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

[Staffan]

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.

I like this, as it is similar to the Druid of the Land. Land druids get bonus spells that are associated with, or particularly useful in, their home terrain (e.g. spider climb in mountains, water breathing on the coast, or blur in the desert), but they're pretty useful out of it as well.

 

[Gansk]

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.

OK, so what would be your personal list of "many fantasy rangers"?

 

[Diamondeye]

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.'

1) So what?
2) Pointing out the goalpost-moving is not "splitting hairs". One does not get to say one thing, have that point addressed, subtly change to something else, then call "hairsplitting" on the responder dragging one back to the original point. This is nothing more than a distraction technique - the underlying fact is that the fact that the 1E Ranger was an attempt to re-create Aragorn simply carries no water.
3) Speaking of splitting hairs, that would have been TSR in 1977, not WotC.

 

[Diamondeye]

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

If I can find a way to get someone to play using it, I would test it. This looks like a very good overall Ranger concept. It is not the Ranger I would write, but it is definitely a good one.

 

[Minigiant]

Here's another question.

How many rangers in fantasy are single-class rangers?

Aragorn being an inspiration is most likely one.
But Drizzt was multiclass in 3e as he spend most of his life as a nonmagical fighter and had that "barbarian" streak.
Most of the Night's Watch probably just dip Ranger as most either start as knight and noble fighter or criminal rogues, fighters, and barbarians. Only Jon and maybe Benjen might have more than 1 ranger level as they have Stark blood and a chance of magic and a second FE.
WOW hunters are probably full class.
Robin Hood it probably more fighter and rogue than ranger.

 

[epithet]

In the original Howard short stories, Conan is a Ranger more than anything. He's certainly not a D&D barbarian, since he wears armor and doesn't rage, and doesn't use 2 handed weapons.

 

[Minigiant]

In the original Howard short stories, Conan is a Ranger more than anything. He's certainly not a D&D barbarian, since he wears armor and doesn't rage, and doesn't use 2 handed weapons.

None of that describes a ranger.
If all a character is known for is martial weaponry and armor., they sorta default to fighter.

If "wilderness" "animals" "plants" "hunter" "border" or a synonym of them don't appear in the character's description, it's hard to place them as a ranger. And even then, they might be a member of another class, be multiclassed, or just have a natural background.

With 5e returning fighters to generalists and skills pulled into backgrounds, many of those many think are rangers might not be anymore.

Is Drizzt more fighter or ranger?

 

[Tony Vargas]

the underlying fact is that the fact that the 1E Ranger was an attempt to re-create Aragorn simply carries no water.

Nonsense. It was common knowledge at the time. When Mearls said that the Ranger was originally just a hodge-podge of abilities displayed by Aragorn, he wasn't lying, making stuff up, nor even obfuscating or exaggerating.
He was just stating the painfully obvious.

 

[epithet]

None of that describes a ranger.
If all a character is known for is martial weaponry and armor., they sorta default to fighter.

If "wilderness" "animals" "plants" "hunter" "border" or a synonym of them don't appear in the character's description, it's hard to place them as a ranger. And even then, they might be a member of another class, be multiclassed, or just have a natural background.

With 5e returning fighters to generalists and skills pulled into backgrounds, many of those many think are rangers might not be anymore.

Is Drizzt more fighter or ranger?

Regarding Conan, I suppose I should have been more specific about why he might best be described as a ranger. He tracks, he is adept at wilderness survival, and he is extraordinarily stealthy in the wilderness. Also, as written in the original Howard stories, he displays enough racism to qualify as having a "favored enemy."

Drizzt is a ranger, because that's how he was made. He is entirely a product of D&D, and I suspect that the current iteration of the ranger class informs the current narrative of his character.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

In the original Howard short stories, Conan is a Ranger more than anything. He's certainly not a D&D barbarian, since he wears armor and doesn't rage, and doesn't use 2 handed weapons.

Oh, he pretty definitely rages. He wears armor, but so do almost all D&D barbarians; 5E is the first edition where the naked barbarian has been a practical option. And two-handed weapons have never been obligatory, either; even in 5E, the most notable difference between barbarian Unarmored Defense and monk Unarmored Defense is that the barbarian is allowed to use a shield.