D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

[Excession]

This week's Legends & Lore column is up. This one talks about how they go about designing a class, using as examples a few details of the Bard, Druid, and Ranger classes.

It seems like companions, animal or otherwise, might end up as a module. For balance, and the ability to manage the complexity of the game, I think that sounds like a good idea.

[Craft (Cheese)]

The question is, once you take away the (sucky) spells, the animal companion, and the tracking feature... you have a Fighter. How do you define the ranger outside these features?

[noparlpf]

The question is, once you take away the (sucky) spells, the animal companion, and the tracking feature... you have a Fighter. How do you define the ranger outside these features?

Of those, only the tracking bit really screams "Ranger" to me, and it's not the primary aspect of a Ranger. In 3.X I usually swap out the companion and spells for ACFs.

[tbok1992]

To be honest, my ideal ranger looks an awful lot more like John Rambo than Aragorn, but that's just what I think.

[Nu]

The question is, once you take away the (sucky) spells, the animal companion, and the tracking feature... you have a Fighter. How do you define the ranger outside these features?

The 4th edition ranger didn't have those things, except arguably spells in the form of some of its utility powers.

Though moving archery specialization to the fighter and dual wielding specialization to specializations robs the ranger of what gave it an identity in 4th edition as well. So I am also rather curious as to how they intend to give the ranger a unique identity without any of the above.

I'm also slightly miffed about animal companions being moved to modules, as I seem to like them where a lot of people don't, which makes me feel like most Next games will probably have DMs that don't allow them, which means I'll rarely have the option of playing them. But that's sorta meta-speculation at that point so I probably shouldn't dwell on it too much.

[Oracle_Hunter]

The question is, once you take away the (sucky) spells, the animal companion, and the tracking feature... you have a Fighter. How do you define the ranger outside these features?

I mean, you can't -- he's just a "Fighter with more Skills and no Expertise Dice" which is very meh unless you do a lot with Expertise.

Now, for me, I found the best version of the Ranger in 4e -- the Animal Companion Ranger. The idea of a man and animal fighting as a single unit really had legs (IMHO) as a Martial concept separate from the all-encompassing Fighter. "Tracking" simply isn't a strong enough trait to define a Class and it risks making the Ranger a One Trick Pony if that's all you can do.

Now admittedly, the 4e implementation of the Animal Companion Ranger was laughably awful but I can see a way to do that in 5e with just existing mechanics: grant the Ranger "Expertise" Dice which it can spend either to boost damage (if the Companion is adjacent to the target) or as a form of debuff: moving the opponent around, interfering with their attacks, maybe even knocking them down when they miss. It would be distinct from the Fighter both conceptually and tactically and the designers would need to spend very little brainpower to make it work.

Of course they won't do it, but hey you can dream no?

[navar100]

This week's Legends & Lore column is up. This one talks about how they go about designing a class, using as examples a few details of the Bard, Druid, and Ranger classes.

It seems like companions, animal or otherwise, might end up as a module. For balance, and the ability to manage the complexity of the game, I think that sounds like a good idea.

I like the concept of changing bard spells to a warlock invocation system. Details to be determined (i.e. have more music invocations known than the warlock does but not too much), but it makes the bard more interesting for me as wanting to actually play a bard for the first time ever. If the "songs" are useful enough comparable to the level you get them and a couple of low level ones at least are still useful at high level, this could be very cool.

[tbok1992]

So, nobody agrees with me that the Ranger should be Fantasy Rambo? I mean, if you've seen the original movie, he pretty much screams "10th level ranger".

[Craft (Cheese)]

So, nobody agrees with me that the Ranger should be Fantasy Rambo? I mean, if you've seen the original movie, he pretty much screams "10th level ranger".

Never seen Rambo, can't comment. Sorry. I always imagined Rambo as being more of a barbarian who uses guns instead of a greataxe while raging, but that opinion is mostly uninformed.

[tbok1992]

Ah. In the original First Blood (which is the only one I've seen), he uses a lot of guile-based tactics, setting traps, using the environment of the woods to his advantage, survivalist stuff a lot like a ranger.

[willpell]

Spoiler

Show

Um, there's no picture in the ADnD 1E MM for the Nymph, and no text to explain the saves other than "unearthly beauty."

No picture, no, but the text is a bit more explicit...maybe it's the original D&D instead of Advanced. It looks like this.

Well if looking at a nymph caused blindness or death, how would you know what one looked like to draw a picture of it?

(am I explaining the joke here?)

The text explains that if you look at a nymph when she takes off her top, you must save vs. blindness, whereas if she takes off her bottom, you must save vs. death. Just an example of the mature and refined sophistication of wit that was to be found in this edition (also, I have heard, the one where some of the treasure tables included "woman chained to the wall", though that part I haven't personally confirmed - the MM in question, though, is the one pre-3E book I actually own, mostly for the art).

[TheOOB]

Now admittedly, the 4e implementation of the Animal Companion Ranger was laughably awful but I can see a way to do that in 5e with just existing mechanics: grant the Ranger "Expertise" Dice which it can spend either to boost damage (if the Companion is adjacent to the target)

Nope, Expertise dice are confirmed to be the fighters unique mechanic. WotC R&D has mentioned they want to get Ranger away from the finesse fighter that you see in 3e and especially 4e, and go back to the idea that the ranger is something special in the world, part of an organization or a cause. I think we can expect a greater emphasis on their connection to nature and their hunting and tracking abilities, as well as a unique mechanic that makes them able warriors without just being them hitting faster, more accurately, or stronger.

For the none "big 4" classes, I think we'll see their roles in the world a bit more fleshed out, which is part of why there is more detail on the sorcerer bloodlines and warlock pacts that in a fighter fighting style. A paladin will be a holy warrior devoting to fighting evil everyone and bringing justice to the world, not just a fighter with a little bit of healing.

I'm more or less all for removing companions as base class traits. They are incredibly hard to balance, especially when the class has other things they need to be doing.(I also like the companion modules allowing for smaller parties). I would like to see a class based around a companion however(like the pathfinder summoner), one where the companion would be balanced because the companion is the primary focus of their abilities.

[Excession]

Ah. In the original First Blood (which is the only one I've seen), he uses a lot of guile-based tactics, setting traps, using the environment of the woods to his advantage, survivalist stuff a lot like a ranger.

I see where you're coming from with this, and I think I agree. The first movie was the only good one too.

Now admittedly, the 4e implementation of the Animal Companion Ranger was laughably awful <snip>

What's funny is that despite how crappy the companion is, it's a straight win for an 4e archer ranger in particular to take the beast companion rather than archery style. You take an already powerful class and add a free flanker for distant advantage, mobile cover, a little more reason for creatures to avoid chasing the ranger down, and even a couple ways to use it as a cheap mount.

I can see room for a class that relies heavily on a companion, but you can't add one, even a weak one, to a class that's powerful enough on its own. Maybe the 4e Shaman is a better example. Designed from the ground up to have the spirit companion, and while it's pretty complex it's not OP.

Edit: I wonder if the 4e Essentials "Hunter" Ranger is closer to getting it right? Rather than being better at fighting than the fighter and also having skills, they're more about harrying and controlling their foes. Admittedly, the core 4e Ranger can do that just about as well while also doing more damage, but I think the niche might still exist.

Edit 2: I like the magic that the Essentials Hunter gets as well. I would want a small number of very useful, focused spells. Not a subset of what a cleric, druid or wizard gets either, give rangers at least some of their own stuff. I would prefer that the party Wizard is thinking (IC) "How did he do that? The energy cost alone...", not "Oh, I could cast that spell last level."

[Nu]

What's funny is that despite how crappy the companion is, it's a straight win for an 4e archer ranger in particular to take the beast companion rather than archery style. You take an already powerful class and add a free flanker for distant advantage, mobile cover, a little more reason for creatures to avoid chasing the ranger down, and even a couple ways to use it as a cheap mount.

Well, aside from the fact that it locks you out of the rather beastly Battlefield Archer paragon path. Of course some may argue that the Sharpshooter paragon path makes up for it, if you combine it with the feat that makes enemies provoke opportunity attacks when they attack your beast companion.

As for the ranger itself in Next, I wonder exactly what they're going to do to make it mechanically distinct, and if they can do it without making it too niche. There's always a risk when you create a class based on a specific concept that it will be too situational. I wouldn't like to see the ranger end up being a cheap gimmick that's only useful for wilderness survival campaigns, not with the history the class has.

[Clawhound]

To me, a ranger fit between the heaviness of a fighter and the lightness of a thief. In combat, rangers natural niche is ranged weapons, followed by tool-like weapons, such as axes or skinning knives. They rarely use shields. In contrast, fighters are heavier, often use shields, use the heaviest weapons that are available, and specialize in toe-to-toe combat.

Especially out of combat, a ranger is very different from a fighter. Where a fighter is a soldier or a warrior, a ranger is an expert in wilderness survival, a guide, and a hunter.

Rangers are different from rogues. Where rangers prefer the outdoors and solitary, rogues are creatures of civilization. They prefer the edgier side of interaction. Misdirection is one of their most powerful weapons. They can fight, but fighting for them is suboptimal. There are usually better ways for them to accomplish their goals.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

WotC R&D has mentioned they want to get Ranger away from the finesse fighter that you see in 3e and especially 4e, and go back to the idea that the ranger is something special in the world, part of an organization or a cause. I think we can expect a greater emphasis on their connection to nature and their hunting and tracking abilities, as well as a unique mechanic that makes them able warriors without just being them hitting faster, more accurately, or stronger.

As for the ranger itself in Next, I wonder exactly what they're going to do to make it mechanically distinct, and if they can do it without making it too niche. There's always a risk when you create a class based on a specific concept that it will be too situational. I wouldn't like to see the ranger end up being a cheap gimmick that's only useful for wilderness survival campaigns, not with the history the class has.

The ranger's niche in AD&D wasn't archer, TWFer, beastmaster, or finesse fighter, it was the ambusher and monster slayer. They surprised enemies more often than normal and were surprised much less often than normal, which given the way AD&D initiative worked was always a good thing. They were excellent monster hunters, as they added their level in damage against all "giant-class" monsters (basically any Humanoid, Monstrous Humanoid, and Giant, in 3e terms), gained two HD at level 1, and got full HD and the full Con bonus to HP up through 11th level rather than 9th, making them both heavy hitters and very durable themselves. They also got 3rd-level druid spells, 2nd-level magic user spells, and the ability to use certain special magic items, but while those gave rangers some help in tracking people and sneaking in the wilderness, they didn't really change the ranger's identity much.

So that could be the ranger's niche again for 5e, possibly. They would be the ones who specialize in countering monster abilities: they can detect and track flying/invisible/disguised monsters, hide from darkvision and scent, surprise even ambusher monsters, identify monster weak points, and so forth. Mage slayer is to wizard as ranger is to monsters, essentially. With their consistent higher damage against monsters (as opposed to a fighter's multi-use CS dice, a paladin's situational smite, etc.) they'd be good at hacking through groups of monsters Aragorn-style, and with their emphasis on monster knowledge and tactics they'd provide another option for the "smart fighter" archetype besides the warlord/marshal for those who don't want to be buffers.

[Nu]

The ranger's niche in AD&D wasn't archer, TWFer, beastmaster, or finesse fighter, it was the ambusher and monster slayer. They surprised enemies more often than normal and were surprised much less often than normal, which given the way AD&D initiative worked was always a good thing. They were excellent monster hunters, as they added their level in damage against all "giant-class" monsters (basically any Humanoid, Monstrous Humanoid, and Giant, in 3e terms), gained two HD at level 1, and got full HD and the full Con bonus to HP up through 11th level rather than 9th, making them both heavy hitters and very durable themselves. They also got 3rd-level druid spells, 2nd-level magic user spells, and the ability to use certain special magic items, but while those gave rangers some help in tracking people and sneaking in the wilderness, they didn't really change the ranger's identity much.

So that could be the ranger's niche again for 5e, possibly. They would be the ones who specialize in countering monster abilities: they can detect and track flying/invisible/disguised monsters, hide from darkvision and scent, surprise even ambusher monsters, identify monster weak points, and so forth. Mage slayer is to wizard as ranger is to monsters, essentially. With their consistent higher damage against monsters (as opposed to a fighter's multi-use CS dice, a paladin's situational smite, etc.) they'd be good at hacking through groups of monsters Aragorn-style, and with their emphasis on monster knowledge and tactics they'd provide another option for the "smart fighter" archetype besides the warlord/marshal for those who don't want to be buffers.

I feel that the AD&D original ranger would not be a familiar archetype for much of the game's current market, they remember the 3rd edition ranger or the 4th edition ranger. In any case, the ranger you describe is far too situational for me, as surprising monsters depends entirely on the type of campaign the DM wants to run and how well it mashes up with the tactics of your party--and the monster hunter aspect has always been a weak link of the class (favored enemy to be specific). "Identify weak points" is just precision damage, which is sneak attack.

In any case, the class outlined above does not sound like a desirable archetype for the ranger to fill for me. I'd like something more mechanically flexible, even if it has a fixed identity in the world.

[obryn]

I'd be all for retconning Drizzt out of existence. Failing that, however, I think we'll be stuck with two-weapon rangers in the future.

-O

[PairO'Dice Lost]

In any case, the ranger you describe is far too situational for me, as surprising monsters depends entirely on the type of campaign the DM wants to run and how well it mashes up with the tactics of your party--and the monster hunter aspect has always been a weak link of the class (favored enemy to be specific). "Identify weak points" is just precision damage, which is sneak attack.

1) "Being good at surprising things" basically boils down to initiative bonuses and some sort of perk in the surprise round, which I can't see ever being a bad thing. If you're never surprising things and never winning initiative, the rogue is going to be just as hosed as this ranger.

2) The monster hunter aspect hasn't been a weak theme at all. Favored enemy was, yes, but that's because your major signature class feature amounting to +10 to attack and skills with one out of several dozen subtypes at level 20 is underwhelming by any standard. I'm not talking just bland numerical bonuses (though some Knowledge-based numerical bonuses would be good too), I'm talking things like Nemesis, Darkstalker, Hearing the Air, and similar from 3e, actual new abilities that make you good at finding, countering, and slaying monsters with weird capabilities.

3) Precision damage isn't just sneak attack; in 3e alone there were three variations on the Xd6 version of precision damage (sneak attack, sudden strike, and skirmish), and Hunter's Quarry in 4e and Knowledge Devotion in 3e are other popular takes on it.

I feel that the AD&D original ranger would not be a familiar archetype for much of the game's current market, they remember the 3rd edition ranger or the 4th edition ranger.
[...]
In any case, the class outlined above does not sound like a desirable archetype for the ranger to fill for me. I'd like something more mechanically flexible, even if it has a fixed identity in the world.

I'd be all for retconning Drizzt out of existence. Failing that, however, I think we'll be stuck with two-weapon rangers in the future.

-O

I don't see how it's any less flexible than the AD&D ranger (basically what I've outlined but with spells instead of special abilities), the 3e ranger (a TWFer or archer with an animal companion and some archery/wilderness spells), or the 4e ranger (a TWFer or archer possibly with an animal companion and no spells). They've already said that specific weapon styles will be Fighter fighting styles or specialties and companions and followers will be a module, so a Drizzt-clone ranger isn't what they're going for and without those abilities the only things from the ranger that are left are the monster slaying and limited spellcasting.

Also, getting abilities that are good against monsters doesn't mean you can only use them against monsters. An ability to detect invisible creatures works on wizards too; an ability to deal more damage to creatures bigger than you lets a halfling ranger deal more damage to humans as well; hiding from scent and other special senses lets you sneak past guards with dogs just as well as bulettes. The theme informs and groups the ranger's class abilities but doesn't limit them, just as a paladin class isn't just Smite Evil with legs but also good defenses, healing, social skills, a special mount, etc.

[huttj509]

I'd be all for retconning Drizzt out of existence. Failing that, however, I think we'll be stuck with two-weapon rangers in the future.

-O

One weapon rangers.

...But 2 weapon Drow.

Just like in ye olde days (Drizzt could use 2 weapons because he was a Drow, not because he was a ranger).

[Nu]

1) "Being good at surprising things" basically boils down to initiative bonuses and some sort of perk in the surprise round, which I can't see ever being a bad thing. If you're never surprising things and never winning initiative, the rogue is going to be just as hosed as this ranger.

2) The monster hunter aspect hasn't been a weak theme at all. Favored enemy was, yes, but that's because your major signature class feature amounting to +10 to attack and skills with one out of several dozen subtypes at level 20 is underwhelming by any standard. I'm not talking just bland numerical bonuses (though some Knowledge-based numerical bonuses would be good too), I'm talking things like Nemesis, Darkstalker, Hearing the Air, and similar from 3e, actual new abilities that make you good at finding, countering, and slaying monsters with weird capabilities.

3) Precision damage isn't just sneak attack; in 3e alone there were three variations on the Xd6 version of precision damage (sneak attack, sudden strike, and skirmish), and Hunter's Quarry in 4e and Knowledge Devotion in 3e are other popular takes on it.

1) I can get down with that, but it seems like it wouldn't be all that desirable on its own in a DnD Next setting. On the other hand, ways to boost initiative in the system are few currently...

2) I'm not that familiar with most of those so I can't comment, if they can make it work and not be needlessly harsh on the ranger when their favorite prey isn't around though then I can be fine with it. I don't really like the concept of a "favored enemy" at all though, and not just because it's a flat numerical bonus, I don't like having to pick one particular type of monster to be good at killing. I think that kind of thing would be better as a specialty.

3) Wasn't sudden strike basically a weaker sneak attack? Skirmish attack was okay-ish if I remember right. Though in 4E, hunter's quarry was considered a weak-ish feature for the ranger, their true potential for damage dealing was unlocked via Twin Strike and their ability to attack several times per round with static damage mods. I don't have a particular problem with those features but past implementations have been kinda weak for one reason or another (3.5 mostly had the problem of not working on non-living creatures). If they learn from those lessons and make them stronger though I'd be cool with it. I'm just not altogether certain we're not just playing a rogue by another name though.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

1) I can get down with that, but it seems like it wouldn't be all that desirable on its own in a DnD Next setting. On the other hand, ways to boost initiative in the system are few currently...

That's what I was thinking; boosting initiative isn't really a thing in 5e yet, so something that boosts it is actually very useful.

2) I'm not that familiar with most of those so I can't comment, if they can make it work and not be needlessly harsh on the ranger when their favorite prey isn't around though then I can be fine with it. I don't really like the concept of a "favored enemy" at all though, and not just because it's a flat numerical bonus, I don't like having to pick one particular type of monster to be good at killing. I think that kind of thing would be better as a specialty.

Again, I'm not talking about picking one enemy type, I'm talking about being good at killing "monsters"--you don't get bonuses against certain kinds of monsters, you get abilities that would be good against a general kind of monster ability. The different ranger paths would likely be themed around hunting certain creatures, but the abilities would be general purpose--a "dragon slayer" ranger would get Evasion-type benefits and ways to take down flying enemies, for instance, not just +X vs. dragons.

For instance, the examples I used: Nemesis lets you sense your favored enemy within a certain distance, which could be generalized into a "spider sense" for unnatural monsters like undead and aberrations. Darkstalker lets you hide from blindsight, tremorsense, scent, and similar special senses, which is good against 80+% of the Monster Manual. Hearing the Air is essentially the "close your eyes and fight an unseen foe through hearing alone" thing that warriors do in movies, which is good against everything from invisible stalkers and pixies to darkmantles and demons. Knowledge Devotion lets you make a Knowledge check appropriate to a creature to get a scaling attack and damage bonus against them, which works against everything you've invested ranks in knowing about.

Some example ranger paths: Dragon Slayer (evasion, energy resistance, take down flyers), Giant Bane (punch through natural armor, improve reach, dodge projectiles), Night Stalker (see in the dark, move through terrain unimpeded, hide from special senses), Undead Hunter (track and reveal hidden and disguised creatures, hit insubstantial/incorporeal things and avoid grapples, resist status effects and mind-control), Wave Rider (hold your breath a long time and act normally underwater, resist extremes of temperature and pressure, navigate on and under water by observing currents), and stuff like that.

I don't know what the ranger's general-purpose class feature along the lines of CS or sorcerous bloodline would be, but I'm sure I could think of something given time.

3) Wasn't sudden strike basically a weaker sneak attack? Skirmish attack was okay-ish if I remember right. Though in 4E, hunter's quarry was considered a weak-ish feature for the ranger, their true potential for damage dealing was unlocked via Twin Strike and their ability to attack several times per round with static damage mods. I don't have a particular problem with those features but past implementations have been kinda weak for one reason or another (3.5 mostly had the problem of not working on non-living creatures). If they learn from those lessons and make them stronger though I'd be cool with it. I'm just not altogether certain we're not just playing a rogue by another name though.

I didn't say they were particularly good versions of precision damage (skirmish and quarry don't do enough damage, sudden strike is strictly weaker than sneak attack), the point was to show that your comment that precision damage = sneak attack doesn't hold. And even though they were weaker, they fulfilled different niches for different styles (skirmish made mobile builds work better, Knowledge Devotion worked with crit-fishers). They definitely give a different experience from the rogue even if at the end of the day you're just adding extra damage in certain situations.

[TheOOB]

I like the idea of instead of getting favored enemy bonuses(conditional die roll bonuses are kind of annoying as a central class mechanic) you got special combat techniques focused around taking down certain types of monsters. Think of an attack that removes a creatures fly speed, or stops regeneration, or a technique that allows you to resist or reflect energy drain. How badass would it be for a ranger to shatter a monsters energy resistances so the wizard could fry them, or turn a large creatures grapple bonus into a penalty?

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I like the idea of instead of getting favored enemy bonuses(conditional die roll bonuses are kind of annoying as a central class mechanic) you got special combat techniques focused around taking down certain types of monsters. Think of an attack that removes a creatures fly speed, or stops regeneration, or a technique that allows you to resist or reflect energy drain. How badass would it be for a ranger to shatter a monsters energy resistances so the wizard could fry them, or turn a large creatures grapple bonus into a penalty?

See? This guy gets it.

[willpell]

Where rangers prefer the outdoors and solitary, rogues are creatures of civilization.

Unearthed Arcana appears to disagree, offering the Wilderness Rogue and the Urban Ranger.

So that could be the ranger's niche again for 5e, possibly. They would be the ones who specialize in countering monster abilities: they can detect and track flying/invisible/disguised monsters, hide from darkvision and scent, surprise even ambusher monsters, identify monster weak points, and so forth. Mage slayer is to wizard as ranger is to monsters, essentially.

I full endorse this, since I always considered Favored Enemy to be the ranger's most defining feature.

[Kurald Galain]

I strongly approve of a ranger that is more effective against one particular creature type. After all, it is generally a given that clerics are more effective against undead, that's the same principle.

It's good for characters to have strong points and weak points; it makes the game more variable and less monotonous. I don't want every character to do the same sequence of things in almost every fight.

[noparlpf]

I like the idea of instead of getting favored enemy bonuses(conditional die roll bonuses are kind of annoying as a central class mechanic) you got special combat techniques focused around taking down certain types of monsters. Think of an attack that removes a creatures fly speed, or stops regeneration, or a technique that allows you to resist or reflect energy drain. How badass would it be for a ranger to shatter a monsters energy resistances so the wizard could fry them, or turn a large creatures grapple bonus into a penalty?

Great ideas, but only getting one niche ability per level is still kind of a drag. How often do you run into a flying enemy?

[Oracle_Hunter]

I strongly approve of a ranger that is more effective against one particular creature type. After all, it is generally a given that clerics are more effective against undead, that's the same principle.

There is a reason why the cleric has been more than a "strong vs. undead" class since 3e of course: it's annoying for the DM to cater adventure design to a particular suite of classes.

Now, I'm not saying that DMs shouldn't tweak the adventures to reflect the classes used by the party but it can be a bit constraining to include one design element in every single adventure merely to allow a Character to feel more than a weak Fighter. This is why Turn Substitutions were so popular in 3e -- it can be monotonous for every adventure to include Undead and when there are no Undead the Cleric feels like he's wasting a resource.

If you want to have the Ranger be a "Special Hunter" then you don't want to tie their whole shtick to a single Race or even a single anti-ability build: you'll want to give them a general "neutralize one special property" ability and permit builds which expand on that general idea without leaving the Ranger tied to only fighting, say, flying regenerating undead.

[noparlpf]

There is a reason why the cleric has been more than a "strong vs. undead" class since 3e of course: it's annoying for the DM to cater adventure design to a particular suite of classes.

Now, I'm not saying that DMs shouldn't tweak the adventures to reflect the classes used by the party but it can be a bit constraining to include one design element in every single adventure merely to allow a Character to feel more than a weak Fighter. This is why Turn Substitutions were so popular in 3e -- it can be monotonous for every adventure to include Undead and when there are no Undead the Cleric feels like he's wasting a resource.

If you want to have the Ranger be a "Special Hunter" then you don't want to tie their whole shtick to a single Race or even a single anti-ability build: you'll want to give them a general "neutralize one special property" ability and permit builds which expand on that general idea without leaving the Ranger tied to only fighting, say, flying regenerating undead.

Well, it does make sense from an in-game perspective to only go on adventures where you'd be useful. On the other hand, life does throw lots of curveballs, especially when you're saving the world or whatever.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Well, it does make sense from an in-game perspective to only go on adventures where you'd be useful. On the other hand, life does throw lots of curveballs, especially when you're saving the world or whatever.

Which is why it's important to remember this is a game, not a life-simulator

It also makes sense in-game that your adventurers may get laid up from food poisoning for a week but that rarely happens because it doesn't add anything fun to the game outside of a few narrow dramatic possibilities. Likewise it isn't fun being a 3e Rogue in a Undead-filled dungeon unless you happened to have the one feat from the one splatbook that permitted your class to function as normal versus this creature type.

This is not to say that every character should fight the same way versus every enemy, but characters should not have their permanent choices (e.g. Favored Enemy) nullified for hours of gameplay due to poor game design nor should DMs be locked into running particular games simply because someone wants to play a poorly-designed class. Better to have well-designed classes from the outset and that means not repeating the mistakes of the past!