What is a Ranger to you?

[Ravinsild]

I've been looking at some threads around here and I notice there's a sentiment amongst some that the Ranger has no identity, or doesn't belong as its own class, or perhaps shouldn't have spells. This leads me to the question: What is a Ranger to YOU?

I will express what a Ranger is to me. I believe the Ranger is the equivalent of a Paladin, in that Paladin = Fighter + Cleric, so Ranger is Fighter + Druid.

The Ranger, to me, is the master of versatility and adaptation. Archetypes that spring to mind are of course Aragorn, but also the Mountain Men of America who trailblazers finding the way out west, living out in the land alone for months, even years at a time. Native Americans living on the land, nomads, with close ties to the land. Guardians of nature, and warriors with a more nature bent focus.

I think as the Fighter masters any weapon they lay their hand upon, and use it to its maximum effect over any other class, the premier disciplined solider able to handle themselves in any fight, and the Druid is the master of the land calling the plants and animals to their command, even the weather itself, the Ranger is somewhere in the middle. The Ranger is the master of adaptability. The Ranger is the best at surviving in any conditions (to me). The Ranger is Survivor-man or Bear Grills, the black ops/special forces of D&D. They can be dumped into any situation, the icy cold mountains, the middle of a desert, into the darkest jungles, into the barren plains and be fine. They can survive this.

They know nature and its creatures second only to the Druid, they can identify their weaknesses, master hunters, stalking their prey with expertise rivaled by none. This is Favored enemy, and more recently (and aptly) Favored Foe. In that moment they are the master of tracking, hunting and killing that creature. The Fighter can kill anything that comes its way, but the Ranger can track it down to its lair and slay it in its home turf.

I think the Ranger is the epitome of versatility and adaptability in the Exploration sphere of the game. I think, really, they should be able to get to place other classes cannot. The can scale mountains better than the Fighter, they can dive in the ocean off the coast better than the Rogue, they can track enemies across miles better than anyone, they can survive alone better than anyone. Their ties to nature come to their aid, befriending beasts and plants, locating what's helpful, asking the spirits of the land for aid to cleanse water good for drinking. Their mystical ties to nature allow them to excel at this above and beyond other classes.

To me the Ranger is the premier outdoorsman, the premier scout outside of urban environments, the best at tracking enemies and finding their lairs and hide outs, and able to have the right tool for the right job in the moment. They are guardians of nature, wilderness experts and survivors, at one with the land but more aggressive than Druids. Trappers, Fur traders, frontiersmen, explorers, survivalists, outdoorsmen, hunters are key words that come to mind when I think Ranger. Like Deckland Harp from the show Frontier.

I really think the new UA Alternate Class features helped capture this.

What is a spell-less Ranger? Why do people think it's best as a Fighter subclass or a Rogue? What is a Ranger to you?

[HappyDaze]

A lot of what you mention seems skill-based, and the Ranger tends to lag behind Rogues on skills--even skills like Perception (in natural settings), Stealth (in natural settings), and Survival. I would have liked to have seen Rangers with situational versions of Expertise and/or Reliable Talent when using certain skills in Favored Environments. Worse, Nature tends to be ignored and avoided because so many Rangers have low Int in 5e thanks to array/point-buy, but this can be an issue for Druids too (and for Clerics & Paladins with Religion).

[Ravinsild]

A lot of what you mention seems skill-based, and the Ranger tends to lag behind Rogues on skills--even skills like Perception (in natural settings), Stealth (in natural settings), and Survival. I would have liked to have seen Rangers with situational versions of Expertise and/or Reliable Talent when using certain skills in Favored Environments. Worse, Nature tends to be ignored and avoided because so many Rangers have low Int in 5e thanks to array/point-buy, but this can be an issue for Druids too (and for Clerics & Paladins with Religion).

Yeah, Standard Array means one stat will typically get dumped, and even if it isn't Rangers need Dex/Str, Con and Wis so there's little room for anything else. Skillswise there are races and backgrounds of course, on top of the 3 skills provided. I've got a Kenku Ranger which gets 2 skills from his race, 2 from his background and 3 from his class, and with the new UA Alternate Class Features they can now gain expertise in at least one skill.

[Anderlith]

It’s always been my opinion that there are only a handful of roles/classes needed & everything should fall into that vein.
Warriors (People skilled in killing)
Criminals (Larceny practitioners)
Socialites (People with social skills)
Technicians (People with artisan skills)
Wilderness (Survivalists)
Magicians (People skilled in the magic system of the setting)
Domestics (People who don’t adventure)

In a perfect world I would say rangers are just people from a wilderness background that are great foresters & canny in the ways of the wild. No real fighting ability but unmatched in Hunting & Gathering. Given that every class in D&D is a warrior though, I would want them to be champions of killing beasts & monsters that plague the wild, & skilled in ambush & terrain. If I could I wouldn’t have half Casters in D&D & instead give rangers “Wilderness Secrets”, Paladins “Prayers”, Fighters “Deeds” etc. Things that could allow them to travel fast & unseen as they travel & come up with spontaneous weaknesses or healing herbs. (Like Aragorn & King’s Weed) that doesn’t translate well into D&D in its current iteration though.


But that’s all wishful thinking. Ranger should be built like the Rogue, but flavored for wilderness

[JellyPooga]

For me the Ranger is an outdoorsman long before he even resembles any kind of Fighter.

Yes, he can fight, but as a survival mechanism, not because it's his profession. He is skilled with a bow because he's a hunter, he's skilled with knife and axe because he uses them day-in-day-out for basic survival, he's skilled with a spear because it's the best weapon
to defend against boar, bear, 'gator and other large beasts...but he has no use for fancy polearms, swords or more exotic arms because they are weapons to be used by men, against men and he has no quarrel with them, except where they encroach upon his territory.

The Ranger, to me, is not a magic-user. His talents might appear magical to the unitiated; he can find food and tracks that others would miss, he can navigate using signs the uninitiated wouldn't know to look for, he can use what look like weeds to heal, he can travel for days without fatigue and without leaving a trace of his passage, he knows how to traverse the terrain and find shortcuts to arrive before he's expected...he can find water in the desert. Small miracles to those without the knowledge, but there's no "trick" or "magic"; it's just experience.

He's the Guide, the Wanderer, the Huntsman, the Shadow in the Woods. He is mysterious, secretive and uncanny, not because of some dark past or shadowy connections, but because he isn't used to the conpany of others and is slow to trust; just another part of his survival instincts.

Needless to say, I'm not a fan of the D&D magic-using, dual-wielding Fighter/Druid-ish mashup!

[Millstone85]

I believe the Ranger is the equivalent of a Paladin, in that Paladin = Fighter + Cleric, so Ranger is Fighter + Druid.
A lot of what you mention seems skill-based, and the Ranger tends to lag behind Rogues on skills--even skills like Perception (in natural settings), Stealth (in natural settings), and Survival.What I want from a ranger is more of a rogue + druid, or even just the wilderness counterpart of a rogue, which 5e didn't deliver.

[Morty]

I will express what a Ranger is to me. I believe the Ranger is the equivalent of a Paladin, in that Paladin = Fighter + Cleric, so Ranger is Fighter + Druid.


The difference is that paladins are more than just that. They've got their oaths, smite and auras, which set them apart thematically and mechanically. Rangers have never had that and have been just a few class features piled on top of each other.

At the end of the day, the rangers' main claim to fame is a scaled-up skill proficiency. It's Survival, but bigger and better. And Survival is a pretty niche skill as it is.

[Ravinsild]

These are pretty interesting replies 🤔

If the current Ranger doesn’t capture this archetype a lot of you are talking about (spell less Ranger from the looks of it) what does? Did previous editions of D&D have it?

[djreynolds]

In D&D, the initial rangers and paladins, in 1st edition, were fighter subclasses you could play if you and only if you rolled well enough.

They were not the equal of the fighter, they and the paladin were better, and there was not multiclassing into them because your ability scores did not increase.

Now IMO, very humbly, both of these could have been a title or prestige class or a feat a class selected.

A fighter or cleric or barbarian or even a rogue or wizard could accept the title of paladin or ranger.

Now in 5E the paladin, it is the best written class. It is cool and everything about it is awesome. You have distinct archetypes. Each one is so flavorful

The ranger is a little bland, the new archetypes are a bit better, but I honestly don't know what the class "is".

What we need are archetypes like the paladins.

I think the UA stuff helps out, but it doesn't give the class an identity.

Totem barbarians have a ranger feel to them, Oath of ancients have ranger feel, as does scout.

Perhaps we need rangers who have paladin feel, and a barbarian feel, and rogue etc

[JellyPooga]

These are pretty interesting replies 🤔

If the current Ranger doesn’t capture this archetype a lot of you are talking about (spell less Ranger from the looks of it) what does? Did previous editions of D&D have it?

The 3.5 Scout Class from Complete Adventurer was, in my mind, a lot closer to my image of a Ranger than the Ranger Class from the PHB ever was. Proficiency in all the right weapons and tools, had a unique fighting style called Skirmish, which gave bonuses when you moved on your turn and had plenty of terrain and movement based features. Skill points equal to a Roguen but more Ranger-y Class Skills to choose from. Really solid, thematic Class that I had a lot of love for.

[Luccan]

I've been looking at some threads around here and I notice there's a sentiment amongst some that the Ranger has no identity, or doesn't belong as its own class, or perhaps shouldn't have spells.

What is a spell-less Ranger? Why do people think it's best as a Fighter subclass or a Rogue? What is a Ranger to you?

The best I can come up with for why spell-less ranger should exist: Rangers are the only class with features about hunting monsters. Some people don't want to cast spells, but do want to hunt monsters with dedicated abilities. I don't necessarily feel like I need it, but I don't object to its existence.

It was originally a fighter subclass in AD&D, but I think people think it would be better like that because 5e's Ranger is considered a weak base on its own by a lot of people. If it were a fighter subclass, it would have Fighter features backing it up. Same with rogue.

For at least three editions, rangers have been the Druid+Fighter (and a little bit of Rogue) to the Paladin's Cleric+Fighter. It's also a monster-hunter. The survivalist aspects just come in as a natural extension of the Druid half of their origin and don't muddy the waters at all; druids are survivalists thanks to spells and a couple skills, rangers are survivalists due to skills and a couple spells. Incidentally, this is why I feel Rangers should get Survival for free

[Pufferwockey]

snip

Hey thanks for starting this thread. I really appreciate having a conversation about my favorite adventuring archetype.

First of all I agree with most of your description of the archetype, including the implication about turning plants and animals against their foes. I have written in a few places saying I'd like a spell-less ranger option but I've got nothing against the version of the archetype that also has a little bit of mysticism to it with some casting, except that I resent it a little for being the only option. I'll talk a little more about the spell-less ranger after discussing the archetype

You do a lot of comparing rangers to Druids, and I think that is a mistake. It looks to me like it's a result of thinking of the classes along the lines of Ranger = Fighter + Druid; Paladin = Fighter + Cleric. This is probably more subjective than it feels to me, but apart from being an alright way to describe a Paladin to a new player I don't think that's a helpful way of looking at things. Fighter + Druid to me describes some kind of barbarian(not the class) war priest/shaman. The Ranger, to me, is a warrior archetype and their similarities to druids begin and end with knowing their way around the forest, and a few spells.


They know nature and its creatures second only to the Druid
This to me is a bad way of looking at it, although it's DnD so you probably do end up with a numbers somewhere that you can point to and say "yep says right here the Druid knows nature better." I'd say that the archetypical ranger knows nature in a fundamentally different way from druids. I can envision a setting where a druid society is often at odds with rangers from a neighboring kingdom because the druids are all about protecting nature and balance but the rangers are all "Yeah balance is fine, but it's been a particularly hard winter, and there's a farming village just over yonder who can't afford to lose any livestock, and a logging settlement just over that way, and I know the wolves up in these hills will be getting desperate enough to try taking down a man or woman in town within a week or two. Besides, I only got paid half upfront for this so I'm gonna keep coming up in to these hills and setting my traps whether you like it or not, and if you don't stop pointing that staff at me I'm gonna put an arrow right through your skull and leave you to wonder if I hit anything important."

In terms of class identity, I think we pretty much agree. Especially on the versatility and exploration part. It describes them as explorers in the 5e phb. Why did that same book give them a feature that punishes them for leaving home?

They should be the top of the line trackers and should really shine in terms of being super alert. As I've said about the Revised Ranger vs UA Alternative class features:


*Those recent UA alternative class features were alright but I liked the one from Revised Ranger a lot better. Tracking and stealthing at normal speed feels right. Doubling foraged food is a great mechanic that allows them to contribute significantly to desperate survival situations without just hand waving them away, and as I recall the only thing that contributed to combat mechanics directly was always having advantage on initiative and advantage on attacks against creatures that haven't acted yet. I don't think that's too crazy. For one thing, going first in initiative isn't universally better, only usually. The way turn mechanics shake out it can be a problem. More importantly it's a mechanic that perfectly fit's the nature of the rangers special brand of badassery. They don't drill and hone fighting systems to perfection like a fighter or monk. They aren't unstoppable juggernauts like the barbarian. They're alert and quick on the draw. They aren't just alert, they are the most alert.

One element to archetype that's usually absent from the class is hardiness. Rangers should be tough. Not like barbarians ignoring minor injuries(con based AC) and partially ignoring even major ones, but still just hard to kill. d10 hit die is fine. Feature-wise I'm thinking along the lines of resistance to cold and/or poison at some point in the progression. Maybe advantage on con saves for pseudo proficiency like the barbarian has with dex if it can be done without making the the class op.


The spell-less ranger.

EDIT: Forgot to say why it even matters.

Most important reason: Some of us get a kick out of playing characters that are really skilled at stuff without being magic. The ranger as an archetype speaks to us, along with the rogue but someone is already playing the rogue, always, in every party forever, plus they're an arcane trickster the selfish...

Second most important reason: As an archetype that's all skill and mastery in a specific field that is supposed to be a great guide and scout it'd be great to play one in a low-magic stetting without making your DM burst in to tears weeping "won't anyone make a character for my low-magic setting that doesn't cast spells? c'mon even the barbarian shoots lighting now"

Aragorn and Legolas(who I think would be a different subclass of the same base class as Aragorn) are a lot of where this archetype comes from and neither of them cast spells, and we probably wouldn't like them if they did for being mary sues or whatever. Neither do most of the characters OP mentioned. I'm fine with spellcasting rangers, but it's wierd that they're the default option and we cant get an option without it. Yes I'm aware that they've had spells in dnd for a long time but you know what else we did for a long time?[SELF CENSORED GROSSLY INAPPROPRIATE REFERENCE TO SOMETHING REALLY BAD HUMANS USED TO DO TO EACH OTHER]

OK, What is a spell-less ranger? It's still a warrior archetype just like everything I said above but without the mysticism or spells. It needs to be a tough warrior with a d10 hit die and an extra attack so it's not a rogue, but it also shouldn't get proficiency in heavy armor. Where did this back country wanderer pick up that skill? They didn't. If they went stomping around in that stuff they never would have gotten out of that one swamp all those years back. It's not a fighter. Let's just keep the Ranger class features for our spell-less ranger since things like hide in plain sight and vanish and evasion and the subclass features all fit the ranger pretty well. Let's just replace the spellcasting. Just giving the ranger combat superiority that progressed more slowly than the battlemaster's version was suggested in a UA about making variant classes, but I'm told it's under powered and more importantly it steps on the fighter's toes. The paragraph below is what I said about it in the archetypes we'd like to see thread.

I'm looking for The Master Hunter here. Preternaturaly alert to changes in the sounds the birds and small animals make when Something Is Wrong In These Woods. Knows the outlands and the laws of the jungle in a way that may be impossible by real life standads but isn't literally magic in the context of DnD. Maybe something like a sneak attack feature that differs from the rogues a bit. Maybe you can use it twice in one turn but you only get another die every third level(or whatever someone actually good at balance thinks) or it's a different size of die or you can only use it on the first round of combat. Maybe just play with the conditions under which it can be used so if you charge out hiding in bush 30 feet and attack in melee you can still use it even though you're not unseen but merely having another ally within 5 feet of the target wouldn't be good enough to keep triggering it the rest of combat. Some love for archery that doesn't rely on spells would be good but maybe the aforementioned sneak attack thing would do the job. While I'm wishing upon a star a Natural Explorer type feature that doesn't feel like it's mechanically punishing you for venturing forth from your homeland (you know, like an adventurer might) would be nice.*

Maybe call the ranger's ability "ambush" or something, for flavour it could trigger against any enemy in difficult terrain

[JumboWheat01]

Rangers are a skilled warrior with a touch of divine nature magic. They have more innate skills than any other warrior class (Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, even Monk if you want to consider Monk,) and they have more innate survivability than the primary skill classes (Bard, Rogue,) thanks to higher HP pools and better starting armor capabilities. While warriors will definitely out-fight them, and skill users out skill them, they blend the two fairly nicely. Their magic lends itself to more support and utility rather than direct effects, and anyone can essentially out-cast them, but they're not all that reliant on spells, and they're useful for what they do.

Rangers are also naturalists, better able to survive out in their chosen areas. While a Rogue or a Bard could potentially be better in Survival and the like than a Ranger, Ranger actually has a class feature that makes such a thing out-right pointless. They're just that good in their chosen areas.

From a role standpoint, I see them decided as a Utility class, a great thing to have out-of-combat and in the right situation. They also fair well as a Striker in-combat, focusing down a single enemy at a time with either dual weapons or flurry of arrows (or even going in with a greatsword, if that's your thing. Hey, it works for Minsc.) Are they the absolute greatest at either? No, I will admit that quite readily.

But the main selling point (or turn off point,) is the flavor of the Ranger. You play a Ranger not to be the ultimate warrior, the best skill user, or a great spell caster. You play a Ranger to be a Ranger.

((Yes, I know, I used a 4e term with Striker. Say what you will about 4e, the combat role terms it coined were very useful.))

[djreynolds]

For me the Ranger is an outdoorsman long before he even resembles any kind of Fighter.

Yes, he can fight, but as a survival mechanism, not because it's his profession. He is skilled with a bow because he's a hunter, he's skilled with knife and axe because he uses them day-in-day-out for basic survival, he's skilled with a spear because it's the best weapon
to defend against boar, bear, 'gator and other large beasts...but he has no use for fancy polearms, swords or more exotic arms because they are weapons to be used by men, against men and he has no quarrel with them, except where they encroach upon his territory.

The Ranger, to me, is not a magic-user. His talents might appear magical to the unitiated; he can find food and tracks that others would miss, he can navigate using signs the uninitiated wouldn't know to look for, he can use what look like weeds to heal, he can travel for days without fatigue and without leaving a trace of his passage, he knows how to traverse the terrain and find shortcuts to arrive before he's expected...he can find water in the desert. Small miracles to those without the knowledge, but there's no "trick" or "magic"; it's just experience.

He's the Guide, the Wanderer, the Huntsman, the Shadow in the Woods. He is mysterious, secretive and uncanny, not because of some dark past or shadowy connections, but because he isn't used to the conpany of others and is slow to trust; just another part of his survival instincts.

Needless to say, I'm not a fan of the D&D magic-using, dual-wielding Fighter/Druid-ish mashup!

I like this ^^^^^^

In 1st edition Unearthed Arcana, rangers had to be specialized in a ranged weapon, dagger or knife, sword, and an axe or spear

I think what's difficult is the ranger has to pull from other classes

The barbarian is from the wild, the fighter is master of weapons and techniques, the paladin can heal and smite foes, and the rogue can stealth and knows how to hit, a monk travels light. I'm not even including spell user types.

So when you look at this, the ranger is versatile. They can do a lot but are not specialists of a particular type of warfare.... save skirmishing.

The ranger in game is best used as a skirmisher. With their spells and prowess with the bow they and even a beast they can force the enemy into positions and reach others. A monk can do this with speed, but a bow has a range of 120ft.

I'm really glad hunter's mark is freed up because they do have great control spells.
Ensnaring strike (useful at low levels),
longstrider (1 hour)
Spike growth
etc., these are good spells that enable the ranger to squeeze the enemy

You are not the best archer, a fighter is
Paladins are the best vs a single target foe
Rogues are the best with skills and striking from stealth

The ranger can do all of these, but not to where they are outclassing these others classes

[paladinn]

Wow, so many threads that have dealt with "fixing" the ranger have gotten around to just this question.

In OD&D (in the Strategic Review), the ranger was a fighter sub-class. It had tracking and limited cleric and magic-user casting (there was no official "druid" yet) and could use psionic-oriented magic items. I could never figure out why the MU magic, but Aragorn had limited healing and used a palantir, so I guess they were approximating. There were also a wide range of "favored enemies", basically anything human-shaped. 1e swapped cleric spells for druid; and 2e and 3e brought in the archery/2-weapon concept (and nerfed the favored enemies). 4e was pretty bizarre (in many ways). While a ranger could obviously make a good "striker", the "martial power source" already had a "striker" in the form of the rogue. Later splatbooks played up the archery angle, and tried to package the ranger as a "martial controller". 5e has taken the class back to the 3x model, but in so doing really nerfed the character and Especially the favored enemy feature. IMHO, the new UA's favored foe has done a lot to make the ranger a class I Might want to play again.

All that said, I have a natural inclination toward saving spellcasting for.. well.. spellcasters. I would lean toward a spell-less ranger with fighter-level weapon skill and HP, stealth skills nearly equal to a rogue, tracking, survival, animal friendship/handling/empathy, and some variant of the favored enemy/foe that would be far less situational than the btb 3/5e version. Throw in some limited natural healing. That's Aragorn.

Then the question becomes, does that need to be a distinct class, or should it go back to being a fighter subclass? IMHO, a ranger could benefit from many of the base fighter class features, before bolting-on the ranger-specific stuff.

[Pufferwockey]

For me the Ranger is an outdoorsman long before he even resembles any kind of Fighter.

Yes, he can fight, but as a survival mechanism, not because it's his profession. He is skilled with a bow because he's a hunter, he's skilled with knife and axe because he uses them day-in-day-out for basic survival, he's skilled with a spear because it's the best weapon
to defend against boar, bear, 'gator and other large beasts...but he has no use for fancy polearms, swords or more exotic arms because they are weapons to be used by men, against men and he has no quarrel with them, except where they encroach upon his territory.

The Ranger, to me, is not a magic-user. His talents might appear magical to the unitiated; he can find food and tracks that others would miss, he can navigate using signs the uninitiated wouldn't know to look for, he can use what look like weeds to heal, he can travel for days without fatigue and without leaving a trace of his passage, he knows how to traverse the terrain and find shortcuts to arrive before he's expected...he can find water in the desert. Small miracles to those without the knowledge, but there's no "trick" or "magic"; it's just experience.

He's the Guide, the Wanderer, the Huntsman, the Shadow in the Woods. He is mysterious, secretive and uncanny, not because of some dark past or shadowy connections, but because he isn't used to the conpany of others and is slow to trust; just another part of his survival instincts.

Needless to say, I'm not a fan of the D&D magic-using, dual-wielding Fighter/Druid-ish mashup!

Agreed, although I like my ranger a little more martial than this. I also started playing dnd in 3.0 so I'm a little attached to the two weapon fighting from back when that was all it did. I agree it's not vital to the archetype.


The 3.5 Scout Class from Complete Adventurer was, in my mind, a lot closer to my image of a Ranger than the Ranger Class from the PHB ever was. Proficiency in all the right weapons and tools, had a unique fighting style called Skirmish, which gave bonuses when you moved on your turn and had plenty of terrain and movement based features. Skill points equal to a Roguen but more Ranger-y Class Skills to choose from. Really solid, thematic Class that I had a lot of love for.

I thought about Skirmish for an ability to replace spell-casting, but didn't 3.5 have rules about breaking up your move with attacks that had to be circumvented with feats? I feel like it might not translate to 5e that well. I really think that something centered around attacking from stealth would make more thematic sense, but skirmish would be a way to make sure they don't outshine rogue while giving them a bit more for stand up fight.

[loki_ragnarock]

Allan Quartermain is a ranger. I mean... if you can get past the racism, the character conveys my thoughts about the ranger pretty well.

Rangers aren't like barbarians; they aren't of the wild, they aren't from a people hardened to pure iron by the smelter of nature, they aren't Conan the Barbarian.

A ranger is a civilized person who, for whatever reason, chooses to spend their time in the smelter.

Basically, think of adventurers. Not in the D&D sense, but in the sense of pulp fiction.


That's what a Ranger is to me; the direct inverse of the barbarian. Civilization in uncivilized places; a person who through knowledge and skill generates advantages for themselves in places that are actively hostile to them.

Robinson Crusoe? A Ranger. A civilized man stranded on an island forced to learn how to survive.
Jack Colton? A Ranger. (Romancing the Stone.) A civilized man seeking easy money in the exotic animal trade.
Thomas Abernathy? (Real world polar explorer.) A civilized man of low rank who was MVP in a number of polar expeditions in the 19th century, but never grabbed the headlines. I'm less willing to declare real people a specific class, but he'd probably qualify the core concept.
Robin Hood? A Ranger. A nobleman who learned how to sleep in the dirt in the woods, without the benefits of a butler, footmen, or wine tasters. Among dirty commoners, no less.


The ranger has to be a bit of a generalist because of the nature of the conceit, though; he's a character trapped between worlds. He should cast spells; either because the people where he's from do, or as something he picked up from the people he's among now. He should be scrappy; either because the people where he's from are, or as something he picked up from the people he's among now. He should be skilled in a wide variety of things, particularly those things that allow him to survive in those places that civilized people wouldn't be expected to survive. A generalist be necessity, at least mechanically.

I'm not sure if this makes sense. But that's the ranger concept to me.

[Speely]

Rangers to me are not just fighter/druids. They should also be expert skill monkeys in regard to wilderness skills. As with many other aspects of rangers, this quickly becomes an element of how the DM is running the game.

This comes into play when considering other subclasses like the Assassin, but It's really only the ranger that sees this disconnect via the base class. The Assassin chooses a specific role that builds off of a great base class, but the Ranger looks for the subclass that makes up for its shortcomings.

So much of what the Ranger is expected to do can be trivialized by the story. The mechanics are dependent upon the story. That can be great, but it can also be meaningless. No role should feel meaningless.

I think my biggest problem with Rangers is that they can more easily be rendered useless by DMs.

[djreynolds]

It funny that the favored enemy in 1E was goblinoids, orcs, giant types (ogres, giants, trolls)... they kind of creatures you could envision plaguing villages on the frontier.

I'm not sure when beasts, undead, demons, dragons, humanoid races were added to this.

And I'm sure barbarian tribes are plagued as well, and fighters might guard the village.

[JumboWheat01]

bunch of stuff...

That... actually does make a lot of sense, and gives a good dividing line between barbarians and rangers in thematics.

[Speely]

It funny that the favored enemy in 1E was goblinoids, orcs, giant types (ogres, giants, trolls)... they kind of creatures you could envision plaguing villages on the frontier.

I'm not sure when beasts, undead, demons, dragons, humanoid races were added to this.

And I'm sure barbarian tribes are plagued as well, and fighters might guard the village.

Rangers have a larger selection of enemies to target now. Given that favored enemies grant very weak advatanges now, opening up the selection seems sensible.

[Luccan]

It funny that the favored enemy in 1E was goblinoids, orcs, giant types (ogres, giants, trolls)... they kind of creatures you could envision plaguing villages on the frontier.

I'm not sure when beasts, undead, demons, dragons, humanoid races were added to this.

And I'm sure barbarian tribes are plagued as well, and fighters might guard the village.

At least by 3e. I'm pretty sure the original favored enemy was just because LotR. I mean, almost all of the creatures listed, that I recall, appear at some point in those books or the Hobbit. And I think the ones that don't appear in those books (I think kobolds were one of them) were usually part of one of those groups at the time (kobolds being goblinoids).

Since we're talking about 1e, it's also worth noting that rangers have had spellcasting since they were first printed. It's arguable they have ever been based on anything other than Aragorn and even then TSR decided to render his more bewildering abilities via spells.

[djreynolds]

At least by 3e. I'm pretty sure the original favored enemy was just because LotR. I mean, almost all of the creatures listed, that I recall, appear at some point in those books or the Hobbit. And I think the ones that don't appear in those books (I think kobolds were one of them) were usually part of one of those groups at the time (kobolds being goblinoids).

Since we're talking about 1e, it's also worth noting that rangers have had spellcasting since they were first printed. It's arguable they have ever been based on anything other than Aragorn and even then TSR decided to render his more bewildering abilities via spells.


Allan Quartermain is a ranger. I mean... if you can get past the racism, the character conveys my thoughts about the ranger pretty well.

Rangers aren't like barbarians; they aren't of the wild, they aren't from a people hardened to pure iron by the smelter of nature, they aren't Conan the Barbarian.

A ranger is a civilized person who, for whatever reason, chooses to spend their time in the smelter.

Basically, think of adventurers. Not in the D&D sense, but in the sense of pulp fiction.

That's what a Ranger is to me; the direct inverse of the barbarian. Civilization in uncivilized places; a person who through knowledge and skill generates advantages for themselves in places that are actively hostile to them.

I'm not sure if this makes sense. But that's the ranger concept to me.

Both are great posts

I believe "Grod" had a thread about ranger ideas and the cool aspect was some benefits tied to the terrain... I thought that was cool. I even offered maybe tying in favored enemy to terrain

I like the free hunter's mark, its kinda fixes the damage aspect but the loss of languages, though not a big deal, you do lose some flavor from the PHB ranger.

I mean we can give the designers our ideas.... I wonder what they are looking for.

I like the free expertise, canny, roving and tireless are pretty cool

But with druidic warrior it seems this is the direction the designers are pointing to?

I have never seen the ranger as a druidic warrior. To me the ranger is that kid on the farm who learned to hunt and what not. They, IMO, weren't born into like a barbarian

[Witty Username]

A man with a great sword in one hand and a pet hamster in the other.:smallcool:

More generally a wilderness fighter, along the lines of a fighter/druid; knowledgeable about the environment, wild beasts and survival skills. Spells that heal, trap, help with travel, and summon woodland allies(animals, maybe fey). I personally think that the phb ranger does pretty well from a flavor standpoint with its spells.

[Ravinsild]

Rangers are a skilled warrior with a touch of divine nature magic. They have more innate skills than any other warrior class (Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, even Monk if you want to consider Monk,) and they have more innate survivability than the primary skill classes (Bard, Rogue,) thanks to higher HP pools and better starting armor capabilities. While warriors will definitely out-fight them, and skill users out skill them, they blend the two fairly nicely. Their magic lends itself to more support and utility rather than direct effects, and anyone can essentially out-cast them, but they're not all that reliant on spells, and they're useful for what they do.

Rangers are also naturalists, better able to survive out in their chosen areas. While a Rogue or a Bard could potentially be better in Survival and the like than a Ranger, Ranger actually has a class feature that makes such a thing out-right pointless. They're just that good in their chosen areas.

From a role standpoint, I see them decided as a Utility class, a great thing to have out-of-combat and in the right situation. They also fair well as a Striker in-combat, focusing down a single enemy at a time with either dual weapons or flurry of arrows (or even going in with a greatsword, if that's your thing. Hey, it works for Minsc.) Are they the absolute greatest at either? No, I will admit that quite readily.

But the main selling point (or turn off point,) is the flavor of the Ranger. You play a Ranger not to be the ultimate warrior, the best skill user, or a great spell caster. You play a Ranger to be a Ranger.

((Yes, I know, I used a 4e term with Striker. Say what you will about 4e, the combat role terms it coined were very useful.))

I think I really really vibe with this explanation myself.

I am playing two Rangers currently😎

In one campaign I am a Kenku Beast Master Ranger with a Beast of the Air Raven Form. I am a brother to another Kenku, my twin, who is a Blood Hunter. He’s the assassin and I’m his support sniper. I pick off guards and make a distraction with my bird (who draws aggro really well Hahahaha) and also back him up with healing through Healing Spirit and Goodberry and the like. I’m a survivalist and a medic and I really help buff him and keep him alive. We fight great as a team and I feel like my contribution really matters, plus I’m the skill monkey. We had a Barbarian but he had to drop and we have a Paladin/Celestial Warlock who is effective but I really shine in the back line Striker/Support role.

In another campaign I’m playing a Wood Elf Beast Master with a Beast of the Earth in Panther form. He’s also an Archer however in this campaign we have a Paladin, a Cleric and a Celestial Warlock so our support needs are DULY covered. I’ve gone more of an ambusher, scout and tracker way picking spells like Entangle, Snare and Cordon of Arrows to be something of a trapper and set up ambushes. Similar characters: totally different roles. Now I’m a controller and a Striker, so supportive in a different way.

I really love Ranger and I’m using the new UA expanded features and they really help the Ranger thrive and fill in their niche a lot better.

[Tanarii]

A wilderness skirmisher-warrior who is skilled in ambush, scouting, wilderness survival, and skirmish combat and wilderness magic. Special skills against enemies of the frontier are bonus.

[sithlordnergal]

To me, Rangers have always been a Rogue/Druid with a touch of Fighter to them. They're supposed to be highly specialized, and highly effective, when it comes to certain creatures and areas in the wilderness. They're the ones who can lead you to where you need to go, and will get you there quickly and efficiently. They're also the ones you call when you need specific enemies dealt with.


Personally I found 3.5 got it just right with the Ranger/Scout multiclass while using the Swift Hunter feat. You were skilled in the wilderness, you had a useful animal companion to help you out, and you excelled against certain types of creatures thanks to Favored Enemy, since it gave you tracking and damage bonuses. And then you added the Scout's Rouge-ish abilities, specifically Skirmish, which gave you +1d6 to damage after you moved, and this was boosted with your Scout levels. Lastly, you took Swift Hunter to tie it all together, essentially making you a Gestalt when it came to Favored Enemy and Skirmish.

I.E. if you were a 5 Ranger/5 Scout with Swift Hunter, you were treated as if you were a 10th level Ranger for the purposes of Favored Enemy, and a 10th level Scout for the purposes of Skirmish.

Since you couldn't make a full attack and move at the same time in 3.5 without taking several feats, you ended up being sort of like a Rogue, making a single attack every round while moving around your enemy. Sure, you could stand there and take a Full Attack if you needed to, but your job was primarily a striker, moving in and out of combat while making a single, deadly attack. And if you went up against your Favored Enemy, you would, theoretically, be the deadliest one in the room against that creature since you gained up to a +10 damage bonus against your favored enemies.

I say theoretical of course because if you've ever played 3.5, then you know the Wizard was the real power house. Not to mention you could only apply Favored Enemy damage on a single attack per creature, which made it a lot less effective then it really sounds. Though that did give it more synergy with Skirmish, since you couldn't make a full attack while using Skirmish anyway.


If I were to change up the Ranger, here are the things I would do:

1) You add your proficiency bonus to damage against favored enemies.

2) You gain Expertise

3) I don't know what to do with Favored Terrain, but it needs a big fix. I don't know how, but it does. In its current form, it destroys any sort of travel based gameplay if you have a Ranger in their favored terrain. To be honest, wilderness survival is 5e's biggest weakness, so that doesn't help the Ranger, but this ability makes it worse by mostly removing the need to even roll dice.

[Sindal]

It's been mentioned before more or else. But to me:

Rangers are people who, by their own choice or not, have been forced to adapted to an unsafe, unforgiving environment away from the comforts of society.

In such an environment, survival is paramount. Nothing else matters at the end of the day. Either you have won or you have lost and are that much closer to death (or are dead). This can be as severe as hunting a meal to pathing difficult environments correctly to a life or death fight.

A ranger needs to, on their own, be able to deal with almost anything thr world throws at them. Having a companion is easier but they need to be self sufficient enough on their own.

This reflects their fighting style:
Rangers are predators in battle. They're best at singling out prey and executing them before they become a problem. Because they know if thay prey is allowed to act or exist, it is a danger to their survival.

They're not clad in heavy armour but they're still usually robust enough to take punishment, because heaven knows they've been through worse.

They need to be able to find, track and reach their prey as well. Which is where all the wilderness stuff comes from. It's not because they have druid powers. Its because magic is one of the easiest answers to many of the problems survival poses. Who wouldn't learn to use magic (or survival tricks if the nature of magic bothers you) if their life depended on it?


I find it's best not to compare what they do when you compare them to all the other classes. Because a lot of what they do will overlap into what other classes do, because they're designed as a variety package to deal with just about anything. I think it's easier to define what they are on their own and not (fighter + druid) or (the nature version of paladins) or (nature rogues)

But if I have to compare, I would compare them based on when you would pick a ranger for a mission:

-You send fighters into a war. They will outlast the enemy and thrive on constant fighting.
-You send druids to calm and commune with th forces of nature when they act up or get corrupted.
-You send rogues when you have a 'delicate' problem you need, most likely in a somewhat civil setting becuase that's where the things a rogue wants usually are.
-You send a ranger, when 'something out there' needs to not be there anymore. Or at the very least, the something out there needs to be kept in check and prevented from getting to the towns.

[MustaKrakish]

I really love the idea of the ranger. The main problem is that so many classes step on that role. We have the rogues, especially the scout one. We have the fighter, and with the right background (and maybe Eldritch Knight) can be quite rangery. We have the Oath of the Ancients paladin add in the outlander background and you have a nature warrior, and even monks and bards when it comes to utility and mobility.

I just can't find something about the ranger that justifies it being a core class. Each time I am building a nature, survival-type character I end up with something else. I would end up with a barbarian, or rogue, and if I want it more mystical I will just go with the druid.

Usually, you don't need to be even more extremely survival orientated. Proficiency or even expertise in skill would usually be enough, extra class features on top of this are nice, I guess, but in the end, won't change much.

In the end, I think that if other classes didn't invade into the ranger's role it was a really cool core class that brings something unique to the table, a guide, a survivalist, a warrior with a mission to defend the land and is blessed by the powers of nature itself.

[sithlordnergal]

-snip-.

I actually don't think the issue is other classes invading the Ranger's role. Rather, its a mixture of three separate problems that create a sort of perfect storm:

- The Ranger's role is so broadly defined, that several other classes can take that role, and skill monkies can take on that role better then the Ranger can

- The Ranger's abilities to fulfill their role are poor at best, with Natural Explorer being the only base class ability that actually gives the Ranger something unique to help in that role. Though Natural Explorer has issues of its own.

- This is the biggest problem, 5e isn't well designed for survival game play. I say this as a DM who has seen several Rangers, and as a player who tried a survival game where the party had to create a settlement out of nothing in an unexplored, hostile land. 5e is more suited for your standard adventures, not "Surviving in the Wild", and the Ranger just happens to be built around "Surviving in the Wild."

Seriously, look at the Ranger's two core abilities, the abilities they get at level 1 that help define the class. One is Favored Enemy, which gives you advantage on Survival checks to track an enemy, advantage on intelligence checks to remember things about your favored enemy, and a free language. Do you know what also gives advantage on checks? A character Aiding another character in a task they're doing. You know what would help this ability big time? If it gave Expertise AND advantage on ANY Wisdom, Intelligence, and Charisma based check made against something concerning your Favored enemy. Oh, and if it added your proficiency modifier to damage rolls against Favored Enemies.

Next up is Natural Explorer. This one is a bit odd to me. Its one of the few abilities in 5e that I find to be over powered. But I don't know how to fix it. Removing any of the abilities it grants kind of ruins Natural Explorer, but at the same time it can absolutely wreck any form of travel in your game. Why? Because this class ability's entire shtick is making travel as easy as possible...and it does that by removing dice rolls. You can't get lost, you won't starve, and you won't be slowed down. I think the most balanced part of this ability is being able to figure out the exact size and number of a group of creatures your tracking, and how long ago they passed through the area. I'm not gonna talk about the stealth bonus thing, cause it only works when you're alone...which makes no sense for a DnD ability since I have never seen a Ranger go it alone. Buff that to apply to the whole party. =/

[Kane0]

My answer the last time this came up (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?594497-Ranger-should-be-a-Rogue-or-Fighter-Subclass-Change-my-mind):

My views on ranger 'identity'.

- Where the Rogue hides, the Ranger seeks
- Where the Druid reveres nature, for the Ranger it is a tool
- Where the Barbarian is brutal and direct, the Ranger is cunning and crafty
- Where the Fighter and Monk rely on attack quantity and the Rogue relies on attack quality, the Ranger sits in the middle with the Barbarian and Paladin
- Where the Paladin prioritizes burst damage, the Ranger focuses on consistency

- Rangers fight smarter not harder
- Rangers are equal parts lone wolf and team player
- Rangers primarily operate on the 'second line' or 'flank', much like Rogues and Monks

Rangers, like all classes, should get some unique items such as pets, traps, toxins, etc but it's fine to share things with other classes. What isn't OK is lazily copying features or removing aspects of play.


Which also turned into a rather fruitful thread of its own. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?595643-By-request-Workshopping-another-Ranger)

[TripleD]

A ranger is a master of their environment.

The lone mountain man? He’s a ranger.

The city guard tracking criminals through a seedy underbelly? She’s a ranger.

The old man who goes out on his skiff for days at a time yet never gets lost? Ranger.

Rangers are intensely aware of what is around them. They notice little details that others don’t.

Rangers are masters of manipulating and taking advantage of their environment.

Rangers are INT based. Unlike a Druid, their awareness comes from hard work and study rather than a mystical connection.

The core class should be based around movement, terrain, and high, but limited, bonuses against certain enemies.

The subclasses are based around hunting, trapping, and pets.

No spells, but spell-like abilities. Traps and lures that can fool enemies similar to mind control. Poultices and poisons that offer variety beyond just damage and healing. Heightened senses and abilities like Darkvision, Tremorsense, and Truesight eventually being awarded.

[Aussiehams]

I think the biggest issue with the Ranger is that it's playing a different game than everyone else.
Their whole identity is based around being a survivalist individual, relying on their wits to master the environment.
For me at least, adventuring in a group of heroic murder hobos makes the least sense for them as a class.

[Morty]

My first 5E character was a dwarf scout rogue with good wisdom and expertise in Perception, Survival and Nature. Thus she took the lead whenever it came to traversing the wilds, acted as lookout and tracked. In other words, she did much of what a ranger is supposed to do. In combat, she hid and sniped with a crossbow.

So if a rogue can do all that, despite the "thief" baggage hanging heavy over them, and the ranger has to be the wilderness expert, the class features supposed to help them with that get increasingly overwrought and sometimes trivialize the whole experience (as is the case with the Revised Ranger).

"Wilderness survivalist" or however we end up calling it is an important concept, but one that clearly doesn't deserve its own class. But since D&D as a franchise is extremely unwilling to ever drop one of them, it's had features thrown at it for 20 years to see what sticks.

[TripleD]

I think the biggest issue with the Ranger is that it's playing a different game than everyone else.
Their whole identity is based around being a survivalist individual, relying on their wits to master the environment.
For me at least, adventuring in a group of heroic murder hobos makes the least sense for them as a class.

This is a significant issue.

How many DMs are actually willing to let their characters starve to death? Or get lost in the woods for weeks?

[MustaKrakish]

This is a significant issue.

How many DMs are actually willing to let their characters starve to death? Or get lost in the woods for weeks?

The Ranger or a character with the Outlander background (to a lesser extent) trivialize this. I would do such adventures if I had no rangers and no outlanders. And then have the characters with high Survival skill get some spotlight as they try to guide the party through the wilderness.

But when a player says "I have this ability so we find food and shelter, I don't need to roll", then what is the point of such scenarios?

I think that if Rangers had special traps, maybe the ability to gather many pets, and even "stare down" different types of monsters, it would give them the feel of an "apex predator" / "supreme hunter" / "elite commando" kind of fighter-type.

[stoutstien]

A background, maybe a subclass but that's pushing it.
it shares the same problem that druids have where it's trying to field an niche that is both vague and broad.

Mechanically there's nothing wrong with either one of the classes but they always felt forced to me.

[Ravinsild]

So what about a Fighter with the Outlander background and training in Survival with say the mobile feat isn’t good enough for those who want a Spell-less Ranger?

It seems like to many that’s essentially it, just a dude who comes from the backwoods, knows the land and can hit and run well.

[HiveStriker]

I will express what a Ranger is to me. I believe the Ranger is the equivalent of a Paladin, in that Paladin = Fighter + Cleric, so Ranger is Fighter + Druid.

The Ranger, to me, is the master of versatility and adaptation. Archetypes that spring to mind are of course Aragorn, but also the Mountain Men of America who trailblazers finding the way out west, living out in the land alone for months, even years at a time. Native Americans living on the land, nomads, with close ties to the land. Guardians of nature, and warriors with a more nature bent focus.

To me the Ranger is the premier outdoorsman, the premier scout outside of urban environments, the best at tracking enemies and finding their lairs and hide outs, and able to have the right tool for the right job in the moment. They are guardians of nature, wilderness experts and survivors, at one with the land but more aggressive than Druids. Trappers, Fur traders, frontiersmen, explorers, survivalists, outdoorsmen, hunters are key words that come to mind when I think Ranger. Like Deckland Harp from the show Frontier.

I really think the new UA Alternate Class features helped capture this.

What is a spell-less Ranger? Why do people think it's best as a Fighter subclass or a Rogue? What is a Ranger to you?
This is one of the best summary I ever read on what is imo a Ranger. :)

My own version would be: for me, the Ranger is the best martial when you want to be as self-sufficient as possible whatever situation you get thrown in, or whatever group you need to join for a mission.
In fact, I'd ten times prefer playing a Ranger than a Paladin or Rogue, and I do love those classes too though.
And in a party with no true caster or only a Cleric, a Ranger will be hundred times more useful than a Paladin, Arcane Trickster, Four Elements Monk or Eldricht Knight.


A lot of what you mention seems skill-based, and the Ranger tends to lag behind Rogues on skills--even skills like Perception (in natural settings), Stealth (in natural settings), and Survival. I would have liked to have seen Rangers with situational versions of Expertise and/or Reliable Talent when using certain skills in Favored Environments. Worse, Nature tends to be ignored and avoided because so many Rangers have low Int in 5e thanks to array/point-buy, but this can be an issue for Druids too (and for Clerics & Paladins with Religion).
I don't get what you mean. Rangers *do* have Expertise thanks to Favored Terrain. If covers ALL Intelligence and Wisdom checks.
So only Stealth is "missing" from your wishlist, but you can very fairly compensate (and more) with Pass Without Trace if you really want to be stealthy.

Congrats! You just discovered Ranger had what you wanted. XD

As for Nature, well, if people want to nerf themselves, it's something to put on them, not the class! It's a native choice, and between races and background, it's easy enough to also pick Stealth and Perception which are the two other ones you usually want to grab whatever kind of Ranger you'll play.
And once you got proficiency, with Favored Terrain kicking in, you already got better than an INT-based character of same level. :)

As for Reliable Talent, putting it on Ranger, even at a comparable level as for Rogue, would have been probably pushing it too much.
Let's recall that most Rangers will at least get a 14 in WIS, so in Favored Terrain, you already auto-succeed on any DC 10 at level 5.
Provided "optimized for balance Ranger" (meaning starting 16, pushed to 18 by level 12), at level 12 you'll auto-succeed on DC 15 on WIS check, and auto-succeed on DC 10 in INT (with starting 10).
That is really enough to make you a very reliable scout and fairly decent "scrutinizer/analyst".

Honestly, my only two real gripes with Ranger considering those unofficial yet strong ties with Druid, are
a) the lack of Polymorph. As a 4th level spell it's not like it would have been any game-breaking anyways for a martial that gets it on level 13, but it could have been very fun especially with Beastmaster (really commun with your companion, you know? ^^).
b) the absence of an "urban/artificial" Favored Environment. I mean, I completely get why they felt it would be off, considering the classic trope of Ranger being a wildman of sorts, maybe they felt that "Urban Master" was a role naturally devoted to Rogue, but I think it could still work very well. And at least people who are unsure of what Favored Terrain to pick (because they wouldn't/couldn't speak of it in session 0) could at least have one Environnment that is sure to come into play more or less regularly.

And the only change I would consider in mechanics from PHB would be either to bump the number of Favored Environment, or give a way to learn another one between level for a considerate amount of time and gold in downtime.

For me the Ranger is an outdoorsman long before he even resembles any kind of Fighter.

Yes, he can fight, but as a survival mechanism, not because it's his profession. He is skilled with a bow because he's a hunter, he's skilled with knife and axe because he uses them day-in-day-out for basic survival, he's skilled with a spear because it's the best weapon
to defend against boar, bear, 'gator and other large beasts...but he has no use for fancy polearms, swords or more exotic arms because they are weapons to be used by men, against men and he has no quarrel with them, except where they encroach upon his territory.

The Ranger, to me, is not a magic-user. His talents might appear magical to the unitiated; he can find food and tracks that others would miss, he can navigate using signs the uninitiated wouldn't know to look for, he can use what look like weeds to heal, he can travel for days without fatigue and without leaving a trace of his passage, he knows how to traverse the terrain and find shortcuts to arrive before he's expected...he can find water in the desert. Small miracles to those without the knowledge, but there's no "trick" or "magic"; it's just experience.

He's the Guide, the Wanderer, the Huntsman, the Shadow in the Woods. He is mysterious, secretive and uncanny, not because of some dark past or shadowy connections, but because he isn't used to the conpany of others and is slow to trust; just another part of his survival instincts.

Needless to say, I'm not a fan of the D&D magic-using, dual-wielding Fighter/Druid-ish mashup!
(Yeah, I'm catching up with thread ^^).
This is another point of view I like very much.
While I love Ranger as is, I would definitely consider a version where abilities are actual class features or "manoeuvers of a sort" instead, because I feel in 5E at least the source of magic for Ranger feels clunky. And at least that would explain why it's such a hard choice to make every level. ^^


My answer the last time this came up (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?594497-Ranger-should-be-a-Rogue-or-Fighter-Subclass-Change-my-mind):

My views on ranger 'identity'.

- Where the Rogue hides, the Ranger seeks
- Where the Druid reveres nature, for the Ranger it is a tool
- Where the Barbarian is brutal and direct, the Ranger is cunning and crafty
- Where the Fighter and Monk rely on attack quantity and the Rogue relies on attack quality, the Ranger sits in the middle with the Barbarian and Paladin
- Where the Paladin prioritizes burst damage, the Ranger focuses on consistency

- Rangers fight smarter not harder
- Rangers are equal parts lone wolf and team player
- Rangers primarily operate on the 'second line' or 'flank', much like Rogues and Monks

Rangers, like all classes, should get some unique items such as pets, traps, toxins, etc but it's fine to share things with other classes. What isn't OK is lazily copying features or removing aspects of play.


Which also turned into a rather fruitful thread of its own. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?595643-By-request-Workshopping-another-Ranger)
Gosh... Sorry, I feel I'm just copy/pasting instead of actually contributing, but I can't help myself. Some posts are really great, and that one certainly qualifies as. :)

[Damon_Tor]

I will express what a Ranger is to me. I believe the Ranger is the equivalent of a Paladin, in that Paladin = Fighter + Cleric, so Ranger is Fighter + Druid.

Both the ranger and the paladin should have been fighter subclasses, 1/3 casters with access to druid and cleric spells, respectively. But nostalgia demanded they be their own classes, so their own classes they became.

[GlenSmash!]

A wilderness skirmisher-warrior who is skilled in ambush, scouting, wilderness survival, and skirmish combat and wilderness magic. Special skills against enemies of the frontier are bonus.

I agree with this. An elegant summary.

I also like when a Ranger can further specialize in these categories.

A Ranger who specializes in dealing with enemies of the frontier and/or skirmish combat might look more like a fighter but still be a Ranger. A Ranger who specializes in scouting and wilderness survival likewise might resemble a Scout Rogue. And a Ranger who specializes in wilderness magic might resemble a Druid.

This is what makes me such a fan of the changes in the recent UA. I can now choose to make my Ranger more combative, more skilled, more mobile, or more druidic.

[GlenSmash!]

Both the ranger and the paladin should have been fighter subclasses, 1/3 casters with access to druid and cleric spells, respectively. But nostalgia demanded they be their own classes, so their own classes they became.

I think you can throw Barbarian in there too. Despite being my favorite class, I think it's concept of "guy who gets mad to fight better" is a pretty weak basis for a whole class.

[paladinn]

Both the ranger and the paladin should have been fighter subclasses, 1/3 casters with access to druid and cleric spells, respectively. But nostalgia demanded they be their own classes, so their own classes they became.

That is precisely what the ranger and paladin were in Classic (BECMI). There was no official "ranger"; but in the Princess Ark articles there was the "druidic knight" which is much the same thing. The big difference is the BECMI had them as sort-of "prestige" classes; fighters could only choose them at 9th level. I would have made them available at 3rd.

Originally paladins were Not a casting class. They had healing, better saving throws, detect evil and a badly-defined "dispel evil" ability. Rangers could be made spell-less as well If their other abilities justified their existence. But that gets to the whole identity issue. Is a ranger a junior druid or a fighter/rogue hybrid?

[Ravinsild]

I agree with this. An elegant summary.

I also like when a Ranger can further specialize in these categories.

A Ranger who specializes in dealing with enemies of the frontier and/or skirmish combat might look more like a fighter but still be a Ranger. A Ranger who specializes in scouting and wilderness survival likewise might resemble a Scout Rogue. And a Ranger who specializes in wilderness magic might resemble a Druid.

This is what makes me such a fan of the changes in the recent UA. I can now choose to make my Ranger more combative, more skilled, more mobile, or more druidic.

Yes! Exactly! This is spot on. I gave my own massive summary of the UA changes I felt really helped define and reinforce the identity of the Ranger. It feels like a bulls-eye to me. Hopefully it all stays!

[Morty]

Both the ranger and the paladin should have been fighter subclasses, 1/3 casters with access to druid and cleric spells, respectively. But nostalgia demanded they be their own classes, so their own classes they became.


I think you can throw Barbarian in there too. Despite being my favorite class, I think it's concept of "guy who gets mad to fight better" is a pretty weak basis for a whole class.

Of course, if paladins, rangers and barbarians are fighter subclasses, then fighter stops being a class and becomes a clunky point-buy character with extra steps.

[GlenSmash!]

For me the Ranger is an outdoorsman long before he even resembles any kind of Fighter.

Yes, he can fight, but as a survival mechanism, not because it's his profession. He is skilled with a bow because he's a hunter, he's skilled with knife and axe because he uses them day-in-day-out for basic survival, he's skilled with a spear because it's the best weapon
to defend against boar, bear, 'gator and other large beasts...but he has no use for fancy polearms, swords or more exotic arms because they are weapons to be used by men, against men and he has no quarrel with them, except where they encroach upon his territory.

The Ranger, to me, is not a magic-user. His talents might appear magical to the unitiated; he can find food and tracks that others would miss, he can navigate using signs the uninitiated wouldn't know to look for, he can use what look like weeds to heal, he can travel for days without fatigue and without leaving a trace of his passage, he knows how to traverse the terrain and find shortcuts to arrive before he's expected...he can find water in the desert. Small miracles to those without the knowledge, but there's no "trick" or "magic"; it's just experience.

He's the Guide, the Wanderer, the Huntsman, the Shadow in the Woods. He is mysterious, secretive and uncanny, not because of some dark past or shadowy connections, but because he isn't used to the conpany of others and is slow to trust; just another part of his survival instincts.

Needless to say, I'm not a fan of the D&D magic-using, dual-wielding Fighter/Druid-ish mashup!

I agree with so much of this, but I have a hard time seeing a Ranger that's lives off the land of a D&D world so well that they are the undisputed wilderness experts without picking up any of the nature magic that is intrinsic to that D&D world.

Likewise in regard to weapons the D&D world is filled with far worse that boar, bear, 'gator. If the Ranger's range is full of Orc, Giant, Hobgoblin, Dragon, or Undead enemies the Ranger would be so foolish not to adopt weapons that are especially effective against such enemies. And I think the Ranger should be nobody's fool.

So while I think you have described the core of the Ranger class (what every Ranger should have) so well, I think there should be a lot more room for a Ranger to specialize in anything that would make ranging, wandering, scouting, or pathfinding in a D&D world easier like weapons, or magic, or having a beast companion, etc.

[GlenSmash!]

Of course, if paladins, rangers and barbarians are fighter subclasses, then fighter stops being a class and becomes a clunky point-buy character with extra steps.

Too true. You'd have to fold other like concepts together and you're stuck with combat guy, spell guy, and skill guy. Each with various specializations. Some that step on each others toes.

I like that, but I understand the classes as they are appeal to a lot of people.

[Pufferwockey]

So what about a Fighter with the Outlander background and training in Survival with say the mobile feat isn’t good enough for those who want a Spell-less Ranger?

It seems like to many that’s essentially it, just a dude who comes from the backwoods, knows the land and can hit and run well.

Guess my post was too long winded. No its not good enough. Nor is the rogue a satisfactory base class. The ranger ans it's subclass' features are what you'd want on a spell-less ranger. Just with the spellcasting replaced.

some ideas for what could replace it, some from other posters:

the 3.5 skirmish ability

sneak attack starting at level 2 and advancing every 3rd level or w/e works balance wise

something like sneak attack that could be used twice on the first round of combat but would be more difficult to trigger later on

limited superiority dice

cold/poison resistance

advantage on con saves or wisdom saves

[Misterwhisper]

To me a ranger is an ok 5th team member once the main roles are covered kind of like the monk.

[GlenSmash!]

To me a ranger is an ok 5th team member once the main roles are covered kind of like the monk.

I like the Bard for that role too.

[Willie the Duck]

In OD&D (in the Strategic Review), the ranger was a fighter sub-class. It had tracking and limited cleric and magic-user casting (there was no official "druid" yet) and could use psionic-oriented magic items. I could never figure out why the MU magic, but Aragorn had limited healing and used a palantir, so I guess they were approximating. There were also a wide range of "favored enemies", basically anything human-shaped. 1e swapped cleric spells for druid; and 2e and 3e brought in the archery/2-weapon concept (and nerfed the favored enemies). 4e was pretty bizarre (in many ways). While a ranger could obviously make a good "striker", the "martial power source" already had a "striker" in the form of the rogue. Later splatbooks played up the archery angle, and tried to package the ranger as a "martial controller". 5e has taken the class back to the 3x model, but in so doing really nerfed the character and Especially the favored enemy feature. IMHO, the new UA's favored foe has done a lot to make the ranger a class I Might want to play again.

Yes. Thank you! The grognard in me loves it when people remember there was D&D before 1E. Yes, the ranger was originally a fighter offshoot. Obviously it was in no small part an effort to make an Aragorn class, but much like Clerics moving beyond simple Van Helsing expies, they soon took on a life of their own. Like the paladin, it was a 'mostly strictly better' option that you could get if you rolled well (TSR-era D&D was big on rewarding good luck with further good fortune). The low-level MU and Cleric magic could have been simply about Aragorn using the Palantir and such, but I think it also was just a quick, low word-count way of approximating ranger's skills and such (back before 'martial v spellcaster' was much of a thing).


Anyways, to me the ranger is, well, a ranger. Half forest ranger -- someone who comes from civilization (or at least certainly could, if someone is a barbarian who happens to be a ranger, they are separate qualities) but chooses to live and make a living out in the wilderness, and half army ranger -- elite combatant who knows how to track, stealth, and stalk. They are the kind of character who, if being pursued by others, could live out in the wilds indefinitely, leading their pursuers into natural traps or ambush points. Some interpretations of them have them talk to the animals or the fae spirits of the wilds or the like, and those are the ones that would need some level of supernatural qualities (but not necessarily spells), while others would simply know that those birds that flew off over there were startled by something out of place, etc. (and that's where the purely mundane ranger works best).

Overall I'm pretty agnostic on the whole spellcasting thing in general (although I really don't get the entire spell v. not battle to begin with), although why not please everyone and make there be a little book full of different options (background instead of class, archetype instead of full class, class with no spells, 1/3 spells, 1/2 spells, valor-bard-like full spells w/ 2 attacks at level 6, warlock-like SR-recharge spells) <--Would love 6E to work that way for lots of classes.

What matters to me is that upcoming material actually try to make the wilderness as a whole be exciting to mess around in. As it stands most classes or abilities which interact with it do so by rendering irrelevant any constraints that wilderness otherwise would have given (but that both players and DM probably forgot to enforce). As an entirely optional supplement, I would love to see something that did it differently.

[Spiritchaser]

WRT the original post:

To me the ranger is very comfortable in the wilderness
They can navigate, travel, hunt and explore comfortably and for an indefinite period of time in all manner of environments and they can do it with a pretty good chance of not letting on that they were there at all.

They contribute stealth to the entire party, and they know how to lay an ambush, especially if they are in the wilds.

They contribute vigilance awareness and perception to a party, and can spot the signs of a creature lurking above and below.

They are strong, agile and fast, and can handle themselves in a standup fight, though they’re a bit more comfortable with shorter high intensity battles, hopefully where they got the drop on something.

They can track their quarry on ground where others would find nothing.

They may have a background in herbalism and understand natural remedies or they may not.

My favourite 5e take on a ranger is the UA scout fighter mixed with a little rogue (your choice of rogue)

Take wood elf with wood elf magic for some extra speed, better stealth in the wilds and just a little more magic.

Now: I don’t have any problem with other rangers, I think they’re not optimal but workable, and I really like the gloomstalker... but my favourite interpretation of a ranger doesn’t actually have any ranger levels.

[Misterwhisper]

I like the Bard for that role too.

The bard can easily just be the skill utility stealth guy in place of the rogue.

[Ravinsild]

Well it seems like the consistency is there and the only disagreement comes down to whether they should have spells or not, with some wanting additional class features to replace spell casting altogether. Basically low magic vs high magic. This seems to be the ONLY class that's contested like this? I've never seen anyone wish for a more magical fighter, or less magical paladin, etc.

I wonder what about the Ranger makes it want to be split so evenly between low and high magic when no other class seems to have this issue?

[blackjack50]

Hm? A ranger? Well. They SHOULD be the best in surviving in the Wild Lands...other than the Druid. Where the Druid should rely on magic...the Ranger should rely on minimalism and survival skills. The idea of the frontiersmen? To me? That fits. A hunter who stalks the wild for preferred targets. Who scouts terrain and makes maps and learns deer paths.

Their weapons should reflect their profession too. Bows, crossbows, and other ranged weapons. Their melee weapons should be knives, daggers, boar swords, hatchets, and axes. These would not be preferred in melee, but are meant to finish off game. Their primary melee weapon if they use one? Should be someone like a Boar Spear. A spear with a crossbar used to stick a charging animal, but with a crossbar so it cannot run up the stick. Be that a pouncing big cat or a boar charging.

But I don’t know if the designers really made the game to fit that way for a ranger. I have the classical image of a ranger. A hunter and scout. A skirmisher except against the preferred enemys. :(

[Pufferwockey]

Well it seems like the consistency is there and the only disagreement comes down to whether they should have spells or not, with some wanting additional class features to replace spell casting altogether. Basically low magic vs high magic. This seems to be the ONLY class that's contested like this? I've never seen anyone wish for a more magical fighter, or less magical paladin, etc.

I wonder what about the Ranger makes it want to be split so evenly between low and high magic when no other class seems to have this issue?

Personally I don't think rangers shouldn't have magic at all. I just don't like that they must have magic.

Simple answer to the paladin and fighter part of the question is that people used build their own gish characters out of multiclass and prestige classes in editions that allowed our the way people now make do building their best approximations of rangers from other classes now. In 5e(maybe 4? I skipped that one) we got the eldritch knight as a subclass rather than prestige and bladelock to scratch that itch. Later the hexblade made melee casting for warlocks more SAD and wizards got bladedancing. People who multiclass for melee magic users now, I think, largely do it for the challenge/fun.

I'm only guessing about paladins because I don't care that deeply about them as an archetype, so if someone who does care about them reads this and I've got it wrong please forgive me.

I'm guessing there's less demand for magic free paladins because the trope of a faithful warrior who's zeal conveys actual divine protection smiting evildoers is pretty well established so people looking to play that archetype aren't as confused. If they do want to go non magical, pardon my hypocrisy if I'm getting this wrong, the fighter class really does work fine for them.

[Amechra]

Well it seems like the consistency is there and the only disagreement comes down to whether they should have spells or not, with some wanting additional class features to replace spell casting altogether. Basically low magic vs high magic. This seems to be the ONLY class that's contested like this? I've never seen anyone wish for a more magical fighter, or less magical paladin, etc.

I wonder what about the Ranger makes it want to be split so evenly between low and high magic when no other class seems to have this issue?

I have literally homebrewed a less magical Bard (which isn't as uncommon as you'd think). I've also given thoughts to a non-magical Wizard and Cleric (because I am clearly mad).

[blackjack50]

Well it seems like the consistency is there and the only disagreement comes down to whether they should have spells or not, with some wanting additional class features to replace spell casting altogether. Basically low magic vs high magic. This seems to be the ONLY class that's contested like this? I've never seen anyone wish for a more magical fighter, or less magical paladin, etc.

I wonder what about the Ranger makes it want to be split so evenly between low and high magic when no other class seems to have this issue?

I think it is just like the OP says...the class idea is somewhere between Druid and fighter. And people want to have more of one of those based on their play style I suppose.

[Ravinsild]

I think it is just like the OP says...the class idea is somewhere between Druid and fighter. And people want to have more of one of those based on their play style I suppose.

I am the OP :P

[Morty]

Too true. You'd have to fold other like concepts together and you're stuck with combat guy, spell guy, and skill guy. Each with various specializations. Some that step on each others toes.

I like that, but I understand the classes as they are appeal to a lot of people.

Or we could have several distinct classes that don't wildly vary in focus and don't step on each other's toes. But people get upset when they can't write "fighter" on their sheet.


Well it seems like the consistency is there and the only disagreement comes down to whether they should have spells or not, with some wanting additional class features to replace spell casting altogether. Basically low magic vs high magic. This seems to be the ONLY class that's contested like this? I've never seen anyone wish for a more magical fighter, or less magical paladin, etc.

I wonder what about the Ranger makes it want to be split so evenly between low and high magic when no other class seems to have this issue?

Because Ranger spells are a hand-me-down druid list that's one of several disjointed class features piled up on it. Many want to drop them and focus on other aspects, others want to embrace it, but the common point is that it should stop straddling the fence. It's just one aspect of how unfocused the class is.

[paladinn]

Well it seems like the consistency is there and the only disagreement comes down to whether they should have spells or not, with some wanting additional class features to replace spell casting altogether. Basically low magic vs high magic. This seems to be the ONLY class that's contested like this? I've never seen anyone wish for a more magical fighter, or less magical paladin, etc.

There's already an option for a more magical fighter.. it's called the Eldritch Knight.

I would like a less-magical paladin, depending on what takes the place of spellcasting. As I mentioned before, the OD&D paladin had no spells, but Did have an at-will "dispel evil" ability. If that was defined better it might suffice. Or work on the divine smite feature. A paladin's spell slots could be used as "smite points". A smite ability, along with healing, detect evil, protection auras, etc. would make a good paladin But I would prefer it as a fighter subclass.

Likewise a spell-less ranger would make a good fighter sub.

Just a thought: what would a spell-less ranger/ scout rogue mashup look like?

[blackjack50]

I am the OP :P

:) I meant original post hehe...not original poster. I think you hit the nail on the head about what people want. Maybe SOME argument can be made about “fighter/rogue” though. A ranger should be stealthy in my mind. But then...I suppose one could make the argument that they track. They follow. They have to be aware more than stealthy. :)

[Pufferwockey]

I think it is just like the OP says...the class idea is somewhere between Druid and fighter. And people want to have more of one of those based on their play style I suppose.

Meaning no offence to you personally, I really hate this way of looking at the ranger, even the spellcasting one. The ranger is a warrior archetype who's similarities to the druid begin and end with knowing their way around the woods and a few spells. A ranger's attitude towards nature is more likely to of grudging respect for a worthy foe or an unreliable freind than of reverence... Depending on the ranger's own culture. Maybe more so much for wood elf rangers.

I finished my answer to the question about why this isn't an issue for Paladins

[Ravinsild]

Meaning no offence to you personally, I really hate this way of looking at the ranger, even the spellcasting one. The ranger is a warrior archetype who's similarities to the druid begin and end with knowing their way around the woods and a few spells. A ranger's attitude towards nature is more likely to of grudging respect for a worthy foe or an unreliable freind than of reverence... Depending on the ranger's own culture. Maybe more so much for wood elf rangers.

I finished my answer to the question about why this isn't an issue for Paladins

See I always saw Rangers as the militant aspect of Druids, those who revere nature...and protect it at arrow or sword point to keep invaders, trespassers and those that would do harm at bay. To cull those that would harm the purity of the land and defend it by steel over magic.

[GlenSmash!]

See I always saw Rangers as the militant aspect of Druids, those who revere nature...and protect it at arrow or sword point to keep invaders, trespassers and those that would do harm at bay. To cull those that would harm the purity of the land and defend it by steel over magic.

I think the opposite.

In almost all fantasy fiction the Ranger is the guy protecting Civilization from the Wild, not protecting the Wild from Civilization.

The Dunedain secretly guarding the Shire from wolves and Goblins
The Rangers of Ithilien guarding Gondor
The Rangers of the Watch guarding Westeros

etc etc etc.

[Pufferwockey]

See I always saw Rangers as the militant aspect of Druids, those who revere nature...and protect it at arrow or sword point to keep invaders, trespassers and those that would do harm at bay. To cull those that would harm the purity of the land and defend it by steel over magic.

See now that's really cool but I don't see that as having much to do with druids even if the homeland they are protecting is a primarily druidic culture and/or lacks big cities or its cities are among the trees. As I've said before Fighter+Druid to me describes a barbarian(not the class) war priest/shaman.

Rangers could just as easily be the vanguard of a hostile effort to colonize wildlands, or be more neutral to it. Just the people who keep wolves or raiders away from farming or logging communities near the borderlands.

[blackjack50]

Meaning no offence to you personally, I really hate this way of looking at the ranger, even the spellcasting one. The ranger is a warrior archetype who's similarities to the druid begin and end with knowing their way around the woods and a few spells. A ranger's attitude towards nature is more likely to of grudging respect for a worthy foe or an unreliable freind than of reverence... Depending on the ranger's own culture. Maybe more so much for wood elf rangers.

I finished my answer to the question about why this isn't an issue for Paladins

Well a ranger’s attitude toward nature would definitely be culturally dependent. If you take an Eurocentric ideal toward nature? More specifically...the classical high fantasy style? I 100% agree. And that would be a similar view as frontiersmen and so on. A ranger would be someone sent to conquer the darkness in the wild. The monster. But if one chooses a different path? One would have a different view.

As for the class itself? I’d say it really depends on how they use their spells. Not all spells would be combat oriented. And I think that is where rangers may want more spells. Things that make them more effective in nature. :) From a mentality standpoint only :)

[Demonslayer666]

I have always seen the ranger as a hunter, a tracker, an outdoorsman, able to travel and patrol the land on their own, self sufficient, nature oriented. I've always pictured a ranger as a bowman, not a swordsman, and more skilled than magical. Casting spells and ranger do not go together for me.

[Pufferwockey]

This got buried


Personally I don't think rangers shouldn't have magic at all. I just don't like that they must have magic.

Simple answer to the paladin and fighter part of the question is that people used build their own gish characters out of multiclass and prestige classes in editions that allowed it the way people now make do building their best approximations of rangers from other classes now. In 5e(maybe 4? I skipped that one) we got the eldritch knight as a subclass rather than prestige and bladelock to scratch that itch. Later the hexblade made melee casting for warlocks more SAD and wizards got bladedancing. People who multiclass for melee magic users now, I think, largely do it for the challenge/fun.

I'm only guessing about paladins because I don't care that deeply about them as an archetype, so if someone who does care about them reads this and I've got it wrong please forgive me.

I'm guessing there's less demand for magic free paladins because the trope of a faithful warrior who's zeal conveys actual divine protection smiting evildoers is pretty well established so people looking to play that archetype aren't as confused. If they do want to go non magical, pardon my hypocrisy if I'm getting this wrong, the fighter class really does work fine for them.

[Kane0]

It's interesting to see the perspectives on classes come out of these threads, there's a definite trend toward those for and against reducing classes down to under half a dozen with more build options.

Personally I don't think there's much to be gained by sacrificing classes to merge into superclasses like 'warrior' and 'spellcaster', you basically have a pseudo-classless system at that point and its all about the options you pick rather than the class itself. Of course there's nothing wrong with classless systems, but D&D has never been one and I doubt it will be any time soon, especially if you consider its history of slowly expanding the number of classes within its own internal lore.

[Pufferwockey]

It's interesting to see the perspectives on classes come out of these threads, there's a definite trend toward those for and against reducing classes down to under half a dozen with more build options.

Personally I don't think there's much to be gained by sacrificing classes to merge into superclasses like 'warrior' and 'spellcaster', you basically have a pseudo-classless system at that point and its all about the options you pick rather than the class itself. Of course there's nothing wrong with classless systems, but D&D has never been one and I doubt it will be any time soon, especially if you consider its history of slowly expanding the number of classes within its own internal lore.

agreed 100%

[Ravinsild]

It's interesting to see the perspectives on classes come out of these threads, there's a definite trend toward those for and against reducing classes down to under half a dozen with more build options.

Personally I don't think there's much to be gained by sacrificing classes to merge into superclasses like 'warrior' and 'spellcaster', you basically have a pseudo-classless system at that point and its all about the options you pick rather than the class itself. Of course there's nothing wrong with classless systems, but D&D has never been one and I doubt it will be any time soon, especially if you consider its history of slowly expanding the number of classes within its own internal lore.

So this begs the question: What do we do? Do we make a new class that's a Ranger without magic and call it something else? Do we make it a subclass? Do we just slot in UA: Alternate Features that replace spell casting and scale up?

Is this even a "real problem" so to speak?

[Kane0]

So this begs the question: What do we do? Do we make a new class that's a Ranger without magic and call it something else? Do we make it a subclass? Do we just slot in UA: Alternate Features that replace spell casting and scale up?

Is this even a "real problem" so to speak?

Before that UA was released I rewrote the whole damn class with forum support (Paladinn and Galithar specifically, props for the openmindedness), check my previous post and sig.

Edit: I personally prefer my rangers with magic, that's why I have two working versions.

[Ravinsild]

Before that UA was released I rewrote the whole damn class with forum support (Paladinn specifically, props for the openmindedness), check my previous post and sig.

So your answer, officially, would be WOTC ought to make a brand new class similar to, but different than the Ranger. Right?

I mean practically speaking, what can 5th edition do based on what it is?

You made a new class, so they could.

What else? A subclass for Fighter? Insert options like the UA that just straight out replaces spellcasting?

[Morty]

It's interesting to see the perspectives on classes come out of these threads, there's a definite trend toward those for and against reducing classes down to under half a dozen with more build options.

Personally I don't think there's much to be gained by sacrificing classes to merge into superclasses like 'warrior' and 'spellcaster', you basically have a pseudo-classless system at that point and its all about the options you pick rather than the class itself. Of course there's nothing wrong with classless systems, but D&D has never been one and I doubt it will be any time soon, especially if you consider its history of slowly expanding the number of classes within its own internal lore.

I don't see the point of making a "pseudo-classless" system. Broad classes like "warrior" and "spellcaster" feel like point-buy systems with extra steps. I agree that D&D will never be classless and that its class list is mostly a pile of clunky legacy mechanics, but that's not the way to go about it, I think.

[Kane0]

So your answer, officially, would be WOTC ought to make a brand new class similar to, but different than the Ranger. Right?

I mean practically speaking, what can 5th edition do based on what it is?

You made a new class, so they could.

What else? A subclass for Fighter? Insert options like the UA that just straight out replaces spellcasting?

I don't play AL, so I don't care what WotC officially does :smallwink:

But to answer your question, the ACF UA was a step in the right direction. It strips out some major sore points for the existing ranger and provides something much more helpful. With the exception of the free Hunter's Marks, that's just silly. You might happen to notice a lot of similarities between what I did and what the UAs did (look at Deft Explorer compared to Nature's Boon).

Subclasses for fighter, rogue, etc aren't necessary if the Ranger itself is corrected. Backgrounds, Ranger subclasses, feats and multiclassing take up the slack of those points inbetween.

[Ravinsild]

I don't play AL, so I don't care what WotC officially does :smallwink:

But to answer your question, the ACF UA was a step in the right direction. It strips out some major sore points for the existing ranger and provides something much more helpful. With the exception of the free Hunter's Marks, that's just silly. You might happen to notice a lot of similarities between what I did and what the UAs did (look at Deft Explorer compared to Nature's Boon).

Subclasses for fighter, rogue, etc aren't necessary if the Ranger itself is corrected. Backgrounds, Ranger subclasses, feats and multiclassing take up the slack of those points inbetween.

Well yes, it helped those of us who like the Ranger for what it is. Those who think it shouldn't have spells though...well I mean some of the features doubled down on or expanded spellcasting capabilities.

Of course you can always flavor/RP it as just...stuff you can do that aren't spells I guess, but for those who just don't want to deal with it, this does nothing for. I'm not sure what to do for them. Just say suck it up it is what it is?

[Kane0]

Well yes, it helped those of us who like the Ranger for what it is. Those who think it shouldn't have spells though...well I mean some of the features doubled down on or expanded spellcasting capabilities.

Of course you can always flavor/RP it as just...stuff you can do that aren't spells I guess, but for those who just don't want to deal with it, this does nothing for. I'm not sure what to do for them. Just say suck it up it is what it is?

So if you want a ranger that isn't a caster, what parts are you looking for?

[Ravinsild]

So if you want a ranger that isn't a caster, what parts are you looking for?

I don't know. I didn't even know people didn't like spellcasting on a Ranger til i saw a handful of people talking about it. I think the Ranger is fine as is and fulfills my personal class fantasy. I'm just asking on behalf of those people because I don't necessarily think they're wrong for having their own interpretation of the Ranger. Mundane Rangers make sense, to me. I could really go either way, but I like the magic more I think. If I had to choose just 1 I'd pick magical.

[Kane0]

I don't know. I didn't even know people didn't like spellcasting on a Ranger til i saw a handful of people talking about it. I think the Ranger is fine as is and fulfills my personal class fantasy. I'm just asking on behalf of those people because I don't necessarily think they're wrong for having their own interpretation of the Ranger. Mundane Rangers make sense, to me. I could really go either way, but I like the magic more I think. If I had to choose just 1 I'd pick magical.

Spell-less rangers are totally possible (because we've done it :smallamused:) but the problem stems from lacking that clear answer to 'what is a ranger?', because where you can throw spells (and invocations and maneuvers and other mini-build options) around to cover edge cases with a spell-less version you really need to cut it down to what's important or things get bloated (or remarkably like spells but not really) pretty fast.

If you want to play a skilled woodsman in your D&D game, we have plenty of options for that. If you want a D&D RangerTM, that's different and it's hard to get consensus on what that is.

[Pufferwockey]

Well yes, it helped those of us who like the Ranger for what it is. Those who think it shouldn't have spells though...well I mean some of the features doubled down on or expanded spellcasting capabilities.

Of course you can always flavor/RP it as just...stuff you can do that aren't spells I guess, but for those who just don't want to deal with it, this does nothing for. I'm not sure what to do for them. Just say suck it up it is what it is?

The RP fix works to an extent, but it's pretty unsatisfactory. Do too much re skinning and you start to really cut through your suspended disbelief to the fact that that arrows, swords, and fireballs are all just dice with math for added fun. Stuff like being able to sense the presence of certain types of monster near by can be explained by mundane reading of the environment without too much pain... "the birds have gone quiet but the insects don't seem to mind... there's a fiend nearby" or something. I think a key Ranger feature should be something along the lines of being able to tell when "Something Is Wrong In These Woods" I usually like my rangers in melee but when I made an archery ranger and the fact that my extra damage came from spells bummed me out. I was thinking "this guy isn't legolas, he's an arcane archer dressed in earth tones." I'd like my combat abilities, with or without spells to feel like they come from being the most alert, the quickest on the draw, the most patient ambusher, the most precise.

EDIT: Ok the fighter can keep the most precise, but still something to feel like they're damn good archers or sword/axe/spear w/e fighters in their own right, by virtue of being quick/tough enough to survive in their profession this long.

[GlenSmash!]

If I want a Ranger that isn't a caster I pick spells that are easily refluffable as wilderness knacks and knowhow. Goodberry is just well foraged rations, longstrider just a burst of speed, etc.

But I am very lazy.

[Kane0]

I usually like my rangers in melee but when I made an archery ranger and the fact that my extra damage came from spells bummed me out. I was thinking "this guy isn't legolas, he's an arcane archer dressed in earth tones."

Made me chuckle, because I've always felt that the AA should have been a Ranger subclass rather than for the fighter.

But in a broader response, do you mean Hunter's Mark specifically? I've lost count of the times i've heard 'HM should have just been a class feature not a spell', and I largely agree (I just differ in the implementation).

[Pufferwockey]

If I want a Ranger that isn't a caster I pick spells that are easily refluffable as wilderness knacks and knowhow. Goodberry is just well foraged rations, longstrider just a burst of speed, etc.

But I am very lazy.

Just a personal thing, but I really don't like Goodberry. People complain that Natural explorer or the version of Natural explorer from the Revised Ranger hand wave too much survival and food gathering away (which by my reading of them they only do in concert with the Outlander background feature and that feature has an option for the DM to say the conditions are too harsh for it to work automatically built right in) but Goodberry takes survival adventures and throws them right out of the game.

There's a great youtube vid covering that problem, but I'm not gonna bother finding it.

EDIT answering a more recent question without double posting


Made me chuckle, because I've always felt that the AA should have been a Ranger subclass rather than for the fighter.

But in a broader response, do you mean Hunter's Mark specifically? I've lost count of the times i've heard 'HM should have just been a class feature not a spell', and I largely agree (I just differ in the implementation).

Hunter's mark was easier for my brain to re fluff so it didn't offend as much. More serious offenders were Ensnaring Strike, Hail of Thorns, Flame Arrow Conjure Volley. Swift Quiver would have been another easy re-fluff.

[Kane0]

Just a personal thing, but I really don't like Goodberry. People complain that Natural explorer or the version of Natural explorer from the Revised Ranger hand wave too much survival and food gathering away (which by my reading of them they only do in concert with the Outlander background feature and that feature has an option for the DM to say the conditions are too harsh for it to work automatically built right in) but Goodberry takes survival adventures and throws them right out of the game.

There's a great youtube vid covering that problem, but I'm not gonna bother finding it.

This one? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkHapG6kXUg)



More serious offenders were Ensnaring Strike, Hail of Thorns, Flame Arrow Conjure Volley

Yeah, those would be hard to do spell-less without appearing to be spells-but-not-really. I'm sad that tanglefoot bags don't have much of a presence in 5e though.

[paladinn]

I don't know. I didn't even know people didn't like spellcasting on a Ranger til i saw a handful of people talking about it. I think the Ranger is fine as is and fulfills my personal class fantasy. I'm just asking on behalf of those people because I don't necessarily think they're wrong for having their own interpretation of the Ranger. Mundane Rangers make sense, to me. I could really go either way, but I like the magic more I think. If I had to choose just 1 I'd pick magical.

A ranger can have "magic without having spellcasting. His/her "mystical" (no, not psionic) bond with nature manifests in a number of ways. Land's stride, animal friendship, tracking, uber stealth, herbal healing and other features are (or should be) more than "natural". Favored enemy/foe is likely a result of training more than "magic". Maybe some of the features from gloomstalker or horizon walker. But not actual spellcasting.

[Yakk]

In my mind, the Ranger should be a Hunter. Picking out a target, following them, not being spotted, and ambushing them.

Ranger|Bounty Hunter (Gadget-based Ranger)
Ranger|Beastfriend (Beast Companion Ranger)
Ranger|Forester (Traditional Druid hybrid)
Ranger|Gloomstalker (Underdark hunter)
Ranger|Sniper (Archer ambush specialist)
Ranger|Avenger (Holy Assassin)

[GlenSmash!]

"this guy isn't legolas, he's an arcane archer dressed in earth tones." I'd like my combat abilities, with or without spells to feel like they come from being the most alert, the quickest on the draw, the most patient ambusher, the most precise.


Well.... you see I think Legolas is closer to a Dex Fighter than a Ranger anyway. Outside of being able to see far he does 0 tracking in the trilogy.

Aragorn was the one who could track down Gollum years after the trail had gone cold. He was literally the greatest tracker, guide, and survivalist of his age.

[Pufferwockey]

Well.... you see I think Legolas is closer to a Dex Fighter than a Ranger anyway. Outside of being able to see far he does 0 tracking in the trilogy.

Aragorn was the one who could track down Gollum years after the trail had gone cold. He was literally the greatest tracker, guide, and survivalist of his age.

Bad example, although I might ague that legolas' vibe is part of what the ranger archetype is made out of in our collective subconcious I agree that just being the best archer is something one should be achieving in the fighter class.

I just meant that I was trying to play a hyper competent and intrepid guerilla type warrior and being a magic user just felt like cheating ... kind of

[Willie the Duck]

Legolas has the conflating issues of him being a Tolkien elf (which, although clearly an inspiration for A/D&D elves, also is clearly not balance-able as a PC race), and that the LotR heroes seem to be of vastly different levels.
Still, yes, Legolas does very little (no) tracking, and a lot of shooting, with just a little walking on top of snowdrifts and the like to show that he is particularly adept outdoors.

[JumboWheat01]

In a world full of dangerous beasts, magical creatures, dragons, undead, extraplanar visitors in the form of demons, devils, angels, machines, elements and various other things, I don't think being able to use a bit of magic should ever be classified as "cheating." If anything, it should be more of leveling the playing field.

[Pufferwockey]

In a world full of dangerous beasts, magical creatures, dragons, undead, extraplanar visitors in the form of demons, devils, angels, machines, elements and various other things, I don't think being able to use a bit of magic should ever be classified as "cheating." If anything, it should be more of leveling the playing field.

Yeah it's hard to describe what I mean. Just not really how I wanted my character to achieve excellence.

[Arzanyos]

So, first of all, I'll note there is a difference in what a class means to people as a fantasy archetype, and what it means to people as a D&D class. Because sometime, those meanings look totally different from each other. *cough*CLERIC*cough* Another thing to note is that Ranger's step on the toes of the Fighter in part because the Fighter has some huge toes. Think about it. Way back in the day, you had the Fightin' Man and the Magic User. One did the fightin' and man stuff, the other the magic. Then came the thief, and now the fighter, instead of being the dude who does the non-magic stuff, is the dude who does the non-magic, non-thiefy things. Then came the cleric, and the mage can't heal now. Now, in 5E, the Wizard is the magic-using dude who is not divinely empowered, not innately magic, not part of a secret hippy order, not a magic musician, and who did not make a deal with a greater power for his magic. Meanwhile, the Fighter is still the dude who does the fightin' stuff. Barbarian, Ranger, and Paladin are all "Like the Fighter, except..." It's worst for the Ranger, since Barbarian and Paladin have carved out their little niches of "Strong but untrained wild man" and "Divinely empowered knight in shining armor." So, since the Fighter is thus not divinely empowered, and not unskilled, pus he already didn't use magic, he tends to gravitate towards a less physically strong, more skilled type of warrior. Like the Ranger.


To actually answer the question, to me, a Ranger is able to fight at both close and long range, a skilled outdoorsman, in tune with nature, particularly a good tracker, and able to heal. When I think "Ranger" I think Gwydion and Aragorn. Interestingly, I think the Ranger would do well to have abilities as a leader a la the Warlord, because I never see them as scouts, but as guides. They can be loners, yes, but when with a group, they stay with it.

[djreynolds]

The PHB ranger reads well. But it requires a lot of skill proficiency to really take advantage of favored terrain.

The rangers big strength is being able to get a party from point A to point B. And unfortunately, even in film, it's montage of scenery and backgrounds.

I think if the ranger could have bonuses in terrain and vs enemies that could be pass onto his teammates you get a greater sense of a leader type.

I had a thread to provide the ranger with something akin to a paladin's aura. This would showcase how good a ranger is setting up ambushes in his favored terrain or vs favored foes reflected in his teammates.

[Sigreid]

To me, ranger is one of two classes you play if you want a character that is 100% self sufficient. As comfortable in the deepest most dangerous wilds as the king is in his own bedroom.

[Kane0]

-Snip-

I motion to call this the 'class of the gaps'. The 'original' classes (fighter, cleric, wizard and to a lesser extent rogue) are defined just as much by what they are not as what they are, seemingly generic and filling in the gaps left by the specific ones (barbarian, paladin, sorcerer, warlock, ranger, druid, etc).

Given that, it would probably benefit the class design paradigm to make these generic classes specific. Instead of the fighter have the warlord. Reduce the scope (spell list is a good starting point) of the wizard and cleric with more emphasis placed on school/domain or make these secondary subclass options like the Warlock's pact boon and make the actual subclasses more themed (beguiler, binder, warmage, warpriest, inquisitor, Ur-Priest, etc). Rogue is probably fine, does anyone think its too generic?

[Arzanyos]

I think Cleric suffers less from the "class of the gaps"(Motion seconded) problem because at it's core, it has a strong identity as a walking band-aid. Literally, the entire class is built around a band-aid over the lethality of early D&D; "we need a class that's tanky and heals". When you look to fantasy literature for inspiration, a lot of the time, you have to start with "Look for Paladins... but... less fighty." You have the priest fluff, but it never quite jives with the tanky healer and "divine counterpart to the wizard's arcane". (Which is another thing. Divine magic is just "the magic that clerics use". Why? So they can cast in armor, and thus be tanky and heal.)

[Evaar]

Ranger has sort of become a Fighter/Druid over time in D&D, but I submit that it should not be so.

Instead, I would like to see the ranger as a "Generalist Adventurer."

They should be more skill based and their spells should be more based around the idea of magic tricks they've picked up rather than wilderness themed - some still can be wilderness themed, of course. They should have some sneaking and infiltration capacity, and they should be formidable combatants. But they should do all of this not quite as good as the specialist in each role. "Wait, that's a bard," you'd reply. No, my friend, a bard is charismatic. These characters usually aren't especially so. They might be earnest, but they're usually not canny manipulators.

I'm thinking characters like LOTR's Aragorn, The Witcher's Geralt, The Princess Bridge's Man In Black, The Dark Tower's Roland Deschain, ASOIAF's Jon Snow, Heroic Legend of Arslan's Elam, or Neverending Story's Atreyu.

Geralt couldn't outdo Yennefer's magical ability, but he's better with a weapon. Jon Snow couldn't take Jaime Lannister in his prime, but he'd survive north of the Wall far longer than Jaime would. Elam isn't as strategically brilliant as Narsus, but he's a better archer, cook, and more levelheaded.

I imagine the Ranger as the perfect place to slot the protagonist type who goes through lots of different things and learns bits and bobs along the way, and for whatever reason usually uses a longsword and no shield because I guess it's cool. At high levels they're the veterans who have seen some of everything and can usually get by in all the strange places of the world.

And then of course subclasses would be the place to drill down into the types. You could have a wilderness ranger, a van helsing ranger, a red mage ranger, a scoundrel ranger.

[Tanarii]

One thing to keep in mind is each edition except 4e, while hewing to the base core concept of a Ranger, has revised not only the focus, but often considerably reworked the way they ... uh, worked.

Said base concept is:
primarily martial
Ambush, counter ambush, and stealth skills (aka skirmisher)
Wilderness skills
special enemy skills
some spell casting
And as if 1e Unearthed Arcana, special weapon focus

But the way those were implemented and which was the focus has changed over time. For example, since 2e spell casting has become more and more prominent. And notably in 3.5 they shifted more into skirmisher role.

[Ravinsild]

For what it's worth I love 5e Ranger (and 4e Ranger tbh..., don't remember much about 3.x/P after 4e came out I dropped it and never looked back) so to ME the class is super fun and exactly as it should be. However I noticed some posters were lamenting one thing or another about the Ranger as is, and I wanted to know, I guess, why it wasn't "good enough" for what it is right now, namely the bit about them disliking spell casting.

[Kane0]

For what it's worth I love 5e Ranger (and 4e Ranger tbh..., don't remember much about 3.x/P after 4e came out I dropped it and never looked back) so to ME the class is super fun and exactly as it should be. However I noticed some posters were lamenting one thing or another about the Ranger as is, and I wanted to know, I guess, why it wasn't "good enough" for what it is right now, namely the bit about them disliking spell casting.

Oh I've got plenty of qualms about the Ranger, but 'having casting' isn't one of them.

- Favored Enemy is presented as a core defining feature but is situational and basically a glorified ribbon
- Natural explorer is also situational and is either useless or so good it removes aspects of play that the ranger should put emphasis on, so instead of highlighting what you excel at it just turns into 'OK moving on'
- Casting is spells known which is a little restrictive but more importantly some (if not most) of their exclusive spells are just bad
- The beastmaster companion. Oh dear
- Stealth is apparently a notable portion of the ranger but this doesn't actually come into play until Tier 3 in terms of class features, and that's too little, too late
- Some of their features are just copy pasted from other classes, notably the Rogue. This isn't a sin in and of itself, but damn they got lazy with where and when they did it.
- It's the only class with true dead levels

[Arzanyos]

I think one of the problems people having the Rangers as casters is that for all the different types of casters there are, there's really only one type of casting. You either cast like a wizard, or you cast like a suckier wizard. Consequently, there's no real way to make a class that has "a little bit of magic" like I think a lot of people expect the Ranger to be. It's not just that the Ranger has magic, it's that he has defined spells, they have levels, he has slots. Honestly, I think a Ranger with Ki, presented as a satchel of Schrodinger's herbs he can reach into and use to produce various effects(spells) would not generally be received poorly.

[Sindal]

For what it's worth.
The UA variant rules look more like the 'ranger' in my head

Tougher for environment, supernatural navigation that sets it apart from just a normal woodsman. Focus on targeting an enemy and not an archetype. Movement of every kind.

Sounds like a ranger to me

[JellyPooga]

Honestly, I think a Ranger with Ki, presented as a satchel of Schrodinger's herbs he can reach into and use to produce various effects(spells) would not generally be received poorly.

That...isn't a bad idea.

I'm firmly in the "Don't go getting your magic up in my Ranger" camp, but I'd accept a Ki-like ability that had optional features that functioned as spells, in a similar vein to Four Elements Monk. I'd prefer something a little more akin to Invocations though and similarly, would accept spell-like effects being options there, so long as the non-spell ones were viable enough to make a completely non-magical Ranger competetive.

In fact...whilst I'm thinking about it, I wouldn't mind seeing Ranger built remarkably like a martial version of the Warlock.
- Instead of Patron, you have an feature (to be named) that describes the environment you're specialised in (much like a Land Druid) to "flavour" your Ranger (Are you a "woodsy" Ranger, or an "arctic" Ranger?). Like a Warlock Patron, this would grant several features as you rise in level, but while they are flavoured for terrain type, are not dependent on being in that terrain like Natural Explorer is (though I see no reason why you couldn't add terrain dependent features in as a bonus add here).
- Your Pact would be remarkably transferable; are you a Beast companion Ranger? A Magic-y Cantrip kind of Ranger? A super fighty weapon-focused Ranger? Easy to see how this might apply.
- Invocations make for a high degree of customisability and are probably the main draw of the Warlock Class (aside from EB and even then it's because of an Invocation). These, like the Warlock Invocations, can be gated by level and Pact easily enough and would allow you to build the Ranger you want, rather than the mish-mash can't-please-everyone Ranger we've got.
- In place of Pact magic...hmm, well, just give it a more robust chassis; d10HD, better weapon/armour proficiencies, skills, Fighting Style, Extra Attack...that kind of jazz. You know, all the stuff that typically differentiates a Mundane from a Magical Class.

Just an idea.

[Zerubbabel]

I wish they had kept some of the benefits from the 1st AD&D Ranger, what a great class it was then, almost overpowered. I liked the idea regular damage benefits against Giants and Orcs. I liked their ability to gain surprise easier. I liked that they had more hit points early on, and late game. Very cool class!

[JellyPooga]

just for flavour, if the ranger had an pool of expendable points, I reckon theyd be called grit.

Would that make the inevitable feature that allows them to start every encounter with a minimum of one Grit point...True Grit?

[Pufferwockey]

Just for flavour, if the Ranger had a pool of expendable point's I reckon they'd be called grit



- Natural explorer is also situational and is either useless or so good it removes aspects of play that the ranger should put emphasis on, so instead of highlighting what you excel at it just turns into 'OK moving on'


I hate favoured terrain as a mechanic, but how do you figure it removes aspects of play? There's nothing in there that would replace a roll. Do you mean in conjunction with the Outlander feature? If so there's a caveat for the DM to say the terrain is too harsh to automatically forage.

Agree on the rest of your post

[Kane0]

I hate favoured terrain as a mechanic, but how do you figure it removes aspects of play? There's nothing in there that would replace a roll. Do you mean in conjunction with the Outlander feature? If so there's a caveat for the DM to say the terrain is too harsh to automatically forage.

Agree on the rest of your post

So by that I mean the bullet point parts of Natural explorer rather than the expertise within your favored terrain. The party can't be slowed or get lost, ignores the penalty for multitasking during travel, finds twice the amount of food and get tons more detail when tracking. That's a lot of potentially interesting complications the DM now can't make use of during travel, stacked on top of D&Ds innate tendency to downplay the exploration pillar in the first place. It's the difference between using a hard and soft counter.

If applied to the combat pillar, this style of feature would have things like blanket immunities making a return (for example a fighting style that makes you immune to shoves and grapples when you have a shield equipped, or barbarians being able to ignore exhaustion). It's mechanically powerful because it negates mechanics rather than allowing you to interact with them in new and better ways.

I'm happy to say the ACF UA went in a promising direction though.

[paladinn]

That...isn't a bad idea.

I'm firmly in the "Don't go getting your magic up in my Ranger" camp, but I'd accept a Ki-like ability that had optional features that functioned as spells, in a similar vein to Four Elements Monk. I'd prefer something a little more akin to Invocations though and similarly, would accept spell-like effects being options there, so long as the non-spell ones were viable enough to make a completely non-magical Ranger competetive.

In fact...whilst I'm thinking about it, I wouldn't mind seeing Ranger built remarkably like a martial version of the Warlock.
- Instead of Patron, you have an feature (to be named) that describes the environment you're specialised in (much like a Land Druid) to "flavour" your Ranger (Are you a "woodsy" Ranger, or an "arctic" Ranger?). Like a Warlock Patron, this would grant several features as you rise in level, but while they are flavoured for terrain type, are not dependent on being in that terrain like Natural Explorer is (though I see no reason why you couldn't add terrain dependent features in as a bonus add here).
- Your Pact would be remarkably transferable; are you a Beast companion Ranger? A Magic-y Cantrip kind of Ranger? A super fighty weapon-focused Ranger? Easy to see how this might apply.
- Invocations make for a high degree of customisability and are probably the main draw of the Warlock Class (aside from EB and even then it's because of an Invocation). These, like the Warlock Invocations, can be gated by level and Pact easily enough and would allow you to build the Ranger you want, rather than the mish-mash can't-please-everyone Ranger we've got.
- In place of Pact magic...hmm, well, just give it a more robust chassis; d10HD, better weapon/armour proficiencies, skills, Fighting Style, Extra Attack...that kind of jazz. You know, all the stuff that typically differentiates a Mundane from a Magical Class.

Just an idea.

No.. just.. no. I'm not a fan of pact magic in general. I Sure don't want it anywhere around a ranger.

Aragorn was a ranger. Rambo was a ranger. Batman is an urban ranger. No magic needed.

[ZZTRaider]

No.. just.. no. I'm not a fan of pact magic in general. I Sure don't want it anywhere around a ranger.

Aragorn was a ranger. Rambo was a ranger. Batman is an urban ranger. No magic needed.

JellyPooga did specifically call out Pact Magic being replaced by the typical martial trappings, like d10 HD, extra attack, etc.

I don't think the idea is necessarily wrong, overall. While I think Warlock has a lot of issues with execution (Pact of the Blade doesn't do the things it should, which leads to a lot of required Invocations just to make it work), I really like the design of having two mostly orthogonal choices of Patron and Pact, each of which informs which Invocations you have available. In general, I think that would have been a solid design for most classes, rather than sticking to the very simple idea of Subclass being the only major customization point. I wouldn't call Warlock a particularly complex class, but it has so much more room for choices so that even with the same Patron, two Warlocks are likely to look different.

[paladinn]

JellyPooga did specifically call out Pact Magic being replaced by the typical martial trappings, like d10 HD, extra attack, etc.

I don't think the idea is necessarily wrong, overall. While I think Warlock has a lot of issues with execution (Pact of the Blade doesn't do the things it should, which leads to a lot of required Invocations just to make it work), I really like the design of having two mostly orthogonal choices of Patron and Pact, each of which informs which Invocations you have available. In general, I think that would have been a solid design for most classes, rather than sticking to the very simple idea of Subclass being the only major customization point. I wouldn't call Warlock a particularly complex class, but it has so much more room for choices so that even with the same Patron, two Warlocks are likely to look different.

Soo.. ranger as a Warlock subclass? Sounds like a slightly-nature-flavored Hexblade.

This just seems wrong to me.

[ZZTRaider]

Soo.. ranger as a Warlock subclass? Sounds like a slightly-nature-flavored Hexblade.

This just seems wrong to me.

Nah, the original idea was still a completely separate class, just one designed in a very similar fashion to how Warlock is. Nobody is suggesting a Fiend Patron Ranger, here.

[Danielqueue1]

To me ranger is the character that always has an answer. It may not be the best at any one particular thing but is a strong generalist. They have the health of a fighter, but they are also able to heal, they have a good amount of utility in spells. (Hunters mark is almost required for single target damage,but that's a different discussion) they are good in melee or ranged. anti-magic fields can shut down casters, anything with flying and a ranged weapon will shut down paladins and monks, but a ranger who can't do anything is a ranger at 0 hp. (Or stunned or petrified, you know the things that shut down all player characters.) And this is before feats and subclasses.

Also the ranger is the guy in one campaign who made 26 attack rolls in two rounds against a necromancer and his martialed undead. Bodyguards in close formation, volley, surprised necromancer, sharpshooter for doing it from far out of range, and hordebreaker meaning both volleys could target the Necromacer twice. (the DM was expecting to have the party fight through some undead rabble, then face the bodyguards and necromancer while he and his apprentice counterspelled fireball attempts.)

[JellyPooga]

No.. just.. no. I'm not a fan of pact magic in general. I Sure don't want it anywhere around a ranger.

Aragorn was a ranger. Rambo was a ranger. Batman is an urban ranger. No magic needed.

Did you actually read the post you dismissed so readily? I'm in full agreement that I don't want magic up in my Ranger, but I'm not against giving people the option of it, in the form of either a Ki-like feature or something akin to Invocations that has spell-like options within it. And no, not a Warlock subclass either...that would be inherently magical and not what I suggested at all.

[Thanks for the back-up ZZTRaider!]

[Pufferwockey]

So by that I mean the bullet point parts of Natural explorer rather than the expertise within your favored terrain. The party can't be slowed or get lost, ignores the penalty for multitasking during travel, finds twice the amount of food and get tons more detail when tracking. That's a lot of potentially interesting complications the DM now can't make use of during travel, stacked on top of D&Ds innate tendency to downplay the exploration pillar in the first place. It's the difference between using a hard and soft counter.

If applied to the combat pillar, this style of feature would have things like blanket immunities making a return (for example a fighting style that makes you immune to shoves and grapples when you have a shield equipped, or barbarians being able to ignore exhaustion). It's mechanically powerful because it negates mechanics rather than allowing you to interact with them in new and better ways.

I'm happy to say the ACF UA went in a promising direction though.

massive caveat to the following: a lot of this will depend on your DM

I think I understand the nature of your concern, but (with the possible exception of never getting lost) it doesn't look to me like it should fully remove any game play. More detail when tracking more food still require gameplay, and in the case of the tracking has the potential to give the players some kind of tactical advantage in an upcoming encounter that would feel really great for the ranger character. Remaining alert to danger during foraging/tracking just means, the way I see it, no penalty is imposed on perception checks to spot things like ambushes. None of this looks to me like auto success, just better odds OR better results from success, and giving the party information through the ranger can serve to really build tension. Say the ranger does spot the ambush before it's sprung, but the party has a really pressing reason forcing them to walk in to it anyway, that can do a lot to add tension.


No.. just.. no. I'm not a fan of pact magic in general. I Sure don't want it anywhere around a ranger.

Aragorn was a ranger. Rambo was a ranger. Batman is an urban ranger. No magic needed.

Probably pretty sure they mean more a selection of Ranger-y abilities selectable at certain levels in a manner similar to how invocations get picked by warlocks would do a lot to help various people achieve their own vision of the Ranger, not that rangers should get pact magic.

That being said, and I prefer my rangers magic free and I really think it's important for them to at least have that option, if you're gonna have ranger casting, I reckon short rest casting does fit their flavour

[MrStabby]

I think there are two related questions:

What is a ranger to you?

and

What does a good implementation of a class look like and what does it mean for rangers?



What is a ranger to me?

A tracker, a hunter who uses weapons to take down their foes. They are hard to elude due to toughness and mobility. They excel in guerrilla warfare but would prefer to avoid a stand-up fight. Whereas a fighter is well suited to warfighting a ranger should be good at one on one fighting without support. Rather than brute strength a ranger should use skill and knowledge to take down enemies.

One problem is that there are a lot of ranger abilities that are not class abilities. The sharpshooter feat for example - perfect for a class that starts off hunting beasts, an enemy with high HP but low AC an for a class that is hunting in undergrowth rather than open fields. That feat would have made an awesome ranger ability. Or the battlemaster ability to study their enemies -a real ranger feel to it. Or the divination wizard improved senses - maybe not exactly the same but seeing the invisible or past illusions would seem to be pretty appropriate.

Thematically I would like traps, poisons, ambushes, stealth, mobility, perception/detection and some battlefield control to be part of the class. I could see thrown weapons being a thing (spears, nets, darts). I see knowledge being a pretty core part of the class as well. I could see ranger being an int class, albeit with a strong nature theme: alchemy for potion brewing, the cunning of a hunter, the knowledge of ones enemies and so on. The ranger should be OK in all of these and a real expert in at least a couple. Now some of this will overlap with the rogue - and there should be some care there but some is pretty generic like an expectation of an increased speed.



What is a good set of class features for a class?

I think that you need good thematic ribbons, or abilities that are borderline ribbons. The PHB natural explorer/favoured enemy are pretty good for this. Advantage on checks to recall facts about your favoured enemy is a thematic ribbon but not a great class feature. I am pretty on the fence about favoured enemies - they seem a bit niche and on the versatility/specialism scale I see ranger as more versatile.

I think that the best, most enjoyed classes have at least one powerful and unique mechanic that makes the class stand out and be best at what it does. I would cite the early levels of the rogue as a great example of this. Sneak attack, cunning action and expertise lay out the slippery skill-monkey with ok at will damage feel of the class very early on.

Then there is how the class develops. I strongly believe that if something is a core theme of the class then the class should be the best at it. If you are tracking someone then locate person spell is your benchmark. Your class has to be better than a class with access to this spell. You want to be better at spotting hidden things then the class should not come second place to a class with access to see invisibility. You want to be great moving through the terrain no matter how difficult? Then you had better be at least as good as someone who can cast freedom of movement. This is where I think the ranger falls down at higher levels. You might have access to some of the spells you want but other classes can have access and more spell slots.

As the levels get higher this gap becomes bigger. If you are hunting down a demon lord across the planes in a high level campaign then your ranger as a hunter doesn't really get to do much hunting. The PC that can cast planeshift is going to be driving that. Aided by whichever PC has the best divination magic to find them. I get the thematic love for a spell free ranger, but for me it is hard to see how the class can still be the best at what I want it to be good at without it. In a world where spells like planeshift are a thing, where divination spells compete with tracking, how do you stay ahead on the role you have set yourself?



My personal preference (which I accept is probably not widely shared) is ranger as a full caster, although with weak casting due to a very restricted spell list. The spells provide all the utility the class should have with some modest combat spells as well, but most of the combat ability comes from the skills and the martial elements.

[Pufferwockey]

I could see ranger being an int class

I would be so down for this, and 5e could use more int classes. Great idea

EDIT. It would probably make them MAD, since dex, and somethimes str is needed for combat and wis drives the core skills that make the ranger what it is. I don't hate MAD as much as some. When I first looked at 5e coming off pathfinder/3.5 one of my initial reactions, and I'm not proud of this, it was a bad attitude to have, was "awww the ickle newbie players can't handle needing more than one good stat and necessarily having a bad stat in something that affects their characters in a meaningful way"



My personal preference (which I accept is probably not widely shared) is ranger as a full caster, although with weak casting due to a very restricted spell list. The spells provide all the utility the class should have with some modest combat spells as well, but most of the combat ability comes from the skills and the martial elements.

Dunno how feasible full caster would be, but I can totally get behind that argument. Maybe give their casting a sorta bardish feel, themed differently, with some powerful buffs and such and little to no blasting. I'd like to for rangers to have their core class featurers, and then a choice when they might start getting spells to instead take a selection of other ablilities. Here are some examples of the kind thing I had in mind

-the 3.5 skirmish ability

-sneak attack starting at level 2 and advancing every 3rd level or w/e works balance wise

-something like sneak attack that could be used twice in one round but which carried less or smaller dice and maybe would be more difficult to trigger after the first round of combat. whatever the end result it shouldn't outshine the rogue

-limited superiority dice

-cold/poison resistance

-advantage on con saves or wisdom saves

-expertise but only for survival/nature/stealth

Stuff along the lines of potions like you suggested would be cool. So would traps but I am having a hard time imagining a good way for those to be usable as a regular combat feature that wouldn't negatively impact pacing and overall gameplay

[TripleD]

So by that I mean the bullet point parts of Natural explorer rather than the expertise within your favored terrain. The party can't be slowed or get lost, ignores the penalty for multitasking during travel, finds twice the amount of food and get tons more detail when tracking. That's a lot of potentially interesting complications the DM now can't make use of during travel, stacked on top of D&Ds innate tendency to downplay the exploration pillar in the first place. It's the difference between using a hard and soft counter.

If applied to the combat pillar, this style of feature would have things like blanket immunities making a return (for example a fighting style that makes you immune to shoves and grapples when you have a shield equipped, or barbarians being able to ignore exhaustion). It's mechanically powerful because it negates mechanics rather than allowing you to interact with them in new and better ways.

I'm happy to say the ACF UA went in a promising direction though.

Maybe we are looking at this backwards. We keep asking what is wrong with the Ranger, creating homebrews, theorycrafting its purpose, etc. But maybe that’s not where we should focus.

Rangers are meant to interact with the exploration pillar, and that pillar is broken.

Rangers are a house built on sand. We can repaint the walls as much as we want, but until we address the fact that the Exploration Pillar is a collection of half-baked ideas offering “something for everyone and nothing for anyone”, the class will lack a niche.

Ranger helps us move fast. Okay, how does that impact gameplay? Are we assuming the use of hexes? Distance in miles?

Ranger finds us food. What are the penalties for hunger? What exactly are we avoiding?

And so on...

[Kane0]

Maybe we are looking at this backwards. We keep asking what is wrong with the Ranger, creating homebrews, theorycrafting it’s purpose, etc. But maybe that’s not where we should focus.

Rangers are meant to interact with the exploration pillar, and that pillar is broken.

Rangers are a house built on sand. We can repaint the walls as much as we want, but until we address the fact that the Exploration Pillar is a collection of half-baked ideas offering “something for everyone and nothing for anyone”, the class will lack a niche.

Ranger helps us move fast. Okay, how does that impact gameplay? Are we assuming the use of hexes? Distance in miles?

Ranger finds us food. What are the penalties for hunger? What exactly are we avoiding?

And so on...

You're not wrong, but both can be flawed. Going by that analogy I'd call the ranger a house built of sticks on sand :smallamused:

[paladinn]

Did you actually read the post you dismissed so readily? I'm in full agreement that I don't want magic up in my Ranger, but I'm not against giving people the option of it, in the form of either a Ki-like feature or something akin to Invocations that has spell-like options within it. And no, not a Warlock subclass either...that would be inherently magical and not what I suggested at all.

[Thanks for the back-up ZZTRaider!]

My apologies.. I have long had issues with rangers having lots of magic, especially spells, when they are supposed to be a fighter subclass. The only ranger treatment that I've felt really comes close to the fantasy ranger is in Castles & Crusades; and even then, the "favored foe/enemy/whatever" needs work. 4e comes close. I can't believe I said that..

I honestly can't see how one would work ranger abilities into a warlock-ish framework. Guess I'd have to see one fleshed-out. As Kane0 can tell you, I have been known to be open-minded..lol

Still.. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa..

[Morty]

Maybe we are looking at this backwards. We keep asking what is wrong with the Ranger, creating homebrews, theorycrafting its purpose, etc. But maybe that’s not where we should focus.

Rangers are meant to interact with the exploration pillar, and that pillar is broken.

Rangers are a house built on sand. We can repaint the walls as much as we want, but until we address the fact that the Exploration Pillar is a collection of half-baked ideas offering “something for everyone and nothing for anyone”, the class will lack a niche.

Ranger helps us move fast. Okay, how does that impact gameplay? Are we assuming the use of hexes? Distance in miles?

Ranger finds us food. What are the penalties for hunger? What exactly are we avoiding?

And so on...

The exploration pillar is definitely half-baked, like most non-combat rules, but fixing it won't really fix the ranger. If we make it better, we still end up with one of the three situations:

1) The game in question doesn't involve it much or at all. Maybe the PCs are in a city, dungeon-delving or travelling through civilised areas. The ranger doesn't have an opportunity to shine.

2) The game involves it and someone with proficiency in Nature and Survival is enough to deal with it if the players take things seriously. The rangers' increased proficiency is redundant or renders those challenges trivial.

3) The game involves it and the party needs a ranger to deal with wilderness travel/exploration properly. Someone playing a non-ranger with nature and survival proficiency finds their character not good enough.

Once again, a somewhat niche skill proficiency makes for a poor focus of an entire class.

[TripleD]

The exploration pillar is definitely half-baked, like most non-combat rules, but fixing it won't really fix the ranger. If we make it better, we still end up with one of the three situations:

1) The game in question doesn't involve it much or at all. Maybe the PCs are in a city, dungeon-delving or travelling through civilised areas. The ranger doesn't have an opportunity to shine.

2) The game involves it and someone with proficiency in Nature and Survival is enough to deal with it if the players take things seriously. The rangers' increased proficiency is redundant or renders those challenges trivial.

3) The game involves it and the party needs a ranger to deal with wilderness travel/exploration properly. Someone playing a non-ranger with nature and survival proficiency finds their character not good enough.

Once again, a somewhat niche skill proficiency makes for a poor focus of an entire class.

That’s the thing though, fixing the exploration pillar would address at least two of those things.

In the case of number 1 then that is like bringing a combat-optimized Barbarian to a role play heavy came focussed on political intrigue. Or a righteous Paladin to a game of backstabbing villains forced to ally together. It’s on the DM to let them know what kind of game they should build for.

For number two, I have to ask what do you imagine a fix to Exploration would entail? To me it would be a rich set of mechanical options in line with what exists for combat. Being skilled at “survival” or “nature” wouldn’t make you a master of them anymore than expertise in “athletics” makes you a master of combat. They would have some usage, but the system would move beyond just skill checks to involve mechanics that only the ranger, or maybe other dedicated m subclasses, can touch.

For three... yes? I mean, that’s the point of a team based game. The non-ranger will be less useful at more of exploration than the ranger. Again going back to athletics, Rogue’s with expertise in it who are good at shoving creatures prone don’t seem particularly upset by not being able to Rage or Smite.

People who take nature and survival will be good at the parts of the pillar that involve them, and less useful at the ones that don’t.

[Tanarii]

There are plenty of (typically hex-crawl) games where wilderness adventuring isn't just "roll skill, bypass challenge". D&D used to be one of them. It's just that most people don't want to play hex crawls / wilderness adventuring.

For that matter, most people don't want to really play a dungeon crawl. Lots of things that used to be a critical part of exploring a dungeon are now typically hand-waved away. Light, food and water, terrain hazards, air quality ...

The only real problem with the Ranger class is it has a chunk of abilities rooted in a style of play that's not common any more.

I just got all nostalgic for the AD&D Dungeoneers and Wilderness Survival handbooks. :smallamused:

[MrStabby]

That’s the thing though, fixing the exploration pillar would address at least two of those things.

In the case of number 1 then that is like bringing a combat-optimized Barbarian to a role play heavy came focussed on political intrigue. Or a righteous Paladin to a game of backstabbing villains forced to ally together. It’s on the DM to let them know what kind of game they should build for.

For number two, I have to ask what do you imagine a fix to Exploration would entail? To me it would be a rich set of mechanical options in line with what exists for combat. Being skilled at “survival” or “nature” wouldn’t make you a master of them anymore than expertise in “athletics” makes you a master of combat. They would have some usage, but the system would move beyond just skill checks to involve mechanics that only the ranger, or maybe other dedicated m subclasses, can touch.

For three... yes? I mean, that’s the point of a team based game. The non-ranger will be less useful at more of exploration than the ranger. Again going back to athletics, Rogue’s with expertise in it who are good at shoving creatures prone don’t seem particularly upset by not being able to Rage or Smite.

People who take nature and survival will be good at the parts of the pillar that involve them, and less useful at the ones that don’t.

I think "fixing the exploration pillar" is tougher than it is made to sound.

What activities and rules can you add such that it enhances the fun for everyone at the table? What can be added that involves everyone but gives the ranger a chance to shine? Combat ticks a lot of boxes for fun for all the party - high stakes, everyone can help, different classes bring different ways of contributing to success, outcomes depend on player choices as much as dice rolls. How can we bring exploration to the same level?

[TripleD]

I think "fixing the exploration pillar" is tougher than it is made to sound.

What activities and rules can you add such that it enhances the fun for everyone at the table? What can be added that involves everyone but gives the ranger a chance to shine? Combat ticks a lot of boxes for fun for all the party - high stakes, everyone can help, different classes bring different ways of contributing to success, outcomes depend on player choices as much as dice rolls. How can we bring exploration to the same level?

Oh believe me, I am under no illusion that this would be easy by any means, nor that I am the person to do it. It wouldn’t even work as a “hack” for 5e. It would involve rewriting the system to the point where it was 5.5e at least and probably closer to a 6e.

It’s just that, after drifting away from DnD a bit and experimenting with other systems, you begin to realize that the most fundamental steps in designing a tabletop RPG is deciding what kind of game you want to make, and then coming up with rules to support that kind of play.

DnD claims to be about the “three pillars”, but only combat has any kind of true mechanical crunch behind it. Don’t get me wrong I like “rulings not rules”, and I can see why 4e made wizards skittish about micromanaging things, but there needs to be more than there is now if they really want the game to reflect the values they claim it is based around.

[moonfly7]

I've been looking at some threads around here and I notice there's a sentiment amongst some that the Ranger has no identity, or doesn't belong as its own class, or perhaps shouldn't have spells. This leads me to the question: What is a Ranger to YOU?

I will express what a Ranger is to me. I believe the Ranger is the equivalent of a Paladin, in that Paladin = Fighter + Cleric, so Ranger is Fighter + Druid.

The Ranger, to me, is the master of versatility and adaptation. Archetypes that spring to mind are of course Aragorn, but also the Mountain Men of America who trailblazers finding the way out west, living out in the land alone for months, even years at a time. Native Americans living on the land, nomads, with close ties to the land. Guardians of nature, and warriors with a more nature bent focus.

I think as the Fighter masters any weapon they lay their hand upon, and use it to its maximum effect over any other class, the premier disciplined solider able to handle themselves in any fight, and the Druid is the master of the land calling the plants and animals to their command, even the weather itself, the Ranger is somewhere in the middle. The Ranger is the master of adaptability. The Ranger is the best at surviving in any conditions (to me). The Ranger is Survivor-man or Bear Grills, the black ops/special forces of D&D. They can be dumped into any situation, the icy cold mountains, the middle of a desert, into the darkest jungles, into the barren plains and be fine. They can survive this.

They know nature and its creatures second only to the Druid, they can identify their weaknesses, master hunters, stalking their prey with expertise rivaled by none. This is Favored enemy, and more recently (and aptly) Favored Foe. In that moment they are the master of tracking, hunting and killing that creature. The Fighter can kill anything that comes its way, but the Ranger can track it down to its lair and slay it in its home turf.

I think the Ranger is the epitome of versatility and adaptability in the Exploration sphere of the game. I think, really, they should be able to get to place other classes cannot. The can scale mountains better than the Fighter, they can dive in the ocean off the coast better than the Rogue, they can track enemies across miles better than anyone, they can survive alone better than anyone. Their ties to nature come to their aid, befriending beasts and plants, locating what's helpful, asking the spirits of the land for aid to cleanse water good for drinking. Their mystical ties to nature allow them to excel at this above and beyond other classes.

To me the Ranger is the premier outdoorsman, the premier scout outside of urban environments, the best at tracking enemies and finding their lairs and hide outs, and able to have the right tool for the right job in the moment. They are guardians of nature, wilderness experts and survivors, at one with the land but more aggressive than Druids. Trappers, Fur traders, frontiersmen, explorers, survivalists, outdoorsmen, hunters are key words that come to mind when I think Ranger. Like Deckland Harp from the show Frontier.

I really think the new UA Alternate Class features helped capture this.

What is a spell-less Ranger? Why do people think it's best as a Fighter subclass or a Rogue? What is a Ranger to you?


It’s always been my opinion that there are only a handful of roles/classes needed & everything should fall into that vein.
Warriors (People skilled in killing)
Criminals (Larceny practitioners)
Socialites (People with social skills)
Technicians (People with artisan skills)
Wilderness (Survivalists)
Magicians (People skilled in the magic system of the setting)
Domestics (People who don’t adventure)

In a perfect world I would say rangers are just people from a wilderness background that are great foresters & canny in the ways of the wild. No real fighting ability but unmatched in Hunting & Gathering. Given that every class in D&D is a warrior though, I would want them to be champions of killing beasts & monsters that plague the wild, & skilled in ambush & terrain. If I could I wouldn’t have half Casters in D&D & instead give rangers “Wilderness Secrets”, Paladins “Prayers”, Fighters “Deeds” etc. Things that could allow them to travel fast & unseen as they travel & come up with spontaneous weaknesses or healing herbs. (Like Aragorn & King’s Weed) that doesn’t translate well into D&D in its current iteration though.


But that’s all wishful thinking. Ranger should be built like the Rogue, but flavored for wilderness


For me the Ranger is an outdoorsman long before he even resembles any kind of Fighter.

Yes, he can fight, but as a survival mechanism, not because it's his profession. He is skilled with a bow because he's a hunter, he's skilled with knife and axe because he uses them day-in-day-out for basic survival, he's skilled with a spear because it's the best weapon
to defend against boar, bear, 'gator and other large beasts...but he has no use for fancy polearms, swords or more exotic arms because they are weapons to be used by men, against men and he has no quarrel with them, except where they encroach upon his territory.

The Ranger, to me, is not a magic-user. His talents might appear magical to the unitiated; he can find food and tracks that others would miss, he can navigate using signs the uninitiated wouldn't know to look for, he can use what look like weeds to heal, he can travel for days without fatigue and without leaving a trace of his passage, he knows how to traverse the terrain and find shortcuts to arrive before he's expected...he can find water in the desert. Small miracles to those without the knowledge, but there's no "trick" or "magic"; it's just experience.

He's the Guide, the Wanderer, the Huntsman, the Shadow in the Woods. He is mysterious, secretive and uncanny, not because of some dark past or shadowy connections, but because he isn't used to the conpany of others and is slow to trust; just another part of his survival instincts.

Needless to say, I'm not a fan of the D&D magic-using, dual-wielding Fighter/Druid-ish mashup!

I agree with these examples greatly, rangers are skilled just as much, if not more than, they are fighters.
But to the point:

A ranger to me will always be exemplified in the Rangers apprentice series by John Flannagan. Those rangers were a Corp of fifty men all sharing similare skills and training.
1. A ranger was stealth incarnate, they were so sneaky some people thought they practiced magic to be invisible.
2. A ranger shoots. In the book they had a saying: "a ranger has the lives of 24 men in his quiver" they are famous for never missing, and shooting massive amounts of arrows a second.
3. A ranger is a tactician, the ranger had maps no one else even knew about, they were master tacticians and brilliant information gathers, a single rangers mind could often turn the tide of a war.
5. They were trackers. A ranger could track a man through rock hard ground for fifty miles and still get his man, they always found their pray, human or beast.
This is a ranger to me, a terrifying hunter and consumptive woodsman, an amazing shot with a bow and sneakier than a thief.
So how does this translate to DND? Well, in my opinion they shouldn't be half fighter half druids, rangers aren't mixes, and in my mind they shouldn't have spells. So here's my suggestions:
1. Drop one or two expertise in their laps, or maybe specifically designed custom skill improvement features.
2. Give rangers the ability to use a bonus action or feature to take aim, giving a boost to their to hit bonus. Then let them choose to not use this in favor of attacking more, giving them a sniper/volley ability.
3. Boosting tracking in 5e won't really help much, but what if we combine the hunting with the strategy? Replace ranger spells with traps, special ones only rangers can make, let them choose from a list and let them use there knowledge and experience to set them up quickly like as an action. This could be easily explained as them preparing the traps during the end of the last rest, and gives a unique battlefield controlling feature.

But that's just me, what about you?

[SpawnOfMorbo]

A background, a set of skills, or a class feature.

I hate D&D rangers tho, they're always so... Restrictive when there's no need to be.

I like the idea of someone who can hunt, a predator type class, but I'll take Rogue way before Ranger.

[Tanarii]

How can we bring exploration to the same level?Torchbearer, and Mutant Zero and Forbiddan Lands all found a way. It's hardly impossible.

AD&D and BECMi did too, although far less rigorously.

[HiveStriker]

I think "fixing the exploration pillar" is tougher than it is made to sound.

What activities and rules can you add such that it enhances the fun for everyone at the table? What can be added that involves everyone but gives the ranger a chance to shine? Combat ticks a lot of boxes for fun for all the party - high stakes, everyone can help, different classes bring different ways of contributing to success, outcomes depend on player choices as much as dice rolls. How can we bring exploration to the same level?
Starting with real enforcment of basic survivalism (carrying limit, necessity to eat/drink and sleep) and knowledge checks (how to hunt those beasts? Nature check. How to gut and cook them? Nature, or Medicine, or simply Sleight of Hands? WHere to go to find water (meaning finding slight hints? Survival).

Stop players from metagaming and make them earn their knowledge of monsters, unless creature they face ought to be known from their profession (you'll expect a Cleric to know most there is about undead, a Draconic Sorcerer may have used its Draconic proficiency to study its ancestors, a Fiend Warlock may have decided to look for a way to subvert its pact while retaining its benefit, etc).

It's not *that* hard... After a while. It's simply that contrarily to fighting, there is much more left to each DM's taste. Which is actually a good thing imo, because not only do all players appreciate adventuring/social evenly, each group may have a very different way to see how to (and how far to) implement it from another. :)

There are regularly threads about skills checks on this forum that are great sources of inspiration.

[moonfly7]

Ok, so we've got on several important things so far, and I think most of it has been covered, but I have a unique idea I think you all might enjoy:
Anyone remember the first alchemisy subclass for the artificer way back in its first unearthed arcana? You know, the one that made thunder stones, and tangle foots bag, and smoke sticks and stuff? It could create a certain number from its bag in combat for free, and then you spent spell slots for more. It was a really cool gadgety/utility/combat idea. So what if we did that for Ranger?
It would be like the Ki point system people suggested, instant items that grapple foes, cause conditions, and promote guerilla warfare. All prepared instantly by the Rangers ingenuity and knowledge of nature, like bear grills or MacGyver. Actually, the alchemists items in that particular UAC were mostly perfect for Ranger, and only a few need changing or reflavoring.

On a different note: I love the idea of a ranger with warlock-like customizability. Here's how I think that might look:
Different terrains give you a choice of a variety of abilities, each one having maybe 2 to choose from.
Your favored enemy grants you special choices. Now it's not "I punch get harder" it would be "I've hunted fey all my life, I can track teleportation" you know, things that make sense.
Like, someone who hunted fiends would be resistant to fire damage and have advantage against deception checks and being magically charmed. Someone who hunted monsters could chase them down like a pursuit predator and take their hits. Someone who hunted fey could follow them to their realm and track their teleporting. Things Like that, choices outside of subclasses as 1st level. Because no two rangers should be exactly the same, one ranger spent his whole life in the mountains hunting monsters and climbing rock walls, he should have at least some different skills and abilities from the ranger who grew up on an island with long beaches who hunted demons over its magical sands.
But they should all be masters of their environment, improvisers and generalists who live off the land. But every land is different, and every foe a whole new kettle of fish.
Anyways, those are my suggestions and ideas, feel free to tell me why you disagree or why you love them.

[MrStabby]

Starting with real enforcment of basic survivalism (carrying limit, necessity to eat/drink and sleep) and knowledge checks (how to hunt those beasts? Nature check. How to gut and cook them? Nature, or Medicine, or simply Sleight of Hands? WHere to go to find water (meaning finding slight hints? Survival).

Stop players from metagaming and make them earn their knowledge of monsters, unless creature they face ought to be known from their profession (you'll expect a Cleric to know most there is about undead, a Draconic Sorcerer may have used its Draconic proficiency to study its ancestors, a Fiend Warlock may have decided to look for a way to subvert its pact while retaining its benefit, etc).

It's not *that* hard... After a while. It's simply that contrarily to fighting, there is much more left to each DM's taste. Which is actually a good thing imo, because not only do all players appreciate adventuring/social evenly, each group may have a very different way to see how to (and how far to) implement it from another. :)

There are regularly threads about skills checks on this forum that are great sources of inspiration.

I think you make my point for me.

You take a skill check. You roll a die. It is just not as engaging as combat where positioning, decision on what resources to use, how much damage to take, deciding how much noise to make and so on all have consequences. I am going to be honest with you, a sequence of skill checks isn't going to fix it for me. An if I am playing a character without proficiency in these skills? What do I do then? Do I just sit by or do I contribute ineffectively? At least in combat every class has ways to contribute.

Now I will admit that our table usually dispenses with things like tracking rations and carry limit for most things - at our table there is always that one guy who doesn't want to play a game of spreadsheet and would rather do D&D instead. They dont see tracking these things as adding fun to the game.

[intregus]

Ok, so we've got on several important things so far, and I think most of it has been covered, but I have a unique idea I think you all might enjoy:
Anyone remember the first alchemisy subclass for the artificer way back in its first unearthed arcana? You know, the one that made thunder stones, and tangle foots bag, and smoke sticks and stuff? It could create a certain number from its bag in combat for free, and then you spent spell slots for more. It was a really cool gadgety/utility/combat idea. So what if we did that for Ranger?
It would be like the Ki point system people suggested, instant items that grapple foes, cause conditions, and promote guerilla warfare. All prepared instantly by the Rangers ingenuity and knowledge of nature, like bear grills or MacGyver. Actually, the alchemists items in that particular UAC were mostly perfect for Ranger, and only a few need changing or reflavoring.

On a different note: I love the idea of a ranger with warlock-like customizability. Here's how I think that might look:
Different terrains give you a choice of a variety of abilities, each one having maybe 2 to choose from.
Your favored enemy grants you special choices. Now it's not "I punch get harder" it would be "I've hunted fey all my life, I can track teleportation" you know, things that make sense.
Like, someone who hunted fiends would be resistant to fire damage and have advantage against deception checks and being magically charmed. Someone who hunted monsters could chase them down like a pursuit predator and take their hits. Someone who hunted fey could follow them to their realm and track their teleporting. Things Like that, choices outside of subclasses as 1st level. Because no two rangers should be exactly the same, one ranger spent his whole life in the mountains hunting monsters and climbing rock walls, he should have at least some different skills and abilities from the ranger who grew up on an island with long beaches who hunted demons over its magical sands.
But they should all be masters of their environment, improvisers and generalists who live off the land. But every land is different, and every foe a whole new kettle of fish.
Anyways, those are my suggestions and ideas, feel free to tell me why you disagree or why you love them.

I literally remade the ranger on the Warnock chassis....it works well and I'm currently playing it in tomb of annihilation. Still playtesting its balance though.

Also feel free to give me feedback about everything.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mlXa9GSqcdsG__eihM4KcGtEgzRSoKIuUQbj482KFsM/edit?usp=drivesdk

[HiveStriker]

I think you make my point for me.

You take a skill check. You roll a die. It is just not as engaging as combat where positioning, decision on what resources to use, how much damage to take, deciding how much noise to make and so on all have consequences. I am going to be honest with you, a sequence of skill checks isn't going to fix it for me. An if I am playing a character without proficiency in these skills? What do I do then? Do I just sit by or do I contribute ineffectively? At least in combat every class has ways to contribute.

Now I will admit that our table usually dispenses with things like tracking rations and carry limit for most things - at our table there is always that one guy who doesn't want to play a game of spreadsheet and would rather do D&D instead. They dont see tracking these things as adding fun to the game.
Well that's the part I can't understand.

Using Survival, Animal Handling or Nature could allow your party to create "natural-looking distractions" to draw enemies out of a safe place. Or maybe identify herbs that could service to make an on-the-fly poison/sleeping powder that you could pour into a well of cooking pot, or possibly even in the water source if you don't care about consequences. In a party with very little magic or where the one knowledge guy is a brick when it comes to sneaking, the scout could always try and spy from a safe distance then depict as accurately as possible what it saw so the knowledge guy decides what (probably) those creatures are (hint: I had it done a few times. Like "speaking with animals", it's the kind of things that can lead to hilarious situations when RPed).

Deciding whether to spend time to study and learn about a creature's vulnerabilities or more generally assert enemy forces and composition, and possibly miss an apparently optimal timeframe of intervention but heighten chance of success overall... Or on the contrary storm the place and make tactics as you go...
Is another meaningful decision that may have a big impact.

And why would you be useless if you don't have the skills? Help can perfectly be roleplayed, and people with skills can perfectly delegate tasks instead (ex charging you to go pick up books in library while you try and get an appointmnet with a local "know-it-all", describing you how to find an animal or to make up a campfire -although imo any adventurer should know that ^^ so probably not the best example-), etc.
More generally...
A martial could follow instructions to help with basic things, or tag along on dangerous scouting. A ritual caster with Locate / Commune and other "divine intervention" spells could reduce the field of possibilities to help scout go analyse the right area. Any caster could support him directly (long duration buff) or indirectly (ring of spell storing, telepathy feature, familiar). Or simply take time and study the lore and other information you got pertaining your next quarry while the one guy with great wildnerness skills scouts away the best way to approach/infiltrate.

Not because you are not proficient in a skill does it mean you have to sit idle. You can always find something meaningful to do. That's called being proactive. :)

I'll be honest, your post gives the impression that your groups put the RP on the accessory side to focus on "tactical gaming" aspect of the game. Not a problem at all of course, to each his own variety of fun, but it's unfair to hold against the class the fact you ignore a whole lot of aspects game in general, and class in particular, was designed around.
To pick your own example, with that mindset, a GWM/Sentinel Fighter would probably be bored to death in some of my games where players are mainly interested in seeing how the world evolves and dig their influence through covert actions such as political backstab and mind manipulation...

[paladinn]

I literally remade the ranger on the Warnock chassis....it works well and I'm currently playing it in tomb of annihilation. Still playtesting its balance though.

Also feel free to give me feedback about everything.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mlXa9GSqcdsG__eihM4KcGtEgzRSoKIuUQbj482KFsM/edit?usp=drivesdk

Ok, I like this more than I thought I would. I'm still not crazy about rangers with spells. And I've never been a fan of maneuvers (and therefore of the battlemaster). The whole maneuver thing seems like a vaguely-related bolt-on that just facilitates (and in 4e, required) the use of a mat.

Revisiting the favored enemy/foe thing.. The main problem than many have with this is that it's so situational. If it were more like the SR/1e version, it would be still be situational but much less-so. I would recommend putting that version back, so that it would apply to any "humanoid" foe. Then, adding a feature that would allow a ranger to apply the FF to Any one creature, maybe once per long or short rest?

If a paladin's "thing" now is smiting, the ranger's "thing" would be hunter's mark (or some version of it). If a ranger Has to have spells, I would suggest having HM work like smites, fueled by spell point/slots. But maybe that's sort of already there since we're past "fire and forget".

[MrStabby]

Well that's the part I can't understand.

Using Survival, Animal Handling or Nature could allow your party to create "natural-looking distractions" to draw enemies out of a safe place. Or maybe identify herbs that could service to make an on-the-fly poison/sleeping powder that you could pour into a well of cooking pot, or possibly even in the water source if you don't care about consequences. In a party with very little magic or where the one knowledge guy is a brick when it comes to sneaking, the scout could always try and spy from a safe distance then depict as accurately as possible what it saw so the knowledge guy decides what (probably) those creatures are (hint: I had it done a few times. Like "speaking with animals", it's the kind of things that can lead to hilarious situations when RPed).

Deciding whether to spend time to study and learn about a creature's vulnerabilities or more generally assert enemy forces and composition, and possibly miss an apparently optimal timeframe of intervention but heighten chance of success overall... Or on the contrary storm the place and make tactics as you go...
Is another meaningful decision that may have a big impact.

And why would you be useless if you don't have the skills? Help can perfectly be roleplayed, and people with skills can perfectly delegate tasks instead (ex charging you to go pick up books in library while you try and get an appointmnet with a local "know-it-all", describing you how to find an animal or to make up a campfire -although imo any adventurer should know that ^^ so probably not the best example-), etc.
More generally...
A martial could follow instructions to help with basic things, or tag along on dangerous scouting. A ritual caster with Locate / Commune and other "divine intervention" spells could reduce the field of possibilities to help scout go analyse the right area. Any caster could support him directly (long duration buff) or indirectly (ring of spell storing, telepathy feature, familiar). Or simply take time and study the lore and other information you got pertaining your next quarry while the one guy with great wildnerness skills scouts away the best way to approach/infiltrate.

Not because you are not proficient in a skill does it mean you have to sit idle. You can always find something meaningful to do. That's called being proactive. :)

I'll be honest, your post gives the impression that your groups put the RP on the accessory side to focus on "tactical gaming" aspect of the game. Not a problem at all of course, to each his own variety of fun, but it's unfair to hold against the class the fact you ignore a whole lot of aspects game in general, and class in particular, was designed around.
To pick your own example, with that mindset, a GWM/Sentinel Fighter would probably be bored to death in some of my games where players are mainly interested in seeing how the world evolves and dig their influence through covert actions such as political backstab and mind manipulation...

Well if your answer is "roleplay" something then it kind of suggests that the issue is not in the rules and the exploration pillar doesn't need a fix. There is no change needed the ranger just needs to roleplay being better than everyone at this stuff. The reason that there is a focus on this is not because roleplay is unimportant, but because the question of mechanical changes to the game was raised.

As to why I focused on skills rather than roleplay specifically in the response to you was that your comment was all about skills and specifically mentioned skills : "survivalism (carrying limit, necessity to eat/drink and sleep) and knowledge checks (how to hunt those beasts? Nature check. How to gut and cook them? Nature, or Medicine, or simply Sleight of Hands? WHere to go to find water (meaning finding slight hints? Survival)". TripleD was specifically talking about rules and mechanics for the exploration pillar so thats what we discussed.

Secondly the whole context of this is that the ranger is a bit rubbish because it doesn't excel at the things it should excel at (sometimes because they don't happen). If a solution doesnt actaully make the ranger better than others at the exploration pillar then it kind of fails at its stated objective.

I think for me the list is:

1) There should be exploration challenges
2) The ranger should have an advantage here
3) The challenges should be fun enough for the whole party that no one (DM included) wants to skip over them
4) Everyone can use their characters abilities to productively do something different and to differentiate their character
5) The challenges of this type that the ranger excels at should be applicable at all levels and not disappear from the game when, for example, the party can just teleport between cities rather than have wilderness travel)

My contention is that it is really, really hard to see how this could actually be delivered.

[intregus]

Ok, I like this more than I thought I would. I'm still not crazy about rangers with spells. And I've never been a fan of maneuvers (and therefore of the battlemaster). The whole maneuver thing seems like a vaguely-related bolt-on that just facilitates (and in 4e, required) the use of a mat.

Revisiting the favored enemy/foe thing.. The main problem than many have with this is that it's so situational. If it were more like the SR/1e version, it would be still be situational but much less-so. I would recommend putting that version back, so that it would apply to any "humanoid" foe. Then, adding a feature that would allow a ranger to apply the FF to Any one creature, maybe once per long or short rest?

If a paladin's "thing" now is smiting, the ranger's "thing" would be hunter's mark (or some version of it). If a ranger Has to have spells, I would suggest having HM work like smites, fueled by spell point/slots. But maybe that's sort of already there since we're past "fire and forget".

Thank you I appreciate it!

This is a rough draft. I,took the ua spelless ranger as a basis. Id like to move away from the maneuvers bons as well so we dont step on the BM fighters toes. I'm thinking aplot thia into 2 or 3 bonds that focus on a fighting style. Like archery would be its own,bond, TWF would be its own thing etc. Thoughts on that?

I'm more a fan of spellwaa ranger but I,kept it as a bond so you can choose casting or not. I think the casting ranger has a place in dnd.

And then I favored enemy as situational as the PHB version BUT hunters mark is now a class feature that allowa you to put your favored enemy on any target once per ahort or long rest.

[JellyPooga]

Now it's not "I punch get harder" it would be "I've hunted fey all my life, I can track teleportation" you know, things that make sense.

I love this sentence :smallbiggrin: Not only conceptually, but just from a linguistic point of view, the juxtaposition of "I can track teleportation" and "things that make sense"...love it.

[moonfly7]

I love this sentence :smallbiggrin: Not only conceptually, but just from a linguistic point of view, the juxtaposition of "I can track teleportation" and "things that make sense"...love it.

Its moments like this when I realize I may being playing to much DND. That and when someone says "we need someone to fix the AC" and I think "what's wrong with the armor class of what?"

[Morty]

That’s the thing though, fixing the exploration pillar would address at least two of those things.

In the case of number 1 then that is like bringing a combat-optimized Barbarian to a role play heavy came focussed on political intrigue. Or a righteous Paladin to a game of backstabbing villains forced to ally together. It’s on the DM to let them know what kind of game they should build for.

I feel that if you're running an RP-heavy political intrigue game in D&D, you've picked the wrong system. Apart from that, though, it's a fair point. Some classes' excessive combat focus is as much of a problem as the ranger's wilderness exploration focus. Of course, a barbarian and fighter can still pick up social skills.

That being said, there's no class that focuses on the social pillar as much as ranger focuses on the exploration one. Not even bards - they're likely to excel there because of their high charisma and strong skill proficiencies, but they don't have class features that say "you're better at deception or persuasion than anyone else". And they've got plenty to do outside a social situation.


For number two, I have to ask what do you imagine a fix to Exploration would entail? To me it would be a rich set of mechanical options in line with what exists for combat. Being skilled at “survival” or “nature” wouldn’t make you a master of them anymore than expertise in “athletics” makes you a master of combat. They would have some usage, but the system would move beyond just skill checks to involve mechanics that only the ranger, or maybe other dedicated m subclasses, can touch.

For three... yes? I mean, that’s the point of a team based game. The non-ranger will be less useful at more of exploration than the ranger. Again going back to athletics, Rogue’s with expertise in it who are good at shoving creatures prone don’t seem particularly upset by not being able to Rage or Smite.

People who take nature and survival will be good at the parts of the pillar that involve them, and less useful at the ones that don’t.

I'm all for giving non-combat parts of the game more robust rules than "roll something and figure it out". But trying to make them equal to combat in D&D is going to be an uphill battle at best. And as I said above, I don't think it's a particularly good idea to tie a class as strongly to any part of it as the ranger is tied to exploration.

Particularly since, again, there's no such class for other skills, nor should there be. Why is the exploration pillar different enough that we should dedicate a class to it? Because this class has always been there?

[Pufferwockey]

I think most of the "fix exploration" side of the problem is solvable with pretty basic session 0 communication. If someone shows up to an entirely urban intrigue campaign with a ranger then either the DM or the player or both screwed up... Unless someone is deliberately going for a fish out of water thing in which case the fact that their expertise isn't applicable to their surroundings is a success and not something to complain about, or if someone homebrewed a well balanced urban ranger.

The ranger skill set can applicable to dungeons, depending on what the party's goal in the dungeon is. It's maybe not as good as the rogues but that's a good thing.

If the table expectation is for a lot of wilderness, guerilla warfare, and survival adventures then it's up to the dm to decide if they want to punish the party for the fact that noone took nature proficiency. The DM is controlling when skill checks are needed, the dcs, and what the results of success and failure are. The ranger's natural explorer ability has nothing in it that says anything should be hand waved (other than never getting lost) but it does give some specifics on how good a ranger's results should be on successes, which implies that successes by characters without the ability should be more moderate. If the DM and the table want wilderness survival adventure but they're still hand waving carrying capacity, rations, exhaustion and the rest there's not much that can be done.

This of course is all ignoring the goodberry spell which reads, and I hope it's cool for me to copy paste WotC copyrighted material, but it reads:

Goodberry
casting time: 1 action
Tell the DM they may take their survival adventure and stick it where the sun shineth not.

[JumboWheat01]

Goodberry only takes care of food, not water, so survival isn't COMPLETELY trashed. Now a Cleric with Create Food and Water on the other hand (which is a oddly favorite spell of mine,) can.

[Pufferwockey]

that's a good point well made

[TripleD]

I feel that if you're running an RP-heavy political intrigue game in D&D, you've picked the wrong system.


I am 100% on the “the vast majority of the ‘problems’ with DnD that homebrew tries to fix could be solved by switching to a system built for the type of game you want to play” train.



That being said, there's no class that focuses on the social pillar as much as ranger focuses on the exploration one. Not even bards - they're likely to excel there because of their high charisma and strong skill proficiencies, but they don't have class features that say "you're better at deception or persuasion than anyone else". And they've got plenty to do outside a social situation.


See, I would also see that as a failure of the social pillar, which is just as lacking, if not more, than the exploration one.

Bards are just a “failure” in the other direction. There is no social system for them to plug into, so instead they get a host of other abilities and full casting. Powerful abilities, don’t get me wrong, and fun to play with.

But as you said, none explicitly tie into social situations, which is good design in this case because there isn’t really one to tie into. If 6e really did make the three pillars equal, I wouldn’t mind Bards become “rangers of social situations”.



I'm all for giving non-combat parts of the game more robust rules than "roll something and figure it out". But trying to make them equal to combat in D&D is going to be an uphill battle at best.

[...]

Why is the exploration pillar different enough that we should dedicate a class to it? Because this class has always been there?

I agree it will be an uphill battle. But to answer that, and your other questions:

Because that is the game the designers claim they want to make. It’s what D&D is trying to be, and it is failing to do so.

If they are serious about the three pillars of gameplay being “combat, social, and exploration” then they should support them. Otherwise they should just admit it’s a tactical dungeon crawl game and go all in on it.

[Ravinsild]

This is a good point though, many classes are very general and almost all mechanics deal with recovering a resource that is pillar agnostic (spells, or hit points, etc..) or involving combat in some way. The Ranger is the only exception which focuses on the exploration part of the game but the pillars at not equal.

It’s like 90% combat 5% exploration and 5% social as far as real, hard, serious mechanical crunch in the rules. So having a class dedicated to a section that barely sees focus feels bad.

That’s why the UA ACF works so well: now it’s not longer situational to a weird pillar and is more combat or pillar agnostic. You have a climb speed: useful for all pillars, exploration (mountain climbing!), combat (getting to where you need to be to snipe) or social (climbing up a balcony to pull off some sweet urban espionage) etc...

Also it’s more interactive with the game... instead of Ranger Radar you get active spells to interact with the environment, speak with animals and such to ask questions and roleplay it out, it gives more tools to social and RP stuff that also counts as exploration (where IN the forest is the person we are looking for mr. owl?)

[Pufferwockey]

I am 100% on the “the vast majority of the ‘problems’ with DnD that homebrew tries to fix could be solved by switching to a system built for the type of game you want to play” train.



See, I would also see that as a failure of the social pillar, which is just as lacking, if not more, than the exploration one.

Bards are just a “failure” in the other direction. There is no social system for them to plug into, so instead they get a host of other abilities and full casting. Powerful abilities, don’t get me wrong, and fun to play with.

But as you said, none explicitly tie into social situations, which is good design in this case because there isn’t really one to tie into. If 6e really did make the three pillars equal, I wouldn’t mind Bards become “rangers of social situations”.



I agree it will be an uphill battle. But to answer that, and your other questions:

Because that is the game the designers claim they want to make. It’s what D&D is trying to be, and it is failing to do so.

If they are serious about the three pillars of gameplay being “combat, social, and exploration” then they should support them. Otherwise they should just admit it’s a tactical dungeon crawl game and go all in on it.


I play at a mostly RP, usually one combat a session table, and I don't think I want social any crunchier. I could be wrong and more mechanics would improve things, but I'd hate to see mechanics make social interaction the sole domain of the bard. A lot of the joy comes from watching the surly barbarian try to pull off persuades just as a lot of the exploration/stealth fun can come from figuring how to get our clanking cleric down a hallway without alerting the hostiles or how to get a soft sorcerer through an extended trek in harsh conditions.

EDIT Those alliterations were accidental. I'm leaving them be so I wouldn't say I'm exactly sorry, but they were accidents.

[Kane0]

Crazy idea probably for its own thread: Implement HP analogues for the social and exploration pillars, like say Resolve and Fatigue. Then make sure that actions and the three kinds of rolls are universally applicable between the three, or the reverse where you have one HP-esque pool that applies to all three pillars (that would be weirder but hey, may as well throw the idea out there).

[TripleD]

I play at a mostly RP, usually one combat a session table, and I don't think I want social any crunchier. I could be wrong and more mechanics would improve things, but I'd hate to see mechanics make social interaction the sole domain of the bard.

Preaching to the choir. I hear you about the fun of coming up with things on the fly, and I have a strong distaste for most “social combat” systems that turn conversations into a series of stat-dependant dice roles.

The thing is, “crunch” doesn’t have to mean “dice roles”, and “social” doesn’t have to mean “conversations”.

For example, let’s say a “reputation” mechanic was introduced that tracked how famous your group was and provided various bonuses and penalties (more likely to let the king talk to you, also more likely to be targeted by bad guys). A bard could have the ability to temporarily boost your reputation through rumours and storytelling, giving everyone in the group access to the benefits of increased renown.

[ZorroGames]

In the beginning there were three holy books of D&D and the classes were:

Fighting-Men who hit things with weapons and wore armor and used shields
Magic-Users who did magic spells and hid behind the protection of the Fighting-Men
Clerics who fought not as well as Fighting-Men and cast spells but not the same spells

And the limited classes of:

Dwarves
Elves
Hobbits (before the C&D letters from the Tolkien estate made them halflings)

Then ( after the Strategic Preview) came Supplement I Greyhawk with:

Half-Elves
Thieves
Paladins - extremely limited alignment Fighters


In Supplement II Blackmoor came:

The subclass of clerics the D4 hp based - Monks
The subclass of Thief, the Assassin

In Supplement III Eldritch Wizardy we received a version of the cleric subclass Druid we had seen in magazine form IIRC before.

And Rangers? Strategic Review Volume 1, number 2 followed by being a core class in AD&D 1st edition as a subtype of fighter.

So... since I have no first hand experience with 3.x or 4th edition this is what I see as the Ranger ideal.

Human (Aragorn, Rangers of the North,) and Half-Elves (Elladan and Elohim,) though it is expected Elves would fulfill the role ( but not Legolas, an Arcane Archer role more likely.)

I would expect the pillar of exploration to be primary for Rangers in D&D with combat secondary and the social pillar tertiary. The whole Wisdom and Intelligence dichotomy of D&D, especially 5e, would need to be addressed. Maybe a class proficiency in Nature or possibly history but not investigation, arcana or religion. The WI/IN split in 5e does make me twitchy.

Spells are a key component of 5e but for Rangers... not so much IMO.

[Tanarii]

Multiple other games have implemented "crunchy" social and exploration pillars that aren't just roll dice, resolve. Like D&D combat, they involve tactical player decision making, things that are roughly analogue to deciding on which action to take, positioning (vary from as strict as equivalent to 4e battle my play to as loose as 5e theatre of the mind), conditions, and yes resolution rolls when needed. They aren't single faceted at all.

In the case of social mechanics, one thing many D&D players might have to do is get over "you can't tell me how to play my character" mentality. Restrictions can be something analogous to conditions. For example in exalted, someone might force you to gain intimacies by social magic or verbal skill. And you have traits of valor, compassion, temperance, etc. To take certain actions, you might have to overcome an intimacy or trait by rolling against it, or spending willpower. Otherwise you have to choose to do something different. These restrictions don't have to kill role play (aka decision making) any more than (some) conditions kill combat. They modify your options. But players have to buy into they can't always decide how their character 'feels' or even 'thinks', the game rules can modify that.

Exploration can easily be the same. Choose actions, possibly limited by existing circumstances and/or character capability, and make a resolution roll if it's called for based on the decisions.

[Ravinsild]

Multiple other games have implemented "crunchy" social and exploration pillars that aren't just roll dice, resolve. Like D&D combat, they involve tactical player decision making, things that are roughly analogue to deciding on which action to take, positioning (vary from as strict as equivalent to 4e battle my play to as loose as 5e theatre of the mind), conditions, and yes resolution rolls when needed. They aren't single faceted at all.

In the case of social mechanics, one thing many D&D players might have to do is get over "you can't tell me how to play my character" mentality. Restrictions can be something analogous to conditions. For example in exalted, someone might force you to gain intimacies by social magic or verbal skill. And you have traits of valor, compassion, temperance, etc. To take certain actions, you might have to overcome an intimacy or trait by rolling against it, or spending willpower. Otherwise you have to choose to do something different. These restrictions don't have to kill role play (aka decision making) any more than (some) conditions kill combat. They modify your options. But players have to buy into they can't always decide how their character 'feels' or even 'thinks', the game rules can modify that.

Exploration can easily be the same. Choose actions, possibly limited by existing circumstances and/or character capability, and make a resolution roll if it's called for based on the decisions.

This I guess begs the question then: do we need a new game? Is the solution to “what is a Ranger to you?” And the answer almost universally being “great at exploring and living outdoors” pretty much let’s remake D&D but this time with crunch for Exploration and Social pillars?

Is the Ranger that dysfunctional? I honestly feel like the UA ACF did a great job at making them more pillar neutral and being much more versatile, but then again I like the Ranger magic and all.

[Morty]

See, I would also see that as a failure of the social pillar, which is just as lacking, if not more, than the exploration one.

Bards are just a “failure” in the other direction. There is no social system for them to plug into, so instead they get a host of other abilities and full casting. Powerful abilities, don’t get me wrong, and fun to play with.

But as you said, none explicitly tie into social situations, which is good design in this case because there isn’t really one to tie into. If 6e really did make the three pillars equal, I wouldn’t mind Bards become “rangers of social situations”.

I don't think it's a particularly good idea to make any one class just plain better at any given aspect of the game. Having bards be better at one particular aspect of social interaction, maybe, but then you have to ask where the line is between a class feature and a skill proficiency.


I agree it will be an uphill battle. But to answer that, and your other questions:

Because that is the game the designers claim they want to make. It’s what D&D is trying to be, and it is failing to do so.

If they are serious about the three pillars of gameplay being “combat, social, and exploration” then they should support them. Otherwise they should just admit it’s a tactical dungeon crawl game and go all in on it.

If D&D were to equally support them, it would need to rethink far more than just the systems themselves, which would require changes deep enough to make it not feel like D&D to many players.

[Ravinsild]

I don't think it's a particularly good idea to make any one class just plain better at any given aspect of the game. Having bards be better at one particular aspect of social interaction, maybe, but then you have to ask where the line is between a class feature and a skill proficiency.



If D&D were to equally support them, it would need to rethink far more than just the systems themselves, which would require changes deep enough to make it not feel like D&D to many players.

Which, piggy backing off my most recent post, this seems to somewhat be answer for. Perhaps the Ranger isn’t so broken as to need an entire system revamp, if it does in your opinion, then maybe the Ranger simply just is not for you?

[Morty]

Which, piggy backing off my most recent post, this seems to somewhat be answer for. Perhaps the Ranger isn’t so broken as to need an entire system revamp, if it does in your opinion, then maybe the Ranger simply just is not for you?

No, the ranger is a poorly-designed class no matter which way you slice it. It doesn't fit D&D as it is now and it wouldn't fit any hypothetical "revamped" version of it. I see it as mostly a legacy thing that edition after edition tries to make work because people expect it to be there.

[paladinn]

No, the ranger is a poorly-designed class no matter which way you slice it. It doesn't fit D&D as it is now and it wouldn't fit any hypothetical "revamped" version of it. I see it as mostly a legacy thing that edition after edition tries to make work because people expect it to be there.

The whole "exploration/combat/social" thing is new to D&D, just like "power sources" and "roles" were in 4e. The idea might have been there all along, but it was more understood or taken in stride. I think delineating these really places an artificial framework on the game that wasn't there before.

The only piece of this that can really be "roll played" is the combat; the other two legs really are "role playing".

[djreynolds]

I've been looking at some threads around here and I notice there's a sentiment amongst some that the Ranger has no identity, or doesn't belong as its own class, or perhaps shouldn't have spells. This leads me to the question: What is a Ranger to YOU?

I will express what a Ranger is to me. I believe the Ranger is the equivalent of a Paladin, in that Paladin = Fighter + Cleric, so Ranger is Fighter + Druid.




I remember along time ago, IRL back in the service, we were on a long patrol and we came across a large cliff (S**T).... and then there were these "special" type of warrior waiting for us with ropes ready to go for us to scale this ting.

So when I envision a ranger, I see this expert. And that is kind of what I want out of the ranger class

Now a paladin is a leader and with their high charisma, healing, smites and auras, in game, you feel all right following them into certain doom. The paladin has a very "buzz light year" appeal to them.... come follow me, my aura will protect you... and then we all roll up new characters

How does their prowess with certain foes or terrain affect their party?

Now favored enemy does grant a language for a foe (its actually a big deal) and advantage on wisdom and intelligence checks (but you have to have proficiency for this) Just remove the needing proficiency part and its awesome

Favored terrain is actually quite powerful at lower level, where the road from the bar to the dungeon is actually very hazardous.

IMO, if they are the equivalent of the paladin, then they should get something equivalent to the paladin's aura.

Now its doesn't have to be an aura like a paladin or an inspiration like a bards...

But it needs to be something the party gets when this "special" warrior places you in a particular position for an ambush.

When that "special" warrior says aim here, the armor is weak.

I don't care about how much damage or DPR the ranger does, but how they affect their party members. The issue with the PHB favored foe/terrain is that it doesn't translate to combat.

The new UA canny is expertise in 1 skill but really is not as strong as natural explorer could be (hence needing 10 skills to be great) and roving and toughness really just buff up the ranger.

I could see while in your favored terrain, your party gets half your proficiency score in "these" skills

I could see favored enemy, your party gets half your proficiency bonus to hit or damage versus your enemy

If you just added in these 2 sentences, I think the ranger would be a lot more valuable to a party

[Kane0]

I don't care about how much damage or DPR the ranger does, but how they affect their party members. The issue with the PHB favored foe/terrain is that it doesn't translate to combat.

The new UA canny is expertise in 1 skill but really is not as strong as natural explorer could be (hence needing 10 skills to be great) and roving and toughness really just buff up the ranger.

I could see while in your favored terrain, your party gets half your proficiency score in "these" skills

I could see favored enemy, your party gets half your proficiency bonus to hit or damage versus your enemy

If you just added in these 2 sentences, I think the ranger would be a lot more valuable to a party

Something like 'while travelling for an hour or more you can add your Wisdom modifier as a bonus to any Strength, Dexterity and Wisdom ability checks you or your allies make' ?

And for a combat benefit, perhaps a feature where you attack a target and the next attack that hits that target before the end of your next turn deals a bit of extra damage (doesn't have to be your attacks, you can provide a setup and someone else can carry through for that teamwork 'hit them there' feel)

[Sindal]

My only issue with the above few posts is that it moves them into a more 'supporty' mode. And this is from someone who likes supporting . Especially if you start linking their class abiltites to something like 'my allies do more damage', becauase then the ranger requires other people to maximize their use of their class abitlites. Paladins have auras, yeah but all of them are in the 'Keep people in the combat game' field.

Based on what I've seen of people picking ranger; people pick them typically because they want to be a cool hawk eye archer/huntsman. Not to be tour guide.

[Arzanyos]

On the other hand though, if you only want to be a a cool archer/huntsman, why not a Dex focused Fighter. The tour guide stuff IS what makes a Ranger a Ranger.

[Sindal]

On the other hand though, if you only want to be a a cool archer/huntsman, why not a Dex focused Fighter. The tour guide stuff IS what makes a Ranger a Ranger.

Is it?
My point being is that rangers should never have to rely on other people to get 'their' job done.
When something happens and stuff hits the fan, 'they' spring into action. They 'typically' don't start barking orders and commanding units around (not saying they can't). I would expect that more from a fighter or paladin, since they are typically designed in a way that makes 'holding their ground' easier.
Whether the rest of the party helps them isn't directly their concern, though it's appreciated none the less.

The way the PHB describes them, they are supposed to be:
-Deadly hunters
-Independent Adventurers

They remove threats from the living and uncivilized world. It is not their 'job' to get people into danger. It is their job to get rid of the danger 'themselves' in the first place.
Helping other people get there is just a byproduct of 'them' getting there.

The new UA sorta reflects that, to me.

-The new natural explorer replacement gives them a way to get almost anywhere, be more tanky or focus more on tracking and wilderness stuff. You could find a way to extend that to party members but since it's a level 1 abilitty it could be even more sort after for 1 dips, unless those passives only work later
-The new non concentration HM lets the ranger use their other spells to offer other kinds of support they couldn't use in tandom with their main damage ability, such as damaging or snaring the enemy.
-the new awareness encourages exploration and makes the ranger feel unique in ways a simple skill check can't replicate.

But I suppose, that's my opinion of what rangers are :smallbiggrin:

[moonfly7]

Is it?
My point being is that rangers should never have to rely on other people to get 'their' job done.
When something happens and stuff hits the fan, 'they' spring into action. They 'typically' don't start barking orders and commanding units around (not saying they can't). I would expect that more from a fighter or paladin, since they are typically designed in a way that makes 'holding their ground' easier.
Whether the rest of the party helps them isn't directly their concern, though it's appreciated none the less.

The way the PHB describes them, they are supposed to be:
-Deadly hunters
-Independent Adventurers

They remove threats from the living and uncivilized world. It is not their 'job' to get people into danger. It is their job to get rid of the danger 'themselves' in the first place.
Helping other people get there is just a byproduct of 'them' getting there.

The new UA sorta reflects that, to me.

-The new natural explorer replacement gives them a way to get almost anywhere, be more tanky or focus more on tracking and wilderness stuff. You could find a way to extend that to party members but since it's a level 1 abilitty it could be even more sort after for 1 dips, unless those passives only work later
-The new non concentration HM lets the ranger use their other spells to offer other kinds of support they couldn't use in tandom with their main damage ability, such as damaging or snaring the enemy.
-the new awareness encourages exploration and makes the ranger feel unique in ways a simple skill check can't replicate.

But I suppose, that's my opinion of what rangers are :smallbiggrin:

I totally agree with this. What we need is to evoke the "master of his environment/born for this moment" kind of feeling, because you know what? Both arguments here are right.
The ranger is supposed to shine like a diamond on his own, he's like Rambo, killing an entire patrol on his own, fading out of the woods to kill 5 men, and then disappearing before repeating again, because they just can't find him, and he can track them all day, this is his element.
But the ranger is ALSO the guide. When a party of half starved adventurers run into say, Chuck Norris in the woods, Chuck greatly improves their ability to survive, which is obvious and not going to be an aura or anything, but an extension of his own skills. But if, say, a bear attacks them, chuck will not only be able to fight it, but he can help the party fight it better by telling them things like "this is a Peruvian Hitchcock bear, it's knees are weak" and so the party will be able to better kill the bear.
However, I think that specifically, aiding a large party and helping them do better, is something that should largely be a subclass, a ranger whose better at aiding comrades. I think core rangers should have a few abilities that make them able to help others in the core class, but these should be amplified and improved on by a subclass. Same as the loner hunter/mountain man, they're both rangers, just two varied archetypes of the same thing. So both should exist in the core class, and be built upon by a ranger whose focused on that aspect of himself. That's why I like 5e, they accept that, yes, these are very general terms, and so they made more specific areas so that the classes could be given deeper personality that way.

I think the best way to proceed helping to fix the ranger (which is my favourite class) is to take everything we've said here, and build the core class around the archetypes that resonate with us, and then better focus on those in subclasses.
What are those things, well, this is just what I've seen reading this page, these being the ones everyone agreed on:
A ranger is a survivalist
A ranger is skilled
A ranger is a generalist
A ranger is master of his environment
A ranger is a loner
But a ranger is also a guide and a protector
With these things in mind, we can, I believe, fuse our differing opinions into a class we can all enjoy(accept for those of you who think ranger shouldn't exist, as this is about keeping it existing).

[Morty]

The whole "exploration/combat/social" thing is new to D&D, just like "power sources" and "roles" were in 4e. The idea might have been there all along, but it was more understood or taken in stride. I think delineating these really places an artificial framework on the game that wasn't there before.

The only piece of this that can really be "roll played" is the combat; the other two legs really are "role playing".

There are many systems which have more elaborate rules for non-combat activities, especially social interaction. Conversely, there are systems that don't treat combat as a fundamentally different part of the rules and instead resolve it like any other dramatic situations or conflict. D&D obviously can't do the latter, as people love it for tactical combat, and hasn't got around to doing the former. Maybe in ten years or so a 6E will introduce it as a brand new innovation.

Glibness aside, the ranger's problems have little to do with wilderness survival rules or lack thereof. The actual problem is twofold. First, the ranger's supposed focus is a skill proficiency, and a situational one at that. Second, the attempts to make it work have caused a bloat of features that don't fit together into any kind of coherent whole.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

For me the idea of the ranger is an outdoorsy badass. Any movie or book character who's cool at least in a large part because they can light a fire anywhere, always find north, cut a path through the bush or hunt dangerous game. Doesn't matter whether they're a fire jumper, an archeologist, a soldier, the last of their tribe, rebelling against their king, a paranoid recluse or a scout leader, pretty much any outdoorsy badass. They're less defined by what they do than by where they do it.

In terms of other D&D classes I think the closest equivalent is the rogue. A rogue is the ultimate authority of being at home in the city. They can handle people, social constructs, locks, obtaining and using tools. They parkour through a busy market going after their target. The ranger is the same thing, but in the woods. They deal with animals, crafting from natural materials, navigation in the wild, swinging from tree branches if they have to. Sure, a druid has a deeper connection to nature, but they're not as good at using it to their own advantage. Even the noble barbarian, born and raised in the wild, only has as much understanding of how to use nature as she has had use for. But the ranger is the best at outdoorsy stuff. And because this is a combat game they're also a bit of an asskicker. But that's secondary. If you think of Indiana Jones the first thing to come to mind is not that he punches Nazi's, it's probably something with him using a whip to swing across a chasm or something. (Jones is an edge case, not the very best example of a ranger maybe, but a good example of this principle.)

This isn't really supported in D&D. The setting is too high powered and the mechanics of the outdoors badassitudeness are too lean. So what's left is a bachelor of applied druidology. Indeed, a mix between a fighter (combat wise), a rogue (skill wise), and a druid (magic wise). I don't think 5e does the ranger worse than earlier editions I just don't think any version of d&d supports what the ranger should be very well.

[Bobthewizard]

I love the idea of a ranger. A fighter who can survive in the wilderness. A lone-wolf rather than a soldier. There's a reason ranger is so popular with new players.

The original 5e PHB misses the mark though. Favored enemy and natural terrain are too situational and then overpowered at what they do.

I like the UA revised ranger a lot. It might be a little overpowered but it's fun to play. If I could change its natural explorer I would give expertise in survival and take out the advantage to initiative, first turn advantage, group not slowed by DT and group can't become lost except by magic; leaving alert while foraging, navigating, or tracking, move stealthily at normal pace, forage for 2x the food, and if tracking learn number, size, time passed.

I like the new class variant ranger if you require canny with expertise in survival at level 1. Otherwise, everyone is going to take tireless at level one since it is so many extra HP at that level, making the ranger a better fighter but no better at exploration. Not getting any benefits to survival until level 6 seems strange to me. I love the new favored foe. It is better mechanically and thematically than either PHB or revised ranger's favored enemy.

I would like to see the ranger get expertise in both stealth and survival at level 1, the class variant's favored foe and primal awareness, and then roving at 6 and tireless at 10. With the rules as written with UA, I'll likely go revised ranger to 6 and then scout rogue from there.

[Tanarii]

Every time I see someone refer to a Ranger as a Fighter is makes my head spin a bit.

Ever since 3.5 they've been a Rogue with a splash of Fighter and Druid. Rogues, Monks, Rangers, the new trinity: Skirmishers.

[Amechra]

Part of me wants to do something a bit different with rests in my next game.

Basically, we swap to the Gritty Realism rules as soon as the party leaves town and isn't sleeping in a nice cushy bed. I might give the option for heavily nature-based characters (like Druids) to flip that around, but in general? You're going to want to stick close to town, because going out into the wilds is just going to steadily wear away at your resources.

As an added resource drain, short rests out in the wilds cost rations (technically, long rests cost rations too, but staying at an inn includes a meal, so...) - if you eat an extra ration, you recover a hit-die, but that's pretty much it.

Why is this at all relevant? My revised version of the Natural Explorer feature is as follows (in rough terms):


Pick a terrain you're familiar with.
• You have expertise in Intelligence and Wisdom based checks related to that kind of terrain (because why break something that works?)
• You can take short and long rests normally within that terrain.
• If you're traveling through a region within your terrain that you're familiar with, you have the option of taking better routes that cut down on travel time or avoid environment-based encounters.



In my mind, that's the kind of system you'd need to have in place for the Ranger role to be worth having. And even then, your game would have to involve extensive travel for it to actually matter.

[Pufferwockey]

...a class we can all enjoy(accept for those of you who think ranger shouldn't exist, as this is about keeping it existing).

Thank you. Can't believe it needed saying

[8wGremlin]

A fighter
Like eldritch knight but with full Druid spell access
And nature and survival skills

Hunters mark as a subclass ability

[Kane0]

A fighter
Like eldritch knight but with full Druid spell access
And nature and survival skills

Hunters mark as a subclass ability

You may enjoy the UA fighter subclass, was it called the scout? I cant remember.

[moonfly7]

A fighter
Like eldritch knight but with full Druid spell access
And nature and survival skills

Hunters mark as a subclass ability

This makes me sad. Not you gremlin, just this sentence, because it more or less sums up popular opinion about the class that made me want to play DnD. I actively avoided this game for around 3 years while casually playing other RPGs until a friend of mine casually mentioned rangers to me. I was hooked. I literally begged him to run a one person game for me. I was not disappointed, I had fun, and I went happily from that experience into 3 separate long term games within a month. It wasn't until last year when I discovered this website that I learned people didn't like ranger. And horror of horrors, they were kinda right that it wasn't as powerful as the other classes.
Maybe 6 months later all my tables would switch to UA revised ranger. But you know what? We didn't really care before we knew, and I willingly played several rangers after I realised, but before we switched to revised.
You know why? It's because I never played any claw back then because it had "an identity" or was "well balanced and RAW powerful" I played them because they sounded fun.
I loved ranger before I even knew DnD had a cap of level 20, and before I had ever read or owned a PHB, because being a guy who tracks monsters through the woods, shoots them better if he's studied them, and tracks fools who try to ruin society while basically shunning it himself sounded fun!

I think every single person whose first class was ranger could tell you what it is and why we chose it: it's what an adventurer sounds like. He's a hunter, a survivor, and a protector.

Just ask yourself why we ever changed from that, when something sounding cool was all that mattered. Tell me why now all we seem to care about is the best builds, and argue endlessly for feat changes.

I figured out what the ranger means to me, it's a reminder of how were supposed to look at this game.
(Note, I'm not specifically calling anyone out here, or insulting anyone, this class and this thread has just revealed to me what I've become, and how I can fix it.)

[Kane0]

You either die a Roleplayer, or live long enough to see yourself become the Rollplayer.

Stormwind notwithstanding of course :smallamused:

[Tanarii]

Stormwind notwithstanding of course :smallamused:
The Stormwind Fallacy often does not stand, because it was a Fallacy itself. His key mistake was defining Roleplaying as "Roleplaying deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else."

[Kane0]

The Stormwind Fallacy often does not stand, because it was a Fallacy itself. His key mistake was defining Roleplaying as "Roleplaying deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else."

Which would be acting i guess? Regardless, probably for its own thread

[Morty]

Part of me wants to do something a bit different with rests in my next game.

Basically, we swap to the Gritty Realism rules as soon as the party leaves town and isn't sleeping in a nice cushy bed. I might give the option for heavily nature-based characters (like Druids) to flip that around, but in general? You're going to want to stick close to town, because going out into the wilds is just going to steadily wear away at your resources.

As an added resource drain, short rests out in the wilds cost rations (technically, long rests cost rations too, but staying at an inn includes a meal, so...) - if you eat an extra ration, you recover a hit-die, but that's pretty much it.

Why is this at all relevant? My revised version of the Natural Explorer feature is as follows (in rough terms):

In my mind, that's the kind of system you'd need to have in place for the Ranger role to be worth having. And even then, your game would have to involve extensive travel for it to actually matter.

And the ranger would become indispensable for a campaign that does include overland travel. This doesn't strike me as a good situation.



I figured out what the ranger means to me, it's a reminder of how were supposed to look at this game.
(Note, I'm not specifically calling anyone out here, or insulting anyone, this class and this thread has just revealed to me what I've become, and how I can fix it.)

If your goal isn't to call anyone out or insult them, then maybe heavily implying that disliking rangers means they care more about builds and optimization than identity or having fun isn't the best way to go about it? People here have pointed out flaws in the class that don't rely on either of the former.

It's great that you had fun playing a ranger, but people manage to have fun playing all kinds of things in all kinds of games and that doesn't make problems disappear. People complain about rangers because the class has major problems, and nostalgia-laden appeals to stop aren't a good argument to the contrary. In fact, I would say the ranger's problems are caused by exactly this kind of attitude - it sounds cool, people are invested in it, so the game needs a class named "ranger" even as a third edition in a row fails to make it work.

[paladinn]

Every time I see someone refer to a Ranger as a Fighter is makes my head spin a bit.

Ever since 3.5 they've been a Rogue with a splash of Fighter and Druid. Rogues, Monks, Rangers, the new trinity: Skirmishers.

A ranger was Never a rogue. From its debut in Strategic Review, it was a "sub-class of Fighting Man". Same with 1e and 2e. In 3.0, it had d10 HD and could use "all martial weapons". 3.5 (unfortunately) changed the HD to d8 (rogues had d6), but the same weapons options. 4e gave the same HP as a rogue, but it still had more of a weapons selection. 5e has put the HD back to d10 where it belongs.

Even with a ranger's added skills, stealth and speed, it is still a fighter. Hopefully always will be. The question is, should it be its own discreet class or return to its fighter-sub roots?

[Willie the Duck]

A ranger was Never a rogue. From its debut in Strategic Review, it was a "sub-class of Fighting Man". Same with 1e and 2e. In 3.0, it had d10 HD and could use "all martial weapons". 3.5 (unfortunately) changed the HD to d8 (rogues had d6), but the same weapons options. 4e gave the same HP as a rogue, but it still had more of a weapons selection. 5e has put the HD back to d10 where it belongs.

Even with a ranger's added skills, stealth and speed, it is still a fighter. Hopefully always will be. The question is, should it be its own discreet class or return to its fighter-sub roots?

I think you're missing Tanarii's point. He isn't saying a Ranger is actually a rogue, it has qualities like rogue (or, as he clarified, like a rogue and like a monk, in that they are all part of a skirmisher trinity that he posits).

I'm not sure I agree, but there definitely has been a shift in what a ranger is like, and I'd actually put the division at between 1e and 2e AD&D. Although their HD moved from d8 (with 2d8 at first) to d10, they gained abilities that were gated behind wearing studded or lighter armor. That's a huge blow to AC (especially if the DM used the DMG % tables in determining armor type for magic armor) and thus front-line staying power. Does that make the ranger a skirmisher, and distinct from the paladins and fighters (and in editions that have them, barbarians)? That's mostly a question of nomenclature, of which I have no interest. But they are clearly different in terms of usage. 5e just continues that trend.

Whether that's how it should be, or what the next iteration will look like, are separate matters, of course.

[Amechra]

And the ranger would become indispensable for a campaign that does include overland travel. This doesn't strike me as a good situation.

Only if your definition of overland travel requires that every point of interest is, like, a week's travel apart. Remember that the game is technically balanced around having a bunch of encounters between each long rest, so it's not like having a three-day trip where you have an encounter or two a day would wreck the party. For longer trips? Yeah, this would need to go back to the drawing board, and would probably involve rules for caravans and expeditions.

If your issue is the "you know this area like the back of your hand" thing... that's only for areas they're actually familiar with. There are ways to get parts of that ability even if you don't have a Ranger, but they're going to be either more specific (your Druid magically detects the weather) or less reliable (you have an excellent map, but it doesn't reflect recent changes). The whole idea is to flesh out the exploration pillar in a way that doesn't involve just rolling dice.

[ZorroGames]

From Strategic Review archived, pardon the horrible formatting in Copy Paste.

This is what started my interest in Rangers ands will always bee a template for me.

AN EXCITING NEW DUNGEONS & DRAGONS CLASS
By Joe Fischer
Rangers are a sub-class of Fighting Men, similar in many ways to the new sub-class Paladins, for they must always remain Lawful or lose all the benefits they gained (except, of course, experience as a fighter). Strength is their Prime Requisite, but they must also have both Intelli- gence and Wisdom scores of at least 12 each, and a Constitution of at least 15. The statistics regarding Rangers are:
Rangers Experience Points Hit Dice* SpelI Ability**

R u n n e r
Strider
Scout
Guide
Pathfinder
Warder
Guardian
Ranger-Knight
Ranger-Lord 275000
Ranger-Lord, 10th Ranger-Lord, 11th Ranger-Lord, 12th Ranger-Lord, 13th
550000 825000 11OOOOO 1375000
0 2500 5000 12000
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 10 +2 10 +4 10 +6 10 +8
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
(edit 8th level, 9xD8) Cleric,
(edit 9th level) 1st Level +Magic-User, 1st Level
(edit 10th level) +Cleric 2nd Level
(edit 11th Level)+Magic-User 2nd Level
(edit (12th level) +Cleric 3rd Level
(edit 13th Level) +Magic-User 3rd Level
*either with the standard system or the alternate system which allows fighters 8-sided dice
**spell progression is as follows: when only 1st Level are usable, then only one spell is usable, when 2nd Level spells can be taken then the R-L gets 2 1st Level and 1 2nd Level, and at 3rd Level it is 3, 2 and 1 respectively.
Until they attain the 8th level (Ranger-Knight) characters in the Ranger class are relatively weak, for they have a number of restrictions placed upon them, These restrictions are:
- They may own only that which they can carry with them, and excess treasure or goods must be donated to a worthy cause.
- They may not hire any men-at-arms or other servants or aides
of any kind whatsoever.
- Only two of the class may operate together.
Advantages which accrue to low-level Rangers are:
+They receive no regular bonuses for advancement due to ability, but they automatically gain 4 experience points for every 3 earned.
+They have the ability to track the path of most creatures when out- doors, and even in dungeons they are often able to follow:
SNIP

Quite different but a subclass of Fighter initially.

[Tanarii]

I think you're missing Tanarii's point. He isn't saying a Ranger is actually a rogue, it has qualities like rogue (or, as he clarified, like a rogue and like a monk, in that they are all part of a skirmisher trinity that he posits). Yah. In 3.5 it's abilities changed rather drastically from 3e that definitely drove it firmly away from warrior and into skirmisher. 4e put it clearly in the striker camp, and at release that made them in the same camp as rogues. (Of course later Barbarians were strikers so eh my point isn't the strongest.) IMO 5e makes them far more suited for a skirmisher role with some warrior flavoring, rather than the other way around. Otoh, I can see why some might not feel that way. Their skirmishing toolset aren't obvious ones like the Rogue and Monk.

But I overstate the case, and it's a mistake to call them rogues with etc etc. I just see 5e as four groups, each with three classes that's it's typically/classically primary for: Warrior, Skirmisher, Buff/Debuff/Heals, and Artillery. But of course there is overlap.

[MrStabby]

Yah. In 3.5 it's abilities changed rather drastically from 3e that definitely drove it firmly away from warrior and into skirmisher. 4e put it clearly in the striker camp, and at release that made them in the same camp as rogues. (Of course later Barbarians were strikers so eh my point isn't the strongest.) IMO 5e makes them far more suited for a skirmisher role with some warrior flavoring, rather than the other way around. Otoh, I can see why some might not feel that way. Their skirmishing toolset aren't obvious ones like the Rogue and Monk.

But I overstate the case, and it's a mistake to call them rogues with etc etc. I just see 5e as four groups, each with three classes that's it's typically/classically primary for: Warrior, Skirmisher, Buff/Debuff/Heals, and Artillery. But of course there is overlap.

I think, from a combat mechanics perspective, this is part of the problem.

If they had abilities that better supported a skirmishing role then a lot of players would be happier with them. Basically you get nothing till level 8 and lands stride - a deeply unerwhelming ability (would it be too much to ask ranger to be immune to magic plants as well?). Rogues get cunning action, monks get similar but also faster movement speed. Whilst more movement speed wouldnt fix it, it kind of feels like a kick in the teeth that rangers get nothing in that regard.


I find the class so frustrating because it has such potential. Indeed it has some great abilities, really thematic ones but they are all buried in different subclasses and are generally at too high a level. Feral senses for example is a really cool ability and I see perception as being a core part of the ranger's thing - but it comes 7 levels after other party members might be casting true seeing and is less comprehensive.

[HiveStriker]

I think, from a combat mechanics perspective, this is part of the problem.

If they had abilities that better supported a skirmishing role then a lot of players would be happier with them. Basically you get nothing till level 8 and lands stride - a deeply unerwhelming ability (would it be too much to ask ranger to be immune to magic plants as well?). Rogues get cunning action, monks get similar but also faster movement speed. Whilst more movement speed wouldnt fix it, it kind of feels like a kick in the teeth that rangers get nothing in that regard.


I find the class so frustrating because it has such potential. Indeed it has some great abilities, really thematic ones but they are all buried in different subclasses and are generally at too high a level. Feral senses for example is a really cool ability and I see perception as being a core part of the ranger's thing - but it comes 7 levels after other party members might be casting true seeing and is less comprehensive.
What about Ensnaring Strike (lure enemy away, restrain him, whack him)?
What about Zephyr's Strike (no OA means freedom to move back and forth)?
What about Hunter's Mark (engage an isolated enemy, land mark, fight a bit then flee or let him flee and believe he escaped so you can track him back to his base of operations easily)?
What about all animals-related spells (use them to gather information and set up hit&run deterrent tactics)?
What about Fog Cloud (get in and out for cover, drop onto enemies to blind them, cast it before fight as a distraction/way to approach without danger)?
What about Pass Without Trace (sneak inside enemy lair to sabotage resources, disable boss or remove item)?

Those are all "skirmish" tactics, in either the most "tactical" sense or in a broader "strategical" meaning.
Those are things other martials can replicate more or less well (in specific situations better) but also usually require some build investment (like Expertise or a martial feat).
And those represent a cost, for Ranger, significant enough to make them meaningful decisions, but "low" enough as you progress that you can integrate them as a part of your regular ways to resolve a situation.

By the way, Natural Stride at least works with Plant Growth: that spells "boosts vitality of existing plants", not creating magical ones (like Spike Growth).
With that said, I agree that having Ranger being "immune" to difficult terrain from magical plants would not be harming balance, because it would still be a situational ability overall (like, if you went into Spike Growth you'd still take full damage).

[MrStabby]

What about Ensnaring Strike (lure enemy away, restrain him, whack him)?
What about Zephyr's Strike (no OA means freedom to move back and forth)?
What about Hunter's Mark (engage an isolated enemy, land mark, fight a bit then flee or let him flee and believe he escaped so you can track him back to his base of operations easily)?
What about all animals-related spells (use them to gather information and set up hit&run deterrent tactics)?
What about Fog Cloud (get in and out for cover, drop onto enemies to blind them, cast it before fight as a distraction/way to approach without danger)?
What about Pass Without Trace (sneak inside enemy lair to sabotage resources, disable boss or remove item)?


I agree with Zephy strike... a little.

I think the rest are a little bit of a stretch. Anything that the druid can do at a lower level or more times per day is thenar argument that the druid is the skirmishing class rather than the ranger. Then you get spells like ensnaring strike - what makes the ranger more of a skirmisher than an ancient paladin?

I would also differentiate sneaking and skirmishing, but I do accept there is a connection there - they are not entirely independent.

The ranger subclasses have more stuff better suited to this: horizon walker and gloomstalker have great abilities that I think should have been part of the main class.

[paladinn]

Yah. In 3.5 it's abilities changed rather drastically from 3e that definitely drove it firmly away from warrior and into skirmisher. 4e put it clearly in the striker camp, and at release that made them in the same camp as rogues. (Of course later Barbarians were strikers so eh my point isn't the strongest.) IMO 5e makes them far more suited for a skirmisher role with some warrior flavoring, rather than the other way around. Otoh, I can see why some might not feel that way. Their skirmishing toolset aren't obvious ones like the Rogue and Monk.

But I overstate the case, and it's a mistake to call them rogues with etc etc. I just see 5e as four groups, each with three classes that's it's typically/classically primary for: Warrior, Skirmisher, Buff/Debuff/Heals, and Artillery. But of course there is overlap.

i'm Sorta the same way, except I look on the 4 original classes (Fighter, Cleric, MU/Wizard, Thief/Rogue) as the "umbrellas" and all other sub/classes can be built on one of those chasses. And except for Druid and Psion, all other classes could be subclasses of one of the main six.

Just my $.02

[Willie the Duck]

I agree with Zephy strike... a little.

I think the rest are a little bit of a stretch. Anything that the druid can do at a lower level or more times per day is thenar argument that the druid is the skirmishing class rather than the ranger. Then you get spells like ensnaring strike - what makes the ranger more of a skirmisher than an ancient paladin?

Hmm, classes are more than their components and you have to look at holistically how the pieces play together. Sure, a druid can use the same spells to hide in the woods and entangle foes, same as a ranger, but the ranger is going to then pepper them with multiple arrows (and then switch to Hunter's Mark-pumped arrows once they aren't concentrating on those other spells). Likewise, what makes the ranger more of a skirmisher than an ancient paladin is that everything except ensnaring strike about them is about getting up close to things and hitting them with melee weapons.

But that's probably one of the areas of disappointment. A level 10 ranger is a lot more like a fighter5/druid5 with the right skills selected than a paladin is just a fighter5/cleric5, and I can see why that wouldn't fit people's conception of the class.


The ranger subclasses have more stuff better suited to this: horizon walker and gloomstalker have great abilities that I think should have been part of the main class.

Wholeheartedly agree with that. Paring down which exactly would be the biggest issue.

[HiveStriker]

I agree with Zephy strike... a little.

I think the rest are a little bit of a stretch. Anything that the druid can do at a lower level or more times per day is thenar argument that the druid is the skirmishing class rather than the ranger. Then you get spells like ensnaring strike - what makes the ranger more of a skirmisher than an ancient paladin?

I would also differentiate sneaking and skirmishing, but I do accept there is a connection there - they are not entirely independent.

The ranger subclasses have more stuff better suited to this: horizon walker and gloomstalker have great abilities that I think should have been part of the main class.
Well, Druid is not a martial class. :)
As you can see for yourself considering how regularly some threads pop around on "how to make Druid do something useful when concentrating"? Not that I entirely agree with the premise, but, in other words, I thought we were only considering people that were martials first and foremost. :)

I do agree though that some casters can be played as skirmishers. I'd just wouldn't put Druid in that group myself (especially since most Druids will end using Conjure spells or mass scale area spells), YMMV. ^^
As for Paladin... He can definitely be played as a skirmisher provided some spell choice and archetype choice (*cough* archetypes with Haste *cough*), but most of its features scream "go to the frontline and stand strong".
Whereas most Ranger features are equally usable in melee, short range or long range, barring a few specific spells like Flame Arrows and Swift Quiver.

To bring back Zephyr's Strike, it's intuitively used for a melee character. But even on a pure ranged character, it avoids any waste of action or efficiency when some enemy manages to reach in melee, you can simply move away and shoot as usual. Whereas otherwise you'd need to either switch to full melee, try to kill enemy with your ranged weapon at disadvantage, or use action do Disengage.

For me a skirmisher could be defined as "someone who weakens enemy force by carefully choosing moment and duration of engagement". Meaning, tactically, darting in and out of melee to minimize direct threat to self while keeping consistant harm. Strategically, having the means to decide when to start fight (= gathering information, avoiding traps, setting ambushes) and when to end it (depriving enemy of means to follow or at least improving chance to escape unscathed).

Tactically:
Ranger?
- dual-wielding + archery, no heavy armor: Ranger is "attribute-neutral", you can go STR or DEX equally, both having different benefits. Of course you can also ignore those FS and pick defense. Point stays valid though. ^^
- mobility-improving spells (Longstrider, Zephyr's Strike, Jump, Freedom of Movement, Guardian of Nature, Steel Wind Strike).
- damage-improving spells that don't care about actual range (or so little): Hunter's Mark, Hail of Thorns (requires a ranged weapon attack, not used with a ranged weapon: thrown handaxe from over 5 feet away is enough), Lightning Arrow (same).
Plus archetype features. :)


Paladin?
- No dual wielding, no archery, instead getting mainly "melee" and "tank" styles.
- Iconic feature "smite" works only in melee.
- Only Ancients get Ensnaring Strike. Only Vengeance and another one (don't remember) get Haste. Other Paladins get nothing about mobility, and only a few things about raw damage until level 9 with Elemental Weapon, except Bless (which counts because more accuracy = more damage ;)).
- Many great single-target debuffs spells, most of them requiring a melee weapon attack.

Strategically
Ranger?
- mobility-controlling spells (Ensnaring Strike, Spike Growth, Plant Growth)
- vision-controlling and more generally ranged attacks imparing spells (Fog Cloud, Wind Wall).
- ambushes anticipation (skills, natively decent Wis at least, Speak with Animals and Plants, Locate and Detect spells).
- information gathering (same + some class features and archetypes features).
- ambushes setup (same + Pass Without Trace + Conjure spells).

Paladin?
- mobility-control: only single-target control, any other thing can come only from archetype feature (mainly Ancients for Plant Growth IIRC, Conquest with Fear CD).
- vision-controlling and ranged attacks imparing: nothing.
- ambushes anticipation: just Locate and Detect spells.
- information gathering: same plus Zone of Truth (probably underrated by many ^^)!
- ambushes setup: basically nothing.

What, however, have Paladin that Ranger doesn't have?
- Extreme defensive ability and general resilience, before even archetype features.
- Great "close range" party protection features (yeah, I count only 10 feet here, since 30 feet auras are only level 18).
- Many features screaming "don't stop until you killed your enemy dead bashing its head into ground".

Some Paladins can be played as skirmishers, but their natural vocation is clearly being the one everyone gangs upon yet emerges victorious. :)




But that's probably one of the areas of disappointment. A level 10 ranger is a lot more like a fighter5/druid5 with the right skills selected than a paladin is just a fighter5/cleric5, and I can see why that wouldn't fit people's conception of the class.

I think you nailed it (well, some others said something similar about Hunter's Mark but same could be said about several spells): many of the class's personality comes from (exclusive) spells, so it's hard to highlight them.
And if you pick them, they you kinda get the feeling you lose out on all Druid-origin spells that are also great to use.

The one thing that I would change that imo would be largely enough to compensate, if a player felt such frustration, would be to give Ranger the "Ritual Caster Druid" for free (like: at level 5, you can ritually cast any 1st level Ranger spell that is a ritual. At level 9, 2nd level. At level 13, 3rd level. At level 17, 4th level).
Of course, they would *not* be able to cast them normally unless they choose to learn them as usual.

That would be enough to allow Rangers to use many of their interesting utility, but the fact you limit the ritual level by character level and force them to use "ritual casting" times would still make it manageable for everyone.

[MrStabby]

Well, Druid is not a martial class. :)
As you can see for yourself considering how regularly some threads pop around on "how to make Druid do something useful when concentrating"? Not that I entirely agree with the premise, but, in other words, I thought we were only considering people that were martials first and foremost. :)

I do agree though that some casters can be played as skirmishers. I'd just wouldn't put Druid in that group myself (especially since most Druids will end using Conjure spells or mass scale area spells), YMMV. ^^
As for Paladin... He can definitely be played as a skirmisher provided some spell choice and archetype choice (*cough* archetypes with Haste *cough*), but most of its features scream "go to the frontline and stand strong".
Whereas most Ranger features are equally usable in melee, short range or long range, barring a few specific spells like Flame Arrows and Swift Quiver.

To bring back Zephyr's Strike, it's intuitively used for a melee character. But even on a pure ranged character, it avoids any waste of action or efficiency when some enemy manages to reach in melee, you can simply move away and shoot as usual. Whereas otherwise you'd need to either switch to full melee, try to kill enemy with your ranged weapon at disadvantage, or use action do Disengage.

For me a skirmisher could be defined as "someone who weakens enemy force by carefully choosing moment and duration of engagement". Meaning, tactically, darting in and out of melee to minimize direct threat to self while keeping consistant harm. Strategically, having the means to decide when to start fight (= gathering information, avoiding traps, setting ambushes) and when to end it (depriving enemy of means to follow or at least improving chance to escape unscathed).

Tactically:
Ranger?
- dual-wielding + archery, no heavy armor: Ranger is "attribute-neutral", you can go STR or DEX equally, both having different benefits. Of course you can also ignore those FS and pick defense. Point stays valid though. ^^
- mobility-improving spells (Longstrider, Zephyr's Strike, Jump, Freedom of Movement, Guardian of Nature, Steel Wind Strike).
- damage-improving spells that don't care about actual range (or so little): Hunter's Mark, Hail of Thorns (requires a ranged weapon attack, not used with a ranged weapon: thrown handaxe from over 5 feet away is enough), Lightning Arrow (same).
Plus archetype features. :)


Paladin?
- No dual wielding, no archery, instead getting mainly "melee" and "tank" styles.
- Iconic feature "smite" works only in melee.
- Only Ancients get Ensnaring Strike. Only Vengeance and another one (don't remember) get Haste. Other Paladins get nothing about mobility, and only a few things about raw damage until level 9 with Elemental Weapon, except Bless (which counts because more accuracy = more damage ;)).
- Many great single-target debuffs spells, most of them requiring a melee weapon attack.

Strategically
Ranger?
- mobility-controlling spells (Ensnaring Strike, Spike Growth, Plant Growth)
- vision-controlling and more generally ranged attacks imparing spells (Fog Cloud, Wind Wall).
- ambushes anticipation (skills, natively decent Wis at least, Speak with Animals and Plants, Locate and Detect spells).
- information gathering (same + some class features and archetypes features).
- ambushes setup (same + Pass Without Trace + Conjure spells).

Paladin?
- mobility-control: only single-target control, any other thing can come only from archetype feature (mainly Ancients for Plant Growth IIRC, Conquest with Fear CD).
- vision-controlling and ranged attacks imparing: nothing.
- ambushes anticipation: just Locate and Detect spells.
- information gathering: same plus Zone of Truth (probably underrated by many ^^)!
- ambushes setup: basically nothing.

What, however, have Paladin that Ranger doesn't have?
- Extreme defensive ability and general resilience, before even archetype features.
- Great "close range" party protection features (yeah, I count only 10 feet here, since 30 feet auras are only level 18).
- Many features screaming "don't stop until you killed your enemy dead bashing its head into ground".

Some Paladins can be played as skirmishers, but their natural vocation is clearly being the one everyone gangs upon yet emerges victorious. :)



I think you nailed it (well, some others said something similar about Hunter's Mark but same could be said about several spells): many of the class's personality comes from (exclusive) spells, so it's hard to highlight them.
And if you pick them, they you kinda get the feeling you lose out on all Druid-origin spells that are also great to use.

The one thing that I would change that imo would be largely enough to compensate, if a player felt such frustration, would be to give Ranger the "Ritual Caster Druid" for free (like: at level 5, you can ritually cast any 1st level Ranger spell that is a ritual. At level 9, 2nd level. At level 13, 3rd level. At level 17, 4th level).
Of course, they would *not* be able to cast them normally unless they choose to learn them as usual.

That would be enough to allow Rangers to use many of their interesting utility, but the fact you limit the ritual level by character level and force them to use "ritual casting" times would still make it manageable for everyone.

I think that this is one of my problems... I drop into and out of threads skipping several pages and then assume that people have followed my comments from a week previously or whenever.

There is some context to this that maybe I should have repeated.

The ranger isn't special.

The base ranger doesn't get anything it is best at. It doesn't get any awesome class ability that other classes are jealous of. It is a cloud of Meh. Enough barely OK stuff that it will scrape by for a few levels whilst being unexcitingly not terrible before it drops behind. No sneak attack equivalent that can interact nicely with being hidden - a behavioural trait that seems rangers should favour. No cunning action equivalent to make hit and run easier... just some spells that let you expend resources to play in a way that other skirmisher classes can do without resources. Where is the awesome iconic ranger ability? Where is the stunning strike or smiting or rage?

In principle I could get behind ranger spells being the thing that let them be a skirmisher. If they had better spells. If they had more spells. I am not saying that all ranger spells are terrible, but few of them are good enough at helping the ranger hit hard then get away. Instead the ranger get one spell as a crutch to make the class as good a healer as a cleric but little that stands out as making the ranger an awesome skirmisher.

[HiveStriker]

I think that this is one of my problems... I drop into and out of threads skipping several pages and then assume that people have followed my comments from a week previously or whenever.

There is some context to this that maybe I should have repeated.

The ranger isn't special.

The base ranger doesn't get anything it is best at. It doesn't get any awesome class ability that other classes are jealous of. It is a cloud of Meh. Enough barely OK stuff that it will scrape by for a few levels whilst being unexcitingly not terrible before it drops behind. No sneak attack equivalent that can interact nicely with being hidden - a behavioural trait that seems rangers should favour. No cunning action equivalent to make hit and run easier... just some spells that let you expend resources to play in a way that other skirmisher classes can do without resources. Where is the awesome iconic ranger ability? Where is the stunning strike or smiting or rage?

In principle I could get behind ranger spells being the thing that let them be a skirmisher. If they had better spells. If they had more spells. I am not saying that all ranger spells are terrible, but few of them are good enough at helping the ranger hit hard then get away. Instead the ranger get one spell as a crutch to make the class as good a healer as a cleric but little that stands out as making the ranger an awesome skirmisher.
Well, I guess we'll have to agree with disagree.
I'd ten times over rather play a Ranger than a Barbarian or Fighter and even a Paladin if I had to choose blindly. At least I'm sure I can fully adapt to my party needs. And I'm pretty sure I can fare well in most kind of situations alone as well.*

And I think any comparison of Ranger abilities (spells included) with fullcaster is, well, completely pointless if not totally unfair to a Ranger.

Confer some other thread where I pointed out that a Bladesinger Wizard could outshine a Fighter in its own niche (consistent high weapon attack damage).

* I admit that I always take one level of Cleric or Druid on a Ranger. That shouldn't be taken against the class though because I basically take one level (sometimes even 2-3) of caster in whatever class I play, even other casters. I'm just a sucker for low-level, scalable options. XD

[MrStabby]

Well, I guess we'll have to agree with disagree.
I'd ten times over rather play a Ranger than a Barbarian or Fighter and even a Paladin if I had to choose blindly. At least I'm sure I can fully adapt to my party needs. And I'm pretty sure I can fare well in most kind of situations alone as well.*

And I think any comparison of Ranger abilities (spells included) with fullcaster is, well, completely pointless if not totally unfair to a Ranger.

Confer some other thread where I pointed out that a Bladesinger Wizard could outshine a Fighter in its own niche (consistent high weapon attack damage).

* I admit that I always take one level of Cleric or Druid on a Ranger. That shouldn't be taken against the class though because I basically take one level (sometimes even 2-3) of caster in whatever class I play, even other casters. I'm just a sucker for low-level, scalable options. XD

Possibly not disagreeing as much as you think... I would also be more likely to play a ranger, although this is less to o with power or theme but just about what I find fun. Taking the attack action every. single. turn. in combat doesnt appeal to me at all. Ranger may be all kinds of screwed up but at least there is the option to do something other than just attack turn after turn. I would play a paladin ahead of the ranger though - I think they make better guerrilla fighters than the ranger. An ancients paladin or a conquest paladin with mobility and a dexterity focus that can get in, disrupt everything, do MASSIVE damage before the enemy can respond, and get out again can just do this better than the ranger in my eyes. With background and race to provide the right skills I say they are a more satisfying ranger than the ranger.

I think comparing the class with a fullcaster is odd, but not pointless. If something is the ranger's theme, the thing that they should be best at, then they should be the best at it. If another class is better at the ranger's thing than the ranger then that is a problem be they a martial class or a casting class. Personally I think there is a deep issue that so many spells cover much of what the ranger is supposed to be good at and that you ignore this problem if you don't allow yourself to also see what casting focused classes can do.

[Tanarii]

If they had abilities that better supported a skirmishing role then a lot of players would be happier with them. Basically you get nothing till level 8 and lands stride - a deeply unerwhelming ability (would it be too much to ask ranger to be immune to magic plants as well?). Rogues get cunning action, monks get similar but also faster movement speed. Whilst more movement speed wouldnt fix it, it kind of feels like a kick in the teeth that rangers get nothing in that regard.
Indeed, you are demonstrating the problem perfectly, in claiming they get no skirmishing before level 8. Theyre just not as obvious as Rogues and Monk.

They have plenty of skirmish capabilty bound up in being Dex primary, underlying tactics associated with class features, and spells. The problem isnt that its lacking, it people not seeing it and then claiming it doesnt exist.

[Morty]

A ranger was Never a rogue. From its debut in Strategic Review, it was a "sub-class of Fighting Man". Same with 1e and 2e. In 3.0, it had d10 HD and could use "all martial weapons". 3.5 (unfortunately) changed the HD to d8 (rogues had d6), but the same weapons options. 4e gave the same HP as a rogue, but it still had more of a weapons selection. 5e has put the HD back to d10 where it belongs.

Even with a ranger's added skills, stealth and speed, it is still a fighter. Hopefully always will be. The question is, should it be its own discreet class or return to its fighter-sub roots?


I think you're missing Tanarii's point. He isn't saying a Ranger is actually a rogue, it has qualities like rogue (or, as he clarified, like a rogue and like a monk, in that they are all part of a skirmisher trinity that he posits).

I'm not sure I agree, but there definitely has been a shift in what a ranger is like, and I'd actually put the division at between 1e and 2e AD&D. Although their HD moved from d8 (with 2d8 at first) to d10, they gained abilities that were gated behind wearing studded or lighter armor. That's a huge blow to AC (especially if the DM used the DMG % tables in determining armor type for magic armor) and thus front-line staying power. Does that make the ranger a skirmisher, and distinct from the paladins and fighters (and in editions that have them, barbarians)? That's mostly a question of nomenclature, of which I have no interest. But they are clearly different in terms of usage. 5e just continues that trend.

Whether that's how it should be, or what the next iteration will look like, are separate matters, of course.

It's almost as if "warrior" and "rogue" are both arbitrary, fairly useless categories that simply became entrenched in discussions, while doing a disservice to the character types they try to describe.


Only if your definition of overland travel requires that every point of interest is, like, a week's travel apart. Remember that the game is technically balanced around having a bunch of encounters between each long rest, so it's not like having a three-day trip where you have an encounter or two a day would wreck the party. For longer trips? Yeah, this would need to go back to the drawing board, and would probably involve rules for caravans and expeditions.

If your issue is the "you know this area like the back of your hand" thing... that's only for areas they're actually familiar with. There are ways to get parts of that ability even if you don't have a Ranger, but they're going to be either more specific (your Druid magically detects the weather) or less reliable (you have an excellent map, but it doesn't reflect recent changes). The whole idea is to flesh out the exploration pillar in a way that doesn't involve just rolling dice.

I'm still not sure how this makes rangers any better, though. They're still very good at this one thing that is also covered by a skill proficiency, while having a mess of poorly-fitting features for everything else.

[MrStabby]

Indeed, you are demonstrating the problem perfectly, in claiming they get no skirmishing before level 8. Theyre just not as obvious as Rogues and Monk.

They have plenty of skirmish capabilty bound up in being Dex primary, underlying tactics associated with class features, and spells. The problem isnt that its lacking, it people not seeing it and then claiming it doesnt exist.

Or you know, that it isn't enough. Of course if that's enough for you then feel free to play the ranger as it is. No more discussion needed for you if you are satisfied with that. Go ahead and enjoy it. It is fine for you to enjoy it; I make no judgement about that being good enough for you. Good luck with it.

[paladinn]

As much as I Don't like 1/2 or 1/3 "casters", I'm starting to see the benefit of the BECMI version of paladins (and "rangers"/druidic knights, by extension). You don't have a lot of fiddly abilities to keep track of. Blissfully simple.

If a paladin has Wis 13+, s/he can detect evil at will, and cast spells and turn undead at 1/3 cleric level (a 9th level paladin casts like a 3rd level cleric). A "druidic knight" does the same with druid spells, can't wear metal armor, and detects danger instead of evil. I've houseruled that s/he can also cast animal friendship at will. No tracking, stealth or "favored enemy", but pretty cool anyway.

I would probably modify to have this available at 3rd level instead of 9th like BECMI. So a 3rd level paladin or "ranger" would detect and turn/charm at 3rd level, and get spells at 6th.

[Kane0]

The one thing i've never been able to settle in my head is whether Rangers should be a d10 or d8 HP class. They're historically a warrior type which indicates a d10 but they also blend skills and magic which tend towards lower die sizes.

[moonfly7]

Ok wait, here me out: the opposite of the rogue and paladin key features. Instead of increasing the damage of a single attack, what about spreading put the damage of a single attack. Like:
Once per turn, when you hit with an attack, but before rolling damage dice, you may choose evenly distribute the damage rolled to all hostile creatures within 10 feet of the initial target of the attack. (Minimum of 1 point of damage per creature).
This ability does decrease damage dealt to one target, but at first level would be very effective, and could receive improvement as you level up. I got this idea while working on my revision of the ranger as inspired by the comments on this thread, and I feel like it allows the ranger to have that "fighter of multiple opponents" vibe that some people mentioned.

[GlenSmash!]

The one thing i've never been able to settle in my head is whether Rangers should be a d10 or d8 HP class. They're historically a warrior type which indicates a d10 but they also blend skills and magic which tend towards lower die sizes.

To me Rangers should be the best at things that call for endurance. If I were to skew toward a lower hit die I would incentives the class to have a higher Constitution than anyone else.

[Pufferwockey]

You do a lot of comparing rangers to Druids, and I think that is a mistake. It looks to me like it's a result of thinking of the classes along the lines of Ranger = Fighter + Druid; Paladin = Fighter + Cleric. This is probably more subjective than it feels to me, but apart from being an alright way to describe a Paladin to a new player I don't think that's a helpful way of looking at things. Fighter + Druid to me describes some kind of barbarian(not the class) war priest/shaman. The Ranger, to me, is a warrior archetype and their similarities to druids begin and end with knowing their way around the forest, and a few spells.


And that's if you insist on having them cast spells. To a guy like me it's pretty important to have a list of non magical class features they can select instead of spell casting at level 2 because spell casting only fits a pretty limited view of the archetype and super doesn't fit what a lot of people have in mind.

[paladinn]

The one thing i've never been able to settle in my head is whether Rangers should be a d10 or d8 HP class. They're historically a warrior type which indicates a d10 but they also blend skills and magic which tend towards lower die sizes.

I'd say d10, as the ranger has been a subclass (or at least a spin-off from) the fighter. Even when it was given a d8, the first level was Two HD. 3.0 had d10, but 3.5 had d8. 4e gave rangers the same as rogues (So wrong). 5e puts it back to d10.

Paladins blend fighting and magic, and they are d10. EKs blend fighting and Arcane magic and get d10. If a fighting sub/class has at least the potential to be a front-liner, it should get d10.

[Pufferwockey]

I'd say d10, as the ranger has been a subclass (or at least a spin-off from) the fighter. Even when it was given a d8, the first level was Two HD. 3.0 had d10, but 3.5 had d8. 4e gave rangers the same as rogues (So wrong). 5e puts it back to d10.

Paladins blend fighting and magic, and they are d10. EKs blend fighting and Arcane magic and get d10. If a fighting sub/class has at least the potential to be a front-liner, it should get d10.

Balance aside, d10 feels right to me because when I look at rangers in fiction they're basically all tough as the nails they eat for breakfast types. Unless you include Legolas, which I sort of do because even though he's more properly a fighter i think he's had a lot of influence on the the ranger archetype

EDIT Even with d10 their hp isn't likely to get too nuts since con is pretty likely to be prioritised behind 2 or possibly all three of strength dexterity and wisdom

[Kane0]

I think there needs to be a distinction drawn between what the Ranger is and what it used to be. Certainly they inform each other but there are other things to consider, such as the ranger not getting heavy armor proficiency like the fighter/paladin and getting a third skill proficiency, matched only by the Bard and exceeded only by the Rogue. Add to that the 'skirmisher' paradigm some people see the ranger as taking up and you could make a good argument for a d8 ranger.

It's a tough call, and the conflict of what 'is' a Ranger from person to person makes it all the more muddy.

[Pufferwockey]

I think there needs to be a distinction drawn between what the Ranger is and what it used to be. Certainly they inform each other but there are other things to consider, such as the ranger not getting heavy armor proficiency like the fighter/paladin and getting a third skill proficiency, matched only by the Bard and exceeded only by the Rogue. Add to that the 'skirmisher' paradigm some people see the ranger as taking up and you could make a good argument for a d8 ranger.

It's a tough call, and the conflict of what 'is' a Ranger from person to person makes it all the more muddy.

Not a bad point and if that's balanced I'm ok with it, but as things stand in 5e they lack expertise and jack of all trades which means they lag significantly behind the bard by my math.

[sithlordnergal]

I think part of the issue of classifying the Ranger is because the designers don't fully know how to classify the Ranger. The Paladin is easy, Fighter+Cleric with a few extra goodies to help you fight. But the Ranger feels like an odd Fighter+Rogue+Druid mix. Just look at their abilities:


On the Rogue side we have:

Favored enemy: Gives you bonuses to skills when dealing with specific enemies, though they aren't really good bonuses

Natural Explorer: Gives you a ton of bonuses to skills while in specific terrain

Hide in Plain Sight: A poor man's Pass Without Trace

Vanish: You get a gutted Cunning action

Feral Senses: A better version of the Rogue's Blindsense.


For Fighter we have:

Extra Attack

Foe Slayer

Almost every subclass of Ranger includes abilities that make you deadlier in combat


And lastly from Druids we get:

The flavor of the class

A lot of their spells

Land's Stride feels like a very Druid ability

Primeval Awareness


And if you lay out the class like that, it feels like it should work. But the issue is in trying to combine three classes into one, they made a class that tries to do too many things at once. The Ranger is a sneaky skill monkey. It has almost as many skill proficencies as the Rogue, and can eventually bonus action Hide just like the Rogue...but its not as good at being a Skill Monkey as a Rogue or Bard because they never get Expertise, they have fewer skills, and fewer abilities to make help to make their skills better.

The Ranger is also a skilled Fighter, with Extra Attack, combat spells, and their subclasses. Only they aren't as good as a Fighter, Barbarian, Monk, or Paladin. And they can't be, because they're part skill monkey. A Monk has more battlefield control and mobility then a Ranger, thanks to Stunning Strike and their Ki features, a Barbarian is a better tank, a Paladin can do better burst damage, and has more healing, and a Fighter is an expert in sustained dpr due to having so many attacks.

And lastly we have the Ranger's spells, which are good, don't get me wrong. But they're hamstrung by being a half caster with a limited number of spells known. Heck, Rangers have the fewest spells known.

[Kane0]

-Snip-

That's basically my analysis, yeah. Every time I have this 'discussion' with my ranger-playing father he insists that it's fine because the ranger can cover all three competently, if never the best. I suppose he's right to a point, but the ranger always comes off as 'just good enough' rather than 'impressive' in it's jack-of-all-trades thing.

[sithlordnergal]

That's basically my analysis, yeah. Every time I have this 'discussion' with my ranger-playing father he insists that it's fine because the ranger can cover all three competently, if never the best. I suppose he's right to a point, but the ranger always comes off as 'just good enough' rather than 'impressive' in it's jack-of-all-trades thing.

Your dad is correct, the Ranger is able to cover all three roles competently. Which makes them an excellent 5th party member, since they can slip into whatever role the party is lacking. The downside is the Bard can cover those roles as well, and often does it better then the Ranger. Honestly, the only two things the Ranger can do better is travel through their Favored Terrain and the Horizen Walker can sense magical portals, which is huge if you have the right campaign.

[Pufferwockey]

And lastly from Druids we get:

The flavor of the class

I'm aware the ranger means different things to different people and if this is how you like your ranger I don't want to tell you you're doing it wrong. That being said:

Words cannot express how strongly I disagree with this sentiment.

[Kane0]

Your dad is correct, the Ranger is able to cover all three roles competently. Which makes them an excellent 5th party member, since they can slip into whatever role the party is lacking. The downside is the Bard can cover those roles as well, and often does it better then the Ranger. Honestly, the only two things the Ranger can do better is travel through their Favored Terrain and the Horizen Walker can sense magical portals, which is huge if you have the right campaign.

I think the difference being the bard is primarily Caster + Skillmonkey with a minor in warrior, whereas the Ranger is equally balancing all three. Obviously the ranger shouldn't have his cake and eat it too, but its lacking that certain something, that je ne sais quoi. It's almost there, just a little bit more polish, it's 'thing', it's X factor.

[paladinn]

Wow, I know we're talking 5e; but on a whim I took a look at the ranger in 3.0 and 3.5. There were Huge changes to the class in 3.5! It's much more skill-monkey/roguish than the 3.0 version, which was Definitely a fighter. And 3.5 forced the whole archery/2-weapon choice. I never really noticed it before. I think 3.5 was where the rogue-ization of the ranger started.

Then of course they introduced a Scout kit for the 3.5 Rogue class in PH2, which is definitely a rogue and a skirmisher. The swift hunter feat kind of completed the transformation by linking the two.

I wonder if they are going to come up with some way to marry the ranger and rogue scout subclass in 5e. Can't be much worse than what they've tried (up to the ACF UA).

[Dudu]

Every definition I see of ranger is of being a fighter+something. A survivalist fighter.
I dunno, I just feel the class don't have enough identity.

We could have ranger as one of the three caster fighters. Int based fighter is Eldritch Knight. Wis based is Ranger and Cha based is Paladin.

Or we could have Ranger as Wis based rogue and Monks as Wis based fighters. (And Bards as Cha based rogues)

I don't know about all those others. Paladins, monks, bards all have a lot of flavor on their own and, tbh, they look better how they are right than as subclasses, like I suggested. Rangers are alone in that one in my view.

But you could also view rangers as scouts, foresters. People who can also fight, but is not their most defining role. The issue with that, in 5.0, is that they don't put much focus on exploration. A campaign with a lot of exploration could make Ranger's identity more clear. A campaign in which - gathering food, water, finding the places, not getting lost - all those elements are central, the Ranger could as well be the MVP.

[Tanarii]

Or you know, that it isn't enough. Of course if that's enough for you then feel free to play the ranger as it is. No more discussion needed for you if you are satisfied with that. Go ahead and enjoy it. It is fine for you to enjoy it; I make no judgement about that being good enough for you. Good luck with it.
Hey, popping back in to apologize for my attitude.

Yes, it's valid to think that Rangers could be more skirmishy. Absolutely. And that it'd be nice if their skirmishing abilities weren't fairly hidden.

[Kane0]

By the way Tanarii your pic is still being held ransom. Try imgur?

[MrStabby]

Hey, popping back in to apologize for my attitude.

Yes, it's valid to think that Rangers could be more skirmishy. Absolutely. And that it'd be nice if their skirmishing abilities weren't fairly hidden.

Hey, no problem.

[djreynolds]

A couple of thoughts from a noted fool

5E has really blurred the line between classes.... and this good. Every being in this world is living in the "woods". The have to chop wood, fetch water, bind/dress wounds, farm, gather and hunt. There was a show called "Pioneer" back in the day... life back then was tough.

Every class is an adventurer at heart, its why we see more HP for casters because it show everyone living in this type of setting has to be more robust or you would die in childhood.

So its expected that most classes will take a skill or two that can be seen relevant to the "outdoors" and "exploration"... perception, athletic, stealth, nature, medicine, and survival... maybe investigation... and with a party of say four to five individuals... you can confidently cover down on what a ranger would provide you with.

Now the thing with the ranger is really the same issue with a monk... they require... possibly demand... a skilled hand to see their potential.

A paladin is quite easy to play... wade in with huge saving throw bonus... heavy armor... if you hit and have a spell you can smite. And you have the ability to heal yourself.

A ranger and monk are best played as a "skirmisher". Tactically speaking, you are trying to force the enemy into position for the main body to finish it off. You are tasked with combating individuals possibly trying to do the same to you (anti-skirmisher). You may focus on the enemy caster or healer. You are tasked to make it easier for the paladin to go about and smite, you are forcing the enemy to group up so the wizard can catch as many as possible with a spell

Now a ranger can play quite effectively as a melee warrior, with TWF or S&B or even a greatsword or great axe. The can play the sniper role. They can be the party healer. A TWF ranger with hunter's mark can have 3 attacks and drop 6d6 a round or 4d6 assuming they have to use their BA to change enemies. That is very good damage output that doesn't require a source of advantage, spamming bless or SD. They just have to hit. Hunter's mark lasts an hour.

Now a monk has speed to get to all the enemies at distance... and ranger of course has a bow, and spells also that enable them to force the enemy either away or towards the main party. And like a monk they may go off ahead of the party to scout and come back and formulate a plan with the party or set up and ambush. And with their spells they are more self sufficient, they can heal themselves, call in help from nature, pass without a trace, etc.

The unfortunate aspect of 5E is travel and exploration can be a boring aspect of the game, and the ranger's natural explorer and favored foe doesn't shine in combat.

My big complaint with the ranger is that knowledge of favored terrain and enemy doesn't translate into the combat portion of the game. I'm personally not a fan of the "free" hunter's mark as it is just damage. For me, you spend countless days and months with a ranger who's favored enemy are dragons and giants... and the ranger has no "pointers", no strike here or stab there or watch out for boulders being tossed.

[Kane0]

My big complaint with the ranger is that knowledge of favored terrain and enemy doesn't translate into the combat portion of the game. I'm personally not a fan of the "free" hunter's mark as it is just damage. For me, you spend countless days and months with a ranger who's favored enemy are dragons and giants... and the ranger has no "pointers", no strike here or stab there or watch out for boulders being tossed.

Hows about this then:

Level 1: Once on your turn, after making an attack against a creature you can see, you may designate that creature as your Quarry. This effect lasts until the end of your next turn, or until you mark another creature as your Quarry.
Once per turn, when you make an attack against a marked Quarry, you deal an extra 1d4 damage of the same type as the attack.

Level 6: Your Quarry die increases to a d6, and when a creature marked as your Quarry hits you or an ally that can see and hear you within 30 feet you can use your reaction to reduce the damage taken result of your Quarry die.

Level 14: Your Quarry die increases to a d8, and when a creature marked as your Quarry targets you or an ally that can see and hear you within 30 feet with an effect that has you making a saving throw, you can use your reaction to gain a bonus to the saving throw equal to the result of your Quarry die.

Level 20: Your Quarry die increases to a d10, and once per turn when an ally that can see and hear you hits with an attack against a marked Quarry they deal your Quarry die extra damage.

Eh?

[Arzanyos]

Ooh, I like those Quarry mechanics. A nice variety of bonuses, both team and self. Very adaptable.

On another note, I find it irksome whenever Ranger is referred to as Fighter/Druid, or especially "Fighter/Druid, like how Paladins are Cleric/Fighters". That's not really how class identities work, and in addition, Rangers and Druids aren't really all that similar, except for the nature connection. But even still, Druids are specifically protectors of/ involved with nature, while Rangers just spend a lot of time in nature. As for Paladins, they're so much more than half of this, half of that. Smiting, Laying on Hands, their Auras, are all distinguishing Paladin things that neither Fighter's nor Clerics get. Heck, the Barbarian takes as much from the Fighter is the Paladin does, and no body calls it a Fighter/Whatever.


Man, this discussion has given me a lot of ideas of what I would do if I were building an RPG. Would anyone more this-forumly inclined be able to point me to whwre a homebrew should go when it's still just a grocery list?

[djreynolds]

Hows about this then:

Level 1: Once on your turn, after making an attack against a creature you can see, you may designate that creature as your Quarry. This effect lasts until the end of your next turn, or until you mark another creature as your Quarry.
Once per turn, when you make an attack against a marked Quarry, you deal an extra 1d4 damage of the same type as the attack.

Level 6: Your Quarry die increases to a d6, and when a creature marked as your Quarry hits you or an ally that can see and hear you within 30 feet you can use your reaction to reduce the damage taken result of your Quarry die.

Level 14: Your Quarry die increases to a d8, and when a creature marked as your Quarry targets you or an ally that can see and hear you within 30 feet with an effect that has you making a saving throw, you can use your reaction to gain a bonus to the saving throw equal to the result of your Quarry die.

Level 20: Your Quarry die increases to a d10, and once per turn when an ally that can see and hear you hits with an attack against a marked Quarry they deal your Quarry die extra damage.

Eh?

Its a start, very good

The base ranger offers up social and exploration powers in regards to foe with a language and tracking.

The hunter archetype gives powers against enemies, it has powers at 3rd, 7th, 11th, and 15th, and its well rounded to fight against. So within this archetype, if chosen properly, the ability to battle a dragon. You could select colossus slayer, steel will, and evasion and maybe have a chance of surviving an encounter with a dragon.

Gloom stalker is obviously very able in the underdark, and monster slayer and horizon walker and good. Beast master IMO has always been underrated and now is a bit beefier.

I think what happens is players, myself included, look at the base ranger and perhaps don't realize the favored enemy is kind of baked into the archetypes

I'm just looking for something extra that I can throw to my allies in combat that says, "We're fighting giants, don't worry I know some tricks from years of combating them" Or Aragon saying, hey "the armor on these orcs is weak at the neck"

That's really my only beef with the class as a whole. Something for the party members.

And maybe armor proficiency and different fighting style selections for the archetypes. Protection for beastmaster or heavy armor...

[MrStabby]

Hows about this then:

Level 1: Once on your turn, after making an attack against a creature you can see, you may designate that creature as your Quarry. This effect lasts until the end of your next turn, or until you mark another creature as your Quarry.
Once per turn, when you make an attack against a marked Quarry, you deal an extra 1d4 damage of the same type as the attack.

Level 6: Your Quarry die increases to a d6, and when a creature marked as your Quarry hits you or an ally that can see and hear you within 30 feet you can use your reaction to reduce the damage taken result of your Quarry die.

Level 14: Your Quarry die increases to a d8, and when a creature marked as your Quarry targets you or an ally that can see and hear you within 30 feet with an effect that has you making a saving throw, you can use your reaction to gain a bonus to the saving throw equal to the result of your Quarry die.

Level 20: Your Quarry die increases to a d10, and once per turn when an ally that can see and hear you hits with an attack against a marked Quarry they deal your Quarry die extra damage.

Eh?

For me, the level 1 and 6 are kind of OK but I feel that the ability falls behind when you get to the levels where you are fighting powerful supernatural enemies and where cool abilities to hunt your quarry across the planes is more needed (in my opinion).

I would prefer things like:
You know which plane a creature is on if they have ever been your quarry
Any creature that is your quarry may not use any teleport ability or an ability that moves them to another plane
The ability to use a bonus action to teleport to your quarry
The ability to detect the thoughts of your quarry

Something a bit more than damage - not saying damage is bad and you will want abilities to keep pace with other characters, but something that lets you do cool, plot developing stuff as well.

[Kane0]

Well that's purely swapping out Favored Enemy, you could do the same for Natural explorer and some subclass features (such as the Xan's level 3 damage boosters) to fill out those other functions.

[Amechra]

Its a start, very good

The base ranger offers up social and exploration powers in regards to foe with a language and tracking.

The hunter archetype gives powers against enemies, it has powers at 3rd, 7th, 11th, and 15th, and its well rounded to fight against. So within this archetype, if chosen properly, the ability to battle a dragon. You could select colossus slayer, steel will, and evasion and maybe have a chance of surviving an encounter with a dragon.

Gloom stalker is obviously very able in the underdark, and monster slayer and horizon walker and good. Beast master IMO has always been underrated and now is a bit beefier.

I think what happens is players, myself included, look at the base ranger and perhaps don't realize the favored enemy is kind of baked into the archetypes

I'm just looking for something extra that I can throw to my allies in combat that says, "We're fighting giants, don't worry I know some tricks from years of combating them" Or Aragon saying, hey "the armor on these orcs is weak at the neck"

That's really my only beef with the class as a whole. Something for the party members.

And maybe armor proficiency and different fighting style selections for the archetypes. Protection for beastmaster or heavy armor...

Sounds like the Ranger should get a boost to the Help action. Maybe something like the Expert sidekick class's Inspiring Help feature (which I want on a real class ASAP, please and thank you.)

[MrStabby]

Sounds like the Ranger should get a boost to the Help action. Maybe something like the Expert sidekick class's Inspiring Help feature (which I want on a real class ASAP, please and thank you.)

To me this doesn't fit - I think of the ranger as the archetypal loner, the person unused to either accepting or giving help.

[Kane0]

I’ve for a long time given rangers bonus action search as a counterpart to the rogue’s bonus action hide

[Amechra]

To me this doesn't fit - I think of the ranger as the archetypal loner, the person unused to either accepting or giving help.

This is actually a pet peeve of mine - "loner" is not an archetype you should be pulling from for a team game. If anything, that's a character arc you should get over and done with in the first few sessions. Why? Because that's inherently an internal struggle that the rest of the party doesn't get to see unless you're laying it on thick, and that's like someone making a big deal of their twenty-page backstory. It's fun for one person, and kind of a drag for everyone else.

It's one of things that works well in movies or books that just doesn't translate well into the tabletop context.

[Kane0]

This is actually a pet peeve of mine - "loner" is not an archetype you should be pulling from for a team game. If anything, that's a character arc you should get over and done with in the first few sessions. Why? Because that's inherently an internal struggle that the rest of the party doesn't get to see unless you're laying it on thick, and that's like someone making a big deal of their twenty-page backstory. It's fun for one person, and kind of a drag for everyone else.

It's one of things that works well in movies or books that just doesn't translate well into the tabletop context.

It's another one of those things that people can't agree on with the Ranger (I guess conflicting source material?). Depending on who you ask their idea of a ranger is a lone wolf or packmate, sometimes pack leader. I like to think they're a bit of both, equally suitable scouting and surviving on their own as well as leading teams through the wilderness and keeping everyone on their feet.

[GlenSmash!]

It's another one of those things that people can't agree on with the Ranger (I guess conflicting source material?). Depending on who you ask their idea of a ranger is a lone wolf or packmate, sometimes pack leader. I like to think they're a bit of both, equally suitable scouting and surviving on their own as well as leading teams through the wilderness and keeping everyone on their feet.

I think so too. Sure Aragorn, Drizzt, or whoever can survive on their own, but they also make it far easier for their party to survive even if they are all level 1 halflings or what have you.

[MrStabby]

This is actually a pet peeve of mine - "loner" is not an archetype you should be pulling from for a team game. If anything, that's a character arc you should get over and done with in the first few sessions. Why? Because that's inherently an internal struggle that the rest of the party doesn't get to see unless you're laying it on thick, and that's like someone making a big deal of their twenty-page backstory. It's fun for one person, and kind of a drag for everyone else.

It's one of things that works well in movies or books that just doesn't translate well into the tabletop context.

I am not saying that this is how you play your character in the game, your personality or anything else. Just that your survivalist wilderness expert shouldn't get the class abilities specifically designed to aid their comrades in arms. Fighters, with a soldier background might. Paladins already do with their auras. Bards are by design collegiate.

I am absolutely not saying ranger PCs shouldn't work as part of a team, I just don't see them getting special abilities from their class to do so. The decision to help should come from personality rather than training, in my view.

[moonfly7]

Hows about this then:

Level 1: Once on your turn, after making an attack against a creature you can see, you may designate that creature as your Quarry. This effect lasts until the end of your next turn, or until you mark another creature as your Quarry.
Once per turn, when you make an attack against a marked Quarry, you deal an extra 1d4 damage of the same type as the attack.

Level 6: Your Quarry die increases to a d6, and when a creature marked as your Quarry hits you or an ally that can see and hear you within 30 feet you can use your reaction to reduce the damage taken result of your Quarry die.

Level 14: Your Quarry die increases to a d8, and when a creature marked as your Quarry targets you or an ally that can see and hear you within 30 feet with an effect that has you making a saving throw, you can use your reaction to gain a bonus to the saving throw equal to the result of your Quarry die.

Level 20: Your Quarry die increases to a d10, and once per turn when an ally that can see and hear you hits with an attack against a marked Quarry they deal your Quarry die extra damage.

Eh?
I'm not so sure about the surprisingly common quarry dice fix for the ranger. It feels like we're saying "oh, this is a static and small amount of damage for a small category of things. Just broaden the category and add scaling larger damage dice and it's fixed.
In my opinion that doesn't fix the rangers identity problem, it doesn't give it a special skill only it gets that feels unique and special it's just more damage. Which is great, but I think the main point so far has been that we want to see ranger flourish more out of combat than it has in the past, and flourish in combat in unique ways. Quarry die feel like less flavorful and interesting sneak attack IMO.

[Kane0]

I'm not so sure about the surprisingly common quarry dice fix for the ranger. It feels like we're saying "oh, this is a static and small amount of damage for a small category of things. Just broaden the category and add scaling larger damage dice and it's fixed.
In my opinion that doesn't fix the rangers identity problem, it doesn't give it a special skill only it gets that feels unique and special it's just more damage. Which is great, but I think the main point so far has been that we want to see ranger flourish more out of combat than it has in the past, and flourish in combat in unique ways. Quarry die feel like less flavorful and interesting sneak attack IMO.

Here's the kicker: No one single class feature is going to solve all the problems with the ranger (mechanically or thematically).

Edit: And i've of course done other things, but that quarry above was in response to a specific post regarding the Hunter's Mark thing in recent UA (and off topic, my dislike of it). If you want some other items to chew on how about:
- Bonus action Search
- Ignore nonmagical and later magical difficult terrain
- Access to Expertise
- Improved and more Ranger-specific spells (hide camp, ward camp, create raft, etc)
- Instant trap-laying and more trap-like spells
- Healing Salves (resurrected from an old UA)
- Advantage on saves against the same conditions Freedom of Movement makes you immune to
- Improved stealth features (ACF UA is a good start but needs work)
- Features that interact with Surprise and Exhaustion

[moonfly7]

Here's the kicker: No one single class feature is going to solve all the problems with the ranger (mechanically or thematically).

Edit: And i've of course done other things, but that quarry above was in response to a specific post regarding the Hunter's Mark thing in recent UA (and off topic, my dislike of it). If you want some other items to chew on how about:
- Bonus action Search
- Ignore nonmagical and later magical difficult terrain
- Access to Expertise
- Improved and more Ranger-specific spells (hide camp, ward camp, create raft, etc)
- Instant trap-laying and more trap-like spells
- Healing Salves (resurrected from an old UA)
- Advantage on saves against the same conditions Freedom of Movement makes you immune to
- Improved stealth features (ACF UA is a good start but needs work)
- Features that interact with Surprise and Exhaustion

I understand that ranger won't be solved by one feature, but by many through trial and error, I'm just saying I don't think quarry dice are going to be among them.
As for the other stuff: I love the traps idea, and I feel like expertise is a no brainer for ranger. I don't think I or anyone at my table would ever even use a bonus action search(I don't think some of us even know search is a specific action not tied to a skill) I feel like the difficult terrain thing can be useful, but not enough to be scaling, or to even matter that much besides when fighting casters, starting with ignoring magical difficult terrain is still the kind of mostly situational feature that made ranger need a fixing in the first place, IMO. The improved stealth is a must too me, and I'm glad you included it, in my opinion at least some of those should be pretty early on too.
The surprise idea is good so long as it isn't just a sneak attack clone, and the exhaustion ideas are great, not core class features in my mind, but definitely useful.
Healing salve is a great feature that I enjoyed when it came out in UA, so I'm all for it. As for spells, I can take them or leave them with my ranger. They don't really fit the classes vibe for me, but I enjoy having them as they add a lot of fun things to do as a ranger, and I generally just reflavor them into other things.
Here's my personal suggestion about expertise for ranger: give them expertise in one skill, but while they're travelling in favored terrain for a certain amount of time they can swap the expertise to a different skill, and maybe even change their ranger skill proficiencies around to a different ranger skill option they didn't take at first level. If you don't like the favored terrain(which I think could he solved by just giving two at first level and then again on two more for a total of 6 terrains) you could have it be on a long rest instead.

[stoutstien]

I haven't read this entire thread so if somebody has brought this up disregard.
Is it just me that or the does a lot of the Hunter subclasses work really well when we shift them to the other classes?
Monster Slayer seems perfect for barbarians. Finally a barb good at killing casters.
HW seems very much ready for monk.
Hunter into fighter makes a Martial that has good horde slaying capacity without still maintaining good overall fighter like abilities.
Gloom stalker rogue is already a popular combo.
Beast master....well ok I have no idea where to put it.

Overall I think it could be done pretty easily and not lose any of the flavor in the concaves.

[Kane0]

-Snip-

Feel free to chime in on either of my ranger (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?555697-Houserules-and-homebrew) works (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?595643-By-request-Workshopping-another-Ranger) :smallwink:

Yeah the subclasses could be moved elsewhere, but the same could also be argued in reverse (Ancients Paladin, Arcane Archer Fighter, Scout Rogue could all be moved to the Ranger with some tweaking).
Edit: Nice new pic BTW

[Pufferwockey]

Here's the kicker: No one single class feature is going to solve all the problems with the ranger (mechanically or thematically).

Edit: And i've of course done other things, but that quarry above was in response to a specific post regarding the Hunter's Mark thing in recent UA (and off topic, my dislike of it). If you want some other items to chew on how about:
- Bonus action Search
- Ignore nonmagical and later magical difficult terrain
- Access to Expertise
- Improved and more Ranger-specific spells (hide camp, ward camp, create raft, etc)
- Instant trap-laying and more trap-like spells
- Healing Salves (resurrected from an old UA)
- Advantage on saves against the same conditions Freedom of Movement makes you immune to
- Improved stealth features (ACF UA is a good start but needs work)
- Features that interact with Surprise and Exhaustion

This list basically nails it from my way of looking at it. As I've said a gillion times before I think there should be a choice between spell casting and something else. I think the features that interact with surprise and exhaustion, healing salves and expertise would be good candidates for that(subject as always to the opinion of someone with a clue about balance) This would give both people who like their rangers to be druid flavoured and those of us who super don't both something to work with.

There were a ton of prestige classes in 3.5 that had stuff to offer in terms of flavoured combat mechanics too. The Deepwood Sniper comes to mind for people who like their rangers shooty. Could be one or two of it's abilities could inspire something good. Can't remember specific names but there were options for people who preferred them stabby too.


It's another one of those things that people can't agree on with the Ranger (I guess conflicting source material?). Depending on who you ask their idea of a ranger is a lone wolf or packmate, sometimes pack leader. I like to think they're a bit of both, equally suitable scouting and surviving on their own as well as leading teams through the wilderness and keeping everyone on their feet.

Kind of makes a support focused ranger a good candidate for a subclass

[djreynolds]

I haven't read this entire thread so if somebody has brought this up disregard.
Is it just me that or the does a lot of the Hunter subclasses work really well when we shift them to the other classes?
Monster Slayer seems perfect for barbarians. Finally a barb good at killing casters.
HW seems very much ready for monk.
Hunter into fighter makes a Martial that has good horde slaying capacity without still maintaining good overall fighter like abilities.
Gloom stalker rogue is already a popular combo.
Beast master....well ok I have no idea where to put it.

Overall I think it could be done pretty easily and not lose any of the flavor in the concaves.

It is true that really the ranger and the paladin could be "cough".... "prestige" classes.

I'm not saying I want this, I'm just saying these 2 classes could have been something you attained.

A druid could become a paladin oath of ancients, a rogue could become a paladin of vengeance

And we could see the same with ranger, a bard could become a ranger who focused on wisdom and intelligence skills, perhaps a rogue who was a scout perhaps later would become a ranger.

But that is for a later evolution of the game and more of my kids' college funds spent on D&D

But from what I've been delving in, the damage and saves and defensive aspects of "favored enemy" are baked into the archetypes, while the knowledge, exploration, and social are in the base ranger

And as I look at the UA material, I'm not sure if canny, roving, and tireless are a fair trade for what natural explore gave you.

Canny gives 1 skill in expertise sure, but if you have proficiency in survival, nature, and investigation... these double... which is essentially expertise in your favored terrains.

Favored foe is free hunter's mark but you're losing out on 3 languages and advantage on any intelligence/wisdom check to recall knowledge of foes.

Tireless is awesome, roving is nice... but you'll still need a good athletics score for either swimming or climbing

This is very good thread, and all the posts are very insightful

[stoutstien]

I think the big difference between rangers and paladins is that the Paladin has a unique niche mechanically as well as thematically. If the most recent UA is any indication then they're moving Ethan further away from spell list being considered unique class properties. good, bad, indifferent, this does affect the way classes feel compared to each other.
even without a paladin spells you know if there's one at the table. They have a few abilities that are unique to the class where for rangers, the party you might not even tell.

[moonfly7]

I think the big difference between rangers and paladins is that the Paladin has a unique niche mechanically as well as thematically. If the most recent UA is any indication then they're moving Ethan further away from spell list being considered unique class properties. good, bad, indifferent, this does affect the way classes feel compared to each other.
even without a paladin spells you know if there's one at the table. They have a few abilities that are unique to the class where for rangers, the party you might not even tell.
This is very true, they're definitely moving away from spell casting ad a super defining feature. I for one see this as a byproduct of having to many casters already. There are only four non casting classes: barbarian, fighter, monk, and rogue. Spell casting isn't really a defining feature anymore because almost every class has it, and of the 4 that don't, 3 get subclasses for it.
I feel like this is a really big issue, because it affects classes flavor by a lot.
The wizards main thing is casting, and his highly inclusive spell list and ability to have a ton on hand keeps him useful and unique, but it's come to the point where most classes have spell casting thrown in as an after thought almost.
Sure sorcerers need magic, it's one of the bread and butter arcane casters. And yes, I get that druid and cleric also need them, not saying they don't.
But surely we could find a way to not put spell casting into paladins, or rangers, or heck, even bards and warlocks. Warlocks have a break in the monotony with pact magic, but I feel like we can find a unique way to give the bard magic without just slapping the spell casting feature on them.
As for pally, I get that it's always had magic, and honestly I WANT my paladin to have magic, but I feel like just giving them spell casting is kinda boring and lazy. Maybe make all of their magic like their sense good and evil ability, a magical ability definitely, but not a "Spell".

As for ranger, it to me is the deciding factor in the magic martial balance here. I personally believe we should have an equal number of magic to martial classes, because as it stands we have 13 classes (counting artificer) and NINE are casters. I don't mind rangers having magic, but I think taking the CASTING away for something else will make the class more unique, and balance out the caster to martial ratio just a tad.

[MrStabby]

This is very true, they're definitely moving away from spell casting ad a super defining feature. I for one see this as a byproduct of having to many casters already. There are only four non casting classes: barbarian, fighter, monk, and rogue. Spell casting isn't really a defining feature anymore because almost every class has it, and of the 4 that don't, 3 get subclasses for it.
I feel like this is a really big issue, because it affects classes flavor by a lot.
The wizards main thing is casting, and his highly inclusive spell list and ability to have a ton on hand keeps him useful and unique, but it's come to the point where most classes have spell casting thrown in as an after thought almost.
Sure sorcerers need magic, it's one of the bread and butter arcane casters. And yes, I get that druid and cleric also need them, not saying they don't.
But surely we could find a way to not put spell casting into paladins, or rangers, or heck, even bards and warlocks. Warlocks have a break in the monotony with pact magic, but I feel like we can find a unique way to give the bard magic without just slapping the spell casting feature on them.
As for pally, I get that it's always had magic, and honestly I WANT my paladin to have magic, but I feel like just giving them spell casting is kinda boring and lazy. Maybe make all of their magic like their sense good and evil ability, a magical ability definitely, but not a "Spell".

As for ranger, it to me is the deciding factor in the magic martial balance here. I personally believe we should have an equal number of magic to martial classes, because as it stands we have 13 classes (counting artificer) and NINE are casters. I don't mind rangers having magic, but I think taking the CASTING away for something else will make the class more unique, and balance out the caster to martial ratio just a tad.

All classes get at least one subclass that can cast. Fighters get eldritch knight, barbarians get totem, rogues get arcane trickster, monks get 4 elements and shadow (don't remember of the open hand sanctuary is cast as a spell). Not sure which one you missed.

I do like these options to be a caster and personally I don't think I would want to play a class that didn't make me a caster in some form, but other options might be nice.

[Willie the Duck]

This is very true, they're definitely moving away from spell casting ad a super defining feature. I for one see this as a byproduct of having to many casters already.

I'm not sure about the linkage between the two points. To my eyes/mind, the movement from spellcasting as a defining feature was the decision to have feats and classes (bard) that allowed the movement of spells from one class to another and having things like various cleric or druid archetypes getting spells off of other class lists. Spells are (outside of some minor commonality like being counterspell-able) just modular resolution mechanics, and that most classes get them doesn't (to me) mean that they can't be class-defining features, so long as each class actually has unique spells.


All classes get at least one subclass that can cast. Fighters get eldritch knight, barbarians get totem, rogues get arcane trickster, monks get 4 elements and shadow (don't remember of the open hand sanctuary is cast as a spell). Not sure which one you missed.

I do like these options to be a caster and personally I don't think I would want to play a class that didn't make me a caster in some form, but other options might be nice.

The other options are the archetypes without spells.

[Justin Sane]

"The Ranger is a woodsman"
"a fighter/rogue/druid"
"the wilderness guy"I have an issue with all those definitions: they don't answer the really important question, "Okay, but what does the Ranger do?"

I mean, all the other classes deliver their power fantasy in a very direct manner*:
The Fighter fights. Be it with sword, spear, bow or axe, be it in light or heavy armor, be it through absolute physical perfection or supplementing their skills with magic - if it can be used to wreck face, Fighters can turn it into an instrument of warfare.
The Barbarian RAGES. They channel a primal spirit, or the violence of the storms, or the spirit of their ancestors through their fury.
The Paladin believes. They're the guys so set on their worldview, the universe itself grants them the ability to smite their foes and protect their allies.
The Cleric works miracles. Through their connection with their diety, they wield divine magic to fulfill the will of the gods - or to defy it.
The Druid is one with nature. All the resources of the natural world bend to their will.
The Rogue does it from behind is unexpected. Either subtly manipulating their adversaries with honeyed words, studying magic for that extra edge, or simply slipping a dagger between armor plates, nobody would guess their level of skill at a glance.

This, I think, is what the Ranger is lacking the most. A short description of what they actually do - the "how they do it" part can be left out for subclasses.

So, IMHO:
The Ranger adapts. The ultimate pragmatist, they're willing to use any trick that'll help them defeat their foes. Doesn't matter if it's about bonding with an animal spirit, if it's learning the ways of the shadows, or even if it's exploiting the weak sports between planes - "as long as it works, right?".

Good luck converting that to mechanics :)

*okay, some classes' mechanics might not mesh well with the fantasy - Monk, for example. But you get my point.

[moonfly7]

All classes get at least one subclass that can cast. Fighters get eldritch knight, barbarians get totem, rogues get arcane trickster, monks get 4 elements and shadow (don't remember of the open hand sanctuary is cast as a spell). Not sure which one you missed.

I do like these options to be a caster and personally I don't think I would want to play a class that didn't make me a caster in some form, but other options might be nice.

I mentioned 4 classes that don't cast. 3 of those do get subclasses that cast: rogue, fighter, and monk. Barbarian does not get a casting subclass. That's why I said 3 do, and one doesn't.

[Mjolnirbear]

*snip*.

So, IMHO:
The Ranger adapts. The ultimate pragmatist, they're willing to use any trick that'll help them defeat their foes. Doesn't matter if it's about bonding with an animal spirit, if it's learning the ways of the shadows, or even if it's exploiting the weak sports between planes - "as long as it works, right?".

Good luck converting that to mechanics :)

*okay, some classes' mechanics might not mesh well with the fantasy - Monk, for example. But you get my point.

Ranger-flavoured invocations is my solution.

The idea floated around a bit on reddit and I didn't think the versions I saw were adaptable enough. My current untested houserule for a ranger is that favoured enemy isn't an oath of emnity, just tricks you picked up from enemies you've fought in the past.

You designate a creature type and get a language as usual, but you also choose a trick that reasonably applies to said creature. The "In Enemy Territory" trick applies to any enemy that sends out patrols. The "Breath Weapon Dodge" trick applies to any breath weapon, whether dragons, dragonborn, winter wolf or hell hound. There's a trick for fighting things bigger than you, a trick for traps, one for poison, one for enemies resistant to normal weapons...

As the game progresses they learn more tricks based on the bad guys the DM throws at you. I think I need to add a versatility mechanic, probably once per day on a short rest can switch out a trick so long as the new trick is applicable to one of your favoured enemies.

[intregus]

Ranger-flavoured invocations is my solution.

The idea floated around a bit on reddit and I didn't think the versions I saw were adaptable enough. My current untested houserule for a ranger is that favoured enemy isn't an oath of emnity, just tricks you picked up from enemies you've fought in the past.

You designate a creature type and get a language as usual, but you also choose a trick that reasonably applies to said creature. The "In Enemy Territory" trick applies to any enemy that sends out patrols. The "Breath Weapon Dodge" trick applies to any breath weapon, whether dragons, dragonborn, winter wolf or hell hound. There's a trick for fighting things bigger than you, a trick for traps, one for poison, one for enemies resistant to normal weapons...

As the game progresses they learn more tricks based on the bad guys the DM throws at you. I think I need to add a versatility mechanic, probably once per day on a short rest can switch out a trick so long as the new trick is applicable to one of your favoured enemies.

Could you post your homebrew for this here? I did the same thing and posted it earlier in the thread. See below


I literally remade the ranger on the Warnock chassis....it works well and I'm currently playing it in tomb of annihilation. Still playtesting its balance though.

Also feel free to give me feedback about everything.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mlXa9GSqcdsG__eihM4KcGtEgzRSoKIuUQbj482KFsM/edit?usp=drivesdk

[MrStabby]

I have an issue with all those definitions: they don't answer the really important question, "Okay, but what does the Ranger do?"

I mean, all the other classes deliver their power fantasy in a very direct manner*:
The Fighter fights. Be it with sword, spear, bow or axe, be it in light or heavy armor, be it through absolute physical perfection or supplementing their skills with magic - if it can be used to wreck face, Fighters can turn it into an instrument of warfare.
The Barbarian RAGES. They channel a primal spirit, or the violence of the storms, or the spirit of their ancestors through their fury.
The Paladin believes. They're the guys so set on their worldview, the universe itself grants them the ability to smite their foes and protect their allies.
The Cleric works miracles. Through their connection with their diety, they wield divine magic to fulfill the will of the gods - or to defy it.
The Druid is one with nature. All the resources of the natural world bend to their will.
The Rogue does it from behind is unexpected. Either subtly manipulating their adversaries with honeyed words, studying magic for that extra edge, or simply slipping a dagger between armor plates, nobody would guess their level of skill at a glance.

This, I think, is what the Ranger is lacking the most. A short description of what they actually do - the "how they do it" part can be left out for subclasses.

So, IMHO:
The Ranger adapts. The ultimate pragmatist, they're willing to use any trick that'll help them defeat their foes. Doesn't matter if it's about bonding with an animal spirit, if it's learning the ways of the shadows, or even if it's exploiting the weak sports between planes - "as long as it works, right?".

Good luck converting that to mechanics :)

*okay, some classes' mechanics might not mesh well with the fantasy - Monk, for example. But you get my point.


I think there is an issue, in that "adapt" still doesn't describe what they do. It just seems to mean they do varied stuff.

There is also the problem that casters set the benchmark for adaptability. If you can pick between fireball and banishment as the situation demands, what can the ranger do to top that? If adaptability is the core element then it is a pretty sorry ranger if it's key ability is surpassed by other classes able to do a) more different things and b) those things be more different from each other than the ranger can bring.

[Mjolnirbear]

Could you post your homebrew for this here? I did the same thing and posted it earlier in the thread. See below

If you like.

https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-LkkJKaDrV-eM-Q4hj8l

I use many of Giffyglyph's Darker Dungeons modular brews. I've knicked and yoinked from so many private brewers I can't even remember who sparked which idea, and I don't like posting things inspired by others without credit. I don't think there's very much in here that was yoinked but at least this part of my brew document is free of non-SRD Wizards content.

[Kane0]

If you like.

https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-LkkJKaDrV-eM-Q4hj8l


I like your defined terms for exploration (scout, forage, guide, camp). Do you have that stuff written up elsewhere?

[Mjolnirbear]

I like your defined terms for exploration (scout, forage, guide, camp). Do you have that stuff written up elsewhere?

Those are the Darker Dungeons modules I mentioned, which IIRC are in turn based on Angry DM's exploration rules.

[Sigreid]

So, IMHO:
The Ranger adapts. The ultimate pragmatist, they're willing to use any trick that'll help them defeat their foes. Doesn't matter if it's about bonding with an animal spirit, if it's learning the ways of the shadows, or even if it's exploiting the weak sports between planes - "as long as it works, right?".

Good luck converting that to mechanics :)

*okay, some classes' mechanics might not mesh well with the fantasy - Monk, for example. But you get my point.

I'd say my ideal for ranger summed up as what he does is "A Ranger SURVIVES". Mechanically I'd load him up with abilities that can pull the party's fat out of the fire when they are caught unprepared.

[Tanarii]

If you want to see a simple but effective way exploring can work, and a 'Ranger' class (actually called Hunter) can work within it, look up Forbidden Lands by Free League. It's one of the most bare bones while still being mechanical. Torchbearer is a lot more rigorous (and intentionally grindy).

The Alexandrian did a whole series on Hexcrawls as well:
https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/17308/roleplaying-games/hexcrawl

The interesting thing about the latter is his system was designed to be a DM system, ie not player visible. Given that's the biggest turn off for people when it comes to hexcrawls, that's important.