I, at least, Was looking for flavor in the text of new class. I am running a L3 ranger as an NPC in a campaign I’m running right now. After 40 years of playing rangers as well as RL experience I can make Just about anything play like I envision a ranger should be played. There used to be things that made the ranger standout, that highlighted his skills and abilities in the wilderness. Now there is very little of that - yes he has primal spells and only he and the Druid have them AT THE MOMENT. However I suspect that the Sorceror will still be a known caster not a prepared caster and there will be at least 1 subclass of sorceror that is allowed primal spells so then how does the ranger differentiate him/herself from a fighter-sorceror multiclass with nature, survival and primal spells or are they effectively the same?
Why are you concerned with "what if's" ? That seems like a waste of time. Look at the Ranger in this UA. It has everything it needs to be a master at survival and nature, including spells to enhance that role. And it can do that role without completely nullifying the challenges of the Exploration Pillar by merely existing.
I, at least, Was looking for flavor in the text of new class. I am running a L3 ranger as an NPC in a campaign I’m running right now. After 40 years of playing rangers as well as RL experience I can make Just about anything play like I envision a ranger should be played. There used to be things that made the ranger standout, that highlighted his skills and abilities in the wilderness. Now there is very little of that - yes he has primal spells and only he and the Druid have them AT THE MOMENT. However I suspect that the Sorceror will still be a known caster not a prepared caster and there will be at least 1 subclass of sorceror that is allowed primal spells so then how does the ranger differentiate him/herself from a fighter-sorceror multiclass with nature, survival and primal spells or are they effectively the same?
expertise, roving, nature's viel and feral senses in the higher levels. Tireless. Expertise isn't something to scoff at. And you are jumping to conclusions about how much the sorcerer will have access to the primal list. And do you honestly think at level 5 the figher/sorcerer multi-class is going to be able to do the same as the level 5 ranger? How about level 9? when the ranger has 4 expertise skills (nature, survival, perception, and pick one more that you think fits the flavor).
Are you suggesting that the druid doesn't have anything to make them "naturey" because all they have is wildshape and spells?
Ranger is probably the one class that most has this discussion about the need to preserve "flavor". Every class has their stereotypical default... the perverted, silly bard, the stupid, violent barbarian, the nerdy, intelligent Wizard... but none of those classes have any class features that require them to act that way. Ranger was unique that it probably did the most, mechanically, to make the class focus on its stereotype.
I think it is fair, though, to worry that the Ranger doesn't have enough of its own mechanical identity to survive without flavor. I'm personally pretty happy with them being kind of the "wild" version of a Paladin, especially with the focus shifted to Hunter's Mark as kind of the Ranger version of Smites... a lower die tied to the damage increase, but the ability to keep up that damage over a longer period of time.
I kind of like the idea of shifting to have a dedicated "Gish" class for both Divine and Wild magics... I think that it's ultimately more interesting if Arcane casters don't have a dedicated Gish glass, since that's the largest spell list... so it would be good if the game is balanced a bit by Wild and Divine casters largely having more combat options outside of spellcasting, while Arcane casters need to rely more heavily on their actual magic.
Well, I wouldn't say the one class. The other one that comes to mind for me is the Druid, which tends to have a very rigid idea about what it's supposed to be (to the point of even having esoteric flavor rules like no metal armor baked into class features). It's probably not coincidental that the two classes share some similarities in their thematic backgrounds too.
IMO what makes the ranger stand out as unique, interesting and fun is that it's a highly self sufficient blend of primal magic and martial ability. To be entirely blunt, I think a much higher percentage of players who picked up the ranger did it for those reasons, and not because they class could forage for food better than normal in certain terrains.
Well, I wouldn't say the one class. The other one that comes to mind for me is the Druid, which tends to have a very rigid idea about what it's supposed to be (to the point of even having esoteric flavor rules like no metal armor baked into class features). It's probably not coincidental that the two classes share some similarities in their thematic backgrounds too.
I think that's true, but I think the difference is that the Druid has always been mechanically strong, while the Ranger struggled until it got some newer subclasses and optional rules. So even if the Druid class has similar flavor challenges, if the Druid class doesn't do more with their flavoring players have always been still generally happy with the class.
The ranger appeals to me because I can see how it branches skills across the whole fantasy world. There are expectations of how they interact across all three pillars. They have a mix of mundane skills and training and magic.
The ranger has always been "strong" in the sense of reliability in combat and preparation advantages.
Here's the problem just because a lot of players only care about combat prowess. It dosen't mean the rest should be ignored or shoehorned into the already limited resources of 1/2 spellcasting.
By focusing on combat only, it changes the gamplay loop. This change has chances of ruining the appeal of many people who favor ranger for general appeal.
By focusing on combat only, it changes the gamplay loop.
Yeah, fair. But that's not the goal anyways. Few (if any) people are advocating for the class to be 'only combat', and that's definitely not an accurate description of the class itself as it exists either. The ranger, both in 5e and the playtest, is very much a generalist, sort of one part skill expert (within a specific scope), one part martial, one part spellcaster. That's a big part of the drive of the class (and probably a big partof why some people don't like it too, but whatever).
I think that's true, but I think the difference is that the Druid has always been mechanically strong, while the Ranger struggled until it got some newer subclasses and optional rules. So even if the Druid class has similar flavor challenges, if the Druid class doesn't do more with their flavoring players have always been still generally happy with the class.
yeah, I think that's reasonable. Although I'd say on the whole the ranger's issues were more with perception and a fixation on a few specific problems rather than struggling in general (I also think druids are kind of in a weird spot design wise too, but that's for another thread).
There seems to be a divide in the debate on Rangers between people who think that they need further unique features to reinforce the flavor and those who think the spells they gain give them this flavor. I think there is little doubt that the revised 5e Ranger and the 1DD Ranger both seem quite competent in combat, and if a Ranger chooses expertise in Survival and Nature, they have at least some general abilities guaranteed. I guess what my question would be is, what (in addition to Hunter's Mark) would be the existing spells that give them the extra boost to classic ranger abilities that fills in this flavor? I don't have a lot of experience with the class, but is there a lack of spells that give them special tracking/hunting/foraging abilities? If the spells exist, are they merely underused because there are other spells that seem much more useful due to their in-combat applications?
I guess my point of view is that if the flavor of the Ranger is merely lost because people are choosing not to take the flavorful spells, then that is more of a problem with the people who are building them to be exclusively optimized for combat and not their out-of-combat/exploration roles. If there truly is a lack of spells that reinforce the fantasy, then it seems to me to be a simpler fix to just add some to the Primal spell list instead of making up new features. Some combination of the two also seems a reasonable way to proceed, but the spellcasting ability with slots seems like a perfectly reasonable way to solve the problem that I would guess might be easier to balance while providing players a more flexible framework to build the character they want.
They could narrow the Expertise to Stealth and Survival and Perception and Nature. That's very Ranger-flavorful. They could add in certain spells from Tasha's Primeval Awareness like Talk to Animals. Lots of people loved that.
But then, we get the people that complain that, no, we don't want to be forced to take those specific skills or have those specific spells. Can we trade them out? That same exact thing is happening with the Bards and their Song of Restoration. Some people don't want the healing and are asking to swap them out. And what about the urban ranger?
You just can't win. Give some people what they want, and others will hate you for it. "Bland" ranger is flexible for any environment. "Flavorful" ranger is terrible outside of specific circumstances.
There really aren’t that many non combat, exploration enhancing primal spells: L0 - druidcraft (starting fires etc.) L1 - animal friendship, speak w/ animals, create water, detect poison, goodbury, purify food & drink L2 - beast sense?, enhance ability?, find traps, locate animals and plants, pass w/o trace, L3 - plant growth, water breathing L4 - control water, giant insect? L5 - commune w/ nature, wall of stone?
Druids get some additional higher level spells like find the path and wind walk? At L6 and animal shapes and control weather at L8 but rangers don’t get those. So the selection is fairly limited - this is a place where they could well mine previous versions for additional primal spells as well as homebrewing a few or devising some ranger specific magic items.
There really aren’t that many non combat, exploration enhancing primal spells: L0 - druidcraft (starting fires etc.) L1 - animal friendship, speak w/ animals, create water, detect poison, goodbury, purify food & drink L2 - beast sense?, enhance ability?, find traps, locate animals and plants, pass w/o trace, L3 - plant growth, water breathing L4 - control water, giant insect? L5 - commune w/ nature, wall of stone?
Druids get some additional higher level spells like find the path and wind walk? At L6 and animal shapes and control weather at L8 but rangers don’t get those. So the selection is fairly limited - this is a place where they could well mine previous versions for additional primal spells as well as homebrewing a few or devising some ranger specific magic items.
Thank you for putting together this list, but these seem to me to be fairly flavorful and plenty to choose from. Looking through the Primal list myself, I might add Animal Messenger (2), Locate Object (2), Meld into Stone (3), Speak with Plants (3), Locate Creature (4), and Tree Stride (5) onto what you have there, and of course there seem to be a fair number of flavorful Ranger combat spells on the list as well (including Hunter's Mark as a hybrid combat/exploration type). I can't say I agree with these being particularly limited, since if a Ranger prepared all of these they essentially wouldn't have room for any other spells. What other abilities would be needed in addition to these to really flesh out a classic Ranger archetype?
are there spells that give Rangers special tracking/hunting/foraging abilities? looking back at ye old AD&D rule supplement #2136 "The Complete Ranger's Handbook," i see there used to be more spells. were they thematic spells, though? and were they useful?? (below, spells new to ranger handbook in bold with description)
First Level Spells
Allergy Field -- a big (invisible?) cloud that causes itchy eyes and headache (-1 penalty to 1d20 tests) for a few turns. thematically on brand, this only works near many plants which is likely a forest or meadow. kinda neat.
Animal Friendship
Entangle
Invisibility to Animals
Locate Animal or Plants
Log of Everburning
Pass Without Trace ...from back when this was for footprints and scent, not stealth checks. feels like something a ranger would help his party accomplish even without burning a mistletoe leaf and radiating a dweomer. shrug.
Recover Trail -- lost your quarry's trail while tracking proficiently? magic will cause grass to dance around the footprints you need. also negates pass without trace with regard to disguising a trail. thematic but rather specialized to dedicate a spell slot to at all times.
Revitalize Animal -- transfer some of your hit points into a wounded animal. you feel dizzy (-1 penalty) until the hp recovers hours later. why not just cast cure light wounds?
Shillelagh
Second Level Spells
Animal Eyes -- point at an animal, get to see through it's eyes. no control over where it looks, though. reminds me of killing time waiting for raids in World of Warcraft.
Barkskin
Charm Person or Mammal
Goodberry ...here's your foraging
Locate/Obscure Animal Follower -- find your pet but only if already within shouting distance. alternatively, obscure/protect the pet from crystal ball peepers.
Messenger
Snake Charm
Speak with Animals
Trip ...feels druidy but also what tracking, running, hunting ranger could pass up this clever woodsman's trick?
Warp Wood ...druid's Knock spell. seems like a real martial class would just kick whatever dead wood is in the way.
Third Level Spells
Animal Trick -- an animal is instantly (but briefly) able to follow simple commands attentively. "don't eat me! break down the cell door!"
Call Follower -- open book to table indicating max number of pets allowed per level, then get DM's attention and waggle eyebrows meaningfully. results may vary. DM has final say.
Chatterbark -- laboriously carve a face in a tree, wake tree-face as if from a nap, then ask tree-face one question it. tree says "lol, i dunno" and face disappears. best example i've ever seen of why original rangers were not simply martial-type druids (you must harm the tree to initiate??). at the same time, this really does feel like thematically hands-on longsword lumberjack magic.
Hold Animal
Plant Control
Polymorph Plant -- permanent change from one living plant, fungus, or mold to another. only 50% effective if used for medical purposes or to create spell component. no size constraints (blade of grass to wide, towering redwood? okay.), but must become natural and typical version of the new thing (no mushroom turned into a giant cornstalk that produces apples). druid stuff.
Slow Rot
Snare ...on brand for a hunter/trapper (and now moved to level 1 for everyone to enjoy)
Spike Growth
Summon Insects
Tree ...tree? tree. (more druid stuff)
Fourth Level Spells
etc...
in conclusion, yeah, things may have been a bit more thematically tied to spells in the past but not overwhelmingly so. this is assuming, of course, that you bought a separate supplement to the game and your DM bothered to read it. even then, the spells weren't spectacular. it seems like you'd need twice as many spell slots today to make that work and at that point why not simply convert them to class/subclass abilities? anyway, this analysis ignores the massive pile of nuanced "non-combat abilities" introduced in that same ranger handbook. there's a lot of emphasis on tracking, survival, defusing random encounters with beasts, and training a menagerie of pets. that bit is a definite thumb on the scale of the "skill expert" side of things. take these above spells with a grain of salt.
The trick is that a 5e ranger is a KNOWN spells caster so learning anything other than combat spells was not really an option. The UA ranger is a PREPARED spells caster so they can change their spells on a daily basis to cope with perceived needs at the start of the day. So adding spells like recover trail become useful additions now. Some of those old spells have undergone some significant changes over the different editions as well and while the name might survive the innards might well be different.
The trick is that a 5e ranger is a KNOWN spells caster so learning anything other than combat spells was not really an option. The UA ranger is a PREPARED spells caster so they can change their spells on a daily basis to cope with perceived needs at the start of the day. So adding spells like recover trail become useful additions now. Some of those old spells have undergone some significant changes over the different editions as well and while the name might survive the innards might well be different.
I would definitely agree that the switch to being a prepared caster will also aid in a Ranger being able to utilize more flavorful, exploration-focused spells when the situation calls for them. Hopefully a few more spells will be provided and subclass features (such as Hunter's Lore) will be given to each subclass to reinforce their own particular focus.
There really aren’t that many non combat, exploration enhancing primal spells: L0 - druidcraft (starting fires etc.) L1 - animal friendship, speak w/ animals, create water, detect poison, goodbury, purify food & drink L2 - beast sense?, enhance ability?, find traps, locate animals and plants, pass w/o trace, L3 - plant growth, water breathing L4 - control water, giant insect? L5 - commune w/ nature, wall of stone?
Druids get some additional higher level spells like find the path and wind walk? At L6 and animal shapes and control weather at L8 but rangers don’t get those. So the selection is fairly limited - this is a place where they could well mine previous versions for additional primal spells as well as homebrewing a few or devising some ranger specific magic items.
Thank you for putting together this list, but these seem to me to be fairly flavorful and plenty to choose from. Looking through the Primal list myself, I might add Animal Messenger (2), Locate Object (2), Meld into Stone (3), Speak with Plants (3), Locate Creature (4), and Tree Stride (5) onto what you have there, and of course there seem to be a fair number of flavorful Ranger combat spells on the list as well (including Hunter's Mark as a hybrid combat/exploration type). I can't say I agree with these being particularly limited, since if a Ranger prepared all of these they essentially wouldn't have room for any other spells. What other abilities would be needed in addition to these to really flesh out a classic Ranger archetype?
The problem comes with the area where the spells are insufficient. Often times the spell use restrictions or costs make them unplayable.
Players who rely on spells are over mundane features often complain about needing free uses Or more access.
Some dms also have a hard time with rules that are not specifically spelled out. In a worst case senario I've seen new dms not let shovels dig a hole but instead asking what spells they had. Or another example forcing animal spells where handling should suffice.
Features that are tied outside the spell economy reminds Players that the world functions even if it's a different function from the group known as adventurers.
By having ranger rules tied to some mundane options 1. it Grounds the mechanics to a functional world (even if an unrealistic fantasy) 2. It provides alternative build options by relying on spells certain specialty builds become harder. Int ranger, low wisdom high physical traits, low con rangers ect
If there are major rewrites of the spells it may help but I don't see how having a ranger and druid in the same party will make both feel valuable in onednd. Where in 5e they really worked together well.
Right now it feels like the whole ranger is overshadowed by huntersmark and prepared spells To where the other implications are under explored.
There really aren’t that many non combat, exploration enhancing primal spells: L0 - druidcraft (starting fires etc.) L1 - animal friendship, speak w/ animals, create water, detect poison, goodbury, purify food & drink L2 - beast sense?, enhance ability?, find traps, locate animals and plants, pass w/o trace, L3 - plant growth, water breathing L4 - control water, giant insect? L5 - commune w/ nature, wall of stone?
Druids get some additional higher level spells like find the path and wind walk? At L6 and animal shapes and control weather at L8 but rangers don’t get those. So the selection is fairly limited - this is a place where they could well mine previous versions for additional primal spells as well as homebrewing a few or devising some ranger specific magic items.
Thank you for putting together this list, but these seem to me to be fairly flavorful and plenty to choose from. Looking through the Primal list myself, I might add Animal Messenger (2), Locate Object (2), Meld into Stone (3), Speak with Plants (3), Locate Creature (4), and Tree Stride (5) onto what you have there, and of course there seem to be a fair number of flavorful Ranger combat spells on the list as well (including Hunter's Mark as a hybrid combat/exploration type). I can't say I agree with these being particularly limited, since if a Ranger prepared all of these they essentially wouldn't have room for any other spells. What other abilities would be needed in addition to these to really flesh out a classic Ranger archetype?
The problem comes with the area where the spells are insufficient. Often times the spell use restrictions or costs make them unplayable.
Players who rely on spells are over mundane features often complain about needing free uses Or more access.
Some dms also have a hard time with rules that are not specifically spelled out. In a worst case senario I've seen new dms not let shovels dig a hole but instead asking what spells they had. Or another example forcing animal spells where handling should suffice.
Features that are tied outside the spell economy reminds Players that the world functions even if it's a different function from the group known as adventurers.
By having ranger rules tied to some mundane options 1. it Grounds the mechanics to a functional world (even if an unrealistic fantasy) 2. It provides alternative build options by relying on spells certain specialty builds become harder. Int ranger, low wisdom high physical traits, low con rangers ect
If there are major rewrites of the spells it may help but I don't see how having a ranger and druid in the same party will make both feel valuable in onednd. Where in 5e they really worked together well.
Right now it feels like the whole ranger is overshadowed by huntersmark and prepared spells To where the other implications are under explored.
Well not allowing people dig a hole with shovels is about equivalent to the example Yurei made on another UA thread of having people make a skill check to spread jam on toast. Really if someone is that bad at running a game and understanding the imagined world, there is no set of rules sufficient to keep them from screwing up.
I really do not have much problem with Druids and Rangers having a fair amount of overlap, just like Clerics and Paladins can sometimes step on one another's toes.
Your point about grounding the Ranger through mundane options is certainly valid. I personally do not have a problem imagining that the spells are more of a mystical connection to the wilds as opposed to something that only a guy in a pointed hat with glowing runes dancing around them can perform. However, it seems to me that the listed spells that would aid in exploration are not really dependent upon the casting stat, so wouldn't necessarily rule out alternative stat distribution. The classic Ranger skill proficiencies seem to be more dependent on Wisdom and Dexterity than these spells, and if someone wants to play a Ranger that has low scores in these attributes, I guess I don't have much sympathy for it not really feeling like a Ranger.
While I agree my examples were of bad dms, game design can actually reduce such behavior. For example the recommended lists or backgrounds signaling a path but then allowing the player to choose the amount of investment in deeper mechanics. It both gives simple options and lays out expectations for more.
This deeper level of engagement is what is missing both for new ranger builds and for dms attempting to engage with travel and exploration. Wotc needs to add exploration engagement levels to the game.
People don't choose travel activities (with its risk and rewards) unless the rules indicate its a possibility. And with such options automatic success on one is not boring but rather freeing for new possibility.
Rogues don't usually complain about "automatic success" because their stuff is usually a multi part operation, locks, trap detection, trap disarming, stealth, neutralization of secondary threats and so on. It's on point for both theme and mechanics.
I think the problem rests in that there is such widespread disagreement on what the Ranger *is*, or more accurately, is supposed to be.
Obviously, for some folks, the first "Ranger" they think of is Strider (Aragorn), or perhaps Faramir, as they all carry the name in Tolkien's works. But what about Legolas? Is he a "ranger," or just an elf fighter who uses a longbow? Moving away from Tolkien, there's Drizz't (for those who don't loathe him). And various Aragorn ripoffs, some of which also get pretty Paladin-y, like the Warders in the Wheel of Time, or Dragon Age's "Grey Wardens." Some people would mention Robin Hood, in any of his various incarnations. Then there are the folks who hear "Ranger" and think Army, or "The Lone," Orion the hunter, or a fantasy version of Daniel Boone or Davy Crockett. A few folks want the Ranger to be Tarzan, Mowgli, or the Beastmaster. And then there's the 1% of people who have heard of Robert Rogers and his wilderness Rangers from the Revolutionary War days. So what IS the Ranger?
So what's the ranger's niche? What makes all those "rangers" alike? Well, let's see, they've got skills - survival, tracking, stealth, and ambushing your opponents. They are wilderness scouts, guides, and hunters. Aragorn (in the books) may not have fought with a bow, but many of those in Faramir's company did. They (mostly) did not wear heavy armor, although they certainly knew HOW to, as demonstrated by both Aragorn at Helm's Deep, and Faramir at Pelennor Fields. I think one of the things that should define a ranger is their ability to both ambush their quarry, and to prevent those with them from surprise and ambush. If the rogue's niche is sneaking, spying, and thievery, then the ranger's is scouting and remaining alert for danger. When it comes to making sure you don't get caught off-guard, you probably want a ranger in your party. As far as weapons, I could see rangers fighting with two weapons, or a ranged weapon, or a two-handed weapons, but I wouldn't generally expect to see a ranger carrying a shield larger than a buckler or targe.
I also think there's a degree to which rangers ought to, potentially, be a class that promotes and encourages teamwork. Some do this with a beast companion, whereas others do their hunting with human (or elf, or dwarf) allies.
Obviously, none of our "real world" examples are heavily influenced by magic, but spells do help capture that connection to nature. I think fantasy rangers have long had a connection to magic, in part inspired by Aragorn & Faramir keeping company with Elves and Wizards, so giving them some magical abilities, especially those tied to woodcraft, makes sense. Druidcraft as a cantrip is something probably every ranger I make will be taking. Herbalism is another key skill I would tend to pin to rangers.
One thing to keep in mind is that simply being an adventurer *in a medieval setting* probably includes a certain degree of competency in the woods. Yes, the Fighter's niche is being the best in combat. They are the masters of weapons, and their skills largely depend on their background - what kind of fighter they are. A light, skirmish fighter specializing in ranged weapons and scouting is going to get close to treading on the ranger's turf, and that's okay. The rogue's "niche" is thievery, skills, and stealth. A rogue who picks up wilderness skills is going to be hard to distinguish from a ranger, and especially once you start multi-classing, wilderness-themed fighter-rogues might feel pretty "ranger-esque." And that's fine.
A fighter focused on dueling with lighter weapons and swashbuckling his way through an urban adventure setting might start to feel pretty roguish (think "The Three Musketeers"), and a swashbuckling rogue might be hard to distinguish from a fighter in the same setting, and that's alright.
So at the end of the day, what does this mean? How does this hit with our iconic rangers?
Aragorn & Farmir are. They're skilled in the wild, accomplished at tracking and hunting the servants of the Enemy, and they shine when coordinating a small group of warriors. They're also able horsemen. Although they *might* each have a few levels of fighter or paladin. Some of their amazing woodcraft could be attributed to magic, or would be in a higher-magic D&D setting.
Robin Hood could be. He's a skilled fighter and combatant, who's very at home in the woods. He can fight with sword & buckler, longbow, or quarterstaff. And he leads a small band of warriors against the villainous Sheriff and his goons. In a D&D setting, you'd expect him to have a few spells. In a non-magical setting, rangers wouldn't exist, and Robin would probably just be a multi class fighter/rogue.
Drizz't? Yes. 'nuff said.
Beastmaster/Tarzan/Mowgli? Yes. Skilled fighters with a connection to nature. They have some skill with weapons, stealth, and ambush, and their connection to nature clearly borders on the mystical. Animal companions are their stock in trade, and while not every ranger has a companion animal, many do, so we clearly need a "Beastmaster" subclass.
There's a few others that would clearly fit within this archetype. I can for example see Geralt of Rivia being readily built as a Ranger, although he does a lot of his hunting solo. Maybe there's a special place for a "monster hunter" subclass, that specializes in taking down supernatural foes.
Anyhow, that's my take. Personally, I think the current version could use some tweaking, but they're on the right track.
i really like the UA's classification of rangers as skill experts just from the logic that the alternative is druids with longswords. that's a simplification but druids can, with the help of spells, do all the same things as rangers. the real difference is that druids embrace nature while rangers tame it. rangers explore the wilderness, scout for settlers, hunt for food, tame wild beast companions, accept worked metal armor and weapons, etc. sure, there are rangers who stray far from society to hunt down planar threats on the horizon, gloomy aberrant lurkers, and monsters in general but they're doing that for the benefit of civilization aren't they? if not that, then for their own personal thrill of the hunt. druids seek to preserve the balance of nature, not to explore or exploit. it's a fundamental enough difference to keep one from being a subclass of one or the other, i think.
...jeez, but after thinking about it a bit: rangers are kinda colonialist, aren't they? from that perspective, Tarzan/Mowgli/Gau(FFVI) must be (low magic) druids with strong knuckles.
CaptainThorpe, that's a really great breakdown of a lot of ranger inspirations. Thanks for the effort involved in it.
I would like to add another that came up in one of my games. One player was really excited about the Ranger, and the Hunter subclass specifically, because his favorite video game series is Monster Hunter. He loved that fantasy concept, and loved his character. We were using Tasha's rules, and he was completely happy with it.
Don't worry rumloverum. Maybe think of rangers as 'surviving' nature instead of 'taming' it and they won't feel so much like colonizers haha. Most classic Rangers don't go around trying to displace local people and plunder their resources. The Beastmaster definitely cared more for his animal friends than an old circus owner.
Rangers are just trying to survive, and sometimes help others who aren't as good at it to survive too.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Why are you concerned with "what if's" ? That seems like a waste of time. Look at the Ranger in this UA. It has everything it needs to be a master at survival and nature, including spells to enhance that role. And it can do that role without completely nullifying the challenges of the Exploration Pillar by merely existing.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
expertise, roving, nature's viel and feral senses in the higher levels. Tireless. Expertise isn't something to scoff at. And you are jumping to conclusions about how much the sorcerer will have access to the primal list. And do you honestly think at level 5 the figher/sorcerer multi-class is going to be able to do the same as the level 5 ranger? How about level 9? when the ranger has 4 expertise skills (nature, survival, perception, and pick one more that you think fits the flavor).
Are you suggesting that the druid doesn't have anything to make them "naturey" because all they have is wildshape and spells?
This has given me an interesting thought...
Ranger is probably the one class that most has this discussion about the need to preserve "flavor". Every class has their stereotypical default... the perverted, silly bard, the stupid, violent barbarian, the nerdy, intelligent Wizard... but none of those classes have any class features that require them to act that way. Ranger was unique that it probably did the most, mechanically, to make the class focus on its stereotype.
I think it is fair, though, to worry that the Ranger doesn't have enough of its own mechanical identity to survive without flavor. I'm personally pretty happy with them being kind of the "wild" version of a Paladin, especially with the focus shifted to Hunter's Mark as kind of the Ranger version of Smites... a lower die tied to the damage increase, but the ability to keep up that damage over a longer period of time.
I kind of like the idea of shifting to have a dedicated "Gish" class for both Divine and Wild magics... I think that it's ultimately more interesting if Arcane casters don't have a dedicated Gish glass, since that's the largest spell list... so it would be good if the game is balanced a bit by Wild and Divine casters largely having more combat options outside of spellcasting, while Arcane casters need to rely more heavily on their actual magic.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Well, I wouldn't say the one class. The other one that comes to mind for me is the Druid, which tends to have a very rigid idea about what it's supposed to be (to the point of even having esoteric flavor rules like no metal armor baked into class features). It's probably not coincidental that the two classes share some similarities in their thematic backgrounds too.
IMO what makes the ranger stand out as unique, interesting and fun is that it's a highly self sufficient blend of primal magic and martial ability. To be entirely blunt, I think a much higher percentage of players who picked up the ranger did it for those reasons, and not because they class could forage for food better than normal in certain terrains.
I think that's true, but I think the difference is that the Druid has always been mechanically strong, while the Ranger struggled until it got some newer subclasses and optional rules. So even if the Druid class has similar flavor challenges, if the Druid class doesn't do more with their flavoring players have always been still generally happy with the class.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
The ranger appeals to me because I can see how it branches skills across the whole fantasy world. There are expectations of how they interact across all three pillars. They have a mix of mundane skills and training and magic.
The ranger has always been "strong" in the sense of reliability in combat and preparation advantages.
Here's the problem just because a lot of players only care about combat prowess. It dosen't mean the rest should be ignored or shoehorned into the already limited resources of 1/2 spellcasting.
By focusing on combat only, it changes the gamplay loop. This change has chances of ruining the appeal of many people who favor ranger for general appeal.
Yeah, fair. But that's not the goal anyways. Few (if any) people are advocating for the class to be 'only combat', and that's definitely not an accurate description of the class itself as it exists either. The ranger, both in 5e and the playtest, is very much a generalist, sort of one part skill expert (within a specific scope), one part martial, one part spellcaster. That's a big part of the drive of the class (and probably a big partof why some people don't like it too, but whatever).
yeah, I think that's reasonable. Although I'd say on the whole the ranger's issues were more with perception and a fixation on a few specific problems rather than struggling in general (I also think druids are kind of in a weird spot design wise too, but that's for another thread).
There seems to be a divide in the debate on Rangers between people who think that they need further unique features to reinforce the flavor and those who think the spells they gain give them this flavor. I think there is little doubt that the revised 5e Ranger and the 1DD Ranger both seem quite competent in combat, and if a Ranger chooses expertise in Survival and Nature, they have at least some general abilities guaranteed. I guess what my question would be is, what (in addition to Hunter's Mark) would be the existing spells that give them the extra boost to classic ranger abilities that fills in this flavor? I don't have a lot of experience with the class, but is there a lack of spells that give them special tracking/hunting/foraging abilities? If the spells exist, are they merely underused because there are other spells that seem much more useful due to their in-combat applications?
I guess my point of view is that if the flavor of the Ranger is merely lost because people are choosing not to take the flavorful spells, then that is more of a problem with the people who are building them to be exclusively optimized for combat and not their out-of-combat/exploration roles. If there truly is a lack of spells that reinforce the fantasy, then it seems to me to be a simpler fix to just add some to the Primal spell list instead of making up new features. Some combination of the two also seems a reasonable way to proceed, but the spellcasting ability with slots seems like a perfectly reasonable way to solve the problem that I would guess might be easier to balance while providing players a more flexible framework to build the character they want.
They could narrow the Expertise to Stealth and Survival and Perception and Nature. That's very Ranger-flavorful. They could add in certain spells from Tasha's Primeval Awareness like Talk to Animals. Lots of people loved that.
But then, we get the people that complain that, no, we don't want to be forced to take those specific skills or have those specific spells. Can we trade them out? That same exact thing is happening with the Bards and their Song of Restoration. Some people don't want the healing and are asking to swap them out. And what about the urban ranger?
You just can't win. Give some people what they want, and others will hate you for it. "Bland" ranger is flexible for any environment. "Flavorful" ranger is terrible outside of specific circumstances.
There really aren’t that many non combat, exploration enhancing primal spells:
L0 - druidcraft (starting fires etc.)
L1 - animal friendship, speak w/ animals, create water, detect poison, goodbury, purify food & drink
L2 - beast sense?, enhance ability?, find traps, locate animals and plants, pass w/o trace,
L3 - plant growth, water breathing
L4 - control water, giant insect?
L5 - commune w/ nature, wall of stone?
Druids get some additional higher level spells like find the path and wind walk? At L6 and animal shapes and control weather at L8 but rangers don’t get those.
So the selection is fairly limited - this is a place where they could well mine previous versions for additional primal spells as well as homebrewing a few or devising some ranger specific magic items.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Thank you for putting together this list, but these seem to me to be fairly flavorful and plenty to choose from. Looking through the Primal list myself, I might add Animal Messenger (2), Locate Object (2), Meld into Stone (3), Speak with Plants (3), Locate Creature (4), and Tree Stride (5) onto what you have there, and of course there seem to be a fair number of flavorful Ranger combat spells on the list as well (including Hunter's Mark as a hybrid combat/exploration type). I can't say I agree with these being particularly limited, since if a Ranger prepared all of these they essentially wouldn't have room for any other spells. What other abilities would be needed in addition to these to really flesh out a classic Ranger archetype?
are there spells that give Rangers special tracking/hunting/foraging abilities? looking back at ye old AD&D rule supplement #2136 "The Complete Ranger's Handbook," i see there used to be more spells. were they thematic spells, though? and were they useful?? (below, spells new to ranger handbook in bold with description)
in conclusion, yeah, things may have been a bit more thematically tied to spells in the past but not overwhelmingly so. this is assuming, of course, that you bought a separate supplement to the game and your DM bothered to read it. even then, the spells weren't spectacular. it seems like you'd need twice as many spell slots today to make that work and at that point why not simply convert them to class/subclass abilities? anyway, this analysis ignores the massive pile of nuanced "non-combat abilities" introduced in that same ranger handbook. there's a lot of emphasis on tracking, survival, defusing random encounters with beasts, and training a menagerie of pets. that bit is a definite thumb on the scale of the "skill expert" side of things. take these above spells with a grain of salt.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
The trick is that a 5e ranger is a KNOWN spells caster so learning anything other than combat spells was not really an option. The UA ranger is a PREPARED spells caster so they can change their spells on a daily basis to cope with perceived needs at the start of the day. So adding spells like recover trail become useful additions now. Some of those old spells have undergone some significant changes over the different editions as well and while the name might survive the innards might well be different.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I would definitely agree that the switch to being a prepared caster will also aid in a Ranger being able to utilize more flavorful, exploration-focused spells when the situation calls for them. Hopefully a few more spells will be provided and subclass features (such as Hunter's Lore) will be given to each subclass to reinforce their own particular focus.
The problem comes with the area where the spells are insufficient. Often times the spell use restrictions or costs make them unplayable.
Players who rely on spells are over mundane features often complain about needing free uses Or more access.
Some dms also have a hard time with rules that are not specifically spelled out. In a worst case senario I've seen new dms not let shovels dig a hole but instead asking what spells they had. Or another example forcing animal spells where handling should suffice.
Features that are tied outside the spell economy reminds Players that the world functions even if it's a different function from the group known as adventurers.
By having ranger rules tied to some mundane options 1. it Grounds the mechanics to a functional world (even if an unrealistic fantasy) 2. It provides alternative build options by relying on spells certain specialty builds become harder. Int ranger, low wisdom high physical traits, low con rangers ect
If there are major rewrites of the spells it may help but I don't see how having a ranger and druid in the same party will make both feel valuable in onednd. Where in 5e they really worked together well.
Right now it feels like the whole ranger is overshadowed by huntersmark and prepared spells To where the other implications are under explored.
Well not allowing people dig a hole with shovels is about equivalent to the example Yurei made on another UA thread of having people make a skill check to spread jam on toast. Really if someone is that bad at running a game and understanding the imagined world, there is no set of rules sufficient to keep them from screwing up.
I really do not have much problem with Druids and Rangers having a fair amount of overlap, just like Clerics and Paladins can sometimes step on one another's toes.
Your point about grounding the Ranger through mundane options is certainly valid. I personally do not have a problem imagining that the spells are more of a mystical connection to the wilds as opposed to something that only a guy in a pointed hat with glowing runes dancing around them can perform. However, it seems to me that the listed spells that would aid in exploration are not really dependent upon the casting stat, so wouldn't necessarily rule out alternative stat distribution. The classic Ranger skill proficiencies seem to be more dependent on Wisdom and Dexterity than these spells, and if someone wants to play a Ranger that has low scores in these attributes, I guess I don't have much sympathy for it not really feeling like a Ranger.
While I agree my examples were of bad dms, game design can actually reduce such behavior. For example the recommended lists or backgrounds signaling a path but then allowing the player to choose the amount of investment in deeper mechanics. It both gives simple options and lays out expectations for more.
This deeper level of engagement is what is missing both for new ranger builds and for dms attempting to engage with travel and exploration. Wotc needs to add exploration engagement levels to the game.
People don't choose travel activities (with its risk and rewards) unless the rules indicate its a possibility. And with such options automatic success on one is not boring but rather freeing for new possibility.
Rogues don't usually complain about "automatic success" because their stuff is usually a multi part operation, locks, trap detection, trap disarming, stealth, neutralization of secondary threats and so on. It's on point for both theme and mechanics.
I think the problem rests in that there is such widespread disagreement on what the Ranger *is*, or more accurately, is supposed to be.
Obviously, for some folks, the first "Ranger" they think of is Strider (Aragorn), or perhaps Faramir, as they all carry the name in Tolkien's works. But what about Legolas? Is he a "ranger," or just an elf fighter who uses a longbow? Moving away from Tolkien, there's Drizz't (for those who don't loathe him). And various Aragorn ripoffs, some of which also get pretty Paladin-y, like the Warders in the Wheel of Time, or Dragon Age's "Grey Wardens." Some people would mention Robin Hood, in any of his various incarnations. Then there are the folks who hear "Ranger" and think Army, or "The Lone," Orion the hunter, or a fantasy version of Daniel Boone or Davy Crockett. A few folks want the Ranger to be Tarzan, Mowgli, or the Beastmaster. And then there's the 1% of people who have heard of Robert Rogers and his wilderness Rangers from the Revolutionary War days. So what IS the Ranger?
So what's the ranger's niche? What makes all those "rangers" alike? Well, let's see, they've got skills - survival, tracking, stealth, and ambushing your opponents. They are wilderness scouts, guides, and hunters. Aragorn (in the books) may not have fought with a bow, but many of those in Faramir's company did. They (mostly) did not wear heavy armor, although they certainly knew HOW to, as demonstrated by both Aragorn at Helm's Deep, and Faramir at Pelennor Fields. I think one of the things that should define a ranger is their ability to both ambush their quarry, and to prevent those with them from surprise and ambush. If the rogue's niche is sneaking, spying, and thievery, then the ranger's is scouting and remaining alert for danger. When it comes to making sure you don't get caught off-guard, you probably want a ranger in your party. As far as weapons, I could see rangers fighting with two weapons, or a ranged weapon, or a two-handed weapons, but I wouldn't generally expect to see a ranger carrying a shield larger than a buckler or targe.
I also think there's a degree to which rangers ought to, potentially, be a class that promotes and encourages teamwork. Some do this with a beast companion, whereas others do their hunting with human (or elf, or dwarf) allies.
Obviously, none of our "real world" examples are heavily influenced by magic, but spells do help capture that connection to nature. I think fantasy rangers have long had a connection to magic, in part inspired by Aragorn & Faramir keeping company with Elves and Wizards, so giving them some magical abilities, especially those tied to woodcraft, makes sense. Druidcraft as a cantrip is something probably every ranger I make will be taking. Herbalism is another key skill I would tend to pin to rangers.
One thing to keep in mind is that simply being an adventurer *in a medieval setting* probably includes a certain degree of competency in the woods. Yes, the Fighter's niche is being the best in combat. They are the masters of weapons, and their skills largely depend on their background - what kind of fighter they are. A light, skirmish fighter specializing in ranged weapons and scouting is going to get close to treading on the ranger's turf, and that's okay. The rogue's "niche" is thievery, skills, and stealth. A rogue who picks up wilderness skills is going to be hard to distinguish from a ranger, and especially once you start multi-classing, wilderness-themed fighter-rogues might feel pretty "ranger-esque." And that's fine.
A fighter focused on dueling with lighter weapons and swashbuckling his way through an urban adventure setting might start to feel pretty roguish (think "The Three Musketeers"), and a swashbuckling rogue might be hard to distinguish from a fighter in the same setting, and that's alright.
So at the end of the day, what does this mean? How does this hit with our iconic rangers?
Aragorn & Farmir are. They're skilled in the wild, accomplished at tracking and hunting the servants of the Enemy, and they shine when coordinating a small group of warriors. They're also able horsemen. Although they *might* each have a few levels of fighter or paladin. Some of their amazing woodcraft could be attributed to magic, or would be in a higher-magic D&D setting.
Robin Hood could be. He's a skilled fighter and combatant, who's very at home in the woods. He can fight with sword & buckler, longbow, or quarterstaff. And he leads a small band of warriors against the villainous Sheriff and his goons. In a D&D setting, you'd expect him to have a few spells. In a non-magical setting, rangers wouldn't exist, and Robin would probably just be a multi class fighter/rogue.
Drizz't? Yes. 'nuff said.
Beastmaster/Tarzan/Mowgli? Yes. Skilled fighters with a connection to nature. They have some skill with weapons, stealth, and ambush, and their connection to nature clearly borders on the mystical. Animal companions are their stock in trade, and while not every ranger has a companion animal, many do, so we clearly need a "Beastmaster" subclass.
There's a few others that would clearly fit within this archetype. I can for example see Geralt of Rivia being readily built as a Ranger, although he does a lot of his hunting solo. Maybe there's a special place for a "monster hunter" subclass, that specializes in taking down supernatural foes.
Anyhow, that's my take. Personally, I think the current version could use some tweaking, but they're on the right track.
i really like the UA's classification of rangers as skill experts just from the logic that the alternative is druids with longswords. that's a simplification but druids can, with the help of spells, do all the same things as rangers. the real difference is that druids embrace nature while rangers tame it. rangers explore the wilderness, scout for settlers, hunt for food, tame wild beast companions, accept worked metal armor and weapons, etc. sure, there are rangers who stray far from society to hunt down planar threats on the horizon, gloomy aberrant lurkers, and monsters in general but they're doing that for the benefit of civilization aren't they? if not that, then for their own personal thrill of the hunt. druids seek to preserve the balance of nature, not to explore or exploit. it's a fundamental enough difference to keep one from being a subclass of one or the other, i think.
...jeez, but after thinking about it a bit: rangers are kinda colonialist, aren't they? from that perspective, Tarzan/Mowgli/Gau(FFVI) must be (low magic) druids with strong knuckles.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
CaptainThorpe, that's a really great breakdown of a lot of ranger inspirations. Thanks for the effort involved in it.
I would like to add another that came up in one of my games. One player was really excited about the Ranger, and the Hunter subclass specifically, because his favorite video game series is Monster Hunter. He loved that fantasy concept, and loved his character. We were using Tasha's rules, and he was completely happy with it.
Don't worry rumloverum. Maybe think of rangers as 'surviving' nature instead of 'taming' it and they won't feel so much like colonizers haha. Most classic Rangers don't go around trying to displace local people and plunder their resources. The Beastmaster definitely cared more for his animal friends than an old circus owner.
Rangers are just trying to survive, and sometimes help others who aren't as good at it to survive too.