Ranger: Scout Preview up!

[AbdulAlhazred]

Overall it seems like a decent class. It WOULD be nice to have a version that isn't fixated on 2 weapon type fighting, but the 4e Ranger really isn't much more flexible either (either of them in theory CAN wield a single large weapon, and in both cases it is a bad choice). Admittedly the 4e Ranger is LESS suboptimal with a 2h weapon.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Generally I quite like the look of it, I assume that most of the overtly primal activity will be via utility powers, which would be cool.

My favourite style of ranger for flavour is the quarterstaff ranger, which is going to be that bit more difficult to do with this scout I'm interested in seeing how else it will develop though.

Although I'm not interested in the races of the new book, I am so pleased with everything I'm seeing in the classes that I'll end up getting it just for them.

Cheers

 

[Plane Sailing]

It's backward.

Primal? Sounds like an attempt to reintroduce magic.

Well, magic was in the OD&D ranger, the 1e ranger, the 2e ranger and the 3e ranger, so it isn't as if there isn't a bit of magical history in the D&D ranger class!

Cheers

 

[The Human Target]

I just don't get it.

How is power strike more fun than encounter powers or dailies?

How is less flavor and more shared class features more fun?

How are stances simpler than at wills for new players?

 

[Jack99]

They are, but Power Strike doesn't let you make a melee basic attack, it lets you add damage on the top of a successful attack, so I'm not really sure if that restriction applies in this case.

It does.

 

[RangerWickett]

I just don't get it.

How is power strike more fun than encounter powers or dailies?

How is less flavor and more shared class features more fun?

How are stances simpler than at wills for new players?

To me, at-will powers feel very "game"-y. When you tide of iron, it's hard not to envision ramming a guy with a shield. The attack always looks the same, and so you don't feel like a real person, but rather like Ryu, repeatedly shooting a fireball or making a dragon punch.

Basic attacks, though, are so flavor-light that they can be described all sorts of ways. It gives the player more leeway to envision what his character is doing. A stance then becomes something you add in to your description, instead of defining the description in its entirety.

So it's not that stances are simpler than at-wills. It's that they give the feel of playing a person, rather than a collection of powers. At least, that's how it feels to me.

 

[MrMyth]

How is power strike more fun than encounter powers or dailies?

I don't think its goal was to be more fun - it was to be easier to use for newer players.

I've seen players who, with epic level characters, still rarely use Encounter powers - simply because they revert to At-Will or basics as their default attack. And by the time they've rolled the dice, it is usually too late to ask them if they had wanted to use a stronger power.

With Power Strike, however, that isn't the case. They hit, you can prompt them to use Power Strike, and bam! The enemy takes more damage.

Much more limited than encounter and daily powers, yes. More useful for some players - especially those who outright want to just play a guy that stabs the opponent a bunch? Yeah, absolutely.

How is less flavor and more shared class features more fun?

I'm not seeing less flavor anywhere.

As for more class features, I think it gives a greater sense of the build growing as you level, rather than just having specific powers ramp up or get replaced by bigger attacks. Even if functionally it all comes out the same, I can see more flavor in looking forward to "Advanced Fighting Style" at level 9 instead of just "Another Daily Power".

How are stances simpler than at wills for new players?

Once a player decides they are in a stance, it is basically just 'on'. For whatever reason, that can be a lot easier to internalize than the concept that you have a basic attack (which is your default attack), as well as At-Will Powers - which are also default attacks that do more stuff but are more limited in use.

Basically, if you are always making Basic Attacks, and simply happen to have it modified in different ways based on your current stance, that can feel more natural for some people than having an array of different options that you need to choose between.

I don't think it will be a big difference for everyone. But I absolutely know players who would find the Essentials approach more intuitive.

 

[JohnSnow]

To me, at-will powers feel very "game"-y. When you tide of iron, it's hard not to envision ramming a guy with a shield. The attack always looks the same, and so you don't feel like a real person, but rather like Ryu, repeatedly shooting a fireball or making a dragon punch.

Basic attacks, though, are so flavor-light that they can be described all sorts of ways. It gives the player more leeway to envision what his character is doing. A stance then becomes something you add in to your description, instead of defining the description in its entirety.

So it's not that stances are simpler than at-wills. It's that they give the feel of playing a person, rather than a collection of powers. At least, that's how it feels to me.

As usual, I totally agree with you.

Mearls explained the design change as being partly to "make it so that player choice more closely mirrors character choice." And as an old-school D&D player myself, I appreciate the "build your own attack" feel that I get from the Essentials martial (and martial-hybrid) classes.

I played an Essentials rogue in a D&D Encounters game a few weeks back. With Essentials, I feel like I'm stacking a basic decision (stance or trick) with the right circumstances, specialized training (feats), and a choice in order to make a really cool attack happen. And to me, that feels right.

And for those who want a non-dual wielding ranger, I suggest the Hunter.

 

[Nikosandros]

It does.

Assuming you are right, do you think that this was dome on purpose or is it an oversight?

 

[Stalker0]

I don't think its goal was to be more fun - it was to be easier to use for newer players.


Once a player decides they are in a stance, it is basically just 'on'. For whatever reason, that can be a lot easier to internalize than the concept that you have a basic attack (which is your default attack), as well as At-Will Powers - which are also default attacks that do more stuff but are more limited in use.

Basically, if you are always making Basic Attacks, and simply happen to have it modified in different ways based on your current stance, that can feel more natural for some people than having an array of different options that you need to choose between.

This is a good explanation.

If I want to make a charge guy and just have charges and not power about powers, I can take the stance of the ram, basically write down

+2 dmg while charging
No OA from charging
Knock down foes on a charge

and call it a day. I can never think about a power selection for that, and just use it as much as a I want.

Then once a player gets more comfortable with their choices they can branch out, switch up their stance a little, etc. But if they want to stick with simple, they have that option.