Has this ever been done right in any edition? What's the class core traits and identity? Should it even be a class? Does anyone want it to be a magic caster? Why does wotc not want to make it good?
What's the best race to play ranger?
AD&D 1e is the only D&D game that got rangers right.
No.You're a fighter that lives in the woods. If you want to distinguish yourself from just being a fighter, that would make you either a hunter, a scout for an advancing army or a bandit.No.No.They probably want to, but cannot do it.
>>93440088I like the statement that what sets a ranger apart from a druid is that a ranger is a person from civilization who defends it by venturing out into the wild and dealing with the threat there. So with that definion a race with civilization would capture it best. Else it feels more like a druid or something that's from the wild, instead of an outsider. But then again I think that that's the tension these days, that many view the ranger more as woodland beings that are of nature and part of it, like a wood elf or something, and that's where the magic also makes more sense.
What are some kino scenarios for meeting a ranger?
>>93440177you mean like the party meeting an npc ranger?
>>93440197Yeah
>>93440177"Oy! Did you just kill that stag?! Surrender yourself, you fucking poachers!"
>>934401131ecan weapon specialise can track almost supernaturally+1 damage per level vs all "giant sized" monsters on a long list including small ones like goblins and koboldsattack rate only slightly below fighter3 in 6 chance to surprise, 1 in 6 to be surpriseddruid spellsmagic user spellsmagic item usemust be goodcan't work in large group of rangerstreasure limit2eno weapon specialisationtracking only as proficiencysingle favoured enemy with +4 to hit and -4 reaction modtwo handed weapon but only in studded leather or worsemove silently and hide in shadows but only in studded leather or worseanimal affinitylimited priest spell spheres, no mu spellsmust be goodtreasure limitI wonder why you think 1e got it right.
>>93440084The D&D ranger is just a mess of too many things that don't even necessarily have anything to do with each other.I played systems that just had a hunter, a dude that was good at wilderness survival, tracking, a great shot with the bow, hardy and agile. And you know what? I had fun with them, they were good classes that contributes something, and they fit their systems world.The thematic background for the ranger is absolutely fine and it's something that makes sense to have in your standard fantasy adventuring game, and to be a class and archetypes for heroes and adventurers. It's ultimately the D&D ranger that trips over itself.>>93440088Lizardmen.
>>93440088Sergal
>>93440177>party stumbles upon beast they're underleveled for that risks tpk:ing them>ranger shows up and aggroes the beast into a pit trap >proceeds to check for tracks, wasting no time to look at the party as he asks them what they're doing there Alternatively>party are told of badass ranger living therevicious beast show up >a whistle is heard, and the beast backs off as the ranger shows up with the party realizing he's just that badass that he can tame this level of beast
>>93440246>a hunter, a dude that was good at wilderness survival, tracking, a great shot with the bow, hardy and agilethat's what the dnd ranger is
>>93440207>I wonder why you think 1e got it right.The crucial part is no idiotic guesswork choice of favored enemy.
>>93440337The hunters I played didn't have a pet animal. They didn't have spellcasting, they weren't suddenly masters as dual-wielding for whatever reason, they weren't competent in just one biome and then as good as anyone else anywhere else, and they didn't have the power of racism to be really strong against one particular type of foe.
>>93440207>3 in 6 chance to surprise, 1 in 6 to be surprisedI feel like this is so huge. When people say "ranger has no identity, the rogue is the stealthiest, the fighter the most damage, the wizard best at spells" I could easily see them as "The most perceptive" as in the guy who prevents being ambushed, and sets up the ambushes, the one who spots everything in the terrain from traps and hazards to useful things and details. To that point don't lock feral senses behind a level 18 feature, just let the ranger sense the invisible creature at level 7 or ten, like damn, you don't have to make them this bad. Ideal ranger for me would probably be a martial class or just a subclass of fighter similar to the rogue scout but with some things that make them hardier, like stealing the bg3 idea of making favored terrain into a damage resistance, then just bake all that in with the stuff that's already there like advantage on tracking, ignore difficult terrain, etc. Then throw in some trapping and monster hunting stuff on the side. I'd probably steal ghostfire's mh studied strike, which is basically a reaction attack just as a monster attacks, which I really think sells the idea of knowing the right time to attack the monster, which feels very ranger-y. I think seeing as they have the scout for rogue they may as well make one for fighter as well, or I'll just homebrew it if I got the bug to play one I guess.
>>93440391All fair points. I hear a lot of people want the pet to be the core to the ranger like hunters in WoW to give them an identity, but I personally don't like being forced like that (such as how they're forcing pallies to get a horse now), as I think there is place for a class like the one you described. I'm curious though of how the systems you played got a feeling for the character being a master of their environment and hunters without the favored terrain/foe stuff? I feel like if there was an easy answer there they would have done that? Or knowing wizards they're so stuck in their legacy stuff that they maybe can't even conceive of leaving that behind for something better but different, because then they'll feel it's too different.
>>93440441They were just hunters. Like WFRP 4e, it has a hunter class that is exactly that: a hunter as a profession. They have really good survival skills (something not unique for them, but that's how they earn their money), they can handle animals well, but don't have to deal with an animal companion (though again, if you wanted a hunting dog, you could buy one), they are great shots with ranged weapons and good in melee, agile, tough and perceptive, but get tracking relatively late in their career for some reason in this edition.It helps that WFRP is supposed to be a more grounded game, so if you have some extended track through the wilderness, having one dude being good at survival skills, navigation and even hunting for some rations can be a big deal, and failing any of these can give the GM some good justifications for starting to fuck your party over. Like not finding a good spot to rest and you start your next day exhausted and having a cold.If I had a group of players with none of these skills and they were about to venture into the wilds, I would urge them to better hire them a hunter/scout or any kind of guide. But in your regular modern D&D game, a lot of these issues will just get handwaved away.
>>93440511Makes sense. I think what you're describing is also why people intuitively want a spell-less ranger, because that's what survival and contending with nature feels closer to, having to use what's availible, and circumventing this with magic just doesn't feel as good. Like spawning some goodberry instead of foraging, or lighting a fire with a cantrip instead of with your own wit. I also don't know what exploration rules warhammer fantasy has, but there basically is no exploration pillar in dnd 5e, which doesn't help.
>>93440136Yeah. I kinda agree here. Like you want magic or supernatural abilities, fine, but how'd you get them? THAT distinguishes a ranger from someone with wilderness skills.
not that I can think of
>>93440177>party (4 halflings) go to an inn>they expect to meet a wizard>instead the ranger is there looking dark and cool in the corner
>>93440084I think so. Others may notDepends on the edition.I like it. Playing a weak class is like having poor scores; it makes it challenging.Yes. Me. >>93440685Can't have redneck hillbilly power fantasy. Doesn't follow their marketing.
>>93440084Most people want a hunter/survivalist who is good at ambushes and stealth. The spellcasting should probably be a subclass like arcane trickster, for a lot of players it's baggage and doesn't fit their concept, but the concept has been around so long that there's a precedence of D&D rangers casting spells and I wouldn't want to get rid of it. My guess is that whenever someone gets a good idea for a stealth-and-ambush ranger they say "oops, I made a rogue-but-different" and then give their new mechanics to the rogue. But there's room for both. Look to the difference between the 3e scout and rogue, the scout gets extra damage only in the first round of combat so they feel like hunters, then they have better movement and ways of dominating the environment, the rogue's job is to be a back-stabbing weasel and to be tougher than he looks.
>>93440088Elf (brown)
If you were in charge of defining the ranger's identity and fixing it for the next edition, how would you guys like it to be?
>>93440685>>93440685>you want magic or supernatural abilities, fine, but how'd you get them? THAT distinguishes a ranger from someone with wilderness skillsCould you elaborate on this? Do you mean that hte way they're given magic now is unsatisfactory and you'd like to see it done in a different way? Right now I assume it's some attunement to the forest druidic-style way.
>>93441054>"oops, I made a rogue-but-different"I think you're dead on with this. It's like the things that people actually want from a ranger veers too close to other classes and therefore wotc deem it to not be iconic enough, and so they start throwing in the weird legacy stuff like dual-wielding and magic and what not, and then let the actual survival, ambush and stealth stuff fall to the wayside.
>>93443351Nix favored enemy and favored terrain entirely. It’s a legacy holdover that’s dragging the whole thing down.Focus ranger more on the hunter aspect. In place of the favored enemy/terrain feature, I’d push for making ranger a bit of an anti-bard. Rather than inspiring allies, it harries its quarry, penalizing their rolls where a bard would boost their allies’.Focus on the ranger as a knowledgeable expert, with magic being something they learn through observation and study of the natural world. The ranger as a naturalist that achieves their magic through skill and study would be a good contrast with the druid’s more intuitive bond with the natural world, and using Intelligence for spellcasting instead of Wisdom would provide more mechanical separation and reinforce their flavorful distinction.As hunters who learn magic through their observations of the natural world, they should get a bit more blood magic and/or necromancy than druids or paladins, but less true healing.Pets should remain subclass features or otherwise optional. All weapon configurations (sans shield) should be viable. They should lean into skillmonkeying at least a little.
>>93440088Park.
>>93443635I like the idea of a debuffer weakening their prey, and if they do insist on making it a caster then I agree int is a better fit, but I think the ranger does need the survival stuff to really live up to their name.
>>93443635yeah, this >>93443756 without being a wilderness survivor, the druid is nothing. the issue isn't that they need to get rid of this "legacy feature" the issue is that they need more robust exploration mechanics that Rangers can interact with. It's an issue with the system, not the class.
>>93443772>druidranger, my bad.
>>93443756>>93443772I have no issue with ranger being a survivalist, and see that as easily doable in the skillmonkeying category. But specifically the “favored terrain” version of survivability is dogshit. People who go on adventures don’t stay in the same biome, and there’s no real gain from restricting the ranger’s benefits in that fashion.
>>93443772>the issue is that they need more robust exploration mechanics that Rangers can interact with.I always hear about this lack of an exploration pillar, but I wonder, was that even ever a thing in previous editions, and if so, how did that even look like if you weren't playing a hex crawl? >>93443783you dun fucked it up
>>93440177Going to Texas.
Replace the favored enemy mechanic with one based on tracking. Multiple successful Tracking rolls give increasing combat bonuses to hit, ac, or sneak/death attack. So a ranger that has been tracking you for days in the wild is going to be a lot more dangerous than one who randomly ran into you. Tie their spellcasting into their environment, ie rangers who find and identify certain herbs can create special infusions that lets them cast healing spells, create poisons or other special effects. In a suitable environment they could prepare traps. Have all this stuff count as spells to simplify bookkeeping.
>>93440207Because AD&D wisely understood some classes should be prestige and simply not accessible if your stats weren't good enough.Ranger now has nothing to do. It's worthless filler.
>>93444488This. Paladin and ranger were "prestige classes" only up for choosing if you rolled good enough attributes.
>>93440084Ranger is a stupid name. The german word "Waldläufer" (engl. = "forest walker") is much better.
>>93444540In Skyrim, we call them "Stealth Archers".
In faerun, we call them Huntsman Druid / Fochlucan Lyrists
>>93444452I'm with you until you said spellcasting. Reflavoring spells as abilities never feels satisfying or believable. But your tracking idea is great. I personally wouldn't mind, but wotc would never want to implement something that would be situationally useful, and wouldn't want rangers not to have that edge in a fight where they didn't track beforehand. But I think it's dumb and they should just make the ranger goof as a base, and then situationally great, like a paladin against an undead. I think they need to be less scared of occasionally op stuff, this isn't a competitive game.
>>93444540>"Waldläufer" (engl. = "forest walker") is much betterSounds okay but not great in German to English ears, as foreign words often do--until they get co-opted by some bad franchise and hackneyed like happened to Jäger which is the word usually translated to ranger (I know it directly translates to hunter but the equivalent English speaking army units already existed and were called rangers)--but it sucks in translation.Ranger already means "someone who moves about a large area searching/hunting" which as it doesn't specify the means of locomotion would include walkers. We already have forest rangers. It's just one step from pic related to someone trying to stop a bear stealing picnic baskets though I'm not sure if it's a step up or down.
>>93444540ranger is such a cool name that it's half the reason you'd want to play it, please stay away from naming conventions german-anon
>>93444488Having a player in your party playing an intentionally op designed class just because they rolled better than you in session 0 sounds like the most boring shit
>>93443482Just think bro. In whatever particular case, a reason is needed. Fey ancestry, hedge magic, whatever flavor fits the campaign or character. The mechanics are just rules.
>>93440088Are rangers usually this cute?
>>93440084Lore-wise I only like the concept of rangers when they are explicit orders of people, like paladins but with more inner secrets and getting dirty.Mechanically I only like the concept of rangers if they are run as the beastmaster class of the game as their core mechanic. As that is the most distinct and unique concept ranger has (before anyone says druid they also get wildshape as there more defining aspect). Otherwise Ranger suffers from not really having any true identity. It often tries to be a jack of all trades but while also trying to be a specialist. Also having Ranger be the dedicated animal companion class helps to shut up players who really want pets as it gives an explicit option.However I acknowledge these to preferences are rarely compatible and rangers being beastmasters works better if they are more individuals.
>>93440564Rangers having a few practical spells to me is better than rangers being inseparable from the concept of dual wielding (though I do hate Goodberry with a passion).Ultimately I do prefer Rangers being a Fighter/Rogue hybrid with a focus on survival and perception, but if I had to choose between Rangers being spellcasters or Rangers being pretty much obligated to fight with two swords, the choice is easy to make for me.
The only way the magic of the ranger appeals to me is when trying for dark hex magic tribal angle, like a warcraft shadowhunter. Gives it some definition that just muh nature, muh druidic magic doesn't. Any ideas on how to build a cool one? Lizardman gloomstalker with Eldritch invocation feats maybe
>>93448764If Ranger is to remain a core archetype class (like in DnD) spellcasting is really helpful to separate it from the Fighters and Rogues who spend time innawoods with some nature or survival skills.
>>93450149This breaks down in an edition where fighters and rogues can both be spellcasters without multiclassing.
>>93440084Xanathar's really helped Rangers with the Horizon Walker subclass. It incentivizes popping multiple targets with your bow and gives you some mobility options. Everything that made it good in 1 has been downplayed in modern dnd>>93440207>can weapon specialiseModern dnd is basically just simple/martial>can track almost supernaturallyTracking is either a simple die roll or dialogue, which is a different skill set>+1 damage per level vs all "giant sized" monsters on a long list including small ones like goblins and koboldsRevamped to be less effective>attack rate only slightly below fighterStill true, with range>3 in 6 chance to surprise, 1 in 6 to be surprisedNot how it works anymore>spell listNow an exclusive Ranger list>magic item useSame as all other mages, still true>can't work in large group of rangersHealing is the big hurdle in modern dnd, as most of those spells fucking suck>treasure limitHardly an issue in my experience as my dm is sparse with items/treasure but curious if anyone even tracks carry weight anymore
>>93440246Couldn't you just play Fighter, then? Maybe Rogue for Survival/Nature Expertise or the Skill Expert feat for the same. Or multiclass since Rogue gives Expertise at level 1. There's even a Rogue subclass that specifically gives Survival and Nature Expertise.Playing Fighter instead of Ranger if you want to play a non-magical ranged character is a pretty common suggestion.
who?? terminally online boomer shouldnt you get a real hobby ? sheeshas a 20yrs I and everyone my age reject your deadass cringe boomer Dungeons and Dragons era iykyk based on boomer lord of the rings which is even more cringe fr. yall are delulu asfthese are the fax no printeryall sittin here in vanish mode like touch grass
