What Feature Makes The Ranger?

[R.Shackleford]

What one class feature makes the Ranger a Ranger?

Animal Companion?
Favored Enemy?
Favored Terrain?
Nature-Divine Spells?

Other?

Personally I think that the Animal Companion is the most Ranger of ranger features. WotC don't really focus on this aspect very much But when I think "woodland warrior" I think of a beast showing up at his or her side.

[BiPolar]

I think favored territory could have been very cool and powerful and ranger-licious, but the implementation of it is worthless.

[jas61292]

While I honestly think its none of the above, I think Natural Explorer/Favored Terrain comes the closest. Rangers are the exploration guys, and so that is what is the defining feature to me. That said the implementation that is basically "be in your chosen terrain or get nothing" fails to encompass what a ranger is about. What I would have much preferred to see is them getting general thematic benefits in every terrain type, but some enhancements based on their favored one. A class feature doesn't have to be always on to be defining, but it can't be almost always off except at the whims of the DM.

[Spacehamster]

mostly the fluff that makes the Ranger, but I think they should
have had 3 sub classes for starters 2 does not nearly enough cut it
one heavily focused on the animal companion, not as good at fighting himself but the beast should be a force to be reckoned with.
one focused on 2 weapon fighting, mobility and inflicting bleeding damage with "a thousand cuts" style of combat.
one focused on ranged combat, tracking and generally turning ppl into pin-cuishons. :)

All of them should at the core chassis be able to do all 3 of the sub classes role but really shine at what their focus is.

[Sigreid]

A strong leaning towards self reliance and wild places of all kinds. A wanderer's nature. Understanding of secrets of the wild denied to others, represented in game as spells, but could be done another way as long as they look like magic to outsiders.

[ZX6Rob]

So, I've been thinking about the Ranger for a long time, because it's always been my favorite class, but it does feel like something's missing in 5th edition. Part of it is, I think that you can really build 90% of a Ranger by simply being a Fighter with the Outlander background and the Eldritch Knight subclass. You get a little magic, a lot of fightin', and tracking/survival skills, too. If your DM is super-permissive, you ask them to swap the Wizard spell list with the Druid one for Eldritch Knight casting, and then you pretty much have a Ranger.

In the 5e design space, there's not much room left for the Ranger as-is. You could even make a good argument that you can probably just make the Ranger a subclass of Fighter again, and leave it at that. I find that unsatisfying, myself -- I love the Ranger, and think we can rescue him! To do so, though, I think we need to give it a niche. Something that it can focus on that other classes don't right now. Based on my experience with the Ranger, I think the two areas it really excels in are scouting and having a pet. The first part isn't hard -- you need proficiency in Stealth and maybe a ribbon power about moving through difficult areas like overgrown forest without leaving tracks or slowing down. Easy-peasey. The second, though, is where we break down.

Rangers fighting alongside their trusted animal companion is a pretty common trope (ref. Drizzle Durden and so forth), and a class that comes with his own teammate -- a real partner in combat, not a familiar or a summoned creature -- is something that 5e is currently lacking. The Beastmaster is the only way to get such a permanent companion, and as written, it suffers a bit from lack of verisimilitude, even if the level-by-level numbers seem to even out. It's no fun to imagine Viggen, Wolf of the Northern Tundra, Loyal Companion to Solvig the Ranger staring off in the distance with his tongue lolling gormlessly out of his mouth as a Purple Worm chows down on his master. We need some way to fix the problem of the disconnect between game mechanics and flavor, to the point where it feels like a) the Ranger is doing something cool that other classes can't do, and b) the animal is a living, breathing, thinking partner of the Ranger, and that they get better when they fight together.

This ended up being way longer than I thought, so I put this in a spoiler, but here's one way I think you could do that by making the beast companion part of the base Ranger class.

So, I would re-work the Ranger a bit to focus first and foremost on having a companion, and have that companion be around as part of the base of the class. I think part of the problem with the existing Beastmaster is that the decision to use beasts as-written in the Monster Manual provides way too much variance in effectiveness and survivability of the animal companion. It's really hard to balance because there's such a huge swing between, for example, 1d4+STR damage and 1d6+3d10(save) poison damage. In fact, the Beastmaster as-written reminds me a lot of some of the issues that were around for the Wild Shape-focused Druid of 3.5!

The original Wild Shape rules in 3.0 and 3.5 were complicated and fiddly, and as more and more monster supplements came out, allowed Druids to take on ever-more-esoteric forms as they progressed in the game. A novice player might find two or three animals they thought were thematically appropriate, but a well-read veteran could comb through multiple books to find all kinds of interesting forms to take, drastically raising the expected power of their hippie. But then, Player's Handbook II came out. I love this book! And most of the reason I love it has to do with the alternate class feature for the Druid. Instead of allowing a polymorph-like effect, they simply said, "You turn into an animal. It can look like whatever you want, but here is exactly what happens. You don't replace any of your stats, you don't swap around your hit dice, none of that. You get this bonus and this bonus, and you are this size, and you get this movement thingy." It made it a simple template that got more powerful as time went on.

The Ranger of 5e needs something like this for his animal friend. So, at 1st level, you get an animal that helps you out somehow. It has a set of base statistics, and maybe you pick from a list of three types. Something like a land animal, a flying animal, or a burrowing animal. hey get one attack, something like a bite (piercing damage), a claw (slashing), or a headbutt/slam thing (bludgeoning), which you pick at character creation, and that attack does something like 1d6 + (attribute) damage. That takes care of the weird variance, and you can fluff your animal however you like. Now, there's the action economy issue. Well, we don't want to just start handing out attacks left and right, because we don't want to step on the Fighter's toes -- that's really his deal. But, can we still have our animal attack along with us? We sure can! All we have to do is treat the animal like an off-hand weapon!

So, at 1st level, you are still learning to work with your companion. You have to use your bonus action to command it to attack something, and (because it's still learning your commands), you have to keep one hand free to direct its attention on where to go and what to bite. Because it's not totally unrealistic, your animal will continue to attack the same target after you command it. That's cool, and it feels great -- you and your soon-to-be mighty companion are now cracking skulls together like whatever weird nature-hippie god you worship intended! But, in terms of game balance, what's to stop you from using your free hand in the first round to order Sparky to chow down, then pulling a second sword and getting (technically) three attacks a round afterwards? Well, nothing. But I think that's okay, because we can add some other wrinkles in the way to prevent that from being too unbalanced.

First off, your animal is still just that -- an animal. And he loves you, and he is your snuggly little buddy who is, without question, a very good boy, but he's still only possessed of the intellect of an actual animal. So, when Grodnor, King of Giants, Slayer of the Kings of Lesser Men drops a greatclub that was formerly a California redwood on top of our fuzzy friend, he gets spooked. In game terms, your animal companion will continue to fight against the same enemy until he's at half of his maximum HP. If he's ever knocked below that point, at the beginning of your next turn, Sparky immediately takes the disengage action and attempts to get to safety. He won't leave you -- and in fact, if he can, he'll get behind you and start barking or something -- but he won't continue to engage with the thing that really, really hurt him. On your next turn, you can order him to re-engage the target, using your bonus action and free hand, but if he keeps taking damage, he'll keep running away.

That's an annoying limitation! And it should be! Because it's there to keep your balance in line, to make sure that you have to focus on what your animal is doing and how healthy he is; he's not just a class feature, he's a responsibility to you. Until level 5! At that point, the Fighter gets Extra Attack, and so, with two-weapon fighting, can be making three attacks per round reliably. So, at level 5, you can, too! Two things happen then -- first, we remove the limitation about damage. Sparky has been fighting with you for so long that he trusts you implicitly, and knows that you are going to help him and look after him even when he's hurt. So he's willing to give it his all. He will fight to the death if he knows you're still around. So, as long as you're conscious, your animal will no longer disengage at half his maximum hit points, and will continue to assault the enemy as long as you do. Also, because your bond has grown so strong, you no longer need to use a free hand to direct him. Vocal commands are enough, so as long as he can see and hear you, he "knows" what you want him to do.

At 11th level, everyone generally gets another boost. Fighters get more swings, cantrips get more dice, and so forth. You're no exception. Rather than "Extra Attack", you get "Coordinated Attack". The difference here is that you get one more attack per round, which can apply to either your buddy or yourself. Either you can make it, or your buddy can, and you decide round-by-round who gets to do what. Between your bonus action and your attack action, you have three attacks every round -- two for you, one for Sparky, or two for Sparky, one for you. 17th level is the next big boost, so why not give "Coordinated Attack 2"? Then, you have a total of three attacks as part of your action, two of which can be taken by your companion, plus your bonus action to give him another attack. Four total, like a Fighter, but you yourself can only make three, and you use your bonus action to get your fourth. I haven't run all the numbers, because I'm spitballing here, but that should work out pretty well. You would come in slightly under a Fighter or Barbarian for single-target average DPR (which isn't the only thing that matters, I know, but it is a thing that does matter and a useful metric for determining in-combat balance), but you have a few more tactical options thanks to the fact that you are actually two places at once.

Now, your companion has to improve as time goes on, too. Otherwise, it's no fun. So, the way I figure it is, the Ranger gets better as part of his class. That's where your ribbons and cool features that affect you come from. Your pet gets better because of your subclass. Essentially, your subclass is your pet's class.

So, we'd need one class that's just about increasing the numbers -- the Champion of the pet classes. It's simple, it's easy, all its abilities are passive, and you don't have to remember much. You'd probably get a scaling damage die (going up to 1d8 at some point, and then to 1d10), additional natural armor bonuses (probably a total of +3 at the end), and more stat bonuses to STR and CON as Sparky gets bigger and badder. Maybe even a size increase, though that probably causes more problems than it solves, so maybe not.

Another class would be about tactical positioning and interesting special maneuvers and abilities. What's that? Battlemaster? Never heard of 'im. In all seriousness, this pet class would be based around adding rider effects and optional abilities to your pet. Wolves in the wild can trip on a successful attack? Guess what -- now Sparky knows Take-Down. I'd probably come up with a list of different maneuvers that either impose a disadvantageous condition or provide you or your allies with a bonus of some kind. I'm not sure yet whether or not it'd be a good idea to tie these abilities to a short-rest resource such as Superiority Dice or Pet Points or something, or if instead (and I think this is more interesting because it would be a new mechanic) each maneuver would require some kind of positioning or prerequisite. Basically, you would have to spend your or your pet's movement or one of your attacks/actions to "set up" the maneuver, giving each one an opportunity cost. That makes the class all about working as a team to achieve positional superiority over your foes, and rewards things like outflanking and ambushing the enemies, which really plays up the teamwork aspect of the pet class. To make it easier to pull off, you can allow an ally to stand in for yourself for some of the maneuvers.

Finally, we could have a third pet class that focused on the more mystical nature of the man-beast connection. In this one, your animal companion is slowly revealed to be a kind of forest spirit, and gains mystical abilities that it shares with you as it gets stronger. As it progresses through the pet class, it would be able to pick from a Totem Barbarian-like list of different animal powers, each one either making it stronger, providing it with a new ability, or enhancing its senses. Ideally, each totemic ability would also have some kind of benefit to you, as well. So, if your animal picks up something called Spirit Sight to give it 120' darkvision, you'd get that, too. There could be an ability where Sparky could become incorporeal mist for so many rounds per long rest, and if you were next to him, you could, too. Basically, lots of spell-like magical powers that benefit you both.

Wizards of the Coast seemed like they were going more in this direction with the last time the Ranger was reviewed for Unearthed Arcana, so I hope we see something more along these lines. "Nature Warrior" alone isn't really enough for the Ranger to have a unique design space in the current 5e world.

[thepsyker]

While I honestly think its none of the above, I think Natural Explorer/Favored Terrain comes the closest. Rangers are the exploration guys, and so that is what is the defining feature to me. That said the implementation that is basically "be in your chosen terrain or get nothing" fails to encompass what a ranger is about. What I would have much preferred to see is them getting general thematic benefits in every terrain type, but some enhancements based on their favored one. A class feature doesn't have to be always on to be defining, but it can't be almost always off except at the whims of the DM.

This, although honestly a Fighter with the Outlander background and Ritual Caster(Druid) hits almost all the marks from my perspective. Maybe a couple levels Rogue for Expertise in Survival, maybe Alertness and Magic Initiate(Wizard) and you have a pretty good approximation of a 1st Ed. Ranger. Wilderness skills, expertise in tracking, bonus versus surprise, mix of Druid utility spells and Wizard spells, all you are really missing is a damage bonus against Giant types.

[R.Shackleford]

Rangers fighting alongside their trusted animal companion is a pretty common trope (ref. Drizzle Durden and so forth), and a class that comes with his own teammate -- a real partner in combat, not a familiar or a summoned creature -- is something that 5e is currently lacking. The Beastmaster is the only way to get such a permanent companion, and as written, it suffers a bit from lack of verisimilitude, even if the level-by-level numbers seem to even out. It's no fun to imagine Viggen, Wolf of the Northern Tundra, Loyal Companion to Solvig the Ranger staring off in the distance with his tongue lolling gormlessly out of his mouth as a Purple Worm chows down on his master. We need some way to fix the problem of the disconnect between game mechanics and flavor, to the point where it feels like a) the Ranger is doing something cool that other classes can't do, and b) the animal is a living, breathing, thinking partner of the Ranger, and that they get better when they fight together.

All good stuff but you made me think of something... Maybe "Ranger Companion" should be a PC class.

[Mongobear]

I always base my opinions of the Ranger off of the 1st edition AD&D set up. They were eventually just as good at fighting as a Fighter, albeit marginally weaker defensively.

They also excelled at fighting the more savage races, like Orcs, Goblins, Giants, Ogres, Trolls, etc.

I sort of believe the 5e Ranger should have been similar to the 5e Paladin, but focused more towards being effective against "mundane" foes of the above types, and less Healing/Support effects, but abilities which assisted the party in Natural environments.

[R.Shackleford]

I always base my opinions of the Ranger off of the 1st edition AD&D set up. They were eventually just as good at fighting as a Fighter, albeit marginally weaker defensively.

They also excelled at fighting the more savage rages, like Orcs, Goblins, Giants, Ogres, Trolls, etc.

I sort of believe the 5e Ranger should have been similar to the 5e Paladin, but focused more towards being effective against "mundane" foes of the above types, and less Healing/Support effects, but abilities which assisted the party in Natural environments.

I like the idea of the ranger and paladin being essentially the same class. The biggest difference is that the Ranger is about Nature while the Paladin is about Civilization.

[Mongobear]

I like the idea of the ranger and paladin being essentially the same class. The biggest difference is that the Ranger is about Nature while the Paladin is about Civilization.

This is pretty much how I have ALWAYS explained the difference to new players:

"Rangers are basically Paladins, but out in the wilds. They protect the space between civilizations, where as Paladins protect the civilizations themselves."

In game mechanics terms, I think the basic Ranger chassis should have been closer to the Hunter Archetype, and then the Archetypes themselves focusing on how exactly the Ranger approached his enemies. Beastmaster obviously uses an Animal Companion, Warden could be an Archetype that focuses on battlefield control and causing enemies to have a difficult time against your party, and Avenger would be the DPR machine who grabs his Bow/Sword/whatever and gets his stab on while ruining the local Orc Warlords day.

This is legitimately making me want to Homebrew a total overhaul to the class...

[Naanomi]

Although it would have run counter to the 'nostalgia factor' that was part of 5e design, I feel Ranger should have been a rogue or fighter subclass instead of its own class

[R.Shackleford]

This is legitimately making me want to Homebrew a total overhaul to the class...

Do it... Or I will purposely make the absolute worse ranger homebrew that is so bad that you will hate the ranger for the rest of your life.

:p

[ZX6Rob]

All good stuff but you made me think of something... Maybe "Ranger Companion" should be a PC class.

Well, so, this is something else that I was kicking around with a buddy the other day. What if your buddy just counts as another PC, and when you play a Ranger, it's basically just like having an extra PC in the party. The beast gets a share of XP and encounters are planned as though the party has an additional member. Then the beast is strong enough to stand on its own, the Ranger gets enough of its own class features to do its own thing, and neither one, beast or dude, does enough damage purely on its own to individually out-damage the real heavy-hitters.

I can see some GMs and tables balking at that, though, since it's still one player getting all this stuff. That's why I tried to roll it into one thing, but it still presents its own balance and flavor issues.

[EvilestWeevil]

All of the features of the ranger make it feel like a ranger. It's just that some of those features are lackluster. Adding tiny boosts in damage against favored enemies would be nice. The beast master would be fine, with a couple of tweaks, like upping the HP of the beast, speeding up the time it takes to get a new companion, and eliminating shared actions. Other than that I don't have an issue with the ranger, they get some cool stuff. It's a good class with a long history.

[R.Shackleford]

All of the features of the ranger make it feel like a ranger. It's just that some of those features are lackluster. Adding tiny boosts in damage against favored enemies would be nice. The beast master would be fine, with a couple of tweaks, like upping the HP of the beast, speeding up the time it takes to get a new companion, and eliminating shared actions. Other than that I don't have an issue with the ranger, they get some cool stuff. It's a good class with a long history.

I didn't mean for this to be a *fix the ranger* thread.

I just wanted to know, what one feature makes you think *Ranger*.

[Mongobear]

Do it... Or I will purposely make the absolute worse ranger homebrew that is so bad that you will hate the ranger for the rest of your life.

:p

Challenge Accepted!!!

Gimme a few hours, a pack of menthols and a 6 pack or Guiness and you'll have your 'fixed' Ranger that actual does stuff right.

[R.Shackleford]

Challenge Accepted!!!

Gimme a few hours, a pack of menthols and a 6 pack or Guiness and you'll have your 'fixed' Ranger that actual does stuff right.

Oh, it isn't about fixing the class. I love the Hunter Ranger for the most part.

I just... Always encourage homebrew. Even if it takes threats. :p

[Mongobear]

Oh, it isn't about fixing the class. I love the Hunter Ranger for the most part.

I just... Always encourage homebrew. Even if it takes threats. :p

Well... Doing it anyways!!

It'll be a nice distraction from my homebrew setting based on the old PS1 game 'The Legend of Dragoon' I have been putting too many hours into that lately, I need something unrelated to work on.

[JellyPooga]

When I think *Ranger*, I'm picturing a competent warrior, as good with a sword as he is with a bow. He's an efficient fighter, always finding the path of least resistance and the most economical end to the encounter. I'm picturing a guy that is confident in his own abilities; whether he be hunting prey, fighting his foes or holding his own in conversation. He's the guy that surprises you every time he turns up, because you didn't hear his footfalls as he approached and if he's quiet in the city, he might as well be a ghost in the wilds. He has a way with animals and a comprehensive knowledge of flora, especially relating to his homeland.

Things that make a Ranger; Stealth (not just in his favoured terrain), precision fighting and wild-land knowledge (flora and fauna).

Things that are optional to the Ranger; Magic, a Beast Companion and Two-Weapon Fighting.

[GlenSmash!]

Although it would have run counter to the 'nostalgia factor' that was part of 5e design, I feel Ranger should have been a rogue or fighter subclass instead of its own class

I love Rangers, and I completely agree. Barbarians could have been a fighter subclass as well. But Sacred cows and all that.

To me, Rangers live off of and work in the fringes. Maybe they are defending the wilds, maybe they are defending civilization from the wilds, maybe they aren't defending at all but are hunters carving out an area of the wilds for their own nefarious purposes. Whatever their reasons, they are in the wilds.

The tools they use could include animal companions, spells, and martial prowess. I would not want to make something like Animal companions or even Spells essential to the class ( I personally just re-fluff the spells, to more mundane wilderness hunter stuff). But they should certainly be viable and fun options.

When it comes to weapon style, I've never got the two weapon fighting thing being related to Rangers. I understand where it came from, but limiting Rangers to picking TWF or Archery has always seemed wrong to me.

Imaging a bushman style Ranger on an African Savannah like plain. She has the traditional spear and hide shield of her people. It makes sense for the environment she is in. To me she should have the chance to be just as effective as a TWF Ranger. Thankfully in 5e she can with Dueling style, but if a Ranger favors a two handed weapon for smashing through the armor plates of the hide of her favored enemy, she is short shifted the two handed fighting style unless house rules are in effect, or the player has multi-classed.

My perfect Ranger class would be similar in structure to the Warlock class. With Animal Companion (Pact of the Chain), spell Caster (Tome) and Martial (Blade) sub-classes, and a list of abilities the player can choose from as they level. Some would require being in the Animal companion subclass, some would require being in the Spellcaster subclass, and some would require being in the Martial subclass, but most would be general outdoorsy wilderness stuff like tracking, stealth etc. This would let all of use who have different ideas of what a Ranger is exactly (but have the same idea of what a Ranger is generally) implement our own versions of the Ranger.

[Daishain]

Thematically, it might have to be their training as hunters, the favored terrain and enemy features in particular. The few unique spells they get, such as hunter's mark, heavily reflect this focus.

The other spells and animal companion are more of a gimmick to represent being in touch with nature (and much more associated with druid fluff). and versatile combat is by a large degree more the fighter's thing (rangers started off as a fighter subclass anyways)

That's a sad state of affairs, when your identifying features have all pretty much been nerfed down to ribbon abilities...

If I were to rebuild their chassis, I think core ranger wouldn't have any spells, instead has abilities suited to a guerrilla fighter, high speed, ignoring difficult terrain, ability to strike and withdraw, etc. Probably three subclasses. One adds the spell-casting back in, another revolves around the ranger being able to prepare gear and tactics that are maximally effective against a specific enemy type, and the third would be a creature tamer, able to manage a small menagerie of useful critters.

[R.Shackleford]

My perfect Ranger class would be similar in structure to the Warlock class. With Animal Companion (Pact of the Chain), spell Caster (Tome) and Martial (Blade) sub-classes, and a list of abilities the player can choose from as they level. Some would require being in the Animal companion subclass, some would require being in the Spellcaster subclass, and some would require being in the Martial subclass, but most would be general outdoorsy wilderness stuff like tracking, stealth etc. This would let all of use who have different ideas of what a Ranger is exactly (but have the same idea of what a Ranger is generally) implement our own versions of the Ranger.

Call those evocation type abilities "Natural Selections" and have them run off Primal Magic or are non-magical.

Imitation of the Hunter (non-magical): Gain darkvision, keen senses (smell), and you leave no tracks when you move through natural terrain.

Pounce (non-magical): Gain +10 movement speed and you may make a running jump from standstill.

Grasp of the Primal Spirits (Primal Magic): You weapon attacks deal additional damage or grapples a the target.

Whispers of the Primal Spirits (Primal Magic): You have expertise in animal handling and survival.

[GlenSmash!]

Call those evocation type abilities "Natural Selections" and have them run off Primal Magic or are non-magical.

Imitation of the Hunter (non-magical): Gain darkvision, keen senses (smell), and you leave no tracks when you move through natural terrain.

Pounce (non-magical): Gain +10 movement speed and you may make a running jump from standstill.

Grasp of the Primal Spirits (Primal Magic): You weapon attacks deal additional damage or grapples a the target.

Whispers of the Primal Spirits (Primal Magic): You have expertise in animal handling and survival.

Yes! Precisely the kind of stuff I would like!

[R.Shackleford]

Yes! Precisely the kind of stuff I would like!

Nice! Glad you like it :).

[Alejandro]

To me, the ranger has 2nd Ed roots, and those were the favored enemy combat bonuses and the two weapon fighting style. I'd like to see different ranger paths that come with different sets of favored enemies and special bonuses for fighting them, but they need to be broad so they'll come up often enough to be worthwhile.

[Tanarii]

What makes a ranger is the same thing it's always been in every edition of D&D. Excepting 4e, which had a spell-less ranger instead.

1) Tough as a fighter.
2) Sneaky like a Rogue
3) Enemy-specific bonuses
4) Special natural environment skills & abilities
5) Magical Spells, including Druid spells
6) Powerful and often unique or strange followers & companions

Also since Unearthed Arcana was released:
7) Special weapons focus & requirements (including bows and light weapons suitable for 2 weapon fighting)

[R.Shackleford]

What makes a ranger is the same thing it's always been in every edition of D&D. Excepting 4e, which had a spell-less ranger instead.

1) Tough as a fighter.
2) Sneaky like a Rogue
3) Enemy-specific bonuses
4) Special weapons focus & requirements
5) Speacial natural environment skills & abilities
6) Magical Spells, including Druid spells
7) Powerful and often unique or strange followers & companions

Do you really need to try and edition war?

[Tanarii]

Do you really need to try and edition war?

Nothing in my statement is Edition war worthy. 4th edition Rangers did not have spells. This is a fact, not a judgement. I included it for accuracy, since otherwise it was (this being a internet forum and all) very likely to be called out as not matching my list.

[R.Shackleford]

Nothing in my statement is Edition war worthy. 4th edition Rangers did not have spells. This is a fact, not a judgement. I included it for accuracy, since otherwise it was (this being a internet forum and all) very likely to be called out as not matching my list.

4E ranger meets quite a few on your list.

Strong as a fighter (technically stronger as the ranger deals way more damage)

Sneaky as a Rogue? Yup.

Features that target specific enemies? Yup, Quarry targeted the closest creature to you. It was a favored enemy or collosus slayer type feature.

Animal Companion? Yeah it sucked, but so did the 3.5 and 5e one unless you optimized.

Magic? Nope, they gave that to the Seeker. But then again a lot of people like the spell-less ranger. 3.5 and 5E ranger doesn't gain druid spells, they both just get the same spells on their list.

Your post is both inacurate and needlessly calls out 4e. Calling out a specific edition, while being inaccurate about it, wI'll only cause edition waring.

[Tanarii]

4E ranger meets quite a few on your list.It meets all of them except spell casting. That was my entire point.


Your post is both inacurate and needlessly calls out 4e. Calling out a specific edition, while being inaccurate about it, wI'll only cause edition waring.My list was entirely accurate, because I added the one caveat. Without it, my list would have had an inaccuracy in it. Ergo, I listed the exception. Stop trying to read too much into the one factual exception I listed for completeness, and misinterpreting it to boot, and concentrate on the main point I was making.

Rangers are a specific package of several broad things. And they they have been, and continue to be, the same broad things for the entirety of D&D. People regularly overlook this because they they focused too much on the details of how those broad things worked in one edition, and they have let that become their own personal definition of a Ranger.

[ZX6Rob]

It meets all of them except spell casting. That was my entire point.

My list was entirely accurate, because I added the one caveat. Without it, my list would have had an inaccuracy in it. Ergo, I listed the exception. Stop trying to read too much into the one factual exception I listed for completeness, and misinterpreting it to boot, and concentrate on the main point I was making.

Rangers are a specific package of several broad things. And they they have been, and continue to be, the same broad things for the entirety of D&D. People regularly overlook this because they they focused too much on the details of how those broad things worked in one edition, and they have let that become their own personal definition of a Ranger.

Well, from a third party perspective, I think what you were saying was clear. "Rangers were defined by these traits, excluding in fourth edition, where Rangers didn't have all of those things."

Shackleford, my man, it's all good. I hate edition wars as much as the next guy who thought fourth edition had a lot going for it, but I think this is a simple misunderstanding.

[Ewhit]

The ranger

1. Ignore any terrain disadvantage would be great for the ranger. A ranger should be adapt to terrains. It would be to limited if it was only to a specific terrain. Or every odd level pick an extra terrain

From natural difficulty terrain to spells affecting terrain it could be a great boost to the ranger.

I would change favored enemy to a target instead of a group.

1 round of study and get the favored enemy ability

[Tanarii]

Well, from a third party perspective, I think what you were saying was clear. "Rangers were defined by these traits, excluding in fourth edition, where Rangers didn't have all of those things."

Shackleford, my man, it's all good. I hate edition wars as much as the next guy who thought fourth edition had a lot going for it, but I think this is a simple misunderstanding.to be fair, I should have just put an asterix next to "Spells". It would have made it harder to read my comment as "4th edition rangers aren't Rangers". Instead of what I was trying to say: Rangers in all editions are are Rangers because X, Y*, Z.

(Note: I've absolutely loved every edition of D&D since I started with BECMI.)

[Saggo]

What makes a ranger is the same thing it's always been in every edition of D&D. Excepting 4e, which had a spell-less ranger instead.

1) Tough as a fighter.
2) Sneaky like a Rogue
3) Enemy-specific bonuses
4) Special natural environment skills & abilities
5) Magical Spells, including Druid spells
6) Powerful and often unique or strange followers & companions

Also since Unearthed Arcana was released:
7) Special weapons focus & requirements (including bows and light weapons suitable for 2 weapon fighting)
And addendum I would add (caveat included) is that it usually fills a mechanical option similar to and in conjunction with Paladin and Bard. Paladin is martial and clerical casting, Bard is martial and arcane, and Ranger is martial and druidic.

Each are given or inherit a unique flavor and additional skills to further distinguish identities.

[Tanarii]

And addendum I would add (caveat included) is that it usually fills a mechanical option similar to and in conjunction with Paladin and Bard. Paladin is martial and clerical casting, Bard is martial and arcane, and Ranger is martial and druidic.

Each are given or inherit a unique flavor and additional skills to further distinguish identities.
yes, but Rangers also had some thief-type (now rogue-type) traits, namely sneakiness (and investigation in 5e). I think of the 5e ranger as a Fighter/Rogue/Druid.

Bards are really fighter/thief/mixed casters with musical/lore powers. Originally they literally were fighter/thieves that then gained druidic casting and musical/lore powers. The caster aspect later morphed to a blend of Druid, Illusion/enchantment arcane, and some divination/lore type spells. I think the 5e spell list for Bards does a really good job of representing the latter, and the colleges do a good job by emphasizing either martial or lore/casting, with expertise giving the rogue feel.

To stay on topic of Rangers, I think of them in 5e as a Sneak + Specialist, categorizing them with Monks and Rogues, who apply themselves in combat tactically where needed. Not a general warrior-primary, like Fighters, Barbarians or Paladins.

The other grouping I use are arcane blaster (Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard) and buffer/debuffer/healer (Bard, Druid, Cleric). Obviously there's crossover & the ability to build many of the classes with an out of "role" focus. It's just my general broad categorization for the classes.

[Saggo]

yes, but Rangers also had some thief-type (now rogue-type) traits, namely sneakiness (and investigation in 5e). I think of the 5e ranger as a Fighter/Rogue/Druid.

Very true, although I wasn't trying to be exhaustive. Both Bard and Ranger were given Thief/Rogue portions. I was just lumping them in with the "martial" and "additional skills" sentiments.

[Mongobear]

So, I have finished my homebrew Ranger I said I would do earlier. I think it it so much closer to the early editions as still gives off that "Im a Ranger" vibe. There is a LOT of text, so I uploaded it to Google Docs for easier sharing.


https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cexdkUxZq-x62ubMHTZxHVJ707VPOhUEXm_xUzFjBV0/edit?usp=sharing


Thoughts/Critiques are welcome. I will post into the Homebrew thread as well for more exposure.

[djreynolds]

The ranger is great at, IMHO, at making the enemy close ranks and picking off the flankers and funneling them to the tank and strikers.

Can other classes do this, yes. As well, that's a matter of opinion. You must compare the ranger to the monk and rogue, and not the barbarian and fighter and paladin.

I would think if your table allows it, the UA scout archetype would be a great multiclass for a ranger to look into.

Also what we have done, a little fix, is that you get bonus known spells when in your favored terrain. Just two per level. Say in the underdark you get spider climb. In the desert you get create food and water. Stuff like that, mainly free utility spells.

[R.Shackleford]

The ranger

1. Ignore any terrain disadvantage would be great for the ranger. A ranger should be adapt to terrains. It would be to limited if it was only to a specific terrain. Or every odd level pick an extra terrain

From natural difficulty terrain to spells affecting terrain it could be a great boost to the ranger.

I would change favored enemy to a target instead of a group.

1 round of study and get the favored enemy ability

1: Short Rest mechanic to adapt to an environment. This adaptation gives specific benefits based on the natural environment. This can be from cold endurance, Heat endurance, a swim speed, a climb speed, darkvision, keen senses, remove disadvantage for specific conditions (enemies don't have advantage for attacking you if they are hidden in natural cover/obscurment/darkness).

This is actually what I was thinking of natural selections being, at least partially.

***€
2. Terrain effecting spells. The Paladin has their own smite spells. Rangers could have their own terrain spells.

Swamp of Annihilation
Level 1 Transmutation Spell
Duration 1 minute

You change the natural terrain around you into a swampy area. This swampy 30' radius surrounding you and does not move. This area is considered difficult terrain except for you.

If a creature other than you or an ally is killed and left in the swamp for three turns the body is consumed by the swamp.

For each level above 1st you may chose an ally. That ally is immune to the difficult terrain of the swamp.

***

Favored Enemy could also be a short rest mechanic and left more specific. As you get more levels you could add more choices per short rest.

[MBControl]

Ranger is by far my favourite class. I didn't like the beast master in the PHB though, and went hunter instead. I thought the real benefits of a fighting companion were too slow to get to. That being said, I don't mind the UE ranger variant. Changing the Ranger to a DEX/WIS based class, adding more roguish fighting tactics, and including the spirit companion. Now, I wish it were just a animal companion, but I understand why they did it, and it's a decent fit that fits within the realm of a ranger.

I much prefer the WIS aspect of the Ranger, though not necessarily intelligent, his/her years in the wilds, observing and protecting their surroundings, makes them very instinctual, much like the nature around them. It's almost a "Tarzan" like build for a ranger, which I find very interesting.

[Nifft]

IMHO, the Ranger archetype is best represented by:

1/ Aragorn; and
2/ the 1e Ranger.

Aragorn: "Lonely men are we, Rangers of the wild, hunters – but hunters ever of the servants of the Enemy; for they are found in many places, not in Mordor only. 'Strider' am I to one fat man who lives within a day's march of foes that would freeze his heart, or lay his little town in ruin, if he were not guarded ceaselessly. Yet we would not have it otherwise. If simple folk are free from care and fear, simple they will be, and we must be secret to keep them so. That has been the task of my kindred, while the years have lengthened and the grass has grown."

Aragorn is a protector of civilization, but not a part of civilized society. He's acting for the good of humanity as a whole ("Good") but he's not beholden to social convention, and flaunts his disregard for the opinions of the majority ("Chaotic").


1e Ranger:
- Good at fighting (though not as good as a Fighter due to XP table delay)
- Special bonuses when fighting "servants of the Enemy" (in 1e that meant giants & monstrous humanoids)
- Special perception rules (surprise negation & tracking)
- Special stealth rules
- By Any Means Necessary: they learn some Wizard spells and some Druid spells, because they will pick up and use any tools they can get their hands on.

Basically, if the Fighter is a Marine, and the Paladin is Air Cav, then the Ranger is Special Forces.

[R.Shackleford]

IMHO, the Ranger archetype is best represented by:

1/ Aragorn; and
2/ the 1e Ranger.



I used to think this until I played Tales of Symphonia. Add Presea to that list for me.

I love the idea of a stupidly-big axe wielding Ranger.

Also the red neck guy with the crossbow from Walking Dead, one of the best non-spellcaster ranger's ever.

[Knaight]

None of the features that made it into 5e really define the archetype all that well, though they do suggest it (favored terrain in particular, even if it didn't turn out super practical). There's a few core elements that rangers can't really do without. To wit:

Familiarity with natural environments.
Combat skill.
Stealth.


Animal companions, spells, and other miscellany don't seem particularly key.

[Tanarii]

None of the features that made it into 5e really define the archetype all that well, though they do suggest it (favored terrain in particular, even if it didn't turn out super practical). There's a few core elements that rangers can't really do without. To wit:

Familiarity with natural environments.
Combat skill.
Stealth.
The 5e ranger is decent combat skill & stealth. Excellent if he so chooses (Hunter & Stealth skill respectively).

And has absolutely amazing natural environment familiarly in Natural explorer. Claiming that the feature didn't turn out super practical is ridiculous. It's insanely useful. Expertise in all Int & Wis skills? Yes please! That's a nice start. But no difficult terrain for the group while traveling! Can't get lost! Can do two things at once! Expert tracker! Holy ****, this class feature is just completely loaded with awesome.

A Ranger with appropriate Natural Explorer is the most important class to have in any sandbox, unless it's going to be a Megadungeon or City sandbox. If you don't have one as a PC, hire a damn NPC. They're that powerful.


Animal companions, spells, and other miscellany don't seem particularly key.Except that they're, you know, a historical part of the class in one form or another since the beginning. The specific implementation has just changed.

[Nifft]

Except that they're, you know, a historical part of the class in one form or another since the beginning. The specific implementation has just changed.

I'm not seeing anything about an animal companion in the 1e Ranger. If you do see it, could you point out what page of the 1e PHB that feature appears on, and what it's called?

IIRC that was added due to Drizzt (who had a Figurine of Wondrous Power, not a Ranger class feature) -- similar to the 2WF thing, which was a Drow racial feature in 1e, and got turned into a Ranger ability in 2e so Drizzt fans could emulate their favorite character.

[Tanarii]

I'm not seeing anything about an animal companion in the 1e Ranger. If you do see it, could you point out what page of the 1e PHB that feature appears on, and what it's called?Sure. 1e Rangers got Animal Companions in one of two ways. A lot of people are unaware of them because they weren't called out as a special class feature. (Kind of like 5e has Hunter's Mark as a 'secret' Ranger feature, or Hex as a 'secret' Warlock feature.)

In the 1e PH p25, at 8th level, in the column labeled Druid Spells. They get one 1st level Druid spell. The spell used is Animal Friendship, which is PH p54. It gives up to 2HD of animal companions, permenantly. This is also how Druids got Animal Companions, as well as Bards.

The other way they got them in 1e was DMG p16-17, if they rolled Animal followers. Rangers got a variety of special followers (either high leveled character or weird creatures), and animals were part of it. But that was a secondary way, compared to the Animal Friendship spell.

Despite playing 2e a lot, I can never remember the system. I dumped out all my 2e knowledge and replaced it with 3e. So I can't remember if Animal Companions moved from a spell to a spell-less class Feature for Rangers and Druids as part of 2e or 3e. But the root for the Feature is the 1e Animal Friendship spell.

[Nifft]

In the 1e PH p25, at 8th level, in the column labeled Druid Spells. They get one 1st level Druid spell. The spell used is Animal Friendship, which is PH p54. It gives up to 2HD of animal companions, permenantly. This is also how Druids got Animal Companions, as well as Bards. Ah, right.

I'd forgotten how useful that spell was... and it's back in 5e, as a Bard / Druid / Ranger spell so that's one thing which doesn't need to be fixed.

Thanks!

[Tanarii]

I'd forgotten how useful that spell was... and it's back in 5e, as a Bard / Druid / Ranger spell so that's one thing which doesn't need to be fixed.
IIRC (which I may not) it's been around in one form or another for most editions. Although in 5e it's more like the animal target use of the 2nd level Charm Person or Mammal, except without 1e's insanely overpowered version of charming.

Edit: in the 3e SRD it's called Charm Animals and is level 1. They definitely conflated the two spells and the class features. Which kind of goes to my point about specific implementations for classes.

[djreynolds]

It really depends on how play the game. Are you really out in the wild, hiking around in plate armor? Odd there is no levels of exhaustion for that. A ranger can sleep in leather armor or even a breast plate can be donned or doffed in a reasonable amount time, but who is sleeping in plate. How many rations are you really carrying?

A ranger can literally hound an enemy to exhaustion. He can move in and melee or shoot from range. He can make food or find it and need not be burden by an extra 10lbs or have to find a village every other day to re-fit his kit. The beastmaster can select a new beast for that environment, something commonplace that will not draw attention to itself. Not many hawks in the underdark but you can select a bat that will not cue a guard to know that someone is about. And you can stealth with it.

This to me is a ranger. He can go it alone, scout the castle and then lead the rest of the party to it. He can pick up an enemies trail or cover the parties. He knows the enemy well enough to have a good idea where they are and what they are doing.

Other classes can do this, and perhaps multiclassed character can do better. But the ranger can do this for a party, and when in the castle, still mow people down with a bow, man the lines, and sneak off with the rogue, and heal the wounded.

[Lycanthrope13]

I like to view rangers as a barbarian/rogue hybrid. They're highly mobile, lightly armored scouts. They can prepare a battlefield ahead of time by setting traps and using terrain to their advantage, but when the fighting actually starts, they rely on instinct.

They prefer to evade attacks rather than enduring them, and they bypass their opponents' defenses rather than breaking them. I see a ranger ducking and weaving through a sea of enemies, stabbing, hamstringing, and slashing throats as he goes.

I've never understood rangers as casters. I see them more as herbalists, using natural substances to treat wounds. I also never understood the love of swords. I see them using the rogue and druid weapon lists. Spears, handaxes, and knives make more sense for a warrior of the wild.

I love the idea of treating the companion as an off hand attack. It really emphasizes how two creatures work as a unit. I also like the idea of the animal withdrawing below 50% hp. I would add that the animal will defend it's master to the death if he/she falls unconcious.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

What one class feature makes the Ranger a Ranger?

Animal Companion?
Favored Enemy?
Favored Terrain?
Nature-Divine Spells?

Other?

Personally I think that the Animal Companion is the most Ranger of ranger features. WotC don't really focus on this aspect very much But when I think "woodland warrior" I think of a beast showing up at his or her side.

If I have to pick one single feature that makes the ranger in general, regardless of edition, I'm picking skills. To me the ranger is first and foremost an outdoorsman. That's what sets it apart from the other classes. Being an asskicker, a minor nature themed caster and friends with a wild animal are good additions to that, but not as close to the core of the matter.

This does mean that 5th edition takes some awesome away from the ranger, having a less detailed skill system. On the other hand, the backgrounds make it so that you can mix and match skill sets much easier. Since the skills are at the heart of the ranger they go a long way to letting you invent your own type of ranger without even multiclassing. A survivalist who likes music and communicates with his bird partner using a high pitched whistle? A private investigator-tracker? A salesman who travels the swamp with a boat? Done, done and done. Not really what you'd imagine when you say the word ranger maybe, but cool ways to switch things up.

[Tanarii]

I also never understood the love of swords. I see them using the rogue and druid weapon lists. Spears, handaxes, and knives make more sense for a warrior of the wild.
In 1e, where the first ranger weapon requirements showed up (that I'm aware of), the requirement was that the first four proficiency for a Ranger be, in any order: 1) bow or light crossbow; 2) knife or dagger; 3) spear or axe; 4) sword (any type).

Basically woodsman weapon types, plus a sword.

They could only specialize in a weapon from that list. So they were already commonly bow specialists. But also sword specialists were fairly common. Because those were the most powerful options for 1e characters, especially in terms of more commonly found and potentially most powerful magic weapons.

Knives, daggers and hand axes were also the only weapons that could be used off-hand, so they were proficient in weapons that could be used for that style, although a high Dex was needed to excel at it and Dex wasn't a Ranger requirement. Not sure why it became the standard for 2e Rangers, although the common internet assumption is a certain famous ranger who fought with two scimitars. Although Zeb Cook has denied that was the case.

[Arkhios]

As an answer to the OP:

after I had read Lord of the Rings (can't even fathom how long time ago it was; having a movie was like a daydream in everyone's minds!) and later when I was introduced to D&D, I always figured that the predefining ranger schtick was the ultimate wilderness survivalist. In essence, Favored Terrain and a Master Tracker. I never found magic or an animal companion being a necessary part of the class. They were somewhat a nice bonus, but that's all in them to me.

[Serket]

What one class feature makes the Ranger a Ranger?
Animal Companion?
Favored Enemy?
Favored Terrain?
Nature-Divine Spells?


Which one does Aragorn have?

None of them, really. Favoured Terrain is probably the closest, since he's all outdoorsy, but even then what is his favoured terrain? We don't know, which says it's not a big deal.

Using this Ur-example, we can see the defining features of the ranger as outdoorsy, sneaky, and lightly-armoured-skirmishy-fighty. In 5e terms they're like a Fighter who traded Heavy Armour proficiency for Survival and Nature (and also had Stealth on their class skills list).

[Temperjoke]

For me, honestly, I feel the Ranger should be a mix of the Hunter and Beastmaster subclasses, with a little Totem Barbarian thrown in. What I mean, is you've got an individual who has an affinity for animals, able to understand and connect to them, with a companion. This person is an expert at archery and stealth in a wilderness setting (as opposed to an urban setting, not specifically in a forest). They are the scout, the tracker, sometimes the poacher depending on their background.

I'm not a fan of favored enemy/terrain, I just feel that's too limiting for a character, since it would be so easy to frustrate a player with a campaign that doesn't align with their character. Maybe it should be re-flavored to be able to adapt to the terrain or enemy after spending a day or two in it, or fighting a few of them.

EDIT: Oh, I'd also like to add that magic wouldn't be a major part of the Ranger, or at least my vision of it. Maybe in a limited sense, some of the druid ritual spells, or a few of the current ranger spells.

[RumoCrytuf]

It's no fun to imagine Viggen, Wolf of the Northern Tundra, Loyal Companion to Solvig the Ranger staring off in the distance with his tongue lolling gormlessly out of his mouth as a Purple Worm chows down on his master.


Can I sig this amazing piece? XD

[ZX6Rob]

Can I sig this amazing piece? XD

Sure, I don't see why not. Enjoy!

[EvilAnagram]

Which one does Aragorn have?

None of them, really. Favoured Terrain is probably the closest, since he's all outdoorsy, but even then what is his favoured terrain? We don't know, which says it's not a big deal.

Using this Ur-example, we can see the defining features of the ranger as outdoorsy, sneaky, and lightly-armoured-skirmishy-fighty. In 5e terms they're like a Fighter who traded Heavy Armour proficiency for Survival and Nature (and also had Stealth on their class skills list).

This is pretty much correct in my view, although we could say that Aragorn's favored terrain would be the North.


Rangers fighting alongside their trusted animal companion is a pretty common trope (ref. Drizzle Durden and so forth), and a class that comes with his own teammate -- a real partner in combat, not a familiar or a summoned creature -- is something that 5e is currently lacking. The Beastmaster is the only way to get such a permanent companion, and as written, it suffers a bit from lack of verisimilitude, even if the level-by-level numbers seem to even out. It's no fun to imagine Viggen, Wolf of the Northern Tundra, Loyal Companion to Solvig the Ranger staring off in the distance with his tongue lolling gormlessly out of his mouth as a Purple Worm chows down on his master. We need some way to fix the problem of the disconnect between game mechanics and flavor, to the point where it feels like a) the Ranger is doing something cool that other classes can't do, and b) the animal is a living, breathing, thinking partner of the Ranger, and that they get better when they fight together.

I think your basic premise is flawed since the character from whom the class drew inspiration had no animal companion, and moreover most interations of the Ranger did not rely on having an animal companion. It has never been the Pokemon trainer class.

That said, this section of your post is particularly odd to me because it's central complaint is essentially only applicable to two out of 18 class levels. Through the rest of the Beast Master experience, the companion is a true partner who attacks with you, threatens enemies with op-attacks, and provides excellent utility. You're complaining about the early levels that are there to train you how to use your beast, when the rest of the experience provides exactly what you want in a beast companion.

[KorvinStarmast]

As much fun as I had reading Salvatore's books, Drzzt was IMO one of the worst things to happen to rangers in the game. But the books were fun to read.

[Mongobear]

As much fun as I had reading Salvatore's books, Drzzt was IMO one of the worst things to happen to rangers in the game. But the books were fun to read.

Not to mention the mechanics fallacy of him using Gwen as an animal companion when she was a Figuring of Wondorous Power, and not technically an Animal by game mechanics.

[OldTrees1]

What one class feature makes the Ranger a Ranger?

Skill user specialized on natural environments and wields weapons. Sort of a counterpoint to the Rogue(specialized on civilized environments). In more granular systems it would also mark the warrior/skill user hybrid point.

[R.Shackleford]

As much fun as I had reading Salvatore's books, Drzzt was IMO one of the worst things to happen to rangers in the game. But the books were fun to read.

I actually think LotR is the worst thing to happen to the Ranger.

Actually, no, more of the religious like devotion to LotR mythology/ideology that hurts a lot of fantasy.

I'm not a huge fan of GRR Martin but he had a great quote about people leaving fantasy stagnant instead of expanding upon what Tolkien has done.

Aragon (spelling?) is a good representation of the Ranger but I don't think should be the only Holy Grail of rangers.

(I'm not saying you was saying Aragon = Holy Grail, just the idea of "what is the worst thing to shape the ranger. I'm not meaning to come off as combatant or anything).

[EvilAnagram]

I'm not a huge fan of GRR Martin but he had a great quote about people leaving fantasy stagnant instead of expanding upon what Tolkien has done.

Aragon (spelling?) is a good representation of the Ranger but I don't think should be the only Holy Grail of rangers.

The ranger has expanded. The Beast Master is a prime example of an expansion on the concept. But if you move so far away from the original concept that it bears no resemblance to the source, is it still a ranger?

[R.Shackleford]

The ranger has expanded. The Beast Master is a prime example of an expansion on the concept. But if you move so far away from the original concept that it bears no resemblance to the source, is it still a ranger?

If it stays with the core concept, yes, a woodsman warrior.

You can have magic, no magic, animal companion, no animal companion, wildshape (3.5!), or whatever else. As long as the concept is there then it is still a ranger.

Two weapon fighting (scimitars), great weapon fighting (BIG axe), or ranged combat (bow) I don't think it matters as long as that woodsman concept is there.

Robinhood can be a ranger as can Dritz or Aragon.

Edit

You need to let fantasy grow and expand or else fantasy stops being what it is at its core... Change and imagination.

[Tanarii]

The ranger has expanded. The Beast Master is a prime example of an expansion on the concept. But if you move so far away from the original concept that it bears no resemblance to the source, is it still a ranger?

Except it hasn't moved so far away. The 1e and 5e Ranger share many things, as my post on the first page summarizes. All editions share the same Ramger Archetype, within the broad list of things that make up a D&D Ranger.

Including particular weapons focus, stealth, nature specific skills and lore, Spells, and through them Animal Companions.

[R.Shackleford]

Except it hasn't moved so far away. The 1e and 5e Ranger share many things, as my post on the first page summarizes. All editions share the same Ramger Archetype, within the broad list of things that make up a D&D Ranger.

Including particular weapons focus, stealth, nature specific skills and lore, Spells, and through them Animal Companions.

I want to play this Ramger, sounds like a Barbarian Totem (Ram)/Ranger type class...


Edit

Ranger with totem abilities? Ram totem ranger?

[Tanarii]

I want to play this Ramger, sounds like a Barbarian Totem (Ram)/Ranger type class...


Edit

Ranger with totem abilities? Ram totem ranger?Ranger with a built in Ring of the Ram? :smallbiggrin:

[ZX6Rob]

I think your basic premise is flawed since the character from whom the class drew inspiration had no animal companion, and moreover most interations of the Ranger did not rely on having an animal companion. It has never been the Pokemon trainer class.

That said, this section of your post is particularly odd to me because it's central complaint is essentially only applicable to two out of 18 class levels. Through the rest of the Beast Master experience, the companion is a true partner who attacks with you, threatens enemies with op-attacks, and provides excellent utility. You're complaining about the early levels that are there to train you how to use your beast, when the rest of the experience provides exactly what you want in a beast companion.

Well, let me revise my statement a bit. So, Rangers as a class actually wear a lot of hats. Back in 1e, they were lone warriors who had both divine and arcane magics and, if I'm not mistaken, could even wear heavy armor if they wanted. Clearly, they were inspired by Aragorn, but there was already a bit of divergence from the source just due to the nature of the game. By 2e, they got their two weapon fighting and solidified their role somewhat as natural wardens by getting Drood spells instead of the mix of cleric and magic user spells. Then, in 3rd, which is the edition I started with, the animal companion was added as a direct class feature. In 1st edition, you might end up with one as a follower, by 2nd, the Animal Summoning spell gave you one, but in 3rd, you got a fuzzy buddy from the outset, or close to, anyway.

The reason I go through all this here is twofold. First, the Ranger as a class has always, I think, been a bit challenged when it comes to carving out a unique niche, and two, when I think of what one feature makes the Ranger a Ranger, I tend to think of 3rd edition's animal pal. Fighters can be good with bows and Paladins can worship gods of nature, but to me, a Ranger fights with a loyal companion animal.

Now the other reason that I started down that path is because, thanks to backgrounds and sub classes and particular feats, the role of 'agile nature warrior with a bit of magic' can actually be filled pretty well by several classes. Because of this broadening of classes, I think that each class really should bring something completely unique to the table that can't be easily duplicated by others. Whether 5e achieves this or not is another discussion, but regardless, the way I see it, part of the current Ranger's problem is that he doesn't really stand out much. So, if I were to re-imagine the Ranger for 5e, I would want him to have a unique niche, something cool that says, "Hello, world! I am a RANGER!"

The most unique thing about the Ranger is the Beastmaster class - no one else really gets anything like that. So, how can we expand that cool thing to make it the core of the class so that it has its own design space in the world of 5e? I get that Aragorn didn't fight with a pet, but the existing Fighter class, with the right background and skills, can do a fine enough job of emulating him - we don't need a whole separate class for Strider any more. Given that assumption, if we want to keep the Ranger (and I absolutely do), we have to find a reason for it to be here, a reason for it to exist as a class. Reworking the Ranger's pet into the central focus of the class accomplishes this, and enough ink has been spilled by folk who are dissatisfied with the way that the existing Beastmaster plays that it probably warrants revision.

Now, you are, of course, free to disagree with any or all of the assumptions that I made as part of that attempt to find a place for my favorite class; it's called a discussion forum for a reason! But I hope I've managed to explain myself better here at least.

[Tanarii]

the animal companion was added as a direct class feature. In 1st edition, you might end up with one as a follower, by 2nd, the Animal Summoning spell gave you one, but in 3rd, you got a fuzzy buddy from the outset, or close to, anyway.
Animal Companions were a 1e PHB feature for Rangers at level 8, gaining 2HD / level via the Animal Friendship spell.

Likewise, Spellcasting was a part of the Ranger 1e (at least) onwards.

In fact, Spellcasting and Animal Companions are more core to D&D Rangers, historically, than specifically being focused on Archery (started with Unearthed Arcana) or TWF (started with 2e).

(Not arguing against you, backing up your point.)

(

[KorvinStarmast]

I actually think LotR is the worst thing to happen to the Ranger.
It's what got the idea into the game. It has, as Prof T pointed out about his own story, "grown in telling." I like some of the ideas in UA's scout, and the core template of the guardians and march wardens.

For another take on Rangers, try to overlay the historical 19th century Texas rangers into a fantasy/medieval campaign.

[EvilAnagram]

It's what got the idea into the game. It has, as Prof T pointed out about his own story, "grown in telling." I like some of the ideas in UA's scout, and the core template of the guardians and march wardens.

For another take on Rangers, try to overlay the historical 19th century Texas rangers into a fantasy/medieval campaign.

It would be interesting if the Ranger class was more closely tied to the forest rangers of the Norman kings, who enforced the Forest Law.

[R.Shackleford]

It's what got the idea into the game.

Specifically, maybe, but the general idea of a woodsman archer/swordsman has been around... Forever. Like, Robin Hood for example (spell-less ranger that focuses on Cha over Wis) is from the 1400's.

The Huntsman from Snow White was from the early 1800's.

I think that perhaps the magical/pseudo-magical incantation of the Ranger (cause Aragon had some weird magic from what I recall of the books) may have came from Aragon but the idea of a ranger is really really old.

Edit


It would be interesting if the Ranger class was more closely tied to the forest rangers of the Norman kings, who enforced the Forest Law.

FOREST LAW MUTHA F...., YOU SPEAK IT?

(in picturing Jules as a ranger)

[EvilAnagram]

Specifically, maybe, but the general idea of a woodsman archer/swordsman has been around... Forever. Like, Robin Hood for example (spell-less ranger that focuses on Cha over Wis) is from the 1400's.

The rangers from which Tolkien drew inspiration were from some time after 1066.

[R.Shackleford]

The rangers from which Tolkien drew inspiration were from some time after 1066.

My basic idea is that If Aragon would have been clearly not a ranger (say a Paladin) then rangers still would have made it into D&D.

[ZX6Rob]

Animal Companions were a 1e PHB feature for Rangers at level 8, gaining 2HD / level via the Animal Friendship spell.

Likewise, Spellcasting was a part of the Ranger 1e (at least) onwards.

In fact, Spellcasting and Animal Companions are more core to D&D Rangers, historically, than specifically being focused on Archery (started with Unearthed Arcana) or TWF (started with 2e).

(Not arguing against you, backing up your point.)

(

Thank you, my off-the-cuff knowledge of pre-3rd-edition D&D is not as extensive as some. I thought that that was part of the followers they attracted based on the whole stronghold-building game that 1e seemed to want you to start playing after a certain point, and that it was called out in that section, but you're right, it's enumerated as part of the Ranger entry.

[Demonslayer666]

Tracking.

That's all a ranger was good for back in the day.

[R.Shackleford]

Tracking.

That's all a ranger was good for back in the day.

Since when? In 3.5, 4e, and now 5e they make decent to great damage dealers and have a nice selection of skills and other abilities.

3.5 they were tier 4 or 3 (perfect) and could do damage and a few other things.

In 4e they are tier 1 striker (slightly below perfect for weird reasons lol).

In 5e the Hunter Ranger is, well there isn't any tiers but if there was three tiers it would be tier 2 (1 highest, 3 lowest).

My knowledge of pre-WotC d&d isn't the greatest.

[KorvinStarmast]

Specifically, maybe, but the general idea of a woodsman archer/swordsman has been around... Forever. Like, Robin Hood for example (spell-less ranger that focuses on Cha over Wis) is from the 1400's. Besides the fact that Robin Hood was hardly a ranger, more of a highwayman, agree. From an on line etymology site .ranger (n.) dates from 14th century,
14c., "gamekeeper," agent noun from range (v.)). Attested from 1660s in sense of "man (often mounted) who polices an area." The elite U.S. combat unit is attested from 1942 (organized 1941).
Mind you, Rogers' Rangers attest to the 1700's, so take the above with a grain of salt. Might be better to consult OED. Chances are Tolkien did which is why he used that word in the first place.

The idea of the ranger who is an armed man who patrols the borders and the marches of civilized areas is indeed quite old. Not sure how old of a term marchwarden is, but IIRC it is related.

[ZX6Rob]

Since when? In 3.5, 4e, and now 5e they make decent to great damage dealers and have a nice selection of skills and other abilities.

3.5 they were tier 4 or 3 (perfect) and could do damage and a few other things.

In 4e they are tier 1 striker (slightly below perfect for weird reasons lol).

In 5e the Hunter Ranger is, well there isn't any tiers but if there was three tiers it would be tier 2 (1 highest, 3 lowest).

My knowledge of pre-WotC d&d isn't the greatest.

Splitting hairs, I'd say that the 3.X Ranger truly came into its own as a Tier 3 class with the Pathfinder revision. Pathfinder's feat structure gave the feat-starved Ranger the support it needed to come online in its main schtick earlier than 3.5, and the d10 hit die shoulda' been there the whole time. My favorite Ranger of all time was a switch-hitter in Pathfinder, able to deftly change between effective melee and effective ranged attacks quickly and easily (something that was remarkably more difficult to do in vanilla 3.5, especially at low, low levels).

The Hunter Ranger in 5e is my preferred Ranger for now, since the mechanical implementation of the Beastmaster just doesn't feel right to me, but I tell you what, I think that Deep Stalker archetype from Unearthed Arcana is the best example of "stealthy nature warrior/skirmisher" in 5e right now. It's a shame most tables are really not too keen on UA stuff, it seems. If we were to focus on the Ranger not as a pet-class, like I've been doing, but instead as a mobile skirmish kind of class, that's more the direction I'd like to see things go.

[R.Shackleford]

Besides the fact that Robin Hood was hardly a ranger, more of a highwayman, agree. From an on line etymology site .ranger (n.) dates from 14th century,
Mind you, Rogers' Rangers attest to the 1700's, so take the above with a grain of salt. Might be better to consult OED. Chances are Tolkien did which is why he used that word in the first place.

The idea of the ranger who is an armed man who patrols the borders and the marches of civilized areas is indeed quite old. Not sure how old of a term marchwarden is, but IIRC it is related.

Robinhood, can be called many things, one of which is ranger. Woodsman with tracking, sword n bow, and a mix of fighter/rogue.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a9/Robin_Hood_Memorial.jpg/400px-Robin_Hood_Memorial.jpg

Statue of RH, looks very ranger to me.



Splitting hairs, I'd say that the 3.X Ranger truly came into its own as a Tier 3 class with the Pathfinder revision. Pathfinder's feat structure gave the feat-starved Ranger the support it needed to come online in its main schtick earlier than 3.5, and the d10 hit die shoulda' been there the whole time. My favorite Ranger of all time was a switch-hitter in Pathfinder, able to deftly change between effective melee and effective ranged attacks quickly and easily (something that was remarkably more difficult to do in vanilla 3.5, especially at low, low levels).

The Hunter Ranger in 5e is my preferred Ranger for now, since the mechanical implementation of the Beastmaster just doesn't feel right to me, but I tell you what, I think that Deep Stalker archetype from Unearthed Arcana is the best example of "stealthy nature warrior/skirmisher" in 5e right now. It's a shame most tables are really not too keen on UA stuff, it seems. If we were to focus on the Ranger not as a pet-class, like I've been doing, but instead as a mobile skirmish kind of class, that's more the direction I'd like to see things go.

The pathfinder version pales in comparison to a optimized 3.5 Ranger :) (high tier 3 running into tier 2... But the core ranger was 4 or 3). Pathfinder was good for making it where you didn't have to optimized but they still had some issues (favored enemy/terrain that sucked).

My favorite ranger this far to play when dealing with the 3e system is actually an optimized pathfinder ranger that used two archetypes to remove favored enemy and make it more like 4e Quarry and another that I think replaced favored terrain... Been a while.

In 4e essentials the Ranger (Not core 4e) was absolutely fun as hell. They got a lot of move n stab/shoot abilities.

5e Hunter Ranger is pretty great, probabaly should have been the core ranger tho.

[Asmotherion]

I'd describe him as a warior that is different from the fighter in that he can use passive nature-related magic (as opposed to an eldrich knight or a blade warlock) for his fights. They will rarelly if ever be seen using magic as a direct source of harm (like a fireball is) but rather to enhance some physical attack with magic (hunter's mark, duplicated arrows etc.) or for some utility reason such as to communicate with animals. As a concept, I would go as far as to describe them as "ranger is to druid what eldrich knight is to wizard and what paladin is to cleric... Maybe also what blade warlock/valor bard is to sorcerer? "

If we are talking about abilities, I'd say the hunter's mark spell+hitting the target with multiple arrows/two weapon fighting is what comes to my mind when I think of ranger combat. That, plus an animal companion (which, in 5e gives advantage to strike), plus a specialist of survivalism, and killing specified things. (We have an orc camp nearby, who do we call to get rid of them?
-Ah, you're looking for Duskwood, the local ranger... he's killed like 50 orcs, last season.)

[BigONotation]

In my campaigns, I have changed the following:


Gain the benefits of Natural Explorer in any environment he's spent 24 hours in.
Cunning Action from Rogues.
Primeval Awareness is WIS mod times per day, no spell slot cost.
Hide in Plain Sight is 1 round not 10 rounds/1 minute.
Beast Master commands it's companion with their Bonus Action.
At 5th level, Free Proficiency in Survival and Nature if not proficient, Expertise if they are Proficient.

[Asmotherion]

In my campaigns, I have changed the following:


Gain the benefits of Natural Explorer in any environment he's spent 24 hours in.
Cunning Action from Rogues.
Primeval Awareness is WIS mod times per day, no spell slot cost.
Hide in Plain Sight is 1 round not 10 rounds/1 minute.
Beast Master commands it's companion with their Bonus Action.
At 5th level, Free Proficiency in Survival and Nature if not proficient, Expertise if they are Proficient.


Why would you? I think it's perfectly fine as it is.

[Serket]

If it stays with the core concept, yes, a woodsman warrior.

Yeah, that. I mean, I don't mind animal companions. I quite like the idea of there being an animal-companion archetype and others that have something else.

What I do find quite weird is the notion that Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster have less spellcasting than Ranger (and Paladin, too). I mean, even ignoring the history of those phrases in a D&D context, the Ranger concept doesn't have magic built in as far as I'm concerned, while those two do - it's in the name!

Ranger as "the outdoor version of a Rogue" totally works for me. And sneak attack has been a troublesome mechanic, especially to have as a(n apparently) defining class feature.

[R.Shackleford]

Yeah, that. I mean, I don't mind animal companions. I quite like the idea of there being an animal-companion archetype and others that have something else.

What I do find quite weird is the notion that Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster have less spellcasting than Ranger (and Paladin, too). I mean, even ignoring the history of those phrases in a D&D context, the Ranger concept doesn't have magic built in as far as I'm concerned, while those two do - it's in the name!

Ranger as "the outdoor version of a Rogue" totally works for me. And sneak attack has been a troublesome mechanic, especially to have as a(n apparently) defining class feature.

Personally I think there should just be full casters and half casters. Breaking it down further just mucks up the game. Well, Warlock casting too, but that's an entirely different system than the normal casters.

The only ranger to be mostly spell less, since WotC took over, was in 4e. Not sure how the Ranger doesn't have magic built in...

[Knaight]

None of them, really. Favoured Terrain is probably the closest, since he's all outdoorsy, but even then what is his favoured terrain? We don't know, which says it's not a big deal.

Using this Ur-example, we can see the defining features of the ranger as outdoorsy, sneaky, and lightly-armoured-skirmishy-fighty. In 5e terms they're like a Fighter who traded Heavy Armour proficiency for Survival and Nature (and also had Stealth on their class skills list).
The Ur example was clearly capable of fighting in heavy armor, as he routinely did in the last book.

With that said, it's worth observing that D&D's approach to armor has always been a bit odd. From a realistic standpoint, armor was pretty much a good thing, and the point where the in-combat tradeoffs between being better armored and mobility show up is deep into what D&D calls heavy armor - the whole D&D trope where people choose to wear really light armor or no armor into combat routinely when they have access to heavy stuff is just odd. On the other hand, out of combat armor is just a pain, which gets downplayed a bit, largely by the way D&D has emerged as a game where combat tends to be made extremely common even by action movie standards, and environmental threats, long term fatigue, etc. are often minimized. Basically, the game essentially took out the reasons people might choose not to use heavy armor, but then added new and strange ones to get back to the equilibrium of people not using heavy armor.

[ZX6Rob]

Personally I think there should just be full casters and half casters. Breaking it down further just mucks up the game. Well, Warlock casting too, but that's an entirely different system than the normal casters.

The only ranger to be mostly spell less, since WotC took over, was in 4e. Not sure how the Ranger doesn't have magic built in...

Speaking of the different casters thing, I kind of agree that there should be full and half for simplicity's sake, but that's complicated by the fact that EK's and AT's don't even exist before 3rd level. If you want Rangers and Paladins to start having spells at 1st (which, for Paladins, you kind of need because that's what fuels their primary thing -- Rangers, you could actually argue, wouldn't really be hamstrung too bad by delaying spell progression), then they, by necessity, have to have a slightly different casting progression than dudes that start in at later levels.

[BigONotation]

Why would you? I think it's perfectly fine as it is.

Because people consistently play everything else in the campaigns I DM. It became obvious that someone would rather play a Bard or Fighter archer than a Ranger.

[EvilAnagram]

In my campaigns, I have changed the following:


Gain the benefits of Natural Explorer in any environment he's spent 24 hours in.
Cunning Action from Rogues.
Primeval Awareness is WIS mod times per day, no spell slot cost.
Hide in Plain Sight is 1 round not 10 rounds/1 minute.
Beast Master commands it's companion with their Bonus Action.
At 5th level, Free Proficiency in Survival and Nature if not proficient, Expertise if they are Proficient.


Most of this isn't bad, but making the Beast Master command the beast to attack as a bonus action is terrible. It's clunky, it's a flat damage boost to a class that doesnt need a flat damage boost, and it removes tactical options. You just make the Beast Master worse.

[R.Shackleford]

Speaking of the different casters thing, I kind of agree that there should be full and half for simplicity's sake, but that's complicated by the fact that EK's and AT's don't even exist before 3rd level. If you want Rangers and Paladins to start having spells at 1st (which, for Paladins, you kind of need because that's what fuels their primary thing -- Rangers, you could actually argue, wouldn't really be hamstrung too bad by delaying spell progression), then they, by necessity, have to have a slightly different casting progression than dudes that start in at later levels.

For EK, AT, and Rangers I would give them the Warlock casting progression to simplify things.

Start them off as a 3rd level Warlock spell level and spells per short rest but have them be a bit behind on spells known... Or keep them up with spells known, not sure the best way to do this.

Have them take spells from specific lists or from specific schools.

Maybe...

3rd level EK/AT/Ranger = first level lock casting.

4th level EK/AT/Ranger = 4th level Warlock casting

But have spells known progress slower? The jump from 1st to 4th really only changes spells known for the warlock in a big way. Slot level only goes up by 1.

[EvilAnagram]

simplify things


everything else in the post

You can only pick one of the above.

[R.Shackleford]

You can only pick one of the above.

You haven't seen the Warlock casting have you?

Warlock casting is very very simple, here is a link.

http://www.5esrd.com/classes/warlock

Take a look at the casting progression from level 1 to 4, the only difference is really spells known. Spell Slot level goes up once as does the number of spells per short rest.

I may not have explained it Well but Warlock casting style is vastly simplfied.

[Asmotherion]

Speaking of the different casters thing, I kind of agree that there should be full and half for simplicity's sake, but that's complicated by the fact that EK's and AT's don't even exist before 3rd level. If you want Rangers and Paladins to start having spells at 1st (which, for Paladins, you kind of need because that's what fuels their primary thing -- Rangers, you could actually argue, wouldn't really be hamstrung too bad by delaying spell progression), then they, by necessity, have to have a slightly different casting progression than dudes that start in at later levels.

The EK and AT still benefit from having cantrips, as opposed to paladin and ranger. So in a sence they are more "magical" since they can spam cantrips all day long. I think it's balanced

On an other note, I've seen plenty of rangers on my table. I guess it has to do with personal preferences, not class mechanics.

[ZX6Rob]

For EK, AT, and Rangers I would give them the Warlock casting progression to simplify things.

Start them off as a 3rd level Warlock spell level and spells per short rest but have them be a bit behind on spells known... Or keep them up with spells known, not sure the best way to do this.

Have them take spells from specific lists or from specific schools.

Maybe...

3rd level EK/AT/Ranger = first level lock casting.

4th level EK/AT/Ranger = 4th level Warlock casting

But have spells known progress slower? The jump from 1st to 4th really only changes spells known for the warlock in a big way. Slot level only goes up by 1.

Hmm... I see where you're coming from, but I don't know... I kind of like that Warlock casting is unique to Warlocks. It makes them feel mechanically distinct. It's sort of like how I think Superiority Dice should remain the Fighter's thing, and Sneak Attack is really always going to be a Rogue thing. Plus, I think, as you've kind of hit on, you'd have to hack up the progression a bit to make it work with the starting-at-3rd-level thing.

Granted, Warlock-like casting is pretty simple in execution, but I feel like EKs and ATs are already stretched pretty thin on spell selection and versatility. Wouldn't going to a Warlock-lite casting style cramp that even further?

[R.Shackleford]

Granted, Warlock-like casting is pretty simple in execution, but I feel like EKs and ATs are already stretched pretty thin on spell selection and versatility. Wouldn't going to a Warlock-lite casting style cramp that even further?

I think overall they come out ahead. They get so few spell slots that being able to cast 2 spells/ short rest is an improvement (at max level)

You may need to boost their base classes, but really a lot of people think that already.

[Naanomi]

If I were building a 5e Aragon, I'd make him a fighter/rogue with expertise in Survival and magic initiate and/or ritual caster... I wouldn't miss ranger at all in the execution.

And that's really the problem: no character I wouldn't want to make, even literary classic 'Rangers' need ranger to work, it feels redundant as a class concept with the broader nature of classes in 5e

[R.Shackleford]

If I were building a 5e Aragon, I'd make him a fighter/rogue with expertise in Survival and magic initiate and/or ritual caster... I wouldn't miss ranger at all in the execution.

And that's really the problem: no character I wouldn't want to make, even literary classic 'Rangers' need ranger to work, it feels redundant as a class concept with the broader nature of classes in 5e

Pretty much all core classes except for the "Big 4" could he turned I to subclasses.

[Mongobear]

Pretty much all core classes except for the "Big 4" could he turned I to subclasses.

Id add in a caveat for Warlock just because of how unique their spell casting mechanics are.

But outside of that, I agree, most of the classes in 5e could be brought back into the "Big 4" as sub-classes rather easily.

The only ones I really see giving issue are Warlock, for previously mentioned reasons, and Monk because of a similarly unique mechanic of how they actually do stuff. Which honestly isn't that bad, considering Monks never really fit the "Big 4" back in the day to begin with.

[R.Shackleford]

Id add in a caveat for Warlock just because of how unique their spell casting mechanics are.

But outside of that, I agree, most of the classes in 5e could be brought back into the "Big 4" as sub-classes rather easily.

The only ones I really see giving issue are Warlock, for previously mentioned reasons, and Monk because of a similarly unique mechanic of how they actually do stuff. Which honestly isn't that bad, considering Monks never really fit the "Big 4" back in the day to begin with.

Warlock could just be a Rogue.

Though subclasses may work better at level 1 or 2 instead of level 3.

But then again a 5th caster class could work well. Put the Sorcerer, Warlock, and perhaps Chameleon or something under their own 5th class.

[jas61292]

Id add in a caveat for Warlock just because of how unique their spell casting mechanics are.

But outside of that, I agree, most of the classes in 5e could be brought back into the "Big 4" as sub-classes rather easily.

The only ones I really see giving issue are Warlock, for previously mentioned reasons, and Monk because of a similarly unique mechanic of how they actually do stuff. Which honestly isn't that bad, considering Monks never really fit the "Big 4" back in the day to begin with.

Honestly, while I like warlocks, I don't feel like, from a character archetype perspective, it is really needed. Nothing about the whole concept of warlocks really needs any majorly different casting mechanics than a wizard. And even if you want them to, as mentioned you could make it a casting subclass of rogue.

It is nice mechanically to have something different, but if the idea is to meld things down into as few base classes as possible, I definitely think the warlock isn't needed.

[EvilAnagram]

You haven't seen the Warlock casting have you?

Warlock casting is very very simple, here is a link.

http://www.5esrd.com/classes/warlock

Take a look at the casting progression from level 1 to 4, the only difference is really spells known. Spell Slot level goes up once as does the number of spells per short rest.

I may not have explained it Well but Warlock casting style is vastly simplfied.

I'm quite familiar with warlock casting. Your approach to "fixing" those classes, however, simply layers on needless complication. They don't need warlock spell progression to be effective. They're effective the way they are.

[Naanomi]

If paring down base classes; I would keep Fighter (with Barbarian and Monk falling here), Cleric (with Paladin and Druid falling here), Rogue (with Bard and Ranger falling here), Wizard (with Mystic here), and Sorcerer (with Warlock as a charisma caster also falling here; both probably using a different casting system than traditional 'spell-slots')

However I still argue that Ranger is more 'replicatable' conceptually and mechanically than most of the other classes. We have classes 'good at fighting' and 'good at skills'; just blend them to taste and pick the appropriate skills to focus on and you are done; especially now that feats and subclasses can give minor spellcasting to taste

[R.Shackleford]

Honestly, while I like warlocks, I don't feel like, from a character archetype perspective, it is really needed. Nothing about the whole concept of warlocks really needs any majorly different casting mechanics than a wizard. And even if you want them to, as mentioned you could make it a casting subclass of rogue.

It is nice mechanically to have something different, but if the idea is to meld things down into as few base classes as possible, I definitely think the warlock isn't needed.

I do agree that warlocks don't *need* a different casting system than wizards.

I'm just glad to see something other than the vancian casting system.

There was a playtest Warlock that had spells like a wizard, it works out great.

However when it comes to the ranger, I feel like they should get their spells from the primal forces of nature (druids, wardens, ancient paladins) rather from deities or outsiders. Warlock casting could be a great way to show *I'm a gish, hear me roar* sort of set up.

[Gtdead]

The one thing I would like to see the ranger get from warlock, is getting his spells back on a short rest.

I also think that his spell list is very badly designed. He has so many nuking spells that I really dislike. It's also funny because he gets all these elemental arrow spells, while paladin just gets elemental weapon which is miles better than anything on the ranger's spell list. It needs a good trimming. In fact if he only had 4 spells, a "magic weapon" type, an aoe, a summoning/companion spell and a scrying/divination something to assist him in tracking his prey, he would probably be as versatile as he is now.

He also needs his favored enemy/terrain feature completely revamped and integrated into his subclass choice, perhaps granting him domains spells. Urban/Survivalist/Supernatural themes would be my choice. He could be a bounty hunter in a city, a scout or a mage/fiend/vampire/ghost hunter. Right now hunter is like a weaker archer fighter and beastmaster is a sloppy subclass that people like to either forget it exists or try to break it by picking halfling and using the pet as a mount. The Underdark ranger is a great example of how the favored terrain can become a subclass. He lives in the dark and he uses it to his advantage. He gets extra attacks, better ways to hide and setup ambushes.

For an urban setting he can have bonuses to acrobatics, grapple, climb, perhaps something like a sneak attack and a pet that is better as a spy. For a survivalist setting he could have a stronger pet that assists him in combat and is a good tracker, bonuses to range and resistances to diseases and various checks against the elements. For a ghost hunter setting, banish, antimagic abilities/silence, something like the hallow spell, bonus against fear and charm and a familiar.

The defining feature of the ranger should be the specialist. This is what favored enemy was supposed to do. I really want to see that feature becoming something more than a circumstantial social bonus.

[Serket]

With that said, it's worth observing that D&D's approach to armor has always been a bit odd.

D&D and armour is a long and awkward topic. If I wanted to design a realistic game but retain roughly the same level of complexity, I'd have armour offer damage reduction, but actually make the wearer easier to hit. Because that's what it does IRL.


The Ur example was clearly capable of fighting in heavy armor, as he routinely did in the last book.

I remember him upgrading to a breastplate in the film, but I don't remember the book.
Then again, categories in 5e are a mess, now that I look at it. Scale and half-plate are medium, but ring-mail is heavy? If he upgraded to Gondorian pattern half-plate, he'd still be in medium.


Personally I think there should just be full casters and half casters. Breaking it down further just mucks up the game. Well, Warlock casting too, but that's an entirely different system than the normal casters.

Agreed. I mean, I'm not sure how to implement it, because it's not like the AT or EK is terrible, but it's a bit fiddly.


The only ranger to be mostly spell less, since WotC took over, was in 4e. Not sure how the Ranger doesn't have magic built in...

It's about concept. In my mind, the Eldritch Knight is "Eldritch", therefore magical. The Arcane Trickster is "Arcane", therefore magical. Meanwhile the Ranger is... Range-y? A ranger is someone who travels a lot. So while there's nothing there saying "no magic", magic is not inherent to the concept, while it is with the AT or EK.


Pretty much all core classes except for the "Big 4" could he turned I to subclasses.

You could even integrate cleric into mage too, if you wanted - it's just a religious themed fighter-mage. Ultimately it comes down to hitting things, mundane skills, and magic.

[Tanarii]

This is what favored enemy was supposed to do. I really want to see that feature becoming something more than a circumstantial social bonus.Seriously? Favored Enemy lets you be a master tracker, who knows the lore or his enemy inside and out. That's crazy useful and far more powerful than a 'circumstantial social bonus'.

The more I read people bashing Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer, the more I realize people either haven't read them, or haven't figure out how to properly use them.

[R.Shackleford]

You could even integrate cleric into mage too, if you wanted - it's just a religious themed fighter-mage. Ultimately it comes down to hitting things, mundane skills, and magic.

You could, however I think at this point you are coming down to big archetypes. These are the most general classes that still mean something in the concepts of the game.


Fighter: Non-Magical front line
Rogue: Non-Magical back line

Cleric: Magical front line
Wizard: Magical back line

You could just drop it to Mage and Fighter but then why have classes at all, I don't think D&Ders would like a classless system.

Under the Big 4 (+1) you could set up at least three different ranger subclasses and get three different rangers that can make more people happy when playing a ranger.

Fighter gets more of a brute ranger that may use magic, rogue gets a more nimble ranger that may use magic, and the cleric gets a wildshaping ranger that has magic but isn't as martial as the other two.

[Gtdead]

Seriously? Favored Enemy lets you be a master tracker, who knows the lore or his enemy inside and out. That's crazy useful and far more powerful than a 'circumstantial social bonus'.

The more I read people bashing Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer, the more I realize people either haven't read them, or haven't figure out how to properly use them.

It's not that I don't necessarily see the benefits. It's that in a sense you need your DM to approve them. You need to know that your favored enemy choice has merit in the DM's world and you also need to know that exploration will be a thing.

My DM has homebrewed 4 different races of humans and elves. The main antagonists are human cults, covens and ancient sorcerers. I asked him how ranger's favored enemy would work and he told me that it's complicated since most of his races would be impossible to be favored enemies as a low level feature, because the knowledge of their existence has been lost. He offered to give me some "mage hunting" abilities, but I can do that through another class better.

[R.Shackleford]

It's not that I don't necessarily see the benefits. It's that in a sense you need your DM to approve them. You need to know that your favored enemy choice has merit in the DM's world and you also need to know that exploration will be a thing.

My DM has homebrewed 4 different races of humans and elves. The main antagonists are human cults, covens and ancient sorcerers. I asked him how ranger's favored enemy would work and he told me that it's complicated since most of his races would be impossible to be favored enemies as a low level feature, because the knowledge of their existence has been lost. He offered to give me some "mage hunting" abilities, but I can do that through another class better.

The fastest and easiest homebrew Favored Enemy change that give seen is the ability to switch favored enemies or favored terrain by studying during a long rest (1/day before).

[Tanarii]

It's not that I don't necessarily see the benefits. It's that in a sense you need your DM to approve them. You need to know that your favored enemy choice has merit in the DM's world and you also need to know that exploration will be a thing.Okay. If you have to choose a favored enemy without knowing that the enemy category doesn't exist in the world, and if you don't even know if an entire pillar of the game will be missing, then yeah, you might have problems.


My DM has homebrewed 4 different races of humans and elves. The main antagonists are human cults, covens and ancient sorcerers. I asked him how ranger's favored enemy would work and he told me that it's complicated since most of his races would be impossible to be favored enemies as a low level feature, because the knowledge of their existence has been lost. He offered to give me some "mage hunting" abilities, but I can do that through another class better.None of that explains why you couldn't just choose "Human" & "Elf" as your two humanoid enemies at first level. Yes, against those particular groups in question, the checks might have had Very Hard or Nearly Impossible DCs to know things. But the class feature would have still been generally useful to you.

[ZX6Rob]

Favored Enemy is something that I've always really struggled with. On the one hand, yeah, it makes sense that there are dudes out there who just... like, really hate orcs, and they're better at fighting them than other creatures because they know so much more about them.

In game terms, though, it's a really tough feature because, as has been said here as well as numerous other places, it can really hose you if you come to the table with Garvon the Orc-Hewer and the game ends up taking place in a necropolis populated only by undead. The usual fix is to let the Ranger re-train his favored enemy, but then that ends up breaking verisimilitude, especially if you encounter your old foes unexpectedly -- "You were super-good at killing orcs yesterday, what happened!" "I studied up on wights last night and now my brain is full, lay off! I've only got an 8 Intelligence!"

I like 5e's approach where nothing directly applies to combat and Favored Enemy is relegated to a ribbon effect. Honestly, it just feels like that's where it should be, supporting the exploration and interaction pillars. I'm not saying it can't be improved, but it's a mechanic for which it's hard to build much into the combat system without running into the aforementioned problems.

[Tanarii]

I like 5e's approach where nothing directly applies to combat and Favored Enemy is relegated to a ribbon effect. /sigh

Advantage on all Int checks to recall information about an entire Type of enemy. If that's a ribbon effect, I'm scared to ask what something without a huge mechanical benefit is classified. Or what kind of DMs you're playing with.

Edit: Okay, I'm sorry. That was rude. But I'm constantly blown away that people don't see Advantage on all Int checks to knowledge recall against an entire class of enemies as a massive mechanical benefit.

[R.Shackleford]

Favored Enemy is something that I've always really struggled with. On the one hand, yeah, it makes sense that there are dudes out there who just... like, really hate orcs, and they're better at fighting them than other creatures because they know so much more about them.

In game terms, though, it's a really tough feature because, as has been said here as well as numerous other places, it can really hose you if you come to the table with Garvon the Orc-Hewer and the game ends up taking place in a necropolis populated only by undead. The usual fix is to let the Ranger re-train his favored enemy, but then that ends up breaking verisimilitude, especially if you encounter your old foes unexpectedly -- "You were super-good at killing orcs yesterday, what happened!" "I studied up on wights last night and now my brain is full, lay off! I've only got an 8 Intelligence!"

I like 5e's approach where nothing directly applies to combat and Favored Enemy is relegated to a ribbon effect. Honestly, it just feels like that's where it should be, supporting the exploration and interaction pillars. I'm not saying it can't be improved, but it's a mechanic for which it's hard to build much into the combat system without running into the aforementioned problems.

It isn't about hate.

Its about studying a specific (or general) enemy type and being damn good at taking them out. You know how they walk, how they breath, how they fight... You know when they use subtle words or gestures what they are about to do.

Its like... A really good Catcher in MLB or Quarterback in the NFL. You have certain opponents that you face a lot and you can pick them apart on what, when, and how they are going to do something.

[Fighting_Ferret]

Character creation shouldn't be done in a vacuum. Your DM should be willing to help you with your first selections for favored enemy and natural explorer.

If you wanted to boost these things... you could allow additional an additional favored terrain favored enemy at level 15-17. The capstone Foe Slayer should just straight up add 6 (proficiency bonus) damage to all attacks against favored enemies...

That being said... since this isn't a fix the ranger post... the natural flavor abilities are what make the ranger... sure someone else might have a better skill score, but they can do things that no one else can in certain environments.

[Demonslayer666]

Since when? In 3.5, 4e, and now 5e they make decent to great damage dealers and have a nice selection of skills and other abilities.

3.5 they were tier 4 or 3 (perfect) and could do damage and a few other things.

In 4e they are tier 1 striker (slightly below perfect for weird reasons lol).

In 5e the Hunter Ranger is, well there isn't any tiers but if there was three tiers it would be tier 2 (1 highest, 3 lowest).

My knowledge of pre-WotC d&d isn't the greatest.

Once you had tracking, it was better to level up in fighter to get specialization. 4th edition never existed in my eyes, so I couldn't tell you about rangers there. So up until now, tracking was the main part of being a ranger. All other abilities were overshadowed by other classes.

[ZX6Rob]

It isn't about hate.

Its about studying a specific (or general) enemy type and being damn good at taking them out. You know how they walk, how they breath, how they fight... You know when they use subtle words or gestures what they are about to do.

Its like... A really good Catcher in MLB or Quarterback in the NFL. You have certain opponents that you face a lot and you can pick them apart on what, when, and how they are going to do something.

Well, granted, I was trying to be funny about it. However you flavor it, it's definitely about being much fitter at confrontation with a specific type of enemy, whether that stems from deep-seated hatred, an emotionless and tactical study of one's enemy, or just good ol' fashioned fantasy racism ("ain't no daughter o' mine marryin' a lizard-man, I'll kill ev'ry last one o' you scaly sons o'...!"). You face them more frequently than others, whatever the reason, and you're good at dealing with them.


Character creation shouldn't be done in a vacuum. Your DM should be willing to help you with your first selections for favored enemy and natural explorer.

If you wanted to boost these things... you could allow additional an additional favored terrain favored enemy at level 15-17. The capstone Foe Slayer should just straight up add 6 (proficiency bonus) damage to all attacks against favored enemies...

Well, personally, I totally agree with you. The DM should be willing and ready to offer advice to players who want to play classes with features that can become more or less useful depending on the campaign circumstances. But combat is so central to the game, and favored enemy, just because there's so darn many types of creatures in D&D, is always going to be such a narrow slice of that pie, that I'd rather it stayed exploration- and interaction-focused as an ability. I'd rather push that somewhat to the background, leaving it as bonuses during social interactions and ability to track or locate your most persistent and/or hated foes, but having no real direct effect on combat.

It's appeared in most (?) versions of the Ranger in some form or another, but I really feel like it's not one of the most iconic things about the Ranger. To me, that'd be like saying that dwarves' bonus to AC against giant-kin is their most defining feature. That's a highly-situational, fiddly combat bonus that doesn't really scream "DWARF!" to me. It's the kind of ability I would easily consider trading around or changing out for something else if I were to be writing a campaign setting. It's difficult to determine its effect on balance (small though it may be) because it's impact on the game is dependent not just on the Challenge of the enemies in the encounter, but also on what type they are.

So, too, with Favored Enemy. I really think that's the sort of thing that should just be a little ribbon ability, a bonus that's mostly there for flavor and fun, but doesn't really impact the most number-crunchy part of the game. That is, stabbin' dudes in they face and/or tentacles (select as appropriate). You can track 'em down, you know all their signs, you speak their language, but when it comes to the kind of split-second reactions in combat, assuming you're always fighting with your all, that amounts, in my mind, for precious little.

But then, that's just my opinion on it -- I'm hardly an expert, just a dude that likes Rangers and has opinions about how they should work in the game.

[R.Shackleford]

Once you had tracking, it was better to level up in fighter to get specialization. 4th edition never existed in my eyes, so I couldn't tell you about rangers there. So up until now, tracking was the main part of being a ranger. All other abilities were overshadowed by other classes.

4th edition did exist, just because you don't like it doesn't mean it doesn't. The Ranger in that edition was the best damage dealer but for the sake of D&D I really suggest you look into the 4e Essentials Ranger.

5e and Essentials have a whole lot in common.

You are confusing something though. A lot of classes could be optimized or dip fighter 2 or 4 and get feats (which at that point it isn't the Fighter making you better but the feats). The Ranger to be a Ranger didn't need to be optimized. It could be a Ranger right out of the gate.

Damage, track, spells, and an animal companion. Was a mixture of Rogue and Fighter.

The system was stacked against all non-tier 2 and 1 classes so you can't hold that against a single class.

[Tanarii]

So, too, with Favored Enemy. I really think that's the sort of thing that should just be a little ribbon ability, a bonus that's mostly there for flavor and fun, but doesn't really impact the most number-crunchy part of the game. That is, stabbin' dudes in they face and/or tentacles (select as appropriate). You can track 'em down, you know all their signs, you speak their language, but when it comes to the kind of split-second reactions in combat, assuming you're always fighting with your all, that amounts, in my mind, for precious little.They separated out the combat aspect of favored enemy, made it more broadly useful, and called it the "Hunter" archetype.

For example, if your favored enemies are small and numerous and you want to excel at combat against them, you take Hoard Breaker and Escape the Horde. If you fight tough enemies you take Collosus Slayer. Big ones, Giant Killer. Magical ones, Steel Will. Etc etc.

[Fighting_Ferret]

The game isn't necessarily about combat... sure combat has a whole rules section of it's own, because they want everyone to combat under the same rules.

A ranger can track extremely well in their favored environment, knowing location and numbers of foes... that can lend you all kinds of options. If you are going to fight... you might get surprise... you might find a path where you can ambush a smaller number of foes and capture them, getting information about the larger group's purpose. You can even avoid the encounter entirely. That's just with favored terrain, granted you won't always be in your favored terrain, but they get 3 by level 10.

As players we know the stats of monsters... but you know who knows about certain types of things before they encounter them... rangers and their favored enemies... favored enemies undead? Make make a knowledge check with advantage to see what you know (heck a DM might even handwave the roll and strait tell you their resistances and abilities... just because you chose that group as a favored enemy. You can even choose to speak to your favored enemy, as you gain access to a language they speak if they speak one... allowing access to possibly walk away without a fight. And you will get 3 to 6 favored enemies. (you get 2 humanoid groups if you choose that option).

Both are situational, but you really shine in certain situations. They cover skills that others may not have (nature and survival), they are great at scouting, and they don't cost any upkeep for their lifestyle expenses. They are above average combatants (compared to single classed characters) with great utility via skills and spellcasting.

[ZX6Rob]

They separated out the combat aspect of favored enemy, made it more broadly useful, and called it the "Hunter" archetype.

For example, if your favored enemies are small and numerous and you want to excel at combat against them, you take Hoard Breaker and Escape the Horde. If you fight tough enemies you take Collosus Slayer. Big ones, Giant Killer. Magical ones, Steel Will. Etc etc.

That's actually really clever, I'd never thought of it like that. It's really obvious in retrospect.

Huh.

Learn somethin' new every day.

[R.Shackleford]

So it seems to me the best way to create a ranger, what would really make a Ranger a Ranger... Is 4e.

But not the 4e Ranger or the Essentials Ranger (though both are great).

No, what I would use is the Hybrid rules. Hybrid a 5e Fighter or Barbarian and Rogue so that each person can take what makes them feel like a ranger.

Add in a background like Outlander and there you go.

Allow sneak attack with any non-heavy weapon.

Expertise in Survival and Athletics/Animal Handling/Nature and go to town... Well, not a town... But yeah.

Would need some tinkering and I wouldn't make hybrid rules really... Just make a class that has a bit of both.

[Nifft]

Which one does Aragorn have?

Favored Enemy:
"Lonely men are we, Rangers of the wild, hunters - but hunters ever of the servants of the Enemy; for they are found in many places, not in Mordor only"

Nature-Divine Spells:
"He sat down on the ground, and taking the dagger-hilt laid it on his knees, and he sang over it a slow song in a strange tongue. Then setting it aside, he turned to Frodo and in a soft tone spoke words the others could not catch. From the pouch at his belt he drew out the long leaves of a plant."

... and then in Return of the King:
"I have, maybe, the power to heal her body, and to recall her from the dark valley. But to what she will awake: hope, or forgetfulness, or despair, I do not know. And if to despair, then she will die, unless other healing comes which I cannot bring. Alas! for her deeds have set her among the queens of great renown."

It's explicitly vague as to whether he's casting a spell or not, but the point is that he's someone who performs acts that are either spells, or are on par with Nature-themed Divine spell-casting.

[Naanomi]

Advantage on all Int checks to recall information about an entire Type of enemy. If that's a ribbon effect, I'm scared to ask what something without a huge mechanical benefit is classified. Or what kind of DMs you're playing with.
For many enemies (and adventurers) knowing lore about your opponent... doesn't turn out to be too useful. The checks to know about damage resistance and immunities are often not difficult; and much about tactics is either obvious or common knowledge (dragons can fly and breathe stuff!).

In any case, a level of Rogue and Expertise in Survival and (Nature/History/Religion/Arcana) are much broader and ultimately serve the purpose better mechanically.

[Tanarii]

Knowledge gained doesn't have to be generic to the species, or the stat block. It doesn't specify it's a "Monster Knowledge" check a la previous editions. It applies to any Int check made to recall information about them. That'd include Int or History checks for details about specific groups.

Favored Enemy (Human) is one of the best ranger choices you can make. Less powerful in the Realms if you have to pick specific groups. But in the North, you can go a long way with Favored Enemy (Illuskan, Uthgardt) at level one, although Dwarves, Elves and Orcs are all good choices too. In the dale lands Chondathan & Damaran are great choices.

[R.Shackleford]

Knowledge gained doesn't have to be generic to the species, or the stat block. It doesn't specify it's a "Monster Knowledge" check a la previous editions. It applies to any Int check made to recall information about them. That'd include Int or History checks for details about specific groups.

Favored Enemy (Human) is one of the best ranger choices you can make. Less powerful in the Realms if you have to pick specific groups. But in the North, you can go a long way with Favored Enemy (Illuskan, Uthgardt) at level one, although Dwarves, Elves and Orcs are all good choices too. In the dale lands Chondathan & Damaran are great choices.

Seems to me that the sage background would work better than Favored Enemy when it comes to knowledge.

Going into a new region? Look up the information on the creatures and people. Not only would you get generic stuff but you should be able to find specifics too.

[Tanarii]

I don't know about better, but yeah Sage's Researcher is fantastic too. It's one of my favorite background features.

Researcher is more versatile than Favored Enemy, but it's limited in that it requires access to facilities to research, and they may specific facilities you have to travel to. It also works in reverse of Favored enemy. Instead of increasing your chance to know information, it covers you if you don't know the information.

In an ideal group, in the right kind of campaign (ie CaW not CaS) you'd ideally have a Ranger and a Sage in your group. ;)

[djreynolds]

The game is more than combat. It has to be. It has to be about living in a world.

The ranger is fine even without the archetypes. Half the game is just getting to and from the fight.

I'll give you a figurine of wondrous power.

We let our rangers just prepare spells, who really cares.

But the beastmaster out of combat is really cool, isn't it.

How did you really get to the evil castle? Clunky around in heavy armor, no. The road to get their is dangerous, you may not even get to rest. You may be hunted and hounded by orcs and goblins. No sleep. I make people roll for stealth, and perception and nature checks a lot. Random monsters are always a threat. You live in a dangerous world. Are you going to waste you smites and spells, if the ranger can avoid the giants or parlay with them?

A ranger has the skills to get you from here to there and back again.

And you can easily multiclass with monk, cleric, fighter, rogue, druid, and barbarian for anything you feel you are lacking.

If anything other classes are too powerful, that could be the real issue.

[Serket]

"Lonely men are we, Rangers of the wild, hunters - but hunters ever of the servants of the Enemy; for they are found in many places, not in Mordor only"

I've played characters who killed a lot of undead and orcs, without ever having "favoured enemy" mechanics. Aragorn might have a mechanic like that... or he might just be good at fighting.


Nature-Divine Spells:
"He sat down on the ground, and taking the dagger-hilt laid it on his knees, and he sang over it a slow song in a strange tongue. Then setting it aside, he turned to Frodo and in a soft tone spoke words the others could not catch. From the pouch at his belt he drew out the long leaves of a plant."

I read that as "he made a Heal check, because he has proficiency in Heal and a solid Wisdom". :smallsmile:

You know, I think I'd like 5th ed better if every class had expertise in one or two iconic skills. If Rangers got expertise in Survival and Nature, plus some proficiencies in stealth and heal and perception, that would basically do it for me.

[Demonslayer666]

4th edition did exist, just because you don't like it doesn't mean it doesn't. The Ranger in that edition was the best damage dealer but for the sake of D&D I really suggest you look into the 4e Essentials Ranger.

5e and Essentials have a whole lot in common.

You are confusing something though. A lot of classes could be optimized or dip fighter 2 or 4 and get feats (which at that point it isn't the Fighter making you better but the feats). The Ranger to be a Ranger didn't need to be optimized. It could be a Ranger right out of the gate.

Damage, track, spells, and an animal companion. Was a mixture of Rogue and Fighter.

The system was stacked against all non-tier 2 and 1 classes so you can't hold that against a single class.

Nope, 4th sucked way worse than Highlander 2 - OK, that's going a bit too far, that movie was terrible. It was fun to get together with friends and still play something, but 4th was by far my least favorite edition. :smallsmile: Nope, I will not look at anything to do with 4th ever again. I will gladly take your word that rangers were zOMG good.

I didn't confuse anything. I didn't say rangers couldn't be rangers, I said their other class abilities were overshadowed by other classes. A rogue fighter was better than a ranger except for tracking. That's why I stand by my claim that tracking is what makes a ranger a ranger.

[R.Shackleford]

Nope, 4th sucked way worse than Highlander 2 - OK, that's going a bit too far, that movie was terrible. It was fun to get together with friends and still play something, but 4th was by far my least favorite edition. :smallsmile: Nope, I will not look at anything to do with 4th ever again. I will gladly take your word that rangers were zOMG good.

I didn't confuse anything. I didn't say rangers couldn't be rangers, I said their other class abilities were overshadowed by other classes. A rogue fighter was better than a ranger except for tracking. That's why I stand by my claim that tracking is what makes a ranger a ranger.

You are confusing optimization and classes. Optimization was something a lot of characters needed in 3e, but that didn't mean the classes themselves weren't made to be who they are. You keep saying "we'll if I optimize I get better" well, no fricken duh.

But as a single class the ranger does all the ranger stuff. As a single class the rogues aren't very ranger-ish and neither really are the fighters or barbarians.

Well, that's your loss on the 4e/Essentials stuff... But if you like the 5e Fighter, Rogue, Warlock, Ranger (BM), Ranger (Hunter), and a few other classes/archetypes then you are directly playing the 4e/Essentials classes. There is so much taken from 4e, especially the Essentials line, that it is hilarious to hear people praise 5e but dump on 4eE. Like when I heard some dude say "I hate fords, they are crap." and then in the same conversation say "My wife's Focus is a great car, absolutely love it"...

Edit

No one has to like 4e, but to say it doesn't exist is saying that a huge chunk of 5e doesn't exist. Being stubborn will only make you miss what is in front of you.

[ZX6Rob]

I've played characters who killed a lot of undead and orcs, without ever having "favoured enemy" mechanics. Aragorn might have a mechanic like that... or he might just be good at fighting.

This, I totally agree with. I think that it's almost splitting hairs to give out combat bonuses for Favored Enemy. I kind of get it if you're dealing with, like, weird critters or something like that -- you've hunted a ton of beholders, so you know right where all their weak points are, sure, because a) beholders are weird, and b) not many people will ever see one. But then, if you've played several games where you've successfully hunted beholders, that advantage is represented well by your character's (and, by extension, your) knowledge. You've figured out that the central eye turns off magic, you know what kind of spells they're packing, and so you can prepare yourself and defend yourself accordingly. You don't necessarily need a +2 to hit to represent that knowledge.

And when your favored enemy is "orc" or "elf", I think that's even harder to justify a mechanical combat bonus. Orcs and elves are basically shaped like humans, and are either a little stronger or a little nimbler in either case. But if an Orc is coming after you with a greataxe, realistically, that's not going to be significantly different than if a big human is coming after you with a greataxe. Same thing with an elf using a rapier and buckler -- are there really that many elf-specific weaknesses that you can exploit against this particular foe that you can't use against a particularly agile human fighter using the same weapons and defenses?

So, yeah, it doesn't make sense to me to give one class in particular some kind of mechanical expertise for fighting certain types of dudes -- that's the sort of thing that I think is better reflected in the player, based on the experiences in the game.


You know, I think I'd like 5th ed better if every class had expertise in one or two iconic skills. If Rangers got expertise in Survival and Nature, plus some proficiencies in stealth and heal and perception, that would basically do it for me.

This, I don't know if I completely agree with, although I do see where you're coming from. I think the skill system in 5e is a little too vague for just giving Expertise over to every class in some form or another. Plus, I think it would end up taking something away from the current Rogue, who's supposed to be the skill guy. That being said, a different way of doing something similar might be something like skill tricks or specific uses of skills. For instance, if you had the Survival skill say something like, "Survival measures a character's ability to survive and live off the land. You can use this skill to gather up to X pounds of food per day or to do this, that, and the other thing. If you have at least one level in Ranger, or you have the Outlander background, you can also use this skill to track a creature for up to Y days, and you can set a snare or trap in a natural environment with a Perception DC of whatever you roll on your Survival check. See Table Q for types of traps you can set."

Some folks already don't like that the uses of skills are deliberately kept vague and up to the DM, so this would kind of solidify some of your options. Other folks would say that we shouldn't be constraining what characters can and can't do artificially, and if the Rogue wants to set a snare, he should be able to try. I don't know the right answer here, I'm just throwin' ideas out.

[Knaight]

Well, that's your loss on the 4e/Essentials stuff... But if you like the 5e Fighter, Rogue, Warlock, Ranger (BM), Ranger (Hunter), and a few other classes/archetypes then you are directly playing the 4e/Essentials classes.

There are similarities on the class sides, but they're built on meaningfully different chassis, and they do have distinct abilities. Calling it directly playing the essentials classes is a bit much, even though they are heavily influenced by them.

[R.Shackleford]

This, I don't know if I completely agree with, although I do see where you're coming from. I think the skill system in 5e is a little too vague for just giving Expertise over to every class in some form or another. Plus, I think it would end up taking something away from the current Rogue, who's supposed to be the skill guy. That being said, a different way of doing something similar might be something like skill tricks or specific uses of skills. For instance, if you had the Survival skill say something like, "Survival measures a character's ability to survive and live off the land. You can use this skill to gather up to X pounds of food per day or to do this, that, and the other thing. If you have at least one level in Ranger, or you have the Outlander background, you can also use this skill to track a creature for up to Y days, and you can set a snare or trap in a natural environment with a Perception DC of whatever you roll on your Survival check. See Table Q for types of traps you can set."

Some folks already don't like that the uses of skills are deliberately kept vague and up to the DM, so this would kind of solidify some of your options. Other folks would say that we shouldn't be constraining what characters can and can't do artificially, and if the Rogue wants to set a snare, he should be able to try. I don't know the right answer here, I'm just throwin' ideas out.

Everyone with expertise in one or two skills and then letting the skill monkeys pick their own skills could work out.

Expertise is disposed to be about you being Damn good at a skill. A Rogue with an 8 Int can put expertise in Arcana and blow every wizard out of the water.

Seems a bit off, like why is a rogue better than a Fighter at combat maneuvers? A halfling rogue, with less strength, can out grapple the half orc fighter...

Personally I think expertise and the skill system was poorly implemented. However, if you are going to have such a system then those who should be masters at their skills should in fact be masters at their skills.


There are similarities on the class sides, but they're built on meaningfully different chassis, and they do have distinct abilities. Calling it directly playing the essentials classes is a bit much, even though they are heavily influenced by them.

When I can be specific and describe the class from one edition and you can't determine which edition it is... Yeah no.

There are a lot of classes that are almost direct ports.

Presentation/layout may have changed but the classes themselves remain the same.

Many of these 4e/Essential classes are closer to the 5e versions than than anything 3e will give you.

[Demonslayer666]

You are confusing optimization and classes.
...
No one has to like 4e, but to say it doesn't exist is saying that a huge chunk of 5e doesn't exist. Being stubborn will only make you miss what is in front of you.

No, I'm not confusing anything. lol. You asked what makes a ranger a ranger, I said tracking. You insisted there was more to it, and I said those are not only available in other classes, but they also do them better, so that does not define what makes a ranger. Optimization is just the gravy on top driving my point home that tracking is what makes them stand apart.

I won't miss 4th at all. Not even one little bit, and will continue to poke fun at the huge mistake they made by publishing such a hunk of junk.

Saying 5th couldn't exist without 4th is a load of hooey. They had complete control over their design decisions, and built it the way they wanted.

[Knaight]

When I can be specific and describe the class from one edition and you can't determine which edition it is... Yeah no.

As soon as any one of the terms "Proficiency"*, "Advantage", "Bloodied", "Heroic", "Paragon", or "Epic" comes up it immediately reveals what class it is. As soon as pretty much any numerical data comes through, it's immediately clear which it is. This is without getting into the bigger differences.


Many of these 4e/Essential classes are closer to the 5e versions than than anything 3e will give you.
That much I'd agree with. It's them being direct ports where it goes off the mark; highly similar design is a given.

With that said, D&D in general has some highly similar design. The differences between editions are honestly pretty small, and just look much bigger than they are when a given D&D edition is your basis for RPGs. As someone who doesn't see them as the basis, every single edition looks like a highly similar game in which characters are made via the use of assigning the same 6 abilities, picking a race from a slate that hasn't changed much, picking a class from a slate that at the very least has a familiar core, and then going from a low level character to a high level character on a fairly drastic power curve, while a number of D&D terms and mechanics persist from the very beginning.

*Outside of the weapon/armor proficiency category

[ZX6Rob]

No, I'm not confusing anything. lol. You asked what makes a ranger a ranger, I said tracking. You insisted there was more to it, and I said those are not only available in other classes, but they also do them better, so that does not define what makes a ranger. Optimization is just the gravy on top driving my point home that tracking is what makes them stand apart.

I won't miss 4th at all. Not even one little bit, and will continue to poke fun at the huge mistake they made by publishing such a hunk of junk.

Saying 5th couldn't exist without 4th is a load of hooey. They had complete control over their design decisions, and built it the way they wanted.

Well, I can understand not enjoying 4th, to each their own and all that, but there's no need to be adversarial. The thing is, 4th made what a lot of people would consider to be pretty drastic steps away from the previous version, but I'd argue that 3rd edition did just the same thing, really. I mean, compared to the AD&D 2nd days, 3rd coming along with unified player/monster mechanics, the feat system, spontaneous casting, characters getting class abilities every other level, prestige classes... These were all some pretty big changes from the way D&D used to be! Compared to that, really the only huge change that 4th edition made was the switch to the At-Will/Encounter/Daily/Utility power model. There were other changes, like healing surges and the way saving throws were handled, but the AEDU system was probably the biggest change in terms of how the game felt to play. Despite that, I'd argue it's still pretty close in spirit to 3rd Edition's "Do a Thing X times per day", which nearly everyone who wasn't casting spells (and most who were) used as a form of resource management.

I'm not saying you're wrong for not enjoying 4e -- far from it, I know a lot of people that thought it wasn't very much fun compared to 3rd edition -- but I don't think it was a "mistake" or a "hunk of junk". It's really, really good in the areas it focuses on, which is mostly skirmish-level tactical combat with well-defined class roles. It sounds like that's not your bag, and that's cool, but, y'know, we don't need to bash on it as part of the current topic. Let's just leave well enough alone.

Dragging this back to the current discussion, I do agree that the ability to track or operate as an outdoorsman and skilled hunter is pretty essential to the Ranger as a class, and that that is an area in which they should have a degree of expertise above and beyond what other classes can do. Even though my preference is to make the 5e ranger the "pet" class, I still don't think their ability to track and navigate through difficult, wooded or natural terrain should be ignored -- that's definitely a core part of the concept. In fact, I think it dovetails nicely with the animal companion -- hunters and trackers all throughout history have used dogs and other animals to help track elusive targets, both man and beast alike.

[Demonslayer666]

Well, I can understand not enjoying 4th, too each their own and all that, but there's no need to be adversarial. ...


Sorry, not trying be adversarial. I didn't mean to come off that way. It just keeps getting pushed on me and I stated right off the bat saying I couldn't speak to rangers in 4th because 4th means little to me. We didn't play it for long and quickly went back to 3.5 and Pathfinder. I simply won't change my mind about 4th, it broke too many things I really liked about 3.5. :smallsmile:

[ZX6Rob]

Sorry, not trying be adversarial. I didn't mean to come off that way. It just keeps getting pushed on me and I stated right off the bat saying I couldn't speak to rangers in 4th because 4th means little to me. We didn't play it for long and quickly went back to 3.5 and Pathfinder. I simply won't change my mind about 4th, it broke too many things I really liked about 3.5. :smallsmile:

It's all good. My fault, too -- I'm skittish about edition wars, especially since I've really been trying over the past couple of years to see the good in every edition of my favorite game, and it's hard to read emotion through text on a screen. If 4e isn't your cup of tea, then 4e isn't your cup of tea, and no one should be throwing that tea in your face. Because tea is hot, and that can burn.

[Nifft]

I've played characters who killed a lot of undead and orcs, without ever having "favoured enemy" mechanics. Aragorn might have a mechanic like that... or he might just be good at fighting.
Many different characters can be good at fighting in many different ways.

The fact that you didn't choose to use this particular mechanic is ... your personal trivia, at best.

It's certainly not any kind of counter-argument.


He sat down on the ground, and taking the dagger-hilt laid it on his knees, and he sang over it a slow song in a strange tongue. Then setting it aside, he turned to Frodo and in a soft tone spoke words the others could not catch.

I read that as "he made a Heal check, because he has proficiency in Heal and a solid Wisdom". :smallsmile: Obviously singing in tongues and softly speaking words which elude the mortal ear are totally how medicine is done in your version of reality.

Small smile, indeed.

[Knaight]

Many different characters can be good at fighting in many different ways.

The fact that you didn't choose to use this particular mechanic is ... your personal trivia, at best.

It's certainly not any kind of counter-argument.

A better one would be to say that there's no real indication in the books that orcs fight any differently than anyone else does, and Aragorn also fights humans on at least one occasion, and does just fine there. The simplest explanation is just that in the decades he spent as a ranger, he got pretty good at a number of relevant skills, one of which was combat.

[Nifft]

A better one would be to say that there's no real indication in the books that orcs fight any differently than anyone else does, and Aragorn also fights humans on at least one occasion, and does just fine there. The simplest explanation is just that in the decades he spent as a ranger, he got pretty good at a number of relevant skills, one of which was combat. He was also good at combat.

That is not in question, nor is it a counter-argument.

He was good at combat, AND he was royalty, AND he was particularly adept at hunting specific foes ("Favored Enemies"), specifically the servants of the Enemy, AND he could ride a horse, AND he was good at hiding.

These are not mutually exclusive traits and/or abilities.

[Knaight]

That is not in question, nor is it a counter-argument.

The counter argument would be that part about there being no indication that fighting orcs is any different than fighting humans. You know, the part you just skipped.

[EvilAnagram]

The counter argument would be that part about there being no indication that fighting orcs is any different than fighting humans. You know, the part you just skipped.
The counter to that would be that we see very specific descriptions of orcs and understand how they are very different from humans. We also see humans fighting and can contrast their behavior and tactics with those of the Enemy.

[R.Shackleford]

Dragging this back to the current discussion, I do agree that the ability to track or operate as an outdoorsman and skilled hunter is pretty essential to the Ranger as a class, and that that is an area in which they should have a degree of expertise above and beyond what other classes can do. Even though my preference is to make the 5e ranger the "pet" class, I still don't think their ability to track and navigate through difficult, wooded or natural terrain should be ignored -- that's definitely a core part of the concept. In fact, I think it dovetails nicely with the animal companion -- hunters and trackers all throughout history have used dogs and other animals to help track elusive targets, both man and beast alike.

Fun fact, most rules for 4e can be found in the 3.5 srd (d20srd.org)! From the skill system to what turns into at-will/encounter spells :).


But with regards to the ranger, it seems like the ranger just needs to be a background + hybrid of the Fighter or Barbarian and the Rogue.

All the things that make the ranger who they are... Aren't really class worthy. Perhaps do this with Hybrid style multiclassing or do it with subclasses (one for each martial class, the barbarian, fighter, and rogue). Maybe give the monk a ranger subclass too.

[Serket]

It's certainly not any kind of counter-argument.

Groovy. But I don't really need a counter-argument, when all I'm doing is pointing out that your claim is not substantiated by the source material.


AND he was particularly adept at hunting specific foes ("Favored Enemies"), specifically the servants of the Enemy

Your quote earlier said something about his motivations - he's really determined. Not his abilities. He really doesn't like team Sauron. So what? Look at him like an rpg character. Now, where in book or film does he take an action that would require some sort of favoured enemy mechanic, rather than just being good at fighting, having some solid knowledge skills, and having a backstory where his motivations are clearly established?


Obviously singing in tongues and softly speaking words which elude the mortal ear are totally how medicine is done in your version of reality.

Aragorn lives in middle earth, where that is how things are done. Significant numbers of people in the world today people pray for healing, even while letting professional medics work using methods that have nothing to do with prayer. If Aragorn has learned a truth (that this plant helps) wrapped up in a superstition (that this prayer song helps), then he's going to do it like that.

When he'd finished with his herb and song, what he'd achieved was a partial stabilisation. In D&D terms, that's a lot more like a Heal check than it is a Restoration spell.

To be fair though, I understand your position on this at least. Tolkien-magic and D&D-magic are totally at odds with each other on this sort of thing, so it's certainly possible this is intended to be a magical effect. D&D is about knowing you're magic, knowing exactly what spell slot resources you've got, and understanding the limits so well you can do science with them. Tolkien is about the power of words, and hoping stuff works, and magic being available based on soft limits like intention, bloodline, and relationships. So Tolkien may well have intended this as Aragorn doing magic. But if so, then it totally doesn't fit with D&D mechanics.

Hmm... a thought occurs. A non-magical (by D&D standards) ability, that is nonetheless impossible for mundane people, is a thing that exists in D&D. It's called a class feature. Aragorn has a class feature that lets him do things with Heal checks that most people can't do.

[Nifft]

The counter argument would be that part about there being no indication that fighting orcs is any different than fighting humans. You know, the part you just skipped. He talks about his past actions and his capabilities, which he frames them in terms of fighting a specific type of target.

I'm not skipping over any substance in your argument -- because all you're saying is that you can interpret that phrase differently, which is at best an alternate interpretation, and not a refutation of my interpretation.

But it's not much of an alternate interpretation, because all you're doing is showing that you can ignore the bits of the source material which you don't like.


Groovy. But I don't really need a counter-argument, when all I'm doing is pointing out that your claim is not substantiated by the source material. That would be interesting, but you're doing no such thing.


Your quote earlier said something about his motivations - he's really determined. Not his abilities. Changing the subject to something in a different post is not actually a counter-argument.

Yes, he's also determined.

So what?

Why would anyone think that "determined" somehow prevents having a Favored Enemy?

This is basically your false-binary argument again, and it's just as much a fallacy this time around.


Aragorn lives in middle earth, where that is how things are done. Significant numbers of people in the world today people pray for healing, even while letting professional medics work using methods that have nothing to do with prayer. If Aragorn has learned a truth (that this plant helps) wrapped up in a superstition (that this prayer song helps), then he's going to do it like that. I think your claim is that he's secretly doing medical science but disguising it as magic.

That's not a contradiction of my claim:

It's explicitly vague as to whether he's casting a spell or not, but the point is that he's someone who performs acts that are either spells, or are on par with Nature-themed Divine spell-casting.

So, it sounds like we might agree, but the first time around you didn't catch the meaning of what I was saying.

Do you understand better now?

[Tanarii]

But with regards to the ranger, it seems like the ranger just needs to be a background + hybrid of the Fighter or Barbarian and the Rogue.

All the things that make the ranger who they are... Aren't really class worthy. Perhaps do this with Hybrid style multiclassing or do it with subclasses (one for each martial class, the barbarian, fighter, and rogue). Maybe give the monk a ranger subclass too.
Spell casting, Animal Companions (either via spells or via a feature), and special combat capabilities vs special types of enemies, all aren't really 'background' type things. And they certainly aren't Fighter, Barbarian, or Rogue things.

If Druids had animal companions still (which they kinda should, it's a missing thing from the archetype now), it could work, as well as providing spells and nature-type lore. Or could no worry about animal companions, since they're an optional archetype feature.

Fighter provides weapon styles focus and general combat capability.

Rogue could provide sneakiness.

But nothing would provide enemy-focused combat capabilities, although that's currently an optional archetype. If a background had enemy focused 'lore' it might be close enough.

So the archetype could theoretically be covered by a Fighter/Rogue/Druid (with optional Animal Companion feature) hybrid with an enemy-lore featured Background. At that point, with three classes and a very specific background. I think they're justified in making the Ranger it's own archetype.

It's basically in the same boat as a Bard, which could be done with a Fighter/Rogue/Druid hybrid with the Entertainer Background. But a class of its own works too.

[JellyPooga]

And when your favored enemy is "orc" or "elf", I think that's even harder to justify a mechanical combat bonus. Orcs and elves are basically shaped like humans, and are either a little stronger or a little nimbler in either case. But if an Orc is coming after you with a greataxe, realistically, that's not going to be significantly different than if a big human is coming after you with a greataxe.

The mechanical benefit of an ability like Favoured Enemy in this kind of situation comes from knowing how Orcs (or Elves or whatever) think or are likely to act in those situations.

I'm reminded of the Belgariad, where Hettar (who is arguably a Ranger with Favoured Enemy: Murgos) knows that when he's fighting Murgos, they have this one particular response to an attack, which lowers their guard momentarily...which in turn allows Hettar to take great advantage, claiming "it must be a gap in their training" when talking about it with his companions. His knowledge of Murgos and of fighting them gives him a significant combat bonus against them; an advantage he doesn't enjoy when fighting other foes.

So our Ranger with Favoured Enemy: Orc might know that Orcs tend to be headstrong and go for direct or telegraphed attacks, for example, which would give him an advantage. "But anyone can know that and they don't get a bonus!" you cry. Yes, but the Ranger knows it and has the experience/training to take advantage of it; maybe the counter-attack requires precise timing or there's a particularly advantageous feint that's tricky to pull off. The important thing is that those precisely timed counters and tricky feints only work against Orcs because it's only Orcs that fight in exactly the fashion that those moves work.

The thing I like about Favoured Enemy as a combat bonus is that as a campaign progresses, the knowledge that the Ranger has can be adopted by other characters. During downtime (or even during play) you can roleplay scenes where the Fighter says "how'd you pull that trick?" to the Ranger and the Ranger gladly obliges by showing off his skills. Later (after leveling up), the Fighter can demonstrate the "Ranger tricks" he's learned, which is reflected mechanically by his generally improved combat stats. He's still not the expert that the Ranger is and never will be; he hasn't the years of training nor the narrow focus, but he can pick up the "fluff" of it...it's a small thing, but an enjoyable one nonetheless.

[R.Shackleford]

Spell casting, Animal Companions (either via spells or via a feature), and special combat capabilities vs special types of enemies, all aren't really 'background' type things. And they certainly aren't Fighter, Barbarian, or Rogue things.

If Druids had animal companions still (which they kinda should, it's a missing thing from the archetype now), it could work, as well as providing spells and nature-type lore. Or could no worry about animal companions, since they're an optional archetype feature.

Fighter provides weapon styles focus and general combat capability.

Rogue could provide sneakiness.

But nothing would provide enemy-focused combat capabilities, although that's currently an optional archetype. If a background had enemy focused 'lore' it might be close enough.

So the archetype could theoretically be covered by a Fighter/Rogue/Druid (with optional Animal Companion feature) hybrid with an enemy-lore featured Background. At that point, with three classes and a very specific background. I think they're justified in making the Ranger it's own archetype.

It's basically in the same boat as a Bard, which could be done with a Fighter/Rogue/Druid hybrid with the Entertainer Background. But a class of its own works too.

A proper animal companion can just take the place of a magic item as a reward. Wizard gets a new staff, Paladin gets a sword that sings, Barbarian/Rogue finds this animal in the back that now views the PC as pack leader and all/most/some of its kind will aid them for the PC rescuing the beast. Or put in rules for finding a beast companion by going out in the woods, communing with nature. DM approval is a must so it's not like any person can get a companion. Or yeah, Druid, I think the druid in the PHB looks like she has a tiger companion, unless that is her bf/gf/bff in tiger form...

Special combat comes from the classes.

Research enemies comes from background much like the Sage.

Spell casting can just be an alternative AT/EK with the ability to take spells from the druid list.

You may need to add new options or features but placing them under other classes and not a new class seems to work best.

Most of the what makes a ranger a ranger falls directly under other classes.

In not saying I don't like the idea of a Ranger class, I'm just saying that what everyone is asking for falls under other classes and backgrounds.

The difference between the Bard and Paladin as a class is that they have specific fluff and mechanics that doesn't fit under other classes as well. I do like the idea of the War Cleric just being a Paladin but then you wouldn't get the types of Paladin so easy.

Bards have their Bardic Inspiration and arcane fullcasting combination. I don't think those fit into another class. They also have their unique "must hear you" thing going on for a lot of their abilities.

[Demonslayer666]

Animal Companions weren't "ranger" until 3rd edition, same with favored enemy iirc. To me, that feels late in the game, but I'm old. :smallsmile:

[Saggo]

Animal Companions weren't "ranger" until 3rd edition, same with favored enemy iirc. To me, that feels late in the game, but I'm old. :smallsmile:

Favored Enemy has been around. 1e it was hardcoded, 2e you could choose.

[R.Shackleford]

Animal Companions weren't "ranger" until 3rd edition, same with favored enemy iirc. To me, that feels late in the game, but I'm old. :smallsmile:

Someone already covered this.


Sure. 1e Rangers got Animal Companions in one of two ways. A lot of people are unaware of them because they weren't called out as a special class feature. (Kind of like 5e has Hunter's Mark as a 'secret' Ranger feature, or Hex as a 'secret' Warlock feature.)

In the 1e PH p25, at 8th level, in the column labeled Druid Spells. They get one 1st level Druid spell. The spell used is Animal Friendship, which is PH p54. It gives up to 2HD of animal companions, permenantly. This is also how Druids got Animal Companions, as well as Bards.

The other way they got them in 1e was DMG p16-17, if they rolled Animal followers. Rangers got a variety of special followers (either high leveled character or weird creatures), and animals were part of it. But that was a secondary way, compared to the Animal Friendship spell.

Despite playing 2e a lot, I can never remember the system. I dumped out all my 2e knowledge and replaced it with 3e. So I can't remember if Animal Companions moved from a spell to a spell-less class Feature for Rangers and Druids as part of 2e or 3e. But the root for the Feature is the 1e Animal Friendship spell.

[Knaight]

He talks about his past actions and his capabilities, which he frames them in terms of fighting a specific type of target.

I'm not skipping over any substance in your argument -- because all you're saying is that you can interpret that phrase differently, which is at best an alternate interpretation, and not a refutation of my interpretation.

But it's not much of an alternate interpretation, because all you're doing is showing that you can ignore the bits of the source material which you don't like.
I don't remember that at all, but it's been a while since I read it. Or, more accurately, I do remember that he emphatically has experience fighting Sauron's minions, but not that the book ever said anything about them fighting differently than humans, at least not on the scale where favored enemy would apply. If it is in the books at that scale, then favored enemy makes sense. If fighting orcs works exactly the same way as fighting humans, experience transfers perfectly and a favored enemy mechanic for one over the other makes no sense - particularly as the various non combat applications basically involve a whole bunch of skills to counter things orcs are worse at anyways.


Animal Companions weren't "ranger" until 3rd edition, same with favored enemy iirc. To me, that feels late in the game, but I'm old. :smallsmile:
It would be about 16 years ago now, and while I don't know exactly when the ranger class was introduced I'm pretty sure it was before 1984, so these mechanics have been there for less than half the time. Plus, the archetype of the ranger predates D&D, and while heavily codified by Aragorn also has other sources. Favored Enemy seems inappropriate for a whole bunch of these sources, as does Animal Companion. Both make sense as options, as there are some archetypes involving warriors who stay in natural areas and have a pet wolf or hunting raptor of some sort, and there's the whole source of irregular guerilla troops who generally would be pretty specialized against whatever they were fighting against, but to some extent they seem like features that would be better as feats.

[Demonslayer666]

Someone already covered this.

Thanks. :smallsmile:

Aragorn didn't, so I never really saw that as part of a ranger, just a D&Dism. Maybe a nod to the movie Beastmaster.

/shrug

[Fighting_Ferret]

Not to beat a dead horse... but feats are an OPTIONAL rule in the PHB... just because almost everyone uses them, doesn't mean an entire class can be reduced to a few feats for a few interested parties. Part of the reason this conversation is happening is that 5e has condensed skills to a relatively small number, while at the same time giving easy access to any skill a player may want via the custom background system.

Sure rangers started out as a fighter subclass, so did barbarian. If I took away rage from them, what makes them a barbarian? A couple of bonuses named after animals? Walking into battle in loin cloth, because attitude = AC?

The better question is why get rid of ranger, it's an iconic class that has been around for a long time. It does have things that no other class has access to, and it does get some things that other classes have (and may even have the possibility better at) then they do. It is a multi-class without having to multi-class. Some people are happy playing a ranger, as they are. Others want to be the best at what a ranger is in their mind. 5e doesn't require a highly optimized character that is the best at everything... I get the idea behind optimization, and if you want to play that way, go ahead... I for one will not stop you from doing so, or even tell you your fun is wrong. But you have to also be open to the idea that some people have a long standing tradition with the class, going back 40 years. Is the 5e iteration the best ever... I've played since 2e... I think it is perfectly fine. But there is a difference between the mechanics of a class and the essence of a class.

Now if your opinion differs and you want to be a rogue who can pick the lock on the closest tree, to steal a squirrel's acorns, while being disguised as someone else, go for it. (Truly sorry for that, but that's how I view rogues taking over the ranger's role...because all of that is built into their class and can't just be ignored. Actually I blame pathfinder and 3.5 for all this craziness).

[Serket]

But it's not much of an alternate interpretation, because all you're doing is showing that you can ignore the bits of the source material which you don't like.

Well, I'm really bored of this, but I'll give it one last go of explaining.

There is a difference between character motivations, character actions, and class-based mechanics.
Aragorn really doesn't like the servants of Sauron. Cool. That's a motivation, it's not a mechanic.
Aragorn spends a lot of time fighting them. Cool. That's an action. It's not a mechanic.
If Aragorn were a D&D character who wasn't a ranger, say a fighter/rogue multi-class, then he could continue to have a motivation where he hates "the enemy" and spends all his time stabbing and shooting them without ever having a class-based mechanic to make him better at doing so. A fighter/rogue is pretty solid in the stabbing and shooting department. Aragorn likewise. Mechanically, it works.

D&D favoured enemy mechanics haven't really fit Aragorn. He fights orcs, goblins, wolves, nazghul, a tentacle monster, humans, trolls... all of them are "servants of the enemy", because there is pretty much nothing "evil" in Tolkien that isn't a "servant of the enemy". But which one is his favoured enemy in D&D terms? He has like, six there. The D&D mechanics don't fit.

So what I'm saying is that Aragorn could be modelled as a fighter/rogue or even just fighter with the right background, and mechanically it would be fine. Whereas giving him any of the favoured enemy mechanics I've actually seen (I never read 4th) instantly raises tricky questions.

Basically, if favoured enemy is supposed to be a model of Aragorn, it doesn't work and hasn't worked for any edition I've read. So if "ranger" is defined by Aragorn, and ought to have a "favoured enemy" mechanic, then it would need a massive overhaul to fit with Aragorns performance.

And honestly, from a design standpoint favoured enemy mechanics suck, because balance is immediately out of the window.


I think your claim is that he's secretly doing medical science but disguising it as magic.

No. I don't think Aragorn is a scientist disguising his science as magic. That would mean he knows science but is trying to hide it, and that wouldn't fit anything else in the book.

My "claim" is that you could read it either as traditional herbal medicine, or as magic. This "claim" is obviously true, since we have here two people who have read it in different ways. It's like the Balrog wing thing.

My further claim is that D&D magic and Tolkien magic are really really different, and some Tolkien magic (including this, if it is indeed supposed to be magic and not just traditional medicine) works better in D&D mechanic terms as class abilities rather than actual spells.

So no, I don't think Rangers have a thematic need for spells. Quasi-magical skill extensions, maybe. Aragorn shoots a lot of people, but we never see him chanting words and sparkle effects covering his bow, or the target. He stabs a lot of people, but we never hear the distinctive words of a Lead Blades spell. He heals people but, we don't see the golden glow of positive energy. D&D spells are obvious magical effects, and Tolkien uses those very sparingly.


So, it sounds like we might agree, but the first time around you didn't catch the meaning of what I was saying.

Yes, that is it exactly. I am as dumb as toast and the more words you throw at me the more likely I am to see the True Rightness of your position.
(those sentences are sarcasm, which means it's time to stop talking to you)

[Serket]

Sure rangers started out as a fighter subclass, so did barbarian. If I took away rage from them, what makes them a barbarian?

Pretty much nothing, but that's also the point of the conversation. Barbarians are defined by Rage, at this stage. But what central mechanic defines the Ranger, and how does it fit the concept?

Basically, a significant number of people (including me) find ranger to be a mishmash of things that don't entirely fit the concept, none of which seems to be enough to build a class around. It's not that I don't like the idea of playing that concept, it's just that the mechanics for it seem anaemic.

And of course, the discussion isn't really going anywhere. I mean, the class is in the PHB. They're not going to do a reprint without it. But I suppose if someone did come up with an awesome redesign, that might matter.

[Fighting_Ferret]

Multi-classing is yet again another OPTIONAL rule, even if almost everyone uses it. In a game without multi-classing, does the ranger have a place?

[Knaight]

Multi-classing is yet again another OPTIONAL rule, even if almost everyone uses it. In a game without multi-classing, does the ranger have a place?

The beastmaster archetype is pretty hard to duplicate elsewhere, so there's that. They also do the whole wilderness warrior thing decently, though proficiency in the right skills gets most of that across.

[R.Shackleford]

Not to beat a dead horse... but feats are an OPTIONAL rule in the PHB... just because almost everyone uses them, doesn't mean an entire class can be reduced to a few feats for a few interested parties. Part of the reason this conversation is happening is that 5e has condensed skills to a relatively small number, while at the same time giving easy access to any skill a player may want via the custom background system.

Sure rangers started out as a fighter subclass, so did barbarian. If I took away rage from them, what makes them a barbarian? A couple of bonuses named after animals? Walking into battle in loin cloth, because attitude = AC?

The better question is why get rid of ranger, it's an iconic class that has been around for a long time. It does have things that no other class has access to, and it does get some things that other classes have (and may even have the possibility better at) then they do. It is a multi-class without having to multi-class. Some people are happy playing a ranger, as they are. Others want to be the best at what a ranger is in their mind. 5e doesn't require a highly optimized character that is the best at everything... I get the idea behind optimization, and if you want to play that way, go ahead... I for one will not stop you from doing so, or even tell you your fun is wrong. But you have to also be open to the idea that some people have a long standing tradition with the class, going back 40 years. Is the 5e iteration the best ever... I've played since 2e... I think it is perfectly fine. But there is a difference between the mechanics of a class and the essence of a class.

Now if your opinion differs and you want to be a rogue who can pick the lock on the closest tree, to steal a squirrel's acorns, while being disguised as someone else, go for it. (Truly sorry for that, but that's how I view rogues taking over the ranger's role...because all of that is built into their class and can't just be ignored. Actually I blame pathfinder and 3.5 for all this craziness).

Reckless attack is a very good "rage" mechanic.

So yeah, take rage away from them, reckless attack can be boosted via subclasses and it can work quite well.

Though just because it's an optional rule for home games doesn't mean that's a bad way to go. In public play MC and feats are core rules so if your home game doesn't allow Rangers then play in a public play game.

MC and Feats being "optional" isn't that they are automatically dissallowed, it just means "ask DM first". Hell, I've seen and heard of more classes being banned than feats and MC not allowed.

The Ranger and Barbarian is different. What makes the barbarian isn't ribbons, what makes the ranger different from others is ribbons. What makes the Barbarian a barbarian is a mechanical difference. This is also why Paladins and Clerics are seperated, fluff wise they are different but also mechanically they are different.

[Vogonjeltz]

You know, I think I'd like 5th ed better if every class had expertise in one or two iconic skills. If Rangers got expertise in Survival and Nature, plus some proficiencies in stealth and heal and perception, that would basically do it for me.

Rangers get Expertise on Wisdom and Intelligence checks they are proficient in when in their favored terrain.

There are 8 favored terrains, Rangers eventually get to pick 3.

But if you have Forest, that's probably 90% of outdoor locations that most games get involved in, and it would be incumbent on players who pick Ranger to coordinate with their DM on what terrain is likely to be prevalent.

[Temperjoke]

What would probably enhance the Ranger is if Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer weren't locked in and could be changed with a long rest or a ritual of some sort. That would make the ranger stronger and more flexible in campaigns.

[Naanomi]

There are 8 favored terrains, Rangers eventually get to pick 3.
None of which are castles, temples, ruins, cities, underwater, or vast portions of other Planes of existence; so the proportion in many games is much worse than 3:8

[R.Shackleford]

None of which are castles, temples, ruins, cities, underwater, or vast portions of other Planes of existence; so the proportion in many games is much worse than 3:8

Technically, with the way the planes typically work... 3:Infinite

[Tanarii]

Most of the what makes a ranger a ranger falls directly under other classes.

In not saying I don't like the idea of a Ranger class, I'm just saying that what everyone is asking for falls under other classes and backgrounds.

The difference between the Bard and Paladin as a class is that they have specific fluff and mechanics that doesn't fit under other classes as well.I'm not seeing it. Rangers have just as much Ranger-specific fluff as Bards and Paladins do. And just as much that falls under other classes. Bards are 'just' Fighter/Rogue/Druid-Wizard Entertainers. Paladins are 'just' Fighter/Cleric Nobles. And Rangers are 'just' Fighter/Rogue/Druid Outlander or Folk Heroes.

Edit: Don't get me wrong. Obviously I *do* see exactly what you mean. Rangers and Paladins were specifically introduced to be a blend of existing classes with a little extra stuff on top. So were Monks (Cleric/Rogue). For that matter, the Cleric was supposedly added as a Fighting Man / Magic-user blend originally, although that may be an urban legend. But my point is that at this point, after existing for 5 editions, I think the Ranger is pretty well defined as it's own class. Far more so than upstarts like the Sorcerer! :smalltongue:

[R.Shackleford]

I'm not seeing it. Rangers have just as much Ranger-specific fluff as Bards and Paladins do. And just as much that falls under other classes. Bards are 'just' Fighter/Rogue/Druid-Wizard Entertainers. Paladins are 'just' Fighter/Cleric Nobles. And Rangers are 'just' Fighter/Rogue/Druid Outlander or Folk Heroes.

Edit: Don't get me wrong. Obviously I *do* see exactly what you mean. Rangers and Paladins were specifically introduced to be a blend of existing classes with a little extra stuff on top. So were Monks (Cleric/Rogue). For that matter, the Cleric was supposedly added as a Fighting Man / Magic-user blend originally, although that may be an urban legend. But my point is that at this point, after existing for 5 editions, I think the Ranger is pretty well defined as it's own class. Far more so than upstarts like the Sorcerer! :smalltongue:

The thing is that... Mechanically the paladin, bard, cleric, and others are different. The Ranger is really only different due to fluff/ribbons.

You can fluff a Fighter to be a Paladin but you will be missing smite. You can fluff a fighter to be a Ranger and not really miss anything mechanically.

Being able to crit enemies better is a good mechanical representation of favored enemy but not smite.

It may not be perfect because I would say make different subclasses (EK with druid casting for a spell ranger) but the ranger just seems to be a ribbon class more so than a mechanical class.

I'm all for having 4 or 5 main classes and having everything (including multiclassing) to be used with subclasses, as I'm doing, but until WotC 5e hasn't given us anything mechanically that sets them apart from any other class.

[Tanarii]

Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer are enough to set them apart for me. I think they're both very powerful class abilities. And more powerful as you add more from gaining levels, making them more broadly applicable.

But I do understand your point. A Druidic spell list Dex/Wis EK with the Outlander background would be close, although it'd be less spell oriented (although have Druid cantrips), and more general combat oriented than special foes tactics of a Hunter.

Certainly in a heavily customizable home game, I think that'd be an interesting homebrew to play.

[Knaight]

The ranger absolutely could use some other things to reflect classic ranger skills. Things like being able to blow off rough terrain, moving the disadvantage-penalty line for ranged weapons, and similar could work, mostly as things embedded more in some archetypes than others.

[silverkyo]

I don't really want to respond to a lot of this because frankly it's... a little ridiculous how out of hands and by the numbers this conversation has turned in to about the ranger. I'm in a campaign where I was playing and leveling a rogue. I had never planned to be anything besides a rogue. Until my sister got sick with a rare supernatural disease and to help treat it I needed rare herbs from the forests and to hunt trolls for their blood. So, instead of getting my second set of expertise for better skills, which would be almost objectively mechanically superior, I took a level in ranger. Because no class besides ranger offered the fluff I wanted or the mechanical benefits he needed for it, not even necessarily the druid in the party. And it didn't suit him as a character, he's the type who wants to be self sufficient. Favored Enemy and Terrain is all I needed. He didn't force me to do it either, he was even surprised when I suggested it, but I wanted to because it made sense for the plot of the game and my character goals. Is this really not enough for people?? Can you not enjoy playing the class or character you want because it doesn't have enough bells or whistles or numbers?? I'm actually confused right now being completely honest.

[Knaight]

I don't really want to respond to a lot of this because frankly it's... a little ridiculous how out of hands and by the numbers this conversation has turned in to about the ranger. I'm in a campaign where I was playing and leveling a rogue. I had never planned to be anything besides a rogue. Until my sister got sick with a rare supernatural disease and to help treat it I needed rare herbs from the forests and to hunt trolls for their blood. So, instead of getting my second set of expertise for better skills, which would be almost objectively mechanically superior, I took a level in ranger. Because no class besides ranger offered the fluff I wanted or the mechanical benefits he needed for it, not even necessarily the druid in the party. And it didn't suit him as a character, he's the type who wants to be self sufficient. Favored Enemy and Terrain is all I needed. He didn't force me to do it either, he was even surprised when I suggested it, but I wanted to because it made sense for the plot of the game and my character goals. Is this really not enough for people?? Can you not enjoy playing the class or character you want because it doesn't have enough bells or whistles or numbers?? I'm actually confused right now being completely honest.

Given the design parameters of 5e, where the primary way classes are differentiated is through "bells and whistles", there's absolutely a case to be made that the ranger as a class doesn't do a particularly good job representing the ranger as an archetype. This is particularly true when large chunks of it can be duplicated so easily through other classes. Do you want a good tracker? A rogue with expertise in whatever skill the DM uses most for tracking does better than a ranger. A fighter with wilderness themed skills and backgrounds pretty much covers large portions of the rest. It's a comparatively poorly designed class that does the archetypes it covers a disservice, given the design of the game as a whole.

Also, drop the self righteous superior role player shtick, it's convincing nobody. I'm perfectly happy to play a ranger without the bells and whistles. A rules light system where you just directly take the ranger archetype and get a bonus on everything ranger related (think Barbarians of Lemuria here) is totally fine by me, as is representing a ranger via putting the various ranger appropriate skills high in a point buy system. However, we're looking at 5e here, which means we should be looking at how the design works within the 5e framework. Said framework involves classes getting a fair number of bells and whistles, and acknowledging that doesn't somehow prevent us from enjoying playing characters.

[Tanarii]

Do you want a good tracker? A rogue with expertise in whatever skill the DM uses most for tracking does better than a ranger.
Except when tracking Favored Enemies or in a Natural Explorer Terrain. Even without those the Ranger is likely to be as skilled until level 9+, because his Wis will probably be +3 higher.

Also, tracking is Survival BtB.

[djreynolds]

Fun fact, most rules for 4e can be found in the 3.5 srd (d20srd.org)! From the skill system to what turns into at-will/encounter spells :).


But with regards to the ranger, it seems like the ranger just needs to be a background + hybrid of the Fighter or Barbarian and the Rogue.

All the things that make the ranger who they are... Aren't really class worthy. Perhaps do this with Hybrid style multiclassing or do it with subclasses (one for each martial class, the barbarian, fighter, and rogue). Maybe give the monk a ranger subclass too.

This is true, the fighter UA archetype scout is just as good, maybe better, could be a good dip for a ranger. There is nothing the ranger gets that someone else cannot, even Hunter's mark isn't ranger specific.

Ranger is a good class if multiclassing and feats are not involved.

I still like the class, but perhaps you are right and most be people are "romantically" biased.

[Gwendol]

The ranger should be the survivalist. A self-reliant class. In 5e, given the right circumstances, the class works wonders. Luckily, those circumstances are rather broadly defined, so for the majority of campaigns, a ranger should fit in nicely.

[R.Shackleford]

Except when tracking Favored Enemies or in a Natural Explorer Terrain. Even without those the Ranger is likely to be as skilled until level 9+, because his Wis will probably be +3 higher.

Also, tracking is Survival BtB.

Advantage (+3.33) + 5 (wis) + 6 (prof) = +14 ish.

Expertise (+6) prof + 6 (prof) = 12 if the rogue has a 2 in their wis (quite possible as they become proficient with wis saves, are a tracker, and wis is the primary trap finder stat...

The rogue (or bard) comes out on top as they don't have to focus on boosting their Ability score as much. It isn't like a Rogue taking Expertise in perception is all that weird... Hell the rogue could start with a 12 and boost it once to gain a 14.

Also, and I don't really recall the exact wording of favored enemy... But I'm pretty sure that advantage can be negated while expertise can not.

[Tanarii]

<Numbers>Level 20 comparisons don't mean much. Also, the ranger also gets doubled prof bonus in his terrain, which you left out.

But you missed my main point. Rangers get special tracking bonuses from Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer which no other class can get at all. Not just advantage from Favored Enemy and (effective) expertise from Natural Explorer.

[R.Shackleford]

Level 20 comparisons don't mean much. Also, the ranger also gets doubled prof bonus in his terrain, which you left out.

But you missed my main point. Rangers get special tracking bonuses from Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer which no other class can get at all. Not just advantage and (effective) expertise.

While they are in their terrain... Which isn't all the time as has been shown. Chances are you are not going to be in your terrain more often than not (even when we ignore planar travels).

That band of orcs just went from the forest to the mountains.. The Ranger suddenly can't track the as well.

Matching Wis scores cause if you are making a tracker you will boost Wis.

Low level Rogue : 2 P + 2 P + 3 Wis = +7 (versus everything)

Low Level Ranger: 2 P + 3 Wis = 5 (Versus everything)
Low Level Ranger: 2 P + 3.33 A + 3 Wis= +8 (versus 1 FE type)
Low Level Ranger: 2 P+ 2 P + 3 W + 3.333 A = +10 (versus 1 FE type AND in favored terrain).

Now, the advantage can be taken away. Are you searching in dim/no light? Is it raining? Are the ones you are tracking using some sort of footpads that make it harder to track?

Which reduces all by 3, even the rogue, but you still have the issue that If the ranger isn't tracking their favored enemy then they don't have advantage to cancel our the disadvantage. That number above drops way down.

Not only does the rogue keep up with numbers (eventually can even take 10... So their floor is way higher... At level 11 the rogue is at least getting a 22 all the time with a +4 wis... 22 to 32 range all the time) but only relies on itself and not on others to do it's job. This take 10 also negates disadvantage.

That bonus is always on no matter of they are in a castle, cavern, or forest.

What happens if the players are told "you need to hunt down those orcs!" and the ranger is all set to go... But the tracks are actually for Ogres (the ranger took gnolls and orcs)? Well crap should have brought a rogue. There is just too many "ifs" with the ranger. Its a good idea but the rogue is more reliable and more diverse.

You could say this is an issue with the expertise system or with FA/FT but the point is still there.

[Tanarii]

You missed my point again. Rangers can do things while tracking that no other class can. It's not just about the bonus to the roll.

[ZX6Rob]

I don't really want to respond to a lot of this because frankly it's... a little ridiculous how out of hands and by the numbers this conversation has turned in to about the ranger. I'm in a campaign where I was playing and leveling a rogue. I had never planned to be anything besides a rogue. Until my sister got sick with a rare supernatural disease and to help treat it I needed rare herbs from the forests and to hunt trolls for their blood. So, instead of getting my second set of expertise for better skills, which would be almost objectively mechanically superior, I took a level in ranger. Because no class besides ranger offered the fluff I wanted or the mechanical benefits he needed for it, not even necessarily the druid in the party. And it didn't suit him as a character, he's the type who wants to be self sufficient. Favored Enemy and Terrain is all I needed. He didn't force me to do it either, he was even surprised when I suggested it, but I wanted to because it made sense for the plot of the game and my character goals. Is this really not enough for people?? Can you not enjoy playing the class or character you want because it doesn't have enough bells or whistles or numbers?? I'm actually confused right now being completely honest.

Well, think of it this way -- if we have criticisms (the validity of which is certainly open to interpretation, sure) about the class, then these kinds of debates and topics help us shape those criticism with objective facts and constructive discussion.

I can't speak for everyone here, but I will say that, as a result of this thread, I've definitely put some real thought into what a Ranger is and what features it should have -- and, just as importantly, which ones it shouldn't. Plus, sharing those ideas with others here helps to solidify them and refine them.

I think it's great that you had a story in which the Ranger, as-built, was the right choice for you and matched up well both mechanically and... fluffily? Characteristically? However you want to call it, it fit your character very well. That's awesome! Unfortunately, not everyone can say the same thing. In fact, a not-insignificant number of people here on these very forums have mentioned how the class, as written, doesn't seem to really match up, either mechanically or in terms of flavor, with what they think a Ranger should be. Analysis of what those traits are helps us understand the class better and either propose fixes or updates to the class, or offer suggestions on optimization and working within the rules to meet a concept for people who don't share your enthusiasm for what's written in the book. It isn't about getting more numbers; it's about figuring out where in the game the Ranger is supposed to fit and how it can fill whatever that role or niche should be.

With regards to your story about the Rogue/Ranger, though, what is it about the Ranger that makes it more thematically-appropriate than a Rogue with expertise in Survival for your story? It seems clear that you think there's something about the Ranger that makes him the absolute best for this kind of work -- tracking down hidden herbs and trekking through the ancient boughs of a forgotten forest to look for the leaves of a certain plant for a special remedy. So, would you say that Favored Terrain (a relatively recent addition to the Ranger as a class!) is the defining feature of the class? The Favored Enemy feature? Or is it just the general fluff of a well-traveled outdoorsman, regardless of specific mechanical implementation?

That is, really, what the heart of this discussion is all about (debates about skill bonuses aside!), after all.

[Vogonjeltz]

None of which are castles, temples, ruins, cities, underwater, or vast portions of other Planes of existence; so the proportion in many games is much worse than 3:8

Well, coast might include watery areas. But yes, indoors is not a terrain. And most of the planes of existence are directly lethal to life, so typically games won't actually take place there. Typically, and certainly not until very high levels as the PCs lack any means to reach them except by accident prior to then (in which case they probably just die from the hostile environment).

Most every module begins in an area dominated by forests, so if the published material is anything to go by, the Ranger will get plenty of good use of their starting abilities just by taking Forest.

[R.Shackleford]

You missed my point again. Rangers can do things while tracking that no other class can. It's not just about the bonus to the roll.

If, if, and if.

They can do things with a huge if.

Most of the time those "ifs" are not going to be there as already shown in the thread.

The rogue and bard *always* gets those bonuses and don't have to worry about "if". Hell, a level 11 rogue doesn't even have to worry about disadvantage.

[Tanarii]

Most of the time those "ifs" are not going to be there as already shown in the thread.By level 6, you've got two Natural Explorer terrains. That's enough to cover the majority of any area the Ranger lives in. Terrain doesn't vary that much. If he's roaming the entire world, or constantly dungeon delving, then yeah, he'll run into issues. Or if the DM is ruling that a copse of trees is "forest" and a marshy bit of ground is "swamp", then I can see a problem. But if you go by world maps, which is the way I've ruled and seen most other DMs rule, then it's not a big issue.

If you look at (for example) the maps of the Sword Coast, a Ranger needs three major terrains: Forest, Mountain, and Swamp. He might occasionally roam into the Islands (coast), or glaciers (Arctic), or Anauroch (Desert). He might even roam down far to the south and the Fields of the Dead or the Grassy Fields (Grasslands). But most of the time, he's in the basic three of Forest, Mountain and Swamp.

Favored Enemy is far more campaign dependent. That one you're going to have to work with the DM on.

[JellyPooga]

If, if, and if.

They can do things with a huge if.

Most of the time those "ifs" are not going to be there as already shown in the thread.

The rogue and bard *always* gets those bonuses and don't have to worry about "if". Hell, a level 11 rogue doesn't even have to worry about disadvantage.

This is what bugs me about the 5ed Ranger; the Bard does it better.

"Rangers get cool and unique spells!" - Bards have access to (most of) them (at least the most interesting/useful ones) sooner and are better at casting them.

"Rangers are really good in wilderness settings!" - Bards have Expertise, which makes them better at skills. Period. In the wilderness or otherwise.

"Rangers make really good linguists and know all about their enemies!" - Bards are better linguists (Tongues, high Cha) and also know all about everything, including their enemies (Jack-of-All-Trades, optional Expertise in relevant skills).

"Rangers help their party in the wilds!" - Bardic Inspiration says "Hi".

About the only thing Ranger does better (ignoring Beastmaster for a minute) is combat and even then, the Bards improved magic, skills and unique features (like Battle Magic or Cutting Words) puts them on at least an even footing, if not better.

Coming back, briefly, to Beastmaster...even then, the Bard has some options. That high Charisma and Expertise, combined with optional adds to their magical repertoire such as Animal Friendship, means that a Bard very much has the option of recruiting an animal companion. Not, perhaps, one that is as good as the Beastmasters, nor one that is as easily replaceable, but a Bards "animal companion" would be one that was really earned and, to me at least, would feel more like a genuine companion instead of just another Class Feature. YMMV, I guess.

tl;dr - Bards are better rangers than Rangers are.

[Tanarii]

tl;dr - Bards are better rangers than Rangers are.5e Bards are just better. At everything, than everyone. They always seem to be overpowered or nerfed into uselessness. That's unsurprising ... they're a mashup of 3 classes plus their own schtick on top of that. It's hard to balance that kind of thing effectively. Rangers got the short end of a 3 class + own schtick mashup in this edition, at least a little bit. Even though I like them I'll say that. Bards hit the jackpot.

[R.Shackleford]

This is what bugs me about the 5ed Ranger; the Bard does it better.

"Rangers get cool and unique spells!" - Bards have access to (most of) them (at least the most interesting/useful ones) sooner and are better at casting them.

"Rangers are really good in wilderness settings!" - Bards have Expertise, which makes them better at skills. Period. In the wilderness or otherwise.

"Rangers make really good linguists and know all about their enemies!" - Bards are better linguists (Tongues, high Cha) and also know all about everything, including their enemies (Jack-of-All-Trades, optional Expertise in relevant skills).

"Rangers help their party in the wilds!" - Bardic Inspiration says "Hi".

About the only thing Ranger does better (ignoring Beastmaster for a minute) is combat and even then, the Bards improved magic, skills and unique features (like Battle Magic or Cutting Words) puts them on at least an even footing, if not better.

Coming back, briefly, to Beastmaster...even then, the Bard has some options. That high Charisma and Expertise, combined with optional adds to their magical repertoire such as Animal Friendship, means that a Bard very much has the option of recruiting an animal companion. Not, perhaps, one that is as good as the Beastmasters, nor one that is as easily replaceable, but a Bards "animal companion" would be one that was really earned and, to me at least, would feel more like a genuine companion instead of just another Class Feature. YMMV, I guess.

tl;dr - Bards are better rangers than Rangers are.

Bards actually do very very well in combat, especially when they pick up a bow.

[JellyPooga]

5e Bards are just better. At everything, than everyone.

I'll tend to disagree on this point. Bards are very good, but they're not "the best" at everything. Fighters and Barbarians do straight-up fighting better, Rogues have skill-monkeying and generally being thief-ish down pat (by a narrow margin, I'll admit), Clerics and Paladins do "holy warrior" the best and Wizards and Sorcerers do arcanist better.

On the whole.

Rangers, on the other hand, don't do anything "the best". Neither do Warlocks, for that matter (IMO), but that's a different argument. That the Bard, the archetypal Jack-of-All Class, actually does "being a Ranger" better than the Class designed for the role, says a lot.

[EvilAnagram]

I'll tend to disagree on this point. Bards are very good, but they're not "the best" at everything. Fighters and Barbarians do straight-up fighting better, Rogues have skill-monkeying and generally being thief-ish down pat (by a narrow margin, I'll admit), Clerics and Paladins do "holy warrior" the best and Wizards and Sorcerers do arcanist better.

On the whole.

Rangers, on the other hand, don't do anything "the best". Neither do Warlocks, for that matter (IMO), but that's a different argument. That the Bard, the archetypal Jack-of-All Class, actually does "being a Ranger" better than the Class designed for the role, says a lot.

Disagree. Ranger is quite a bit better at being a Ranger than a Bard. Especially if you want to be a Beast Master.

People like to pretend that a Valor Bard with Swift Quiver perfectly emulates a Ranger, but it doesn't. Rangers have other features and more than two spells that fit their theme.

[R.Shackleford]

Disagree. Ranger is quite a bit better at being a Ranger than a Bard. Especially if you want to be a Beast Master.

People like to pretend that a Valor Bard with Swift Quiver perfectly emulates a Ranger, but it doesn't. Rangers have other features and more than two spells that fit their theme.

The poster brought up beast master, animal friendship works quite well.

The Bard makes a better Ranger than the Ranger for multiple reasons (as they posted) which you seem to be ignoring.

One that I didn't see is that the Bard gets Ranger spells faster :)

[Naanomi]

Expertise + Lore Bard skill boost > limited Expertise + Advantage (which you may have from 'help' action)... Though there are a small number of ranger bonuses hard to replicate with a big Survival roll

[EvilAnagram]

The poster brought up beast master, animal friendship works quite well.
It really doesn't though. Animal Friendship does not provide a scaling beast companion that can help you in combat with absolute precise action. It gives you advantage on Charisma checks with the creature. That's like saying that giving a stray dog a bit of hamburger is as good as a well-trained military dog when it comes to combat.


The Bard makes a better Ranger than the Ranger for multiple reasons (as they posted) which you seem to be ignoring.
The reasons are all terrible, though. Leaving aside his first claim, which I will discuss below, he basically argues that Bards are good at skills at which the Ranger also excels. This is true, but the Ranger tends to be much better at the combat end of things thanks to various features like Fighting Styles and the archetype features. Saying, "but spells probably even them out," is not even an argument. It's a vague supposition.


One that I didn't see is that the Bard gets Ranger spells faster :)
No, he said that. It's one of the first things he said. It's just a terrible argument, that's happens not to be entirely true. Let's look at the two classes:

Ignoring UA, a Valor Bard is the only one that can actually be decent at Ranger things thanks to proficiencies and Extra Attack. Of course, Valor Bards get medium armor proficiency, martial weapon proficiency, and Extra Attack after the Ranger, but by level 6 they both have them, and they both get boosts to wilderness skills. The Ranger has a Fighting Style, which the Bard will never have, but whatevs. The Bard gets all those Ranger spells before the Ranger does, right?

Well, except Absorb Elements, Alarm, Ensnaring Strike, Fog Cloud, Goodberry, Hail of Thorns, Hunter's Mark, Barkskin, Beast Sense, Cordon of Arrows, Darkvision, Find Traps, Pass Without Trace, Spike Growth, Conjure Animals, Daylight, Lightning Arrow, Nondetection, Protection from Energy, Water Walk, and Wind Wall. Oh, but we'll just say those are the "uninteresting" spells so that we still feel like our point about Bard Rangers still sticks. After all, dismissing all of these without actually examining them make us feel good.

That said, a Bard intent on being a Ranger can get 6 whole Ranger spells from that list, which isn't bad at all. I mean, no one really makes it to 17, so it's more like four. And most campaigns end around 15, so you really only have two Ranger spells for a considerable length of time. And you only get those after you've played through the majority of the campaign, while the lowly Ranger Ranger was using them the whole time, but you still get them. Eventually.

But you get Swift Quiver first! Isn't that something. You might have slightly higher DPS with a bow, and you won't be able to use any of your awesome Bard controller spells!

A Bard that tries to be a Ranger ends up a crappy Bard with a bow. A Ranger that tries to be a Ranger ends up an asset.

[djreynolds]

The ranger is a nice chassis.

The bard is a nice chassis, but why is the bard putting investment into wisdom. He has needs for charisma, dex and con and even intelligence. These skills such as survival are wisdom based, a ranger will have a higher wisdom and should have at least a 10-12 in intelligence. I don't see a bard putting big investment into wisdom at the expense of charisma, attack stat, and con.

Yes all of these classes can do what a ranger does, but a ranger should invest in wisdom just for spells. I'm not sure if a bard is, hence the jack of all trades but clearly not a master in the areas because he must max out charisma and those social skills associated with this. As well as arcana and history and stealth.

A bard's prowess is his ability to do the job of the rogue, and cleric, and wizard, and ranger when needed, but he shouldn't be their replacement. If he is just doing the job of the ranger it will be at the expense of what else the party needs him to do.

[R.Shackleford]

The ranger is a nice chassis.

The bard is a nice chassis, but why is the bard putting investment into wisdom. He has needs for charisma, dex and con and even intelligence. These skills such as survival are wisdom based, a ranger will have a higher wisdom and should have at least a 10-12 in intelligence. I don't see a bard putting big investment into wisdom at the expense of charisma, attack stat, and con.

Yes all of these classes can do what a ranger does, but a ranger should invest in wisdom just for spells. I'm not sure if a bard is, hence the jack of all trades but clearly not a master in the areas because he must max out charisma and those social skills associated with this. As well as arcana and history and stealth.

A bard's prowess is his ability to do the job of the rogue, and cleric, and wizard, and ranger when needed, but he shouldn't be their replacement. If he is just doing the job of the ranger it will be at the expense of what else the party needs him to do.

The Bard doesn't need a high investment in Wis to keep up with being able to track.

Expertise is like that.

+0 Wis modifier means that they top out at +12.

Medium needs a 3 on a d20
Hard needs a roll of 8 on a d20
Very Hard needs a roll of 13 on a d20
Nearly Impossible needs a roll of 18

The Bard has access to Owls Wisdom via Enhance Ability. Anytime he wants advantage she has it. Advantage is +3.33.

Medium: 0 on d20
Hard: 5 on d20
Very Hard: 10 on d20
Nearly Impossible: 15 on d20

This is with no investment of Wisdom ASI. A lore bard could give a bump to wisdom or they could eventually gain an 19 Wis magic item.

So for very little investment the Bard can do just as well, or close to it, as the ranger.

Plus not be pained by the "if, if, if," scenario.

The Bard makes a better Ranger than The Ranger

I love the idea of a ranger but 5a hasn't done a great job of making it it's own class. They have turned it into what should be a subclass or a hybrid multiclass.

[djreynolds]

The Bard doesn't need a high investment in Wis to keep up with being able to track.

Expertise is like that.

+0 Wis modifier means that they top out at +12.

Medium needs a 3 on a d20
Hard needs a roll of 8 on a d20
Very Hard needs a roll of 13 on a d20
Nearly Impossible needs a roll of 18

The Bard has access to Owls Wisdom via Enhance Ability. Anytime he wants advantage she has it. Advantage is +3.33.

Medium: 0 on d20
Hard: 5 on d20
Very Hard: 10 on d20
Nearly Impossible: 15 on d20

This is with no investment of Wisdom ASI. A lore bard could give a bump to wisdom or they could eventually gain an 19 Wis magic item.

So for very little investment the Bard can do just as well, or close to it, as the ranger.

Plus not be pained by the "if, if, if," scenario.

The Bard makes a better Ranger than The Ranger

I love the idea of a ranger but 5a hasn't done a great job of making it it's own class. They have turned it into what should be a subclass or a hybrid multiclass.

I cannot deny the math.

Perhaps as I've said before its a romantic view of the ranger. The ranger is a good class, but just seems to lose steam.

Perhaps they should have made a prestige class, ranger, and you could come from any walk of life from bard to barbarian.

[EvilAnagram]

The Bard makes a better Ranger than The Ranger

Except he doesn't, as I explained above. A comparable Ranger gets +11 to those skills, with advantage against his favored enemy, and with numerous advantages in his favored terrain. More importantly, he's better at everything else that encompasses being a Ranger, while the Bard is lagging behind on both being a Ranger and being a Bard.

[Tanarii]

The Bard doesn't need a high investment in Wis to keep up with being able to track.Except for not being able to do things at all that only those with the ranger class features can do while tracking.

[mephnick]

Ranger class abilities are awesome in hex-crawl, exploration based games, which is what the class is designed around. The ranger in my current group is by far the most important member of the party at level 10.

It's not the ranger's fault some people only play poorly written modules or casual campaigns that jump from one scene to the next. If you take any class out of it's specialty it won't be as useful. If I knew a campaign was going to be almost purely combat I wouldn't play a Bard. If I know there won't be much exploration I won't play a Ranger. If I know the game will be a mystery surrounding nobles in a city, I won't play a Barbarian.

This thread is the epitome of theory-craft.

[Temperjoke]

Ranger class abilities are awesome in hex-crawl, exploration based games, which is what the class is designed around. The ranger in my current group is by far the most important member of the party at level 10.

It's not the ranger's fault some people only play poorly written modules or casual campaigns that jump from one scene to the next. If you take any class out of it's specialty it won't be as useful. If I knew a campaign was going to be almost purely combat I wouldn't play a Bard. If I know there won't be much exploration I won't play a Ranger. If I know the game will be a mystery surrounding nobles in a city, I won't play a Barbarian.

This thread is the epitome of theory-craft.

...I dunno, a barbarian out of his element attempting to solve a mystery might be kinda fun...

[EvilAnagram]

...I dunno, a barbarian out of his element attempting to solve a mystery might be kinda fun...

The Adventures of Krog Stouthammer: Gentleman Detective!

[R.Shackleford]

Except for not being able to do things at all that only those with the ranger class features can do while tracking.

And those matter? Part of them only apply when not with party members And the other part "find food" is obsolete in 5e.


I cannot deny the math.

Perhaps as I've said before its a romantic view of the ranger. The ranger is a good class, but just seems to lose steam.

Perhaps they should have made a prestige class, ranger, and you could come from any walk of life from bard to barbarian.

I love the idea of the Ranger. Their fluff is there, their mechanics are sloppy and done better by multiple classes. The bard, as shown by another poster (i just added some math) shows why. The Rogue also does quite well with the whole wilderness tracker. The Fighter does the wilderness fighting better.

The best tracker I've ever seen was a cleric that would use sleight of hand to place items on enemies or allies and use a spell to find that item. Lol


...I dunno, a barbarian out of his element attempting to solve a mystery might be kinda fun...

I like to get expertise (investigation) on my barbarians...

[EvilAnagram]

And those matter? Part of them only apply when not with party members And the other part "find food" is obsolete in 5e.
That's simply not true. There are multiple features that affect the whole group.

[Tanarii]

And those matter? Part of them only apply when not with party members And the other part "find food" is obsolete in 5e.When tracking, only Rangers can determine the exact number, their sizes, and how long ago they passed through the area. That's a huge list of things that no other class can do while tracking. (They get tracking related spells too, but those are accessible to other classes, so that's not something specific to them.

On other non-tracking benefits for the group, not getting slowed by difficult terrain is important. You also can't get lost, which is effectively automatically passing a check, a nice side beni.

If you think find food is obsolete in 5e, you're clearly being biases by the type of game you play. (As am I. See my response below on game types.) However, I will grant there are many ways to address the issue, if that was your point. Spells, a background, even non-Rangers using the survival.


Ranger class abilities are awesome in hex-crawl, exploration based games, which is what the class is designed around. The ranger in my current group is by far the most important member of the party at level 10.

It's not the ranger's fault some people only play poorly written modules or casual campaigns that jump from one scene to the next. If you take any class out of it's specialty it won't be as useful. If I knew a campaign was going to be almost purely combat I wouldn't play a Bard. If I know there won't be much exploration I won't play a Ranger. If I know the game will be a mystery surrounding nobles in a city, I won't play a Barbarian.

This thread is the epitome of theory-craft.yeah that's pretty much my feeling on the matter. I run a combat-as-war sandbox game, with a mix of wilderness of dungeon crawling. That means having a ranger in the group is important. They do tend to be favored as henchmen because as important as Natural Explorer and Favored Enemy are, they *are* limited in scope. But regardless, there's almost always at least one Ranger, PC or Henchman, in a typical party of 10-12. Sometimes two, covering different terrains.

Such large parties, and multiple henchmen for each player (albiet not all coming on each adventure) coveres access to a variety of subclasses, as well as things like mutiple terrains, favored enemies, pact boons, fighting styles. And individual characters, even PCs, don't need to feel as "special" or powerful or even like they're contributing as much as the next guy to the group. They just need to contribute. Even when the party is smaller, it's a sandbox, so characters (and various players) usually choose what adventures they want to get involved in.

A single Ranger in a party of 3 or 4, regularly doing Dungeon or Urban adventures, or out of terrain wilderness ones ... I can see where the sentiment might come from.

[djreynolds]

2 questions and I luv this stuff, just a good conversation on everyone's points. Well argued. IMO, humbly, we are seeing the ranger through our eyes as old friends and we may not be as critical as we should be.

How does expertise work say if a ranger multiclassed with a rogue or bard, in regards to their favored terrain and had expertise is nature and survival from the rogue/bard?

Second, let's assume the bard doesn't really care about ranger skills and is focused on being a bard. The ranger gets the party to the evil castle, through evil orc infested woods. You have a 4 man party going in to do battle.

You can take one more, the bard or ranger?

And last, I really like that UA fighter archetype, the scout. That special "parry" maneuver they have is like combining defensive duelist with uncanny dodge. A ranger could do well to grab 3 levels of this.

[JellyPooga]

How does expertise work say if a ranger multiclassed with a rogue or bard, in regards to their favored terrain and had expertise is nature and survival from the rogue/bard?

Natural Explorer does nothing for the numbers of a Rogue/Bard with Expertise in any relevant skills. Expertise doesn't stack with other multipliers, you just get double proficiency bonus. (NB - I've no official ruling on this, at least, not off the top of my head. That's just how I'd run it). Natural Explorer still gives the more esoteric bonuses (can't get lost, difficult terrain doesn't slow you down, etc.).


Second, let's assume the bard doesn't really care about ranger skills and is focused on being a bard. The ranger gets the party to the evil castle, through evil orc infested woods. You have a 4 man party going in to do battle.

You can take one more, the bard or ranger?

This question is way too subjective to give a solid answer. What are the other 4 members of the party, for starts? Second, why is the Bard being "bardic"? If the purpose is to compare Classes, then great, but if the purpose is to compare which makes the better ranger, then shouldn't the Bard be built as a ranger-style Bard?

I see no reason why the challenge can't start before the orc-infested woods and getting the party to the castle beyond safely and in good time should be a qualifying factor. Who does it fastest, who does it most efficiently, etc.

[Vogonjeltz]

Natural Explorer does nothing for the numbers of a Rogue/Bard with Expertise in any relevant skills. Expertise doesn't stack with other multipliers, you just get double proficiency bonus. (NB - I've no official ruling on this, at least, not off the top of my head. That's just how I'd run it). Natural Explorer still gives the more esoteric bonuses (can't get lost, difficult terrain doesn't slow you down, etc.).



This question is way too subjective to give a solid answer. What are the other 4 members of the party, for starts? Second, why is the Bard being "bardic"? If the purpose is to compare Classes, then great, but if the purpose is to compare which makes the better ranger, then shouldn't the Bard be built as a ranger-style Bard?

I see no reason why the challenge can't start before the orc-infested woods and getting the party to the castle beyond safely and in good time should be a qualifying factor. Who does it fastest, who does it most efficiently, etc.

I forget offhand, but isn't the DM supposed to check routinely for getting lost while traveling?

And foraging is actually kind of a big deal if you notice the water requirements for characters and horses each hour/day. It's actually difficult to carry that much. And only the ranger has a very good chance of feeding themselves and their mount.

[Tanarii]

I forget offhand, but isn't the DM supposed to check routinely for getting lost while traveling?Yes. Assuming the party doesn't have a map or a trail to follow, and assuming the party is moving at regular speed and can't seen the sun or moon or stars, a thick forest is DC 15 Survival check for the party navigator.

If you fail you're spending 1d6 hours before making another check. That's a lot of wandering monster encounter checks in an Orc infested forest. :smallamused:


And foraging is actually kind of a big deal if you notice the water requirements for characters and horses each hour/day. It's actually difficult to carry that much. And only the ranger has a very good chance of feeding themselves and their mount.Foraging is a very big deal. Especially with mounts involved. But also because you'll get ambushed while doing it.

1 lb /gallon for a character, 4 lbs / gallons for a horse. A character making Survival check (DC 10-20 depending on terrain) find 1d6 + Wis mod lbs, and 1d6 + Wis mod gallons. One check, but separate rolls for each amount found. That means to feed and water yourself and your mount, you need a Wis 14+ and to roll the average amount. Or a Wis 18+ to make it automatic (assuming you pass the check). Plus you can't use Passive Perception, so you will automatically be surprised.

The Outlander background allows you to (no check) feed & water five people, but makes no provisions for mounts. But still can't use passive perception and will be automatically surprised.

A ranger with Wis 14 will, on average, feed two people and mounts. Or if no mounts, they can forage enough to feed 2-12+2*Wis people. For most Rangers, that's probably around 8-18 people per day. The ranger can still be looking for danger since they can do two activities at once. One ranger can forage for an entire party, or 2-3 people plus mounts and still use Passive Perception to avoid being surprised. Of course, he could instead automatically navigate, and attempt to forage, and choose to risk being surprised.

Note that the Outlander background overlaps the ranger background. A Outlander Ranger will automatically feed & water at least five if he fails the check, with feed & water 2*(1d6+wis)[Min 5] if he succeeds in the check, and can do another activity while doing it.

Last comment: IMX characters never carry enough water for themselves, let alone mounts. 2 water skins last a character one day. And how often do you see clerics or Druids actually memorize Create or Destroy Water?

Players from Combat-as-Sport games or games where equipment & food/water is hand waved often make me cackle inside when they walk into my game that requires thinking about such things. More meat for the grinder. :smallbiggrin:

[Gwendol]

rangers bring a ton of utility to a party planning on spending time in natural environments, and are excellent scouts and still very good at combat. A well-rounded class.

[Saggo]

Players from Combat-as-Sport games or games where equipment & food/water is hand waved often make me cackle inside when they walk into my game that requires thinking about such things. More meat for the grinder. :smallbiggrin:

You scare me.

[Nifft]

If Aragorn were a D&D character who wasn't a ranger, say a fighter/rogue multi-class, then he could continue to have a motivation where he hates "the enemy" Can you cite Aragorn saying that he hates the people who serve Sauron?


because there is pretty much nothing "evil" in Tolkien that isn't a "servant of the enemy". But which one is his favoured enemy in D&D terms? He has like, six there. The D&D mechanics don't fit. 1) The tree that tries to eat Frodo isn't a servant of the enemy. The barrow-wight isn't a servant of the enemy. The undead army that Aragorn leads were pretty evil, but they sure weren't servants of the enemy.

2) The Men of the South who fought under Sauron's banner weren't any different from the Men of the North. They were just men who got tricked (or mercenaries who got paid).

3) The 1e Ranger's hard-coded list of "giant-class" monsters did cover a lot of this. You're looking at a later edition, and trying to apply its mechanics -- and they don't apply. That's nothing more than a matter of ignorance, and ignorance is easily remedied: take a look at the 1e Ranger, and you'll see that what you're arguing here is not really valid.


Basically, if favoured enemy is supposed to be a model of Aragorn, it doesn't work and hasn't worked for any edition I've read. Thus, the solution is pretty clear: you should go read more editions. Specifically, 1e and earlier.


No. I don't think Aragorn is a scientist disguising his science as magic. That would mean he knows science but is trying to hide it, and that wouldn't fit anything else in the book. Ah, the word "science" confused you.

The meaning that I'm using is: non-magical.

Nobody is claiming that Aragorn is a scientist. That would be very silly. It's kinda sad that I need to explain this, but I guess internet communication can be difficult for some people.


My further claim is that D&D magic and Tolkien magic are really really different, and some Tolkien magic (including this, if it is indeed supposed to be magic and not just traditional medicine) works better in D&D mechanic terms as class abilities rather than actual spells.

So no, I don't think Rangers have a thematic need for spells. Quasi-magical skill extensions, maybe.
- Spells are class abilities.

- Earlier editions have quite a lot of class abilities hidden in spell lists (e.g. Animal Friendship and Find Familiar).

- "Quasi-magical skill extensions" can be modeled using spells. And apparently you think they're partially magical, thus not mundane, and so the spell mechanic is entirely suitable.

So yeah, you basically have no point here, except that you're contradicting your previous assertions.


Yes, that is it exactly. I am as dumb as toast and the more words you throw at me the more likely I am to see the True Rightness of your position.
(those sentences are sarcasm, which means it's time to stop talking to you)
Yes. This is a basic internet right. You're free to rage-quit any conversation that isn't going your way. Good luck out there.

[Nifft]

Favored Enemy, though often characterized as racial hatred, is not actually hatred of a particular thing. It's experience fighting a particular foe that grants an advantage against them, and Aragorn certainly has had a great deal of experience fighting the orcs in the lands formerly of Arnor. Yes, that's exactly my point.

You're answering why he will be unable to cite any such thing.

That is why I am asking him for a citation, it's because I suspect his argument cannot be supported.

(If it can be supported, then that's news to me, and I'm glad to learn it. But I suspect it cannot be supported.)


Wow. You're not great at LotR lore, and your tone belies a self-confidence that seems undeserved.
(...)
Beyond that, calling Aragorn's methods nonmagical simply betrays a lack of understanding of how magic works in Tolkien's world. You really ought to catch up on the discussion before you decide to rip into someone.

He's the one saying that Aragorn is non-magical -- in spite of using magic items and performing spell-like feats, two of which I documented way back here:


Nature-Divine Spells:
"He sat down on the ground, and taking the dagger-hilt laid it on his knees, and he sang over it a slow song in a strange tongue. Then setting it aside, he turned to Frodo and in a soft tone spoke words the others could not catch. From the pouch at his belt he drew out the long leaves of a plant."

... and then in Return of the King:
"I have, maybe, the power to heal her body, and to recall her from the dark valley. But to what she will awake: hope, or forgetfulness, or despair, I do not know. And if to despair, then she will die, unless other healing comes which I cannot bring. Alas! for her deeds have set her among the queens of great renown."

It's explicitly vague as to whether he's casting a spell or not, but the point is that he's someone who performs acts that are either spells, or are on par with Nature-themed Divine spell-casting.

That looks like actions which can be represented by spell mechanics to me.

@EvilAnagram - You're seeing the tail end of an argument with someone who was ... not particularly generous in conversation. Someone who would fixate on one sentence from a paragraph, or one word from a sentence, and then endeavored to misunderstand the rest of the post. So yeah, I'm not super generous to that person in return. I'd much rather have an academic discussion in which we cite the text rather than attack other posters.

[Naanomi]

Exactly EvilAnagram; Aragon knew magic not because he was a ranger, but because he was a Numenorian (Variant Human) who took ritual casting or magic initiate with his starting feat

[EvilAnagram]

Exactly EvilAnagram; Aragon knew magic not because he was a ranger, but because he was a Numenorian (Variant Human) who took ritual casting or magic initiate with his starting feat

The remaining Númenóreans were the Rangers. Or, to be more accurate, the rangers of the North were all Dúnedain, the descendents of Númenór.


snip

My mistake.

[Naanomi]

The remaining Númenóreans were the Rangers. Or, to be more accurate, the rangers of the North were all Dúnedain, the descendents of Númenór.
Exactly, and their mystical abilities, if any, were because of that lineage; NOT because of any special training or experience they had. IE: a factor of race, not class... unless one presumes that the Ranger Class abilities are 'inborn' in the way a Sorcerer's are I suppose, though I doubt most settings would.

[EvilAnagram]

Exactly, and their mystical abilities, if any, were because of that lineage; NOT because of any special training or experience they had. IE: a factor of race, not class... unless one presumes that the Ranger Class abilities are 'inborn' in the way a Sorcerer's are I suppose, though I doubt most settings would.
Their training, experience, and lineage are all part of their abilities. They are inseparable parts of the whole.

[Tanarii]

You scare me.Ha. Combat-as-War is only fun if the players are warned what they're getting in to. But sometimes it can take a character death or two for it to properly sink in.

Still, even in CaW campaigns, in 5e death is harder to come by than in 1e or BECMI BtB games. Once you start to realize you have to plan ahead, pay attention to details, rely on so-called ribbon or flavor abilities, and don't get to have rules hand-waved for convenience (ammunition, food, water, light sources, activities while traveling, marching order, traveling speeds, etc), it's generally survivable.

[Saggo]

Ha. Combat-as-War is only fun if the players are warned what they're getting in to. But sometimes it can take a character death or two for it to properly sink in.

Still, even in CaW campaigns, in 5e death is harin,der to come by than in 1e or BECMI BtB games. Once you start to realize you have to plan ahead, pay attention to details, rely on so-called ribbon or flavor abilities, and don't get to have rules hand-waved for convenience (ammunition, food, water, light sources, activities while traveling, marching order, traveling speeds, etc), it's generally survivable.
It's good that tables are taking advantage of the rules. I think the only one we really don't track is food and water. Your eagerness to throw players through the grinder, sink or swim, is entertaining.

[Nifft]

My mistake.

Would you be so kind as to erase your tirade?

It's rather unkind and inflammatory.


Exactly, and their mystical abilities, if any, were because of that lineage; NOT because of any special training or experience they had. IE: a factor of race, not class... unless one presumes that the Ranger Class abilities are 'inborn' in the way a Sorcerer's are I suppose, though I doubt most settings would.

I used to think that Aragorn might know some bits of Elf magic due to his time spent with those people; of course, his lineage was also affiliated with elves, so that's not necessarily much of a difference.

[Shining Wrath]

Harkening back to Aragorn without the LotR setting specific stuff, and also the way "Ranger" is used in the US Army, I'd say the key thing about the Ranger is:

This is the person who can go into the wilderness alone, fight "evil", and come back alive. There's different ways to meet that goal (hence archetypes), but the basic idea of "functions without help from shops for long periods of time and can take out baddies" is key.

[ZX6Rob]

Harkening back to Aragorn without the LotR setting specific stuff, and also the way "Ranger" is used in the US Army, I'd say the key thing about the Ranger is:

This is the person who can go into the wilderness alone, fight "evil", and come back alive. There's different ways to meet that goal (hence archetypes), but the basic idea of "functions without help from shops for long periods of time and can take out baddies" is key.

I would agree that self-sufficiency is key to the Ranger's deal. One of the things I've always liked about them as a class -- and I feel like this was especially true in 3rd Edition and its derivatives -- was that they were able to survive and contribute in almost any situation or campaign, no matter how dire. They could fight, they knew some helpful magic, they had some skills and knowledge, they could be sneaky... whatever the situation called for, a Ranger could contribute somehow. They were the survivalist's favorite class -- if a Ranger was dumped out in the middle of the forest or the jungle with no gear, she could, with the right abilities and skills, forage for food, put together some primitive weapons, and navigate to where she needed or wanted to go without much of an issue.

The thing is, with 5e designed the way it is, it doesn't take as much to be self-sufficient and ready to go it alone anymore. Any class with the right background can survive in the wild more or less indefinitely (deserts and tundra probably excepted by most DMs, but still), and with the consolidation of skills and the advent of bounded accuracy, it's not as much of an opportunity cost to attain reasonable proficiency in things like stealth and knowledge.

So, with that in mind, I absolutely think that the idea of the lone warrior who can enter the enemy's territory on her own terms and survive there indefinitely as she hunts down her adversary is a great depiction of the classic "Ranger" archetype, I also think that we would need to figure out a way to make that carry a bit more mechanical "oomph" without getting bogged down against specific types and subtypes of enemies in order to carve out a design space in 5th Edition for the class.

[Shining Wrath]

I could almost argue that every Ranger has proficiency in Survival rising to Expertise in their chosen types of wilderness. I also think that giving them D12 / 2D6 HD is not out of line - yes, barbarians have to be tough, but so do Rangers, and for similar reasons.

Tickling at the back of my brain is the idea that there ought to be a Charisma based archetype - a Ranger who, like a Sorcerer, imposes their will upon the universe by sheer force of personality. Not going to write that today, though.

[Tanarii]

The thing is, with 5e designed the way it is, it doesn't take as much to be self-sufficient and ready to go it alone anymore. Any class with the right background can survive in the wild more or less indefinitely (deserts and tundra probably excepted by most DMs, but still), and with the consolidation of skills and the advent of bounded accuracy, it's not as much of an opportunity cost to attain reasonable proficiency in things like stealth and knowledge.Well, 5e is designed with the idea that ALL adventurers are pretty damn good heroes. Some are just better at certain specific things than others, as reflected in their Class Features.

Rangers are better at Foraging, Tracking, Stealthiness and Navigation their chosen terrains than anyone else can be. Even Outlander background just backs up and reinforces foraging for a Ranger. Like Sage's Research, it turns failure on a forage check into success. And in Wanderer's case, establishes a minimum baseline for amount of food found on a success. Wanderer (and for that matter Research with regard to Favored Enemies) creates synergy with a Ranger's area of expertise, it doesn't replace it.

It sounds like your objection is the floor for "Hero" is set too high, which means difference between a baseline hero and an exceptional at something hero is closer together.

[djreynolds]

It is a good class. All the classes are good. Right now at 4th level in Ravenloft our ranger archer is prime member. He can do everything expected of him. Scouting, survival, archery, and healing.

Yes other classes can replicate this, but perhaps at expense of skills I would normally expect of them.

Do I want the bard having expertise in survival at the expense of performance or arcana? It's not whether the bard could, but why, when the Ranger does it?

It is a tough debate because having a ranger in the party allows other classes to focus on other things and the Ranger is still a competent combatant as well.

In defense of the ranger, I know what one has to offer playing a ranger. While the bard can do so much, the party may need him to be that Jack of all trades and cover down on the rogue who died or the healer or the wizard.

[ZX6Rob]

Well, 5e is designed with the idea that ALL adventurers are pretty damn good heroes. Some are just better at certain specific things than others, as reflected in their Class Features.

Rangers are better at Foraging, Tracking, Stealthiness and Navigation their chosen terrains than anyone else can be. Even Outlander background just backs up and reinforces foraging for a Ranger. Like Sage's Research, it turns failure on a forage check into success. And in Wanderer's case, establishes a minimum baseline for amount of food found on a success. Wanderer (and for that matter Research with regard to Favored Enemies) creates synergy with a Ranger's area of expertise, it doesn't replace it.

It sounds like your objection is the floor for "Hero" is set too high, which means difference between a baseline hero and an exceptional at something hero is closer together.

Hmm... I dunno', I totally see where you're coming from, I guess I just don't think that what they are super-good at is enough to hang a whole class on, and they end up feeling a little generic compared to some of the others. Your mileage may vary, but I'd like to see them also have a more unique role in combat based on their class features, like most of the other classes do. Maybe I'm focused too much on that.

[Tanarii]

I'd like to see them also have a more unique role in combat based on their class features, like most of the other classes do. Maybe I'm focused too much on that. special attack and defenses vs types of enemies (Hunter), or zone area control and special attack modes (Beastmaster), is a fairly unique role. They actually are better at being generally applicable in combat than both their combat counterparts, the Rogue and Monk, even though they still have a niche they excel and are unique in.

Also, they're a skills character, not just a combat character. If a unique blend of combat, skills and spells isn't unique enough for you, I'm not sure what will be. I mean you can come close by multiclassing Fighter/Rogue/Druid, say 5/5/10, with the Outlander background. But I'm not sure that'd really satisfy a Ranger player. Especially since they'd have to choose extra attack, expertise OR Spells as they leveled. Not some of each.

[JellyPooga]

Tickling at the back of my brain is the idea that there ought to be a Charisma based archetype - a Ranger who, like a Sorcerer, imposes their will upon the universe by sheer force of personality. Not going to write that today, though.

Funny how the Bard makes this tickling idea a reality. If Aragorn was a 5ed character, he'd be a ranger-esque Half-Elf Valour Bard IMO. High Charisma (seriously, he's dating the hottest chick currently alive in Middle Earth), Expertise in Survival, Proficiency with weapons and armour, competent melee/ranged fighter (not the best though), works well in a team or alone and access to "magic" through the power of songs...

...hail to the King, baby.

[Falainothiras]

[QUOTE=Tanarii;20673381
A Ranger with appropriate Natural Explorer is the most important class to have in any sandbox, unless it's going to be a Megadungeon or City sandbox. If you don't have one as a PC, hire a damn NPC. They're that powerful.[/QUOTE]

Although you could build the 2e Ranger Kit for the urban ranger if the DM could make allowances on favoured terrain (dungeons, cities) and the appropriate skills.

I'll have to agree that for me the Ranger is the Aragorn/2e Ranger. I believe that a big factor that influences the archetype of the Beast Ranger is World of Warcaft, which pretty much solidified the idea that a Ranger has a companion pet.

[djreynolds]

I think the problem is not the classes. Take a second and really here me out.

It used to be you played a fighting man, and he could have been a ranger, or knight, or man-at-arms, or barbarian. He was still a fighting man but it was your imagination that specialized him. A fighter with bows and leather armor is a ranger. A fighter is heavy armor with a mount is a knight.

Then 1st edition came out, and you could be a fighting man, but now we had available rangers, paladins, monks, druids and in order to play these classes you had ability prerequisites you had to fulfill or you played a fighter or cleric. The bard was a class that required time spent as a fighter, thief, and wizard. If you got to play a ranger or paladin only if you rolled well, it was a special class.

Then 2nd edition came out as we tried to make these classes- ranger, paladin, and bard etc. Regular classes like the fighter.
And I think this is where the trouble came.

Same in 3rd edition, rangers and paladins weren't subsets of the fighter anymore but were equals. And then we had prestige classes, a discussion for another time.

For me, humbly, in trying to make classes equals we diminished the ranger and made the paladin awesome. I really feel the ranger and paladin maybe should have been an archetype that the fighter could select or even the rogue. A player could select rogue or fighter and have available to them the ranger archetype, the rouge/ranger would be more focused on stealth and skills and the fighter/ranger would be more combat orientated. A cleric or fighter could be a paladin and again focused on combat or divine, etc.

The bard class is another class that could've been an archetype of the rogue, sorcerer, or fighter. If you were a fighter you could select valor bard.

Perhaps 5E tried to squeeze in too much, just look at the eldritch knight vs valor bard, very similar but IMO the valor bard's full caster progression and magic secrets is a bigger boon.

The problem with the ranger class is that is comes as a stealthy scout but with no other options. You can multiclass, but that is not an option. You can upgrade via feats to obtain heavy armor, but there is no archetype say marauder, who specializes in big weapon main-line fighting.

Whereas other classes, like the barbarian can be a marauder or stealthy tracker or a tank.

The ranger feels to me, like it should be an archetype that a rogue, fighter, even barbarian could select, heck even a druid. For early levels the ranger as an archer or even TWF is very good, but loses steam honestly. As a paladin or bard I do not feel the need to ever multiclass, but ranger is one class that does make one at least look at other classes when it comes time to level up.

[Kane0]

-Snip-

I think UA cracked onto the same idea with the scout and cavalier fighter subclasses. There's merit to the idea, the scout is for some more ranger than the ranger is, especially when paired with the outlander background.

Anyways, i've never really thought one feature makes the ranger. It's always been part fighter, part nature caster and part skilled. Kind of like how the bard started off as Fighter-Thief-Mage the ranger started off as fighter-thief-druid with different aspects emphasized in different editions. When I did my rework I made one subclass each to focus on parts previous rangers incorporated (Favored enemy/terrain, animal companion, casting) but ran into the problem where as a half caster he would always have that where it should probably be an option alongside the survivalist/beastmaster archetypes. Its hard to place your finger on, and even harder to balance properly when theres so much people focus on within its niche (which admittedly is not as broad as other classes).

[djreynolds]

I think UA cracked onto the same idea with the scout and cavalier fighter subclasses. There's merit to the idea, the scout is for some more ranger than the ranger is, especially when paired with the outlander background.

Anyways, i've never really thought one feature makes the ranger. It's always been part fighter, part nature caster and part skilled. Kind of like how the bard started off as Fighter-Thief-Mage the ranger started off as fighter-thief-druid with different aspects emphasized in different editions. When I did my rework I made one subclass each to focus on parts previous rangers incorporated (Favored enemy/terrain, animal companion, casting) but ran into the problem where as a half caster he would always have that where it should probably be an option alongside the survivalist/beastmaster archetypes. Its hard to place your finger on, and even harder to balance properly when theres so much people focus on within its niche (which admittedly is not as broad as other classes).

Genius.

I think there should be a 3rd archetype that focuses on casting and skills. We often allow our ranger bonus known spells pertaining to his terrain. Desert ranger, here is find water or whatever. Underdark ranger here is a double darkvision for you and a buddy. No combat spells but for a coastline ranger, water breathing is cool to have. Could even use the land druid list.

They all still get 2 attacks, but now this ranger can focus on the tracking and skills.

Now you have a hunter, a beastmaster, and a ultra survivalist. Maybe they get 3 skills at third and expertise like the bard and rogue.
And if ranger is unsure, dip the UA scout.

[Tanarii]

When I did my rework I made one subclass each to focus on parts previous rangers incorporated (Favored enemy/terrain, animal companion, casting) but ran into the problem where as a half caster he would always have that where it should probably be an option alongside the survivalist/beastmaster archetypes. Its hard to place your finger on, and even harder to balance properly when theres so much people focus on within its niche (which admittedly is not as broad as other classes).i can see reworking the archetypes to make Hunter Archetype or Fighting Style force features the base for the class, and 1/3 caster a archetype. Maybe buff up Favored Enemy into combat bonuses in the process.

It'd certainly feel more old school that way. Problem is, IMO it'd really be in danger of making the Ranger feel like "Fighter with stuff layered on top" if done wrong, like the UA Scout was.

[Kane0]

Could make the Ranger a 1/3 caster by default, and have three subclasses (Hunter, Beastmaster, Caster). Basics of all three in the base class, you choose which one to focus on as your subclass.
Might be v3 of my rework when i get the time to work it out properly.

[djreynolds]

Could make the Ranger a 1/3 caster by default, and have three subclasses (Hunter, Beastmaster, Caster). Basics of all three in the base class, you choose which one to focus on as your subclass.
Might be v3 of my rework when i get the time to work it out properly.

I think you could leave it 1/2 caster for all of them.

The caster ranger would get some more skills at 3rd, more known spells like a land druid, even something akin to expertise for all skills in the chosen area not just wisdom and intelligence based ones. And he's still getting a fighting style and another attack. We could even throw in some wizard spells, illusion, divination, etc, like they got in 1E

[JohnStone]

I have not read the whole thread but i would like to chime in. ZX''s idea of the Ranger's niche being an animal companion is great and exactly what i would do to fix the class. For all the reasons ZX mentions...the individual classes should have a base (before archetype) concept such as Sneak attack or Wild Shape. I also notice most classes really get their Niche at 2nd level...so at first level give the ranger his Favored enemy/terrain (somehow make it more relevent, perhaps something like Hunters mark)
at second level give him his companion. probably a bonus action to attack with it. that evolves as the ranger levels.
at 3rd level he needs archetypes
1) Hunter- companion continues to evolve along the same path and the ranger gets better at combat skills
2) beastmaster- the companion gets buffed up and the ranger evolves along normal path
3) Warden- the ranger gets 1/3 casting from druid/ranger list similar to the EK or AT.

just my 2 cents

[djreynolds]

Perhaps beast master could just get the conjure animal spell before 9th level, say at 7th.

[EvilAnagram]

Perhaps beast master could just get the conjure animal spell before 9th level, say at 7th.

Conjure animal is strictly worse than their beast companion.

[ZX6Rob]

I have not read the whole thread but i would like to chime in. ZX''s idea of the Ranger's niche being an animal companion is great and exactly what i would do to fix the class. For all the reasons ZX mentions...the individual classes should have a base (before archetype) concept such as Sneak attack or Wild Shape. I also notice most classes really get their Niche at 2nd level...so at first level give the ranger his Favored enemy/terrain (somehow make it more relevent, perhaps something like Hunters mark)
at second level give him his companion. probably a bonus action to attack with it. that evolves as the ranger levels.
at 3rd level he needs archetypes
1) Hunter- companion continues to evolve along the same path and the ranger gets better at combat skills
2) beastmaster- the companion gets buffed up and the ranger evolves along normal path
3) Warden- the ranger gets 1/3 casting from druid/ranger list similar to the EK or AT.

just my 2 cents

Originally, my thought was to keep spellcasting as a part of the base class, but I think in retrospect, I think I like pushing it into the subclass. "Spell-less Ranger" seems to be one of the most requested archetypes in almost every edition. I'd probably do subclasses 1, 2, and 3, very similar to how you've laid them out, possibly adding a 4th type that focuses on the animal companion as a shaman totem with magic powers of some kind. Then, I'd take the Underdark Stalker from UA, make it an official subclass, and use that and the Hunter version and offer those up with the existing Ranger as Ranger Classic. So, you'd have two Ranger classes, the existing one with one archetype replaced, and the new one with a pet focus. Players could use either one, depending on what they want from the class, and we'd just ditch the existing Beastmaster class as a fun experiment that didn't really pan out.

[djreynolds]

Conjure animal is strictly worse than their beast companion.

Well that just burst my bubble.

I still like the ranger, and dips in the UA scout and rogue is worth it IMO

[Nifft]

I could almost argue that every Ranger has proficiency in Survival rising to Expertise in their chosen types of wilderness. I also think that giving them D12 / 2D6 HD is not out of line - yes, barbarians have to be tough, but so do Rangers, and for similar reasons.

When I saw that 5e was going to use a 1e-ish / oD&D-esque "hit dice" mechanic in place of 4e's Healing Surges, my immediate thought was that they'd get good value out of just copy-pasting the 1e Ranger's HD mechanic.

Specifically:
- 2d8 at level 1
- 1d8 at every future level

That would be a significant perk during levels 1-4, a decent ribbon at levels 5-10, and not really matter in terms of balance after level 10.

- - -

Regarding terrain & wilderness survival, I think unfortunately the most appropriate perk was stuffed into the Backgrounds section (specifically, the Wanderer feature of the Outlander background).

My fix for that would be:
- Give all characters who start level 1 as a Ranger the Wanderer perk.
- Give all Backgrounds a choice of at least 2 perks so classes can steal one perk from a Background without making any combos invalid.

[EvilAnagram]

Well that just burst my bubble.

I still like the ranger, and dips in the UA scout and rogue is worth it IMO

I'm a big fan of the Ranger, too. The only real problem with the class is how damage scales after level 11, imo.

[Tanarii]

My fix for that would be:
- Give all characters who start level 1 as a Ranger the Wanderer perk.
The wanderer perk is usually worse than just having survival proficiency and a decent (14+) wisdom for foraging. It's a fail safe, in case you miss your check to forage, or roll low on your forage amount. Although not having to check to avoid getting lost is very nice. It's okay for non Rangers, but not crazy awesome. Perfect as a perk IMO.

For rangers in their natural explorer terrain, it's close to useless. It's a minor foraging fail safe just in case they somehow fail their check, but that's unlikely for a ranger in NE terrain. And they'll always find more food if they make the check. Plus they never get lost already. Rangers don't really benefit that much from Wanderer. It's typically better to take something else.

I put Wanderer in the same category as other backgrounds/features that are 'mimics a class but worse, and subtly different so the class they mimic still gets some benefit': Entertainer, False Identify, Researcher, Urchin

[djreynolds]

I just watched the new POINT BREAK. I miss Mr. Swayze. But still a fun movie, if you are a fan of extreme sports. Like free climbing.

But the movie got me thinking, 90% of the action didn't involve combat. It involved getting to point A to point B, pardon the double pun. They had to navigate mountains and rivers and cliff faces

The ranger as a whole has the skills to be good in most environments that a party is going to explore and adventure in. They are still viable combatants.

I prefer to either let rangers just prepare spells or give extra known spells per their favored terrain, so they can have all their combat spells.

And I was watching TWO TOWERS, this got me to thinking just how powerful volley could be if a ranger could catch up and plan an ambush on a large platoon size element that was unaware, and moving fast, and not disciplined in "grenade range". Volley could be very powerful.

A ranger is obviously out of his element in a dungeon, castle, or wizards tower. But that's the game. The wizard, low level especially, is out of his element traveling in the woods.

I know a lot of times, traveling from a village to another village can just be the DM saying, "you traveled 8 hours and took a long rest." But some DMs aside from rolling random monsters, is enforcing encumbrance rules, exhaustion, etc. In this dangerous environment, its nice to have a ranger.

And as ranger, you can always dip an easily obtainable level of rogue for 2 skills to have expertise in and an extra skill proficiency.

So for those of you who like living the adventure and all of its facets, the ranger is great. He gets free languages, possibly a beast that be changed out to better suit the environment you need to scout in, 2 attacks, archery style which I recommend even if the bow is not your primary attack method.

Its the same thing in a dungeon in terms of combat, the rogue may scout ahead of the party and stop and come back and tell the fighter enemies are ahead. And now the fighter is going to do his job.

[darkdragoon]

the thing is most of their abilities are tied to the same theme of specificity while the other classes are generally less tunnel vision and/or have some sort of alternate use or limited recovery if they guess wrong. If a Sorcerer picks 1 too many fireballs he can turn it into points. Clerics and Paladins have another channel if there's nothing to turn and the latter can convert all his spells into more damage. Warlocks might lose their biggest gun for the day but their other spells refresh. A Battlemaster is limited if he burns all his dice on one huge Action Surge but at least he gets 1 back in the next fight.

Now back in the day Favored Enemy was quite large (even now +20 damage per hit would be pretty significant) and the category was ambiguous enough to cover a lot of enemies. A quick 'n dirty might be changing enemy, terrain, and Hunter choices during extended rest, and maybe recovering a spell because you found some herbs/berries or used the campfire to get some fire arrows ready just i case.

[Naanomi]

One struggle I see with the ranger is the theme of 'self sufficiency' comes up a lot... In a game that punishes that sort of thing. 'Don't split the party' is adventuring 101; and as much as conceptually the guy who has all the tools to make it on his own is neat (and as an NPC can serve a great narrative purpose), in game no one is going to send a party member off on a solo adventure to deliver a vital message or find the entrance to the cavern of doom while the rest gather an army... Or if they do they undertand that means that there are stints of boredom awaiting everyone involved

[Tanarii]

'Don't split the party' is adventuring 101;
Is it? I rarely run a session without the party splitting for at least a little while. And the most common reason is so someone can scout ahead. Rangers (along with Monks and Rogues) are excellent at that, especially for extended solo scouting.

[R.Shackleford]

Is it? I rarely run a session without the party splitting for at least a little while. And the most common reason is so someone can scout ahead. Rangers (along with Monks and Rogues) are excellent at that, especially for extended solo scouting.

I have this link saved on my phone for when players attempt to split the party.

https://youtu.be/waa2ucfgVgQ

Lyrics version https://youtu.be/k6y4XYxhA-o

[Tanarii]

I have this link saved on my phone for when players attempt to split the party.
depends on party size too. If it's ten people, then a split is far more viable than if it's four. And doesn't make me cackle inside quite as much. Sadly.

And despite what I said above, scouting usually isn't an extended thing, it's typically more of a ranging ahead thing.

[R.Shackleford]

depends on party size too. If it's ten people, then a split is far more viable than if it's four. And doesn't make me cackle inside quite as much. Sadly.

And despite what I said above, scouting usually isn't an extended thing, it's typically more of a ranging ahead thing.

I'm just sure 10 member parties are a norm... -_-

Extended or not, you don't split the party.

[Tanarii]

I'm just sure 10 member parties are a norm... -_-about average. 8-12, including henchmen.

[R.Shackleford]

about average. 8-12, including henchmen.

Right sure, I'm done :)

[Kane0]

I regularly game with 6, and 9 in another group. Summons, pets and other NPCs can increase it from time to time.
It can be a nightmare for the DM at times, split or no.

[R.Shackleford]

I regularly game with 6, and 9 in another group. Summons, pets and other NPCs can increase it from time to time.
It can be a nightmare for the DM at times, split or no.

But to say that this is the norm is...out there, to say the least.