[Tome] What does the Ranger even do?

[Drolyt]

Hunting is really just an exercise in "How do I catch X?" and superior mobility is only one of many potential answers, and it's often not even a particularly good one in D&D land. That's why it has long really bothered me that Rangers can't shut down invisibility or transportation tricks for their hunting party. I don't really give a shit if Rangers can summon nymphs or not but I find it pretty dumb that a spell casting class that's ostensibly good at physically murdering magical beasts never gets Blindsight, Invisibility Purge or Dimensional Anchor. When someone asks "Fucking blink dogs, how do they work?" a high level ranger should be able to provide an answer.

A better spell list solves (or at least really helps) most of those problems, and it is probably the easiest fix to implement anyway. Alternatively or in addition I think this is a perfect example of how a trap based class feature could work, you could have dispel magic traps, faerie fire traps, dimensional anchor traps, hold monster traps, etc.

[hyzmarca]

Originally, the Ranger was just the munchkin class. Got the best Thief skills, an extra hit die, Fighter attacks and saves and weapons and armour, and also Druid and Wizard spells at higher levels. Reduced surprise chance, crazy good magical companions, basically if there was a mechanic for things the Ranger could do it, and often better than you. On top of that, they got +1 damage per level against half the monster manual (all humanoids and giants) back when a Storm Giant had under 60 hp.

Well yeah. It bascially meant you were this guy.




And being him meant that you were better than everyone else.

It also meant that hobbits and women all the important stuff while you take all the credit.

[Midnight_v]

I notice that people keep saying the tome fighter with a few feats does it well already.

Maybe he starts off with like the tome samurai by pointing out a few combat feats that he gets and flushing out whats missing with spells, and animal companion, and whatever else woodland things people thinks he need.

I mean. . . Ranger could easily be something akin to:
Druid - WildShape + Good Bab
In the tome that's actually not too terrible a deal, what with the strengths of combat feats.

Brewing further perhaps:
-Limit his casting up top for the power to auto quicken some spells (always swift entangling etc...)
-Select a few Combat Feats specific to the class
-add some Planeshift /Planar tracking so he can progress the story.
-add relevant defenses for high level play.
i.e. Cleave Magic, Primal Assault, foil. freedom of movement/Auto planar attunment etc.

Just spit-balling there, to be sure.

[Whipstitch]

It's too bad that D&D has already trained people to think of rangers as a martial counterpart to druids in the same way that a paladin is a martial counterpart to clerics. Because honestly, I feel like Rangers would have been more thematically distinct as an arcane rival or foil to druids instead of being Team Nature's weak sibling. There's always demand for gishes, after all. Of course, I suppose it'd be easy to end up stepping on the toes of bards that way, although tbh I've never really cared for bards anyway.

[Sakuya Izayoi]

I think the ranger would do better as the Full BAB Shaman, rather than the Full BAB Druid. The ranger uses the environment against his chosen foe, whether that be forest, Underdark, or the nonlinear paths of the Astral. The jokes about sentai "rangers" brings up a good point: Rangers can thrive off their environment while the Fighter thrives off their magic item golfbag. Sentai rangers don't need to loot or swap out magic weapons because they can summon them. They don't need to beg a cleric to buff them up to fight a dragon because they can summon a giant mount. Their toolkit is wholly internalized through skill and knowledge and innate abilities.

[brized]

Hunting is really just an exercise in "How do I catch X?" and superior mobility is only one of many potential answers, and it's often not even a particularly good one in D&D land. That's why it has long really bothered me that Rangers can't shut down invisibility or transportation tricks for their hunting party. I don't really give a shit if Rangers can summon nymphs or not but I find it pretty dumb that a spell casting class that's ostensibly good at physically murdering magical beasts never gets Blindsight, Invisibility Purge or Dimensional Anchor. When someone asks "Fucking blink dogs, how do they work?" a high level ranger should be able to provide an answer.

Yeah, I came to this conclusion as well. My RPG project has a ranger class that fits that bill. I have an earlier version that still meshes fairly well with D&D 3.X rules if you want to see it.

When I think of rangers mechanically, I think less of Aaragorn and more of Geralt of the Witcher series, except in D&D 3.X you have to go even further than that because the power scale of D&D worlds can go so much higher.

[Lokathor]

Part of the problem seems to be that the Fighter ate the Ranger's lunch at some point.

So what if we take the bard chassis for spellcasting (like the Assassin), give spells known off of the Druid spell list. Full BAB, some automatic feats here and there, and then some "hunting" and "trap" class features. Probably features that let them have extra effectiveness against oversized and non-humanoid opponents. Freedom of Movement, avoiding AoOs, things like that. Heightened mobility and heightened senses (see invis, arcane vision, true seeing, etc) also seem like key features that need to come online at some point.

It seems like this class would be one with less options and more fixed features (more like samurai or barbarian than fighter), but you'd still have spell selections to make so it wouldn't be entirely stale.

[Lokathor]

Alright, here's an outline of how a Ranger might look if they were using Spheres instead of spell slots. Only levels 1 to 5 are really filled in though. Higher levels would have to have things like advanced perceptions and advanced movements. This is just some food for thought I guess.

The Ranger
"You're not nearly frightened enough. I know what hunts you."

Every Ranger comes from a civilization, but they do not live among that civilization. Instead they live in the wilds around it, hunting and stalking anything that would attack those that they protect and serve.

Playing a Ranger: <foo>

Alignment: Any, though Rangers are more often Chaotic than Lawful.

Races: Any, though Humans, Elves, and Orcs are much more often Rangers than Dwarves, Halflings, and Gnomes.

Starting Gold: 8d4x10gp (200 gold)

Starting Age: As Fighter.

Hit Die: d10

Class Skills: The Ranger's class skills are Climb, Concentration, Craft, Disable Device, Handle Animal, Heal, Jump, Knowledge (Any), Listen, Move Silently, Profession, Ride, Search, Spot, Survival, Swim, and Use Rope.

Skills Per Level: 6 + Int Mod.

Base Values: BAB (1/1), Good Fort, Good Ref, Poor Will

Level	Special
1	Animal Companion, Track
2	Woodland Stride, Evasion
3	Sphere, Trapfinding
4	Improved Animal Companion
5	Swift Tracking, Camouflage
6	Sphere
7
8
9	Sphere
10	Hide in Plain Sight
11
12	Sphere
13
14
15	Sphere
16
17
18	Sphere
19
20	Wilderness Victory

Class Features

All of the following are class features of the Ranger.

Weapons and Armor Proficiency: Rangers are proficient with all Simple and Martial weapons, as well as with Light and Medium Armor, and Shields.

Animal Companion (Ex): A first level Ranger gains an Animal Companion. This can be any animal of CR 1 or less, of a size no more than one size larger than the Ranger.

Track: A 1st level Ranger gains Track as a Bonus feat.

Woodland Stride (Ex): A 2nd level Ranger can ignore any kind of Difficult Terrain modifiers, as well as all magical terrain impediments such as Entangle and Plant Growth.

Evasion (Ex): A 2nd level Ranger gains Evasion. They take no damage from a "reflex half" effect if they make their save.

Sphere: At 3rd level, and every three levels thereafter, the Ranger gains access to a Sphere. The Ranger can pick among the Air, Animal, Earth, Fire, Healing, Plant, or Water spheres. At each opportunity the Ranger can either select a new sphere or improve an existing sphere by one level (Basic, Advanced, Expert). (Note: These spheres haven't all been written up previously. Use the spell lists of the Cleric domains of the same name, but assume that the special abilities would actually be useful instead of mostly weird turning abilities.)

Trapfinding (Ex): A 3rd level Ranger gains the Trapfinding ability. They can find and disable traps with a DC greater than 20, including any magical traps.

Improved Animal Companion: At 4th level the Ranger's Animal Companion begins to improve. It now counts as a Cohort and always has a CR of 2 less than the Ranger's level. The Companion can be any Animal or Magical Beast.

Swift Tracker (Ex) Beginning at 5th level, a ranger can move at his normal speed while following tracks without taking the normal -5 penalty. He takes only a -10 penalty (instead of the normal -20) when moving at up to twice normal speed while tracking.

Camouflage (Ex): A Ranger of 5th level or higher can use the Hide skill in any sort of natural terrain, even if the terrain doesn’t grant cover or concealment.

Hide in Plain Sight (Ex): A Ranger of 10th level or higher can use the Hide skill even while being observed.

?

Wilderness Victory (Ex): At 20th level, the Ranger wins the game. As a Free Action, they can count as though they were in a natural terrain type of their choosing. This effect lasts until they use another free action to pick a new terrain type.

[AndreiChekov]

Has anyone considered the Ranger as the enemy of nature?
The one who subjects and masters it to protect civilization from those hippie druid madmen? Because I always thought druids were described to be lunatics, people how side with nature instead of people. Why not have rangers be the enemies of druids. They learn about nature to defeat it, and to protect civilization from it.
The ranger can be the hunter from little red riding hood, or peter and the wolf.

This sets him up a bit like the blighter(?) prestige class. Where he causes grass to just die around him, and animals run in fear, and if they don't they are mind controlled into his will. And he can take plans and force them to heal and help people instead of growing in their potato patch, and ruining their precious potato.

[AndreiChekov]

And, make animal companion optional. There have been games where everything but the animal companion was what I wanted in a character.

[Whipstitch]

Has anyone considered the Ranger as the enemy of nature?
The one who subjects and masters it to protect civilization from those hippie druid madmen? Because I always thought druids were described to be lunatics, people how side with nature instead of people. Why not have rangers be the enemies of druids. They learn about nature to defeat it, and to protect civilization from it.

Well, yeah, that's kinda what I meant by rival or foil, although I'd be wary of describing them as an outright enemy of nature since that can get cartoonish and insane the other way. I mean, yes, it's interesting to note that D&D land likely has different attitudes towards conservation than we do. We're a post industrial society that is painfully aware that we often make things extinct by accident while D&D land has shit covered farmers getting dissolved by ankhegs. As such it isn't particularly weird that D&D characters worry more about culling dangerous predators than staying carbon neutral.

However, you also have to remember that in D&D land "Humanity vs. Nature" isn't a clear cut good guys vs. bad guys thing--rarely if ever does anyone step up and really define what druids stand for or even define who counts as "natural" aside from a general "No Undead, on Aberrants" clause. And that means the issue is undecided because in D&D you can seriously have a conversation with a blink dog, flirt with nymphs and party with pixies--hell, even some of the trees can talk, and the ones that do are frankly a lock to be smarter than the party fighter when it comes right down to it. It's entirely possible that druids could stand up for satyr sovereignty and actually have that be a pretty reasonable position.

[Adam Reith]

OK, many people have noted that the ranger's main schtick, the whole "tracker/wilderness guide" thing, is obsolete by level 5. We can certainly extend its shelf life, but that would require cutting into the spells lists in the name of niche protection.

For example, if the ranger got anchored navigation, mass planar adaptation, teleport trace, find the path, discern location, and so on as he leveled up, and if no one else could do those types of things, then after 5th level he'd still be the go-to guide and tracker, only he'd be transitioning from the woods (local wilderness) to the outer planes (expanded wilderness).

[Blicero]

Another thing hunters do is set traps. It would be cool if rangers had some sort of trap-themed battlefield control. Not like DMG traps, something you can set up just before or even during combat. At higher levels their traps would be supernatural in nature.

The ranger in Legend gets a bunch of trap-themed abilities, and they're pretty cool.

[8d8]

Favored enemy seems like it aught to work best as a bonus the ranger gets when he needs it, against whom he needs it, much like how the Tome fighter can use and get Weapon Focus with any weapon. Choosing one enemy type at a low level always results in that choice being mostly wasted just a few levels later. When your favored enemy bonus becomes high enough to care about the chances of you fighting a goblin again are slim. Make it a scaling bonus against a shifting enemy type instead.

But I kind of like the idea that the druid and the ranger are the same class differentiated only by which class features you choose. Pick good BAB or wildshape; pick full casting or ranger casting; etc.

[Prak]

I suppose the essence of the ranger is "highly mobile combat wilderness guy." That actually implies a lot of things. It implies he is good at surviving in at least one environment that is short on markets and hotels. There probably isn't a huge need to worry about balance, but I will point out that it's more impressive to survive in a desert than a forest. It also implies that, as a part of that, he's good at hunting, which includes tracking, archery, and probably spears. And it implies he's good with traps.

The thing I think the class could really use is a mechanic that emulates the highly mobile combat of Aragorn and Legolas in the LotR movies. I'm not sure what to do, but I think there needs to be something that encourages moving a lot (that isn't Skirmish), or makes it feel like your character is bouncing all over the place.

[virgil]

The thing I think the class could really use is a mechanic that emulates the highly mobile combat of Aragorn and Legolas in the LotR movies. I'm not sure what to do, but I think there needs to be something that encourages moving a lot (that isn't Skirmish), or makes it feel like your character is bouncing all over the place.

Increased speed, self-flanking, mobility feat style bonuses, spring attack/whirlwind, high-damage single attack to reduce reliance on full-attacks, bonuses to nonconsecutive attacks, Jester's power slide, etc.

[Ferret]

When I think of rangers mechanically, I think less of Aaragorn and more of Geralt of the Witcher series, except in D&D 3.X you have to go even further than that because the power scale of D&D worlds can go so much higher.

I hadn't thought about it, but this is 100% great as an ideal to strive for.

Maybe take it one step further, allow rangers some enhanced potion options they can self craft, temporary or permanent mutations?

Add in some caster/supernatural/ex ability shutdown and hey presto...

[brized]

OK, many people have noted that the ranger's main schtick, the whole "tracker/wilderness guide" thing, is obsolete by level 5. We can certainly extend its shelf life, but that would require cutting into the spells lists in the name of niche protection.

For example, if the ranger got anchored navigation, mass planar adaptation, teleport trace, find the path, discern location, and so on as he leveled up, and if no one else could do those types of things, then after 5th level he'd still be the go-to guide and tracker, only he'd be transitioning from the woods (local wilderness) to the outer planes (expanded wilderness).

This too is the conclusion I came to for the late game. Outside of combat effectiveness, the main service a ranger should provide the party is finding things and getting places, or at least knowing where to go and how to survive once you're there. The party should be able to cover those roles via magic items, other classes, and/or hiring an NPC, but those methods should be less effective or more costly compared to having a ranger in the party.

And yes, you have to cut out or change a lot of spells from the Tier 1 caster lists to really make it work, but moving those classes toward the more limited Beguiler/Dread Necro format is the way to go anyway.

Maybe take it one step further, allow rangers some enhanced potion options they can self craft, temporary or permanent mutations?

Add in some caster/supernatural/ex ability shutdown and hey presto...

Working in exclusive higher level potion brewing and exclusive improved alchemical flasks would be relatively easy to compare with existing spells/items to balance cost and power in a level-appropriate way.

Mutations were the flavor I went for in acquiring permanent Darkvision, Blindsight, enhanced movement, etc., but the overall flavor I use to justify non-casters getting nice things is that magic reshapes reality. Constant exposure to magic spells, items, creatures, and environments builds residual reserves of magic in your body. The more you push yourself to your limits, the better you get at reshaping reality to your will. Casters express this by becoming better at taking magic outside of their bodies and shaping it into spells, while non-casters express this by internalizing their reality-warping abilities - greater sight, strength, speed, exaggerating their skills to do "impossible" things, etc. I dunno if that'll work for every game setting, but it's the best I have right now.

[Drolyt]

The thing I think the class could really use is a mechanic that emulates the highly mobile combat of Aragorn and Legolas in the LotR movies. I'm not sure what to do, but I think there needs to be something that encourages moving a lot (that isn't Skirmish), or makes it feel like your character is bouncing all over the place.

I think allowing archers to move and full attack (better yet full attack while they move) and generally allowing archery to suck less gets you most of the way here. Mobility is really only used to improve your position, either to inflict more damage or take less damage, and that's already somewhat reflected in the rules. The problem is that nonspellcasters are gimped by moving. Although I suppose if you go this route you'd need to figure out what to do with longbows so that they're still viable.

[brized]

I think allowing archers to move and full attack (better yet full attack while they move) and generally allowing archery to suck less gets you most of the way here...Although I suppose if you go this route you'd need to figure out what to do with longbows so that they're still viable.

Nevermind what to do with melee so that it's still viable.

Fundamentally, you can have a character out-range or out-move another character, but not both, or you get this. There are balancing exceptions like stealth, limiting line of effect, outstanding toughness, deadliness, etc., but those need to be held by characters lacking the benefit of combined superior range and mobility. Similarly, characters with both superior range and mobility should have enough drawbacks that they don't dominate the game.

Anyway you're probably better off leaving ranged attacks mostly alone and changing spells to reduce the whole "casters are effective while moving" problem. You could change all mid/long range spells to take at least 1 round to cast instead of a standard action,or you could go further and change all non-swift, non-immediate, non-quickened spells into 1-round actions. Let melees and throwers full attack and move, it'll improve balance a fair amount. I'm open to more elegant methods, though.

[icyshadowlord]

Another thing hunters do is set traps. It would be cool if rangers had some sort of trap-themed battlefield control. Not like DMG traps, something you can set up just before or even during combat. At higher levels their traps would be supernatural in nature.

The ranger in Legend gets a bunch of trap-themed abilities, and they're pretty cool.

Meanwhile, the trap-making rules of D&D suck balls.

[CatharzGodfoot]

The ranger works best as a guide: A rogue can sneak, but a ranger can help her friends sneak.

They also have the flavor of being woodsy, but as people have said, the 'protector of nature' thing is for druids, not rangers. I wrote a short class along those lines about five years ago, the hunter: http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=48759 . The results aren't completely satisfactory, but it hits the main points without getting too complicated.

[OgreBattle]

The ranger works best as a guide: A rogue can sneak, but a ranger can help her friends sneak.

Do you think that kind of distinction between class is good when you have Cleric/Wizard/Druids being masters of all trades though?

I feel that if it's a game with Clerics/Wizards/Druids then the ranger's niche is something a Fighter/Samurai/Barbarian/Rogue can pick up.

But if it's a game with Dread Necromancers, Warmages, and Beguilers as the full casters and Bard as the versatile caster, then Ranger would fit as a standalone class too.

[CatharzGodfoot]

The ranger works best as a guide: A rogue can sneak, but a ranger can help her friends sneak.

Do you think that kind of distinction between class is good when you have Cleric/Wizard/Druids being masters of all trades though?

I feel that if it's a game with Clerics/Wizards/Druids then the ranger's niche is something a Fighter/Samurai/Barbarian/Rogue can pick up.

But if it's a game with Dread Necromancers, Warmages, and Beguilers as the full casters and Bard as the versatile caster, then Ranger would fit as a standalone class too.

I don't think it's justifiable to force a fighter, samurai, barbarian, or rogue to dump a ton of feats so the party can have a ranger. And I don't think it's justifiable to put everything that a ranger is into one or two feats.

If the game can support fighters, samurai, barbarians, and knights as separate classes, then it can accommodate rangers as a separate class as well.

[...You Lost Me]

I thought the ranger was just two or three feats. One for an animal companion, one for a fighting style, and one for some nature magic.