Revised Ranger update

[Sacrosanct]

There's always going to be a "last place". One class is always going to end up being the least popular or seen as the least powerful.
If they "fix" the ranger, then someone else just takes its place.

Plus, it was really an issue in 2015 when the older players and grognards were a larger percentage of the audience. The optimizers who looked and the ranger and found it unappealing. Now, a couple years and several million new players later, that segment of the audience is a much smaller minority. And the percentage of the audience that is happy with the ranger and is playing it as-is has increased.

Maybe I’m reading this wrong, but it seems to infer that older players and grognards are the biggest optimizers, and the biggest complainers of the ranger when it came out. I like to see your evidence of that, because it seems completely wrong to me.

In fact, if I had to pick one, I’d say optimizers really came into play in 3e because the system was designed to cater to that playstyle. That’s the first edition when there was a focus on builds and was the first edition that brought a lot more customization to the classes, and was almost assumed every PC would be multiclassed with things like prestige classes.

Needless to say, I also disagree with your later assertion that new players like story more than older players. I’d like to see some evidence for that as well. IME, the number of players who liked story, mechanics, or other aspects have been pretty much the same throughout the years.

 

[Horwath]

I got the new Ranger I wanted. It’s just a Rogue archetype now.

3 Levels of rogue-scout, then fighter-battlemaster from there. The perfect "ranger".

 

[UngeheuerLich]

If you want to fix the ranger, make hunter's mark apply to favoured enemies automatically.
I think this is a nice and balanced way of improving the ranger. That frees up a spell slot against favoured enemies and gives a substantial benefit.

 

[Horwath]

If you want to fix the ranger, make hunter's mark apply to favoured enemies automatically.
I think this is a nice and balanced way of improving the ranger. That frees up a spell slot against favoured enemies and gives a substantial benefit.

That is even worse.

Favored enemy/terrain is already heavy in DM's charity box. That is, DM has to put encounters especially for you, so you can use your class features.

Best solution would be either remove favorite enemy/terrain or work it to be more "global" effect.

3rd level rogue(scout) feature is perfect for global favorite terrain feature for ranger.


Favorite enemy could give global training depending on some signature attack/defense of the favorite enemy.

I.E. favotite enemy: Dragons, could give advantage vs. AoE attacks and advantage vs. fear.

Undead: advantage vs. life/energy drain. Resistance vs. necrotic damage.

etc...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

That is even worse.

Favored enemy/terrain is already heavy in DM's charity box. That is, DM has to put encounters especially for you, so you can use your class features.

Best solution would be either remove favorite enemy/terrain or work it to be more "global" effect.

3rd level rogue(scout) feature is perfect for global favorite terrain feature for ranger.


Favorite enemy could give global training depending on some signature attack/defense of the favorite enemy.

I.E. favotite enemy: Dragons, could give advantage vs. AoE attacks and advantage vs. fear.

Undead: advantage vs. life/energy drain. Resistance vs. necrotic damage.

etc...

What you suggest was actually one of my favourite things in the ranger playtest. Favoured enemy was the ranger path. Those abilities were decoupled from favoured enemy and evolved into the hunter where you chose the benefits one by one. And that was a bad idea in hindsight.

My "fix" should only adress the fact that people regard hunters mark as a must and think favoured enemy does give no benefit at all damage wise at least.
My solution makes combat against favoured enemies easier since it frees up your concentration and a bonus action. But it does not stack with hunter's mark and thus this "fix" more or less power neutral. (You could require concentration to make it really power neutral besides the saved slot).

The second fix is to allow downtime to learn new terrain and favoured enemies within a few days. Maybe have only the allowed numbers active at a time and require the ranger to get accustomed to other terrains within a few days.

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

(Whispers) I really like the Ranger as it is. Beastmaster, too.

 

[Ancalagon]

I can't claim much "ranger experience" ...

BUT:

1: In my 5e game, we don't have a ranger. But we do have a paladin (order of the ancient) with the "outlander" background, and although he can't scout worth a damn, it's almost as good as having a ranger on board.

2: I played one for a single level in a pbp game that went nowhere. Despite him being built "wrong" (gnome shield and board melee fighter), Darwinimar held his own and was fun to play. This was a "toned down revised ranger" incidentally.


I think the ranger is doing OK, and that the "best" one is the revised version toned down. BUT on the other hand, because of the outlander background, a pseudo-ranger is very easy to build.

 

[Jester David]

Maybe I’m reading this wrong, but it seems to infer that older players and grognards are the biggest optimizers, and the biggest complainers of the ranger when it came out. I like to see your evidence of that, because it seems completely wrong to me.

In fact, if I had to pick one, I’d say optimizers really came into play in 3e because the system was designed to cater to that playstyle. That’s the first edition when there was a focus on builds and was the first edition that brought a lot more customization to the classes, and was almost assumed every PC would be multiclassed with things like prestige classes.

Brace yourself here: fans of 3e and 4e are “grognards” now. They are older players.

Needless to say, I also disagree with your later assertion that new players like story more than older players. I’d like to see some evidence for that as well. IME, the number of players who liked story, mechanics, or other aspects have been pretty much the same throughout the years.

Streaming has brought in staggering numbers of new players and raised new awareness of the game. And one major element of streaming games is a focus on story and roleplaying. Many have the players speaking in-character for most of the session.

I’m sure loads also love the mechanics and crunch too, but the ratios are likely different.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Brace yourself here: fans of 3e and 4e are “grognards” now. They are older players.

4e was 10 years ago. Someone who might have started at 15 and is now 25 is not an older player. Christ, my kid is older than that. Or grognard. Neither is someone who is 30 and was a teen when 3e came out. By no reasonable measurement in our society is a person considered "older" in an activity when they are in their 30s, when there are people in their 60s doing the same activity. It's like calling Britney Spears oldies music.

Streaming has brought in staggering numbers of new players and raised new awareness of the game. And one major element of streaming games is a focus on story and roleplaying. Many have the players speaking in-character for most of the session.

I’m sure loads also love the mechanics and crunch too, but the ratios are likely different.

There was no streaming in the 80s when D&D "brought in staggering numbers of new players and raised awareness of the game". So....your logic seems to be faulty. Besides, it sort of defeats the purpose of what a role playing game was, from the beginning. For players to recreate and/or tell their own fantastical fantasy stories. There might not have been streaming, but there was a D&D cartoon, and D&D choose your own adventures books (both of which were all about stories, literally, and not mechanics). Not to mention all the other fantasy movies and literature that had already been our there. Heck, the 80s was full of fantasy movies coming out left and right, and not just big named ones like Conan, Excalibur, or Ladyhawke, or even party based adventures like Goonies, but with campy S&S movies like Hawk the Slayer, Sword and the Sorcerer, Krull, Deathstalker I-IV, Barbarians, etc, etc.

So no, I don't find streaming to be a compelling proof that more players like stories now than before.

 

[Jester David]

4e was 10 years ago. Someone who might have started at 15 and is now 25 is not an older player. Christ, my kid is older than that. Or grognard. Neither is someone who is 30 and was a teen when 3e came out. By no reasonable measurement in our society is a person considered "older" in an activity when they are in their 30s, when there are people in their 60s doing the same activity. It's like calling Britney Spears oldies music.

Are the people who got started in 3e and 4e more advanced in years than the average new player now? Congrats, they are literally older than the current new generation. Not "old". Older.
If someone was 15 when 3e came out, they're 33 now. To fifteen-year-old them, that would be ancient.

And, again, brace yourself. The "oldies" stations I grew up played songs from the '60s and '70s. Twenty years earlier. Stations playing Britney now are playing songs from... twenty years ago. She is *technically* oldies, except "Oldies" has come to mean music from a particular era, and less the age of the music. So modern "oldies" stations are the ones advertising "the best of the '80s and '90s".
No station playing "modern pop" is going to touch her except in an ironic way.


But if it makes you feel better, replace "older" with "established".

There was no streaming in the 80s when D&D "brought in staggering numbers of new players and raised awareness of the game". So....your logic seems to be faulty.

How?
The same event can have different causes.

Streaming has helped cause the resurgence of the last couple years, and word-of-mouth caused it in the '80s. Different causes, same result.

Besides, it sort of defeats the purpose of what a role playing game was, from the beginning. For players to recreate and/or tell their own fantastical fantasy stories. There might not have been streaming, but there was a D&D cartoon, and D&D choose your own adventures books (both of which were all about stories, literally, and not mechanics). Not to mention all the other fantasy movies and literature that had already been our there. Heck, the 80s was full of fantasy movies coming out left and right, and not just big named ones like Conan, Excalibur, or Ladyhawke, or even party based adventures like Goonies, but with campy S&S movies like Hawk the Slayer, Sword and the Sorcerer, Krull, Deathstalker I-IV, Barbarians, etc, etc.

Most of your examples were around before 3e when D&D went extra-crunchy.

I'll totally buy the argument that D&D was more about the story and roleplaying in the '80s as well. But since then D&D went hard into the rules and "balance" became a primary concern in a way that it simply wasn't in 1e and 2e. And now it's shifted back to being a secondary concern.

So no, I don't find streaming to be a compelling proof that more players like stories now than before.

I'd argue they like them better than the prior two generations of gamers.