Where is the ranger?

Where is the Ranger class?

The last time I spoke to a WotC employee on the phone, he indicated that the character creation rules would have rules for ALL the classes.  However, upon inspection of the 2nd packet, it is only the 4 original classes from the first playtest.

If you are not going to include all the classes, you need to train your employees better.  It's not nice to simply lie to people because you don't know an answer.  


It's also not nice to create threads designed to drag them through the mud for plans that may change.

You do realize that the most likely result of your complaint is not that they will work even harder to get you the ranger faster, but rather to never tell you anything at all, right?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Does speaking to a D&D employee on the phone consititute any kind of firm plan or promise to begin with? I don't see how anyone following the recent articles would have expected there to be creation rules for a dozen classes or whatever in this packet. The game isn't really there yet.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
Fighter + Archer or Dual Wielder + Background of your Choice that gives Animal Handling?

Make a Ranger Background that gives you the Animal Handling, Stealth and Nature Lore skills along with some sort of Ranger-y trait?

Its not that hard really
Fighter + Archer or Dual Wielder + Background of your Choice that gives Animal Handling?

Make a Ranger Background that gives you the Animal Handling, Stealth and Nature Lore skills along with some sort of Ranger-y trait?

Its not that hard really

They're sticking to the core four for the moment.

As mentioned above, fighter plus archer build (or other appropriate build) plus appropriate background = ranger.

Rangers aren't a class. They're not even an archetype, as the ranger archetype hasn't made sense in decades.
Fighter + Archer or Dual Wielder + Background of your Choice that gives Animal Handling?

Make a Ranger Background that gives you the Animal Handling, Stealth and Nature Lore skills along with some sort of Ranger-y trait?

Its not that hard really

They're sticking to the core four for the moment.

As mentioned above, fighter plus archer build (or other appropriate build) plus appropriate background = ranger.

Rangers aren't a class. They're not even an archetype, as the ranger archetype hasn't made sense in decades.

Actually, Rangers ARE a class.

From the post by Bruce Cordell:


We’ve shared the design goals of several D&D classes, including the cleric, the paladin, the rogue, and the fighter. Now it’s the ranger’s turn.


Rangers have been part of the game for decades. In the 1st Edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Players Handbook, a ranger is described as being “adept at woodcraft, tracking, scouting, and infiltration and spying.” The concept of rangers stretches all the way back, one assumes, to the character Aragorn, and the Rangers of the North of J. R. R. Tolkien’s Middle-earth mythos. Rangers were warriors at home in the wilderness, and they could unerringly track down their enemies. Every edition of the game since 1st steered the ranger a little this way and a little that way.


The modern concept of the ranger also owes something to a ranger named Drizzt, a drow ranger created by R. A. Salvatore’s. Drizzt has adventured across the length and breadth (and depths) of the Forgotten Realms with a weapon in each hand and a faithful animal companion to watch his back. Even though Drizzt doesn’t typify rangers, his traits have colored the popular conception of the ranger all the same.


So we had a lot of material to track down before we came up with the ranger design that met our class criteria (be recognizable to D&D players, be unique from other classes, and resonate in some fashion with an archetypical story).


The following design goals are generally listed in order of importance to the class, though we feel they’re all important for shaping a ranger.


1. The ranger is a wilderness hunter and tracker.


Rangers are at home in the uncharted wilds, whether those wilds are darkling forests, mountain badlands, or sunless deeps. In their guise as trackers, rangers are both stealthy and alert. They can track a falcon on a cloudy day and find useful herbs. They remain aware of potential trails or ambushes. In their guise as hunters, rangers can choose to focus on an individual quarry, whereupon their hunter’s instincts kick in, allowing them to strike with enhanced lethal force.


2. The ranger is a warrior.


Rangers wear light armor appropriate for stalking prey, and they are adept with martial weapons. Having learned many hard lessons in the wild, rangers are tougher than other people, and they are better able to withstand hurts. Many rangers focus on a particular combat style, traditionally two-weapon fighting or archery, and they do so by using an appropriate theme.


3. The ranger is a protector.


Rangers revere nature, and they are often called to protect individual trees or creatures, groves or packs, or fey creatures. Rangers can also protect creatures that are out of place in the wilderness, serving not only as a guide, but also as a personal defender against threats both natural and unnatural.


4. Rangers are friends with wild creatures.


Natural beasts are generally well disposed toward rangers and vice versa, as reflected in a ranger’s natural ability to befriend animals. Rangers have the option to form a deeper bond with a given animal by gaining its trust and loyalty, allowing it to aid the ranger as a scout, informant, or provider of some other useful service. Each new animal with which a ranger bonds allows the ranger to grow a better understanding and appreciation of the natural world.

Just because some people don't like the Ranger doesn't automatically disqualify him as a viable class.  Personally, I believe if they removed the Ranger it would destroy D&D. 


 

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true">The following design goals are generally listed in order of importance to the class, though we feel they’re all important for shaping a ranger.

1. The ranger is a wilderness hunter and tracker.


2. The ranger is a warrior.


3. The ranger is a protector.


4. Rangers are friends with wild creatures.



1)  That's a background.  Until we see the full depth of backgrounds, to presume there isn't one like this isn't in our best interest.

2)  Hence a Fighter, with trappings.

3)  Since when?  I don't recall any iteration of a Ranger being a protector, aside from the "protector of nature" idea which is largely a RP conceit and doesn't require any actual rules

4)  Animal Handling does this quite nicely.

I'm certainly not saying "get rid of Rangers" as I quite like the class concept.  Personally though, I'd rather see examples of how to use the Background/Specialty ideas with a one of the 4 core classes to make a Ranger, or a Barbarian or an Assassin or a Paladin etc. 

I think that if you start having specialized classes (which the Ranger is) and then add on Background and Specializations the character becomes almost hyperspecialized.  What exactly does a Ranger do that's not already covered by the Backgrounds and Specializations?  Aside from versions that cast spells (which personally I despise).  Survive in the wilderness?  Check.  Be able to train animals?  Check.  Be able to dual weild?  Check.  Good with a Bow?  Check.  Tracking?  Check.

Necessity is the mother of invention and if there is no Ranger class, then people will have to come up with combinations that make a Ranger for their games and, IMO, that's one of the best parts of an RPG.  Making something up yourself.

Ever since Mike Mearls's post about fighters being the best archers, I've personally believed that rangers in D&D Next shouldn't be a class since they should just be a subclass (or whatever you want to call it) under fighter, since it is my belief that rangers should be the best archers. So I am quite happy with what they did in this playtest packet regarding the styles and specialties. And yes, as defined by Bruce Cordell, rangers are only a specific background and/or specialty, not a class.
Wizard's first rule: People are stupid.
The ranger is a strange mix of all 4 classic classes with a special slaying and hunting focus. It cannot be completely crested yet.

But the current playtest is designed to test the cleric, fighter, rogue, and wizard. Once those are cemented, then the ranger can be finished.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

When I first glanced through this playtest, I saw lots of potential for Paladins and Rangers and Bards using Backgrounds and Speciaties and had a feeling that might set some folks off.

I do think they will have ranger be its own thing though, (and pally, and monk, and druid, etc)  The more classes you have, the more stuff you can cram into your book making it more attractive.
So, they released 2 more spellcasters yet no ranger


You would think with all the talk about Drizzt and company, they would want us to playtest one of the most iconic classes in all of Forgotten Realms.  
I always thought the ranger was a weird/pointless idea for a class.
They're going to include it eventually, though, to be sure.   
Heya everyone, here are my homebrew threads: (yes there is only one right now, but there are more to come!) And Let There Be Fish-Men: KUO-TOA
Assuming there is truth to all the classes getting out to us pretty quick we can hope.  I think the Sorc and Warlock update is a good sign of how they plan to release things.

I for one have always loved the ranger.  When it's built correctly!!  The Ranger isn't a subclass of the fighter.  4e just left all the flavor of non-combat DnD out.  The class shouldn't be just two fighting styles.  I'll agree the fighter should should style get achery and TWF.  So if the Ranger only specializes a bit more in those thats fine by me.  The trick to building a Ranger class isn't to focus on the fighting styles solely.  You need to focus on it being a Skilled class with some fighting to round it out.  You should be able to make a Scout, Bounty hunter, Beast master and ect.  Plus I'm hoping that 5e gets things right with offering choices for NO spell casting and Urban options.  I can see the Ranger making a good Sherif or Detective style class with certain options.  I tend to see the Rogue as the mouse and the Ranger as the cat.

Trying to be patient while the powers that be decide the ultimate fate of us Rangers everywhere.  Oh well, I suppose I could go track down and kill Orcus...again.

 
. . . I'm sorry, why exactly was this thread bumped after 2 weeks?

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
Thread Necromancy!! 

Danny

Where is the Ranger class?

The last time I spoke to a WotC employee on the phone, he indicated that the character creation rules would have rules for ALL the classes.  However, upon inspection of the 2nd packet, it is only the 4 original classes from the first playtest.

If you are not going to include all the classes, you need to train your employees better.  It's not nice to simply lie to people because you don't know an answer.  


Define "ALL the classes," please. At that time the playtest version of the game had four classes, all of which were included in the 2nd packet. If the employee meant all possible classes, it should also have had barbarians, bards, druids, paladins, sorcerers, warlocks, warlords, assassins, avengers, wardens, seekers, hexblades, warmages, psions, wu jen, soulknives, etc.. I don't see you complaining about the lack of the spellthief in the packet.

The Greendale Campaign

 

I was there at the dawn of the Third-and-a-Halfth Age of Dungeons & Dragons. I saw action during the Crisis of Infinite Foundations, stood on the ramparts of the Citadel of Mirth, delved deep into the debauchery of the Forum of the Adult, and fought alongside the Infernal Bovine on the fields of the Eberron War. I weathered the Ponystorm. I witnessed as the orcs came for the wizos, and I wept mightily. I saw the realm crack as the Fourth Age came upon us, and I witnessed the eldritch tendrils of the dread Gleemax. Now I watch as the Meta Wars ravage the land as the Fifth Age is dawning. I have walked these Boarderlands for many a long year, and bear many scars in my soul. Yet I remain the White Sorcerer, ever in your service. TWS out.

Ever since Mike Mearls's post about fighters being the best archers, I've personally believed that rangers in D&D Next shouldn't be a class since they should just be a subclass (or whatever you want to call it) under fighter, since it is my belief that rangers should be the best archers. So I am quite happy with what they did in this playtest packet regarding the styles and specialties. And yes, as defined by Bruce Cordell, rangers are only a specific background and/or specialty, not a class.



rangers don't need to ever touch a bow.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
Where is the Ranger class?

The last time I spoke to a WotC employee on the phone, he indicated that the character creation rules would have rules for ALL the classes.  However, upon inspection of the 2nd packet, it is only the 4 original classes from the first playtest.

If you are not going to include all the classes, you need to train your employees better.  It's not nice to simply lie to people because you don't know an answer.  


Define "ALL the classes," please. At that time the playtest version of the game had four classes, all of which were included in the 2nd packet. If the employee meant all possible classes, it should also have had barbarians, bards, druids, paladins, sorcerers, warlocks, warlords, assassins, avengers, wardens, seekers, hexblades, warmages, psions, wu jen, soulknives, etc.. I don't see you complaining about the lack of the spellthief in the packet.

All the classes = every class that was going to be included in 5th edition.

I am only interested in the Ranger class, therefore I have no need to be curious of other classes.


Hopefully soon, we will get an update on classes other than the "core 4".  
Go along with the WIS for Archery thread, and then make a fighter balancing STR and WIS in whatever way you want, go with light armor and either two weapon fighting or archery as a specialization, take Nature Lore, Animal Handling and Survival as skills, alt. take a variant of the Commoner background.

A ranger. (although the non druid magical kind)
There is so much more to being a Ranger than simply recoloring the fighter.  Rangers are warriors, true.  However, no amount of background will ever replace the supernatural affinity we have to the wild creatures we love and protect.

The ranger must be a class.  It deserves to be a class.  Reflavoring is not enough.

Please, WoTC.  If you are reading this, please save our beloved class.  Let us know soon.  The suspense is murder. 
I'm a bit disappointed at them releasing the sorcerer and warlock before the ranger (and druid, paladin etc), but I guess the cry for non-Vancian casting really made them churn those two out ASAP.
I had totally missed the Ranger design goals. Some speculation based on what we know:

1. "The ranger is a wilderness hunter and tracker." Lots of ways to model this - a version of Rogue Mastery for Spot, Track, Geographical Lore, and Animal Handling? However, the key thing here is this: " In their guise as hunters, rangers can choose to focus on an individual quarry, whereupon their hunter’s instincts kick in, allowing them to strike with enhanced lethal force." This suggests quite strongly that some sort of Quarry system will be a class-defining mechanic, so maybe the Ranger is the Marking class?

2. "The ranger is a warrior." Light armor proficiency, martial weapon proficiency, probably a d8 HD. Key thing here is Ranger Themes, based around two-weapon fighting and archery, which provide some kind of combat style. My guess is this is going to be similar to Rogue Schemes, but with Benefits keying to Quarry instead of Sneak Attack.

3. "The ranger is a protector." This one looks more like an exploration-pillar one, and I think the key thing is "Rangers can also protect creatures that are out of place in the wilderness, serving not only as a guide, but also as a personal defender against threats both natural and unnatural." Maybe the Ranger will have outward-focused exploration abilities, like a non-combat version of the Warlord?

4. "Rangers are friends with wild creatures." Optional animal companion, which probably means the Druid is focused on Wild Shape rather than an animal companion. 

This seems pretty distinct to me: Quarry, Fighting Styles, exploration-pillar stuff, and animal companions.  
Race for the Iron Throne - political and historical analysis of A Song of Ice and Fire.
You do realize this is a playtest right?  As in here are some things we are thinking about, please test them and tell us what you think.

They've probably shown us around 5% of the material they have.  It's a bit early to freak out out about a fighter sub class yet.
The Ranger deserves to be its own class.  Merely calling it a fighter subclass would indicate otherwise.  If we were to follow this logic, then the only required classes would be wizard, fighter, cleric and rogue.

Fighters would include fighter, ranger, barbarian
Wizards would include wizards, warlocks, sorcerers, and all specialists such as necromancers
Rogues would include rogue, ninja, assassin, and bard
Clerics would include paladin, cleric, and druid

If people keep saying that there is no need for other classes such as the Ranger, then we might just see the core 4 as being the base classes with "reflavored" themes to fit other options.

I would not like to see this.  We need to have more than 4 classes.  However, I would strongly advise against making so many classes that each class is then diluted to the point of obscurity.

I thought at one time they indicated that the Ranger and paladin would be coming soon.  Perhaps, I was wrong.  That is unfortunate.   
O Ranger! O Ranger! Wherefore art thou, O Ranger?

The Ranger will appear in the playtest, maybe not as soon as some would have liked, but I very much doubt it's in any danger of being resolved to a speciality or fighter option.

I have hopes for the October playtest. Be good to see some wizard traditions as well.
I'm a bit disappointed at them releasing the sorcerer and warlock before the ranger (and druid, paladin etc), but I guess the cry for non-Vancian casting really made them churn those two out ASAP.

The playtest materials aren't driven by a desire to release things in some kind of order of decreasing core-ness, or to release things sort of like expansion packs, but by the need to test certain things at certain times. In their own words, the sorcerer and warlock showed up because they had the least idea what they were doing with those classes and wanted the most development time on them. Their inclusion wasn't demand-driven but driven by the needs of the playtest.

Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
I am glad they are taking the time to make the ranger. Or I hope they are.

They cannot be a subclass. The editions that tried proved that the core 4 lack the necessary features to do it. They were loaded with extra abilities and spells to compensate and slowed their XP for balance. The fighter lacked the skills and skill focus and the rogue lacked the combat ability and toughness.

I hope the Next ranger passes the stereotypical ranger test: survive in the wild for X number of days.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

Is there any indication of when the next playtest will come out?  I feel like I've gotten as much as I can out of the current packet.
I agree.  Show us what you have for the Ranger and let us play test it
Is there any indication of when the next playtest will come out?  I feel like I've gotten as much as I can out of the current packet.



October sometime. So probably either in 2 weeks or 1 month from now. 
Race for the Iron Throne - political and historical analysis of A Song of Ice and Fire.
It would be nice if they put the proposed release dates for the next packets on a calendar
The Ranger deserves to be its own class.  Merely calling it a fighter subclass would indicate otherwise.  If we were to follow this logic, then the only required classes would be wizard, fighter, cleric and rogue.

Fighters would include fighter, ranger, barbarian
Wizards would include wizards, warlocks, sorcerers, and all specialists such as necromancers
Rogues would include rogue, ninja, assassin, and bard
Clerics would include paladin, cleric, and druid

If people keep saying that there is no need for other classes such as the Ranger, then we might just see the core 4 as being the base classes with "reflavored" themes to fit other options.



I'd be all for this. No need for a new class to cover every particular concept. I'm not opposed to these classes existing, but I'd love to have large, generic classes to reflavor as well.


My D&D Next Philosophy: In this age of user created content, Wizards needs to take a step toward embracing that. Modularity is certainly a start, but the best possible way for Wizards to encourage homebrew is to strip the mechanics of flavor, and to ensure that they are as balanced as possible. Players today should be able to start with a concept and build that character. They should not have to force it into narrowly-defined classes that restrict the ability to play the character you want.
1e called the Ranger a fighter Sub-class but it still had it's own chart like a base class.  I think 1e was trying to categorize classes in a way like other editions did.  First edition had Fighter, Rogue, Cleric and Magic-user.  4e had Defender, Striker, Leader, Controller.  In 4e we didn't have 4 classes with these titles and then build our Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, ect off one of them.

Personally I love Base Classes so I want lots of them.  I prefer playing an Unfettered over playing a multi-class Fighter/Rogue in 3x.  It solves the problem of how bad multi classing worked in 3x with the level dipping.

As for Generic classes I think Generic is good to a degree.  However my view point is that generic should replace PrC classes not base classes.  So have a Ranger, like we always have, but then be able to build a Beast Master, Scout, Warden, Hunter, Ect off the base class without the need for PrCs.
I thought at one time they indicated that the Ranger and paladin would be coming soon.  Perhaps, I was wrong.  That is unfortunate.   

Dude, don't worry.  WotC is no more likely to drop the ranger as a class than it is to drop Drizzt Do'Urden as a cashcow character.  Seriously, I cannot emphasize this enough:  There will be rangers.  Ranging shall occur.  We are a scant few months into a multiyear development process.  Relax.  Have a little patience.
Don't get me wrong, I think Ranger will get it's own class.  It will, however, always thematically be a sub-class to me.  Much like I love a seperate Paladin class even though they are thematically another fighter sub-class to me.

Someone on these boards had an excellent idea for the Ranger.  They choose monsters/terrain/environments for their favored enemy/terrain/environment and they get bonuses to go a long with it.  Not just combat bonuses.  For example, choose kobolds and get a bonus vs traps.  Choose mountains and get a bonus to climb, choose the arctic and get a DR vs cold.  That sort of thing.  It had absolutely nothing to do with fighting styles.  It was the best idea I've seen for a ranger in a long time.
Is there any indication of when the next playtest will come out?  I feel like I've gotten as much as I can out of the current packet.



October sometime. So probably either in 2 weeks or 1 month from now. 

Where did you get this information or are you simply guessing?
They mentioned in some panel video that they're shooting for October for the next playtest packet.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
Answer: Hiding under their cloak.
http://collectingrealities.blogspot.co.nz/
Answer: Hiding under their cloak.



In the shadows NOT looking fairer and feeling fouler.
  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."