D&D (2024) Ranger playtest discussion

[Ruin Explorer]

Shrug. Hey, people like what they like... but to me a spell-less Ranger that replaces spells with "Ranger features" results in the exact same thing-- a Ranger that does nature stuff. And to me... there is no actual difference between the game telling me that the Ranger PC healing someone via herbalism and herbs versus healing someone via Cure Wounds, or that the Ranger giving his party a bonus to stealth checks via some weird Ranger stealth feature versus casting Pass Without Trace. If the results are mechanically the same, I don't see the need for two different names and mechanical systems to represent it. But I know a lot of folks here on EN World get all bent out of shape about "too much magic" thing... so it is what it is. I just don't think the WotC designers have nearly the same problem with magic that the players here do, so everyone's kinda out of luck.

WotC have consistently had no idea what a Ranger is, or what to do with, or how to make really anyone happy with Ranger for three editions now. It's one of the very few classes which was a total mess (thematically, at least) in 4th edition, as well as in 3E and 5E.

If they would like, "pick a lane" as people say, and drive it with the Ranger we could at least say "This is WotC's vision of the Ranger!", and agree with it or not. But we can't even say that. WotC are just sliding all over the road like someone about to get arrested for being 5x over the legal limit.

If they're supposed to be reliant on magic, and magic to be a major part of what a Ranger is, that needs to be part of the lore of the Ranger class, rather than being a brief aside, despite being the entire core and crux of their abilities, which it demonstrably is, people have argued well that it is.

Like, check it out if you have Beyond: Ranger

The Ranger description goes for five paragraphs of flavour and really building the class up before briefly mentioning (literally two fairly short sentences!) that they can do magic! Then we get another two paragraphs with magic unmentioned! PICK A LANE!

What is this class? Is it a nature magician who also does some fighting and skill stuff? Okay, if so, fine, but that's not how you're presenting it in terms of descriptions. It's not what players expect. But it is how it exists in the rules. Even moreso in 1D&D than 5E, this is a nature magician who can fight more than anything else.

What's particularly striking to me is that new players love the Ranger concept (which doesn't really include magic, note, it's a brief aside at most), but then the actual mechanical class, they often find very off-putting. Far too much of the class' power is in the spells, and the spells are boring and weird and don't at all seem like anything Katniss, Aragorn, or Drizzt would do. Or even in most cases a videogame hunter-type (who tend to have flashier abilities). That you see no difference is fine for you, but then if you really feel that way, why don't we give Fighters some spells to cover the abilities, and just re-theme them, for example? Why don't we do that with all classes? I mean Rogues would gain a gigantic advantage if they could cast some spells and we could theme them as Rogue abilities! Why not? Why is it fine here and not there?

TLDR: The real "magic problem" with Rangers is that it's not part of their D&D/class lore in any real/serious way, and no iconic or memorable Ranger-type characters in fiction - which is a common archetype, note much more common than, say, Bard! - use Ranger-style magic at all. YET the Ranger class in 5E is totally reliant on magic to do its job (as has been well argued).

 

[Minigiant]

TLDR: The real "magic problem" with Rangers is that it's not part of their D&D/class lore in any real/serious way, and no iconic or memorable Ranger-type characters in fiction - which is a common archetype, note much more common than, say, Bard! - use Ranger-style magic at all. YET the Ranger class in 5E is totally reliant on magic to do its job (as has been well argued).

The iconic Ranger is characters are video game characters like WOW's Rexxar or LOL's Ashe as only video games have the level of magic spells and magic items close to D&D.

The biggest sticking point with D&D is there is too much magic around in both mid school and modern base D&D. No ranger would not use it.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The iconic Ranger is characters are video game characters like WOW's Rexxar or LOL's Ashe as only video games have the level of magic spells and magic items close to D&D.

They're simply not, though. Rexxar is an obscure-but-nerd-popular WoW/WC3 character known only to fairly serious Warcraft fans.

He is in no way iconic outside of WoW/WC3. He is not well-known. He is not a trope-forming character ("lol basically batman" memes are about as famous as he got), nor is he a character most people aspire to be. And even after all that? HE DOESN'T USE MAGIC IN WOW! Canonically he not a spellcaster of any kind, and doesn't even use Hunter magic. Abilities-wise, and you can look this up, the NPC has Warrior abilities!

In the long-forgotten HotS, he's a Beastmaster, but doesn't use any magic not directly relating to his animals. This is strictly non-canon though, a lot of HotS characters have wildly divergent abilities from their WoW/WC3 self.

Ashe doesn't have any Ranger abilities, isn't really a "nature person" beyond being the leader of a "horde", and her magical abilities are those of an Arcane Archer in D&D terms. The only things even making you think she's a ranger are:

A) She has a bow.

and

B) She's technically a rip-off of Sylvanas from WC3/DotA, who is an ex-Ranger who became sort of Death Archer.

She's also not exactly one of the top-flight LoL characters. She's no Jinx, Ahri, Garen, Teemo or the like. She's one of the basically second-tier (arguably pushing third-tier at this point) characters in terms of how popular she is. People don't even do 10% as much fan art of her as the top-tier ones. Literally the only reason she's even remotely known is that she's a tutorial character (or was, I dunno if it still works that way).

So the idea that she's particularly iconic is also pretty questionable, given she's a rip-off of a WoW character, and not even a Ranger in any meaningful sense.

The biggest sticking point with D&D is there is too much magic around in both mid school and modern base D&D. No ranger would not use it.

I don't really understand what you're saying here, I'm afraid. Perhaps could you rephrase significantly?

 

[TheSword]

All cantrips are spamable, by virtue of being at-will and unlimited. Casting spells is hardly a thing I want rangers to do at all, let alone with no limitations. At least with leveled spells they only get a few per day. They don’t need and shouldn’t have cantrips on top of that, in my opinion.

To me to qualify as spamable as spell needs the circumstances to favour casting it repeatedly as well as the means to do so.

You may be able to repeatedly cast thorn whip but you are highly unlikely to ever find it useful - so as far as I’m concerned I don’t think it is spamable.

I actually think I you can easily play a low magic Aragorn ranger with the new rules. You take guidance and resistance as cantrips and your ranger spells are things like cure wounds, lesser resistance, detect poison, goodberry, augury, etc. none of which are flashy or out of theme for a ranger knowledgeable in herbs and nature

 

[TheSword]

Sure, but to me “the best half-caster ranger possible” does not round up and does not have cantrips. To me, the best half-caster ranger possible is one that relies the least on the spellcasting it’s stuck with to be effective. Preferably with some non-spell ability it can expend spell slots to power, Paladin smite style.

The ranger only rounded down for the purposes of multi-classing. The single class ranger already rounds up.

What is the virtue of a non spell smite, rather than a spell smite?

Ranger magic synergises plenty with their fighting, they have a decent number of bonus action spells, healing and utility. Rangers are unique and play well with lots of party types. They’re a Jack of all trades, just favoring the fighting side, while the bard favors the magic.

 

[Charlaquin]

To me to qualify as spamable as spell needs the circumstances to favour casting it repeatedly as well as the means to do so.

You may be able to repeatedly cast thorn whip but you are highly unlikely to ever find it useful - so as far as I’m concerned I don’t think it is spamable.

But the ability to cast it as often as they want is athematic to the ranger in my opinion.

I actually think I you can easily play a low magic Aragorn ranger with the new rules. You take guidance and resistance as cantrips and your ranger spells are things like cure wounds, lesser resistance, detect poison, goodberry, augury, etc. none of which are flashy or out of theme for a ranger knowledgeable in herbs and nature

Their effects are not necessarily out of theme, but them being spells is. Moreover, the ability to take a bunch of bad spells doesn’t make a non-spellcasting ranger actually a viable option to play.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

In the video, the tone of Crawford seems to worry that they think this version of the Ranger is too powerful and may need to be nerfed at some later date. To me, it still does not seem powerful enough.

I saw the video after reading comments about how this Ranger still isn't good enough, so I got a laugh out of Crawford's "oh man, this new Ranger is probably really OP".

 

[Horwath]

I was excited for ranger playtest, then I saw rangers AGAIN with spells?!?

Can we get a martial ranger? Please?

Or at least ranger with spellcasting ability that explicitly says that ranger spell DO NOT HAVE VERBAL components.

You are not stealthy guerrilla fighter if you have to yell out your spellcasting.

 

[Charlaquin]

The ranger only rounded down for the purposes of multi-classing. The single class ranger already rounds up.

No it doesn’t? The 2014 ranger follows the standard spell slot progression at half their level rounded down - they get new spell slots on even-numbered levels, starting from 2nd. This UA ranger follows the standard spell slot progression at half their level rounded up - they get new spell slots at odd-numbered levels, starting from 1st.

What is the virtue of a non spell smite, rather than a spell smite?

Giving you a use for spell slots that aren’t spells.

 

[Charlaquin]

I saw the video after reading comments about how this Ranger still isn't good enough, so I got a laugh out of Crawford's "oh man, this new Ranger is probably really OP".

They got nerfed like crazy if you ask me.