does [gets to do] in combat. This is how they stand up/are balanced for combat ability among the other warrior classes." AND, most importantly, "This is what they get to do that no other class does!"

Is it situational? Yes. Same as a rogue getting in a sneak attack or a wizard having that spell slot left or right spell prepared or a cleric having a "turning" left in them when the undead again.

Does it dictate a specific flavor/backstory for the class? Yes.

Does it make the ranger a powerhouse comparable to other classes in combat when their specific circumstances [i.e. the favored enemy] are met? Yes.

Does it make rangers "worthless" in other combats or out of combat situations? Not even a little.

 

[Minigiant]

For what it's worth, I've always thought of the Rogue's "thing" as sneaking, picking pockets, and dealing with traps. Sneak attack is sneaking first, attacking second.

Similarly, I've always thought of the Ranger's thing as... well, ranging. Being at home in the wilderness between the points of light, so to speak.

To say that these classes are built around sneak attack and favored enemy bonuses is, quite frankly, silly. Maybe your games are just combat encounters strung together on some flimsy, forgettable pretext--if that's what your group enjoys, have at it! In my experience, however, what defines a character and lingers in the memory long after the character is retired are just as often the things that happen between combat encounters.

Maybe your focus on combat features is the lingering effect of 4e, where your PC was (like in an MMO) just a collection of combat "powers" and gear. I'm glad that dark period has ended.

Really, a class's thing depends on the "pillar of play".

The PHB places the rogue's things as

Combat: Sneak Attacks
Exploration: Stealth & thieves tools
Interaction: Thieves' Cant, Deception

The Quick build for a rogue is a Dex and Int/Cha charlatan. Criminal is the other common background for rogues along with spy, urchin, and soldier. The assumption is that a rogue would be using Sneak attack heavily in combat, relying on Dex heavy skills and thievies tools while exploring, and using Thieves' Cant and Cha skills during social interaction.

The PHB suggests Dex, (Str), Wis as the ranger's order of ability scores.

Combat: various spells (primary hunter's mark, cure wounds, goodberry, lightning arrow, and swift quiver)
Exploration: Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer, various spells
Interaction: Bonus language and lore form FE, spells (speak with animals/plants)

Outlander is the suggested background. Other common backgrounds in fantasy for rangers are noble for the exiled noble/knight, and soldier for the military scout. It is obvious that the 5e ranger's original focus is on exploration. In combat, leans heavily on spells but has favored enemy and natural explorer as big buffs in situational cases and has 3 stealth based class features. In social interactions, it also learns heavily on spells but has a bone thrown form favored enemy.

 

[Diamondeye]

I am curious if there are really many rangers depicted in literature. Many months ago I tried to design a ranger class for the DCC RPG and I googled "Rangers in literature".

I really didn't find anything interesting other a ranger based on a PC game that could fabricate potions. Maybe that was from the Witcher setting, I don't remember.

So can someone provide a list of rangers in fantasy literature that can be referenced for properties that can be used in a D&D class?

That depends. There are a lot of edge cases and characters that are rangers to some people but not to others. They don't necessarily need to have the word "Ranger" in their title or description anywhere to be a ranger either.

If most of them were created after the D&D ranger, wouldn't they be referring back to the D&D archetype and thus basically useless for designing a class?

No. There are other games that have used the concept of rangers, and being designed after the D&D ranger does not mean they were designed because of it. That's post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning, and is erroneous. More importantly, a ranger (or for that matter any other achetype) can be based in part on D&D and still have other original inspiration or be drawn from other sources as well.

 

[Diamondeye]

No one is suggesting that as a design goal. It is, however, very relevant to the discussion in this thread, for the simple reason that the original defining characteristic of the Ranger class was "to be like Aragorn." That was what motivated the creation of the AD&D Ranger. Now, you might correctly say that the class did not entirely succeed in that effort. You might also correctly point out that the Ranger needs a more compelling raison d'être than that in this modern edition of the game.

The fact that the Ranger had its beginning as "a character kind of like Aragorn" is part of the reason we're now discussing the need to take the class back to the drawing board.

There have been 4 intervening versions of the game, and 5 versions of Ranger. The attempt to duplicate Aragorn was abandoned long ago. The fact that this was an original design goal is very little reason to use that as a major point of discussion, nor does it explain how it's "very relevant". It's really only trivially relevant if a return to "Aragorn as the quintissential Ranger" is someone's actual goal, or unless people are discussing revising the Ranger for 1E games.

We get it; the 1E ranger looked like Aragorn. Repeating this over and over is not making any progress.

 

[Diamondeye]

In 1e, the default 'Giant class' bonus was vs actual giants, the DM could optionally expand it. If he didn't, and you were playing through anything other than the 'Against the Giants' series of modules, chances were that feature was not at all defining.

The default PHB description covered quite a few humanoids that were clearly not "giants" and were not subject to DM discretion sans houserules.

We weren't all living in caves before the internet. It was extremely common knowledge among D&Ders that D&D borrowed heavily from Tolkien - to the extent that the Tolkien estate sued TSR. The Aragorn-Ranger connection was painfully obvious.

The connection was stated to be "explicit" - i.e. stated outright. It clearly was not stated outright in the book, nor was the average player privy to conversations at EGG's table. It was not explicit at all. Switching to "painfully obvious" is just goalpost-moving. That wasn't the original claim.

 

[Diamondeye]

"The ranger...instead of just getting a xeroxed sneak attack, which would only solidify the ranger's place as a rogue archetype instead of warrior one, have [have had] FE as their "This is what the ranger does [gets to do] in combat. This is how they stand up/are balanced for combat ability among the other warrior classes." AND, most importantly, "This is what they get to do that no other class does!"

They really haven't. As of 2E, easy 2-weapon fighting became their "thing they do in combat." Favored enemy was a nice bonus against selective enemies - it isn't their thing, and there's no real reason it SHOULD BE. It especially should not be when it's explicitly situational and all of the other classes you mentioned get things that either A) aren't situational at all or B) are only ruled out in very specific situations, such as precision damage not working and can be GENERALLY counted upon.

Is it situational? Yes. Same as a rogue getting in a sneak attack or a wizard having that spell slot left or right spell prepared or a cleric having a "turning" left in them when the undead again.

Those things are not "situational"; they're directly controlled by player decisions and tactics and resource management. The Ranger player cannot even attempt to control what sort of enemies he faces. Even if terrain precludes the easy use of abilities like sneak attack the rogue player can at least assess the possibility of getting around this somehow.

Does it dictate a specific flavor/backstory for the class? Yes.

Which is unnecessarily limiting compared to other classes. If ranged combat + <insert ability here based on subclass> were, that would not be the case.

Does it make the ranger a powerhouse comparable to other classes in combat when their specific circumstances [i.e. the favored enemy] are met? Yes.

Outside 1E it hasn't made them a powerhouse; it's given them some minor to moderate advantages.

Does it make rangers "worthless" in other combats or out of combat situations? Not even a little.

On this I agree, but in part that's because it's not really been very powerful. The Ranger is not losing that much against non-favored enemies in most editions.

This feature is not a scared cow - there's no real need for it at all. It certainly has not been duplicated in other games that have copied heavily from D&D such as EQ/EQ2. If you want "Favored" something, terrain is much more appropriate. If you really have to have favored enemy, it should belong to s specific subtype of ranger such as a stealth-centered type.

 

[epithet]

It might be worth considering what the "Modifying Classes" article in the Unearthed Arcana column had to say about the Ranger:

RANGER

• Rangers have a spellcasting progression that is half as vigorous as the normal progression. The Spellcasting feature can be tinkered with a bit, but it still needs to be a significant portion of what the class can do.
• Much of the ranger’s extra potency in combat comes from spells such as hunter’s mark and from the class features granted by the ranger archetypes. The 3rd-level feature in each archetype usually either provides a raw increase in combat power, or grants the ranger greater combat versatility.
• Favored Enemy was intentionally designed to provide no combat bonus, because the ranger’s strength in combat should not rely solely on the discretion of the Dungeon Master or the circumstances of the adventure. Although the Hunter archetype’s 3rd-level ability does rely somewhat on the nature of the foes being fought, Favored Enemy is generally useful in the interaction and exploration pillars of the game.

Of course, they went on to strip away the spellcasting altogether in their example, so...

 

[Hriston]

Here's an idea for linking the Ranger's tracking ability to combat. The intent is to make it easier for the Ranger to win/avoid surprise on behalf of its party. It might be a little OP.

AMBUSH PREDATOR
When you are following the tracks of a creature, you have advantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks to spot the creature, and you and any friendly creatures with you have advantage on Dexterity (Stealth) checks.

 

[Hriston]

Here's a quote from LR that I think may be a good jumping-off point for the thematic discussion.

'And this I will say to you, Boromir, ere I end. Lonely men are we, Rangers of the wild, hunters - but hunters ever of the servants of the Enemy; for they are found in many places, not in Mordor only.
'If Gondor, Boromir, has been a stalwart tower, we have played another part. Many evil things there are that your bright swords and strong walls do not stay. You know little of the lands beyond your bounds. Peace and freedom, do you say? The North would have known them little but for us. Fear would have destroyed them. But when dark things come from the houseless hills, or creep from sunless woods, they fly from us.'

Here Tolkien describes his Rangers as both "lonely" and "hunters ever of the servants of the Enemy", qualities that I feel are central to the Ranger's character.

Something else that I find useful about this quote, however, is the way it contrasts the Ranger's role in combat, symbolized by the Dunedain of the North, with that of the Fighter, symbolized by the "bright swords and strong walls" of Gondor and Minas Tirith. If the Fighter is the class that holds the front line through strength of arms, maybe the Ranger's thing could be an ability to control the space behind the line, picking off any monsters that make their way past the Fighter's defences, and protecting the more squishy characters that take shelter there.

The ability to inspire fear in enemies is also notable.