5e Rangers

According to the info I gathered from the D&D chat session earlier Friday, it was stated that there are 3 possible builds for the 5e ranger.  These are the beast master type, the Aragon type, and the Drizzt type.

I wonder if it would be possible to have a beast master type that focuses on ranged combat like we have in 4th edition.  

I personally love the ranger and sincerely hope that it doesn't get hit with the dreaded nerf hammer.  

 
I'm hoping the ranger isn't that limited.

What about a Dwarven Big Game hunter with a Crossbow, or a Woodsman with a two-handed tree chopping Axe, or a Shapechanging warrior of the wilds.


That last one is a Druid. Hopefully they'll balance the Druid better than 3.x without gimping them as per 4th. They'll likely need the caster and the shapeshifter to be split between two builds.

I like each of the other ranger types though: beasts, woodsman, archer, and two-weapons. One class that does all that really well is just too much.

"And why the simple mechanics? Two reasons: First, complex mechanics invariably channel and limit the imagination; second, my neurons have better things to do than calculate numbers and refer to charts all evening." -Over the Edge

They gotta keep the magic.  Rangers are cool cos they're like, a 7/10 in combat (6 points from them 1 from their pet) and 8/10 in exploration, then like 1/10 in social mechanics.

Like, one of their exploration points comes from cool magic and the rest is skillz.  So I guess my ideal ranger is like, Aragorn with a level in druid except the pet is better and the guy uses a bow?  I'm not sure what Aragorn means because he uses one sword but he's definitely a survival guy who can beat people up so maybe that's what they meant (which is basically what I want)

Ranger = Legolas is stupid and I don't know where that came from.

Oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh, they should bring back that thing where druids and rangers can make friends with any animal based on their class level that was awesome.
That last one is a Druid. Hopefully they'll balance the Druid better than 3.x without gimping them as per 4th. They'll likely need the caster and the shapeshifter to be split between two builds.

I like each of the other ranger types though: beasts, woodsman, archer, and two-weapons. One class that does all that really well is just too much.

depends if he can do all at once or if they are all just different directions to go.


To me the core of the Ranger is a Warrior of the Wilds.  His specialty is the enviroment.  Maybe he's the scout who keeps an eye out for invading orcs, maybe he's the hermit who just gave up on civilization and lives with his best buddy the bear, maybe he's the big game hunter who like hearing soft woodland creatures squeak their last, maybe he's the dwarf wandering the mountains devoted to hunting down every last giant on earth.

The fighting style isn't the important part of the ranger.  The important part is he's the guy who knows the outdoors like the back of his hand and whatever you want found out there he can track it down and kill it for you.
My biggest beef with the 4e ranger is that it has a bunch of Clearly Superior powers -- twin strike is ridiculously good, as is disruptive strike. Being powerful is okay, having certain powers that you're a fool to not take isn't.
what makes aragorn different from drizzt?  Both are pretty combat competant. 
Aragorn would be best emulated by a fighter with Wilderness Survival. What makes rangers unique, I think, is their spells and animal companions. If you're in it just to wield two weapons, you're a fighter.

I wouldn't put too much on this "woodland" thing, though. They're masters of their environment, whatever it might be. 
141107501 wrote:
If world peace does not break out the day 5E is released I don't see any reason we shouldn't all lynch WotC and switch to pathfinder.
According to the info I gathered from the D&D chat session earlier Friday, it was stated that there are 3 possible builds for the 5e ranger.  These are the beast master type, the Aragon type, and the Drizzt type.


I wonder what they mean by Aragon. Beast master is obviously some sort of pet keeper, and Drizzt means dual wield, but what they mean by Aragon is harder to say. It could be a sword and board ranger or a use any weapon ranger. They might also mean a flexible build, where you get a bit of range, melee and magic.

I personally love the ranger and sincerely hope that it doesn't get hit with the dreaded nerf hammer.


They desperately need it, Rangers are the most generally overpowered class in 4e. Twin strike is simply that good.

What Rangers NEED to have is the awesome capacities at their enviroment:
- Appropriate Skills (in 4e's terms: Nature, Dungeoneering, Perception, Stealth, and things like Athletics and Acrobatics)
- Good tracking capability
- Mobility
- Interesting Features related to the enviroment (like Essential's Wilderness Knacks, only more and better ones. I love the one where the Ranger / Druid collects plants and use them to increase their allies' healing surge value, for example).
- Probably, an Animal Companion
- Possibly, Nature Magic

The "specialize in a combat style" thing is much more suited to the fighter; I mean, the ranger SHOULD be able to dual-wield, but he should also be able to sword-and-board or go two-handed weapon. Maybe, MAYBE he be better at Archery because, come on, it's pretty ranger-y, but it shouldn't be his only option.

Maybe that's what they mean when talking about an Aragorn style of rangery.
I'm hoping those were just examples of what you can do with the class and not the only things you can do with Rangers... it wasn't too clear on that point.
What Rangers NEED to have is the awesome capacities at their enviroment:
- Appropriate Skills (in 4e's terms: Nature, Dungeoneering, Perception, Stealth, and things like Athletics and Acrobatics)
- Good tracking capability
- Mobility
- Interesting Features related to the enviroment (like Essential's Wilderness Knacks, only more and better ones. I love the one where the Ranger / Druid collects plants and use them to increase their allies' healing surge value, for example).
- Probably, an Animal Companion
- Possibly, Nature Magic

The "specialize in a combat style" thing is much more suited to the fighter; I mean, the ranger SHOULD be able to dual-wield, but he should also be able to sword-and-board or go two-handed weapon. Maybe, MAYBE he be better at Archery because, come on, it's pretty ranger-y, but it shouldn't be his only option.

Maybe that's what they mean when talking about an Aragorn style of rangery.

If ranger is going to mean "wilderness guy", which seems kind of fairly logical, then I'd crack off all the other stuff. The core of ranger is just the skillset for surviving and operating in the wilderness. Mobility is probably fairly core there too. The rest is dependent on your particular character concept.

One guy might be an incredible tracker, another has an animal companion, etc. Those options can be independent of being a ranger because there's no real reason why some other character class that grew up in the sticks wouldn't or couldn't have them as well. In fact some of them are perfectly appropriate to characters of any sort of background (a fighter could have a special wardog, or a wizard could have a familiar).

Combat style specialization is a whole OTHER dimension. Again, being a crack archer has little to do with being a ranger but should certainly be an option for one, and other fighting styles would seem appropriate as well.

For a basic simple 'roll it up in 2 minutes and play' sort of thing there'd be nothing wrong with "pick one of Aragorn, Drizzt, or that animal trainer guy", pick a weapon, and you're ready to go. For more interesting concept building though something like themes would work best where you can lay them on top of a ranger, a druid, a fighter, etc and they're not particularly class specific.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
What Rangers NEED to have is the awesome capacities at their enviroment:
- Appropriate Skills (in 4e's terms: Nature, Dungeoneering, Perception, Stealth, and things like Athletics and Acrobatics)
- Good tracking capability
- Mobility
- Interesting Features related to the enviroment (like Essential's Wilderness Knacks, only more and better ones. I love the one where the Ranger / Druid collects plants and use them to increase their allies' healing surge value, for example).
- Probably, an Animal Companion
- Possibly, Nature Magic



As options, certainly, but they shouldn't necessarily be baked into the class en toto.  A class should be a broad concept with a wide variety of potential options.  The Ranger is such a specific thing that I'm not even sure it should be a class*, but rather just how you take available options and put them together.  Take a basic warrior, give it whatever fighting style you want, multiclass for nature magic if you want it, call yourself a 'ranger', go.

*Yes, I know it's going to be.  But I question it.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
The ranger isn't just the wilderness guy, he's the survivalist guy. To this guy its all about self seficancy, in any enviroment, including cities.

In modern terms he's the guy that has a ton of guns, tons of wilderness survival skills, he can hunt, fish, maybe a bunker too in case of the end of the world, and a hunting dog too. He can fight (combat styles) just in case the world goes up in flames he can defend himself and his family, and in some cases he's military scout. Knowing some primal magic would simple be another tool of survival. Most focused on the bush because less need to depend on others day to day. Might go to Ranger jamborees to learn new skills and meet old friends (this happened in one FR book, don't remember which one, just that it starred my favourite ranger, whose name I,forget as well, but he had awesome deep bat companion, who could impale foes with her tail).

Btw Drizzt does have a beast companion, his panther, he might use a figurine to summon her, but thier bond is deep as any ranger beast companion. One of these days some ones going to figure out the key to beating Drizzt is tossing a giant bag of cat nip at his Panther.
Aragorn would be best emulated by a fighter with Wilderness Survival. What makes rangers unique, I think, is their spells and animal companions. If you're in it just to wield two weapons, you're a fighter.

I wouldn't put too much on this "woodland" thing, though. They're masters of their environment, whatever it might be. 



I think part of the Ranger Formula involves being able to hit stuff, just not fighter-tier hitting.  They are expected to hunt scary magical animals, after all.  I like how rangers sort of have everything, even if the spells are nothing incredible.  They're a flat 0/10 as far as face stuff goes, though, and that's okay.

On a scale of one to ten, their magical power should be like a three (worse than a bard, better than a fighter, about the same as an average assassin), their combat should be between a six and a nine (never outdamaging a fighter but in roughly the same league with focus, through companion or otherwise), and their exploration ability should be between a seven and nine (a typical rogue would be like 7.5-10).  Their social grace is one, or "Barbarian."
I have a soft spot for the Ranger, ever since I started playing 1st Ed AD&D, I mean, you could blap people with a magic-missile, not really appropriate to the class, but the 1st Ed AD&D Ranger has mad vibe.

I wouldn't mind seeing an option to be racist again (favoured enemy etc).   "...you ain't from around here, are ya, boy...?"

Th Aragorn option I like, not every ranger has to be bow or 2-weapon boy.
Yeah, favoured enemy pick a race was creepy, the whole reason I never played rangers.
I'm with Salla. Rangers (and paladins too, really) are just too specific to be its own class. Ideally, they should just provide the player the ability to create a ranger via a fighter or a rogue. Then just pick a beastmaster backround and take favored enemy feats. 
hmmm... think about it this way

what is it a ranger does that a Fighter CAN'T?
Think of a ranger like Crocodile Dundee or Tarzan.  Ranger's have the option of existing within Nature, not just acting against it.

You might be able to take a bunch of the ideas people have here and just pair them out into different styles

Tracking - ranger is a great tracker/ ranger has a pet who is a great tracker/ ranger talks to trees, rocks, animals

Assault - ranger is a brace fighting beast/ ranger has a combat pet/ ranger uses skirmish tactics

Exploration - ranger gets bonus to vs. beasts/ ranger has interaction skills to handle beasts/ ranger's pet is an animal diplomat

Social - rangers smell bad and aren't welcome in towns/ ranger's pet smells bad and isn't welcome in towns/ ranger and his pet both smell bad and aren't welcome in towns.


Just mix and match parts.  Maybe you can ignore one area completely and pick more from another.

Either way, its already built, so we'll see it when we see it.
 
Yeah, favoured enemy pick a race was creepy, the whole reason I never played rangers.



I like the idea of specializing in killing a certain type of creature.
I still think the 4e ranger was the only time they got it right...but that's my opinion.  I just hope I can rebuild my 4e ranger in 5e.
I kind of miss the old rangers when everyone wasn't an archer or TWF. Then again, there wasn't much variety back then because of the lack of TWF and other options, but I'd like to see them all exist side by side.
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls. God of ownership and possession.
I'm irritated by all the people here saying rangers can't have face skills.

Sure they can! They shouldn't be as good as a bard, but if there's going to be options to make a charismatic fighter, then there should be options to make a charismatic ranger as well. Giving one and denying the other doesn't feel like it matches the spirit of DDN.

That out of the way, here's my opinion.

I FRIGGIN LOVE TWIN STRIKE - But it is OP right from level 1 and never stops being OP until high levels where it levels out but is still really friggin good. I'm not sure how to balance it. Maybe make the second attack reliant on the first hitting (like Dual Weapon Attack, but not limited to once a round, once a turn would be good). Maybe this is a static at-will that can be switched out for something else depending on how you build your ranger.

The things that I like about the concept of a ranger in my eyes:

Exploration
Survivability
Flexibility within specializations (I'm good with a bow and an axe, but I'm REALLY good with an axe)

If the base class can make use of those three concepts in the design, I should be happy.
  Maybe this is a static at-will that can be switched out for something else depending on how you build your ranger.
 


Like a proper beast that is your second attack
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

I'm irritated by all the people here saying rangers can't have face skills.



More to the point, the concept of the class skill list needs to be flushed.  Let everybody take whatever skills they feel are appropriate to their character.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
I'm inclined to agree with Salla on removing class skill lists. If you want to emphasize certain skills for a class, that can be reflected with class features (or free skill training as a class feature).

My favorite aspect of the class has always been the crazy wilderness denizens as followers (which later translated to beast companions in 3rd and 4th). My hope is that it will be a feature, or at least an option.
Aren't they doing away with skills completely anyway?
From what I understand, they are not completely gone, but rather much more simplified.
I never felt their was a very good fluff justification of rangers getting magic. Firstly can anybody explain that to me (without getting setting specific) and secondly how should they be rebalanced if the spells were removed? I was thinking the favoured enemy could be drastically improved or the animal companion could be on par with a druid's.
I don't want any of my Rangers to have to follow restricting 'themes' of dual-wielder or archer or striker.

Nor do I want my Rangers to have to rely on the the animal companion or the 'favored enemy' stuff to be balanced.

If want to build a Ranger who uses a greatsword and doesn't focus much on his 'favored enemies' then I should be able to do so.

Having some druidic spells seems fine to me, as well as the opportunity to pick up a lot of skills and special talents like the Rogue.
Leadership and class choice should have NOTHING to do with each other, EVER. Conflating the two is simply horrendous game design.
I'm irritated by all the people here saying rangers can't have face skills.



More to the point, the concept of the class skill list needs to be flushed.  Let everybody take whatever skills they feel are appropriate to their character.



I think that issue has been addressed by the Background system.  I think the 5e background system is better than either 4e, 3e, 2e or 1e at this point.  As weird as it seems, it feels more 1e/2e to me; just with better guidance than provided by those manuals.


I won't pass judgement on the ranger until they release more information on it.  Is there a post where we can look at the chat session feed?  
Sign In to post comments