Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Zardnaar Sep 10, 2015 23:25:48	This thread is mostly a look at rangers of previous editions. This is because there seems to be a crisis of identity in regards to the Ranger class. To me this is because they have moved away from what a ranger was in the 1st place due to things like skills being opened up to anyone via backgrounds and other changes over the editions.   1E The 1E ranger is more or less a little bit (opor a lot) overpowered in regards to the other martial classes. It was one of the few classes that got some skills as 1E had no unified skill system as such. The 1E Ranger was more or less based on Aragon being honest.  Anyway The 1E ranger got to use any weapon and any armour which was semi rare in 1E as only Fighters, Paladins, and Rangers had that ability and clerics also got heavy armor. Heavy armor in 1E and 2E had no maximum dex bonus with it so it was actually a major class feature.  They also got 2d8 hit dice at level 1 and could aply their con modifier to each hit dice. From 1st level they got a +1 point of bonus damage per level vs Giants, ettins, Gnolls, Hobgoblins, Kobolds, Ogres, Ogre Magi, Orcs and Trolls. This was in an edition where a Troll might have around 36 hit points, an Orc 1-8 hit points and a Hobgoblin 2-9 hit points. They also got a bonus to surprise opponents (50% probably advantage to stealth rolls in 5E terms), a tracking ability, spells at 8th level (Druidic spells) and magic user spels at 9th level. They also got the ability to use scrying devices at level 10 and attracted followers as well.    They needed high ability scores to qualify and had to be of good alignment and certain races (including Drow elves in UA). Alignment restrictions are a dirty word these days with same players but it does imply a certain flavour and in this case the Ranger as a good aligned defender of the woodlands. In Unearthed Arcana a Ranger also got to use weapon specialization like a fighter. Majpr features of the class IMHO were the favoured enemies, weapons and armor, tracking/skills.   2E The 2E Ranger as heavily nerfed from 1E although most classes were actually nerfed from 1E with the exception of the Thief which got a relative buff. Rangers kept their weapons and armor use but got penalised on skills when not wearing light armors.  They also were proficient in the tracking NWP.   The combat bonuses (favoured enemies) got nerfed to a single type of enemy and they got a +4 bonus to hit that enemy and a penalty on charisma checks vs that enemy. Still they retained a favoured enemy type bonus.  They did pick up dual wielding here at no penalty as long as the off hand weapon was smaller. In practice this really meant longsword and short sword. No twin scimitars which was a 1E racial ability for Drow. The fighters hand book allowed dual longsword/scimiatar use though although it did kind of take the Rangers thing as RAW in the core book only the ranger could dual wield without a major penalty.  They got a semi supernaturall ability (charisma save in 5E terms) vs normal animals. The ranger is now pals with wild animals. At level 8 the ranger could cast spells but only from the plant and animal spheres in effect a spell list for rangers. They get 2d6 followers at level 10 mostly non combat related and they moght get something like a Bear, Wolf, Treant etc. No animal pet as such but with your ranger abilities and spells it was not to hard to get one if you wanted one. Our party ranger had a Elephant named Clive.    Major class abilities were animal bonus, weapons and armor, skills and favoured enemy (+4 to hit 1 type of creature). Once again a good alignment was required which indicated what the Ranger was IMHO.   3.0. The 3.0 Ranger was a bit off an odd beast. Everyone knew the 2E ranger was kind of meh and in the lead up to 3.0 they hyped up the new Ranger. Martials were nerfed though form 2E with the changes to saving throws, xp progression and multiple attacks requiring the full attack action. Favoured enemy as a named mechanic also turned up in 3.0 and the Ranger could pick multiple enemies at level 1,5,10,15 and 20. They also got the TWF feats as bonus feats and 4 skill points per level. In effect they just updated the 2E ranger. Adding a skill system did kind of start to lose classes exclusive access to certain skills though such as track and thief skills. They got the ability to cast spells at level 4 though which was an option in 2E with the Players Option Skills and Powers book.    Still no beastie though as a pet. The class was also front loaded so a single level of Fighter/Ranger/Paladin did all sorts of things for you form a min/max point of view including charisma bonuses to saves, 4 bonus feats etc. The class still more or less blew chunks though. They also dumped the alignment restriction. Here is where the D&D ranger started losing the identity I suppose with erosion of exclusive class skills. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing is up to your PoV I suppose. 3.5.   The 3.5 Ranger I actually liked and I thought it was one of the best classes in 3.5 from a design PoV. They were a dual wielder type thing or an archer at level 2 and from level 1 they had track, favoured enemy, and wild empathy. They lost the ability to use armor except light armor and got a relatively massive 6 skill points a level. 3.5 was the 1st edition where they specifically got a pet as well. Said pet ewas also reasonably balanced as well as they were treated as a Druid of half their level. The Druids pet was a monster and OP, the Rangers pet was about right. They also had good dexterity and wisdom saves. At the time the phrase wilder rogue.  They also had a metric boatload of class abilities one can go and look up if you care enough. Overall I liked the class a lot and it was the best ranger D&D had since 1E. IMHO I would go as far as the best ranger D&D has ever had as the 1E one was a bit OP the 3.5 one was about right just in the wrong edition due to things like CoDzilla.    The common thread from  1E to 3.5 though was tracking, some sort of combat bonus vs “favoured enemies”, spells, and tracking. Most of the rangers could wear any armor and they tended to have some sort of animal empathy ability. The watering down of the ranger class however had started a trend of lost class identity. This was to be shattered in 4E.   4E. The 4E Ranger was an amazing class and a great striker. The main problem with the class however was it was more of a great striker than a Ranger. Most classes in 4E had very similar amounts of skills not that class skills mattered that much anymore. They also cast no spells and had very little in the way really relating to the wilderness. In 3E terms they were more of a Fighter/Rogue than a ranger. A great class, a great striker but not a very good Ranger as such IMHO of course. It had not a lot in common with the classical ranger but bonus points of being a basic class to play though. I found the 4E Rogue to be more interesting but I was not a fan of the striker role or 4E roles in general. I’m not opposed to Rangers being strikers at all just they could also be defenders as well or none of the above in previous editions (play a pacifist hippie ranger if you want).   5E.  I think the Hunter ranger is mostly fine, the beastmaster Ranger is the one everyone seems to have a problem with. This is because they have been overcautious with animal companions since 3.5 due to nightmares IMHO of the Druid animal companions. How many games of 3.5 or Pathfinder have been ruined by the Rangers pet? No I do not regard a pet as an iconic Ranger feature as it was only in 1 edition of D&D (3.5). Rangers were good with animals in 1E/2E but it was not hard coded into the class.    Part of the loss of Ranger identity also has been the nerfing of favoured enemy which most editions of D&D have had the Ranger being fantastic vs certain types of creatures. I think some sub classes of rangers should get a damage bonuses (similar to rage?) or advantage to hit (similar to the avenger Paladin?) If you do not like the Ranger not having a bonus vs certain critters some of the time pick one like the hunter that does. This way you could have several ranger archtypes.   1.       The Hunter Ranger. The neo striker I suppose it deals good damage if you build it right. General 5E type ranger (it’s a decent class right now IMHO).   2.       The classic ranger. Great vs certain types of critters, spells, bonus to tracking and wildness situations. Best outdoor type ranger. Expertise or advantage on certain skill checks perhaps, best Ranger in certain situations.   3.       The beast friend. Wild empathy checks and a pet that only requires a bonus action or no action to command. Said class would not have hunters quarry or other sources of bonus attacks/damage. Best Ranger in regards to animals (note there was a 2E Druid kit named Beast friend).   4.       Maybe a spell less Hunter variant to appeal to the 4E fans. Best damage dealer overall sacrificing spells and some wilderness abilities to do so.
#2 Granville7482 Sep 11, 2015 7:56:21	Nice read. I like the idea of the spell-less Ranger. Or instead of say, a ranger with a normal casting mechanic and a large spell list, perhaps he just picks up a few tokens spell-like abilities that fit his theme along the way. Entagle at level 1, Pass without Trace at level 2, etc.   I also feel like this class was always the class that could capatalize on a trap mechanic. Some people will say the rogue, and they too could fiddle with traps, but I feel like this is a niche untouched by the Ranger with a lot of potential.   OotA has me thinking about how to set up creative ambushes.
#3 Brock_Landers Sep 11, 2015 10:49:15	I mainly want: Tracking, Racial Enemy, Light Magic-Use, Surprise, Wilderness Survival.  It seems many are making this more complicated than it needs to be.
#4 cassi_brazuca Sep 11, 2015 12:22:54	Great text!   Some comments on the 4e Ranger:   Ranger in 4e did have Exploration or Nature as a pre-set trained skill and could use both if he wishes. However that was pretty much it. At the beginning they were skilled with bows and two-weapon fighting. Martial Power 1 introduced the Beastmaster Ranger which as far as I heard is not very good. Martial Power 2 had two more “builds” for Ranger: Hunter Ranger and Marauder Ranger, although I did not look into details about that book so perhaps someone else could comment for us. The 4e Ranger was one of the only few classes considered “Broken” in 4e. As far as I have heard, the Ranger is nowadays considered overpowered due to the way designers underestimated the power of multiple attacks at the beginning of the edition. Other classes had some but the Ranger was a master of those. Except the Beastmaster Ranger, that was not nearly as good.   The other broken class in classic 4e was the Assassin, universally considered underpowered. Seeker and Runepriest were not underpowered per si, they just lack tons of supplements but otherwise they were as good as any class with its entry book.   Or at least that is what I know.   But yes, it was quite a different beast from the Ranger of past editions. It was more of a skirmisher, “hunter” or simply light-armored-high-damage Fighter. I like roles but I use them differently than 4e. Still, it fulfilled a niche and together with the Rogue they were the “explorers” and martial strikers. Not that martial power needed any strikers: weapon damage was pretty good, especially with Superior Weapons.
#5 MechaPilot Sep 11, 2015 18:39:00	Brock_Landers wrote:
#6 dmgorgon Sep 11, 2015 18:58:04	I really like the telepathic links to animals from the various 2e kits for rangers.    Animal bonding and communication should certainly be a core feature of several ranger sub classes.     Of course, the Greenwood Ranger was the most unusual.  He had a abilities like Photosynthesis, Rooting, growing a thrid limb, etc...       It's very hard to say the 2e ranger didn't have everything imaginable going for it.
#7 dmgorgon Sep 11, 2015 19:08:36	Brock_Landers wrote:
#8 MechaPilot Sep 11, 2015 19:14:23	dmgorgon wrote:
#9 dmgorgon Sep 11, 2015 20:17:32	MechaPilot wrote:
(Reply to #9) AaronOfBarbaria	dmgorgon wrote:
#11 Brock_Landers Sep 11, 2015 21:19:14	MechaPilot wrote:
(Reply to #11) Xeviat-DM	Brock_Landers wrote:
#13 Brock_Landers Sep 12, 2015 2:14:37	Xeviat-DM wrote:
#14 dmgorgon Sep 12, 2015 19:16:41	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
(Reply to #14) AaronOfBarbaria	dmgorgon wrote:
#16 cassi_brazuca Sep 13, 2015 6:09:30	Honestly I talk from experience and report. Shared action systems don’t work. Look at 4th Edition: the Beastmaster Ranger was for much time considered underpowered, especially comparing to rival Rangers. I played with a Wizard Summoner and the shared action system plus not so good attacks* made summoning spells not really an option, which was quite a shame. Now the Ranger is suffering from the same problem. It’s also completely weird and immersion breaking. Really, you need to give up your attack to give your pet/summon a command?     *Note: Conjuring spells in 4ewere often better despite the fact that you couldn’t use one as a tank. That happened because of better effects and the fact that the only practical way to counter them was to attack the caster, which, in a careful party, was protected by defenders and leaders.
#17 pauln6 Sep 13, 2015 8:52:55	So what are the simple fixes for the 5e ranger?    Revivify Beast as a low level ritual seems to be very popular - seems like a must to me.  Maybe take the 1e ranger damage bonus and apply to favoured enemies (tiny I know but I'm talking about simple freebies); some generic survival feature that makes rangers better than average on all terrains; maybe a list of terrain specific goodies attached to the favoured terrain feature and improvements (like a short list of terrain-specific walrlock boons), allowing beast companions to share in the pool of the ranger's multiple attacks (likely just one extra attack between them).   Would that be enough to even it up a bit?  I'm not sure that we need to do much, since rangers should be weaker at fighting to allow for them being better at the other pillars.
#18 Xeviat-DM Sep 13, 2015 16:13:12	Aside from my own thread, this is definitely my favorite thread to come out of the Ranger Tsunami of '15. It's great to see what the Ranger was. "Favored Enemy" has been their defining feature, same with stealth and tracking, and spells are a close third.
#19 Einlanzer Sep 13, 2015 17:40:13	pauln6 wrote:
#20 LordTwig Sep 14, 2015 14:11:25	Simple fixes...   Hunter's Mark should be an automatic ability that is powered by spell slots, just like the Paladin Divine Smite.   Primal Awareness gives numbers and directions once per short or long rest.   Favored Enemies gives advantage on attacks.   Beastmaster pets get their own actions on the Ranger's initiative. Remove the pet's increased number of attacks. Command pet to attack target as a bonus action, the pet continues to attack for free. Will guard the Ranger as a default action.   Pet gains Ranger's Proficiency bonus to Armor Class, Dex and Con saves.   Free Revivify Pet as a ritual.   Foe Hunter also applies to a target with your Hunter's Mark on them.
#21 pauln6 Sep 14, 2015 14:12:07	Einlanzer wrote:
(Reply to #21) LordTwig	pauln6 wrote:
#23 pauln6 Sep 14, 2015 14:27:33	LordTwig wrote:
(Reply to #23) LordTwig	pauln6 wrote:
#25 lawrencehoy Sep 15, 2015 5:36:02	LordTwig wrote:
#26 Awesomologist Sep 15, 2015 9:33:15	Zardnaar wrote:
#27 Zardnaar Sep 15, 2015 11:28:08	Awesomologist wrote: