D&D 5E 70% standard and the Ranger options

[TheCosmicKid]

In terms of the Ranger, WotC surveys seem to indicate the mystical as a core element to folks in general:

"There are two, interesting elements that emerge from the survey. To start with, the 2nd and 3rd edition versions of the ranger were the most well received versions of the class. Those two versions mixed an animal companion with wilderness skills, spellcasting, and a unique fighting style focused on wielding two weapons. 3rd edition added an archery option. They seem to match closest with the ratings given to the design direction outlined in the ranger article. The concept of the wilderness champion and defender along the lines of a paladin isn’t very popular, but people do like a ranger who can survive in the wilderness through a combination of skill and magical abilities.

"Given that background, it’s no surprise that a ranger class that de-emphasizes magic and lacks a full-time, in-the-flesh animal companion received fairly poor ratings."

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/november-2015-survey

I hate to say it, but you pulled that quotation out of its original context in a way that's kind of misleading. It was written as a summary of and response to a poll about a specific proposed revision to the ranger, one which was a pretty major departure from the traditional class and did weird stuff like summon spirit animals.

 

[Parmandur]

I hate to say it, but you pulled that quotation out of its original context in a way that's kind of misleading. It was written as a summary of and response to a poll about a specific proposed revision to the ranger, one which was a pretty major departure from the traditional class and did weird stuff like summon spirit animals.

That is why I provided the original context, sure: however, the survey in question went very, very in depth as to what a Ranger should be. The "Rangers are magic" association is strong, and very D&D. Not going anywhere anytime soon. They have also specifically stated that the spelless Ranger won't make a return, as it is covered by the Scout.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Looking at characters like Minsc and Drizz't, and reading the fluff text for the class in the various editions' PHBs, I'm not willing to grant that this is true, but let's assume it for the sake of argument. We can then ask: Is this a healthy or productive approach? When new players come into the game wanting to be Aragorn or to adapt their WoW character or whatever, do we want them to find what they're looking for under "Ranger", or do we want to say to them, "Sorry, our ranger is something different than what you're thinking -- what you're looking for is a rogue subclass in this expansion Xanathar's Guide to Everything (on sale for only $49.95 wherever books are sold!)"?

Well, Aragorn definitely had some mystical tricks that they might have decided to use spells to replicate. WoW Hunters explicitly use nature magic in their magical abilities.
. . . So I think someone wanting to be Tolkien's Aragorn, or their bow-using WoW character may well find their best fit in the Ranger.
Other wilderness hunter or similar characters may well fit the Rogue better: particularly those that display sniper-type capabilities.

I believe you're broadly right in the sense that the damage has been done. The PHB has been published with a magical ranger, they can't erase that, and they'd cause a lot more problems if they tried.

However, I would never say never to archetypes that modify base class abilities more thoroughly than we've seen. 3E had substitution levels, Pathfinder has its alternate class feature system, 5E could start to play around with that concept too. We've already kind of seen it with the revised ranger's approach to Extra Attack and the Beastmaster, although they reframed it so it didn't look like that's what they were doing.

They've taken three different shots at making a wilderness warrior with no spells. In the end the one that they decided had the best support to publish was the scout.
They've said that if they release the revised ranger officially, they'll do it in a free document. That may now be your best hope for them to officially produce a spell-less ranger that still has magical abilities.

 

[jodyjohnson]

Jeremy elaborates more on the 70%+ target in a recent Sage Advice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vE28Saqcow

Around 25:20

There are probably subclasses in Xanathar's that do hit 90%+, and those that don't. And here's where my beef comes in: they could make more subclasses that hit 90%+ and leave out the ones that don't.

Regarding hitting 90%, based on the conversation none of the subclasses hit 90%. The closest was the forge domain cleric which was very close.

They speak about the ranger a bit, but it sounds like they haven't entirely focused on what to do yet.

 

[Parmandur]

Jeremy elaborates more on the 70%+ target in a recent Sage Advice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vE28Saqcow

Around 25:20

Care to elaborate?