D&D 5E Class power and Subclass design space: a discussion

[Ruin Explorer]

Well not everything has to bee Combat related.

Uh-huh.

Except, this is D&D, 5th edition. It is a game that is balanced and designed around combat, very heavily. No other class has weaker combat abilities because it has stronger non-combat abilities, not to a meaningful degree. Wizards are incredibly strong outside combat. They're also incredibly strong inside combat. Rogues are solid in both. Fighters are weak outside combat, but strong in combat. Bards are strong in both (most Bards). I could go on.

No other class in 5E looks like it was nerfed in combat because of non-combat abilities. The CFV abilities you call lazy is in fact extremely sensible and flavourful. In most cases the replacement features are more engaging. More importantly, they work. In most cases, even if they were additional features, not variants, they wouldn't make the Ranger particularly OTT (just overcomplicated). Also, I dunno if you've ever tried, but in my experience, it's pretty easy to hammer in a nail with a wrench. In fact, it's a lot easier to hammer in a nail with your average wrench than entirely the wrong kind of hammer.

Re: subclass-focused, that's one way to look at it, but I think it's an artifact rather than a cause. I think the cause is overvaluing dubious non-combat abilities, and making them not part of subclasses, but part of the class.

I agree that they kind of look like they were designed by someone who didn't love the class, but I'd say the same of Clerics and Sorcerers, and Clerics are absolutely fine, balance-wise.

 

[NotAYakk]

CFV gets a whole pile of "free" spells known and per day. Those are all exploration spells.

The free HM is another exploration feature, if not as good as the one they replaced.

 

[Minigiant]

Uh-huh.

Except, this is D&D, 5th edition. It is a game that is balanced and designed around combat, very heavily. No other class has weaker combat abilities because it has stronger non-combat abilities, not to a meaningful degree. Wizards are incredibly strong outside combat. They're also incredibly strong inside combat. Rogues are solid in both. Fighters are weak outside combat, but strong in combat. Bards are strong in both (most Bards). I could go on.

No other class in 5E looks like it was nerfed in combat because of non-combat abilities. The CFV abilities you call lazy is in fact extremely sensible and flavourful. In most cases the replacement features are more engaging. More importantly, they work. In most cases, even if they were additional features, not variants, they wouldn't make the Ranger particularly OTT (just overcomplicated). Also, I dunno if you've ever tried, but in my experience, it's pretty easy to hammer in a nail with a wrench. In fact, it's a lot easier to hammer in a nail with your average wrench than entirely the wrong kind of hammer.

I'm not saying that combat abilities needed to be removed. I'm saying that the solution is not to replace all the flavorful but niche noncombat abilities with MOAR DAMaGE! like the Revised and CFV rangers did. That is lazy. The ranger could have been more like the rogue or ranger where the combat power was handled within class and not shunted to the suclass or the noncombat power was made more general or have extra applications.

I'm not anti combat. Ranger's getting only 2 combat class features (Fighting Style, Extra Attack) in the first 5 levels is a misstep. Ranger's not getting a 3rd class feature at level 2 and zero of them at level 1 is the big problem. The class should have mirrored Paladin at least.

Re: subclass-focused, that's one way to look at it, but I think it's an artifact rather than a cause. I think the cause is overvaluing dubious non-combat abilities, and making them not part of subclasses, but part of the class.

That's more or less what I've said. Favored enemies (and Favored Terrain) is an iconic ranger class feature. However the designers didn't get that they are niche.

Back in the days on the old WOTC forums during the playtests, I had a ranger writeup for a speculation of how the ranger should look. It had a list of features that look suspiciously like the Hunter ranger's subclass features. However they were core class features. You'd get you bonus to large creatures, small creatures, minions, or solo monsters at level 1 along with FE and FT.

Hunter's Prey should have been a level 1 core class feature. The Hunter subclass should have just upgraded it. That's how it works on my table.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'm not saying that combat abilities needed to be removed. I'm saying that the solution is not to replace all the flavorful but niche noncombat abilities with MOAR DAMaGE! like the Revised and CFV rangers did. That is lazy.

I mean, that's literally not true. That's not even arguably true. The CFV Ranger is here:

https://media.wizards.com/2019/dnd/downloads/UA-ClassFeatures.pdf

What the heck do you mean by "MOAR DAMAGE"? There's literally one ability there which does damage, replacing a widely-disliked Ranger ability. The rest are all non-damage abilities which are simply useful in and out of combat (or in one case, only out of combat, but a lot more practical than what it replaces).

I mean, by all means criticise, but criticise what's actually there, not what you misremember or imagine to be there. I haven't looked at Revised lately. Maybe that is all "MOAR DAMAGE". But the CFV isn't.

FE and FT should have been subclass abilities, for some specific "trad ranger" subclass, frankly. I get that you like them, but they're a big part of what causes people who like Rangers to have very different opinions on what Rangers should have. Nobody coming in to D&D from fantasy fiction or computer games, or even films etc. expects those abilities, nor likes them. Many experienced D&D players dislike the idea of being tied to specific enemies and specific terrain. They're a good example of things which should go into a subclass, as a result, just like some people absolutely love shapeshifting-centric Druids, but it doesn't mean all Druids should be that (hence Moon Druids and their balance issues, because of the lack of design space).

 

[Thurmas]

I think the only thing unbalancing about the Moon Druid isn't the more powerful shapes they can turn into, but the fact that the shapes pull from an entirely different resource than their spell casting. It's the combination of Wild Shape AND full progression casting that makes them overbearing compared to the other druids. If wild shape worked similar to divine smite and the resource pool was spell slots I think it would be better balanced.

All druids could still get shape change, with the power of the shape change dependent on the level of spell slot expended. But the Moon druid would get more powerful forms similar to what it gets now. It would balance itself by reducing the full spell progression at the cost of spending those spell slots on Wild Shape. Even just a simple spell slot = CR would work. More powerful creatures sooner, but less uses per day and at the cost of casting spells.

Other Druid subclasses could work in a similar fashion, powered off spell slots, or they could just be usable like other class abilities, number of times a day per ability mod, once per short rest, etc.

 

[Minigiant]

I mean, that's literally not true. That's not even arguably true. The CFV Ranger is here:

The CFV added back the 3E damage to FE. The CFV replaced FE with HM X/day. That's literally more damage.

What the heck do you mean by "MOAR DAMAGE"? There's literally one ability there which does damage, replacing a widely-disliked Ranger ability. The rest are all non-damage abilities which are simply useful in and out of combat (or in one case, only out of combat, but a lot more practical than what it replaces).

I'd argue that the dislike is because of how FE and FT were written.

It would have been fine if Favored Enemy and/or Natural Explorer had a combat application. The Ranger is a warrior class after all and D&D is heavily combat focused in standard play. My disagreement is both sacrificing noncombat for combat and shunting combat into subclass.

If you took Favored Enemy Giant, you should get Colossus Slayer. If you choose Favored Terrain Desert, you should get +1 AC in light armor.

FE and FT should have been subclass abilities, for some specific "trad ranger" subclass, frankly. I get that you like them, but they're a big part of what causes people who like Rangers to have very different opinions on what Rangers should have. Nobody coming in to D&D from fantasy fiction or computer games, or even films etc. expects those abilities, nor likes them. Many experienced D&D players dislike the idea of being tied to specific enemies and specific terrain. They're a good example of things which should go into a subclass, as a result, just like some people absolutely love shapeshifting-centric Druids, but it doesn't mean all Druids should be that (hence Moon Druids and their balance issues, because of the lack of design space).

FE was in the Ranger for 3 out of 4 editions prior to 5th edition. The designers could have attempted to make them more attrracting to an incoming audience. I could and did create a whole list of cool features linked to each enemy and terrain type to make them interesting. Almost every complaint I've seen or heard about FE and FT was not about their inclusion but how they were implemented.

If FE Goblins gave you Horde Breaker, advantage to track goblins, and Goblin language, I think fewer people would have complained. There was and still a ton of deign and balance space in the Ranger left empty. It's not like the crowded druid. A designer passionate about rangers could have filled the holes.

 

[Olrox17]

Back in the days on the old WOTC forums during the playtests, I had a ranger writeup for a speculation of how the ranger should look. It had a list of features that look suspiciously like the Hunter ranger's subclass features. However they were core class features. You'd get you bonus to large creatures, small creatures, minions, or solo monsters at level 1 along with FE and FT.

Wait, I was on the WotC forums back then, and I remember a poster coming up with something like that. Did you go by a different username on those forums?

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

The CFV added back the 3E damage to FE. The CFV replaced FE with HM X/day. That's literally more damage.

That's exactly what Ruin is saying: they replaced a feature that only affected the Exploration pillar, and gave instead a feature that replicate the same effect (better at tracking creature) while also being useful in combat (+1d6 damage). Its a win-win, no?

The extra spell from Awareness are all Exploration spells, no extra damage there, but the effect of these spells interact better with the 5e system than favored terrain which gave bonus to a mini-game often skipped by tables (overland travel WHILE ALONE, in an GROUP GAME!?, finding food/water automatically, thus removing the ressource gathering mini-game altogether, yeahhh )

The variant features boost the ranger in and out of combat, and by removing the ''lone wolf'' or ''auto-succeed'' features, it allows the player to actually engage with the exploration subsystem in a meaningful way that would benefit the whole group of players who are also here to enjoy the exploration part of the game. No more ''well the Ranger guides you without any problem through the forest, while finding enough food so nobody else has to roll''. We used to call the Ranger the Fast-Travel class Now having a ranger while travelling is a huge boon instead of a class that makes one whole pillar uninteresting.

 

[NotAYakk]

The CFV added back the 3E damage to FE. The CFV replaced FE with HM X/day. That's literally more damage.

HM is also advantage on checks on the target. So you can use it out of combat.

I'd have also allowed you do use it on tracks of a creature, which makes it even better.

I'd argue that the dislike is because of how FE and FT were written.

It would have been fine if Favored Enemy and/or Natural Explorer had a combat application. The Ranger is a warrior class after all and D&D is heavily combat focused in standard play. My disagreement is both sacrificing noncombat for combat and shunting combat into subclass.

If you took Favored Enemy Giant, you should get Colossus Slayer. If you choose Favored Terrain Desert, you should get +1 AC in light armor.

I do like that.

But you do end up with a long list of such features. Do you duplicate? Zzz. Do you not? Wow, lots of work.

If FE Goblins gave you Horde Breaker, advantage to track goblins, and Goblin language, I think fewer people would have complained. There was and still a ton of deign and balance space in the Ranger left empty. It's not like the crowded druid. A designer passionate about rangers could have filled the holes.

The trick would be to avoid the combat benefits from ever being specific to the creature type, yet obviously useful against that creature.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Wait, I was on the WotC forums back then, and I remember a poster coming up with something like that. Did you go by a different username on those forums?

The two ranger archetypes from the playtest are really the ''Hunter'' split on two different sublasses. One was fighting hordes/minions/swarms (Hordebreaker, Against the Horde, Stand against the tide) while the other was to fight single large creatures (colossus slayer/steel will/evasion)

I think having a ranger with archetypes based on 1)how they hunt or 2)where they hunt would a been better. I think, in the last UAs, we've seen the the dead end of having all those features being in one archetype or shared by the base class: Fey ranger? Beekeeper? ...just wow, those are far-fetched