After seeing what feels like 50,000 different ranger threads—each with either their own ranger tweaks, discussions of what is (or what was, or what isn't) a ranger, discussion of some fine detail of rangers past, present, and/or future, or some variation of one or more of the afore mentioned topics—I kind of just rolled my eyes.
So, if any of you are also sick of, annoyed, baffled, or darkly amused at the proliferation of ranger threads (many of which could have been one thread), I invite you to post here and make light of it all. Whatever goes—as long as it's ranger related and an attempt at humor or sarcasm. All in the sense of fun, so don't take it too seriously!
I leave it to ranger smtih, since I can't bear another discussion. Surround them, and a passing argument make - Yogi.
Definitely the solution to so many Ranger threads is to make a new Ranger thread.
RCanine wrote:
Ranger's don't like to be tied down to just one thread. They range far and wide, hide and then ambush you with another thread.
Also, rangers are better at tracking than most of us, so they can follow more threads at once.
I am disappointed that all these ranger ideas don't support the most famous ranger of all: the Lone Ranger. Hi Ho Silver.
Clearly the ranger is just a fighter who doesn't bathe.
MechaPilot wrote:
Rangers take mud baths.
Shrek, the Ultimate Ranger...
eh, i just think its funny that a lot of people list things that the ranger should have, and i think that a lot of it is already in the PHB ranger
Orzel wrote:
Weapons are not unique.
Spells are not unique.
Stealth is not unique.
Ambush is not unique.
Being in the wilderness is not unique.
Pet's ARE unique.
mellored wrote:
Einlanzer wrote:
Einlanzer wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
mellored wrote:
Orzel wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
From what I can tell, it seems like most people agree that a ranger is a protector and guardian of the world whether it be an area of land or a civilization from crumbling. But a ranger is the one who travels, staying away from society so people never have to deal with the dark horrors looming in the woods no one wants to go into. Basically the reason the "owlbear problem" isn't the "owlbear pandemic" is probably due to rangers.
Now what a ranger DOES seems to be the biggest point of contention. When I think of what a ranger does I come up with three things:
- Casts druidy-type spells
- Has an animal companion
- Does not stop killing things with tiny pieces of wood (aka arrows)
Now I've played a ranger, and I've seen others play rangers, and every time, they want to dump one of these aspect in favor of another. So many books are riddled with what happens if a rangers dumps their spells or companion for a better (insert bonus here). So with the introduction of paths, I would use them to focus on these three aspects of the ranger. Then we come to (I am bad with naming things):
- Spiritualist - You have gained the favor of a spirit of the land who will guide you and teach you all manner of divine secrets in exchange for your service. You get divine spells running off of Wisdom along with a couple of powers based on who your spirit is. This can also just be spirit powers that function as spells similiar to warlock invocations.
- Pack Leader - You get an animal companion. It functions similar to a druids animal companion, but you get some tactical abilities with it (seeing through it's eyes, bonuses when you work in tandem). Perhaps at later levels you can adopt some aspect of your pet and gain one of it's special qualities between short rests.
- Skirmisher - You are going to be the master of mobile combat. You gain another fighting style, the ability to move around the battlefield with ease, shooting at threatened squares with arrows, essentially become the best combatant you can be at range or melee and switching between the two.
I know this feels very fighter-y, so you'd add the core of the ranger regardless of the path. Surviving in inhospitable locations for extended periods of time, camouflaging oneself even when observed, moving quickly through underbrush, building traps, and knowing about how creatures act and react.
I like the idea wizards put forth of the ranger gaining more hit dice during rest, as they always are on the move, and that they are REALLY good at setting up ambushes and are hard to ambush. I don't know if giving them 2d6 hit dice per level or not allowing them to be surprised so early on is the best idea though.
Gather your thoughts and tell them to me. If I'm off the mark let me know.
AndAlsoAaron wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
cowleymen wrote:
The most important thing to remember about Rangers, is that they are more afraid of you than you are of them.
...
No wait. That's bees. I'm always getting those two mixed up.
I enjoy that Rangers are now Batman, and seeing Batman means that soon an alignment debate will crop up and we can roast wenies as the forums burn.
This is only slightly sarcastic, and referencing some posts in the "What is a Ranger" Thread
I think that the ranger should be a class with three total subclasses each focusing on a different idea of rangers
The first i call "Bloodwalkers" these are the soldier-esque rangers represented by aragorn and legolas- defined primarily by their skill with martial weapons, this path would give bonuses to movement speed, defense, and of course the rangers personal offense- with generic features that operate melee and ranged, and regardless of weapon choice.
The Second is "Moonwalkers" these are rangers that gain bonuses to their spellcasting, much like the arcane trickster for the rogue- they gain additional spells based off of the druid spell list and features to make it work for them in combat.
Finally we have "Beastwalkers" which get the pet based features, and allow the ranger extra damage and utility- along with giving spells like speak with animals and such.
A big part of the issue with all these conversations is that people tend to try and strip parts of the ranger away, or make them too focused on other parts, but when you get right down to it rangers have always had a variety of archetypes and much like how the fighter can embrace the warlord, the champion, and the spellsword archetypes, and the rogue can be thief, swashbuckler and assassin.
Next, the rangers need less situational features- how about favored enemy which can be altered every morning the same way a wizard prepares spells? Same goes for terrain, this would make them far more consistent while still alowing them some room for "surprises." The generic features should be giving their nature-oriented flavor- things like increased speed over difficult terrain, which it does already have to some extent.
Oh, my! It looks like this thread has started becoming meta. What would Drizzt do? Heck, What would Ranger Rick do?
May bbe we should have a ranger subclass that specializes in ambusing from above—from tree tops, cliff, and airships. They also get access to flying pets, and spells like levitate, featherfall, & fly.
The we can shout at the top of our lungs, while running through school hallway—"I WANNA BE AN AIRBOURNE RANGER!".
Here's a bunch of rambing thoughts.
A ranger is not someone that guard/protects the wilderness. The ranger guards/protects the people of a town/village from the dangers of the surrounding lands. They live in the wilderness and keep the dangers at bay.
Could a ranger have a pet? Sure why not. He's certainly out there with all the wild animals. It makes sense that he might tame some of the them and use them.
Is that the defining quality of a ranger? Hell no.
Do rangers seek out the wild and hate the city? Maybe. That's a background choice for the PC. It is an answer to the question of why a PC is a ranger.
Do rangers hunt/track? Most certainly. But then, so do villagers and people living in/near the wild. So that is not class defining.
However, >> Rangers HUNT & TRACK dangerous creatures << That's their job.
Do rangers lay traps? Probably. How else do you keep the baddies down when you've got so much territory to cover.
Is trap making useful in a typical D&D game? Mabye. There could be a nice mechanic for settting traps and how they interact with combat, etc, but would that be a feature that would draw you to the class when you know the other players are just going to kick the door in anyway? Some groups use a rogue as a stealthy scout, others do not. This is not too different.
I think the ranger should be an equal to the rogue in scouting & stealth. That seems to match what they do.
Should the ranger be a dual wielder with mommy issues? WTF? Keep your silly fan fiction to yourself.
Do ranger's fight hoards? giants? dragons? I don't think the ranger wants to head-on fight anything. But it they do, they are going to sure to take every advantage possible.
Yes, the ranger is methodical and a cheater. He's not going to fight anything in its lair. He's going to lead the critter(s) into a trap and show up only to make the killing blow.
You're never going to see the ranger if he's hunting you. You are not going to get the chance for a face to face, fair combat.
The ranger is going to use deception, misdirection, traps and lots of arrows.
In an ideal world, the "ranger sneaks off, lays a bunch of traps, and kills the bid bad in its sleep" would sell. Unfortunately, we live in a world where people talk about rogue DPR with straight faces, so it seems like the ranger better be able to stand in front of the wizard with the fighter and the rogue killing cannon fodder (because where else are the poorly armored sneaky guys going to be but out in the open right in front of a bunch of well-armed hobgoblins?) or hang back with the wizard casting spells (save the arrows for the harpy cannon fodder in the next dungeon) or else we will be back to "the ranger sucks" threads.
I want a Rove Ranger, because an Explorer is too simple, and we definitely don't want another Renegade thread.
Mechatarrasque wrote:
Wuzzard wrote: