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

[doctorbadwolf]

I see! I also agree.

We had a good Fighter feature in 4e, it was their ability to mark everyone they attacked and punish them for attacking somebody else...

I feel like some of the Battlemaster maneuvers should have been standard stuff the Fighter can do without expending superiority dice (and without the extra damage). Goading Attack in particular feels very much like it would be a solid signature ability.

Some of them should be basic things everyone can do, just without the superiority die, sure. Some are, albeit on an optional rule basis.
But also...the idea that because it's a class ability no one else can do it is a user-side perception issue, not a thing that exists within the rules. You can just try to trip someone. You can try to disarm someone. You can try to goad someone.

It's up to your DM whether you can do so as part of an attack, or if it is in place of an attack (what the basics of the system would otherwise suggest by comparison, looking at the trip, overrun, grapple, etc, rules), but unless your DM says you can't do it, thebasic structure of the game is "describe what you want to do, and the DM will decide whether variable resolution is required, if so what structure to use, and if not will narrate results."

Manuevers should be at least basic fighter features, if not open for any martial class (I guess they are through feats, but still)

Only if very optional.

I know at least half a dozen players that would not play fighters if they had to have a bunch of features like that, and would never choose to use the optional rule to add them to the class.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Maybe the Hexblade.

Hardly. You don't even have to allow feats to beat it from the PHB. If it's fully focused on melee combat, several martial or semi-martial classes and builds beat it easily, some without sacrificing much utility (dang Paladins). If it's mixing combat and utility, it's about as good as some of the better MC builds. If built really well, it's on par with the best PHB subclasses.

It's just easy to look at the list of abilities and say, "woah that is way more things than other subclasses get". The thing is, all those features are just what was needed to make the thing function at it's intended goal. The armor proficiencies bring it up to par with other warriors in terms of AC, although a high dex bladelock just takes armor of shadows and occasionally uses spells to further boost their defenses (like armor of agythis). The difference isn't that great, it just simplifies getting to that level so that you aren't spending every resource the class has to just be okay in melee combat.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Misclick

 

[Bolares]

Hardly. You don't even have to allow feats to beat it from the PHB. If it's fully focused on melee combat, several martial or semi-martial classes and builds beat it easily, some without sacrificing much utility (dang Paladins). If it's mixing combat and utility, it's about as good as some of the better MC builds. If built really well, it's on par with the best PHB subclasses.

It's just easy to look at the list of abilities and say, "woah that is way more things than other subclasses get". The thing is, all those features are just what was needed to make the thing function at it's intended goal. The armor proficiencies bring it up to par with other warriors in terms of AC, although a high dex bladelock just takes armor of shadows and occasionally uses spells to further boost their defenses (like armor of agythis). The difference isn't that great, it just simplifies getting to that level so that you aren't spending every resource the class has to just be okay in melee combat.

That's why I said maybe

 

[Mordhau]

I feel the idea of the Ranger as a subclass of Fighter actually shows what an actually good Fighter needs to be.

The Ranger is basically a fighter that has a clearer out of combat identity and function (even if 5e lacks adequate rules for that).

All Fighters ought to have some kind of clear identity beyond hitting things with swords. Being good at combat isn't worth much when everyone is good at combat.

 

[NotAYakk]

Manuevers should be at least basic fighter features, if not open for any martial class (I guess they are through feats, but still)

The problem is this is true of almost any ability a "fighter" has.

What ability can you give a "fighter" that shouldn't be open to every martial class?

Rangers, Paladins, Rogues -- they are, conceptually, fighters with extra narrative hooks attached.

 

[Neonchameleon]

After seeing this over and over I believe I was not clear enough. I wasn't disputing flavor differences between martial and arcane powers in 4e. I was saying that I believe it's hard to gauge how to do a martial ranger by using 4e because essentially every power, magical or not, works on the same basis, so either everyone is mechanically magical or no one is.

I've heard this claimed and have never understood it. Every power uses the same formatting - but I see a major difference between a fighter hitting someone with their sword and doing damage (non-magical) and the wizard creating a ball of magic out of thin air and throwing it at people (clearly magical). The only way I see it being viewable as all or none is by a steadfast refusal to engage with what is going on in the game world.

Then there are liminal abilities. Is James Bond magical in James Bond films? I'd argue no - but no real world human could do what he does. When CuChulain cut the top off mountains he wasn't casting a spell. But was it magical? A forced hard and fast distinction between "this is a spell and everything else is not magic" means that you can't use most of mythology where things just are.

The term "lipstick on a pig" is something that WOTC has forgotten.

Many moons ago, the Ranger was a subclass of Fighter. The simplest and most elegant solution to the woes of the Ranger would be to subsume that class back into Fighter, and then create 2 or 3 new subclasses of Fighter.

When was the ranger a subclass of fighter? Because it's been a separate class in every edition I can think of where it appeared.

 

[billd91]

When was the ranger a subclass of fighter? Because it's been a separate class in every edition I can think of where it appeared.

1st and 2nd edition AD&D.

 

[Neonchameleon]

1st and 2nd edition AD&D.

In name, yes. But it was written up as an entire redesign of the class right down to different hit dice progression in 1e. A very different approach from 5e subclasses.

 

[Undrave]

Aren't there already more than enough caster classes?

Hah! Fair... The problem is more that the Wizard (and somewhat the Fighter) feels designed for a game with 4-5 classes, while something like the Monk or Ranger feel designed for a game with way more classes.

I'm one of those against removing the wizard, I think we should keep it. If you want to have different types of wizards, well we already have that in the subclasses. I wouldn't mind the subclasses having a bit more weight, but I feel like that for every class.

I think the Wizard's basic spell list should have been cut in half (at least) and just let the subclasses pick up the slack with bespoke additional lists. That way it wouldn't be so easy for a Wizard to just switch their specialty at a moment's notice. Your transmuter would have a majority of transmutation spell with a peppering of utility and maybe a combat cantrip.

But also...the idea that because it's a class ability no one else can do it is a user-side perception issue, not a thing that exists within the rules. You can just try to trip someone. You can try to disarm someone. You can try to goad someone.

The point is that the Fighter could do it as part of an attack, not they're the only one to do it. They'd just be BETTER at it. Everybody can use Shove, but the Fighter can attack while goading.

It also gives you something that doesn't rely on 'DM may I'