D&D General What is the Ranger to you?

[Garthanos]

Too many suggested ideas forget that ruining the surprise isn't a good thing.

Don't give the Ranger abilities to auto-detect terrain, hazards or creatures. At the very most, make it (high level) spells.

An ability that allows Rangers to short-circuit scenarios and mysteries already at level 1 makes me want to have the designer mentally examined. What the ...?!

Just the Alertness feat when they upped the anti on it to preventing surprise made me shake my head...



Mod Edit: Please don't quote when people skirt the profanity rules. Thanks. ~Umbran

 

[CapnZapp]

Just the Alertness feat when they upped the anti on it to preventing surprise made me shake my head...

Yes. "You can never be surprised" is a piss-poor ability that never should have entered the game, since it short-circuits stories.

I wonder how long it will take before MMearls admits this. At least they seem to realize "You can't get lost" and "You can't be tracked" means no wilderness challenge.

 

[Garthanos]

Yes. "You can never be surprised" is a piss-poor ability that never should have entered the game, since it short-circuits stories.

I wonder how long it will take before MMearls admits this. At least they seem to realize "You can't get lost" and "You can't be tracked" means no wilderness challenge.

I am not sure but even as tightly controlled as rituals were in 4e I am picturing horrible things with high level rituals being for the most part free besides casting time.

In other words are there other things doing the same goodbye story?

 

[Tony Vargas]

I am not sure but even as tightly controlled as rituals were in 4e I am picturing horrible things with high level rituals being for the most part free besides casting time.
In other words are there other things doing the same goodbye story?

4e Rituals were little more than class (or feat) exclusive magic items.

D&D magic, in general, is too safe & repeatable - whether you're freaking over firebolt conveying the inestimable power of a zippo lighter; or trying to figure how any kind of medieval military or economic practices are supposed to survive.

But, I think, it comes down to scope. Much of D&D happens in the limited scope of the dungeon. Macroeconomics and castle architecture just don't come into it. Likewise, if they typical game spends little time in the wilderness - just getting from one adventure to the next, for instance - then letting the Ranger or the guy with the right feat have an absolute like not being surprised or automatically following tracks or whatever, is just fine. The impact is small, even if, in a campaign of different scope, it could be wildly imbalancing.

 

[Garthanos]

But, I think, it comes down to scope. Much of D&D happens in the limited scope of the dungeon.

And context right here is a character for whom wilderness adventure is possibly the scope a player is interested in. The change I am working on for Martial Practices brought the skill roll back in (you still get your auto success but whether it costs has that rattle rattle and skill matters going on once more)

 

[Garthanos]

4e Rituals were little more than class (or feat) exclusive magic items.

Thought I would mention way way back in Gygax theory land a spell was intended vaguely by Gygaxian thinking to have the same value as a magic item ... the idea was the Warrior would get and use more items and the Wizard his spells.

So rituals being approximately the same as a magic item... shrug sounds like they pegged it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Thought I would mention way way back in Gygax theory land a spell was intended vaguely by Gygaxian thinking to have the same value as a magic item ... the idea was the Warrior would get and use more items and the Wizard his spells.

So rituals being approximately the same as a magic item... shrug sounds like they pegged it.

Before wizards started learning new spells every level, finding magic items - scrolls - and choosing to expend them by copying the spell into your book was how they acquired spells. So, yeah, very much like magic items. Just items that were expendable becoming perpetually renewing on a daily scale.

 

[Ratskinner]

Rangers are a lost class, IMO. Historically, they are such a hodge-podge of implementations and ideas that they always seem a bit off to somebody. And much like bards, it makes it hard to a Ranger to mechanically stand out.

We have them " 'cause tradition", but really the modern concept: "Woodsyguy Notadruid" isn't enough to warrant a class, IMO. If it were my call, both Rangers and Paladins would be Fighter subclasses at best (and I'm not even sure Ranger rises to more than a Background, TBH.)

 

[CapnZapp]

4e Rituals were little more than class (or feat) exclusive magic items.

D&D magic, in general, is too safe & repeatable - whether you're freaking over firebolt conveying the inestimable power of a zippo lighter; or trying to figure how any kind of medieval military or economic practices are supposed to survive.

But, I think, it comes down to scope. Much of D&D happens in the limited scope of the dungeon. Macroeconomics and castle architecture just don't come into it. Likewise, if they typical game spends little time in the wilderness - just getting from one adventure to the next, for instance - then letting the Ranger or the guy with the right feat have an absolute like not being surprised or automatically following tracks or whatever, is just fine. The impact is small, even if, in a campaign of different scope, it could be wildly imbalancing.

Yes, the proposed Ranger abilities come across as written by someone with zero clue.

I mean, when you can give an ability a casual glance and *immediately* say "that will ruin the game" something is off - professional devs are supposed to familiarize themselves with the various ways their product is played...

 

[CapnZapp]

Rangers are a lost class, IMO. Historically, they are such a hodge-podge of implementations and ideas that they always seem a bit off to somebody. And much like bards, it makes it hard to a Ranger to mechanically stand out.

We have them " 'cause tradition", but really the modern concept: "Woodsyguy Notadruid" isn't enough to warrant a class, IMO. If it were my call, both Rangers and Paladins would be Fighter subclasses at best (and I'm not even sure Ranger rises to more than a Background, TBH.)

Again, that shows just how clever the WoW Hunter class was