PDA

View Full Version : [3.5e] What Makes A Ranger A Ranger?



Fax Celestis
2008-11-30, 08:53 PM
In some of my past How-it-Should-Be projects (the Paladin, the Rogue, the Divine Mind, the Fighter, and now the Monk), I've had a center-force that I can hinge on to define a class. What makes a paladin into a paladin? His code. What makes a rogue a rogue? Being situationally awesome. What makes a monk a monk? Battlefield skirmish tactics.

I'm having trouble coming up with a similar center point for a ranger, though: I don't really know what makes a ranger into a ranger beyond Combat Styles (that a fighter can copy), Favored Enemies, an animal companion, and stunted druid casting--but I don't really like any of those concepts as a center point. I want something that every ranger will have in common, but no other class will accidentally exemplify.

So then I ask you, dear reader: what makes a ranger into a ranger?

Keld Denar
2008-11-30, 08:55 PM
So then I ask you, dear reader: what makes a ranger into a ranger?

Blissful ignorance as druid's Down's Syndrome little brother?

I dunno, the whole wilderness skirmisher kind of attitude. Like, hiding out in trees and sniping, then hiding, repositioning, and sniping again.

Unfortunately, that concept doesn't work out that great in a party environment (like a ninja doesn't).

I never really liked TWF Rangers, so I guess I would like to see something more archery focused, beyond a handful of bonus feats.

Yukitsu
2008-11-30, 08:55 PM
Perception, self reliance and a blend of abilities.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2008-11-30, 08:56 PM
Honestly, not much. The core Ranger was, as you stated, a mish-mash of other classes. In my opinion, the Scout was the How-it-Should-Be Ranger...a slightly nature-oriented skirmisher specializing in ambush tactics and hit-and-run, and competent in both melee combat and archery.

But that's just my opinion.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-11-30, 09:09 PM
The Hunter.

They get Tracking for free (to be able to follow their prey) and get bonuses for hunting certain classes of creatures.

It's weak, to be sure, but the 3.5 Ranger is The Hunter if he is nothing else.

Starbuck_II
2008-11-30, 09:11 PM
I've had a center-force that I can hinge on to define a class.

Strange focus but okay.


What makes a paladin into a paladin? His code.

Haven't seen your Paladin but his code...please tell me you've defined it better at least?



What makes a rogue a rogue? Being situationally awesome.

I thought it was sneak attack. But I can see that, but in a way that applies to everyone. Rogue may get more SA (Situationally Awesome) than others I guess.



I don't really know what makes a ranger into a ranger beyond Combat Styles (that a fighter can copy), Favored Enemies, an animal companion, and stunted druid casting--but I don't really like any of those concepts as a center point. I want something that every ranger will have in common, but no other class will accidentally exemplify.


Favored Enemy works. But rename it because it isn't so much enemy as you can choose own race, but fighting style better against a race.

Really skills package and Favored enemy are main features unique to Ranger.

Matthew
2008-11-30, 09:14 PM
To me, a ranger is what is depicted in REH's Beyond the Black River or Wolves Beyond the Border. The rangers in the Lord of the Rings, both in the north and in Ithilien are also good examples of rangers.

Quite what those qualities are is less easy to be certain of, but "guerrila fighter" might be a reasonable description. Essentially, they are fighters especially suited to ambush and warfare in the wilderness.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-11-30, 09:18 PM
Is there a reason you aren't using a Scout?

The Glyphstone
2008-11-30, 09:24 PM
Is there a reason you aren't using a Scout?

Because he's rewriting the classes, not replacing them.

TheCheshireHat
2008-11-30, 09:30 PM
Quite what those qualities are is less easy to be certain of, but "guerrila fighter" might be a reasonable description. Essentially, they are fighters especially suited to ambush and warfare in the wilderness.

I agree with this, and Iīd like to add that, IMO, one of the rangerīs qualities is self-sufficiency. Iīm not that familiar with D&D as a whole, in fantasy rangers tend to be folks to can survive the wilderness on their own, living off the earth, able to (ideally) win or avoid any confrontation they might encounter. So yeah, "guerrilla fighter" is a fitting descripton.

Yakk
2008-11-30, 09:32 PM
Boiling stuff off..

The Ranger is a Wilderness fighter, but he is not of the wilderness. He is an expert of the wilderness from civilization.

The Ranger is a lightly armored, nimble, fighter.

The Ranger is a nature-class, like the Druid, but centered around physical combat.

The Ranger is a Hunter. The Ranger corners the prey, then defeats it.

Killing the Scout and taking her stuff is a good starting point.

The Ranger is a Paragon of Humanity, striding through Nature, a Master of it and all of it's fruits.

The Ranger is a genius at both physical combat, and wilderness and monster lore. Not a mere dumb fighter, the Ranger knows everything about his opponents, and uses it against them.

Ok, spew done.

What if we worked on the Hunter's Lore part of it? The Ranger as Hunter. The Ranger doesn't defeat opponents through brute force -- instead, the Ranger learns the weak spots of opponents, then exploits them to deadly effect.

So two core mechanisms:

Hunter's Lore:
For every creature of a given TYPE the Ranger has defeated, the Ranger gains a bonus of +1 to damage against that type in the future. This bonus is capped by the Ranger's Wisdom bonus, plus one half the Ranger's level (rounded down), min 1.

At level 20, the Quarry bonus may go up by +Wisdom bonus instead of +1 per attack.

This bonus also applies to Track, Intimidate, Sense Motive and Perception checks against that creature type.

Hunter's Quarry:
A Ranger may as a free action designate a target as their Quarry. For each attack the Ranger does on a Quarry, the Ranger gains an additional +1 bonus to damage on all future attacks on that Quarry. This bonus is capped by the Ranger's Dex bonus, plus one half the Ranger's level (rounded down), min 1. The Ranger can have up to (wisdom bonus) Quarries at any given time, and can discard an old Quarry as a free action. All bonuses against a discarded Quarry are lost, even if that target becomes the Ranger's Quarry again.

At level 20, the Quarry bonus may go up by +Dex bonus instead of +1 per attack. The increased Quarry bonus applies to attacks after the current one.

This bonus also applies to Track, Intimidate, Sense Motive and Perception checks against that Quarry.

---

The Hunter's Lore caps out at (10 + Wisdom Bonus) at level 20. The Quarry caps out at (10 + Dex bonus) at level 20.

Does that provide a neat central mechanical hook to the Ranger?

The next thing would be to allow the Ranger more and more ability to move while making multiple attacks.

Heliomance
2008-11-30, 09:37 PM
A martia character focused on nature, as the druid is a spellcaster focused on nature.

Crow
2008-11-30, 09:37 PM
I think you're focusing too much on the combat aspect.

For me a Ranger represents freedom, endurance, self-reliance, and occupying the border between the primal order of nature and the structured order of civilization. The ranger is of the wild and of the world, yet never really a part of either.

DSCrankshaw
2008-11-30, 09:40 PM
Well, the big thing seems to be the hunter and tracker--that's generally what teh ranger does. Just make sure you cover all the archetypes. That does include the wilderness ranger--the hunter and tracker. But don't forget the dwarven caver, as well, who explores the depth of the underground.

OverdrivePrime
2008-11-30, 09:48 PM
I'm glad you're tackling this. The ranger has always been my favorite character concept to imagine, but seldom is it the most satisfying to play, particularly since I hate TWF combat and vastly prefer melee to ranged battle. I've never been a huge fan of the favored enemy (favored environment makes infinitely more sense), don't really see why magic use is intrinsically tied to rangers (though it certainly can be fun and helpful), and abhor the 'nother mouth to feed animal companions.

A ranger is a wilderness warrior. He is self sufficient, and cunning, and deeply knowledgeable about the lands he patrols. She is lightly armored, and relies on a combination of stealth and precisely applied power to win the day, rather than a thick skin of steel to save him from the blows of her enemies. A ranger is a survivor as well as a protector, equally adept swimming through raging rivers as he is scaling precarious heights or resetting his own broken leg before escaping a den of cannibals. There are none who know the ranger's chosen territory as well as she does, not even the druids, who she deeply respects. He is a born warrior and dedicated to his wilderness as a paladin is to his god. And finally, a ranger is relentless - she never gives up, never quits, and simply can never be counted out of a fight; she is a force of nature.

Essentials: Combat skill, Self-sufficiency, Some Sort Of Spiritual Bond With Nature, and Tracking. Everything else is gravy.

Suggestions: Mettle, Pass Without Trace, the Swift Hunter Feat

Khosan
2008-11-30, 09:52 PM
I'd agree with the Scout idea. The word 'skirmisher' is really all I can come up with.

Shades of Gray
2008-11-30, 10:02 PM
No what's weird? Favored Enemy: Humanoid (Race X) Orcs and humans and elves and such are assumed to have similar anatomy. This makes you fight better against Orcs and ONLY Orcs. If you get better at killing an orc, you'll be good at killing humans. Yet Favored Enemy: Animal covers ALL animals, from a rhinoceros to a giant bird, and they have different anatomies.

Connington
2008-11-30, 10:13 PM
Obviously Rangers attacking their favored enemy tap into the mystical, nature driven power of 'Game Balance' to achieve their skills. It's Chi, only more Wizardly. It was first practiced by rangers of the coast.

Orzel
2008-11-30, 10:45 PM
A ranger is a warrior who adapted his fighting and skill to the wilderness.

He is adept at ranged weapons because range is powerful in the wild.
He is a master of hit and run tactics because melee is powerful but dealdy in nature.
He doesn't use a shield or heavy armor for it has an armor check penalty.
He is a master of stealth, perception, and nature lore.
He is the most self sufficient. They can provide food, water, antidotes, healing, and travel for himself and his allies.

The ranger is a talking animal.

Baron Corm
2008-11-30, 10:47 PM
1. Tracking. This is what makes him a valuable member of the party. The PHB ranger only gets the basic feat for it, but still.

2. Favored Enemy. This is his most unique class feature. Everything else can be gotten in other ways.

3. Getting along easily without technology or civilization. Unfortunately, this can be represented just by taking ranks in Survival.

TheStagesmith
2008-11-30, 10:52 PM
Being as close to either Drizzt or Legolas as possible.

Seriously, however...
it's more the "I blend into shadows and can survive in the wilderness. When I show myself, it is in a short explosion of primal fury. Whether focused or not, that fury takes down anything very quickly. If it doesn't, it's not hard for me to find it."

Lert, A.
2008-11-30, 10:56 PM
What I don't see is the wilderness man aspect. To me, the Urban Ranger is not a variant, but part of the ranger as a whole. Whether he is in a swamp, the desert, or a marketplace, he is adept at being a tracker and a hunter, reading the clues until he reaches his target. This means that he can survive in the wild, but it is not a part of who he is as a person. As such, the animal companion and wild empathy and such should probably be more optional than a core aspect of the ranger.

I agree with other posters that the favored enemy thing should be reworked to allow more flexibility, based off of familiarity with a creatures anatomy and known tactics rather than a straight +2 because you are now familiar, even if you haven't encountered dragons yet (you just are, okay?).

dspeyer
2008-11-30, 11:00 PM
We walk in the dark places no others will enter. We stand on the bridge, and no one may pass. We live for the One, we die for the One.

Wait, wrong rangers. The concept is the same, though: powerful, self-sufficient, alone, ready to fight against impossible odds, and caring nothing for the opinion of society at large.

Yukitsu
2008-11-30, 11:36 PM
I keep seeing nature, but I don't find that really a necessary component. A ranger should be able to be self sufficient, alert and versatile, even when in a city.

Yakk
2008-11-30, 11:54 PM
I think that the "Martial power through Knowledge" is a sufficiently interesting and unique path.

Be it favored enemy, tracking, or "adaptable" -- what makes the Ranger unique is that the Ranger defeats their opponents by knowing about them.

Wilderness and City lore is just another facet of power via knowledge.

ShneekeyTheLost
2008-11-30, 11:54 PM
From a mechanical point of view, a Ranger is the full-BAB skillmonkey. He differs from the Fighter because he's got a lot more skills. He can be more stealthy, already preferring lighter armor anyways.

His knowledge and expertise in natural surroundings in key in flavor. If I were to be doing a redo on Ranger, I would likely include Favored Terrain rather than Favored Enemy, letting him gain tactical advantages in various environmental settings.

The Ranger is a commando, a guerrilla warfare specialist. He can sneak in, under cover of nature, snipe someone, and slip back out.

I don't much like the stunted casting either, and I've never appreciated the mechanics behind Animal Companion anyways.

A Ranger isn't a Rogue. He doesn't know much about urban life, nor does he know much about traps or locks. A Rogue would be lost in the wilderness. A Ranger would be similarly at a disadvantage in the city. They have shunned civilization, preferring the honest law of the jungle.

So his advantages are his damage output and his skills related to nature and scouting.

His disadvantages are a limited hit die for being a full BAB class and limited armor. Most of his abilities shut down if he wears anything heavier than Light armor. That means he really can't take a hit very well. He's not wanting to get hit, he's wanting to remain unseen until it's too late.

Lert, A.
2008-12-01, 12:20 AM
I agree with Yakk a lot on this topic. Overall, the ranger is astute, able to see the small details and put them together in a way that works to his favor. A ranger's abilities should reflect on ways that he can use this ability to hunt and exploit weakness in his enemies, whoever they may be. The ability to be sneaky and to hit-and-run should also be expanded upon.

Doomsy
2008-12-01, 05:38 AM
When you need someone to charge straight at the enemy and wade through a few hundred enemy soldiers, you call the fighter.

When you need someone to guide you to the enemy while evading or eliminating patrols, you call the ranger.
Rangers are faster, lighter armored, able to show up in surprising places, and have a lot more flexible skills than the fighter. They are the epitome of the individual warrior - fiercely independent and capable, but also somewhat erratic in terms of group discipline. Organized armies of fighters happen all the time. Organized armies of rangers never happen.

A ranger is basically the warrior-thief. He survives on wits just as much as blade. He is cunning, often solitary, and flexible because he has to be. He has taken his cues from nature and learned how to be a survivor more than just a fighter.

kamikasei
2008-12-01, 05:55 AM
Would it be too obvious to point out that a ranger should be someone who ranges?

They travel far and wide doing the sort of things that can only be done by someone traveling far and wide. They are guardians of frontiers and watchmen in the wild. They don't have to be better fighters than, say, rogues. They don't have to have pets or magic or bows or twin swords. They do have to be able to survive on their own or with a few allies out of contact with civilization, pursuing some mission with a knowledge of the land and its inhabitants that is unmatched. They should not be tied to one place - they're rangers, not wardens. (Haldir was not a ranger, but Elladan and Elrohir could be considered such.)

So, a ranger should have wilderness skills, abilities that aid movement through uncivilized lands, an ability to turn knowledge of terrain, nature, woodcraft etc. into an advantage against enemies or quarry, an ability to deal with unfamiliar peoples, a singular self-reliance, and tactical mobility and stealth.

Favoured Enemy could go, or be replaced with something like Dark Knowledge. Combat Styles could go, but we should have some way to keep rangers sensible in their weapon choices - light, simple, and mobile gear is a must; swords and bows rather than longspears, spiked chains, warhammers and heavy crossbows. Perhaps we could give bonuses that only work with some kinds of weapon, but work with all the types a ranger might use (instead of requiring specialization)? Something like sneak attack or skirmish, but instead of bonus damage you can apply status effects? Bonuses to or mitigated penalties for sniping?

Give an alternative to the animal companion, so you can have your trusty pet but could also be more of a loner with some bonus like the paladin mount-replacing ACPs. Replace casting with a variety of maneuver-like skill-enhancing abilities - tricks and techniques that can be traded off against one another to change your focus. Make sure there are abilities along the lines of at-will speak with animals or animal messenger or the like.

AslanCross
2008-12-01, 06:14 AM
The ability to see anything before everyone else, the ability to find anything that nobody can, the ability to take advantage of terrain better than anyone. Stealth is in his repertoire, but he can fight fine without it.
My idea of the ranger is a fast-moving warrior who can approach undetected if he wanted to, take out key targets swiftly and decisively, and retreat.
He'd be something like a Navy SEAL.

The rogue hits undetected and prefers to stay that way, but the ranger can hit so fast his target doesn't really see it coming.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/hob_gallery/89523.jpg

KnightDisciple
2008-12-01, 06:17 AM
I think the question of equipment and weapons does deserve a moment of thought.

In thinking of a ranger, the following weapons come readily to mind as appropriate:
Bows. Daggers/Knives. Swords (except maybe greatswords). Axes (except maybe greataxes). Short spears. Staves. Claw-like exotic weapons, perhaps.

Maces, long hafted weapons, hammers, spiked chains, and similar don't work for my mental image.

Whips and crossbows seem iffy.

I do like the comparison to Special Forces. It fits.

AslanCross
2008-12-01, 06:22 AM
Well, I think crossbows could work with the more modern special forces archetype. Repeating crossbows feel like submachine guns, while heavy crossbows have a "sniper rifle" feel.

Of course, they aren't really consistent with the "highly trained medieval operative" concept.

OracleofWuffing
2008-12-01, 08:51 AM
Well, you can't have a ranger without a giant robot that connects to other rangers' giant robots to form an even more giant giant robot.

But seriously, I see the Ranger's thing as using the combat environment to support their combat style. Rangers want to funnel, trap, or disperse targets (whichever is appropriate for the encounter) before striking them, where a Fighter wishes to use his weapon training and heavier armor to charge a group and prove superior. This tactic supports the Rogue, but it doesn't copy the Rogue's combat role: The Rogue waits for that ideal moment, but the Ranger creates it. In combat, Rangers get into the enemies' heads first, then drive the knife through their skulls.

hamishspence
2008-12-01, 09:09 AM
in Power of Faerun, Rangers are suggested as roving law enforcement of the wilderness- hunters of fugitives and monsters, but also settler of disputes between peoples out where rural meets Wild.

Telonius
2008-12-01, 09:19 AM
A Ranger is "Super Boy Scout." He can track something for days, and knows its middle name by the shape of its footprint. He knows which mushrooms are okay to eat and which ones will try to eat you. He can start a fire with wet firewood and a handful of string. He can skin a deer in five seconds flat.

For combat, archery is a must. He's all about sniping and hiding in the trees. If it's hand-to-hand, weapons that rely on finesse would be favored over things like warhammers. Throwing axes seem appropriate.

EDIT: For the mechanics, archery damage should scale with level. Might even be able to eat Arcane Archer and steal some of its stuff.

Morty
2008-12-01, 09:22 AM
I think that Ranger's lack of focus can be a focus in itself- make Ranger a "jack of all trades", except in a good way rather than "can do many things but not very good". Someone who can adapt to any situation faster than anyone, and the more dire circumstances he finds himself in, the more efficient he becomes.

Triaxx
2008-12-01, 09:59 AM
What makes a ranger a ranger? The question is then what is a ranger? The Druid is the protector of nature from the encroachment of man. The Paladin is the protector of man from himself.

The Ranger? His job is to protect man from nature, without destroying nature itself. He's the one who hunts the man-eating lions, and uses his skills to determine that this one, is the man-eater, not those. The one who goes into the woods and convinces the wolves that it's better for them to stay away from the human settlements so that the warriors don't come out to burn down the forest to get rid of them.

That said, he's also the one who helps find the deer that was shot, but not fatally, or helps put down the wounded wolf.

In short he defends man from nature as well as from the druid that wants to feed them to his animal companion.

hamishspence
2008-12-01, 10:06 AM
Nice summary. Poor guy might end up taking flak from both sides- the farmers annoyed at his not killing wolves, the druids annoyed at his not discouraging farmers from expanding their domain.

Morty
2008-12-01, 10:21 AM
What makes a ranger a ranger? The question is then what is a ranger? The Druid is the protector of nature from the encroachment of man. The Paladin is the protector of man from himself.

The Ranger? His job is to protect man from nature, without destroying nature itself. He's the one who hunts the man-eating lions, and uses his skills to determine that this one, is the man-eater, not those. The one who goes into the woods and convinces the wolves that it's better for them to stay away from the human settlements so that the warriors don't come out to burn down the forest to get rid of them.

That said, he's also the one who helps find the deer that was shot, but not fatally, or helps put down the wounded wolf.

In short he defends man from nature as well as from the druid that wants to feed them to his animal companion.

It says nothing about Ranger's mechanical ablities, which is the point of this thread.

Person_Man
2008-12-01, 10:30 AM
For me, Rangers are the ultimate hunters. This implies the ability to Track their foes, kill their foes, and survive under ridiculous circumstances.

I'd basically add a bunch of Tracking related abilities (Urban Tracking, Scent, Fast Track, Danger Sense, etc), some sort of Death Attack/Skirmish/Sudden Strike limited to Favored Enemies, and give them all strong Saves. Make the Animal Companion, combat styles, and spells (maybe converted into Invocations/spell like abilities) optional building blocks.

Fax Celestis
2008-12-01, 10:37 AM
It says nothing about Ranger's mechanical ablities, which is the point of this thread.

Actually, I'm looking for what defines a ranger, mechanical or otherwise.

OverdrivePrime
2008-12-01, 10:42 AM
Nice summary. Poor guy might end up taking flak from both sides- the farmers annoyed at his not killing wolves, the druids annoyed at his not discouraging farmers from expanding their domain.

And well, that's what happens frequently in the real world, except replace 'ranger' with 'DNR' and replace 'druids' with 'conservationists and environmentalists'. The ranger walks a lonely road and seldom finds welcome among any of those she tries to help.

Morty
2008-12-01, 10:44 AM
Actually, I'm looking for what defines a ranger, mechanical or otherwise.

Huh. Guess I missed the point, then. I figured that non-mechanical definiton of a ranger is obvious and the question was "What should a Ranger have to represent this theme better than a wilderness-themed Fighter/Rogue?"

ShneekeyTheLost
2008-12-01, 11:07 AM
There are several archetypes of Ranger:

1) The Hunter:
I am the pair of eyes staring into your campfire at night that always seem to vanish when you realize they are there. I am the shadow the flits between the trees, marking your every step. I am he who can talk to the very plants and animals to keep apprised of what is going on in my territory. I am the predator that strikes swiftly, but an intelligent predator who can set cunning snares to hamper, or to kill.

2) The Recon Unit:
First one in, last one to leave the scene, that's us. Commander sends us in first in unafmiliar terrain. We report back our findings, where the environment can present a danger, if any enemies have traversed the terrain before us, what the safest path would be for the army to march... you know, all the little stuff that keeps the common soldier fat, dumb, and happy. Also see what we can forage to suppliment standard rations. Sometimes, it's Recon In Force, going into known hostile territory, come out with a few less hostiles in the territory.

3) Nobleman's Retainer (huntsman or sherriff)
My Leige is wise enough to retain one such as myself, and generous enough for me to stay on. After all, someone has to keep the brigands off the Trade Road, someone who knows the land better than the briggands. Someone has to lead the Noble's Hunt, making sure none of the idiot nobles break their fool neck while stumbling around like blind children, and making sure they don't hunt out the woods in the process. He doesn't own me, just like he doesn't really own the land, he just occupies this area for now, and I just happen to want to see it well cared for. After all, if you want something right, you got to do it yourself. Even if it means putting up with an occasional Court appearance.

4) The Frontiersman:
Well, gotta check the trap-line today. Them bear tracks are gettin' mighty close to th' Ledder farmstead, might ought ta let 'em know, so's they don't be foolish an' try to run it off with nought but a spear an' a scowl. Ol' Smithy's wanting hisself that deer hide, willing to trade in steel arrowheads and a skinning knife sworn to be sharp enough to cut the western wind. Come to think of it, that pack of Cyotees ain't actin' right. There's plenty for them ta eat, but they keep gettin' into the farmlands, hit the Mosser Ranch again, this time they attacked a calving cow, got the calf, almost got the cow. May need to warn the Mayor about that, warn 'em. Hope they'll listen this time, if'n th' pack has gone rogue, there could be an awful body count before I can put them all down.

Prometheus
2008-12-01, 03:33 PM
A hunter and a woodsmen. If you want to take down monster's in general, go find a fighter. If you want to take down THAT monster on HIS ground, find the ranger who knows what it will take. Rangers should be self-sufficient in bypassing hazards and be able to deal with (in one way or another) all inhabitants of the lands they are most familiar with.

Here's a question, why is it always Rogues with the traps and never the Rangers? Rangers could be trap experts (assuming they built themselves on the defensive).

Draz74
2008-12-01, 04:18 PM
Heh, I think I've made this exact same topic twice. Lucky Fax, you actually get a lot of responses. :smalltongue:

It's difficult if you look at the Core 3e Ranger's abilities. All of them are either things that other classes should be able to do, if not as well as the Ranger (such as Track and Favored Enemy), or things that should be optional for the Ranger rather than built-in (such as spellcasting or the Animal Companion).

I'll overall throw in my voice with the people who are saying the hunter is the core of the Ranger concept. He can find what he needs to kill, he can kill it quickly, and he can do it all with awesome skill.

He is indeed a lot like the Rogue (situationally awesome), but with a heavier focus on martial skill, monsters, and nature; and less focus on objects/machines and social situations.

Doomsy
2008-12-01, 05:52 PM
I've been thinking more on it and I think a lot of it is about mobility, cunning, and options. The ranger is the guy who can show up anywhere, usually driven by his own personal reasons. He is the ancestor of the gunslinger - not a soldier, an artist with his weapons and following his own path. He collects scraps of knowledge and such along the way to help manufacture his own luck. He keeps his ear to the ground and listens more than most people. Using the environment is key, and a large part of the environment is alive - and maybe sentient. He can be a hunter or a tracker, but the most important part of his mythos is that sense of a solitary wanderer. He trades stability for movement and turns it into his advantage.

A fighter can fight, a rogue can sneak, and a ranger can do whatever he feels is best at either time. He trades heavy armor for flexibility, and I really think that flexibility is kind of the key - this person can be gone the next day with just the gear on him and survive just fine, as well being flexible in combat tactics. They don't think like fighters and rogues do in terms of static environments - a castle wall and barricades are just *terrain* to them, neutral environments that can be occupied but never belong to one side or another - and that lets them consider just how use that environment to their advantage.

Demented
2008-12-01, 06:19 PM
Actually, I'm looking for what defines a ranger, mechanical or otherwise.

A ranger patrols a "range", and as far as anyone's concerned, he's the best man for the job.

The reasons for why the ranger patrols this range varies. The nature of the range varies. Ultimately, however, the skills are always the same, because the job is always the same.

A ranger needs to be able to know everything that travels in his range, what it is that doesn't belong, and at least enough about what is 'just passing through'. He needs to know how to survive, how to survive in his chosen area, and how others can survive in it. He needs to know how to fight, in his chosen range, especially alone with no one to rely on except an animal companion or mount.

A ranger is more of a survivor than a warrior, but he's also a warrior, so don't get any ideas.

Triaxx
2008-12-01, 06:58 PM
Not so much, I gave reasons for his combat abilities.

Mechanically speaking, he should be a sniper. Not modern sniper, but revolution era, deep woodsman applying his skills at hunting game to killing man-prey. Dump the Drizzle style of two weapon fighting and give him more than Rapid Shot as a bonus for his bows.

Demons_eye
2008-12-01, 07:12 PM
Keep the weapon paths but have it more volley or sniper not bow or TWF.

OverdrivePrime
2008-12-01, 07:21 PM
Keep the weapon paths but have it more volley or sniper not bow or TWF.

One of the things I've hated about the ranger since I started playing D&D was the restriction of the weapon paths. In 2nd edition, it was two weapon fighting, which for some reason has always been repulsive to me. In 3rd, at least we got the option to be really good at bows in addition to melee, which made it somewhat less irritating.

A while back, I homebrewed a whole series of nature-themed combat style paths, based on various 3 piece feat trees. It really opened up a nice variety of rangers, while still keeping the diversity and number of feats as the Fighter's main theme.

kjones
2008-12-01, 07:40 PM
For those of you lauding the importance of Tracking for a ranger... I don't know about you, but in every game that I've ever played in, tracking is useless. If the DM wants you to find someone, he's not going to leave it up to a die roll. If he doesn't, same thing.

Maybe I've just been playing under bad DMs, but none of them have been willing to let the ranger lead the party on a wild goose chase for days/weeks at a time.

kopout
2008-12-01, 07:41 PM
A Ranger is some one who thinks. Some one who uses the environment to their advantage , who lurns abut their quarry and its weak spots. The ranger as hunter is good ,but they also have some of the rouges cunning. Central to a ranger is their knowledge of there environment and the people around them and independence.

Heliomance
2008-12-01, 07:43 PM
I see a Ranger as the type you don't see until i's too late. The type of person that you can be walking through the woods, when suddenly a voice comes from a nearby treetop. "There are two arrows pointed directly at your heart. Stop moving, before I accidentally lose my grip on the bowstring."

Draz74
2008-12-01, 07:47 PM
For those of you lauding the importance of Tracking for a ranger... I don't know about you, but in every game that I've ever played in, tracking is useless. If the DM wants you to find someone, he's not going to leave it up to a die roll. If he doesn't, same thing.
Then maybe the Ranger needs a class ability that lets him find them without rolling a die, whether the DM wants him to or not. :smallwink:


Maybe I've just been playing under bad DMs, but none of them have been willing to let the ranger lead the party on a wild goose chase for days/weeks at a time.

For what it's worth, our party Ranger has been useful many, many times throughout the campaign. A lot of it has to do with enemies being intelligent enough to flee battle before they're dead. (Tracking is nice so you can find them before they recruit reinforcements ...)

kopout
2008-12-01, 07:53 PM
I see a Ranger as the type you don't see until i's too late. The type of person that you can be walking through the woods, when suddenly a voice comes from a nearby treetop. "There are two arrows pointed directly at your heart. Stop moving, before I accidentally lose my grip on the bowstring."

seconded .

AslanCross
2008-12-01, 11:45 PM
One question: Why IS Two-Weapon Fighting tied to Rangers? I hear most people believe it is simply homage to Drizzt, but I've heard others say that it actually precedes Drizzt as a character. So what DOES it have to do with being a ranger? I'd think that fighting with two weapons is difficult enough in an open space, let alone in the woodlands.

Back in Baldur's Gate II, my favorite Ranger kit was the Archer. Called shots were far more interesting than simply "Hey, you with the bow, stand over there and keep showering the orcs with your arrows while I whack them with my stick."

That said, I don't think the ranger should be pigeonholed into using bows alone. I think they could still be able to use melee weapons effectively.

Ascension
2008-12-01, 11:50 PM
For those of you lauding the importance of Tracking for a ranger... I don't know about you, but in every game that I've ever played in, tracking is useless. If the DM wants you to find someone, he's not going to leave it up to a die roll. If he doesn't, same thing.

The best campaigns are the ones whose whole course is decided by a mixture of fate (the dice) and ingenuity (the players). If the DM plans more than one session in advance (at least without getting permission from the players to railroad them first), shame on him.

AslanCross
2008-12-01, 11:54 PM
The best campaigns are the ones whose whole course is decided by a mixture of fate (the dice) and ingenuity (the players). If the DM plans more than one session in advance (at least without getting permission from the players to railroad them first), shame on him.

Hey, I plan way in advance because the players like doing a lot of weird things. I plan contingencies, not railroad tracks.

That said, I agree that tracking is not supposed to be completely useless just because they go against the DM's plans. I don't think it's the Ranger's primary feature, but I think it has to be something very helpful, such as ascertaining the condition of what he is tracking, where it's going, or just what it is exactly.

Yukitsu
2008-12-01, 11:56 PM
I see a Ranger as the type you don't see until i's too late. The type of person that you can be walking through the woods, when suddenly a voice comes from a nearby treetop. "There are two arrows pointed directly at your heart. Stop moving, before I accidentally lose my grip on the bowstring."

I see them as people who generally don't bother letting you know by talking, if he thinks you're a threat, and if he isn't sure, tracks you until he does know.

Serenity
2008-12-02, 12:24 AM
As others have said, a ranger is a hunter, a scout, and a guerilla. The ranger should have abilities that would interest frontiersmen, bounty hunters, vigilantes, spies and special forces, and of course, straight hunters and survivalists. He wins combat via stealth, cunning, traps, and superior marksmanship and finesse. He knows how to use his environment, and he knows his quarry--habits, powers, weaknesses, everything that could help him in combat.

Magnor Criol
2008-12-02, 12:28 AM
(Note: I don't have a whole lot of time, so I'm not reading previous posts here. Sorry.)

Thoughts:

The ranger is a naturalist through (mostly) mundane means - unlike the druid, who's all about magic, the ranger is a wilderness lover through his own power.
The ranger is the wilderness skillmonkey. I think that's a pretty good summation.
I like the ranger's combat styles, but I don't really know why they're really part of the class, honestly - I don't see the connection to nature or survival skills. They're good for the class balance-wise, giving him some extra purpose that's not so situational as his wilderness skills, but they don't really have a tie-in with the theme.
I've never played a a 4th+ level ranger for any longer than a session or two, so I don't really know for certain, but their spellcasting seems too little too late to really be of much use. Good for a buff or two, I suppose, but really, it's easy to forget you even have casting.
The animal companion would be nice to get a couple levels earlier. It seems fair that it's weaker than the companion of a druid of the same level, but it'd be fun to get it a little sooner.

So, I guess my suggestions for a revamped ranger are to keep the "wilderness skillmonkey" schtick, with lots of skill points and wilderness skills; keep their ability to be a good combat class (though the 'combat style' implementation can be dropped in lieu of another way; maybe a slower, fighter-esque bonus feat progression?); and keep the animal companion. The spellcasting can be dropped in favor of other nature-, survival-, or tracking-themed abilities. Keep them more physical and "real", don't do much magic stuff.

I look forward to this; your "How-It-Should-Be" classes always rock out loud.

Draz74
2008-12-02, 01:17 AM
As far as the Animal Companion goes, it should be a possibility, and should be a strong possibility -- combat-capable, like the Druid's, not like the Ranger's current variation.

But it should also not be required.

Perhaps you could even take a leaf from 4e and make the Animal Companion an optional Combat Style, along with TWF and Archery and any other options you open up to the Ranger. (Like other people, I echo that it's pretty ridiculous to require the Ranger to either be a TWFer or a dedicated Archer.)

Dropping spellcasting is ok, especially if a feat is available that makes a Ranger/Druid multiclass feasible. But if you can leave the spellcasting in without making the Ranger feel too "unfocused," I don't think it's a problem, either.

Triaxx
2008-12-02, 07:57 AM
Track? Track is extremely useful. I often set them chasing a foe, then throw a cross road, or fork in the road at them. Often the more travelled branch is the quicker route, but the enemy usually takes the less travelled. It's then up to the tracker to figure out which way he went. Of course, when the wizard is doing the tracking... :smallbiggrin:

bosssmiley
2008-12-02, 08:21 AM
Ranger = a bloodthirsty Ray Mears. :smallamused:

Funnily enough, one of the greatest influences on the D&D ranger was actually:


Snake Eyes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake-Eyes) from GI Joe.

Yes, the supposed ninja. Think about it: twin weapons, survival skills, modicum of stealth, loner, pet wolf. Snake Eyes in D&D terms has Ranger levels. You see it now?


"I got yer D&D Ranger right here!"

http://usversusthem.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/snakeeyes-cartoon.jpg

Writing a decent ranger class that doesn't cry after about level 6 isn't actually all that difficult. You just need to: make Super Racism Power Favoured Enemy mean something at high levels (scaling damage and/or resistance lowering is nice)
drop the Hide in Plain Sight stuff to a level lower than when True Seeing comes online
buff the animal companion to Druid AC/cohort levels of power
give the ranger the option of getting woodland critters as followers (just like the good old days)
meaningful spell progression. 4th level spells at 17th level? Big whoop!

Heliomance
2008-12-02, 08:35 AM
Adding my voice to those saying the Ranger is master of his terrain. If you have access to the 3.0 book Traps and Treachery, look up the Roofrunner for flavour, and port it into the forest.

ShneekeyTheLost
2008-12-02, 10:02 AM
One question: Why IS Two-Weapon Fighting tied to Rangers? I hear most people believe it is simply homage to Drizzt, but I've heard others say that it actually precedes Drizzt as a character. So what DOES it have to do with being a ranger? I'd think that fighting with two weapons is difficult enough in an open space, let alone in the woodlands.

Okay, this seriously predates Drizzt by about a decade.

Basically, in AD&D, the Paladin and the Ranger both showed up. The Ranger's schtick was that he could wield TWO WEAPONS without penalty, something that could not be duplicated until Skills and Powers in 2nd ed.

There was really no reason why they could do this, except that they simply could. In exchange, they had a steeper xp curve than the Warrior.

Person_Man
2008-12-02, 10:47 AM
One question: Why IS Two-Weapon Fighting tied to Rangers? I hear most people believe it is simply homage to Drizzt, but I've heard others say that it actually precedes Drizzt as a character. So what DOES it have to do with being a ranger? I'd think that fighting with two weapons is difficult enough in an open space, let alone in the woodlands.

Back in Baldur's Gate II, my favorite Ranger kit was the Archer. Called shots were far more interesting than simply "Hey, you with the bow, stand over there and keep showering the orcs with your arrows while I whack them with my stick."

That said, I don't think the ranger should be pigeonholed into using bows alone. I think they could still be able to use melee weapons effectively.

Drow first appeared in the 1st edition Monster Manual, published in 1977.

As far as I know, Drizzt first appeared in The Crystal Shard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Icewind_Dale_Trilogy#The_Crystal_Shard), which was published in 1988. It was explicitly placed in the Forgotten Realms, and was officially licensed by TSR.

2nd Edition Player's Handbook (http://www.amazon.com/Advanced-Dungeons-Dragons-Players-Handbook/dp/0880387165/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228232010&sr=1-2), which includes the first rules for a two weapon fighting Ranger in any D&D game that I know of, was published in 1989.

So my guess is that David Cook read the Crystal Shard, thought that it was a popular/interesting idea for a new Ranger, and incorporated it into 2nd ed.

I've been playing and reading D&D books since 1st ed, and that chronology fits with my personal experience as well. But I was 10 in 1988, so my pre-adolescent memories and mediocre Google-fu may not be the best source. Maybe a two weapon fighting Ranger appeared in some early supplement that I'm not aware of.

Where's Matthew? He would know for sure.

Kupi
2008-12-02, 12:55 PM
In terms of making the Ranger's combat abilities suit his class, I'd say that the Ranger ought to have a trait or ability that allows him to avoid losing his mobility. As has been (exhaustively) pointed out, the Ranger is a hunter-- he knows who he's after and how to find them. I think it makes sense to represent that in combat by allowing them to bypass effects that would normally slow them down, like Grease or Entangle. If the challenge is getting to the enemy, the Ranger should excel where other melee types would struggle.

Talya
2008-12-02, 01:35 PM
So then I ask you, dear reader: what makes a ranger into a ranger?



In my mind, the essence of the ranger isn't even necessarily built into his class. The ranger is the Woodsman, the (wo)man of the wild. The only ability they get automatically that shows this is "Track," which is just a feat any class can pick up.

Anybody with survival and possibly knowledge (nature, dungeoneering, geography) as class skills can make an excellent ranger, although ideally, you're also an excellent melee combatant or archer. Some Barbarian variants seem more rangerly to me than rangers themselves.

Aragorn is the quintessential ranger, and he's hard to make in D&D. He's basically a fighter with a lot of skill points.

Thane of Fife
2008-12-02, 01:36 PM
Where's Matthew? He would know for sure.

Quick - where's the Matt-Signal?