What does "ranger" mean to you?

[LTwerewolf]

I'm in the process of essentially rewriting all of the classes (as part of a larger system overhaul project which is vague at best right now), and came to making up a list of the classes I intend to do. I came to the ranger and thought to myself "there is a LOT of content here in this one class." So I was wondering: what exactly does the class mean to you? Is it an archer? A two weapon fighter? A two handed fighter? What does being a ranger mean to you that is uniquely it, and what parts of it do you see having in common with other archetypes?

[Afgncaap5]

To me, a ranger is someone who embodies the dividing line between states, typically wilderness and civilization. They know how to survive in the woods, but they also know how to melt into the shadows in a dark alley. They happen to know a lot of things that will come in handy, be it shortcuts that allow you to get around the empire's blockade or secret remedies for unholy blights.

Effectively, they're the ones who are prepared, whether that be prepared for contingent situations or prepared to do the hard or unpleasant things necessary for the "greater good" (or at least their own survival.)

[AvatarVecna]

First and foremost, rangers are survivalists: they are, in essence, a mundane individual who has proceeded to dominate nature in their own particular way. Obviously, learning to give nature the middle finger by learning to survive its harshest environments is part of being a ranger, or at least surviving the environment you're most familiar with; similarly, because only the strongest survives, you must hunt for food, and through endless training and experience, you've learned tricks about hunting a very particular kind of prey. A ranger is a skilled warrior with a focus on personal survival.

[TheIronGolem]

I don't see rangers as being married, concept-wise, to any particular type of weapon. The two-weapon thing is a bizarre extrapolation from one freaking line from LOTR, and I don't even know where the archery thing came from (unless everybody just mistook the "range" part of "ranger").

I do see rangers as being particularly suited to practical survival skills, self-sufficiency, and asymmetric/guerrilla-style warfare. Traps, ambush tactics, skirmishing, that sort of thing.

Come to think of it, PF's Slayer is more of a Ranger than most Ranger classes I've encountered.

[Sayt]

Rangers are, as you've said, a very broad concept. At their core defaults: I think they're irregular soldiers, rather than a line infantryman. They are an outdoorsbeing, and comfortable in solitude, or with limited company. Even if not well-educated or unusually intelligent, they tend to be cunning, dedicated and observant; able to learn and discern weaknesses and spot minutia.

[Troacctid]

WotC did a market research survey (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/november-2015-survey) on this very recently, actually. Here were the results they released:


In our last survey, we asked a number of questions about the ranger class overall and an example of a new ranger class built from scratch, featuring levels one through five. The class was an attempt to get to the root of the dissatisfaction we’ve seen with the ranger, and determine what changes (if any) we should make to the class in the future.

There are two, interesting elements that emerge from the survey. To start with, the 2nd and 3rd edition versions of the ranger were the most well received versions of the class. Those two versions mixed an animal companion with wilderness skills, spellcasting, and a unique fighting style focused on wielding two weapons. 3rd edition added an archery option. They seem to match closest with the ratings given to the design direction outlined in the ranger article. The concept of the wilderness champion and defender along the lines of a paladin isn’t very popular, but people do like a ranger who can survive in the wilderness through a combination of skill and magical abilities.

Given that background, it’s no surprise that a ranger class that de-emphasizes magic and lacks a full-time, in-the-flesh animal companion received fairly poor ratings.

So according to most respondents, the core elements of the ranger class are the animal companion, wilderness skills, spellcasting, and combat style. If I were you, those would be the aspects I'd try to focus on in my rework of the class.

[Sayt]

WotC did a market research survey (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/november-2015-survey) on this very recently, actually. Here were the results they released:



So according to most respondents, the core elements of the ranger class are the animal companion, wilderness skills, spellcasting, and combat style. If I were you, those would be the aspects I'd try to focus on in my rework of the class.

That's...actually kinda disappointing, I've had ideas bouncing around in my head for a Paladin/Ranger PRC that focused on the wilderness champion kinda thing.

[LTwerewolf]

A little more on what I'm doing: I'm putting classes in overarching groups. For example Paladin, Reaver (dark knight type), and Crusader are all under the overarching group "knights."

If there are enough concepts, I intend to make ranger an overarching group rather than a single class.

[Sliver]

To me, Ranger is a constantly reincarnating ex-mortal cursed to fight Uruks.

[Stormbow]

♫ Home... Home on the range... Where the deer and the antelope play... ♫

I always visualize Rangers as wanderers, never really settling down in one place and not likely to be someone who owns a castle over a bedroll. I'd say they could build a wall out of logs, but not a wall out of stone bricks, which I think is an extremely fine line to make a difference with and most people don't see there's a difference.

When I've played Rangers in games, they've all followed this same sort of premise and haven't been long within cities or towns, only ever long enough to get the job done-- whether it's resupply or quest-related --and they're off into the wild again as soon as they can. I say Rangers should get along better with animals than people, but that doesn't mean they can't be a functional, important, and necessary part of a group of adventurers.

[BowStreetRunner]

The origin of the term ranger is generally accepted to derive from the concept of one who ranges over a region. The common definition in this usage is that of a 'keeper, guardian, or soldier who ranges over a region (generally of wilderness) to protect the area or enforce the law.' 1 (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ranger) A common misconception is that the term relates to the use of ranged weapons.

For myself, I like the way Tolkien portrayed the Rangers of Middle Earth, who were essentially the heirs to the Númenórean legacy watching over the lands against the forces of evil. I also like to think of the way the Yeomanry of Britain were portrayed in the Robin Hood stories, even though that story focused on a group of outlaws.

I think where cities and towns have their own defenders, as long as the ranger is equipped to handle the spaces between settlements - whatever sort of region this might be depending on fantasy setting - then the class suits the campaign. In many cases this would be someone travelling the wilderness, but if the land were more tame it might be more of a rural sort of setting than true wilderness. This would be similar to the way municipalities in the United States have police officers and the surrounding counties have sheriff's deputies. In an archipelago the rangers would be sailors travelling the sea-lanes between civilized areas.

[Ashtagon]

For me, a ranger involves the following ideas:

* Ranged combat specialist. None of this twf nonsense.
* excels at survivalist/outdoor skills.
* Animal companion is probable, but not required.
* Either spellcasting or a menu of knacks that duplicate most of the less-flashy spells conventionally available in 2e/3e.

[Bullet06320]

A ranger is a woodsman, a survivor, a frontiersman, usually a marksman, guerilla fighter, a tracker among other things. sometimes a military scout, sometimes an outlaw. sometimes its cultural, say many native american tribes, if used in a game, ranger would be appropriate, or mounted scouts in the case of the plains tribes
some iconic rangers would be Robin Hood, Davey Crocket, Robert Rogers, Daniel Boone, Jubal Sackett, Hawkeye from Last of the Mohicans. look at the history of the America, many of the frontiersman that settled this country and many of the native tribes that lived with the land would be what personifies a ranger to me
I'm not a big fan of spellcasting rangers, but wildscape https://www.amazon.com/Legends-Lairs-Wildscape-Various/dp/1589941527/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&qid=1467871040&sr=8-13&keywords=Legends+%26+Lairs has options for spell less rangers and different fighting styles, that see's some use at my table

[Troacctid]

In my opinion, if you want a spell-less ranger, that's what scout is for. Spells are a core part of the ranger's identity.

[LTwerewolf]

In my opinion, if you want a spell-less ranger, that's what scout is for. Spells are a core part of the ranger's identity.

All classes are being scrapped and remade. Scout is not a thing for the purposes of this discussion.

[Ashtagon]

In my opinion, if you want a spell-less ranger, that's what scout is for. Spells are a core part of the ranger's identity.

For my purposes, my ranger class has killed the scout and taken his stuff.

[Satinavian]

For me it is wilderness, shooting, some supernatural abilities.

[D.M.Hentchel]

To me the defining concept of the ranger is never being caught with "his pants down" so to speak. He should be equiped with scouting and diverse (but likely unspecialized) methods of fighting. He shoulf have means for fighting all but the most resistant foes and the capacity to patch himself up afterwards.

There should never be a "hard counter" to a ranger, but the ranger sacrifices over-all power for this his niche to me is always awarness and information gathering.

[Seppo87]

For me, the Ranger is primarily a mundane hunter that dwells in the wild.

The Slayer hybrid class from pathfinder is the closest we've got so far.
The Scout from 3.5 is also a very good take on it, although fundamentally different.

So, basically:
-remove spells entirely
-good at stealth, scouting and tracking, especially in the wilderness
-high skill points
-can fight in frontline but excels at ambushes

Class options should include spells, animal companion and fighting prowess, at the cost of reduced ambush and skill proficiency.
Class variants should include an urban themed ranger that dwells in the cities and hunts humanoids, acting as a vigilante, bounty hunter, investigator or professional hitman.

This is just how I see it anyway, it's my personal preference.

[gooddragon1]

Someone who survives in the wilds and is able to use them for tactical advantages more than a more professionally trained soldier. Robin hood and his merry men were not soldiers in some of the stories. However, they knew how to use the wilderness to beat professional soldiers.

[BWR]

Someone who knows how to get along in the wilderness but does not necessarily have the same love and reverence for it that a druid does. Mystical abilities are not particularly important to my vision of the ranger.
Hunting and foraging abilities, tracking, traps and snares, ability to read the weather, stealthy, various other wilderness survival skills, decent fighting ability but not tied to or defined by any particular weapon or style, though ranged weapons are far more common than melee - it's easier to hunt with a bow or thrown spear than a sword.

A hardy frontiersman, a military scout trained for long-range reconnaissance, a noble who enjoys hunting and fishing and camping and the rugged outdoors life, a poor sod scraping living out in the wild, a nomadic tribesman, Tarzan.

More specifically D&D, the animal companion is an important but not necessary part of the ranger archetype. I much preferred the 2e version where it was a perfectly normal animal that for whatever reason liked to hang around rather than the immensely powerful beasts you got in 3.x. I understand the changes from a mechanical perspective since without it animal companions would die all the time and never be of much use (though my experience with ACs is that they die just about every session anyway), but I'm still not overly fond of it.

[Herobizkit]

Nature Ninja.

Wild Elves (Grugach; see earlier editions of D&D) exemplify a Ranger lifestyle to me.

[Barstro]

At its core, my idea of a Ranger is someone who would probably never be part of a party and most of his strengths involves weaknesses of other classes that are typically handwaved.

A Ranger is;
1) Someone who can survive in a type of terrain indefinitely.
a) He can always find food, water, shelter
b) He can track prey and prevent predators from tracking him
c) He is an expert at simple/natural traps

2) As a cause or effect of the above, he shies away from cities
a) At most, he comes to civilization to sell extras of what he has picked up in order to purchase things he cannot gather on his own.
b) The terrains he stays in cannot support a great density of people; it probably takes a good 50 acres of land to support a single person, so he cannot just take on other people.
c) He knows the land can support more if he puts down roots and starts farming, but that would open he up to attacks from bandits, beasts, and monsters. So, he uses only temporary structures.

3) His knowledge is very focused, but very deep
a) He knows his terrain better than anyone can from reading books
b) He knows the creatures in his terrain just as well
c) He has almost no knowledge outside of that

Classic modern Rangers would be lone heroes of Louis L'amour books.

THAT is my Ranger at his core. In a world of magic, most of that is useless. My Ranger is basically an NPC because playing him is uninteresting.

BUT, if you ignore the title "Ranger", I do enjoy playing the outdoor fighter who dabbles in magic and has an animal companion. I just think that type of character's motivation is more like a melee Druid or a warrior from a nomad tribe.

[Psyren]

* Ranged combat specialist. None of this twf nonsense.


Honestly though, I can see why they would. When in melee they would emulate meleeing animals, and many animal weapons come in pairs - two claws, two fangs/canines, two forehooves, two pincers, two mandibles, two horns, two antlers. So Rangers leaning towards TWF styles isn't that far fetched for their class identity.

[OldTrees1]

Ranger:
Take the Rogue skill set (Stealth, Social, City, Scouting, Traps, Sneaky/Tricky Combat)
-City +Wilderness
-Social +Nature
+Option to trade sneaky/tricky combat for more martial combat

So
Ranger skill set: Stealth, Wilderness, Nature, Scouting, Traps, & Stealth/Tricky Combat OR Martial Combat


Just as a Guild Thief can keep you safe in a city, a Ranger can keep you safe in the Wild, and both can help keep you safe in a trapped ruin.

[AvatarVecna]

Honestly though, I can see why they would. When in melee they would emulate meleeing animals, and many animal weapons come in pairs - two claws, two fangs/canines, two forehooves, two pincers, two mandibles, two horns, two antlers. So Rangers leaning towards TWF styles isn't that far fetched for their class identity.

If the core part of your idea for the Ranger is "emulates nature", sure. If the core part of your idea for the ranger is "survivalist hunter", efficient fighting styles are the ones that make sense, and dual-wielding is far from efficient. Now, archery generally sucks for adventurers (since they'll face creatures with DR or magic more often), but most of the things that make archery suck are problems that don't come up as much for your "Average Joe" hunter.

[Barstro]

If the core part of your idea for the ranger is "survivalist hunter", efficient fighting styles are the ones that make sense, and dual-wielding is far from efficient.
Depends on where the fights occur and what the objective is.

IMO, a Ranger in thick woods would never allow his movement to be hampered by a shield or two-handed weapon. There might be too much brush to effectively swing a sword. Frankly, I think the more common Ranger would not normally come across anything larger than a knife anyway (few nomadic woodsmen have smithies set up). Tactics would generally be to hunt from range, or else get close and do as much damage as possible in as short a time as possible. Stab, Stab, Flee seems pretty worthwhile.

However, given the combat rules as they are, then I agree that dual-wielding doesn't make sense. But I think that's because the rules could use some tweaking, not because two knives is a poor strategy.

[Psyren]

If the core part of your idea for the Ranger is "emulates nature", sure. If the core part of your idea for the ranger is "survivalist hunter", efficient fighting styles are the ones that make sense, and dual-wielding is far from efficient. Now, archery generally sucks for adventurers (since they'll face creatures with DR or magic more often), but most of the things that make archery suck are problems that don't come up as much for your "Average Joe" hunter.

I see both as core concepts, and they aren't necessarily at odds either. Perhaps it is emulating nature to such a degree (even down to fighting style) that helps gives those Rangers who do so access to their extraordinary and supernatural power - whether by "pleasing" some form of fey spirit/natural consensus/other primal benefactor, or perhaps just doing so wholeheartedly puts them in the right mindset to properly commune or become one with nature. In either case, the result would be the same - doing so would in fact be highly efficient, because few things in D&D are more beneficial to have in one's arsenal than magic. All of a ranger's combat styles can be viewed through this lens, with nature itself not particularly caring which you go with as long as you pick one to emulate with your whole being.

And yes, TWF being bad has more to do with the game making it inefficient in execution, than the style itself being unworkable conceptually.

[Seppo87]

If the core part of your idea for the Ranger is "emulates nature", sure. If the core part of your idea for the ranger is "survivalist hunter", efficient fighting styles are the ones that make sense, and dual-wielding is far from efficient.
This is either a meta-game , or a meta-lore (historical, realistic etc) consideration.

In the fantasy setting of Dungeons and Dragons, TWF is efficient. The rules just fail to reflect that.

[trikkydik]

A ranger is someone who is born out of hate. someone who hates a race of beings so much that it consumes him. he has a select amount of races he wants to exterminate.

A ranger's favorite target is that target's worst nightmare.
(Though if i had to revamp the ranger, i would give him way more benefits to fighting favored enemies.) add INT modifier to all dice rolls against favored enemy.

He rides on a rabid, dire badger to swiftly kill his enemies. Together he and his animal companion slay whatever hated enemies are within reach.

There is nowhere his hated enemies can hide, for he is the perfect tracker, and assassin. He is the master of ranged and melee combat. If his magic arrows don't kill you, his magic great sword will.

He hides in plain sight, evades attacks, has blindfight, and many other skills/feats.

High Dexterity and intelligence. (Because i would always make his Spell modifier INT, never WIS. because it doesn't fit the Rangers MO. With regard to tracking, the skill 'survival' is NOT the skill to be used. instead use 'Search' Which is intelligence based.)

He Casts remove disease, cure wounds, tree stride, animal growth, nondetection, summon nature's ally, and a bunch of other spells that have everything to do with nature and transmutation.

Also give him more access to skills, like a rogue does.

hope that helps

[Barstro]

I disagree with most of what you say, but that's just our difference of opinion/preference and I'd be happy to play your concept to level 20. But there is one aspect that I just think is wrong.


High Dexterity and intelligence. (Because i would always make his Spell modifier INT, never WIS. because it doesn't fit the Rangers MO.
IMO, Rangers are the epitome of knowledge gained through experience and understanding as opposed to rote memorization. They do not know or care that the greenish tint to the impending clouds comes from a specific light wave pattern, or that such a cloud was last seen on a different continent three winters ago. No; he just knows that the cloud is poison and he should keep shelter. He likewise does not know why, but fully understands that, two weeks after those rains come the seven-year-pepper plants will begin to bloom.

I consider them wise to the very core and would make that one of the top stats.

[Ashtagon]

I see both as core concepts, and they aren't necessarily at odds either. Perhaps it is emulating nature to such a degree (even down to fighting style) that helps gives those Rangers who do so access to their extraordinary and supernatural power - whether by "pleasing" some form of fey spirit/natural consensus/other primal benefactor, or perhaps just doing so wholeheartedly puts them in the right mindset to properly commune or become one with nature. In either case, the result would be the same - doing so would in fact be highly efficient, because few things in D&D are more beneficial to have in one's arsenal than magic. All of a ranger's combat styles can be viewed through this lens, with nature itself not particularly caring which you go with as long as you pick one to emulate with your whole being.

And yes, TWF being bad has more to do with the game making it inefficient in execution, than the style itself being unworkable conceptually.

I guess the twf vs ranged thing depends on how you see a ranger.

For me, a ranger is the human who lives off the land using his wits to be above nature while living in harmony with it.

A character who uses twf is emulating nature's wild animals, rather than being above them by using his human(oid) intellect. fwiw, I give that to my remade barbarian (who also gets the druid's wildshape as an option).

[squiggit]

At its core I'd say the ranger is a mix of survivalist and commando. You can throw hunter, trapper, woodsman and a bunch of other words in there too.

Thematically I generally think of Rangers as kind of standing opposite Druids within the same theme. A druid represents the power of Nature and reveres nature, but the Ranger represents dominion over nature. That doesn't mean anti-nature per se, but where a Druid might want to let nature run free a Ranger instead might see it as something to be managed, still an outdoorsman, but less hippy and more a hunter or old world conservationist.

Magic I think is wholly optional. A spellcasting ranger is a cool concept, but so is one that's entirely mundane in my opinion. I'm also a big fan of an iteration of the Ranger that's magical but not a traditional spellcaster. That sort of ranger might have some SU class features, or the ability to use mundane objects in less than mundane ways.

Also find animal companions to be pretty optional. Fighting alongside a tamed beast is cool, but so is the lone survivalist out in the woods.

Personally I tend to trend away from spellcasting rangers and animal companions, just because it's always made the class feel like druid-lite to me.


In terms of weapons.. I don't have much of an association, personally and I don't like the idea of Rangers being tied to a specific weapon as a class. That said, in my head I imagine most rangers would be switch-hitters. A bow, gun or crossbow across one's back and melee weapons in hand (or vice versa). Two-handed makes sense, but I tend to imagine a giant axe more than a greatsword. TWF works, too. Personally the image that pops in my head first and foremost is a ranger pushing into a dark cave with a longsword in one hand and a torch in the other, but einhander is terrible and improvised offhand weapons are even worse. Switch hitting is also pretty awful, so eh.


I'd totally like to see a way for a ranger to somehow convert an offhand torch into a meaningful combat advantage, or other non-weapon things one might hold in a free hand, or one weapon empty hand support period.

[Satinavian]

Depends on where the fights occur and what the objective is.

IMO, a Ranger in thick woods would never allow his movement to be hampered by a shield or two-handed weapon. There might be too much brush to effectively swing a sword. Frankly, I think the more common Ranger would not normally come across anything larger than a knife anyway (few nomadic woodsmen have smithies set up). Tactics would generally be to hunt from range, or else get close and do as much damage as possible in as short a time as possible. Stab, Stab, Flee seems pretty worthwhile.The classical melee hunting weapons are spear type. You don't need a lot of space to use them (stabbing instead of swinging), you can keep your distance(which is very good against most animals), they are easy to make, you can set them up against a charge of animals that fight that way (which are a lot), they are less annoying to carry than shields and many spears can be used in different was (one handed, two handed, thrown, like a staff)

But D&D sucks at simulating spear-fighting. Anyway, i really can't see dual wielding as a natural fighting style for hunters.



reading through all the post, the one thing, D&D rangers have but nearly no one seems to see as iconic or important is the favored enemy stuff

[Barstro]

Spears are classic because they are so cheap to make. Their length is a liability in close quarters with obstacles (multiple enemies in thick brush) unless you are guaranteed to be attacking in a single direction (part of a front line of an army). I still think two daggers makes more sense, but I see your point.


reading through all the post, the one thing, D&D rangers have but nearly no one seems to see as iconic or important is the favored enemy stuff
IMO, favored enemy is part of favored terrain, but I may not have been clear before.

[Arc_knight25]

To me a Ranger is someone who stays to the fringes of civilization, they are the middle man to the wildness of nature and the expansionism of civilization. They are scouts, lawmen of the wild, defenders and protectors. Some may feel sided with the expansion of civilization while others may wish to see nature flourish and thrive at any cost, while even still others try to keep the balance of civilization and nature in check.

Through experience and constant fighting with different types of creatures the Ranger will begin to adapt to their tactics and begin to find their strengths and weaknesses and use them against them.

Living close to the land and its denizens Rangers have made a connection to the natural world and have a modest amount of magical powers associated with this connection. Living so close to the land they have learned survival skills such as stealth, survival, tracking and knowledge's that pertain to what environments they live in.

Rangers are cunning, using the terrain they have grown to know as an advantage in a fight. Using traps and natural hazards to detour those that wish harm to the Rangers charge.

They are capable combatants, using a style of fighting that they feel is best suited for them. May it be TWF, Archery, Sword and Board, each Ranger is different in their approach to combat.

All in all Rangers can have a wide array of skills and tactics depending on where the Ranger calls home and what works for them.

[Zaq]

I've never been satisfied with WotC's approach to Rangers specifically because this discussion is even a thing. I've never gotten a clear picture of what really makes a Ranger a Ranger, and as a result, the class has always felt incredibly disjoint to me. I'm a big proponent of viewing classes as packages of abilities rather than as full-fledged job descriptions, but since the Ranger's package of abilities is so disparate (and not terribly useful most of the time), I've never really seen the appeal in using Ranger for anything other than a one- or two-level dip. (This isn't just because the Ranger's abilities are weak, mind you, but that's a big part of it.)

As has been pointed out, the whole TWF/archery thing is kind of weird (I'm fine with the class supporting those two styles, and I'm okay with the class offering the player a clear choice between two or more major paths, but the as-written Ranger doesn't actually support those styles, and it's not at all clear why those two styles were the ones that made the cut). Favored Enemy is a terrible class feature specifically because it's so GM-dependent, and since it's so unreliable, I barely even remember that it exists half the time. Ranger spells are cool, but the whole half-caster thing makes them basically unusable by a vanilla Ranger (Archivists do it best, and Mystic Rangers do it second-best). The animal companion is a joke; it either needs to be swapped out for an ACF or houseruled into being equal to the Druid's AC. Track isn't useless (well, it isn't necessarily useless, but it's kind of GM-dependent), but I'll be honest that it's always bothered me that you need a feat or a special class feature to use Survival to track something. Wild Empathy is flavorful, but it's usually forgettable. Nothing else the Ranger gets actually matters (Endurance is only useful as an annoying prereq, Evasion/Camouflage/HiPS come way too late, etc.). None of that is sufficiently cohesive for me to want to build a character around it.

If we didn't know what we know about 3.5 and we just look at the PHB base classes in a vacuum, I can kind of see why the Ranger exists—the designers drastically overvalued BAB (and bonus feats) and drastically undervalued spells, so the Ranger was supposed to be a more martially-aligned version of the Druid (the Druid has better spells and worse BAB, while the Ranger has worse spells and better BAB/feats). They did the same thing with the Cleric and the Paladin. Unfortunately, as we all know, the classes were far from equal in value, but I can see what they were going for. And then, since they felt compelled (with some justification, to be sure) to support the PHB classes, things just kind of built out from there and ended up getting kind of top-heavy. But I really don't feel like their initial design goal was worthwhile.

Looking at other game systems, I do like the concept of Rangers that lay combat traps (Guild Wars and Legend both encouraged that sort of thing, and I understand that Pathfinder does as well, though I freely admit that I haven't really looked at Pathfinder and that I could be way off base there). I'm okay with the "knowledge is power" / "forewarned is forearmed" mindset applying to Rangers (so perhaps using something similar to Knowledge Devotion in place of Favored Enemy, though with some kind of mechanic in there to free up skill points). If we want the key idea of a Ranger to be a hunter (literal or metaphorical), both of those things make sense to me; a hunter is going to be the one in control of the hunt, being the proactive predator rather than the reactive prey, and there's a lot of design space there.

I'm not sure that I'm actually saying anything of value at this point, so maybe I'll leave off here. But I've never liked the as-written Ranger.

[squiggit]

reading through all the post, the one thing, D&D rangers have but nearly no one seems to see as iconic or important is the favored enemy stuff

The problem I have with FE is that it's very situational and even when it does come into play it's just a few numbers.

One of the playtest versions of 5e had your favored enemy sort of define your character, with 'dragonslayer' and 'hordebreaker' or whatever they were called being major archetypes of the class that expand your expertise in fighting dragons/orcs/etc. into a full suite of class features built around fighting multiple enemies or a single giant enemy and that was pretty cool.

But by and large FE just is too niche and too background even when it does come into play to ever feel iconic to me.

[KillingAScarab]

That's...actually kinda disappointing, I've had ideas bouncing around in my head for a Paladin/Ranger PRC that focused on the wilderness champion kinda thing.If you haven't seen it, Dragon 310 had an article with a number of alternative alignment paladins, including a true neutral paladin named, "Incarnate." It doesn't have anything in common with the Magic of Incarnum class, instead it is supposed to focus on balance. Balance in civilization and wilderness, but also balance between the forces of the inner planes on the material plane, to the point that they could produce a burst of either fire and cold damage or electricity and acid damage. While it isn't a champion of the wilderness at all times, you might take a look at Incarnate to see if there's anything there for inspiration.


Looking at other game systems, I do like the concept of Rangers that lay combat traps (Guild Wars and Legend both encouraged that sort of thing...Guild Wars rangers could also choose their pets by taming them. This meant with the right beast mastery (https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Beast_Mastery) skills you could harness the deadly power of... the flamingo (https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Flamingo)!

[OldTrees1]

The problem I have with FE is that it's very situational and even when it does come into play it's just a few numbers.

One of the playtest versions of 5e had your favored enemy sort of define your character, with 'dragonslayer' and 'hordebreaker' or whatever they were called being major archetypes of the class that expand your expertise in fighting dragons/orcs/etc. into a full suite of class features built around fighting multiple enemies or a single giant enemy and that was pretty cool.

But by and large FE just is too niche and too background even when it does come into play to ever feel iconic to me.

Expanding on this:
One could have a list of abilities to select from. Each ability on the list was good against certain creatures for non arbitray* reasons. Those abilities would be useful against any creature that was similar in the relevant manner and thus are less niche. Then a hunter could choose abilities either to specialize as a foehunter or generalize as a diverse hunter.

*"+1 vs Dragons" is arbitrary since +1 isn't any better vs Dragons than other creatures but something like "Save vs Stall" is non arbitrary because its strength against Dragons comes from Draconic traits (strafe fighting requires fast flight).


Although I do not consider the "____ Hunter" to be part of what Ranger means to me.

[Ashtagon]

Personally, I'd grant the ranger retrainable favoured enemies, and retrainable favoured terrains. These should be about as easy to swap out as a wizard's spell selection.

[Someguy231]

Rangers lead the wa--

Oh wait, we're not talking about the 75th Rangers Battalion are we?

[Barbarian Horde]

Teenagers with attitude.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQz8iZ9ot1I
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?264677-Let-s-make-this-showy!-(3-P-repost-Sentai-Base-Class-Archetypes <Sentai Ranger class

Though I feel I could do what I want with this ranger much easier with an artificer though.

[BWR]

RE: Favored enemy:

I just halved the bonus and allowed it to be applied to any enemy the ranger correctly identifies with an appropriate Knowledge roll (and all appropriate Knowledge skills are now class skills). In this case a failed Knowledge check means a Ranger might very well know that the enormous red flying fire-breathing lizard in front of him is a red dragon and immune to fire and whatnot, but he is unable to find weak spots or effective tactics against it (no FE bonus).

[Pugwampy]

Nature,s butt kicker . A hunter , A druid warrior and Protector class of the priests of nature .
The church has Paladins and Clerics . Mother Nature has Rangers and Druids .

A warrior who wants healing magic without the paladin garbage .A tactical class choice that exploits poor DM,s favorite pets that appear every other session . A person who wants better attack bonus , hit points , stealth , a pokemon .

< Former rogues . I had more then 2 players start out as a rogue class but tossed that character in favour of a Ranger . >

[khadgar567]

from tv tropes page under starwars I found this quote
To be a Ranger meant knowing how to move in any environment. To blend in with the forest or grasslands, to sail, to swim, to dive, to pilot. To be masters of our surroundings. We were good spies, good warriors, very adept at intrusion and escape.
I mean its basicly explains the ranger perfecly

[Peat]

Rangers lead the wa--

Oh wait, we're not talking about the 75th Rangers Battalion are we?

They're as good an example of what a Ranger is to me as any.

For me, a Ranger is a fighting type who's supremely comfortable in uncomfortable places.

The class should be able to represent a Commando as well as a Hunter as well as Nature's Paladin as well as a Weird Cranky Guy in the Woods who's really good with a bow. It should be able to represent oneness with nature as well as dominance over nature.

edit:

I don't care what weapons they use as long as they're not locked into a choice and being an archer is a definite choice.

I am agnostic about animal companions and spells.

I would like a Ranger class to be about Adaptability.

Finally... if I was reimagining the D&D classes and putting people into overarching groups, I see an awful lot of overlap between Rangers and Barbarians.

[Zancloufer]

Ranger is essentially, from a mechanical point, a Fighter//Druid. They have to have make a solid combatant, while having powers/spells/abilities that grant them mastery over nature.

Something like a Grisly Woodsman, Park Ranger, Wilderness Guide etc. They should be able to hold their own in a fight, though probably less "direct" than things like Barbarians, while having skills and powers that let them use the "Power of Nature" to assist them. I though the Pathfinder Ranger got the concept the best. Less HP and armour than a fighter, weaker spells/companion than a Druid, but Terrain Mastery and Favoured Enemies made them excellent hunters when they are "in their element".

[Molosse]

"...Rangers were trained to be proficient with a variety of weapons such as swords,spears, daggers, bows and many other makeshift weapons. They were highly effective spies, assassins, and guerrillas. The rangers also had excellent knowledge of forestry and survival, in part due to the blessings of Númenor and in part due to spending decades of their lives wandering the wilderness. They were quick, versatile, and experienced riders."

The notion of a Ranger, to me, is inherently tied with Tolkeins portrayal of the Rangers of the North and the Rangers of the South.

First and foremost they are warriors, sworn to a specific ideal or cause.
Secondly they are survivalists and woodsmen, ranging far away from traditional lines of support and egress they must be able to sustain themselves on lengthy journeys into the darker regions of the world.
Thirdly they must be versatile, able to combat any challenge presented to them they exist as the first line of defence in a dangerous era and must have the ability to adapt themselves in a variety of situations.

[Eladrinblade]

When I think "ranger", I think of a human or elf in leather armor with a green hooded cloak, a bow and arrow, and a couple melee weapons (like a sword and dagger). Maybe he has a wolf or a big cat, or maybe a horse and hawk. He has survival/perception/stealth skills, and knows the wilderness like the back of his hand. Maybe most importantly, he has a purpose.

That's about it.

What I dislike about bards/paladins/monks/rangers is that to me, they aren't really distinct enough to warrant classes of their own. They're like hybrid classes or maybe prestige classes. Don't get me wrong, I do like them.

[TheCrowing1432]

A ranger is a woodsman. Unlike a druid who is devoted to and protected by the wood, a Ranger survives in it, survival of the fittest, top of the food chain. Nature is his enemy as much as it is his friend.

Rangers getting TWF ive always thought were dumb, they are an archery class and should get the maximum efforts from that.

[GreyBlack]

http://i.imgur.com/87Bqe6P.jpg

This is a ranger. Someone who fights to maintain the balance between the wilderness and civilization, and to keep darkness from encroaching upon the defenseless. A wild avenger who constantly tries to keep nature unblemished, while retaining that noble or vile character of civilization.

[Jay R]

At its core, my idea of a Ranger is someone who would probably never be part of a party ...

I disagree with this, in part because I once had the job description of "Ranger". At Philmont Scout Ranch, my job was to lead parties of boy scouts into the wilderness and keep them safe, with superior wilderness knowledge and skills. Also to keep them from doing anything to harm the wilderness.

My current Ranger joined a group of cityfolk who had to trek through the Great Northern Forest. When one of them asked about his mission, he said, "I'm here to protect you from the dangers of the forest. Or to protect the forest from you. I don't know which yet."

My ideal image of a Ranger is somebody who is never sure whether he's protecting the party from the wilderness or the wilderness from the party. But either way, he doesn't want the party to enter the wilderness without him.

I'd also give him much stronger wilderness skills. For instance, consider this scenario. The party is in the wilderness, and the fighter is on first watch. It's completely quiet. The ranger wakes up, keeping his ear on the ground for a moment. Then he comes up to the fighter and says, "Let's move to the west of camp. That's the direction the five wolves are about to attack from."

[Lvl 2 Expert]

To me a ranger is first and foremost an outdoors(wo)man. She knows how to handle herself in the wild. She does this through mad skills mixed with, since this is a combat oriented game, a decent helping of ass kicking. The skills are essential. The ability to provide a meal, a bed, a campfire, some healing, a bearing on where north is or a lead to where the bad guys went and a replacement weapon for the fighter using nothing but a square mile of forest is what makes the ranger. It's what she does. Her fighting style will usually be a mix of something that works in self defense against large animals and something that works for hunting. Nobody ever caught a meal by being a meat shield, but ambushing, ranged attacks or traps could all be part of her style. Even if the ranger is a vegetarian, if a hungry wolf has raided the village 3 times and keeps killing children you need a way to take the fight to it. I'm fine with the game asking the ranger to specialize, but I'd love to see several different options. Two weapon fighting, while a classic, is not part of the core of the ranger to me.

The animal companion underlines how some rangers are better with nature than with humans, even their best friend is an animal. Rangers who have an animal companion should be able to have a strong animal companion. Fighting side by side with your loyal black panther is pretty much the ultimate in outdoors themed badassery. But it should preferably be a choice, not something forced onto every ranger. Some really are lone wolves, and some are very good with humans, they just chose to be badass military scouts who know nature.

Spells are another questionable thing for me that should preferably be customizable in how much of it a ranger uses. Some rangers can be almost druids, very in touch with nature and capable of casting natures spells, some rangers kill nature for a living and wouldn't want her spells. In fact, maybe just let the hippie ranger multiclass to druid or something and completely leave the spells out of the ranger class. That way ranger would have a choice of what kind of spells they want, some might be outdoor badasses devoted to a god, or they have some sort of inane connection to magic itself. If the ranger class itself does include spellcasting I highly favor spontaneous casting. The ranger knows a couple of tricks (nasty or not) and can use them in an improvised manner as needed, rather than knowing a book full of spells and meditating undisturbed for an hour on which ones she might need today. It seems to fit the concept much better to me.

Favored enemies just don't seem to fit the whole concept of D&D. Logically a ranger might have spend their career hunting mostly one type of enemy over one or two types of terrain, and this can be in their background, but in play a ranger needs to be prepared for anything, not specialized in killing something they are not going to encounter on their next adventure. A cool feature flavor wise, but pretty bad during actual play. A bit like having the fighter choose a weapon with an enchantment bonus against one particular type of enemy. What good is a sword of ogre decapitation when fighting dragons?

[Willie the Duck]

Rangers lead the wa--

Oh wait, we're not talking about the 75th Rangers Battalion are we?

Well, in 1e AD&D, it was. A Ranger was a Army Ranger. In 2e, he became an armed Forest Ranger. In 3e... he became... uh... yeah. Something. A skirmish (the concept, not the scout ability) unit with outdoor skills. Not bad by design, but all the things it was given (martial vs. major spellcasting, skill points, twf without a major damage add like sneak attack, archery of any kind) ended up being the build options which are least useful. The ranger is just kind of scattered and unfocused. Poor optimization and good story potential or the reverse are both acceptable things. Something that is both not useful and hard to pin down in role is a unwinning combo. Ask the monk.

[Someguy231]

Well, in 1e AD&D, it was. A Ranger was a Army Ranger. In 2e, he became an armed Forest Ranger. In 3e... he became... uh... yeah. Something. A skirmish (the concept, not the scout ability) unit with outdoor skills. Not bad by design, but all the things it was given (martial vs. major spellcasting, skill points, twf without a major damage add like sneak attack, archery of any kind) ended up being the build options which are least useful. The ranger is just kind of scattered and unfocused. Poor optimization and good story potential or the reverse are both acceptable things. Something that is both not useful and hard to pin down in role is a unwinning combo. Ask the monk.

I'm still and forever will be pissed off that Monks got the shaft in 3.5, and I will make it my mission to kill all spellcasters.

[LTwerewolf]

I don't know if anyone's interested in it, but here's the basics of what I landed on.

Very similar to the wilderness rogue in some respects. They have lowish hp, good fort and reflex saves.


1. They do not get any of the social skills (bluff, diplomacy, intimidate) as class skills.
2. They get sneak attack at a slow progression, which doubles when using natural traps or when the opponent is entirely unaware of them. If they know you're somewhere nearby and you're invisible, they're not entirely unaware. Other examples apply. Therefore the invisible->attack->invisible->attack routine does not work.
3. They get bonuses in natural terrain (no intelligently designed dungeons, cities, etc.). Double bonus to one terrain of their choice.
4. Still gets evasion.
5. Sneak attack damage dice based on weapon type (1h, 2h, ranged).
6. Terrain specific traps that deal damage and debilitate/debuff.


Two Archetypes
Beastmaster
1. Loses sneak attack to traps, choice of animal companion or multiple weaker animal companions.
2. Animals get ranger's terrain bonus if they're in the terrain they came from.

Warden of Nature
1. Loses Sneak attack altogether, gains spells. Specific ranger only spells such as those that add elemental damage to weapons.
2. Increased HP.


Note with casting: every class that has casting has the option for four types of magic casting: arcane, divine, psionic, and alchemical.

Arcane
Arcane casting failure chance in armor
Not beholden to any being
Affected by antimagic field
Problems in wild magic zones

Divine
No ACF in armor
Beholden to divine being (including but not limited to gods, archdevils, demon lords, old ones, etc) which grants spells
Affected by antimagic field

Psionic
No ACF
Not beholden to any being
Casting requires higher and higher concentration checks as user takes damage
Takes penalties to concentration checks if affected by mind affecting effects
Not affected by antimagic field

Alchemical
No ACF
Not beholden to any being
Requires expensive reagents to cast spells (no infinite reagent bags).
Not affected by antimagic field

[Peat]

I was curious as to what you'd come up with, yes. Afraid to say that 'Wilderness Rogue' wouldn't scratch my Ranger itch.

I do think Rangers should get social skills. Whether it's Aragorn being a king in waiting, or Robin Hood lying his way out of difficult situations, or just the general trope of the arrow between the feet and nowhere and the voice calling out "Go home", I think there's a lot of examples of Rangers using social skills. But then, I would say that, as given my preferred gameplay style, I'd never use a class without social skills.

[LTwerewolf]

I'd like to point out that the standard ranger doesn't get any of the social skills as it is in 3.5, and in pf only gets intimidate. Cross classing for Aragorn would be necessary if you wanted higher social skills (even though Aragorn when people still call him a ranger didn't have very good social skills, implying he cross classed later).

[Psyren]

Aragorn is pretty clearly a Ruathar ("Elf-Friend") though, and those do get Diplomacy. He even gets the longer lifespan unless I miss my guess. Alternatively, his throwback lineage to First Men makes him a Human Paragon, and those can get face skills too.

As for Robin Hood, he's got at least a little Rogue - he's not purely a wilderness scamp, he merely moved there because thieving in civilization was proving too risky/dangerous.

[Peat]

Or Aristocrat/Ranger, depending on which tales you believe.

I'll stand by my point though. If re-imagining the system, then the iconic fictional representations should be doable single-class imo and I think there's a fairly solid argument for at least Intimidate on the Ranger, if not more social skills. YMMV but that's my take after looking at it. But as said, I have a bias here. Fair enough if I'm the only one.

Curious to see what the rest of LTwerewolf's re-imagining would look like though.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Ranger (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/ranger?s=t); a soldier specially trained in the techniques of guerrilla warfare, especially in jungle terrain.

This falls quite nicely in-line with my understanding of what a ranger is supposed to be.