D&D 5E It's official, WOTC hates Rangers (Tasha's version of Favored Foe is GARBAGE)

[Guest User]

He's a ranger, he just doesn't have the ranger class.

Rachel Dolezal is a Ranger too. She just doesn't have the Ranger class.

Oppose Ranger Appropriation.
()

 

[cbwjm]

Rachel Dolezal is a Ranger too. She just doesn't have the Ranger class.

Oppose Ranger Appropriation.
()

Who?

 

[Flamestrike]

To me, a Ranger has to hold his own in a straight up one on one fight with a Fighter.

Then whats the point of the Fighter? The Fighter fights. He should be able to beat down a Ranger in a straight up one on one fight. Not without difficulty, but he should.

Lets bear in mind the Ranger has more skills, class features around the exploration pillar (hiding, surviving, tracking, navigating, talking to and handling animals and searching), plus healing and so forth.

 

[Don Durito]

Then whats the point of the Fighter? The Fighter fights. He should be able to beat down a Ranger in a straight up one on one fight. Not without difficulty, but he should.

Lets bear in mind the Ranger has more skills, class features around the exploration pillar (hiding, surviving, tracking, navigating, talking to and handling animals and searching), plus healing and so forth.

Not the Ranger's fault the Fighter is a one trick pony.

Give the Fighter some decent class features. Or make Ranger a subclass of Fighter and make the Fighter's subclasses define how the Fighter approaches the other pillars.

But to make a game and say how it's about three pillars and then make a class that's about the one pillar that everyone's good at really is poor design.

Even keeping them separate classes - there's plenty of things you could give the Fighter that hardly stretch the concept.

• The ability to gather rumours in settlements from other warriors in bars.
• Advantage on Social checks when dealing with guards, warriors and mercenaries (they'll listen because he's clearly one of them).
• The ability to train 0 level characters into level 1 Fighters in a very short amount of time. (Exalted's Tiger Warrior Training or the Seven Samurai training peasants to fight)
• They could have two backgrounds - one picked from a list that defines where they learnt their fighting (eg. Soldier, Guard etc) and one more general one.
• The ability to gain expertise on the leadership skill when leading soldiers or battles (the skill doesn't exists but it should).
• Practically anything Warlordy about inspiring allies.

But the two editions which had the highest votes in the Which Edition had the best Ranger thread?" are 1E (In which the Ranger was every bit as good a warrior as the Ranger - not almost as good as in 2nd edition, but as good - and 4E in which the two classes were differentiated by how they fought - although due to the way roles worked in 4E, a Ranger would probably wipe the floor with a Fighter in a 1 on 1 fight). So it doesn't seem that the idea of Rangers as lesser combatants is what people want from the class in general. It's the direction that 3E went because 3E was dumb like that and clearly really would have prefered to be a point buy trade-off system.

 

[Flamestrike]

Not the Ranger's fault the Fighter is a one trick pony.

Making the Fighter the king of the 'fighting' pillar (and not the most social or exploration focussed choice) isn't a terrible choice at all. That's exactly what you buy into when you select the class.

If you select a Ranger, you know you're getting a 'wilderness warrior' with strengths outside of merely bashing things heads in and soaking up hits back.

You're not expecting great social skills (the archetype is generally the loner) but you are gonna get survival, tracking, animal stuff, wilderness stuff etc.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I'm with WotC. Rangers have always been bad. They where bad in 1st edition, 2nd edition, 3rd edition and 5e. I hope that come 6e WotC have the courage to axe them all together.

"Wilderness Guy" should be a background.

 

[Don Durito]

Making the Fighter the king of the 'fighting' pillar (and not the most social or exploration focussed choice) isn't a terrible choice at all. That's exactly what you buy into when you select the class.

Really?

Then why don't you get that?

 

[Flamestrike]

I'm with WotC. Rangers have always been bad. They where bad in 1st edition, 2nd edition, 3rd edition and 5e. I hope that come 6e WotC have the courage to axe them all together.

"Wilderness Guy" should be a background.

Rangers were dope in 1E.

Triple weapon specialisation and an ever-expanding class of creatures that were 'Giant type' plus some not usless spellcasting, and some OK other abilities.

 

[Flamestrike]

Really?

Then why don't you get that?

Wut?

Fighters are kings of the Combat assuming the DMG guidelines of a six encounter/ 2 short rest adventuring day XP are followed.

 

[Olrox17]

The favored enemy options that Larian have for the ranger in BG3 are far more interesting and rangery that this favored foe crap.
It’s sad that a videogame studio understand the ranger class better than Wotc does.