D&D 5E Tasha's really improved and changed the feel of Rangers

[Blue]

Yeah… But if “caster” is not what you want your Ranger to feel like, Tasha’s is no help.

You need to complete the sentence.

"Yeah… But if “caster” is not what you want your Ranger to feel like, Tasha’s is no help because that was already solved in a previous book with the Rogue (Scout)."

Look, a martial skill monkey with wilderness abilities and good sniping who works well with archery and melee.

 

[Charlaquin]

You need to complete the sentence.

"Yeah… But if “caster” is not what you want your Ranger to feel like, Tasha’s is no help because that was already solved in a previous book with the Rogue (Scout)."

Look, a martial skill monkey with wilderness abilities and good sniping who works well with archery and melee.

The scout is cool. I like the scout a lot. But a spelless ranger, the scout is not.

 

[Blue]

The scout is cool. I like the scout a lot. But a spelless ranger, the scout is not.

In what way?

Please, talking conceptually, not mechanically, why is it not a spell-less ranger?

 

[Charlaquin]

In what way?

Please, talking conceptually, not mechanically, why is it not a spell-less ranger?

I mean, conceptually, it’s a rogue. But also, mechanics matter.

 

[Blue]

I mean, conceptually, it’s a rogue. But also, mechanics matter.

Gotta call you on this. Conceptually, why is it a rogue? I've played plenty of "not rogue" characters using rogue class. Inspector, locksmith, detective, an archeologist even. 5e even further separates that a rogue need not be a criminal based on your background - and that others can.

Second, mechanics only matter if you require them to matter. I've converted characters between too many editions and too many systems where if you get hung up that "the mechanic was X there, and Y serves a similar purpose here" you just can't move forward. I unfortunately used to be unrelenting on it, until I learned that the same general result in the big picture got the results needed.

If you can realize a ranger-esque concept, and you don't want spells so the damage equalizer of Hunter's Mark is already off the table, why do you care that it's now a precision based one? Why do you care if you can now take expertise is appropriate wilderness skills instead of relying on Favored Terrain and spells?

Now, you are right it's only a partial. Rogue (Scout) has no option for pets. But until Tasha's, Ranger's didn't have an on-par viable option for pets either, so that wasn't an issue.

 

[Minigiant]

To be fair, there's a lot of people pushing against 'x but with casting'.

To be fair, a lot of people think quicksand is a level 15 exploration challenge.
Another way Tasha helped Ranger is by defining natural hazards that could be overcome that are past Tier 1.

Hopefully now that TCOE defined powerful natural hazards, rangers could get either spells or tolls that defat things like lavabombs, whirlpools, and floods.

 

[Charlaquin]

Gotta call you on this. Conceptually, why is it a rogue? I've played plenty of "not rogue" characters using rogue class. Inspector, locksmith, detective, an archeologist even. 5e even further separates that a rogue need not be a criminal based on your background - and that others can.

I didn’t say it’s conceptually a criminal, I said it’s conceptually a rogue, which it is. As are those concepts you mentioned (well, archeologist is a bit of a stretch unless you’re talking about the Indiana Jones or Laura Croft variety, but it can work as a rogue).

Second, mechanics only matter if you require them to matter. I've converted characters between too many editions and too many systems where if you get hung up that "the mechanic was X there, and Y serves a similar purpose here" you just can't move forward. I unfortunately used to be unrelenting on it, until I learned that the same general result in the big picture got the results needed.

If you can realize a ranger-esque concept, and you don't want spells so the damage equalizer of Hunter's Mark is already off the table, why do you care that it's now a precision based one? Why do you care if you can now take expertise is appropriate wilderness skills instead of relying on Favored Terrain and spells?

I’m not concerned about emulating any previous edition, nor the specific expression of any particular mechanic. But mechanics still matter, as they are the primary driver of gameplay feel. And the scout doesn’t feel like a ranger. It feels like a rogue who specialized in wilderness skills instead of (or more likely, in addition to) urban skills or dungeoneering skills. The ranger is more than just a wilderness skill specialist. The ranger is a trailblazer, a monster hunter, and a defender on the borders of civilization. They need more than just a really high bonus to nature and survival checks.

Now, you are right it's only a partial. Rogue (Scout) has no option for pets. But until Tasha's, Ranger's didn't have an on-par viable option for pets either, so that wasn't an issue.

I don’t care about pets. I mean, they seem to be something a lot of ranger fans want for some reason, so sure, include the option in there somewhere. But they’re far from essential to the concept and not at all what the Scout lacks to make it work as a Ranger.

 

[Charlaquin]

Look, @Blue, if you’re satisfied with the Scout as an option for a non-spellcasting ranger, great. I’m glad it’s there for you. But in general, telling people for whom it isn’t satisfying that they’re wrong for wanting something else is just rude. I’d appreciate it if you’d just let me express my frustration with the lack of an option I find satisfying without being told to shut up and settle for something that isn’t at all what I’m looking for in such an option.

 

[Vael]

I'm playing a Ranger with all of Tasha's material, and TBH, while it's early days, I haven't seen such a quantum leap for the class. I feel like I'm a solid member of the party, but hardly overpowered.

 

[ECMO3]

Look, @Blue, if you’re satisfied with the Scout as an option for a non-spellcasting ranger, great. I’m glad it’s there for you. But in general, telling people for whom it isn’t satisfying that they’re wrong for wanting something else is just rude. I’d appreciate it if you’d just let me express my frustration with the lack of an option I find satisfying without being told to shut up and settle for something that isn’t at all what I’m looking for in such an option.

I think his point is the Rogue-scout is more or less exactly what those people claim they want.

I don't get what is missing from it (other than potentially pets, which I never understood being part of the Ranger theme anyway).