💥 City of Arches: www.kickstarter.com/projects/slyflourish/the-city-of-arches-a-high-fantasy-5e-rpg-city-sourcebook?ref=7rm0jx 🐎ON ARAGORN & ANIMALS: (edited) I'm not certain whether it's in the books, movies, or both, but at least one of those Aragorns can communicate supernaturally with his horse(s). And certainly in Tolkien's books, lots of animals could speak or had a supernatural intelligence. The best point I'm seeing against the animal companion is that Robin Hood (the real OG) didn't have one, at least in any of his stories I can recall.
13:22 So, you mentioned Ranger having something similar to maneuvers in the Hunter subclass. I think you should know that the ranger was originally a fighter subclass. The whole inspiration for the class if from Aragorn from LotR, and while I agree the features could use some work, fighting is also one of the core aspects of the ranger. Even more D&D rangers like Drizzt Do'Urden or Vex'ahlia are heavily combat focused because that is what makes rangers truly ferocious: their ability to use their mastery of the wilds and their knowledge of foes to their advantage. So while I agree with some of your sentiments, I don't agree with the fact that all rangers should have a companion or all rangers should be stealthy. The identity of the ranger they were going for was meant to be a druidic version of what the paladin was for the cleric: less spellcasting better warrior version.
Are you sure you aren't thinking of Gandalf's connection to Shadowfax. I think they explain away Aragorn's ability by saying that he speaks Rohirric uses the language which the horse is attuned to.
@@AMRosa10 I don't recall if it was in the books (good excuse for me to re-read them again), but I think I know the scene(s) Bob's thinking of. In the extended edition of The Two Towers, there's a scene where Aragorn does speak in Rohirric to the horse of Theoden's deceased son, as you mention. The horse was misbehaving and skittish after its master's passing, and even the Rohirrim were having trouble controlling it. Aragorn, however, was able to walk right up to it, speak to and comfort it, and then told the Rohirrim stablemaster to let the horse go. Aragorn instinctually knew what the horse wanted/needed, and it seemed to connect with him. Later on, when Aragorn is thrown from a cliff after a battle with orcs/wargs and is washed, half-dead, downriver, the horse locates him, rescues him, and rides him to the (relative) safety of Helm's Deep.
@@Emarella Yes, that's what he's thinking of, but it was created for the movie, and it's still unrelated to what people are thinking of when they say a ranger should have an animal companion. Also he's speaking elvish.
Aragorn definitely had the ability to communicate with horses in ways a normal human couldn’t, but he didn’t really have a companion through out the story because he never traveled in places that were horse friendly and so he never had one for longer than part of a journey from one place to another.
As a former outdoor educator, I 1000% agree that you shouldn’t need to “pick your environment”. It’s absurd that so many games believe that the limitation makes the ranger “more balanced” when a wizard literally can alter the fabric of reality lol. Great vid Bob!
@@sleepinggiant4062 how would a beginning magic user know the inter complexities of casting even basic spells? Or how would a fighter know how to wear plate mail armor and move in it effectively?
I think it should be a scaling or time mechanic at least. A ranger should have greater fundamentals of survival than most but especially wilderness’s they’ve lived in for a while and learned the inns/outs, behaviors and dangers of the different flora and fauna in when introduced to a change of environment. But to make it either a scale or a time sink is actually the most realistic way of doing it. Like take a ranger that is a master of tall cold mountains like Mount Everest would be quite out of place for a while if he was transferred to a bayou or desert two widely different locations in nature.
Sure. Because pulling at the threads of arcane power is what wizards do. But even wizards (can) specialize. Which allows them focus on better understanding of some schools of magic by foregoing attention to others. It doesn't stop them from casting from all other schools. But they can't be masters of all. As an outdoor educator - how specialized was the knowledge you taught? I'm not a survivalist. But the basics I picked up would apply to different biomes. And there were guides worth packing for specific areas one would expect to be out and about within that included some details that went beyond the general knowledge I'd been taught. Specifics that an expert in that environment would know.
@@arandomnamegoeshere A survivalist learns how to deal with heat, cold, wet, dry. Fire, cooking. Dealing with injury. Develops movement skills. And learns about the local plant and wildlife. Only the last bit is regional, and I imagine you would pick up by visiting the regional ranger’s guild.
@@punishedwhispers1218 what edition has a ranger that is a viable healer for a party? sure they can heal in a pinch but nowhere near as effective as a cleric or druid. As far as damage goes they are often pretty mediocre and there are usually better options for a min maxer if damage is what they are going for.
While I don't think the Ranger should have a companion as a core element of the class in D&D, it's absurdly silly Rangers don't have Find Familiar in their spell list even in 2024.
It would be cool if they brought back the animal friendship spell from 1e. It let you tame and bond with any animal you encountered. Then rangers and druids that want pets can have them like paladins and their steeds.
@@elreyabeja4539 Yes, but its still better for it to be in the rulebook. Rangers should get to have a pet, you shouldn't have to convince your DM to allow it.
I cut my teeth on AD&D 2e when having a Ranger meant having an elite character. You were 1st level and attacking twice in melee. You were a Badass SOB that went toe to toe with giants. Third addition turned them into artillery units and they just declined further from there.
Rangers should definitely be a prestige class, if they're going to be basically a multiclass fighter/rogue/druid/etc. who is competent if not superior in everything they do.
Still running AD&D 1st ed, and rangers are worth their weight in electrum. The bonus vs. surprise, almost always passing track checks, very tough at level 1(2 hit die). Perfect. Yes, third ed made them artillery or very fragile two-weapon attack spammers.
In my opinion in 5e it comes down to 3 things... Comparison to the paladin, The wrong name, and niche class features 1) How it looks next to the only other core half-caster (The Paladin) It's less tanky (no heavy armour), struggles to spend its spell slots as effectively in combat (paladin can concentrate AND still smite every turn vs one concentration spell at a time), it doesn't have a powerful passive ability like the paladin aura (the closest equivalent feature is hunters mark which requires multiple bonus actions in combat AND resources to use), it has less bonus resources (lay on hands and channel divinity vs... the horrible revised favored foe feature which adds a tiny damage boost BUT requires concentration)... there are only 2 half-casters and one was CLEARLY the favourite child... 2) The Name/Vibe... The number 1 character in popculture that is referred to as a ranger is probably Aragorn, who doesn't have magic... or what about the rangers apprentice series, who don't have magic... or the lone Ranger, who doesn't have magic... or what about characters that kinda feel like rangers that aren't called rangers? Legolas, Rambo, Tarzan, Lara Croft, The Mandalorian, Aloy, Katnis... all without magic... they're Fighters or Rogues with some survival skills... I also think that if the ranger class was named "the warden" or "the woodsman" or "the forester" or something, then half the classes identity issues would disappear. Plus in almost every one of those situations they're a SOLO character, but D&D is supposed to be about working in a party! A paladin doesn't just feel like a cleric/fighter multiclass because it ALSO has unique things like smites and aura and lay on hands, yet the ranger often feels like a druid/fighter multiclass except with wildshape removed... 3) The fact that half its "thematic" features are niche... This may make people mad, but I feel that certain classes shouldn't REQUIRE specific types of campaigns... subclasses? Sure! Races? Sure! But I feel like classes shouldn't be locked into certain campaign settings. It's fine to say a "ranger should be a master survivalist, an expert tracker, an expert forager, etc." But I've played in games where literally none of those things were relevant... If I'm a cleric or paladin but I never fight undead or demons... then I still use my smites and I use my other channel divinity options! If I play a druid and we don't enter a single forest and we dont have a single animal or plant to talk to or if we only fight certain monster types all campaign... Literally I just choose different spells... that's it... If the ranger is in the same situation then half of its class features are useless! The revised ranger improved SOME of these things but the optional primal awareness feature is super niche too! Not to mention Land's Stride! the original natural Explorer feature even needed your DM to put you in a situation where you're required to track food and water and then it basically negates that element entirely! What kind of feature requires a specific scenario to use and the result is the scenario just disappears??? That would be like the bard getting a feature where "any time you enter combat with enemies that play musical instruments, you immediately win the combat", the rare time your feature comes up its just immediately hand waved away! It's the exact same reason that some DMs ban goodberry in survival campaigns! The ranger requires the DM to consciously design situations where their features CAN be used. To make other classes experience the same thing would require the DM to consciously design situations where their features CAN'T be used! Like putting a barbarian in a purely pacifist political intrigue campaign, or putting a wizard in a world where spellbooks don't exist, or putting a rogue in a campaign where every creature has tremor sense and a 50 passive perception and all locks are unpickable! You can't create a whole class that only fits within a specific type of campaign, and that's what the ranger feels like it is. Even the Druid doesn't REQUIRE a nature setting, but it feels like the ranger does
I think, fixing ranger requires making the exploration pillar of dnd more engaging. Wotc doesn't want to bother improving dm centric tools bc it won't sell more books.
I think that could do it (and you're definitely right about sales), but it's hard to do right. The easy way would be to create a bunch of challenges that characters would need to overcome while traveling, and make the ranger better than average at facing those challenges. But then parties without a ranger would just have a harder time traveling. That's why I advocated for having exploration in all environments, not just typical wilderness.
@BobWorldBuilder that's a session zero discussion. If no one plays a ranger, then maybe play a different type of adventure. Of course if the campaign is designed around it, and no player is accommodating, then maybe the GM needs different players.
@@BobWorldBuilderit's a little interesting to me how many games I've seen do urban exploration to find basic shops but then know exactly where everything is when you get into the wilderness. I guess not every group wants to play that but logically it seems like it should be flipped in priority
this this this. i’m currently having to do a lot of work to set up an exploration-based campaign for 5e (yes, i have considered playing other games) and a lot of it is just going to be me ripping rules from other systems and making things up wholesale. because “roll for random monster encounters every hour” is nowhere NEAR enough to make wilderness travel fun and engaging, ffs
I like the idea of getting the Favored Terrain bonuses when the character spends some time studying/observing the new-to-them environment and wildlife.
Or it is a progressive gain with level progression: start with one favored terrain but gain additional ones every other level, to simulate gaining familiarity with new environments.
YOU ARE DISREGARDING THE BEST OPTIONAL FEATURE OF RANGER! Instead of "Favored Terrain" you choose "Deft Explorer" instead, it grants you a general buff & more languages.
@@morrigankasa570 can't tell if you are being facetious with the all caps or not. ;) As Bob pointed out, "Deft Explorer" has no movement buff (there are no skills that affect movement, AFAIK), so it doesn't address the issue.
Personally, having played a fey wanderer ranger I feel like it actually does work because it's all focused on how getting a fey blessing effects what the ranger can do and many fey effects are social ones (also I think that not every ranger needs a companion, I think that they all should have some ability to communicate or understand what animals do, but they should focus on it if they have a permanent companion)
The charismatic Ranger is a fun trope, but not for everyone, so it's good that it's just a subclass. Similarly, I like that the beast companion is reserved for the Beast Master, but regret that several new base class features revolve around Hunter's Mark, not only the Hunter subclass features. Nonetheless, I can't wait to play a Fey Wanderer with the Magic Initiate (Druid) Origin Feat for Shillelagh, Magic Stone, and Healing Word to be able to focus on maxing out Wisdom. I'll just pretend that the Hunter's Mark features don't exist just like I would ignore any beast companion features, since companions are annoying at the table and just bug down combat.
@@Malkuth-Gaming Exploration is one of the few things really hard to do well, because if you overdesign it then it's a chore and slows the game too much and nobody has fun and then 2014's Ranger almost said "now you skip survival because you're fucking great at it!" They had a chance to make it better in this new edition but just skipped over it anyway...
I disagree with the idea that all rangers should have a animal companion. Having a companion is cool but not every ranger character fantasy has an animal companion. If you wanted to play Aragorn for example you would not want an animal companion. I think a subclass it the correct place for that.
LoTR isn't the same thing as D&D though - one of many reasons why The One Ring does things a lot different from D&D I'd set up Thorin Oakenshield differently from the average D&D Dwarf, but that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with D&D Dwarves either. So as a counter-point: the Ranger class is inspired by Aragorn, but doesn't restrict itself to him - Aragorn was, after all, basically a fighter with some unique specialisations.
It's underplayed in the movies, but book Aragorn definitely had the ability to communicate well with his horses, and lots of animals in Tolkien's books are intelligent. I think it works. But to your point, the best comment against the animal companion is Robin Hood not having one. I can't argue with that!
@@BobWorldBuilder Unless you talk about the Disney animated Robin Hood - in which case, he was the animal. That said, Robin Hood strikes me more as a Rogue than a Ranger, but then we all know the line between those two classes is incredibly thin to begin with
I'm surprised no mention of Witchers was made. They always came off as Rangers to me with their knowledge of the wilderness, survival, tracking, monsters, and just enough magic to help with those things. And they exist directly in that divide between civilization and the wilderness Bob was talking about.
Witchers come from some of the best fantasy of all time. They don't deserve to be polluted by an association with D&D, regardless of how the system would represent them.
“I prefer ranger-fighter over ranger-wizard” I feel like making everyone and their mother a spellcaster is one of my biggest gripes about modern d&d. Back in the 70s, rangers didn’t get magic until level 9, and I say GOOD.
PF2's ranger is still my favorite iteration out of nearly any fantasy TTRPG. It's very modular so you can lean into whatever traits you're partial to for a ranger and doesn't relegate you to ranged only (since a 'ranger' more refers to a warden, not a 'ranged' combatant). It doesn't have an animal companion or spells by default, but you can pick them up easily if they fit your idea. Animal companions feel great in PF2 and the spells are specially tailored ranger spells as well. They aren't relegated to a subclass choice and you can grab them even at level 1. They have Hunt Prey as a core feature, which is like an amped up Hunter's Mark that influences your combat style and gives you some tracking and potentially knowledge benefits. It's 1 action to apply and not a spell, which gels well with the 3-action system and multiple attack penalties. And they still have a ton of options for terrain, lore, snares, and tracking choices. Overall the modularity and adaptability is what makes it a winner for me.
Came here to mention this. Everything he said/wants out of a ranger is possible in Pathfinder. You can't be a master at all of it, but that wouldn't be logical anyway. All of the options are there, though. And even as high level if you wanted to go back and grab some lower level feats for warden magic or a companion later in your character's life, you could. Its all up to you. Its one thing I hate about D&D 5e/2024. You don't get any choices (or maybe 1 or 2) for your character progression aside from "what spell do I want to pick this time?"
The problem is, can't EVER mention PF2. Never never ever. I'm floored that Nimble 5e was covered over PF2. But that's because if he mentioned PF2 this video would be hated by the people he needs to market towards.
That's just it - if you want to play a Ranger in PF2 that ticks a lot of Bob's boxes, you can easily do so. Choose Class Feats that grant and enhance an animal companion (Animal Companion at 1st, Mature Animal Companion at 6th) and specialize in Nature and Survival-based Skill Feats (Natural Medicine, Forager) to pad out the survivalist bent. If there's another ranger at the table, the modular nature of choosing class options means they could opt for feats that grant combat techniques, turning them into more of a flurrying dervish, or a ranged marksman - but that doesn't lock them out from just taking the Animal Companion class feat later on and getting the best of both worlds... Imagine if all 5e classes were able to pick and choose options ala Warlock invocations...
I really like the Ranger expansion class in Shadowdark. No spellcasting, but able to make herbal curatives on the fly. Advantage on Stealth and nature stuff like tracking, making shelter, and foraging. Mid-level HP and Intelligence-based rolls for most of their areas of expertise. What's not to love?
I feel one of the missed opportunities here was in looking at versions of the Ranger from earlier editions of D&D in order to understand what they were aiming for, especially those prior to 3rd edition. For example, in 1st edition Rangers did eventually get spells, but not until 8th level (very close to when Clerics started being able to undo deaths), and then from a mix of the Druid and Magic-User spell lists, suggesting a sort of eclectic approach to magic - a character who picks up bits and pieces in their travels. Likewise, Rangers were considered so travel-oriented that they were forbidden from owning more than they could carry. 1E Rangers also didn't necessarily get animal companions, but around the levels where Fighters and Clerics started building strongholds and getting followers, Rangers started to pick up an odd mix of hangers-on - maybe a bunch of Robin Hood style Merry Men, possibly a bear, or a giant, or a young Copper Dragon, or who knows what else.
My argument is, you're missing a couple huge parts of what defines a Ranger. They've always been what's called a "hybrid class", mixing martial expertise with both Roguish stealth and skill, and nature-based Druid-like spellcasting. It's part of the core concept to be a full-warrior with a mix of Rogue and Druid abilities, all wrapped up within the clear theme of being a wilderness survivalist.
Some ranger concepts i enjoy are cowboys and stealthy gishes. To be honest, I dont think it's possible to make a ranger that satisfies everyone unless it's extremely modular, warlock style. Perhaps one compromise could be having 2 subclasses of two different types. Your regular, and a choice at level 1 between a shifting companion spirit (perhaps that can morph into or possess creatures you find), marking and stealth abilities, or more magical witchy druid stuff. Could be interesting.
I think the main thing missing from Rangers is the connection to the environment. Instead of "there is a specific environment you do well in", I'd much rather have an effect like "you gain a different bonus depending on what environment you're in and who you're up against". Rangers should have a mechanic where they actually get excited to go to any new location because it means trying out new abilities and discovering new opportunities. IMO, Rangers should be able to: - Camouflage themselves as long as they stand still and take time to apply it. - Aim their attacks (with any weapon) to cause a range of debilitations like snaring or blinding, regardless of who they're fighting. (e.g. even when fighting a blind bat, a ranger should know how to cause the equivalent of blinding). - Traverse a variety of terrains without issue. - Track down any common creature, and any creature that they've seen before. - "Reveal" traps: this might be too Blades-In-The-Dark-Esque, but I'd love something where you can 'reveal' how you've anticipated an approaching creature and set up a snare 'in advance'. - Have an animal companion of course. - Gain information from animals and plants. - Prepare varying effects depending on their environment: medicines, food, poisons, explosives, etc. based on the biome they're located in. Tales of the Valiant Explorer feels the coolest.
Ooh I love the idea of rangers being able to bypass certain types of condition immunities due to their understanding of the creatures’ anatomies. Plays into both the adaptability and the awareness/understanding
You're mostly describing Green Arrow. Who is actually a great archetype for the type of Ranger you detail here. His origin story involves him being marooned on a remote island for years and needing to adapt and survive to many harsh conditions. That allowed him to successfully hunt and fight criminals, super-powered and otherwise, in the city and elsewhere. Only instead of high-tech trick arrows and equipment, in D&D this archetype would have spells and magic items. So maybe players wanting to run a ranger should think less Aragorn and more Oliver Queen.
During D&D3E I had a Ranger that used alchemy items (that was before the Artificer) on his arrows. Deafening his enemies with arrows that had thunderstones as arrowheads and similar tricks. Same with an assassin that didn't want to kill and had blunt bolts for his hand crossbow. Personally I find D&D and other RPG's leave out too much of the equipment side and go far to fast to magic solutions to power up characters. And we see many computer games going deep there. From Thief, Assassin's Creed, Dishonoured to Ghost of Tsushima. Looking at the equipment lists in RPG's I sometimes wonder. What to buy with all the gold we find anyway? Magic items, sure, but remember, a cheap spell and people know you are packing a lot of magic and work to find out what to counter it or even worse, target you to steal your cool stuff.
The new dnd 5.24e books have updated the ranger spells to be like ranged smites in some cases which fits the Oliver Queen archetype very well. Granted I think the new ranger needs more exploration / tracking features but that requires the system to have more exploration support from the get go.
i think making all rangers have a beast companion is a bit of a hard sell for players who don't want to have to think about running two combatants (in addition to that maybe not being their character concept) BUT I think having a bonded "wilderness spirit" that can EITHER take physical form as a beast OR magically inhabit the ranger to enhance their abilities and senses is the way I'd go. It solves three problems - gives rangers a unique flavor for "magic" like the monk that doesn't mandate spellcasting, gives a thematic/mechanical reason for enhanced senses and knowledge of nature, and gives them martial flexibility to have that extra combatant when they choose (and the fun of a pet for RP)
Here’s my rework that y’all might appreciate * Deft Explorer - Proficiency and advantage on perception and survival. If you are already proficient in either skill you also gain an additional proficiency from the ranger list. In addition learn 2 languages - 1 * Spellcasting 1/2 rounded up - 1 * Marked Foe - Know hunters mark automatically. In addition you can cast hunters mark once per long rest without a spell slot or concentration. You can do this as a 3rd lvl spell at ranger lvl 9 and 5th lvl spell at ranger lvl 17 - 1 * Fighting style - 2 * 2x weapon mastery - 2 * Rover - +10 movement speed - 2 * Primal Powers - starting at 3rd lvl you gain the ability to expend some of your primal power as special ability. You expend a corresponding spell slot as directed to perform the listed effect. You gain a new primal power at 5,7,9,11,13,15, and 17 - 3 * -PP Unseen Sight - Spend a 1st lvl spell slot as an action to see invisible things and see into either the ethereal plane, feywild, or shadowfell for 10 minutes - 3 * Subclass choice - 3 * Feat - 4 * -PP Predatory Wave - Spend a 2nd lvl spell slot as an action to cause each creature in a 10ft radius of you to become frightened on a failed WIS save. While frightened they must spend their reaction, action, and bonus action to dash and movement to move away from you. This lasts until the end of the creatures next turn - 5 * Extra attack - 5 * Expert explorer - Expertise on perception and survival and expertise on 2 skills you are proficient. If you’re already an expert in perception or survival, select another skill to become an expert in - 6 * Unyielding March - Can’t be affected by non magical difficult terrain and you gain a climb, crawl, and swim speed - 6 * Uncanny Recovery - When ever you expend hit die, roll 1d4 per hit die and regain that much hp - 6 * -PP Natures Veil - Spend a 2nd lvl spell slot to make yourself and everything you’re wearing/carrying invisible until the start of your next turn - 7 * Subclass feature - 7 * Tireless - You loose a lvl of exhaustion on a short rest. - 8 * Extreme Conditioning - Gain fire and cold resistance. If you already have a permanent source of such resistances then select from acid and poison. - 8 * Feat - 8 * -PP Predatory Gaze - Spend a 3rd lvl spell slot as an action to paralyze a non undead creature within 30ft with fear if they fail a WIS Save until the end of your next turn - 9 * Unerring Mark - Expertise in weapon attacks against hunters mark target. - 10 * -PP Elemental Invulnerability - Spend a 3rd lvl spell slot as a reaction when you take damage of a type you have resistance to. Give yourself immunity to that type including the triggering damage until the end of your next turn - 11 * Subclass feature - 11 * Feat - 12 * -PP Mend Flesh - Spend a 4th lvl spell slot as a bonus action to heal someone you touch 15 hit points, reattach a limb if it was removed in the past minute, or reattach a head if it was removed within the past round and revive them to 0hp but stable. In addition at the end of every round the target regains 1d8 hit points for 1 minute - 13 * Unstoppable Strikes - Your attacks can’t be disadvantaged, In addition hunters mark attacks are made with advantage - 14 * Predatory Awareness - When you use your marked foe ability and when you transfer the effect to a new target, choose one of the following to learn about the target. (1) CR, alignment, and able to speak/understand any language it does; (2) AC and damage vulnerabilities; (3) to hit bonus and save DC; (4) damage resistance and immunity; (5) high and low stat; (6) speed and sense types. For the full duration of your marked foe ability, you also detect one of the following creature types and their direction within 600 feet; aberrations, celestials, dragons, elementals, fey, fiends, giants, monstrosities, and undead - 14 * -PP Wilds Ward - Spend a 4th lvl spell slot over 8hr to give a huge or smaller thing or 200 foot cube area within 60ft the effect of antipathy/sympathy for 10 days - 15 * Subclass feature - 15 * Feat - 16 * -PP Forewarning - Spend a 5th lvl spell slot as a reaction to your d20 test or an attack against you to give yourself advantage on d20 tests and +5 AC for 1 hour - 17 * Primeval Perception - You gain 60ft truesight, blindsight, and tremorsense - 18 * Epic Boon - 19 * Foe Slayer - You can add your wisdom modifier to either the attack roll or damage roll of an attack. You can make this decision after knowing if it would be a hit or not - 20
I think the biggest issue with rangers in modern games is that the whole concept is a holdover from earlier game design philosophy. Since 3e there's been a push toward more impressive heroic storytelling and larger narratives. That makes a lot of games and their campaigns really fun and epic and larger than life, but it's really at odds with the notion of the guy whose job it is to find medicinal plants to cure the deadly infection you got from drinking stagnant water and to lead you safely to your destination so that your party isn't stuck wandering around a swamp for 8 real life hours of play rolling random encounters over and over again until all the PCs die of exposure. The strict survival and tracking challenges that used to make the ranger shine have fallen out of fashion because as DMs we don't advocate for designing around hard fail states as much anymore. It's more dramatic for the party to always arrive at a village just behind the goblin horde after trekking through the woods, perfectly timed to rush in and save the village, even though it may be more realistic to say "you failed 7 survival checks and spent a week lost in the woods because you didn't have a ranger so the village has been destroyed, the goblins are gone, and everyone is dead."
"Both, both are good." I don't want hard fail states in my game but I do want creative thinking to overcome the challenges. I want the players to ultimately arrive at the destination but I want choices the players make on the way to matter.
That, exactly that. Getting a safe long rest in a hostile environment is the ranger's wheelhouse but it's not needed in the current version of the game.
I'm pretty sure 3e was the "Going back to the dungeon" edition since 2e abandoned dungeons for larger than life heroics. 3.5e might have strayed a little away from that... Then 4e wanted to be World of Warcraft... Pathfinder, in response, took 3.5e and amped up the power level. Then 5e. I guess the community might have been erring that way, I've only been on the scene for a decade now... But the design philosophy was stated to be dungeons in 3e. It was 4e where the intent was different.
In the brazilian OSR system Old Dragon 2 edition*, Ranger is a Thief's subclass with some interesting feats: - They never get lost in the wilderness (edit: in OD2, wilderness exploration is one of the focus of the game, with a full book about hexcrawl, the Campaign Guide: Wilderness) - They receive Tracking and Perception feats which use X chances in d6 (like LotFP) - At first level they choose a type of monster called "Mortal Enemy" which can be goblins, orcs, lizardmen, etc. - At 3rd level they can use large weapons (in OD2, thieves only use small and medium weapons) - At 6th level they are not easily surprised (1 chance in d6 to be surprised) - At 10th level, which is the maximum level in OD2**, they receive an animal companion. To me it is the best ranger I have ever seen: no magic, no unbalanced feats, just a ranger like Aragorn or Robin Hood (although they do not have animal companions). * Available only in portuguese, unfortunately. ** 10 is the maximum level when using only the Basic Rulebook. There is a Expanded Rulebook where there are rules to reach the 15th level, which is the maximum level in this system.
My two favourite takes on the Ranger are Shadowdark and (for crunchy) Pathfinder Player Core (which does not have access to spells unless swapping out Ranger Fears for an Archetype feat, or taking the highly specialised and limited Ranger Warden Focus spells). I could be wrong, but I suspect in the D&D 2024 the Ranger and Druid are very similar,
I've seen people use music in a Ranger situation IRL. One is using "Stayin' Alive" (preferred) or "Another One Bites the Dust" to time CPR chest compressions. The other is using singing to help keep the party motivated to make it back to camp after a rough day in the field/when a party member is injured/ill.
You missed the PF2e ranger, so I will just go through your checklist. There is a lot of "can"s, cause the System is a lot about choice and feats and building your own character, so you can play a ranger that isnt good at survival for example and just a hunter. You can argue that the name should be different which I agree with, but you can make the ranger you want, or hunter. -He CAN be a master of survival/foraging, but not more than others, which is good, since that allows you to also play a survivalist barbarian without the need of having to be a ranger to do so. You can basically survive anywhere and forage anywhere, even other planes. -The ranger has a very cool "favoured terrain" feat where you can choose a favoured terrain which will give you a specific boon in that terrain (all about being better at crossing that terrain, or surviving in it), at later levels you can pick up another feat that allows you to swap the favoured terrain to any other with a bit of prep beforehand, which is imo just much better than being just good at everything. The boons can be something like gaining swim speed for aquatic, or needing to eat way less if you picked arctic/desert, not being effected by the extreme heat/cold as much and ignoring the difficult terrains there -He can be by far the best at tracking stuff if you pick the feats for it, to the point that you can track them through other dimensions -PF2e loves feats, so you get to build your own ranger and kind of ranger. A companion isnt a must at all (aragon, robin hood and geralt didnt), but you can have one ofc. They are especially cool, cause depending on your companion they have support abilities, so you can do teamwork with your animal with special actions. -A wild empathy feat exists and a "subclass" that is all about fighting with knowledge and a few feats to assist that playstyle Though something you missed I feel like: They should be able to use traps and the like which the PF2e ranger can do. The PF2e ranger CAN be magical, but is very limited in what spells they can use, they are pure focus spell casters, rather than normal casters (dont have access to a big spell list, but to special focus spells. Can cast them up to 3 in a combat and can refresh focus points after combat) they can range to "you can magically relocate your traps" to "You mimic a scary animal and attempt to frighten enemys around you" So it hits all the spots you want and other spots. You would really like the PF2e ranger I think.
Personally, I think that the Companion should not be core. Instead, I think Rangers should have maybe two Kit options as core, with a bestial companion and caretaking tools as one of them. Like a Kit could be Fletching, Snares, Bombs, Elixirs, Primal Magic (but just like rituals and cantrips), etc. To me a Ranger should be about exploration and positioning (pinning, weaving through the field, movement types), and also some prepared tricks on hand for that real survivor feel.
Yeah!! I agree, I really think that the ranger should be all about movement and ambience. They should be able to be really good at exploring and exploiting the environment, reading and mimicking the surroundings to be efficient in position, either protecting or attacking. I think this is the reason that they are so recognized by the bow, because archers have to calculate everything, wind, breath, distance, heart beats and hunters have to pay attention to all the signs of disturbance and not create disturbance, this is why their cool, it's all about equilibrium, valuing energy (survival), being prepared.
I think part of the issue is 5th edition itself. Rangers in D&D used to either start with an animal companion, or the ability to catch and train one. They were good at fighting because they needed to be in order to survive, often specializing in a handful of creatures that they had devoted their lives to hunting. I'll also say that if survival and exploration is not a part of your games, it's definitely a GM/player preference thing. I've been playing D&D for nearly 40 years, and traversal between civilized lands, delving into massive dungeons and labyrinths or pathfinding the great unknown has always been a core part of my adventures. Getting lost is a very real danger, compounded by all the monsters who want to eat you. And can.
About people that restrict rangers to certain terrain-types for gaining bonuses, we gotta consider one thing - a survivalist learns general knowledge about survival that is applicable everywhere - how to find tracks, what to look for, how to survive in hot/cold/humid/dry/sunny/rainy/whatever conditions, etc. And we're talking about "normal" survivalists. D&D characters should start off as being above the "normal" person and grow from there. Basically, the only difference between terrains for a ranger should literally be what they take/what they prepare for the terrain, and maybe not even that, since as a survivalist they can probably fashion themselves improvised gear to help them in the certain terrain. So, yeah, I don't see a need to restrict a ranger to only 1-2 types of terrain just so that they can have the abilities that a person with like 5-10 years of experience has. Just let people have their fun, ffs. Also, I've been thinking about this for many years now, but with the new 5e 2024 it kinda solidified in my mind - Ranger is more of an occupation rather than anything else. And, IMO, it can easily just be relegated to a few subclasses for Rogue, Fighter and Barbarian. It can even be done like they attempted to do with the Strixhaven Universal subclasses for casters. Or maybe even make a few features, similar to invocations, and allow those subclasses to just be kind of build-a-bear subclasses, and it would be fine. Ranger's already very difficult and finicky with the marking obsession and such, and the concept feels a bit too thin for a whole class.
I’m working on content to unpack the ranger class including the history of the class/sub class. Now that being said, the ranger class in 5e is in a weird spot. It’s not what it use be in older editions as well as PF2E and OSR classes. To objectively look at the class everyone has to look past what it was and look at it is now. The game has evolved past the hex crawl and anyone can feat into what the ranger was designed to do in the older editions. At its foundation in 5e it is an “explorer” class, it does a little bit of everything and it does those things well. The problem is everyone has a different idea as to what exploration is and unless you are in a sandbox campaign/world it’s not supported by pre written modules. I’d argue that the ranger in 5e post Tasha’s is the culmination of this broad view of exploration and support by putting the focus on languages, movement, and spell casting. As for the animal companion argument, several of the sub classes give the companion option in different ways including the Fey wanderer with conjure Fey for no concentration for a minute. Also if you look at TLotR TTRPG from back in the ‘80s, the rangers were spell casters at lvl 1😉 and that is pulled directly from Tolkien’s world……. Yes, I still have the middle earth RPG in my library.😂😂😂 Basically every argument I’ve seen in the comment sections has been about playing the ranger trope. I can play any class in the game Including a wizard and build it into a literary ranger trope of some kind depending on how I as the player flavor the character.
Honestly, I'd rather any animal companions in the party be more shared, with different classes giving different boons to it. This way, it feels more like Repede from Tales of Vesperia, who had a relationship with the entire party, rather than one person's bond that I may not want to disrupt. The animal may have the strongest bond with one person, but if everyone is contributing boons then there's a greater invitation for more people to interact with it.
@@BobWorldBuilder :) Maybe not the best example because I haven't seen this movie in ages, but the ranger Garrett in Quest for Camelot is buddies with falcon with silver wings which is also Merlin's familiar. They aren't in a party, but it is neat that the same animal is both of their ally.
I love the ranger. It has been one of my favorite classes for as long as I have been playing D&D, for all of the reasons you laid out. The biggest problem is that the ranger (like many other classes) is actually very setting specific. I want to play a ranger because I want to play a resource-low survival game where I have to track, forage, hunt, and make friends with the animals we meet rather than kill them. The problem I have always run into is that the DM isn’t running that game, or when I try to run that game, my players don’t want to play it. One of them takes goodberry and protection from elements and then the whole game is destroyed. Zee Bradshaw did a great video about this a few years ago. I find that when I want to feel like I’m playing a Ranger, I need to not play D&D. There are a few board games that have given me close to the same feeling. But mostly I just have to do like Bob does and go hiking out in the wilderness and pretend that the other hikers are an orc patrol. Or that the small caves in the rocks house dragons.
Totally agree with this! Ranger concept (through Robin Hood stories and my outdoorsy parents) is what got me interested in fantasy as a kid. My first GM made it work because we homebrewed everything, but as written, you're right: the baseline D&D setting and magic doesn't quite leave room for a traditional ranger.
One of my favorite characters I ever played was a beastmaster kit ranger for 2nd edition. It was so unapologetic about being based on the movie/show of the same name that I just took the same animals, a couple ferrets and a hawk, but I couldn’t start with a tiger so I had a badger instead. Ended up dying at level 9 from getting shot by a security bot during expedition to the barrier peaks. Never did get a tiger, but did befriend some rats to help us escape from a tower we were locked in.
@@Carlphish Ah, I finally found a comment that mentions the Beastmaster movie. It's definitely one of the main inspirations for my preference for Rangers in games! Those animals are great, and a fantastic example of how that class concept can work in a ttrpg.
ngl I'd be 100% on board for running a party of 5 rangers, rolling CON saves every LR because they insist on drinking their own piss, even when they're in a town.
@@BobWorldBuilderDeft Explorer existed before 2024 Ranger as an optional feature for the 5e 2014 Ranger! I also like having Fighting Style choices for Ranger. Drizzt's Panther is a Wondrous Item, not a normal Animal Companion. YOU & THE MAJORITY OF OTHER D&D RUclipsRS ALWAYS FORGET DRAKEWARDEN SUB-CLASS! I respect your right to opinions & your efforts making content, but in this video was the largest amount of mistakes I've ever seen by you! Keep up the efforts, but I hope you do more research in the future.
@morrigankasa570 One of the points in the video was that in order to gain that animal companion (which I'd include the drake as one, though I agree it's done better than the beast master) you MUST take that subclass rather than it simply being a part of the core identity of the class. The mechanic that drizzts panther is an item not a part of being a ranger and yet so often forgotten, is sorta pointing out that it fits so very well with the identity of the ranger that it kinda just gets ignored in favor of the idea of the 'badass animal friend'
@@samuelputnam854 Right but even though I love the Drake Companion option, I still don't think it needs to be a core feature. It's best that it is an option of choice.
Shouldn't the in-town imbibing call for a CHA check instead? To see whether they are still welcome at the inn or if the traders want to do business with them?
Maybe because when WotC proposed a revised version of the Ranger in 2016 nobody cared about it to the point most players don't even know it exists... why would they care when the players themselves don't care...
@Sephiroth517 that ranger also sucked. It was pretty much just the 2014 ranger with no subclasses. Instead you got a conclave meaning that it wasn't compatible with anything released throughout the rest of 5e.
@@csPOthr33cs not compatible with anything released throughout the rest of 5e ? Are you trying to blame WotC for not releasing ranger-stuff based on a revised version no-one cared about ? And, well, how is it not compatible ?
@Sephiroth517 your first argument was that WotC released a revised ranger "that no one cared about" however no on cared about it because it's updated class features replaced ANY possible subclass options. Most of the revised options later became subclasses themselves in 2017s XGtE
The companion feels like a D&D trope to me, not a Ranger specific trope, if that makes sense. Because they're a Druid Fighter hybrid, the companion is a way to highlight their mastery over nature through a bond, but Aragorn didn't have a beast friend, The Mandolorian doesn't, Batman doesn't, it feels more like a D&D concession than vital to the essence of the Ranger.
Just made a pinned comment about Aragorn and animals because I keep seeing this point! xD But I have no knowledge of the Mandolorian, so I can't argue there. Batman? Never heard him compared to a ranger. Seems way more like a fighter, rogue, or even monk to me.
@@BobWorldBuilder it's a stretch for sure, Batman being a super detective and tracking criminals in the night is pretty Ranger-y to me, all about hunting prey
You could say Aragorn's bond is not the friend-of-nature Dr. Doolittle of D&D, but out of the Fellowship he is the best at riding horses. And the Mandalorian has Razor Crest, Batman the Batwing... Maybe the theme of traveling and having a vehicle can be much cooler to rangers than a pet friend. A ranger inspired on the Wild West is definetly cooler when you think of them as master horse-riders, or the Mongol nomads who could shoot arrows from horses...
I think it is difficult to "hit the mark" on the classic ranger trope because of how versatile they actually are. I love that you did this video and gave people a place to discuss it. The base ranger at character creation in D&D 5e allows you to take animal handling and nature as proficiencies from level 1. This is technically all you need to functionally have a companion. You can build a bond with a specific creature through immersive storytelling or in your background. Building on this bond through the campaign, I personally don't see an issue with developing specific combos (combat, exploration, or otherwise) as you move through story progression. The "magical" side to the traditional ranger is supposed to be more druidic than wizardy in nature. (Pardon the pun.) The concept that you "Attune" to nature and access the natural flow of the living magic of the world. I agree 100% that a ranger should be a functional tracker, survivalist, and combatant. I belive the ranger should be as functional in the water as they are on land (which is another thing that isn't discussed enough). I think the ranger should have unique fighting styles (like the UA Mariner and Tunnel Fighter) that play to what a ranger does instead of a traditional brawler of melee combatant. Over the years and editions I have created my own variations of rangers and accompanying sub classes. Some at player request and some for NPCs in specific settings. One of my favorites incorperates features that allow the ranger to craft a small biosphere in a pendant, broach, ring or other piece of ornamental wear. This biosphere can be changed out with elements (twigs, sand, snow, rocks, to make a small living snow globe effect) of the terrain the ranger is in during a short rest. Changing the elements gives them certain benifits and advantages while in that terrain. At higher levels it builds on what the biosphere gives them and how much distance it can work. I'd love to chat more about this topic with anyone in the comments if you have questions or different observations.
Surprisingly missing is the Pathfinder 2e Ranger: * Hunt Prey [one-action]: designate a creature as your prey. Gain a +2 bonus to Seek/Track your prey. * Choose One: higher chance to hit when multi-attacking, better at hiding/deceiving, more damage * Choose One: Pet, hide while reloading, extra attack, learn monster weakness for your party (You get the others at a later level). Pets: They have varied abilities like allowing you to be harder to hit, bleed, make enemies easier to hit, slow them down, burn them, help you climb, mount them, etc. BONUS: Since you level quickly, you get another option at level 2 in addition to the options above: * Choose One: better with animals, ignore difficult terrain, higher ranged accuracy, better at determining monster weakness, quick weapon swapping, magically move your traps
I recently played a ranger in D&D that was lots of fun to play. The campaign was mostly set in a city so we used a lot of the TCoE rules to remove the need for a specific wilderness area. I kept the same wolf companion through the whole game which is much more interesting for role play than changing (though I also like the idea of summoning any beast from the wilderness for a specific task). People say there aren't many beasts that meet the criteria without being underpowered, and the primal beasts in TCoE are boring because they have no flavour, like being able to sniff out enemies. The mechanics keep changing as you level up, so I swapped a lot between choosing whether the wolf or my character would fight, getting extra attack so we can fight together, my attacks leveling up enough it was better to mount the wolf and run around with a longbow, and so on. Lots of variety
Hopefully some ranger can come and take care of that invasive knotweed near you. (I'm from eastern PA, so I know it well.) Seriously, nice video as always. I really like when you do them outside and in natural settings. Very fitting for talking about fantasy games.
My core fantasy of a ranger is that they're master survivalist and hunter. To me a pet is not core to that, but being an archer is; if I were building my own ranger class I'd probably emphasize that part more.
It's like I've been saying for years: the 1e ranger was damn OP, and every subsequent edition has tried to dial that back with varying degrees of failure. The 1e ranger was originally built as an Aragorn clone and wasn't quite the same thing it is today. But in 1e terms, it was stupid strong. - It only got d8s for HD, but the ranger started with 2d8, so it always had an extra HD/level. Also, HD capped in AD&D, and while fighters capped at 9d10, rangers capped at 11d8. So they always had a bucket of hp. - They added their level to damage against "giant class" enemies, and this wasn't just all giants including ogres and trolls, but also stuff like kobolds, goblinoids, orcs, gnolls, you know all the common enemy humanoids. - Their tracking didn't just work in the wilderness, but also indoors, including dungeons. - They surprised enemies about half the time while being surprised only on a chance of 1 in 6. (This is a bit harder to figure out because 1e had some notorious inconsistencies on surprise.) - At 8th level they started gaining a limited number of druid spells. Higher level than their spell casting in later editions, but it was always part of the class. - At 9th level, they also started gaining magic-user spells. (Why the heck does Aragorn get arcane magic?!) It was only levels 1 and 2, but the way 1e magic worked, that ranger could be doing something like shooting off magic missiles that started with 9 missiles and went up with level. - At 10th level, rangers could start using palant...errr non-written divination magic items. Now you get to track with a crystal ball. - Also at 10th level, the ranger got a small group of followers. Not quite an animal companion, though it was the root of that ability. Usually, it was a handful of good-aligned PC types, though rangers could get bears, blink dogs, or giant talking bobcats. But if you were really lucky on your rolls -- the followers were determined by random rolls -- you might get a storm giant bro watching your back or a copper dragon. - I'm pretty sure rangers got to do this and still wear the best armor in the game. There were restrictions; you had to be human or half-elf, ranger had to remain good aligned or permanently lose their abilities, no more than 3 rangers could ever adventure together, and you couldn't own more than you could carry on your back and you had to have Str 13, Con 14, Int 13, and Wis 14, but rangers were fighter+ and very very strong. Later editions have been trying to tone this down with 2e giving the most severe beating with the Nerf bat, and some elements of the newer editions have taken different approaches to all sorts of things.
If they gave the ranger a relatively limited spell list (from level 1), it would serve the function of having a dozen class features each level without needing to dedicate space specifically to it in the class itself. Spells are modules. Classes are full packages. Now, do I agree with that design principle? No. Do I prefer Spheres of Power? Yes. By a lot. Not even a question. But, working within the framework of 5e's like 1 class feature every 3-4 levels unless your a spell caster... yeah. It's a simple and elegant way to get the survivalism aspect in there without a bunch of new text .
In "defense" of the DC20 ranger, it's Favored Terrain feature do make you choose 2 terrains, but the bonus you gain from this choice works all the time in every terrain. For me it feels like a background flavor choice, something like "I spent most of my days in the wilderness wandering through Jungles that's why I'm so accustomed with difficult terrrains" Now, talking about the beast, I really don't think it should be a core class feature. We have lots of examples of rangers in the fantasy that don't have this kind of companion: Aragorn, Legolas, Robin Hood, Bear Grylls XD. They can have a profound knowledge of animals and maybe even a ability to communicate with them, but they surely don`t have a beast companion. If a beast companion would be put as a core classs feature of a Ranger, I think it should be something like the Warlock`s pact boom, where you have a choice to get a companion but you can choose to have other cool thing instead. Or maybe something like the Druid`s wild shape, that is available to every druid, but some subclasses specialize in it.
My favorite ranger feature is the Wilderness Knacks from the D&D 4e Essentials rangers. They were little abilities that let you do cool things while exploring. You could communicate with animals in a non-verbal way, you could take the lead and help your whole team with climbing or hiding, you could make your camp very difficult to ambush. That along with the animal aspects really gave them a fresh feel. Overall, part of it is the ranger is good at things usually covered by skills. Shadowdark wins here with the specific names, but all of those things would be covered by skills in any modern version of D&D. The thing that makes it for me is skill proficiency in 5e-likes matters very little, its like a 10% difference. Not a lot! Advantage or +5 like in 4e makes you feel much more competent.
Now I want a "Urine Master" subclass for the Ranger. You can survive drinking your own urine, sure, but also at various levels it can act like a potion of healing, potion of vitality, Keoghtom's Ointment, potion of longevity, etc.
4e was peak ranger: a lightly armored, highly mobile damage dealer with some neat survival tricks. EDIT: Wow, I was not expecting this much 4e love. Thanks folks for being wholesome!
🥳🫂👍🏿 Very interesting perspective - I grew up in the forests of Appalachia on a hardwood tree farm, and I love the ranger class - I would pretend to be one with my stick swords and dog by my side - I learned about animal body language and enticed local wildlife into my home (Mom wasn’t super excited about that) - so animal companions? Love them - 3.5 gave them to rangers and druids, and subclasses weren’t a thing back then - I think Guenhwyvar is THE reason we seen them as key to the archetype - Aragorn didn’t have one, unless you count Brego in the movies - and, talk about truly inhabiting your character; I’ve heard Vigo fell in love with that horse and bought him after the film - I think one reason combat is a perhaps over represented feature of the ranger is the heavy focus D&D and similar games have on combat - making a class exciting to play in a game that values combat over all else essentially requires combat oriented features - I think to make rangers ✨shine✨ in a mechanics heavy TTRPG, there need to be mechanics for the fields of play rangers should excel in - travel, for example - rangers should simplify, possibly even trivialize, travel for the whole party - in D&D and adjacent games, travel mechanics are nearly absent - with a rules light approach to most of the game, we might get away with simply flavoring the ranger with fluff & ribbons - if you bring in a hex crawl and give bonuses to rangers, that could work to mechanically highlight their value, but I’m not into those myself - one way my table has been highlighting rangers is with a travel system that includes complications and setbacks - if you’re interested in it, check out GM Philosopher’s channel - he’s been kind enough to agree to share it with his audience - should be coming out in the next week
Pathfinder 2e makes animal companions a level 1 feat option for their Rangers, and de-emphasizes magic use for all rangers by making "Warden Spells" an optional feature.
The only thing not mentioned here that I have added to my own rangers is what I've been calling "Calls of the Wild." I've experimented with it being regional, like favored terrain, and it seems most balanced and realistic this way. I also include the ability to add more regional dialects when enough time is spent in new regions. It basically works like this: Rangers not only know all of the specific calls of the wild animals of their regions (heads up, general alarms, specific alarms, run, hide, challenges, nonthreatening, etc.) and can mimic them, they can also use these calls, and subtle variations of them to communicate with other denizens of the field, forrest, or flood including rangers, some low intelligence/ less sophisticated humanoids, and druids if they take Calls of the Wild as an option. I've also called it "Hunter Speak" (after real world indiginous hunters who seem to use it themselves) and "Wild Speak" to include people who would shy away from identifying as a hunter. It can be used to call animals (not magically), drive them away, communicate with other speakers, draw in prey, befriend animal companions and give them commands, and gain information and advantage by listening to their environment. If this is already a thing somewhere I apologize. I based it on Thieves' Cant decades ago, and have been largely homebrewing D&D since 2e.
Laserllama is one of my top homebrewers and he made a class called the wanderer, which is basically exactly the type of ranger you are envisioning. Check it out!
Rangers should be specialists for survival, trapping, guerilla-warfare and fighting monsters - no magic needed. Ranger and barbarian could as well be fighter-subclasses.
The funny thing is that both Ranger and Paladin were fighter "subclasses" (subclasses worked differently in first edition). Paladins got up to 4th level cleric spells, and Rangers got up to third level druid spells and second level magic-user spells. Rangers were most known for making enemies surprised and being resistant to surprise, and also being able to track anything anywhere. In addition, they could add their level in damage against a variety of monsters that were kind of humanoid (giants, trolls, goblinoids, etc.)
If you want to play a martial ranger, just play the fighter class with the outlander background. Many of the early AD&D design features ended up in the fighter base class staring in 2e and have carried forward. Take the healer feat, mobility, and expert feat at some point and you have what you want to play. The 5e ranger is essentially a different class with the ranger name attached to it. It’s a half caster, the old ranger class didn’t see spells of any kind until lvl 8. To quote Yoda, you need to unlearn what you have learned.
I kinda disagree: So often we see in high fantasy settings classes/archetypes, that deny themselfes the use or even Interaction with magic. I feel, that this is weird because the world around them is still filled with magic and in most cases, this is not a new occurance but established since many generations. So magic is often "everywhere" and monsters especially are most often imbued with magic. So for survival purposes rangers should know relevant magic and be able to use it or stop it / survive it at least in some basic capacities.
Agreed! Everyone thinks Aragorn but remember Faramir and his men were also rangers. And what you describe is exactly what they were doing when we first encounter them in the LoTR books.
I'd argue it was hinted that Aragorn shared a unique bond with his horse, Brego. But it wasn't hugely obvious or relevant to the story advancement, so I'll let it slide.
@@dylanblack3635 I'd say Robin Hood was more of and edge ranger/rogue. Also, at some point the evolution of the game has to arrive somewhere. I'd rather the ranger get a solid, stable flavour of all of them getting some kind of animal companion than... nothing.
I agree with another reply that Aragorn did have a special bond with his horse (underplayed in the movies), but I also agree that Robin Hood, prehaps the OG ranger, doesn't have such a bond in the stories I've read. And I've read a LOT of Robin Hood stories. He's kinda why I like fantasy/rangers in general.
I honestly think ranger would be much better with a feature similar to the warlocks pact boons, ones that develop on their own later in the class. One would absolutely be for your pet, but the others could be things like tracking and hunting or increases to weapon range or something tied in with HM or even a more survivalist ranger that has healing mechanics after foraging or short rests
I was thinking the same thing. Making rangers one whole beastmaster class doesn't feel right because not every ranger has or relies on a pet. A feature like warlock pact boons for rangers that lets you show off all your learned wilderness skills and knowledge pertaining to tracking, stealth and sensing, roving, survival, basic medicine, communicating basic ideas and intent with animals, and hunting, would be great and boil down everything into a feature where you can pick what bonuses you want to exemplify what wilderness skills you best excel at
Great video. I totally agree that spellcasting shouldn't be a core feature for Rangers. At most it should be a subclass feature like a ranger-druid version of the eldrich knight. Also I'd suggest checking out how Tales of Argosa handles Rangers. They meet all of your criteria, including an animal companion at level one.
I feel like fixing the ranger depends on giving it a flavorful Schtick. Barbarians have rage. Paladins have divine smite/lay on hands, bards have inspiration, etc. and all if those things look and feel different based on the subclass. I think you’re right. Give the core ranger all the exploration stuff you mentioned, hunters mark (or some similar redource) and a companion. Then flavor those things differently with different subclasses. Give one a more combat specialization, another a magic specialization (I guess) , another a companion specialization, and another an exploration specialization (probsbly that lets them act more like a healer) Then have the core mechanics change or improve depending on the specialization
One thing I've decided to do, as a small minor change, is to let Hunter's Mark act as a magical GPS. I think even something that simple will pay off BIG time.
@@Chaosmancer7 That's awesome! I was talking to someone yesterday and have decided to try my hand at making the class I described above. The more I thought about it, the more it made sense to just give the ranger a companion and drop a lot of the fighter features. You run into a lot fewer balance issues with having a permanent action economy monster if you don't get things like extra attack. I've never made a custom class though, so we'll see how that goes haha.
This is the real problem. Most fantasy RPG rangers are fine in the vacuum of their system, but problems occur when peoples’ various perceptions are introduced. EDIT: That being said, I do like the 2024 D&D’s ranger because it feels simple, roughly on par with with other “warrior” classes, and, most importantly to to me, less up to DM fiat compared to the 2014 D&D ranger.
I think this is kind of a hand wave argument. It's true that there are many concepts for rangers in the minds of players. But the class could be designed with room for that modularity in mind. Much the same way that Fighters get extra ASI and Feats, and or even the way warlocks get invocations. There is however an underlying core that runs through most fantasy rangers which could be represented better by the base class.
I'd call it a true but unhelpful answer, but after thinking about it, I'd say it's just flat out wrong. The Ranger is not some ephemeral idea that each person has a unique idea of. There's a few things nearly everyone would agree with, which should be the base, and then let the subclasses handle the more niche interpretations.
I actually like the 5e Ranger, and you are correct about each person wanting/liking something different from it. I unfortunately don't have a group to play with:( But I have created 12 different lvl 1 characters in case I found a group. One of my characters is: A Chaotic Neutral Sage background Female High Elf Ranger planning Drakewarden Sub-Class, at lvl 1 she knows 8 different languages! Ranger is the best linguist Class from the start, sure Wizards can learn a spell to translate but that's a limited timeframe. Monks eventually gain the magical ability to know all languages but that is at over lvl 12.
I mostly agree with you, outside of small irrelevant details, but the big thing is I disagree that every ranger needs a beast companion, just because while I do associate beast companions with rangers, I don’t see the beast companion as a fundamental part of the ranger identity. If you want it outside of the subclass area, maybe we make it into a pact-boon style feature? Give it the option between a companion or something like superiority dice.
I’m too nice about allowing pet familiars already, but I see the attraction and flavor of a beast companion. I’d allow it but 1) be clear that if they enter combat they don’t get plot armor and 2) try and limit HP in a way that doesn’t make them a secret sack of free HP for the ranger. Prof DMs recent opinion video that covered sidekicks made me think about this very thing.
Man vs. Nature may have been a central conflict at some point in D&D's past, but now the Ranger class is based mostly on ranger classes from its earlier editions while the rest of the game has drifted away from any use for the old rangers. This is the core of why rangers feel weird. Man vs. Nature doesn't feel as central in D&D 5e. Man vs. Nature stories require a level a vulnerability that 5e characters don't have. You aren't afraid of succumbing to disease. You aren't afraid that a bear is going to come out of the woods and kill you. You aren't afraid you won't find food. Your characters tend to feel like they are in a post-scarcity society where the only threat to adventurers is other people trying to take over the world. This is fine for telling some types of stories, but it isn't great for telling stories where the classic vision of a ranger plays an important role.
I don't want to give specific examples but I disagree on so many things you say about 5e (mostly about mechanic stuff). But instead of me leaving a mean comment and running away to my echo chamber RUclips channels where everyone says the same thing; I like watching your vids because I get to hear your thoughts and opinions that I would never have or even think about. Thank you Bob Also I got a set of the dice you made Love you ❤
So Pointy hat actually said the same thing in the 2024 review of the classes in the book. Just turn the ranger into the pet class like mmo's do. I bucked at this at first but you can get a lot of flavor out of this if you think about it. A pet from the feywild vs a pet from the shadowfell vs a pet from other planes, could have a lot of cool things you could do. I actually am in favor of this after thinking about it. People could say that Aragorn doesn't have a pet, but there is a point he does summon a bunch of ghost knights to wipe out an army of orcs. Having a ranger who has a ghost companion sounds pretty rad to me. Anyway, I love this break down. Thanks Bob!
I also think the pet class isn't bad due to how WOTC markets the ranger and what new players expect. Almost every single Ranger in D&D media has some kind of pet. And even before that, pretty much every single new players has specifically picked ranger so that they could have an animal companion. Even if it's not the main point of the class, WOTC has set false expectations that it is.
i would generally diagree, a pet is integral yo manyy different types of fantasy that aren't sometimes compatible with themes and meccanics of the ranger, and a dedicated pet class could stand on his own as its unique class devoided to the concept of ranger (hunter, guide, explorer, warden, bounty hunter etc...)
To everyone saying Aragorn did not have a animal companion forgot about his horse he was able to speak to, seen to be able to send away and summon when he needed it.
That's one horse and it's only in the Two Towers movie, and when people say animal companion they're not thinking of horses. Please remember the Two Towers movie is from 2002, the Two Towers book is from 1954, the Ranger D&D class is from 1978 (AD&D), and the animal companion Ranger is from 2000 (3rd edition.)
Best Ranger I played that felt ranger’ish was a Pathfinder / spell’less ranger. This was more like a ranger/rogue instead of fighter/druid and felt more akin to a proper scout. Add to that the switch hitter builder between bow/two-hander and he was a killing machine. Dropping a weapon and quick hands was a fun mechanic. Even passed on the pet. 🤘
If you want a 5e compatible Ranger class that fits with inspiration from Aragorn, I think you'd look at Adventure's in Middle Earth's 5e Adaption. I played the Ranger (Wander) class in that setting. It was very fun and I often felt incredibly useful, particularly with the Journey mechanics they introduced... I think the Ranger concept can be made to best thrive in a campaign where journeying through vast wilderness territories is the norm/expectation. It's probably OK if it can't be shoehorned into a serial dungeon crawl or city campaign. In fact, I'd go so far as saying that 5e's assumption that all of these classes and subclasses and archetypes can be thrown into any game/setting/genre is one of its weakness and a mistake. Instead of trying to make a base ranger class that can fit any campaign, fewer base choices, with the assumption that there are various setting-specific additions (and restrictions) seems like it makes for a much better game.
The Dolmenwood 'hunter' might be the peak ranger. They get a cool animal companion, they are extra alert against ambushes and surprise, they gain all the standard tracking/wayfinding/foraging/survival skills, and they can take trophies from slain enemies to give them bonuses when fighting enemies of a similar type.
Like a lot of other people have said, I don't think that having an animal companion needs to be a core part of the Ranger's identity. However, I do really agree that it would be really fun to have a class that's core identity centers around having a companion who they combo with.
I’ve heard a lot of people were disappointed with 4e, so I never ended up playing it. What made Ranger so much more fun there, if you do t mine my asking?
@@guybeingadude IMHO every class in 4E (with perhaps the exception of Psionic classes, I never got into them as I found them massively disappointing) is incredibly well balanced and gets unique ways of doing their role best. They gamified a lot of the basics, so each class got a MMORPG-like role: Tank = Tank / Leader = Healer/Support / Controller = CC / Striker = DPS. So a Ranger was a Striker, but so was the Sorcerer, but their abilities we're vastly different and so how you played them was too. Even though 4E sorely lacked in the roleplaying/exploration department when it came to its mechanics, again in IMO, the classes were really well made and I enjoyed that immensely.
@@AlbertJanVaartjes for as much hate as 4e gets, I agree with this assessment. My biggest issue with 4e was actually the "splash" effect of some non-magical abilities, that are tropes of MMORPG but broke whatever attempt at simulation that DnD tries.
I think the best iteration of Ranger already exists in Pathfinder, especially 2E Remastered. I see others have brought it up in the comments already. Besides the class itself in P2E being great as is (and flexible), the system's "Modes of Play" supports the class further especially for enhanced roleplay. At this point the conversation with D&D Rangers is beating a dead horse for years now.
You might wanna check out the pf2e ranger. The animal companion isn’t a subclass, instead it’s a first level feat so any build can take it if they want, but they could choose something else instead. Favored terrain is also a feat, meaning a character can pick up as many or as few as they want. Communicating with animals and making snares are also feats Tracking is built into the class, but unfortunately rangers don’t have any ability to forage or make herbal medicine any better then any other class
The one thing most people forget about Aragorn, that he was task to protect the borders of the Shire by Gandalf after Bilbo's adventure. Why? Because he had been fighting the minions of the dark lord most of his life. He fought them where they were, the wildlands. But Aragorn was first and formost a fighter and leader of the Dunedain.
I think when my players think Ranger they think Legolas, when the game designers think Ranger they think Aragorn/Aragorn with pets/ fighter-Druid mash up. They just can’t decide.
I'd argue that Legolas was more of a ranged fighter than a ranger, but I still use him for the example on movement and scouting because Tolkien's elves innately had some ranger qualities.
Bob will one day emerge from the wilderness with a beard and wisdom akin to Ratagast the Brown and bestow upon us the most insightful of ttrpg opinions
Fun Fact, the Ranger class from D&D wasn't a class to begin with in the earlier editions I was a fun multiclass option by combining other classes much like bard was in the older books the made reason this became a thing was because people wanted to play Aragorn in D&D Edit: Fun Fact Ranger didn't become a full class till 3E in 2000
The ranger was first introduced in 1975 as an optional sub class of the fighting man and was codified in AD&D in the 1980s PHB and updated to an archer or dual wielding fighter in the subsequent UA that introduced the Barb and Cavalier. I pulled out my old books this past weekend while I was working on content for the ranger discussion.
@@sleepinggiant4062 the ranger was a sub class of fighter not a multi-class option, I pulled out all of my old PHBs from 1e, 2e, and 3.5e as well as the 1e UA a few days ago and looked at it since I’m working on content to explain the history of the class. The bard is in the appendices of the old 1e PHB as a multi class option built on the druid, thief, and fighter with its own progression after you reached certain levels in each class and the DM had to allow you to use it since it’s optional to use it.
I said it before, specifically in Pointy Hats comment section, but I think one way to improve Rangers would be to actually put more into the hunter aspect of Rangers. Make it so your chosen creature type takes more damage from you, allow the ability yo change the favored creature type on a long rest (maybe through the use of their primal magic), or some way for you to overcome immunities and resistances of your favored creature type. Heck, make it so you can change your creature type immediately, as a reaction or bonus action, once per long rest.
Hey! What do you think of Ranger in PF2e (the remastered version)? Here's the essence of it: Lvl 1 - "Hunt Prey" which gives +2 to Perception and Survival checks to a tracked prey Lvl 1 - "Hunter's Edge" which gives you one of three buffs/debuffs against a creature that you used Hunt Prey on Lvl 1 - a ranger feat, including animal companion (alas, still optional in PF2e!) and initiate warden (letting the character practice magic) Lvl 2 - a ranger feat, including favored terrain (chosen by the player) Lvl 4 - a ranger feat, including dual wieldig, bow expertise, but also powering up their magic skills Lvl 5 - upgrade to simple and martial weapons proficiencies + ability to leave no tracks in natural environments Lvl 6 - a ranger feat, most of them upgrading feats from before Lvl 8 - a ranger feat, including terrain master (that basically allows you to make any natural ennvironment your favored terrain) and hazard finder, very similar to what you described about being able to sense that something is off Lvl 10 - a ranger feat, including camouflage - also something I think you've mentioned Lvl 11 - upgrade to light and medium armor proficiencies + ability to ignore difficult terrain Lvl 12, 14, 16, 18, 20 - a ranger feat, most of them upgrading feats from before I'm not mentioning numerous greater upgrades to lesser upgrades that came before them, bonuses to Will and Reflex saves etc., I tried my best to make it as short as possible :)
When I dm'd for a 2 people campaign (a ranger and a cleric), I created scenarios that a ranger would flourish in. The kind of stuff you wouldn't see in a normal campaign.
I have actually been working on a set of custom classes. One of which is flavoured as a Ranger+. It is called Explorer and is 100% martial and focuses on mobility. It currently has three subclasses which are Herbalist, Pathfinder and Tracker. Herbalist concentrates on foraging and using herbs to poison enemies and heal allies during combat. Pathfinder focuses on navigation and guiding their allies through dangerous areas. Tracker concentrates on stealth, tracking and ranged burst damage. This is a work in progress and is currently the least fleshed out compared to the other two classes I am working on. The other two classes are a versatile support caster that can reduce its own movement speed to buff spells called the Conductor and a gish that can preemptively shorten spells during a long rest to weave them between attacks called the Sigil Sword.
💥 City of Arches: www.kickstarter.com/projects/slyflourish/the-city-of-arches-a-high-fantasy-5e-rpg-city-sourcebook?ref=7rm0jx
🐎ON ARAGORN & ANIMALS: (edited) I'm not certain whether it's in the books, movies, or both, but at least one of those Aragorns can communicate supernaturally with his horse(s). And certainly in Tolkien's books, lots of animals could speak or had a supernatural intelligence. The best point I'm seeing against the animal companion is that Robin Hood (the real OG) didn't have one, at least in any of his stories I can recall.
13:22 So, you mentioned Ranger having something similar to maneuvers in the Hunter subclass. I think you should know that the ranger was originally a fighter subclass. The whole inspiration for the class if from Aragorn from LotR, and while I agree the features could use some work, fighting is also one of the core aspects of the ranger. Even more D&D rangers like Drizzt Do'Urden or Vex'ahlia are heavily combat focused because that is what makes rangers truly ferocious: their ability to use their mastery of the wilds and their knowledge of foes to their advantage. So while I agree with some of your sentiments, I don't agree with the fact that all rangers should have a companion or all rangers should be stealthy. The identity of the ranger they were going for was meant to be a druidic version of what the paladin was for the cleric: less spellcasting better warrior version.
Are you sure you aren't thinking of Gandalf's connection to Shadowfax. I think they explain away Aragorn's ability by saying that he speaks Rohirric uses the language which the horse is attuned to.
@@AMRosa10 I don't recall if it was in the books (good excuse for me to re-read them again), but I think I know the scene(s) Bob's thinking of.
In the extended edition of The Two Towers, there's a scene where Aragorn does speak in Rohirric to the horse of Theoden's deceased son, as you mention. The horse was misbehaving and skittish after its master's passing, and even the Rohirrim were having trouble controlling it. Aragorn, however, was able to walk right up to it, speak to and comfort it, and then told the Rohirrim stablemaster to let the horse go. Aragorn instinctually knew what the horse wanted/needed, and it seemed to connect with him.
Later on, when Aragorn is thrown from a cliff after a battle with orcs/wargs and is washed, half-dead, downriver, the horse locates him, rescues him, and rides him to the (relative) safety of Helm's Deep.
@@Emarella Yes, that's what he's thinking of, but it was created for the movie, and it's still unrelated to what people are thinking of when they say a ranger should have an animal companion. Also he's speaking elvish.
Aragorn definitely had the ability to communicate with horses in ways a normal human couldn’t, but he didn’t really have a companion through out the story because he never traveled in places that were horse friendly and so he never had one for longer than part of a journey from one place to another.
As a former outdoor educator, I 1000% agree that you shouldn’t need to “pick your environment”. It’s absurd that so many games believe that the limitation makes the ranger “more balanced” when a wizard literally can alter the fabric of reality lol. Great vid Bob!
How would a beginner ranger be experienced in foreign terrain (e.g. the desert) when they have never been there?
@@sleepinggiant4062 how would a beginning magic user know the inter complexities of casting even basic spells? Or how would a fighter know how to wear plate mail armor and move in it effectively?
I think it should be a scaling or time mechanic at least.
A ranger should have greater fundamentals of survival than most but especially wilderness’s they’ve lived in for a while and learned the inns/outs, behaviors and dangers of the different flora and fauna in when introduced to a change of environment.
But to make it either a scale or a time sink is actually the most realistic way of doing it.
Like take a ranger that is a master of tall cold mountains like Mount Everest would be quite out of place for a while if he was transferred to a bayou or desert two widely different locations in nature.
Sure. Because pulling at the threads of arcane power is what wizards do. But even wizards (can) specialize. Which allows them focus on better understanding of some schools of magic by foregoing attention to others. It doesn't stop them from casting from all other schools. But they can't be masters of all.
As an outdoor educator - how specialized was the knowledge you taught? I'm not a survivalist. But the basics I picked up would apply to different biomes. And there were guides worth packing for specific areas one would expect to be out and about within that included some details that went beyond the general knowledge I'd been taught. Specifics that an expert in that environment would know.
@@arandomnamegoeshere A survivalist learns how to deal with heat, cold, wet, dry. Fire, cooking. Dealing with injury. Develops movement skills. And learns about the local plant and wildlife. Only the last bit is regional, and I imagine you would pick up by visiting the regional ranger’s guild.
Ranger is a class built for rpgs that support hex crawls and full exploration rules, in a rpg that has no proper exploration rules.
No, Ranger is built for skills, healing, and damage. Three things it excels at in spades
@@punishedwhispers1218 But you just described clerics.
@@punishedwhispers1218 what edition has a ranger that is a viable healer for a party? sure they can heal in a pinch but nowhere near as effective as a cleric or druid. As far as damage goes they are often pretty mediocre and there are usually better options for a min maxer if damage is what they are going for.
@@punishedwhispers1218 I, too, enjoy the Bard.
@@punishedwhispers1218 i, too, enjoy Druids
While I don't think the Ranger should have a companion as a core element of the class in D&D, it's absurdly silly Rangers don't have Find Familiar in their spell list even in 2024.
It would be cool if they brought back the animal friendship spell from 1e. It let you tame and bond with any animal you encountered. Then rangers and druids that want pets can have them like paladins and their steeds.
With the new origin feats they can get magic initiate wizard which lets them get find familiar.
psst.... you can put that spell in their list. You can literally do anything you want.
@@elreyabeja4539 Yes, but its still better for it to be in the rulebook. Rangers should get to have a pet, you shouldn't have to convince your DM to allow it.
The LAST thing we need is more magic dependent rangers.
I cut my teeth on AD&D 2e when having a Ranger meant having an elite character. You were 1st level and attacking twice in melee. You were a Badass SOB that went toe to toe with giants. Third addition turned them into artillery units and they just declined further from there.
Rangers should definitely be a prestige class, if they're going to be basically a multiclass fighter/rogue/druid/etc. who is competent if not superior in everything they do.
same
Still running AD&D 1st ed, and rangers are worth their weight in electrum. The bonus vs. surprise, almost always passing track checks, very tough at level 1(2 hit die). Perfect.
Yes, third ed made them artillery or very fragile two-weapon attack spammers.
@@The_Custos thats awesome you still run 1st
@@thac0twenty377 two parties, one journal, same employer, in different regions (for now!).
In my opinion in 5e it comes down to 3 things...
Comparison to the paladin, The wrong name, and niche class features
1) How it looks next to the only other core half-caster (The Paladin)
It's less tanky (no heavy armour), struggles to spend its spell slots as effectively in combat (paladin can concentrate AND still smite every turn vs one concentration spell at a time), it doesn't have a powerful passive ability like the paladin aura (the closest equivalent feature is hunters mark which requires multiple bonus actions in combat AND resources to use), it has less bonus resources (lay on hands and channel divinity vs... the horrible revised favored foe feature which adds a tiny damage boost BUT requires concentration)... there are only 2 half-casters and one was CLEARLY the favourite child...
2) The Name/Vibe...
The number 1 character in popculture that is referred to as a ranger is probably Aragorn, who doesn't have magic... or what about the rangers apprentice series, who don't have magic... or the lone Ranger, who doesn't have magic... or what about characters that kinda feel like rangers that aren't called rangers? Legolas, Rambo, Tarzan, Lara Croft, The Mandalorian, Aloy, Katnis... all without magic... they're Fighters or Rogues with some survival skills...
I also think that if the ranger class was named "the warden" or "the woodsman" or "the forester" or something, then half the classes identity issues would disappear. Plus in almost every one of those situations they're a SOLO character, but D&D is supposed to be about working in a party!
A paladin doesn't just feel like a cleric/fighter multiclass because it ALSO has unique things like smites and aura and lay on hands, yet the ranger often feels like a druid/fighter multiclass except with wildshape removed...
3) The fact that half its "thematic" features are niche...
This may make people mad, but I feel that certain classes shouldn't REQUIRE specific types of campaigns... subclasses? Sure! Races? Sure! But I feel like classes shouldn't be locked into certain campaign settings.
It's fine to say a "ranger should be a master survivalist, an expert tracker, an expert forager, etc." But I've played in games where literally none of those things were relevant...
If I'm a cleric or paladin but I never fight undead or demons... then I still use my smites and I use my other channel divinity options!
If I play a druid and we don't enter a single forest and we dont have a single animal or plant to talk to or if we only fight certain monster types all campaign...
Literally I just choose different spells... that's it...
If the ranger is in the same situation then half of its class features are useless! The revised ranger improved SOME of these things but the optional primal awareness feature is super niche too! Not to mention Land's Stride! the original natural Explorer feature even needed your DM to put you in a situation where you're required to track food and water and then it basically negates that element entirely! What kind of feature requires a specific scenario to use and the result is the scenario just disappears??? That would be like the bard getting a feature where "any time you enter combat with enemies that play musical instruments, you immediately win the combat", the rare time your feature comes up its just immediately hand waved away! It's the exact same reason that some DMs ban goodberry in survival campaigns!
The ranger requires the DM to consciously design situations where their features CAN be used.
To make other classes experience the same thing would require the DM to consciously design situations where their features CAN'T be used! Like putting a barbarian in a purely pacifist political intrigue campaign, or putting a wizard in a world where spellbooks don't exist, or putting a rogue in a campaign where every creature has tremor sense and a 50 passive perception and all locks are unpickable!
You can't create a whole class that only fits within a specific type of campaign, and that's what the ranger feels like it is.
Even the Druid doesn't REQUIRE a nature setting, but it feels like the ranger does
I think, fixing ranger requires making the exploration pillar of dnd more engaging. Wotc doesn't want to bother improving dm centric tools bc it won't sell more books.
I think that could do it (and you're definitely right about sales), but it's hard to do right. The easy way would be to create a bunch of challenges that characters would need to overcome while traveling, and make the ranger better than average at facing those challenges. But then parties without a ranger would just have a harder time traveling. That's why I advocated for having exploration in all environments, not just typical wilderness.
This exactly 100%
@BobWorldBuilder that's a session zero discussion. If no one plays a ranger, then maybe play a different type of adventure. Of course if the campaign is designed around it, and no player is accommodating, then maybe the GM needs different players.
@@BobWorldBuilderit's a little interesting to me how many games I've seen do urban exploration to find basic shops but then know exactly where everything is when you get into the wilderness. I guess not every group wants to play that but logically it seems like it should be flipped in priority
this this this. i’m currently having to do a lot of work to set up an exploration-based campaign for 5e (yes, i have considered playing other games) and a lot of it is just going to be me ripping rules from other systems and making things up wholesale. because “roll for random monster encounters every hour” is nowhere NEAR enough to make wilderness travel fun and engaging, ffs
Bob's new Favored Enemy is going to be Airplanes.
😂😅🤣☠️✈️
I like the idea of getting the Favored Terrain bonuses when the character spends some time studying/observing the new-to-them environment and wildlife.
Same!
Funny that this is a feat in PF2e
Or it is a progressive gain with level progression: start with one favored terrain but gain additional ones every other level, to simulate gaining familiarity with new environments.
YOU ARE DISREGARDING THE BEST OPTIONAL FEATURE OF RANGER! Instead of "Favored Terrain" you choose "Deft Explorer" instead, it grants you a general buff & more languages.
@@morrigankasa570 can't tell if you are being facetious with the all caps or not. ;) As Bob pointed out, "Deft Explorer" has no movement buff (there are no skills that affect movement, AFAIK), so it doesn't address the issue.
Nothing displays nature vs civilization as much as planes flying over a forest
Personally, having played a fey wanderer ranger I feel like it actually does work because it's all focused on how getting a fey blessing effects what the ranger can do and many fey effects are social ones
(also I think that not every ranger needs a companion, I think that they all should have some ability to communicate or understand what animals do, but they should focus on it if they have a permanent companion)
The charismatic Ranger is a fun trope, but not for everyone, so it's good that it's just a subclass.
Similarly, I like that the beast companion is reserved for the Beast Master, but regret that several new base class features revolve around Hunter's Mark, not only the Hunter subclass features.
Nonetheless, I can't wait to play a Fey Wanderer with the Magic Initiate (Druid) Origin Feat for Shillelagh, Magic Stone, and Healing Word to be able to focus on maxing out Wisdom.
I'll just pretend that the Hunter's Mark features don't exist just like I would ignore any beast companion features, since companions are annoying at the table and just bug down combat.
It’s not a good day if it doesn’t start with Bob talking to his camera in the middle of the forest.
It's good to have a routine! :)
Bob's commitment to his upload schedule while being lost in the wilderness is commendable.
With planes
It's because the ranger class is an exploration mode based character in a game where everyone's job is dps.
Its not WoW
or rather. Its an exploration based class in a game where majority of people skip over the exploration to get to the combat or social pillars.
@@TheOriginalDogLP your point
@@Malkuth-Gaming Exploration is one of the few things really hard to do well, because if you overdesign it then it's a chore and slows the game too much and nobody has fun and then 2014's Ranger almost said "now you skip survival because you're fucking great at it!" They had a chance to make it better in this new edition but just skipped over it anyway...
Exploration and Survival, in an RPG where the focus is Fighting and Magic.
I disagree with the idea that all rangers should have a animal companion. Having a companion is cool but not every ranger character fantasy has an animal companion. If you wanted to play Aragorn for example you would not want an animal companion. I think a subclass it the correct place for that.
LoTR isn't the same thing as D&D though - one of many reasons why The One Ring does things a lot different from D&D
I'd set up Thorin Oakenshield differently from the average D&D Dwarf, but that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with D&D Dwarves either.
So as a counter-point: the Ranger class is inspired by Aragorn, but doesn't restrict itself to him - Aragorn was, after all, basically a fighter with some unique specialisations.
It's underplayed in the movies, but book Aragorn definitely had the ability to communicate well with his horses, and lots of animals in Tolkien's books are intelligent. I think it works. But to your point, the best comment against the animal companion is Robin Hood not having one. I can't argue with that!
@ZXM500 Agreed
@@BobWorldBuilder
Unless you talk about the Disney animated Robin Hood - in which case, he was the animal.
That said, Robin Hood strikes me more as a Rogue than a Ranger, but then we all know the line between those two classes is incredibly thin to begin with
He had Merry and Pippin.
I'm surprised no mention of Witchers was made. They always came off as Rangers to me with their knowledge of the wilderness, survival, tracking, monsters, and just enough magic to help with those things. And they exist directly in that divide between civilization and the wilderness Bob was talking about.
Witchers come from some of the best fantasy of all time. They don't deserve to be polluted by an association with D&D, regardless of how the system would represent them.
“I prefer ranger-fighter over ranger-wizard”
I feel like making everyone and their mother a spellcaster is one of my biggest gripes about modern d&d.
Back in the 70s, rangers didn’t get magic until level 9, and I say GOOD.
PF2's ranger is still my favorite iteration out of nearly any fantasy TTRPG. It's very modular so you can lean into whatever traits you're partial to for a ranger and doesn't relegate you to ranged only (since a 'ranger' more refers to a warden, not a 'ranged' combatant).
It doesn't have an animal companion or spells by default, but you can pick them up easily if they fit your idea. Animal companions feel great in PF2 and the spells are specially tailored ranger spells as well. They aren't relegated to a subclass choice and you can grab them even at level 1.
They have Hunt Prey as a core feature, which is like an amped up Hunter's Mark that influences your combat style and gives you some tracking and potentially knowledge benefits. It's 1 action to apply and not a spell, which gels well with the 3-action system and multiple attack penalties.
And they still have a ton of options for terrain, lore, snares, and tracking choices. Overall the modularity and adaptability is what makes it a winner for me.
also flurry ranger has an insane buff so the muliple attack penalty is almost negligible
Came here to mention this. Everything he said/wants out of a ranger is possible in Pathfinder. You can't be a master at all of it, but that wouldn't be logical anyway. All of the options are there, though. And even as high level if you wanted to go back and grab some lower level feats for warden magic or a companion later in your character's life, you could. Its all up to you.
Its one thing I hate about D&D 5e/2024. You don't get any choices (or maybe 1 or 2) for your character progression aside from "what spell do I want to pick this time?"
The problem is, can't EVER mention PF2.
Never never ever.
I'm floored that Nimble 5e was covered over PF2. But that's because if he mentioned PF2 this video would be hated by the people he needs to market towards.
@@Taylor_Lindise I do find it weird he didn't mention PF2 at all.
But he has mentioned PF2 in the past.
That's just it - if you want to play a Ranger in PF2 that ticks a lot of Bob's boxes, you can easily do so. Choose Class Feats that grant and enhance an animal companion (Animal Companion at 1st, Mature Animal Companion at 6th) and specialize in Nature and Survival-based Skill Feats (Natural Medicine, Forager) to pad out the survivalist bent.
If there's another ranger at the table, the modular nature of choosing class options means they could opt for feats that grant combat techniques, turning them into more of a flurrying dervish, or a ranged marksman - but that doesn't lock them out from just taking the Animal Companion class feat later on and getting the best of both worlds...
Imagine if all 5e classes were able to pick and choose options ala Warlock invocations...
I really like the Ranger expansion class in Shadowdark. No spellcasting, but able to make herbal curatives on the fly. Advantage on Stealth and nature stuff like tracking, making shelter, and foraging. Mid-level HP and Intelligence-based rolls for most of their areas of expertise.
What's not to love?
Yeah for how simple it is, it covers a LOT of the right stuff!
Bob's commitment to his upload schedule while being lost in the wilderness is commendable.
I feel one of the missed opportunities here was in looking at versions of the Ranger from earlier editions of D&D in order to understand what they were aiming for, especially those prior to 3rd edition. For example, in 1st edition Rangers did eventually get spells, but not until 8th level (very close to when Clerics started being able to undo deaths), and then from a mix of the Druid and Magic-User spell lists, suggesting a sort of eclectic approach to magic - a character who picks up bits and pieces in their travels. Likewise, Rangers were considered so travel-oriented that they were forbidden from owning more than they could carry.
1E Rangers also didn't necessarily get animal companions, but around the levels where Fighters and Clerics started building strongholds and getting followers, Rangers started to pick up an odd mix of hangers-on - maybe a bunch of Robin Hood style Merry Men, possibly a bear, or a giant, or a young Copper Dragon, or who knows what else.
My argument is, you're missing a couple huge parts of what defines a Ranger.
They've always been what's called a "hybrid class", mixing martial expertise with both Roguish stealth and skill, and nature-based Druid-like spellcasting. It's part of the core concept to be a full-warrior with a mix of Rogue and Druid abilities, all wrapped up within the clear theme of being a wilderness survivalist.
Some ranger concepts i enjoy are cowboys and stealthy gishes. To be honest, I dont think it's possible to make a ranger that satisfies everyone unless it's extremely modular, warlock style.
Perhaps one compromise could be having 2 subclasses of two different types. Your regular, and a choice at level 1 between a shifting companion spirit (perhaps that can morph into or possess creatures you find), marking and stealth abilities, or more magical witchy druid stuff. Could be interesting.
I think the main thing missing from Rangers is the connection to the environment. Instead of "there is a specific environment you do well in", I'd much rather have an effect like "you gain a different bonus depending on what environment you're in and who you're up against". Rangers should have a mechanic where they actually get excited to go to any new location because it means trying out new abilities and discovering new opportunities.
IMO, Rangers should be able to:
- Camouflage themselves as long as they stand still and take time to apply it.
- Aim their attacks (with any weapon) to cause a range of debilitations like snaring or blinding, regardless of who they're fighting. (e.g. even when fighting a blind bat, a ranger should know how to cause the equivalent of blinding).
- Traverse a variety of terrains without issue.
- Track down any common creature, and any creature that they've seen before.
- "Reveal" traps: this might be too Blades-In-The-Dark-Esque, but I'd love something where you can 'reveal' how you've anticipated an approaching creature and set up a snare 'in advance'.
- Have an animal companion of course.
- Gain information from animals and plants.
- Prepare varying effects depending on their environment: medicines, food, poisons, explosives, etc. based on the biome they're located in.
Tales of the Valiant Explorer feels the coolest.
Awesome points!
Ooh I love the idea of rangers being able to bypass certain types of condition immunities due to their understanding of the creatures’ anatomies. Plays into both the adaptability and the awareness/understanding
You're mostly describing Green Arrow.
Who is actually a great archetype for the type of Ranger you detail here. His origin story involves him being marooned on a remote island for years and needing to adapt and survive to many harsh conditions. That allowed him to successfully hunt and fight criminals, super-powered and otherwise, in the city and elsewhere. Only instead of high-tech trick arrows and equipment, in D&D this archetype would have spells and magic items. So maybe players wanting to run a ranger should think less Aragorn and more Oliver Queen.
Exactly. I would vote more magic items and less spells.
Arcane archer should have been a ranger subclass
During D&D3E I had a Ranger that used alchemy items (that was before the Artificer) on his arrows. Deafening his enemies with arrows that had thunderstones as arrowheads and similar tricks. Same with an assassin that didn't want to kill and had blunt bolts for his hand crossbow.
Personally I find D&D and other RPG's leave out too much of the equipment side and go far to fast to magic solutions to power up characters. And we see many computer games going deep there. From Thief, Assassin's Creed, Dishonoured to Ghost of Tsushima. Looking at the equipment lists in RPG's I sometimes wonder. What to buy with all the gold we find anyway?
Magic items, sure, but remember, a cheap spell and people know you are packing a lot of magic and work to find out what to counter it or even worse, target you to steal your cool stuff.
@@Funkin_Disher yes completly agree
The new dnd 5.24e books have updated the ranger spells to be like ranged smites in some cases which fits the Oliver Queen archetype very well. Granted I think the new ranger needs more exploration / tracking features but that requires the system to have more exploration support from the get go.
i think making all rangers have a beast companion is a bit of a hard sell for players who don't want to have to think about running two combatants (in addition to that maybe not being their character concept) BUT I think having a bonded "wilderness spirit" that can EITHER take physical form as a beast OR magically inhabit the ranger to enhance their abilities and senses is the way I'd go. It solves three problems - gives rangers a unique flavor for "magic" like the monk that doesn't mandate spellcasting, gives a thematic/mechanical reason for enhanced senses and knowledge of nature, and gives them martial flexibility to have that extra combatant when they choose (and the fun of a pet for RP)
Here’s my rework that y’all might appreciate
* Deft Explorer - Proficiency and advantage on perception and survival. If you are already proficient in either skill you also gain an additional proficiency from the ranger list. In addition learn 2 languages - 1
* Spellcasting 1/2 rounded up - 1
* Marked Foe - Know hunters mark automatically. In addition you can cast hunters mark once per long rest without a spell slot or concentration. You can do this as a 3rd lvl spell at ranger lvl 9 and 5th lvl spell at ranger lvl 17 - 1
* Fighting style - 2
* 2x weapon mastery - 2
* Rover - +10 movement speed - 2
* Primal Powers - starting at 3rd lvl you gain the ability to expend some of your primal power as special ability. You expend a corresponding spell slot as directed to perform the listed effect. You gain a new primal power at 5,7,9,11,13,15, and 17 - 3
* -PP Unseen Sight - Spend a 1st lvl spell slot as an action to see invisible things and see into either the ethereal plane, feywild, or shadowfell for 10 minutes - 3
* Subclass choice - 3
* Feat - 4
* -PP Predatory Wave - Spend a 2nd lvl spell slot as an action to cause each creature in a 10ft radius of you to become frightened on a failed WIS save. While frightened they must spend their reaction, action, and bonus action to dash and movement to move away from you. This lasts until the end of the creatures next turn - 5
* Extra attack - 5
* Expert explorer - Expertise on perception and survival and expertise on 2 skills you are proficient. If you’re already an expert in perception or survival, select another skill to become an expert in - 6
* Unyielding March - Can’t be affected by non magical difficult terrain and you gain a climb, crawl, and swim speed - 6
* Uncanny Recovery - When ever you expend hit die, roll 1d4 per hit die and regain that much hp - 6
* -PP Natures Veil - Spend a 2nd lvl spell slot to make yourself and everything you’re wearing/carrying invisible until the start of your next turn - 7
* Subclass feature - 7
* Tireless - You loose a lvl of exhaustion on a short rest. - 8
* Extreme Conditioning - Gain fire and cold resistance. If you already have a permanent source of such resistances then select from acid and poison. - 8
* Feat - 8
* -PP Predatory Gaze - Spend a 3rd lvl spell slot as an action to paralyze a non undead creature within 30ft with fear if they fail a WIS Save until the end of your next turn - 9
* Unerring Mark - Expertise in weapon attacks against hunters mark target. - 10
* -PP Elemental Invulnerability - Spend a 3rd lvl spell slot as a reaction when you take damage of a type you have resistance to. Give yourself immunity to that type including the triggering damage until the end of your next turn - 11
* Subclass feature - 11
* Feat - 12
* -PP Mend Flesh - Spend a 4th lvl spell slot as a bonus action to heal someone you touch 15 hit points, reattach a limb if it was removed in the past minute, or reattach a head if it was removed within the past round and revive them to 0hp but stable. In addition at the end of every round the target regains 1d8 hit points for 1 minute - 13
* Unstoppable Strikes - Your attacks can’t be disadvantaged, In addition hunters mark attacks are made with advantage - 14
* Predatory Awareness - When you use your marked foe ability and when you transfer the effect to a new target, choose one of the following to learn about the target. (1) CR, alignment, and able to speak/understand any language it does; (2) AC and damage vulnerabilities; (3) to hit bonus and save DC; (4) damage resistance and immunity; (5) high and low stat; (6) speed and sense types. For the full duration of your marked foe ability, you also detect one of the following creature types and their direction within 600 feet; aberrations, celestials, dragons, elementals, fey, fiends, giants, monstrosities, and undead - 14
* -PP Wilds Ward - Spend a 4th lvl spell slot over 8hr to give a huge or smaller thing or 200 foot cube area within 60ft the effect of antipathy/sympathy for 10 days - 15
* Subclass feature - 15
* Feat - 16
* -PP Forewarning - Spend a 5th lvl spell slot as a reaction to your d20 test or an attack against you to give yourself advantage on d20 tests and +5 AC for 1 hour - 17
* Primeval Perception - You gain 60ft truesight, blindsight, and tremorsense - 18
* Epic Boon - 19
* Foe Slayer - You can add your wisdom modifier to either the attack roll or damage roll of an attack. You can make this decision after knowing if it would be a hit or not - 20
I think the biggest issue with rangers in modern games is that the whole concept is a holdover from earlier game design philosophy. Since 3e there's been a push toward more impressive heroic storytelling and larger narratives. That makes a lot of games and their campaigns really fun and epic and larger than life, but it's really at odds with the notion of the guy whose job it is to find medicinal plants to cure the deadly infection you got from drinking stagnant water and to lead you safely to your destination so that your party isn't stuck wandering around a swamp for 8 real life hours of play rolling random encounters over and over again until all the PCs die of exposure. The strict survival and tracking challenges that used to make the ranger shine have fallen out of fashion because as DMs we don't advocate for designing around hard fail states as much anymore.
It's more dramatic for the party to always arrive at a village just behind the goblin horde after trekking through the woods, perfectly timed to rush in and save the village, even though it may be more realistic to say "you failed 7 survival checks and spent a week lost in the woods because you didn't have a ranger so the village has been destroyed, the goblins are gone, and everyone is dead."
"Both, both are good."
I don't want hard fail states in my game but I do want creative thinking to overcome the challenges. I want the players to ultimately arrive at the destination but I want choices the players make on the way to matter.
Great points!
That, exactly that.
Getting a safe long rest in a hostile environment is the ranger's wheelhouse but it's not needed in the current version of the game.
I'm pretty sure 3e was the "Going back to the dungeon" edition since 2e abandoned dungeons for larger than life heroics.
3.5e might have strayed a little away from that... Then 4e wanted to be World of Warcraft... Pathfinder, in response, took 3.5e and amped up the power level. Then 5e.
I guess the community might have been erring that way, I've only been on the scene for a decade now... But the design philosophy was stated to be dungeons in 3e. It was 4e where the intent was different.
@@senrith_ I would argue that if the conclusion is foregone then the choices the players make on the way DON'T matter.
In the brazilian OSR system Old Dragon 2 edition*, Ranger is a Thief's subclass with some interesting feats:
- They never get lost in the wilderness (edit: in OD2, wilderness exploration is one of the focus of the game, with a full book about hexcrawl, the Campaign Guide: Wilderness)
- They receive Tracking and Perception feats which use X chances in d6 (like LotFP)
- At first level they choose a type of monster called "Mortal Enemy" which can be goblins, orcs, lizardmen, etc.
- At 3rd level they can use large weapons (in OD2, thieves only use small and medium weapons)
- At 6th level they are not easily surprised (1 chance in d6 to be surprised)
- At 10th level, which is the maximum level in OD2**, they receive an animal companion.
To me it is the best ranger I have ever seen: no magic, no unbalanced feats, just a ranger like Aragorn or Robin Hood (although they do not have animal companions).
* Available only in portuguese, unfortunately.
** 10 is the maximum level when using only the Basic Rulebook. There is a Expanded Rulebook where there are rules to reach the 15th level, which is the maximum level in this system.
That does sound pretty good!
My two favourite takes on the Ranger are Shadowdark and (for crunchy) Pathfinder Player Core (which does not have access to spells unless swapping out Ranger Fears for an Archetype feat, or taking the highly specialised and limited Ranger Warden Focus spells). I could be wrong, but I suspect in the D&D 2024 the Ranger and Druid are very similar,
I've seen people use music in a Ranger situation IRL. One is using "Stayin' Alive" (preferred) or "Another One Bites the Dust" to time CPR chest compressions. The other is using singing to help keep the party motivated to make it back to camp after a rough day in the field/when a party member is injured/ill.
This may be my favorite take I've seen on the core fantasy of the Ranger. Bravo, sir!
New ranger skill: anticipate airplane.
You missed the PF2e ranger, so I will just go through your checklist. There is a lot of "can"s, cause the System is a lot about choice and feats and building your own character, so you can play a ranger that isnt good at survival for example and just a hunter. You can argue that the name should be different which I agree with, but you can make the ranger you want, or hunter.
-He CAN be a master of survival/foraging, but not more than others, which is good, since that allows you to also play a survivalist barbarian without the need of having to be a ranger to do so. You can basically survive anywhere and forage anywhere, even other planes.
-The ranger has a very cool "favoured terrain" feat where you can choose a favoured terrain which will give you a specific boon in that terrain (all about being better at crossing that terrain, or surviving in it), at later levels you can pick up another feat that allows you to swap the favoured terrain to any other with a bit of prep beforehand, which is imo just much better than being just good at everything. The boons can be something like gaining swim speed for aquatic, or needing to eat way less if you picked arctic/desert, not being effected by the extreme heat/cold as much and ignoring the difficult terrains there
-He can be by far the best at tracking stuff if you pick the feats for it, to the point that you can track them through other dimensions
-PF2e loves feats, so you get to build your own ranger and kind of ranger. A companion isnt a must at all (aragon, robin hood and geralt didnt), but you can have one ofc. They are especially cool, cause depending on your companion they have support abilities, so you can do teamwork with your animal with special actions.
-A wild empathy feat exists and a "subclass" that is all about fighting with knowledge and a few feats to assist that playstyle
Though something you missed I feel like: They should be able to use traps and the like which the PF2e ranger can do.
The PF2e ranger CAN be magical, but is very limited in what spells they can use, they are pure focus spell casters, rather than normal casters (dont have access to a big spell list, but to special focus spells. Can cast them up to 3 in a combat and can refresh focus points after combat) they can range to "you can magically relocate your traps" to "You mimic a scary animal and attempt to frighten enemys around you"
So it hits all the spots you want and other spots. You would really like the PF2e ranger I think.
Personally, I think that the Companion should not be core. Instead, I think Rangers should have maybe two Kit options as core, with a bestial companion and caretaking tools as one of them. Like a Kit could be Fletching, Snares, Bombs, Elixirs, Primal Magic (but just like rituals and cantrips), etc.
To me a Ranger should be about exploration and positioning (pinning, weaving through the field, movement types), and also some prepared tricks on hand for that real survivor feel.
Yeah!! I agree, I really think that the ranger should be all about movement and ambience. They should be able to be really good at exploring and exploiting the environment, reading and mimicking the surroundings to be efficient in position, either protecting or attacking. I think this is the reason that they are so recognized by the bow, because archers have to calculate everything, wind, breath, distance, heart beats and hunters have to pay attention to all the signs of disturbance and not create disturbance, this is why their cool, it's all about equilibrium, valuing energy (survival), being prepared.
100%, love this.
I think part of the issue is 5th edition itself. Rangers in D&D used to either start with an animal companion, or the ability to catch and train one. They were good at fighting because they needed to be in order to survive, often specializing in a handful of creatures that they had devoted their lives to hunting. I'll also say that if survival and exploration is not a part of your games, it's definitely a GM/player preference thing. I've been playing D&D for nearly 40 years, and traversal between civilized lands, delving into massive dungeons and labyrinths or pathfinding the great unknown has always been a core part of my adventures. Getting lost is a very real danger, compounded by all the monsters who want to eat you. And can.
About people that restrict rangers to certain terrain-types for gaining bonuses, we gotta consider one thing - a survivalist learns general knowledge about survival that is applicable everywhere - how to find tracks, what to look for, how to survive in hot/cold/humid/dry/sunny/rainy/whatever conditions, etc. And we're talking about "normal" survivalists. D&D characters should start off as being above the "normal" person and grow from there. Basically, the only difference between terrains for a ranger should literally be what they take/what they prepare for the terrain, and maybe not even that, since as a survivalist they can probably fashion themselves improvised gear to help them in the certain terrain. So, yeah, I don't see a need to restrict a ranger to only 1-2 types of terrain just so that they can have the abilities that a person with like 5-10 years of experience has. Just let people have their fun, ffs.
Also, I've been thinking about this for many years now, but with the new 5e 2024 it kinda solidified in my mind - Ranger is more of an occupation rather than anything else. And, IMO, it can easily just be relegated to a few subclasses for Rogue, Fighter and Barbarian. It can even be done like they attempted to do with the Strixhaven Universal subclasses for casters. Or maybe even make a few features, similar to invocations, and allow those subclasses to just be kind of build-a-bear subclasses, and it would be fine. Ranger's already very difficult and finicky with the marking obsession and such, and the concept feels a bit too thin for a whole class.
I’m working on content to unpack the ranger class including the history of the class/sub class. Now that being said, the ranger class in 5e is in a weird spot. It’s not what it use be in older editions as well as PF2E and OSR classes. To objectively look at the class everyone has to look past what it was and look at it is now. The game has evolved past the hex crawl and anyone can feat into what the ranger was designed to do in the older editions.
At its foundation in 5e it is an “explorer” class, it does a little bit of everything and it does those things well. The problem is everyone has a different idea as to what exploration is and unless you are in a sandbox campaign/world it’s not supported by pre written modules. I’d argue that the ranger in 5e post Tasha’s is the culmination of this broad view of exploration and support by putting the focus on languages, movement, and spell casting.
As for the animal companion argument, several of the sub classes give the companion option in different ways including the Fey wanderer with conjure Fey for no concentration for a minute. Also if you look at TLotR TTRPG from back in the ‘80s, the rangers were spell casters at lvl 1😉 and that is pulled directly from Tolkien’s world……. Yes, I still have the middle earth RPG in my library.😂😂😂
Basically every argument I’ve seen in the comment sections has been about playing the ranger trope. I can play any class in the game Including a wizard and build it into a literary ranger trope of some kind depending on how I as the player flavor the character.
Honestly, I'd rather any animal companions in the party be more shared, with different classes giving different boons to it. This way, it feels more like Repede from Tales of Vesperia, who had a relationship with the entire party, rather than one person's bond that I may not want to disrupt. The animal may have the strongest bond with one person, but if everyone is contributing boons then there's a greater invitation for more people to interact with it.
That's a cool idea!
@@BobWorldBuilder :) Maybe not the best example because I haven't seen this movie in ages, but the ranger Garrett in Quest for Camelot is buddies with falcon with silver wings which is also Merlin's familiar. They aren't in a party, but it is neat that the same animal is both of their ally.
I love the ranger. It has been one of my favorite classes for as long as I have been playing D&D, for all of the reasons you laid out. The biggest problem is that the ranger (like many other classes) is actually very setting specific. I want to play a ranger because I want to play a resource-low survival game where I have to track, forage, hunt, and make friends with the animals we meet rather than kill them. The problem I have always run into is that the DM isn’t running that game, or when I try to run that game, my players don’t want to play it. One of them takes goodberry and protection from elements and then the whole game is destroyed. Zee Bradshaw did a great video about this a few years ago.
I find that when I want to feel like I’m playing a Ranger, I need to not play D&D. There are a few board games that have given me close to the same feeling. But mostly I just have to do like Bob does and go hiking out in the wilderness and pretend that the other hikers are an orc patrol. Or that the small caves in the rocks house dragons.
Totally agree with this! Ranger concept (through Robin Hood stories and my outdoorsy parents) is what got me interested in fantasy as a kid. My first GM made it work because we homebrewed everything, but as written, you're right: the baseline D&D setting and magic doesn't quite leave room for a traditional ranger.
One of my favorite characters I ever played was a beastmaster kit ranger for 2nd edition. It was so unapologetic about being based on the movie/show of the same name that I just took the same animals, a couple ferrets and a hawk, but I couldn’t start with a tiger so I had a badger instead. Ended up dying at level 9 from getting shot by a security bot during expedition to the barrier peaks. Never did get a tiger, but did befriend some rats to help us escape from a tower we were locked in.
@@Carlphish Ah, I finally found a comment that mentions the Beastmaster movie. It's definitely one of the main inspirations for my preference for Rangers in games! Those animals are great, and a fantastic example of how that class concept can work in a ttrpg.
The plane definitely cast hunter’s mark on Bob 😂
I Love ALL Bob World Builder videos! Especially his smooth transitions. I would like to see Bob's take on the 1e/2e D&D Ranger. Cause I'm a grognard.
ngl I'd be 100% on board for running a party of 5 rangers, rolling CON saves every LR because they insist on drinking their own piss, even when they're in a town.
training for poison immunity lol
@@BobWorldBuilderDeft Explorer existed before 2024 Ranger as an optional feature for the 5e 2014 Ranger! I also like having Fighting Style choices for Ranger. Drizzt's Panther is a Wondrous Item, not a normal Animal Companion. YOU & THE MAJORITY OF OTHER D&D RUclipsRS ALWAYS FORGET DRAKEWARDEN SUB-CLASS!
I respect your right to opinions & your efforts making content, but in this video was the largest amount of mistakes I've ever seen by you! Keep up the efforts, but I hope you do more research in the future.
@morrigankasa570 One of the points in the video was that in order to gain that animal companion (which I'd include the drake as one, though I agree it's done better than the beast master) you MUST take that subclass rather than it simply being a part of the core identity of the class.
The mechanic that drizzts panther is an item not a part of being a ranger and yet so often forgotten, is sorta pointing out that it fits so very well with the identity of the ranger that it kinda just gets ignored in favor of the idea of the 'badass animal friend'
@@samuelputnam854 Right but even though I love the Drake Companion option, I still don't think it needs to be a core feature. It's best that it is an option of choice.
Shouldn't the in-town imbibing call for a CHA check instead? To see whether they are still welcome at the inn or if the traders want to do business with them?
Idk why WotC hates Ranger so much. We were so close to a proper fix in TCoE but the 2024 one is such a let down
Yeah a let down is kinda the perfect way to put it
Maybe because when WotC proposed a revised version of the Ranger in 2016 nobody cared about it to the point most players don't even know it exists... why would they care when the players themselves don't care...
@Sephiroth517 that ranger also sucked. It was pretty much just the 2014 ranger with no subclasses. Instead you got a conclave meaning that it wasn't compatible with anything released throughout the rest of 5e.
@@csPOthr33cs not compatible with anything released throughout the rest of 5e ? Are you trying to blame WotC for not releasing ranger-stuff based on a revised version no-one cared about ?
And, well, how is it not compatible ?
@Sephiroth517 your first argument was that WotC released a revised ranger "that no one cared about" however no on cared about it because it's updated class features replaced ANY possible subclass options. Most of the revised options later became subclasses themselves in 2017s XGtE
The companion feels like a D&D trope to me, not a Ranger specific trope, if that makes sense. Because they're a Druid Fighter hybrid, the companion is a way to highlight their mastery over nature through a bond, but Aragorn didn't have a beast friend, The Mandolorian doesn't, Batman doesn't, it feels more like a D&D concession than vital to the essence of the Ranger.
Just made a pinned comment about Aragorn and animals because I keep seeing this point! xD But I have no knowledge of the Mandolorian, so I can't argue there. Batman? Never heard him compared to a ranger. Seems way more like a fighter, rogue, or even monk to me.
@@BobWorldBuilder it's a stretch for sure, Batman being a super detective and tracking criminals in the night is pretty Ranger-y to me, all about hunting prey
Batman’s pretty clearly either an Assassin or Scout Rogue.
@@g3neralrevan27 Investigator Rogue
You could say Aragorn's bond is not the friend-of-nature Dr. Doolittle of D&D, but out of the Fellowship he is the best at riding horses. And the Mandalorian has Razor Crest, Batman the Batwing... Maybe the theme of traveling and having a vehicle can be much cooler to rangers than a pet friend. A ranger inspired on the Wild West is definetly cooler when you think of them as master horse-riders, or the Mongol nomads who could shoot arrows from horses...
I think it is difficult to "hit the mark" on the classic ranger trope because of how versatile they actually are. I love that you did this video and gave people a place to discuss it. The base ranger at character creation in D&D 5e allows you to take animal handling and nature as proficiencies from level 1. This is technically all you need to functionally have a companion. You can build a bond with a specific creature through immersive storytelling or in your background. Building on this bond through the campaign, I personally don't see an issue with developing specific combos (combat, exploration, or otherwise) as you move through story progression. The "magical" side to the traditional ranger is supposed to be more druidic than wizardy in nature. (Pardon the pun.) The concept that you "Attune" to nature and access the natural flow of the living magic of the world. I agree 100% that a ranger should be a functional tracker, survivalist, and combatant. I belive the ranger should be as functional in the water as they are on land (which is another thing that isn't discussed enough). I think the ranger should have unique fighting styles (like the UA Mariner and Tunnel Fighter) that play to what a ranger does instead of a traditional brawler of melee combatant. Over the years and editions I have created my own variations of rangers and accompanying sub classes. Some at player request and some for NPCs in specific settings. One of my favorites incorperates features that allow the ranger to craft a small biosphere in a pendant, broach, ring or other piece of ornamental wear. This biosphere can be changed out with elements (twigs, sand, snow, rocks, to make a small living snow globe effect) of the terrain the ranger is in during a short rest. Changing the elements gives them certain benifits and advantages while in that terrain. At higher levels it builds on what the biosphere gives them and how much distance it can work. I'd love to chat more about this topic with anyone in the comments if you have questions or different observations.
Surprisingly missing is the Pathfinder 2e Ranger:
* Hunt Prey [one-action]: designate a creature as your prey. Gain a +2 bonus to Seek/Track your prey.
* Choose One: higher chance to hit when multi-attacking, better at hiding/deceiving, more damage
* Choose One: Pet, hide while reloading, extra attack, learn monster weakness for your party (You get the others at a later level).
Pets: They have varied abilities like allowing you to be harder to hit, bleed, make enemies easier to hit, slow them down, burn them, help you climb, mount them, etc.
BONUS: Since you level quickly, you get another option at level 2 in addition to the options above:
* Choose One: better with animals, ignore difficult terrain, higher ranged accuracy, better at determining monster weakness, quick weapon swapping, magically move your traps
I recently played a ranger in D&D that was lots of fun to play. The campaign was mostly set in a city so we used a lot of the TCoE rules to remove the need for a specific wilderness area. I kept the same wolf companion through the whole game which is much more interesting for role play than changing (though I also like the idea of summoning any beast from the wilderness for a specific task). People say there aren't many beasts that meet the criteria without being underpowered, and the primal beasts in TCoE are boring because they have no flavour, like being able to sniff out enemies.
The mechanics keep changing as you level up, so I swapped a lot between choosing whether the wolf or my character would fight, getting extra attack so we can fight together, my attacks leveling up enough it was better to mount the wolf and run around with a longbow, and so on. Lots of variety
That sounds perfect!
Hopefully some ranger can come and take care of that invasive knotweed near you. (I'm from eastern PA, so I know it well.) Seriously, nice video as always. I really like when you do them outside and in natural settings. Very fitting for talking about fantasy games.
My core fantasy of a ranger is that they're master survivalist and hunter. To me a pet is not core to that, but being an archer is; if I were building my own ranger class I'd probably emphasize that part more.
Than you'll probably like the Nimble 5e Hunter!
TBH, I love the fantasy of fighting side-by-side with your companion too much for that.
It's like I've been saying for years: the 1e ranger was damn OP, and every subsequent edition has tried to dial that back with varying degrees of failure.
The 1e ranger was originally built as an Aragorn clone and wasn't quite the same thing it is today. But in 1e terms, it was stupid strong.
- It only got d8s for HD, but the ranger started with 2d8, so it always had an extra HD/level. Also, HD capped in AD&D, and while fighters capped at 9d10, rangers capped at 11d8. So they always had a bucket of hp.
- They added their level to damage against "giant class" enemies, and this wasn't just all giants including ogres and trolls, but also stuff like kobolds, goblinoids, orcs, gnolls, you know all the common enemy humanoids.
- Their tracking didn't just work in the wilderness, but also indoors, including dungeons.
- They surprised enemies about half the time while being surprised only on a chance of 1 in 6. (This is a bit harder to figure out because 1e had some notorious inconsistencies on surprise.)
- At 8th level they started gaining a limited number of druid spells. Higher level than their spell casting in later editions, but it was always part of the class.
- At 9th level, they also started gaining magic-user spells. (Why the heck does Aragorn get arcane magic?!) It was only levels 1 and 2, but the way 1e magic worked, that ranger could be doing something like shooting off magic missiles that started with 9 missiles and went up with level.
- At 10th level, rangers could start using palant...errr non-written divination magic items. Now you get to track with a crystal ball.
- Also at 10th level, the ranger got a small group of followers. Not quite an animal companion, though it was the root of that ability. Usually, it was a handful of good-aligned PC types, though rangers could get bears, blink dogs, or giant talking bobcats. But if you were really lucky on your rolls -- the followers were determined by random rolls -- you might get a storm giant bro watching your back or a copper dragon.
- I'm pretty sure rangers got to do this and still wear the best armor in the game.
There were restrictions; you had to be human or half-elf, ranger had to remain good aligned or permanently lose their abilities, no more than 3 rangers could ever adventure together, and you couldn't own more than you could carry on your back and you had to have Str 13, Con 14, Int 13, and Wis 14, but rangers were fighter+ and very very strong.
Later editions have been trying to tone this down with 2e giving the most severe beating with the Nerf bat, and some elements of the newer editions have taken different approaches to all sorts of things.
If they gave the ranger a relatively limited spell list (from level 1), it would serve the function of having a dozen class features each level without needing to dedicate space specifically to it in the class itself. Spells are modules. Classes are full packages.
Now, do I agree with that design principle? No. Do I prefer Spheres of Power? Yes. By a lot. Not even a question. But, working within the framework of 5e's like 1 class feature every 3-4 levels unless your a spell caster... yeah. It's a simple and elegant way to get the survivalism aspect in there without a bunch of new text .
In "defense" of the DC20 ranger, it's Favored Terrain feature do make you choose 2 terrains, but the bonus you gain from this choice works all the time in every terrain. For me it feels like a background flavor choice, something like "I spent most of my days in the wilderness wandering through Jungles that's why I'm so accustomed with difficult terrrains"
Now, talking about the beast, I really don't think it should be a core class feature. We have lots of examples of rangers in the fantasy that don't have this kind of companion: Aragorn, Legolas, Robin Hood, Bear Grylls XD. They can have a profound knowledge of animals and maybe even a ability to communicate with them, but they surely don`t have a beast companion.
If a beast companion would be put as a core classs feature of a Ranger, I think it should be something like the Warlock`s pact boom, where you have a choice to get a companion but you can choose to have other cool thing instead. Or maybe something like the Druid`s wild shape, that is available to every druid, but some subclasses specialize in it.
My favorite ranger feature is the Wilderness Knacks from the D&D 4e Essentials rangers. They were little abilities that let you do cool things while exploring. You could communicate with animals in a non-verbal way, you could take the lead and help your whole team with climbing or hiding, you could make your camp very difficult to ambush. That along with the animal aspects really gave them a fresh feel.
Overall, part of it is the ranger is good at things usually covered by skills. Shadowdark wins here with the specific names, but all of those things would be covered by skills in any modern version of D&D. The thing that makes it for me is skill proficiency in 5e-likes matters very little, its like a 10% difference. Not a lot! Advantage or +5 like in 4e makes you feel much more competent.
Now I want a "Urine Master" subclass for the Ranger. You can survive drinking your own urine, sure, but also at various levels it can act like a potion of healing, potion of vitality, Keoghtom's Ointment, potion of longevity, etc.
Bear Grills feat
You made my day. Thanks! 🍁
This is gross... I loved it
What have I done
@lordbrian9187came here to say this but you beat me to it 😂 . "Jarate!"
"Totally smooth transition out of the woods" really got me. :)
"I can track deer. See that deer right there?"
4e was peak ranger: a lightly armored, highly mobile damage dealer with some neat survival tricks.
EDIT: Wow, I was not expecting this much 4e love. Thanks folks for being wholesome!
That's also where it got hunter's mark.
@@jeckyllgeek3544 Back when it actually worked and wasn't a concentration hogging spell, yeah.
Agreed.
Honestly yeah this. A HUGE amount of 4E design was kinda peak, but especially this
The 4.5 ranger in Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms, the Scout, was peak for me. Great design, hella fun to play 👍
🥳🫂👍🏿
Very interesting perspective - I grew up in the forests of Appalachia on a hardwood tree farm, and I love the ranger class - I would pretend to be one with my stick swords and dog by my side - I learned about animal body language and enticed local wildlife into my home (Mom wasn’t super excited about that) - so animal companions? Love them - 3.5 gave them to rangers and druids, and subclasses weren’t a thing back then - I think Guenhwyvar is THE reason we seen them as key to the archetype - Aragorn didn’t have one, unless you count Brego in the movies - and, talk about truly inhabiting your character; I’ve heard Vigo fell in love with that horse and bought him after the film - I think one reason combat is a perhaps over represented feature of the ranger is the heavy focus D&D and similar games have on combat - making a class exciting to play in a game that values combat over all else essentially requires combat oriented features - I think to make rangers ✨shine✨ in a mechanics heavy TTRPG, there need to be mechanics for the fields of play rangers should excel in - travel, for example - rangers should simplify, possibly even trivialize, travel for the whole party - in D&D and adjacent games, travel mechanics are nearly absent - with a rules light approach to most of the game, we might get away with simply flavoring the ranger with fluff & ribbons - if you bring in a hex crawl and give bonuses to rangers, that could work to mechanically highlight their value, but I’m not into those myself - one way my table has been highlighting rangers is with a travel system that includes complications and setbacks - if you’re interested in it, check out GM Philosopher’s channel - he’s been kind enough to agree to share it with his audience - should be coming out in the next week
Awesome!
Pathfinder 2e makes animal companions a level 1 feat option for their Rangers, and de-emphasizes magic use for all rangers by making "Warden Spells" an optional feature.
The only thing not mentioned here that I have added to my own rangers is what I've been calling "Calls of the Wild." I've experimented with it being regional, like favored terrain, and it seems most balanced and realistic this way. I also include the ability to add more regional dialects when enough time is spent in new regions.
It basically works like this:
Rangers not only know all of the specific calls of the wild animals of their regions (heads up, general alarms, specific alarms, run, hide, challenges, nonthreatening, etc.) and can mimic them, they can also use these calls, and subtle variations of them to communicate with other denizens of the field, forrest, or flood including rangers, some low intelligence/ less sophisticated humanoids, and druids if they take Calls of the Wild as an option. I've also called it "Hunter Speak" (after real world indiginous hunters who seem to use it themselves) and "Wild Speak" to include people who would shy away from identifying as a hunter.
It can be used to call animals (not magically), drive them away, communicate with other speakers, draw in prey, befriend animal companions and give them commands, and gain information and advantage by listening to their environment.
If this is already a thing somewhere I apologize. I based it on Thieves' Cant decades ago, and have been largely homebrewing D&D since 2e.
Basing it on thieves cant is brilliant, I will steal this idea for my campaign if someone plays a ranger : )
@@martinhallen7509 Have fun with it!
Laserllama is one of my top homebrewers and he made a class called the wanderer, which is basically exactly the type of ranger you are envisioning. Check it out!
Rangers should be specialists for survival, trapping, guerilla-warfare and fighting monsters - no magic needed. Ranger and barbarian could as well be fighter-subclasses.
The funny thing is that both Ranger and Paladin were fighter "subclasses" (subclasses worked differently in first edition). Paladins got up to 4th level cleric spells, and Rangers got up to third level druid spells and second level magic-user spells. Rangers were most known for making enemies surprised and being resistant to surprise, and also being able to track anything anywhere. In addition, they could add their level in damage against a variety of monsters that were kind of humanoid (giants, trolls, goblinoids, etc.)
Bingo!
If you want to play a martial ranger, just play the fighter class with the outlander background. Many of the early AD&D design features ended up in the fighter base class staring in 2e and have carried forward. Take the healer feat, mobility, and expert feat at some point and you have what you want to play.
The 5e ranger is essentially a different class with the ranger name attached to it. It’s a half caster, the old ranger class didn’t see spells of any kind until lvl 8. To quote Yoda, you need to unlearn what you have learned.
I kinda disagree: So often we see in high fantasy settings classes/archetypes, that deny themselfes the use or even Interaction with magic.
I feel, that this is weird because the world around them is still filled with magic and in most cases, this is not a new occurance but established since many generations.
So magic is often "everywhere" and monsters especially are most often imbued with magic.
So for survival purposes rangers should know relevant magic and be able to use it or stop it / survive it at least in some basic capacities.
Agreed! Everyone thinks Aragorn but remember Faramir and his men were also rangers. And what you describe is exactly what they were doing when we first encounter them in the LoTR books.
Hunter's Mark was in World of Warcraft before D&D I believe. And no, not every Ranger should have an animal companion (Strider/Aragorn didn't).
Let us not forget the other original inspiration for the Ranger class, Robin Hood. he also didn't have an animal companion.
I'd argue it was hinted that Aragorn shared a unique bond with his horse, Brego. But it wasn't hugely obvious or relevant to the story advancement, so I'll let it slide.
@@dylanblack3635 I'd say Robin Hood was more of and edge ranger/rogue. Also, at some point the evolution of the game has to arrive somewhere. I'd rather the ranger get a solid, stable flavour of all of them getting some kind of animal companion than... nothing.
I agree with another reply that Aragorn did have a special bond with his horse (underplayed in the movies), but I also agree that Robin Hood, prehaps the OG ranger, doesn't have such a bond in the stories I've read. And I've read a LOT of Robin Hood stories. He's kinda why I like fantasy/rangers in general.
@@BobWorldBuilderIs Robin Hood really the original ranger, though? He feels like a rogue to me...
Ehh what do you mean rangers from other games? Pf2e ranger is fucking dope.
I honestly think ranger would be much better with a feature similar to the warlocks pact boons, ones that develop on their own later in the class.
One would absolutely be for your pet, but the others could be things like tracking and hunting or increases to weapon range or something tied in with HM or even a more survivalist ranger that has healing mechanics after foraging or short rests
I was thinking the same thing. Making rangers one whole beastmaster class doesn't feel right because not every ranger has or relies on a pet. A feature like warlock pact boons for rangers that lets you show off all your learned wilderness skills and knowledge pertaining to tracking, stealth and sensing, roving, survival, basic medicine, communicating basic ideas and intent with animals, and hunting, would be great and boil down everything into a feature where you can pick what bonuses you want to exemplify what wilderness skills you best excel at
@@veronwright1291 yes absolutely!
Great video. I totally agree that spellcasting shouldn't be a core feature for Rangers. At most it should be a subclass feature like a ranger-druid version of the eldrich knight. Also I'd suggest checking out how Tales of Argosa handles Rangers. They meet all of your criteria, including an animal companion at level one.
I feel like fixing the ranger depends on giving it a flavorful Schtick. Barbarians have rage. Paladins have divine smite/lay on hands, bards have inspiration, etc. and all if those things look and feel different based on the subclass.
I think you’re right. Give the core ranger all the exploration stuff you mentioned, hunters mark (or some similar redource) and a companion. Then flavor those things differently with different subclasses. Give one a more combat specialization, another a magic specialization (I guess) , another a companion specialization, and another an exploration specialization (probsbly that lets them act more like a healer)
Then have the core mechanics change or improve depending on the specialization
One thing I've decided to do, as a small minor change, is to let Hunter's Mark act as a magical GPS. I think even something that simple will pay off BIG time.
@@Chaosmancer7 That's awesome! I was talking to someone yesterday and have decided to try my hand at making the class I described above. The more I thought about it, the more it made sense to just give the ranger a companion and drop a lot of the fighter features. You run into a lot fewer balance issues with having a permanent action economy monster if you don't get things like extra attack. I've never made a custom class though, so we'll see how that goes haha.
Those were not Aircraft pilots over head following him. they were sky rangers tracking him from above!
The problem of the ranger is that everybody wants a different thing from the class.
This is the real problem. Most fantasy RPG rangers are fine in the vacuum of their system, but problems occur when peoples’ various perceptions are introduced.
EDIT: That being said, I do like the 2024 D&D’s ranger because it feels simple, roughly on par with with other “warrior” classes, and, most importantly to to me, less up to DM fiat compared to the 2014 D&D ranger.
I think this is kind of a hand wave argument. It's true that there are many concepts for rangers in the minds of players. But the class could be designed with room for that modularity in mind. Much the same way that Fighters get extra ASI and Feats, and or even
the way warlocks get invocations.
There is however an underlying core that runs through most fantasy rangers which could be represented better by the base class.
@@mattlazer902this is 100% a hand-waving, thought-terminating argument
I'd call it a true but unhelpful answer, but after thinking about it, I'd say it's just flat out wrong.
The Ranger is not some ephemeral idea that each person has a unique idea of. There's a few things nearly everyone would agree with, which should be the base, and then let the subclasses handle the more niche interpretations.
I actually like the 5e Ranger, and you are correct about each person wanting/liking something different from it.
I unfortunately don't have a group to play with:(
But I have created 12 different lvl 1 characters in case I found a group.
One of my characters is: A Chaotic Neutral Sage background Female High Elf Ranger planning Drakewarden Sub-Class, at lvl 1 she knows 8 different languages!
Ranger is the best linguist Class from the start, sure Wizards can learn a spell to translate but that's a limited timeframe. Monks eventually gain the magical ability to know all languages but that is at over lvl 12.
I mostly agree with you, outside of small irrelevant details, but the big thing is I disagree that every ranger needs a beast companion, just because while I do associate beast companions with rangers, I don’t see the beast companion as a fundamental part of the ranger identity. If you want it outside of the subclass area, maybe we make it into a pact-boon style feature? Give it the option between a companion or something like superiority dice.
I’m too nice about allowing pet familiars already, but I see the attraction and flavor of a beast companion. I’d allow it but 1) be clear that if they enter combat they don’t get plot armor and 2) try and limit HP in a way that doesn’t make them a secret sack of free HP for the ranger. Prof DMs recent opinion video that covered sidekicks made me think about this very thing.
Bob's favored enemy is the Plane Flying Above.
I dont agree with the companion to EVERY ranger, but the other things u said i agree with all of them
Man vs. Nature may have been a central conflict at some point in D&D's past, but now the Ranger class is based mostly on ranger classes from its earlier editions while the rest of the game has drifted away from any use for the old rangers. This is the core of why rangers feel weird. Man vs. Nature doesn't feel as central in D&D 5e. Man vs. Nature stories require a level a vulnerability that 5e characters don't have. You aren't afraid of succumbing to disease. You aren't afraid that a bear is going to come out of the woods and kill you. You aren't afraid you won't find food. Your characters tend to feel like they are in a post-scarcity society where the only threat to adventurers is other people trying to take over the world. This is fine for telling some types of stories, but it isn't great for telling stories where the classic vision of a ranger plays an important role.
Thank you for being outside.
I don't want to give specific examples but I disagree on so many things you say about 5e (mostly about mechanic stuff). But instead of me leaving a mean comment and running away to my echo chamber RUclips channels where everyone says the same thing; I like watching your vids because I get to hear your thoughts and opinions that I would never have or even think about.
Thank you Bob
Also I got a set of the dice you made
Love you ❤
So Pointy hat actually said the same thing in the 2024 review of the classes in the book. Just turn the ranger into the pet class like mmo's do. I bucked at this at first but you can get a lot of flavor out of this if you think about it. A pet from the feywild vs a pet from the shadowfell vs a pet from other planes, could have a lot of cool things you could do. I actually am in favor of this after thinking about it. People could say that Aragorn doesn't have a pet, but there is a point he does summon a bunch of ghost knights to wipe out an army of orcs. Having a ranger who has a ghost companion sounds pretty rad to me. Anyway, I love this break down. Thanks Bob!
Also, the Drake Warden and swarm keeper are top tier fun rangers to play. So there are already examples that this can be great.
People also keep forgetting that Aragorn (in the books anyway) could basically talk to horses!
I also think the pet class isn't bad due to how WOTC markets the ranger and what new players expect. Almost every single Ranger in D&D media has some kind of pet. And even before that, pretty much every single new players has specifically picked ranger so that they could have an animal companion. Even if it's not the main point of the class, WOTC has set false expectations that it is.
i would generally diagree, a pet is integral yo manyy different types of fantasy that aren't sometimes compatible with themes and meccanics of the ranger, and a dedicated pet class could stand on his own as its unique class devoided to the concept of ranger (hunter, guide, explorer, warden, bounty hunter etc...)
To everyone saying Aragorn did not have a animal companion forgot about his horse he was able to speak to, seen to be able to send away and summon when he needed it.
THANK YOU!!!
That because Aragorn is multiclassed as a Paladin, it's not an Animal Companion but a Summoned Steed ^^
@@Sephiroth517But does he have a horse pocket?
You realize that was hollywood-ized LotR, right? It wasn't in the books.
That's one horse and it's only in the Two Towers movie, and when people say animal companion they're not thinking of horses. Please remember the Two Towers movie is from 2002, the Two Towers book is from 1954, the Ranger D&D class is from 1978 (AD&D), and the animal companion Ranger is from 2000 (3rd edition.)
"And from a quick message from todays sponsor!" ~Bob
"BRRRRRYOWWWWW" ~Plane
Best Ranger I played that felt ranger’ish was a Pathfinder / spell’less ranger. This was more like a ranger/rogue instead of fighter/druid and felt more akin to a proper scout.
Add to that the switch hitter builder between bow/two-hander and he was a killing machine. Dropping a weapon and quick hands was a fun mechanic. Even passed on the pet. 🤘
If you want a 5e compatible Ranger class that fits with inspiration from Aragorn, I think you'd look at Adventure's in Middle Earth's 5e Adaption. I played the Ranger (Wander) class in that setting. It was very fun and I often felt incredibly useful, particularly with the Journey mechanics they introduced...
I think the Ranger concept can be made to best thrive in a campaign where journeying through vast wilderness territories is the norm/expectation. It's probably OK if it can't be shoehorned into a serial dungeon crawl or city campaign. In fact, I'd go so far as saying that 5e's assumption that all of these classes and subclasses and archetypes can be thrown into any game/setting/genre is one of its weakness and a mistake.
Instead of trying to make a base ranger class that can fit any campaign, fewer base choices, with the assumption that there are various setting-specific additions (and restrictions) seems like it makes for a much better game.
I did not come to this video expecting to learn that Adam and Eve were the first Rangers with Dragonkin/Fiends as their Favoured Enemy
🙌🏻
The Dolmenwood 'hunter' might be the peak ranger. They get a cool animal companion, they are extra alert against ambushes and surprise, they gain all the standard tracking/wayfinding/foraging/survival skills, and they can take trophies from slain enemies to give them bonuses when fighting enemies of a similar type.
+1 on the Dolmenwood Hunter! I've selected that as the Ranger class for inclusion in our table's OSE game over all other iterations I've come across.
Dunno who's nicer, Bob or his environment
"Totally smooth transition..." is stuck in my head. 😆
Like a lot of other people have said, I don't think that having an animal companion needs to be a core part of the Ranger's identity. However, I do really agree that it would be really fun to have a class that's core identity centers around having a companion who they combo with.
It blows my mind how the ranger went from one of the most fun classes in 4E to being a total afterthought in 5E… For 10 years!
I’ve heard a lot of people were disappointed with 4e, so I never ended up playing it. What made Ranger so much more fun there, if you do t mine my asking?
@@guybeingadude IMHO every class in 4E (with perhaps the exception of Psionic classes, I never got into them as I found them massively disappointing) is incredibly well balanced and gets unique ways of doing their role best. They gamified a lot of the basics, so each class got a MMORPG-like role: Tank = Tank / Leader = Healer/Support / Controller = CC / Striker = DPS. So a Ranger was a Striker, but so was the Sorcerer, but their abilities we're vastly different and so how you played them was too.
Even though 4E sorely lacked in the roleplaying/exploration department when it came to its mechanics, again in IMO, the classes were really well made and I enjoyed that immensely.
@@AlbertJanVaartjes for as much hate as 4e gets, I agree with this assessment.
My biggest issue with 4e was actually the "splash" effect of some non-magical abilities, that are tropes of MMORPG but broke whatever attempt at simulation that DnD tries.
I think the best iteration of Ranger already exists in Pathfinder, especially 2E Remastered. I see others have brought it up in the comments already. Besides the class itself in P2E being great as is (and flexible), the system's "Modes of Play" supports the class further especially for enhanced roleplay. At this point the conversation with D&D Rangers is beating a dead horse for years now.
bob is the ranger, living in a pocket of wilderness, surrounded by airports. edit: his companion is a missile launcher, he just hasn't found it yet
I enjoy all of Bob World Builder videos 🎉
You might wanna check out the pf2e ranger. The animal companion isn’t a subclass, instead it’s a first level feat so any build can take it if they want, but they could choose something else instead. Favored terrain is also a feat, meaning a character can pick up as many or as few as they want. Communicating with animals and making snares are also feats Tracking is built into the class, but unfortunately rangers don’t have any ability to forage or make herbal medicine any better then any other class
The one thing most people forget about Aragorn, that he was task to protect the borders of the Shire by Gandalf after Bilbo's adventure. Why? Because he had been fighting the minions of the dark lord most of his life. He fought them where they were, the wildlands. But Aragorn was first and formost a fighter and leader of the Dunedain.
I think he's why the D&D 1e ranger was a fighter subclass!
@@BobWorldBuilder yeah, and fairly hard to get with the stats required.
I think when my players think Ranger they think Legolas, when the game designers think Ranger they think Aragorn/Aragorn with pets/ fighter-Druid mash up. They just can’t decide.
I'd argue that Legolas was more of a ranged fighter than a ranger, but I still use him for the example on movement and scouting because Tolkien's elves innately had some ranger qualities.
@@BobWorldBuilder isn't it more like Tolkien's Rangers had Tolkien's Elf qualities?
If everyone was thinking of Aragorn or Faramir then we would all be on the same page and it would be a lot better.
What's Aragorn's companion? He's one of the two examples you gave, so where's his lil buddy?
Bob will one day emerge from the wilderness with a beard and wisdom akin to Ratagast the Brown and bestow upon us the most insightful of ttrpg opinions
Fun Fact, the Ranger class from D&D wasn't a class to begin with in the earlier editions I was a fun multiclass option by combining other classes much like bard was in the older books
the made reason this became a thing was because people wanted to play Aragorn in D&D
Edit: Fun Fact Ranger didn't become a full class till 3E in 2000
The ranger was first introduced in 1975 as an optional sub class of the fighting man and was codified in AD&D in the 1980s PHB and updated to an archer or dual wielding fighter in the subsequent UA that introduced the Barb and Cavalier. I pulled out my old books this past weekend while I was working on content for the ranger discussion.
Yes it was. It's in First Edition AD&D PHB.
@@sleepinggiant4062 the ranger was a sub class of fighter not a multi-class option, I pulled out all of my old PHBs from 1e, 2e, and 3.5e as well as the 1e UA a few days ago and looked at it since I’m working on content to explain the history of the class. The bard is in the appendices of the old 1e PHB as a multi class option built on the druid, thief, and fighter with its own progression after you reached certain levels in each class and the DM had to allow you to use it since it’s optional to use it.
@@syvajarvi2289 cool
@@syvajarvi2289 - glad we are in agreement that it is a class in the 1st edition PHB.
I said it before, specifically in Pointy Hats comment section, but I think one way to improve Rangers would be to actually put more into the hunter aspect of Rangers. Make it so your chosen creature type takes more damage from you, allow the ability yo change the favored creature type on a long rest (maybe through the use of their primal magic), or some way for you to overcome immunities and resistances of your favored creature type. Heck, make it so you can change your creature type immediately, as a reaction or bonus action, once per long rest.
Hey! What do you think of Ranger in PF2e (the remastered version)? Here's the essence of it:
Lvl 1 - "Hunt Prey" which gives +2 to Perception and Survival checks to a tracked prey
Lvl 1 - "Hunter's Edge" which gives you one of three buffs/debuffs against a creature that you used Hunt Prey on
Lvl 1 - a ranger feat, including animal companion (alas, still optional in PF2e!) and initiate warden (letting the character practice magic)
Lvl 2 - a ranger feat, including favored terrain (chosen by the player)
Lvl 4 - a ranger feat, including dual wieldig, bow expertise, but also powering up their magic skills
Lvl 5 - upgrade to simple and martial weapons proficiencies + ability to leave no tracks in natural environments
Lvl 6 - a ranger feat, most of them upgrading feats from before
Lvl 8 - a ranger feat, including terrain master (that basically allows you to make any natural ennvironment your favored terrain) and hazard finder, very similar to what you described about being able to sense that something is off
Lvl 10 - a ranger feat, including camouflage - also something I think you've mentioned
Lvl 11 - upgrade to light and medium armor proficiencies + ability to ignore difficult terrain
Lvl 12, 14, 16, 18, 20 - a ranger feat, most of them upgrading feats from before
I'm not mentioning numerous greater upgrades to lesser upgrades that came before them, bonuses to Will and Reflex saves etc., I tried my best to make it as short as possible :)
When I dm'd for a 2 people campaign (a ranger and a cleric), I created scenarios that a ranger would flourish in. The kind of stuff you wouldn't see in a normal campaign.
I have actually been working on a set of custom classes. One of which is flavoured as a Ranger+. It is called Explorer and is 100% martial and focuses on mobility. It currently has three subclasses which are Herbalist, Pathfinder and Tracker. Herbalist concentrates on foraging and using herbs to poison enemies and heal allies during combat. Pathfinder focuses on navigation and guiding their allies through dangerous areas. Tracker concentrates on stealth, tracking and ranged burst damage.
This is a work in progress and is currently the least fleshed out compared to the other two classes I am working on.
The other two classes are a versatile support caster that can reduce its own movement speed to buff spells called the Conductor and a gish that can preemptively shorten spells during a long rest to weave them between attacks called the Sigil Sword.