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

[TheCosmicKid]

No it's not, it is what the class was created around. It's not about how it's always been, you just refuse to accept the answer. Specific enemies and terrains are the ranger. It has been the concept of the class since 1st edition, it is the whole reason the class was created. It is what separates it from other classes.

Yes, you keep saying this, but what evidence do you have that it is the case? Here is what the 1E PHB actually has to say about the ranger:

"Rangers are a sub-class of fighter who are adept at woodcraft, tracking, scouting, and infiltration and spying. [Alignment and ability score requirements] [Discussion of hit dice] In addition to considerable prowess as fighters, rangers have druidic and magical spell capabilities when they attain high level; thus, they are very formidable opponents, for they have other abilities and benefits as well..."
​

Favored enemy (for "giants" only) is simply listed among the "other abilities and benefits", alongside surprise, the use of divination magic items, and attracting followers. As far as I can tell, you'd have the same justification in saying that crystal balls are the reason the class was created, for there is no mention of either ability in the flavor text outlining its role. The 1E ranger appears rather to be defined by "woodcraft, tracking, scouting, and infiltration and spying".

2E's text is similar:

"The ranger is a hunter and woodsman who lives by not only his sword, but also his wits. Robin Hood, Orion, Jack the giant killer, and the huntresses of Diana are examples of rangers from history and legend. The abilities of the ranger make him particularly good at tracking, woodcraft, and spying."
​

It's not until 3rd Edition that you get mention of favored enemies in the class flavor text. Then, in 4E, rangers didn't even have favored enemy. So I have to say, your case for this ability being the ranger's raison d' être is looking pretty weak.

Literary characters are not always going to fit perfectly into D&D classes and they were not designed that way. You wanting to change a class because it doesn't fit a few ranger stereotypes from fiction isn't a good enough reason to change the class.

When the class is too restrictive to allow these characters - and the characters in question include Aragorn and Drizzt - then yes, it's a very good reason. If for some reason the fighter class required you to use a sword, saying, "Hey, there are lots of fighters in fiction who use other weapons!" would be a sound argument to change that restriction, and "But this is the way the D&D fighter has always been!" would not be a sound defense of it.

Let's actually look at the class and break it down.

I'm sorry, I'm afraid I don't see your point here at all. You seem to be underscoring the fact that the 5E ranger is defined by a large bundle of abilities in which favored enemy plays a comparatively minor role.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Though it does kind of rub me the wrong way when a character with 4 Strength is a god with a longbow. (Elf rogue in my campaign.)

Wow, which random-generation method were you using?

But, yeah, abstraction, playability and balance do rub up against realism that way. Realistically, a combat-effective archer needs to be very strong, and have excellent manual dexterity, and some agility, and excellent eyesight (which is strangely WIS in D&D)...
...before you know it, your system's nightmarishly complex - and everybody's MAD.

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=6776548]Corpsetaker[/MENTION] - Just to point out. No, the ranger is not "just fine" the way it is. If it was, then Mearls wouldn't be talking about a complete rewrite. Obviously, based on feedback, they've discovered that many people don't like how the ranger is written in 5e. So, it is going to change. Trying to argue that it should stay the same isn't going to gain a whole lot of traction.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Wow, which random-generation method were you using?

4d6k3 six times to produce an array. Then pick a random score with a d6 and add or subtract a point from it, repeating this second step until the array is within a desired point value range.

It was a very unlikely roll. But she rolled it.

(One of these days, I kind of want to run a one-shot of D&D, IRONMAN MODE: "All your ability scores are raw d20 rolls! Live with it!")

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=6776548]Corpsetaker[/MENTION] - Just to point out. No, the ranger is not "just fine" the way it is. If it was, then Mearls wouldn't be talking about a complete rewrite. Obviously, based on feedback, they've discovered that many people don't like how the ranger is written in 5e. So, it is going to change. Trying to argue that it should stay the same isn't going to gain a whole lot of traction.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Traction or no traction, if someone wants to be the lone voice of dissent, well, this is a place for it.

Not that I think the Ranger is 'just fine,' just that I don't think there's much point in re-writing it, again. Write some other 5e stuff for the first time before going back and writing the 5e ranger for the 3rd (not counting the playtest!).

In the new podcast, Mike Mearls indicated that in a future UA we're going to see the Ranger rebuilt from the ground up. The problem, as he presented it, is that the Ranger was originally a hodge-podge of abilities, based on the various things Aragorn does in the LR, and that even as the class developed it's own shtick in 2E, its specialized abilities were made available to other characters through the skill system. According to Mearls, this problem has still not been adequately remedied by 5E, thus the redesign effort that is presumably underway.

So the Ranger never had a clear concept to begin with, just a hodge-podge of Aragornisms?
And, it's been rendered redundant since 2e?
Yet design attention has been lavished on the 5e Ranger for 3 years now, and it's still not worthy?
ELMO, WoTC.

 

[Quickleaf]

Maybe to you but for years and years that has been the most distinguishing feature.

Class becomes more and more pointless the more you take away class features away and make them available for everyone. The problem with 5th editions Favoured Enemy feature is that it doesn't give the ranger any combat bonus. What they should have done was given Hunter's Mark as part of Favoured Enemy.

I was just looking back over the AD&D Ranger, and it seems there were 3 *unique* class features:

• Tracking
• Improved Surprise (and, in turn, harder to be surprised)
• Favored Enemy (bonus damage vs. "giant class" creatures)

So, I would argue that Favored Enemy is not the SOLE uniquely defining characteristic of the Ranger.

Interestingly, in AD&D the "giant class" creatures included a whole mess of "humanoids" and "giants" including: bugbear, hobgoblin, kaolinth, goblin, tasloi, kobold, cyclops, cyclops-kin, ettin, ogre, ogre mage, orc, orog, ogrillion, norker, meazel, dune stalker, all giants & giant-kin, gibberling, quaggoth, gnoll, spriggan, grimlock, troll, and xvart.

These monsters embodied the "invading armies of Mordor" type threat to civilized lands. And it's a wise spread at 1st level! But, of course, the players doesn't get any choice in the matter.

Modern incarnations of this class feature have tried to present the player with greater choice about the nature of their Favored Enemy. So now there is greater adaptability during character creation.

However, in play it remains just as rigid as the AD&D Ranger, perhaps even more so. Because the AD&D Ranger had such a wide spread of favored enemies from common D&D foes, a player probably wasn't going to pass more than a session or three before encountering one of the monsters on their list. Whereas the 5e Ranger might have Aberrations or Dragons as a favored enemy and go maybe 5-10 sessions without encountering an aberration or dragon. That 5e Ranger player is potentially going to feel like they're missing a chance to shine for a much longer period than the AD&D Ranger player.

Now, requiring player-DM communication about what favored enemies are suited to the DM's campaign before the game makes sense in home play, but what about organized play? What about D&D school clubs? What about convention games? D&D is played in a lot of ways and that sort of communication isn't always possible.

An interesting design test would be to implement a version of Favored Enemy that is adaptable in play, say after researching, tracking, or fighting a particular monster, the ranger would gain their Favored Enemy bonus against that monster. So the vibe would be more a "studied enemy" than being specifically a dragon slayer, giant slayer, or orc hunter.

 

[Yaarel]

It makes more sense to get combat bonuses while fighting any creatures within ones own favored terrains - using the terrain to ones advantage.

 

[Diamondeye]

No it's not, it is what the class was created around. It's not about how it's always been, you just refuse to accept the answer. Specific enemies and terrains are the ranger. It has been the concept of the class since 1st edition, it is the whole reason the class was created. It is what separates it from other classes.

Except for the fact that it isn't.

Aside from 1E, where the "favored enemy" was really a widely disparate group of vaguely similar bipedal humanoids, Favored Enemy has never been what the Ranger is about, a defining feature, or even terribly important. It's been a minor, secondary feature that you pick and only even remember is on your character sheet if you happen to fight that sort of enemy.

This idea that's it's a defining feature, or even a significant feature, is entirely incorrect. It's never been important after 1E, and the 1E Ranger is essentially an amalgamation of features that barely make sense together anyhow and shouldn't even be referenced.

 

[DerekSTheRed]

Historically the ranger has had more than favored enemy. Things like track and TWF and archer archetype can now be done in other classes. Favored enemy is the only thing that makes the ranger unique.