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

[fuindordm]

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.

Soldier vs scout again. By the same token, the fighter could use more abilities/maneuvers/feats to enhance their abilities when part of an organized unit.

Another literary ranger that hasn't been mentioned yet is the "Lone Ranger"--operates alone, self-sufficient, feared by baddies, etc.

A defining point of the ranger is that it is capable of penetrating enemy lines, scouting or reaching a high-value target, wreaking havoc, and making it back home, based only on their own abilities. They're not the only class that can do this, but their mishmash of abilities is chosen to support this role.

 

[Minigiant]

Here are a few questions for everyone.

1) If the ranger simply received Expertise instead of Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer, would it still feel like a ranger?

2) Would a favored organization variant (choose mage or thieves guilds, city guards, druid circle, or any other organization as a target) for favored enemy match ranger flavor?

3) Should favored enemy be a choice (meaning a ranger chooses 2 of favored enemies, terrains, and organizations)

4) Could you see rangers using nontraditional fighting style based on the ranger's preferred terrain (heavy armored arctic rangers, unarmored coastal rangers, grassland ranged with shields)?

Just to gauge how everyone thinks.

 

[fuindordm]

Here are a few questions for everyone.

1) If the ranger simply received Expertise instead of Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer, would it still feel like a ranger?

Yes, with nuances.
The Ranger currently gets several unique advantages for exploring which could be opened up to everyone as high-DC uses of the Survival skill. In the current rules, Natural Explorer is better for the Ranger. But I would be fine with expanding the scope of Survival to include these functions and giving the Ranger expertise.

2) Would a favored organization variant (choose mage or thieves guilds, city guards, druid circle, or any other organization as a target) for favored enemy match ranger flavor?

Absolutely.

3) Should favored enemy be a choice (meaning a ranger chooses 2 of favored enemies, terrains, and organizations)

No.

It sounds good at the character creation phase but falls apart in play. The Ranger bonuses should be transferable to their "enemy of the moment", and they should reward the ranger for acting like a ranger: scouting, tracking, and surveillance BEFORE combat starts.

4) Could you see rangers using nontraditional fighting style based on the ranger's preferred terrain (heavy armored arctic rangers, unarmored coastal rangers, grassland ranged with shields)?

Yes, it would be interesting for Favored Terrain to grant some permanent bonuses applicable in all terrains. Look at the Druid--their favored terrain gives them useful bonus spells but doesn't restrict their utility at all in other terrains.

 

[steeldragons]

Here are a few questions for everyone.

1) If the ranger simply received Expertise instead of Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer, would it still feel like a ranger?

It certainly could. It would depend on the implementation. There is also the fact that the ranger, like the Fighter and the Thief, need to have 2 starting/level 1 features. Now, knowing your preference, I guess that would be Expertise and Spellcasting. FOr the non-spell-based ranger fans, it would need to be Expertise and something else.

If you are asking if "Expertise" could replace both Natural Explorer and Favored Enemy...I would say, then, say no. But "Expertise" in wilderness situations, perhaps called Wilderness Expertise (as in my own ranger write-up, if you'd give that a look ) is most certainly a reasonable feature for the class to have...imo.

My current iteration of the Wilderness Expertise feature for my ranger rewrite grants the ranger their Proficiency bonus added to Nature, Survival and Stealth rolls...in any terrain. In their chosen terrain, the prof. bonus is doubled. So, useful all of the time. Better/superstar in their chosen terrain. That work for everyone? No one's arguing against that kind of thing, it seems.

2) Would a favored organization variant (choose mage or thieves guilds, city guards, druid circle, or any other organization as a target) for favored enemy match ranger flavor?

I suppose. Though I recall some unwritten/unspoken rule about choosing things like "humans, elves, etc..., [PC races]" as favored enemies. Not explicitly "not allowed", but in "bad taste/poor game sportsmanship". Naturally, that was several editions ago and modern editions don't give concern to such things.

I don't think you could make "an organization" their favored enemy. How do they fight "Mages" or "Thieves", "Clerics of Ool", "the Dark Paladins of Badguy", etc... I could see the classes becoming fair game. So, if you can fight thieves well...whether they're in a guild, or even specific singular guild, or not shouldn't really matter.

But, does it fit the flavor? Yeah, sure. I suppose.

3) Should favored enemy be a choice (meaning a ranger chooses 2 of favored enemies, terrains, and organizations)

See no reason why it couldn't be. So you could have 1 favored enemy and 1 favored terrain...or 2 favored organizations or 1 terrain and 1 organization, etc etc..., you mean? Yeah. Could be. Should be?...not sure about that.

4) Could you see rangers using nontraditional fighting style based on the ranger's preferred terrain (heavy armored arctic rangers, unarmored coastal rangers, grassland ranged with shields)?

Based on the terrain? I would rather not go here. This kind of thing is better left to player wishes and common sense.

I am really not interested in getting into arguments over the coastal ranger player's assertion that they are able to swim in their armor...or that they're AC is not diminished being unarmored in the water...or why/how heavy armor has to do with arctic conditions/keeps them warmer...whatever/however that would go.

Just seems like...on its face, a cool/flavorful idea that...in practice would end up opening more unnecessary cans of worms than its worth. In other words, the opportunities/chances for abuse/argument/problems...overall "detracting from the game" will/would eventually outweigh whatever the feature is aimed to add.

But I could be wrong.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

If that's the hair you want to split, fine. By the time the PH was published, WotC had already been through a legal battle with the Tolkien estate, and changed Ents to Trents and so forth in the '77 MM as a result, so, no, they wouldn't have dared state it 'explicitly.'

Here are a few questions for everyone.

1) If the ranger simply received Expertise instead of Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer, would it still feel like a ranger?

2) Would a favored organization variant (choose mage or thieves guilds, city guards, druid circle, or any other organization as a target) for favored enemy match ranger flavor?

3) Should favored enemy be a choice (meaning a ranger chooses 2 of favored enemies, terrains, and organizations)

4) Could you see rangers using nontraditional fighting style based on the ranger's preferred terrain (heavy armored arctic rangers, unarmored coastal rangers, grassland ranged with shields)?

Just to gauge how everyone thinks.

Yes, Definitely Yes, Wouldn't hurt, Yes.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

1) If the ranger simply received Expertise instead of Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer, would it still feel like a ranger?

In principle, I like that they tried to vary up the way skill bonuses work a bit rather than just use the same Expertise ability on three different classes. But in practice, the way they did it with the ranger makes the class' mastery of survival skills more situational than it ought to be. Even outside his homeland, a ranger should excel at these skills beyond the norm. So what I might do is something like this: rather than give the ranger completely open rogue-style Expertise, say, "You gain proficiency in the Perception and Survival skills. If you already have proficiency, double your proficiency bonus with these skills." It's still a little bit distinct, but it's more consistent.

2) Would a favored organization variant (choose mage or thieves guilds, city guards, druid circle, or any other organization as a target) for favored enemy match ranger flavor?

As much as the original favored enemy does, which is to say: not a lot. If favored enemy is to be a mechanic, a variant like this should exist for campaigns that use fewer different species than the D&D standard. Imagine an Arthurian or musketeer campaign -- it's probably a bad idea to let the ranger pick "humans" when there aren't really any other bad guys.

3) Should favored enemy be a choice (meaning a ranger chooses 2 of favored enemies, terrains, and organizations)

Sure, why not?

4) Could you see rangers using nontraditional fighting style based on the ranger's preferred terrain (heavy armored arctic rangers, unarmored coastal rangers, grassland ranged with shields)?

I think 5E covers this pretty well with Combat Style. Fighters, paladins, and rangers are supposed to be a diverse bunch when it comes to equipment of choice. The two-weapon-fighting specialist is an artifact of R. A. Salvatore (and it was originally a drow thing, not a ranger thing).

 

[Herobizkit]

It's kind of a shame that monster "terrain types" stopped being a thing. It could be VERY interesting to have a ranger have a bonus to fight creatures who are listed in the MM as possibly being from a certain terrain (like, a Desert druid would have his tracking/fighting bonus versus Blue Dragons, scorpions and... oh... Mummies).

 

[steeldragons]

Here's the latest version (that I bothered to save) What do folks think of this? No favored enemy as default. No spellcasting as default. Core abilities that combine utility and combat options...only thing I am a little disappointed with is the healing herbal stuff not showing up before 8th level. But I don't see a way to get it in earlier.

Who wants to playtest it

 

[Corpsetaker]

Yes, it would be interesting for Favored Terrain to grant some permanent bonuses applicable in all terrains. Look at the Druid--their favored terrain gives them useful bonus spells but doesn't restrict their utility at all in other terrains.

This is something I want to focus on.

You seem to think that a ranger is restricted in some way if he isn't receiving a bonus. You aren't restricted if you don't receive a bonus. The ranger is perfectly capable of operating in other terrains and fighting other monsters that aren't his favoured, you just don't get the bonus. That is not the definition of being restricted and if you do feel this way, then I think that is part of the problem right there.

 

[fuindordm]

This is something I want to focus on.

You seem to think that a ranger is restricted in some way if he isn't receiving a bonus. You aren't restricted if you don't receive a bonus. The ranger is perfectly capable of operating in other terrains and fighting other monsters that aren't his favoured, you just don't get the bonus. That is not the definition of being restricted and if you do feel this way, then I think that is part of the problem right there.

Fair enough, my language was sloppy.

What I was trying to say is: it would be interesting if the choice of favored terrain granted an ability that was useful in all terrains, in addition to expanded utility limited to the chosen terrain. For example, Favored Terrain: Mountain granting a climb speed, as well as all that stuff about tracking at higher speed, etc. etc.