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

[ECMO3]

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.

In tier 1 there is not much difference because you don't have the best abilities from deft explorer (swim and climb speeds and tireless) you don't have any/many primal awareness spells and your favored foe is limited to twice a day. About 8th or 9th level is when it really starts outrunning the old class (and other classes). Also this presumes you take a good subclass that gets extra spells and abilities, most of which are also in Tasha's.

 

[Charlaquin]

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

Except, “those people” are literally saying the scout isn't what they want. Rather than telling them they’re wrong, have you tried considering that you might have misunderstood what it is 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).

I mean, any features at all that aren’t just “the same thing anyone else can do, but with higher numbers” might be a good place to start.

 

[Horwath]

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.

ranger is really incompatible with spellcasting simply because of Verbal components. You are as a ranger a guerrilla/stealth warrior, but when you have to yell from top of your lungs(yes, maybe some DMs will say that V components are somewhat quiet but most won't), you are NOT a guerrilla fighter.

No if only it was printed for spells what was the radius of Verbal components at which they can be heard, of better yet printed for EVERY spell on case by case basis it would be far better.

Or simply give rangers ability to ignore Verbal and Somatic components in spells.

 

[Zardnaar]

Except, “those people” are literally saying the scout isn't what they want. Rather than telling them they’re wrong, have you tried considering that you might have misunderstood what it is they want?

I mean, any features at all that aren’t just “the same thing anyone else can do, but with higher numbers” might be a good place to start.

Fighter with custom background, scout or multiclaas thereof fits it conceptually.

What would you want to do conceptually without spells that you can't do? This covers the wilder rogue idea mic and match to your hearts content.

It's probably not worth the designers time as you essentially have to rewrite the class.

Using Tasha's though what would you give them if you stripped out the spells. Hypothetically what do you want?

They're not gonna rewrite a class for nuche wants.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The main problem with the rogue scout is it's not called RANGER. For some people names are important. For others it's just a bundle of mechanics to be fluffed how you like.

The 5e ranger was never more than a little bit underpowered, and with Tasha's it can be a very effective gish, especially if you fill out the spell list with feats/lineage. But, and we have talked about this before, RANGER is a name with a lot of baggage, and the baggage is different for different people. And when they think of a ranger they don't think of a gish.

 

[Zardnaar]

The main problem with the rogue scout is it's not called RANGER. For some people names are important. For others it's just a bundle of mechanics to be fluffed how you like.

The 5e ranger was never more than a little bit underpowered, and with Tasha's it can be a very effective gish, especially if you fill out the spell list with feats/lineage. But, and we have talked about this before, RANGER is a name with a lot of baggage, and the baggage is different for different people. And when they think of a ranger they don't think of a gish.

Rangers roughly in the middle of power lists it was really only the beastnaster that was underpowered.

Without Tasha's it's ahead of Artificer, Rogue, Barbarian, Fighter, Monk with Tasha's ahead of everything that doesn't have lvl 9 spells or Paladin in the title.

 

[Charlaquin]

Fighter with custom background, scout or multiclaas thereof fits it conceptually.

No, it doesn’t. That’s just a person who has some wilderness training.

What would you want to do conceptually without spells that you can't do?

Again, anything that isn’t just making survival and nature checks with a slightly higher bonus would be a good start.

This covers the wilder rogue idea mic and match to your hearts content.

Huh?

It's probably not worth the designers time as you essentially have to rewrite the class.

You probably would, yes. I’m still allowed to express frustration at the lack of a non-casting ranger, despite the fact that one is unlikely to be made.

Using Tasha's though what would you give them if you stripped out the spells. Hypothetically what do you want?

The UA ranger from 2015 had some neat ideas. Or borrow from the 4e ranger. Whatever. What I want is a class that does cool wilderness stuff that isn’t just “be good at nature checks” and doesn’t cast spells. I don’t see what about that is so hard for people to understand.

They're not gonna rewrite a class for nuche wants.

Obviously, though I wouldn’t call the general idea of a non-spellcasting ranger (as opposed to a rogue with expertise in nature and survival) is exactly a niche desire.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Except, “those people” are literally saying the scout isn't what they want. Rather than telling them they’re wrong, have you tried considering that you might have misunderstood what it is they want?

I mean, any features at all that aren’t just “the same thing anyone else can do, but with higher numbers” might be a good place to start.

I really liked the scout fighter.
That was about what I wanted from a non caster ranger.

 

[Horwath]

Some abilities for spell-less ranger, so not to steal too much from A5E.


Track: you have advantage on Survival checks made for tracking.

Fieldcraft: you can track and forage at the same time while staying alert to danger

Endurance: you halve(round down) your effective exhaustion levels. that is, you die at 12 exhaustion levels. You remove one exhaustion level on Short rest and all on Long rest.

Gain resistance to fire and/or cold damage.

Gain darkvision of 60ft or improve existing by 60ft.

You ignore any natural difficult terrain and have advantage on saves vs any effect that impedes movement.

You can Hide as a Bonus action.

You can Hide in any natural terrain without needing cover or concealment.

You gain climb speed.

You gain swim speed.

You gain Scent ability.

You can Hide with Stealth skill vs. targets that have Scent, Blindsight, Blindsense, Tremorsense or similar ability.

You have advantage vs. poisons and diseases and resistance to poison damage.

Nature salves: you can craft a number of potions equal to your proficiency bonus during long rest. As an action they heal 1d6 per two ranger level, round up. They also heal one disease and one poison. They last 24hrs.

Poison crafter: you can craft a number of poison doses equal to your proficiency bonus during long rest. attack with poisoned weapon deals 1d6 poison damage and poisoned condition for 1 min. Damage increases to 2d6 at 5th level, 3d6 at 11th level, 4d6 at 17th level. CON save, DC is wisdom based for half damage and negating condition.

Also, 1 or more expertise for Stealth, Perception, Survival, Nature, Medicine, Animal Handling is always an option.

 

[Zardnaar]

No, it doesn’t. That’s just a person who has some wilderness training.

Again, anything that isn’t just making survival and nature checks with a slightly higher bonus would be a good start.

Huh?

You probably would, yes. I’m still allowed to express frustration at the lack of a non-casting ranger, despite the fact that one is unlikely to be made.

The UA ranger from 2015 had some neat ideas. Or borrow from the 4e ranger. Whatever. What I want is a class that does cool wilderness stuff that isn’t just “be good at nature checks” and doesn’t cast spells. I don’t see what about that is so hard for people to understand.

Obviously, though I wouldn’t call the general idea of a non-spellcasting ranger (as opposed to a rogue with expertise in nature and survival) is exactly a niche desire.

In the grand scheme of things it's niche.

I want a non raging barbarian (like the 2E one).

It's a niche want not gonna get it any time soon.