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

[Cap'n Kobold]

So maybe the ranger should get artificer stuff instead of magic?

Artificer stuff is magic.
Batman's alter ego is just rich enough to afford to have a bunch of magic items made for him.

The Ranger in D&D is like the D&D druid: it has formed its own identity. Some aspects started from Tolkien's Aragorn who knew some mystical tricks, but it has moved on a fair way from there. The WotC policy seems to be that archetype abilities never remove base class abilities. Hence why they have made several "spell-less-ranger variants" including the Scout Rogue, but they aren't likely to produce a Ranger archetype that removes the base Ranger spellcasting.

 

[Parmandur]

No spells until 8th level in 1e was similar to the paladin. Same through 2e and 3e (where that level got progressively lower). They’ve always been in that same category of magically touched warriors. (I didn’t agree with 4e’s intentional departure from that tradition.) Spell casting at any point in a base class progression chart is saying it’s an essential part of the class for me. You never had the choice to not pick up spellcasting at the appropriate level. In Basic, 1st level clerics didn’t even cast spells. I recognize that 8th level and 2nd level are not the same thing, but I do think it expresses the same concept. Classes don’t always hand out all of the defining traits at 1st level.

And I’m assuming that the reason they have always traditionally been mystical is because Aragorn did weird stuff that seemed magical, and he was essentially the sole inspiration for the class.



What I remember was when they were discussing feedback results and saying if more than 5%-10% of people answered “Dissatisfied” or “Very Dissatisfied” on a game element they considered that an area they needed to work more on. I also recall them saying that they aimed to reach that 90%-95% approval rating (I don’t recall the exact number, but it was at least 90%). I’m sure there is room for interpretation to some degree, but I don’t remember it seeming unclear at the time.

The difference between the PHB material and XGtE, is that Xanathar's has no base classes: they are all esoteric options for subclasses, so a lower threshold for interest would make sense.

 

[Parmandur]

What exactly makes mysticism intrinsic to the ranger? Because it can't be the original ranger of Tolkien's fiction in all his non-mystical glory. It can't be all the other popular non-mystical wilderness warrior characters, often described as "rangers", in fantasy and adventure media. It can't be the distinctly non-mystical ranger characters in flagship D&D adaptations. It can't be the non-mystical-til-8th rangers of 1E or 2E, the non-mystical-til-4th rangers of 3E, or the non-mystical-period rangers of 4E. It can't even be the three non-mystical character blurbs 5E uses as introduction to the class. (Seriously, they wrote the rogue and fighter intros more magical than the ranger's. Check it out.)

There is nothing wrong with writing a ranger class that can actually encompass all the, y'know, rangers. Much healthier than insisting on an "intrinsic" definition that somehow encompasses almost none of them.


Source? My current hypothesis is that you are misremembering something they said, and hypothesis B is that WotC fudged the numbers. 90% is not a believable figure, here any more than in a third-world election result.

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

 

[Mercule]

So maybe the ranger should get artificer stuff instead of magic?

But, Batman doesn't carry a gun.

 

[BookBarbarian]

Magic exists in the DC Universe, but Batman doesn't cast spells.

I remember an episode of Batman:TAS where he casts a spell to stop Klarion, who had gained control of Etrigan. Well more technically he got a hold of a magical artifact and used it to reverse the spell. I think it did require an incantation though.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

The difference between the PHB material and XGtE, is that Xanathar's has no base classes: they are all esoteric options for subclasses, so a lower threshold for interest would make sense.

I agree that's probably their thought process, I just disagree that it's a good one. 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. In particular, there are still traditional things missing that need updated (sha'ir, eastern priest "1e OA shukenja/3e OA shaman" and sohei stand out, as well as wu jen if they don't stick with the psionic route). Also, elemental sorcerers for the other three elements would likely be very well received if they designed them well. We could come up with a few more. I don't like 4e, but I'll even support 4e materials in that category. I think they really need to give us official mechanical updates we need to support our existing settings before they start adding in random crap. Sure, some it is cool stuff and I'm probably going to use most of it (and they did update several traditional things, which is cool), but I think the surveys and feedback in the 5e design phase demonstrated that people want classic D&D first.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I agree that's probably their thought process, I just disagree that it's a good one. 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.

I'm . . pretty sure that they don't actually try to create subclasses or anything else with the design intent of having a lower approval rating.

There isn't really any way to "make a subclass that hits 90+% approval rating" as a deliberate choice. They're probably making the best ones that they can and then relying on polls to find out their approval rating after they've been made and put out there for people to judge.

In particular, there are still traditional things missing that need updated (sha'ir, eastern priest "1e OA shukenja/3e OA shaman" and sohei stand out, as well as wu jen if they don't stick with the psionic route). Also, elemental sorcerers for the other three elements would likely be very well received if they designed them well. We could come up with a few more.

. . . And would all these have guaranteed 90+% approval rating among the general responding population? A lot of the OA stuff for example may be more like the Samurai was: Since those concepts can be created using existing 5e rules, their mechanical implementation is going to matter more than their name is. What specific mechanics would make each of them hit 90+% approval rating?

I mean I have a pretty good idea of what I like. But on any given subject as tricky as those, I'd hesitate before speaking for more than maybe 20% of the general D&D population. Probably less in a lot of cases.

 

[Parmandur]

I agree that's probably their thought process, I just disagree that it's a good one. 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. In particular, there are still traditional things missing that need updated (sha'ir, eastern priest "1e OA shukenja/3e OA shaman" and sohei stand out, as well as wu jen if they don't stick with the psionic route). Also, elemental sorcerers for the other three elements would likely be very well received if they designed them well. We could come up with a few more. I don't like 4e, but I'll even support 4e materials in that category. I think they really need to give us official mechanical updates we need to support our existing settings before they start adding in random crap. Sure, some it is cool stuff and I'm probably going to use most of it (and they did update several traditional things, which is cool), but I think the surveys and feedback in the 5e design phase demonstrated that people want classic D&D first.

Just about everything that made it into Xanathar's is a reworking of something from older eds, and I see no reason to suppose those other examples would make it to 90%. Indeed, at 90% we might see zero new subclass options, the major iconic roles are covered by the PHB.

 

[ccs]

Living in a town that recently hosted a flat earther CONFERENCE yeah 90% acceptance not happening.

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

I hope your town capitalized on that & sold tickets/advertised to come see that many stupid people gathered together in one place.
Kind of like bird watching....

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Artificer stuff is magic.
Batman's alter ego is just rich enough to afford to have a bunch of magic items made for him.

Off-topic protip for magical GURPS campaigns: buying artifacts with wealth is exponentially more point-efficient than building your character as an actual mage.

The Ranger in D&D is like the D&D druid: it has formed its own identity.

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!)"?

The WotC policy seems to be that archetype abilities never remove base class abilities. Hence why they have made several "spell-less-ranger variants" including the Scout Rogue, but they aren't likely to produce a Ranger archetype that removes the base Ranger spellcasting.

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.