the etymology of the name ranger is 'travel/protect at range/large distances' not ranged combat.(although it helps). Ranger needs at least one traveling feature even if its a not part of the power budget.(AKA Ribbon)
the etymology of the name ranger is 'travel/protect at range/large distances' not ranged combat.(although it helps). Ranger needs at least one traveling feature even if its a not part of the power budget.(AKA Ribbon)
One of the reasons I like Roving so much is that it makes Rangers excellent at ranging. If I had to give Ranger a single iconic ability it'd probably involve movement in some way. A ranger should be able to jump on their chosen target and stick to them like glue. If you run the ranger can run you down. If you try to hide the ranger can find you. If you try to flee the country the ranger can track you down to the ends of the earth. Abilities that limit the foe's capacity to escape should be baked into the class as well. If a ranger calls you out as their chosen prey you better be able to out-fight them because that is the only way you're getting out of this alive.
Cunning Strikes is great, but it's just catching up with Pathfinder. And they still fail to understand why it rated so high and what barbarian and fighter are missing. If they did, they'd give these two classes something to do other then basic bonk as well.
If all your Fighter/Barbarian can do is "basic bonk" then you've built it very poorly, and maybe intentionally went with simpler options like Champion and Berserker when you should have gone with more complex ones like BM or Wildheart or something. WotC isn't to blame for that.
Cunning Strikes is great, but it's just catching up with Pathfinder. And they still fail to understand why it rated so high and what barbarian and fighter are missing. If they did, they'd give these two classes something to do other then basic bonk as well.
If all your Fighter/Barbarian can do is "basic bonk" then you've built it very poorly, and maybe intentionally went with simpler options like Champion and Berserker when you should have gone with more complex ones like BM or Wildheart or something. WotC isn't to blame for that.
And WotC is trying to fix these issues. Features like Tactical Shift and the Barbarian skill boosts with rage are giving more options. Is it enough? I think it helps but there can always be more.
the etymology of the name ranger is 'travel/protect at range/large distances' not ranged combat.(although it helps). Ranger needs at least one traveling feature even if its a not part of the power budget.(AKA Ribbon)
One of the reasons I like Roving so much is that it makes Rangers excellent at ranging. If I had to give Ranger a single iconic ability it'd probably involve movement in some way. A ranger should be able to jump on their chosen target and stick to them like glue. If you run the ranger can run you down. If you try to hide the ranger can find you. If you try to flee the country the ranger can track you down to the ends of the earth. Abilities that limit the foe's capacity to escape should be baked into the class as well. If a ranger calls you out as their chosen prey you better be able to out-fight them because that is the only way you're getting out of this alive.
but that isn't ranging. that is mobility monks have always been good at the mobility space. A ranger that likes the boost still has longstrider and other spells to amplify it. combat movement is less important to a ranger than out of combat movement. Frankly, I could always get more useful movement further ignoring difficult terrain rather than extra movement.
similarly fighters get action surge for extra actions in combat but 2014 ranger was designed to give extra actions out of combat (2x foraging, 2 actions while traveling, 2x studying). now 2014 was convoluted to use (and possibly situational) and many people didn't like its implementation but its intended function is exactly what players wanted.
I feel like I could keep going about how rangers are designed to contrast most of the other classes but that's a side track I don't want to go on.
Cunning Strikes is great, but it's just catching up with Pathfinder. And they still fail to understand why it rated so high and what barbarian and fighter are missing. If they did, they'd give these two classes something to do other then basic bonk as well.
If all your Fighter/Barbarian can do is "basic bonk" then you've built it very poorly, and maybe intentionally went with simpler options like Champion and Berserker when you should have gone with more complex ones like BM or Wildheart or something. WotC isn't to blame for that.
And WotC is trying to fix these issues. Features like Tactical Shift and the Barbarian skill boosts with rage are giving more options. Is it enough? I think it helps but there can always be more.
Indeed - and I think the "more" being modular (i.e. from subclasses, feats and items) is sufficient. Base Fighter and Base Barbarian don't need to have as much "stuff" as, say, Base Ranger.
but that isn't ranging. that is mobility monks have always been good at the mobility space. A ranger that likes the boost still has longstrider and other spells to amplify it. combat movement is less important to a ranger than out of combat movement. Frankly, I could always get more useful movement further ignoring difficult terrain rather than extra movement.
similarly fighters get action surge for extra actions in combat but 2014 ranger was designed to give extra actions out of combat (2x foraging, 2 actions while traveling, 2x studying). now 2014 was convoluted to use (and possibly situational) and many people didn't like its implementation but its intended function is exactly what players wanted.
I feel like I could keep going about how rangers are designed to contrast most of the other classes but that's a side track I don't want to go on.
TLDR ; Having roving is not the same as Ranging.
Ranging isn't just long-distance overland travel. A ranger needs to be good at combat, because rangers don't just wander the land aimlessly. They specifically patrol large stretches of territory hunting bandits, poachers, or other criminals. A ranger should be good at seeking out, finding, and capturing/defeating these interlopers. Aragorn and the Rangers of the North didn't just walk around in forests all day until the Ring was found, they were tasked with hunting and destroying the servants of Sauron to keep the people of Bree and other former Arnorian settlements safe.
In that way, Roving is a very good Ranger feature. It makes rangers better at maneuvering through complex terrain as well as makes them better at chasing down their quarry.
If we did get another major feature that improved general ranging I'd rather it be something that makes the ranger better at detecting nearby enemies or spotting ambushes. Overland travel isn't a major component of the game anymore and very, very few DMs are going to cause a TPK over rations or travel time. But being able to detect when hostile forces are nearby or being especially good at figuring out where those enemies are heading are valuable abilities that fit the ranger theme.
I suppose you could say that's what Primeval Awareness was in the 2014 version of Ranger. The problem with that ability was less the concept and more how it didn't really provide you with any useful information except in very niche circumstances. If it behaved more like when Aragorn put his ear to the ground and could hear a large number of encroaching enemies nearby and what direction they were heading it'd be a lot more valuable.
but that isn't ranging. that is mobility monks have always been good at the mobility space. A ranger that likes the boost still has longstrider and other spells to amplify it. combat movement is less important to a ranger than out of combat movement. Frankly, I could always get more useful movement further ignoring difficult terrain rather than extra movement.
similarly fighters get action surge for extra actions in combat but 2014 ranger was designed to give extra actions out of combat (2x foraging, 2 actions while traveling, 2x studying). now 2014 was convoluted to use (and possibly situational) and many people didn't like its implementation but its intended function is exactly what players wanted.
I feel like I could keep going about how rangers are designed to contrast most of the other classes but that's a side track I don't want to go on.
TLDR ; Having roving is not the same as Ranging.
Ranging isn't just long-distance overland travel. A ranger needs to be good at combat, because rangers don't just wander the land aimlessly. They specifically patrol large stretches of territory hunting bandits, poachers, or other criminals. A ranger should be good at seeking out, finding, and capturing/defeating these interlopers. Aragorn and the Rangers of the North didn't just walk around in forests all day until the Ring was found, they were tasked with hunting and destroying the servants of Sauron to keep the people of Bree and other former Arnorian settlements safe.
In that way, Roving is a very good Ranger feature. It makes rangers better at maneuvering through complex terrain as well as makes them better at chasing down their quarry.
If we did get another major feature that improved general ranging I'd rather it be something that makes the ranger better at detecting nearby enemies or spotting ambushes. Overland travel isn't a major component of the game anymore and very, very few DMs are going to cause a TPK over rations or travel time. But being able to detect when hostile forces are nearby or being especially good at figuring out where those enemies are heading are valuable abilities that fit the ranger theme.
I suppose you could say that's what Primeval Awareness was in the 2014 version of Ranger. The problem with that ability was less the concept and more how it didn't really provide you with any useful information except in very niche circumstances. If it behaved more like when Aragorn put his ear to the ground and could hear a large number of encroaching enemies nearby and what direction they were heading it'd be a lot more valuable.
Roving can be a good combat feature (and non combat short movement issues) for a ranger but it does not Fulfill a ranger Title. As for roving; there are other ways to achieve the same results that create interesting characters. (Multiclass, spells, equipment, racial choices etc). However, party assist movement options, ignoring difficult terrain, unique traits etc. are lacking in the new design.
So roving is nice (as it frees up options)but not really filling a gameplay gap.
as for Primeval awareness I believe your analysis to be surface level. To be fair that's what most people see and it was problematic in the context of 'confusing' and 'mother may I' wording. However, even the negative information was always useful. I don't think WOTC will even attempt its return because of the 'bad blood' history of it.
Basically in playtest 7 They focused on the wrong boons of favored terrain.
I would like Favored terrain features and primeval awareness to return in cleaner forms but I really only expect the former.
but that isn't ranging. that is mobility monks have always been good at the mobility space. A ranger that likes the boost still has longstrider and other spells to amplify it. combat movement is less important to a ranger than out of combat movement. Frankly, I could always get more useful movement further ignoring difficult terrain rather than extra movement.
similarly fighters get action surge for extra actions in combat but 2014 ranger was designed to give extra actions out of combat (2x foraging, 2 actions while traveling, 2x studying). now 2014 was convoluted to use (and possibly situational) and many people didn't like its implementation but its intended function is exactly what players wanted.
I feel like I could keep going about how rangers are designed to contrast most of the other classes but that's a side track I don't want to go on.
TLDR ; Having roving is not the same as Ranging.
Ranging isn't just long-distance overland travel. A ranger needs to be good at combat, because rangers don't just wander the land aimlessly. They specifically patrol large stretches of territory hunting bandits, poachers, or other criminals. A ranger should be good at seeking out, finding, and capturing/defeating these interlopers. Aragorn and the Rangers of the North didn't just walk around in forests all day until the Ring was found, they were tasked with hunting and destroying the servants of Sauron to keep the people of Bree and other former Arnorian settlements safe.
In that way, Roving is a very good Ranger feature. It makes rangers better at maneuvering through complex terrain as well as makes them better at chasing down their quarry.
If we did get another major feature that improved general ranging I'd rather it be something that makes the ranger better at detecting nearby enemies or spotting ambushes. Overland travel isn't a major component of the game anymore and very, very few DMs are going to cause a TPK over rations or travel time. But being able to detect when hostile forces are nearby or being especially good at figuring out where those enemies are heading are valuable abilities that fit the ranger theme.
I suppose you could say that's what Primeval Awareness was in the 2014 version of Ranger. The problem with that ability was less the concept and more how it didn't really provide you with any useful information except in very niche circumstances. If it behaved more like when Aragorn put his ear to the ground and could hear a large number of encroaching enemies nearby and what direction they were heading it'd be a lot more valuable.
No, the ranger protects civilization from the wilds and vice versa. They can even serve as go-betweens between groups of people. Don't let one novel from almost 70 years ago limit your own perceptions. Rangers are older than Aragorn, and they are capable of so much more. Yes, even as presented in the 2014 PH.
the etymology of the name ranger is 'travel/protect at range/large distances' not ranged combat.(although it helps). Ranger needs at least one traveling feature even if its a not part of the power budget.(AKA Ribbon)
Following that logic, a monk should be a member of a religious group. Or a paladin should be a court official. Etc... But in the semantics of D&D a paladin, a monk or a ranger are something else. The monk is a martial artist. The paladin is (traditionally) the armed wing of a religion. And, again traditionally, the ranger is a forester. Nowadays those definitions have become a bit blurred. Especially in the paladin, who is no longer owed to a god but to an oath. And to a lesser extent the ranger, who is no longer so linked to his forester function.
No, the ranger protects civilization from the wilds and vice versa. They can even serve as go-betweens between groups of people. Don't let one novel from almost 70 years ago limit your own perceptions. Rangers are older than Aragorn, and they are capable of so much more. Yes, even as presented in the 2014 PH.
.... I'm using the actual, historical definition of the word. Rangers are people who were hired to patrol expanses of land to keep it safe from being exploited by the wrong people. My Tolkien example was to show how Aragorn's people were a fantastical extension of that original concept. I have no idea how you read my post and concluded that I was limiting my view of rangers to just Aragorn. He didn't go around fighting bandits and poachers, he was fighting orcs and trolls and probably some other insidious minions of Sauron we don't know about.
Roving can be a good combat feature (and non combat short movement issues) for a ranger but it does not Fulfill a ranger Title. As for roving; there are other ways to achieve the same results that create interesting characters. (Multiclass, spells, equipment, racial choices etc). However, party assist movement options, ignoring difficult terrain, unique traits etc. are lacking in the new design.
So roving is nice (as it frees up options)but not really filling a gameplay gap.
as for Primeval awareness I believe your analysis to be surface level. To be fair that's what most people see and it was problematic in the context of 'confusing' and 'mother may I' wording. However, even the negative information was always useful. I don't think WOTC will even attempt its return because of the 'bad blood' history of it.
Basically in playtest 7 They focused on the wrong boons of favored terrain.
I would like Favored terrain features and primeval awareness to return in cleaner forms but I really only expect the former.
I never said Roving alone was all we needed to be ideal rangers, only that the reason I liked Roving is because it plays into the class fantasy of being excellent explorers and hunters. I'd like to see more features like it, though it doesn't seem likely at this point.
I really don't like Favored Terrain as it exists in 5e. The core idea is nice until you realize it makes the ranger the only class in the game that can lose class features because of a scene transition. In my ideal world, the Favored Terrain you chose just gave you flat bonuses that are thematic to the terrain but are always useful. Things like extra movement speed relevant to the terrain, extra skill proficiencies that'd be useful in that kind of environment, maybe resistances to certain types of saves, etc. Just because you leave the forest doesn't mean your forestry skills should completely disappear. It should be about finding new ways to apply those skills.
No, the ranger protects civilization from the wilds and vice versa. They can even serve as go-betweens between groups of people. Don't let one novel from almost 70 years ago limit your own perceptions. Rangers are older than Aragorn, and they are capable of so much more. Yes, even as presented in the 2014 PH.
.... I'm using the actual, historical definition of the word. Rangers are people who were hired to patrol expanses of land to keep it safe from being exploited by the wrong people. My Tolkien example was to show how Aragorn's people were a fantastical extension of that original concept. I have no idea how you read my post and concluded that I was limiting my view of rangers to just Aragorn. He didn't go around fighting bandits and poachers, he was fighting orcs and trolls and probably some other insidious minions of Sauron we don't know about.
Roving can be a good combat feature (and non combat short movement issues) for a ranger but it does not Fulfill a ranger Title. As for roving; there are other ways to achieve the same results that create interesting characters. (Multiclass, spells, equipment, racial choices etc). However, party assist movement options, ignoring difficult terrain, unique traits etc. are lacking in the new design.
So roving is nice (as it frees up options)but not really filling a gameplay gap.
as for Primeval awareness I believe your analysis to be surface level. To be fair that's what most people see and it was problematic in the context of 'confusing' and 'mother may I' wording. However, even the negative information was always useful. I don't think WOTC will even attempt its return because of the 'bad blood' history of it.
Basically in playtest 7 They focused on the wrong boons of favored terrain.
I would like Favored terrain features and primeval awareness to return in cleaner forms but I really only expect the former.
I never said Roving alone was all we needed to be ideal rangers, only that the reason I liked Roving is because it plays into the class fantasy of being excellent explorers and hunters. I'd like to see more features like it, though it doesn't seem likely at this point.
I really don't like Favored Terrain as it exists in 5e. The core idea is nice until you realize it makes the ranger the only class in the game that can lose class features because of a scene transition. In my ideal world, the Favored Terrain you chose just gave you flat bonuses that are thematic to the terrain but are always useful. Things like extra movement speed relevant to the terrain, extra skill proficiencies that'd be useful in that kind of environment, maybe resistances to certain types of saves, etc. Just because you leave the forest doesn't mean your forestry skills should completely disappear. It should be about finding new ways to apply those skills.
That's how I'd like it to be done, anyway.
I Agree The "scene transition" penalty can absolutely be removed can be removed without hurting the design. (Even before it was functional but I get it made enough players feel bad to require a different method)
I also agree that a mostly universal definition of ranger should be the focus. IMO Histoical rangers, army rangers, Tolkien rangers, rangers apprentice, lone ranger, dnd past rangers and other fantasy rangers all consistently are about far reaching missions usually involved with "job site" terrain as their main goal.
the etymology of the name ranger is 'travel/protect at range/large distances' not ranged combat.(although it helps). Ranger needs at least one traveling feature even if its a not part of the power budget.(AKA Ribbon)
Following that logic, a monk should be a member of a religious group. Or a paladin should be a court official. Etc... But in the semantics of D&D a paladin, a monk or a ranger are something else. The monk is a martial artist. The paladin is (traditionally) the armed wing of a religion. And, again traditionally, the ranger is a forester. Nowadays those definitions have become a bit blurred. Especially in the paladin, who is no longer owed to a god but to an oath. And to a lesser extent the ranger, who is no longer so linked to his forester function.
Actually the consistency in the term monk is more about focusing study. Not just religious disiplines. Especially non-European titles translated as monk.
However I probably would make a monk/ranger multi-class to really build a historic European monk Over most cleric builds.
Anyway this could go off topic.... so back on track.
What if the Terrain feature just gave Rangers some kind of bonus, based upon the type of terrain they are in?
Like for arctic, it could be cold resistance. Forest, a boost to Stealth. Desert, fire resistance. Urban, a Perception bonus. Underdark, Tremorsense. Plains, Thunder/Lightning resistance. Coastal, Waterbreathing. Swamp, poison resistance & adv vs being Poisoned. Etc. (These are just "spitball" ideas, if anyone has alternate suggestions, I'd be glad to see them.)
Then, the Terrain bonuses could scale and "stack". As in, at a higher level, while in a desert, the Ranger gets fire resistance AND like a d4 fire damage added to attacks. Or maybe it's a bigger bonus like a d8, but limited to x times per day. Or something.
I don't really have specific details figured out. But I like the idea of incorporating Terrain as the defining Ranger feature. I like the idea of getting a bonus no matter what Terrain you are in (no choosing and then "whoops", we're out of the Swamp now so I guess I'm screwed.) I like the idea that as you reach higher tiers of play, you get additional bonuses that would be thematic to the Terrain.
This would be on top of whatever other features that Rangers already get (Like Roving for movement increase and climb/swim speeds. And the turning Invisible for a round feature. And whatever they end up doing with Hunter's Mark.) This kind of Terrain feature is something new(ish), unique, actually useful in gameplay, and thematic that I could get excited about.
the etymology of the name ranger is 'travel/protect at range/large distances' not ranged combat.(although it helps). Ranger needs at least one traveling feature even if its a not part of the power budget.(AKA Ribbon)
One of the reasons I like Roving so much is that it makes Rangers excellent at ranging. If I had to give Ranger a single iconic ability it'd probably involve movement in some way. A ranger should be able to jump on their chosen target and stick to them like glue. If you run the ranger can run you down. If you try to hide the ranger can find you. If you try to flee the country the ranger can track you down to the ends of the earth. Abilities that limit the foe's capacity to escape should be baked into the class as well. If a ranger calls you out as their chosen prey you better be able to out-fight them because that is the only way you're getting out of this alive.
but that isn't ranging. that is mobility monks have always been good at the mobility space. A ranger that likes the boost still has longstrider and other spells to amplify it. combat movement is less important to a ranger than out of combat movement. Frankly, I could always get more useful movement further ignoring difficult terrain rather than extra movement.
similarly fighters get action surge for extra actions in combat but 2014 ranger was designed to give extra actions out of combat (2x foraging, 2 actions while traveling, 2x studying). now 2014 was convoluted to use (and possibly situational) and many people didn't like its implementation but its intended function is exactly what players wanted.
I feel like I could keep going about how rangers are designed to contrast most of the other classes but that's a side track I don't want to go on.
TLDR ; Having roving is not the same as Ranging.
Foraging is irrelevant from level 1 thanks to Goodberry (which Rangers can learn at level 2), and Traveling is completely irrelevant by tier 3 (if not before) because of teleportation spells. It is poor design to have the core of any class become utterly useless during the normal course of the game.
To be fair magic breaks a ton of things in the game world. Imagine having a standing army. It would most be composed of Knights, Veterans, Archers, Commoners, and whatever flavor of Warrior is correct. A level 17 mage wizard wipes out massive number of troops from a mile away with one 9th level spell. Hopefully the army isn’t marching because that would put them in a nice formation for Meteor Swarm to annihilate them.
To be fair magic breaks a ton of things in the game world. Imagine having a standing army. It would most be composed of Knights, Veterans, Archers, Commoners, and whatever flavor of Warrior is correct. A level 17 mage wizard wipes out massive number of troops from a mile away with one 9th level spell. Hopefully the army isn’t marching because that would put them in a nice formation for Meteor Swarm to annihilate them.
So it's a good thing we don't have any character classes designed around recruiting & training a standing army isn't it? (ok so maybe the Necromancer Wizard sort of is, but it sucks both powerwise and table-management wise anyway).
TBH this very fact is actually relatively important for making the game work logically at higher levels, since otherwise existing mundane armies of the nations of your fantasy world would be able to solve all problems, and there wouldn't logically be any reason for the fate of the entire world to hang on the choices of the handful of plucky heroes the players are playing.
To be fair magic breaks a ton of things in the game world. Imagine having a standing army. It would most be composed of Knights, Veterans, Archers, Commoners, and whatever flavor of Warrior is correct. A level 17 mage wizard wipes out massive number of troops from a mile away with one 9th level spell. Hopefully the army isn’t marching because that would put them in a nice formation for Meteor Swarm to annihilate them.
A 17th-level wizard isn't fighting in a war against foot soldiers. They're operating on a whole other level; with far bigger concerns.
Why else do you think high level adventurers aren't just solving everyone else's problems for them?
the etymology of the name ranger is 'travel/protect at range/large distances' not ranged combat.(although it helps). Ranger needs at least one traveling feature even if its a not part of the power budget.(AKA Ribbon)
One of the reasons I like Roving so much is that it makes Rangers excellent at ranging. If I had to give Ranger a single iconic ability it'd probably involve movement in some way. A ranger should be able to jump on their chosen target and stick to them like glue. If you run the ranger can run you down. If you try to hide the ranger can find you. If you try to flee the country the ranger can track you down to the ends of the earth. Abilities that limit the foe's capacity to escape should be baked into the class as well. If a ranger calls you out as their chosen prey you better be able to out-fight them because that is the only way you're getting out of this alive.
but that isn't ranging. that is mobility monks have always been good at the mobility space. A ranger that likes the boost still has longstrider and other spells to amplify it. combat movement is less important to a ranger than out of combat movement. Frankly, I could always get more useful movement further ignoring difficult terrain rather than extra movement.
similarly fighters get action surge for extra actions in combat but 2014 ranger was designed to give extra actions out of combat (2x foraging, 2 actions while traveling, 2x studying). now 2014 was convoluted to use (and possibly situational) and many people didn't like its implementation but its intended function is exactly what players wanted.
I feel like I could keep going about how rangers are designed to contrast most of the other classes but that's a side track I don't want to go on.
TLDR ; Having roving is not the same as Ranging.
Foraging is irrelevant from level 1 thanks to Goodberry (which Rangers can learn at level 2), and Traveling is completely irrelevant by tier 3 (if not before) because of teleportation spells. It is poor design to have the core of any class become utterly useless during the normal course of the game.
Foraging means not having to prepare and spend a spell slot on Goodberry. Teleportation magic isn't something a party is assumed to have, and all such spells have limitations. They're principally for returning to places you've already been or are familiar with. They're not for going new places.
It's a poor reader who blames a book for something they didn't understand when it's spelled out plainly.
To be fair magic breaks a ton of things in the game world. Imagine having a standing army. It would most be composed of Knights, Veterans, Archers, Commoners, and whatever flavor of Warrior is correct. A level 17 mage wizard wipes out massive number of troops from a mile away with one 9th level spell. Hopefully the army isn’t marching because that would put them in a nice formation for Meteor Swarm to annihilate them.
So it's a good thing we don't have any character classes designed around recruiting & training a standing army isn't it? (ok so maybe the Necromancer Wizard sort of is, but it sucks both powerwise and table-management wise anyway).
TBH this very fact is actually relatively important for making the game work logically at higher levels, since otherwise existing mundane armies of the nations of your fantasy world would be able to solve all problems, and there wouldn't logically be any reason for the fate of the entire world to hang on the choices of the handful of plucky heroes the players are playing.
A 17th level Barbarian, Fighter, or Monk can’t stop the march of a standing Army. They could anime style tear through some ranks in a minute, but the Army is would still be there. Thankfully the game assumes the players would never have to face a standing army. While the world building assumes armies exist, it also assumes they are doing things Adventures wouldn’t be involved in.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
the etymology of the name ranger is 'travel/protect at range/large distances' not ranged combat.(although it helps). Ranger needs at least one traveling feature even if its a not part of the power budget.(AKA Ribbon)
One of the reasons I like Roving so much is that it makes Rangers excellent at ranging. If I had to give Ranger a single iconic ability it'd probably involve movement in some way. A ranger should be able to jump on their chosen target and stick to them like glue. If you run the ranger can run you down. If you try to hide the ranger can find you. If you try to flee the country the ranger can track you down to the ends of the earth. Abilities that limit the foe's capacity to escape should be baked into the class as well. If a ranger calls you out as their chosen prey you better be able to out-fight them because that is the only way you're getting out of this alive.
If all your Fighter/Barbarian can do is "basic bonk" then you've built it very poorly, and maybe intentionally went with simpler options like Champion and Berserker when you should have gone with more complex ones like BM or Wildheart or something. WotC isn't to blame for that.
And WotC is trying to fix these issues. Features like Tactical Shift and the Barbarian skill boosts with rage are giving more options. Is it enough? I think it helps but there can always be more.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
but that isn't ranging. that is mobility monks have always been good at the mobility space. A ranger that likes the boost still has longstrider and other spells to amplify it. combat movement is less important to a ranger than out of combat movement. Frankly, I could always get more useful movement further ignoring difficult terrain rather than extra movement.
similarly fighters get action surge for extra actions in combat but 2014 ranger was designed to give extra actions out of combat (2x foraging, 2 actions while traveling, 2x studying). now 2014 was convoluted to use (and possibly situational) and many people didn't like its implementation but its intended function is exactly what players wanted.
I feel like I could keep going about how rangers are designed to contrast most of the other classes but that's a side track I don't want to go on.
TLDR ; Having roving is not the same as Ranging.
Indeed - and I think the "more" being modular (i.e. from subclasses, feats and items) is sufficient. Base Fighter and Base Barbarian don't need to have as much "stuff" as, say, Base Ranger.
Ranging isn't just long-distance overland travel. A ranger needs to be good at combat, because rangers don't just wander the land aimlessly. They specifically patrol large stretches of territory hunting bandits, poachers, or other criminals. A ranger should be good at seeking out, finding, and capturing/defeating these interlopers. Aragorn and the Rangers of the North didn't just walk around in forests all day until the Ring was found, they were tasked with hunting and destroying the servants of Sauron to keep the people of Bree and other former Arnorian settlements safe.
In that way, Roving is a very good Ranger feature. It makes rangers better at maneuvering through complex terrain as well as makes them better at chasing down their quarry.
If we did get another major feature that improved general ranging I'd rather it be something that makes the ranger better at detecting nearby enemies or spotting ambushes. Overland travel isn't a major component of the game anymore and very, very few DMs are going to cause a TPK over rations or travel time. But being able to detect when hostile forces are nearby or being especially good at figuring out where those enemies are heading are valuable abilities that fit the ranger theme.
I suppose you could say that's what Primeval Awareness was in the 2014 version of Ranger. The problem with that ability was less the concept and more how it didn't really provide you with any useful information except in very niche circumstances. If it behaved more like when Aragorn put his ear to the ground and could hear a large number of encroaching enemies nearby and what direction they were heading it'd be a lot more valuable.
Roving can be a good combat feature (and non combat short movement issues) for a ranger but it does not Fulfill a ranger Title. As for roving; there are other ways to achieve the same results that create interesting characters. (Multiclass, spells, equipment, racial choices etc). However, party assist movement options, ignoring difficult terrain, unique traits etc. are lacking in the new design.
So roving is nice (as it frees up options)but not really filling a gameplay gap.
as for Primeval awareness I believe your analysis to be surface level. To be fair that's what most people see and it was problematic in the context of 'confusing' and 'mother may I' wording. However, even the negative information was always useful. I don't think WOTC will even attempt its return because of the 'bad blood' history of it.
Basically in playtest 7 They focused on the wrong boons of favored terrain.
I would like Favored terrain features and primeval awareness to return in cleaner forms but I really only expect the former.
No, the ranger protects civilization from the wilds and vice versa. They can even serve as go-betweens between groups of people. Don't let one novel from almost 70 years ago limit your own perceptions. Rangers are older than Aragorn, and they are capable of so much more. Yes, even as presented in the 2014 PH.
Following that logic, a monk should be a member of a religious group. Or a paladin should be a court official. Etc...
But in the semantics of D&D a paladin, a monk or a ranger are something else. The monk is a martial artist. The paladin is (traditionally) the armed wing of a religion. And, again traditionally, the ranger is a forester. Nowadays those definitions have become a bit blurred. Especially in the paladin, who is no longer owed to a god but to an oath. And to a lesser extent the ranger, who is no longer so linked to his forester function.
.... I'm using the actual, historical definition of the word. Rangers are people who were hired to patrol expanses of land to keep it safe from being exploited by the wrong people. My Tolkien example was to show how Aragorn's people were a fantastical extension of that original concept. I have no idea how you read my post and concluded that I was limiting my view of rangers to just Aragorn. He didn't go around fighting bandits and poachers, he was fighting orcs and trolls and probably some other insidious minions of Sauron we don't know about.
I never said Roving alone was all we needed to be ideal rangers, only that the reason I liked Roving is because it plays into the class fantasy of being excellent explorers and hunters. I'd like to see more features like it, though it doesn't seem likely at this point.
I really don't like Favored Terrain as it exists in 5e. The core idea is nice until you realize it makes the ranger the only class in the game that can lose class features because of a scene transition. In my ideal world, the Favored Terrain you chose just gave you flat bonuses that are thematic to the terrain but are always useful. Things like extra movement speed relevant to the terrain, extra skill proficiencies that'd be useful in that kind of environment, maybe resistances to certain types of saves, etc. Just because you leave the forest doesn't mean your forestry skills should completely disappear. It should be about finding new ways to apply those skills.
That's how I'd like it to be done, anyway.
I Agree The "scene transition" penalty can absolutely be removed can be removed without hurting the design. (Even before it was functional but I get it made enough players feel bad to require a different method)
I also agree that a mostly universal definition of ranger should be the focus. IMO Histoical rangers, army rangers, Tolkien rangers, rangers apprentice, lone ranger, dnd past rangers and other fantasy rangers all consistently are about far reaching missions usually involved with "job site" terrain as their main goal.
Actually the consistency in the term monk is more about focusing study. Not just religious disiplines. Especially non-European titles translated as monk.
However I probably would make a monk/ranger multi-class to really build a historic European monk Over most cleric builds.
Anyway this could go off topic.... so back on track.
What if the Terrain feature just gave Rangers some kind of bonus, based upon the type of terrain they are in?
Like for arctic, it could be cold resistance. Forest, a boost to Stealth. Desert, fire resistance. Urban, a Perception bonus. Underdark, Tremorsense. Plains, Thunder/Lightning resistance. Coastal, Waterbreathing. Swamp, poison resistance & adv vs being Poisoned. Etc. (These are just "spitball" ideas, if anyone has alternate suggestions, I'd be glad to see them.)
Then, the Terrain bonuses could scale and "stack". As in, at a higher level, while in a desert, the Ranger gets fire resistance AND like a d4 fire damage added to attacks. Or maybe it's a bigger bonus like a d8, but limited to x times per day. Or something.
I don't really have specific details figured out. But I like the idea of incorporating Terrain as the defining Ranger feature. I like the idea of getting a bonus no matter what Terrain you are in (no choosing and then "whoops", we're out of the Swamp now so I guess I'm screwed.) I like the idea that as you reach higher tiers of play, you get additional bonuses that would be thematic to the Terrain.
This would be on top of whatever other features that Rangers already get (Like Roving for movement increase and climb/swim speeds. And the turning Invisible for a round feature. And whatever they end up doing with Hunter's Mark.) This kind of Terrain feature is something new(ish), unique, actually useful in gameplay, and thematic that I could get excited about.
Foraging is irrelevant from level 1 thanks to Goodberry (which Rangers can learn at level 2), and Traveling is completely irrelevant by tier 3 (if not before) because of teleportation spells. It is poor design to have the core of any class become utterly useless during the normal course of the game.
To be fair magic breaks a ton of things in the game world. Imagine having a standing army. It would most be composed of Knights, Veterans, Archers, Commoners, and whatever flavor of Warrior is correct. A level 17 mage wizard wipes out massive number of troops from a mile away with one 9th level spell. Hopefully the army isn’t marching because that would put them in a nice formation for Meteor Swarm to annihilate them.
So it's a good thing we don't have any character classes designed around recruiting & training a standing army isn't it? (ok so maybe the Necromancer Wizard sort of is, but it sucks both powerwise and table-management wise anyway).
TBH this very fact is actually relatively important for making the game work logically at higher levels, since otherwise existing mundane armies of the nations of your fantasy world would be able to solve all problems, and there wouldn't logically be any reason for the fate of the entire world to hang on the choices of the handful of plucky heroes the players are playing.
A 17th-level wizard isn't fighting in a war against foot soldiers. They're operating on a whole other level; with far bigger concerns.
Why else do you think high level adventurers aren't just solving everyone else's problems for them?
Foraging means not having to prepare and spend a spell slot on Goodberry. Teleportation magic isn't something a party is assumed to have, and all such spells have limitations. They're principally for returning to places you've already been or are familiar with. They're not for going new places.
It's a poor reader who blames a book for something they didn't understand when it's spelled out plainly.
A 17th level Barbarian, Fighter, or Monk can’t stop the march of a standing Army. They could anime style tear through some ranks in a minute, but the Army is would still be there. Thankfully the game assumes the players would never have to face a standing army. While the world building assumes armies exist, it also assumes they are doing things Adventures wouldn’t be involved in.