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

[FormerlyHemlock]

The Ranger's core ability really should be archery (inc. crossbows). Ranged, nonmagical combat is an area that no other class truly specializes in. You CAN make a fighter do that, but it's not really a fighter "thing".

On the contrary, it is the 5E fighter's primary thing. Barbearians and paladins are better in melee, fighters excel at range.

 

[Minigiant]

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 1 suspect that the current iteration of the ranger class informs the current narrative of his character.

Sound more that Conan is a barbarian or fighter who gets Stealth and Survival proficiency. There's no link to knowing the fauna, flora, and fungi of the wild. Nor does Conan use magic nor collect magic items nor make pacts, contracts, and friendships with beasts, fey, and druids.

As for Drizzt. He may be "iconic D&D ranger" but in 3.5 he has twice the fighter levels than rangerones. Why? Drizzt didnt have a proper animal companion, he rarely did magic, and he didn't display his favored enemy nor favored terrain. Drizzt was a crappy ranger. He only functions as a ranger in low lever 0e 1e and 2e or in full 4e where the ranger is just a variant fighter.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Barbearians and paladins are better in melee, fighters excel at range.

'Best at Fighting' is the Fighter's whole deal. It's hard to make the case that melee isn't 'fighting.'

 

[Diamondeye]

On the contrary, it is the 5E fighter's primary thing. Barbearians and paladins are better in melee, fighters excel at range.

Then the problem is that the fighter is encroaching on the Ranger's territory, not the other way around. It should be the Ranger's thing.

 

[Diamondeye]

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.

That's not what "carries no water" means. It means that it's irrelevant. The design of the 1E Ranger imposes no imperative to make successive rangers similar.

How "obvious" it is either then or now is unimportant.

 

[Diamondeye]

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.

That's not what "carries no water" means. It means that it's irrelevant. The design of the 1E Ranger imposes no imperative to make successive rangers similar.

How "obvious" it is either then or now is unimportant.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Then the problem is that the fighter is encroaching on the Ranger's territory, not the other way around. It should be the Ranger's thing.

Why? The word "ranger" is unrelated to "range" in the sense of archery. (Well, okay, related distantly and purely incidentally.)

 

[Diamondeye]

Why? The word "ranger" is unrelated to "range" in the sense of archery. (Well, okay, related distantly and purely incidentally.)

Rangers are generally associated with archery in the common understanding. Archery goes right along with the concept of a hunter and outdoorsman.

In contrast, the fighter has never focused on ranged combat. In 3.5 and 5.0 the fighter has definitely had certain advantages as a ranged combatant (which is fine) but it's been more on account of flexibility in fighting styles than an intentional focus on ranged combat.

The D&D Ranger got it's first meaningful ranged option in 3.5 and it should be strengthened and emphasized. Archery is an essential tool for a character that's a woodsman. It's fine if the fighter is good at it too, but if the Ranger is as good or better that isn't encroaching on fighter territory. The fighter is really about being able to flex to any particular fighting style (other than maybe unarmed) and making it work with the class.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

In contrast, the fighter has never focused on ranged combat.

Eh? Remember the 18/00 dart-specialized fighter? Ridiculous though it was, it was also the hardest-hitting fighter option out there.

Besides, I happen to like the fact that the 5E fighter excels at archery. It gives him a distinct niche as a Tiamat-killer, for example, something that sorlocks and wizards cannot do.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

'Best at Fighting' is the Fighter's whole deal. It's hard to make the case that melee isn't 'fighting.'

I guess I'll let you and Diamondeye duke it out as to whether the fighter should be "best at archery" since archery is as much 'fighting' as melee is. Me, I'll just stick with 5E rules, under which fighters are better than rangers at single-target ranged DPR and worse at AoE ranged damage, and generally worse than barbearians and paladins at melee.