Novermber Survey and October Survey Results

[T.G. Oskar]

November Survey is up, and WotC asks you: are you playing Sword Coast Legends (http://sgiz.mobi/s3/99e51fdef934)?

Whether that's important to you or not, the thing is that the October survey results are up as well! If you remember it, you might recall it was based on the last iteration of the Ranger revamp, making it a sort of super survivor. Well, apparently you (that means everyone who answered the survey, which includes myself) didn't like it, because they're back at the drawing board. Based on the survey, we prefer the 2e and 3e versions of the Ranger, specifically their combination of combat style, spellcasting and Animal Companion. So, what has WotC figured out?

Well, why not make every Ranger a Beastmaster? Apparently, the devs have considered making the animal companion a core ability of the class. Rangers will keep their Fighting Styles and their spells, but will get a trusty pet to assist them in combat and exploration.

In short: Ranger - the pet class! (Hey, at least it's not "guy/gal who can turn into a bear while having a bear on the side, summoning a bunch of bears".)

So: what are your thoughts on it? Right on the money? Overreacting much? Why change the current Ranger, it's fine as it is? (I know some of you think alongside these lines) How about the spell-less Ranger? Or the UA first attempt, the Ambuscade/Spirit Guardian Ranger?

[JellyPooga]

I've never like the Ranger having an animal companion as "default"; in 3rd edition I always switched out the Animal Companion for an alternative class feature. I like the Beastmaster being as option, but I wouldn't want to see it as a necessary part of the class.

I've always liked the idea of the Ranger being the "Foe" Slayer; the specialist tracker and terrain expert who uses his brains as much as his brawn. I'm not so fond of them being spellcasters, so much. Want to be a Dragon Hunter? Ranger. Want to be the canny woodsman guide/scout? Ranger. Want to be a Bounty Hunter? Ranger. Want to be the guy who knows how to travel in the desert or in a swamp and the dangers that lurk within? Ranger.

Leave specialist weapon training to the Fighters; nothing about Ranger screams two-weapon fighting specialist or archer extraordinaire to me, though they should be competent combatants; the Ranger is the Rogue of the wild places. The 3ed Scout is what the Ranger should have been, in my mind.

[EvanescentHero]

Ugh. The animal companion has always been my least favorite feature of the ranger, so I'm not really looking forward to the redesign anymore. But I hope it works out well for everyone who does want that version.

On the plus side, maybe they'll get some unique dual-wielding features out of this.

[MrStabby]

Ugh. The animal companion has always been my least favorite feature of the ranger, so I'm not really looking forward to the redesign anymore. But I hope it works out well for everyone who does want that version.

On the plus side, maybe they'll get some unique dual-wielding features out of this.

Yeah not a fan of pets. Also, not a huge fan of players with a lot of summons either - takes forever to run combat sometimes.

Still, at least it would be a distinguishing feature - being able to play with two crap characters instead of one good one.

I wouldn't mind a few more features or a subclass that actually played out A bit more of the hunting theme (rather than just making an archetype and calling it "hunter" because reasons). More ensnaring strikes/restraints, better with nets, thrown weapons, more traps/spells that act as traps

[Kane0]

Damn, missed doing the last survey.

I too don't think the ranger should have the pet by default. I find it a good subclass, as would be the spirit stuff they played with last arcana. The hunter/skirmisher role should have more focus on the base class, the 3.5 scout would be an excellent starting point for inspiration. Weapon focus shouldn't come up any more than it does for the fighter or paladin.

- Base class should focus on a mix of combat and mobility utility, a midpoint between the fighter and rogue with touches of druid and barbarian. Casting rounds out the rest.
- A good unique class feature would be something like the ambush/initiative mechanics explored in unearthed arcana and/or something reminiscent of 3.5 scouts skirmish (extra damage/AC for movement). The herbalism stuff is also good to pad out base abilities, taking the battlemaster's dice was not.
- Subclass with more of a focus on base abilities (hunter) that offers better tracking, ambush/skirmish. The straightfoward archetype like the champion.
- Subclass with beast pet, done right this time.
- Subclass with more focus on casting and spirit stuff from UA

But to answer this survey: Yes, I have a copy and got the 5 pack to share with friends. Yes, it is fun. Yes, I would have vastly preferred the traditional mechanics that the tabletop has rather than cooldowns and skill trees. My friends that I got the pack to shares copies of gave it a look and token try, then moved on because of exactly that. The visuals, audio and creation tools are all great though, its a mighty shame they wen't with their own mechaincs for whatever reason.

Edit: I'm slightly more motivated to 'brew an alternate ranger myself now. Taking suggestions!

[Anonymouswizard]

Arg, I didn't answer the survey because I don't have enough play experience of 5e to make my points worthwhile (read: I ran one session of it, liked it but realised it wasn't a system I desperately wanted to run, more play in, and haven't had a chance to play it since :smallfrown:), but I actually find the ultra survivalist ranger preferable to either the spellcasting ranger or the beastmaster ranger, although none are what I think the ranger should be (in short, a fast skirmisher and master of using terrain, I may try homebrewing my own version).

So, my idea would be to keep the hunter and beastmaster as the major archetypes for the ranger, but focus the core class abilities on increasing manoeuvrability (more speed, ability to ignore difficult terrain, etc), and give them extra benefits when in cover/at higher ground/other terrain feature. I'd say give them the choice between duelling/archery(/two-weapon fighting), grant them extra attack, throw in a third archetype that gives them some spellcasting, and you might have a decent (if, at the moment, rather thin) class. Maybe a version of the 3.5 Scout's skirmish that increases their damage when they move about the battlefield.

[pibby]

I'm also a fan of the "foe slayer" Ranger back in 3.5 but I have to admit that concept's viability really depends on the DM and what his plans were. Want to be a guy really good at killing humanoids but the story brought the party to some outlands where no humanoids exists? Sucks for you. The other side of the argument is that the DM should curb his campaign in order to fit the party's capabilities, but conversely you can say that the characters should have flying races so that they can participate appropriately in the Plane of Air campaign.
If WotC can figure out how to work Favored Enemy in the same way they had Divine Smite work with undead and fiends I will be extremely happy.

Although I'm not a huge fan of the animal companion Ranger I'm really interested in how they'll implement it. I imagine that the class will get their animal companion at 5th level as their "Extra Attack" benefit if WotC is willing to let the animal companion not be a helpless slave.

[CyberThread]

Having a secondary creature that is independent of the main character is a hard factor to balance. It is either lame and useless, or overly useful and another party member. Let the rangers CR level cap increase, and let it expand in personal mobility and I think that will be a great medium between the two.

[GutterFace]

Damn you wotc where is my Reaper Ranger with necromancy and an undead wolf pet!

[Ninjadeadbeard]

So I and my players are apparently in the minority on the Ranger. We all prefer the kind with a permanent animal companion, and most of us consider it THE main aspect that defines a ranger.

[SharkForce]

apparently the only thing we're all likely to agree with regarding rangers is that we all want completely different conflicting versions of the ranger. man i'm glad it isn't *my* job to make a ranger that everyone likes :)

[GutterFace]

apparently the only thing we're all likely to agree with regarding rangers is that we all want completely different conflicting versions of the ranger. man i'm glad it isn't *my* job to make a ranger that everyone likes :)

I think the problem is the term ranger is so broad in the fantasy world. they are fighters, defenders of nature, scouts, wanderers, loners, rebels, etc.
and making a class to fit that is how they failed. i blame lord of the rings; trying to make a class that is what Aragorn embodies is impossible.

seriously the class should have been scrapped in 5 and reborn as a new version of the scout.

[DracoKnight]

So I and my players are apparently in the minority on the Ranger. We all prefer the kind with a permanent animal companion, and most of us consider it THE main aspect that defines a ranger.

Apparently mine too. Everyone in my gaming group has always built Beastmaster, but we just started a new campaign at level 10, and one of my players built a Hunter. He's been dishing out damage like crazy (Colossus Slayer) and everyone was like, "No way, that's so cool! What level do you get that?" My player was like: "Third." Everyone (except me) was absolutely shocked.

The rogue went "F*ck this! I'm multiclassing Ranger!"

My rogue and I rebuilt her character, and for 3 hours a day Rogue 7/Ranger 3 has better damage output than a pure Rogue.

Average DPR of Rogue 7/Hunter 3: 1d8 (rapier) + 4d6 (Sneak Attack) + 1d8 (Colossus Slayer) + 1d6 (Hunter's Mark) = 30 damage a round. That's better than straight Rogue 10: 1d8 (rapier) + 5d6 (Sneak Attack) = 25. That's not a huge difference, but every extra point of damage counts.

[EvanescentHero]

So I and my players are apparently in the minority on the Ranger. We all prefer the kind with a permanent animal companion, and most of us consider it THE main aspect that defines a ranger.

Well, the survey says you're actually in the majority of players.

Personally I think the animal companion makes more sense as a druid feature, especially when the 3.5 ranger's version was worse.

[mephnick]

apparently the only thing we're all likely to agree with regarding rangers is that we all want completely different conflicting versions of the ranger. man i'm glad it isn't *my* job to make a ranger that everyone likes :)

Am I crazy or maybe the ranger just shouldn't be a class any more? No one can agree on what it should be because it isn't anything.

Like...it's a fighter with survival, a crappy pet and some utility magic no one seems to care about. Why can't it be a subclass?

[DracoKnight]

Am I crazy or maybe the ranger just shouldn't be a class any more? No one can agree on what it should be because it isn't anything.

Like...it's a fighter with survival, a crappy pet and some utility magic no one seems to care about. Why can't it be a subclass?

When 5e was in development, the Ranger was indeed a Fighter subclass.

[JellyPooga]

Like...it's a fighter with survival, a crappy pet and some utility magic no one seems to care about. Why can't it be a subclass?

Come to think of it, if I want to play what I consider to be a "Ranger" I'll normally play a Rogue with a Ranger "skin" on it (e.g. change Thieves Cant to Ranger Signs). If there was a wilderness themed Rogue Archetype, I'd never even look at the Ranger again...

[mephnick]

Come to think of it, if I want to play what I consider to be a "Ranger" I'll normally play a Rogue with a Ranger "skin" on it (e.g. change Thieves Cant to Ranger Signs). If there was a wilderness themed Rogue Archetype, I'd never even look at the Ranger again...

Rogue X/Fighter X with the outlander background makes a much more enjoyable ranger than the base class, honestly.

[Anonymouswizard]

Am I crazy or maybe the ranger just shouldn't be a class any more? No one can agree on what it should be because it isn't anything.

Like...it's a fighter with survival, a crappy pet and some utility magic no one seems to care about. Why can't it be a subclass?

To be honest, Barbarians and Rangers should really just be Fighters (possibly Rogues for Rangers) with the Outlander* background (although a beastmaster fighter and a terrain based fighter as subclasses would be cool). In all honesty, it would have just made more sense, as you could play a 3.5 Barbarian with the Berserker subclass, or been a more spiritual fighter with the Totem Warrior Subclass. Yes, I do think it would have worked better if most classes had been subclasses of Fighter/Cleric/Mage/Rogue, why do you ask? The only one that I think definitely needed it's own base for the current execution was Warlock, Paladin could totally have been done similar to Eldritch Knight (or just a Fighter/Cleric multiclass). I'd also have loved to see more mechanical oomph to backgrounds than a couple of skills and a proficiency (many mechanical background abilities seem to be 'ignore X bit of roleplay because you fit in', although some are actually good).

* Might not be for all rangers, Folk Hero also works, as might Soldier and really many backgrounds.

[Kane0]

I like the fact that they are half casters. Alongside paladins that gives them a niche away from reflavored fighters, rogues and barbarians. WotC didnt seem to capitalize on that though, like how the paladin uses his casting for combat, and vice versa.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

I heard there's a Prestige Ranger class out there. I have yet to see it, but one of my players swears it's perfect. I think you need to be apprenticed to another Ranger, and you must spend two in-game months traveling your Favored Terrain (as part of training so you can't "skip it"). It otherwise compressed the best of the Ranger class into 5 levels.

[Steampunkette]

I think the biggest problem with the Ranger isn't the lack of identity, as some people say, but the fact that it's identity has been massaged in each edition to fit into the ruleset while standing apart.

Rangers, as a core identity, are dangerous adventuring survivalists. People who work well in wild lands fighting against rough monsters. Learning to hunt and track some creatures out of vengeance, need, or other reason.

Animal companions were tacked on because of Drizzle's magic cat statue being such a big part of the Dark Elf series by Salvatore. Sure they were an option, previously, but it made sense to make them a core feature as the system developed in 3e.

Honestly? I'd like to see the 5e ranger look more like the Ambuscade version we saw in Unearthed Arcana, with the caveat of being more like the 3.5e "Scout" class. Make them into high mobility faders who weave into or out of combat, who use snares and traps and nets and such to hamper their opponents while moving away, leading them into ambushes or killing fields. Make the terrain and their weapons shine.

Instead of having animal companion or not as their core features, make their path dependent on their weapon style, rather than having it be a tacked on one-off ability they get at a low level. Make Archery and Two Weapon styles into combat paths that last their entire career, with different class abilities that improve, play off of, or utilize those styles.

How about trick shots for archery that damage enemy armor class? Or two-weapon dashes that allow the Ranger to move a short distance while fighting? Maybe use some trick arrows to launch tanglefoot bags or use two blades to slash the tendons of larger foes to slow them down.

Give them something that plays into the thing everyone agrees that Rangers should have: The choice between Archery and Dual Wielding.

[Anonymouswizard]

Give them something that plays into the thing everyone agrees that Rangers should have: The choice between Archery and Dual WieldingSingle Blade.

Fixed it for you.

Seriously, everyone? My biggest beef with the 3.X ranger is that it's pigeonholed into either Archery or Dual Wielding. Archery I can understand, but when I hear 'Ranger' I imagine a single blade, so the other hand can be used to traverse the woods.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

Fixed it for you.

Seriously, everyone? My biggest beef with the 3.X ranger is that it's pigeonholed into either Archery or Dual Wielding. Archery I can understand, but when I hear 'Ranger' I imagine a single blade, so the other hand can be used to traverse the woods.

I agree completely. In fact, one of the saddest things about the Legend (Rule of Cool) system dying out was their take on the Ranger. Could focus on being a beastly archer or a chain-combing spellblade, all with the ability to spew traps in every direction to hamper the enemy. Twas a beautiful thing.

Aaaand I'm sad now. :smallfrown:

[Malifice]

Well this is crap.

No I don't want spells and an animal companion to be a core of the class. I want them to be optional.

I want my Ranger as a primary striker, secondary tank, with the options of either an animal companion or spellcasting as seperate archetypes.

[Sigreid]

What I found really interesting in the survey results was that the reason the pet works the way it does is not an action economy measure but to restrict it to the "power budget" for a subclass feature. In other words it acts like a power and not a creature because it's only meant to be on par with the other subclass features. So, by their design philosophy it can't be real companion because that would be out of scale with say the thief's fast hands.

[Sigreid]

Animal companions were tacked on because of Drizzle's magic cat statue being such a big part of the Dark Elf series by Salvatore. Sure they were an option, previously, but it made sense to make them a core feature as the system developed in 3e.



Actually a lot of what ranger became was, I think, just so people could make their Drizzt clone. So the entire class has been set up to cater to one character in a book series I could never get into.

[mephnick]

What I found really interesting in the survey results was that the reason the pet works the way it does is not an action economy measure but to restrict it to the "power budget" for a subclass feature. In other words it acts like a power and not a creature because it's only meant to be on par with the other subclass features. So, by their design philosophy it can't be real companion because that would be out of scale with say the thief's fast hands.

Yep, which is why they probably should have bit the bullet and got rid of the animal companion completely, or separated it into a summon spell.

But apparently the majority of people want an animal companion (even though it's impossible to integrate into the system in a satisfying way) so what the hell do I know.

[JellyPooga]

Seriously, everyone? My biggest beef with the 3.X ranger is that it's pigeonholed into either Archery or Dual Wielding. Archery I can understand, but when I hear 'Ranger' I imagine a single blade, so the other hand can be used to traverse the woods.

When I think of a Ranger I think "hunter". Hunters don't use swords. Hunters don't use two melee weapons simultaneously (frankly no-one who knows what they're doing ever does, has or will; not in the way D&D has ever portrayed it). Hunters use bows (for the littler/flightier things) and spears (for the bigger/more aggressive things).

I'd applaud a Ranger that had a spear-focus.

[Steampunkette]

Oooooo...

Okay. Archery, Dual Wielding, Single Blade, and Spear paths.

Clearly the best compromise since no one seems to object to the basic idea.

[Magic Myrmidon]

I agree completely. In fact, one of the saddest things about the Legend (Rule of Cool) system dying out was their take on the Ranger. Could focus on being a beastly archer or a chain-combing spellblade, all with the ability to spew traps in every direction to hamper the enemy. Twas a beautiful thing.

Aaaand I'm sad now. :smallfrown:

Me too. :( Poor Legend. Such a good system that could have been so much more with a bit more support.

Also, I'm sad to see that the feedback about the Ranger rework was so negative. I thought it was a really unique, out of the box class that showed some creativity on the part of developers. Not perfect, but it had a lot of potential. I really am almost starting to feel bad for the designers. They basically have an impossible job.

[MrStabby]

I think you could satisfy a lot of people by doing something like the warlock invocations but in bigger chunks. You get an "Invocation" at 1st level, another at 5th, 11th, 16th and 20th.

Animal Companion (and probably upgrades)
Trap/Net Skills
Spear Skills
Two Weapon Fighting Skills
Archery Skills
Spellcasting (and upgrades)
Natural Poison proficiency/creation
Limited sneak attack (for those who want stalker type fighters)
Favoured enemy (and upgrades/taken multiple times)

I think that with a list like this for most of the game you would have at least two abilities which would let you create what you felt an ideal ranger should be and to get the features that you really want.

[Anonymouswizard]

Actually a lot of what ranger became was, I think, just so people could make their Drizzt clone. So the entire class has been set up to cater to one character in a book series I could never get into.

Yeah, I've read one Drizzt book, which I enjoyed, but more because it portrayed drow society than Drizzt. I think rangers should be one part Aragorn one part woodsman.


When I think of a Ranger I think "hunter". Hunters don't use swords. Hunters don't use two melee weapons simultaneously (frankly no-one who knows what they're doing ever does, has or will; not in the way D&D has ever portrayed it). Hunters use bows (for the littler/flightier things) and spears (for the bigger/more aggressive things).

I'd applaud a Ranger that had a spear-focus.

I'm going to be honest, when I said 'blade' I was thinking axe as much as sword, and spear works well for the image I was trying for.


Oooooo...

Okay. Archery, Dual Wielding, Single Blade, and Spear paths.

Clearly the best compromise since no one seems to object to the basic idea.

I think focus on a particular fighting style is a fighter thing. I'd rather see the ranger focus on being a tricky fighter, using traps and terrain.

[Steampunkette]

Fighters get weapon styles like Paladins and Rangers do. A single small portion of their overall class with no focus on it.

I want Rangers to spend their career getting better with a chosen weapon.

And all Rangers get the trap and terrain stuff as a core class function, rather than a path focus.

[JellyPooga]

I want Rangers to spend their career getting better with a chosen weapon.

See, for me, this should be a Fighter thing.

Fighters are good with weapons. Rangers are good with terrain. Paladins are good when they have divine backup (pansies!).

[DireSickFish]

I like that they are focusing on the beast if for no other reason than it gives them something unique about the class. A lot of these other archetypes, especially the ones that harken back to Aragorn can be done with Fighter + background. Which is a thing we already have and I'd rather not see duplicated with the Ranger.

I'm not sure why 3.x decided to make the archery or two weapon fighting dichotomy but it was clearly present and apparently stuck out in peoples mind.

I liek the "foe slayer" style of ranger as well but we have that already in Vengance Paladin, sort of. And they mad it a big design decision deal that they didn't want to make a class that was amazing verses some things and bad against others as that makes them very hard to balance.

[CNagy]

Here's my take on the Ranger (and what I'll be working around if I decide to homebrew an alternate Ranger).

The Ranger is essentially a solo class. This is the guy who is not always travelling with a part of platemail clad knights and footmen. Whether he is a wilderness guide, a military scout, or the protector of nature against encroaching evil, he's the guy that probably spent much of his back story alone or with a mentor. Rangers initially join parties (generally speaking) to address threats that they cannot handle alone, they continue to travel with parties for whatever reason suits their character.

As a solitary figure, the Rangers that manage to survive are the resourceful ones. He has access to a fair number of skills and uses a wide variety of weaponry; I'd be tempted to not give them access to Fighting Styles just to keep from incentivizing the use of a single mode of combat, but I'd rather give them features that act as tactics of a sort (not unlike hordebreaker) which work in melee and at range. If there is one thing the Ranger should excel at in combat, it is handling multiple attackers in melee (one of the reasons I don't mind Ranger being so closely identified with two weapon fighting, the other being that they've been doing that forever). The Rangers who go on to form parties are the ones who made it out alive after falling into the inevitable trap or ambush.

I would not make the companion a core class feature. Your nature guardian types befriend and enlist the local wildlife to protect nature in the region, and develop a bond with an animal that will follow them as a companion. Your military scout types will get more tactics; ambush abilities and features used to attack with weapons. He's the most Fighter-like of the Rangers. Your wilderness guide/hermit/outlander would be the magic-using Ranger. Rather than all of the arrow spells and whatnot, he'd have magic appropriate to surviving in harsh terrain; healing, buffing, control, and perhaps area-based wards and traps.

The real trick if I wanted to homebrew the class would be making the archetype abilities all fit in as bonus actions. If I had the Ranger I wanted from WotC, it would be one where core Ranger features are either passive or use your action, while your archetype features are either passive or use your bonus action. I see the Ranger as more akin to the Monk and the Rogue in terms of versatility (in the action economy) than the Paladin and the Fighter, plus having the archetype abilities be bonus action intensive reduces the usefulness of a Rogue dip for Cunning Action or a Fighter dip for Action Surge.

[ImperiousLeader]

At least making the Ranger the pet class will give it a mechanical identity, not just this Fighter/Rogue/Barbarian/Druid hybrid.

[Sception]

At least making the Ranger the pet class will give it a mechanical identity, not just this Fighter/Rogue/Barbarian/Druid hybrid.

I agree with this.

Also, the problem with doing a 'pet class' as a side build or class option is that in order to get it 'right', in order to make it fulfilling and engaging for people who want to run a 'pet class', it really needs to be a bigger deal, a bigger element of how the class operates round to round, than build options generally allow. Pets as a minor thing, familiar-style, can work that way, but that doesn't really make for the sort of pet-master character that some players want and that is currently missing in 5e (in a way that 'fighters or rogues or ancient oath paladins with a focus on archery or twf with a wilderness themed background and maybe a druid dip' really just aren't).

To make a comparison, what 5e could use, and what the ranger could be, is a pet class where the pet is to the class what spellcasting is to a wizard. A pet that is instead what school specialization is to a wizard is both unfulfilling to the archetype and if anything even harder to balance.

[Demonic Spoon]

I don't understand why they couldn't just make the subclass a larger part of the ranger's identity, rather than saying that the core class needs to include a pet because otherwise the pet can't be powerful enough.

Couldn't the base Ranger chassis just contain mostly fluff/tracking/spellcasting abilities, and give the subclasses the bulk of the class' combat power?

[Grey Watcher]

While I can see both sides, I tend to come down on the side of "Animal Companion should be an option for those that want it, not something every Ranger gets". I just feel like giving the Ranger the both the "Druidic Gish in a Can" shtick AND the "has a pet shtick" is piling up too many specific things onto the class. (Of course, I feel the same way about Druids and Wild Shape, so maybe I'm just being curmudgeonly.)

(For what it's worth, the opposite extreme, the spell-less Ranger I think should be a Rogue or Fighter archetype.)

[Sception]

I don't understand why they couldn't just make the subclass a larger part of the ranger's identity, rather than saying that the core class needs to include a pet because otherwise the pet can't be powerful enough.

Couldn't the base Ranger chassis just contain mostly fluff/tracking/spellcasting abilities, and give the subclasses the bulk of the class' combat power?

At that point you might as well just have separate classes. I mean, you could just as easily make wizards, sorcerers, bards, clerics, druids, and warlocks all variants of the same 'magic user' class; or fighters, barbarians, monks, and rogues all variants of the same 'muggle' class, but I don't think you gain design space or elegance by doing so.

[Joe the Rat]

So Animal Companion is something that should be accessible, but optional. But not at first level?

There's a few people that want Druids to have them again.

Is anyone else thinking Animal Companion might work better as a Feat, with being able to cast Speak with Animals or Animal Friendship as a prerequisite? Scaling HP/attack bonuses, uses ONE of your attacks to do its thing... Not too crazy a trick for level 4. (Okay, level 1 Vuman Druid says hi. Level limit prereq as well?).

This also opens up Companions to other naturey casters. Druids... Bards... Totem Barbarians...

[DireSickFish]

I don't understand why they couldn't just make the subclass a larger part of the ranger's identity, rather than saying that the core class needs to include a pet because otherwise the pet can't be powerful enough.

Couldn't the base Ranger chassis just contain mostly fluff/tracking/spellcasting abilities, and give the subclasses the bulk of the class' combat power?

Isn't this basically the ranger that we currently have? All there power comes from subclass features + hunters mark. There big level 11 power bump feature is a subclass feature which is atypical this edition.

[Steampunkette]

What if they were to take a page out of the Warlock book?

So stick with the advancing weapon paths as their core identity, increasing their ability to handle their weapons and utilize them in traps as a core function.

Then, as a secondary function, like a Warlock's Pact Boon, give them the option to pick up noncombat utility and support Spellcasting/Herbalism, Animal Companions, or Favored Enemies.

And then give all of them Trap functions.

[Demonic Spoon]

Isn't this basically the ranger that we currently have? All there power comes from subclass features + hunters mark. There big level 11 power bump feature is a subclass feature which is atypical this edition.

No, it isn't. If it was the ranger we currently have, then this wouldn't be a problem because the beast companion wouldn't need to be so robotic in order to keep the ranger in balance.

A beastmaster ranger still gets a fighting style, extra attack, and hunter's mark, which puts him not far off from other classes in terms of damage output. If the beast acted on its own and/or scaled better, as people expect it to, then the combined force of extra attack/fighting style/hunter's mark/beast would make the BM ranger way stronger than anyone else.

However, they still wanted the ranger without a beast to feel strong, so we ended up with the current situation where the ranger shares action economy with their beast and the beast feels like a robot.

Instead, they could just roll more core Ranger features into the subclass features. Hunter rangers get more stuff for making them adept at normal martial combat (fighting style/extra attack/hunter's mark/etc) whereas BM rangers lose some of those but gain full beast autonomy and other cool tricks.

[Vogonjeltz]

I think the problem is the term ranger is so broad in the fantasy world. they are fighters, defenders of nature, scouts, wanderers, loners, rebels, etc.
and making a class to fit that is how they failed. i blame lord of the rings; trying to make a class that is what Aragorn embodies is impossible.

seriously the class should have been scrapped in 5 and reborn as a new version of the scout.

You are just describing a variety of possible class options, the same way a Barbarian can break out as a Berserker or Totem Warrior or Axe idiot.

Like Fighter or Wizard aren't broad?

[MinaBee]

It sounds to me that the general consensus here (contrary to the consensus of the survey respondents, who overwhelmingly prefered the 2nd and 3rd edition versions of the Ranger) is that y'all want to see the Fourth Edition Ranger make a comeback.

Honestly, they should just keep the Ranger largely as is, and then create an entirely separate, non-magical core class based on the Third Edition Scout and the Fourth Edition Ranger. This edition needs more mundane classes.

[Troacctid]

Glad to see I was in the majority on almost every point in the survey. I definitely think the animal companion ought to be one of the class's main draws. It's one of the Ranger's few unique abilities, and it's both flavorful and fun. I'm also happy with their half-casting; I think the spellcasting is important in order to set them apart from Fighters and Rogues, and I like the utility it brings.

[Steampunkette]

It would set them apart better if both fighters and rogues didn't also have casting through subclasses...

What if we shifted the Ranger's casting style to more like the Warlock's? A handful of spells of low to moderate level, but they recharge on a short rest. That would help set them apart from the other martial classes and their spellcasting subclasses, while making spellcasting into a slightly smaller part of a ranger's general actions...

Not sure, but I think it could work.

[T.G. Oskar]

Well, I posted the thread attempting a low-bias answer, but here's my thought on it...

Quite frankly, WotC's move seems a bit off, in that it involves a great leap of logic. How does preferring the 2e/3e Ranger translate to "let's focus on the Ranger's AC"? The only thing that comes to mind is that both have Animal Companions as core class features, unlike 4e's version where it was one of the many builds (and to be honest, that seems to be the focus for the Beastmaster Ranger Archetype, whereas the Hunter aims for the "striker" focus), so since spellcasting and Fighting Styles were covered, the AC was the only thing missing (notwithstanding that the favored enemy as a damage booster concept was also part of both editions).

I'm somewhat ambivalent on the idea of Ranger spellcasting. I feel I should incline towards "yes", because it's been a legacy ability of all Rangers besides the 4e version, the 5e Ranger spell list has a bunch of spells that would otherwise be orphaned if the Ranger spell list disappears, and is a nice boost. IMO, WotC got it wrong when they decided to make the Ranger the spontaneous spellcaster, whereas the Paladin got the prepared spells; it should have been the other side, since most Paladin spells aren't that amazing, and the Sacred Oath grants free spells so you can pad out with that). On the other hand, a spell-less Ranger makes perfect sense, and the UA option of giving maneuvers makes it pretty interesting. The problem lies in that, mechanically, that would incline the balance to the spellcasting version of the Ranger out of some flexibility (you'd have to boost the Ranger archetypes to balance out with the spellcasting option, which can be a double-edged sword). However, the Ranger can most likely figure that out.

Returning to the Animal Companion - I feel that Beastmaster should have been worked out a bit more and kept as a choice. One very common way to handle things is to have characters get a free attack by spending their bonus action - that could have been the way you command your Animal Companion, giving you freedom with your Action. That the Beastmaster could eventually get 4 attacks...well, that fits somewhat with Fighters (which get better damage than the Ranger, as it's what they do) and Monks (though Monks are limited in their Ki expenditure), so it's not entirely unusual. Barbarians get their own "extra attack" feature, as well. The only thing is that such a move would hose TWF Beastmasters, as you'd be conflicted between using your beast to attack, or using your other weapon (and since commanding a beast would be a bonus action, you can't even order it to Help you with Advantage on one attack). There's an intrinsic problem with providing the Beastmaster Ranger with a bonus action command, as it'd make the Ranger's bonus action extremely flexible (as flexible as the Animal Companion allows), but as it stands, WotC was way too conservative with the power of the Animal Companion and made it a little bit too weak to be attractive.

I feel that the Ranger is best served with little changes, and perhaps a better capstone. Wis to damage against Favored Enemies should be a 1st level thing, since people apparently like the idea of Favored Enemies doing damage (if 2e and 3e Rangers are something to go for). Hunter apparently works out fine, and the revision might keep it as a core archetype, but what does it mean for the Beastmaster, whose entire specialty will be now part of the core class, and thus it'd become redundant? Perhaps the Deep Stalker (sp?) from the most recent UA will take its place? That said, little changes work better for the Ranger than sweeping changes like the 2d6 HD and the Spirit Guardian class feature - although the Ranger would be served well by Ambuscade, IMO.

[Theodoxus]

It would set them apart better if both fighters and rogues didn't also have casting through subclasses...

What if we shifted the Ranger's casting style to more like the Warlock's? A handful of spells of low to moderate level, but they recharge on a short rest. That would help set them apart from the other martial classes and their spellcasting subclasses, while making spellcasting into a slightly smaller part of a ranger's general actions...

Not sure, but I think it could work.

A mundane built upon the warlock chassis would be quite interesting - between the various "invocations" described above, and quick recharge of their limited spells, it would make them feel capable of being the 'every ranger' people say they want.

So what, 1st level, they pick combat style? Archery, TWF, THF? then at 3rd a utility? Expanded Casting, Animal Companion, Wilderness Suvival? Invocations... rename them Lores or Wild Wisdom or something. Some provide expanded options upon the combat styles, others expand their utility. Some, like the warlock, provide a single use daily spell...

I could get behind that kind of rewrite...

[Nu]

So I and my players are apparently in the minority on the Ranger. We all prefer the kind with a permanent animal companion, and most of us consider it THE main aspect that defines a ranger.

Well, I'm more or less in agreement. I think favored enemy is a dumb feature that was correctly handled as a "ribbon", and I think the animal companion as a feature is what really sets the ranger apart from a lightly-armored fighter who uses two weapons or a bow.

All the "wilderness survival" stuff is a bunch of fluffy stuff that should be relegated to background features. Now, it's fluffy stuff that I like, I don't say this to demean the image. But when I see how classes and backgrounds mix together in 5th edition, I feel like things like the Outlander background cover the "guy who survives in the wilds" better than trying to shoehorn those into a core class.

I don't agree with everything though--I'm not a huge fan of ranger spellcasting, though I can tolerate it in 5th edition because of the unique ranger spells which are pretty neat. And there seem to be a lot of people adamantly against giving the ranger a beast companion, which I think is fair, even if personally I like the beast companion a lot (and was miffed that it sucked so badly in 3rd/4th/5th editions).

The spirit animal companion though, I blasted that in the survey because I want the 4th edition shaman to make a comeback at some point and that was their shtick. I do feel the ranger's bond to the beast companion needs to be more magical though, they need a way to resurrect their beast companion back if it dies, bare minimum. The current "just get a new one" thing doesn't really work for me and puts me off the option even more than its mechanical shortcomings.

I'm not super impressed by the results of the survey over all, though. While I do like the animal companion, I would prefer the option for a spell-less ranger, and the half-assed attempt that rips off Battle Master maneuvers is woefully inadequate.

[Tanarii]

I like the current Rangers. I think they're well designed, flavorful, and have a unique flavor that separates them from others in their role well. Which is the 'Dex/mobile/scout' role in 5e, along with Rogues and Monks. They aren't primary warriors/Fighting Men, that's a role covered by Fighter/Paladins/Barbarians.

Personally, I went through my crisis of Ranger faith in the 3e --> 3.5e revamp. That's when the Ranger switched form his traditional Fighting Man with a touch of wilderness lore & scouting & spellcasting, and really became his current Dex/mobile/scout, albeit retaining a wilderness/spellcasting focus. After arguing (raging even) about on the WoTC forums for over six months, I finally came to accept it. Embrace it even.

[Anonymouswizard]

It sounds to me that the general consensus here (contrary to the consensus of the survey respondents, who overwhelmingly prefered the 2nd and 3rd edition versions of the Ranger) is that y'all want to see the Fourth Edition Ranger make a comeback.

Honestly, they should just keep the Ranger largely as is, and then create an entirely separate, non-magical core class based on the Third Edition Scout and the Fourth Edition Ranger. This edition needs more mundane classes.

I wouldn't mind the ranger kept as is, I can live with the spellcasting. I actually would prefer a return to the 1e version of the Ranger, before two-weapon fighting was part of them, as it was more a 'wilderness man' (I'd prefer to go beyond the 1e ranger in hewing to that concept, but I'm willing to admit that they need something to set them apart from a fighter with the Outlander background). I'd actually prefer barbarians built with a non-magical ranger class (or the fighter class) over the Barbarian class. If we had the magical Ranger and nonmagical Scout I'd love it.

[Tanarii]

For what it's worth, here's what the Ranger was originally like, vs how it changed in 3.5 to a scout-type. the latter being what a 5e ranger basically is.

1e Ranger
Fighter subclass (for attacks, saves, armor, weapons)
Above average HP / tough (2d8 at level, 11 max)
Extra damage vs all evil humanoids ("giant-class")
Tracking
surprise opponents 1-3, surprised on 1 only.
End-game spell-casting (level 8-17, druid up to 3rd, Magic-User up to 2nd)
UA required proficiencies by 4th level: bow or light crossbow (at level one), dagger or knife, spear or axe, sword (any type)
So they were fighters, tougher than normal, got the jump on enemies, trackers, and did extra damage vs evil humanoids. They has some end-game spellcasting. They were ranged attackers, who also knew how to use a variety of 'wilderness/mountain-man/Hunter' weapons, including a light/offhand-usable one. (Ie basically not polearm-users)

In 3.5 they became skilled (as in high skill points) wilderness skirmishers.
3.5 Ranger
d8 HD, full BAB, Fort/Ref saves, 6 skill points.
All weapons, light armor
Favored enemy (bonus to skills and damage)
Archery or Two-weapon Combat Style (2), Improved (6), Mastery (11)
Tracking (1) / Swift Tracker (8)
woodland Stride (7), Camouflage (13), Hide in Plain Sight (17)
Wild Empathy (1), Animal Companion (4)
Mid-game spellcasting (6 or 8 depending on wis), Druid spells up to 4th level

So as you can see, the 5e ranger is directly modeled on the 3.5 ranger. Except the broke out the improved combat/damage to enemies part into the Hunter subclass, and the Animal Companion into the Beastmaster subclass.

The only *real* differences between the 1e ranger and the post-3.5e ranger is: lighter armor, lower hps, and animal companions. For 5e, animal companions become optional, but extra damage is now Hunter only. The same through all editions: good attacks, tracking, wilderness surprise/stealth, archery / light weapons (albeit the most locked-in in 3.5), spellcasting.

Like I said, I think they did a great job on the Ranger design.

[techsamurai5000]

(frankly no-one who knows what they're doing ever does, has or will; not in the way D&D has ever portrayed it).

Incorrect. The Romans were rather fond of the gladiators that fought with two swords.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimachaerus

[techsamurai5000]

And let's not forget Bruce Lee, Musashi Miyamoto, every Musketeer that fought with a Rapier and Main Gauche, and every Escreema master in the world. Are you saying they didn't/don't know what they're doing?

[PMárk]

Ranger was always one of my favourite class and actualy I like the PHB ranger as it is. For me it graps the most fundamental things. I don't think the pet should be a default option, it is fine as an archetype. Although I can imagine some tweaking here and there to fine-tune the class ( for example more fighting styles options) the genearal picture is good for me. Pathfinder also have a fine version with a zillion archetypes and I like the most.

As for future subclasses, I also like the underdark version as a base for the scout and the spirit animal version as a spirit warrior.

For those whom say the ranger lack it's own flavour: I disagree. Ranger is ranger. Yes it is a wilderness fighter, as a paladin is a fighter-cleric and bard is a rogue-sorcerer and druid is a nature priest and sorcerer is a battlewizard etc. Most of the classes are could be categorized as archetypes of the biggest groups with flavour on the top. Ranger was always a class and a lot of people like it. I don't think taking away options would improve the game.

[Tanarii]

Yes it is a wilderness fighter
Only in a broad sense of the term fighter. In terms of class blend, it's fills the same class role as a Rogue (stealthy & mobile scout, around the edges/behind the lines skirmisher), with a splash of Druid (spells) and Fighter offense (styles/extra attack).

[Troacctid]

It would set them apart better if both fighters and rogues didn't also have casting through subclasses...

I don't see how that's an issue. Their spellcasting is very different from the Ranger's.

[Zalabim]

My initial reaction, "I could see an adaptable survivalist turned into a combat niche, as a broader variety of the Hunter subpath features, with short rest spell slots and able to change certain selections on a long rest."

Ranger seems like one case where preparing a number of tricks, traps (or spells, as it were) ahead of time (like traditional Vancian casting) would make thematic sense, as long as they can break them down and change them up as well. I'm going for a theme of versatile, adaptable, and prepared. Probably too complicated, but I imagine something where you can expend any prepared trap for a generic snare's effect, any prepared fire spell for a flaming weapons effect, and almost anything for a generic cure wounds effect. So you prepare "Fiery Surprise" and can use the spell as written, or spend its components on one of your versatile effects. Anyway, the current ranger's spellcasting is awful.

Edit: Could just be some new spells for the ranger's list that have multiple effects to choose between. Jaws of Fire that lights an area on fire, clamps someone in place and burns them, gives a weapon extra fire damage each hit, or gives one person a small health regen effect for a duration. Thornburst that lets you choose between a thorn barrage, barkskin with a piercing "fire shield", ensnaring strike, or cure wounds. Generally bonus action to cast, action or weapon attack to apply (depending on effect) and no spell level scaling.

Animal companion works for a ranger class. It'd be like Wild Shape for the druid class. A weak baseline feature that provides utility to all rangers, then improved versions available from one subpath. Otherwise, we get what we have with beast masters.

[Sigreid]

Only in a broad sense of the term fighter. In terms of class blend, it's fills the same class role as a Rogue (stealthy & mobile scout, around the edges/behind the lines skirmisher), with a splash of Druid (spells) and Fighter offense (styles/extra attack).

Really, rangers become the star of the show if the campaign ever ventures into the deep wilds, so far from civilization that the party is truly on their own for their basic survival.

[Reosoul]

I think the only thing wrong with Ranger for 5E was it's clunky mechanics, which can be(and often is) fixed by a DM tweaking the rules. It could do comparable damage and have utility, especially with a good player behind it, but with so much needing to eat up the bonus action and how intuitive the pet was, I only see it getting better if those get fixed.

The other half of the problem is the conflicting visions for the ranger. Some just see him as a switch-hitter who can go between dual-wielding melee or ranged combatant, and that's cool, but a Fighter and Rogue can do the same thing, and often do it better. Some think of the Ranger as just a type of rugged outdoorsman, which you can have just by picking up a background at level 1. Some people have also been talking endlessly about a more city-oriented ranger who is more of a bounty hunter... Sounds like a rogue, again.

Despite everyone's feelings on going towards a more UA archer and just ditching the pet and the magic, I think WOTC will be right in the long run. Ranger's best bet for having a unique niche lies in it's connection with a true, flesh and blood animal companion and working off that dynamic. Everything else has a spot in the other classes and is easily replicated, with only minimal(or zero) fiat.

[Hudsonian]

Animal companion works for a ranger class. It'd be like Wild Shape for the druid class. A weak baseline feature that provides utility to all rangers, then improved versions available from one subpath. Otherwise, we get what we have with beast masters.

I actually think that a fantastic example of a ranger w/ animal companion would be Dustfinger from Inkheart by Cornelia Funke. Which would be more of a spell caster ranger focus that never upgraded his companion past a non-telepathic link familiar. This path would get tricks and pre-made traps. I could see a possible confusion between this and the valor bard. But I like the idea of giving the ranger a single element path for spell casting. (He spends time in the outdoors, but is not necessarily tied to nature like a Druid)

Then you've got the relationship between say... Princess Jasmine and Raja (the tiger from Aladdin) for the upgrade path. (I am not saying that Jasmine is a ranger... Let's be clear. But she does have a pet tiger, which is cool.) Where the Raja is autonomous, but defaults to protecting against direct threats in the immediate vicinity. There is still no telepathic link as with familars, but communication still has limited two way capability. And the pet is intelligent.

Then there is the Legolas path. To me I have always thought that this was the true ranger in LotR. Now Legolas does not choose between archery or TWF, but instead is skilled in both. But this path would need features like Double Shot (Two arrows, one attack) or a selection of trick shots as in Battlemaster, but focused less on control and more on misdirection or attacking enemies that should be unreachable.