We have the thread about the ranger’s mechanical identity ( to me a Gish base with some sort of survival ability) but what is it non mechanically that separates the ranger from all other classes(and subclasses) and multiclasses? Sort of - how is being a ranger different from being a fighter/sorceror that used an ASI to take skilled: nature, survival, stealth?
The secret knowledge warrior. A character who primarily fights as a warrior but possesses an expanded bag of tricks attributed to mysterious knowledge gleaned from time spent in the deep wilderness. This is different from a woodsman who possesses primarily mundane wilderness skills and would properly be a bush-craft focused rogue.
Not sure you'll get a satisfactory answer because it is such a subjective, open-ended question. Many people's take on Ranger could be satisfied by being a fighter/scout rogue multiclass.
Non mechanically, or thematically, my take on a ranger is a peerless combatant (fighter), who is an expert survivalist/woodsperson (scout rogue), with a mystical connection to nature (druid). Most importantly though a Ranger should be able to uplift their allies, making the party more than the sum of its parts.
Narratively the Ranger is the pinnacle, and in D&D doesn't really work well because they're the hero character, but mechanically (yes I know, not what was asked) they're (rightfully) "inferior" (and I know this will get taken the wrong way, please don't) at fighting to a fighter, at survivalisting™ to a scout rogue (in 2024 it seems, not having read the books themselves though this is hearsay), at mystical naturing to a druid, even though adding all those together they're still awesome.
This is a good answer, mainly because the real class identity emerges from its previous mechanical implementation. People had a concept, then they implemented mechanics, and given time whats left of the mechanics build the identity. It's not the other way around.
Ranger is an half caster wisdom based, usually dexy too. They're in a bad spot because of their basically non existent dedicated spell list. The other half caster is cha based, and has : some of the strongest abilities in the game, some more dedicated spell, dedicated smite spell LIST. Their identity comes from the usage of those options.
Ranger has zephyr strike, and now the revised multi shot/weapon spell, and some full support spell, without the slot for it. (ensnaring strike should be available to druid imo). Ranger need ranger spell. Like actual martial wisdom based spell. Smite isnt really charismy but whatever about the casting stat.
Now ranger abilities revolve around expertise and thats about it. The main strengt or options of the class actually comes from the subclass. So the thematic your asking is as for now not from the ranger but from the subclass. Now I think the thematic subclass strenghts are in a good spot (not awesome but decent).
The survival part is I think simplified with skill checks, the same way social is simplified. But the half casting part is like actually in an oubliette. I personnaly don't feel ranger is an half caster. They should take their martial prowess from a dedicated training with their own spell usage. This is what will defines the ranger if done right.
What do we have ? hunter mark, and furthermore, forced crappy happy hunter mark. I play without that. I'm sad we dont have an half caster wis based. It could be fun.
ok, way, way back (1979) the ranger was a subclass of fighter that gained druid and then arcane spell use at higher levels (>10). they were the woodland expert/survival expert in worlds that were mostly primal wilderness of some sort. this made sense and fit very nicely with the limited options for characters back in the day. Of course, back then the rogue was still the thief, druids were a subclass of clerics, sorcerers, warlocks, etc didn't exist and we often actually spent time adventuring through the wilderness encountering wandering monsters and strange ruins and side quests (you know - all the wilderness stuff we mostly now skip over as if the world was full of superhighways we could speed over from one location to another.) of course, we also mostly still kept track of things like encumbrance, rations, ammunition etc as well. 2e separated the ranger from the fighter (and the druid from the cleric) and brought the spell casting start down to lower levels, but the game wasn't hugely different. with 3e and 5e the game has changed enough to make most of the wilderness travel/exploration leg atrophy and brought in variant subclasses like the scout rogue that do the ranger's job at least as well. I think much of the problem of the ranger as a concept has to do with this change in play style making it difficult to really come up with a unifying concept of what a ranger is in the modern game - what, nonmechanically, makes the ranger special and different from any other class and/or subclass. I can build a fighter/sorcerer or fighter/druid or scout rogue/ druid/sorcerer that basically do everything a Ranger can so why have a ranger anymore? to keep rangers around for the long run they need to have a clear identity outside of their mechanical abilities and I'm just not sure WOTC and the general player community really have such a concept. So I'm asking folks what it is that makes a ranger a ranger in their eyes to see if we can find a consensus on what makes rangers, as a class, different and special from the multiclass and nature/wilderness specialized subclasses. Or is it time for them to either disappear or merge back into some other class as a subclass?
I think Rangers should move well, with speed and with stamina. The Monk & Barbarian also move well, so Ranger needs something to set them apart. I think WotC did this ok, with swim & climb speeds, but missed the mark by not including some sort of overcoming difficult terrain feature.
Rangers should have tactical HUNTING knowledge against beasts and creatures. This should be differentiated from the tactical BATTLEFIELD knowledge of the Fighter. Idk how this would nanifest mechanically. There have been many incarnations in many different RPG's- some more successfully interpreting this attribute than others. But some sort of feature or features that show us that Rangers possess knowledge & experience of how to hunt & attack creatures should be a theme. Drizzt, for example, was taught by Montolio not just how to hunt creatures in the mountains and valleys where they were at the time. Montolio taught Drizzt how to LEARN how to hunt creatures (and have knowledge of his surroundings in general) in any environment.
Rangers should be able to heal or staunch Wounds using herb Lore. Again, idk how this would manifest mechanically, but I think it could be implemented in 5e.
Rangers should be adept at ranged combat, especially with bows & crossbows. This is seen in many of the tropes and literary/cultural examples for Ranger. I know many people are adamant that Rangers not be pigeon-holed into ranged ombat- that the Rangers features should be flexible enough to apply to both ranged and melee combat. However, I'd argue that ranged combat has been significantly weakened in 2024 5e. So, focusing on ranged combat could be a theme that sets the Ranger apart.
Also, I'd say Crafting. Making their own leather armor, their own clothes. Crafting Arrows and bows. Making useful items from the materials available in their surroundings. This could also possibly cover something like setting camp- perhaps Rangers could give a party some kind of benefits for being safe & regaining hitpoints while they short- or long-rest.
Those are the major themes I think of when I think of Ranger. Whether these ideas are realized with features or spells or something else... I think there's a place in D&D (and other RPGs) to have a base class represent these ideas.
Rangers should be adept at ranged combat, especially with bows & crossbows. This is seen in many of the tropes and literary/cultural examples for Ranger. I know many people are adamant that Rangers not be pigeon-holed into ranged ombat- that the Rangers features should be flexible enough to apply to both ranged and melee combat. However, I'd argue that ranged combat has been significantly weakened in 2024 5e. So, focusing on ranged combat could be a theme that sets the Ranger apart.
While I agree with most of your points, I wanted to address this one specifically because I somewhat disagree with it and agree with it.
Ranger does not mean ranged fighter, and there are way too many iconic rangers and ranger-like characters in media to ignore them all and focus too heavily on ranged combat.
That said, I do think being capable of approaching combat with more flexibility than most other classes is an important part of what it means to be a ranger. A ranger who primarily wields a sword should be perfectly comfortable hanging back and attacking from a distance if the situation calls for it, just as a bowman ranger shouldn't be in danger if an enemy gets too close. Being versatile and flexible is a big part of the ranger fantasy in my mind. The ranger should be able to choose how they approach an upcoming fight to take advantage of their opponent's weaknesses, which in turn plays into the ranger's identity as the student of the wilds. The one who tracks, studies, and learns the weaknesses of the enemies they hunt before preparing the perfect counter.
Take a look at the 2 PCs below, neither is officially a ranger yet both effectively fulfill at least my recognition of what a ranger is (a loner so in tune to the wilderness that they can tap into it its deepest nature, skilled at fighting when they have to be, both melee and missile - yet someone that is not at odds with civilization). If PCs like these (or a scout rogue version as these are fighter based), that are clearly rangers in all but name, what makes the ranger class remarkable and desirable - why build a ranger class rather something like these?
don’t misunderstand me, I’m not advocating for the elimination of rangers. Rather, I think they may end up eliminated unless we can define them in such a way that a mechanical core can be designed that is generally superior to PCs like these creating a game space for rangers.
I don't really get all the angst about "I can make a ranger-like character some other way." DnD is full of multiple paths to similar outcomes. That scout rogue exists does not diminish my ranger; I also wonder if any of you have ever played both to really feel out how they might truly be different. Rogues have smaller hit dice and can only use light armor, which makes them significantly more fragile especially at the lower levels. A scout rogue doesn't have magic and doesn't bring the party benefits like Pass Without Trace that a ranger can. A scout rogue doesn't have access to any of the more unique subclasses that come with ranger, like the Swarmkeeper.
I can make a rogue-like character with an Infiltrator Armorer Artificer. Doesn't diminish the rogue in any way. There are multiple ways to make most character concepts and honestly this adds, not detracts, to 5e for me - that I can say think of an idea like "plant mage" and choose a relatively simple option or I can overthink it (overthinking is the best kind of thinking!) and make it some other way.
I think the scout rogue idea is cool, fwiw. It's just another choice for a particular character, and especially fun if you start with a rogue and realize that your party needs those scouting abilities. Indeed, often I find that the subclass I choose is not the subclass I expected to choose when I started at level 1, once I see how the party comes together and what my character brings and needs.
Bringing out a carefully multiclassed 20th level character that is Ranger-like as part of this argument also seems strange, given how few characters get to 20th level. My ranger was fully ranger from Level 1 and did not require any special tuning to be a ranger.
What I love about Ranger is how versatile it is, bringing benefits in combat and travel to the whole party, having some magic, being basically competent utility always even if not typically the very best possible character for a situation. I love that it can shepherd the whole party through difficult terrain or stealthy situations. So maybe my three word archetype description for its role in a party is Livestock Guardian Dog. But you also don't have to play it that way; your ranger can be a loner and expert woodsman, someone who has all the skills to survive alone, more so than any other class.
Keep it simple, go back to the basics intent of the game. Which is to have fun. Game rules are just guidelines that are there for basic gameplay,, but each game table/online gaming sessions are different. It’s not like poker where this hand beats that hand. It’s dependent on what the gamers want, for example my group play we are 80/20% split. Explaining that 80% we stick to the core rules as constituted and homebrew 20%.
so to the original poster, a ranger could be what ever the table decides. In core rules, it’s a balance to a party both damaged based and support (quasi patch healer) to mend before the cleric heals! But design and gameplay it’s all about “how “ each individual wants to create and play..
there’s no real answer except individuality and group needs on what a Ranger is mechanically or gameplay.
FoolishM, my point in the 2 PCs is that you don't need a ranger class anymore because they are a bit of everything to everybody and that you can make a ranger like PC that is every bit as good as a ranger from the get go ( both of those PCs actually come online at L2 when they get spells like a L2 ranger I'm suggesting that in many ways the class has lost its identity because it's such an effective class that everyone (practically) wants to twist it into something different. In addition, if you examine some of my other posts on rangers, you'll find I' not a fan of the current scout rogue - not that there isn't a place for a scout rogue, just that the version existent now is overpowered in the wilderness/survival area. Take away its expertise (unless it wants to use it last two expertise's at higher level) and it would be fine. better yet grant the base ranger those expertises from the get-go and you retain the core concept of the ranger and your wilderness/exploration skill monkey. Make the other changes I suggested in a different thread and the ranger becomes the true superior wilderness/exploration skill monkey and regains a clear sense of purpose and identity.
I don't really get all the angst about "I can make a ranger-like character some other way." DnD is full of multiple paths to similar outcomes. That scout rogue exists does not diminish my ranger; I also wonder if any of you have ever played both to really feel out how they might truly be different. Rogues have smaller hit dice and can only use light armor, which makes them significantly more fragile especially at the lower levels. A scout rogue doesn't have magic and doesn't bring the party benefits like Pass Without Trace that a ranger can. A scout rogue doesn't have access to any of the more unique subclasses that come with ranger, like the Swarmkeeper.
I can make a rogue-like character with an Infiltrator Armorer Artificer. Doesn't diminish the rogue in any way. There are multiple ways to make most character concepts and honestly this adds, not detracts, to 5e for me - that I can say think of an idea like "plant mage" and choose a relatively simple option or I can overthink it (overthinking is the best kind of thinking!) and make it some other way.
I think the scout rogue idea is cool, fwiw. It's just another choice for a particular character, and especially fun if you start with a rogue and realize that your party needs those scouting abilities. Indeed, often I find that the subclass I choose is not the subclass I expected to choose when I started at level 1, once I see how the party comes together and what my character brings and needs.
Bringing out a carefully multiclassed 20th level character that is Ranger-like as part of this argument also seems strange, given how few characters get to 20th level. My ranger was fully ranger from Level 1 and did not require any special tuning to be a ranger.
What I love about Ranger is how versatile it is, bringing benefits in combat and travel to the whole party, having some magic, being basically competent utility always even if not typically the very best possible character for a situation. I love that it can shepherd the whole party through difficult terrain or stealthy situations. So maybe my three word archetype description for its role in a party is Livestock Guardian Dog. But you also don't have to play it that way; your ranger can be a loner and expert woodsman, someone who has all the skills to survive alone, more so than any other class.
This hits the nail on the head for me, well said friend, well said.
The party with a ranger needs to be faster than one without. This is a basic test almost everyone agrees on Even if they treat it like a ribbon feature.
Versatility is a really common part of rangers, so fixing the class to specific weapon builds or playstyles would be anti-ranger.
Some form of unique enemy sense is necessary although there's different approaches that could work (hunter's mark, primal/primeval awareness or even usable spells) but right now 2024 isn't really hitting that mechanic in a satisfactory way. The spells are too generic or too easily undermined to feel like a tracking or detection expert.
I for one also like the idea supply efficiency or unique skills or tools for traveling and combat. Imagine if crafting healing potions or arrow recovery produced 2x results. Or torches and climing pitions were stretched out for more uses. There are other mechanical ways of adding such in and out of combat features, if only wotc could explore them.
I agree with a lot of the sentiment through out the thread and think it might just be removed in 6e (and yes I believe it's coming probably in less than 10 years as 2024 doesn't seem to have the lasting appeal that 2014 had.)
As others have said, the Ranger is the expert warrior. They depend on know-how and, unlike a Battle Commander, are geared to fight alone or with animal companion(s).
I don’t even see spells as essential to the class, but expertise for sure. Further, they need tricks and tactics in which they use their environment to their advantage.
To me, rangers are folks who “range” through the wilderness alone or in small groups exploring it and occasionally returning to civilization. Because of this they have become effective and efficient combatants, skilled or semi skilled in many/most skills/tools and have learned how to manipulate nature (and primal magic) to move through the wilderness quietly and tracelessly ( or nearly so) and for combat - especially in terms of controlling/ limiting the numbers of foes they have to meet at once. For me the “mechanics” for this would involve starting with expertise in nature and survival and two other skills at L1. Then one additional expertise of their choice at a higher level and the jack of all trades ability as well. At L1 (or maybe 3) they should get +5’ of movement with the roving ability later. They should enhance a party’s overland travel rates by 10%, have advantage on tracking rolls and generate disadvantage for anyone trying to track them or their party. I would also put in benefits to collecting food even at normal rates of movement even though this is situational at best given modern playing/DMing styles. As for spells I would love to see some creative nature spells as well as some different takes on standard spells. Here are some (very) rough ideas: 1) Ball lightning I: similar to Melf’s meteors or snilloc’s snowballs but with lightning damage and maybe thunder damage. 2) Ball Lightning II: a lightning version of fireball. 3) Flame spear: a flame version of lightning bolt. 4) Tree fall: causes one or more trees to rip out of the ground falling along a line designated. The level of the spell slot used determines the size of the tree. The tree and its limbs do both crushing and piercing damage on a hit with a Dex save for half damage. 5) pungi field: an area effect spell similar to spiked growth that does both piercing and poison damage to those in its area. 6) Summon Swarm: calls in a swarm of small animals (bats, rats, mosquitoes, etc) that attack and distract foes granting the party advantage to hit.
im sure I could come up with more but a pc based off those mechanical pieces might help to bring back not only the ranger but “Ranging” campaigns as well providing a renewed game space for rangers as a class.
Growing up I was always the smallest and toughest around. Once seperated my collar bone and 3 ribs from the sternum and finished the last 45 seconds of a wrestling match match. I feel like the Ranger is the "So you just lost a imb in battle? Rub some dirt on it and go finish this fight" class. Gritty, tough, pushes past the pain or past the impossible victory to find a way to carry on.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
We have the thread about the ranger’s mechanical identity ( to me a Gish base with some sort of survival ability) but what is it non mechanically that separates the ranger from all other classes(and subclasses) and multiclasses? Sort of - how is being a ranger different from being a fighter/sorceror that used an ASI to take skilled: nature, survival, stealth?
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
The secret knowledge warrior. A character who primarily fights as a warrior but possesses an expanded bag of tricks attributed to mysterious knowledge gleaned from time spent in the deep wilderness. This is different from a woodsman who possesses primarily mundane wilderness skills and would properly be a bush-craft focused rogue.
Not sure you'll get a satisfactory answer because it is such a subjective, open-ended question. Many people's take on Ranger could be satisfied by being a fighter/scout rogue multiclass.
Non mechanically, or thematically, my take on a ranger is a peerless combatant (fighter), who is an expert survivalist/woodsperson (scout rogue), with a mystical connection to nature (druid). Most importantly though a Ranger should be able to uplift their allies, making the party more than the sum of its parts.
Narratively the Ranger is the pinnacle, and in D&D doesn't really work well because they're the hero character, but mechanically (yes I know, not what was asked) they're (rightfully) "inferior" (and I know this will get taken the wrong way, please don't) at fighting to a fighter, at survivalisting™ to a scout rogue (in 2024 it seems, not having read the books themselves though this is hearsay), at mystical naturing to a druid, even though adding all those together they're still awesome.
This is a good answer, mainly because the real class identity emerges from its previous mechanical implementation. People had a concept, then they implemented mechanics, and given time whats left of the mechanics build the identity. It's not the other way around.
Ranger is an half caster wisdom based, usually dexy too.
They're in a bad spot because of their basically non existent dedicated spell list.
The other half caster is cha based, and has : some of the strongest abilities in the game, some more dedicated spell, dedicated smite spell LIST.
Their identity comes from the usage of those options.
Ranger has zephyr strike, and now the revised multi shot/weapon spell, and some full support spell, without the slot for it. (ensnaring strike should be available to druid imo).
Ranger need ranger spell. Like actual martial wisdom based spell. Smite isnt really charismy but whatever about the casting stat.
Now ranger abilities revolve around expertise and thats about it. The main strengt or options of the class actually comes from the subclass.
So the thematic your asking is as for now not from the ranger but from the subclass.
Now I think the thematic subclass strenghts are in a good spot (not awesome but decent).
The survival part is I think simplified with skill checks, the same way social is simplified. But the half casting part is like actually in an oubliette.
I personnaly don't feel ranger is an half caster. They should take their martial prowess from a dedicated training with their own spell usage. This is what will defines the ranger if done right.
What do we have ? hunter mark, and furthermore, forced crappy happy hunter mark.
I play without that. I'm sad we dont have an half caster wis based. It could be fun.
ok, way, way back (1979) the ranger was a subclass of fighter that gained druid and then arcane spell use at higher levels (>10). they were the woodland expert/survival expert in worlds that were mostly primal wilderness of some sort. this made sense and fit very nicely with the limited options for characters back in the day. Of course, back then the rogue was still the thief, druids were a subclass of clerics, sorcerers, warlocks, etc didn't exist and we often actually spent time adventuring through the wilderness encountering wandering monsters and strange ruins and side quests (you know - all the wilderness stuff we mostly now skip over as if the world was full of superhighways we could speed over from one location to another.) of course, we also mostly still kept track of things like encumbrance, rations, ammunition etc as well. 2e separated the ranger from the fighter (and the druid from the cleric) and brought the spell casting start down to lower levels, but the game wasn't hugely different. with 3e and 5e the game has changed enough to make most of the wilderness travel/exploration leg atrophy and brought in variant subclasses like the scout rogue that do the ranger's job at least as well. I think much of the problem of the ranger as a concept has to do with this change in play style making it difficult to really come up with a unifying concept of what a ranger is in the modern game - what, nonmechanically, makes the ranger special and different from any other class and/or subclass. I can build a fighter/sorcerer or fighter/druid or scout rogue/ druid/sorcerer that basically do everything a Ranger can so why have a ranger anymore? to keep rangers around for the long run they need to have a clear identity outside of their mechanical abilities and I'm just not sure WOTC and the general player community really have such a concept. So I'm asking folks what it is that makes a ranger a ranger in their eyes to see if we can find a consensus on what makes rangers, as a class, different and special from the multiclass and nature/wilderness specialized subclasses. Or is it time for them to either disappear or merge back into some other class as a subclass?
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I think Rangers should move well, with speed and with stamina. The Monk & Barbarian also move well, so Ranger needs something to set them apart. I think WotC did this ok, with swim & climb speeds, but missed the mark by not including some sort of overcoming difficult terrain feature.
Rangers should have tactical HUNTING knowledge against beasts and creatures. This should be differentiated from the tactical BATTLEFIELD knowledge of the Fighter. Idk how this would nanifest mechanically. There have been many incarnations in many different RPG's- some more successfully interpreting this attribute than others. But some sort of feature or features that show us that Rangers possess knowledge & experience of how to hunt & attack creatures should be a theme. Drizzt, for example, was taught by Montolio not just how to hunt creatures in the mountains and valleys where they were at the time. Montolio taught Drizzt how to LEARN how to hunt creatures (and have knowledge of his surroundings in general) in any environment.
Rangers should be able to heal or staunch Wounds using herb Lore. Again, idk how this would manifest mechanically, but I think it could be implemented in 5e.
Rangers should be adept at ranged combat, especially with bows & crossbows. This is seen in many of the tropes and literary/cultural examples for Ranger. I know many people are adamant that Rangers not be pigeon-holed into ranged ombat- that the Rangers features should be flexible enough to apply to both ranged and melee combat. However, I'd argue that ranged combat has been significantly weakened in 2024 5e. So, focusing on ranged combat could be a theme that sets the Ranger apart.
Also, I'd say Crafting. Making their own leather armor, their own clothes. Crafting Arrows and bows. Making useful items from the materials available in their surroundings. This could also possibly cover something like setting camp- perhaps Rangers could give a party some kind of benefits for being safe & regaining hitpoints while they short- or long-rest.
Those are the major themes I think of when I think of Ranger. Whether these ideas are realized with features or spells or something else... I think there's a place in D&D (and other RPGs) to have a base class represent these ideas.
While I agree with most of your points, I wanted to address this one specifically because I somewhat disagree with it and agree with it.
Ranger does not mean ranged fighter, and there are way too many iconic rangers and ranger-like characters in media to ignore them all and focus too heavily on ranged combat.
That said, I do think being capable of approaching combat with more flexibility than most other classes is an important part of what it means to be a ranger. A ranger who primarily wields a sword should be perfectly comfortable hanging back and attacking from a distance if the situation calls for it, just as a bowman ranger shouldn't be in danger if an enemy gets too close. Being versatile and flexible is a big part of the ranger fantasy in my mind. The ranger should be able to choose how they approach an upcoming fight to take advantage of their opponent's weaknesses, which in turn plays into the ranger's identity as the student of the wilds. The one who tracks, studies, and learns the weaknesses of the enemies they hunt before preparing the perfect counter.
Take a look at the 2 PCs below, neither is officially a ranger yet both effectively fulfill at least my recognition of what a ranger is (a loner so in tune to the wilderness that they can tap into it its deepest nature, skilled at fighting when they have to be, both melee and missile - yet someone that is not at odds with civilization). If PCs like these (or a scout rogue version as these are fighter based), that are clearly rangers in all but name, what makes the ranger class remarkable and desirable - why build a ranger class rather something like these?
1) https://www.dndbeyond.com/sheet-pdfs/wcwilson82355_131013765.pdf
2) https://www.dndbeyond.com/sheet-pdfs/wcwilson82355_130951267.pdf
don’t misunderstand me, I’m not advocating for the elimination of rangers. Rather, I think they may end up eliminated unless we can define them in such a way that a mechanical core can be designed that is generally superior to PCs like these creating a game space for rangers.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I don't really get all the angst about "I can make a ranger-like character some other way." DnD is full of multiple paths to similar outcomes. That scout rogue exists does not diminish my ranger; I also wonder if any of you have ever played both to really feel out how they might truly be different. Rogues have smaller hit dice and can only use light armor, which makes them significantly more fragile especially at the lower levels. A scout rogue doesn't have magic and doesn't bring the party benefits like Pass Without Trace that a ranger can. A scout rogue doesn't have access to any of the more unique subclasses that come with ranger, like the Swarmkeeper.
I can make a rogue-like character with an Infiltrator Armorer Artificer. Doesn't diminish the rogue in any way. There are multiple ways to make most character concepts and honestly this adds, not detracts, to 5e for me - that I can say think of an idea like "plant mage" and choose a relatively simple option or I can overthink it (overthinking is the best kind of thinking!) and make it some other way.
I think the scout rogue idea is cool, fwiw. It's just another choice for a particular character, and especially fun if you start with a rogue and realize that your party needs those scouting abilities. Indeed, often I find that the subclass I choose is not the subclass I expected to choose when I started at level 1, once I see how the party comes together and what my character brings and needs.
Bringing out a carefully multiclassed 20th level character that is Ranger-like as part of this argument also seems strange, given how few characters get to 20th level. My ranger was fully ranger from Level 1 and did not require any special tuning to be a ranger.
What I love about Ranger is how versatile it is, bringing benefits in combat and travel to the whole party, having some magic, being basically competent utility always even if not typically the very best possible character for a situation. I love that it can shepherd the whole party through difficult terrain or stealthy situations. So maybe my three word archetype description for its role in a party is Livestock Guardian Dog. But you also don't have to play it that way; your ranger can be a loner and expert woodsman, someone who has all the skills to survive alone, more so than any other class.
Keep it simple, go back to the basics intent of the game. Which is to have fun. Game rules are just guidelines that are there for basic gameplay,, but each game table/online gaming sessions are different. It’s not like poker where this hand beats that hand. It’s dependent on what the gamers want, for example my group play we are 80/20% split. Explaining that 80% we stick to the core rules as constituted and homebrew 20%.
so to the original poster, a ranger could be what ever the table decides. In core rules, it’s a balance to a party both damaged based and support (quasi patch healer) to mend before the cleric heals! But design and gameplay it’s all about “how “ each individual wants to create and play..
there’s no real answer except individuality and group needs on what a Ranger is mechanically or gameplay.
FoolishM, my point in the 2 PCs is that you don't need a ranger class anymore because they are a bit of everything to everybody and that you can make a ranger like PC that is every bit as good as a ranger from the get go ( both of those PCs actually come online at L2 when they get spells like a L2 ranger I'm suggesting that in many ways the class has lost its identity because it's such an effective class that everyone (practically) wants to twist it into something different.
In addition, if you examine some of my other posts on rangers, you'll find I' not a fan of the current scout rogue - not that there isn't a place for a scout rogue, just that the version existent now is overpowered in the wilderness/survival area. Take away its expertise (unless it wants to use it last two expertise's at higher level) and it would be fine. better yet grant the base ranger those expertises from the get-go and you retain the core concept of the ranger and your wilderness/exploration skill monkey. Make the other changes I suggested in a different thread and the ranger becomes the true superior wilderness/exploration skill monkey and regains a clear sense of purpose and identity.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
This hits the nail on the head for me, well said friend, well said.
The party with a ranger needs to be faster than one without. This is a basic test almost everyone agrees on Even if they treat it like a ribbon feature.
Versatility is a really common part of rangers, so fixing the class to specific weapon builds or playstyles would be anti-ranger.
Some form of unique enemy sense is necessary although there's different approaches that could work (hunter's mark, primal/primeval awareness or even usable spells) but right now 2024 isn't really hitting that mechanic in a satisfactory way. The spells are too generic or too easily undermined to feel like a tracking or detection expert.
I for one also like the idea supply efficiency or unique skills or tools for traveling and combat. Imagine if crafting healing potions or arrow recovery produced 2x results. Or torches and climing pitions were stretched out for more uses. There are other mechanical ways of adding such in and out of combat features, if only wotc could explore them.
I agree with a lot of the sentiment through out the thread and think it might just be removed in 6e (and yes I believe it's coming probably in less than 10 years as 2024 doesn't seem to have the lasting appeal that 2014 had.)
As others have said, the Ranger is the expert warrior. They depend on know-how and, unlike a Battle Commander, are geared to fight alone or with animal companion(s).
I don’t even see spells as essential to the class, but expertise for sure. Further, they need tricks and tactics in which they use their environment to their advantage.
To me, rangers are folks who “range” through the wilderness alone or in small groups exploring it and occasionally returning to civilization. Because of this they have become effective and efficient combatants, skilled or semi skilled in many/most skills/tools and have learned how to manipulate nature (and primal magic) to move through the wilderness quietly and tracelessly ( or nearly so) and for combat - especially in terms of controlling/ limiting the numbers of foes they have to meet at once. For me the “mechanics” for this would involve starting with expertise in nature and survival and two other skills at L1. Then one additional expertise of their choice at a higher level and the jack of all trades ability as well. At L1 (or maybe 3) they should get +5’ of movement with the roving ability later. They should enhance a party’s overland travel rates by 10%, have advantage on tracking rolls and generate disadvantage for anyone trying to track them or their party. I would also put in benefits to collecting food even at normal rates of movement even though this is situational at best given modern playing/DMing styles. As for spells I would love to see some creative nature spells as well as some different takes on standard spells. Here are some (very) rough ideas:
1) Ball lightning I: similar to Melf’s meteors or snilloc’s snowballs but with lightning damage and maybe thunder damage.
2) Ball Lightning II: a lightning version of fireball.
3) Flame spear: a flame version of lightning bolt.
4) Tree fall: causes one or more trees to rip out of the ground falling along a line designated. The level of the spell slot used determines the size of the tree. The tree and its limbs do both crushing and piercing damage on a hit with a Dex save for half damage.
5) pungi field: an area effect spell similar to spiked growth that does both piercing and poison damage to those in its area.
6) Summon Swarm: calls in a swarm of small animals (bats, rats, mosquitoes, etc) that attack and distract foes granting the party advantage to hit.
im sure I could come up with more but a pc based off those mechanical pieces might help to bring back not only the ranger but “Ranging” campaigns as well providing a renewed game space for rangers as a class.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Growing up I was always the smallest and toughest around. Once seperated my collar bone and 3 ribs from the sternum and finished the last 45 seconds of a wrestling match match. I feel like the Ranger is the "So you just lost a imb in battle? Rub some dirt on it and go finish this fight" class. Gritty, tough, pushes past the pain or past the impossible victory to find a way to carry on.