Hey everyone. Lots of Ranger talk right now. We all seem to have ideas on what the ranger is and should be. Why don't we discuss it here, but without mechanics. What is the Ranger? What makes them stand out from other classes or multiclasses? What types of things do you think they should be able to do (not in specific mechanical terms; "cast spells" is fine, "cast up to 5th level spells" is more mechanical). What about the ranger speaks to a particular play style?
I believe the Ranger is the fantastic interpretation of the woodsman, just like the paladin is the fantastic interpretation of the knight in shinning armor. I believe the ranger is a hunter, a guardian of nature, and is at home in the wilderness. They should make excellent guides through the wilderness, and excellent bounty hunters. I'm torn on how hardy they should be; I'd like them to have a preference for mobility and skirmishing, but I'd also like them to be able to survive what mother nature dishes out. Like the rogue, I believe they should be skill focused.
I believe they should be spell casters, partly for symmetry (the paladin has spells), partly to explain the seemingly mystical things that wildernenss folk can do that city folk can't, and largely to separate them from wilderness backgrounded fighters, rogues, and fighter/rogues. I believe favored enemy in some form should be there, however it is implemented, but I do think it should be a combative ability; rangers know how to hunt. I also believe that animal companions should be present for all rangers, largely because I believe having a pet would help differentiate their playstyle from that of a rogue (who likes to skirmish as well).
What is the ranger to you? Why should it be it's own class? Please don't answer with "it shouldn't be its own class", as arguements against the ranger as a class can be made at the paladin as well (knights in the real world didn't have magic either).
for symetry, rouge/druid.
which kind makes me want it to have sneak attack style rather then multi-attack.
maybe scale hunters mark.
To me the ranger should be the guy who is dropped in the middle of the wilderness with only a penknife and comes marching out several weeks later in perfect health and armed with a bevy of improvised weapons / armor and the heads of some bandits he killed because they got in the way. Basically somebody who can rapidly analyze and adapt to any environment from empty wasteland to populated city, lay progressively lethal traps to secure the area, figure out the behaviors and weaknesses of the local fauna (even if it is the two legged kind), and then pick up quickly to move on when their mission is done or wanderlust hits.
Basically I want my rangers to be informed by the likes of Davy Crocket or Snake Plissken.
mellored wrote:
I agree with everything except the spellcasting. I'd rather have it be spell-like powers. I.e., "You can cast spell X once per short rest" sort of stuff.
But yes to the idea that the ranger is the consummate woodsman, survivalist, and tracker.
I like what they're trying to do with the new ranger, even if it's rough around the edges. Rough enough to slash an artery, even. But that's ok because it's a rough draft.
Here's what I like and how I'd improve it (without starting from scratch, which I don't think is helpful at this point).
- Find a way to make the pet permanent. Whether that's something like Beastmaster, where you have to give up your attack to have them attack, or something like I proposed elsewhere, where the pet starts at 1d4 and scales up, I don't really care.
- I'd offer some more variety of pet types. E.g. guardian could be bear, boar, mastiff, ape. Seeker could be eagle, owl, blink dog. Stalker could be wolf or panther. (Heck, add bat and snake and vulture, in case somebody wants to play that kind of ranger.) And then have one special ability for each option.
- Sprinkle some spell-like abilities at various levels, using archetypal ranger spells. E.g. Hunter's Mark.
- Use mellored's suggestion about giving them combat advantages in difficult terrain. I think that idea is excellent.
- Balance Ambuscade, whatever that requires. Make sure a 1 level dip isn't too good.
- 2d6 is fine. It's awesome, even. HP are not meat. The Ranger is like Cal in Lonesome Dove: not a big guy, but damn does he suffer a lot of abuse without falling over, drinks whiskey that night, and wakes up ready to go again.
Some combination of Jon Snow and Prince Humperdinck.
For me the ranger should be a wilderness commando with a pet. No magic spells, but instead has herbalism style potions/poultices which mimic spell like abilities (pass without trace, healing, speak with animals etc). If I need two subclasses they would be (i) greater wilderness/herbalism abilities or (ii) greater pet related abilities. All rangers would have a pet in my version, that would be a major defining quality, along with their wilderness abilities.
I sort of like the idea of herbalism/poultices for healing. Something that works during a rest, not during combat, and maybe depends on access to plants/fungus/etc. That would compensate for the loss of healing spells, without being yet another combat heal.
Or how about something that helps party members recover spent hit dice?
i wouldn't mind if the rogue got stepped on a liittle.
i mean every other class does. wizard/sorcerer/bard/cleric/druid all share plenty of spells.
paladin/fighter/barbarian can all swing big weapons, multiple times, and shrug off damage.
only the bard comes close to the rogue with skill boosting stuff. so why not let ranger have stealth and sneak attack?
Did Aragorn have a pet?
arnwolf666 wrote:
I don't see magic as an inherent part of the ranger. It should certainly be one of the options, as I can see a ranger having picked up some tricks from druids that she's met, but it shouldn't be pushed on every subclass of ranger.
Magic should be an option.
A scaling combat pet should be an option.
And so should the ability to get along just fine without either of the above.
mellored wrote:
I will copy/paste this from the other thread since it is relavant here:
For flavor I think Rangers should have a link with nature. They should be one with their environment, and they should be able to use knowledge of their enemies in combat.
So what is all that? That means more than just the Survival skill. They should be able to attune with their environment in a significant way, either magical or not. That could be increased stamina, toughness or elusiveness (bonus to HPs, saves, AC, stealth, survival, etc.) in a variety of combinations. It shouldn't be fixed, they should be able to adapt to whatever their environment is.
The same for combat. Hunter's Mark is already a good example. They pick a target and focus on that target. In the case of Hunter's Mark it is magical, but it could be just studying an opponent and finding their weakness during combat. Maybe increased damage or accuracy after studying their opponent, or after so many rounds of fighting or after a successful hit. This would flow into finding their foes as well. An ability to track that boarders on the mystical.
Whereas Fighters specialize, Rangers should be flexible. So I guess the word to sum them up would be "adaptability". With that in mind it should be easy to take what has already been done, Hunter and Beastmaster, and improve upon them.
Fighter/Druid type champion of the wilderness with skills, magic, and some sort of combat advanatage/favoured enemy vs some type of critters.
In addition, I do not like what has been done with the UA Ranger so far. But that's ok because it's a rough draft.
Looking back to the past (specifically 2nd Edition) the Ranger can use any armor and shields, but needs to wear light armor for some of his abilities to work. Specifically two-weapon fighting with no penalty and his stealth skills.
He gains Tracking, which others can get as well, but he gets a bonus of +1 for every three levels, making him the best tracker.
He could effect animals. Domestic or non-hostile animals were befriended automatically. Wild animals had to make a save or have thier reaction shifted.
He picked one enemy (examples include giants, orcs, lizardmen, trolls or ghouls). Against those enemies he had +4 to hit and -4 to encounter reactions.
A Ranger could learn priest spells of the plant or animal sphere.
Finally a Ranger could get followers (at 10th level) that included animals as well as NPCs and magical beasts.
Compare this to a Fighter. The 2nd Edition Fighter would get weapons specialization and could attract followers if he builds a stonghold*. That's it. The only other advantage is that they needed less XP to level up.
So there you go. Two-weapon fighting, stealth, best tracking, animal friendship, one favored enemy, plant and animal spells and followers.
*Rangers can build strongholds too, but don't need to do so to get their followers.
Something that can encompass Tarzan, frontiersmen (someone mentioned Davy Crocket), Aragorn, the beast master, sitting bull, & Geronimo.
I think at least one subclass should have spells (a la the eldritch knight). The others...
MechaPilot wrote:
so what do i think is a ranger? Well since subclasses are going to happen, i can think of three major Iconic fictonial/historical refrences that to me are iconic versions of things I feel are a ranger. oddly enough one subclass i want to see dosent have a major character to represent it off the top of my mind.
Any was, as was mentioned earlier, Strider/aragon represents a ranger with a heavy bent on natrual terrian, both their use, herbs and what not, and knowledge of many terrains.
Jon Snow is the next. He has a knowledge of a single terrian, or two really. Basic combat, but he has a loyal and powerfull animal companion able of helping him handle dangerous threats.
The third is Davy crocket, but i suppose that he is the same as Aragon really. Master of any terrian he finds himself in.
When coming to a third though, I really think there should be a magical subclass. One that pulls spells from both the current spell list and possible the druid one. It should feel a bit like your archtypical sylvan/fey. Can diseaper in nature and has limited control over it. though I personally like this subclass to be range heavy, I think from design point it should work well enough with a melee or range warrior.
so i guess to sum up.
I wish the base ranger had replaced spells with a few extra martial abilities, and have three subclasses that focus on
1) being a master in both knowledge, use and survival in many terrian.
2) having a loyal and powerful companion
3) being in touch with Nature in a magical sense
For me the first ranger from fiction isn´t Aragon, sub Robin Hood.
My own view about the ranger is like an archer, without shield but with stealth and survival skills.
The animal companion is optional, but I love monster allies. I don't miss primal spells very much, but at least a subclass of ranger should be like a hybrid druid/rogue.
Ranger isn´t a poacher, a "rogue who hunts in the wood". The ranger really respects Nature.
The ranger is to the druid what the paladin is to the cleric.
draegn wrote:
Aesthetically:
We're narrowing in too much on "woodsmen" I think. The Ranger isn't just a hero of the temperate regions of the world.
Mad Max is a ranger. Aragorn is a ranger. Leonardo DiCaprio's character in the upcoming film "The Revenant" is a ranger. Riddick in "Pitch Black" functions as a Ranger.
Being a Ranger should not be limited to "Being someone who lives in the woods." The Ranger *can* be tied to nature, but that makes it difficult to think of Urban Rangers, or Cowboys. Hell, Daniel Plainview from "There Will Be Blood" Should be considered a level 1 ranger for his scouting, ranging, laying of the pipeline. He's probably also got a level of bard, buuuut definitely some Ranger.
The Aesthetic qualities I want to see a ranger class proceduralize are:
Ability to survive and improvise: Traps are a pretty big mechanic here. The exhaustion mechanic is also something that the Ranger might have a unique relationship with.
Traveler, Wanderer, Pursuer: Rangers are the characters who roam the world in a fashion more closely aligned with a Bard--they're sponges for lore. But where the Bard is trying to tell stories, the Ranger is a Natural Historian, making sense of patterns by paying close attention and using them to his/her advantage. When a ranger hunts someone, or pursues a thing, the ranger is the one trying to "Get into the head" of the quarry and figure out where it might go.
Animal Husbandry, Anthropology: A good animal companion mechanic is vital. I really think this will be the challenge that defines the ranger's mechanics. Beyond animals though, I think Rangers should also be able to talk broadly about the practices and habits of the people he/she encounters. Rangers might not be able to schmooze like a Bard, but the different humanoid races are all part of the natural environment--even the urban races. A good ranger mechanic would touch on that.
Mechanically:
I think the Ranger should occupy a space triangulated between the Bard, the Druid, and the rogue.
I think Ranger's should have options to:
1. Mess with the Terrain of a dungeon/Map before even going into it. Instead of spells, a Ranger can spend a number of points/has a number of per-day abilities similar to spell casting which allow him/her to add mechanical features (or remove/weaken them) from dungeons and encounters. The ranger can provide advantages to finding hidden doors, or knock a trap's lethality down (or up) a notch, and at higher levels maybe omit or include certain kinds of monster types from an area. He/she might be able to add anti-magic zones to the dungeon, or add hidden doors and secret passages to maps--at the expense of adding additional threats.
2. Trap-laying and observation: As part of the "short rest" mechanic, a ranger should be able to sacrifice some of his/her rest to scout ahead into the dungeon and lay traps, OR to scout ahead and observe enemies and apply Debuffs/buffs based on observation. Maybe the Ranger scouts ahead and sets a trip wire. Maybe the Ranger scouts ahead, finds a group of Gnolls, and by observing them sees that one favors its left leg, another has a shoddy piece of armor--but the leader has branded Demogorgon's sign into his chest, and in a show of dominance over one of his gnolls reveals that his bites are acidic.
Basically, the Ranger can apply debuffs to some enemies, but must also provide buffs to others (maybe?) to maintain the CR. It allows for greater individual characterization of enemies, but also allows for novel and interesting combinations in combat.
3. Some kind of companion. I'm not sure how this mechanic can/should work. BUUUUUT! I do think the animal companion should be tied to the idea that its presence changes the macro-mechanics of the game. A Ranger who chooses a bear companion nets the party a bit more experience, but the enemies are either a bit tougher (they gain more than their average HP, maybe?)? A Ranger who selects a Wolf might grant the party a passive benefit when it accompanies the ranger on a scouting mission, but maybe enemies are a little swifter in the initiative order, or move a little faster? A Dinosaur animal companion might give the party the ability to do more damage, but maybe you roll twice on treasure charts and take the lesser of two options (in terms of quality of magic items acquired?)
Additionally (or alternatively) what if we reconsider the way the Ranger and the animal companion are related? The Ranger introduces the idea of gaining 2:1 HD per level mechanic. What if the animal companion a Ranger chooses modifies that second die?
The Ranger's base hit die is 1d8, and a bear might make the Ranger's hit "die" per level 2d8. A wolf might grant a D6, so the rangers hit "die" per level is 1d8 +1d6. An Eagle might be a 1d4, or etc.
Oooooor what if the Ranger and the animal companion are treated as the same "hit targets" for that player's HP total? So whether it's the animal companion getting hit or the Ranger getting hit, the same character sheet is taking damage. This goes well with the idea that HP is an abstraction--the fighting capacity and "will to fight" of a character. It might be tricky, too since what happens if the animal companion takes all the damage--does the Ranger sitting back and firing arrows fall unconcious when the bear does too?
Mechanically speaking, what if his particular schtik is 'hunter'?
Maybe he picks a quarry and he's bar-none deadliest against that Quarry. Maybe it starts with uniquely tracking that foe, expands into extra damage against them, and ends with knowing their location wherever they are if they're on the same plane.
Sort of an apex predator that picks one enemy at a time and relentlessly hunts them down.
Idk
My issue with the ranger is that most of the examples of one (like Tarzan* or the Phantom**) really play better as barbarians or are better suited for solo games (like Rambo). Maybe the ranger could be the int fighter (sorry this is a little mechanical) who does more damage as the fight goes on (using something like 13th Age's dice bonus) because he/she notices weaknesses in the enemy and who gets "tricks" (including nature survival "tricks"). It also fits the notion that they study their favorite enemy.
* Need ape totem barbarian
**and panther (or big cat) totem barbarian
bawylie wrote:
mellored wrote:
Elf crusher's idea is a little too complex. Mellored's is pretty neat. Maybe keep multi-attack and have the damage start at 2d6 (grow to 5d6) on first attack that hits.
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
Mechatarrasque wrote:
OB1 wrote:
I really liked some of the stuff that the ranger had going during the playtest that had broader utility than just the narrow focus they have now. Like if you had favored enemy: dragon you not only got benefits tracking and fighting actual dragons but also advantage on reflex saves. Something like that. Your training and focus fighting dragons has taught you to be quick to avoid area affects. So that benefit applies more widely in the game even when not fighting dragons specifically. Favored terrain should have their similarly specific advantages but also a general nicknack benefit to allow a ranger to have the their shtick even when not actually in their preferred locale.
Tracking, Racial Enemy, Light Magic-Use, Surprise, Wilderness Survival. It seems many are making this more complicated than it needs to be.
draegn wrote:
A ranger is kind of a jack of all trades, master of maybe one or two. Mainly survival.
Most people think of a ranger as also having a pet, but that's not 100% necessary.
Honestly a decent Ranger would be somewhere around Fighter 11 (Champion)/Rogue 7 (Thief)/Druid 2 combined with the Outlander background. Additionally, the Ranger has the Druid Circle of the Land feature as if he were a Druid (the CotL feature scales with his level).
What about making the Ranger choose between spellcasting, a pet, and high physical damage/attacks?
CrazyMcNinja wrote:
That's why I don't like the spellcasting for the ranger. To give them good combat, a whole bunch of outdoor survival/tracking type skils AND spells is too much. And they end up "Jack of all trades with a fresh pine scent" and the outdoorsy stuff is all ribbons instead meaningful powers.
I'd rather give them some really great tracking/survival/travel/surprise abilities, a few spell-like powers, and call it a day.
Brock_Landers wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
fepriest wrote:
Things I'd like the Ranger to get the following, all of which I think adds to their existing theme (Skilled in natural settings, able to detect and avoid traps, skilled trackers, good at hiding, quick to react and travel over short or long distances, and particularly against a favored enemy).
1) Skills: Add Medicine to their list of skills, and increase the number trained to four instead of three. Add Expertise in one of your Ranger skills (your choice): Animal Handling, Athletics, Insight, Investigation, Nature, Perception, Stealth, Survival, and now Medicine.
2) Traps: Advantage on Wisdom (Perception) and Intelligence (Investigation) checks made to detect the prescence of traps. Advantage on saving throws made to avoid or resist damage from traps. The ability to search for traps while traveling at a normal pace, instead of only at a slow pace. Proficiency in thieves tools to disable traps (but not open doors).
3) Primival Awareness: once/short rest ability (no spell slot needed), applies to any creature type you select (not just those listed) and let it give you a general direction to the creature for one round.
4) Tracking: Advantage on Wisdom (Survival) checks to track anything (instead of just your favored enemy).
5) Favored Enemy: Advantage on attacks against your favored enemey, usable once per short rest.
6) Hiding: Can try to hide when only lightly obscured from the creature from which you are hiding.
7) Speed: Add roficiency bonus to Dexterity (Initiative) checks, and increase regular speed by 5'.
That should be added to the base Ranger. Not sure which levels they should be added to, when it's a new ability, but most of these are low level additions.
fepriest wrote:
Serpine wrote:
Rangers should be able to fly, there is a reason they are airborn.
I'll post the same thing I posted on another thread here. To summarize, I think the Ranger concept is mostly fine just as it is in 5e, it's merely the execution that's stuttering a bit.
The ranger is essentially an independent (and, therefore, versatile) warrior/scout/healer who battles on frontiers and is the guardian of civilization. I think they are perfectly justified in being their own class (especially with the presence of classes like Paladins and Bards). Mechanically, this translates well in the 5e representation of the class - they are skillful and particularly good at handling danger in the wilderness and on multiple fronts, but this means they specialize a bit less than most other classes.
Do away with Favored Enemy (not that interesting and too situational to balance appropriately) and replace it with Hunter's Mark as a 1st level feature (wis mod/day) rather than a spell (Paladins shouldn't have access to it either). Have their capstone ability be more generalized and slightly more powerful.
For hunters, melee suffers a bit too much compared to ranged. Hunter choices should be condensed so you don't end up with trap builds. You should get both Whirlwind and Volley at 11th instead of having to pick one, and they should arguably get an expanded radius (10/15 instead of 5/10). I like the idea of Rangers as sort of martial controllers - due to their solitary, guardian-esque nature, they are adept at facing many threats at one time. It gives them a schtick that isn't too specific (like dual-wielding or pets) but is thematically different enough from fighter and rogue to warrant being its own class.
For the beastmaster, I dunno, I honestly feel like they aren't as underpowered as everyone thinks. They basically get 3-4 attacks at 11th level just like the fighter and the utility can be very useful. I think the biggest issue is simply pet survivability combined with the baseline ranger issues above (poor capstone and pigeonholed utility).
I suppose I'm fine with spells being a baseline part of the class, but I think they overdid it a bit in 5e. Too much of a ranger's damage is tied up in their spellcasting when it really should be utilitarian.
arnwolf666 wrote:
To me the ranger was always the counter to a rogue, but specialized with the outdoors. But with the Bard being so good at spell casting and skills, in addition to what the rogue currently has, the 5E ranger ends up being the new bard dilemma with a twist. A jack with no trades left.
Well, a Ranger could be seen as an Army special combat unit.
A ranger could also be seen as a mythical guardian of the forest, the Druid's version of the Cleric's Paladin.
A ranger could be seen as a guy in studded leather with two swords, a long bow, a favored falcon, wolf, or bear, and mystic knowledge of herbalism.
Most rangers had backstab, move silently, hide in shadows, pass without trace, the power to climb trees, cliffs, swimming, mountain and forest survival, hunting, trap making, poison cures and creation, and a total phobia/hatred of urban centers.
Generally, the hatred for urban centers was identical in magntitude to the hatred dwarves have of things that annoy them, which as you know, is borderline neurotic.
As far as i could tell, Rangers were never really meant for adventures past level 9. After level 9 they just sort of stopped being relevant. Lack of a Holy Avenger, no heavy Armor, and no high level spells made them more of a 'one trick pony', but instead of one trick, it was the bard effect - jack of many situational trades, but demigod in no particular way. As soon as spell casters got things like Raise Dead, Contact Other Plane, and Teleport, the Ranger lost its position.
Rangers are great assets for Lords, Kings, and Armies, but they aren't really geared to fighting the Abyssal lords. Even thematically, it seems silly to set them up that way.
Best case scenario, you see Rangers as Archery Gods, then you can give them Arrows of Slaying and godlike bows, then they can hang out with the Holy Avengers, the Vorpal Swords, and the dudes casting Wish and Ressurect.
Rangers have the word Range in their name, Thats dumb, but true. They should be "fighters" with 'range" at high levels. It's the safest way to deal with it and keep them viable at all levels.
A lot of these thoughts and ideas are changing my own as I read them, but here's a longish post about what I'm thinking.
When I think of Rangers now a days I think of Will Treaty and Halt from The Ranger's Apprentice by John Flanagan. In his world Rangers are an elite special force, kind of like a police force in a way and supreme archers who also have skills with special knives and stealth. They are spies, peace-keepers, and completely OP. In fact, he provides us with an old story about a Baron sending for help with a massive riot, and then being outraged when only a single Ranger showed up (there are only like 50 for the entire kingdom btw) when asked why he was sent only one man the ranger responded with a question "How many riots do you have?" The implied point being 1 Ranger is enough to solve almost any normal problem.
That's the biggest thing that's holding us back I think. Any character we can name that fits "Ranger" seems to be OP or super high level, able to accomplish almost anything and even the designers for the UA mention that part of the ranger's image is the loner. A single character, cut-off from any support, and still triumphing. It's great, unless you're trying to design for a team game.
What else defines a ranger though is the big question. Tracking always comes up. Why? In literature and shows it is for two reasons. Find threats that are sneaking around and lead other people to the threats if they are too big. Who leads the party through the Dark Forest and up The Mountain to confront the Dragon? The Ranger, because he knows the safe paths. Who discovers the raiding force of Orcs entering the woods? The Ranger. Actually, that last one is why we think of the Ranger as "nature's guardian" and "woodsman". I agree the ranger is a defender of civilization first and foremost, but so is the fighter and the paladin, sheilds of the people. The big difference is that The Ranger is the first line of defense, keeping the surround wild country clear of evil so that the fighting never reaches the walls of the city, where then the fighters and paladins stand on the ramparts ready to defend the people from the massive threats.
Magic is important, but again why? Two seperate threads on this. The first is that the Ranger's knowledge and skill make him seem supernatural to the common person. Going back to the novels by John Flanagan, his Rangers are considered to be sorcerers or worst by the ignnorant folk, because they can appear out of thin air. The truth being that they discovered the usefullness of camoflauge patterns and trained extensively in the arts of silent movement and hiding through stillness. The second is because of their deep connection to the natural world, and in a magical realm like DnD that almost cries out to be expressed in terms of magical power (see Druid).
Here we come to an obvius but troubling realization. One of the biggest defining features of a Ranger is knowledge. Much like the Bard, a Ranger knows so much. hidden ways, old tales, secrets of herbs and animals. This is troubling becuase old tales and legends are the province of Bards and Wizards. Herb and Animal lore, along with paths through the wilderness are the province of the Druid. To get this knowledge generally we say that a ranger has spent a lot of time in that area, hence favored terrain. However, most parties are constantly on the move. An NPC ranger may know all the paths and quirks of the Sherwood Forest, and possibly able to apply that knowledge to the Black Woods, but should his close knowledge be as good in a desert? A tundra? These are very different environments. Possibly a natural connection to the land could inform him of things, communing with the land, but doesn't that sound like the Druid? But, this is why we see the connection between the two classes, even though if we examine closely the Ranger protects the woods to protect the community and the Druid protects the woods to protect nature.
The lonely nature of the Ranger, and their connection to the wild, is why we generally think of the animal companion. Complete solitude makes for a boring story, but a loner who never truly leaves the woods wouldn't make close friends with normal people generally, thus the animal companion to keep them company.
I'm okay with it as a concept, but I don't want my ranger to have it. Not because I want him to be a total lone wolf, but because I want him to be embedded in the community he serves. He shouldn't just know the area, but the common people that make it up. He should be close to them, even as his skills and calling pull him away and make them wary of him, because they know he is protecting the land they depend upon for survival. Why does this preclude an animal companion? Because no matter how well trained a dog is no match for a manitcore or a hydra. They are useful, but a Ranger to me most move alone, or with other skilled companions, because nothing else can survive the threats they face.
So what is the Ranger?
They are experts, not only in the lands and natural features, but in the people. They need to be, becuase to protect the community someone needs to know what the signs mean, how the enemy moves and it's weaknesses. Not a favored enemy type of situation I don't think. While a Fighter is a warrior who needs to know how to fight (learning proper forms and practicing them until they are perfect) and a Paladin needs to know why they fight (what is the higher purpose, the goal or ideal that drives them) the Ranger knows what they fight. Rangers are protectors, who are the first line against the things that threaten the common man. Not against threats from beyond the world, as the paladin does, but threats from within the world. A Ranger fights, alone in the deep parts of the world, so that the threats brewing there never darken the city walls, or if they do they have already felt the strength of it's protectors and is lesser for it. To achieve this end they are hunters, using skills in tracking and stealth to find the enemy and strike when they are weakest. While a thief or assassin may use stealth to sneak into a manor or a castle a ranger uses stealth to follow his prey and remain unseen so that he may gather intel and decide how to route them. From this hunter aspect as well, I always consider a ranger to be an archer, as it is the hunter's style to strike from a distance with superb accuracy. They should also be equally good with spears and shields and axes. I do not picture them wielding two weapons anymore, though they can they do it no better than anyone else does. This isolated fight is why they are seen as tougher than normal, able to last longer and keep fighting when others would have succumbed.
Trappers and guerilla warriors, these are great concepts for the ranger, but conflict with the traditional style of DnD. If the warrior and paladin rush into the room. The ranger would lay a trap, or sneak in to strike from the shadows or from above. The Ranger and rogue are incredibly similiar, but the ranger should be more than a rogue subclass, becuase rogue's themes are inherently selfish in nature, while a Ranger is inherently self-sacrificing, much like the Paladin. Where the paladin is the ideal and beacon, the ranger is the protector that the people rarely see walking among them. Both stand between the people and the threats of the world, a paladin shining brightly against the darkness, a ranger moving in the shadowy edges of the light, and the fighter standing there with only grit and skill to serve him.
Salient point on camo
Chaosmancer wrote:
Joe Mack, from Last of the Breed by Louis L'amour. Consummate Ranger.
I used to fly a lot for work, and I'd (guiltily) pick up Louis L'Amour novels in the airport, read them on the flight, and then leave them in the seat back pocket. Last of the Breed is the only one I ever kept. Still have it, I think.
"...shot down by the Soviets over the ocean between Russia and Alaska and then captured....The success of his subsequent foot travel across Siberia to the Bering Strait is dependent on his Native American hunting, tracking, and evasion skills..."
what if the rangers schtick was more akin to bless or bardic inspiration? grants allies WIS bonus to Hide, DEX saves, and Survival checks. some have suggested they are protectors...
strider13x wrote:
Uchawi wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
Yeah, surprised no one's touched on the word Ranger, as in someone who ranges, i.e. "travel or wander over a wide area". To me, a ranger encapsulates the idea of someone who is at home in places where few people willingly this means:
- He uses traditional hunters' weapons (bows, spears, etc) because he's used to killing his own food
- He can fight up-close as well--either warding off a predator, or teaching brigands on the roads he's no mark
- He fights better alone (as opposed to the rogue, who benefits from allies)
- He doesn't feel the need to fight fair
- He travels light
- He's hale and hearty; used to the cold, the wet, biting insects and rocks as a pillow
- He's knowledgable, but not booksmart; he's learned from experience
- He knows animals and how they behave
I don't see this as a guy who sits under trees a lot, unlike a druid he doesn't necessarily love nature. Instead, he loves freedom. He loves his space, and possibly hates other people. My inspirations for rangers include:
- Aragorn (of course)
- Cowboys (e.g. Wyatt Erp)
- Steve Irwin / Bear Grylls
- Elyas Machera
- Crocodile Dundee
- Roland Deschain
- Riverwind
- Lewis & Clark, Magellan, and other explorers
I think CON should be a prime stat for rangers, and personally I think they should be a bit MAD: str, dex, con and wis should all be interesting stats for them, and possibly different subclasses might prefer different secondary stats.
A representation of a D&D Ranger that is not Drizzt is the Justicar. If you haven't read the books (you should), he is a big, hugely strong, bald-headed, death machine that wields an intelligent bastard sword called Benelux. His "animal" companion is a sentient hell hound pelt named Cinders that can breath fire and is fire proof. He picks up some other party members along the way, so even though he is a bit of a loaner, you quickly see how he works with a team.
As a D&D Ranger he has spells, and uses them very effectively in the books. Mostly for healing out of combat, but he uses others as well that, although not powerful, are used to give his party a cruicial advantage when needed.
For me, a ranger relates to range, marches or borderlands. They roam the uncivilized lands as the first line of defense against invaders and keep the borderlands safe for residents and travelers. They are closer to folk hero than wanderer. While a druid protects the land, a ranger protects the people.
Rangers aren't strong on damage but more on control. They should have ways to slow or punish. If they do as well as fighters, it's because they have ways to gain advantage or react to actions such as gaining OA when creatures enter certain squares.
What exists matches their image:
- wood elf mask of the wild - they should have ways to vanish to do hit and runs.
- barbarian danger sense - they are attuned to their surroundings
- barbarian feral instinct - that's where ambuscade should appear
- cleric blessing of knowledge or acolyte of nature - they have mastered those skills
- fighter know your enemy - they can read non-humanoid creatures
Their strength should be in projecting damage/control through 3 paths: bow (battle master), traps (magic), beast (moon druid).
EDIT: RCanine seems quite close. I was thinking Dex for bow, Wis for traps and Con for beast.
bid wrote:
Chaosmancer wrote:
Xeviat-DM wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
ShinQuickMan wrote:
mellored wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
Xeviat-DM wrote:
Sorry for the potential double post, but was out mowing and had a few different thoughts.
The biggest one came from thinking about how we are talking about the Ranger. We keep refering to them as related to the Paladin, which I think is the correct path to an extent, but it raises two points we therefore need to address.
First, there has been a lot of talk of Ranger's without spells. Some people have called for static spell like abilities, but others want a Ranger without magic. This goes against the design though if we think of Rangers and Paladins in the same "design space". Look at what the Paladin gets: Divine Sense, Lay on Hands, Divine Smite, Divine Health, Aura abilities. In fact, looking at the paladin there are only two abilities they have that are not expressly magical, Extra attack and Fighting Style. What does a paladin look like without any magic? A fighter (rogue if you want avenger paladin). What's the biggest complaint of Ranger's when we try and break them down? They are just a fighter or rogue with the right skills.
If we are going to redefine the Ranger as something more than a variant fighter, we need to embrace completely the idea that they are a magical class.
This brings us to the second, and slightly bigger, issue. We officially have three different types of magic in DnD. We used to have only two, Arcane and Divine. When the Paladin was created he was a Divine class, related to the Cleric. If asked what is the difference between the Cleric's Divine Magic and the Wizard's Arcane magic we could say that the cleric was a healer and defender, while the wizard focused on damaging abilities and altering the world. So the Paladin's magic ties into the theme of Divine Magic, while adding the smiting that has become so iconic for them. They heal, they protect. Our third type of magic is Primal, but what is the difference between Primal magic and Divine or Arcane? Druids can heal, alter the world, protect, and damage. Part of this comes from (if I hav e my DnD history correct) Druids starting as a variant of Clerics, but that leaves us with a big problem. If we cannot state what makes Primal magic different from Divine and Arcane then we can't make the Ranger's abilities match the theme of Primal Magic. Maybe there is something that I don't see, I'm a newer player and the first edition I ever played was 4e (I had the books to lay 3.5 but no one to play with) so an older player or one who has delved deeper into these questions may be able to answer this question, but that's a big core of figuring out what the Ranger is. We can't say they are a primal caster without knowng exactly what we mean by that.
Chaosmancer wrote:
Mechatarrasque wrote:
Xeviat-DM wrote:
I dunno, maybe we should be looking at monks instead of paladins as the example.
After all, if we were starting from scratch with the concept of a melee combatant who uses his fists, couldn't we have just made a fighter or rogue variant? But we (well, they) didn't: they started with a blank slate and thereby got to include a whole bunch of abilities that would have been OP if they were on top of, rather than instead of, an existing class. Likewise with Rangers: if we think of them as Fighter/Rogue/Druids and we design them with that in mind, we're limiting our imagination. We should start with a blank slate and not limit ourselves.
I don't really think Monks make a "better" analogue; my real point is that it's not obvious to me (at all) that Paladins are, either. I suspect it's a tempting comparison for those who wish to demonstrate that Rangers should be spell casters, but I suspect that desire is what's driving the conclusion, not the evidence.
So, many good examples given of what constitutes a ranger. Fepriest noted my favorites; exellent selections. A ranger is the ultimate survivalist. As the ranger's knowledge of the terrain and environment grow, so does his adaptibility. He is also part guerilla but unlike the rogue, the ranger is capable of fighting against large numbers with success. He sacrifices the heavier armors which are hindrances in the terrain in which he operates, for lighter armor which, combined with his mobility, gives the ranger the ability to fight multiple foes effectively, at least until he disengage and disappear into the wild.
What distinguishes a ranger from a barbarian? A ranger can come from any class, or walk of life. He may cultured by his time in an elven lords hold, or born a bastard child of decent high lord. He could be a woodsman or soldier of a more civilzed kingdom.
I think spellcasting rangers, spell-less rangers and rangers with an animal companion all have a place.
Just throwing some stuf out toi see if anything sticks
While the Ranger might share certain aspects of other classes the idea is that in wild, unless they are urban based (Bounty Hunter), the Ranger does it better.
I believe in 1st edition Rangers were the only ones who could track
In 2nd Rangers got tracking for free and recieved a hefty bonus for doing so
In this edition the danger to a Class has more to do with dipping then what it should or shouldn't do. Dipping makes the Ranger obsolete.
It seems like 5th is balanced in such a way that if you wish to get a "leg up" on a player running a pure class you have to dip which imo takes away fron the point of there being actual classes in the first place.
I think we can all agree that the Ranger is mostlty a wilderness type class and as such they should excell in t he wilderness even if they have some of the same ability types.
I almost wish they would have divided the skills a little more ie: Urban stealth verses Wilderness Stealth.
A Rangers magic should be something that enhances his skills rather replace then. Take away the magic and you should still be left with a Ranger and not a dude with a sword that can hide real good.
A Rangers mundane skills should seem like magic to the average joe but aren't
I almost picture a Ranger getting spells later on in his training Rather then at 2nd or 3rd.
As has been stated by others the Ranger as it is, aside from a few tweaks, is ok... maybe a few changes to its paths or a few additional paths.
I still think that one of the biggest changes we need to make is how we percieve all the classes. If we feel the need to dip to make the character better then perhaps the class is lacking something that is necessary to its core function.
Perhaps we should have had the 4 core classes with templates for the rest?
Elfcrusher wrote:
Gwaithador wrote:
i like the idea of giving a bounus for scouting.
1: Scouting. if you spend 5 minutes studing an enemy without being seen, you and all your allies gain advantage on inititive checks against them.
9: Avanced scouting. when you scout, allies also gain proficency on stealth checks to sneak upto or past them, or double proficency if they are trained in stealth.
as for what can a ranger do that's unique in combat, IMO pet(s). sure it's doesn't have a big history, but it's a very strong and unique identity.
mellored wrote:
I think a terrain altering subclass is perfect for a ranger, but I don't know about it being a class, does it give us enough room for multiple different styles within the class structure? Then again, with the new UA we are looking at multiple ranger classes, with different sub-classes in our future.
Now, I con't think I like the Ranger being able to manipulate enemy stats too much, which seemed to be the direction fepriest was headed. It sounded, and I probably misunderstood, like the ranger would be... adding templates is the best way I can phrase it, to change enemies in certain ways. That doesn't sound quite right to me.
I wonder if we could give them something to make tracking more interesting? Right now Tracking an enemy is a pass/fail sort of moment, with the end result being you found the thing you were tracking. What if the Ranger was able to use some ability to affect an enemy they were tracking. Choosing to either keep the group more hidden to close the distance or reveal their prescence and attempt to "harry" the enemy, causing some sort of penalty to the enemy? This could tie into the nature spirits magic by letting the ranger potentially turn terrain against the enemy to slow them down or exhaust them.
Maybe then having the Ranger able to reverse this ability, so if the party is running from a group the ranger can slow down pursuit?
The problem though is the truth. Combat is King, and Ranger's excel in Exploration.
That being said, I liked the idea proposed earlier that Ranger's should do best without assistance from allies, what about something in the opposite vein of sneak attack, where they can get bonuses or special effects against enemies not near their allies, of course this would make ranger's worse against solo boss encounters where everyone gangs up on the same enemy and it discourages teamwork which is a mainstay of DnD style combat....
One sacred cow I think this thread is willing to kill though is the "favored" anything. Ranger's should be equally good in all different wilderness settings and against all sorts of creatures, not specializing in certain ones. Because that is always the biggest complaint I've seen, especially about Favored Terrain.
The second complaint I've seen a lot is that the better a Ranger gets about surviving and doing things in the wilderness the less useful it gets, because if the Ranger auto track and auto finds fod then there is no point in tracking or finding food. Once you get so good at a task that the DM no longer sees the point in doing things related to that task your role and fun in the game are reduced.
Chaosmancer wrote:
Chaosmancer wrote:
Personally, I'd prefer it if the ranger was a solid pet class. I've never heard anyone in WoW complain that all hunters have pets; some focus on the pet, others focus on other skills. But I fully recognize that it isn't everyone's thing.
Having the ability to gain bonuses against future enemies for tracking them sounds cool! And beyond the simple "It looks like they have hell hounds with them, we better prepare resist fire ..."
Xeviat-DM wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
TimelyShadow wrote:
Einlanzer wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
Chaosmancer wrote:
I used to play rangers all the time with 1e. Never had a pet. Never cared to. I liked the ranger class because it was a good blend of fighter and rogue with some spellcasting. Maybe it was based on Aragorn, but I didn't know or care at the time. 3e broke the ability to make a good martial/caster blend that was easily done in 1e & 2e. The only thing left was paladin and ranger, though I'm sure there are plenty of follow along splats that introduced other classes that I'm going to completely ignore here. Skipping 4e, because I can, we have 5e that tries to fix the problems with 3e's inability to mix martial and casting by having specific subclasses for it, instead of actually fixing 3e's multiclassing rules. But that only worked for dual classing. There is no fix to get us back to 1e's triple classing, and effectively the class mix that 1e had with the ranger.
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
A ranger to me is Aragorn or Faramir.
Orethalion wrote:
If Rangers are going to cast spells then I'd rather see the elimination of direct damage spells, or even the indirect buffing ones, and have only utility spells. The damage ones (e.g. Hunter's Mark) could be class-based abilities instead of using spell slots.
Chaosmancer wrote:
Xeviat-DM wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
I don't think we should turn this towards a Middle Earth discussion too much.
My point was that Middle Earth has a very distinct flavor that is very different from what DnD is today. I don't remember the pinecones exploding or the lightning bolt, but it has been a long time since I read the books. However, how many times does a level 11 wizard cast fireball or Lightning bolt while questing to destroy an evil artifact and being chased all over the place by minions of the dark lord?
How much more powerful are Tolkien's elves compared to DnD's?
The One Ring was literally an artifact crafted by an evil god, who placed a portion of his soul into it, whose only noticeable ability was to place the wearer in the etheral plane (comparisons). It also extended their life and had sentience, but compare that to the Hand and Eye of Vecna or the Wand of Orcus which grant their owners immense magical power.
Compare the Forgotten Realms with plethora's of high level magic artifacts, gods, place of magic, ect to Tolkien's world where part of the lore was that magic was leaving the world.
The Wraith in the MM was inspired by the 9 Ring Wraiths, and it's CR 5, making it much less of a threat in DnD than it was in Middle Earth
That's the only point I'm trying to make, compared to standard DnD settings and capabilities, Tolkien is on the lower end of the scale. Not as low as say Conan, but definetly below the assumed standard
mellored wrote:
Chaosmancer wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
Einlanzer wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Chaosmancer wrote:
Chaosmancer wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
mellored wrote:
Xeviat-DM wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
Chaosmancer wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
mellored wrote:
Chaosmancer wrote:
In the wild the only class that should come close is the Barbarian and that would depend on the path the Barbarian follows.
But as long as dipping a level or two negates any loss that not reaching 20 incurs the Ranger is relatively useless in any form past level 3.
Thunaer wrote:
I am coming into this discussion rather late; I try to see the landscape and understand other peoples’ thoughts before I chime in. I am rather like Perrin Aybara that way (a great example of a fantasy ranger from The Wheel of Time that I don’t think anyone has mentioned).
I started working on My thoughts on the Ranger before this thread actually started, and I have been surprised and delighted to see a lot of my thoughts echoed here.
It seems there are a few fundamental dichotomies of view here.
The one that may be insurmountable is the magic vs. non-magic debate. I land pretty firmly on the magic side, mainly because I think that mechanically a non-magic ranger can be emulated through proper backgrounds and fluff (multi-classing is a bonus, depending on what you think the ranger’s role is and if you use optional rules).
And the word “fluff” is what leads to the second major dichotomy (this one much more surmountable). Is the ranger defined by mechanics or concept? One certainly leads to the other, but from which way should we approach it?
Some say: the ranger is an outdoorsman, a wilderness warrior able to survive alone in nature.
Others say: the ranger is an archer with an animal companion who can track and sneak.
While both have been true, where does it start from? In my ranger redux I spent a fair amount of time discussing the game’s “historical” context and my take on it. Please give it a read and let me know what you think.
But for this discussion, I think the question we have been missing isn’t “what is a ranger?” but instead “what is a class?”
A class needs a unifying theme, both conceptually and mechanically. Why do the subclasses belong to a single class instead of just as part of another class? (For example, in the ranger I came up with, flexibility and survival are the hallmarks of the stalker, shaman and warden subclass, and mechanically all of them utilize hit dice and concentration in non-standard ways).
So then I ask not “what is a ranger?” but rather what is a ranger class?
Thank god Orzel is here.
Orzel wrote:
Orzel wrote:
Elladar wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
Sort of a wilderness batman, then?
Elfcrusher wrote:
AndAlsoAaron wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Orzel wrote:
I'm seeing here that people have a lot of different ideas of what a ranger should have. What if the ranger was a more modular class, kinda like the warlock?
Orethalion wrote:
mellored wrote:
Orzel wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Utility belt, grappling gun, batarangs, cape - yeah - none of it is spells.
But a spell book and a utility belt have lots in common.
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
Orzel wrote:
Elladar wrote:
Maybe the answer is that Rangers really are just a blend of Fighter/Rogue/Druid, but it's popular enough concept that it would be nice to not force people to multiclass to get it. (Some of us don't like multiclassing.) So basically it's a market-driven, not design-driven, solution.
And if you're going to create a new class, why not invent some unique mechanics at the same time?
Just throwin' that idea out there.
Chaosmancer wrote:
Orzel wrote:
Chaosmancer wrote:
I think Orzel is right ("think" being the operative word because sometimes his posts read like Beckett so I can't be sure): survivalist is a great archetype in fiction, but it's hard or perhaps impossible to make that work in D&D as a core class concept.
As much as I hate to admit it, Combat is King, and if we want a unique class we need to be able to take the essence of the ranger (survivalist, traveler, tracker, scout, etc.) and come up with interesting mechanics that are used in combat (although not necessarily to do damage) that are 'sufficiently unique' from existing classes to offer something that feels new and different.
A lot of cool ideas there, I like adding moving 5 ft doesn't disturb camo. Also enjoy the weather endurance.
Not sure about the diet, that looks like the normal rules to me.
Looking back over the Hunter Ranger... just realized a language thing. Primeval Awareness gets slammed mostly for the last line "This feature doesn't reveal the creatures' location or number." I just realized that they probably meant "This feature doesn't reveal the creatures' exact location or exact number". So you can't say there are six demons on the Holy Mountain, but you could say there is a small demonic presence to the northeast.
So change that, twist Hide in Plain Sight a little (make it more a ritual and less paint), add a few extra spells known, an additional enemy and terrain, and throw a different capstone on top and everything we've been asking for is in the Hunter Ranger (I also want to give him the herbalism kit because I can)
bawylie wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
You're right, combat is king. The ranger is a tracker and a survivalist. How does that apply to combat? They're a hunter, and they know a low about their foes. We've addressed why Favored Enemy in its old form is problematic. Instead, simply let the Ranger learn about the foe's they're fighting. Of course, this would imply a bonus damage mechanic, but it could also delve into other areas. Favored Enemy is where we need to look for their core, defining feature.
I also now firmly, wholly, believe that the base animal companion should be a spell, just like find familiar. The Beast Master can get a beefier animal companion, just like the Chain Warlock gets a beefier familiar. This way Rangers can have a non-combat animal companion if they want it without dedicating their subclass to it, and those who want a combat companion can have it too. Heck, the base familiars are like CR 0 and 1/8, while the chain familiars go up to CR 1 (imp and quasit).
All of their exploration abilities lend themselves to "do the things that the survival skill does, but better", aside from the psudo (or actually) magical things they get with stealth (if a wizard can turn invisible, then why not a ranger?). And that's okay. Most of the other class's social or exploration abillities boil down to bonuses (like double proficiency or advantage).
But monster hunting can be their combat thing. Lets up the uniqueness of Hunter's Mark, and we'll have our mechanic.
Also, thanks for blowing this thread up; I was gone for a little over a day and it went up 45 posts.
Chaosmancer wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Xeviat-DM wrote:
Orzel wrote:
Yeah, I think it's problematic from a game balance perspective to make the Ranger...who may not even take the Survival skill...be good at survival. But the idea of a Ranger with no particular skill in survival feels awkward to me, too. I suppose you could just give the Ranger survival as a bonus skill, and Expertise in it at level X. That feels kludgy to me, but that solves the problem of being "better than a rogue who has Expertise in it". And the idea of a Ranger with no proficiency in Survival just doesn't sit right with me.
I'm just gonna drop my input on this subject from the other smaller thread
The-Magic-Sword wrote:
I feel like I haven't been on these forums in forever. Anyways onto the topic of the Ranger.
I feel like 5e's version of the Ranger as a weak, situational class that doesn't really do anything other classes can't do better except for the limited tracking and survivalist abilities gained via Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer. The reason I call these abilities limited is that the DM can dismiss or diminish their usefulness too easily. I don't mean to say this as though all DM's are adversarial; in fact quite often it’s accidental. While the DM doesn’t have to worry about the Cleric if there are no undead milling about the dungeon, the DM does have to worry about the Ranger being in the dungeon in the first place since “dungeon” isn’t a terrain. And while Favored Enemy can still be useful in said dungeon, not having enough of those types of enemies limits the Ranger’s effectiveness even further. I’m just pointing these things out because I DM now far more than I actually get to play (the burden of those who actually read the books as opposed to those who simply flip through them). Other classes don’t give me the headaches that Rangers give me. I have to add special wilderness sections to accommodate our party’s ranger, make sure there are enough of their favored enemy types, and eventually tailor adventures and campaigns that cater to one player more less they feel left out or “gimped”. (Side note: I do special things for all my players, but the Ranger always requires more work)
But to address the OP’s point as to what a Ranger should be I’ve got a few thoughts.
1) The Ranger is a Survivalist. I think in terms of a Navy Seal or any other specialized military soldier. You can drop him into ANY terrain and he’ll find his way to his objective either on his own or leading others. To that end I think Natural Explorer should be unbound by a favored terrain type and apply in more general terms. Difficult terrain caused by dense undergrowth shouldn’t vex him just because he’s used to the difficult terrain of mountains or the desert. He’s simply sure-footed and able to spot safe paths through the terrain. Just because he’s not used to the wild berries of the grassland, doesn’t mean he can’t tell which plants local animals have avoided or which ones give off scents to attract eaters and spread the seeds of their fruit. Specialization in a terrain should be an option added by choice and only add a specific benefit. Mechanically this can be handled the same way the Rogue uses Expertise, except the Ranger should be limited to which skills it can apply this to so as not to tread too much on the Rogue.
2) The Ranger isn’t a spell caster, but has “spell-like abilities”. The Ranger currently has a few of these already with Primeval Awareness, Land’s Stride, Hide in Plain Sight, Vanish, and Feral Senses. More of such abilities that can still act mechanically as spells would be nice but not too many. Perhaps a system similar to the Battle Master’s Maneuvers or the Warlock’s Invocations where the Ranger can pick from a short list as opposed to being limited by spell slots.
3) The Ranger always has a companion. Someone mentioned earlier making the Ranger’s Animal Companion behave more like a familiar; a small CR 0 or CR 1/8 creature that has limited use in combat but helps the Ranger survive nonetheless. If the player specializes via subclass this animal companion gains combat prowess and more functionality outside of combat as well. I will note that I do love the idea of a spirit companion shown to us in the recent Unearthed Arcana article. This lets the player choose just how active he wants his companion to be, if present at all. If the player doesn’t want to worry about managing a pet, he can simply choose to have a miniature giant space hamster that mostly sits in his pocket and is just there for flavor. Maybe another Ranger is guided by her spirit wolf, a totem animal of her tribe that helps guides her through the wilderness and is on the look out for foes. Maybe another ranger fights along side his brown bear, a hulking beast known to strike fear in the hearts of his enemies.
4) The Ranger is deadly. Whether she’s striking from the shadows from the perfect ambush, masterfully wielding two weapons or a bow, or combining her attacks with her panther, the Ranger should always be one of the deadliest combatants in any fight. Lets just call this my carry over from 4e, where Rangers were once the kings and queens of DPR. Hunter’s Mark should be removed from this version of the Ranger and be replaced with Hunter’s Quarry. Single target extra damage that perhaps increases with deadliness as the fight moves on. So perhaps in the first round the damage is just a d6, but in the second round it becomes 2d6, and in the third round 3d6, and so on. Maybe that won’t exactly as I’ve expressed it, but something that builds off the idea that the Ranger is constantly studying his quarry and becomes more lethal as the fight progresses. I’d also like to see the return of the Ranger being better at two-weapon fighting than anyone else. Perhaps the offhand attack is always free for Rangers, letting her keep her bonus action. When she fires a bow, she can always fire twice (not usable with weapons that have reload times such as the crossbow or firearms). These abilities would be determined via subclass, which would then allow those who have chosen an animal companion to increase the effectiveness of their furry friend. So one subclass would get Hunter’s Quarry, another would get better extra attacks via bow or off-hand weapon, and the last would have an animal companion who fights better and scales as the Ranger levels up.
Chaosmancer wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
I like the idea of a multi-faceted design, similar to the Warlock; with both a Pact and a Patron to draw options from.
I would like the choice of existing variants (spellcaster/non-spellcaster), in addition to the archetypes. The variants are just the method of delivery for the utility (magic vs mundane); while the archetypes would focus more on the method of effectiveness (multi-attack/partnership {Beast Master} vs area control/multi-target {Skirmisher} vs power-attack/single-target {Hunter}). The survival/tracking (taking both climate and terrain into consideration) advantages can be the overall unifying theme, which expands/improves across levels. Starting with one or two terrain types and gaining additional ones at higher levels; as well as enhancements/improvements to the benefits within those terrains.
EDIT: I've expanded (or focused) the Survival skill into both climate and terrain. You gain certain benefits for a chosen climate and certain benefits for a chosen terrain. Climate benefits apply in all types of terrain, as long as you are in that climate. Terrain benefits apply to all climates, as long as you are in that type of terrain. Benefits specific to climate would include survival through enduring weather conditions and prevention/reduction of exhaustion; while benefits specific to terrain type would include survival through foraging and hunting/trapping, as well as tracking and stealth related benefits. Common benefits (applying to either climate or terrain) are doubled, or further enhanced, when in both the chosen climate and the chosen type of terrain.
lawrencehoy wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
My main fear of the mutliselection style of the 2 decision points is that their might not be enough design space to balance magic and nonmagical options.
I still kinda wish they used a multifaceted favored enemy like I suggested years ago..One can't always win.
Orzel wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Chaosmancer wrote:
Chaosmancer wrote:
Chaosmancer wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Leave Hunters Mark as a spell. Instead, rangers should get flat bonuses to broad groups. They choose on all deal bonus damage to themthem. Like half level in damage.
All Humanoids
All Aberrations, Undead, and Constructs
Outsiders (celestials, elementals, fey, fiends
Giants and Dragons
Beasts, Monstrosities, and Plants
Like I said before, I really like some of the playtest versions where the Ranger got a generally useful ability based on which Favored Enemy it chose in addition to the specific tracking/info benefits against that particular foe. If a ranger was well versed in dragons and how to fight them, he's picked up some trick to help him fight them. Maybe it's advantage on reflex saves (to help him dodge dragon's breath). But that advantage carries over to being useful generally in adventuring life. Maybe the ranger who takes Favored Enemy: undead gains advantage on saves vs. life drain and resistance to necrotic damage. Of course the benefits should be comparable for the various choices those were just off the cuff ideas. But that's the idea I really liked. I wish I still had my old playtest packets to look for what they did for inspiration. My memory sucks.
I'm just gonna reassert what I've been saying.
1) Combt is King in DnD.
2) To make the Ranger relevant, scouting mechanics need to have direct, meaningful combat consequences.
3) To stay true to the idea of scouting (an activity which surrounds the combat experience, but is not actually combat), the ranger's abilities need to effect the conditions in which combat occurs.
4) In order for the Ranger to differentiate itself meaningfully from other classes which also require manipulation of time out of combat (the rogue, the bard, most spellcasters), the Ranger's mechanics need to focus on a part of the procedural rhetoric of the game which no other class adequately manipulates.
4a) Terrain manipulation: traditionally, players receive the description and layout of the battlefield by the DM. To make scouting a meaningful mechanic, the ranger could manipulate the features of an upcoming battlefield. This could include but is not limited to: adding traps and disasters, amplifying or reducing the threat level of traps and disasters, placing terrain features. For wilderness campaigns, this could mean changing weather conditions in the narrative (e.g.: The ranger uses his abilities to say that instead of a cloudless night, it's a dark and stormy night. The DM must go with this variation of the weather. Different terrains have different permissive weather types. This is not the ranger-as-character controlling the weather, but the player using the narrative trope which a ranger occupies (man in touch with nature) to make a meaningful change to the game using the ranger narrative archetype).
4b) Enemy observation: As with the terrain, it is a given that the DM is the end-all be-all decider in what foes the part fights. To make scouting and ranging and observing enemies meaningful, the ranger could manipulate elements of individual enemy mechanics prior to combat with a successful scouting trek (which I recommend costing the ranger the chance to benefit from a full short rest/long rest). This ability would not seek to radically change the CR of a combat, but instead distill the features of each enemy in a meaningful way. This could include but is not limited to: making small changes to enemy AC's, movement speeds, attack values by adding descriptors to each enemy (e.g.: the "fat" gnoll has a bit more than average HP, but his speed is down a bit; the gnoll with shoddy armor has a lesser AC, but is far more wary). To ensure the CR is not painfully skewed, the Ranger does not observe only weaknesses in enemies--it must also see strengths. This is not the ranger-as-character magically manipulating the stat blocks of enemies, but the player using the narrative trope which a ranger occupies (the observant scout, the savvy hunter) to make meaningful changes to the game using the ranger narrative archetype).
5) Meaningful differentiation requires a re-assessment of the ranger concept which extends beyond the language and lineage of Dungeons and Dragons interpretation of the Ranger. This also means re-assessing the power relationship between the PCs and the DM. Every class has abilities which forces the DMs hand in some way. If the ranger's mechanics do not allow the Ranger to do something to the results of the DM's exposition, then they do not give the PC meaningful choices, but instead provide the DM additional hoops to throw at players so they might jump through several more checks before engaging in combat.
6) The Ranger (as someone said in this conversation) is "one who ranges," which is a double entendre. There is the obvious definition of that (the wanderer of the world), but there is also the definition which I think serves us mechanically: a (statistical) ranger manipulates the ranges of a scenario. Clearly, all characters do this--each class enter the mechanics of the game from a different angle with the intent to shift the statistical probability of victory in the players' favor--but the Ranger has the ability to occupy that role in a way unlike any other class by tweaking upcoming conflicts *as* the DM sets them up, but *before* the crisis begins. Similar to spellcasters preparing their spells, but in a more reflexive and high-stakes way: the ranger caught scouting ahead could initiate a conflict beore the party is prepared, or come back to the party with bad intel, which changes the way players decide to engage a conflict.
Orzel wrote:
fepriest wrote:
...
Chuck Norris isn't very ranger-y on reflection.
Elfcrusher wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
I must really want to play a Ranger. I'm basically playing my current Druid that way, just with a different power set, and previously played a "civilized" Barbarian that specialized in Tracking and Animal Handling. I just can't find one that mechanically suits me.
Overall he should be reliable and dependable, able to survive no matter what's thrown at him. Maybe not even short rest mechanics...at will abilities, or abilities with a recharge rate. He NEVER should be stuck because he's "run out" of something, and NEVER should be the one begging the party to slow down and take a break. If anything his abilities should allow a party to push forward when they otherwise couldn't.
I think that's the main thing for me, and is what would put him similar to only the Champion and Warlock as far as playstyle. Abilities that are always on. They just work. What he sacrifices in raw power he gains in availability and ease-of-use. When everyone else is worn down and tired, the Ranger can keep going on. That would also provide a Natural counterpart to the Martial and Arcane flavor of the other two classes.
Perception would be key for him. Not really a high Initiative...the Rogue should still be the opportunist, sneaking in a first strike before anyone else notices. But even when out of their element I can see a Ranger being the party radar, having the highest perception and probably the second best overall reflexes. Fits in with his skills as a Tracker, but moreso than just that.
Stealth would be good but not a defining trait...Rogues again are the kings of sneaking about. Rangers might have camoflague or make better use of cover or difficult terrain? They should be able to silently stalk through the forest without effort, but when caught in a wide-open hallway not be quite so adept. They shouldn't be the ones to flub critical rolls, though...I could see them having a minimum roll or a bonus tied to their overall Ranger level (to discourage dipping) that's applied to Stealth, Perception, and Survival only.
Spellcasting should be optional, similar to the Arcane Trickster or Eldritch Knight where a few spells help suppliment their existing abilities. It's traditional, but also goes against the concept of a "natural" warrior so probably best left as a subclass. If the mechanic weren't already in use elsewhere I could see Ranger spellcasting being similar to Warlocks...several powers that are always on-hand, and one or two big tricks they could pull out when their back is against the wall. Limited, but never running out completely.
Pets would similarly be optional. If included, they should be permanent and all-natural companions though. And there should be options for one large beast or several smaller ones, as well as beasts that grow with you versus ones that are replaced as you find new and different creatures as you travel. It'd definitely fit with the overall theme of always-available abilities.
For the rest, I see him in light or medium armor and without shields. About as tough as Fighters and Paladins, second only to Barbarians, but avoiding or mitigating damage rather than soaking or deflecting it. Good reflexes, but not so much as the annoying dodges-everything Rogue. Maneuvarable, but not so speedy as the Monk. Good skill range, but not as widely-spread as the Bard. I don't see him charging in with a Greataxe, but doesn't have to specifically be an archer or TWF-specialist only. Comfortable in ranged or melee. More likely to use longswords than daggers or rapiers. Overall he'd be a little similar to a martial Druid, though instead of having to shift into different animals for utility he'd keep his versatility in his base default form.
Orzel wrote:
mellored wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
I like the idea that the proficiency bonus applies to interacting with your favored enemies, including ability checks, damage rolls, & saving throws. Then if you're proficient already, you get double.
If your ranger is proficienct in Dex saves, and they have red dragons as a favored enemy, they'd get double-proficiency on that dex save to avoid its fire breath.
bawylie wrote:
I agree it seems that they are uncertain/confused of what to do with the Ranger class. They need to 1st deal with the foundation of the class, then the subclass. Instead, they are looking at the class and subclasses as one.
First look at the forest, before looking through it.
The changes my group made are
Keeping the 1d10 hit die
Changing the save to both Con & Wisdom
1st. Gain 2 terrains for Natural Explorer, then acquire the next 2 as stated. (Can't double Survival skill)
2nd. Survival Expertise
3rd. Primeval Awareness doesn't require spell slot usage. Gives general direction & approximate number. Number of usage based on Wisdom modifier.
Skirmishers Stealth
11th. Evasion gained (Not part of Hunter's Path)
To Hunter's path, allow bonus attack made with Two-weapon fighting part of the attack action. (Hunters now gain 3 attacks)
13th. Ambuscade
14th. Vanish - add Dash as a bonus action
20th. Foe Slayer used against any foe.
Also added Domain Spells based on Archetype selected;
Brock_Landers wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Let's look at the Rangers of Today's Popular Video Games
Hunter (World of Warcraft)
Magic by Default (Sorta)
Pet By Default
Archery Only (Used to have Melee)
Specialties
- Marksmanship Spec
- Beast Mastery Spec
- What the heck is Survival spec now?
Archery (Archeage)
Magic by Default
No Pet option in class
Archery Only
Ranger (Pillars of Eternity)
Magic by Default
Pet By Default
Archery Only
Ranger (Guild Wars 2)
Magic by Default
Pet By Default
Archery or Melee
Monster Hunter (Monster Hunter)
No magic
No pet
Archery or Melee
Brock_Landers wrote:
Orzel wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
TheDraconicSpellcrafter wrote:
mellored wrote:
I will echo that simply changing Favored Enemy to be more generalized and provide a damage bonus and altering Foe Slayer with this new concept is probably very adequate to "fix". I'd probably let it apply to the companion also, which along with perhaps a little more HP would do a lot for beastmasters.
I think, though, that one overarching concern is that that the Ranger's combat prowess isn't exactly linear. By raw, they're at a handicap at 1st level due to no combat bonuses and no spells, but suddenly by 3rd level the hunter has hunter's mark + hordebreaker/colossus slayer, meaning that they will typically outdamage other classes. Their bonuses fail to keep pace though, and by level 11 when fighters get extra attack they start to fall off. I think I would advocate increasing the radius on both Whirlwind and Volley by 5, which makes them compete better with both extra attack and with each other (by raw, Volley is substantially better than Whirlwind).
I'd like to see some number crunching on how changing Favored Enemy in the way described above (+ proficiency bonus to damage) affects the ranger's combat prowess relative to the fighter and/or paladin at various stages (1st, 5th, 11th, 16th, 20th).
Elfcrusher wrote:
Orzel wrote:
mellored wrote:
Einlanzer wrote:
Orzel wrote:
Einlanzer wrote:
Einlanzer wrote:
mellored wrote:
The problem with using past Rangers (let alone other games' rangers) as archetypes is that there is pretty broad concensus that the class has always been problematic.
I wish WotC wouldn't feel constrained by past definitions of classes. I was really disappointed in the warlock. I absolutely detest Eldritch Blast...it's about the least imaginative way possible to differentiate the class. "Oh, look, he's basically an Evoker but it's called something else!" But when I asked this question on the forums during Next playtesting the response was, "Huh? Eldritch Blast defines the Warlock!"
So I fully expect the same thing to happen with the Ranger, despite the great discussion/ideas folks are posting.
(My version of "Eldritch Blast" is sort of a Divination/Summoning spell: You throw a burn-down-the-house party...sometimes literally...with guests from multiple planes of existence, for the purpose of attracting an entity of whom you want to ask some questions. Then you make some dice rolls to see what sorts of guests show up, and what benefits or complications....or downright catastrophes...that results in. But if things work out as planned you get your questions answered.)
Elfcrusher wrote:
Einlanzer wrote:
mellored wrote:
I don't think that's much of an identity.
- rugged = So some extra HP or healing.
- wilderness-oriented = Guide background, not a class.
- warrior = Multi-attack, and fighting style. Though that's shared with over half the classes.
- scout = Anyone can get stealth.
- survivalist = Anyone can get survival skill.
A barbarian, fighter, rogue, monk, moon druid, natrue cleric, ancient paladin, or valor bard could also fit those descriptions.
Being better with ranged weapons or having a beast companion are specific concepts within that theme but they do not represent the entire theme.
mellored wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
mellored wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
On Animal Companions:
The big issue with Animal Companions seems to be balancing the game. Couldn't a solution just be to create a "henchman/follower/cohort" module independent of any class, and if players want an animal companion and the DM agrees to it, they add on that module? Maybe it means CRs are calculated a bit differently depending on the number of cohorts and PCs--but it seems like that'd be a much easier solution than making a cohort/animal companion attached to a class.
Thunaer wrote:
fepriest wrote:
fepriest wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
TheDraconicSpellcrafter wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
Anyone who sees only benefits to dipping or that its always a good idea should better learn the system before placing their foot in their mouth like that. It's a foolish blanket notion and demonstrably false.
the value of wizard dipping cleric depends on your front line. High AC is meaningless if your never attacked / only make saves, so you slow yourself down for nothing. (well, maybe for bless, but that's also party dependant).
really it sounds like he read a guide, but didn't understand it.
I've always liked this take on the Ranger concept:
"We are Rangers. 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.”. ~Oath of the Rangers -- Babylon 5
In term of role in the game, they're Pathfinders, Trailblazers, Gudes, and Guardians. Much of the time they live outside of Civilization in order to protect it, and the "goodly" peoples, from the...things...that lurk in the wild and dark places that come right up to your door in the dark of the moon, snuffling and shuffling, grunting and yowling night-beasts and Not-Men, that live for murder, ravishment, and rapine.They skirmish --and worse-- with the Savage Ones, and fall, if they must, in the fight, for The One (in the serie, it was a person, but in-game it could easily be the concept of Civilization itself)
mellored wrote:
OB1 wrote:
mellored wrote:
On dipping and capstones: how many characters actually get far enough for weak capstones to matter?
The only charactrer I MC'd on I regretted doing it. I accepted the sub-optimality while I was anticipating the magical confluence when the two classes finally had awesome synergy, but I never got there.
Yeah. It's easy to say, "look how awesome cleric-1/wizard-19 is". But that's not how the game actually plays out. You gotta get there first. And the whole way there you are a level behind on spell level acquisition and your wizard class features. The. Whole. Way.
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
mellored wrote:
fepriest wrote:
fepriest wrote:
fepriest wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
to get a combat beast, you need a class, feat, or magic item.
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
CCS wrote:
If the rogue wants a tiger to join the group - and contribute (attack, scout, whathaveyou) - just make sure everyone understands it gets a cut of the XP. See how the other players react... 