The Ranger's class identity

[Greywander]

One of the criticisms I've heard for the ranger class, particularly back when it was considered pretty underpowered, was that it didn't really have a strong class identity. Nobody was really sure what a ranger was supposed to be, so they were given a bunch of thematic abilities that didn't really have a unified mechanical concept. That, and some sacred cows that maybe didn't make a lot of sense from a game design perspective, but rangers have always had X, Y, and Z.

Now, what the ranger is is a mess. You can't really pin a class identity on it after the fact if it didn't have one to begin with. But what about what the ranger should have been? I think, perhaps, the fundamental class identity can be summed up as the "tracker". In my mind, this comes in two parts. First, movement. Rangers, well, range. They get around. They're good at being where they need to be. Second is detection. Information gathering. Awareness. The ranger should be an ideal scout. Their ability to move around means they can go ahead of the party and come back with information of what's ahead, without the party needing to slow down. Their heightened awareness means the information they bring back is more accurate and detailed. The ranger should be the one class specifically designed for splitting off from the rest of the party. (In fact, I could even see them having sabotage-type abilities that are insufficient to bring down a powerful enemy or large group of enemies, but nicely softens them up for the rest of the party, so that most of the ranger's contribution is done before combat rather than during. Then again, I also think wizards should be pure ritual casters who suck in combat but offer amazing utility out of combat, so maybe you shouldn't listen to me.)

Having said that, I can't help but feel like either rogue (Cunning Action for mobility, expertise for detection) or monk (Unarmored Movement, WIS-based for Perception) would both do pretty decent jobs of filling this role. If I were to rewrite ranger from scratch around this core identity, I'm not entirely sure how I'd go about making it "more ranger-y" than rogues or monks. One thing I'd probably do is leave all the nature stuff to subclasses or other customization options; urban rangers would definitely be a thing, and this class identity works really well for something like a detective. The quintessential ranger might be more akin to Batman than to Aragorn.

So what I'm wondering is if you think I'm on to something or if you think the core identity of the ranger as a class concept is something else? Would you just fold it into rogue, or do you think it should be a standalone class? What sorts of features and abilities would a ranger have, according to this mechanical identity? What would be a good core class gimmick? I'm not looking for detailed writeups, just general thoughts of how things might work. I think a lot of classes could be folded together with options to specialize, so maybe rangers lack enough substance to exist as their own class.

[J-H]

Rangers do lack enough substance, I think. They're part rogue, part fighter, part druid.

The last part is probably why they still exist.

Source: Full caster -> Partial caster -> Non-caster with similar thematics
Divine: Cleric -> Paladin -> Fighter & Monk (training/conviction)
Arcane: Wizard/Sorc/Bard -> Eldritch Knight, Artificer -> Rogue (int-based, versatility)
Nature/Primal: Druid -> Ranger -> Barbarian (outdoorsy, some nature magic)

It's not a perfect chart or flow, and it leaves out Warlock, but I think it illustrates part of why Rangers exist. If they don't, then there's nothing on the nature/primitive/outdoors side of things between Druid and Barbarian when it comes to base classes. This is mostly true going back to 3rd edition, and maybe to 2nd edition.

[Kane0]

I think ranger makes a great counterpart to the Rogue. Rogues specialize in hiding and Rangers specialize (or should) in seeking. Theyre both stealthy, mobile and mostly self sufficient, but rangers make a habit of having a broad 'toolbelt' to make use of (a bit of combat stuff, a bit of spell stuff, a bit of skill stuff) rather than the rogue going all in on resourceless skills and action economy.
Rangers i think also fill a spot alongside the druid similar to how the paladin stands next to the cleric. They go about things in a different way but you can see the similiarities beyond just the basic concept of 'half caster, half martial'.
Actually, come to think of it Rangers almost fit that generic adventurer or fifth man archetype, capable in all areas but not excelling in any one. A great buddy to anyone in a dedicated role, but not quite a jack of all trades.

I remember the 3.5 scout class had a skirmish mechanic where movement increased your damage and AC for the turn, i think that would be a nice mirror to sneak attack for the ranger (especially in this edition with less sticky movement for the melee rangers oht there) without going back to hunters mark over and over.
I also think the hunter subclass was onto a good thing where you could pick from a small list of things to tailor your ranger style, which is pretty important since nobody can fully agree on what a ranger is. Have 3-5 options in the core class to choose from as you level up, which also nicely alleviates the need for the rangers spellcasting to pick up the slack. Ive already taken a stab at this idea in my sig, but i know its not everyones cup of tea.

[Tanarii]

Rangers are warriors with ambush and tracking skills and a touch of Druid magic, who know how to fight the enemies of civilization. That's what they've been from day one, and it's never changed.

What has changed is how much they added/leaned into a bunch of things.

in 2e: added archery or TWF fighting, made animal companions explicit instead of a spell, added moar Druid magic.

Then in 3e, even moar magic. In 3.5, they leaned into ambush / stealth.

4e added hunters mark as a core feature.

So now you have folks who think Ranger identity is somehow an archer rogue with an animal companion and hunters mark. :smallyuk: (This is not helped by Rogues becoming a Sub-type of warriors.)

[RogueJK]

Would you just fold it into rogue, or do you think it should be a standalone class?

There have been several large threads to that effect in the past few years. For example:

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?613876-Should-the-ranger-just-be-a-fighter-subclass

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?594497-Ranger-should-be-a-Rogue-or-Fighter-Subclass-Change-my-mind


While the Ranger is a bit of a "sacred cow" and has a long-standing legacy in D&D to the point where I doubt they'd ever do away with it... If they were so inclined, it'd be simple enough to fold Ranger into Rogue and Fighter, by having something like these four subclasses:

1) "Scout" or "Hunter": Rogue subclass that's the skilled tracker and scout archetype, similar in concept to the current Scout, but with better abilities, and it doesn't have to be overtly nature/outdoors-themed so that it can fit the "urban bounty hunter" role too.

2) "Fey Trickster": Rogue subclass that's a nature/fey-touched WIS-based 1/3 Druid caster, similar in concept to a Druidic Arcane Trickster, but with some charm-related abilities instead of the AT's thievery-related abilities.

3) "Green Knight": Fighter subclass that's a wilderness warrior with WIS-based 1/3 Druid spellcasting, similar in concept to a Druidic Eldritch Knight. (This one could even be a Monk subclass, in fact.)

4) "Beastmaster": Fighter subclass that's the animal pet/mount subclass, able to be set up to fulfill the role of either the outdoorsy guy with the independent animal sidekick or the mounted knight/cavalier with the trusty steed.


For the handful of Ranger-specific spells (9 total), some of those could be added in as abilities for some of the above subclasses (especially Hunter's Mark, Zephyr Strike, and Ensnaring Strike). From there, considering the other 6 Ranger exclusive spells all have to do with Archery, toss most of those onto the Arcane Archer 2.0 as additional subclass abilities... Lord know the poor Arcane Archer could use the boost! :smallbiggrin:

[Psyren]

Bob The World Builder had a diagram I found interesting; it's a concept that likely isn't new to anyone here, and it's lacking some nuance (on top of odd placements like Bard and Monk, plus missing the Artificer as Wizard/Thief), but here it is anyway:

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/945934606056685591/1073994413686145096/image.png


I bring it up because once you arrange it visually like this, Ranger's thematic niche and reason for being in the game is a lot clearer - Like all the other hybrids it has its place. I wouldn't advocate removing it or folding it into one of the others.

[LibraryOgre]

Rangers are warriors with ambush and tracking skills and a touch of Druid magic, who know how to fight the enemies of civilization. That's what they've been from day one, and it's never changed.

What has changed is how much they added/leaned into a bunch of things.

in 2e: added archery or TWF fighting, made animal companions explicit instead of a spell, added moar Druid magic.

Then in 3e, even moar magic. In 3.5, they leaned into ambush / stealth.

4e added hunters mark as a core feature.

So now you have folks who think Ranger identity is somehow an archer rogue with an animal companion and hunters mark. :smallyuk: (This is not helped by Rogues becoming a Sub-type of warriors.)

I'm not sure I agree with your summation of 2e rangers; they didn't have any particular archery ability, they didn't really have animal companions (they were better with animals than others, but they didn't get any specific training or handling abilities), and their magic actually got cut way back (from the whole Druid list, and some magic-user spells, to being two spheres).

The 1e ranger was 'What if Aragorn was a class?" He got bonuses to damage humanoids, he got to avoid surprise and use divination magic items, he got spells. However, since 2e, the ranger's concept has gotten wuzzy, and his abilities have gotten confused. As mentioned above, they share the "wilderness warrior" schtick with the barbarian. In 2e and 3e, a ranger's "bonus against humanoids" became "super-racism", where 2e granted a bonus to hit a certain kind of monster, at the expense of hating them so much that you couldn't interact with them, and 3e specifically forbade them from taking their own race as a favored enemy unless they were evil.

What's the solution? I have no idea.

[kazaryu]

So what I'm wondering is if you think I'm on to something or if you think the core identity of the ranger as a class concept is something else? IMO 'tracker is way too specific to be a class identity, at least the way DnD tends to be setup, where 'tracking' is a single skill check. What i think the rangers class identity should be is exactly what is implied by favored enemy/terrain. rangers are, first and foremost, specialists. they're specialized against particular enemies, and specialized at operating in particular terrain. they have some generalized survival/hunting skill, but those are just a product of being meant to be able to operate independently in the wild. and (until tasha's) i don't think that that narrative identity has actually changed that much, at least since 3e.


Would you just fold it into rogue, or do you think it should be a standalone class? What sorts of features and abilities would a ranger have, according to this mechanical identity? What would be a good core class gimmick? I'm not looking for detailed writeups, just general thoughts of how things might work. I think a lot of classes could be folded together with options to specialize, so maybe rangers lack enough substance to exist as their own class. i think the mechanics should lean more into the specialties. bring back combat benefits against favored enemies, much like the current rangers get benefits to certain skills within their specialized terrain. But even the favored terrain feature (sorry...natural explorer) is probably in need of some more unique buffs (basically any creature can get some of the best parts of it...and then some, with just a feat, and rogues can basically steal a rangers whole schtick...that aint right).

the 'problem' that this leads to is that rangers become..well, specialized. but not in general way. they're specialized in things that may or may not actually come up. And it think thats ok. Personally, I don't think that every class needs to be equally popular, im ok with rangers being niche, so long as they have the mechanical support for the role they're supposed to play. so...yeah, thats what i'd do, i'd add ways for favored enemy to be more prominent, particularly in combat with said favored enemy.

[RogueJK]

I'm not sure I agree with your summation of 2e rangers... they didn't really have animal companions (they were better with animals than others, but they didn't get any specific training or handling abilities)

That is true, until the kits in the 2E Complete Ranger's Handbook.

While all Rangers had the ability to gain animals as followers, the Ranger's Handbook is where explicit animal companions for certain Rangers originated, with kits like the Beastmaster and Falconer.

Then 3E took the "Rangers with Animal Companions" concept and ran with it, giving every Ranger an animal companion starting at Level 4.

[Tanarii]

I'm not sure I agree with your summation of 2e rangers; they didn't have any particular archery ability, they didn't really have animal companions (they were better with animals than others, but they didn't get any specific training or handling abilities), and their magic actually got cut way back (from the whole Druid list, and some magic-user spells, to being two spheres).
I'd have to double check on archery but they def became TWF specialists in 2e, and started casting spells at lower levels than 1e.

I may be mistaking 2e vs 3e when Animal Companion stopped being the result of an Animal Friendship spell and instead became a class feature.

But even so, main point is the core identity of wilderness warrior with ambush & tracking and Druid spells has held.

[Keltest]

Bob The World Builder had a diagram I found interesting; it's a concept that likely isn't new to anyone here, and it's lacking some nuance (on top of odd placements like Bard and Monk, plus missing the Artificer as Wizard/Thief), but here it is anyway:

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/945934606056685591/1073994413686145096/image.png


I bring it up because once you arrange it visually like this, Ranger's thematic niche and reason for being in the game is a lot clearer - Like all the other hybrids it has its place. I wouldn't advocate removing it or folding it into one of the others.

The bard's placement is probably a function of 1e AD&D bards literally being a fighter-thief-druid multiclass.

[Tanarii]

The bard's placement is probably a function of 1e AD&D bards literally being a fighter-thief-druid multiclass.
Dunno what Monk being a warrior/Wizard is about tho. Classically they were a subclass of Cleric with rogue-like skills. But that was only "cleric" insofar as "saves and attacks like a cleric" not "casts spells".

In 5e they're just a different kind of skirmisher/ambush warrior from Rogues.

[RogueJK]

Yep. They should be in the lower section where Cleric/Thief overlap instead.

[Tanarii]

Yep. They should be in the lower section where Cleric/Thief overlap instead.
Maybe the logic is they can kinda do some controlling with stunning strike. And clearly a martial 'controller' is part Wizard.

[Psyren]

I think the logic there might have been more the wearing nothing but cloth. Again though I don't agree with the placement.

[Kane0]

It seems the Ranger is missing something crucial to call its own like Smite or Sneak Attack. Well, i suppose you could make an argument for Favored Enemy but its not much more than a ribbon in its current form.

So spitballing an idea, give the base class the Hunter treatment. Have favored enemy
(with a damage bonus included), but also offer alternatives like skirmish (move for extra AC and damage, perhaps with a no heavy armor/shield limitation) or Quarry (limited uses per day, select one target and you plus allies gain damage bonus against it). This would mean the Ranger has a bit of a claim to fame by selecting their primary class feature from a small set of options (rule of three!) at level 1, without reducing it completely to a build-a-bear class.
You could do something similar with level 2 to an even more extreme degree, choosing between animal companion or spellcasting for example. Then sprinkle in the extra movement, perception and stealth features between that primary progression of those two features and other core chassis things like Extra Attack and ASIs.

[Unoriginal]

Favored Enemy is bad as a "main ability" to build around, because if you can't use a feature against most enemies it's going to be dead weight a lot of the time (and if the campaign focuses on facing the kind of enemies you're boosted against, it often creates other problems).

If you have a feature that is "good against all enemies, but even better against X", then that's different.

[Kane0]

Favored Enemy is bad as a "main ability" to build around, because if you can't use a feature against most enemies it's going to be dead weight a lot of the time (and if the campaign focuses on facing the kind of enemies you're boosted against, it often creates other problems).

Yeah that's right, here's hoping that having the choice to have something else is beneficial when looking at that situational aspect. You'd pick favoured enemy if you're going into a game knowing certain enemies will appear consistently, but even then it shouldnt be head and shoulders a better pick than the others.

Edit: but like Tasha's cantrip/spell known swapping you can always build in some assurance by letting it be swapped around

[Sorinth]

My take is that 99% of the ranger's perceived problems are they whiffed on the ranger specific spells.

Ignoring mechanics for a second the PHB description is a solid identity, "A warrior who uses martial prowess and nature magic to combat threats on the edges of civilization." And then later on there's this "Their spells, like their combat abilities, emphasize speed, stealth, and the hunt." I mean that's pretty solid fluff for an identity.

In terms of mechanics/combat role, if I was in charge I think I would put the focus on battlefield control/striker with build/spell choices causing the character to lean more into one versus the other. And to a large degree we can see that undercurrent to that already, Ranger unique spells like Ensnaring Strike, Zephyr Strike, Hail of Thorns and Hunter's Mark can push them towards that controller/striker niche. But the spells for the most part fall flat for a variety of reasons (Concentration, Action Economy, Low Spell DC), and that holds true even with the higher level spells like Cordon of Arrows, Conjure Barrage, and Lightning Arrow. And to top it off being a spells known caster makes taking those spells and thematic ones like Animal Friendship quite costly. Now we already saw with the playtest material that the new Ranger looks to be quite strong in terms of overall power which will probably reduce the "lack of identity" complaints (Assuming it doesn't get nerfed), but my big hope is that they fix the rest of the spell list so that they can truly be that blend martial prowess and nature magic in a fight that they are supposed to be.

[Greywander]

It seems the Ranger is missing something crucial to call its own like Smite or Sneak Attack.
Maybe a good angle for this would be to make Hunter's Mark a class feature. BA to use, no concentration, no resource cost, lasts forever (expands out-of-combat tracking potential), but you can only mark one target at a time. Build the rest of the class around this feature. At higher levels, Hunter's Mark could perhaps negate invisibility (and maybe blindness, too?) and grant its benefits to your party instead of just you. I feel like the ranger would need some kind of second gimmick, preferably one that either synergizes with Hunter's Mark, or one that covers some of the weaknesses of Hunter's Mark (e.g. something for dealing with hordes).

As for spells, I still think the base ranger should be spell-less, and like the fighter and rogue, have a caster subclass. Looking back at the original inspiration, Aragorn didn't cast spells. It would be hard to say he didn't use magic, because things aren't so cleanly divided between magical and mundane in LotR, but he certainly was no spellcaster. We can consider too that Aragorn wasn't just a ranger, but would have also been using a specific subclass, likely one oriented around nature. I still think the core class identity is that of a tracker, or, as Kane0 put it, a seeker. Hunter's Mark as a core class feature aligns with this perfectly, so I think that still works.

By the by, while we could just fold ranger into rogue or fighter, I think we can probably build a standalone class around this concept, too. I built my witch class around the concept of being a debuffer, and the whole thing is basically built around at-will Hex and Bane. While "seeker" might be more niche than "debuffer", building a class around Hunter's Mark could shake out similarly to building one around Bane and Hex. Heh, now I actually am itching to try writing up a ranger class along these lines.

[Kane0]

Maybe a good angle for this would be to make Hunter's Mark a class feature.

I feel like the ranger would need some kind of second gimmick, preferably one that either synergizes with Hunter's Mark, or one that covers some of the weaknesses of Hunter's Mark (e.g. something for dealing with hordes).


I'd prefer to dump Hunter's Mark like hot garbage myself, theres tons of better and more interesting things you could do in the same design space, even within the 'single out one guy in particular' premise.

[Justin Sane]

The Ranger should be the bounty hunter class. Right now, trying to fill that archetype seems to always require a weird multiclass build, and the overall concept is gaining some popularity within the cultural zeitgeist (the Mandalorian and the Witcher being the most notable recent examples).

Even Aragorn can be considered a bounty hunter - that one scene everyone references him for being a good tracker is just because he really wanted the bounty on those two halflings.

[Tanarii]

The Ranger should be the bounty hunter class. Right now, trying to fill that archetype seems to always require a weird multiclass build,
Rangers are already the bounty Hunter class. Why would it require Multiclassing?

[Waazraath]

Ignoring mechanics for a second the PHB description is a solid identity, "A warrior who uses martial prowess and nature magic to combat threats on the edges of civilization." And then later on there's this "Their spells, like their combat abilities, emphasize speed, stealth, and the hunt." I mean that's pretty solid fluff for an identity.

+1. This is as much a class identity as many other classes have.

Furthermore, as for animal companion: ad&d rangers got 2d6 (mostly) animal followers at lvl 10, so I think that started there (even though it was only 3.0 that called it animal companion - the same edition btw where the designers thought it a good idea to give a stronger version of that to the druid, which already was a full caster and had a very powerful wildshape option... *sigh*)

[Tanarii]

Animal companions started in AD&D (or earlier possibly) with the Animal Friendship spell. The primary animal companion class was Druids, not Rangers.

[Amechra]

Back in 2e, "good with animals" was a big part of the Ranger's schtick — in addition to the afore-mentioned animal followers, they had the (non-magical) power to improve (or worsen) how animals react to the party (bards actually got a similar power involving groups of people). This was useful back in 2e, because normal animals stayed threatening for way longer. Like, a bear attacking a party of 6th level characters was actually reasonably concerning, and using Animal Friendship or the like to befriend a pack of wolves (or whatever) was actually really impressive.

3e (and 5e) made animals weaker, though, so "warrior who is really good at tracking stuff and great with animals" no longer cuts it as a class identity.

[paladinn]

The original ranger was all about replicating Aragorn. He didn't cast spells in LotR; but he was able to use scrying-type items, and he had minor healing abilities (and not-so-minor in RotK) and was effective against the Nazgul. In OD&D, those were limited to magic-users and clerics; and so the spellcasting ranger came to be.

The 2e PHB lists Robin Hood as a ranger example, so archery got put into the mix; and Drizzt broke out the 2 scimitars, so TWF became another feature.

I prefer a spell-less ranger, because spellcasting doesn't really have much to do with the ranger's identity as a wilderness warrior who defends against the monsters of the wilderness. I see rangers as the special forces of the warrior "group". In Castles & Crusades, rangers have 2 special combat features: "Combat Marauder", which grants a +1 damage for every ranger level against humanoids and giants (the old "giant class" of 1e), and Favored Enemy, gained at L6, which grants +2 to hit, AC and tracking against one specific creature type. Not sure how/well that would translate into 5e features. I might want to change things around a little. The damage bonus vs humanoids might be a bit much? I can see a bonus to hit and/or AC against the humanoids. Still pondering.

The question then becomes, do those features justify having a separate class? Or might they work well/better with a fighter subclass?

[Sindal]

Thus thread topic always makes me lose a year of my life to read 😄

If you asked me what their identity is
I'd say "specialized mercenary"

They hunt. They track. They aid. They seem to be thr martial take has taken on the idea that an 'adventurers' lifestyle means moving around, getting places and getting stuff done to defend the people who are cosy I towns.

Sure everyone else also does that, but a fighter is made like a soldier. They strike me more as a 'commander'

Rogues , while similar, have an opportunistic feel to them. Ranger are opportunists too but their strengths lean more to attacking tough situations instead of finding cunning ways to dance around thr problem until it relents

The onednd ranger is fine by me and more or less aligns with the idea I have for them.

[stoutstien]

I've always been at a loss on what fuels the ranger's abilities. Do they become rangers because they have an innate understand of nature and where it meets more tamed lands? Are they purely "skilled" persons who have spent enough time learning the craft they become rangers? Is it granted by some being, power source, or ideal?

[Keltest]

I've always been at a loss on what fuels the ranger's abilities. Do they become rangers because they have an innate understand of nature and where it meets more tamed lands? Are they purely "skilled" persons who have spent enough time learning the craft they become rangers? Is it granted by some being, power source, or ideal?

Why does it have to be just one thing?

[Tanarii]

If you asked me what their identity is
I'd say "specialized mercenary"

They hunt. They track. They aid. They seem to be thr martial take has taken on the idea that an 'adventurers' lifestyle means moving around, getting places and getting stuff done to defend the people who are cosy I towns.I prefer Survivalist, bounty Hunter, Hunter, scout, frontiersman. They all imply both warrior capabilities and skills with natural environments,

Mercenary doesn't imply that at all to me, if anything the opposite. A merc is a city/urban guy who goes out in the field in big groups of other warriors that need supply lines, or at the least farms to pillage, to survive.


Sure everyone else also does that, but a fighter is made like a soldier. They strike me more as a 'commander' Unfortunately WotC stripped the Fighter of all their 'commander' class features in 3e. Now they're just someone capable of wearing heavy armor and attacking a bunch. They're line warriors who only become commanders if the DM decides they do for "story" reasons.


Rogues , while similar, have an opportunistic feel to them.Rogues have changed dramatically. They used to be non-combat specialists that stayed out of a fight or got pasted. Now they are agile warriors .... who are also very good skill monkeys.

[stoutstien]

Why does it have to be just one thing?

It doesn't necessarily need to be but classes tend to have similar sources and subclasses are used to define and hone that source. Since all rangers are casters I reckon it's important to have some idea on how that magic works as does their non-magical but maybe magic/other category abilities.

Can't really have a class identity based on "just fluff it".

[tieren]

I had the original box set as a kid and there were no rangers.

There were only a few base classes, and multiclassing was a pain, but regularly done to expand your toolbox. So there were tons of fighter/magic-user/thief, fighter/cleric, fighter/thief, etc...

Some of these became so common they were effectively archetypes unto themselves and started to appear as their own classes to make them more accessible than trying to master the multiclassing rules. So the fighter/cleric became the paladin, the fighter/magic-user/thief became the ranger, etc...

So to me the ranger has always just been the single class embodiment of an old school multiclass. It fills in the multiclass pretty good (fighting style, armor and weapon proficiency, half caster, stealth and evasion, etc...). I think it got muddied when all of the subclasses crept in to also try to scratch the multiclass itch to spread into the classic territory of another class (Arcane trickster, Eldritch Knight, etc...).

That 2e Ranger guide was one of my favorite resources they ever printed, I still have it just for nostalgia. I think they dialed in on the nature survival aspect to help it keep a separate niche from other combos of those class abilities, and still leave room for more custom styles achievable trough the multiclass system. For example if you want to be a bit more arcane than the typical ranger a fighter/wizard multiclass still might fit your concept more than a Ranger.

There is no need to fold it back into the classes it spawned from, if anything it could just be deleted and only let people combine these abilities through traditional multiclassing.

[paladinn]

I had the original box set as a kid and there were no rangers.

The ranger made its debut in Strategic Review magazine, the predecessor to Dragon. It had magic-user and cleric spells for the reason I previously explained. At the time there was no druid yet. And it had little to nothing thief-y about it.

As for "Why does it have to be one thing?" - it doesn't. But virtually every class does have "one thing" that is it's "calling card." Barbarians rage; paladins smite; rogues sneak attack; clerics turn undead; druids wildshape. Rangers' favored foe/enemy, "giant class" bonus, whatever was their "thing" at least till 4e. It's definitely gotten lost in the shuffle. I'd like to see that reworked as an always-on thing, with a "hunter's mark" "rider" x times/rest.

Say, rangers get a +2 bonus to hit and AC against their favored enemy, due to their knowledge of said enemy. They get hunter's mark a number of times equal to their proficiency bonus against any foe. If their marked foe is a favored enemy, they get Both.

I'd also fold some of the barbarian's abilities into the ranger. I've never cared for the barbarian as a class; it's a background.

[Eurus]

+1. This is as much a class identity as many other classes have.

I agree, I think the Ranger's conceptual/aesthetic identity is as clear as any other class's and I don't think that's really the problem. It's worth thinking about the fact that the Fighter intentionally has about as vague of a concept as you can have; "well trained and good at fighting, usually but not always with heavy armor, usually but not always nonmagical" doesn't really tell you much, but people don't seem to mind that nearly as much.

That being said, the Ranger's identity might need to change.



Rogues have changed dramatically. They used to be non-combat specialists that stayed out of a fight or got pasted. Now they are agile warriors .... who are also very good skill monkeys.

The evolution of the Rogue is actually a good comparison in that regard, I think, because the Rogue successfully made that jump a lot better. Becoming agile kidney-stabbing warriors rather than Bilbo Baggins style noncombat thieves was a necessary shift when combat is a central part of the game that everyone should be able to enjoy, rather than one minigame among many in a heist/exploration game. The Rogue had an identity before, and it has an identity now, but that identity needed to change to make it work mechanically as a class.

Frankly, I'd rather have a Ranger class that abandons the pretense of letting you play Aragorn and Drizzt and is just focused on having actually good mechanics, and figure out a new aesthetic around those.

[KorvinStarmast]

Rangers' favored foe/enemy, "giant class" bonus, whatever was their "thing" at least till 4e. It's definitely gotten lost in the shuffle. I'd like to see that reworked as an always-on thing, with a "hunter's mark" "rider" x times/rest. If you get to pick a favored foe, which you can in the PHB, then I agree with this:

rangers get a +2 bonus to hit and AC against their favored enemy, due to their knowledge of said enemy. They get hunter's mark a number of times equal to their proficiency bonus against any foe. If their marked foe is a favored enemy, they get Both. That would restore that aesthetic.

I'd also fold some of the barbarian's abilities into the ranger. I've never cared for the barbarian as a class; it's a background. Agree. Make it a sub class of Ranger.

[Snails]

Favored Enemy is bad as a "main ability" to build around, because if you can't use a feature against most enemies it's going to be dead weight a lot of the time (and if the campaign focuses on facing the kind of enemies you're boosted against, it often creates other problems).

If you have a feature that is "good against all enemies, but even better against X", then that's different.

Could not agree more.

A defining class ability should not be a Mother May I effect -- such is too much of a headache in terms of balancing too good with vs too crappy without.

As for scouting, Rangers are locked in direct competition with Rogues, who tend to win out due to Expertise. Thus the incentive to dip Rogue after 5th level. In other words, to be a great Ranger you need a level of Rogue, because the class is incomplete out of the box.

My inclination is to expand Hunter's Mark and fold Favored Enemy into that. The idea being to make Hunter's Mark much easier to use against your FE, but it is not fundamentally different in its benefits. Also, I would not have HM be a spell, but it is an ability that does require Concentration.

[Keltest]

Could not agree more.

A defining class ability should not be a Mother May I effect -- such is too much of a headache in terms of balancing too good with vs too crappy without.

As for scouting, Rangers are locked in direct competition with Rogues, who tend to win out due to Expertise. Thus the incentive to dip Rogue after 5th level. In other words, to be a great Ranger you need a level of Rogue, because the class is incomplete out of the box.

My inclination is to expand Hunter's Mark and fold Favored Enemy into that. The idea being to make Hunter's Mark much easier to use against your FE, but it is not fundamentally different in its benefits. Also, I would not have HM be a spell, but it is an ability that does require Concentration.

Ranger has pass without trace, which is stronger than expertise as well as coming online a lot earlier. Yeah, its a spell option, but rogues dont have to expertise stealth either.

[Snails]

Ranger has pass without trace, which is stronger than expertise as well as coming online a lot earlier. Yeah, its a spell option, but rogues dont have to expertise stealth either.

I am not satisfied with defining class abilities being specific spells. It is tolerable for Hunter's Mark, even if I dislike it and can understand why they did that. PwT competing with HM for Concentration forces a decision on the Ranger that I see as entirely unnecessary micromanaging. The Ranger has very limited spell slots as a half caster, already.

[Kane0]

I am not satisfied with defining class abilities being specific spells. It is tolerable for Hunter's Mark, even if I dislike it and can understand why they did that. PwT competing with HM for Concentration forces a decision on the Ranger that I see as entirely unnecessary micromanaging. The Ranger has very limited spell slots as a half caster, already.

Hunters mark, pass without trace, snare/cordon of arrows, beast bond, conjure barrage/volley, zephyr strike, swift quiver. Plenty of spells that could have been features, its not like the druid, nature cleric or ancients pally have a real claim over them.

[Tanarii]

Rangers' favored foe/enemy, "giant class" bonus, whatever was their "thing" at least till 4e.Personally for me the thing that always made rangers was Tracking. Still is in 5e for that matter.

Rangers are the ultimate scouts. They're the only class that can be a point man ahead of the group while stealthing at full speed, tracking foes or navigating (whichever is currently needed), and watching for danger/ambushes, all at the same time. Any other character moves at half speed, and will automatically be ambushed by enemies if they are attempting to track or navigate at the same time.


Frankly, I'd rather have a Ranger class that abandons the pretense of letting you play Aragorn and Drizzt and is just focused on having actually good mechanics, and figure out a new aesthetic around those.
They already have actually good mechanics in the 5e PHB. About the only tweak that's prob a good idea is to let the non-proficiency parts of Natural Explorer work in any terrain if you're going to run it as applying to micro-terrains instead of macro-terrains.

On archetypes, personally I never saw Aragorn in the Ranger class personally. The Drizzt thing impacting 2e Rangers was annoying, especially since his twf came from being Drow (per 1e UA), not being a Ranger.

What I have seen as a far more common modern expectation of rangers is World of Warcraft Hunters. Ranged weapon specialists, maybe with some cool control/escape effects with a small finesse weapon, and animal companions.

[paladinn]

Personally for me the thing that always made rangers was Tracking. Still is in 5e for that matter.

I agree; but you must admit, tracking is at least a bit of a ribbon ability. There needs to be more that defines a ranger.



Rangers are the ultimate scouts.

Should be; but then what do you do with the scout rogue?
Actually I liked the ranger/scout multiclass kit from 3e. Total butt-kicking scout



On archetypes, personally I never saw Aragorn in the Ranger class personally. The Drizzt thing impacting 2e Rangers was annoying, especially since his twf came from being Drow (per 1e UA), not being a Ranger.

Totally agree about Drizzt. I guess one could argue that Legolas was a ranger too. But I think there needs to be room for Aragorn as a ranger because he was.. well.. a Ranger.



What I have seen as a far more common modern expectation of rangers is World of Warcraft Hunters. Ranged weapon specialists, maybe with some cool control/escape effects with a small finesse weapon, and animal companions.
In 4e, rangers were almost completely defined as archers. In fact, they were seen as filling the "martial controller" cell in the class grid, because they were pretty-strictly ranged fighters. I disagree. There are too many examples of tough-as-nails wilderness melee fighters to limit the class. Besides Aragorn, Hawkeye (from Last of the Mohicans) comes to mind. In fact, a lot of what's expected from D&D barbarians (minus the rage) would work well for the ranger class. IMO

[KorvinStarmast]

I agree; but you must admit, tracking is at least a bit of a ribbon ability.
Hardly. Finding and following enemies is a valuable skill, but there's an unfortunate lack of that mind set unless one leans into why you'd want to incorporate that skill into a game.


Should be; but then what do you do with the scout rogue? It's a nice kit, but honestly it seemed to me redundant.

[Tanarii]

I agree; but you must admit, tracking is at least a bit of a ribbon ability. There needs to be more that defines a ranger.
It sure as heck wasn't IMC. But if you're running a linear combat-as-sport adventure it could be.

Given how much they've leaned into that kind of play since WotC took over, it's entire possible that the designers considered it to be a ribbon when writing it.


Should be; but then what do you do with the scout rogue?Laugh at how they don't stack up?

(True if Rangers get their "ribbon", but e.g. in a dungeon any Dex char with Stealth and Investigation/Perception is on an even footing.)

[Doug Lampert]

In 4e, rangers were almost completely defined as archers. In fact, they were seen as filling the "martial controller" cell in the class grid, because they were pretty-strictly ranged fighters. I disagree. There are too many examples of tough-as-nails wilderness melee fighters to limit the class. Besides Aragorn, Hawkeye (from Last of the Mohicans) comes to mind. In fact, a lot of what's expected from D&D barbarians (minus the rage) would work well for the ranger class. IMO

Um, rangers in 4th were strikers, highest damage class in the game, and it wasn't particularly close. They also worked BEST with two swords.

I'm not sure what class you're talking about, but it's not a PHB 4th edition ranger.

[Amnestic]

My hypothetical from-scratch ranger would be focusing on the monster hunter aspect - their subclasses would be geared towards a monster type that are broadly applicable even when not fighting that specific type - (dragon hunter might do 'elemental' resistances, fey hunter might do charm resistances, etc.

Also it would have a pet. They'd be the pet class. That's their "core feature" like Rage or Sneak attack or whatever. They've got a little dude with them. The 'pact boon' of the ranger, perhaps.

Maybe you could replace it with an alternate class feature for the "lone ranger" (heh) style character, if you really wanted to, but the core would have a pet.


Um, rangers in 4th were strikers, highest damage class in the game, and it wasn't particularly close. They also worked BEST with two swords.

I'm not sure what class you're talking about, but it's not a PHB 4th edition ranger.


They might be thinking of Seekers - a 'primal' controller character that, I believe, was ranged-focused.

[Theodoxus]

I agree that the Ranger should be the default pet class. Most people seem to want to pull Hunter into the base class, but I think Beast Master (Tasha's version, or similar) should be rolled into base.

If the Animal Companion works similar to Smite or Sneak Attack, that gives the class it's niche while also giving it a small bump in power. I think the Hunter could then be pushed to the 'lone wolf' aspect sans pet, probably giving a small bump in power to the level 3 options (Giant Slayer, et al) maybe doubling the dice on the options...

[GloatingSwine]

The original ranger identity was Aragorn, the guy who knew the wilds like the back of his hand and was a little bit magical.

Then it was Drizz't so they got dual wielding for reasons (mostly because two swords is twice as cool when you're a drow edgeboy).

I would suggest that the modern ranger identity should be Geralt. Professional monster hunter, not in the "favoured enemy" sense but in the knowledge of and ability to prepare for all sorts of different beasties, with a little bit of magic. A "has the right tools for the job" class as long as the job is "killing something you prepped for in advance".

[Particle_Man]

I would suggest that the modern ranger identity should be Geralt. Professional monster hunter, not in the "favoured enemy" sense but in the knowledge of and ability to prepare for all sorts of different beasties, with a little bit of magic. A "has the right tools for the job" class as long as the job is "killing something you prepped for in advance".

I wonder if one could borrow some traits from the 3.5 Factotum? The inspiration mechanic could be subsumed into having the right tool/potion for the job.

[paladinn]

Um, rangers in 4th were strikers, highest damage class in the game, and it wasn't particularly close. They also worked BEST with two swords.

I'm not sure what class you're talking about, but it's not a PHB 4th edition ranger.

I misspoke. The ranger in the PHB was indeed a melee fighter. But over time, as classes were developed to fill in slots in the class "grid" (defined by role and power source) the question rose, "What is a martial controller?" The answer from WotC was an archer ranger; and as that was the unique function, it kind of stuck.

[animorte]

There have been several large threads to that effect in the past few years.
That was my first thought exactly. "Oh, this topic again!"


Bob The World Builder had a diagram I found interesting; it's a concept that likely isn't new to anyone here, and it's lacking some nuance (on top of odd placements like Bard and Monk, plus missing the Artificer as Wizard/Thief), but here it is anyway:

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/945934606056685591/1073994413686145096/image.png


I bring it up because once you arrange it visually like this, Ranger's thematic niche and reason for being in the game is a lot clearer - Like all the other hybrids it has its place. I wouldn't advocate removing it or folding it into one of the others.
Of course, this could use some updating and I've put together a few similar concepts myself. I always enjoy seeing other diagrams, thanks!

My personal thoughts on the Ranger are covered well enough by that graph. It should be one of the best classes at being able to survive off the land very well (sure that could just be a background). I like that it also has a variety in how you choose to play it (I mean, everything does really), being able to accomplish many different things.

[Witty Username]

Dunno what Monk being a warrior/Wizard is about tho. Classically they were a subclass of Cleric with rogue-like skills. But that was only "cleric" insofar as "saves and attacks like a cleric" not "casts spells".

In 5e they're just a different kind of skirmisher/ambush warrior from Rogues.

I figure it was the theme of 'enlightenment' based superpowers, knowledge, understanding and what have you. By that read it is one of maybe 3 classes that cares about understanding things (wizard, monk, and ranger)

[Schwann145]

There are so many problems with trying to make "Ranger" fit in what D&D has become that it's probably never going to feel right.

Essentially, a "Ranger" is a gestalt Fighter/Rogue with a little bit of Druidic magic and/or Animal Companion thrown in for flavor.
Obviously, you can't have that. Balance and fairness and whatnot...

So instead what we end up with is a class that is "a little bit of fighter" and "a little bit of Rogue" with a little bit of Druidic magic and/or Animal Companion thrown in for flavor.
Except the problem you run into with this is that... Rogue basically already fills this, minus the nature-y stuff.

Once upon a time, Rogue had it's own niche. No one else could hide in shadows, or pick locks, or climb sheer walls, etc. And, in turn, Rogues were not made for combat. You had your Backstab so that you weren't totally useless, but you just didn't survive in a straight-up fight.
Well, ever since 3rd Edition introduced the Skill system, the Rogue niche has vanished. Now everyone can do skills like hiding in shadows or picking locks. So, to make up for that, the Rogue has become increasingly better in combat as editions progressed.

What we're left with is now Rogues are pretty good at combat, but not as good as Fighters. And they're pretty good at skills, but nowhere near as good as they used to be. And this is exactly what Rangers "are."


The other side of the coin is that, basically, everything that a Ranger is supposed to be excellent at is things that play, at best, a minimal role in modern D&D gaming.
Tracking? Comes up once in a blue moon, but not very often, and magic does it better than you anyway.
Surviving the wild? A tier 1 problem that you grow out of almost immediately, and magic does it better than you anyway.
Knowing specific monster information? Monsters aren't designed with rare and specific information to know in the first place. And the not-so-rare information you actually can sus out is something anyone can do (and Int-based classes do it better than you anyway).

Basically, everything you can come up with (in this thread, or any other thread like it) that Rangers are supposed to be good for is either no longer relevant after tier 1, handled better by magic spells, or both.

The one exception is being "the pet class." That can remain relevant past tier 1. However, I'd pity any class that is saddled with that role, since 5e actively hates anything that could give an action-economy advantage. Summoning, Conjuring, Pets in general, have been nerfed into the ground in 5e, and while it might be a flavorful role, it will be stuck as a mechanically weak one.

[Greywander]

I still think the nature theming is something that should be left to a subclass. Urban rangers are a thing, so perhaps a good route to go would be to take the traditional nature-y ranger and compare it to an urban ranger and see what abilities they have in common, and that's the base class. For example, we can compare Aragorn and, say, Batman (though I wouldn't normally peg Batman as a ranger, but he does hit a lot of the right notes).

I think some people are also getting hung up on the "tracking" aspect as literally just following tracks in the dirt. Rather, I think this would expand to many forms of awareness, detection, and divination. I can see high level rangers getting permanent truesight, for example, and blindsight earlier. If the class was built around some kind of Hunter's Mark gimmick, I could see pushing the range of that out to infinite, so long as you can see/detect the target. Speaking of, there's also that one eagle barbarian ability to see out to a mile, which would work well as a standard ranger feature.

I feel like rangers should also be semi-autonomous: they're ideal for scouting in part because they're less reliant on having a party to back them up. That's kind of tricky to do because you don't want to just make them good at everything, but there might be a way to make them balanced within a party but better than average when going solo. I'm also thinking this can play back into the mobility thing where they have an ability that allows them to rejoin the party from far away, e.g. by using a hidden path or shortcut that allows them to just pop out right next to the party. This makes it a bit easier for them to go off on their own thing without getting trapped.


My hypothetical from-scratch ranger would be focusing on the monster hunter aspect - their subclasses would be geared towards a monster type that are broadly applicable even when not fighting that specific type - (dragon hunter might do 'elemental' resistances, fey hunter might do charm resistances, etc.
Interestingly, I wrote up a Slayer (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?643467-Laying-the-groundwork-for-a-Slayer-class) class, mostly drawing inspiration from the Doom Slayer and from Goblin Slayer, that does pretty much what you're suggesting here. The end result sort of feels like a barbarian/ranger multiclass almost, so there might be some aspects of this homebrew class that I could repurpose for a rewritten ranger. I've written the subclasses in such a way that they make you effective against a particular type of monster without pigeonholing you. The demon slayer can negate Magic Resistance, which is a common trait among fiends, but fiends aren't the only creatures with Magic Resistance. The dragon slayer can knock enemies prone on a crit, which is bad news for any flying creature, not just dragons, and is even still an inconvenience to non-flying creatures. It makes you great at hunting your chosen prey, but still good at hunting enemies with similar abilities, which is how a proper Favored Foe type of trait should look.

That said, I'm not sure if I'd want to do the subclasses this way. Perhaps we could have a distinct split between "slayer" rangers, whose subclass revolves around killing certain types of monsters, and "themed" rangers, whose subclasses steer away from the monster slaying and more towards a thematic concept, such as a hard-boiled detective or wilderness expert. The monster slaying aspect could also be used for other customizable features, like how the fighter gets to choose fighting styles or the warlock gets invocations.

[Kane0]

For example, we can compare Aragorn and, say, Batman (though I wouldn't normally peg Batman as a ranger, but he does hit a lot of the right notes).

I can see high level rangers getting permanent truesight, for example, and blindsight earlier. Speaking of, there's also that one eagle barbarian ability to see out to a mile, which would work well as a standard ranger feature.


Sounds good to me, throw in the witcher as a third comparison point though.

[T.G. Oskar]

It seems the Ranger is missing something crucial to call its own like Smite or Sneak Attack. Well, i suppose you could make an argument for Favored Enemy but its not much more than a ribbon in its current form.

So spitballing an idea, give the base class the Hunter treatment. Have favored enemy
(with a damage bonus included), but also offer alternatives like skirmish (move for extra AC and damage, perhaps with a no heavy armor/shield limitation) or Quarry (limited uses per day, select one target and you plus allies gain damage bonus against it). This would mean the Ranger has a bit of a claim to fame by selecting their primary class feature from a small set of options (rule of three!) at level 1, without reducing it completely to a build-a-bear class.
You could do something similar with level 2 to an even more extreme degree, choosing between animal companion or spellcasting for example. Then sprinkle in the extra movement, perception and stealth features between that primary progression of those two features and other core chassis things like Extra Attack and ASIs.

I've thought of the latter (giving Spellcasting to a limited degree OR Animal Companion, in the same way a Druid could have 9th level spells OR the ability to Wild Shape, but not both), but the former makes Favored Enemy pointless, because you want the other bonuses as they're better applicable.

Favored Enemy shouldn't be their main feature - insofar as it was in 3.x. Rather, though they may be stepping on the toes of the Rogue, a "Quarry" effect would be great. (Skirmish as an alternative option works too!) The idea is to grant them precision damage, but limited to one enemy they choose at a time in combat. The damage would progress slower than the Rogue's Sneak Attack, but would apply effectively at all times - I say "effectively" because it'd probably be 1/turn (much like the Rogue's Sneak Attack), but without requiring a specific kind of weapon or having an ally close. The caveat is that it only applies to that single enemy. It makes the Ranger single out a specific threat rather than spread the damage.

Once that's established, then Favored Enemy could be married to it. How? Have the precision damage from that feature apply to those Favored Enemies chosen without activating the feature. So, if you're fighting, say, Humans and Orcs, and you have "Human" as Favored Enemy, you could single out the toughest Orc and still get the damage bonus against all remaining Humans. The idea is that the Ranger's so used to fighting these creatures, it knows how to damage them further. Grant the Ranger the option to change their Favored Enemy and that's it.

This way, a Ranger can still remain useful even if their Favored Enemy isn't part of combat. If it appears, then it makes the battle only slightly easier, but it doesn't penalize you for not facing it, as most of the features would still function otherwise. Natural Explorer could also work this way, getting you the bonus on any fight within that terrain. (Note that this would be in addition to the bonuses, which could be absolutely ribbon-y for all I care.)

In short, I believe that the Ranger should step on the toes of the Rogue, as the latter already has other defining aspects (such as greater skill accessibility, as well as Cunning Action in this edition which is pretty ballsy; Vanish comes WAY too late to be effective, and only because it's essentially the only way to add Hide in Plain Sight.) YMMV on whether they should retain their spellcasting or not, but they should hold an edge in combat against the Rogue because of their martial training. (And if that means they're working better than a Fighter, then that's a Fighter problem, not a mechanical problem.)


Personally for me the thing that always made rangers was Tracking. Still is in 5e for that matter.

Rangers are the ultimate scouts. They're the only class that can be a point man ahead of the group while stealthing at full speed, tracking foes or navigating (whichever is currently needed), and watching for danger/ambushes, all at the same time. Any other character moves at half speed, and will automatically be ambushed by enemies if they are attempting to track or navigate at the same time.

As others have mentioned, the issue with Tracking is that it has to be enabled in order to be successful. To contrast: it's about as exciting as having a Wizard use Astral Projection to do the scouting. The Wizard is alone, while the rest of the team is waiting for the results. Most DMs see the rest of their players bored and figure out this isn't very good for the table, so they quietly slip it away, unless they've got an excuse to add them all - and if half the party is wearing clunky armor, that's not gonna be very good.

(For those who've played Shadowrun - a Ranger doing Tracking is as exciting as a Decker on the Matrix. One player gets essentially a solo mission, the rest have to wait until that player does the solo mission.)

Because of this, making the Ranger the best at Tracking doesn't help it on the long run. Doesn't mean they *shouldn't* be - it means that, when the moment comes to Track creatures or do scouting, they should be superior to the rest, but they shouldn't focus exclusively on that. Have the Ranger gain a defining feature that can be used at all times, and being the "great Tracker/Scout" as a secondary, probably with things that can bleed into combat.

(Same for navigating. The DM only requires navigation if there's something worth for doing so; else, it's just bogging down story progression and speed of play. Tracking...well, it's a great story mechanic, but it only works if it involves everyone in the party.)


What I have seen as a far more common modern expectation of rangers is World of Warcraft Hunters. Ranged weapon specialists, maybe with some cool control/escape effects with a small finesse weapon, and animal companions.

Blame it on cross-pollination. WoW Hunters owe most of their identity to D&D Rangers, particularly on the realm of animal companions.


The original ranger identity was Aragorn, the guy who knew the wilds like the back of his hand and was a little bit magical.

Then it was Drizz't so they got dual wielding for reasons (mostly because two swords is twice as cool when you're a drow edgeboy).

I would suggest that the modern ranger identity should be Geralt. Professional monster hunter, not in the "favoured enemy" sense but in the knowledge of and ability to prepare for all sorts of different beasties, with a little bit of magic. A "has the right tools for the job" class as long as the job is "killing something you prepped for in advance".

I fully agree with your sentiment, if not exactly on the execution.

Geralt is an amazing twist to the Ranger archetype; not an "outdoors-y woodsman/hunter" guy, but as you said, a professional monster hunter who has enough lore to identify the creature to face (therefore allowing them to figure out their weaknesses), an almost encyclopedic lore of mutagens and poisons to enhance itself in combat and weaken their quarry, a set of combat skills to face them, and augmentations to help them weather the worst of their blows.

However, mechanically, something like the Witcher works best as a side quest rather than a class mechanic - something better resolved through roleplaying rather than through character progression. The only thing that could apply is the equivalent to the augmentations and the "Signs", the latter being already applicable through the Ranger's limited magical ability.

That said: I'd definitely love to see a "Witcher" Ranger archetype. Probably a focus on poisons that bypass resistance, mutagens that provide temporary bonuses, a couple of cantrips and a supernatural way to detect tracks and clues.

[Kane0]

Favored Enemy shouldn't be their main feature - insofar as it was in 3.x. Rather, though they may be stepping on the toes of the Rogue, a "Quarry" effect would be great. (Skirmish as an alternative option works too!)

Because of this, making the Ranger the best at Tracking doesn't help it on the long run. Doesn't mean they *shouldn't* be - it means that, when the moment comes to Track creatures or do scouting, they should be superior to the rest, but they shouldn't focus exclusively on that. Have the Ranger gain a defining feature that can be used at all times, and being the "great Tracker/Scout" as a secondary, probably with things that can bleed into combat.

(Same for navigating. The DM only requires navigation if there's something worth for doing so; else, it's just bogging down story progression and speed of play. Tracking...well, it's a great story mechanic, but it only works if it involves everyone in the party.)

That said: I'd definitely love to see a "Witcher" Ranger archetype. Probably a focus on poisons that bypass resistance, mutagens that provide temporary bonuses, a couple of cantrips and a supernatural way to detect tracks and clues.

Well I do have this sitting around if it interests:




Level
Prof
Special Abilities
Spells Known
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th


1
2
Natural Explorer, Quarry
-
-
-
-
-
-


2
2
Fighting Style, Nature's Boon, Spellcasting
2
2
-
-
-
-


3
2
Clade
3
3
-
-
-
-


4
2
ASI
3
3
-
-
-
-


5
3
Extra Attack, Primal Focus
4
4
2
-
-
-


6
3
Nature's Boon
5
4
2
-
-
-


7
3
Clade Feature
5
4
3
-
-
-


8
3
ASI
6
4
3
-
-
-


9
4
-
7
4
3
2
-
-


10
4
Nature's Boon
7
4
3
2
-
-


11
4
Clade Feature
8
4
3
3
-
-


12
4
ASI
9
4
3
3
-
-


13
5
-
9
4
3
3
1
-


14
5
Nature's Boon
10
4
3
3
1
-


15
5
Clade Feature
11
4
3
3
2
-


16
5
ASI
11
4
3
3
2
-


17
6
-
12
4
3
3
3
1


18
6
Nature's Boon
13
4
3
3
3
1


19
6
ASI
13
4
3
3
3
2


20
6
Foe Slayer
14
4
3
3
3
2



Hit Dice: d8
Armor Proficiencies: Light Armor, Medium Armor & Shields
Weapon Proficiencies: Simple & Martial Weapons
Saving Throws Proficiencies: Strength & Dexterity
Skill Proficiencies: Choose three from Acrobatics, Athletics, Insight, Intimidation, Investigation, Lore (History, Nature), Medicine, Stealth, Survival, Thievery
Other Proficiencies: Choose one from Cartographer’s tools, Navigator’s Tools, Land or Water vehicles or one Language of your choice

Level 1: Natural Explorer
You gain your choice of either a Climb or Swim speed equal to your movement speed.
In addition, 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 as long as they can see and hear you.

Level 1: Quarry
When you hit a creature with an attack roll, you can mark the target for 1 minute or until you lose your concentration as if you were concentrating on a spell.
Once per turn, when you or an ally within 10 feet of you hit the target with an attack and deal damage to it (including when you mark it) the attack deals an additional 1d4 damage.
You can use this feature to mark your Quarry a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus, and you regain all expended uses when you finish a long rest.
This feature's extra damage increases to 1d6 at 6th level and to 1d8 at 14th level, and extends to allies within 30 feet of you at 10th level.

Level 1 Alternative: Skirmish (replaces Quarry)
While you are not wearing heavy armor and not wielding a shield, when you move 20 feet or more on your turn you add +2 to your AC and +1d6 to weapon damage rolls until the start of your next turn.
At 6th level this extra damage increases to +2d6 and at 10th level +3d6

Level 2: Fighting Style
As per the books, but I made up some extras

Level 2: Spellcasting
As per the books, but add Elemental Weapon and Find Steed to the spell list

Level 2: Nature's Boon
At level 2 and again at levels 6, 10, 14 and 18 choose one from the options below:

Camouflage: When you take the Hide action you become invisible until you move more than 5 feet during your turn, make an attack or cast a spell. Becoming Invisible in this way requires your concentration, as if concentrating on a spell.
If selected a second time, if you move more than 5 feet, make an attack or cast a spell you remain invisible until the start of your next turn.
Healing Salves: As a part of a long rest, you can prepare a number of medicinal salves equal to your Wisdom modifier (minimum 1). Each salve restores HP equal to 1d8 + Ranger level and can be applied to a creature using an action. Unused salves expire at the end of a long rest.
If selected a second time, each healing salve applied a creature also provides the benefits of a Lesser Restoration spell or removes one level of exhaustion.
Honed Senses: You gain Darkvision out to a range of 60 feet and can take the Search action as a bonus action.
If selected a second time, you gain Blindsight out to a range of 60 feet.
Land's Stride: Spells and magical effects cannot reduce your movement speed, and you can ignore nonmagical difficult terrain.
If selected a second time, you increase all your movement speeds by 10 feet and gain advantage on saving throws against being being Paralysed, Restrained or Stunned
Primal Connection: You learn one Druid cantrip of your choice plus gain additional spells that do not count against your number of spells Known and can each be cast once per long rest without expending a spell slot: Speak With Animals at 2nd level, Beast Sense at 5th level, Speak with Plants at 9th level, Locate Creature at 13th level and Commune with Nature at 17th level.
If selected a second time, you change to the Druid method of spellcasting (ie Level + Wis spells prepared with Ritual Casting), drawing from both the Druid and Ranger spell lists. Your spell slot progression does not change.

Level 3: Clade
As per the books, but i'm working on it

Level 4: ASI
As per the books

Level 5: Extra Attack
As per the books

Level 5: Primal Focus
You regain one expended use of your Quarry feature at the end of a short rest.

Level 5 Alternative: Favored Enemy (replaces Primal Focus)
Select two creatures types (or two bloodraces* if you select Humanoids). Creatures of these types that you target with your Quarry feature or a casting of Hunter's Mark do not expend a use of the feature or spell slot.
*I break classify humanoids by three broad categories: the ones that bleed red (humans, demihumans, etc), the ones that bleed blue (reptilian, draconic, etc) and the ones that bleed green (goblinoid, orcish, etc)

Level 20: Foe Slayer
You can add your Wisdom bonus (min 1) to attack and damage rolls you make against your Quarry (or Favored Enemy or while your Skirmish ability is active)

[GloatingSwine]

I fully agree with your sentiment, if not exactly on the execution.

Geralt is an amazing twist to the Ranger archetype; not an "outdoors-y woodsman/hunter" guy, but as you said, a professional monster hunter who has enough lore to identify the creature to face (therefore allowing them to figure out their weaknesses), an almost encyclopedic lore of mutagens and poisons to enhance itself in combat and weaken their quarry, a set of combat skills to face them, and augmentations to help them weather the worst of their blows.

However, mechanically, something like the Witcher works best as a side quest rather than a class mechanic - something better resolved through roleplaying rather than through character progression. The only thing that could apply is the equivalent to the augmentations and the "Signs", the latter being already applicable through the Ranger's limited magical ability.

That said: I'd definitely love to see a "Witcher" Ranger archetype. Probably a focus on poisons that bypass resistance, mutagens that provide temporary bonuses, a couple of cantrips and a supernatural way to detect tracks and clues.

I think it's something you can put more of the core class on.

One of the key identity elements of the ranger is the favoured enemy, but it's always been super weird because it can't be too much of the class mechanically because it is conditional on what the adventure contains and almost any possible choice is only going to last so long before it becomes irrelevant due to the enemy treadmill of D&D and they keep wobbling around adding more favoured enemies or letting you change it with wooly narrative restrictions.

So take everything that you would think of putting into favoured enemy and scale it to an appropriate level of power for something the player can change somewhat at will (long rest and spending some material components/using an appropriate focus for the thing to be hunted) and call it something like "prepared for the hunt". So features of favoured enemy and valid targets would come online as the character takes levels in ranger.

[Trask]

To those who say the Ranger lacks identity (in principle) I would counter that it has about as much identity as a Paladin does when the Cleric and Fighter exist. Especially in 5e with how watered down the Paladin is as a whole (seriously, forget good, let alone lawful good, many of these new oaths are "I do whatever the f#@k I want Paladins). I think that just doesn't get as much attention because the mechanics are strong and highly appealing for class fantasy. Really I think Paladin and Ranger are kind of a mirror for each other, I'd go back to that.

I think Rangers should've gotten something akin to Divine Smite to spend spell slots on, something that cuts right to the core of what sets the Ranger apart. I might've picked something that boosts an attack roll rather than damage, to really give the feeling that the ranger is the ultimate Hunter. He hits things that no one else can, wings arrows that never should have landed. He's keen of eye, swift of foot, skilled in magical lore, a hunter without peer who protects civilization and the weak on its outskirts from things that go bump in the night. And much how the Dunedain of middle earth were feared and misunderstood, so are D&D Rangers. Dark eyed, scarred faced, scowling at the night, this is no beaming Paladin of law, but a warrior who fights for good on his own terms. The ultimate Chaotic Good character.

Basically Paladins are Superman and Rangers are Batman.

[windgate]

Ranger should never have been implemented as a standalone class. It should have been implemented as a wilderness focused subclass/prestige for a rogue or fighter. Its niche status (outdoors) makes it difficult to make relevant in many settings.

What are we basically looking at for core theme?
* good at outdoor skill checks
* Mobility when outdoors
* Possible access to a natural animal companion and/or limited spell casting
* Communicating and/or training animals

The 5e Scout subclass for a rogue feels like a ranger already (Mobility, and expertise in outdoors things). People want an animal companion and spellcasting too, but that could be done with restrictive 1/3 spellcaster progression.

(edit: in the scout's place. give them the 1/3 spell casting feature from the druid list instead of the current skirmisher feature)

I would actually say similar things about the monk. They might have been better implemented as a modification of the Barbarian or fighter.

[windgate]

Um, rangers in 4th were strikers, highest damage class in the game, and it wasn't particularly close. They also worked BEST with two swords.

I'm not sure what class you're talking about, but it's not a PHB 4th edition ranger.


Yeah, 4e Rangers were downright broken (when built by a min/maxer) as damage dealers. very little came even close to competing with them. Ranged attack versions were not as powerful but were still at the top of the rankings charts. I don't remember them having a pet in that edition though.

[stoutstien]

Ranger should never have been implemented as a standalone class. It should have been implemented as a wilderness focused subclass/prestige for a rogue or fighter. Its niche status (outdoors) makes it difficult to make relevant in many settings.

What are we basically looking at for core theme?
* good at outdoor skill checks
* Possible access to a natural animal companion and/or limited spell casting
* Communicating and/or training animals

The 5e Scout subclass for a rogue feels like a ranger already (Mobility, and expertise in outdoors things). People want an animal companion and spellcasting too, but that could be done with restrictive 1/3 spellcaster progression.


I would actually say similar things about the monk. They might have been better implemented as a modification of the Barbarian or fighter.

This is why I think power source is important. If a ranger is just *outdoor stuff+ some magic+ some weapon stuff* is hard to keep it's identity and niche. How and why are more important than what.

So what if rangers where closer to paladins in that they are bound by an ethos or oath (same for monks really)? What would a rangers ethos be and how would it manifest?

[Sorinth]

To those who say the Ranger lacks identity (in principle) I would counter that it has about as much identity as a Paladin does when the Cleric and Fighter exist. Especially in 5e with how watered down the Paladin is as a whole (seriously, forget good, let alone lawful good, many of these new oaths are "I do whatever the f#@k I want Paladins). I think that just doesn't get as much attention because the mechanics are strong and highly appealing for class fantasy. Really I think Paladin and Ranger are kind of a mirror for each other, I'd go back to that.

I think Rangers should've gotten something akin to Divine Smite to spend spell slots on, something that cuts right to the core of what sets the Ranger apart. I might've picked something that boosts an attack roll rather than damage, to really give the feeling that the ranger is the ultimate Hunter. He hits things that no one else can, wings arrows that never should have landed. He's keen of eye, swift of foot, skilled in magical lore, a hunter without peer who protects civilization and the weak on its outskirts from things that go bump in the night. And much how the Dunedain of middle earth were feared and misunderstood, so are D&D Rangers. Dark eyed, scarred faced, scowling at the night, this is no beaming Paladin of law, but a warrior who fights for good on his own terms. The ultimate Chaotic Good character.

Basically Paladins are Superman and Rangers are Batman.

Although a smite like ability would be fine, I still think if they had simply made spells like Hail of Thorns, Zephyr Strike, Ensnaring Strike, etc... work properly then there would be no need for a ranger smite. Now I can see how from a design point of view there's some value in having Ranger and Paladin be a sort of opposite mirror of each other, and so if creating a Primal Smite for Rangers rather then just pure single target damage like the Paladin, the Ranger should either go AoE or Control. So for example if the Primal Smite did 1d10 damage to the target and each enemy within 5ft of it (Basically Hail of Thorns) it wouldn't be as good against single targets as the Paladin so they still maintain their role of single target damage dealer, but the Ranger can still quite often find situations where they do more overall damage.

[LibraryOgre]

But even so, main point is the core identity of wilderness warrior with ambush & tracking and Druid spells has held.

Definitely, that's the core skill set. The question is does it constitute an identity?

[Theodoxus]

Definitely, that's the core skill set. The question is does it constitute an identity?

The question back is "Does any other class embody that core skill set?" If yes, then it's not an identity, it's a playstyle. If no, then it might be an identity if it's hard to replicate without doing a lot of MC or homebrew.

[Sorinth]

The question back is "Does any other class embody that core skill set?" If yes, then it's not an identity, it's a playstyle. If no, then it might be an identity if it's hard to replicate without doing a lot of MC or homebrew.

So does paladin not have an identity because you can use other classes to embody the core skill set of a paladin? Does Fighter have an identity that other classes can't duplicate? Why does the ranger need a unique identity with no overlap but none of the other classes have the same identity problem?

[Theodoxus]

So does paladin not have an identity because you can use other classes to embody the core skill set of a paladin? Does Fighter have an identity that other classes can't duplicate? Why does the ranger need a unique identity with no overlap but none of the other classes have the same identity problem?

Outside of Warlock, I don't see any other class that can smite, and the Eldritch Smite is a different animal. No other class has auras or easily replicates anything close to them. And which class has Oaths outside of Paladin? You might be able to squint a lot and say Warlock. I don't, but you might...

Fighter's whole schtick, as I was recently reminded when comparing them to clerics, is they attack a lot. Consistently. Monks can get close but use a limited resource to get there.

But beyond all that, I don't think there's a compelling argument to be made that any class's mechanical capabilities should be defining its identity.

[Tanarii]

Definitely, that's the core skill set. The question is does it constitute an identity?
Compared to what? Cleric, Rogue, Sorcerer or Wizard? Better than any of those. Their "class identity" boils down to a core class feature. Mostly casts spells. For rogues good at skills. Way better than Fighter, who are a good class mechanically, but aren't significantly better at fighting, since everyone is good at that, so their "class identity = class feature" isn't even that good.

It's as solid as Barbarian, Paladin, Druid, Warlock, or Monk. All of which have good class identities that aren't "class identity = class feature".

[Sorinth]

Outside of Warlock, I don't see any other class that can smite, and the Eldritch Smite is a different animal. No other class has auras or easily replicates anything close to them. And which class has Oaths outside of Paladin? You might be able to squint a lot and say Warlock. I don't, but you might...

Fighter's whole schtick, as I was recently reminded when comparing them to clerics, is they attack a lot. Consistently. Monks can get close but use a limited resource to get there.

But beyond all that, I don't think there's a compelling argument to be made that any class's mechanical capabilities should be defining its identity.

But those are all mechanics which you can't compare to an identity of "wilderness warrior with druid spells" or whatever other identity you ascribe to them. There's a disconnect when it comes to people's criticism, the complaint of ranger lacking identity is very different from rangers lack a good unique mechanics. Like you ask who outside Paladin class has oaths, the answer is every single one because anyone can swear an oath. I can quite easily make a War Cleric who swears a oath and would look and feel like a paragon of Paladiness because the paladin's identity is holy warrior, and you can make holy warrior in a large number of ways. So the complaints like ranger's identity is lacking because Rogue:Scout can do all the things Ranger can do like scout, fight, track, ambush, etc... isn't something specific to a ranger, every class should have that same complaint leveled at it.

And in terms of base class number of resource free attacks Monk beats or is equivalent to Fighter for 19 levels, so saying attacks a lot is the Fighter's identity seems like a pretty big reach. Even the fact that all martials are equivalent to fighter in number of attacks for the first 10 levels would imply that the Fighter's identity only happens at level 11 onwards which seems like a terrible identity.

[MoiMagnus]

Definitely, that's the core skill set. The question is does it constitute an identity?

I think it's a fair ground for an identity:

The narrative archetype: wilderness warrior, with some nature-oriented magic.
[Note: not the ones coming from a barbarian tribes, the ones coming from traditional civilisations, that's two different archetypes]
Typical scenes where this character should shine: tracking and ambush.
Preferred skills: Dexterity-based skills and Wisdom-based skills.
Position on the martial/spellcaster scale: both a martial and spellcaster

Admittedly the spellcaster part can be contested, especially since spellcaster classes usually come with a "source" for their power that depends on the subclass they choose, while ranger subclasses tend to be all over the place.


Random suggestion: Maybe the Ranger should use some sort of pact magic (but half-caster pact magic), with a pact with some natural spirits/gods/etc? Some Ranger spells could work much better as a short rest resource rather than long rest ones.

[Kane0]

Im just gonna say the Scout Rogue doesnt invalidate the existence of the Ranger any more than the Arcane Trickster invalidates the Wizard.




Random suggestion: Maybe the Ranger should use some sort of pact magic (but half-caster pact magic), with a pact with some natural spirits/gods/etc? Some Ranger spells could work much better as a short rest resource rather than long rest ones.

Im all for more short rest spellcasting

[Sorinth]

Random suggestion: Maybe the Ranger should use some sort of pact magic (but half-caster pact magic), with a pact with some natural spirits/gods/etc? Some Ranger spells could work much better as a short rest resource rather than long rest ones.

Considering I'm 100% behind Druids being pact magic users I'd be perfectly happy with Ranger's following in that regard. And because pact magic goes hand in hand with invocations it would be a clean way of converting ranger specific spells like Hunter's Mark, or Ensnaring Strike into "class" abilities.

[sithlordnergal]

So, I feel like the issue of the Ranger's identity can be summed up with who we picture as the "quintessential Ranger". This is really apparent when you compare who you picture when you think Ranger to who you picture when you think Paladin. In fact, lets do that:

When you think "Paladin", who are some of the first characters/people you think of? Usually its going to be someone like King Arthur or Galahad, maybe Joan of Arc, or Charlemagne and his Paladins. All in all, there's a pretty consistent theme here. They're generally people who are seen as Holy Warriors these days. None of them are Priests/Clerics, but at the same time they have a divine presence that your normal Fighter lacks. They make the foundation of the Paladin's identity. Yes, with the new subclasses the Paladin has opened up a bit. But there's still an underlying theme of being dedicated to something greater than yourself.


Now, who do you think of when I say "Ranger"? I don't know about you, but I picture Aragorn and Drizzt Do'Urden. And here's where we run into the main issue. Aragorn and Drizzt are two wildly different characters from wildly different stories and settings. Lord of the Rings is a Low Magic Setting. Don't get me wrong, there is a LOT of magic in Lord of the Rings, but its usually subtle, rare, and not very flashy. You can't really learn how to be a Wizard, because Wizards are technically angels sent down to aid mortals. Aragorn is incredibly strong in Lord of the Rings, but that strength is from his ability to lead/inspire others, heal people with herbs, and his calming presence, on top of being a skilled warrior and tracker. Though even then, the warrior part doesn't matter that much. He's not really seen as the proper Heir to Isildur until he heals someone.

Compare that to Drizzt Do'Urden and the Forgotten Realms. The Forgotten Realms is solidly a High Magic Setting. Magic is common, you can learn how to be a Wizard, and there are multiple countries run by powerful wizards that can change reality with the snap of a finger. Magic in the Forgotten Realms, and DnD, is about as subtle as a club with a jet engine strapped onto it. Drizzt matches this setting by being equally over the top. Additionally, Drizzt has a second issue. I forgot where I saw it, but I remember reading a thing talking about how Drizzt and the Ranger are essentially based off each other. Drizzt is amazing as dual wielding, so the Ranger needs to dual wield. Rangers have an Animal Companion, so Drizzt needs one. Basically, if Drizzt can do it, the Ranger should be able to do it, and vice versa. This ultimately harms the Ranger.

Finally, you'll notice that while both characters technically have magic, their magic is either too subtle for DnD, or they don't really use it. So, in order to mirror the Paladin and keep things from 3.5, they added in Druidic magic.


Now, looking at those two characters, we see a huge, glaring problem. One character has a lot of subtle magic and skills, the other is an over the top action hero. The only things they have in common are being good at wilderness survival, tracking, and being skilled warriors. There we go, we have our theme for the Ranger. But uh...does anyone else see an issue with it? Wilderness survival, tracking, and being skilled in combat can be emulated by anyone. A Rogue with Expertise in Survival and the Outlander background can make for a highly skilled wilderness expert, can excel at tracking, and makes for a pretty decent warrior. A Fighter with the Outlander background can do the same thing. The only thing that sets the Ranger apart from them is the Druid magic, which doesn't really come from either of the characters listed above.

----

EDIT: How do we fix this? honestly...I don't know. I think if Drizzt and the Ranger weren't so intertwined then that would help a lot. But we'd still have the problem of Aragorn. He is an excellent character, don't get me wrong. But the fact that he's from a low magic setting when compared to DnD causes a problem.

[windgate]

Something I would like to point out.

For both of your examples, Drizzt and Aragon, neither of them were actually spellcasters (the racial dark elf spells dont really count). And while Drizzt had an animal companion, it was a magical creature granted by a magic item. Aragorn did not really influence animals at all.

Frankly I would classify both characters as fighters who picked up training in Nature and Survival. The book says Drizzt is a ranger but I don't think thats really true (The blind man who trained him definitely was). In that same Vein, Harry Potter is more of a sorcerer than a wizard.

I would think Legolas (from LOTR) would be a better example.

[Trask]

How do we fix this? honestly...I don't know. I think if Drizzt and the Ranger weren't so intertwined then that would help a lot. But we'd still have the problem of Aragorn. He is an excellent character, don't get me wrong. But the fact that he's from a low magic setting when compared to DnD causes a problem.

Does the average D&D player even know or care about Drizzt anymore though? Not sayings its impossible that they do, but with all the newcomers to D&D during this edition, many with no real connection to the game before 5e, I wonder.

As for Aragorn, nearly ANY character that inspires a class will be too low magic in its source material compared to its D&D iteration. Charlemagne's paladins weren't exactly conjuring food and horses from thin air. Instead, I think its better to see it is translation rather than direct inspiration; if Aragorn was a D&D character he would absolutely have access to healing spells, because having "the hands of a healer" is a significant part of his character. And sure, Aragorn could probably be described perfectly well as a Fighter good at Survival and with the Healer feat...but then again the entire Paladin class could be adequately as a Fighter good at Religion with Magic Initiate in the Cleric spell list. A warlock could just be a cleric, or a wizard with a unique backstory. When you look at it that way, what makes the Ranger "identity" any more uncertain than any other class that isn't the Fighter or Wizard (probably the only two essential classes for a traditional fantasy game).

D&D is incredibly self referential at this point, a genre unto itself, and rangers are a part of that milieu. I really think the only reason why their identity is called into question so often is because of the perception that they have lackluster mechanics.

[Keltest]

Something I would like to point out.

For both of your examples, Drizzt and Aragon, neither of them were actually spellcasters (the racial dark elf spells dont really count). And while Drizzt had an animal companion, it was a magical creature granted by a magic item. Aragorn did not really influence animals at all.

Frankly I would classify both characters as fighters who picked up training in Nature and Survival. The book says Drizzt is a ranger but I don't think thats really true (The blind man who trained him definitely was). In that same Vein, Harry Potter is more of a sorcerer than a wizard.

I would think Legolas (from LOTR) would be a better example.

Drizzt started as a ranger from an edition where rangers didnt get spellcasting until quite high level, nor animal companions as a class feature the way most people think of these days. In his case, its the meaning of ranger that changed to not match him, rather than him not actually being a ranger.

My own personal guiding star for what a ranger is, oddly, goes back to the old MMO Everquest, where rangers wore medium armor and were a DPS class who could melee or use a bow very well, were the best trackers (itself a rare skill) and survived direct attacks by kiting and keeping their distance very well rather than face tanking it.

[Sorinth]

Personally I doubt Salvatore looked at what class abilities a Ranger gets and then gave them to Drizzt so he could be a "ranger". But the reverse no doubt has some truth to it, Drizzt was a ranger who was good at X so they made Ranger good at X. There's also the fact that classes don't really exist "in world", so people will self-describe or be described by others using a class name even if they don't have levels in those classes. So for example not every barbarian will have Barbarian class levels, an arcane trickster might refer to themselves as a wizard or enchanter, etc... Drizzt called himself a ranger but that doesn't mean mechanically he wasn't a fighter who took wilderness skills and grabbed expertise via Skill Expert.


In terms of magic a lot of the Ranger inspirations didn't have magic, or only limited magic, but the same is true for Paladins. Galahad wasn't going around using Divine Smite or casting Find Greater Steed. In the end a D&D Ranger is it's own thing.


EDIT: And talking Drizzt, it's the same with other characters. Was Artemis Enteri was an assassin, but if we were building him in 5e he'd probably have way more Fighter levels then Rogue levels.

[Keltest]

Personally I doubt Salvatore looked at what class abilities a Ranger gets and then gave them to Drizzt so he could be a "ranger". But the reverse no doubt has some truth to it, Drizzt was a ranger who was good at X so they made Ranger good at X. There's also the fact that classes don't really exist "in world", so people will self-describe or be described by others using a class name even if they don't have levels in those classes. So for example not every barbarian will have Barbarian class levels, an arcane trickster might refer to themselves as a wizard or enchanter, etc... Drizzt called himself a ranger but that doesn't mean mechanically he wasn't a fighter who took wilderness skills and grabbed expertise via Skill Expert.


In terms of magic a lot of the Ranger inspirations didn't have magic, or only limited magic, but the same is true for Paladins. Galahad wasn't going around using Divine Smite or casting Find Greater Steed. In the end a D&D Ranger is it's own thing.


EDIT: And talking Drizzt, it's the same with other characters. Was Artemis Enteri was an assassin, but if we were building him in 5e he'd probably have way more Fighter levels then Rogue levels.

Entreri I think was a fighter because "assassins" were all killed during the Time of Troubles as an effort to weaken Bhaal, IE the assassin class was removed entirely as a separate class. Forgotten Realms is fairly unique in that the edition changes actually have affected the rules of reality of the setting.

But also, when Drizzt was created, you couldnt be a fighter with wilderness skills, period. Getting wilderness skills meant being a ranger. 5e is fairly unique among the D&D editions in letting classes borrow from each other without just having it be multiclassing.

[Sorinth]

Entreri I think was a fighter because "assassins" were all killed during the Time of Troubles as an effort to weaken Bhaal, IE the assassin class was removed entirely as a separate class. Forgotten Realms is fairly unique in that the edition changes actually have affected the rules of reality of the setting.

But also, when Drizzt was created, you couldnt be a fighter with wilderness skills, period. Getting wilderness skills meant being a ranger. 5e is fairly unique among the D&D editions in letting classes borrow from each other without just having it be multiclassing.

Looking at my 2e PHB right now and a fighter could take nonweapon proficiencies in things like: Animal Lore, Hunting, Mountaineering, Navigation, Set Snares, Survival, Tracking. So it's not really true that only in 5e could you make a Fighter with wilderness skills.

[Kane0]

EDIT: How do we fix this? honestly...I don't know. I think if Drizzt and the Ranger weren't so intertwined then that would help a lot. But we'd still have the problem of Aragorn. He is an excellent character, don't get me wrong. But the fact that he's from a low magic setting when compared to DnD causes a problem.

Maybe start with all of Appendix E that isnt LotR :P

I think Trask has the right of it, D&D is largely its own beast at this point and I know that i've never really called upon that classic reference points myself, and I started back in the 3.0 times.

[Keltest]

Maybe start with all of Appendix E that isnt LotR :P

I think Trask has the right of it, D&D is largely its own beast at this point and I know that i've never really called upon that classic reference points myself, and I started back in the 3.0 times.

I find Geralt of Rivia to be a decent reference point for what I would expect from a ranger myself. He uses magic to supplement his weapon skills, he studies his opponents and lays traps for them based on their behavior and weaknesses.

[MoiMagnus]

I think Trask has the right of it, D&D is largely its own beast at this point and I know that i've never really called upon that classic reference points myself, and I started back in the 3.0 times.

Indeed. Classic references are interesting for exploring the roots of an archetypes, but they often fail at capturing the actual state if the concept drifted enough.

Depending on your player base, the first image they have in their mind when talking about "the Ranger" might be a WoW/Hearthstone character of the Hunter class, not Aragorn.

[Tanarii]

Depending on your player base, the first image they have in their mind when talking about "the Ranger" might be a WoW/Hearthstone character of the Hunter class, not Aragorn.
Yup. Younger folks almost always envision Legolas with a pet.

As opposed to a bounty Hunter, mountain man, non-raging native warrior, military scouts, etc.

From literature, we have:
Lan Mandragoran (and many other wardens)
Mance Rayder (and many of the free folks)
Jon Snow (and many of the night watch)

The biggest problem with mapping literary characters to a D&D class is as always: WotC D&D characters have tons of spellcasting. So a lot of people make the mistake of saying "that's just a Fighter/Rogue!"

If you want non-magical martials to map character concepts from most of literature to, it's either play AD&D / BECMI, or play some other roleplaying game*. WotC D&D isn't the right venue.

*as usual going to call out Free League's Forbidden Lands, surprisingly little known game.

[Waazraath]

Yup. Younger folks almost always envision Legolas with a pet.

As opposed to a bounty Hunter, mountain man, non-raging native warrior, military scouts, etc.

From literature, we have:
Lan Mandragoran (and many other wardens)
Mance Rayder (and many of the free folks)
Jon Snow (and many of the night watch)

The biggest problem with mapping literary characters to a D&D class is as always: WotC D&D characters have tons of spellcasting. So a lot of people make the mistake of saying "that's just a Fighter/Rogue!"

If you want non-magical martials to map character concepts from most of literature to, it's either play AD&D / BECMI, or play some other roleplaying game*. WotC D&D isn't the right venue.

*as usual going to call out Free League's Forbidden Lands, surprisingly little known game.

Also from literature:
- Martin, huntsmaster from Crydee (Feist his Magician books). Same thing with magic btw (he has none).

[RogueJK]

Outside of Warlock, I don't see any other class that can smite

Depends on how you define "smite". If it's strictly "a class ability with the term Smite in the name that lets you spend spell slots on a hit to add damage dice", then no.

But if it's "the ability to spend spell slots to add damage to your weapon attacks", then there are plenty of spells that let you do that when you cast it using a spell slot. Such as Hunter's Mark, Hex, Elemental Weapon, Shadow Blade, Divine Favor, Holy Weapon, Spirit Shroud, all the various "XYZing Smite" spells, etc.

And if it's "spending limited class/subclass resources to add damage to your weapon attacks", then there are plenty of non-spell-slot resources that let you do that too. Such as Death Cleric Touch of Death, Whispers Bard Psychic Blades, Swords Bard Blade Flourishes, Mercy Monk Hand of Harm, Battlemaster Maneuvers, Rage, Favored Foe, etc.

Several of those subclass abilities - notably Death Cleric and Whispers Bard, but also Mercy Monk, Swords Bard, and some Battlemaster Maneuvers - even function basically identically to Divine Smite/Eldritch Smite, in that upon landing a hit you can choose to spend one of your limited [Spell Slots / Channel Divinity / Bardic Inspiration / Ki Points / Maneuver Dice] in order to add damage dice to that hit. The Whispers Bard and Death Cleric are the best examples here of having what is effectively a "smite" ability, since the damage is either mostly competitive with a Paladin's Divine Smite damage in the case of the Whispers Bard, or even outpaces Divine Smite's damage in the case of the Death Cleric. (There's a thread around here somewhere where a member - possibly LudicSavant - broke down the numbers to show that a Death Cleric's daily bonus damage output via Touch of Death is even higher than a Paladin who spends every one of their spell slots on Divine Smites alone.) Plus, Touch of Death can be used with melee spell attacks as well as melee weapon attacks, and Psychic Blades can be used with both ranged weapon attacks as well as melee weapon attacks, so either one is less restrictive than Divine Smite.

So while Paladins have a monopoly on the "Divine Smite" ability specifically, they certainly don't have a monopoly on the concept of a "smite/quasi-smite" ability.

[Slingbow]

Does the average D&D player even know or care about Drizzt anymore though? Not sayings its impossible that they do, but with all the newcomers to D&D during this edition, many with no real connection to the game before 5e, I wonder.



Nope. Most of us who play D&D but don't read forgotten realms novels, do not care at all about Drizzt. Hell I love the LOTR movies but just because they refer to those dudes as Rangers doesn't affect my view of the 5e Ranger. Not any more than the "rangers" of the North and all that Jon sleet nonsense. The 5e Ranger is the 5e Ranger. It does what it does, is who it is.

[Theodoxus]

Given the popularity of Vox Machina and Critical Role in general, Vex is probably most newer folks idea of a Ranger now... She's kinda magical, though more through items than spells, but she does toss out the occasional rangery spell...

I think its kind of funny that Pike is the only healer, despite having a Bard, a Druid, and a Ranger on the team (all decently high-level as well).

[paladinn]

Nope. Most of us who play D&D but don't read forgotten realms novels, do not care at all about Drizzt. Hell I love the LOTR movies but just because they refer to those dudes as Rangers doesn't affect my view of the 5e Ranger. Not any more than the "rangers" of the North and all that Jon sleet nonsense. The 5e Ranger is the 5e Ranger. It does what it does, is who it is.

The question is, Why?

Any real usability of the class doesn't come from the class, but from the subclass. The base ranger is pretty much an empty shell. Or at least it was in the PHB. Once you get into the subclasses, there's really not a lot of commonality.

Maybe it'll look and play better in 1DD

[PhoenixPhyre]

Nope. Most of us who play D&D but don't read forgotten realms novels, do not care at all about Drizzt. Hell I love the LOTR movies but just because they refer to those dudes as Rangers doesn't affect my view of the 5e Ranger. Not any more than the "rangers" of the North and all that Jon sleet nonsense. The 5e Ranger is the 5e Ranger. It does what it does, is who it is.


Given the popularity of Vox Machina and Critical Role in general, Vex is probably most newer folks idea of a Ranger now... She's kinda magical, though more through items than spells, but she does toss out the occasional rangery spell...

I think its kind of funny that Pike is the only healer, despite having a Bard, a Druid, and a Ranger on the team (all decently high-level as well).


Yup. Younger folks almost always envision Legolas with a pet.

As opposed to a bounty Hunter, mountain man, non-raging native warrior, military scouts, etc.

From literature, we have:
Lan Mandragoran (and many other wardens)
Mance Rayder (and many of the free folks)
Jon Snow (and many of the night watch)

The biggest problem with mapping literary characters to a D&D class is as always: WotC D&D characters have tons of spellcasting. So a lot of people make the mistake of saying "that's just a Fighter/Rogue!"

If you want non-magical martials to map character concepts from most of literature to, it's either play AD&D / BECMI, or play some other roleplaying game*. WotC D&D isn't the right venue.

*as usual going to call out Free League's Forbidden Lands, surprisingly little known game.

I agree that callouts to older versions just don't matter. Yes, that includes Drizzt. Or even most of literature, because people don't read very much anymore.

And ranger is polysemous and has an archaic, but still fairly potent meaning (those that range/protect the borders, which is the meaning used for the US Army Rangers).

My experience is that most of my players, many of whom are completely new to D&D, see "ranger == pseudo-magical scout/special forces soldier". Not the "stand in ranks and fight" type, but the "get behind enemy lines and mess stuff up" kind.

As for spell-casting, that's a lost cause. As much as I'd love for there to be lots of non-spell-based "magic" (ie fantastic abilities), that's not the path WotC has gone down. So "casts spells" is as close as it gets. But I think there's lots of room there to make a thematic explanation of that that differentiates them from others. Here's how I run it--

Both druids and rangers cast spells by invoking the omni-present, animistic "spirits of nature". But they do so very differently--

Druids make micro-level deals with these spirits (who aren't really sentient in a human way), promising a bit of their energy (spell slots) in exchange for the spirit channeling the spell through them. Basically "I'll feed you in exchange for you doing a trick". Each day they can change what spirits they're bargaining with to switch spell loadout.

Rangers, on the other hand, make friends with specific spirits. They effectively bond them, teach them tricks, and work them into their gear and their companions. The animal companion (in the OG Beastmaster)? That's an animal who has had one of these "pet spirits" embedded in it, forming a bond between ranger and pet. Note that a lot of their spells are weapon-based--they imbue the spirits into their weapons and ammo, feeding them spell slots to get them to do their specific trick "on command". But it's very much more a "pack" mentality, not a bargain/bargainer/quid-pro-quo relationship.

Both use Wisdom because listening to and letting the spirits' energy and guidance and "patterns" (for lack of a better word) is key to effectively directing the spells as well as keeping the bonds separate and going.

Druids tend to take the side of nature, seeing civilization as ascendant and seeking to balance it. Rangers see civilization as being threatened by rampant nature, and act to balance that. But neither viewpoint is absolute.

[stoutstien]

I agree that callouts to older versions just don't matter. Yes, that includes Drizzt. Or even most of literature, because people don't read very much anymore.

And ranger is polysemous and has an archaic, but still fairly potent meaning (those that range/protect the borders, which is the meaning used for the US Army Rangers).

My experience is that most of my players, many of whom are completely new to D&D, see "ranger == pseudo-magical scout/special forces soldier". Not the "stand in ranks and fight" type, but the "get behind enemy lines and mess stuff up" kind.

As for spell-casting, that's a lost cause. As much as I'd love for there to be lots of non-spell-based "magic" (ie fantastic abilities), that's not the path WotC has gone down. So "casts spells" is as close as it gets. But I think there's lots of room there to make a thematic explanation of that that differentiates them from others. Here's how I run it--

Both druids and rangers cast spells by invoking the omni-present, animistic "spirits of nature". But they do so very differently--

Druids make micro-level deals with these spirits (who aren't really sentient in a human way), promising a bit of their energy (spell slots) in exchange for the spirit channeling the spell through them. Basically "I'll feed you in exchange for you doing a trick". Each day they can change what spirits they're bargaining with to switch spell loadout.

Rangers, on the other hand, make friends with specific spirits. They effectively bond them, teach them tricks, and work them into their gear and their companions. The animal companion (in the OG Beastmaster)? That's an animal who has had one of these "pet spirits" embedded in it, forming a bond between ranger and pet. Note that a lot of their spells are weapon-based--they imbue the spirits into their weapons and ammo, feeding them spell slots to get them to do their specific trick "on command". But it's very much more a "pack" mentality, not a bargain/bargainer/quid-pro-quo relationship.

Both use Wisdom because listening to and letting the spirits' energy and guidance and "patterns" (for lack of a better word) is key to effectively directing the spells as well as keeping the bonds separate and going.

Druids tend to take the side of nature, seeing civilization as ascendant and seeking to balance it. Rangers see civilization as being threatened by rampant nature, and act to balance that. But neither viewpoint is absolute.
Best take so far. Could help it along further by changing spell casting components to have a unique style/feel and maybe add in a different spell casting progression/recovery and it would flesh it out on the cheap.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Best take so far. Could help it along further by changing spell casting components to have a unique style/feel and maybe add in a different spell casting progression/recovery and it would flesh it out on the cheap.

Honestly, I think that spell components should be (mostly) a wizard thing and there should be some other mechanism for detecting someone is casting a spell (and that should vary at least cosmetically by class). Find other, more thematic ways of gating "expensive" spells if necessary.

As to progression/recovery, meh. If I were going that far, I'd probably re-tool the whole magic system. Because keeping it balanced with the current options would be a nightmare.

[stoutstien]

Honestly, I think that spell components should be (mostly) a wizard thing and there should be some other mechanism for detecting someone is casting a spell (and that should vary at least cosmetically by class). Find other, more thematic ways of gating "expensive" spells if necessary.

As to progression/recovery, meh. If I were going that far, I'd probably re-tool the whole magic system. Because keeping it balanced with the current options would be a nightmare.

Agreed on the first part.

As for progression we have the 1/3/, 1/2+, and pact magic to work with.

They kinda already started with the alternative features in tasha. "Here's a stack of situational but thematic spells that you can cast for free once per day."

[PhoenixPhyre]

Agreed on the first part.

As for progression we have the 1/3/, 1/2+, and pact magic to work with.

They kinda already started with the alternative features in tasha. "Here's a stack of situational but thematic spells that you can cast for free once per day."

Yeah. What I'd want for them would be much more along the lines of the monster casting: You know X spells and can cast each of them N times/day. Or kinda a 1/2 progression pact magic (ie short rest, but capping at 5th over 18 levels instead of 9). Plus then turning a lot of the "unique" spells into class features and/or just beefing them up. Because a lot of the really cool thematically ranger unique spells are...underwhelming in practice. My cynical gut says that part of that was to not make them free power for bards stealing them via magical secrets.

Personally, I think 1/2 casters should have lots of unique spells that should be protected from thievery this way and be appropriately powerful for the level they're gained at, not their spell level. A 5th level ranger-unique spell should punch much more in the t3+ category (similar to a 6-8th level full-caster spell).

[Amnestic]

Kinda love the idea of making a Ranger a 1/2 pact magic caster. Would definitely need to review their spell list/unique spells for upcasting if so, but it'd be a nice niche, and making a "pact with many nature spirits" an explicit part of their fluff would help stop people saying they have no theme give them some real definiton.

[Slingbow]

Kinda love the idea of making a Ranger a 1/2 pact magic caster. Would definitely need to review their spell list/unique spells for upcasting if so, but it'd be a nice niche, and making a "pact with many nature spirits" an explicit part of their fluff would help stop people saying they have no theme give them some real definiton.

So did I miss something? Do people like pact magic now?

[Kane0]

A word of warning if going down the pact magic path, unless you also provide something like Tashas Primal Awareness or Invocations-but-for-Ranger, you will end up in a situation where the Ranger wont want to 'waste' castings of situational/utility spells due to lack of slots (as opposed to the current issue of lack of spells known)

[stoutstien]

So did I miss something? Do people like pact magic now?

As a mechanic most of the complaints about trying to rectify short rest recovery and spells is just noise.

Overall it's actually a better packaged mechanic for magic because it's easier to toggle for theme and impact.

[Amnestic]

So did I miss something? Do people like pact magic now?

I dunno about anyone else but I've always liked pact magic. I wouldn't even necessarily complain if they had made all spellcasters pact-magic+mystic arcanum style, though I also don't mind the mechanical differential.


A word of warning if going down the pact magic path, unless you also provide something like Tashas Primal Awareness or Invocations-but-for-Ranger, you will end up in a situation where the Ranger wont want to 'waste' castings of situational/utility spells due to lack of slots (as opposed to the current issue of lack of spells known)

Yeah Primal Awareness is something I would be looking to keep, in this hypothetical.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yeah Primal Awareness is something I would be looking to keep, in this hypothetical.

Yeah. But probably extend it per sub-class. Each sub-class gets a set of "once per day, no slot needed", mostly utility, spells.

[Kane0]

At this point I think I may be legitimately addicted to Ranger fixes.


Originally posted here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?462877-Ranger-Rework-v1-3)


Level
Prof
Special Abilities
Cantrips
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th


1
2
Natural Explorer, Quarry/Skirmish
2
-
-
-
-
-


2
2
Fighting Style, Nature's Boon, Spellcasting
2
2
-
-
-
-


3
2
Clade
2
3
-
-
-
-


4
2
ASI
2
3
-
-
-
-


5
3
Extra Attack, Favored Enemy
2
4
2
-
-
-


6
3
Nature's Boon, Quarry/Skirmish Improvement
2
4
2
-
-
-


7
3
Clade Feature
2
4
3
-
-
-


8
3
ASI
2
4
3
-
-
-


9
4
-
2
4
3
2
-
-


10
4
Nature's Boon, Quarry/Skirmish Improvement
3
4
3
2
-
-


11
4
Clade Feature
3
4
3
3
-
-


12
4
ASI
3
4
3
3
-
-


13
5
-
3
4
3
3
1
-


14
5
Nature's Boon, Quarry/Skirmish Improvement
3
4
3
3
1
-


15
5
Clade Feature
3
4
3
3
2
-


16
5
ASI
3
4
3
3
2
-


17
6
-
3
4
3
3
3
1


18
6
Nature's Boon, Favored Enemy
3
4
3
3
3
1


19
6
ASI
3
4
3
3
3
2


20
6
Primal Bond
3
4
3
3
3
2



Hit Dice: d8
Armor Proficiencies: Light Armor, Medium Armor
Weapon Proficiencies: Simple & Martial Weapons
Saving Throws Proficiencies: Strength & Dexterity
Skill Proficiencies: Choose three from Acrobatics, Athletics, Insight, Investigation, Lore, Medchamy, Perception, Stealth, Survival
Other Proficiencies: Choose one from Cartographer’s tools, Navigator’s Tools, Mounts, Land or Water vehicles or one Language of your choice

Level 1: Natural Explorer
You gain your choice of either a Climb or Swim speed equal to your movement speed.
In addition, 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 as long as they can see and hear you.

Level 1: Quarry
When you hit a creature with an attack roll, you can mark the target for 1 minute or until you lose your concentration as if you were concentrating on a spell.
Once per turn, when you or an ally within 10 feet of you hit the target with an attack and deal damage to it (including when you mark it) the attack deals an additional 1d4 damage.
You can use this feature to mark your Quarry a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus, and you regain all expended uses when you finish a long rest.
This feature's extra damage increases to 1d6 at 6th level and to 1d8 at 14th level, and extends to allies within 30 feet of you at 10th level.

Level 1 Alternative: Skirmish (replaces Quarry)
While you are not wearing heavy armor and not wielding a shield, when you move 20 feet or more on your turn you add +2 to your AC and add an extra +1d4 to one weapon damage roll you make until the start of your next turn.
At 6th level this extra damage increases to +1d6, at 10th level +1d8 and at 14th level +1d10

Level 2: Fighting Style
Choose one from the list of styles above

Level 2: Spellcasting
- Spellcasting ability is Wisdom
- Spells Prepared equal to half level +Wis (min 1)
- Primal Spell List
- No Ritual Casting
- Druidic spell focus

Level 2: Nature's Boon
At level 2 and again at levels 6, 10, 14 and 18 choose one from the options below:

Camouflage: When you cast a spell or use a magical effect that obscures you, increases your Stealth bonus or turns you Invisible you can take the Hide action as a bonus action, even if the effect only lightly obscures you.
If selected a second time, whenever you are affected by a spell or effect that obscures you, increases your Stealth bonus or turns you Invisible you can use your reaction to take the Hide action, even if the effect only lightly obscures you.
Healing Salves: As a part of a long rest, you can prepare a number of medicinal salves equal to your Wisdom modifier (minimum 1). Each salve restores HP equal to 1d8 + Ranger level and can be applied to a creature using an action. Unused salves expire at the end of a long rest.
If selected a second time, each healing salve applied a creature also provides the benefits of a Lesser Restoration spell
Honed Senses: You gain Darkvision out to a range of 60 feet and can take the Search action as a bonus action.
If selected a second time, you gain Blindsight out to a range of 30 feet.
Land's Stride: You can ignore nonmagical difficult terrain, and your movement speed cannot be reduced from spells and other magical affects such as Ray of Frost
If selected a second time, you increase all your movement speeds by 10 feet and gain advantage on saving throws against being being Paralysed, Restrained or Stunned
Primal Connection: You can cast a druid spell as a ritual if that spell has the ritual tag and you have the spell prepared, and you also learn one additional cantrip and prepare one additional spell of your choice from the Primal spell list.
If selected a second time, during a short rest you can recover one expended spell slot of your choice of spell level equal to half your proficiency bonus or lower
Trapping: You can cast the Alarm and Snare spells as an action each once per long rest without expending a spell slot
If selected a second time, you can also cast the Cordon of Arrows spell as a bonus action once per long rest and the Glyph of Warding spell as an action once per long rest

Level 3: Clade
Choose one Ranger Clade to follow, same as the books.

Level 4: ASI
As per the books

Level 5: Favored Enemy
Select two creatures types (or if you pick Humanoids, one Bloodrace thereof). You can cast Hunter's Mark on a creature that is one of these types without expending a spell slot and without having the spell prepared, however the spell ends once the creature is reduced to 0 hit points.
At level 18 you choose an additional two creature types

Level 20: Primal Bond
You do not need to concentrate on any Primal spells you cast.


Level 3: Hunter's Prey
As per the books (Colossus Slayer, Giant Killer or Horde Breaker)

Level 3: Expertise
Choose one of your Ranger skill proficiencies. Your proficiency bonus is doubled for any ability check you make using the chosen skill.

Level 7: Defensive Tactics
As per the books (Escape the Horde, Multiattack Defence or Steel Will)

Level 7: Terrain Adaption
When you finish a short or long rest you can expend one Ranger spell slot to gain resistance to one damage type according to the terrain you rested in, which lasts until your next rest
Coast/Aquatic: Thunder or Lightning
Arctic: Cold or Force
Desert: Fire or Radiant
Plains/Forest: Piercing or Poison
Highland: Fire or Cold
Swamp: Acid or Poison
Underground: Necrotic or Bludgeoning
Urban: Psychic or Slashing

Level 11: Multiattack
As per the books (Volley or Whirlwind Attack)

Level 11: Expert Awareness
You cannot be surprised by your Favored Enemies, and you do not suffer disadvantage to your passive perception while travelling at a fast pace or while performing another activity.

Level 15: Superior Hunter's Defence
As per the books (Evasion, Stand Against the Tide or Uncanny Dodge)

Level 15: Terrain Mastery
You gain both resistances noted in your level 7 feature, and you are always aware of all favored enemies within 1 mile of you, including their number, direction and distance.


Level 3, Beast Companion
You can cast the Find Companion spell without expending a spell slot or material components. Once you cast this spell you cannot do so again until you finish a long rest.
When you cast Find Companion you add your proficiency bonus to the beast’s AC and attack rolls, as well as to any saving throws and skills it is proficient in. The beast's hit point maximum is equal to (4 + its Constitution modifier) for each level of ranger you have.

At ranger level 7 you cast Find Companion as if from a 3rd level spell slot, at level 11 a 4th level spell slot and level 15 a 5th level spell slot.

Level 3: Beastform
As an action you can assume the form of a beast you have seen before that is CR 1/8 or lower and large size or smaller. You can use your Beastform a number of times equal to your Wisdom modifier (minimum 1). You regain any expended uses at the end of a long rest.

You can stay in a beast shape for a number of hours equal to your proficiency bonus. You then revert to your normal form unless you expend another use of this feature. You can revert to your normal form earlier by using a Bonus Action on your turn. You automatically revert if you fall unconscious, drop to 0 Hit Points, or die.

Your statistics, including mental Ability Scores, are replaced by the Statistics of the chosen beast. You assume the Hit Points of your new form. When you revert to your normal form you return to the number of Hit Points you had before you transformed. If you revert as a result of Dropping to 0 Hit Points, any excess damage carries over to your normal form. As long as the excess damage does not reduce your normal form to 0 Hit Points, you are not knocked Unconscious.

You retain your alignment and personality. You cannot speak, cast Spells, or take any other action that requires hands or speech. Your gear melds into the new form. You cannot activate, use, wield, or otherwise benefit from any of your equipment.

Level 7: Beastcall
By spending one minute you can call up to twelve beasts of up to CR 1/2 to you from the surrounding area, determined by the DM. Upon arrival these beasts are friendly to you and will assist with one task for up to one hour before dispersing.
Once you use this feature you cannot do so again until you finish a long rest.

Level 11: Bestial Fury
Your beasts attacks are considered magical for the purposes of overcoming damage resistance and immunity. In addition, your beast companion gains the following reaction:
Defensive Pounce: The beast companion imposes disadvantage on the attack roll of one creature it can see that is within its reach, provided the attack is against a creature other than the beast companion.

Level 15: Greater Beastcall
You can use your Beastcall feature as an action instead of taking one minute, and call up to CR 1 beasts to assist you. In addition, you regain use of your Beastcall feature when you finish a short or long rest.

Find Companion
2nd-level Conjuration
Casting Time: 1 minute
Range: 30 feet
Components: V, S, M
Duration: Instantaneous

You summon a spirit that assumes the form of an animal. Choose a beast that is of large size or smaller and that has a challenge rating of 1/4 or lower. Appearing in an unoccupied space within range, the companion has the statistics of the chosen form.
Your companion acts independently of you on your initiative, but it always obeys your commands.
When within 100 feet you can communicate with your companion telepathically, and when you cast a spell with a range of self you can choose to touch your companion to also target them with that spell.
As an action, you can dismiss your companion permanently.
A companion that drops to 0 hit points disappears, leaving behind no physical form.
While you have your companion, you cannot recover the spell slot used to summon it.
If you cast this spell while you already have a companion, you instead restore your companion to its hit point maximum and can cause it to adopt a new form that meets the same requirements above.
At Higher Levels: If you cast this spell using a spell slot of 3rd level or higher, the companion is up to CR 1/2. If you use a spell slot of 4th level or higher, the companion is up to CR 1. If you use a spell slot of 5th level or higher, the companion is up to CR 2.

[Theodoxus]

Make Druid a Pact caster and the Ranger naturally follows along. Investments (as Invocations) on the Druid would include things like Wildshape (as base Druid class now) and Improved Wildshape (pre-req is Wildshape Investment) as Moon Druid upgrade. Both available at level 2 (it's like the Druid version of Agonizing Blast/Repelling Blast - a general 'must have / ability tax', but some builds wouldn't take).

Pact Boons might be Blade Shillelagh, Chain Animal Companion, and Tome Yew & Mistletoe, with unique takes on the Warlock boons.

Ranger would then gain some of the Investments along with some unique options (basically the better spells and subclass features that would work better as Invocations Investments.

[LibraryOgre]

Make Druid a Pact caster and the Ranger naturally follows along. Investments (as Invocations) on the Druid would include things like Wildshape (as base Druid class now) and Improved Wildshape (pre-req is Wildshape Investment) as Moon Druid upgrade. Both available at level 2 (it's like the Druid version of Agonizing Blast/Repelling Blast - a general 'must have / ability tax', but some builds wouldn't take).


When working on a Dark Sun conversion, I'm actually inclined to completely do away with Clerics and Druids, and make them (and Templars) into Pact magic users. Metaphysically, it fits a lot better in Dark Sun.

However, ad res, I think one thing that rangers somewhat suffer from is that a lot of their class is exploration-focused, and a lot of those mechanics have fallen by the wayside as editions have gone on.

[MadBear]

It is unfortunate that a large portion of the two key identities of the ranger just don't fit well in the current edition of D&D for very different reasons.

1. Favored Enemy: A classic and very interesting mechanic for the ranger is the idea that they have a specific enemy/villain/monster that they hunt. To the point that they are experts in going after it. The issue with this is that in a D&D campaign either they face this monster a lot in which case they could feel OP, or as is more often the case, they never face it and don't get access to their key feature.

2. Explorer: Another part of the ranger that fits their identity is that they are the wilderness trackers and explorers in a dangerous world. They are the people you hire to get you through the area that no one else can transverse. The issue with this is that doubly the problem of issue 1. First, if they have a specific region that they are great at exploring then all of problem 1's issues apply. But they also suffer from the fact that as you level, the exploration pillar gets less and less relevant.

So, I'd argue that rangers do in fact have a pretty strong identity, it's just not one that fits super well into the current system.

[Snails]

It is unfortunate that a large portion of the two key identities of the ranger just don't fit well in the current edition of D&D for very different reasons.

Bottom line is two Mother-May-I abilities make for very poor cornerstones for a class. Perhaps tolerable enough in a subclass, as it would be easy to avoid in a given campaign.

The whole Favored Enemy thing was a nod to Aragorn and his Dunedain allies' eternal war against the creeping orc threat in Middle Earth. That sounds like a subclass ability to me. We should be past slavishly mimicking a source via clumsy mechanics, at least in terms of a class chassis.

[BRC]

Bottom line is two Mother-May-I abilities make for very poor cornerstones for a class. Perhaps tolerable enough in a subclass, as it would be easy to avoid in a given campaign.

The whole Favored Enemy thing was a nod to Aragorn and his Dunedain allies' eternal war against the creeping orc threat in Middle Earth. That sounds like a subclass ability to me. We should be past slavishly mimicking a source via clumsy mechanics, at least in terms of a class chassis.

I wonder if there isn't something to having these themes in place by building out a series of more versatile abilities beyond "Advantage against Enemy X".

Like, for Favored Enemy: Dragons give them an ability that makes them good against flying enemies, an ability that lets them resist elements, and an ability that works against Large or Huge enemies. Combined, these abilities make them very effective against Dragons, but in isolation each one can work in any number of scenarios.

Similarly, "Favored Terrain" might work best as a series of discreet, thematically appropriate abilities. Favored Terrain Desert and Plains may give you move speed buffs, while Forests and Swamps let you ignore difficult terrain, and Mountains and Cities give you climb speeds.

[stoutstien]

Bottom line is two Mother-May-I abilities make for very poor cornerstones for a class. Perhaps tolerable enough in a subclass, as it would be easy to avoid in a given campaign.

The whole Favored Enemy thing was a nod to Aragorn and his Dunedain allies' eternal war against the creeping orc threat in Middle Earth. That sounds like a subclass ability to me. We should be past slavishly mimicking a source via clumsy mechanics, at least in terms of a class chassis.

Well no. Issue aren't with the features that are game circumstance dependant but rather the features that are explicitly exempt from them.

[sithlordnergal]

I wonder if there isn't something to having these themes in place by building out a series of more versatile abilities beyond "Advantage against Enemy X".

Like, for Favored Enemy: Dragons give them an ability that makes them good against flying enemies, an ability that lets them resist elements, and an ability that works against Large or Huge enemies. Combined, these abilities make them very effective against Dragons, but in isolation each one can work in any number of scenarios.

Similarly, "Favored Terrain" might work best as a series of discreet, thematically appropriate abilities. Favored Terrain Desert and Plains may give you move speed buffs, while Forests and Swamps let you ignore difficult terrain, and Mountains and Cities give you climb speeds.

So, I actually like how they did 3.5 Favored Enemy and Swift Hunter. It allowed you to deal Precision damage to your favored enemy, even if it was normally immune to that damage. Precision Damage was basically things like Critical Hits, Sneak Attack, Scout's Skirmisher damage, ect. And there were a few things immune to it, like Undead and Constructs. Swift Hunter basically gave you a way to bypass the immunity, and made you feel like you were even more effective against those types of creatures than anyone else.

[Sorinth]

I wonder if there isn't something to having these themes in place by building out a series of more versatile abilities beyond "Advantage against Enemy X".

Like, for Favored Enemy: Dragons give them an ability that makes them good against flying enemies, an ability that lets them resist elements, and an ability that works against Large or Huge enemies. Combined, these abilities make them very effective against Dragons, but in isolation each one can work in any number of scenarios.

Similarly, "Favored Terrain" might work best as a series of discreet, thematically appropriate abilities. Favored Terrain Desert and Plains may give you move speed buffs, while Forests and Swamps let you ignore difficult terrain, and Mountains and Cities give you climb speeds.

I'm not a huge fan of that approach but it's worth noting that basically already exists just without the fluff for Hunter Ranger. Outside of the Multiattack feature, all the other options could easily be given a representative monster names. Horde Breaker could be Kobolds, Multiattack Defence could be Hydra, Steel Will could be Undead, Evasion could be Dragons, etc...

I personally I don't think there really needs to be a favored enemy ability on the Ranger, but if they do want to keep that type of stuff, it's better to do something along the lines of Tasha's Favored Foe where it's just a generic "mark a target" and then give something for attacking the marked target. It could even become a vessel for casting the ranger specific attack spells that allow them to be cast only after knowing you've hit which removes the action economy cost and concentration requirements that plague those type of "smite" spells.

[Kane0]

I'm not a huge fan of that approach but it's worth noting that basically already exists just without the fluff for Hunter Ranger. Outside of the Multiattack feature, all the other options could easily be given a representative monster names. Horde Breaker could be Kobolds, Multiattack Defence could be Hydra, Steel Will could be Undead, Evasion could be Dragons, etc...

Just going to note I've totally been sleeping on how great Multiattack Defense is. Hit me once, shame on you. Hit me twice, shame on me.



I personally I don't think there really needs to be a favored enemy ability on the Ranger, but if they do want to keep that type of stuff, it's better to do something along the lines of Tasha's Favored Foe where it's just a generic "mark a target" and then give something for attacking the marked target. It could even become a vessel for casting the ranger specific attack spells that allow them to be cast only after knowing you've hit which removes the action economy cost and concentration requirements that plague those type of "smite" spells.


UAs have tried just handing out free castings of Hunters Mark in a variety of ways, and people seem to be satisfied with that. I prefer 'without using a spell slot' over 'without concentration' myself, and touching up a few Ranger spells like Hail of Thorns so concentration doesn't clash as heavily.

Favored Enemy
Select two creatures types (Or two races for each time you pick Humanoids). You can cast Hunter's Mark on a creature that is one of these types without expending a spell slot, however the spell ends once the creature is reduced to 0 hit points.



So, I actually like how they did 3.5 Favored Enemy and Swift Hunter. It allowed you to deal Precision damage to your favored enemy, even if it was normally immune to that damage. Precision Damage was basically things like Critical Hits, Sneak Attack, Scout's Skirmisher damage, ect. And there were a few things immune to it, like Undead and Constructs. Swift Hunter basically gave you a way to bypass the immunity, and made you feel like you were even more effective against those types of creatures than anyone else.


Skirmish (replaces Favored Enemy/Favored Foe)
While you are not wearing heavy armor and not wielding a shield, when you move 20 feet or more on your turn you add +2 to your AC and add an extra +1d4 to one weapon damage roll you make until the start of your next turn.
At 6th level this extra damage increases to +1d6, at 10th level +1d8 and at 14th level +1d10

Doesn't tie in to fighting any one type of creature specifically, but emphasizes movement. The +2 AC coming from movement instead of shield works equally well for TWF and Archery types, though you do have to be careful not to be caught at the start of your turn before you turn it on with your movment.
It also syncs fine with spells and subclass features that need your bonus action and/or concentration to add their extra damage

[Trask]

I don't really dislike Favored Enemy in principle and don't think that its somehow "too limiting" for a feature to only apply to certain types of enemies. I do think however that they shouldn't have left it up to the player to choose however, because then suddenly the onus is on them to pick correctly, when it shouldn't be. Instead Favored Enemy should just apply to very common enemy types that will almost assuredly be encountered in any D&D campaign.

Why not Beasts and Humanoids? And at higher levels extend it to Monstrosities and Giants.

This is what helps give the Ranger his flavor and retain that Hunter feel without resorting to supremely bland mechanics like a generic "Hunter's Mark 2.0" option that add nothing to the class besides power.

[BRC]

I don't really dislike Favored Enemy in principle and don't think that its somehow "too limiting" for a feature to only apply to certain types of enemies. I do think however that they shouldn't have left it up to the player to choose however, because then suddenly the onus is on them to pick correctly, when it shouldn't be. Instead Favored Enemy should just apply to very common enemy types that will almost assuredly be encountered in any D&D campaign.

Why not Beasts and Humanoids? And at higher levels extend it to Monstrosities and Giants.

This is what helps give the Ranger his flavor and retain that Hunter feel without resorting to supremely bland mechanics like a generic "Hunter's Mark 2.0" option that add nothing to the class besides power.

Another way to do it might be to make the ability Switchable, representing the Ranger having taken preparations to hunt some specific foe, rather than them being personally specialized in hunting that foe.

"Preparations to Hunt: When you take a Long Rest, choose an enemy type, gain [bonus] against that creature type until you use this ability again"

heck, you could even keep "Favored Enemy" in pretty easily, let them switch to their Favored enemy with 10 minute prep time rather than at the end of a long rest.

[Trask]

Another way to do it might be to make the ability Switchable, representing the Ranger having taken preparations to hunt some specific foe, rather than them being personally specialized in hunting that foe.

"Preparations to Hunt: When you take a Long Rest, choose an enemy type, gain [bonus] against that creature type until you use this ability again"

heck, you could even keep "Favored Enemy" in pretty easily, let them switch to their Favored enemy with 10 minute prep time rather than at the end of a long rest.

That works. I once did something very similar where I allowed the Ranger to change their Favored Enemy, but in this case it involved with a ritual where they use the blood and remains of a foe of the type the wished to switch their Favored Enemy, casting the feature in a more mystical (and darker) light. It worked well, but ultimately both the player and I didn't like the much darker turn of flavor that gave the Ranger (personally I still like to think of Rangers as a fundamentally Good aligned class, like the Paladin, even if the mechanics don't enforce that anymore).

[Tanarii]

This is what helps give the Ranger his flavor and retain that Hunter feel without resorting to supremely bland mechanics like a generic "Hunter's Mark 2.0" option that add nothing to the class besides power.
Especially since combat power isn't something Rangers need.

Despite that, it's all too common for folks to suggest removing some of the cool stuff Rangers get, and replacing it with moar combat power.

[BRC]

That works. I once did something very similar where I allowed the Ranger to change their Favored Enemy, but in this case it involved with a ritual where they use the blood and remains of a foe of the type the wished to switch their Favored Enemy, casting the feature in a more mystical (and darker) light. It worked well, but ultimately both the player and I didn't like the much darker turn of flavor that gave the Ranger (personally I still like to think of Rangers as a fundamentally Good aligned class, like the Paladin, even if the mechanics don't enforce that anymore).

I'm personally imagining it less mystical, the Ranger meditates for a bit, remembering the weak spots of the foe in question, practices some sword strokes, maybe does some Witcher stuff of mixing up a poison that works on the foe in question, swapping out some arrowheads, ect ect.

They can switch to their "Favored Enemy" faster because, as that's their favored enemy, they've already got the knowledge/stuff on hand to fight it, rather than needing to study up/ remind themselves what works against Giants.

[Sorinth]

Just going to note I've totally been sleeping on how great Multiattack Defense is. Hit me once, shame on you. Hit me twice, shame on me.



UAs have tried just handing out free castings of Hunters Mark in a variety of ways, and people seem to be satisfied with that. I prefer 'without using a spell slot' over 'without concentration' myself, and touching up a few Ranger spells like Hail of Thorns so concentration doesn't clash as heavily.

I'm 100% behind fixing the spells like Hail of Thorns, Zephyr Strike, etc... so that they don't conflict with TWF (Already fixed in 1D&D UA), or the real concentration spells like Hunter's Mark, Entangle, Spike Growth. There's no doubt in my mind that it would go a long way to making the Ranger feel really fun and it would also fix the complaint that Ranger's need a smite-like ability to be comparable to Paladins complaint that we see. Whether that's rewording those spells but still leaving them spells or converting them into abilities that eat spell slots like smite, or having them be like Arcane Archer shots where you pick a few that you can use X number of times per rest, or even unlimited uses but only against "marked targets" and then limiting the number of times you can mark a target. There's lots of ways of doing something that would be fun/interesting.

[Kane0]

I'm 100% behind fixing the spells like Hail of Thorns, Zephyr Strike, etc... so that they don't conflict with TWF (Already fixed in 1D&D UA), or the real concentration spells like Hunter's Mark, Entangle, Spike Growth. There's no doubt in my mind that it would go a long way to making the Ranger feel really fun and it would also fix the complaint that Ranger's need a smite-like ability to be comparable to Paladins complaint that we see. Whether that's rewording those spells but still leaving them spells or converting them into abilities that eat spell slots like smite, or having them be like Arcane Archer shots where you pick a few that you can use X number of times per rest, or even unlimited uses but only against "marked targets" and then limiting the number of times you can mark a target. There's lots of ways of doing something that would be fun/interesting.

Personally I opted for changing the spells because they are already spells and I've already rewritten the class separately.


Beast Bond
1st-level divination
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Touch
Components: V, S, M (a bit of fur wrapped in cloth)
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 hour
You establish a telepathic link with one beast you touch that is friendly to you or charmed by you. The spell fails if the beast’s Intelligence is 4 or higher. Until the spell ends, the link is active while you and the beast are within one mile of each other. Through the link, the beast can understand your telepathic messages to it, and it can telepathically communicate simple emotions and concepts back to you. While the link is active, the beast gains advantage on attack rolls against any creature within your reach that you can see.

Hail of Thorns
1st-level Conjuration
Casting time: 1 Action
Range: Self
Components: V, M (ranged weapon)
Duration: Instantaneous
As part of the action used to cast this spell you must make a ranged weapon attack, otherwise the spell fails.
Hit or miss, a rain of thorns sprouts from your ranged weapon or ammunition. In addition to the normal effect of the attack, the target of the attack and each creature within 5 feet of it must make a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes 1d10 piercing damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
At Higher Levels: If you cast this spell using a spell slot of 2nd level or higher, the damage increases by 1d10 for each slot level above 1st.

Zephyr Strike
1st-level Transmutation
Casting Time: 1 bonus action
Range: Self
Components: V
Duration: 1 minute
For the duration, your movement doesn’t provoke opportunity attacks.
On your turn you can choose to end this spell early. If you do so, you gain advantage on the next weapon attack you make and your speed increases by 30 feet until the end of that turn.

Barkskin
2nd-level Transmutation
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Touch
Components: S
Duration: 8 hours
You touch a willing creature. Until the spell ends the target's AC cannot be less than 18 regardless of what kind of armor it is wearing. When the targeted creature is struck by a critical hit or takes fire damage this minimum AC is reduced by 1 (maximum once per turn). The spell ends when the minimum AC reaches 10 or the target's natural AC.

Find Traps
2nd-level divination
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Self
Components: S
Duration: 1 hour
You sense the presence and nature of any trap that is within line of sight. A trap, for the purpose of this spell, includes anything that would inflict a sudden or unexpected effect you consider harmful or undesirable, which was intended as such by its creator.
Thus, the spell would sense an area affected by the alarm spell or a mechanical pit trap, but it would not reveal natural hazards or structural weaknesses due to the passage of time.
This spell merely reveals that a trap is present, and the danger it poses to you. You do not learn the location of each trap.

Flame Blade
2nd-Level Evocation
Casting Time: 1 Bonus Action
Range: Touch
Components: S
Duration: 1 minute
You evoke a fiery blade in your hand, which lasts until the spell ends and counts as a simple melee weapon with which you are proficient. It deals 2d6 fire damage on a hit and has the finesse and light properties. In addition the blade sheds bright light in a 10-foot radius and dim light for an additional 10 feet. If you drop the weapon it dissipates at the end of the turn and you can use a bonus action to cause it to reappear in your hand.
At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a 3rd or 4th level spell slot, the damage increases to 3d6. When you cast it using a 5th or 6th level spell slot, the damage increases to 4d6. When you cast it using a spell slot of 7th level or higher, the damage increases to 5d6.

Conjure Barrage
3rd-level Conjuration
Casting time: 1 Action
Range: Self (60-foot cone)
Components: S, M (one piece of ammunition or a thrown weapon)
Duration: Instantaneous
You throw a nonmagical weapon or fire a piece of nonmagical ammunition into the air to create a cone of identical weapons that shoot forward and then disappear. Each creature in a 60-foot cone must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes 6d8 damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. The damage type is the same as that of the weapon or ammunition used as a component.
At Higher Levels: The damage increases by 1d8 for each slot level above 3rd.

Flame Arrows
3rd-level transmutation
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Touch
Components: S
Duration: 8 hours
You touch a quiver containing arrows, bullets or bolts. When a target is hit by a ranged weapon attack using a piece of ammunition drawn from the quiver, the target takes an extra 1d8 fire damage. The spell’s magic ends on a piece of ammunition when it hits or misses, and the spell ends after twelve pieces of ammunition have been drawn from the quiver.
At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 3rd level or higher, the number of pieces of ammunition you can affect with this spell increases by six for each slot level above 2nd.

Lightning Arrow
3rd level transmutation
Casting Time: 1 bonus action
Range: Self
Components: V, S, M (ranged weapon)
Duration: Instantaneous
As part of the casting of this spell you must make a ranged weapon attack, otherwise the spell fails.
Hit or miss, the weapon or ammunition emits bolts of lightning. In addition to the normal effect of the attack, the target of the attack and each creature within 10 feet of it must make a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes 3d8 lightning damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, the damage for both effects of the spell increases by 1d8 for each slot level above 3rd.

Stoneskin
4th Level Transmutation
Casting Time: 1 Action
Range: Touch
Components: S, M
Duration: 1 hour
Until the spell ends, the target has resistance to Bludgeoning, Piercing and Slashing damage

Swift Quiver
5th-Level Transmutation
Casting time: 1 Bonus Action
Range: Touch
Components: V, S, M (a weapon or quiver containing at least one piece of ammunition)
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 hour
Until the spell ends your weapon attacks deal an extra 1d6 Force damage on a hit and once per turn you can duplicate one weapon attack you make before you roll the attack. This attack is treated as two identical attacks against the same target.


Plus made a few new ones (Obscure Camp, Conjure Raft, Discern Weakness, Rope Bridge, Safeguard Shelter) because why not.

[paladinn]

When it comes to the whole Favored Enemy/Foe thing, it seems to make more sense to get a bonus to AC and to hit, rather than damage, due to the ranger's intimate knowledge of his/her foe. But of course, that's a no-no due to bounded accuracy.

Pathfinder 1 has a "spell" called Instant Enemy that temporarily grants the ranger's FE bonuses against one creature Not a FE. It's not a bad concept, but I wish it wasn't a spell.

[Keltest]

Another way to do it might be to make the ability Switchable, representing the Ranger having taken preparations to hunt some specific foe, rather than them being personally specialized in hunting that foe.

"Preparations to Hunt: When you take a Long Rest, choose an enemy type, gain [bonus] against that creature type until you use this ability again"

heck, you could even keep "Favored Enemy" in pretty easily, let them switch to their Favored enemy with 10 minute prep time rather than at the end of a long rest.

This would be my preference as well. Ditto with terrain. Let them proactively prepare for a given fight if they know about it.

[Sorinth]

Personally I opted for changing the spells because they are already spells and I've already rewritten the class separately.


Beast Bond
1st-level divination
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Touch
Components: V, S, M (a bit of fur wrapped in cloth)
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 hour
You establish a telepathic link with one beast you touch that is friendly to you or charmed by you. The spell fails if the beast’s Intelligence is 4 or higher. Until the spell ends, the link is active while you and the beast are within one mile of each other. Through the link, the beast can understand your telepathic messages to it, and it can telepathically communicate simple emotions and concepts back to you. While the link is active, the beast gains advantage on attack rolls against any creature within your reach that you can see.

Hail of Thorns
1st-level Conjuration
Casting time: 1 Action
Range: Self
Components: V, M (ranged weapon)
Duration: Instantaneous
As part of the action used to cast this spell you must make a ranged weapon attack, otherwise the spell fails.
Hit or miss, a rain of thorns sprouts from your ranged weapon or ammunition. In addition to the normal effect of the attack, the target of the attack and each creature within 5 feet of it must make a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes 1d10 piercing damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
At Higher Levels: If you cast this spell using a spell slot of 2nd level or higher, the damage increases by 1d10 for each slot level above 1st.

Zephyr Strike
1st-level Transmutation
Casting Time: 1 bonus action
Range: Self
Components: V
Duration: 1 minute
For the duration, your movement doesn’t provoke opportunity attacks.
On your turn you can choose to end this spell early. If you do so, you gain advantage on the next weapon attack you make and your speed increases by 30 feet until the end of that turn.

Barkskin
2nd-level Transmutation
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Touch
Components: S
Duration: 8 hours
You touch a willing creature. Until the spell ends the target's AC cannot be less than 18 regardless of what kind of armor it is wearing. When the targeted creature is struck by a critical hit or takes fire damage this minimum AC is reduced by 1 (maximum once per turn). The spell ends when the minimum AC reaches 10 or the target's natural AC.

Find Traps
2nd-level divination
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Self
Components: S
Duration: 1 hour
You sense the presence and nature of any trap that is within line of sight. A trap, for the purpose of this spell, includes anything that would inflict a sudden or unexpected effect you consider harmful or undesirable, which was intended as such by its creator.
Thus, the spell would sense an area affected by the alarm spell or a mechanical pit trap, but it would not reveal natural hazards or structural weaknesses due to the passage of time.
This spell merely reveals that a trap is present, and the danger it poses to you. You do not learn the location of each trap.

Flame Blade
2nd-Level Evocation
Casting Time: 1 Bonus Action
Range: Touch
Components: S
Duration: 1 minute
You evoke a fiery blade in your hand, which lasts until the spell ends and counts as a simple melee weapon with which you are proficient. It deals 2d6 fire damage on a hit and has the finesse and light properties. In addition the blade sheds bright light in a 10-foot radius and dim light for an additional 10 feet. If you drop the weapon it dissipates at the end of the turn and you can use a bonus action to cause it to reappear in your hand.
At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a 3rd or 4th level spell slot, the damage increases to 3d6. When you cast it using a 5th or 6th level spell slot, the damage increases to 4d6. When you cast it using a spell slot of 7th level or higher, the damage increases to 5d6.

Conjure Barrage
3rd-level Conjuration
Casting time: 1 Action
Range: Self (60-foot cone)
Components: S, M (one piece of ammunition or a thrown weapon)
Duration: Instantaneous
You throw a nonmagical weapon or fire a piece of nonmagical ammunition into the air to create a cone of identical weapons that shoot forward and then disappear. Each creature in a 60-foot cone must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes 6d8 damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. The damage type is the same as that of the weapon or ammunition used as a component.
At Higher Levels: The damage increases by 1d8 for each slot level above 3rd.

Flame Arrows
3rd-level transmutation
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Touch
Components: S
Duration: 8 hours
You touch a quiver containing arrows, bullets or bolts. When a target is hit by a ranged weapon attack using a piece of ammunition drawn from the quiver, the target takes an extra 1d8 fire damage. The spell’s magic ends on a piece of ammunition when it hits or misses, and the spell ends after twelve pieces of ammunition have been drawn from the quiver.
At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 3rd level or higher, the number of pieces of ammunition you can affect with this spell increases by six for each slot level above 2nd.

Lightning Arrow
3rd level transmutation
Casting Time: 1 bonus action
Range: Self
Components: V, S, M (ranged weapon)
Duration: Instantaneous
As part of the casting of this spell you must make a ranged weapon attack, otherwise the spell fails.
Hit or miss, the weapon or ammunition emits bolts of lightning. In addition to the normal effect of the attack, the target of the attack and each creature within 10 feet of it must make a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes 3d8 lightning damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, the damage for both effects of the spell increases by 1d8 for each slot level above 3rd.

Stoneskin
4th Level Transmutation
Casting Time: 1 Action
Range: Touch
Components: S, M
Duration: 1 hour
Until the spell ends, the target has resistance to Bludgeoning, Piercing and Slashing damage

Swift Quiver
5th-Level Transmutation
Casting time: 1 Bonus Action
Range: Touch
Components: V, S, M (a weapon or quiver containing at least one piece of ammunition)
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 hour
Until the spell ends your weapon attacks deal an extra 1d6 Force damage on a hit and once per turn you can duplicate one weapon attack you make before you roll the attack. This attack is treated as two identical attacks against the same target.


Plus made a few new ones (Obscure Camp, Conjure Raft, Discern Weakness, Rope Bridge, Safeguard Shelter) because why not.

Changing the spells certainly makes a degree of sense, though I'm not sure about some of your spells, Hail of Thorns being an action to cast means it doesn't work with Extra Attack which makes it pretty weak, Zephyr Strike lost the extra damage and the bonus movement isn't covered by avoiding the OAs since you end the spell to get the movement, Lightning Arrow is still a BA but also grants an attack so means 3 attacks which I'm not sure is truly intended.

But I'll be honest I struggle a bit getting the spell wording "right" without them sounding clunky. For the weapon attack spells I found this format worked best for me.
...
Casting time: Special
Duration: Instantaneous
...
Immediately after hitting a creature with a weapon attack you may use a bonus action to [Spell description]

Out of curiosity did you also rework Cordon of Arrows, that's another spell that had promise but fell flat due to the low damage.

[Goobahfish]

One of the criticisms I've heard for the ranger class, particularly back when it was considered pretty underpowered, was that it didn't really have a strong class identity. Nobody was really sure what a ranger was supposed to be, so they were given a bunch of thematic abilities that didn't really have a unified mechanical concept. That, and some sacred cows that maybe didn't make a lot of sense from a game design perspective, but rangers have always had X, Y, and Z.

Now, what the ranger is is a mess. You can't really pin a class identity on it after the fact if it didn't have one to begin with. But what about what the ranger should have been? I think, perhaps, the fundamental class identity can be summed up as the "tracker". In my mind, this comes in two parts. First, movement. Rangers, well, range. They get around. They're good at being where they need to be. Second is detection. Information gathering. Awareness. The ranger should be an ideal scout. Their ability to move around means they can go ahead of the party and come back with information of what's ahead, without the party needing to slow down. Their heightened awareness means the information they bring back is more accurate and detailed. The ranger should be the one class specifically designed for splitting off from the rest of the party. (In fact, I could even see them having sabotage-type abilities that are insufficient to bring down a powerful enemy or large group of enemies, but nicely softens them up for the rest of the party, so that most of the ranger's contribution is done before combat rather than during. Then again, I also think wizards should be pure ritual casters who suck in combat but offer amazing utility out of combat, so maybe you shouldn't listen to me.)

Having said that, I can't help but feel like either rogue (Cunning Action for mobility, expertise for detection) or monk (Unarmored Movement, WIS-based for Perception) would both do pretty decent jobs of filling this role. If I were to rewrite ranger from scratch around this core identity, I'm not entirely sure how I'd go about making it "more ranger-y" than rogues or monks. One thing I'd probably do is leave all the nature stuff to subclasses or other customization options; urban rangers would definitely be a thing, and this class identity works really well for something like a detective. The quintessential ranger might be more akin to Batman than to Aragorn.

So what I'm wondering is if you think I'm on to something or if you think the core identity of the ranger as a class concept is something else? Would you just fold it into rogue, or do you think it should be a standalone class? What sorts of features and abilities would a ranger have, according to this mechanical identity? What would be a good core class gimmick? I'm not looking for detailed writeups, just general thoughts of how things might work. I think a lot of classes could be folded together with options to specialize, so maybe rangers lack enough substance to exist as their own class.

Ranger really doesn't have a mechanical identity. I don't think this is an easily fixable problem in 5e. Monks have a similar problem and Sorcerers to a lesser extent. The 'aesthetic' is there, just not the mechanical core.
Barbarians rage
Paladins smite
Rogues sneak attack
Druids wild shape
Clerics turn undead etc etc.

Ranger in 5e shifted from 3.5e's favoured enemy which was a mechanical core (albeit a pretty bad one) to... 'hunter's mark'. This isn't the end of the world, but there are a number of issues. #1 it should be a class feature rather than a spell (like smite isn't a spell). #2, it doesn't play with 5e that well.

In PF1 there is a Ranger/Rogue hybrid class which has a 'study target' feature. It is basically, give up action economy to be good against 1 specific target. 5e just doesn't support this very well. Most adventures are a bit 'hack and slash' by design rather than 'gather intelligence'. Monsters rarely have specific weaknesses which is what a Ranger would take advantage of. The problem is that player knowledge kind of negates any advantage the ranger would have (i.e., Red dragons are immune to fire, so rangers knowing that isn't useful).

Hunter's mark while a reasonable approximation (choose 1 target, gain damage bonus) is very stagnant. Level 1 Hunter's mark = Level 20 Hunter's mark (except in 5.1). This indicates dipping ranger is optimisationally good.

I would likely build a better framework around a more sensible Hunter's mark which incorporates favoured enemies. The idea being is that you gain a generic bonus +D4 (without concentration) against a 'marked target' (i.e., bonus action). However, you can also do the 'study' thing to increase your Hunter's mark against a type of enemy (say... goblins to D6) or a specific individual ('orkug the goblin king' to D8) or some-such. I would have this Die-bonus increase over levels reasonable frequently so taking extra levels in ranger doesn't feel like a waste.

[Bane's Wolf]

Given the popularity of Vox Machina and Critical Role in general, Vex is probably most newer folks idea of a Ranger now... She's kinda magical, though more through items than spells, but she does toss out the occasional rangery spell...

I think its kind of funny that Pike is the only healer, despite having a Bard, a Druid, and a Ranger on the team (all decently high-level as well).

Pike is the only healer, unless the wound can be fixed with dirt and spit :smallwink:

The show had to severely limit the abilities of the characters from their DnD counterparts, in order for new viewers, who don't know DnD, to understand.
Each character in the show essentially gets to have one or two "special things" that they can do. Everything else is going to need an explanation (magic item, scroll, etc)


I don't think Vex is going to be anyone's idea of a Ranger. She really comes across more as "Archer with a pet bear" in the show. If anything, Vex and Vax both have more "warrior rogue" vibes

Future seasons may change my mind though :smallsmile:


I agree that callouts to older versions just don't matter. Yes, that includes Drizzt. Or even most of literature, because people don't read very much anymore.

And ranger is polysemous and has an archaic, but still fairly potent meaning (those that range/protect the borders, which is the meaning used for the US Army Rangers).

My experience is that most of my players, many of whom are completely new to D&D, see "ranger == pseudo-magical scout/special forces soldier". Not the "stand in ranks and fight" type, but the "get behind enemy lines and mess stuff up" kind.

Wow - I never thought of it this way.
And it absolutely fits. Fantasy Army Ranger is absolutely a fitting identity for the dnd ranger and many of his abilities :smallamused:



As for spell-casting, that's a lost cause. As much as I'd love for there to be lots of non-spell-based "magic" (ie fantastic abilities), that's not the path WotC has gone down. So "casts spells" is as close as it gets. But I think there's lots of room there to make a thematic explanation of that that differentiates them from others. Here's how I run it--

Both druids and rangers cast spells by invoking the omni-present, animistic "spirits of nature". But they do so very differently--

Druids make micro-level deals with these spirits (who aren't really sentient in a human way), promising a bit of their energy (spell slots) in exchange for the spirit channeling the spell through them. Basically "I'll feed you in exchange for you doing a trick". Each day they can change what spirits they're bargaining with to switch spell loadout.

Rangers, on the other hand, make friends with specific spirits. They effectively bond them, teach them tricks, and work them into their gear and their companions. The animal companion (in the OG Beastmaster)? That's an animal who has had one of these "pet spirits" embedded in it, forming a bond between ranger and pet. Note that a lot of their spells are weapon-based--they imbue the spirits into their weapons and ammo, feeding them spell slots to get them to do their specific trick "on command". But it's very much more a "pack" mentality, not a bargain/bargainer/quid-pro-quo relationship.

Both use Wisdom because listening to and letting the spirits' energy and guidance and "patterns" (for lack of a better word) is key to effectively directing the spells as well as keeping the bonds separate and going.

Druids tend to take the side of nature, seeing civilization as ascendant and seeking to balance it. Rangers see civilization as being threatened by rampant nature, and act to balance that. But neither viewpoint is absolute.

I love this :smallbiggrin:
I may steal this for my setting


I wonder if there isn't something to having these themes in place by building out a series of more versatile abilities beyond "Advantage against Enemy X".

Like, for Favored Enemy: Dragons give them an ability that makes them good against flying enemies, an ability that lets them resist elements, and an ability that works against Large or Huge enemies. Combined, these abilities make them very effective against Dragons, but in isolation each one can work in any number of scenarios.

Similarly, "Favored Terrain" might work best as a series of discreet, thematically appropriate abilities. Favored Terrain Desert and Plains may give you move speed buffs, while Forests and Swamps let you ignore difficult terrain, and Mountains and Cities give you climb speeds.

Agreed. Favorite enemy is very cool, and i'd love to keep it, but it needs some changes to keep it relevant against other enemies

[Kane0]

Hail of Thorns being an action to cast means it doesn't work with Extra Attack which makes it pretty weak

Zephyr Strike lost the extra damage and the bonus movement isn't covered by avoiding the OAs since you end the spell to get the movement

Lightning Arrow is still a BA but also grants an attack so means 3 attacks which I'm not sure is truly intended.

Out of curiosity did you also rework Cordon of Arrows, that's another spell that had promise but fell flat due to the low damage.

Well I couldnt make it a bonus action modelled after the smite spells because of things like Hunters Mark and Slayers Prey, so i modelled it a bit like the bladetrips instead. Of course it doesnt scale for free like cantrips though, but its a good range AoE from a first level slot that still gets to add all your damage bonuses to weapon attacks.

Yeah because I gave Rangers other free damage bonuses, and there is already Hunters Mark so this this is like a cheap, temporary Mobile with the option to drop it for a burst of speed and accuracy as a bonus

Yes that was intended, as fitting for a 3rd level half-caster spell. Incidentally, changing to bonus action to cast could be a good upcasting option for Hail of Thorns

Erm, no actually. Seems like a fine way to burn leftover slots at the end of a day, or setting up a quick trap when you dont have multiple minutes available for snare or glyph of warding?

[Unoriginal]

You know, if they wanted to lean into the "favored enemy" idea without making it an hindrance for the design, they could just give the Ranger something sort of like Fighting Styles, but that makes them better at dealing with informal kinds of enemies rather than just "be better against Beasts/Monstrosities/etc".

For example, you could have a "Ranger Style" called "Bane of the Heavily Armored", which gives the Ranger a crit on 19-20 if the target has 19 AC or more. Or one called "Foe of the Unarmed", which gives all creatures disadvantage on the first attack per turn made against the Ranger with unarmed strikes or natural weapons.

[da newt]

In my head cannon the ranger is a hunter - this defines them and differentiates them from soldiers (fighters) and vikings/brawlers (barbarians) and sneak thieves/assassins (rogues) - all of whom specialize in people as their most common foes.

They are usually independent often acting alone; they have a wide range of skills rather than a singular hyper focus; they are more at home outside of the humanoid population centers; they are adept at simple mystical nature magics; and lean into the dexterous and wise abilities.

They are the ones who track and snipe - they set up ambushes - they pursue quietly and strike unannounced. They protect the people from the wild / savage things. They use cover and movement to give them the advantage. They don't like to stand toe to toe and bang - that's for fools who like to get injured. They pick their fights and will wait if conditions are not favorable.

Some also have a pet, but this is more subclass than core (in my mind). They are a friend of nature, the natural balance of things and the cycle of life.

I think they have a pretty solid core identity, but it is not particularly well established/reflected in their mechanical abilities. I've always enjoyed the archetype.

[LibraryOgre]

I'm personally imagining it less mystical, the Ranger meditates for a bit, remembering the weak spots of the foe in question, practices some sword strokes, maybe does some Witcher stuff of mixing up a poison that works on the foe in question, swapping out some arrowheads, ect ect.

They can switch to their "Favored Enemy" faster because, as that's their favored enemy, they've already got the knowledge/stuff on hand to fight it, rather than needing to study up/ remind themselves what works against Giants.

Hmmm... minor action to make an Intelligence check, recalling weak points of an enemy, and thus gain the bonuses?

[Goobahfish]

In my head cannon the ranger is a hunter - this defines them and differentiates them from soldiers (fighters) and vikings/brawlers (barbarians) and sneak thieves/assassins (rogues) - all of whom specialize in people as their most common foes.

They are usually independent often acting alone; they have a wide range of skills rather than a singular hyper focus; they are more at home outside of the humanoid population centers; they are adept at simple mystical nature magics; and lean into the dexterous and wise abilities.

They are the ones who track and snipe - they set up ambushes - they pursue quietly and strike unannounced. They protect the people from the wild / savage things. They use cover and movement to give them the advantage. They don't like to stand toe to toe and bang - that's for fools who like to get injured. They pick their fights and will wait if conditions are not favorable.

Some also have a pet, but this is more subclass than core (in my mind). They are a friend of nature, the natural balance of things and the cycle of life.

I think they have a pretty solid core identity, but it is not particularly well established/reflected in their mechanical abilities. I've always enjoyed the archetype.

While this makes sense as a 'fluff' archetype, from a D&D perspective, it is basically leaning into 'doesn't work with party'. There is an element of 'the ranger goes solo for a bit while everyone waits around'. So while I agree with the premise, WoTC could never lean to heavily into this theme without ruining the ranger as a PC.

[Amnestic]

While this makes sense as a 'fluff' archetype, from a D&D perspective, it is basically leaning into 'doesn't work with party'. There is an element of 'the ranger goes solo for a bit while everyone waits around'. So while I agree with the premise, WoTC could never lean to heavily into this theme without ruining the ranger as a PC.

Paladins have got their auras, rangers could potentially deploy 'tactics' or 'strategems' as passive buffs, as a way to mechanically reinforce the fluff while showing that it's encouraging group play instead of solo.

And at this point I'm shoving so many potential mechanics ideas it's hard to whittle down which ones I want to keep.

[clash]

I think the tracking theme is great but would lean into actually practical applications. Instead of "I can follow this creature across 100 miles" go with "I know what's on the other side of this door because I can see the tracks on this side". That allows the whole prepared approach to work better.

[paladinn]

Pondering this some more.. Maybe the problem isn't just the effects of the favored enemy/foe feature, but the target. The original ranger ability gave a damage bonus equal to level against any "giant class" creatures, which ended up being any humanoids, from kobolds to storm giants. Eventually that's a pretty decent bonus! And in most campaigns, a ranger is bound to encounter something that would fit the mold. By 2e, this had gotten nerfed to One "species enemy" with a +4 to hit. 3e went back to a damage roll, +2 with an increase every 5 levels, but still a narrow enemy definition. 5e is all over the map.

I like C&C's equivalent: it gives the original damage bonus against all humanoids, And a +2 AC and attack against one favored enemy. Again, it may be situational; but the AC/attack bonus could be redefined as a hunters mark-type ability. I actually might flip the features: +2AC and attack against All humanoids, and a damage bonus against a favored enemy or hunters mark target.

Regardless, outside of tracking, the favored foe/enemy thing Is the rangers' "thing." Just need to tweak so it's not uber-situational.

[Kane0]

Paladins have got their auras, rangers could potentially deploy 'tactics' or 'strategems' as passive buffs, as a way to mechanically reinforce the fluff while showing that it's encouraging group play instead of solo.

And at this point I'm shoving so many potential mechanics ideas it's hard to whittle down which ones I want to keep.

I make the quarry ability shareable, so when you pick out an enemy its not just you that is getting the once per turn bonus damage against it, its everyone within an area around you. So youre singling out that guy not just as someone you want to put in the ground post haste but also throwing out pointers and making openings for your team to really focus fire.

Similarly, during travel i let rangers throw their wisdom bonus onto dex, int and wis checks their allies also make while travelling, so they arent just bushwacking on their own or scouting ahead but leading and helping the entire group along the way.

Team player Ranger!

[Tanarii]

The original ranger ability gave a damage bonus equal to level against any "giant class" creatures, which ended up being any humanoids, from kobolds to storm giants.
They put this damage bonus in more broadly applicable subclass abilities instead. (Per word of the Devs.) Because they felt making an actual damage bonus that's core to the class conditional would be a bridge too far too cross. That's because in 5e, all classes are supposed to have generally applicable damage.

Meanwhile favored enemy could remain situational, because it's a bit more ribbon-y. It's still very useful in an adventure path, because those are mostly designed with large numbers of one or two kinds of enemy per tier. But definitely less useful in a highly varied sandbox.

That's not to say making favored enemy less situational is bad. Just that making it more powerful, and especially making it a combat bonus again, shouldn't happen. Because that damage is already accounted for.

The Hunter archetype is the primary "damage bonus against certain kinds of foes" subclass, reminiscent of the giant class bonus. But it's useful against very broad categories because it doesn't actually use creature type as its filter. Instead it uses large numbers (hoardbreaker), high hit point (colossus slayer), and large-size (giant killer).

------

Their one minor mistake in the PHB is the made Tracking awesomeness and other scouting related stuff only work in limited Terrains. It definitely should have been all natural terrains. Because IMO all that stuff is a core Ranger function. But since 5e (like all WotC D&D) is all about combat and only combat being equally accessible to everyone, it didn't get the same treatment as the former "giant class bonus".

[Schwann145]

Is it just me, or do most suggestions for Ranger fixes end up thematically on-point but wildly underpowered for standard D&D 5e play?

You can't ever fix the Ranger without addressing, head on, the core issue, which is that their "role" in the game has been entirely replaced by a combination of how epic every character is designed to be from level 1 onward (ie: no threat that Rangers are meant to overcome is actually threatening to standard D&D characters of *any* class - there's no need for the Ranger's help because the Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, whatever, was never in trouble from non-magical overgrown brush or a pack of wolves), and also that most people just don't find the type of gameplay Rangers excel at to be fun and just leave it out of the game entirely (tracking rations, finding safe drinking water, etc).

The concept of "Ranger" just doesn't really belong in 5e D&D because D&D left that style of gameplay behind decades ago.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Is it just me, or do most suggestions for Ranger fixes end up thematically on-point but wildly underpowered for standard D&D 5e play?

You can't ever fix the Ranger without addressing, head on, the core issue, which is that their "role" in the game has been entirely replaced by a combination of how epic every character is designed to be from level 1 onward (ie: no threat that Rangers are meant to overcome is actually threatening to standard D&D characters of *any* class - there's no need for the Ranger's help because the Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, whatever, was never in trouble from non-magical overgrown brush or a pack of wolves), and also that most people just don't find the type of gameplay Rangers excel at to be fun and just leave it out of the game entirely (tracking rations, finding safe drinking water, etc).

The concept of "Ranger" just doesn't really belong in 5e D&D because D&D left that style of gameplay behind decades ago.

Only if you treat their role really really narrowly as "tracker + mundane survival guy ".

If you think of it as "fantasy special forces", there's a lot more room to work. And that's what people really think of (at least new people who aren't steeped in D&D-specific lore).

[Schwann145]

Only if you treat their role really really narrowly as "tracker + mundane survival guy ".

If you think of it as "fantasy special forces", there's a lot more room to work. And that's what people really think of (at least new people who aren't steeped in D&D-specific lore).

The problem is that a Ranger really is just a warrior by another name. What makes them special is their ability to survive in the wild (stops being relevant after low tier 1 gameplay) and their ability to survive on their own (totally irrelevant in a team-based game like D&D).
All we're left with is... Fighter.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The problem is that a Ranger really is just a warrior by another name. What makes them special is their ability to survive in the wild (stops being relevant after low tier 1 gameplay) and their ability to survive on their own (totally irrelevant in a team-based game like D&D).
All we're left with is... Fighter.

That's your conception of a ranger. Which I've already said is way too narrow and the cause of your problems. Or, conversely, your concept of a Fighter is way too broad. Sure, their existing mechanics aren't the best, but that's a reflection of the same kind of cramped "mundane nature survivalist" thinking.

Rangers are to druids and fighters what paladins are to clerics and fighters. Magically-aided warriors (primally-magical in this case). Not as suited for the front lines as a fighter, but with a broader range of capabilities. In this case, their whole thing is to range the borders. To be the point of the spear in hostile territory wherever that is. He should be the guy chosen to be "on point" when in hostile lands. He's the scout, the sniper, the "wilderness rogue" (where wilderness includes everything but cities). If you don't have a rogue, the ranger can fill in his duties. If you don't have a fighter, the ranger can step in[1]. But even if you do have both of those, he's still got a role. For one thing, he can be the healer and magic dude that they can't be. In a natural setting (which should be a crap-ton of your gaming, and includes much more than just mundane wilderness), he should be unmatched. He's the one who understands both monsters and people well enough to play the face (or figure out what they're up to).

Now, of course, there are some issues. Specifically that both Fighter and Rogue are too broad, too bland of concepts so they step on everyone else's toes. This is the same issue with the wizard and all the arcane casters. But that's not the stepped-on-classes' fault--it's the fault of the crappy design of the fighter, rogue, and wizard (mostly wizard, but fighter to a large degree). Broad, bland, "build-a-bear" classes make the rest of the game not work because they steal everyone else's thematic and mechanical niches.

[1] I've got a party with a trickery cleric, two rangers, and a moon druid. Works just nifty.

[Kane0]

That's your conception of a ranger. Which I've already said is way too narrow and the cause of your problems.

Yep. Rangers aren just a different flavor of fighter, they are their own blend of warrior, skillmonkey and caster with a leam towards nature themed skillmonkeying and magic. They have a series of minor mechanical issues that culminate in a lacklustre whole that has been chipped away at for years now, both officially and unofficially.

[animorte]

Only if you treat their role really really narrowly as "tracker + mundane survival guy ".

If you think of it as "fantasy special forces", there's a lot more room to work. And that's what people really think of (at least new people who aren't steeped in D&D-specific lore).
Can confirm. I can certainly appreciate the lore, but I attempt to approach each character (indeed every opportunity) with a broader scope.


Yep. Rangers aren just a different flavor of fighter, they are their own blend of warrior, skillmonkey and caster with a leam towards nature themed skillmonkeying and magic. They have a series of minor mechanical issues that culminate in a lacklustre whole that has been chipped away at for years now, both officially and unofficially.
I have always appreciated the well-rounded approach of the Ranger, though it has always felt like it required a little more DM consideration for more features than most other classes. Much of this has been addressed in various ways over the years, as you say.

[Schwann145]

That's your conception of a ranger. Which I've already said is way too narrow and the cause of your problems.

Actually, it's not. It's the conception of the Ranger as presented by the Player's Handbook.
This conception of the Ranger is the one WotC is presenting up front!
I agree they *should* be more, but that's not how the game itself advertises them.

[Witty Username]

Yep. Rangers aren just a different flavor of fighter, they are their own blend of warrior, skillmonkey and caster with a leam towards nature themed skillmonkeying and magic. They have a series of minor mechanical issues that culminate in a lacklustre whole that has been chipped away at for years now, both officially and unofficially.

The sad part is ranger in its current iteration is pretty powerful due to the martial shell and half-casting mostly of the best spell list (druid), but just with a lot of feel bads because their features are crap.
I like to compare with monk on this.
Monk mechanically is the worst class in the game, but thematicly is one of the best.
Ranger is conversly very good mechanically, but the bad features and lack of clarity lead to poor mechanics.

I personally think bringing those aspects forward (and adopting the Tasha's features as they better bring the point across) is plenty to get it in working order.

As well as the every martial, get at least one new feature past 11th level. But that isn't a ranger specific issue.

[Kane0]

Actually, it's not. It's the conception of the Ranger as presented by the Player's Handbook.
This conception of the Ranger is the one WotC is presenting up front!
I agree they *should* be more, but that's not how the game itself advertises them.

I'll admit my PHB is one of the really early, pre-errata ones but here's what it says:



DEADLY HUNTERS
Warriors of the wilderness, rangers specialize in hunting the monsters that threaten the edges of civilization-humanoid raiders, rampaging beasts and monstrosities, terrible giants, and deadly dragons. They learn to track their quarry as a predator does, moving stealthily thraugh the wilds and hiding themselves in brush and rubble. Rangers focus their combat training on techniques that are particularly useful against their specific favored foes.
Thanks to their familiarity with the wilds, rangers acquire the ability to cast spells that harness nature's power, much as a druid does. Their spells, like their combat abilities, emphasize speed, stealth, and the hunt. A ranger's talents and abilities are honed with deadly focus on the grim task of protecting the borderlands.


Lets pick out some keywords here:
Warrior, Wilderness, Hunting, Tracking, Predator, Stealthily, Hiding, Combat, Training, Wilds, Spells, Nature, Speed

Comparing with the Fighter


WELL-ROUNDED SPECIALISTS
Fighters learn the basics of all combat styles. Every fighter can swing an axe, fence with a rapier, wield a longsword or a greatsword, use a bow, and even trap foes in a net with some degree of skill. Likewise,
a fighter is adept with shields and every form of armor. Beyond that basic degree of familiarity, each fighter specializes in a certain style of combat. Some concentrate on archery, some on fighting with two weapons at once, and some on augmenting their martial skills with magic. This combination of broad general ability and extensive specialization makes fighters superior combatants on battlefields and in dungeons alike.

Combat, Axe, Rapier, Longsword, Greatsword, Bow, Net, Shields, Armor, Archery, Martial, Broad General Ability, Extensive Specialization, Combatants

I guess i'm just not seeing what you're seeing sorry.

[Schwann145]

I guess i'm just not seeing what you're seeing sorry.

Let's look a little more deeply than keywords then:


DEADLY HUNTERS
Are they? I wonder. We'll see.


Warriors of the wilderness, rangers specialize in hunting the monsters that threaten the edges of civilization-humanoid raiders, rampaging beasts and monstrosities, terrible giants, and deadly dragons.
This leaves out a few monster types (Aberations, Celestials, Constructs, Elementals, Fey, Fiends, Oozes, Plants, and Undead), but it includes them again in the actual mechanics, represented by Favored Enemy which... boils down to "you get Advantage on Survival Checks against this specifically chosen enemy type."
Or, with Tasha's, you can swap this out for Favored Foe, opt to not gain any "hunting" bonuses, and instead get a generic damage increase (less Hunter, more Warrior).

tl;dr - Your special "Ranger" thing is... just a minor Survival check bonus. (And, funny enough, you're either a Hunter who isn't deadly, or Deadly without being a hunter... but not both.)


They learn to track their quarry as a predator does, moving stealthily through the wilds and hiding themselves in brush and rubble.
Stealth and Survival are Class Skills for you. Nothing you can't get from a Background.


Rangers focus their combat training on techniques that are particularly useful against their specific favored foes.
You get access to Fighting Styles, but your choices are more limited. Also, this turns out to be just a lie - nothing about your fighting style is related to your specific favored foes. Aside from Fighting Styles, we're going back to the Favored Enemy/Foe issue from above, where if you're the former, you're *not* particularly combat trained for specific foes (until level 20 anyway), or you *are* but you're not better than anyone else at Hunting them.


Thanks to their familiarity with the wilds, rangers acquire the ability to cast spells that harness nature's power, much as a druid does.
Except you really don't, do you? You're more familiar with Fey, Elemental, and otherworldly spirits than you are with anything "natural." But, more on point, they're able to cast some spells... But so are some Fighters and Rogues, so this doesn't make them particularly unique, or even very different from Fighters or Rogues.


Their spells, like their combat abilities, emphasize speed, stealth, and the hunt.
You draw from a different list (the Druid list) than Warrior casters or Rogue casters do.


A ranger's talents and abilities are honed with deadly focus on the grim task of protecting the borderlands.
Battlefields are where Fighters reign supreme, but "The Borderlands" are just a specific type of battlefield.


INDEPENDENT ADVENTURERS
Here's that, "not party friendly" part starting up that you forgot to include. I got'chu tho.


Though a ranger might make a living as a hunter, a guide, or a tracker, a ranger's true calling is to defend the outskirts of civilization from the ravages of monsters and humanoid hordes that press in from the wild.
Hunter, guide, tracker... these are all very low-level downtime activities to make a living with. But it's what the game is calling them out as being good at. You got some low-tier-1 struggles? A Ranger is your solution. (If you're higher level, or rich, magic is better.)


In some places, rangers gather in secretive orders or join forces with druidic circles. Many rangers, though, are independent almost to a fault, knowing that, when a dragon or a band of orcs attacks, a ranger might be the first - and possibly the last - line of defense.
Secretive orders of Rangers and/or Druid circles aren't particularly "party inclusive" unless everyone is on board with being a Ranger or Druid. Unlikely.
"Independent almost to a fault" is even worse for party gameplay.


This fierce independence makes rangers well suited to adventuring, since they are accustomed to life far fram the comforts of a dry bed and a hot bath. Faced with city-bred adventurers who grouse and whine about the hardships of the wild, rangers respond with some mixture of amusement, frustration, and compassion.
Rangers are suited to adventuring, but they prefer to do it alone, cuz the "civilized" folk just can't hack it. Again... bad for a group-based game.


But they quickly learn that other adventurers who can carry their own weight in a fight against civilization's foes are worth any extra burden.
We finally get one single sentence of text that allows Rangers to work with others! That took forever, but we got there! Whew.


Coddled city folk might not know how to feed themselves or find fresh water in the wild, but they make up for it in other ways.
Aaand we just ruined it. Feed themselves in the wild? Find fresh water? Yep, these are specific things that you can count on a Ranger to help you with. Things that 90% of games just flat out ignore entirely as "unfun," and the ones that do bother with them outgrow the challenge before tier 1 ends.

So... in conclusion: You can pretty clearly replicate a Ranger by being a Fighter who makes sure to be good at Survival, good at Stealth, and picks up Magic Initiate, selecting Druid.

The things that the game specifically calls Rangers out as being good at? Hunting specific types of foes (Survival checks), Fighting specific types of foes (damage bonuses that many/any other class can match or beat), Hiding (Stealth checks), casting some Druidic magic (accomplished with a Feat), and tackling survival challenges that most games ignore, and that become very quickly obsolete in games that don't ignore them... and are equally accomplished by anyone with training in the Survival skill.

And that's what the PHB is saying.

[Kane0]

Righto, so is your central contention that the mechanics do not match the thematics? If so, I agree!
However if your claim is that the ranger isnt functionally different to the fighter, then I'm afraid I disagree. A lot of that is subjective of course, but they arent fundamentally the same thing wearing different hats so to speak.

[Schwann145]

Righto, so is your central contention that the mechanics do not match the thematics? If so, I agree!
However if your claim is that the ranger isnt functionally different to the fighter, then I'm afraid I disagree. A lot of that is subjective of course, but they arent fundamentally the same thing wearing different hats so to speak.

Actually, I find that the mechanics do a very good job of matching the thematics. The issue is that the mechanics just aren't good at the numbers game. Favored Enemy is incredibly thematic and fitting; it's just giving bonuses that no one cares about. Favored Foe, on the flip side, is incredibly boring and non-thematic, but it gives damage bonuses so people much prefer it.

However, my central contention is that the game is not played in a way that makes the Ranger class, as advertised, valuable any longer.
The Ranger is indeed functionally different to the Fighter, but the ways in which their function differs is so fundamentally non-important and/or so quickly outgrown that it doesn't provide any true utility. And what is left over is not any functionally different than a Fighter.

[Kane0]

However, my central contention is that the game is not played in a way that makes the Ranger class, as advertised, valuable any longer.
The Ranger is indeed functionally different to the Fighter, but the ways in which their function differs is so fundamentally non-important and/or so quickly outgrown that it doesn't provide any true utility. And what is left over is not any functionally different than a Fighter.

Yeah thats fair. I dont think its quite so extreme, but the social/exploration pillars essentially being a lie is a meme for a reason.

[Tanarii]

, but the social/exploration pillars essentially being a lie is a meme for a reason.
The cake is a lie, but exploration is just incredibly weakly supported. Even if you consider exploration to mean "any moving around an adventuring site" like I do.

But Natural explorer benefits are not weak. They are extremely powerful. If your party has a Ranger in the Party and is adventuring in their natural explorer terrain, they've gained massive benefits, including ones that directly translate to any resulting combat benefits for the entire party.

If all your adventuring sites are going to be Dungeons, a Ranger may not be the best class to pick. Or a Druid. Or even a Nature Cleric, Barbarian, or Ancients Paladin. But if they're going to be in one of the regions dominant natural terrain at least some of the time, a Ranger with that terrain is a huge boon.

[Sorinth]

So... in conclusion: You can pretty clearly replicate a Ranger by being a Fighter who makes sure to be good at Survival, good at Stealth, and picks up Magic Initiate, selecting Druid.

The same is true for every class though, take the things the PHB says defines a Rogue and you can also replicate it with other classes. A dex fighter with the criminal background and skill expertise can stand in for your classic rogue. A War Cleric who's sworn an oath as part of a holy order or warrior priests can replicate a Paladin, etc...

[Schwann145]

The same is true for every class though, take the things the PHB says defines a Rogue and you can also replicate it with other classes. A dex fighter with the criminal background and skill expertise can stand in for your classic rogue. A War Cleric who's sworn an oath as part of a holy order or warrior priests can replicate a Paladin, etc...

I don't disagree (maybe not *every* class, but most certainly).
However, being a warrior is valuable, so a Cleric who makes themselves better at combat to emulate a Paladin is still valued by a party.
A character good at many skills is valuable, so a Fighter who spends their feats on gaining several Expertise skill options is still valued by a party.
However, the Survival skill really just isn't valuable with the way 5e is structured and played. So the Ranger, who is 80% or more based on being good at the Survival skill, just isn't filling a valued role. It's why every time they "fix" an aspect of the class, the change in question is almost always something that makes them numerically better at fighting.

[Ir0ns0ul]

One particular combat mechanic niche that I liked a lot back in (I know, yacks) 4e for Rangers was their capability of being really good strikers thanks to their multiple attacks. They didn’t hit so hard, but their share of attack were always great. This specific niche in 5e went directly to Fighters without the drawback of not hitting so hard; and maybe Monks to a lesser extent.

I always had in my mind that Barbarians and Fighters wielded big guns and hit hard. Rogues hit hard thanks to their Sneak Attack. Paladin hit hard because of Smite. Unfortunately Rangers don’t have an innate way of hitting hard in 5 (although Gloomstalkers kind of solved that).

[RogueJK]

They put this damage bonus in more broadly applicable subclass abilities instead. (Per word of the Devs.) Because they felt making an actual damage bonus that's core to the class conditional would be a bridge too far too cross. That's because in 5e, all classes are supposed to have generally applicable damage.

Yep, no conditional creature-type-related damage bonuses for any classes in 5E. None at all.

Except, y'know, Paladins getting bonus Smite damage against Undead and Fiends...

And Clerics getting to destroy Undead outright...

And Clerics getting the Forbiddance spell that deals extra damage to Celestials, Elementals, Fey, Fiends, and Undead...

And the Druid, Sorcerer, and Wizard all getting spells like Sunbeam or Sunburst that are likely to do more damage to Undead and Oozes due to imposing Disadvantage on their saves...

And the Sorcerer and Wizard getting the Abi-Dalzim’s Horrid Wilting spell that imposes Disadvantage on the save by Plants and Water Elementals so they're likely to take more damage...

And the Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard getting Shatter that imposes Disadvantage on the saves by most Constructs so they're likely to take more damage...

And the Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard getting Blight that imposes Disadvantage on the saves by Plants AND does maximum damage to them...

But other than that, definitely no conditional creature-type-related damage bonuses for any classes in 5E.

:wink:

[ahyangyi]

One particular combat mechanic niche that I liked a lot back in (I know, yacks) 4e for Rangers was their capability of being really good strikers thanks to their multiple attacks. They didn’t hit so hard, but their share of attack were always great. This specific niche in 5e went directly to Fighters without the drawback of not hitting so hard; and maybe Monks to a lesser extent.

I always had in my mind that Barbarians and Fighters wielded big guns and hit hard. Rogues hit hard thanks to their Sneak Attack. Paladin hit hard because of Smite. Unfortunately Rangers don’t have an innate way of hitting hard in 5 (although Gloomstalkers kind of solved that).

I feel that was mostly caused by 4e failing their intended math model (e.g. wrong to-hit scaling and existence of frostcheese all from PHB1). The supposed Ranger feature was Hunter's Quarry, not Twin Strike, which was just one of the many At-will powers a ranger could choose.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I feel that was mostly caused by 4e failing their intended math model (e.g. wrong to-hit scaling and existence of frostcheese all from PHB1). The supposed Ranger feature was Hunter's Quarry, not Twin Strike, which was just one of the many At-will powers a ranger could choose.

Yeah. And personally, based on their nature, I'd have preferred if the "default" ranger was a One Big Hit (or two slightly smaller hits, but bigger than fighter hits) model. Of the "sniper" vein. Because that fits the "special forces scout" model best. He's not carrying a machine gun, he's carrying the super-accurate one-shot, one-kill sniper rifle. Leave the knife-fighting for rogues--instead of being melee-first, ranged second (the default rogue before Tasha's was better as TWF than ranged unless cover was everywhere), the ranger should be the king of ranged combat. They should get all the "imbue my arrow" stuff. Heck, you could do a fairly good Hawkeye impression that way, with "spell arrows" of all sorts. Instead of mechanical knowhow, it'd be imbuing nature spirits into the arrows.

[LibraryOgre]

Completely to the side, but I wish the inspiration for Rangers had been Beorn, not Aragorn.

[RogueJK]

Completely to the side, but I wish the inspiration for Rangers had been Beorn, not Aragorn.

Pathfinder has a class like that, the Shifter. It's an unarmed and unarmored shapeshifting martial who specializes in nature-related skills like tracking and animal handling.

In 5E terms, it's sort of like a Ranger (ease of overland movement, nature-related skill expert for tracking/scouting/animal handling) crossed with a Monk (unarmed strikes, +WIS to unarmored AC, eventual immunity to disease/poison/aging) crossed with a Moon Druid without spells (shapeshifts into animals, knows Druidic, won't wear or use metal weapons/armor).

[Tanarii]

the ranger should be the king of ranged combat.
No thanks. :smallyuk:

It's bad enough that it's so dang hard to make a StRanger already. But if their combat is getting further tweaks, they need more support for (non-TWF) melee, not more focus on archery.

I'd rather they went back to the Unearthed Arcana woodsmen focus for what weapons to use, more balanced than the current focus: Sword (any type), Spear or Axe, Dagger or Knife, Bow or Crossbow

[PhoenixPhyre]

No thanks. :smallyuk:

It's bad enough that it's so dang hard to make a StRanger already. But if their combat is getting further tweaks, they need more support for (non-TWF) melee, not more focus on archery.

At some point, that ends up in total overlap. I'm totally ok with the idea that rangers are dex-based.

Barbarians: STR-based.
Fighters: Switch-hitter. Either STR or DEX.
Rangers: should be primarily DEX-based. They're the sniper of the squad.
Rogues: Dex-based. The in-fighter.
Paladins: STR based.

That way you get 2 STR, 2 DEX, and 1 switch hitter. In fact, I'd say that fighters should get features that let them use either STR or DEX with any weapon (with slightly different effects). Fighters should be the master of all weapons. Floating fighting styles, floating ability scores--a fighter should be able to kill you with a pencil or a big ol honking axe. And if you run away, they should be able to pick up a bow and kill you just as easily.

[Tanarii]

Fighters: Switch-hitter. Either STR or DEX.

This also bothers me. What makes a Fighter a Fighter is a big melee weapon or sword and board, and heavy armor. :smallamused:

[RogueJK]

Fighters: Switch-hitter. Either STR or DEX.
Paladins: STR based.

Paladins can be DEX-based just as easily as Fighters. None of their class or subclass abilities key off STR, and Divine Smite just requires a melee attack, which can be made with a Finesse weapon like a Rapier. Unlike the Barbarian's Rage and Reckless Attack, it doesn't require specifically a STR-based melee attack.

You can totally dump STR on a DEXadin, unless you're wanting to multiclass. And even if you're going to multiclass, you can typically afford a 13 STR alongside a high DEX and moderate CHA and CON.

Even with Standard Array, you could do something like this and be a totally effective DEXadin, and be eligible to multiclass into Rogue/Fighter/Bard/Warlock/Sorcerer to your heart's content:
STR 12+1
DEX 15+1
CON 13+1
INT 8
WIS 10
CHA 14

[ahyangyi]

At some point, that ends up in total overlap. I'm totally ok with the idea that rangers are dex-based.

Barbarians: STR-based.
Fighters: Switch-hitter. Either STR or DEX.
Rangers: should be primarily DEX-based. They're the sniper of the squad.
Rogues: Dex-based. The in-fighter.
Paladins: STR based.

That way you get 2 STR, 2 DEX, and 1 switch hitter. In fact, I'd say that fighters should get features that let them use either STR or DEX with any weapon (with slightly different effects). Fighters should be the master of all weapons. Floating fighting styles, floating ability scores--a fighter should be able to kill you with a pencil or a big ol honking axe. And if you run away, they should be able to pick up a bow and kill you just as easily.

Problem is genre expectations I guess. We are more or less used to accept that class and fighting styles are, if not exactly orthogonal, at least flexible enough to support most combinations.

For example, people want to play a barbarian who smashes things with his two-hand hammer furiously. And also a fighter who fights people with his two-hand hammer deftly. And also a rogue who hits people's head with his two-hand hammer sneakily*. And also a paladin who hit people with a big two-hand hammer with smite. And finally... a ranger who fights things with a two-hand hammer “hunterly”. But “hunterly” lacks any clear meaning.

*: not supported by 5e, but people were often asking about the possibility of a "thug/ruffian" rogue anyways.

[Tanarii]

And finally... a ranger who fights things with a two-hand hammer “hunterly”. But “hunterly” lacks any clear meaning.
Make it an axe and we're good to go.

[Kane0]

I always had in my mind that Barbarians and Fighters wielded big guns and hit hard. Rogues hit hard thanks to their Sneak Attack. Paladin hit hard because of Smite. Unfortunately Rangers don’t have an innate way of hitting hard in 5 (although Gloomstalkers kind of solved that).

*Gestures upthread* I gotchu bro.



Leave the knife-fighting for rogues--instead of being melee-first, ranged second (the default rogue before Tasha's was better as TWF than ranged unless cover was everywhere), the ranger should be the king of ranged combat. They should get all the "imbue my arrow" stuff. Heck, you could do a fairly good Hawkeye impression that way, with "spell arrows" of all sorts. Instead of mechanical knowhow, it'd be imbuing nature spirits into the arrows.
Arcane Archer should have been a Ranger subclass.

[RogueJK]

Arcane Archer should have been a Ranger subclass.

I don't disagree that it would have worked better as a Ranger subclass than as a Fighter subclass, with access to both magical arrows as well as the Ranger's archery-centric spellcasting, but here's my Hot Take: Arcane Archer should have been a Monk subclass

1) It covers the "Shaolin/Kyudo/Zen Archer" type of character. (Heck, Pathfinder even has a Zen Archer subclass for the Monk which uses WIS in place of DEX for archery, based on the concept originated with the Zen Archery feat from D&D 3E.)

2) Monk already has a built-in limited resource for spending on different magic arrow effects, with differing point costs based on their effect like Metamagic or Four Elements, rather than the Arcane Archer's existing arbitrary "2 per rest".

3) It lets them do cool stuff like use their Reaction to catch an arrow using Deflect Missiles and then spend a Ki Point to immediately fire it back at the enemy as a magic-infused arrow.

4) It gives the Monk a chance to have a 1/3 WIS-based caster subclass ala EK or AT, pulling from the Ranger's archery-heavy spell list.

5) It would have been the default "ranged Monk subclass", totally replacing the janky Sun Soul subclass in XGtE, and the Kensei subclass released alongside it could have then focused on melee weapons like it originally did in AD&D, and like its name itself implies. Kensei = "Sword Saint" = "an honorary title given to a warrior of legendary skill in swordsmanship".

All the Kensei subclass would have required as far as tweaking is deleting their already near-worthless Kensei's Shot ability and making a simple modification to their Kensei Weapons ability to read: "Choose two types of weapons to be your kensei weapons, one melee weapon and one ranged weapon. Each of these weapons can be any simple or martial melee weapon that lacks the heavy and special properties. The longbow is also a valid choice."

6) It would have allowed the Fighter to have a different subclass release in XGtE, like the now-defunct UA Sharpshooter archer subclass, or the UA Brute subclass.

[animorte]

I believe some of the issues with the Ranger is that some people find it synonymous with Archer. The more common meaning is generally when "range" refers to the range of the land, not one's distance from the target.

I see no problem with combining the two. Having a good survival/exploration character is helpful (though it has been pointed out many times that the game itself doesn't support that pillar well enough). Having a character that fights from a distance without the need of spells is also neat and, oddly enough, a popular trope.

Again, some of these concerns are with how the DM chooses to address these things by creating scenarios for everybody.

[Unoriginal]

Given the popularity of Vox Machina and Critical Role in general, Vex is probably most newer folks idea of a Ranger now... She's kinda magical, though more through items than spells, but she does toss out the occasional rangery spell...

I think its kind of funny that Pike is the only healer, despite having a Bard, a Druid, and a Ranger on the team (all decently high-level as well).

From the tv tropes character page on Legend of Vox Machina:



The Team Normal: Among the girls, Vex is the only one lacking any sort of magic abilities.

I don't know what they're doing with that show (to be polite), but giving an idea of what a Ranger is to newer folks is *not* one of them.

Then again, I've read that they made the Ranger who specialize in hunting dragons be literally incapacitated with pain in the presence of a dragon due to her Ranger senses somehow making her vulnerable to the thing she's supposed to be an expert against, that they also had the Druid faints from Using Too Much Magic, and they define "Using Too Much Magic" by "casting regular level-appropriate spells".

So maybe the half-elf Ranger got lucky at *only* being portrayed without any Ranger magic.

[Tanarii]

I believe some of the issues with the Ranger is that some people find it synonymous with Archer.
Me too. Or more usually Archer with a pet. This is not exclusive to WoW Hunters either. I've seen multiple games that use "Ranger" for the archer-pet class.

IMO it should be a Str or Dex class, and class features and subclasses really supported 2H or TWF melee or archery.
Meanwhile Fighters should go back to Str primary, and S&B or 2H in heavy armor.

5e does pretty much support Rangers being 2H (Hunter) or S&B (beastmaster), certainly more than TWF, especially once you add in the combat spell HM. Except it doesn't support being a StRanger very well just because that requires Str/Con/Wis primary and Dex 14.

[GloatingSwine]

I don't think it's super unreasonable for people to associate rangers with archery, archery and using a bow to hunt game is a reasonably understandable wilderness skill.

I still think the key to making the ranger feel like they have a unique identity is in the preparation for the hunt not the specifics of weapons and fighting styles. Preparation ahead of time that lets you tip fights in your favour vs. a specified quarry, the knowledge and skills to find the quarry and understand how to navigate its surroundings, etc.

Without the locked in nature of favoured enemy, but requiring some time and investment.

[Tanarii]

I don't think it's super unreasonable for people to associate rangers with archery, archery and using a bow to hunt game is a reasonably understandable wilderness skill.
By that logic they should be spear, javelin and sling specialists.

[stoutstien]

That's a flaw of the lack of gradualism in weapon prof really. 5e went down the route of streamlining weapons for ease of use. The downfall it rewards hyperfocus on one choice over others.

IMO I like rangers as switch hitters because above all else they are opportunistic and will use the best tools and tactics for the task at hand. I don't know how I would model it in 5e framework but systems that have more play in the Prof aspect can do it. Something like half Prof to everything not focused on would give them the opportunity to float between "styles"

*Styles shouldn't be tied to weapon types. Especially as just boring static damage boosts.*

[Unoriginal]

I don't think it's super unreasonable for people to associate rangers with archery, archery and using a bow to hunt game is a reasonably understandable wilderness skill.

I still think the key to making the ranger feel like they have a unique identity is in the preparation for the hunt not the specifics of weapons and fighting styles. Preparation ahead of time that lets you tip fights in your favour vs. a specified quarry, the knowledge and skills to find the quarry and understand how to navigate its surroundings, etc.

Without the locked in nature of favoured enemy, but requiring some time and investment.

Both thematically and mechanically, I would say that "they're always prepared for anything" works better than "they can take the time to prepare for one thing".

To me it speaks more to the Ranger identity to be just as prompt to act, and act well, whether they are at a pleasant ceremony in a throne room when dragon just blasts their way in, if they're setting up a trap for a cursed knight in an inn or if they finally caught up with the Mind Flayer they tracked all night through a sulfur-filled swamp.

Maybe it could be possible to give them a 'fighting stance' system, which gives the Ranger different bonuses depending on which they use. That way you could have the Tracking stance, the Ambush stance, the Full Attack stance, the On Guard stance, etc. And with levels the Ranger gets to chance stances mid-fight, and eventually combine two.

[ahyangyi]

Unless there are multiple meaningful choices (e.g. ranged vs melee) and/or resource management issues (e.g. wild shape / rage), stances feel like static bonus with an action tax though.

[Unoriginal]

Unless there are multiple meaningful choices (e.g. ranged vs melee) and/or resource management issues (e.g. wild shape / rage), stances feel like static bonus with an action tax though.

They should be meaningful choices, as using On Guard shouldn't give the same bonuses as using Full Attack, but I don't think they should be tied to a limited ressource.

Just, have it takes a minute to change stance until around lvl 8.

[stoutstien]

Some fighting styles I've made and are play testing that could work as stances:
-Formation Breaker
Once a scene you can use your move action to move in a straight line attempting to *need text*. you can move through the space of other creatures that are roughly one size larger than you or smaller. the first time you enter a creature's space in this way that creature must succeed on an exert/might test or be knocked prone. Each creature after the first one gains a cumulative +1 situational bonus on this test.
If a creature succeeds on this test your momentum is stalled and you can no longer move forward.


-Vanguard
When you provide cover to allies you can choose to provide full cover rather than half.

Additionally as an instant action when a creature you can see attacks a target other than you that is within your reach and that attack still hits you reduce the damage by half. *Need adjustments*

-Opportunistic
Once per scene or round when a creature targets you with an attack and misses, you can feint causing the next attack targeting that creature to have a +2 circumstantial bonus on that attack roll. If this attack hits you can make an attack as an instant action.

Bulwark
As a instant action in response to being hit by an attack, you can expend your next move action to increase your AC by 4. If this causes the attack to miss you can make one weapon attack as part of the same reaction.

Additionally, you have advantage on any tests made against effects that would knock you prone and you can can ignore any effect that would force you to move unless you are incapacitated.


Underhanded -
If something attempts to moves the target you have grappled or otherwise restrained, you can move with them adding your bulk to that creature's attempt.

Additionally on your turn, you can expend your move action to make an additional unarmed or attack with a a punch weapon.

[GloatingSwine]

By that logic they should be spear, javelin and sling specialists.

By the actual logic that the weapon styles aren't the super important thing for giving the "practised hunter" feel compared to the feel of setting up the fight in particular ways they would all be valid choices.


Both thematically and mechanically, I would say that "they're always prepared for anything" works better than "they can take the time to prepare for one thing".

I don't really get any sense of "ready for anything" from the Ranger. It's supposed to be sort of a task focused class, wilderness survival and navigation, guarding the edges of civilisation from the wilds beyond, hunting a favoured enemy, etc.

They're ready for a specific range of things that come as part of their tasks.

And I still think focusing on the hunter side of the Ranger class is going to be the most productive in terms of making a mechanically interesting class that feel good.

[Justin Sane]

My wishlist:

1st, rework Favored Enemy. A Ranger should be hunting wolves one day, capturing a gang of escaped fugitives the next, clearing out a crypt full of zombies the other. Locking in the decision makes them feel the opposite of adaptable.
Favored Foe at least allows the Ranger some agency in deciding when their special ability will be used - alas, it's a short-lived, short-ranged damage buff, which helps in no way with actually hunting the target. Sigh.
Also, advantage on a couple handful of checks is laughable. Expand this, a lot - at high levels, all ability checks related to finding their target should get the bonus.

2nd, rework Natural Explorer. Again, it's the lock-in-this-decision-now vs "adaptability" issue from Favored Enemy, but at least the ability itself is narratively powerful. Just give them a way to change their selection based on circumstances - I like the idea of a week in a new environment, with the option of spending a spell slot to "tune in" for one day.

3rd, Primeval Awareness. It's just bad. It should be a "we're about to be ambushed by vampires" ability, except I have no idea which form that ability should take - but it sure feels like if there's someone who should have a sure-fire way to spot an ambush, it would be the Ranger.
Primal Awareness is... Okay. It does a completely different job from Primeval Awareness, so it feels bad as a replacement (or would, if Primeval Awareness didn't suck), but it's a solid ability in and of itself.

4th, the yet unnamed damage-boost-because-let's-face-it-all-martials-have-one. Fighters use Action Surge to show off their unmatched weapon skills. Barbarians Rage and jump into the fray. Paladins Smite whoever earned their wrath. As an honorable mention, Rogues Sneak Attack when/where their target least expects it. And Rangers...
Rangers should Hunt. They should be able to find the most vulnerable target in a group and take them out. To me, a conditional damage bonus against isolated (10+ feet away from an ally) targets feels on the right track - not exactly Sneak Attack, but a close cousin of it. Later on, even move speed / AC bonuses could be tacked on to this, and subclasses should build on the "isolated target" condition (Beastmaster could have the Companion also get the bonuses, Swarmkeeper could apply some damage-over-time or distraction effect, and so on).

[Kane0]

My wishlist:
1st, rework Favored Enemy.
2nd, rework Natural Explorer.
3rd, Primeval Awareness. It's just bad.
4th, the yet unnamed damage-boost-because-let's-face-it-all-martials-have-one. Rangers should Hunt.

Does any of this tickle your fancy?


At this point I think I may be legitimately addicted to Ranger fixes.


Originally posted here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?462877-Ranger-Rework-v1-3)


Level
Prof
Special Abilities
Cantrips
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th


1
2
Natural Explorer, Quarry/Skirmish
2
-
-
-
-
-


2
2
Fighting Style, Nature's Boon, Spellcasting
2
2
-
-
-
-


3
2
Clade
2
3
-
-
-
-


4
2
ASI
2
3
-
-
-
-


5
3
Extra Attack, Favored Enemy
2
4
2
-
-
-


6
3
Nature's Boon, Quarry/Skirmish Improvement
2
4
2
-
-
-


7
3
Clade Feature
2
4
3
-
-
-


8
3
ASI
2
4
3
-
-
-


9
4
-
2
4
3
2
-
-


10
4
Nature's Boon, Quarry/Skirmish Improvement
3
4
3
2
-
-


11
4
Clade Feature
3
4
3
3
-
-


12
4
ASI
3
4
3
3
-
-


13
5
-
3
4
3
3
1
-


14
5
Nature's Boon, Quarry/Skirmish Improvement
3
4
3
3
1
-


15
5
Clade Feature
3
4
3
3
2
-


16
5
ASI
3
4
3
3
2
-


17
6
-
3
4
3
3
3
1


18
6
Nature's Boon, Favored Enemy
3
4
3
3
3
1


19
6
ASI
3
4
3
3
3
2


20
6
Primal Bond
3
4
3
3
3
2



Hit Dice: d8
Armor Proficiencies: Light Armor, Medium Armor
Weapon Proficiencies: Simple & Martial Weapons
Saving Throws Proficiencies: Strength & Dexterity
Skill Proficiencies: Choose three from Acrobatics, Athletics, Insight, Investigation, Lore, Medchamy, Perception, Stealth, Survival
Other Proficiencies: Choose one from Cartographer’s tools, Navigator’s Tools, Mounts, Land or Water vehicles or one Language of your choice

Level 1: Natural Explorer
You gain your choice of either a Climb or Swim speed equal to your movement speed.
In addition, 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 as long as they can see and hear you.

Level 1: Quarry
When you hit a creature with an attack roll, you can mark the target for 1 minute or until you lose your concentration as if you were concentrating on a spell.
Once per turn, when you or an ally within 10 feet of you hit the target with an attack and deal damage to it (including when you mark it) the attack deals an additional 1d4 damage.
You can use this feature to mark your Quarry a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus, and you regain all expended uses when you finish a long rest.
This feature's extra damage increases to 1d6 at 6th level and to 1d8 at 14th level, and extends to allies within 30 feet of you at 10th level.

Level 1 Alternative: Skirmish (replaces Quarry)
While you are not wearing heavy armor and not wielding a shield, when you move 20 feet or more on your turn you add +2 to your AC and add an extra +1d4 to one weapon damage roll you make until the start of your next turn.
At 6th level this extra damage increases to +1d6, at 10th level +1d8 and at 14th level +1d10

Level 2: Fighting Style
Choose one from the list of styles above

Level 2: Spellcasting
- Spellcasting ability is Wisdom
- Spells Prepared equal to half level +Wis (min 1)
- Primal Spell List
- No Ritual Casting
- Druidic spell focus

Level 2: Nature's Boon
At level 2 and again at levels 6, 10, 14 and 18 choose one from the options below:

Camouflage: When you cast a spell or use a magical effect that obscures you, increases your Stealth bonus or turns you Invisible you can take the Hide action as a bonus action, even if the effect only lightly obscures you.
If selected a second time, whenever you are affected by a spell or effect that obscures you, increases your Stealth bonus or turns you Invisible you can use your reaction to take the Hide action, even if the effect only lightly obscures you.
Healing Salves: As a part of a long rest, you can prepare a number of medicinal salves equal to your Wisdom modifier (minimum 1). Each salve restores HP equal to 1d8 + Ranger level and can be applied to a creature using an action. Unused salves expire at the end of a long rest.
If selected a second time, each healing salve applied a creature also provides the benefits of a Lesser Restoration spell
Honed Senses: You gain Darkvision out to a range of 60 feet and can take the Search action as a bonus action.
If selected a second time, you gain Blindsight out to a range of 30 feet.
Land's Stride: You can ignore nonmagical difficult terrain, and your movement speed cannot be reduced from spells and other magical affects such as Ray of Frost
If selected a second time, you increase all your movement speeds by 10 feet and gain advantage on saving throws against being being Paralysed, Restrained or Stunned
Primal Connection: You can cast a druid spell as a ritual if that spell has the ritual tag and you have the spell prepared, and you also learn one additional cantrip and prepare one additional spell of your choice from the Primal spell list.
If selected a second time, during a short rest you can recover one expended spell slot of your choice of spell level equal to half your proficiency bonus or lower
Trapping: You can cast the Alarm and Snare spells as an action each once per long rest without expending a spell slot
If selected a second time, you can also cast the Cordon of Arrows spell as a bonus action once per long rest and the Glyph of Warding spell as an action once per long rest

Level 3: Clade
Choose one Ranger Clade to follow, same as the books.

Level 4: ASI
As per the books

Level 5: Favored Enemy
Select two creatures types (or if you pick Humanoids, one Bloodrace thereof). You can cast Hunter's Mark on a creature that is one of these types without expending a spell slot and without having the spell prepared, however the spell ends once the creature is reduced to 0 hit points.
At level 18 you choose an additional two creature types

Level 20: Primal Bond
You do not need to concentrate on any Primal spells you cast.


Level 3: Hunter's Prey
As per the books (Colossus Slayer, Giant Killer or Horde Breaker)

Level 3: Expertise
Choose one of your Ranger skill proficiencies. Your proficiency bonus is doubled for any ability check you make using the chosen skill.

Level 7: Defensive Tactics
As per the books (Escape the Horde, Multiattack Defence or Steel Will)

Level 7: Terrain Adaption
When you finish a short or long rest you can expend one Ranger spell slot to gain resistance to one damage type according to the terrain you rested in, which lasts until your next rest
Coast/Aquatic: Thunder or Lightning
Arctic: Cold or Force
Desert: Fire or Radiant
Plains/Forest: Piercing or Poison
Highland: Fire or Cold
Swamp: Acid or Poison
Underground: Necrotic or Bludgeoning
Urban: Psychic or Slashing

Level 11: Multiattack
As per the books (Volley or Whirlwind Attack)

Level 11: Expert Awareness
You cannot be surprised by your Favored Enemies, and you do not suffer disadvantage to your passive perception while travelling at a fast pace or while performing another activity.

Level 15: Superior Hunter's Defence
As per the books (Evasion, Stand Against the Tide or Uncanny Dodge)

Level 15: Terrain Mastery
You gain both resistances noted in your level 7 feature, and you are always aware of all favored enemies within 1 mile of you, including their number, direction and distance.


Level 3, Beast Companion
You can cast the Find Companion spell without expending a spell slot or material components. Once you cast this spell you cannot do so again until you finish a long rest.
When you cast Find Companion you add your proficiency bonus to the beast’s AC and attack rolls, as well as to any saving throws and skills it is proficient in. The beast's hit point maximum is equal to (4 + its Constitution modifier) for each level of ranger you have.

At ranger level 7 you cast Find Companion as if from a 3rd level spell slot, at level 11 a 4th level spell slot and level 15 a 5th level spell slot.

Level 3: Beastform
As an action you can assume the form of a beast you have seen before that is CR 1/8 or lower and large size or smaller. You can use your Beastform a number of times equal to your Wisdom modifier (minimum 1). You regain any expended uses at the end of a long rest.

You can stay in a beast shape for a number of hours equal to your proficiency bonus. You then revert to your normal form unless you expend another use of this feature. You can revert to your normal form earlier by using a Bonus Action on your turn. You automatically revert if you fall unconscious, drop to 0 Hit Points, or die.

Your statistics, including mental Ability Scores, are replaced by the Statistics of the chosen beast. You assume the Hit Points of your new form. When you revert to your normal form you return to the number of Hit Points you had before you transformed. If you revert as a result of Dropping to 0 Hit Points, any excess damage carries over to your normal form. As long as the excess damage does not reduce your normal form to 0 Hit Points, you are not knocked Unconscious.

You retain your alignment and personality. You cannot speak, cast Spells, or take any other action that requires hands or speech. Your gear melds into the new form. You cannot activate, use, wield, or otherwise benefit from any of your equipment.

Level 7: Beastcall
By spending one minute you can call up to twelve beasts of up to CR 1/2 to you from the surrounding area, determined by the DM. Upon arrival these beasts are friendly to you and will assist with one task for up to one hour before dispersing.
Once you use this feature you cannot do so again until you finish a long rest.

Level 11: Bestial Fury
Your beasts attacks are considered magical for the purposes of overcoming damage resistance and immunity. In addition, your beast companion gains the following reaction:
Defensive Pounce: The beast companion imposes disadvantage on the attack roll of one creature it can see that is within its reach, provided the attack is against a creature other than the beast companion.

Level 15: Greater Beastcall
You can use your Beastcall feature as an action instead of taking one minute, and call up to CR 1 beasts to assist you. In addition, you regain use of your Beastcall feature when you finish a short or long rest.

Find Companion
2nd-level Conjuration
Casting Time: 1 minute
Range: 30 feet
Components: V, S, M
Duration: Instantaneous

You summon a spirit that assumes the form of an animal. Choose a beast that is of large size or smaller and that has a challenge rating of 1/4 or lower. Appearing in an unoccupied space within range, the companion has the statistics of the chosen form.
Your companion acts independently of you on your initiative, but it always obeys your commands.
When within 100 feet you can communicate with your companion telepathically, and when you cast a spell with a range of self you can choose to touch your companion to also target them with that spell.
As an action, you can dismiss your companion permanently.
A companion that drops to 0 hit points disappears, leaving behind no physical form.
While you have your companion, you cannot recover the spell slot used to summon it.
If you cast this spell while you already have a companion, you instead restore your companion to its hit point maximum and can cause it to adopt a new form that meets the same requirements above.
At Higher Levels: If you cast this spell using a spell slot of 3rd level or higher, the companion is up to CR 1/2. If you use a spell slot of 4th level or higher, the companion is up to CR 1. If you use a spell slot of 5th level or higher, the companion is up to CR 2.

[Snails]

IMO it should be a Str or Dex class, and class features and subclasses really supported 2H or TWF melee or archery.
Meanwhile Fighters should go back to Str primary, and S&B or 2H in heavy armor.

5e does pretty much support Rangers being 2H (Hunter) or S&B (beastmaster), certainly more than TWF, especially once you add in the combat spell HM. Except it doesn't support being a StRanger very well just because that requires Str/Con/Wis primary and Dex 14.

IIRC Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed have the Heavy Fighter class and the Light Fighter class, split along Str vs Dex and Heavy vs Light armor. The idea works better than trying to jam it all into one Fighter class. And it makes for a slightly easier decision tree for newbies.

Proclaiming the Ranger as the Light/Dex calls, Ranger can have a niche that would overlap less with Rogue. Ranger could have the best archery tricks to itself.

Aragorn himself would now look most like a Fighter/Ranger to me, and we no longer have to shoehorn all his capabilities into the Ranger class. Heck, he might be Fighter/Ranger/Cleric and we can stop fretting about his healing skills.

Now we could have a Ranger chassis that does not necessarily have spells at all, and leave that to certain subclasses.

[Tanarii]

Light/Dex Fighter already exists in 5e, it's called Rogue.

[Kane0]

Light/Dex Fighter already exists in 5e, it's called Rogue.

*Laughs in Dex Pally*

[Tanarii]

*Laughs in Dex Pally*
They are sub-par front line fighters compared to an Str Pally, which they try to still be, unlike a rogue (or monk) which are true light/Dex fighters .. skirmishes.

But also fix the Rapier and the Dex Pally goes away. And the S&B Dex Ranger and Dex Fighter as well. Because even though it's only 1 DPR less than a shortsword, optimizers (who are the ones that make these builds) wont sacrifice 1 DPR. :smallamused: All of these builds effectively depend on one weapon with a design that wasn't well thought out.

[Witty Username]

I think combat style in the form of ranged or melee is too generic. Martials having a defined shell, that they all get, and then diffenciated by combat doctrine, is much more effective.

Like say, monk isn't well defined by melee, its well defined as a skirmish disrupter, the goals of the class trend towards fast movement and damage supplemented by debilitating conditions.

Giving a Paladin a bow doesn't/shouldn't suddenly make them a ranger. The spell list, skills and features could contribute to the classes in such a way that such concerns such as weapon choice as secondary at best.

[Goobahfish]

More fun observations.

Another issue from a mechanical design perspective is 'how does the ranger contribute to monster-slaying'.

Looking at the other classes:
Paladins... Nova. Spell slots define their extra damage. They also have some healing and auras. Auras kind of dictate 'middle of the party' placement. Heavy Armour indicates front-line. They also have a damage bonus (improved Divine Smite) which hints towards extra attacks.
Fighters... 4 attacks. Heavy Armour. Second Wind. Action Surge. Some nova (action surge). Second Wind and Heavy armour hints at front-line placement. You can make a ranged fighter, and while it works, it is sacrificing some of its utility.
Barbarian... 2 attacks. Rage (DR + bonus damage). It is hard-coded as a Strength Class. The bonus damage kind of hints towards two-weapon fighting as the preferred mode (more attacks = more damage), though feats obviously switch that back to heavy weapons (polearms).
Rogue... 1 attack... big sneak attack. Some damage mitigation (Uncanny Dodge). Some reaction-jank (terrible) and two-weapons seems to be a 'reliable' damage approach.

They are all pretty tight thematically and mechanically. Paladins and Barbarians gain bonuses to their 'two attacks'. Fighters get lots of attacks. Rogues add a lot of damage to a single attack...

So Rangers don't actually have a lot mechanical design space left. They are currently 2 attack sub-par fighters with lots of skill-ribbons and... Hunter's Mark/Favoured Foe. They also have a lot of 'subclass baggage'. Must be able to be a Sniper, Pet Guy, Magic guy etc.

If you make them a 'Dex Fighter', you are kind of treading on 'Dex Fighters'. If you give them transient generic damage bonuses, they begin to look like Barbarians. If you give them spell-based damage bonuses, they are just green Paladins. Make them a one-hit ambush killer and you are treading on Rogue.

Interestingly, rangers are pegged as the 'two-weapon fighting' stand-in and yet fighters will almost always end up with more attacks in the long term.

I think Rangers need more utility abilities which help them with 'difficult monsters'. Things like negating Resistance. I also like them 'adding to party damage' so basically helping other characters get damage bonuses (ala Tactician classes). A really nice style of ability would be a 'Find Weakness' where you roll on a table and get a 'this specific monster sucks for these reasons', which could give you a few things like either a generic bonus to hit, bonus damage, bleeding damage, AC bonus, give the monster a movement penalty etc. An example would be, you mark a target then roll. X: Dodgy knee: For the remainder of the combat, in any turn where you hit and injure the target, its movement is reduced by 10' until its next turn.

Obviously, it would require some major balancing and would be rejected for being 'too complex', but it would at least make the Ranger 'feel' different mechanically from a fighter beyond... I cast Hunter's mark.

[PhoenixPhyre]

More fun observations.

Another issue from a mechanical design perspective is 'how does the ranger contribute to monster-slaying'.

Looking at the other classes:
Paladins... Nova. Spell slots define their extra damage. They also have some healing and auras. Auras kind of dictate 'middle of the party' placement. Heavy Armour indicates front-line. They also have a damage bonus (improved Divine Smite) which hints towards extra attacks.
Fighters... 4 attacks. Heavy Armour. Second Wind. Action Surge. Some nova (action surge). Second Wind and Heavy armour hints at front-line placement. You can make a ranged fighter, and while it works, it is sacrificing some of its utility.
Barbarian... 2 attacks. Rage (DR + bonus damage). It is hard-coded as a Strength Class. The bonus damage kind of hints towards two-weapon fighting as the preferred mode (more attacks = more damage), though feats obviously switch that back to heavy weapons (polearms).
Rogue... 1 attack... big sneak attack. Some damage mitigation (Uncanny Dodge). Some reaction-jank (terrible) and two-weapons seems to be a 'reliable' damage approach.

They are all pretty tight thematically and mechanically. Paladins and Barbarians gain bonuses to their 'two attacks'. Fighters get lots of attacks. Rogues add a lot of damage to a single attack...

So Rangers don't actually have a lot mechanical design space left. They are currently 2 attack sub-par fighters with lots of skill-ribbons and... Hunter's Mark/Favoured Foe. They also have a lot of 'subclass baggage'. Must be able to be a Sniper, Pet Guy, Magic guy etc.

If you make them a 'Dex Fighter', you are kind of treading on 'Dex Fighters'. If you give them transient generic damage bonuses, they begin to look like Barbarians. If you give them spell-based damage bonuses, they are just green Paladins. Make them a one-hit ambush killer and you are treading on Rogue.

Interestingly, rangers are pegged as the 'two-weapon fighting' stand-in and yet fighters will almost always end up with more attacks in the long term.

I think Rangers need more utility abilities which help them with 'difficult monsters'. Things like negating Resistance. I also like them 'adding to party damage' so basically helping other characters get damage bonuses (ala Tactician classes). A really nice style of ability would be a 'Find Weakness' where you roll on a table and get a 'this specific monster sucks for these reasons', which could give you a few things like either a generic bonus to hit, bonus damage, bleeding damage, AC bonus, give the monster a movement penalty etc. An example would be, you mark a target then roll. X: Dodgy knee: For the remainder of the combat, in any turn where you hit and injure the target, its movement is reduced by 10' until its next turn.

Obviously, it would require some major balancing and would be rejected for being 'too complex', but it would at least make the Ranger 'feel' different mechanically from a fighter beyond... I cast Hunter's mark.

One idea I had as far as the martials and pseudo-martials (so including paladins and rangers) was to make Fighting Styles an actual thing instead of just being boring numbers boosts on particular weapons.

A real Fighting Style should give you incentives to act in certain ways and not be locked into specific weapon types. They should give small passive bonuses and also an active ability with either resource limits or some form of cooldown. Something you trigger by acting in a style-appropriate way. Like something that gets better if you're surrounded (encouraging you to charge right in) or a different one that works best if you've got a bigger distance to the target and/or haven't moved recently (more sniper-like). In this world, the distinction would be:

Fighters get a whole bunch of Fighting Styles and features that encourage "chaining" Fighting Styles--things like giving a bonus when you use the active ability that help with a different style. So Fighter combat would be fluid, swapping between styles (even if it's just a triangle of 3 or so).

Paladins and Rangers have much smaller, more thematic sets--maybe paladins get ones about holding the line or front-line combat or protecting others while rangers get more sniper, hit-and-run, or tactical ones (like ones that benefit from having allies nearby or benefit nearby allies). Theirs would be more quickly "magical", things that encourage them to cast spells or whatever. They tend to sit in one Style most of the time or flip back and forth between two. Barbarians get only a couple (a tanking-oriented one and a brute melee one) but they're oriented around SMASHING THEM IN THE FACE REAL HARD and generally have the biggest (number-wise) ones.

Rogues wouldn't get fighting styles. They're skill monkeys, not fighters. And these fighting styles should scale with level and/or evolve, so your Hold the Line style becomes Stonewall. Some might actually become outright fantastic, like a Barbarian one to hit the ground hard enough to knock people flying or cause a localized earthquake. And these Styles could definitely have out-of-combat uses--an Aggressive style might give benefits to Intimidation, while a more fluid Water Style (focused on deflecting incoming attacks) might help you with Insight. Or whatever.

[Sorinth]

More fun observations.

Another issue from a mechanical design perspective is 'how does the ranger contribute to monster-slaying'.

Looking at the other classes:
Paladins... Nova. Spell slots define their extra damage. They also have some healing and auras. Auras kind of dictate 'middle of the party' placement. Heavy Armour indicates front-line. They also have a damage bonus (improved Divine Smite) which hints towards extra attacks.
Fighters... 4 attacks. Heavy Armour. Second Wind. Action Surge. Some nova (action surge). Second Wind and Heavy armour hints at front-line placement. You can make a ranged fighter, and while it works, it is sacrificing some of its utility.
Barbarian... 2 attacks. Rage (DR + bonus damage). It is hard-coded as a Strength Class. The bonus damage kind of hints towards two-weapon fighting as the preferred mode (more attacks = more damage), though feats obviously switch that back to heavy weapons (polearms).
Rogue... 1 attack... big sneak attack. Some damage mitigation (Uncanny Dodge). Some reaction-jank (terrible) and two-weapons seems to be a 'reliable' damage approach.

They are all pretty tight thematically and mechanically. Paladins and Barbarians gain bonuses to their 'two attacks'. Fighters get lots of attacks. Rogues add a lot of damage to a single attack...

So Rangers don't actually have a lot mechanical design space left. They are currently 2 attack sub-par fighters with lots of skill-ribbons and... Hunter's Mark/Favoured Foe. They also have a lot of 'subclass baggage'. Must be able to be a Sniper, Pet Guy, Magic guy etc.

If you make them a 'Dex Fighter', you are kind of treading on 'Dex Fighters'. If you give them transient generic damage bonuses, they begin to look like Barbarians. If you give them spell-based damage bonuses, they are just green Paladins. Make them a one-hit ambush killer and you are treading on Rogue.

Interestingly, rangers are pegged as the 'two-weapon fighting' stand-in and yet fighters will almost always end up with more attacks in the long term.

I think Rangers need more utility abilities which help them with 'difficult monsters'. Things like negating Resistance. I also like them 'adding to party damage' so basically helping other characters get damage bonuses (ala Tactician classes). A really nice style of ability would be a 'Find Weakness' where you roll on a table and get a 'this specific monster sucks for these reasons', which could give you a few things like either a generic bonus to hit, bonus damage, bleeding damage, AC bonus, give the monster a movement penalty etc. An example would be, you mark a target then roll. X: Dodgy knee: For the remainder of the combat, in any turn where you hit and injure the target, its movement is reduced by 10' until its next turn.

Obviously, it would require some major balancing and would be rejected for being 'too complex', but it would at least make the Ranger 'feel' different mechanically from a fighter beyond... I cast Hunter's mark.

If you look at the Ranger spell list then they actually have a pretty clear role, controller. They have a mix of battlefield control and AoE spells which is pretty much the definition of the controller role, there's also a mix of movement and added damage spells to help be a striker if needs be. Now it's true that in actual play it doesn't live up to that role super well (The concentration spells and action economy conflict, and a low spell save DC) but to say there's no design space for them seems because of the other martials is just odd.

[Kane0]

So Rangers don't actually have a lot mechanical design space left. They are currently 2 attack sub-par fighters with lots of skill-ribbons and... Hunter's Mark/Favoured Foe. They also have a lot of 'subclass baggage'. Must be able to be a Sniper, Pet Guy, Magic guy etc.

If you give them transient generic damage bonuses, they begin to look like Barbarians. If you give them spell-based damage bonuses, they are just green Paladins. Make them a one-hit ambush killer and you are treading on Rogue.

I also like them 'adding to party damage' so basically helping other characters get damage bonuses (ala Tactician classes).


My general approach was stacking 'once per turn' damage bonuses from different sources, so it feels like a bit of a blend between Rogue one-hitting and Barb/Pally generic damage boosts.
One of those (Quarry) lets your party get in on the same once per turn damage boost for that warlordy vibe, and i've got that 2nd level Discern Weakness spell I made for them.

Also, something that I read elsewhere I think is worth repeating:
"Would paladin be a good class without Divine Smite, or any of their Smite spells? I think... not really? It'd be on the low side of mediocre really. A somewhat martial Cleric thing? So why do people expect Rangers to be good without using their spell slots?"

Which I would add means they need to have more than just Hunter's Mark to choose from on that front. See back a few pages about their problems with concentration spells, higher level blasts and not-very-good Ranger-specific spells in general.

[paladinn]

I don't see rangers as equating to either archers or 2W fighters. I guess I still think of Aragorn as.. well.. a ranger, and he was neither. Granted, those are viable options for a ranger, thus the available fighting styles. But I think most any style will work for a ranger.

Now on the favored enemy/foe thing, I'm considering a 3-tier approach.
1. All rangers from L1 are trained to fight humanoids. It's part of the ranger legacy and the result of being raised on the frontier. This gives a bonus to both AC and to damage when fighting a humanoid creature.
2. Every x levels, the ranger can add a different creature to it's FE list. Maybe it's dragons or whatever.
3. As per the Favored Foe feature, a number of times per short/long rest, the ranger can mark a creature that is Not a FE and gain the same benefits as the FE feature, after studying the creature for a turn.

Since this doesn't change the to-hit chance, would it crash bounded accuracy?

[Ir0ns0ul]

If you look at the Ranger spell list then they actually have a pretty clear role, controller. They have a mix of battlefield control and AoE spells which is pretty much the definition of the controller role, there's also a mix of movement and added damage spells to help be a striker if needs be. Now it's true that in actual play it doesn't live up to that role super well (The concentration spells and action economy conflict, and a low spell save DC) but to say there's no design space for them seems because of the other martials is just odd.
Well said. I believe one major issue is that people usually only thinks about Hunter’s Mark as the go-to spell, but Ranger have things like Ensnaring Strike, Entangle, Fog Cloud and Silence to play into the controller space. Maybe Paladins have better spells, like the Smite ones, but spell slots are too precious for them.

I saw several posts saying that Rangers should help the party to be more effective somehow, and I cannot see a better spell than Pass Without Trace to accomplish that. You basically turn your party into a deadly ninja squad, even the noisy heavy armor users. I usually play that by covering allies with mud, leaves and teaching them how to move silently. Goodberry is also a great party-friendly spell.

I mean, there are some problems over there, but I think the design space Rangers can explore to potencialize their capabilities are spells.

[Schwann145]

Simply put? A Ranger, as it exists currently, cannot be expected to rely heavily on it's spells.

•It's a 1/2 caster, so spell slots are *extremely* limited.
•Because it's a 1/2 caster and D&D developers are lazy about spells, many of it's options are very late arrivals, so their usefulness at the level you actually gain them is questionable at best (Ranger-specific spells aren't as much a problem here, but anything shared with a full caster list like Druid absolutely is).
•Many of it's spells are Concentration, so it can't rely on multiple casting even if it did have the slots necessary to back that up.
•Wisdom is a tertiary stat so offensive spells suffer from a low Save DC.

We're in the "this class needs major redesign" territory if we want to say they should rely more on their spells.
(Paladin gets around all these issues by ignoring the fact that their spells are spells, treating them as Smite fuel instead, and Smites aren't concerned with any of the above really.)

[Witty Username]

I tend to prefer passive effects on martials. I tend to see martial and caster as anchor vs playmaker. Balancing martials around active effects tends to make their abilities less reliable, but the primary draw of martials in party composition is reliability, the one that can always trade blows and be effective and maintain advantageous positions.
The high yield effects of casters allow them to swing encounters in the favor of the party, but by being resource intensive means timing and context are important considerations. Lack of reliability is part of the drawbacks for those effects.

This isn't to say that martials should never have active effects (smites, rage, spells, action surge) but having too many endangers reliability and has increased complexity.

Hm, I like tactical fighting styles, to spitball some for ranger:
Ambusher: add proficiency bonus to damage against enemies that cannot see them.
Brawler: Attack as a bonus action, Grapple or shove only
Opportunist: When hitting an enemy with a weapon attack, reduce the creature's movement speed by 10 feet until the start of your next turn, an enemy cannot have its movement speed reduced by this more than once per round.

[Kane0]

Simply put? A Ranger, as it exists currently, cannot be expected to rely heavily on it's spells.

•It's a 1/3rd caster, so spell slots are *extremely* limited.
•Because it's a 1/3rd caster and D&D developers are lazy about spells, many of it's options are very late arrivals, so their usefulness at the level you actually gain them is questionable at best (Ranger-specific spells aren't as much a problem here, but anything shared with a full caster list like Druid absolutely is).
•Many of it's spells are Concentration, so it can't rely on multiple casting even if it did have the slots necessary to back that up.
•Wisdom is a tertiary stat so offensive spells suffer from a low Save DC.

We're in the "this class needs major redesign" territory if we want to say they should rely more on their spells.
(Paladin gets around all these issues by ignoring the fact that their spells are spells, treating them as Smite fuel instead, and Smites aren't concerned with any of the above really.)

You mean 1/2 not 1/3 right? 1/2 being the same as the paladin, and 1/3 being the EK and AT progression?

Rangers definitely suffer from both a relative overabundance of concentration spells and their blasts being both poor (in terms of actual damage for the slot) and slow (because of their progression). The latter problem is the same for paladins, artificers, EKs and ATs of course, but they still tend to have access to good blasts for their spell level even if they come late (also the problem with elemental monk fireballs coincidentally).

[Snails]

Light/Dex Fighter already exists in 5e, it's called Rogue.

Accepting your conclusion, for the sake of argument, it is still better to have only two classes tripping on each other's niche (Ranger, Rogue), instead of 3.

[Psyren]

Not only are they closer to 1/2 casters than 1/3 casters now, they will become true 1/2 casters in 1DnD, i.e. getting the same progression as artificers (cantrips and 1st level spells at level 1, round up when calculating multiclassing slots.) For a class that also has near-fighter combat ability and near-rogue skills - all before subclass - that's plenty of casting.

[Nidgit]

In addition to the lack of a core mechanic, I think one of the things that hobbles the Ranger is the thematic space. Classic examples of rangers tend to have strong individualistic habits and tend to be something of lone wolves (Geralt, Strider, etc.) but DnD is a team game. That makes it more difficult to focus on things like scouting or laying an ambush. Personally, I would definitely push for a Ranger ability that either directly benefits allies or clearly becomes more useful from having them, in the same way that Sneak Attack can be used on flanked enemies or a Paladin's aura protects nearby allies. After all, many of those classic Ranger properties frequently feature the loner protagonist learning the value of forming social bonds.

[Witty Username]

Simply put? A Ranger, as it exists currently, cannot be expected to rely heavily on it's spells.


This is a misread of the ranger's capabilities. The whole Idea of ranger as it currently is martial core with utility spells.
Paladin has to heavily rely on spells as the primary use of spells on paladins is contribute to damage via smites.
Ranger is, usually casting one control spell with high impact and switching to weapon attacks.
Casting multiple spells a combat is a losing proposition of any class.
The benefit of martials is the ability to solve combats without resources. Rangers are no different.
Cast spells to do have effects not traditional to martials, like grounding enemies in place and turing yor entire party into a kill team. But melee and ranged weapon combat is what the ranger heavily relies on.

[Sorinth]

Simply put? A Ranger, as it exists currently, cannot be expected to rely heavily on it's spells.

•It's a 1/3rd caster, so spell slots are *extremely* limited.
•Because it's a 1/3rd caster and D&D developers are lazy about spells, many of it's options are very late arrivals, so their usefulness at the level you actually gain them is questionable at best (Ranger-specific spells aren't as much a problem here, but anything shared with a full caster list like Druid absolutely is).
•Many of it's spells are Concentration, so it can't rely on multiple casting even if it did have the slots necessary to back that up.
•Wisdom is a tertiary stat so offensive spells suffer from a low Save DC.

We're in the "this class needs major redesign" territory if we want to say they should rely more on their spells.
(Paladin gets around all these issues by ignoring the fact that their spells are spells, treating them as Smite fuel instead, and Smites aren't concerned with any of the above really.)

They are 1/2 casters not 1/3rd casters, but more to the point low level spells control spells don't really fall off in effectiveness as much as you are implying. For example Plant Growth outlcasses Entangle, but Entangle will still remain useful and there will still be plenty of times it can waste melee opponents turns by forcing them to Dash through the difficult terrain.

I would also point out that it seems like you are creating a self-fulfilling problem for yourself by treating Wisdom as a tertiary stat. Because of that your spells are losing a lot of effectiveness and because they aren't effective you don't value increasing your Wisdom. Not too mention you can quite easily make Wisdom your primary stat by focusing on Shillelagh or Magic Stone which would allow your spell save DC to be as high as a full caster.

That's not to say there aren't issues with ranger spell usage, there are, but it's minor tweaks not a major redesign territory.

[Kane0]

Individual spells are some of the easiest things to chop and change anyways

[PhoenixPhyre]

They are 1/2 casters not 1/3rd casters, but more to the point low level spells control spells don't really fall off in effectiveness as much as you are implying. For example Plant Growth outlcasses Entangle, but Entangle will still remain useful and there will still be plenty of times it can waste melee opponents turns by forcing them to Dash through the difficult terrain.


Entangle doesn't also eat the entire battlefield. Sometimes, wide areas are actually a detriment.

[Schwann145]

You mean 1/2 not 1/3 right? 1/2 being the same as the paladin, and 1/3 being the EK and AT progression?

I did mean 1/2 caster. This is what I get for posting while tired, lol.
Edited to fix.

[Sorinth]

Entangle doesn't also eat the entire battlefield. Sometimes, wide areas are actually a detriment.

Yes but that's true regardless of the tier and it's not like high level play is inherently correlated with larger battlefields. The spell is just as effective as it has always, it hasn't become obsolete because better spells are available. Note that this is the opposite of damage dealing spells, which if you want the same level of effectiveness you do need to keep up in terms of spell level because the effectiveness of damage level spells is relative to the enemies HP, whereas control spells effectiveness is relative to movement/action economy which doesn't scale at anywhere close to the same way HP as you face higher tier monsters.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yes but that's true regardless of the tier and it's not like high level play is inherently correlated with larger battlefields. The spell is just as effective as it has always, it hasn't become obsolete because better spells are available. Note that this is the opposite of damage dealing spells, which if you want the same level of effectiveness you do need to keep up in terms of spell level because the effectiveness of damage level spells is relative to the enemies HP, whereas control spells effectiveness is relative to movement/action economy which doesn't scale at anywhere close to the same way HP as you face higher tier monsters.

I was agreeing with you, showing another reason why it's still useful. At all tiers.

[Ir0ns0ul]

From levels 2 to 4, Rangers have both Ensnaring Strike and Entangle to contribute on battlefield control. Goodberry is also outstanding. Fog Cloud saved my party more than once.

At level 5, Pass Without Trace can potentially generate more consistent DPR if your party play the cards right with a full surprise round. Silence is an incredible spell against enemies’ spellcasters and different from Clerics, Bards and Druids, you don’t have better spells to concentrate. Spike Growth is insane if you have the party support on forced movement. Aid is also great.

I believe the main advantage of Rangers against Paladins is that you can cast your spells without regret. Although full casters obviously have access earlier to most of the best spells available to Rangers, they have better options to occupy their concentration which leaves opportunity for Rangers to cast those utility / support spells. Druids should concentrate on Conjure Animals, not Pass Without Trace. Bards should concentrate on Hypnotic Pattern and Clerics on Spirit Guardians, not Silence. This is the niche that I believe few people explored and that makes Rangers amazing in any party.

[RedGeomancer]

Maybe a good angle for this would be to make Hunter's Mark a class feature. BA to use, no concentration, no resource cost, lasts forever (expands out-of-combat tracking potential), but you can only mark one target at a time. Build the rest of the class around this feature. At higher levels, Hunter's Mark could perhaps negate invisibility (and maybe blindness, too?) and grant its benefits to your party instead of just you. I feel like the ranger would need some kind of second gimmick, preferably one that either synergizes with Hunter's Mark, or one that covers some of the weaknesses of Hunter's Mark (e.g. something for dealing with hordes).

What you propose is very close to what I do in my homebrew ranger. Basically lasts forever, though I do break it when the marked creature leaves your plane of existence. I also let you mark more than one creature at a time. Thus a ranger could have a big bad opponent marked indefinitely (tracking over days, weeks, or months) while still being able to use it on one-off opponents.

Hunter's Mark

At 2nd level, you gain the ability to mystically mark a creature as your quarry. As a bonus action, choose a creature that you are successfully tracking, hold something of (a possession or something from the creature's body such as hair, fur, blood, or scales), or can see within 90 feet. The target is marked by you until it dies or is on a different plane of existence from you. Until the mark ends, you deal an extra 1d6 damage to the target whenever you hit it with a weapon attack, and you have advantage on any Wisdom (Perception) or Wisdom (Survival) check you make to find it.

You can use this feature a number of times equal to your Wisdom modifier (a minimum of once), so long as the number of creatures you have marked does not exceed your Wisdom modifier (minimum of 1 marked creature). You regain expended uses when you finish a long rest. You may end the mark on one or more creatures early (no action required), suffering one level of exhaustion when you do so.

[Psyren]

The problem with making HM a class feature is that 1DnD's goal is to be backwards compatible, meaning HM the spell will still exist. That's not a big deal for Eldritch Blast, the other iconic spell that looks to be getting turned into a class feature, because you still only have one Action per turn - so even if they make EB a class feature and both exist you'd be forced to choose each round. But feature!HM and spell!HM won't have that problem - meaning every Ranger will simply pick both. +2d6 on every attack from level 1 onward would be a pretty valid use of your concentration for most of your career and will make Rangers even more loathe to concentrate on anything else.

[MadMusketeer]

This is why I think power source is important. If a ranger is just *outdoor stuff+ some magic+ some weapon stuff* is hard to keep it's identity and niche. How and why are more important than what.

So what if rangers where closer to paladins in that they are bound by an ethos or oath (same for monks really)? What would a rangers ethos be and how would it manifest?


From levels 2 to 4, Rangers have both Ensnaring Strike and Entangle to contribute on battlefield control. Goodberry is also outstanding. Fog Cloud saved my party more than once.

At level 5, Pass Without Trace can potentially generate more consistent DPR if your party play the cards right with a full surprise round. Silence is an incredible spell against enemies’ spellcasters and different from Clerics, Bards and Druids, you don’t have better spells to concentrate. Spike Growth is insane if you have the party support on forced movement. Aid is also great.

I believe the main advantage of Rangers against Paladins is that you can cast your spells without regret. Although full casters obviously have access earlier to most of the best spells available to Rangers, they have better options to occupy their concentration which leaves opportunity for Rangers to cast those utility / support spells. Druids should concentrate on Conjure Animals, not Pass Without Trace. Bards should concentrate on Hypnotic Pattern and Clerics on Spirit Guardians, not Silence. This is the niche that I believe few people explored and that makes Rangers amazing in any party.

This. Pass Without Trace is an insanely busted spell that is otherwise pretty much exclusive (other than some racial lists) to Druids, a class whose primary weakness is the high degree of competition with concentration spells - it's inefficient for them to cast it, especially given that one of the advantages of the spell is the 10 minute duration and one of the advantages of Conjure Animals (the main spell you'll cast as a Druid, unless your DM bans it) is that it last for up to an hour - it's a waste of slots to switch between concentrations like that. Rangers get to have Pass Without Trace up whenever, which is a major boon to your whole party in a way similar to the Watchers aura, but which stacks with it (and is stronger, depending on the situation). It utterly breaks bounded accuracy, and is incredibly strong because of it. Plus, it's a force multiplier, so it stays just as good at higher levels.

Goodberry is also pretty nuts, particularly with a Life Cleric dip for Lifeberry, giving you some of the strongest out-of-combat healing in the game and letting you sustain your party through the toughest adventuring days.

Also, I haven't heard anyone mention this, but Rangers also get Conjure Animals. Granted, they get it at level 9, so it's not quite as good, but that spell is so hilariously busted that, combined with a class that already has excellent DPR potential using CBE and SS (particularly with Gloomstalker), you can deal some crazy damage.

While the Ranger list may have a lot of pretty underwhelming spells, there are also enough spells on the list that are busted enough, and universally applicable enough, to hard carry the list. The power of a spell list isn't defined by how many bad spells it has, but by how many good ones - after all, Wizards probably have the list with the most bad spells in the game, but their spell list is also the strongest by a significant margin.

[Kane0]

Hunter's Mark
1st-Level Divination
Casting Time: 1 Bonus Action
Range: 90 feet
Components: V
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 hour
Choose a creature you can see within range. Until the spell ends, once per turn you deal an extra +1d6 damage to the target whenever you hit it with a weapon attack, and you gain advantage on any Intelligence or Wisdom checks to find it or recall information about it. If the target drops to 0 hit points before this spell ends, you can use a bonus action on a subsequent turn to mark a new creature.
At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 2nd level or higher, the extra damage increases by 1d6 for each slot level above 1st. When you use a spell slot of 3rd level or higher, you can maintain concentration on the spell for up to 8 hours. When you use a spell slot of 5th level or higher, you can maintain concentration on the spell for up to 24 hours.


Ranger Level 5: Favored Enemy
Select two creatures types (or two races each time you pick Humanoids). You can cast Hunter's Mark on a creature that is one of these types without expending a spell slot and without having the spell known/prepared, however the spell ends once the creature is reduced to 0 hit points.
At level 13 you choose two more creature types.

Ranger Level 9: Hunter's Mark Improvement
When casting Hunter's Mark, you can select a creature you have met even if you cannot see them and they are outside of the spell's range.
At 17th level, you can select a creature you touch the tracks of, hold a possession of or seen a likeness of even if you cannot see them and they are outside of the spell's range.

Thoughts?

[RedGeomancer]

The problem with making HM a class feature is that 1DnD's goal is to be backwards compatible, meaning HM the spell will still exist.

I've accounted for that in my homebrew by removing HM from the Ranger's spell list. Since it isn't on any other spell list, that means it's not available to anyone (e.g. through Magic Initiate or bard's Magical Secrets). Any feature that would use it (like Vengeance Paladin) gets Hex instead.

Basically, the question I was trying to answer was "Should HM be a class feature or a spell?" OP was suggesting it should be a class feature, and that's the side I came down on as well. If HM should be a class feature then it shouldn't also be a spell.

[Psyren]

I've accounted for that in my homebrew by removing HM from the Ranger's spell list. Since it isn't on any other spell list, that means it's not available to anyone (e.g. through Magic Initiate or bard's Magical Secrets). Any feature that would use it (like Vengeance Paladin) gets Hex instead.

Basically, the question I was trying to answer was "Should HM be a class feature or a spell?" OP was suggesting it should be a class feature, and that's the side I came down on as well. If HM should be a class feature then it shouldn't also be a spell.

I wasn't speaking about your homebrew specifically, but rather the general decision. I like it as a spell because that means it's available to druids too - particularly "savage gish"-style druids like Moon and Spores - they just have to make it a little less of a must-dip.

[Kane0]

Given how similar Hunter's Mark and Hex are, I would prefer them differentiated a little bit more (another reason I went with once per turn weapon attacks with one of them).

[Goobahfish]

One idea I had as far as the martials and pseudo-martials (so including paladins and rangers) was to make Fighting Styles an actual thing instead of just being boring numbers boosts on particular weapons.

A real Fighting Style should give you incentives to act in certain ways and not be locked into specific weapon types. They should give small passive bonuses and also an active ability with either resource limits or some form of cooldown. Something you trigger by acting in a style-appropriate way. Like something that gets better if you're surrounded (encouraging you to charge right in) or a different one that works best if you've got a bigger distance to the target and/or haven't moved recently (more sniper-like). In this world, the distinction would be:

Fighters get a whole bunch of Fighting Styles and features that encourage "chaining" Fighting Styles--things like giving a bonus when you use the active ability that help with a different style. So Fighter combat would be fluid, swapping between styles (even if it's just a triangle of 3 or so).

Paladins and Rangers have much smaller, more thematic sets--maybe paladins get ones about holding the line or front-line combat or protecting others while rangers get more sniper, hit-and-run, or tactical ones (like ones that benefit from having allies nearby or benefit nearby allies). Theirs would be more quickly "magical", things that encourage them to cast spells or whatever. They tend to sit in one Style most of the time or flip back and forth between two. Barbarians get only a couple (a tanking-oriented one and a brute melee one) but they're oriented around SMASHING THEM IN THE FACE REAL HARD and generally have the biggest (number-wise) ones.

Rogues wouldn't get fighting styles. They're skill monkeys, not fighters. And these fighting styles should scale with level and/or evolve, so your Hold the Line style becomes Stonewall. Some might actually become outright fantastic, like a Barbarian one to hit the ground hard enough to knock people flying or cause a localized earthquake. And these Styles could definitely have out-of-combat uses--an Aggressive style might give benefits to Intimidation, while a more fluid Water Style (focused on deflecting incoming attacks) might help you with Insight. Or whatever.

This is a very interesting approach. Basically having each fighting style having an 'external condition' to provide a passive plus an active ability that helps facilitate said passive would be a very nice structure.

An example would be:
Wall Stance: In any turn you do not move, you gain +2 AC and temporary HP equal to your proficiency bonus. As a Bonus Action, you may Taunt an enemy within range. It makes a save or else moves towards you.

Obviously needs a bit of work, but it would 'define' a character 'style'. I stand still and taunt enemies to come get me.


If you look at the Ranger spell list then they actually have a pretty clear role, controller. They have a mix of battlefield control and AoE spells which is pretty much the definition of the controller role, there's also a mix of movement and added damage spells to help be a striker if needs be. Now it's true that in actual play it doesn't live up to that role super well (The concentration spells and action economy conflict, and a low spell save DC) but to say there's no design space for them seems because of the other martials is just odd.

Ah, but the more it leans into spellcasting the more it resembles a druid rather than a ranger. Moreover, many of these 'control' spells have associated saves which sadly for the ranger (barring very high Wisdom), means they don't hit as often. I think the reason the Paladin doesn't suffer these issues is because:
#1: Its Concentration abilities (other than the super useful smite spells) are Auras, out of combat abilities and buffs which don't require saves.
#2: Its core mechanic Smite doesn't interfere with concentration.

As Ranger's core mechanic (Hunter's Mark/Favoured Foe) does interfere, you are always trading CC vs extra damage output. The two seem to be in a kind of constant conflict with each other.


My general approach was stacking 'once per turn' damage bonuses from different sources, so it feels like a bit of a blend between Rogue one-hitting and Barb/Pally generic damage boosts.
One of those (Quarry) lets your party get in on the same once per turn damage boost for that warlordy vibe, and i've got that 2nd level Discern Weakness spell I made for them.

The Quarry stuff looks broadly right.


Well said. I believe one major issue is that people usually only thinks about Hunter’s Mark as the go-to spell, but Ranger have things like Ensnaring Strike, Entangle, Fog Cloud and Silence to play into the controller space. Maybe Paladins have better spells, like the Smite ones, but spell slots are too precious for them.

I saw several posts saying that Rangers should help the party to be more effective somehow, and I cannot see a better spell than Pass Without Trace to accomplish that. You basically turn your party into a deadly ninja squad, even the noisy heavy armor users. I usually play that by covering allies with mud, leaves and teaching them how to move silently. Goodberry is also a great party-friendly spell.

I mean, there are some problems over there, but I think the design space Rangers can explore to potencialize their capabilities are spells.

As I said above, the problem isn't that they don't have interesting spells. All the 'druid-lite' stuff is fine. The issue is that when they use these abilities they forgo basic class-defining features like 'Favoured Foe', whereas the Paladin does not forgo Smite (they do lose out on all the 'lesser smites'). So the basic difference is, that while a Paladin is a Martial + Caster (say... two weapon attacks, a smite while concentrating on an aura), a Ranger is a Martial OR Caster (two weapon attacks and entangle... but no damage boost).

[Snails]

Ah, but the more it leans into spellcasting the more it resembles a druid rather than a ranger. Moreover, many of these 'control' spells have associated saves which sadly for the ranger (barring very high Wisdom), means they don't hit as often.

While I like the idea of Ranger as Controller, for this reason, the class still needs a full rebuild. Your starting DC is probably 11 or 12 and it will progress more slowly than the monsters are getting more Str. Hunter's Mark and Zephyr's Strike reliably get the Ranger something useful. If you catch a group of enemies and at least 2 do not fail the Str save, your spell slot and Action would probably have been better spent simply attacking. Dead is a better debuff than Restrained.

[Psyren]

Given how similar Hunter's Mark and Hex are, I would prefer them differentiated a little bit more (another reason I went with once per turn weapon attacks with one of them).

I dunno about once per turn, but one boosting weapon attacks and the other boosting spell attacks seems fine to me.

[Kane0]

I dunno about once per turn, but one boosting weapon attacks and the other boosting spell attacks seems fine to me.

Well Hex is any attack, so i suppose its the bigger offender of the two

[Schwann145]

Thoughts?

Not calling you out, cuz this equally applies to the current version of the spell, but it just dawned on me that HM is basically a damage-only spell. The tracking bonuses are little more than a ribbon thrown in for flavor.
Tracking someone/something down can take days, maybe weeks. If you can get it done in an hour or less, you probably didn't really need the spell's help in the first place. Only getting an extension to 24hrs at level 17 is kinda... embarrassing... for an "epic, tier 4, tracker."

[Witty Username]

While I like the idea of Ranger as Controller, for this reason, the class still needs a full rebuild. Your starting DC is probably 11 or 12 and it will progress more slowly than the monsters are getting more Str. Hunter's Mark and Zephyr's Strike reliably get the Ranger something useful. If you catch a group of enemies and at least 2 do not fail the Str save, your spell slot and Action would probably have been better spent simply attacking. Dead is a better debuff than Restrained.

Most ranger control spells are areas of difficult terrain, which doesn’t allow for a saving throw. There are a few other effects like this that are not resistable in conventional ways. Also, remember that Ranger gets about the same number of spells as a sorcerer but only to 5th level casting so they have a bit more freedom taking situational spells.
And if you can kill enemies reliably, that is going to be better than any control character. Control spells are for when that is generally not an immediate option. Rangers call over druid is the character has better options to just kill them.
--
The tracking feature of Hunter's mark is more table culture than ribbon, its primary use case is if the creature needs tracking after they get within 90ft. Which happens alot with creatures that bail on combat. If the orc raiders attack you're caravan realize they are dealing with 5th level adventurers and bail, persuit becomes easier. If your monsters fight to the last breath, then this doesn't come up.
But it is there for a damage feature, use it if you don't have a bonus action attack or something similar.

[Kane0]

Not calling you out, cuz this equally applies to the current version of the spell, but it just dawned on me that HM is basically a damage-only spell. The tracking bonuses are little more than a ribbon thrown in for flavor.
Tracking someone/something down can take days, maybe weeks. If you can get it done in an hour or less, you probably didn't really need the spell's help in the first place. Only getting an extension to 24hrs at level 17 is kinda... embarrassing... for an "epic, tier 4, tracker."

Very true, thats why I added Ranger specific bonuses (no need for slots against favored enemies, target people a bit like scrying at higher levels, no concentration with the capstone).

[Psyren]

Well Hex is any attack, so i suppose its the bigger offender of the two

Sorry, I didn't mean the current versions, I meant that would be a valid split/rework for the future versions.

[Blas_de_Lezo]

I like the ranger concept. But I never liked the D&D ranger. The reason was always that the ranger is put as a specialized monster hunter, like a butcher who cuts meat from certain beasts. I don't like the concept of a ranger who hates certain enemies. IMO, a ranger has always been like Aragorn, a wandering traveler with no known home. It has nothing to do with specializing in killing enemies. I'd like rangers to be aversatile, generic combatants. Also, unfortunately, Mr. Dri... has made all rangers carry two scimitars. The day a ranger is based on Aragorn shall be my favorite class.

[Psyren]

Aragorn TWFs too - in the movie anyway, which is probably the version most 5e players would have been exposed to. In fact, though Longsword is his go-to for obvious reasons, he uses a whole array of weapons.

Movie Aragorn Fight Scenes:

Barrow Wights: Longsword + Torch
Watcher in the Water: Longsword (both hands)
Moria Goblins/Orcs: Longbow, Longsword, Thrown
Moria Troll: Longspear
Uruk-Hai: Longsword + Dagger TWF, Unarmed Strike, Dagger
Uruks on Wargs: Javelins, Longsword, Unarmed Strike, Dagger
Helm's Deep: Longsword, Unarmed Strike
Minas Tirith: Ghost Army (plot) :smalltongue:, Longsword, Unarmed Strike
Black Gate (Troll): Longsword, Dagger

[PhoenixPhyre]

Maybe trying to tie D&D class fictions to non-D&D characters in radically different universes (that D&D was never designed to emulate) is a source of the issue here?

Aragorn was not a fighter, ranger, or any other D&D class. He was a member of an organization called "the Rangers of the North". But that doesn't make him a D&D-class Ranger any more than being part of the US Army special forces unit known as the Army Rangers makes one a D&D-class Ranger.

Admitting that D&D is sui generis and entirely circular (self-referential/self-defining) breaks the cycle and lets us define them in ways that make more sense.

[BRC]

Maybe trying to tie D&D class fictions to non-D&D characters in radically different universes (that D&D was never designed to emulate) is a source of the issue here?

Aragorn was not a fighter, ranger, or any other D&D class. He was a member of an organization called "the Rangers of the North". But that doesn't make him a D&D-class Ranger any more than being part of the US Army special forces unit known as the Army Rangers makes one a D&D-class Ranger.

Admitting that D&D is sui generis and entirely circular (self-referential/self-defining) breaks the cycle and lets us define them in ways that make more sense.

Within D&D, "Ranger" as presented is very specifically somebody who is pretty good at fighting, very good at survival, and uses a specialized take on Druidic magic (The same way Paladins use a specialized take on Clerical magic).


"A Skilled hunter who can take down their prey with extreme accuracy" is possibly best modeled as a Rogue that specializes in stealth and survival. Aragorn from LOTR is probably best modeled as a Fighter, whose ranger skills are covered by Proficiency in survival.


I'd say that the specifically supernatural take on the Ranger as a hunter that wields nature magic means that outside D&D-inspired fantasy, you're going to have a lot of trouble finding characters who specifically fit D&D's "Ranger" vs being a Rogue or Fighter.



Which, I do wonder the degree to which that's the problem with the Ranger's class identity. Spellcasting is built into the class, but isn't especially incorporated into the popular conception of the class's identity unless you do what I did here and start at the mechanics and build a class around them.

[jas61292]

I'd say that the specifically supernatural take on the Ranger as a hunter that wields nature magic means that outside D&D-inspired fantasy, you're going to have a lot of trouble finding characters who specifically fit D&D's "Ranger" vs being a Rogue or Fighter

I think this is might be the core issue with Ranger identity.

It's fine for D&D to be self referential, but most people looking to existing characters for inspiration are looking to fiction outside of D&D itself. It's not a problem if a character called a Ranger in their own work of origin is not best represented as a ranger in D&D. It is a problem if there is almost no character that you would best represent as a Ranger.

While I wouldn't go so far as to say there are no such characters, the set of characters that the current ranger is the best at representing is incredibly small. And while it doesn't matter if the reason behind why it gets abilities is because of D&D's own history or because of cladding depictions from other fantasy works, if the class in its totality is too specific to represent a wide swath of characters, it is not a useful class to have.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Within D&D, "Ranger" as presented is very specifically somebody who is pretty good at fighting, very good at survival, and uses a specialized take on Druidic magic (The same way Paladins use a specialized take on Clerical magic).


"A Skilled hunter who can take down their prey with extreme accuracy" is possibly best modeled as a Rogue that specializes in stealth and survival. Aragorn from LOTR is probably best modeled as a Fighter, whose ranger skills are covered by Proficiency in survival.


I'd say that the specifically supernatural take on the Ranger as a hunter that wields nature magic means that outside D&D-inspired fantasy, you're going to have a lot of trouble finding characters who specifically fit D&D's "Ranger" vs being a Rogue or Fighter.



Which, I do wonder the degree to which that's the problem with the Ranger's class identity. Spellcasting is built into the class, but isn't especially incorporated into the popular conception of the class's identity unless you do what I did here and start at the mechanics and build a class around them.

Preface: I'm not really concerned with mechanics for this post. More thematics.

I'd say a substantial portion of the issue is the existence of "broad, low-fiction" classes like the Fighter, Rogue, and Wizard (less so the latter in this particular case). Anytime you have a "build-a-bear" class without its own identity, it occupies tons of conceptual space because you can always say "well, you could just model that with a Fighter/Rogue/Wizard/etc".

Thus, to really give Rangers their own identity, we need to narrow/clarify the identities of Rogues and Fighters. Instead of "the guy who is good at skills" and "the guy who is good at fighting", they need actual identities.

In this particular case, there's room for someone to be a hybrid of a fighter and a rogue, just like there's room to be a hybrid of a fighter and a cleric (aka paladin). And the ranger mostly fits that, albeit with a splash of druid thrown in for good measure.

The rogue, by default, doesn't get anything that depends on Wisdom (including Survival proficiency). They do (via subclasses) get stuff that depends on CHA and INT. So a "wilderness rogue-fighter hybrid", giving up the face duties and town-based skills for better wilderness/tracking/etc is a decently-well-defined thematic niche. They can also control the battlefield unlike most other martial-adjacent classes (although individual spells need a touch-up mechanically).

So if you take each individual phrase in isolation, sure. You can make an ersatz ranger out of a rogue or a fighter or some multiclass. But not the totality.

And personally, I think that multiclassing should be ignored for any class-identity discussions. Because it proves too much.


I think this is might be the core issue with Ranger identity.

It's fine for D&D to be self referential, but most people looking to existing characters for inspiration are looking to fiction outside of D&D itself. It's not a problem if a character called a Ranger in their own work of origin is not best represented as a ranger in D&D. It is a problem if there is almost no character that you would best represent as a Ranger.

While I wouldn't go so far as to say there are no such characters, the set of characters that the current ranger is the best at representing is incredibly small. And while it doesn't matter if the reason behind why it gets abilities is because of D&D's own history or because of cladding depictions from other fantasy works, if the class in its totality is too specific to represent a wide swath of characters, it is not a useful class to have.

D&D wizards aren't what people think of when they think of other fiction-based wizards. Warlocks thematically exist, but you'd never call them that. Paladin is entirely a D&D (and D&D-descended) word these days--the original inspiration is dead and now all the depictions come from D&D-based (or inspired) works. Etc.

If you want good fictional analogues that mechanically work the same...you can't. D&D characters don't mechanically map onto fictional characters or the reverse very well at all. Conan? Not a barbarian. At all, really. And anchoring in other-fiction only works if the game is intended to emulate those other fictional works. Which D&D isn't.

Rangers do have the breadth to cover a lot of characters, as long as you look past the parts that only exist in D&D-specific situations. Rangers are your basic "go behind enemy lines and cause chaos" type. They're also the wide swath of "police the borders between civilization and the wilds" characters. Just about anyone who lives "in the bush" echoes pieces of the ranger ethos. Etc. It's only when you insist on strong mechanical identity that you really run into problems. But when you do that...all the classes fall apart.

[BRC]

I think this is might be the core issue with Ranger identity.

It's fine for D&D to be self referential, but most people looking to existing characters for inspiration are looking to fiction outside of D&D itself. It's not a problem if a character called a Ranger in their own work of origin is not best represented as a ranger in D&D. It is a problem if there is almost no character that you would best represent as a Ranger.

While I wouldn't go so far as to say there are no such characters, the set of characters that the current ranger is the best at representing is incredibly small. And while it doesn't matter if the reason behind why it gets abilities is because of D&D's own history or because of cladding depictions from other fantasy works, if the class in its totality is too specific to represent a wide swath of characters, it is not a useful class to have.

yeah

Somebody has an idea for a character that starts at "Being a really good hunter" (The same way you might start a Fighter as "Being a really good soldier" or start a Rogue at "Be a really good thief"), but "Good at stealth and survival and kinda good at Arrows" doesn't really scratch th

Preface: I'm not really concerned with mechanics for this post. More thematics.

I'd say a substantial portion of the issue is the existence of "broad, low-fiction" classes like the Fighter, Rogue, and Wizard (less so the latter in this particular case). Anytime you have a "build-a-bear" class without its own identity, it occupies tons of conceptual space because you can always say "well, you could just model that with a Fighter/Rogue/Wizard/etc".

Thus, to really give Rangers their own identity, we need to narrow/clarify the identities of Rogues and Fighters. Instead of "the guy who is good at skills" and "the guy who is good at fighting", they need actual identities.

In this particular case, there's room for someone to be a hybrid of a fighter and a rogue, just like there's room to be a hybrid of a fighter and a cleric (aka paladin). And the ranger mostly fits that, albeit with a splash of druid thrown in for good measure.


I almost want the key to be taking Spellcasting out of the ranger, except for a "hybrid druid" subclass along the lines of Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster, If only to shift the thematic focus towards the character's hunting/survival skills. You would need to come up with some core combat niche that fits alongside Barbarian Rage and Rogue Sneak Attack, something that appeals to the fantasy of the Ranger.


This is mostly from a character background, where the Rangers get their spellcasting isn't as built into the class as it is for most. Unless the idea is that if you spend enough time in the woods you learn how to cast Entangle?





Rangers do have the breadth to cover a lot of characters, as long as you look past the parts that only exist in D&D-specific situations. Rangers are your basic "go behind enemy lines and cause chaos" type. They're also the wide swath of "police the borders between civilization and the wilds" characters. Just about anyone who lives "in the bush" echoes pieces of the ranger ethos. Etc. It's only when you insist on strong mechanical identity that you really run into problems. But when you do that...all the classes fall apart.

The word and theming of the ranger has that breadth, but the class doesn't. IMO it's less a lack of "Strong mechanical identity", I'd say Rogues don't have a Strong Mechanical Identity around being Thieves specifically except that they're encouraged to be good at dex and have the right skills.


IMO, the issue is that ranger spellcasting as a core class feature gets in the way of a lot of potential themes that would otherwise apply to the Ranger, because any character built to be a Ranger needs to include some piece of Nature Themed Spellcasting, and some explanation for how they learned that. "Nature Themed Spellcasting" doesn't necessarily tie into high-concepts like "Special forces soldier" or "Polices the borders between civilization and the Wilds". You certainly CAN create a special forces soldier whose picked up a bit of nature magic to assist in their operations, and it would make perfect sense that they would do so, but the magic isn't an innate part of the concept.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Personally, I like (mostly for just symmetry, I'm weird that way) having a "half-primal" or "druid-fighter hybrid". And half-casting as a subclass seems a little too much.

So really, it seems there should be two classes:

1. One that's a druid-fighter cross. Might make sense for this to be the Pet Class. Or even <quixotic>take over shapeshifting from the druid</quixotic>. Call this the Wilder. Maybe focused on control?

2. One that's a rogue-fighter cross. Non-caster (or at most 1/3 caster via subclass), does all the tracking, weakness-finding stuff. Maybe focused (mechanically) on buffing allies offensively/debuffing enemies (like the paladin is a defensive buffer). THis doesn't have to be spell-based--just "calls out the enemy's weakness" (granting extra damage, etc) or "improvises traps" or whatever. This is the Special Forces Sniper/Scout dude.

[Psyren]

Maybe trying to tie D&D class fictions to non-D&D characters in radically different universes (that D&D was never designed to emulate) is a source of the issue here?

Aragorn was not a fighter, ranger, or any other D&D class. He was a member of an organization called "the Rangers of the North". But that doesn't make him a D&D-class Ranger any more than being part of the US Army special forces unit known as the Army Rangers makes one a D&D-class Ranger.

Admitting that D&D is sui generis and entirely circular (self-referential/self-defining) breaks the cycle and lets us define them in ways that make more sense.

I get that it's not a totally clean fit but people are never going to stop trying to emulate fantasy figures in D&D. It's fun to see how close you can get, warts and all.


I think this is might be the core issue with Ranger identity.

It's fine for D&D to be self referential, but most people looking to existing characters for inspiration are looking to fiction outside of D&D itself. It's not a problem if a character called a Ranger in their own work of origin is not best represented as a ranger in D&D. It is a problem if there is almost no character that you would best represent as a Ranger.

While I wouldn't go so far as to say there are no such characters, the set of characters that the current ranger is the best at representing is incredibly small. And while it doesn't matter if the reason behind why it gets abilities is because of D&D's own history or because of cladding depictions from other fantasy works, if the class in its totality is too specific to represent a wide swath of characters, it is not a useful class to have.

Why couldn't Aragorn be represented by a D&D Ranger though? Is it because he doesn't have spells? I'd chalk that up far more to the very subtle nature of Tolkien's magic than that a D&D version of Aragorn having spells would be somehow out of place.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I get that it's not a totally clean fit but people are never going to stop trying to emulate fantasy figures in D&D. It's fun to see how close you can get, warts and all.


Doing it for fun is one thing. Regimenting class identities based on it is another, and (to me) causes issues.

That is, the class identity should come first and come separately from any emulation. Emulation is a surface thing, not a system design expectation.

[Psyren]

Doing it for fun is one thing. Regimenting class identities based on it is another, and (to me) causes issues.

That is, the class identity should come first and come separately from any emulation. Emulation is a surface thing, not a system design expectation.

Emulation might not be, but enabling emulation should. For example, if you know that any fantasy class you call "Ranger" will attract the people wanting to make Aragorn because that's what he's called, then saying your "rangers" can't use swords or bows or survive outdoors is going to cause massive disconnect - any designer trying that would be laughed out of the room.

That doesn't mean that your game's ranger can't be anything other than Aragorn, but easily landing within striking distance of that concept should absolutely be a design goal.

[Sorinth]

Ah, but the more it leans into spellcasting the more it resembles a druid rather than a ranger. Moreover, many of these 'control' spells have associated saves which sadly for the ranger (barring very high Wisdom), means they don't hit as often. I think the reason the Paladin doesn't suffer these issues is because:
#1: Its Concentration abilities (other than the super useful smite spells) are Auras, out of combat abilities and buffs which don't require saves.
#2: Its core mechanic Smite doesn't interfere with concentration.

As Ranger's core mechanic (Hunter's Mark/Favoured Foe) does interfere, you are always trading CC vs extra damage output. The two seem to be in a kind of constant conflict with each other.

...

As I said above, the problem isn't that they don't have interesting spells. All the 'druid-lite' stuff is fine. The issue is that when they use these abilities they forgo basic class-defining features like 'Favoured Foe', whereas the Paladin does not forgo Smite (they do lose out on all the 'lesser smites'). So the basic difference is, that while a Paladin is a Martial + Caster (say... two weapon attacks, a smite while concentrating on an aura), a Ranger is a Martial OR Caster (two weapon attacks and entangle... but no damage boost).

I'm not sure I buy that they will resemble a druid any more the a paladin resembles a cleric. There's no doubt Ranger spells could be improved both in terms of action economy and concentration overlap so that they can "smite" in a way that closer resembles Divine Smite. Like if for example Hail of Thorns worked like Divine Smite and didn't take concentration or cost a bonus action to use, then the classes would be very similar in the Martial +/OR Caster debate. So especially when talking theme/identity that's not the problem with the Ranger, the problem is the mechanics have made it clunky to do what they are supposed to do.

Also as a Ranger you can easily have a 16 Wis to start the game with which gives you a standard spell save DC until level 8+ which is a large % of actual play. So the low spell save DC is somewhat overblown and is often a case of being self-fulfilling. If you believe the spell save is low then you avoid spells with saves (Sticking to things like PWT, Spike Growth), and if you focus on those spells then there's no need to have a high wisdom, so you reduce your Wis score in favour of Con which then reinforces the idea that you need to avoid spells with saves.

[Schwann145]

Personally, I like (mostly for just symmetry, I'm weird that way) having a "half-primal" or "druid-fighter hybrid". And half-casting as a subclass seems a little too much.

So really, it seems there should be two classes:

1. One that's a druid-fighter cross. Might make sense for this to be the Pet Class. Or even <quixotic>take over shapeshifting from the druid</quixotic>. Call this the Wilder. Maybe focused on control?

2. One that's a rogue-fighter cross. Non-caster (or at most 1/3 caster via subclass), does all the tracking, weakness-finding stuff. Maybe focused (mechanically) on buffing allies offensively/debuffing enemies (like the paladin is a defensive buffer). THis doesn't have to be spell-based--just "calls out the enemy's weakness" (granting extra damage, etc) or "improvises traps" or whatever. This is the Special Forces Sniper/Scout dude.

Personally, I agree with this.
I think the Barbarian is the class that actually doesn't belong, and instead should be something more like a "Shaman," filling the Fighter/Druid spiritualist role.
Meanwhile, the Ranger drops Druid casting entirely (aside from maybe 1/3rd casting as a subclass option) and fills the "Skilled Fighter, Hunter/Tracker" role.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Personally, I agree with this.
I think the Barbarian is the class that actually doesn't belong, and instead should be something more like a "Shaman," filling the Fighter/Druid spiritualist role.
Meanwhile, the Ranger drops Druid casting entirely (aside from maybe 1/3rd casting as a subclass option) and fills the "Skilled Fighter, Hunter/Tracker" role.

I think there's a really strong niche for the barbarian (maybe not by that name). The whole Berserker (empowered by supernatural anger) concept is old and attested even in very modern stuff--cf Kratos in God of War.

As I see it, you can break down the classes roughly as



Category
Martial
1/2 caster
Full caster


Arcane
Fighter[1]
??
Wizard, sorcerer, warlock


Divine
??
Paladin
Cleric


Primal
Barbarian
Ranger
Druid


Expert[2]
Rogue
Artificer
Bard



So really, we need a "divine" non-casting martial (something like a barbarian with a different style, with divine trappings but no real spells) and an arcane half-caster in the paladin/ranger mode.

[1] the essence of arcane is being self-powered. The power comes from within, not from without. Fighters fit that perfectly, and their 1/3 casters/magic types are all arcane-types.
[2] a horrible name, but the idea is that these are the skill-focused, jack-of-all-trades sorts.

[Schwann145]

I think there's a really strong niche for the barbarian (maybe not by that name). The whole Berserker (empowered by supernatural anger) concept is old and attested even in very modern stuff--cf Kratos in God of War.

As I see it, you can break down the classes roughly as



Category
Martial
1/2 caster
Full caster


Arcane
Fighter[1]
??
Wizard, sorcerer, warlock


Divine
??
Paladin
Cleric


Primal
Barbarian
Ranger
Druid


Expert[2]
Rogue
Artificer
Bard



So really, we need a "divine" non-casting martial (something like a barbarian with a different style, with divine trappings but no real spells) and an arcane half-caster in the paladin/ranger mode.

[1] the essence of arcane is being self-powered. The power comes from within, not from without. Fighters fit that perfectly, and their 1/3 casters/magic types are all arcane-types.
[2] a horrible name, but the idea is that these are the skill-focused, jack-of-all-trades sorts.

I agree about the strong niche for a "barbarian," but it works as a subclass much better than Ranger does, IMO. After all, look at 90% of the current Barbarian subclasses - they're pretty wildly magical, which is *not* fitting for the traditional theme of "tough angry fighter guy."

As for breakdowns like these, I think they have more to do with pareidolia than any actual design intent. I mean, there's nothing at all "arcane" about a Fighter, but they're included there... why? Same with Artificer being an "Expert;" they are certainly not a skill-based class by any real metric.
And if the idea of "arcane" is being "self-powered," then Wizards and Warlocks certainly don't belong. Etc.

[Kane0]

Or have some dedicated 1/3 caster classes to go along with the full and half casters.

Edit: we could shift the sorcerer back into the half-arcane slot, which has been explored elsewhere. Warlocks are a wierd one, no idea where it would fit.

[Psyren]

I'm fine with the 1/3 casters being subclasses, we just need more of them. 4 Elements Monk, Sun Soul and/or Shadow would have been great as the Divine 1/3 casters for instance..

[Kane0]

I'm fine with the 1/3 casters being subclasses, we just need more of them. 4 Elements Monk, Sun Soul and/or Shadow would have been great as the Divine 1/3 casters for instance..

1/3 Divine Inquisitor Rogue?

[PhoenixPhyre]

I agree about the strong niche for a "barbarian," but it works as a subclass much better than Ranger does, IMO. After all, look at 90% of the current Barbarian subclasses - they're pretty wildly magical, which is *not* fitting for the traditional theme of "tough angry fighter guy."

As for breakdowns like these, I think they have more to do with pareidolia than any actual design intent. I mean, there's nothing at all "arcane" about a Fighter, but they're included there... why? Same with Artificer being an "Expert;" they are certainly not a skill-based class by any real metric.
And if the idea of "arcane" is being "self-powered," then Wizards and Warlocks certainly don't belong. Etc.

Everything in D&D is wildly magical. Seriously. There is no "just a normal dude" room left. And really it's been uncomfortably so for a while now. That's because really there's only one "just a normal dude" niche anywhere. Like it or not, every D&D character is going to be magical (but not cast spells).

And I explained why fighters fit best into the arcane category--their power isn't borrowed/channeled from anyone else. And all of their "magical" subclasses are very much arcane-aligned: EK, AA, even Rune Knight and Echo Knight all fit very well into the "power from learning/training" mold.

Artificers are very much jacks of all trades. They're neither particularly fightery nor are they particularly castery. But they have a wide variety of tricks they can do. But sure, they could fit as the arcane half-caster.

I'd say that the biggest overlap is between the three arcane full casters. those could all be sorcerer subclasses--wizards get their power from the nature of language/mastery of words (a very fictionally-strong idea) and warlocks get their power unlocked by selling their souls (or making deals). It's all "power from within", it's just the access method that changes.

Oh, and I realized where my "divine martial" went--I forgot about monks. That fills that hole nicely, leaving only one hole (either expert half-caster or arcane half-caster).

[Goobahfish]

So, having abandoned classes entirely, the what should and shouldn't be a class discussion is always an amusement to me (mostly because it was the impetus for abandoning classes).

So, the way I think about it is this. There are thematic archetypes, and there are mechanical archetypes.

Thematic archetypes are easy and varied. Melee martial, ranged martial, hybrid martial, uses elemental magic, heals and smites etc.

Within the D&Dverse this works out as:

Martial, Magic, Skills

At some point early on (1st) it was decided that healing and fireball were separate magic.

Martial, Arcane, Divine, Skills

Then we have Druid... which is separate again. I'm not even going to start with psionics as that has always been completely ridiculous (thematically) to me. However, you do have Monk... which is basically an exception. Even in 3.5 they kind of admitted that Monks don't fit (no multi-classing).

Martial, Arcane, Primal, Divine, Skills

Martial = Fighter
Skills = Rogue
Arcane = Wizard
Divine = Cleric
Primal = Druid
Martial + Divine = Paladin
Martial + Primal = Ranger
Martial + Arcane = Hexblade/Eldritch Warrior/(this one is always missing as a class)
Skills + Arcane = Bard (except it needs healing spells for some reason)
Skills + Cleric = Again missing... PF has the inquisitor in this role
Skills + Nature = Again missing... except Ranger isn't sure if it is in this role

So whenever I was 'reskinning' 3.5 I always ended up with these roles. Barbarian was a difficult one? It is basically a 'more martial' martial. You can add 'technology' to this to get your Artificer too if you want, but the other hybrids are completely absent if you do.

So far, this is all 'thematic' tied with core mechanics (melee, casting, skills). They aren't separate resource pools/abilities etc. Expertise just buffs skills and the rest is either base attacks or spell slots.

Then you have mechanical archetypes.
Barbarian = Rage!
Bard = Bardic Inspiration/Singing things
Druid = Wild-shape
Cleric = Turn Undead... ah, Paladin also gets Turn Undead (this is the most consistent one)
Rogue = Sneak Attack
Sorcerer = More spell slots
Warlock = Eldritch blast
Monk = Flurry of Blows... and Ki... and... Perfect (Monk is a basket case class)

----

If I were forced to keep classes, a few things I would do.
#1: Druids would get 'Channel Nature' which could be used for: Wildshape... Animal Companions... Subclass Abilities (like summoning hedges)
#2: Ranger would be Fighter/Druid. It would also get Channel Nature which the subclasses would trigger off.
#3: Ranger would get a way of spending spell-slots as an inbuilt class ability which wouldn't require concentration.
#4: I would have a Rogue subclass which is very Ranger-centric (scout or some such which plays for archer-sniper) OR just a Nature-Rogue (Scout). A nature-rogue would suck out a few of the ranger archetypes but basically be the '1-shot' archer-sniper type.

If both Druids and Rangers had Channel Nature, it would make a statement about what the intent of the design was. Rangers are Fighter/Druids. Not Fighter/Rogue/Druids (which is what WotC has chosen). The problem with a triple class is that it just can't be good at everything.

[animorte]

So really, we need a "divine" non-casting martial (something like a barbarian with a different style, with divine trappings but no real spells) and an arcane half-caster in the paladin/ranger mode.
Monk suits the divine non-casting martial for me. Bard should be arcane half-caster, methinks.

[Psyren]

Edit: we could shift the sorcerer back into the half-arcane slot, which has been explored elsewhere. Warlocks are a wierd one, no idea where it would fit.

Sorcerers should never have less magic than Bards imo.

(Artificer is the 1/2 Arcane; "Expert" isn't a spell list.)


1/3 Divine Inquisitor Rogue?

Sure, I'm fine with rogue getting another 1/3 progression too, but Monk would be my first choice there.

1/3 Primal would be a good fit for a Barbarian subclass that works around the rage restrictions.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So, having abandoned classes entirely, the what should and shouldn't be a class discussion is always an amusement to me (mostly because it was the impetus for abandoning classes).

So, the way I think about it is this. There are thematic archetypes, and there are mechanical archetypes.

Thematic archetypes are easy and varied. Melee martial, ranged martial, hybrid martial, uses elemental magic, heals and smites etc.




Those aren't thematic at all. Those are mechanical archetypes--they're very focused on the tools being used, not the overall picture. Thematic archetypes would be things like

Holy Warrior/Divine Champion
Wielder of Nature's Wrath
Shapeshifter
Dweller in Shadows
Weaponmaster
Mage of the book
Dragonmage
Witch
Summoner
Dragon rider

Etc.


Monk suits the divine non-casting martial for me. Bard should be arcane half-caster, methinks.

Yeah, I realized too late that I'd forgotten monks entirely. That's their slot. And I'd be fine with collapsing the "Expert" category entirely, dropping bards to arcane half-casters (fighter + wizard) and putting rogues in the "arcane martial" grouping.

Although really, I'd redo the rogue entirely. Call it "Adventurer" and make it a generalist whose sub-classes have huge effects. Bard would be an adventurer subclass. As would Artificer. Etc. It's the Jack of All Trades class.

@Psyren--I didn't say they were spell lists. The idea of a "Arcane Spell List" is a stupid thing that should never have been. Because it conflates spells with magic, as if the only way to be fantastic is to cast spells. And that's the source of a huge chunk of the thematic issues around these classes, the stupid moronic idea that spells are something special and unique rather than one of many ways to do/be fantastic.

[Goobahfish]

Those aren't thematic at all. Those are mechanical archetypes--they're very focused on the tools being used, not the overall picture. Thematic archetypes would be things like

Holy Warrior/Divine Champion
Wielder of Nature's Wrath
Shapeshifter
Dweller in Shadows
Weaponmaster
Mage of the book
Dragonmage
Witch
Summoner
Dragon rider


Hopefully this isn't a semantic argument. When I say 'thematic', I mean characters that all fall under a general set of 'problem solving'. A shapeshifter is an example of a martial/nature-magic themed character (shapeshifting basically is a kind of magic, one way or another). D&D has a certain number of frameworks which underpin the basic game. "Nature Warrior" only makes sense in so far as D&D has a meaning for 'Nature' and a meaning for 'Warrior'. Most of the above don't really meaning anything out of mechanical context. "Witch" isn't a cogent term. There is no canonical 'witch'.

The reason I veered away from classes at all was because I wanted to be able to (using your use of the word 'theme') branch out.

Smoke-themed assassin who dual-wields burning daggers and uses smoke and ash magic to distract and blind opponents.
Raging Boar wild-shaping character with a pet boar who does combo-attacks.
Character who wild-shapes into a tiny monkey and climbs into a flame-thrower-wielding arcane mech golem thing.
Bard who rides a giant wolf with drums on either side and uses clubs to make music and break skulls.

These themes need to have 'mechanical' correlates or they really don't mean anything. Because D&D has some base mechanics, it has some default themes that naturally arise from it. Which would be fine. However, it also has niche mechanics (rage, bardic inspiration) which are painfully tied to the other thematic elements in 'bundle-packs'.

What if bard but no magic? Cries. What if wild-shape but no magic? Cries. What if favoured foe but want to use fireballs? Cries.

The point is that almost every conceivable character will fall under one of a few themes. Magic, weapons, skills... the rest is just... aesthetic?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Hopefully this isn't a semantic argument. When I say 'thematic', I mean characters that all fall under a general set of 'problem solving'. A shapeshifter is an example of a martial/nature-magic themed character (shapeshifting basically is a kind of magic, one way or another). D&D has a certain number of frameworks which underpin the basic game. "Nature Warrior" only makes sense in so far as D&D has a meaning for 'Nature' and a meaning for 'Warrior'. Most of the above don't really meaning anything out of mechanical context. "Witch" isn't a cogent term. There is no canonical 'witch'.

The reason I veered away from classes at all was because I wanted to be able to (using your use of the word 'theme') branch out.

Smoke-themed assassin who dual-wields burning daggers and uses smoke and ash magic to distract and blind opponents.
Raging Boar wild-shaping character with a pet boar who does combo-attacks.
Character who wild-shapes into a tiny monkey and climbs into a flame-thrower-wielding arcane mech golem thing.
Bard who rides a giant wolf with drums on either side and uses clubs to make music and break skulls.

These themes need to have 'mechanical' correlates or they really don't mean anything. Because D&D has some base mechanics, it has some default themes that naturally arise from it. Which would be fine. However, it also has niche mechanics (rage, bardic inspiration) which are painfully tied to the other thematic elements in 'bundle-packs'.

What if bard but no magic? Cries. What if wild-shape but no magic? Cries. What if favoured foe but want to use fireballs? Cries.

The point is that almost every conceivable character will fall under one of a few themes. Magic, weapons, skills... the rest is just... aesthetic?

I disagree. Themes are all about aesthetics. That's the entire point. "Wielding two weapons" is a weak aesthetic, and thus a weak theme. And aesthetics are what dominantly matters.

Mechanics implement aesthetics. Not vice versa.

And you could build a perfectly good shapeshifter with no spells. Or a perfectly good "bard" without spells. You're still so focused on how D&D has historically implemented those themes that you don't realize that the themes themselves, the archetypes they represent are much more important and more vital (in the "alive" meaning) than the mechanics. Mechanics change from edition to edition and often within editions.

And magic >>>>>>>> spells. Everyone in D&D has magic (ie fantastic, non-earth-possible) nature. Because that's part of the world itself--it's not just Earth + magic on top. Magic is in and through everything.

And you can't have it both ways--D&D is fundamentally a class-based game, mechanically. Getting rid of classes means you've gotten rid of D&D and can no longer use its mechanical underpinnings to discuss things. And if you keep classes, you're keeping archetypes. A class is not just the sum of its mechanics--those are just implementation details and are fungible and, fundamentally, meaningless in the larger picture.

[Psyren]

@Psyren--I didn't say they were spell lists.

They're not class groupings either, so what are they? "Category" tells me nothing.


The idea of a "Arcane Spell List" is a stupid thing that should never have been. Because it conflates spells with magic, as if the only way to be fantastic is to cast spells. And that's the source of a huge chunk of the thematic issues around these classes, the stupid moronic idea that spells are something special and unique rather than one of many ways to do/be fantastic.

I don't disagree that "Arcane" is broad, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't exist at all. "Arcane" is where they put spells that clerics and druids shouldn't have, some overlap notwithstanding. If most clerics could teleport and turn invisible and control minds and blast wide areas etc on top of healing then there'd be no reason to be anything else. Which isn't to say there aren't clerics who can do those things, but usually they come with key tradeoffs elsewhere.

[LibraryOgre]

I agree about the strong niche for a "barbarian," but it works as a subclass much better than Ranger does, IMO. After all, look at 90% of the current Barbarian subclasses - they're pretty wildly magical, which is *not* fitting for the traditional theme of "tough angry fighter guy."

TBH, I think Barbarian works well as a subclass of fighter, and ranger works well as a subclass of rogue, in this edition.

[Kane0]

I think we've branched off pretty far into the weeds now.

Anyways, cut levels down from 20 to 12!

Artificer: 1/2 Arcane
Barbarian: 1/3 varies by subclass
Bard: 2/3 Divine
Cleric: 1/1 Divine
Druid: 1/1 Primal
Fighter Warlord: 1/3 varies by subclass
Monk: 1/3 varies by subclass
Paladin: 1/2 Divine
Ranger: 1/2 Primal
Rogue: 1/3 varies by subclass
Shaman: 2/3 Primal
Sorcerer: 2/3 Arcane
Warlock: Wildcard
Wizard Mage: 1/1 Arcane

*Manic laughter*

[Schwann145]

Everything in D&D is wildly magical. Seriously. There is no "just a normal dude" room left. And really it's been uncomfortably so for a while now. That's because really there's only one "just a normal dude" niche anywhere. Like it or not, every D&D character is going to be magical (but not cast spells).

What is, and what can be, are not the same.
What you're saying certainly is "what is," but to suggest that it can only be this is simply a failure of imagination on the part of design.


And magic >>>>>>>> spells. Everyone in D&D has magic (ie fantastic, non-earth-possible) nature. Because that's part of the world itself--it's not just Earth + magic on top. Magic is in and through everything.

D&D doesn't have a specific world. It is simply a chassis applied to many/any world the players wish to apply it to. D&D belongs as much in Middle Earth or Camelot as it does in Faerun or the multiversal planes of MtG.

[jas61292]

Why couldn't Aragorn be represented by a D&D Ranger though? Is it because he doesn't have spells? I'd chalk that up far more to the very subtle nature of Tolkien's magic than that a D&D version of Aragorn having spells would be somehow out of place.

I didn't say he couldn't. He absolutely could.

What I said was basically that if I was looking to replicate Aragorn in D&D, the most obvious way to do that is not necessarily with a ranger. Fighter with the appropriate feats and backgrounds could probably do a better job approximating it without having to refluff that magic and what not.

Again, the issue is not that Ranger can't be used to replicate fictional characters. Its that the Ranger as it is in 5e D&D is not going to be the obvious go to for replicating such archetypical characters, because it is overly specific to stuff that is not common in fiction.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I didn't say he couldn't. He absolutely could.

What I said was basically that if I was looking to replicate Aragorn in D&D, the most obvious way to do that is not necessarily with a ranger. Fighter with the appropriate feats and backgrounds could probably do a better job approximating it without having to refluff that magic and what not.

Again, the issue is not that Ranger can't be used to replicate fictional characters. Its that the Ranger as it is in 5e D&D is not going to be the obvious go to for replicating such archetypical characters, because it is overly specific to stuff that is not common in fiction.

By that standard, the wizard should be on the chopping block. Basically zero of the main fictional "wizards" are well represented by the D&D class. At least if you're trying to match power sets and sources.

[jas61292]

By that standard, the wizard should be on the chopping block. Basically zero of the main fictional "wizards" are well represented by the D&D class. At least if you're trying to match power sets and sources.

To be fair, that is basically what I think of the Wizard. But at least it has going for it the whole "learned magic" thing. Even if the exact mechanics of it are not ideal for most concepts, the niche is something no other class really does. And I don't think ranger has something like that.

But yeah, lets revamp the wizard too :smallsmile:

[PhoenixPhyre]

But yeah, lets revamp the wizard too :smallsmile:

Mobile ate the full quote block, but we can agree on that at least.

[Psyren]

I didn't say he couldn't. He absolutely could.

What I said was basically that if I was looking to replicate Aragorn in D&D, the most obvious way to do that is not necessarily with a ranger. Fighter with the appropriate feats and backgrounds could probably do a better job approximating it without having to refluff that magic and what not.

Again, the issue is not that Ranger can't be used to replicate fictional characters. Its that the Ranger as it is in 5e D&D is not going to be the obvious go to for replicating such archetypical characters, because it is overly specific to stuff that is not common in fiction.

I'd say it depends on how you define "better job" and "obvious go-to." Could I get closer to modelling Aragorn with a multiclass build, sure - but I think the vast majority of pop culture fantasy characters (and several outside fantasy for that matter) would work that way, even D&D-specific ones (Drizzt's canonical build includes barbarian and rogue levels for instance, Elminster's includes rogue and cleric, etc.) That's not a failing of D&D - indeed, by creating an optional multiclass system in the first place, the system has succeeded in delivering what most people want while still not being beholden to such concepts.

For me, the point is ultimately not whether "Aragorn" works better as a Ranger 20 vs. a Ranger X/Fighter Y/Barbarian Z etc. Rather, the point for me is "okay, this guy is called a 'ranger' in one of the most seminal fantasy works of modern times; if I pick the 'Ranger' class, can I end up something that does a lot of what he does and doesn't feel like something/someone completely different?" And for me, the answer to that is yes on both counts, ergo D&D's ranger succeeded on that front even if you could get even closer by swapping out/splashing in some other stuff.

[Yakk]

So "my" ranger is a Primal pact-based character. They make deals with spirits.

To lean in on that, I grafted a Primal Covenant feature onto the ranger. At level 1 you pick what kind of Covenant .

Covenant of the Pack gives you the Tasha's animal-spirit companion. This is less than insanely crazy, as it has only 5 HP at level 1.
Covenant of the Hunt gives it Hunter's Mark and spellcasting buffs (gets spells 1 level early, and HM gets upgraded with new features).
Covenant of the Claw gives it shape changing "form of" abilities inspired by the 4e Warden.

These then upgrade in dead levels that the Ranger has plenty of.

Other than the BM, your Conclave stays the same. BM gets tweaked as a major feature is rolled into the Covenant.

Turning it into a martial nature-warlock gives it some nice identity to work with.

[Schwann145]

...but I think the vast majority of pop culture fantasy characters (and several outside fantasy for that matter) would work that way, even D&D-specific ones (Drizzt's canonical build includes barbarian and rogue levels for instance, Elminster's includes rogue and cleric, etc.)

Ehh... that's a bit of a stretch; cherry picking one specific edition's official character stats, and not the current edition to boot. Even then, said edition couldn't even make up it's mind about criteria for character levels (Elminster was *actually* a Fighter, and then a Thief, then a Cleric, before becoming a Wizard. Drizzt was always just a Fighter until meeting Montolio, then Ranger, but WotC decided he needed a Barb level to represent his "hunter" mindset... yet never gave him a Wizard level for being a standout student of Sorcere).

Neither El or Drizzt have official 5e stats, and it would be equally true to say El's official stats are "Wizard 29" or "Controller 19" and Drizzt's as "Ranger 19" or "Skirmisher 21."
3rd Edition is the only weird multiclass outlier.