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

[Hriston]

I have never understood the angst or confusion about the ranger. I wish they called the class the hunter to capture the lightly armoured/ outdoorsy/ non magical/ skirmisher archetype, so as to avoid the whole "does it look like Aragon" line of questioning.

I quite like the story behind the quarry ability of rangers in 4e: you focus using your martial skill on one enemy and aim at its weakness. I think this makes more sense and avoids the problems of most favoured enemy as being the core of the ranger class. So if I were to pick one ability to match with the hunter like theme which appears inherent in the class (to me), some sort of quarry ability would be it.

I think that's what Hunter's Mark is supposed to be. Although I don't know if it does all the same things.

 

[Minigiant]

I think that's what Hunter's Mark is supposed to be. Although I don't know if it does all the same things.

Essentially it is. The difference is

4e quarry isn't a spell and the target can be switched without it dying.
5e mark is a spell, lasts longer, and you can track the target easier.

WHAT I WOULD HAVE DONE: Make them into 3 spells.

hunter's mark stays as is.

New spell: Stalker's quarry. Higher damage bonus, spell doesn't jump when target drops to 0, always no target's location if near, no concentration.

New spell: Predator's prize: AOE "mark", lower damage bonus, marked targets glow for the caster.

 

[Raith5]

I think that's what Hunter's Mark is supposed to be. Although I don't know if it does all the same things.

You are right. We dont have a ranger in my 5e campaign, so I have never seen it in action, but I just checked it up and it adds damage to attacks like in 4e.

But I would much prefer the ability to be a result of the skill of the ranger, rather than magic and for it to be a core defining ability rather than buried in a spell list. I dont really grok the spell casting ranger, despite starting off in 1e.

 

[Quickleaf]

When the Exploration mini-game basically died, maybe the Ranger should have gone with it...

But let's work with it anyway. The core idea, and the Robin Hood and Aragorn types, resonate well. It's a more obvious class candidate than Sorcerers or Warlocks, imo. But it needs to be more than "fighter with bow" to justify its existence as a separate class.

I'd probably start from the 4e Hunter, if I were rebuilding the class. Give a Ranger plenty of sneaky wilderness capabilities, a ranged weapon focus, and cool special effects with arrows. See where that leads you.

I think you're onto something.

Maybe the following would be good design precepts for an updated/overhauled ranger:

• Provide wilderness abilities - use warlock invocations as a model, and look to 4e wilderness knacks for inspiration
• Make spellcasting optional - a feature of a subclass, like eldritch warrior or arcane trickster
• Emphasize exploration - within the constraints of the 5e ruleset, but possibly inspired by the playlets exploration rules

 

[Lucariell]

Ok, so I just want to leave my thoughts on the Ranger, somethings I would like to see changed and some I would like to see sent to the depths of hell.

First of, the two-weapon schtick. I can see it as a viable option to a melee focused Ranger character, the same way I see it as a viable option to any martial fighter-esque character who wants to dual-wield.
However since the Ranger has this "image" of being good-ish (or atleast it does as far as I know) in both melee and range at the same time, Dual Wielding is seriously...I believe inefficient is the word.
Consider this, You are a Ranger, You have a Bow(Or Crossbow/Whatever), A BadDude runs up at you and tries to bite you, Do you...
1: DROP the Bow, Draw 2 Light One Handed Weapons to fight back, And when the BadDude is toast, start looking for the bow on the ground (Muddy/Darkness/Kicked Around)?
2: DROP the Bow, Draw a 2Handed Weapon to fight back (Seriously, WotC equipped the "Ranged Fighter" in the Starter Set with a Longbow and a Two-Handed Sword), And when the BadDude is a goner, start looking for the bow on the ground (Muddy/Darkness/Kicked Around)?
3: HOLD the Bow in your off-hand, Draw a One-Handed Weapon to fight back, so that you don't have to pick up the bow before shooting when the BadDude is dead?
4: You could ofcourse run. (just needed to add this as an option.)

Sure, while the rules of the game states that all options are equally viable since you could pick up the bow for free and just start shooting, I personally always try to think from the characters perspective and he don't use no rules like that. (Tried a Southern accent, mean't no offence). I realize that this is more of a gripe with the rules in general but it is in the Ranger class I find it more evident.
(Can also add that this particular issue goes beyond D&D, almost every PC game I have played where you can be a Ranger-esque character they can dualwield and switch between bows and 2 weps at will, and it seriously hurts my brain everytime I see it. Others may disagree, and thats cool, but this is my personal bane.)

Anyways, now that I got that out of my head, lets move on to my second point of ranting, the Spells.

While I can see a use of spells for the Ranger Class, I would like it to be in a sub-class (Perhaps Warden?, as been pointed out earlier in the thread) rather than a default position.
I really liked the No-Magic Ranger they showed in the Unearthed Arcana Article, and eagerly await my DMs next campaign where I hope to play one.

Ok, My second point was a little more concise than the previous, but it got said so there. On to the Third, the Thing.

So, I guess it should be no surprise that the design of some classes contains aspects of popular characters from movies/books/games around us. Barbarian is for some based on Conan, although he just as easily could be played as a soldier with severe anger issues. In the Monk we can see aspects of the Eastern Martial arts, Ninjas and now apparently Air/Fire/Earth/Water-Benders (Which I don't really mind, the movie sucks though) and so on. The Ranger has as already been discussed recieved most of its inspiration from Aragorn and Drizzt, 2 Dudes I seriously would like to keep on the friendly side, so hope they don't take offence to where I'm going with this.
I feel that if we need to find a "Thing" for the Rangers to call their own, then we need to start looking at another character, I'm talking about Geralt of Rivia. (Or Witcher's in general)

Yes, They are also very similar to Fighters with a weird Background (seriously, genetically altered mutants with super-juice)
Yes, They still have Magic and Spells.
Yes, They could be Rangers as they are now, without any problems. (I actually tried to make a sub-class for it, failed utterly, I'm not a great balancer apparently)

But I feel that they have something the Ranger touches on, but never fully grasps.
The potential of the Favored Enemy.
Now, I have only played D&D since 3.5, so I don't know of features from the earlier editions. But I Liked the 3.5 Favored Enemy, yeah, it was dependent on the DM to actually see any use, but that was the thing.
When you faced your enemy, you were the Baddest of Asses, anything you did was easier against them, because you KNEW them, How they worked, How they Hunted, How they Killed and perhaps most important How to kill Them.

To me, that was the Rangers THING, not the Bow or the 2-fecking-swords, but the Knowledge of how to seriously frakk something up when they could.
In 4th they took it out completely, sure they added the Hunter's Quarry instead, and you can't complain about the 4th ed Ranger, he was a freaking monster.
In 5th, they decided to make it purely exploration/out of combat based. Not really a Fan of that idea, but I can see where they are coming from.
Personally I would like it to be beefed up, give the Ranger +1d6 dmg whenever he fights his Favored Enemy, Advantage or Expertise on skills against them, knowing how to Decieve and Persuade can be more usefull than Tracking and Percieving when faced with enemies that has them surrounded.
I can't rightfully say HOW it should be done (like I said, I suck at balance), all I'm saying is that it could be a Thing that sets the Ranger apart from the others.


To sum up, Base Ranger class with focus on Favored Enemy with both in-combat and out-of-combat bonuses. Fighting Style, maybe keep Natural Explorer, 3 or more Skills.
Then as sub-classes I can see a Warden with druidic spells, A Beast-Master with a pet(or pets), And something more martial focused, maybe Sharpshooter for Ranged and Raider for Melee?

 

[Hriston]

You are right. We dont have a ranger in my 5e campaign, so I have never seen it in action, but I just checked it up and it adds damage to attacks like in 4e.

But I would much prefer the ability to be a result of the skill of the ranger, rather than magic and for it to be a core defining ability rather than buried in a spell list. I dont really grok the spell casting ranger, despite starting off in 1e.

According to Rodney Thompson, in the UA article "Modifying Classes", it is defining, at least of the Ranger's combat prowess.

Rangers gain a lot of their combat potency from spells, especially hunter’s mark.

To replace the combat utility of the Ranger's spellcasting, he suggested a toned-down version of Combat Superiority. To me, this choice is sacrificing a lot of flavor.

 

[fuindordm]

I don't mind the ranger having a little magic, but I'd rather see it in a subclass.

I don't mind the ranger having bonus "quarry" damage, but I'd rather if it were skinned as a mundane ability (e.g. Something that kicks in after observing the quarry for 1 round, and can be switched to other creatures of same type)

I think a mundane core ranger with some kind of FE/quarry damage and good skills would be an effective chassis for three classes: foe hunter (more damage), beastmaster, and warden (with eldritch knight progression on Druid list).

But I don't think I'll get it.

Ben

 

[Corpsetaker]

The Ranger needs to break with tradition and drop spells period.

There are ways to have a ranger do extraordinary things without him having to cast spells. Also I think the ranger is perfect for providing "before combat" abilities. Here are a few things I would like to see.

1: Trap making and terrain tactics: I envision rangers as scouts who observe a group of creatures and then set up an ambush and lead them into it. I would give the ranger the ability to set traps using the terrain.

2: Terrain abilities: Give him specific abilities that have to do with terrain such as "pass without a trace", stealth bonuses, nature lore etc...

3: Magical natures healing: Basically the ranger can use flowers, animal and insect venom, plus other ingredients to produce effects like Cure Wounds, Cure Poison, Cure disease etc....

4: Trick shots: I would like to see the old trick shot rules from 2nd edition brought back for the ranger. Pinning your target against a tree, two arrows fired at once etc....

5: Quarry: There are two ways I thought about this. Blend Quarry with Tracking and if the Ranger can successfully track the enemy he gets a bonus to attack and damage, and/or during combat he studies the foe for one round, makes a type of Lore check and can designate a group of enemies, if they are the same race, as their Quarry.

I will add a few more when I think of them.

 

[Sadrik]

You do have a point that "vampire hunter" is an appealing fantasy and the game should allow it in some capacity. However, I think D&D has historically gone the wrong direction with this in tying it to the ranger class. Not all rangers are vampire hunters (or whatever hunters). Aragorn himself isn't specially identified by his enmity for or skill against a particular foe - sure, he's good at fighting orcs, but he doesn't excel at that over Boromir or Gandalf, and nobody calls him "Aragorn the Orc Hunter". Furthermore, not all vampire hunters (or whatever) are rangers. For vampire hunters in particular, I see a lot of clerics, paladins, fighters, and even rogues. Buffy sure ain't no ranger. So to me, it would make more sense if favored enemies were a feat or a combat style or some other class-transcending option. I don't feel like it's at all a part of the core fantasy the ranger class is trying to capture.

I am in complete agreement. Though to be honest, Aragorn was likely a fighter/champion with a woodland warrior background. This is what makes the most sense for Aragorn. For a ranger class it has morphed into several different things that have defined the class in D&D, two-weapon fighting, archery, animal companions, keen senses, tracking, spell casting, favored enemies, and wilderness survival. I don't think all of those things should be a part of the ranger. I think some of those things could be pulled out an made backgrounds (skills: keen senses, tracking, survival), Spell casting should be pulled out and made a subclass like the Eldritch knight. Fighting style can easily be made a class feature like all of the warrior types have. Animal companion I feel should be a feat for any class to get. That really leaves favored enemy as their thing. For that, I think making the proposed idea above pretty good. But also going with the idea of the smart warrior they could have maneuvers too. I also here what you are saying that not every ranger should have a favored enemy. That makes sense to me too.

So possible subclasses:
Maneuver based subclass (Drizzt)
Spellcaster based subclass (IDK)
Hunter based subclass (Van helsing)
Scout based subclass (Aragorn?)

Intelligence based abilities as the smart warrior. There are actually two wilderness warriors in the PHB, the barbarian and the ranger. Making them very different is key. Making the ranger a very civilized batman style adventurer (more rogue like than fighter like) makes a whole lot of sense.

 

[bedir than]

The spellless (I prefer Mundane) Ranger does what you're looking at

https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/modifying-classes

I still think it fails a tiny bit in the companion department.

My homebrew doesn't allow the spelled rangers and trying to figure out ways to do it for Paladin (certainly) and Bard (maybe not).