What do you love about rangers user?

Wherever fighters don't have effective access to wilderness skills, probably.

Doesn't the scout archetype make a better ranger than the ranger does though?

Fighters and Rogues both have archetypes that do the Ranger's job better than the Ranger in 5e.

Ranger's problem is that it doesn't know what the fuck it wants to be. It wants to be the shooty bow guy, but also wants to be the dual-wiled guy, but also wants to have a ton of skills, but also wants to have magic, but also wants to have animal companions, but also wants it's own super special environment and favored enemy powers, but also wants to be good outside of it's super special terrains and favored enemies...

I support making it a dedicated "monster hunter" class as suggested by , with an ability to change their favored enemy bonuses based on the quarry they're hunting and proper preparation. At this point it's just about the only way I can see to give them a unique niche that's not just a bunch of things other classes already do better.

Rangers are one of two classes I really want to play in a generic fantasy game sometime. My group plays a lot of sci-fi and I'm borderline permaDM so I never really got the chance.
I just like the idea of playing someone who went native - they know this land because they're on it, they're handy but not great in a fight, and are more used to using their environment and traps to their advantage. It feels like a class that if you play it right could be tons of fun; instead of charging headfirst into the enemy patrol you go "Now hang on, why don't we lay some traps, I'll get up in those trees, scout ahead to tell you they're coming..." that sort of thing.
I don't know why you'd give them spells. Feels like it defeats the purpose of being some kind of rugged survivalist who exemplifies human (or non-human) ingenuity and self-reliance in wilderness.

The closest I ever got to being a Ranger was basically making Talion from Shadow of Mordor. I could do decent sneaky stabs and decent swording, and could brand evil folks for various flavours of effect. Not quite a Ranger, but I could at least envision doing what Talion does, and he looks at least a bit like a Ranger.

As others have bought up though, Ranger doesn't seem to actually know what it wants to be. I'd prefer it just be a sneaky class who's good with a bow, and has some survival skills (even if most people don't USE those survival skills).
The Monster Hunter suggestions are pretty rad though, picking your quarry and being really good at killing that one specific thing until you can take the time to re-prepare your stuff. Prep time, Rangers should be all about prep time; but then, that goes against the whole "muh human ingenuity" thing from earlier. Hmm.

>Spell-free or otherwise

In Conan's single-story stint as a Ranger he does in fact use magic, but it's specifically the magic associated with a Tsuthogguah-type primordial god. If more rangers looked at their magic that way --the Warlocks of the Dark Woods-- instead of faggy elf glitter, I'd be a lot more favorable towards its use.

>I don't want to play 4e.

4e Aragorn is a Warlord anyway.

Mostly the survivalist + animal companion stuff for me (mid-high skills, mid combat prowess, low-none magic). Wish that could mean more in games - as others have noted it kind of gets handwaved away a lot.

Yeah last time i played I traded my spells for trap skills and a buffer animal companion

I played him like a beast hunter not a happy little forest animal friend

I built an inn and served magical beast meat

The rest of the party cock block my efforts to find the pesudo mythical valley of the unicorns

Also, the whole Ranger-can-hold-his-own-but-also-can-be-a-real-boon-to-the-party deal. It's nice being able to support the rest of the party, but its also nice to have the capacity to do things without 'em if needed.

They have those in 5e user. They're rogues with the scout subtype. I've run one as a woodelf with the observant feat, his passive perception was through the roof. If I ran him again, he'd get wood elf magic too - dat Pass Without Trace.

The only thing they really miss out on is primeval awareness. You could get natural explorer with a one-level dip, but being able to sense all the groups of humanoids in five miles will need at least a three-level dip.

3E had a woodland Rogue that was similar and 0E had a Bandit

>I don't want to play the one edition that does what I want to do

This is a free country, I guess, but maybe...

Just play a fighter with the outlander background. If you really want to be rangery, just dip into ranger for a level or two.

So, the main problem that I see that everyone has with the ranger is that it's too one-note in terms of flavor.
Sure, you can put a spin on it, the Big Game Hunter, the Defender of Nature, the Urban Ranger that tries too hard to be Green Arrow, the Monster Slayer, a Beast Tamer, or the one with a Vendetta against one race/monster in particular, but these few tropes are about it.
Compare that to a Rogue. A rogue can be an assassin, a back-alley street doc, a master thief, a tinkering clockmaker, the leader of a rebellion, a pit fighter who uses every dirty trick in the book, every type of circus performer imaginable, a con-man and Charlatan, an expert Sniper, a lowly pickpocket, a gentleman spy... The list goes on and on.
I think the issue with Ranger has always been that it never had the variety that other classes had, and lacks that ability to mold it to any character that fighters, rogues, clerics, and paladins have. Hell, even Barbarian gets a more interesting ideas on how to play the tank, or the wizard has in his magical area of focus. I can even come up with more ideas for a druid than I can for a ranger.

I don't have much of a soft spot left for Pathfinder but I do really wish 5e had a "Trapmaker" Ranger as an archetype like PF did. More mundane options would really appeal to me over mystically inclined ones. I have to admit I do like the Horizon Walker in Xanthar's though. It's the one mystically-inclined Ranger I have a soft spot for.

In 4E i played a half orc Lumber jack so I built him from a fighter, and all fighter feats went to axe and i picked outdoors or rangery powers for the other feats and skills

With the 3E wilderness Rogue that came with trap skills I made all wood and rope rambo jungle traps

That's exactly what I'm talking about. It's easier to take a fighter and add elements of ranger to it than it is to work with the ranger class in terms of theme.

I guess homebrew could happen but I honestly prefer to just play canon stuff.

I play in a very low magic campaign and love rangers. I typically play fighters, but Revisited Ranger in 5e can be pretty fun. They slide into most fluff pretty easy as well considering they're an obvious choice for adventuring since it's pretty much in their job description to wander around and get into shenanigans in the wilderness, or be hired by clueless urbanites to guide/protect them.

If she scouts, she's a DREAAAAAAAM.

I love the concept but hate the execution, though I didn't play all editions of DnD. I'm more interested to play a fighter/rogue kind of guy, a martial class with a focus on DEX and some stealth abilities. Don't really care about magic, don't really care about animal companions, though this should probably be optional. I want to be a fucking operator in the wilderness, not necessarily in the woods, that uses body and mind to survive and hunt, someone that fights smart, is ressourceful and savvy. So basically Naked Snake.

3E wilderness Rogue was from some book with Rogue variants

I do love the idea of rangers doing a lot of trapmaking, but giving it to them as a class feature says that other classes can't. No matter how intelligent they are, they can't make a single trap.

I was talking about 5e.

Well, unless you do it by throwing a trapmaking subsystem somewhere else in the book and give rangers a class feature that says "refer to page whatever of the traps chapter; you can do this for free, relax that restriction, and gain bonuses to the other thing."

I always see Rangers as Sorcerers of the Wilds.

They don't make pacts with gods of fae, they don't learn their spells.

They just do them, because the Ranger is the master of the wilds, and the Wild magic naturally weaves itself for them.

Aren't you thinking of druids user? Also I hate druids btw fuck holier than thou hippies.

real problem isn't druids it's clerics.

Not at all.

Druids are nature clerics, they must learn and commune their power.

A Ranger just fucking does that shit.

No, clerics are actually allowed to be wrong sometimes. Druids are always treated as though they're infallible because something something environment.

It might just be me being a big fan of /out/ shit but to me Rangers are probably one of the most fun archetypes I play in games. It helps my DM is very much into the journey being the goal of itself so we usually do need to prepare for journeys.

There is something just so entertaining to basically play a Mountain man alongside demi-gods and miracle men.

It does help my current Ranger is a Cossack Hill Dwarf in 5e.

Complete with writing a letter to the evil Vampire Overlord on how much devil dick he huffs

I love the independence. A little healing, a little stealth, a little combat ability, an animal companion can be fun, and rugged woodsmen are sexy.

What the game world really wants is Arctic Weasel Rangers

In the game I'm writing I made them spell-free with important out-of-combat utility skills (foraging, pathfinding, treating wounds, avoiding encounters, generally knowledge of the wilderness) and options for animal companions and for crafting traps, baits, natural remedies and other tools.
They add to this a blend of close combat, ranged combat and stealth abilities, although they don't excel in either of these as much as the respective specialized classes.

Then again, it's not D&D and out-of-combat abilities are about as important as combat.

That reminds me another reason i did not like magical rangers was I thought of them as like old west mountain men, in some scenarios I even had them living with humanoid tribes. It up to you to imagine goblin squaws or not

Goblin squaws?

And what's so weird about them living with humanoid tribes? Aren't all tribes humanoid?

Humanoid as in Not Demi Human but walk on two legs like orcs, Goblins, Lizard men etc

I like rangers as wilderness skillsters (vs. a thief's city skillster), and don't think they really need (or want) magic.

It should be the norm

The ranger in my party is great, partially because the player is fun but also because he can track and give the party information about what they might be facing. The only problem is the same as I have with theif players, they can check for tracks/traps but often forget to use it without me giving some slight prompts.

They make great meatshields and occasionally can be useful.

...
Go on.

what if rangers were actual rangers instead of pastiche of shitty fantasy trope s?

>wants to play competent ranger
>refuses to play edition with competent ranger
And so your fate of suffering is sealed

Pets are fun.

This! a 100x this! Give me a wilderness commando any day.

My favourite campaign was an all-ranger expedition to the frontier of the world. Fun as hell, since all my players got into it.

I like them because they are the most realistic "adventurers"

>Ranger's problem is that it doesn't know what the fuck it wants to be. It wants to be the shooty bow guy, but also wants to be the dual-wiled guy, but also wants to have a ton of skills, but also wants to have magic, but also wants to have animal companions, but also wants it's own super special environment and favored enemy powers, but also wants to be good outside of it's super special terrains and favored enemies...

I don't know if that's such a bad thing, in theory. They were always one of two "jack of all trades" classes along with the bard, but the bard is now far more magic-oriented, so the ranger is the main option for players who want a flexible character that does a bit of everything. It suits their theme, too, because their whole deal is being independent and self-reliant adventurers, so it makes sense for them to cover all the bases of a whole adventuring party (even down to having a portable "fighter" in the form of an animal companion). In a party they cover the adventuring fundamentals (survival and travel skills) while doing a little bit of everything else, covering any gaps or just supporting the specialists.

The problem is that "jack of all trades" is hard concept to execute. It tends to be either too good at everything or not good enough or just feels generic. I think there's a demand for it, though, if it's done right.

This inspired me to get to work on a spell-less archetype for ranger. How does using spell slots as a sort of ranger-centric smite resource? I'm thinking, against your favored enemy, you can use a spell slot on an attack to deal bonus damage equal to an additional weapon damage die per slot level.

I thought the problem was no one played the game for survival and travel skills anymore

I think it might be a bit of both. Take away the ranger's strength in survival and exploration and he's just a watered down Jack of all trades.

I mean from a class-design perspective. A druid is one thing, perfectly well-suited to a class. It worked when Clerics were specifically the "not-Catholic" priests, and Druids were the pagan priests. But then they decided Clerics could be pagan priests too, and the result both obliterated the Cleric's class identity and meant Druids were now redundant.

Again, the edition with the competent rangers didn't make Aragorn-like rangers. It went hardcore Legolas on them.

It's true that 4e is the only edition where The Fellowship is a mechanically viable party, but it works because Aragorn is a Warlord, not a Ranger.

Should be a background/skillset, not a class.

The other problem is that all the other characters are PHB1 classes and then Gandalf the Deva Invoker shows up.

I disagree. Ranger and Rogue are the correct breadth for a class, the problem is that Fighter is stupidly broad.

Rogue is also a bit sketchy.
Ideally there'd just be Fighting Man and Magic User, who have lots of sub options

gb2/gurps/

then you might as well just have a classless system

But then how would you make sure the wizard player felt special

This. I agree with this.

The rangers in my setting are basically Cossacks

A ranger's favored enemy should be as defining a choice as a wizard's school of magic.

Playable, first and foremost. Rangers are my favourite class concept, but they're done poorly in almost every edition of D&D.

Anyway, I'd prefer it if they were just DEX-based fighters with more of a focus on precision and evasion over strength and endurance, as well as a bunch of thematic wilderness skills. The iconic ranger for me is more in the vein of the Dunedain than what most D&D editions have done with it. I hate the dual-wielding shit injected into the class by Drizz't - to me a ranger is a guy with a sturdy two-handed sword, some rough hide gear, a well-kept bow, and an encyclopedic knowledge of his home terrain.

Options for mind magic, like stuff that allows for darkvision, are fine. I'd prefer it if these could be fluffed as 'natural', though, or if there were just as useful options for people not all that interested in being a spellcaster. Like, instead of learning the Darkvision spell, at a certain point rangers just become so in-tune with their surroundings that they functionally have the ability, even if they don't necessarily see in the dark all that well with their eyes.

A little continuation.

When I think of ranger art, this is usually the first image that comes to mind.

Druids kick rangers in the balls as far as survival garbage is concerned

Chirrut Inwe style "darkvision" sound good to you?

>I just want to play fuckin Aragorn. Well, not Aragorn, but a hooded male human ranger who is the stalwart guide and carries a torch and wears brown and wields just a longsword.
Me too man, me too.

This nigga knows my pain.

I mean, 4e is fine to be honest, but even those competent rangers have few options if you just want to be maneuverable and wildernessy and swing a longsword and motherfuckers. It's all dual-wielding shit.

They are fine as they are mostly martial severely racist forest autists.

That's fucking fine with me.

No, it really really shouldn't. Enemy variety is important to campaigns.

preternatural environment affiliations are a better choice, and only really come into play when you are at higher levels and need "martial" concepts to evolve into Supernatural/Extraordinary ones.

I also like the monster hunter idea said above. Favoured enemy shit is something they could do a lot more with.

>wildernessy
>swing a longsword

Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

Anyway, if you want a single-weapon character Barbarians are right over that way.

The "I just want to be an Aragorn that hunts monsters innwoods" brigade.

I feel like there's a semi-viable support group here.

Longswords will cut a nigga open just as easily in the great outdoors as they will inside.

And let's be honest, the barbarian doesn't really fit the rest of that description.

>Wildernessy
check
>Maneuverable
check
>swing a longsword
they prefer greatsword but there's no actual reason not to do this
>end motherfuckers
check

>Like, instead of learning the Darkvision spell, at a certain point rangers just become so in-tune with their surroundings that they functionally have the ability, even if they don't necessarily see in the dark all that well with their eyes.

I agree with that. I don't mind rangers having magic, but D&D has a habit of making all magic = Vancian spellcasting, which doesn't suit the ranger (or a lot of other classes but that's a seperate issue).

Too bad we're all too busy lurking in dark corners with pipes to ever actually talk about our problems.

That's true. I guess rangers have a different veneer.

I mean, barbarians are the guys who get so angry they get bonuses for it. They scream and rage and go into frenzies. The ranger is the guy who keeps his cool, maneuvers around dexterously, and gets his mark.

I guess I think of rangers a lot like, well, a fantasy western protagonist.

It's still twinblade shit. I played a ranger in 4e for 2 years. Was I effective? Yes. Did I enjoy playing him? Sort of. I enjoyed him in 3.5 more where I could actually make his shitty build work the way I wanted to. But for a single-weapon ranger? I don't think you can do that in 4e.

>want to play a ranger
>lol no play a barbarian
>even though you specified a ranger
You're like the people who tell me to play a rogue if I want a non-spellcasting ranger. No, just admit D&D does not do Aragorn-type rangers well, end of story.

Also you can use a longer sword just fine in the woods. I've had plenty of mock swordfights with long blades in fairly dense undergrowth and it worked fine. What are you talking about? Are you too weak to swing through branches? Cause I'm pretty weak and I had no problem with it.

People want to play a witcher campaign, if is anything to go by. Problem is that DnD's ranger and the witcher's witchers are two very different extrapolations on tolkien's rangers. Both can be described as "They're like aragorn in the first book, but...", and it's everything after the "but" that's different.

You would like the Complete Warrior alternate features for fighters. Power-wise it's shit but thematically it's wonderful. Complete Champion had something similar. This is for 3.5 though.

>I mean, barbarians are the guys who get so angry they get bonuses for it.

lol, poor mechanical design to the rescue: most rages in 4e are so action-inefficient that nobody uses them except like one or two that can function as a charge action. A rageless barbarian is not just possible in 4e, but above-average. You can take 100% non-rage alternatives that were printed for the janky "martial barbarian" class variant instead.

It's old as dirt but this still got me.

Funny thing is, while Aragorn definitely informed my idea of the iconic ranger, I've always felt like the character I'd like to play wouldn't be broody. I've never really been a fan of that. I've always wanted to run a ranger that's sort of just quiet and focused, probably pretty young and naive in some ways, and not all too well adapted to life outside the wilderness. Someone who is wandering with a purpose in mind, and discovering the world as they go.

I dunno, I think maybe Ashitaka is a good example of this.

It does seem like being more focused as a monster hunter is indeed what a lot of people want.

Is that Witcher art? I never knew. I mean, it makes sense now that I look at it, but it never clicked.

>just admit D&D does not do Aragorn-type rangers well

I'm the guy saying that Aragorn is a warlord.

Rangers of Ithilien are the realest niggers anyway. Dunedain go home.