• Welcome to this new upgrade of the site. We are now on a totally different software platform. Many things will be different, and bugs are expected. Certain areas (like downloads and reviews) will take longer to import. As always, please use the Meta Forum for site queries or bug reports. Note that we (the mods and admins) are also learning the new software.
  • The RSS feed for the news page has changed. Use this link. The old one displays the forums, not the news.

What is the Ranger to you?

David Howery

Explorer
Rangers are a lost class, IMO. Historically, they are such a hodge-podge of implementations and ideas that they always seem a bit off to somebody. And much like bards, it makes it hard to a Ranger to mechanically stand out.

We have them " 'cause tradition", but really the modern concept: "Woodsyguy Notadruid" isn't enough to warrant a class, IMO. If it were my call, both Rangers and Paladins would be Fighter subclasses at best (and I'm not even sure Ranger rises to more than a Background, TBH.)
well, both were fighter subclasses in 1E/2E, but at the same time, they could both do stuff that a fighter couldn't. When the later editions went heavy into skills and feats, the ranger started becoming 'lost'. Now in 5E, the paladin can still do stuff that a fighter can't, but apparently the ranger can be duplicated fairly easily. Which is a pity, since it was always my favorite class back in my gaming days.

anyway... the 'idea of the ranger' to me is: A person from the edges of civilization who has spent a lifetime learning how to survive in the wilds and about the dangerous creatures that live there. They are distinct from the barbarian in that they have a settled/rural/part of civilization background and are dedicated to protecting that civilization from the dangers in the wild...
 

WaterRabbit

Villager
To me a Ranger = Fighter + Rogue. It is a blend of the two classes. They way it is implemented it is a Fighter + Druid with a splash of rogue.

Paladin = Fighter + Cleric
Ranger = Fighter + Rogue

To me it is an archetype of a fighter that doesn't need to be a separate core class.
 

Sacrosanct

Slayer of Keraptis
Yes, the proposed Ranger abilities come across as written by someone with zero clue.

I mean, when you can give an ability a casual glance and *immediately* say "that will ruin the game" something is off - professional devs are supposed to familiarize themselves with the various ways their product is played...
You know, you constantly insult designers as incompetent idiots. So I have to ask, where are your products that are so much better?
 

Tony Vargas

Adventurer
well, both were fighter subclasses in 1E/2E, but at the same time, they could both do stuff that a fighter couldn't.
I was going to mention that. Ranger, Paladin, Assasin, Illusionist, even Druid, were all sub-classes back in the day. But sub-classes wasn't, well, diminutive like it is in 5e. An Illusionist was maybe less magic-user than the Magic-user, getting only 7 spell levels, but everyone else was different or more than the 'main' class.

In particular the Paladin and Ranger were Fighter+ … just better than fighters, in fact, to the point that the punishment for screwing up was to be demoted to mere fighter. ;)

anyway... the 'idea of the ranger' to me is: A person from the edges of civilization who has spent a lifetime learning how to survive in the wilds
To that point, you've described the 5e Outlander background ...
... and about the dangerous creatures that live there. They are distinct from the barbarian in that they have a settled/rural/part of civilization background and are dedicated to protecting that civilization from the dangers in the wild...
and the rest is more skills, and some goals or relationships to NPCs, also background-appropriate.

When the later editions went heavy into skills and feats, the ranger started becoming 'lost'.
I think that the Ranger, and even more so the Thief, were classes only* because the system lacked skills, so the only way to introduce exploration skills was to add a class with arbitrary special abilities.










*OK, the ranger, also because someone's player really wanted an Aragorn PC.
 
Last edited:

Sacrosanct

Slayer of Keraptis
Indeed, with a more robust background and skill and feat system, many of those classes could be obsolete and no longer needed.

In fact, with an even more robust skill and feat system, you really could go back to the three core classes: fighter, cleric, and magic user.

That will never happen of course.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
In fact, with an even more robust skill and feat system, you really could go back to the three core classes: fighter, cleric, and magic user.
With an *even more* robust skill and feat system, you could go classless.

That will never happen of course.
It already did happen - it is called "GURPS".
 

WaterRabbit

Villager
Indeed, with a more robust background and skill and feat system, many of those classes could be obsolete and no longer needed.

In fact, with an even more robust skill and feat system, you really could go back to the three core classes: fighter, cleric, and magic user.

That will never happen of course.
I see the three core class as fighter, mage, thief. With a slight tweak to the magic system, a cleric is just a mage.

But really the three core class are defined by the different pillars: combat, social, exploration. So fighter for combat, skill guy for exploration, face for social. However, in D&D the face is just a Skill Guy with a Social focus. The mage is just a class that on the fly be useful in all three pillars.

Then you mix and match to get your classes, which basically become.

Core Class + Archetype + Background
Core Class A + Core Class B + Archetype + Background

Where Archetype is how you do your class and background is how you became your class (as it were).
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
I meant with DnD of course. Some things are too iconic.
That's what they all say. Then, after going after the game with an axe, they realize they are like Wile E. Coyote, having run off the cliff and not realized it for a bit, now hanging in midair and pulling out a little sign that says, "Yikes!" :)
 

WaterRabbit

Villager
That's what they all say. Then, after going after the game with an axe, they realize they are like Wile E. Coyote, having run off the cliff and not realized it for a bit, now hanging in midair and pulling out a little sign that says, "Yikes!" :)
No they get Pathfinder! :)
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Indeed, with a more robust background and skill and feat system, many of those classes could be obsolete and no longer needed.

In fact, with an even more robust skill and feat system, you really could go back to the three core classes: fighter, cleric, and magic user.

That will never happen of course.
I am going with 4 ... something something about roles on the battlefield.
 

doctorbadwolf

Explorer
Rangers are a lost class, IMO. Historically, they are such a hodge-podge of implementations and ideas that they always seem a bit off to somebody. And much like bards, it makes it hard to a Ranger to mechanically stand out.

We have them " 'cause tradition", but really the modern concept: "Woodsyguy Notadruid" isn't enough to warrant a class, IMO. If it were my call, both Rangers and Paladins would be Fighter subclasses at best (and I'm not even sure Ranger rises to more than a Background, TBH.)
The Ranger is more distinct and interesting than the Fighter, or Cleric. The Fighter isn’t even a concept. It’s completely redundant, and the least interesting of all the things it is similar to. It’s literally “good at fighting”, which also every weapon using character option.

We only still have it because people would angrily stop buying wotc products if they put out a PHB without it.

Yes, the proposed Ranger abilities come across as written by someone with zero clue.

I mean, when you can give an ability a casual glance and *immediately* say "that will ruin the game" something is off - professional devs are supposed to familiarize themselves with the various ways their product is played...
It didn’t ruin the game, though.

Indeed, with a more robust background and skill and feat system, many of those classes could be obsolete and no longer needed.

In fact, with an even more robust skill and feat system, you really could go back to the three core classes: fighter, cleric, and magic user.

That will never happen of course.
Thank the gods.
 

Monayuris

Explorer
I see the three core class as fighter, mage, thief. With a slight tweak to the magic system, a cleric is just a mage.

But really the three core class are defined by the different pillars: combat, social, exploration. So fighter for combat, skill guy for exploration, face for social. However, in D&D the face is just a Skill Guy with a Social focus. The mage is just a class that on the fly be useful in all three pillars.

Then you mix and match to get your classes, which basically become.

Core Class + Archetype + Background
Core Class A + Core Class B + Archetype + Background

Where Archetype is how you do your class and background is how you became your class (as it were).
I like the cleric being more of a militant divine character, so I see it distinct from a mage. Priests give sermons in their temples... clerics venture forth and bash undead with martial might and divine rage. Traditionally, clerics have always been either front line combatants or a good back up for when the fighter needs to pull back.

In fact, I consider Paladins unnecessary.
 

WaterRabbit

Villager
I like the cleric being more of a militant divine character, so I see it distinct from a mage. Priests give sermons in their temples... clerics venture forth and bash undead with martial might and divine rage. Traditionally, clerics have always been either front line combatants or a good back up for when the fighter needs to pull back.

In fact, I consider Paladins unnecessary.
I can definitely see that. To me mage is just the character that uses magic to solve problems, so a cleric is just a type of fighter/mage that has some restrictions martial and spell casting restrictions. It would probably be more accurate in my formula to have a % of core class so you get something like:

Cleric = 30% Fighter + 70% Mage

and

Paladin = 70% Fighter + 30% Mage


Really the only difference between Cleric and Paladin how much "fighter" is in the class.
 

TheWayofPie

Villager
Paladins and Rangers are incredibly redundant for sure.

It all happened when my brother asked, "What are you playing."

"Cleric probably. But, one of the heavy armor ones like War or Forge."

"Isn't that a Paladin?"

"Yeah. I just get more spells though."
 

SkidAce

Adventurer
Paladins and Rangers are incredibly redundant for sure.

It all happened when my brother asked, "What are you playing."

"Cleric probably. But, one of the heavy armor ones like War or Forge."

"Isn't that a Paladin?"

"Yeah. I just get more spells though."
See now, if your cleric could only use blunt weapons...

then there would be a more substantial of a difference between paladin and cleric.
 

Advertisement

Top