D&D (2024) Ranger playtest discussion

[Ruin Explorer]

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".

I mean Crawford is the dude who things that natural weapons that do 1d6 damage are a hugely advantageous racial feature on-par with Darkvision or Spellcasting, so unfortunately he clearly has some issues around balancing things.

 

[Horwath]

I mean Crawford is the dude who things that natural weapons that do 1d6 damage are a hugely advantageous racial feature on-par with Darkvision or Spellcasting, so unfortunately he clearly has some issues around balancing things.

well, at least we got hunters mark back like in UA for rangers back then.

let's see how long will it last this time.

 

[Minigiant]

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

Rexxar actually gets most of his popularity for the once massively popular game Hearthstone where he hits you with magic arrows and traps and hasbears and pigs run over you.

A nice chunk Beastmasters popularity built on MMORPG rangers/hunters and Hearthstone ME GO FACE HUNTER decks from video games.

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

The ranger is described a tracker and slay of wildnerness monsters. They are not going to ignore all the abundance of utility and slaying magic dumped into D&D since 2000.

The nonmagical ranger only makes sense if you go the 4e route and make it a walking blender or SMG and churn out some much raw damage you don't need utility as you turn everything into a slurry with your massive offensive prowess.

 

[TheSword]

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.

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

Ranger spell progression from the PHB and in the current SRD.

This is the UA ranger. So wrong on both counts I’m afraid.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The ranger is described a tracker and slay of wildnerness monsters. They are not going to ignore all the abundance of utility and slaying magic dumped into D&D since 2000.

The same logic applies to Fighters, Rogues, etc. Especially Rogues. If we apply this logic, the default subclass for all Rogues should be Arcane Trickster, and other kinds of Rogues should be seen as weird freaks.

Your 4E comment is weird as hell because the 4E Ranger is heavily magical, and it was a common complaint because it didn't need to be, but was anyway.

 

[Horwath]

I mean Crawford is the dude who things that natural weapons that do 1d6 damage are a hugely advantageous racial feature on-par with Darkvision or Spellcasting, so unfortunately he clearly has some issues around balancing things.

If you add that you can make one natural attack as Bonus action then it gets to the level of Darkvision/spellcasting.
also with option to do 1d4 damage if based on Dex.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

What's the virtue of a ranger existing at all? Flavour and fun.

For me there are a number of reasons I want a spell-less ranger including:

• For the archetype - as mentioned both Aragorn and Katniss were and Drizzt for all practical purposes was. The archetype is not that of a caster
• Because I want to see more interesting and varied characters rather than the same cookie cutter abilities (and ones that do better than the 2014 ranger)
• Because I sometimes want to run more varied campaigns and this includes low to no magic and at the moment the range of non-casters is extremely narrow.

(And @TheSword I don't think "Page not found" was meant to be a joke about ranger spell progression but the attachment doesn't seem to work for me?)

 

[Hexmage-EN]

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.

"It's not what players expect" is a massive assumption here.

I started in 3.5, so if anything the initial nonmagical 4E Ranger was the anomaly. It got followed up by the explicitly magical Seeker class before the magic-using Ranger returned in Essentials (when WotC was likely trying to win back older players who were put-off by 4E). Given that early 5E was essentially the attempt to disown 4E and return to "Iconic" D&D, it seems half-caster Rangers are what WotC has seen the majority expects.

Me personally, I feel like two-weapon fighting fits the Ranger less than magic does. The Ranger fights at range, and the Fighter is a melee attacker. Melee Rangers and Ranged Fighters are playing against type.

I'm admittedly also biased in that the Fey Wanderer, the most magical Ranger of all, is my favorite Ranger subclass by far

 

[Ruin Explorer]

If you add that you can make one natural attack as Bonus action then it gets to the level of Darkvision/spellcasting.
also with option to do 1d4 damage if based on Dex.

Yeah that's probably right if it's:

A) At will

B) Uses a stat bonus (probably STR)

Because that's roughly equivalent to being able to Dual-wield, but you can also carry a Shield, so would be pretty nice.

But there are no races in D&D 5E which can do that (unlike PF1E, which has several). At best you're getting stuff like Lizardfolk which can do that PB/long rest, which is just not that great. I don't think there's even a race which has Finesse/DEX as an option for their natural weapons outside of 3PP material (correct me if I'm wrong).

 

[Charlaquin]

Ranger spell progression from the PHB and in the current SRD.

View attachment 262663

Yes that is half round down - gaining new slots on even-numbered levels starting with 2nd, exactly like I described. The table from the UA is half round up - gaining new slots on odd-numbered levels starting with 1st, which it now shares with the Artificer.