The problem with Tolkien and Aragorn is that we never really see Aragorn being a ranger for long.there is the run from Bree to Rivendell but they are actually following ( more or less) an old ( abandoned) road. We see a little bit of his magical healing when he heals ( more or less) Frodo from his wound and the Nazgûl’s breath with some kingsfoil. We sort of see it again when he “ magically” appears to the rides of Rohan the first time. We hear about him tracking Gollum but we don’t see that adventure.same with his trips deep into southRon territory and eastward before the the present tales begin. Same for the other rangers of the north - we hear a little about their skills but never get more than glimpses. Robinhood is better as his warrior history is background but not really part of the story. Of course there is no magic but, like Driz’zt that can perhaps be dealt with Under 1e rules where you didn’t get magic til tiers 3&4. Mogli is neither a ranger nor a Druid despite speaking with animals he doesn’t really know too much about survival despite being raised by wolves, he is constantly being saved from his own ignorance and stupidity by his animal friends and in the end he goes back into the human world to settle there. Tarzan ( and later Jane as well) might be rangers, they stay in the jungle mostly only occasionally returning to “proper British society”. They do have animal companions but neither ever really wears armor or has much more of a weapon than a Bowie knife. The reality is there just aren’t many good examples of rangers in literature - even in DND stories (Driz’zt is really more portrayed as a fighter barbarian than as a ranger despite the dual wielding. Two Louis LaMoure hero’s are actually decent examples of rangers in the wild. The last of the Breed has a Native American raised to the old ways as well as modern ways test pilot captured by the Russians and escaping and making it from Lake Biakal to the Bering Sea chased by the Russian army and a skilled Yakut tracker. You don’t see any magic of course but you see how he manages to not just survive but to thrive because of his mundane skills. In The Walkng Drum (set in 1100’s Eurasia) you get the story of boy raised and taught by Druids in Brittany as he grows up and develops across France, Spain, Germany, Russia, Persia and is headed to India at the end. He combines weapon skills, woodscraft, Druidic magic/knowledge/skills along with learning from the Arabic world in Spain. He speaks at least 6 different languages fluently and has skills out the wazoo. There are other scattered stories that helped my vision of a ranger, one was a short story of a “mountain man” dealing with a dragon appearing from somewhere else. He deals with it by shooting it with a sharps rifle with a bullet filled with hallucinogenic herbs. His comment was that the bullet wouldn’t really hurt it but the herbs would send it back to its home world. Then rubbing his “horse’s” head he comments that he is going to have to file its horn down as it’s getting too big.
It's worth noting that DnD is itself a group of specific settings that have their own rules. You're not going to find a perfect translation of the DnD ranger in literature outside DnD related media because you'll not find a perfect translation of most classes to other works. How many DnD style bards can you point to? Should we dismiss Jaskier from the Witcher as an example of a classic bard character because he doesn't wield magic? Should we consider Merlin from The Sword in the Stone more of a druid because he lacks a spellbook and spends most of the film turning into animals, or do we accept that wizards in his world aren't an exact mirror of DnD wizards?
Aragorn and the other Tolkien rangers are excellent examples of literary rangers. They fight, they hunt, they have a close connection to the wilds of Middle Earth, they know things that seem like magic to the untrained, etc. Aragorn uses his tracking skills whenever it is relevant to the situation. It just happens that tracking is less relevant once the story moves away from a trek across Middle Earth toward being a war story.
Also, all this talk about ranger themes made me realize that now that rangers have access to Conjure Animals you could very easily make Garruk Wildspeaker in DnD.
[snip] How many DnD style bards can you point to? [snip]
at the risk of derailing the topic: Kvothe from Name of the Wind, Thom Merrilin (and Rand too, why not) from Wheel of Time, Cappen Varra from Thieves World, Lord Valentine from Majipoor, Bilbo the Hobbit, Fiddler from Malazan Book of the Fallen, Elan from Order of the Stick... okay, those last two might be cheating, but if the rest of these sound like rogues and sorcerers who happen to have a sweet singing voice, well how many rangers mentioned above are fighters who happen to have some herb lore and/or a token animal friend?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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: providefeedback!
If you include video games? Quite a lot. Web novels? They're pretty prevalent in those too. Fantasy manga/manwa/anime? Lots. I can point to several fairy tale and mythological figures, including the Pied Piper and Orpheus. The moment you step outside of traditional western fantasy book format, bards are everywhere.
And, if you want to restrict talk classic western fantasy stories only, like Lord of the Rings? GOD THEMSELVES used bardic-style magic to create the world and all of history at the dawn of creation. Tom Bombadil is basically a bard with their magic being tide to song and verse. There's a couple of books by Mercedes Lackey. The Death Gate Cycle by Weis & Hickman. The Spellsong Cycle. And those are just the ones I remember off the top of my head that I read personally.
The fantasy of other works should be considered but it is not really anything more than a low to mid priority. If I can make robbin hood as a fighter or ranger it's fine as long as it plays well.The mechanics and gameplay are what separate a space for a distinct class.
Many people want to play rangers. But not all want to engage with thie ranger mechanics.
I love the idea of paladin but hate playing the smite mechanics. I don't expect the paladin to change for my style, I play a ranger that fits my style.
Core parts of the ranger concept are party care and assistance and preparation. (Which have been completely put on druid spells)
There are suggestions (that I believe aren't trolling. although ranger trolls are abundant) that the ranger class is unnecessary as a fighter/druid can do the same. With the phb this was mechanically untrue. I am not sure this is the case for one dnd.
Instead of cleaning up bad terms and use cases, they threw them out and hope adding damage/combat appeal is enough.
The fantasy of other works should be considered but it is not really anything more than a low to mid priority. If I can make robbin hood as a fighter or ranger it's fine as long as it plays well.The mechanics and gameplay are what separate a space for a distinct class.
Many people want to play rangers. But not all want to engage with thie ranger mechanics.
I love the idea of paladin but hate playing the smite mechanics. I don't expect the paladin to change for my style, I play a ranger that fits my style.
Core parts of the ranger concept are party care and assistance and preparation. (Which have been completely put on druid spells)
There are suggestions (that I believe aren't trolling. although ranger trolls are abundant) that the ranger class is unnecessary as a fighter/druid can do the same. With the phb this was mechanically untrue. I am not sure this is the case for one dnd.
Instead of cleaning up bad terms and use cases, they threw them out and hope adding damage/combat appeal is enough.
And for many folks it will be. Quite possibly for most folks it will be. That is why , in an earlier post, that when 7e comes around (in about a decade), I wouldn’t be surprised if we came full circle with the ranger folded back into being a fighter subclass or two (woodland ranger, urban ranger) . That might actually be better as much of the problem is in trying to both “keep the flavor” and provide a chassis for a wide range of (Gish) builds.
I've waited a while to talk about this one because I really love Rangers, and my initial reaction was pretty bad. I wanted to give it time to sink in. I'm sorry this is going to be a long one.
Rangers really appeal to me because of the flavor. It's a fantasy that just feels exciting to me. It's always been one of my favorite classes because of the theme. I don't care if they do as much damage as the fighter, or even cast any spells. Their survival skills, relationship with nature and animals, ability to lay traps and avoid ambushes, etc are all the things I care about.
I don't think that all classes need to be able to do the same about of damage in combat. Fighters and Barbarians and Sorcerers can blow up monsters. The ranger's ability to forage for food and calm wild beasts is just as useful to a party. The same way a cleric's healing and a rogue's ability to infiltrate a villain's manor are useful. But I've always played in and run games that were interested in all of the pillars of play.
I never understood why so much time was spent trying to fix one ability - Hunter's Mark. Because the damage just isn't the lure of the class to me. The problems with beastmasters made more sense, since the pets needed to actually be able to do something. But clearly a lot of people don't value exploration as much as combat. And that's okay. I just personally don't want to lose the flavor because of it.
So after thinking a lot, and reading comments here, I wanted to see if I could view the changes in more positive light. I have for some things, and maybe haven't for others. But I think the comparison with Paladins is a good one. Both classes are warriors with a thematic focus. Both have great roleplaying potential, both have combat abilities, and both use magic. Okay that's a good start.
So I thought, why have I never been concerned that Paladins don't have enough flavor? Why do WotC, and other players, spend so much time trying to 'fix' Rangers, but not Paladins? And mostly it seems to come down to the fact that a large section of players think (and it's a fair complaint) that Ranger's abilities just don't work in combat, but Paladins do (maybe too well). So every 'fix' to Rangers has sacrificed more and more flavor to get the combat right. The other reason seems to be that a lot of tables don't spend much time in the Exploration pillar. So they don't see the value of the Ranger's flavor abilities. That's much harder to fix with class rules, but not impossible.
I started looking at the Paladin's base class abilities. And I think that's where the answer lies. I ignored subclasses, spells, and smite, because the Ranger gets some version of the same things. What about the flavor?
Well, Paladins get:
Level 1 -
Divine sense - very thematic and occasionally useful
Lay on Hands - very thematic and useful in combat
Level 3 -
Divine Health - thematic and good against some monster attacks
Channel Divinity - very thematic and good in combat
Level 6 -
Aura of Protection - very thematic and very good in combat
Level 10 -
Aura of Courage - very thematic and very good in combat.
Level 14 -
Cleansing Touch - thematic and good in/after combat
Now what do Rangers get in the new material?
Level 1 -
Expertise - can be thematic with the right choice, not much combat value
Level 3 -
Maybe a subclass ability similar to Channel Divinity. Current one just... does some damage.
Level 7 -
Roving - thematic and somewhat useful in combat
Level 9 -
More expertise - okay, same as before
Level 11 -
Tireless - very thematic, somewhat useful adjacent to combat
Level 13 -
Nature's Veil - thematic, very useful in combat
Level 15 -
Feral Senses - not very thematic, but good in combat
I think this is the answer. Every paladin ability fits the theme amazingly, AND most of them are almost always useful in every combat/dungeon crawl. The people who love the paladin theme are happy. The people who love combat are happy.
Meanwhile Ranger abilities vary in thematic approach, and most of the ones that are good in combat don't come online until very late in the game. They don't do much damage, don't heal, don't buff or debuff, and don't help the whole party the way Paladin's core abilities do.
Looking at abilities only, a Ranger gets... some extra movement at level 7 and temp hp at level 11. After that most games are done. So the only thing the combat players have is Hunter's Mark working well. And the thematic players lost almost everything.
Can I make a Ranger with these rules that fits the fantasy? Sure, if I try hard enough. It will mostly be roleplaying and some skill checks though. I wish it didn't have to be that hard. I wish they could have abilities that fit the theme AND help the party in combat. I don't think that's too hard to do. Paladins do it.
So every 'fix' to Rangers has sacrificed more and more flavor to get the combat right.
I just can't really agree with this assertion that keeps being tossed around like it's a forgone fact.
It's more like: the old Ranger had several features that had no mechanical value whatsoever, but at least they had flavor. Those features have been steadily culled.
If the features could've been rehabilitated I'm sure they would've been. The fact is, they were beyond saving.
So every 'fix' to Rangers has sacrificed more and more flavor to get the combat right.
I just can't really agree with this assertion that keeps being tossed around like it's a forgone fact.
It's more like: the old Ranger had several features that had no mechanical value whatsoever, but at least they had flavor. Those features have been steadily culled.
If the features could've been rehabilitated I'm sure they would've been. The fact is, they were beyond saving.
Right. The old features were situational (specific environments or enemies), difficult to adjudicate (what does 'remain alert' mean exactly for a Surprise roll), and arguably not as powerful depending on the style of game being played.
But they had much more descriptive flavor. They evoked a theme. They told a player was a Ranger IS.
Most of the new features don't evoke much of anything. Some were removed entirely (languages, can't be tracked).
I know you can recreate a lot of them with expertise in Survival and Nature, but it's not the same. I would just like to see abilities that BOTH thematic, and clean and useful. It would be great if they came online before Tier 3 too...
I've waited a while to talk about this one because I really love Rangers, and my initial reaction was pretty bad. I wanted to give it time to sink in. I'm sorry this is going to be a long one.
Rangers really appeal to me because of the flavor. It's a fantasy that just feels exciting to me. It's always been one of my favorite classes because of the theme. I don't care if they do as much damage as the fighter, or even cast any spells. Their survival skills, relationship with nature and animals, ability to lay traps and avoid ambushes, etc are all the things I care about.
I don't think that all classes need to be able to do the same about of damage in combat. Fighters and Barbarians and Sorcerers can blow up monsters. The ranger's ability to forage for food and calm wild beasts is just as useful to a party. The same way a cleric's healing and a rogue's ability to infiltrate a villain's manor are useful. But I've always played in and run games that were interested in all of the pillars of play.
I never understood why so much time was spent trying to fix one ability - Hunter's Mark. Because the damage just isn't the lure of the class to me. The problems with beastmasters made more sense, since the pets needed to actually be able to do something. But clearly a lot of people don't value exploration as much as combat. And that's okay. I just personally don't want to lose the flavor because of it.
So after thinking a lot, and reading comments here, I wanted to see if I could view the changes in more positive light. I have for some things, and maybe haven't for others. But I think the comparison with Paladins is a good one. Both classes are warriors with a thematic focus. Both have great roleplaying potential, both have combat abilities, and both use magic. Okay that's a good start.
So I thought, why have I never been concerned that Paladins don't have enough flavor? Why do WotC, and other players, spend so much time trying to 'fix' Rangers, but not Paladins? And mostly it seems to come down to the fact that a large section of players think (and it's a fair complaint) that Ranger's abilities just don't work in combat, but Paladins do (maybe too well). So every 'fix' to Rangers has sacrificed more and more flavor to get the combat right. The other reason seems to be that a lot of tables don't spend much time in the Exploration pillar. So they don't see the value of the Ranger's flavor abilities. That's much harder to fix with class rules, but not impossible.
I started looking at the Paladin's base class abilities. And I think that's where the answer lies. I ignored subclasses, spells, and smite, because the Ranger gets some version of the same things. What about the flavor?
Well, Paladins get:
Level 1 -
Divine sense - very thematic and occasionally useful
Lay on Hands - very thematic and useful in combat
Level 3 -
Divine Health - thematic and good against some monster attacks
Channel Divinity - very thematic and good in combat
Level 6 -
Aura of Protection - very thematic and very good in combat
Level 10 -
Aura of Courage - very thematic and very good in combat.
Level 14 -
Cleansing Touch - thematic and good in/after combat
Now what do Rangers get in the new material?
Level 1 -
Expertise - can be thematic with the right choice, not much combat value
Level 3 -
Maybe a subclass ability similar to Channel Divinity. Current one just... does some damage.
Level 7 -
Roving - thematic and somewhat useful in combat
Level 9 -
More expertise - okay, same as before
Level 11 -
Tireless - very thematic, somewhat useful adjacent to combat
Level 13 -
Nature's Veil - thematic, very useful in combat
Level 15 -
Feral Senses - not very thematic, but good in combat
I think this is the answer. Every paladin ability fits the theme amazingly, AND most of them are almost always useful in every combat/dungeon crawl. The people who love the paladin theme are happy. The people who love combat are happy.
Meanwhile Ranger abilities vary in thematic approach, and most of the ones that are good in combat don't come online until very late in the game. They don't do much damage, don't heal, don't buff or debuff, and don't help the whole party the way Paladin's core abilities do.
Looking at abilities only, a Ranger gets... some extra movement at level 7 and temp hp at level 11. After that most games are done. So the only thing the combat players have is Hunter's Mark working well. And the thematic players lost almost everything.
Can I make a Ranger with these rules that fits the fantasy? Sure, if I try hard enough. It will mostly be roleplaying and some skill checks though. I wish it didn't have to be that hard. I wish they could have abilities that fit the theme AND help the party in combat. I don't think that's too hard to do. Paladins do it.
I disagree pretty heavily that feral senses isn't thematic. The ranger is a master of their surroundings, to have such a skill set as to be able to know their surroundings even if they have been blinded to me is super thematic. And for me I think people have some differences on how they want their ranger to be. I feel getting expertise in any of the ranger skills can be thematic for the type of ranger you want to be, in this case allowing the theme to be customizable to what each player wants from their Ranger.
I've waited a while to talk about this one because I really love Rangers, and my initial reaction was pretty bad. I wanted to give it time to sink in. I'm sorry this is going to be a long one.
Rangers really appeal to me because of the flavor. It's a fantasy that just feels exciting to me. It's always been one of my favorite classes because of the theme. I don't care if they do as much damage as the fighter, or even cast any spells. Their survival skills, relationship with nature and animals, ability to lay traps and avoid ambushes, etc are all the things I care about.
I don't think that all classes need to be able to do the same about of damage in combat. Fighters and Barbarians and Sorcerers can blow up monsters. The ranger's ability to forage for food and calm wild beasts is just as useful to a party. The same way a cleric's healing and a rogue's ability to infiltrate a villain's manor are useful. But I've always played in and run games that were interested in all of the pillars of play.
I never understood why so much time was spent trying to fix one ability - Hunter's Mark. Because the damage just isn't the lure of the class to me. The problems with beastmasters made more sense, since the pets needed to actually be able to do something. But clearly a lot of people don't value exploration as much as combat. And that's okay. I just personally don't want to lose the flavor because of it.
So after thinking a lot, and reading comments here, I wanted to see if I could view the changes in more positive light. I have for some things, and maybe haven't for others. But I think the comparison with Paladins is a good one. Both classes are warriors with a thematic focus. Both have great roleplaying potential, both have combat abilities, and both use magic. Okay that's a good start.
So I thought, why have I never been concerned that Paladins don't have enough flavor? Why do WotC, and other players, spend so much time trying to 'fix' Rangers, but not Paladins? And mostly it seems to come down to the fact that a large section of players think (and it's a fair complaint) that Ranger's abilities just don't work in combat, but Paladins do (maybe too well). So every 'fix' to Rangers has sacrificed more and more flavor to get the combat right. The other reason seems to be that a lot of tables don't spend much time in the Exploration pillar. So they don't see the value of the Ranger's flavor abilities. That's much harder to fix with class rules, but not impossible.
I started looking at the Paladin's base class abilities. And I think that's where the answer lies. I ignored subclasses, spells, and smite, because the Ranger gets some version of the same things. What about the flavor?
Well, Paladins get:
Level 1 -
Divine sense - very thematic and occasionally useful
Lay on Hands - very thematic and useful in combat
Level 3 -
Divine Health - thematic and good against some monster attacks
Channel Divinity - very thematic and good in combat
Level 6 -
Aura of Protection - very thematic and very good in combat
Level 10 -
Aura of Courage - very thematic and very good in combat.
Level 14 -
Cleansing Touch - thematic and good in/after combat
Now what do Rangers get in the new material?
Level 1 -
Expertise - can be thematic with the right choice, not much combat value
Level 3 -
Maybe a subclass ability similar to Channel Divinity. Current one just... does some damage.
Level 7 -
Roving - thematic and somewhat useful in combat
Level 9 -
More expertise - okay, same as before
Level 11 -
Tireless - very thematic, somewhat useful adjacent to combat
Level 13 -
Nature's Veil - thematic, very useful in combat
Level 15 -
Feral Senses - not very thematic, but good in combat
I think this is the answer. Every paladin ability fits the theme amazingly, AND most of them are almost always useful in every combat/dungeon crawl. The people who love the paladin theme are happy. The people who love combat are happy.
Meanwhile Ranger abilities vary in thematic approach, and most of the ones that are good in combat don't come online until very late in the game. They don't do much damage, don't heal, don't buff or debuff, and don't help the whole party the way Paladin's core abilities do.
Looking at abilities only, a Ranger gets... some extra movement at level 7 and temp hp at level 11. After that most games are done. So the only thing the combat players have is Hunter's Mark working well. And the thematic players lost almost everything.
Can I make a Ranger with these rules that fits the fantasy? Sure, if I try hard enough. It will mostly be roleplaying and some skill checks though. I wish it didn't have to be that hard. I wish they could have abilities that fit the theme AND help the party in combat. I don't think that's too hard to do. Paladins do it.
I disagree pretty heavily that feral senses isn't thematic. The ranger is a master of their surroundings, to have such a skill set as to be able to know their surroundings even if they have been blinded to me is super thematic. And for me I think people have some differences on how they want their ranger to be. I feel getting expertise in any of the ranger skills can be thematic for the type of ranger you want to be, in this case allowing the theme to be customizable to what each player wants from their Ranger.
That's fair. I just didn't see an obvious connection between knowing nature, and being able to see like Daredevil. I feel like I could make up why it works just to justify it to myself. I could do the same with almost any ability. Like, your connection to nature invigorates you, giving you Second Wind.
Feral Senses is a good ability, don't get me wrong. It just wasn't clearly on brand to me based on the short flavor text. And it comes in very late game.
I'm sure everyone will have their own opinions that might differ from mine on any specific ability. That wasn't really the point. I was just expressing why it felt like the theme was sacrificed, and the combat power didn't do so hot either. To me, there were clear differences between the execution of the Paladin and the Ranger, two classes very similar in a lot of ways. Lay on Hands and Aura of Protection are great abilities, and immediately invoke the theme.
Expertise is... fine. It's useful, sure, but not usually in combat. So people lean back into the Hunter's Mark. You can make it thematic, or you could just pick Performance and Arcana. A Rogue could do the same. I like flexible options for characters, so I wouldn't want to take that away from anyone by picking the skills. I just wish there was something more.
The old abilities were full of flavor and really created an image in the player's mind. But they were badly written and were only any good at rare tables. So that isn't great either.
Anyways, it was just my attempt to show why I personally feel pretty let down by the new rules. I think there us room for improvement.
So every 'fix' to Rangers has sacrificed more and more flavor to get the combat right.
I just can't really agree with this assertion that keeps being tossed around like it's a forgone fact.
It's more like: the old Ranger had several features that had no mechanical value whatsoever, but at least they had flavor. Those features have been steadily culled.
If the features could've been rehabilitated I'm sure they would've been. The fact is, they were beyond saving.
Do you honestly believe they had no mechanical value or are you being hyperbolic?
Skills absolutely can effect combat the problem is most of the options are forgotten or a perspective issue.
The disarmed trap absolutely effects combat readyness.
The avoided environmental harzards make you better able to function at full capacity.
The harvested poison is free damage.
The secret weaknesses are gated behind skill checks.
Dms can create skill interaction based on the scene.
Perception is almost to obvious to mention.
I completely agree with you. They matter a lot... In some games. They matter in my games, and likely yours. In my games, Natural Explorer is an amazing feature. But we got Deft Explore to replace it. And now that's broken up into expertise, additional movement, and temp HP.
Natural Explorer is awesome, but almost no one used it. It wasn't clear what the benefit was because there wasn't a number or roll associated with it. So they changed it.
There is clearly a large group of people who think an extra d6 in damage is better than any amount of exploration. WotC is listening to those people. They are replacing vague but thematic abilities with numbers you can use in combat.
I'm not saying that I don't think a skill is useful when played the right way. I'm not saying that I think foraging for food isn't worthwhile. I'm saying that many people feel that way, and the changes we are getting reflect what they want.
I personally would rather have Natural Explorer. My point was that I miss the flavor. And I think we are losing it because other people wanted a bonus they could number crunch. If we need to attach a combat bonus to an ability, I'm just asking if we can still keep the flavor too.
So every 'fix' to Rangers has sacrificed more and more flavor to get the combat right.
I just can't really agree with this assertion that keeps being tossed around like it's a forgone fact.
It's more like: the old Ranger had several features that had no mechanical value whatsoever, but at least they had flavor. Those features have been steadily culled.
If the features could've been rehabilitated I'm sure they would've been. The fact is, they were beyond saving.
Do you honestly believe they had no mechanical value or are you being hyperbolic?
Does it matter?
I was being hyperbolic, certainly. Favored Enemy does technically do something. What it does isn't worth the cost of not having a real level 1 feature. Likewise for Natural Explorer. I would argue that Primeval Awareness is just about as close to "nothing" as you will ever get in this game. Land's Stride is another one of those technically not nothing effects that is practically nothing. Hide In Plain Sight is on the same level as Primeval Awareness. Vanish is the first Ranger-specific feature you get that's actually good, and it happens WAY too late. Feral Senses is two features, and one of them is LITERALLY nothing -- like, it actually, truly, honestly, doesn't do anything at all. And the other one is okay but not good. Finally, Foe Slayer is a pretty neat level 1 feature, that you get at level 20.
For what it's worth, I do feel like it's possible to rejigger these features so they're good. It seems possible. I'll even spoiler-tag some quick ideas for fun. But many have tried and none have succeeded. Looking at the evidence, I have to conclude it's a lost cause. The Ranger needs new features, not fixed versions of old features.
But I'm in a weird mood tonight so I'm gonna make some up anyway.
Favored Enemy - now Favored Enemies, which it always was, if you think about it - You can concentrate on a type of foe (as if concentrating on a spell). While doing so, by examining a trail or other physical evidence left by that foe, you learn their number and exactly what they were doing when they left the tracks, including one sentence that was spoken by them at this location, if applicable. You also have advantage on initiative checks against them. (Author's Note: This is the kind of info-dump that DMs crave. Give them the excuse to describe monsters who aren't here right now. It's not worth withholding this info, I promise.)
Natural Explorer - now it's Favored Allies - Your path has caused you to gain the favor of many creatures. While they may not be willing to help you in other ways, your status as a Ranger means that while you are on the Material Plane, you can call on a favored ally to obtain one of the following: one dose of a cure to a local poison or disease, directions to shelter within a mile, or audience with a local sentient being. Once you call upon an ally in this way, you can't do so again in the same region (ex: in the same forest, on the same mountain, or in the same sea), unless the DM rules otherwise. (A/N: Perhaps you can complete a quest for one of your allies and gain another use of it. Perhaps DMs will plan out these allies as characters. You need exactly one per region, basically, so it's simple. But you don't need to.)
Primeval Awareness - You can cast True Seeing on yourself. It only lasts 1 minute, and it doesn't consume components. (A/N: Is this too good for level 3? I don't think so, but also, I don't care. Limit the uses.)
Land's Stride - now Trailblazer - You can permanently make difficult terrain easy terrain by moving through it at your full speed. It doesn't clear up other effects like fire. (A/N: Or maybe it does?)
Hide in Plain Sight - As a reaction when you see a creature that could otherwise spot you, you and your friends all step into the Ethereal Plane. You all stay there until somebody does something. Readying an action counts as doing something. (A/N: It's level 14. It's fine. Limit the uses if you care.)
Vanish - This one is okay. Maybe. You really haven't gotten any damage spike features, and this would be kinda late for one, but let's add one anyway. When you hide, anything that's looking for you takes psychic damage because they just can't stand how elusive you are. Sure.
Feral Senses - Your Primeval Awareness is now a bonus action, and when you hit an enemy, it's visible and can't be invisible until your next turn.
Foe Slayer - Whenever you track something for 24 hours or more, the next time you hit that thing with an attack, it dies.
From 1e thru 5e the ranger was, thematically, aimed at a wilderness/exploration motif. Somewhere during 5e the concept of the urban ranger seems to have taken over. I only briefly tried to play the Rat King UA version of this concept. It was interesting but I was not really satisfied. As I’ve said in a number of different posts I have had enough outdoors experience to have at least an idea of what a wilderness ranger’s skills enable them to do. I also worked years ago with a private detective following folks etc. so I have at least a faint idea of what an “urban ranger” does. While certain skills are somewhat interchangeable most of the pre1dnd abilities are essentially useless for an urban ranger. 1dnd has switched that around - there is actually nothing, thematically, that says wilderness with the possible exception of the swim speed. Can you create a wilderness ranger? Yes but equally you can create almost any sort of Gish you want. If you took away the swim speed and allowed the character to select the class of magic they used you could create essentially any Gish you wanted. So we have evolved from a woodland/nature warrior with spellcasting ability to a Gish chassis for any concept you might have. It’s really time to change the name. As a Gish chassis it’s actually pretty good, as a dedicated ranger ( nature oriented) it’s nonexistent. It’s no that you CAN’T make a nature ranger with it - you can but it as a class has no real feel that way. At this point in many ways I would be happier with a new (old) fighter or barbarian subclass that focused on the natural feel with a little magic.
From 1e thru 5e the ranger was, thematically, aimed at a wilderness/exploration motif. Somewhere during 5e the concept of the urban ranger seems to have taken over. I only briefly tried to play the Rat King UA version of this concept. It was interesting but I was not really satisfied. As I’ve said in a number of different posts I have had enough outdoors experience to have at least an idea of what a wilderness ranger’s skills enable them to do. I also worked years ago with a private detective following folks etc. so I have at least a faint idea of what an “urban ranger” does. While certain skills are somewhat interchangeable most of the pre1dnd abilities are essentially useless for an urban ranger. 1dnd has switched that around - there is actually nothing, thematically, that says wilderness with the possible exception of the swim speed. Can you create a wilderness ranger? Yes but equally you can create almost any sort of Gish you want. If you took away the swim speed and allowed the character to select the class of magic they used you could create essentially any Gish you wanted. So we have evolved from a woodland/nature warrior with spellcasting ability to a Gish chassis for any concept you might have. It’s really time to change the name. As a Gish chassis it’s actually pretty good, as a dedicated ranger ( nature oriented) it’s nonexistent. It’s no that you CAN’T make a nature ranger with it - you can but it as a class has no real feel that way. At this point in many ways I would be happier with a new (old) fighter or barbarian subclass that focused on the natural feel with a little magic.
The class could be renamed into "Hunter". Monster hunter, bounty hunter, treasure hunter, witch hunter, or just a hunter of beasts.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The problem with Tolkien and Aragorn is that we never really see Aragorn being a ranger for long.there is the run from Bree to Rivendell but they are actually following ( more or less) an old ( abandoned) road. We see a little bit of his magical healing when he heals ( more or less) Frodo from his wound and the Nazgûl’s breath with some kingsfoil. We sort of see it again when he “ magically” appears to the rides of Rohan the first time. We hear about him tracking Gollum but we don’t see that adventure.same with his trips deep into southRon territory and eastward before the the present tales begin. Same for the other rangers of the north - we hear a little about their skills but never get more than glimpses. Robinhood is better as his warrior history is background but not really part of the story. Of course there is no magic but, like Driz’zt that can perhaps be dealt with Under 1e rules where you didn’t get magic til tiers 3&4. Mogli is neither a ranger nor a Druid despite speaking with animals he doesn’t really know too much about survival despite being raised by wolves, he is constantly being saved from his own ignorance and stupidity by his animal friends and in the end he goes back into the human world to settle there. Tarzan ( and later Jane as well) might be rangers, they stay in the jungle mostly only occasionally returning to “proper British society”. They do have animal companions but neither ever really wears armor or has much more of a weapon than a Bowie knife. The reality is there just aren’t many good examples of rangers in literature - even in DND stories (Driz’zt is really more portrayed as a fighter barbarian than as a ranger despite the dual wielding.
Two Louis LaMoure hero’s are actually decent examples of rangers in the wild. The last of the Breed has a Native American raised to the old ways as well as modern ways test pilot captured by the Russians and escaping and making it from Lake Biakal to the Bering Sea chased by the Russian army and a skilled Yakut tracker. You don’t see any magic of course but you see how he manages to not just survive but to thrive because of his mundane skills.
In The Walkng Drum (set in 1100’s Eurasia) you get the story of boy raised and taught by Druids in Brittany as he grows up and develops across France, Spain, Germany, Russia, Persia and is headed to India at the end. He combines weapon skills, woodscraft, Druidic magic/knowledge/skills along with learning from the Arabic world in Spain. He speaks at least 6 different languages fluently and has skills out the wazoo. There are other scattered stories that helped my vision of a ranger, one was a short story of a “mountain man” dealing with a dragon appearing from somewhere else. He deals with it by shooting it with a sharps rifle with a bullet filled with hallucinogenic herbs. His comment was that the bullet wouldn’t really hurt it but the herbs would send it back to its home world. Then rubbing his “horse’s” head he comments that he is going to have to file its horn down as it’s getting too big.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
It's worth noting that DnD is itself a group of specific settings that have their own rules. You're not going to find a perfect translation of the DnD ranger in literature outside DnD related media because you'll not find a perfect translation of most classes to other works. How many DnD style bards can you point to? Should we dismiss Jaskier from the Witcher as an example of a classic bard character because he doesn't wield magic? Should we consider Merlin from The Sword in the Stone more of a druid because he lacks a spellbook and spends most of the film turning into animals, or do we accept that wizards in his world aren't an exact mirror of DnD wizards?
Aragorn and the other Tolkien rangers are excellent examples of literary rangers. They fight, they hunt, they have a close connection to the wilds of Middle Earth, they know things that seem like magic to the untrained, etc. Aragorn uses his tracking skills whenever it is relevant to the situation. It just happens that tracking is less relevant once the story moves away from a trek across Middle Earth toward being a war story.
Also, all this talk about ranger themes made me realize that now that rangers have access to Conjure Animals you could very easily make Garruk Wildspeaker in DnD.
at the risk of derailing the topic: Kvothe from Name of the Wind, Thom Merrilin (and Rand too, why not) from Wheel of Time, Cappen Varra from Thieves World, Lord Valentine from Majipoor, Bilbo the Hobbit, Fiddler from Malazan Book of the Fallen, Elan from Order of the Stick... okay, those last two might be cheating, but if the rest of these sound like rogues and sorcerers who happen to have a sweet singing voice, well how many rangers mentioned above are fighters who happen to have some herb lore and/or a token animal friend?
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!
If you include video games? Quite a lot. Web novels? They're pretty prevalent in those too. Fantasy manga/manwa/anime? Lots. I can point to several fairy tale and mythological figures, including the Pied Piper and Orpheus. The moment you step outside of traditional western fantasy book format, bards are everywhere.
And, if you want to restrict talk classic western fantasy stories only, like Lord of the Rings? GOD THEMSELVES used bardic-style magic to create the world and all of history at the dawn of creation. Tom Bombadil is basically a bard with their magic being tide to song and verse. There's a couple of books by Mercedes Lackey. The Death Gate Cycle by Weis & Hickman. The Spellsong Cycle. And those are just the ones I remember off the top of my head that I read personally.
The fantasy of other works should be considered but it is not really anything more than a low to mid priority. If I can make robbin hood as a fighter or ranger it's fine as long as it plays well.The mechanics and gameplay are what separate a space for a distinct class.
Many people want to play rangers. But not all want to engage with thie ranger mechanics.
I love the idea of paladin but hate playing the smite mechanics. I don't expect the paladin to change for my style, I play a ranger that fits my style.
Core parts of the ranger concept are party care and assistance and preparation. (Which have been completely put on druid spells)
There are suggestions (that I believe aren't trolling. although ranger trolls are abundant) that the ranger class is unnecessary as a fighter/druid can do the same. With the phb this was mechanically untrue. I am not sure this is the case for one dnd.
Instead of cleaning up bad terms and use cases, they threw them out and hope adding damage/combat appeal is enough.
And for many folks it will be. Quite possibly for most folks it will be. That is why , in an earlier post, that when 7e comes around (in about a decade), I wouldn’t be surprised if we came full circle with the ranger folded back into being a fighter subclass or two (woodland ranger, urban ranger) . That might actually be better as much of the problem is in trying to both “keep the flavor” and provide a chassis for a wide range of (Gish) builds.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I've waited a while to talk about this one because I really love Rangers, and my initial reaction was pretty bad. I wanted to give it time to sink in. I'm sorry this is going to be a long one.
Rangers really appeal to me because of the flavor. It's a fantasy that just feels exciting to me. It's always been one of my favorite classes because of the theme. I don't care if they do as much damage as the fighter, or even cast any spells. Their survival skills, relationship with nature and animals, ability to lay traps and avoid ambushes, etc are all the things I care about.
I don't think that all classes need to be able to do the same about of damage in combat. Fighters and Barbarians and Sorcerers can blow up monsters. The ranger's ability to forage for food and calm wild beasts is just as useful to a party. The same way a cleric's healing and a rogue's ability to infiltrate a villain's manor are useful. But I've always played in and run games that were interested in all of the pillars of play.
I never understood why so much time was spent trying to fix one ability - Hunter's Mark. Because the damage just isn't the lure of the class to me. The problems with beastmasters made more sense, since the pets needed to actually be able to do something. But clearly a lot of people don't value exploration as much as combat. And that's okay. I just personally don't want to lose the flavor because of it.
So after thinking a lot, and reading comments here, I wanted to see if I could view the changes in more positive light. I have for some things, and maybe haven't for others. But I think the comparison with Paladins is a good one. Both classes are warriors with a thematic focus. Both have great roleplaying potential, both have combat abilities, and both use magic. Okay that's a good start.
So I thought, why have I never been concerned that Paladins don't have enough flavor? Why do WotC, and other players, spend so much time trying to 'fix' Rangers, but not Paladins? And mostly it seems to come down to the fact that a large section of players think (and it's a fair complaint) that Ranger's abilities just don't work in combat, but Paladins do (maybe too well). So every 'fix' to Rangers has sacrificed more and more flavor to get the combat right. The other reason seems to be that a lot of tables don't spend much time in the Exploration pillar. So they don't see the value of the Ranger's flavor abilities. That's much harder to fix with class rules, but not impossible.
I started looking at the Paladin's base class abilities. And I think that's where the answer lies. I ignored subclasses, spells, and smite, because the Ranger gets some version of the same things. What about the flavor?
Well, Paladins get:
Level 1 -
Divine sense - very thematic and occasionally useful
Lay on Hands - very thematic and useful in combat
Level 3 -
Divine Health - thematic and good against some monster attacks
Channel Divinity - very thematic and good in combat
Level 6 -
Aura of Protection - very thematic and very good in combat
Level 10 -
Aura of Courage - very thematic and very good in combat.
Level 14 -
Cleansing Touch - thematic and good in/after combat
Now what do Rangers get in the new material?
Level 1 -
Expertise - can be thematic with the right choice, not much combat value
Level 3 -
Maybe a subclass ability similar to Channel Divinity. Current one just... does some damage.
Level 7 -
Roving - thematic and somewhat useful in combat
Level 9 -
More expertise - okay, same as before
Level 11 -
Tireless - very thematic, somewhat useful adjacent to combat
Level 13 -
Nature's Veil - thematic, very useful in combat
Level 15 -
Feral Senses - not very thematic, but good in combat
I think this is the answer. Every paladin ability fits the theme amazingly, AND most of them are almost always useful in every combat/dungeon crawl. The people who love the paladin theme are happy. The people who love combat are happy.
Meanwhile Ranger abilities vary in thematic approach, and most of the ones that are good in combat don't come online until very late in the game. They don't do much damage, don't heal, don't buff or debuff, and don't help the whole party the way Paladin's core abilities do.
Looking at abilities only, a Ranger gets... some extra movement at level 7 and temp hp at level 11. After that most games are done. So the only thing the combat players have is Hunter's Mark working well. And the thematic players lost almost everything.
Can I make a Ranger with these rules that fits the fantasy? Sure, if I try hard enough. It will mostly be roleplaying and some skill checks though. I wish it didn't have to be that hard. I wish they could have abilities that fit the theme AND help the party in combat. I don't think that's too hard to do. Paladins do it.
Make Pass Without Trace a Ranger feature. Kill it as a spell. Adjust the numbers as necessary.
I just can't really agree with this assertion that keeps being tossed around like it's a forgone fact.
It's more like: the old Ranger had several features that had no mechanical value whatsoever, but at least they had flavor. Those features have been steadily culled.
If the features could've been rehabilitated I'm sure they would've been. The fact is, they were beyond saving.
Right. The old features were situational (specific environments or enemies), difficult to adjudicate (what does 'remain alert' mean exactly for a Surprise roll), and arguably not as powerful depending on the style of game being played.
But they had much more descriptive flavor. They evoked a theme. They told a player was a Ranger IS.
Most of the new features don't evoke much of anything. Some were removed entirely (languages, can't be tracked).
I know you can recreate a lot of them with expertise in Survival and Nature, but it's not the same. I would just like to see abilities that BOTH thematic, and clean and useful. It would be great if they came online before Tier 3 too...
Yes! This is exactly the kind of thing I would love to see. It's perfectly thematic and useful in all game styles.
I disagree pretty heavily that feral senses isn't thematic. The ranger is a master of their surroundings, to have such a skill set as to be able to know their surroundings even if they have been blinded to me is super thematic. And for me I think people have some differences on how they want their ranger to be. I feel getting expertise in any of the ranger skills can be thematic for the type of ranger you want to be, in this case allowing the theme to be customizable to what each player wants from their Ranger.
That's fair. I just didn't see an obvious connection between knowing nature, and being able to see like Daredevil. I feel like I could make up why it works just to justify it to myself. I could do the same with almost any ability. Like, your connection to nature invigorates you, giving you Second Wind.
Feral Senses is a good ability, don't get me wrong. It just wasn't clearly on brand to me based on the short flavor text. And it comes in very late game.
I'm sure everyone will have their own opinions that might differ from mine on any specific ability. That wasn't really the point. I was just expressing why it felt like the theme was sacrificed, and the combat power didn't do so hot either. To me, there were clear differences between the execution of the Paladin and the Ranger, two classes very similar in a lot of ways. Lay on Hands and Aura of Protection are great abilities, and immediately invoke the theme.
Expertise is... fine. It's useful, sure, but not usually in combat. So people lean back into the Hunter's Mark. You can make it thematic, or you could just pick Performance and Arcana. A Rogue could do the same. I like flexible options for characters, so I wouldn't want to take that away from anyone by picking the skills. I just wish there was something more.
The old abilities were full of flavor and really created an image in the player's mind. But they were badly written and were only any good at rare tables. So that isn't great either.
Anyways, it was just my attempt to show why I personally feel pretty let down by the new rules. I think there us room for improvement.
Do you honestly believe they had no mechanical value or are you being hyperbolic?
Skills absolutely can effect combat the problem is most of the options are forgotten or a perspective issue.
The disarmed trap absolutely effects combat readyness.
The avoided environmental harzards make you better able to function at full capacity.
The harvested poison is free damage.
The secret weaknesses are gated behind skill checks.
Dms can create skill interaction based on the scene.
Perception is almost to obvious to mention.
I completely agree with you. They matter a lot... In some games. They matter in my games, and likely yours. In my games, Natural Explorer is an amazing feature. But we got Deft Explore to replace it. And now that's broken up into expertise, additional movement, and temp HP.
Natural Explorer is awesome, but almost no one used it. It wasn't clear what the benefit was because there wasn't a number or roll associated with it. So they changed it.
There is clearly a large group of people who think an extra d6 in damage is better than any amount of exploration. WotC is listening to those people. They are replacing vague but thematic abilities with numbers you can use in combat.
I'm not saying that I don't think a skill is useful when played the right way. I'm not saying that I think foraging for food isn't worthwhile. I'm saying that many people feel that way, and the changes we are getting reflect what they want.
I personally would rather have Natural Explorer. My point was that I miss the flavor. And I think we are losing it because other people wanted a bonus they could number crunch. If we need to attach a combat bonus to an ability, I'm just asking if we can still keep the flavor too.
Does it matter?
I was being hyperbolic, certainly. Favored Enemy does technically do something. What it does isn't worth the cost of not having a real level 1 feature. Likewise for Natural Explorer. I would argue that Primeval Awareness is just about as close to "nothing" as you will ever get in this game. Land's Stride is another one of those technically not nothing effects that is practically nothing. Hide In Plain Sight is on the same level as Primeval Awareness. Vanish is the first Ranger-specific feature you get that's actually good, and it happens WAY too late. Feral Senses is two features, and one of them is LITERALLY nothing -- like, it actually, truly, honestly, doesn't do anything at all. And the other one is okay but not good. Finally, Foe Slayer is a pretty neat level 1 feature, that you get at level 20.
For what it's worth, I do feel like it's possible to rejigger these features so they're good. It seems possible. I'll even spoiler-tag some quick ideas for fun. But many have tried and none have succeeded. Looking at the evidence, I have to conclude it's a lost cause. The Ranger needs new features, not fixed versions of old features.
But I'm in a weird mood tonight so I'm gonna make some up anyway.
Favored Enemy - now Favored Enemies, which it always was, if you think about it - You can concentrate on a type of foe (as if concentrating on a spell). While doing so, by examining a trail or other physical evidence left by that foe, you learn their number and exactly what they were doing when they left the tracks, including one sentence that was spoken by them at this location, if applicable. You also have advantage on initiative checks against them.
(Author's Note: This is the kind of info-dump that DMs crave. Give them the excuse to describe monsters who aren't here right now. It's not worth withholding this info, I promise.)
Natural Explorer - now it's Favored Allies - Your path has caused you to gain the favor of many creatures. While they may not be willing to help you in other ways, your status as a Ranger means that while you are on the Material Plane, you can call on a favored ally to obtain one of the following: one dose of a cure to a local poison or disease, directions to shelter within a mile, or audience with a local sentient being. Once you call upon an ally in this way, you can't do so again in the same region (ex: in the same forest, on the same mountain, or in the same sea), unless the DM rules otherwise.
(A/N: Perhaps you can complete a quest for one of your allies and gain another use of it. Perhaps DMs will plan out these allies as characters. You need exactly one per region, basically, so it's simple. But you don't need to.)
Primeval Awareness - You can cast True Seeing on yourself. It only lasts 1 minute, and it doesn't consume components.
(A/N: Is this too good for level 3? I don't think so, but also, I don't care. Limit the uses.)
Land's Stride - now Trailblazer - You can permanently make difficult terrain easy terrain by moving through it at your full speed. It doesn't clear up other effects like fire.
(A/N: Or maybe it does?)
Hide in Plain Sight - As a reaction when you see a creature that could otherwise spot you, you and your friends all step into the Ethereal Plane. You all stay there until somebody does something. Readying an action counts as doing something.
(A/N: It's level 14. It's fine. Limit the uses if you care.)
Vanish - This one is okay. Maybe. You really haven't gotten any damage spike features, and this would be kinda late for one, but let's add one anyway. When you hide, anything that's looking for you takes psychic damage because they just can't stand how elusive you are. Sure.
Feral Senses - Your Primeval Awareness is now a bonus action, and when you hit an enemy, it's visible and can't be invisible until your next turn.
Foe Slayer - Whenever you track something for 24 hours or more, the next time you hit that thing with an attack, it dies.
Yaaaay.
From 1e thru 5e the ranger was, thematically, aimed at a wilderness/exploration motif. Somewhere during 5e the concept of the urban ranger seems to have taken over. I only briefly tried to play the Rat King UA version of this concept. It was interesting but I was not really satisfied. As I’ve said in a number of different posts I have had enough outdoors experience to have at least an idea of what a wilderness ranger’s skills enable them to do. I also worked years ago with a private detective following folks etc. so I have at least a faint idea of what an “urban ranger” does. While certain skills are somewhat interchangeable most of the pre1dnd abilities are essentially useless for an urban ranger. 1dnd has switched that around - there is actually nothing, thematically, that says wilderness with the possible exception of the swim speed. Can you create a wilderness ranger? Yes but equally you can create almost any sort of Gish you want. If you took away the swim speed and allowed the character to select the class of magic they used you could create essentially any Gish you wanted. So we have evolved from a woodland/nature warrior with spellcasting ability to a Gish chassis for any concept you might have. It’s really time to change the name. As a Gish chassis it’s actually pretty good, as a dedicated ranger ( nature oriented) it’s nonexistent. It’s no that you CAN’T make a nature ranger with it - you can but it as a class has no real feel that way. At this point in many ways I would be happier with a new (old) fighter or barbarian subclass that focused on the natural feel with a little magic.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
The class could be renamed into "Hunter". Monster hunter, bounty hunter, treasure hunter, witch hunter, or just a hunter of beasts.