Rangers

There's one thing - just one - left that I still like about Pathfinder, and that's rangers.

The hardened woodsmen, trackers, guides, special force commandos, animal friends, occasional mystics... the whole ranger thing has always been my favorite archetype, and Pathfinder allows them to do everything I want them to do and still not be too powerful for the system. I've been through a bunch of other game systems but never seen a single one that's done rangers in a way that's more satisfying to me, but obviously it's not enough to keep me in playing something that's otherwise so inherently broken.

So I'm looking to expand.

In your opinion, what system does the ranger archetype the best?

Other urls found in this thread:

files.catbox.moe/h5l1o3.zip
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

I'm not usually the guy to say it, but honestly GURPS always feels the most satisfying for playing a ranger type character. Plenty of wilds survival type skills, simple RAW options to take just about any type of trained animal companion, satisfyingly gritty stealth combat mechanics and a ton of ways you can use a bow to end a fight in any number of outcomes.

I feel so jealous of GURPS players who actually have real sessions and campaigns with other players. (I don't believe that you do, probably just own the books and pretend to play games as a group like I do.)

4e.

FATAL

5e can make a Monster Hunter style archer that can plow furrows along dragons with a single shot. That kinda shit always gets me excited.

I'm the GM.

...

Seconding GURPS. Outdoorsman types are very enjoyable to play in it.

4e.

4e Rangers had the best 'casual feats of exceptional skill'. Switching between bow and sword mid-turn, pinning your bro to the wall with an arrow to his cloak to save him as the floor drops underneath him, being a competent character who contributes to the adventure, slicing a guy five ways to Sunday in a single turn, doing that 'fire three arrows with the same draw' thing, leaping onto the monster and stabbing it in the neck, etc. And because it was 4e it just said "Yes, you go ahead and do that while the wizard launches his cool-ass spell."

Plus, it gave Rangers the variation to be any sort of 'hunter' archetype: woodsman, bounty hunter, assassin, you name it.

Since you've already assembled, could you ranger fans explain some of the ways you'd like to see rangers differentiated from each other?

I'm about to run a campaign in a homebrew system, differentiating rangers has always been one of the weakest points of my homebrews, and it sounds like half of them want to play ranger archetypes.

Not a fan of rangers as they are currently presented in DnD, I prefer to think of them as the Delta Force of the medieval world, a sort of martial focused rogue who can wage guerrilla warfare effectively. Right now they're more like martial druids who specialized in the types of creatures they hunt rather than the tactics they use.

Some notable ranger-style characters.

>Geralt
>Link
>Aragorn
>Legolas

Rangers IMO are defined by mobility and versatility. Except mobility (in d&d at least) is a niche taken by the Monk.

Hue hue hue, well-memed my good sir!

This, and so much more.

The Revised Ranger from DnD 5e's Unearthed Arcana quickly became my favorite class in the game, especially after multiclassing into Rogue

Revised Ranger, not Spell-less Ranger, not base PHB Ranger. Revised Ranger.

Rangers are fucking cool

I always saw them as being someone who was prepared for just about anything and I love playing them
>Monster needs to be killed? I know exactly how to track it, lure it and where to hit to kill it quickly
>Need ranged support? I brought a bow.
>Oh it's going to melee? No problem swords now
>Need a scout? Sign me up
>Running out of food? I've just found another 3 days of food for us
>Oh shit he's hurt and our cleric's out of spells for the dag, don't worry I can grab some herbs and shit and fix him up
>Magic? Yeah I know a bit

I just made my first Ranger using the UA set and I'm so damn excited. I find it really funny that the whole first page of the UA revision is basically an apology for making the PH Ranger suck so bad.

My ranger's a bit nontraditional; instead of some aloof woodsman, it's a crotchety old half-orc meemaw that lives out in the swamp by herself. When her beloved dwarven husband was eaten by a gator (which she proceeded to stalk and kill in revenge, turning its teeth into a necklace she wears all the time), she was forced to take care of the homestead herself. She was never no slouch when it came to wilderness survival, but without anyone else around, she had to double down on her own skills. She knows twelve different ways to kill a opossum and twelve more different ways to cook it, and they're all delicious.

She's gonna be a Beast Master with a big fat boar named Chunks.

Can't speak for beast masters but I was a bounty hunter with Favored Enemy (Humanoids). Extremely useful being able to detect every humanoid within miles of the party.

As for my archetype, I was a Deep Stalker. Disgustingly powerful overall

Hackmaster 5e.

There's a ranger class which has some really diverse capabilities and skillset, is still a fully functional fighter, and will definitely fulfill your
>hardened woodsmen, trackers, guides, special force commandos, animal friends, occasional mystics
desires. Alternatively, there's also a cleric of the great huntress, which is a priestly class which focuses on ranged combat and hunting, and has unique powers and abilites related to such, including shapechanging into predatory creatures at higher levels, as well as cleric spells.

>I always saw them as being someone who was prepared for just about anything and I love playing them

This is why they're so great in PF - so many skill points, so many bonus feats, and a couple spells on top of it.

While having a focus on melee combat I think "The Riddle of Steel" could do that nicely, espeacially with the updated missile rules from "The Flower of Battle".
But from that list here I think a Geralt-type character would work out the best in the system. But the others would work nice as well, I think.
Also maybe look at the point buy method of chargen in the Companion, if the vanilla chargen doesn't cut it for you.
Another thing worth looking at may be Song of Swords (a sort of spiritual successor to TRoS), I think the recently released 1.3 beta has updates for the combat parts making missile combat and melee combat work better. Missile combat was a bit lacking until then afaik.
But that said: They have no ranger archetype. Both are classless.
Anyways, here's TRoS if you want to give it a read: files.catbox.moe/h5l1o3.zip

Burning Wheel does Tolkien rangers pretty great. Probably no magic, though.

>will definitely fulfill your desires
Can confirm.

Well, without knowing anything about your homebrew, I'd say start with master bowman, which ties nicely with ability to hunt animals, skin, tan hides, cook, etc. He crafts his own bow and fletches his own arrows.

Then go in the other direction. Military scout. Knows how to ride a horse, master of outdoor stealth, knows how to obscure his trails, can climb trees, can fight up close or sneak up on a man if he has to.

Then go in the smarts/wisdom direction. This guy is a guide, he doesn't like to do much combat but he's traveled all over. He knows all the various plants and animals, and what's good and safe to eat and what's poisonous. He can find water in the desert, and knows how to avoid dangerous wildlife. Can make healing poultices, and has bits of wisdom about almost anything. Appears too poor to be harassed by bandits, and can talk his way out of situations.

You could also do what talks about and have a clerical version of a ranger with mystical shapechange powers.

WFRP can do pretty good rangers too, though you'll need to be an elf to be ghost stalker.

My biggest issue with it is that the hunter ranger doesn't seem to have improved compared to the other two conclaves

Not that way, user.