Let's accept the ranger is a class and not a fighter sub-class.
Fighting, tracking, wilderness (yeah yeah) and somehow different from a dual-classed Fighter/Druid.
Let's also accept that the literary and historical precedent is sleight (as it is for the Cleric), but we still want it to do things it has done in previous editions.
With that (and I see no reason to discuss it without these assumptions in place) where is the latest playtest pack failing?
1. As discussed, tying fighting styles to favoured enemy is weak. There's no logical correlation between the two. I think this is an important realization because it gives freedom to the players. Currently, the choices offer abilities at levels 2, 7, 11, and 15. It should be the case that a character can choose any of the level 7 options, any of the level 11 options, any of the level 15 options and still be balanced (cf. the elemental choices of the monk; clearly that's the way to go, IMO).
2. Are fighting styles even needed? Feats allow easy specialization with weapons and both TWF and archery are supported. Does a ranger archer need to be qualitatively different than a fighter archer? Obviously not -- it can do, but it's really just tricks and these could be represented by a weapon feat (thereby allowing Thrown weapons and other specialties as well).
3. What does this mean for favoured enemies? Right now, the only race-specific benefit of favoured enemies comes (currently) at level 2 (Horde Lore or Dragon Lore). There's no reason not to just let this be a choice -- again, like the elemental choices made by Monks, where previous choices do not limit subsequent ones. Simply letting the ranger choose one of 3-4 possibilities here should be sufficient to preserve the "heritage" and help individuate characters.
4. Tracking (and Natural Explorer at level 5) can reasonably be seen as defining Ranger abilities. They do however blur with Feats and Backgrounds (indeed, Natural Explorer seems to replace the benefit to be gained from the Guide Background), and I would like the Guide background to be able to grant something that is not available to the fifth-level Ranger.
5. Spells have long been a divisive issue for the class (since AD&D). Clearly at least one path chosen by Rangers should have some spells available. If the subclass-choice at level 3 (with most classes) maps on to this (and that's when Ranger currently get spell casting), then allowing players to choose between spells or (let's say) an animal companion (and...? see point 8) at this point should satisfy most players. It's not the case that EVERY Ranger has to have spells, but the choice should be available to every Ranger if the heritage of the class is going to be respected. this still allows players to opt-out (and into other reasonable and potentially fun options that are currently unsupported).
6. Let's not kid ourselves, though. The Ranger is a DEX-based fighter. You can have a DEX-based fighter that's a Fighter, and that's awesome, but the default-ranger is going to be using Finesse, Ranged, and Light weapons more often because that reduces attribute dependence and will maximize other class benefits. This being the case, limiting benefits to this sort of weapon (either in the form of limited proficiencies or whatever) is not really a penally to the class.
7. "But dual-wielding finesse weapons is badass". The game doesn't need to support Drow scimitar rangers and (as has been pointed out) it can do so through Drow abilities rather than Ranger ones. I personally do not find this a compelling argument. It can choose to do so easily, though, by allowing ANY character (or even if you must ANY Ranger) to dual-wield two medium weapons (or two medium finesse weapons) as long as the damage for the second weapon caps at 1d6. That avoids the players wanting to twink out and still allows those insisting on "concept" to have what they need. Will that satisfy people? Of course not, is my guess -- because the twink factor remains. Concept is separate from the mechanics, and one can support the former without needing to alter the latter.
8. There does seem to me to be one archetype for the Ranger (well established in the game if also under-represented in the fiction) that does seem undersupported at present, and I suggest that it could reasonably represent a third subclass. That's the Horizon Walker -- here' I'm thinking of the 3.5 prestige class. The one that goes from certain terrain specialities and by the upper levels is able to gain knowledge of planes and can even travel. I'll admit, I have always loved this idea, and if playing a ranger, I would give up spellcasting or an animal buddy to have it. It's got a history in the game, and fits the Ranger rubric. One terrain specialty should be "urban".
Where does this leave me? I would like the Ranger in DDN to
a. offer all rangers a choice of enemy types with which the character has some affinity (not necessarily as its hunter, mind -- the point about genocide is well taken, and there are cool stories that emerge from other options);
b. offer all rangers a choice of subclasses (at third level probably, like most other classes) between a spell-user, a beast master, and a horizon walker -- Three distinct archetypes, each filling a unique niche;
c. if dual-saber-wielding must be supported (and I don't think it must), then it be through a mechanical option that is also available to DEX-based fighters (and so ideally through a feat);
d. that the wilderness-related background choices (currently only Guide) offer something that will always enhance a Ranger, and not be eclipsed by subsequent Ranger abilities.
Is this too much to ask?
Fighting, tracking, wilderness (yeah yeah) and somehow different from a dual-classed Fighter/Druid.
Let's also accept that the literary and historical precedent is sleight (as it is for the Cleric), but we still want it to do things it has done in previous editions.
With that (and I see no reason to discuss it without these assumptions in place) where is the latest playtest pack failing?
1. As discussed, tying fighting styles to favoured enemy is weak. There's no logical correlation between the two. I think this is an important realization because it gives freedom to the players. Currently, the choices offer abilities at levels 2, 7, 11, and 15. It should be the case that a character can choose any of the level 7 options, any of the level 11 options, any of the level 15 options and still be balanced (cf. the elemental choices of the monk; clearly that's the way to go, IMO).
2. Are fighting styles even needed? Feats allow easy specialization with weapons and both TWF and archery are supported. Does a ranger archer need to be qualitatively different than a fighter archer? Obviously not -- it can do, but it's really just tricks and these could be represented by a weapon feat (thereby allowing Thrown weapons and other specialties as well).
3. What does this mean for favoured enemies? Right now, the only race-specific benefit of favoured enemies comes (currently) at level 2 (Horde Lore or Dragon Lore). There's no reason not to just let this be a choice -- again, like the elemental choices made by Monks, where previous choices do not limit subsequent ones. Simply letting the ranger choose one of 3-4 possibilities here should be sufficient to preserve the "heritage" and help individuate characters.
4. Tracking (and Natural Explorer at level 5) can reasonably be seen as defining Ranger abilities. They do however blur with Feats and Backgrounds (indeed, Natural Explorer seems to replace the benefit to be gained from the Guide Background), and I would like the Guide background to be able to grant something that is not available to the fifth-level Ranger.
5. Spells have long been a divisive issue for the class (since AD&D). Clearly at least one path chosen by Rangers should have some spells available. If the subclass-choice at level 3 (with most classes) maps on to this (and that's when Ranger currently get spell casting), then allowing players to choose between spells or (let's say) an animal companion (and...? see point 8) at this point should satisfy most players. It's not the case that EVERY Ranger has to have spells, but the choice should be available to every Ranger if the heritage of the class is going to be respected. this still allows players to opt-out (and into other reasonable and potentially fun options that are currently unsupported).
6. Let's not kid ourselves, though. The Ranger is a DEX-based fighter. You can have a DEX-based fighter that's a Fighter, and that's awesome, but the default-ranger is going to be using Finesse, Ranged, and Light weapons more often because that reduces attribute dependence and will maximize other class benefits. This being the case, limiting benefits to this sort of weapon (either in the form of limited proficiencies or whatever) is not really a penally to the class.
7. "But dual-wielding finesse weapons is badass". The game doesn't need to support Drow scimitar rangers and (as has been pointed out) it can do so through Drow abilities rather than Ranger ones. I personally do not find this a compelling argument. It can choose to do so easily, though, by allowing ANY character (or even if you must ANY Ranger) to dual-wield two medium weapons (or two medium finesse weapons) as long as the damage for the second weapon caps at 1d6. That avoids the players wanting to twink out and still allows those insisting on "concept" to have what they need. Will that satisfy people? Of course not, is my guess -- because the twink factor remains. Concept is separate from the mechanics, and one can support the former without needing to alter the latter.
8. There does seem to me to be one archetype for the Ranger (well established in the game if also under-represented in the fiction) that does seem undersupported at present, and I suggest that it could reasonably represent a third subclass. That's the Horizon Walker -- here' I'm thinking of the 3.5 prestige class. The one that goes from certain terrain specialities and by the upper levels is able to gain knowledge of planes and can even travel. I'll admit, I have always loved this idea, and if playing a ranger, I would give up spellcasting or an animal buddy to have it. It's got a history in the game, and fits the Ranger rubric. One terrain specialty should be "urban".
Where does this leave me? I would like the Ranger in DDN to
a. offer all rangers a choice of enemy types with which the character has some affinity (not necessarily as its hunter, mind -- the point about genocide is well taken, and there are cool stories that emerge from other options);
b. offer all rangers a choice of subclasses (at third level probably, like most other classes) between a spell-user, a beast master, and a horizon walker -- Three distinct archetypes, each filling a unique niche;
c. if dual-saber-wielding must be supported (and I don't think it must), then it be through a mechanical option that is also available to DEX-based fighters (and so ideally through a feat);
d. that the wilderness-related background choices (currently only Guide) offer something that will always enhance a Ranger, and not be eclipsed by subsequent Ranger abilities.
Is this too much to ask?
