D&D 5E The Future of the Ranger

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Also: "Before alternative features for the ranger (and possibly other classes) become official, you'll all get a chance to provide feedback."

No one else noticed the part of Crawford's tweet that I bolded?

What possible alternative features for other classes could he be hinting at there? Knowing how Crawford comments, I seriously doubt he threw that in there for no reason.

 

[pukunui]

Future-proofing?

 

[Li Shenron]

No one else noticed the part of Crawford's tweet that I bolded?

What possible alternative features for other classes could he be hinting at there? Knowing how Crawford comments, I seriously doubt he threw that in there for no reason.

I wouldn't read too much into that part... But if you do, at least we've already seen in UA some sample additional Fighting Styles, which technically aren't alternative features but rather additional options for an existing feature.

Beyond that kind of addition, I can imagine that any class feature that has lagged behind in appreciation from players feedback could be addressed, for example the Sorcerer's Font of Magic (but the problem of that AFAIK isn't in the mechanic but rather in the stinginess, which can't be fixed by anything short of a boost), or features that may too frequently be left unused (Thieves' Cant?).

 

[Eltab]

I can imagine that any class feature that has lagged behind in appreciation from players feedback could be addressed <snip> features that may too frequently be left unused (Thieves' Cant?).

I've found that Thieves Cant depends on the creativity of the players. If you WANT to send secret messages, you can (in narrative form, not RP'ing it out).
If you aren't sure how to use it, it does fall by the wayside.

 

[TwoSix]

No one else noticed the part of Crawford's tweet that I bolded?

What possible alternative features for other classes could he be hinting at there? Knowing how Crawford comments, I seriously doubt he threw that in there for no reason.

I was thinking that establishing new methodologies for adding variants to classes beyond subclasses is a pretty good idea. The ranger would make sense as a good test case for showcasing a new delivery system.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

A whole sequence of tweets on the subject can be found at: https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/10/11/is-ranger-happening-before-artificer-mystic/.

So it looks like they will focus on the ranger before the mystic and artificer, "when the new options in the UA ranger become official, using them with other official material will be seamless", "In the end, there will be 1 ranger: the PH ranger. It will get alternative features. The official game won't have 2 versions of a class", and "You'll be able to take feature X in place of feature Y. It won't be a whole different class."

 

[Moravave]

So what this this means is the new ranger won't be in the new Xanathar Guide. There will be ANOTHER crunch book coming out probably next spring that will add more sub classes...uh...I think?

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

So what this this means is the new ranger won't be in the new Xanathar Guide. There will be ANOTHER crunch book coming out probably next spring that will add more sub classes...uh...I think?

Crawford and Mearls have been saying for quite a while now that the final revised version of the ranger will not be in Xanathar's. They have also said that it will not be included in a new hardcover release because it is a part of Core and will be released in some format that is free. Note that new subclasses for ranger will still be included in future books because those are not part of Core. Also, there current pattern is a new book containing crunch every year in the Fall, so do not expect one in the Spring.

 

[iserith]

It drives me nuts, but none of my players seem bothered by it at all. The revised ranger was mostly an improvement, but it's still got some problems. I'm letting one of my players use it for our upcoming ToA game, but with a few minor modifications.

I just never had an issue with the PHB ranger. I've played a few of them, including the much maligned beast master, and they were all fun and memorable. They also do well in my games since I try to include solid exploration challenges in my adventure scenarios. The party's always happy to have a ranger along.

 

[DwynnsPlace]

A whole sequence of tweets on the subject can be found at: https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/10/11...ificer-mystic/.

So it looks like they will focus on the ranger before the mystic and artificer, "when the new options in the UA ranger become official, using them with other official material will be seamless", "In the end, there will be 1 ranger: the PH ranger. It will get alternative features. The official game won't have 2 versions of a class", and "You'll be able to take feature X in place of feature Y. It won't be a whole different class."

Sage is great for ideas and variants, Sage advice was a medium for gamers to ask questions from
TSR and WOTC and getting ideas generated back for players in Dragon magazines for ages.
The Mystic and Artificer where concepts discussed and presented in Dragon Magazines decades ago.
Along with Hedge Wizards, Herbalists sub-class, Librarian and tons more.

Alternative features are the possibility of exchanging Feats, proficiency and skills that might fit a players
choice in developing a Ranger from extreme regions or other-worldly environments, all makes sense if
the concept fits a world the player is planning on playing in and the DM of that world reviews, discusses
and maybe tweeks that character to better fit his campaign and or world.

An old adage was repeated for decades and I think it applies here:

"The rules are guidelines and are not set in stone".

The exception would be for AL and tournament play and submissions from creative authors making new
modules or new game material submissions to WOTC.

Just food for thought....PEACE