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

[DerekSTheRed]

My favorite AD&D character was a ranger with the justicar kit. I love the idea of the ranger class. However, If I was remaking that character today I'd probably use paladin with oath of the ancients. A bunch of other classes beat up the ranger and took his stuff over the various editions. It may be time to put the class out of its misery and create a nature subclass for fighter and call it ranger. Of course this won't happen because Drizzt. It just doesn't seem like there's enough design space left for a distinctive ranger class in 5E.

 

[Benz74]

Spell-less ranger

I've read this entire thread and it encouraged me to come up with my own spell-less ranger. My revised ranger class also has no beast companion. It borrows from the original Ranger's features, the Hunter Archetype, and the Unearthed Arcana article.

It encourages the player to use existing feats to customize their ranger.

You can find my take on the Spell-less ranger in the Download section, "5th edition fan creations".

 

[Hriston]

I asked if being a wilderness guy makes you a Ranger. You said:

Of course not. And not everyone who joins a temple becomes a cleric.

Then I asked if all wilderness guys were, by coincidence, Rangers. You said:

It's hardly a coincidence when that's literally what the word means.

So which is it?

Is every lumberjack, huntsman, and forester a member of the Ranger class, or is there something else that defines the class besides an aptitude for survival in the wilderness?

Also, is every Rogue a bad person? That's what the word means after all.

Is every Wizard constrained to put her highest score in Wisdom? You do know the word Wizard means someone who is wise, don't you?

All rangers are monster slayers -- they're all experts in armed combat, just like fighters and paladins and barbarians. That's certainly not what I'm questioning. But what is Eärendil's favored enemy? Does he hunt all the creatures of Morgoth, or does he specialize in one? Why should he specialize? Why should he have to? Why should that define the class he is?

Earendil is defined by the slaying of Ancalagon the Black, the sire of all flying dragons. He is a Dragon Slayer.

Why should that define the class he is?

Earendil doesn't have a class. He is not a D&D character. He is a literary character. There's a difference.

If orc-fighting were his motivation, why would he have gone on those adventures?

Because he's the orc-fighting guy in the group that happens to be going on this adventure. So... group loyalty? ...opportunity for profit so he can buy a new set of orc-slaying weapons? ....thinks he'll see some orcs on the way?

Characters are complex. Class is just part of the equation.

Why would an Assassin go on adventure that didn't involve assassinating someone? Is that too confining a concept for a character class?

Why would a Fighter try to resolve a conflict non-violently, since that would deprive her of an opportunity to do what her class is all about?

You say rangers are rare -- assumption.

I'm only assuming something that's been part of the class since it was introduced. Since when is the Ranger meant to represent every mundane person with forestry and outdoor skills, as if that's what defines the class? I think this gets to the heart of what's hard to define about the Ranger, because what you're talking about could be represented just as easily by a Fighter or a Rogue with survival skills. The Ranger needs to have something else to make it unique.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I asked if being a wilderness guy makes you a Ranger.

That's not what you asked. In fact, if I were going to be pedantic about this, I'd note that you weren't asking a question at all. Your words were, "None of these reasons for going into the wild would necessarily lead to one becoming a Ranger."

Then I asked if all wilderness guys were, by coincidence, Rangers.

What I was objecting to was your use of "coincidence". It's not coincidental that the ranger class is correlated with people ranging, because there is a clear semantic connection there. It is coincidental that the ranger class is correlated with people hating a particular enemy, because the assignment of that ability to this class is arbitrary.

Is every lumberjack, huntsman, and forester a member of the Ranger class, or is there something else that defines the class besides an aptitude for survival in the wilderness?

Not every burglar is a rogue, not every soldier is a fighter, and not every woodsman is a ranger. The PC classes are generally interpreted as representing an "elite" version of those skillsets. They don't need to have a qualitatively different defining ability -- they're just better at what they do.

Besides, some campaigns may indeed use the rogue class for all burglars and so on. And who are we to tell those DMs they are wrong?

Also, is every Rogue a bad person? That's what the word means after all.

Is every Wizard constrained to put her highest score in Wisdom? You do know the word Wizard means someone who is wise, don't you?

*chuckle* I think you know as well as I that this line of argument is just silly.

Earendil doesn't have a class. He is not a D&D character. He is a literary character. There's a difference.

We can discuss the ranger class in terms of its literary archetypal antecedents, or not. But it's just a waste of time if you're going to use this line as a get-out-of-argument-free card in lieu of a substantial reply. Either Eärendil is relevant or he isn't. You can't have it both ways.

Because he's the orc-fighting guy in the group that happens to be going on this adventure. So... group loyalty? ...opportunity for profit so he can buy a new set of orc-slaying weapons? ....thinks he'll see some orcs on the way?

Why should the game make every ranger character go through this rationalization process?

Characters are complex. Class is just part of the equation.

I agree. This is precisely why I don't want a class to have an ability that puts characterization in a straightjacket.

Why would an Assassin go on adventure that didn't involve assassinating someone? Is that too confining a concept for a character class?

Why would a Fighter try to resolve a conflict non-violently, since that would deprive her of an opportunity to do what her class is all about?

Those are skillsets, not motivations. There's nothing saying a fighter has to like fighting, or an assassin killing; they're just good at it. But your position from the beginning has been that the ranger hates his favored enemy.

I think this gets to the heart of what's hard to define about the Ranger, because what you're talking about could be represented just as easily by a Fighter or a Rogue with survival skills. The Ranger needs to have something else to make it unique.

Sure. Just like a rogue has to have abilities so he can't be represented just as easily by a fighter with stealth skills. And a fighter has to have abilities so she can't be represented just as easily by a commoner with weapon proficiencies. The key is that the rogue and fighter get abilities that are derived from the archetype they represent. A rogue's abilities augment his stealth and trickery, because that's what archetypal rogues do. A fighter's abilities augment her toughness and armed combat, because that's what archetypal fighters do. You wouldn't arbitrarily say, "The rogue needs to be more distinctive, so let's give him eye lasers! No other class has that!" Roguish characters in other media are not defined by having eye lasers. (Except in that one game.)

Similarly, a ranger's abilities should augment his survival skills, because that's what archetypal rangers do. If you were writing the ranger class for the first time today, with no knowledge of D&D history, you wouldn't arbitrarily say, "Let's give the ranger racial hatred!" Because ranger characters in other media are not defined by having racial hatred.

 

[Minigiant]

Actually, all classes in 5e cast spells or have some other sort of supernatural ability. Only 3 classes: the Barbarian, Fighter & Rogue, have any sub-classes in the PH that don't, for a total of 5 'mundane' non-casting sub-classes who would be 'useless' in this hypothetical high-level campaign you & Minigiant are considering.

Notice who doesn't get spells or supernatural abilities.

Champion Fighter: Best DPR or Tank
Battlemaster Fighter: Best DPR or Tank
Thief Rogue: Best skill user and sneak
Assassin rogue: Best skill user of sneak
Bezerker Barbarian: Best Brute type

in 5e, pure mundane at the highest tiers are just damage, passive defense, and skill use. However none of these help alone in high level D&D wilderness outside a combination of a stealthy, hard to kill, murder machine which is almost blatantly overpowered (4e ranger).

This is why it is hard to find D&D ranger in other media. The only setting with flora, fauna, and roaming threats as powerful as D&D are Magic the Gathering planes and Exalted. And everyone is a spellcaster there. Are Garruk, Nissa, and Night solars the only other D&D rangers in media?

The thing of the Ranger changes with the setting as the ranger's thing is to survive the world's thing and help his allies survive it as well.

 

[DerekSTheRed]

A background alone doesn't get you Ranger. However, there just doesn't seem enough crunch there to make Ranger a full class. Take Eldritch Knight as a model and make a Ranger subclass of Fighter. Instead of Intelligence use Wisdom; instead of wizards spells (abjuration/evocation) use the existing Ranger spell list. When the EK can pick a wizard spell that's not evocation or abjuration, the Ranger subclass can pick a Druid spell. Now change the Outlander background's feature to be Favored Terrain (or make it a variant). Maybe you could also add a favored enemy feature to the subclass or make it a feat.

Is there any Ranger archtype that can't be re-created using the combination of subclass and my variant outlander background? Aragorn would be a Fighter with Ranger subclass (favored terrain Eriador which came in handy at Weathertop). Robin Hood and all of his merry men would have various classes and the outlander background with favored terrain as Sherwood Forest. Even Drizzt would have favored terrain of underdark. He also has "the Hunter" personality that people assume is a Barbarian's rage. So if the drow has barbarian levels, why can't he be a beastmaster barbarian with nature rituals?

I just don't think there's enough there there to make a full class in 5E.

 

[steeldragons]

For all of the differences of opinion, pedantry, [grand and meek] assumptions, and just plain nonsense strewn throughout this thread...I think [MENTION=63508]Minigiant[/MENTION] has finally done it!

"The ranger's thing is to survive the world's thing and help other's survive it."

I love it. To the point. In a nutshell.

So, if "the world's thing" is on the verge of being overrun with orcs who will kill or enslave you given the chance...then that's the ranger's thing. And what are her options for survivng that? Knowing how to hide. Knowing how to move. Knowing how to fight and kill orcs. Is that "racial hatred"? Maybe. Technically. And who cares?! It's survival. That's what's going on in the world. Don't know how to fight and kill orcs? You're dead. Game's over. What do you want to play next?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Here's what I'm considering doing with the ranger, assuming I don't want to rewrite the whole thing (which sounds like a lot of work):

* Turn Hunter's Mark into a class feature at level 2. A thing that's so core to the class shouldn't be hidden in the spells chapter, where it's easy to miss and cripple yourself by not taking it. Something like "Hunter's Mark: As a bonus action, you can focus your attention on a creature you can see, and use a mixture of primal magic and observational skills to forge a link to that creature. Any weapon attack you (or, for a Beastmaster, your animal companion) make against the creature deals +1d6 damage, and you have advantage on Wisdom (Perception) and Wisdom (Survival) checks made to find and track the creature."

I don't agree that Hunter's Mark is core to the class. Much like Hex for the Warlock, it is to some degree a trap option--or rather, getting into the habit of Hunter's Marking without reflecting first is a trap. There are lots of times when you'd rather have Spike Growth or Conjure Animals up instead. Furthermore, Hunter's Mark is range-limited to only 90 feet (when a ranger can otherwise engage effectively from 600 feet), and it only affects one target at a time whereas many rangers are at their best multiattacking with Volley. Therefore, because of the overall opportunity cost, Hunter's Mark is usually worth using only in insignificant, easy fights as a way to use up 1st level spell slots and speed up gameplay slightly. That's not my idea of a core feature.

The way you've written Hunter's Mark, the concentration opportunity cost is removed, which is a significant power boost. I assume that was on purpose, and if so I see no evidence that such a boost is needed or appropriate. To be clear: I would not complain if your change were implemented in 5.1E, since it wouldn't break anything and it would make rangers awesomer. But I wouldn't implement it as a house rule in my game because the extra complexity of another house rule outweighs the marginal gain of making rangers slightly more fun.

 

[Staffan]

So, if "the world's thing" is on the verge of being overrun with orcs who will kill or enslave you given the chance...then that's the ranger's thing. And what are her options for survivng that? Knowing how to hide. Knowing how to move. Knowing how to fight and kill orcs. Is that "racial hatred"? Maybe. Technically. And who cares?! It's survival. That's what's going on in the world. Don't know how to fight and kill orcs? You're dead. Game's over. What do you want to play next?

Most D&D settings are not defined by a conflict with one particular kind of creature. The one that comes closest is probably Dragonlance with dragons (particularly if you include draconians), but I'm not familiar enough with it to say for sure.

A ranger in Eberron, Greyhawk, or Forgotten Realms? He's likely to face orcs one adventure, goblins another, then maybe a foray into the underdark with drow and duergar. He's also probably going to fight a lot of weird like manticores, ankhegs, and carrion crawlers.

Specializing in fighting a particular kind of creature is not something that I see as essential to rangers, because of the variety of things you can fight.

 

[Staffan]

I don't agree that Hunter's Mark is core to the class. Much like Hex for the Warlock, it is to some degree a trap option--or rather, getting into the habit of Hunter's Marking without reflecting first is a trap. There are lots of times when you'd rather have Spike Growth or Conjure Animals up instead. Furthermore, Hunter's Mark is range-limited to only 90 feet (when a ranger can otherwise engage effectively from 600 feet), and it only affects one target at a time whereas many rangers are at their best multiattacking with Volley. Therefore, because of the overall opportunity cost, Hunter's Mark is usually worth using only in insignificant, easy fights as a way to use up 1st level spell slots and speed up gameplay slightly. That's not my idea of a core feature.

The way you've written Hunter's Mark, the concentration opportunity cost is removed, which is a significant power boost. I assume that was on purpose, and if so I see no evidence that such a boost is needed or appropriate. To be clear: I would not complain if your change were implemented in 5.1E, since it wouldn't break anything and it would make rangers awesomer. But I wouldn't implement it as a house rule in my game because the extra complexity of another house rule outweighs the marginal gain of making rangers slightly more fun.

Hunter's mark is what always gets brought up as the ranger's damage equalizer, compared to the paladin's smite or the fighter's everything. It's something they ought to be using a lot, and IMO it represents their knowledge and adaption to particular tactics better than a combat-based Favored Enemy-type ability (because I don't think rangers should be about fighting particular kinds of creatures).

And yes, changing it to a class feature that does not require concentration is a power-up, and intended as such. The ranger could use a little love.