Rangers in Castles & Crusades do a lot of what you suggest. No magic, but they can cure natural poison. Their survival and tracking is terrain agnostic, and in the case of survival aids the whole party. They get bonus damage against ALL humanoids and giants in addition to getting a favored enemy at level 6. I really dig 'em.
Personally, the biggest mistake WotC and Paizo have made with the Ranger was taking everything the Ranger should have been and giving it to the Barbarian. Also, the 2e Complete Book of Rangers is what I point to when people question my assertion that kits were rarely a good thing. What was gained was always so paltry compared to what was lost, it was like the pre-Pathfinder half-orcs getting more stat penalties than increases.
You have described Pathfinder 1e Ranger, with slayer's studied enemy stuck on. Favored enemy? You get 5 of them. Favored terrain, you get 4. And they're broad, like "humans" or "evil outsiders." not just "goblins" You could stick all 5 of them into the same enemy, but why? Gear, anything but heavy armor, and heavy armor is one feat away since you're not an arcane caster. Can either get a pet or share favored terrain and enemy with your party. Same number of feats as the fighter, but half of them are restricted to the fighting style you chose at character creation. Spells are all just status removal and healing for the non rangers who screw up in nature, and some self and pet buffs that only work for them. Stuff that might not actually be magic, it's just some trick rangers know.
My Pathfinder 1e group has a sentiment. You want the Ranger's martial combat prowess but better, play Slayer. You want to make an Animal Companion into a combat monster, play Hunter or Druid. I usually tack on "You want to be a better Ranger than the Ranger? Take a 1 level dip in Ranger, the rest in Druid, and take the feat "Shapeshifting Hunter" and you are already better."
@@ZedRen-s8g Ranger's just nature paladin. Like Paladin's only good against evil stuff, Ranger's good against the favored target. Least Ranger gets to pick. Not fighting undead or demons? Not taking a paladin. Not fighting the ranger's favored enemy? Then don't take the ranger
@@acrab6527 You are correct in the fact that both in base are situational, and that is fine. And both classes have fun archetypes to augment them. I had one friend want to play a Paladin without the LG requirement, I told him the Cavalier is what he wants, and that you can trade the mount stuff for other things. He rolled up a Halfling Cavalier, that was a monster hunter with no actual ranks in Knowledges so that he gave wrong info as a joke. Our Bladebound Magus would correct him. It was comical.
My favorite Ranger was the Scout class from 3.5 Complete Adventurer. The class really captured the 'skilled woodsman' feel because it was a rogue archetype and the Skirmish ability fit well with the guerilla warfare feel that I think Rangers would adopt. For a tougher ranger type, the Dread Commando from Heroes of Battle was a great prestige class to pair with it.
Love it, that's the kind of smart fighter I always wanted fighters to be able to be, but, y'know, there's already a class for it that just gets a little too much wild completely non-fighery things and fighting restrictions.
Ive seen different ideas. The problem with the Ranger is its themed from the get-go. Its a Fighter with a bit of Druid thrown in. Those can do better as specialists. The Hunter class from Pathfinder 1st edition had Medium BAB, but it also heavily increased the importance of the Animal Companion, beginning to have one at Level 1, and having a better spell list than the Ranger. If it didnt have lower BAB and fewer Feats it would be a great idea. The best version Ive seen the Ranger as was specifically in Baldur's Gate 2. That game being based around AD&D2e bent the Ranger a bit by allowing them Medium and Heavy armors, had d10 Hit Points, and could use Stealth like a Thief. So in combat your Ranger could be in Full-Plate Armor, matching up with a Paladin. I remember the Archer class kit from Advanced Dungeons and Dragons 2nd edition. That variant of the Ranger specialized in ranged weapons. Another kit, the Stalker also gained Backstabbing as an ability, but downgraded its armor options a lot. 5eD&D treats the Ranger as a joke. Its basically designed around always using its spells to buff its attacks. That means on average its weaker than most warriors. Its actually spells still are minor except the handful of buffing spells. It doesnt synergize well with other class through multiclassing either. Its biggest problem is that the key features(Favored Enemy, Natural Explorer) of the Ranger in the Player's Handbook are practically useless. They don't give you any abilities in combat and are purely about Non-Combat acting. Its almost mandatory to taking the Optional class features instead, Favored Foe and Deft Explorer. D&D5e actually made the Bard specifically a great jack-of-all trades. In particular 5e Bards can use their Magical Secrets class feature to take Ranger feats and before the Ranger actually can. The ultimate Ranger archery spell, Swift Quiver can be taken by any Bard at level 14, 3 levels earlier than the Ranger can. Now the Valor college Bard actually surpasses the Ranger, doing essentially everything the Ranger does, but being much better in general skills and as a spellcaster.
I'm gonna be brutally honest here. What is called 4e is nothing but a mashup of the Shining Force games and Diablo 1&2 with some other video game bits thrown in. What is being called 5e is nothing but TTJRPG light where every class gets magical abilities and taking a nap regains half or all of your hit points. It is player coddling crap and needs to be recognized as such. The last D&D was Pathfinder 1e as it still holds the true spirit of the game. I went to HackMaster as they really worked all classes out to not overly outshine the other and did their best for dynamically balanced gaming mechanics. It also hold to that old time spirit of D&D, just not as magic heavy.
Yes, absolutely yes on the ranger being the party guide, this is a wonderful idea and how it should be. I strongly disagree on the intelligence bit. We're already MAD, no need to add yet another stat to the mix, also intelligence tend to be the purview of rogues, and the two classes are already similar enough. I'm also not a fan of the proposed favored terrain changes, I think we're missing an opportunity here. Instead the ranger starts with a terrain he is familiar with. Then, during game if and when the ranger encounters a different kind of terrain and loses the favored terrain bonuses, he learns and adapts to that environment, after 5 survival/nature checks, or one period of downtime, or a couple hours talking to a local with nature/survival skills (maybe including payment), the ranger adapts to that environment and can treat it as their favored terrain until they leave that region or adapt to a different one. Every three levels the ranger gets to permanently add a new always-known favorite terrain. This is where we can add Int if we really want to, a positive modifier adding to the number of known favorite terrains. An intelligent ranger being able to remember information more accurately. Yes on having the favored enemy list increase every 3 or 4 levels, but maybe we should split that ability into two. I love the idea of just handing the ranger player the monster's stat block, it's a great representation of the ranger being the expert on that particular kind of monster, as well as the other described bonuses, and I'm thinking we could keep all the out of combat bonuses associated with favored enemy on this end, and separate the mechanical combat bonuses. Target a creature you can see, use a bonus action to get a bonus to your AC and saving throws against that creature type until the end of the encounter or until you use that ability against another creature type, whichever comes first. Let's be blatant about our pilfering and call that ability Studied Target, and your favored enemies always count as a studied target. Now, slight gripe, Mr. Welch mentions not pigeonholing rangers but then describes bonuses specifically for ranged rangers. Now, as "ranged rangers" should have clued you in, assuming a ranger will be fighting at range is usually a sure-fire bait, but players will be players so let's think of an alternative for the melee rangers out there. I'm kinda drawing a blank here, especially if I'm trying not to step on the fighter or the rogue's toes or fall back to a combat style, my best idea right now would be : "If you take out an enemy in melee combat, any adjacent enemy incurs a penalty to AC equal to your proficiency bonus." at higher levels this negative modifier also applies to the target's to-hit bonuses, and maybe eventually it applies to multiple enemies who can see your deed. The reasoning being that the ranger knows the sensibilities and fears of most creatures and can take them out in particularly painful or gory ways, leaving that creature's allies shaken. Also, as a ribbon feature, putting it somewhere that the ranger has enhanced senses would be a nice, flavorful little ribbon. For the combat ranger subclass giving them sneak attack with any weapon and letting them sneak attack favored enemies should do it (still only one sneak attack a turn). I'm a sucker for heavy sneak attacks.
The intelligence bit is to give the stat some relevance for fighter types. As written now, it provides nothing for martial types outside of the least used saving throw and a bunch of skills they will most likely never acquire. Gives them a reason to actually play a smart character.
if you're worried about the stat spread then tie the casting ability to int as well. i'd put both under wisdom, because i'm fine with intelligence being useless in this case. it's the nerd stat for me. int for wizards, foreign languages, and special martial attacks
What's funny to me about Ranger is that they seem to be cursed to either be absurdly powerful or laughably weak. The very first version of the ranger from the second Strategic Review in 1975 was hilariously OP, getting an extra HD for no reason, access to all armor and weapons and druid and magic user spells. The AD&D ranger was very weak and hard to qualify for to overcompensate. 3e's ranger started off so strong that everyone dipped into it, 3.5 spread its power out so it wasn't very strong anymore, but then introduced a bunch of ranger-only spells in the splats that made it way stronger AND introduced the Mystic Ranger variant that is easily the strongest class in the edition from level 4 to level 10. 4e's ranger was notorious for standing head and shoulders above ever other "striker" in terms of damage. 5e's ranger is notoriously weak. I think BG3's take on the ranger is pretty balanced, though.
The problem with favoured enemies and favoured terrain was they only shone if campaigns, or even the campaign world, were built around them. Aragorn was a very specific kind of ranger from a very specific world with a very limited monster list. Of course he would have Orcs as a favoured enemy, and then perhaps Trolls and Nazgul, because why wouldn't he? Old school Dwarves make more sense in that setting, with their abilities vs Giants and orcs. They're highly likely to get use out of them, compared with a generic D&D setting and generic modules. So D&D Rangers have not fitted well into a generic game because they weren't generic enough. Having said that Goborrin Serrayer from the Anime _Goblin Slayer_ makes a good example of a type of Ranger, if you allow "Goblin lairs" as a terrain-type. I like your Ranger redesign ideas a lot, but I'm going to need them written down because I'm just going to forget otherwise. You suggest three different types or subclasses of Ranger, is that right? What about as a "standard" Ranger?
Baseline ranger is the skill monkey, subclasses gets you the beast master ranger, magic ranger, and combat monster ranger. Could probably make a lot more subclasses, would need to see the new rules first.
I think the favored terrain works better if it comes with a bonus that is applicable outside of that terrain, like the 3.5 horizon walkers terrain mastery. Same with the favored enemy, in the playtests for 5e they toyed with the idea that favored enemy would give bonuses like Favored Enemy Dragons: You are immune to fear because only fearless people are stupid enough to hunt dragons.
My personal Ranger pet peeve is that they cast divine magic (without any restrictions or taboos, no less), but it's never really specified from _where_ they get their spells. They just _do_
At least in the Pathfinder: Kingmaker and Wrath of the Righteous computer games, rangers are very satisfying to play, but I haven't really played Pathfinder 1e on tabletop in 15 years, and nobody ever played a ranger then, so I don't know how well it works.
It got a bit better with Archetypes, and feats. But the Hybrid Classes came in from Advanced Class Guide, and they took some of the Ranger's toys, and were better at using them. Slayer got the Ranger Combat Styles as talents, Full BAB, and had a slower progression sneak attack than the Rogue, and an ability to study foes to get a bonus to hit and damage at the cost of an action (Starts as move, becomes swift, if free if you sneak attack a target.) Hunter is a hybrid class that gets 6th level casting and 3/4ths BAB, that gets free teamwork feats they share them with their animal companion. In fact the Hunter makes great use of the Animal Companion class feature.
The archetypical ranger for me is Geralt of Rivia, if you drop the sign casting and give him a bow and traps. He's a lean acrobatic fighter, equally balanced between strength and dexterity, with neither the performative flourish of a swashbuckler or the deception and stealth of a rogue. He generally wears light or medium armor and doesn't use a shield. And most importantly, he is a forensic detective with finely tuned senses, an expert in monster properties and behaviors, and a master of potions, oils, and other situational enhancements. Rangers should be THE experts at making environments more survivable and (nonmagically) bolstering party effectiveness against specific monsters.
The Intelligence bit is to make that stat at least somewhat relevant to the fighter types. As is written now, there's no benefit of much note for a high IQ fighter type.
@@Mr_Welch That just makes them spread their stats out even more, making it even harder for them to be good at anything. They already have 3(4*) ability scores to worry about being high. Adding another one just defeats the purpose of trying to make the Ranger not shit. *Constitution is optional
In my homebrew game the ranger is a military scout. Able to sneak around enemies to take pot shot At a distance. They get terrain expert for any terrain. In wide open terain they get advantage to accuracy. In closed in spaces they get increased speed. For the party they add +1 party defense and +1 perception However the ranger need the party. They are weak against mele and magic. As far as companion they get the same hit points as the ranger and automatically defend the ranger and party.
I think finding a way to acquire limited familiarity with a terrain or enemy in the short term, in actual gameplay, would be a good addition. not having near the same bonus of their full dedicated terrain/prey of choice, but maybe an ability to gain half proficiency after dissecting a creature or spending an hour in game time getting a feel for the environment, exploring and collecting x resources in the area, etc. Making it feel like you are a ranger getting familiar with your surroundings instead of one who only relies on beforehand knowledge. The limited bonus still not being something you can just activate on the fly in a battle or encounter though, just something you can feasibly do within a shorter time period within a session, like the length of a short rest, while you have the resources on hand to get familiar with. Of course this “short term familiarity” should probably be limited to 1 creature and 1 terrain at a time. You might be no expert in aberrations, dragons are your prey of choice, but do you decide to spend your time dissecting the floating eyeball monster or the squid faced monster your party just killed? Familiarize yourself with the dungeon’s ecology, or the caves surrounding that dungeon? those sorts of short term decisions. Basically making familiarizing an active gameplay element instead of just something that flavors a level up. On one hand having a short term half bonus on a terrain and enemy type that can be switched on relatively short notice. and on the other hand having a long term full bonus on terrain and enemy types you only get on specific level ups.
Best ranger I’ve seen is in becmi the ranger is a fighter who took nature based skills. I have a few ideas but the long story short is rangers should be skirmishers, ambushers and guides as their general role.
When you mentioned "these are the rangers who learn the odds spell or trick from hedge witches" it gave me the idea of combining some form of the eremite kit from Ravenloft 2e as the point behind that was to turn a spellcaster into a more folk tale "wise woman" or "village Healer" and they "cast" their spells by preparing herbal concoctions (presumably by rolling, ahem) and either consuming it themselves, or handing it to one of their buddies to consume it. I always liked that a lot because I prefer magic to feel more subtle most of the time the PCs witness it, and that fits in really well for the magic ranger as you described here.
Kindof a side note, but are you familiar with the 3.5 "Vodan" class from the sword and sorcery Ravenloft books? It feels like they tried to combine the eremite kit with a mystic theurge but like, as a base class, I've always wanted to get one of my players to try it but nobody has bitten yet, lol.
I like a lot of these ideas. I 100% agree that magic should be a subclass, like Eldritch Knight. Most rangers should not have spells. It's a crutch that WotC has leaned on far too heavily. I also agree that an animal companion should belong to a subclass. Maybe any of them can choose something like a familiar, but something that can actually fight should be a subclass. I say, skip the favored terrain. Assume any terrain outside a dungeon or a city is effectively their favored terrain. "Ahh yes, the deserts of Val Morthos, I once tracked an orc for a fortnight through its shifting sands....." They should know everything about any monster that naturally occurs and/or someone could have theoretically met in the area. (Lotta dragons born in the area, yeah, he's dealt wih them). I love the cover rule for more damage, that's super flavorful. I also like allowing them to use any weapon. A real ranger would be proficient with many weapons to be able to use the one that works best against a particular enemy. I also love the idea of the ranger giving out bonuses to people. That's so on brand. They show you how to find food, how to hide, etc. Rather than just automatically negating those challenges, instead they literally make you better, almost like a bard's inspiration.
Sometimes I think that maybe the Ranger should have stayed as a Fighter subclass. Just be a fighter with a wilderness themed subclass that gives bonuses for hunting, traversing, and communicating with animals. Maybe part of the reason people think Fighters are so bland nowadays, is because too much was removed from them. Rangers and Paladins are their own class now. Fighters are no longer associated with leading armies, garrisoned from their own keep. In 5e they're mostly known for being able to attack more times than other classes.
Grim Hollow has a still experimental class under official development for a Kickstarter in progress, the Monster Hunter that gets bonuses to hunt various types of chosen monsters, the list of which grows every several levels to a total of 5. It sounds similar to what Mr Welch said about fighting favored foes.
I wholeheartedly agree on this approach to the 5e ranger. I suggest the names for the three described subclasses be (in order): the Beastmaster, the Preserver, and the Nemesis.
I for one, have never had HATE for the Ranger. Sure, basically EVERY edition version fell short of its intended design, (even the 1st edition +4 THACO & Damage, 2d8 hit points - at level ONE) but I always felt it was an "OK" class and even played one on a number of occasions. Looks like you grabbed a number of things from multiple editions/ versions & cobbled them together into a worthwhile concept. Well done!
I have always wanted a Investigator type in DnD and always wished that there was options for that in ranger. I know that Rouge would be better for that but I always felt like ranger could fit the arc type better for a more fighter-y side some detectives have. Though it would be neat to have some sort of option for that ranger to change their spell list to a wizard instead of druid to fit the urban nature of this idea. if you wanted it, or more skills instead of spells.
Very cool take on the ranger! I really like your idea of them adding cover bonus to their attacks. It prompt enemies to either seek cover instead of standing out in the open, or try to rush down the ranger, both of which are logical and underutilized options. Its true in 4e they pulled out the vast majority of the Ranger's magic (no edition warring just giving info) but replaced it with heaps and heaps of extra attacks and damage. They were easily the tops when it came to murder in that edition and I never had one in my party complain, mostly because they were too busy washing themselves with gore. The unfortunate flip side of this is if you liked the magic side of the ranger of previous editions you had to play the sucky and poorly supported Seeker, which was a very sad replacement, even if it did have a couple neat tricks. I'm convinced that Crawford GMEd for one of these optimized rangers and that's why most versions he touches are pretty anemic, as any of the obvious improvements brings them closer to the death-engines they were an edition before.
The main problem with Ranger is that most editions of D&D don't have decent rules for the exploration pillar of play. To fix ranger, you need to start with overland travel rules and make exceptions to those rules the ranger gives to the entire party. I start with the Web DM book Weird Wastelands, but there are many third-party books and sources that have decent exploration rules. Expanding on the travel rules in that book, I break terrain types into 4 categories. Uneven terrain costs one unit of movement. Plains, small hills, towns, etc... Rough terrain costs two units of movement. Light forests, foothills, rocky slopes, sand dunes, etc... Impassable terrain can't be crossed unless you find a route that can be played through as if it were a small dungeon. Towering mountains, dense or haunted forests and jungles, swamps. Roads cost half a unit of movement. Any part of the map where a permanent road runs through it. Units of movement can be anything denoting progress or changing areas on the map. Like hexes on a hex map, or simply sections on a clock that fills in each time the DM rolls for an encounter. To find a creature, mount, or vehicle's movement units, take their speed and drop the number in the ones digit. A creature with 30 feet of movement can cover 3 hexes of uneven terrain, 2 hexes of rough terrain, and six hexes of road in a day of traveling. Now for the ranger. The homebrew ranger I try to get my players to use has a few simple guidelines. They are the character that boosts the party's speed, stealth, and results while exploring. I gave ranger cartographer's tools and the ability to map every area they travel through without using their exploration turn action to do the mapping action. I also gave them an ability called Ghillie suit that lets them hide as a bonus action at level 2. They get land stride earlier. An upgrade later on to land stride that makes them immune to magical difficult terrain. They keep tierless, roving, and canny. I also gave them a feature that lets them cover a vehicle, structure, or group of willing creatures with camouflage that basically acts like a permanent pass without a trace so long as whatever is camouflaged stays still. The main feature I gave ranger is called Favored Mana. At levels 1, 6, 14, and 20, they choose a color of mana. Their subclass also lets them choose one of two colors at level 3. White, blue, black, red, green, and colorless. The colors of mana from Magic the Gathering. Every terrain type, creature type, background, class, and faction is tied to one or more colors of mana. Rangers get their Int mod, minimum 1, in languages known each time they gain a mana color. Rangers have advantage on all dex, int, and wis ability checks related to anything tied to their favored mana. All weapon attacks against creatures tied to their favored mana are made with advantage and deal one additional damage die of the weapon's normal type. When traveling on a hex map, Rangers and their traveling companions treat all hexes dominated by terrain tied to the ranger's favored mana colors as roads. While not traveling on a hex map, the ranger and their traveling companions roll twice as often for social encounters and discoveries/treasure, and half as often for combat encounters. Taking the themes and world building elements from Magic the Gathering may trigger some, but the six broad catch all categories in the MtG color pie are the perfect solution to ranger's need for more things to be specialized in.
Conceptually, I prefer Ranger to Rogue probably for much the reason I prefer Paladins to Clerics. Not just "more fightery", but also "more reminds me of MULTIPLE major characters in fiction I admire" For fixing Ranger: Making them better at fighting and stealth. A Ranger with animal companion focus as a subclass should be a BETTER beastmaster than a Druid, the Druid's companion should be more like a wizard's familiar but in a more outdoorsy theme rather than a spooky halloween theme. Loving all your proposals too.
Rangers (and Bards too!) didn't really "work" in 3.0 either, but that was mostly because they were both insanely powerful, with ridiculously high damage (and Bards could even give it to other people). So they were still fun to play. :)
I’ve always thought of the ranger as something like a classical woodsman, or military scout/skirmisher. Someone that is a god damned ninja in the wilds, who likes setting up ambushes, picking off specific targets (like one animal of a herd, or the one guy in a patrol with the fancy hat), and tracking down their prey. Someone who takes point to sniff out ambushes, and figure out what route they’re taking. Sure they can fight like a fighter, but their load out is geared towards their primary job of recon and hunting so it’s never going to be as good. Basically less magical mountain man, and more light infantryman/scout.
Basing the ranger of Aragorn is yet another complete misunderstanding of Tolkien that these vague Tolkienesque settings do. Ranger wasn't a job. It was a culture. It was the lifestyle of the remenant Dunedain people of Arnor. You don't join it, you are born into it. However, I do like your fixes.
It's okay to make a ranger that emulates the same kind of concept or power fantasy, but you're right. In my game I have it so that rangers are either descendants of fallen kingdoms, or imitators who learned their skills.
Rangers should be the light infantry. They can't fight a tank, but they can hop out if it's way and attack the rear armour. The arctic warfare guys on skies able to go through terrain heavy armour (Fighters) and artillery (Mages) can't go into. They can't teleport across a battlefield like mechanized infantry (warlocks)but they can drop from a plane anywhere (but must remain on foot afterwards). They can move through the forests while heavy line infantry struggles and gets their officers picked off BY THE RANGERS. They are the skirmish infantry who attack the heavily armored hoplites at range and help break up their formation to allow their heavy infantry in to the breach. The best heavy infantry in the world still needed auxiliaries and light infantry to break up enemy units and snipe officers and leaders, but they are not designed to go toe to toe. They flank, harass and slow down the enemy, and pursue them with speed when they break to make a retreat into a rout. But I like your version too.
I always felt that the favored foe and favored terrian should provide the specific bonus and general. For example, favored terrian mountains the ranger gets specific survival and knowlage for mountains and bounes for climbing and tracking on hard surfaces. Favored foe for example, dragons woukd get all the knowlage about and bonous to dodge/resist breath attacks from any source. Just makes sense that knowlage and skill for one terrian type and creature type would applicable in a more genral ways. I do like your idea of making the range very part support heavy while still be a combat class. Do not move away from classic range concept but lean more into it.
Ranger's a perfectly viable heavy dip disguised as a single class. Rogue if anything is the class that feels like it lacks the most. They really need an easier way to proc sneak attack
Ok. I'll admit that it has been a VEEERY long time since I have played D&D (just before 3rd edition), so when exactly did Rangers become so hated? (or am I answering my own question?)
@@bellaususfitzpinguidpalate3194 it started around unearthed arcana and just kept slowly snowballing. They haven't changed the formula at all, complaints people have now they had in first edition just more people playing and it's easier to complain online
@@Mr_Welch I believe UA was the last book I bought (besides the infamous Deities & Demigods :P) and I thought it was pretty good expanding the classes. 3rd and 4th edition convinced me never to go back.
It's interesting that everyone points at Aragorn and says this is why rangers dual wield or shoot things, when i think the original story had neither prominently, if at all. He didn't use a bow: that was something the movies gave him. As far as i recall, he used one sword, trading up for his reforged birthright. He's also not especially stand offish in the books: It was the movies that made him more reluctant and brooding. I would think Robin Hood stands as the other motif, but then that makes even less sense: he is often depicted as jovial, skilled in a range of arms outside the bow, and almost always found alongside good company. The things they share are knowledge of the lands, survival skills, and high combat proficiency. I could understand if the movies had come out first, but d&d is quite a bit older.
@TheMinskyTerrorist yes, but they are more akin to an armed and armored patrol than the lone rangers that Aragorn is linked to that hail from the west and north. They don't fit that image of the lightly armored men that mostly work alone in nature, but as soldiers tasked with hunting enemy forces along the borders. The fact that they end up garrisoned later further reflects that. Obviously, they are filling a similar role on a larger scale, but it isn't where the mythos of the class is drawing from.
@zetsubou1v1 That’s incorrect. Aragorn's rangers have exactly the same role, and Aragorn is their captain. Their main job is to protect the remaining pockets of civilization in Eriador like Bree and the Shire. They're a major part of the battle at Minas Tirith. The southern rangers are described in a very similar way to the northern rangers including their clothing.
@@TheMinskyTerrorist i don't recall their garb being mentioned as similar, but their training would be the same, since Faramir recalls training under Aragorn. If you wish to claim they were similarly kitted, i won't argue. I do recall them saying the northern rangers were largely hailing from old numenor blood and the first kings, thus being taller, older(but longer lived) and few in number. Apparently only 30 made it to the war? That lies in stark contrast to the people of Gondor. Tolkien clearly fashioned them after mountain men, frontiersmen, huntsmen, rangers: all trades going back hundreds to thousands of years. i know not if he coined the specific brand of ranger in medieval times of fantasy, but ranger as an occupation existed before his birth. He made neither the concept nor the word. It's okay if he was the popular source, however. D&d has several inspirations and several are listed after Tolkien, including Robin Hood. Now back to my questions: where did this limitation towards dualwielding or range spark? Tolkien didn't write much of dual wielding: as a scholar of history, he'd probably find dual wielding to have been a rare and difficult art few practiced like hema has learned, and waved it away in favor of anything more common. The northern rangers are described as joining the war as horsemen wielding spears and shields, which makes sense. Perhaps they also had bows as is prominent in real world knights and samurai, and really any soldier that had training for it and wasn't in melee range. I think it made sense for Peter Jackson to give Aragorn a bow, but i don't think it makes sense for D&D to increasingly have locked hunters out of weapons and armor and into styles that don't compliment each other or melee.
Your version of the ranger is _almost_ perfect. "Almost", because it has no set minimum number of favored terrains, meaning Mr Welch's ranger start with knowing fewer than zero. The law is a precise endeavor.
I would love you see you redesign some poorly written magic items. In 5e my go to example is the Ring of Regeneration. The ring restores 1d6 HP per 10 minutes and regenerates missing body parts over 1d6+1 days. The problematic feature is the HP per 10 minutes, as it gives an incentive for being 'that guy' by constantly asking how long we've been adventuring every few minutes of game time. Additionally the ring would (theoretically) restore over 500 HP _per day_ just from the 1d6 ticking constantly. I don't care what class your playing, that's A LOT of HP. My fix has just been to make the ring cast _Regenerate_ once per day instead. The fact that this makes the Lizardfolk almost inevitably chop up friends for meals is purely a side benefit.
Good video! :) RL American archetypes that match the Ranger's solo/small party image would be the fur trappers/mountain men and scouts (with some overlap)- some of whom were legitimate historical bad asses in their own right. Q: What is the origin of the video clip of the Japanese guy and the wall sprouting arrow shafts right next to him?
@@TheGenericavatar I was looking for an image of a lonely goblin and that was the image that kept coming up. It's a Korean movie apparently a Cinderella story and I have no information past that
@@Mr_Welch It's called "Guardian: The Lonely And Great God", it's a 19-episode drama and it's superb (with the usual caveat that you need to strap the f*ck in for 19 episodes). Thoroughly recommended, you can get it on Rakuten Viki.
Superb work - gonna nick it for my next homebrew :) One suggestion: we had great results with some changes to how a ranger marks their target in our 5e game. Made it an X-per-day class feature and added the fact that when a target is marked they become aware of the fact that they are marked, even though they can't see the ranger. So... when you walk into an Elven forest you suddenly feel the eyes. One laser dot, two laser dots... it made the rangers in the game terrifying, even when you never actually met them.
Ive always found it hikarioys how the Favored Foe and Favorite Terrain faulters so hard in games, when simole communication between Ranger's player and the DM simply Communicate!!!! Either the DM tells the player what terrain most of the game will partake in, and the type of monsters that are story centric. Or, if they wanna be vague, learn of what the player chose and then work the game to where their choices are valid. It feels like a dick move to be coy of the game, so the player hoes simple with "Beasts and Forests" for their Foe/Terrain. Only for DM to go "whoops, were up in the artic tundra till 10th level and fight a lot of Fiends. Sucks to be you." Thats just a sure fire way for the Ranger to leave the game.
One thing I've done is essentially give half features for those not of Favored Foe and Fav Terrain. Let them look things up and study for a time being, and then they get a biff when looking them up, or let them have "half" of what the main features gave. Another is that I made "Hunrt's Mark" a class feature instead of a spell. No concentration and deals damage to any creature, only caviot is that Favored Foes can take more damage as they get 1 die bigger while marked
Check out TOV ranger. It dosnt do everything you said but they made it better. I definatly agree as a whole, your idea is better and feels like a ranger.
Players love the concept of a ranger, until the campaign environment makes their specialized abilities useless. The solution? Stop calling the *fighter/rogue* a "ranger." Let the player do it, by selecting ranger-type skills accordingly. Stealth, nature, survival, archery specialization, animal companion at the DM's discretion. If these things aren't ideal for the player, then... wait for it... _he should never have rolled a "ranger" in the first place!_ Players need to embrace the core classes, and stop getting hung up on titles. Insisting that the game rules should change to describe specific archetypes has ruined the game, ever since Gary & Dave decided there should be a major difference between a cleric and a druid. What makes the difference is _how_ you play, not _what_ you play.
You're right. The Rangers are still totally overpowered compared to standard goblins. we got to cut their HP in half and reduce the size of their weapons and damage, then to really bring it all together we have to limit their animal compion and spell casting abilities i recommend reducing their highest spells to level 2 and making all their animal compions small or diminutive sized animals that are atleast half as good as the one from the Monster manual. Then and only then would the Ranger class be close to balanced with everyone else
What is the elevator pitch for the fantasy of a range? I would say it is the man that can live in the wilds for an extended time and entering the lands other would not set their sight upon. So he can and protect cilvation form the danger that grow in those lands. For combat the books The Stiger Chronicles have a elf range called Eli and he show how the range should be. Rouge should be the tricky fighter while Ranger is the skirmisher or striker.
If you know of or have a pdf please link and share it. I want to play a ranger in just the way youve described and found the 5e system version extremely lacking in potency.
Um, in my experience rangers were overpowered in 2nd edition. They get the HP, Armor, and weapon options of fighters and paladins. They get everything else on top of that. Generally, at least in my groups, rangers tended to wear heavy armor unless they needed to stealth or until they managed to find bracers of defense or something similar. I always assumed the mediocrity of the 3e onward ranger was a response to complaints of them being too powerful in 2nd edition.
The ranger is my prime example of how utterly DnD fails at the alleged *three pillars* notion. There is zero support for exploration in the game, so any class that specializes in wilderness survival is a non-starter from the word *go.*
I love the idea behind the ranger but they have totally failed at implementing it. One thing I’ll like to point out is that alot of people seem to get rangers wrong. They seem to think that they are in the wilderness to protect mother nature. That’s simply not true; rangers are in the wilderness protecting the soft folks in the cities and villages from the dangerous monsters in the wilderness. One of the things I've done is to implement “the kings rangers”, a group of law enforcement officers whose job is to be out in the wilderness troubleshooting… well trouble… they’re an elite unit and getting in isn’t easy. But they have pretty broad authority to deal with crime and fight monsters. They each wear a silver pin of an archer, identifying them and indicating their station. (yes I stole that from Babylon 5, if you’re going to steal, steal from the best). This gives players an incentive to exist, a less generic reason to go adventuring and lays the framework for alot of outdoor adventuring as the ranger gets to track down and deal with problems before they become too big to handle. It can also set up longer term adventures by giving the ranger natural foes to deal with; such as a complex network of highway bandits etc, orc war parties that lead to a massing orc army deep in the wilderness. Also Love the Cygnar reference haha.
D&D "CLASSES" have never worked. A Ranger is a Fighter, one hired by a lord to patrol the lord's forests to eliminate poachers, bandits, monsters, etc. The game should have adopted a skill-based system forty years ago.
Mr Welch, have you ever (attempted to) play a gnome that looks like a lawn gnome (red conical hat, blue shirt/jacket, brown pants & boots, wide belt, full beard, etc)?
I've always felt that the Ranger class should have be omitted from the game. If you want to be a Ranger simply play a Fighter who has survival non weapon proficiencies/skills. You want to move more swiftly than the plate mail armored knight? Wear lighter armor! If you want to hunt with a long spear while wearing chain mail go for it! You want to be a master bowman/hunter specialize with the bow or crossbow. I've always felt Rangers did not need spells or favored enemies/terrain. Aragorn never cast spells but what he did possess was the skill of healing through natural means so if you want to mimic that add in the non weapon pros or skills for it. Simple fix to be honest.
@@giant0mantis Its an interesting concept. One thing I feel strongly about is the modern take that we need 50 classes etc. You often get more with less if that makes sense? I love that a Fighter given the right skills/gear can be any number of things other than a Fighter.
Rangers copy Aragorn (and the Dunedain and Faramir and the Gondor rangers) because he's the original ranger. Tolkien invented fantasy rangers just like he invented orcs. There isn't some true ranger concept out there that Aragorn messed up somehow. The concept is fine, the issue is always implementation. The dual wielding and pet things are major breaks from Aragorn.
I do disagree that it never was good. 4e was the one time where Ranger was amazing, probably in part because all the other classes got split up into smaller chunks while ranger was either normal ranger or extra magic ranger in the Seeker class.
Our homebrew BECMI Ranger is like the Fighter but can cast spells as if they were a Druid of 1/3 their level. At least 2 of their starting skills must be wilderness/survival type skills. They can use any weapon but can only cast Druid magic through natural (non-metal) armor. They also have a +2 to reactions when encountering normal (and giant sized normal) animals. 🌳🌲⛰️🌳🦌
I disagree. The Ranger isn't weak, it's people who can't think of it in any other way. The Ranger is the party leader if anything and the Ranger isn't the perpetual loner. A Ranger is the wanderer in the purest sense and the one who attacks from angles unexpected and uses makeshift weapons. A lot of these things you described are already... exactly what Ranger is. AND HANDS OFF THE MAGIC, MAN. I would say to give Ranger a unique set of spells that no one else learns so they don't suffer redundancy issues. Don't make their animal companion take up a spell slot. Allow Ranger to both dual wield and be bow specialized and not just pick A or B. The Ranger is the best friend you can have and a personal favorite. On that Ranger note, I adore the Rangers of Ultima series. Their virtue being Spirituality and hailing from Skara Brae. " _All is not as it seem, life is little but a dream._ " - Ranger NPC in Ultima IV.
Agree with the "leader, not loner", definitely. When you're out and about the ranger always takes the lead in outr groups. Then in a dungeon, he and the thief type'll share scouting duties, so they're effectively leading the party together.
The real issue that you buried is that no two persons/groups have the exact same beliefs about what makes a Ranger and that is really the big issue! Let’s be honest- no magic means 75 to 90 % of Ranger characters drop the class forever. And no Rangers are not less powerful at combat or stealth then Rogues. They half casters but to say that makes them less as a class is to say Paladins are not as much of a class. (Bards also often are half casters just not in 5e). I agree about the leading people being the role and giving them enemy and terrain knowledge is good but in the current game terrain linked features are MASSIVELY LIMITING and a formula for failure. But let’s also face one more fact - the skill system of general D&D hurts the Ranger. Most classes have one skill that is core or at most two for the class. Clerics Religon. Fighter & Barbadian is Athletics. Rogue is stealth and sleight of hand. Ranger is it Animal Handling, nature, survival and some would add Medicine for a total of 4!. And that is just one part of the issue but this rabbit hole goes into how even DMs don’t do the class any favors! Sorry that this is long but your fix ignores well all the other Rangers in fantasy and fact. Robin Hood famously was considered a Ranger too. And I don’t add our favorite Drow but many will. This is complicated but I know what will not work in general and I am certain this works for you, it really doesn’t for others. And it does not really address things like the fact that Rangers are NOT ambushers like rogues or tanks like paladins and fighters - they are skirmishers and the game has issues working with that. This is complicated and this video does not get there for me.
So if your starting to fix stuff wondering if you can eather fix hoard of the dragon god mod as a whole? Ways you can use rogue that isnt just a criminal or fighter that dont need magic to be effective.
@@D_6660 more of an attempted fix for the intelligence stat. It's useless except for wizards and a few skills. Ideally every class gets bonuses custom to their class for a high INT
SMH. Ranger doesn't mean bow. Plenty of warriors fight with bows as archers. Robin Hood isn't a freaking ranger. Ranger is Aragorn and the bow is a very tiny part of it. Aragorn had magic because he was half elven, not because he was a ranger. Faramir was also a ranger with no magic. They are people who survive away from the big army. Maybe scouts are the same in modern games. I know every 5e players wants to be a tank and healer and magician. That doesn't make it less stupid.
Watching this video (most of the way) and reading a bunch of the comments reminds me of an old saying. "Opinions are like butt holes; everybody's got one and they all stink." 😂 *shrug* Play D&D long enough and you'll start making your own. I suppose that's part of the process.
