[Tome] What does the Ranger even do?

[erik]

Trying to make a whole class out of ranger feels like trying to make a 3 course meal out of a spice.

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

I am not convinced there is enough Ranger mojo to merit more than 3 feats. We're back to the title of this thread, what does the ranger do?

It's a conundrum since different people have different expectations for what a ranger is supposed to bring to the game. Given that, it does seem the broadest brush is to give a handful of scaling feat packages which people can grab to get whatever Ranger flavor they desire.

We've seen:
Animal Companion
Tracking
Stealth
Party Stealth
Party Guide
Wilderness Magic
Mobile Combat
Trapper
Archer
Moderate Frontliner

And rarely all of these at once.

But lots of other classes have some of these. There's no need to take tons of packages when you can grab a half-way rangerized class and then get the rest of the way there with a feat or two.

Tome Fighter + Animal Companion + Track makes a fine ranger for me.

There is an exception though. Wilderness magic. The only reason I'd feel like arguing for a Ranger/Warden class would be that there is only one nature caster and the Druid is pretty niche since it comes with animal companion and wildshape hardcoded in along with item and roleplay restrictions.

So yeah, there's conceptual room if someone wanted a nature magic character who wasn't a druid (or nature cleric, which has its own barbs).

Best of all worlds is a sort of bard-casting Ranger and also make feats available for those want to slap just a little bit of that woodsy garnish onto their character.


[edit:]
Follow-up

[CatharzGodfoot]

'A multiclass fighter-rogue with some hypothetical feats can approximate the concept' covers pretty much every class that does not cast spells. Sorcerer and cleric are sufficient to cover pretty much every spell-casting concept (and most non-casting concepts), and that's still not a good reason to get rid of the other classes.

People are going to want to play rangers; unless you can come up with something simple enough that a relative newbie can easily put it together on their own, it's worth creating a class.

[Drolyt]

I think the problem here is the fighter, not the ranger. Pretty much any "warrior" class, such as paladin, barbarian, samurai, or monk, can be made into a fighter feat tree, or in AD&D terms into a kit. I'm not 100% sure where to draw the line between a class and an option for a class, but the ranger is as much as part of D&D as the paladin or monk and probably more so than the barbarian or samurai, so at least in regards to D&D variants like Tome the ranger is something you probably want to have.

[codeGlaze]

The suggestion has been made to simply turn "Fighter" into a chassis for the primary melee types. With several variations in the idea.

Hollow out the fighter and just make it a base template where you pick a kit/tree that fills in most of your class level progression with some empty feat slots for specialization.

Create ACFs for specially flavoring the basic fighter into something else.

Those two have a lot of overlap. work beckons, gotta run!

[brized]

I am not convinced there is enough Ranger mojo to merit more than 3 feats. We're back to the title of this thread, what does the ranger do?

It's a conundrum since different people have different expectations for what a ranger is supposed to bring to the game. Given that, it does seem the broadest brush is to give a handful of scaling feat packages which people can grab to get whatever Ranger flavor they desire.

We've seen:
Animal Companion
Tracking
Stealth
Party Stealth
Party Guide
Wilderness Magic
Mobile Combat
Trapper
Archer
Moderate Frontliner

And rarely all of these at once.

The quoted concepts work fine up until levels 5-10. You missed the part about extending the concept of tracking into abilities that find and reveal things, across planes. You missed the part about extending the concept of hunting and trapping into facilitating and stopping teleportation and planar travel. This is all so the class can continue to contribute in a level-appropriate way from level 11 onward.

It's no wonder that you believe a ranger can be reduced to 3 feats. You're clinging to emulating features of a 5th-level character rather than looking at the core components of a concept and how to make them effective across 20 levels. In D&D, once you hit double-digit levels the "wilderness" includes the planes. All of them.

[erik]

Actually, I included Tracking across planes with the generic "Tracking"

This is Tome Track skill

You feel at home no matter where you are.
Survival ranks: 0: You can follow tracks using Survival, as the Track
and Legendary Tracker feats. 4: You can identify the race/kind of creatures from
their tracks. 9: You can move through or over difficult natural ter-
rain without being slowed, taking nonlethal damage, or suffering other impairment. You take no penal- ties for moving your speed when tracking, and only -10 when moving double your speed. You can track subjects protected by pass without trace or similar spells at a -20 penalty.
14: You can track through the Astral Plane with a DC 35 Survival check. You can determine the destina- tion of a teleportation spell when standing at the point of departure with a DC 40 Survival check; if you have teleport or a similar spell, you can follow as if you had seen the destination once.
19: You’re immune to natural planar effects as if you had planar tolerance always active.

I did miss the bit about mobility control via trapping. Mark that up to an even wider incongruity between people's views about what makes a Ranger which was kind of my point. Different people want different things. Some people will be satisfied by adding an animal companion and some tracking mojo, like me. Others may want a druid warrior without stupid druid trappings.

By the by I did edit my previous post with a link to a 20 level Ranger I took a whack at last night. It's not done yet, but I got it 97% of the way there.

One of the SLA's I expect to give it is Gate with a rider that it is only used for travel rather than real ultimate power/binding.

[brized]

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but that still doesn't stand up to Discern Location. While it's nice to be able to track someone through the planes by foot...come level 15, if that spell isn't nerfed, banned, or ranger-exclusive, tracking is rendered obsolete.

[Drolyt]

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but that still doesn't stand up to Discern Location. While it's nice to be able to track someone through the planes by foot...come level 15, if that spell isn't nerfed, banned, or ranger-exclusive, tracking is rendered obsolete.

Well, you can track someone under the effects of Mind Blank, but for the most part you're right. I don't see it as a big problem as long as tracking is only one of the things rangers get.

[tussock]

You could always just give Rangers Discern Location, as a spell-like so they've always got it around and the other classes won't bother if there's a Ranger. But if there isn't a Ranger, the party can still go places and find things.

[brized]

You could always just give Rangers Discern Location, as a spell-like so they've always got it around and the other classes won't bother if there's a Ranger. But if there isn't a Ranger, the party can still go places and find things.

So the Ranger goes from being the best at finding things from 1-14 to saving the casters a spell slot at 15 onward. Take a moment and reflect on how that would feel as a player.

This brings up another possibility, though, and that's giving the Ranger a SLA or other ability at 15 that functions like Discern Location but is better, in that it beats mind blank or has some other advantage. But that poses its own problems for the GM.

[RadiantPhoenix]

I think that just having Discern Location would mostly cover that problem.

It's a 10 minute casting time, so getting it unlimited times per day is probably not even a problem.

EDIT: clarification: I'm suggesting this as opposed to having "Discern Location but better"

[erik]

I think that the player would be happy he is always the go-to guy for finding people/things. I would not be sad if I had a couple guaranteed findings of whatever each day.

And like Drolyt said, you can still track someone who has Mind Blank, something the other casters typically cannot do.

I don't think Tracking is something that has to be role protected though so maybe I'm in the minority there.


Edit: misspelled drolyt's name

[Lokathor]

Not every group even has primary casters in it, you guys are also factoring this in right?

Like, 50% to 60% of the play groups I've ever played in have had 0 primary casters in them. If you discount the times I was the primary caster, that number goes up to like 70%.

[RadiantPhoenix]

I would say, "don't role-protect tracking particularly hard, but make sure the classes that are supposed to do that have the tools to do it"

[zugschef]

In the olden days the DnD ranger was different from the rogue and fighter because he had to be good and different from the paladin because he didn't have to be lawful stupid.

For me personally, the ranger's got to be a gish-class and he's adaptable. While the paladin and knight always run around in full plate, the barbarian in breast plate and the rogue in leather, the ranger wears leather when he's scouting or hunting, chain when dungeoneering and plate on the battlefield. He shoots arrows as long as he can, switches to melee when he has to and uses the style which gives him the best chance to win: a spear vs. chargers and large creatures, sword and shield against fast creatures with strong attacks, etc.. The ranger is pragmatic and the ranger serves.

[codeGlaze]

In the olden days the DnD ranger was different from the rogue and fighter because he had to be good and different from the paladin because he didn't have to be lawful stupid.

For me personally, the ranger's got to be a gish-class and he's adaptable. While the paladin and knight always run around in full plate, the barbarian in breast plate and the rogue in leather, the ranger wears leather when he's scouting or hunting, chain when dungeoneering and plate on the battlefield. He shoots arrows as long as he can, switches to melee when he has to and uses the style which gives him the best chance to win: a spear vs. chargers and large creatures, sword and shield against fast creatures with strong attacks, etc.. The ranger is pragmatic and the ranger serves.

That's a fantastic concept and is indeed how I played it in.... stuff like Baldur's Gate.

But at the table, how would you make that runnable? You sure-as-shit aren't carrying all of that around.
People tend to end up finding a groove they like and, therefore, pseudo-specialozing in said groove. Especially once you take into account the process of customizing your magic gear.

[Lokathor]

A lot of that equipment swapping stuff isn't really practical when there's magic gear to factor in. And then generally you'll need Str for melee and Dex for bows, though I guess a free Weapon Finesse feat would let you Dex-melee. I'm not sure that tying the ranger to equipment swapping is a good route.

[radthemad4]

Equipment swapping seems to be the Tome Fighter's thing (Weapons Training and Pack Mule).

But, I think proficiency with nets, bolas, whips and possibly one or two other exotic weapons of the player's choice should go to rangers for free.

[zugschef]

Equipment swapping seems to be the Tome Fighter's thing (Weapons Training and Pack Mule).

There's still the problem with the fighter where this class name sucks so bad that the class's mechanics will always suck bad and should be let go forever. Let it die already.

The point of the ranger or warden for me is that he serves the community. He's not nature's warrior because, as someone has already said, that's a martially focused druid. He's more like the night's watch from a song of fire and ice or generally like a soldier from a natural terrain specialized special force. They may be loners, but they don't work without a community background, whether that's being the small town's sheriff or part of the military special forces or something similar...

Using the wish economy rules I see no problem for a ranger character with several types of armors and weapons in his bagt cave. Batman might even be a good example for ranger behaviour, if you don't want to be part of an organization. Batman is a loner, but he is nothing without the people of Gotham whom he has sworn to protect. That's also an interesting part of his code of conduct compared to the paladin. While every action of a paladin matters, the ranger is more pragmatic and often sees the means to an end. You can't be part of the A-Team if you're a paladin, but a ranger can be.

If you want to be a gruff loner who only cares for himself and is at home in the woods, then druid is right out because they care for nature and ranger is right out because they do care for others.

[codeGlaze]

@zugschef : You're right, rangers/wardens have traditionally been introduced as scouts, border guards, spec ops, trail guides, sheriffs, etc. Nature proficient people with roots in normal society. Sort of nature specialized protectors of civilization.

I disagree that they can't be cranky hermits who eschew civilization. Think of a retired SEAL or... Army Ranger who prefers to live on a big ass piece of land and just keep to himself. ( Real ones pop up on those 'doomsday prepper' shows )

[zugschef]

@zugschef : You're right, rangers/wardens have traditionally been introduced as scouts, border guards, spec ops, trail guides, sheriffs, etc. Nature proficient people with roots in normal society. Sort of nature specialized protectors of civilization.

I disagree that they can't be cranky hermits who eschew civilization. Think of a retired SEAL or... Army Ranger who prefers to live on a big ass piece of land and just keep to himself. ( Real ones pop up on those 'doomsday prepper' shows )

I'd say that that type of character isn't a ranger anymore. As you've said, he's retired. As long as you're a ranger you care for people, if you don't do that anymore prestige class out...

[erik]

Except they still have all the abilities of a ranger. So the distinction is void for our purposes.

[RadiantPhoenix]

So basically, the ranger's abilities should be "Sort of nature specialized protectors of civilization", but that isn't required to be the character's goal.

[OgreBattle]

Aren't these the things that level appropriate skills do though? Survival, Handle Animal, Track, and so on.